[0:00] 
[0:05] 
[0:06] 
[0:11] 
[0:15] 
[0:22] 
[0:28] 
[0:34] 
[0:41] 
[1:11] 
[1:14] 
[1:17] 
[1:35] 
[1:50] 
[1:56] 
[2:05] 
[2:05] 
[2:08] 
[2:13] 
[2:13] 
[2:18] 
[2:19] 
[2:22] 
[2:39] 
[3:05] 
[3:28] 
[3:48] 
[4:08] 
[4:27] 
[4:50] 
[5:12] 
[5:32] 
[5:59] 
[6:27] 
[6:51] it's 6:03, and I hope you all had a nice break.
[6:55] and we're going to continue where we left off.
[6:58] apparently, there are not a ton more questions.
[7:02] so for those of you who are wondering when
are we going to get to the real stuff, not
[7:07] that this isn't.
[7:09] you know, the speakers are not going to go on until 10 o'clock tonight.
[7:13] so, and then we will move into the meat
and potatoes of this and questions and
[7:19] answers of both
staff and the applicant.
[7:24] and then after that, we will go into council/agency deliberations.
[7:31] and we have a whole city council meeting agenda thereafter, no matter what happens.
[7:38] so we'll be around.
[7:42] so with that, I'm going to continue the
meeting and go back to joshua and ask who our
[7:47] next speaker is.
[7:52] thank you, mr.
[7:52] mayor.
[7:53] the next speaker is marcella lawson, and the one after that is cynthia marquez.
[8:01] thank you very much.
[8:03] my name is marcella lawson, and I'm a homeowner in laguna hills.
[8:07] I'm strongly in favor of the revised
development agreement for the village at laguna
[8:11] hills, and I urge the
council to vote yes today.
[8:15] like others who've spoken today, I'm glad
to see the 200-unit standalone building
[8:19] that will provide
affordable housing.
[8:22] the revised agreement places the building
in a favorable location next to the transit
[8:26] hub, and most importantly,
[8:28] that it will be built in the first phase of the project.
[8:31] these are all positives.
[8:32] thank you for that.
[8:34] I am, however, disappointed that the current
plan is for all of the 200 units to be
[8:39] for seniors.
[8:41] I volunteer every week at the food pantry at families forward,
[8:45] and I see both seniors and families who
are housing insecure and struggle to afford
[8:50] basic needs like food,
[8:53] clothing, and school supplies. In addition
to seniors, there's a high need for
[8:57] affordable housing for our families,
and I encourage the council to locate
[9:02] more options as soon as possible for these
families who need secure and affordable
[9:06] housing.
[9:08] but most importantly, at this moment, I
encourage you to move forward on this project
[9:12] immediately so that the
developer will be in a position
[9:15] to acquire the necessary financing for
the affordable housing building in this
[9:18] project.
[9:20] and like many other residents who said, we
want to get that empty space gone and get
[9:24] this beautiful project
moving forward.
[9:28] so thank you for your work, and no more delays.
[9:33] any questions?
[9:36] all right.
[9:37] I'm going to add a clarification just for you, and
[9:42] that is, hopefully, workforce housing and
other larger projects in terms of size of
[9:48] family will be in the future.
[9:53] and I just wanted to kind of comment back to you.
[9:56] we're not really supposed to do that, but
since there's a number of you here, your
[10:01] voice is not lost on that.
[10:03] thank you.
[10:03] thank you.
[10:04] thank you.
[10:06] okay, next.
[10:08] cynthia marquez, and next will be heidi prescott.
[10:15] hello.
[10:15] okay, cool.
[10:17] hello, good evening.
[10:18] my name is cynthia m., and I am staff at the kennedy commission,
[10:21] a broad-based coalition of community
members advocating to create strong housing
[10:24] policies that increase opportunities for
housing stability for those who call orange
[10:28] county
[10:29] their home.
[10:30] the redevelopment of the old laguna hills
mall into the village at laguna hills is an
[10:34] incredible and rare opportunity
to transform an underused
[10:38] site into a mixed-use development that
will bring in a new sense of community, the
[10:41] type of community that
laguna hills is known for.
[10:45] as housing costs continue to rise with no predictable end in sight,
[10:49] this project will allow the city to meet
the moment by expanding housing options
[10:53] while fostering economic
and community growth.
[10:57] that is why the commission urges the
council to vote yes and approve the revised
[11:01] development agreement for
the village at laguna hills.
[11:06] everybody's favorite topic, rhna: according
to the city's regional housing needs
[11:10] allocation,
[11:12] laguna hills must accommodate 568 very low-income units and 353 low-income units.
[11:19] to date, the city has permitted only 12
very low-income units and two low-income
[11:25] units,
[11:27] leaving a housing gap of 556 very
low-income units and a housing gap of 351
[11:31] low-income units.
[11:36] in total, that is a combined deficit of 907 low- and very low-income units.
[11:44] with approving this project, that's a big chunk, as another commenter has mentioned.
[11:51] given the substantial unmet need, this new
revised proposal to provide 200 affordable
[11:55] homes
[11:57] for households is a more meaningful response
to the city's housing obligations than
[12:01] the original proposal.
[12:03] the city's greatest unmet need is clearly among this income category.
[12:07] for these reasons, the new revised
affordability proposal is more closely aligned
[12:11] with the city's documented housing needs and
represents a stronger contribution toward
[12:16] addressing laguna hills' existing shortage of affordable housing.
[12:20] I understand there was a comment in the previous
[12:24] comment, so I still want to highlight that,
lastly, while the commission recognizes
[12:28] the importance of senior housing,
we urge the city to prioritize
[12:33] future projects for affordable workforce
housing because a thriving city also depends
[12:37] on diverse housing options for working
individuals and families, as a community
[12:42] with hotels, medical facilities, schools,
public safety services, laguna hills relies
[12:46] on a diverse
workforce every day.
[12:49] this site could have been an opportunity for
the residents who belong in laguna hills,
[12:52] where they don't need to
commute from other cities
[12:55] and can instead live in the community that they help sustain every day.
[12:59] but I do want to echo that no more
[13:05] no more changes.
[13:06] this is a great project on its own, already what has been done so far.
[13:12] so the commission urges the council to vote yes on this rare and great opportunity.
[13:18] thank you.
[13:20] any questions?
[13:23] thank you very much.
[13:24] okay.
[13:28] heidi prescott, and next will be william derentz.
[13:32] welcome.
[13:33] hello, council.
[13:36] to my laguna hills neighbors, you're all my neighbors.
[13:40] I've lived in laguna hills for 30 years.
[13:44] so I'm just going to quickly, because
you already did this in your presentation,
[13:47] council member mathis,
[13:50] but 13 years, so the timeline, by the way, you all
[13:54] know I'm in favor of this project already because I've spoken about this before.
[13:58] but 2009, we had a general plan put together with a land use element.
[14:04] it was presented and approved.
[14:08] 2013, merlone geier bought the property.
[14:12] and at that time, our tax base was decreasing significantly.
[14:16] right, because of retail.
[14:19] 2014, the sears store closed.
[14:22] 2016, we had the five lagunas development plan that was approved.
[14:26] we actually had a ceremony with shovels in the ground.
[14:30] it's probably on the internet somewhere.
[14:31] I didn't actually look for that today when I was doing all my history here.
[14:36] three years later, in 2019, we had a revised plan, but the retail environment changed.
[14:42] so then we went to 2020, and we had a pandemic.
[14:50] so in 2022, we had another revised plan.
[14:53] it went from the five lagunas to the village at laguna hills.
[14:56] the council approved it.
[14:57] three years later, in 2025, we had a revised plan presented to the public.
[15:02] nine months after that, here we are.
[15:06] so for 13 years, this is what we've been going through as a community.
[15:12] so they have revised their plan with great
input from the community and all of the
[15:17] council.
[15:18] I've been to some of those meetings and the presentations by the developer.
[15:25] I love this plan at the end of the day.
[15:27] so the last thing I would like to say is we've got affordable.
[15:32] they listened.
[15:33] thank you for listening.
[15:35] uh...
[15:35] that isn't always the case, uh...
[15:38] we, uh...
[15:40] it appears that they have the affordable housing, uh...
[15:44] builder who's going to need financing, so
let's do it, let's vote on it, and so they
[15:49] can move, uh...
[15:51] forward with their plan, uh...
[15:53] regarding the ad hoc committee on an
ongoing basis that was brought up tonight, I
[15:56] would just encourage you
to think about adding a third
[15:59] member because we have a council, uh...
[16:02] uh...
[16:04] election coming up, right, so three of you
are going to be done with your terms, so I
[16:11] know the two of you
[16:13] aren't, and you're the ad hoc council.
But I think a third person added to that ad
[16:17] hoc council who's there,
who's learning and involved
[16:21] might be a good idea, and then I just
want to say to all the other city council
[16:27] members over the years that
[16:31] a big thank you because a lot of people worked on this.
[16:33] we've had four voting cycles in 13 years.
[16:38] and the last thing I'd like to say is thank
you to the developer again for listening
[16:44] to community input,
[16:47] to the concerns of the council.
[16:48] thank you to the council members for all of your hard work and efforts.
[16:53] and thank you to the city staff.
[16:55] this has been a long time coming, so I'll wait for the vote and pop the champagne.
[17:01] any questions for heidi?
[17:03] dave?
[17:04] I was going to give you the opportunity.
[17:06] there cannot be a third member because
you can't have any committee that has a
[17:09] majority of the council.
[17:11] it's against the law.
[17:12] yeah, yeah, yeah.
[17:14] okay.
[17:14] all right.
[17:15] so it was a great idea, but it's not going to apply.
[17:18] actually, I was going to do the same thing dave did.
[17:21] I was going to clarify that for you.
[17:23] well, I appreciate it.
[17:24] the only way you could do that would be
to have somebody from the public as a third
[17:26] member.
[17:28] but the brown act will not allow three members of the council to be part of that.
[17:32] thank you.
[17:33] and I would just add that this is a process of learning, right, for all of us.
[17:38] we don't know all the laws and the rules.
[17:41] and just being involved in this project has helped me get there.
[17:46] but since you brought it up, mayor caskey,
I think there are some opportunities in the
[17:51] city
[17:52] for volunteers.
[17:54] absolutely.
[17:55] I intend to write about that very soon.
[17:57] you could have a third member as a community member.
[18:00] oh, absolutely.
[18:01] thank you.
[18:01] thank you for that.
[18:04] next.
[18:05] william derentz, and next will be kendall carter.
[18:12] welcome.
[18:13] well, thank you.
[18:14] good morning.
[18:17] good evening, mr.
[18:19] mayor and city council members.
[18:22] my name is william derentz.
[18:23] I'm the founder and president of pumpkin city's pumpkin farm and christmas trees.
[18:30] pumpkin city's pumpkin farm was founded
in 1978, and this coming october will be 48
[18:35] years in the business.
[18:38] of those 48 years, 38 years have been at the laguna hills mall.
[18:43] the point being made is the fact that
pumpkin city has a long-term connection with
[18:47] the residents of laguna hills.
[18:50] our goal at pumpkin city has always been
to provide the families of laguna hills and
[18:55] surrounding cities of saddleback
valley with wholesome family
[18:59] entertainment.
[19:00] our motto is making memories one season at a time.
[19:04] for the past 13 years, we've had the privilege
of working with merlone geier property
[19:07] management.
[19:09] they are a first-class organization.
[19:11] they say what they'll do, and they do what they say.
[19:14] I'm excited to see the property reimagined for generations to come.
[19:19] the laguna hills mall used to be the main
hub of shopping, dining, and entertainment
[19:24] for families from
san clemente to irvine,
[19:27] from laguna beach to rancho santa margarita, composing
[19:33] encompassing all of saddleback valley and more.
[19:37] the time has come to revitalize the city of laguna hills.
[19:40] the time is now to bring the same vibrancy
that it once had in the past to the
[19:44] community today.
[19:46] I encourage the city to move forward and
approve the redesigned property proposal to
[19:52] meet the needs of the
community of laguna hills.
[19:57] thank you very much.
[19:58] any questions?
[20:00] hearing none, thank you so much.
[20:03] and we value pumpkin city and all that you've done.
[20:10] we have kendall carter, and next will be rose casey.
[20:17] good evening, mayor caskey and members of the laguna hills city council.
[20:21] my name is kendall carter, and I'm speaking
tonight on behalf of the south orange
[20:25] county economic coalition in
support of the village at laguna
[20:29] hills project.
[20:30] first, I want to thank the mayor, city council, and city staff,
[20:34] and everyone who's played a role in advancing this project over the years.
[20:38] redeveloping a site of this size and
importance takes vision, collaboration, and
[20:42] perseverance.
[20:43] we appreciate the council's past approvals
and your continued commitment to moving
[20:47] this transformative
project forward.
[20:50] socec has proudly supported the redevelopment
of the laguna hills mall site for many
[20:54] years because we believe it
represents one of the most
[20:58] significant economic development opportunities in south orange county.
[21:02] for too long, this property has remained
underutilized in one of the region's most
[21:05] prominent commercial corridors.
[21:07] tonight represents an exciting milestone
as we move closer to transforming it into a
[21:11] vibrant mixed-use destination that
reflects the way people want to live,
[21:16] work, shop, dine, and gather today.
[21:19] the village at laguna hills will create
new jobs, generate long-term economic
[21:23] activity and tax revenue, provide much-needed
housing, and introduce new restaurants,
[21:27] retail,
[21:28] entertainment, you name it, public spaces
that will benefit residents throughout the
[21:32] region.
[21:34] just as importantly, it breathes new life
into a landmark property that has been an
[21:38] important part of the laguna
hills community for decades.
[21:42] we also appreciate merlone geier partners
for their continued investment in this
[21:45] vision and their willingness to refine the
project throughout the planning process.
[21:50] it's been a long one.
[21:51] their commitment, together with the city's
leadership, has helped shape a project
[21:55] that balances economic opportunity
with thoughtful community planning.
[22:00] on behalf of the south orange county
economic coalition, thank you for your
[22:03] leadership, your partnership
throughout this process,
[22:06] and your continued support of this important investment in laguna hills.
[22:10] we respectfully encourage your approval tonight.
[22:13] thank you.
[22:14] thank you.
[22:14] do you have any questions?
[22:16] erica, go ahead.
[22:17] yes.
[22:18] thank you, ms.
[22:19] carter, for being present at this meeting.
[22:25] south orange county economic coalition
was very active in the last meeting with a
[22:30] number of your group who provided
wholehearted support to the project
[22:35] prior.
[22:37] so just out of curiosity, what makes this project better?
[22:43] because as I recall, a number of people were
extremely invigorated and provided a lot
[22:49] of positive feedback
regarding the last project.
[22:53] yeah, we've been working on this since its inception.
[22:56] I believe it was 2013.
[22:58] it's been a long time.
[23:00] we've been in support throughout the entire process.
[23:03] it just keeps getting better, to be honest.
[23:05] we've been seeing more community
[23:08] community input, your guys' input, the ad
hoc committee. We truly believe it's just
[23:12] been getting better, and we've
been supportive regardless. We think
[23:17] it's time, it's been time to do something
with this property, and we really like what
[23:21] we're seeing. We've
been liking what we're
[23:24] seeing. So is there a situation where you wouldn't?
[23:28] where you would oppose this project, your group?
[23:33] there's probably many situations.
[23:35] we're just not in one of those.
[23:36] okay.
[23:37] thank you.
[23:38] thank you.
[23:40] any other questions?
[23:42] okay.
[23:42] thank you very much.
[23:43] thank you.
[23:45] next.
[23:47] we have rose casey, and the next will be griffin joseph.
[23:51] welcome.
[23:51] welcome.
[23:52] good evening, mayor caskey, mayor pro tem mathis, and council members.
[23:55] I'm rose casey, executive director of
planning, and here to speak on behalf of the
[23:59] orange county transportation
authority, or octa,
[24:02] regarding the village at laguna hills
development and the critical continued
[24:05] coordination needed
with the I-5 el toro project.
[24:09] this was also communicated via letter from
the octa board chairman federico to the
[24:12] city council yesterday.
[24:15] the I-5 el toro road interchange project is
a committed measure m2 freeway project in
[24:19] the transportation investment
plan that was approved by the voters
[24:24] and was identified as one of the highest
priorities for the three cities of laguna
[24:28] hills, laguna woods,
[24:29] and lake forest during the development of
measure m2, and that shared commitment has
[24:33] guided this effort
for well over a decade.
[24:35] octa has worked collaboratively with the
three cities and caltrans to advance this
[24:39] project.
[24:41] in march of 2022,
[24:43] two build alternatives received unanimous
support from the staff of all three cities,
[24:46] including laguna hills, to move
forward to the environmental process,
[24:50] which restarted in january of 2023.
[24:53] since that time, octa has facilitated
productive discussions among all partner
[24:57] agencies to achieve consensus on this
project that will bring congestion relief and
[25:02] improve
[25:04] traffic circulation to the area.
[25:06] we are working to keep the project on track
for a preferred alternative decision by
[25:10] the end of 2026,
[25:13] and completion of the environmental document in early 2027.
[25:15] the coordinated planning of projects
between the city and octa has aimed for the
[25:20] greatest public benefit and good
stewardship of taxpayer dollars while
[25:25] minimizing impacts on private parties.
[25:28] we ask that any development agreement
approved by the city protect the zoning of
[25:32] areas that have been the
subject of years of planning
[25:35] between octa and the city for the I-5 el toro project.
[25:39] anything short of this protection could
result in significant and costly impacts to
[25:44] taxpayers and/or further
congestion in the area.
[25:47] octa is aware of the importance of the
village at laguna hills project to the city
[25:52] and believes that
the I-5 el toro project
[25:55] supports the development by improving traffic circulation in the immediate area.
[25:59] to support both of these important
priorities and ensure the greatest benefit to
[26:03] taxpayers and all stakeholders,
[26:06] octa requests that the updated site plan
include surface parking and/or landscaping
[26:11] along avenida de la carlota
in the vicinity of the I-5
[26:15] el toro project, along with adequate setbacks.
[26:18] in addition, octa requests that the
development agreement include provisions that
[26:21] commit the developer
accordingly,
[26:23] including within section 12.4 of the proposed development agreement.
[26:27] so in summary, octa respectfully requests
that the city council direct city staff to
[26:31] work with octa on an expeditious
resolution that meets all
[26:35] parties' goals, supports both projects to
move forward successfully, and that these
[26:39] are reflected in the village
at laguna hills entitlement.
[26:43] so thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
[26:46] hang on.
[26:47] dave, you had a question?
[26:49] yes, I have quite a few questions, actually.
[26:54] are you going to be able to stick around for the rest of the meeting?
[26:58] I can be available, yes.
[27:00] okay, I think it's probably a good idea.
[27:04] you said that all cities approve this design.
[27:07] that's not true.
[27:08] I've been opposed to this design that
they've dumped in for years, and we haven't
[27:11] approved that.
[27:12] and I've talked with people in lake forest,
and there's some over there that don't
[27:15] approve it either.
[27:16] so I don't know where you got the idea that all the cities approve this.
[27:20] councilmember wheeler, octa has been
working with caltrans and the staff from the
[27:25] three cities for many years.
[27:28] we've looked at a total of 22 alternatives.
[27:31] finally, in 2023 or 2022, we came to an agreement with staff
[27:38] from the cities on two alternatives.
[27:40] so one was a flyover design that went into
lake forest, and the other one is on the
[27:44] laguna hills side.
[27:46] okay, yes.
[27:48] and so where we are now with the project is that it's in the environmental phase.
[27:53] we have a preliminary design that's been developed by caltrans,
[27:56] and they are working to minimize impacts
from that alternative on the laguna hills
[28:00] side and bring it in
closer to the freeway.
[28:04] this particular design that you say has been approved, which I contend it has not,
[28:09] it destroys one of our major—well, I'm saying major—one of our little shopping areas.
[28:13] it cuts into the hotel that merlone geier is trying to get built.
[28:18] it would destroy it.
[28:19] so how are these things going to impact each other?
[28:23] I mean, I can't see these two meshing.
[28:26] councilmember, we are working with city
staff to minimize the impacts of the I-5 el
[28:31] toro project design,
but at the same time,
[28:35] it will provide traffic benefits to the area.
[28:37] so there is that coordinated effort to have both projects move forward successfully.
[28:44] well, our chief director has opposed this design.
[28:50] he's presented to you guys with a design that would be much simpler.
[28:52] it would save the county millions of dollars.
[28:56] it meets it all with a few simple fixes in laguna hills,
[28:59] but you guys haven't even considered that.
Councilmember wheeler, we have looked at
[29:04] that. We would look
at the signage that's been
[29:07] proposed. We have tsm, or transportation system management,
[29:11] transportation demand management, sort
of lower-cost improvements that could be
[29:15] folded in with a
build alternative.
[29:19] but after years of doing traffic analysis,
and we've had consultants retained by
[29:24] caltrans to look at all of this,
[29:27] there is traffic benefit that could be
provided to the area if the build alternative
[29:31] moves forward.
[29:33] okay.
[29:33] we'll have to talk a lot about this.
[29:35] I don't think there's any benefits to it at all.
[29:39] if caltrans did get authority to build this, when would you start?
[29:45] councilmember wheeler, this project
is in octa's next 10 delivery plan for
[29:50] environmental work
to be completed by 2030.
[29:54] if we are able to reach a preferred
alternative that all cities support, and that
[29:58] really is important,
[30:00] we would then be able to move forward into design and then construction.
[30:03] so design might take a few years.
[30:06] construction could then take maybe three to four years.
[30:09] so post the environmental document being
approved, and right now the target is early
[30:15] 2027, we could reach construction
within seven to eight years.
[30:22] seven to eight years from now.
[30:23] I'm sorry.
[30:24] let me correct myself.
[30:25] we could complete construction in seven to eight years.
[30:29] so you're saying we need to wait eight
years to decide whether you can actually get
[30:31] it built,
[30:32] and it's going to take two or three years to design it.
[30:34] well, my understanding is that merlone geier
is trying to complete this hotel before
[30:37] the olympics, which is in '28.
[30:40] so how can the—if I was a hotel buyer, I'd say, hey, what are you going to do?
[30:45] I'm going to build my hotel, and you're going to run a freeway through it?
[30:49] those don't seem to coordinate.
[30:51] so may we please stick around?
[30:51] I'm sure there will be more discussions on this.
[30:53] thank you.
[30:54] okay, thank you.
[30:56] erica.
[30:57] yes, thank you for attending.
[31:02] so from what I understand, the octa future
plan cuts into the hotel that's in this
[31:09] design.
[31:11] that is correct.
[31:12] okay.
[31:14] have you worked with the applicant regarding
this plan, and have you advised the city
[31:19] about this plan?
[31:22] councilmember, the city staff has been
advised of the plan. We have been working
[31:27] through city staff, who has
been working with the developer.
[31:31] okay, so the developer is aware, and so
the developer was aware of this plan; city
[31:37] staff are aware.
[31:39] I'm sure the ad hoc committee was perhaps
aware of this. Okay, that's above my
[31:49] apologies, and
[31:53] okay.
[31:55] so can you let me know approximately how long this plan has been in play?
[32:04] so the current environmental phase of the project began in january of 2023.
[32:10] january 2023?
[32:12] correct.
[32:13] okay.
[32:13] that's when the environmental phase work
began, which means that preliminary designs
[32:17] are developed,
[32:19] environmental technical studies are
performed with respect to noise and visual
[32:23] impacts and so forth, and
traffic impacts in particular.
[32:27] and so that work has been going on.
[32:30] at this point, the project team is
preparing to release a draft environmental
[32:34] document for public review
at the end of this month.
[32:38] and then to proceed with achieving a project decision by the end of the year. Okay,
[32:44] so you've known about this plan since 2023. Thank you. Okay,
[32:55] I have a couple questions, clarifications.
Because I read the letter that you sent,
[33:01] and just what you
said in front of us, I
[33:04] I have been on this council for five years, and
[33:07] I was appointed five years ago as a
councilperson, taking the spot of someone who had
[33:14] left.
[33:16] and one of the first things, as an architect
and a planner, one of the first things
[33:20] that I was curious about,
[33:23] having worked for octa with my firm probably 20 years ago on projects, was, okay,
[33:31] what's happening out there at the freeway at this junction?
[33:35] so I reached out to octa as a newly appointed
councilperson and asked for a meeting,
[33:41] which was very cordial.
[33:43] it was wonderful.
[33:44] I had a meeting, and actually I was shown
at that meeting, this was probably four and
[33:50] a half years ago,
four different plans.
[33:54] one was a flyover to the lake forest side, along with a traffic circle and all that.
[34:02] one was something similar to what I've
seen just recently, and a couple of others
[34:07] where they were
threaded, and you name it.
[34:11] so I asked people to keep me informed.
[34:15] you know how many meetings or phone calls or anything I've gotten since then?
[34:20] zero from octa.
[34:23] zero.
[34:24] and I reached out to you and asked to be updated and all the rest of that.
[34:31] so it bothers me a little bit that in
your letter you're saying, oh, we've all
[34:36] concurred and, you know,
[34:38] all that kind of stuff.
[34:39] so I'm also here to tell you, as a member
of the ad hoc committee, that the ad hoc
[34:44] committee itself,
[34:46] working on a $700 million project for three
years, okay, and that's just officially
[34:53] for, you know, for
a year and a half.
[34:58] I've been working on it for three years.
[35:03] we haven't received anything until maybe
we got a little bit of a hint of this about
[35:08] two, two and a half months ago,
[35:11] that you'd abandoned the idea that you had
so strongly proposed that was all on the
[35:19] lake forest side, and now you
[35:22] wanted to go with this. Then I looked, as
somebody who's been in the design business
[35:27] for a long time.
[35:28] I looked at the schedule, and
[35:30] that came along with that.
[35:32] it was your powerpoint.
[35:34] and it talked about, oh, we're going to
take this to the public to explain what we
[35:39] want to do.
[35:41] and in the meantime, we're going to start
a ceqa process, which takes, for something
[35:44] like that, about a year.
[35:47] and so I've been in that, and I've done all of that.
[35:52] and I'm hearing right now, we're talking
about that we're supposed to hold up our
[35:58] project in some way for
potentially seven years,
[36:04] when one of the key components of that was
meant to be a hotel that was going to open
[36:09] up before the '28 olympics.
[36:13] so I just want to make sure I'm asking questions.
[36:17] am I getting all this straight, that you've collaborated with staff?
[36:24] who on the staff?
[36:26] and in what level of collaboration?
[36:30] so, mayor caskey, if I may, this project
has spanned years, and the reason it spanned
[36:35] years is because this
is a local interchange
[36:40] traffic improvement project.
[36:41] so it's not adding lanes to a freeway.
[36:45] it's not all the other projects that octa has proceeded with.
[36:49] it's a project that the local cities and the communities need to support.
[36:55] we have taken the time to develop many different alternatives,
[36:59] and the two that you mentioned are the
ones that have been considered for the past
[37:03] two to three years,
[37:04] so the flyover and then the current alternative on the laguna hills side.
[37:09] so reaching way back in time, there was
coordination with ken rosenfield, who was
[37:13] with the city for many years,
and then after that, it was
[37:17] also with mr.
[37:19] ames and mr.
[37:20] hildenbrand, and then more recently with
[37:24] mr.
[37:25] wingenroth, and also with mr.
[37:27] ames. All right, that was after the latest
decision was made with wingenroth. Had he
[37:31] heard anything? Of course,
it wasn't years and years since
[37:36] he hasn't been here a year yet, so okay, so
that answers my questions. You did know
[37:42] some of the
[37:43] some of the names.
[37:44] we will definitely dig in with staff and see what level of collaboration there was,
[37:50] because I would think the same staff that
was working with the ad hoc committee on
[37:55] this, I mean,
[37:56] a year ago would have been telling us, oh my gosh, we've got this.
[38:00] and as a member of that ad hoc committee working very hard, I hadn't heard anything.
[38:07] so I appreciate your presentation and candor in answering our questions.
[38:14] mayor caskey, if I could add just very
briefly, the cities have been at different
[38:18] levels.
[38:19] so we have what's called a project team meeting.
[38:23] that's maybe public works-type staff at those meetings.
[38:26] we've had executive-level meetings, and
actually since february of last year, we've
[38:30] had 14 executive-level meetings,
including our ceo, darrell johnson.
[38:35] with laguna hills?
[38:37] correct, and with the two other cities.
[38:39] with laguna, you have 14 meetings.
[38:40] yes.
[38:41] and just if I could just clarify on the schedule,
[38:43] because I think it needs some clarification
maybe with the way that I tried to answer
[38:47] the question.
[38:48] so right now we're in the environmental phase.
[38:51] we hope to reach the end of that phase early next year.
[38:56] at that point in time, then would be the
decision on whether to proceed with design,
[39:01] which also includes
right-of-way acquisition,
[39:04] and then into construction.
[39:05] so when I mentioned the seven to eight years
earlier, that was with the completion of
[39:09] construction and
opening of the project.
[39:12] yeah, no, I understand that.
[39:14] yeah, so we will check it out on this side.
[39:18] uh...
[39:19] and, uh...
[39:20] and I just want you to realize, as you
know, this kind of goes back, that this will
[39:26] be one
[39:27] time, basically, up here at the podium, that we will do that, and, uh...
[39:32] but what the letter actually asks is
that we cooperate together and try to find
[39:38] solutions that work
for both. We have a six,
[39:42] seven hundred million dollar project on this side
[39:45] that has been in the works for quite a while,
as we all know, and you have a, what is
[39:52] it, a
[39:53] $200 or $300 million off-ramp and on-ramp project that you would like to float,
[39:59] and hopefully we can find a solution that works for us both.
