.
.
.
From our south county friend Mike Laux:
The Los Rios District in San Juan Capistrano is the oldest neighborhood in California, and is on the National Register of Historic Places. I’m sure that many of you have been to Los Rios Street to enjoy the Ramos House Cafe, the Tea House, Hidden House Coffee, or any number of the cute little shops or galleries. It’s a lot of fun to take the train here and enter a neighborhood that was once the home of Native Americans that built, and worked at the Mission. A few of the adobes date back to the late 1700’s. There is a big canopy of old trees, there are no curbs or sidewalks, and it really feels like a step back in time. It’s not unusual to see horseback riders coming down the street.
One of the unique things about this area is that it is primarily a residential neighborhood where the shop owners live in the homes where the businesses are located. Not every house has a business, but a lot of them do. There are quite a number of restrictions placed upon the property owners concerning what may be built both in size and scope, as well as building materials. Some of the homes are in fact historic, and because of their “Mills Act” status, cannot be altered in any significant way. These rules are in place to maintain the rural feel that this neighborhood enjoys. If you want to change the color of your house, you need to get approval from the Cultural Heritage Commission and the City Council, so as not to adversely affect the character of the District. This area is a supporting element of the charm of the City of San Juan, and the Mission.
The largest piece of property is the Ito Nursery, which has been there since the ‘70s and has served the community well. The Ito’s being ready to retire, have let everybody know that they are ready to sell, and have a lot of people interested in the land. The City of San Juan has put restrictions on what can be done with the parcel, like they have with the rest of the District.
Ito Nursery Sunshine Greeting Card by Edward White
Here’s what the Specific Plan says about this piece of land, which is zoned Low Density Commercial:
Low Density Commercial (LDC) District.
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 stands; arts and crafts display and sales; outdoor ceramics.
Non-retail uses such as greenhouse, crop and tree farming, wholesale nursery.
Park and recreational uses that are passive in nature such as picnicking, arts and crafts workshops, cultural performances, etc.
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:
Access and Parking:
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.
Parking shall comply with Section 9-3.602, Off-street Parking of the Municipal Code.
Development Processing:
Development shall be master planned and designed as a whole even though construction may be phased.
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.
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.
In a nutshell, it says that the area is to remain rural. As we all know, the value of a piece of property is greatly affected by the zoning, and what you are allowed to build, or develop on that land. The Specific Plan restricts not only what can be built on this land, but what activities are allowed.
Enter Dan Almquist, the developer. As a member of International Council of Shopping Centers, you know what he wants to put in there, a mall! He has told the Ito’s that he wants to get the zoning changed so he can put in his mall, and that they can cash in on their nursery. The Ito’s would like to get as much money out of that land as possible to retire to Laguna, or Hawaii, or some place far from San Juan, and leave the residents with the consequences of this overdevelopment. His proposal includes 3 times the allowable square footage of buildings, restaurants that would put an alley full of dumpsters in residents backyards, block views, affect air quality, and put 300 parking places where it’s zoned for horses.
On top of all of that, it’s at the entrance of the only street that lets residents in and out of the Los Rios District onto Del Obispo Street. This street already has achieved gridlock because Del Obispo is crossed by Camino Capistrano, the Amtrack/Metrolink train track, Paseo Adelanto, and Alipaz St, all within a few hundred yards. We will have a really hard time coming and going from our houses. Dan Almquist, although promising transparency, has yet to offer his solution to this huge obstacle. He has gone around to the neighbors and told them how much he cares about their concerns, and telling them that he will conform to the Specific Plan. His proposal shreds the current zoning, but he lives miles away and his main concern is how much money he can extract out of that piece of land, not the residents. That is what developers do.
What our community needs to do is show up at the City Council Meetings, write your City Council Members, and let them know that you don’t want to see a few people profit at the expense of the local residents. I am appealing to all of those who come to this area to take a break from urban malls and gridlock. We need to protect the oldest neighborhood in California from the greed of developers.
Anybody with me ?
Michael Laux
Los Rios St
San Juan Capistrano
This is recall material. Go after all of ’em.
*Huell Howser will be rolling over in his grave….. The plan is not exactly “quaint” is it?
*In all seriousness….what did happen on this? Everyone wants the Donald Bren concept of “raise the rent” and “they will come”. Sad really that they
can’t keep the native atmosphere and stimulate new proprietors willing to
keep that charm as part of the process. Interesting that they can do this
every day of the year on the East Coast. Colonial Williamsburg still doesn’t
have a roller coaster or a live Light Saber show…..
The study to rezone goes on, and the City Council is encouraging the developer to spend more money on traffic studies and the like.
This will never pass if voted on by the public. There is widespread opposition to it.
“Spend more money on traffic studies and the like.”
Ah, the dread INCREMENTALIZATION. Groundwork for use of the “sunk cost fallacy.”
The plan is not quaint. Almquist wants to build a mall across from the Pony Rides and petting zoo. Los Rios is a quiet walkable area with cozy restaurants, and old homes. There is a small park and the train stops there. Visitors get off the train and step back in time. Los Rios has a couple of the original adobe homes built in 1734. This little street is the oldest residential area in California. Our mission and Los Rios was the beginning residents in California. San Juan Capistrano has managed to keep our historic roots making this whole area historical and creating rules for how you can change anything in Los Rios. Now the town is in trouble financially. Our budget is broken. If our current city council allows this to go through, they will be remembered as the ones who opened the door to developers. The Ito’s will be off in Hawaii. Please attend the city council meetings and speak to and about this project. This is about money. Big developer money. Pam Patterson is the only CC member who said NO. it does not fit. Simple as that. So, why spend lots of money on and EIR and paint design color? The pension plan for city employees is not funded. We cannot pave the streets. The city needs money but this is deplorable. Please show up at the city council meeting and speak to this project. Write a letter. It may be time for a recall again. Our small town of 36,000 people can be run on much fewer city employees. Our city manager needs a luxury rental car instead of a fleet car? Why?
