PC Minutes-2004-11-2332400 PASEO ADELANTO
(949) 493- 1 17 1
(949) 493- 1053 FAX
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
ww~v.saizJirariCu~rsti-c~iio. 0r.g
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23,2004
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAM ALLEVATO
DIANE L BATHGATE
WYAlT HART
JOE SOT0
DAVID M. SWERDLIN
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Neely at
7:08 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
b Commissioners Present: Tim Neely, Chairman
Robert Cardoza, Vice Chairman
Sheldon Cohen
Joe Drey
Gene Ratcliffe
Commissioners Absent: none
Staff Present: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; Omar Sandoval, Deputy City Attorney; Bill
Ramsey, Principal Planner; Nasser Abbaszadeh, City Engineer; Alan Oswald, Traffic
Engineer; Amy Wolf Volzke, Principal Planner; Sue McCullough, Recording Secretary.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes October 26, 2004: Commissioner Cohen moved approval, seconded by
Commissioner Ratcliffe, of the Minutes of October 26, 2004, and the motion passed by
a vote of 4-0, with Commissioner Drey abstaining due to his absence at the meeting of
October 26, 2004.
San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
PC Meeting 2 November 23,2004
PRESENTATIONS
L Presentation by Deputy City Attorney, Omar Sandoval: Overview of the Brown Act and
Political Reform Act.
Mr. Sandoval provided a handout summarizing the major provisions of the Brown Act
(Open Meetings Law) and the Political Reform Act (Conflict of Interest Law).
Mr. Sandoval said that the Brown Act specifies that all discussion pertaining to the
public’s business in the City has to be done openly and in public. The Brown Act applies
to all committees and commissions of the city beginning with the City Council and any
committee formally constituted by the City Council. The exception would be ad hoc
committees informally formed. Before you can have a meeting an agenda with a brief
description of each item to be discussed must be posted 72 hours before that meeting.
The two exceptions to items allowed to be discussed at the meeting are: 1) an
emergency exception which requires a finding of public health and safety immediate
danger and a vote to put the item on the agenda, and 2) an urgency finding of a need to
take urgent action and the circumstances came about after the posting of the agenda.
For Special Meetings 24 hour notice is needed and posted in the news media and at
three locations in the City. The Brown Act prohibits serial meetings. Meetings are
defined as any congregation of a majority of a covered body at the same time and place
to hear, discuss, or deliberate on any item that is within the jurisdiction of the body or
the jurisdiction of the City.
All Commissioners may attend a workshop or other meeting where no business of the
City is being discussed with the majority of members of the body.
---
Violations of the Brown Act are misdemeanors punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and/or
six months in jail, and/or both, where the prosecuting attorney shows that there was
intent to violate the Brown Act. Whenever there is a violation there is an obligation of the
attorney to notify the agency.
Mr. Sandoval discussed the Political Reform Act of 1974, conflict of interest laws that
apply to public officials, specifically City Council Members, City Attorney, City Treasurer,
and Planning Commissioners. In December the City Clerk will propose to the City
Council that all Commissions within the City be included in the conflict of interest law.
According to the Political Reform Act, conflict of interest only applies to financial or
economic interest. The Commissioner must state what the conflict of interest is and
leave the room of the meeting. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)’s 8-Step
process outlined in the handout is to be used to identify conflicts of interest. If a property
being discussed is within 500 feet of your property, then you are presumed to have an
interest and are required to recuse yourself and leave the room. Violations of the
Political Reform Act can result in fines of $500 and up.
Mr. Cardoza asked for clarification regarding a potential conflict of interest with an
Applicant’s team member. Mr. Sandoval referred to Step 4 of the 8-Step process.
PC Meeting 3 November 23,2004
Mr. Neely asked about the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Sandoval said each person
affected must weigh each situation and may recuse themselves because of the
appearance of a conflict.
Mr. Sandoval referred to Disqualification on page 13, which applies to Commissioners
but not City Council members -- appointed officials cannot accept a political contribution
of $250 or more from any person that may have an item before that Commission in the
last 12 months or 3 months after action by the Commission. The cure is returning the
money.
u
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 04-03,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 04-01, ORTEGA HIGHWAY GAS; A REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL, AND ZONING
EXCEPTION APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW GAS STATION,
MINIMART, CAR WASH, AND MEZZANINE OFFICE ON A 48,238 SQUARE FOOT
SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ORTEGA HIGHWAY AT AVENIDA LOS
CERRITOS (AT THE OLD SHELL STATION SITE, APN 650-1 51 -1 8)
Continued from the November 9, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Cardoza recused himself from this item due to a potential conflict of
interest.
b Ed Thurston, adjacent business owner, asked that the item be continued.
