by Michael Laux
Here’s the latest from the Los Rios Historic District in San Juan Capistrano. We enjoy living in the oldest continually occupied residential neighborhood in California and we’re listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The neighborhood is very rural, cool, laid back, and right next to the railroad tracks. There are buildings dating back to the late 1700’s that have been featured on Huell Howser’s “California Gold.” Walking down our streets feels like a step back in time. People come here to escape the hustle bustle of the O.C.
Like all good things that apparently “must come to an end” in the name of profit, an ambitious developer, attempting to cash in on the charm of the area, has proposed a commercial/retail complex that has been referred to as a mall, a shopping center, a gathering place, and, for those who care about quality of life, – an irreversible mistake. No matter what you call it the project has grown in size to 64,900 sqft from its original 59,000 sq ft. This includes 292 parking places to be placed on 5.5 acres currently occupied by and zoned for a nursery. A small portion of the proposed project is within the designated Historic District and the rest butts right up to it. This property is governed by two documents, The Los Rios Specific Plan, and The General Plan.
Currently the property is designated as Low Density Commercial stating the following : “Purpose and intent: to provide for low intensity commercial uses that reinforce the rural character of the Los Rios area and will not alter the existing topography. Such uses will require minimal, permanent structures, low lighting intensities, and will generate minimum traffic and parking demand. Principal uses permitted: Retail sales and storage of plants, trees, shrubs and other nursery items; farmers’ market items such as fruits and vegetables sold from temporary open air stand; arts and crafts display and sales. Non retail uses such as greenhouse, crop and tree farming, wholesale nursery. Park and recreational uses that are passive in nature such as picknicking, arts and crafts workshops, cultural performances, etc. Minimum open area: 90%.”
The developer is pushing to make it high intensity commercial.
This will require that he alter the topography by bringing in 1,800 truckloads of fill dirt to raise the building pad by 4 feet. He’s proposing 5 buildings, the tallest at 35 feet.
This will change the neighborhood forever.
There are currently a number of businesses on Los Rios St. that are low-key, “mom and pop” type operations. They close at 5pm. What is being proposed is different – eating and drinking establishments along with an unknown array of commercial uses.
Currently most business owners live on their properties. If you’ve never experienced it you may not know that the Los Rios District gets even more magical at 5 o’clock when the shadows get long and the businesses shut down for the evening. The proposed project does not protect this time or this experience.
If this project is given the green light the zoning for Low Density Commercial will be completely rewritten to fit the Project. The developer will be writing this “ protected neighborhood’s zoning laws.
There is a petting zoo across the street with almost the exact same zoning. The precedent will give them standing to have their own zoning rewritten. It would only be a matter of time before an ambitious developer could transform remaining residential properties into high density condo developments.
Where does this end?
This project violates the General Plan by allowing “commercial sprawl” to occur outside of the downtown commercial center. In 1974 the City Council declared the Los Rios area “was an area containing structures of historic significance”; “the Council declared that these structures and the entire Los Rios area ought to be protected and preserved for posterity.”
This project is a slap in the face to the current zoning, previous Council’s efforts to preserve the area, and especially to the residents living adjacent to this proposed project.
When the developer presented the plans to the City in 2016, he had been promoting the project for well over a year and a half to City Council Members and to City Officials. He garnered support from local business owners and some of the local residents as well.
Some residents envision themselves as tenants in the new shopping center and have aligned with the developer.
E-mails provided through the Freedom of Information Act illuminate a very cozy relationship between city council members and the developer with birthday presents being exchanged and dinners shared. Professional boundaries have been transgressed at the expense of the constituents who have the right to assume they are being fairly and impartially represented.
Not surprisingly the Council voted to “study” an amendment to the Los Rios Specific Plan in October of 2016. This was the first official step made to get the project approved.
Since then, it has been considered by several advisory committees, the most recent being Design Review. Stunningly this project hasn’t even been through CEQA and a Traffic Study, but the discussion included how much they liked the new color of red for the Barn structure. The process is a complete mess and standard sequencing has been thrown out the window.
Here is how neighboring cities usually process building plans.
First the plans go to zoning for review to determine if they comply with building setbacks, allowed height, required parking, open space and lot coverage.
At this point the project is also reviewed by Public Works, the Fire Department, and Water quality. Once it is determined that it all complies with the zoning it progresses on to CEQA and an EIR study is done along with a traffic study, geotechnical, hydrology, grading and any other special studies that are needed.
Oh, did I mention that the property sits in a FEMA floodplain next to Trabuco Creek ?
Next would be a CUP (conditional use permit) if there isn’t one for the intended use at that location. After all of these standards are met, the project would have story pole staking in place for 2 weeks. Only then would it be subject to Design Review.
San Juan does it backwards allowing for incremental approval before it’s determined if the project as a whole will be allowed. This all works in the developer’s favor.
Skipping the important step of Story Pole Staking which allows everyone in town to see exactly how big of an impact the proposed development will have on the community also works in the developer’s favor – especially when the project seeking approval is too big.
There was a motion made at the last Council meeting to require the story pole staking but the Council is in so deep with the developer that it wasn’t even voted on.
All of our neighboring cities find this to be a very useful tool for their constituents. But our city officials came up with creatively amusing objections “the stakes could blow over, or somebody could alter them, and we just don’t like the way they look.” Another loss for regular citizens.
Which brings me to the next aspect of this selling off of San Juan Capistrano. There were three Council members who ran on a slow growth slate in the election three years ago. One, Pam Patterson, has lived up to her campaign promises. The other two, Derek Reeve and Kerry Ferguson flipped their positions and have voted for the study to amend the Los Rios Specific Plan.
This project should have been denied when it was first submitted because it did not comply with any aspect of the current zoning. Instead the Staff submitted a report that slyly left out the “Purpose and Intent” of the Specific Plan, and proceeded not to inform the most affected adjacent neighbors that this would be an Agenda item.
The Staff’s excuse was that the postage meter did not print on the notice cards to all of the residents, and they were returned. Unequal notice to residents, and major omissions in the Staff report – another disadvantage to ordinary San Juan citizens. There is an undeniable pattern here.
Our strategy at this point is to recall the two Council members – Reeve and Ferguson – who voted to move this project into the approval process. We want the recall to be successful BEFORE Reeve and Ferguson have a chance to vote on it. The developer is confident that he has their votes.
In a letter from the developer to the city Senior Planner (also obtained through a FOIA request) he (the developer) seems to understand how time for citizen input could be dangerous.
“David, I’m getting nervous that time is slipping away. Are you available to discuss timeline tomorrow.”
It is important to me the current council hears this project by mid next year.” That letter was August 2, 2017.”
Mid next year is almost here. We are collecting signatures now!!
You can follow us on Facebook at “Save Los Rios Historic District” and go to our website SaveLosRiosHistoricDistrict.org
That will take you to a series of videos that we made on a variety of negative impacts that this mall would have on San Juan Capistrano.
You can also reach us at info@savelosrioshistoricdistrict.org
You deserve to be heard.
Good job, Mike.
CEQA is your friend here. Use it to your advantage.
Thanks Ryan. I welcome your advice.
This is a grim fairy tale. A tale of a historical town, the swallows, and Los Rios and a fire breathing dragon come to swallow up the town for money. The guardians of the town are allowing this to happen. Thank you Michael for keeping us informed.
Ryan. The swallows have stopped returning to the mission. Due to over development. There use to be thousands of birds returning, now.. very few.
This is just one more loss. Noise, Traffic, overdevelopment.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-swallow-capistrano-20170602-htmlstory.html
Donna, the headline of the article you reference says that the swallows were driven out by “Development”. It then goes on to say that the development was the “long-term renovation efforts at the Great Stone Church”. Are you saying that preserving the Great Stone Church should not have been done? The article goes on to say that the demise of the swallows was caused by a “change in flight patterns at John Wayne Airport”. Which is it?
Michael,
Email me ASAP, please. Cynthia@Ward-Associates.net
San Juan Capistrano is losing its quaint charm and historical places one by one. What our city council did to side step standard procedure in the review process would be cause to recall Reeve and Ferguson. Add to that, they collaborated with the developer when council members vow to remain neutral as their position dictates.