[40:05] so any other questions?
[40:06] yes, erica.
[40:08] so a question that I have is: the plan is already determined and decided.
[40:13] if the land would...
[40:16] it would go under eminent domain, is that correct?
[40:22] councilmember, if there is an alternative
that is approved by all parties, and that's
[40:27] what's reflected in the final
environmental document,
[40:31] that would then be designed, and then based
upon that final design, there would be
[40:35] properties identified for acquisition,
whether it's partial or full.
[40:40] this is in general.
[40:43] I think in all cases, we would seek to
reach an agreement, an arm's-length
[40:48] transaction, and avoid condemnation
or eminent domain actions.
[40:53] that's really our goal in some cases.
[40:56] in order to maintain project schedule, we do need to look at eminent domain.
[41:02] in the event that eminent domain is required,
would a property such as a hotel have
[41:09] higher land value versus...
[41:13] another commercial property?
[41:17] I am not a real estate expert, but what we
provided in the letter as far as potential
[41:24] alternate uses of
the particular area
[41:28] along carlota, as far as landscaping or surface parking,
[41:32] I would imagine that that would be less cost
than a hotel structure or other types of
[41:38] buildings on the property.
[41:43] okay, thank you.
[41:45] dave, you mentioned something that said if all parties agree.
[41:51] well, I don't know that laguna hills would agree to that.
[41:54] so if we do not agree, what happens?
[41:56] then you have an eminent domain over top of us?
[42:00] no, so councilmember wheeler, we would
not proceed forward unless there is a
[42:05] consensus among the cities. At
such time that there's that decision
[42:11] to be made, which will be by the end of the
year, on a build alternative, octa would
[42:17] have to decide at that time
[42:19] if we move forward with
the project or we don't.
[42:22] it's a local traffic improvement, a
local benefit. We would want to make
[42:27] sure that that is supported, and
[42:31] that's a little bit out of the scope.
[42:32] we may want to add to our thinking tonight
about denying this project so we can be
[42:36] done with it and go on with our
[42:38] project.
[42:42] thank you for your comments.
[42:44] I don't see any other questions.
[42:47] thank you.
[42:48] yeah.
[42:51] all right.
[42:52] next.
[42:53] we have griffin joseph, and then next will be cathy udovch.
[43:00] welcome.
[43:02] good evening, mayor and honorable council members.
[43:05] my name is griffin joseph, and I'm here on behalf of unite here local 11, a
[43:08] union representing over 25,000 hospitality
workers across southern california,
[43:12] including residents
of laguna hills.
[43:16] as we stated in april of last year, we are
concerned that the reduction in housing
[43:19] units may not align
with the city's housing
[43:21] goals.
[43:22] the city's own findings show total residential
units dropping from the maximum of 1,
[43:26] 500 in the original project to
as low as 1,457 in the amended
[43:30] project.
[43:31] that reduction masks a more significant shift.
[43:34] the amended project would remove hundreds
of market-rate rental units, replacing much
[43:37] of that rental housing
with 356 for-sale units.
[43:41] critically, none of these replacement ownership units are affordable.
[43:44] in short, fewer units overall, no affordable
ownership opportunities, and a shift
[43:47] away from rental housing.
[43:49] additionally, the post-segregation of
the 200 affordable housing units into a
[43:52] standalone site raises questions about
whether this may be inconsistent with the
[43:56] city's
[43:57] policies promoting mixed-income housing.
[43:59] the original plan had these units spread
across the development, fostering a more
[44:03] integral community.
[44:05] relatedly, while we strongly support senior housing and want to see more of it, the
[44:08] city is missing an opportunity by
restricting all the affordable units in the
[44:11] development to seniors.
[44:14] this restriction is unnecessary even on its own terms.
[44:16] because these units are already income-restricted,
[44:19] low-income seniors, including retirees
living on social security, would already
[44:22] qualify for and have access to this housing
without an additional age restriction.
[44:27] layering the age restriction
[44:29] on top of income restriction does not add protection for seniors.
[44:32] it simply excludes working-age people who are equally in need.
[44:35] people of all ages are in desperate need of affordable housing.
[44:38] finally, we question the need for a second hotel.
[44:41] that land could be used for additional housing.
[44:43] additionally, the previous development
agreement only allowed for a single one-year
[44:46] delay for the first hotel.
[44:48] it did not allow the first hotel to be
delayed indefinitely through the successive
[44:51] 18-month feasibility
study extensions.
[44:54] why should we believe a second hotel will ever actually be built?
[44:57] taken together, there are fewer units, no
new affordability, segregated rather than
[45:01] integrated affordable housing, and a
hotel addition that may never materialize.
[45:06] this project moves the city further from its housing goals, not closer to them.
[45:09] we respectfully urge you to vote no on this project.
[45:12] thank you.
[45:13] thank you.
[45:14] any questions?
[45:16] thank you very much.
[45:17] thank you very much.
[45:21] next is cathy udovch, and then that will be
the end of in-person speakers that I have
[45:24] currently.
[45:25] all right.
[45:26] last person.
[45:28] in the audience.
[45:28] in the audience.
[45:29] we have one online.
[45:30] okay.
[45:32] welcome.
[45:33] of course.
[45:38] just tell people to ignore the invisible, or the visible, v in my name.
[45:42] hi, I'm cathy.
[45:45] thank you for hearing this.
[45:47] it sounds like you guys have been sitting here for a long time.
[45:49] took a little break.
[45:52] I'm here to talk about the housing project, and I do just want to encourage you and...
[46:02] the developers to continue to keep in
mind low- and very low-income housing for
[46:06] families as well,
[46:11] keeping in mind that not just rentals, but for purchase would be really nice.
[46:17] and it's more or less just giving people the chance to live near where they work.
[46:21] and I'm just going to say that I am now an
example of someone who now works in the
[46:25] city I live in because
[46:27] I just transferred from an office in san clemente
[46:29] to the laguna hills office, and I get a surface-street commute, and it's awesome.
[46:35] and it's just, you know, when it comes to
affordability, less gas, less pollution in
[46:41] the air, better
life-home balance.
[46:45] and so just want to, you know, keep that in mind.
[46:47] and, you know, people want to be near
their kids, near their families, near their
[46:52] friends, and where
they're working.
[46:55] so just keep that in mind as the project unfolds.
[46:58] progresses and goes from stage to stage,
because it sounds like it's going to be
[47:03] segments over time, that
we're not locked into any one
[47:08] mindset now, that we can adapt to what the
needs are in the community. Okay, that's
[47:15] it.
[47:17] all right, any questions? Seeing none.
[47:21] thank you so much. Okay.
[47:26] and now we'll turn to what, online?
[47:31] or on phone?
[47:32] on phone, yes.
[47:35] by the last four digits, we have 3034.
[47:37] you'll be asked to unmute.
[47:41] hello, can I speak?
[47:43] yes, you can speak.
[47:44] you have three minutes.
[47:46] hello?
[47:48] hello?
[47:49] yes, can you hear us?
[47:49] welcome.
[48:03] hello.
[48:04] are you able to hear us?
[48:06] yes, I can hear you now.
[48:07] thank you very much.
[48:08] yes, you have three minutes.
[48:09] hello.
[48:09] good evening.
[48:11] thank you.
[48:11] thank you so much.
[48:12] good evening, mayor and honorable council members.
[48:14] this is charlie carno, and I'm here on
behalf of unite here local 11, a union
[48:18] representing over 25,000 workers
across southern california,
[48:22] including residents of laguna hills.
[48:24] to speak plainly, we urge a no vote on this project.
[48:27] these changes mean fewer overall units,
[48:30] no new affordable units, segregated rather
than integrated affordable housing, and a
[48:34] hotel addition that may never
materialize. We believe this project moves
[48:38] the city further from its housing goals than
the previous project, rather than closer
[48:43] to them. As we
said, as I think I
[48:45] said in 2022 when I spoke on the original, on the previous proposal of this project,
[48:52] we believe this project could be a model
for the region: environmentally friendly,
[48:56] walkable, equitable, bikeable,
and a comfortable village.
[49:00] however, that's why I'm very disappointed
that some of the comments we made all the
[49:04] way back then were
apparently not heeded.
[49:08] we said that we thought that there could be more dedicated bike lanes on the site.
[49:14] but from what I can tell with the staff
report, and please correct this, I would love
[49:17] to be wrong about this,
[49:19] but what we still have are class iii bike lanes
[49:22] which could be as little as painted arrows on the ground.
[49:25] additionally, in terms of landscaping, I
see references to drought-resistant or
[49:29] water-efficient landscaping, but I
think that we should use native plants.
[49:34] I would also say that we have a great
resource in orange county, which is the orange
[49:37] county chapter of
the native plant society,
[49:40] which can really help with advising us on what native plants to use on the site.
[49:46] and just to echo what cathy said,
[49:49] and what my colleagues said.
[49:51] we're concerned both about the reduction in
housing and the move to ownership housing,
[49:57] which can be inaccessible.
[49:59] it would be great if we actually had
affordable ownership opportunities that could
[50:04] allow working people to do, and
I really congratulate you, cathy,
[50:09] own something and both work and live in the same community.
[50:16] secondly, as my colleague said, people
of all ages are in desperate need of
[50:19] affordable housing
in laguna hills,
[50:21] and one of the great benefits of affordable
housing is that you can allow people to
[50:25] live closer to where
they work and spend
[50:27] more time with their families.
[50:29] by restricting the development to seniors,
the city is excluding some working people
[50:32] who often must commute long
distances because they can't afford to live
[50:37] in south orange county because of their age,
even though the income restriction alone
[50:40] would already ensure the housing
serves low-income residents or very
[50:44] low-income residents.
[50:45] seniors included.
[50:46] this is the wrong approach.
[50:48] another major concern is the reduction in
retail space, which could harm the city's
[50:52] tax base.
[50:54] and finally, while I understand that there
has been some sort of letter submitted
[50:59] about who may
be doing the hotel,
[51:02] I looked and I was unable to find public comment on this.
[51:05] I really did try to look before the meeting.
[51:09] I would just note that the previous
development agreement only allowed a single
[51:12] one-year delay
for the first hotel.
[51:14] speaker, that is your time.
[51:17] oh, thank you.
[51:17] thank you very much.
[51:18] bye.
[51:21] okay.
[51:22] thank you very much for your comments.
[51:25] do we have any other on-phone ones?
[51:29] we have no more online.
[51:30] okay.
[51:31] so that brings us to—you're going to read the list of—
[51:39] comments that we have received digitally,
so we don't have to listen to 40 or 50
[51:46] comments.
[51:47] we're just reading the names because we have to. Yes.
[51:51] for the ones that are in support, we have
amir baum, ann beltran, ann kolar, bruce
[51:57] johnson, cesar covarrubias,
christine morinello, cindy ashley,
[52:03] denise letgers, elizabeth hansburg, erin
simmons-schwartz, frieda gorelick, hugh and
[52:09] nancy winter, jay with the last initial
c, jill martinez, joel goldstein, judy
[52:15] northrop,
[52:17] kathy esfahani, keith tuominen,
[52:21] marcella lawson, margaret struve, marilyn
schroeder, mark allshouse, michelle antenesse,
[52:28] micki nozaki, reverend celia young, reverend
rayna hamre, ron, no last name given,
[52:36] rona henry, rosemarie jensen, sayre
weaver, sheryl sterry, stan goldberg, susan
[52:41] dearing, vicki hines,
and wendy washington.
[52:47] two letters that were neutral: one from octa and one from the city of lake forest.
[52:54] in the opposed, we have angelica ramirez,
daisy pascua, fiegan fazilat, geoff
[53:01] leavell, giselle hernandez, incia haider,
james blacken, james grierson, lorene mann,
[53:10] lucila soria, ramades flores, stacey demore, and wes chavez.
[53:17] and those are the comments that we received by the cutoff at 4 p.m.
[53:20] all right.
[53:22] I'm going to, since people come and go and all the rest of that, I'm going to ask, is
[53:27] there any other public comment that we
missed before we gavel close of the public
[53:34] hearing?
[53:35] it doesn't mean we can't reopen it, but I'm
going to gavel that close so we can move
[53:40] on to questions about
presentations themselves.
[53:44] any other comments?
[53:47] okay, seeing none, I'm going to gavel the close of the public hearing,
[53:54] and we are going to now move on to questions of the planning.
[54:02] these will be planning agency questions
of staff, and the developer will start with
[54:07] staff.
[54:09] okay, dave?
[54:17] okay, a number of questions.
[54:19] mr.
[54:21] oros, could you bring up the presentation, staff presentation?
[54:25] could you bring up the staff presentation online so that people can see it?
[54:30] first, I want to preface my questions.
[54:33] I think it's totally inappropriate that we even are taking a vote tonight.
[54:37] I received this package yesterday, the final package on this project.
[54:43] not being on the ad hoc, we didn't get any access to it.
[54:46] and essentially also the front section of
it was wrong, and I had to get a new one
[54:50] today, which is correct.
[54:54] I haven't had a chance to review that in any reasonable detail.
[54:57] so I think to present everything tonight is great, but we shouldn't be voting on it.
[55:02] we should be talking about it and discussing it.
[55:04] okay, questions with the package.
[55:10] I don't know what page it is.
[55:12] I received the economic evaluation on friday.
[55:17] and the laguna hills chief financial
director, we went over that yesterday and put
[55:22] some numbers in it, and
I compared the value.
[55:25] and the version that I got on friday does not match what was presented tonight.
[55:30] I'll get into that in the merlone geier section.
[55:33] and it's very, very optimistic.
[55:35] when I did my first quick calculations,
instead of being, I think it was a
[55:38] $1.3 million positive,
[55:41] I came up with roughly a half-million-dollar negative.
[55:44] I did this evaluation four years ago.
[55:45] I was on the original ad hoc committee.
[55:48] and we had some discussions back then, too, about these very, very optimistic things.
[55:57] questions?
[55:58] somebody said in the presentation, why now?
[56:01] after 13 years?
[56:02] I wish the ad hoc committee had gone back a little further in history.
[56:04] we've been doing this, as one of the people that talked about mentioned.
[56:09] we've had I don't know how many versions of this.
[56:12] we're now supposed to evaluate this, given
the information, and only available for
[56:16] one to three days.
[56:18] ridiculous.
[56:22] it said one of the cases is almost no new.
[56:28] most of this whole thing is brand new.
[56:29] the whole thing is different.
[56:33] it said in the presentation that there's now less than 210,000 square feet.
[56:40] I think the presentation said somewhere.
[56:42] I don't know if you can find that page now.
[56:44] let's see if we can find that one.
[56:53] keep going.
[56:56] there it is.
[56:57] page five.
[56:59] less than 210,000 square feet of retail.
[57:03] well, that's extremely optimistic, and that's not what's in the da.
[57:06] the da says 163,000, so why is this even in this page?
[57:08] okay.
[57:16] thank you, councilmember wheeler, for the question.
[57:19] so this was a provision that was written
into the 2022 da of what qualified as a
[57:23] major modification.
[57:25] so a major modification on having to go back to city council for review and approval.
[57:29] so if the project had more than five
residential buildings or less than 210,000
[57:33] square feet, that qualified
as a major modification.
[57:37] and so that's how the project was applied under.
[57:39] a retail total is about 160,000 square feet.
[57:44] so that's 160,000, not 210,000?
[57:45] correct.
[57:45] okay.
[57:46] mr.
[57:46] oros, will you turn to page six, please?
[57:55] okay.
[57:56] I want to call note to the losses.
[57:59] we've lost 86,000, 87,000 square feet of retail.
[58:04] we lost our entire office space.
[58:10] the hotel, we've gained 89 rooms.
[58:12] residential, lost 43.
[58:14] parking lost 2,000.
[58:16] how are all these losses considered good, and you'd recommend that we pass this?
[58:27] we're losing everything but residences.
[58:33] that's a question for staff, because you recommend that we pass this.
[58:36] so why are these losses acceptable?
[58:38] so staff is recommending based on the
project: although there is a loss of over
[58:42] 86,000 square feet, we are
gaining a second hotel.
[58:45] so based on the fiscal impact study that
was provided by the applicant and then also
[58:49] peer-reviewed independently
at the request of the city,
[58:53] the increase of a second hotel with 89
additional rooms generated a higher tot amount
[58:58] of revenue for the city.
[59:01] and so the staff recommends that this does seem as a fiscal benefit to the city.
[59:06] I do agree with the economic study.
[59:08] the tot was the one thing that did go up.
[59:11] okay.
[59:14] page 9.
[59:15] it says the annual general fund revenues of $2.26 million.
[59:29] well, that economic study that I received on friday, I put it on the computer.
[59:36] even the version that I got that was given
to me, supposedly, I thought that was from
[59:40] merlone geier or
your representatives,
[59:44] it said there would be a $1.4 million increase.
[59:48] why does it say $2.26?
[59:49] I have no idea where that came from.
[59:53] so, two different tables.
[59:55] so eps conducted their own independent review.
[59:58] generally, different assumptions are made.
[1:00:00] eps concluded with the revenue of, looks like...
[1:00:06] sorry, I'm on the wrong table here.
[1:00:08] so for dpfg, submitted by the applicant,
their assumptions concluded to the 2.
[1:00:14] 26, general fund fiscal surplus.
[1:00:17] okay, then that was part of the big stack
that I got yesterday that I haven't had a
[1:00:21] chance to look at.
[1:00:22] so I saw the—let me get the—correct me if I got this wrong.
[1:00:27] so merlone geier had one estimate, was 2.26 million.
[1:00:30] he had it checked by another organization.
[1:00:31] they came out with 1.3 million, which is—
[1:00:35] about half of that, not quite.
[1:00:38] I mean, even their own check said it was
like half of what they said it was going to
[1:00:41] be.
[1:00:43] and my rough essential end was minus $500,000.
[1:00:47] I think that needs a lot of work.
[1:00:49] I mean, even the two official evaluations
that are so far apart, they're about a
[1:00:52] million dollars apart.
[1:00:56] okay, page 11, please.
[1:01:04] I don't know if it's explicitly on this
page or not, but I heard that the project's
[1:01:08] going to start
within four years,
[1:01:10] or be finished within four years.
[1:01:13] but my understanding of the way that the
da, the new da, is written is that because
[1:01:17] merlone geier owns
the property, I mean,
[1:01:20] it's theirs, they can, you know, not exactly do everything they want with it, but if
[1:01:24] they don't want to start the project for
another three years, they don't have to, so
[1:01:28] another clock
starts until that date.
[1:01:31] is that true?
[1:01:37] hi, tom.
[1:01:40] sorry, what date?
[1:01:41] no, I was just saying, they do not have to start the project if they don't want to.
[1:01:46] so all these clocks don't start until that date, correct?
[1:01:50] the clocks all start on the date of the development agreement.
[1:01:54] including the four-year, they have to have it built?
[1:01:57] they have to have it built in four years.
[1:01:59] so they have to have it built.
[1:02:00] or they lose the benefits of it.
[1:02:01] but they don't have to do anything.
[1:02:03] okay, that's what I want clarified.
[1:02:04] they don't have to do it.
[1:02:06] all right.
[1:02:06] I just want to clarify.
[1:02:08] so that's, you know, in lieu of what's happened in the last 13 years,
[1:02:11] we've been having several starts and stops, and nothing's ever happened.
[1:02:15] excuse me, I've got to read my notes here.
[1:02:27] go ahead and you take a few, and I'll come back to mine.
[1:02:33] okay.
[1:02:34] I have some questions.
[1:02:36] go ahead.
[1:02:37] okay.
[1:02:38] in the development agreement, page 4 and y, in the area y, the
[1:02:53] staff and the developer are indicating
that this project is a modification, minor
[1:03:02] modifications.
[1:03:07] however, it says that it would replace the original agreement entirely.
[1:03:16] so there's an entire replacement that's happening versus a modification.
[1:03:23] two documents.
[1:03:37] some of the same provisions continue, but
the new ones were restated, so it's both
[1:03:41] modified and amended.
[1:03:44] but it says, upon effective date of authorizing
ordinance, this development agreement
[1:03:48] shall supersede and replace
the original agreement.
[1:03:51] correct.
[1:03:52] we don't want the original agreement in place.
[1:03:54] when we have an entirely new agreement that
restates in part the 2022 agreement and
[1:04:00] states anew the 2026 provisions.
[1:04:04] so the developer is coming because
they want modifications to their original
[1:04:09] development agreement,
[1:04:11] but this is saying that it replaces the original development agreement.
[1:04:16] this is a replacement.
[1:04:17] yeah, that's semantics, but yes.
[1:04:20] so perhaps, but the...
[1:04:23] no, no, it is.
[1:04:25] perhaps, because the replacement of it means that it starts new.
[1:04:32] it's a new start, in which essentially
provisions and things could have been shifted
[1:04:41] on our end to support the city.
[1:04:46] we had two choices in approaching this thing.
[1:04:49] we could have left the original agreement in place.
[1:04:53] and simply amended it in the parts we wanted amended.
[1:04:57] but in order to make it more readable for the public and for the council,
[1:05:01] we amended and restated it so that you'd
have a single document that has the entire
[1:05:05] agreement of the parties.
[1:05:09] it's a new agreement.
[1:05:11] it's a new agreement, yes.
[1:05:13] it's an amended and restated agreement.
[1:05:15] it's a new agreement.
[1:05:19] yes.
[1:05:21] okay.
[1:05:34] so in this, on v, in the same section,
[1:05:37] it says the city council hereby finds and
determines that this development agreement
[1:05:42] is consistent with the objectives,
policies, general land uses,
[1:05:47] and programs contained in the city's general plan,
[1:05:52] and specific plan, as amended concurrently
herewith, is compatible with the uses
[1:05:57] authorized in the village
commercial land use district,
[1:06:01] provides for the orderly development of the
property, and is entered into pursuant to
[1:06:06] and in compliance with the requirements
of section 65867 of the development
[1:06:13] agreement statute.
[1:06:14] so this...
[1:06:19] verbiage is saying that the council
finds and determines that this agreement is
[1:06:26] consistent, correct?
[1:06:29] yes.
[1:06:32] so the council finds this.
[1:06:35] does anywhere in this development agreement say that the staff finds it?
[1:06:40] no.
[1:06:42] does anywhere in this development agreement
say that merlone geier makes these
[1:06:45] findings?
[1:06:47] no.
[1:06:50] this is asking for the city council.
[1:06:53] so another question I have: merlone geier x partners is an llc.
[1:07:03] so we're in an agreement with an llc.
[1:07:08] and llcs, can they abandon?
[1:07:11] can llcs abandon?
[1:07:13] abandon what?
[1:07:14] can they abandon?
[1:07:16] can a group abandon an llc?
[1:07:19] I'm not sure I'm following your question.
[1:07:26] so we would be in an agreement with a group that can abandon an llc.
[1:07:35] so we're left with this.
[1:07:36] the council is left with this.
[1:07:37] when you say abandon, what do you mean, abandon?
[1:07:40] a group could abandon the llc.
[1:07:42] a group can dismantle an llc.
[1:07:47] they can close it down.
[1:07:49] just like you could a corporation or a partnership?
[1:07:52] any entity can terminate itself, yes.
[1:07:56] entity, yes.
[1:07:57] any entity can terminate itself.
[1:07:59] are there provisions if they decide to terminate at any time where we are not left...?
[1:08:12] well, the...
[1:08:13] with...
[1:08:14] the way it's structured, if they were
to, they could at any point terminate this
[1:08:20] agreement, in effect.
[1:08:22] they don't have to perform to start this agreement.
[1:08:26] they don't have to build anything.
[1:08:27] but it's structured so that they can't
build the next step until they've built the
[1:08:31] prior step.
[1:08:33] okay.
[1:08:33] so if the council, so if we're sued, the
city of laguna hills is sued, and in the
[1:08:41] provisions it states
[1:08:45] that merlone geier is accepting liability,
what if merlone geier decides to abandon
[1:08:50] that and they abandon
all of their obligations?
[1:08:53] what are we left with?
[1:08:54] a lawsuit against an entity and all of its assets, including this property.
[1:09:09] so who, if they abandon, if they...
[1:09:15] there's no such term as abandonment.
[1:09:19] or if they decide to close it down.
[1:09:21] who, if they decide to say stop...
[1:09:26] by terminating the entity, if that's what
you're talking about, they don't relieve
[1:09:30] themselves of liabilities.
[1:09:32] they're still going to be responsible.
[1:09:34] their property is going to be responsible.
[1:09:37] for their liabilities, and the individual
members are going to be—the managing
[1:09:41] general partner will be
responsible for their liabilities.
[1:09:44] what if they declare bankruptcy?
[1:09:47] then in what context, if they declare bankruptcy?
[1:09:53] I'm just saying, if they declare bankruptcy,
who handles whatever lawsuits, potential
[1:09:59] lawsuits, that this
project could bring?
[1:10:06] that the city...
[1:10:07] can you give me a factual context for this?
[1:10:10] give me an example of what you're talking about.
[1:10:12] okay, let's just say we're sued because the general plan...
[1:10:16] the city is sued.
[1:10:17] let's just say the city is sued; say we're
sued because it's not consistent with the
[1:10:22] specific plan.
[1:10:23] say some sort of organization comes
to the city and says, I see that it doesn't
[1:10:27] follow,
[1:10:28] and here are all of the reasons why it doesn't follow the specific plan.
[1:10:33] and I want to sue the city for not following their specific plan.
[1:10:37] and merlone geier's managing partner says,
okay, we are going to cover this lawsuit
[1:10:42] because that's what we've done.
[1:10:45] what if they go bankrupt?
[1:10:50] then we don't defend the lawsuit.
[1:10:53] we concede.
[1:10:54] and the development agreement goes away.
[1:10:57] there is no development agreement.
[1:10:58] so the city is liable.
[1:11:01] no, the city is not liable.
[1:11:05] the example you posited doesn't have any economic damages.
[1:11:08] you're just asking for relief because there
was an alleged inconsistency between the
[1:11:13] entitlements and,
say, the specific plan.
[1:11:16] yes.
[1:11:17] so the court determines that, yes, there
were inconsistencies because nobody's
[1:11:21] defending that lawsuit
under your example.
[1:11:26] well, the city, essentially.
[1:11:29] if they're gone, the city would have to...
[1:11:31] no, the city doesn't care about whether it's consistent.
[1:11:35] if they're gone and there's no more
development agreement, the city no longer cares
[1:11:39] to defend its own entitlements
and development agreement.
[1:11:44] but if somebody decides to sue the city
over our actions and the developer isn't
[1:11:49] there to absorb that,
absorb the lawsuit...
[1:11:55] the lawsuit is about whether or not the
actions were valid, whether the entitlements
[1:12:00] in the development
agreement were consistent,
[1:12:04] under the example you gave, were consistent with the specific plan.
[1:12:08] if there is no merlone geier, no one cares
because the development agreement goes
[1:12:14] away, the lawsuit goes away,
so there's nothing to chase.
[1:12:20] if it's built or if the decisions are,
if they start building it and it's not
[1:12:24] consistent, I'm just
saying, if they serve
[1:12:27] if they're in the process of building it
and it's not consistent in their property,
[1:12:32] if somebody is successful
in stopping the development,
[1:12:36] they have to stop the development, whether
they're in bankruptcy or not. But the
[1:12:40] city—you could see the city
doesn't have any exposure.
[1:12:45] how does the city not have any exposure?
The city is an entitling agency. You've
[1:12:49] granted—presuming after
tonight, assume that you grant these
[1:12:53] entitlements and the development agreement.
[1:12:55] that's all you've done. If somebody along
the way attacks the project and they can't
[1:13:02] build, then they can't
build. The city hasn't
[1:13:06] lost anything other than—well, nothing
in this case, because I would like to ask
[1:13:12] counsel:
[1:13:13] can somebody hypothetically sue the city over this project?
[1:13:19] so the suit against the city, typically the
way a challenge is made for consistency,
[1:13:25] this project included, is
somebody would seek a writ.
[1:13:29] a writ is a request to a judge to reverse
a decision of, in this case, the city
[1:13:33] council.
[1:13:35] they would go and they would ask for a writ if a court found an inconsistency.
[1:13:38] the court could issue a judgment that says, yes, I reverse the decision.
[1:13:40] but I agree with mr.
[1:13:43] clark.
[1:13:43] it wouldn't be a monetary case against the city.
[1:13:46] it would be a writ to try to get the decision reversed.
[1:13:50] okay.
[1:13:50] and then who is the responsible party?
[1:13:53] so when they say, who made the decisions
to say it's consistent, who do they say
[1:13:56] makes those decisions?
[1:13:58] well, it's the city, but the city acts through the city council.
[1:14:01] yes, yes.
[1:14:03] okay.
[1:14:04] thank you.
[1:14:06] okay, dave, back to you.
[1:14:08] yeah, I was reading through two of the
questions I'd sort of already asked, so I
[1:14:10] won't go with one of them.
[1:14:12] could you turn to page 25, please?
[1:14:18] okay.
[1:14:21] okay, this page says that, you know, uvsp development standards consistency.
[1:14:25] I contend, and I've contended this for six
years, as long as I've been on the council,
[1:14:29] this project has
never met the uvsp,
[1:14:32] the uvsp.
[1:14:34] because the uvsp demands that most of
the property be retail or business and only
[1:14:39] part of it be residential.
[1:14:41] and that is absolutely not the case.
[1:14:43] and everybody seems to bypass that and forget it doesn't meet the uvsp at all.
[1:14:48] and the uvsp also said the changes from
one revision to another can only add 200
[1:14:54] units for housing.
