Another opportunity to provide input on the ‘LOS OSOS’ Core Area concept May 16

Here were my comments to the Planning Commissioners at its May 8, 2023 meeting.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners - My name is Cathy Schlicht from Mission Viejo.

For the public record, I have handed in my comments to the secretary, with a copy to the commissioners.

This commission is the only city commission that is authorized by state statute.

Consequently, as advisors to the city council, you have both powers and obligations to represent the public and not personal interests, special interest, or the interests of council or staff.

You are charged with powers primarily for the benefit of the public. You have an obligation to represent the concerns of the property owners.

You cannot ignore the city attorney and the staff's abusive behavior towards the CC&R's, which govern the rights of the property owners within that association.

Your obligation is to advise the City Council, not to take direction from the city attorney or city staff.

A couple of years ago, Bob Breton came to the council asking them to include budgetary concerns on projects presented to the planning commissioners. Bob, here is your opportunity to pursue that important knowledge.

I have given you the Master Financial Plan projections showing "reserves will be needed to fund expenditures and balance the budget ...to keep programs and services at current levels."

The staff report has given you the authority for input, so please, find the moral courage to seek the answers to the following questions, or to at the very least, preserve the questions for the report back to council:

1. Does this vision plan violate the CC&R's? If so, what is the remedy?

2. Is the city using hyperbole to gain public approval? What is obtainable vs. financial reality? What are the legal rights of the property owners? Is the city destroying the viability of the shopping center to force compliance?

3. Does the City have compliance from the surrounding property owners or what means will the City use to gain compliance? Will permits to upgrade their properties be denied or withheld unless the property owners comply and conform to the heavy hand of government?

4. Lawsuits could take years to settle. Please explain how the City has the legal right to pursue this Vision on private property. EVERYBODY needs to have a clear understanding of the lawful rights of all parties.

5. What is the remaining balance of the bond money? Also, the Council. commissioners and public should see an accounting of bond money expenditures to date. Why not let the Investment Commissioners analyze the financial aspects of these proposals?

6. What is the cost to complete and the timelime to implement?

7. What is the expected return on investment?

8. Has there been an identified revenue stream to pay back the $46 million in bonds?

9. Has there been an identified revenue stream to fund the infrastructure projects that are owned by the Santa Margarita Water District but paid by the City?

10. What is the timeline and projected cost for the City's other vision plan for the golf course and open space?

11. Can the City successfully evolve two vision plans? If so, how?

12. Regarding the golf course and open space vision plan, when did our Mission Viejo citizens express a desire to build three hotels? I ask that question, because obviously this was inserted, off the record, out of public view, into the vision plan by staff and special interest entities.

Cathy Schlicht raises some very relevant questions that I would like to see the commissioners fully address.

Scott Leighton

The questions raised by Ms. Schlicht, are valid and on point. Until they Have been answered publicly, I don't think any more taxpayer money should be spent on this project. Please do not allow too much momentum to develop until costs to the taxpayers has been published to the whole community.

This looks like an amazing plan and would give a greatly needed remodel to that whole shopping center. I live just a few minutes up La Paz and have been waiting for 10 years for this are to be re-done. As long as the project is in Mission Viejo's budget and traffic concerns are addressed, I am all for this plan. It looks beautiful!

Mission Viejo is a patriotic city that honors the military and veterans Instead of just on Memorial Day and Veterans Day I would like to make it Every Day by erecting an Arch at some location the reads perhaps. DEFENDING FREEDOM HONORING OUR MILITARY

I attended the planning meeting when the Library was being proposed to bring up a point about adding additional stop lights o Marguerite and was told by the city attorney that wasn’t in the scope and couldn’t be brought up. After the projects completion and we had cars speeding through our neighborhood to miss the new lights on Marguerite the city plan was adding speed bumps throughout the neighborhood

Making the area between LaPaz and Estancerio even more difficult to drive through is only going to have even more cars going through our neighborhood.
People are so impatient now that they make illegal left turns, drive in a non traffic lane on Christanta and run traffic lights. I walk in the mornings and have the walk light but 2 to 3 cars still turn left on the red because they are either in a hurry or because they are tired of waiting because traffic is so bad.