Los Rios is a real life Knotts Berry Farm: a slice of old California history with walkable streets, cottages that double as shops and housing. This is what people see when the train stops in San Juan Capistrano. A colorful street out of the past. Los Rios is a bit of living history as much as the mission.
The developer Almquist came to town a couple of years ago and began to weave the story of his magical commercial enterprise. He touted the wonderful shops that would benefit local stakeholders. The developer has been selling everyone a place of commerce we cannot see. He has not revealed an anchor store. “It will be a special meeting place.” he said. Since when is an anchor store a secret?
The developer let it be known that the shops would be magnificent. Not only is the mall different but only the finest items will be offered for sale. And, if anyone cannot see how wonderful these products are, it is because they have no vision and are not qualified to have an opinion. So the developer and his team went about telling the town about the revenue these unique shops would bring to San Juan Capistrano. But you can only see the benefits if you are truly worthy and great yourself.
I had to laugh when I heard the city council ruled that the story poles would not be used. Of course not. The emperor has no clothes.
[Applause]
Donna, you say we are losing our historical places in San Juan “one by one”. Can you specifically name the historical places we have lost recently? Just wondering.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-swallow-capistrano-20170602-htmlstory.html
Donna, are you saying that we’re losing the Mission?
The swallows haven’t nested at the Mission for many many years. Before the Mission, the swallows’ nested in the cliffs of Dana Point. When the Mission was built it was the tallest building around for miles. When other buildings were built, the swallows’ had other options for nesting and branched out, so to speak. As development of the Capistrano Valley and surrounding areas increased, the swallows habitat area also increased. There are still plenty of swallows in Capistrano if you know where to look. With the Mission needing to earthquake retrofit, it did disturb the swallows that had nested there. Having done publicity for the swallows and the parade for ten years, this is information I know as fact.
Especially alarming to me that civic leaders would consider blowing off the General Plan AND CEQA, for a retail-based center in an age when retail is going the way of the rotary phone. Don’t get me wrong, losing our heritage for a good project is still not beneficial, but it is especially obscene to lose a precious resource for something destined to languish and die.
If you want a prime example, look at Anaheim. We bulldozed our downtown, and then the economy went belly up, and that land lay fallow for decades, only recently (mid-2000’s) did CIM put up a schlock project that had to be rehabbed and rescued by Shaheen Sadeghi. Funny, every warning by the local residents against the demolition, and every warning against the poorly imagined new “replacement” downtown was ignored by leaders, and the warnings all came to pass. You would think someone would listen by now. SJC, please feel free to point to Anaheim’s past as a cautionary tale, and do the opposite. Good luck!
Cynthia, you are talking about re-development and demolition. None of that is happening here. I don’t see any relationship to what you describe happened in Anaheim to this project. The people here in San Juan Capistrano are much smart…. more informed and engaged than Anaheim.
“The people here in San Juan Capistrano are much smart…. more informed and engaged than Anaheim.”
Dude, really?
Dude don’t know Anaheim.
Well….we here in San Juan aren’t the ones who “bulldozed are downtown” as happened in Anaheim. Doesn’t the mere fact that that happened support my statement. Dude.
Our.
She said our.
My point being you asserted your superiority while butchering the English language. A point your lack of modesty allowed you to miss.
Good luck to you, sir. It’s quite clear you think highly of yourself, which speaks volumes on your bias in favor about this project.
It’s not about the construction, it’s clearly about you.
All that over a simple malapropism. Vern, can you come out from behind the curtain for a minute and do your civility speech? I think Ryan is confusing some light humor with malice. Any help from the “Z man” here?
All that over arrogance.
Or perhaps you’d prefer “much smart.”
Actually, the hotel property next to the Egan house has been bulldozed and now is home to a big pile of bricks, and a fluctuating group of homeless. The other hotel property has been bulldozed as well, although it has been grubbed and graded and is a tidy lot.
These lots are both in the heart of downtown.
Good point Michael you are right. And the hotel thing has been a nightmare. We here in San Juan probably aren’t any smarter than those Anaheimians either.
*Hey, Los Rios is already too cool. Why would any paid off political group not want to change all that ….. sooner than later. This is a cautionary tale about “who you vote for” makes a huge difference. Time for folks to go to the next City Council meeting and tell them what they think. Otherwise,….watch the wheels of progress…..”Paint Paradise and
put up a Parking Lot”.
Los Rios is cool – I agree. Is there a “paid off political group” as you say? Who are they? Please just say what you mean. Are you for River Street or against it? Who should I vote for? Joni Mitchell would absolutely love this project. Is it “paint paradise” or “pave” paradise in the actual lyrics.
The stake holders have been convinced that only a magical mall will bring prosperity back to San Juan Capistrano. Re Joni Mitchell.. It is pave paradise in the lyrics. A parking lot for 300 cars in Los Rios? Joni Mitchell would hate this project.
*re. the Winships:
malapropism = the act of using an incorrect word in place of one that is similar in pronunciation. The word comes from a character named Mrs. Malaprop in the play “The Rivals” by Richard Brinsley Sheridan.
mondegreen = a word or phrase that results from a mishearing of something said or sung “very close veins” is a mondegreen for “varicose veins”; from the mishearing in a Scottish ballad of “laid him on the green” as “Lady Mondegreen”
free association = the mental process by which one word or image may spontaneously suggest another without any apparent connection.
The traffic is already impossible through what should be a quant historical district. Please get out on the streets and recall NOW!
Can’t find a parking place just to buy a cup of coffee. So they want to make it worse?
I am astonished that council members are bought so easily to favor one developer over the majority of their hometown.
S. It astonished me to see our own city council lobbying for this project in Los Rios. . CC members take an oath to uphold the constitution and remain neutral. Accepting gifts from developers in any form is unethical.
You are dead wrong Mr. Eubanks. When traffic is at its worst in town, it still only takes about 5 minutes to drive from my house just before Aguacate along Del Obispo to DeNault’s. That is with going through two light cycles at Adelanto and having that false red at RR crossing. I have been doing my own traffic study and have been timing my trips. Usually only about 5 minutes and this is at peak times ranging from 3:30 to 5:30. After 6:00 there is no traffic, especially on Friday and Saturdays. The Los Rios area needs more parking – to solve that you add 300 parking spaces. Now you can park. Can’t see the forest through the trees on this one eh? Think about it. None of the multiple businesses on Los Rios Street have any parking for customers. The River Street Marketplace will provide the desperately needed parking so you can easily park your car and get your darn coffee as is your God given American right. Jeez – it is like the lights are on but nobody is home.
Hey.
Don’t be a dick.
Last warning.
I can’t park my car, so “recall now”. Project hasn’t even been approved. Current council is not responsible for any traffic conditions we have now. Sorry, kind of a knee-jerk reaction without much thought.
The 292 parking places attached to this project is the absolute minimum required for the 64,900sqft of commercial/retail buildings.
There are no extra parking spaces. Bringing in more cars does not help with the traffic problems here.
There are a lot of accusations of politicians being paid-off and selling out being made here. I don’t think any of this is true. Back up your accusations with some evidence. Just because people are civil and friendly with each other and have conversations over lunch is no reason to think there is something unethical happening. The relationship between a developer and civic leader does not and should not be adversarial, but constructive.
The spin that Mr. Laux continues to peddle is false and destructive. We as responsible citizens are not buying it. It seems like everyone on this blog just wants to bash developers or something. The proposed River Street has been going through a very open process with more community interest and involvement than any other project this city has ever reviewed. The overwhelming majority of the long-time residents with deep ties to Los Rios Street and San Juan have a very favorable view of this project.
Quit making false statements and accusations. Michael and others here would have you believe that everyone who is in favor of River Street is somehow getting “paid-off” and is trying to foment distrust so he can move his political agenda through a re-call effort.
Elected officials should NOT be meeting with developers over lunch.
That’s total nonsense.
Just for equal time, you’ve just made some fairly substantive accusations about Mr. Laux without offering a single shred of evidence while simultaneously demanding evidence to support his claims.
I believe that makes you a hypocrite, sir.
What accusations have I made about Mr. Laux? So far you have called me a “hypocrite” and a “dick”. You also gave me a “last warning” what does that mean? What are you 12 years old?
Well, Dave, that’s your third strike. That’s unfortunate. Reading is a minimum around here.
