UDR/Pacific’s housing project on Los Alisos Blvd & 241.

I supported the zone change because it was the right thing to do for several reasons. The major factors are:

1)     Community sentiment

2)     Zoning

3)     Location

4)     Benefit to the city of Mission Viejo

5)     Variances

6)     Safety concerns (with or without merit)

7)     City history with other zone changes

1. Community Sentiment

To me, this is a huge consideration when looking at what is best for the city and making sure that we are meeting citizen’s expectations and desires – after all I represent them. Do you know how many residents adjacent to the development objected? The answer is none -- not one objection from a neighbor. That is really significant. People were ambivalent or, in the case of the shopping center owner, supportive of the project. By the way, that shopping center still has a 30,000-square-foot pad that has never been developed. Any guess as to why? 

I should also point out that while Palmia backs to Los Alisos, that community has no direct access to that road. As Palmia residents demonstrated during the anti-airport days, they are not passive citizens and they are very willing to get involved in issues that affect them. In this case, the homeowners association was happy to give approval, and they probably were just happy that some kind of industrial use was not going into that location.

Let me give an example. In 2001, the property owner made a request to the city for a two-year extension on an entitlement for a gas station at Los Alisos Blvd. and the 241. For a variety of reasons -- traffic noise from trucks being one of them -- the Palmia residents sent approximately 150-plus (if I remember correctly) written comments in opposition, and dozens of residents showed up at the council meeting to oppose the extension of the entitlement. (Note: there was no application for a gas station and none exists at that location today.) 

What’s hot in the industrial market right now are buildings in the 5,000 – 8,000-square-foot range with office in the front and a warehouse in the back. I guarantee that if some kind of complex of light-industrial buildings with loading docks were being proposed, the Palmia residents would have opposed to the project.

The opposition that existed was from residents outside of the area, not in the area. In fact, I think one of them told me that he shops at the adjacent Vons because there are never any lines.

2) Zoning

The zoning that was approved is consistent with the zoning of the three residential complexes directly adjacent to the site on Los Alisos Blvd. Granted, the number of dwelling units per net buildable area is higher than the other condominiums but, I think, less than the apartments directly next door.

When Mission Viejo was incorporated, that area on Los Alisos was zoned residential. It was in the 1991 that it was rezoned to commercial. The original Mission Viejo Master Plan as reflected in the General Plan is consistent with the action that was taken. Some people mention the interesting but illogical notion that it should stay commercial because the Mission Viejo Company swapped Painted Trails from commercial to residential zoning in exchange for changing the zoning on Los Alisos. Just because the council made bad choices back in the early ‘90s does not mean we should perpetuate the bad decision. Two wrongs do not make a right: it was wrong to rezone then, and it would be wrong not to revert to the original zoning.  

3) Location, location, location

I have visited the site many times, and the site has several challenges. Some people suggest that it could be retail, but Los Alisos does not carry much traffic, and it just loops back into Melinda in Mission Viejo. There is little reason for traffic to be generated by people who do not live in the area. The city has contacted at least five “big box” retailers, and all said that the site was too small, and the topology is such that one cannot see the site from the 241. Where the 241 is adjacent to the former Kmart site, it is a bridge, and there is a concrete protective barrier at the outer edge of the toll road. To get signage for a retail site, the signs would have to be 80-90 feet above ground level, and Mission Viejo does not allow pole signs. Even if you were to stick the signage on top of the theoretical store’s roof if they were 80-90 feet in the air. I can guarantee that the neighboring residents would disagree with doing that. I would hardly think that sticking the poles for the signs in the earthen dam on the other side of the toll road would be a good work around.

Look at the retail in the area. The adjacent shopping center is not doing well, and they still have a 30,000 square-foot pad that is undeveloped. Do you think it could be because the demand for that location is low? Back in 2001, the city granted (on a 2-3 vote) an extension of an entitlement at Los Alisos and the 241 for a gas station. Why was the gas station not built right at the Los Alisos exit of the 241?  Do you think the reason might be that the traffic counts are low?

