San Clemente City Council
September 20, 2022

CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2211 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 T: 949.622.2600
E-MAIL: [email protected]
April 15, 2022
April 15, 2022
Ms. Marisa Prasse, Housing Policy Analyst and Specialist California Department of Housing and Community Development [email protected]
Mr. Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Manager
California Department of Housing and Community Development [email protected]

VIA EMAIL
Re: City of San Clemente 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, Dated April 2022 Dear Ms. Prasse and Mr. McDougall:

We have reviewed the City of San Clemente’s Revised Housing Element, dated April 2022 (“SCHE”). Regrettably, due to the dismal efforts of the City to adequately address the findings of HCD in support of the State Housing Element Law, we are compelled to respond, especially in light of the City’s failure for more than a decade to set forth an effective housing plan for the homeless and underprivileged residents of San Clemente. Specifically, the City has completely disregarded the comments and findings of HCD in its prior letters dated August 6, 2021, and January 12, 2022, as well as the recommendations of ESC in its letters of June 28, 2021, August 9, 2021, and December 6, 2021. As William Shakespeare famously stated, “Nothing comes from doing nothing,” and here, the City has done nothing, leaving little hope for future achievements without strong mandates from HCD.

1. HCD’s August 6, 2021 Letter Requesting Detailed Revisions:

In its August 6, 2021 letter, HCD called for the City to make detailed revisions to its draft Housing Element. These included a description of the characteristics and suitability of the zone(s) for emergency shelters, pursuant to the elements specified in Section “A. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints,” and Finding 4, which states in pertinent part as follows:
“An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)…
“Sites and Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types – Emergency Shelters: The element must describe the characteristics and suitability of the zone(s) for emergency shelters. In particular, the element should analyze the limit of 35 beds per shelter as a April 15, 2022

constraint, the lack of interest in developing an emergency shelter in the last planning period, and the efficacy of the ride share program. In addition, as per public comments, given any past or current litigation involving the Rancho San Clemente Business Park, the element should analyze the suitability of the sites identified, challenges, and constraints, and if deemed unsuitable, identify additional sites where emergency shelters can be accommodated by-right.”
Unfortunately, in its Housing Element dated October 5, 2021, the City did little to address the specific key factors outlined in HCD’s letter.

2. HCD’s January 12, 2022 Letter Noting That The City’s Housing Element Did Not Address the Findings from the Prior Review:

Consequently, HCD raised these issues again in its January 12, 2022 letter as follows:
“Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): The element now includes some information about capacity within the identified zone for emergency shelters and a brief mention of unsuccessful past interest in the zone. However, the element generally does not address the findings from the prior review. Please see HCD’s prior review.”

3. The City’s April 2022 Housing Element Again Fails to Address the Findings from HCD’s Prior Review:

Despite HCD’s specific requests, the City’s April 2022 Housing Element still does not provide an analysis or evaluation of the key factors outlined by HCD. The City simply added a few paragraphs with some general, broad-based statements, many of which were inaccurate and incomplete. As detailed below, these revisions do not come close to “hitting the mark,” and HCD should continue to insist on full and complete compliance, or the corresponding consequences for the City’s failure to do so.
a. Claims of Engaging the Public and Other Stakeholders:

In its opening statements, the City asserted that it was continuing to engage the public and had revised the SCHE to address comments from HCD and other stakeholders. The City’s revisions are set forth in these redlined changes:
“The City continues to engage the public throughout the development and adoption of the Housing Element. The Adopted Housing Element was revised to address additional comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and other stakeholders who submitted comments to the City and HCD. The revised Housing Element was available for public review between April 8 and April 15, 2022, on the City website. Individuals and agencies/organizations that have previously commented on the Housing Element were notified. The City also sent out an email notification to its list of stakeholders and interested parties.” (See SCHE, p. HE-2.) Disappointingly, the City paid no heed to HCD’s specific directions, at least with respect to the emergency shelter overlay and corresponding concerns. The City also made no effort to address the six (6) recommendations detailed in ESC’s December 6, 2021 letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

In fact, the City appears to have gone to great lengths to avoid addressing ESC’s recommendations, because that would have required real change in the immediate future, which the City is undoubtedly seeking to avoid.

April 15, 2022

b. The City’s Disingenuous Comments Concerning the Proposed Expansion of the Emergency Shelter Overlay to Include ESC’s 10 Acres:

With respect to HCD’s requests for a detailed analysis of the sites and zoning for a variety of housing types, including several key factors involving the development and plans for emergency shelters, the City simply included the following redlined changes:
“Expansion of Emergency Shelter Overlay
“During the development of the Housing Element, the City received suggestions for expanding the ES Overlay to include 10 areas of open space. These areas are located in the vicinity of the ES Overlay. However, these areas are protected by a voter initiative (Measure V) to be preserved as open space. The preservation of sensitive habitat makes these areas unsuitable and unfeasible to be included in the ES Overlay. “Both the national and statewide policy directions toward addressing homelessness focus on rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing. Even HCD staff recognize that funding for emergency shelters has continued to decline. Nevertheless, the City will explore additional and/or alternative locations to be designated ES Overlay (see Program 15).” (SCHE, p. HE-47.)
As is evident from these comments, the City is well aware of the letters that ESC and several other advocates sent to HCD, in which we strongly urged and recommended that the City include ESC’s 10 acres in its Emergency Shelter Overlay Zone (“ESOZ”), since the current Rancho San Clemente Business Park (“Business Park”) is an unworkable site for the much-need homeless shelters and supportive housing. In an attempt to dissuade HCD from considering this obvious solution of including ESC’s 10 acres in the ESOZ, the City raised concerns about the voter initiative Measure V Open Space Ordinance (“Ordinance”) for ESC’s site, as well as the alleged “sensitive habitat” on ESC’s land – both of which are unfounded and without merit as set forth below.
(i) There Are Exceptions to the Measure V Open Space Ordinance That Would Allow ESC’s 10 Acres to be Included in the ESOZ
With respect to Measure V, i.e., City Ordinance No. 1475, the City has failed to inform HCD of two (2) important solutions to the Open Space zoning for ESC’s parcels that should be taken into consideration.

First, the City failed to address the specific provisions of its Ordinance, which was adopted nearly 14 years ago on November 4, 2008, and provides several important exceptions to a Citywide voter-approved change for non-Open Space uses, including exception No. 2:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment, Zoning Ordinance amendment, Specific Plan adoption, or zone change that authorizes or permits Non-Open Space Uses in an Open Space Area shall not be subject to this Section V.Y and shall be permitted without City voter approval in the following circumstances only: …
“2. Upon the application of an affected landowner to convert the Open Space Area to a residential use if the City Council determines that doing so is necessary to comply with federal or state law regarding the provision of housing. The City Council may do so only if it first makes each of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (a) a specific provision of federal or state law requires the City to accommodate the proposed housing; (b) the amount of land to be reclassified is no April 15, 2022

greater than necessary to accommodate the required housing; (c) no alternative site within the City that is not an Open Space Area could be used to satisfy the applicable federal or state housing law; and (d) the proposed housing will be located adjacent to already developed lands and roads …” (Id.; emphasis added.)
As stated in ESC’s December 6, 2021 letter, there is a state law requiring the City to provide affordable housing. Specifically, the Regional Housing Need Assessment (“RHNA”) has established that there is a definite need for such housing in San Clemente. Moreover, each of the required four (4) factors are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including subparagraph (c). As discussed above, at this point, the City has in fact failed to identify an alternative site within the City that is not an Open Space Area that could be used to satisfy the applicable state housing law, since the Business Park is simply not feasible for even one (1) homeless shelter, let alone three (3) of them as would be required to meet the needs of the City’s homeless and unhoused residents.

Second, exception No. 5 to Measure V would permit the City Council to reclassify up to one acre of a given open space area, such as ESC’s land, to be utilized for non-open space uses in order to benefit public health, safety, or welfare. Revising the City’s Housing Element to designate one acre of ESC’s property to be developed for an emergency shelter, supportive housing, and/or other affordable housing uses would clearly meet the requirement of benefiting public health, safety, or welfare. Accordingly, since, by simply having the City Council vote to invoke exception No. 2 and/or exception No. 5 to Measure V, no vote of the citizens of San Clemente would be required to amend that Measure, the City has no legitimate excuse for not including ESC’s land in the City’s ESOZ and/or designating it as a site for affordable housing uses, including permanent supportive housing.

ESC continues to be willing to cooperate with the City and discuss solutions for the benefit of all interested parties, and requests HCD’s assistance in compelling the City to seriously consider these options to ensure immediate change and the City’s full compliance with its requirements under State Housing Element Law.
(ii) There is No “Sensitive Habitat” on ESC’s 10 Acres That Makes Them Unsuitable or Unfeasible for the ESOZ.

Since the City is aware of the viable exception to Measure V, the City has disingenuously tried to claim, with no proof whatsoever, that it cannot add ESC’s 10 acres to the ESOZ because this land is supposedly “sensitive habitat” that needs to be preserved. This latest pretextual assertion by the City is flatly contradicted by two undeniable facts. First, on April 21, 2020, in making CEQA compliance findings in connection with adopting its Resolution of Necessity No. 20-27 (the “RON”) to acquire ESC’s property by eminent domain, the City Council expressly found that: “the [property] is not located in a particularly sensitive environment such that the exception in subdivision (a) of State CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2 applies.” Secondly, in opposing the adoption of the RON in April 2020, and in order to determine whether there were any sensitive resources or wetland habitat areas present on ESC’s 10 acres that could possibly support the City’s unfounded claim that the land was purportedly being acquired by the City because it was suitable to serve as a mitigation bank, ESC engaged the services of Bill Tippets, a former Deputy Regional Manager and Environmental Program Manager for the Department of Fish and Game, with degrees in Biological Sciences, Ecology, and Fisheries Biology. In a sworn Declaration submitted to the City Council (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B hereto), Mr. Tippets stated that, during his inspection of ESC’s property, he observed that (1) there are no streambeds or wetland habitats on the property and (2) approximately 99% or more of the plant species on the property are non-native.

April 15, 2022

Not surprisingly, the City did not dispute Mr. Tippets’ findings at the time that the RON was adopted and, to date, the City has produced no evidence whatsoever that ESC’s 10 acres is an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Such areas are typically designated as environmentally sensitive due to special biological significance, or because they provide habitat for locally unique biotic species/communities or rare or endangered species of plants, birds, or animals. Here, ESC’s 10-acre site is covered in invasive mustard grass that is required to be mowed and maintained each year under the City’s Weed Abatement Program. ESC’s 10-acre site has not been designated as having biological significance, for example, in the California Coastal Program, and it is not subject to any Department of Fish and Wildlife or Army Corp of Engineers permits because of threatened or endangered species.

Moreover, ESC has researched the environmental documents associated with the permits for Business Park, including its 10 acres, and it has been unable to find any biological assessment on this property. Finally, the San Clemente General Plan and associated environmental impact report do not identify this area as having any natural resource significance, and there is absolutely no evidence of the City’s “habitat sensitive” contention.

In light of the foregoing, ESC submits that an Amendment to the ESOZ should include all land within the Business Park Specific Plan, and especially ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688- 011-02. This would best ensure the development of an emergency shelter, transitional and supportive housing, and much-needed affordable housing for the extremely low, very low, and low-income residents of the City.
c. The City’s Development Standards for Emergency Shelters, and Its 50-Unit Limit for Supportive Housing Units, Will Effectively Preclude the Development of any Shelters or the Necessary RHNA Units, and Must Be Revised:

The SCHE continues to impose standards that prohibit the development of emergency shelters, including (1) a “Separation” standard with a requirement that emergency shelters cannot be located within 300 feet of each other, and (2) a “Maximum Number of Beds” standard that imposes a 35-bed limit for an emergency shelter. These standards are not justifiable because they prevent the development of an emergency shelter in the ESOZ, and must be revised.

Moreover, the City’s Program 14: Zoning Ordinance Amendments, states that the City will amend the zoning ordinance to allow Supportive Housing to a maximum of 50 units by right. However, there is no justification provided for this 50-unit limit, especially since there is a RHNA need for a total of 449 housing units for the Extremely/Very Low (282) and Low (164) Income Groups. Since it is very difficult to develop even one (1) project of Extremely/Very Low-Income units, it is simply not plausible to develop 5 to 6 such projects. This 50-unit limit is also not based on site size or zoning density. Thus, the maximum unit limitation should be eliminated to provide a feasible housing program to meet the City’s RHNA requirements.
d. The City’s Revisions to Program 15 Reveal Its True Intent to Delay the Development of A Homeless Shelter for As Long As Possible, In Hopes That the City Will Never Have One:

For its Program 15: Monitoring of Emergency Shelter Overlay revisions as referenced above, the City has now proposed that it should not be required to evaluate additional areas for inclusion in the ESOZ or make any amendments to add sites for another 2-4 years – which effectively means that any development of an emergency shelter or related housing would be delayed for a minimum of at least 5-8 years, if ever. These revisions clearly show the City’s true intentions of postponing any activity for many years, in hopes that no homeless shelters or supportive housing April 15, 2022

will ever be developed in the City of San Clemente. Such intentions cannot be rewarded, and the City must be required to comply in a prompt and timely manner with its obligations under the State Housing Element Law. Specifically, the City’s redlined revisions are as follows:
• “In 2024, evaluate additional areas in the City of San Clemente for inclusion in the Emergency Shelter Overlay (ESO). If appropriate, amend the ESO in 2026 to expand the boundaries to include additional areas. Evaluate amending ESOZ operating and development standards, including parking, so ensure development standards comply with State law and are not impediments to siting shelters. Update the ESOZ development standards, including bed‐limit and maximum separation requirement allowable under State law, to reflect and accommodate the most recent‐point‐in‐time count.” (SCHE, p. HE-47.) In addition to the unacceptable delay periods for conducting evaluations in 2024, and possibly amending the ESOZ in 2026, there are no statements of the measures that the City would use to conduct such evaluations, such as, for example, if an unsheltered need has not been met, or if no emergency shelter has been developed. Further, there is no defining standard or measure by which the words “if appropriate” would be considered for purposes of expanding the ESOZ boundaries.