Reread your comment above this one. Go slowly.
You claim he’s spinning facts, you claim he’s destructive, you claim he (and all of us) want to bash developers, you claim he’s making false statements and false accusations, then you claim he’s accusing people of being bribed, then you assume his motives.
You offered no support for any of that.
You started your screed with: “Back up your accusations with some evidence.” You failed to meet this standard. You didn’t even try.
Thus your hypocrisy.
Elsewhere on this page you mocked another individual. Generally, that’s dickish behavior. I labeled that behavior as such. If you object to the label, then don’t be a dick.
Finally, you denied doing any of this an accused me of acting childish.
Your comments are right in front of every reader at this site. That may even include some twelve year olds, most of whom have a better grasp of self awareness and reading comprehension than what you’ve displayed this week.
You appear to have some passion for this specific debate. I’m sure you’re a decent human being, but here’s some free advice:
Your behavior erodes your cause.
Do better.
Ryan, just read Michaels headline article at the top. It is all there.
Your comment at the bottom, much better.
This one? Not so much.
His title has nothing to do with your lack of support.
Ryan, Dave lives in the neighborhood and I agree with him. I’ve worked most Saturdays for the last several years helping to restore the 200 year old Silvas Adobe directly adjacent to to proposed project. I’m very much in favor of River Street.
“I’ve worked most Saturdays for the last several years helping to restore the 200 year old Silvas Adobe directly adjacent to to proposed project. I’m very much in favor of River Street.”
Steve, thanks for sharing a common logical fallacy. It’s called argumentum ad verecundiam. It’s just as annoying as people who argue from emotion.
David, thanks for the critique. What does it have to do with River Street?
No charge.
Next time tell us your reasons for supporting something instead of sharing some sort of odd qualification for offering an opinion, i.e. “I’ve worked most Saturdays for the last several years…”
C’mon Zingy. Mr. Behmerwohld (dang hard name to spell) has donated much of his time on historic preservation on Los Rios street. It shows that he cares. It shows he is involved. It shows he is very close and understands the area and the people. You are calling that “some sort of odd qualification”??? I know you can do better than that.
Mechelle Lawrence-Adams is the Executive Director of the Mission at San Juan Capistrano.
Mr Behmerwohld at a recent Council meeting accused the Executive Director (Mechelle) of lying and misrepresenting how many times she said that story poles were erected at the Mission at the front entrance during the planning process. She went on to say how useful story poles were to her and her design team.
Behmerwohld said that he doesn’t remember seeing them and that she be investigated for lying.
Mr Behmerwohld has some odd qualifications.
“It shows that he cares.”
Uh huh. You care too, evidently or you wouldn’t have wasted so much time defending a project about whose details you remain in ignorant bliss; and yet, it represents the final “piece of the puzzle,” a puzzle that seems to have been conjured up in your own imagination.
“Caring” doesn’t mean much. Knowledge is ever so much more useful. Even for a developer’s shill.
You are both way off into the weeds. Get your pitching wedges out.
If Dave would like to reappear and not throw mud at Mr. Laux for shits and giggles, I’m sure we’d all be interested in what he has to say.
In other words, I’m not questioning his motives or his character.
I’m questioning why anyone would show up on a blog, demand that someone else stand for purity and piety, then kick the same person in the nuts.
I think that’s a pretty poor way to start a real conversation aimed at affecting change.
Ryan, you should know that Mr Bachelder and the developer are BFFs. They have been for years. It might help you understand his commentary.
I am for open dialogue and truthfulness about this project. I have advocated for story poles to illustrate the size and mass of this development, but people such as Mr Behmerwold, Mr Bachelder, and the developer have opposed this very useful tool.
Read today’s Register….
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/02/21/suggestion-for-use-of-story-poles-in-san-juan-capistrano-to-show-size-of-proposed-projects-didnt-get-council-interest/
It is Laux’s style to smear people for truly liking a project. Just because someone is friends with someone doesn’t preclude them from liking or disliking anything.
Sometimes it actually works! After they catch a breath.
Mr Behmerwohld, I bought the house that Dave used to rent in the Los Rios Historic District neighborhood, almost 4 years ago. Now he lives about a mile away. You knew that. Let’s keep it accurate.
He didn’t know that I moved Michael.
My husband and I own the property being discussed. As usual Mr. Laux blurs the lines of truth, and mixes in much opinion.
A small detail, but to get one fact correct is the property is not 5.5 acres, but 5.69 acres.
It is Laux and his crony that intentionally called this project a mall. Using that terminology creates a negative reaction and fals mental imaging.
Calling it high- density is also incorrect. The project buidlings would cover less than 25% of the property. That is less than half what the General Plan allows.
The only portion of the historic property (River Street) is actually being reverted to a pedestrian pathway instead of vehicular access it is now. Yes, the property borders the historic neighborhood, and most of those homes are not historic, but were built in the last few decades. There are four structures that no one lives in as they are part of the historical society grounds. In total there are 7 homes adjacent to the proposed project and there are at least 2 of those 7 that are in favor of the project. One of the adjacent homes has developed at least 80% of the property while complaining about us wanting less than 25%.
Altering the topography – again, this isn’t accurate information. The amount of fill given by Laux is again meant to illicit a negative reaction without most people having a reference point. This parcel is 5.69 acres. There are many low spots and areas where the soil is not compact. Even with the amount of fill and compaction the tallest building will still be several feet below the adjacent structures.
Once again, the truth of the business’ on Los Rios is not being told by Laux. There are already 3 restaurants and a coffee house on Los Rios, and surprise, almost every single business on Los Rios and the majority of the long time residents are in favor of the River Street Marketplace. Also, only a few business owners reside at their business. The majority do not.
There are some residents that have not educated themselves regarding the project, but have followed the exaggerated stories of Laux. My husband and I can respect anyone that has taken the time to educate themselves on this issue, not blanket believing Laux or the Ito’s.
Laux makes a lot of allegations regarding the developers actions. I can tell you that his first meeting regarding the project was with 5 local historians, to garner their thoughts, opinions and more importantly, their guidance. The birthday ‘presents’ he mentions were actually one gift – from a council member to the developer. What he fails to mention in his smear campaign was the ‘present’ was a USED $12.00 history book of someone instrumental in saving the Mission SJC. The council members have not been recieving gifts or perks from this developer despite the insinuations. Much of what he ‘quotes’ from emails is also out of context.
Laux further goes on to say this project hasn’t gone through CEQA. It is in the process of that right now. We have had Cultural Resources, sight line photography, noise levels all done. Traffic studies have been on going by several different companies from the beginning. Additionally, this project has gone through every single process that is required by the city of San Juan Capistrano, and even additional ones at the request of the developer for public comment. If Laux wants the process changed he should start there instead of trying to make it sound like the developer is bypassing the current regulations.
Mr Laux makes a lot of insinuations about the many people involved in this project – the land owners, the developer, people that are in favor of it, city staff and council. This has been his tactic from the beginning. Again, as I stated above, your opinions would be respected if everyone here that is commenting has actually educated themselves on the project, not taking anyones statements as fact.
http://www.riverstreetsjc.com
Hi Sheree,
How much are you making on this development?
Thanks.
Ryan,
We are making nothing on the development. We put the property out for bid, received no offers from any type of nursery, or other business that Laux says must go there. We did have offers for a meat processing and packaging plant, office and medical buildings, and many other offers that were not suitable and that would have not opened the property for the first time in 59 years to the public.The sales agreement we do have is a confidential document. Once a sale goes through, that will become public knowledge.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re confused.
You aren’t making nothing on this deal.
Try again.
Sheree, Sheree, Sheree.
You offered a property for sale under existing zoning and SP regulations and couldn’t get what you wanted. Okay. So the would-be developer made an offer contingent upon recasting the zoning law to fit a more profitable arrangement for him AND you. This happens all the time so please don’t play innocent and insult our intelligence.
The key is whether or not the proposal really confers some benefit to the people of SJC that justifies what amounts to an upzone and substantial changes to City planning law.
WHAT??? A giant eight figure windfall from a zoning change?
I mean, gee whiz. That wouldn’t give anyone a wild incentive to distort the record.
Right?
Riiiiiiiight?
