Resolution Number 18-03-20-01RESOLUTION NO. 18-03-20-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEALS OF, AND
AFFIRMING THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATIONS
MADE ON JANUARY 11, 2018, AND FEBRUARY 8, 2018, REGARDING
THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PLAZA BANDERAS HOTEL PROJECT'S
FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS WITH THE 2011 PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLANS RELATED
TO ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 10-002: PLAZA BANDERAS
HOTEL LOCATED AT 26891 ORTEGA HIGHWAY (ASSESSOR PARCEL
NUMBERS 124-170-12, 14, 15, & 16)(APPLICANT: JAKE GRIFFITH,
MISSION COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC.)
Whereas, Jake Griffith, on behalf of Mission Commercial Properties, Inc.,
31866 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (the "Applicant"), has
requested approval of the Final Construction Plans by the Design Review Committee as
specifically required by Condition No. 60; and,
Whereas, on October 19, 2010, the City Council certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Plaza Banderas Hotel Project ("Original
Project") and the entitlements for the Original Project including General Plan Amendment
to change the land use designation (GPA 10-001 ), the Plaza Banderas Hotel
Comprehensive Development Plan (COP 10-01) and a Rezone to the City's Zoning Map
(RZ 10-001) (collectively "Entitlements"); and,
Whereas, the City Council's approval included a Condition of Approval (No.
59) requiring the Planning Commission to review and approve the project's Conceptual
Design Plans; and,
Whereas, on March 8, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed and
approved the project's Conceptual Design Plans satisfying Condition No. 59; and,
Whereas, the 2010 City Council approval also included a Condition of
Approval (No. 60) requiring the project's Final Construction Plans to be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC) to ensure consistency with the
Planning Commission City-approved Conceptual Design Plans; and,
Whereas, the appealed action was the DRC's determination that the Final
Construction Plans submittal required by Condition 60 was consistent with the 2011
Conceptual Design Plans; and,
Whereas, pursuant to San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code ("SJCMC") 2-
2.1103, the DRC reviews and makes recommendations to development applicants on the
design of projects for compliance with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan
Community Design Element and adopted architectural design guidelines and other
policies regarding the design of projects. DRC does not have jurisdiction over the uses
allowed in projects, merely the design of the projects; and,
1 3/20/2018
Whereas, DRC was charged by the City Council with implementing
Condition No . 60 which provided:
60. Q!ilslgn Revtew Committee CDRC) Review & Approval of Final Construction P lans.
Prior to the submission of the construction plans and specifications to the
Dovelopment Services Department for Zoning Compliance review, the
applican!ldevelop.er shall submit said plans to the Development Se.rvlye~ Department
for revtew and approval by the Design Review Committee which shall have SLilhorlty
to determine consistency with t he Planning Commission City-approved conceptual
design plans established pursuant to the preceding condition. The Design review
Committee may refer the final construction plans to the Planning Commission for final
determi nation. (DS) · ·
Whereas, the DRC reviewed the plans on July 13,2017, January 11,2018,
and February 8 , 2018, and voted unanimously finding that the architectural design of the
Final Construction Plans for the three buildings is consistent with the 2011 Planning
Commission approved conceptual design plans; and,
Whereas, on January 25, 2018, the City received an appeal of the DRC's
determination made on January 11, 2018. The appeal was from Steve Behmerwohld,
resident and representative of Save Our Mission -San Juan Capistrano, c/o Charles S.
Krolikowski, Newmeyer & Dillion , LLP; and,
Whereas, the January 25, 2018, appeal made four assertions :
1. The changes from the Conceptual Design Plans approved in 2011
are an improper attempt by the Applicant to eliminate or reduce the
commercial and retail component of the Original Project.
2. The changes to eliminate almost all of the Commercial/Retail
components of Plaza Banderas violates all of the approval
documents and the City policies underlying the same.
3. The changes violate the Development Agreement and are
inconsistent with project approval Conditions 59 and 60 as they
attempt to piecemeal project changes ..
4. The new project must comply with CEQA-a new initial study must
be completed to assess potential environmental impacts.
Whereas, on February 22, 2018, the City received an appeal of the DRC's
determination made on February 8, 2018. The appeal was from Steve Behmerwohld,
resident and representative of Save Our Mission -San Juan Capistrano, c/o Charles S.
