[0:00]

[0:05]

[0:06]

[0:11]

[0:15]

[0:22]

[0:28]

[0:34]

[0:41]

[1:11]

[1:14]

[1:17]

[1:35]

[1:50]

[1:56]

[2:05]

[2:08]

[2:13]

[2:18]

[2:19]

[2:22]

[2:39]

[3:05]

[3:28]

[3:48]

[4:08]

[4:27]

[4:50]

[5:12]

[5:32]

[5:59]

[6:27]

[6:51] it's 6:03, and I hope you all had a nice break.

[6:55] and we're going to continue where we left off.

[6:58] apparently, there are not a ton more questions.

[7:02] so for those of you who are wondering when are we going to get to the real stuff, not

[7:07] that this isn't.

[7:09] you know, the speakers are not going to go on until 10 o'clock tonight.

[7:13] so, and then we will move into the meat and potatoes of this and questions and

[7:19] answers of both staff and the applicant.

[7:24] and then after that, we will go into council/agency deliberations.

[7:31] and we have a whole city council meeting agenda thereafter, no matter what happens.

[7:38] so we'll be around.

[7:42] so with that, I'm going to continue the meeting and go back to joshua and ask who our

[7:47] next speaker is.

[7:52] thank you, mr.

[7:52] mayor.

[7:53] the next speaker is marcella lawson, and the one after that is cynthia marquez.

[8:01] thank you very much.

[8:03] my name is marcella lawson, and I'm a homeowner in laguna hills.

[8:07] I'm strongly in favor of the revised development agreement for the village at laguna

[8:11] hills, and I urge the council to vote yes today.

[8:15] like others who've spoken today, I'm glad to see the 200-unit standalone building

[8:19] that will provide affordable housing.

[8:22] the revised agreement places the building in a favorable location next to the transit

[8:26] hub, and most importantly,

[8:28] that it will be built in the first phase of the project.

[8:31] these are all positives.

[8:32] thank you for that.

[8:34] I am, however, disappointed that the current plan is for all of the 200 units to be

[8:39] for seniors.

[8:41] I volunteer every week at the food pantry at families forward,

[8:45] and I see both seniors and families who are housing insecure and struggle to afford

[8:50] basic needs like food,

[8:53] clothing, and school supplies. In addition to seniors, there's a high need for

[8:57] affordable housing for our families, and I encourage the council to locate

[9:02] more options as soon as possible for these families who need secure and affordable

[9:06] housing.

[9:08] but most importantly, at this moment, I encourage you to move forward on this project

[9:12] immediately so that the developer will be in a position

[9:15] to acquire the necessary financing for the affordable housing building in this

[9:18] project.

[9:20] and like many other residents who said, we want to get that empty space gone and get

[9:24] this beautiful project moving forward.

[9:28] so thank you for your work, and no more delays.

[9:33] any questions?

[9:36] all right.

[9:37] I'm going to add a clarification just for you, and

[9:42] that is, hopefully, workforce housing and other larger projects in terms of size of

[9:48] family will be in the future.

[9:53] and I just wanted to kind of comment back to you.

[9:56] we're not really supposed to do that, but since there's a number of you here, your

[10:01] voice is not lost on that.

[10:03] thank you.

[10:04] thank you.

[10:06] okay, next.

[10:08] cynthia marquez, and next will be heidi prescott.

[10:15] hello.

[10:15] okay, cool.

[10:17] hello, good evening.

[10:18] my name is cynthia m., and I am staff at the kennedy commission,

[10:21] a broad-based coalition of community members advocating to create strong housing

[10:24] policies that increase opportunities for housing stability for those who call orange

[10:28] county

[10:29] their home.

[10:30] the redevelopment of the old laguna hills mall into the village at laguna hills is an

[10:34] incredible and rare opportunity to transform an underused

[10:38] site into a mixed-use development that will bring in a new sense of community, the

[10:41] type of community that laguna hills is known for.

[10:45] as housing costs continue to rise with no predictable end in sight,

[10:49] this project will allow the city to meet the moment by expanding housing options

[10:53] while fostering economic and community growth.

[10:57] that is why the commission urges the council to vote yes and approve the revised

[11:01] development agreement for the village at laguna hills.

[11:06] everybody's favorite topic, rhna: according to the city's regional housing needs

[11:10] allocation,

[11:12] laguna hills must accommodate 568 very low-income units and 353 low-income units.

[11:19] to date, the city has permitted only 12 very low-income units and two low-income

[11:25] units,

[11:27] leaving a housing gap of 556 very low-income units and a housing gap of 351

[11:31] low-income units.

[11:36] in total, that is a combined deficit of 907 low- and very low-income units.

[11:44] with approving this project, that's a big chunk, as another commenter has mentioned.

[11:51] given the substantial unmet need, this new revised proposal to provide 200 affordable

[11:55] homes

[11:57] for households is a more meaningful response to the city's housing obligations than

[12:01] the original proposal.

[12:03] the city's greatest unmet need is clearly among this income category.

[12:07] for these reasons, the new revised affordability proposal is more closely aligned

[12:11] with the city's documented housing needs and represents a stronger contribution toward

[12:16] addressing laguna hills' existing shortage of affordable housing.

[12:20] I understand there was a comment in the previous

[12:24] comment, so I still want to highlight that, lastly, while the commission recognizes

[12:28] the importance of senior housing, we urge the city to prioritize

[12:33] future projects for affordable workforce housing because a thriving city also depends

[12:37] on diverse housing options for working individuals and families, as a community

[12:42] with hotels, medical facilities, schools, public safety services, laguna hills relies

[12:46] on a diverse workforce every day.

[12:49] this site could have been an opportunity for the residents who belong in laguna hills,

[12:52] where they don't need to commute from other cities

[12:55] and can instead live in the community that they help sustain every day.

[12:59] but I do want to echo that no more

[13:05] no more changes.

[13:06] this is a great project on its own, already what has been done so far.

[13:12] so the commission urges the council to vote yes on this rare and great opportunity.

[13:18] thank you.

[13:20] any questions?

[13:23] thank you very much.

[13:24] okay.

[13:28] heidi prescott, and next will be william derentz.

[13:32] welcome.

[13:33] hello, council.

[13:36] to my laguna hills neighbors, you're all my neighbors.

[13:40] I've lived in laguna hills for 30 years.

[13:44] so I'm just going to quickly, because you already did this in your presentation,

[13:47] council member mathis,

[13:50] but 13 years, so the timeline, by the way, you all

[13:54] know I'm in favor of this project already because I've spoken about this before.

[13:58] but 2009, we had a general plan put together with a land use element.

[14:04] it was presented and approved.

[14:08] 2013, merlone geier bought the property.

[14:12] and at that time, our tax base was decreasing significantly.

[14:16] right, because of retail.

[14:19] 2014, the sears store closed.

[14:22] 2016, we had the five lagunas development plan that was approved.

[14:26] we actually had a ceremony with shovels in the ground.

[14:30] it's probably on the internet somewhere.

[14:31] I didn't actually look for that today when I was doing all my history here.

[14:36] three years later, in 2019, we had a revised plan, but the retail environment changed.

[14:42] so then we went to 2020, and we had a pandemic.

[14:50] so in 2022, we had another revised plan.

[14:53] it went from the five lagunas to the village at laguna hills.

[14:56] the council approved it.

[14:57] three years later, in 2025, we had a revised plan presented to the public.

[15:02] nine months after that, here we are.

[15:06] so for 13 years, this is what we've been going through as a community.

[15:12] so they have revised their plan with great input from the community and all of the

[15:17] council.

[15:18] I've been to some of those meetings and the presentations by the developer.

[15:25] I love this plan at the end of the day.

[15:27] so the last thing I would like to say is we've got affordable.

[15:32] they listened.

[15:33] thank you for listening.

[15:35] uh...

[15:35] that isn't always the case, uh...

[15:38] we, uh...

[15:40] it appears that they have the affordable housing, uh...

[15:44] builder who's going to need financing, so let's do it, let's vote on it, and so they

[15:49] can move, uh...

[15:51] forward with their plan, uh...

[15:53] regarding the ad hoc committee on an ongoing basis that was brought up tonight, I

[15:56] would just encourage you to think about adding a third

[15:59] member because we have a council, uh...

[16:02] uh...

[16:04] election coming up, right, so three of you are going to be done with your terms, so I

[16:11] know the two of you

[16:13] aren't, and you're the ad hoc council. But I think a third person added to that ad

[16:17] hoc council who's there, who's learning and involved

[16:21] might be a good idea, and then I just want to say to all the other city council

[16:27] members over the years that

[16:31] a big thank you because a lot of people worked on this.

[16:33] we've had four voting cycles in 13 years.

[16:38] and the last thing I'd like to say is thank you to the developer again for listening

[16:44] to community input,

[16:47] to the concerns of the council.

[16:48] thank you to the council members for all of your hard work and efforts.

[16:53] and thank you to the city staff.

[16:55] this has been a long time coming, so I'll wait for the vote and pop the champagne.

[17:01] any questions for heidi?

[17:03] dave?

[17:04] I was going to give you the opportunity.

[17:06] there cannot be a third member because you can't have any committee that has a

[17:09] majority of the council.

[17:11] it's against the law.

[17:12] yeah, yeah, yeah.

[17:14] okay.

[17:14] all right.

[17:15] so it was a great idea, but it's not going to apply.

[17:18] actually, I was going to do the same thing dave did.

[17:21] I was going to clarify that for you.

[17:23] well, I appreciate it.

[17:24] the only way you could do that would be to have somebody from the public as a third

[17:26] member.

[17:28] but the brown act will not allow three members of the council to be part of that.

[17:32] thank you.

[17:33] and I would just add that this is a process of learning, right, for all of us.

[17:38] we don't know all the laws and the rules.

[17:41] and just being involved in this project has helped me get there.

[17:46] but since you brought it up, mayor caskey, I think there are some opportunities in the

[17:51] city

[17:52] for volunteers.

[17:54] absolutely.

[17:55] I intend to write about that very soon.

[17:57] you could have a third member as a community member.

[18:00] oh, absolutely.

[18:01] thank you.

[18:01] thank you for that.

[18:04] next.

[18:05] william derentz, and next will be kendall carter.

[18:12] welcome.

[18:13] well, thank you.

[18:14] good morning.

[18:17] good evening, mr.

[18:19] mayor and city council members.

[18:22] my name is william derentz.

[18:23] I'm the founder and president of pumpkin city's pumpkin farm and christmas trees.

[18:30] pumpkin city's pumpkin farm was founded in 1978, and this coming october will be 48

[18:35] years in the business.

[18:38] of those 48 years, 38 years have been at the laguna hills mall.

[18:43] the point being made is the fact that pumpkin city has a long-term connection with

[18:47] the residents of laguna hills.

[18:50] our goal at pumpkin city has always been to provide the families of laguna hills and

[18:55] surrounding cities of saddleback valley with wholesome family

[18:59] entertainment.

[19:00] our motto is making memories one season at a time.

[19:04] for the past 13 years, we've had the privilege of working with merlone geier property

[19:07] management.

[19:09] they are a first-class organization.

[19:11] they say what they'll do, and they do what they say.

[19:14] I'm excited to see the property reimagined for generations to come.

[19:19] the laguna hills mall used to be the main hub of shopping, dining, and entertainment

[19:24] for families from san clemente to irvine,

[19:27] from laguna beach to rancho santa margarita, composing

[19:33] encompassing all of saddleback valley and more.

[19:37] the time has come to revitalize the city of laguna hills.

[19:40] the time is now to bring the same vibrancy that it once had in the past to the

[19:44] community today.

[19:46] I encourage the city to move forward and approve the redesigned property proposal to

[19:52] meet the needs of the community of laguna hills.

[19:57] thank you very much.

[19:58] any questions?

[20:00] hearing none, thank you so much.

[20:03] and we value pumpkin city and all that you've done.

[20:10] we have kendall carter, and next will be rose casey.

[20:17] good evening, mayor caskey and members of the laguna hills city council.

[20:21] my name is kendall carter, and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the south orange

[20:25] county economic coalition in support of the village at laguna

[20:29] hills project.

[20:30] first, I want to thank the mayor, city council, and city staff,

[20:34] and everyone who's played a role in advancing this project over the years.

[20:38] redeveloping a site of this size and importance takes vision, collaboration, and

[20:42] perseverance.

[20:43] we appreciate the council's past approvals and your continued commitment to moving

[20:47] this transformative project forward.

[20:50] socec has proudly supported the redevelopment of the laguna hills mall site for many

[20:54] years because we believe it represents one of the most

[20:58] significant economic development opportunities in south orange county.

[21:02] for too long, this property has remained underutilized in one of the region's most

[21:05] prominent commercial corridors.

[21:07] tonight represents an exciting milestone as we move closer to transforming it into a

[21:11] vibrant mixed-use destination that reflects the way people want to live,

[21:16] work, shop, dine, and gather today.

[21:19] the village at laguna hills will create new jobs, generate long-term economic

[21:23] activity and tax revenue, provide much-needed housing, and introduce new restaurants,

[21:27] retail,

[21:28] entertainment, you name it, public spaces that will benefit residents throughout the

[21:32] region.

[21:34] just as importantly, it breathes new life into a landmark property that has been an

[21:38] important part of the laguna hills community for decades.

[21:42] we also appreciate merlone geier partners for their continued investment in this

[21:45] vision and their willingness to refine the project throughout the planning process.

[21:50] it's been a long one.

[21:51] their commitment, together with the city's leadership, has helped shape a project

[21:55] that balances economic opportunity with thoughtful community planning.

[22:00] on behalf of the south orange county economic coalition, thank you for your

[22:03] leadership, your partnership throughout this process,

[22:06] and your continued support of this important investment in laguna hills.

[22:10] we respectfully encourage your approval tonight.

[22:13] thank you.

[22:14] thank you.

[22:14] do you have any questions?

[22:16] erica, go ahead.

[22:17] yes.

[22:18] thank you, ms.

[22:19] carter, for being present at this meeting.

[22:25] south orange county economic coalition was very active in the last meeting with a

[22:30] number of your group who provided wholehearted support to the project

[22:35] prior.

[22:37] so just out of curiosity, what makes this project better?

[22:43] because as I recall, a number of people were extremely invigorated and provided a lot

[22:49] of positive feedback regarding the last project.

[22:53] yeah, we've been working on this since its inception.

[22:56] I believe it was 2013.

[22:58] it's been a long time.

[23:00] we've been in support throughout the entire process.

[23:03] it just keeps getting better, to be honest.

[23:05] we've been seeing more community

[23:08] community input, your guys' input, the ad hoc committee. We truly believe it's just

[23:12] been getting better, and we've been supportive regardless. We think

[23:17] it's time, it's been time to do something with this property, and we really like what

[23:21] we're seeing. We've been liking what we're

[23:24] seeing. So is there a situation where you wouldn't?

[23:28] where you would oppose this project, your group?

[23:33] there's probably many situations.

[23:35] we're just not in one of those.

[23:36] okay.

[23:37] thank you.

[23:38] thank you.

[23:40] any other questions?

[23:42] okay.

[23:42] thank you very much.

[23:43] thank you.

[23:45] next.

[23:47] we have rose casey, and the next will be griffin joseph.

[23:51] welcome.

[23:52] good evening, mayor caskey, mayor pro tem mathis, and council members.

[23:55] I'm rose casey, executive director of planning, and here to speak on behalf of the

[23:59] orange county transportation authority, or octa,

[24:02] regarding the village at laguna hills development and the critical continued

[24:05] coordination needed with the I-5 el toro project.

[24:09] this was also communicated via letter from the octa board chairman federico to the

[24:12] city council yesterday.

[24:15] the I-5 el toro road interchange project is a committed measure m2 freeway project in

[24:19] the transportation investment plan that was approved by the voters

[24:24] and was identified as one of the highest priorities for the three cities of laguna

[24:28] hills, laguna woods,

[24:29] and lake forest during the development of measure m2, and that shared commitment has

[24:33] guided this effort for well over a decade.

[24:35] octa has worked collaboratively with the three cities and caltrans to advance this

[24:39] project.

[24:41] in march of 2022,

[24:43] two build alternatives received unanimous support from the staff of all three cities,

[24:46] including laguna hills, to move forward to the environmental process,

[24:50] which restarted in january of 2023.

[24:53] since that time, octa has facilitated productive discussions among all partner

[24:57] agencies to achieve consensus on this project that will bring congestion relief and

[25:02] improve

[25:04] traffic circulation to the area.

[25:06] we are working to keep the project on track for a preferred alternative decision by

[25:10] the end of 2026,

[25:13] and completion of the environmental document in early 2027.

[25:15] the coordinated planning of projects between the city and octa has aimed for the

[25:20] greatest public benefit and good stewardship of taxpayer dollars while

[25:25] minimizing impacts on private parties.

[25:28] we ask that any development agreement approved by the city protect the zoning of

[25:32] areas that have been the subject of years of planning

[25:35] between octa and the city for the I-5 el toro project.

[25:39] anything short of this protection could result in significant and costly impacts to

[25:44] taxpayers and/or further congestion in the area.

[25:47] octa is aware of the importance of the village at laguna hills project to the city

[25:52] and believes that the I-5 el toro project

[25:55] supports the development by improving traffic circulation in the immediate area.

[25:59] to support both of these important priorities and ensure the greatest benefit to

[26:03] taxpayers and all stakeholders,

[26:06] octa requests that the updated site plan include surface parking and/or landscaping

[26:11] along avenida de la carlota in the vicinity of the I-5

[26:15] el toro project, along with adequate setbacks.

[26:18] in addition, octa requests that the development agreement include provisions that

[26:21] commit the developer accordingly,

[26:23] including within section 12.4 of the proposed development agreement.

[26:27] so in summary, octa respectfully requests that the city council direct city staff to

[26:31] work with octa on an expeditious resolution that meets all

[26:35] parties' goals, supports both projects to move forward successfully, and that these

[26:39] are reflected in the village at laguna hills entitlement.

[26:43] so thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

[26:46] hang on.

[26:47] dave, you had a question?

[26:49] yes, I have quite a few questions, actually.

[26:54] are you going to be able to stick around for the rest of the meeting?

[26:58] I can be available, yes.

[27:00] okay, I think it's probably a good idea.

[27:04] you said that all cities approve this design.

[27:07] that's not true.

[27:08] I've been opposed to this design that they've dumped in for years, and we haven't

[27:11] approved that.

[27:12] and I've talked with people in lake forest, and there's some over there that don't

[27:15] approve it either.

[27:16] so I don't know where you got the idea that all the cities approve this.

[27:20] councilmember wheeler, octa has been working with caltrans and the staff from the

[27:25] three cities for many years.

[27:28] we've looked at a total of 22 alternatives.

[27:31] finally, in 2023 or 2022, we came to an agreement with staff

[27:38] from the cities on two alternatives.

[27:40] so one was a flyover design that went into lake forest, and the other one is on the

[27:44] laguna hills side.

[27:46] okay, yes.

[27:48] and so where we are now with the project is that it's in the environmental phase.

[27:53] we have a preliminary design that's been developed by caltrans,

[27:56] and they are working to minimize impacts from that alternative on the laguna hills

[28:00] side and bring it in closer to the freeway.

[28:04] this particular design that you say has been approved, which I contend it has not,

[28:09] it destroys one of our major—well, I'm saying major—one of our little shopping areas.

[28:13] it cuts into the hotel that merlone geier is trying to get built.

[28:18] it would destroy it.

[28:19] so how are these things going to impact each other?

[28:23] I mean, I can't see these two meshing.

[28:26] councilmember, we are working with city staff to minimize the impacts of the I-5 el

[28:31] toro project design, but at the same time,

[28:35] it will provide traffic benefits to the area.

[28:37] so there is that coordinated effort to have both projects move forward successfully.

[28:44] well, our chief director has opposed this design.

[28:50] he's presented to you guys with a design that would be much simpler.

[28:52] it would save the county millions of dollars.

[28:56] it meets it all with a few simple fixes in laguna hills,

[28:59] but you guys haven't even considered that. Councilmember wheeler, we have looked at

[29:04] that. We would look at the signage that's been

[29:07] proposed. We have tsm, or transportation system management,

[29:11] transportation demand management, sort of lower-cost improvements that could be

[29:15] folded in with a build alternative.

[29:19] but after years of doing traffic analysis, and we've had consultants retained by

[29:24] caltrans to look at all of this,

[29:27] there is traffic benefit that could be provided to the area if the build alternative

[29:31] moves forward.

[29:33] okay.

[29:33] we'll have to talk a lot about this.

[29:35] I don't think there's any benefits to it at all.

[29:39] if caltrans did get authority to build this, when would you start?

[29:45] councilmember wheeler, this project is in octa's next 10 delivery plan for

[29:50] environmental work to be completed by 2030.

[29:54] if we are able to reach a preferred alternative that all cities support, and that

[29:58] really is important,

[30:00] we would then be able to move forward into design and then construction.

[30:03] so design might take a few years.

[30:06] construction could then take maybe three to four years.

[30:09] so post the environmental document being approved, and right now the target is early

[30:15] 2027, we could reach construction within seven to eight years.

[30:22] seven to eight years from now.

[30:23] I'm sorry.

[30:24] let me correct myself.

[30:25] we could complete construction in seven to eight years.

[30:29] so you're saying we need to wait eight years to decide whether you can actually get

[30:31] it built,

[30:32] and it's going to take two or three years to design it.

[30:34] well, my understanding is that merlone geier is trying to complete this hotel before

[30:37] the olympics, which is in '28.

[30:40] so how can the—if I was a hotel buyer, I'd say, hey, what are you going to do?

[30:45] I'm going to build my hotel, and you're going to run a freeway through it?

[30:49] those don't seem to coordinate.

[30:51] so may we please stick around?

[30:51] I'm sure there will be more discussions on this.

[30:53] thank you.

[30:54] okay, thank you.

[30:56] erica.

[30:57] yes, thank you for attending.

[31:02] so from what I understand, the octa future plan cuts into the hotel that's in this

[31:09] design.

[31:11] that is correct.

[31:12] okay.

[31:14] have you worked with the applicant regarding this plan, and have you advised the city

[31:19] about this plan?

[31:22] councilmember, the city staff has been advised of the plan. We have been working

[31:27] through city staff, who has been working with the developer.

[31:31] okay, so the developer is aware, and so the developer was aware of this plan; city

[31:37] staff are aware.

[31:39] I'm sure the ad hoc committee was perhaps aware of this. Okay, that's above my

[31:49] apologies, and

[31:53] okay.

[31:55] so can you let me know approximately how long this plan has been in play?

[32:04] so the current environmental phase of the project began in january of 2023.

[32:10] january 2023?

[32:12] correct.

[32:13] okay.

[32:13] that's when the environmental phase work began, which means that preliminary designs

[32:17] are developed,

[32:19] environmental technical studies are performed with respect to noise and visual

[32:23] impacts and so forth, and traffic impacts in particular.

[32:27] and so that work has been going on.

[32:30] at this point, the project team is preparing to release a draft environmental

[32:34] document for public review at the end of this month.

[32:38] and then to proceed with achieving a project decision by the end of the year. Okay,

[32:44] so you've known about this plan since 2023. Thank you. Okay,

[32:55] I have a couple questions, clarifications. Because I read the letter that you sent,

[33:01] and just what you said in front of us, I

[33:04] I have been on this council for five years, and

[33:07] I was appointed five years ago as a councilperson, taking the spot of someone who had

[33:14] left.

[33:16] and one of the first things, as an architect and a planner, one of the first things

[33:20] that I was curious about,

[33:23] having worked for octa with my firm probably 20 years ago on projects, was, okay,

[33:31] what's happening out there at the freeway at this junction?

[33:35] so I reached out to octa as a newly appointed councilperson and asked for a meeting,

[33:41] which was very cordial.

[33:43] it was wonderful.

[33:44] I had a meeting, and actually I was shown at that meeting, this was probably four and

[33:50] a half years ago, four different plans.

[33:54] one was a flyover to the lake forest side, along with a traffic circle and all that.

[34:02] one was something similar to what I've seen just recently, and a couple of others

[34:07] where they were threaded, and you name it.

[34:11] so I asked people to keep me informed.

[34:15] you know how many meetings or phone calls or anything I've gotten since then?

[34:20] zero from octa.

[34:23] zero.

[34:24] and I reached out to you and asked to be updated and all the rest of that.

[34:31] so it bothers me a little bit that in your letter you're saying, oh, we've all

[34:36] concurred and, you know,

[34:38] all that kind of stuff.

[34:39] so I'm also here to tell you, as a member of the ad hoc committee, that the ad hoc

[34:44] committee itself,

[34:46] working on a $700 million project for three years, okay, and that's just officially

[34:53] for, you know, for a year and a half.

[34:58] I've been working on it for three years.

[35:03] we haven't received anything until maybe we got a little bit of a hint of this about

[35:08] two, two and a half months ago,

[35:11] that you'd abandoned the idea that you had so strongly proposed that was all on the

[35:19] lake forest side, and now you

[35:22] wanted to go with this. Then I looked, as somebody who's been in the design business

[35:27] for a long time.

[35:28] I looked at the schedule, and

[35:30] that came along with that.

[35:32] it was your powerpoint.

[35:34] and it talked about, oh, we're going to take this to the public to explain what we

[35:39] want to do.

[35:41] and in the meantime, we're going to start a ceqa process, which takes, for something

[35:44] like that, about a year.

[35:47] and so I've been in that, and I've done all of that.

[35:52] and I'm hearing right now, we're talking about that we're supposed to hold up our

[35:58] project in some way for potentially seven years,

[36:04] when one of the key components of that was meant to be a hotel that was going to open

[36:09] up before the '28 olympics.

[36:13] so I just want to make sure I'm asking questions.

[36:17] am I getting all this straight, that you've collaborated with staff?

[36:24] who on the staff?

[36:26] and in what level of collaboration?

[36:30] so, mayor caskey, if I may, this project has spanned years, and the reason it spanned

[36:35] years is because this is a local interchange

[36:40] traffic improvement project.

[36:41] so it's not adding lanes to a freeway.

[36:45] it's not all the other projects that octa has proceeded with.

[36:49] it's a project that the local cities and the communities need to support.

[36:55] we have taken the time to develop many different alternatives,

[36:59] and the two that you mentioned are the ones that have been considered for the past

[37:03] two to three years,

[37:04] so the flyover and then the current alternative on the laguna hills side.

[37:09] so reaching way back in time, there was coordination with ken rosenfield, who was

[37:13] with the city for many years, and then after that, it was

[37:17] also with mr.

[37:19] ames and mr.

[37:20] hildenbrand, and then more recently with

[37:24] mr.

[37:25] wingenroth, and also with mr.

[37:27] ames. All right, that was after the latest decision was made with wingenroth. Had he

[37:31] heard anything? Of course, it wasn't years and years since

[37:36] he hasn't been here a year yet, so okay, so that answers my questions. You did know

[37:42] some of the

[37:43] some of the names.

[37:44] we will definitely dig in with staff and see what level of collaboration there was,

[37:50] because I would think the same staff that was working with the ad hoc committee on

[37:55] this, I mean,

[37:56] a year ago would have been telling us, oh my gosh, we've got this.

[38:00] and as a member of that ad hoc committee working very hard, I hadn't heard anything.

[38:07] so I appreciate your presentation and candor in answering our questions.

[38:14] mayor caskey, if I could add just very briefly, the cities have been at different

[38:18] levels.

[38:19] so we have what's called a project team meeting.

[38:23] that's maybe public works-type staff at those meetings.

[38:26] we've had executive-level meetings, and actually since february of last year, we've

[38:30] had 14 executive-level meetings, including our ceo, darrell johnson.

[38:35] with laguna hills?

[38:37] correct, and with the two other cities.

[38:39] with laguna, you have 14 meetings.

[38:40] yes.

[38:41] and just if I could just clarify on the schedule,

[38:43] because I think it needs some clarification maybe with the way that I tried to answer

[38:47] the question.

[38:48] so right now we're in the environmental phase.

[38:51] we hope to reach the end of that phase early next year.

[38:56] at that point in time, then would be the decision on whether to proceed with design,

[39:01] which also includes right-of-way acquisition,

[39:04] and then into construction.

[39:05] so when I mentioned the seven to eight years earlier, that was with the completion of

[39:09] construction and opening of the project.

[39:12] yeah, no, I understand that.

[39:14] yeah, so we will check it out on this side.

[39:18] uh...

[39:19] and, uh...

[39:20] and I just want you to realize, as you know, this kind of goes back, that this will

[39:26] be one

[39:27] time, basically, up here at the podium, that we will do that, and, uh...

[39:32] but what the letter actually asks is that we cooperate together and try to find

[39:38] solutions that work for both. We have a six,

[39:42] seven hundred million dollar project on this side

[39:45] that has been in the works for quite a while, as we all know, and you have a, what is

[39:52] it, a

[39:53] $200 or $300 million off-ramp and on-ramp project that you would like to float,

[39:59] and hopefully we can find a solution that works for us both.

[40:05] so any other questions?

[40:06] yes, erica.

[40:08] so a question that I have is: the plan is already determined and decided.