It is significant to note that, since the City established the ESOZ, no emergency shelter has ever been established. This is no surprise, of course, since the ESOZ has failed to provide an adequate site for an emergency shelter for many years due to the high cost of land purchases and rents in the Business Park, along with the inadequate building and parcel sizes.

Consequently, with these revisions, Program 15 only further delays providing shelter for the homeless residents and neighbors of the City. The SCHE should be revised to evaluate additional areas for inclusion in the ESOZ now, and not years in the future.

In light of the foregoing, ESC respectfully submits that the City has failed to comply with the State Housing Element Law. ESC request that the SCHE be substantially revised so that the City can satisfy its objectives and meet the needs of the unsheltered and the extremely and very lowincome residents. Absent a significant effort on the part of the City to bring its Housing Element into full compliance in a timely manner, ESC requests that the HCD revoke any finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i), and thereby allow the City to face all legal and related consequences arising therefrom.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Laura Lee Blake
General Counsel, ESC
cc: Ms. Jennifer Savage, San Clemente Senior Planner
Ms. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, San Clemente Community Development Director ESC Board of Directors
Exhibit A

CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2211 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 T: 949.622.2600
E-MAIL: [email protected]
December 6, 2021
Ms. Marisa Prasse, Housing Policy Analyst and Specialist California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) [email protected]
Mr. Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Manager
California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) [email protected]

VIA EMAIL
Re: City of San Clemente 2021-2029 Housing Element, Dated October 5, 2021 Dear Ms. Prasse and Mr. McDougall:

We thank you both for joining the Zoom meeting on November 15, 2021 that was organized by Kathy Esfahani of the San Clemente Affordable Housing Coalition, with numerous attendees, including several of us participating on behalf of the Emergency Shelter Coalition (“ESC”) i.e., Ed Connor, Sue Whittaker, and me. As you indicated during the meeting, HCD sent a letter to the City of San Clemente on August 6, 2021, with an Appendix of necessary changes that the City would be required to make to its June 7, 2021 draft of the 2021-2029 Housing Element to fully comply with the State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

Two months after receiving HCD’s letter, on October 5, 2021 the City Council voted unanimously to adopt its 2021-2029 Housing Element. Regrettably, however, the City did little to address the designated changes in HCD’s letter concerning “Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints,” especially involving emergency shelters, or the proposed amendments in ESC’s two (2) letters dated June 28 and August 9, 2021, each of which requested that the City make important revisions for compliance purposes.

As detailed below, rather than respond to the specific issues in each of these letters, the City, instead, used a series of circular arguments by which it basically claimed that the ES Overlay Zone is suitable simply because we say so (e.g., “[t]he vacant and underutilized parcels within the ES Overlay provide realistic capacity for development of an emergency shelter, and the services within and adjacent to the ES Overlay provide suitable capacity”). In making such assertions, the City made no attempt to provide adequate zoning for emergency shelters, and it continued to promote unrealistic land use controls of only 35-beds per shelter and a 300-foot separation that will needlessly deter any development of the three (3) emergency shelters necessary to meet the City’s population of 96 unhoused residents (which is likely much higher now due to the Covid-19 pandemic, rising inflation, and rapidly increasing residential leasing and housing prices).

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

Sadly, however, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Here, the City has not changed its behavior over the past many years involving the development of emergency shelters.

In fact, the City appears to have become only more entrenched in making sure that there are never any homeless shelters developed in the area. The City’s latest approval of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element is no different. The City made no mention whatsoever of any efforts to get this done, and simply added a few sentences here and there to make it appear the City was still seeking compliance. But, with such a lackluster response, ESC can only conclude that the City will continue to just spin its wheels doing nothing -- unless and until it is truly forced to start making changes.

As detailed below, ESC respectfully requests that HCD take a firm stance to ensure that, if the City continues to circumvent the list of revisions identified by HCD for the development of emergency shelters, and does not take immediate action to cause positive changes, there will be serious consequences. ESC submits that the delay game by the City must be brought to a halt by HCD. The City cannot be allowed to continue obstructing the development of emergency shelters for yet another eight (8) years, while the unhoused residents of the City are left to fend for themselves on the streets of San Clemente.

ESC further submits that, with a few key changes to the Housing Element, and HCD holding fast to its position that the City must adopt such revisions, positive changes will occur.

The City will modify its behavior because it will make a difference for the City to do so. Most importantly, however, we will finally see the development of emergency shelters and supportive housing for those most in need.

A. HCD’s August 6, 2021 Letter Provided a List of Specific Revisions to the City’s Draft Housing Element, Including Elements for Emergency Shelters In its August 6, 2021 letter, HCD called for the City to step up and make revisions under the elements specified in Section “A. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints,” and Finding 4, which states:
“An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)…
“Sites and Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types – Emergency Shelters: The element must describe the characteristics and suitability of the zone(s) for emergency shelters. In particular, the element should analyze the limit of 35 beds per shelter as a constraint, the lack of interest in developing an emergency shelter in the last planning period, and the efficacy of the ride share program. In addition, as per public comments, given any past or current litigation involving the Rancho San Clemente Business Park, the element should analyze the suitability of the sites identified, challenges, and constraints, and if deemed unsuitable, identify additional sites where emergency shelters can be accommodated by-right.”
Unfortunately, in its Housing Element dated October 5, 2021, the City made little effort to address the factors outlined in HCD’s letter, as detailed below.

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

B. The City Failed to Adequately Describe the Characteristics and Suitability of the Zone(s) for Emergency Shelters

1. Failure to Adequately Describe the Characteristics of the ES Overlay Zone(s) for Emergency Shelters:

With respect to the characteristics of the Emergency Shelter Overlay (“ES Overlay”) Zone, the City described its location within a portion of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan (“RSC Business Park” or “Business Park”), and attached a Figure 3-1 showing that the General Plan Land Use was “LI – Light Industrial.” However, the City did not describe the characteristics of the Business Park, or explain that it principally consists of office complexes and industrial buildings typically ranging from 9,000 sq. ft. to 43,000 sq. ft. in size, and with prices between $188 to $264 or more per square foot. The City also did not explain that the smaller spaces are typically in multi-tenant buildings, making it unlikely that a landlord would rent to an emergency shelter, or that the building would have the required fire exits needed for an overnight shelter.

The City identified a few criteria that it used to select the ES Overlay Zone, but failed to fully explain or adequately describe them, including the last one (i.e., “Realistic potential for development,” presumably because the City knew it was untrue), as follows:
 Close to public transit
 Near public services
 Near job centers
 Free from environmental constraints
 Realistic potential for development

2. Failure to Adequately Describe the Suitability of the ES Overlay Zone(s) for Emergency Shelters:

For the suitability element, the City carefully avoided addressing the relevant issues. For example, under the heading of “Capacity of the ES Overlay,” the City opened with statements about its estimates of the amount of square feet needed per each shelter bed, and surmised that “a 35-bed shelter would require a building of about 5,250 feet.” In the post-pandemic environment, this undetailed estimate begs the question as to how possibly such a small shelter could feasibly provide shower, laundry, kitchen dining, intake, and other facilities, as well as hygienic sleeping quarters that were not just beds stacked on top of each other. The City must be required to provide a floorplan to support this patently unreasonable estimate.

The City also alleged that an “[a]dequate number of parcels/buildings in the ES Overlay can accommodate shelters of about 5,000 square feet.” Finally, to address HCD’s questions, it made the unsupported statement, that “The vacant and underutilized parcels within the ES Overlay provide realistic capacity for development of an emergency shelter, and the services within and adjacent to the ES Overlay provide suitable capacity.” (See, HE-44.) As discussed in greater detail below, the City’s statements about the RSC Business Park having an adequate number of parcels and buildings to accommodate emergency shelters, and the purported claims that there is a realistic capacity for development of same, are simply untrue.

Not only did the City fail to include any evidence to support such misleading statements, but the examples offered by the City showed the opposite. In the end, it is clear that the ES Overlay Zone must be expanded to include other areas, and the City’s unreasonable land use constraints must be lifted to achieve full compliance with the State Housing Element Law.

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

3. Failure To Analyze The Limit Of 35 Beds Per Shelter as a Constraint:

The City’s adopted Housing Element, dated October 5, 2021, failed to accurately describe the characteristics and suitability of the ES Overlay, as required by HCD’s Finding 4.

For example, on page HE-44, the Housing Element stated that a 35-bed shelter would require a building of about 5,250 square feet. It further indicated that, as of March 2021, there are four (4) vacant parcels in the ES Overlay. Two (2) of the parcels are large (over five (5) acres) but the other two (2) are smaller at 1.4 to 1.9 acres, and each of them “can easily accommodate shelters.” (HE-44; emphasis added.)
In making this assertion, the City failed to mention that none of these parcels is for sale, and three (3) of the parcels are located within 300 feet of each other, meaning that the development of three (3) separate 35-bed shelters to meet the needs of the 96 unhoused City residents could not be accommodated in the ES Overlay Zone (unless one shelter operator had excess millions of funds and resources to purchase or lease, build, and operate all of them).

Indeed, the City’s land use constraint of 35-bed maximum per shelter significantly prohibits the development of a shelter. Using the City’s example of the smallest vacant parcel of 1.4 acres, the current zoning would actually allow the development of a building consisting of 30,492 square feet at the allowable .5 FAR. Thus, the cost to purchase the 1.4-acre parcel, coupled with the restriction of being allowed to only host a maximum 35-bed emergency shelter in a building of 5,250 square feet, would be an enormous economic disadvantage and entirely cost prohibitive.

This constraint alone has, to date, precluded the development of any shelters in the ES Overlay Zone, and undoubtedly will continue to do so as long as it remains on the books.

The City is fully aware of this, but true to form, the City asserted otherwise. The City’s Housing Element described the ES Overlay area as having 25 parcels with building sizes of less than 10,000 square feet, as well as numerous other buildings of over 10,000 to 30,000 square feet, to suggest that the City was offering a plausible area for the ES Overlay Zone. As the attorney for the RSC Business Park, Mr. Tom Mauriello, however, admitted in an October 2019 informational meeting about the sale of the 10 acres of land across from the Business Park to ESC, it is unlikely a shelter will ever be built in the RSC Business Park because of economy of scale. He explained that “They’ve been tough parcels to get people interested in. We’ve talked to various buyers over the years and those efforts were unsuccessful.” In other words, the buildings and parcels are too large and too expensive for even one 35-bed shelter, let alone three (3) of them. (See attached Kidder Mathews report of the October 2019 meeting, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, p. 6.)
The City’s Housing Element also concluded that the RSC Business Park typically has some vacancies in its office buildings, with a range of sizes, to accommodate the development of a shelter, and this allegedly provided a “realistic capacity for development of an emergency shelter.” Based on a recent Commercial Office Space search dated November 18, 2021, however, even now with the over-supply of commercial office space in Southern California due to the Covid 19 pandemic, there are absolutely no sites in the RSC Business Park suitable for an emergency shelter. Using the City’s own estimated 5,250 square foot building size for a 35-bed maximum shelter, the list of available spaces are either way too small, and located adjacent to other commercial business office spaces in multi-unit business buildings, or are way too big for a 35-bed shelter since they constitute an entire building. Please see examples below and the attached example of available properties attached hereto as Exhibit 2:

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

In addition to the lack of available properties for sale or lease in the RSC Business Park, many of the properties are in commercial condominium configurations that are unsuited for use by an emergency shelter because of possible conflicts with neighboring businesses sharing a parking lot. The ideal situation would be for a shelter to be located on a separate parcel (such as ESC’s 10 acres of land) with its own parking lot to manage the security of its residents.

The City’s Housing Element further described the possibility of using the so-called “remaining parcels” on which there are no building structures for the development of shelters, because these may be used as parking, storage, maintenance yards, or for other purposes. But again, it is highly improbable that any property owner in the RSC Business Park would lease its office parking lot or an outside storage area for use by an emergency shelter provider because these parcels are used and designed for business-related purposes. The Housing Element did not indicate where these types of remaining parcels are located, or the likelihood of a shelter being developed on these remaining parcels.

The Housing Element claimed that a portion of a large industrial building could accommodate a 5,000 sq. ft. shelter, but, again, failed to support this statement with anything but conjecture. Therefore, the statement that the RSC Business Park, as the site for the ES Overlay Zone, provides realistic capacity for development of an emergency shelter is not supported by any credible evidence.

Finally, the Housing Element asserted that unidentified service providers from unknown locations were polled by an anonymous pollster concerning the 35-bed limit and other shelter development standards, and they responded that they had no issues or concerns with them, but acknowledged that the anticipated cost to operate an emergency shelter is an impediment. (HEB9.) Since the City is relying on this survey to substantiate its continued use of the 35-bed limit and 300-foot separation, the survey should be included in the Housing Element and available for review. The lack of transparency concerning this important survey raises questions about whether the service providers understood the constraints to development and the economy of scale to lease or purchase parcels within the RSC Business Park that comprises the ES Overlay Zone.

