Mission Viejo is Developer’s Waterloo
Staff editorial

What’s happening at Jeronimo and Los Alisos on the graded parcel next to the nearly finished Target store? Target is supposed to open Oct. 14, and the elevated pile of dirt near the corner is sprouting a few trees but no homes.

Perhaps residents should be whistling “Waterloo” every time they drive by Steadfast’s dirt pile. Years ago, Steadfast privately said it should never have bought the property. Several proposed housing projects were defeated, either through the sharpshooting of such Planning Commissioners as Dr. Michael Kennedy, the late Norm Murray, Bo Klein and Dorothy Wedel or with community activists protesting every housing concept Steadfast presented. The developer’s financial losses over project delays, however, are practically negligible when compared with effects of the current homebuying downturn.

Despite an appearance that developers won, not one home has been built in Mission Viejo, nor are any foundations being poured. Developers haven’t made a dime on their housing gamble, and their losses could be substantial if they don’t scrap their condo plans for Jeronimo and Los Alisos as well as the former Kmart site on east Los Alisos. A Steadfast bigwig made a memorable remark to residents during a 2003 showdown, “You will either accept our affordable housing project or it will be forced on you.” As it turns out, Steadfast forced an unprofitable housing project on itself.

In 2005, the council of MacLean, Kelley, Ury, Ledesma and Reavis voted 5-0 to rezone Steadfast’s 23.42-acre parcel for split use – a Target store next to Unisys and a condo project along Los Alisos Blvd. For the privilege of building a high-density housing mess, Steadfast’s wheeler-dealers got stuck with a $3-million “in-lieu” fee to the city to compensate for the lack of recreational amenities for its condo occupants. The payment is still due despite no residential units being built.

The residential project is apparently behind closed doors at the city again, with no word to the public about the developer’s intent. One could guess Steadfast (or Target – whoever has a financial interest in developing the remaining acreage) is now trying to scrap its condo project the council passed in 2005.

One of the activists who fought the battle against Steadfast commented, “I’d be thrilled if the developer wants to flip it back to commercial use. I’d support changing it back in a heartbeat, and there would be no finer poetic justice.”

A flip back to commercial would emphasize the wisdom of the Mission Viejo Company, which correctly called for business use at this location. Also clear is the shortsightedness of city administrators and council members who irresponsibly advocated housing in an area surrounded by commercial zoning. With Target’s new store as a retail destination, adjacent commercial development of restaurants, shops and other businesses would make sense. Housing now doesn’t make sense to the developer, and it never made sense to residents. With the housing market taking a dive, a condo developer would face years of additional loss on a property that has been problematic since 2003.

Perhaps the only folks who benefited from the rezoning from commercial to residential are council members whose campaign treasuries received donations from both sides. All five current council members’ campaigns benefited from Steadfast donations. The same council members solicited campaign money from their constituents – promising to represent residents and then spitting in their face. The council might have yet another chance to get paid off if the owner/developer wants the parcel flipped back to its original commercial zoning. With a $3-million in-lieu park fee looming, the developer might peel off a few thousand dollars to council members who clearly have no problem selling their votes.

If the city had stayed out of the real-estate business, and if council members weren't grabbing developer cash at every opportunity, this parcel could have become an extension of the adjacent High Park office complex. Instead, some neighbors object to the nuisance of Target (lights, noise and traffic), and others strongly object to more housing of any kind.