The photo shown of a typical suburban shopping mall in this post is quite a misrepresentation of the conceptual plans that are posted on the 9/20/16 SJC City Council meeting’s archived agenda for the proposed development: “Farm on Del Obispo.”
If so that would be my fault, I googled a lot of images to illustrate the story. The text of the article should be accurate though.
Accurate? Much of the post is Vern. And thanks for the effort you put in getting info out via your blog! Opinions of the author on the retirement goals of the land owners and motives of the developer are just that..opinions.
Vern! Put on your satirical composer’s hat! We’re doing “Spanish Harlem”!
If there’s a Trader Joe’s I’m on board!
Ann, you are referencing the wrong project. I know it’s hard to keep track of all the large developments that are being pushed through right now.
“Farm on Del Obispo” is the Vermeulen property with 40,000 sqft commercial space and 180 homes on Del Obispo.
“Inn at the Mission” is the 124 room hotel project next to the Mission.
“Hotel Capistrano by Kimpton” is the 102 room hotel project next to the Egan House.
The one in the Los Rios District is 60,000 sqft of commercial with 300 parking places in the oldest residential neighborhood in California. It’s just not a good fit.
David, rumor has it the Trader Joe’s is going in down on Camino Capistrano in the old Big Lots Store. I hope it’s true.
I hope to Sweet Baby Jesus you didn’t think I was serious.
I shop there but I wouldn’t let my daughter marry one.
You are right Mike:). I mixed up the two council meetings and projects presented on 9/20 and 10/4/16. I meant to reference the “River Street” project. Conceptual plans for that were presented at the SJC City Council meeting on 10/4/16. And, the mall image in the article does not represent that project.
Michael .. Trader Joes is open for business and that is great but…. no one considered the impact on traffic. I was downtown yesterday and the parking lot for Trader Joes/Big Lots. bumper cars. A line of cars waiting to turn right on Del Obispo was blocking the entrance to Chevron. I could not get thru either side. So backed up and went thru the parking lot down to Vons for a few things, came back for gas and was finally able to get thru the cars to the pumps. This was Thursday 1-2pm. So now traffic is blocked on both sides of the train track. Our city planners should have reviewed this aspect of allowing a Trader Joes. Nice to have, but parking is not adequate. The poor guy in Chevron was panicked. People could not get to the pumps. Greats planners we have.
The author here is grossly misrepresenting the proposed project. It is not a “mall”. It is a marketplace, but quite the opposite of a mall. Furthermore, Mr. Almquist has been very forthright and honest and has a very creative and sensitive concept started. He had really reached out to a majority of the people in the Los Rios District and the greater community. He did this long before any actual design process began. The design is a reflection of the concerns of residents, the cultural heritage and history of the district and the land. I urge people to please look at the actual proposed design concept that Mr. Almquist has created with his very talented team of architects, designers, planners and many others deeply involved in there craft.
I have lived in San Juan Capistrano for 26 years – 25 of them on Los Rios Street. I have family in the district. I understand the area better than most. Mr. Almquist has sought council from me and many others with deeper ties and family history. The Ito’s want what is best for the community and that’s why they chose the developer. They also have the right to sell their property and get full market value. You may disagree with the project, but please do so after looking at what actually is being proposed. Remember, also, that it is a process and you can be a part of it if you have concerns.
Mr. Laux is using spin to make Mr. Almquist out to be someone he is not. He chose to raise his family here in San Juan and actually lives exactly one mile from River Street. Mr. Laux is a recent transplant from Laguna Beach. One thing I learned about Los Rios Street after living there is that it belongs to the community, not just the residents therein. When one resident has complaints, we should listen, but be cognizant of the possible benefits and rewards to the community as a whole.
“The Ito’s (sic) want what is best for the community and that’s why they chose the developer. They also have the right to sell their property and get full market value”
Indeed they do. But “full market value” doesn’t include the assumption of new entitlements.
David, we are all aware that you do a lot of work for the developer, and are a personal friend of his. We understand your loyalty.
A mall is defined as “a large building or series of connected buildings containing a variety of retail stores and typically also restaurants.” That is what is proposed. If you want to call it a marketplace, or a gathering place (as Dan has called it) that’s fine. How about we just call it the “project.”
You are right that Mr. Almquist has been working on this project for a long time. He began selling this project to local business friendly people well over a year ago. He has researched the zeitgeist of the area, and defined the keywords that get positive results, like yoga, and farm to table, and wellness. Who could be against any of that ?
Well I, and many other residents, are against building a project in the oldest residential neighborhood in California, that is incompatible with the District. There are rules in place called the Los Rios Specific Plan 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.” The proposed project will shred that document, which has been in place for more than 40 years, protecting this sacred land.
“They also have the right to sell their property and get full market value.” Yes they do. The value of that property is dependent upon the zoning of the property. The current zoning is Low Density Commercial, and the proposed project does not conform to the current zoning. You don’t have the “right” to get a zoning change so that you can increase the value of your property. If so, than I would have the “right” to get my property rezoned to put up four condos. That would not be compatible with the neighborhood.
It is true that I have lived on Los Rios St for only a couple of years, but that does not minimize my passion for protecting the Historic District. Born in San Diego, I have lived in south county for the last 33 years, moving here from Laguna Niguel where I resided for more than 20 years. So, I am longtime area resident that cares deeply about the future of this area. This place is magical, being an oasis in a sea of urban development. It attracts people from all over the area, melting away their stresses, promoting couples to walk hand in hand down the street, stopping along the way to enjoy the tree lined streets.
Putting in a “project” with 300 parking places to choke our streets with traffic, noise and pollution, would destroy it.
Appealing sounding buzzwords? Check. Change of zoning is a property right? Check. Brush off critics because reasons. An oft-performed script for anyone who wants to do something incompatible with the surroundings.
Yeah, with you.
Isn’t it getting tiresome?
A little bit.
Oh…it’s only beginning 😉
Laux. You don’t know how much work I do for the developer. We have a great working relationship and we are friends because we have a lot in common. It is that simple. I have contracts for other large corporations that dwarf the monetary compensation I have received from him. All you do is try and discredit people. I am sick of your assumptions and out-right lies and your demeaning attitude.