Without more, this survey cannot be the sole basis of support for the City’s 35-bed maximum limit.

4. Failure To Analyze The 300-Foot Separation Between Shelters as a Constraint:

The Housing Element continued to require a 300-foot separation between shelters. As indicated above, however, three of the four vacant parcels listed in the Housing Element are within 300 feet of each other and therefore only one 35-bed shelter could be developed. The opportunity to develop a shelter in the ES Overlay area is so limited by economy of scale, and the 300-foot separation land control only further exacerbates the high unlikelihood of a shelter ever being developed.

List of Currently Available Properties in the RSC Business Park Address Space Available Suitability
940 Calle Negocio, 1 office space 790 sq. ft. Too small 901 Calle Amanecer, 1 office space 2,785 sq. ft. Too small 940-946 Calle Amanecer, 3 office spaces 4,540 sq. ft. Too small 901 Calle Amanecer, 7 office spaces 20,076 sq. ft. Too large 927 Calle Negocio, entire office building 71,397 sq. ft. Too large Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

5. Failure To Explain The Lack Of Interest In Developing An Emergency Shelter In The Last Planning Period
Setting aside for a moment the logistical barriers of trying to find available parcels suitable for the development of three (3) 35-bed, maximum-capacity emergency shelters, that are located 300 feet from each other, in the RSC Business Park, the City also failed to address the loud objections by the Business Park owners to the establishment of any emergency shelter(s) in the Park, or the surrounding areas.

The RSC Business Park owners have strongly protested and taken firm action to prevent the use of any Business Park parcels from being leased or sold for purposes of establishing an emergency shelter. In 2018-2019, ESC experienced this firsthand when it was searching for a parcel to lease or purchase for an emergency shelter in the RSC Business Park. Specifically, as soon as a Business Park owner discovered that ESC wanted the parcel or office building for an emergency shelter, the communications were cutoff.

Significantly, on this point, the Housing Element tried to rely on two (2) attempts to locate a shelter within the ES Overlay area, as proof that: “There has been interest in establishing an emergency shelter in the ES Overlay. However, both examples cited by the City turned out to be complete failures, thus underscoring the fact that the RSC Business Park is an unsuitable location for a shelter.
 “In 2015, Family Assistance Ministries (FAM) proposed to install a shelter for families with children within the ES Overlay. However, their target clients, families, would not have satisfied SB 2 [and it would have not provided a noticeable impact for the unhoused residents of the City since most of them are single men].  “In [August] 2019, there was interest in developing a shelter in the ES Overlay but it was found to be cost prohibitive.”” (HE-44; emphasis added.) The City’s admission that, in 2019, it was cost prohibitive to locate a shelter in the ES Overlay area speaks volumes. Yet, despite this admission, the City offered no program to address this issue. Although the Housing Element provided a brief discussion of general funding resources, there was no discussion of any efforts San Clemente has made to obtain funds to develop a shelter.

The fact that the City relied on these two examples to establish alleged suitability is quite surprising. As ESC pointed out in its letter to HCD dated August 9, 2021, there could be no greater example of the overwhelming objections to the development of emergency shelters in the ES Overlay than what occurred in August 2019 when it was found to be cost prohibitive to locate a shelter in the RSC Business Park. At that time, City staff had submitted a proposal to develop a shelter in the ES Overlay. But as recorded in the August 20, 2019 City Council meeting minutes, there were initially more than twenty (20) public comments offered (the majority of which were in strong opposition to the proposal) before the City Council took a straw vote, by which it unanimously rejected the proposal. This was followed by another 16 public comments (with more vehement objections), and then a City Council final vote that again unanimously rejected the recommendations for the development of a homeless shelter in the ES Overlay / Business Park.

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

It is important to again raise these points in this letter, because the initial public comments at the 2019 City Council included those of Gene James, who at the time was not a City Council member, but was later elected to the position and is currently serving in the role of Mayor Pro Tem. Notably, Mayor Pro Tem James is recognized as one of the most outspoken and strident opponents of the development of emergency shelters and affordable housing in the City.

The public comments at the August 2019 City Council meetings also included opposition from various business owners from the RSC Business Park. For example, RSC Business Park owner Glen[n] Walker not only opposed such a proposal during this August 2019 City Council meeting, but approximately six (6) months later became a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by several Business Park owners against the RSC Business Park Community Association Board of Directors and ESC for the sale of the 10 acres, in the lawsuit known as Olen Properties Corp. v. Rancho San Clemente Bus. Park Comm. Assoc., et al, OCSC Case No. 30-2020-01130657-CU-OR-CJC.

At about this same time in the summer/fall of 2019, ESC was negotiating with the RSC Business Park to purchase the 10 acres that it currently owns. When this news was released, a meeting was hastily arranged in October 2019 of interested RSC Business Park owners and related parties, to determine how best to oppose ESC’s purchase of the 10 acres. The RSC Business Park’s attorney, Mr. Tom Mauriello, went so far as to suggest that even the “CC&Rs [of the RSC Business Park that comprises the ES Overlay Zone] may preclude the development of a shelter, if the land remains within the CC&Rs, for a variety of reasons.” (See, id, at Exhibit 1.) Moreover, then-San Clemente City Manager, Mr. James Makshanoff, stated that the City had filed an amicus brief in opposition to the Ninth Circuit case of Martin v Boise (9th Cir. 2019) 920 F.3d 584, and it was his hope that this would result in changes to the enforcement of camping ordinances, such that emergency shelters would not be required in San Clemente.

A video of the meeting with panel members including then-San Clemente City Manager Mr. Makshanoff, attorney Mr. Mauriello, and Mr. Wynne of Kidder Mathews, is located at:
https://www.wynnecre.com/news/san-clemente-homeless-shelter-vote-update-error-in-judgement This video confirms the intent of the City and the RSC Business Park owners to prevent the development of a shelter within the ES Overlay Zone.

In light of the foregoing, the facts do not support the Housing Element’s conclusion that there are an adequate number of available parcels/buildings in the ES Overlay to accommodate three (3) shelters of about 5,250 square feet each, that are set a minimum of 300 feet apart, and with the public outcry against any shelters being developed in the RSC Business Park ES Overlay Zone, there clearly will be no opportunities for any shelter operator(s) to obtain any such parcels or buildings for that purpose.

6. Failure To Address The Efficacy Of The Ride Share Program The City’s adopted Housing Element discussed access to public transportation by listing the number of SC RIDES trips in the area between 2017 and 2021. (See, e.g., page HE-46.) This discussion unfortunately failed to mention that these trips included the “Summer-Only” beach trolly program, which undoubtedly increased these numbers substantially. The City also conceded that it did not know how many, if any, of the listed trips were taken by homeless persons. At the current time, Family Assistance Ministry (“FAM”) has stated that it will no longer give transportation vouchers to any unhoused residents to access FAM’s services in the RSC Business Park. Lyft drivers are also refusing to give rides to homeless individuals seeking service, even if they have a “special code” for a trip.

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

In light of these recent developments, it appears there is no established transportation program serving homeless residents to access services in the ES Overlay or elsewhere in the City, and the City has failed to adequately address the efficacy of the Ride Share program.

7. Failure to Identify Additional Sites Where Emergency Shelters Can Be Accommodated By-Right
In response to requests for the City to identify additional sites for emergency shelters, the City identified a 1.9-acre parcel located adjacent to Heritage Christian Fellowship. This parcel is within the ES Overlay, and is also designated as a Site Inventory Parcel for low income housing, as well for the Affordable Housing Overlay under Program 1. (See, the depiction set forth as Figure 4-1: Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory, HE-87; see, also, aerial photo below.) Notwithstanding the City’s attempts to declare this site as a prime parcel for many different purposes, it has been reported that Heritage Christian Fellowship has already designated churchspecific uses for this parcel, such that it is highly unlikely any 35-bed shelter or affordable housing will ever be developed on this site: https://heritagesc.org/parking-lot-project [plans for parking lot].

On the related topic of possible alternatives, in Appendix B of the City’s Housing Element, which is entitled “Review of Past Accomplishments,” the City highlighted its achievements with Programs 13 and 14, but the information contained therein is nonfactual and untrue.

Appendix B: Program 13: For the Program 13: “Zoning Ordinance Monitoring” discussion, the City alleged that it is in the process of collaborating with neighboring cities to apply for State grants and other resources in order to address the needs of the unsheltered. However, on October 28, 2021, Council member Gene James is quoted in the OC Voice as stating that the City tried to partner with neighboring cities on a temporary shelter in an unincorporated part of the county to allow the sheriff’s department to enforce camping laws. “Unfortunately, our neighboring cities rejected the idea.” (See, October 28, 2021 article attached as Exhibit 3.) Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

Appendix B: Program 14: For the Program 14: “Monitoring Emergency Shelter Overlay” discussion, the City identified three (3) achievements, two (2) of which were already shown to be unsubstantiated as discussed above (i.e., (1) the City’s purported interest in locating a shelter in the ES Overlay in 2019, which was admittedly unsuccessful because “it was found to be cost prohibitive,” and (2) the supposed availability of an established transportation program for the unhoused residents of the City, which appears to not exist).

On page HE-B8-B9 of the Appendix, the City discussed a third alleged accomplishment, with the City designating a campsite area for the homeless to provide for the needs of the unsheltered. The City concluded that, due to the significant reduced homeless population in the City, the campsite program was ended after seven months (May to December 2019).

Contrary to the City’s allegations, however, as set forth in an article dated January 24, 2020, by Alex Prieto, the campsite was deemed to be an inhumane and substandard “tent city” that forced the homeless residents to camp immediately adjacent to the City’s waste treatment plant. This ill-stated venture eventually was shutdown. (See the January 24, 2020 article attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)
Moreover, an Orange County Register article dated August 30, 2019, described an incident when 70 people were deceptively removed from the makeshift homeless campground for an alleged clean-up of the site, but then the City only allowed 23 of them to return. After removing everyone from the campsite, the City suddenly imposed a requirement that all campers were required to provide proof that (1) they were residents of the City, or (2) had firm ties to the City, either by showing a valid driver’s license or other identification (such as a utility bill indicating prior residence). This new requirement was imposed three months after the campsite ordinance was adopted. (See the August 30, 2019 article attached hereto as Exhibit 5.) In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the City has not identified any plausible additional sites where Emergency Shelters can be accommodated by right, and it is necessary to do so, including the ESC’s 10 acres as discussed below.

C. ESC’s Recommendations for the Housing Element Will Make a Notable Difference for the Homeless and Underprivileged Residents of San Clemente.  Recommendation No. 1:

For Recommendation No. 1, ESC respectfully requests that HCD require the SB 2 ES Overlay to be amended and expanded to include all land within the RSC Business Park Specific Plan, and especially including ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02.

The Housing Element stated: “[o]n October 18, 2016, the City Council adopted the Emergency Shelter (ES) Overlay within a portion of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan (see Figure 3-1).” ESC recommends that the ES Overlay should cover the entirety of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan.

In addition, Figure 4-1 below of the Housing Element is entitled “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory.” (HE-87.) It shows blocks of red that represent the areas the City is considering for rezoning purposes for the development of various residential sites. These sites, however, are already fully developed and unsuitable for such purposes.

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

By way of example, the site of the Orange County Mattress store is depicted as a very small box on the far left, the Pico Plaza Shopping Mall is shown as a larger box on the far left, the Target / Tesla Supercharger site is depicted as an oblong-shaped box at the top of the diagram, and the Plaza Pacifico site is displayed as the largest red box located in the middle of Figure 4.1.

The Plaza Pacifico site has been developed with large commercial retail stores (e.g., Walmart, Lowes, Albertsons, Michaels, Office Depot, among others) along Avenida Pico in San Clemente:

Significantly, the Plaza Pacifico area with the large box stores along Avenida Pico in San Clemente is immediately adjacent to the SB 2 ES Overlay, as is ESC’s property. (See the Figure on the following page, which shows ESC’s parcels in yellow.) For obvious reasons, ESC’s property would be far less expensive for the development of an emergency shelter and affordable housing than the purchase and relocation of large retail stores. ESC’s site would also be fully compatible and complementary to any affordable housing located within this area of the City.

In light of the foregoing, ESC submits that the SB 2 ES Overlay should include all land within the Business Park Specific Plan, and especially ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688- 011-02, to best ensure the development of an emergency shelter, transitional and supportive housing, and much-needed affordable housing for the extremely low, very low, and low-income residents of the City. (See the attached Exhibit “A” also set forth below.) Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

(1) The City’s “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory” in red; (2) The current SB 2 Overlay at the Business Park in purple with a red border; and (3) ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02 (that are part of the Business Park under the Specific Plan) in yellow:

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

 Recommendation No. 2:

ESC recommends that the Housing Element be revised to include implementation programs for the amendment of the ES Overlay Ordinance that removes regulatory barriers to the development of an emergency shelter. The specific regulatory barriers to be removed include:
 Remove the “Separation” standard and any requirement that emergency shelters cannot be located within 300 feet of each other (HE-46); and  Remove the “Maximum Number of Beds” standard with the 35-bed maximum limit for an emergency shelter (HE-47).

The Housing Element should further clarify that these limits to do not apply to Low Barrier Navigation Centers or supportive housing.
a. The Separation standard: The SB 2 ES Overlay is a small area of San Clemente, and it would be impossibly difficult to develop and locate no less than three (3) 35-bed emergency shelters within the Business Park that are spaced 300 feet apart for the last count of 96 unhoused residents in the City. No other protected class of housing has a separation requirement in the zoning code.