[1:14:56] and this is adding 1,500.
[1:14:57] I just wanted to point that out again.
[1:15:00] it's probably falling on deaf ears because,
like it has in the past, it's never met
[1:15:02] the uvsp.
[1:15:06] the rest of my questions are a presentation.
[1:15:07] if you want to.
[1:15:08] yes.
[1:15:08] the 160,000 square feet of retail, does that include the retail that already exists?
[1:15:11] so does that include the nordstrom rack?
[1:15:38] yes.
[1:15:38] it's 140,000 of new retail, 163,000 of
which 140,000 is new, which includes the
[1:15:44] nordstrom rack.
[1:15:46] so 140,000 includes the nordstrom rack.
[1:15:48] so it's not new retail.
[1:15:51] may I clarify?
[1:15:53] so the 140,000 of new retail includes the
new nordstrom rack building, not including
[1:15:57] the demolition of the old
nordstrom rack building.
[1:16:00] okay.
[1:16:01] so what is the total of the nordstrom rack?
[1:16:04] with the nordstrom, so the total retail—can you pull up a slide that shows this?
[1:16:18] right there.
[1:16:20] so total square footage, existing and new, would be 163,215 square feet.
[1:16:23] and then, let me see, the new, I'm not sure which slide; let's see.
[1:16:35] please be patient.
[1:16:37] what did you say?
[1:16:40] I want to give the exact number.
[1:16:46] I apologize.
[1:16:46] there are quite a bit of slides.
[1:16:51] the nordstrom rack.
[1:16:51] you want the exact square footage of the
nordstrom rack building, or are you looking
[1:16:55] for total new retail?
[1:16:57] I'm asking the nordstrom rack, what amount
[1:17:02] andy, is that anchor 1 or anchor 2?
[1:17:03] anchor 2.
[1:17:04] the new building would be 35,000 square feet.
[1:17:17] it's 35,000 square feet.
[1:17:30] and is that, so you're saying that's part of the new, or is it considered new?
[1:17:36] oh, so they're anchor 1?
[1:17:38] okay, so I'm sorry, 25,000 square feet.
[1:17:40] okay, so 25,000 square feet of that is
considered new, even though it's not new,
[1:17:45] because nordstrom rack
has always been there.
[1:17:50] so would that be considered in the new income that's coming in, or...
[1:17:57] I'm a little confused.
[1:17:58] if the nordstrom rack is being considered
in this, wouldn't it be a subtraction of
[1:18:04] the amounts?
[1:18:07] wouldn't there be some sort of subtraction versus...?
[1:18:09] we can give you the net.
[1:18:10] so we can find out the existing, if you want the exact number,
[1:18:14] we can find the retail square footage for the existing nordstrom rack,
[1:18:18] and we can deduct it from the 140,000 if you want that number.
[1:18:23] I would just have to look that up.
[1:18:25] yes.
[1:18:27] perhaps, possibly the applicant may also have that information.
[1:18:42] so according to my wonderful principal
planner with institutional knowledge, the
[1:18:45] existing nordstrom
rack is 35,000 square feet.
[1:18:48] that's correct.
[1:18:51] 35,000 square feet, and the new one will
be 25,000 square—28,000 square feet. Okay,
[1:18:54] so how much is
really new retail?
[1:18:57] 132 is the delta.
[1:19:22] according to my finance director, who is good at math.
[1:19:25] approximately 135,000 square feet.
[1:19:30] okay.
[1:19:55] okay, on page 39, it says if there are any changes.
[1:20:13] can you please just kind of go over, in
the development agreement on page 39, the
[1:20:17] operating agreement?
[1:20:20] can I get an understanding of that?
[1:20:24] what section is that?
[1:20:25] it's on page 39.
[1:20:26] it's 13.5.
[1:21:01] yeah, I'm looking through it right now.
[1:21:16] it's simply asking that whenever there are
ministerial clarifications to be requested
[1:21:22] under the development agreement, that it go
through this operating memoranda process.
[1:21:33] they're non-substantive procedural issues.
[1:21:36] okay, so shouldn't certain things be brought in front of the council?
[1:21:43] well, the council, by virtue of this language,
would be delegating that authority for
[1:21:48] things like material
changes in fees or costs,
[1:21:52] increase in density or intensity, or things that don't count.
[1:21:58] it's just inconsequential processing.
[1:22:01] and you're delegating staff to deal with those.
[1:22:04] so certain things—it could technically,
says the city attorney shall be authorized
[1:22:09] upon consultation with the approval
of the owner to determine whether
[1:22:14] a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this section,
[1:22:18] whether the requested clarification is
of such a character to constitute either a
[1:22:23] substantive change or an amendment
to the development agreement,
[1:22:28] which requires compliance with the provisions
[1:22:30] of section
[1:22:30] 13.2 of the development agreement, so
can you just clarify this for everyone?
[1:22:38] that the city attorney is authorized to
determine whether the requested clarification
[1:22:44] is eligible for a minor procedural
clarification under this section, or whether
[1:22:50] it needs to go back to the council, so
the city attorney makes that determination,
[1:22:53] yes.
[1:22:55] so what if our city attorney determines
that something isn't, and it never goes in
[1:23:00] front of the council?
[1:23:03] then it doesn't.
[1:23:05] then it doesn't.
[1:23:05] then it doesn't.
[1:23:06] then it doesn't.
[1:23:07] okay.
[1:23:14] okay.
[1:23:32] let's see.
[1:23:34] can you go through section 15 and what section 15 states?
[1:23:57] you want an explanation of what 15 describes?
[1:24:02] yeah.
[1:24:04] it's a mutual assurance kind of provision that says that the city and the owner,
[1:24:12] that the agreement is for the benefit of the city and the owner,
[1:24:16] and the city won't take any actions that
are intended to circumvent the development
[1:24:19] agreement.
[1:24:24] so the city, what happens if after this
development agreement we find some huge
[1:24:30] issues with this?
[1:24:33] as in?
[1:24:34] I don't know.
[1:24:35] just hypothetically, what happens if the
owner decides to, I don't know, if something
[1:24:45] negative happens,
[1:24:49] what assurances do we have if something?
[1:24:51] well, if it's a breach or a violation of
the agreement, there are separate provisions
[1:24:56] to enforce those.
[1:25:00] if you're talking about the developer, the
owner just saying, I'm not interested in
[1:25:04] doing this anymore,
[1:25:07] they essentially have that ability to do it.
[1:25:14] okay.
[1:25:14] okay.
[1:25:19] what about, I mean, some things that we've
encountered in the past, which was the
[1:25:24] mall property looked
like a blight for a number
[1:25:28] of years. We had issues with homeless; we
had a lot of issues on that property site.
[1:25:40] what can the city
[1:25:43] do? We've tried in the past to bring this up, and
[1:25:48] I defer to the city attorney on city enforcement efforts.
[1:25:54] so that's not part of the development agreement?
[1:25:58] no.
[1:25:59] it's not an operating agreement.
[1:26:00] it's a development agreement.
[1:26:03] I understood the last development agreement
had provisions that ensured that the
[1:26:08] property always looked nice.
[1:26:13] well, if it did, it didn't come out of this one, and I don't recall...
[1:26:20] such a provision.
[1:26:34] I guess, do you want to respond?
[1:26:38] well, the development agreement statutes,
I'm not aware of anything that operates as
[1:26:42] a, that functions as an
operating agreement in this either.
[1:26:45] there are remedies if property falls below a certain standard.
[1:26:48] that's public nuisance and those basic remedies.
[1:26:50] and there's also the site plan and all the entitlement documents that we can enforce.
[1:26:56] as far as the development agreement,
the development agreement really is an
[1:26:59] implementation of
the project document.
[1:27:02] and enforcement of the development agreement can happen by breach.
[1:27:07] we can do a periodic review.
[1:27:08] so there are ways to enforce a development
agreement itself, although I don't see
[1:27:11] this development agreement as
operating more as an operating agreement.
[1:27:15] it's more of how does the project get built, constructed, and to the finish line.
[1:27:21] okay.
[1:27:23] another question that I have is that this
owner has the right to sell, mortgage, and
[1:27:28] assign or transfer the development
agreement to any and all.
[1:27:36] how do we make sure that...
[1:27:38] that whoever they decide, whatever developer they decide to build this,
[1:27:47] that it's going to be built and it's going to be a good property owner.
[1:27:53] I mean, here's an example.
[1:27:56] laguna niguel has 5,000 units, and the buildings are falling apart.
[1:28:03] and pieces of land were sold off to different entities.
[1:28:07] and there's a lot of problems afterwards, but there's bad actors everywhere.
[1:28:13] how do you deal with that when it says
that they can sell to whoever and we don't
[1:28:18] know what we're dealing with?
[1:28:20] well, the benefits and the burdens of the
development agreement run with the land, so
[1:28:25] any subsequent owner
would also be subject to it.
[1:28:30] okay.
[1:28:30] okay.
[1:28:42] I have a question for staff.
[1:28:46] so one of the first pages of the uvsp, I believe it's six,
[1:28:56] says the primary goals of the urban village specific plan are quoted twice and
[1:29:01] well, this doesn't say it.
[1:29:02] it's actually quoted twice.
[1:29:03] this verbiage is quoted twice, emphasizing
the importance of this material for
[1:29:08] elected officials and
city employees to follow.
[1:29:13] so it says, and it says the primary goals
of the urban village specific plan are as
[1:29:18] follows:
[1:29:19] to encourage and facilitate new uses in
the area, to create new pathways to open
[1:29:23] spaces, and to add landscaping
to existing sidewalks,
[1:29:27] to foster a pedestrian-friendly environment, to create
[1:29:30] an identity for the area through the use of entry features and wayfinding signs,
[1:29:39] consistent landscaping and street furniture;
to facilitate private investment and
[1:29:44] development of desirable planned activity
nodes; to take full commercial and market
[1:29:52] advantage of the urban village's central location in the saddleback valley.
[1:29:58] to increase the employment opportunities,
tax revenues, and ensure the long-term
[1:30:03] viability of the urban village.
[1:30:07] and also says to provide the framework for
a public-private partnership to implement
[1:30:12] the goals of the specific plan.
[1:30:15] so it says there's three, number five and number six.
[1:30:24] how does five and six
[1:30:27] apply to this project?
[1:30:33] so, to take full commercial and market
advantage of the urban village's central
[1:30:39] location.
[1:30:43] and to increase employment opportunities,
tax revenues, and to ensure long-term
[1:30:48] viability.
[1:31:01] I apologize, councilmember.
[1:31:02] can you confirm those pages again?
[1:31:04] it's in the executive summary.
[1:31:26] mm-hmm.
[1:31:34] and which items were you asking for clarification?
[1:31:38] how does this project reflect numbers five and six?
[1:31:47] so, to take full commercial and market
advantage of the urban village's central
[1:31:50] location in the
saddleback valley.
[1:31:53] so this project was developed with market conditions in mind.
[1:31:57] so most definitely a developer would
not develop a property without conducting
[1:32:01] appropriate feasibility.
[1:32:03] so as to...
[1:32:06] the central location—I mean, I think having
the 68 acres of vacant land hasn't been
[1:32:11] serving the saddleback
valley for the last few
[1:32:14] years, and having a new development with
new retail, new residential, especially in
[1:32:17] this housing market right now
where there's a housing deficiency,
[1:32:22] would be serving the full commercial and
market advantage based on the current market
[1:32:25] conditions right now.
[1:32:27] so how does that follow?
[1:32:29] so what you're saying, so I'm asking how it follows.
[1:32:32] what you're saying is
[1:32:34] does it say anywhere in this document, the uvsp,
[1:32:45] that market conditions can alter and dictate
and allow for movement and bending of
[1:32:51] these documents?
[1:32:55] no, it wouldn't say that.
[1:32:57] okay.
[1:32:58] all right.
[1:32:59] thank you.
[1:32:59] another question I have is,
[1:33:05] it states in here that the land use concept
plan provides a conceptual basis for
[1:33:11] locations where new development
might occur within the urban village.
[1:33:18] it includes the following anticipated
new land uses: 183,000 square feet of new
[1:33:24] retail development oriented around
the new main street pedestrian promenade
[1:33:33] a new 250-room hotel oriented to the 5
freeway, mixed-use development that could
[1:33:41] include up to 200
dwelling units.
[1:33:48] how does this plan follow the executive
summary, which is the primary goal of this
[1:33:57] document?
[1:34:00] which is highlighted twice.
[1:34:02] can you go back to that document, please?
[1:34:07] so that paragraph you were reading, which
says the land use concept plan provides a
[1:34:12] conceptual basis for the locations
where new development may
[1:34:16] occur, and then it gives a sample of what type of development could occur.
[1:34:19] and then I believe, as part of the 2022 entitlement,
[1:34:22] there was a review conducted independently
to discuss whether or not these provisions
[1:34:27] here were considered
a land use control,
[1:34:30] and it was determined that these were not, that these were considered potential for
[1:34:36] a future development scenario within the
uvsp, but did not describe that development
[1:34:39] capacity as a land use control.
[1:34:42] so this is an example given for studying
purposes of the uvsp, but not exactly
[1:34:46] determined to be a regulatory
requirement for the project.
[1:34:50] okay.
[1:34:51] so in our general plan, let's see.
[1:35:08] on lu-28, it says urban village specific
plan, and it says development potential
[1:35:21] total of 200 units.
[1:35:27] so it seems like those two, so just out of curiosity, how do you
[1:35:33] so in the context of the general plan and
of the land use element, this is a section
[1:35:36] entitled future study areas,
[1:35:39] which provides the context that this is considered a potential opportunity for this,
[1:35:44] and it was a sample of what could be
developed but not, again, considered a maximum
[1:35:47] for development.
[1:35:50] just out of curiosity, who makes the
decisions on whether something is followed in
[1:35:57] the city?
[1:35:58] so I would consider that the city council
approving the riata project in 2012 at
[1:36:03] oakbrook village, as well as
the 2022 entitlement for the mall
[1:36:07] granting up to 1,500 units, the sixth-cycle housing element establishing the site.
[1:36:12] as having 1,163 units in oakbrook plaza,
subsequently at the beginning of the year at
[1:36:17] 250 units.
[1:36:18] so the council did approve that this was consistent.
[1:36:21] so this is the council's approval.
[1:36:23] it's the council that makes that decision.
[1:36:25] correct.
[1:36:26] it's the council.
[1:36:27] yes.
[1:36:28] so all of those suggestions, as you mentioned,
it's really up to the council elected
[1:36:34] body to make those
determinations.
[1:36:37] all right.
[1:36:37] thank you.
[1:36:38] dave?
[1:36:41] I take a lot of exception to that last commentary.
[1:36:45] we have a document that says the limit is 200.
[1:36:48] we're hand-waving, "oh, no, it doesn't really mean 200."
[1:36:52] it's just an example.
[1:36:53] what the heck do we have these documents
for, then, if we can make it up as we go
[1:36:56] along?
[1:36:57] if you get a requirements document, the requirements document is requirements.
[1:37:01] I think we're debating now.
[1:37:02] are we asking questions?
[1:37:04] yeah, I'm asking questions.
[1:37:05] why do they keep saying it meets the uvsp, and it doesn't?
[1:37:10] I just point out, what was it, page number 25?
[1:37:11] 25, robert, if you would, please.
[1:37:21] I'm objecting that the recommendation is
that we, you know, approve this thing based
[1:37:25] on it meets the uvsp.
[1:37:27] it does not.
[1:37:28] it never has.
[1:37:29] and to say that these numbers in the uvsp, which are written in black and white,
[1:37:34] councilman pezold just read it off to you
in two different places at least, it says
[1:37:37] this is the limit.
[1:37:38] but, oh, no, we're hand-waving.
[1:37:40] it doesn't really count.
[1:37:41] we can do whatever we want, you know.
[1:37:43] it's ridiculous.
[1:37:43] why even have documents?
[1:37:44] just throw it up in the air, and every time we come in, we'll decide on it.
[1:37:49] why do we approve the uvsp
[1:37:51] when it doesn't?
[1:37:51] that's the question.
[1:37:52] thank you.
[1:37:52] I apologize, councilman.
[1:37:54] can you repeat your question?
[1:38:10] why does staff say that it meets the uvsp when it does not, as
[1:38:15] pointed out in two examples that councilman pezold just read?
[1:38:18] so I would largely say that the way the
uvsp is written is also written very much
[1:38:22] more as a guideline,
[1:38:24] where it provides guidelines for development
but not as much regulatory control that
[1:38:28] you would see in potentially
other types of specific plans.
[1:38:31] so the uvsp was written to provide maximum
flexibility of uses and development within
[1:38:35] the plan area.
[1:38:37] I'm sorry, but that's absurd.
[1:38:39] I've written requirements for missiles and
spacecraft, and you put down a requirement,
[1:38:43] and it had better darn
well be met, and not you
[1:38:46] wishy-washy would have rockets running into each other.
[1:38:49] all right, I have one simple question, hopefully.
[1:38:52] I know it's a repeat a bit.
[1:38:54] I want one simple answer.
[1:38:55] when the whole thing is finished, how much retail is there in square feet?
[1:39:01] I don't want to know new.
[1:39:02] I don't want to know old.
[1:39:02] I want to know, when it's finished, what's the total?
[1:39:06] 163,000.
[1:39:06] thank you.
[1:39:06] so we only have 163.
[1:39:07] thank you.
[1:39:08] so I see in a2.
[1:39:09] I guess it goes into more specific technical studies.
[1:39:29] so, fiscal analysis: the proposed urban
village specific plan defines the development
[1:39:35] capacity of the planning area
based primarily on land availability,
[1:39:41] traffic, and parking limitations.
[1:39:43] the development capacity represents the
additional development intensity that could
[1:39:47] be added to the existing
base within the urban village.
[1:39:51] the plan defines the future development capacity by land-use category.
[1:39:58] the following limitations are established
in the plan for incremental development
[1:40:04] above the existing base.
[1:40:08] retail: 183,000 square feet.
[1:40:08] hotel: 250 rooms.
[1:40:09] residential: 200 units.
[1:40:09] medical office: 138,000 square feet.
[1:40:11] general office: 380,000 square feet.
[1:40:26] it states that additional residential
population resulting from the development of
[1:40:35] approximately 200
ownership units.
[1:40:41] I'm just, I mean, I'm just wondering, when you read that analysis,
[1:40:54] are your thoughts still that it's something that can be moved and fluid?
[1:41:00] I apologize, councilmember.
[1:41:01] I don't know what document you're in.
[1:41:03] what section? Because I see a2, but it's not a2 in the uvsp.
[1:41:07] so which document are we looking at?
[1:41:15] appendix a, technical studies.
[1:41:25] to the ceqa memo?
[1:41:44] I will look for...
[1:42:06] I believe that's in the uvsp.
[1:42:10] I will get back to you.
[1:42:16] any other questions of staff?
[1:42:20] okay.
[1:42:21] I'm sure that, you know, let me just add
right now that if there are questions of
[1:42:26] staff during deliberations,
we normally do that.
[1:42:31] so we don't have to exhaust every little thing right now.
[1:42:38] well, I will ask one.
[1:42:40] oh, I'm sorry.
[1:42:41] you're okay.
[1:42:41] go ahead.
[1:42:42] no.
[1:42:43] josh, go ahead.
[1:42:44] no.
[1:42:45] thank you, chair.
[1:42:47] all right.
[1:42:47] I just had a few questions for staff.
[1:42:50] I just wanted to get some clarifications
just from my own knowledge around a few
[1:42:54] things.
[1:42:57] the july 10 eps analysis projects approximately $3.83 million in general fund revenue.
[1:43:07] $2.43 million in annual expenditures, and
approximately $1.4 million in annual net
[1:43:11] surplus. I just want to ask staff
if they can confirm that these
[1:43:15] are now the controlling fiscal figures
for our consideration tonight. Thank you,
[1:43:20] councilmember sweeney. Are you referring
to what's listed in table 1 with the eps
[1:43:28] document?
[1:43:28] so I wouldn't say that either one is more correct than the other.
[1:43:37] so when you put together these fiscal impact
studies, the assumptions and methodology
[1:43:40] can vary.
[1:43:42] but I would say, from the city, from a
conservative standpoint, this would be the eps
[1:43:47] study where we would find
the conservative numbers.
[1:43:51] okay.
[1:43:51] all right.
[1:43:52] thank you.
[1:43:53] the next couple questions I have just revolve around public safety.
[1:43:58] because the analysis with eps assigns
approximately $1.36 million to public safety as
[1:44:03] an annual expenditure. But have we
consulted with the sheriff's department,
[1:44:09] because how they got that number was just
using a per-person number and just kind of
[1:44:16] extracted it out, so...
[1:44:18] have we consulted with the orange county
sheriff as to how much more resources it
[1:44:23] would take over there,
and if that $1.3 million would
[1:44:27] cover the additional resources?
[1:44:36] sir, if you're asking if we would need
more deputies because the population will
[1:44:39] increase over time.
[1:44:40] yeah.
[1:44:41] population, it looks like, will increase slightly over many years.
[1:44:47] and we base our staffing on a workload analysis.
[1:44:51] so initially, we wouldn't need any.
[1:44:55] but in years to come, we would have to
analyze our workload and then potentially add
[1:44:59] a couple of deputies.
[1:45:02] years and years to come.
[1:45:04] potentially over time, then that's
[1:45:06] that number should be sufficient to cover
the number of deputies that would need to
[1:45:10] be additional over there.
[1:45:12] based on how many more calls for service we get.
[1:45:14] yeah.
[1:45:14] okay.
[1:45:15] things like that.
[1:45:16] all right.
[1:45:16] very good.
[1:45:20] for transparency, I serve as the chair for the orange county fire authority board,
[1:45:25] but I'm asking this in my role tonight as
a member of the planning agency and city
[1:45:29] council.
[1:45:30] has ocfa conducted a project-specific
deployment and emergency call analysis for the
[1:45:37] full project, including the 1,457
residential units, 239 hotel rooms,
[1:45:44] the commercial uses, the village park
events, and the affordable senior housing
[1:45:47] building?
[1:45:51] so this project was routed to ocfa for review.
[1:45:54] so their review as part of this level is
very much a preliminary conceptual review to
[1:45:57] come up with
conditions of approval.
[1:46:00] a more in-depth review does happen after
entitlement, where they are required to go
[1:46:04] through, and the applicant will submit
the proper documentation for them
[1:46:08] to finish those analyses.
[1:46:10] okay.
[1:46:11] all right.
[1:46:11] thank you.
[1:46:13] my next question is, I have to go back to octa and hotel one.
[1:46:19] octa's july 13 letter requests that the
avenida de carlota frontage remain surface
[1:46:25] parking or landscaping with adequate setbacks,
and they had mentioned that in section
[1:46:32] 12.4 that it be revised before entitlements
are approved, so does staff believe that
[1:46:38] the proposed location of hotel
one or pad 4 conflicts with either
[1:46:44] of the interchange alternatives currently under consideration?
[1:46:49] so the current site plan conflicts with the alternative that octa is moving,
[1:46:55] has informed the city that that's the one they would like to move forward with.
[1:46:59] but I would look to joe to provide more context.
[1:47:02] thank you.
[1:47:02] I'm happy to provide more context.
[1:47:04] so in april, two and a half months ago, the city was notified in a meeting that
[1:47:15] no longer were two alternatives being
considered for the el toro road and I-5
[1:47:20] interchange project. Up until
then, the meetings that we had been
[1:47:26] having with octa were evaluating two
construction alternatives, one which was a
[1:47:31] braided bridge concept that connects
with plaza lane at carlota, the other
[1:47:37] one of which was
[1:47:38] a flyover bridge that would connect from
the el toro road off-ramp into lake forest
[1:47:43] at rockfield boulevard, by lucille's
barbecue restaurant and the goodwill
[1:47:49] store.
[1:47:51] and for months, and even, and this is nothing new, the
[1:47:55] city council was given a presentation in 2023 by octa of those two alternatives.
[1:48:03] and so the conversation has been, while the environmental process has been
[1:48:08] moving along, a discussion of if either
one of those alternatives provides any
[1:48:14] traffic relief to the motorists
looking to get off at el toro
[1:48:19] road and enter into lake forest.
[1:48:22] so in april, we were informed by octa
that the flyover alternative that was being
[1:48:27] considered as part of a
public environmental review
[1:48:31] process that is still ongoing, where no decisions have been made, was off the table.
[1:48:37] and it was portrayed to us that there was
now an urgency to focus on alternative 1,
[1:48:44] which is the off-ramp,
[1:48:48] braided off-ramp concept that connects plaza lane and carlota.
[1:48:54] that alternative does conflict with hotel one.
[1:48:59] however, in recognition of that, city staff
has been working diligently with merlone
[1:49:05] geier partners and the ad hoc
committee to craft language in section
[1:49:11] 12.4 of the development agreement that contemplates removing the hotel out of the way
[1:49:17] if, in fact, octa settles on an alternative that conflicts with the hotel.
[1:49:23] so that, in my opinion, is where we're at.
[1:49:26] okay.
[1:49:27] and hotel one was the one that was supposed
to be where it was going to try to be
[1:49:33] completed by the 2028
[1:49:35] olympics, correct?
[1:49:38] that's what we've been informed by merlone
geier partners, with their potential hotel
[1:49:43] operator, yes.
[1:49:45] and with octa, would that then delay hotel
one so then there would be no opportunity
[1:49:51] to have it completed
for the olympics?
[1:49:56] my understanding is that
[1:49:59] we would work with octa.
[1:50:03] and my understanding is, if you were to approve this project tonight,
[1:50:07] there would be a meeting of the minds to
figure out how to work with and around that
[1:50:11] issue.
[1:50:13] okay.
[1:50:13] and so I haven't had that.
[1:50:15] I'm not privy to exactly how that will work out, but I
[1:50:18] know there's language in the da that
contemplates that, and that would likely need to
[1:50:22] occur.
[1:50:23] okay.
[1:50:26] all right.
[1:50:29] josh, I've got the drawing here.
[1:50:31] if you'd like to look at it, I can bring it over and show you.
[1:50:36] we actually, do you need to see it?
[1:50:39] no, I don't need to see it because I know where it is.
[1:50:47] may I ask a question about this?
[1:50:48] wait a minute.
[1:50:48] he's still, I have questions going on here.
[1:50:52] yeah, a few more questions just quickly
about the hotel, because the eps assumes a
[1:50:59] 119-room residence inn at a
$178 average daily rate and a 120-
[1:51:05] room ac marriott at a $260 average daily
rate, both at 80% occupancy, producing
[1:51:12] approximately $1.5
million in annual tot.
[1:51:17] are both of those hotel brands contractually committed,
[1:51:21] or are they just modeling assumptions at this point?
[1:51:25] do we know?
[1:51:26] I think that would be a question for the developer.
[1:51:29] for mgp?
[1:51:29] yes.
[1:51:30] that's out of my depth here.
[1:51:31] I'll have to refer to someone else.
[1:51:32] I'm not sure who exactly, but someone else.
[1:51:34] the questions for the developer are coming up next.
[1:51:37] okay, yeah.
[1:51:38] I'll save that one.
[1:51:39] for staff, though, can you tell me...
[1:51:50] what residential construction or occupancy
can the city stop if a required hotel or
[1:51:55] commercial milestone is missed?
[1:52:01] you want me to respond to that?
[1:52:06] the way the agreement is structured, they
can't start what is referred to as phase 1
[1:52:13] elective,
[1:52:14] which is all the residential north of
health center drive, until they have started
[1:52:23] construction of anchor 1,
anchor 2, shop a, the affordable,
[1:52:30] and hotel 1.
[1:52:31] and there's an exception for hotel 1 regarding
[1:52:35] feasibility that somebody earlier referenced.
[1:52:38] once they've started it, there's nothing you can do to stop it.
[1:52:41] they just can't start hotel 2—oh, excuse me, residential elective 2, a
[1:52:50] phase 2 elective—until all of those projects are completed and hotel 2 is started.
[1:52:59] okay.
[1:53:00] all right.
[1:53:03] okay, that's interesting.
[1:53:05] all right, and one last question on the
senior housing: has meta housing formally
[1:53:11] been selected, or who
selected it? And again,
[1:53:15] that's a question for the developer.
[1:53:16] okay, so staff doesn't know that one.
[1:53:18] okay.
[1:53:18] all right.
[1:53:19] these are all for staff.
[1:53:20] perfect.
[1:53:21] thank you, guys. Okay.
[1:53:23] thank you, josh.
[1:53:24] there's one more, I guess, another question by erica.
[1:53:27] yes. Okay, ceqa?
[1:53:31] what is a ceqa addendum?
[1:53:32] I...
[1:53:35] what is an addendum?
[1:53:38] so an addendum is basically when the environmental...
[1:53:44] I'm not the expert on that question.
[1:53:46] I would like to...
[1:53:48] colin, could you probably provide more?
[1:53:54] so pursuant to ceqa, a developer is only required to do one ceqa analysis.
[1:53:59] after that, if the project changes and the
changes reach a certain level, a certain
[1:54:03] threshold of...
[1:54:05] potential environmental impacts, then the
developer either has to do another ceqa, or
[1:54:10] supplemental, or an addendum.
[1:54:12] an addendum is the lowest level in the
chain of extra documentation that has to
[1:54:16] happen when a
project is amended.
[1:54:19] so in this case, an addendum was chosen
because the analysis concluded that the
[1:54:24] project was going
to reduce vehicle trips.
[1:54:30] for a few other reasons, the consultants,
dudek and the city's consultant, decided to
[1:54:35] go with an addendum versus a supplemental
document amendment or another eir. So who
[1:54:42] paid for dudek? My understanding is mgp did, but that's an assumption.