[40:13] if the land would...

[40:16] it would go under eminent domain, is that correct?

[40:22] councilmember, if there is an alternative that is approved by all parties, and that's

[40:27] what's reflected in the final environmental document,

[40:31] that would then be designed, and then based upon that final design, there would be

[40:35] properties identified for acquisition, whether it's partial or full.

[40:40] this is in general.

[40:43] I think in all cases, we would seek to reach an agreement, an arm's-length

[40:48] transaction, and avoid condemnation or eminent domain actions.

[40:53] that's really our goal in some cases.

[40:56] in order to maintain project schedule, we do need to look at eminent domain.

[41:02] in the event that eminent domain is required, would a property such as a hotel have

[41:09] higher land value versus...

[41:13] another commercial property?

[41:17] I am not a real estate expert, but what we provided in the letter as far as potential

[41:24] alternate uses of the particular area

[41:28] along carlota, as far as landscaping or surface parking,

[41:32] I would imagine that that would be less cost than a hotel structure or other types of

[41:38] buildings on the property.

[41:43] okay, thank you.

[41:45] dave, you mentioned something that said if all parties agree.

[41:51] well, I don't know that laguna hills would agree to that.

[41:54] so if we do not agree, what happens?

[41:56] then you have an eminent domain over top of us?

[42:00] no, so councilmember wheeler, we would not proceed forward unless there is a

[42:05] consensus among the cities. At such time that there's that decision

[42:11] to be made, which will be by the end of the year, on a build alternative, octa would

[42:17] have to decide at that time

[42:19] if we move forward with the project or we don't.

[42:22] it's a local traffic improvement, a local benefit. We would want to make

[42:27] sure that that is supported, and

[42:31] that's a little bit out of the scope.

[42:32] we may want to add to our thinking tonight about denying this project so we can be

[42:36] done with it and go on with our

[42:38] project.

[42:42] thank you for your comments.

[42:44] I don't see any other questions.

[42:47] thank you.

[42:48] yeah.

[42:51] all right.

[42:52] next.

[42:53] we have griffin joseph, and then next will be cathy udovch.

[43:00] welcome.

[43:02] good evening, mayor and honorable council members.

[43:05] my name is griffin joseph, and I'm here on behalf of unite here local 11, a

[43:08] union representing over 25,000 hospitality workers across southern california,

[43:12] including residents of laguna hills.

[43:16] as we stated in april of last year, we are concerned that the reduction in housing

[43:19] units may not align with the city's housing

[43:21] goals.

[43:22] the city's own findings show total residential units dropping from the maximum of 1,

[43:26] 500 in the original project to as low as 1,457 in the amended

[43:30] project.

[43:31] that reduction masks a more significant shift.

[43:34] the amended project would remove hundreds of market-rate rental units, replacing much

[43:37] of that rental housing with 356 for-sale units.

[43:41] critically, none of these replacement ownership units are affordable.

[43:44] in short, fewer units overall, no affordable ownership opportunities, and a shift

[43:47] away from rental housing.

[43:49] additionally, the post-segregation of the 200 affordable housing units into a

[43:52] standalone site raises questions about whether this may be inconsistent with the

[43:56] city's

[43:57] policies promoting mixed-income housing.

[43:59] the original plan had these units spread across the development, fostering a more

[44:03] integral community.

[44:05] relatedly, while we strongly support senior housing and want to see more of it, the

[44:08] city is missing an opportunity by restricting all the affordable units in the

[44:11] development to seniors.

[44:14] this restriction is unnecessary even on its own terms.

[44:16] because these units are already income-restricted,

[44:19] low-income seniors, including retirees living on social security, would already

[44:22] qualify for and have access to this housing without an additional age restriction.

[44:27] layering the age restriction

[44:29] on top of income restriction does not add protection for seniors.

[44:32] it simply excludes working-age people who are equally in need.

[44:35] people of all ages are in desperate need of affordable housing.

[44:38] finally, we question the need for a second hotel.

[44:41] that land could be used for additional housing.

[44:43] additionally, the previous development agreement only allowed for a single one-year

[44:46] delay for the first hotel.

[44:48] it did not allow the first hotel to be delayed indefinitely through the successive

[44:51] 18-month feasibility study extensions.

[44:54] why should we believe a second hotel will ever actually be built?

[44:57] taken together, there are fewer units, no new affordability, segregated rather than

[45:01] integrated affordable housing, and a hotel addition that may never materialize.

[45:06] this project moves the city further from its housing goals, not closer to them.

[45:09] we respectfully urge you to vote no on this project.

[45:12] thank you.

[45:13] thank you.

[45:14] any questions?

[45:16] thank you very much.

[45:17] thank you very much.

[45:21] next is cathy udovch, and then that will be the end of in-person speakers that I have

[45:24] currently.

[45:25] all right.

[45:26] last person.

[45:28] in the audience.

[45:29] we have one online.

[45:30] okay.

[45:32] welcome.

[45:33] of course.

[45:38] just tell people to ignore the invisible, or the visible, v in my name.

[45:42] hi, I'm cathy.

[45:45] thank you for hearing this.

[45:47] it sounds like you guys have been sitting here for a long time.

[45:49] took a little break.

[45:52] I'm here to talk about the housing project, and I do just want to encourage you and...

[46:02] the developers to continue to keep in mind low- and very low-income housing for

[46:06] families as well,

[46:11] keeping in mind that not just rentals, but for purchase would be really nice.

[46:17] and it's more or less just giving people the chance to live near where they work.

[46:21] and I'm just going to say that I am now an example of someone who now works in the

[46:25] city I live in because

[46:27] I just transferred from an office in san clemente

[46:29] to the laguna hills office, and I get a surface-street commute, and it's awesome.

[46:35] and it's just, you know, when it comes to affordability, less gas, less pollution in

[46:41] the air, better life-home balance.

[46:45] and so just want to, you know, keep that in mind.

[46:47] and, you know, people want to be near their kids, near their families, near their

[46:52] friends, and where they're working.

[46:55] so just keep that in mind as the project unfolds.

[46:58] progresses and goes from stage to stage, because it sounds like it's going to be

[47:03] segments over time, that we're not locked into any one

[47:08] mindset now, that we can adapt to what the needs are in the community. Okay, that's

[47:15] it.

[47:17] all right, any questions? Seeing none.

[47:21] thank you so much. Okay.

[47:26] and now we'll turn to what, online?

[47:31] or on phone?

[47:32] on phone, yes.

[47:35] by the last four digits, we have 3034.

[47:37] you'll be asked to unmute.

[47:41] hello, can I speak?

[47:43] yes, you can speak.

[47:44] you have three minutes.

[47:46] hello?

[47:48] hello?

[47:49] yes, can you hear us?

[47:49] welcome.

[48:03] hello.

[48:04] are you able to hear us?

[48:06] yes, I can hear you now.

[48:07] thank you very much.

[48:08] yes, you have three minutes.

[48:09] hello.

[48:09] good evening.

[48:11] thank you.

[48:11] thank you so much.

[48:12] good evening, mayor and honorable council members.

[48:14] this is charlie carno, and I'm here on behalf of unite here local 11, a union

[48:18] representing over 25,000 workers across southern california,

[48:22] including residents of laguna hills.

[48:24] to speak plainly, we urge a no vote on this project.

[48:27] these changes mean fewer overall units,

[48:30] no new affordable units, segregated rather than integrated affordable housing, and a

[48:34] hotel addition that may never materialize. We believe this project moves

[48:38] the city further from its housing goals than the previous project, rather than closer

[48:43] to them. As we said, as I think I

[48:45] said in 2022 when I spoke on the original, on the previous proposal of this project,

[48:52] we believe this project could be a model for the region: environmentally friendly,

[48:56] walkable, equitable, bikeable, and a comfortable village.

[49:00] however, that's why I'm very disappointed that some of the comments we made all the

[49:04] way back then were apparently not heeded.

[49:08] we said that we thought that there could be more dedicated bike lanes on the site.

[49:14] but from what I can tell with the staff report, and please correct this, I would love

[49:17] to be wrong about this,

[49:19] but what we still have are class iii bike lanes

[49:22] which could be as little as painted arrows on the ground.

[49:25] additionally, in terms of landscaping, I see references to drought-resistant or

[49:29] water-efficient landscaping, but I think that we should use native plants.

[49:34] I would also say that we have a great resource in orange county, which is the orange

[49:37] county chapter of the native plant society,

[49:40] which can really help with advising us on what native plants to use on the site.

[49:46] and just to echo what cathy said,

[49:49] and what my colleagues said.

[49:51] we're concerned both about the reduction in housing and the move to ownership housing,

[49:57] which can be inaccessible.

[49:59] it would be great if we actually had affordable ownership opportunities that could

[50:04] allow working people to do, and I really congratulate you, cathy,

[50:09] own something and both work and live in the same community.

[50:16] secondly, as my colleague said, people of all ages are in desperate need of

[50:19] affordable housing in laguna hills,

[50:21] and one of the great benefits of affordable housing is that you can allow people to

[50:25] live closer to where they work and spend

[50:27] more time with their families.

[50:29] by restricting the development to seniors, the city is excluding some working people

[50:32] who often must commute long distances because they can't afford to live

[50:37] in south orange county because of their age, even though the income restriction alone

[50:40] would already ensure the housing serves low-income residents or very

[50:44] low-income residents.

[50:45] seniors included.

[50:46] this is the wrong approach.

[50:48] another major concern is the reduction in retail space, which could harm the city's

[50:52] tax base.

[50:54] and finally, while I understand that there has been some sort of letter submitted

[50:59] about who may be doing the hotel,

[51:02] I looked and I was unable to find public comment on this.

[51:05] I really did try to look before the meeting.

[51:09] I would just note that the previous development agreement only allowed a single

[51:12] one-year delay for the first hotel.

[51:14] speaker, that is your time.

[51:17] oh, thank you.

[51:17] thank you very much.

[51:18] bye.

[51:21] okay.

[51:22] thank you very much for your comments.

[51:25] do we have any other on-phone ones?

[51:29] we have no more online.

[51:30] okay.

[51:31] so that brings us to—you're going to read the list of—

[51:39] comments that we have received digitally, so we don't have to listen to 40 or 50

[51:46] comments.

[51:47] we're just reading the names because we have to. Yes.

[51:51] for the ones that are in support, we have amir baum, ann beltran, ann kolar, bruce

[51:57] johnson, cesar covarrubias, christine morinello, cindy ashley,

[52:03] denise letgers, elizabeth hansburg, erin simmons-schwartz, frieda gorelick, hugh and

[52:09] nancy winter, jay with the last initial c, jill martinez, joel goldstein, judy

[52:15] northrop,

[52:17] kathy esfahani, keith tuominen,

[52:21] marcella lawson, margaret struve, marilyn schroeder, mark allshouse, michelle antenesse,

[52:28] micki nozaki, reverend celia young, reverend rayna hamre, ron, no last name given,

[52:36] rona henry, rosemarie jensen, sayre weaver, sheryl sterry, stan goldberg, susan

[52:41] dearing, vicki hines, and wendy washington.

[52:47] two letters that were neutral: one from octa and one from the city of lake forest.

[52:54] in the opposed, we have angelica ramirez, daisy pascua, fiegan fazilat, geoff

[53:01] leavell, giselle hernandez, incia haider, james blacken, james grierson, lorene mann,

[53:10] lucila soria, ramades flores, stacey demore, and wes chavez.

[53:17] and those are the comments that we received by the cutoff at 4 p.m.

[53:20] all right.

[53:22] I'm going to, since people come and go and all the rest of that, I'm going to ask, is

[53:27] there any other public comment that we missed before we gavel close of the public

[53:34] hearing?

[53:35] it doesn't mean we can't reopen it, but I'm going to gavel that close so we can move

[53:40] on to questions about presentations themselves.

[53:44] any other comments?

[53:47] okay, seeing none, I'm going to gavel the close of the public hearing,

[53:54] and we are going to now move on to questions of the planning.

[54:02] these will be planning agency questions of staff, and the developer will start with

[54:07] staff.

[54:09] okay, dave?

[54:17] okay, a number of questions.

[54:19] mr.

[54:21] oros, could you bring up the presentation, staff presentation?

[54:25] could you bring up the staff presentation online so that people can see it?

[54:30] first, I want to preface my questions.

[54:33] I think it's totally inappropriate that we even are taking a vote tonight.

[54:37] I received this package yesterday, the final package on this project.

[54:43] not being on the ad hoc, we didn't get any access to it.

[54:46] and essentially also the front section of it was wrong, and I had to get a new one

[54:50] today, which is correct.

[54:54] I haven't had a chance to review that in any reasonable detail.

[54:57] so I think to present everything tonight is great, but we shouldn't be voting on it.

[55:02] we should be talking about it and discussing it.

[55:04] okay, questions with the package.

[55:10] I don't know what page it is.

[55:12] I received the economic evaluation on friday.

[55:17] and the laguna hills chief financial director, we went over that yesterday and put

[55:22] some numbers in it, and I compared the value.

[55:25] and the version that I got on friday does not match what was presented tonight.

[55:30] I'll get into that in the merlone geier section.

[55:33] and it's very, very optimistic.

[55:35] when I did my first quick calculations, instead of being, I think it was a

[55:38] $1.3 million positive,

[55:41] I came up with roughly a half-million-dollar negative.

[55:44] I did this evaluation four years ago.

[55:45] I was on the original ad hoc committee.

[55:48] and we had some discussions back then, too, about these very, very optimistic things.

[55:57] questions?

[55:58] somebody said in the presentation, why now?

[56:01] after 13 years?

[56:02] I wish the ad hoc committee had gone back a little further in history.

[56:04] we've been doing this, as one of the people that talked about mentioned.

[56:09] we've had I don't know how many versions of this.

[56:12] we're now supposed to evaluate this, given the information, and only available for

[56:16] one to three days.

[56:18] ridiculous.

[56:22] it said one of the cases is almost no new.

[56:28] most of this whole thing is brand new.

[56:29] the whole thing is different.

[56:33] it said in the presentation that there's now less than 210,000 square feet.

[56:40] I think the presentation said somewhere.

[56:42] I don't know if you can find that page now.

[56:44] let's see if we can find that one.

[56:53] keep going.

[56:56] there it is.

[56:57] page five.

[56:59] less than 210,000 square feet of retail.

[57:03] well, that's extremely optimistic, and that's not what's in the da.

[57:06] the da says 163,000, so why is this even in this page?

[57:08] okay.

[57:16] thank you, councilmember wheeler, for the question.

[57:19] so this was a provision that was written into the 2022 da of what qualified as a

[57:23] major modification.

[57:25] so a major modification on having to go back to city council for review and approval.

[57:29] so if the project had more than five residential buildings or less than 210,000

[57:33] square feet, that qualified as a major modification.

[57:37] and so that's how the project was applied under.

[57:39] a retail total is about 160,000 square feet.

[57:44] so that's 160,000, not 210,000?

[57:45] correct.

[57:45] okay.

[57:46] mr.

[57:46] oros, will you turn to page six, please?

[57:55] okay.

[57:56] I want to call note to the losses.

[57:59] we've lost 86,000, 87,000 square feet of retail.

[58:04] we lost our entire office space.

[58:10] the hotel, we've gained 89 rooms.

[58:12] residential, lost 43.

[58:14] parking lost 2,000.

[58:16] how are all these losses considered good, and you'd recommend that we pass this?

[58:27] we're losing everything but residences.

[58:33] that's a question for staff, because you recommend that we pass this.

[58:36] so why are these losses acceptable?

[58:38] so staff is recommending based on the project: although there is a loss of over

[58:42] 86,000 square feet, we are gaining a second hotel.

[58:45] so based on the fiscal impact study that was provided by the applicant and then also

[58:49] peer-reviewed independently at the request of the city,

[58:53] the increase of a second hotel with 89 additional rooms generated a higher tot amount

[58:58] of revenue for the city.

[59:01] and so the staff recommends that this does seem as a fiscal benefit to the city.

[59:06] I do agree with the economic study.

[59:08] the tot was the one thing that did go up.

[59:11] okay.

[59:14] page 9.

[59:15] it says the annual general fund revenues of $2.26 million.

[59:29] well, that economic study that I received on friday, I put it on the computer.

[59:36] even the version that I got that was given to me, supposedly, I thought that was from

[59:40] merlone geier or your representatives,

[59:44] it said there would be a $1.4 million increase.

[59:48] why does it say $2.26?

[59:49] I have no idea where that came from.

[59:53] so, two different tables.

[59:55] so eps conducted their own independent review.

[59:58] generally, different assumptions are made.

[1:00:00] eps concluded with the revenue of, looks like...

[1:00:06] sorry, I'm on the wrong table here.

[1:00:08] so for dpfg, submitted by the applicant, their assumptions concluded to the 2.

[1:00:14] 26, general fund fiscal surplus.

[1:00:17] okay, then that was part of the big stack that I got yesterday that I haven't had a

[1:00:21] chance to look at.

[1:00:22] so I saw the—let me get the—correct me if I got this wrong.

[1:00:27] so merlone geier had one estimate, was 2.26 million.

[1:00:30] he had it checked by another organization.

[1:00:31] they came out with 1.3 million, which is—

[1:00:35] about half of that, not quite.

[1:00:38] I mean, even their own check said it was like half of what they said it was going to

[1:00:41] be.

[1:00:43] and my rough essential end was minus $500,000.

[1:00:47] I think that needs a lot of work.

[1:00:49] I mean, even the two official evaluations that are so far apart, they're about a

[1:00:52] million dollars apart.

[1:00:56] okay, page 11, please.

[1:01:04] I don't know if it's explicitly on this page or not, but I heard that the project's

[1:01:08] going to start within four years,

[1:01:10] or be finished within four years.

[1:01:13] but my understanding of the way that the da, the new da, is written is that because

[1:01:17] merlone geier owns the property, I mean,

[1:01:20] it's theirs, they can, you know, not exactly do everything they want with it, but if

[1:01:24] they don't want to start the project for another three years, they don't have to, so

[1:01:28] another clock starts until that date.

[1:01:31] is that true?

[1:01:37] hi, tom.

[1:01:40] sorry, what date?

[1:01:41] no, I was just saying, they do not have to start the project if they don't want to.

[1:01:46] so all these clocks don't start until that date, correct?

[1:01:50] the clocks all start on the date of the development agreement.

[1:01:54] including the four-year, they have to have it built?

[1:01:57] they have to have it built in four years.

[1:01:59] so they have to have it built.

[1:02:00] or they lose the benefits of it.

[1:02:01] but they don't have to do anything.

[1:02:03] okay, that's what I want clarified.

[1:02:04] they don't have to do it.

[1:02:06] all right.

[1:02:06] I just want to clarify.

[1:02:08] so that's, you know, in lieu of what's happened in the last 13 years,

[1:02:11] we've been having several starts and stops, and nothing's ever happened.

[1:02:15] excuse me, I've got to read my notes here.

[1:02:27] go ahead and you take a few, and I'll come back to mine.

[1:02:33] okay.

[1:02:34] I have some questions.

[1:02:36] go ahead.

[1:02:37] okay.

[1:02:38] in the development agreement, page 4 and y, in the area y, the

[1:02:53] staff and the developer are indicating that this project is a modification, minor

[1:03:02] modifications.

[1:03:07] however, it says that it would replace the original agreement entirely.

[1:03:16] so there's an entire replacement that's happening versus a modification.

[1:03:23] two documents.

[1:03:37] some of the same provisions continue, but the new ones were restated, so it's both

[1:03:41] modified and amended.

[1:03:44] but it says, upon effective date of authorizing ordinance, this development agreement

[1:03:48] shall supersede and replace the original agreement.

[1:03:51] correct.

[1:03:52] we don't want the original agreement in place.

[1:03:54] when we have an entirely new agreement that restates in part the 2022 agreement and

[1:04:00] states anew the 2026 provisions.

[1:04:04] so the developer is coming because they want modifications to their original

[1:04:09] development agreement,

[1:04:11] but this is saying that it replaces the original development agreement.

[1:04:16] this is a replacement.

[1:04:17] yeah, that's semantics, but yes.

[1:04:20] so perhaps, but the...

[1:04:23] no, no, it is.

[1:04:25] perhaps, because the replacement of it means that it starts new.

[1:04:32] it's a new start, in which essentially provisions and things could have been shifted

[1:04:41] on our end to support the city.

[1:04:46] we had two choices in approaching this thing.

[1:04:49] we could have left the original agreement in place.

[1:04:53] and simply amended it in the parts we wanted amended.

[1:04:57] but in order to make it more readable for the public and for the council,

[1:05:01] we amended and restated it so that you'd have a single document that has the entire

[1:05:05] agreement of the parties.

[1:05:09] it's a new agreement.

[1:05:11] it's a new agreement, yes.

[1:05:13] it's an amended and restated agreement.

[1:05:15] it's a new agreement.

[1:05:19] yes.

[1:05:21] okay.

[1:05:34] so in this, on v, in the same section,

[1:05:37] it says the city council hereby finds and determines that this development agreement

[1:05:42] is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses,

[1:05:47] and programs contained in the city's general plan,

[1:05:52] and specific plan, as amended concurrently herewith, is compatible with the uses

[1:05:57] authorized in the village commercial land use district,

[1:06:01] provides for the orderly development of the property, and is entered into pursuant to

[1:06:06] and in compliance with the requirements of section 65867 of the development

[1:06:13] agreement statute.

[1:06:14] so this...

[1:06:19] verbiage is saying that the council finds and determines that this agreement is

[1:06:26] consistent, correct?

[1:06:29] yes.

[1:06:32] so the council finds this.

[1:06:35] does anywhere in this development agreement say that the staff finds it?

[1:06:40] no.

[1:06:42] does anywhere in this development agreement say that merlone geier makes these

[1:06:45] findings?

[1:06:47] no.

[1:06:50] this is asking for the city council.

[1:06:53] so another question I have: merlone geier x partners is an llc.

[1:07:03] so we're in an agreement with an llc.

[1:07:08] and llcs, can they abandon?

[1:07:11] can llcs abandon?

[1:07:13] abandon what?

[1:07:14] can they abandon?

[1:07:16] can a group abandon an llc?

[1:07:19] I'm not sure I'm following your question.

[1:07:26] so we would be in an agreement with a group that can abandon an llc.

[1:07:35] so we're left with this.

[1:07:36] the council is left with this.

[1:07:37] when you say abandon, what do you mean, abandon?

[1:07:40] a group could abandon the llc.

[1:07:42] a group can dismantle an llc.

[1:07:47] they can close it down.

[1:07:49] just like you could a corporation or a partnership?

[1:07:52] any entity can terminate itself, yes.

[1:07:56] entity, yes.

[1:07:57] any entity can terminate itself.

[1:07:59] are there provisions if they decide to terminate at any time where we are not left...?

[1:08:12] well, the...

[1:08:13] with...

[1:08:14] the way it's structured, if they were to, they could at any point terminate this

[1:08:20] agreement, in effect.

[1:08:22] they don't have to perform to start this agreement.

[1:08:26] they don't have to build anything.

[1:08:27] but it's structured so that they can't build the next step until they've built the

[1:08:31] prior step.

[1:08:33] okay.

[1:08:33] so if the council, so if we're sued, the city of laguna hills is sued, and in the

[1:08:41] provisions it states

[1:08:45] that merlone geier is accepting liability, what if merlone geier decides to abandon

[1:08:50] that and they abandon all of their obligations?

[1:08:53] what are we left with?

[1:08:54] a lawsuit against an entity and all of its assets, including this property.

[1:09:09] so who, if they abandon, if they...

[1:09:15] there's no such term as abandonment.

[1:09:19] or if they decide to close it down.

[1:09:21] who, if they decide to say stop...

[1:09:26] by terminating the entity, if that's what you're talking about, they don't relieve

[1:09:30] themselves of liabilities.

[1:09:32] they're still going to be responsible.

[1:09:34] their property is going to be responsible.

[1:09:37] for their liabilities, and the individual members are going to be—the managing

[1:09:41] general partner will be responsible for their liabilities.

[1:09:44] what if they declare bankruptcy?

[1:09:47] then in what context, if they declare bankruptcy?

[1:09:53] I'm just saying, if they declare bankruptcy, who handles whatever lawsuits, potential

[1:09:59] lawsuits, that this project could bring?

[1:10:06] that the city...

[1:10:07] can you give me a factual context for this?

[1:10:10] give me an example of what you're talking about.

[1:10:12] okay, let's just say we're sued because the general plan...

[1:10:16] the city is sued.

[1:10:17] let's just say the city is sued; say we're sued because it's not consistent with the

[1:10:22] specific plan.

[1:10:23] say some sort of organization comes to the city and says, I see that it doesn't

[1:10:27] follow,

[1:10:28] and here are all of the reasons why it doesn't follow the specific plan.

[1:10:33] and I want to sue the city for not following their specific plan.

[1:10:37] and merlone geier's managing partner says, okay, we are going to cover this lawsuit

[1:10:42] because that's what we've done.

[1:10:45] what if they go bankrupt?

[1:10:50] then we don't defend the lawsuit.

[1:10:53] we concede.

[1:10:54] and the development agreement goes away.

[1:10:57] there is no development agreement.

[1:10:58] so the city is liable.

[1:11:01] no, the city is not liable.

[1:11:05] the example you posited doesn't have any economic damages.

[1:11:08] you're just asking for relief because there was an alleged inconsistency between the

[1:11:13] entitlements and, say, the specific plan.

[1:11:16] yes.

[1:11:17] so the court determines that, yes, there were inconsistencies because nobody's

[1:11:21] defending that lawsuit under your example.

[1:11:26] well, the city, essentially.

[1:11:29] if they're gone, the city would have to...

[1:11:31] no, the city doesn't care about whether it's consistent.

[1:11:35] if they're gone and there's no more development agreement, the city no longer cares

[1:11:39] to defend its own entitlements and development agreement.

[1:11:44] but if somebody decides to sue the city over our actions and the developer isn't

[1:11:49] there to absorb that, absorb the lawsuit...

[1:11:55] the lawsuit is about whether or not the actions were valid, whether the entitlements

[1:12:00] in the development agreement were consistent,

[1:12:04] under the example you gave, were consistent with the specific plan.

[1:12:08] if there is no merlone geier, no one cares because the development agreement goes

[1:12:14] away, the lawsuit goes away, so there's nothing to chase.

[1:12:20] if it's built or if the decisions are, if they start building it and it's not

[1:12:24] consistent, I'm just saying, if they serve

[1:12:27] if they're in the process of building it and it's not consistent in their property,

[1:12:32] if somebody is successful in stopping the development,

[1:12:36] they have to stop the development, whether they're in bankruptcy or not. But the

[1:12:40] city—you could see the city doesn't have any exposure.

[1:12:45] how does the city not have any exposure? The city is an entitling agency. You've

[1:12:49] granted—presuming after tonight, assume that you grant these

[1:12:53] entitlements and the development agreement.

[1:12:55] that's all you've done. If somebody along the way attacks the project and they can't

[1:13:02] build, then they can't build. The city hasn't

[1:13:06] lost anything other than—well, nothing in this case, because I would like to ask

[1:13:12] counsel:

[1:13:13] can somebody hypothetically sue the city over this project?

[1:13:19] so the suit against the city, typically the way a challenge is made for consistency,

[1:13:25] this project included, is somebody would seek a writ.

[1:13:29] a writ is a request to a judge to reverse a decision of, in this case, the city

[1:13:33] council.

[1:13:35] they would go and they would ask for a writ if a court found an inconsistency.

[1:13:38] the court could issue a judgment that says, yes, I reverse the decision.

[1:13:40] but I agree with mr.

[1:13:43] clark.

[1:13:43] it wouldn't be a monetary case against the city.

[1:13:46] it would be a writ to try to get the decision reversed.

[1:13:50] okay.

[1:13:50] and then who is the responsible party?

[1:13:53] so when they say, who made the decisions to say it's consistent, who do they say

[1:13:56] makes those decisions?

[1:13:58] well, it's the city, but the city acts through the city council.

[1:14:01] yes, yes.

[1:14:03] okay.

[1:14:04] thank you.

[1:14:06] okay, dave, back to you.

[1:14:08] yeah, I was reading through two of the questions I'd sort of already asked, so I

[1:14:10] won't go with one of them.

[1:14:12] could you turn to page 25, please?

[1:14:18] okay.

[1:14:21] okay, this page says that, you know, uvsp development standards consistency.

[1:14:25] I contend, and I've contended this for six years, as long as I've been on the council,

[1:14:29] this project has never met the uvsp,

[1:14:32] the uvsp.

[1:14:34] because the uvsp demands that most of the property be retail or business and only

[1:14:39] part of it be residential.

[1:14:41] and that is absolutely not the case.

[1:14:43] and everybody seems to bypass that and forget it doesn't meet the uvsp at all.

[1:14:48] and the uvsp also said the changes from one revision to another can only add 200

[1:14:54] units for housing.

[1:14:56] and this is adding 1,500.

[1:14:57] I just wanted to point that out again.

[1:15:00] it's probably falling on deaf ears because, like it has in the past, it's never met

[1:15:02] the uvsp.

[1:15:06] the rest of my questions are a presentation.

