PC Minutes-2004-08-10'L
32400 PASEO ADELANTO
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 493- 1 171
(949) 493- 1053 FAX
JYNX' sa,l/unrlccrplstrtIr.lo org
L
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAM ALLEVATO
DIANE L BATHGATE
WYA'IT HART
JOE SOT0
DAVID M SWERDLIN
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10,2004
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: Tim Neely, Chairman (arrived 7:17 p.m.)
Robert Cardoza
Sheldon Cohen
Joe Drey
Gene Ratcliffe
Commissioners Absent: none
rty Cit! Staff Present: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; Omar Sandoval, DeF Attorney;
William Cunningham, Contract Staff; Sam Shoucair, Senior Engineer; Sue McCullough,
Recording Secretary.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Cohen requested that the Special Activities Permit be pulled for
discussion and asked staff if it were brought back as a consent item because of its
occurrence every year. Ms. Bogh said that the item was placed on the Consent
Calendar because it doesn't deviate from what the Planning Commission has approved
in prior years, and that staff recommends approving the Special Activities Permit last
through 2007. A condition has been added requiring that the permit be brought back to
the Planning Commission if there are problems.
San Juan Cupistraiio: Pi-eserving the Past to Enliunce the Future
PC Meeting 2 August 10,2004
I. Minutes June 22, 2004: Commissioner Cohen moved approval, seconded by
Commissioner Ratcliffe, of the Minutes of June 22, 2004, and the motion passed
by a vote of 3-0, with abstention by Commissioner Drey.
L
2. Special Activities Permit (SAP) 04-1 6. Familv Tovota: Commissioner Cohen
moved approval, seconded by Commissioner Drey, to (I) approve Special
Activities Permit 04-16 to allow a promotional tent for an additional 45 days for
Family Toyota; and (2) authorize Family Toyota 45 additional days annually for
their promotional tent event, subject to the following conditions:
The Planning Director shall make a determination that the dealership’s
previous year‘s activities resulted in no problems or complaints;
The event must meet all of the City’s Municipal Code requirements set forth in
Section 9-3.547;
0 The City shall approve a Special Activities Permit for the event annually.
0 If problems or complaints arise during the previous year, the Planning
Director shall refer the Special Activities Permit to the Planning Commission
for consideration.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 02-07. AND J SERRA HIGH SCHOOL
L DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - A REQUEST TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL
INVOLVING AN ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL APPLICATION, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, AND EIR WITH ASSOCIATED OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING
PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL BY ADDITION OF RECREATIONAL AND ATHLETIC
FACILITIES ON APPROXIMATELY 29.2 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CAMINO CAPISTRANO AND JUNIPER0 SERRA ROAD;
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S): 649-01 1-30.649-01 I-25,649-361-03
Written Communications
Staff report dated August IO, 2004
Staff presentation & recommendation
Mr. Cunningham presented the staff report as an item continued from July 13 and July
27, 2004. The revised plan distributed August 6, 2004 includes revisions consisting of
elimination of one of the basketball courts, two of the tennis courts, the spectator
seating adjacent to the Casitas property line, and the bleachers adjacent to Camino
Capistrano. Along the Casitas property line a 20-foot setback is maintained, additional
landscaping has been placed in the areas where facilities were removed, and a
minimum IO-foot setback along Camino Capistrano is maintained. Fencing and lighting
revisions are included. Retractable netting has been eliminated. Condition 9 outlines a
number of areas on the revised site plan to be returned to the Planning Commission.
PC Meeting 3 August 10,2004
Modifications to the Conditions of Approval have been highlighted in the August IO,
2004 staff memorandum.
Staff feels that the modifications made to the plan resulted in a better plan which
integrates concerns of the public and the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission take action to approve the project, subject to the 94
conditions of approval.
Mr. Sandoval said there is one additional change to the Development Agreement in
Section 10.18, which is a survival clause. Section 2.2(b) (the cap of 2,000 students) is to
be added, indicating that this clause would survive the term of the agreement.
Commission Questions
Commissioner Cohen said the fields at Dana Point High School at the corner of Golden
Lantern and Acapulco are the varsity and JV softball fields. The baseball field is not a
lighted field at Dana and the fields at Marco Forster are also both softball fields.
