it's 6:03, and I hope you all had a nice break.
and we're going to continue where we left off.
apparently, there are not a ton more questions.
so for those of you who are wondering when are we going to get to the real stuff, not
that this isn't.
you know, the speakers are not going to go on until 10 o'clock tonight.
so, and then we will move into the meat and potatoes of this and questions and
answers of both staff and the applicant.
and then after that, we will go into council/agency deliberations.
and we have a whole city council meeting agenda thereafter, no matter what happens.
so we'll be around.
so with that, I'm going to continue the meeting and go back to joshua and ask who our
next speaker is.
thank you, mr.
mayor.
the next speaker is marcella lawson, and the one after that is cynthia marquez.
thank you very much.
my name is marcella lawson, and I'm a homeowner in laguna hills.
I'm strongly in favor of the revised development agreement for the village at laguna
hills, and I urge the council to vote yes today.
like others who've spoken today, I'm glad to see the 200-unit standalone building
that will provide affordable housing.
the revised agreement places the building in a favorable location next to the transit
hub, and most importantly,
that it will be built in the first phase of the project.
these are all positives.
thank you for that.
I am, however, disappointed that the current plan is for all of the 200 units to be
for seniors.
I volunteer every week at the food pantry at families forward,
and I see both seniors and families who are housing insecure and struggle to afford
basic needs like food,
clothing, and school supplies. In addition to seniors, there's a high need for
affordable housing for our families, and I encourage the council to locate
more options as soon as possible for these families who need secure and affordable
housing.
but most importantly, at this moment, I encourage you to move forward on this project
immediately so that the developer will be in a position
to acquire the necessary financing for the affordable housing building in this
project.
and like many other residents who said, we want to get that empty space gone and get
this beautiful project moving forward.
so thank you for your work, and no more delays.
any questions?
all right.
I'm going to add a clarification just for you, and
that is, hopefully, workforce housing and other larger projects in terms of size of
family will be in the future.
and I just wanted to kind of comment back to you.
we're not really supposed to do that, but since there's a number of you here, your
voice is not lost on that.
thank you.
okay, next.
cynthia marquez, and next will be heidi prescott.
hello.
okay, cool.
hello, good evening.
my name is cynthia m., and I am staff at the kennedy commission,
a broad-based coalition of community members advocating to create strong housing
policies that increase opportunities for housing stability for those who call orange
county
their home.
the redevelopment of the old laguna hills mall into the village at laguna hills is an
incredible and rare opportunity to transform an underused
site into a mixed-use development that will bring in a new sense of community, the
type of community that laguna hills is known for.
as housing costs continue to rise with no predictable end in sight,
this project will allow the city to meet the moment by expanding housing options
while fostering economic and community growth.
that is why the commission urges the council to vote yes and approve the revised
development agreement for the village at laguna hills.
everybody's favorite topic, rhna: according to the city's regional housing needs
allocation,
laguna hills must accommodate 568 very low-income units and 353 low-income units.
to date, the city has permitted only 12 very low-income units and two low-income
units,
leaving a housing gap of 556 very low-income units and a housing gap of 351
low-income units.
in total, that is a combined deficit of 907 low- and very low-income units.
with approving this project, that's a big chunk, as another commenter has mentioned.
given the substantial unmet need, this new revised proposal to provide 200 affordable
homes
for households is a more meaningful response to the city's housing obligations than
the original proposal.
the city's greatest unmet need is clearly among this income category.
for these reasons, the new revised affordability proposal is more closely aligned
with the city's documented housing needs and represents a stronger contribution toward
addressing laguna hills' existing shortage of affordable housing.
I understand there was a comment in the previous
comment, so I still want to highlight that, lastly, while the commission recognizes
the importance of senior housing, we urge the city to prioritize
future projects for affordable workforce housing because a thriving city also depends
on diverse housing options for working individuals and families, as a community
with hotels, medical facilities, schools, public safety services, laguna hills relies
on a diverse workforce every day.
this site could have been an opportunity for the residents who belong in laguna hills,
where they don't need to commute from other cities
and can instead live in the community that they help sustain every day.
but I do want to echo that no more
no more changes.
this is a great project on its own, already what has been done so far.
so the commission urges the council to vote yes on this rare and great opportunity.
thank you.
any questions?
thank you very much.
okay.
heidi prescott, and next will be william derentz.
welcome.
hello, council.
to my laguna hills neighbors, you're all my neighbors.
I've lived in laguna hills for 30 years.
so I'm just going to quickly, because you already did this in your presentation,
council member mathis,
but 13 years, so the timeline, by the way, you all
know I'm in favor of this project already because I've spoken about this before.
but 2009, we had a general plan put together with a land use element.
it was presented and approved.
2013, merlone geier bought the property.
and at that time, our tax base was decreasing significantly.
right, because of retail.
2014, the sears store closed.
2016, we had the five lagunas development plan that was approved.
we actually had a ceremony with shovels in the ground.
it's probably on the internet somewhere.
I didn't actually look for that today when I was doing all my history here.
three years later, in 2019, we had a revised plan, but the retail environment changed.
so then we went to 2020, and we had a pandemic.
so in 2022, we had another revised plan.
it went from the five lagunas to the village at laguna hills.
the council approved it.
three years later, in 2025, we had a revised plan presented to the public.
nine months after that, here we are.
so for 13 years, this is what we've been going through as a community.
so they have revised their plan with great input from the community and all of the
council.
I've been to some of those meetings and the presentations by the developer.
I love this plan at the end of the day.
so the last thing I would like to say is we've got affordable.
they listened.
thank you for listening.
uh...
that isn't always the case, uh...
we, uh...
it appears that they have the affordable housing, uh...
builder who's going to need financing, so let's do it, let's vote on it, and so they
can move, uh...
forward with their plan, uh...
regarding the ad hoc committee on an ongoing basis that was brought up tonight, I
would just encourage you to think about adding a third
member because we have a council, uh...
uh...
election coming up, right, so three of you are going to be done with your terms, so I
know the two of you
aren't, and you're the ad hoc council. But I think a third person added to that ad
hoc council who's there, who's learning and involved
might be a good idea, and then I just want to say to all the other city council
members over the years that
a big thank you because a lot of people worked on this.
we've had four voting cycles in 13 years.
and the last thing I'd like to say is thank you to the developer again for listening
to community input,
to the concerns of the council.
thank you to the council members for all of your hard work and efforts.
and thank you to the city staff.
this has been a long time coming, so I'll wait for the vote and pop the champagne.
any questions for heidi?
dave?
I was going to give you the opportunity.
there cannot be a third member because you can't have any committee that has a
majority of the council.
it's against the law.
yeah, yeah, yeah.
okay.
all right.
so it was a great idea, but it's not going to apply.
actually, I was going to do the same thing dave did.
I was going to clarify that for you.
well, I appreciate it.
the only way you could do that would be to have somebody from the public as a third
member.
but the brown act will not allow three members of the council to be part of that.
thank you.
and I would just add that this is a process of learning, right, for all of us.
we don't know all the laws and the rules.
and just being involved in this project has helped me get there.
but since you brought it up, mayor caskey, I think there are some opportunities in the
city
for volunteers.
absolutely.
I intend to write about that very soon.
you could have a third member as a community member.
oh, absolutely.
thank you.
thank you for that.
next.
william derentz, and next will be kendall carter.
welcome.
well, thank you.
good morning.
good evening, mr.
mayor and city council members.
my name is william derentz.
I'm the founder and president of pumpkin city's pumpkin farm and christmas trees.
pumpkin city's pumpkin farm was founded in 1978, and this coming october will be 48
years in the business.
of those 48 years, 38 years have been at the laguna hills mall.
the point being made is the fact that pumpkin city has a long-term connection with
the residents of laguna hills.
our goal at pumpkin city has always been to provide the families of laguna hills and
surrounding cities of saddleback valley with wholesome family
entertainment.
our motto is making memories one season at a time.
for the past 13 years, we've had the privilege of working with merlone geier property
management.
they are a first-class organization.
they say what they'll do, and they do what they say.
I'm excited to see the property reimagined for generations to come.
the laguna hills mall used to be the main hub of shopping, dining, and entertainment
for families from san clemente to irvine,
from laguna beach to rancho santa margarita, composing
encompassing all of saddleback valley and more.
the time has come to revitalize the city of laguna hills.
the time is now to bring the same vibrancy that it once had in the past to the
community today.
I encourage the city to move forward and approve the redesigned property proposal to
meet the needs of the community of laguna hills.
thank you very much.
any questions?
hearing none, thank you so much.
and we value pumpkin city and all that you've done.
we have kendall carter, and next will be rose casey.
good evening, mayor caskey and members of the laguna hills city council.
my name is kendall carter, and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the south orange
county economic coalition in support of the village at laguna
hills project.
first, I want to thank the mayor, city council, and city staff,
and everyone who's played a role in advancing this project over the years.
redeveloping a site of this size and importance takes vision, collaboration, and
perseverance.
we appreciate the council's past approvals and your continued commitment to moving
this transformative project forward.
socec has proudly supported the redevelopment of the laguna hills mall site for many
years because we believe it represents one of the most
significant economic development opportunities in south orange county.
for too long, this property has remained underutilized in one of the region's most
prominent commercial corridors.
tonight represents an exciting milestone as we move closer to transforming it into a
vibrant mixed-use destination that reflects the way people want to live,
work, shop, dine, and gather today.
the village at laguna hills will create new jobs, generate long-term economic
activity and tax revenue, provide much-needed housing, and introduce new restaurants,
retail,
entertainment, you name it, public spaces that will benefit residents throughout the
region.
just as importantly, it breathes new life into a landmark property that has been an
important part of the laguna hills community for decades.
we also appreciate merlone geier partners for their continued investment in this
vision and their willingness to refine the project throughout the planning process.
it's been a long one.
their commitment, together with the city's leadership, has helped shape a project
that balances economic opportunity with thoughtful community planning.
on behalf of the south orange county economic coalition, thank you for your
leadership, your partnership throughout this process,
and your continued support of this important investment in laguna hills.
we respectfully encourage your approval tonight.
thank you.
do you have any questions?
erica, go ahead.
yes.
thank you, ms.
carter, for being present at this meeting.
south orange county economic coalition was very active in the last meeting with a
number of your group who provided wholehearted support to the project
prior.
so just out of curiosity, what makes this project better?
because as I recall, a number of people were extremely invigorated and provided a lot
of positive feedback regarding the last project.
yeah, we've been working on this since its inception.
I believe it was 2013.
it's been a long time.
we've been in support throughout the entire process.
it just keeps getting better, to be honest.
we've been seeing more community
community input, your guys' input, the ad hoc committee. We truly believe it's just
been getting better, and we've been supportive regardless. We think
it's time, it's been time to do something with this property, and we really like what
we're seeing. We've been liking what we're
seeing. So is there a situation where you wouldn't?
where you would oppose this project, your group?
there's probably many situations.
we're just not in one of those.
okay.
thank you.
any other questions?
okay.
thank you very much.
thank you.
next.
we have rose casey, and the next will be griffin joseph.
welcome.
good evening, mayor caskey, mayor pro tem mathis, and council members.
I'm rose casey, executive director of planning, and here to speak on behalf of the
orange county transportation authority, or octa,
regarding the village at laguna hills development and the critical continued
coordination needed with the I-5 el toro project.
this was also communicated via letter from the octa board chairman federico to the
city council yesterday.
the I-5 el toro road interchange project is a committed measure m2 freeway project in
the transportation investment plan that was approved by the voters
and was identified as one of the highest priorities for the three cities of laguna
hills, laguna woods,
and lake forest during the development of measure m2, and that shared commitment has
guided this effort for well over a decade.
octa has worked collaboratively with the three cities and caltrans to advance this
project.
in march of 2022,
two build alternatives received unanimous support from the staff of all three cities,
including laguna hills, to move forward to the environmental process,
which restarted in january of 2023.
since that time, octa has facilitated productive discussions among all partner
agencies to achieve consensus on this project that will bring congestion relief and
improve
traffic circulation to the area.
we are working to keep the project on track for a preferred alternative decision by
the end of 2026,
and completion of the environmental document in early 2027.
the coordinated planning of projects between the city and octa has aimed for the
greatest public benefit and good stewardship of taxpayer dollars while
minimizing impacts on private parties.
we ask that any development agreement approved by the city protect the zoning of
areas that have been the subject of years of planning
between octa and the city for the I-5 el toro project.
anything short of this protection could result in significant and costly impacts to
taxpayers and/or further congestion in the area.
octa is aware of the importance of the village at laguna hills project to the city
and believes that the I-5 el toro project
supports the development by improving traffic circulation in the immediate area.
to support both of these important priorities and ensure the greatest benefit to
taxpayers and all stakeholders,
octa requests that the updated site plan include surface parking and/or landscaping
along avenida de la carlota in the vicinity of the I-5
el toro project, along with adequate setbacks.
in addition, octa requests that the development agreement include provisions that
commit the developer accordingly,
including within section 12.4 of the proposed development agreement.
so in summary, octa respectfully requests that the city council direct city staff to
work with octa on an expeditious resolution that meets all
parties' goals, supports both projects to move forward successfully, and that these
are reflected in the village at laguna hills entitlement.
so thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
hang on.
dave, you had a question?
yes, I have quite a few questions, actually.
are you going to be able to stick around for the rest of the meeting?
I can be available, yes.
okay, I think it's probably a good idea.
you said that all cities approve this design.
that's not true.
I've been opposed to this design that they've dumped in for years, and we haven't
approved that.
and I've talked with people in lake forest, and there's some over there that don't
approve it either.
so I don't know where you got the idea that all the cities approve this.
councilmember wheeler, octa has been working with caltrans and the staff from the
three cities for many years.
we've looked at a total of 22 alternatives.
finally, in 2023 or 2022, we came to an agreement with staff
from the cities on two alternatives.
so one was a flyover design that went into lake forest, and the other one is on the
laguna hills side.
okay, yes.
and so where we are now with the project is that it's in the environmental phase.
we have a preliminary design that's been developed by caltrans,
and they are working to minimize impacts from that alternative on the laguna hills
side and bring it in closer to the freeway.
this particular design that you say has been approved, which I contend it has not,
it destroys one of our major—well, I'm saying major—one of our little shopping areas.
it cuts into the hotel that merlone geier is trying to get built.
it would destroy it.
so how are these things going to impact each other?
I mean, I can't see these two meshing.
councilmember, we are working with city staff to minimize the impacts of the I-5 el
toro project design, but at the same time,
it will provide traffic benefits to the area.
so there is that coordinated effort to have both projects move forward successfully.
well, our chief director has opposed this design.
he's presented to you guys with a design that would be much simpler.
it would save the county millions of dollars.
it meets it all with a few simple fixes in laguna hills,
but you guys haven't even considered that. Councilmember wheeler, we have looked at
that. We would look at the signage that's been
proposed. We have tsm, or transportation system management,
transportation demand management, sort of lower-cost improvements that could be
folded in with a build alternative.
but after years of doing traffic analysis, and we've had consultants retained by
caltrans to look at all of this,
there is traffic benefit that could be provided to the area if the build alternative
moves forward.
okay.
we'll have to talk a lot about this.
I don't think there's any benefits to it at all.
if caltrans did get authority to build this, when would you start?
councilmember wheeler, this project is in octa's next 10 delivery plan for
environmental work to be completed by 2030.
if we are able to reach a preferred alternative that all cities support, and that
really is important,
we would then be able to move forward into design and then construction.
so design might take a few years.
construction could then take maybe three to four years.
so post the environmental document being approved, and right now the target is early
2027, we could reach construction within seven to eight years.
seven to eight years from now.
I'm sorry.
let me correct myself.
we could complete construction in seven to eight years.
so you're saying we need to wait eight years to decide whether you can actually get
it built,
and it's going to take two or three years to design it.
well, my understanding is that merlone geier is trying to complete this hotel before
the olympics, which is in '28.
so how can the—if I was a hotel buyer, I'd say, hey, what are you going to do?
I'm going to build my hotel, and you're going to run a freeway through it?
those don't seem to coordinate.
so may we please stick around?
I'm sure there will be more discussions on this.
thank you.
okay, thank you.
erica.
yes, thank you for attending.
so from what I understand, the octa future plan cuts into the hotel that's in this
design.
that is correct.
okay.
have you worked with the applicant regarding this plan, and have you advised the city
about this plan?
councilmember, the city staff has been advised of the plan. We have been working
through city staff, who has been working with the developer.
okay, so the developer is aware, and so the developer was aware of this plan; city
staff are aware.
I'm sure the ad hoc committee was perhaps aware of this. Okay, that's above my
apologies, and
okay.
so can you let me know approximately how long this plan has been in play?
so the current environmental phase of the project began in january of 2023.
january 2023?
correct.
okay.
that's when the environmental phase work began, which means that preliminary designs
are developed,
environmental technical studies are performed with respect to noise and visual
impacts and so forth, and traffic impacts in particular.
and so that work has been going on.
at this point, the project team is preparing to release a draft environmental
document for public review at the end of this month.
and then to proceed with achieving a project decision by the end of the year. Okay,
so you've known about this plan since 2023. Thank you. Okay,
I have a couple questions, clarifications. Because I read the letter that you sent,
and just what you said in front of us, I
I have been on this council for five years, and
I was appointed five years ago as a councilperson, taking the spot of someone who had
left.
and one of the first things, as an architect and a planner, one of the first things
that I was curious about,
having worked for octa with my firm probably 20 years ago on projects, was, okay,
what's happening out there at the freeway at this junction?
so I reached out to octa as a newly appointed councilperson and asked for a meeting,
which was very cordial.
it was wonderful.
I had a meeting, and actually I was shown at that meeting, this was probably four and
a half years ago, four different plans.
one was a flyover to the lake forest side, along with a traffic circle and all that.
one was something similar to what I've seen just recently, and a couple of others
where they were threaded, and you name it.
so I asked people to keep me informed.
you know how many meetings or phone calls or anything I've gotten since then?
zero from octa.
zero.
and I reached out to you and asked to be updated and all the rest of that.
so it bothers me a little bit that in your letter you're saying, oh, we've all
concurred and, you know,
all that kind of stuff.
so I'm also here to tell you, as a member of the ad hoc committee, that the ad hoc
committee itself,
working on a $700 million project for three years, okay, and that's just officially
for, you know, for a year and a half.
I've been working on it for three years.
we haven't received anything until maybe we got a little bit of a hint of this about
two, two and a half months ago,
that you'd abandoned the idea that you had so strongly proposed that was all on the
lake forest side, and now you
wanted to go with this. Then I looked, as somebody who's been in the design business
for a long time.
