.,
.
.
[This SJC call to action comes from Michael Laux, who wrote the October article you may remember on the topic. The comments section on that article is very valuable and contains arguments from both sides. – Vern]
Dear fellow San Juan Capistrano residents…
There is currently a proposal on the table to put a retail mall in the Historic Los Rios District, at the nursery property. Some things to keep in mind about it:
Its current zoning is for a nursery, fruit stand, or horses.- 60,000 sq.ft. of retail shops, drinking establishments, restaurants, and entertainment does not belong in a residential neighborhood!
- At almost 50′ above current grade, the development will block ridge line views, and overwhelm the current size of our historic buildings.
- 300 parking places will create a traffic nightmare at Adelanto and Del Obispo, the only way in and out of the neighborhood.
- Residents will be fighting traffic, noise, and pollution as a result!
- Visitors come to visit the Los Rios District in order to get away from malls.
- It violates every aspect of the Los Rios Specific Plan, which is to promote a rural atmosphere.
We need your help to fight this monstrosity in our treasured city. We need you to come to city council meetings and voice your objections, and let our leaders know that this is not an option.
Thank you for your support! And please click on the picture below, and read the text below that, for more important information. – Michael Laux
Click for much larger view!
Thanks for your interest! Here are ways that you can help:
- Sign up as a volunteer by calling Jeff Vasquez at 949-493-6155 and leave your name and number. We will get back to you right away and appreciate your support. Or…
- E-mail vasquezstudios@gmail.com or mlaux@cox.net. Let us know you want to help. We need volunteers to come to council meetings and collect signatures.
- Call and e-mail your City Council Members Ferguson, Reeve, and Farias at 949-439-1171. Tell them you are opposed to this project and that Los Rios Historic District is no place for a shopping mall!
Mayor Kerry Ferguson: kferguson@sanjuancapistrano.org.
Derek Reeve: dreeve@sanjuancapistrano.org.
Brian Maryott: bmaryott@sanjuancapistrano.org.
Pam Patterson: ppatterson@sanjuancapistrano.org.
Sergio Farias: sfarias@sanjuancapistrano.org.
(CC your e-mails to vasquezstudios@gmail.com.)
- Remind them that this proposal violates the purpose and intent of the Los Rios Specific Plan, which is part of our General Plan.
- A zone change on this property from Low Intensity Commercial to High Intensity Commercial would destroy the character and ambience of Los Rios Street – the oldest residential neighborhood in California!
- Let them know that you’ll be signing the Referendum Papers should the council majority fail to uphold the integrity of the Los Rios Specific Plan.
- Call Councilmembers Patteron and Maryott and THANK them for protecting the district, preventing additional gridlock on our city streets, and protecting the significance of Los Rios Street’s listing on the National Registry of Historic Places. (Again, 949-493-1171.)
[The 3-D illustration above is based upon a site plan submitted to the SJC planning department. I am a 40-year business owner in SJC, a 30-year resident of Historic Los Rios Street, and served four years as your City Councilman, from 1990-94. Sincerely, Jeff Vasquez.]
*Isn’t it so amazing….when everything is just perfect….”someone” comes up with the great idea to change the whole thing? Good Grief, Huell Howser will roll over in his grave. We love this area…….just as it is. Time to Fight On!
“Now, for those against the project, calling it massive and such, you might want to take a closer look at the numbers. Currently the General Plan, for example in the downtown, allows for .5 floor area ratio (FAR). For those that don’t know, this means 50% of the square footage of the property can be developed as allowable use, without having to have a General Plan Amendment. The majority of the homes on Los Rios Street occupy over a .5 floor area ratio on their property. The River Street project is .24 FAR. The Los Rios Specific plan only allows a .1 FAR. This means that it allows only 10% of the square footage of the entire lot to be developed without an amendment to the Specific Plan. That means if a building were to be 2 Stories in height only 5% of the actual property footprint could be developed. This is why River Street needs an amendment at .24 FAR and is submitted as such.
Now here’s the rub. If the River Street project is defeated and the property owners ever plea their case in court regarding this particular restriction which is very much out of line with the entirety of San Juan Capistrano, including the homes on Los Rios themselves, it is a very strong possibility that the Judge will not be coming back with a ruling of “Keep the .1 FAR.” So, now one has to ask themselves, just what might that ruling be? If the Judge takes a look at the houses and structures on Los Rios, most of which are larger than the SJC standard .5 FAR, then the Judge looks mere steps away from Los Rios to the Theater, Trevors and the Tracks, etc. with these large commercial buildings that are much larger than .5 FAR. After assessing that the .5 FAR General Plan standard seems to be either met or exceeded in the vast majority of all neighboring properties, it is not a long shot to consider the possibility that a Judge would rule for favored nations rather than securing the current singular spot zoning, and award the property owners a .5 FAR. It is the SJC General Plan Standard, so at a minimum, a likely basis the court would at least reference from.
Now, if that were to happen, a new developer would be able to come in and develop a project more than double the size of the currently proposed River Street Project at 120,000 square feet plus, and on top of that, it would land as an allowable use on the site. No General Plan Amendment, no amendments, no referendum, etc.