Public Hearing
Phillip Schwartze, representing JSerra, said that the presentation would include only
new information and the changes requested at the last meeting.
Andrew Cupples, Architect for JSerra South Campus facility, presented a PowerPoint
presentation and summarized answers to objections previously raised, as follows: J
Serra is a not-for-profit school; the facilities will be shared with the community; three of
the four principal founders live in San Juan Capistrano; over 42 percent of the current
enrollment comes from San Juan Capistrano; the school provided over half a million
dollars in financial aid to students this fiscal year; there are special programs for local
residents and descendants of the native population; over 70 percent of the site will
remain as open space; each student is required to provide a minimum of 24 hours of
community service; the location of the historical depiction monument chosen by the
tribal council; every effort has been made to mitigate school use traffic issues; the
student mitigation fee will bring revenue to the City; fields were re-oriented to direct
noise and foul balls away from residents and public right-of-way; bleachers were
eliminate4d from the perimeter of the property adjacent to residences and public right-
of-way; additional natural landscaping was provided; fence details; preservation of
views; additional setbacks; a minimum 3-foot cap over the sensitive area; reduced
bridge massing and bulk; buildings were limited to %-foot height; provision of on-street
bike lanes; and over $2.4 million in street and traffic improvements.
W
Phillip Schwartze asked that the Planning Commission recommend certification of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approve the Architectural Control (AC) application,
recommend approval of the Development Agreement (DA) on to the City Council, and
recommend approval of the Parking Management Plan as an ongoing document as the
school grows. He stated the Applicant understands and agrees with the Conditions of
Approval.
PC Meeting 4 August 10,2004
Commission Comments
Chairman Neely asked what happened to the proposal for artificial turf on the fields. Mr.
Jim Baldovan, landscape architect said the only field without artificial turf is the Varsity
baseball field.
L
Public Testimony
John Perry, 32175 Via Burrita, spoke on behalf of his wife and himself in support of the
project. As a former Assistant Superintendent for public schools and as Director of
School Planning for an architectural firm he was directly involved in the design and
construction of five major comprehensive high schools, and confirmed that athletics is a
major part of the high school experience.
Jeff Jones, 30791 Paseo El Arco, spoke in opposition to the project and asked that the
gymnasium, swimming pool, and performance arts center be placed on the other side of
the street.
Erin Kutnick, 31271 Avenida Terremar, spoke in opposition to the project since only 65
to 70 students are from San Juan Capistrano, and when the school is completely built
out, there would be only five percent of the students from San Juan. She also opposed
the project due to increased traffic, and stated that there are no lighted fields at Del
Obispo or other elementary schools.
Gail Prothero, 29302 Sandalwood Court, spoke in opposition to the project
l./ recommending elimination of the stadium and Varsity baseball field lights. She
requested that a response on toxic issues related to gas station tanks and prior
agricultural uses be included in the final EIR. She said that in the EIR there was no
discussion of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or federal jurisdiction
issues.
Rebecca Robles, 119 Avenida San Fernando, San Clemente, spoke in opposition to the
project and stated that of the three tribal councils, two disagree with the development of
the JSerra project since this is one of the most significant cultural and historical Native
American sites.
Dusty Otero, 3171 1 Via Madonna, spoke as a Juaneno descendent in support of the
project because it supports education.
Commission Questions
Commissioner Cohen asked staff about the status of the Joint Use Agreement. Mr.
Cunningham said that the Joint Use Agreement would not come back to the Planning
Commission, but is required by the conditions to be reviewed by the Park, Recreation
and Equestrian Commission. Commission Cohen asked for clarification on lighting in
relation to the Joint Use Agreement. Marc Spiueri, representing the applicant, said the
lighting on the softball fields and JV baseball fields has been eliminated, and lighting on
PC Meeting 5 August 10,2004
L
proposed two other fields which will be shared with the City under the Joint Use
Agreement.