I looked at the schedule, and
that came along with that.
it was your powerpoint.
and it talked about, oh, we're going to take this to the public to explain what we
want to do.
and in the meantime, we're going to start a ceqa process, which takes, for something
like that, about a year.
and so I've been in that, and I've done all of that.
and I'm hearing right now, we're talking about that we're supposed to hold up our
project in some way for potentially seven years,
when one of the key components of that was meant to be a hotel that was going to open
up before the '28 olympics.
so I just want to make sure I'm asking questions.
am I getting all this straight, that you've collaborated with staff?
who on the staff?
and in what level of collaboration?
so, mayor caskey, if I may, this project has spanned years, and the reason it spanned
years is because this is a local interchange
traffic improvement project.
so it's not adding lanes to a freeway.
it's not all the other projects that octa has proceeded with.
it's a project that the local cities and the communities need to support.
we have taken the time to develop many different alternatives,
and the two that you mentioned are the ones that have been considered for the past
two to three years,
so the flyover and then the current alternative on the laguna hills side.
so reaching way back in time, there was coordination with ken rosenfield, who was
with the city for many years, and then after that, it was
also with mr.
ames and mr.
hildenbrand, and then more recently with
mr.
wingenroth, and also with mr.
ames. All right, that was after the latest decision was made with wingenroth. Had he
heard anything? Of course, it wasn't years and years since
he hasn't been here a year yet, so okay, so that answers my questions. You did know
some of the
some of the names.
we will definitely dig in with staff and see what level of collaboration there was,
because I would think the same staff that was working with the ad hoc committee on
this, I mean,
a year ago would have been telling us, oh my gosh, we've got this.
and as a member of that ad hoc committee working very hard, I hadn't heard anything.
so I appreciate your presentation and candor in answering our questions.
mayor caskey, if I could add just very briefly, the cities have been at different
levels.
so we have what's called a project team meeting.
that's maybe public works-type staff at those meetings.
we've had executive-level meetings, and actually since february of last year, we've
had 14 executive-level meetings, including our ceo, darrell johnson.
with laguna hills?
correct, and with the two other cities.
with laguna, you have 14 meetings.
yes.
and just if I could just clarify on the schedule,
because I think it needs some clarification maybe with the way that I tried to answer
the question.
so right now we're in the environmental phase.
we hope to reach the end of that phase early next year.
at that point in time, then would be the decision on whether to proceed with design,
which also includes right-of-way acquisition,
and then into construction.
so when I mentioned the seven to eight years earlier, that was with the completion of
construction and opening of the project.
yeah, no, I understand that.
yeah, so we will check it out on this side.
uh...
and, uh...
and I just want you to realize, as you know, this kind of goes back, that this will
be one
time, basically, up here at the podium, that we will do that, and, uh...
but what the letter actually asks is that we cooperate together and try to find
solutions that work for both. We have a six,
seven hundred million dollar project on this side
that has been in the works for quite a while, as we all know, and you have a, what is
it, a
$200 or $300 million off-ramp and on-ramp project that you would like to float,
and hopefully we can find a solution that works for us both.
so any other questions?
yes, erica.
so a question that I have is: the plan is already determined and decided.
if the land would...
it would go under eminent domain, is that correct?
councilmember, if there is an alternative that is approved by all parties, and that's
what's reflected in the final environmental document,
that would then be designed, and then based upon that final design, there would be
properties identified for acquisition, whether it's partial or full.
this is in general.
I think in all cases, we would seek to reach an agreement, an arm's-length
transaction, and avoid condemnation or eminent domain actions.
that's really our goal in some cases.
in order to maintain project schedule, we do need to look at eminent domain.
in the event that eminent domain is required, would a property such as a hotel have
higher land value versus...
another commercial property?
I am not a real estate expert, but what we provided in the letter as far as potential
alternate uses of the particular area
along carlota, as far as landscaping or surface parking,
I would imagine that that would be less cost than a hotel structure or other types of
buildings on the property.
okay, thank you.
dave, you mentioned something that said if all parties agree.
well, I don't know that laguna hills would agree to that.
so if we do not agree, what happens?
then you have an eminent domain over top of us?
no, so councilmember wheeler, we would not proceed forward unless there is a
consensus among the cities. At such time that there's that decision
to be made, which will be by the end of the year, on a build alternative, octa would
have to decide at that time
if we move forward with the project or we don't.
it's a local traffic improvement, a local benefit. We would want to make
sure that that is supported, and
that's a little bit out of the scope.
we may want to add to our thinking tonight about denying this project so we can be
done with it and go on with our
project.
thank you for your comments.
I don't see any other questions.
thank you.
yeah.
all right.
next.
we have griffin joseph, and then next will be cathy udovch.
welcome.
good evening, mayor and honorable council members.
my name is griffin joseph, and I'm here on behalf of unite here local 11, a
union representing over 25,000 hospitality workers across southern california,
including residents of laguna hills.
as we stated in april of last year, we are concerned that the reduction in housing
units may not align with the city's housing
goals.
the city's own findings show total residential units dropping from the maximum of 1,
500 in the original project to as low as 1,457 in the amended
project.
that reduction masks a more significant shift.
the amended project would remove hundreds of market-rate rental units, replacing much
of that rental housing with 356 for-sale units.
critically, none of these replacement ownership units are affordable.
in short, fewer units overall, no affordable ownership opportunities, and a shift
away from rental housing.
additionally, the post-segregation of the 200 affordable housing units into a
standalone site raises questions about whether this may be inconsistent with the
city's
policies promoting mixed-income housing.
the original plan had these units spread across the development, fostering a more
integral community.
relatedly, while we strongly support senior housing and want to see more of it, the
city is missing an opportunity by restricting all the affordable units in the
development to seniors.
this restriction is unnecessary even on its own terms.
because these units are already income-restricted,
low-income seniors, including retirees living on social security, would already
qualify for and have access to this housing without an additional age restriction.
layering the age restriction
on top of income restriction does not add protection for seniors.
it simply excludes working-age people who are equally in need.
people of all ages are in desperate need of affordable housing.
finally, we question the need for a second hotel.
that land could be used for additional housing.
additionally, the previous development agreement only allowed for a single one-year
delay for the first hotel.
it did not allow the first hotel to be delayed indefinitely through the successive
18-month feasibility study extensions.
why should we believe a second hotel will ever actually be built?
taken together, there are fewer units, no new affordability, segregated rather than
integrated affordable housing, and a hotel addition that may never materialize.
this project moves the city further from its housing goals, not closer to them.
we respectfully urge you to vote no on this project.
thank you.
any questions?
thank you very much.
next is cathy udovch, and then that will be the end of in-person speakers that I have
currently.
all right.
last person.
in the audience.
we have one online.
okay.
welcome.
of course.
just tell people to ignore the invisible, or the visible, v in my name.
hi, I'm cathy.
thank you for hearing this.
it sounds like you guys have been sitting here for a long time.
took a little break.
I'm here to talk about the housing project, and I do just want to encourage you and...
the developers to continue to keep in mind low- and very low-income housing for
families as well,
keeping in mind that not just rentals, but for purchase would be really nice.
and it's more or less just giving people the chance to live near where they work.
and I'm just going to say that I am now an example of someone who now works in the
city I live in because
I just transferred from an office in san clemente
to the laguna hills office, and I get a surface-street commute, and it's awesome.
and it's just, you know, when it comes to affordability, less gas, less pollution in
the air, better life-home balance.
and so just want to, you know, keep that in mind.
and, you know, people want to be near their kids, near their families, near their
friends, and where they're working.
so just keep that in mind as the project unfolds.
progresses and goes from stage to stage, because it sounds like it's going to be
segments over time, that we're not locked into any one
mindset now, that we can adapt to what the needs are in the community. Okay, that's
it.
all right, any questions? Seeing none.
thank you so much. Okay.
and now we'll turn to what, online?
or on phone?
on phone, yes.
by the last four digits, we have 3034.
you'll be asked to unmute.
hello, can I speak?
yes, you can speak.
you have three minutes.
hello?
yes, can you hear us?
welcome.
hello.
are you able to hear us?
yes, I can hear you now.
thank you very much.
yes, you have three minutes.
hello.
good evening.
thank you.
thank you so much.
good evening, mayor and honorable council members.
this is charlie carno, and I'm here on behalf of unite here local 11, a union
representing over 25,000 workers across southern california,
including residents of laguna hills.
to speak plainly, we urge a no vote on this project.
these changes mean fewer overall units,
no new affordable units, segregated rather than integrated affordable housing, and a
hotel addition that may never materialize. We believe this project moves
the city further from its housing goals than the previous project, rather than closer
to them. As we said, as I think I
said in 2022 when I spoke on the original, on the previous proposal of this project,
we believe this project could be a model for the region: environmentally friendly,
walkable, equitable, bikeable, and a comfortable village.
however, that's why I'm very disappointed that some of the comments we made all the
way back then were apparently not heeded.
we said that we thought that there could be more dedicated bike lanes on the site.
but from what I can tell with the staff report, and please correct this, I would love
to be wrong about this,
but what we still have are class iii bike lanes
which could be as little as painted arrows on the ground.
additionally, in terms of landscaping, I see references to drought-resistant or
water-efficient landscaping, but I think that we should use native plants.
I would also say that we have a great resource in orange county, which is the orange
county chapter of the native plant society,
which can really help with advising us on what native plants to use on the site.
and just to echo what cathy said,
and what my colleagues said.
we're concerned both about the reduction in housing and the move to ownership housing,
which can be inaccessible.
it would be great if we actually had affordable ownership opportunities that could
allow working people to do, and I really congratulate you, cathy,
own something and both work and live in the same community.
secondly, as my colleague said, people of all ages are in desperate need of
affordable housing in laguna hills,
and one of the great benefits of affordable housing is that you can allow people to
live closer to where they work and spend
more time with their families.
by restricting the development to seniors, the city is excluding some working people
who often must commute long distances because they can't afford to live
in south orange county because of their age, even though the income restriction alone
would already ensure the housing serves low-income residents or very
low-income residents.
seniors included.
this is the wrong approach.
another major concern is the reduction in retail space, which could harm the city's
tax base.
and finally, while I understand that there has been some sort of letter submitted
about who may be doing the hotel,
I looked and I was unable to find public comment on this.
I really did try to look before the meeting.
I would just note that the previous development agreement only allowed a single
one-year delay for the first hotel.
speaker, that is your time.
oh, thank you.
thank you very much.
bye.
okay.
thank you very much for your comments.
do we have any other on-phone ones?
we have no more online.
okay.
so that brings us to—you're going to read the list of—
comments that we have received digitally, so we don't have to listen to 40 or 50
comments.
we're just reading the names because we have to. Yes.
for the ones that are in support, we have amir baum, ann beltran, ann kolar, bruce
johnson, cesar covarrubias, christine morinello, cindy ashley,
denise letgers, elizabeth hansburg, erin simmons-schwartz, frieda gorelick, hugh and
nancy winter, jay with the last initial c, jill martinez, joel goldstein, judy
northrop,
kathy esfahani, keith tuominen,
marcella lawson, margaret struve, marilyn schroeder, mark allshouse, michelle antenesse,
micki nozaki, reverend celia young, reverend rayna hamre, ron, no last name given,
rona henry, rosemarie jensen, sayre weaver, sheryl sterry, stan goldberg, susan
dearing, vicki hines, and wendy washington.
two letters that were neutral: one from octa and one from the city of lake forest.
in the opposed, we have angelica ramirez, daisy pascua, fiegan fazilat, geoff
leavell, giselle hernandez, incia haider, james blacken, james grierson, lorene mann,
lucila soria, ramades flores, stacey demore, and wes chavez.
and those are the comments that we received by the cutoff at 4 p.m.
all right.
I'm going to, since people come and go and all the rest of that, I'm going to ask, is
there any other public comment that we missed before we gavel close of the public
hearing?
it doesn't mean we can't reopen it, but I'm going to gavel that close so we can move
on to questions about presentations themselves.
any other comments?
okay, seeing none, I'm going to gavel the close of the public hearing,
and we are going to now move on to questions of the planning.
these will be planning agency questions of staff, and the developer will start with
staff.
okay, dave?
okay, a number of questions.
mr.
oros, could you bring up the presentation, staff presentation?
could you bring up the staff presentation online so that people can see it?
first, I want to preface my questions.
I think it's totally inappropriate that we even are taking a vote tonight.
I received this package yesterday, the final package on this project.
not being on the ad hoc, we didn't get any access to it.
and essentially also the front section of it was wrong, and I had to get a new one
today, which is correct.
I haven't had a chance to review that in any reasonable detail.
so I think to present everything tonight is great, but we shouldn't be voting on it.
we should be talking about it and discussing it.
okay, questions with the package.
I don't know what page it is.
I received the economic evaluation on friday.
and the laguna hills chief financial director, we went over that yesterday and put
some numbers in it, and I compared the value.
and the version that I got on friday does not match what was presented tonight.
I'll get into that in the merlone geier section.
and it's very, very optimistic.
when I did my first quick calculations, instead of being, I think it was a
$1.3 million positive,
I came up with roughly a half-million-dollar negative.
I did this evaluation four years ago.
I was on the original ad hoc committee.
and we had some discussions back then, too, about these very, very optimistic things.
questions?
somebody said in the presentation, why now?
after 13 years?
I wish the ad hoc committee had gone back a little further in history.
we've been doing this, as one of the people that talked about mentioned.
we've had I don't know how many versions of this.
we're now supposed to evaluate this, given the information, and only available for
one to three days.
ridiculous.
it said one of the cases is almost no new.
most of this whole thing is brand new.
the whole thing is different.
it said in the presentation that there's now less than 210,000 square feet.
I think the presentation said somewhere.
I don't know if you can find that page now.
let's see if we can find that one.
keep going.
there it is.
page five.
less than 210,000 square feet of retail.
well, that's extremely optimistic, and that's not what's in the da.
the da says 163,000, so why is this even in this page?
okay.
thank you, councilmember wheeler, for the question.
so this was a provision that was written into the 2022 da of what qualified as a
major modification.
so a major modification on having to go back to city council for review and approval.
so if the project had more than five residential buildings or less than 210,000
square feet, that qualified as a major modification.
and so that's how the project was applied under.
a retail total is about 160,000 square feet.
so that's 160,000, not 210,000?
correct.
okay.
mr.
oros, will you turn to page six, please?
okay.
I want to call note to the losses.
we've lost 86,000, 87,000 square feet of retail.
we lost our entire office space.
the hotel, we've gained 89 rooms.
residential, lost 43.
parking lost 2,000.
how are all these losses considered good, and you'd recommend that we pass this?
we're losing everything but residences.
that's a question for staff, because you recommend that we pass this.
so why are these losses acceptable?
so staff is recommending based on the project: although there is a loss of over
86,000 square feet, we are gaining a second hotel.
so based on the fiscal impact study that was provided by the applicant and then also
peer-reviewed independently at the request of the city,
the increase of a second hotel with 89 additional rooms generated a higher tot amount
of revenue for the city.
and so the staff recommends that this does seem as a fiscal benefit to the city.
I do agree with the economic study.
the tot was the one thing that did go up.
okay.
page 9.
it says the annual general fund revenues of $2.26 million.
well, that economic study that I received on friday, I put it on the computer.
even the version that I got that was given to me, supposedly, I thought that was from
merlone geier or your representatives,
it said there would be a $1.4 million increase.
why does it say $2.26?
I have no idea where that came from.
so, two different tables.
so eps conducted their own independent review.
generally, different assumptions are made.
eps concluded with the revenue of, looks like...
sorry, I'm on the wrong table here.
so for dpfg, submitted by the applicant, their assumptions concluded to the 2.
26, general fund fiscal surplus.
okay, then that was part of the big stack that I got yesterday that I haven't had a
chance to look at.
so I saw the—let me get the—correct me if I got this wrong.
so merlone geier had one estimate, was 2.26 million.
he had it checked by another organization.
they came out with 1.3 million, which is—
about half of that, not quite.
I mean, even their own check said it was like half of what they said it was going to
be.
and my rough essential end was minus $500,000.
I think that needs a lot of work.
I mean, even the two official evaluations that are so far apart, they're about a
million dollars apart.
okay, page 11, please.
I don't know if it's explicitly on this page or not, but I heard that the project's
going to start within four years,
or be finished within four years.
but my understanding of the way that the da, the new da, is written is that because
merlone geier owns the property, I mean,
it's theirs, they can, you know, not exactly do everything they want with it, but if
they don't want to start the project for another three years, they don't have to, so
another clock starts until that date.
is that true?
hi, tom.
sorry, what date?
no, I was just saying, they do not have to start the project if they don't want to.
so all these clocks don't start until that date, correct?
the clocks all start on the date of the development agreement.
including the four-year, they have to have it built?
they have to have it built in four years.
so they have to have it built.
or they lose the benefits of it.
but they don't have to do anything.
okay, that's what I want clarified.
they don't have to do it.
all right.
I just want to clarify.
so that's, you know, in lieu of what's happened in the last 13 years,
we've been having several starts and stops, and nothing's ever happened.
excuse me, I've got to read my notes here.
go ahead and you take a few, and I'll come back to mine.
okay.
I have some questions.
go ahead.
okay.
in the development agreement, page 4 and y, in the area y, the
staff and the developer are indicating that this project is a modification, minor
modifications.
however, it says that it would replace the original agreement entirely.
so there's an entire replacement that's happening versus a modification.
two documents.
some of the same provisions continue, but the new ones were restated, so it's both
modified and amended.
but it says, upon effective date of authorizing ordinance, this development agreement
shall supersede and replace the original agreement.
correct.
we don't want the original agreement in place.
when we have an entirely new agreement that restates in part the 2022 agreement and
states anew the 2026 provisions.
so the developer is coming because they want modifications to their original
development agreement,
but this is saying that it replaces the original development agreement.
this is a replacement.
yeah, that's semantics, but yes.
so perhaps, but the...
no, no, it is.
perhaps, because the replacement of it means that it starts new.
it's a new start, in which essentially provisions and things could have been shifted
on our end to support the city.
we had two choices in approaching this thing.
we could have left the original agreement in place.
and simply amended it in the parts we wanted amended.
but in order to make it more readable for the public and for the council,
we amended and restated it so that you'd have a single document that has the entire
agreement of the parties.
it's a new agreement.
it's a new agreement, yes.
it's an amended and restated agreement.
it's a new agreement.
yes.
okay.
so in this, on v, in the same section,
it says the city council hereby finds and determines that this development agreement
is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses,
and programs contained in the city's general plan,
and specific plan, as amended concurrently herewith, is compatible with the uses
authorized in the village commercial land use district,
provides for the orderly development of the property, and is entered into pursuant to
and in compliance with the requirements of section 65867 of the development
agreement statute.
so this...
verbiage is saying that the council finds and determines that this agreement is
consistent, correct?
yes.
so the council finds this.
does anywhere in this development agreement say that the staff finds it?
no.
does anywhere in this development agreement say that merlone geier makes these
findings?
no.
this is asking for the city council.
so another question I have: merlone geier x partners is an llc.
so we're in an agreement with an llc.
and llcs, can they abandon?
can llcs abandon?
abandon what?
can they abandon?
can a group abandon an llc?
I'm not sure I'm following your question.
so we would be in an agreement with a group that can abandon an llc.
so we're left with this.
the council is left with this.
when you say abandon, what do you mean, abandon?
a group could abandon the llc.
a group can dismantle an llc.
they can close it down.
just like you could a corporation or a partnership?
any entity can terminate itself, yes.
entity, yes.
any entity can terminate itself.
are there provisions if they decide to terminate at any time where we are not left...?
well, the...
with...
the way it's structured, if they were to, they could at any point terminate this
agreement, in effect.
they don't have to perform to start this agreement.
they don't have to build anything.
but it's structured so that they can't build the next step until they've built the
prior step.
okay.
so if the council, so if we're sued, the city of laguna hills is sued, and in the
provisions it states
that merlone geier is accepting liability, what if merlone geier decides to abandon
that and they abandon all of their obligations?
what are we left with?
a lawsuit against an entity and all of its assets, including this property.
so who, if they abandon, if they...
there's no such term as abandonment.
or if they decide to close it down.
who, if they decide to say stop...
by terminating the entity, if that's what you're talking about, they don't relieve
themselves of liabilities.
they're still going to be responsible.
their property is going to be responsible.
for their liabilities, and the individual members are going to be—the managing
general partner will be responsible for their liabilities.
what if they declare bankruptcy?
then in what context, if they declare bankruptcy?
