PC Minutes-2010-03-0932400 PASEO ADrzE_ANTo
SAN JUAN CA PI5'r'F ANO, CA 92.675
(949) 493.1171
(949) 493.1053 FAx
www.sanjuancapistrano.org
A. CALL TO ORDER
ii MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAM ALL/ATO
�[aEvoe rE
LAURA FREESE
ESERBLISNEG �s' THOMAS W. HRIBAR
1776 MARK NIELSEN
IDR. LONDRES USO
March 9, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
Chair Cohen called the regular meeting of the San Juan Capistrano Planning Commission
Meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Cohen led the flag salute.
C. ROLL CALL
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT. Chair Sheldon Cohen, Vice Chair Gene
Ratcliffe, Commissioner Ginny Kerr, Commissioner Tim Neely, Commissioner Bruce
Tatarian, and Commissioner Jim Mocalis.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Robert Williams
■mss 7_I W91i7��iI mol L,1 [a_y 0 [a] I"
None
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be enacted by one
motion and one vote. There may be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion
is desired, that item may be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered
separately.
None
F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. CONSIDERATION OF CODE AMENDMENT (CA)_09-02_: a Draft Code Amendment
to Establish Land Use Standards for Businesses with Drive -up Convenience Windows.
San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the fast to Enhance the Future
Printed on 100% recycled paper
(Applicant: City of San Juan Capistrano)(Project Managers: Douglas Dumhart, Economic
Development Manager & Karisa Rojas -Norton, Administrative Intern).
Staff Presentation and Recommendation
Economic Development Manager Douglas Dumhart presented the staff report
summarizing the proposed code amendment, and referred to page two of the staff report
that identified six (6) recommendations from the Planning Commission at the last meeting
on February 23, 2010. Planning Commission recommendations included:
1) Page 15, Section 7, Table 3-42, Sign Standards, menu boards;
2) Page 12, Section 6(d)(1)(k), 100% vehicle stacking off streets 100% of the time;
3) Page 5, Section 1(f)(1) and Page 7 Section 1(i), two years to establish DU P's;
4) Page 6, Section 1(f)(3) 20 year expiration of DUP's;
5) Page 11, Section 6(d)(1), hours of operation included in TIA;
6) Page 7, Section 1(1), language for Planning Commission periodic review.
Mr. Dumhart referred to a letter distributed to the Planning Commission from the drive-thru
public stakeholder's to include:
• John Ziebarth, AIA Ziebarth Associates, Architecture & Planning
• Brett Wiles — Operator Carl's Jr. in San Juan Capistrano
• Ross Pollard — Operator McDonald's in San Juan Capistrano
• Don Armstrong — Donahue Schriber
• Doup Couper— Greenberg Farrow Architects
Mr. Dumhart summarized the public stakeholder's requested amendments to the draft
code amendment to include:
1) Section 1(f)(1): Add subsection (iv) the issuance of a grading permit;
2) Section 1(f)(3): DUP expiration of 30 years instead of 20 years;
3) Section 1(g)(2): Modify language for non -conforming drive-thru businesses;
4) Section 6(d): Delete certain required information from the TIA;
5) Section 6(d): Amend subsection (1)(k) regarding mitigation of stacking on streets;
6) Section 7, Table 3-42: allow menu boards up to 42 square feet in area.
Assistant Community Development Director Grant Taylor commented the sign code
requires Planning Commission approval of menu boards, the sign code does identify a
menu board maximum area, and the Commission may want to require menu boards be
included in a sign program that allows the Commission flexibility on a case by case basis.
Deputy City Attorney Diego Santana responding to Commissioner Tatarian commented in
Section 1(g)(2) the wording "shall" is mandatory and is appropriate. Mr. Santana
responding to Commissioner Neely commented the non -conforming language relating to
51% is regarding damages and provision 3 recommended in the stakeholder's letter is
consistent with existing code provisions for remodels.
PC Minutes 2 March 9, 2010
Public Comments
Steve Siglin, 26111 Antonio Parkway, Suite 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA spoke in
support of the ordinance subject to revisions in the stakeholder's letter.