Commissioner Cohen asked if the Statement of Overriding Considerations would be
impacted if the Performing Arts Center is not part of the project. John Bridges of Cotton
Bridges Associates assisted in preparing the EIR and in preparing the Findings and
Statements of Overriding Considerations, and said that the Planning Commission could
exclude the Performing Arts Center since it is not in the project today, without the need
to conduct additional environmental analyses.
Commissioner Drey asked for clarification regarding the student fee per Section 1.3 of
the Development Agreement which states the 20 year time frame for the agreement. Mr.
Sandoval said that Section 10.18, the survival clause, states that Section 1.3 will survive
the 20-year term of the agreement.
Commissioner Cohen asked for clarification of Condition 1 of the AC approval
resolution, which states that “No change of use or establishment of additional uses,
beyond uses that are typically provided at a private high school including but not limited
to assembly, religious services, camps, conference or meeting facilities shall be
operated on the site without review and approval by the City.” Regarding the phrase
“including but not limited to assembly” etc., are those uses that are permitted or uses
that are not permitted? Mr. Cunningham said the intent would be uses that are not
permitted as a primary use. Ms. Bogh added not permitted except as in conjunction with
the school use, and that the intent of adding that wording is to not rent out the facilities
for use as a church, use as a conference center, or as an athletic camp facility other
than that used by the school itself.
L
Commission Cohen said he thinks the wording should be more specific as to what is a
not permitted use. This would appear to be in conflict with the paragraph in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations he referred to that discussed faith-based
services.
Commissioner Cohen referred to Condition No. 12 in the proposed AC approval
resolution which discusses the Performing Arts Center in the Conditions of Approval. He
asked if there is any reason why language that addresses the Performing Arts Center
should be in this document. Mr. Cunningham said yes since the Performing Arts Center
is shown as phase two of the project and there is a need to clarify exactly what is being
permitted with tonight’s action and what would have to come back to the Planning
Commission in a future phase.
Commissioner Cohen said that Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement appears to
be setting criteria for when a proposed Performing Arts Center would come back to the
Planning Commission at some future date, and asked if there is a reason to set forth
criteria now which may in some way limit the discretionary approval of the Planning
Commission at some future date. Ms. Bogh said the EIR was inclusive of the entire
project as it had been originally proposed, including a Performing Arts Center up to a
PC Meeting 6 August 10,2004
L
c
height of 35 feet. One of the mitigation measures developed to minimize impacts of the
project was to limit the height of the buildings. In order to have the EIR cover the
eventual development of the Performing Arts Center this language was included. This
gives the Applicant permission to build a Performing Arts Center with a height of 35 feet
unless the Planning Commission approves an exception. The previous land use
established by City Council action was to establish the public institutional zoning which
allows high school facilities and ancillary uses within the high school campus.
Commissioner Cohen asked for clarification regarding 2.2(d), “If any provision of the
City’s Title 9 zoning regulations otherwise applicable to the south campus project is
found to be in conflict with the AC approval for the south campus for the terms of this
Development Agreement, then the AC approval and the Development Agreement shall
control and supersede the conflicting provisions in the City’s zoning regulations.” Mr.
Sandoval said the Development Agreement as a legislative act provides for the
standard by which any future approvals will be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and City Council.
Commissioner Cohen asked for clarification regarding any portion of the project that is
in conflict with the City’s Land Use Code, Title 9. Mr. Sandoval said by adoption of the
Development Agreement by the Council, which is a legislative act, the City Council is
providing for all portions of the development project pursuant to the Development
Agreement.
Commissioner Cardoza asked if it would be appropriate to address the three items one
at a time, since the EIR is a stand-alone motion to certify that it has been developed in
accordance with the CEQA requirements.
Commissioner Cohen said he agrees with that idea.
Chairman Neely said the three items would be the Certification of the EIR, advisory
recommendation on the Development Agreement and the Architectural Control. He
asked if separate action is necessary on the Parking Management Plan.
Ms. Bogh said Condition No. 38 requires approval of the Parking Management Plan, but
that action is not required by the Planning Commission at this time. The reason staff
provided the draft Parking Management Plan at this time was to allow the Planning
Commission to determine adequacy of parking.
