PC Minutes-2009-12-0832400 PASEO ADELANTO
SAN JUAN CAPIST'RANO, CA °-926%5
(949) 493-1171
(949) 493-1053 FAX
A. CALL TO ORDER
I ` 1Y
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAMALLEVATO
(.3.
LAURA FREESE
THOMAS W. HRIRAR
MARK NIELSEN
®
DR. LONDRES USO
December 8, 2009
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 Ratcliffe,
Commissioner Ginny Kerr, Commissioner Tim Neely, Commissioner Jim Mocalis,
Commissioner Bruce Tatarian, and Commissioner Robert Williams.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
D. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
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,
'I. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24. 2009.
Chair Cohen announced the item and inquired if the Planning Commissioners had any
comments or corrections. Motion by Vice Chair Ratcliffe to approve the November 24,
2009 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, seconded by Commissioner Tatarian.
The motion to approve passed on a vote of 7-0.
San ,Tuan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Due to a large number of residents wishing to testify on item 11, Chair Cohen
reorganized the agenda.
1. NEW BUSINESS
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE CAPISTRANO TERRACE MOBILE HOME PARK
CLOSURE APPLICATION STATUS; (Applicant: Capistrano Terrace,
I td.)(Project Manager: Laura Stokes, Housing Coordinator)
Staff Presentation and Recommendation
Housing Coordinator Laura Stokes presented the staff report stating the owner of the
Capistrano Terrace Mobile Home Park (CTMHP) notified the City of its intent to close
the park in November 2006. Since that time the park closure process has not been
completed and the property owner has placed the application on hold. On November
18, 2009 the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) at their regular meeting approved a
resolution addressing concerns with the park closure process and forwarded to the
Planning Commission requesting that the Planning Commission require the property
owner to either submit notification of continuing the closure process within ten days or
the City consider the application to be abandoned. Since the HAC meeting the property
owner submitted a letter on December 1, 2009 indicating their intention to pursue the
park closure. Staff has contacted the consultant who prepared the park closure report
and requested an updated scope of services and fees and will continue the park closure
process.
Redevelopment & Economic Development Manager Douglas Dumhart commented staff
has reviewed the correspondence provided by Sally G. Rather, the Relocation Impact
Report Consulting firm has been contacted and staff will follow up,
Principal Planner Bill Ramsey commented that as the project planner on the park
closure application, he had personally spoke with consulting firm Overland, Pacific &
Cutler and had requested a revised scope of work and cost. He stated that the
Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission to provide recommendations to the
City Council regarding the Relocation Impact Report, CEQA, and any conditions of
approval, and the City has provided the Municipal Code provisions to the consultant.
Assistant Community Development Director Grant Taylor confirmed Chair Cohen's
request that staff would provide a status report to the Planning Commission within 90
days.
Public Comments
Matthew Eastbright, 32802 Valle Road, Space #24, inquired about the status of the
closure process.
Name and address inaudible, CTMHP former HOA board member commented the park
closure has left the residents in uncertainty, is stressful, and the owner is unethical.
PC Minutes 2 December 8, 2009
Sally Garibaldi Rather, 02802 Valle Road SJC, HOA president, commented on the letter
from property owner Rick Julian, inquired about the park closure timeline, referred to her
emails that were given to the Planning Commission as part of the record, and
summarized the park closure history.
Gila Jones, 31221 Belford Drive SJC, NAC member speaking as a resident, commented
on vagueness with Municipal Code provisions, the property owners have dragged their
feet on the closure application, the tenants have not been treated fairly, and the
property owners should fish or cut bait on the closure application.
Dave Solt, 27862 Via Estancia SJC, HAC member speaking as a resident, 27862 Via
Estancia commented the property owners have stuck their thumb in the City's eye, the
HAC resolution has a ten day time line to move forward with park closure or the
application is null and void, and staff should make sure the application moves forward
as requested by the property owners.
Trevor Dale, commented the City ordinance has failed the CTMHP residents, the
residents have suffered and been treated unfairly, and the property owners have held
the park tenants hostage.
Jim Vance, 32802 Valle Road, commented the owners have treated the residents
unfairly, the tenants attempted to purchase the park but the owners ignored their
appraisal.
