10-1006_CC_Minutes_Adjourned Regular Meeting MINUTES
October 6, 2010
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Uso called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the San Juan Capistrano
City.Council to order at 5:05 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Council Member Hribar
led the Pledge of Allegiance
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Allevato, Tom Hribar, Mark Nielsen,
Mayor pro tem Laura Freese and Mayor Dr. Londres Uso
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
• Derek Reeve, City resident, expressed concern regarding a vote taken by the
City Council to have double-tracking up through Oso Road. Council Member
Allevato clarified that the City Council took action to support a railroad siding from
the bridge north of Oso Road to the Laguna Niguel Station, to facilitate doubling
railroad traffic from the Laguna Niguel Station to the Los Angeles Station, and not
to the San Juan Capistrano station, as part of a major investment study for
Measure M2.
• Clint Worthington, City resident, expressed concern regarding increasing train
sidings and main lines; spoke regarding Council Member Mark Nielsen`s
campaign contributions from CR&R; and the City Manager's salary
compensation. Council Member Nielsen provided clarification regarding
campaign contributions received from CR&R, and stated that residents saved
money by CR&R delaying solid waste rate increases from January to July, and
stated that the Producers Price Index (PPI) calculations were done per the
Bureau of Labor of Statistics standards. Mayor pro tem Freese stated that
Joe Tait, City Manager is an outside contractor who is reorganizing City Hall,
successfully negotiating with Chevron for the MtBE issues, and getting the
Groundwater Recovery Plant back on track, and does not receive any medical or
retirement benefits.
PUBLIC HEARING:
C1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 07-01, REZONE (RZ) 07-01,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 17280, ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC)
07-14, GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 07-01; AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR DISTRITO LA NOVIA-SAN JUAN MEADOWS —
CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 2, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. (450.201440.201420.40)
Public Correspondence:
The following individuals submitted written correspondence in support of
the project: Kim Rowe, City Resident; Samantha Tullett, City Resident; Sara
Shelton, City Resident; Rich Jenkins, Antarctica; Laura Taylor, City Resident; L.
Sheri Grady-Merkle, City Resident; Lorraine Hoon, City Resident; Anne Fox, City
Resident; Jennifer Darling, City Resident; Mark Bodenhamer, Chamber of
Commerce; Tammie Young, City Resident; Dawn Cole, City Resident; JR and
Holly Schooley, City Residents; Lauren Horn, City Resident; Christie Noble, City
Resident; Kari Rich, City Resident.
10-6-2010
Public Correspondence:
The following individuals submitted written correspondence in opposition
to the project: Larry and Patricia Petersen, City Residents; Duncan Crowl, City
Resident; Mike Mycka, City Resident; Harold Nickelsberg, City Resident;
Deborah and Ian Smith, City Residents; Kenneth M. Sears, EA, City Resident;
Gerrie Sears, City Resident; Allyn E. Rowley, City Resident; Richard and Karen
Unifried, City Residents; Jack and Carol Chestek, City Residents; Mike Reed,
City Resident; John and Kay Davidson, City Residents; Jim and Elsa Keisker,
City Residents; Kathy Rowley, City Resident; Jim Satterfield, City Resident; M.
LeGallee, City Resident; Yvonne Tschaikowsky, City Resident; Marylin and
Albert Ehlow, City Resident; Dr. Ralph H. and Nancy Sturdevant, City Residents;
Carol Caddes, City Resident; Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Mothershead, City Residents;
Diane Butler, City Resident; Jane and William Tower, City Residents; James D.
Wood, City Resident; Marianna Condon, City Resident; Robert P. King, City
Resident; Michael Johnsen, City Resident; Joanie and Rick Valasek, City
Resident; Susan Gordon, City Resident; Carlton J. and Barbara Jeah Weckerle,
City Residents; Rudi Gern, City Resident; Nancy Sharp, City Resident; A. Diane
Askew, City Resident; William "Bill" Sharp, City Resident; Robert and Judith
Lazzarini, City Residents; Maryann Pette, City Resident; Art and Peggy Jones,
City Resident; Marilyn Jones, City Resident; Kirsten Fezzi, City Resident; Donald
Titus, City Resident; Sandra Bender, City Resident; Charles Bender, City
Resident; Warren and Terrie Anderson, City Residents;. Rob Clyde, City
Resident; Edna L. Sanchez, City Resident; Betty Hill, City Resident; Marjorie
Baumgartner, City Resident; Ira Rosenbaum, City Resident; John Bates, City
Resident; Hilary J. Schneider, City Resident; Ken Tarbutton, City Resident; John
M. Perry, City Resident; Lynn Williams, City Resident; Pati Herman, City
Resident; H and C Schneider, City Residents; Trevor Dale, City Resident; Laura
Bauden, City Resident; Warren and Gloria Rogers, City Residents; Helen Singer,
City Resident; Josh Singer, City Resident; Robert Norman, City Resident; Judy
Jemmings, City Resident; Jason Ehle, City Resident; Donna Ehle, City Resident;
Jerry Ehle, City Resident; Marsha Norman, City Resident; Marilyn Gust, City
Resident; Jim and Judi Halverson, City Residents; Greta Hess, City Resident;
Michael J. and Denise Kruthers, City Residents; William Berger, City Resident;
Alice Parker, City Resident; Chuck and Sue Kennard, City Residents; Roxwell
Hafdahl, City Resident; Dudley and Maisie Gladding, City Residents; Russell
Gordon Welch, City Resident.