The point being, in that scenario a .24 FAR, such as River Street, which at present is literally ONE OF THE LOWEST DENSITY developments in the entire City of San Juan Capistrano, would suddenly land as a much smaller project than any that a new developer would propose.
So, remember for the future that if you’re successful in killing a project that has one of the lowest floor area ratios in the entire City of SJC, the future could very possibly be handing you a scenario that is infinitely more cumbersome. And there are no referendums in cas allowable use.
I’m only one person, but this is why in my opinion, everyone should be spending their time working with the developer and finding common ground that works for all involved. My concern is not that the River Street project won’t get approved. My concern is what I personally believe is going to happen regarding the zoning of that property if the River Street project is not approved. Personally, I truly believe it will be the last peek anyone has at .24 FAR on that property again.
On the other hand, a Judge could look at the SJC General Plan .5 FAR, look at all of the surrounding property .5 FAR and larger houses and developments, and still say, “No, I really feel this still needs to stay at .1 FAR, and a 2 story building can only build on 5% of the property land surface.” I certainly don’t think that will ever happen, but perhaps it would.” Per SJClifer
There is so much misinformation being spread about this project. The 3-D illustration is very inaccurate. Anyone truly interested should go to the city meetings for the project and educate themselves with the facts before making judgments.
Until there is more debate on this particular thread, you can see a lot of both sides’ arguments (including “Maisy”) starting here:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2016/10/a-mall-in-san-juan-capistranos-los-rios-district/comment-page-1/#comment-649672
How is the 3D illustration inaccurate?
Oh they decided recently to put this one little thing over here instead of over there.
Vern,
This illustration is innacurate because of a “little thing” called scale. Without scale how can you accurately judge a project one way or another.
The people opposed to the project say this photo is taken from the developers “site plan” which is a flat one dimensional plan showing property coverage.
The opposition then took it into their own hands to develop their interpretation of a 3D plan using their own artist rendering.
Let the truth prevail. If your against the project that is totally fine but don’t produce false images.
– 25 year resident of Los Rios
Harrison has it right here in terms of the scale, but also the wide angle perspective or “fish eye” exaggerates images in the foreground. Interesting that the view of the back of the project was selected as to make the parking lot look bigger than reality and to bring the barn into the foreground to exaggerate its’ scale as well. Also it should be noted that the proper grades (topography) are not depicted here either. The Ito property is quite a bit lower than Los Rios Street. Maybe about 8′ to 10′ lower.
Maisy, this 3-d representation is very accurate and is taken from the developer’s plans that have been submitted to the city. These are the same plans that everyone sees at the City Council meetings, the Design Review Commission meetings, and the Cultural Heritage meetings.
I have been to all of the meetings, and this is what they are planning. You may not want to believe that this what the project will look like, but it is.
You have been on this blog before hiding behind your anonymity and lying about this project. Please stop doing that.
I challenge you to identify even one inaccuracy.
Michael,
I have also been to all the meetings regarding this project. Your drawing is not to scale. You need to have your artists draw a new rendering or stop distributing false images.
Lets take Jeff Vasques roof line. For all those who don’t know where that is, it is the 4th house on the left hand side of the street. That house is 2 stories tall. Lets just say his building height is 25′. If his home is 25′ high then how does the barn in the proposed project dwarf his 25 foot tall building??
The answer to this simple question is SCALE.
Last I heard the developer dropped the barn building height to ~32′. If this is true the barn should only be 7′ taller than Jeff’s house.
From my current knowledge I have not seen the developer submit any 3D plans showing the project and buildings.
Let the truth prevail.
– 25 year resident of Los Rios
Harrison,
The plans turned into the City and on file show the ridgeline at 45′.
If the developer resubmits with a lower ridgeline than we will show that. Everything is currently to scale.
It would be helpful to everyone if the developer put up certified “story pole staking”. It will show everyone what the size and mass is. Let the truth prevail.
I’m sure that you’ve seen it in your neighborhood of Dana Point. It’s a requirement there.
Even if the barn height was 45′ it shouldn’t appear in your rendering to be 3 times the size of Jeff’s house and Palmers house who both have 2 stories (non historic homes) on Los Rios.
It’s hilarious how you like to bring up that I live in Dana Point to try and discredit me or something. The fact is I was born and raised on Los Rios and my family still lives there and we will never sell the properties we own.
You have attempted to defame my character in San Juan Capistrano by spreading lies and rumors about me and now your attempting to discredit me by saying I don’t live on the street. I thought you were a Rotarian? Does everything your doing in our little town pass the 4 way test?
1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all Concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
Please show where I have defamed your character by “spreading lies and rumors about you.”
Please use quotes. I am very careful to be accurate in my posts.
Why didn’t you just put the developer’s actual drawings on this blog then? The drawing you show is a contrived fabrication of your own doing. This blog is a farce created by one man trying to force upon long time residents his idealistic views of what is good for the neighborhood. The vast majority of the long-time residents and business owners that live on Los Rios Street are very favorable to the project. Finally, Maisy is not a liar.
Link to them. If they’re publicly available, we can put them up.
If they’re not publicly available, that raises another set of questions.
