Loading...
PC Minutes-2005-06-1432400 PASEO ADELANTO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 (949) 493- 1 171 wmv sanjuancapistrano. org b (949) 493- 1053 FAX MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005 W MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAM ALLEVATO DIANE BATHGATE WYAlT HART JOE SOT0 DAVID M SWERDLIN CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Cardoza at 7:03 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Tim Neely, Chairman (arrived at 7:15 p.m.) Robert Cardoza, Vice Chairman Sheldon Cohen Joe Drey Gene Ratcliffe Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; Omar Sandoval, Deputy City Attorney; William Ramsey, Principal Planner; Larry Lawrence, Consulting Project Manager; Sam Shoucair, Senior Engineer; Tamara Campbell, Assistant Planning Director; Sue McCullough, Recording Secretary. ORAL CbMMUNlCATlONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARINGS I. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) 05-074, AN APPLICATION TO REMOVE A CALIFORNIA PEPPER TREE, WITH A DIAMETER OF 30 INCHES AND APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET HIGH LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST REAR PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 31551 AVENIDA LOS CERRITOS APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET WEST OF AVENIDA LOS CERRITOS. (APN L- 650-151 -1 6) (APPLICANT: JACK COBS) San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Futu1.e I, +a Printed on recvcled Daoer PC Meeting 2 June 14,2005 Ms. Bogh said that staff is requesting that the item be continued to the June 28, 2005 meeting, and that Mr. Cobb is in agreement. b Motion Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Drey, to continue the item to the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Commissioners Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cardoza NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Neely ABSTAIN: None This motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Chairman Neely recused himself from Item 2. 2. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16634 (WHISPERING HILLS ESTATES), A APPROXIMATELY 314 ACRES LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE CITY, WEST OF LA PATA AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 1.4 MILES SOUTH OF PROJECT TO DEVELOP 155 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON THE ORTEGA HIGHWAY APNS 121-172-02, 124-140-49, 124-140-53 AND 124-223- Written Communications Staff report dated June 14,2005 Applicant - Property Owner Dennis Gage, Whispering Hills LLC, 19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 120, Irvine, CA 92612 Owner’s Rep resentat ive Phillip Schwartze, The PRS Group, 31682 El Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Attorn ev David Colgan, Nossaman Guthner Knox Elliott LLP, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800, Irvine, CA 92612-0177 Staff presentation & recommendation Mr. Lawrence presented the staff report and Development Agreement (DA) revised to address the following questions raised at the May 24, 2005 Planning Commission meeting: L 1) An amendment providing allocations for 140 dwelling units in the East Canyon portion of the project, 70 in 2006 and 70 in 2007. The remaining 15 dwelling units PC Meeting 3 June 14,2005 in the West Canyon will be custom homes which are effectively exempt from growth management allocation requirements per the Land Use Code. 2) Payment to the City from the Community Facilities District (CFD) is to be dealt with in a separate agreement. However, in the event that the CFD is not used for financing, staff recommends the addition of Section 6.7 to the DA providing for alternative methods of payment to the city of $1 .I26 million. 3) The dedication of the right-of-way for the La Pata road widening to be provided for in conjunction with the DA. Since the last Commission meeting the applicant and City and County staff have agreed to cooperate in the planning and implementation of the ultimate improvements to La Pata, and additional language has been included in the staff report. 4) The three-party road improvement agreement between the County, CUSD, and the developer with regard to interim La Pata road improvements has been provided as an attachment to the report as requested by the Commission. Staffs recommendation is that the Commission, by motion: 1. Find that the proposed DA is consistent with applicable provisions of the General Plan and with objectives of the City’s Growth Management Ordinance. 2. Direct that, prior to approval of the DA by City Council, the DA shall be amended and/or a Right-of-Entry Agreement shall be entered into between the Owner and the County of Orange to address Owner’s obligation to the planning, design, right-of-way, construction and implementation of the ultimate improvements to La Pata and associated construction easements consistent with its MPAH designation. Said agreement(s) shall also include the provision of right of way for Regional Riding and Hiking Trail within the Property consistent with the County’s Regional Riding and Hiking Trails Plan; and 3. Forward the amended draft DA to the City Council with a recommendation of ap prova I. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Cardoza asked when the City Council would review this item. Mr. Lawrence said that it is scheduled for July 5; however if the DA or the Right-of-Entry Agreement were not ready by then, a request for continuance would be made. Public Hearing Phillip Schwartze, representing Whispering Hills Estates, said that Mr. Gage and others met with County staff to resolve right of way issues and that Mr. Schwartze provided Commissioners with a list of benefits to the public that would accrue as a result of the project. PC Meeting 4 June 14,2005 Harry Persaud, County of Orange Project Manager for the La Pata Project, said the County has met with the Applicant and the City and there is a consensus on a solution to address the right of way issues through a condition suggested in the staff report. -J Mark Nielsen, 31621 Via Quixote, spoke in opposition to the project and said the Development Agreement is slanted toward the Developer’s interests and shifts the burden of risk to the City to the detriment of the public. Mr. Nielsen asked that Sections 4.2, 5.1, 5.4, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 8.1, and 9.1 be reworked to reflect the interests of the City. Mr. Nielsen raised points regarding the following sections: 4.2 The right to assign this agreement and all the attendant duties and obligations should only be allowed “subject to the prior approval of the City, such consent not to be unreasonably with held .” 5.1 is a problem in that the Existing Development Approvals do not have sufficient detailed design and quality guidelines specified such that no further review and approval will be required. 5.4 improperly exempts the project from the City’s annual building permit allocation ordinance restrictions, and specifically the City should not agree that the 15 custom home lots that are part of the project should be exempt from the ordinance. 6.2 leaves open the phasing of public improvements to some future time and allows all kinds of future pressure to be put on the City Engineer to shift phases to the detriment of the public. w 6.3 compounds the problem by allowing significant change to the schedule of improvements without any amendment and public hearing process. 6.4 puts the burden on the City to use its “best efforts” (the highest legal standard) to cause special Mello Roos districts to be established to pay for the public improvements that were promised by the developer as a condition to getting approval for his project. 6.5 places the liability and cost of providing adequate sewer capacity for the developer’s project squarely on the back of the City and all taxpayers. 6.7 improperly indicates that the payment of public improvement monies for mitigation of the cumulative impacts of the project is a public benefit payment. 8.1 There is no good reason for the City to agree to tie its hands with specific performance as a mandatory remedy. 9.1 sets the City up for future problems and gives yet another out for the developer to get out of its responsibilities by merely getting a lender to claim that it wants a modification to the agreement. L PC Meeting 5 June 14,2005 Mr. Nielsen concluded that this development agreement improperly places all the leverage and benefits in the hands of the developer, at the expense of the City, and urged the Commission to send the agreement back to be reworked so that it properly reflects the interests and leverage of the City. -- Mr. Sandoval said the Development Agreement meets all the requirements of the government code. Commissioner Cohen asked that assignment language be written to ensure the assignee has the financial wherewithal to perform. Commissioner Ratcliffe said that Section 6.3 seems subjective and that Section 4.2 could be re-examined. Ms. Bogh said that the basic form of the agreement had been used and approved for the SunCal and Honeyman Ranch projects, but that staff and the applicant worked on several revisions of the draft agreement. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 require that all phasing of public improvements has to be in accordance with existing development approvals. Conditions applied to Tract 16634 will ensure that improvements are in place at certain points in the development process. The Development Agreement gives the Developer 5 years to fulfill all of the Tract Map conditions and record the map. The purpose of the Development Agreement is to provide assurance to the bonding underwriters that the entitlement is good for the number of building permits that are going to be issued. Staff is comfortable with this phasing because it is tied down by the map conditions. Commissioner Drey said that he is satisfied with the Development Agreement. b Commissioner Cohen asked if 4.2 wording could be tightened to control the ability of the Developer to assign rights to an assignee without any understanding of the resources of the assignee. Mr. Sandoval said the investors are providing the money, and their assignment language is typically more stringent; however, staff will review this language. Dennis Gage, Whispering Hills, said all the bonds would be in place and the work and infrastructure