[1:54:47] okay.
[1:54:49] so there have been seven addendums.
[1:54:52] so the original ceqa was
[1:54:56] performed with the mall prior?
[1:55:01] was it with the uvsp?
[1:55:03] when was the original eir done?
[1:55:08] I believe it was done in 2009, but I'd have to ask the community development director.
[1:55:12] so the original eir was adopted with the general plan eir in 2009.
[1:55:17] okay.
[1:55:17] so in 2009, did the mall exist?
[1:55:19] yes.
[1:55:29] in 2009, did oakbrook village plaza exist?
[1:55:35] I believe oakbrook plaza?
[1:55:39] no, oakbrook plaza, the office building.
[1:55:41] the village, sorry.
[1:55:42] the oakbrook village, I believe, was approved in 2018?
[1:55:47] no, 2012.
[1:55:51] so it existed in 2009, and then there was a
development agreement that was adopted
[1:55:54] subsequently.
[1:55:57] so their whole project was there in 2009.
[1:56:08] these are questions for staff.
[1:56:20] the public hearing is closed.
[1:56:23] unless staff wants to open it up again.
[1:56:27] the redevelopment of oakbrook village was done in 2012 with the apartment units.
[1:56:33] okay.
[1:56:35] so in 2009, basically, I'm painting a picture, right?
[1:56:41] 2009, when this eir existed or when it started.
[1:56:48] and it says a ceqa addendum is a document
used under the california environmental
[1:56:54] quality act to make a minor technical
change or addition to a previously
[1:57:01] approved environmental impact report.
[1:57:04] would you say the destruction of a mall is a minor change?
[1:57:16] in 2009?
[1:57:17] well, I mean, the addendum, there's been so many different addendums,
[1:57:22] but at what point do you say that's probably a really big change to the environment,
[1:57:31] which could include the development of a number of apartment units in oakbrook?
[1:57:40] so in 2022?
[1:57:43] so in 2022, when the mall was, the 2022
plan was done, a fifth addendum was done to
[1:57:47] the general plan.
[1:57:50] the fifth addendum was done to show that
the project was less intense than when the
[1:57:54] full mall was at
its full development.
[1:57:57] so the total square footage of the mall
with all the ancillary buildings, the new
[1:58:01] development was considered
consistent with the 2009 eir.
[1:58:07] so with that, no new mitigation measures
would be required or anything; the project,
[1:58:12] environmentally
impact-wise, would be similar.
[1:58:16] well, so that decision, again, so a minor technical change.
[1:58:22] and technical, it just depends on who
makes the decision on what is a minor or a
[1:58:29] large change, which
is the governing body.
[1:58:33] the addendum would still require technical
study and review and supporting documents
[1:58:36] that an addendum is applicable.
[1:58:39] you cannot apply an addendum without the proper evidence and background.
[1:58:43] correct.
[1:58:44] but you can always hire a company to provide a result.
[1:58:49] correct.
[1:58:50] so with this ceqa, to ensure that this was appropriate,
[1:58:55] the city pulled from its environmental
bench and hired lsa to peer review the
[1:58:58] document to determine and
confirm whether the memo that was
[1:59:02] provided by dudek is consistent.
[1:59:05] so just to ensure that we were looking
at it from the ceqa standpoint, and we were
[1:59:09] going to be making
sure that there
[1:59:11] were no additional mitigation measures or anything required for this.
[1:59:14] so it's essentially a group that's checking what the applicant...
[1:59:20] with the technical studies and everything, correct.
[1:59:22] and the deciding body is the council to
decide whether an addendum is a large or
[1:59:28] minor technical change?
[1:59:31] correct.
[1:59:32] okay, thank you.
[1:59:34] well, to clarify, to determine that the addendum is appropriate.
[1:59:43] okay, I see no more questions in regard
to staff. We will now turn to questions in
[1:59:51] regard to the developer's
presentation. So actually,
[1:59:57] I would invite you to re-approach the podium
because the questions will be, and then
[2:00:02] you can redirect them
to members of your team
[2:00:06] if you feel appropriate. Start with...
[2:00:14] I'm glad you stuck around a little bit.
[2:00:18] I'll try to keep putting your stuff up front here.
[2:00:24] the new design, which I just shared with
councilman sweeney and I'll share with
[2:00:27] anybody else that
wants to see it,
[2:00:30] basically, it goes through the corner of pad 4, and it
[2:00:34] almost goes to the middle of the hotel.
[2:00:37] in section 12, which councilman pezold
mentioned, it does talk about—I think it's
[2:00:41] 12—it talks about, if
that would happen,
[2:00:45] you're prepared to move pad 4 and the hotel.
[2:00:48] where would you move it to?
[2:00:52] you said new design.
[2:00:54] I think it's important to clarify.
[2:00:55] this is a proposal; it's not set in stone, right?
[2:00:58] I think we heard from octa.
[2:01:00] they still have quite a bit of environmental analysis to do.
[2:01:03] we'll weigh in.
[2:01:03] you'll weigh in.
[2:01:05] so in terms of where it gets moved, it will
have to move to a place that's acceptable
[2:01:09] to both the hotel operator,
[2:01:11] the hotel developer, ourselves, and the city.
[2:01:13] there are a number of locations on the site where it could get relocated.
[2:01:16] what are they?
[2:01:18] we have a number of ideas, but until I vet
those with the hotel operator, it would be
[2:01:26] speculation, right?
[2:01:28] okay.
[2:01:29] well, I guess I'm looking for a more
definitive answer, because if we've gone to the
[2:01:33] trouble, both you
[2:01:36] and the staff, to put that in the da as
specific paragraphs, I would assume that you
[2:01:40] would have thought
it through and said,
[2:01:43] okay, we're going to move it over to
this location or that location, at least a
[2:01:47] couple.
[2:01:48] yeah, I'm not saying that we don't have ideas.
[2:01:51] I'm just saying it would be speculative to tell you definitively.
[2:01:54] then you're not willing to share those ideas.
[2:01:58] I want to vet those with the hotel operator
to make sure that that's a location that
[2:02:02] they could move to, and then
[2:02:04] we will come back and provide that.
[2:02:05] I'll take that as a no.
[2:02:07] I wouldn't take it as a no.
[2:02:09] then share it.
[2:02:10] like I said, there's numerous locations
where it could be relocated, but we've also
[2:02:16] seen octa doesn't
have a definitive take.
[2:02:19] okay.
[2:02:21] my specific concern is, would there be the possibility of this being moved to
[2:02:26] the retail areas?
[2:02:30] in what regard?
[2:02:31] like that it would result in a loss of retail?
[2:02:34] I think phase 1r is the required, which contains most of the retail.
[2:02:38] and if, let's say, hotel 1 is displaced
and pad 4 is displaced, would that go into
[2:02:43] wiping out some of the retail?
[2:02:46] in other words, reducing our total retail from 163,000 down even lower.
[2:02:52] it would not result in any impacting of
retail outside of what's mentioned in that
[2:02:58] 12.4,
[2:02:59] which is hotel 1 and pad 4.
[2:03:02] okay, then I can say then, no matter where it's moved to, it won't reduce retail?
[2:03:07] not necessarily.
[2:03:08] there may be some reduction in retail.
[2:03:10] we haven't seen the amount of what could hypothetically be the taking yet.
[2:03:16] so you're saying it could impact retail and reduce the retail, then?
[2:03:21] there may be some small reduction in retail.
[2:03:23] we don't know about pad 4.
[2:03:24] we need to find out where the take will be and then a relocation option for it.
[2:03:30] okay, I'll be honest with you.
[2:03:31] my worry is that it gets displaced and we
lose even more retail, which is one of my
[2:03:35] big problems.
[2:03:38] with respect to the octa off-ramp there,
we did some studies back in '22 and before
[2:03:44] that on the traffic.
[2:03:48] if the octa thing would go in there and
displace the hotel, that would increase the
[2:03:54] traffic tremendously.
[2:03:57] all the traffic coming off the freeway then
would go through the corner of the mall,
[2:04:03] the corner of your area there,
[2:04:06] and really add to the traffic in addition to the new apartment buildings and hotels.
[2:04:15] townhouses and homes.
[2:04:17] has that been discussed or thought about?
[2:04:20] we don't have any data from octa to weigh in on yet, so that will
[2:04:24] absolutely be part of the process that they
conduct for environmental review so that
[2:04:28] we can provide them
with our feedback.
[2:04:31] I kind of want to ask octa if they've even
thought about it, but I guess we shouldn't
[2:04:35] reopen the public.
[2:04:37] all right.
[2:04:39] okay.
[2:04:41] mr.
[2:04:41] oros, could you bring up the merlone geier presentation?
[2:04:45] and I'd like to talk about page 14 to begin with.
[2:04:59] okay.
[2:05:05] okay.
[2:05:07] mr.
[2:05:07] clark and I went over
[2:05:09] the drawing of the project on friday,
[2:05:13] and we mapped out a little picture—got my
crayons, you know—to find out where things
[2:05:16] really were. I was hoping
presentations tonight...
[2:05:21] and he guided me through that, and I'm looking at this picture on 14, and it
[2:05:26] does not seem to match, in particular the
phase 1r, which is sort of the light blue
[2:05:35] at the left.
[2:05:40] that, let's see, what's the difference in that?
[2:05:43] that one is...
[2:05:45] okay.
[2:06:06] nope.
[2:06:07] I think right here it's shown in green, which is phase 2 required.
[2:06:11] yes, phase 2 required.
[2:06:12] right, which is correct.
[2:06:15] okay, so you're saying that this 14 is correct?
[2:06:19] correct.
[2:06:19] did you say, oh, page 14?
[2:06:22] yeah, this is correct.
[2:06:25] yeah, we're required at the same time that
we move forward with the village green; we
[2:06:30] have to move forward with the...
[2:06:32] I guess I'll have to get a clarification because...
[2:06:35] mr.
[2:06:35] clark, who helped write the da, says differently.
[2:06:40] so which is it?
[2:06:40] I don't know.
[2:06:41] how is it in the da?
[2:06:43] I guess that...
[2:06:43] so...
[2:07:03] the phase 2 required component of what's
shown there in lots 9 and 10 is the retail
[2:07:08] component that's
facing the village park.
[2:07:11] so we're obligated to bring that online the same time that we finish the village park,
[2:07:16] which suggests that we need to make a decision
and move forward concurrently with the
[2:07:21] rest of the residential
that's there on lots 9 and 10,
[2:07:25] which shows multifamily north or townhome north.
[2:07:28] okay.
[2:07:29] I'm sorry, but I'm so confused.
[2:07:30] the part there that has
[2:07:33] lot 9.
[2:07:35] I'm sorry.
[2:07:36] I don't know how to even describe it.
[2:07:42] I guess it's lot 9, 6.1d, north residential, the part up there in the...
[2:07:54] dark green protrudes up?
[2:07:56] yeah, it says multifamily north or townhome north.
[2:07:59] that's lots 9 and 10.
[2:08:00] okay.
[2:08:01] is that part of, that's really part of phase 2 required?
[2:08:04] so the shops that are associated with that are part of the phase 2 required.
[2:08:09] and then, by virtue of making the decision of what we're doing on those shops,
[2:08:15] we anticipate making the decision to move forward on that residential component.
[2:08:21] okay.
[2:08:25] okay, so I guess to clarify that, in our
exhibit, we could have shown the green as
[2:08:31] just being those retail shops.
[2:08:34] that would be correct and in line.
[2:08:36] this is not an exhibit to the da.
[2:08:38] this was created based on a request for a phasing plan.
[2:08:43] just to clarify, then, the top part of the
dark green that protrudes up should be
[2:08:47] with the tan area.
[2:08:50] yes, it would be with the tan area; it would be phase 1 elective.
[2:08:55] actually, it would be phase 2 elective, yeah.
[2:08:58] no, it would be phase 1 elective as long as we
[2:09:01] no, it would be phase 2 elective because we have to do, it
[2:09:03] would have to be tied to that retail that's part of the phase 2 requirement.
[2:09:08] it's not really 2r; it's 1e.
[2:09:11] you're correct.
[2:09:12] so we could, yeah, for tracking purposes,
update this exhibit so that it clarifies
[2:09:16] and ties to the da.
[2:09:19] but this is, again, not an exhibit to the da.
[2:09:21] the da controls.
[2:09:22] well, that's been my problem.
[2:09:24] I haven't had time to go through the da, just getting it in the last couple of days,
[2:09:27] and what you present tonight is not even accurate.
[2:09:31] so I'm not saying it's a big thing.
[2:09:33] I don't want to blame you for that.
[2:09:35] but I mean, we need more time to dissect things.
[2:09:38] that's a major part of the whole thing, right in the center.
[2:09:41] and we don't even have it right on the presentation stuff.
[2:09:43] we've got to get it coordinated.
[2:09:44] so we really need more.
[2:09:46] we need some more discussion.
[2:09:48] okay.
[2:09:50] okay.
[2:09:51] let's see.
[2:09:54] page.
[2:09:57] why does this not match?
[2:09:58] page 4, please.
[2:10:02] okay, this diagram's kind of confusing to
me because it looks like everything's sort
[2:10:06] of finished in 2031,
[2:10:09] but yet the project's supposed to last 15 years, and 2026 and 15 is not 2031.
[2:10:15] again, we could update this.
[2:10:17] this is just to depict where we are,
where we think we'll be able to finish the
[2:10:20] majority of the phases
that we're working
[2:10:23] on.
[2:10:24] so this is not complete.
[2:10:25] it should have more years out there.
[2:10:26] we could put a plus sign after 2031.
[2:10:27] okay.
[2:10:35] okay, so it's not finished.
[2:10:37] page number 6, mr.
[2:10:39] oros, please.
[2:10:47] okay, I think I wrote down the wrong
number on that, but let me deal with the
[2:10:52] question anyway.
[2:10:56] I'm glad that mr.
[2:10:57] sweeney clarified that eps is sort of the financial model we're going by.
[2:11:03] a number of things.
[2:11:05] I compared it with the 2022 that was done
by kosmont, just to get an idea of where we
[2:11:12] were going to.
[2:11:15] and some of the things in there, there were
four categories that were added that were
[2:11:22] not in the 2022 study
that were put in the
[2:11:27] revenue category.
[2:11:29] one was basically an additional $40,000-plus for taxes.
[2:11:37] and I was going with our financial director
that that was proposed $40,000 for, like,
[2:11:43] speeding tickets and
parking tickets and the like.
[2:11:48] I think that's kind of an interesting category to add to our revenue.
[2:11:54] I'm not sure that's a good thing to put in there.
[2:11:56] it wasn't done the last time.
[2:11:58] did I get the interpretation of that wrong?
[2:12:00] it was a different group that did this
study, a group that the city's actually
[2:12:04] commissioned work from before,
[2:12:06] and they said that this is a line item
that's typically included in other fiscal
[2:12:11] impact studies.
[2:12:12] so that's all we had to work off of.
[2:12:14] okay, it wasn't in the impact study four years ago when we did it.
[2:12:17] so I found that kind of strange.
[2:12:19] the other one was, it just said other
taxes, another almost $60,000, kind of a
[2:12:24] nebulous number.
[2:12:26] what was that?
[2:12:27] it's probably a footnote tied to it, but if
there wasn't and we need to provide more
[2:12:31] clarity, we have dpfg here.
[2:12:33] they can respond to that if it's a big concern.
[2:12:37] another one just said charges and fees.
[2:12:38] another $200,000 income.
[2:12:42] again, another nebulous title that was not in the 2022 study.
[2:12:47] again, there are footnotes for every single one of those line items, so...
[2:12:51] okay.
[2:12:52] I guess my objection and concern is to
get at least three or four line items that
[2:12:56] weren't in the
2022 study, and they
[2:12:59] add up to several hundred thousand dollars
as potential revenue for the study, which
[2:13:02] seems kind of strange
because we went over it in detail
[2:13:06] last time, and now they're brand-new ones.
[2:13:15] oh, I know, because there was a big discussion.
[2:13:17] I objected to the kosmont study vehemently,
and we redid it, and we got a number that
[2:13:21] was much more
reasonable, like you said,
[2:13:23] the keyser.
[2:13:24] I would just compare it.
[2:13:25] I would just compare it, yeah.
[2:13:29] no, I have the kosmont.
[2:13:31] the kosmont is the one I'm comparing it
to, but keyser marston is the one we did,
[2:13:37] which is much different.
[2:13:39] right, I know, I remember.
[2:13:41] but the line I have is still the same.
[2:13:45] one additional thing, too, on this financial page: sales tax.
[2:13:51] you have, from the eps study, $883,000.
[2:13:56] well, I just did a study of the current
situation for the mall area, and we're only
[2:14:02] bringing in maybe $450,000,
[2:14:04] and those are pretty viable, good businesses
there, and the only thing that we'd be
[2:14:09] adding
[2:14:11] revenue would be a whole foods, as I understand, and several little pads.
[2:14:16] and I added some to that, and I estimated about $600,000, maybe a little less.
[2:14:22] I don't see how you double some major
businesses by a couple little pads and a whole
[2:14:26] foods, you know,
[2:14:27] a lot of people love whole foods, but as
far as the city getting tax money from it,
[2:14:30] food is not taxed in california.
[2:14:32] so there's not a whole lot of revenue there.
[2:14:34] so I don't know how you come up with the double of what we're getting now.
[2:14:39] so those are numbers you're quoting from eps, right?
[2:14:43] I'd have to—I mean, that's your consultant that the city hired,
[2:14:46] so I can't speak to the assumptions they included in their analysis.
[2:14:50] yeah, that's why my estimates came out.
[2:14:52] several hundred thousand dollars different
because there's additional things that
[2:14:55] weren't there before and a
discrepancy, I would say, in the
[2:14:59] prediction of the sales tax.
[2:15:01] okay.
[2:15:05] next question.
[2:15:08] okay, I talked about the drawing not matching.
[2:15:11] page number 19, mr. Oros, please.
[2:15:24] yeah, this one doesn't show it as well as I would like to.
[2:15:26] can we go back to just the general picture of the overview of the property?
[2:15:38] the site plan? Yeah, a map would be better. There we go.
[2:15:44] that's good. Now I have a question about
parking and the park. The park is over on
[2:15:50] the bottom there,
about where the white
[2:15:54] circle is, the vp plus ret?
[2:15:58] but the parking is considerably far from that. That seems rather
[2:16:05] inconvenient for people taking their kids to the park.
[2:16:07] they have to walk through stores or other ways to get there.
[2:16:10] I'm just wondering why it was not put with some parking.
[2:16:14] I didn't see any parking for the park.
[2:16:17] where was the parking for the park?
[2:16:18] the parking is based on the retail in addition to the park usage.
[2:16:23] so the parking's been evaluated, and we
definitely don't want to have a gap in the
[2:16:31] need for parking
to be able to lease
[2:16:35] the retail.
[2:16:35] so you saw the parking numbers.
[2:16:39] there's a surplus in terms of parking for the commercial parking.
[2:16:44] we think it's efficient.
[2:16:46] was there consideration given for parking for the park?
[2:16:50] it was part of the considerations for the nature.
[2:16:52] it looks like it's isolated.
[2:16:54] there's no parking, not any quantity of parking that's near the park.
[2:16:59] there's quite a bit of parking near the park.
[2:17:04] along the village drive, along calle luisa,
there's a large parking lot just south of
[2:17:08] pad 3 adjacent to pad 1.
[2:17:11] there's parking along magdalena.
[2:17:13] yeah, there's a whole bunch of parking there
where bj's is now, that one big section
[2:17:16] there, but then you
have to go through,
[2:17:19] you know, you have to go across the road
and through a couple pads there before you
[2:17:23] get to the park, which,
[2:17:25] like I said, if I'm taking my granddaughter to the park, you know,
[2:17:28] I want to minimize her walking across roads
and the distance she has to travel to go,
[2:17:31] you know,
[2:17:32] swing on the swings or whatever.
[2:17:34] okay, that seemed like a discrepancy.
[2:17:40] okay.
[2:17:41] page number 24, affordable housing.
[2:17:51] I want to ask, first of all, the area or
the, I guess, apartments in the affordable
[2:17:58] is allocated very low, the
[2:18:02] very lowest thing, which I guess is the...
[2:18:06] 10% of the units will be at 30% ami.
[2:18:07] yeah, there's a really low income.
[2:18:09] I forget.
[2:18:09] they keep changing categories on me.
[2:18:12] how many of those are not a studio, but a
one- or two-bedroom or three-bedroom for a
[2:18:17] family?
[2:18:18] so this is not family housing.
[2:18:20] this is senior housing.
[2:18:21] there'll be studios, ones, and two-bedroom units.
[2:18:24] there'll be a mix of those based on demand.
[2:18:27] and the income levels will be spread across the different unit types.
[2:18:32] so what is agreed to here provides the most
flexibility to increase the likelihood of
[2:18:37] success in procuring the
needed financing for the project.
[2:18:42] so what we've agreed to is that the ami
levels will be between 30 and 70%, averaging
[2:18:50] around 60% or less,
[2:18:53] and that at least 10% of the units will be 30% ami or less, which is very low income.
[2:18:59] well, okay, let me get an idea, then.
[2:19:01] what kind of units are there?
[2:19:02] are they all...
[2:19:03] studios, ones, and twos.
[2:19:04] studio, one, and two?
[2:19:05] yeah.
[2:19:06] okay.
[2:19:07] how many twos are allocated to the lowest level?
[2:19:10] there won't just be an allocation.
[2:19:14] it depends on the overall mix of ami levels
that the financing will require, if that
[2:19:21] makes sense.
[2:19:22] but it's not going to be like the 30%s only get the studios.
[2:19:25] that's not how it works.
[2:19:26] okay, then the lowest group...
[2:19:29] can get the, and I should say will get, some of the two-bedrooms.
[2:19:32] sure.
[2:19:33] okay, that's good.
[2:19:38] right, casey?
[2:19:40] let me stick to that line of questioning right now.
[2:19:43] leaving out the affordable housing units
and talking about the townhouses, the homes,
[2:19:47] I guess those are the
ones for sale, right?
[2:19:51] yes.
[2:19:51] okay, what is the price range on those starting now?
[2:19:54] like I said in my presentation, until
they're built, and there will be a builder—we
[2:19:58] don't build for-sale products,
[2:20:00] so there will be a builder who will build
those, and they will sell them based on the
[2:20:03] cost to deliver
that unit and what
[2:20:05] the return needs to be to justify that cost.
[2:20:08] so I'd say it will be comparable to a new market-rate unit at the time that it comes
[2:20:16] to market.
[2:20:17] the benefit of the unit mix that we
have is that it will hit the different
[2:20:22] stratifications of the price
point levels because we'll
[2:20:27] have two-bedroom, for-sale units, which you can't find in a new
[2:20:32] project, or you can't find an existing
project with a two-bedroom unit unless it's in
[2:20:36] a condominium, which we
aren't—we're not building condominiums
[2:20:40] anymore that are just flats, right?
[2:20:41] so that's the only gap, and then I'll go
all the way up to four-bedroom, three-story,
[2:20:46] single-family detached, so
that's the spectrum that will
[2:20:50] be covered on the for-sale product. Okay,
one of the things that's been mentioned
[2:20:53] tonight by a number of
people and they're kind
[2:20:56] of concerned is, yeah, we want a place
where there's more housing and so that, you
[2:21:00] know,
[2:21:02] you know, nurses and doctors and whoever,
all of them down the spectrum, can afford
[2:21:06] to live there. But I'm
trying to ascertain
[2:21:09] if they really can afford it. We just had a
project in another part of the city where
[2:21:13] they were building
[2:21:15] units of different kinds, and the starting
price was $1.5 million. I don't know many
[2:21:19] people that's a
starting price for, so I'm
[2:21:22] trying to get what is the lowest, you know, what's the lowest?
[2:21:25] smallest townhouse, what's it going to cost? Is it going to be at least
[2:21:28] $700,000? I don't know what it's going
to cost to build because we don't have a
[2:21:34] builder.
[2:21:35] we haven't priced that out yet.
[2:21:36] but, I mean, there will be varying price
points, and there will be varying unit types
[2:21:42] that people will be able to buy.
[2:21:45] okay, I guess I'm not finding out.
[2:21:47] I'm not sure that that's...
[2:21:48] there are going to be, you know...
[2:21:50] starter families living there after all.
Well, I'll just interrupt only in the sense
[2:21:54] that the question that
you're asking really needs to be
[2:21:59] looked at in terms of time, so by the time they get around to building these, it
[2:22:04] could be five years from now.
[2:22:06] so you're not going to have the same kind of price points.
[2:22:10] in fact, the economy could go the other way, for all I know.
[2:22:13] but the point is...
[2:22:14] only if I buy houses, and then that'll go down.
[2:22:16] and all I'm saying, dave, is that if you're
asking the question, it really needs to
[2:22:20] be in terms of
[2:22:22] today's dollars, if those units hit the street today, what might they be?
[2:22:27] I'm not sure they'll know.
[2:22:28] because you can't predict what's going to be five years from now.
[2:22:32] you're correct, but I was trying to get an idea.
[2:22:34] as of now, just to get it in context of
what we're doing now, the salaries are going
[2:22:36] to go up,
[2:22:37] everything's going to go up, probably.
[2:22:38] I understood your question.
[2:22:40] just trying to get an idea if it's really
housing that anybody can afford as a new
[2:22:45] family or starter family.
[2:22:48] and I really don't hear that.
[2:22:49] okay.
[2:22:52] another question, page 28.
[2:22:54] I guess I'm sure the hotel was in there.
[2:23:02] I mentioned that last time.
[2:23:03] that was one of my sticking points.
[2:23:04] we didn't have enough hotel rooms to make the revenue positive.
[2:23:08] I'm glad to see you added the hotel.
[2:23:09] but why don't we have both hotels ready for the olympics?
[2:23:13] because the second hotel requires the relocation of the nordstrom rack.
[2:23:21] bummer.
[2:23:24] this hotel in particular has been ready to go since 2023, so they are ready to go, but
[2:23:32] unfortunately... Good answer, unfortunately. Okay.
[2:23:37] I noticed, this goes back to the study again, and forgive me, mr.
[2:23:41] clark, I'm going to refer to the kosmont
study again, but it was pretty consistent, I
[2:23:44] think, with the keyser.
[2:23:47] the valuation, property tax-wise, was about
$700,000 back in '22, and now it's moved
[2:23:54] down to $536,000,
[2:23:58] which tells me that the overall value of the property has gone down.
[2:24:01] is that the case?
[2:24:05] what are you referring to?
[2:24:06] when we calculated how much tax the city
would get based on property tax, in 2022,
[2:24:13] the number was
$700,000, which I said, okay,
[2:24:19] I'll buy that.
[2:24:19] I don't know what it's going to be worth when it's all finished.
[2:24:21] but now it's been revised down to $536,000,
which is about $160,000 less, which tells
[2:24:25] me that the value,
[2:24:26] when you do the numbers back up,
[2:24:33] that the value of the whole property has gone down.
[2:24:35] is that the case?
[2:24:36] I think it's more a function of the reduction
in square footage, which ties to the
[2:24:39] reduction in parking and
the reduction in traffic.
[2:24:43] okay, I'm guessing that because a bunch
of townhouses are worth less than a big
[2:24:47] six-story apartment complex.
[2:24:49] well, a five-story townhome is less square
footage than 460,000 square feet of office
[2:24:54] plus a movie theater and five
large multifamily buildings.
[2:24:58] it's less square footage.
[2:25:00] okay, so I just wanted to understand if we're revising our income from that data.
[2:25:04] I would argue that's, yeah, I would assume that's where the delta comes from.
[2:25:07] okay, thank you.
[2:25:11] there was one last, it's sort of a question,
[2:25:13] but there were penalties built into the
last iteration. The other ad hoc member that
[2:25:17] was with me on
this is in the audience
[2:25:20] right now.
[2:25:21] there were a lot of penalties if things
weren't done on time and, you know, sequenced
[2:25:25] correctly.
[2:25:27] I haven't had a chance to look at it and see if they're in there, but are those, mr.
[2:25:31] clark, I guess the question would be sort
of in general with merlone geier, are those
[2:25:35] still in there?
[2:25:36] everything that was in the original
agreement is in this one with respect to
[2:25:41] penalties paid,
[2:25:43] plus the hotel penalties that just applied
to the one hotel last night applied to
[2:25:49] both of them.
[2:25:53] okay.
[2:25:54] okay.
[2:25:55] and last thing I can tell you for right now, I'll even ask this one.
[2:26:08] let me save that.
[2:26:10] that's all I have for this moment.
[2:26:11] okay.
[2:26:12] thank you.
[2:26:12] erica.
[2:26:14] erica.
[2:26:17] okay, do entitlements increase land values?
[2:26:24] do entitlements increase land values?
[2:26:26] a land value is determined on the use that's approved and ultimately built, so yeah.
[2:26:34] okay, so if entitlements increase land
values, would, say, a hotel, if an entitlement
[2:26:43] for a hotel
[2:26:46] increase the land value of that property?
[2:26:50] you'd have to compare to the alternative land use.
[2:26:56] okay.
[2:26:57] so basically, and you knew in 2023 that octa was looking into this
[2:27:13] sort of plan, 2023?
[2:27:15] so three years ago?
[2:27:18] so octa, this has been ongoing for 10-plus
years, right, with numerous plans and
[2:27:26] iterations.
[2:27:30] do you have a seat at the, do you go to their meetings?
[2:27:34] no.
[2:27:36] we're a private property owner.
