18-0515_VERMEULEN RANCH CENTER, LLC_D1_Correspondence 2Matisse Reischl
Subject: FW: Stop the GPA, CA, and DA of Vermeulen Property " The Farm"
5/15/2018
D1
From: Save San Juan Capistrano
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 4:58 PM
To: Sergio Farias; Brian Maryott; Kerry Ferguson; Pam Patterson; Derek Reeve; Art Bashmakian; City Clerk Scanstation
Subject: Stop the GPA, CA, and DA of Vermeulen Property " The Farm"
Hello all -
First of all I'm for property owner rights, including mine. I'm also not anti -development. Yet, I'm 100% pro-
SJC!
I've been a resident here for over 20 years because I love it here.
There's some concerns with this request for GAA, CA, and DA:
- Applicant is using the threat of a lawsuit to strong-arm the City to change SJC General Plan
- City Notice signage was not posted within the 20 days of minimum time before first public hearing that is
required to inform community
- CEQA was only sent within 1000 feet (229 homes), yet project is over 1,500,000 feet. Was a new Environmental Impact Report even done?
- I asked City for "Phasing Plan" and was told this is "unlike most specific plans, this one is not so specific as there is no actual development
proposal". Then, why is the GPA, CA, and DA even being discussed?
- What is the developer and owner's final plans? Have the GPA and CA changed ... and then come back with a
massive DA?
If the argument is protecting Owners Rights, then shouldn't SJC only be entertaining rezoning this property back to low-med density and not
a GPA, CA, and DA?
The owners other property, that's attached to this 35 acres, of approximately 8 acres, zoned "Farm Market" doesn't support the mail that is
currently built on the property. Are they going to conform to proper Code and pay back penalties to SJC?
Protect all Owners in SJC and if the 35 acres is rezoned, SJC needs to be paid back taxes, water rates, etc for years they were given
Agriculture rates.
Please protect all owners of this Community.
-Pam Zamoscianyk
Matisse Reischl
Subject: FW: GPA 16-001
From: julie walden
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:13 PM
To: City Clerk Scanstation
Subject: GPA 16-001
City Council,
Please acknowledge I am opposed to the Amendment GPA 16-001 to change the land use of 32382 Del
Obispo San Juan Capistrano. That would allow the 35 acre property from Agri -Business to 180single-family
detached units.
Regards,
Julia Walden
San Juan Capistrano, Ca 92675
Matisse Reischl
Subject. FW: The Farm Specific Plan Residential Community
From: Patti
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 6:51 PM
To: City Clerk Scanstation
Subject: The Farm Specific Plan Residential Community
We are not opposed to the rezoning of the 35 -acre property, as we understand that the Vermeulens should have
the right to develop their property in some way. However, we are opposed to the current proposal that would
allow up to 180 homes. We live in Captain's Hill which as you know, is practically across the street from this
project. We find it ludicrous that the developer can claim that there will be "less than significant impacts on the
local roadway system and no mitigation would be required." Does he think we're stupid? In the four years that
we have lived here we have seen a significant increase in traffic, possibly due to the Oliva project. In addition,
there is a lot of traffic from the school complex nearby, the churches across the street, and the nursery and
shops.
We also have a problem with the developer's claim that there will be "sufficient water resources to meet full
service demands through the year 2040". Southern California is still in a serious drought condition, so how can
that be? Even if there were enough water now, what happens in 2040? Are we all going to suffer when the
water runs out?
If this project is allowed to go forward, the number of homes needs to be reduced dramatically. The primary
access should be on Via Positiva, not del Obispo. As the traffic on del Obispo increases, we and our neighbors,
are very likely to shop in Dana Point where we don't have to fight the traffic jams. The effect on the downtown
stores in San Juan should be considered.
Patricia Burke-Pratley
Thomas Reagan
Virus -free. www.avast.com
Matisse Reischl
Subject: FW: Opposition to amending the General Plan of San Juan Capistrano
From: Kirklyn Barto
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:09 PM
To: City Clerk Scanstation
Cc: Sergio Farias; Kerry Ferguson; Pam Patterson; Derek Reeve
Subject: Opposition to amending the General Plan of San Juan Capistrano
Most Honorable Mayor Sergio Farias
City Council and members of the Planning Commission
I am a 4 -year resident of the Sun Ranch neighborhood and am writing to voice my opposition to amending the General
Plan Amendment (GPA 16-001), the Code Amendment (CA 18-004), and Development Agreement (DA 18-001).
1 chose to purchase my home and live in San Juan Capistrano because of its open spaces, historic nature, focus on
preservation, as well as San Juan's quaintness (as mentioned by several of the business owners in the city's promotional
video). How ironic is it that this issue should surface during historic preservation month?
Since becoming a resident, 60 new, very large two-story residences have been built in the Oliva development directly
adjacent to mine. Now 180 new residences are proposed across Del Obispo, requiring a general plan amendment. This
would total 240 new homes within a very small radius, in a very short period of time. To say there will be no new traffic
congestion or environmental impact for current and new residences, is wishful thinking at best, no matter what the existing
thresholds allows.
While I certainly respect the Vermeulen's right to petition for an amendment to the city's general plan allowing rezoning,
they do not have the right to demand it. Not only does amending the general plan to fit specifications for one developer's
financial benefit, it certainly sets a precedent for future agreements. Does the city intend to entertain more developers'
requests for amendments to the general plan? Will our general plan constantly be changing?
I fail to appreciate the SpiekerNermeulen offer to appease the city by dropping their lawsuit if their plan is approved. We
have already replaced, by petition, three city council candidates who approved the previous development. The city will
certainly incur the costs of another referendum if this plan is approved. Spieker's offer to drop the lawsuit seems like a
convenient way of pushing the city's back to the wall. Several members of the planning commission and even contract
planner Art Bashmakian noted the lack of specifics in the plan. Yet each member unanimously approved the proposal.
What was it exactly that they approved?
Please consider the preservation of the unique historical nature of our community. Although this is by no means a
quantified analysis, my friends and acquaintances from surrounding cities (Laguna, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, etc.)
consider San Juan 'their neighbor city' with a great cultural heritage. They visit to dine, shop and enjoy the city's historical
highlights. Please don't destroy the city's reputation for being unique among busy surrounding communities.
Thank you for considering my comments in your decision-making process. As a fairly new resident, and certainly a
layman when it comes to city government policies, I still ask that you preserve the unique nature of our beautiful city by
rejecting the proposed development and amendment to the general plan.
Thank you,
Kirklyn Barto