I'm just saying, if they declare bankruptcy, who handles whatever lawsuits, potential
lawsuits, that this project could bring?
that the city...
can you give me a factual context for this?
give me an example of what you're talking about.
okay, let's just say we're sued because the general plan...
the city is sued.
let's just say the city is sued; say we're sued because it's not consistent with the
specific plan.
say some sort of organization comes to the city and says, I see that it doesn't
follow,
and here are all of the reasons why it doesn't follow the specific plan.
and I want to sue the city for not following their specific plan.
and merlone geier's managing partner says, okay, we are going to cover this lawsuit
because that's what we've done.
what if they go bankrupt?
then we don't defend the lawsuit.
we concede.
and the development agreement goes away.
there is no development agreement.
so the city is liable.
no, the city is not liable.
the example you posited doesn't have any economic damages.
you're just asking for relief because there was an alleged inconsistency between the
entitlements and, say, the specific plan.
yes.
so the court determines that, yes, there were inconsistencies because nobody's
defending that lawsuit under your example.
well, the city, essentially.
if they're gone, the city would have to...
no, the city doesn't care about whether it's consistent.
if they're gone and there's no more development agreement, the city no longer cares
to defend its own entitlements and development agreement.
but if somebody decides to sue the city over our actions and the developer isn't
there to absorb that, absorb the lawsuit...
the lawsuit is about whether or not the actions were valid, whether the entitlements
in the development agreement were consistent,
under the example you gave, were consistent with the specific plan.
if there is no merlone geier, no one cares because the development agreement goes
away, the lawsuit goes away, so there's nothing to chase.
if it's built or if the decisions are, if they start building it and it's not
consistent, I'm just saying, if they serve
if they're in the process of building it and it's not consistent in their property,
if somebody is successful in stopping the development,
they have to stop the development, whether they're in bankruptcy or not. But the
city—you could see the city doesn't have any exposure.
how does the city not have any exposure? The city is an entitling agency. You've
granted—presuming after tonight, assume that you grant these
entitlements and the development agreement.
that's all you've done. If somebody along the way attacks the project and they can't
build, then they can't build. The city hasn't
lost anything other than—well, nothing in this case, because I would like to ask
counsel:
can somebody hypothetically sue the city over this project?
so the suit against the city, typically the way a challenge is made for consistency,
this project included, is somebody would seek a writ.
a writ is a request to a judge to reverse a decision of, in this case, the city
council.
they would go and they would ask for a writ if a court found an inconsistency.
the court could issue a judgment that says, yes, I reverse the decision.
but I agree with mr.
clark.
it wouldn't be a monetary case against the city.
it would be a writ to try to get the decision reversed.
okay.
and then who is the responsible party?
so when they say, who made the decisions to say it's consistent, who do they say
makes those decisions?
well, it's the city, but the city acts through the city council.
yes, yes.
okay.
thank you.
okay, dave, back to you.
yeah, I was reading through two of the questions I'd sort of already asked, so I
won't go with one of them.
could you turn to page 25, please?
okay.
okay, this page says that, you know, uvsp development standards consistency.
I contend, and I've contended this for six years, as long as I've been on the council,
this project has never met the uvsp,
the uvsp.
because the uvsp demands that most of the property be retail or business and only
part of it be residential.
and that is absolutely not the case.
and everybody seems to bypass that and forget it doesn't meet the uvsp at all.
and the uvsp also said the changes from one revision to another can only add 200
units for housing.
and this is adding 1,500.
I just wanted to point that out again.
it's probably falling on deaf ears because, like it has in the past, it's never met
the uvsp.
the rest of my questions are a presentation.
if you want to.
yes.
the 160,000 square feet of retail, does that include the retail that already exists?
so does that include the nordstrom rack?
yes.
it's 140,000 of new retail, 163,000 of which 140,000 is new, which includes the
nordstrom rack.
so 140,000 includes the nordstrom rack.
so it's not new retail.
may I clarify?
so the 140,000 of new retail includes the new nordstrom rack building, not including
the demolition of the old nordstrom rack building.
okay.
so what is the total of the nordstrom rack?
with the nordstrom, so the total retail—can you pull up a slide that shows this?
right there.
so total square footage, existing and new, would be 163,215 square feet.
and then, let me see, the new, I'm not sure which slide; let's see.
please be patient.
what did you say?
I want to give the exact number.
I apologize.
there are quite a bit of slides.
the nordstrom rack.
you want the exact square footage of the nordstrom rack building, or are you looking
for total new retail?
I'm asking the nordstrom rack, what amount
andy, is that anchor 1 or anchor 2?
anchor 2.
the new building would be 35,000 square feet.
it's 35,000 square feet.
and is that, so you're saying that's part of the new, or is it considered new?
oh, so they're anchor 1?
okay, so I'm sorry, 25,000 square feet.
okay, so 25,000 square feet of that is considered new, even though it's not new,
because nordstrom rack has always been there.
so would that be considered in the new income that's coming in, or...
I'm a little confused.
if the nordstrom rack is being considered in this, wouldn't it be a subtraction of
the amounts?
wouldn't there be some sort of subtraction versus...?
we can give you the net.
so we can find out the existing, if you want the exact number,
we can find the retail square footage for the existing nordstrom rack,
and we can deduct it from the 140,000 if you want that number.
I would just have to look that up.
yes.
perhaps, possibly the applicant may also have that information.
so according to my wonderful principal planner with institutional knowledge, the
existing nordstrom rack is 35,000 square feet.
that's correct.
35,000 square feet, and the new one will be 25,000 square—28,000 square feet. Okay,
so how much is really new retail?
132 is the delta.
according to my finance director, who is good at math.
approximately 135,000 square feet.
okay.
okay, on page 39, it says if there are any changes.
can you please just kind of go over, in the development agreement on page 39, the
operating agreement?
can I get an understanding of that?
what section is that?
it's on page 39.
it's 13.5.
yeah, I'm looking through it right now.
it's simply asking that whenever there are ministerial clarifications to be requested
under the development agreement, that it go through this operating memoranda process.
they're non-substantive procedural issues.
okay, so shouldn't certain things be brought in front of the council?
well, the council, by virtue of this language, would be delegating that authority for
things like material changes in fees or costs,
increase in density or intensity, or things that don't count.
it's just inconsequential processing.
and you're delegating staff to deal with those.
so certain things—it could technically, says the city attorney shall be authorized
upon consultation with the approval of the owner to determine whether
a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this section,
whether the requested clarification is of such a character to constitute either a
substantive change or an amendment to the development agreement,
which requires compliance with the provisions
of section
13.2 of the development agreement, so can you just clarify this for everyone?
that the city attorney is authorized to determine whether the requested clarification
is eligible for a minor procedural clarification under this section, or whether
it needs to go back to the council, so the city attorney makes that determination,
yes.
so what if our city attorney determines that something isn't, and it never goes in
front of the council?
then it doesn't.
okay.
let's see.
can you go through section 15 and what section 15 states?
you want an explanation of what 15 describes?
yeah.
it's a mutual assurance kind of provision that says that the city and the owner,
that the agreement is for the benefit of the city and the owner,
and the city won't take any actions that are intended to circumvent the development
agreement.
so the city, what happens if after this development agreement we find some huge
issues with this?
as in?
I don't know.
just hypothetically, what happens if the owner decides to, I don't know, if something
negative happens,
what assurances do we have if something?
well, if it's a breach or a violation of the agreement, there are separate provisions
to enforce those.
if you're talking about the developer, the owner just saying, I'm not interested in
doing this anymore,
they essentially have that ability to do it.
okay.
what about, I mean, some things that we've encountered in the past, which was the
mall property looked like a blight for a number
of years. We had issues with homeless; we had a lot of issues on that property site.
what can the city
do? We've tried in the past to bring this up, and
I defer to the city attorney on city enforcement efforts.
so that's not part of the development agreement?
no.
it's not an operating agreement.
it's a development agreement.
I understood the last development agreement had provisions that ensured that the
property always looked nice.
well, if it did, it didn't come out of this one, and I don't recall...
such a provision.
I guess, do you want to respond?
well, the development agreement statutes, I'm not aware of anything that operates as
a, that functions as an operating agreement in this either.
there are remedies if property falls below a certain standard.
that's public nuisance and those basic remedies.
and there's also the site plan and all the entitlement documents that we can enforce.
as far as the development agreement, the development agreement really is an
implementation of the project document.
and enforcement of the development agreement can happen by breach.
we can do a periodic review.
so there are ways to enforce a development agreement itself, although I don't see
this development agreement as operating more as an operating agreement.
it's more of how does the project get built, constructed, and to the finish line.
okay.
another question that I have is that this owner has the right to sell, mortgage, and
assign or transfer the development agreement to any and all.
how do we make sure that...
that whoever they decide, whatever developer they decide to build this,
that it's going to be built and it's going to be a good property owner.
I mean, here's an example.
laguna niguel has 5,000 units, and the buildings are falling apart.
and pieces of land were sold off to different entities.
and there's a lot of problems afterwards, but there's bad actors everywhere.
how do you deal with that when it says that they can sell to whoever and we don't
know what we're dealing with?
well, the benefits and the burdens of the development agreement run with the land, so
any subsequent owner would also be subject to it.
okay.
I have a question for staff.
so one of the first pages of the uvsp, I believe it's six,
says the primary goals of the urban village specific plan are quoted twice and
well, this doesn't say it.
it's actually quoted twice.
this verbiage is quoted twice, emphasizing the importance of this material for
elected officials and city employees to follow.
so it says, and it says the primary goals of the urban village specific plan are as
follows:
to encourage and facilitate new uses in the area, to create new pathways to open
spaces, and to add landscaping to existing sidewalks,
to foster a pedestrian-friendly environment, to create
an identity for the area through the use of entry features and wayfinding signs,
consistent landscaping and street furniture; to facilitate private investment and
development of desirable planned activity nodes; to take full commercial and market
advantage of the urban village's central location in the saddleback valley.
to increase the employment opportunities, tax revenues, and ensure the long-term
viability of the urban village.
and also says to provide the framework for a public-private partnership to implement
the goals of the specific plan.
so it says there's three, number five and number six.
how does five and six
apply to this project?
so, to take full commercial and market advantage of the urban village's central
location.
and to increase employment opportunities, tax revenues, and to ensure long-term
viability.
I apologize, councilmember.
can you confirm those pages again?
it's in the executive summary.
mm-hmm.
and which items were you asking for clarification?
how does this project reflect numbers five and six?
so, to take full commercial and market advantage of the urban village's central
location in the saddleback valley.
so this project was developed with market conditions in mind.
so most definitely a developer would not develop a property without conducting
appropriate feasibility.
so as to...
the central location—I mean, I think having the 68 acres of vacant land hasn't been
serving the saddleback valley for the last few
years, and having a new development with new retail, new residential, especially in
this housing market right now where there's a housing deficiency,
would be serving the full commercial and market advantage based on the current market
conditions right now.
so how does that follow?
so what you're saying, so I'm asking how it follows.
what you're saying is
does it say anywhere in this document, the uvsp,
that market conditions can alter and dictate and allow for movement and bending of
these documents?
no, it wouldn't say that.
okay.
all right.
thank you.
another question I have is,
it states in here that the land use concept plan provides a conceptual basis for
locations where new development might occur within the urban village.
it includes the following anticipated new land uses: 183,000 square feet of new
retail development oriented around the new main street pedestrian promenade
a new 250-room hotel oriented to the 5 freeway, mixed-use development that could
include up to 200 dwelling units.
how does this plan follow the executive summary, which is the primary goal of this
document?
which is highlighted twice.
can you go back to that document, please?
so that paragraph you were reading, which says the land use concept plan provides a
conceptual basis for the locations where new development may
occur, and then it gives a sample of what type of development could occur.
and then I believe, as part of the 2022 entitlement,
there was a review conducted independently to discuss whether or not these provisions
here were considered a land use control,
and it was determined that these were not, that these were considered potential for
a future development scenario within the uvsp, but did not describe that development
capacity as a land use control.
so this is an example given for studying purposes of the uvsp, but not exactly
determined to be a regulatory requirement for the project.
okay.
so in our general plan, let's see.
on lu-28, it says urban village specific plan, and it says development potential
total of 200 units.
so it seems like those two, so just out of curiosity, how do you
so in the context of the general plan and of the land use element, this is a section
entitled future study areas,
which provides the context that this is considered a potential opportunity for this,
and it was a sample of what could be developed but not, again, considered a maximum
for development.
just out of curiosity, who makes the decisions on whether something is followed in
the city?
so I would consider that the city council approving the riata project in 2012 at
oakbrook village, as well as the 2022 entitlement for the mall
granting up to 1,500 units, the sixth-cycle housing element establishing the site.
as having 1,163 units in oakbrook plaza, subsequently at the beginning of the year at
250 units.
so the council did approve that this was consistent.
so this is the council's approval.
it's the council that makes that decision.
correct.
it's the council.
yes.
so all of those suggestions, as you mentioned, it's really up to the council elected
body to make those determinations.
all right.
thank you.
dave?
I take a lot of exception to that last commentary.
we have a document that says the limit is 200.
we're hand-waving, "oh, no, it doesn't really mean 200."
it's just an example.
what the heck do we have these documents for, then, if we can make it up as we go
along?
if you get a requirements document, the requirements document is requirements.
I think we're debating now.
are we asking questions?
yeah, I'm asking questions.
why do they keep saying it meets the uvsp, and it doesn't?
I just point out, what was it, page number 25?
25, robert, if you would, please.
I'm objecting that the recommendation is that we, you know, approve this thing based
on it meets the uvsp.
it does not.
it never has.
and to say that these numbers in the uvsp, which are written in black and white,
councilman pezold just read it off to you in two different places at least, it says
this is the limit.
but, oh, no, we're hand-waving.
it doesn't really count.
we can do whatever we want, you know.
it's ridiculous.
why even have documents?
just throw it up in the air, and every time we come in, we'll decide on it.
why do we approve the uvsp
when it doesn't?
that's the question.
thank you.
I apologize, councilman.
can you repeat your question?
why does staff say that it meets the uvsp when it does not, as
pointed out in two examples that councilman pezold just read?
so I would largely say that the way the uvsp is written is also written very much
more as a guideline,
where it provides guidelines for development but not as much regulatory control that
you would see in potentially other types of specific plans.
so the uvsp was written to provide maximum flexibility of uses and development within
the plan area.
I'm sorry, but that's absurd.
I've written requirements for missiles and spacecraft, and you put down a requirement,
and it had better darn well be met, and not you
wishy-washy would have rockets running into each other.
all right, I have one simple question, hopefully.
I know it's a repeat a bit.
I want one simple answer.
when the whole thing is finished, how much retail is there in square feet?
I don't want to know new.
I don't want to know old.
I want to know, when it's finished, what's the total?
163,000.
thank you.
so we only have 163.
thank you.
so I see in a2.
I guess it goes into more specific technical studies.
so, fiscal analysis: the proposed urban village specific plan defines the development
capacity of the planning area based primarily on land availability,
traffic, and parking limitations.
the development capacity represents the additional development intensity that could
be added to the existing base within the urban village.
the plan defines the future development capacity by land-use category.
the following limitations are established in the plan for incremental development
above the existing base.
retail: 183,000 square feet.
hotel: 250 rooms.
residential: 200 units.
medical office: 138,000 square feet.
general office: 380,000 square feet.
it states that additional residential population resulting from the development of
approximately 200 ownership units.
I'm just, I mean, I'm just wondering, when you read that analysis,
are your thoughts still that it's something that can be moved and fluid?
I apologize, councilmember.
I don't know what document you're in.
what section? Because I see a2, but it's not a2 in the uvsp.
so which document are we looking at?
appendix a, technical studies.
to the ceqa memo?
I will look for...
I believe that's in the uvsp.
I will get back to you.
any other questions of staff?
okay.
I'm sure that, you know, let me just add right now that if there are questions of
staff during deliberations, we normally do that.
so we don't have to exhaust every little thing right now.
well, I will ask one.
oh, I'm sorry.
you're okay.
go ahead.
no.
josh, go ahead.
no.
thank you, chair.
all right.
I just had a few questions for staff.
I just wanted to get some clarifications just from my own knowledge around a few
things.
the july 10 eps analysis projects approximately $3.83 million in general fund revenue.
$2.43 million in annual expenditures, and approximately $1.4 million in annual net
surplus. I just want to ask staff if they can confirm that these
are now the controlling fiscal figures for our consideration tonight. Thank you,
councilmember sweeney. Are you referring to what's listed in table 1 with the eps
document?
so I wouldn't say that either one is more correct than the other.
so when you put together these fiscal impact studies, the assumptions and methodology
can vary.
but I would say, from the city, from a conservative standpoint, this would be the eps
study where we would find the conservative numbers.
okay.
all right.
thank you.
the next couple questions I have just revolve around public safety.
because the analysis with eps assigns approximately $1.36 million to public safety as
an annual expenditure. But have we consulted with the sheriff's department,
because how they got that number was just using a per-person number and just kind of
extracted it out, so...
have we consulted with the orange county sheriff as to how much more resources it
would take over there, and if that $1.3 million would
cover the additional resources?
sir, if you're asking if we would need more deputies because the population will
increase over time.
yeah.
population, it looks like, will increase slightly over many years.
and we base our staffing on a workload analysis.
so initially, we wouldn't need any.
but in years to come, we would have to analyze our workload and then potentially add
a couple of deputies.
years and years to come.
potentially over time, then that's
that number should be sufficient to cover the number of deputies that would need to
be additional over there.
based on how many more calls for service we get.
yeah.
okay.
things like that.
all right.
very good.
for transparency, I serve as the chair for the orange county fire authority board,
but I'm asking this in my role tonight as a member of the planning agency and city
council.
has ocfa conducted a project-specific deployment and emergency call analysis for the
full project, including the 1,457 residential units, 239 hotel rooms,
the commercial uses, the village park events, and the affordable senior housing
building?
so this project was routed to ocfa for review.
so their review as part of this level is very much a preliminary conceptual review to
come up with conditions of approval.
a more in-depth review does happen after entitlement, where they are required to go
through, and the applicant will submit the proper documentation for them
to finish those analyses.
okay.
all right.
thank you.
my next question is, I have to go back to octa and hotel one.
octa's july 13 letter requests that the avenida de carlota frontage remain surface
parking or landscaping with adequate setbacks, and they had mentioned that in section
12.4 that it be revised before entitlements are approved, so does staff believe that
the proposed location of hotel one or pad 4 conflicts with either
of the interchange alternatives currently under consideration?
so the current site plan conflicts with the alternative that octa is moving,
has informed the city that that's the one they would like to move forward with.
but I would look to joe to provide more context.
thank you.
I'm happy to provide more context.
so in april, two and a half months ago, the city was notified in a meeting that
no longer were two alternatives being considered for the el toro road and I-5
interchange project. Up until then, the meetings that we had been
having with octa were evaluating two construction alternatives, one which was a
braided bridge concept that connects with plaza lane at carlota, the other
one of which was
a flyover bridge that would connect from the el toro road off-ramp into lake forest
at rockfield boulevard, by lucille's barbecue restaurant and the goodwill
store.
and for months, and even, and this is nothing new, the
city council was given a presentation in 2023 by octa of those two alternatives.
and so the conversation has been, while the environmental process has been
moving along, a discussion of if either one of those alternatives provides any
traffic relief to the motorists looking to get off at el toro
road and enter into lake forest.
so in april, we were informed by octa that the flyover alternative that was being
considered as part of a public environmental review
process that is still ongoing, where no decisions have been made, was off the table.
and it was portrayed to us that there was now an urgency to focus on alternative 1,
which is the off-ramp,
braided off-ramp concept that connects plaza lane and carlota.
that alternative does conflict with hotel one.
however, in recognition of that, city staff has been working diligently with merlone
geier partners and the ad hoc committee to craft language in section
12.4 of the development agreement that contemplates removing the hotel out of the way
if, in fact, octa settles on an alternative that conflicts with the hotel.
so that, in my opinion, is where we're at.
okay.
and hotel one was the one that was supposed to be where it was going to try to be
completed by the 2028
olympics, correct?
that's what we've been informed by merlone geier partners, with their potential hotel
operator, yes.
and with octa, would that then delay hotel one so then there would be no opportunity
to have it completed for the olympics?
my understanding is that
we would work with octa.
and my understanding is, if you were to approve this project tonight,
there would be a meeting of the minds to figure out how to work with and around that
issue.
okay.
and so I haven't had that.
I'm not privy to exactly how that will work out, but I
know there's language in the da that contemplates that, and that would likely need to
occur.
okay.
all right.
josh, I've got the drawing here.
if you'd like to look at it, I can bring it over and show you.
we actually, do you need to see it?
no, I don't need to see it because I know where it is.
may I ask a question about this?
wait a minute.
he's still, I have questions going on here.
yeah, a few more questions just quickly about the hotel, because the eps assumes a
119-room residence inn at a $178 average daily rate and a 120-
room ac marriott at a $260 average daily rate, both at 80% occupancy, producing
approximately $1.5 million in annual tot.
are both of those hotel brands contractually committed,
or are they just modeling assumptions at this point?
do we know?
