PC Minutes-2007-06-1232400 PASEO ADEL.ANTO
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 493-1171
(949) 493-1053 FAx
www.sanjuancapistrano.org
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2007
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAM ALLEVATO
THOMAS W. HRIBAR
MARK NIELSEN
JOE SOTO
DR. LONDRES USO
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman
Cardoza at 7:05 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Chairman Cardoza asked for a moment of silence in memory of Tony Forster,
who passed on June 12, 2007.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Robert Cardoza, Chairman
Sheldon Cohen, Vice Chairman
Tim Neely
Gene Ratcliffe
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff members in attendance: Steve Apple, Planning Director; Jason Retterer,
Deputy City Attorney; Molly Bogh, former Planning Director; Sue McCullough,
Recording Secretary.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Cardoza welcomed Councilman Thomas Hribar to the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted
by one motion and one vote. There will 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.
San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
0 Printed on 100% recycled paper
PC Meeting Minutes 2 June 12, 2007
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 22 2007
2. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 06-12; MEXICO LINDO-VAQUERO
WEST (ADDITION/REMODEL): reaffirm the action taken on May 22, 2007 to
deny a request for review of architectural plans to expand the existing two-story,
4,146 square foot commercial building located at 26755 Verdugo Street, and
approve the draft Resolution of Denial. (Applicant: Eric Altman)(Project Manager:
David Contreras, Associate Planner).
3. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) 07-64; reaffirm the action taken on May
22, 2007 to deny an application to remove one (1) Eucalyptus (Red Ironbark) tree
with a diameter of thirty (30) inches and approve the draft Resolution of Denial.
(APN 668-082-02) (Applicant: Sycamore Plaza) (Project Manager: David
Contreras).
Vice Chairman Cohen moved approval, seconded by Commissioner Neely, of the
Consent Calendar. The motion passed by a vote of 3-0-1 with Commissioner
Ratcliffe abstaining due to her absence at the May 22, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
1. CONTINUED WORK SESSION ON LAND USE CODES (GUEST
SPEAKER FORMER PLANNING DIRECTOR MOLLY BOGH)
Ms. Bogh reviewed the purpose of writing the land use code amendments and
the objectives of Chapters 9-1 and 9-2, as outlined on a one-page handout
presented to the dais. She said that most of the changes are not substantive but
are intended to save time for both staff and applicants by streamlining
procedures and clarifying code sections.
Chairman Cardoza asked how the process can be expedited. Mr. Apple said
there is a backlog of CIP and private sector projects, and suggested that Ms.
Bogh continue working on the revisions. Mr. Retterer said the office of the City
Attorney will continue to review the amendments from a legal standpoint. Mr.
Apple suggested a special meeting in July, a Planning Commission public
hearing in August, and a City Council public hearing in September.
Vice Chairman Cohen asked that the Planning Commissioners receive the
paperwork two or three weeks before the meeting, and asked if the signage
revisions will be included. Mr. Apple said the paperwork can be provided in a
timely manner. Ms. Bogh said the sign permit and program provisions are
PC Meeting Minutes 3 June 12, 2007
included. Mr. Apple said the 45 -day sign urgency ordinance may be extended at
an upcoming Council meeting.
Ms. Bogh clarified the following land use approval terms:
1. Discretionary actions: the reviewing authority approves or denies based
on findings.
2. Ministerial actions are handled at the counter.
3. Quasi-judicial actions: the decision makers weigh evidence in the record.
4. Legislative actions are policy decisions that may or may not have required
findings for approval.
5. Minor project: staff has discretion to approve.
6. Major project: Planning Commission, City Council, or both, have discretion
to approve.
7. Council Policy 418 related to Capital Improvement Project (CIP) review in
the City, has been included in the code amendments.
Ms. Bogh discussed in detail changes to Chapters 1 and 2, including general
provisions, notification procedures, and the duties of the Zoning Administrator
and Planning Director.
Commissioner Neely said the concept regarding preliminary development review
may be too open-ended if an applicant relies on staff review prior to the project
being reviewed at the DRC or Planning Commission.