Planning Commissioner Comments and Questions
The Planning Commission considered issues to include but not be limited to:
• Recommendation by the Housing Advisory Committee;
Property owner letter of intent to proceed with Mobilehome Park Closure;
• Public Testimony.
Commissioner Neely inquired if the Planning Commission has an advisory role with the
park closure application, requested staff provide a brief summary of the closure process
for the residents, and commented the Municipal Code has findings to include property
notice, contents of the report, the Planning Commission has no standing at this time,
and current concerns should be addressed by the City Council.
Chair Cohen informed the audience that the Planning Commission would not be taking
any action tonight, the agenda item recommendation is to receive and file, confirmed
the Relocation Impact Report would be reviewed by the Planning Commission who
would make recommendations to the City Council, inquired if staff would provide the
consultant with City code requirements, requested an update from staff within 90 days,
and concurred with Commissioner Neely that the Commission has no authority to act at
this time.
By general consensus the Planning Commission received and filed the report.
PC Minutes 3 December 8, 2009
F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. CONTINUATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA 06-03 REZONE
RZ06-06 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL AC 07-022 ST. MARGARET'S
EPISCOPAL SCHOOL MASTER PLAN: a request for approval of development plans to
expand an existing K-12 private school campus by 69,977 gross square feet (GSF) from
157,731 to 227,708 GSF and to expand the campus acreage from 17.48 to 26.64 acres
located at 31641 La Novia Avenue, and generally located along the west side of La
Novia Avenue between Calle Arroyo and Rancho Viejo Road and the north side of Calle
Arroyo between La Novia Avenue and Rancho Viejo Road. The master plan also
includes a parcel of the southeast corner of Calle Arroyo and La Novia Avenue, and the
Ortega Equestrian Center property. (APN 666-272-05 thru 08; 666-251-01 thru 05; 666-
261-1 thru 3 & 9 thru 11; 666-232-04; 666-123-01, 02)(Applicant: St. Margaret's
Episcopal School, David bush, Director of Finance & Operations)(Case Planner: William
Ramsey, AICP, Principal Planner).
Commissioner Kerr recused herself from the item and left the City Council Chambers.
Staff Presentation and Recommendation
Principal Planner Bill Ramsey presented the staff report and summarized the project
description, application history, and current status. Mr. Ramsey commented that the
applicant has proposed a Development Agreement with the City and State Law requires
that the Development Agreement be noticed for public hearing. He noted that the
Planning Commission cannot conduct review of the Development Agreement tonight
because State law requires a public hearing notice, and so staff will re -notice the project
to include the Development Agreement for the January 12 meeting. Mr. Ramsey noted
that the Development Agreement has been included in this evening's report along with
resolutions, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures so that the Planning
Commission has sufficient time to become familiarized with all the information. He
recommended that the Planning Commission accept public testimony, provide
comments to staff and continue the item to the January 12, 2010 Planning Commission
meeting.
Principal Planner Ramsey responding to Planning Commission questions and
comments stated that building height is measured from finish grade, and the towers on
the Performing Arts Education Center building are architectural projections that may
exceed the Code's 35 foot height limit; that while the General Plan identifies a multi -use
trail crossing State Route -74 (Ortega Highway), staff recommendation is a safe crossing
area at the Ortega Highway -La Novia Avenue signal prior to the first Architectural
Control application; referred to Exhibit B-3 in the resolution regarding property and
parking areas owned by St. Margaret's in the Ortega Center; and shared -use parking in
the commercial center will address peak parking demand/use: and any future expansion
of the school into the Ortega Business Center would require a new General Plan
Amendment application.
PC Minutes 4 December 8, 2009
Public Comments
David Bush, 31641 La Novia Avenue, spoke in support of the application and confirmed
Mr. Ramsey's comments stating an Architectural Control application would be required
for each building; presented view simulations to the Planning Commission and
summarized the progress of architectural design including improving the rear of the
buildings; and the school has proposed a Development Agreement with the City to
address public benefits.
David Bush responding to Planning Commissioner questions and comments stated the
design is a contiguous campus concept, the Ortega Equestrian Center was acquired for
athletic fields and to stop a potential future incompatible development; the school has
right of first negotiation for potential acquisition of properties in the Ortega Business
Center; the master plan does not include an increase in the school enrollment (now
capped at 1,194 full-time equivalent students) but provides needed facilities; and the
joint -use parking would remain in Ortega Center.
