The Capistrano Insider

Mayor: Capistrano Aiming for 'Home Run'

Maybe it's because the playoffs are underway, but Mayor Sam Allevato's monthly column is baseball-themed. It starts with a line about keeping your eye on the ball, and finishes with how good planning and implementation would be a home run for all of us.

Topics he covers as recently accomplishments include various items off the agenda, along with plans for Pedros Tacos on Camino Cap to remodel into a two-story "Mission Grill."

He also talks about a new philosophy in Police Services, where one less motorcycle deputy will be patrolling the streets after the City Council decided to dedicate more resources to Neighborhood Watch and similar crime-prevention efforts.

The council voted this month to eliminate one of the three motor deputy positions, along with a long-vacant patrol deputy post to hire a sergeant and community services officer. That will give Capistrano a dedicated position to organize Neighborhood Watch programs, hold crime prevention meetings throughout the city and work with community groups on truancy and gang-reduction programs. The sergeant, meanwhile, will be able to better track crime trends and other issues. San Clemente and Dana Point have similar programs.

The changes also save the city about $43,000 a year, said Chief of Police Services Lt. John Meyer. 

As for the Mayor's Message, I'll let you decide whether it's a hit ... or strikes out. :)

Download Mayor's Message October 2011

OC Register Says 'Yes on B'

The editorial ran a little bit ago, but it's not a huge surprise: The Register clings to its libertarian roots, and generally is against government telling people what to do with their land:

"While sentiments about aesthetics of one's neighborhood are understandable, the simple fact of owning a piece of land ought not qualify an individual to make determinations about the highest and best uses of neighboring properties. It is a fundamental violation of property rights – among the most significant rights of a free society, where you, not the king or the collective, owns your land – to give the public a veto over the use of private property."

The editorial does go a bit further, however, and says the Distrito project "appears" to be better for the city.

It concludes with:

A yes vote on Measure B is a vote for private property rights and a vote for a less-dense development with new retail space and more equestrian facilities for a city whose moniker is "The Equestrian Capital of the West Coast."

See the editorial here.

Lawsuit Filed in Wake of San Clemente Referendum

Oh, isn't it fun?

From www.sanclementetimes.com:

Playa del Norte Developers Linda and Shaheen Sadeghi have sued San Clemente, ultimately requesting that the results of defeated Measure A be thrown out. 

City Attorney Jeff Oberman said at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting that the Sadeghis — and Measure A supporter Jeanne O’Grady — filed their lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court April 8, and the City Clerk was served a copy April 12. Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelly is also named as a defendant. 

Linda and Shaheen Sadeghi own LAB Holdings, Inc., the Costa Mesa development company selected by San Clemente for its Playa del Norte plan to transform North Beach with a retail and restaurant development. The concept went to the voters March 8 as Measure A, but was rejected. 

Oberman said that through their lawsuit the developers question the ballot title as misleading, challenge the city attorney’s impartial analysis, question the decision to leave out the entire text of the referendum in voter documents and challenge the City Council’s decision to take the issue to voters in the first place.

A message left with Linda Sadeghi was not returned Thursday morning. 

Oberman said the city has 30 days to respond to the lawsuit. He, basically, dismissed it. “We don’t believe the lawsuit has any merit,” the city attorney said.

See the lawsuit here: Download Sadeghilawsuit

And astute Capistrano readers might notice something when they read the lawsuit: Yes, the Sadeghis are represented by Newmeyer and Dillion of Newport Beach -- the same firm that represented the Scalzo Family Trust in the case that led to a 6.7-million judgment against San Juan Capistrano.

 

Distrito: What to Expect from the Capistrano Council?

The question of whether to put Distrito La Novia on the ballot for a referendum was delayed at the last City Council meeting at the request of the developer. He was out of town.

The Capistrano council's decision comes down to whether to set the election on the mixed-use-equestrian project or just rescind approvals. The developer, Advanced Real Estate Services, can also ask the approval be rescinded, then go ahead with a 440-home project already approved.