Commissioner Ratcliffe stated she is not sure that provision of competition-level sports
facilities outweighs EIR impacts, as stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Chairman Neely referred to Development Agreement Public Benefits item 3.6, traffic
mitigation obligation referenced as Exhibit A, and said that many items in Exhibit A are
more mitigation as required by CEQA than supplemental contributions that would
constitute independent public benefit. Ms. Bogh said that 3.6 also refers to the timing of
PC Meeting 7 August 10,2004
traffic improvements, specifically the widening of the lanes under the bridge at 1-5 and
Juniper0 Serra Road and the construction of full improvements with the coordination
with the railroad at Os0 Road, which would be completed earlier than would otherwise
be anticipated without this project. Chairman Neely asked if the document clearly
differentiates those aspects of this plan that are mitigations required by the EIR. Mr.
Sandoval said it is a finding that the Planning Commission makes when it adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, so if the Planning Commission doesn’t agree
with staffs analysis that is within the purview of the Planning Commission to modify the
wording. The traffic improvement provisions in the Development Agreement are a
carryover from the implementation agreement the City Council had approved when it
first adopted the General Plan and Zoning Amendment. At that time the applicant was
allowed to operate as the North Campus portion of the facility without doing any traffic
mitigation whatsoever. Circulation improvements are a benefit of the AC application
before us for the south campus.
Mr. Foust said this project has a significant 30-minute impact in the morning peak hour.
The mitigation being provided is beneficial not only in the morning, but is also available
in the p.m. peak hour and used very little by the school traffic in non-peak hours.
Chairman Neely asked about the Performing Arts Center traffic. Mr. Foust said the
Performing Arts Center will have minimal impacts on the a.m. peak, and is likely
generate traffic sometime after the p.m. peak hour and will not cause additional impacts.
Commissioner Cohen said there is no mitigation to speak of on Camino Capistrano
between Ortega and Del Obispo until the intersection of Del Obispo, and that the EIR
discusses restricting on-street parking. Have the costs related to monitoring on-street
parking been addressed to make sure that the costs associated with the Sheriffs
Department citing and towing vehicles are recovered? Mr. Foust said the financial
impact of that has not been examined.
Commissioner Cohen said not sure that eliminating on-street parking on Camino
Capistrano during those hours will impact the movement of traffic. Mr. Foust said the
EIR identifies that impact.
Commissioner Cardoza asked the extent of studies and mitigation regarding toxic
findings. Mr. Bridges said CBA responded point-by-point to a letter submitted by Dr.
Robbins at San Diego State University, and that the Applicant has begun the Phase 2
hazardous materials assessment process.
Commissioner Cardoza asked for clarification of the extent of the burials. Mr. Bridges
said that Dr. Roger Mason with the Chambers Group in Orange County performed the
technical study on cultural resources, and prepared responses to each of the comments
and that the number of burials is under 15.
Mr. Bridges referred to the site plan on the wall and said that one of the softball fields
has been rotated 180 degrees and the environmental impacts of that orientation have
PC Meeting 8 Auaust 10.2004
not been analyzed. He would suggest turning the field back the way it was or to leave it
as shown and ask for additional analysis to be added to the final EIR that addresses
aesthetics and noise.
EIR and Statement of Overridina Considerations Discussion
Commissioner Cardoza said he finds the EIR to be adequate.
Commissioner Drey stated he is satisfied with the EIR and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Commissioner Cohen said that he doesn’t know if the Statement of Overriding
Considerations is adequate until the Development Agreement is studied as to the
benefits to the community.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said the Statement of Overriding Considerations doesn’t
address the larger lighting issue.
Chairman Neely asked Mr. Sandoval if the EIR certification could be taken
independently from the findings of overriding considerations. Mr. Sandoval said that in
order to approve the EIR, the Statement of Overriding Considerations would have to be
adopted. Ms. Bogh said Draft Resolution 04-08-10-x was written to certify the EIR and
adopt Attachment 1 which is the Statement of Overriding Conditions.