[1:15:07] if you want to.

[1:15:08] yes.

[1:15:08] the 160,000 square feet of retail, does that include the retail that already exists?

[1:15:11] so does that include the nordstrom rack?

[1:15:38] yes.

[1:15:38] it's 140,000 of new retail, 163,000 of which 140,000 is new, which includes the

[1:15:44] nordstrom rack.

[1:15:46] so 140,000 includes the nordstrom rack.

[1:15:48] so it's not new retail.

[1:15:51] may I clarify?

[1:15:53] so the 140,000 of new retail includes the new nordstrom rack building, not including

[1:15:57] the demolition of the old nordstrom rack building.

[1:16:00] okay.

[1:16:01] so what is the total of the nordstrom rack?

[1:16:04] with the nordstrom, so the total retail—can you pull up a slide that shows this?

[1:16:18] right there.

[1:16:20] so total square footage, existing and new, would be 163,215 square feet.

[1:16:23] and then, let me see, the new, I'm not sure which slide; let's see.

[1:16:35] please be patient.

[1:16:37] what did you say?

[1:16:40] I want to give the exact number.

[1:16:46] I apologize.

[1:16:46] there are quite a bit of slides.

[1:16:51] the nordstrom rack.

[1:16:51] you want the exact square footage of the nordstrom rack building, or are you looking

[1:16:55] for total new retail?

[1:16:57] I'm asking the nordstrom rack, what amount

[1:17:02] andy, is that anchor 1 or anchor 2?

[1:17:03] anchor 2.

[1:17:04] the new building would be 35,000 square feet.

[1:17:17] it's 35,000 square feet.

[1:17:30] and is that, so you're saying that's part of the new, or is it considered new?

[1:17:36] oh, so they're anchor 1?

[1:17:38] okay, so I'm sorry, 25,000 square feet.

[1:17:40] okay, so 25,000 square feet of that is considered new, even though it's not new,

[1:17:45] because nordstrom rack has always been there.

[1:17:50] so would that be considered in the new income that's coming in, or...

[1:17:57] I'm a little confused.

[1:17:58] if the nordstrom rack is being considered in this, wouldn't it be a subtraction of

[1:18:04] the amounts?

[1:18:07] wouldn't there be some sort of subtraction versus...?

[1:18:09] we can give you the net.

[1:18:10] so we can find out the existing, if you want the exact number,

[1:18:14] we can find the retail square footage for the existing nordstrom rack,

[1:18:18] and we can deduct it from the 140,000 if you want that number.

[1:18:23] I would just have to look that up.

[1:18:25] yes.

[1:18:27] perhaps, possibly the applicant may also have that information.

[1:18:42] so according to my wonderful principal planner with institutional knowledge, the

[1:18:45] existing nordstrom rack is 35,000 square feet.

[1:18:48] that's correct.

[1:18:51] 35,000 square feet, and the new one will be 25,000 square—28,000 square feet. Okay,

[1:18:54] so how much is really new retail?

[1:18:57] 132 is the delta.

[1:19:22] according to my finance director, who is good at math.

[1:19:25] approximately 135,000 square feet.

[1:19:30] okay.

[1:19:55] okay, on page 39, it says if there are any changes.

[1:20:13] can you please just kind of go over, in the development agreement on page 39, the

[1:20:17] operating agreement?

[1:20:20] can I get an understanding of that?

[1:20:24] what section is that?

[1:20:25] it's on page 39.

[1:20:26] it's 13.5.

[1:21:01] yeah, I'm looking through it right now.

[1:21:16] it's simply asking that whenever there are ministerial clarifications to be requested

[1:21:22] under the development agreement, that it go through this operating memoranda process.

[1:21:33] they're non-substantive procedural issues.

[1:21:36] okay, so shouldn't certain things be brought in front of the council?

[1:21:43] well, the council, by virtue of this language, would be delegating that authority for

[1:21:48] things like material changes in fees or costs,

[1:21:52] increase in density or intensity, or things that don't count.

[1:21:58] it's just inconsequential processing.

[1:22:01] and you're delegating staff to deal with those.

[1:22:04] so certain things—it could technically, says the city attorney shall be authorized

[1:22:09] upon consultation with the approval of the owner to determine whether

[1:22:14] a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this section,

[1:22:18] whether the requested clarification is of such a character to constitute either a

[1:22:23] substantive change or an amendment to the development agreement,

[1:22:28] which requires compliance with the provisions

[1:22:30] of section

[1:22:30] 13.2 of the development agreement, so can you just clarify this for everyone?

[1:22:38] that the city attorney is authorized to determine whether the requested clarification

[1:22:44] is eligible for a minor procedural clarification under this section, or whether

[1:22:50] it needs to go back to the council, so the city attorney makes that determination,

[1:22:53] yes.

[1:22:55] so what if our city attorney determines that something isn't, and it never goes in

[1:23:00] front of the council?

[1:23:03] then it doesn't.

[1:23:05] then it doesn't.

[1:23:06] then it doesn't.

[1:23:07] okay.

[1:23:14] okay.

[1:23:32] let's see.

[1:23:34] can you go through section 15 and what section 15 states?

[1:23:57] you want an explanation of what 15 describes?

[1:24:02] yeah.

[1:24:04] it's a mutual assurance kind of provision that says that the city and the owner,

[1:24:12] that the agreement is for the benefit of the city and the owner,

[1:24:16] and the city won't take any actions that are intended to circumvent the development

[1:24:19] agreement.

[1:24:24] so the city, what happens if after this development agreement we find some huge

[1:24:30] issues with this?

[1:24:33] as in?

[1:24:34] I don't know.

[1:24:35] just hypothetically, what happens if the owner decides to, I don't know, if something

[1:24:45] negative happens,

[1:24:49] what assurances do we have if something?

[1:24:51] well, if it's a breach or a violation of the agreement, there are separate provisions

[1:24:56] to enforce those.

[1:25:00] if you're talking about the developer, the owner just saying, I'm not interested in

[1:25:04] doing this anymore,

[1:25:07] they essentially have that ability to do it.

[1:25:14] okay.

[1:25:19] what about, I mean, some things that we've encountered in the past, which was the

[1:25:24] mall property looked like a blight for a number

[1:25:28] of years. We had issues with homeless; we had a lot of issues on that property site.

[1:25:40] what can the city

[1:25:43] do? We've tried in the past to bring this up, and

[1:25:48] I defer to the city attorney on city enforcement efforts.

[1:25:54] so that's not part of the development agreement?

[1:25:58] no.

[1:25:59] it's not an operating agreement.

[1:26:00] it's a development agreement.

[1:26:03] I understood the last development agreement had provisions that ensured that the

[1:26:08] property always looked nice.

[1:26:13] well, if it did, it didn't come out of this one, and I don't recall...

[1:26:20] such a provision.

[1:26:34] I guess, do you want to respond?

[1:26:38] well, the development agreement statutes, I'm not aware of anything that operates as

[1:26:42] a, that functions as an operating agreement in this either.

[1:26:45] there are remedies if property falls below a certain standard.

[1:26:48] that's public nuisance and those basic remedies.

[1:26:50] and there's also the site plan and all the entitlement documents that we can enforce.

[1:26:56] as far as the development agreement, the development agreement really is an

[1:26:59] implementation of the project document.

[1:27:02] and enforcement of the development agreement can happen by breach.

[1:27:07] we can do a periodic review.

[1:27:08] so there are ways to enforce a development agreement itself, although I don't see

[1:27:11] this development agreement as operating more as an operating agreement.

[1:27:15] it's more of how does the project get built, constructed, and to the finish line.

[1:27:21] okay.

[1:27:23] another question that I have is that this owner has the right to sell, mortgage, and

[1:27:28] assign or transfer the development agreement to any and all.

[1:27:36] how do we make sure that...

[1:27:38] that whoever they decide, whatever developer they decide to build this,

[1:27:47] that it's going to be built and it's going to be a good property owner.

[1:27:53] I mean, here's an example.

[1:27:56] laguna niguel has 5,000 units, and the buildings are falling apart.

[1:28:03] and pieces of land were sold off to different entities.

[1:28:07] and there's a lot of problems afterwards, but there's bad actors everywhere.

[1:28:13] how do you deal with that when it says that they can sell to whoever and we don't

[1:28:18] know what we're dealing with?

[1:28:20] well, the benefits and the burdens of the development agreement run with the land, so

[1:28:25] any subsequent owner would also be subject to it.

[1:28:30] okay.

[1:28:42] I have a question for staff.

[1:28:46] so one of the first pages of the uvsp, I believe it's six,

[1:28:56] says the primary goals of the urban village specific plan are quoted twice and

[1:29:01] well, this doesn't say it.

[1:29:02] it's actually quoted twice.

[1:29:03] this verbiage is quoted twice, emphasizing the importance of this material for

[1:29:08] elected officials and city employees to follow.

[1:29:13] so it says, and it says the primary goals of the urban village specific plan are as

[1:29:18] follows:

[1:29:19] to encourage and facilitate new uses in the area, to create new pathways to open

[1:29:23] spaces, and to add landscaping to existing sidewalks,

[1:29:27] to foster a pedestrian-friendly environment, to create

[1:29:30] an identity for the area through the use of entry features and wayfinding signs,

[1:29:39] consistent landscaping and street furniture; to facilitate private investment and

[1:29:44] development of desirable planned activity nodes; to take full commercial and market

[1:29:52] advantage of the urban village's central location in the saddleback valley.

[1:29:58] to increase the employment opportunities, tax revenues, and ensure the long-term

[1:30:03] viability of the urban village.

[1:30:07] and also says to provide the framework for a public-private partnership to implement

[1:30:12] the goals of the specific plan.

[1:30:15] so it says there's three, number five and number six.

[1:30:24] how does five and six

[1:30:27] apply to this project?

[1:30:33] so, to take full commercial and market advantage of the urban village's central

[1:30:39] location.

[1:30:43] and to increase employment opportunities, tax revenues, and to ensure long-term

[1:30:48] viability.

[1:31:01] I apologize, councilmember.

[1:31:02] can you confirm those pages again?

[1:31:04] it's in the executive summary.

[1:31:26] mm-hmm.

[1:31:34] and which items were you asking for clarification?

[1:31:38] how does this project reflect numbers five and six?

[1:31:47] so, to take full commercial and market advantage of the urban village's central

[1:31:50] location in the saddleback valley.

[1:31:53] so this project was developed with market conditions in mind.

[1:31:57] so most definitely a developer would not develop a property without conducting

[1:32:01] appropriate feasibility.

[1:32:03] so as to...

[1:32:06] the central location—I mean, I think having the 68 acres of vacant land hasn't been

[1:32:11] serving the saddleback valley for the last few

[1:32:14] years, and having a new development with new retail, new residential, especially in

[1:32:17] this housing market right now where there's a housing deficiency,

[1:32:22] would be serving the full commercial and market advantage based on the current market

[1:32:25] conditions right now.

[1:32:27] so how does that follow?

[1:32:29] so what you're saying, so I'm asking how it follows.

[1:32:32] what you're saying is

[1:32:34] does it say anywhere in this document, the uvsp,

[1:32:45] that market conditions can alter and dictate and allow for movement and bending of

[1:32:51] these documents?

[1:32:55] no, it wouldn't say that.

[1:32:57] okay.

[1:32:58] all right.

[1:32:59] thank you.

[1:32:59] another question I have is,

[1:33:05] it states in here that the land use concept plan provides a conceptual basis for

[1:33:11] locations where new development might occur within the urban village.

[1:33:18] it includes the following anticipated new land uses: 183,000 square feet of new

[1:33:24] retail development oriented around the new main street pedestrian promenade

[1:33:33] a new 250-room hotel oriented to the 5 freeway, mixed-use development that could

[1:33:41] include up to 200 dwelling units.

[1:33:48] how does this plan follow the executive summary, which is the primary goal of this

[1:33:57] document?

[1:34:00] which is highlighted twice.

[1:34:02] can you go back to that document, please?

[1:34:07] so that paragraph you were reading, which says the land use concept plan provides a

[1:34:12] conceptual basis for the locations where new development may

[1:34:16] occur, and then it gives a sample of what type of development could occur.

[1:34:19] and then I believe, as part of the 2022 entitlement,

[1:34:22] there was a review conducted independently to discuss whether or not these provisions

[1:34:27] here were considered a land use control,

[1:34:30] and it was determined that these were not, that these were considered potential for

[1:34:36] a future development scenario within the uvsp, but did not describe that development

[1:34:39] capacity as a land use control.

[1:34:42] so this is an example given for studying purposes of the uvsp, but not exactly

[1:34:46] determined to be a regulatory requirement for the project.

[1:34:50] okay.

[1:34:51] so in our general plan, let's see.

[1:35:08] on lu-28, it says urban village specific plan, and it says development potential

[1:35:21] total of 200 units.

[1:35:27] so it seems like those two, so just out of curiosity, how do you

[1:35:33] so in the context of the general plan and of the land use element, this is a section

[1:35:36] entitled future study areas,

[1:35:39] which provides the context that this is considered a potential opportunity for this,

[1:35:44] and it was a sample of what could be developed but not, again, considered a maximum

[1:35:47] for development.

[1:35:50] just out of curiosity, who makes the decisions on whether something is followed in

[1:35:57] the city?

[1:35:58] so I would consider that the city council approving the riata project in 2012 at

[1:36:03] oakbrook village, as well as the 2022 entitlement for the mall

[1:36:07] granting up to 1,500 units, the sixth-cycle housing element establishing the site.

[1:36:12] as having 1,163 units in oakbrook plaza, subsequently at the beginning of the year at

[1:36:17] 250 units.

[1:36:18] so the council did approve that this was consistent.

[1:36:21] so this is the council's approval.

[1:36:23] it's the council that makes that decision.

[1:36:25] correct.

[1:36:26] it's the council.

[1:36:27] yes.

[1:36:28] so all of those suggestions, as you mentioned, it's really up to the council elected

[1:36:34] body to make those determinations.

[1:36:37] all right.

[1:36:37] thank you.

[1:36:38] dave?

[1:36:41] I take a lot of exception to that last commentary.

[1:36:45] we have a document that says the limit is 200.

[1:36:48] we're hand-waving, "oh, no, it doesn't really mean 200."

[1:36:52] it's just an example.

[1:36:53] what the heck do we have these documents for, then, if we can make it up as we go

[1:36:56] along?

[1:36:57] if you get a requirements document, the requirements document is requirements.

[1:37:01] I think we're debating now.

[1:37:02] are we asking questions?

[1:37:04] yeah, I'm asking questions.

[1:37:05] why do they keep saying it meets the uvsp, and it doesn't?

[1:37:10] I just point out, what was it, page number 25?

[1:37:11] 25, robert, if you would, please.

[1:37:21] I'm objecting that the recommendation is that we, you know, approve this thing based

[1:37:25] on it meets the uvsp.

[1:37:27] it does not.

[1:37:28] it never has.

[1:37:29] and to say that these numbers in the uvsp, which are written in black and white,

[1:37:34] councilman pezold just read it off to you in two different places at least, it says

[1:37:37] this is the limit.

[1:37:38] but, oh, no, we're hand-waving.

[1:37:40] it doesn't really count.

[1:37:41] we can do whatever we want, you know.

[1:37:43] it's ridiculous.

[1:37:43] why even have documents?

[1:37:44] just throw it up in the air, and every time we come in, we'll decide on it.

[1:37:49] why do we approve the uvsp

[1:37:51] when it doesn't?

[1:37:51] that's the question.

[1:37:52] thank you.

[1:37:52] I apologize, councilman.

[1:37:54] can you repeat your question?

[1:38:10] why does staff say that it meets the uvsp when it does not, as

[1:38:15] pointed out in two examples that councilman pezold just read?

[1:38:18] so I would largely say that the way the uvsp is written is also written very much

[1:38:22] more as a guideline,

[1:38:24] where it provides guidelines for development but not as much regulatory control that

[1:38:28] you would see in potentially other types of specific plans.

[1:38:31] so the uvsp was written to provide maximum flexibility of uses and development within

[1:38:35] the plan area.

[1:38:37] I'm sorry, but that's absurd.

[1:38:39] I've written requirements for missiles and spacecraft, and you put down a requirement,

[1:38:43] and it had better darn well be met, and not you

[1:38:46] wishy-washy would have rockets running into each other.

[1:38:49] all right, I have one simple question, hopefully.

[1:38:52] I know it's a repeat a bit.

[1:38:54] I want one simple answer.

[1:38:55] when the whole thing is finished, how much retail is there in square feet?

[1:39:01] I don't want to know new.

[1:39:02] I don't want to know old.

[1:39:02] I want to know, when it's finished, what's the total?

[1:39:06] 163,000.

[1:39:06] thank you.

[1:39:06] so we only have 163.

[1:39:07] thank you.

[1:39:08] so I see in a2.

[1:39:09] I guess it goes into more specific technical studies.

[1:39:29] so, fiscal analysis: the proposed urban village specific plan defines the development

[1:39:35] capacity of the planning area based primarily on land availability,

[1:39:41] traffic, and parking limitations.

[1:39:43] the development capacity represents the additional development intensity that could

[1:39:47] be added to the existing base within the urban village.

[1:39:51] the plan defines the future development capacity by land-use category.

[1:39:58] the following limitations are established in the plan for incremental development

[1:40:04] above the existing base.

[1:40:08] retail: 183,000 square feet.

[1:40:08] hotel: 250 rooms.

[1:40:09] residential: 200 units.

[1:40:09] medical office: 138,000 square feet.

[1:40:11] general office: 380,000 square feet.

[1:40:26] it states that additional residential population resulting from the development of

[1:40:35] approximately 200 ownership units.

[1:40:41] I'm just, I mean, I'm just wondering, when you read that analysis,

[1:40:54] are your thoughts still that it's something that can be moved and fluid?

[1:41:00] I apologize, councilmember.

[1:41:01] I don't know what document you're in.

[1:41:03] what section? Because I see a2, but it's not a2 in the uvsp.

[1:41:07] so which document are we looking at?

[1:41:15] appendix a, technical studies.

[1:41:25] to the ceqa memo?

[1:41:44] I will look for...

[1:42:06] I believe that's in the uvsp.

[1:42:10] I will get back to you.

[1:42:16] any other questions of staff?

[1:42:20] okay.

[1:42:21] I'm sure that, you know, let me just add right now that if there are questions of

[1:42:26] staff during deliberations, we normally do that.

[1:42:31] so we don't have to exhaust every little thing right now.

[1:42:38] well, I will ask one.

[1:42:40] oh, I'm sorry.

[1:42:41] you're okay.

[1:42:41] go ahead.

[1:42:42] no.

[1:42:43] josh, go ahead.

[1:42:44] no.

[1:42:45] thank you, chair.

[1:42:47] all right.

[1:42:47] I just had a few questions for staff.

[1:42:50] I just wanted to get some clarifications just from my own knowledge around a few

[1:42:54] things.

[1:42:57] the july 10 eps analysis projects approximately $3.83 million in general fund revenue.

[1:43:07] $2.43 million in annual expenditures, and approximately $1.4 million in annual net

[1:43:11] surplus. I just want to ask staff if they can confirm that these

[1:43:15] are now the controlling fiscal figures for our consideration tonight. Thank you,

[1:43:20] councilmember sweeney. Are you referring to what's listed in table 1 with the eps

[1:43:28] document?

[1:43:28] so I wouldn't say that either one is more correct than the other.

[1:43:37] so when you put together these fiscal impact studies, the assumptions and methodology

[1:43:40] can vary.

[1:43:42] but I would say, from the city, from a conservative standpoint, this would be the eps

[1:43:47] study where we would find the conservative numbers.

[1:43:51] okay.

[1:43:51] all right.

[1:43:52] thank you.

[1:43:53] the next couple questions I have just revolve around public safety.

[1:43:58] because the analysis with eps assigns approximately $1.36 million to public safety as

[1:44:03] an annual expenditure. But have we consulted with the sheriff's department,

[1:44:09] because how they got that number was just using a per-person number and just kind of

[1:44:16] extracted it out, so...

[1:44:18] have we consulted with the orange county sheriff as to how much more resources it

[1:44:23] would take over there, and if that $1.3 million would

[1:44:27] cover the additional resources?

[1:44:36] sir, if you're asking if we would need more deputies because the population will

[1:44:39] increase over time.

[1:44:40] yeah.

[1:44:41] population, it looks like, will increase slightly over many years.

[1:44:47] and we base our staffing on a workload analysis.

[1:44:51] so initially, we wouldn't need any.

[1:44:55] but in years to come, we would have to analyze our workload and then potentially add

[1:44:59] a couple of deputies.

[1:45:02] years and years to come.

[1:45:04] potentially over time, then that's

[1:45:06] that number should be sufficient to cover the number of deputies that would need to

[1:45:10] be additional over there.

[1:45:12] based on how many more calls for service we get.

[1:45:14] yeah.

[1:45:14] okay.

[1:45:15] things like that.

[1:45:16] all right.

[1:45:16] very good.

[1:45:20] for transparency, I serve as the chair for the orange county fire authority board,

[1:45:25] but I'm asking this in my role tonight as a member of the planning agency and city

[1:45:29] council.

[1:45:30] has ocfa conducted a project-specific deployment and emergency call analysis for the

[1:45:37] full project, including the 1,457 residential units, 239 hotel rooms,

[1:45:44] the commercial uses, the village park events, and the affordable senior housing

[1:45:47] building?

[1:45:51] so this project was routed to ocfa for review.

[1:45:54] so their review as part of this level is very much a preliminary conceptual review to

[1:45:57] come up with conditions of approval.

[1:46:00] a more in-depth review does happen after entitlement, where they are required to go

[1:46:04] through, and the applicant will submit the proper documentation for them

[1:46:08] to finish those analyses.

[1:46:10] okay.

[1:46:11] all right.

[1:46:11] thank you.

[1:46:13] my next question is, I have to go back to octa and hotel one.

[1:46:19] octa's july 13 letter requests that the avenida de carlota frontage remain surface

[1:46:25] parking or landscaping with adequate setbacks, and they had mentioned that in section

[1:46:32] 12.4 that it be revised before entitlements are approved, so does staff believe that

[1:46:38] the proposed location of hotel one or pad 4 conflicts with either

[1:46:44] of the interchange alternatives currently under consideration?

[1:46:49] so the current site plan conflicts with the alternative that octa is moving,

[1:46:55] has informed the city that that's the one they would like to move forward with.

[1:46:59] but I would look to joe to provide more context.

[1:47:02] thank you.

[1:47:02] I'm happy to provide more context.

[1:47:04] so in april, two and a half months ago, the city was notified in a meeting that

[1:47:15] no longer were two alternatives being considered for the el toro road and I-5

[1:47:20] interchange project. Up until then, the meetings that we had been

[1:47:26] having with octa were evaluating two construction alternatives, one which was a

[1:47:31] braided bridge concept that connects with plaza lane at carlota, the other

[1:47:37] one of which was

[1:47:38] a flyover bridge that would connect from the el toro road off-ramp into lake forest

[1:47:43] at rockfield boulevard, by lucille's barbecue restaurant and the goodwill

[1:47:49] store.

[1:47:51] and for months, and even, and this is nothing new, the

[1:47:55] city council was given a presentation in 2023 by octa of those two alternatives.

[1:48:03] and so the conversation has been, while the environmental process has been

[1:48:08] moving along, a discussion of if either one of those alternatives provides any

[1:48:14] traffic relief to the motorists looking to get off at el toro

[1:48:19] road and enter into lake forest.

[1:48:22] so in april, we were informed by octa that the flyover alternative that was being

[1:48:27] considered as part of a public environmental review

[1:48:31] process that is still ongoing, where no decisions have been made, was off the table.

[1:48:37] and it was portrayed to us that there was now an urgency to focus on alternative 1,

[1:48:44] which is the off-ramp,

[1:48:48] braided off-ramp concept that connects plaza lane and carlota.

[1:48:54] that alternative does conflict with hotel one.

[1:48:59] however, in recognition of that, city staff has been working diligently with merlone

[1:49:05] geier partners and the ad hoc committee to craft language in section

[1:49:11] 12.4 of the development agreement that contemplates removing the hotel out of the way

[1:49:17] if, in fact, octa settles on an alternative that conflicts with the hotel.

[1:49:23] so that, in my opinion, is where we're at.

[1:49:26] okay.

[1:49:27] and hotel one was the one that was supposed to be where it was going to try to be

[1:49:33] completed by the 2028

[1:49:35] olympics, correct?

[1:49:38] that's what we've been informed by merlone geier partners, with their potential hotel

[1:49:43] operator, yes.

[1:49:45] and with octa, would that then delay hotel one so then there would be no opportunity

[1:49:51] to have it completed for the olympics?

[1:49:56] my understanding is that

[1:49:59] we would work with octa.

[1:50:03] and my understanding is, if you were to approve this project tonight,

[1:50:07] there would be a meeting of the minds to figure out how to work with and around that

[1:50:11] issue.

[1:50:13] okay.

[1:50:13] and so I haven't had that.

[1:50:15] I'm not privy to exactly how that will work out, but I

[1:50:18] know there's language in the da that contemplates that, and that would likely need to

[1:50:22] occur.

[1:50:23] okay.

[1:50:26] all right.

[1:50:29] josh, I've got the drawing here.

[1:50:31] if you'd like to look at it, I can bring it over and show you.

[1:50:36] we actually, do you need to see it?

[1:50:39] no, I don't need to see it because I know where it is.

[1:50:47] may I ask a question about this?

[1:50:48] wait a minute.

[1:50:48] he's still, I have questions going on here.

[1:50:52] yeah, a few more questions just quickly about the hotel, because the eps assumes a

[1:50:59] 119-room residence inn at a $178 average daily rate and a 120-

[1:51:05] room ac marriott at a $260 average daily rate, both at 80% occupancy, producing

[1:51:12] approximately $1.5 million in annual tot.

[1:51:17] are both of those hotel brands contractually committed,

[1:51:21] or are they just modeling assumptions at this point?

[1:51:25] do we know?

[1:51:26] I think that would be a question for the developer.

[1:51:29] for mgp?

[1:51:29] yes.

[1:51:30] that's out of my depth here.

[1:51:31] I'll have to refer to someone else.

[1:51:32] I'm not sure who exactly, but someone else.

[1:51:34] the questions for the developer are coming up next.

[1:51:37] okay, yeah.

[1:51:38] I'll save that one.

[1:51:39] for staff, though, can you tell me...

[1:51:50] what residential construction or occupancy can the city stop if a required hotel or

[1:51:55] commercial milestone is missed?

[1:52:01] you want me to respond to that?

[1:52:06] the way the agreement is structured, they can't start what is referred to as phase 1

[1:52:13] elective,

[1:52:14] which is all the residential north of health center drive, until they have started

[1:52:23] construction of anchor 1, anchor 2, shop a, the affordable,

[1:52:30] and hotel 1.

[1:52:31] and there's an exception for hotel 1 regarding

[1:52:35] feasibility that somebody earlier referenced.

[1:52:38] once they've started it, there's nothing you can do to stop it.

[1:52:41] they just can't start hotel 2—oh, excuse me, residential elective 2, a

[1:52:50] phase 2 elective—until all of those projects are completed and hotel 2 is started.

[1:52:59] okay.

[1:53:00] all right.

[1:53:03] okay, that's interesting.

[1:53:05] all right, and one last question on the senior housing: has meta housing formally

[1:53:11] been selected, or who selected it? And again,

[1:53:15] that's a question for the developer.

[1:53:16] okay, so staff doesn't know that one.

[1:53:18] okay.

[1:53:18] all right.

[1:53:19] these are all for staff.

[1:53:20] perfect.

[1:53:21] thank you, guys. Okay.

[1:53:23] thank you, josh.

[1:53:24] there's one more, I guess, another question by erica.

[1:53:27] yes. Okay, ceqa?

[1:53:31] what is a ceqa addendum?

[1:53:32] I...

[1:53:35] what is an addendum?

[1:53:38] so an addendum is basically when the environmental...

[1:53:44] I'm not the expert on that question.

[1:53:46] I would like to...

[1:53:48] colin, could you probably provide more?

[1:53:54] so pursuant to ceqa, a developer is only required to do one ceqa analysis.

[1:53:59] after that, if the project changes and the changes reach a certain level, a certain

[1:54:03] threshold of...

[1:54:05] potential environmental impacts, then the developer either has to do another ceqa, or

[1:54:10] supplemental, or an addendum.

[1:54:12] an addendum is the lowest level in the chain of extra documentation that has to

[1:54:16] happen when a project is amended.

[1:54:19] so in this case, an addendum was chosen because the analysis concluded that the

[1:54:24] project was going to reduce vehicle trips.

[1:54:30] for a few other reasons, the consultants, dudek and the city's consultant, decided to

[1:54:35] go with an addendum versus a supplemental document amendment or another eir. So who

[1:54:42] paid for dudek? My understanding is mgp did, but that's an assumption.

[1:54:47] okay.

[1:54:49] so there have been seven addendums.

[1:54:52] so the original ceqa was

[1:54:56] performed with the mall prior?

[1:55:01] was it with the uvsp?

