Loading...
PC Minutes-2011-03-2232400 PASECI ADELANTO (949) 493-1171 (949) 493-1053 FAx WWW.Sanjuancaptstranaorg A. CALL TO ORDER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, March 22, 2011 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cohen at 6:30 p.m. B. PLEDGE The Chairman led the Pledge of Allegiance. C. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent Sheldon Cohen, Chairman Gene Ratcliffe, Vice -Chair Ginny Kerr Roy Nunn Tim Neely Jeff Parkhurst Rob Williams none Staff Present.- William A. Ramsey, AICP, Principal Planner Grant Taylor, Development Services Director Nick Taylor, Associate Planner D. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. E. CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2011 and March 8, 2011. The Planning Commission unanimously passed motions approving the February 22 minutes with a minor revision and the March 8 minutes as submitted. 0 Printed an 100% recycled paper MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAMALL AT U LAURA FEZ':E4M LARRY KRAM X DEREK RE JOHN TAYLJO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, March 22, 2011 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cohen at 6:30 p.m. B. PLEDGE The Chairman led the Pledge of Allegiance. C. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent Sheldon Cohen, Chairman Gene Ratcliffe, Vice -Chair Ginny Kerr Roy Nunn Tim Neely Jeff Parkhurst Rob Williams none Staff Present.- William A. Ramsey, AICP, Principal Planner Grant Taylor, Development Services Director Nick Taylor, Associate Planner D. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. E. CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2011 and March 8, 2011. The Planning Commission unanimously passed motions approving the February 22 minutes with a minor revision and the March 8 minutes as submitted. 0 Printed an 100% recycled paper PC Meeting Minutes 2 March 22, 2011 F. OLD BUSINESS 1. Inter -jurisdictional Project Review (IJPR) 10-04, San Juan Creek &Trabuco Creek Channel Levee Protection Project; the project consists of a proposed "flood/flash wall" project to be located along San Juan Creek from 1-5 to Stonehill Drive and along Trabuco Creek from Del Obispo Street bridge to San Juan Creek (Applicant: County of Orange Public Works) (Project Manager: Nick Taylor, Associate Planner). Staff presentation & recommendation Nick Taylor, Associate Planner made the staff presentation the County of Orange Public Works Department has installed sheet piling along the existing San Juan Creek and Trabuco Creek levees to reinforce those levees from potential flood damage. The "sheet piling" provides a backstop to potential levee failure and a significantly improved level of public safety for neighborhoods adjoining the creek. He noted that the final phase of the sheet -piling project involves the construction of an above -grade, 32 -inch concrete masonry unit "flood/flash wall on the top of the levee, and the County of Orange has requested the City's guidance in selecting a finish material for the proposed wall. The purpose of the "CMU flood/flash wall" is to satisfy the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) freeboard requirement which is needed to certify a levee. The freeboard requirement specifies that the levee protection and "CMU flood/flash wall" extend a minimum of 1'-0" above the 100 -Year Special Flood Hazard District's water surface elevation. He recommended that the Planning Commission provide comments regarding final design of wall and chain link fencing. Commission Questions & comments Commissioner Parkhurst questioned the proposed design of the fencing and whether it was sufficient to meet the California Building Code (CBC) requirements to provide sufficient public safety. Applicant Presentation Phil Jones, Manager of the County's Flood control Design Section stated that the County was amenable to either the chainlink or the cable -fencing design and was seeking to determine the city's preference. Public Hearing Chairman Cohen stated that while a Public Hearing was not required for the item, he was opening the item for public comment. There was no response and he closed the public comment opportunity and opened the item for further Commission discussion. Commission Discussion Commissioner Parkhurst stated that the overall height of the wall and fencing should be a minimum of 42 inches. either the wall height should be increased or the cable PC Meeting Minutes 3 March 22. 2011 portion would need intermediate cables added to meet California Building Code (CBC) requiring no more than a 4 -inch gap. Commissioner Neely stated that the block wall portion of the barrier should maintain a continuous 32 -inch height and that if the barrier height must be increased to meet Code requirements, it should be done through increasing the height of the cable fencing, not the block wall. Commissioner Nunn concurred with the prior Commission comments and stated that public safety was critical and the barrier needed to meet the 42 -inch height requirement of the California Building Code (CBC). Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that she preferred the cable -fencing over the chainlink noting it would more aesthetic while providing a functional safety barrier. Commissioner Kerr expressed agreement that the public safety concerns required that the design meet California Building Code (CBC) standards. Commissioner Williams concurred with his fellow Commissioners. Commission action Chairman Cohen expressed his agreement with the Commission's comments on the proposed barrier design and closed the item from further discussion. IUST,0 Commissioner Nunn stated for the record that he was the project architect for the next agenda item, the Darmal Residence, and due to that conflict of interest, recused himself and left the City Council chambers. Continued Consideration of Rezone (RZ) 10-003, Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 10-008; Darmal Residence; a request for approval of development plans for the construction of an approximate 4,906 square foot