PC Minutes-2004-07-1332400 PASEO ADELANTO
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO. CA 92675
(949) 493-1171
(949) 493- 1053 FAX
wtw surparlcupsrrum 01-g
I,
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAM ALLEVATO
DIANE L BATHGATE
WYATT HART
JOE SOT0
DAVID M SWERDLIN
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JULY 13,2004
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman
Cardoza at 7:lO p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Present: Robert Cardoza
Sheldon Cohen
Joe Drey
Gene Ratcliffe
Commissioners Absent: Tim Neely, Chairman
Staff Present: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; Omar Sandoval, Deputy City Attorney;
William Cunningham, Contract Staff; Alan Oswald, Transportation Engineer; Sam
Shoucair, Senior Engineer; Sue McCullough, Recording Secretary.
Vice Chairman welcomed new Planning Commissioner Joe Drey.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes Mav 11, 2004 and Minutes of Mav 25, 2004: Vice Chairman Cardoza asked
that the word “natural” be replaced with “stained” in the last sentence of the motion on
page 2 of the May 25, 2004 minutes. Commissioner Ratcliffe moved approval,
seconded by Commissioner Cohen, of the Minutes of May 11,2004 and the Minutes of
May 25, 2004 as corrected, and the motion passed by a vote of 3-0 with Commissioner -- Drey abstaining.
Sun Juun Capistmno: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
PC Meeting 2 Julv 13.2004
‘L PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; SCH# 2003081002;
REQUEST TO EXPAND AN EXISTING PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL BY DEVELOPING
RECREATIONAL AND ATHLETIC FACILITIES ON APPROXIMATELY 29.2 ACRES
OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CAMINO CAPISTRANO
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 02-07, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; A
AND JUNIPER0 SERRA ROAD; ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 649-01 1-30, 649-
01 1-25; JSERRA HIGH SCHOOL - SOUTH CAMPUS.
Re p rese n tative
Pueblo Serra Inc., 2532 Dupont Drive, Irvine, CA 92612
Owners
Laurence F. Buchheim Trust, 31 591 Paseo Don Juan, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Carl E. Buchheim Trust, 254 South Hillcrest St., Anaheim, CA 92807
Enqineer
Hunsaker & Assoc., Three Hughes, Irvine, CA 92718
Written Communications
Staff report dated July 13,2004 b
Staff presentation & recommendation
Mr. Cunningham presented the staff report and said the action before the Planning
Commission includes three components of the project. The Planning Commission
should review the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and determine whether it is
adequate to certify for the Architectural Control (AC) portion of the project, and should
review the Development Agreement (DA) and forward a recommendation to the City
Council, which is the ultimate decision-making body on the DA. The AC consists of
recreation and athletic fields to expand the existing 29-acre north campus of the existing
JSerra High School. Phase I is proposed to include the gymnasium, athletic facilities,
street improvements and landscaping, and pedestrian bridge. The Performing Arts
Center is included as a later phase, with the present site plan showing the proposed
building location and more specific plans for the building to be submitted at a later time,
as outlined in Condition 12 in Attachment I to the draft resolution.
The Park, Recreation and Equestrian Commission recommended that there be a Class
1 off street trail along the Camino Capistrano frontage, as well as Class 2 trails on both
sides of this street. Condition 9 addresses DRC concerns regarding building massing,
building height, and lighting, requiring detailed plans to come back to the DRC and the
Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of the first grading permit. Condition
10 states that the Historic Depiction Program (HDP) and Historic Monumentation Plan
PC Meeting 3 July 13, 2004
L
are to return to the Cultural Heritage Commission, the DRC, and the Planning
Commission for approval.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and review
the project, and either take action on the resolutions in the staff report or continue the
item and give direction to the staff and applicant regarding additional information or
revisions needed to the plan.
John Bridges, environmental consultant to the City, said that Cotton Bridges Associates
prepared the EIR for the JSerra High School South Campus project in accordance with
CEQA and accepted environmental standards equal to or above those typically used for
projects of this type, and that representatives were present in order to answer questions
on the contents of the EIR.
Public Hearinq
Vice Chairman Cardoza asked that the speakers from the audience adhere to the 3-
minute limit, and invited the Applicant to speak.