[2:27:37] I don't think in any of the comments
from octa they said that they were inviting
[2:27:40] private property
owners to those meetings.
[2:27:42] I think it was just cities.
[2:27:43] okay.
[2:27:46] so if you knew about this maybe in 2023.
[2:27:50] we've known about all of the iterations they've been looking at for 10 years.
[2:27:55] okay.
[2:27:56] but this one has been in the process since 2023.
[2:27:58] along with several other alternatives.
[2:28:06] okay, along with several alternatives.
[2:28:09] including what joe said of the flyover that would land in lake forest.
[2:28:16] we heard of multiple, but I don't know
if I recall the environmental impacts
[2:28:22] happening for a
particular project.
[2:28:26] yeah, they haven't done the environmental study yet is what they said.
[2:28:31] I think I heard that they started the environmental.
[2:28:38] but I could be wrong.
[2:28:41] so 2023, so basically you knew about the
possibility of this land, that it could be
[2:28:52] in jeopardy through
eminent domain.
[2:29:01] why wouldn't you just design something
that could make this plan work, make octa's
[2:29:09] plan work?
[2:29:11] we found out, like joe mentioned,
[2:29:14] early june is when we found out that this
was something that they had emphasized was
[2:29:20] what octa was
advocating to caltrans.
[2:29:23] ultimately, caltrans is the decision maker.
[2:29:26] this is a caltrans project.
[2:29:28] octa is providing the funding and interfacing to gather this support, right?
[2:29:35] the ultimate decision will be made by
caltrans following all of the analysis that
[2:29:40] needs to be done.
[2:29:43] we have current entitlement for an office building that sits right there,
[2:29:47] and we laid out our site plan without the expectation that they were going to
[2:29:56] receive the approvals for the alternative
that would impact carlota the way that
[2:30:01] they're now saying they're
advocating for. But because they're
[2:30:05] advocating for it doesn't mean it's going
to happen. Okay, so what we agreed to, as
[2:30:12] was mentioned in the da,
recognizing that in an eminent
[2:30:18] domain proceeding, the city wouldn't receive the tot that we're committing to.
[2:30:24] and that the city in good faith is agreeing
to this change based on that change, and
[2:30:29] so we agreed that we would come
[2:30:32] back with a site plan within six months
that would move the hotel outside of a
[2:30:37] potential take area, and
that's what we intend
[2:30:40] to do. So if you receive the entitlements,
the land value increases in that process?
[2:30:46] not necessarily. But it
would increase, so that would
[2:30:50] cost the taxpayers more money that would
[2:30:54] that may potentially not go to our roads or the city for the residents.
[2:31:05] not necessarily.
[2:31:06] I think that's...
[2:31:09] jumping several steps ahead of this process.
[2:31:13] and I think while it's interesting, we could
have a more detailed legal conversation
[2:31:19] about it if we need to clarify
what the condemnation
[2:31:25] law says related to that.
[2:31:28] I'm just wondering, because you're asking
for an entitlement that potentially won't
[2:31:33] happen, but that entitlement
could add value to you.
[2:31:38] your company.
[2:31:39] but we have to come back within six months with a revised site plan, right?
[2:31:44] correct.
[2:31:45] correct.
[2:31:45] but instead of providing a plan that has the alternative site there,
[2:31:50] and this hotel seems to be a huge linchpin
in this project because the funding
[2:31:58] surrounds that substantially.
[2:32:01] it changes the funding.
[2:32:04] our city is in jeopardy without it, but yet it's on a site that could be gone.
[2:32:10] right.
[2:32:11] and if we continue to delay, it just
continues to put the city in more jeopardy,
[2:32:15] right?
[2:32:16] it doesn't help landing a hotel if we don't
approve this and we continue to delay to
[2:32:21] study numerous alternatives
and try to entertain
[2:32:25] octa's demands.
[2:32:30] there's no guarantee that a hotel, like
the flag that is talking about coming here,
[2:32:34] could easily go to
another location, right?
[2:32:37] yeah, they could go and do it.
[2:32:39] but right now they're not.
[2:32:40] now they want to open here.
[2:32:42] they want to do this.
[2:32:42] so we created language that would, in the
best interest of the city and of us, allow
[2:32:49] it to move forward.
[2:32:51] so if past behavior is an indication of
future behavior, we don't know if it will at
[2:32:56] all...
[2:32:57] move forward? The project won't ever move
forward based off of the patterns of the
[2:33:03] last projects. I don't
know how you want me to
[2:33:07] respond to that.
[2:33:08] I think that's just saying. So you have
the bus station where you have a project of
[2:33:14] 200 homes and
[2:33:25] spread across from the station. Have you...
[2:33:29] done any studies about what's around the
bus station at night? In what regard? Have you been
[2:33:36] around and driven around
the bus station? Do you
[2:33:41] understand what's around the bus station?
In what context? What is the point of
[2:33:48] the—is there a question?
[2:33:51] so the bus station, it's one station that
is a connection for people to try to get
[2:34:03] into the homeless
shelter in laguna beach.
[2:34:11] great.
[2:34:12] so there's a strong transient population that crosses over into this area.
[2:34:20] and I'm just wondering...
[2:34:24] why the low-income housing would be
placed specifically there and the potential
[2:34:34] issues that could happen with this
area by placing low-income housing right
[2:34:45] right next to this.
[2:34:50] I kind of gather what you're insinuating,
but we've relocated the senior housing to
[2:34:55] that corner based on the
collaborative feedback of the housing,
[2:35:00] affordable housing developer, the ad hoc committee.
[2:35:02] there are a lot of housing projects adjacent
to transit centers that accommodate all
[2:35:08] kinds of people,
[2:35:10] including transients that are trying to get to homeless shelters.
[2:35:12] I don't think that's a concern for the
affordable housing developer or for the
[2:35:17] residents who would live there.
[2:35:19] well, do you know where the homeless shelters are in the county?
[2:35:24] I don't know how that's a relevant question either, but...
[2:35:32] I'm just wondering if you know where the homeless shelters are because...
[2:35:35] I don't personally, but I could find them, I'm sure.
[2:35:37] how far is the next one?
[2:35:39] I mean, laguna beach tends, because there
is a homeless shelter, tends to be a very
[2:35:43] busy homeless shelter with...
[2:35:46] women, children, men, everyone trying to
get into that shelter all of the time, all
[2:35:50] over this entire area.
[2:35:52] okay, I've got to interrupt.
[2:35:54] are there specific questions about this
development, or are we just pontificating
[2:36:00] about, you know,
homelessness in orange county?
[2:36:06] it's the bus shelter and the location of the low-income housing, the location.
[2:36:13] all right.
[2:36:14] because I'm the chair of this, I'm not going to answer that, but I could.
[2:36:19] and I just would like us to focus on questions
that specifically involve this project
[2:36:27] and what the developer
is doing and not what's
[2:36:32] in his mindset and all that other kind of stuff.
[2:36:35] and how much other research has he done about things in the united states?
[2:36:40] you know, I mean, at some point...
[2:36:44] just bear with me.
[2:36:47] you're not hearing much from the ad hoc
committee because we've worked on this for a
[2:36:52] year and a half.
[2:36:53] we can probably answer all of these questions.
[2:36:55] well, not all.
[2:36:57] but these are questions to the developer that you have about his presentation.
[2:37:05] that's really what it was.
[2:37:06] and now we're off into homelessness.
[2:37:09] and I can give you a lecture about scag and homelessness.
[2:37:13] yet, that's not appropriate for me to do,
so I'm not going to do that. But go ahead.
[2:37:18] keep on rolling.
[2:37:21] okay, I am wondering, I will move from the
location of the bus stop and some of the
[2:37:28] issues that are
there in the city.
[2:37:34] what about, so I noticed in this plan that you have
[2:37:40] strategically placed the park right across
the street from the hospital, which is a
[2:37:45] nice location.
[2:37:47] however, if you are a new homebuyer, what
is the incentive to purchase in an area
[2:37:53] when there's only a
dog park and the homes,
[2:37:57] I am assuming they're more than one bedroom, and people may want to bring children.
[2:38:03] where are the tot lots associated?
[2:38:07] where are things, I mean, is it,
[2:38:11] where are parks and where are things to help the kids in the neighborhood?
[2:38:21] can we pull up the site? There's also a
community, there's a rec center with a pool
[2:38:25] and a community center that will
[2:38:27] be part of the project. What we find is the
home builder, when they come in for their
[2:38:32] building permits, they may want
[2:38:34] to make some modifications that would have
to go through a conformance review process
[2:38:39] to probably add a lot within
that community rec center
[2:38:43] area. The dog park is a major amenity.
[2:38:47] and in addition to that, there's walking trails throughout the site.
[2:38:51] and the village park is directly adjacent to those homes.
[2:38:55] so we think it's well served.
[2:38:59] so if you're a mom and you have, like, a
nine-year-old, and that you don't want
[2:39:04] playing video games, you
don't want, you know,
[2:39:07] you have to then say, go to a rec center.
[2:39:10] but, I mean, there's just, there aren't any local
[2:39:14] there isn't anything local where you can
send your children so that they can burn off
[2:39:18] steam.
[2:39:19] no, there's a pool and a rec center within the project.
[2:39:25] but I'm just saying, for, I mean, one, for free.
[2:39:29] how do you go for free?
[2:39:30] yeah, it would be part of the hoa.
[2:39:31] it would be owned and controlled and managed by the hoa.
[2:39:33] so it would be part of their hoa dues.
[2:39:36] I think homebuyers would...
[2:39:39] they'd see that as an amenity, I think, having a dedicated pool area, amenity area.
[2:39:44] pools are attractive.
[2:39:46] pools are attractive.
[2:39:48] but I'm talking about parks.
[2:39:50] I'm talking about for children to burn
off energy where they don't have to get
[2:39:55] prepared to go.
[2:39:56] they can just walk.
[2:39:57] I've got a four-and-a-half-year-old.
[2:39:58] I know what that energy is all about.
[2:40:00] yep.
[2:40:03] that's a lot.
[2:40:04] okay.
[2:40:05] all right.
[2:40:06] thank you.
[2:40:06] those are my questions.
[2:40:08] okay.
[2:40:12] steve?
[2:40:13] josh is probably first.
[2:40:14] oh, I'm sorry.
[2:40:14] that's okay.
[2:40:15] go ahead.
[2:40:16] I should be totally off.
[2:40:17] okay.
[2:40:18] just one question.
[2:40:19] sorry, josh.
[2:40:21] it's okay.
[2:40:21] yeah.
[2:40:22] okay.
[2:40:23] all right.
[2:40:24] with respect to the four different phases?
[2:40:26] yeah.
[2:40:26] okay.
[2:40:27] the 1r and the 2r, I basically understand those, I guess.
[2:40:30] the 1e and the 2e, those are sort of optional.
[2:40:36] can you tell me the
[2:40:40] what could be different than is shown on the drawing?
[2:40:43] I mean, there's townhomes and there's individual houses.
[2:40:47] on those sections, what could that change to?
[2:40:51] it's not optional in regard to, like, land use, right?
[2:40:56] the project, as you're seeing in front of you, is intended to be built.
[2:41:01] what's optional is the phasing of when and
how many of those for-sale components of
[2:41:05] the project, for
example, move forward.
[2:41:09] it may be that that comes forward at a time
in the market when a home builder wants
[2:41:12] to come in and build all of
[2:41:14] those at once.
[2:41:15] it may be that they only build a couple of those tracts of for-sale product at once.
[2:41:22] it may be that the for-sale product
moves forward, but one of the multifamily
[2:41:27] buildings comes later.
[2:41:29] so that's what the intent is.
[2:41:31] and the conversation was really
[2:41:35] kind of, once we, the city, those who were
negotiating on behalf of the city, once we
[2:41:40] get what we want,
[2:41:42] we don't really care how quickly you build
out your townhomes and your residential
[2:41:45] components of the project.
[2:41:46] so that's why they're elective improvements, is what it's characterized as.
[2:41:51] okay, thanks.
[2:41:52] let me repeat back to you what I think you just said, then.
[2:41:54] the things that are designated there, whether it's apartments, townhomes, or houses,
[2:41:59] that's what's going to be built there.
[2:42:00] it's just they may not be built, you
know, they may be built in a different time
[2:42:05] period.
[2:42:06] yeah, it'll be in response to the market at the time that we're able to, once
[2:42:12] we've met the required components of those
phases, it'll depend on what the market
[2:42:16] looks like at that point
in time on the elective
[2:42:19] improvements.
[2:42:20] I guess that begs another question, then.
[2:42:22] what is the maximum that they could delay, then?
[2:42:25] the maximum, sorry?
[2:42:25] what is the maximum that they could delay that?
[2:42:28] that they could delay that?
[2:42:29] the whole area is supposed to be done in
15 years with an option for five additional
[2:42:33] years.
[2:42:34] I mean, the risk is really on us, right?
[2:42:36] I have no incentive to wait indefinitely,
especially if I'm required to put millions
[2:42:41] of dollars to work in
the required improvements.
[2:42:46] I don't benefit from investing all those dollars and waiting to recoup on the revenue.
[2:42:53] so we're fully incentivized to accelerate that as quickly as possible.
[2:42:57] okay, unfortunately, I have not been able to read the whole da.
[2:43:00] that's fine.
[2:43:01] I guess my intent is, will the whole thing
be finished in 20 years, no more than 20
[2:43:06] years?
[2:43:08] I hope it's well before 20 years.
[2:43:11] is there a mandate to be finished in 20 years?
[2:43:14] no, you can't mandate that they build a certain number of residential units.
[2:43:19] I think that's the point.
[2:43:19] that's what we felt was the fair part of this.
[2:43:25] we're front-loading now all of the
tax-revenue-generating components of the project,
[2:43:30] the affordable,
[2:43:32] all of that is coming in the first two phases as required improvements.
[2:43:37] and so we then are able to build out
the elective improvements when it's market
[2:43:45] feasible, and when we
can do that is dependent
[2:43:51] on the market.
[2:43:52] okay, forgive me, I'm a little bit
gun-shy about this, but we've had so many
[2:43:55] proposals come by.
[2:43:56] first, we got rid of retail.
[2:43:58] now we've gotten rid of all the businesses,
all the office complexes, and things have
[2:44:03] not gotten done.
[2:44:05] so I'm a little, like I said, gun-shy that
this stuff will drag on and on and on,
[2:44:09] because we've
already had 13 years
[2:44:11] of it, and then another 20 on top of that.
[2:44:13] and if it can even go farther than that, it kind of bothers me.
[2:44:17] I appreciate you bringing that up again, because I think it's important.
[2:44:19] the market has spoken.
[2:44:22] there's no demand for a mall here.
[2:44:24] there's no demand for 700,000 square feet of retail.
[2:44:27] there's no demand for office, right?
[2:44:29] there's demand for a hotel.
[2:44:31] I have two hotels that are ready to go.
[2:44:33] I have a lease signed with whole foods, and I have for-sale
[2:44:38] product that's being built in orange county and being acquired.
[2:44:42] so there's an actionable plan that's in front of you today.
[2:44:45] I can't go back in time and change the mall.
[2:44:49] I don't think any of us can, right?
[2:44:51] but there's also a difference between placemaking, which is not equivalent.
[2:44:57] building more retail doesn't make it a better place to hang out.
[2:45:01] in fact, it creates more of a liability for the city in terms of having vacancy.
[2:45:05] and the liability for the developer.
[2:45:07] you can't require more retail to be built than the market can demand.
[2:45:12] and conversely, why we added the second
hotel is because it's a much more efficient
[2:45:17] land use to generate as
much tax revenue as possible
[2:45:21] without overburdening the project with more parking.
[2:45:25] a 100-key hotel is the equivalent of about 200,000 square feet of retail.
[2:45:31] depending on the sales tax revenue.
[2:45:33] and you would have to park 200,000 square feet.
[2:45:36] that would take up all of the valuable land
that we're using for placemaking that the
[2:45:41] community has said that
they want, and the housing
[2:45:45] diversification that the community has said that they want.
[2:45:48] we've done all of that.
[2:45:49] we've taken all of those things into
consideration, and that's the plan that you have
[2:45:52] in front of you.
[2:45:54] and it results in, I don't know how people are saying, $1.5 million in net impact.
[2:46:00] net benefit is $2.3 million.
[2:46:03] both eps and our consultants said the same thing.
[2:46:06] it is a significantly better outcome than what was approved in 2022.
[2:46:11] tot is a much better revenue.
[2:46:13] 100%.
[2:46:15] we agree.
[2:46:18] and we have the hotels.
[2:46:19] we're ready to go.
[2:46:20] we have an affordable housing developer ready to go.
[2:46:24] we have retailers that we've been holding off on leasing retail until this
[2:46:30] council approves this project, but they're ready to go.
[2:46:33] they know that whole foods is coming in.
[2:46:34] they know nordstrom rack is getting relocated.
[2:46:36] nordstrom rack could have left a long time ago, and they've stuck this out.
[2:46:40] they've been a good partner of ours.
[2:46:41] so we have a lot of plates that are spinning, and we're ready to go.
[2:46:47] this is, I mean, council member mathis made a really good point.
[2:46:52] paralysis by analysis can kill this project, and we're trying to avoid that.
[2:46:59] hopefully, some of these answers to these
questions can help us get closer to that
[2:47:03] goal.
[2:47:04] let me ask another question.
[2:47:06] I'm not in the business, but I've heard rumors that now apartments are going down.
[2:47:11] is that true or not true?
[2:47:13] you probably have your finger on the pulse more than I do.
[2:47:16] it's true that right now, the cost of
construction for multifamily is very high, and
[2:47:21] there's a ceiling on
rents that you can charge
[2:47:24] for market-rate apartments.
[2:47:25] and so in the current environment, where
you have elevated interest rates and you
[2:47:29] have elevated
construction costs,
[2:47:32] there's a reason why you have a lot of
multifamily projects that are currently on
[2:47:36] hold.
[2:47:38] but the for-sale product, you're able to
build at a much lower cost per square foot
[2:47:43] because it's three-story
wood-frame construction.
[2:47:46] it's different when you're building a concrete parking garage.
[2:47:51] it just elevates those costs significantly.
[2:47:53] so yes, today, moving forward with an apartment building is challenging.
[2:47:59] but moving forward with the rest of the project is not.
[2:48:02] I didn't think it was that definitive.
[2:48:04] thank you for sharing that.
[2:48:05] it makes me worry that we might come back
in another three years and say we can't
[2:48:08] build apartments either.
[2:48:10] I'm not sure where we go from that.
[2:48:12] anyway, thank you.
[2:48:16] erica, did you have another question?
[2:48:18] oh, I'm sorry, josh.
[2:48:20] excuse me.
[2:48:21] thank you, chair.
[2:48:22] before I ask my questions, james, do you need a drink?
[2:48:27] no, I'm good.
[2:48:29] I'm going to come over here so I'm facing you.
[2:48:32] all right.
[2:48:33] so I just want to give a little context
to my questions, because obviously I care
[2:48:37] deeply about this
city, and we all know
[2:48:39] how important these 68 acres are for the future of our city.
[2:48:44] and my questions are really just focused on how we can deliver the public benefit
[2:48:48] of this project as soon as possible, and
how we get the revenue-producing pieces
[2:48:53] online, and how we can
create a place for our
[2:48:56] residents to actually enjoy and make
sure the project benefits the city for
[2:49:01] generations.
[2:49:02] all great goals.
[2:49:03] yeah, right?
[2:49:05] with the 2028 olympics coming, that's
top of mind, and I see an opportunity with
[2:49:10] hotel one and the village park.
[2:49:13] so I want to just better understand the
timeline and what we can do to realistically
[2:49:18] get those pieces completed and
generating activity and revenue
[2:49:24] for the city as soon as possible.
[2:49:25] so are residence inn and ac marriott already committed contractually?
[2:49:32] so the obligation in the development
agreement is that we have an upscale
[2:49:36] extended-stay hotel on
hotel 1 and we have an upscale
[2:49:40] hotel on hotel 2.
[2:49:42] okay.
[2:49:43] we are also obligated to provide a memorandum
of the purchase and sale agreement that
[2:49:49] identifies that a franchise
agreement has been signed for a flag
[2:49:54] that meets those requirements.
[2:49:55] okay.
[2:49:56] okay?
[2:49:58] I am not in a position to state the names.
[2:50:01] both of those hotels, by the way, meet those classifications, which is fine, right?
[2:50:06] sure.
[2:50:09] so that's the process that's been set up in the development agreement.
[2:50:12] so we'll have to come back
[2:50:14] and provide a memorandum of purchase and sale that gets recorded.
[2:50:19] because in most contracts, as you know,
leases and purchase and sale agreements,
[2:50:22] there's confidential
information that's shared, right?
[2:50:25] so we agreed to provide a memorandum that gets recorded.
[2:50:29] and we added that it would be after a franchise agreement is signed.
[2:50:33] the franchise agreement is really the key.
[2:50:37] that is validation that the hotel flag has
done their analysis, and they've committed
[2:50:44] to the site and the
hotel developer,
[2:50:49] I talk with my hands.
[2:50:51] my wife gets after me for that.
[2:50:55] has to sign personal guarantees that they will deliver that hotel.
[2:51:01] that's what a franchise agreement means, okay?
[2:51:03] and so for us, like, in terms of giving
assurances to the city that we're going to
[2:51:08] meet the upscale extended-stay,
upscale requirement,
[2:51:13] and that will result in the amount of tot, right, by hitting those,
[2:51:20] that's the assurance that will be provided.
[2:51:24] and that process will have to occur as
part of the phase I and phase ii required
[2:51:30] improvements.
[2:51:31] so before I can move forward to phase I elective improvements,
[2:51:36] or phase ii elective improvements, we have to secure those.
[2:51:39] we do have, and you received a letter from
blackridge, who is the hotel developer,
[2:51:45] who is very well-versed
in hotel development,
[2:51:49] and they actually secured the ac marriott
hotel brand and flag after the first
[2:51:56] entitlement, okay?
[2:51:59] they got ac marriott to commit.
[2:52:02] they're the ones who are now working to
secure and make sure that those upscale flags
[2:52:07] are secured for
these two hotels.
[2:52:09] okay.
[2:52:10] yeah.
[2:52:11] hopefully, that makes sense.
[2:52:12] and they have emphasized their desire for
the first hotel to move forward and to be
[2:52:18] open before the olympics,
so much so that blackridge
[2:52:23] is advancing really on a speculative basis at this point, their plans, as are we.
[2:52:29] we submitted demo plans for the firestone building that were approved.
[2:52:34] we plan on undertaking that work in the next few weeks.
[2:52:37] to make sure that there's nothing that gets in the way.
[2:52:39] so really, I think for blackridge and
ultimately for the hotel flag, it's the
[2:52:43] decision that gets
made here tonight.
[2:52:46] and if there's any indication that there's
going to be further delay, that's what
[2:52:50] kind of would put the
olympics in jeopardy.
[2:52:53] yeah.
[2:52:54] and that brings me to the next thing, because
that exact thing with octa is going to
[2:52:58] put it in jeopardy.
[2:53:00] potentially.
[2:53:01] potentially.
[2:53:01] I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, because I think...
[2:53:05] look, if it gets moved slightly on the site, they need to be freeway-adjacent.
[2:53:10] they need to be next to commercial.
[2:53:12] they want to keep the footprint of the building that you've seen here, the design.
[2:53:15] they don't want to redesign the building
that they've already come out of pocket,
[2:53:18] speculatively, to design, right?
[2:53:22] we're fully incentivized to work within
that box, and there aren't many other
[2:53:27] freeway-adjacent sites for a
hotel in south orange county.
[2:53:31] so we think that there's a very high
probability we'll be able to come to a meeting
[2:53:34] of the minds.
[2:53:35] it's just we need to get through this,
and then we can go do that, and we'll come
[2:53:40] back and get it all documented
[2:53:43] so that they continue and not lose time, right?
[2:53:47] and have they already been
[2:53:50] alerted about the octa project?
[2:53:53] yeah, the hotel developer has, absolutely, yeah.
[2:53:56] okay.
[2:53:57] and so they're still willing to work?
[2:53:58] yeah, we've kicked around ideas.
[2:54:00] that's why I didn't have a direct answer for council member wheeler.
[2:54:03] we're kicking around ideas, but where it ultimately lands is to be determined.
[2:54:07] okay, yeah, that makes sense.
[2:54:11] and you had said that whole foods has already signed an agreement.
[2:54:15] does nordstrom rack already have this agreement with you?
[2:54:18] yeah, we have with nordstrom rack as well.
[2:54:20] okay, yeah, all right.
[2:54:22] it's just they could have left, but we're signing a new lease with them.
[2:54:27] for various reasons, just to clean up the site plan and everything.
[2:54:30] okay.
[2:54:31] that makes sense.
[2:54:32] all right.
[2:54:34] coming back to my public safety comments,
[2:54:41] will mgp cooperate with the city,
the sheriff's department, ocfa, and
[2:54:45] project-specific
service demand studies?
[2:54:48] absolutely.
[2:54:49] okay.
[2:54:49] anything that's required by code, which the code handles.
[2:54:53] I mean, the building permit approval
process is very lengthy to go through all of
[2:54:56] those channels.
[2:54:58] yeah.
[2:54:58] yeah.
[2:54:59] and let's say ocfa analysis demonstrates
a need for additional emergency response
[2:55:04] resources,
[2:55:05] would mgp participate in discussions
regarding land or facilities or another
[2:55:10] appropriate mitigation?
[2:55:12] I think they usually flag those, and the
fees that we pay usually are the first kind
[2:55:18] of resolution for
any gap in service,
[2:55:22] but we'd have those conversations with them.
[2:55:24] okay.
[2:55:25] yeah.
[2:55:26] I wouldn't foresee that being an issue,
because it hasn't come up to date, even on
[2:55:30] the prior project.
[2:55:31] so, okay.
[2:55:35] I'm going to go back to the senior housing
for a second that I did have a question
[2:55:39] earlier on.
[2:55:40] but has meta housing, so that's been
formally selected, but who selected it, and,
[2:55:45] like, is there currently a
binding agreement with them?
[2:55:49] not a binding agreement currently, but we're working with them toward that end.
[2:55:53] so meta housing, they're here as well.
[2:55:55] they could answer questions.
[2:55:56] but they are an orange county-based
affordable housing developer, been around 30
[2:56:01] years, over 10,000 units.
[2:56:06] very well-versed in navigating the approval process for the subsidy financing.
[2:56:12] and they met with the ad hoc committee
and with staff and with city attorney, and
[2:56:18] that allowed us to
continue with them.
[2:56:21] there is a provision in the da that if, for some reason,
[2:56:26] the deal doesn't move forward with meta,
and there are some parameters that they have
[2:56:29] to meet.
[2:56:31] there's timelines and things like that, that
an alternative developer could come back,
[2:56:35] and they'd have to be
approved by the council.
[2:56:38] perfect.
[2:56:38] that was my second question.
[2:56:40] all right.
[2:56:42] that answers all of that.
[2:56:45] last question for you.
[2:56:46] so from your perspective, what can the city
do without compromising our standards or
[2:56:52] protections to help accelerate
[2:56:55] the hotel, the park, and the revenue-producing
components of this project? Because
[2:57:01] even the park, I know, is
scheduled for phase ii, but
[2:57:06] with it having the nice screen and the watch
area, something like that would also be
[2:57:10] really cool to have
before the olympics,
[2:57:14] but since it's set in phase ii, the likelihood of that happening...
[2:57:18] but is there a possibility of being able to
shift things around a little bit to maybe
[2:57:22] move that up so
that, you know...
[2:57:25] I think it all comes down to permit review
processing timeframes, and there's just
[2:57:31] natural constraints on the turn
of those documents, including review
[2:57:36] by ocfa and other agencies that are outside of the city's purview.
[2:57:41] so I think the best we could do mutually
is just agree to turn those documents
[2:57:46] quickly, and to
the extent that they
[2:57:51] tie out to the plan that's been submitted,
and we had a 300-page submittal document
[2:57:57] that includes
[2:58:00] a lot of detail of what this project will
look like, all the way down to the lighting
[2:58:05] fixtures and things like that.
[2:58:08] as long as we stay within that box, I think
the highest likelihood of ensuring that
[2:58:15] those things happen
sooner rather than later is
[2:58:20] just working together to turn around those
reviews to grant those permits so they can
[2:58:24] start construction.
[2:58:26] right.
[2:58:26] yeah.
[2:58:26] and I get it.
[2:58:27] and there's a lot of it that's out of your control that, you know.
[2:58:30] but we'll do our very best.
[2:58:31] and I think, you know, we've tried to be very responsive throughout this process.
[2:58:36] and as questions and comments and changes
came up, we didn't want to lose time during
[2:58:42] the process either.
[2:58:44] and so, I mean, the team here is phenomenal.
[2:58:46] these are world-class architects and engineers.
[2:58:49] and our team has worked on a lot of these types of projects.
[2:58:52] and the same goes for meta and goes for the hotel developer.
[2:58:57] and everyone's very motivated to move
things forward as quickly as we can and to
[2:59:01] comply with the requirements
of the submittals, too.
[2:59:05] yeah, no, I can definitely tell from what you're doing and how you're going about it.
[2:59:10] and then, obviously, you're working as hard as you can to try to get the hotels.
[2:59:15] so we'll have to work with octa and the whole thing to try to get that done.
[2:59:20] would you be willing to maybe somehow
possibly move the park to phase I somehow, or
[2:59:28] is that not possible?
[2:59:31] I don't know.
[2:59:31] I'm just trying to think, again, you know,
how we can try to speed things up if there
[2:59:36] is a possibility.
