PC Resolution-15-12-08-02PC RESOLUTION NO.15-12-08-02
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP MODIFICATION (TTM)17842 (15-002)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A MAJOR
MODIFICATIONTO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM)17842 (15-002)FOR A 8 SINGLE-
FAMILY DETACHED,RESIDENTIAL HOME SUBDIVISION ON 2.5 ACRES LOCATED
AT 29921 CAMINO CAPISTRANO;ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF CAMINO
CAPISTRANO AND NORTH OF JUNIPERO SERRA ROAD (ASSESSOR PARCEL
NUMBER:121-050-01 )(HIDDEN CREEK ESTATES)
Whereas,Jim Adam,29921 Camino Capistrano,San Juan Capistrano,CA
92675 (the "Applicant"),has requested approval of major Modification to Tentative Tract
Map 17842 (15-002),Hidden Creek Estates to create eight (8) lots for the development of
single-family detached homes on an existing 2.5 acre parcel, located along the west side of
Camino Capistrano and north of Junipero Serra Road,which is General Plan-designated of
2.2 Medium Low Density and classified as RS-10,000 on the Official Zoning Map (the
"Project");and,
Whereas,the requested major modification includes elimination of items (a),
(b), (g),and (h) of Condition of Approval #2.10 and,
Whereas,Abdu H.Adam and Jim Adam,29921 Camino Capistrano,are the
owners of real property located at 29921 Camino Capistrano (APN:121-050-01); and,
Whereas,the proposed project has been processed pursuant to Section 9-
2.301,Development Review of the Land Use Code;and,
Whereas,the Environmental Administrator has reviewed the project pursuant
to Section 15061 of the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA)and determined that
under the California Environmental QualityAct (Pub.Resources Code,§21000 et seq.)
("CEQA")and the State CEQAGuidelines (Cal.Code Regs.,§15000 etseq.),denial ofthe
TTM modification application is exempt from further CEQA review.Pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines section 15270 CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency
rejects or disapproves;and,
Whereas,the Planning Commission has considered the Environmental
Administrator's determination pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA);and,
Whereas,the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed publichearing
on December 8,2015 pursuant to Title 9, Land Use Code, Section 9-2.302 and City
Council Policy5to consider public testimony on the proposed project and has considered
all relevant public comments.
PC Resolution 15-12-08-02 2 December 8.2015
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Planning Commission of
the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby find that the projectis exempt from further
CEQA review.Pursuantto State CEQA Guidelines section 15270,CEQAdoes not apply to
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Planning
Commissionofthe City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings
as established by Section 9-4.223 of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan
Capistrano:
1. As modified,the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable specific plan or comprehensive development plan,specifically the
CirculationElement,because the applicant's request to eliminate items (a), (b),(g),
and (h)of Condition of Approval #2.10,which requires frontage improvements, is
not consistent withCamino Capistrano's "secondary arterial"designation because
the Circulation Element requires a right-of-way of 80 feet. Further, the modified
map is not consistent with Circulation Goal 4, specificallyPolicy4.2, which states,
"Provide traffic management improvements within areas where through traffic
creates public safety problems";and Policy 4.3, which states,"install additional
street improvements within areas where necessary to improve vehicular andnon-
vehicular safety".The modification wouldremove traffic management improvements
in an area where through traffic creates public safety problems.Items (a), (b), (g),
and (h) of Condition of Approval #2.10 were imposed on the project to improve
vehicularand non-vehicularsafety,particularly to decrease vehicular collisions.
2. The design or improvement ofthe modified,proposed subdivisionis not consistent
with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan or comprehensive
development plan because the applicant's request to eliminate items (a), (b), (g),
and (h) of Condition of Approval #2.10,which requires the design of frontage
improvements,isnot consistent with the Circulation Element,specifically Circulation
Goal 4. Policy4.2 states,"Provide traffic management improvements within areas
where through traffic creates publicsafety problems";and Policy4.3, which states,
"Install additional street improvements within areas where necessary to improve
vehicular and non-vehicular safety".The modification would remove traffic
management improvements in an area where through traffic creates publicsafety
problems.Items (a), (b),(g),and (h)of Condition of Approval #2.10 were imposed
on the project to improve vehicular and non-vehicular safety,particularly to
decrease vehicular collisions.
3.The site,as modified, is not physically suitable for the type of development because
the applicant's request to eliminate items (a), (b), (g), and (h) of Condition of
Approval #2.10 on a "secondary arterial"may result in public safety problems for
vehicles entering and exiting the development including vehicles and bicyclesthat
traverse along the frontage of the development.
4.The site,as modified, is physically suitable for the proposed density ofdevelopment
because the site topography,geologic characteristics,and soils conditions do not
PC Resolution 15-12-08-02 3 December 8,2015
impose constraints to the density and the site is served by public water,public
sewer,and other necessary public services (i.e.electricity,natural gas,and
telephone).
5.The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements,as modified,is not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the existing site has been graded for
development of residential units and does not provide habitat for State or Federally-
protected wildlife species.
6.The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements,as modified,will not
conflict with easements,acquired by the public at large,for access through or use
of,property within the proposed subdivision because no planned public
infrastructure will traverse the project site.
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.
LOCATION AND 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 Acting Assistant Development
Services Director is the custodian of the record of proceedings.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th dayof December,2015.
(Sheldon Cohen,Chairman
David Contreras,Acting Assistant Development
Services Director
Secretary