Loading...
PC Minutes-2004-06-0832400 PASEO ADELANTO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 (949) 493-1 171 (949) 493- 1053 FAX 11'\1'11 rClllj11uf2CCIJ31Stl'ui70.0i~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 8,2004 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAM ALLEVATO DIANE L BATHGATE WYAT 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:OO p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Robert Cardoza Sheldon Cohen Gene Ratcliffe Commissioners Absent: Tim Neely, Chairman Staff Present: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; William Ramsey, Principal Planner; Omar Sandoval, Deputy City Attorney; Sam Shoucair, Senior Engineer; Sue McCullough, Recording Secretary. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of Ami1 13. 2004: and Minutes of Ami1 27, 2004: Commissioner Ratcliffe moved approval, seconded by Commissioner Cohen, of the Minutes of April 13, 2004 and the Minutes of April 27, 2004, and the motion passed by a vote of 3-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINES - None Sari Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future PC Meeting 2 June 8,2004 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. REZONE (RZ) 04-04, ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 03-05, CAPISTRANO ANCILLARY FACILITY; A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ” R& D ” (RES EAR C H AN D DEVELOP M E NT/O F F I C E) D I ST R I CT D EVE LO P M E NT STANDARDS OF THE FORSTER CANYON COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT 125,388 GSF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE COMPLEX ON AN EXISTING 17.38 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTH END OF VALLE ROAD; ASSESSOR PARCEL PLAN (CDP 81-01 ) AND PRELIMINARY SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR A NUMBER: 675-361 -06 (CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT). Written Com m u n i ca tio n s Staff report dated June 8,2004 Staff presentation & recommendation Mr. Ramsey presented the staff report as a request for a rezone application to amend the development standards established by the Forster Canyon Comprehensive Development Plan for the “R&D” (Research and Development/Office) District. The project also includes consideration of an architectural control application for the development of a proposed 125,388 gross square feet administrative office complex for the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD). He stated the applicant is seeking to deviate from the 35 foot building height limit and construct a 39-foot high building, based on the technology needed for the ceiling members and HVAC system. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a Public Hearing, receive public comment, and continue this item to the June 22, 2004 meeting for additional public noticing of the hearing. ’d Commission Questions/Comments Commissioner Cohen asked if building technology is the only reason staff is justifying any deviation from the City’s height limit and whether a building could be designed within the 35 foot height limitation. Mr. Ramsey responded that staff feels a two foot height increase would be appropriate to accommodate the ceiling height and attic space in this case, although other office buildings in the City have been designed within the 35 foot height limitation. Commissioner Cardoza asked the height proposed for the tower and for the proposed building. Mr. Ramsey answered that the proposed height is 49 feet for the tower, and although the Applicant’s drawings propose 39 feet, staff is recommending 37 feet for the building. Anson Rane, Project Architect, PJHM Architects Southwest, said that proportionately the 39 foot height is appropriate to accommodate the duct sizes, light fixtures, and roof structure. He would not recommend changing the slope of the roof. The roof-mounted equipment would be in an I I-foot well. PC Meeting 3 June 8,2004 Of the two tower element designs shown, the Applicant prefers the smaller scale tower design closest to the freeway. -.-/ Dale Hatfield, Landscape Architect, said that recommendations from the March and May DRC meetings were incorporated in the landscape palette. Commissioner Cardoza requested that the final landscape plan with plant species be presented to the DRC. Public Hearinq Mr. Ramsey recommended leaving the public hearing open and continuing the public hearing to the June 22, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cohen asked Mr. Ramsey to look at other two-story office buildings in the City and provide an analysis of building height, ceiling height, and attic space of those buildings at the next meeting, to determine whether other office building developers had sought an exception from the City’s building height limit. Motion Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to continue the item to the June 22, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. L AYES: Commissioners Cardoza, Cohen and Ratcliffe NOES: None ABSTAl N: None ABSENT: Chairman Neely This motion passed by a vote of 3-0. 2. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN 04-01, SOUTH COAST WATER DISTRICT [SCWD) ACCESS DRIVE; CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR AN ACCESS DRIVE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE 29 ACRE DISTRICT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STONEHILL DRIVE BEWEEN SAN JUAN CREEK AND THE OCTNSCRRA RAILROAD (ASSESSOR WATER D I STRl CT). PARCEL NUMBER: 121-253-16 & 18; 668-404-01 & 04) (APPLICANT: SOUTH COAST Written Communications Staff report dated June 8,2004 PC Meeting 4 June 8,2004 Staff presentation & recommendation Mr. Ramsey presented the staff report stating the application consists of preliminary improvement plans for an access drive to provide access to the 29 acre South Coast Water District (SCWD) property located on the south side of Stonehill Drive between San Juan Creek and the OCTAlSCRRA railroad. Although the project site is in the City of Dana Point, the access drive goes through the City of San Juan Capistrano and traffic from the site will impact Stonehill Drive and other City streets. A provision was added to the agreement requiring that SCWD reserve land area for 5 years and provide a plan for the extension of a secondary access drive through the site to go under Stonehill Drive and provide access to property north of Stonehill. An access easement would be needed from two other property owners to construct such an access drive, and if that could not be accomplished within the 5-year timeframe, the provision for the secondary access would become null and void. As part of the EIR completed for the South Coast Water District Master Plan, that traffic study identified three areas of potential impact of direct traffic impacts by this project, including the Camino Capistrano/Stonehill intersection with the 1-5 northbound onramp; the southbound 1-5 at Camino Capistrano; and the need for signalization where this access drive ties into Stonehill Drive. The other improvement included in this revised agreement, which came out of response to comments and further evaluation of the EIR, is the improvement to the Valle Road/La Novia 1-5 northbound ramps. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending approval of the proposed Preliminary Improvement Plans and recommending that the City Council adopt the implementation agreement for the SCWD’s proposed access drive. Commissioner Questions/Comments Commissioner Cardoza asked for clarification on the location of the site. Mr. Ramsey said the entire 29 acre site is in Dana Point, with the exception of the access way. Commissioner Cardoza asked if the City of Dana Point also reviewed the driveway plans. Mr. Ramsey said the plan for those improvements will require review and approval by the City of San Juan and the City of Dana Point and that the City of San Juan Capistrano will also review any proposed identification signs on Stonehill Drive. The implementation agreement gives the City of San Juan a long-term legal authority to enforce certain provisions. Commissioner Cohen asked if there is any other access to the property through Dana Point, and how an environmental analysis could be done without knowing the potential for build-out on that property. Mr. Ramsey said there is no access to the property through Dana Point other than that mentioned earlier. An analysis of land use alternatives found the potential for a three- to four-acre public park area with the rest developed with industrial business uses consistent with the City of Dana Point zoning. PC Meeting 5 June 8,2004 W Commissioner Cohen asked if Dana Point could condemn property for an alternate access point if the project was not given access to Stonehill through the City of San Juan. Mr. Sandoval said the District is a public agency with the authority of eminent domain. However, if the District meets all City requirements, Stonehill Drive is a public road and therefore we would not have a good basis for denying access to that road. The City of San Juan Capistrano is identified as the responsible agency for monitoring and implementing traffic mitigation measures affecting our jurisdiction. Where the City of San Juan Capistrano is not the direct agency controlling the mitigation, the agreement does recognize that other outside agencies have jurisdiction. Michael Dunbar, General Manager of the SCWD, said it is a unique property where all of the development is in the City of Dana Point. They concur with staff's recommendation and feel that the implementation agreement addresses all of their issues. SCWD submitted preliminary plans and supplemental information to San Juan staff in 2003 and there have been many revisions to achieve a workable project. The modifications recently presented are acceptable to the SCWD. In I999 Capistrano Beach had a treatment plant which was in the process of being closed down prior to the consolidation of Capistrano Beach, SCWD and Dana Point in 1999. A Programmed Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) looked at the three alternatives. The SCWD entered into an agreement, as the City did, with Metropolitan Water District for a ground water recovery plant. The access off of Pacific Coast Highway is an acute angle turn and