Everyone has a right to try and get a zoning change, or in this case a simple amendment to the specific plan. Remember – it is already zoned commercial. There have been 3 major zoning changes and a myriad of amendments already made to the specific plan over the years. I mean, that is the norm.
The only credit you have in this matter is that you bought a house on Los Street and you have lived there for a couple of years. That is it. nothing more, nothing less.
Mr. Laux, you have missed the point of my message. Mainly, you are deliberately mis-representing the project and moreover you are calling the developer greedy. You say he doesn’t care about the residents. You are insinuating he is not trustworthy by saying he is not being “transparent”. You are trying to attack his character and demean him. It is wrong to do this. You do not know the man. Please be a gentleman and stick to the facts. You can do that well if you try. I don’t care about this project – I like it because it is probably one of the most interesting projects that has ever been proposed in this town. But that’s basically it. I am writing to defend my friend’s integrity.
Finally, you make a big deal about how this project doesn’t meet criteria in the specific plan. Well…he is asking (requesting) a zoning change. All this will go to council etc. Is this evil and underhanded? I am just baffled by the hostility here.
Here is the main reason that I object to this project. It goes against the Specific Plan that was put into place to protect the neighborhood:
“Low Density Commercial (LDC) District.”
“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.”
The project ignores every word of the plan. This project would irreversibly change the character of the neighborhood by adding 300 parking places that would choke our streets with traffic, noise and pollution, and ignore the current requirement of 90% open space on that piece of land.
O.k. Michael, how will the Ito’s be able to sell their land with those restrictions (90% open space)? The parking at the very entrance to the district will allow people to get out of their cars and walk, instead of driving down into and all around the neighborhood and trying to park behind your house. That could potentially decrease traffic in the neighborhood. None of the businesses on Los Rios Street have adequate parking. A parked car does not pollute or make noise. I feel this project will have no impact on Los Rios Street other than an increase in pedestrian traffic.
Michael, I know exactly how you feel right now, believe me. I have no criticism of your desire to protect your neighborhood. But, sometimes what seems like a noble fight with good intentions ends up having the reverse effect. Sometimes you need to step back and be really objective….logical. For example, everyone thought Los Rios Park was going to be this great thing, but I was always skeptical and did not like the design (design by committee). Its a park, how could a park be bad? What has happened is you have a small park with parking, but not nearly enough parking. So the parking lot fills up quickly, but continues to lure in more cars like bait. Then those people end up driving all around looking for street parking. Most of those people are just walking into town. The function of the park now is really a glorified parking lot with inadequate parking. Does this park benefit the residents? The same is true for the small gravel parking lot that John Taylor put in. It brings cars way down into the heart of the neighborhood which is actually residential only. It has a myriad of ridiculous restrictions (30 signs maybe). It is too small and fills up and continues to draw more cars. Taylor and Davidson put that in with out any input from the neighbors or anything. John told me it was only temporary, but I knew better and it is still there in all its glory. He did it without public funds, but it is public land. It is very close to Marrianes’s business, but of course, it benefits everyone right?
I have always felt that widening Adelanto and having angled parking all along or a large parking lot down at the entrance would solve a lot of problems. If that were done with a turnaround at Adelanto and Ramos for the public traffic and a monument sign or gate or something for residents cars only – wouldn’t that be cool.
Finally, you have to think of the alternatives. Lets say Dan decides he doesn’t wan’t to do the River Street project because he is getting to much pressure and Michael Laux wins. Well….now what? It is possible that a big developer with real power, influence and money comes in and just pushes in a real big mess of a project. So, there is an opportunity here to work with a good man with an awesome design team…I mean you would not believe the creativity and depth of design these people get into. Its really not just about buildings, its more about people. I feel Dan has come around at the right time. He is definitely not your “typical” developer. He listens to everybody from a guy digging a ditch to a dirt bag landscape architect like me. Well, regardless, I hope everything works for the best.
“Michael, how will the Ito’s be able to sell their land with those restrictions (90% open space)?”
That depends entirely on how much they ask for it.
One has to go no further to discredit Mr. Bacheider’s commentary than reading his assertion that, “A parked car does not pollute or make noise.” Really? Why not go further to include, “a parked car does not create traffic.” This is quite ignorant and detached from reality. I find the commentary of the opponents to be thoughtful, reasonable and respectful.
O.K. I will go further Mr. Toerge. A parked car does not create traffic. A car driving around aimlessly for an extra 20 minutes or more looking for a parking spot creates traffic. You said that you find the commentary of the opponents to be thoughtful, reasonable and respectful. I guess you are one of those respectful opponents who just called me “ignorant” in your attempt to discredit me. Please explain how a parked car creates more traffic than one that is driving around. So … I am guessing you walk everywhere, ride a horse or a bicycle?
“A parked car does not create traffic.”
Good god, no one needs to lift a finger to discredit you. You’re like a fish that catches itself.
I had a snide reply….but I’m not taking the bait. Man you are a pain, but at least you have a good sense of humor.
“O.k. Michael, how will the Ito’s be able to sell their land with those restrictions (90% open space)? ”
That’s a little like asking how you can sell a house if it’s not a car dealership. You will sell it to someone who wants a house. If that’s less valuable than the car dealership, too bad.
If your noble buddy loves the place so much, his parting shot wouldn’t be to ruin exactly what makes it special on his way out.
What makes the Ito nursery property so special? It is now an empty lot. People are not showing up in droves to go to the Ito Nursery. Los Rios Street is special and is not changing one bit. We have a five acre empty lot located near Los Rios Street. It is zoned commercial. the developer is creating something very special and complimentary to Los Rios Street.