Krolikowski, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP (the January 25 and February 22 appeals are
referred to collectively as "Appeals"); and,
2 3/20/2018
Whereas, the February 22, 2018 appeal made the following assertions :
1. The revised Final Construction Plans attempted to eliminate the
location and design elements of the restaurant/commercial/retail
components of the Project in violation of the project approvals, EIR,
Development Agreement, Comprehensive Development Plan and
the City planned development/general commercial land use
designations.
2. A review of the new elevations shows significant changes from the
approved Conceptual Design Plans, as a means of modifying the
design of the Project and subsequent uses at the property.
3. DRC review and approval of Final Construction Plans means that
the DRC must determine whether the proposed construction plans
submitted are consistent with the conceptual design plans approved
in 2011, and as required by Condition 59. The Applicant continues to
submit proposed piecemeal changes to the Project, so as to hide its
true intentions and to avoid claims of wholesale changes.
4. The City has previously sent a letter to the Applicant noting that
the interior spaces for Building A and B are not identified on the
submitted plans and requesting the Applicant identify the interior
building space of Buildings A and B so as to ensure consistency with
the approved 2011 Planning Commission plans.
5. The Applicant has now modified/changed the elevations and
various design elements for Buildings A, B, and C from the 2011
approved plans. As Condition 60 requires "consistency" and "not
substantial compliance," by definition, the elevations and design
elements must be uniform.
6. With respect to Building A (the retail/office use), the north and east
elevations are substantially different and the south and west
elevations have minor difference. The Applicant has changed all
elevations and many of the design elements on Building B (the
restaurant use) as it intends to convert the approved restaurant use
into more hotel rooms in violation of the various Project approvals.
With respect to Building C (the hotel use), the Applicant has made
substantial changes to the east elevation and minor changes to the
other elevations. The Applicant is not identifying the uses of
Buildings A and B as it seeks to modify the uses by changes the
design elements. The proposed construction plans are not consistent
with the approved plans and the DRC should deny the request and/or
all the Planning Commission to make such a determinate pursuant
to Condition 60.
3 3/20/2018
Whereas, on March 20, 2018, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed
appeal hearing pursuant to SJCMC Section 9-2.311 to consider public testimony on the
Appeals; and,
Whereas, the findings and conclusions made by the City Council in this
Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented as well as the entirety
of the administrative record, which is incorporated herein by this reference. The findings
are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and,
Whereas, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council makes the
following findings and determinations as to the Appellant's assertions in the January 25,
2018 appeal:
1. The changes from the Conceptual Design Plans approved in 2011 are an
improper attempt by the Applicant to eliminate or reduce the commercial and retail
component of the Original Project. The January 25, 2018 appeal states:
"In its pending request before the DRC, the Applicant is seeking to either
eliminate or substantially reduce the commercial/retail components of the Project, which
were approved for 6, 467 square feet of retail, 3, 702 square feet of office and 6, 095 square
feet of restaurant use, and replace it with additional hotel space and hotel-related uses.
In essence, the Applicant wants to make the Project look the same, but with different
uses.
The January 25, 2018 appeal asserts that the DRC approval of the
architecture has or will result in the exclusion of certain commercial and retail
components. However, the DRC's authority was to review the re-submitted construction
plans for Buildings A, 8 and C; and determine if the plans were consistent with the 2011
Planning Commission approved Conceptual Design Plans pursuant to Condition No. 60.
The DRC does not have land use decision-making authority. The DRC's purview purely
consisted of architectural review of the exterior building design, finishes and details for
consistency with the previously approved Conceptual Design Plans. The January 25,
2018 appeal does not provide any information to explain why the DRC's specific
architectural recommendations and comments or the proposed architectural changes are
inconsistent with Condition 60.
The DRC decision did not address the anticipated uses within the buildings
as the issue of the uses of the building was not before the DRC. To opine on the potential
uses of the buildings, would have exceeded the DRC's jurisdiction over the proposed
project. The January 25, 2018 appeal specifically states that the Applicant was attempting
to make the Project look the same as the previously approved plans, thus acknowledging
the architectural and design elements are generally consistent with the Conceptual
Design Plans.
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination.
4 3/20/2018
2. The changes to eliminate almost all of the Commercial/Retail
components of Plaza Banderas violates all of the approval documents and the City
policies underlying the same.
