[1:54] Welcome to the August 18th general session meeting. The city clerk previously took role. At this time, Sean Matlock, our Director of Community Services. I got that wrong, didn't I? Interim, okay. I think of you as a director. We'll lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Immediately following Pastor Eric Clawson, Christ Lutheran will lead the invocation. Good evening. If you're able, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Place your right hand over your hand.

[2:26] I pledge allegiance to the fire of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with their duty and justice for all.

[2:41] Please remain standing for the invocation.

[2:49] Please pray with me. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this city and the gift that it is.

[2:55] Lord, I thank you for everyone here and the heart that you've given them to care about

[2:59] their community and to give up their evening for the sake of this community.

[3:04] Lord, I pray that you would bring three blessings upon tonight.

[3:08] One I pray that you would let everyone here speak courageously to the truth that they know

[3:13] it and humbly speak their truth and Lord, I pray that you would also give them grace to

[3:19] listen and that to everyone Lord, you would let them assume the best and others as they

[3:24] speak and give them to the grace to truly hear what they say. Lord, also, I pray that

[3:30] you would bring a blessing of wisdom that you would let minds be discerning, that they

[3:36] could see what would be the greatest blessing to this place, that they would act justly and

[3:41] righteously. Lord, I thank you that you've called these people together. Now, please guide

[3:48] them. I pray this all and your gracious son, Jesus Christ's name. Amen. Thank you. Thank you,

[3:56] pastor. And thank you, Sean.

[4:01] Next we have community announcements. Blair, would you like to start?

[4:09] The Bray Police Department is proud to offer a free nine week citizen academy program designed

[4:13] to give residents an insider look at police operations. Participants will gain first hand knowledge

[4:19] from police officers and detectives, learn about patrol procedures, investigations,

[4:25] canine units and more.

[4:26] The program is open to Brea residents 18 years or older who live or work in the city.

[4:32] To apply for the Citizens Academy, please visit BreaPolice.gov.

[4:36] Applications are due Monday, August 31st.

[4:40] Do you know an individual or group that is making a positive impact in the Brea community

[4:45] through the arts?

[4:46] The City of Brea would like to recognize them for their efforts during art and humanities

[4:50] month in October.

[4:52] The purpose of this initiative is to recognize and celebrate those making an impact on

[4:56] the Brea community through arts, culture, and humanities.

[4:59] Nominations are currently being accepted until September of the 2nd and you can visit the

[5:04] City website to submit to your nomination.

[5:10] Save the date for this year's State of the City taking place on Tuesday, September 15th

[5:15] during the City Council General Session portion of our meeting.

[5:18] Mayor Huff, along with Brea City staff, will recap accomplishments, celebrate the community

[5:23] and preview goals for the year ahead.

[5:26] Topics to be covered include development, public safety and more.

[5:30] You can watch the state of the city in person or online at your convenience.

[5:34] It will be available to view on demand on the City of Brea YouTube channel starting September

[5:39] 16th.

[5:40] For more viewing details, please visit the city's website.

[5:43] Right.

[5:45] Orange County, mosquito and vector control district has confirmed an outbreak of a mosquito-borne

[5:50] illness that can be deadly.

[5:52] Residents can do their part by reducing sources from mosquito larvae to grow.

[5:55] Standing water should be dumped and drained once a week.

[5:58] By doing so, any bacteria or larvae growing in the water will be killed.

[6:02] Visit ocvector.org to learn more about the West Nile virus and learn how to take action against

[6:10] mosquitoes and prevent the spread of diseases.

[6:14] I'd like to add on to that that we got word this morning that a west now

[6:20] positive mosquito was detected in the city of Braya so far we've been able

[6:24] to avoid that but it was in the far west portion of our community so it's

[6:29] really really important that we all police our yards make sure that we get rid

[6:33] of standing water and make sure that we keep those mosquitoes out and when

[6:37] you're outside spray yourself so at this time assistant city manager

[6:43] community development director Killebrew and public works director Ho will

[6:47] provide the community development public works update great thank you Mayor the

[6:53] public works department continues working throughout the city on slurry

[6:56] ceiling street projects this includes crack ceiling and the slurry seal to prevent

[7:00] pavement surface as it prolongs the useful ice of asphalt crack ceiling began

[7:05] yesterday on blossom and lotus place skyward blaho and Sonora streets and the

[7:12] this Thursday and Friday, August 20, and 21st, with the street closures from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.

[7:20] The residents have already been notified.

[7:22] And last week, street street ceiling was completed in the Corsican villas on Tanglewood, Foxwood, and Kerrwood streets.

[7:31] And lastly, all the streets in the residential track, bounded by Brea Boulevard, Imperial Highway, Elm Street, and State College Boulevard.

[7:39] those are my updates thank you mayor I have two updates related to community

[7:46] development activity the first one is related to the Amazon project so to

[7:51] prepare for the construction of that project demolition of the former Bank of

[7:55] America building is it expected to start within the next few weeks and demolition

[8:00] will take approximately four months so prepare prepare for that demolition and

[8:05] and construction activity.

[8:07] The community may notice signage construction fencing

[8:10] as well as a temporary 12-foot high sound wall

[8:13] along Valencia Avenue.

[8:16] And to describe it, it's essentially a fencing material

[8:21] with sound blankets as insulation at that 12-foot height.

[8:26] In addition to 50 South Kramer,

[8:30] this was the Lanar preliminary application

[8:33] that was submitted.

[8:34] Let ours move forward with a formal application which is recently submitted and currently under review and

[8:41] The application signs will soon be posted on the site within the next 60 days of that application being received. That's all my updates

[8:50] Thank you now we'll move on to public comment on agenda items

[8:54] This is your opportunity to make any comments relating to general session items

[8:58] comments related to non-agenda items will be heard at the designated public comment period for non-agenda items.

[9:05] Please submit a speaker card to the city clerk, raise your digital hand now or dial nine on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak.

[9:14] When it is your turn to speak, please begin by stating your name and city of residence and limit your comments to five minutes.

[9:21] I will first call on members of the public participating in person followed by remote participants.

[9:29] Our first register speaker is Mark Strong.

[9:44] Good evening.

[9:44] I'm Greg resident Mark Strong and speaking solely for myself regarding tonight's agenda topic.

[9:49] I'm renewing Brian's legal services contract.

[9:52] I thought carefully about what I heard in the June 16 Council meeting.

[9:56] Candidly, I find it remarkable that in the midst of everything going on,

[9:59] the Council thinks contract renewal is a good idea.

[10:02] I'm not an expert, but I can't observe this.

[10:05] First, our city treasureer, Janice E.B., identified a serious concern last year. She acted in the interest

[10:10] of taxpayers as did the research and showed courage in speaking up. She should be applauded, not dismissed.

[10:17] And a full year later, she certainly shouldn't be forced to speak and matters from the audience to

[10:21] get the counsel to pay attention to an issue involving the people's money. She's not an audience,

[10:26] just an audience member. She's the people's elected official in your equal. While roles differ,

[10:31] or no one is superior, and you all report to we the people.

[10:35] It's troubling that some seem to believe otherwise.

[10:38] Second, during the period when approximately $200,000

[10:41] in question will law firm buildings occur,

[10:43] the governing contract limited travel costs

[10:45] to out-of-pocket expenses.

[10:47] Out-of-pocket expenses as a standard industry term

[10:50] could find to include mileage, airfare, lodging,

[10:52] and so forth without markup.

[10:54] It expressly excludes professional time,

[10:56] build the service hours.

[10:58] If a firm intends to recoup those costs,

[11:00] it must be so stated in the contract. It was, but very narrowly, and not in reference to driving to to their city hall office.

[11:08] Third, it sounds like Richard Watson and Gershin's chairman sent a hostel letter to the city that redefines

[11:14] out apocalyptic expenses to include travel times or prayer. They charge for the driving time, but not mileage.

[11:20] That's a 180-degree reversal of the definition. Of course, attorney time is much more to RWG than mileage.

[11:27] After 58 years of city loyalty to our WG and its predecessors, this approach seems insulting.

[11:35] A professional response would have been to come to City Hall, discuss the matter and seek a compromise.

[11:41] And fourth, in City Hall bickering at the end of July 21st meeting, the mayor said that an independent reviewer believe there would be some mudding facts because the city let it go on,

[11:52] so long that we effectively share in the issue,

[11:54] hence it's not worth going to court.

[11:57] For the sake of argument, if we assume

[11:59] the mayor's conclusion is valid,

[12:00] the logic for renewing the contract still fails.

[12:04] Imagine a contractor who's done work

[12:05] on your home for years.

[12:07] Looking back, you see he's billed for quite a lot of it,

[12:09] wasn't aligned with contract terms.

[12:12] When you raise the point, he gets happy and says,

[12:14] it displays a C even court attitude.

[12:17] Now, would you go back to that contractor to do more work?

[12:21] Of course not, you'll find a new one.

[12:24] The point is this, why are you trying to renew a contract under these circumstances?

[12:28] After 58 years, isn't it entirely reasonable, in fact responsible, to go out to bid and evaluate

[12:34] other options?

[12:35] The comments of a June 16 speaker ring in my ears.

[12:39] He described a relationship between the council and our WG that is collusive in nature.

[12:44] Our WG knows what the council wants and enables it.

[12:48] In my little slice of the world with prayer for all, I see the same pattern.

[12:52] As I explained in last week's special meeting, when a majority of you really want something,

[12:58] notions of fear and transparent adjudicent for a new standard.

[13:01] We are illegal.

[13:03] Effective council stands tall for principles of fairness and transparency.

[13:06] They protect the city.

[13:08] They help you steer clear of even the appearance of brown act violations.

[13:11] They avoid public record disclosure issues by not giving conflicted staff

[13:17] Soul authority and deciding what records must be produced

[13:20] And it's consular controversy. They read the record for themselves and don't wait for the next shooter drop

[13:25] They dress serious each are issues before they escalate

[13:29] On the other hand, in effect of legal counsel. Let's leaders do what they want plays the deny and delay game and increases our spent litigating

[13:40] I

[13:40] the law firm. And I request that you think independently and vote for a fresh legal perspective

[13:45] in Brea. It's needed. Thank you.

[13:56] That concludes all of our pre-registered speakers in person.

[14:00] We do not have anybody out there. Okay. I'd like to call Mrs. Carvala to respond to that speaker

[14:17] and also I'm closing public comment.

[14:27] A mere and members of the council. I just want to thank you

[14:29] for the opportunity to address this matter for you,

[14:32] a special legal counsel to the city.

[14:34] I was asked to advise the city regarding whether it could

[14:37] recover alleged overpayments of legal fees paid

[14:40] to its contract city attorney, law firm,

[14:43] Richard Watson, and Gershon.

[14:44] I was asked to specifically address the amounts

[14:47] that were charged for attorney travel time

[14:49] to and from city hall.

[14:51] I just want to give a little bit of background here.

[14:53] As I understand it, these matters became a topic

[14:55] of conversation after the city's elected city treasure

[14:58] or sent to memorandum to the city council.

[15:00] Council, and made allegations at a city council meeting during public comments on February 17th of this year. The allegations made by the city treasure are serious in nature. She has put in writing that RWG has overbilled the city $195,639.50 for travel time that was specifically excluded in prior versions of the legal services agreement. She also encourages the city to seek recovery of the unauthorized travel times charges. She does not, however, put the

[15:29] the numerous legal service agreement amendments in context.

[15:33] Nordici addressed the 2018-19 amendments resulting in the reduction in billable rates, which

[15:40] was evident showing that they were intended to reduce overall the charges to offset our

[15:45] early travel charges.

[15:47] And the 2018 amendment was presented to the City Council for public review, and this amendment

[15:53] was presented after there was conversation here at the city about some of these issues.

[15:58] nothing was hidden from the public, the item was presented in an agenda report and approved by the City Council.

[16:05] Even members of the public and members of the council who had raised these issues did not protest at that time.

[16:11] I want to be clear, my goal here is not to pit the opinions of elected officials against one another.

[16:17] It is to assist you in understanding the obligations under the legal services agreement and encourage all of you as elected officials to adhere to and respect your respective roles.

[16:26] and order to ensure that there's good governance over the city and its resources.

[16:31] I have previously provided to the city treasurer of a general law city, what those obligations

[16:37] are communicated with her, offered to meet with her and to discuss these items.

[16:42] I have not received a phone call or any response to that attempt to reach her to understand

[16:46] and to better hear her perspective on these issues.

[16:49] I understand that all of you as elected officials have certain roles in fiduciary duties to

[16:53] the city and I know that you take them seriously.

[16:56] After reviewing the relevant circumstances,

[16:58] all of the correspondence and documents,

[17:00] I have concluded that the city is not likely to prevail

[17:03] in a breach of contract action seeking

[17:05] to recover payments that were made

[17:06] to purchase Watson and Gershon.

[17:09] And there's many reasons for this.

[17:10] I've outlined those reasons in a legal opinion

[17:12] to the council.

[17:13] I've also provided these to the city.

[17:16] But the most important part is that a contract

[17:18] should be viewed to carry out the intent of the party.

[17:20] It's in the reasonable intentions.

[17:21] A court might look at not only the language that was in the contract but they may also look at admissible extrinsic evidence giving meaning to the language.

[17:31] There have been negotiations, there have been communications, there has been prior payment of invoices, there has never been an objection from the city itself.

[17:40] And Richard Watson and Gershon responded, both parties proceeded to perform under the terms of the agreement after having a meeting.

[17:46] So for those reasons, which I won't go into more detail, it was my conclusion that the

[17:50] city would not prevail in such an action.

[17:53] I even took a look at whether a third-party taxpayer lawsuit might prevail, and that definitively

[17:58] could not occur.

[17:59] Someone might file it if they were to choose to file such an action.

[18:03] I believe it would be subject to dismissal by the courts.

[18:06] There is a direct case on point involving the Daily Journal, which is a legal publication.

[18:11] In that case, a competitor of that paper attempted to bring a taxpayer lawsuit and attempted

[18:18] to make the county of Los Angeles seek recovery.

[18:23] And the court absolutely said that it will not substitute the court's judgment for

[18:27] the judgment of the City Council members or in that case the supervisors for administering

[18:31] the contracts.

[18:32] So I don't believe such an action that you would prevail.

[18:36] It is my strong legal advice that you, later on in your agenda, have an agenda item before

[18:41] you to revise the contract if it's the council's desire to continue to contract with Richard's

[18:46] Watson and Gershon, that you'd be absolutely explicit in that contract. And I do have to

[18:51] say I've told some of you before that I think there were some missed opportunities by both parties

[18:56] to have addressed this travel issue. But I don't think we should look back. I think my legal advice

[19:00] to you is I don't think you will prevail if you were to seek a breach contract case against the law

[19:05] firm. I don't think a third party claim will prevail. And if you want to move forward,

[19:11] I strongly recommend that you adopt the agreement that I was asked to prepare, and that I

[19:15] place before you. It is explicit as to travel time, modernize as a number of provisions,

[19:21] and I think would resolve this issue once and for all.

[19:24] Okay. Thank you very much.

[19:26] I have a question for you.

[19:27] Sonia.

[19:28] Hold on, Steve.

[19:29] Steve, our comments are reserved for later in the meeting, and Sonia will be here.

[19:33] here. Jason, do you have anything you'd like to add?

[19:37] Not at this point.

[19:38] Mr. Boggo, do you have anything you'd like to add?

[19:40] No.

[19:41] Okay. Thank you very much.

[19:45] Now we'll move on to the City Council consent calendar.