Don’t know who did this traffic study but they need to come walk with me in the mornings

I think this is a great plan to refresh and revitalize the retail center.
It would be nice to have walkable pathways and new restaurants and retail shops in the heart of our city so we don't have to travel to neighboring cities all the time.

As a resident of Mission Viejo, a former member of the City Council, a former Mayor of the City of Mission Viejo and an unsuccessful candidate for a seat on the current City Council I respect Cathy Schlicht’s comments. The three parts of this proposed project combined will have a major impact on the geographic and residential center of the City of Mission Viejo. It will all deserve far more than the scrutiny suggested.
I would suggest (again) that those interested in this begin by reviewing the Urban Land Institute’s 2007 publication (available on-line), “City of Mission Viejo, Mission Viejo Village Center, Final Report” initiated by the City of Mission Viejo. This is a very thorough, professional report whose fatal flaw from my understanding is it suggested a mixed-use component in the Village Center.
On the top of page 4 of this report you will find that five (commercial) Property Owners participated in this report as well as one Resident (located a distance from the study area),
and eight Tenants.
The Conclusion to this report begins on page 21.
I have lived on the northeast end of this area since 1984 (4 years before incorporation). In my opinion I believe the Conclusion is accurate in its’ presentation.
So the ULI Report was the signal flare that went up in 2007. The City was aware. The commercial property owners were aware. And, the adjacent residential property owners, if they were paying attention were aware.
In 2009 the City of Mission Viejo City Council unchecked the box as a participant and the report went dormant.
Between the years 2009 and 2015 the commercial owners mustered the courage to throw some paint on the existing structures and called it a day.
In 2015, 2016 and 2017 the City of Mission Viejo again, perhaps because of mounting pressure, attempted to address the disposition of the ‘Village Center’, this time re-branding the area as the ‘Urban Core’ and the ‘Heart of Mission Viejo’.
This culminated in the publication of “Mission Viejo Core Area Vision Plan”, also available on line.
This publication was the result of several public ‘Pop-up’ opportunities as well as 3 public ‘Workshop’ opportunities to provide input regarding potentials for the ‘Village Center’. I participated in the pop-ups when available and all three workshops.
I was made quite aware from the 2007 ULI report of the difficulties surrounding the ownership of the subject property. At the workshops in 2016, everyone at the table I was working with was aware these properties were privately held.
What was the purpose of this second bite of the apple in 2016-17 after the failed ULI Report? Perhaps the ‘City’ felt an obligation to the residents of the City of Mission Viejo to pursue the best options available in regard to the highest and best land use available within the City’s current Land Use Element of the Planning Code. Seems reasonable as a residential property owner.
Provided with the two studies presented above, the commercial property owners are unmoved.
The City of Mission Viejo is provided the opportunity purchase the Stein Mart property which it followed up on. It is now no longer a governing authority outside the bubble of the commercial property owners but an active participant. I don’t recall anyone within the City celebrating this purchase however I, as a durable resident of this City saw it as the only opportunity to push the existing property owners to move forward.
Read pages 47 through 65 of the Mission Viejo Core Area Vision Plan and review the current visual presentations available on the envisionMV web page and you will see Assistant City Manager Rattay and associated consultants have fairly synthesized the information presented to them in this report.
With the text and visual images now available it is perhaps easier for the community at large and perhaps those affected more closely to this area to understand the potential benefit improvements to this area can have on the City of Mission Viejo.

Cathy Schlicht's questions regarding the Core Area plan are very appropriate and have the best interests of Mission Viejo taxpayers who are not pleased with the Council's "pie in the sky" plan to indebt the City with a $60 million bond using the Library building and Murray Center properties as collateral. City services, including regular upkeep on the median islands and landscaping, will be cut to help service the bond.