“wouldn’t give anyone a wild incentive to distort the record.”
Yes it would. But it doesn’t necessarily disqualify observations, either.
When I was on the County Planning Commission I had to endure so much of the BS peddled out of self-interest and emotionalism (we’re rural here in this part of west Anaheim).
The bald facts are pretty clear if they are examined rationally – scraped free of the subjective gingerbread. In this case, the refusal to do story poles is problematic, to say the least.
Whenever an upzone occurs City Councils ought to be required to make a statement of beneficial findings for the public.
Mr. Zenger, you make a good point above that I agree with:
“The key here is whether or not the proposal really confers some benefit to the people of SJC that justifies what amounts to an up-zone and substantial changes to City planning law.”
I think the city could easily make that case here. How “substantial” the changes are is debatable and somewhat subjective.
“The sales agreement we do have is a confidential document. Once a sale goes through, that will become public knowledge.”
Um, not quite, Sheree. A purchase price for real property will become a matter of record, but not the terms of your option agreement with the developer which (unless you got hoodwinked) includes at least one option payment.
“Much of what he quotes from emails is out of context”….
Here’s the entire thread…
From:
David Contreras
To:
Dan Almquist
Cc:
Gavin Reid
Subject:
RE: River Street Meeting
Date:
Thursday, August 03, 2017 8:03:35 AM
Good morning Dan,
I’m here at my desk, feel free to give me a call.
David Contreras
Senior Planner
City of San Juan Capistrano
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
P: (949) 443-xxxx
F: (949) 202-xxxx
xxxxxxxxx@sanjuancapistrano.org
From:
Dan Almquist [mailto:xxxxfrontierrei.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 02, 2017 8:09 PM
To:
David Contreras
Cc:
Gavin Reid
Subject:
Re: River Street Meeting
David, I’m getting nervous that time is slipping away. Are you available to discuss timeline tomorrow.
It is important to me the current council hears this project by mid next year. Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:24 PM, David Contreras wrote:
Hello Gavin,
Can you give me a call to discuss the technical engineering meeting and to select a new
date.
Thanks,
David Contreras
Senior Planner
City of San Juan Capistrano
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
P: (949) 443-xxxx
Sounds like the developer is calling the shots down at the City.
Ryan. I can’t believe you are asking this question. Why does it matter? This is America right?
Your a developer your self. Do you disclose how much you make?
Not me, champ. Must have meant someone else.
Some day we should have a conversation with the “this is America” crowd about the privatization of profit and the public assumption of negative externalities via land use changes.
Dave Zenger. My guess is you don’t live in SJC as I read you frequent Anaheim City Council meetings and complain about the council majority being poor stewards of tax payer dollar. (Just google Dave Zenger)
I was holding back from posting but anyone who attacks Steve Behmerwald a full time volunteer in SJC should be in question.
Steve has done more work volunteering to protect San Juan’s history than every anti river street person combined. He is a board member of the historical society and faithful volunteer restoring the Silvas Adobe circa 1790. This is a fact.
Also another fact. The majority of Los Rios residents are supportive of River Street and want to see it go through the planning process. There are roughly 24 homes in the Los Rios district (not all of them are historic). Only 4 of the houses have anti river street signs just in case anyone was wondering.
The Rios family who has continuously occupied the Rios Adobe on Los Rios since 1794 is in favor of the project. Allan Niccolla, owner of the Tea House on Los Rios is in favor of the project and wants to see it go through the planning process. These are just a few examples of long time Los Rios residents in support of the process and the project.
As a Los Rios resident myself, my wife and I are excited about the project and would love to be able to enjoy the marketplace, cafe and shops.
Los Rios (not the Itos Property) is zoned commercial residential. You can have cafes, shops, hair salons, art galleries, astrology etc. out of your house. This is great. It’s meant to be like the old days where people lived and worked out of their home. You don’t have to have a business it’s just an option.
River street embodies this concept and will give residents and visitors a place to relax and enjoy. From the drawings I have seen it will give you a agrarian early California feel with old barns, green houses and Quonset hut architecture.
If you haven’t seen it yet you should check it out at riverstreetSJC.com
Just my opinion..
“…you frequent Anaheim City Council meetings and complain about the council majority being poor stewards of tax payer dollar.”
You’ve been reading Cunningham’s pathetic blog. He made that comment in 2013 after I had attended exactly two Anaheim council meetings. The old majority was indeed an extremely poor steward of public resources – none of which is relevant to this issue, of course.
Where I live is largely irrelevant to the discussion of abiding by CEQA, doing due diligence and understanding land use. I was on the County Planning Commission for 8 years representing the 4th District.
I didn’t “attack” anybody. I wouldn’t waste my time. I did point out that guy’s volunteerism is not a guarantee of competent authority. It is what it is: volunteerism, for which he should be applauded. However, his opinion based on his volunteerism is useless as an indicator of this proposal.
Over the years I’ve seen lots of well-intentioned people (including “historical society” members, don’t you know) bamboozled into supporting all sorts of architectural rubbish for one reason or another, so let’s just cut out the bullshit.
This project first came before the council in October of 2016. Hardly a rush job, and timing for fear of public comment. The public has been notified for the meetings concerning this project from the get-go. The only 3 constant naysayers have been Laux, Vasquez and Sandhous. The developer is not afraid of public comment and has welcomed it to the point of actually contacting you to inform you of meetings, as you try to claim the city has not done their due diligence on that. Honest and true information is readily available. Too bad you and your friends persist in deliberately spreading misinformation, deleting positive commenters or those who question the misinformation you post on your Facebook page. You’ve even been told repeatedly in council the information and video’s you post are inaccurate in almost every way.
As a Landscape Architect and near 30 year resident of SJC, 23 years living and working on Los Rios Street, I am in full support of River Street. It is a beautifully conceived design. It is an important cornerstone for our town and is the last piece of the puzzle. It will create a much needed gathering place. We really need to have a public space “square” in town. The design is respectful and in harmony with it’s surroundings and is complimentary to Los Rios Street. Its connections to Verdugo Street, the train depot, the existing 3 level parking structure, Adelanto and the bike path makes it accessible to multiple forms of transportation. Lastly, the level of quality it brings to Los Rios will ensure a solid economic foundation for the neighborhood. It is by far the best designed and most important project ever proposed in this town.
What is the height difference between your big building and the rest of the surrounding neighborhood average?
P.S. Is it true that you oppose the use of story poles for this project? If so, why? As a landscape architect you surely know that this is a common tool to gauge the visual impact of a proposed project.
I have never been opposed to story poles. I think the question was asked like a year ago when the project was just a seed concept and no formal review process had even begun – too early. It seems a little pointless though considering all the 3D modeling and graphics that clearly show all the height relationships. There is even a physical model as well. Its just a barn anyway and the site is not a “view lot” like every lot in Laguna Beach where Michael hails from. Why can’t a building be higher than another building anyway? It happens all the time. The site is almost 6 acres with generous setbacks. I don’t know the heights of the buildings now. Why don’t you look it up? The info is all out there.
A very telling non-answer.
Story poles are not “pointless” since they would give a very real presentation of the heights being proposed. Modeling and graphics give a very different perspective than that obtained in real space. Surely, (I hope) you know that.
“It’s just a barn.” I have seen very few barns that are 45 feet high so that comment is just a poor fake-out try.
The site is not a “view lot.” Completely irrelevant, of course; comparison to Laguna Beach (where Michael hails from) – piling irrelevant on top of irrelevant, of course.
“The site is almost six acres..” Maybe. So What? “…with generous setbacks.” Says who?
“I don’t know the heights of the buildings now.” So you are a big project cheerleader and you don’t know how high the buildings are “now”? You really want to go with that?
Mr. Zenger says, “I have seen very few barns that are 45 feet high so that comment is just a poor fake-out try.”
Tell you a story. My grandparents barn that I used to play in was a three level barn. It was actually smaller than most of the barns of the area in Quebec Canada. My grandparents were dairy farmers. The barn was about 34′ to the top of the ridge beam sans cupola and weathervane. There were many barns in that area bigger than that and they must have been at least 40′ tall. The old barns were actually much bigger than newer barns. After they started bailing the hay as opposed to putting up hay loose the barns got smaller.