[19:49] Do I have a motion to approve items 3-3-3-2-3?

[19:52] A second.

[20:02] Motion passes 5-0.

[20:06] Now we'll move on to the City Successor Consent Calendar.

[20:09] Do I have a motion to approve items 4-A and 4-B?

[20:25] Motion passes 5-0.

[20:29] Now we'll move on to public hearing item number 5-A.

[20:33] OCTA enhanced mobility for seniors and individuals

[20:37] with disabilities grant application.

[20:40] Senior Management Analyst, Goodoy, will present.

[20:43] Well, good evening mayor and council.

[20:45] We'll thank you for the opportunity to present

[20:46] Anthony Goodoy Senior Analyst for the Community Services Department.

[20:50] My presentation will be loading momentarily.

[20:53] There we are.

[20:54] So, for your considerations tonight is the enhanced mobility for seniors and individual

[20:58] disabilities grant or EMSD.

[21:02] A little bit of background regarding this specific funding opportunity, it is consistent

[21:06] with a similarly named Federal Opportunity under the Federal Transit Administration or FTA

[21:11] Section 5310 with the purpose of reducing barriers for transportation for seniors and individual

[21:17] disabilities and supporting local agencies and nonprofits in the delivery of transportation

[21:22] transportation services. However, the grant we're discussing tonight is administered by the Orange County Transportation Authority or OCTA, which makes it a local grant that basically reduces some of the barriers for federal requirements, allowing agencies to more easily receive funding. All projects must align with the OCTA's 2024 coordinated plan. Every four years, a coordinated plan is identified to provide goals and priorities for transportation issues in the county.

[21:51] Regarding the application, the Smedal deadline is coming up next Friday, August 28th.

[21:56] As part of the requirements of our application, in order to be eligible, we must hold this

[22:00] public hearing and adopt a resolution as documentation.

[22:04] The resolution is twofold, one, it allows us to get your permission to apply for this funding

[22:09] opportunity, and two, it specifically certifies that there are no non-profit entities that are

[22:14] readily available to provide the transportation services that we offer.

[22:18] The total requests for this possible opportunity is $750,000 and there are four potential project

[22:26] types.

[22:27] You see them listed there, but vehicles, small capital, operating, and mobility management.

[22:32] I'm going to identify our request being vehicles, but I'll discuss that with these next few slides.

[22:37] Specifically regarding the Senior Transportation Program, the Shuttle, which is a complimentary

[22:42] service for our seniors.

[22:44] You can see in last fiscal year, we offered over 7,000 trips to our senior population.

[22:49] These are arranged as pre-scheduled trips that can also be for shopping.

[22:53] We had 532 trips last fiscal year for shopping opportunities.

[22:58] Program eligibility depends on one being age 16 over, a brayer resident, making that reservation

[23:03] one day at advance.

[23:05] However, I am told that should same day opportunity be available, they are willing to accommodate,

[23:10] and it's available.

[23:10] This program is available Monday through Friday only.

[23:16] Now regarding the shuttles, this need was identified by city staff because the shuttles

[23:20] we currently have in operation are part of a retired shuttle program through OCTA in

[23:26] which they've reached the end of their useful life for the OCTA and we receive them at

[23:30] no cost. That's a great opportunity for us to receive some vehicles that we need. However,

[23:35] just because we receive them at no cost, you'll notice they do require a good amount of initial

[23:40] inspection to ensure all systems are functioning properly. All safety mechanisms are in place

[23:44] And if need be retrofitting for use in our program, they do represent a cost for ongoing maintenance repair being older vehicles

[23:52] That's part of why we identified them as a need and then of course there are questions regarding reliability and

[23:58] Potential disruptions of service if these older vehicles need to go down for repair that represents interruptions and the transportation

[24:04] We're able to provide

[24:07] So now we get to our proposed part project. We are requesting two new shuttles one of them being an electric vehicle for zero emissions

[24:14] The other being a gas vehicle

[24:16] This requests aligns with OCTA's 2024 coordinated plan in the fact that it provides sustainability

[24:22] for this program and long-term operational capacity.

[24:26] We are required to match 10% of the cost of these vehicles, which we've proposed 10%

[24:32] coming from the air quality improvement fund to 40 for the electric vehicle at zero emissions

[24:37] and then the remaining match for the gas vehicle coming from our equipment and vehicle maintenance

[24:40] fund or vehicle replacement fund for 80.

[24:43] So

[24:46] in closing tonight's recommendations by staff is to one we open and hold tonight's

[24:50] public hearing.

[24:51] We adopt the resolution certifying that there are no non-profit readily available entities

[24:56] to provide this transportation service and you authorize our application for funding.

[25:01] We also ask that you authorize the City Manager to execute any agreements or any documents

[25:04] required regarding this funding opportunity.

[25:07] And lastly, if awarded, you would amend the budget to receive any future funds, as well

[25:12] as authorized our 10% match both from air quality improvement fees and equipment and vehicle maintenance.

[25:18] Okay, before council questions I'll open the public hearing. This is your opportunity to make

[25:25] any comments relating to the public hearing item. Please submit a speaker card to the city clerk.

[25:30] Raise your digital hand now or dial nine on the telephone to indicate you wish to speak.

[25:35] When it is your turn to speak please begin by stating your name and city of residence

[25:39] and limit your comments to five minutes.

[25:41] I will call on members of the public participating in person first.

[25:46] Do we have any members of the public wishing to speak?

[25:51] I do not have any pre-registered speakers.

[25:52] Do we have anyone on Zoom?

[25:55] Okay, I'll close the public hearing and open it to council questions.

[25:59] If I could start.

[26:01] Having visited the Senior Center numerous times,

[26:04] discussing the vehicle situation there.

[26:07] And with those vehicles going down,

[26:08] has had a real impact at times we are really struggled just to be able to transport our seniors

[26:14] to and from and not include shopping and everything else because those vehicles that are free,

[26:21] they're free for a reason because their life is basically over and we're just stretching it out

[26:27] a wee bit. So I think taking advantage of these grants and getting these vehicles is going to do a

[26:34] service or a seniors that's long overdue and I think that we'll get much more use out of this

[26:40] for our seniors and we're getting now with our hand made downs. I'm going to move approval.

[26:49] 10% local match. What is that equate to in dollars? That equates to for the electric vehicle being

[26:58] the more expensive. That's approximately 42,500 out of air quality funds and then the gas vehicle

[27:04] being 150,000 that would be 15,000 out of our vehicle replacement and maintenance.

[27:08] Would you explain the air quality funds?

[27:11] So yes, those funds are specifically set aside.

[27:13] They're from vehicle registrations.

[27:14] The portion of that is set aside to specifically address vehicle emissions.

[27:19] So purchasing an electric vehicle, which has zero emissions, is right in alignment with the

[27:23] goals of that AQMD project.

[27:26] 57,000.

[27:27] Correct.

[27:28] Okay, I will second Marty's motion because I know that with these vehicles that we currently

[27:35] have, they have gone down for weeks at a time in the past and it's really made it difficult

[27:40] to get our seniors to the places that they need to go.

[27:43] So I'm all in favor of this.

[27:46] If I may just to address the 57,000, as of right now that's our estimates of vehicle, should

[27:51] we find a more cost effective option, we may end up requiring less, but that is our ask

[27:55] from the funding source at the moment.

[28:00] Okay,

[28:09] motion passes 5-0.

[28:11] All right, the next item of business is item 8-B, annual report related to police department.

[28:18] No, I missed one, sorry.

[28:20] The next item of the business is item 8-6-A, the introduction of ordinance number 1-2-7-7.

[28:28] An ordinance of the City of Brea, revising electric mobility device regulations.

[28:32] a mending the Brayow City Code and approving a sequit exemption. Lieutenant Winger will present.

[28:47] Good evening, Madam Mayor, councilmembers, city staff and committee members. I'm Lieutenant

[28:52] Chris Winger. I'm here with tonight with a quick presentation to address the increase

[28:56] to the e-bike ordinance. During the June 2nd, 2026 council meeting, any bike update was presented

[29:02] to outline the education and enforcement actions taken and to provide collision data recorded between

[29:08] in July 25th, I'm sorry, July 2025 in June, 2026, regarding those e-bikes.

[29:14] Despite public outreach and education, collaborations with the Olanda Unified School District and

[29:19] safety classes, their brave police department has seen significant increase in violations of e-bike

[29:25] ordinance. As a June 2nd City Council meeting,

[29:29] City Council directed staff to take action to increase the administrative fines for violations

[29:34] to the e-bike ordinance.

[29:36] Based on that feedback,

[29:37] staff proposed it to increase the current fine amounts

[29:40] to serve as a more rigorous deterrent

[29:42] against reckless e-bike operation.

[29:45] The proposed administrative fine amounts would be as follows.

[29:48] The first offense would move to $250 up from $125.

[29:53] The second offense within 12 months would move to $500

[29:57] and increase from $250.

[29:58] dollars.

[30:00] And a third of fans within the 12-month span would move to $1,000 up from $500.

[30:07] Thank you, and I can answer any questions if you have any.

[30:11] I guess that's a comment slash question. I'm absolutely in favor of this, I'll make the motion.

[30:17] But while you're here, can we just take this as one more education opportunity?

[30:22] Can you share with the public and all of us when e-bike, motorcycle, et cetera, right?

[30:29] It's a range, most of them I think are not street legal that we're seeing in use or many of them.

[30:36] How can they or do we impound them?

[30:37] Those are what is the process as you come across vehicles that shouldn't be out on our streets.

[30:42] Sure, I can give you some feedback on some specific numbers as far as impounds go.

[30:48] In this year to date, we have 10 impounds and those impounds are related to the e-motor cycles or modified e-bikes that take them out of the e-bicycle class.

[30:59] We don't have, there's nothing in place that would necessarily allow us to impound an ebicycle, but we have 10 to your today on the impounds.

[31:09] And that is, when you find them, they are impounded, or is there some sort of a grace period or grace opportunity?

[31:17] They're impounded on the spot, we take it.

[31:19] Thank you.

[31:23] Yes, when you pull over, I'm assuming kids are having most of these violations, that correct?

[31:32] Yep, below 18.

[31:36] It ranges, yeah, I couldn't give you a definitive, but-

[31:38] Out of the 10.

[31:40] I don't know out of the 10, I don't know how many were kids.

[31:42] It's generally kids, generally?

[31:45] Sure, it could be, potential, yeah.

[31:49] So when you pull over a kid and you give them a ticket, do you call the parents?

[31:54] Yes.

[31:55] And do the parents come?

[31:56] Or do you issue the ticket and just notify the parents?

[31:59] No, the parents come.

[32:01] We issue, like if it's any bicycle in this case, we issue or give that back to them.

[32:07] If there's anything that falls outside of class where there's any modifications, we make that known.

[32:12] and then we, in essence, provide them with an advisement for them taking responsibility.

[32:19] Generally, if it's a young person, that's below 18, and you're going to issue them a citation,

[32:27] you call the parents and the parents come, and they have an opportunity to pick up the bike.

[32:33] Yes.

[32:33] Great.

[32:33] The reason I'm asking these questions is because I've got to call very young man who's had numerous violations,

[32:43] and then the bike was impounded.

[32:45] So not only does the parent have to pay $250, or hopefully makes a kid bet, but

[32:53] now you have to pay Brea towing for whatever the cost is at Brea towing, which is per day.

[33:02] So if it's on a Friday and they can't get there until Monday, those costs all add up.

[33:06] So we're already charging the parents quite a lot.

[33:10] because the parents are most likely fronting the money for this citations and these fines.

[33:15] Could you, we just make sure that we're cognizant of the fact that if we're increasing these fees,

[33:22] we give the parents an opportunity to take the bike at least and

[33:27] not impound the bikes if it's at all possible.

[33:31] I mean, that's worth a broader discussion.

[33:34] I think certainly the point is of all of these fees is to not have reckless operation.

[33:40] of e-bikes and not have e- motorcycles, right?

[33:44] The point is that people follow the laws as they exist, in which case you're not paying any of these fines,

[33:48] and nothing is being impounded.

[33:50] And just like that real quick, I think the lieutenant was quite specific when he said the bikes that they're impounding,

[33:57] are the motorcycles that somebody's riding out of classification, are an e-bike that's been modified.

[34:02] Those are the ones that they said are being impounded, not just when they issue a citation.

[34:08] Yeah, I was going to clarify was the bikes that are being impound, it's kind of hard to describe

[34:15] because it's bike and bicycle and all falls kind of is all clumped in.

[34:19] But the impound ones are related to an e-motor cycle which is a vehicle defined by the California

[34:26] vehicle code.

[34:27] If it's just a general class to e-bicycle, those are the opportunities.

[34:33] It's just like your wallet for example.

[34:34] Well, we can't just confiscate your wallet because you committed a crime.

[34:39] We can also take a knee bicycle if it's involved in a type of crime.

[34:45] You know, maybe felony evasion or a hit and run, but we would be taking it as an evidence piece of item.

[34:53] Lieutenant Wenger, I'm just asking if you could just keep it in mind.

[34:56] Sure.

[34:57] It's a passing on to your officers that if there's an opportunity and it's not going to be and doesn't have to be found in rather than money stay with the parents and then go to a towing company.

[35:09] Nothing against pray towing, we just approve their contract, so that's fine.

[35:14] So I'll go ahead and second the motion, I'm okay with that.

[35:18] Go ahead.

[35:20] Okay, all right, that's what

[35:27] motion passes 5-0.

[35:30] Okay, the next item of business is item 6B, annual report related to police department use of military equipment.

[35:37] As required by government code section 7072, Lieutenant Hadad will present this.

[35:49] Good evening mayor, City Council members.

[35:52] My name is Lieutenant Chris Hadad, and I'm here to present the Bray Police Department's annual report on the use of military equipment for calendar year 2025.

[35:59] As required by Assembly Bill 41, as you are aware, AB 41 requires law enforcement agencies to provide an annual report to their governing body regarding the acquisition, use, and maintenance of military equipment.

[36:13] The purpose of this report is to provide transparency and accountability regarding the equipment available to the Bray Police Department, how that equipment was used during the reporting period and the associated costs.

[36:24] The Department's Military Equipment Use Policy, annual report and inventory are publicly

[36:30] available on the Bray Police Department's website under the transparency session.

[36:35] During the 2025 reporting period, the Bray Police Department deployed its military equipment

[36:39] in the following situations.

[36:41] The Department conducted approximately 1,500 UAS or drone flights and accumulated approximately

[36:49] 340 hours of flight time.

[36:51] These missions provided aerial support in a variety of situations, including search and rescue,

[36:57] missing person investigations, suspect searches, critical incidents,

[37:02] SWAT operations, high risk traffic stops, event security, and other incidents where an

[37:07] aerial perspective provided an operational or safety benefit.

[37:11] In 2025, the department purchased two DFR, drone is a first responder, UAS systems,

[37:18] and DFR operations began in the summer of 2025.

[37:23] The DFR program currently provides coverage to approximately 75% of the city of Braia.

[37:29] There were no complaints regarding the department's use of military equipment during the 2025 reporting period.

[37:37] The department's review also identified no policy violations related to the use of military equipment during the reporting period.

[37:44] That concludes my report for the calendar year 2025.

[37:47] five.

[37:49] Does council have any questions? Okay. Do I have a motion?

[37:54] Motion

[38:10] passes five zero. Okay. Thank you. The next item of business is item six C legal

[38:19] services agreement with Richard Watson and Grishon administrative services director

[38:24] Lowe presented this.