Ordinarily, a separation of shelters might be allowed under SB 2, provided that it does not discourage the development of shelters. Given that the City has restricted the SB 2 ES Overlay to only a portion of the overall Business Park, and the smaller buildings are located in one area of the Business Park, the 300-foot radius limit will undoubtedly prevent development of more than one emergency shelter, particularly when coupled with a 35-bed limit. Unless the 35-bed limit is increased and more areas are added to the SB 2 ES Overlay, both the SB 2 ES Overlay and the Draft Housing Element will need to be revised to eliminate the 300-foot separation requirement. b. The Maximum Number of Beds standard: The 35-bed limit is unreasonably low. The bed limit should be increased to allow for a more reasonable number of beds in order to encourage and facilitate the development of a year-round shelter that could adequately serve the needs of the entire homeless population of San Clemente.

As noted, the Business Park consists of industrial buildings typically ranging from 9,000 sq. ft. to 43,000 sq. ft. in size and with prices between $188 to $264 or more per square foot. Smaller spaces are typically in multi-tenant buildings, making it unlikely that a landlord would rent to an emergency shelter if other business offices are located and being operated in the same building. Simply stated, the 35-bed limit in the ES Overlay and the Housing Draft Element is an obvious hindrance to the development of an emergency shelter in the RSC Business Park or elsewhere in San Clemente, and should either be removed or increased substantially.  Recommendation No. 3:

ESC further requests that the City’s Housing Element be revised to include an implementation program for the amendment of the zoning code to allow, by right, (a) Low Barrier Navigation Centers, (b) supportive housing, (c) emergency shelters, (d) affordable housing and (e) transitional housing, all within the SB 2 ES Overlay.

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

In support, ESC notes that the City has already included one parcel from the SB 2 ES Overlay located on Avenida La Pata in its Figure 4-1 entitled: “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory.” (See Figure 4-1 diagram above, and the little red square slightly to the right of the big red block in the middle of the diagram, at HE-87.) Indeed, if this one parcel is acceptable for affordable housing and all related protected residential uses, it follows that the rest of the SB 2 ES Overlay should also be acceptable for all protected residential uses.  Recommendation No. 4:

ESC further recommends that its 10 acres of land purchased from the RSC Business Park should be included as part of the Figure 4-1 above, entitled “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory,” as a candidate for rezoning, and included in the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow for the development thereon of (a) Low Barrier Navigation Centers, (b) supportive housing, (c) emergency shelters, (d) affordable housing, and (e) transitional housing.  Recommendation No. 5:

Although Low Barrier Navigation Centers and supportive housing are discussed in the Housing Element, and it stated that these uses are permitted in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses, the Housing Element did not specifically identify where each of these zones exist within the City. The Housing Element should include a map showing the location of each of these areas that have been zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. Emergency shelters should also be allowed byright within these zones identified for Low Barrier Navigation Centers and supportive housing.  Recommendation No. 6:

For Recommendation No. 6, ESC requests a revision of Program 15 entitled “Monitoring of Emergency Shelter Overlay” to require implementation actions by designated deadlines, and performance criteria for a failure to do so. This would include three (3) implementation actions:

1. Assess and update the City’s ES Overlay Ordinance to eliminate (a) the 300-foot separation and (b) the maximum number of beds, by no later than April 1, 2022;

2. Implement a monitoring study every six (6) months to assess if the housing needs and corresponding services for all of the unhoused residents of the City have been met, with the first monitoring study to be commenced no later than April 1, 2022;

3. For every six-month monitoring period for which there is no approved and operational homeless shelter in the City, and/or for which not all of the unhoused residents of the City have been provided shelter or appropriate housing and services, the City will be required to take all necessary action to implement specific programs with zoning ordinance amendments. These shall include, but not be limited to, expanding the SB 2 ES Overlay to include any area zoned for “multiuse” or “commercial,” along with paying for hotel rooms for the unhoused, until such time as an emergency shelter is approved and operational in the City, so that the housing needs of all unhoused and homeless residents have been met.

Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021

With these important revisions to the Housing Element, the City can satisfy its objectives, as well as meet the needs of the homeless and underprivileged residents of the City.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Very truly yours,
Laura Lee Blake
General Counsel, ESC
cc: Ms. Jennifer Savage, San Clemente Senior Planner
Ms. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, San Clemente Community Development Director ESC Board of Directors
Exhibit 1
Updates (/news/category/Updates), News (/news/category/News), Video (/news/category/Video) Homeless Shelter Ballot Update: “…
inaccurate.” “…it isn’t correct.” “…error in
judgment…”
October 14, 2019

SAN CLEMENTE

HOMELESS

SHELTER VOTE
UPDATE:
"...ERROR IN
JUDGMENT..."

HOME (/)

PROPERTIES (/PROPERTIES)

NEWS (/NEWS)
SEARCH (HTTPS://WWW.WYNNECRE.COM/SEARCH)

CONTACT (/CONTACT)
ABOUT

ABOUT (/ABOUT)
Site Location along Avenida Pico - Image by Jim Wynne’s Team at Kidder Mathews SAN CLEMENTE, CA: AN EMERGENCY PUBLIC FORUM BROUGHT SAN CLEMENTE, CA: AN EMERGENCY PUBLIC FORUM BROUGHT

TO LIGHT TRUTH, CONFUSION, AND MISINFORMATION ON THE TO LIGHT TRUTH, CONFUSION, AND MISINFORMATION ON THE PENDING RANCHO SAN CLEMENTE HOMELESS SHELTER. PENDING RANCHO SAN CLEMENTE HOMELESS SHELTER. (Two parcels, totaling 10 acres of land along Avenida Pico, are currently in escrow to be purchased by a homeless shelter operator. Read our previous article here. (https://www.wynnecre.com/news/newhomeless-shelter-in-escrow-on-pico-land)) By Arrow Santos
(Note: Jim Wynne and Kidder Mathews are NOT NOT involved with either party in this transaction.)

THE BACKGROUND & SETUP THE BACKGROUND & SETUP
After our original story (https://www.wynnecre.com/news/new-homeless-shelter-in-escrow-on-picoland) was posted just over a week ago, we received an overwhelming response from the community.

Many individuals were surprised or frustrated that an escrow had been opened with a homeless shelter operator without a public announcement. Others we spoke with were not aware their vote was needed before escrow can close. Multiple business park members even stated they had thrown their ballots away without realizing what was going on.
“IF THERE WAS NOT AN ERROR IN LAW, THERE WAS AN

ERROR IN JUDGMENT HERE ON THE PART OF THE ERROR IN JUDGMENT HERE ON THE PART OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS…,” JON PARRY OF BEMUS BOARD OF DIRECTORS…,” JON PARRY OF BEMUS

LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE
WynneCRE at Kidder Mathews rapidly organized an emergency question and answer forum with San Clemente City Manager James Makshanoff and Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association Attorney Tom Mauriello. The RSCB Association are the Sellers of the two parcels in escrow. The City of San Clemente does not own the land and is not involved in the potential transfer.

The Outlets at San Clemente and the San Clemente Chamber of Commerce served as sponsors for the event, a special thanks to both for their community support.

Members of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park find their seats prior to the start of the Q&A Forum. Image by Jim Wynne’s Team at Kidder Mathews.

THE WHO & WHAT THE WHO & WHAT
Dozens of Rancho San Clemente business owners attended the event on Wednesday, October 9.

Below is a full video of the forum. We have also included text highlights with timestamps to jump to that section of the video. Click on the provided timestamps below to watch that specific video clip.

Please note, text highlights include sentences taken from longer answers, and the corresponding responses may have included additional language after or before chosen quotes. Thank you to all the business members who attended on such short notice.

Jim Wynne moderated the event, asking Makshanoff and Mauriello prepared questions for the first half of the session. The remaining time was open to audience members asking their questions and receiving direct responses on behalf of the City of San Clemente and the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association.

During this live conversational investigation, various inaccuracies were discovered in the letter and ballot mailed out by the RSCB Association.

THE VIDEO
Q&A Forum On Pending Rancho San Clemente Homeless Shelter Vote -…

THE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
QUESTION 1: QUESTION 1:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=264) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=264) THE

LETTER WITH THE BALLOT FROM THE LETTER WITH THE BALLOT FROM THE

ASSOCIATION STATES THE TWO PARCELS IN
ESCROW ARE WITHIN THE CITY’S SB2 ESCROW ARE WITHIN THE CITY’S SB2 HOMELESS SHELTER ZONING OVERLAY. IS HOMELESS SHELTER ZONING OVERLAY. IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT ACCURATE? 4:24
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=264) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=264) “No, it’s not. The properties are on the north side of …Avenida Pico and those are not in the SB2 zone,” said James Makshanoff.

After Makshanoff answered, Tom Mauriello replied, “Our understanding was the 10 acres are in the SB2 zone. The Buyer’s understanding is that they are in the SB2 zone.” “It doesn’t show the property,” Makshanoff flatly stated upon examining the zoning map provided to the attendees.

QUESTION 2: QUESTION 2:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) THE

LETTER STATES IT IS UNKNOWN HOW THE LETTER STATES IT IS UNKNOWN HOW THE

BUYER COULD CIRCUMVENT THE OPEN SPACE BUYER COULD CIRCUMVENT THE OPEN SPACE

RESTRICTIONS, HOW COULD THEY OVERCOME RESTRICTIONS, HOW COULD THEY OVERCOME THE RESTRICTIONS? THE RESTRICTIONS? 6:57
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) “…Measure V, which requires any open space in the City, any property designated as open space, if you’re going to develop that space and it’s greater than 1 acre in size then it has to go a vote of the people. And you need the majority of the City of San Clemente residents to develop that property,” explained Makshanoff in part.

Zoning Map Showing Proposed Shelter Location in “Open Space - Private” Zone.

QUESTION 3: QUESTION 3:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=583) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=583)

COULD THE COUNTY TAKE THE PROPERTY COULD THE COUNTY TAKE THE PROPERTY

THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN TO ALLOW A
HOMELESS SHELTER? HOMELESS SHELTER? 9:43
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=583) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=583) “I guess the County could do that, but would the County do that?” Makshanoff asked.

He then went on to read an email from Orange County Fifth District Supervisor Lisa Bartlett’s office. “If the Rancho San Clemente property owners were to approve the sale of the parcels for use as emergency shelter, Supervisor Bartlett would not support any effort to obtain County funding or ongoing shelter operations. Our office has verified that County staff is not in discussions with the Emergency Shelter Coalition and would not commit to using this property for a regional shelter,” Makshanoff read from the email text.

QUESTION 4: QUESTION 4:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=649) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=649) THE

LETTER STATES THAT THE ASSOCIATION

BOARD BELIEVES THAT IF A SHELTER WAS BOARD BELIEVES THAT IF A SHELTER WAS

BUILT ON THE PARCELS, IT WOULD DECREASE BUILT ON THE PARCELS, IT WOULD DECREASE

THE LIKELIHOOD OF A SHELTER BEING

THE LIKELIHOOD OF A SHELTER BEING
CONSTRUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PARK. HOW
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT BELIEF? WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT BELIEF? 10:49 (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=649) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=649) “I’m not convinced a shelter is inevitable,” Makshanoff shared. 11:39 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0? t=699)
Makshanoff continued, “We filed an amicus brief (/s/6BBAmicusBriefMartinvsCity.pdf)recently to have the Supreme Court take up the case of Martin V Boise that has placed a difficulty on Western cities when it comes to enforcement of different camping ordinances and such. We figure we’ll hear sometime later this month, or early November, if the Supreme Court is going to hear that case.” Mauriello clarified for the audience, “People have been discussing the owner vote as a vote to sell the parcels. It’s not a vote whether to sell the parcels or not. It’s a vote required to terminate the parcels from conveyance and the CC&R’s of the Master Association. It might be a subtle difference, but the Board did not need approval of the owners to vote to sell the parcels." 13:36 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=816)
“They’ve been tough parcels to get people interested in. We’ve talked to various buyers over the years and those efforts were unsuccessful,” said Mauriello.

QUESTION 5: QUESTION 5:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1285) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1285) IF THE PROPERTY OWNERS DON’T VOTE TO
REMOVE THE PROPERTIES FROM THE CC&R’S, REMOVE THE PROPERTIES FROM THE CC&R’S, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CC&R’S THAT IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CC&R’S THAT

WOULD PREVENT A HOMELESS SHELTER FROM
BEING BUILT? BEING BUILT? 21:25
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1285) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1285) Mauriello answered, “My understanding is that the CC&R’s may preclude the development of a shelter, if the land remains within the CC&R’s, for a variety of reasons.” QUESTION 6: QUESTION 6:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1385) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1385)

THE LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION STATES THE LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION STATES

THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE PARCELS FROM
THE CC&R’S IS A CONDITION OF THE CLOSE THE CC&R’S IS A CONDITION OF THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. COULD THE BUYER CHOOSE TO

STILL PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES IF THE STILL PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES IF THE

PARCELS ARE NOT TERMINATED FROM THE PARCELS ARE NOT TERMINATED FROM THE CC&RS? DOES IT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO

TERMINATE ESCROW OR DOES IT TERMINATE ESCROW OR DOES IT

AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE ESCROW IF THE AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE ESCROW IF THE VOTE DOESN’T PASS? VOTE DOESN’T PASS? 23:05
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1385) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1385) “If that condition is not satisfied, the Buyer would not close. Could they choose to waive that condition and close? Theoretically yes, they could, but they won’t. He told me that,” answered Mauriello. 23:35 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=1415)
QUESTION 7: QUESTION 7:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1425) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1425) DO

THEY WANT THE CC&RS WAIVED FOR THE THEY WANT THE CC&RS WAIVED FOR THE ASSOCIATION FEES OR OTHER REASONS? ASSOCIATION FEES OR OTHER REASONS? 23:45 (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0? (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0? T=1425) T=1425)
QUESTION 8: QUESTION 8:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1453) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1453) IF

THE SALE TAKES PLACE AND THE OPEN SPACE THE SALE TAKES PLACE AND THE OPEN SPACE

ZONING IS REMOVED, WOULD THE SHELTER ZONING IS REMOVED, WOULD THE SHELTER BE LIMITED TO 35 BEDS? BE LIMITED TO 35 BEDS? 24:13
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1453) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1453) “Seeing as how this property is outside of the SB2 I would think it wouldn’t be subject to that 35-bed requirement…,” replied City Manager Makshanoff.