would be completed before parts of the project are sold to builders. Mr. Gage said this wording could be revised to allow City approval of future owners. Mr. Sandoval said if the Developer does not perform, they don’t get building permits and would lose a lot of money. After five years they would have to start from square one; the Developer has everything to lose and the City has $1 .I26 million to gain. Mr. Shoucair said all subdivisions have a Subdivision Improvement Agreement which states that the developer cannot assign the project without the City’s approval. Ms. Bogh said there is a typo in the last line of Section 4.2.1 that cites 11.12(c) which should be 10.1 1. The same language in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement could be added to Section 4.2.1. LI PC Meeting 6 June 14,2005 Commissioner Cardoza asked that Mr. Nielsen’s concerns be included in the minutes to be forwarded to the City Council. d Commissioner Cohen suggested that in the future the City re-evaluate whether to continue to use development agreements or re-evaluate the City’s Growth Management Policy. Commissioner Cardoza suggested that the following wording in Section 6.7 Item 2 be changed from ‘I. . . at the sole discretion of the City Council.’’ Mr. Sandoval said that the current wording is proper and that the money goes to the General Fund. Motion Commissioner Drey moved, seconded by Commissioner Cohen, to find that the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with applicable provisions of the General Plan and is consistent with the objectives of the City’s Growth Management Ordinance, as amended to reflect the discussion. Further, the Planning Commission directs that, prior to approval of the Development Agreement by City Council, the Development Agreement shall be amended and/or a Right-of-Entry Agreement shall be entered into between the Owner and the County of Orange to address Owner’s obligation to the planning, design, right-of-way, construction and implementation of the ultimate improvements to La Pata and associated construction easements consistent with its MPAH designation. Said agreement(s) shall also include the provision of right of way for Regional Riding and Hiking Trail within the Property consistent with the County’s Regional Riding and Hiking Trails Plan. u Based on these conditions, the Planning Commission hereby forwards the amended draft Development Agreement to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. AYES: Commissioners Cardoza, Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: Chairman Neely This motion passed by a vote of 4-0, with recusal by Chairman Neely Commissioner Cohen asked that the City Council look at additional language with respect to Section 4.2 and other points raised by Mr. Nielsen. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 05-03, SJC COMMUNITY ALERT SIREN SYSTEM REPLACEMENT; A REQUEST TO REPLACE POLE MOUNTED SIRENS FOR THE SJC COMMUNITY ALERT SIREN SYSTEM. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF REPLACING 8 (EIGHT) EXISTING SIRENS AND ASSOCIATED CONTROL CABINETS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND INSTALLING L- PC Meeting 7 June 14,2005 1 (ONE) NEW WOOD POLE WITH SIRENS WITHIN THE MEREDITH CANYON AREA IAPPLICANT: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON) -- Written Communications Staff report dated June 14,2005 Applicant/Ennineer Southern California Edison (SCE), Attn: Barbara Culverhouse, PO Box 128, San Clemente, CA 92674 Staff presentation & recommendation Ms. Campbell presented the staff report as a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow replacement of pole mounted sirens for the SJC Community Alert Siren System. Ms. Campbell said that a typographical error of “20 foot pole” in the report will be corrected to read “50 foot pole.” Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit and the Resolution with the revised pole height. Motion Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to approve Resolution No. 05-6-14-1 recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a citywide siren warning system with nine sirens, and establishing procedures for review and approval of future sirens. AYES: Commissioners Cardoza, Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, Chairman Neely NOES: None b ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None This motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 4. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 86-03 MODIFICATION, SIGN EXCEPTION, FRANCISCAN PLAZA-CELEBRITY THEATRE, A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW THEATRE MARQUEE SIGN AND FACADE IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING THEATRE LOCATED AT 26762 VERDUGO STREET IN THE “COMMERCIAL TOURIST” (CT) ZONE DISTRICT (APPLICANT: DAVID BUSK) Written Communications Staff report dated June 14,2005 Representative Paul Douglas, Pacific Environmental Planning, 33862 Barcelona Place, Dana Point, CA 92629 Property Owner David Busk, Busk Entertainment LLC, PO Box 2849, Mission Viejo, CA 92690 L- PC Meeting 8 June 14,2005 ArchitecVEngineer Tim Algier, The Algier Group, 14 Monarch Bay Plaza, Monarch Beach, CA 92629 Staff presentation & recommendation