[1:55:03] when was the original eir done?

[1:55:08] I believe it was done in 2009, but I'd have to ask the community development director.

[1:55:12] so the original eir was adopted with the general plan eir in 2009.

[1:55:17] okay.

[1:55:17] so in 2009, did the mall exist?

[1:55:19] yes.

[1:55:29] in 2009, did oakbrook village plaza exist?

[1:55:35] I believe oakbrook plaza?

[1:55:39] no, oakbrook plaza, the office building.

[1:55:41] the village, sorry.

[1:55:42] the oakbrook village, I believe, was approved in 2018?

[1:55:47] no, 2012.

[1:55:51] so it existed in 2009, and then there was a development agreement that was adopted

[1:55:54] subsequently.

[1:55:57] so their whole project was there in 2009.

[1:56:08] these are questions for staff.

[1:56:20] the public hearing is closed.

[1:56:23] unless staff wants to open it up again.

[1:56:27] the redevelopment of oakbrook village was done in 2012 with the apartment units.

[1:56:33] okay.

[1:56:35] so in 2009, basically, I'm painting a picture, right?

[1:56:41] 2009, when this eir existed or when it started.

[1:56:48] and it says a ceqa addendum is a document used under the california environmental

[1:56:54] quality act to make a minor technical change or addition to a previously

[1:57:01] approved environmental impact report.

[1:57:04] would you say the destruction of a mall is a minor change?

[1:57:16] in 2009?

[1:57:17] well, I mean, the addendum, there's been so many different addendums,

[1:57:22] but at what point do you say that's probably a really big change to the environment,

[1:57:31] which could include the development of a number of apartment units in oakbrook?

[1:57:40] so in 2022?

[1:57:43] so in 2022, when the mall was, the 2022 plan was done, a fifth addendum was done to

[1:57:47] the general plan.

[1:57:50] the fifth addendum was done to show that the project was less intense than when the

[1:57:54] full mall was at its full development.

[1:57:57] so the total square footage of the mall with all the ancillary buildings, the new

[1:58:01] development was considered consistent with the 2009 eir.

[1:58:07] so with that, no new mitigation measures would be required or anything; the project,

[1:58:12] environmentally impact-wise, would be similar.

[1:58:16] well, so that decision, again, so a minor technical change.

[1:58:22] and technical, it just depends on who makes the decision on what is a minor or a

[1:58:29] large change, which is the governing body.

[1:58:33] the addendum would still require technical study and review and supporting documents

[1:58:36] that an addendum is applicable.

[1:58:39] you cannot apply an addendum without the proper evidence and background.

[1:58:43] correct.

[1:58:44] but you can always hire a company to provide a result.

[1:58:49] correct.

[1:58:50] so with this ceqa, to ensure that this was appropriate,

[1:58:55] the city pulled from its environmental bench and hired lsa to peer review the

[1:58:58] document to determine and confirm whether the memo that was

[1:59:02] provided by dudek is consistent.

[1:59:05] so just to ensure that we were looking at it from the ceqa standpoint, and we were

[1:59:09] going to be making sure that there

[1:59:11] were no additional mitigation measures or anything required for this.

[1:59:14] so it's essentially a group that's checking what the applicant...

[1:59:20] with the technical studies and everything, correct.

[1:59:22] and the deciding body is the council to decide whether an addendum is a large or

[1:59:28] minor technical change?

[1:59:31] correct.

[1:59:32] okay, thank you.

[1:59:34] well, to clarify, to determine that the addendum is appropriate.

[1:59:43] okay, I see no more questions in regard to staff. We will now turn to questions in

[1:59:51] regard to the developer's presentation. So actually,

[1:59:57] I would invite you to re-approach the podium because the questions will be, and then

[2:00:02] you can redirect them to members of your team

[2:00:06] if you feel appropriate. Start with...

[2:00:14] I'm glad you stuck around a little bit.

[2:00:18] I'll try to keep putting your stuff up front here.

[2:00:24] the new design, which I just shared with councilman sweeney and I'll share with

[2:00:27] anybody else that wants to see it,

[2:00:30] basically, it goes through the corner of pad 4, and it

[2:00:34] almost goes to the middle of the hotel.

[2:00:37] in section 12, which councilman pezold mentioned, it does talk about—I think it's

[2:00:41] 12—it talks about, if that would happen,

[2:00:45] you're prepared to move pad 4 and the hotel.

[2:00:48] where would you move it to?

[2:00:52] you said new design.

[2:00:54] I think it's important to clarify.

[2:00:55] this is a proposal; it's not set in stone, right?

[2:00:58] I think we heard from octa.

[2:01:00] they still have quite a bit of environmental analysis to do.

[2:01:03] we'll weigh in.

[2:01:03] you'll weigh in.

[2:01:05] so in terms of where it gets moved, it will have to move to a place that's acceptable

[2:01:09] to both the hotel operator,

[2:01:11] the hotel developer, ourselves, and the city.

[2:01:13] there are a number of locations on the site where it could get relocated.

[2:01:16] what are they?

[2:01:18] we have a number of ideas, but until I vet those with the hotel operator, it would be

[2:01:26] speculation, right?

[2:01:28] okay.

[2:01:29] well, I guess I'm looking for a more definitive answer, because if we've gone to the

[2:01:33] trouble, both you

[2:01:36] and the staff, to put that in the da as specific paragraphs, I would assume that you

[2:01:40] would have thought it through and said,

[2:01:43] okay, we're going to move it over to this location or that location, at least a

[2:01:47] couple.

[2:01:48] yeah, I'm not saying that we don't have ideas.

[2:01:51] I'm just saying it would be speculative to tell you definitively.

[2:01:54] then you're not willing to share those ideas.

[2:01:58] I want to vet those with the hotel operator to make sure that that's a location that

[2:02:02] they could move to, and then

[2:02:04] we will come back and provide that.

[2:02:05] I'll take that as a no.

[2:02:07] I wouldn't take it as a no.

[2:02:09] then share it.

[2:02:10] like I said, there's numerous locations where it could be relocated, but we've also

[2:02:16] seen octa doesn't have a definitive take.

[2:02:19] okay.

[2:02:21] my specific concern is, would there be the possibility of this being moved to

[2:02:26] the retail areas?

[2:02:30] in what regard?

[2:02:31] like that it would result in a loss of retail?

[2:02:34] I think phase 1r is the required, which contains most of the retail.

[2:02:38] and if, let's say, hotel 1 is displaced and pad 4 is displaced, would that go into

[2:02:43] wiping out some of the retail?

[2:02:46] in other words, reducing our total retail from 163,000 down even lower.

[2:02:52] it would not result in any impacting of retail outside of what's mentioned in that

[2:02:58] 12.4,

[2:02:59] which is hotel 1 and pad 4.

[2:03:02] okay, then I can say then, no matter where it's moved to, it won't reduce retail?

[2:03:07] not necessarily.

[2:03:08] there may be some reduction in retail.

[2:03:10] we haven't seen the amount of what could hypothetically be the taking yet.

[2:03:16] so you're saying it could impact retail and reduce the retail, then?

[2:03:21] there may be some small reduction in retail.

[2:03:23] we don't know about pad 4.

[2:03:24] we need to find out where the take will be and then a relocation option for it.

[2:03:30] okay, I'll be honest with you.

[2:03:31] my worry is that it gets displaced and we lose even more retail, which is one of my

[2:03:35] big problems.

[2:03:38] with respect to the octa off-ramp there, we did some studies back in '22 and before

[2:03:44] that on the traffic.

[2:03:48] if the octa thing would go in there and displace the hotel, that would increase the

[2:03:54] traffic tremendously.

[2:03:57] all the traffic coming off the freeway then would go through the corner of the mall,

[2:04:03] the corner of your area there,

[2:04:06] and really add to the traffic in addition to the new apartment buildings and hotels.

[2:04:15] townhouses and homes.

[2:04:17] has that been discussed or thought about?

[2:04:20] we don't have any data from octa to weigh in on yet, so that will

[2:04:24] absolutely be part of the process that they conduct for environmental review so that

[2:04:28] we can provide them with our feedback.

[2:04:31] I kind of want to ask octa if they've even thought about it, but I guess we shouldn't

[2:04:35] reopen the public.

[2:04:37] all right.

[2:04:39] okay.

[2:04:41] mr.

[2:04:41] oros, could you bring up the merlone geier presentation?

[2:04:45] and I'd like to talk about page 14 to begin with.

[2:04:59] okay.

[2:05:05] okay.

[2:05:07] mr.

[2:05:07] clark and I went over

[2:05:09] the drawing of the project on friday,

[2:05:13] and we mapped out a little picture—got my crayons, you know—to find out where things

[2:05:16] really were. I was hoping presentations tonight...

[2:05:21] and he guided me through that, and I'm looking at this picture on 14, and it

[2:05:26] does not seem to match, in particular the phase 1r, which is sort of the light blue

[2:05:35] at the left.

[2:05:40] that, let's see, what's the difference in that?

[2:05:43] that one is...

[2:05:45] okay.

[2:06:06] nope.

[2:06:07] I think right here it's shown in green, which is phase 2 required.

[2:06:11] yes, phase 2 required.

[2:06:12] right, which is correct.

[2:06:15] okay, so you're saying that this 14 is correct?

[2:06:19] correct.

[2:06:19] did you say, oh, page 14?

[2:06:22] yeah, this is correct.

[2:06:25] yeah, we're required at the same time that we move forward with the village green; we

[2:06:30] have to move forward with the...

[2:06:32] I guess I'll have to get a clarification because...

[2:06:35] mr.

[2:06:35] clark, who helped write the da, says differently.

[2:06:40] so which is it?

[2:06:40] I don't know.

[2:06:41] how is it in the da?

[2:06:43] I guess that...

[2:06:43] so...

[2:07:03] the phase 2 required component of what's shown there in lots 9 and 10 is the retail

[2:07:08] component that's facing the village park.

[2:07:11] so we're obligated to bring that online the same time that we finish the village park,

[2:07:16] which suggests that we need to make a decision and move forward concurrently with the

[2:07:21] rest of the residential that's there on lots 9 and 10,

[2:07:25] which shows multifamily north or townhome north.

[2:07:28] okay.

[2:07:29] I'm sorry, but I'm so confused.

[2:07:30] the part there that has

[2:07:33] lot 9.

[2:07:35] I'm sorry.

[2:07:36] I don't know how to even describe it.

[2:07:42] I guess it's lot 9, 6.1d, north residential, the part up there in the...

[2:07:54] dark green protrudes up?

[2:07:56] yeah, it says multifamily north or townhome north.

[2:07:59] that's lots 9 and 10.

[2:08:00] okay.

[2:08:01] is that part of, that's really part of phase 2 required?

[2:08:04] so the shops that are associated with that are part of the phase 2 required.

[2:08:09] and then, by virtue of making the decision of what we're doing on those shops,

[2:08:15] we anticipate making the decision to move forward on that residential component.

[2:08:21] okay.

[2:08:25] okay, so I guess to clarify that, in our exhibit, we could have shown the green as

[2:08:31] just being those retail shops.

[2:08:34] that would be correct and in line.

[2:08:36] this is not an exhibit to the da.

[2:08:38] this was created based on a request for a phasing plan.

[2:08:43] just to clarify, then, the top part of the dark green that protrudes up should be

[2:08:47] with the tan area.

[2:08:50] yes, it would be with the tan area; it would be phase 1 elective.

[2:08:55] actually, it would be phase 2 elective, yeah.

[2:08:58] no, it would be phase 1 elective as long as we

[2:09:01] no, it would be phase 2 elective because we have to do, it

[2:09:03] would have to be tied to that retail that's part of the phase 2 requirement.

[2:09:08] it's not really 2r; it's 1e.

[2:09:11] you're correct.

[2:09:12] so we could, yeah, for tracking purposes, update this exhibit so that it clarifies

[2:09:16] and ties to the da.

[2:09:19] but this is, again, not an exhibit to the da.

[2:09:21] the da controls.

[2:09:22] well, that's been my problem.

[2:09:24] I haven't had time to go through the da, just getting it in the last couple of days,

[2:09:27] and what you present tonight is not even accurate.

[2:09:31] so I'm not saying it's a big thing.

[2:09:33] I don't want to blame you for that.

[2:09:35] but I mean, we need more time to dissect things.

[2:09:38] that's a major part of the whole thing, right in the center.

[2:09:41] and we don't even have it right on the presentation stuff.

[2:09:43] we've got to get it coordinated.

[2:09:44] so we really need more.

[2:09:46] we need some more discussion.

[2:09:48] okay.

[2:09:50] okay.

[2:09:51] let's see.

[2:09:54] page.

[2:09:57] why does this not match?

[2:09:58] page 4, please.

[2:10:02] okay, this diagram's kind of confusing to me because it looks like everything's sort

[2:10:06] of finished in 2031,

[2:10:09] but yet the project's supposed to last 15 years, and 2026 and 15 is not 2031.

[2:10:15] again, we could update this.

[2:10:17] this is just to depict where we are, where we think we'll be able to finish the

[2:10:20] majority of the phases that we're working

[2:10:23] on.

[2:10:24] so this is not complete.

[2:10:25] it should have more years out there.

[2:10:26] we could put a plus sign after 2031.

[2:10:27] okay.

[2:10:35] okay, so it's not finished.

[2:10:37] page number 6, mr.

[2:10:39] oros, please.

[2:10:47] okay, I think I wrote down the wrong number on that, but let me deal with the

[2:10:52] question anyway.

[2:10:56] I'm glad that mr.

[2:10:57] sweeney clarified that eps is sort of the financial model we're going by.

[2:11:03] a number of things.

[2:11:05] I compared it with the 2022 that was done by kosmont, just to get an idea of where we

[2:11:12] were going to.

[2:11:15] and some of the things in there, there were four categories that were added that were

[2:11:22] not in the 2022 study that were put in the

[2:11:27] revenue category.

[2:11:29] one was basically an additional $40,000-plus for taxes.

[2:11:37] and I was going with our financial director that that was proposed $40,000 for, like,

[2:11:43] speeding tickets and parking tickets and the like.

[2:11:48] I think that's kind of an interesting category to add to our revenue.

[2:11:54] I'm not sure that's a good thing to put in there.

[2:11:56] it wasn't done the last time.

[2:11:58] did I get the interpretation of that wrong?

[2:12:00] it was a different group that did this study, a group that the city's actually

[2:12:04] commissioned work from before,

[2:12:06] and they said that this is a line item that's typically included in other fiscal

[2:12:11] impact studies.

[2:12:12] so that's all we had to work off of.

[2:12:14] okay, it wasn't in the impact study four years ago when we did it.

[2:12:17] so I found that kind of strange.

[2:12:19] the other one was, it just said other taxes, another almost $60,000, kind of a

[2:12:24] nebulous number.

[2:12:26] what was that?

[2:12:27] it's probably a footnote tied to it, but if there wasn't and we need to provide more

[2:12:31] clarity, we have dpfg here.

[2:12:33] they can respond to that if it's a big concern.

[2:12:37] another one just said charges and fees.

[2:12:38] another $200,000 income.

[2:12:42] again, another nebulous title that was not in the 2022 study.

[2:12:47] again, there are footnotes for every single one of those line items, so...

[2:12:51] okay.

[2:12:52] I guess my objection and concern is to get at least three or four line items that

[2:12:56] weren't in the 2022 study, and they

[2:12:59] add up to several hundred thousand dollars as potential revenue for the study, which

[2:13:02] seems kind of strange because we went over it in detail

[2:13:06] last time, and now they're brand-new ones.

[2:13:15] oh, I know, because there was a big discussion.

[2:13:17] I objected to the kosmont study vehemently, and we redid it, and we got a number that

[2:13:21] was much more reasonable, like you said,

[2:13:23] the keyser.

[2:13:24] I would just compare it.

[2:13:25] I would just compare it, yeah.

[2:13:29] no, I have the kosmont.

[2:13:31] the kosmont is the one I'm comparing it to, but keyser marston is the one we did,

[2:13:37] which is much different.

[2:13:39] right, I know, I remember.

[2:13:41] but the line I have is still the same.

[2:13:45] one additional thing, too, on this financial page: sales tax.

[2:13:51] you have, from the eps study, $883,000.

[2:13:56] well, I just did a study of the current situation for the mall area, and we're only

[2:14:02] bringing in maybe $450,000,

[2:14:04] and those are pretty viable, good businesses there, and the only thing that we'd be

[2:14:09] adding

[2:14:11] revenue would be a whole foods, as I understand, and several little pads.

[2:14:16] and I added some to that, and I estimated about $600,000, maybe a little less.

[2:14:22] I don't see how you double some major businesses by a couple little pads and a whole

[2:14:26] foods, you know,

[2:14:27] a lot of people love whole foods, but as far as the city getting tax money from it,

[2:14:30] food is not taxed in california.

[2:14:32] so there's not a whole lot of revenue there.

[2:14:34] so I don't know how you come up with the double of what we're getting now.

[2:14:39] so those are numbers you're quoting from eps, right?

[2:14:43] I'd have to—I mean, that's your consultant that the city hired,

[2:14:46] so I can't speak to the assumptions they included in their analysis.

[2:14:50] yeah, that's why my estimates came out.

[2:14:52] several hundred thousand dollars different because there's additional things that

[2:14:55] weren't there before and a discrepancy, I would say, in the

[2:14:59] prediction of the sales tax.

[2:15:01] okay.

[2:15:05] next question.

[2:15:08] okay, I talked about the drawing not matching.

[2:15:11] page number 19, mr. Oros, please.

[2:15:24] yeah, this one doesn't show it as well as I would like to.

[2:15:26] can we go back to just the general picture of the overview of the property?

[2:15:38] the site plan? Yeah, a map would be better. There we go.

[2:15:44] that's good. Now I have a question about parking and the park. The park is over on

[2:15:50] the bottom there, about where the white

[2:15:54] circle is, the vp plus ret?

[2:15:58] but the parking is considerably far from that. That seems rather

[2:16:05] inconvenient for people taking their kids to the park.

[2:16:07] they have to walk through stores or other ways to get there.

[2:16:10] I'm just wondering why it was not put with some parking.

[2:16:14] I didn't see any parking for the park.

[2:16:17] where was the parking for the park?

[2:16:18] the parking is based on the retail in addition to the park usage.

[2:16:23] so the parking's been evaluated, and we definitely don't want to have a gap in the

[2:16:31] need for parking to be able to lease

[2:16:35] the retail.

[2:16:35] so you saw the parking numbers.

[2:16:39] there's a surplus in terms of parking for the commercial parking.

[2:16:44] we think it's efficient.

[2:16:46] was there consideration given for parking for the park?

[2:16:50] it was part of the considerations for the nature.

[2:16:52] it looks like it's isolated.

[2:16:54] there's no parking, not any quantity of parking that's near the park.

[2:16:59] there's quite a bit of parking near the park.

[2:17:04] along the village drive, along calle luisa, there's a large parking lot just south of

[2:17:08] pad 3 adjacent to pad 1.

[2:17:11] there's parking along magdalena.

[2:17:13] yeah, there's a whole bunch of parking there where bj's is now, that one big section

[2:17:16] there, but then you have to go through,

[2:17:19] you know, you have to go across the road and through a couple pads there before you

[2:17:23] get to the park, which,

[2:17:25] like I said, if I'm taking my granddaughter to the park, you know,

[2:17:28] I want to minimize her walking across roads and the distance she has to travel to go,

[2:17:31] you know,

[2:17:32] swing on the swings or whatever.

[2:17:34] okay, that seemed like a discrepancy.

[2:17:40] okay.

[2:17:41] page number 24, affordable housing.

[2:17:51] I want to ask, first of all, the area or the, I guess, apartments in the affordable

[2:17:58] is allocated very low, the

[2:18:02] very lowest thing, which I guess is the...

[2:18:06] 10% of the units will be at 30% ami.

[2:18:07] yeah, there's a really low income.

[2:18:09] I forget.

[2:18:09] they keep changing categories on me.

[2:18:12] how many of those are not a studio, but a one- or two-bedroom or three-bedroom for a

[2:18:17] family?

[2:18:18] so this is not family housing.

[2:18:20] this is senior housing.

[2:18:21] there'll be studios, ones, and two-bedroom units.

[2:18:24] there'll be a mix of those based on demand.

[2:18:27] and the income levels will be spread across the different unit types.

[2:18:32] so what is agreed to here provides the most flexibility to increase the likelihood of

[2:18:37] success in procuring the needed financing for the project.

[2:18:42] so what we've agreed to is that the ami levels will be between 30 and 70%, averaging

[2:18:50] around 60% or less,

[2:18:53] and that at least 10% of the units will be 30% ami or less, which is very low income.

[2:18:59] well, okay, let me get an idea, then.

[2:19:01] what kind of units are there?

[2:19:02] are they all...

[2:19:03] studios, ones, and twos.

[2:19:04] studio, one, and two?

[2:19:05] yeah.

[2:19:06] okay.

[2:19:07] how many twos are allocated to the lowest level?

[2:19:10] there won't just be an allocation.

[2:19:14] it depends on the overall mix of ami levels that the financing will require, if that

[2:19:21] makes sense.

[2:19:22] but it's not going to be like the 30%s only get the studios.

[2:19:25] that's not how it works.

[2:19:26] okay, then the lowest group...

[2:19:29] can get the, and I should say will get, some of the two-bedrooms.

[2:19:32] sure.

[2:19:33] okay, that's good.

[2:19:38] right, casey?

[2:19:40] let me stick to that line of questioning right now.

[2:19:43] leaving out the affordable housing units and talking about the townhouses, the homes,

[2:19:47] I guess those are the ones for sale, right?

[2:19:51] yes.

[2:19:51] okay, what is the price range on those starting now?

[2:19:54] like I said in my presentation, until they're built, and there will be a builder—we

[2:19:58] don't build for-sale products,

[2:20:00] so there will be a builder who will build those, and they will sell them based on the

[2:20:03] cost to deliver that unit and what

[2:20:05] the return needs to be to justify that cost.

[2:20:08] so I'd say it will be comparable to a new market-rate unit at the time that it comes

[2:20:16] to market.

[2:20:17] the benefit of the unit mix that we have is that it will hit the different

[2:20:22] stratifications of the price point levels because we'll

[2:20:27] have two-bedroom, for-sale units, which you can't find in a new

[2:20:32] project, or you can't find an existing project with a two-bedroom unit unless it's in

[2:20:36] a condominium, which we aren't—we're not building condominiums

[2:20:40] anymore that are just flats, right?

[2:20:41] so that's the only gap, and then I'll go all the way up to four-bedroom, three-story,

[2:20:46] single-family detached, so that's the spectrum that will

[2:20:50] be covered on the for-sale product. Okay, one of the things that's been mentioned

[2:20:53] tonight by a number of people and they're kind

[2:20:56] of concerned is, yeah, we want a place where there's more housing and so that, you

[2:21:00] know,

[2:21:02] you know, nurses and doctors and whoever, all of them down the spectrum, can afford

[2:21:06] to live there. But I'm trying to ascertain

[2:21:09] if they really can afford it. We just had a project in another part of the city where

[2:21:13] they were building

[2:21:15] units of different kinds, and the starting price was $1.5 million. I don't know many

[2:21:19] people that's a starting price for, so I'm

[2:21:22] trying to get what is the lowest, you know, what's the lowest?

[2:21:25] smallest townhouse, what's it going to cost? Is it going to be at least

[2:21:28] $700,000? I don't know what it's going to cost to build because we don't have a

[2:21:34] builder.

[2:21:35] we haven't priced that out yet.

[2:21:36] but, I mean, there will be varying price points, and there will be varying unit types

[2:21:42] that people will be able to buy.

[2:21:45] okay, I guess I'm not finding out.

[2:21:47] I'm not sure that that's...

[2:21:48] there are going to be, you know...

[2:21:50] starter families living there after all. Well, I'll just interrupt only in the sense

[2:21:54] that the question that you're asking really needs to be

[2:21:59] looked at in terms of time, so by the time they get around to building these, it

[2:22:04] could be five years from now.

[2:22:06] so you're not going to have the same kind of price points.

[2:22:10] in fact, the economy could go the other way, for all I know.

[2:22:13] but the point is...

[2:22:14] only if I buy houses, and then that'll go down.

[2:22:16] and all I'm saying, dave, is that if you're asking the question, it really needs to

[2:22:20] be in terms of

[2:22:22] today's dollars, if those units hit the street today, what might they be?

[2:22:27] I'm not sure they'll know.

[2:22:28] because you can't predict what's going to be five years from now.

[2:22:32] you're correct, but I was trying to get an idea.

[2:22:34] as of now, just to get it in context of what we're doing now, the salaries are going

[2:22:36] to go up,

[2:22:37] everything's going to go up, probably.

[2:22:38] I understood your question.

[2:22:40] just trying to get an idea if it's really housing that anybody can afford as a new

[2:22:45] family or starter family.

[2:22:48] and I really don't hear that.

[2:22:49] okay.

[2:22:52] another question, page 28.

[2:22:54] I guess I'm sure the hotel was in there.

[2:23:02] I mentioned that last time.

[2:23:03] that was one of my sticking points.

[2:23:04] we didn't have enough hotel rooms to make the revenue positive.

[2:23:08] I'm glad to see you added the hotel.

[2:23:09] but why don't we have both hotels ready for the olympics?

[2:23:13] because the second hotel requires the relocation of the nordstrom rack.

[2:23:21] bummer.

[2:23:24] this hotel in particular has been ready to go since 2023, so they are ready to go, but

[2:23:32] unfortunately... Good answer, unfortunately. Okay.

[2:23:37] I noticed, this goes back to the study again, and forgive me, mr.

[2:23:41] clark, I'm going to refer to the kosmont study again, but it was pretty consistent, I

[2:23:44] think, with the keyser.

[2:23:47] the valuation, property tax-wise, was about $700,000 back in '22, and now it's moved

[2:23:54] down to $536,000,

[2:23:58] which tells me that the overall value of the property has gone down.

[2:24:01] is that the case?

[2:24:05] what are you referring to?

[2:24:06] when we calculated how much tax the city would get based on property tax, in 2022,

[2:24:13] the number was $700,000, which I said, okay,

[2:24:19] I'll buy that.

[2:24:19] I don't know what it's going to be worth when it's all finished.

[2:24:21] but now it's been revised down to $536,000, which is about $160,000 less, which tells

[2:24:25] me that the value,

[2:24:26] when you do the numbers back up,

[2:24:33] that the value of the whole property has gone down.

[2:24:35] is that the case?

[2:24:36] I think it's more a function of the reduction in square footage, which ties to the

[2:24:39] reduction in parking and the reduction in traffic.

[2:24:43] okay, I'm guessing that because a bunch of townhouses are worth less than a big

[2:24:47] six-story apartment complex.

[2:24:49] well, a five-story townhome is less square footage than 460,000 square feet of office

[2:24:54] plus a movie theater and five large multifamily buildings.

[2:24:58] it's less square footage.

[2:25:00] okay, so I just wanted to understand if we're revising our income from that data.

[2:25:04] I would argue that's, yeah, I would assume that's where the delta comes from.

[2:25:07] okay, thank you.

[2:25:11] there was one last, it's sort of a question,

[2:25:13] but there were penalties built into the last iteration. The other ad hoc member that

[2:25:17] was with me on this is in the audience

[2:25:20] right now.

[2:25:21] there were a lot of penalties if things weren't done on time and, you know, sequenced

[2:25:25] correctly.

[2:25:27] I haven't had a chance to look at it and see if they're in there, but are those, mr.

[2:25:31] clark, I guess the question would be sort of in general with merlone geier, are those

[2:25:35] still in there?

[2:25:36] everything that was in the original agreement is in this one with respect to

[2:25:41] penalties paid,

[2:25:43] plus the hotel penalties that just applied to the one hotel last night applied to

[2:25:49] both of them.

[2:25:53] okay.

[2:25:54] okay.

[2:25:55] and last thing I can tell you for right now, I'll even ask this one.

[2:26:08] let me save that.

[2:26:10] that's all I have for this moment.

[2:26:11] okay.

[2:26:12] thank you.

[2:26:12] erica.

[2:26:14] erica.

[2:26:17] okay, do entitlements increase land values?

[2:26:24] do entitlements increase land values?

[2:26:26] a land value is determined on the use that's approved and ultimately built, so yeah.

[2:26:34] okay, so if entitlements increase land values, would, say, a hotel, if an entitlement

[2:26:43] for a hotel

[2:26:46] increase the land value of that property?

[2:26:50] you'd have to compare to the alternative land use.

[2:26:56] okay.

[2:26:57] so basically, and you knew in 2023 that octa was looking into this

[2:27:13] sort of plan, 2023?

[2:27:15] so three years ago?

[2:27:18] so octa, this has been ongoing for 10-plus years, right, with numerous plans and

[2:27:26] iterations.

[2:27:30] do you have a seat at the, do you go to their meetings?

[2:27:34] no.

[2:27:36] we're a private property owner.

[2:27:37] I don't think in any of the comments from octa they said that they were inviting

[2:27:40] private property owners to those meetings.

[2:27:42] I think it was just cities.

[2:27:43] okay.