Planning Commissioner Comments and Questions
The Planning Commission considered application issues to include but not be limited to:
• General Plan Consistency;
• Zoning Code Development Standards;
• Architectural Design Guidelines;
• Environmental Review;
• Impacts on the City and Properties in the Area.
Commissioner Tatarian requested a conceptual view simulation along Calle Arroyo,
inquired about future plans to expand the school, asked how parking in the Ortega
Business Center is used, and if there would be a change in joint -use parking.
Commission Williams inquired how the 35 foot height limit was measured, height of the
tower, and if future expansion of the shopping center would require a General Plan
Amendment.
Commissioner Neely inquired about Condition #15 on page 3 in the conditions of
approval regarding trail development and the time frame.
Chair Cohen commented there will be no Planning Commission action tonight and
requested a motion for continuance.
Motion by Commissioner Mocalis to continue the item to the January 12, 2010 Planning
Commission meeting, seconded by Vice Chair Ratcliffe. The motion to continue passed
on a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Kerr recused.
PC Minutes 5 December 8, 2009
G. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION GPM 09-006 HAJEK RESIDENCE, a
request for the construction of single tiered retaining walls along the southerly property
line with a maximum height of 11'-6" for property located at 28481 Avenida La Mancha.
(APN 664-101-31)(Applicant: Eldon E. Blasco)(Project Manager: Justin Kirk, Associate
Planner).
Staff Presentation and Recommendation
Associate Planner Justin Kirk presented the staff report stating the applicant. is
requesting approval to install 176 linear feet of retaining wall 11'-6" in height located in
the rear yard with grading that includes approximately 190 cubic yards of cut and 680
cubic yards of fill. The retaining wall is set back 5'-6" from the property line and the
project has received approval from the neighbor and HOA. Mr. Kirk stated the applicant
had requested using Carolina Cherry trees to screen the wall which were deemed
inappropriate by the DRC who recommended using Acacia trees to match the existing
trees and climbing vines such as Boston Ivy,
Associate Planner Kirk responding to Planning Commission questions and comments
stated the concrete wall will have stucco coating to match the residence, the railing is 5
feet high for a pool barrier, the existing residence is the one at the top of the hill in the
photo, and the downhill neighbor who has the view of the wall has approved.
Public Comments
None, the applicant was present to answer questions.
Planning Commissioner Comments and Questions
The Planning Commission considered application issues to include but not be limited to:
• Aesthetics;
• Municipal Code Requirements and Findings;
• Materials;
• Landscaping.
Commissioner Williams inquired about the wall material and the height of the rail, and
commented he is concerned with the wall height as the City's Design Guidelines
encourage terracing.
Commissioner Kerr inquired about the existing residence in the photo, and commented
she supports the project as it is not visible to public right-of-ways and the neighbor and
HOA have approved.
Commissioner Tatarian inquired about which neighbor approves of the project and he
supports the proposal.
PC Minutes 6 December 8, 2009
Commissioner Neely commented the DRC supported the project, the downhill owner
and HOA support, the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood, and he supports.
Commissioner Mocalis stated he concurs with Commissioner Neely's comments and he
supports the project.
Vice Chair Ratcliffe commented the proposal is appropriate and she supports.
Chair Cohen concurred with Commissioner William's concern about the wall height but
the neighbor and HOA support so he can support.
Motion by Vice Chair Ratcliffe to adopt the resolution approving Grading Plan
Modification (GPM) 09-006, seconded by Commissioner Kerr. The motion to approve
passed on a vote of 7-0.
2. CONSIDERATION OF GRADING PLAN MODIFICATON 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 675-331-
04)(Applicant: Kurt Saxon)(Case Planner; Justin Kirk Planner).
Staff Presentation and Recommendation
Associate Planner Justin Kirk presented the staff report stating the applicant is
requesting approval to legalize a series of retaining walls and grading on property
located at 33561 Valle Road. Mr. Kirk summarized the project history, stated the
current plans reflect that the applicant has followed the direction of the DRC as the walls
would tiered, the wall beyond the one-fourth development area line would be removed,
drainage would be improved, and the slopes would be contoured. Mr. Kirk stated the
plan check would address the fill, compaction, seepage pits and geotechnical
requirements. The proposed design does mitigate potential impacts on the property to
the north.