Maisy lied about the City considering parking to be open space. The Muni Code clearly states that parking and driveways are not open space.
“Why didn’t you just put the developer’s actual drawings on this blog then?”
Now he has. And the 3-D view is an extremely accurate depiction.
Somehow I doubt that anybody living next to a new shopping center (with a large parking lot) where there wasn’t one before is going to be happy about it. The thing is completely out of scale with the neighborhood.
You probably explained already, but what is your role in this project?
Dave, you know that the neighbors go to the city hall and planning/zoning meetings, gather facts, give suggestions and point out concerns. Feelings change about the project with changes that are made. Some already know how they feel, some don’t.
When you lived on Los Rios you fought for what you felt was right for the area. Sometimes you were the most vocal. You hated the trash and the “pedestrian highway” in front of your old house. You hated the traffic that had to turn around in your yard.
Now all of that is about to get exponentially worse, but that doesn’t seem to concern you now that you live by the developer (and worked for him). You were vehemently against the retirement home (ARMSTRONG nursery) because it was in your new neighborhood. The traffic would impact you. I can’t understand why you can’t see the impact on our traffic. Out of sight, out of mind?
The house that Michael Laux lives in now was your home for 20+ years. He still has the same problems you experienced yet he is passionate about his new home and saving the area. What made your house so marketable was the quaint area that has a unique feel. It transports people back to their own happy place. Go hunting and find your happy place. 😉 Love, your sister in law
My comments were replies to Dave Bachelder. 🙂
Oh, I feel a song coming on:
“When you lived on Los Rios…”
When you lived on Los Rios, the olives were real
With a sense of place almost everyone could feel…
Yes, and that is not changing. Los Rios Street is not changing one bit. Quaint made it marketable, but what made it so valuable?
Here’s the link to the plans from which we generated the 3-d image. These images are used all the time by architects and planners to show the impact, size and scale of projects in relationship to surrounding neighbors.
If the developer thinks that the mall will fit in with the current mass and scale, he should put up story poles with flags and string to show everybody what he is proposing. All of our surrounding cities require that for a project to go through.
http://sjc.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1446&meta_id=81894
The majority of the people in this town that I show the plans to are appalled at what is proposed. It just doesn’t fit in the neighborhood.
Finally, Maisy lied when stating that parking is considered open space on 11/4/16 on this blog.
Here’s the definition of open space from the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, Title 9, Land Use Appendix A, Definitions:
“Open space: An area of land which is unimproved except for landscaping or recreational facilities, and which is set aside, dedicated, designated, or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment for scenic, environmental, or recreational purposes. Open space does not include: area covered by buildings or accessory structures (except for recreational structures); paved areas (except for non-vehicular, pedestrian oriented hardscape spaces); proposed and existing public and private streets or driveways; or school sites.”
Maisy also lied stating that the project had 40′ setbacks. Read the developers plans and you will see that this is not true either.
31761 Camino Capistrano Suite 8 is now a show room with pictures and models of Frontiers plans for Los Rios District. Open Friday’s 4-6 and Saturdays 4-6. FYI
Time for an update to the plight of San Juan residents trying to keep our town rural, as it states in our General Plan, and the Los Rios Specific Plan.
Developers want to plop a 65,000 sqft mall into the oldest residential neighborhood in California.
I will work on this update this weekend. The City is already talking about building permits, and we haven’t even seen the EIR or the Traffic Study.
That’s why we are recalling two City Council members, for starters….
We need the support of OJ Bloggers. Thanks in advance !
Will keep an eye on my
transomI mean inbox.In case you missed this…
April 1, 2017
Mayor and City Council Members
City of San Juan Capistrano
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, Ca. 92675
Re: River Street Project
As I write this letter today, April 1, I am beginning to think this proposed River Street project is an April Fools’ joke on the City.
The site plan density, building mass and height, setbacks, parking density, and over- commercialization of the area are so outrageously inappropriate for the Los Rios area that I am having difficulty believing that the Council entertained the idea of an amendment to the zoning, let alone initiated an amendment on this property.
I’d like to tell you about how the Los Rios Specific Plan came into being and why so many people in this City who have worked so many years to protect the history and character of the area are now concerned with the changes the Council is considering.
In l972, when the City was adopting a new General Plan for the City, the Los Rios area was specifically set aside to be studied as a special area of major historic value to the City. Most citizens felt that the entire Los Rios area was too important to be included with the major planning changes that were being considered for the rest of the City and needed to be planned separately. It was determined that significant planning and study would be required to develop a plan that preserved the area and addressed all aspects of development for the future.
After the General Plan was adopted, many Council members, Planning Commissioners, Los Rios Committee members, other committees, and hundreds of citizens held meetings and public hearings, and spent thousands of hours over several years just developing the Los Rios Specific Plan. This was no quicky plan put together by a few people. This was an intensive effort supported by hundreds of involved citizens to protect and preserve this area of valuable historic significance for the City.
The 1997 plan update furthered the goals of preserving the area, and subsequent actions over the years by other Council and Commission members have continued to maintain the integrity of Los Rios and the rural atmosphere that attracts so many visitors to San Juan and this unique area.
