PC Minutes-2005-03-08L
32400 PASEO ADELANTO
PAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
A949 495 1 171
(949) 493 1053 FAX
www.sanpancaprstran0. org
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAM ALLEVATO
DIANE BATHGATE
WYAlT HART
JOE SOT0
DAVID M SWERDLIN
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 8,2005
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Neely at
7:03 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
L Commissioners Present: Tim Neely, Chairman
Sheldon Cohen
Joe Drey
Gene Ratcliffe
Commissioners Absent: Robert Cardoza, Vice Chairman (excused)
Staff Present: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; Omar Sandoval, Deputy City Attorney;
Larry Lawrence, Consulting Project Manager; Nasser Abbaszadeh, Director of
Engineering; Sam Shoucair, Senior Engineer; Alan Oswald, Transportation Engineer.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes Februaw 8 and Februaw 22, 2005: Commissioner Ratcliffe moved approval,
seconded by Commissioner Drey, of the Minutes of February 8, 2005, and the motion
passed by a vote of 3-0, with Commissioner Cohen abstaining, Commissioner Cohen
moved approval, seconded by Commissioner Drey, of the Minutes of February 22,
2005, and the motion passed by a vote of 3-0, with Chairman Neely abstaining.
San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
m t3 Printed an recvcled DaDer
PC Meeting 2 March 8,2005
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. RZ 04-03. AC 04-07. TTM 16628 AND ZONING ADJUSTMENT: ZION - VISTA L
SAN JUAN OFFICE PROJECT. APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A
MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PROJECT WITH APPROXIMATELY 70.1 00
SQUARE FEET ON THE EAST SIDE OF RANCHO VIEJO RD. NORTH OF SPOTTED
[PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 8, 2005 PLANNING
BULL LN. (APN'S 650-01 1-34 AND -39)
COMMISSION MEETING.)
Written Communications
Staff report dated March 8,2005
Proponents:
Applicant - ProPertv Owner
Zion Enterprises LLC, 901 Calle Amanecer, Suite 160, San Clemente, CA 92673
Owner's Representative
Phillip Schwartze, The PRS Group, 31682 El Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA
92675
Civil Enqineer
Thielmann Engineers, 221 South Glassell Street, Orange, CA 92866
Architect
J.G. Stouse Constructors Inc., 38770 Sky Canyon Drive, Suite A, Murrieta, CA 92563
b
Staff presentation & recommendation
Mr. Lawrence presented the staff report as an item continued from the February 8,2005
Planning Commission meeting, and referred to portions of the staff report including the
fair-share percentages for circulation improvements, effects of project alternatives on
traffic generation, a view analysis from the four Spotted Bull homes closest to the
project, changes to the project if the knoll is preserved, and additional information on the
staff recommendation to not require an EIR for the project.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the continued public hearing,
take testimony on the issues identified at the February 8 meeting, discuss the new
information on traffic and view impacts, determine whether the mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study will reduce the applicable impacts to a less-than significant
level, determine whether the CDP amendment and development plans are appropriate
for the property and the area, and take one of the following actions:
If the project is determined appropriate for the property and the area, adopt the attached
resolution to:
L-
PC Meeting 3 March 8,2005
1.
2.
3.
L
4.
Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Approve AC 04-07 and the associated Zoning Adjustment subject to the
conditions of approval attached as Exhibit “B”.
Forward RZ 04-03 to the City Council, consisting of the Comprehensive
Development Plan amendment allowing medical offices as a permitted use on
the Zion property, and adding Assessor’s Parcel 650-01 1-39 to the CDP as
shown on the revised CDP attached as Exhibit “C”, with a recommendation of
approval.
Forward Tentative Tract Map 16628 to the City Council with a recommendation
of approval subject to the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit “D”.
If the project is determined not appropriate for the property or the area, express the
Commission’s intent to deny the project, indicate the reasons for denial, and direct
staff to return with a resolution of denial at the next Commission meeting.
Public Hearinq
Phillip Schwartze, project planner for the applicant, said that the applicant had prepared
view sections and a PowerPoint regarding grading and non-grading. This project has
been reviewed by various commissions, the Water Advisory Board, the Design Review
Committee (DRC), and neighbors, and the project design reflects the input received.
Gary Martin, 14 Calle Ave Tuna, San Clemente, principal with Zion Enterprises, gave a
PowerPoint presentation showing cross sections from four of the existing residences on
Spotted Bull Lane adjacent to the project, to establish the views and clarify the grade
differential .
L
Commissioner Drey asked whether the amount of cut and fill on the site would be
balanced. Mr. Martin responded that under the current proposal they will have to export
dirt to achieve grades that allow the buildings to be placed lower than adjacent homes.