Phillip Schwartze, the PRS Group, 31682 El Camino Real, representing the Applicant,
said that the applicant requests the Planning Commission to certify the EIR, approve the
AC Application, and to provide recommendations on the Development Agreement.
Andy Cupples, Architect, 18132 Welbrook Circle, Huntington Beach, said that the 29-
acre south parcel would be part of a well-rounded educational program, and discussed
in detail the site plans, referring to a PowerPoint presentation and large illustrations.
Jim Baldovan, Conceptual Design Planning Company, 19762 MacArthur Blvd., Irvine,
said that the intent of the edge treatment is to mimic the existing landscape edge that
continues down Camino Capistrano to be consistent with the Rancho Capistrano Plant
Society and DRC recommendations.
Mr. Cupples spoke about the proposed historical monument, bridge connection,
landscaping, natural view corridor, and plaza architecture. He stated the maintenance
bays will be shielded by the architecture.
Andy Sulek, 16 Stampede, Trabuco Canyon, Director of Admissions at JSerra High
School, spoke in support of the project, and said 40% of the student body is from San
Juan Capistrano, that financial aid is available, and that seven students in the 2003-
2004 school year were from Juaneno descent.
Nancy Melbourne, 30 Golden Rain, Aliso Viejo, Vice Principal of JSerra High School,
spoke is support of the project and said that the school offers one of the premier
educational curriculums in California, wireless technology, and a state-of-the-art
conservatory theater. California Conservatory of the Arts is open to all students, no
matter where students attend school during the day.
PC Meeting 4 July 13, 2004
Michael Schubert, 33896 Malaga Drive, Dana Point, Head Baseball Coach and
Christian Service Director, spoke in support of the project, and said that JSerra students
provided over 1,000 Christian service hours during the inaugural year.
L
Commissioner Cohen asked if there are any high school baseball fields in the South
County area that have lighted fields. Mr. Schubert said that Santa Margarita and San
Juan Sports Park have lighting, but didn’t know of high schools that have lighting.
Margie Meyers, 31587 Via Consada, spoke in support of the project, and said that the
students would be providing community service and that a head tax per student will help
with the infrastructure.
Commissioner Cohen asked about the proposed bridge lighting and elevator. Mr. Arch
said that there is lighting for safety at the handrail or path, and that there would be a
hydraulic elevator. Commissioner Cohen said that he is concerned with the glass and
asked if design specifics would come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Bogh said
that staff has added a draft condition of approval asking that all the detail design plans
come back to the DRC and the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Cohen asked Mr. Schwartze about faith-based services addressed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations as an activity of the performing arts center. Mr.
Schwartze said that a religious event might occur from time to time, but not every
Sunday. Friday Mass would be held in the gymnasium.
Vice Chairman Cardoza asked about the safety fencing that might be required for the
baseball fields along Camino Capistrano. Mr. Couples said the backstop would be a 30-
foot backstop fence similar to the Huntington Beach Park. The grouping of the other
baseball fields is in accordance to DRC recommendations, and that retractable netting
is being discussed as an option.
Jacqueline Moreno, 26642 Paseo Durango, of Cherokee Nation descent, spoke in
opposition to the project in support of her brothers and sisters of the Juaneno Tribe, and
against disturbing sacred burial grounds.
Margarite Shard, 30170 Branding Iron Road, spoke in opposition to the project, due to
increased traffic.
Gail Prothero, 29302 Sandalwood Court, spoke on behalf of Rebecca Robles in
opposition to the project due to the negative impacts on Tribal members.
Tom Morris, 30725 Calle Chueca, submitted a letter to the Planning Commission and
spoke in opposition to the project and in support of greater setbacks from adjacent
residences; the need for public access to the recreation areas; and requested that the
performing arts center activities not be visible or audible to the surrounding community.
PC Meeting 5 Julv 13,2004
Suzie Morris, 30685 Calle Chueca, spoke in opposition to the project due to noise and
the close proximity of her patio, which is six feet away from the athletic field. Her
husband is terminally ill and they have a freeway on one side and the railroad tracks on
the other. Increased noise from the fields and parking lots would be detrimental.