William A. Ramsey, Principal Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation and
responded to questions. Alan Oswald, Senior Traffic Engineer, responded to
questions from the City Council
Presentation by members of the development team who provided an overview of
the proposed project; and responded to questions from the City Council:
• Rick Julian, Advanced Group 99-SJ
• Robb Cerruti, Advanced Real Estate Services
Mayor Uso opened the public hearing and invited testimony.
2 10-6-2010
Public Testimony:
The following individuals spoke in sul2port of the project: Richard Hill
Adams, City Resident; Elliott Levenson, City Resident; Marc Hedgpeth, City of
Lake Forest; Michelle Fernandez, City Resident; Larry Kramer, City Resident;
Reed Royalty , City Resident; Larry Thomas, City of San Clemente; Joe Lifto,
City Resident; Neal Pedersen, City Resident; Terry Parker, City Resident; Jim
Carter , City.Resident; James Leach, City of Rancho Santa Margarita; Sandie
Weaver, City Resident; Sara Shelton, City Resident; Kelly Tribolet, City Resident;
Kathy Hanson, City Resident; Loraine Mullen-Kress, City of Laguna Beach; Linda
Rene, City Resident; Adam Mayworth, City Resident.
The following individuals submitted a "Request to Speak" cards in support
of the project: Duane Soper, City Resident; Kathy Holman, City Resident;
Patricia Hunter, City Resident; Sam Hunter, City Resident; Travis Hunter, City
Resident; Sara Shelton, City Resident; Gay Smith, City Resident; Kelly lhde, City
Resident; Erin Heintel, City of Laguna Beach; Sharon Wood, City of Mission
Viejo; Patrice McKeefery, City of Ladera Ranch; Katie Berney,--, City Resident;
John Berney, City Resident; Fred For, City Resident; Cathy Danson, City
Resident.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: Jess Lopez,
City Resident; Joan N. Gienapp, City Resident; Ira Rosenbaum, City Resident;
Trevor Dale, City Resident; Derek Reeve, City Resident; Yvonne Tschaikowsky,
City Resident; Kaydee Godfrey, City Resident; Marsha Norman, City Resident;
Lynn Williams, City Resident; Ken Williams, City Resident; John Perry, City
Resident; RC Taylor, City Resident; Ian Smith, City Resident.
The following individuals submitted a "Request to Speak" cards in
opposition to the project: None
Council Comments:
® Preference in widening Valle Road and softening the retaining wall; need to
be ahead of the curve pertaining to traffic, rather than constantly trying to
catch up; and felt that the project is good, but there's a lot of fear in the
community.
• Change is scary, but need to carefully see what benefits the majority of the
residents; felt that the new proposed project is better and of greater benefit
to the community than the current approved development; preference with
Alternative No. 2 for the parking structure, as it takes less space and
provides direct access to the condominium and natural light from three (3)
sides; preference in Scenario No 3., reducing equestrian from 775 to 500,
office space reduction from 32,000 to 25,600 GSF, and would prefer 35
apartments instead of 50; traffic would be reduced and the
Public Institutional would be gone; preference in Plan A for equestrian
phasing, starting with 250 horses, in order to see how things go along before
going to the next phase; preference in changing zoning of office space, with
the possibility of-a small boutique hotel, commercial or retail; preference in
retaining walls no higher than 12 ft, and phased in 2 to 3 phases; new
proposed project has a 22% water reduction; support the dedication of two
(2) acres for possible` water plant; infrastructure must be done first;
3 10-6-2010
preference in using the word "maximum standards" rather than "minimum
standards" in the landfill Environmental Impact Report; love the architecture
and spirit of the project; preference in keeping the mobile home closure
separate from the project, as it's a separate issue; clarified that
redevelopment funding is not being used .for the project; felt that horses are
soothing and nice to look at; and expressed support for the project as long
as changes can be made to make it livable for the residents.