The drought happened Dave. All nursery’s in California struggled for the last 5 years. Now they have essentially given up. When I was last there, things looked pretty dusty. I did not know they were retiring. If they sold to another nursery we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The property is very special because it is in Los Rios, the oldest community in California. Who cares what the developer wants? What about the residents of San Juan Capistrano? You cannot just plunk a parking lot anywhere… Or a mall? The idea is absurd. That it has gone this far is unbelievable. We installed a new city council about 3 years ago to assure this would never happen again. The developers are drooling for piece of property to develop in a prime location. It is not zoned for a mall and 300 parking spaces. The land is historical and protected. The Ito family can sell, but they have to sell it as zoned.
Just a quick message to both Michael and David: thank you for the interesting, civil, and substantive discussion. While I tend to side with Michael, I wish that all political disputes in OC discussions were this well thought out. (Hope you don’t mind our local snipers, David; they are the best snipers, bigly.)
Were I trying to mediate our way out of this, I would wonder whether there is anything the It’s might want in lieu of maximizing cash up front on the sale. For example, they want to be remembered as good guys — which this dispute imperils — but also Ito’s itself seems like it has played a fairly substantial role in the historical district. Maybe some historical recognition by the city of the role of it and its founders — like purchasing a property to serve as the “Ito Center on the role of Asian-Americans in South County” — would both dull the pain of the family losing a little in real estate profit and further enrich the community culturally. Lots of people would check out such a small museum.
Just a thought. It is not being offered to provoke nipsey into sputtering sarcasm, although if that happens it’s a bonus.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Developers who want to up-zone are often trying to have it both ways. By purchasing land which is zoned, for example, agricultural, they may pay a fraction of what it would cost were it zoned for residential development. To then complain that said agricultural zoning limits their potential profit, well – yeah. The very thing that allowed you to buy at a discount is the thing you’re now railing against.
^^^
Perfectly stated.
Avoiding property tax assessments at the higher rate the whole time, too.
Great and compelling point.
Nonetheless, unless you’re Conan the Barbarian, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong in seeking a win-win.
A novel use of win-win, since there is no winning counterparty. In this case the owner wins when purchasing and wins again when selling.
That’s where, unfortunately, you’re wrong. It shouldn’t be necessary at all, but it might be wise. The winning counterpart is the City.
The prospect that the Itos could sell to some developer or landlord who had the wherewithal to bankroll a winning slate to take over the Council within two to four years is real. (See, for example, landlord Dwight Manley in Brea.) It might well be worth to negotiate some win-win in order to lock in the status quo for a longer amount of time.
As you might know, in litigation it is not uncommon for a losing side with financial or other vulnerability to negotiate a lower reward than that ordered by the trial court. They shouldn’t have to do that, but it’s still smart. What they’re doing there is “buying peace” — protection from the threat of a loss on (even a groundless) appeal and the certainty of major expenses before then.
This has been most egregious — and by now it may have become illegal — one step before the trial court level, when insurers who are supposed to pay, say, $1 million in damages have informed the insured that they’ll only agree to pay half that — and will otherwise go to court, cost the owed client a lot in attorney fees, and perhaps stretch things out for several years or more. This is one of the parts of law that galls me most, but sometimes it simply is right to counsel a client to accept less money than they are legitimately, unequivocally, owed.
Inducing the Itos to keep happy and not sell to someone for a socially negative purpose has the same kind of logic. The City shouldn’t HAVE to do it — but it might be smart to try. Sorry, but rich people often get to play by a different set of rules. And the buyer might be quite rich.
Since when did one party capitulating under duress constitute a win-win? Only in the Developers Dictionary, counselor.
Just a note about local politics….Last election the winning slate of three council members was a slow growth ticket. Local residents were pretty upset about a previous council that was approving everything that was presented to them, with little concern for the quality of life for the locals. So the new majority was put in to put the brakes on all of the big projects, and actually unapproved one. That developer took his project to another city that had a better site for it.
My guess is that the area residents won’t let an unsuitable development threaten the integrity of this neighborhood that’s on the National Register of Historic Places.
A “win” is judged with respect to available alternatives, you yutz. If you think that it doesn’t, that’s an example of how privileged you are.
It is obvious that most of the people commenting have not looked at the proposed project, did not attend or listen to the city council meeting to hear what the Ito’s and Dan Almquist had to say, and do not know either the Ito’s or Dan Almquist. Bad form there. Entirely too much speculation and painting with a black brush going on.
This property was put out to bid, the owners did not set a price. This is a very common practice on commercial property. This property is commercial. The owners stated it was NOT the highest bid they could have accepted. They stated they chose Dan Almquist because he had the most sensitivity and respect for the area. The project he proposes, after more than a year and a half of meeting with a wide range of local residents, historians and people committed to the community, is a result of all that research.
The project has just taken the initial step, as is the owners and developers right, to ask the city council to allow an initiation of a study to possibly amend the Los Rios Precise Plan. This study allows for the public input, which by the way, to this point has been overwhelmingly positive, with the exception of newcomer, Mike Laux.
Mike Laux has tried to paint a picture of a huge shopping mall with a large parking lot (parking of which SJC is direly short of), when the reality is this property is 5.69 acres, and the proposed buildings will still leave the property at about 70-80% open space. Oh, right, Mike doesn’t consider parking to be open space despite how city codes classify it. Also, instead of an 8 foot setback from the adjoining properties, there is almost 40 feet setback. Gee, this developer seems to be making efforts go above and beyond.
As to the city purchasing the property, it neither has the money or the desire to own this land. In fact, the city is selling off the land it does own.
Here is an article from the OC Register that has an overview of the project. I would hope that any one who feels compelled to make additional comments educates themselves a bit more before driving this into a ditch.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/juan-731848-rios-city.html
“Oh, right, Mike doesn’t consider parking to be open space despite how city codes classify it. ”
Oh no you didn’t… Mike must be pretty smart to not consider parking lots open space, and I don’t think cities get to decide that parking constitutes open space when state law says otherwise. Start at Gov. code 65560 if’n you’re curious.
In fact, what Capistrano code does say suggests that a change in designation from open space to something else under the open space general plan requires a popular vote. It’d be interesting to know if that applies here.
Oh, and is Capistrano selling the 123 acres they recently acquired from Rancho Mission Viejo?