L
Paul Fulbright, 30705 Calle Chueca, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated the
applicant had proposed that the Casitas community should pay for the block wall
separating their houses from the play fields, and the residents should not have to pay
for. He urged the Planning Commission to approve a !%foot minimum buffer between
the Casitas neighborhood and the athletic fields, stating that the intensity of the
proposed fields is excessive.
Dr. Eleanor Robbins, 11017 Via Mirada, La Mesa, Adjunct Faculty, San Diego State,
spoke in opposition to the project due to the hydrocarbon contaminant plume under the
site. She stated there is no State oversight for toxics under private schools, but the
applicant should have this area tested because the Shell and Exxon Ultramar gas
stations have reported leaks in multiple years. Students could experience sinus and
respiratory ailments resulting from volatile hydrocarbons.
John Perry, 32175 Via Burrita, spoke in support of the project due to the quality and
scope of educational facilities which will increase the property value of the
neighborhood and the quality of participation for high school athletes and community
uses.
Molina Kreiss, 30651 Calle Chueca, spoke in support of the project due to a drug issue
and graffiti in the Casitas neighborhood.
Rene Ritchie, 31487 La Posita, spoke in support of the project. Her son will be a
sophomore playing soccer at JSerra High School, and Coach Carlos Garcia has a
commendable vision to address the needs in the community.
Doug Korthof, 1020 Mar Vista, Seal Beach, spoke in opposition to the project with
respect to the Juaneno Tribe. He stated the Religious Land Use Institutional Protection
Act (RLUIPA) forbids discrimination by cities and other local entities against religious
land use applicants.
Anthony Rivera, 3944 Barbara Palms, Perris, spoke as a representative of the Juaneno
Band of Mission Indians in opposition to the project on the sacred site of the Village of
Putiidhem. He stated there has not yet been a response to the EIR comment letter the
tribal government submitted. He asked the Planning Commission to take into
consideration the irreversible impacts of the irrigation and chemical runoff that may
decay into the lower portions of the capping where the cultural resources and burials
are located, and requested that the Planning Commission require from the developer a
stabilization design for the runoff and irrigation.
PC Meeting 6 Julv 13.2004
Jeff Jones, 30791 Paseo Arco, spoke in opposition to the project due to increased
traffic. L
Michelle Flores, 30735 Calle Chueca, spoke in opposition to the project due to its
density and destruction of ridgeline views. The 35-foot height limit doesn’t take into
account the capping already done on the site and the proposal to allow joint use of the
playing fields is too vague.
Claire Cesario Silva, 31282 Calle del Campo, spoke in opposition to the project due to
the archeological significance of the site and stated that building athletic facilities on the
site would dishonor its original residents.
Margot Lovett, 26802 Magdaleno Lane, Mission Viejo, spoke in opposition to the
project, because Native Americans’ ancestors’ remains are buried on this site.
Maryann Tucker, 28028 Paseo Alba, spoke in opposition to the project due to increased
traffic, lighting, noise, massiveness of the structure, and respect for the original
in ha bitants.
Commissioner Cohen asked Mr. Sandoval to explain what has already been approved
and what is yet to be approved vis-a-vis the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr.
Sandoval said that the City Council adopted an initiative that rezoned the property and
amended the General Plan to allow public institutional uses. The north buildings were
already approved. With the change of the zoning and General Plan designation of the
property, the school use is a permitted use, subject to discretionary review. The only
issue being dealt with at this point is the AC application and the Development
Agreement for the development of the south campus.
L
Vice Chairman Cardoza asked if the site plan were formally presented and generally
approved, does the user, have to adhere to the mitigation measures and design and
architectural guidelines as stipulated with conditions, despite its being a religious
school. Mr. Sandoval said the Planning Commission has discretionary approval and
control over the AC application, which is the site plan and landscaping. The Applicant
does not have the right to disregard the mitigation measures and conditions of approval,
even though they are a religious organization. RLUIPA forbids discrimination by cities
and other local entities against religious land use applicants and requires that churches
and other religious uses to be treated the same as other similar assembly uses. Ms.
Bogh said that in Condition 1 staff has specified that, if approved, the Planning
Commission would be approving the project shown on the approved site plan. No
change of use or establishment of additional uses would be allowed without further
discretionary review by the City.