The "Core Area Plan" has no guaranteed income stream and relies on a set of unprofessional development plans backed by City employees with no commercial real estate development experience.

City Council spent $2 million to prep the Kaleidoscope site. This retail project was destined to be a failure from its first date of opening to its present condition of very high vacancies. It was necessary to get an out-of-country developer to pursue this undesirable location.

Mission Viejo's current decision makers will quietly retire or leave for more fertile opportunities, leaving the City and the taxpayers with another negative cash flow problem and two of its most prized facilities (the Library and the Murray Center) held hostage (collateral) by the bond deal.

City Council avoided placing the proposed project in voters' hands knowing it would be rejected.

Bored council members and city officials may have tired of performing their official duties and "needed" a new toy to play with at taxpayers' expense.

Voters should share their extreme displeasure during the next election.

I wish Mr. Moore had included a link to the report he refers to in his comment. I have not been able to locate it online.

In general, I agree with those residents who express concern about the lack of specifics on the cost and economic benefits of the proposed "Core Area Vision Plan."

My comment is about the presentations themselves. I find them misleading and confusing. When I viewed them at the various City Council meetings and the most recent Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, it was not clear to me that the "Urban Alley" portion of the project only refers to the service drive behind the former Steinmart building, currently occupied by Oakmont Church, and the four smaller retail establishments to the north of the building. I believe that residents would be better served and better informed if the presentation included renderings of how the proposed improvements would fit in with the current properties.

I urge the City manager and assistant manager to be more transparent in upcoming presentation and make it crystal clear that these proposals only apply to the property that the City owns and is leasing to tenants.

If we are to embark on an improvement project, I would advocate for one or more pedestrian bridges over Marguarite that would connect the Library and the Civic Center to the "North Paseo."

I would also like to see stairs down from one or two points along the service drive down to the Oso Creek trail. I realize that this would not meet ADA requirements, but perhaps more of the spaces on the trailhead on Marguarite to the south of Del Taco, could be designated for handicapped. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be able-bodied can use the stairs which those of us who are not can access the trail from the trailhead.

Here are City public record links to both the ULI Report as well as links to the Kosmont Report

Presentation by ULI to go into Contract - 02/05/2007, Item #24, Page 314-333
https://dms.cityofmissionviejo.org/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDoc…

Presentation of ULI Report - 06/19/2007, Item #1 Page 3-36
https://dms.cityofmissionviejo.org/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDoc…

Kosmont Report - Council Comments by Cathy Schlicht, A Report to the Citizens, 08/23/2016, Item #30, Page 321-448
https://dms.cityofmissionviejo.org/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDoc…

Kosmont Report - Council Comments by Cathy Schlicht, Reject Kosmont Oppty Sites, 10/25/2016, Item #20
https://dms.cityofmissionviejo.org/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDoc…

Minutes for Item #20 from the 10/25/2016 council meeting:

20. Civic Core Area Vision Plan Process: Concerns as to Process and Scope of Land-Use
Planning and Regulations

Motion made by Council Member Schlicht to reject The Kosmont Opportunity Sites until
the council answers policy questions on Mixed-Use Housing, Zoning Incentives, Financial
Incentives and CEQA Process Review. The motion died for lack of a second.
Council Member Schlicht presented her agenda report.

The following were public comments I made at the Community Services Commission meeting last night. The public is becoming more concerned about the viability and the financing ramifications of this ambitious vision plan, but staff and commissioners remain resolute in marching forward:

Good evening chairman and commissioners, my name is Cathy Schlicht from Mission Viejo.

Motives matter.

If the city prospers, so will we. If the city fails, our property values will fall.

If the city misspends tax dollars, then our infrastructure will deteriorate.

At the planning commission meeting, the commissioners ignored the staff report as their attention was drawn away by the PowerPoint presentation.

But the staff report is just a story, painting a pretty picture without any boundaries or limits.

This is senseless when you are ignoring concerns, raised by our residents as early as 2017 thru to today.

This is unlawful if you continue to violate the CC&R’s.

