Agenda packet, regular meeting, first session — San Clemente City Council, September 5, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

City Attorney Smith announced that Council took no reportable action during this evening's Closed Session; noted that Council completed the City Manager's evaluation and authorized the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern to meet with the City Manager to debrief him on the results; advised that Closed Session Item B related to Family Assistance Ministries was deferred to a later date.

7. Special Presentations.

A. Update on Homeless Issue (April Update)
Deputy Community Development Director Atamian and Community Outreach Worker Hunter reviewed the April 2022 City Outreach and Engagement Report and responded to Council inquiries. A hard copy of the April 2022 report is on file with the City Clerk.

B. Presentation of Proclamation - National Beach Safety Week Mayor James presented a Proclamation to Marine Safety Captain Mellot, and Lieutenant Staudenbaur, proclaiming May 23-30, 2022, as National Beach Safety Week. Marine Safety staff displayed a video concerning beach safety.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(Budget Public Hearing was held at 3:00 p.m.)

9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.

10. NEW BUSINESS

MOTION BY MAYOR JAMES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON, CARRIED 5-0, to hear Agenda Item 10E as the first item under New Business.

A. Permit Streamlining (Agendized at the March 1, 2022 City Council Meeting by Councilmember Knoblock, with the support of Councilmember Ferguson and Mayor James).
l
ATTACHMENT 5
H-1
217
H-2
218
City Council Minutes -Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting of May 25, 2022 Page 11 Report from the Community Development Director concerning permit streamlining opportunities.

Zhen Wu, San Clemente, requested clarification on the dispute between the City of San Clemente and California Coastal Commission concerning major remodels; suggested the delay in processing permits is due to staffing shortages.

Deputy Community Development Director Atamian and Senior Planner Toma reviewed the contents of the Administrative Report and responded to Council inquiries.

Following discussion, MOTION BY MAYOR JAMES, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER KNOBLOCK, CARRIED 5-0, to agendize a Special Presentation for the June 21, 2022 Regular Council meeting to outline a timeline to implement the streamlining opportunities identified and discuss the possibility of implementing a shot clock on project approvals.

B. Outlets at San Clemente - Conditional Use Permit for Special Events (Agendized at the February 15, 2022 City Council Meeting by Mayor James, with the support of Mayor Pro Tern Duncan and Councilmember Ward).

Report from the Community Development Director concerning the Outlets at San Clemente Conditional Use Permit for Special Events.

Deputy Community Development Director Atamian reviewed the contents of the Administrative Report and responded to Council inquiries.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KNOBLOCK, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON, CARRIED 5-0, to receive and file the Administrative Report dated May 25, 2022, and on file with the City Clerk.

C. Actions to Prevent Human Trafficking in Massage Establishments and Similar Businesses
Report from the Community Development Director concerning actions to prevent human trafficking in massage establishments and similar businesses.

Alejandra Baker, 1-5 Freedom Network, urged Council to direct enforcement of massage establishments to the business, not the workers; thanked the Public Safety Committee for working with the 1-5 Freedom Network on this effort.

Deputy Community Development Director Atamian reviewed the contents of the Administrative Report and responded to Council inquiries.

H-3
219
Department:

Prepared By:

Subject:

AGENDA REPORT

SAN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Meeting Date: May 25, 2022
Community Development, Planning Division
Sara Toma, AICP, Senior Planner

PERMIT STREAMLINING - REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item l QA
Approvals:

City Manager ~ /2\
Dept.Head ~
A , , ttorney (._..,T
Finance Alu./
Fiscal Impact: None to receive this report. The City Council previously allocated funding for the work programs outlined below in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget. Any additional projects initiated may require an appropriation of supplemental funding to undertake.

Summary: This report provides information about opportunities to streamline the City's permit approval process. Current efforts to accomplish this task include the Housing Element Rezoning Program, the development of the Implementation Plan of the City's Local Coastal Program, six Specific Plan Updates, and an upgrade to the Community Development Department's permit-tracking system.

Background: On March 1, 2022, the City Council directed staff to bring back a report on potential code or design guideline modifications to streamline the permitting process.