• Felt that the project has a good circulation design; supports the boutique
retail down below; project would create jobs; water cannot be used as an
excuse not to approve the project; taking the Public Institution piece away
helps in reducing the traffic; preference in a maximum of 500 horses, ten
(10) less units, in order to accommodate more guest parking; reduce the
office building by half, or turn into additional retail; not in favor of a reservoir,
but should take the dedication of land; all improvements should be done by a
notice of completion; not in favor of widening the street; and support
approving the project.
• Project is an improvement from the previous approved project; new project
provides activities, resources, employment opportunities, beautif6l area for a
restaurant and a retail center; current private property will be open to the
public, with a staging area and linked to City trails; project would provide
financial benefits to the City, and revitalization of the eastside of town,
and will motivate downtown merchants to make improvements to their
businesses; preference in a three phase plan for horses, starting with 200
horses, and the Planning Commission approving additional horses, with a
maximum cap of 536 horses; preference in Parking Alternative No 2., as it
provides direct access to each floor; important to bring a diverse housing
inventory to our community that offers affordability and less maintenance;
Valle Road needs improvements, traffic needs to flow safely and more
efficiently; retaining wall needs further work, like terracing them and adding
landscaping; preference in reducing the office space and increasing the
retail; support the 50 apartments and 90 condominiums, as it provides
affordability; felt that the reservoir would be out of character; and felt that
residents enjoy seeing horses in the City's trails.
• Felt that the current approved project is a bad deal for the City, need to have
a viable and sustainable community in the long term, by diversifying and
generating new revenues in a way that enhances the community; by moving
the density to the Distrito La Novia side, it transfers most of the development
to the Redevelopment Agency area, where 60% of property taxes can be
kept in the City rather than only 10%, but if the project is put on hold for too .
long, the revenue could be lost, as the Redevelopment Agency sunsets; felt
that the mix-use is appropriate for the location; preference in seeing
additional retail or a boutique hotel rather than an office building; project
needs to be done with high quality architecture; need reduction of retaining
walls; need to include allowable equestrian uses under the Condition of
Approval, limiting special events, number of events in a day, noise, etc..;
traffic improvements need to be done first; stable must be held to the highest
standards and best management practices, with the
Condition Use Permit (CUP) subject to avoiding negative impacts; need to
have a Development Agreement prior to approving the project; and need to
have adequate circulation from La Novia entrance to San Juan Creek Road.
4 10-6-2010
• Council Consensus:
1) Office Use on Distrito La Novia Site: reduce the commercial office by 50%
from 32,000 gross square feet (GSF)/27,500 net square feet to no more than
16,000 GSFl13,750 NSF (GSF) of total building area, but also allow
retail/service or hotel use.
2) Residential Use on Distrito La Novia: reduce the maximum allowable
residential units from 140 to 130, reducing the 10 units from either the
proposed condominiums or the apartments.
3) Valle Road Design: proceed with widening of Valle Road pursuant to City
Council-approved Capital Improvement Project plans.
4) Retaining Walls Along Valle Road: mitigate the proposed Verdura
retaining walls by allowing a maximum wall height of 12 ft,,; and requiring
terraced walls to be separated by a minimum five foot (50") wide terrace .
5) Equestrian Use: reduce the maximum number of allowable horses from
775 to 500 horses. r
6) Equestrian Phasing: applicant to determine project phasing during the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process.
7) 250S Reservoir Site: with final map recordation, the subdivider shall
record an irrevocable offer of dedication for the 250S reservoir site in a form
subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.
8) Parking Structure Design Concept: approved Parking Alternative No. 2,
which allows direct resident access to the condominiums.
9) Calle Arroyo-La Novia_Avenue Signal: delete the mitigation measure
requiring installation of a signal at the Calle Arroyo-La Novia Avenue
intersection (note: requires that the Draft Statement of Overriding
Considerations address this change).
Council Action: Moved by Council Member Allevato, seconded by
Mayor pro tem Freese, and carried unanimously to continue the public bearing to
November 2, 2010, at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Uso adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:22 p.m. to
Tuesday, August 19, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. for Closed Session; and then 6:30 p.m, for the
publicf�usiness Session; and then to Wednesday, August 20, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. for a
Long,,Tdrmli ion/Strategic Plan), in the City Council Chamber.
Respeetfu)l'lyubmitte6, y --
(WAI,
MARIA.�I' ERK
Approve : October 19, 2
ATTEST:
DR. LONDRES USO, MAYOR
10-6-2010