Associate Planner Kirk responding to Planning Commission comments and questions
stated the note on the plan for an option should be removed as the DRC requested the
walls be tiered, Condition #11 identifies proposed timelines to include submit plan check
within 90 days, obtain all permits within 180 days, and commence construction within
270 days, Condition 1.4 sets forth requirements for grading plans, Condition 1.7 sets
forth requirements for soils and geotechnical reports. Mr. Kirk commented the house
pad is per code, this application addresses areas outside the house pad, staff would
have supported this application if the process had been followed as the proposal is
consistent with code requirements and the Design Guidelines, a performance bond is
included in the conditions, and the plan check process will address geotechnical
concerns.
Assistant Community Development Director Grant Taylor responding to Planning
Commissioner comments and questions reminded the Planning Commission that the
PC Minutes 7 December 8, 2009
City Council had set a deadline to resolve this issue by the end of the year, suggested
the Planning Commission approve the project and modify any conditions, staff would
return the geotechnical report to the Planning Commission at a later date when
complete, commented the Planning Commission could modify or revoke the approval at
a later date, and the plan check will address geotechnical concerns. Mr. Taylor stated
for a continuance time frame to a future Planning Commission meeting he would
recommend the second meeting in February to include allowing the applicant to
complete and submit plans and specifications, staff time to review, staff to send to the
City consulting plan check firm if necessary, third party review if necessary, allow the
applicants to make corrections to the plan check, and staff report preparation.
Deputy City Attorney Diego Santana commented the Planning Commission has broad
discretion to set conditions, and a condition could be included to require a bond for a
worst case scenario to including restoring the property.
Public Comments
Kurt Saxon, 1030 Calle Sombra, San Clement, CA is the engineer who spoke in support
and stated he met with Mr. and Mrs. Powers the neighbors to the north to review the
plans, they have complied with all DRC recommendations, and some conditions in the
resolution have already been addressed.
Coralee Powers, 33551 Valle Road, commented a note on the plans identifies options
for a series of walls or one wall and she wants a series of walls: Mrs. Powers stated
she has issues with safety, property value, and views, her property has been devalued,
and there is no documentation of the stability of the fill.
Ted Powers, 33551 Valle Road, read from a soils report from Engineer Peter Varela,
stated there is no verification of the fill being tested or documented, there is a
discrepancy in the amount of fill, and four seepage pits are in the fill.
Richard Hill Adams commented he saw the property transition from 1977 original
condition, to 1991 Hillside Management Plan, to current condition. Mr. Hill
recommended vegetation be limited to 36 inches in height, questions why the
Commission would legalize an illegal act, disagrees with Mr. Saxon's benchmarks, and
expressed concern of the safety of the only access road to McCracken Hill,
Parvez Alzar, commented he has been a geotechnical consultant for 25 years and
concurs with the Borrela soils report.
Sam Husso, 33642 Valle Road commented his main concerns are the fill and stability of
the road access.
Richard Plump, 33812 Valle Road commented Mr. Scarola has violated the California
Building Code, and the 1991 Hillside Management Plan is not reflected.
PC Minutes 8 December 8, 2009
Vivian Decosta, 33801 Valle Road inquired how this could happen and who allowed it,
30 homes could be impacted, and the applicant should remove all the fill and recompact
the site.
Kurt Saxon, in rebuttal commented the geotechnical report will be prepared after the
Commission grants conceptual approval as it would not make sense to prepare a report
until they know the design is acceptable, the house is permitted, they joined grades with
the property to the south, and the seepage permits were permitted.
Planning Commissioner Comments and Questions
The Planning Commission considered application issues to include but not be limited to:
• Municipal Code Requirements;
• Design Guidelines;
• Consistency with Directions from the DRC;
• Impacts on Neighboring Properties.
Vice Chair Ratcliffe requested the engineer explain the grade variation between 1991
and the present, commented the conditions appear to represent a best case scenario
and the project is currently a worst case scenario, a condition should include a
mitigation bond, inquired what a time line would be for a worst case scenario, and
supports a continuance.