John Ziebarth, 2900 Fourth Avenue, #204, San Diego, CA spoke in support of the
ordinance subject to revisions in the stakeholder's letter and summarized each of the six
requested amendments identified above.
Email from Joel Peshkin requesting the ordinance include a provision that all exterior
ligating be full cutoff lighting shielded so that no part of the bulb is directly visible from off of
the property or any adjacent roadway.
Planning Commissioner Questions and Comments
The Planning Commission considered issues to include but not be limited to:
• Development standards;
• Aesthetics;
• Potential Impacts on adjacent properties;
• Traffic and parking;
• Vehicle stacking.
Commissioner Tatarian referred to the ordinance, Page 6, Section (g)(2), fifth line, should
the word "shall" be used instead "must"? Commissioner Tatarian referring to the six
recommendations in the letter from the stakeholders stated he agrees with 1 and 2,
disagrees with 3, 4, and 5 and on 6 the size of the menu board is dependent upon the
appearance. Commissioner Tatarian inquired about provision #3 in the letter regarding
51 % non -conforming.
Commissioner Kerr expressed concern with menu boards and commented 24 square feet
for a menu board may be too small but 42 square may be too large, and commented she is
agreeable with the stakeholder's recommendations except menu boards should be case
by case.
Vice Chair Ratcliffe commented the photographs of menu boards is compelling, the 42
square.feet request may assist traffic circulation, but menu boards should be completely
screened from the street.
Commissioner Mocalis commented the recommendations from the stakeholders are
acceptable and he can support Commissioner Neely's recommendation except provision
#4 in the stakeholder's letter as he agrees the following subsections should be deleted
from the ordinance regarding TIA:
a) Nature of the product or service being offered;
b). Number of menu items being offered;
c) Method by which the order is processed;
d) Estimated time required for each transaction;
e) Estimated arrival rate of customers;
f) Hours of operation.
PC Minutes 3 March 9, 2010
Commissioner Neely referring to the six (6) recommendations in the stakeholders letter
commented he agrees with provision 1, disagrees with provision 2 as the expiration should
refer to the City's non -conforming Section of the Municipal Code, agrees with provision 3,
disagrees with provision 4 stating subsections a, b, c, d, e and f should remain, partly
disagrees with provision 5, and disagrees with provision 6 as smaller menu boards are
preferred. Commissioner Neely commented the 51 % non -conforming provision is common
in most City and County codes and asked the Deputy City Attorney to comment, and made
a motion to concur with provisions 1, 3 and 5 in the stakeholder's letter, decline provisions
2 and 4 in the letter, and amend provision 6 that menu board sign areas are subject to
Planning Commission review. Vice Chair Ratcliffe seconded the motion.
A discussion ensued about the recommendations in Commissioner Neely's original motion.
Commissioner Neely restated the motion.
Chair Cohen inquired about Section 1(c)(5) on pages 3 and 4 of the ordinance that stated
failure of the Planning Commission to make a recommendation within 45 days constitutes
a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Chair Cohen commented he prefers
menu boards be subject to review by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis,
and requested the Planning Commission review drive-thru businesses prior to DRC
review.
Motion by Commissioner Neely to forward the attached ordinance to the City Council with
a recommendation of approval subject to the following amendments:
• Section 1(f)(1) Time period for establishment: Add subsection (iv) the issuance of a
grading permit.
Section 1(g)(2) Discretionary uses existing on the effective date of this Code
amendment: Modified to read (2) "Any expansion, substantial remodel or
reconstruction of a use or building containing a previously approved drive-thru
window which has become non -conforming due to adoption of this Code or any
subsequent amendments thereto shall be allowed if it does not expand the aspect
of non -conformity or creates a new impact. If a modification of an existing facility
results in either an expansion of a non -conforming element or the creation of a new
impact, the establishment shall comply with Section 9--3.533 regulating non-
conforming uses, until such use is brought into conformance with the Land Use
Code.,'
Section 6(d)(1)(k) Traffic impact study: First sentence shall be amended to read "If
a significant impact is identified, proposed mitigation should include:"
• Section 7, Table 3-42 Sign Standards: Delete "8" from fourth column titled "Max.
