Appearing on tonight’s Mission Viejo City Council Agenda is Closed Session Item which deals with a request for the city to purchase around 10 acres of land. After at least three years of discussion and debate before our Planning Commission and City Council the council did what was asked. They changed the zoning which permitted half of a parcel to be used for a new Target store leaving approximately 10 acres for 154 housing units that would including 22 affordable homes.
The big question for me is why is this parcel of land back on our Agenda? Steadfast Companies lobbied long and hard to get this concession. Yes, the housing industry in CA has taken a massive hit. While our government speaks of bailing out homeowners whose properties are going into foreclosure should our city purchase this property which I previously was told is actually owned by Target?
Regardless of the reason for placing this on the Agenda, and for full transparency from our council, tonight’s Closed Session vote must be reported out. If the council majority takes any action such as giving instruction to staff, including our city attorney’s, than I demand that the Closed Session vote be made public as part of the record for those of us who plan to vote in November. Whether it’s a raising of hands or a voice vote, any prevailing action requires a majority of the five elected members. We deserve to know how they voted rather than glossing it over without naming names.
I will send copies of this post to our council, city manager, city clerk and city attorney. Larry Gilbert
Following is a post from the Mission Viejo Dispatch which goes into more detail.
City Considers Bailing Out Developers; Will Discuss Purchase Of Land For Up To 300 High-Density & Low Income Apartments
February 4, 2008 by MissionViejoDispatch.com
It appears the City is hatching a controversial idea in secrecy. On Friday an agenda change was quietly and belatedly made to the City Council’s closed session meeting for tonight, Monday, Feb. 4. The discussion could lead to the bail-out of up to three developers desiring to have the City take over their low income housing obligations.
The closed session will specifically revisit the previously approved Steadfast project for 10.5 acres at Los Alisos and Jeronimo, next to the new Target store. Steadfast’s plan for approximately 160 detached single family homes, including about 24 affordable units, was approved a couple years ago after explosive public hearings. It appears neither Target nor Steadfast is now interested in retaining the land or rights to the project.
The Council will consider an option to bail-out Target and Steadfast with a taxpayer purchase of the parcel, primarily through the city’s redevelopment agency. The City could then conceivably consolidate the projected low income housing units from three future developments at the Target location. As part of such a plan, a profitable arrangement might be created for a developer of multi-family apartment complexes to build up to 300 apartments on the site, including all of the city’s 154 low income units under state guidelines.
The agenda item lists the following partcipants and parties:
Dennis Wilberg, City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Exec. Director
Charles Wilson, Director of Community Development
James Williams, Economic Advisor
Celeste Brady, Redevelopment Legal Counsel
William Curley, III, Esq., City Attorney
Ralph Deppisch, The Steadfast Companies
Brad Syverson, Vice President, Target Corporation
Cities are responsible for creating zoning to make it possible for private developers to propose and build low income housing. Mission Viejo is in full compliance with those state laws, so no additional action is required by the City. In fact, the City has approved separate low income projects in North Mission Viejo for two developers, Steadfast and UDR. A third developer has a responsibility to build some low income units on a parcel in South Mission Viejo next to Mission Viejo Country Club.
Councilwoman Gail Reavis seems unlikely to go along with a change for the Target site, based on her statements in earlier debates on the Steadfast and UDR projects. John Paul Ledesma is generally a strong advocate of limited government and free markets. Residents will undoubtedly count on him to oppose the bail-out plan. But that could still leave three votes for a bail-out in some form, including a possible City takeover.
A Council majority could give directions on Monday to Staff to investigate funding sources and open negotiations for the land purchase. If so, the Dispatch hopes the Council will openly report each councilmember’s vote immediately following the closed meeting.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Larry Gilbert’s final thoughts. What is the role of city government anyway? I thought it was to provide public safety, maintain our public works and transportation. Should we now become landowners other than that which is used for our public buildings? Is Mission Viejo now about to enter the world of real estate speculator/developers?
Steadfast is a known builder who wants to unload their share of the parcel. What knowledge and qualifications does the city have which proves that we are smarter than someone who is established in the business?
Larry, I’ve noticed in your last several posts that you’ve started referring to yourself in the 3rd person.
That’s not a good sign.
Anon 11:15 a.m.
“It’s not about me.”
There are multiple issues in play here. The city council, of which I am not a member, was under pressure from the Public Law Center to find affordable housing in our built out community. Activists were not happy when the city leaders rezoned commercial property into housing. However, after a lengthy battle and zoning was changed for a specific project where we saw all of the plans to now bring this back is troubling.
I will post in first person when I am taking an active roll such as the June election. Yes folks, we will have to endure THREE elections this year. That is unless you live in my area where we may have a fourth dealing with the CUSD RECALL.
Speaking of a recall, I have heard many Mission Viejo residents suggest that at least one current council member should be recalled. I have resisted the idea, but I now support it with this latest news.
It is clear council members are representing the developers and not the residents. I believe the underlying problem is city staff members who neither live in Mission Viejo nor are they interested in what residents want. They see council members as temporary and residents as irrelevant.
Those who are interested in starting a recall should now proceed.
With only two incumbents up for re-election in November, removing both of them wouldn’t change the outcome when the votes have been 5-0 in favor of rezoning to suit the developers.
Would a recall campaign — if it begins soon — not have the effect of putting three seats on the November ballot? Three sane, responsible votes are needed on the city council, and they are needed as quickly as possible. Speaking of citizens giving someone a pass, why give council members a pass when they have been so consistently against the citizens?
It is difficult to justify the cost and effort of a special election immediately after the General Election, and voters get tired of constant campaigning.
The escalating housing values prompted the rezoning of industrial and commercial lands to housing in many cities. Besides Mission Viejo that did so at least partly to try and divert the affordable housing advocates off the city’s back, Irvine (Jamboree region) and Anaheim (Platinum Triangle) did this. Last year residential land was selling for over $ 3 million per acre in O.C. Condo complexes sprung up in these former industria/commercial locations, or were planned with considerable fan fare, including high rises. Then the housing bubble burst, many of these developments are in deep financial trouble, Others that had not broken ground have been quietly shelved. Developers that are near breaking ground on such projects have come to a screeching halt. The newspapers report deveopers in OC selling land at 43 cents on the dollar to get what they can out of it before it drops further. The current edition of Business Week featurs the housing meldown as a cover story. Steadfast would seem to be just another one hoping to cut its losses. The City should be real concerned about meeting its legally mandated affordable housing requiements with the demise of this project, just as Irvine has to be concerned about the Great Park ever materializing now tha the housing market has virtually collapsed. Then again, as housing values continue to tumble, maybe some existing homes in the mass-graded community of Mission Viejo will reach affordable levels. Sounds like a real mess – a mini-version of the Great Park morass.
anon #5. With the elections being this year, an anti-encumbent campaign would be more obtainable than a full recall campaign. Then after the elections and depending on the results, a case could be made to our citizens that we need to finish the process with a recall. If we need only to recall one council member, our citizens would remove Lance Maclean in a heartbeat because people believe Maclean to be a sell out.
MacLean survived the last election. What makes you think he wouldnt survive a recall? MacLean seems to out smart you every election.
Anonymous 7 is right. Lance McClean couldn’t get the gym built. He couldn’t get the powerlines buried and he couldn’t get the tollroad extended. He was developer Steadfast’s leading cheerleader, and now that housing project is also dead. That is called three strikes and you are out.