I think that would be a question for the developer.
for mgp?
yes.
that's out of my depth here.
I'll have to refer to someone else.
I'm not sure who exactly, but someone else.
the questions for the developer are coming up next.
okay, yeah.
I'll save that one.
for staff, though, can you tell me...
what residential construction or occupancy can the city stop if a required hotel or
commercial milestone is missed?
you want me to respond to that?
the way the agreement is structured, they can't start what is referred to as phase 1
elective,
which is all the residential north of health center drive, until they have started
construction of anchor 1, anchor 2, shop a, the affordable,
and hotel 1.
and there's an exception for hotel 1 regarding
feasibility that somebody earlier referenced.
once they've started it, there's nothing you can do to stop it.
they just can't start hotel 2—oh, excuse me, residential elective 2, a
phase 2 elective—until all of those projects are completed and hotel 2 is started.
okay.
all right.
okay, that's interesting.
all right, and one last question on the senior housing: has meta housing formally
been selected, or who selected it? And again,
that's a question for the developer.
okay, so staff doesn't know that one.
okay.
all right.
these are all for staff.
perfect.
thank you, guys. Okay.
thank you, josh.
there's one more, I guess, another question by erica.
yes. Okay, ceqa?
what is a ceqa addendum?
I...
what is an addendum?
so an addendum is basically when the environmental...
I'm not the expert on that question.
I would like to...
colin, could you probably provide more?
so pursuant to ceqa, a developer is only required to do one ceqa analysis.
after that, if the project changes and the changes reach a certain level, a certain
threshold of...
potential environmental impacts, then the developer either has to do another ceqa, or
supplemental, or an addendum.
an addendum is the lowest level in the chain of extra documentation that has to
happen when a project is amended.
so in this case, an addendum was chosen because the analysis concluded that the
project was going to reduce vehicle trips.
for a few other reasons, the consultants, dudek and the city's consultant, decided to
go with an addendum versus a supplemental document amendment or another eir. So who
paid for dudek? My understanding is mgp did, but that's an assumption.
okay.
so there have been seven addendums.
so the original ceqa was
performed with the mall prior?
was it with the uvsp?
when was the original eir done?
I believe it was done in 2009, but I'd have to ask the community development director.
so the original eir was adopted with the general plan eir in 2009.
okay.
so in 2009, did the mall exist?
yes.
in 2009, did oakbrook village plaza exist?
I believe oakbrook plaza?
no, oakbrook plaza, the office building.
the village, sorry.
the oakbrook village, I believe, was approved in 2018?
no, 2012.
so it existed in 2009, and then there was a development agreement that was adopted
subsequently.
so their whole project was there in 2009.
these are questions for staff.
the public hearing is closed.
unless staff wants to open it up again.
the redevelopment of oakbrook village was done in 2012 with the apartment units.
okay.
so in 2009, basically, I'm painting a picture, right?
2009, when this eir existed or when it started.
and it says a ceqa addendum is a document used under the california environmental
quality act to make a minor technical change or addition to a previously
approved environmental impact report.
would you say the destruction of a mall is a minor change?
in 2009?
well, I mean, the addendum, there's been so many different addendums,
but at what point do you say that's probably a really big change to the environment,
which could include the development of a number of apartment units in oakbrook?
so in 2022?
so in 2022, when the mall was, the 2022 plan was done, a fifth addendum was done to
the general plan.
the fifth addendum was done to show that the project was less intense than when the
full mall was at its full development.
so the total square footage of the mall with all the ancillary buildings, the new
development was considered consistent with the 2009 eir.
so with that, no new mitigation measures would be required or anything; the project,
environmentally impact-wise, would be similar.
well, so that decision, again, so a minor technical change.
and technical, it just depends on who makes the decision on what is a minor or a
large change, which is the governing body.
the addendum would still require technical study and review and supporting documents
that an addendum is applicable.
you cannot apply an addendum without the proper evidence and background.
correct.
but you can always hire a company to provide a result.
correct.
so with this ceqa, to ensure that this was appropriate,
the city pulled from its environmental bench and hired lsa to peer review the
document to determine and confirm whether the memo that was
provided by dudek is consistent.
so just to ensure that we were looking at it from the ceqa standpoint, and we were
going to be making sure that there
were no additional mitigation measures or anything required for this.
so it's essentially a group that's checking what the applicant...
with the technical studies and everything, correct.
and the deciding body is the council to decide whether an addendum is a large or
minor technical change?
correct.
okay, thank you.
well, to clarify, to determine that the addendum is appropriate.
okay, I see no more questions in regard to staff. We will now turn to questions in
regard to the developer's presentation. So actually,
I would invite you to re-approach the podium because the questions will be, and then
you can redirect them to members of your team
if you feel appropriate. Start with...
I'm glad you stuck around a little bit.
I'll try to keep putting your stuff up front here.
the new design, which I just shared with councilman sweeney and I'll share with
anybody else that wants to see it,
basically, it goes through the corner of pad 4, and it
almost goes to the middle of the hotel.
in section 12, which councilman pezold mentioned, it does talk about—I think it's
12—it talks about, if that would happen,
you're prepared to move pad 4 and the hotel.
where would you move it to?
you said new design.
I think it's important to clarify.
this is a proposal; it's not set in stone, right?
I think we heard from octa.
they still have quite a bit of environmental analysis to do.
we'll weigh in.
you'll weigh in.
so in terms of where it gets moved, it will have to move to a place that's acceptable
to both the hotel operator,
the hotel developer, ourselves, and the city.
there are a number of locations on the site where it could get relocated.
what are they?
we have a number of ideas, but until I vet those with the hotel operator, it would be
speculation, right?
okay.
well, I guess I'm looking for a more definitive answer, because if we've gone to the
trouble, both you
and the staff, to put that in the da as specific paragraphs, I would assume that you
would have thought it through and said,
okay, we're going to move it over to this location or that location, at least a
couple.
yeah, I'm not saying that we don't have ideas.
I'm just saying it would be speculative to tell you definitively.
then you're not willing to share those ideas.
I want to vet those with the hotel operator to make sure that that's a location that
they could move to, and then
we will come back and provide that.
I'll take that as a no.
I wouldn't take it as a no.
then share it.
like I said, there's numerous locations where it could be relocated, but we've also
seen octa doesn't have a definitive take.
okay.
my specific concern is, would there be the possibility of this being moved to
the retail areas?
in what regard?
like that it would result in a loss of retail?
I think phase 1r is the required, which contains most of the retail.
and if, let's say, hotel 1 is displaced and pad 4 is displaced, would that go into
wiping out some of the retail?
in other words, reducing our total retail from 163,000 down even lower.
it would not result in any impacting of retail outside of what's mentioned in that
12.4,
which is hotel 1 and pad 4.
okay, then I can say then, no matter where it's moved to, it won't reduce retail?
not necessarily.
there may be some reduction in retail.
we haven't seen the amount of what could hypothetically be the taking yet.
so you're saying it could impact retail and reduce the retail, then?
there may be some small reduction in retail.
we don't know about pad 4.
we need to find out where the take will be and then a relocation option for it.
okay, I'll be honest with you.
my worry is that it gets displaced and we lose even more retail, which is one of my
big problems.
with respect to the octa off-ramp there, we did some studies back in '22 and before
that on the traffic.
if the octa thing would go in there and displace the hotel, that would increase the
traffic tremendously.
all the traffic coming off the freeway then would go through the corner of the mall,
the corner of your area there,
and really add to the traffic in addition to the new apartment buildings and hotels.
townhouses and homes.
has that been discussed or thought about?
we don't have any data from octa to weigh in on yet, so that will
absolutely be part of the process that they conduct for environmental review so that
we can provide them with our feedback.
I kind of want to ask octa if they've even thought about it, but I guess we shouldn't
reopen the public.
all right.
okay.
mr.
oros, could you bring up the merlone geier presentation?
and I'd like to talk about page 14 to begin with.
okay.
mr.
clark and I went over
the drawing of the project on friday,
and we mapped out a little picture—got my crayons, you know—to find out where things
really were. I was hoping presentations tonight...
and he guided me through that, and I'm looking at this picture on 14, and it
does not seem to match, in particular the phase 1r, which is sort of the light blue
at the left.
that, let's see, what's the difference in that?
that one is...
okay.
nope.
I think right here it's shown in green, which is phase 2 required.
yes, phase 2 required.
right, which is correct.
okay, so you're saying that this 14 is correct?
correct.
did you say, oh, page 14?
yeah, this is correct.
yeah, we're required at the same time that we move forward with the village green; we
have to move forward with the...
I guess I'll have to get a clarification because...
mr.
clark, who helped write the da, says differently.
so which is it?
I don't know.
how is it in the da?
I guess that...
so...
the phase 2 required component of what's shown there in lots 9 and 10 is the retail
component that's facing the village park.
so we're obligated to bring that online the same time that we finish the village park,
which suggests that we need to make a decision and move forward concurrently with the
rest of the residential that's there on lots 9 and 10,
which shows multifamily north or townhome north.
okay.
I'm sorry, but I'm so confused.
the part there that has
lot 9.
I'm sorry.
I don't know how to even describe it.
I guess it's lot 9, 6.1d, north residential, the part up there in the...
dark green protrudes up?
yeah, it says multifamily north or townhome north.
that's lots 9 and 10.
okay.
is that part of, that's really part of phase 2 required?
so the shops that are associated with that are part of the phase 2 required.
and then, by virtue of making the decision of what we're doing on those shops,
we anticipate making the decision to move forward on that residential component.
okay.
okay, so I guess to clarify that, in our exhibit, we could have shown the green as
just being those retail shops.
that would be correct and in line.
this is not an exhibit to the da.
this was created based on a request for a phasing plan.
just to clarify, then, the top part of the dark green that protrudes up should be
with the tan area.
yes, it would be with the tan area; it would be phase 1 elective.
actually, it would be phase 2 elective, yeah.
no, it would be phase 1 elective as long as we
no, it would be phase 2 elective because we have to do, it
would have to be tied to that retail that's part of the phase 2 requirement.
it's not really 2r; it's 1e.
you're correct.
so we could, yeah, for tracking purposes, update this exhibit so that it clarifies
and ties to the da.
but this is, again, not an exhibit to the da.
the da controls.
well, that's been my problem.
I haven't had time to go through the da, just getting it in the last couple of days,
and what you present tonight is not even accurate.
so I'm not saying it's a big thing.
I don't want to blame you for that.
but I mean, we need more time to dissect things.
that's a major part of the whole thing, right in the center.
and we don't even have it right on the presentation stuff.
we've got to get it coordinated.
so we really need more.
we need some more discussion.
okay.
let's see.
page.
why does this not match?
page 4, please.
okay, this diagram's kind of confusing to me because it looks like everything's sort
of finished in 2031,
but yet the project's supposed to last 15 years, and 2026 and 15 is not 2031.
again, we could update this.
this is just to depict where we are, where we think we'll be able to finish the
majority of the phases that we're working
on.
so this is not complete.
it should have more years out there.
we could put a plus sign after 2031.
okay.
okay, so it's not finished.
page number 6, mr.
oros, please.
okay, I think I wrote down the wrong number on that, but let me deal with the
question anyway.
I'm glad that mr.
sweeney clarified that eps is sort of the financial model we're going by.
a number of things.
I compared it with the 2022 that was done by kosmont, just to get an idea of where we
were going to.
and some of the things in there, there were four categories that were added that were
not in the 2022 study that were put in the
revenue category.
one was basically an additional $40,000-plus for taxes.
and I was going with our financial director that that was proposed $40,000 for, like,
speeding tickets and parking tickets and the like.
I think that's kind of an interesting category to add to our revenue.
I'm not sure that's a good thing to put in there.
it wasn't done the last time.
did I get the interpretation of that wrong?
it was a different group that did this study, a group that the city's actually
commissioned work from before,
and they said that this is a line item that's typically included in other fiscal
impact studies.
so that's all we had to work off of.
okay, it wasn't in the impact study four years ago when we did it.
so I found that kind of strange.
the other one was, it just said other taxes, another almost $60,000, kind of a
nebulous number.
what was that?
it's probably a footnote tied to it, but if there wasn't and we need to provide more
clarity, we have dpfg here.
they can respond to that if it's a big concern.
another one just said charges and fees.
another $200,000 income.
again, another nebulous title that was not in the 2022 study.
again, there are footnotes for every single one of those line items, so...
okay.
I guess my objection and concern is to get at least three or four line items that
weren't in the 2022 study, and they
add up to several hundred thousand dollars as potential revenue for the study, which
seems kind of strange because we went over it in detail
last time, and now they're brand-new ones.
oh, I know, because there was a big discussion.
I objected to the kosmont study vehemently, and we redid it, and we got a number that
was much more reasonable, like you said,
the keyser.
I would just compare it.
I would just compare it, yeah.
no, I have the kosmont.
the kosmont is the one I'm comparing it to, but keyser marston is the one we did,
which is much different.
right, I know, I remember.
but the line I have is still the same.
one additional thing, too, on this financial page: sales tax.
you have, from the eps study, $883,000.
well, I just did a study of the current situation for the mall area, and we're only
bringing in maybe $450,000,
and those are pretty viable, good businesses there, and the only thing that we'd be
adding
revenue would be a whole foods, as I understand, and several little pads.
and I added some to that, and I estimated about $600,000, maybe a little less.
I don't see how you double some major businesses by a couple little pads and a whole
foods, you know,
a lot of people love whole foods, but as far as the city getting tax money from it,
food is not taxed in california.
so there's not a whole lot of revenue there.
so I don't know how you come up with the double of what we're getting now.
so those are numbers you're quoting from eps, right?
I'd have to—I mean, that's your consultant that the city hired,
so I can't speak to the assumptions they included in their analysis.
yeah, that's why my estimates came out.
several hundred thousand dollars different because there's additional things that
weren't there before and a discrepancy, I would say, in the
prediction of the sales tax.
okay.
next question.
okay, I talked about the drawing not matching.
page number 19, mr. Oros, please.
yeah, this one doesn't show it as well as I would like to.
can we go back to just the general picture of the overview of the property?
the site plan? Yeah, a map would be better. There we go.
that's good. Now I have a question about parking and the park. The park is over on
the bottom there, about where the white
circle is, the vp plus ret?
but the parking is considerably far from that. That seems rather
inconvenient for people taking their kids to the park.
they have to walk through stores or other ways to get there.
I'm just wondering why it was not put with some parking.
I didn't see any parking for the park.
where was the parking for the park?
the parking is based on the retail in addition to the park usage.
so the parking's been evaluated, and we definitely don't want to have a gap in the
need for parking to be able to lease
the retail.
so you saw the parking numbers.
there's a surplus in terms of parking for the commercial parking.
we think it's efficient.
was there consideration given for parking for the park?
it was part of the considerations for the nature.
it looks like it's isolated.
there's no parking, not any quantity of parking that's near the park.
there's quite a bit of parking near the park.
along the village drive, along calle luisa, there's a large parking lot just south of
pad 3 adjacent to pad 1.
there's parking along magdalena.
yeah, there's a whole bunch of parking there where bj's is now, that one big section
there, but then you have to go through,
you know, you have to go across the road and through a couple pads there before you
get to the park, which,
like I said, if I'm taking my granddaughter to the park, you know,
I want to minimize her walking across roads and the distance she has to travel to go,
you know,
swing on the swings or whatever.
okay, that seemed like a discrepancy.
okay.
page number 24, affordable housing.
I want to ask, first of all, the area or the, I guess, apartments in the affordable
is allocated very low, the
very lowest thing, which I guess is the...
10% of the units will be at 30% ami.
yeah, there's a really low income.
I forget.
they keep changing categories on me.
how many of those are not a studio, but a one- or two-bedroom or three-bedroom for a
family?
so this is not family housing.
this is senior housing.
there'll be studios, ones, and two-bedroom units.
there'll be a mix of those based on demand.
and the income levels will be spread across the different unit types.
so what is agreed to here provides the most flexibility to increase the likelihood of
success in procuring the needed financing for the project.
so what we've agreed to is that the ami levels will be between 30 and 70%, averaging
around 60% or less,
and that at least 10% of the units will be 30% ami or less, which is very low income.
well, okay, let me get an idea, then.
what kind of units are there?
are they all...
studios, ones, and twos.
studio, one, and two?
yeah.
okay.
how many twos are allocated to the lowest level?
there won't just be an allocation.
it depends on the overall mix of ami levels that the financing will require, if that
makes sense.
but it's not going to be like the 30%s only get the studios.
that's not how it works.
okay, then the lowest group...
can get the, and I should say will get, some of the two-bedrooms.
sure.
okay, that's good.
right, casey?
let me stick to that line of questioning right now.
leaving out the affordable housing units and talking about the townhouses, the homes,
I guess those are the ones for sale, right?
yes.
okay, what is the price range on those starting now?
like I said in my presentation, until they're built, and there will be a builder—we
don't build for-sale products,
so there will be a builder who will build those, and they will sell them based on the
cost to deliver that unit and what
the return needs to be to justify that cost.
so I'd say it will be comparable to a new market-rate unit at the time that it comes
to market.
the benefit of the unit mix that we have is that it will hit the different
stratifications of the price point levels because we'll
have two-bedroom, for-sale units, which you can't find in a new
project, or you can't find an existing project with a two-bedroom unit unless it's in
a condominium, which we aren't—we're not building condominiums
anymore that are just flats, right?
so that's the only gap, and then I'll go all the way up to four-bedroom, three-story,
single-family detached, so that's the spectrum that will
be covered on the for-sale product. Okay, one of the things that's been mentioned
tonight by a number of people and they're kind
of concerned is, yeah, we want a place where there's more housing and so that, you
know,
you know, nurses and doctors and whoever, all of them down the spectrum, can afford
to live there. But I'm trying to ascertain
if they really can afford it. We just had a project in another part of the city where
they were building
units of different kinds, and the starting price was $1.5 million. I don't know many
people that's a starting price for, so I'm
trying to get what is the lowest, you know, what's the lowest?
smallest townhouse, what's it going to cost? Is it going to be at least
$700,000? I don't know what it's going to cost to build because we don't have a
builder.
we haven't priced that out yet.
but, I mean, there will be varying price points, and there will be varying unit types
that people will be able to buy.
okay, I guess I'm not finding out.
I'm not sure that that's...
there are going to be, you know...
starter families living there after all. Well, I'll just interrupt only in the sense
that the question that you're asking really needs to be
looked at in terms of time, so by the time they get around to building these, it
could be five years from now.
so you're not going to have the same kind of price points.
in fact, the economy could go the other way, for all I know.
but the point is...
only if I buy houses, and then that'll go down.
and all I'm saying, dave, is that if you're asking the question, it really needs to
be in terms of
today's dollars, if those units hit the street today, what might they be?
I'm not sure they'll know.
because you can't predict what's going to be five years from now.
you're correct, but I was trying to get an idea.
as of now, just to get it in context of what we're doing now, the salaries are going
to go up,
everything's going to go up, probably.
I understood your question.
just trying to get an idea if it's really housing that anybody can afford as a new
family or starter family.
and I really don't hear that.
okay.
another question, page 28.
I guess I'm sure the hotel was in there.
I mentioned that last time.
that was one of my sticking points.
we didn't have enough hotel rooms to make the revenue positive.
I'm glad to see you added the hotel.
but why don't we have both hotels ready for the olympics?
because the second hotel requires the relocation of the nordstrom rack.
bummer.
this hotel in particular has been ready to go since 2023, so they are ready to go, but
unfortunately... Good answer, unfortunately. Okay.
I noticed, this goes back to the study again, and forgive me, mr.
clark, I'm going to refer to the kosmont study again, but it was pretty consistent, I
think, with the keyser.
the valuation, property tax-wise, was about $700,000 back in '22, and now it's moved
down to $536,000,
which tells me that the overall value of the property has gone down.
is that the case?
what are you referring to?
when we calculated how much tax the city would get based on property tax, in 2022,
the number was $700,000, which I said, okay,
I'll buy that.