Seda Yaghoubian, 4 Ravenna, Irvine, SEMA Associates, consultants to Save Our San
Juan and the original nine Spotted Bull property owners, spoke in opposition to the
project due to intensity and density and in opposition to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, which Ms. Yaghoubian said is in violation of CEQA since it is
unsubstantiated. Ms. Yaghoubian said that the spot zoning zone change would benefit
only one landowner, the proposed mitigation measures do not mitigate traffic impacts to
a level of insignificance, and the project as proposed does not promote the health,
safety, and welfare of the community. Ms. Yaghoubian asked that the project be denied.
Bob King, 29422 Spotted Bull Way, spoke in opposition to the project on behalf of Save
Our San Juan members and the original nine Spotted Bull residents. Mr. King provided
a letter and engineering drawings showing an alternate project that would preserve the
knoll by limiting the building area to 40,000 square foot. Under his plan, Building 5
would be moved two-story and moved to the northeast corner of the site and all other
buildings would be one-story.
L
PC Meeting 4 March 8,2005
Commissioner Drey asked Mr. King about the relationship of the pad elevation to the
existing properties. Mr. King said the views from residences would not be impacted
according to their analysis of his proposed plan.
A
\/
Chairman Neely asked if the alternative would be for commercial use. Mr. King said that
it would be for non-medical office use.
Mr. King suggested that another alternative to preserve the knoll could be the
development of 9 one-acre equestrian estates or I 6 one-half acre equestrian estates.
Mr. King said that an EIR should be required and asked that a letter from attorney Mark
Rosen be submitted into the record.
Commissioner Ratcliffe asked for clarification of item 3F on page 4. Mr. King said that
CEQA requires that economics not be a consideration.
Robert Smith, 33831 Camino Capistrano, presented photographs to the
Commissioners, and asked for permission to remove seven Monterey Pines near his
home in a mobile home park.
Tom Rogers, 29361 Spotted Bull Way, spoke in opposition to the proposed project,
saying that the perpendicular views shown by the applicant did not show a building that
blocks views from Mr. Rogers' residence. He stated the proposed sound wall at the top
of the slope is a barrier that requires an EIR. Mr. Rogers asked for clarification
regarding Ortega Ranch and the Ranch Plan as described in the staff report. Ms. Bogh
responded that Ortega Ranch is an office development of about 190,000 square feet,
and is different from the Ranch plan approved by the County. Mr. Rogers stated that all
the fair share contributions to traffic mitigation should equal 100 percent, and that the
traffic analysis should consider the Ranch plan. He stated an EIR should be required
for the project.
L
Chairman Neely declared a recess at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:40
p.m.
Jim Campbell, 29342 Spotted Bull Way, spoke in opposition to the proposed project due
to increased traffic and safety concerns and the need to preserve the rural nature of the
com m u n i ty.
Carol Soto, 2931 1 Spotted Bull Way, spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to
increased traffic, incompatibility with the residential community, and the need to
preserve the knoll. She stated the project does not meet General Plan policies requiring
compatibility with existing land uses.
Bob Sweeney, 26442 Woodcrest Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed project due
to increased traffic and proposed two-story buildings.
PC Meeting 5 March 8,2005
Herb Mazorow, 29421 Spotted Bull Way, spoke in opposition to the proposed project
due to lack of privacy and obstruction of views. '-
Jerry Williams, 29716 Woodlake Court, President of Village of San Juan Homeowners
Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to the medical use,
increased traffic, negative effect on property values of over 1,000 homes, and lack of
notification of the project. He stated an EIR should be required, and that the area
should be left rural.
Russell Reeves, 29502 Spotted Bull Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed project
and in favor of the alternative of single-story residential properties.
George Riener, 29761 Monarch Drive, President of Capistrano Royale Homeowners
Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to incompatibility with the
neighborhood and increased traffic, and lack of notification of the project.
Bob Messersmith, 29301 Spotted Bull Way, spoke in opposition to the proposed project
due to a flawed sound survey, because the proposed sound barrier would amplify the
sound, and adequate flow of water. Chairman Neely asked for clarification of the
comments regarding noise. Mr. Messersmith said that a noise wall would contain the
freeway noise that comes up Spotted Bull east of the project site.
Randy Clark, 2931 Spotted Bull Way, spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to
the incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and City General Plan, increased
traffic from this project and the Ranch Plan, lack of privacy and the need to preserve the
front side of the knoll. He stated the zone change to allow medical uses should be
denied due to traffic; that more mitigation is needed for the AverylMarguerite
intersection; that the Ranch plan should be included in the traffic study; and that the
cross sections of views were inadequate.
b
David Powers, 29520 Spotted Bull Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed project
due to increased traffic.
Tony Samanich, 29322 Spotted Bull Way, spoke in opposition to the proposed project
due to increased traffic.