He later continued, “Mr. Connor [the Buyer] stated to me, and the City Attorney, and Mayor Pro Tem Dan Bane back in February, that he would do 75 beds there to start. When I asked him if the beds would be limited to homeless people from San Clemente, he said that they would start with San Clemente but that there was no guarantees that it would be just for San Clemente homeless people.” QUESTION 9: QUESTION 9:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1581) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1581) IS

THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE WILLING TO

PURCHASE THE PARCELS FROM THE PURCHASE THE PARCELS FROM THE ASSOCIATION? ASSOCIATION? 26:21
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1581) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1581) QUESTION 10: QUESTION 10:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) IF (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) IF

THE CITY WERE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE THE CITY WERE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE

PROPERTY, WHAT SAFEGUARDS COULD BE PUT PROPERTY, WHAT SAFEGUARDS COULD BE PUT

IN PLACE TO ENSURE THE PROPERTY WOULD

NOT BE DEVELOPED AS A HOMELESS NOT BE DEVELOPED AS A HOMELESS SHELTER? SHELTER? 26:35
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) Listen to Makshanoff’s full answer on placing a conservation easement on the property to not only stop a homeless shelter but also serve as another piece of the puzzle in blocking a toll road route! QUESTION 11: QUESTION 11:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1672) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1672) HOW IS THE VOTE COUNTED? WHAT IS THE HOW IS THE VOTE COUNTED? WHAT IS THE

PROCEDURE FOR THE SECRET BALLOT VOTE PROCEDURE FOR THE SECRET BALLOT VOTE COUNT? 27:52
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1672) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1672) Makshanoff shared for the record, “The City owns two lots in the business park, and we plan to vote against it.” 28:21 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=1701) QUESTION 12: QUESTION 12:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1699) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1699)

THE CIVIL CODES STATE THE BALLOT IS THE CIVIL CODES STATE THE BALLOT IS IRREVOCABLE. IF A PROPERTY OWNER IRREVOCABLE. IF A PROPERTY OWNER

ALREADY VOTED BUT THEN SEES THIS NEW

INFORMATION OR REALIZES THE LETTER AND

BALLOT ARE INCORRECT, WHAT MECHANISM

IS IN PLACE FOR OWNERS TO CHANGE THEIR IS IN PLACE FOR OWNERS TO CHANGE THEIR VOTES? 28:19
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1699) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1699)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1757) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1757) FROM THE PUBLIC FROM THE PUBLIC 29:17
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1757) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1757) Including: Including:
• Zoning changes? Zoning changes?
• Other buyers? Other buyers?
• Eminent Domain from the State? Eminent Domain from the State? • Under 1 Acre loophole? Under 1 Acre loophole?
• Missing ballots? Missing ballots?
• New vote with corrected ballot information? New vote with corrected ballot information? • Moving the SB2 overlay? Moving the SB2 overlay?
• Why didn’t the Association provide more details to the public? Why didn’t the Association provide more details to the public? • And many more important questions! And many more important questions! “The letter that went out talked about that it’s less likely for a shelter to go in “The letter that went out talked about that it’s less likely for a shelter to go in the business park, and that’s 100% inaccurate.” -Glenn Walker of Walker the business park, and that’s 100% inaccurate.” -Glenn Walker of Walker Insurance Solutions Insurance Solutions 31:06 31:06 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=1866) -What if the property is developed under 1 acre to avoid a public community vote? 39:37 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=2377)
-Why didn’t the Association provide more information to the community prior to entering escrow with a homeless shelter operator? 40:48 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=2448) “If in fact it is voted down and that property over there, the 10 acres, will that “If in fact it is voted down and that property over there, the 10 acres, will that be up for sale to anybody that would want to buy it and use that for parks and be up for sale to anybody that would want to buy it and use that for parks and recreation and stuff?” -Jay Longley of Rainbow Sandals recreation and stuff?” -Jay Longley of Rainbow Sandals 41:46 41:46 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=2506)
-With both the City of San Clemente and Olen Properties wanting to purchase the property, is the Association still asking for property owners to approve the current vote, and if so, why? 49:31 49:31 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=2971)
“For those who did not get their ballots, how do they get?” -Krisna Macdonald “For those who did not get their ballots, how do they get?” -Krisna Macdonald of Matsushita International of Matsushita International 55:02 55:02 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3302) -Dale Lyon, Senior Vice President of Olen has currently submitted an offered to purchase the property and shared they would have entertained an offer originally if they would have known it was for sale. “We’re voting no.” 55:15 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3315) “It’s right across the street. I mean it’s going to impact. It’s going to bring an “It’s right across the street. I mean it’s going to impact. It’s going to bring an element to the neighborhood.” -Dale Lyon of Olen Properties element to the neighborhood.” -Dale Lyon of Olen Properties 59:56 59:56 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3596)
“Is the ballot going to be valid since it isn’t correct? ... everyone who’s voting “Is the ballot going to be valid since it isn’t correct? ... everyone who’s voting thinks that this Pico lot is in the SB2 zone but it’s not….” thinks that this Pico lot is in the SB2 zone but it’s not….” 1:00:40 1:00:40 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3638)
“If there was not an error in law, there was an error in judgment here on the “If there was not an error in law, there was an error in judgment here on the part of the board of directors…” -Jon Parry of Bemus Landscape part of the board of directors…” -Jon Parry of Bemus Landscape 1:04:43 1:04:43 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3881)
-Can the SB2 zoning be moved to cover the parcels in escrow? 1:10:38 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=4238)
CLOSING STATEMENT: CLOSING STATEMENT: 1:11:13 1:11:13
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=4273) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=4273) THE “NOW WHAT?” THE “NOW WHAT?”
Several of these questions were left outstanding by the close of the event, with Mauriello stating he will be talking to the Association’s Board of Directors to find answers for these pending topics.

We urge you to watch the full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53z7Kq2jBR0) above to gain the ultimate insight on this current Rancho San Clemente homeless shelter escrow situation. Ballots must be returned to the RSCB Association for a vote count by October 30, 2019.

VIEW Q&A FORUM HANDOUT PACKAGE (/S/PACKAGE-FOR-QA-RSCHOMELESS-SHELTER-FORUM-10-7-19.PDF)

SUBSCRIBE SUBSCRIBE
Stay tuned for more updates as this story develops. Subscribe below to get breaking business news updates right to your inbox.

COMMENTS (1)
Tagged: san clemente (/news/tag/san+clemente), homeless shelter (/news/tag/homeless+shelter), business park
(/news/tag/business+park)
1 Likes
Sale of Parcels • Clarification
If the owners vote to remove the parcels from the CC&R's, it appears that in addition, a majority vote by the Master Board is needed in order to sell the parcels to the City, County or other public agency (see CC&R's § 4.2 below).

Further, the Item (sale of the 2 parcels) would need to be listed on the Agenda in order to allow public discussion board review, and a vote by the Board.

It may be prudent for counsel to review the Agendas, Minutes, and CC&R's:
"Section 4.2 Power to Convey and Dedicate Property to Government Agencies— The Master Association with the approval of Members representing at least a majority of the voting power of the Master Association, shall have the power to grant convey, dedicate or transfer any Master Association Properties or facilities to any public or governmental agency or authority for such purposes and subject to such terms and conditions as the Master Association shall deem appropriate, subject to the provisions elsewhere contained in this Master Declaration for approval of the same by Declaration with respect to property previously transferred to the Master Association by Declarant."
Respectfully,
Vonne Barnes, RSCCA Board President
Newer Post
Chapman University 2020 Economic Forecast
Summary (PLUS the full report!) (/news/champanOlder Post Jim Wynne Hosting San Clemente City Council
Forum - 2019 Special Election (/news/jim-wynneupdates right to your inbox.

Like us on Facebook @WynneCRE (https://www.facebook.com/WynneCRE) and share this info with your San Clemente business neighbors!
! ! Share
Newest First
Preview POST COMMENT…
Vonne Barnes 2 years ago · 0 Likes
Summary (PLUS the full report!) (/news/champanuniversity-2020-economic-forecast-summary-plusthe-full-report) Forum - 2019 Special Election (/news/jim-wynnehosting-san-clemente-city-council-forum-2019)

JIM WYNNE OF KIDDER MATHEWS JIM WYNNE OF KIDDER MATHEWS LIC#01242705 LIC#01242705

ORANGE COUNTY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST ORANGE COUNTY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST 949.557.5060 949.557.5060
[email protected]
KIDDER MATHEWS | 5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1700, IRVINE, CA
92614 | KIDDER.COM
(https://www.facebook.com/WynneCRE) (https://twitter.com/WynneCRE) (https://www.instagram.com/wynnecre/) (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSUzzbqzIxyMqXiWcK27Vmg) HOME (HTTPS://WWW.WYNNECRE.COM)

PROPERTIES (/PROPERTIES)

NEWS (/NEWS)

ABOUT (/ABOUT)
SEARCH (HTTPS://WWW.WYNNECRE.COM/SEARCH)

CONTACT (/CONTACT)
Exhibit 2
+ −
Map Satellite

2 








Search
mode !
Neighborhoods
Zip Codes
Current map
Radius
Polygon
+
−
Map Satellite
Map data ©2021 Google,
INEGI
Expand Map"
Marshal Vogt
Lee & Associates
(714) 564-7117
Principal Contact
Your Featured Local Broker #
California > Orange County > San Clemente
31 Office Spaces for Rent in San Clemente, CA
$ Sort By Best Match Next Page
940 Calle Negocio, Ste 165
940 Calle Negocio, Ste 165, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 23,263 Sqft
Year Built
1989
Availability
1 Space / 790 Sqft
For Lease
$1.52/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
Office 910
910 S. El Camino Real Road, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 6,709 Sqft
Year Built
1985
Availability
2 Spaces / 1,800 Sqft
For Lease
$2/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
Talega Medical Plaza
1300 Avenida Vista Hermosa, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 27,522 Sqft
Year Built
2002
Availability
2 Spaces / 6,666 Sqft
For Lease
$34.2 - $35.4/Sqft/Y…
View Details Contact Property
San Clemente Professional Plaza
655 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 32,477 Sqft
Year Built
1973
Availability
1 Space / 1,444 Sqft
For Lease
$2.1/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
% %
% %
% %
By Location& ' Office & Price & ( More Filters Clear All ) Save Search For Lease & Commercial Real Estate Coworking Add a Listing Advertise *Log In We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful and to better understand how they are used. You can find out more about which cookies we are using and update your preferences in Cookies Settings. By clicking “Accept All Cookies,” you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Cookie Notice
Cookies Settings
Accept All Cookies
Talega Business Park - 1211 Puer…
1211 Puerta Del Sol, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 43,737 Sqft
Year Built
2002
Availability
1 Space / 3,923 Sqft
For Lease
$2/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
The Presidio Building
300 S. El Camino Real Road, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 11,760 Sqft
Year Built
1982
Availability
4 Spaces / 2,205 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
Plaza by the Sea
616 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Retail / 51,696 Sqft
Year Built
1974
Availability
1 Space / 1,200 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
1402 N. El Camino Real
1402 N. El Camino Real, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 1,900 Sqft
For Sale
$1,190,000
View Details Contact Property
Pacific Pointe Corporate Centre
901 Calle Amanecer, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 120,527 Sqft
Year Built
2001
Availability
1 Space / 2,785 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
647 Camino De Los Mares, Suite 2… 647 Camino De Los Mares, Suite 223, San Clemente, … Property
Office / 1,200 Sqft
Availability
1 Space / 1,180 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
LIB
@CommercialEdge
% %
% %
1001 Avenida Pico
1001 Avenida Pico, San Clemente, CA
Property
Retail / 20,000 Sqft
Availability
3 Spaces / 6,614 Sqft
For Lease
$1.95 - $2.95/Sqft/M…
View Details Contact Property
1051 Avenida Pico
1051 Avenida Pico, San Clemente, CA
Property
Retail / 5,507 Sqft
Availability
1 Space / 2,992 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
Pacific Pointe Corporate Centre
901 Calle Amanecer, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 120,527 Sqft
Year Built
2001
Availability
7 Spaces / 20,076 S…
For Lease
$2.4 - $2.45/Sqft/Mo…
View Details Contact Property
910 S El Camino Real
910 S El Camino Real, San Clemente, CA
Property
Other / 6,709 Sqft
Year Built
1985
Availability
1 Space / 2,175 Sqft
For Lease
$26.4/Sqft/Year
View Details Contact Property
Not finding the right space?
Tell us where and what you're looking for and the brokers will come to you Post my Space Need
% %
% %
% %
San Clemente Commerce Center
927 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 71,397 Sqft
Year Built
1989
Availability
Contact for availabili…
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
110 Av. La Pata
110 Av. La Pata, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 46,476 Sqft
Availability
1 Space / 20,475 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
665 Camino De Los Mares #200
665 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 1,200 Sqft
For Sale
$648,000
View Details Contact Property
Amanecer Business Park
940-946 Calle Amanecer, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 81,260 Sqft
Year Built
1989
Availability
3 Spaces / 4,540 Sqft
For Lease
$1.3 - $1.6/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
107 AVENIDA DE LA ESTRELLA
107 AVENIDA DE LA ESTRELLA, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 16,200 Sqft
Year Built
2007
Availability
1 Space / 1,050 Sqft
For Lease
$30/Sqft/Year
View Details Contact Property
951 Calle Amanecer
951 Calle Amanecer, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 39,000 Sqft
Year Built
1991
Off Market
Off Market Off Market
% %
% %
% %
San Clemente, CA Office Space Listings
There are currently 27 office listings available in San Clemente, CA. These listings include 31 office spaces that encompass a total of 68,134 square feet. Available office spaces in San Clemente, CA range in size from 152 square feet to 20,475 square feet. A total of 8 off-market office properties located in San Clemente, CA are also available for research.