Commissioner Cardoza asked if the head tax was the subject of an agreement between
the City and JSerra High School. Mr. Sandoval said that a prior agreement provided for
the per student fee, but is no longer in effect. The proposed Development Agreement
would incorporate provisions about the student fee. Mr. Sandoval said JSerra High ‘L
PC Meeting 7 July 13, 2004
School is entitled to use the property for public institutional uses. The buildings and the
layout of the buildings are subject to discretionary review through the AC application.
Under the initiative JSerra High School has a 3,000 student cap under the General
Plan. The applicants are now proposing to remain at 2,000 students pursuant to the
Development Agreement, because otherwise the City would have to do additional
environmental review.
L
Commissioner Drey asked if that 2,000 number is in the Development Agreement. Mr.
Sandoval said a provision in Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement says that they
are entitled to up to 2,000 students.
David Persons, 30828 Calle Chueca, spoke in opposition to the project due to increased
traffic, limited parking, lighting, and noise.
Wendy Brockman, 30717 Calle Chueca, spoke in opposition to the project due to the
Casitas neighbors having to pay for half of the boundary fence, and the unmitigatable
impacts from the sports fields.
Marilu Dahm, 2336 Cabrero, Lake Forest, spoke in opposition to the project due to the
sacred burial grounds.
Gail Prothrow, 29302 Sandalwood Court, spoke in opposition to the project and
recommended continuance of the hearing to a larger meeting room, recirculating the
EIR for additional public review and additional public agency review by Caltrans and the
Department of Fish and Game. She stated it is important that the bike path link be
connected with Class I and Class 2 trails.
b
Wick Lobo, 25222 Adelanto, Laguna Niguel, spoke in opposition to the project due to
the incompatibility with the theme of San Juan Capistrano.
Art Guevara, 31465 Los Rios Street, spoke in opposition to the project and said it was
an eyesore that would block a beautiful gateway to the City, may result in possible
lawsuits resulting from balls going outside the playing fields, and would lower nearby
real estate values.
Candace Propst, 251 85 Carlinda Drive, Mission Viejo, spoke in opposition to the project
due to the impacts of building on historic burial grounds.
Javier Bustamante, 31552 Calle La Purisima, spoke in support of the project in order to
benefit the entire community with an educational facility.
Monsignor Paul Martin, 32086 Via Aguila, spoke in support of the project due to the
benefit to the community, including opportunities for Native Americans and other
minorities who attend the school.
PC Meeting 8 July 13, 2004
John Bridges, environmental consultant, referred to Letter #24 in Volume I of the final
EIR, relating to hazardous materials and hydrocarbons, and to the Applicant’s response
and steps to test for and resolve contamination.
L
Joe Faust, Austin Faust and Associates, stated he prepared the traffic study. The net
5,000 trips a day increase is not high in comparison to other uses proposed for the site.
The trip generation is highly concentrated in the morning and to a lesser extent in the
afternoon. Significant traffic mitigation is proposed to redo the northbound off ramp and
widen J. Serra under the freeway, and improve Camino Capistrano and J. Serra along
the project frontage. Caltrans plans to extend the J. Serra improvements from Camino
Capistrano to Rancho Viejo Road. This project will provide a great deal of traffic
mitigation that would benefit the community. Commissioner Cohen asked for the
sources of the traffic distribution model, and Mr. Faust responded that 25 percent of the
traffic was allocated to Camino Capistrano.
Dr. Mason, environmental consultant for cultural resources, said that the archeological
site would be capped with fill. The only potential impacts to burials would be where the
light poles would be carefully dug, monitored, and if needed, stopped and relocated to
avoid sensitive areas. Vice Chairman Cardoza asked if the irrigation would cause
problems to the sensitive archeological site. Dr. Mason said that a 3-fOOt cap would be
put over the archeological site where the burials are located and that rainfall has always
occurred over the years. There would be a geofabric separating the natural land surface
from the fill and 3 foot of sterile fill. Installation of some form of horizon marker shall be
utilized to ensure that there is no inadvertent mixing of the archeological matrix and the
fill.
Phil Schwartze reiterated that students of the school will perform many hours of public
service. He stated the homeowners association offered to pay for one-half of the wall.