Just a side story here. One day my dad was putting up hay with his brothers and something on the gantry broke and the hay fork came crashing down. He was down below on the wagon or something and the hayfork pierced his leg. One of the long tines went clear through his thigh. A few more inches and you wouldn’t be reading this.
So I am not sure if you are right or wrong. Most people don’t drive around the countryside with a tape measure measuring the heights of farmer’s barns. Sounds like you have a unique and fun hobby there Mr. Zenger.
“A few more inches and you wouldn’t be reading this.”
So close.
Please name one project in San Juan required to use story poles? Neither hotels were required. Why isn’t the anti River Street people fighting the developer of the hotel next to the mission require story poles? After all the hotel will block the view of the mission from Ortega hwy. This further shows the singular focus of this propaganda.
I support story poles for ALL projects in San Juan Capistrano.
That has always been my position.
Little models give you the perspective of a project from that of a bird or up in a helicopter. Useless.
Harrison makes an excellent point above regarding story poles. So here is what happens in our case. You put up story poles and all the people in support of the project say, “yes looks good – just like the elevation drawings, the 3d drawings and the physical model that has been provided.” The few people opposed say, “oh my god it is a terrible disaster.” No resolution.
The other problem is it shows buildings without the context of the proposed surrounding trees in the landscape. More importantly, it is not required. Usually only used in an important view shed situation ie. ocean views etc.
Mr. Zenger is saying the barn is 45′ high. Is that true? Top of the weather vane? I am asking because I honestly don’t know what it is now. I am just a cheerleader here.
Typical three level dairy barn is 32′ min. to about 34′ high to the ridge beam. These are not the biggest barns. A barn around 40′ high is not out of the ordinary. Older barns taller than new ones. Some of the Amish barns are quite tall. There are lots of different barns. I love barns.
^^^
Thank you.
Brought a nice bit of humor to my afternoon.
Well, I think Zinger really nailed it with his “so close” line above. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Still laughing. With all sincerity that is a gem. Dry, only two words. Hats off to Zinger! Glad to see Mr. Cantor coming around. And thanks to Vern too. Wherever he is.
No, the biggest barn is going to be in SJC – 45 ft., right? Except that it wasn’t a barn, isn’t a barn and never will be a barn.
Keep swinging, Rocky.
P.S. At the risk of getting a straight answer: how much higher will the fake barn be relative to the average height of the surrounding neighborhood? You say you don’t know how high the fake barn is “now” but go ahead and use the height you used to think it was.
I love barns!
Good thing I like talking about barns otherwise this could get tiresome. Quite frankly, I can’t answer right now or type cuz’ I’m laughing too hard. Bye bye for now.
The barn is between 34-35 feet and is at least 2 feet shorter than the nearest residence.
The 12/8/17 plans show the Red Barn top of ridge at 30′.
Is the Barn getting taller now ?
I may be mis-remembering the height. I do know it is not as tall as the residence.
If that’s true, you should demand that your developer put up story poles to show everyone how the commercial center will fit in with the neighborhood.
No.
“….show everyone how the commercial center will fit in with the neighborhood.”
Is it really in the neighborhood? Are the condominiums just to the north of your house “in the neighborhood.” They are just one house over from yours. Why is this almost 6 acres considered to be “in the neighborhood” anyway? Lets quit expanding the Los Rios Historic District. The property is not even “in the neighborhood.” It is next to it.
Why do you repeat this lie ?
This parcel (actually three parcels tied together) is in the Historic District in three separate areas.
The parking lot entrance on Los Rios St is in the District.
The area where the plans call for a fake water tower is in the District.
ALL of River St is in the District.
To repeat this lie won’t make it come true.
Those are some very small access locations and the street R.O.W. right? How much of the almost 6 acres is outside the district Michael? I am guessing most of it.
The discussion last year was that ridgeline of the proposed “barn” was 45″:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/sjc-rezone.jpg
Now it’s 30′? Or 34-35′? Or what? WTF? How come nobody knows? This is becoming pretty embarrassing.
The “Marketplace” building top of ridge is at 35′, on a fill of 4′ over natural grade.
The “Greenhouse” building top of ridge is 25′ and looks like four buildings.
The “Farmstead” building top of ridge is 31′.
The “Mercantile” building top of ridge is 35′.
The “Red Barn” building top of ridge is 30′.
The original square footage was 59,000sqft, and is now 64,900.
There are 292 parking places, on little more than 5.5 acres
Net import of dirt is listed at 18,000 CY.
The specs on this project change so much that the property owner doesn’t even know how tall the buildings are supposed to be, today.
This project violates the Los Rios Specific Plan, and the San Juan Capistrano General Plan.
So the tallest building stands 39′ above existing (and presumably surrounding) grade.
What is the differential between that and the typical structure in the immediate vicinity?
One and two story residences less than 25′ tall.
1500-2000 sqft homes.
Oniel museum somewhere between 26′ and 28′ tall. So you are close. If you estimate F.G. at base of 35′ high building to be about 4′ lower than N.G. at the bottom of the slope behind the museum, the elevation of the top of the tallest building would be at no more than 2′-3′ higher than the elevation of the top of the museum. This is just an estimate cuz’ the F.G. could be even lower at the tallest buildings. Point being – it is fine.
Michael, don’t start throwing around this conjured up 39′ thing. Nobody cares about your “differential”. All we care about is the end elevations. The Itos'(plural possessive) property is in a hole with some very low spots. The final grade will be lower than Los Rios Street. Quite a bit lower. Looks like maybe 8 ft. lower. The visual impact will be from the new finish grade (and it is not a hill). The heights of the buildings will be seen and experienced from new finish grade. Your feet will be on the ground, not buried 4′ below. The heck you talk’n about? The invisible “differential” you have concocted is irrelevant.
So now you see Mr. Zenger. There is not a 45′ tall barn after all. In fact, the tallest building is no taller than an average size dairy barn.
I LOVE BARNS!
I’ve discovered there’s a lot of bullshit in barns. At least in SJC.
Well, even if I granted you expertise in barn architecture, that, why would any sort of farm buildings be appropriate in this location? It’s not a dairy farm and never was.
That’s right. It was never anything except a nursery.
P.S. to all my new SJC friends.
The plural of Ito is Itos, not Ito’s.
As I haven’t found an edit or delete feature on comments, I will clarify my comment of last night regarding the height of the red barn. I was tired and didn’t pay close enough attention to the building (red barn vs marketplace structure). I mistakenly referenced the height of the Marketplace building instead of the Red Barn. For Laux to make statements that I don’t know something because “The specs on this project change so much that the property owner doesn’t even know how tall the buildings are supposed to be, today.”, is another of his assumptive comments. He also forgets to mention that the height of his buddy’s home is 35 feet – a three story structure. Laux still can’t even get the acreage correct – it is not 5.5, but 5.69 acres. Square footage has increased to accommodate an underground utility area.
You should look at your developers plans. On the page titled “Site Sections” it lists Jeff’s house Top of Ridge at 24’4″. Not 35′ as you stated.
You should have your developer just put up story poles and we could dispense with a lot of this back and forth.
Forster house on Los Rios Street about 34′ tall, maybe more. Nice tall Victorian home. Was moved in around 1996 or 1997. Nobody even notices this house. I don’t remember story poles or any opposition. Turned out absolutely beautiful. How high is the top of the dome on the train depot?
Mr Zenger, to answer your question about why a barn structure is being built in this location is that the architecture for all the buildings was chosen to reflect and respect the history of San Juan, which has an agrarian history. There is an historic barn across the street from Los Rios Street and there are other barns that existed in town. In this project there are the 2 barn structures, a greenhouse fronted buildings to reflect the area’s nursery history, and a hoop house structure, also to reflect the nursery industry that SJC has, both past and present. There was an intentional decision to not try to imitate the homes on Los Rios Street, but to yes, contrast with them, so their architecture would stand out.
“There was an intentional decision to not try to imitate the homes on Los Rios Street, but to yes, contrast with them, so their architecture would stand out.”
Mission accomplished.
I hate to repeat myself, but here is what the zoning says…
Low Density Commercial (LDC) District.
a. Purpose and intent: To provide for low intensity commercial uses that reinforce the rural character of the Los Rios area and will not alter the existing topography. Such uses will require minimal, permanent structures, low lighting intensities, and will generate minimum traffic and parking demand.