Commissioner Cohen referred to the second paragraph on page 96 of the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, “The City after balancing the specific economic, legal, social,
technological and other benefits of the proposed project including the provision of
employment opportunity for highly trained workers.” On page 99 the highly trained
workers are identified as the employment of up to 75 highly-trained teachers and other
individuals. So we’re not dealing with the south campus project which is truly the bulk of
the scope of the EIR. This needs to be re-written to make appropriate findings. Another
example is Number 5 “The project provides a faith-based college prep education
possibility for the City of San Juan Capistrano residents.” There’s no assurance that any
number of San Juan Capistrano residents other than what the present enrollment
provides for is going to receive an education at J Serra. Perhaps in the DA the City can
carve out parameters that will ensure that a specific number of residents get an
education at J Serra. Ms. Bogh said that the Planning Commission can recommend
deletion, addition, or revision of these items. Ms. Bogh clarified a statement made
earlier on Page 97 regarding the Performing Arts Complex; the Planning Commission
could delete that bullet or get clarification for what the term “faith-based services”
means. Commissioner Cohen said this needs to be strengthened and bolstered to
support the certification.
Chairman Neely said although the EIR is adequate he does not support the Findings of
Overriding Consideration stemming from a concern about the fundamental project. The
Performing Arts Center is too much and pushes the project over the top.
PC Meeting 9 August 10,2004
L Commissioner Cohen said he is concerned with the manner in which the document
addresses the overriding considerations. Ms. Bogh said that staff can work on the
Statement of Overriding Considerations based on the Planning Commission’s
discussion and any recommended revisions.
Architectural Control Discussion
Commissioner Cohen said the bridge design is more pleasing, but there is not a need
for a Division 1 sports complex in the City or lights on the baseball field.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said her main concerns are the intensity of the project and the
Performing Arts Center being presented as inevitable.
Commissioner Cardoza said that he would like to discuss some of the 94 AC
Conditions.
Commissioner Drey stated he sees an enormous amount of work by the staff, and is
pleased that the nature of the project is educational and includes 70 percent open
space.
Chairman Neely asked if the Applicant would prefer this project be continued, or sent to
the Council with a negative recommendation.
Mr. Schwartze said the Applicant would prefer it be forwarded with a positive
recommendation to City Council, highlighting some of the areas of concern since major
portions of this project would be returned to the Planning Commission or the DRC, but
that they wanted some kind of action tonight as opposed to another continuance.
L
Mr. Sandoval said that forwarding the AC to City Council for final action is not an option.
The Planning Commission is the ultimate decision-maker on the AC and before the
Planning Commission can approve the AC it must certify the EIR. The Planning
Commission cannot deny the AC while at the same time disapproving the EIR. If it does
not certify the EIR and denies the AC, and if the Applicant appeals the denial to the City
Council, the City Council will have to certify the EIR before they could consider reversal
of Planning Commission action and would have to certify the EIR before considering the
Development Agreement.
Chairman Neely said that if the project is recommended for denial by the Planning
Commission, then no action is required on the CEQA documentation. Mr. Sandoval
confirmed that is correct.
Chairman Neely asked if the Commission can resolve the issues brought up by
individual commissioners tonight in such a way to both certify the EIR and approve the
AC with modified conditions or not.
PC Meeting 10 August 10,2004
W
L
Commissioner Cohen said he is willing to work.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said it is feasible.
Chairman Neely said the project has been in process for quite some time and there
have been a lot of changes and movement, however if the Performing Arts Center were
taken out of the equation that would change the site design opportunities substantially
and help to mitigate a lot of the impacts that stem from the Performing Arts Center. The
way the conditions are worded as they relate to the AC and the call for revised plans
has a lot of caveats that constrain the scope of future discretion.
Commissioner Cohen said if the Performing Arts Center were eliminated, there would
be more elements in the site plan that would be workable.
Commissioner Drey asked if it would be possible to approve the project eliminating the
Performing Arts Center.
Chairman Neely said it would be possible but perhaps not acceptable to the Applicant.
Phillip Schwartze said the Applicant is not receptive to withdrawing the Performing Arts
Center, which represents about three percent of the overall site and the Applicant feels
that the center is adequately covered in the EIR.
Mr. Sandoval said it appears that a denial is more possible than working out details and
approving a project, and suggested taking a break to discuss any possible findings for
denial.
Chairman Neely said that just prior to the break the Commission was provided with
sample language that could be used to recommend denial of the AC application.