The January 25, 2018 appeal does not support the claim that the proposed
architectural changes violate the Entitlements for the Project. The January 25, 2018
appeal is focused on the Appellant's belief that future uses are driving the proposed
changes but provides no information to support the assertion that the architectural
changes violate the approval documents. Even if Appellant were able to point to some
evidence of a change in use (which it cannot because that is not the case) the
architectural changes are fully consistent with the 2011 Conceptual Design Plans.
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination.
3. The changes violate the Development Agreement and are inconsistent
with project approval Conditions 59 and 60 as they attempt to piecemeal project changes.
The January 25, 2018 appeal does not provide any information to explain
why the DRC's specific architectural recommendations and comments or approval of the
final construction plans violate the Development Agreement.
Condition of Approval 59 was addressed by the Planning Commission in
March 2011. That action was not appealed, consistency with Condition of Approval 59
was not before the DRC and is not the subject of this January 25, 2018 appeal.
Condition 60 was limited to an architectural review of the final plans to
determine consistency with Conceptual Design Plans presented in 2011. The January 25,
2018 appeal identifies changes in the design features but does not specify issues that
would make the final plans inconsistent with the original plans other than an assumption
that the design changes are intended to facilitate a change in use . Any change in use is
subject to review by the City and is beyond the purview of the DRC.
By the nature of Conditions 59 and 60, the review was required to be done
separately. The Conditions call for separate, independent review of different components
of the Project at different times. The Conditions separate the tasks and assign term to the
appropriate reviewing body at the appropriate time. The time to challenge these
conditions has long passed as they were originally adopted in 2011. This post-hoc
attempt to challenge the conditions of approval is inappropriate and time barred.
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination.
4 . The new project must comply with CEQA-a new initial study must be
completed to assess potential environmental impacts.
Contrary to Appellant's assertion, a new initial study is not required for the
City to proceed with Architectural Control (AC 1 0-02). This discretionary decision is fully
and completely covered by the Plaza Banderas EIR. The January 25, 2018 appeal does
5 3/20/2018
not provide any information to explain why the DRC's specific architectural
recommendations and comments are substantial project changes that would result in the
Plaza Banderas Hotel project having new or more significant environmental impacts.
Absent proof of such impacts, Appellant has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that
the City's reliance on the Plaza Banderas EIR is misplaced. Thus, the City Council rejects
this argument. Additionally, and based on all of the evidence in the administrative record,
including all oral and written testimony presented to the City Council, the City Council
hereby finds that the limited architectural changes to the hotel, reflected in Architectural
Control (AC 1 0-02), are fully consistent with the project evaluated in the Plaza Band eras
EIR for the following reasons.
The architectural and design changes represented in the Final Construction
Plans do not represent a substantial change from the design elements considered during
the original environmental analysis.
Instead, the architectural and design changes to the project are consistent
with the original environmental analysis. The project maintains 124 guest rooms, 185
parking spaces, three access points into the site, three buildings, three stories maximum,
same site configuration, same building articulation and massing, and consistent
architectural style. In addition, the changes include enhanced details and articulation well
above what was originally required for the project. Therefore , the typical environmental
impact generating elements of the project remain identical to what was previously
analyzed. The mere change of some window types (from square to arched), reorientation
of stair cases (from left to right, to right to left), modification of a window to a door, adding
draperies to exterior balconies, adding precision to architectural elements to ensure they
are aligned are all types of changes that would not result in any changes in environmental
effects of the project. Aesthetically, as explained below, these changes enhance the
structure and make it even more compatible with the Comprehensive Development Plan.
The architectural and design changes are consistent with Section 4.12, Aesthetics Table
4.12-2 of the EIR, specifically with the following design criteria of the Architectural Design
Guidelines. The changes do not exacerbate or intensify environmental impacts. There
is no evidence in the record to suggest otherwise .
1. Complement the scale and character of the site and surrounding areas.
The architectural and design changes have been designed to be compatible
with the existing uses in the immediate area; the proposed development will be scaled to
the historic San Juan Capistrano town center and Mission San Juan Capistrano . In
addition, the design changes are consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan
prepared for the project; and which prescribes design standards, which are intended to
identify the major elements of the project. The design changes of the project reflects the
historic heritage of the City and the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style complies
with the policies of the City's adopted Architectural Design Guidelines. The design
changes include the use of light colored plaster walls, arches and sculpted corbels, tile
roofs, exposed wood rafters, recessed windows, balconies with ornamental iron work, and
accented areas with colorful ceramic tile in-lays. In addition, the exterior facades and
rooflines are highly articulated. Massing of the buildings has been addressed through
6 3/20/2018
second floor areas stepped back away from the ground floor facades to create a base
structure.