[38:29] Good evening mayor and city council members. The item before you this

[38:32] This evening is a legal services agreement with Richard Watson and Greshon or RWG.

[38:38] The current amended and restated agreement for professional services with RWG has been

[38:43] in place since 2004 with subsequent amendments.

[38:47] While staff continues to work through other details, the city desires to update the agreement

[38:52] with RWG.

[38:54] The new proposed 2026 legal services agreement formalizes the continued relationship between

[39:00] RWG and the city.

[39:01] which includes updated scope of work and compensation

[39:06] effective October 1, 2026, with the agreements remaining in effect until terminated by either party.

[39:13] It is the city's intent to review the contract after one year.

[39:17] Under the agreement, RWG will continue providing comprehensive legal services as directed by the city council through the city manager.

[39:25] A few of the core services include attendance at the city council meetings, legal research and

[39:30] advice and other legal services as directed.

[39:34] Travel time is not billed for attendance at City Council and planning commission meetings.

[39:39] Hourly rates vary between general legal services and other services.

[39:43] The $235 hourly rate for general services is comparable to the rates identified in a survey of seven cities.

[39:51] Staff is recommending City Council approve the legal services agreement with RWG.

[39:56] That concludes my presentation, and we are here to answer any questions you may have.

[40:04] Anyone have questions?

[40:05] Yes.

[40:06] Monica, this is the legal service agreement.

[40:09] What about the lease agreement?

[40:12] What is that going to come before us?

[40:14] I believe that's currently a negotiation, but-

[40:16] Yeah, the lease agreement isn't before the City Council for consideration this evening.

[40:21] It's anticipated that that will come out of future City Council meeting.

[40:24] I

[40:32] have a quite a few questions.

[40:35] Okay.

[40:35] Before you start, does anybody else have any quick questions that you want to come in?

[40:40] I have one quick question.

[40:41] So there's a, Monica, you just mentioned it that the city intends to review the contract

[40:48] offer one year.

[40:49] Is that being go to RFP through an RFP process?

[40:54] That's up to the city council's direction.

[40:57] Okay.

[40:57] Thank you.

[40:58] I think that was our direction that we would like to see it go to RFP, but staff needed time to prepare that.

[41:04] So, okay, Steve, what do you have?

[41:09] So, Ms. Love, we already have an RFP, a matter of fact, in 2025, the city manager prepared an RFP to go out to contract for the legal services agreement.

[41:20] Is that correct?

[41:21] That's correct.

[41:22] Okay. So we really have an RFP.

[41:27] One of my issues is is that I would like and I wanted

[41:31] an RFP to be issued through compromise. I was agreeable to a one-year contract. I just

[41:42] like you to clarify, even though you're saying that it's potentially a one-year contract,

[41:49] It still counts for three votes, the City Council, to go out to bid for an RFP one year from now, is that correct?

[42:00] So really there's no one year limitation on this contract, is there?

[42:08] It is listed in the contract.

[42:10] Yes, so if I can just interject, so the contract would have an expiration.

[42:17] So the evaluation of the contract would have either a move forward in a renewal concept,

[42:25] or a stop and pause, go out for RFP, and see what the results of that are.

[42:32] Right, it's from October to October, correct?

[42:35] That is correct.

[42:36] Okay, where did you have something?

[42:37] I'm sorry.

[42:39] I would just say my only comment is the RFP that you're related to did not come at the direction of the City Council,

[42:45] which is I think why I didn't move forward.

[42:48] I think, however, we're hearing something different now with respect to RFP.

[42:52] having participated in a municipal RFP and seeing the time that it took to go through

[42:59] that process. I would just ask the reason I asked if that's what Ms. Lowe was referring

[43:04] to is it's actually really important I think for the council to be involved as well as

[43:09] city staff and so that's something that is time-consuming for all involved and needs to be done properly.

[43:15] So I think we need to allow sufficient time for such a process if we want to do it correctly

[43:20] and have a proper outcome.

[43:21] And if I could just add on to that and for Council Member Vargas' purpose and again

[43:27] I believe you can check with Jason.

[43:30] It was pointed out to you some time ago that the RFP, as Council Member Merrick stated,

[43:36] was pulled back because it wasn't the Council that authorized that to go out.

[43:42] And I believe the Council has two employees that you're aware of, the City Manager and

[43:46] the City Attorney.

[43:47] So the city manager had no authority to put that RFP out.

[43:53] So when you're talking about there's an RFP ready to go.

[43:56] Did you authorize it?

[43:57] Or did any of us authorize that to go?

[43:59] The answer was no.

[44:00] So it had to be pulled back at that point.

[44:02] And it had to be discussed at that point.

[44:04] And who pulled it back?

[44:05] City manager pulled it back.

[44:07] City manager pulled it back.

[44:07] Did you talk to her about that?

[44:08] I talked to her and I talked to Jason about it.

[44:10] Okay.

[44:11] So you spearheaded that.

[44:12] I pointed out that she was putting out an RFP for an employee that worked directly for the council.

[44:19] Correct.

[44:19] She did not have the authorization in my opinion to put that out.

[44:23] Correct.

[44:24] Now, if you want to give her that authorization, I don't.

[44:26] No, no, that's fine.

[44:28] And thank you for clarifying in your own mind, because I know that there's only two people that we hire and fire.

[44:34] As City Manager has all of their authority.

[44:36] Then why would you bring up an RFP that you know was not authorized to go out?

[44:41] I just want clarity, and thank you for clarifying that you were the one that spearheaded the downfall of that RFP.

[44:48] I don't know if I spearheaded or not, I just brought it to their attention.

[44:51] That means I'm going to continue on, if I may.

[44:53] Marka, the Sonia, are...

[45:00] Local expert here that's helping us with this. She mentioned in her opening that it was $196,000, $195,000

[45:12] that was identified by the city treasure.

[45:17] Approximately it's fine with that. That's correct.

[45:19] Okay, and then did you subsequently validate those numbers? Yes. And what number did you come up with?

[45:29] I came up with about $196,77.

[45:33] Yes, so I'm sorry.

[45:35] The treasure and I came up with $195.

[45:37] You validated numbers and found an error

[45:39] and it was actually a little bit more, $196,000.

[45:43] Is that correct?

[45:44] Generally, thank you.

[45:46] Well, I just have one question.

[45:47] When you say validate, you mean add it up numbers

[45:49] that were billed for travel time or validated.

[45:53] Validate is just sort of has like a moral term to me.

[45:56] You're just talking about counting.

[45:57] You can put whatever word you'd like. I don't mind the county city staff reviewed the information that councilman

[46:04] Religious provided and in that process that was the number that

[46:11] Services

[46:11] Who called exactly a county for travel time built not validating like right or wrong right validating has like a moral

[46:23] Well, stands to me, you're just saying you added up the numbers, and this was the allocation to travel time counted for these many dollars.

[46:29] Is that a correct statement?

[46:30] Colleagues, let me just clarify.

[46:33] I'm going to ask a series of questions, okay, and I have the right.

[46:36] There's a pseudo-digital process, and I've been shut down on numerous times to, you've got to wait till the council meeting on the 18th to bring this stuff up because it's not on the agenda.

[46:48] We just did it at the finance committee meeting.

[46:50] So, I'd like to have the opportunity.

[46:52] Any words that I use, I'm open to correction, just chime out a word but please allow me

[47:01] to have the process and don't keep on interrupting me because that's part of the whole process

[47:06] of why our citizens are frustrated with us as council is that we trip over ourselves to make

[47:12] sure that you're heard on the right words and I'm just trying to get out the facts here and

[47:17] And I will leave it to you to correct me, but please be succinct when you do it.

[47:23] I don't mind.

[47:23] So it's just one point of order, Siva.

[47:24] Sure.

[47:24] I'm open to that.

[47:25] Out of everybody, you have to know that.

[47:27] But you have to also look in the mirror and recognize that you sometimes do use loaded words.

[47:34] So I would ask you to be mindful of the verbiage that you're using, that it's factual, not judgmental.

[47:41] Just one minute, I'll scratch out a couple of these words, not just kidding.

[47:44] But I will keep that in mind, all right.

[47:48] So for the sake of argument, since there's 195 and 196, I've used in conversation the

[47:57] term $200,000.

[47:59] Is that okay?

[47:59] If I used to say $200,000, take away that argument.

[48:02] That's fine.

[48:03] Approximately two.

[48:03] We have a degree.

[48:04] But thank you.

[48:05] This is just to get rid of numbers.

[48:08] All right.

[48:08] So the bottom line is that.

[48:09] But so I actually brought in an intern, Claudia Dukumski, who was a USC police side intern

[48:20] and legal lawyer, she's going to be a lawyer.

[48:25] I brought her in, she was sworn in as the Assistant City Treasurer by Dinesi B, because

[48:31] billing records are confidential.

[48:34] So she had to have some justification to look at them and she went through and we went back to

[48:43] 2016. The statute of limitations is four years. So I went back from 2019 when I first brought

[48:53] this up and said okay well let's go back as far as we can. Our electronic records only go back to

[48:58] May approximately of 2016.

[49:01] Is that generally correct, Monica?

[49:03] Yes.

[49:04] So, the billing issue could be another year,

[49:07] which would be the Statue of Limitations,

[49:09] if we determine that 2019 was the start date.

[49:13] Sure.

[49:14] If we could, thank you, I appreciate that.

[49:16] Okay.

[49:17] So anyway, then the premises lease was also brought up

[49:23] And that was in a report that the City Treasurer mentioned at the meeting that was what you first spoke about this on June 30th of 2025.

[49:38] It was also in my memo that I brought it up and documented all of these issues that the lease was also out of whack.

[49:50] As a matter of fact, it was $1.34 per square foot when the go on rate for

[49:56] class A space as we've seen in our updated lease is nearly 450.

[50:03] So since 2004, the law firm is paid under the full cost recovery of lease agreement.

[50:13] and compliance with their contract that was restated and amended each year since at least 2004, but

[50:24] it actually goes back to 1980, is when the start of this contract goes.

[50:32] So let's just kind of context, is that the statute of limitations is important.

[50:37] And tolling is important, tolling which means stopping the clock on this, once this vote is taken.

[50:45] that we have that agreement, and I'm going to ask for that later on.

[50:49] But anyway, so I would like to clarify, and Monica, if you could stay up there just a minute longer, I'd like to address something with Ms. Carvello, please.

[50:59] Ms. Carvello, you gave us a memorandum that was just placed at our 615 meeting and I know the read about half of it, but all the good parts are in front, so thank you.

[51:16] Anyway, this is not Mark Confidential, is this a confidential document?

[51:21] In his current format it is.

[51:23] It is a confidential attorney client privilege document.

[51:27] If the City Council were to desire to release it, my advice to you would be that you take a vote to wave the attorney client privilege.

[51:34] I'd be happy to answer any questions that you'd like me to answer this evening as to any of the issues.

[51:40] And while this was presented to you tonight, there is much of this memorandum was presented to the council.

[51:45] earlier at the very first meeting that I met with you to discuss this item.

[51:50] We exited, before we exited the closed session, it was stated clearly that this is a confidential document.

[51:56] It was stated clearly by Jason, correct?

[52:01] So I'm asking the lawyer, who just presented it, it's not more confidential.

[52:07] I'm just asking you, are you suggesting that this is a confidential document?

[52:10] It's an attorney client privilege.

[52:11] Thank you very much.

[52:12] I have communication to the city.

[52:14] And can I ask you questions about this document now?

[52:17] If the chair, so-

[52:20] Well, if you're up there giving expert testimony.

[52:27] I would ask if that does a way with our attorney client privilege.

[52:32] So it depends on the nature of the questions that they're factual and those factual questions.

[52:36] Those facts are contained in public documents.

[52:38] I can answer them.

[52:39] Okay.

[52:39] If he begins to ask me about legal opinions that exceed what my statement evolved just in terms

[52:44] my conclusion, if we get deeper, I would look to the council to basically get your approval

[52:49] to waive that privilege, if you'd like an answer.

[52:52] My concern would be, if he's going to be asking questions based on what's in the document,

[52:57] he's going to be revealing what's in the document.

[53:00] It's a legal opinion to repair it.

[53:03] The council, let me ask you that, let me switch gears, right?

[53:07] Council hired you to look at the contract, correct?

[53:13] All right.

[53:13] Yes, I was engaged to take a look at the legal services agreement and to opine on whether the city might prevail in an action to recover a alleged overpayment.

[53:25] And that was approximately a month ago.

[53:28] So that was longer, no.

[53:30] The first time we asked you to do something was two months ago.

[53:34] So I'm asking the second time, this is the second time we've asked you to come before the council on help us with this.

[53:39] I was invited to a closed session meeting, attended that, and invited to a workshop meeting,

[53:43] which I attended virtually, and this would be my third appearance before the City Council.

[53:48] Third appearance, okay.

[53:49] So, and how many closed sessions were you in?

[53:53] One.

[53:54] One.

[53:55] All right.

[53:57] One of the issues that I'm having is that during this whole time, we've had numerous meetings.

[54:02] meetings. We had two meetings in February regarding this contract issue, the lease, we talked

[54:12] about all kinds of things, and we've made some great progress on these issues, right?

[54:19] And then you've been in a meeting where when you first were brought in, the vote that was

[54:25] taken was specific to educate me on travel time because my council colleagues thought

[54:32] I thought that I was just off my game and that travel time was completely legitimate.

[54:39] And you came in and then you discussed it with us and pretty much said that you don't charge for

[54:45] travel time, and that most lawyers don't charge for travel time.

[54:48] I don't want to quote you, but I believe you said it would be unethical.

[54:52] Okay, so let me clarify that, I don't think that's legal advice, that's factual.

[54:56] What I said was, I felt that there was a missed opportunity when your new city attorney

[55:01] May became city attorney, what I said is that I thought there was just a missed opportunity to address what had been a historical situation where you had a city attorney here for many years, where you had them right here at city hall and where they lived nearby.

[55:14] What I said was, every client's going to be different.

[55:18] And I actually gave the city council, public, it's all public information, five different examples from five different contracts from five different law firms, including Richard's Watson and

[55:28] or Sean because they negotiate different arrangements with their clients and said, these are all different.

[55:34] Every single one of these examples are different.

[55:36] Just choose one and make sure that you explicitly put it in your agreement, which is what you're doing tonight, which is in this agreement tonight.

[55:43] Sure.

[55:44] Well, I think where the confusion came in is when Mr. Markman was our city attorney, like you said, he lived locally, he worked out of the office here.

[55:53] He had an agreement with a city manager ages ago that he would not bill for any travel time and he was available in the building.

[56:04] When he decided to semi-retire, he appointed Terrence Boga to be his replacement. Terrence is based out of L.A.

[56:12] His contract with Richards Watson and Gershon allows him to bill for travel time so he automatically billed for travel time.

[56:20] and when it came to our attention, it was discussed with our city manager, this is just to kind of simplify things.

[56:27] It was discussed with the city manager and that's when the new agreement was reached that we all voted on and it was approved 5.0.

[56:34] Correct. And that is what primarily leads to my conclusion that you wouldn't be successful if you tried to challenge it.

[56:39] It's because the issue was never hidden from the public. It was raised at a public meeting.

[56:44] You're appointed city manager under humanist code who was then a former manager, but the manager who's in charge of

[56:51] administering contracts as written out in your municipal code had conversations with the law firm and they came up with a

[56:58] Resolution and a solution and they didn't do that in a vacuum. They actually documented an agreement brought it forward to the city council

[57:06] From what I could tell it involved a reduced billable hour rate

[57:11] I can presume from that that was to reflect the travel time and it was presented to the City Council and it was approved and there was no public opposition to it.

