At a Special Council Meeting on February 24, Trish Kelley denied the council ever had any interest in pursuing a high-density mixed-use development policy for the Mission Viejo Village Center at LaPaz and Marguerite. Kelley has been blaming the media for lingering concern about a 2007 report from the Urban Land Institute (ULI), a consortium of developers.
“We all said thanks, but no thanks [upon receiving the ULI report],” she said.
The approved minutes of the meeting, and remarks by council members after the 2007 ULI presentation, belie Kelley’s rendition. They also contradict Frank Ury’s statements that it was simply a “receive and file” item and ”no action was taken.” Is it amnesia, delusion, faulty memory, or fabrication?
At the urging of at least one council member, Frank Ury, ULI was retained by the City to prepare a plan to redevelop Village Center. The ULI report to the Council on June 19, 2007 provided a concept to bulldoze the Center and create a multi-story project of retail and office space, topped by 325 residential units.
In conjunction with other actions by the Council, the high density plan alarmed residents. Residents subsequently circulated an Initiative petition which would give voters review over major rezoning actions. The successful petition, with over 8,000 signatures, was certified by the Registrar of Voters for a future ballot.
Spurred by that public outrage, Kelley made her infamous, “Thanks, but no thanks” denial in February. Last Monday she went a step further to absolve the council (agenda report), asking her colleagues, “as a matter of history,” and “to reaffirm the denial of housing,” that the Council formally vote against the ULI concept. So after hanging for 1 year plus 10 months, and after a Zoning Initiative qualified for a ballot, the ULI Report was unanimously rejected.
Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht immediately replied she was going to “expose the misinformation” from Kelley. She then read the following Minutes for that item from the June 19, 2007 meeting. It describes an action which is typical for proceeding with a project:
“By consensus, the City Council directed staff to develop recommendations for the next steps and return to the City Council in late August or early September.”
During the discussion, Schlicht also asked the Council and staff what took place after the June action. She inquired if dialogue was conducted with Village Center property owners after receiving the ULI report, saying, “Maybe it was the property owners who said ‘thanks but no thanks’, not the Council.” No one answered Schlicht. Later in the discussion she repeated the same question. Again, the silence was deafening.
Following are excerpts of comments by council members at the 2007 meeting, following the ULI presentation:
Gail Reavis: “What do we want to do next – do we want to have you (the ULI) back to ask questions, do we want to receive and file, what do we want to do with this? How do you feel about this….not to wrap it up but at least know how we stand…”
Frank Ury: “. . . we don’t have to discuss it tonight, but I think the council needs to put its effort behind this process to see exactly where this could go.”
Frank Ury: “. . . the exciting part for me was taking a look at the renderings . . .”
Frank Ury: “. . . people are looking at us here to take a leadership role here and I think we should do what we can to move on with that.”
Trish Kelley: “. . . definitely like the idea of going forward with this task force . . .”
Trish Kelley: “. . . there is potential here . . .”
Trish Kelley: “I really like the idea of the trolley concept here . . .”
Trish Kelley: “. . . apprehensive about the thought of residential, but I would like to see a task force formed to go ahead and continue looking at this and again get the feedback from our economic development consultant . . .”
John Paul Ledesma: ” . . . price would be too high, in my opinion, in terms of adding the residential component here . . .”
John Paul Ledesma: “. . . residential component is not a match for the rest of the community.”
Lance MacLean: “I guess it is tough to follow John Paul because I feel exactly opposite of that . . .”
Lance MacLean: “. . . I don’t have a lot of heartburn over the concept of housing in that location, understanding of course from where I sit, for the residents that do, if you don’t like it, don’t live there.”
Lance MacLean: “I would like to compliment the ULI for the work they put into this, the suggestions they have. I would like to continue on, though with the suggestion of a couple of my colleagues, and go ahead and form a working group to continue to look at what opportunities might exist, what the property owners might want to do if anything, and see what our next steps are . . .”
The full 2007 ULI presentation and council comments, in context, can be viewed by clicking here and then “jumping to” Item 1: Urban Land Institute.
.jpg)
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Ouch! The word “busted” comes to mind.
You missed one council quote. At 1:06:26 on the videotape, in reference to housing and the Village Center, “I believe that’s a great use.” Hmmmmm
And they wonder why they have such little support in the community.
You bet that the twelve or so separate owners of this strip center would love to have the City pay them a massive amount of money for a buy out.
The owners would of course have to also buy out their tenants’ leases at another huge cost, paying to re-locate them and lost revenues for all involved. The owners then get a new building structure, plus likely income guarantee on new leases and broker commissions, and payment for vacant units until they do lease.
The City would be better off simply buying it all and becoming the Landlord. Either way, somewhat socialistic. Then they can chase out over the years all the tenants by not offering lease renewals. That will of course create a dead center basically for years.
I guess the New Years Rose Float didn’t solve the problems the city is facing.
Other cities are looking at buying up bank owned residential properties to qualify them as low income units. In today’s market, and political mindset, and with state and federal incentives monetarily, why is this city not actively pursuing that concept?
Buy an existing apartment complex and convert it as is. They are for sale at the right price for all.
Let me see, is honesty one of the “Character Words of The Month?”
Clearly, council members did not receive and file the ULI report. They received, embraced and pursued ULI’s recommendations. I doubt we’ll hear what action staff members took toward destroying a thriving retail center. I hope residents look at the plan to see the abomination this council majority wanted to foist on property owners.
Just how can the council “reject the report” on 4-20-09 after pursuing its recommendations? Isn’t this just more posturing like the sham moratorium on homebuilding? I hope residents realized that the council’s phony moratorium was to deflate the Right To Vote Initiative (which qualified for the ballot). It is obvious that the latent rejection of the ULI concept is intended to quiet the outrage that’s driving MacLean’s recall. Between the R-T-V and MacLean’s recall, residents can end this council majority’s power trip.
What’s wrong with the free market? Mission Viejo needs to stop being to obsessed with having everything look the same. Last time I checked, “cookie-cutter” is a 4-letter word. How about Mission Viejo just relax, have a design code and let the builders do what they want and when they want. If Mission Viejo wants to make all the business decisions for our city, then lets just declare ourself a communist nation now rather than later.