[2:27:46] so if you knew about this maybe in 2023.

[2:27:50] we've known about all of the iterations they've been looking at for 10 years.

[2:27:55] okay.

[2:27:56] but this one has been in the process since 2023.

[2:27:58] along with several other alternatives.

[2:28:06] okay, along with several alternatives.

[2:28:09] including what joe said of the flyover that would land in lake forest.

[2:28:16] we heard of multiple, but I don't know if I recall the environmental impacts

[2:28:22] happening for a particular project.

[2:28:26] yeah, they haven't done the environmental study yet is what they said.

[2:28:31] I think I heard that they started the environmental.

[2:28:38] but I could be wrong.

[2:28:41] so 2023, so basically you knew about the possibility of this land, that it could be

[2:28:52] in jeopardy through eminent domain.

[2:29:01] why wouldn't you just design something that could make this plan work, make octa's

[2:29:09] plan work?

[2:29:11] we found out, like joe mentioned,

[2:29:14] early june is when we found out that this was something that they had emphasized was

[2:29:20] what octa was advocating to caltrans.

[2:29:23] ultimately, caltrans is the decision maker.

[2:29:26] this is a caltrans project.

[2:29:28] octa is providing the funding and interfacing to gather this support, right?

[2:29:35] the ultimate decision will be made by caltrans following all of the analysis that

[2:29:40] needs to be done.

[2:29:43] we have current entitlement for an office building that sits right there,

[2:29:47] and we laid out our site plan without the expectation that they were going to

[2:29:56] receive the approvals for the alternative that would impact carlota the way that

[2:30:01] they're now saying they're advocating for. But because they're

[2:30:05] advocating for it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Okay, so what we agreed to, as

[2:30:12] was mentioned in the da, recognizing that in an eminent

[2:30:18] domain proceeding, the city wouldn't receive the tot that we're committing to.

[2:30:24] and that the city in good faith is agreeing to this change based on that change, and

[2:30:29] so we agreed that we would come

[2:30:32] back with a site plan within six months that would move the hotel outside of a

[2:30:37] potential take area, and that's what we intend

[2:30:40] to do. So if you receive the entitlements, the land value increases in that process?

[2:30:46] not necessarily. But it would increase, so that would

[2:30:50] cost the taxpayers more money that would

[2:30:54] that may potentially not go to our roads or the city for the residents.

[2:31:05] not necessarily.

[2:31:06] I think that's...

[2:31:09] jumping several steps ahead of this process.

[2:31:13] and I think while it's interesting, we could have a more detailed legal conversation

[2:31:19] about it if we need to clarify what the condemnation

[2:31:25] law says related to that.

[2:31:28] I'm just wondering, because you're asking for an entitlement that potentially won't

[2:31:33] happen, but that entitlement could add value to you.

[2:31:38] your company.

[2:31:39] but we have to come back within six months with a revised site plan, right?

[2:31:44] correct.

[2:31:45] correct.

[2:31:45] but instead of providing a plan that has the alternative site there,

[2:31:50] and this hotel seems to be a huge linchpin in this project because the funding

[2:31:58] surrounds that substantially.

[2:32:01] it changes the funding.

[2:32:04] our city is in jeopardy without it, but yet it's on a site that could be gone.

[2:32:10] right.

[2:32:11] and if we continue to delay, it just continues to put the city in more jeopardy,

[2:32:15] right?

[2:32:16] it doesn't help landing a hotel if we don't approve this and we continue to delay to

[2:32:21] study numerous alternatives and try to entertain

[2:32:25] octa's demands.

[2:32:30] there's no guarantee that a hotel, like the flag that is talking about coming here,

[2:32:34] could easily go to another location, right?

[2:32:37] yeah, they could go and do it.

[2:32:39] but right now they're not.

[2:32:40] now they want to open here.

[2:32:42] they want to do this.

[2:32:42] so we created language that would, in the best interest of the city and of us, allow

[2:32:49] it to move forward.

[2:32:51] so if past behavior is an indication of future behavior, we don't know if it will at

[2:32:56] all...

[2:32:57] move forward? The project won't ever move forward based off of the patterns of the

[2:33:03] last projects. I don't know how you want me to

[2:33:07] respond to that.

[2:33:08] I think that's just saying. So you have the bus station where you have a project of

[2:33:14] 200 homes and

[2:33:25] spread across from the station. Have you...

[2:33:29] done any studies about what's around the bus station at night? In what regard? Have you been

[2:33:36] around and driven around the bus station? Do you

[2:33:41] understand what's around the bus station? In what context? What is the point of

[2:33:48] the—is there a question?

[2:33:51] so the bus station, it's one station that is a connection for people to try to get

[2:34:03] into the homeless shelter in laguna beach.

[2:34:11] great.

[2:34:12] so there's a strong transient population that crosses over into this area.

[2:34:20] and I'm just wondering...

[2:34:24] why the low-income housing would be placed specifically there and the potential

[2:34:34] issues that could happen with this area by placing low-income housing right

[2:34:45] right next to this.

[2:34:50] I kind of gather what you're insinuating, but we've relocated the senior housing to

[2:34:55] that corner based on the collaborative feedback of the housing,

[2:35:00] affordable housing developer, the ad hoc committee.

[2:35:02] there are a lot of housing projects adjacent to transit centers that accommodate all

[2:35:08] kinds of people,

[2:35:10] including transients that are trying to get to homeless shelters.

[2:35:12] I don't think that's a concern for the affordable housing developer or for the

[2:35:17] residents who would live there.

[2:35:19] well, do you know where the homeless shelters are in the county?

[2:35:24] I don't know how that's a relevant question either, but...

[2:35:32] I'm just wondering if you know where the homeless shelters are because...

[2:35:35] I don't personally, but I could find them, I'm sure.

[2:35:37] how far is the next one?

[2:35:39] I mean, laguna beach tends, because there is a homeless shelter, tends to be a very

[2:35:43] busy homeless shelter with...

[2:35:46] women, children, men, everyone trying to get into that shelter all of the time, all

[2:35:50] over this entire area.

[2:35:52] okay, I've got to interrupt.

[2:35:54] are there specific questions about this development, or are we just pontificating

[2:36:00] about, you know, homelessness in orange county?

[2:36:06] it's the bus shelter and the location of the low-income housing, the location.

[2:36:13] all right.

[2:36:14] because I'm the chair of this, I'm not going to answer that, but I could.

[2:36:19] and I just would like us to focus on questions that specifically involve this project

[2:36:27] and what the developer is doing and not what's

[2:36:32] in his mindset and all that other kind of stuff.

[2:36:35] and how much other research has he done about things in the united states?

[2:36:40] you know, I mean, at some point...

[2:36:44] just bear with me.

[2:36:47] you're not hearing much from the ad hoc committee because we've worked on this for a

[2:36:52] year and a half.

[2:36:53] we can probably answer all of these questions.

[2:36:55] well, not all.

[2:36:57] but these are questions to the developer that you have about his presentation.

[2:37:05] that's really what it was.

[2:37:06] and now we're off into homelessness.

[2:37:09] and I can give you a lecture about scag and homelessness.

[2:37:13] yet, that's not appropriate for me to do, so I'm not going to do that. But go ahead.

[2:37:18] keep on rolling.

[2:37:21] okay, I am wondering, I will move from the location of the bus stop and some of the

[2:37:28] issues that are there in the city.

[2:37:34] what about, so I noticed in this plan that you have

[2:37:40] strategically placed the park right across the street from the hospital, which is a

[2:37:45] nice location.

[2:37:47] however, if you are a new homebuyer, what is the incentive to purchase in an area

[2:37:53] when there's only a dog park and the homes,

[2:37:57] I am assuming they're more than one bedroom, and people may want to bring children.

[2:38:03] where are the tot lots associated?

[2:38:07] where are things, I mean, is it,

[2:38:11] where are parks and where are things to help the kids in the neighborhood?

[2:38:21] can we pull up the site? There's also a community, there's a rec center with a pool

[2:38:25] and a community center that will

[2:38:27] be part of the project. What we find is the home builder, when they come in for their

[2:38:32] building permits, they may want

[2:38:34] to make some modifications that would have to go through a conformance review process

[2:38:39] to probably add a lot within that community rec center

[2:38:43] area. The dog park is a major amenity.

[2:38:47] and in addition to that, there's walking trails throughout the site.

[2:38:51] and the village park is directly adjacent to those homes.

[2:38:55] so we think it's well served.

[2:38:59] so if you're a mom and you have, like, a nine-year-old, and that you don't want

[2:39:04] playing video games, you don't want, you know,

[2:39:07] you have to then say, go to a rec center.

[2:39:10] but, I mean, there's just, there aren't any local

[2:39:14] there isn't anything local where you can send your children so that they can burn off

[2:39:18] steam.

[2:39:19] no, there's a pool and a rec center within the project.

[2:39:25] but I'm just saying, for, I mean, one, for free.

[2:39:29] how do you go for free?

[2:39:30] yeah, it would be part of the hoa.

[2:39:31] it would be owned and controlled and managed by the hoa.

[2:39:33] so it would be part of their hoa dues.

[2:39:36] I think homebuyers would...

[2:39:39] they'd see that as an amenity, I think, having a dedicated pool area, amenity area.

[2:39:44] pools are attractive.

[2:39:46] pools are attractive.

[2:39:48] but I'm talking about parks.

[2:39:50] I'm talking about for children to burn off energy where they don't have to get

[2:39:55] prepared to go.

[2:39:56] they can just walk.

[2:39:57] I've got a four-and-a-half-year-old.

[2:39:58] I know what that energy is all about.

[2:40:00] yep.

[2:40:03] that's a lot.

[2:40:04] okay.

[2:40:05] all right.

[2:40:06] thank you.

[2:40:06] those are my questions.

[2:40:08] okay.

[2:40:12] steve?

[2:40:13] josh is probably first.

[2:40:14] oh, I'm sorry.

[2:40:14] that's okay.

[2:40:15] go ahead.

[2:40:16] I should be totally off.

[2:40:17] okay.

[2:40:18] just one question.

[2:40:19] sorry, josh.

[2:40:21] it's okay.

[2:40:21] yeah.

[2:40:22] okay.

[2:40:23] all right.

[2:40:24] with respect to the four different phases?

[2:40:26] yeah.

[2:40:26] okay.

[2:40:27] the 1r and the 2r, I basically understand those, I guess.

[2:40:30] the 1e and the 2e, those are sort of optional.

[2:40:36] can you tell me the

[2:40:40] what could be different than is shown on the drawing?

[2:40:43] I mean, there's townhomes and there's individual houses.

[2:40:47] on those sections, what could that change to?

[2:40:51] it's not optional in regard to, like, land use, right?

[2:40:56] the project, as you're seeing in front of you, is intended to be built.

[2:41:01] what's optional is the phasing of when and how many of those for-sale components of

[2:41:05] the project, for example, move forward.

[2:41:09] it may be that that comes forward at a time in the market when a home builder wants

[2:41:12] to come in and build all of

[2:41:14] those at once.

[2:41:15] it may be that they only build a couple of those tracts of for-sale product at once.

[2:41:22] it may be that the for-sale product moves forward, but one of the multifamily

[2:41:27] buildings comes later.

[2:41:29] so that's what the intent is.

[2:41:31] and the conversation was really

[2:41:35] kind of, once we, the city, those who were negotiating on behalf of the city, once we

[2:41:40] get what we want,

[2:41:42] we don't really care how quickly you build out your townhomes and your residential

[2:41:45] components of the project.

[2:41:46] so that's why they're elective improvements, is what it's characterized as.

[2:41:51] okay, thanks.

[2:41:52] let me repeat back to you what I think you just said, then.

[2:41:54] the things that are designated there, whether it's apartments, townhomes, or houses,

[2:41:59] that's what's going to be built there.

[2:42:00] it's just they may not be built, you know, they may be built in a different time

[2:42:05] period.

[2:42:06] yeah, it'll be in response to the market at the time that we're able to, once

[2:42:12] we've met the required components of those phases, it'll depend on what the market

[2:42:16] looks like at that point in time on the elective

[2:42:19] improvements.

[2:42:20] I guess that begs another question, then.

[2:42:22] what is the maximum that they could delay, then?

[2:42:25] the maximum, sorry?

[2:42:25] what is the maximum that they could delay that?

[2:42:28] that they could delay that?

[2:42:29] the whole area is supposed to be done in 15 years with an option for five additional

[2:42:33] years.

[2:42:34] I mean, the risk is really on us, right?

[2:42:36] I have no incentive to wait indefinitely, especially if I'm required to put millions

[2:42:41] of dollars to work in the required improvements.

[2:42:46] I don't benefit from investing all those dollars and waiting to recoup on the revenue.

[2:42:53] so we're fully incentivized to accelerate that as quickly as possible.

[2:42:57] okay, unfortunately, I have not been able to read the whole da.

[2:43:00] that's fine.

[2:43:01] I guess my intent is, will the whole thing be finished in 20 years, no more than 20

[2:43:06] years?

[2:43:08] I hope it's well before 20 years.

[2:43:11] is there a mandate to be finished in 20 years?

[2:43:14] no, you can't mandate that they build a certain number of residential units.

[2:43:19] I think that's the point.

[2:43:19] that's what we felt was the fair part of this.

[2:43:25] we're front-loading now all of the tax-revenue-generating components of the project,

[2:43:30] the affordable,

[2:43:32] all of that is coming in the first two phases as required improvements.

[2:43:37] and so we then are able to build out the elective improvements when it's market

[2:43:45] feasible, and when we can do that is dependent

[2:43:51] on the market.

[2:43:52] okay, forgive me, I'm a little bit gun-shy about this, but we've had so many

[2:43:55] proposals come by.

[2:43:56] first, we got rid of retail.

[2:43:58] now we've gotten rid of all the businesses, all the office complexes, and things have

[2:44:03] not gotten done.

[2:44:05] so I'm a little, like I said, gun-shy that this stuff will drag on and on and on,

[2:44:09] because we've already had 13 years

[2:44:11] of it, and then another 20 on top of that.

[2:44:13] and if it can even go farther than that, it kind of bothers me.

[2:44:17] I appreciate you bringing that up again, because I think it's important.

[2:44:19] the market has spoken.

[2:44:22] there's no demand for a mall here.

[2:44:24] there's no demand for 700,000 square feet of retail.

[2:44:27] there's no demand for office, right?

[2:44:29] there's demand for a hotel.

[2:44:31] I have two hotels that are ready to go.

[2:44:33] I have a lease signed with whole foods, and I have for-sale

[2:44:38] product that's being built in orange county and being acquired.

[2:44:42] so there's an actionable plan that's in front of you today.

[2:44:45] I can't go back in time and change the mall.

[2:44:49] I don't think any of us can, right?

[2:44:51] but there's also a difference between placemaking, which is not equivalent.

[2:44:57] building more retail doesn't make it a better place to hang out.

[2:45:01] in fact, it creates more of a liability for the city in terms of having vacancy.

[2:45:05] and the liability for the developer.

[2:45:07] you can't require more retail to be built than the market can demand.

[2:45:12] and conversely, why we added the second hotel is because it's a much more efficient

[2:45:17] land use to generate as much tax revenue as possible

[2:45:21] without overburdening the project with more parking.

[2:45:25] a 100-key hotel is the equivalent of about 200,000 square feet of retail.

[2:45:31] depending on the sales tax revenue.

[2:45:33] and you would have to park 200,000 square feet.

[2:45:36] that would take up all of the valuable land that we're using for placemaking that the

[2:45:41] community has said that they want, and the housing

[2:45:45] diversification that the community has said that they want.

[2:45:48] we've done all of that.

[2:45:49] we've taken all of those things into consideration, and that's the plan that you have

[2:45:52] in front of you.

[2:45:54] and it results in, I don't know how people are saying, $1.5 million in net impact.

[2:46:00] net benefit is $2.3 million.

[2:46:03] both eps and our consultants said the same thing.

[2:46:06] it is a significantly better outcome than what was approved in 2022.

[2:46:11] tot is a much better revenue.

[2:46:13] 100%.

[2:46:15] we agree.

[2:46:18] and we have the hotels.

[2:46:19] we're ready to go.

[2:46:20] we have an affordable housing developer ready to go.

[2:46:24] we have retailers that we've been holding off on leasing retail until this

[2:46:30] council approves this project, but they're ready to go.

[2:46:33] they know that whole foods is coming in.

[2:46:34] they know nordstrom rack is getting relocated.

[2:46:36] nordstrom rack could have left a long time ago, and they've stuck this out.

[2:46:40] they've been a good partner of ours.

[2:46:41] so we have a lot of plates that are spinning, and we're ready to go.

[2:46:47] this is, I mean, council member mathis made a really good point.

[2:46:52] paralysis by analysis can kill this project, and we're trying to avoid that.

[2:46:59] hopefully, some of these answers to these questions can help us get closer to that

[2:47:03] goal.

[2:47:04] let me ask another question.

[2:47:06] I'm not in the business, but I've heard rumors that now apartments are going down.

[2:47:11] is that true or not true?

[2:47:13] you probably have your finger on the pulse more than I do.

[2:47:16] it's true that right now, the cost of construction for multifamily is very high, and

[2:47:21] there's a ceiling on rents that you can charge

[2:47:24] for market-rate apartments.

[2:47:25] and so in the current environment, where you have elevated interest rates and you

[2:47:29] have elevated construction costs,

[2:47:32] there's a reason why you have a lot of multifamily projects that are currently on

[2:47:36] hold.

[2:47:38] but the for-sale product, you're able to build at a much lower cost per square foot

[2:47:43] because it's three-story wood-frame construction.

[2:47:46] it's different when you're building a concrete parking garage.

[2:47:51] it just elevates those costs significantly.

[2:47:53] so yes, today, moving forward with an apartment building is challenging.

[2:47:59] but moving forward with the rest of the project is not.

[2:48:02] I didn't think it was that definitive.

[2:48:04] thank you for sharing that.

[2:48:05] it makes me worry that we might come back in another three years and say we can't

[2:48:08] build apartments either.

[2:48:10] I'm not sure where we go from that.

[2:48:12] anyway, thank you.

[2:48:16] erica, did you have another question?

[2:48:18] oh, I'm sorry, josh.

[2:48:20] excuse me.

[2:48:21] thank you, chair.

[2:48:22] before I ask my questions, james, do you need a drink?

[2:48:27] no, I'm good.

[2:48:29] I'm going to come over here so I'm facing you.

[2:48:32] all right.

[2:48:33] so I just want to give a little context to my questions, because obviously I care

[2:48:37] deeply about this city, and we all know

[2:48:39] how important these 68 acres are for the future of our city.

[2:48:44] and my questions are really just focused on how we can deliver the public benefit

[2:48:48] of this project as soon as possible, and how we get the revenue-producing pieces

[2:48:53] online, and how we can create a place for our

[2:48:56] residents to actually enjoy and make sure the project benefits the city for

[2:49:01] generations.

[2:49:02] all great goals.

[2:49:03] yeah, right?

[2:49:05] with the 2028 olympics coming, that's top of mind, and I see an opportunity with

[2:49:10] hotel one and the village park.

[2:49:13] so I want to just better understand the timeline and what we can do to realistically

[2:49:18] get those pieces completed and generating activity and revenue

[2:49:24] for the city as soon as possible.

[2:49:25] so are residence inn and ac marriott already committed contractually?

[2:49:32] so the obligation in the development agreement is that we have an upscale

[2:49:36] extended-stay hotel on hotel 1 and we have an upscale

[2:49:40] hotel on hotel 2.

[2:49:42] okay.

[2:49:43] we are also obligated to provide a memorandum of the purchase and sale agreement that

[2:49:49] identifies that a franchise agreement has been signed for a flag

[2:49:54] that meets those requirements.

[2:49:55] okay.

[2:49:56] okay?

[2:49:58] I am not in a position to state the names.

[2:50:01] both of those hotels, by the way, meet those classifications, which is fine, right?

[2:50:06] sure.

[2:50:09] so that's the process that's been set up in the development agreement.

[2:50:12] so we'll have to come back

[2:50:14] and provide a memorandum of purchase and sale that gets recorded.

[2:50:19] because in most contracts, as you know, leases and purchase and sale agreements,

[2:50:22] there's confidential information that's shared, right?

[2:50:25] so we agreed to provide a memorandum that gets recorded.

[2:50:29] and we added that it would be after a franchise agreement is signed.

[2:50:33] the franchise agreement is really the key.

[2:50:37] that is validation that the hotel flag has done their analysis, and they've committed

[2:50:44] to the site and the hotel developer,

[2:50:49] I talk with my hands.

[2:50:51] my wife gets after me for that.

[2:50:55] has to sign personal guarantees that they will deliver that hotel.

[2:51:01] that's what a franchise agreement means, okay?

[2:51:03] and so for us, like, in terms of giving assurances to the city that we're going to

[2:51:08] meet the upscale extended-stay, upscale requirement,

[2:51:13] and that will result in the amount of tot, right, by hitting those,

[2:51:20] that's the assurance that will be provided.

[2:51:24] and that process will have to occur as part of the phase I and phase ii required

[2:51:30] improvements.

[2:51:31] so before I can move forward to phase I elective improvements,

[2:51:36] or phase ii elective improvements, we have to secure those.

[2:51:39] we do have, and you received a letter from blackridge, who is the hotel developer,

[2:51:45] who is very well-versed in hotel development,

[2:51:49] and they actually secured the ac marriott hotel brand and flag after the first

[2:51:56] entitlement, okay?

[2:51:59] they got ac marriott to commit.

[2:52:02] they're the ones who are now working to secure and make sure that those upscale flags

[2:52:07] are secured for these two hotels.

[2:52:09] okay.

[2:52:10] yeah.

[2:52:11] hopefully, that makes sense.

[2:52:12] and they have emphasized their desire for the first hotel to move forward and to be

[2:52:18] open before the olympics, so much so that blackridge

[2:52:23] is advancing really on a speculative basis at this point, their plans, as are we.

[2:52:29] we submitted demo plans for the firestone building that were approved.

[2:52:34] we plan on undertaking that work in the next few weeks.

[2:52:37] to make sure that there's nothing that gets in the way.

[2:52:39] so really, I think for blackridge and ultimately for the hotel flag, it's the

[2:52:43] decision that gets made here tonight.

[2:52:46] and if there's any indication that there's going to be further delay, that's what

[2:52:50] kind of would put the olympics in jeopardy.

[2:52:53] yeah.

[2:52:54] and that brings me to the next thing, because that exact thing with octa is going to

[2:52:58] put it in jeopardy.

[2:53:00] potentially.

[2:53:01] potentially.

[2:53:01] I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, because I think...

[2:53:05] look, if it gets moved slightly on the site, they need to be freeway-adjacent.

[2:53:10] they need to be next to commercial.

[2:53:12] they want to keep the footprint of the building that you've seen here, the design.

[2:53:15] they don't want to redesign the building that they've already come out of pocket,

[2:53:18] speculatively, to design, right?

[2:53:22] we're fully incentivized to work within that box, and there aren't many other

[2:53:27] freeway-adjacent sites for a hotel in south orange county.

[2:53:31] so we think that there's a very high probability we'll be able to come to a meeting

[2:53:34] of the minds.

[2:53:35] it's just we need to get through this, and then we can go do that, and we'll come

[2:53:40] back and get it all documented

[2:53:43] so that they continue and not lose time, right?

[2:53:47] and have they already been

[2:53:50] alerted about the octa project?

[2:53:53] yeah, the hotel developer has, absolutely, yeah.

[2:53:56] okay.

[2:53:57] and so they're still willing to work?

[2:53:58] yeah, we've kicked around ideas.

[2:54:00] that's why I didn't have a direct answer for council member wheeler.

[2:54:03] we're kicking around ideas, but where it ultimately lands is to be determined.

[2:54:07] okay, yeah, that makes sense.

[2:54:11] and you had said that whole foods has already signed an agreement.

[2:54:15] does nordstrom rack already have this agreement with you?

[2:54:18] yeah, we have with nordstrom rack as well.

[2:54:20] okay, yeah, all right.

[2:54:22] it's just they could have left, but we're signing a new lease with them.

[2:54:27] for various reasons, just to clean up the site plan and everything.

[2:54:30] okay.

[2:54:31] that makes sense.

[2:54:32] all right.

[2:54:34] coming back to my public safety comments,

[2:54:41] will mgp cooperate with the city, the sheriff's department, ocfa, and

[2:54:45] project-specific service demand studies?

[2:54:48] absolutely.

[2:54:49] okay.

[2:54:49] anything that's required by code, which the code handles.

[2:54:53] I mean, the building permit approval process is very lengthy to go through all of

[2:54:56] those channels.

[2:54:58] yeah.

[2:54:59] and let's say ocfa analysis demonstrates a need for additional emergency response

[2:55:04] resources,

[2:55:05] would mgp participate in discussions regarding land or facilities or another

[2:55:10] appropriate mitigation?

[2:55:12] I think they usually flag those, and the fees that we pay usually are the first kind

[2:55:18] of resolution for any gap in service,

[2:55:22] but we'd have those conversations with them.

[2:55:24] okay.

[2:55:25] yeah.

[2:55:26] I wouldn't foresee that being an issue, because it hasn't come up to date, even on

[2:55:30] the prior project.

[2:55:31] so, okay.

[2:55:35] I'm going to go back to the senior housing for a second that I did have a question

[2:55:39] earlier on.

[2:55:40] but has meta housing, so that's been formally selected, but who selected it, and,

[2:55:45] like, is there currently a binding agreement with them?

[2:55:49] not a binding agreement currently, but we're working with them toward that end.

[2:55:53] so meta housing, they're here as well.

[2:55:55] they could answer questions.

[2:55:56] but they are an orange county-based affordable housing developer, been around 30

[2:56:01] years, over 10,000 units.

[2:56:06] very well-versed in navigating the approval process for the subsidy financing.

[2:56:12] and they met with the ad hoc committee and with staff and with city attorney, and

[2:56:18] that allowed us to continue with them.

[2:56:21] there is a provision in the da that if, for some reason,

[2:56:26] the deal doesn't move forward with meta, and there are some parameters that they have

[2:56:29] to meet.

[2:56:31] there's timelines and things like that, that an alternative developer could come back,

[2:56:35] and they'd have to be approved by the council.

[2:56:38] perfect.

[2:56:38] that was my second question.

[2:56:40] all right.

[2:56:42] that answers all of that.

[2:56:45] last question for you.

[2:56:46] so from your perspective, what can the city do without compromising our standards or

[2:56:52] protections to help accelerate

[2:56:55] the hotel, the park, and the revenue-producing components of this project? Because

[2:57:01] even the park, I know, is scheduled for phase ii, but

[2:57:06] with it having the nice screen and the watch area, something like that would also be

[2:57:10] really cool to have before the olympics,

[2:57:14] but since it's set in phase ii, the likelihood of that happening...

[2:57:18] but is there a possibility of being able to shift things around a little bit to maybe

[2:57:22] move that up so that, you know...

[2:57:25] I think it all comes down to permit review processing timeframes, and there's just

[2:57:31] natural constraints on the turn of those documents, including review

[2:57:36] by ocfa and other agencies that are outside of the city's purview.

[2:57:41] so I think the best we could do mutually is just agree to turn those documents

[2:57:46] quickly, and to the extent that they

[2:57:51] tie out to the plan that's been submitted, and we had a 300-page submittal document

[2:57:57] that includes

[2:58:00] a lot of detail of what this project will look like, all the way down to the lighting

[2:58:05] fixtures and things like that.

[2:58:08] as long as we stay within that box, I think the highest likelihood of ensuring that

[2:58:15] those things happen sooner rather than later is

[2:58:20] just working together to turn around those reviews to grant those permits so they can

[2:58:24] start construction.

[2:58:26] right.

[2:58:26] yeah.

[2:58:26] and I get it.

[2:58:27] and there's a lot of it that's out of your control that, you know.

[2:58:30] but we'll do our very best.

[2:58:31] and I think, you know, we've tried to be very responsive throughout this process.

[2:58:36] and as questions and comments and changes came up, we didn't want to lose time during

[2:58:42] the process either.

[2:58:44] and so, I mean, the team here is phenomenal.

[2:58:46] these are world-class architects and engineers.

[2:58:49] and our team has worked on a lot of these types of projects.

[2:58:52] and the same goes for meta and goes for the hotel developer.

[2:58:57] and everyone's very motivated to move things forward as quickly as we can and to

[2:59:01] comply with the requirements of the submittals, too.

[2:59:05] yeah, no, I can definitely tell from what you're doing and how you're going about it.

[2:59:10] and then, obviously, you're working as hard as you can to try to get the hotels.

[2:59:15] so we'll have to work with octa and the whole thing to try to get that done.

[2:59:20] would you be willing to maybe somehow possibly move the park to phase I somehow, or

[2:59:28] is that not possible?

[2:59:31] I don't know.

[2:59:31] I'm just trying to think, again, you know, how we can try to speed things up if there

[2:59:36] is a possibility.

[2:59:37] I mean, we can't change the natural constraints of how quickly we could move

[2:59:43] nordstrom rack and demo that building.

[2:59:47] okay.