[57:20] That is very telling when you look at a potential claim for breach of contract because the courts will look at the plain language, which is one thing, but your plain language goes back and you have all these different amendments.

[57:31] They're going to look at what was the understanding of the parties and I believe that if they were to speak to your former city manager, they would say that an understanding had been reached.

[57:40] that the City Council approves an agreement modifying, you know, affirming that understanding.

[57:45] So, Mr. Seminoff has already addressed this issue that the City Attorney does not work for the City Manager.

[57:54] He clearly works for the City Council.

[57:56] So, any agreement that the City Attorney made with the City Manager has nothing to do with the Council?

[58:03] The City Attorney came to us.

[58:06] Let's talk about that.

[58:07] So it came to us because in 2018,

[58:14] Amendment 7 was approved.

[58:16] And essentially that has to do with a rate increase.

[58:21] I can pull it for you, but just take my word for it.

[58:23] It was a rate increase from 185 to 190 for the standard 60 hours,

[58:30] and then 230 to 235, OK?

[58:33] And then just six months later, this amendment eight came in.

[58:39] And previously, since 2004, there's only been seven amendments.

[58:44] So about every four years, there's an added and they adjust their rates.

[58:49] That's pretty much how it goes.

[58:50] All of these amendments have to do with the rates.

[58:53] But somewhere, in that six month period, something changed, okay?

[58:57] And then Christine Merrick had to sign in January of, I'm sorry, May of 2019, this second amendment, just six months later.

[59:08] That we all approved.

[59:09] And I approved it also, okay.

[59:12] So in 2019, in January, I brought it to the attention of the city manager, that there was this travel time issue, right?

[59:23] And I was told by the City Manager at my next meeting with him or a month later or whatever we brought it back up again that the issue I recall asking him what happened with that issue and he said he took care of it.

[59:38] All right.

[59:39] So Mr. Boga, you recall having a conversation with Bill Gerardo about travel time and how you're going to resolve travel time that you are going to call him

[59:50] while you're on the car.

[59:53] Do you recall that?

[59:54] Councilmember Vargas, the conversation I remember with former city manager, Guyardo.

[1:00:00] Was essentially culminated in an amendment number 8 to the agreement. The conversation was about the fact that under the contract, the lower rate for retainer services covered attendance, a council meetings, attendance, a planning commission meetings, and attendance at staff meetings. The way the contract was written when I took over from Mr. Markman at the beginning of 2019, my and Mr. Guardo had me coming to the weekly staff meetings at that time. That was being built at the higher rate. In order to, and I actually, you know, propose this to Bill at the time,

[1:00:30] to because we all knew that I was coming from Los Angeles for those weekly meetings.

[1:00:35] We proposed an account to alternate me approved, they changed into the contract to lower the rate, so that to add the travel attendance at the staff meetings at the lower rate, that's why that was done within six months of the prior amendment.

[1:00:47] Okay. Thank you for that clarification, so you do recall having a conversation with our former city manager about travel time.

[1:00:54] I recall what I just described.

[1:00:56] All right, because that is one of our executive meetings, you said you didn't have any recollection of that, so that's that is my clarification for that.

[1:01:05] Sonya, one of your statements just says one argument is travel time can be billed under the first 60 hours, and that rates for these first 60 hours were specifically reduced the account for travel time.

[1:01:19] You say that in your and your question you against reading from that one, because the council has not waved these very claims.

[1:01:25] I would like to ask you a question, so I'd be happy to do that, it's okay.

[1:01:28] All right, so my point is, is that in Amendment 8, they had the opportunity to specifically address travel time, right?

[1:01:40] And in Amendment 8, they don't address travel time.

[1:01:44] All they do is state that they're going to do 60 hours and that the first 60 hours are going to be built at 190, right?

[1:01:54] But the word's travel time is not in a mandate, is it?

[1:01:57] You looked at a mandate, correct?

[1:01:59] It is not an amendment number eight.

[1:02:01] I think I've clearly said that I feel like it was very much a missed opportunity.

[1:02:05] But there was the conversations and everything that I reviewed, the documents, discussions,

[1:02:10] some of your prior meetings, and everything I reviewed, if this matter were to go before our court

[1:02:15] and if the court were to allow what we call admissible, extrinsic evidence,

[1:02:19] that's the standard. If the court were to do that it would be clear to me that the people who

[1:02:24] would be called to testify would say that there was a meeting of the mines as to how this travel

[1:02:29] time was going to be addressed. Remember there are other provisions in the contract and I think people

[1:02:33] keep overlooking this as well as the city treasure that did not see it. There are other provisions in

[1:02:38] the contract that do allow for travel time and the provisions that some people are looking to to say

[1:02:43] that you can't build travel time go to the issue of travel reimbursement. But that amendment that

[1:02:49] you're referring to, when it refers to 60 hours, it contains the words work performed.

[1:02:55] And when you look at some of the cases that review some of these issues, work performed

[1:03:00] is very key to this analysis. Because while you were looking at this as travel time, I'm

[1:03:08] not sure that any of us would know whether there was work performed while the individuals

[1:03:12] who were charging you travel time were traveling. I mean, it is the year 2026. I know I'm an

[1:03:17] experienced municipal lawyer, I've been doing this for over 35 years.

[1:03:21] There's not a time when I'm in my car that I'm not performing work, unfortunately.

[1:03:25] It's usually on my cell phone with the speaker on.

[1:03:28] And so I think that was another piece of extrinsic evidence for me that was telling here.

[1:03:34] And so one can allege that, but I don't think there's any facts on either side that you could say that work wasn't performed while this travel was occurring.

[1:03:41] And I think that is really key to the analysis that I did.

[1:03:44] And the three meetings that you were one was zoom I recall that yes, so but you didn't charge us travel time to come from wherever you live

[1:03:52] I don't, but I do have to admit I live less than five minutes away

[1:03:57] Okay, thank you for that

[1:03:59] So anyway, so so the point is is that

[1:04:03] It also in your letter and I won't read it, but essentially you say that this all occurred in 2019 when the new

[1:04:11] lawyer took over for the old lawyer, right, Jim Markman, and at this occurred in 2019.

[1:04:18] However, the billing for travel time from Terrence Bogey started in January 2017, and

[1:04:25] then it started for, who's our lawyer for planning commission?

[1:04:31] Flower, Steve Flower?

[1:04:32] Steve Flower in May of 2016.

[1:04:36] So, one lawyer was already charging.

[1:04:39] and parents started charging for two years and, again, you suggest that it's, it all started in 2019.

[1:04:46] It seems to have, I guess, I think that the reason I say that and I really think that this is what the analysis proves out is that

[1:04:53] this understanding that your city attorney would not travel or charge for travel time.

[1:04:58] As really I think that's what was going on here, is that your city attorney would not charge for travel time.

[1:05:03] was because of the historic arrangement that you had with your city attorney.

[1:05:07] That your city attorney like I was a Fullerton resident, your city attorney was close to town.

[1:05:12] Your office was here.

[1:05:14] I do think that that would prove that out.

[1:05:16] I mean, since 2016, before you even raised the issue, you had an attorney from this law firm who was traveling from Los Angeles.

[1:05:22] It shows a pattern in practice that your understanding of this agreement was that Mr.

[1:05:28] Markman was not going to charge for travel time.

[1:05:30] because close by and you had an agreement that he would be here at City Hall.

[1:05:34] But other attorneys from this firm were charging for trial time historically.

[1:05:38] And I think the issue that came up when Mr. Boga was appointed is that you went back to revisit

[1:05:43] the issue.

[1:05:44] So I mean, I think that if you really take the time to look through all it all, it proves

[1:05:47] out that argument.

[1:05:49] Again, I would say this very clearly because I don't want anyone to get the impression that

[1:05:54] I somehow defending these actions.

[1:05:55] I think it was a missed opportunity.

[1:05:57] I think it should have been addressed when there was the transition, but unfortunately it wasn't.

[1:06:02] That doesn't mean that anyone did anything fraudulent.

[1:06:05] It doesn't mean that anyone sought to take advantage of the city.

[1:06:08] It was a historic relationship that changed, and you missed the opportunity to address it when the relationship changed in 2018.

[1:06:15] I'm going to ask for those of us that have this document.

[1:06:18] If we can have Jason pick it up because I'm afraid somebody's going to keep referring to it, because I see him going through the pages and

[1:06:25] And then asking questions.

[1:06:26] I have plenty of other documents.

[1:06:29] I don't need this, but I will have this.

[1:06:31] Jason, you cannot have this back.

[1:06:33] I'm going to put it right under here to put a lay his fears.

[1:06:37] I'm going to put it right under there.

[1:06:39] So let me just continue on.

[1:06:43] So first of all, I want to thank you for the work

[1:06:47] that you have done.

[1:06:49] You've shed some great light on this.

[1:06:51] I would like to get your opinion on something.

[1:06:53] If we've had all of these meetings, and all we're doing is talking about our lease agreement and travel time because that's been the bulk of these meetings that we've had, is that correct?

[1:07:08] Well, it's come up, but there's been other issues that have that relate to this travel time in this $200,000 dispute, thank you.

[1:07:20] That's a good choice of words, that's a good choice of words.

[1:07:26] So those were all in executive session.

[1:07:32] I don't know if the workshop meeting was a public meeting, as I recall.

[1:07:35] Okay, one was not, but two were executive session.

[1:07:37] I had one meeting with the council in close session.

[1:07:39] Okay.

[1:07:40] All right, but we had plenty of meetings that we've been talking about travel time and this issue.

[1:07:46] And we color it under the petter of performance evaluation for our city attorney.

[1:08:00] So if we've been having these discussions for the last year and a half about travel time and

[1:08:08] a dispute regarding the contract, and we've pretty much resolved a lot of the issues with

[1:08:14] with this new contract, right?

[1:08:18] What does that have to do with the performance evaluation

[1:08:21] of Tarris Bogha?

[1:08:26] With the City Council evaluating performance,

[1:08:29] I was brought in as I said under a one very small area

[1:08:32] as part of that evaluation process.

[1:08:34] My understanding was that you were conducting an evaluation,

[1:08:38] you had questions that were relevant to that evaluation

[1:08:40] and that's what I was giving you.

[1:08:41] One of the reasons why I prepared for you,

[1:08:44] this subsequent legal opinion,

[1:08:45] and is because when I was then asked to address the potential litigation, it was not the evaluation.

[1:08:51] And that's the reason why you have this separate analysis because there are two distinct issues.

[1:08:55] Yeah, so we've been having numerous executive sessions all under the banner of performance evaluation.

[1:09:02] And let me ask Jason Killibrew.

[1:09:06] No, we only had one on performance evaluation.

[1:09:10] We've only had one on performance evaluation.

[1:09:12] Councilmember Vargas, my recollection is that the conversation that occurred with that heading spurred into side conversations in direction by the city council that has led to the hiring of BBK, a special council to look into very specific scope in order for the city council to further evaluate the city attorney and make decisions for the future of what that city attorney position looks like, which is what is before you this evening.

[1:09:41] So Claudia and Denise documented the issue, the crux of this argument, a year and a half ago.

[1:09:52] We've had numerous meetings.

[1:09:54] Only one time Cecilia just said was about performance, but we've had numerous executive sessions

[1:10:00] in closed session that had nothing to do with Terrence Bogus performance.

[1:10:06] And that's another one of my issues that I'm bringing up right now is because

[1:10:10] So I believe that's a brown ad violation.

[1:10:13] I also do because there is conversations that have occurred.

[1:10:18] Questions that have been had specifically at the tail end of meetings on a non-agentized items.

[1:10:24] So I don't disagree with you that there was conversations that happened.

[1:10:28] But those were quickly resolved because those were not on the agenda at that time.

[1:10:32] So that is my-

[1:10:33] Those are my items that Mr. Vargas brought up.

[1:10:36] That is my recollection.

[1:10:37] To, for example, hiring Sonia Cervello the first time to evaluate the claim about travel time.

[1:10:45] Correct.

[1:10:45] Okay, so I specifically asked, at the February 2020-26 meeting, was there anything to report out, and again, it's on the state.

[1:10:55] Tarris Bogas said there was nothing to report out.

[1:10:58] If that was a Brown Act violation, it should have been clearly reported out that yes, we hired an attorney to evaluate something to do with the contract.

[1:11:07] I don't think that would be a reportable action as required under the brown.

[1:11:10] So if I'm wrong, but I believe that that issue was brought up at the end of the meeting by you, Steve.

[1:11:18] And I mentioned, I said that that's not on the agenda, and it's not something that we can discuss.

[1:11:22] You took a vote, Marty put forward the vote, Blair seconded the vote, to hire an attorney, specifically to educate me on travel time.

[1:11:32] No, no, no, no.

[1:11:34] I mean, if that's what you feel, then that's what you feel, but there's a very specific definition

[1:11:40] for what is reportable as a reportable action that Terrence would be in.

[1:11:46] Every conversation that occurs in closed session or direction given to staff is not necessarily

[1:11:50] reportable action under the Brown Act.

[1:11:52] Brown Act is very specific.

[1:11:54] It says, you know, if you vote to initiate litigation, if you approve contract with your

[1:12:00] bargaining units. If you approve a settlement that is final, the Brown Act is very specific

[1:12:06] as to what is reportable. But just because you give direction to someone, or you say,

[1:12:11] we will vote to direct our city manager, UX, and not necessarily reportable under the

[1:12:16] Brown Act, not required to be reported out.

[1:12:18] All right. Are you familiar? I sent you a memo when you first were tasked with reviewing

[1:12:26] this I sent you a memo and I outlined specifically a clause in we find it here health and safety

[1:12:37] code 33130 regarding the lease agreement and travel time.

[1:12:43] I would be happy, yes I do and I would be happy to address that but not wanting you to

[1:12:48] get into a brown act violation.

[1:12:49] The item on the agenda is approval of a legal services agreement.

[1:12:52] My understanding is that staff is working on that other and that that will be brought forward to you

[1:12:57] I'd be happy to return at that time to advise you on that health and safety code section

[1:13:03] Shap me down on that one. Sorry. It's just I those are the parameters. Okay. We'll have another opportunity. That's fine

[1:13:10] Okay, so Sonya again. Thank you for your your work and your help. I thought you were very helpful

[1:13:17] You educated a lot of staff allow my colleagues on issues about travel time and

[1:13:24] And you clarified some things for me as well.

[1:13:29] So thank you for your service.

[1:13:30] You're welcome.

[1:13:31] Thank you for the opportunity.

[1:13:32] Yes.

[1:13:32] Monica, guys, you have a couple more questions here.

[1:13:36] So first of all, you of course worked on this contract in collaboration with staff and

[1:13:43] with Sonya.

[1:13:45] And your staff was incredibly helpful a year and a half ago in helping Claudia.

[1:13:54] put together these numbers that led up to this $200,000 travel time dispute.

[1:14:01] So I want to thank you and your staff and make sure they understand that I am grateful for their work.

[1:14:07] I just want you to be there as I read some of the positive things that are going to come out of this lease agreement.

[1:14:14] All right, one, it limits the contract to one year with the promise of going out to bid in October of 2027.

[1:14:23] And although this will still take three votes, at least it's in there that it's a one-year contract.

[1:14:30] That's a positive.

[1:14:32] Number two, it reduces the termination timeline from six months to 30 days.