very dangerous and is the only access to the property at this time. As part of an agreement with the County, SCWD is required to close that access except for emergencies. Their only choice is to access the site from Stonehill Drive. Commissioner Cardoza asked Mr. Dunbar if he is in agreement with all the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Dunbar answered that is correct. Public Hearinq Jennifer Harrison Vancois, 33751 Camino Capistrano, spoke in opposition to the project on behalf on the Harrison Family Trust, which owns property on both sides of Stonehill where this proposed access road will cuts through their property. The plans show that the driveway will be 50 feet wide and the easement across the Harrison property is only 42 feet wide. Ms. Harrison Francois stated she had only three working days notice of this meeting, which was not enough time to prepare a full presentation. Mr. Cassidy, one of the owners of the Cassidy property, located adjacent to the project site, said the SCWD took some of their property to the back and along the creek for an access road several years ago. Mr. Cassidy has a nursery on the property where they grow palm trees which is the current and best use of their property. Their business is at grade along the railroad tracks. In the future, in order to develop his property as well as the Harrison's property, it will be necessary to build these properties up to an elevation that would be at grade with Stonehill and presumably with this connector road from the Water District. Any possible situation that would create an availability for an option for the City or others to have a roadway underneath Stonehill which would be at a separate PC Meeting 6 June 8,2004 grade from our proposed developable grade amounts to a bisected approach for us to develop our land. This five year proposal that Mr. Ramsey discussed is a window to keep the landowners at bay from developing our property. Mr. Cassidy asked if the two landowners were to ask the Planning Commission for a project that would get rid of that 50 foot wide easement along the tracks, how would this five year moratorium affect the landowners? Is this bordering on some sort of taking by the City on to our property? He stated the landowners had commented to the SCWD as to their mitigated negative declaration. Page 1-4 of their document states, “As part of the construction process and within temporary easement areas there is the potential for drainage improvements, related site work and grading to occur on the Cassidy/Harrison property located immediately north of the proposed project site.” His concern is about the potential for changes which may adversely affect the current use as seaside palm growers and their future development plans. Please be on notice that our future use of the property includes filling all our property to the grade of Stonehill Drive and the District connector roadway and taking access directly to the same at grade. The 50 foot wide private access easement which is shared by Cassidy and Harrison could then be vacated at that time of development by Cassidy and Harrison. Our present plans (the Cassidy family) is to continue operating Seaside Growers until we decide to develop our property. We welcome any discussion for these temporary alternative methods for access to our nursery facilities at our current grades. But we are strongly opposed to any future secondary roadways which might affect our developmental plans and certainly our property valuations. Mr. Ramsey commented to Mr. Cassidy’s concern about what kind of constraint this may impose on his property. This implementation agreement binds the SCWD and the City. It doesn’t bind Mr. Cassidy. Should Mr. Cassidy decide tomorrow to file a development plan to fill his property and to develop it and to propose access via Stonehill, he would have the legal ability and authority to do that. Mr. Sandoval said that this agreement has no affect upon the development of their property and is intended to protect the property owners and City residents. There is no intention to require the property owners within San Juan Capistrano to do anything other than to be able to fully enjoy their property. The agreement speaks for itself and actually shows that intention. Commissioner Cardoza asked if the development as proposed is within the easement right-of-way which already has been designated and agreed to, and this would propose no hardship to the adjacent property owners and no further encroachment? Mr. Sandoval said that the SCWD intends to stay within the easement. Even if the District were to take additional right-of-way by eminent domain, the property owner would have to be compensated under the law for the fair market value of the taking. So, either way the property owners are compensated and protected under the law for any action. That development is within another City. The City of San Juan is in a unique position to be able to protect our residents while at the same time allowing a property owner outside of the City of San Juan to develop their property. Commissioner Cohen asked if the construction of this access road constitutes a taking and if counsel had a chance to review the actual easements to determine if there is any PC Meeting 7 June 8,2004 encroachment. Mr. Sandoval said that it would not constitute a taking and that he had not reviewed the language or the actual Court documents that identify the easement, but if they’re constructing outside the easement, the property owner would have a right of action to recover an inverse condemnation. The property owners are fully protected by the law. Commissioner Cardoza asked when a City Council meeting would be held to look at the detail of what is being proposed. Mr. Ramsey said that it would be heard at the July 6, 2004 meeting if the Commission made a recommendation this evening. Commissioner Cohen asked if the Commission has any leverage under a sphere of influence type of argument with the City of Dana Point as to the future development of this property. Mr. Sandoval said no, the sphere of influence only deals with unincorporated area and this is incorporated into the City of Dana Point. Commissioner Cohen asked if we have any type of leverage. Mr. Sandoval said that the City of San Juan is one of the agencies that was required to receive a copy of the environmental documents, which were reviewed and commented on. Impacts were identified in the City of San Juan Capistrano, and mitigation measures were imposed under that EIR. Commissioner Ratcliffe stated she is concerned about one access point provided to the 29 acres when future development plans have not been disclosed, commenting that a similar situation exists at Os0 and Cabot where a single access road leads to a commercial area, traffic stacks propagates all the way back onto Os0 and impacts northbound and southbound 1-5 in this location. Richard Gardner, resident of Capistrano Beach and former director of the Capistrano Beach Water District, spoke in opposition to the access road and in favor of the groundwater treatment plant. He said that a better solution would be an at-grade crossing at Victoria. If an improved at-grade crossing were provided at Victoria, which would lie entirely within the City of Dana Point, then traffic and access to the 30 acre property would be from Dana Point into the City of Dana Point and it would also provide access for the community of Capistrano Beach. Ms. Betty Burnett, General Counsel for SCWD, said that the District has evaluated this option and it is not feasible. Jim Smith, Consultant to the SCWD, said the property is landlocked with no frontage on any public right-of-way, and gains access by the only means currently available, by revocable license from the County of Orange over a 15 foot road that goes beneath Camino Las Ramblas to Pacific Coast Highway. The County of Orange has steadfastly maintained that that road was not to be used for the ultimate build out of this property. SCWD has no rights across nor any intent of acquiring access rights across the Cassidy and Harrison property, but they recognize that that potential might be the desire of the City of San Juan Capistrano or the City of Dana Point. This agreement is to put a hook PC Meeting 8 June 8,2004 into the future development of this property so that at every step your staff, Commission or City Council have an opportunity to review it to insure that the proper mitigations are carried out, the fees are paid, and so forth. u Commissioner Comments Commissioner Cohen commented that the Commission is merely advisory to the City Council. The implementation agreement goes a long way in protecting the City to the extent it can be protected. He would like to have seen documentation analyzing other alternatives, to be assured that this is the only feasible access point. Commissioner Cardoza voiced concern for the adjacent property owners’ access and the recommended adoption of the implementation agreement. He would recommend that the final plans go to the DRC. Motion Commissioner Cardoza moved, seconded by Commissioner Cohen, to adopt Resolution 04-6-8-1 recommending approval of preliminary design plans for a proposed access drive to Stonehill Drive for the 29 acre South Coast Water District property located south of Stonehill between the Southern California Regional Rail Authority and San Juan Creek and more precisely referred to as Assessors Parcel Number(s) 121- 253-16 & 18; 668-404-01 & 04 (South Coast Water District Access Drive), with a modification to Condition 3 to provide for Design Review Committee review of landscape plans, grading plan and easement alignment. AYES: u Commissioners Cardoza, Cohen and Ratcliffe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chairman Neely This motion passed by a vote of 3-0. Mr. Ramsey said that staff would anticipate taking this item to City Council on Tuesday July 6,2004. CO M MI SSlONlSTAFF COMMENTS Commissioner Ratcliffe said on June 4, 2004, a contractor building the retaining wall behind an auto dealership broke a water main, which flooded the railroad tracks. * PC Meeting 9 June 8,2004 b ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 22, at 7:OO p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Planning Director Ism