Too many of San Juan’s residents, including me, have worked too many years on preserving this area to stand by and watch a high-intensity shopping center being plopped in the center of Los Rios. There is only one area in San Juan that is zoned Low Density Commercial (LDC). It was created specifically for this section of Los Rios, and it was created for a reason—to allow low intensity uses that are compatible with the rural character of Los Rios, and prevent the type of blatant over-development that is being proposed with the River Street project.
Just as preserving our ridgelines, open space, agricultural land, and historic buildings in San Juan was the right thing to do, preserving Los Rios as primarily an historic residential area with minimum commercial development is the right thing to do.
Please reject the River Street applicant’s request for a zoning change to High Intensity Commercial. Maintain the current zoning (LDC) which is more compatible with the Los Rios area and supported by the citizens of San Juan Capistrano.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Nash
Former Mayor and Council Member
San Juan Capistrano
Wow, a literate councilmember – albeit a former one.
What is so out of place about a small agriculturally themed market square in the historic district? There is some very nice architecture here centering around a barn which is pretty much an average size barn as larger ones go. There is a really cool quonset (sp.?) hut, a central plaza with water features that resemble horse troughs. A lot of very interesting and unique re-use of salvage materials and a beautiful native landscape with huge native trees and lots of garden areas. There will be a mix of dining choices and some really nice quality shops.
Something for everyone here in San Juan. The location is perfect as it is on the outermost end of the district and is almost 5 acres of empty lot. It will have absolutely no impact on Los Rios Street. It doesn’t change anything that is already there. You will walk down Los Rios and it will be exactly as it is now.
You may have missed David asking you:
“You probably explained already [on last year’s thread], but what is your role in this project?”
What is so out of place about a mall in the oldest residential neighborhood that is on the National Register of Historic Places ?
Plenty.
The only building taller than the 45’h barn in San Juan Capistrano would be the Great Stone Church at the Mission. A quonset hut ? Why would we want a military inspired building here ? This is not a Navy base.
And a bunch of olive trees in a parking lot doesn’t make it a beautiful native landscape. Olive trees aren’t native to California, but you knew that.
“It will have absolutely no impact on Los Rios Street.” Tell that to the homeowners who will have their bucolic ridgeline views replaced with the alley side of a mall where the deliveries and dumpsters will now push up against their backyards.
You would feel a lot different if that were next to your house.
Anyone who has ever owned an olive tree will be happy to tell you that’s an absolutely horrendous tree to park a car under.
I’d wax this project on that merit alone.
I’m sure the “olive grove” will be a “grove” of ornamental olives, adding even more inauthenticity to the mise-en-scene.
I think you are right on the barn height. My calculatiuons show 41 feet. Maybe the developer will have to move the building over a little more.
Correction – 5.62 acres.
I have no role in this project. I have lived and worked on Los Rios Street for 23 years and I still live and work here in SJC. I attended all the workshops for the 1997 Los Rios Specific Plan. My wife was on the Los Rios Review committee up until 1996 when it was dissolved. My family has owned property on Los Rios Street since the 1970’s and we still have family living in the district. I started my Landscape Architecture studio on Los Rios Street in about 1995 and I am still going. I guess it is the Landscape Architect in me that appreciates the design that is just so perfect for the Ito site. It just works. Perhaps I can see some things here that others can’t appreciate.
I see a bunch of out of scale, fake agriculture-look buildings surrounded by a typical asphalt parking lot, so I’m willing to agree that you see some things here that others can’t appreciate.
The architectural style is called “Modern Agrarian.”
Hilarious. This must be a subset of fake old.
Your role in this project is to support your good friend the developer.
Your family no longer owns property on Los Rios St. When you moved away, you quit fighting for this neighborhood. Now you fight for your buddy.
The design is perfect for one of the many malls going in out on the Ranch, in Mission Viejo. This is a residential neighborhood, not suitable for a development that does not fit the zoning, mass or scale of the small residences here. Bringing in a 60,000 sq ft development and 300 parking places disrespects the Specific Plan that so many worked on in order to protect this area.
Mr. Zenger, you are not looking at the developer’s drawings you are looking at the fake 3D that Mr. Laux put up. The parking lot for the River Street project is D.G. or crushed stone so that rainwater will percolate back into the ground to mitigate run-off. Also there may be holding tanks under the parking lot to store water from the rainwater recovery system and other areas on-site where water can be captured. The parking lot is actually a grove of olive trees to shade and cool the parking area. The buildings are actually real buildings, not fake. As I said, materials to be authentic re-use salvaged. The scale of the buildings is perfect. All of them together are much smaller than the concrete three level parking garage just across Los Rios Street.
That is incorrect. I looked at the developer’s 2-d drawings that indicate striped parking stalls. You can’t paint on crushed tone as you must know. It is NOT an olive grove. It is a parking lot. The scale is perfect? How by comparing it with another monstrosity across the street? There “may” be holding tanks? What sort of assurance is that?
BTW, speaking of “perfect,” I am perfectly capable of interpreting site plans, elevations and construction drawings, 3D models and axonometric renderings. I’m really hard to bamboozle.