[1:14:38] In the contract that was reinstated and amended since at least 2024, 2004,

[1:14:47] it extended out the termination clause to six months, which is beyond the standard

[1:14:53] service, professional service agreement. So that's 30 days. Sonya was very helpful of-

[1:15:00] We're helping us with that as well. So it reduced the termination from six months to 30 days. This new lease, this has to do with the lease payments, but the lease payments is addressed in the future. But it's going from $1.35 a square foot to nearly 450 square foot. I'm going to stop you right there. We don't know that yet. We don't know that. And that's a discussion for another meeting. If you recall, it was stated earlier in the

[1:15:32] That's the least that the lease is under negotiation, so the negotiating it.

[1:15:36] I have a copy of the lease right here, and this has come up in our next council meeting.

[1:15:40] I'll address it there, but I'll clear that it's being negotiated.

[1:15:45] Apparently, you don't want to accept what you hear.

[1:15:49] Okay, so we'll address that at our next meeting, but the lease that was presented

[1:15:54] to us a month ago that was going to be on the agenda, that this got bombed from the agenda.

[1:16:00] a month ago, specifically says that we're going to about 450 square foot.

[1:16:06] That's what are you talking about today, though.

[1:16:08] So if we're not talking about that today, it was a proposed, but it was not accepted and

[1:16:14] it's being negotiated.

[1:16:15] Okay, this is good.

[1:16:16] This is good that we're having this discussion because it's the first time hearing that

[1:16:19] this lease is not being accepted.

[1:16:23] That's that just gives more more evidence to what I hope to see the issue.

[1:16:29] So apparently early on when you're told it's being negotiated that didn't indicate to you that it wasn't accepted.

[1:16:35] No, I need to hear the word it wasn't accepted.

[1:16:37] No, I have a copy of it right here.

[1:16:39] No, no, when you were told earlier that it's being negotiated earlier in this meeting or did you not hear that?

[1:16:45] I must have missed that because I guess you didn't miss it.

[1:16:48] That's okay. That's okay.

[1:16:49] Let me get to my next point Monica of praise that I'd like to give you.

[1:16:53] It takes away language because all of these contracts have been restated and amended.

[1:17:01] And they're restated and amended to 1984, not to 2004.

[1:17:06] Even the 2004 was restated and amended, okay?

[1:17:12] So RWG, or the previous law firms have built in little nuggets, and

[1:17:20] and then we've just restated and amended.

[1:17:24] So some of the language that's not in this new contract

[1:17:28] is the talks about bonuses or lump sums

[1:17:33] for bond issues.

[1:17:36] So in our previous contracts that have been restated

[1:17:39] and amended, if there's a bond issuance,

[1:17:43] the law firm gets $35,000 flat rate.

[1:17:50] plus a percentage of 0.12% if it's more than 5 million, and then if it's 10 million,

[1:18:00] it goes down a little, if it's 0.10%, and then it's even less, if it's 20 million.

[1:18:05] You're aware of these, right?

[1:18:07] You're aware that there was a language in there?

[1:18:10] Because your staff removed that language.

[1:18:15] Jason, you want to address that?

[1:18:16] the bond language that gave you 35,000.

[1:18:20] Thank you.

[1:18:21] I

[1:18:28] don't want to speak from harmonic or city manager, but this agreement that you have before you, as I mentioned, I've made my first comment, is a modernization.

[1:18:34] I believe of all those documents.

[1:18:36] There's a provision in section 10, which accumulates everything that says any of your past agreements are all gone.

[1:18:42] This is the only agreement that's going to govern.

[1:18:45] It was my recommendation that you remove that language because it has become kind of common practice,

[1:18:51] that at least for bond work, that most cities are now going out with what we call like many RFPs to do that work.

[1:18:57] There was an opinion on government code section 1090 issues, and we believe that it's just while you can include those in your contracts.

[1:19:07] It was my recommendation that if you want to modernize this and to address some of the historical issues that you've had that you just take that out and if the city decides to go to bond issue, the law firm that you have, as well as others can bid on that.

[1:19:18] So these changes that you're referencing, I don't want you to like criticize staff or I worked with staff closely, but it was just a modernization contract to bring you up to the year.

[1:19:28] So thank you, Sonny, I'm praising staff and you for taking that out.

[1:19:32] So Monica, please come up there and receive your praise, so in the past, it was restated and amended that we were going to give 35,000 for each bond.

[1:19:46] And then you know the city's built on redevelopment.

[1:19:47] So there's been redevelopment bonds, a significant amount.

[1:19:52] At one point, we were two thirds of a billion dollars of bond debtness, right?

[1:20:00] The 20 point-

[1:20:00] Was that just give money, or was that for legal services-

[1:20:04] No, no, no, no, no, that was the total bond, the total bond, the total bond-

[1:20:07] So I think, again, this is one where you have to be clear in your language.

[1:20:11] And this is not just a giving and the law firm, $35,000,

[1:20:16] There's work required for attorneys to do with bond issuance.

[1:20:21] So as we just learned, now we would do a version of a mini RFP to hire a legal service provider may or may not be RWG.

[1:20:31] But in the past we probably did everything with RWG and that included a cost of 35,000.

[1:20:37] And those rates by the way we're not unusual.

[1:20:39] My law firm has very similar contracts that are historic, the older contracts.

[1:20:45] I do not find any of those numbers to be onerous.

[1:20:47] In fact, just for the record, I do want to share a comment with you that I shared with your city manager.

[1:20:52] I looked at the rates in the contract because I just did the contract.

[1:20:55] I didn't do the rates.

[1:20:56] That was negotiated and I think that you're getting really competitive rates.

[1:20:59] I have to tell you there is a lot of cities that I'm aware of that I service.

[1:21:03] My law firm services that would not do the work for the rates that are proposed for you in this contract.

[1:21:07] I just think that that is embarrassed you should know that from a market standpoint.

[1:21:10] So, Sonia, since you brought it up, I did a seven-city survey, and I presented that information to Monica, and I presented all the contracts, including contracts from RWG, and the rates that are currently charging are in line with those other seven cities.

[1:21:30] You said that in your opening statement.

[1:21:32] Yes, exactly.

[1:21:33] So thank you very much.

[1:21:33] All right, so Hanukkah, would you and could you pull the 2020 bond issuance in that issuance?

[1:21:43] It's a very thick document.

[1:21:46] You have three of them in your vault.

[1:21:48] And one of them lists all of the checks that went out.

[1:21:52] Could you tell me how much went to RWG specifically for this $35,000 bonus plus this percentage?

[1:22:02] because if the work that they did for a $5 million bond amounts to a certain amount,

[1:22:10] whether it's a $20 million bond, why they should get more in a bonus money.

[1:22:15] I think that's-

[1:22:16] Are you talking about work that was done when?

[1:22:19] The 2020 water bond, which is our biggest bond that we've done most recently.

[1:22:23] I would just like to know the number that was given to RWG.

[1:22:26] In the future, could you do that for me?

[1:22:29] Yes.

[1:22:29] Thank you, ma'am.

[1:22:30] I appreciate that.

[1:22:33] Finally, so we've had these quite a few positives that came out of this process for a year and a half.

[1:22:42] I want to thank the city Charger.

[1:22:45] I want to thank Claudia Kumski.

[1:22:50] I did quite a bit of work on this.

[1:22:53] I've been beaten about quite a bit for bringing this issue forward.

[1:22:59] So I do have a request of my council colleagues, the $200,000 I believe is in dispute that they're the statute of limitations since a member of the council did bring it to the address to the city manager.

[1:23:16] here. The city manager told me that it was handled. I didn't relook at those numbers

[1:23:23] for quite a few years, although every four months approximately, do I go through the

[1:23:29] check register in your office, approximately every four months? All right, so there was

[1:23:34] times when I didn't dig deep into law firm because that wasn't my issue. It was another issue

[1:23:39] I had. So I'm looking through there. I do that to justify the money that I get every

[1:23:47] We, as a council, when we get the warrant registers that would just approve tonight, and it was a 5-0-0, we would approve those all the time.

[1:23:56] All we see on there is $11,000 base amount and then $22,000 this month for other legal services.

[1:24:05] We don't see the details.

[1:24:06] else. In your office, in your vault, you have a file folder with all of the receipts and

[1:24:14] they're put in order, right? So you know exactly where you know exactly to go to three

[1:24:21] quarters in and that's where you're going to find a particular receipt. You're very organized,

[1:24:24] right? So if I wanted to go look at those receipts and go through the monthly register, I could

[1:24:31] If you do that, if I wanted, right?

[1:24:33] That's correct.

[1:24:33] And a citizen could do that also, correct?

[1:24:35] That's correct.

[1:24:36] Okay, where are the invoices for the law firm?

[1:24:43] Are they in that file folder?

[1:24:46] Yeah, they would be in the file folder,

[1:24:48] where we keep all the invoices and payments.

[1:24:50] So if I go in there and ask you for the won't register

[1:24:52] for the month of May, and you give me this file folder,

[1:24:57] it's a courtian folder, and I went through that,

[1:24:58] I would find RWD's law firm invoices in there?

[1:25:03] Yes.

[1:25:03] Okay.

[1:25:04] So I have a question.

[1:25:05] Is there a second?

[1:25:06] Is there a second?

[1:25:07] Any attorneys invoices for outside services are, the attorney that handles our personnel

[1:25:14] matters, the RWG attorneys that handle the planning commission, all those invoices would

[1:25:22] be.

[1:25:22] Any attorney we use, the invoices would be in there.

[1:25:24] And it would state what that charge was for.

[1:25:28] That's correct, unless it's a personnel matter, we keep that specific detail separately.

[1:25:33] But yes, you can get a general idea of the invoice payment.

[1:25:36] Okay.

[1:25:37] All right, so are there two file folders that you have for each month in your vault?

[1:25:43] One for RWG and one for all other invoices?

[1:25:48] Yes.

[1:25:49] So if I asked this member of the public to look at the invoices for the month of May,

[1:25:56] and you had me a accordion folder, and I went through that, I would not see the invoices

[1:26:01] for RWG.

[1:26:03] Because first of all, they're confidential.

[1:26:03] Well, we would apply to the invoices related to the month of May.

[1:26:08] So if we paid RWG in May, we would have that for you.

[1:26:11] But you'd have two file folders.

[1:26:14] Because it's very, very important, because in Sonia's note, she says that we had ample

[1:26:22] opportunity to review and that the council has not reviewed these invoices in 2019.

[1:26:33] The opportunity is there to review it if you had questions, but yes.

[1:26:37] So in 2019, I had questions and then in 2025, I came back to the same question and then I started digging again and I found the same issue, right?

[1:26:48] But in my role as a council member, if I asked for the invoices, I would generally get the invoices of all the general generic invoices, not the RWG because you have two file folders is my point, right?

[1:27:01] No, not necessarily.

[1:27:03] I mean, if you're asking for a specific month or

[1:27:07] during the based on the disbursement register, we would give you what we pay during that month or

[1:27:16] a week.

[1:27:17] The reason why this is important, Sonia, is because part of the responsibility of the law firm is

[1:27:27] is to be open as open as possible with the billing practices and the invoices practices.

[1:27:35] You mentioned that.

[1:27:37] You taught me that.

[1:27:40] So if I actually wanted to dig into as a responsible council member, I would actually have to go above

[1:27:48] and beyond and ask for two file folders, one for the general and then one specifically for

[1:27:54] of the law firm in order to do that full research.

[1:27:58] When I was told that the issue was handled, right?

[1:28:03] Subsequently, I have gone in every four or five months,

[1:28:06] or every three and four months, whatever, every four months,

[1:28:09] and I would generally get just the initial fire folders,

[1:28:14] that the initial monthly invoices, and I wouldn't see

[1:28:20] the RWG invoices either.

[1:28:23] So I'm sorry, you asked for the RWG invoices, but you got a separate file folder that didn't include the RWG invoices I'm trying to understand.

[1:28:32] In 2025, when I started this process in March of 2025, I specifically asked for the RWG invoices, and then I asked for electronic copies for each month subsequent.

[1:28:44] Prior to that, I was only reviewing the monthly statements that did not include the RWG invoices, right?

[1:28:54] So that's why it never occurred to me.

[1:28:55] They included the total amount paid, but they didn't include the itemization.

[1:29:01] Correct. So that's why I would contend, Sonya, that there is a cause of action,

[1:29:10] that I would specifically deny the information when I sought that information out.

[1:29:17] So I think there is a point of contention.

[1:29:20] So Steve, I would contend that there was a missed opportunity in 2019.

[1:29:24] Because you loved to point out that I signed the updated, the most recent amendment prior to what we're doing potentially this evening.

[1:29:31] Sure.

[1:29:31] And that's just because I was mayor, not because any special interest in it, I was the mayor in 2019.

[1:29:36] I acknowledge that absolutely.

[1:29:37] I think that really was a misopportunity because I can stay, I have no memory as the person who did the final review and signed it, we all voted on it, that that was a misopportunity to say hey, we're doing this amendment because of I, Steve August, have a concern about travel time.

[1:29:55] I have no recollection of that.

[1:29:59] I look to my...

[1:30:00] Right. I don't see anybody remembering that. I can say that our former city attorney did not share with me why we were doing this particular amendment. We were doing an update. There was no conversation of that specific concern. So I truly believe that was the missed opportunity. If your concern was that we have a city attorney who is now billing for travel time. And you did not think that was appropriate.

[1:30:29] none of that was discussed, disclosed, mentioned in any way, shape, or form.

[1:30:36] And I would ask that is the issue of the missed opportunity.

[1:30:40] We, you are sharing, there was a conversation.

[1:30:44] Terrence is a party to the conversation he had with Bill.

[1:30:48] Bill is no longer here.

[1:30:50] So we all after the conversation you had and the city manager told you it was handled.

[1:30:57] It was handled without amendment as it turns out that was not what you that didn't count has been handled for you

[1:31:04] But there we have none of us who who were in the room and voted on that

[1:31:09] Have any memory of that conversation. I don't believe it happened and so there for that was our missed opportunity

[1:31:16] Sure, but I think it was a missed opportunity and that we as a council were misled

[1:31:24] I don't know because I didn't have any conversation about travel or of us were uninformed.

[1:31:29] You kept that conversation private between you and Bill and I don't know if it was a

[1:31:34] gotcha moment for the future or what, but you didn't discuss it in open session with

[1:31:39] any of the rest of us.

[1:31:40] And when you voted on the amendment, you didn't bring it up at that point, either.

[1:31:43] That's a really unnecessary matter, mayor.

[1:31:45] What do you mean it's unnecessary?

[1:31:47] I'm not talking to you.

[1:31:47] I'm talking to the mayor.

[1:31:48] It wasn't gotcha moment because I was here.

[1:31:52] by the city manager that it was handled, that the issue was handled, right?

[1:31:55] But why wouldn't you, when we were talking about that vote, why wouldn't you have then

[1:31:59] said to all of us, this is the reason that this restated agreement is here,

[1:32:04] because I discovered this, and I want the rest of you to know about it.

[1:32:08] Because that would be grandstanding, and I wasn't grandstanding, I was just bringing up

[1:32:12] something, and the city manager said he handled it.

[1:32:14] It wouldn't be grandstanding, it would be sharing pertinent information with your colleagues.

[1:32:18] I guess I trusted the City Manager when he said he handled it, that it was handled.

[1:32:26] All right, and I assume that meant that the issue was no more.