He stated the parking management plan will ensure adequate parking for all uses on the
site. He stated that JSerra is a not-for-profit school, and the school is the highest and
best use of this site. The head tax is offered to offset tax losses to the City from use of
the site for non-profit uses instead of a commercial use. He stated a commercial facility
was approved in the past for this site, but the proposed school use is less intensive.
Commissioner Drey asked Mr. Schwartze how the head tax compares with the property
tax on the property if there were another use on the property. Mr. Schwartze said that
when City Council adopted the project plan in May 2003, consideration was given to
property tax, retail sales tax and the property being within a redevelopment agency
project boundary in establishing the per student fee.
Vice Chair Cardoza asked Ms. Bogh to give an overview of what is required.
Ms. Bogh said the items before the Planning Commission to take action on are as
follows:
PC Meeting 9 July 13,2004
L
L
1. The final EIR, which needs to be certified by the Planning Commission in order for
the Planning Commission to take action of the Architectural Control part of the project.
2. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve the Architectural Control, and
cannot refer this matter to the City Council without an action. There are over 90
conditions of approval in the draft resolution to approve the architectural control, and
staff recommends the Planning Commission review these conditions 3. The Planning
Commission must review and make a recommendation on the Development
Agreement, which can be done my minute action. Specifically, staff recommends the
Commission review Exhibit A of the Development Agreement, outlining traffic mitigation
measures. The applicant has requested some changes to the agreement and staff
recommends that this item be brought back to the next meeting, after further meetings
between staff and the applicant.
Staff would recommend that the discussion be focused initially on the EIR. There is a
draft EIR Resolution and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pages 9 - 12 of
Exhibit 3 in the packet given to the Planning Commissioners July 12, contains a useful
summary of impacts. The Planning Commission would have to also adopt the
architectural control Mitigation Monitoring Program. Most of the impacts identified in the
EIR can be mitigated. The Statement of Overriding Considerations indicates that the
benefits of the project are substantial enough to override un-mitigatable impacts.
Vice Chairman Cardoza said the plans as submitted still do not reflect aesthetics,
usability, impacts on surrounding area, bike trails, and setbacks. Regarding the
Planning Commission’s responsibility to certify the EIR, the Commissioners have not
had the time to get into the document and have a responsibility, in good conscience, to
make a recommendation to support and stand behind it. We have to look at three
documents and the Applicant is still expressing their concerns. We have the opportunity
to continue this matter. We have heard testimony that is provided. Mr. Cardoza asked
his colleagues for input on continuing the item to a date certain.
Commissioner Cohen said that he received the Statement of Overriding Considerations this evening and won’t be able to make a final EIR determination this evening.
Commissioner Drey said there are 100 pounds of paper to review.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said that she has been looking at the draft EIR for three months,
but much of the information is new and she would like a continuation to allow all
Commissioners a chance to go over the information.
Ms. Bogh said that July 27, 2004 is the next regularly scheduled PC meeting.
Commissioner Cardoza said there is a lot of valid comment on both sides. Mr. Cardoza
said the Planning Commission needs an evaluation of the other documents and staff
needs time to give proper evaluation.
Mr. Sandoval said another option would be to close the public hearing so that the
Planning Commission would only deliberate to consider the information provided.
PC Meeting 10 July 13,2004
Commissioner Cardoza asked if the public hearing could be closed and then re-opened
on July 27, 2004. Mr. Sandoval said that this couldn't be done unless the public hearing
is re-noticed.
\-
Motion
Commissioner Cardoza moved, seconded by Commissioner Drey, to continue the item
to the July 27, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Cardoza, Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Neely
ABSTAIN: None
This motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
Ms. Bogh asked if there is any direction as far as staff or applicant of additional material
on July 27.
Commissioner Cardoza voiced concerns regarding setbacks for the baseball fields. If
the setbacks are increased to the point they should be, the field size may need to be
reduced to a size that is not playable. Commissioner Cardoza said that clarity on
proposed fencing and the pedestrian bridge is also required. The Applicant and
consultants need to provide more specific information about conditions for joint uses.
He stated the project needs to be the best thing for the community.
L
CO M M I SS I ONlSTAFF COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
I 1 :32 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 27, at 7:OO p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted, *% Molly gh
Planning Director
Ism