Capistrano is not allowed to sell the Mission Viejo open space because the contract has many restrictions about how that land can be used. You cannot even have a glass of champagne on that land according to the contract. That was one of the biggest blunders in the history of San Juan Capistrano.
“Mike doesn’t consider parking to be open space despite how city codes classify it.”
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.”
“This property is commercial.”
No….it’s Low Density Commercial. Big difference according to the Muni Code. You should read it.
“This study allows for the public input, which by the way, to this point has been overwhelmingly positive, with the exception of newcomer, Mike Laux.”
Interesting to note that when the courtesy notices of the Council Agenda were sent out to area residents, the entire block that is right next to the project, didn’t get their notices. Hard to believe that the families most affected would not get a notice. They are not “overwhelmingly positive” about the project.
As far as San Juan’s parking, putting a lot into an Historic District that already has a traffic problem isn’t “going above and beyond.” The Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo intersection is often gridlocked to the point where you have to wait through several light cycles without one car being able to exit the neighborhood. Adding 300 parking places will seriously compound that issue.
Don’t lie to us, Maisy.
You beat me to it.
If you know the history of the Los Rios Precise Plan, then you should know that this type of development is exactly the type of development that the Los Rios Precise Plan is supposed to prevent.
It’s kind of preposterous actually. Let’s put a strip mall smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood. A historic neighborhood with inadequate parking and streets to narrow to accommodate the traffic.
This project will destroy the Los Rios Historic District.
When they changed the time of the city council meeting from 7pm to 5pm they created a huge problem for residents in town. Regular people who are just getting off work, commuters, mom’s are serving dinner and cannot make the 5pm meeting. . The only people who are showing up absolutely are those with a financial interest, a project to push through. We need more regular residents to attend the cc meeting. We need the working people. Not just the coffee chatters, stakeholders, and developers. I have talked to lots of people who cannot make it at 5pm. It is a public hearing so we should make it a meeting available to the public. We need to change the CC meeting to 7pm again.
Link to a Facebook page….
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=save%20los%20rios%20historic%20district
We need people to contact the City Council. They are in the drivers seat.
This is a really good project. Offering sorely needed parking and jobs while giving SJC residents additional options in town rather than constantly jumping to other cities for shopping and entertainment.
Differing opinions should be heard. The article is unfortunately sprinkled with inaccuracies, which makes one pause for thought regarding those behind it. There is a legal development process going on. Everyone should say their piece while keeping all information accurate. Fudging the facts is what people do when they lack confidence in their own point.
Perhaps a witch hunt is more entertaining but the reality is the Itos and their developer are enacting their constitutional rights in entering into a lengthy public development process.
This is the wrong project for the historic residential neighborhood. A lot of time and thought went into the zoning for the property(almost two years), which prohibits anything like this mall project from going in.
Please tell us where the inaccuracies are in the article. Nobody is fudging any facts.
Enough of the straw man arguments.
This is the right project for the property that is currently zoned “commercial” and very little thought was given to the zoning of the Ito’s property.
“This is a really good project.” The project looks nice, it just doesn’t fit the historic residential neighborhood.
And it will screw up the traffic more than it already is.
What are the inaccuracies that are sprinkled through the article ?
Mike: Your words below, so answer these questions – were you present when the developer spoke with the Ito’s? If not, this is ‘fudging’. How do you know what the financial details of the sale are? Were you present? If not, you are again ‘fudging’. The Ito’s stated in a public, televised City Council meeting the offer was not the largest – so again – you are ‘fudging’. How do know what the Ito’s plan on doing after the sale, as you state retire to Laguna or Hawaii or… Did they state this to you? If not, you are again ‘fudging’. The Los Rios Precise Plan has been amended several times. Why do you think it can’t be amended again? Just because you moved to the area?
He has told the Ito’s that he wants to get the zoning changed so he can put in his mall, and that they can cash in on their nursery. The Ito’s would like to get as much money out of that land as possible to retire to Laguna, or Hawaii, or some place far from San Juan, and leave the residents with the consequences of this overdevelopment.
Let’s not lose sight of the big picture here.
They want to put in a mall in the Los Rios Historic Residential Neighborhood.
Now back to the semantics of what was written.
“How do know what the Ito’s plan on doing after the sale, as you state retire to Laguna or Hawaii or… Did they state this to you?”. No they didn’t say that to me, but I think that it’s a pretty good guess that after running that business for 40 years, and selling the property for a huge profit, that they would retire some place far from San Juan.
“The Ito’s stated in a public, televised City Council meeting the offer was not the largest.” That is the offer that they think has the only chance of getting approved.
Most of the local residents do not want the increase in traffic coming in and out of the neighborhood (cars, delivery trucks, trash trucks), and they don’t want the increase in noise (entertainment, eating and drinking establishments) and pollution (cars, trucks, dumpsters, urban run-off) in the oldest neighborhood in California.
Of course the Precise Plan can be amended, as it has been a dozen times. It was amended twice to allow historic homes to be moved to the neighborhood. It was amended to clarify development language….change the duties of the Los Rios Committee..administrative procedures to clarify the text…
It was never amended in such a way to destroy the intent of the document as the mall project would.
Here is an important part of the Specific Plan that was left out of the developer’s application:
“This area minimizes commercial activity and preserves the rural character of the Los Rios area. The area permits uses that generate limited traffic and parking demand; complement the character of the area; and require minimal structures.”
Is this the same Maisy that told the lie that parking is considered open space ?
Well done Michael. Residents need to see both sides. The Ito family wants a rezone so they can sell the property for a higher price. A developer is ready and waiting for the rezone. The Ito family has benefited from a low tax rate for 50 years and now they want to apply to change the zoning to allow for a mall with lots of parking. If the city can come up with an offer that would be best. The Ito property is in Los Rios across from the Pony Rides, quaint restaurants, and train stop. The zoning and the Los Rios plan should stay in place. Anyone in San Juan can drop into the city offices an look at the plan that was designed to keep Los Rios “Old Worldy”. Los Rios is the oldest community in California.