Mr. Laux, I said my family still lives in the “district” on Lobo Street right behind your house. You are lying. My brother and sister in-law are my family.
I am fighting for Los Rios Street right now this very moment. I don’t see any familiar names from Los Rios posting on this site opposed to the project. Nobody from the historical society. No architects or urban planners in this town opposed. Nobody with any connection or true knowledge of the neighborhood coming out in opposition.
You have a letter from an ex-city council member politician who had actually nothing to do with the formation or preservation of Los Rios Street. You are trying to dupe a bunch of un-knowing people who see your banner hanging out in front of your house. Los Rios Street has a long complicated history that you know nothing about and you never will because you are not willing to listen to anybody or accept another viewpoint.
You think buildings and setbacks and height restrictions are more important than people. Finally, yes Dan is my friend. He is a good man who is trying to do the right thing. It is good to have friends Mr. Laux.
Dave Bachelder…
You’re flailing.
“Mr. Laux, I said my family still lives in the “district” on Lobo Street right behind your house. You are lying.”
Actually what you said was that your family has owned property on Los Rios Street since the 1970’s…..AND you still have family living in the district. It seems you haven’t owned property on Los Rios Street since Mr. Laux purchased your house almost three years ago.
So why the lying accusation? If I had to guess I would say you’re frustrated because you know the facts are not on your side. You’re searching for a reason to discredit those who point that out.
You have a developer friend who isn’t really a friend if he expects you to throw your old neighborhood, friends, and family under the bus to support his money making venture.
For you there are probably some decent perks for doing that – tangible or otherwise. It seems like the kind of decision you, or anyone falling into that trap, might regret sooner or later.
A mall will change the Los Rios District forever. There are no do-overs. It will be part of your legacy Mr. Bachelder – the destructive cause you put your heart and soul into after you moved far enough away to not be directly impacted.
Maybe it’s time to reconsider.
To “trainspotter” guy: Just getting back to you. I have already received my “perks” as you say. I am here to straighten-out the lies, distortions and misinformation so that people can see the true project and shed some light on this whole picture. The residents, neighbors, business owners and city staff and ultimately the city council of this fine town will be making the decision on this project. I am not throwing anyone under the bus.
The Ito’s are selling their land. That is a given. Some other developer is going to buy it, if not this one. Don’t you think there is maybe another developer in the batter’s box and another in the dugout waiting for their turn?
I told Dan about the difficulties of the Los Rios District. I thought he was crazy for getting involved. Then he showed me some of his concepts and I couldn’t believe how unique, yet fitting the design was. Very high design and quality here as well. He talked to most everyone in the district to get their input prior to the design process.
Imagine that – a developer going door to door introducing himself. I am a realist. This is a great opportunity. I fear the possible alternatives.
“I am here to straighten-out the lies, distortions and misinformation”
Mission accomplished.
Trainspotter. Who will be to blame when San Juan Capistrano is broke, infrastructure is failing and the city has no draw to tourists, visitors or even residents? As it is you cant even buy a men’s suit in town, or a new computer.
This development is far from a being a mall. Why are developers demonized? Without them civilization would not be what it is today. Forward thinking people look at the past to enhance the future. This development has timeless charm and would add value to the neighborhood and city.
In the proposed plans there is an entrance right off Del Obispo so visitors would not even have to drive down Los Rios. They would be directed to go straight into the parking lot then park, shop, dine and explore the area.
Let the truth prevail.
– 25 year resident of Los Rios
*The Great Thought Balloon to consider: “Have you ever seen a developer that wanted to take into consideration the history and elemental structure of any place? Have you ever seen a new development “on the other side of the tracks”….that didn’t want to create a high rise parking structure? Did you ever seen the rents of the shops go down
after the development was put in place? Did you ever seen “The European View” of maintaining historical buildings and structures, land, parks and squares?”
OK….”What was the middle part of this proposal again?” Guess our suggestion is whatever Carolyn said!
To Kelley. The senior living center would have been a complete disaster for the entire town. It was 45 acres of extreme high density housing and institutional facilities. Thousands of new permanent residents, staff etc. It was a bad design. Access for the development on Del Obispo was one lane road (each way) with no improvements.
I have always felt the Vermuellens should be able to re-zone their property from agricultural to high-end, low density residential with a commercial mix or something like that. That senior project offered nothing to the community. The buy-in for seniors was at least 1 million a pop. We really need a Starbucks on this side of town.
In regards to hunting – can you say ” wild pork backstrap medallions”. I’ll save some for you. We might have a big BBQ at Dans.
Dave, you say 45 acres of extreme high density housing would have been a disaster for the entire town. In my opinion, it would have just been a disaster that section of Del Obispo, near your home and the Ito developer’s home. For many, the traffic would stay the same MESS that it is. Most senior living complexes have shuttle vans and buses. It would be less traffic than the ITO site project.
One lane each way doesn’t sound as frightening as being stuck at the intersection of Adelanto and Del Obispo! You want to talk about poor design? Let’s talk about putting in 300 parking spots and oversized buildings in Los Rios! I know you haven’t forgotten the frustration of trying to get through a 9 second light. POOR DESIGN.