[1:32:30] It was a missed opportunity because in the 2000, in the Amendment 8, Richard Watson and

[1:32:37] Gershon should have specifically addressed the issue and said we are going to start

[1:32:43] charge for travel time, or we are going to continue to charge for travel time, they didn't

[1:32:47] I didn't even mention it, and the issue that was brought up by me was specific to travel

[1:32:52] time.

[1:32:53] And I wish you had shared that with us because then we would have known to look for that.

[1:32:57] But we were unaware that you had an issue with respect to travel time.

[1:33:04] At least I was.

[1:33:04] I don't want to be free, but I'm getting the same thing.

[1:33:06] But we're all aware of it now, correct?

[1:33:08] We're all aware of it now.

[1:33:08] And in the version that is before us this evening, it is very clearly delineated.

[1:33:13] Yes.

[1:33:14] And Monica, that my last point is in this contract, it specifically says that they're

[1:33:20] only going to charge IRS rates from door to door, closest door.

[1:33:25] So from this door, at the Brea office, if they approve this new lease to the Orange County

[1:33:32] Courthouse, for example, that's allowed.

[1:33:34] The new lease specifically states that we will not be charged attorney travel time

[1:33:39] for City Council meeting.

[1:33:41] I'm sorry for city council meetings and planning commission meetings, so yes, you accomplish that and that's a good win.

[1:33:50] The staff accomplished that, so thank you finally Monica. I appreciate that, okay? All right, I still have an issue with 200,000 I would like to just wrap this up because I've gone on long enough and I thank you for your patience. I thank people in the audience for the patience and the staff for the patience.

[1:34:10] The $200,000 is not been addressed, I disagree with Sonia, that this is a case that should

[1:34:23] be contested, specifically Sonia, you're familiar with Vargas V-Balls.

[1:34:31] One of the costs is over $600,000 in cash, in legal fees that you created, that one?

[1:34:37] So, are you at a time I sued the city and I was not a council member, it was Vargas V balls and so it is doable to correct a wrong or proceed wrong and that is now case law, so I'd encourage you to look at that.

[1:35:01] My issue is I would like there to be a tolling agreement on this contract.

[1:35:06] If you approve this tonight, since you're not going to seek the $200,000 restitution, which I believe is only one opinion,

[1:35:17] you don't think it is a correct, you don't agree with me, right?

[1:35:22] You don't think that there's no-

[1:35:23] There's no, here's no.

[1:35:25] No, no, no, no, no, no.

[1:35:25] You'd go $200,000.

[1:35:27] Can I, can I, let me, here's my concern, okay?

[1:35:29] Because in the community, I'm hearing

[1:35:32] that you're looking for an attorney to sue the city again.

[1:35:35] So, suing the city once, taking silver, 650,000,

[1:35:38] and taxpayer dollars and saying, look at me,

[1:35:41] I got case law.

[1:35:42] What an hero I am, you're looking to do it again?

[1:35:45] I'm just, you're looking to sue the city again.

[1:35:48] You just mentioned that again.

[1:35:49] That it's a good case, that it could be one.

[1:35:52] So you're asking us to support you in suing the city again? No, I'm asking you to cover $200,000 that's sitting on the table

[1:36:00] Yeah, because you want to sue the city again for $200,000. I do not want to sue the city

[1:36:04] I wish I wish I wish the law firm would make an offer and compromise and release and say instead of us going out

[1:36:11] And when you sit there and you talk about how great a job you did instead of

[1:36:16] As soon as I have $650,000, a taxpayer dollars, and then you sit here and you tell us it was a good case, it's case law, it shows it can be done.

[1:36:26] Marty, you're actually advertising, you want to hire an attorney to take the temperature down for a minute, okay?

[1:36:34] I tend to agree with the legal opinion that we're paying for, and I think it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars to go out.

[1:36:44] But to sue for that is going to cost more than what you alleged they owe us.

[1:36:49] Does that make sense?

[1:36:51] I'm not suggesting that we sue.

[1:36:52] I'm not going to sue.

[1:36:53] Well, you're out on the street looking for somebody to handle it on a contingency.

[1:36:55] I don't know where you're getting the information from.

[1:36:58] Oh, people talk.

[1:36:59] It's all over the place.

[1:36:59] It's good information.

[1:37:00] I don't know where you're getting this information.

[1:37:03] You basically stated yourself.

[1:37:05] I'd like to maybe just offer one more piece of advice that came up because of this conversation.

[1:37:11] We talked about missed opportunities.

[1:37:12] I want to make sure you don't miss an opportunity.

[1:37:14] If you're going to move forward tonight, I'd highly recommend that you add

[1:37:18] to section 10F of the agreement.

[1:37:20] It's the integration section in your agreement.

[1:37:23] What that section does is it says this is the agreement that will govern from here on out.

[1:37:26] It doesn't refer to all those old agreements.

[1:37:29] And I would recommend this.

[1:37:31] The parties acknowledge and agree that effective, as of the effective date of the agreement,

[1:37:35] any and all billing disputes, any disputes regarding payment, claims,

[1:37:39] offsets, credits, adjustments, or other disagreements,

[1:37:42] are rising out of or relating to any legal services performed, or agreements entered into prior to the effective date of this agreement, are hereby fully and finally resolved, compromised and settled.

[1:37:54] There's an exception for any outstanding and voices.

[1:37:57] I'd recommend that you add this language I've provided it to staff, just so that once and for all as you move forward, you put this issue to rest.

[1:38:04] This would be if you were going to decide to move forward with the agreement.

[1:38:08] There's that language I'd recommend to you, and I've provided it to staff this evening.

[1:38:12] So, Sonia, is that in your memo?

[1:38:15] No, she just said she's adding on the floor.

[1:38:17] I'm recommending this piece to you.

[1:38:18] You're on the fly recommending that we not do any tolling.

[1:38:22] I'm asking for a tolling.

[1:38:23] I'm asking for my colleagues to do a tolling.

[1:38:25] Is that a motion?

[1:38:28] Sonia can't make a motion.

[1:38:29] No, Steve, I'm asking you.

[1:38:31] Is that a motion?

[1:38:33] Steve.

[1:38:33] What?

[1:38:34] Is that a motion?

[1:38:35] Is what a motion?

[1:38:36] Tolling.

[1:38:36] Yes, I would like there to be a tolling agreement where we-

[1:38:39] Okay, so you're making a motion?

[1:38:41] I would like to make a motion.

[1:38:42] Okay.

[1:38:42] Do we have a second?

[1:38:45] All right.

[1:38:46] Seeing none, the motion fails.

[1:38:47] Can I make a second motion that we ask or we do a compromising release regarding $200,000

[1:38:54] of money that is allegedly owed to us by Richard Watson and Gerson?

[1:39:01] Can I put forward a motion for that?

[1:39:02] Do I have a second?

[1:39:03] What do you want to do?

[1:39:06] I would like to ask for a meeting so that we can meet and confer with RWG regarding $200,000 of disputed monies that I alleged is owed.

[1:39:19] The city treasurer alleged is owed and our staff is documented.

[1:39:24] So see if the problem is we have an attorney here who's telling us that there was a missed opportunity, the dispute is really only your dispute.

[1:39:34] So that's really the crux of what's happening here, the language that we were just provided

[1:39:39] as a recommendation to add is saying we're done looking backward, we are looking forward.

[1:39:46] We have a modernized contract, our expectation is that that will carry us October to October.

[1:39:52] There's conversation of going through the RFP process for legal services.

[1:39:57] Why are you so focused on a dollar amount that you have created as a dispute?

[1:40:06] Literally, you have created, there is, you have, you have with your team.

[1:40:11] No, we've gone through this so many times, we've done it privately in the city manager's office.

[1:40:19] You and I met it.

[1:40:23] Not everything has to be blown up and convert, like talked about, for over an hour, again and again and again.

[1:40:33] I would like to make the motion that we move forward, add the language that Sonia has suggested,

[1:40:40] and we finally put this to bed and move forward.

[1:40:45] Do I have a second?

[1:40:58] Motion passes 4-1.

[1:41:03] Okay, now we'll move on to public comment on non-agenda items.

[1:41:07] This is your opportunity to make any comments relating to non-agenda items.

[1:41:12] Please submit a speaker card to the city clerk, raise your digital hand now, or dial nine

[1:41:17] on the telephone to indicate you wish to speak.

[1:41:20] When it is your turn to speak, please begin by stating your name and city of residence

[1:41:24] and limit your comments to five minutes.

[1:41:26] I will call on members of the public, participating in person first, followed by remote participants.

[1:41:33] City Clerk, do we have any speakers?

[1:41:37] Yes, the first speaker I have is Craig Ferris, followed by Linda Criner.

[1:41:41] I'm

[1:41:57] Craig Ferris, I've been excited to hear it in the city of Paris since 1970.

[1:42:00] One mayor, council, city staff, those in attendance, thank you very much.

[1:42:10] Interesting.

[1:42:11] As to, I wanted to speak about a development that we all know about that I've been attending.

[1:42:21] But actually, I wanted to speak about the favorability of Costco as to some things that

[1:42:27] I found out.

[1:42:28] So before I was in the logistics transportation industry, warehousing industry, I was in

[1:42:34] super market industry. Super market industry operates on an extremely lean

[1:42:39] profit margin. What I found out is Costco, which started from Saul Price, and

[1:42:45] it was Price Club, which then became Costco, their profitability of their

[1:42:51] merchandise sold is very marginally slim, which brings benefits to the

[1:42:59] residents to those that shop at Costco for the food items or for the items that are there.

[1:43:04] There are profit margins range between no greater than 3% and

[1:43:08] hover closer to 1.5% profit margin for a business.

[1:43:13] Where Costco does make a tremendous amount of profit is off of their membership.

[1:43:20] That is just pure profit.

[1:43:22] That's where they make a lot of money to make it be.

[1:43:26] a gold standard of what that retailer is.

[1:43:30] And I just wanted to share that fact.

[1:43:35] I still to this day and I know that I've reached out

[1:43:39] to some individuals and I've attended the meeting

[1:43:43] that was the residential meeting and I'm really thankful

[1:43:47] for those residents that conducted that meeting.

[1:43:50] I'm really thankful for Jason coming to that meeting

[1:43:53] and giving his input where it was appropriate as well.

[1:44:00] I just witnessed learned and sometimes you don't speak

[1:44:04] and you learn a lot more compared to either running through the forest

[1:44:08] you don't see the animals or when you speak you don't hear.

[1:44:12] So really I just wanted to hear where I know I'm in favor.

[1:44:17] I wanted to learn more about those that were against.

[1:44:20] I don't still understand, I just don't want it near me because I want to learn how I can learn from those that are against so we can make this the best ability for our city.

[1:44:36] I personally think this is an opportunity that is not before the council yet and I know I'm speaking prematurely.

[1:44:42] It's not even, I believe, fully at the Planning Commission, that's just my opinion.

[1:44:50] But I want to learn from those that oppose, because I think it's a benchmark decision of

[1:45:00] What is going to be coming up very similar to, right here at the Bremel was, back in the 70s. And so, my time, I just wanted to speak favorably, I wanted to thank all the city council, all of you. And for a resident, what I do like to see is I understand being on a board. And if you oppose something, a voice willing to

[1:45:29] to make a statement to oppose it, but I also want to see our council working for the benefit of all of us as residents, and I'm thank you for your time, I thank you for that, I thank you for your openness of sharing each one of you, your opinions, but the same sense, I want to make sure that that is ultimately in the end for the benefit of all of us that are residents here.

[1:45:59] There's my two cents, thank you.

[1:46:04] The next register speaker I have is Linda Criner, followed by Crystal Eichner.

[1:46:16] Hi, I'm Linda Criner, I'm a long time resident of East Brea.

[1:46:21] And I have two big issues with the addition of the largest Costco in California with 40 gas pumps to my neighborhood, which is East Brea.

[1:46:32] There are many, but the bottom line of the problem is the additional traffic that is definitely

[1:46:40] going to come to Kramer and Birch.

[1:46:44] Google AI estimates that there will be 10 to 14,000 additional cars caused by just the

[1:46:51] Costco being there in addition to the 20 to 30,000 cars that are going through Kramer and

[1:46:59] Birch at this time.

[1:47:01] During the Christmas lights event, which is a quality of life thing for the city of Braia,

[1:47:08] we had 50,000 cars going through the neighborhood which brought joy to probably 50,000 families.

[1:47:17] How many people would that be?

[1:47:20] In addition, there's going to be traffic on Imperial.

[1:47:23] in Imperial and Kramer already has 67,500 cars going through that intersection every day.

[1:47:32] Smart walls and smart signals are not going to decrease this log jam of cars.

[1:47:40] This is going to affect the quality of life for the people who live in East Brea.

[1:47:46] My question with this is the environmental impacts that are going to address

[1:47:51] The huge traffic issue at the east end of town, which is the biggest residential area of Brea.

[1:48:00] It's a residential area, not where Costco's are typically set up.

[1:48:09] And are the AIR findlings going to be public, and are they going to be open to question by the residents?

[1:48:18] Another big concern I have is the tax sharing agreement that has been made with the City of

[1:48:25] Braia and Dwight Manley, the developer who owns the current Beckman campus.

[1:48:31] Why does the city give the majority of the sales tax to revenue to the developer for 30

[1:48:39] of the 50 years of the contract?

[1:48:41] fact, it isn't until year 30 that the share is 50% for the city and 50% for Mr. Manley.

[1:48:50] He begins by getting 95% of the first two years of the contract and it gradually increases

[1:48:57] by 5% to a year until the year 30 with the sharing going to 50% for each.

[1:49:04] Perhaps he paid too much for the property initially, but he will get a huge income when

[1:49:11] Costco begins leasing the land for Mr. Manley.

[1:49:15] This is the cost of doing business.

[1:49:18] Why does the city feel it is obligated to help Mr. Manley at the beginning of the agreement

[1:49:24] before the Costco is even built?

[1:49:27] Isn't that the cost of doing business?

[1:49:30] What would happen if the Costco wasn't built?

[1:49:34] It could be homes that would fit in with a huge

[1:49:37] residential area that is East Brea.

[1:49:41] Then perhaps Mrs. Manley would sell the land to a residential

[1:49:45] developer.

[1:49:47] If Mr. Manley doesn't get the Costco on the land,

[1:49:51] does the senior center disappear?

[1:49:55] His support of the Costco seems to be baked

[1:49:57] end to the existence of the senior center.

[1:50:02] These are two very important issues for the East Brea residents and I appreciate being

[1:50:07] able to speak tonight.

[1:50:08] Thank you.

[1:50:13] Next I have Crystal Eignner, followed by Deborah Dauer.

[1:50:17] Good evening, Mara and the City Council members.

[1:50:20] My name is Crystal Eignner and I've been a resident of Brea for over 40 years.

[1:50:24] So I'm here tonight to, as a resident of Country Hills the States and the neighborhood that's

[1:50:29] going to be right next to Costco.

[1:50:31] Recently, our neighborhood came together.

[1:50:33] I was spoken about before for a peaceful community gathering

[1:50:36] to talk about the Costco development

[1:50:38] and to better understand what is happening

[1:50:41] and how it will affect our homes and streets in our community.

[1:50:45] Jason Kilbrew was very kind enough to attend

[1:50:48] and help answer a lot of questions

[1:50:49] and explain what he could about the project.

[1:50:52] Thank you, Jason.

[1:50:53] I appreciate his willingness to speak with us,

[1:50:55] but what I walked away with was very discouraging feeling

[1:50:58] that there's essentially nothing our neighborhood can do to have a meaningful voice in what is happening around our homes.