single-family residence, two - stories and 25 feet in height with a basement level and incorporate the property into Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 81-01 Forster Canyon, on a vacant parcel totaling approximately 0.60 aces in area located adjacent to the west side of Avenida California and east of Interstate 1-5 (APN 675-081-11) (Applicant: Arsalan Darmal, Owner) (Project Manager: Grant Taylor, Development Services Director). PC Meeting Minutes 4 March 22, 2011 Staff presentation & recommendation Grant Taylor, Development Services Director made the staff presentation and advised the Commission that the proposed project consists of a Rezone (RZ) and Grading Plan Modification (GPM) that would annex the property into the Forster Canyon Planned Community (CDP 81-01) establishing a new "HE" (Hillside Estate) Zoning District and allow site grading to accommodate construction of a proposed 4,906 square foot residence, two -stories and 25 feet in height with a basement level including covered and open parking areas, a pool, open patios and perimeter landscaping with access provided from Avenida California via a 20 foot driveway. He reviewed the proposed project's specifications and noted that the subject parcel is a vacant, irregular shaped lot that totals approximately 0.60 acres with a 0.20 acre grading area. Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed rezone would incorporate the property into Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 81-01 Forster Canyon and establish a new zoning designation of "HE" (Hillside Estate). The building pad is relatively flat with an elevation of 235 on the front property line adjacent to Avenida California and gently sloping to 228 at the lowest point of the rear property line near the I-5 Freeway. Proposed grading includes 310 cubic yards of cut and 280 cubic yards of fill with no retaining walls. Proposed landscaping would include native drought tolerant shrubs around the perimeter of the parcel. He noted that at the February 22, 2010 public hearing, the Commission received public testimony from fifteen persons with thirteen speaking in opposition to the project and raising concerns over impacts to ocean views, traffic safety and congestion, geotechnical stability, and design compatibility of the proposed project with Pacifica San Juan. At the prior meeting The Planning Commission continued the item and directed the applicant to submit documents verifying that the parcel is a legal buildable lot. Mr. Taylor stated that Tram Tran, Deputy City Attorney had reviewed the title report and related documents and concluded that the property was a legal lot. He also stated that, despite complaints made by residents and property owners residing in the project vicinity, the City had exceeded the public noticing requirements for the public hearings on project. Mr. Taylor recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of the project subject to conditions including a provision that the architectural design be referred to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for final action. Commission Questions Commissioner Kerr asked why the rezone application was being processed as an amendment to the Pacifica San Juan Comprehensive Development Plan and Mr. Taylor responded that the project represents a relatively minor change to the CDP and the project site is presently zoned "PC" (Planned Community). Commissioner Williams questioned the staff's findings in the draft resolution based on the fact that the conceptual design plans were not of sufficient detail to allow a full understanding of project design. He stated that depending on subsequent Design Review Committee action, should City Council approve the project, the PC Meeting Minutes 5 March 22, 2011 project could require further Planning Commission review due to changes in the grading concept that could affect the Grading Plan Modification (GPM) approval. Commissioner Parkhurst agreed with Commissioner Williams stating that the site and architectural plans were too conceptual to allow the Planning Commission to conclude findings. He noted that the site would have architectural elements situated 36 inches from the property linel. Commissioner Neely questioned whether the project site was, in fact, a legal and buildable lot noting that the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) controlled the subdivision of lots and that if the subject lot had been created merely through transfer of title as a Caltrans remnant parcel related to right-of-way acquisition, the property would not constitute a legal building parcel. Chairman Cohen asked if the proposed conceptual plans were the same as those reviewed at the February 22 public hearing and Mr. Taylor stated that they were. Mr. Cohen advised the applicant that he had requested view simulations at the prior hearing and that would be necessary for him to understand the project design and its impacts and determine whether he could support the project. In response to a question regarding the zoning of the property, Mr. Ramsey explained that the City's 2002 Official Zoning Map used the City's parcel -level GIS mapping to establish specific parcel -by -parcel zoning and that map clearly designated the Darmal property as "PC' (Planned Community). Public Hearing Notice having been given as required by law, Chairman Cohen opened the Public Hearing. The following speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed project based on issues of lot legality, intent of the property owner to reside on the property, view impacts, public safety, geotechnical stability, traffic impacts, design compatibility with Pacifica San Juan and the conflict of interest because a seated Planning Commissioner was the project architect: Paul Jenkinson Richard Adinolfi Bili Roberts Marie Riddle Sharzad Talieh John Riddle Eric Hanke Peter Fresca Chris Baisaitis Dara Derakhshan Deborah Adinolfi Connie Meredith John Sherwood Marisa Hanke Abdul Valji Applicant Presentation Tom Merrell, representing the applicants, stated that the Grading Plan Modification (GPM) was necessary to allow appropriate development of the site. He noted that the property's zoning has been "PC" (Planned Community) for a number of years and that the current rezone process was a matter of establishing specific standards Meetina Minutes 6 March 22, 2011 consistent with the "PC" Zone District. Mr. Merrell stated that the concept of providing the off-street parking area was to assure that all resident and guest parking could be accommodated off-street so as not to create any type of traffic flow obstruction along Via California. He asked Steven Guerre, Registered Engineering Geologist (REG) with Zeiser-Kling Geotechnical Consultants to provide an overview of the site's geological constraints and the recommended design approach. Mr. Guerre noted that his site investigation and analysis had determined that the northwest end of the property required stabilization through tie -backs that would need to extend underneath Via California. However, the south east end of the property was situated so that geological stability could be achieved through the placement of deep caissons that would support the structure and site improvements on bedrock. Commission Discussion Commissioner Neely stated that the speakers comments about apparent "cronyism" on the part of the Commission were completely unfounded. He advised those who had spoken during the public hearing, that should the project proceed to City Council, they would do well to focus their public comment to City Council on the project issues and that an "invective" style would be neither effective nor beneficial. Mr. Neely stated that the information provided on the issue of lot legality was unpersuasive noting that just because State conveyances were exempt from Subdivision Map Act (SMA) did not necessarily establish lot legality. He questioned whether the applicant could meet the burden of proof to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the lot was a legal, buildable parcel. Commissioner Parkhurst agreed with Neely on the issue of whether the property constituted a legal lot. He stated that the Commission will need to decide how to proceed through the process given this unresolved issue. Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that all the design -related issues associated with the project may be moot because the issue of lot legality remains unresolved. She stated that she had a number of concerns with the overall project. Commissioner Kerr stated that it would be moot for the Planning Commission to review detailed concern regarding the project's rezone and Grading Plan Modification issues if the site is not, in fact, "buildable" from a legal perspective. She indicated that the property should secure a certificate of compliance before proceeding further through the process. Kerr stated that geotechnical stability and the project's potential impacts to backbone utility infrastructure in Via California remained issues that had not been addressed to her satisfaction. Commissioner Williams informed his fellow commissioners that the applicant had not satisfactorily demonstrated that the project meets the required findings for project approval. He stated that the project design needs to be consistent with the Pacifica San Juan Comprehensive Development Plan's design guidelines and PC Meetina Minutes 7 March 22. 2011 require substantial redesign to meet those guidelines. Williams stated that he supports a public review process that will ultimately result in a "good" decision and meets the requirements of the CDP and the needs of the Pacifica San Juan residents. At this time, he stated he cannot support the project due to the project's inability to meet the required findings. Chairman Cohen stated that he has served on the Planning Commission for a number of years, and in the capacity of Chairman, and that the Planning Commission members have always been motivated by a desire to serve the City and make it a better place to live. He noted that while many of the public comments were appropriate and on -target, several clearly reflected a misunderstanding of the process, the staff's role, and the Commission's role. Chairman Cohen stated that based on the public testimony, the evidence in the public record, and his review of the findings, that the project does not meet the required legal finding for approval. Adoption of Resolution PC RESOLUTION NO. 11-03-22-01, Darmal Residence Commissioner Neely made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to adopt a resolution recommending City Council denial of the proposed project based on a determination that the project has failed to demonstrate compliance with rezone findings 3, 4, and 5 and furthermore, recommend denial of the Grading Plan Modification (GPM) provided that should the City Council determine the project meets the required findings and approves the requested rezone, that City Council refer the GPM application to the Planning Commission for review and final action. The motion passed by a 6-0 vote. AYES: Chairman Sheldon Cohen and Commissioners Gene Ratcliffe, Ginny Kerr, Tim Neely, Jeff Parkhurst and Rob Williams NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Staff advised the Commission they would draft a resolution of denial for consideration at the Planning Commission's April 12 meeting. I. STAFF & COMMISSION COMMENTS Mr. Taylor and Mr. Ramsey provided an overview of City Council actions at the prior March 15 meeting including Council denial of the appeal of the Price Self Storage monument sign and approval for the Open Space Foundation to complete improvements to the City's planned dog park presently under design. PC Meeting Minutes 8 March 22, 2011 Commissioner Neely stated that he had reached a "tipping -point" with respect to apparent sign violations in the City and urged swift and decisive enforcement. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 pm to the next regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, 2011. Respectfully submitted, 01; r . Wi iam A. Ramsey, AICP, Principal Manner Planning Commission Secretary z