[2:59:37] I mean, we can't change the natural
constraints of how quickly we could move
[2:59:43] nordstrom rack and
demo that building.
[2:59:47] okay.
[2:59:48] what I could envision would be, depending
on when that happens relative to the
[2:59:54] olympics, some other type of
temporary installation, gathering place.
[3:00:00] I've seen that before.
[3:00:01] just working with the complexities of the construction on site and making sure that...
[3:00:07] you're out of the way, it becomes challenging,
but, I mean, it's something we can
[3:00:11] look at.
[3:00:12] you've seen we get pretty creative from a
temporary occupancy perspective with all
[3:00:16] the circuses and stuff, so we could
probably figure something out, you
[3:00:20] know?
[3:00:20] yeah.
[3:00:20] I think that's a great opportunity, though, to take advantage of.
[3:00:23] yeah, it's a huge opportunity.
[3:00:24] so, yeah, I appreciate that.
[3:00:27] that's all the questions I got.
[3:00:29] I appreciate it.
[3:00:29] thank you.
[3:00:30] I'm going to move to josh, because the side
of the dais has not had its due quite yet,
[3:00:34] and then
[3:00:35] we'll come back to erica.
[3:00:37] okay.
[3:00:38] thank you, mr.
[3:00:38] mayor.
[3:00:40] quickly, two minutes or less, either from you or from meta.
[3:00:45] it's been referenced a bunch about the
portal, the time window, the queue to be able
[3:00:49] to get financing.
[3:00:52] can you just speak to the kind of the urgency of that or the process of that, and then
[3:00:57] also just reflect on your level of confidence
based on the characteristics of the
[3:01:01] project?
[3:01:02] yeah.
[3:01:03] I like casey.
[3:01:04] casey burke with meta housing.
[3:01:06] yeah.
[3:01:06] excuse me.
[3:01:07] thank you, mr.
[3:01:07] mayor.
[3:01:08] I'm going to sit down for a second.
[3:01:09] yeah.
[3:01:09] go ahead.
[3:01:10] take a break.
[3:01:10] you're doing a good job.
[3:01:12] mr.
[3:01:12] mayor, mr.
[3:01:13] mayor pro tem, and council, thank you.
[3:01:15] my name is casey burke.
[3:01:16] I'm president of meta housing.
[3:01:18] we're an affordable housing developer.
[3:01:19] been around for over 30 years.
[3:01:22] and we've built over 100 communities in california and about 12,000 units.
[3:01:28] so with regards to the timing of this,
the way that affordable housing deals get
[3:01:32] financed is really with an
allocation of tax-exempt
[3:01:36] bonds and an allocation of tax credits, both coming
[3:01:39] really federally and then allocated by the state.
[3:01:43] they have three funding rounds typically in a given year.
[3:01:46] the first two have already passed.
[3:01:48] the next one is in september.
[3:01:49] so in order to submit, you have to have certain threshold criteria in place.
[3:01:54] you have to have site control.
[3:01:55] you have to have an entitled project.
[3:01:58] you have to have plans.
[3:02:00] and so your units laid out, your number of units, your bedroom count,
[3:02:06] your parking, everything has to be ready to go and submitted.
[3:02:08] so that's in september.
[3:02:12] if we miss september, you now trickle
into next year, which is a whole different
[3:02:16] regulatory cycle.
[3:02:18] the budget changes, the regulations change,
[3:02:21] there are certain designations with this site that could change.
[3:02:24] it's currently located in a dda, which gets you a 30% boost on your tax credits.
[3:02:31] it changes annually.
[3:02:32] you just don't know what's going to happen there.
[3:02:35] our confidence level, to speak to that,
[3:02:38] I would say we're very optimistic.
[3:02:40] we wouldn't be this focused and this energized
and excited about this partnership if
[3:02:44] we weren't optimistic that
in this third round, we think
[3:02:48] we can secure for this development and
for the city an allocation of credits and
[3:02:52] bonds that would allow
us to move forward.
[3:02:56] the application is in september.
[3:02:59] the awards would be made in december, and
then we would start construction roughly
[3:03:03] six to seven months after that.
[3:03:05] so if successful, we'd be under construction
about this time next year with the
[3:03:10] affordable component of that.
[3:03:12] that's helpful.
[3:03:13] and if we miss september, or what is
the likelihood of missing september if this
[3:03:20] decision gets pushed
off to august or beyond?
[3:03:28] if the decision tonight were to get pushed off to august,
[3:03:31] I don't know all of the technical elements of appeals and things like that.
[3:03:36] we have to be entitled with the expiration of any appeal period by september 8th.
[3:03:42] that's the application deadline for us.
[3:03:45] and then if we miss that, the next one
would be roughly february or march of next
[3:03:50] year.
[3:03:51] but I don't want to get too technical on you and, like, spin your heads,
[3:03:56] but it has to do with the tax credits and the bonds that are available in each round.
[3:03:59] and round one of next year will look very different than round three of this year.
[3:04:04] and this project's ability to compete, I'm
much more optimistic about round three
[3:04:07] than I would be about...
[3:04:09] we know the variables going into this next round.
[3:04:12] we don't know the variables going into next year.
[3:04:14] that's right.
[3:04:15] okay.
[3:04:15] well, we actually do know some of the
variables, and they would decrease our
[3:04:19] probability.
[3:04:20] got it.
[3:04:20] so...
[3:04:21] okay.
[3:04:22] all my questions, thank you.
[3:04:25] I'll just add one since we're on this subject.
[3:04:27] so one of the major things that makes it
possible for you to do, as I understand it,
[3:04:33] is
[3:04:34] that the applicant would be actually changing
the ownership of that piece of land to
[3:04:39] you as a developer, and
that's one of the main
[3:04:43] incentives that makes it work for you financially, correct?
[3:04:47] or am I making that too simple?
[3:04:50] no, that's correct.
[3:04:51] we would ultimately have to be the owner of the property.
[3:04:54] so we would enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the land with merlone geier.
[3:04:58] they would, upon us receiving an award and moving towards a construction loan closing,
[3:05:03] they would have to transfer title to us and to our partnership that would build that.
[3:05:07] and ultimately, we'd bring in our tax credit investor.
[3:05:10] we would bring in our
[3:05:11] social service partner, you know, and together.
[3:05:14] we're all going to operate the development,
but we have to own it. Thank you. Back to
[3:05:24] erica next. All
right, well, it's
[3:05:29] good that you're up because I have a couple
of questions. So how many buildings have
[3:05:35] you built that are all
low-income housing?
[3:05:41] over 100.
[3:05:41] okay.
[3:05:43] how old are the buildings now?
[3:05:46] I mean, well, they range in everything.
[3:05:50] so we're an active builder right now.
[3:05:52] so we have about 10 communities under
construction, probably about 1,800 units right
[3:05:55] now.
[3:05:57] we built about 1,000 units last year.
[3:05:59] we probably built about 600 units the year before that.
[3:06:02] we've built over 12,000 units.
[3:06:05] that's all we do.
[3:06:06] we are a niche organization.
[3:06:07] so we partner with folks like merlone geier.
[3:06:09] we've partnered with lennar.
[3:06:10] we've partnered with shea homes.
[3:06:12] we've partnered with homefed in san
diego, with mckinley partners up north in
[3:06:18] fairfield.
[3:06:19] we've also gone with not with an inclusionary
housing ms, just infill sites on our
[3:06:23] own out there,
and this is all we do.
[3:06:26] we only do 100% affordable housing.
[3:06:29] we do family.
[3:06:30] we do senior.
[3:06:31] we do homeless housing.
[3:06:32] we do an array of tenant populations.
[3:06:35] okay, who manages the property?
[3:06:37] do you manage the property afterwards?
[3:06:39] we contract with third-party property managers.
[3:06:41] we currently are working with five different property managers.
[3:06:44] it depends on location.
[3:06:45] it depends on tenant population.
[3:06:48] we really work to find the right property manager.
[3:06:52] all the ones we've worked with, we've worked with for many, many years.
[3:06:58] okay.
[3:07:05] so you work with the property management
individuals, and how is the maintenance on
[3:07:10] these properties, like if you're
not receiving as much income?
[3:07:16] how are you able to maintain these properties?
[3:07:18] well, we really underwrite these from
day one the same way a market-rate builder
[3:07:23] would.
[3:07:25] so our operating expenses are really no less than a market-rate building.
[3:07:29] we're putting the same level of investment
annually back into these, into the
[3:07:35] communities and the apartments.
[3:07:38] the revenue side is a little lower, which ultimately hits the bottom line,
[3:07:41] which is why you need the tax credits and the tax-exempt bonds.
[3:07:44] so the subsidies really come in on the front end, not on the back end.
[3:07:48] you guys won't be able to tell a difference.
[3:07:49] you won't be able to drive by this building and think, there's the affordable one.
[3:07:53] it's going to be designed with the same
architectural standards that the market rates
[3:07:56] are being built with.
[3:07:58] it's going to be designed by this team.
[3:07:59] these guys are all going to care what this looks like.
[3:08:01] it's going to be integrated within the community.
[3:08:04] you won't even know
[3:08:06] that it's affordable versus the market rate.
[3:08:08] in addition, senior developments, senior communities, wear much less than family.
[3:08:14] they just do.
[3:08:16] to your point about nine-year-olds
with a lot of energy, I have four kids, I
[3:08:18] understand.
[3:08:20] they tend to beat up the buildings a little more.
[3:08:22] you have to design them a little bit differently.
[3:08:25] you have to make sure that they have the
appropriate outdoor space to release that
[3:08:28] energy.
[3:08:29] we're talking about a senior community here.
[3:08:31] the turnover is very low in senior communities,
and the maintenance and the wear and
[3:08:35] tear are very low.
[3:08:38] and we build an appropriate amount
[3:08:41] of community space into these.
[3:08:42] we offer on-site social services for the
residents: health and wellness classes, art
[3:08:47] classes.
[3:08:49] so it's a community that they ultimately are proud of, that they want to take care of.
[3:08:54] they don't want to leave.
[3:08:56] it'll be beautiful for a very long time.
[3:08:59] so I'm going to go back to the other question that I have.
[3:09:04] are you concerned about being next to a bus
station where maybe the noise levels are
[3:09:15] louder, the
individuals are, I mean,
[3:09:20] homeless, who suffer from mental illness?
You just don't know. What other protections
[3:09:26] for these residents?
What happens?
[3:09:29] yeah, so the short answer is no.
[3:09:32] I'm not concerned.
[3:09:33] I think this is an incredible site.
[3:09:35] I think this is an incredible community.
[3:09:36] I think that the design is beautiful.
[3:09:38] I think the level of amenities that are
going to be available to the residents of
[3:09:43] this is outstanding,
[3:09:45] probably better than you would find in most
affordable housing communities, wherever
[3:09:49] they're built.
[3:09:51] we've built over 1,200 homeless units, psh housing.
[3:09:54] so we've built for veterans.
[3:09:55] we've built for at risk of homelessness, homelessness.
[3:09:59] we kind of understand the tenant population and what that requires.
[3:10:03] we've built, I mean, right in the heart of
skid row and have been able to keep our
[3:10:08] residents safe and secure.
[3:10:11] we will, as we get into the design of this with the architects and the engineers,
[3:10:16] we'll look at the transit center there
and make sure that we've got whatever
[3:10:21] appropriate security
measures are needed,
[3:10:25] whatever needs to be integrated with the management company.
[3:10:27] I actually see that as an amenity, having
that transit center available to them,
[3:10:30] having the hospital available,
[3:10:32] all the shopping that's going to be there.
[3:10:35] I'm really not concerned about that.
[3:10:37] I do think we need to be aware of it and be mindful, and we will be in the design.
[3:10:42] but long term, if you could see where a lot
of affordable housing is built, this is a
[3:10:47] beautiful site.
[3:10:50] I understand.
[3:10:52] at the same time, you have the hospital that's also in walking distance.
[3:10:56] and I don't know if you've been in the er at certain hours.
[3:11:01] it can be, because the homeless challenges
are extremely difficult in the state of
[3:11:08] california with a lack
of mental institutions.
[3:11:13] we have the increase with the hospital and with the homeless shelter in laguna beach.
[3:11:22] and so we sort of get a double whammy in that one location.
[3:11:27] so with individuals needing that go to the hospital.
[3:11:32] okay.
[3:11:33] all right.
[3:11:35] thank you.
[3:11:36] thank you.
[3:11:36] I do have some more questions for the developer.
[3:11:41] okay.
[3:11:42] thank you very much.
[3:11:43] thank you.
[3:11:46] okay.
[3:11:47] so the last time...
[3:11:51] one of the many times that you've approached the city asking for entitlements.
[3:12:00] I felt that jab there.
[3:12:01] what's that?
[3:12:02] I felt that jab there.
[3:12:03] did that feel good?
[3:12:06] hey facts are facts.
[3:12:09] not all our doing.
[3:12:13] I just...
[3:12:14] so...
[3:12:17] you had mentioned that there was a hotel.
[3:12:19] is it the same hotel, or is this different?
[3:12:24] I think I answered the question as well
as I could, given the restrictions that I'm
[3:12:29] working under.
[3:12:30] okay.
[3:12:31] so, okay.
[3:12:31] so, all right.
[3:12:33] it will be an upscale hotel that you will love.
[3:12:37] and the shops that...
[3:12:39] you mentioned that you had a number of—well,
it wasn't you, actually, that came, I
[3:12:44] must admit.
[3:12:45] it wasn't me.
[3:12:46] somebody else?
[3:12:47] it was not me.
[3:12:49] there were a number of shops, and those shops seemed to be gone.
[3:12:55] what sort of assurances do we have that—
[3:13:02] hopefully whole foods will actually
be there? What assurances do we have?
[3:13:07] so, as part of the da, we
agreed to record a memorandum
[3:13:12] of that lease that will be provided to meet
the required phase 1 improvements, so you
[3:13:19] will have a memorandum recorded
demonstrating that that lease
[3:13:25] with whole foods exists. We've shown the lease to
[3:13:29] your legal team.
They've seen the lease.
[3:13:31] it's been signed, and we've already
submitted our plans for that building shell.
[3:13:36] actually, it's in plan
[3:13:38] review right now, so we would not spend
that money or agree to those things as
[3:13:45] conditions that we have
to meet to be able to unlock
[3:13:50] the phase 1 elective improvements if we didn't have that lease.
[3:13:56] and the same goes for the retail leasing around that.
[3:13:59] we have...
[3:14:02] lists of tenants who've been interested in
this project, and the feedback we've given
[3:14:08] them, and that a
lot of them have said
[3:14:11] to us is, once you have your entitlements
and we know there's a path moving forward,
[3:14:16] then let's reengage.
So we're very confident
[3:14:20] leasing around whole foods and nordstrom
rack is a good problem to have. They're very
[3:14:25] quality anchors for the retail.
[3:14:28] okay, so a couple of questions that I have.
[3:14:30] so the economic vitality, this uvsp, it
is defined, it's been studied that this is
[3:14:36] the economic vitality
of the entire city.
[3:14:41] essentially, it's supposed to be the feeder of the city.
[3:14:44] so it's supposed to be a feeder of funds to the city.
[3:14:47] it's supposed to enhance the quality of life for residents.
[3:14:53] and given this project, it
[3:14:56] there is an increase, a substantial
increase, of residents without the increased
[3:15:02] appropriate numbers of retail.
[3:15:06] what happens if the quality of life decreases?
[3:15:09] we can't afford officers, and your shopping center becomes an attraction for
[3:15:20] what happens if we are unable to take care
of that shopping center because we don't
[3:15:25] have funds to take
care of the center?
[3:15:29] so you're—I don't know if you're trying to
make a connection between the number of
[3:15:36] households and the
viability of the retail.
[3:15:41] is that what you're—
[3:15:43] the commercial brings in a higher percentage
of funding to the city, so commercial
[3:15:47] brings in a higher amount of
funding. We had a significant
[3:15:51] amount, and one thing that isn't mentioned
is what the funding would be today, with
[3:15:58] inflation, from the mall
revenue. And so the past
[3:16:03] mall revenue and the sales tax brought
in a huge amount of revenue, and we didn't
[3:16:09] have an extra population to pay
for the infrastructure, the services.
[3:16:16] so we didn't have that prior, and now this
plan introduces a population increase with
[3:16:24] a huge revenue decrease.
[3:16:28] what happens to your center if we cannot pay for, I mean,
[3:16:34] we're already struggling as it is with $2 million of revenue loss over the years,
[3:16:41] and I know that you have provided funding
through the development agreement, but that
[3:16:46] funding has gone
[3:16:47] quickly because we've needed the revenue.
[3:16:50] and we don't have—I see in the development
agreement, you're not willing to pay more
[3:16:54] to the city.
[3:16:55] so you're not willing to pay more for that.
[3:16:57] there will be $2.9 million more of fees in this project.
[3:17:03] it's 2.9.
[3:17:04] and a reset of the clock, essentially.
[3:17:09] to a certain extent.
[3:17:12] yeah.
[3:17:12] a new development agreement, brand-new, brand-new in
[3:17:17] it seems brand-new entitlements.
[3:17:20] I'm just wondering, if we can't afford to
take care of the center, why would you be
[3:17:24] entitled to more safety if we
[3:17:26] don't have the money, and how, if it's taking away?
[3:17:30] if this area takes away from the existing residents, and
[3:17:35] what's your question?
[3:17:36] is it related to the fiscal impact analysis?
[3:17:41] yes, I'm just wondering.
[3:17:42] I mean, you, as a commercial developer,
you want to be in cities that are safe, my
[3:17:50] guess is.
[3:17:51] you want to have your commercial properties in areas that are—
[3:18:00] so I don't see anything in the analysis
that's been done that suggests that this
[3:18:06] won't be a safe project
or that the households
[3:18:11] who are going to have the incomes that they
will need to afford to buy the new homes
[3:18:17] or to rent the market-
[3:18:19] rate apartments, that they're in some way going to be a drain on
[3:18:25] the community.
[3:18:27] there's been nothing that we've seen in
any of the analysis or any of the studies
[3:18:31] that suggests that's the case.
[3:18:33] so what you're projecting could occur.
[3:18:37] I don't know how to respond to that question.
[3:18:42] I don't see a connection.
[3:18:45] what I do know is that you have a lot of really smart people that the city
[3:18:50] has on staff or as consultants that have
looked at this project every which way to
[3:18:54] sunday, and they are
confident that it's going
[3:18:57] to be a good thing for the city. And as
a developer, we're comfortable with the
[3:19:02] development agreement
and the rules of engagement
[3:19:06] that it establishes, that it will be a
financeable project that can be executed.
[3:19:10] that's all that I
know. I don't know
[3:19:14] these, you know, scenarios that could potentially play out.
[3:19:17] there's always a scenario that could
potentially play out, but it hasn't been
[3:19:22] analyzed,
[3:19:23] and I don't think it's the basis for our decisions moving forward,
[3:19:28] and I don't think it's the recommendation
of staff or of the consultants that you
[3:19:33] guys have hired that those
should be overriding considerations.
[3:19:39] I understand.
[3:19:39] it's just the reality of where we're at.
[3:19:43] well, I don't know about a reality.
[3:19:44] I don't hear anything you just said that sounds like reality necessarily.
[3:19:48] I need to, I need to—okay.
[3:19:52] as chair of this, I'm going to interrupt a little bit, gently.
[3:19:57] I feel like I'm watching jeopardy on tv.
[3:20:01] and I feel like all you have to do in
making an accusation is to frame your
[3:20:07] accusation as a
question, like the show.
[3:20:12] and I don't know that a lot of these questions,
from my viewpoint, are really focused
[3:20:18] on the development,
your presentation,
[3:20:22] and what you're doing.
[3:20:24] a lot of what-ifs.
[3:20:25] what if the world stops?
[3:20:27] what if we're hit by a meteor next year?
[3:20:30] and so I would just ask the council to refocus as much as possible on this project.
[3:20:40] and let's try to move forward.
[3:20:43] and this was just questions of staff and questions of the presenter.
[3:20:49] and I'd like to be courteous to both.
[3:20:53] and so I'm gently asking council members
in general just to, you know, be mindful of
[3:21:01] that.
[3:21:03] I feel like we're taking this into
deliberations and all kinds of debate when these
[3:21:09] are supposed to be simple
clarifications and questions.
[3:21:15] the concerns of fiscal impact of the city and how that's on our heads.
[3:21:18] you know what, I've already said.
[3:21:21] erica, I've already said what I'm going to say, and
[3:21:24] I'm counting on your common sense and
good sense to not go off the deep end about
[3:21:31] everything from homelessness
[3:21:35] in newport beach or in laguna beach to whatever.
[3:21:39] I mean, we could go on and on.
[3:21:43] and maybe that's filibuster is what we're talking about here.
[3:21:49] but I hate to do that to the audience who
is still here, although I do know a number
[3:21:54] of them are consultants.
[3:21:57] so they're here for reasons of support.
[3:22:00] but anyway.
[3:22:03] it's a general request, okay?
[3:22:07] you may continue your questions.
[3:22:09] all right.
[3:22:10] I yield my comment, my questions.
[3:22:12] okay.
[3:22:17] hi.
[3:22:18] mr.
[3:22:21] mathis, to ask the question I'd
written down, it must be telepathy.
[3:22:26] as I understand, there are two
urgencies: hotel one and the affordable,
[3:22:32] is that correct?
[3:22:34] and the whole foods.
[3:22:36] we have a timeline for delivery of that building for whole foods.
[3:22:41] okay.
[3:22:41] I understand now, from the other gentleman
speaking, that the affordable, the key
[3:22:45] dates are september
and february.
[3:22:47] what are whole foods' drop-dead or key dates?
[3:22:50] we just have to deliver space in mid-2028 to them.
[3:22:55] we have to deliver the building shell in
the condition we've agreed to in the lease
[3:22:59] in mid-2028.
[3:23:01] by what time again, mike?
[3:23:03] mid-2028.
[3:23:03] there's a date in the lease.
[3:23:06] okay, so that's not quite as tight as the other.
[3:23:09] but that's after building.
[3:23:10] we have to build the building.
[3:23:12] okay, I understand.
[3:23:12] so there's a pretty tight timeline.
[3:23:15] we're already right up against that.
[3:23:17] okay.
[3:23:19] what are the drop-dead dates, the important dates for hotel one?
[3:23:22] yesterday.
[3:23:24] yesterday.
[3:23:25] no, the reality is, I'd say they need to,
because it really comes down to the risk
[3:23:34] level.
[3:23:37] they've been willing to go at risk up to
this point, knowing that this meeting was
[3:23:43] going to occur.
[3:23:48] by them going at risk, they're on track,
even with the conversations we've had about
[3:23:54] 12.4 and octa,
[3:23:56] they're on track to be able to begin their work in january.
[3:24:01] so they need to begin in january, so it...
[3:24:04] it could, they have, like any construction
schedule, there's a little bit of
[3:24:08] contingency, right?
[3:24:09] but they want to be in the ground in january.
[3:24:13] okay, so let me rephrase that and see if I'm correct.
[3:24:16] so they can start shoveling in january?
[3:24:20] ideally, yes.
[3:24:21] and that, obviously, there's grading permits and then there's building permits.
[3:24:24] so there's phasing to that construction schedule.
[3:24:27] that's a little bit of time, then.
[3:24:29] okay.
[3:24:30] but there's no time.
[3:24:31] no, there's really not.
[3:24:33] because there's also the—they still have
to secure the franchise agreement, like we
[3:24:37] talked about,
with the hotel flag.
[3:24:40] what's that setback?
[3:24:42] it's not set back.
[3:24:43] right now, we're on schedule for it.
[3:24:45] but if it gets delayed, if this gets delayed,
[3:24:48] then that—I don't know when the next real
estate committee meeting is for that hotel
[3:24:52] brand.
[3:24:53] but right now, the meeting is lined up.
[3:24:56] you realize it's just the first reading tonight.
[3:24:57] it can't be passed tonight.
[3:24:59] sure it could.
[3:25:01] so there's still going to be a delay to the second reading, at least?
[3:25:04] well, yeah, of course the second reading.
[3:25:05] okay.
[3:25:06] and they've taken the second reading and
the appeal periods, those things, all into
[3:25:12] account.
[3:25:14] I think I know the answer, but I want to clarify and make sure.
[3:25:16] so right now, hotel two partially sits on where nordstrom is right now, right?
[3:25:23] yeah, it's like, yeah, it's directly adjacent to it.
[3:25:29] they don't want to be built unless the
magdalena is built out, and it all kind of has
[3:25:34] to happen at the same time.
[3:25:36] now, they could, if they elected to, if
they get into the mechanics of building that
[3:25:42] building and how it
incorporates into the site
[3:25:46] plan, the phasing of when they would complete
hotel one, because they want to use the
[3:25:50] same construction crew,
move straight over to hotel two.
[3:25:55] if it syncs up and they're willing to go at risk on any component of their project,
[3:26:00] concurrent with or in advance of the nordstrom rack moving, they could do that.
[3:26:06] it's just that's not what they're anticipating right now.
[3:26:09] okay.
[3:26:10] so there is maybe a little potential to...
[3:26:12] hopefully.
[3:26:15] I don't—no, not by 2028.
[3:26:15] okay.
[3:26:16] yeah, because the—that's the key.
[3:26:18] okay.
[3:26:19] because the relocation of the nordstrom rack can't happen.
[3:26:22] it's a turnkey build, meaning they'll close the existing location
[3:26:28] one night, and they'll open in a fully
operating store the next day, and then they'll
[3:26:34] decommission.
[3:26:36] I thought they used to literally take the
clothes off the racks in one store and move
[3:26:40] them to the other.
[3:26:42] now they don't.
[3:26:43] they fully stock the new store, and then
they move all the inventory in the old store
[3:26:48] someplace else.
[3:26:49] I know.
[3:26:50] that's what I thought, but I learned something new as well.
[3:26:53] thank you.
[3:26:54] of course.
[3:26:57] whoa.
[3:27:00] actually, those were great.
[3:27:02] they were great questions.
[3:27:03] I strayed a little bit here and there.
[3:27:06] in my opinion, but...
[3:27:07] uh...
[3:27:08] we needed to do that, and so I appreciate your time to get up here and do what
[3:27:14] both steve and staff have done in answering
questions and clarifying things as much
[3:27:19] as you can. So with that,
[3:27:21] we're going to bring
[3:27:23] of the
[3:27:25] planning agency of the joint session of the council and planning agency together
[3:27:30] for deliberation, and
[3:27:33] I don't know whether we want to start with
a motion or we'll want to just open it up
[3:27:37] for whatever the
will of the council
[3:27:40] is.
[3:27:42] but in any case, we will definitely go around the horn more than a number of times.
[3:27:48] I like things to be thorough.
[3:27:50] and then hopefully we can take stock of this and move one way or the other.
[3:27:57] so with that, anyone want to start?
[3:28:02] mayor pro tem, you haven't said much.
[3:28:05] yeah, you know, thank you, mr.
[3:28:06] mayor.
[3:28:08] I'll also go ahead and start with a motion
to approve the recommendation as proposed
[3:28:15] by staff to move this
project forward to be
[3:28:19] coming back for a second reading.
[3:28:22] do we have a second on that motion?
[3:28:23] I'll second that.
[3:28:24] okay, we have a second.
[3:28:26] now we'll open it up to deliberations, and
we'll start with dave. Okay, like I—hold
[3:28:37] up. Before, I got this
huge document, and I'd
[3:28:43] like to ask anybody on the council: read it
through? Is there anybody on the council
[3:28:47] who read this thing?
[3:28:50] I've read a lot of it.
[3:28:51] yeah, I don't know what you're holding up.
[3:28:53] well, this is the thing that the staff produced.
[3:28:56] it's got the da in the middle, and it's got all the other pertinent parts.
[3:29:00] yeah.
[3:29:01] okay, I have not.
[3:29:02] and only the ad hoc could have a chance.
[3:29:04] I think it's premature to vote on this tonight.
[3:29:08] maybe the discussion was great.
[3:29:10] we need to go over this.
[3:29:11] I need to go over this document.
[3:29:13] I'm particularly concerned about the
economics, even done by the two different
[3:29:17] organizations that I think
were hired by merlone geier.
[3:29:22] their difference in the economic outcome
was almost a million dollars, around
[3:29:27] $900,000.
[3:29:29] that's a significant figure when you talk
about numbers in the range of two to three
[3:29:31] million.
[3:29:33] so I don't think we're ready.
[3:29:35] I was trying to take into account the urgencies, and it's tight.
[3:29:42] maybe we have to slip the affordable to february,
[3:29:44] but the other one is doable, I guess.
But I think we need to wait till the next
[3:29:49] meeting to have
[3:29:50] a first reading for this.
[3:29:51] it's just too different, and there's not
enough time to really see what's really
[3:29:57] there. I don't
[3:29:58] want—I don't want to vote on something
that I have no idea what's in there.
[3:30:01] I've managed to maybe
get what took me
[3:30:03] literally—I got this package yesterday. It literally took me two hours
[3:30:07] to decipher because it didn't have page numbers.
[3:30:10] it didn't have clean demarcations between the sections.
[3:30:14] and as a result, I've only gone through maybe 25 pages or so, and there's hundreds.
[3:30:19] it's just premature.
[3:30:20] I'm voting for something.
[3:30:22] I have no idea what it is.
[3:30:25] okay.
[3:30:26] I'm going to move on to josh.
[3:30:30] you're next.
[3:30:30] oh, thank you.
[3:30:32] I just want to say thank you to not only the...