Area (square feet)"
Section 1(c)5, delete the following sentence, "Failure of the Planning Commission to
review and make a recommendation on the City Council's proposed revision to the
PC Minutes 4 March 9, 2010
DUP application within forty-five (45) days shall be considered a recommendation of
approval".
• Section 1(c)(4) shall be amended to read as follows "Prior to Commission and
Committee review, the Planning Commission shall review and make
recommendations regarding land use determination issues".
The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Ratcliffe. The motion to recommend City Council
approval as amended passed on a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Mocalis voting no.
2. CONSIDERATION OF GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION GPM 09-002
SCAROLA RESIDENCE; a request for review of design plans for the legalization of a
series of retaining walls and grading that was performed prior to the issuance of a building
permit, or the approval of a Grading Plan Modification (APN 675-339-04)(Applicant: Kurt
Saxon)(Case Planner: Justin Kirk, Associate Planner).
Staff Presentation and Recommendation
Associate Planner Justin Kirk presented the staff report stating the applicant is requesting
approval to legalize grading and the installation of retaining walls without a building permit
or the approval of a grading plan modification. Mr. Kirk summarized the history of work
performed, the ongoing code enforcement case, Planning Commission review and
continuance in December 2009 conceptually supporting the design but requiring soils and
geotechnical report to substantiate the work, and continuing the item to March 9, 2010.
Mr. Kirk commented staff had not been contacted by the applicant or the property owner
until today, no soils and geotechnical reports have been submitted, and staff recommends
denial.
Public Comments
Vito Leonardo Scarola, 33561 Valle Road, SJC the property owned commented he has no
more funding, long standing litigation, a court agreement may not be consistent with
Planning Commission approved design, and the court case should conclude in two to three
months.
Cori Powers, 33551 Valle Road, SJC spoke in opposition summarizing the history of code
violations, long and costly litigation, referred to Municipal Code Section 8--2.16e,
commented the court case was concluded and Mr. Scarola appealed, and requested the
City deny the application and remedy the violations.
Ted Powers, 33551 Valle Road, SJC spoke in opposition summarizing the previous
Planning Commission and City Council meetings, there is a 10 foot pad height difference,
Engineer Kurt Saxon's plans are fraudulent, and requested the City deny the application
and remedy the violations.
Richard Hill Adams, 33532 Forster Ranch Road, SJC spoke in opposition commenting on
code violations, fraudulent information from the owner and applicant, and the applicant is
residing in the residence despite no Certificate of Occupancy.
PC Minutes March 9, 2010
Peter Thomas, 33552 Valle Road, SJC filled out a speaker card but was not present for
the public hearing.
Planning Commissioner Questions and Comments
The Planning Commission considered issues to include but not be limited to:
• Municipal Code requirements;
• Building Code requirements;
• Aesthetics;
• Impacts on properties in the vicinity.
Vice Chair Ratcliffe commented she supports staff recommendation.
Commissioner Kerr commented she supports denial, the DRC worked hard to find an
acceptable solution, and the applicant did not follow through with soils and geotechnical
report.
Commissioner Mocalis commented he supports denial.
Commission Neely commented the DRC had come to a conclusion that would resolve the
code violations, asked the Deputy City Attorney if the courts can intervene, and supports
denial.
Commissioner Tatarian supported denial.
Chair Cohen inquired if a trial date had been set, commented he emphasizes with the
neighbors, has seen no progress by the applicant, and supports denial.
Motion by Commissioner Tatarian to adopt the attached resolution denying Grading Plan
Modification (GPM) 09-002, seconded by Commissioner Kerr. The motion to deny passed
on a vote of 6-0.
I. NEIN BUSINESS
Chair Cohen reorganized the agenda to hear the New Business item 11.
1. WORK SESSION CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 10-
001 CHURCH IN SYCAMORE PLAZA; a request for approval to establish and operate an
approximate 3,358 square foot church in an existing multi -use quasi -industrial building.
There are no exterior modifications associated with the proposed use. (APN: 668-082-
04)(Applicant: Luis Magallanes)(Case Planner: Justin Kirk, Associate Planner).