Mr. Ramsey presented the staff report as a request for approval of a new theatre marquee sign and fagade improvements to an existing theatre located at 26762 Verdugo Street. The applicant has made a number of design changes in response to comments by the DRC. The applicant is asking for a sign exception because of the vertical blade marquee sign proposed for the front of the building. Staff and the committee have evaluated the sign and its location, the applicant has made revisions to the sign, and the applicant is requesting the use of intermittent illumination of letters on the sign. -/ Mr. Ramsey discussed a condition that would limit the hours and days of illumination and a provision for a special activity permit to allow special event lighting, as well as elements relating to the up-lighting, the lighting on the exterior of the building, and window treatments for the faGade of the theater. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution conditionally approving the sign exception and conditionally approving the AC modification for the Celebrity Theatre at the Franciscan Plaza. Commissioner Cohen said he was disappointed with the materials and asked that the blinking lighting be controlled. Public Hearing W Paul Douglas, representing owner Dave Busk, said the sign lighting is computerized at 2- to 3-second letter sequence. Mr. Douglas provided exterior materials and drawings to the dais. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Cardoza said that the applicant made revisions suggested by the DRC, and that that finalized detail of lighting, signage, and coloration would be brought back to the DRC. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked for clarification of the appearance of the faux windows. Mr. Douglas said that a red velvet-type curtain would be seen within the window frames as a backdrop to the movie posters. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked the purpose of the up-lights on top of the pilasters. Mr. Douglas said that the applicant would like to comply with the recent DRC suggestion to replace the up-lights with gas lamps on each of the six pilasters. PC Meeting 9 June 14,2005 Commissioner Cohen said the vertical blade sign was much different than the signage approved several years ago. Mr. Cardoza said that the current coloration is in keeping with the colors of the adjacent buildings. . _, Commissioner Drey said that the DRC has done a great job on this project. Chairman Neely said that the DRC discussed up-lighting, window treatments, support brackets, wrought iron, and the outer case of the sign. Chairman Neely suggested that the fire-engine red color on the sign be changed to a burgundy to blend with the brick. Mr. Douglas said the current sign is more indicative of the Victorian 1920s-30s art deco style than the previously approved sign. Commissioner Cardoza agreed that a burnt red color would be preferred. Mr. Douglas said that a second story mezzanine balcony has been added as a retail fea tu re. Chairman Neely asked if the sign sequencing could be done only on the side that faces Camino Capistrano. Mr. Douglas said that there will be separate controls for each side of the blade sign. Commissioner Cohen asked for the sign to have separate controls and that the sign lighting be reviewed by the Planning Commission 60 days after implementation. Ms. Bogh said that the draft condition would allow sequential lighting only on weekends and as approved with a Special Event Permit. u Commissioner Cardoza suggested that the applicant design flexibility into the sign. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked for clarification on the faux windows. Chairman Neely said there would be two vinyl back-lit posters on the center of the arched windows with the backdrop painted black, and that curtains were implemented to improve the daytime appearance. The Commissioners were in agreement that the red sign color could be toned down. Motion Commissioner Drey moved, seconded by Commissioner Cardoza, to approve Resolution No. 05-6-14-2 conditionally approving a Sign Exception and Architectural Control Modification with conditions that the sign colors be reviewed by the DRC, and that after 60-day trial period the marquee lighting be brought back to the PC for final determination. AYES: Commissioners Cardoza, Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, Chairman Neely NOES: None ABSENT: None PC Meeting 10 June 14,2005 ABSTAIN: None This motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. \ .z UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None COMMISSION/STAFF COMMENTS Commissioner Ratcliffe said that jet skis, an RV, and a commercial vehicle have been parked at the Shell Station off J. Serra for the past 2 to 3 weeks. Ms. Bogh said that she would notify Code Enforcement. Commissioner Drey said that he appreciates receiving all DRC minutes. Chairman Neely said he noticed small scale graffiti at the Standard Stations on Ortega and at Camino Capistrano and Del Obispo. Ms. Bogh said that she would notify Code Enforcement. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 7:OO p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, L Planning Director Ism APPROVED