See San Clemente office price per sqft in 2020, along with vacancy rates, sales report, and construction stats.

Commerce Center
940 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 44,554 Sqft
Year Built
1985
665 Camino De Los Mares
665 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 40,000 Sqft
Talega Business Park - 1311 Calle…
1311 Calle Batido, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 85,316 Sqft
Year Built
2002
Oceanview Medical Center
675 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 30,931 Sqft
Year Built
1983
1401 N El Camino Real
1401 N El Camino Real, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 16,000 Sqft
629 Camino de los Mares
629 Camino de los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 29,700 Sqft
Year Built
1979
2 »
@commerciolEdge
Off Market Off Market
Off Market Off Market
1 % %
% %
San Clemente, CA Office Inventory Breakdown
Office Spaces
Total: 287,103 SF
Data provided by Yardi Matrix, properties over 50k SF, includes office with retail By square footage range:
50k to 100k SqFt 166,576 SqFt 58.02% of total office
100k to 500k SqFt 120,527 SqFt 41.98% of total office
By class:

Class B 287,103 SqFt 100% of total office
Other Popular Searches
Look For Office Space Near Me
Are you still looking for the office space near you that’s perfect for your business? Browse through all available CommercialCafe listings in your area to find the right fit — the space that meets your requirements, right now and for the future. Easily compare sizes, prices, amenities and locations of office spaces for rent near me. Expand your search beyond your neighborhood and ZIP code and search our listings in any city or state to find the best fit for your needs, wherever you are in the U.S. The perfect office space for rent near San Clemente, CA is only one search away.

Irvine Office Space - 475 listings
Newport Beach Office Space - 168 listings
Santa Ana Office Space - 161 listings
Carlsbad Office Space - 144 listings
Riverside Office Space - 140 listings
Anaheim Office Space - 119 listings
Costa Mesa Office Space - 103 listings
Orange Office Space - 67 listings
La Jolla Office Space - 67 listings
Brea Office Space - 46 listings
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does office space cost in San Clemente, CA?
The average office rental rate in San Clemente, CA is $25.86 per square foot. Asking prices vary based on the property’s location, overall rating, amenities, proximity to restaurants, cafes and entertainment venues, as well as public transport, airports and highways. Check San Clemente Office Market Trends for more stats.

What is the size of available office spaces in San Clemente, CA? The San Clemente, CA office market can accommodate various businesses, sporting a range of office space availabilities. The average size of office space availabilities is 10,314 square feet. If you’re just starting out as a company or as an entrepreneur, the smallest available office space in San Clemente, CA is 152 square feet, while the maximum rentable space on the market now is 20,475 square feet.

How do I get office space in San Clemente, CA?
Start your search for office space in San Clemente, CA by using our filters that allow you to find the best space for your business needs. Filter listings by location, property size, available space or lease rate. Property pages will offer details about an office building’s rating, year built, availabilities, price per square foot and more. After drawing up a shortlist, make sure you contact the listed broker(s) to schedule a viewing and begin the negotiation process for your lease contract.

How many office listings are available in San Clemente, CA? There are 27 office listings on the San Clemente, CA market. See all available office spaces for rent.

What other property types are available for lease in San Clemente, CA? In addition to traditional office spaces, commercial real estate listings on our platform also include coworking & shared office space options, retail spaces, industrial buildings, warehouses, distribution facilities, and more.

San Clemente, CA Demographics & Income
Median Age 42.1
Population by age category
Under 20 24.7%
20 to 64 57.0%
65 and over 18.3%
Population by age range

11.8%
0-9

12.9%
10-19

9.6%
20-29

12.9%
30-39

13.4%
40-49

12.8%
50-59

15.2%
60-69

7.9%
70-79

3.5%
80-89
In 2019, the median age of San Clemente residents was 42.1 years old. Aproximately 57.0% of total population is between the ages of 20-64, with 9.6% between 20-29 years old.

Income per capita $61,323
Median Income per age
$67,043
0-25
$150,037
25-44
$172,969
45-64
$84,656
65+
The median income for San Clemente residents 45-64 years old stands at $172,969, with 25-44 years old earnings $150,037 per year. $101,588
Management, business
and financial occupations
$128,280
Computer, engineering
and science occupations
$47,410
Sales and office
occupations
The mean wage for San Clemente workers in management, business and financial ocupations is $101,588, whereas those in computer engineering and science occupation earn $128,280 per year. Sales and office occupations workers mean income is $47,410.

Pick your country:

About Us
Contact Us
Our Tools
Add a listing
© 2021 - Yardi Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
! " # $
Who We Are
Terms Of Service
Privacy Statement
Your CA Privacy Rights
Sitemap
Blog
Real Estate Terms
Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

SUBSCRIBE DONATE
HOME | NEWSROOM | HOUSING | The City of San Clemente backed away from an inhumane homeless ordinance, but it’s the tip of the iceberg in California The City Of San Clemente Backed Away
From An Inhumane Homeless Ordinance,
But It’s The Tip Of The Iceberg In California
January 24, 2020, By Western Center Senior Litigator, Alex Prieto Last month, after pressure from a case filed by Western Center and our partners, Emergency Shelter Coalition v. City of San Clemente, San Clemente passed an emergency repeal of a deeply inhumane ordinance targeting people experiencing homelessness. The ordinance would have forced anyone without a place to sleep to camp at a storage lot next to a waste treatment plant. The City made the repeal permanent this week.

The ordinance was the latest in a series passed by San Clemente targeting the City’s growing homeless population. Sadly, the City’s actions re!ect an approach to homelessness that is common in California, aimed at pushing the problem out of public view rather than addressing it in a meaningful way.

In 2018, San Clemente enacted an ordinance similar to those adopted by many California cities, which criminalized camping by those experiencing homelessness. The City was forced to amend the law in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Martin v. Boise, which said it is unconstitutional to punish someone for sleeping outdoors on public land when alternative shelter is unavailable.

But the City’s amendment did not mark a change in attitude. After Martin, San Clemente still clung to its same shortsighted approach to homelessness, and remained focused on citing and arresting people for living on the street, sleeping in public, and other unavoidable offenses. The ordinance challenged in our Emergency Shelter Coalition case was a product of that approach.

At the City Council meeting where San Clemente adopted the ordinance, Emergency Shelter Coalition, the plaintiff in the case, offered the City an alternative: a financial donation to fund an indoor homeless shelter, and land for a location. San Clemente opted instead to force its homeless population to camp at the site near the waste treatment plant, which the City previously rejected as the location for an animal shelter due to safety concerns. This choice shows that the City wasn’t interested in providing adequate shelter for people experiencing homelessness.

The City’s decision to repeal the ordinance came only after sustained pressure from our case — a victory against the criminalization of homelessness. But the notion that criminal enforcement is a solution to homelessness continues to attract politicians and administrators peddling quick fixes.

Exhibit A: a proposed 2020 state ballot initiative by former Assemblyman Mike Gatto, which takes the debunked idea that California can arrest its way out of a homeless crisis to disturbing extremes.

The initiative requires law enforcement officers to set aside other priorities to make mandatory arrests for certain offenses, mostly minor nuisance violations. It then requires judges to impose the maximum sentence on anyone found to have a mental health or drug addiction issue. Judges would also be authorized to order that sentences be served in locked mental health and drug treatment facilities.

If enacted, the initiative will result in the mass institutionalization of people deemed mentally unwell at the discretion of police and judges.

Gatto claims the initiative will connect people to financial and housing assistance, but this is only window dressing – the measure provides no funding for housing or homeless services. The only financial assistance it refers to is General Relief, an existing program that already provides far less aid than necessary to obtain housing and meet basic needs. In Los Angeles County, for example, the maximum General Relief payment is $221.00 per month.

Such superficial gestures should not distract from what the initiative really is: a destructive nonsolution that will trample the rights of people with mental health disabilities. It is an example of the “out of sight, out of mind” approach to homelessness at its worst.

Moreover, this approach also perpetuates wider systemic inequities, both historic and current. In a country and state that continues to struggle with racialized policing practices, it makes no sense to impose mandatory arrests and maximum sentences on an already marginalized population that is disproportionately Black.

Criminalizing homelessness does nothing to solve a long-term crisis resulting from entrenched inequities in housing access, economic opportunity, the criminal justice system, and medical and mental health services. But it does allow cities to push the visual evidence of the issue temporarily out of sight. Cities too often assert that some people experiencing homelessness will eventually move to other cities when faced with the constant threat of arrest, which allows them to treat homelessness as someone else’s problem.

Harmful policies like San Clemente’s now-repealed ordinance and Gatto’s proposed ballot measure move the state backwards when we should be investing in real solutions, like increased funding for deeply affordable housing and significant increases in General Relief grants. Western Center will continue to advocate for sustainable state and local policies that actually work, and we will fight those seeking to expand the criminalization of homelessness in court.

PREVIOUS ARTICLE
Medi-Cal Benefits Eliminated A
Decade Ago, Such As Foot Care
And Eyeglasses, Are Back

NEXT ARTICLE
Western Center Statement On
Supreme Court Public Charge
Ruling
siteground
© 2019 Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc. WCLP, WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY and design are registered trademarks owned by Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc. All rights reserved. WCLP ® ...

LOCATIONS
3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90010
213.487.7211
1107 Ninth Street, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.442.0753
449 Fifteenth Street, Suite 301
Oakland, CA 94612
213.487.7211
Fax # 213.487.0242
Contact us via email

QUICK LINKS
About
Our Staff
Advocacy
Resources
Our Client Stories
Newsroom

SUPPORT WESTERN CENTER

DONATE NOW

SITE MAP TERMS OF USE PRIVACY STATEMENT
Exhibit 5
___
By ERIKA I. RITCHIE | [email protected] | Orange
County Register
PUBLISHED: August 30, 2019 at 8:16 p.m. | UPDATED: August 31, Greg Naylor pauses as he considers his options after being told he would not be allowed to stay at a city designated homeless area on Avineda Vista Hermosa in San Clemente, CA, on Friday, Aug 30, 2019. (Photo by Jeff Gritchen, Orange County Register/SCNG)

LOCAL NEWS
San Clemente clears homeless
camp site and requires proof
of ties to the city for reentry
2019 at 12:21 p.m.

About 70 people were removed from a makeshift homeless
campground along Avenida Pico in San Clemente for a clean-up of the site, Friday morning, Aug. 30, but only 23 were allowed to return.

In order to regain entrance to the city yard, city officials said, the homeless living there had to prove a tie to the city — either by showing a valid driver’s license or other identification, a utility bill indicating prior residence in the city or bringing along a family member who could vouch for their connection to San Clemente.

Since the campground opened in May, officials said, it had been filling up with people from out of town.

Notice of the cleaning and an order to clear the site of all belongings by 7 a.m. Friday was posted at the yard Aug. 21 and again Aug. 28, said Assistant City Manager Eric Sund.

The cleaning, he said, was being conducted to clear out trash and debris that had accumulated on the half-acre lot and to create a healthy and safe environment.

Folded up tents, chairs, clothing and surfboards were piled high along the sidewalk as the clean-up progressed through the morning Friday. As city and county workers cleared the site, a handful of homeless people waited outside the gates sitting on their belongings.

Orange County Sheriff’s Department deputies were on hand to monitor the transition and to keep watch over workers from the Orange County Health Care Agency. Across the way, some San Clemente residents watched the scene unfold.

Roger Etzwier was one of the homeless people denied re-entry to the camp when the doors re-opened around 2 p.m.
“I’m upset because I got lured out here on false pretenses and the gate slammed shut on me,” the 57-year-old from San Juan Capistrano said. “I signed up just last week. I was a roofer in San Clemente for 30 years but that doesn’t help me now. I don’t have anything to prove it.”
Gregory Naylor, 57, also was locked out. The former Laguna Beach restaurant chef complained about the lack of toilets at the site and water with which to shower, but he was in tears when he was turned away.
“I’m going to set up my tent and I’m sure people will complain,” he said as he pointed across the street toward multi-million dollar homes in the Sea Summit community. “This is a total collapse of our system. How can they say we don’t live here? We were all here last night.”
Those who were not allowed to return to the campground were given vouchers for bus, train and Uber rides to transport them elsewhere.

The city lot was set up as a homeless campsite May 24, after the San Clemente City Council passed an urgency ordinance to move a growing homeless community away from North Beach.

The ordinance, created to address threats to public safety, health, and welfare, prohibited camping on public property but provided the camping option for the homeless at the lot.

Brooke Weitzman, one of several lawyers threatening action in response to the city’s relocation plan, was on site during Friday’s clean-up.