It also says that it is to remain 90% open space.
And of course, no zoning has ever been changed in San Juan in its entire history… or anywhere else. Regulations in that district have been changed frequently. But let’s ignore that fact.
There have been slight changes, yes. But nothing like this.
Did you even try to design something that would conform to the existing zoning ?
Bullshit there have been slight changes. My father-in-law bought property there to build his glass shop and then the zoning was changed from light industrial to residential. Then we had historic residential changed to commercial / residential. Major zoning changes and amendments. So full on bullshit Michael.
Nobody has ever come up with such a large scale request for a zone change like the one proposed for the nursery property.
64,900 sq ft of commercial retail. 292 parking places.
Every change that has happened before was slight by comparison.
Well, first off, the Ito property is currently zoned commercial and is staying commercial with amendments to the current plan. I think a zoning change from light industrial to residential is a pretty major change in the zoning. Furthermore, a change from residential to commercial is a pretty significant change. These changes happened in the actual historic district along with a lot of other amendments. A commercial property that is zoned commercial and is staying commercial – is that even a zoning change? This property is not even historical or in the district.
To add to my point above, I forgot about Lobo street. After my father-in-law had his property re-zoned, the city later took a big piece of his property and bisected it through eminent domain to put in Lobo Street.
These zoning changes were big changes for the entire neighborhood.
My father-in-law did not want his land re-zoned or taken away through eminent domain. He didn’t want a street put through his land. This was forced upon him.
There is a big difference between a landowner requesting some amendments to a poorly written precise plan regarding their own property verses the city forcing a zoning change on a landowner.
Major zoning changes and many amendments, C.U.P.s etc. have occurred.
” A commercial property that is zoned commercial and is staying commercial – is that even a zoning change?”
Let’s read the zoning…then tell me if you can identify one aspect of the zoning that the project would comply with besides the minimum lot size and the frontage ?
What we have here is a developer who gets to write his own zoning. Can I do that for my property ?
Low Density Commercial (LDC) District.
a. Purpose and intent: To provide for low intensity commercial uses that reinforce the rural character of the Los Rios area and will not alter the existing topography. Such uses will require minimal, permanent structures, low lighting intensities, and will generate minimum traffic and parking demand.
b. Principal uses permitted:
1. Retail sales and storage of plants, trees, shrubs and other nursery items; farmers’ market items such as fruits and vegetables sold from temporary open air stands; arts and crafts display and sales; outdoor ceramics.
2. Non-retail uses such as greenhouse, crop and tree farming, wholesale nursery.
3. Park and recreational uses that are passive in nature such as picnicking, arts and crafts workshops, cultural performances, etc.
c. Conditional uses permitted:
1. The keeping of horses, commercial or non-commercial, as set forth in Section 9-3.620 of the Municipal Code, provided the density does not exceed six horses per acre and a live-in caretaker resides on the site.
d. Development Standards: Structures, permanent or temporary, shall be designed and sited consistent with the Architectural Design Guidelines and Site Design Standards of this Specific Plan and comply with the following:
1. Minimum lot size: 30,000 square feet
2. Minimum frontage: 60 feet
3. Minimum frontyard setback: (one-story): 8 feet
4. (two-story): 15 feet
5. Minimum sideyard setback: 8 ft. one side & 18 ft. total.
6. Minimum rearyard setback: 25 feet
7. Maximum building height: 22 feet; or 30 feet with 1 ft. additional height for each 3 ft. additional setback.
8. Maximum building area: n.a.
9. Minimum open area: 90%
Los Rios Specific Plan City of San Juan Capistrano
24 | P a g e
e. Access and Parking:
1. All access to the property will be either from Paseo Adelanto, or River Street as depicted on the Circulation Plan of the Los Rios Specific Plan.
2. Parking shall comply with Section 9-3.602, Off-street Parking of the Municipal Code.
f. Development Processing:
1. Development shall be master planned and designed as a whole even though construction may be phased.
2. Any proposed structure, commercial or non-commercial, requiring a building permit, shall be subject to the Development Review Procedures of Part 4 of this Specific Plan.
g. Supplementary District Regulations: Unless specified otherwise, structures and uses will be required to meet all applicable development standards of Title 9, Article 6, Supplementary District Regulations of the Municipal Code.
Changing the subject to traffic, how is this proposal going to affect any nearby MPAH intersections? If there are any, what are their current LOS status? Deficient intersections (D & F) can’t be made worse without an irremediable impact, which, per CEQA, would require findings of overriding consideration by the decision makers in order to approve environmental docs. The same would apply to intersections made deficient by a project.
I wonder how those findings would read.
You always change the subject when you get “owned”.
Anybody worried about the traffic around here ?
In case you haven’t noticed, it’s bad. Right where they want to put in the mall is probably the worst in town.
You know Zinger – I find it amusing that someone from Anaheim would be so concerned about our buildings, building heights, architectural style, “fake buildings” etc. You guys have a big fake mountain, a 100′ tall big “A” (I like). You have got the Honda Center, that is as big and ugly as it gets. You have the biggest damn parking lots in the world perhaps. You have that cocoon (I love it). And that the good stuff! Looks like you have got plenty of work for yourself up there in your own neck of the woods. So leave us alone down here and let us build our neat little farm thingy.
Anaheim is hardly the issue here, is it, chum? When this blog runs a post on the horrors of Anaheim’s built environment you will have every opportunity to opine. And I will probably agree with you. Until then quit the deflections.
The point is, you don’t live here. You don’t pay taxes in San Juan Capistrano. You don’t work here or run a business here in San Juan Capistrano. I do. I would never insert myself in the affairs of a town I don’t even live in. Was just making an observation that you must admit is rather amusing. Good day sir.
I love barns!
Hey, maybe you guys should have a public vote.
Then all your fellow residents could have a say.
He can have an opinion because he’s an American and a human and this falls under his area of expertise, and this is his blog home. And he’s fought this kind of stuff all over the county.
What about me? I go down to SJC sometimes. I’ve spent money there. A year or two ago I had to get off the train right there and ended up jamming on the piano with some jazz band. That was in Los Rios District. Yes we get to have opinions and express them.
Oh and here I am in 2011 playing down there on a piano painted by SJC artist Art Guevara…
Wow, somebody sure got sensitive. Just as I was appealing to a degree of objectivity over silly stuff like “at last, the final piece of the puzzle!”
Never said “at last”. It is the final piece of the puzzle. Last piece of vacant property in the downtown. It is important that it is not squandered and turned into some stupid Sawdust Festival grounds. Read the stupid precise plan, because that’s what we are going to get. 90% open space. What a joke.
Vern you are welcome to come here and jam whenever you please. You are not from here, but we want you anyway. Just remember, you will have even more fun and perhaps more places to jam and stuff with River Street. Perhaps jamming on River Street. Where your pants a little longer and remember this is not a surfer town. Cheers.
” Last piece of vacant property in the downtown.”
What nonsense. It’s not vacant. There is a nursery on that property.
I know that the owners have let their property become an eyesore so that residents will accept most anything as an improvement.
That property would do well as a nursery with owners that are interested in having a vigorous business there. The Ito family wants to retire. I get it.
How about a Roger’s Garden, or a winery, or a community garden… How about we as a community imagine something beyond another mall/commercial center. Camino Capistrano is littered with them, sporting a lot of vacancy signs…
This area is too precious to plop another forgettable assemblage of commercial/retail/office spaces in there. It’s a beautiful piece of property, in a beautiful piece of California.
Let’s not waste it.
There Laux goes with his made up ‘knowledge’ again.
“I know that the owners have let their property become an eyesore so that residents will accept most anything as an improvement.”
How does Laux ‘know this’? He hasn’t spoken to the owners about it at all. It is presumption and conjecture.
The reality is that we are closing the business and selling off the stock. So what was once filled acreage is now mostly empty. After running a business for almost 50 years on the property, there are various miscellaneous items still being cleaned out. There are still plants, netting, volunteer seedling plants… and more I won’t list. The state of our business is not yours.
This is just one more example of Laux talking BS. He also has NO IDEA who we have spoken to about the property – Roger’s included. If you want a winery or community garden- you should have purchased the property. Be very careful what you wish for .