I don't know what it's going to be worth when it's all finished.
but now it's been revised down to $536,000, which is about $160,000 less, which tells
me that the value,
when you do the numbers back up,
that the value of the whole property has gone down.
is that the case?
I think it's more a function of the reduction in square footage, which ties to the
reduction in parking and the reduction in traffic.
okay, I'm guessing that because a bunch of townhouses are worth less than a big
six-story apartment complex.
well, a five-story townhome is less square footage than 460,000 square feet of office
plus a movie theater and five large multifamily buildings.
it's less square footage.
okay, so I just wanted to understand if we're revising our income from that data.
I would argue that's, yeah, I would assume that's where the delta comes from.
okay, thank you.
there was one last, it's sort of a question,
but there were penalties built into the last iteration. The other ad hoc member that
was with me on this is in the audience
right now.
there were a lot of penalties if things weren't done on time and, you know, sequenced
correctly.
I haven't had a chance to look at it and see if they're in there, but are those, mr.
clark, I guess the question would be sort of in general with merlone geier, are those
still in there?
everything that was in the original agreement is in this one with respect to
penalties paid,
plus the hotel penalties that just applied to the one hotel last night applied to
both of them.
okay.
and last thing I can tell you for right now, I'll even ask this one.
let me save that.
that's all I have for this moment.
okay.
thank you.
erica.
okay, do entitlements increase land values?
do entitlements increase land values?
a land value is determined on the use that's approved and ultimately built, so yeah.
okay, so if entitlements increase land values, would, say, a hotel, if an entitlement
for a hotel
increase the land value of that property?
you'd have to compare to the alternative land use.
okay.
so basically, and you knew in 2023 that octa was looking into this
sort of plan, 2023?
so three years ago?
so octa, this has been ongoing for 10-plus years, right, with numerous plans and
iterations.
do you have a seat at the, do you go to their meetings?
no.
we're a private property owner.
I don't think in any of the comments from octa they said that they were inviting
private property owners to those meetings.
I think it was just cities.
okay.
so if you knew about this maybe in 2023.
we've known about all of the iterations they've been looking at for 10 years.
okay.
but this one has been in the process since 2023.
along with several other alternatives.
okay, along with several alternatives.
including what joe said of the flyover that would land in lake forest.
we heard of multiple, but I don't know if I recall the environmental impacts
happening for a particular project.
yeah, they haven't done the environmental study yet is what they said.
I think I heard that they started the environmental.
but I could be wrong.
so 2023, so basically you knew about the possibility of this land, that it could be
in jeopardy through eminent domain.
why wouldn't you just design something that could make this plan work, make octa's
plan work?
we found out, like joe mentioned,
early june is when we found out that this was something that they had emphasized was
what octa was advocating to caltrans.
ultimately, caltrans is the decision maker.
this is a caltrans project.
octa is providing the funding and interfacing to gather this support, right?
the ultimate decision will be made by caltrans following all of the analysis that
needs to be done.
we have current entitlement for an office building that sits right there,
and we laid out our site plan without the expectation that they were going to
receive the approvals for the alternative that would impact carlota the way that
they're now saying they're advocating for. But because they're
advocating for it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Okay, so what we agreed to, as
was mentioned in the da, recognizing that in an eminent
domain proceeding, the city wouldn't receive the tot that we're committing to.
and that the city in good faith is agreeing to this change based on that change, and
so we agreed that we would come
back with a site plan within six months that would move the hotel outside of a
potential take area, and that's what we intend
to do. So if you receive the entitlements, the land value increases in that process?
not necessarily. But it would increase, so that would
cost the taxpayers more money that would
that may potentially not go to our roads or the city for the residents.
not necessarily.
I think that's...
jumping several steps ahead of this process.
and I think while it's interesting, we could have a more detailed legal conversation
about it if we need to clarify what the condemnation
law says related to that.
I'm just wondering, because you're asking for an entitlement that potentially won't
happen, but that entitlement could add value to you.
your company.
but we have to come back within six months with a revised site plan, right?
correct.
but instead of providing a plan that has the alternative site there,
and this hotel seems to be a huge linchpin in this project because the funding
surrounds that substantially.
it changes the funding.
our city is in jeopardy without it, but yet it's on a site that could be gone.
right.
and if we continue to delay, it just continues to put the city in more jeopardy,
right?
it doesn't help landing a hotel if we don't approve this and we continue to delay to
study numerous alternatives and try to entertain
octa's demands.
there's no guarantee that a hotel, like the flag that is talking about coming here,
could easily go to another location, right?
yeah, they could go and do it.
but right now they're not.
now they want to open here.
they want to do this.
so we created language that would, in the best interest of the city and of us, allow
it to move forward.
so if past behavior is an indication of future behavior, we don't know if it will at
all...
move forward? The project won't ever move forward based off of the patterns of the
last projects. I don't know how you want me to
respond to that.
I think that's just saying. So you have the bus station where you have a project of
200 homes and
spread across from the station. Have you...
done any studies about what's around the bus station at night? In what regard? Have you been
around and driven around the bus station? Do you
understand what's around the bus station? In what context? What is the point of
the—is there a question?
so the bus station, it's one station that is a connection for people to try to get
into the homeless shelter in laguna beach.
great.
so there's a strong transient population that crosses over into this area.
and I'm just wondering...
why the low-income housing would be placed specifically there and the potential
issues that could happen with this area by placing low-income housing right
right next to this.
I kind of gather what you're insinuating, but we've relocated the senior housing to
that corner based on the collaborative feedback of the housing,
affordable housing developer, the ad hoc committee.
there are a lot of housing projects adjacent to transit centers that accommodate all
kinds of people,
including transients that are trying to get to homeless shelters.
I don't think that's a concern for the affordable housing developer or for the
residents who would live there.
well, do you know where the homeless shelters are in the county?
I don't know how that's a relevant question either, but...
I'm just wondering if you know where the homeless shelters are because...
I don't personally, but I could find them, I'm sure.
how far is the next one?
I mean, laguna beach tends, because there is a homeless shelter, tends to be a very
busy homeless shelter with...
women, children, men, everyone trying to get into that shelter all of the time, all
over this entire area.
okay, I've got to interrupt.
are there specific questions about this development, or are we just pontificating
about, you know, homelessness in orange county?
it's the bus shelter and the location of the low-income housing, the location.
all right.
because I'm the chair of this, I'm not going to answer that, but I could.
and I just would like us to focus on questions that specifically involve this project
and what the developer is doing and not what's
in his mindset and all that other kind of stuff.
and how much other research has he done about things in the united states?
you know, I mean, at some point...
just bear with me.
you're not hearing much from the ad hoc committee because we've worked on this for a
year and a half.
we can probably answer all of these questions.
well, not all.
but these are questions to the developer that you have about his presentation.
that's really what it was.
and now we're off into homelessness.
and I can give you a lecture about scag and homelessness.
yet, that's not appropriate for me to do, so I'm not going to do that. But go ahead.
keep on rolling.
okay, I am wondering, I will move from the location of the bus stop and some of the
issues that are there in the city.
what about, so I noticed in this plan that you have
strategically placed the park right across the street from the hospital, which is a
nice location.
however, if you are a new homebuyer, what is the incentive to purchase in an area
when there's only a dog park and the homes,
I am assuming they're more than one bedroom, and people may want to bring children.
where are the tot lots associated?
where are things, I mean, is it,
where are parks and where are things to help the kids in the neighborhood?
can we pull up the site? There's also a community, there's a rec center with a pool
and a community center that will
be part of the project. What we find is the home builder, when they come in for their
building permits, they may want
to make some modifications that would have to go through a conformance review process
to probably add a lot within that community rec center
area. The dog park is a major amenity.
and in addition to that, there's walking trails throughout the site.
and the village park is directly adjacent to those homes.
so we think it's well served.
so if you're a mom and you have, like, a nine-year-old, and that you don't want
playing video games, you don't want, you know,
you have to then say, go to a rec center.
but, I mean, there's just, there aren't any local
there isn't anything local where you can send your children so that they can burn off
steam.
no, there's a pool and a rec center within the project.
but I'm just saying, for, I mean, one, for free.
how do you go for free?
yeah, it would be part of the hoa.
it would be owned and controlled and managed by the hoa.
so it would be part of their hoa dues.
I think homebuyers would...
they'd see that as an amenity, I think, having a dedicated pool area, amenity area.
pools are attractive.
but I'm talking about parks.
I'm talking about for children to burn off energy where they don't have to get
prepared to go.
they can just walk.
I've got a four-and-a-half-year-old.
I know what that energy is all about.
yep.
that's a lot.
okay.
all right.
thank you.
those are my questions.
okay.
steve?
josh is probably first.
oh, I'm sorry.
that's okay.
go ahead.
I should be totally off.
okay.
just one question.
sorry, josh.
it's okay.
yeah.
okay.
all right.
with respect to the four different phases?
yeah.
okay.
the 1r and the 2r, I basically understand those, I guess.
the 1e and the 2e, those are sort of optional.
can you tell me the
what could be different than is shown on the drawing?
I mean, there's townhomes and there's individual houses.
on those sections, what could that change to?
it's not optional in regard to, like, land use, right?
the project, as you're seeing in front of you, is intended to be built.
what's optional is the phasing of when and how many of those for-sale components of
the project, for example, move forward.
it may be that that comes forward at a time in the market when a home builder wants
to come in and build all of
those at once.
it may be that they only build a couple of those tracts of for-sale product at once.
it may be that the for-sale product moves forward, but one of the multifamily
buildings comes later.
so that's what the intent is.
and the conversation was really
kind of, once we, the city, those who were negotiating on behalf of the city, once we
get what we want,
we don't really care how quickly you build out your townhomes and your residential
components of the project.
so that's why they're elective improvements, is what it's characterized as.
okay, thanks.
let me repeat back to you what I think you just said, then.
the things that are designated there, whether it's apartments, townhomes, or houses,
that's what's going to be built there.
it's just they may not be built, you know, they may be built in a different time
period.
yeah, it'll be in response to the market at the time that we're able to, once
we've met the required components of those phases, it'll depend on what the market
looks like at that point in time on the elective
improvements.
I guess that begs another question, then.
what is the maximum that they could delay, then?
the maximum, sorry?
what is the maximum that they could delay that?
that they could delay that?
the whole area is supposed to be done in 15 years with an option for five additional
years.
I mean, the risk is really on us, right?
I have no incentive to wait indefinitely, especially if I'm required to put millions
of dollars to work in the required improvements.
I don't benefit from investing all those dollars and waiting to recoup on the revenue.
so we're fully incentivized to accelerate that as quickly as possible.
okay, unfortunately, I have not been able to read the whole da.
that's fine.
I guess my intent is, will the whole thing be finished in 20 years, no more than 20
years?
I hope it's well before 20 years.
is there a mandate to be finished in 20 years?
no, you can't mandate that they build a certain number of residential units.
I think that's the point.
that's what we felt was the fair part of this.
we're front-loading now all of the tax-revenue-generating components of the project,
the affordable,
all of that is coming in the first two phases as required improvements.
and so we then are able to build out the elective improvements when it's market
feasible, and when we can do that is dependent
on the market.
okay, forgive me, I'm a little bit gun-shy about this, but we've had so many
proposals come by.
first, we got rid of retail.
now we've gotten rid of all the businesses, all the office complexes, and things have
not gotten done.
so I'm a little, like I said, gun-shy that this stuff will drag on and on and on,
because we've already had 13 years
of it, and then another 20 on top of that.
and if it can even go farther than that, it kind of bothers me.
I appreciate you bringing that up again, because I think it's important.
the market has spoken.
there's no demand for a mall here.
there's no demand for 700,000 square feet of retail.
there's no demand for office, right?
there's demand for a hotel.
I have two hotels that are ready to go.
I have a lease signed with whole foods, and I have for-sale
product that's being built in orange county and being acquired.
so there's an actionable plan that's in front of you today.
I can't go back in time and change the mall.
I don't think any of us can, right?
but there's also a difference between placemaking, which is not equivalent.
building more retail doesn't make it a better place to hang out.
in fact, it creates more of a liability for the city in terms of having vacancy.
and the liability for the developer.
you can't require more retail to be built than the market can demand.
and conversely, why we added the second hotel is because it's a much more efficient
land use to generate as much tax revenue as possible
without overburdening the project with more parking.
a 100-key hotel is the equivalent of about 200,000 square feet of retail.
depending on the sales tax revenue.
and you would have to park 200,000 square feet.
that would take up all of the valuable land that we're using for placemaking that the
community has said that they want, and the housing
diversification that the community has said that they want.
we've done all of that.
we've taken all of those things into consideration, and that's the plan that you have
in front of you.
and it results in, I don't know how people are saying, $1.5 million in net impact.
net benefit is $2.3 million.
both eps and our consultants said the same thing.
it is a significantly better outcome than what was approved in 2022.
tot is a much better revenue.
100%.
we agree.
and we have the hotels.
we're ready to go.
we have an affordable housing developer ready to go.
we have retailers that we've been holding off on leasing retail until this
council approves this project, but they're ready to go.
they know that whole foods is coming in.
they know nordstrom rack is getting relocated.
nordstrom rack could have left a long time ago, and they've stuck this out.
they've been a good partner of ours.
so we have a lot of plates that are spinning, and we're ready to go.
this is, I mean, council member mathis made a really good point.
paralysis by analysis can kill this project, and we're trying to avoid that.
hopefully, some of these answers to these questions can help us get closer to that
goal.
let me ask another question.
I'm not in the business, but I've heard rumors that now apartments are going down.
is that true or not true?
you probably have your finger on the pulse more than I do.
it's true that right now, the cost of construction for multifamily is very high, and
there's a ceiling on rents that you can charge
for market-rate apartments.
and so in the current environment, where you have elevated interest rates and you
have elevated construction costs,
there's a reason why you have a lot of multifamily projects that are currently on
hold.
but the for-sale product, you're able to build at a much lower cost per square foot
because it's three-story wood-frame construction.
it's different when you're building a concrete parking garage.
it just elevates those costs significantly.
so yes, today, moving forward with an apartment building is challenging.
but moving forward with the rest of the project is not.
I didn't think it was that definitive.
thank you for sharing that.
it makes me worry that we might come back in another three years and say we can't
build apartments either.
I'm not sure where we go from that.
anyway, thank you.
erica, did you have another question?
oh, I'm sorry, josh.
excuse me.
thank you, chair.
before I ask my questions, james, do you need a drink?
no, I'm good.
I'm going to come over here so I'm facing you.
all right.
so I just want to give a little context to my questions, because obviously I care
deeply about this city, and we all know
how important these 68 acres are for the future of our city.
and my questions are really just focused on how we can deliver the public benefit
of this project as soon as possible, and how we get the revenue-producing pieces
online, and how we can create a place for our
residents to actually enjoy and make sure the project benefits the city for
generations.
all great goals.
yeah, right?
with the 2028 olympics coming, that's top of mind, and I see an opportunity with
hotel one and the village park.
so I want to just better understand the timeline and what we can do to realistically
get those pieces completed and generating activity and revenue
for the city as soon as possible.
so are residence inn and ac marriott already committed contractually?
so the obligation in the development agreement is that we have an upscale
extended-stay hotel on hotel 1 and we have an upscale
hotel on hotel 2.
okay.
we are also obligated to provide a memorandum of the purchase and sale agreement that
identifies that a franchise agreement has been signed for a flag
that meets those requirements.
okay.
okay?
I am not in a position to state the names.
both of those hotels, by the way, meet those classifications, which is fine, right?
sure.
so that's the process that's been set up in the development agreement.
so we'll have to come back
and provide a memorandum of purchase and sale that gets recorded.
because in most contracts, as you know, leases and purchase and sale agreements,
there's confidential information that's shared, right?
so we agreed to provide a memorandum that gets recorded.
and we added that it would be after a franchise agreement is signed.
the franchise agreement is really the key.
that is validation that the hotel flag has done their analysis, and they've committed
to the site and the hotel developer,
I talk with my hands.
my wife gets after me for that.
has to sign personal guarantees that they will deliver that hotel.
that's what a franchise agreement means, okay?
and so for us, like, in terms of giving assurances to the city that we're going to
meet the upscale extended-stay, upscale requirement,
and that will result in the amount of tot, right, by hitting those,
that's the assurance that will be provided.
and that process will have to occur as part of the phase I and phase ii required
improvements.
so before I can move forward to phase I elective improvements,
or phase ii elective improvements, we have to secure those.
we do have, and you received a letter from blackridge, who is the hotel developer,
who is very well-versed in hotel development,
and they actually secured the ac marriott hotel brand and flag after the first
entitlement, okay?
they got ac marriott to commit.
they're the ones who are now working to secure and make sure that those upscale flags
are secured for these two hotels.
okay.
yeah.
hopefully, that makes sense.
and they have emphasized their desire for the first hotel to move forward and to be
open before the olympics, so much so that blackridge
is advancing really on a speculative basis at this point, their plans, as are we.
we submitted demo plans for the firestone building that were approved.
we plan on undertaking that work in the next few weeks.
to make sure that there's nothing that gets in the way.
so really, I think for blackridge and ultimately for the hotel flag, it's the
decision that gets made here tonight.
and if there's any indication that there's going to be further delay, that's what
kind of would put the olympics in jeopardy.
yeah.
and that brings me to the next thing, because that exact thing with octa is going to
put it in jeopardy.
potentially.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, because I think...
look, if it gets moved slightly on the site, they need to be freeway-adjacent.
they need to be next to commercial.
they want to keep the footprint of the building that you've seen here, the design.
they don't want to redesign the building that they've already come out of pocket,
speculatively, to design, right?
we're fully incentivized to work within that box, and there aren't many other
freeway-adjacent sites for a hotel in south orange county.
so we think that there's a very high probability we'll be able to come to a meeting
of the minds.
it's just we need to get through this, and then we can go do that, and we'll come
back and get it all documented
so that they continue and not lose time, right?
and have they already been
alerted about the octa project?
yeah, the hotel developer has, absolutely, yeah.
okay.
and so they're still willing to work?
yeah, we've kicked around ideas.
that's why I didn't have a direct answer for council member wheeler.
we're kicking around ideas, but where it ultimately lands is to be determined.
okay, yeah, that makes sense.
and you had said that whole foods has already signed an agreement.
does nordstrom rack already have this agreement with you?
yeah, we have with nordstrom rack as well.
okay, yeah, all right.
it's just they could have left, but we're signing a new lease with them.
for various reasons, just to clean up the site plan and everything.
okay.
that makes sense.
all right.
coming back to my public safety comments,
will mgp cooperate with the city, the sheriff's department, ocfa, and
project-specific service demand studies?
absolutely.
okay.
anything that's required by code, which the code handles.
I mean, the building permit approval process is very lengthy to go through all of
those channels.
yeah.
and let's say ocfa analysis demonstrates a need for additional emergency response
resources,
would mgp participate in discussions regarding land or facilities or another
appropriate mitigation?
I think they usually flag those, and the fees that we pay usually are the first kind
of resolution for any gap in service,
but we'd have those conversations with them.
okay.
yeah.
I wouldn't foresee that being an issue, because it hasn't come up to date, even on
the prior project.
so, okay.
I'm going to go back to the senior housing for a second that I did have a question
earlier on.
but has meta housing, so that's been formally selected, but who selected it, and,
like, is there currently a binding agreement with them?
not a binding agreement currently, but we're working with them toward that end.
so meta housing, they're here as well.
they could answer questions.
but they are an orange county-based affordable housing developer, been around 30
years, over 10,000 units.
very well-versed in navigating the approval process for the subsidy financing.
and they met with the ad hoc committee and with staff and with city attorney, and
that allowed us to continue with them.
there is a provision in the da that if, for some reason,
the deal doesn't move forward with meta, and there are some parameters that they have
to meet.
there's timelines and things like that, that an alternative developer could come back,
and they'd have to be approved by the council.
perfect.
that was my second question.
all right.
that answers all of that.
last question for you.
so from your perspective, what can the city do without compromising our standards or
protections to help accelerate
the hotel, the park, and the revenue-producing components of this project? Because
even the park, I know, is scheduled for phase ii, but
with it having the nice screen and the watch area, something like that would also be
really cool to have before the olympics,
but since it's set in phase ii, the likelihood of that happening...
but is there a possibility of being able to shift things around a little bit to maybe
move that up so that, you know...