This is villainous when $12 million was unexpectedly handed over to the Santa Margarita Water District without offering other financial options or alternatives.

What other smoking gun is out there? Maybe it will be the pump stations to increase the water flow in the creek. The stream flow is mostly from urban runoff. Not exactly a condition to create that river walk that was advertised to the public.

From the very beginning, this has been a corrupt process along with fraudulently produced reports.

Where is the fiscal discipline? Is Mr. Rattay abusing his power and authority? I, personally, think so.

Please examine what is before your eyes. There is nothing there, but pretty pictures.

The way Mr. Rattay is publicly presenting these drawings, makes it impossible for informed and intelligent input. Is that by design?

Will the urban alley become hobo alley?

With the introduction of the Paseo, it has became necessary for the City to hire private security guards.

I fail to see how a business owner can make a living from a kiosk. You need traffic. Yet the purpose of this design is to reduce traffic.

Reducing traffic hurts the other businesses in the center. The City will need The Monster to be built to increase foot traffic.

The disingenuous drone video that was first introduced at the Planning and Transportation commission indicates to me that the staff thinks we are stupid.

It was comparing weekend traffic with weekday afternoon traffic, the quiet period of a business day. But what I did note was the lack of attendance at the City sponsored events. I counted about two dozen people at the Saturday morning farmers market, maybe 30 at the St Patty’s Day Fair and under 100 at the Night Market. So please do not insult our intelligence that this point in time drone video is of any strategic importance.

This vision plan was first presented to the public as a downtown river walk area; then it has morphed into a gathering place. My concern is without proper and real time disclosures, and fiscal restraints, this will become a ghost town.

The city is already borrowing $46 million on a plan built on shifting sand.

Without a designated revenue stream, this $60 million bonded indebtedness payback will be an annual $3 million drain to our general fund. It cannot be ignored that the Financial Master Plan has projected the budget is in danger of being balanced by taking money out of the City’s reserve fund.

When this comes back to you for another review, I hope you have taken the time for due diligence and will have the courage to ask questions and demand honest responses.

For the record I have handed in my comments. Thank you.

Here is the link to the drone footage that was presented to the Planning & Transportation Commission meeting held on 05/08/2023, that I referenced in my comments to the Community Services Committee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwvS475wq7M

Taxpayer money has already gone into this project through the time spent by highly paid city employees, fees to the City Attorney and other services and expenses the Los Osos project has already incurred. We have bought the former Steinmart building. But our transparency problems seem to persist. I can only assume the cost (even a reasonable working estimate) would dissuade most of us from buying the project. So the City pretends it does not know how much has been spent already and how much more will be spent if the project is approved.
Question #1: What are the costs to the City so far? What are the costs going forward to get the project ready to seek private funding?

I think a lot of the project might be good for MIssion Viejo if privately funded. I understand that the time to secure private funding has not arrived yet, but I have not heard of any presentations to potential private investors to see if the project can be shaped in a way to attract private funding when the time does come.
Question #2: Exactly when in the process will the effort to secure private funding occur?
#3: Will Los Osos be scrapped if it fails to attract sufficient private funding?

I have heard a lot of unhappiness from the long term Mission Viejo taxpayers and residents who own and operate businesses near the proposed Los Osos project. There are agreements among those owners that this project violates, according to some of the business owners. I have heard City Attorney Curley declare some of those agreements unenforceable.
Question #4: Does the City plan to proceed with this project only if it can win the support of the other businesses in the area or does the City plan to trample them?
#5 Is the City current with the payments due to the owners group from the City as the owner of the former Steinmart building?

Question #6: When will the City propose a referendum on this project? If this is a good idea, let the voters of the City of MIssion Viejo approve it.

Question #7: How does this project, which at best is only something we may WANT advance actions Mission Viejo NEEDS, for example affordable housing, low income housing, services for the homeless, safer public events, safer traffic and improved environmental protection?

We need our City leaders to be the parents who make sure our household resources address our needs before we indulge in our wants.