Commissioner Neely inquired what would be the amount of export, commented he
reviewed the project with the DRC and tonight's plans reflect the applicant has complied
with DRC direction, concurs with his colleagues comments, the conceptual approval is
subject to geotechnical reports and plan check, and he supports a continuance.
Commissioner Neely further responded that the applicant and engineer took a long time
but finally responded to DRC direction, the property is a long standing code
enforcement case, if the geotechnical report does not support the proposal the project is
null and void, concurs with the Powers request for tiered walls, the project success
depends on the geotechnical report, and suggested the final landscaping plan be
reviewed by the DRC.
Commissioner Williams commented he is concerned with the code violations, the rainy
season is coming, concerned if the geotechnical reports go bad the walls may need to
be removed, there is not enough information tonight to make a decision, this project did
not observe the normal process, he needs the geotechnical reports to verify the
proposal will work, and he supports a continuance.
Commissioner Kerr inquired what the time frames would be to complete the project in
best case and worst case scenarios, the history appears to be mostly here say, the
DRC review started with present conditions, geotechnical stability is the foremost
concern, this plan is the best solution but depends on the geotechnical report supporting
it, and she supports a continuance.
PC Minutes 9 December 8, 2009
Commissioner Mocalis inquired if the house pad is compliant with code requirements,
verified this application addresses the areas outside the house pad, and commented the
lower property area has illegal improvements, he is taken back by the applicant wanting
to wait on preparing the geotechnical report, he would like to see the geotechnical
report to make a decision, and the City is stuck with making the best of an unusual
situation.
Commissioner Tatarian inquired if the current proposal and geotechnical report work
would the City have approved this project if the proper process had been conducted,
what would happen if the project is denied, inquired about the DRC recommendations,
and commented the applicant has made progress, the plan appears feasible, and he
supports a continuance until they can review the geotechnical report.
Chair Cohen inquired if the conditions are related to a best case scenario and what
would be the result of a worst case scenario, was a performance bond was required, is
a bond included that would recover worst case scenario costs to restore the property,
can the Commission impose a worst case scenario bond condition on the applicant, and
commented the project approval is based on the results of the geotechnical report, he
cannot support approval tonight, suggested a continuance, and asked staff the time
frame for geotechnical submittal, plan check, and when the project would be ready for
reconsideration. Chair Cohen requested staff make the geotechnical report available
for the residents to review.
Motion by Commissioner Neely to continue the item to the regular Planning Commission
meeting of March 9, 2009 and require submittal of the geotechnical report within 30
days, maintain proposed terraced walls, provide notice to the residents of the hearing,
and provide the geotechnical report to the neighbors, seconded by Commissioner Kerr.
The motion to continue with directions passed on a vote of 7-0. No approval of the
grading plan modification approved until geotechnical report reviewed.
H. OLD BUSINESS
None
J. COMMISSION ! STAFF COMMENTS
Assistant Community Development Director Taylor provided a memo to the Planning
Commission dated December 8, 2009 summarizing upcoming zoning and planning
applications to the Development Advisory Board, Design Review Committee (DRC),
Planning Commission, and City Council. Mr. Taylor commented staff had forwarded the
AB 1881 Water Efficient Ordinance to the Planning Commission via email and asked
the Commission to forward any comments for City Council consideration on December
15, 2009, Mr. Taylor commented the DAB would be reviewing the In -N -Out Burger
application on December 16, 2009 and invited two Commissioners to attend. Mr. Taylor
commented he did not know the current status of the Sycamore Tree on St. Margaret's
Episcopal School property but would inquire and report back.
PC Minutes 10 December 8, 2009
Commissioner Williams stated he would like to attend the December 16, 2009 DAB
meeting.
Commissioner Tatarian stated he would also like to attend the December 16, 2009 DAB
meeting.
Vice Chair Ratcliffe inquired about the status of the large specimen Sycamore tree on
the St. Margaret's Episcopal School property that had been previously trimmed
excessively.
K. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cohen adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
"ss0=4
Grant Taylors
Assistant Community Development Director
PC Minutes 11 December 8; 2009