2. Establish high quality, pedestrian friendly and functional site arrangement of
buildings, parking and landscape area.
The architectural and design changes have been designed to recognize the
site's characteristics and to relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function,
scale, character, and materials. The pedestrian walks are intended to be important
features within the development. The proposed project has been designed to facilitate
pedestrian paths and features that connect buildings within the project site. Pedestrian
linkages will be established between buildings, sidewalks and parking areas and clearly
defined pedestrian paths will be provided from sidewalks and parking areas to the
proposed building entrances. Furthermore, the pedestrian pathways will be separated
from vehicular traffic by a change in grade level. Raised pathways with enhanced paving,
landscaping and bollards will be used to delineate the pedestrian circulation within the
subject property. Parking is intended to be primarily located at the rear of the lots and
areas not specifically required for parking spaces or circulation would be devoted to
landscaping to enhance the character of the site.
3. Provide stylistically authentic and create architectural design solutions which
convey a sense of timelessness and elegance .
The architectural and design changes have been designed to reflect
compatible massing, scale, proportions, colors and materials when compared to the
surrounding development, including Mission San Juan Capistrano . The form and mass of
the proposed structures are intended to create a compatible transition to the nearby
development and relate to the scale of the nearby structures. Building facades are intended
to complement the downtown's pedestrian scale by articulating individual floor levels with
horizontal bands and through the use of color, varying the building heights and massing,
and articulating facades.
4. Create visual interest by utilizing architectural and landscape concepts that maintain
a sense of harmony and proportion along street frontages and other areas of the
project exposed to public view.
The architectural and design changes have been designed to be consistent
with the original siting of the structures within the site and are intended to complement the
surrounding built environment within the downtown area. The building height requirements
prescribed in the COP are intended to prevent adverse visual impacts to Mission San Juan
Capistrano located west of El Camino Real. In order to avoid visual impacts, the building
height limits have been established based on distance from the adjacent roadway right-of-
way.
5. Utilize high quality details and materials .
The architectural and design changes have been designed to be consistent
with the architectural style/design which is intended to enhance the site's context and will
be harmonious with existing building massing, scale, proportions, colors and materials . The
7 3/20/2018
design standards in the COP includes guidelines to ensure that structures incorporate
building elements with "human scale" proportions and incorporate landscaping and
architectural detailing at the lower level of the buildings to diminish the overall impact of the
larger structures and soften their appearance. Building materials include brick, stucco,
granite, terra cotta, stone and wood, which will be complemented by similar accent materials
as well as tile, copper, painted metal and wrought iron. Color palettes will be harmonious
with those found in the surrounding area that complement the Spanish Colonial Revival
architectural style.
6. Projects shall complement the surrounding natural and built environment in pattern,
function , scale, character and materials.
The architectural and design changes have been designed to reinforce and
enhance the City's downtown character by complementing the scale, proportion, and
character of the existing development. The buildings will reflect a high quality architectural
and landscape design that complies with the Architectural Design Guidelines and the
Community Design Element. The project has been scaled to the historic San Juan
Capistrano down town center and Mission and incorporates design elements (e .g.,
materials, colors, landscaping, etc.) that are intended to complement the historic elements
within the downtown, including the Mission and nearby development.
7. The placement of structures, circulation patterns and open space shall acknowledge
the site 's positive characteristics .
The architectural and design changes have been designed to accommodate
both vehicular and pedestrian circulation . In addition, plazas and courtyards have also been
integrated into the development to enhance the site's amenities. Seating will also be
included within the plazas and courtyards to accommodate hotel guests and visitors to the
site . Paseos, which allow for access, circulation, light and ventilation within the
development, have been designed as integral components of the project. Vehicular access
is provided along each of the roadways abutting the site.
B. Increased setback buffers, intensified landscaping, and building orientation design
techniques should be utilized to attain the greatest degree of compatibility between
residential and higher intensity land uses.
The architectural and design changes have been designed consistent with
the development standards which address setbacks, building heights, orientation, and
overall design . Setbacks for each of the roadway frontages have been prescribed based on
the building heights to ensure the provision of open areas around structures for access to
structures, natural light, ventilation, landscaping, privacy, recreation, visibility, and to ensure
compatibility between land uses. Setbacks vary from five feet to 1 00 feet, depending on the
location of the building in relation to a particular street abutting the site. The use of variable
setbacks is also recommended to accommodate outdoor patio dining areas, pedestrian
facilities, etc. In addition, minimum landscape setback requirements have also been
prescribed.