I think it all comes down to permit review processing timeframes, and there's just
natural constraints on the turn of those documents, including review
by ocfa and other agencies that are outside of the city's purview.
so I think the best we could do mutually is just agree to turn those documents
quickly, and to the extent that they
tie out to the plan that's been submitted, and we had a 300-page submittal document
that includes
a lot of detail of what this project will look like, all the way down to the lighting
fixtures and things like that.
as long as we stay within that box, I think the highest likelihood of ensuring that
those things happen sooner rather than later is
just working together to turn around those reviews to grant those permits so they can
start construction.
right.
yeah.
and I get it.
and there's a lot of it that's out of your control that, you know.
but we'll do our very best.
and I think, you know, we've tried to be very responsive throughout this process.
and as questions and comments and changes came up, we didn't want to lose time during
the process either.
and so, I mean, the team here is phenomenal.
these are world-class architects and engineers.
and our team has worked on a lot of these types of projects.
and the same goes for meta and goes for the hotel developer.
and everyone's very motivated to move things forward as quickly as we can and to
comply with the requirements of the submittals, too.
yeah, no, I can definitely tell from what you're doing and how you're going about it.
and then, obviously, you're working as hard as you can to try to get the hotels.
so we'll have to work with octa and the whole thing to try to get that done.
would you be willing to maybe somehow possibly move the park to phase I somehow, or
is that not possible?
I don't know.
I'm just trying to think, again, you know, how we can try to speed things up if there
is a possibility.
I mean, we can't change the natural constraints of how quickly we could move
nordstrom rack and demo that building.
okay.
what I could envision would be, depending on when that happens relative to the
olympics, some other type of temporary installation, gathering place.
I've seen that before.
just working with the complexities of the construction on site and making sure that...
you're out of the way, it becomes challenging, but, I mean, it's something we can
look at.
you've seen we get pretty creative from a temporary occupancy perspective with all
the circuses and stuff, so we could probably figure something out, you
know?
yeah.
I think that's a great opportunity, though, to take advantage of.
yeah, it's a huge opportunity.
so, yeah, I appreciate that.
that's all the questions I got.
I appreciate it.
thank you.
I'm going to move to josh, because the side of the dais has not had its due quite yet,
and then
we'll come back to erica.
okay.
thank you, mr.
mayor.
quickly, two minutes or less, either from you or from meta.
it's been referenced a bunch about the portal, the time window, the queue to be able
to get financing.
can you just speak to the kind of the urgency of that or the process of that, and then
also just reflect on your level of confidence based on the characteristics of the
project?
yeah.
I like casey.
casey burke with meta housing.
yeah.
excuse me.
thank you, mr.
mayor.
I'm going to sit down for a second.
yeah.
go ahead.
take a break.
you're doing a good job.
mr.
mayor, mr.
mayor pro tem, and council, thank you.
my name is casey burke.
I'm president of meta housing.
we're an affordable housing developer.
been around for over 30 years.
and we've built over 100 communities in california and about 12,000 units.
so with regards to the timing of this, the way that affordable housing deals get
financed is really with an allocation of tax-exempt
bonds and an allocation of tax credits, both coming
really federally and then allocated by the state.
they have three funding rounds typically in a given year.
the first two have already passed.
the next one is in september.
so in order to submit, you have to have certain threshold criteria in place.
you have to have site control.
you have to have an entitled project.
you have to have plans.
and so your units laid out, your number of units, your bedroom count,
your parking, everything has to be ready to go and submitted.
so that's in september.
if we miss september, you now trickle into next year, which is a whole different
regulatory cycle.
the budget changes, the regulations change,
there are certain designations with this site that could change.
it's currently located in a dda, which gets you a 30% boost on your tax credits.
it changes annually.
you just don't know what's going to happen there.
our confidence level, to speak to that,
I would say we're very optimistic.
we wouldn't be this focused and this energized and excited about this partnership if
we weren't optimistic that in this third round, we think
we can secure for this development and for the city an allocation of credits and
bonds that would allow us to move forward.
the application is in september.
the awards would be made in december, and then we would start construction roughly
six to seven months after that.
so if successful, we'd be under construction about this time next year with the
affordable component of that.
that's helpful.
and if we miss september, or what is the likelihood of missing september if this
decision gets pushed off to august or beyond?
if the decision tonight were to get pushed off to august,
I don't know all of the technical elements of appeals and things like that.
we have to be entitled with the expiration of any appeal period by september 8th.
that's the application deadline for us.
and then if we miss that, the next one would be roughly february or march of next
year.
but I don't want to get too technical on you and, like, spin your heads,
but it has to do with the tax credits and the bonds that are available in each round.
and round one of next year will look very different than round three of this year.
and this project's ability to compete, I'm much more optimistic about round three
than I would be about...
we know the variables going into this next round.
we don't know the variables going into next year.
that's right.
okay.
well, we actually do know some of the variables, and they would decrease our
probability.
got it.
so...
okay.
all my questions, thank you.
I'll just add one since we're on this subject.
so one of the major things that makes it possible for you to do, as I understand it,
is
that the applicant would be actually changing the ownership of that piece of land to
you as a developer, and that's one of the main
incentives that makes it work for you financially, correct?
or am I making that too simple?
no, that's correct.
we would ultimately have to be the owner of the property.
so we would enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the land with merlone geier.
they would, upon us receiving an award and moving towards a construction loan closing,
they would have to transfer title to us and to our partnership that would build that.
and ultimately, we'd bring in our tax credit investor.
we would bring in our
social service partner, you know, and together.
we're all going to operate the development, but we have to own it. Thank you. Back to
erica next. All right, well, it's
good that you're up because I have a couple of questions. So how many buildings have
you built that are all low-income housing?
over 100.
okay.
how old are the buildings now?
I mean, well, they range in everything.
so we're an active builder right now.
so we have about 10 communities under construction, probably about 1,800 units right
now.
we built about 1,000 units last year.
we probably built about 600 units the year before that.
we've built over 12,000 units.
that's all we do.
we are a niche organization.
so we partner with folks like merlone geier.
we've partnered with lennar.
we've partnered with shea homes.
we've partnered with homefed in san diego, with mckinley partners up north in
fairfield.
we've also gone with not with an inclusionary housing ms, just infill sites on our
own out there, and this is all we do.
we only do 100% affordable housing.
we do family.
we do senior.
we do homeless housing.
we do an array of tenant populations.
okay, who manages the property?
do you manage the property afterwards?
we contract with third-party property managers.
we currently are working with five different property managers.
it depends on location.
it depends on tenant population.
we really work to find the right property manager.
all the ones we've worked with, we've worked with for many, many years.
okay.
so you work with the property management individuals, and how is the maintenance on
these properties, like if you're not receiving as much income?
how are you able to maintain these properties?
well, we really underwrite these from day one the same way a market-rate builder
would.
so our operating expenses are really no less than a market-rate building.
we're putting the same level of investment annually back into these, into the
communities and the apartments.
the revenue side is a little lower, which ultimately hits the bottom line,
which is why you need the tax credits and the tax-exempt bonds.
so the subsidies really come in on the front end, not on the back end.
you guys won't be able to tell a difference.
you won't be able to drive by this building and think, there's the affordable one.
it's going to be designed with the same architectural standards that the market rates
are being built with.
it's going to be designed by this team.
these guys are all going to care what this looks like.
it's going to be integrated within the community.
you won't even know
that it's affordable versus the market rate.
in addition, senior developments, senior communities, wear much less than family.
they just do.
to your point about nine-year-olds with a lot of energy, I have four kids, I
understand.
they tend to beat up the buildings a little more.
you have to design them a little bit differently.
you have to make sure that they have the appropriate outdoor space to release that
energy.
we're talking about a senior community here.
the turnover is very low in senior communities, and the maintenance and the wear and
tear are very low.
and we build an appropriate amount
of community space into these.
we offer on-site social services for the residents: health and wellness classes, art
classes.
so it's a community that they ultimately are proud of, that they want to take care of.
they don't want to leave.
it'll be beautiful for a very long time.
so I'm going to go back to the other question that I have.
are you concerned about being next to a bus station where maybe the noise levels are
louder, the individuals are, I mean,
homeless, who suffer from mental illness? You just don't know. What other protections
for these residents? What happens?
yeah, so the short answer is no.
I'm not concerned.
I think this is an incredible site.
I think this is an incredible community.
I think that the design is beautiful.
I think the level of amenities that are going to be available to the residents of
this is outstanding,
probably better than you would find in most affordable housing communities, wherever
they're built.
we've built over 1,200 homeless units, psh housing.
so we've built for veterans.
we've built for at risk of homelessness, homelessness.
we kind of understand the tenant population and what that requires.
we've built, I mean, right in the heart of skid row and have been able to keep our
residents safe and secure.
we will, as we get into the design of this with the architects and the engineers,
we'll look at the transit center there and make sure that we've got whatever
appropriate security measures are needed,
whatever needs to be integrated with the management company.
I actually see that as an amenity, having that transit center available to them,
having the hospital available,
all the shopping that's going to be there.
I'm really not concerned about that.
I do think we need to be aware of it and be mindful, and we will be in the design.
but long term, if you could see where a lot of affordable housing is built, this is a
beautiful site.
I understand.
at the same time, you have the hospital that's also in walking distance.
and I don't know if you've been in the er at certain hours.
it can be, because the homeless challenges are extremely difficult in the state of
california with a lack of mental institutions.
we have the increase with the hospital and with the homeless shelter in laguna beach.
and so we sort of get a double whammy in that one location.
so with individuals needing that go to the hospital.
okay.
all right.
thank you.
I do have some more questions for the developer.
okay.
thank you very much.
thank you.
okay.
so the last time...
one of the many times that you've approached the city asking for entitlements.
I felt that jab there.
what's that?
I felt that jab there.
did that feel good?
hey facts are facts.
not all our doing.
I just...
so...
you had mentioned that there was a hotel.
is it the same hotel, or is this different?
I think I answered the question as well as I could, given the restrictions that I'm
working under.
okay.
so, okay.
so, all right.
it will be an upscale hotel that you will love.
and the shops that...
you mentioned that you had a number of—well, it wasn't you, actually, that came, I
must admit.
it wasn't me.
somebody else?
it was not me.
there were a number of shops, and those shops seemed to be gone.
what sort of assurances do we have that—
hopefully whole foods will actually be there? What assurances do we have?
so, as part of the da, we agreed to record a memorandum
of that lease that will be provided to meet the required phase 1 improvements, so you
will have a memorandum recorded demonstrating that that lease
with whole foods exists. We've shown the lease to
your legal team. They've seen the lease.
it's been signed, and we've already submitted our plans for that building shell.
actually, it's in plan
review right now, so we would not spend that money or agree to those things as
conditions that we have to meet to be able to unlock
the phase 1 elective improvements if we didn't have that lease.
and the same goes for the retail leasing around that.
we have...
lists of tenants who've been interested in this project, and the feedback we've given
them, and that a lot of them have said
to us is, once you have your entitlements and we know there's a path moving forward,
then let's reengage. So we're very confident
leasing around whole foods and nordstrom rack is a good problem to have. They're very
quality anchors for the retail.
okay, so a couple of questions that I have.
so the economic vitality, this uvsp, it is defined, it's been studied that this is
the economic vitality of the entire city.
essentially, it's supposed to be the feeder of the city.
so it's supposed to be a feeder of funds to the city.
it's supposed to enhance the quality of life for residents.
and given this project, it
there is an increase, a substantial increase, of residents without the increased
appropriate numbers of retail.
what happens if the quality of life decreases?
we can't afford officers, and your shopping center becomes an attraction for
what happens if we are unable to take care of that shopping center because we don't
have funds to take care of the center?
so you're—I don't know if you're trying to make a connection between the number of
households and the viability of the retail.
is that what you're—
the commercial brings in a higher percentage of funding to the city, so commercial
brings in a higher amount of funding. We had a significant
amount, and one thing that isn't mentioned is what the funding would be today, with
inflation, from the mall revenue. And so the past
mall revenue and the sales tax brought in a huge amount of revenue, and we didn't
have an extra population to pay for the infrastructure, the services.
so we didn't have that prior, and now this plan introduces a population increase with
a huge revenue decrease.
what happens to your center if we cannot pay for, I mean,
we're already struggling as it is with $2 million of revenue loss over the years,
and I know that you have provided funding through the development agreement, but that
funding has gone
quickly because we've needed the revenue.
and we don't have—I see in the development agreement, you're not willing to pay more
to the city.
so you're not willing to pay more for that.
there will be $2.9 million more of fees in this project.
it's 2.9.
and a reset of the clock, essentially.
to a certain extent.
yeah.
a new development agreement, brand-new, brand-new in
it seems brand-new entitlements.
I'm just wondering, if we can't afford to take care of the center, why would you be
entitled to more safety if we
don't have the money, and how, if it's taking away?
if this area takes away from the existing residents, and
what's your question?
is it related to the fiscal impact analysis?
yes, I'm just wondering.
I mean, you, as a commercial developer, you want to be in cities that are safe, my
guess is.
you want to have your commercial properties in areas that are—
so I don't see anything in the analysis that's been done that suggests that this
won't be a safe project or that the households
who are going to have the incomes that they will need to afford to buy the new homes
or to rent the market-
rate apartments, that they're in some way going to be a drain on
the community.
there's been nothing that we've seen in any of the analysis or any of the studies
that suggests that's the case.
so what you're projecting could occur.
I don't know how to respond to that question.
I don't see a connection.
what I do know is that you have a lot of really smart people that the city
has on staff or as consultants that have looked at this project every which way to
sunday, and they are confident that it's going
to be a good thing for the city. And as a developer, we're comfortable with the
development agreement and the rules of engagement
that it establishes, that it will be a financeable project that can be executed.
that's all that I know. I don't know
these, you know, scenarios that could potentially play out.
there's always a scenario that could potentially play out, but it hasn't been
analyzed,
and I don't think it's the basis for our decisions moving forward,
and I don't think it's the recommendation of staff or of the consultants that you
guys have hired that those should be overriding considerations.
I understand.
it's just the reality of where we're at.
well, I don't know about a reality.
I don't hear anything you just said that sounds like reality necessarily.
I need to, I need to—okay.
as chair of this, I'm going to interrupt a little bit, gently.
I feel like I'm watching jeopardy on tv.
and I feel like all you have to do in making an accusation is to frame your
accusation as a question, like the show.
and I don't know that a lot of these questions, from my viewpoint, are really focused
on the development, your presentation,
and what you're doing.
a lot of what-ifs.
what if the world stops?
what if we're hit by a meteor next year?
and so I would just ask the council to refocus as much as possible on this project.
and let's try to move forward.
and this was just questions of staff and questions of the presenter.
and I'd like to be courteous to both.
and so I'm gently asking council members in general just to, you know, be mindful of
that.
I feel like we're taking this into deliberations and all kinds of debate when these
are supposed to be simple clarifications and questions.
the concerns of fiscal impact of the city and how that's on our heads.
you know what, I've already said.
erica, I've already said what I'm going to say, and
I'm counting on your common sense and good sense to not go off the deep end about
everything from homelessness
in newport beach or in laguna beach to whatever.
I mean, we could go on and on.
and maybe that's filibuster is what we're talking about here.
but I hate to do that to the audience who is still here, although I do know a number
of them are consultants.
so they're here for reasons of support.
but anyway.
it's a general request, okay?
you may continue your questions.
all right.
I yield my comment, my questions.
okay.
hi.
mr.
mathis, to ask the question I'd written down, it must be telepathy.
as I understand, there are two urgencies: hotel one and the affordable,
is that correct?
and the whole foods.
we have a timeline for delivery of that building for whole foods.
okay.
I understand now, from the other gentleman speaking, that the affordable, the key
dates are september and february.
what are whole foods' drop-dead or key dates?
we just have to deliver space in mid-2028 to them.
we have to deliver the building shell in the condition we've agreed to in the lease
in mid-2028.
by what time again, mike?
mid-2028.
there's a date in the lease.
okay, so that's not quite as tight as the other.
but that's after building.
we have to build the building.
okay, I understand.
so there's a pretty tight timeline.
we're already right up against that.
okay.
what are the drop-dead dates, the important dates for hotel one?
yesterday.
no, the reality is, I'd say they need to, because it really comes down to the risk
level.
they've been willing to go at risk up to this point, knowing that this meeting was
going to occur.
by them going at risk, they're on track, even with the conversations we've had about
12.4 and octa,
they're on track to be able to begin their work in january.
so they need to begin in january, so it...
it could, they have, like any construction schedule, there's a little bit of
contingency, right?
but they want to be in the ground in january.
okay, so let me rephrase that and see if I'm correct.
so they can start shoveling in january?
ideally, yes.
and that, obviously, there's grading permits and then there's building permits.
so there's phasing to that construction schedule.
that's a little bit of time, then.
okay.
but there's no time.
no, there's really not.
because there's also the—they still have to secure the franchise agreement, like we
talked about, with the hotel flag.
what's that setback?
it's not set back.
right now, we're on schedule for it.
but if it gets delayed, if this gets delayed,
then that—I don't know when the next real estate committee meeting is for that hotel
brand.
but right now, the meeting is lined up.
you realize it's just the first reading tonight.
it can't be passed tonight.
sure it could.
so there's still going to be a delay to the second reading, at least?
well, yeah, of course the second reading.
okay.
and they've taken the second reading and the appeal periods, those things, all into
account.
I think I know the answer, but I want to clarify and make sure.
so right now, hotel two partially sits on where nordstrom is right now, right?
yeah, it's like, yeah, it's directly adjacent to it.
they don't want to be built unless the magdalena is built out, and it all kind of has
to happen at the same time.
now, they could, if they elected to, if they get into the mechanics of building that
building and how it incorporates into the site
plan, the phasing of when they would complete hotel one, because they want to use the
same construction crew, move straight over to hotel two.
if it syncs up and they're willing to go at risk on any component of their project,
concurrent with or in advance of the nordstrom rack moving, they could do that.
it's just that's not what they're anticipating right now.
okay.
so there is maybe a little potential to...
hopefully.
I don't—no, not by 2028.
okay.
yeah, because the—that's the key.
okay.
because the relocation of the nordstrom rack can't happen.
it's a turnkey build, meaning they'll close the existing location
one night, and they'll open in a fully operating store the next day, and then they'll
decommission.
I thought they used to literally take the clothes off the racks in one store and move
them to the other.
now they don't.
they fully stock the new store, and then they move all the inventory in the old store
someplace else.
I know.
that's what I thought, but I learned something new as well.
thank you.
of course.
whoa.
actually, those were great.
they were great questions.
I strayed a little bit here and there.
in my opinion, but...
uh...
we needed to do that, and so I appreciate your time to get up here and do what
both steve and staff have done in answering questions and clarifying things as much
as you can. So with that,
we're going to bring
of the
planning agency of the joint session of the council and planning agency together
for deliberation, and
I don't know whether we want to start with a motion or we'll want to just open it up
for whatever the will of the council
is.
but in any case, we will definitely go around the horn more than a number of times.
I like things to be thorough.
and then hopefully we can take stock of this and move one way or the other.
so with that, anyone want to start?
mayor pro tem, you haven't said much.
yeah, you know, thank you, mr.
mayor.
I'll also go ahead and start with a motion to approve the recommendation as proposed
by staff to move this project forward to be
coming back for a second reading.
do we have a second on that motion?
I'll second that.
okay, we have a second.
now we'll open it up to deliberations, and we'll start with dave. Okay, like I—hold
up. Before, I got this huge document, and I'd
like to ask anybody on the council: read it through? Is there anybody on the council
who read this thing?