My sense is that many people don't believe the developer will build the housing project and that a successful referendum would mean the 100-plus acres would remain undeveloped. I've talked to a couple of people who heard as much at signature-gathering tables for the referendum.

And yes, some people probably believe the houses will be built and would rather have them than the new project.

But what to expect from the council? Sure, Mark Nielsen and Lon Uso didn't get re-elected and they both supported the project. But as I've mused over before, the two of the three elected -- Larry Kramer and John Taylor -- support Distrito, too.

Here's two letters appearing in this week's edition of The Capistrano Dispatch.

Whose Property Rights?

—Renee Taylor, San Juan Capistrano 

When someone buys a home in a residential neighborhood they don't have an automatic right to rezone it into another use such as a Bed and Breakfast. The same applies to commercial property such as the Distrito/Meadows. 

The developer has a right to request a rezone, but City Council also has the right to deny the rezone if the project does not offer adequate benefit to the city and its residents. The prior City Council chose to approve the Distrito rezone for their own individual reasons, but ignored the residents’ property rights and the effect it would have on their quality of life. Citizens collected 3,400 signatures to qualify the final decision to be determined by our town’s voters. If the current City Council doesn't rescind the approval of this project it could cost as much as $80,000 to place this issue on a special election. 

Due to the current city's financial situation and citizen distrust, wouldn’t it make more sense to rescind the prior city council's approval of this rezone? This action would accomplish two things: first, it would save the city a lot of money they don't currently have and secondly, it would send a message that the new City Council has heard the voices of the people instead of just the developer! It would send a message that a new council does represent them and is fiscally responsible. Or they can continue the practices of the past council and continue this very divisive issue. Will it be a new day for San Juan Capistrano or just a new good old boy's club? 

Public Vote Not Necessary

—Judy Morgan, San Juan Capistrano 

The City Council has delayed making a decision whether to spend $85,000 for a special election or to completely rescind their vote on the controversial Distrito/Meadows project and save voter’s money. 

A referendum was successfully mounted by San Juan residents after the City Council approved a high density development on La Novia and San Juan Creek Road. Nearly double the required number of signatures was collected by residents in a little over three weeks. That should tell the City Council that something is very wrong with their decision. The residents in our special town are sophisticated and smart. They appreciate the unique character we are fighting to preserve. 

Many residents clearly oppose this project which would have a negative impact on both our quality of life and the very character of our town. If this was a good project for San Juan Capistrano why are so many residents prepared to fight this referendum to the bitter end? Why did double the required voters sign the referendum? Why does the developer want to ruin the character of our special town? Why does the City Council want to push a project that is divisive with the residents? Why doesn’t the developer just develop the project somewhere else, where they will want him? With the greater majority of residents against this project, it is likely that even if it got built it will not be successful. 

The proposed development is only one decision by the City Council of San Juan Capistrano in a long line of misguided and fiscally irresponsible actions. But this development has become the line in the sand for a substantial number of our citizens. Enough. This will not stand. Some council members have worked closely with the developer for years and have pushed this decision through in spite of strenuous and vocal opposition. They obviously think they can force their wishes upon us. They have forgotten who they work for. They work for the citizens of our town and not for the developers. 

They should listen to the will of the people and rescind this decision at the next session of the City Council. A costly special election is not in our town’s best interest. This project doesn’t belong here.

Recommendations for Commissions: Nothing Radical, but a Little Payback?

It seems like the current recommendations for San Juan Capistrano's advisory panels seek to undo some of the changes pushed by former Councilmen Mark Nielsen and Lon Uso, who had both argued for a little more turnover on city commissions.

The commissions are voluntary posts with no pay, but some of the folks holding the spots have been there for well over a dozen years.

In this round of recommendations, though, the council is looking at bringing back Kathy Hooper and some other commissioners who'd been removed. One other big change: Bruce Tatarian's name is gone from the list of recommended Planning Commissioners. Tatarian was well respected in that post, but he was also a trusted advisor and friend of Nielsen.

The council meets tonight (Tuesday, Jan. 18) at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 32400 Paseo Adelanto.

Here's the staff reports.

Download Commission Staff Report

Download Commission Recomendations