[Readers should note that this is not Vern’s wife Donna. — GAD]
The drought happened Dave. All nursery’s in California struggled for the last 5 years. Now they have essentially given up. When I was last there, things looked pretty dusty. I did not know they were retiring. If they sold to another nursery we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The property is very special because it is in Los Rios, the oldest community in California. Who cares what the developer wants? What about the residents of San Juan Capistrano? You cannot just plunk a parking lot anywhere… Or a mall? The idea is absurd. That it has gone this far is unbelievable. We installed a new city council about 3 years ago to assure this would never happen again. The developers are drooling for piece of property to develop in a prime location. It is not zoned for a mall and 300 parking spaces. The land is historical and protected. The Ito family can sell, but they have to sell it as zoned. And readers should note that Greg is an attorney. Who is paying for this billable hour Greg?
is this the same Maisy that told everybody the big lie that according to the city code, that a parking lot was considered open space?
Why yes it appears that it is. Check out the post above from Nov. 4th.
Hypocrite.
Well, wondering when the project property was zoned with the current restrictions?
I would bet, out of ignorance, that the Ito’s (bless them for the nursery) did not protest the current zoning when initiated. Why would they? They probably benefit from tax advantages tied to that zoning (again, stated out of ignorance), as it should be.
Maybe a more just purchase price (from the public’s perspective) might be the current zoned maximum price in addition to the total tax break during the time of the current zoning was in force. That difference, equal to the claw back of the tax breaks, could then be used by the public. Another can of worms.
Or, how about tying the sale, based on current zoning valuation, to the developer also buying a more publicly valuable “in kind” lot (say at the fully rezoned price – purchase price at current zoning). This is done sometimes by the US Forest service when it chooses to sell desirable land that is not in their interest to keep.
Regarding jobs: Head over to the SC malls. Majority of employment are typically minimum wage, and I would venture, most commute from outside city limits due to high cost of housing.
Note: I realize, any of the above would initiate other conflicts (competing valuations, where to spend money, etc.).
Everything David said above is senseless drivel. David, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain how having the land they own changed to commercial LDC is a tax advantage? Please state the property tax decrease amount that you claim the Itos have incurred from the zoning changes. They have been paying property tax for 57 years. What is wrong with minimum wage jobs? Young people willing to work have to start somewhere. Everyone commutes to work. Absolute drivel I say!
So I just heard that this project with no Planning Commission approval is going the Design Review Board. That is so out of the normal order for a city to process a development.
Choose a paint color before getting the zoning right ?
That’s nuts.
Yes it is nuts. The city is pushing this and it is a project unsuitable for Los Rios. It will not leave the Ito’s with a good name. If this happens they will be remembered with disdain. A man above posted this comment. ” Sorry, but rich people often get to play by a different set of rules. And the buyer might be quite rich.” Think about those words. So, it is okay to break the rules for rich people. Are we back to the middle ages? Serfs and nobles? If you have enough money you do not need the city approval just bribe someone and get a zone change. The city developed a plan to keep Los Rios charming, old world, walkable, a step back in time. And, now we are advised that you can buy a zone change. Rezoning this property so that the Ito’s can sell for a bigger profit is greedy and unethical. We hold our properties and sell to retire. Appreciation of 50 years will get them a nice price, but a rezone will get them a nicer price. That is greed.
You should study City process. The standard order for a General Plan Amendment in San Juan Capistrano is:
1) City Council – Permission to Commence
2) Design Review Committee
3) Cultural Heritage Commission
4) Parks & Rec (when applicable per project)
5) Planning Commission
6) City Council
Clearly you personally don’t like the project but there is a legal process and order that citizens of our Country, State and City have the legal right to go through. These steps are all public meetings where everyone and anyone can express their opinions. You should attend and make your voice and opinions heard rather than misinforming others regarding City process.
I’m not misinforming anybody about the process. I’m saying that the process doesn’t follow a logical flow.
If Planning determines that a project is too big for a neighborhood, why waste the time with everything else. Other cities do it differently.
The process described by SJClifer is part of a strategy called incrementalism “in which the implausible ultimately becomes the inevitable”®.
Get the small fry commissions to go along (advisory only!) and at each step the proposal gets more momentum and more legitimacy – no matter how stupid or horrible it may be.
And at the end the Council looks back over the ill-attended “public hearing” history and proclaims consensus. Then the deal is sealed.
When the changed the time of the city council meeting from 7pm to 5pm they created a huge problem for residents in town. Regular people who are just getting off work, commuters,mom’s are serving dinner cannot make the 5pm meeting. . The only people who are showing up absolutely are those with a financial interest, a project to push through. We need more regular residents to attend the cc meeting. We need the working people. Not just the coffee chatters, stakeholders, and developers. I have talked to lots of people who cannot make it at 5pm. It is a public hearing so we should make it a meeting available to the public. We need to change the CC meeting to 7pm again.
Good planning and design is cyclical process, not linear.
That’s nonsense. The process is as linear as you can get.
Over time the product changes with the whims of the planning intelligentsia. But the process is always a chain of necessary events – although the links themselves may change in number.
Yeah. Dude.
Mr. “Zinger”, It would be nice if you could come up with something meaningful to say instead of your one line snipes. Maybe you could write an actual paragraph that has an actual message. Something positive that you can come up with on your own that gets a coherent point across to the reader. Go back and read through the thread and look at everything you have posted. Some substance please. You have bad sentence structure and poor grammar as well. At least “Nipsey” is funny. Maybe try some humor. L.O.L.
When you contribute something that isn’t unadulterated nonsense I may just respond with something “meaningful.”
Points taken. Then you guys should work on getting a legal process change. For now someone submitting a project can only perform through the system that is provided to them by the City. In the interim why demonize individuals that have no other available process?
So here’s the latest…
Tuesday night was a City Council meeting. The project was put on the Agenda by a Council member asking for an update on the study to change the zoning. Some people were complaining that this was added at the last minute. But actually it was done 3 days earlier than required. That’s the kind of night that it was. Contentious.