[1:51:06] We can discuss ways to make this less painful but little chance of stopping it.

[1:51:12] We are deeply concerned about the impact this development will have on our neighborhood,

[1:51:16] including increased traffic congestion on our streets, freeway on and off ramps,

[1:51:21] and the overall disruption to the businesses and residents surrounding the project.

[1:51:26] What is especially in trouble to me first is that our community has had to organize our own gathering to simply understand what was happening.

[1:51:37] Residents should not have to come together on their own to find answers about major developments that could have such a significant impact on our daily lives.

[1:51:47] Second, it turns out that the most pivotal decision that you made was approving the tax sharing agreement in December,

[1:51:54] which at this time you said it was just one small step.

[1:51:58] It was not the substance of the meeting

[1:52:01] felt designed to railroad this project.

[1:52:05] I was very also disappointed to hear comments

[1:52:07] suggesting that this is simply the way things

[1:52:10] have always been done and that there was no fault

[1:52:13] in how the process was handled.

[1:52:15] With respect, I don't believe that should be the standard

[1:52:19] that we accept for the future of Brea.

[1:52:21] Yeah.

[1:52:22] Even when a decision may be very far along, residents deserve clear information, honest

[1:52:29] communication, and an opportunity to be heard, transparency should not be something that

[1:52:36] the community has to ask for after the fact.

[1:52:41] I sincerely hope that the future of Brea City Council will include a commitment to restoring

[1:52:47] honoring trust with our residents and making communication a two way street.

[1:52:52] I love the city of Braya that we have and we may not always agree on the outcome, but we should always be able to expect honesty, transparency, respect, and a meaningful opportunity to participate in this process.

[1:53:07] Thank you for listening.

[1:53:11] The next register speaker I have is Deborah Dauer, followed by Roseanne Scott.

[1:53:15] Good

[1:53:19] evening mayor, City Council and staff. I'm Deborah Dawa, a Braia resident since 2002. I have a question on the topic of additional traffic and public safety burden regarding the proposed Costco project.

[1:53:33] Has an independent and I underscore the word independent. Analysis determined the additional cost to Braia for police, traffic enforcement, fire and road maintenance.

[1:53:45] If yes, what is the name of the independent firm that conducted the analysis and when did they do so?

[1:53:52] If not, why was it an independent analysis done before the approval of a 50-year agreement?

[1:53:57] Thank you.

[1:54:03] The next slide, Mr. Speaker.

[1:54:04] I have is Roseanne Scott, followed by Felix Road.

[1:54:12] Okay.

[1:54:13] Felix Road.

[1:54:14] After Felix, I have Carrie Wines.

[1:54:22] Good evening, Mayor.

[1:54:24] Good evening, Council.

[1:54:25] So, I really appreciated the lifeline conversation you had earlier about a $200,000 outstanding bill.

[1:54:34] I would have loved if you had the same intense conversation about the revenue sharing agreement on Costco

[1:54:41] that at least was not the case in the public eye, maybe behind doors.

[1:54:46] Was that being said? That's what I want to talk about today.

[1:54:49] I'm here to talk about the 50-year economic development agreement for Costco at Birch and Kramer.

[1:54:54] Up front, I want to say I'm not against the Costco in Brea.

[1:54:58] I think it would have a lot of benefit.

[1:55:00] However, what worries me is how to deal with structured

[1:55:03] and the risk that it puts Brea's tax payer on.

[1:55:08] Start with the math, it doesn't actually add up.

[1:55:11] The staff projected about 50 million for the city

[1:55:14] and 83 million for the developer,

[1:55:16] based on 267 million a year in taxable sales.

[1:55:21] States. If you break dials down under state law, groceries and fresh foods are roughly

[1:55:28] half of what Costco actually sells, and those are actually exempt from sales tax. So to

[1:55:35] hit that taxable number, you would have to create a sales revenue of north of $400 million.

[1:55:42] That is well above any typical Costco in California.

[1:55:48] So, now, how does the model actually close the gap?

[1:55:52] Okay, the model does close the gap with a gas station of 40 pumps.

[1:55:57] Unlike groceries, as you know, fuel is fully taxable,

[1:56:01] and is expected to bring in in this particular agreement nearly a million dollars.

[1:56:07] Now, was that disclosed? No, I did my own math, but that's the only way

[1:56:11] you can get to the overall tax numbers that were stated.

[1:56:15] So, which brings me to the traffic problem at the last

[1:56:20] community meeting that Jason was kind enough to attend, we were told the 40 pumps were

[1:56:25] simply away to cut wait times.

[1:56:29] The city own numbers that were provided tell a different story.

[1:56:34] For the numbers to work, that station has to function as a regional draw.

[1:56:39] Moving roughly 20 million gallons a year and pushing 5 to 7,000 extra car trips in addition

[1:56:48] to what a Costco actually pulls through the Burj and Kramer intersection every day.

[1:56:54] The city can't claim its managing traffic which we did at the community meeting, while in

[1:57:01] its own model it depends on that traffic to actually happening.

[1:57:06] Okay. Now stretch that over 50 years. California is moving towards electric vehicles. And under state law, electricity sold in a D.V. Charger is actually not generating sales tax or is exempt from local sales tax as pumps get replaced by chargers, which will happen. It's a function of when not if a few tax revenue will go down to a level.

[1:57:34] and eventually level off at a very low level.

[1:57:39] It could eventually disappear if Costco at those facilities

[1:57:44] decides to replace the food pumps in, say, 20 years,

[1:57:48] completely with charges.

[1:57:50] And remember, the point of the gas station is that Costco is driving

[1:57:55] membership to their stores and visit.

[1:57:57] Fuel is not a margin item for them.

[1:58:00] The membership and the loyalty of those members is and so if they find a different strategy to pull these members into the Costco, we have a significant revenue gaps on our taxes.

[1:58:16] So here's what concerns me the most under the rebate scheduled developer keeps to 100% of the fuel tax in the year when fuel is actually still at peak.

[1:58:28] Brea's share doesn't reach 60% percent of the tax until much later in the agreement

[1:58:35] by which point the tax base may not actually exist in the form it does today.

[1:58:42] The developer gets the money now while it's worse the most and the city inherits what's

[1:58:48] left later.

[1:58:49] Brea also carries the risk that cost goes underlying lease likely to be initially 20 to 30 years with

[1:58:57] renewal options may not outlast the agreement because the extensions are optional, they are

[1:59:03] not required. A more typical agreement would have included a hard-dollar cap tied to

[1:59:09] verifiable infrastructure costs, a term closer to 20 years matching the real lease and protections

[1:59:16] against the EV transition that may occur. I'd like four questions to be entered into the

[1:59:25] The public record was written, answered, requested from staff and the city attorney.

[1:59:30] One.

[1:59:31] What dollar amounted percentage of the two hundred and a half?

[1:59:33] I'm sorry, but your time is up.

[1:59:35] Could you present your questions to the city clerk and she can pass them on?

[1:59:39] Okay.

[1:59:40] Thank you very much.

[1:59:44] Next, I have Carrie Wines, followed by Mark Strong.

[1:59:55] Not used to this.

[1:59:57] I've not been at the new format.

[2:00:00] New and approved format, this is nice. My name is Carrie Wines. I've been here in a couple

[2:00:07] different various speaking moments, but this time I'm going to get a little philosophical.

[2:00:14] So I wore my jammies to kind of dress up for the occasion.

[2:00:19] Tonight I want to talk about progress. Progress is not measured by how many or what kind

[2:00:24] of buildings we can put on a map. Progress is measured by whether the people who already

[2:00:29] they live there can still recognize the community they call home.

[2:00:33] Whether they can positively impact their lives and their children's lives,

[2:00:38] what they can afford to celebrate, how many children they can afford to care for,

[2:00:42] what food they can purchase, what college they send their kids to.

[2:00:47] I say this because I think many of the various citizens have nothing against growth.

[2:00:51] We have nothing against investment, but many citizens have a problem when development

[2:00:56] and it happens faster than the infrastructure

[2:00:58] when decisions are made without meaningful public input

[2:01:02] and when residents feel that their voices are treated

[2:01:04] as an inconvenience rather than as the foundation

[2:01:07] of local government.

[2:01:09] And let me be clear, government belongs to the people,

[2:01:12] not to developers, not to politicians,

[2:01:16] not to anyone who believes a campaign contribution,

[2:01:19] a private meeting, or a powerful connection should matter more

[2:01:22] more than the concerns of ordinary residents.

[2:01:26] If there has been misconduct conflicts of interest or decisions made behind closed stores,

[2:01:31] then we deserve answers.

[2:01:33] Do not fear transparency.

[2:01:35] We are not asking for special treatment.

[2:01:37] We are asking for accountability.

[2:01:39] We are asking all to play by the rules.

[2:01:43] We are asking for open meetings on its disclosure, responsible planning and

[2:01:47] a development process that puts residents not profits at the center.

[2:01:51] because this is not simply about one project.

[2:01:54] It is about what kind of city we want to leave to the people who come after us.

[2:01:58] We can choose growth without sacrificing our character.

[2:02:02] We can choose investment without surrendering our voice.

[2:02:05] And we can choose a city government that remembers one simple truth.

[2:02:09] Brea citizens are not obstacles to progress.

[2:02:12] The people of Brea are the reason our local government exists.

[2:02:16] We should stand together for our city.

[2:02:18] I love Brea.

[2:02:19] I've been here since 1984, that's a long time to put in for, you know, living in one city, I love it, but we need transparency, we need accountability, and for a future where development serves the community rather than the community serving development.

[2:02:36] Thank you.

[2:02:37] Next

[2:02:41] speaker, I have is Mark Strom, followed by Nancy Clifton Hawkins.

[2:02:53] Mark Strom, spokesperson for Bayer for All.

[2:02:56] Tonight I want to examine seven myths behind the Costco saga, misused to obscure core issues.

[2:03:03] Myth one, Costco worked with the property owner Hines and couldn't reach a deal only the developer could.

[2:03:09] This defies logic.

[2:03:11] The reasonable conclusion is that Costco knew a subsidy was needed.

[2:03:14] rather than work or pray it directly, it was easier and less visible to let the developer

[2:03:18] do it. He has in your perfect batting average getting what he wants, right? If anyone

[2:03:24] deserves vanks, it's not the developer. It's Braia for granting a large subsidy. Myth

[2:03:30] too. If the developer wants Costco its own for it and he can do it. Yes, but zoning rights

[2:03:36] do not create subsidy rights. Subsidies are discretionary. At the recent community meeting, the developer

[2:03:42] answered a question about why not move Costco to the South property with a parking garage.

[2:03:47] Quote. It would cost $35,000 per parking space and Costco has maxed out on what they're willing to pay

[2:03:53] so it would make the taxuring math worse. Really? That's upside down. Make Costco and the developers

[2:04:00] math worse. They both seem to be doing quite well. Meanwhile, the city faces major budget issues

[2:04:06] in the next several years.

[2:04:08] Again, zoning rights do not create subsidy rights.

[2:04:12] Myth three, prayer for all doesn't care about revenue,

[2:04:15] completely false.

[2:04:17] Sadly, we're the only party that looked at year

[2:04:19] by year general fund impact.

[2:04:21] Prayer for all inform the council that an all-housing project

[2:04:23] produces superior all-in general fund revenue

[2:04:26] for a quarter century.

[2:04:27] Prayer for all also inform the council

[2:04:29] that the deal digs about a $20 million budget hole

[2:04:31] in the first 10 years compared to Batman today.

[2:04:33] Okay, staff have to date and said nothing, the council never asked.

[2:04:38] Why bother when the decision is pre-wired, and certainly don't muddy the public hearing packet with contradictory information?

[2:04:45] Myth 4, the property costs to the developer $140 million.

[2:04:50] No, the Costco portion costs $77 million, and the Lamar housing portion costs $63 million.

[2:04:57] $77 million is exactly the tax subsidy the developer receives in constant dollars.

[2:05:01] In other words, pay a pay for the Costco property.

[2:05:05] The developer pays carrying costs, transaction costs, and land prep.

[2:05:09] Carrying costs is minimized with his front-loaded subsidy.

[2:05:13] Myth 5.

[2:05:14] The math on the developer's return is transparent, incorrect.

[2:05:18] We don't know most key variables in his return, including his proceeds from Lara housing,

[2:05:22] Costco lease terms, loan terms, and potential compensation from Costco for his mental man role.

[2:05:28] and no one evaluated how his risk-adjusted tax sharing value compares to

[2:05:31] Brae is. We don't know a lot of things. While it's mostly confidential, we should

[2:05:37] not accept his blanket statements. We do know he's watched as we turn far more

[2:05:41] closely than the city watchards. Miss six. The developer is taking all the risk.

[2:05:47] Huh? You already have 77 million of front-loaded tax sharing, the

[2:05:50] Costco lease, and the one-on-our deal, and he's not the builder.

[2:05:53] Regardless, aren't developers always supposed to bear the project risk, not

[2:05:57] cities.

[2:05:59] Brea's risk hour is very high.

[2:06:01] The vast majority of our revenues is decades from now after the initial Costco leased expires.

[2:06:07] Our risk adjusted returns a fraction of the rose projection.

[2:06:10] On this 7th, the December hearing, approving tax sharing was one small step, and simply

[2:06:16] allow Costco as an option.

[2:06:19] That's complete hogwash, and it's a wide barrier for all organized.

[2:06:23] The tax sharing enabled everything else.

[2:06:24] Without the subsidy, the city would be working with a developer right now on a mixed-use housing project.

[2:06:30] The city can seal the Costco plan for months, waited until the last minute, and

[2:06:34] jammed the economic underpinning through in one night, despite please, without pause for review.

[2:06:41] In the recent community meeting, nine months overdue, Mr. Kilibur explained extremely low odds of stopping the project in the EIR stage.

[2:06:48] That's how British City Hall operates when it thinks it knows best.

[2:06:53] Yes, it prewires the decision then does the minimum required by California law.

[2:06:58] In this case, citizens were effectively denied our rights to meaningful participation.

[2:07:03] By the way, imagine how much better it would be for our general fund,

[2:07:08] had the city obtained an independent financial assessment, including alternatives before your December vote, and then negotiated more.

[2:07:15] And imagine if the city had genuinely engaged the public prior to the vote.

[2:07:19] You could have had it all, a casco, a far better deal for

[2:07:23] Braia and residents who feel respected.

[2:07:26] In closing, the casco matters have become the three ring

[2:07:28] circus.

[2:07:29] It's a city creation.

[2:07:30] Never forget the center ring is city hall.

[2:07:33] There are side shows that the main event is city conduct.

[2:07:37] A majority of the council seems to be holding their breath

[2:07:39] hoping this circus leaves town soon.

[2:07:41] It won't.

[2:07:42] It's the city's circus.

[2:07:43] And we're not leaving even if the project is approved.

[2:07:45] more is coming and truth eventually prevails.

[2:07:53] The next speaker I have is Nancy Clifton Hawkins followed by Gail Nita.

[2:08:01] Good evening mayor.

[2:08:03] City council members, city staff and members of the public.

[2:08:07] I'm Nancy Clifton Hawkins, a 30 plus year resident at the City of Brea.

[2:08:12] At the July City Council meeting I stood before you and asked for something very simple.

[2:08:17] An opportunity for the residents who will be most directly affected by this proposed project

[2:08:22] to have a meaningful conversation with the city, Costco, and the property owner,

[2:08:26] and that request came from us, the residents.