[3:30:38] developer, but also our staff for all
the time and effort, as well as all of your
[3:30:41] consultants that are
still here, our constituents,
[3:30:45] everybody in the audience, thank you for your participation.
[3:30:47] thank you for being here tonight and going through all this.
[3:30:50] it's because of you that's why this project is where it is now.
[3:30:55] so I know everybody has put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this.
[3:30:59] it's truly appreciated.
[3:31:01] it's nice to sit up here and see all of this come to fruition.
[3:31:04] so I'm excited to get this going.
[3:31:08] that's it.
[3:31:10] okay.
[3:31:11] you took off your light.
[3:31:13] erica.
[3:31:14] okay.
[3:31:15] I have a lot of concerns, a lot of concerns for the future of the city.
[3:31:23] I, too, and my stack is...
[3:31:29] huge as well.
[3:31:30] we have to go through all these papers.
[3:31:34] and if you do it right, and you're making
a decision, you have to weigh everything
[3:31:40] when you make
a decision up here.
[3:31:43] because you're looking at the interests of
the 30-something thousand residents that
[3:31:50] aren't present in this meeting.
[3:31:54] and just because their voices aren't here
doesn't mean that they haven't spoken over
[3:31:58] the years.
[3:32:00] and just because this meeting happened
kind of quickly on a summer evening when
[3:32:05] everyone is busy doesn't mean
that their weight doesn't matter,
[3:32:10] because it matters.
[3:32:12] I'm concerned.
[3:32:13] there are so many concerns.
[3:32:18] I'm not sure if oakbrook is here.
[3:32:22] I think they left.
[3:32:26] I'm not sure.
[3:32:27] but if you just look at the square footage
of retail oakbrook provides and the number
[3:32:35] of units that oakbrook provides,
[3:32:39] so 270 units, and they have, it was 130,000,
I think, square feet of retail, that
[3:32:45] makes financial sense.
[3:32:58] we have substantially more units, about 1,500, and then 1,500 units with this project.
[3:33:08] and we have a decrease in retail, and there's a hotel that's supposed to be built.
[3:33:16] however, the hotel isn't guaranteed because
there's a chance eminent domain will
[3:33:22] happen.
[3:33:24] not just a chance, since 2023.
[3:33:28] so that means that there could be a high probability the hotel won't be built.
[3:33:34] so the finances put us in a really bad financial position.
[3:33:39] just to even afford one officer, I think,
with the police, I think we're at $600,000
[3:33:44] per year per officer.
[3:33:46] maybe the amount shifts, but it's...
[3:33:56] $300,000 per, or 24 hours? 24 hours. Okay,
so you have to think about how we're going
[3:34:04] to be able to keep this
[3:34:07] area safe, period. That's, I mean, just to
handle the safety alone, it doesn't cover
[3:34:14] the costs to have to
handle the safety. I do
[3:34:19] like homeownership opportunities. I think having homeownership
[3:34:24] is excellent, but I also need to be reminded,
you also have to be reminded that years
[3:34:31] ago, and one
[3:34:33] thing that dave and I have is a lot of history on this council, years ago, and
[3:34:40] approached us, saying we had two rhna units
and they were thinking about expanding
[3:34:45] the rhna, and they
expanded the rhna to 1,950.
[3:34:52] and merlone geier came and said, hey, we will take all of your rhna.
[3:34:55] we want to take all of it.
[3:34:58] and they wanted all of it.
[3:35:00] so it seemed like, okay, well, we have a
win-win situation until the changes and
[3:35:06] shifts on what was deemed okay.
[3:35:09] so there was like this spectrum.
[3:35:11] well, that spectrum didn't happen.
[3:35:14] and we focused all of our time and energy to prepare for that meeting in 2021.
[3:35:22] and after that meeting in 2021, we put everything aside with the staff.
[3:35:27] we were very limited on staff.
[3:35:29] so we put everything towards merlone geier
because the same excuses—I don't want to
[3:35:36] be rude,
[3:35:37] but the same reasons were popping up why we need to do it now.
[3:35:40] you even had a lawsuit.
[3:35:41] I think you guys were threatening a lawsuit
against us to pressure us into making a
[3:35:47] decision.
[3:35:48] to pressure us to make a decision, that
pressure on city staff, that pressure on our
[3:35:53] city caused for rhna to be, our
[3:35:56] rhna allocation to be held up.
[3:36:00] our staff couldn't make it.
[3:36:02] so then we're now in a builder's remedy.
[3:36:04] we wound up with builder's remedy issues.
[3:36:07] and then we had to increase the numbers of our units.
[3:36:14] houses and units everywhere throughout the
city, an explosion of population, because
[3:36:19] we focused on a project that
didn't come to fruition. And we
[3:36:24] really should have been focused on rhna,
and in all fairness, your company came and
[3:36:28] said we will take
all of the rhna.
[3:36:31] it just, and the pressure that we're under right now is extremely high because
[3:36:39] the consequences aren't on any of the staff.
[3:36:41] the consequences aren't on the city attorney.
[3:36:44] the consequences aren't on the negotiator.
[3:36:48] the consequences aren't on the developer.
[3:36:50] guess who deals with the consequences?
[3:36:53] we do.
[3:36:55] that's a decision that it comes back and hits us in our faces.
[3:36:59] and the weight is on us as council members.
[3:37:02] so we take that.
[3:37:04] we have to take the hits.
[3:37:05] we take the public hits.
[3:37:07] we take all of the hits when we do it wrong.
[3:37:10] and we're being pressured here to not read
through the documents, to push through a
[3:37:14] decision that's
already been pre-made.
[3:37:17] we can't go through these and try to go
through and sift through like we should,
[3:37:22] because everything is going
to be determined tonight.
[3:37:26] but I cannot support something that doesn't make sense.
[3:37:31] because the uvsp says things like, in the
uvsp, it is supposed to be the area that
[3:37:36] brings revenue
throughout the city.
[3:37:39] our city suffers greatly.
[3:37:41] we don't even pave our roads.
[3:37:44] the decision was just made a couple of weeks
ago to double the amount of time to pave
[3:37:50] our roads.
[3:37:51] that's quality of life.
[3:37:53] that's quality of life.
[3:37:54] we can't pave our roads on time, but we
want to be saying yes to projects because of
[3:38:00] a hotel,
[3:38:01] because we want to help a developer out.
[3:38:04] we want to say that, but we can't pave our roads.
[3:38:06] we're not even thinking straight.
[3:38:07] we can't pave our roads.
[3:38:09] we keep decreasing police.
[3:38:10] we don't have enough police in our city.
[3:38:12] we don't.
[3:38:13] we need support.
[3:38:15] we also have a group that's talking about
trying to remove license plate readers that
[3:38:19] help us in the city.
[3:38:22] we have groups that are coming that are
trying to eliminate tools that we have that
[3:38:25] help at a lower cost,
[3:38:27] but we don't have enough police.
[3:38:29] it's crazy.
[3:38:31] anyway, these are problems you don't have
to deal with, but these are problems we
[3:38:34] have to deal with.
[3:38:36] reduction: we can't fix our community
center. We fight over trying to get carpet
[3:38:41] completed at our
community center. We've been
[3:38:45] planting plants with
residents throughout the city.
[3:38:47] we've been trying to find cheaper ways to
do everything in the city because our mall
[3:38:52] is
[3:38:53] gone, and it wasn't just a mall that was dead.
[3:39:00] it was a mall that was thriving.
[3:39:01] why was it thriving?
[3:39:02] because we had, and it says it in the uvsp,
we had residents from lake forest, from
[3:39:10] laguna woods,
[3:39:12] from laguna hills, shopping at this mall because it fit a need in the area.
[3:39:19] it fit.
[3:39:19] we were receiving $2 million in sales tax revenue annually, over $2 million.
[3:39:27] and it's not necessarily; it was a
decision that was made, but the people that
[3:39:34] suffered the most
were the staff.
[3:39:37] and then the consequences are on the council.
[3:39:41] so, I mean, with that, I'll allow my
colleagues to speak because I feel like I've
[3:39:45] absorbed too much time already,
[3:39:47] but those are some of my thoughts for now.
[3:39:50] all right.
[3:39:51] next on the list is jared mathis.
[3:39:55] thank you, mayor.
[3:39:56] let's just deal with reality.
[3:39:58] this is a good project.
[3:40:00] every expert here has said so.
[3:40:03] staff has done diligent work.
[3:40:05] it's been a collaborative process with the ad hoc committee and the developer.
[3:40:10] I don't buy the idea that you don't have time to understand what this project is.
[3:40:15] all this has happened on your watch.
[3:40:17] you've been part of this 13-year vacancy.
[3:40:19] eight years of that is under your watch.
[3:40:21] you've been mayor twice, dave.
[3:40:22] you were on the ad hoc committee before.
[3:40:24] you meet with the city manager every week
for hours, and you didn't want to talk to
[3:40:28] him about it over
that period of time.
[3:40:31] we knew this date was coming a long time ago.
[3:40:35] so save that part of it.
[3:40:37] as far as what we have to do as council members, we signed up for this.
[3:40:42] this is what we're here to do.
[3:40:44] and so there's no complaining about that from this side of the dais.
[3:40:49] let's do the job.
[3:40:52] this is a good project.
[3:40:53] it's been vetted.
[3:40:55] and we've got the information that we need
to make a good decision and keep ourselves
[3:40:59] on the timeline.
[3:41:02] next would be dave wheeler.
[3:41:06] mr.
[3:41:06] mathis, what you just said, I'm taking offense to.
[3:41:10] you guys took over the committee.
[3:41:14] you and caskey took over the committee.
[3:41:17] the rest of us have been locked out.
[3:41:19] we had no information.
[3:41:21] you brought new information.
[3:41:22] it was six months.
[3:41:23] it was left out of our monthly evaluation.
[3:41:26] we didn't know what was going on.
[3:41:28] I just got the information package yesterday.
[3:41:32] and to say that I've had plenty of time
to do it when I had no idea what you were
[3:41:35] doing is totally absurd
[3:41:37] and not true.
[3:41:39] and to say that all of a sudden, now we've
been on this for 13 years, and we come up
[3:41:43] here now and we've
[3:41:44] got to make a decision on this
multi-multi-million-dollar project in one day without
[3:41:48] any evaluation, is absurd.
[3:41:50] and anybody who votes for this is not taking the city into account.
[3:41:53] it's absolutely ridiculous.
[3:41:55] and I resent you saying things like that because they're not true.
[3:42:05] I'm actually going to speak up on this one.
[3:42:08] it was before your light went
on, so you may have last lapsed.
[3:42:14] I've worked on this for
about three years, and
[3:42:20] this ad hoc committee was nominated
and elected to the position of the ad hoc
[3:42:25] committee a year and a
half ago by the council.
[3:42:30] no one took over automatically.
[3:42:32] it was elected by the council, and we've
done, I think, a really hard task, and we've
[3:42:39] put a lot into it, and
[3:42:42] there was a lot of experience that we brought to the table.
[3:42:46] I brought more than 40 years of design and construction experience.
[3:42:50] worked with developers and also on projects of this size and magnitude.
[3:42:59] my colleague on the ad hoc committee, mr. Mathis, is a
[3:43:04] uh...
[3:43:05] landlord developer,
[3:43:07] and he had
[3:43:08] a lot of experience over the years in
basically leasing spaces, running businesses,
[3:43:14] all the rest of
that kind of stuff,
[3:43:18] that I have a little bit in, but not like him.
[3:43:21] in fact, I doubt very many people in the room do.
[3:43:25] so you actually had two pretty experienced
persons on this ad hoc committee, and we
[3:43:30] worked very hard, and
the staff worked very hard.
[3:43:34] and I will say, I mean, when somebody
brings in a stack that's more than a ream,
[3:43:39] let's say it's even two reams,
[3:43:43] a thousand pages of hard-copy stuff,
[3:43:46] holds it up and says, "I just got this."
[3:43:51] I can't tell you how many times I've gotten
an agenda, which we receive, which is
[3:43:57] digital,
[3:43:58] that is 1,900 pages three days before the meeting.
[3:44:05] okay?
[3:44:06] it happens a lot.
[3:44:08] it doesn't happen, oh, once every three years.
[3:44:12] it happens a lot.
[3:44:14] now, I could say that
[3:44:16] four or five hundred pages of that is
going to be our financial stuff that we're
[3:44:20] supposed to be going
through diligently,
[3:44:24] and we do, to an extreme.
[3:44:27] I have a tendency to drill down on places:
where are our investments, where were we
[3:44:32] last month, what's
really changed, you know,
[3:44:36] those kinds of things.
[3:44:37] so I will admit that out of some of these
enormous digital agenda packets that we
[3:44:45] receive,
[3:44:46] maybe three or four hundred pages of it is financial or just other kinds of stuff.
[3:44:52] but I will also say that in the four, five
hundred, six hundred pages that is over
[3:44:58] there,
[3:45:00] an awful lot of it is just stuff.
[3:45:04] legal stuff, definitions of words, all kinds of stuff.
[3:45:09] the actual development agreement where you really know what's happening,
[3:45:16] aside from all the appendices and all the rest of that, is 57 pages.
[3:45:22] the development agreement, in its nuts and bolts, is 57 pages and very easy to read.
[3:45:29] okay?
[3:45:31] the 300 sheets of drawings that are, you
know, available to the public and all the
[3:45:38] rest of that, they're
concept drawings, okay?
[3:45:42] they are very accurate in terms of layouts and what you should expect.
[3:45:49] but when you get into things that were
shown to us tonight that were renderings of
[3:45:55] what the buildings
are all going to look
[3:45:58] like and all the rest of that, that's conceptual.
[3:46:04] this developer will sell the property,
because they don't do residential, to a
[3:46:09] residential developer.
[3:46:12] those developers now know from those
concept drawings what we're expecting, but
[3:46:19] they're not going to
hand in exactly that.
[3:46:23] they may want changes, and we will review them, not as a city council,
[3:46:28] but administratively, we will make sure that the concept of those
[3:46:33] what is being put in front of us as a council and what was being put in front of you
[3:46:40] tonight is followed as a concept
and what we're expecting to get.
[3:46:46] I'm not going to talk
about the economics because
[3:46:52] it was, in my mind, pretty twisted
[3:46:56] in terms of how it was portrayed by some of the people on the council.
[3:47:02] but that's my rendition of this.
[3:47:05] the people of this city have been waiting,
and not so patiently lately, for something
[3:47:13] to happen.
[3:47:16] so I came here wanting to listen to all of this,
[3:47:23] and be what they call semi-judicial.
[3:47:28] but I have to say one of the big things that moves me is everywhere I go, I
[3:47:36] feel like this is a song I'm going to break into: people want to know what's going on.
[3:47:42] why don't we have this?
[3:47:44] and all we do is go round and round and round
[3:47:48] and talk about how, what if, you know, what if the sky falls?
[3:47:53] what if homeless people happen to roll
through the, you know, I mean, I'm on the
[3:47:58] southern california
association of governments, scag.
[3:48:03] that location for affordable housing would be their poster child.
[3:48:14] they're happy if it's within a half a mile.
[3:48:18] okay?
[3:48:19] but if we could say, oh, it's across the
street that you can catch a bus to anywhere
[3:48:24] in the county and there beyond,
[3:48:27] I mean, I don't know what you do beyond that.
[3:48:31] I guess you talk about how it's just not going to be secure.
[3:48:35] it can't be secure because there are people
who were waiting in line for a place in
[3:48:41] laguna beach, some
homeless place there.
[3:48:45] and so we can't trust that they won't
[3:48:48] mug somebody in that building.
[3:48:51] I mean, my patience has been really tried.
[3:48:55] so I have to tell you that I'm going to be voting aye if this moves to a vote.
[3:49:02] so let's see, was there somebody else?
[3:49:05] the next person up was josh sweeney.
[3:49:08] thank you, mr.
[3:49:08] mayor.
[3:49:09] I appreciate that.
[3:49:11] and I just need to really respond to
a couple comments because I take my
[3:49:15] responsibility very
seriously up here,
[3:49:19] not only as a planning agency member, but as a city council member.
[3:49:24] and I want to be very clear.
[3:49:26] my decision tonight was definitely not predetermined.
[3:49:31] I spent a considerable amount of time going
over the materials, just like mayor caskey
[3:49:35] had said.
[3:49:36] we all received the materials.
[3:49:37] we all have ample time to review them.
[3:49:40] and it is what it is.
[3:49:41] you put in as much time as you want on that.
[3:49:44] but not only do we have time to review the
materials, we also had an opportunity to
[3:49:48] speak to the applicant.
[3:49:50] we had time to listen to our constituents.
[3:49:55] so there's a lot that went into this.
[3:50:00] I think reasonable people can look
at the same project and reach different
[3:50:04] conclusions, and
I can respect that.
[3:50:08] but I do not think it is fair or appropriate
to suggest that those of us who may
[3:50:13] reach a different
conclusion had already
[3:50:16] made up our minds.
[3:50:19] so, also quickly on public safety, I think I want the record to be accurate because
[3:50:27] the fiscal analysis that was done by eps
shows approximately $1.36 million as a model
[3:50:34] public safety
expense allocation.
[3:50:38] and that was based on a per-person calculation
that was done for how many people are
[3:50:43] in our community and what our
[3:50:46] current budget is.
[3:50:48] and so that's how that was come up with.
[3:50:51] the city's existing public safety budget is
[3:50:57] using that methodology.
[3:50:58] it's not finding that the city needs to hire
a specific number of sheriffs, and I had
[3:51:01] asked the question earlier,
[3:51:03] and the captain had responded on that.
[3:51:06] and definitely, additional deputies do not cost us $600,000.
[3:51:10] but anyways, we can disagree on the project,
but I think at the end of the day, we
[3:51:14] owe our
[3:51:15] residents an accurate discussion of
the facts and respect for each member's
[3:51:19] independent
decision-making process.
[3:51:23] so thank you.
[3:51:26] we'll now move back to erica. Yes, well, I think that it's obvious that there
[3:51:43] is a split. It is obvious. So thank you for
giving me the time to be able to express
[3:51:50] my concerns because my
[3:51:52] concerns are extreme.
[3:51:58] I mean, if you look at the asks from ms.
[3:52:03] lowe's powerpoint, she kind of, it was sort
of spoken briefly, but the asks are that
[3:52:10] we're changing the usage.
[3:52:13] so the uvsp says if there are going to be units in the
[3:52:24] uvsp, new units, residential units, that
they were mixed use, and also states to have
[3:52:32] the mixed use on top of shops.
[3:52:36] well, I don't see that, so it's requesting
a variance from us to say, okay, we're not
[3:52:43] going to provide,
[3:52:45] we're not going to follow our laws, we're
going to sign a doc, and we're going to say
[3:52:49] that we're going to
[3:52:52] create a lot of exceptions for merlone geier.
[3:52:57] this is our one opportunity to be able to
have something and plan for something that
[3:53:03] creates economic
vitality in the city
[3:53:07] for years.
[3:53:09] this is our one shot.
[3:53:10] all of the other developments that we
had to zone for rhna purposes, we couldn't
[3:53:18] obtain
[3:53:19] this sort of economic vitality.
[3:53:21] this was our one shot to do a great job, to
be able to increase retail, to bring some
[3:53:26] sort of, if you
[3:53:28] look right down the street, there's a porsche dealership.
[3:53:32] is it a porsche?
[3:53:33] I think it's a porsche dealership.
[3:53:35] what kind of revenue does that bring into irvine?
[3:53:38] look at the dealerships that are in the other cities right across the street.
[3:53:44] they have copious amounts of retail.
[3:53:46] this area is a retail boomer, and it's meant to be that way.
[3:53:51] the uvsp states it, that it is the economic generator in the city.
[3:53:57] so we're decreasing retail and we're giving all these exceptions,
[3:54:01] but we're getting nothing for it. I mean,
not that much, and the quimby fees, which
[3:54:06] are essentially our
[3:54:08] rules that state you have to give this much
per unit. That's what we're getting for
[3:54:12] it, is what we're
supposed to have.
[3:54:16] I mean, it's just, it doesn't create the
economic vitality, stability that we need in
[3:54:21] the city, and
[3:54:22] this was our one chance to do it, and we failed.
[3:54:27] I mean, this body failed.
[3:54:29] and, you know, as I said, it's our decisions.
[3:54:33] if you read what we're actually signing,
I mean, it's actually pretty scary what
[3:54:39] we're signing, and I can't support
something like that, especially
[3:54:44] because if you're ever asked in court, well, did you know the addendums?
[3:54:48] like, you're going to be asked, if you're
ever in this situation, you're going to
[3:54:51] have to be asked,
[3:54:52] did you know that those addendums were there?
[3:54:56] yes.
[3:54:56] well, that was staff's recommendation.
[3:54:59] that's not what somebody's going to care about.
[3:55:01] what they're going to care about is your responsibility to it, your due diligence.
[3:55:06] they're not going to say, well, that was
a recommendation given to me by staff, by
[3:55:09] somebody else.
[3:55:11] no one cares.
[3:55:12] they're going to say, what did you do?
[3:55:13] well, how did you do your homework on it?
[3:55:15] that's why the homework is important for us.
[3:55:19] because we are the responsible parties.
[3:55:22] we are the responsible body.
[3:55:24] and to minimize the amount of time that we've had to go through this is, I mean,
[3:55:30] I know that we're going back and forth about
being insulted, but it's really, I guess
[3:55:35] I've never...
[3:55:37] I don't know.
[3:55:38] we're in a different situation now where
people are frustrated about people doing
[3:55:42] their homework or doing their due
diligence that we're supposed to do.
[3:55:47] it's our fiduciary duties.
[3:55:49] we have duties to protect the residents.
[3:55:51] we have duties.
[3:55:51] and we're trying to say, hey, we need some more time to negotiate further.
[3:55:55] we need more time to create a stronger economic vitality.
[3:55:59] we've been asking. I mentioned to you at
the last meeting I wanted to know what was
[3:56:05] happening and how I felt that it
[3:56:08] wasn't fair and wasn't right.
[3:56:11] we're being thrown to the side with this.
[3:56:13] so, I mean, and the consequences again are the decision that was made by the council.
[3:56:19] so anyway, I yield my comments.
[3:56:25] any other comments?
[3:56:30] I have to make one last comment, and that
is I have to say that as a professional and
[3:56:35] a person,
[3:56:36] to be accused of not doing my due diligence
on something that I've worked so hard on
[3:56:43] for a year and a
half, negotiating,
[3:56:46] and it wasn't easy, I really resent that.
[3:56:52] and I resent some of the other accusations about the project itself.
[3:56:58] but I'm going to leave it at that for me.
[3:57:01] and seeing no other lights, we have a motion and a second.
[3:57:08] so I'm going to ask the city clerk to call a roll call.
[3:57:11] this should be a roll call vote.
[3:57:14] yes.
[3:57:15] mayor caskey?
[3:57:17] aye.
[3:57:18] mayor pro tem mathis?
[3:57:20] aye.
[3:57:20] aye.
[3:57:21] councilmember wheeler?
[3:57:23] no.
[3:57:25] councilmember sweeney?
[3:57:26] aye.
[3:57:28] councilmember pezold?
[3:57:30] no.
[3:57:33] that is three for yes and then two for no.
[3:57:35] the motion would pass.
[3:57:37] okay.
[3:57:40] thank you all for being so patient out there.
[3:57:45] you're not all consultants; you're citizens.
[3:57:48] so what we're going to do is take a little
five- or ten-minute break to allow those
[3:57:56] of you who want to depart.
[3:58:00] it is now 9:54, and believe it or not, we
have a whole meeting in front of us, which
[3:58:05] I would love to table,
[3:58:07] but I don't know that we can do that.
[3:58:10] so we'll give you first a chance to
[3:58:15] not feel like you're sneaking out.
[3:58:20] if you want to stay, then by all means.
[3:58:25] 
[3:58:51] 
[3:59:20] 
[3:59:41] 
[4:00:15] 
[4:00:16] 
[4:00:35] 
[4:00:37] 
[4:00:39] 
[4:00:41] 
[4:00:42] 
[4:00:43] 
[4:00:43] 
[4:00:44] 
[4:00:58] 
[4:00:59] 
[4:01:01] 
[4:01:02] 
[4:01:25] 
[4:01:54] 
[4:01:55] 
[4:02:21] 
[4:03:00] 
[4:03:42] 
[4:04:24] 
[4:06:04] all right.
[4:06:05] I'm not going to use the gavel.
[4:06:06] I'm just going to start the meeting up where we left off.
[4:06:09] we're trying to let people leave who might want to leave, and
[4:06:13] it looks like a number of people have taken us up on that.
[4:06:19] so we have no presentations or proclamations,
so we're going to move straight to
[4:06:24] holland gannon, if she's here.
[4:06:26] yeah, she is.
[4:06:27] with a schedule of future events.
[4:06:29] holland.
[4:06:30] mayor, can I ask one question?
[4:06:33] can I get a printed agenda?
[4:06:35] my apologies.
[4:06:36] it's sort of lost in my stack.
[4:06:47] I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.
[4:06:52] oh, it's in the bridge.
[4:06:53] okay.
[4:06:55] thank you.
[4:06:56] are you not going?
[4:06:57] I'm ready.
[4:06:58] go for it.
[4:06:59] good evening, mayor caskey, members of the city council, and members of the public.
[4:07:03] the city council and planning agency will
have its next meeting on tuesday, august
[4:07:06] 25th.
[4:07:07] the meeting will begin at 6 p.m.
[4:07:09] here in the council chambers.
[4:07:11] the traffic commission will have their
regular meeting tomorrow, on wednesday, july
[4:07:15] 15th, at 6 p.m.
[4:07:16] also here in the council chambers.
[4:07:18] the parks and recreation commission will
have their regular meeting the following
[4:07:22] month, on august 5th at 6 p.m.,
[4:07:24] and that will also take place in the council chambers.
[4:07:28] with the recess coming up, I have a lot of
community activities and events to discuss
[4:07:32] for you tonight.
[4:07:34] community services will have an excursion to l.a.'s
[4:07:36] hollyhock house on friday, july 17th.
[4:07:39] participants will depart from the community center at 11:30 a.m.
[4:07:43] that same evening, we will have our first
concert in our summer concert series on the
[4:07:46] town green of the
community center.
[4:07:49] from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., we will be listening to a community favorite, the reflex.
[4:07:53] the kids' market will also be at this event,
which is a market entirely run by kids
[4:07:57] selling their own
homemade creations.
[4:08:00] on sunday, july 19th, we have a sold-out excursion to la jolla,
[4:08:04] where participants will start by visiting
the historical society and end with a
[4:08:07] community concert by the sea.
[4:08:10] the global harmony symphony presents playbill
parade, a free community concert in the
[4:08:14] heritage room of the
community center at 6:30 p.m.
[4:08:17] on monday, july 20th.
[4:08:20] on thursday, july 23rd, ocsd will be holding
national night out at the laguna hills
[4:08:24] community center
from 5 to 8 p.m.
[4:08:27] the next day, on july 24th, we have a teen excursion to knott's berry farm.
[4:08:31] we also have our second movie in the park
that evening, where we will be watching the
[4:08:34] movie trolls at san remo park.
[4:08:36] the first 100 attendees will get a funnel cake on us.
[4:08:40] the global harmony symphony will host their
free quarterly moment musicale concert at
[4:08:43] 1 p.m.
[4:08:44] in the heritage room on tuesday, july 28th.
[4:08:47] the next friday, we have our next summer concert on july 31st.
[4:08:52] we will be listening to the history of pop on the town green from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
[4:08:57] the community services department and
the laguna hills library will have their
[4:09:00] monthly storytime adventures
on thursday, august 6th, at 10 a.m.
[4:09:04] in heritage room a of the community center.
[4:09:07] we have our last teen excursion of the summer on friday, august 7th, to raging waters.
[4:09:12] that same evening, we will be at stockport
park watching madagascar for our third
[4:09:16] movie in the park.
[4:09:17] the event starts at 6:30 p.m.
[4:09:19] and the first 100 attendees will get a free shaved ice on us.
[4:09:24] we will be traveling to the hilbert museum in orange on saturday, august 8th.
[4:09:28] then we have another sold-out excursion
to santa barbara on august 9th, where there
[4:09:34] is an annual old
spanish days festival.
[4:09:39] on monday, august 10th, we will have
an evening excursion to bolsa chica for a
[4:09:42] bonfire.
[4:09:44] the community services department and
the laguna hills library will have their
[4:09:48] monthly let's make workshop
on wednesday, august 12th, at 4 p.m.
[4:09:52] in the classroom of the community center.
[4:09:55] on friday, august 14th, we have an excursion
to a friday-night event at the historic
[4:09:59] gamble house in pasadena.
[4:10:01] and on that day, we also have our last
summer concert, where we will be rocking out
[4:10:05] to acme time machine on the town
[4:10:07] green again from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
[4:10:10] that saturday, we have our annual excursion to the lemon festival in chula vista.
[4:10:14] and finally, we have our last movie in the park on friday, august 21st, at 6:30 p.m.
[4:10:19] in clarington park.
[4:10:20] the first hundred attendees will receive a meal from tk burger.
[4:10:25] that concludes my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
[4:10:28] thank you very much.
[4:10:30] are there any questions for ms.
[4:10:32] gannon?
[4:10:34] okay.
[4:10:36] I will say, even though it's probably only going to go into the record,
[4:10:40] uh...
[4:10:40] but if anyone's actually still listening, the hollyhock house in
[4:10:46] los angeles, which was designed by frank lloyd wright, and it's one of the events,
[4:10:51] the gamble house, which was towards the end of what you were
[4:10:55] basically letting us know, are both
incredible, incredible places to visit, and I
[4:11:02] recommend them highly to anyone,
not only in this room, but who
[4:11:08] might be watching the video and/or the livestream.