Staff Presentation and Recommendation
Associate Planner Justin Kirk presented the staff report stating the applicant is requesting
to establish and operate a church totaling approximately 3,358 square feet within an
existing building in Sycamore Plaza in the CM (Commercial Manufacturing) zone. No
exterior modifications are proposed. Mr. Kirk commented the primary issues are the
impact on other businesses in Sycamore Plaza and the potential need for dedicated
PC Minutes 6 March 9, 2010
parking for the proposed use. Mr. Kirit referred to the attached parking use matrix for
Sycamore Plaza. Staff recommended the Planning Commission provide direction on the
potential need of an exclusive parking agreement.
Public Comments
NONE
Planning Commission Questions and Comments
The Planning Commission considered the requirement of a joint use parking agreement
and provided comments for the applicant.
Commissioner Mocalis inquired if it would be appropriate to use the same parking
restrictions the City used for the Dance 210 business in Sycamore Plaza.
Commissioner Kerr expressed concern with parking on weekends and for special events.
Commissioner Tatarian inquired about a reciprocal parking agreement with Serra Plaza
and suggested required church parking stalls be considered in the calculation for a
reciprocal agreement.
Commissioner Neely commented that an exclusive parking agreement is appropriate.
Vice Chair Ratcliffe concurred with her colleagues comments.
Chair Cohen inquired if the applicant has a church at another location, if he is moving or
expanding, and suggested the church services be staggered on Sunday.
The Planning Commission by general consensus "recommended that staff forward their
comments to the applicant.
F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
3, CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 0701,
REZONE (RZ) 07-01 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TTM 17226 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
(TTM).17280 GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION GPM 07-01 DISTRITO LA NOVIA —
SAN JUAN MEADOWS; a request for approval of development plans for a mixed use
development on the 18.7 acre Distrito La Novia site consisting of 75,100 gross square feet
(68,200 net square feet) of commercial -retail use, 32,000 gross square feet (27,500 net
square feet) of office use, and 140 residential units (90 for -sale condominiums & 50 rental
apartments); and development pians for the 135 -acre San Juan Meadows site consisting
of a 94 -lot residential estate subdivision and 775 -horse commercial equestrian facility.
(Applicant: Advanced Real Estate Services)(Project Manager: William Ramsey, AICP,
Principal Planner).
Commissioner Neely recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest as he has a
contract with Orange County Counsel with no pay, County Counsel made comments on
PC Minutes 7 Marcie 9, 2010
the EIR, and the letter of the law is he can participate but should recuse. Neely left the
Council chambers.
Staff Presentation and Recommendation
Principal Planner Bill Ramsey presented the staff report stating the item was introduced at
the last meeting on February 23, 2010 at which time the Planning Commission requested
additional information. Based on Commission requests, staff undertook the following
tasks:
• Implications of the new MS -4 permit;
• Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) assumptions for special events;
• How the proposed equestrian facility compares with existing facilities;
• How the Coto de Caza equestrian center operates and impacts on residences;
• If existing or planned infrastructure be adequate for the project.
Mr. Ramsey also commented on directions the Commission provided to the applicant to
include:
• Revise elevations for Distrito component to depict all roofline building heights;
• Provide an additional view simulation from northbound 1-5 Freeway;
• Provide a more clear view simulation #9;
• Provide project phasing plan.
Mr. Ramsey provided a clarified view simulation 9 from the city's sports park and noted
that due to the distance, the project would be difficult to visually discern, distributed the
draft Development Agreement to the Planning Commission, and introduced EIR consultant
Keeton Kreitzer, traffic consultant Richard Barretto (Linscott, Law and Greenspan) and air
quality consultant Tin Cheung.
Principal Planner Ramsey responding to Planning Commission questions and comments
stated he would prefer the Commission continue the item to the next meeting on March 23,
2010 so that momentum could be maintained and the Commission could continue to make
progress in the review of the project.
Deputy City Attorney Diego Santana responding to Commissioner Mocalis stated he could
participate in the item unless a future direct impact is discovered,
EIR consultant Keeton Kreitzer responding to Planning Commission questions and
comments stated direct traffic impact is determined if project traffic exceeds 1 % of existing
capacity and results in a Level of Service (LOS) of E or F. Mr. Kreitzer further commented
that cumulative traffic impact analyzes long-term growth impact to traffic includes approved
but unbuilt projects, and has a 1% or greater increase in capacity or reaches LOS E or F.