Phil Schwartze, representing the applicant, stated the applicant does not agree with the
request for continuance.
The Planning Commission voted to consider the item.
Written Communications
Staff report dated November 23,2004
Proiect Proponents
Representative
Phillip Schwartze, for M&M Petroleum, The PRS Group, 31682 El Camino Real, San
Juan Capistrano, CA 92612
Applicant - Propertv Owner
Bob Hendrickson, P.O. Box 5776, Irvine, CA 92616
Architect
Richard Finkel, Bundy-Finkel Architects, 20331 Imine Avenue, Suite 7, Santa Ana
Heights, CA 92707
PC Meeting 4 November 23,2004
Civil Enqineer
Dru Mayers, Mayers & Associates, I9 Spectrum Pointe Drive, #609, Lake Forest, CA
92630
Staff oresentation & recommendation
Ms. Bogh presented the staff report as an item continued from the last meeting to
address new information on comparable gas station-minimart operations and determine
whether the gas station and ancillary uses are appropriate for the proposed site based
on that information and the considerations set forth in the staff report. Three new
conditions of approval have been added to augment those in the earlier report relating
to DRC follow-up review, Historic Depiction Program, and under-canopy lights.
If the use is determined appropriate, staff recommends approval of the conditional use
permit, architectural control and zoning exception applications based on the findings
and subject to the conditions in the resolution.
Public Hearing
Richard Finkel, Bundy-Finkel Architects, 20331 lrvine Avenue, Suite 7, Santa Ana
Heights, CA 92707, presented slides of similar local projects and site plans.
Commissioner Cohen asked why franchise food services are no longer in gas stations.
Mr. Finkel said that people would rather not get franchise fast food served at gas
stations and that the gas stations didn’t get enough return on large franchise fees.
Phillip Schwartze, representing M&M Petroleum, said the site utilizes more of the
property than the old Shell station. The traffic study prepared by the City concluded that
this new project will generate 977 additional trips, 47 in the a.m. peak and 71 in the p.m.
peak.
Commissioner Drey asked what the ultimate distance would be on the front of the site if
there were another traffic lane there. Mr. Schwartze said 12 feet would be reserved for the right-turn lane under the freeway.
Chairman Neely asked about alternate site designs that used some of the Avenida Los
Cerritos right-of-way. Mr. Schwartze said that the property is dedicated and has
easements.
Ed Thurston, owner of the Union 76 Station across the street, spoke in opposition to the
project and voiced concerns regarding additional traffic congestion, especially during
the summer, and the City’s image being adversely affected by signage.
Commissioner Questions and Comments
Commissioner Drey said this project has an excellent design and that it appears that the
setback would still be more than 25 feet in front of the station even with an additional
lane. He voiced concern regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages.
PC Meeting 5 November 23,2004
L
Commissioner Ratcliffe said that the site plan is aesthetically pleasing but she was
concerned regarding traffic, signage, and sale of alcoholic beverages.
Commissioner Cohen said that he is concerned with forced U-turns on Ortega Highway
due to right-in, right-out, and that the convenience store would not be convenient for
City residents.
Chairman Neely said that traffic issues could be mitigated with one of the future
interchange designs. He stated concerns regarding the potential for multiple freeway
signage, the need for less parking and more landscaping, and the need for architectural
enhancements. Mr. Neely asked what would be involved in vacating a portion of
Avenida Los Cerritos. Ms. Bogh said that there is a reciprocal access agreement
between this parcel and the adjacent parcel to the east, sewer and water easements,
and Fire Department emergency access requirements out of Avenida Los Cerritos. Ms.
Bogh said that since there is one owner for the gas station use, signage would be
allowed for a single-tenant building.
Commissioner Ratcliffe asked for clarification of the parking requirements. Ms. Bogh
said that the Planning Commission has the authority to adjust the level of parking
spaces, now at 22 spaces, due to shared uses on the site.