[4:11:13] the next thing on the agenda is the public
comments, non-agendized public comments,
[4:11:18] and
[4:11:19] this is a time to address the city council
on any matter not listed in this agenda
[4:11:25] that is within the subject
[4:11:28] matter jurisdiction of the city council.
[4:11:33] public comments are limited to three minutes, as determined by the mayor.
[4:11:39] if you're participating remotely,
and I'll look over to the city clerk to
[4:11:43] double-check whether
we have anybody there,
[4:11:48] then I'll let him tell you how to do that,
since this is the first time that we've
[4:11:54] tried that system.
And with that, I'm
[4:11:58] going to ask the city clerk.
[4:12:00] do we have
[4:12:02] any members of the audience who wish to make
a public comment? Yes, I have three. The
[4:12:10] first is yi-ning. Welcome.
[4:12:14] and she did hand out the documents in front of you as part of her comments.
[4:12:19] thank you.
[4:12:21] good evening, mayor, and...
[4:12:23] pull the microphone down a little closer to your mouth.
[4:12:26] that'll help.
[4:12:27] there you go.
[4:12:27] thank you.
[4:12:28] good evening, mayor and members of city council.
[4:12:32] my name is yi-ning, and I'm the owner of the delight massage and facial in laguna hills.
[4:12:38] so thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
[4:12:42] so I'm here to respectfully ask for
your approval to expand into the
[4:12:45] 1,600-square-foot space
[4:12:51] next to our current business.
[4:12:53] first, I want to make one thing very clear.
[4:12:57] this expansion is not for more massage rooms.
[4:13:02] we will keep our nine massage rooms exactly the same.
[4:13:07] and the new space will only be used for facial and skin care service.
[4:13:14] every facial room will have its own sink
to meet california's health and license
[4:13:20] requirements.
[4:13:22] when we opened two years ago, one facial room was enough.
[4:13:27] today, many of our existing customers
ask for facial service, and one room is no
[4:13:33] longer enough.
[4:13:38] this expansion is simply to meet the needs of our current customers.
[4:13:43] today, we have more than 400 online reviews
with 4.9 stars from google and yelp for
[4:13:51] two years.
[4:13:55] we have zero tolerance for anything illegal, and we also follow city and state laws.
[4:14:06] I also served in the united states navy.
[4:14:12] and we are not asking to become a different business.
[4:14:17] we simply want to better serve our existing customers, creating more local jobs
[4:14:23] and continue serving the laguna hills community.
[4:14:28] and we respectfully ask for your support.
[4:14:31] thank you so much for your time and your consideration.
[4:14:35] I'm happy to answer any questions.
[4:14:38] okay, I'll turn to my colleagues first.
[4:14:40] are there any questions?
[4:14:43] yes, erica.
[4:14:44] this is a public comment, correct?
[4:14:46] yes.
[4:14:47] non-agendized public. Correct. Is there a
way that this individual can meet with the
[4:14:53] attorney, meet with staff, to have
conversations versus have questions
[4:14:59] here? Because we're on a moratorium on new
facilities, and I would imagine, I think
[4:15:07] what you might
be concerned about
[4:15:11] is that you sound like you have an ongoing business,
[4:15:15] and congratulations for that.
[4:15:17] and we know that there are a lot of massage
establishments within laguna hills that
[4:15:22] are very reputable and
are doing a great job.
[4:15:26] so if you have questions in regard to potential expansion or any of those things,
[4:15:34] I probably would agree with erica to refer you first to staff and see, you know,
[4:15:42] we're not trying to harm or shut down those legitimate businesses.
[4:15:47] especially those who are willing to come
in and talk to the city council and even
[4:15:54] wait, what, six,
[4:15:56] four hours to be able to do that for a few minutes.
[4:16:00] thank you.
[4:16:00] so we really appreciate you, and if you have particular concerns,
[4:16:10] I would have you work with staff first
if you need to bring it back to one of the
[4:16:14] council people.
[4:16:15] most of us are always open to talk to
constituents, and that includes even if you
[4:16:20] don't live in laguna hills,
[4:16:22] you're a business in laguna hills, and so we care very much about you.
[4:16:27] thank you.
[4:16:28] I want to make it understood that it goes two ways, okay?
[4:16:32] okay, I'm still nervous, but I'm still here.
[4:16:35] all right.
[4:16:39] any other questions?
[4:16:41] do you have any questions?
[4:16:41] no, but I think the city manager will give
you his information so that you can reach
[4:16:47] out to us.
[4:16:48] okay.
[4:16:50] yeah.
[4:16:51] all right.
[4:16:51] well, thank you very much.
[4:16:54] do we have any telephone?
[4:16:57] we've got two more in person.
[4:16:59] oh, two more in person?
[4:17:00] yes.
[4:17:01] we have madelyn unholz.
[4:17:04] all right.
[4:17:05] welcome.
[4:17:08] thank you for your patience.
[4:17:09] thank you.
[4:17:10] of course.
[4:17:11] got some studying done back there.
[4:17:13] switching up the agenda a little bit.
[4:17:15] although erica did bring it up already.
[4:17:17] my name is madelyn.
[4:17:18] I've been a resident of this community for over a decade now.
[4:17:22] I grew up here, went to laguna hills high school, and
[4:17:26] I recently, or not recently, a couple years
ago, completed my bachelor of science in
[4:17:29] criminal justice.
[4:17:31] something that has been recently brought
to my attention by concerned community
[4:17:35] members, as well as people in my
family and myself included, are the
[4:17:39] flock safety cameras
[4:17:42] that are around the city.
[4:17:43] we have exactly 61 alpr cameras that are built and monitored by flock safety,
[4:17:50] which is a private security and surveillance
company that we've contracted to operate
[4:17:54] these cameras.
[4:17:56] they continuously record your movement.
[4:17:58] they do this without a warrant, without
probable cause, and without reasonable
[4:18:01] suspicion of a crime.
[4:18:03] every time that you drive by one of these
61 cameras in laguna hills, a snapshot is
[4:18:07] taken.
[4:18:09] that snapshot is then collected and transferred to flock's private corporate database,
[4:18:13] which the orange county sheriff's department
and the city of laguna hills have no
[4:18:16] control over.
[4:18:17] the data is shared with thousands of agencies
nationwide, and flock doesn't need to
[4:18:21] ask our permission to do this.
[4:18:24] so what are they doing with this data?
[4:18:26] honestly, I don't really have any idea.
[4:18:29] and I don't really know if anyone else does either.
[4:18:32] we've paid them $100,000 every year to let them watch our citizens.
[4:18:38] but what do we know about the company?
[4:18:40] we know that they have a history of poor security practices.
[4:18:43] they often experience data breaches
and provide unauthorized access to private
[4:18:47] information
[4:18:48] that they collect.
[4:18:50] in july of 2025, they published a misconfigured
demo website straight to their main
[4:18:54] page that included administrative
login and access to over 50
[4:18:58] private layers of data.
[4:19:00] in november of last year, a security
researcher found flock login information for
[4:19:04] sale on russian websites,
[4:19:06] which launched a full-scale ftc investigation
of this company that's currently
[4:19:10] ongoing, so they still haven't
come to any conclusion.
[4:19:13] flock is a private corporation.
[4:19:15] they have complete control over this
massive centralized database of our daily
[4:19:19] movements.
[4:19:20] there's no public oversight, and there
have been no independent audits of how they
[4:19:24] use our data.
[4:19:25] this is a for-profit tech company, not just our local police department
[4:19:30] reading license plates.
[4:19:32] it's much bigger than that.
[4:19:33] this is a massive database that they have
of our personal data that they can pretty
[4:19:38] much do with as they please.
[4:19:41] a lot of people are willing to give up
freedoms in exchange for security, but flock
[4:19:44] safety can't even give us that.
[4:19:47] there's no independent research proving that
they reduce crime, and the research that
[4:19:50] does exist is
inconclusive at best.
[4:19:53] in conclusion, I would ask that laguna hills
call for an independent audit of how our
[4:19:57] data is being used by
the private company
[4:19:59] that they have contracted to collect it.
[4:20:01] in addition, I would ask that the city
reconsider their ongoing contract with this
[4:20:05] predatory surveillance company.
[4:20:07] thank you.
[4:20:09] okay.
[4:20:09] questions?
[4:20:10] dave.
[4:20:12] thank you for coming in.
[4:20:13] I don't like big brother either.
[4:20:16] my understanding, I'm going to ask chief burk to comment,
[4:20:20] is that the data that we collect on this
flock camera is supposed to be deleted in
[4:20:23] something like
30 days or 60 days.
[4:20:26] first of all, is that true?
[4:20:27] yeah, flock states they don't keep the data over, I believe it's 30 days.
[4:20:31] they do say that.
[4:20:32] I would also like to note, though, as of december 2025,
[4:20:35] flock has stopped providing any independent
audits or login logs to agencies that
[4:20:41] request them.
[4:20:43] they have not been very forthcoming with
the data that they collect and how they use
[4:20:47] it.
[4:20:48] okay, I'm getting that.
[4:20:49] that's my point number two.
[4:20:50] okay, so our contract with them: they're
supposed to delete the data roughly 30 days
[4:20:53] or something like that.
[4:20:55] it's not to be kept.
[4:20:56] it's mainly just to see if we've got a child abduction situation.
[4:21:01] they've got the license number.
[4:21:02] we can find things quickly.
[4:21:03] it's not meant to be kept long term.
[4:21:08] counsel burns, can I ask you to look into
seeing if there are lawsuits against this
[4:21:13] firm and if there are some
things we should know
[4:21:16] about?
[4:21:17] please advise us.
[4:21:19] I can do that, yes.
[4:21:21] okay.
[4:21:22] we'll find out if these guys are no good.
[4:21:25] I know that lapd did recently just end
their contract with them as well for similar
[4:21:29] concerns,
[4:21:30] so that would definitely be something to look into as well.
[4:21:33] okay.
[4:21:34] thank you for your comments.
[4:21:35] mm-hmm.
[4:21:37] thank you.
[4:21:38] any other questions?
[4:21:39] okay.
[4:21:40] thank you again.
[4:21:42] and thank you for bringing that to our attention.
[4:21:47] next one.
[4:21:47] I believe she has already left, but cathy udovch.
[4:21:52] I believe she's already left.
[4:21:54] okay.
[4:21:54] and I have no one online.
[4:21:56] so that is all the comments I have at this time.
[4:21:59] all right.
[4:22:01] so our next item on the agenda is item number five, the consent calendar.
[4:22:08] all matters listed under the consent
calendar are considered routine and will be
[4:22:13] enacted in one motion approving the
recommendation listed on the agenda.
[4:22:18] there will be no separate discussion unless
members of the city council or city staff
[4:22:24] request specific items to be
removed from the consent
[4:22:29] calendar.
[4:22:30] so I will ask for public comments on this.
[4:22:35] consent calendar? Sorry, I have none. There are none, okay?
[4:22:42] all right, and I will ask the council members
or staff: would you like to remove any
[4:22:47] items?
[4:22:48] dave? 5.2. 5.2. Anyone else? I'll move the balance. Second. Second.
[4:23:01] and we have a motion and a second to approve the balance.
[4:23:06] I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.
[4:23:11] mayor pro tem mathis?
[4:23:14] aye.
[4:23:15] council member pezold?
[4:23:17] aye.
[4:23:18] mayor caskey?
[4:23:19] aye.
[4:23:20] council member wheeler?
[4:23:21] aye.
[4:23:22] council member sweeney?
[4:23:23] aye.
[4:23:24] okay.
[4:23:26] so now let's move on to 5.2.
[4:23:27] dave.
[4:23:29] yes, I removed 5.2 just for the sake of it.
[4:23:32] I need to abstain from that since I was not at that meeting.
[4:23:36] that's all.
[4:23:39] I'm sorry, I didn't quite...
[4:23:43] I was not at the meeting, so I need to abstain from that.
[4:23:45] oh, you're not?
[4:23:46] oh, okay.
[4:23:46] and I'll move to vote.
[4:23:48] second.
[4:23:49] okay.
[4:23:57] we have a second, right, with josh, and call the roll.
[4:24:00] I'm sorry.
[4:24:01] who was the motion? Who motioned?
[4:24:02] dave wheeler, okay. All right, we'll call
the roll. Just a point of clarification:
[4:24:13] you abstained? Yes.
Can you push the item
[4:24:20] even though you're abstaining? Who made the original motion to approve?
[4:24:24] that's okay.
[4:24:24] excuse me?
[4:24:25] who made the motion to approve?
[4:24:26] was it council member wheeler?
[4:24:27] yes.
[4:24:28] I've never seen that before.
[4:24:29] that's what I'm saying.
[4:24:30] is there another council member that can make the motion?
[4:24:33] I'll move it.
[4:24:34] yes.
[4:24:34] I'm not sure if he can or if he can't.
[4:24:35] I've just never seen it before.
[4:24:36] I've never seen it.
[4:24:37] so we have a different motion.
[4:24:39] I'll second.
[4:24:40] and we have a second.
[4:24:42] moved and seconded.
[4:24:44] good catch, erica.
[4:24:47] and we'll take a vote.
[4:24:48] yes.
[4:24:49] council member sweeney?
[4:24:49] aye.
[4:24:51] council member wheeler?
[4:24:52] abstain.
[4:24:53] mayor pro tem mathis?
[4:24:54] aye.
[4:24:55] council member pezold?
[4:24:56] aye.
[4:24:57] mayor caskey?
[4:24:58] aye.
[4:25:00] okay.
[4:25:00] I'm going to turn a few pages here.
[4:25:06] catch up on all of that.
[4:25:08] there we go.
[4:25:17] all right, now we move to item 6.1.
[4:25:20] I believe it's confirmation of the 2026
weed abatement cost report, and we have a
[4:25:27] recommendation to city council to
conduct a public hearing regarding
[4:25:34] the weed abatement cost report and adopt
a resolution, and I will be very brief with
[4:25:41] all of those words, and I'm
[4:25:44] going to announce
[4:25:46] that this is a public hearing for the 2026
weed abatement cost report, and I welcome
[4:25:54] all to this public
hearing and this item,
[4:26:00] and the public is welcome to
make a comment if they so wish.
[4:26:05] so I'm going to turn
right away to—well, do we
[4:26:10] have the public comments first, or you, joe?
[4:26:15] presentation? Should I do a presentation, or city clerk?
[4:26:20] yes, I currently have no comments for this at this time.
[4:26:23] okay.
[4:26:23] well then, why don't you just go ahead with your presentation?
[4:26:25] it's a very short presentation. City staff
is asking city council to conduct a public
[4:26:32] hearing regarding the
2026—it's a typo on your
[4:26:36] agenda report—2026 weed abatement cost report and
[4:26:40] to adopt a resolution confirming the 2026 weed abatement cost report.
[4:26:46] essentially, the report indicates that we have cleared one private property of weeds,
[4:26:54] and this is the time and place for the
property owner to object to the levying of
[4:27:01] charges for that.
[4:27:03] that concludes my staff report.
[4:27:07] all right.
[4:27:08] I have a whole list of things we would do.
[4:27:10] we have no public comments.
[4:27:13] and so I'm going to cut to the chase here
and basically ask if the council members
[4:27:19] have any questions for joe.
[4:27:23] oh, david, sorry.
[4:27:25] just one quick question.
[4:27:26] is this the abatement in general, or just one specific person that won't comply?
[4:27:31] this is weed abatement in general, and
everybody complied except for one person, whom
[4:27:35] we contacted.
[4:27:36] and it's the same usual customer, and they keep paying the bill.
[4:27:40] okay.
[4:27:42] have we added to the regular maintenance
the area that we determined last year was a
[4:27:47] fire hazard?
[4:27:49] that's not directly related to this agenda
item, but regarding your question that I
[4:27:56] think we talked
about previously,
[4:27:59] the public works operating budget was previously increased to allow for that to occur.
[4:28:05] okay.
[4:28:06] I'm sorry.
[4:28:06] I thought it was part of this abatement.
[4:28:07] no worries.
[4:28:07] this is for private property parcels.
[4:28:09] okay.
[4:28:09] thank you.
[4:28:12] all right, and because we've already been
told there is nobody in the audience or
[4:28:16] online that wants
to speak to the issue,
[4:28:18] I'm going to close the public hearing I
just opened and bring it back to the city
[4:28:23] council for deliberation.
[4:28:25] do we have any deliberations or comments and/or motions?
[4:28:32] I'll move to adopt the resolution.
[4:28:33] I'll second.
[4:28:35] all right.
[4:28:36] any comments beyond that?
[4:28:39] okay.
[4:28:39] then we're going to call for the vote, and we'll call for the roll call.
[4:28:45] mayor caskey?
[4:28:46] aye.
[4:28:46] council member pezold?
[4:28:48] aye.
[4:28:48] council member wheeler?
[4:28:49] aye.
[4:28:50] council member sweeney?
[4:28:51] aye.
[4:28:51] mayor pro tem mathis?
[4:28:52] aye.
[4:28:54] okay.
[4:28:54] and then the next item on the list, item number seven.
[4:28:57] city manager's report, and I'll ask you, bob, if you have anything to report.
[4:29:04] no reports this evening, mayor.
[4:29:05] okay.
[4:29:07] now we have item number eight, matters
agendized and presented by city council
[4:29:12] members.
[4:29:14] and we have, I believe, three of us tonight, maybe four.
[4:29:20] so we will start with council member wheeler.
[4:29:24] uh...
[4:29:25] orange county older adults advisory commission.
[4:29:30] in the interest of time, I'll make it real quick.
[4:29:34] we had our regular meeting; information was
delivered for the people there. They did
[4:29:39] adopt our
[4:29:41] metrics to take care of the goals for this year, and so that was a good thing.
[4:29:49] guess I'm next with the scag report.
The southern california association of
[4:29:55] governments did have
a meeting last week.
[4:29:59] I attended it, and most of the meeting was
logistical and in regards to meeting dates
[4:30:05] and calendars and
the rest of that. There
[4:30:10] were two reports that were made
[4:30:13] about projects that had been sponsored
by scag, mainly in the interest of
[4:30:18] transportation
and redevelopment.
[4:30:21] one was in fox hills.
[4:30:23] the other one was in san bernardino.
[4:30:27] the one in fox hills was certainly interesting
because you could actually get your
[4:30:31] arms around
something that happened.
[4:30:34] the one in san bernardino,
[4:30:36] it was more of a planning project.
[4:30:40] both were well done, but there's not much
to report on in regards to something that
[4:30:45] our city can take and run with.
[4:30:49] other than the fact that we should always,
in regards to any of these associations
[4:30:54] that we belong to, every
[4:30:57] once in a while the opportunity opens up
[4:31:00] for grants and things like that, that if
they do happen to work and be symbiotic with
[4:31:07] the needs of the city, should be
[4:31:10] something that we look at and maybe take advantage of.
[4:31:14] and occasionally, in the case of scag, I
would have to say some of those things are
[4:31:20] more environmental.
[4:31:22] and some of the cities around south orange
county have taken advantage of that in the
[4:31:27] past.
[4:31:28] and we'll just keep our eye on those things,
and if it's possibly something that we
[4:31:33] can go after, then we might.
[4:31:37] and with that, I will go to council member sweeney for the ocfa report.
[4:31:43] thank you, mayor.
[4:31:44] I appreciate that.
[4:31:45] if I could please pull up my presentation.
[4:31:47] I have a 15-minute presentation I'd like to do.
[4:31:50] very briefly, the orange county fire
authority continues to move forward with its
[4:31:53] budget and strategic priorities.
[4:31:55] at our recent board meeting, we addressed
the upcoming fiscal year budget, federal
[4:31:59] grant updates, and several
operational and policy matters.
[4:32:02] ocfa continues to prepare for fire season
and ensure that we have the resources
[4:32:06] necessary to serve
our communities.
[4:32:10] given the hour,
[4:32:11] that's all I have. Okay, great. And the last
one would be council member pezold with
[4:32:19] the tca report. Yes, and in the
[4:32:24] spirit of the hour, I will also be providing
a short presentation. The transportation
[4:32:33] corridor agencies met july 9th
[4:32:38] and we passed, the board of directors
passed, the open market bond buyback program
[4:32:44] amendment,
[4:32:47] the 241-91 express connector public outreach and marketing services contract.
[4:32:56] we were provided a state and federal legislative update.
[4:33:01] and one interesting item was the changeable message signs.
[4:33:08] so we look forward to seeing those come up.
[4:33:12] and the chief executive officer provided
updates with more awards that the board has
[4:33:20] received.
[4:33:21] so anyway, with that, I conclude my report.
[4:33:24] thank you, erica.
[4:33:26] that leads us to council member comments.
[4:33:31] I believe the city manager has a comment
that he would like to make, too, so I'll let
[4:33:36] him throw that in
there first, and then
[4:33:39] we'll go straight to us. Thank you, mayor and members of the council.
[4:33:43] I just wanted to do a big shout-out to our
new city clerk, joshua, and georgia; they
[4:33:50] managed, for the first
[4:33:52] time ever, our new 707 rules and all the technology, and
[4:33:58] robert, thank you for the great work that you've done on that.
[4:34:02] and so to come out of the box in a big
meeting like this, it just was outstanding
[4:34:07] work for everybody.
[4:34:09] so thank you.
[4:34:10] thank you, mayor.
[4:34:11] okay.
[4:34:13] next up, I'll go right to the order that came up.
[4:34:17] jared mathis.
[4:34:19] first of all, for the record, I just want
to say it's so good to have you back in the
[4:34:23] room. Thank you for
[4:34:25] being here, and also want to give a big
thank you to your wife, susie, because I know
[4:34:30] you can't do this kind of thing
[4:34:32] alone
[4:34:33] to get
[4:34:34] through what you've been facing, so
[4:34:37] we're all better off with you in the room, and
[4:34:40] thank you for making the effort to be here,
and thank you, susie, for helping get him
[4:34:43] here.
[4:34:45] a lot more than just getting me here.
[4:34:48] but I won't get into the details.
[4:34:50] you don't need that.
[4:34:52] next up is dave wheeler.
[4:34:55] thank you.
[4:34:56] basically, I have two commendations for holland gannon.
[4:35:04] I received many, many emails that said
laguna hills' fireworks display was the best
[4:35:09] in the whole area, and
they actually had a couple
[4:35:13] of comments that kind of denigrated a couple
of neighbor cities whose names I won't
[4:35:17] mention, but said theirs
was, you know, not good.
[4:35:20] I'll leave it at that, and ours was great.
And the second thing, another commendation
[4:35:25] and
[4:35:26] good work, was from a city council member
at laguna woods who's seen our new banners,
[4:35:31] said they'd been noticed,
[4:35:33] and said they really liked it.
[4:35:34] and the uniqueness and tying them into
laguna hills was really, you know, a good
[4:35:38] thing.
[4:35:39] and that was passed on from a fellow city council member in another city.
[4:35:44] thank you.
[4:35:47] okay.
[4:35:47] next up would be josh.
[4:35:52] thank you, mr.
[4:35:52] mayor.
[4:35:53] I wanted to echo jared's comments.
[4:35:55] so great to have you back.
[4:35:56] it's good to have you on the dais with us again.
[4:35:58] welcome back.
[4:35:59] and great job running this meeting.
[4:36:02] and thank you, susie, for sticking it out as well.
[4:36:05] and to the chair of our traffic commission, we have mr.
[4:36:09] scott miller.
[4:36:10] thanks for sticking it out.
[4:36:11] and thank you for being here tonight.
[4:36:13] and all of our staff, thank you.
[4:36:15] I know you guys put in a ton of time, a ton of effort, and did a great job.
[4:36:21] and joshua, welcome to your first amazing meeting.
[4:36:27] and last we have erica.
[4:36:29] yes, not least.
[4:36:31] I'll be less. Well, I wanted to also
highlight the 250th fourth of july.
[4:36:40] as I understand it, it was
a wonderful event, and
[4:36:48] unfortunately, I was not around, for good reasons, and I was out of
[4:36:56] but I think that a number of people were
really, from what I understand in talking to
[4:37:02] residents,
[4:37:04] they were really happy with the fireworks
display, and they're hopeful that we can
[4:37:08] continue to have a fireworks
display of that magnitude in the future.
[4:37:13] I don't know if it's possible, but that was
something that was a consistent message
[4:37:18] provided: that they really
enjoyed the fireworks.
[4:37:21] and if they can't have fireworks in the city, they
[4:37:25] appreciate the fireworks show that was provided.
[4:37:29] so I think that it was, from what I understand, everything was done really well.
[4:37:35] and I also want to welcome joshua as well.
[4:37:41] very nice to have you here.
[4:37:43] and your professionalism is very evident.
[4:37:49] so anyway, with that, I yield my comments.
[4:37:55] okay, so I guess I'll go last.
[4:37:58] well, I've got to reiterate the same thing about the 250th celebration.
[4:38:02] not only did I receive emails, but we've
received direct comments from people in the
[4:38:07] audience who said, whoa.
[4:38:11] and I won't say that was the bomb,
because that would be a pun that would be
[4:38:14] inappropriate.
[4:38:16] but it was probably, in my years of looking at the fireworks that we do, the best.
[4:38:25] it is the best that we've ever done.
[4:38:27] and it wasn't by a little bit.
[4:38:29] it was by a lot.
[4:38:30] and we have everybody on this council to thank.
[4:38:34] but thank you, dave, for really pushing the idea.
[4:38:37] and I also want to thank the people who were up on the stage.
[4:38:42] I couldn't be there that night.
[4:38:43] and yet we had plenty of volunteers.
[4:38:46] and dave did a great job.
[4:38:48] mayor pro tem mathis basically
[4:38:54] facilitated the whole thing, plus acted
as a cheerleader at the end, and josh also
[4:39:01] made it, and we did it all in
[4:39:04] about six minutes. I was timing it because
the audience by that time is chanting, you
[4:39:10] know,
[4:39:11] they just wanted to see the fireworks. But they were all really, really good
[4:39:15] presentations by all of you, and then mayor
pro tem kind of beat the drum and got it
[4:39:22] going right at the last
[4:39:25] moment, and that's
really the way it went.
[4:39:28] so I want to thank all of my colleagues
for being involved in that. It is
[4:39:35] really great to be back up here, and
[4:39:40] I'm still in a wheelchair, but I'm going
to get to the point where hopefully I'll be
[4:39:45] totally mobile again
by the next meeting,
[4:39:49] which will be at the end of august.
[4:39:51] and so I'm looking forward to that.
[4:39:55] I haven't skipped a beat on any of the
things we've been doing behind the scenes at
[4:39:59] all.
[4:40:01] and so even though you didn't see me necessarily other than on a zoom thing,
[4:40:07] I was involved in everything.
[4:40:10] and so it really is good to be back.
[4:40:12] and I really appreciate this council.
[4:40:15] I appreciate the fact that we're all here
to serve our city and to make it better
[4:40:19] than we found it.
[4:40:22] and we don't always agree on everything.
[4:40:24] and I don't have a problem with that personally.
[4:40:27] I like that.
[4:40:28] I love debate.
[4:40:30] and so we got some tonight.
[4:40:33] and then a decision was made.
[4:40:36] I'll only make one other comment about a couple of things in that regard.
[4:40:41] the uvsp is—if jen is still here, what was the date of that?
[4:40:51] of when it was originally adopted?
[4:40:57] yeah, the uvsp, the actual.
[4:40:59] 2002. 2006.
[4:40:59] two.
[4:40:59] two, 2002.
[4:41:05] twenty-four years ago, the uvsp had the mall
in it as if it was anticipating that all
[4:41:11] these new things
would work around
[4:41:14] a mall. Things change in 24
years. Things change in 10 years.
[4:41:19] as a professional in the business,
most planning documents are worthless
[4:41:27] after 10 years, and
[4:41:28] this is 24 years old, and it was being used a lot tonight,
[4:41:32] but I'm going to go beyond that just to talk
about planning documents in general, you
[4:41:38] know, have a lifetime.
[4:41:41] and just like everything else, you know, the economy, you name it, things change.
[4:41:46] so the only other comment I wanted to
make was the applicant for this particular
[4:41:51] project, which was approved,
[4:41:56] had, going into the room,
[4:41:59] entitlement from 2022 for the mall project as it was entitled at that time.
[4:42:09] it was not the same thing as coming in
having no entitlement and trying to get your
[4:42:15] project approved.
[4:42:17] there were a lot more things than just rearranging the deck chairs.
[4:42:20] I will admit that.
[4:42:22] there was a lot of due diligence done,
and I want to thank the staff who have been
[4:42:26] working their tails off.
[4:42:29] I would use a different word, but it wouldn't be appropriate.
[4:42:33] and they have been really dedicated to doing
a good and fair-minded job. This was no,
[4:42:40] you know, run-it-up-the-flagpole
[4:42:43] kind of a thing at all, and so I really want
to compliment the staff and everyone who
[4:42:48] has been involved, you know,
[4:42:51] in the process, and I want to thank the council, all of you,
[4:42:56] for your comments and your concerns and your questions tonight.
[4:43:01] and we move on from there.
[4:43:04] and I really appreciated the decorum that was demonstrated tonight on the dais.
[4:43:13] so with that, I'll end my comments.
[4:43:17] and with that, we are...
[4:43:21] to adjournment, which
[4:43:23] our next announced regular meeting of the
city council and planning agency will be
[4:43:30] august 26, 2026,
at 6 p.m. For the
[4:43:34] general session. We're adjourned.
[4:43:50] 
[4:43:52] 
[4:43:56] 
[4:43:58]