Senior Traffic Engineer Alan Oswald responding to Planning Commission questions and
comments summarized road segments and long term traffic impacts.
PC Minutes 8 March 9, 2010
Public Comments
Rob Cerruti, Advanced Real Estate Services, 23792 Rockfield Blvd. #100, Lake Forest, CA
spoke in support of the project, commented ARES is waiting on the view simulation from
the northbound 1-5 vantage point, and he is available to answer questions.
Doug Staley, Hunsaker Associates responding to Vice Chair Ratcliffe explained why the
three BMP's were selected, summarized water treatment, and said dry basin detentions
are proposed. He noted that because the Meadows site is comprised of clays and because
of the landfill, the design goal for the BMPs cannot involve percolation into the ground.
Yvonne Tschaikowsky, 27367 Paseo Placentia, SJC spoke in opposition commenting on
landslide and grading concerns and distributed a diagram from the Phase 1 Preliminary
Environmental Site Assessment (PESA) depicting the general location of ridgelines to the
Planning Commission regarding EIR Section 4.5, public health.
Trevor Dale, 27731 Camino La Ronda, SJC spoke in opposition expressing concerns with
water availability, perched water tables, and ancient landslides.
Richard Stein, 27677 Paseo Aiondra, SJC expressed no opinion but was present to gather
information for the Mesa Vista HOA in the Lomas San Juan subdivision. The HOA is
concerned with equestrian impacts, Distrito intensity, and suggested ARES make a
presentation to the HOA Board.
Marc Hedgpeth, 21486 Almondwood, Lake Forest, spoke in support.
Planning Commissioner Questions and Comments
The Planning Commission considered issues to include but not be limited to:
• State Law,
• Municipal Code Requirements;
• Environmental Review;
• Impacts on Properties in the Vicinity;
• Traffic;
• Aesthetics.
Commissioner Tatarian inquired about the view simulation from northbound 1-5 Freeway,
and commented on the Traffic Report, Attachment 2, Page 142, direct traffic impacts,
existing development plus project traffic impacts, and road segments; also on Page 145,
long term traffic impacts,
Vice Chair Ratcliffe inquired about the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in
Attachment 1, and why only three (3) Best Management Practices (BMP's) out of 12
options were chosen.
Commissioner Mocalis inquired to the Deputy City Attorney if he has a potential conflict of
interest as he was the former Chair of the Regional Water Quality Control Board that took
action on the Forster Canyon Landfill.
PC Minutes 'd March 9, 2010
Commissioner Kerr passed.
Chair Cohen inquired about the status of responses to EIR comments, does staff have
time to prepare the final EIR comments before the next Commission meeting, and
suggested the Commission review the Development Agreement at the next meeting on
March 23, and review the final EIR comments at the April 13, 2010 Planning Commission
meeting.
Motion by Vice Chair Ratcliffe to continue the item to the next regularly scheduled meeting,
seconded by Commissioner Tatarian. The motion to continue to March 23, 2010 passed
on a vote of 5-0-0 (note; Neely recused).
H. OLD BUSINESS
None
J. COMMISSION 1 STAFF COMMENTS
Assistant Community Development Director Taylor provided a status summarizing
upcoming zoning and planning applications to the Development Advisory Board, Design
Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council.
Commissioner Kerr inquired about the status of the Nelson Chung project in the Glendale
Federal subdivision.
Chair Cohen inquired about the status of his request to remove delineation blocking the
right lane on westbound Ortega Highway just east of La Novia Avenue. Chair Cohen also
inquired about an illuminated window sign in a real estate office next to Starbuck's at
Camino Capistrano and Ortega Highway.
Assistant Community Development Director Taylor commented staff has not heard from
Nelson Chung and no plan check has been submitted for the Glendale Federal project.
Mr. Taylor stated he referred the Ortega delineation to Public Works Traffic Engineer Alan
Oswald who would contact Caltrans. Mr. Taylor commented he would follow up on the
Caltrans issue and inspect the illuminated window sign and report back.
K. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cohen adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Approved:
Grant
Taylor,
Assistant Community Development Director
PC Minutes 10 March 9, 2010