Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues Los Rios specific-plan amendment after debate over future uses and votes
Summary
Council members debated a proposed amendment to the Los Rios Specific Plan to modernize permitted retail uses in the historic commercial district. After questioning on noise, open-space limits and potential incremental change, the council could not secure the three votes needed to finalize the ordinance and continued the item to March 3.
The San Juan Capistrano City Council on Feb. 17 debated a narrowly drawn code amendment that would update the list of principal permitted uses in the Los Rios historic commercial district and then voted to continue the item to March 3 after not securing the votes required to pass an ordinance.
Planning staff described the amendment as affecting two parcels (31791 and 31781 Los Rios Street) and said it would add 14 principal uses and delete three currently permitted uses to modernize the historic-commercial list while preserving the district's scale and character. Staff and the applicant emphasized the change is a text amendment only and, according to staff, is not a project under CEQA.
Douglas Doomhart, representing the property owner, told the council the proposal is "narrowly tailored" to modernize retail categories and not meant to drive new development or intensification. He said the change is intended to align uses with those already allowed as accessory uses in the adjacent historic residential district.
Council member Hart pressed staff and the applicant on what qualifies as an "outdoor cultural performance" and whether the amendment could, over time, permit retail that would effectively extend the River Street marketplace or displace the River Street Ranch petting zoo. Staff noted special-event permits and design-review processes would apply and reiterated the district's open-space requirement (discussed by staff as roughly 90% open space and about 0.1 FAR), limiting the scope for additional buildable area.
When the council moved to introduce the ordinance, the recorded vote was two in favor, one opposed and one abstention. Staff advised council members that an ordinance requires three votes to pass; the council then voted to continue the item to its March 3 meeting to have another member present. The continuation motion carried 3–1 with one abstention.
Resident Keith Baker spoke in opposition, warning that recent and proposed projects downtown risk changing the area's character "too much, too fast." The council did not make substantive changes to the draft amendment at the Feb. 17 meeting and sent the matter to a future date for further consideration.