Ms. Bogh referred to (c) on page 9 and said that preliminary review by five or six
departments meeting with applicants has been valuable in weeding out
unworkable projects and identifying issues early in the process. As a result of
meetings with staff, applicants may decide to modify the project to meet City
standards, which expedites processing after formal submittal of the application.
Ms. Bogh introduced the term "inaugurated" on page 11 (m) (1) and added an
option for a Pre -construction conference (n), and final clearance for the
conditioned compliance (o).
Commissioner Neely asked for a clear description of the level of detail required
for application submittal, and a flow chart showing each step in the process. Ms.
Bogh said that handouts with submittal requirements and flow charts are
provided at the counter, but these are not proposed to be included in the zoning
ordinance because internal procedures are determined by the Director and are
subject to change.
Chairman Cardoza and the Commissioners asked to discuss the New Business
item at this point in the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
PC Meeting Minutes 4 June 12, 2007
1. INITIAL THOUGHTS/COMMENTS ON REVAMPING/ALTERNATIVES TO
PRESENT REVIEW PROCESS.
Mr. Apple said staff has outlined four options to consider, to address the concern
that policy issues on pending applications are not being resolved early enough in
the review process: 1) business as usual (no change), 2) changing the order of
DRC and PC meetings to deal with policy issues prior to design issues, 3)
Merging the DRC and PC, and 4) Intermittent or Regular Joint DRC/PC meeting.
Vice Chairman Cohen suggested that projects be preliminarily reviewed by the
Planning Commission for land use and compatibility determinations prior to
consideration by the DRC for design issues.
Commissioner Neely said that in the past the Planning Commission became very
involved with architectural review and the approval process got bogged down in
minutiae; in addition, the final design of buildings was often not well coordinated.
Commissioner Neely suggested a four step process: 1) preliminary staff review
at the Development Advisory Board to address technical issues; 2) preliminary
DRC review to address large-scale design issues such as building massing and
site layout; 3) Planning Commission review of land use compatibility and policy
issues, leading to a decision on the application and adoption of conditions of
approval requiring detailed design review of final design plans; and 4) DRC
review of detailed final design plans, including lighting, landscaping, colors and
materials. Commissioner Neely also voiced concern that Engineering design
standards should be flexible and should consider policy direction from the
Planning Commission and DRC regarding design.
Commissioner Neely suggested that if the Planning Director identifies major
issues on projects related to land use, circulation, density or other policies early
in the review process, the Planning Director forward that application to the
Planning Commission for a workshop discussion to get preliminary input. Ms.
Bogh said the language in the draft code could be refined in (f) on page 3 to
incorporate this suggestion.
Chairman Cardoza suggested that Planning Commissioners be advised of items
to be addressed by the DRC. Mr. Apple said Planning Commissioners could be
provided direct links to agendas on the City website, and the spreadsheet
summary of the pending applications maintained by the Planning Department
can be distributed to them.
Ms. Bogh summarized what appeared to be the suggested direction.. staff and
the Development Advisory Board review technical issues such as sewer,
drainage, and roads; DRC reviews scale, massing, and architectural style;
Planning Commission reviews land use and policy issues and adds Conditions of
Approval; and DRC reviews the final landscaping, materials, and colors.
PC Meeting Minutes 5 June 12, 2007
The consensus
acceptable and
handouts.
of the Planning Commission was that this process was
should be reflected in the Land Use Code and application
Eric Altman, 102 Lattice, Irvine, owner of Vaquero West building, voiced
frustration with the denial of his land use application at a previous meeting,
stating he had spent substantial time in the review process and worked with City
staff, City Council, DRC, and Cultural Heritage Commission.
Commissioner Ratcliff said that implied agreement from staff members can lead
to misunderstandings by applicants, and asked if information is given to the
applicants to show the entire approval process. Ms. Bogh said flow charts are
included in the brochures on the counter.
Ms. Bogh said that both staff and the DRC have the authority and responsibility
to forward policy items to the Planning Commission for initial review when
appropriate.