I love you my bro-in-law, Kelly (not Kelley) ;P
To “trainspotter guy”. I said I had family still living in the district and Michael said I did not. Go back and read the thread. I miss the AT&SF, don’ t you? The Amtrak needs to re-paint their engines and the Burlington Northern needs to purchase a pressure washer. What will your legacy be Mr. whoever you are? I’ll get back to you later.
To the Winships: “Did you ever see a developer that wanted to take into consideration the history and elemental structure of any place” Yes! His name is Dan Almquist. At least someone here with a different viewpoint. Thank you.
To Michael Laux: There was a quonset hut on Adelanto for many, many years. There were probably a few others back when the district was industrial (it was actually zoned “industrial”. Quonset huts became very popular with farmers after the war.
In regard to your “Navy” comment. There happens to be a very special person who is the rock of our neighborhood who had a little something to do with the Navy and aviation.
There were large olive groves here planted by the Mission friars. There were barns here. There were vineyards. There was a ceramics factory. There were several fruit packing houses along the tracks.
Is there something wrong with having native and heritage agricultural plants together on the site? If so, please explain. The plan shows a parking lot and it is big and no-one is trying to hide the fact that it is a big parking lot. It aint asphalt! To preserve the history of a place and pay it respect, you first need to know the history and people.
To Mr. Cantor: If you are having a problem with olive fruit you can spray the flowers with “Florel” or equal and this will minimize fruiting – hope this helps. Parking a car under a full-fruiting olive for a couple hours not a big deal. Parking continuous, yes, that can be a problem. There are many fruitless varieties that would be a good choice. You are right, thanks for pointing this out. Of course, you can always pick the olives and make olive oil. Wouldn’t that be something?
Dude. Choose your battles.
To Mr. David “the zinger” Zenger: The drawing is conceptual. Does the drawing have a “callout” specifying painted lines or the type of paint and its color and paint manufacturer?
Hey, I respect you man, because I am a detail guy too. You strike me as an engineer type guy. Maybe those lines are bricks or something. Maybe those lines are stabilized gravel of a different color and texture. Maybe those lines are re-cycled concrete or something like that. Could be wood, but I suppose that would not hold up very well. Those lines could be plain-old concrete with an antique sand-washed finish. Quarried granite pieces would be awesome, a bit pricey though.
Hey, maybe those lines are simply on the drawing just to show how many spaces and you don’t actually need real lines in the parking lot. I don’t know, probably some building code thing saying you need lines though. Yea, probably need lines. Then there is that whole handicap thing. I am really confused now. Maybe the developer knows a guy who can figure this thing out. You make a good point though – it will have to be addressed at some point.
Well, I see we have entered the Twilight Zone, a place I have no wish to be.
I was thinking Peyton Place.
Yes, I have to agree with you on that one. Another dimension for sure.
*Developers always watch re-runs of the Twilight Zone….because it makes them feel normal. They just can’t wait to dig that first shovel of dirt…..it makes them feel like “Victory”!
LOL, the family dramas of a small town. Thank you all for being so quaint to us Anaheim city slickers.
WOW ! You don’t read the blog for a few days, and look what happens…
Here’s what we now know.
* Dave Bachelder is bought and paid for by the developer, hunts wild boar with him, and is his head cheerleader.
* DB doesn’t own any property in the neighborhood, and his inlaws that do are against the project.
* DB likes to call people that disagree with him liars.
* SJC’s Naval Ace fighter pilot Bill Hardy (shot down 5 planes in one day) a “very special person who is the rock of our neighborhood,” is against the development.
* There were a lot of things in the neighborhood that nobody wanted here anymore like the Quonset hut and the RV storage yard. That’s why there was a Specific Plan put in place.
*The Specific Plan prohibits anything like a mall going in on that property.
*There are plenty of uses for the property that follow the current zoning.
Maybe you could make a list of possible development ideas and sit down with the Itos who own the private property that you want to dictate over and tell them your demands. I don’t own any property in the district and never said I did. Lived their for 23 years. No one is telling you what to do with your property. You feel perfectly inclined to tell the Itos what to do with their private property. Invite the Itos to dinner and sit across the table from them and tell them what they should do with their private property. Who they should sell to. Anybody have any consideration for them and their rights as property owners. Anybody even have any creative ideas whatsoever? Bill Hardy with you? Can you substantiate that?
Michael. I would like to see a formal statement from Bill Hardy stating he is against the project because I find that hard to believe.
We were the ones that advocated to get the RV storage and Solag Waste Management trucks out of the current Los Rios park location. That took years and years to accomplish that.
A specific plan can be adjusted. Who is to say people living 50+ years ago in SJC would ever imagine Los Rios was going to be such a popular place for residents/ visitors and tourists. Not so long ago Los Rios was not a desirable place for visitors and was called ‘the wrong side of the tracks’ by many locals.
Now with the financial investments, vision and passion of the residents and local business on the street like the Ramos House Café, Los Rios is vibrant and alive.
We the residents have worked hard to make the street what it is today. Many of us think this projects falls in line with the vision we all imagined for this street.
-25 year resident of Los Rios
I don’t think anybody needs a formal statement from Bill Hardy.