Public Hearinq
Mr. Schwartze said that a detailed lighting plan had been submitted, a monument sign is
planned, and that the DRC would review building plans, site plan, architecture,
landscaping, grading, lighting and signage, and that the sale of alcohol is an important
factor in the business plan.
Blash Momoney, 22495 Via Verde, M&M Petroleum, said the Applicant has been
approached by several oil companies, and Circle K may be one of the options. The
location was doing 130,000 - 140,000 gallons when the previous station was there, and
they would be fortunate to do 280,000 gallons. The site is on a large lot and Subway
may be one of the food service options.
Mr. Finkel said the signage is not proposed to be substantial, the tenants have not been
determined, and that people using any gas station off that off ramp would need to make
a U-turn.
Chairman Neely asked staff how much authority the Planning Commission has to refer
design issues to the DRC. Ms. Bogh said Condition I states that the Planning
Commission is approving a 5,267 square foot gas station with minimart. The Planning
Commission, not the DRC, has the authority to grant an exception from parking for
shared use, to approve the building general layout footprints and whether or not street
vacations would be required. Ms. Bogh recommended that if the Planning Commission
wants to set some parameters as to parking, building footprints, streets, and utility
easements, that another sentence be added to Condition 2 that says, “The DRC review
shall take place within the following guidelines: . . .I’ and let the Planning Commission
PC Meeting 6 November 23,2004
establish what the DRC is to review. She summarized the concerns identified by the
Planning Commission to this point as follows: sale of alcoholic beverages; right-in right-
turnout access on Ortega Highway; size of the convenience store; whether or not a
portion of Los Cerritos should be vacated; a desire for less parking and more
landscaping; reduction of glazing on the window frontage; feasibility of shifting the
building to the east; the need for a more simple, proportional design to the canopy;
addressing the character, quality and richness of detail on the building and canopy; the
need for a utility easement for the ultimate under-grounding of the utility line that runs
across the frontage and over the freeway; and specifying that no pole sign would be
allowed and any signage would be identification for the primary use only, not for
accessory uses.
...-,
Ms. Bogh asked Mr. Sandoval to address recent case law and First Amendment rights
regarding City regulations on signage and sign copy. Mr. Sandoval said that for
franchises that have trademarked color schemes and lettering, the City can’t regulate
federally protected trademarks, but it can prohibit them altogether. Chairman Neely
asked if the DRC can dictate the size of signage to a franchise. Ms. Bogh stated staff
would research sign provisions.
In response to a question regarding ABC licensing, Ms. Bogh said there are a number
of alcohol outlets in the area, but if a CUP is granted by the Planning Commission, it
would be accepted as approval for the ABC to grant another liquor license.
Motion
Commissioner Drey moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to continue the item
to the December 14 Planning Commission meeting, leave the public hearing open, and
provide staff time to bring back revised conditions regarding what the Design Review
Committee’s (DRC’s) review will consist of and to answer procedural questions on the
signage and vacation of Avenida Los Cerritos.
-.-/
AYES: Commissioners Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, and Chairman Neely
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: Commissioner Cardoza
This motion passed by a vote of 4-0 with recusal of bornmissioner Cardoza.
Chairman Neely declared a recess at 950 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 10:08
p.m.
2. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,
L, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 16221, RANCHO MADRINA-HONEYMAN RANCH: A
PC Meeting 7 November 23,2004
REQUEST FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR AN APPROVED TRACT MAP
PARCEL LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF RANCHO VIEJO ROAD AND L- TO DEVELOP 119 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED (SFD) LOTS ON A 78.6 ACRE
ABOUT 200 FEET NORTH OF ORTEGA HIGHWAY, APN# 650-141-01,04, & 14; 650-
152-09; 650-552-03. 04.06, & 07.
Continued from the November 9,2004 Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Cardoza recused himself from this item due to a potential conflict of
interest.
Written Communications
Staff report dated November 23,2004
Staff presentation & recommendation
Mr. Ramsey presented the staff report as an item continued from the last meeting to
review and forward the Development Agreement to City Council. The Development
Agreement is a companion document to a Joint Community Facilities Agreement
approved and entered into by City Council in September 2004, which is an agreement
with the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) that is primarily designed to
generate necessary capital funds for school expansion and building new school
facilities. The benefits to the City in the Joint Community Facilities Agreement provide
the City with a lump sum payment. The agreement will result in the sale of bonds which
will raise capital revenues, the bulk to go to the school district and some to the City. The
development impact fees that William Lyon would have to pay for Honeyman Ranch
would be paid to the City as a lump sum as opposed to being paid over a period of two
or three years as the project developed. The Community Facility District that’s
envisioned provides additional bonding capacity not being used by the school district
which the City would use, which would result in the City being able to raise
approximately $400,000 in capital funds.
u
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council
approval of the Development Agreement for Tract 16221, Rancho Madrina.
