While I commend the city of San Juan Capistrano for their stated efforts to preserve their “open space” in the heart of south county, their participation with Continuing Life Communities LLC of Carlsbad, CLC, in the related acquisition of 116 acres of raw land which CLC is purchasing from Crystal Cathedral Ministries, known locally as Rancho Capistrano, is somewhat suspect.
As I research the property in question, which I have visited previously, there is an ongoing problem relating to access. While there is an emergency road behind the Mercedes Benz of Laguna Niguel dealership the MPAH plan to add the graded Los Padres Road from Golden Lantern to Camino Capistrano was deleted from the 2030 MPAH. As such the developer is in a box as it requires a government agency to obtain approval to add a public crossing of a railroad. As such no private sector interest could gain access. It has been noted that the Cathedral intends to retain the existing retreat center and chapel complex.
It is one thing if the developer was building affordable housing but that is not their plan. CLC’s project will be high end senior housing without meeting any of the state mandate for low cost affordable units at a time when the city is out of compliance to the housing element.
I need to use caution in quoting dollar figures of the acquisition in that the initial outlay is stated at $10 million yet I see other data suggesting a cost approaching $85 million over the next 20 years.
Without assistance from the city of San Juan Capistrano, namely obtaining the railroad crossing, CLC cannot move ahead with their planned development.
I can understand the citizen concerns in that the city has already commenced the procurement of land after approval of a $30 million dollar Bond Measure. That involved acquiring the parcel containing the equestrian center on Ortega Highway at La Pata from Rancho Mission Viejo for a cool $27.5 million.
Perhaps the city should take a lesson from all of the Orange County developers who have taken a beating on unsold and unfinished housing projects in Anaheim and Irvine. While CLC may have excellent plans for these retirement homes, the council should be careful in spending the sales and property taxes or paying off the Bond costs in advance of the project being successful.
Word on the street is that the Cathedral Ministry, realizing that a public access across the railroad is part of the CLC Agreement, is considering the construction of 200,000 square feet of office space on part of their remaining land. I wonder if CLC was aware of that possibility and whether or not it impacts their 34 acre development.
This is truly a case of opening Pandora’s Box. The land locked Williams property, just north of J Serra High School, will now be able to become a player in this development that the city is “spinning” to its citizens as protection of open space.
One needs to question Mayor Nielsen and the council on the risks Vs the rewards of this ambitious activity when many cities are tightening their belts as we await the other shoe to fall from Sacramento.
Thank you for posting this Larry. I voted for our open space bond measure last November in San Juan Capistrano . Had I known that our “Open Space Committee” would be negotiating huge development deals like this one, I would have voted against it.
To make matters worse, 3 members of the “Open Space Committee” in SJC who were not elected but just appointed to the committee (two of whom are developers) negotiated this particular development deal behind closed doors. This is the most high-density development in San Juan (over 750,000 square feet on 34 acres with a density of 52:1, when max allowable density is 40:1) and yet the public was never given an opportunity to comment on it in a public forum until AFTER the development deal was signed.
I regret ever having voted for the bond.
This a Brad Gates deal through and through. It could have been talked about in public and hashed out, but that’s not how Gates likes to do things. He wants it all behind closed doors where he can control it.
I voted for the Open Space Bond. I voted for Mark Nielsen. Fool me once….
The only open space is that between voters’ ears. Californians fall for faux environmental pitches every time. Cap and trade anyone?
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/congressman-upton-demands-declassification-censured-cap-and-trade-cost-estimates
750,000 square feet of senior housing at CLC and 200,000 square feet more of office space (do we need more office space?) at Rancho Capistrano! Double tracking! What else? This is the “open space” plan for the northern gateway to our fair city? Are they kidding?
And at a time when for lease signs are everywhere and downtown merchants are struggling, $10 million of redevelopment money is being considered as developer welfare for a project that will bring little if any net revenue to San Juan.
Nielsen and his cronies on the council keep saying we have a way out of this deal. I certainly hope so. But no one can or will say what it is.