Sheree,
How much?
Honesty is easy.
We would like a winery or another nursery. What is the price ?
As you already know quite well Michael, the property was put out to bid and there is a legal agreement in place. If that agreement ends, there were other, even higher offers made. What’s yours? Are you going to base an offer on how much you paid for your property in the area? What is your property – .26 acres?
It would seem that your other higher offers had less of a chance of getting a zoning change approval for their proposed use, than what you are going for now.
We all know that property value is based upon the zoning.
You are trying to get a zoning change to increase the value of your property. If you can’t get your zoning change, then your current buyer will walk away.
What’s the listing price of the 5.86 acre site ? Minimum bid price ? Tell us what you need to get out of this property.
Also, why would I base a bid on your Low Density Commercial property upon what I paid for an Historic Residential property ? That makes no sense.
It would seem that your other higher offers had less of a chance of getting a zoning change approval for their proposed use, than what you are going for now.
We all know that property value is based upon the zoning.
You are trying to get a zoning change to increase the value of your property. If you can’t get your zoning change, then your current buyer will walk away.
What’s the listing price of the 5.86 acre site ? Minimum bid price ? Tell us what you need to get out of this property.
Also, why would I base a bid on your Low Density Commercial property upon what I paid for an Historic Residential property ? That makes no sense.
Ryan,
As I answered you before, we have signed a confidential agreement that includes price, I assume that is what you are asking – not that it is any of your business.
Honesty is easy.
No, what you said before was a giant pile of nonsense.
You said you weren’t making any money on the deal. That’s just not true.
Why all the secrecy? What are you hiding?
Ryan, the Ito property is private property and Mr. and Mrs. Ito are private citizens. They are not public officials. Please stop badgering them about their personal financial information. That just rude.
So what?
Mrs. Ito is a spokesperson for the developer. The fact that she is going to get paid a lot and (unless she is really not too smart) has already been paid something to secure the option on her property, makes her, essentially, a professional spokesperson. As I noted above, this may not automatically mean she is making invalid points; but alas, it does suggest her subjective opinions may open to skeptical review.
it’s not personal. And it’s not rude.
Mrs. Ito is not a spokesperson for the developer! She is a landowner. She is a private citizen. The development concept etc. is the developer’s realm. Unless she hires an attorney in this matter she is simply a private landowner selling her property. You are talking total B.S.
When my grandparents farm was finally sold to a well-known glove manufacturer – had you asked my grandmother what she sold her property for – she would have given you quite a talking to about manners Mr. Zenger.
Thanks for missing the point. I’ll make it even clearer so you can wrap your exploded head around it. Mrs. Ito is being paid (and unless she is really dumb, has already been paid something) when this project is entitled. So her public pronouncements are indeed PR for the developer (and the development and herself).
Your grandmother and her glove manufacturer friend were free to do whatever they wanted – so long as the public was not invited to participate in her enrichment. Nobody would have cared.
Please, no more rural gene pool stories. It’s not helping you.
It’s not rude.
They’re making money. It’s not a crime or indecent.
If it’s an embarrassingly large amount of money that they’d rather keep private to avoid discussing during an extraordinary zoning change, that’s their preference.
I think it’s a public zoning issue and the public should have all the information on the table to understand who benefits from the change and who is burdened by the change.
Claiming is all confidential sounds, well, like there’s something to hide.
I wonder what that could be?
What is most extraordinary is the spot zoning that has been forced upon the Ito property and the Ito family. The family has owned the property since the 1950’s. Name one commercial property in San Juan Capistrano or even the Los Rios Historic District or any other nearby commercial property that has a 90 percent open space restriction. Name one! This was forced upon the Ito family by the city. All they are asking is for some amendments to the absolutely ridiculous precise plan so the property can at a minimum be comparative to the surrounding properties. All of them being zoned commercial.
You have some weird idealistic vision you are projecting on another person’s private property. Also, anyone who thinks the current zoning precludes a project that is not going to be an absolute nightmare regarding traffic and noise and low quality garbage is not living in reality world.
Force Mr. and Mrs. Ito into a leasing agreement, because they can’t sell their land, and see the beautiful ramifications of that. Just think ahead a few moves. Read the precise plan. I think Bill Ramsey had something like the Sawdust Festival in his mind. Think Sawdust Festival and go back and read the stupid plan – please.
*yawn*
No. That’s not what they’re asking.
They’re asking for a gift worth a few million because reasons.
Then apparently getting on this blog, claiming they make no money at all while hiding behind a self induced confidentially clause.
Don’t fret though. This is an Orange County staple. Folks have been using it (quite successfully) for years.
But hey, you can rest easy knowing the family in question has been paying property tax on an under priced parcel for six decades.
That’s not nothing.
I suppose I am going to regret addressing this glandular outburst, particularly since I have no idea to whom it is addressed, but here goes:
“What is most extraordinary is the spot zoning that has been forced upon the Ito property and the Ito family.”
[Who says anything was “forced” on anybody? Did the Ito’s squawk before they decided to get out of the nursery business? In any case, irrelevant to the specific proposal. P.S. Specific plans aren’t spot zoning]
“The family has owned the property since the 1950’s.”
[Completely irrelevant]
Name one commercial property in San Juan Capistrano or even the Los Rios Historic District or any other nearby commercial property that has a 90 percent open space restriction. Name one!
[Irrelevant. This one does]
“This was forced upon the Ito family by the city. ”
[See comment above]
“All they are asking is for some amendments to the absolutely ridiculous precise plan so the property can at a minimum be comparative to the surrounding properties. All of them being zoned commercial.”
[Deliberately misleading and doesn’t address the specific proposal]
“You have some weird idealistic vision you are projecting on another person’s private property.”
[Um, no (whoever “you” is). That is not a weird vision. In fact, it is the City’s Zone Code]
“Also, anyone who thinks the current zoning precludes a project that is not going to be an absolute nightmare regarding traffic and noise and low quality garbage is not living in reality world.”
[So is it 90% open space, or an impending apocalyptic development? Make up your mind. Please at least share what a hypothetical “low quality garbage development” might be]
“Force Mr. and Mrs. Ito into a leasing agreement, because they can’t sell their land, and see the beautiful ramifications of that.”
[Irrelevant hysteria]
“Just think ahead a few moves. Read the precise plan. I think Bill Ramsey had something like the Sawdust Festival in his mind. Think Sawdust Festival and go back and read the stupid plan – please.”
[Silly misdirection. No, let’s just think about the first move]
Please just put down the bottle and cut out the irrational, irrelevant, emotional gibberish. You aren’t helping your friends.
” But hey, you can rest easy knowing the family in question has been paying tax on an underpriced parcel for six decades.”
Wow! Really! You are going with this? Where do I #$%$@’n start with that idiotic statement?
Please, someone else comment on this. My brain just exploded.
I’ll comment on this since your brain has exploded, although I have to wonder if anybody heard even a discrete expression of methane.
The Itos seemed to be doing just fine when they were running a nursery all those years under the existing ordinances. Did they even object to the zoning when it was implemented? If so, show the public. Then quit using a ridiculous sympathy angle to promote this project.
Your brain exploded?
I love barns!
According to the Municipal Code Sec. 9-3.535 the requirement for parking, according to the square footages on the developer’s site plan, this project requires 608 parking places.
The developer is asking for a code change that would allow the project to be built with only 292 places.
The meme that this project will help with the parking and traffic in town is nonsense !
Ryan,when Los Rios Street was re-zoned to commercial everyone had to pay back taxes on their “underpriced” properties. Yes, I get it now – the Itos should have to pay back taxes on their underpriced property. I see what you are saying now. Did I get this right?
The broader point being they’ve benefited from the existing zoning and the public has born some burden as a result.
No one is entitled to a windfall by right of rezone, which is the sad tale being sold to the neighborhood.
Rezoning property isn’t free. The public pays a cost, which should rightly be offset by the windfall received by the property owner– not the taxpayer.
That’s not an endorsement of extortion. That’s just basic fairness.
What about the windfall to the City of San Juan Capistrano when the zoning is changed. The new tax revenue to the city from the property and the added sales tax would greatly dwarf any conceivable “burdensome” tax advantage you think the Itos have taken advantage of over the years.
