In my previous post on the city of San Juan I focused on a developer application that requires assistance from the city to become a reality. Specifically the fact that the proposed site is land locked and needs a government agency to grease the skids in order to obtain permission to cross a railroad track.
Let’s peel the onion back a little further and discuss a related topic that no one is willing to address. Affordable housing and the state mandate also known as the “housing element” that as of Sept 22, 2009 the city of San Juan Capistrano remains out of compliance.
Living in Mission Viejo we share the same Capistrano Unified School District. With that thought in mind, and whereas this acquisition will utilize redevelopment funds, perhaps San Juan would be willing to share our mandate for 94 low and super low cost housing units in the CLC project as we are built out. Redevelopment law permits spending those funds outside the project area so this could be a possibility.
Back to the issue of affordable housing. Mission Viejo struggled with meeting the mandate and had to resort to rezoning of commercial land to satisfy the Housing Element. As San Juan is currently negotiating with CLC on developing high end senior housing, WITHOUT any affordable units, perhaps they might include some of these lower cost units to help us meet our and their obligations. Why not?
In the Oct 21, 2008 letter from Department of Housing and Community Development Deputy Director Cathy Creswell to Mr. Steven Apple of the city of San Juan it confirms receipt of an application that currently does not meet the mandated housing needs as designated. According to the APPENDIX it reads in part that “San Juan Capistrano has a regional housing need of 1,062 housing units for the current planning period of which, 416 are for lower-income households. Recent construction and approval of 123 above moderate units results in a remaining regional need of 939 housing needs.”
The report also states that “in accordance with Chapter 891, Statues of 2006 (AB 2634)” the city is to “include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3) and (65583.2).
While I am a big supporter of private property rights, and detest government telling us what to do with our property, the city of San Juan has full control of development in this proposed project. Perhaps they can tell the Public Law Center and the Kennedy Commission why they have failed to include any of the state mandated low-income housing units in this proposed CLC development.
Following is part of a response from Mayor Nielsen to my prior Juice post.
“CLC is zoned for development. The General Plan specifies that property could have over 2 million square feet of buildings split 20% Assisted Living and 80% Public Institutional. The proposed project would allow the preservation of over 116 acres as open space, including over 20 acres of prime buildable land along the freeway.
Also the project still has a long way to go in order to get thru the normal approval process. It may have significant changes. The option in no way approves the project nor does it impose any liability or tie the hands of the City. It is merely an option that the City may or may not pursue.
I would be happy to discuss with you in more detail if you would like my full perspective.”
Gilbert final thoughts. And to think that this entire CLC Agreement was under the pretense of protecting ‘open space.”
A copy of this post is being emailed to the mayor and each member of the San Juan Capistrano City Council
Larry:
This is a measure of brilliance on your part.
Pawn off Mission Video’s low affordable housing onto San Juan Capistrano. Why not–wasn’t that the heart of the land grant that begot the Mission Viejo Ranch one time anyway.
So send the poverty pimps from The Kennedy Commission ( self appointed do gooders ) to see Mayor Nielson !!
I am sure Mark will be there to greet them with open “Ponchos”.
Continuing care retirement communities are heavily regulated under the CA Health and Safety Code including requirements that every unit in a CCRC be licensed as either a residential care facility for the elderly or as a skilled nursing facility.
State law provides that licensed residential care facilities are not subject to controls on rent imposed by any state or local agency or any other governmental entity.
Do you have a source for your assertion that the developer needs the city to put in a public crossing in order to develop their project or is that just your opinion?
Need a source.
While I am very comfortable with my post perhaps you might inquire of CLC why they have included the cty in this land acquistion. They cannot cross the R/R on their own.
As to another point. While this is proposed as “assisted” living there is nothing to prevent the city from insisting that part of the project include owner occupied units. As reported above the state has told the city to identify “all” vacant land that could be used to meet their housing mandate.