8 3/20/2018
Finally, the architectural revisions reflected in Architectural Control (AC 10-
002) result in an overall reduction in the square footage and floor-area-ratio of the project.
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council makes the
following findings and determinations as to the Appellant's assertions in the February 22,
2018 appeal:
1. The revised Final Construction Plans attempted to eliminate the location
and design elements of the restauranUcommercial/retail components of the Project in
violation of the project approvals, EIR, Development Agreement, Comprehensive
Development Plan and the City planned developmenUgeneral commercial land use
designations.
The DRC review was limited to review of the revised elevations and other
design or architectural elements. Based upon the minor variations identified by staff and
DRC's review of the plans, these elements were found consistent with the Conceptual
Design Plans from 2011. The Appellant provided no facts to demonstrate that from an
architectural or design standpoint the Final Construction Plans were not consistent with
the 2011 Plans . The ultimate use of any of the buildings is controlled by the Entitlements
for the Project and are not within the jurisdiction of the DRC.
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination.
2. A review of the new elevations shows significant changes from the
approved Conceptual Design Plans, as a means of modifying the design of the Project
and subsequent uses at the property.
The DRC review was limited to review of the revised elevations and other
design or architectural elements. Based upon the minor variations identified by staff and
DRC's review of the plans, these elements were found consistent with the Conceptual
Design Plans from 2011. The Applicant provided no facts to demonstrate that from an
architectural or design standpoint the Final Construction Plans were not consistent with
the 2011 Plans . The ultimate use of any of the buildings is controlled by the Entitlements
for the Project and are not within the jurisdiction of the DRC.
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination.
3. DRC review and approval of Final Construction Plans means that the
DRC must determine whether the proposed construction plans submitted are consistent
with the conceptual design plans approved in 2011, and as required by Condition 59. The
Applicant continues to submit proposed piecemeal changes to the Project, so as to hide
its true intentions and to avoid claims of wholesale changes.
9 3/20/2018
The architectural plans presented to the DRC provided specific architectural
details and finishes that allow the DRC to evaluate the design and building articulation for
comparison with the 2011 plans . DRC conducted that analysis and found the plans
consistent. The Appellant has provided no information to explain why the specific
architectural elements presented to the DRC are inconsistent with the 2011 Plans.
Additionally, Condition 59 was satisfied when the conceptual design plans were reviewed
by the Planning Commission in 2011.
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination.
4 . The City has previously sent a letter to the Applicant noting that the
interior spaces for Building A and B are not identified on the submitted plans and
requesting the Applicant identify the interior building space of Buildings A and B so as to
ensure consistency with the approved 2011 Planning Commission plans.
The appeal does not provide any information to explain why the DRC's
specific architectural recommendations and comments violate the 2011 project
approvals. Thus, staff is unable to respond to any specific allegation. However, it should
be noted that the appellant is correct that the City previously sent a letter to the Applicant
noting that the interior space for Building A and B were not identified on the submitted
plans. Staff sought clarification regarding the land uses in the buildings but that
information was not required or related to the DRC's review of the architectural details for
consistency with the approved 2011 Planning Commission plans.
The architectural plans presented to the DRC provided specific architectural
details and finishes that allowed the DRC to evaluate the design and building articulation
for comparison with the 2011 approved plans. DRC does not have land use decision-
making authority and their review was limited of the exterior building design, finishes, and
details.
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination.
5. The Applicant has now modified/changed the elevations and various
design elements for Buildings A, B, and C from the 2011 approved plans. As Condition of
Approval No. 60 requires "consistency" and "not substantial compliance," by definition,
the elevations and design elements must be uniform.
The architectural plans presented to the DRC provided specific architectural
details and finishes that allowed the DRC to evaluate the design and building articulation
for comparison with the 2011 approved plans . Staff identified to the DRC that the
submitted construction plans deviate slightly from the 2011 approved conceptual design
plans in that the Applicant proposes modifications to the building envelope in order to
comply with current Building Code requirements and to create a floor plan that would be
required for a 4 star hotel operator. The DRC reviewed the project in this light and
determined that the plans were consistent with condition No. 60. The Appellant's
assertion that the DRC had little or no discretion to approve any variation in the plans from
the 2011 Conceptual Plans would render the current DRC review meaningless. If the task
10 3/20/2018
was merely ministerial to review and confirm uniformity, that task could have been
performed at the staff level. By tasking the DRC with implementation of Condition No. 60,
the DRC was required to make a discretionary determination as to consistency.