I've read a lot of it.
yeah, I don't know what you're holding up.
well, this is the thing that the staff produced.
it's got the da in the middle, and it's got all the other pertinent parts.
yeah.
okay, I have not.
and only the ad hoc could have a chance.
I think it's premature to vote on this tonight.
maybe the discussion was great.
we need to go over this.
I need to go over this document.
I'm particularly concerned about the economics, even done by the two different
organizations that I think were hired by merlone geier.
their difference in the economic outcome was almost a million dollars, around
$900,000.
that's a significant figure when you talk about numbers in the range of two to three
million.
so I don't think we're ready.
I was trying to take into account the urgencies, and it's tight.
maybe we have to slip the affordable to february,
but the other one is doable, I guess. But I think we need to wait till the next
meeting to have
a first reading for this.
it's just too different, and there's not enough time to really see what's really
there. I don't
want—I don't want to vote on something that I have no idea what's in there.
I've managed to maybe get what took me
literally—I got this package yesterday. It literally took me two hours
to decipher because it didn't have page numbers.
it didn't have clean demarcations between the sections.
and as a result, I've only gone through maybe 25 pages or so, and there's hundreds.
it's just premature.
I'm voting for something.
I have no idea what it is.
okay.
I'm going to move on to josh.
you're next.
oh, thank you.
I just want to say thank you to not only the...
developer, but also our staff for all the time and effort, as well as all of your
consultants that are still here, our constituents,
everybody in the audience, thank you for your participation.
thank you for being here tonight and going through all this.
it's because of you that's why this project is where it is now.
so I know everybody has put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this.
it's truly appreciated.
it's nice to sit up here and see all of this come to fruition.
so I'm excited to get this going.
that's it.
okay.
you took off your light.
erica.
okay.
I have a lot of concerns, a lot of concerns for the future of the city.
I, too, and my stack is...
huge as well.
we have to go through all these papers.
and if you do it right, and you're making a decision, you have to weigh everything
when you make a decision up here.
because you're looking at the interests of the 30-something thousand residents that
aren't present in this meeting.
and just because their voices aren't here doesn't mean that they haven't spoken over
the years.
and just because this meeting happened kind of quickly on a summer evening when
everyone is busy doesn't mean that their weight doesn't matter,
because it matters.
I'm concerned.
there are so many concerns.
I'm not sure if oakbrook is here.
I think they left.
I'm not sure.
but if you just look at the square footage of retail oakbrook provides and the number
of units that oakbrook provides,
so 270 units, and they have, it was 130,000, I think, square feet of retail, that
makes financial sense.
we have substantially more units, about 1,500, and then 1,500 units with this project.
and we have a decrease in retail, and there's a hotel that's supposed to be built.
however, the hotel isn't guaranteed because there's a chance eminent domain will
happen.
not just a chance, since 2023.
so that means that there could be a high probability the hotel won't be built.
so the finances put us in a really bad financial position.
just to even afford one officer, I think, with the police, I think we're at $600,000
per year per officer.
maybe the amount shifts, but it's...
$300,000 per, or 24 hours? 24 hours. Okay, so you have to think about how we're going
to be able to keep this
area safe, period. That's, I mean, just to handle the safety alone, it doesn't cover
the costs to have to handle the safety. I do
like homeownership opportunities. I think having homeownership
is excellent, but I also need to be reminded, you also have to be reminded that years
ago, and one
thing that dave and I have is a lot of history on this council, years ago, and
approached us, saying we had two rhna units and they were thinking about expanding
the rhna, and they expanded the rhna to 1,950.
and merlone geier came and said, hey, we will take all of your rhna.
we want to take all of it.
and they wanted all of it.
so it seemed like, okay, well, we have a win-win situation until the changes and
shifts on what was deemed okay.
so there was like this spectrum.
well, that spectrum didn't happen.
and we focused all of our time and energy to prepare for that meeting in 2021.
and after that meeting in 2021, we put everything aside with the staff.
we were very limited on staff.
so we put everything towards merlone geier because the same excuses—I don't want to
be rude,
but the same reasons were popping up why we need to do it now.
you even had a lawsuit.
I think you guys were threatening a lawsuit against us to pressure us into making a
decision.
to pressure us to make a decision, that pressure on city staff, that pressure on our
city caused for rhna to be, our
rhna allocation to be held up.
our staff couldn't make it.
so then we're now in a builder's remedy.
we wound up with builder's remedy issues.
and then we had to increase the numbers of our units.
houses and units everywhere throughout the city, an explosion of population, because
we focused on a project that didn't come to fruition. And we
really should have been focused on rhna, and in all fairness, your company came and
said we will take all of the rhna.
it just, and the pressure that we're under right now is extremely high because
the consequences aren't on any of the staff.
the consequences aren't on the city attorney.
the consequences aren't on the negotiator.
the consequences aren't on the developer.
guess who deals with the consequences?
we do.
that's a decision that it comes back and hits us in our faces.
and the weight is on us as council members.
so we take that.
we have to take the hits.
we take the public hits.
we take all of the hits when we do it wrong.
and we're being pressured here to not read through the documents, to push through a
decision that's already been pre-made.
we can't go through these and try to go through and sift through like we should,
because everything is going to be determined tonight.
but I cannot support something that doesn't make sense.
because the uvsp says things like, in the uvsp, it is supposed to be the area that
brings revenue throughout the city.
our city suffers greatly.
we don't even pave our roads.
the decision was just made a couple of weeks ago to double the amount of time to pave
our roads.
that's quality of life.
we can't pave our roads on time, but we want to be saying yes to projects because of
a hotel,
because we want to help a developer out.
we want to say that, but we can't pave our roads.
we're not even thinking straight.
we can't pave our roads.
we keep decreasing police.
we don't have enough police in our city.
we don't.
we need support.
we also have a group that's talking about trying to remove license plate readers that
help us in the city.
we have groups that are coming that are trying to eliminate tools that we have that
help at a lower cost,
but we don't have enough police.
it's crazy.
anyway, these are problems you don't have to deal with, but these are problems we
have to deal with.
reduction: we can't fix our community center. We fight over trying to get carpet
completed at our community center. We've been
planting plants with residents throughout the city.
we've been trying to find cheaper ways to do everything in the city because our mall
is
gone, and it wasn't just a mall that was dead.
it was a mall that was thriving.
why was it thriving?
because we had, and it says it in the uvsp, we had residents from lake forest, from
laguna woods,
from laguna hills, shopping at this mall because it fit a need in the area.
it fit.
we were receiving $2 million in sales tax revenue annually, over $2 million.
and it's not necessarily; it was a decision that was made, but the people that
suffered the most were the staff.
and then the consequences are on the council.
so, I mean, with that, I'll allow my colleagues to speak because I feel like I've
absorbed too much time already,
but those are some of my thoughts for now.
all right.
next on the list is jared mathis.
thank you, mayor.
let's just deal with reality.
this is a good project.
every expert here has said so.
staff has done diligent work.
it's been a collaborative process with the ad hoc committee and the developer.
I don't buy the idea that you don't have time to understand what this project is.
all this has happened on your watch.
you've been part of this 13-year vacancy.
eight years of that is under your watch.
you've been mayor twice, dave.
you were on the ad hoc committee before.
you meet with the city manager every week for hours, and you didn't want to talk to
him about it over that period of time.
we knew this date was coming a long time ago.
so save that part of it.
as far as what we have to do as council members, we signed up for this.
this is what we're here to do.
and so there's no complaining about that from this side of the dais.
let's do the job.
this is a good project.
it's been vetted.
and we've got the information that we need to make a good decision and keep ourselves
on the timeline.
next would be dave wheeler.
mr.
mathis, what you just said, I'm taking offense to.
you guys took over the committee.
you and caskey took over the committee.
the rest of us have been locked out.
we had no information.
you brought new information.
it was six months.
it was left out of our monthly evaluation.
we didn't know what was going on.
I just got the information package yesterday.
and to say that I've had plenty of time to do it when I had no idea what you were
doing is totally absurd
and not true.
and to say that all of a sudden, now we've been on this for 13 years, and we come up
here now and we've
got to make a decision on this multi-multi-million-dollar project in one day without
any evaluation, is absurd.
and anybody who votes for this is not taking the city into account.
it's absolutely ridiculous.
and I resent you saying things like that because they're not true.
I'm actually going to speak up on this one.
it was before your light went on, so you may have last lapsed.
I've worked on this for about three years, and
this ad hoc committee was nominated and elected to the position of the ad hoc
committee a year and a half ago by the council.
no one took over automatically.
it was elected by the council, and we've done, I think, a really hard task, and we've
put a lot into it, and
there was a lot of experience that we brought to the table.
I brought more than 40 years of design and construction experience.
worked with developers and also on projects of this size and magnitude.
my colleague on the ad hoc committee, mr. Mathis, is a
uh...
landlord developer,
and he had
a lot of experience over the years in basically leasing spaces, running businesses,
all the rest of that kind of stuff,
that I have a little bit in, but not like him.
in fact, I doubt very many people in the room do.
so you actually had two pretty experienced persons on this ad hoc committee, and we
worked very hard, and the staff worked very hard.
and I will say, I mean, when somebody brings in a stack that's more than a ream,
let's say it's even two reams,
a thousand pages of hard-copy stuff,
holds it up and says, "I just got this."
I can't tell you how many times I've gotten an agenda, which we receive, which is
digital,
that is 1,900 pages three days before the meeting.
okay?
it happens a lot.
it doesn't happen, oh, once every three years.
it happens a lot.
now, I could say that
four or five hundred pages of that is going to be our financial stuff that we're
supposed to be going through diligently,
and we do, to an extreme.
I have a tendency to drill down on places: where are our investments, where were we
last month, what's really changed, you know,
those kinds of things.
so I will admit that out of some of these enormous digital agenda packets that we
receive,
maybe three or four hundred pages of it is financial or just other kinds of stuff.
but I will also say that in the four, five hundred, six hundred pages that is over
there,
an awful lot of it is just stuff.
legal stuff, definitions of words, all kinds of stuff.
the actual development agreement where you really know what's happening,
aside from all the appendices and all the rest of that, is 57 pages.
the development agreement, in its nuts and bolts, is 57 pages and very easy to read.
okay?
the 300 sheets of drawings that are, you know, available to the public and all the
rest of that, they're concept drawings, okay?
they are very accurate in terms of layouts and what you should expect.
but when you get into things that were shown to us tonight that were renderings of
what the buildings are all going to look
like and all the rest of that, that's conceptual.
this developer will sell the property, because they don't do residential, to a
residential developer.
those developers now know from those concept drawings what we're expecting, but
they're not going to hand in exactly that.
they may want changes, and we will review them, not as a city council,
but administratively, we will make sure that the concept of those
what is being put in front of us as a council and what was being put in front of you
tonight is followed as a concept and what we're expecting to get.
I'm not going to talk about the economics because
it was, in my mind, pretty twisted
in terms of how it was portrayed by some of the people on the council.
but that's my rendition of this.
the people of this city have been waiting, and not so patiently lately, for something
to happen.
so I came here wanting to listen to all of this,
and be what they call semi-judicial.
but I have to say one of the big things that moves me is everywhere I go, I
feel like this is a song I'm going to break into: people want to know what's going on.
why don't we have this?
and all we do is go round and round and round
and talk about how, what if, you know, what if the sky falls?
what if homeless people happen to roll through the, you know, I mean, I'm on the
southern california association of governments, scag.
that location for affordable housing would be their poster child.
they're happy if it's within a half a mile.
okay?
but if we could say, oh, it's across the street that you can catch a bus to anywhere
in the county and there beyond,
I mean, I don't know what you do beyond that.
I guess you talk about how it's just not going to be secure.
it can't be secure because there are people who were waiting in line for a place in
laguna beach, some homeless place there.
and so we can't trust that they won't
mug somebody in that building.
I mean, my patience has been really tried.
so I have to tell you that I'm going to be voting aye if this moves to a vote.
so let's see, was there somebody else?
the next person up was josh sweeney.
thank you, mr.
mayor.
I appreciate that.
and I just need to really respond to a couple comments because I take my
responsibility very seriously up here,
not only as a planning agency member, but as a city council member.
and I want to be very clear.
my decision tonight was definitely not predetermined.
I spent a considerable amount of time going over the materials, just like mayor caskey
had said.
we all received the materials.
we all have ample time to review them.
and it is what it is.
you put in as much time as you want on that.
but not only do we have time to review the materials, we also had an opportunity to
speak to the applicant.
we had time to listen to our constituents.
so there's a lot that went into this.
I think reasonable people can look at the same project and reach different
conclusions, and I can respect that.
but I do not think it is fair or appropriate to suggest that those of us who may
reach a different conclusion had already
made up our minds.
so, also quickly on public safety, I think I want the record to be accurate because
the fiscal analysis that was done by eps shows approximately $1.36 million as a model
public safety expense allocation.
and that was based on a per-person calculation that was done for how many people are
in our community and what our
current budget is.
and so that's how that was come up with.
the city's existing public safety budget is
using that methodology.
it's not finding that the city needs to hire a specific number of sheriffs, and I had
asked the question earlier,
and the captain had responded on that.
and definitely, additional deputies do not cost us $600,000.
but anyways, we can disagree on the project, but I think at the end of the day, we
owe our
residents an accurate discussion of the facts and respect for each member's
independent decision-making process.
so thank you.
we'll now move back to erica. Yes, well, I think that it's obvious that there
is a split. It is obvious. So thank you for giving me the time to be able to express
my concerns because my
concerns are extreme.
I mean, if you look at the asks from ms.
lowe's powerpoint, she kind of, it was sort of spoken briefly, but the asks are that
we're changing the usage.
so the uvsp says if there are going to be units in the
uvsp, new units, residential units, that they were mixed use, and also states to have
the mixed use on top of shops.
well, I don't see that, so it's requesting a variance from us to say, okay, we're not
going to provide,
we're not going to follow our laws, we're going to sign a doc, and we're going to say
that we're going to
create a lot of exceptions for merlone geier.
this is our one opportunity to be able to have something and plan for something that
creates economic vitality in the city
for years.
this is our one shot.
all of the other developments that we had to zone for rhna purposes, we couldn't
obtain
this sort of economic vitality.
this was our one shot to do a great job, to be able to increase retail, to bring some
sort of, if you
look right down the street, there's a porsche dealership.
is it a porsche?
I think it's a porsche dealership.
what kind of revenue does that bring into irvine?
look at the dealerships that are in the other cities right across the street.
they have copious amounts of retail.
this area is a retail boomer, and it's meant to be that way.
the uvsp states it, that it is the economic generator in the city.
so we're decreasing retail and we're giving all these exceptions,
but we're getting nothing for it. I mean, not that much, and the quimby fees, which
are essentially our
rules that state you have to give this much per unit. That's what we're getting for
it, is what we're supposed to have.
I mean, it's just, it doesn't create the economic vitality, stability that we need in
the city, and
this was our one chance to do it, and we failed.
I mean, this body failed.
and, you know, as I said, it's our decisions.
if you read what we're actually signing, I mean, it's actually pretty scary what
we're signing, and I can't support something like that, especially
because if you're ever asked in court, well, did you know the addendums?
like, you're going to be asked, if you're ever in this situation, you're going to
have to be asked,
did you know that those addendums were there?
yes.
well, that was staff's recommendation.
that's not what somebody's going to care about.
what they're going to care about is your responsibility to it, your due diligence.
they're not going to say, well, that was a recommendation given to me by staff, by
somebody else.
no one cares.
they're going to say, what did you do?
well, how did you do your homework on it?
that's why the homework is important for us.
because we are the responsible parties.
we are the responsible body.
and to minimize the amount of time that we've had to go through this is, I mean,
I know that we're going back and forth about being insulted, but it's really, I guess
I've never...
I don't know.
we're in a different situation now where people are frustrated about people doing
their homework or doing their due diligence that we're supposed to do.
it's our fiduciary duties.
we have duties to protect the residents.
we have duties.
and we're trying to say, hey, we need some more time to negotiate further.
we need more time to create a stronger economic vitality.
we've been asking. I mentioned to you at the last meeting I wanted to know what was
happening and how I felt that it
wasn't fair and wasn't right.
we're being thrown to the side with this.
so, I mean, and the consequences again are the decision that was made by the council.
so anyway, I yield my comments.
any other comments?
I have to make one last comment, and that is I have to say that as a professional and
a person,
to be accused of not doing my due diligence on something that I've worked so hard on
for a year and a half, negotiating,
and it wasn't easy, I really resent that.
and I resent some of the other accusations about the project itself.
but I'm going to leave it at that for me.
and seeing no other lights, we have a motion and a second.
so I'm going to ask the city clerk to call a roll call.
this should be a roll call vote.
yes.
mayor caskey?
aye.
mayor pro tem mathis?
aye.
councilmember wheeler?
no.
councilmember sweeney?
aye.
councilmember pezold?
no.
that is three for yes and then two for no.
the motion would pass.
okay.
thank you all for being so patient out there.
you're not all consultants; you're citizens.
so what we're going to do is take a little five- or ten-minute break to allow those
of you who want to depart.
it is now 9:54, and believe it or not, we have a whole meeting in front of us, which
I would love to table,
but I don't know that we can do that.
so we'll give you first a chance to
not feel like you're sneaking out.
if you want to stay, then by all means.
all right.
I'm not going to use the gavel.
I'm just going to start the meeting up where we left off.
we're trying to let people leave who might want to leave, and
it looks like a number of people have taken us up on that.
so we have no presentations or proclamations, so we're going to move straight to
holland gannon, if she's here.
yeah, she is.
with a schedule of future events.
holland.
mayor, can I ask one question?
can I get a printed agenda?
my apologies.
it's sort of lost in my stack.
I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.
oh, it's in the bridge.
okay.
thank you.
are you not going?
I'm ready.
go for it.
good evening, mayor caskey, members of the city council, and members of the public.
the city council and planning agency will have its next meeting on tuesday, august
25th.
the meeting will begin at 6 p.m.
here in the council chambers.
the traffic commission will have their regular meeting tomorrow, on wednesday, july
15th, at 6 p.m.
also here in the council chambers.
the parks and recreation commission will have their regular meeting the following
month, on august 5th at 6 p.m.,
and that will also take place in the council chambers.
with the recess coming up, I have a lot of community activities and events to discuss
for you tonight.
community services will have an excursion to l.a.'s
hollyhock house on friday, july 17th.
participants will depart from the community center at 11:30 a.m.
that same evening, we will have our first concert in our summer concert series on the
town green of the community center.
from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., we will be listening to a community favorite, the reflex.
the kids' market will also be at this event, which is a market entirely run by kids
selling their own homemade creations.
on sunday, july 19th, we have a sold-out excursion to la jolla,
where participants will start by visiting the historical society and end with a
community concert by the sea.
the global harmony symphony presents playbill parade, a free community concert in the
heritage room of the community center at 6:30 p.m.
on monday, july 20th.
on thursday, july 23rd, ocsd will be holding national night out at the laguna hills
community center from 5 to 8 p.m.
the next day, on july 24th, we have a teen excursion to knott's berry farm.
we also have our second movie in the park that evening, where we will be watching the
movie trolls at san remo park.
the first 100 attendees will get a funnel cake on us.
the global harmony symphony will host their free quarterly moment musicale concert at
1 p.m.
in the heritage room on tuesday, july 28th.
the next friday, we have our next summer concert on july 31st.
we will be listening to the history of pop on the town green from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
the community services department and the laguna hills library will have their
monthly storytime adventures on thursday, august 6th, at 10 a.m.
in heritage room a of the community center.
we have our last teen excursion of the summer on friday, august 7th, to raging waters.
that same evening, we will be at stockport park watching madagascar for our third
movie in the park.
the event starts at 6:30 p.m.
and the first 100 attendees will get a free shaved ice on us.
we will be traveling to the hilbert museum in orange on saturday, august 8th.
then we have another sold-out excursion to santa barbara on august 9th, where there
is an annual old spanish days festival.
on monday, august 10th, we will have an evening excursion to bolsa chica for a
bonfire.
the community services department and the laguna hills library will have their
monthly let's make workshop on wednesday, august 12th, at 4 p.m.
in the classroom of the community center.
on friday, august 14th, we have an excursion to a friday-night event at the historic
gamble house in pasadena.
and on that day, we also have our last summer concert, where we will be rocking out
to acme time machine on the town
green again from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
that saturday, we have our annual excursion to the lemon festival in chula vista.
and finally, we have our last movie in the park on friday, august 21st, at 6:30 p.m.
in clarington park.
the first hundred attendees will receive a meal from tk burger.
that concludes my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
thank you very much.
are there any questions for ms.
gannon?
okay.