Weitzman filed a lawsuit on behalf of several homeless people against San Clemente, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Irvine and San Juan Capistrano in February.

On Aug. 12, U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson dropped four of five south Orange County cities from a lawsuit and ordered lawyers for the homeless people to amend their complaint against San Clemente, which remains a defendant along with the county.

Elsewhere around Orange County, Laguna Beach gives shelter priority to homeless people with ties to the city. Those claims are reviewed by Laguna Beach Police Department personnel. In Tustin and Anaheim, officials also ask that those seeking shelter have ties to the community.

The Courtyard shelter in Santa Ana does not require proof of prior connections to a community.

Duane (Gibson) Nichols, a Navy veteran and one of three homeless people named in the lawsuit against San Clemente, said Friday he wasn’t happy with the new situation. Though he was on the list to move back in, the new decor and tents didn’t suit his style.
“I’m not moving into that little dog house,” he said, referring to 40 tents the city brought in Friday. “I have my own tent. I’m moving back to North Beach.”
He also lamented about conditions at the city site, especially with the influx of people from out of state.
“They’re having problems with the toilets now that there are 75 to 80 people here,” he said. “People are coming from all over … Kentucky, Florida, Iowa and New York. There’s more vandalism and crime. There’s more petty theft in the area. They’re hitting the 7-11, the 99 Cents Only Store and Albertsons. People wander around after lights-out and they’re not following the rules.”
Newsroom Guidelines News Tips Contact Us
Report an Error
Be the first to get the most important news.

Sign up for our Breaking News
newsletter now.

Enter email to subscribe
Exhibit B
1 Declaration of William E. Tippets
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
EDMOND M. CONNOR (SBN 65515)
[email protected]
DOUGLAS A. HEDENKAMP (SBN 216487)
[email protected]
LAURA L. BLAKE (SBN 148024)
[email protected]
KAMRAN KHAKBAZ (SBN 328911)
[email protected]

CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP
2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 1100
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 622-2600
Attorneys for The Emergency
Shelter Coalition

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING BEFORE

THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM E. TIPPETS IN SUPPORT OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTER COALITION’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE’S EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION RE API NOS. 688-011-01 AND 688-011-02
2 Declaration of William E. Tippets
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM E. TIPPETS
I, William E. Tippets, declare and say:

1. I am over the age of eighteen and a resident of California, and I submit this declaration in support of the Emergency Shelter Coalition’s (“ESC’s”) Supplemental Response and Objections to the City of San Clemente’s Eminent Domain Action Re API Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02 (“ESC’s Response”).

2. I am an Environmental Consultant. My resume, which details my relevant education, and employment experience is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

3. At the request of Connor, Fletcher and Hedenkamp (CFH), the attorneys for ESC, I made a site visit to Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 (“Parcel 1”) and 688-011-02 (“Parcel 2”) in San Clemente, California (collectively, the “Properties”) along with Ed Connor and Doug Hedenkamp on April 14, 2020. The purpose of the visit was to assess the overall topographic features and vegetative conditions of the parcels, with particular attention as to whether any streambed or wetland habitats are present. I was on the properties from approximately 10:00-11:45, the sky was sunny/partly cloudy, there was mild wind, and the temperature was in the mid-60s.

4. This site review was made as follow-up to correspondence dated April 7, 2020 between the Emergency Shelter Coalition (ESC) and City of San Clemente regarding the City’s intent to adopt a Resolution of Necessity to acquire these parcels by eminent domain “for use consistent with the property's general plan and zoning designation, including preservation of open space, habitat conservation and mitigation banking ("the Project").” [See Page 6. Section 3.1 of the April 7, 2020 letter]. The type of mitigation bank apparently was not specified in the Project description, and could be for wetlands or uplands. [See Page 19, Section 3.7 of the April 7, 2020 letter]

5. True and correct copies of two photographs I took during the site review of Parcel 1 are attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and are labelled “Photo 1” and “Photo 2.”

6. An aerial photograph provided by CFH, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, identifies Parcel 1’s approximate boundaries and general orientation, situated between E. Avenida Pico to the south/east and an unnamed stream to the north/west. No engineering-level survey boundary markers were found, but several stakes and one road curb paint marker established by the property owner were used with the 3 Declaration of William E. Tippets
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
aerial photo to provide a general onsite delineation of the parcel boundaries. Parcel 1 is oriented SWNE, much is NW-facing slopes of 10-15% with a small flat section on the NE end. The slopes comprising the parcel are part of the nearby stream’s watershed. Non-native plant species dominate (99%+) the site’s vegetation (black mustard, milk and artichoke thistles, yellow melilotus, oat and brome grasses, eucalyptus, etc.). A few, scattered native plants were observed (coyote brush, lemonadeberry, elderberry). Few animals were observed.

7. A paved (asphalt) road runs the length of Parcel 1 that, based on a sewer manhole cover within the road, appears to be associated with a municipal sewer line. In addition, a small concrete brow ditch runs for an undetermined distance from the SW end of the parcel (beginning near to and downslope from the asphalt road entrance). Two power poles are on the NE portion of the parcel.

Various right-of-way infrastructure – recycled water irrigation system, electrical and other boxes – generally within grassy landscaping - occur adjacent to E. Avenida Pico.

8. Based on the site visit, there are no streambeds or wetland habitats on Parcel 1. It is not clear what the historical natural vegetation community was, but based on the few native species that are present, the northern-orientation and moderately steep slopes, it may have been mixed chaparral/sage scrub.

9. True and correct copies of two photographs I took during the site review of Parcel 2 are attached hereto as Exhibit 4, and are labelled “Photo 3” and “Photo 4.”

10. Exhibit 3 provided by CFH identifies Parcel 2’s approximate boundaries and general orientation, situated between E. Avenida Pico to the south/east and an unnamed stream to the north/west. No engineering-level survey boundary markers were found, but portions of an old fenceline and one road curb paint marker were used with the aerial photo to provide a general onsite delineation of the parcel boundaries. The parcel is oriented SW-NE, the western portion is NW-facing slopes of 10- 15%, but the eastern portion is a larger flat section. The parcel is part of nearby stream’s watershed.

Non-native plant species dominate (99%+) the site’s vegetation (black mustard, milk and artichoke thistles, yellow melilotus, fennel, oat and brome grasses, eucalyptus, date palm, acacia, pampas grass, etc.). A few, scattered native plants were observed (coyote brush and cudweed). Few animals were observed.
4 Declaration of William E. Tippets
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

11. The stream channel north of Parcel 2 enters a concrete intake structure buttressed by concrete riprap prior to entering a culvert that goes under E. Avenida Pico. The SW end of the property does not appear to extend to the stream channel, but is part of the steep slopes above the stream channel. Various right-of-way infrastructure – recycled water irrigation system, electrical and other boxes – generally within grassy landscaping - occur adjacent to E. Avenida Pico.

12. Based on the site visit, there are no streambeds or wetland habitats on Parcel 2. It is not clear what the historical natural vegetation community was, but based on the few native species that are present and the northern-orientation, it may have been mixed chaparral/sage scrub.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 16th day of April, 2020, at La Jolla, California.

By ____________________________
William E. Tippets
Exhibit 1
Resume
of

WILLIAM EUGENE TIPPETS
5850 Soledad Mtn. Rd., La Jolla, CA 92037
619-822-4323
SS# 565-84-3010
Citizenship: USA

EDUCATION
Master of Science (Ecology and Fisheries Biology) 1976
University of California at Davis
Thesis: Epibenthic Feeding by Rainbow Trout
(Salmo gairdneri=Onchorhynchus mykiss)
in the McCloud River, California
Bachelor of Science (Biological Sciences) 1973
University of California at Davis

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Environmental Volunteering/Consulting 07/2014-Present
Since retiring from fulll-time work, I prepare (pro bono) reviews and comments on a variety of program and project environmental documents for several local environmental non-profit organizations. I am on the Board of Directors of Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association, the Conservation Committee of the SD Chapter Sierra Club, and assist the Conservation Committee of the SD Audubon Society. Areas of focus include habitat and species conservation, climate change and sea level rise adaptation, and regional transporation.

I periodically work as an environmental consultant, primarily focusing on biological resource impacts and mitigation, habitat and species conservation, and environmental compliance and permitting issues.

Senior Project Director 02/2011-07/2014
The Nature Conservancy
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1350
San Diego, CA 92101
Supervisor: Alfredo Gonzalez, Regional Director
Responsible for developing and managing TNC’s San Diego and northern Baja CA Region’s programs. Oversaw and / or led TNC’s habitat and species conservation and planning projects, including land acquisitions. Researched, developed and led regional climate change and urban conservation strategies; co-created a green conservation-action coalition of non-governmental organizations to advise government and business interests on cilmate change mitigation and adaptation. Developed population movement studies of and convened a major workshop on Peninsular bighorn sheep management along the California-Baja CA border. Researched and oversaw studies on northern Baja CA water supply and renewable energy issues that TNC funded. Reviewed and prepared comments on non-TNC conservation planning documents and environmental (CEQA) documents.

Principal Water Resource Specialist 06/2004 – 12/2010
San Diego County Water Authority
4677 Overland Ave., San Diego, CA 92123
Supervisor: Larry Purcell, Water Resources Manager
Develop the strategy and manage the preparation (and wrote conservation and adaptive management sections) of the Water Authority’s Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan. The plan covers capital improvement program projects and operations and maintenance activities throughout its 900,000+ acre Service Area in San Diego County and a portion of southweatern Riverside County. Develop technical approaches, manage costs, and implement/oversee the Authority’s involvement with environmental mitigation measures for the All-American and Coachella Canal lining projects. Key work products/activities involve endangered species and desert bighorn sheep mitigation; desert habitat creation, restoration and preservation; and various social-recreational mitigation activities. Serve as the Authority’s representative (ex oficio) to the Imperial Irrigation District’s Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Team. Primary duties include advising on the selection of mitigation measures, reviewing and advising on mitigation cost management, and verifying permit compliance. Also represent the Authority on the Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program’s Habitat Working Group and Alternatives Working Group – both of which are responsible for developing and recommending to the State Advisory Committee the habitat and species conservation objectives, options to meet those objectives, and the alternatives that integrate those options.

Deputy Regional Manager
& Environmental Program Manager 01/2001 – 06/2004
Department of Fish and Game, Southcoast Region
State of California
4949 Viewridge Ave., San Diego, CA 92123
Supervisor: Chuck Raysbrook, Regional Manager
Assisted the Regional Manager by providing direction and supervision to key functions of the region (135 staff) including Land Management, Wildlife and Inland Fisheries, and Habitat Conservation. Directly managed the South Coast Region's (Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties) Habitat Conservation Program. This program includes 30 staff (five supervisory positions), and is responsible for conducting environmental project reviews, administering Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), preparing Streambed Alteration Agreements and Endangered Species Permits, coordinating the Fishery Restoration Grant Program and handling other habitat and species conservation efforts in the region. The program administers up to $15 million per year in grants. Served as the Regional Representative to the NCCP Manager's Committee and provided policy and program direction to state and federal staff.

Environmental Specialist IV/Program Supervisor 04/1993 - 12/2000 Department of Fish and Game, Southcoast Region
State of California
4949 Viewridge Ave., San Diego, CA 92123
Supervisor: Chuck Raysbrook, Regional Manager
Field supervisor for the southern California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program. Served as the Department's lead for establishing and implementing the program throughout the initial planning region (five counties and over 70 jurisdictions and special purpose agencies). This is the State's and Nation's prototype model for regional conservation planning.

Responsible for direct supervision of six full time staff, directly managed research contracts; provided biological analyses of regional conservation plans and specific development projects; primary regional liaison with other state and federal agencies and non-governmental entities. Also provided program support on legislation, policy and funding issues.

Senior State Park Resource Ecologist 08/1989 - 03/1993
Department of Parks and Recreation
State of California
8850 Rio San Diego Drive, San Diego, CA 92108
Supervisors: Clay Phillips, Southern Service Center Manager Ken Jones, Regional Director
Southern California supervisor for ecological services for the State Park System.

Supervised a staff of four biologists and two archeologists, and seasonal employees. Administered programs for the restoration and enhancement of natural and cultural resources within the region (up to $1,000,000/yr.).

Supervised preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents and CA Coastal Commission permits. Project developer, contract manager, and field monitor for habitat restoration projects. One of the selected department members of the statewide "Phoenix Committee" which planned, developed, and oversaw initial implementation of the Department's statewide reorganization.

Associate State Park Resource Ecologist 10/1983 - 08/1989 Department of Parks and Recreation
State of California
8850 Rio San Diego Drive, San Diego, CA 92108
Supervisor: Dave Van Cleve, Senior State Park Resource Ecologist Developed and managed resource management projects to restore tidalestuarine habitats, coastal dunes and bluffs, and upland habitats. Functioned as the environmental coordinator for CEQA project reviews; prepared Departmental correspondence. Other responsibilities included planning and conducting pest control, prescribed fires and marine survey research projects while serving as Pest Control Advisor, Prescribed Fire Manager and Certified Scuba diver.

Energy Specialist 08/1981 – 09/1983
California Energy Commission
State of California
1470 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Developed programs (regulations, procedures, staffing and budgets) to implement Commission policies for the State’s energy emergency information and fuel allocation programs. Developed and managed contracts to improve the State’s petroleum data information system. Participated in tests of the information collection, transfer, and reporting procedures.

Associate Scientist 01/1979 – 07/1981
Ecological Analysts, Inc.