Additionally, it is important to note that the 2011 approved plans were "conceptual" in
nature. The review of the final plans was anticipated to vary from the "conceptual" plans
originally approved or Condition No 60 would serve no purpose.
The February 22, 2018 appeal does not provide any information to explain
why the DRC's specific architectural recommendations and comments violate the 2011
project approvals. Thus, staff is unable to respond to any specific allegation.
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination .
6. With respect to Building A (the retail/office use), the north and east
elevations are substantially different and the south and west elevations have minor
differences. The Applicant has changed all elevations and many of the design elements
on Building B (the restaurant use) as it intends to convert the approved restaurant use
into more hotel rooms in violation of the various Project approvals. With respect to
Building C (the hotel use), the Applicant has made substantial changes to the east
elevation and minor changes to the other elevations. The Applicant is not identifying the
uses of Buildings A and B as it seeks to modify the uses by changes to the design
elements. The proposed construction plans are not consistent with the approved plans
and the DRC should deny the request and/or all the Planning Commission to make such
a determinate pursuant to Condition 60 .
The February 22, 2018 appeal does not provide any information to explain
why the DRC's specific architectural recommendations and comments violate the 2011
project approvals. Additionally, the February 22, 2018 appeal incorrectly asserts that the
final construction plans submitted were required to identify the use of the buildings, and
that the DRC was charged with or did make a decis ion regarding the eventual uses of the
buildings reviewed as part of the consistency determination . .The DRC made no decision
as to the future use of any building .
Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the City Council rejects this
basis for appeal of the DRC determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the oral
and written evidence presented as well as the entirety of the administrative record for the
Project, the City Council hereby denies the Appeals and affirms the Design Review
Committee's determination made on January 11, 2018, and February 8, 2018, regarding
the consistency of the Plaza Banderas Hotel Project's Final Construction Plans with the
2011 Planning Commission approved conceptual design plans related to Architectural
Control (AC) 1 0-002. The City Council's decision is final. Judicial review of this decision
may be sought by following the procedure outlined in Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094 .5 and within the time limits provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094 .6,
except that where a shorter time is provided by any state or federal law, such shorter time
limit shall apply.
11 3/20/2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, based on the
entire administrative record, including all oral and written testimony presented to the City
Council, the City Council does hereby find that the Architectural Control (AC-1 0-002) is
fully consistent with and covered by the Plaza Banderas FEIR. Based on all evidence in
the administrative record, including all oral and written testimony presented, the City
Council hereby finds and determines that preparation of a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or any other CEQA document is not required under California Public Resources Code
section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162, because the proposed
Architectural Control (AC) 10-002:
• Does not constitute a substantial change to the project that will require major
revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
• Does not constitute a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is administered that will require major revisions of the EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and
• Does not involve new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the EIR was certified that shows any of the following : (a) the offer of dedication
will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) significant
effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
EIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the City Council declined to adopt such measures; or (d)
mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in
the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but which the City Council declined to adopt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council
of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby finds the Final Construction Plans consistent
with the Conceptual Development Plans as required by Condition of Approval Number
60.
CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS: The documents and materials associated
with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are
based are located at San Juan Capistrano City Hall, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan
Capistrano, California 92675. The Development Services Director is the custodian of the
record of proceedings.
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: The City Council herby directs Staff to
prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Determination within five working days after the City
Council approves this Resolution.
SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the
remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of
this Resolution are severable.
12 3/20/2018
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Resolution shall become
effective upon its adoption. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall
attest to the adoption thereof.
PROTEST OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the Applicant may protest
the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed on this
development project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures
established by Sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of Ma r h 2018 .
d~OR ~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss .
COUNTY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO)
I, Maria Morris, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution No. 18-03-20-01 was duly adopted by the City Council of
the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the 20th day of March
2018, by the following vote :
Ferguson, Reeve, Patterson, Maryott and Mayor Farias
CIL MEMBERS : None
NCIL MEI\71BERS : None
13 3/20/2018