Chairman Neely read the resolution, and included his amendments:
"Whereas Pueblo Serra, Inc. has submitted an Architectural Control application
for entitlement to permit development of recreational and athletic facilities on
approximately 29.2 acres of vacant land located at the southeast corner of Camino
Capistrano and Juniper0 Serra Road; and,
Whereas, the proposed project has been processed pursuant to Article 3,
Development Review of the land Use Code; and,
(Strike 2 paragraphs from the proposed resolution.)
Whereas, the Parks, Recreation & Equestrian Commission conducted duly-
noticed pubic meetings on May 17, 2004 and June 21, 2004; the Transportation
Commission conducted a duly-noticed public meeting on June 2, 2004; the Cultural
Heritage Commission conducted duly-noticed public meetings on May 25, 2004 and
June 7, 2004; and the Design Review Committee conducted duly-noticed meetings on
April 15, 2004, May 6, 2004 and June 17, 2004, pursuant to the provisions of
PC Meeting 11 August 10,2004
Administrative Policy 409, and Planning Department Policy 51 0 to consider public
testimony on the proposed project and have considered all relevant public comment, the
DEIR, the proposed Historic Depiction Program (HDP), and written and oral staff
reports; and
‘L-
Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted duly-noticed public meetings on
July 13, 2004, July 27, 2004 and August IO, 2004, pursuant to the provisions of Title 9,
Land Use Code, Section 9-2.339, Public Meeting Procedures, Administrative Policy
409, and Planning Department Policy 510 to consider pubic testimony on the proposed
project and has considered all relevant public comment; and,
Whereas, Section 9-2.31 3(a) of the San Juan Capistrano Development Code
provides that Architectural Control shall be conducted for every institutional
development use, and further, Section 9-2.31 3(c) provides that the Planning
Commission must make six findings in order to approve an Architectural Control
application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the
City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby deny Architectural Control (AC) 02-07 based
on the following finding:
That the project as designed and proposed by the applicant is not compatible with
surrounding existing and proposed land uses in that: (I) the intensity of the proposed
-b development, consisting of recreational buildings with the inclusion of a future
Performing Arts Center, and turfed and paved recreational facilities, including the
ancillary lighting of those facilities, would conflict with the adjacent residential uses to
the south as well as the overall low-intensity land use in the northern sector of the City
that is characterized by open space, agricultural and low density office and institutional
uses; and (2) the proposed architecture is not consistent with the City’s design
guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning
Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby denies Architectural Control
(AC) 02-07.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This project denial shall become effective following
expiration of the fifteen (15) day appeal period without filing of an appeal application.
The appeal period shall expire at 5:OO p.m., August 25, 2004.”
Commissioner Cardoza asked if the reasons stated for denial could be stated as
conditions for Architectural Control. If the Applicant has the prerogative of appealing this
to City Council, the City Council would not have the benefit of the Commission’s input
on Architectural Control conditions. Ms. Bogh said that if this item were appealed to the
City Council, the appeal hearing would be a de novo hearing and all of the suggested
conditions that you saw would be presented to Council. Any changes the Planning
Commission may want to suggest could be incorporated as a minute action in spite of b
PC Meeting 12 August 10,2004
v
whatever action the Planning Commission takes on this denial resolution. If there are
suggested changes to the conditions, staff could present those in conjunction with the
staffs recommendation to the Council.
Development Aareement Discussion
Chairman Neely said notwithstanding what we may or may not do with the Architectural
Control, if it were to be denied, should we still make independent recommendations to
the City Council on the Development Agreement or would our recommendations be
mooted by the action on the AC? Ms. Bogh said that State law says that the Planning
Commission needs to review and make some sort of recommendation on the
Development Agreement.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said that a more positive spin could be to state some of the
benefits that would accrue if the Performing Arts Center were removed, such as the
possibility of a more flexible site design that would benefit the neighbors and the
possibility of improving the historical depiction component of the project. Ms. Bogh
directed the Commission’s attention to the Conditions of Approval. Condition 9 is
broadly stated and says that all the detailed design components of this project need to
go back through the DRC and the Planning Commission. Condition 9.a asks for a
revised site plan. If the intent of the Planning Commission is to recommend deletion of
the Performing Arts Center, you could add that to Condition 9.a and say that the revised
site plan shall show the deletion of the Performing Arts Center and consequent
revisions to the site plan. Ms. Bogh suggested adding a requirement in the heading of
Condition 9 that all of these plans have to be consistent with the City’s design
guidelines, which would give the DRC and the Planning Commission the authority to
review each one of these plans based on the Design Guidelines. Condition 12 and the
accompanying provision in the Development Agreement could be deleted if you don’t
want the Performing Arts Center. Condition 10 on page 4 addresses the historic
depiction program. Ms. Bogh said this is a discretionary land use application and the
Planning Commission has the authority and the right to approve or deny any component
of this project.