Thanks, Larry. The reason I ask is because it seemed pretty clear in last night’s meeting that the CLC deal preceded the option agreement and that the city’s involvement came about as an action of the city’s open space committee–not the developer. The developer made it very clear that they were willing to move forward without the city’s option agreement.
Again, you state they “cannot cross the R/R on their own”. Is this just your hypothesis? Did you read this somewhere? Or are you just inferring that because the city is involved?
Need a source.
The issue of the R/R crossing is not something I hypothesized. however, I trust that the statement is quite correct. Sorry that I didn’t make last night’s meeting. Larry
For me, blogs like this are more useful when the information is sourced–so I know it is accurate and not just hearsay. You project confidence in your statement but have dodged the question I have asked three times. Do you have a source for that statement? What is it? Did you read it? Did you hear it? Where? From who? Or is it just your opinion? “I’m comfortable with my post.” “I trust the statement is correct.” Based on what?
If a developer doesn’t want to put affordable housing in their development, most cities let them pay into a fund for building affordable housing someplace else. This project is exempt from that requirement according to the state of california. But why doesn’t SJC make CLC pay into the fund anyway? Just becuase they’re exempt doesn’t mean they can’t pay. They can agree to pay it even if it isn’t required.
It’s the right thing to do and CLC should do it.
Need a source-
It is stated in the Memorandum of Understanding that was presented to the SJC City Council for approval at the CC meeting (in July, if memory serves). The MOU was negotiated in secret by Brad Gates. He is not an elected official yet he, along with two other private, unelected SJC residents, has been negotiating multiple multi-million dollar land transactions behind closed doors with public money – and he hasn’t even had to file a conflict of interest disclosure form since his committee, the “Open Space Committee” seems to be exempt for some reason (note: all other city committees and commissions are required to file Form 700).
The MOU spells out the need for the “improved access” over the RR tracks. Although our City has strongly opposed any additional double-tracking in our town, Gates secretly negotiated double-tracking to the SJC town center without the knowledge or approval of our CC (though I suspect at least one council member was aware of the deal). This was done as a quid-pro-quo with the OCTA; if the City of SJC agreed not to oppose the installation of a second main track that OCTA wants to install in our historic town, the OCTA would approve the “improved (i.e; public) access” over the RR tracks at the Rancho Capistrano property that the developer must have to accommodate his enormous retirement community development. Since SJC has opposed any additional double-tracking within our city limits, that might explain why this deal was negotiated in secret. I guess Gates & company thought no one would notice.
Anyway, the whole issue is spelled out in the MOU.
In addition, SJC Mayor Mark Nielsen also stated during the (July?) CC meeting that the RR crossing as it exists today is private and thus has limited use. He stated that the crossing needed to be “improved” into a public crossing. He also claimed to oppose double tracking in the past, but now says “it would depend on how far” it extended into town. So much for principles and standing by one’s word.
You will find the emails, the MOU and the Option Agreement that the SJC City Council signed with developer CLC at: http://www.sjcopen.org. Keep in mind when youu read the Gates-OCTA emails that this was all done without the knowledge of our CC, or our residents. Two SJC City staff also participated – which demonstrates why they were roundly criticized by the CC and the public. Personally I don’t understand why they were allowed to keep their jobs.
There are additional documents, articles, etc. pertaining to this transaction posted on the website.
I believe you will find the documentation you are seeking.
“Need a source” and “citizen for open government.”
Thank you for your question and response.
I am led to understand that “crossings require the surrounding city to provide indemnification
to the RR for accidents at the crossing.”
This makes perfect sense as we have seen some very deadly train wrecks in LA County.
Is the San Juan city council about to let the Genie out of the bottle as they spin the protection of “open space?” Sadly they will be out of office while the residents will need to live with their actions unless they are stopped.
Thank you for reporting on this Larry. Your posts on this issue are supported by the documentation.
Unfortunately, many San Juan citizens have been (intentionally IMO) kept in the dark about these land transactions and the “give aways” to developers. Your reporting on it is helping to bring these issues out into the light of day where they belong.