I take the man at his word.
And I do as well. We have been neighbors with Bill for 27 years. He is a great honorable man. I look forward to hearing his thoughts.
“No one is telling you what to do with your property.”
Oh yes, they did. When we wanted to change the type of shingles on our roof, and the color of our house paint, we had to pay $2,000 to the city to review our proposal to make sure that we were following the Specific Plan. We had to notify all the neighbors in the area, post an 8′ tall sign in our front yard for a month, and make our presentation at the Cultural Heritage Commission. We were told what we could do with our property.
I was ok with that because this area needs to be preserved and the zoning followed, even though this our private property. I knew that when we bought it.
I did not come to the city and say that I wanted to put in 4 condos, and that I wanted to rewrite the Specific Plan to fit my development. To do that would have infringed upon your sister in law’s property rights by putting her house next to a high density area. It would have lowered her property’s value.
Allowing a high density commercial development to be put into an area zoned for low density would be a windfall for the nursery owners. That would be great if it didn’t affect other people.
The people who live next to such a development would be living with dumpsters, delivery trucks, noise and pollution in their backyards. It would have a detrimental effect on their lives. The nursery owners do not have the right to increase their property value at the expense of their neighbor’s property values.
In regards to Bill Hardy…When I sat next to him at the neighborhood meeting of residents opposing the mall, he told me that he was opposed to the developers plan. I’ll take Bill at his word.
It is sad that you had to go through that kind of thing to make some minor maintenance / repair type changes to your house.
The whole problem with the Ito property is the way the LDC is written for it. On the one hand it is commercial and the LDC is specific just to the Ito property. No other LDC in district. So it isn’t residential. It is purely commercial. So you could read from it that all you can do is have some plants and 6 horses. On the other hand it clearly states you can have permanent structures, a farmers’ market and it has a bunch of setbacks and building height requirements that would lead one to believe you can build actual buildings. Then there is the LDC (Los Rios Plaza) adjacent to the property on Del Obispo which has large professional 2 story offices etc.
I think from the Itos’ perspective they have owned the land for probably close to 50 years running a nursery watching Los Rios Street turn commercial with restaurants and shops, commercial on south side (Los Rios Plaza), large, busy commercial petting zoo on north side and a street and river channel on the east. So they own almost 5 acres of empty land that is zoned commercial surrounded by commercial properties and now some residents are telling them they can only have 6 horses and some plants (per Specific Plan). Puts them in a little box and seems quite unfair.
I know the barn building is big etc., etc., but this is a very nice project. You make it sound like the project is the old CRR trash truck yard or something ie: “dumpsters, pollution…” Nobody else has come forth with any good, creative ideas. Dan is the first guy to come up with something creative and put forth a lot of time to try and do it right. Finally, I should think the property values would increase substantially with what is proposed so far.
I will take your word that Mr. Hardy opposes this project. I didn’t want to put his name on the blog out of respect.
It would be nice if you could come up with some ideas that might work and be acceptable to you (sincerely). It might save everyone lot of time and headache.
“It is sad that you had to go through that kind of thing to make some minor maintenance / repair type changes to your house.”
No, it’s not sad ! You miss the point. I’m glad that I had to go through that. I want the other neighbors to go through the same thing when they want to make changes in the Historic District. Otherwise somebody might put up a blue roof, hang up an orange IHOP sign, and start serving pancakes.
The neighborhood needs to be protected from inappropriate development, like the mall.
Well, if that is the way you roll dude. Keep everyone in line. Can’t be serving pancakes or paint your house green or anything like that. I see your point. FYI – I think the developer is taking out the Nordstrom’s and putting in the Macy’s instead, it will be next to the J.C. Penny. No IHOP so we are good there. Remember, you said it brother!
Me or Greg or anyone else [grammar?] hasn’t been disappearing any comments on this thread.
I’m enjoying the substantive discusion and have no interest in meddling with it.
Mr. Nelson. The comment above by Mr. Laux, will that remain or mysteriously disappear? Not being snide, just not sure how these blog deals work. Thanks.
Sorry Vern, lost a previous comment, but found it. Thanks. I’ve been trying to lighten the mood in here. Hope my feeble attempt at some levity hasn’t offended.
Well, the good news for all concerned is that the River Street project is actually a proposed project and is going through a completely legal development process! You can rest assured that our democracy is in full force and the final decision will come down to a series of majority votes as recommendations to City Council, then a final majority vote by City Council. Figuring, you’re all Americans and support open public processes with multiple public meetings where everyone can speak their minds and opinions regarding the project, after which a final decision will be rendered. If it is a yes, San Juan and those on Los Rios will benefit from a wonderful new barn-style gathering spot. If it’s a no, the Ito’s will have to consider other projects or other actions.
Our democracy is NOT in full force when politicians can be bought off with a few trinkets from developers. Then we have crony capitalism and an oligarchy based on access to power.
I have no doubt that your happy statement is based on knowledge or conviction that the real decision was taken long ago and that the “public processes” is really just window dressing at this point – an observation of the proprieties to satisfy the judge you mention in your other comment.