Commissioner Cohen said if the Planning Commission deletes the Performing Arts
Center, then they would need to go through the entire Conditions of Approval to get to
the same point where the Applicant is not going to be satisfied with the end product, as
opposed to denying and the record is clear about what the Planning Commission liked
and did not like about the project.
Chairman Neely stated he would favor modifying the resolution for denial to include
some of the points raised by Commissioner Ratcliffe.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said it would be important for City Council to understand that the
Planning Commission is not negative toward the entire project.
PC Meeting 13 August 10,2004
L’
Commissioner Drey stated he would favor approval of the project subject to the 94
conditions with the removal of the Performing Arts Center, but under Condition 9 add
“consistent with City design guidelines.”
Commissioner Cardoza agreed with Commissioner Drey’s comments. He would like to
further clarify Condition 9.a(3) to state that landscaped setbacks from property lines
along Camino Capistrano and Junipero Serra Road shall be no less than 34 to 40 feet
for any structures or equipment including field fencing, because the Applicant has
already stated that they were going to provide 35 to 60 feet. He noted that the
conditions require that the building architecture, revised site plan, and materials are
going to need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and DRC.
Chairman Neely agreed that the EIR is adequate, but the findings of overriding
considerations are not resolvable tonight, and asked staff if the Planning Commission
can attach to its resolution for denial the comments on the conditions so that affirmative
language gets transmitted to the Council.
Commissioner Cohen asked if language such as “Whereas the Planning Commission
supports the concept of athletic facilities at the site” could be added.
Ms. Bogh said page 2 of the resolution could be revised to state: “NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano
supports the proposed use of recreational and athletic facilities on the site, however
does hereby deny . . .” and so forth.
Ms. Bogh said that after the findings that deny Architectural Control, a new paragraph
could be added that says, “Notwithstanding the denial of this action, the Planning
Commission further recommends that should the City Council approve this application
on appeal, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Condition 9 to
incorporate consistency of the project with the City’s design guidelines and Condition
9.a(3) to require no less than a 30-foot landscape setback along Camino Capistrano
and Junipero Serra Road.”
Mr. Sandoval concurred that the Planning Commission could take that action, and
stated that on the other hand the Planning Commission could also approve the project
subject to revised conditions, if there are only minor changes needed to the Statement
of Overriding Considerations. The conditions require that the details of the project will
come back to DRC, and having the Planning Commission act on it today will provide
better direction for the Applicant to bring a project to DRC that is compatible with
Planning Commission direction.
Motion
Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to adopt Resolution
No. 04-08-10-1 as read by Chairman Neely, with the preamble but not the additional
paragraph after the resolution provided by Ms. Bogh, denying the JSerra High School
PC Meeting 14 August 10,2004
South Campus, Architectural Control (AC) 02-07 and more precisely referred to as
Assessors Parcel Numbers 649-01 1-25 and 649-01 1-30. b
AYES: Commissioners Cohen and Ratcliffe, and Chairman Neely
NOES: Commissioners Cardoza and Drey
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
This motion passed by a vote of 3-2.
Chairman Neely asked for recommendations regarding the Development Agreement.
Commissioner Cohen stated he would like to see all references to the Performing Arts
Center stricken or deleted from the DA. He stated he thinks the joint use issue is
intertwined with the development process of what the Planning Commission is going to
deem acceptable on the site, what fields need to be lighted, and where staff feels there
is a strong public use for softball versus baseball versus football. He would like to see
language addressing the minimum number of San Juan residents accepted into the
program, is student bussing feasible, why 20 years and what assurances do we have
that these items will survive.