Exhibit 2
Parcel APN 688-011-01 (Photo 1, looking North)
Photo 2, looking SW across small flat area
Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4
Parcel APN 688-011-02 (Photo 3, looking NE across to Parcel 1) Photo 4, looking W across flat area
From: Savage, Jennifer
To: Housing
Subject: RE: Revised Housing Element Available for Review Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:30:08 PM
From: Mark McGuire <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:53 AM
To: Savage, Jennifer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Revised Housing Element Available for Review Hi Jennifer.

Thanks for sending the revised draft of the Housing element Update. I have just a couple of comments.

1. Re the Environmental Constraints discussion, candidate Rezone site “U” is said to contain grasslands, but in fact it primarily consists of Coastal Sage Scrub, and, as we’ve discussed before, it occupied California gnatcatcher habitat (the gnatcatcher is federally listed as threatened). Because of this, Talega Associates committed to preserve this area in perpetuity in compensation for impacts to unoccupied CSS elsewhere in the project site. Below is a snip of the draft easement exhibit prepared in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW:

The area highlighted in yellow (a portion of the area Talega committed to preserve) I believe is roughly the same as site U. This is why it was redesignated from commercial to Open Space in the Centennial General Plan. The conservation easement has not yet been recorded. Incidentally there is also a County regional hiking trail easement that traverses through the center of this site (red dash lines on exhibit).

I guess theoretically the existing commitment of this site as habitat preservation land does not mean that it could never be proposed to be developed as housing—but it would be EXTREMELY unlikely to receive the needed State and Federal authorizations given that it is valuable habitat for a federally-protected species that was specifically designated as mitigation for other CSS impacts.

My second comment is another topic we’ve discussed before, namely that the current zoning rules under MU1 and MU2 do not realistically allow for the development of 36 units to the acre, as all ground floor development and at least 35% of the total square footage is required to be commercial, not residential. This in turn means that a substantial portion of any site needs to provide parking for that commercial square footage, leaving too little developable area for residential development to achieve 36 units per acre (note the residential also needs to be parked). This is relevant to the evaluation of the parcels associated with sites M,N,P and Q (at a minimum). Table 4-4 uses an 80% of max assumption; I respectfully think even that is optimistic unless and until the City modifies the zoning standards to reduce the commercial percentage requirement and allows for some ground floor residential units.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised draft Housing Element Update.

Best regards,
Mark
From: Savage, Jennifer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 3:00 PM
Subject: Revised Housing Element Available for Review
Hello,
The City of San Clemente has revised the Housing Element Update adopted by City Council in October 2021. The draft revisions are available for review from April 8 to April 15, 2022.

Link to revised Housing Element Update
If you have any questions or comments, please email [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jennifer Savage, AICP | CTP
Assistant to the City Manager
City of San Clemente
949.361.6186
April 15, 2022
San Clemente City Council
City Hall, 100 Avenida Presidio
San Clemente, California
Re: April 2022 version of Draft Housing Element Update, 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Dear Mayor James, Mayor Pro Tem Duncan, and Councilmembers Ferguson, Knoblock and Ward,
The San Clement Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition) commends the City staff on their hard work in revising the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (H.E.) to meet the numerous concerns raised by the California Office of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in its January 12, 2022 Review Letter. (See 1/12/22 Review Letter: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/docs/orasanclementeadoptedout011222.pdf. See earlier 8/6/21 Review Letter: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/orasanclementedraft080621.pdf.) As you know, the Coalition is committed to advocating for increased affordable housing opportunities for San Clemente’s lower income residents. While we appreciate staff’s effort to address HCD’s concerns in this latest draft, we believe more changes are needed in the H.E. if it is to serve as an adequate blueprint for developing the lower income affordable housing our City desperately needs.

A Few General Observations

1. The H.E. makes much of the fact it now uses vacant land to meet 77% of the City’s lower income RHNA. But there are substantial problems with the three parcels of vacant land identified for lower income units, raising serious concerns as to the feasibility of all three vacant sites.

2. A new “Workforce Housing Overlay” allowing densities between 30 and 45 units per acre, with a minimum density of 30 units per acre, and requiring at least 20% affordable units at lower income levels should be applied to all the lower income sites on Table 4-6 – the Candidate Sites for Rezoning.

3. The City’s Inclusionary Ordinance must be strengthened.

4. The H.E. still fails to address the infeasibility of the existing SB2 Zone and the unreasonable restrictions in the City’s Emergency Shelter Overlay

5. The City should take all steps necessary to allow the Emergency Shelter Coalition (ESC) to use its vacant 10-acre site on Pico for lower income housing, including permanent supportive housing, and temporary supportive housing (Navigation Site).

Specific Questions, Concerns and Recommendations
Category I The following comments and questions concern the Residential Sites Inventory (Table 4-4 on Page HE-79) and the Candidate Sites for Rezoning (Table 4-6 on Page HE 89).

A. Problems with the three vacant sites

1. Item “P” on the Residential Site Inventory (1801 N. El Camino Real) Comment: This site is listed as a .74-acre vacant lot with 22 lower income units possible. We question whether this site is available/feasible for affordable housing development.

We have learned from the City’s Planning Department that the owner of this site has submitted plans to develop the site for commercial use, with no residential component, and that the plans have received at least preliminary approval.

Question: What information do you have about this site that leads you to believe this site is feasible for lower income housing, given the above information regarding the owner’s plans for the property?
Comment: A recent news article described an applicable “view corridor” restriction on building height as one of the challenges to developing the property.

Question: What is the effect of this height limitation on developing affordable housing on this site, given that the current zoning is MU1, which requires residential units to be on the second floor?
Recommendation: If this site is deemed feasible for lower income housing, the Affordable Housing Overlay should be extended to include this site, allowing housing on the ground floor.

2. Item “A” on the Candidate Sites for Rezoning list (190 La Pata) Comment: This site is listed as 2.17 acres of vacant land with 52 lower income units possible. In our previous letter, we noted this site is owned by Christianitos Church, operating as Heritage Christian Fellowship. The church is actively fundraising and applying for city permits to develop a portion of this parcel as an additional parking area for the church facilities on the adjacent parcel. (See “Lot 2” indicated in the property diagram of the “Parking Expansion Project” described in https://heritagesc.org/parking-lot-project/ ) In a telephone conversation, knowledgeable church personnel confirmed the church has plans for the remainder of the nowvacant lot and has no interest in selling it or using it as an affordable housing site.

Question: What information do you have about this site that leads you to believe this site is feasible for affordable housing development, given the above information that we provided to the City?

3. Item “U” on the Candidate Sites for Rezoning list
Comment: This site, newly restored onto the list, is listed as 8.46 acres of vacant land on Pico, with 271 lower income units possible. The addition of this property is a highly significant change to the City’s plan for meeting its lower income RHNA. We question whether this site is available/feasible for affordable housing development.

The H.E. lists the current zoning for this parcel as “TSP (C&OS).” The “OS” designation means the parcel is at least partly deemed “open space,” making it subject to San Clemente’s Measure V, a local land use ordinance which is a significant constraint on development because it requires a vote of the people to change the use of any Open Space land to Non-Open Space use, unless a specific exception applies.
1 Question: What part and how much of this property is “OS?” Comment: The H.E. concedes this property is in a “high fire risk” zone. City planners stated at a public meeting at an earlier stage of this process that residential development on this property would require a new fire station, at an annual operating cost to the City of $2.5 million.

Question: Will the City commit to absorbing the new expense of paying the $2.5 million annual operating cost of a new fire station to facilitate the development of affordable housing at this site?
Recommendation: The City should commit to resolving the feasibility problems of the Talega site within two years. Specifically, if the "OS" designation requires a vote under Measure V, within two years the City should put the proposed zoning change (from “OS” to “TSP RH (40)”)

1 Measure V’s Exception 2 allows the City to reclassify an open space site for residential use without a vote of the people upon the application of the landowner if the City Council finds residential use is "necessary to comply with federal or state law regarding the provision of housing." The City Council would also have to find that a specific federal or state law requires the City to accommodate the proposed housing, and "no alternative site within the city which is not open space” could be used to satisfy the state housing law.

Exception 5 allows a reclassification of not more than one acre of an open space parcel, upon the application of an affected landowner, “to the extent the City Council determines, based on substantial evidence, . . . [that] (b) reclassifying the Open Space Area in question to authorize or permit a Non-Open Space Use allows for a superior development alternative that benefits the public health, safety, or welfare . . . ." on the ballot or make the specific findings under Measure V needed to exempt the parcel from that vote requirement (see fn. 1, preceding page). Additionally, the City should commit to funding the annual operating cost of a new fire station as required for this new housing.

Moreover, the City should commit, alternatively, in the event it fails within two years to meet the requirements of either the zoning change or commitment to fire station funding, the City should substitute ESC’s ten acres of vacant land on Pico in place of these 8.5 Talega acres, and make the findings necessary under Measure V to exempt ESC's land from the city-wide vote requirement.

B. Problem with item “G” on Residential Sites Inventory (100 Ave. Del Poniente) Comment: This site is listed as .65 acres, “low intensity strip shopping with large parking lot” with 17 units possible. We have learned from the City’s Planning Department that the owner of this site has submitted plans for an expansion and remodel of the existing structure for commercial uses, with no residential component. The plans are now awaiting final approval.

Question: What information do you have about this site that leads you to believe this site is feasible for lower income housing, given the above information regarding the owner’s plans for the property?
C. Problem with item “V” on Candidate Sites for Rezoning list (654 Camino de las Mares)
Comment: This large site is a closed, former hospital owned by Memorial Care. The last H.E. draft said of the 232 housing units to be built here, only 24 would be lower income. This draft of the H.E. provides no numbers other than 239 total possible units. A recent news article stated this site has recently had a re-focus as a possible combined Medical and Senior Housing residence for “250” units, with only 10 units reserved for lower income housing. (See https://www.sanclementetimes.com/memorialcare-proposes-senior-living-health-carecommunity-on-site-of-former-hospital/ Question: How many of the units will be Lower Income?.

Recommendation: The City should require 20% lower income affordable units in exchange for the proposed upzoning to 45 units/acre.

Category II The Infeasible SB2 Zone and unreasonable restrictions in the Emergency Shelter Overlay
Comment: We agree with the excellent arguments of the Emergency Shelter Coalition in its April 15, 2022 letter to HCD, signed by its General Counsel Laura Lee Blake, regarding the latest draft of the H.E. We wholeheartedly endorse and incorporate by reference all of ESC’s arguments and its recommendations for improving the H.E.

Recommendations:

In particular, we recommend:
- That the City include ESC’s 10 acres in its Emergency Shelter Overlay Zone (“ESOZ”), since the current Rancho San Clemente Business Park (“Business Park”) is an unworkable site for the much-needed homeless shelter and supportive housing. - That the City Council vote to invoke exception No. 2 and/or exception No. 5 to Measure V, so that no vote of the citizens of San Clemente would be required to use ESC’s land for affordable housing, including permanent supportive housing, and emergency shelter. - That the City should amend the ESOZ so that it includes all land within the Business Park Specific Plan, and especially ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02. This would best ensure the development of an emergency shelter, transitional and supportive housing, and much-needed affordable housing for the extremely low, very low, and low-income residents of the City.

Category III Programs Needed to Facilitate Affordable Housing Production Comment: HCD noted in its January 12th letter the following (bold print added):
“Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element largely did not address this finding. The element must add, or revise programs based on a complete analysis, listing, and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues.

Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues and include metrics and milestones to target meaningful fair housing results. Currently, the element identifies outreach-focused programs to encourage and promote affordable housing; however, most of these programs do not appear to facilitate meaningful change nor address affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) requirements, including metrics or targeted numerical outcomes. Given that the city is significantly whiter and wealthier than the region, the element could focus on programs that enhance housing mobility and encourage development of more affordable housing choices in an inclusive manner throughout the community.”
We believe the following recommendations would make the Housing Element more compliant with respect to making progress toward meaningful fair housing results.

Recommendations:
a. All lower income Candidate Sites for Rezoning (Table 4-6) should be zoned with an new Workforce Housing Overlay requiring at least 20% affordable units at lower income levels.
b. The City should strengthen its inclusionary housing policy, requiring 15% of new units to be affordable to lower income households, with an in-lieu fee option in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per unit, or $10 to $15 per square foot. c. The City should also donate city-owned land for affordable housing, and add city-owned land to the site inventories.
d. The City should adopt a set of housing programs commensurate with the challenge of attracting affordable housing developers to build on these sites with existing structures. Such programs could include reduced parking requirements, greater density and height allowed, reduced permit fees, alternative development standards, among other incentives.

CONCLUSION
Lower income San Clemente residents earning less than $50,000 per year are in dire need of affordable housing. The City must act affirmatively to meet that need. Thus far, the City’s failure to identify adequate sites to meet its lower income RHNA while refusing to allow ESC to use its 10 acres of vacant land for affordable housing and for emergency housing speaks volumes. The City is turning a blind eye to the housing needs of its own lower income residents.

Thank you for considering our concerns about the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update.

Sincerely,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani,
San Clemente resident and
Chair, San Clemente Affordable Housing Coalition
cc: Planning Commission Chair Crandell, Chair Pro Tem McKhann, Vice Chair Tyler and Planning Commissioners Crandell, Cosgrove, McCaughan, and Prescott-Loeffler.

Jennifer Savage, San Clemente Assistant Manager
Mr. Paul McDougall & Marissa Prasse - CA Department of Housing and Community Development
Cesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission
Richard Walker, Public Law Center
Ed Conner, Emergency Shelter Coalition Chair
Laura Lee Blake, Emergency Shelter Coalition General Counsel Members of the San Clemente Affordable Housing Coalition