[2:08:29] We believe that if a project of this magnitude was being proposed in our neighborhood,

[2:08:34] the people who live here deserve an opportunity to come together, ask questions,

[2:08:39] hear directly from those involved, and have a meaningful conversation about what is being proposed.

[2:08:44] So we organized the meeting.

[2:08:46] We invited the city, the city council,

[2:08:50] the property owner and to our neighborhood and on August 8th approximately 150 residents

[2:08:56] showed up. They came early on a Saturday morning because they care about where they live

[2:09:01] and what happens in our community. I also want to say something about how that morning unfolded

[2:09:06] because I think it says a great deal about our community. Some people may have expected

[2:09:11] shouting or confrontation. That isn't what happened. People listened. They asked questions.

[2:09:18] They express concerns, they disagreed respectfully, and they stay engaged.

[2:09:25] That is our community.

[2:09:27] We are a civil, engaged community, not a group looking for a fight.

[2:09:32] We organize this meeting because we want a dialogue, not confrontation.

[2:09:36] We want an information, not assumptions, and we want an opportunity for the residents to be heard.

[2:09:43] I want to recognize Jason Kilibrew, who came on that Saturday.

[2:09:47] Thank you, Jason, for coming.

[2:09:49] He came prepared.

[2:09:51] He provided information and answered our resident's questions.

[2:09:55] I also want to recognize Dwight Manley, the property owner, who participated in the conversation

[2:10:00] and helped fill in information where he could, and he even offered residence tours of the

[2:10:04] property.

[2:10:06] Their participation was important because it gave residents an opportunity to hear directly

[2:10:11] from the people involved, rather than relying on speculation or secondhand information.

[2:10:17] And I'd be doing it to service to my neighbors if I stood here tonight and suggested that

[2:10:21] one meeting solved the problem.

[2:10:23] It didn't.

[2:10:26] What we heard were questions about traffic, neighborhood impacts, public safety, property

[2:10:31] values, the environmental review process, transparency, and whether this project ultimately benefits

[2:10:37] the city of Brea.

[2:10:38] We also heard questions about the process itself.

[2:10:42] How are decisions being made?

[2:10:44] How will information be shared?

[2:10:46] And will public input actually have an opportunity to influence what happens next?

[2:10:51] These aren't simply questions about the project.

[2:10:54] These are questions about trust.

[2:10:59] And trust isn't built through a project sign.

[2:11:02] Trust isn't built through a single meeting.

[2:11:04] trust is built through consistent communication, transparency, and unwillingness to keep showing up.

[2:11:11] Of the approximately 150 residents who attended, 60 voluntarily provided their names and email

[2:11:19] addresses because they want to stay informed, remain engaged in this ongoing conversation.

[2:11:24] That is civic engagement. People are raising their hands and saying, keep us informed. We want to

[2:11:31] understand. We want to participate. So tonight I'm asking the city to build on what we, the residents,

[2:11:38] started. We ask for regular project updates as major milestones are reached. We ask that

[2:11:45] information about timelines, EIR milestones, public meetings, and opportunities for community input

[2:11:50] be communicated proactively and consistently. And we ask that the city consider ongoing communication

[2:11:56] channels, whether through email updates, a project web page, a periodic community briefing

[2:12:01] so the residents can stay as formed as the project unfolds.

[2:12:05] Because trust is earned, one conversation at a time.

[2:12:11] On August 8th, we started that conversation.

[2:12:14] We brought our neighbors together.

[2:12:16] We showed up, Jason showed up.

[2:12:20] We listened, we asked questions, and we demonstrated that a community can be deeper

[2:12:26] concerned about a proposed project without being hostile or divisive.

[2:12:31] We can disagree without being disagreeable.

[2:12:34] We can ask hard questions without attacking people.

[2:12:37] We can advocate for our neighborhoods while respecting the people on the other side of

[2:12:41] the table.

[2:12:43] And as a 30-year resident of Brea, that is the Brea I remember.

[2:12:47] A Brea where neighbors came together, listened to one another, and worked through difficult

[2:12:51] issues as a community.

[2:12:52] So let's get back to being Braia. Thank you.

[2:12:59] And thank you for putting that together.

[2:13:02] The next register speaker I have is Gail Nida, followed by Melissa Strong.

[2:13:12] Good evening everyone. I have been before you three times

[2:13:18] and my questions and concerns are the same.

[2:13:23] It's the busy traffic on Birch and Kramer, presently.

[2:13:29] With Costco coming in, it will be busy all day long and into the evening.

[2:13:40] Decisions were made in haste with no public input by your constituents and business owners

[2:13:50] who will be impacted the most by this Costco deal.

[2:13:56] I don't understand why this was not done. This is the predicament we are in today.

[2:14:08] So number one, help me understand why there were no public hearings on this

[2:14:19] matter. As you are finding out this evening, that not everyone is happy. There are lots

[2:14:29] of people that have issues with Costco coming in.

[2:14:35] Number two, in addition, I would appreciate hearing from each council member who voted

[2:14:46] to approve this deal as to your reasons for your yes vote. Thank you for your consideration.

[2:15:01] The next registered speaker I have is Melissa Strom.

[2:15:13] Hi, I'm Melissa Strom. I am a longtime resident of Brayeye grew up here, lived here for three decades now. I'm here on behalf of Bray for all. And I've been on the sidelines for much of this Costco conversation because there are plenty of people to speak as you can hear. But I felt compelled to speak on one key point because I'm concerned there might be an inclination to write off or dismiss this crowd's concerns because there may be

[2:15:39] NIMBs, or they don't understand business as usual.

[2:15:42] Some of you might be holding your breath until they move on.

[2:15:45] I think if anything, tonight is proof they have some persistence.

[2:15:49] I've been in commercial real estate for my whole career,

[2:15:51] predominantly serving as a public relations representative

[2:15:54] for developers, commercial real estate law firms,

[2:15:57] financing institutions.

[2:15:59] So my work has spanned commercial, residential real estate,

[2:16:02] everything from affordable housing up to big mixed use mega projects.

[2:16:06] So in that time, I've dealt a lot with nimbis, and I can tell you that this crowd, they're

[2:16:12] not nimbis, so don't write them off as such.

[2:16:15] The traditional, not-in-my-back yard crowd, irrationally, opposes change wherever it is near

[2:16:20] their home just because they don't want change, originally and most commonly it's used for

[2:16:25] those opposing things like drug rehabilitation, affordable housing, because they're afraid

[2:16:30] it'll increase crime, or change the landscape of a neighborhood negatively, and oftentimes

[2:16:35] If not, always those can actually be elayed by some actual cold hard data.

[2:16:40] If anything, this group are entirely rational and they, as you can hear, are bringing some data back concerns that they've expressed a number of times now.

[2:16:48] And for what it's worth to my recollection, they were not being down City Hall's doors when the Birch Hill apartments were constructed, which are workforce housing across the street from the site in question.

[2:16:57] So furthermore, care for something going on near your home seems like the best time to engage the city.

[2:17:06] It's human nature, whether you're a resident who doesn't want to look at a billboard on the freeway near your house,

[2:17:10] or if you're a commercial retail owner that's threatened by some other shops coming in that might be threatening your commercial properties.

[2:17:19] I think all this being said, it's been made clear that the real reason that they're sticking around is because city conduct has been

[2:17:25] study revealed to be a major item of concern. As some have even said tonight, they're actually

[2:17:31] maybe not opposed to a Costco under the right conditions. So the Costco plan is really secondary

[2:17:35] to holding the city accountable in this incident, which brings me to my next point. You may also

[2:17:41] dismiss these folks because you believe that every event in this Costco matter is completely fine,

[2:17:46] totally normal business is usual, nothing untoward. If that's the case, then my question is why have

[2:17:52] leaders from institutions that have led my industry for years raised an eyebrow publicly

[2:17:57] about this deal. With all the evidence presented thus far, it seems unwise to take at face

[2:18:02] value internal claims that critics have merely misconstrued things or taking things out

[2:18:07] of context. If all is truly well, what is stopping us from what has been requested a few times,

[2:18:12] which is an independent process and ethics assessment. Assessment aside, best practices for

[2:18:18] this development whether you have nimbis or not would dictate a robust community engagement plan

[2:18:22] which I've been a part of a number of times thus far residents have only been invited to participate

[2:18:28] on the sidelines and meaningful conversations have been set up by residents themselves as you've heard

[2:18:34] I know there's an upcoming air hour process and as was stated in the community organized meeting

[2:18:39] on the 8th none of that can really change the tide in terms of if Costco is happening we understand

[2:18:43] But I really recommend that you don't miss the opportunity at this stage to do right by your constituents and

[2:18:50] ensure the path forward is one of independently verified transparency and proper processes.

[2:18:55] I recommend you hold yourselves to the highest standard because doing the right thing when no one is watching is your character.

[2:19:01] And doing the right thing when everyone is watching is your legacy.

[2:19:04] And if you can deliver on both, that's a great campaign message for those you on the ballot in November.

[2:19:09] So aside from that, I look forward to seeing you at the scoping meeting.

[2:19:11] thank you.

[2:19:16] That concludes all of our registered speakers and person and it looks like we do not have any online speakers.

[2:19:23] Okay, thank you. Jason, did you have anything you wanted to say?

[2:19:29] Yes, thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of points of clarification, but I want to just give a huge shout out in Kudos.

[2:19:36] Those may be a handful of times that I see in the community actually take the onus on

[2:19:44] our timeline.

[2:19:46] And so as I shared in other public communication as well as this meeting, there's not a lot

[2:19:51] of information that I have at this moment given that the application was submitted in March

[2:19:56] and just for the record it's still deemed incomplete at this point.

[2:19:59] And so a lot of moving things, but instead of taking, you know, it's not, you know, the city's response because we don't have the information, you know, they took, they took control of that. And I really, really come in on Nancy for that because that is something that, like I said, I've only seen happen a handful of times.

[2:20:21] But what it did though is it challenged me, it challenged my staff.

[2:20:26] So maybe look at some things differently.

[2:20:29] So we're already talking about some creative things that we can do moving forward, Costco

[2:20:35] aside.

[2:20:36] So maybe looking at ways that we can have, I'll just small pitch and normalist is going

[2:20:43] to the amount of me right now, but we took a look at a variety of different cities, cities

[2:20:49] that we admire some of the things that they do.

[2:20:53] You may have seen on social media, this particular city, I'm not going to name them by name,

[2:20:58] but they hosted a get to know your community development team, get to know the big projects

[2:21:06] that are going on and they hosted it at the AMC theater.

[2:21:09] And so those are the types of things where what I appreciated was, you know, and I will

[2:21:14] always do this to come to where they are.

[2:21:17] But also, we don't always have to have these meetings in such a formal setting.

[2:21:21] And so, again, I appreciate the challenge, and there's more to come from that.

[2:21:27] One couple of things I want to say, so like I said, the application is incomplete.

[2:21:31] And so I understand traffic, right?

[2:21:34] There's not been a project in my two decades of doing this that there hasn't been some level of concern related to traffic.

[2:21:42] The EIR will address that traffic, it will take into account the analysis for not only just the project itself.

[2:21:50] But what is going around on the east side of town?

[2:21:53] It will take into account those intersections, it will take into account all of those different things.

[2:21:58] And if there's deficiencies, those deficiencies at that point would have to be addressed.

[2:22:04] And that would be in turn, documented in the EIR, the draft EIR, let me say that, the draft EIR.

[2:22:12] And there was a comment about, was there going to be meaningful engagement.

[2:22:15] And I explain this at the community meeting that a draft VIR will just be the document the first kind of opportunity to review that document was definitely not the last and we put it out for a 45 day period to have that engagement to give people an ample amount of time of reading the document, providing us comments and we will respond back to those comments.

[2:22:39] The other thing I also wanted to talk about was related to, you know, Jason said there's a near chance that this won't be approved, it's not exactly what I said.

[2:22:50] What I shared at the community meeting is in my two decades of experience, the ways that, you know, a project is stopped is based off of voluntary withdrawal by the applicant.

[2:23:01] based off of a city council which in most cases is the ultimate decision authorities denial and then in a legal setting a judge basically to making a termination to deny the project what I shared was in my two decades of doing that I have never seen any of those superior decision authorities making a claim or making a judgment or

[2:23:30] Or a decision that had prejudice that said that particular person loses all their property rights and they can't move forward again.

[2:23:39] So even in the case of the sale of a project is denied, there is still an opportunity if it's not denied with prejudice to continue and apply another application,

[2:23:50] submit another application, go through that entire process again.

[2:23:53] And for that, I don't have a crystal ball to determine if someone gives up or someone continues.

[2:23:59] So, that's what I said, so I just want to make that clarification.

[2:24:03] But other than that, I look forward, we are still engaging in EIR consultant to go through

[2:24:10] and prepare the EIR in assistance with our community development and planning staff,

[2:24:15] and that is working through its process, and we should have some news to share very shortly

[2:24:21] about what the next step is, and then eventually that will be that scope meeting.

[2:24:25] Okay. Thank you very much, Jason. I want to thank each and every one of you for coming

[2:24:31] here and speaking to us tonight. I know it's been a long meeting, but I've asked you

[2:24:35] if you could please bear with me. We only have a couple little things and then we're ending

[2:24:39] with a tribute tonight to a very special prayer resident. So I hope you can stay for that.

[2:24:46] Are there any city manager or city attorney announcements?

[2:24:50] None.

[2:24:52] Okay. Any council requests or announcements?

[2:24:57] No, okay. At this time my colleagues and I would like to close tonight's meeting in

[2:25:02] honor of Miko Downey, longtime Brea resident and senior center volunteer who sadly passed

[2:25:09] away last week. Miko was 92 years young and when I say 92 years young she was a young soul.

[2:25:16] She lived in Brea the past 24 years, she volunteered at the Brea Senior Center for 15 years where she served as the Center's nutrition program site council member.

[2:25:27] She was also a regular writer of the senior center shuttle and relied on it for the past decade to ensure she could stay connected to her many friends at the center.

[2:25:36] We ask that you keep her loved ones and your thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.

[2:25:41] With that, I would like to adjourn, I'll get to you, Marty.

[2:25:45] I would like to adjourn our meeting in appreciation of Mico and her long dedication to our community.

[2:25:51] And I know Marty wants to say a few words because he had quite the relationship with her.

[2:25:57] From the very beginning when I started going to visit the senior center,

[2:26:01] Mico was one of those individuals that would seek me out.

[2:26:05] If you ever needed a hug, Mico was the person to go see.

[2:26:08] even when she was in her walker and she needed help standing up she would make

[2:26:12] sure she was able to stand up, give that hug and she didn't want to let go.

[2:26:17] You know, Miko was one of those individuals that would remember things I can

[2:26:20] remember. I had my granddaughter when she was just a baby at one of the country

[2:26:25] fairs and Miko was there and took a picture with me and her and Miko kept that

[2:26:29] picture and she would show me that picture every now and then when I would go

[2:26:33] in. So she would remember and I would tell her how old my granddaughter is now

[2:26:37] and she would just be amazed.

[2:26:39] Miko was special and I know that she's going to be missed by anybody and

[2:26:44] everybody that ever had an opportunity to talk to her for at least two or three minutes.

[2:26:50] You couldn't help but fall in love with this lady.

[2:26:52] All right, so I agree with you.

[2:26:54] Yeah, you're right.

[2:26:55] She was really special.

[2:26:57] Okay, thank you for staying and with that, this meeting is adjourned.

[2:27:01] Steve.

[2:27:02] See you.

August 18, 2026 Brea City Council Meeting

Transcript