Chairman Cardoza called for a recess at 9:30 p.m., reconvened the meeting at
9:40 p.m., and asked for a return to the balance of the presentation on land use
code amendments.
OLD BUSINESS (continued)
1. CONTINUED WORK SESSION ON LAND USE CODES (GUEST
SPEAKER FORMER PLANNING DIRECTOR MOLLY BOGH) (continued)
Ms. Bogh reviewed the Amendment of the General Plan changes on page 15
and the Amendment of the Land Use Code changes on page 16 and 17.
Vice Chairman Cohen asked if a Planning Commissioner could appeal a decision
of the Planning Commission. Ms. Bogh said that according to (h) on page 17, a
Planning Commissioner as a citizen would have the right to file an appeal,
although that is not a common occurrence. Ms. Bogh said the appeal hearing is a
de novo hearing.
Ms. Bogh said new wording was added to Architectural Control (AC) review (2)
and (5) on page 18.
Commissioner Neely voiced concern regarding AC review of all subdivisions and
single family dwellings. Ms. Bogh said language can be added to the tentative
tract maps section regarding AC review, and that she can work with staff on the
process for independent builders.
Ms. Bogh said new wording was added to the findings (c) on page 19.
PC Meeting Minutes 6 June 12, 2007
Commissioner Neely voiced concern that wording in (c) (6) on page 19 puts a
burden on the Planning Commission to prove a negative as opposed to a burden
on the applicant to prove a positive. Ms. Bogh suggested revising the wording to
make it more affirmative. Commissioner Neely offered to provide wording used
by the County.
Ms. Bogh referred to (e) on pages 19 and 20, allowing the Zoning Administrator
to grant 'extensions of time for an AC up to twelve months per request if there
have been no changes. If there have been changes, the extension request would
go back to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Bogh referred to wording added in (d) and (e) on page 21.
Commissioner Neely asked for clarification of the legal non -conforming use
language in (g) on page 24. Mr. Retterer said he would review the legal non-
conforming provisions of the Code relative to this section, and work with Ms.
Bogh and Mr. Apple regarding language.
Commissioner Neely asked that "Revocation" be the first word in (k) on page 25,
and that the term "fraud" in (ii) on page 25 be replaced with another word. Mr.
Retterer suggested wording such as "misrepresentations on applications."
Commissioner Neely asked that (1) on page 25 be removed and voiced concern
regarding compliance with Department of Interior standards wording as a
mandatory requirement, stating that these standards may be used as guidelines.
Vice Chairman Cohen asked'that signage be included in (3) on page 34.
Ms. Bogh referred to changes made on pages 26 through 43.
Chairman Cardoza referred to (c) on page 12 and said that Councilman Hribar
mentioned that City Council will soon decide on a radius increase from 500 ft. to
1000 ft. for notice to residents near a proposed project. Mr. Apple said that
change may be made at a forthcoming Council meeting after discussion as to
required notification for minor versus major improvements.
Mr. Apple suggested that a Special Planning Commission meeting be held on
July 12 or 26 if Ms. Bogh is available. Ms. Bogh recommended discussing the
subdivision section also, and if Engineering staff are here for the discussion on
Capital Projects, they could be here for the discussion on subdivisions.
Mr. Apple said if a comprehensive wrap-up is achieved at the special meeting,
we could then look at tentative dates for a Planning Commission Public Hearing
and a subsequent City Council Public Hearing.
PC Meeting Minutes 7 June 12, 2007
Chairman Cardoza said that tremendous strides have been made this evening
and thanked Ms. Bogh and Mr. Apple for arranging the work session.
Mr. Apple said he appreciates Ms. Bogh's help.
COMMISSION/STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Apple said that he and Chairman Cardoza would be assisting the City
Council in considerations for a new Planning Commissioner, that former Planning
Commissioner Joe Drey will be recognized at the June 19 Council meeting, and
announced that a new Assistant Planning Director, Mr. Grant Taylor, would be
joining the Planning Department in July.
Vice Chairman Cohen said he would like to see a smoking ban initiated at
outdoor dining facilities in town.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
Approved:
r
Steven A. Apple,
Planning Director