Les Gilmer, 29582 Spotted Bull Lane, spoke in favor of the proposed project and in
opposition to the medical zoning.
Liz Elliott, 26801 Lariat Circle, spoke on behalf of Mission Hills Ranch Association in
opposition to the proposed project due to increased traffic.
Phillip Schwartze said that the applicant has no intention to convert the project to a
residential project and that the only zone change would be to allow the medical building
on the property. Mr. Schwartze said that Zion has worked on this development over the
years with City staff, commissioners, and neighbors.
L
PC Meeting 6 March 8,2005
Commissioner Questions and Comments
Commissioner Drey said the approved Mammoth Project seems to be comparable to
the properties to the north in Mission Viejo, and that one-story buildings with no medical
use would be a transition to residential uses. He stated it would be a better situation for
the residential properties to have the building pads lowered, to protect views.
Commissioner Ratcliffe asked staff for clarification of official notification. Mr. Sandoval
said that the City uses 500 feet for the initial public hearing notification and publication
in the newspaper. In addition, homeowners beyond 500 feet were notified of the
hearing.
Commissioner Ratcliffe asked for clarification of spot zoning. Mr. Sandoval said that
spot zoning is not an issue with this project since the applicant has asked for the
additional use of medical rather than rezoning. Courts have defined spot zoning as
action by a city to down-zone property to facilitate acquisition, which is not applicable to
this case.
Commissioner Ratcliffe asked for clarification of the agreement made a number of years
ago. Mr. Sandoval said that the common law rule is that a current City Council cannot
bind future City Councils unless it is through statute. In addition, there has been no
development agreement or other agreement approved by the City Council on this
property.
b
Commissioner Ratcliffe said that she agrees with partial preservation of the knoll and
has concerns regarding the proposed Building 5.
Commissioner Cohen said that he would abstain since he was not at the February 8,
2005 meeting and had not heard the meeting audiotapes. He stated that in his ten
years as a Planning Commissioner he has often seen the Planning commission balance
residential uses with other proposed uses.
Chairman Neely said that some of his concerns from last meeting had been addressed
in the staff report. He requested clarification of the fair share contributions of the Ranch
Plan Development Agreement. Mr. Oswald said the Ranch Plan has been included in
the traffic study 2025 cumulative analysis, and that the fair share cost for the Ranch
Plan is not known at this time. He stated his understanding that the Ranch Plan would
be required to pay their fair share of traffic improvements when they are identified.
Chairman Neely said that is not his understanding.
i
PC Meeting 7 March 8,2005
Chairman Neely asked what traffic improvements along Rancho Viejo Road would be
built by this project. Mr. Oswald said that improvements along Rancho Viejo and J.
Serra would be adding an eastbound through lane and a west-bound right turn lane on
the northbound freeway ramp and an east-bound right turn lane from J. Serra onto
Rancho Viejo Road. They would also be constructing a right-turn lane into the site for
northbound traffic and into the site for southbound traffic. Mr. Oswald said there are
impacts on J. Serra between the 1-5 southbound ramps and Camino Capistrano, on
Camino Capistrano from J. Serra to Os0 Road, and impacts on Camino Capistrano and
J. Serra that this project would be required to construct unless those improvement were
made by another developer prior to this project, which would possibly be made by the
high school.
L
Chairman Neely asked for a discussion of the series of traffic issues raised by the
community along Rancho Viejo Road. Mr. Oswald said there were no project-related
impacts along Rancho Viejo Road.
Chairman Neely said that the project would have a 22 percent fair share improvements
along Avery and Marguerite, but that there was zero percent fair share improvements
for Mammoth. Mr. Oswald said there was not a significant impact at that location by the
Mammoth project.
Chairman Neely asked if CEQA requires that if an expert testifies, that is statutory
grounds for an EIR. Mr. Sandoval answered, no.
Chairman Neely said he thought economic feasibility was an element of consideration.
Mr. Sandoval said under CEQA economic impacts are not a basis for consideration in
terms of physical impacts to the environment; therefore it is not required to be
considered to be an EIR. If you have identified an impact, for those purposes you can
determine economic feasibility of the proposed mitigation.
L
Chairman Neely said a comment was made that the medical use, if it were called out as
proposed as a specific component of this project, would mandate a higher fee payment
rate for medical office than a regular office fee. Mr. Oswald said the rate for medical is
$12.99/sq. ft and regular office is $6.40/sq. ft. Chairman Neely asked if medical office
space is permissible within that zoning. Ms. Bogh said the zoning for that property is
already adopted and that the zone change was to be amended to allow medical, and
that medical offices are permitted in some of the other City office zones.
Chairman Neely said that although Mr. Rogers said the two-story building behind his
house was almost intentionally missed, the PowerPoint presentation and Exhibit 3
showed the potential impact of the two-story building behind the Rogers' residence.