A “barn-style gathering spot”? Ha! Good one. It’s a comedy program after all!
So what the heck are you talking about here in this particular instance “Zinger”? Please state the names of politicians being bought off and the purchase price. You really like to pontificate. But to what end?
All of them, and the purchase price was very little.
Now, for those against the project, calling it massive and such, you might want to take a closer look at the numbers. Currently the General Plan, for example in the downtown, allows for .5 floor area ratio (FAR). For those that don’t know, this means 50% of the square footage of the property can be developed as allowable use, without having to have a General Plan Amendment. The majority of the homes on Los Rios Street occupy over a .5 floor area ratio on their property. The River Street project is .24 FAR. The Los Rios Specific plan only allows a .1 FAR. This means that it allows only 10% of the square footage of the entire lot to be developed without an amendment to the Specific Plan. That means if a building were to be 2 Stories in height only 5% of the actual property footprint could be developed. This is why River Street needs an amendment at .24 FAR and is submitted as such.
Now here’s the rub. If the River Street project is defeated and the property owners ever plea their case in court regarding this particular restriction which is very much out of line with the entirety of San Juan Capistrano, including the homes on Los Rios themselves, it is a very strong possibility that the Judge will not be coming back with a ruling of “Keep the .1 FAR.” So, now one has to ask themselves, just what might that ruling be? If the Judge takes a look at the houses and structures on Los Rios, most of which are larger than the SJC standard .5 FAR, then the Judge looks mere steps away from Los Rios to the Theater, Trevors and the Tracks, etc. with these large commercial buildings that are much larger than .5 FAR. After assessing that the .5 FAR General Plan standard seems to be either met or exceeded in the vast majority of all neighboring properties, it is not a long shot to consider the possibility that a Judge would rule for favored nations rather than securing the current singular spot zoning, and award the property owners a .5 FAR. It is the SJC General Plan Standard, so at a minimum, a likely basis the court would at least reference from.
Now, if that were to happen, a new developer would be able to come in and develop a project more than double the size of the currently proposed River Street Project at 120,000 square feet plus, and on top of that, it would land as an allowable use on the site. No General Plan Amendment, no amendments, no referendum, etc.
The point being, in that scenario a .24 FAR, such as River Street, which at present is literally ONE OF THE LOWEST DENSITY developments in the entire City of San Juan Capistrano, would suddenly land as a much smaller project than any that a new developer would propose.
So, remember for the future that if you’re successful in killing a project that has one of the lowest floor area ratios in the entire City of SJC, the future could very possibly be handing you a scenario that is infinitely more cumbersome. And there are no referendums in cas allowable use.
I’m only one person, but this is why in my opinion, everyone should be spending their time working with the developer and finding common ground that works for all involved. My concern is not that the River Street project won’t get approved. My concern is what I personally believe is going to happen regarding the zoning of that property if the River Street project is not approved. Personally, I truly believe it will be the last peek anyone has at .24 FAR on that property again.
On the other hand, a Judge could look at the SJC General Plan .5 FAR, look at all of the surrounding property .5 FAR and larger houses and developments, and still say, “No, I really feel this still needs to stay at .1 FAR, and a 2 story building can only build on 5% of the property land surface.” I certainly don’t think that will ever happen, but perhaps it would.
A judge is never going to throw out a discretionary denial because the Specific Plan FAR is “unfair.” That ship sailed a long time ago.
A judge might uphold an approval based on a FAR change, but that would also mean that any other SP issues had been resolved and that CEQA had been properly followed.
I think “SJClifer” has got it right here. This is the kind of thing I have been worrying about and have eluded to before. In general terms, I believe we have a flawed Specific Plan. The Itos’ property is spot zoned in. Why does this property have such a greater restrictive use than Los Rios Street proper? Los Rios Street is on the National Historic Register, yet we have restaurants, shops, residential occupancy, petting zoo etc. etc. The Ito property is not on the N.H.R. Furthermore, it is vacant land with nothing existing to preserve. Finally, the language in the Specific Plan for the L.D.C. has contradictions, lacks clear definitions and elements are not fully quantified. I don’t know anything about the law, but I think anyone would conclude it is poorly written and arbitrary.
I doubt the current developer would pursue any kind of legal mess and just drop the project. Another developer could possibly step in and take that path. I worry about the possible alternatives to the beautiful project we have before us.
Please explain how this project effects traffic? Our streets cannot take one more vehicle.
Traffic in San Juan is at its busiest between the hours of 3:00-5:00 as I have experienced. This is most likely from all the schools getting out and people starting to come home for work at the same time. It seems to me that restaurants and shops will be patronized mainly in the evenings after this peak. Saturdays will probably have an increase, but spread-out throughout the day. It seems having a large parking lot at the gateway to the historic district would alleviate congestion in the more residential area of the historic district and Los Rios Street proper.
Much of our traffic in town is caused by vehicles traveling from surrounding cities to get to the freeway. We could put a moratorium (sp.) on any new development in the future and traffic would still increase. This would hardly be fair to property owners with un-developed land. Finally, I can think of several development schemes that could happen without any amendment to the Specific Plan that would potentially cause terrible traffic and congestion in the area.