[2:59:48] what I could envision would be, depending on when that happens relative to the

[2:59:54] olympics, some other type of temporary installation, gathering place.

[3:00:00] I've seen that before.

[3:00:01] just working with the complexities of the construction on site and making sure that...

[3:00:07] you're out of the way, it becomes challenging, but, I mean, it's something we can

[3:00:11] look at.

[3:00:12] you've seen we get pretty creative from a temporary occupancy perspective with all

[3:00:16] the circuses and stuff, so we could probably figure something out, you

[3:00:20] know?

[3:00:20] yeah.

[3:00:20] I think that's a great opportunity, though, to take advantage of.

[3:00:23] yeah, it's a huge opportunity.

[3:00:24] so, yeah, I appreciate that.

[3:00:27] that's all the questions I got.

[3:00:29] I appreciate it.

[3:00:29] thank you.

[3:00:30] I'm going to move to josh, because the side of the dais has not had its due quite yet,

[3:00:34] and then

[3:00:35] we'll come back to erica.

[3:00:37] okay.

[3:00:38] thank you, mr.

[3:00:38] mayor.

[3:00:40] quickly, two minutes or less, either from you or from meta.

[3:00:45] it's been referenced a bunch about the portal, the time window, the queue to be able

[3:00:49] to get financing.

[3:00:52] can you just speak to the kind of the urgency of that or the process of that, and then

[3:00:57] also just reflect on your level of confidence based on the characteristics of the

[3:01:01] project?

[3:01:02] yeah.

[3:01:03] I like casey.

[3:01:04] casey burke with meta housing.

[3:01:06] yeah.

[3:01:06] excuse me.

[3:01:07] thank you, mr.

[3:01:07] mayor.

[3:01:08] I'm going to sit down for a second.

[3:01:09] yeah.

[3:01:09] go ahead.

[3:01:10] take a break.

[3:01:10] you're doing a good job.

[3:01:12] mr.

[3:01:12] mayor, mr.

[3:01:13] mayor pro tem, and council, thank you.

[3:01:15] my name is casey burke.

[3:01:16] I'm president of meta housing.

[3:01:18] we're an affordable housing developer.

[3:01:19] been around for over 30 years.

[3:01:22] and we've built over 100 communities in california and about 12,000 units.

[3:01:28] so with regards to the timing of this, the way that affordable housing deals get

[3:01:32] financed is really with an allocation of tax-exempt

[3:01:36] bonds and an allocation of tax credits, both coming

[3:01:39] really federally and then allocated by the state.

[3:01:43] they have three funding rounds typically in a given year.

[3:01:46] the first two have already passed.

[3:01:48] the next one is in september.

[3:01:49] so in order to submit, you have to have certain threshold criteria in place.

[3:01:54] you have to have site control.

[3:01:55] you have to have an entitled project.

[3:01:58] you have to have plans.

[3:02:00] and so your units laid out, your number of units, your bedroom count,

[3:02:06] your parking, everything has to be ready to go and submitted.

[3:02:08] so that's in september.

[3:02:12] if we miss september, you now trickle into next year, which is a whole different

[3:02:16] regulatory cycle.

[3:02:18] the budget changes, the regulations change,

[3:02:21] there are certain designations with this site that could change.

[3:02:24] it's currently located in a dda, which gets you a 30% boost on your tax credits.

[3:02:31] it changes annually.

[3:02:32] you just don't know what's going to happen there.

[3:02:35] our confidence level, to speak to that,

[3:02:38] I would say we're very optimistic.

[3:02:40] we wouldn't be this focused and this energized and excited about this partnership if

[3:02:44] we weren't optimistic that in this third round, we think

[3:02:48] we can secure for this development and for the city an allocation of credits and

[3:02:52] bonds that would allow us to move forward.

[3:02:56] the application is in september.

[3:02:59] the awards would be made in december, and then we would start construction roughly

[3:03:03] six to seven months after that.

[3:03:05] so if successful, we'd be under construction about this time next year with the

[3:03:10] affordable component of that.

[3:03:12] that's helpful.

[3:03:13] and if we miss september, or what is the likelihood of missing september if this

[3:03:20] decision gets pushed off to august or beyond?

[3:03:28] if the decision tonight were to get pushed off to august,

[3:03:31] I don't know all of the technical elements of appeals and things like that.

[3:03:36] we have to be entitled with the expiration of any appeal period by september 8th.

[3:03:42] that's the application deadline for us.

[3:03:45] and then if we miss that, the next one would be roughly february or march of next

[3:03:50] year.

[3:03:51] but I don't want to get too technical on you and, like, spin your heads,

[3:03:56] but it has to do with the tax credits and the bonds that are available in each round.

[3:03:59] and round one of next year will look very different than round three of this year.

[3:04:04] and this project's ability to compete, I'm much more optimistic about round three

[3:04:07] than I would be about...

[3:04:09] we know the variables going into this next round.

[3:04:12] we don't know the variables going into next year.

[3:04:14] that's right.

[3:04:15] okay.

[3:04:15] well, we actually do know some of the variables, and they would decrease our

[3:04:19] probability.

[3:04:20] got it.

[3:04:20] so...

[3:04:21] okay.

[3:04:22] all my questions, thank you.

[3:04:25] I'll just add one since we're on this subject.

[3:04:27] so one of the major things that makes it possible for you to do, as I understand it,

[3:04:33] is

[3:04:34] that the applicant would be actually changing the ownership of that piece of land to

[3:04:39] you as a developer, and that's one of the main

[3:04:43] incentives that makes it work for you financially, correct?

[3:04:47] or am I making that too simple?

[3:04:50] no, that's correct.

[3:04:51] we would ultimately have to be the owner of the property.

[3:04:54] so we would enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the land with merlone geier.

[3:04:58] they would, upon us receiving an award and moving towards a construction loan closing,

[3:05:03] they would have to transfer title to us and to our partnership that would build that.

[3:05:07] and ultimately, we'd bring in our tax credit investor.

[3:05:10] we would bring in our

[3:05:11] social service partner, you know, and together.

[3:05:14] we're all going to operate the development, but we have to own it. Thank you. Back to

[3:05:24] erica next. All right, well, it's

[3:05:29] good that you're up because I have a couple of questions. So how many buildings have

[3:05:35] you built that are all low-income housing?

[3:05:41] over 100.

[3:05:41] okay.

[3:05:43] how old are the buildings now?

[3:05:46] I mean, well, they range in everything.

[3:05:50] so we're an active builder right now.

[3:05:52] so we have about 10 communities under construction, probably about 1,800 units right

[3:05:55] now.

[3:05:57] we built about 1,000 units last year.

[3:05:59] we probably built about 600 units the year before that.

[3:06:02] we've built over 12,000 units.

[3:06:05] that's all we do.

[3:06:06] we are a niche organization.

[3:06:07] so we partner with folks like merlone geier.

[3:06:09] we've partnered with lennar.

[3:06:10] we've partnered with shea homes.

[3:06:12] we've partnered with homefed in san diego, with mckinley partners up north in

[3:06:18] fairfield.

[3:06:19] we've also gone with not with an inclusionary housing ms, just infill sites on our

[3:06:23] own out there, and this is all we do.

[3:06:26] we only do 100% affordable housing.

[3:06:29] we do family.

[3:06:30] we do senior.

[3:06:31] we do homeless housing.

[3:06:32] we do an array of tenant populations.

[3:06:35] okay, who manages the property?

[3:06:37] do you manage the property afterwards?

[3:06:39] we contract with third-party property managers.

[3:06:41] we currently are working with five different property managers.

[3:06:44] it depends on location.

[3:06:45] it depends on tenant population.

[3:06:48] we really work to find the right property manager.

[3:06:52] all the ones we've worked with, we've worked with for many, many years.

[3:06:58] okay.

[3:07:05] so you work with the property management individuals, and how is the maintenance on

[3:07:10] these properties, like if you're not receiving as much income?

[3:07:16] how are you able to maintain these properties?

[3:07:18] well, we really underwrite these from day one the same way a market-rate builder

[3:07:23] would.

[3:07:25] so our operating expenses are really no less than a market-rate building.

[3:07:29] we're putting the same level of investment annually back into these, into the

[3:07:35] communities and the apartments.

[3:07:38] the revenue side is a little lower, which ultimately hits the bottom line,

[3:07:41] which is why you need the tax credits and the tax-exempt bonds.

[3:07:44] so the subsidies really come in on the front end, not on the back end.

[3:07:48] you guys won't be able to tell a difference.

[3:07:49] you won't be able to drive by this building and think, there's the affordable one.

[3:07:53] it's going to be designed with the same architectural standards that the market rates

[3:07:56] are being built with.

[3:07:58] it's going to be designed by this team.

[3:07:59] these guys are all going to care what this looks like.

[3:08:01] it's going to be integrated within the community.

[3:08:04] you won't even know

[3:08:06] that it's affordable versus the market rate.

[3:08:08] in addition, senior developments, senior communities, wear much less than family.

[3:08:14] they just do.

[3:08:16] to your point about nine-year-olds with a lot of energy, I have four kids, I

[3:08:18] understand.

[3:08:20] they tend to beat up the buildings a little more.

[3:08:22] you have to design them a little bit differently.

[3:08:25] you have to make sure that they have the appropriate outdoor space to release that

[3:08:28] energy.

[3:08:29] we're talking about a senior community here.

[3:08:31] the turnover is very low in senior communities, and the maintenance and the wear and

[3:08:35] tear are very low.

[3:08:38] and we build an appropriate amount

[3:08:41] of community space into these.

[3:08:42] we offer on-site social services for the residents: health and wellness classes, art

[3:08:47] classes.

[3:08:49] so it's a community that they ultimately are proud of, that they want to take care of.

[3:08:54] they don't want to leave.

[3:08:56] it'll be beautiful for a very long time.

[3:08:59] so I'm going to go back to the other question that I have.

[3:09:04] are you concerned about being next to a bus station where maybe the noise levels are

[3:09:15] louder, the individuals are, I mean,

[3:09:20] homeless, who suffer from mental illness? You just don't know. What other protections

[3:09:26] for these residents? What happens?

[3:09:29] yeah, so the short answer is no.

[3:09:32] I'm not concerned.

[3:09:33] I think this is an incredible site.

[3:09:35] I think this is an incredible community.

[3:09:36] I think that the design is beautiful.

[3:09:38] I think the level of amenities that are going to be available to the residents of

[3:09:43] this is outstanding,

[3:09:45] probably better than you would find in most affordable housing communities, wherever

[3:09:49] they're built.

[3:09:51] we've built over 1,200 homeless units, psh housing.

[3:09:54] so we've built for veterans.

[3:09:55] we've built for at risk of homelessness, homelessness.

[3:09:59] we kind of understand the tenant population and what that requires.

[3:10:03] we've built, I mean, right in the heart of skid row and have been able to keep our

[3:10:08] residents safe and secure.

[3:10:11] we will, as we get into the design of this with the architects and the engineers,

[3:10:16] we'll look at the transit center there and make sure that we've got whatever

[3:10:21] appropriate security measures are needed,

[3:10:25] whatever needs to be integrated with the management company.

[3:10:27] I actually see that as an amenity, having that transit center available to them,

[3:10:30] having the hospital available,

[3:10:32] all the shopping that's going to be there.

[3:10:35] I'm really not concerned about that.

[3:10:37] I do think we need to be aware of it and be mindful, and we will be in the design.

[3:10:42] but long term, if you could see where a lot of affordable housing is built, this is a

[3:10:47] beautiful site.

[3:10:50] I understand.

[3:10:52] at the same time, you have the hospital that's also in walking distance.

[3:10:56] and I don't know if you've been in the er at certain hours.

[3:11:01] it can be, because the homeless challenges are extremely difficult in the state of

[3:11:08] california with a lack of mental institutions.

[3:11:13] we have the increase with the hospital and with the homeless shelter in laguna beach.

[3:11:22] and so we sort of get a double whammy in that one location.

[3:11:27] so with individuals needing that go to the hospital.

[3:11:32] okay.

[3:11:33] all right.

[3:11:35] thank you.

[3:11:36] thank you.

[3:11:36] I do have some more questions for the developer.

[3:11:41] okay.

[3:11:42] thank you very much.

[3:11:43] thank you.

[3:11:46] okay.

[3:11:47] so the last time...

[3:11:51] one of the many times that you've approached the city asking for entitlements.

[3:12:00] I felt that jab there.

[3:12:01] what's that?

[3:12:02] I felt that jab there.

[3:12:03] did that feel good?

[3:12:06] hey facts are facts.

[3:12:09] not all our doing.

[3:12:13] I just...

[3:12:14] so...

[3:12:17] you had mentioned that there was a hotel.

[3:12:19] is it the same hotel, or is this different?

[3:12:24] I think I answered the question as well as I could, given the restrictions that I'm

[3:12:29] working under.

[3:12:30] okay.

[3:12:31] so, okay.

[3:12:31] so, all right.

[3:12:33] it will be an upscale hotel that you will love.

[3:12:37] and the shops that...

[3:12:39] you mentioned that you had a number of—well, it wasn't you, actually, that came, I

[3:12:44] must admit.

[3:12:45] it wasn't me.

[3:12:46] somebody else?

[3:12:47] it was not me.

[3:12:49] there were a number of shops, and those shops seemed to be gone.

[3:12:55] what sort of assurances do we have that—

[3:13:02] hopefully whole foods will actually be there? What assurances do we have?

[3:13:07] so, as part of the da, we agreed to record a memorandum

[3:13:12] of that lease that will be provided to meet the required phase 1 improvements, so you

[3:13:19] will have a memorandum recorded demonstrating that that lease

[3:13:25] with whole foods exists. We've shown the lease to

[3:13:29] your legal team. They've seen the lease.

[3:13:31] it's been signed, and we've already submitted our plans for that building shell.

[3:13:36] actually, it's in plan

[3:13:38] review right now, so we would not spend that money or agree to those things as

[3:13:45] conditions that we have to meet to be able to unlock

[3:13:50] the phase 1 elective improvements if we didn't have that lease.

[3:13:56] and the same goes for the retail leasing around that.

[3:13:59] we have...

[3:14:02] lists of tenants who've been interested in this project, and the feedback we've given

[3:14:08] them, and that a lot of them have said

[3:14:11] to us is, once you have your entitlements and we know there's a path moving forward,

[3:14:16] then let's reengage. So we're very confident

[3:14:20] leasing around whole foods and nordstrom rack is a good problem to have. They're very

[3:14:25] quality anchors for the retail.

[3:14:28] okay, so a couple of questions that I have.

[3:14:30] so the economic vitality, this uvsp, it is defined, it's been studied that this is

[3:14:36] the economic vitality of the entire city.

[3:14:41] essentially, it's supposed to be the feeder of the city.

[3:14:44] so it's supposed to be a feeder of funds to the city.

[3:14:47] it's supposed to enhance the quality of life for residents.

[3:14:53] and given this project, it

[3:14:56] there is an increase, a substantial increase, of residents without the increased

[3:15:02] appropriate numbers of retail.

[3:15:06] what happens if the quality of life decreases?

[3:15:09] we can't afford officers, and your shopping center becomes an attraction for

[3:15:20] what happens if we are unable to take care of that shopping center because we don't

[3:15:25] have funds to take care of the center?

[3:15:29] so you're—I don't know if you're trying to make a connection between the number of

[3:15:36] households and the viability of the retail.

[3:15:41] is that what you're—

[3:15:43] the commercial brings in a higher percentage of funding to the city, so commercial

[3:15:47] brings in a higher amount of funding. We had a significant

[3:15:51] amount, and one thing that isn't mentioned is what the funding would be today, with

[3:15:58] inflation, from the mall revenue. And so the past

[3:16:03] mall revenue and the sales tax brought in a huge amount of revenue, and we didn't

[3:16:09] have an extra population to pay for the infrastructure, the services.

[3:16:16] so we didn't have that prior, and now this plan introduces a population increase with

[3:16:24] a huge revenue decrease.

[3:16:28] what happens to your center if we cannot pay for, I mean,

[3:16:34] we're already struggling as it is with $2 million of revenue loss over the years,

[3:16:41] and I know that you have provided funding through the development agreement, but that

[3:16:46] funding has gone

[3:16:47] quickly because we've needed the revenue.

[3:16:50] and we don't have—I see in the development agreement, you're not willing to pay more

[3:16:54] to the city.

[3:16:55] so you're not willing to pay more for that.

[3:16:57] there will be $2.9 million more of fees in this project.

[3:17:03] it's 2.9.

[3:17:04] and a reset of the clock, essentially.

[3:17:09] to a certain extent.

[3:17:12] yeah.

[3:17:12] a new development agreement, brand-new, brand-new in

[3:17:17] it seems brand-new entitlements.

[3:17:20] I'm just wondering, if we can't afford to take care of the center, why would you be

[3:17:24] entitled to more safety if we

[3:17:26] don't have the money, and how, if it's taking away?

[3:17:30] if this area takes away from the existing residents, and

[3:17:35] what's your question?

[3:17:36] is it related to the fiscal impact analysis?

[3:17:41] yes, I'm just wondering.

[3:17:42] I mean, you, as a commercial developer, you want to be in cities that are safe, my

[3:17:50] guess is.

[3:17:51] you want to have your commercial properties in areas that are—

[3:18:00] so I don't see anything in the analysis that's been done that suggests that this

[3:18:06] won't be a safe project or that the households

[3:18:11] who are going to have the incomes that they will need to afford to buy the new homes

[3:18:17] or to rent the market-

[3:18:19] rate apartments, that they're in some way going to be a drain on

[3:18:25] the community.

[3:18:27] there's been nothing that we've seen in any of the analysis or any of the studies

[3:18:31] that suggests that's the case.

[3:18:33] so what you're projecting could occur.

[3:18:37] I don't know how to respond to that question.

[3:18:42] I don't see a connection.

[3:18:45] what I do know is that you have a lot of really smart people that the city

[3:18:50] has on staff or as consultants that have looked at this project every which way to

[3:18:54] sunday, and they are confident that it's going

[3:18:57] to be a good thing for the city. And as a developer, we're comfortable with the

[3:19:02] development agreement and the rules of engagement

[3:19:06] that it establishes, that it will be a financeable project that can be executed.

[3:19:10] that's all that I know. I don't know

[3:19:14] these, you know, scenarios that could potentially play out.

[3:19:17] there's always a scenario that could potentially play out, but it hasn't been

[3:19:22] analyzed,

[3:19:23] and I don't think it's the basis for our decisions moving forward,

[3:19:28] and I don't think it's the recommendation of staff or of the consultants that you

[3:19:33] guys have hired that those should be overriding considerations.

[3:19:39] I understand.

[3:19:39] it's just the reality of where we're at.

[3:19:43] well, I don't know about a reality.

[3:19:44] I don't hear anything you just said that sounds like reality necessarily.

[3:19:48] I need to, I need to—okay.

[3:19:52] as chair of this, I'm going to interrupt a little bit, gently.

[3:19:57] I feel like I'm watching jeopardy on tv.

[3:20:01] and I feel like all you have to do in making an accusation is to frame your

[3:20:07] accusation as a question, like the show.

[3:20:12] and I don't know that a lot of these questions, from my viewpoint, are really focused

[3:20:18] on the development, your presentation,

[3:20:22] and what you're doing.

[3:20:24] a lot of what-ifs.

[3:20:25] what if the world stops?

[3:20:27] what if we're hit by a meteor next year?

[3:20:30] and so I would just ask the council to refocus as much as possible on this project.

[3:20:40] and let's try to move forward.

[3:20:43] and this was just questions of staff and questions of the presenter.

[3:20:49] and I'd like to be courteous to both.

[3:20:53] and so I'm gently asking council members in general just to, you know, be mindful of

[3:21:01] that.

[3:21:03] I feel like we're taking this into deliberations and all kinds of debate when these

[3:21:09] are supposed to be simple clarifications and questions.

[3:21:15] the concerns of fiscal impact of the city and how that's on our heads.

[3:21:18] you know what, I've already said.

[3:21:21] erica, I've already said what I'm going to say, and

[3:21:24] I'm counting on your common sense and good sense to not go off the deep end about

[3:21:31] everything from homelessness

[3:21:35] in newport beach or in laguna beach to whatever.

[3:21:39] I mean, we could go on and on.

[3:21:43] and maybe that's filibuster is what we're talking about here.

[3:21:49] but I hate to do that to the audience who is still here, although I do know a number

[3:21:54] of them are consultants.

[3:21:57] so they're here for reasons of support.

[3:22:00] but anyway.

[3:22:03] it's a general request, okay?

[3:22:07] you may continue your questions.

[3:22:09] all right.

[3:22:10] I yield my comment, my questions.

[3:22:12] okay.

[3:22:17] hi.

[3:22:18] mr.

[3:22:21] mathis, to ask the question I'd written down, it must be telepathy.

[3:22:26] as I understand, there are two urgencies: hotel one and the affordable,

[3:22:32] is that correct?

[3:22:34] and the whole foods.

[3:22:36] we have a timeline for delivery of that building for whole foods.

[3:22:41] okay.

[3:22:41] I understand now, from the other gentleman speaking, that the affordable, the key

[3:22:45] dates are september and february.

[3:22:47] what are whole foods' drop-dead or key dates?

[3:22:50] we just have to deliver space in mid-2028 to them.

[3:22:55] we have to deliver the building shell in the condition we've agreed to in the lease

[3:22:59] in mid-2028.

[3:23:01] by what time again, mike?

[3:23:03] mid-2028.

[3:23:03] there's a date in the lease.

[3:23:06] okay, so that's not quite as tight as the other.

[3:23:09] but that's after building.

[3:23:10] we have to build the building.

[3:23:12] okay, I understand.

[3:23:12] so there's a pretty tight timeline.

[3:23:15] we're already right up against that.

[3:23:17] okay.

[3:23:19] what are the drop-dead dates, the important dates for hotel one?

[3:23:22] yesterday.

[3:23:24] yesterday.

[3:23:25] no, the reality is, I'd say they need to, because it really comes down to the risk

[3:23:34] level.

[3:23:37] they've been willing to go at risk up to this point, knowing that this meeting was

[3:23:43] going to occur.

[3:23:48] by them going at risk, they're on track, even with the conversations we've had about

[3:23:54] 12.4 and octa,

[3:23:56] they're on track to be able to begin their work in january.

[3:24:01] so they need to begin in january, so it...

[3:24:04] it could, they have, like any construction schedule, there's a little bit of

[3:24:08] contingency, right?

[3:24:09] but they want to be in the ground in january.

[3:24:13] okay, so let me rephrase that and see if I'm correct.

[3:24:16] so they can start shoveling in january?

[3:24:20] ideally, yes.

[3:24:21] and that, obviously, there's grading permits and then there's building permits.

[3:24:24] so there's phasing to that construction schedule.

[3:24:27] that's a little bit of time, then.

[3:24:29] okay.

[3:24:30] but there's no time.

[3:24:31] no, there's really not.

[3:24:33] because there's also the—they still have to secure the franchise agreement, like we

[3:24:37] talked about, with the hotel flag.

[3:24:40] what's that setback?

[3:24:42] it's not set back.

[3:24:43] right now, we're on schedule for it.

[3:24:45] but if it gets delayed, if this gets delayed,

[3:24:48] then that—I don't know when the next real estate committee meeting is for that hotel

[3:24:52] brand.

[3:24:53] but right now, the meeting is lined up.

[3:24:56] you realize it's just the first reading tonight.

[3:24:57] it can't be passed tonight.

[3:24:59] sure it could.

[3:25:01] so there's still going to be a delay to the second reading, at least?

[3:25:04] well, yeah, of course the second reading.

[3:25:05] okay.

[3:25:06] and they've taken the second reading and the appeal periods, those things, all into

[3:25:12] account.

[3:25:14] I think I know the answer, but I want to clarify and make sure.

[3:25:16] so right now, hotel two partially sits on where nordstrom is right now, right?

[3:25:23] yeah, it's like, yeah, it's directly adjacent to it.

[3:25:29] they don't want to be built unless the magdalena is built out, and it all kind of has

[3:25:34] to happen at the same time.

[3:25:36] now, they could, if they elected to, if they get into the mechanics of building that

[3:25:42] building and how it incorporates into the site

[3:25:46] plan, the phasing of when they would complete hotel one, because they want to use the

[3:25:50] same construction crew, move straight over to hotel two.

[3:25:55] if it syncs up and they're willing to go at risk on any component of their project,

[3:26:00] concurrent with or in advance of the nordstrom rack moving, they could do that.

[3:26:06] it's just that's not what they're anticipating right now.

[3:26:09] okay.

[3:26:10] so there is maybe a little potential to...

[3:26:12] hopefully.

[3:26:15] I don't—no, not by 2028.

[3:26:15] okay.

[3:26:16] yeah, because the—that's the key.

[3:26:18] okay.

[3:26:19] because the relocation of the nordstrom rack can't happen.

[3:26:22] it's a turnkey build, meaning they'll close the existing location

[3:26:28] one night, and they'll open in a fully operating store the next day, and then they'll

[3:26:34] decommission.

[3:26:36] I thought they used to literally take the clothes off the racks in one store and move

[3:26:40] them to the other.

[3:26:42] now they don't.

[3:26:43] they fully stock the new store, and then they move all the inventory in the old store

[3:26:48] someplace else.

[3:26:49] I know.

[3:26:50] that's what I thought, but I learned something new as well.

[3:26:53] thank you.

[3:26:54] of course.

[3:26:57] whoa.

[3:27:00] actually, those were great.

[3:27:02] they were great questions.

[3:27:03] I strayed a little bit here and there.

[3:27:06] in my opinion, but...

[3:27:07] uh...

[3:27:08] we needed to do that, and so I appreciate your time to get up here and do what

[3:27:14] both steve and staff have done in answering questions and clarifying things as much

[3:27:19] as you can. So with that,

[3:27:21] we're going to bring

[3:27:23] of the

[3:27:25] planning agency of the joint session of the council and planning agency together

[3:27:30] for deliberation, and

[3:27:33] I don't know whether we want to start with a motion or we'll want to just open it up

[3:27:37] for whatever the will of the council

[3:27:40] is.

[3:27:42] but in any case, we will definitely go around the horn more than a number of times.

[3:27:48] I like things to be thorough.

[3:27:50] and then hopefully we can take stock of this and move one way or the other.

[3:27:57] so with that, anyone want to start?

[3:28:02] mayor pro tem, you haven't said much.

[3:28:05] yeah, you know, thank you, mr.

[3:28:06] mayor.

[3:28:08] I'll also go ahead and start with a motion to approve the recommendation as proposed

[3:28:15] by staff to move this project forward to be

[3:28:19] coming back for a second reading.

[3:28:22] do we have a second on that motion?

[3:28:23] I'll second that.

[3:28:24] okay, we have a second.

[3:28:26] now we'll open it up to deliberations, and we'll start with dave. Okay, like I—hold

[3:28:37] up. Before, I got this huge document, and I'd

[3:28:43] like to ask anybody on the council: read it through? Is there anybody on the council

[3:28:47] who read this thing?

[3:28:50] I've read a lot of it.

[3:28:51] yeah, I don't know what you're holding up.

[3:28:53] well, this is the thing that the staff produced.

[3:28:56] it's got the da in the middle, and it's got all the other pertinent parts.

[3:29:00] yeah.

[3:29:01] okay, I have not.

[3:29:02] and only the ad hoc could have a chance.

[3:29:04] I think it's premature to vote on this tonight.

[3:29:08] maybe the discussion was great.

[3:29:10] we need to go over this.

[3:29:11] I need to go over this document.

[3:29:13] I'm particularly concerned about the economics, even done by the two different

[3:29:17] organizations that I think were hired by merlone geier.

[3:29:22] their difference in the economic outcome was almost a million dollars, around

[3:29:27] $900,000.

[3:29:29] that's a significant figure when you talk about numbers in the range of two to three

[3:29:31] million.

[3:29:33] so I don't think we're ready.

[3:29:35] I was trying to take into account the urgencies, and it's tight.

[3:29:42] maybe we have to slip the affordable to february,

[3:29:44] but the other one is doable, I guess. But I think we need to wait till the next

[3:29:49] meeting to have

[3:29:50] a first reading for this.

[3:29:51] it's just too different, and there's not enough time to really see what's really

[3:29:57] there. I don't

[3:29:58] want—I don't want to vote on something that I have no idea what's in there.

[3:30:01] I've managed to maybe get what took me

[3:30:03] literally—I got this package yesterday. It literally took me two hours

[3:30:07] to decipher because it didn't have page numbers.

[3:30:10] it didn't have clean demarcations between the sections.

[3:30:14] and as a result, I've only gone through maybe 25 pages or so, and there's hundreds.

[3:30:19] it's just premature.

[3:30:20] I'm voting for something.

[3:30:22] I have no idea what it is.

[3:30:25] okay.

[3:30:26] I'm going to move on to josh.

[3:30:30] you're next.

[3:30:30] oh, thank you.

[3:30:32] I just want to say thank you to not only the...

[3:30:38] developer, but also our staff for all the time and effort, as well as all of your

[3:30:41] consultants that are still here, our constituents,

[3:30:45] everybody in the audience, thank you for your participation.