Some say that we could leave it commercial and, eventually, something would be built. If something were to be built, it would probably not be retail. If it were industrial, the neighbors would probably oppose the project. All that is left would be office space. Again, this would be a tough location for a small office building or complex, and it would not be the highest and best use of the property.

4) Benefit to the city of Mission Viejo

Much is said about the benefit to city government, and we are not going to be getting sales tax revenue out of residential units. That is true. (For those who are not aware, the city government receives 1 percent of every sales taxable dollar that is spent.)  First, I reject the premise of the statement, namely, that the city government is synonymous with the community of individuals who live within the jurisdiction of the public corporation known as the city of Mission Viejo.

Before I go off on that tangent, let me get back to revenue for the city government.  Does anyone really think that the people who will reside on the former Kmart site will not ever shop in Mission Viejo? Conversely, if retail were built at that location, does anyone think it would not take sales from other retail sales in the city? My point is that with tax revenue, it is not going to be a zero net sum when comparing these two different uses. Do not forget that the site is too small for a big-box anchor store.

The other city tax income to consider is property tax. Of all the property tax that is paid, about 15 percent goes to our general fund. If we are looking at highest and best use of the property, that means we are looking at the most profitable type of building to develop, which translates into property value. How many square feet of industrial or office space would have to be built to come up with the same gross real estate value? I do not know the answer, and I am not going to do a fine analysis here, but it is common knowledge that on a square-footage basis, industrial and commercial sells for a lot less than residential. Residential will provide the highest property tax revenue to the government. Yes, any other building would also have to pay property taxes.

Another consideration is that in the condominium complex, they will maintain their own street -- not the city government. I would also point out that with the increase in property values, I doubt residential is a “drain” on the city government like it was in past years.

5) Variances

When it comes to variances, the only variance being requested in the final proposal was the set back along the back of the property. We are talking about land that is under a bridge and next to a dam – I do not see a problem here.

Another related concern (albeit not a variance) was the 188 units number that was mentioned. That number comes from an estimate that our city staff made in 2000 for the number of units that might be built on that site. It was just an estimate, not some ordinance or General Plan amendment. Since staff in the same correspondence estimated that we could have more than 750 units at the Steadfast site, does that mean we should stick to that estimate, too? No.

6) Safety

Since the project in question is adjacent to the base of an earthen dam, we would be remiss in our duties if we did not take a look at this issue. Yes, being next to a dam raises a possibility of risk, so we have to determine what is a reasonable and probable scenario. It is reasonable to expect earthquakes in California, but I do not think it is probable that the dam will break. In this particular instance, I am, of course, relying on the expert engineers who work for or have contracted with the Santa Margarita Water District. I do not have any reason to believe they are incompetent or dishonest.

What if they are wrong? That is why we have safety measures. First, at the bottom of the reservoir is a 48” drainpipe that can be opened if needed. If the dam breaks, there are channels that would guide the water into a drainpipe that is 84”-plus in diameter under the westerly portion of the Kmart site. In fact, the Santa Margarita Water District has an easement on the property. If one looks at an artist’s rendering of the project, the main entrance, much of the extra parking and the major portion of the open space are all on the western part of the project. Underneath is the big pipe, and the water district has to retain rights to access that property and, of course, the pipe below.

Is a disaster possible? Yes, but the likelihood is so miniscule that it is not a reasonable concern. It is not as if this is the only reservoir or dam in the city.

7) City history with other zone changes

I know many people first got involved in city issues as a result of the zone change that allowed the apartments to be built near Crown Valley Parkway and Puerta Real, but this is not like that issue. In the case of the former Kmart site, we are talking about for-sale units being built next to an apartment complex, unlike the apartment issue where they were being built next to single-family homes. With the apartment issue, the area was downgraded, and the neighboring residents were defrauded because they were expecting office buildings to be built at those locations. In the case of the former Kmart site, the area is getting upgraded, and no one was defrauded.

The two sites are completely different in terms of zoning history, constraints of the sites and the areas they are in. The only similarity is the fact that a zone change was made, and that is it.

John Paul “J.P.” Ledesma, Councilman, City of Mission Viejo