Chairmen Neely said that although the Design Review Committee (DRC) and staff
intended to mitigate some of the impacts, there are still some potentially significant
impacts. Chairman Neely asked for commissioner comments on impacts such as traffic,
PC Meeting 8 March 8,2005
aesthetics, knoll, the two-story elements, the architecture, compatibility with the rural
neighborhood, proposed medical use zoning, and the office and residential alternatives. L
Commissioner Drey said that the applicant’s willingness to comply is excellent. It is a
transitional property and one story above grade would be appropriate.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said there would be an increase in peak hour traffic if all the
office use was general, and that there will be traffic impacts from neighborhoods along
Rancho Viejo Road such as Mammoth, Honeyman Ranch, and the Ortega
development. The proposed Plexiglas noise wall is definitely a noticeable feature.
Commissioner Ratcliffe would agree with partial preservation of the knoll. She stated
she is not opposed to the proposed medical use, but does not like the placement of
Building 5 in such a prominent location.
Chairman Neely said that there would be more mitigation dollars from medical use. He
would like to see further analysis of traffic.
Commissioner Cohen said he would need the complete record before commenting on
the project. Mr. Sandoval confirmed that Commissioner Cohen may give opinions as to
what he has in front of him. Commissioner Cohen voiced concern regarding traffic
based on medical use and with the aesthetics since this is an entry to the City.
Commissioners Ratcliffe and Drey and Chairman Neely said they feel the Mitigated
Negative Declaration has adequately identified impacts and mitigation measures. u
Commissioner Drey said he would not support the rezone to medical use.
Commissioner Drey said that one-story buildings are in keeping with the overall trend in
that part of the City. Commissioner Ratcliffe stated she would approve of two-story
buildings, but that Building 5 is too prominent.
Chairman Neely asked if the Tentative Tract Map is tied to the Architectural Control
(AC). Mr. Sandoval said the tract map is for purposes of adding the property to the
south and the Architectural Control governs the grading and the location of the
buildings, the layout of the buildings and the architecture.
Janus Tillman, Civil Engineer, said it is a merger of two properties into one unit and
creation of a lot for each of the buildings. If the location of the buildings changed, the
Tentative Tract Map would not be valid or useful, but the grading is shown on a
separate plan.
Chairman Neely said if you don’t approve the AC, then it invalidates the Tract Map
because you wouldn’t have the same building footprints.
Chairman Neely said there appears to be support for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, but not support for the AC or for the medical use zoning.
L.-
PC Meeting 9 March 8,2005
Mr. Sandoval said that staff would want to bring back to the next meeting a resolution in
order to forward Commission action to City Council, and recommended closing the
public hearing and limiting discussion at the next meeting to discussion of the
resolution.
Ms. Bogh said that if Planning Commission does not act to approve the project, that
staff would not recommend approval of the Negative Mitigated Declaration because
CEQA only applies to projects that are approved.
Commissioner Drey stated he would approve the project with the stipulation that the
buildings be one story with no medical use. Mr. Schwartze said the applicant would not
approve of that stipulation.
Mr. Martin said that one-story buildings would reduce the project to 47,120 square feet,
which is not feasible financially, and that the applicant has made significant changes
requested by staff and the DRC and various commissions over a three-year period.
Commissioner Drey said that he would not want to reduce the floor area ratio.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said that maintaining the floor area ratio would mean completely
changing the footprint. Such a plan is not before the Commission tonight.
Mr. Martin asked if public notice is given for DRC meetings. Ms. Bogh said noticing is
not required for DRC meetings, which function as working meetings. Mr. Martin said that
he would prefer continuing the item to the next Planning Commission meeting, that a lot
of money and time had been spent in making changes, and that the two-story building
mitigates noise to the neighborhood.
L,
Chairman Neely said that although the applicant made many changes in response to
the DRC and staff, there are concerns regarding a lack of community support, the
prominence of the medical building, medical use, compatibility with the neighborhood,
as well as traffic and aesthetic impacts.
Motion
Chairman Neely moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to deny the zoning
adjustment request and architectural control applications based on incompatibility of the
project with the adjacent neighborhood, with staff to bring back a resolution with findings
for denial of AC 04-07; and to recommend to the City Council that they deny RZ 04-03
and TTM 16628.
AYES: Commissioners Drey and Ratcliffe, Chairman Neely
NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Cardoza
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cohen -
PC Meeting 10 March 8,2005
This motion to deny passed by a vote of 3-0, with Commissioner Cohen abstaining. Ld
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
COMMISSION/STAFF COMMENTS
Chairman Neely asked that staff look into the severely trimmed trees on a landscaped
island on the west side of La Novia at the project adjacent to the golf course south of
San Juan Creek Road.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
10:40 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 7:OO
p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,