[3:30:47] thank you for being here tonight and going through all this.

[3:30:50] it's because of you that's why this project is where it is now.

[3:30:55] so I know everybody has put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this.

[3:30:59] it's truly appreciated.

[3:31:01] it's nice to sit up here and see all of this come to fruition.

[3:31:04] so I'm excited to get this going.

[3:31:08] that's it.

[3:31:10] okay.

[3:31:11] you took off your light.

[3:31:13] erica.

[3:31:14] okay.

[3:31:15] I have a lot of concerns, a lot of concerns for the future of the city.

[3:31:23] I, too, and my stack is...

[3:31:29] huge as well.

[3:31:30] we have to go through all these papers.

[3:31:34] and if you do it right, and you're making a decision, you have to weigh everything

[3:31:40] when you make a decision up here.

[3:31:43] because you're looking at the interests of the 30-something thousand residents that

[3:31:50] aren't present in this meeting.

[3:31:54] and just because their voices aren't here doesn't mean that they haven't spoken over

[3:31:58] the years.

[3:32:00] and just because this meeting happened kind of quickly on a summer evening when

[3:32:05] everyone is busy doesn't mean that their weight doesn't matter,

[3:32:10] because it matters.

[3:32:12] I'm concerned.

[3:32:13] there are so many concerns.

[3:32:18] I'm not sure if oakbrook is here.

[3:32:22] I think they left.

[3:32:26] I'm not sure.

[3:32:27] but if you just look at the square footage of retail oakbrook provides and the number

[3:32:35] of units that oakbrook provides,

[3:32:39] so 270 units, and they have, it was 130,000, I think, square feet of retail, that

[3:32:45] makes financial sense.

[3:32:58] we have substantially more units, about 1,500, and then 1,500 units with this project.

[3:33:08] and we have a decrease in retail, and there's a hotel that's supposed to be built.

[3:33:16] however, the hotel isn't guaranteed because there's a chance eminent domain will

[3:33:22] happen.

[3:33:24] not just a chance, since 2023.

[3:33:28] so that means that there could be a high probability the hotel won't be built.

[3:33:34] so the finances put us in a really bad financial position.

[3:33:39] just to even afford one officer, I think, with the police, I think we're at $600,000

[3:33:44] per year per officer.

[3:33:46] maybe the amount shifts, but it's...

[3:33:56] $300,000 per, or 24 hours? 24 hours. Okay, so you have to think about how we're going

[3:34:04] to be able to keep this

[3:34:07] area safe, period. That's, I mean, just to handle the safety alone, it doesn't cover

[3:34:14] the costs to have to handle the safety. I do

[3:34:19] like homeownership opportunities. I think having homeownership

[3:34:24] is excellent, but I also need to be reminded, you also have to be reminded that years

[3:34:31] ago, and one

[3:34:33] thing that dave and I have is a lot of history on this council, years ago, and

[3:34:40] approached us, saying we had two rhna units and they were thinking about expanding

[3:34:45] the rhna, and they expanded the rhna to 1,950.

[3:34:52] and merlone geier came and said, hey, we will take all of your rhna.

[3:34:55] we want to take all of it.

[3:34:58] and they wanted all of it.

[3:35:00] so it seemed like, okay, well, we have a win-win situation until the changes and

[3:35:06] shifts on what was deemed okay.

[3:35:09] so there was like this spectrum.

[3:35:11] well, that spectrum didn't happen.

[3:35:14] and we focused all of our time and energy to prepare for that meeting in 2021.

[3:35:22] and after that meeting in 2021, we put everything aside with the staff.

[3:35:27] we were very limited on staff.

[3:35:29] so we put everything towards merlone geier because the same excuses—I don't want to

[3:35:36] be rude,

[3:35:37] but the same reasons were popping up why we need to do it now.

[3:35:40] you even had a lawsuit.

[3:35:41] I think you guys were threatening a lawsuit against us to pressure us into making a

[3:35:47] decision.

[3:35:48] to pressure us to make a decision, that pressure on city staff, that pressure on our

[3:35:53] city caused for rhna to be, our

[3:35:56] rhna allocation to be held up.

[3:36:00] our staff couldn't make it.

[3:36:02] so then we're now in a builder's remedy.

[3:36:04] we wound up with builder's remedy issues.

[3:36:07] and then we had to increase the numbers of our units.

[3:36:14] houses and units everywhere throughout the city, an explosion of population, because

[3:36:19] we focused on a project that didn't come to fruition. And we

[3:36:24] really should have been focused on rhna, and in all fairness, your company came and

[3:36:28] said we will take all of the rhna.

[3:36:31] it just, and the pressure that we're under right now is extremely high because

[3:36:39] the consequences aren't on any of the staff.

[3:36:41] the consequences aren't on the city attorney.

[3:36:44] the consequences aren't on the negotiator.

[3:36:48] the consequences aren't on the developer.

[3:36:50] guess who deals with the consequences?

[3:36:53] we do.

[3:36:55] that's a decision that it comes back and hits us in our faces.

[3:36:59] and the weight is on us as council members.

[3:37:02] so we take that.

[3:37:04] we have to take the hits.

[3:37:05] we take the public hits.

[3:37:07] we take all of the hits when we do it wrong.

[3:37:10] and we're being pressured here to not read through the documents, to push through a

[3:37:14] decision that's already been pre-made.

[3:37:17] we can't go through these and try to go through and sift through like we should,

[3:37:22] because everything is going to be determined tonight.

[3:37:26] but I cannot support something that doesn't make sense.

[3:37:31] because the uvsp says things like, in the uvsp, it is supposed to be the area that

[3:37:36] brings revenue throughout the city.

[3:37:39] our city suffers greatly.

[3:37:41] we don't even pave our roads.

[3:37:44] the decision was just made a couple of weeks ago to double the amount of time to pave

[3:37:50] our roads.

[3:37:51] that's quality of life.

[3:37:53] that's quality of life.

[3:37:54] we can't pave our roads on time, but we want to be saying yes to projects because of

[3:38:00] a hotel,

[3:38:01] because we want to help a developer out.

[3:38:04] we want to say that, but we can't pave our roads.

[3:38:06] we're not even thinking straight.

[3:38:07] we can't pave our roads.

[3:38:09] we keep decreasing police.

[3:38:10] we don't have enough police in our city.

[3:38:12] we don't.

[3:38:13] we need support.

[3:38:15] we also have a group that's talking about trying to remove license plate readers that

[3:38:19] help us in the city.

[3:38:22] we have groups that are coming that are trying to eliminate tools that we have that

[3:38:25] help at a lower cost,

[3:38:27] but we don't have enough police.

[3:38:29] it's crazy.

[3:38:31] anyway, these are problems you don't have to deal with, but these are problems we

[3:38:34] have to deal with.

[3:38:36] reduction: we can't fix our community center. We fight over trying to get carpet

[3:38:41] completed at our community center. We've been

[3:38:45] planting plants with residents throughout the city.

[3:38:47] we've been trying to find cheaper ways to do everything in the city because our mall

[3:38:52] is

[3:38:53] gone, and it wasn't just a mall that was dead.

[3:39:00] it was a mall that was thriving.

[3:39:01] why was it thriving?

[3:39:02] because we had, and it says it in the uvsp, we had residents from lake forest, from

[3:39:10] laguna woods,

[3:39:12] from laguna hills, shopping at this mall because it fit a need in the area.

[3:39:19] it fit.

[3:39:19] we were receiving $2 million in sales tax revenue annually, over $2 million.

[3:39:27] and it's not necessarily; it was a decision that was made, but the people that

[3:39:34] suffered the most were the staff.

[3:39:37] and then the consequences are on the council.

[3:39:41] so, I mean, with that, I'll allow my colleagues to speak because I feel like I've

[3:39:45] absorbed too much time already,

[3:39:47] but those are some of my thoughts for now.

[3:39:50] all right.

[3:39:51] next on the list is jared mathis.

[3:39:55] thank you, mayor.

[3:39:56] let's just deal with reality.

[3:39:58] this is a good project.

[3:40:00] every expert here has said so.

[3:40:03] staff has done diligent work.

[3:40:05] it's been a collaborative process with the ad hoc committee and the developer.

[3:40:10] I don't buy the idea that you don't have time to understand what this project is.

[3:40:15] all this has happened on your watch.

[3:40:17] you've been part of this 13-year vacancy.

[3:40:19] eight years of that is under your watch.

[3:40:21] you've been mayor twice, dave.

[3:40:22] you were on the ad hoc committee before.

[3:40:24] you meet with the city manager every week for hours, and you didn't want to talk to

[3:40:28] him about it over that period of time.

[3:40:31] we knew this date was coming a long time ago.

[3:40:35] so save that part of it.

[3:40:37] as far as what we have to do as council members, we signed up for this.

[3:40:42] this is what we're here to do.

[3:40:44] and so there's no complaining about that from this side of the dais.

[3:40:49] let's do the job.

[3:40:52] this is a good project.

[3:40:53] it's been vetted.

[3:40:55] and we've got the information that we need to make a good decision and keep ourselves

[3:40:59] on the timeline.

[3:41:02] next would be dave wheeler.

[3:41:06] mr.

[3:41:06] mathis, what you just said, I'm taking offense to.

[3:41:10] you guys took over the committee.

[3:41:14] you and caskey took over the committee.

[3:41:17] the rest of us have been locked out.

[3:41:19] we had no information.

[3:41:21] you brought new information.

[3:41:22] it was six months.

[3:41:23] it was left out of our monthly evaluation.

[3:41:26] we didn't know what was going on.

[3:41:28] I just got the information package yesterday.

[3:41:32] and to say that I've had plenty of time to do it when I had no idea what you were

[3:41:35] doing is totally absurd

[3:41:37] and not true.

[3:41:39] and to say that all of a sudden, now we've been on this for 13 years, and we come up

[3:41:43] here now and we've

[3:41:44] got to make a decision on this multi-multi-million-dollar project in one day without

[3:41:48] any evaluation, is absurd.

[3:41:50] and anybody who votes for this is not taking the city into account.

[3:41:53] it's absolutely ridiculous.

[3:41:55] and I resent you saying things like that because they're not true.

[3:42:05] I'm actually going to speak up on this one.

[3:42:08] it was before your light went on, so you may have last lapsed.

[3:42:14] I've worked on this for about three years, and

[3:42:20] this ad hoc committee was nominated and elected to the position of the ad hoc

[3:42:25] committee a year and a half ago by the council.

[3:42:30] no one took over automatically.

[3:42:32] it was elected by the council, and we've done, I think, a really hard task, and we've

[3:42:39] put a lot into it, and

[3:42:42] there was a lot of experience that we brought to the table.

[3:42:46] I brought more than 40 years of design and construction experience.

[3:42:50] worked with developers and also on projects of this size and magnitude.

[3:42:59] my colleague on the ad hoc committee, mr. Mathis, is a

[3:43:04] uh...

[3:43:05] landlord developer,

[3:43:07] and he had

[3:43:08] a lot of experience over the years in basically leasing spaces, running businesses,

[3:43:14] all the rest of that kind of stuff,

[3:43:18] that I have a little bit in, but not like him.

[3:43:21] in fact, I doubt very many people in the room do.

[3:43:25] so you actually had two pretty experienced persons on this ad hoc committee, and we

[3:43:30] worked very hard, and the staff worked very hard.

[3:43:34] and I will say, I mean, when somebody brings in a stack that's more than a ream,

[3:43:39] let's say it's even two reams,

[3:43:43] a thousand pages of hard-copy stuff,

[3:43:46] holds it up and says, "I just got this."

[3:43:51] I can't tell you how many times I've gotten an agenda, which we receive, which is

[3:43:57] digital,

[3:43:58] that is 1,900 pages three days before the meeting.

[3:44:05] okay?

[3:44:06] it happens a lot.

[3:44:08] it doesn't happen, oh, once every three years.

[3:44:12] it happens a lot.

[3:44:14] now, I could say that

[3:44:16] four or five hundred pages of that is going to be our financial stuff that we're

[3:44:20] supposed to be going through diligently,

[3:44:24] and we do, to an extreme.

[3:44:27] I have a tendency to drill down on places: where are our investments, where were we

[3:44:32] last month, what's really changed, you know,

[3:44:36] those kinds of things.

[3:44:37] so I will admit that out of some of these enormous digital agenda packets that we

[3:44:45] receive,

[3:44:46] maybe three or four hundred pages of it is financial or just other kinds of stuff.

[3:44:52] but I will also say that in the four, five hundred, six hundred pages that is over

[3:44:58] there,

[3:45:00] an awful lot of it is just stuff.

[3:45:04] legal stuff, definitions of words, all kinds of stuff.

[3:45:09] the actual development agreement where you really know what's happening,

[3:45:16] aside from all the appendices and all the rest of that, is 57 pages.

[3:45:22] the development agreement, in its nuts and bolts, is 57 pages and very easy to read.

[3:45:29] okay?

[3:45:31] the 300 sheets of drawings that are, you know, available to the public and all the

[3:45:38] rest of that, they're concept drawings, okay?

[3:45:42] they are very accurate in terms of layouts and what you should expect.

[3:45:49] but when you get into things that were shown to us tonight that were renderings of

[3:45:55] what the buildings are all going to look

[3:45:58] like and all the rest of that, that's conceptual.

[3:46:04] this developer will sell the property, because they don't do residential, to a

[3:46:09] residential developer.

[3:46:12] those developers now know from those concept drawings what we're expecting, but

[3:46:19] they're not going to hand in exactly that.

[3:46:23] they may want changes, and we will review them, not as a city council,

[3:46:28] but administratively, we will make sure that the concept of those

[3:46:33] what is being put in front of us as a council and what was being put in front of you

[3:46:40] tonight is followed as a concept and what we're expecting to get.

[3:46:46] I'm not going to talk about the economics because

[3:46:52] it was, in my mind, pretty twisted

[3:46:56] in terms of how it was portrayed by some of the people on the council.

[3:47:02] but that's my rendition of this.

[3:47:05] the people of this city have been waiting, and not so patiently lately, for something

[3:47:13] to happen.

[3:47:16] so I came here wanting to listen to all of this,

[3:47:23] and be what they call semi-judicial.

[3:47:28] but I have to say one of the big things that moves me is everywhere I go, I

[3:47:36] feel like this is a song I'm going to break into: people want to know what's going on.

[3:47:42] why don't we have this?

[3:47:44] and all we do is go round and round and round

[3:47:48] and talk about how, what if, you know, what if the sky falls?

[3:47:53] what if homeless people happen to roll through the, you know, I mean, I'm on the

[3:47:58] southern california association of governments, scag.

[3:48:03] that location for affordable housing would be their poster child.

[3:48:14] they're happy if it's within a half a mile.

[3:48:18] okay?

[3:48:19] but if we could say, oh, it's across the street that you can catch a bus to anywhere

[3:48:24] in the county and there beyond,

[3:48:27] I mean, I don't know what you do beyond that.

[3:48:31] I guess you talk about how it's just not going to be secure.

[3:48:35] it can't be secure because there are people who were waiting in line for a place in

[3:48:41] laguna beach, some homeless place there.

[3:48:45] and so we can't trust that they won't

[3:48:48] mug somebody in that building.

[3:48:51] I mean, my patience has been really tried.

[3:48:55] so I have to tell you that I'm going to be voting aye if this moves to a vote.

[3:49:02] so let's see, was there somebody else?

[3:49:05] the next person up was josh sweeney.

[3:49:08] thank you, mr.

[3:49:08] mayor.

[3:49:09] I appreciate that.

[3:49:11] and I just need to really respond to a couple comments because I take my

[3:49:15] responsibility very seriously up here,

[3:49:19] not only as a planning agency member, but as a city council member.

[3:49:24] and I want to be very clear.

[3:49:26] my decision tonight was definitely not predetermined.

[3:49:31] I spent a considerable amount of time going over the materials, just like mayor caskey

[3:49:35] had said.

[3:49:36] we all received the materials.

[3:49:37] we all have ample time to review them.

[3:49:40] and it is what it is.

[3:49:41] you put in as much time as you want on that.

[3:49:44] but not only do we have time to review the materials, we also had an opportunity to

[3:49:48] speak to the applicant.

[3:49:50] we had time to listen to our constituents.

[3:49:55] so there's a lot that went into this.

[3:50:00] I think reasonable people can look at the same project and reach different

[3:50:04] conclusions, and I can respect that.

[3:50:08] but I do not think it is fair or appropriate to suggest that those of us who may

[3:50:13] reach a different conclusion had already

[3:50:16] made up our minds.

[3:50:19] so, also quickly on public safety, I think I want the record to be accurate because

[3:50:27] the fiscal analysis that was done by eps shows approximately $1.36 million as a model

[3:50:34] public safety expense allocation.

[3:50:38] and that was based on a per-person calculation that was done for how many people are

[3:50:43] in our community and what our

[3:50:46] current budget is.

[3:50:48] and so that's how that was come up with.

[3:50:51] the city's existing public safety budget is

[3:50:57] using that methodology.

[3:50:58] it's not finding that the city needs to hire a specific number of sheriffs, and I had

[3:51:01] asked the question earlier,

[3:51:03] and the captain had responded on that.

[3:51:06] and definitely, additional deputies do not cost us $600,000.

[3:51:10] but anyways, we can disagree on the project, but I think at the end of the day, we

[3:51:14] owe our

[3:51:15] residents an accurate discussion of the facts and respect for each member's

[3:51:19] independent decision-making process.

[3:51:23] so thank you.

[3:51:26] we'll now move back to erica. Yes, well, I think that it's obvious that there

[3:51:43] is a split. It is obvious. So thank you for giving me the time to be able to express

[3:51:50] my concerns because my

[3:51:52] concerns are extreme.

[3:51:58] I mean, if you look at the asks from ms.

[3:52:03] lowe's powerpoint, she kind of, it was sort of spoken briefly, but the asks are that

[3:52:10] we're changing the usage.

[3:52:13] so the uvsp says if there are going to be units in the

[3:52:24] uvsp, new units, residential units, that they were mixed use, and also states to have

[3:52:32] the mixed use on top of shops.

[3:52:36] well, I don't see that, so it's requesting a variance from us to say, okay, we're not

[3:52:43] going to provide,

[3:52:45] we're not going to follow our laws, we're going to sign a doc, and we're going to say

[3:52:49] that we're going to

[3:52:52] create a lot of exceptions for merlone geier.

[3:52:57] this is our one opportunity to be able to have something and plan for something that

[3:53:03] creates economic vitality in the city

[3:53:07] for years.

[3:53:09] this is our one shot.

[3:53:10] all of the other developments that we had to zone for rhna purposes, we couldn't

[3:53:18] obtain

[3:53:19] this sort of economic vitality.

[3:53:21] this was our one shot to do a great job, to be able to increase retail, to bring some

[3:53:26] sort of, if you

[3:53:28] look right down the street, there's a porsche dealership.

[3:53:32] is it a porsche?

[3:53:33] I think it's a porsche dealership.

[3:53:35] what kind of revenue does that bring into irvine?

[3:53:38] look at the dealerships that are in the other cities right across the street.

[3:53:44] they have copious amounts of retail.

[3:53:46] this area is a retail boomer, and it's meant to be that way.

[3:53:51] the uvsp states it, that it is the economic generator in the city.

[3:53:57] so we're decreasing retail and we're giving all these exceptions,

[3:54:01] but we're getting nothing for it. I mean, not that much, and the quimby fees, which

[3:54:06] are essentially our

[3:54:08] rules that state you have to give this much per unit. That's what we're getting for

[3:54:12] it, is what we're supposed to have.

[3:54:16] I mean, it's just, it doesn't create the economic vitality, stability that we need in

[3:54:21] the city, and

[3:54:22] this was our one chance to do it, and we failed.

[3:54:27] I mean, this body failed.

[3:54:29] and, you know, as I said, it's our decisions.

[3:54:33] if you read what we're actually signing, I mean, it's actually pretty scary what

[3:54:39] we're signing, and I can't support something like that, especially

[3:54:44] because if you're ever asked in court, well, did you know the addendums?

[3:54:48] like, you're going to be asked, if you're ever in this situation, you're going to

[3:54:51] have to be asked,

[3:54:52] did you know that those addendums were there?

[3:54:56] yes.

[3:54:56] well, that was staff's recommendation.

[3:54:59] that's not what somebody's going to care about.

[3:55:01] what they're going to care about is your responsibility to it, your due diligence.

[3:55:06] they're not going to say, well, that was a recommendation given to me by staff, by

[3:55:09] somebody else.

[3:55:11] no one cares.

[3:55:12] they're going to say, what did you do?

[3:55:13] well, how did you do your homework on it?

[3:55:15] that's why the homework is important for us.

[3:55:19] because we are the responsible parties.

[3:55:22] we are the responsible body.

[3:55:24] and to minimize the amount of time that we've had to go through this is, I mean,

[3:55:30] I know that we're going back and forth about being insulted, but it's really, I guess

[3:55:35] I've never...

[3:55:37] I don't know.

[3:55:38] we're in a different situation now where people are frustrated about people doing

[3:55:42] their homework or doing their due diligence that we're supposed to do.

[3:55:47] it's our fiduciary duties.

[3:55:49] we have duties to protect the residents.

[3:55:51] we have duties.

[3:55:51] and we're trying to say, hey, we need some more time to negotiate further.

[3:55:55] we need more time to create a stronger economic vitality.

[3:55:59] we've been asking. I mentioned to you at the last meeting I wanted to know what was

[3:56:05] happening and how I felt that it

[3:56:08] wasn't fair and wasn't right.

[3:56:11] we're being thrown to the side with this.

[3:56:13] so, I mean, and the consequences again are the decision that was made by the council.

[3:56:19] so anyway, I yield my comments.

[3:56:25] any other comments?

[3:56:30] I have to make one last comment, and that is I have to say that as a professional and

[3:56:35] a person,

[3:56:36] to be accused of not doing my due diligence on something that I've worked so hard on

[3:56:43] for a year and a half, negotiating,

[3:56:46] and it wasn't easy, I really resent that.

[3:56:52] and I resent some of the other accusations about the project itself.

[3:56:58] but I'm going to leave it at that for me.

[3:57:01] and seeing no other lights, we have a motion and a second.

[3:57:08] so I'm going to ask the city clerk to call a roll call.

[3:57:11] this should be a roll call vote.

[3:57:14] yes.

[3:57:15] mayor caskey?

[3:57:17] aye.

[3:57:18] mayor pro tem mathis?

[3:57:20] aye.

[3:57:21] councilmember wheeler?

[3:57:23] no.

[3:57:25] councilmember sweeney?

[3:57:26] aye.

[3:57:28] councilmember pezold?

[3:57:30] no.

[3:57:33] that is three for yes and then two for no.

[3:57:35] the motion would pass.

[3:57:37] okay.

[3:57:40] thank you all for being so patient out there.

[3:57:45] you're not all consultants; you're citizens.

[3:57:48] so what we're going to do is take a little five- or ten-minute break to allow those

[3:57:56] of you who want to depart.

[3:58:00] it is now 9:54, and believe it or not, we have a whole meeting in front of us, which

[3:58:05] I would love to table,

[3:58:07] but I don't know that we can do that.

[3:58:10] so we'll give you first a chance to

[3:58:15] not feel like you're sneaking out.

[3:58:20] if you want to stay, then by all means.

[3:58:25]

[3:58:51]

[3:59:20]

[3:59:41]

[4:00:15]

[4:00:16]

[4:00:35]

[4:00:37]

[4:00:39]

[4:00:41]

[4:00:42]

[4:00:43]

[4:00:44]

[4:00:58]

[4:00:59]

[4:01:01]

[4:01:02]

[4:01:25]

[4:01:54]

[4:01:55]

[4:02:21]

[4:03:00]

[4:03:42]

[4:04:24]

[4:06:04] all right.

[4:06:05] I'm not going to use the gavel.

[4:06:06] I'm just going to start the meeting up where we left off.

[4:06:09] we're trying to let people leave who might want to leave, and

[4:06:13] it looks like a number of people have taken us up on that.

[4:06:19] so we have no presentations or proclamations, so we're going to move straight to

[4:06:24] holland gannon, if she's here.

[4:06:26] yeah, she is.

[4:06:27] with a schedule of future events.

[4:06:29] holland.

[4:06:30] mayor, can I ask one question?

[4:06:33] can I get a printed agenda?

[4:06:35] my apologies.

[4:06:36] it's sort of lost in my stack.

[4:06:47] I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.

[4:06:52] oh, it's in the bridge.

[4:06:53] okay.

[4:06:55] thank you.

[4:06:56] are you not going?

[4:06:57] I'm ready.

[4:06:58] go for it.

[4:06:59] good evening, mayor caskey, members of the city council, and members of the public.

[4:07:03] the city council and planning agency will have its next meeting on tuesday, august

[4:07:06] 25th.

[4:07:07] the meeting will begin at 6 p.m.

[4:07:09] here in the council chambers.

[4:07:11] the traffic commission will have their regular meeting tomorrow, on wednesday, july

[4:07:15] 15th, at 6 p.m.

[4:07:16] also here in the council chambers.

[4:07:18] the parks and recreation commission will have their regular meeting the following

[4:07:22] month, on august 5th at 6 p.m.,

[4:07:24] and that will also take place in the council chambers.

[4:07:28] with the recess coming up, I have a lot of community activities and events to discuss

[4:07:32] for you tonight.

[4:07:34] community services will have an excursion to l.a.'s

[4:07:36] hollyhock house on friday, july 17th.

[4:07:39] participants will depart from the community center at 11:30 a.m.

[4:07:43] that same evening, we will have our first concert in our summer concert series on the

[4:07:46] town green of the community center.

[4:07:49] from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., we will be listening to a community favorite, the reflex.

[4:07:53] the kids' market will also be at this event, which is a market entirely run by kids

[4:07:57] selling their own homemade creations.

[4:08:00] on sunday, july 19th, we have a sold-out excursion to la jolla,

[4:08:04] where participants will start by visiting the historical society and end with a

[4:08:07] community concert by the sea.

[4:08:10] the global harmony symphony presents playbill parade, a free community concert in the

[4:08:14] heritage room of the community center at 6:30 p.m.

[4:08:17] on monday, july 20th.

[4:08:20] on thursday, july 23rd, ocsd will be holding national night out at the laguna hills

[4:08:24] community center from 5 to 8 p.m.

[4:08:27] the next day, on july 24th, we have a teen excursion to knott's berry farm.

[4:08:31] we also have our second movie in the park that evening, where we will be watching the

[4:08:34] movie trolls at san remo park.

[4:08:36] the first 100 attendees will get a funnel cake on us.

[4:08:40] the global harmony symphony will host their free quarterly moment musicale concert at

[4:08:43] 1 p.m.

[4:08:44] in the heritage room on tuesday, july 28th.

[4:08:47] the next friday, we have our next summer concert on july 31st.

[4:08:52] we will be listening to the history of pop on the town green from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

[4:08:57] the community services department and the laguna hills library will have their

[4:09:00] monthly storytime adventures on thursday, august 6th, at 10 a.m.

[4:09:04] in heritage room a of the community center.

[4:09:07] we have our last teen excursion of the summer on friday, august 7th, to raging waters.

[4:09:12] that same evening, we will be at stockport park watching madagascar for our third

[4:09:16] movie in the park.

[4:09:17] the event starts at 6:30 p.m.

[4:09:19] and the first 100 attendees will get a free shaved ice on us.

[4:09:24] we will be traveling to the hilbert museum in orange on saturday, august 8th.

[4:09:28] then we have another sold-out excursion to santa barbara on august 9th, where there

[4:09:34] is an annual old spanish days festival.

[4:09:39] on monday, august 10th, we will have an evening excursion to bolsa chica for a

[4:09:42] bonfire.

[4:09:44] the community services department and the laguna hills library will have their

[4:09:48] monthly let's make workshop on wednesday, august 12th, at 4 p.m.

[4:09:52] in the classroom of the community center.

[4:09:55] on friday, august 14th, we have an excursion to a friday-night event at the historic

[4:09:59] gamble house in pasadena.

[4:10:01] and on that day, we also have our last summer concert, where we will be rocking out

[4:10:05] to acme time machine on the town

[4:10:07] green again from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

[4:10:10] that saturday, we have our annual excursion to the lemon festival in chula vista.

[4:10:14] and finally, we have our last movie in the park on friday, august 21st, at 6:30 p.m.

[4:10:19] in clarington park.

[4:10:20] the first hundred attendees will receive a meal from tk burger.

[4:10:25] that concludes my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[4:10:28] thank you very much.

[4:10:30] are there any questions for ms.

[4:10:32] gannon?

[4:10:34] okay.

[4:10:36] I will say, even though it's probably only going to go into the record,

[4:10:40] uh...

[4:10:40] but if anyone's actually still listening, the hollyhock house in

[4:10:46] los angeles, which was designed by frank lloyd wright, and it's one of the events,

[4:10:51] the gamble house, which was towards the end of what you were

[4:10:55] basically letting us know, are both incredible, incredible places to visit, and I

[4:11:02] recommend them highly to anyone, not only in this room, but who

[4:11:08] might be watching the video and/or the livestream.