This plan stinks and these guys are out of control.
Larry, Larry, Larry:
This open space is needed for all the special interest folks so just don’t get so excited.
After one of the developers in SJC pawned off land next to the dump to build a high school, (under the electric utility lines ) where else could they go ??
Maybe DICK Ackerman could put a trailer on some of the land for a sub office for Linda Ackerman’s run at the 72nd District election. Or maybe Lance MacLean could use some of the property for his campaign headquarters to fight his recall by the voters of Mission Viejo. I also believe John Lewis is looking for a south county location to peddle his wares.
In any case Larry–chill out; I am sure all of these transactions were, and will be in the special interest–best interests.
Great article exposing what’s going on behind the scenes. The average person would never be able to connect the dots without this kind of exposure. I am very disappointed to learn of Mark Nielsen’s failure to represent his constituents.
When I voted for the open space bond, I didn’t realize that I was voting to turn the coffers of San Juan Capistrano over to an unelected group that includes developers and contractors, one committee member (Draper) is a former school board member who was recalled in disgrace and has even been the subject of multiple grand jury investigations. I thought this type of deal was the reason for changing the make up of the city council. It almost makes me miss Swerdlin and Hart.
My grandfather was the head caretaker for Rancho Capistrano for over 30 years, working for the Crean family. Before the Creans purchased the ranch, he worked for the previous owner, a woman named Gates whose family manufactured tires.
My parents held their wedding reception on the patio surrounding the “big house.” We rowed boats on the pond. He grazed cattle on the open pastures that are now Crown Valley and Nellie Gail Ranch. It is a beautiful property that reminds me of the open space and natural beauty that brought many to South Orange County.
I had hoped with it’s ownership by Schuller Ministries, it would remain an oasis in the middle of ever expanding suburbia.
Is this the kind of “progress” we really want?
Someone needs to get out on the ranch and take some photos before it’s just a fading memory.
Feedback from Mayor Nielsen:
Note. His opening comment pertains to another proposal from two years ago that included senior housing and San Juan Hills CC. Mayor Nielsen and I had an off-line exchange on that issue earlier today. Not to comingle these stories start reading his comments beginning with CLC.
Also. As they are short in meeting their state mandated Housing Element (of low and super low income units) I also raised a question on that obligation to which I have yet to receive a reply.
“Larry,
I am sorry you feel that way, however there is a world of difference between the two projects. I have been consistent with my campaign positions and not changed my basic philosophy.
The golf course project was an attempt to rezone open space to high density housing. I opposed that attempt.
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 note: Without a government agency submission CLC cannot have a road across the railroad. Therefore the zoning potential of that land locked parcel is purely “spin.”
Email from San Juan Capistrano council member Sam
Allevato follows:
“Thanks Mr. Gilbert for your thoughts on this project. As yet, there have been no decisions made on this project. It comes before us and the Planning Commission tonight as an introduction to what is being proposed. Again, nothing has been decided; however I am open to listening to the pros and cons of this project.
SAM ALLEVATO, SJC CITY COUNCIL”
How can Sam Allevato (San Juan council member and a Great Park bureaucrat) claim with a straight face that no decisions have been made regarding this project? The city council has already approved the option agreement, that is a done deal. The council has voted that they are willing to commit $10 million beyond what they voters approved for the open space bond (money that should used to re-mediate blight and bring revenue into, not drain money out of, the city) to buy property that cannot realistically be developed, except for the 20 acre of soccer fields that Nielsen mentions.
News flash Mayor Nielsen, after the Rancho Mission Viejo sports park acquisition, we don’t need more soccer fields, especially at that price. And it is public access to this parcel that will require a public railway crossing and guarantee double tracking comes to San Juan.
Thanks but no thanks, Mr Mayor! That wasn’t what we had in mind when we voted for the bond. And it wasn’t what we were thinking when we voted for you! Allevato is the same guy he has always been but you are looking more and more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
What is your source for your assertion that the developer must have a city sponsored public crossing? Is that your opinion?