The local taxpayers win in this case, because of the huge tax revenue increase the City will enjoy.
Mr. Cantor says, “No one is entitled to a windfall by right of rezone, which is the sad tale being sold to the neighborhood.”
Didn’t everyone in the Los Rios district enjoy a “windfall” when property values increased due to the re-zone to commercial?
Finally, don’t forget about capital gains taxes on the sale of property.
There is a windfall tax, but I don’t know if that applies. Mr. Zenger probably knows.
The tax collectors are doing well here, very well.
I guarantee you the property owner and developer have (legally, obviously, and good on them) to minimize what property and other taxes will be paid.
It won’t be a windfall for SJC.
And it certainly won’t dwarf the present value of avoided taxes over sixty years due to being “under zoned”. That’s just math. Come on now, buddy.
I would hazard to guess there’s a long term lease involved.
I would also hazard to guess there won’t any “capital gain” taxes paid.
I’m sure you have good intentions, Dave. The facts do not support your claims. Sorry.
Wow. I think most people would totally disagree with your assertions above. I do not think you have any idea at all what you are talking about here.
You say, “The facts do not support your claims.” Name the facts concerning taxation that do not support my claims.
No one has avoided any taxes here. You are just so wrong. I fear for our country.
I did, Dave.
I literally named them.
Dave, What about the parking ?
The developer is providing for only 292 of the 608 parking places required.
You have stated that this was going to help with the parking here..
Michael, you said in a post above, “The 292 parking places attached to this project is the absolute minimum required…..”
You are now saying that 608 parking places are required. Can you clarify the disparity between your two statements please?
San Juan Scoop shared San Juan Capistrano City Councilman Derek Reeve’s post.
18 hrs ·
Councilman Reeve rebuts false accusations made by critics of River Street Marketplace.
San Juan Capistrano City Councilman Derek Reeve
18 hrs ·
I recently read on social media a false comment made by recaller and River Street opponent Michael Laux. The entire quote is as follows:
“Michael Laux Capistrano Forward Here’s where I went wrong. I believed the developer when I read his Site Plan that stated the Minimum Parking Requirement for this development was 292 parking places.. When i dug a little deeper I found out that this “Minimum” was a made up number by the developer. I confirmed this today with Dave Contreras when he agreed that the Municipal Code Sec. 9-3.535 is the parking regulation currently in place in regards to this property. According to the developers square footages, and the current requirements, a development of this size needs 608 parking places. So the idea that this project will somehow relieve the parking needs of San Juan is pure nonsense. It will make it worse. City Staff should have told us this.”
What staff actually did was simply clarify that the parking requirements from the Land Use Code are being applied to the project and that the parking analysis will be addressed in the Planning Commission staff report.
Furthermore, and most pertinent is that Laux, a developer himself who knows better, analysis is incorrect. The project is subject to the Park Once standards in the Land Use Code(not the Form Base Code) and the 292 spaces proposed would meet those standards.
Spreading malicious falsehoods against me personally actually doesn’t bother me, but let’s at least be honest about others, including fellow residents and staff, as well as important issues facing our town.
I wonder what the cost difference is between 292 spaces and 608 spaces?
$10,000,000?
If I were the property owner, I’d be pretty darn interested in discrediting anyone advocating for the higher number, too.
Anywho, carry on.
Here’s the short answer. The developer listed the minimum at 292.
According to the Muni Code that number is 608 places.
Not being a traffic/parking expert, I confirmed that with David Contreras the Senior Planner on this project. He said that “Sec. 9-3.535 is the current applicable parking code.”
What Derek is talking about is the Park Once standard for businesses within a radius of 1500 ft of Camino Capistrano and Forester St., which the nursery is. But that standard falls under the Historic Town Center plan, which the nursery is not a part of.
Park Once was created so that potential businesses in the Town Center could open even though they had no parking. Their customers would use the City lots.
Now it seems that the developer wants to try to use this standard because his project doesn’t have enough parking according to the Los Rios Specific Plan.
So, the big selling point that this project will make parking better in San Juan just isn’t true.
Furthermore, Reeve once again takes the side of the developer and the overdevelopment of SJC, contrary to his campaign promises. That is why he is being recalled.
Should check to see who pays for the shared lot.
If it’s a special district, those assessed by the tax probably won’t be pleased with this. They would own the lot, not the city.
In fact, it might not be legal.
Pretty sure it’s City owned. I can’t find anything that says there was a special assessment district that funded it.
I do know that it’s often full, and there isn’t much room for additional parking from a development that doesn’t have enough spaces.
This project has been sold as helping to alleviate the parking shortfall downtown.
I’ve also noticed on their site plan that there is no area designated as a loading zone, so those delivery trucks will be blocking parking spaces.
“Furthermore, Reeve once again takes the side of the developer and the overdevelopment of SJC, contrary to his campaign promises.”
Arguing (erroneously) in favor of a project that hasn’t come to the council yet may not be illegal, but it sure is stupid. Now he is an on-record advocate. Watch out Brown Act.
Has the developer given this schmoe any dough?
Guy might even be directing city staff on the issue.
Ooops.
I think that this would be the biggest waiver of parking requirements in City history, but I’m no parking expert.
Can somebody think of one bigger ?
Has anyone seen the piece in the new San Juan Scoop by Jerry Nieblas about Michael Laux and Jeff Vasquez. The before and after pics of Vasquez’s “Historic” house are priceless.
The paper he is referring to is affectionately known as the Poop, as it’s main function in town is picking up dog poop.
It is a gossip rag that offers no proof of any of its allegations. The “priceless ” before and after photos …..the before is from the front of the house. The after is from the back….. That’s priceless.
Do you mean this article?
https://www.sanjuanscoop.com/single-post/2018/03/17/A-True-Historians-Thoughts-regarding-those-preaching-history-for-personal-gain
Hey look, Mike was right! Gossip with no proof of allegations! Photos from two sides of a house posing as before and after photos!
That is POOP!
So Michael, are you saying that Jeff’s house has always been 2 stories? Are you saying that it’s NOT 2 story now? Are you saying that either of the pics are NOT Jeff’s house? The article didn’t speak very highly of you either. Are you questioning Jerry Nieblas’ credentials ? Vern, can you really not see that Jeff’s house was one story and is now two story?
I’ve looked at before and after pics of the street (west) elevation of that house and I think this is a pretty insensitive treatment, although the statement that the house was replaced is patently false.
But what in God’s Green Earth has that go to do with anything? Are you arguing that a bad residential addition is somehow a justification to add a bunch of out-of-scale commercial buildings behind the houses on Los Rios? I would hope that even you ardent project proponents can see how dumb that would be.
Steve,
How do you respond to the rumor that you are behind the San Juan Scoop?
Can you also tell us how many Historic Homes on Los Rios St have NOT been altered ? Including the one that you have been working on for the last several years to “restore.” It looks like it’s about 75% new construction.
Michael:
Stop by anytime and I will explain the entire rehabilitation of the Silvas adobe which was approved and permitted by the city.
My point exactly.
The entire rehabilitation of the Vasquez house was approved and permitted by the City.
Tom,
Thanks for the invite to stop by. I would appreciate you taking the time to show me what you’ve done. It looks great from the street !
I am thankful for the time and effort that you and the rest of the volunteers have put in.
I’m pretty sure that you have had to make some alterations to the original structure along the way. It would be remarkable if you didn’t.
That structure had to have been ravaged by termites as most of the homes on Los Rios have, mine included !
Michael:
We are working every Saturday from 9 AM until 4 PM except this Saturday due to the Swallows Day Parade.
Spitzer Swallows?
Michael,
I’ll be happy to answer your questions…. after you answer mine.
Are you arguing that a bad residential addition is somehow a justification to add a bunch of out-of-scale commercial buildings behind the houses on Los Rios? I would hope that even you ardent project proponents can see how dumb that would be.
Steve,
Here are the answers to your questions in chronological order…
No, no, no, no, and no.
So people say that you are behind the Poop, along with Derek and the other Steve. Any truth to that ?
About Jeff’s house… he got all of the permits and City approvals needed to rebuild his house. You had your opportunity to disagree during Public Comments when it was on the Agenda…33 years ago !!
Michael,
No & no.