Lots of people spoke, mostly in favor of, but there were some surprises as to who spoke against it. Business people and friends of the property owners told everyone what a nice guy the developer is and how much they loved the project. People like myself had to remind everybody how the new mall would shred the existing Specific Plan (zoning), and compound an already miserable traffic situation. They would also have to abandon the moniker of Low Density Commercial, because it would become high density. There was some yelling, but the Sheriffs didn’t have to cuff anybody.
It did clarify who on the Council has flipped on the issue. People make campaign promises, and then change. Same old story.
Tonight was Design Review Commission with about 10 % of the attendance as at the Council meeting. Commenters were much less animated, but equally concerned.
What is really weird about this whole process is that they are letting the developer put forth all of his ideas and waste everybody’s time with choosing the hue of the red barn, without having any zoning parameters.
So at this point we have no CEQA, no EIR, no traffic studies, no Flood Plain studies (yes, it’s in a FEMA High Risk Flood Plain), and no staking or silhouette elevations (to see how it compares to the neighbors houses, (yes it’s next to houses)).
So the process is that they let the project get approved, and then write the zoning (the Specific Plan) to fit the project.
So the developer gets to write the zoning? Wait till they see what I got planned for our property!
Maybe there’s an attorney out there that can explain to me how that’s legal.
The requested changes to the precise plan only pertain to the property in question; Ito Nursery. It doesn’t change the precise plan for the Historic District.
This is a unique property in that it is an empty lot and there was never anything there to begin with…ever. It is too early in the process for any of the studies mentioned if required at all.
As someone who has lived on Los Rios for 24 years and participated in all the workshops in the 90’s when the Precise Plan was last revised, I can tell you it is an outdated, irrelevant document and its creation was somewhat arbitrary to begin with. All we did was look at what was existing and created a document that supported the preservation of those conditions. It basically preserved existing structures without addressing future growth of empty lots.
Also, most people reading this probably do not realize there are two designations: one for Los Rios Street proper and another much less restrictive code if you will for the Historic District. The Ito property falls under the “Historic District” designation.
The bottom line is Los Rios Street and the Historic District were not created by this document. The concerned citizens who live there have enhanced and preserved it. The vast majority of these same people in the district and the community as a whole are in full support of this project.
I mean, really, we are down to just a few NIMBY’s creating a little noise. I would urge the few “Negative Nellies” to jump on board and do something constructive, creative, positive, fruitful, productive and meaningful. With all do respect to Mr. Laux, Mr. Almquist (the developer) has much more empathy and understanding of the true heartbeat of Los Rios than he does.
“I can tell you it is an outdated, irrelevant document and its creation was somewhat arbitrary to begin with.”
Very likely. If so, change it through the proper process. Not by ignoring it in a development process.
The Los Rios plan is not outdated. Have you actually looked at it? It is a great plan. Lots of study went into the plan to keep Los Rios a walkable, charming place. It is the oldest town in ALL of California. The first people to build, built an adobe house right there. And, it is still there. That is remarkable. River street was the street used to get to the harbor to sell good and receive goods that arrived by ship. To even consider turning this site into a mall is outrageous. Joni Mitchell told it true. They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel *, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot.
Dave. We are not down to a few NIMBY’s. Not everyone in town can make it to every city council meeting. Thousands of residents do not even have a clue that something horrible is about to happen until the wrecking ball and tractors move in and begin to build. It happens all the time. Residents are left out of the decision process because they are working, taking care of a family, cooking dinner, and helping kids with homework. It is hard for them to keep up with what is going on in the city council meetings. Five PM is a tough time for many average residents. We are not the stakeholders, or the coffee chatters, or the developers, we are the residents of San Juan Capistrano. The first time I heard the term NIMBY it was used by Jonathan Volke. You remember him, the guy who said “face it you were out maneuvered.” when I asked him why Troy’s people took all the seats for a CC meeting and gave a lesson on talking points while they his out of town people went on eating a box lunch provided by the developer.
It is not being ignored, very far from it. The project is submitted and proposed as an amendment to the specific plan, which has taken place before here in SJC. The topic is completely front and center in the process and openly discussed and debated in the public meetings. A democracy of different views, imagine that.
“The project is submitted and proposed as an amendment to the specific plan, which has taken place before here in SJC”
Wow, that really gives off an unpleassant aroma.
Transparency in a project submission gives off an unpleasant aroma? Okay.
I think it’s “amendment” and “happened before.”
Right. Developers are always pulling this bullshit. And the politicians let them do it. If the plan is obsolete it should be revisited in its entirety – not modified piecemeal to enable individual projects.
Incorrect. The odor is emanating from lack of transparency by modifying a Specific Plan as part of a specific development. The fact that this “has taken place before” (even if true) doesn’t make it any more palatable.
Robbery with violence has taken place before, too.
Well, currently we live in the United States of America, not the United States of Zenger. Until that great day, there are actually existing laws and rules in place, and all of us lowly citizens have to deal with them. I’m sure under your reign you would take great dictatorial control and eliminate amendments and such, while delivering proclamations that all developers and property owners seeking changes on their property are exclusively evil and should be banished from your kingdom unless they propose something more “palatable” to the great Zenger.
Give me a break, guys. If you want law changes, work on law changes. Until that point any property owner or developer that has to go through a process can only follow the law and process as it now stands.
If one submits a transparent proposal of exactly what they want to do and this leads to numerous public meetings where anyone and everyone can express their opinions on opposite sides and all sides, and there are numerous committees, commissions, and a council to make the final decision after hearing everything from everyone, that is how our country works. Until you make all of the mandatory changes, of course, then we will all have adapt to the Zenger way and that will be fine at that time.
David, you seem to assume that all change in form of amendment is bad and your quotes like: “Developers are always pulling this bullshit,” seems to include all developers, which is kind of um… stereotypical and naive.