Chairman Neely stated he could support Commissioner Cohen’s recommendations
except the number of San Juan residents accepted into the program, and would
suggest the traffic benefits be clearly separated to differentiate between mitigation and
surplus benefits, and an alternative to the per-student fee proposal if the Performing
Arts Center is deleted from the project. Chairman Neely stated the Joint Use Agreement
should be before the Council before they take action on the Development Agreement so
they understand what the benefit is.
Commissioner Ratcliffe agreed with Chairman Neely’s statement regarding the Joint
Use Agreement. Ms. Bogh said AI King and the Park Recreation and Trail Commission
agreed that it is premature to work out the specific points of the Joint Use Agreement
until such time as the facilities are constructed and available and the Parks Department
has an opportunity to evaluate their park needs with respect to the fields that are
available. They performed an analysis of existing park needs by the City and
determined that at the present time the City doesn’t need lighted fields.
L
Ms. Bogh suggested the following points for a possible motion on the Development
Agreement as follows: Should the City Council approve the Development Agreement,
then we would recommend deleting references to the Performing Arts Center, getting at
least a conceptual Joint Use Agreement at the same time, consider a number of San
Juan residents to be accepted each year, consider traffic reduction measures such as
school bussing, carpooling, restrictions on numbers of students that can drive, and
PC Meeting 15 August 10,2004
include these items in the survival clause and in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, differentiate the traffic benefits from the mitigation measures and
consider a reduction in the per-student fee if it is found that the Performing Arts Center
was in fact partial basis for the proposed fee structure.
’v
Phillip Schwartze asked for input on the Planning Commission’s concerns regarding the
Performing Arts Center. Commissioner Drey said it has to do with the intensity of the
site, and if that structure weren’t there it would loosen up the project. Commissioner
Cohen said it has to do with traffic, the intensity, the need, the suitability, and the
purpose. Chairman Neely said the architecture, parking, and other items mentioned.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said there would be increased flexibility in planning for other
uses on the site.
Motion
Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Chairman Neely that the items discussed be
passed on to City Council as recommended for deletion and inclusion into a
Development Agreement, if the City Council should choose to enter into an agreement.
AYES: Commissioners Cardoza, Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, and Chairman Neely
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
L
This motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 04-05/ZONE VARIANCE (ZV) 04-07,
CONSTRUCT. OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A GROUND-MOUNTED ANTENNA AND
EAST OF 3900 CALLE ANDALUCIA: APN 675-321-03.
SPRINT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY: A REQUEST TO
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT THE RESERVOIR SITE
Written Communications
Staff memorandum dated August IO, 2004
Motion
Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Cardoza, to continue the
item to the August 24, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Cardoza, Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, and Chairman Neely
NOES: None
ABSENT: None L
PC Meeting 16 August 10,2004
'u ABSTAIN: None
This motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
3. TENTATIVE TRACT 16146, BELLADONNA ESTATES; A REQUEST FOR
APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 16.14 ACRES PARCEL INTO 31 LOTS. THE PROJECT
IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DEL OBISPO STREET, NORTH OF PASEO
DE LA PAZ ABOUT 1300 FEET SOUTH OF CALLE ASPERO: APN 121-181-08.
Written Communications
Staff memorandum dated August IO, 2004
Motion
Commissioner Cardoza moved, seconded by Commissioner Drey, to continue the item
to an unspecified date.
AYES: Commissioners Cardoza, Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, and Chairman Neely
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
L ABSTAIN: None
This motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
COMMISSION/STAFF COMMENTS
Commissioner Ratcliffe stated she had attended the Kennedy Commission meeting
regarding the recent award-winning low- and moderate-income multi-family
development that fit into the overall project with market rate luxury homes, and found it
to be an attractive project.
Ms. Bogh invited Planning Commissioners who are interested in attending the Planning
Officials Forum to call Marylin Wood for reservations.
PC Meeting August 10,2004
\v ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
I1 :20 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 24, at 7:OO p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
Planningbirector
Ism