[4:11:13] the next thing on the agenda is the public comments, non-agendized public comments,

[4:11:18] and

[4:11:19] this is a time to address the city council on any matter not listed in this agenda

[4:11:25] that is within the subject

[4:11:28] matter jurisdiction of the city council.

[4:11:33] public comments are limited to three minutes, as determined by the mayor.

[4:11:39] if you're participating remotely, and I'll look over to the city clerk to

[4:11:43] double-check whether we have anybody there,

[4:11:48] then I'll let him tell you how to do that, since this is the first time that we've

[4:11:54] tried that system. And with that, I'm

[4:11:58] going to ask the city clerk.

[4:12:00] do we have

[4:12:02] any members of the audience who wish to make a public comment? Yes, I have three. The

[4:12:10] first is yi-ning. Welcome.

[4:12:14] and she did hand out the documents in front of you as part of her comments.

[4:12:19] thank you.

[4:12:21] good evening, mayor, and...

[4:12:23] pull the microphone down a little closer to your mouth.

[4:12:26] that'll help.

[4:12:27] there you go.

[4:12:27] thank you.

[4:12:28] good evening, mayor and members of city council.

[4:12:32] my name is yi-ning, and I'm the owner of the delight massage and facial in laguna hills.

[4:12:38] so thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

[4:12:42] so I'm here to respectfully ask for your approval to expand into the

[4:12:45] 1,600-square-foot space

[4:12:51] next to our current business.

[4:12:53] first, I want to make one thing very clear.

[4:12:57] this expansion is not for more massage rooms.

[4:13:02] we will keep our nine massage rooms exactly the same.

[4:13:07] and the new space will only be used for facial and skin care service.

[4:13:14] every facial room will have its own sink to meet california's health and license

[4:13:20] requirements.

[4:13:22] when we opened two years ago, one facial room was enough.

[4:13:27] today, many of our existing customers ask for facial service, and one room is no

[4:13:33] longer enough.

[4:13:38] this expansion is simply to meet the needs of our current customers.

[4:13:43] today, we have more than 400 online reviews with 4.9 stars from google and yelp for

[4:13:51] two years.

[4:13:55] we have zero tolerance for anything illegal, and we also follow city and state laws.

[4:14:06] I also served in the united states navy.

[4:14:12] and we are not asking to become a different business.

[4:14:17] we simply want to better serve our existing customers, creating more local jobs

[4:14:23] and continue serving the laguna hills community.

[4:14:28] and we respectfully ask for your support.

[4:14:31] thank you so much for your time and your consideration.

[4:14:35] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[4:14:38] okay, I'll turn to my colleagues first.

[4:14:40] are there any questions?

[4:14:43] yes, erica.

[4:14:44] this is a public comment, correct?

[4:14:46] yes.

[4:14:47] non-agendized public. Correct. Is there a way that this individual can meet with the

[4:14:53] attorney, meet with staff, to have conversations versus have questions

[4:14:59] here? Because we're on a moratorium on new facilities, and I would imagine, I think

[4:15:07] what you might be concerned about

[4:15:11] is that you sound like you have an ongoing business,

[4:15:15] and congratulations for that.

[4:15:17] and we know that there are a lot of massage establishments within laguna hills that

[4:15:22] are very reputable and are doing a great job.

[4:15:26] so if you have questions in regard to potential expansion or any of those things,

[4:15:34] I probably would agree with erica to refer you first to staff and see, you know,

[4:15:42] we're not trying to harm or shut down those legitimate businesses.

[4:15:47] especially those who are willing to come in and talk to the city council and even

[4:15:54] wait, what, six,

[4:15:56] four hours to be able to do that for a few minutes.

[4:16:00] thank you.

[4:16:00] so we really appreciate you, and if you have particular concerns,

[4:16:10] I would have you work with staff first if you need to bring it back to one of the

[4:16:14] council people.

[4:16:15] most of us are always open to talk to constituents, and that includes even if you

[4:16:20] don't live in laguna hills,

[4:16:22] you're a business in laguna hills, and so we care very much about you.

[4:16:27] thank you.

[4:16:28] I want to make it understood that it goes two ways, okay?

[4:16:32] okay, I'm still nervous, but I'm still here.

[4:16:35] all right.

[4:16:39] any other questions?

[4:16:41] do you have any questions?

[4:16:41] no, but I think the city manager will give you his information so that you can reach

[4:16:47] out to us.

[4:16:48] okay.

[4:16:50] yeah.

[4:16:51] all right.

[4:16:51] well, thank you very much.

[4:16:54] do we have any telephone?

[4:16:57] we've got two more in person.

[4:16:59] oh, two more in person?

[4:17:00] yes.

[4:17:01] we have madelyn unholz.

[4:17:04] all right.

[4:17:05] welcome.

[4:17:08] thank you for your patience.

[4:17:09] thank you.

[4:17:10] of course.

[4:17:11] got some studying done back there.

[4:17:13] switching up the agenda a little bit.

[4:17:15] although erica did bring it up already.

[4:17:17] my name is madelyn.

[4:17:18] I've been a resident of this community for over a decade now.

[4:17:22] I grew up here, went to laguna hills high school, and

[4:17:26] I recently, or not recently, a couple years ago, completed my bachelor of science in

[4:17:29] criminal justice.

[4:17:31] something that has been recently brought to my attention by concerned community

[4:17:35] members, as well as people in my family and myself included, are the

[4:17:39] flock safety cameras

[4:17:42] that are around the city.

[4:17:43] we have exactly 61 alpr cameras that are built and monitored by flock safety,

[4:17:50] which is a private security and surveillance company that we've contracted to operate

[4:17:54] these cameras.

[4:17:56] they continuously record your movement.

[4:17:58] they do this without a warrant, without probable cause, and without reasonable

[4:18:01] suspicion of a crime.

[4:18:03] every time that you drive by one of these 61 cameras in laguna hills, a snapshot is

[4:18:07] taken.

[4:18:09] that snapshot is then collected and transferred to flock's private corporate database,

[4:18:13] which the orange county sheriff's department and the city of laguna hills have no

[4:18:16] control over.

[4:18:17] the data is shared with thousands of agencies nationwide, and flock doesn't need to

[4:18:21] ask our permission to do this.

[4:18:24] so what are they doing with this data?

[4:18:26] honestly, I don't really have any idea.

[4:18:29] and I don't really know if anyone else does either.

[4:18:32] we've paid them $100,000 every year to let them watch our citizens.

[4:18:38] but what do we know about the company?

[4:18:40] we know that they have a history of poor security practices.

[4:18:43] they often experience data breaches and provide unauthorized access to private

[4:18:47] information

[4:18:48] that they collect.

[4:18:50] in july of 2025, they published a misconfigured demo website straight to their main

[4:18:54] page that included administrative login and access to over 50

[4:18:58] private layers of data.

[4:19:00] in november of last year, a security researcher found flock login information for

[4:19:04] sale on russian websites,

[4:19:06] which launched a full-scale ftc investigation of this company that's currently

[4:19:10] ongoing, so they still haven't come to any conclusion.

[4:19:13] flock is a private corporation.

[4:19:15] they have complete control over this massive centralized database of our daily

[4:19:19] movements.

[4:19:20] there's no public oversight, and there have been no independent audits of how they

[4:19:24] use our data.

[4:19:25] this is a for-profit tech company, not just our local police department

[4:19:30] reading license plates.

[4:19:32] it's much bigger than that.

[4:19:33] this is a massive database that they have of our personal data that they can pretty

[4:19:38] much do with as they please.

[4:19:41] a lot of people are willing to give up freedoms in exchange for security, but flock

[4:19:44] safety can't even give us that.

[4:19:47] there's no independent research proving that they reduce crime, and the research that

[4:19:50] does exist is inconclusive at best.

[4:19:53] in conclusion, I would ask that laguna hills call for an independent audit of how our

[4:19:57] data is being used by the private company

[4:19:59] that they have contracted to collect it.

[4:20:01] in addition, I would ask that the city reconsider their ongoing contract with this

[4:20:05] predatory surveillance company.

[4:20:07] thank you.

[4:20:09] okay.

[4:20:09] questions?

[4:20:10] dave.

[4:20:12] thank you for coming in.

[4:20:13] I don't like big brother either.

[4:20:16] my understanding, I'm going to ask chief burk to comment,

[4:20:20] is that the data that we collect on this flock camera is supposed to be deleted in

[4:20:23] something like 30 days or 60 days.

[4:20:26] first of all, is that true?

[4:20:27] yeah, flock states they don't keep the data over, I believe it's 30 days.

[4:20:31] they do say that.

[4:20:32] I would also like to note, though, as of december 2025,

[4:20:35] flock has stopped providing any independent audits or login logs to agencies that

[4:20:41] request them.

[4:20:43] they have not been very forthcoming with the data that they collect and how they use

[4:20:47] it.

[4:20:48] okay, I'm getting that.

[4:20:49] that's my point number two.

[4:20:50] okay, so our contract with them: they're supposed to delete the data roughly 30 days

[4:20:53] or something like that.

[4:20:55] it's not to be kept.

[4:20:56] it's mainly just to see if we've got a child abduction situation.

[4:21:01] they've got the license number.

[4:21:02] we can find things quickly.

[4:21:03] it's not meant to be kept long term.

[4:21:08] counsel burns, can I ask you to look into seeing if there are lawsuits against this

[4:21:13] firm and if there are some things we should know

[4:21:16] about?

[4:21:17] please advise us.

[4:21:19] I can do that, yes.

[4:21:21] okay.

[4:21:22] we'll find out if these guys are no good.

[4:21:25] I know that lapd did recently just end their contract with them as well for similar

[4:21:29] concerns,

[4:21:30] so that would definitely be something to look into as well.

[4:21:33] okay.

[4:21:34] thank you for your comments.

[4:21:35] mm-hmm.

[4:21:37] thank you.

[4:21:38] any other questions?

[4:21:39] okay.

[4:21:40] thank you again.

[4:21:42] and thank you for bringing that to our attention.

[4:21:47] next one.

[4:21:47] I believe she has already left, but cathy udovch.

[4:21:52] I believe she's already left.

[4:21:54] okay.

[4:21:54] and I have no one online.

[4:21:56] so that is all the comments I have at this time.

[4:21:59] all right.

[4:22:01] so our next item on the agenda is item number five, the consent calendar.

[4:22:08] all matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and will be

[4:22:13] enacted in one motion approving the recommendation listed on the agenda.

[4:22:18] there will be no separate discussion unless members of the city council or city staff

[4:22:24] request specific items to be removed from the consent

[4:22:29] calendar.

[4:22:30] so I will ask for public comments on this.

[4:22:35] consent calendar? Sorry, I have none. There are none, okay?

[4:22:42] all right, and I will ask the council members or staff: would you like to remove any

[4:22:47] items?

[4:22:48] dave? 5.2. 5.2. Anyone else? I'll move the balance. Second. Second.

[4:23:01] and we have a motion and a second to approve the balance.

[4:23:06] I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

[4:23:11] mayor pro tem mathis?

[4:23:14] aye.

[4:23:15] council member pezold?

[4:23:17] aye.

[4:23:18] mayor caskey?

[4:23:19] aye.

[4:23:20] council member wheeler?

[4:23:21] aye.

[4:23:22] council member sweeney?

[4:23:23] aye.

[4:23:24] okay.

[4:23:26] so now let's move on to 5.2.

[4:23:27] dave.

[4:23:29] yes, I removed 5.2 just for the sake of it.

[4:23:32] I need to abstain from that since I was not at that meeting.

[4:23:36] that's all.

[4:23:39] I'm sorry, I didn't quite...

[4:23:43] I was not at the meeting, so I need to abstain from that.

[4:23:45] oh, you're not?

[4:23:46] oh, okay.

[4:23:46] and I'll move to vote.

[4:23:48] second.

[4:23:49] okay.

[4:23:57] we have a second, right, with josh, and call the roll.

[4:24:00] I'm sorry.

[4:24:01] who was the motion? Who motioned?

[4:24:02] dave wheeler, okay. All right, we'll call the roll. Just a point of clarification:

[4:24:13] you abstained? Yes. Can you push the item

[4:24:20] even though you're abstaining? Who made the original motion to approve?

[4:24:24] that's okay.

[4:24:24] excuse me?

[4:24:25] who made the motion to approve?

[4:24:26] was it council member wheeler?

[4:24:27] yes.

[4:24:28] I've never seen that before.

[4:24:29] that's what I'm saying.

[4:24:30] is there another council member that can make the motion?

[4:24:33] I'll move it.

[4:24:34] yes.

[4:24:34] I'm not sure if he can or if he can't.

[4:24:35] I've just never seen it before.

[4:24:36] I've never seen it.

[4:24:37] so we have a different motion.

[4:24:39] I'll second.

[4:24:40] and we have a second.

[4:24:42] moved and seconded.

[4:24:44] good catch, erica.

[4:24:47] and we'll take a vote.

[4:24:48] yes.

[4:24:49] council member sweeney?

[4:24:49] aye.

[4:24:51] council member wheeler?

[4:24:52] abstain.

[4:24:53] mayor pro tem mathis?

[4:24:54] aye.

[4:24:55] council member pezold?

[4:24:56] aye.

[4:24:57] mayor caskey?

[4:24:58] aye.

[4:25:00] okay.

[4:25:00] I'm going to turn a few pages here.

[4:25:06] catch up on all of that.

[4:25:08] there we go.

[4:25:17] all right, now we move to item 6.1.

[4:25:20] I believe it's confirmation of the 2026 weed abatement cost report, and we have a

[4:25:27] recommendation to city council to conduct a public hearing regarding

[4:25:34] the weed abatement cost report and adopt a resolution, and I will be very brief with

[4:25:41] all of those words, and I'm

[4:25:44] going to announce

[4:25:46] that this is a public hearing for the 2026 weed abatement cost report, and I welcome

[4:25:54] all to this public hearing and this item,

[4:26:00] and the public is welcome to make a comment if they so wish.

[4:26:05] so I'm going to turn right away to—well, do we

[4:26:10] have the public comments first, or you, joe?

[4:26:15] presentation? Should I do a presentation, or city clerk?

[4:26:20] yes, I currently have no comments for this at this time.

[4:26:23] okay.

[4:26:23] well then, why don't you just go ahead with your presentation?

[4:26:25] it's a very short presentation. City staff is asking city council to conduct a public

[4:26:32] hearing regarding the 2026—it's a typo on your

[4:26:36] agenda report—2026 weed abatement cost report and

[4:26:40] to adopt a resolution confirming the 2026 weed abatement cost report.

[4:26:46] essentially, the report indicates that we have cleared one private property of weeds,

[4:26:54] and this is the time and place for the property owner to object to the levying of

[4:27:01] charges for that.

[4:27:03] that concludes my staff report.

[4:27:07] all right.

[4:27:08] I have a whole list of things we would do.

[4:27:10] we have no public comments.

[4:27:13] and so I'm going to cut to the chase here and basically ask if the council members

[4:27:19] have any questions for joe.

[4:27:23] oh, david, sorry.

[4:27:25] just one quick question.

[4:27:26] is this the abatement in general, or just one specific person that won't comply?

[4:27:31] this is weed abatement in general, and everybody complied except for one person, whom

[4:27:35] we contacted.

[4:27:36] and it's the same usual customer, and they keep paying the bill.

[4:27:40] okay.

[4:27:42] have we added to the regular maintenance the area that we determined last year was a

[4:27:47] fire hazard?

[4:27:49] that's not directly related to this agenda item, but regarding your question that I

[4:27:56] think we talked about previously,

[4:27:59] the public works operating budget was previously increased to allow for that to occur.

[4:28:05] okay.

[4:28:06] I'm sorry.

[4:28:06] I thought it was part of this abatement.

[4:28:07] no worries.

[4:28:07] this is for private property parcels.

[4:28:09] okay.

[4:28:09] thank you.

[4:28:12] all right, and because we've already been told there is nobody in the audience or

[4:28:16] online that wants to speak to the issue,

[4:28:18] I'm going to close the public hearing I just opened and bring it back to the city

[4:28:23] council for deliberation.

[4:28:25] do we have any deliberations or comments and/or motions?

[4:28:32] I'll move to adopt the resolution.

[4:28:33] I'll second.

[4:28:35] all right.

[4:28:36] any comments beyond that?

[4:28:39] okay.

[4:28:39] then we're going to call for the vote, and we'll call for the roll call.

[4:28:45] mayor caskey?

[4:28:46] aye.

[4:28:46] council member pezold?

[4:28:48] aye.

[4:28:48] council member wheeler?

[4:28:49] aye.

[4:28:50] council member sweeney?

[4:28:51] aye.

[4:28:51] mayor pro tem mathis?

[4:28:52] aye.

[4:28:54] okay.

[4:28:54] and then the next item on the list, item number seven.

[4:28:57] city manager's report, and I'll ask you, bob, if you have anything to report.

[4:29:04] no reports this evening, mayor.

[4:29:05] okay.

[4:29:07] now we have item number eight, matters agendized and presented by city council

[4:29:12] members.

[4:29:14] and we have, I believe, three of us tonight, maybe four.

[4:29:20] so we will start with council member wheeler.

[4:29:24] uh...

[4:29:25] orange county older adults advisory commission.

[4:29:30] in the interest of time, I'll make it real quick.

[4:29:34] we had our regular meeting; information was delivered for the people there. They did

[4:29:39] adopt our

[4:29:41] metrics to take care of the goals for this year, and so that was a good thing.

[4:29:49] guess I'm next with the scag report. The southern california association of

[4:29:55] governments did have a meeting last week.

[4:29:59] I attended it, and most of the meeting was logistical and in regards to meeting dates

[4:30:05] and calendars and the rest of that. There

[4:30:10] were two reports that were made

[4:30:13] about projects that had been sponsored by scag, mainly in the interest of

[4:30:18] transportation and redevelopment.

[4:30:21] one was in fox hills.

[4:30:23] the other one was in san bernardino.

[4:30:27] the one in fox hills was certainly interesting because you could actually get your

[4:30:31] arms around something that happened.

[4:30:34] the one in san bernardino,

[4:30:36] it was more of a planning project.

[4:30:40] both were well done, but there's not much to report on in regards to something that

[4:30:45] our city can take and run with.

[4:30:49] other than the fact that we should always, in regards to any of these associations

[4:30:54] that we belong to, every

[4:30:57] once in a while the opportunity opens up

[4:31:00] for grants and things like that, that if they do happen to work and be symbiotic with

[4:31:07] the needs of the city, should be

[4:31:10] something that we look at and maybe take advantage of.

[4:31:14] and occasionally, in the case of scag, I would have to say some of those things are

[4:31:20] more environmental.

[4:31:22] and some of the cities around south orange county have taken advantage of that in the

[4:31:27] past.

[4:31:28] and we'll just keep our eye on those things, and if it's possibly something that we

[4:31:33] can go after, then we might.

[4:31:37] and with that, I will go to council member sweeney for the ocfa report.

[4:31:43] thank you, mayor.

[4:31:44] I appreciate that.

[4:31:45] if I could please pull up my presentation.

[4:31:47] I have a 15-minute presentation I'd like to do.

[4:31:50] very briefly, the orange county fire authority continues to move forward with its

[4:31:53] budget and strategic priorities.

[4:31:55] at our recent board meeting, we addressed the upcoming fiscal year budget, federal

[4:31:59] grant updates, and several operational and policy matters.

[4:32:02] ocfa continues to prepare for fire season and ensure that we have the resources

[4:32:06] necessary to serve our communities.

[4:32:10] given the hour,

[4:32:11] that's all I have. Okay, great. And the last one would be council member pezold with

[4:32:19] the tca report. Yes, and in the

[4:32:24] spirit of the hour, I will also be providing a short presentation. The transportation

[4:32:33] corridor agencies met july 9th

[4:32:38] and we passed, the board of directors passed, the open market bond buyback program

[4:32:44] amendment,

[4:32:47] the 241-91 express connector public outreach and marketing services contract.

[4:32:56] we were provided a state and federal legislative update.

[4:33:01] and one interesting item was the changeable message signs.

[4:33:08] so we look forward to seeing those come up.

[4:33:12] and the chief executive officer provided updates with more awards that the board has

[4:33:20] received.

[4:33:21] so anyway, with that, I conclude my report.

[4:33:24] thank you, erica.

[4:33:26] that leads us to council member comments.

[4:33:31] I believe the city manager has a comment that he would like to make, too, so I'll let

[4:33:36] him throw that in there first, and then

[4:33:39] we'll go straight to us. Thank you, mayor and members of the council.

[4:33:43] I just wanted to do a big shout-out to our new city clerk, joshua, and georgia; they

[4:33:50] managed, for the first

[4:33:52] time ever, our new 707 rules and all the technology, and

[4:33:58] robert, thank you for the great work that you've done on that.

[4:34:02] and so to come out of the box in a big meeting like this, it just was outstanding

[4:34:07] work for everybody.

[4:34:09] so thank you.

[4:34:10] thank you, mayor.

[4:34:11] okay.

[4:34:13] next up, I'll go right to the order that came up.

[4:34:17] jared mathis.

[4:34:19] first of all, for the record, I just want to say it's so good to have you back in the

[4:34:23] room. Thank you for

[4:34:25] being here, and also want to give a big thank you to your wife, susie, because I know

[4:34:30] you can't do this kind of thing

[4:34:32] alone

[4:34:33] to get

[4:34:34] through what you've been facing, so

[4:34:37] we're all better off with you in the room, and

[4:34:40] thank you for making the effort to be here, and thank you, susie, for helping get him

[4:34:43] here.

[4:34:45] a lot more than just getting me here.

[4:34:48] but I won't get into the details.

[4:34:50] you don't need that.

[4:34:52] next up is dave wheeler.

[4:34:55] thank you.

[4:34:56] basically, I have two commendations for holland gannon.

[4:35:04] I received many, many emails that said laguna hills' fireworks display was the best

[4:35:09] in the whole area, and they actually had a couple

[4:35:13] of comments that kind of denigrated a couple of neighbor cities whose names I won't

[4:35:17] mention, but said theirs was, you know, not good.

[4:35:20] I'll leave it at that, and ours was great. And the second thing, another commendation

[4:35:25] and

[4:35:26] good work, was from a city council member at laguna woods who's seen our new banners,

[4:35:31] said they'd been noticed,

[4:35:33] and said they really liked it.

[4:35:34] and the uniqueness and tying them into laguna hills was really, you know, a good

[4:35:38] thing.

[4:35:39] and that was passed on from a fellow city council member in another city.

[4:35:44] thank you.

[4:35:47] okay.

[4:35:47] next up would be josh.

[4:35:52] thank you, mr.

[4:35:52] mayor.

[4:35:53] I wanted to echo jared's comments.

[4:35:55] so great to have you back.

[4:35:56] it's good to have you on the dais with us again.

[4:35:58] welcome back.

[4:35:59] and great job running this meeting.

[4:36:02] and thank you, susie, for sticking it out as well.

[4:36:05] and to the chair of our traffic commission, we have mr.

[4:36:09] scott miller.

[4:36:10] thanks for sticking it out.

[4:36:11] and thank you for being here tonight.

[4:36:13] and all of our staff, thank you.

[4:36:15] I know you guys put in a ton of time, a ton of effort, and did a great job.

[4:36:21] and joshua, welcome to your first amazing meeting.

[4:36:27] and last we have erica.

[4:36:29] yes, not least.

[4:36:31] I'll be less. Well, I wanted to also highlight the 250th fourth of july.

[4:36:40] as I understand it, it was a wonderful event, and

[4:36:48] unfortunately, I was not around, for good reasons, and I was out of

[4:36:56] but I think that a number of people were really, from what I understand in talking to

[4:37:02] residents,

[4:37:04] they were really happy with the fireworks display, and they're hopeful that we can

[4:37:08] continue to have a fireworks display of that magnitude in the future.

[4:37:13] I don't know if it's possible, but that was something that was a consistent message

[4:37:18] provided: that they really enjoyed the fireworks.

[4:37:21] and if they can't have fireworks in the city, they

[4:37:25] appreciate the fireworks show that was provided.

[4:37:29] so I think that it was, from what I understand, everything was done really well.

[4:37:35] and I also want to welcome joshua as well.

[4:37:41] very nice to have you here.

[4:37:43] and your professionalism is very evident.

[4:37:49] so anyway, with that, I yield my comments.

[4:37:55] okay, so I guess I'll go last.

[4:37:58] well, I've got to reiterate the same thing about the 250th celebration.

[4:38:02] not only did I receive emails, but we've received direct comments from people in the

[4:38:07] audience who said, whoa.

[4:38:11] and I won't say that was the bomb, because that would be a pun that would be

[4:38:14] inappropriate.

[4:38:16] but it was probably, in my years of looking at the fireworks that we do, the best.

[4:38:25] it is the best that we've ever done.

[4:38:27] and it wasn't by a little bit.

[4:38:29] it was by a lot.

[4:38:30] and we have everybody on this council to thank.

[4:38:34] but thank you, dave, for really pushing the idea.

[4:38:37] and I also want to thank the people who were up on the stage.

[4:38:42] I couldn't be there that night.

[4:38:43] and yet we had plenty of volunteers.

[4:38:46] and dave did a great job.

[4:38:48] mayor pro tem mathis basically

[4:38:54] facilitated the whole thing, plus acted as a cheerleader at the end, and josh also

[4:39:01] made it, and we did it all in

[4:39:04] about six minutes. I was timing it because the audience by that time is chanting, you

[4:39:10] know,

[4:39:11] they just wanted to see the fireworks. But they were all really, really good

[4:39:15] presentations by all of you, and then mayor pro tem kind of beat the drum and got it

[4:39:22] going right at the last

[4:39:25] moment, and that's really the way it went.

[4:39:28] so I want to thank all of my colleagues for being involved in that. It is

[4:39:35] really great to be back up here, and

[4:39:40] I'm still in a wheelchair, but I'm going to get to the point where hopefully I'll be

[4:39:45] totally mobile again by the next meeting,

[4:39:49] which will be at the end of august.

[4:39:51] and so I'm looking forward to that.

[4:39:55] I haven't skipped a beat on any of the things we've been doing behind the scenes at

[4:39:59] all.

[4:40:01] and so even though you didn't see me necessarily other than on a zoom thing,

[4:40:07] I was involved in everything.

[4:40:10] and so it really is good to be back.

[4:40:12] and I really appreciate this council.

[4:40:15] I appreciate the fact that we're all here to serve our city and to make it better

[4:40:19] than we found it.

[4:40:22] and we don't always agree on everything.

[4:40:24] and I don't have a problem with that personally.

[4:40:27] I like that.

[4:40:28] I love debate.

[4:40:30] and so we got some tonight.

[4:40:33] and then a decision was made.

[4:40:36] I'll only make one other comment about a couple of things in that regard.

[4:40:41] the uvsp is—if jen is still here, what was the date of that?

[4:40:51] of when it was originally adopted?

[4:40:57] yeah, the uvsp, the actual.

[4:40:59] 2002. 2006.

[4:40:59] two.

[4:40:59] two, 2002.

[4:41:05] twenty-four years ago, the uvsp had the mall in it as if it was anticipating that all

[4:41:11] these new things would work around

[4:41:14] a mall. Things change in 24 years. Things change in 10 years.

[4:41:19] as a professional in the business, most planning documents are worthless

[4:41:27] after 10 years, and

[4:41:28] this is 24 years old, and it was being used a lot tonight,

[4:41:32] but I'm going to go beyond that just to talk about planning documents in general, you

[4:41:38] know, have a lifetime.

[4:41:41] and just like everything else, you know, the economy, you name it, things change.

[4:41:46] so the only other comment I wanted to make was the applicant for this particular

[4:41:51] project, which was approved,

[4:41:56] had, going into the room,

[4:41:59] entitlement from 2022 for the mall project as it was entitled at that time.

[4:42:09] it was not the same thing as coming in having no entitlement and trying to get your

[4:42:15] project approved.

[4:42:17] there were a lot more things than just rearranging the deck chairs.

[4:42:20] I will admit that.

[4:42:22] there was a lot of due diligence done, and I want to thank the staff who have been

[4:42:26] working their tails off.

[4:42:29] I would use a different word, but it wouldn't be appropriate.

[4:42:33] and they have been really dedicated to doing a good and fair-minded job. This was no,

[4:42:40] you know, run-it-up-the-flagpole

[4:42:43] kind of a thing at all, and so I really want to compliment the staff and everyone who

[4:42:48] has been involved, you know,

[4:42:51] in the process, and I want to thank the council, all of you,

[4:42:56] for your comments and your concerns and your questions tonight.

[4:43:01] and we move on from there.

[4:43:04] and I really appreciated the decorum that was demonstrated tonight on the dais.

[4:43:13] so with that, I'll end my comments.

[4:43:17] and with that, we are...

[4:43:21] to adjournment, which

[4:43:23] our next announced regular meeting of the city council and planning agency will be

[4:43:30] august 26, 2026, at 6 p.m. For the

[4:43:34] general session. We're adjourned.

[4:43:50]

[4:43:52]

[4:43:56]

[4:43:58]

City Council / Planning Agency Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript