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