Public Hearinq
Mr. Grable reiterated that this is a win-win for William Lyon Homes, the school district,
and the City.
Motion
Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to adopt Resolution
04-1 1-23-1 recommending approval of a Development Agreement for Tract 16221,
Rancho Madrina, approved for I 19 single family detached dwelling units subject to
Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 01 -01, Honeyman Ranch Planned
Community (William Lyon Homes, Inc.).
PC Meeting 8 November 23,2004
AYES: Commissioners Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, and Chairman Neely
u NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: Commissioner Cardoza
This motion passed by a vote of 4-0 with recusal of Commissioner Cardoza.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None
JOINT WORKSHOP OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE
Discussion of Roles, Responsibilities, and Coordination.
The Planning Commission and DRC Member Jeff Parkhurst convened a joint workshop
with the DRC. b
Ms. Bogh referred to the November 23, 2004 staff report regarding Planning
Commission and Design Review Committee Roles, Responsibilities, and Procedures.
Staff looked at various iterations of design review and architectural review over the last
40 plus years and how long it is taking applicants to get through the process over the
last year, and summarized issues brought to staffs attention.
Commissioner Cohen said that projects are spending too much time at the DRC and the
DRC has grown dramatically over its initial charge. Commissioner Cohen asked for a
mechanism for items including land use issues to come to the Planning Commission
first, then to the DRC for details such as landscaping and signage.
Chairman Neely said that problems occur when the DRC is constrained by Planning
Commission decisions or when the applicant takes the item prematurely to the City
Council.
Ms. Bogh said that Code specifies what constitutes an Architectural Control and
Conditional Use Permit, and specifies that building footprints, building size and height,
setbacks would be items on which the Planning Commission would rule and those
decisions would be appealable to City Council.
PC Meeting 9 November 23,2004
'W
Commissioner Cardoza said when a project goes through development of a refined
conceptual plan, DRC makes recommendations and forwards the item to the Planning
Commission with conditions.
Chairman Neely said that trust is necessary between staff, Planning Commission and
the DRC in order to have applicants comply with suggestions. He suggested having less
design commitment at the beginning of the project.
Ms. Bogh said that major projects have been expedited in 5-7 months including staff
review, traffic studies, drainage studies, geotech reports, DRC and Planning
Commission meetings. Many applicants comment that the DRC process has been
beneficial to them, the projects improve and the applicants have a better understanding
of City policy and regulation. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve or
deny an Architectural Control, a Conditional Use Permit, a variance, monument and
free-standing signs, sign programs. DRC provides review and input and handles design
issues, but does not have approval authority and is an advisory body to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Sandoval said there is a delegation of authority issue. The law says that legislative
acts and policy issues cannot be delegated, but have to be exercised by the body that
has that authority.
Commissioners agreed that the DRC is essential. Ms. Bogh asked for consensus on
going to DRC on fundamental design issues, then to Planning Commission for the
public hearing and then back to DRC on the detail design issues.
An alternate DRC staff report format would be provided at the next meeting giving
summary information and the Chairman of the DRC suggested a design review
checklist to cut down on the bulk of the paperwork and cut down on the meeting format.
The general consensus was that the DRC plays a needed role in establishing initial
design parameters and reviewing final design details. Planning Commissioners
indicated their desire to receive DRC agendas and minutes. The members agreed to
use the design checklist provided in the staff report as a tool for identifying design
issues, focusing DRC meetings, and recording comments.
Ms. Bogh said there is an internal staff review group called the Development Advisory
Board, which consists of department heads, the Fire Department, and Water
Department, to meet with the applicants to review their application for completeness
and bring it back for Conditions of Approval before it comes to the Planning
Commission. Commissioners may attend those meetings held at 9:00 a.m. the first and
third Wednesdays if they want information about projects earlier in the review process.
CO M M I SS IONISTAF F COMMENTS
None
u
PC Meeting 10 November 23,2004
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
11:55 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 14, at 7:OO
p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Director
ism