I will say, even though it's probably only going to go into the record,
uh...
but if anyone's actually still listening, the hollyhock house in
los angeles, which was designed by frank lloyd wright, and it's one of the events,
the gamble house, which was towards the end of what you were
basically letting us know, are both incredible, incredible places to visit, and I
recommend them highly to anyone, not only in this room, but who
might be watching the video and/or the livestream.
the next thing on the agenda is the public comments, non-agendized public comments,
and
this is a time to address the city council on any matter not listed in this agenda
that is within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the city council.
public comments are limited to three minutes, as determined by the mayor.
if you're participating remotely, and I'll look over to the city clerk to
double-check whether we have anybody there,
then I'll let him tell you how to do that, since this is the first time that we've
tried that system. And with that, I'm
going to ask the city clerk.
do we have
any members of the audience who wish to make a public comment? Yes, I have three. The
first is yi-ning. Welcome.
and she did hand out the documents in front of you as part of her comments.
thank you.
good evening, mayor, and...
pull the microphone down a little closer to your mouth.
that'll help.
there you go.
thank you.
good evening, mayor and members of city council.
my name is yi-ning, and I'm the owner of the delight massage and facial in laguna hills.
so thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
so I'm here to respectfully ask for your approval to expand into the
1,600-square-foot space
next to our current business.
first, I want to make one thing very clear.
this expansion is not for more massage rooms.
we will keep our nine massage rooms exactly the same.
and the new space will only be used for facial and skin care service.
every facial room will have its own sink to meet california's health and license
requirements.
when we opened two years ago, one facial room was enough.
today, many of our existing customers ask for facial service, and one room is no
longer enough.
this expansion is simply to meet the needs of our current customers.
today, we have more than 400 online reviews with 4.9 stars from google and yelp for
two years.
we have zero tolerance for anything illegal, and we also follow city and state laws.
I also served in the united states navy.
and we are not asking to become a different business.
we simply want to better serve our existing customers, creating more local jobs
and continue serving the laguna hills community.
and we respectfully ask for your support.
thank you so much for your time and your consideration.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
okay, I'll turn to my colleagues first.
are there any questions?
yes, erica.
this is a public comment, correct?
yes.
non-agendized public. Correct. Is there a way that this individual can meet with the
attorney, meet with staff, to have conversations versus have questions
here? Because we're on a moratorium on new facilities, and I would imagine, I think
what you might be concerned about
is that you sound like you have an ongoing business,
and congratulations for that.
and we know that there are a lot of massage establishments within laguna hills that
are very reputable and are doing a great job.
so if you have questions in regard to potential expansion or any of those things,
I probably would agree with erica to refer you first to staff and see, you know,
we're not trying to harm or shut down those legitimate businesses.
especially those who are willing to come in and talk to the city council and even
wait, what, six,
four hours to be able to do that for a few minutes.
thank you.
so we really appreciate you, and if you have particular concerns,
I would have you work with staff first if you need to bring it back to one of the
council people.
most of us are always open to talk to constituents, and that includes even if you
don't live in laguna hills,
you're a business in laguna hills, and so we care very much about you.
thank you.
I want to make it understood that it goes two ways, okay?
okay, I'm still nervous, but I'm still here.
all right.
any other questions?
do you have any questions?
no, but I think the city manager will give you his information so that you can reach
out to us.
okay.
yeah.
all right.
well, thank you very much.
do we have any telephone?
we've got two more in person.
oh, two more in person?
yes.
we have madelyn unholz.
all right.
welcome.
thank you for your patience.
thank you.
of course.
got some studying done back there.
switching up the agenda a little bit.
although erica did bring it up already.
my name is madelyn.
I've been a resident of this community for over a decade now.
I grew up here, went to laguna hills high school, and
I recently, or not recently, a couple years ago, completed my bachelor of science in
criminal justice.
something that has been recently brought to my attention by concerned community
members, as well as people in my family and myself included, are the
flock safety cameras
that are around the city.
we have exactly 61 alpr cameras that are built and monitored by flock safety,
which is a private security and surveillance company that we've contracted to operate
these cameras.
they continuously record your movement.
they do this without a warrant, without probable cause, and without reasonable
suspicion of a crime.
every time that you drive by one of these 61 cameras in laguna hills, a snapshot is
taken.
that snapshot is then collected and transferred to flock's private corporate database,
which the orange county sheriff's department and the city of laguna hills have no
control over.
the data is shared with thousands of agencies nationwide, and flock doesn't need to
ask our permission to do this.
so what are they doing with this data?
honestly, I don't really have any idea.
and I don't really know if anyone else does either.
we've paid them $100,000 every year to let them watch our citizens.
but what do we know about the company?
we know that they have a history of poor security practices.
they often experience data breaches and provide unauthorized access to private
information
that they collect.
in july of 2025, they published a misconfigured demo website straight to their main
page that included administrative login and access to over 50
private layers of data.
in november of last year, a security researcher found flock login information for
sale on russian websites,
which launched a full-scale ftc investigation of this company that's currently
ongoing, so they still haven't come to any conclusion.
flock is a private corporation.
they have complete control over this massive centralized database of our daily
movements.
there's no public oversight, and there have been no independent audits of how they
use our data.
this is a for-profit tech company, not just our local police department
reading license plates.
it's much bigger than that.
this is a massive database that they have of our personal data that they can pretty
much do with as they please.
a lot of people are willing to give up freedoms in exchange for security, but flock
safety can't even give us that.
there's no independent research proving that they reduce crime, and the research that
does exist is inconclusive at best.
in conclusion, I would ask that laguna hills call for an independent audit of how our
data is being used by the private company
that they have contracted to collect it.
in addition, I would ask that the city reconsider their ongoing contract with this
predatory surveillance company.
thank you.
okay.
questions?
dave.
thank you for coming in.
I don't like big brother either.
my understanding, I'm going to ask chief burk to comment,
is that the data that we collect on this flock camera is supposed to be deleted in
something like 30 days or 60 days.
first of all, is that true?
yeah, flock states they don't keep the data over, I believe it's 30 days.
they do say that.
I would also like to note, though, as of december 2025,
flock has stopped providing any independent audits or login logs to agencies that
request them.
they have not been very forthcoming with the data that they collect and how they use
it.
okay, I'm getting that.
that's my point number two.
okay, so our contract with them: they're supposed to delete the data roughly 30 days
or something like that.
it's not to be kept.
it's mainly just to see if we've got a child abduction situation.
they've got the license number.
we can find things quickly.
it's not meant to be kept long term.
counsel burns, can I ask you to look into seeing if there are lawsuits against this
firm and if there are some things we should know
about?
please advise us.
I can do that, yes.
okay.
we'll find out if these guys are no good.
I know that lapd did recently just end their contract with them as well for similar
concerns,
so that would definitely be something to look into as well.
okay.
thank you for your comments.
mm-hmm.
thank you.
any other questions?
okay.
thank you again.
and thank you for bringing that to our attention.
next one.
I believe she has already left, but cathy udovch.
I believe she's already left.
okay.
and I have no one online.
so that is all the comments I have at this time.
all right.
so our next item on the agenda is item number five, the consent calendar.
all matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and will be
enacted in one motion approving the recommendation listed on the agenda.
there will be no separate discussion unless members of the city council or city staff
request specific items to be removed from the consent
calendar.
so I will ask for public comments on this.
consent calendar? Sorry, I have none. There are none, okay?
all right, and I will ask the council members or staff: would you like to remove any
items?
dave? 5.2. 5.2. Anyone else? I'll move the balance. Second. Second.
and we have a motion and a second to approve the balance.
I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.
mayor pro tem mathis?
aye.
council member pezold?
aye.
mayor caskey?
aye.
council member wheeler?
aye.
council member sweeney?
aye.
okay.
so now let's move on to 5.2.
dave.
yes, I removed 5.2 just for the sake of it.
I need to abstain from that since I was not at that meeting.
that's all.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite...
I was not at the meeting, so I need to abstain from that.
oh, you're not?
oh, okay.
and I'll move to vote.
second.
okay.
we have a second, right, with josh, and call the roll.
I'm sorry.
who was the motion? Who motioned?
dave wheeler, okay. All right, we'll call the roll. Just a point of clarification:
you abstained? Yes. Can you push the item
even though you're abstaining? Who made the original motion to approve?
that's okay.
excuse me?
who made the motion to approve?
was it council member wheeler?
yes.
I've never seen that before.
that's what I'm saying.
is there another council member that can make the motion?
I'll move it.
yes.
I'm not sure if he can or if he can't.
I've just never seen it before.
I've never seen it.
so we have a different motion.
I'll second.
and we have a second.
moved and seconded.
good catch, erica.
and we'll take a vote.
yes.
council member sweeney?
aye.
council member wheeler?
abstain.
mayor pro tem mathis?
aye.
council member pezold?
aye.
mayor caskey?
aye.
okay.
I'm going to turn a few pages here.
catch up on all of that.
there we go.
all right, now we move to item 6.1.
I believe it's confirmation of the 2026 weed abatement cost report, and we have a
recommendation to city council to conduct a public hearing regarding
the weed abatement cost report and adopt a resolution, and I will be very brief with
all of those words, and I'm
going to announce
that this is a public hearing for the 2026 weed abatement cost report, and I welcome
all to this public hearing and this item,
and the public is welcome to make a comment if they so wish.
so I'm going to turn right away to—well, do we
have the public comments first, or you, joe?
presentation? Should I do a presentation, or city clerk?
yes, I currently have no comments for this at this time.
okay.
well then, why don't you just go ahead with your presentation?
it's a very short presentation. City staff is asking city council to conduct a public
hearing regarding the 2026—it's a typo on your
agenda report—2026 weed abatement cost report and
to adopt a resolution confirming the 2026 weed abatement cost report.
essentially, the report indicates that we have cleared one private property of weeds,
and this is the time and place for the property owner to object to the levying of
charges for that.
that concludes my staff report.
all right.
I have a whole list of things we would do.
we have no public comments.
and so I'm going to cut to the chase here and basically ask if the council members
have any questions for joe.
oh, david, sorry.
just one quick question.
is this the abatement in general, or just one specific person that won't comply?
this is weed abatement in general, and everybody complied except for one person, whom
we contacted.
and it's the same usual customer, and they keep paying the bill.
okay.
have we added to the regular maintenance the area that we determined last year was a
fire hazard?
that's not directly related to this agenda item, but regarding your question that I
think we talked about previously,
the public works operating budget was previously increased to allow for that to occur.
okay.
I'm sorry.
I thought it was part of this abatement.
no worries.
this is for private property parcels.
okay.
thank you.
all right, and because we've already been told there is nobody in the audience or
online that wants to speak to the issue,
I'm going to close the public hearing I just opened and bring it back to the city
council for deliberation.
do we have any deliberations or comments and/or motions?
I'll move to adopt the resolution.
I'll second.
all right.
any comments beyond that?
okay.
then we're going to call for the vote, and we'll call for the roll call.
mayor caskey?
aye.
council member pezold?
aye.
council member wheeler?
aye.
council member sweeney?
aye.
mayor pro tem mathis?
aye.
okay.
and then the next item on the list, item number seven.
city manager's report, and I'll ask you, bob, if you have anything to report.
no reports this evening, mayor.
okay.
now we have item number eight, matters agendized and presented by city council
members.
and we have, I believe, three of us tonight, maybe four.
so we will start with council member wheeler.
uh...
orange county older adults advisory commission.
in the interest of time, I'll make it real quick.
we had our regular meeting; information was delivered for the people there. They did
adopt our
metrics to take care of the goals for this year, and so that was a good thing.
guess I'm next with the scag report. The southern california association of
governments did have a meeting last week.
I attended it, and most of the meeting was logistical and in regards to meeting dates
and calendars and the rest of that. There
were two reports that were made
about projects that had been sponsored by scag, mainly in the interest of
transportation and redevelopment.
one was in fox hills.
the other one was in san bernardino.
the one in fox hills was certainly interesting because you could actually get your
arms around something that happened.
the one in san bernardino,
it was more of a planning project.
both were well done, but there's not much to report on in regards to something that
our city can take and run with.
other than the fact that we should always, in regards to any of these associations
that we belong to, every
once in a while the opportunity opens up
for grants and things like that, that if they do happen to work and be symbiotic with
the needs of the city, should be
something that we look at and maybe take advantage of.
and occasionally, in the case of scag, I would have to say some of those things are
more environmental.
and some of the cities around south orange county have taken advantage of that in the
past.
and we'll just keep our eye on those things, and if it's possibly something that we
can go after, then we might.
and with that, I will go to council member sweeney for the ocfa report.
thank you, mayor.
I appreciate that.
if I could please pull up my presentation.
I have a 15-minute presentation I'd like to do.
very briefly, the orange county fire authority continues to move forward with its
budget and strategic priorities.
at our recent board meeting, we addressed the upcoming fiscal year budget, federal
grant updates, and several operational and policy matters.
ocfa continues to prepare for fire season and ensure that we have the resources
necessary to serve our communities.
given the hour,
that's all I have. Okay, great. And the last one would be council member pezold with
the tca report. Yes, and in the
spirit of the hour, I will also be providing a short presentation. The transportation
corridor agencies met july 9th
and we passed, the board of directors passed, the open market bond buyback program
amendment,
the 241-91 express connector public outreach and marketing services contract.
we were provided a state and federal legislative update.
and one interesting item was the changeable message signs.
so we look forward to seeing those come up.
and the chief executive officer provided updates with more awards that the board has
received.
so anyway, with that, I conclude my report.
thank you, erica.
that leads us to council member comments.
I believe the city manager has a comment that he would like to make, too, so I'll let
him throw that in there first, and then
we'll go straight to us. Thank you, mayor and members of the council.
I just wanted to do a big shout-out to our new city clerk, joshua, and georgia; they
managed, for the first
time ever, our new 707 rules and all the technology, and
robert, thank you for the great work that you've done on that.
and so to come out of the box in a big meeting like this, it just was outstanding
work for everybody.
so thank you.
thank you, mayor.
okay.
next up, I'll go right to the order that came up.
jared mathis.
first of all, for the record, I just want to say it's so good to have you back in the
room. Thank you for
being here, and also want to give a big thank you to your wife, susie, because I know
you can't do this kind of thing
alone
to get
through what you've been facing, so
we're all better off with you in the room, and
thank you for making the effort to be here, and thank you, susie, for helping get him
here.
a lot more than just getting me here.
but I won't get into the details.
you don't need that.
next up is dave wheeler.
thank you.
basically, I have two commendations for holland gannon.
I received many, many emails that said laguna hills' fireworks display was the best
in the whole area, and they actually had a couple
of comments that kind of denigrated a couple of neighbor cities whose names I won't
mention, but said theirs was, you know, not good.
I'll leave it at that, and ours was great. And the second thing, another commendation
and
good work, was from a city council member at laguna woods who's seen our new banners,
said they'd been noticed,
and said they really liked it.
and the uniqueness and tying them into laguna hills was really, you know, a good
thing.
and that was passed on from a fellow city council member in another city.
thank you.
okay.
next up would be josh.
thank you, mr.
mayor.
I wanted to echo jared's comments.
so great to have you back.
it's good to have you on the dais with us again.
welcome back.
and great job running this meeting.
and thank you, susie, for sticking it out as well.
and to the chair of our traffic commission, we have mr.
scott miller.
thanks for sticking it out.
and thank you for being here tonight.
and all of our staff, thank you.
I know you guys put in a ton of time, a ton of effort, and did a great job.
and joshua, welcome to your first amazing meeting.
and last we have erica.
yes, not least.
I'll be less. Well, I wanted to also highlight the 250th fourth of july.
as I understand it, it was a wonderful event, and
unfortunately, I was not around, for good reasons, and I was out of
but I think that a number of people were really, from what I understand in talking to
residents,
they were really happy with the fireworks display, and they're hopeful that we can
continue to have a fireworks display of that magnitude in the future.
I don't know if it's possible, but that was something that was a consistent message
provided: that they really enjoyed the fireworks.
and if they can't have fireworks in the city, they
appreciate the fireworks show that was provided.
so I think that it was, from what I understand, everything was done really well.
and I also want to welcome joshua as well.
very nice to have you here.
and your professionalism is very evident.
so anyway, with that, I yield my comments.
okay, so I guess I'll go last.
well, I've got to reiterate the same thing about the 250th celebration.
not only did I receive emails, but we've received direct comments from people in the
audience who said, whoa.
and I won't say that was the bomb, because that would be a pun that would be
inappropriate.
but it was probably, in my years of looking at the fireworks that we do, the best.
it is the best that we've ever done.
and it wasn't by a little bit.
it was by a lot.
and we have everybody on this council to thank.
but thank you, dave, for really pushing the idea.
and I also want to thank the people who were up on the stage.
I couldn't be there that night.
and yet we had plenty of volunteers.
and dave did a great job.
mayor pro tem mathis basically
facilitated the whole thing, plus acted as a cheerleader at the end, and josh also
made it, and we did it all in
about six minutes. I was timing it because the audience by that time is chanting, you
know,
they just wanted to see the fireworks. But they were all really, really good
presentations by all of you, and then mayor pro tem kind of beat the drum and got it
going right at the last
moment, and that's really the way it went.
so I want to thank all of my colleagues for being involved in that. It is
really great to be back up here, and
I'm still in a wheelchair, but I'm going to get to the point where hopefully I'll be
totally mobile again by the next meeting,
which will be at the end of august.
and so I'm looking forward to that.
I haven't skipped a beat on any of the things we've been doing behind the scenes at
all.
and so even though you didn't see me necessarily other than on a zoom thing,
I was involved in everything.
and so it really is good to be back.
and I really appreciate this council.
I appreciate the fact that we're all here to serve our city and to make it better
than we found it.
and we don't always agree on everything.
and I don't have a problem with that personally.
I like that.
I love debate.
and so we got some tonight.
and then a decision was made.
I'll only make one other comment about a couple of things in that regard.
the uvsp is—if jen is still here, what was the date of that?
of when it was originally adopted?
yeah, the uvsp, the actual.
2002. 2006.
two.
two, 2002.
twenty-four years ago, the uvsp had the mall in it as if it was anticipating that all
these new things would work around
a mall. Things change in 24 years. Things change in 10 years.
as a professional in the business, most planning documents are worthless
after 10 years, and
this is 24 years old, and it was being used a lot tonight,
but I'm going to go beyond that just to talk about planning documents in general, you
know, have a lifetime.
and just like everything else, you know, the economy, you name it, things change.
so the only other comment I wanted to make was the applicant for this particular
project, which was approved,
had, going into the room,
entitlement from 2022 for the mall project as it was entitled at that time.
it was not the same thing as coming in having no entitlement and trying to get your
project approved.
there were a lot more things than just rearranging the deck chairs.
I will admit that.
there was a lot of due diligence done, and I want to thank the staff who have been
working their tails off.
I would use a different word, but it wouldn't be appropriate.
and they have been really dedicated to doing a good and fair-minded job. This was no,
you know, run-it-up-the-flagpole
kind of a thing at all, and so I really want to compliment the staff and everyone who
has been involved, you know,
in the process, and I want to thank the council, all of you,
for your comments and your concerns and your questions tonight.
and we move on from there.
and I really appreciated the decorum that was demonstrated tonight on the dais.
so with that, I'll end my comments.
and with that, we are...
to adjournment, which
our next announced regular meeting of the city council and planning agency will be
august 26, 2026, at 6 p.m. For the
general session. We're adjourned.