If you were actually following this closely, which I’m sure is impossible as it would cut into your posting time, you would find that the majority of Los Rios residents that have spoken at the meetings on this project are in favor of it. Both sides are being well heard and ultimately the project will happen or not, be changed or not based on all of this input. It appears in United Zenger, the residents that live on Los Rios that are in favor of an amendment should not be allowed to have this opinion or voice. Not really a democracy in that new country.
The submissions was transparent, everyone from all sides is being heard. If you want to change the laws you should get busy with that rather that trying to create villains out of nice people that you don’t even know.
Someone we should be paying attention to is Joel Rojas our Development Services Director. While working for Rancho Palos Verdes he signed off on a 80′ to 8′ setback reduction violating the 40′ minimum. The big problem was that it was for a mausoleum next to condos. Now the residents have funerals including 21 gun salutes 8′ off of their balconies.
Joel described it as a perfect storm of errors.
The residents described it as a $17 million lawsuit against the city.
Joel did not do his job. That is not a perfect storm of errors. There is a difference between 8 ft and 80 ft when you sign off on a setback for a property. The city of PV is being sued and Joel gets an offer to work in San Juan Capistrano. Who hired him without checking to see why he left Palos Verdes? PV is left with the problem he created.
I have a question for everybody.
What do all of the big proponents here of this project have in common ? The owner, the developer, Dave Bachelder, SJClifer ?
None of them live in the Los Rios neighborhood.
I think Bachelder calls them NIMBYs.
I live a half mile from River Street and you live 1/4 mile from River Street. We both live in the same city. Maybe you should create your own nation there. You could make a law that prohibits Dave Bachelder from ever venturing into your territory. You have no more say than I do about the place. My wife and I were active participants in all major concerns for the district for 23 years. You have got about 20 years to go. Instead of trying to discredit me, why not just present the facts and a valid argument?
According to Google Maps, you live 1.2 miles away from the Nursery.
I live .2 miles away. Please try to be accurate.
The number of votes that you get for living in the District for 23 years is one.
The number of votes that I get for living in the District for 3 years is one.
There is no reason for me to try to discredit you. You are doing a fine job.
Well…..there you go again.
I’ve lived in town for 27 years. I am on the Board of the San Juan Capistrano Historical Society, and have hundreds of hours volunteering there. The SJCHS is directly adjacent to the Ito property. I have known the Ito’s for several years and Dan Almquist for a year or so. I think Dan’s proposed development is the best possible use for this property. Mr Laux mentions the overturned Laguna Glen project at the Vermeulen property on Del Obispo. I thought that the Laguna Glen project was the best use of that property. As a Senior residential neighborhood, it was shown to have a MINIMUM traffic impact. The protestors against that project wore “NOT ONE MORE CAR” T-shirts. Since it was overturned by referendum, the new proposal there is for 180 homes and 40K sq ft of retail. The traffic impact for that project will be substantial. If this project (or an even worse one) moves forward, you can thank the “NOT ONE MORE CAR” people. If River Street (Dan’s project) doesn’t happen, eventually, something else will go there (quite likely 300+ condos). Be careful what you wish for.
“Quite likely300+ condos.”
After living in town for 27 years one would think that you should know that the maximum density in San Juan is 30 units per acre.
Your straw man argument of 300 units is twice that. You would also have to exceed the maximum building height of 35′.
You know better, or should.
The best possible use for this property would be residences that compliment the other homes in the district. It’s the oldest residential neighborhood in California, and is on the National Register of Historic Places. It’s current zoning as a nursery is a better fit than a mall.
As far as the Vermeulen property goes, you want to blame the people who spoke up against an oversize project for the developers new proposal ? If it goes through the blame would be on the City Council who actually votes on it’s approval. Developers just want to cram as much as they can into a project to maximize their profits, and the residents are just pushing back against the overbuilding of San Juan Capistrano.
I thank the “NOT ONE MORE CAR” people for spending countless hours helping to overturn the Council vote. That referendum reflected the will of the people.
If the nursery property gets approved for 60,000 sq ft of retail and 300 parking places, then that too will likely end up as a referendum. Everybody currently serving on the Council ran on a slow growth campaign. We expect our votes to be honored.
O.k., Mr. Laux would prefer a major zoning change from LDC (commercial) to single family residential, however he does not wan’t to change the Specific Plan. This would be misrepresenting the past anyway by creating a mock Los Rios Street on the Ito property. It is better to have a contrasting complimentary design that respects Los Rios Street and the past rather than a fake mockery of it. Or maybe you are thinking of more low-income residential housing like at the end of Adelanto and Ramos Street. The social benefits of this would probably offset any historical importance right?
I guess a more retail oriented nursery or garden center could make it there. Something like Rogers Gardens or Plant Depot (San Juan Creek Rd.). Go over to plant Depot on a Saturday – no traffic there right?
From Carolyn Nash…..
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
April 2017 action alert here:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2017/04/san-juan-capistrano-call-to-action-save-the-los-rios-district/
Can someone tell me why these posts record a date of April 2017 instead of October 2017? Lots of residents have asked me where the blog went that had been on Nextdoor? And now they cannot find this site. I think it is because the blog is dated 2016 and they pass it by thinking this is old news. Anyway to fix this? Just wondering.
I did a search for business listings in California. People who want to buy or sell an existing business. Under the category of Nursery there are a few for sale. One in Riverside,. There is no Nursery listed for sale in Southern Orange County. Also listed were people wanting to buy a business. Nursery’s were clumped together with vineyards. But apparently the Ito’s did not list the nursery in San Juan Capistrano for sale as a business. This means they did not give other Nursery Buyers a chance to buy the property. She went straight to the sale of land and the developer. Most people who own and want to retire find a buy and arrange a sale with a lump down and a monthly income. Almost everyone in my family has retired this way. The largest plumbing contractor in Lake Arrowhead negotiated a sale this way. It included a large commercial building, equipment, and goodwill established over 35 years. He did not go in for a rezone. This is typical when people retire. They get a big down payment and a monthly that will sustain them. That commercial property has a view over the lake. This happens all the time. People retire. I could list 5 just in my family that have retired this way. The Ito’s did not even list the business for sale.