Discussion:

As an ongoing work program, staff routinely amends the zoning code to clarify procedures, streamline or eliminate various planning permits, and modify or eliminate some ineffective rules. Some of the topics of focus have been general procedures, permit and process eliminations, permit exemptions, formalization of procedures/role of the design review subcommittee, and allowing more staff-level decisions to shorten the review process. This report identifies streamlining processes currently underway, and future streamlining ideas that staff has compiled to bring forward in the future when the current efforts have been completed.

Planning Division Work Program
The Planning Division is working on four major projects that will facilitate the streamlining permit process by removing barriers that cause project delays such as the level of hearing body review, amendments to regulations, application submittal requirements, and design review time. These projects will help promote a faster development review process, create certainty for developers, and further the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the City's General Plan.

The Planning Division's current work program includes the Housing Element Rezoning Program, the preparation of the Implementation Plan of the City's Local Coastal Community Development Department, Planning Division
Agenda Report 5-25-22 I 1 OA-1
H-4
220
Agenda Report Page2
Program, six Specific Plan Updates, and an upgrade to the Community Development Department's permit tracking system.

I. Housing Element Rezoning Program
The Housing Element Rezoning Program would implement the Zoning Program in the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029). This effort will amend zoning regulations to:
• Update the City's existing Affordable Housing Overlay District; • Require by-right approval of residential development if 20 percent of the units are set aside for lower income (very low and low) households; • Remove Conditional Use Permit Requirements for 5+ units for projects that meet certain objective standards up to a certain threshold; • Develop and codify objective design standards; and
• Evaluate, and revise the development standards for height limits, lot coverage, and parking requirements to ensure that residential development projects have the ability to achieve the allowable densities.

II. Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program
The City is working on obtaining a fully certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is currently preparing the Implementation Plan, which is the companion document to the recently certified Coastal Land Use Plan. This effort will result in a new Title 18 of the municipal code for development in the Coastal Zone. Having a certified LCP will give the City more control over approving projects within the Coastal Zone and provide greater certainty to local property owners and businesses.

The result of this LCP effort will be a streamlined Coastal Development Permit (CDP) process for local property owners by enabling them to obtain a single permit from the City. The efforts on the Housing Element and Specific Plan updates described in this report will also need to be incorporated into the Coastal Implementation Plan.

Ill. Specific Plan Updates
Staff is updating six Specific Plans to be consistent with the City's General Plan and the recently certified Coastal Land Use Plan. The amendments include the allowance of auto uses, including electric vehicle delivery service centers, in the Business Parks, and a streamlined review process for development in the Los Molinas area with codified design guidelines. The six Specific Plan Updates include the following:

1. West Pico Corridor,

2. Forster Ranch,

3. Marblehead Coastal,

4. Marblehead Inland,

5. Rancho San Clemente, and
5-25-22 I 1 0A-2
H-5
221
Agenda Report Page3

6. Talega.

IV. Permit Tracking System Upgrade
Recommended
The City's permit tracking system (TRAKiT) which allows applicants to submit building permits, check project status, and provide other property search features is currently in-the process of being upgraded. The update will include an e-TRAKiT planning and building application submittal portal that will allow prospective applicants to submit ministerial or discretionary permit applications and required documents online. This will reduce time and cost for both the applicant and City by reducing submittal errors and ensuring faster processing time. This customer friendly web based system upgrade will track all building permits, inspections, site plan reviews, and code enforcement violations. The workflow provided by the system allows for the efficient transfer of work, providing visibility, comprehensive collaboration tools, and reporting.

Moreover, the public will continue to be able to utilize the upgraded e-TRAKiT system to view application status and review comments, allowing users to manage projects more effectively.

Future Streamlining Opportunities
Staff has. compiled a list of future streamlining opportunities. This list is provided as Attachment 1. These prospective recommendations include simplification of some applications, addressing the processing of minor additions and remodels in proximity to historic resources, allowing more staff level decisions and changing some process levels from Planning Commission to a Zoning Administrator approv~I. A future Planning Division work program includes updc:1ting the City's Design Guidelines and codifying objective design standards to simplify review and process decisions.

Staff anticipates bringing forward these potential code modifications to City Council for consideration once the current efforts underway have been completed. Staff expects to pursue these opportunities to further streamline the review process once work on the Housing Element update and rezoning program, and Specific Plan updates are completed and we have made progress in merging these updates into the Local Coastal Program. Staff anticipates initiating some of these efforts, including updating the City's Design Guidelines, in Fiscal Year 2023.

Action: STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT the City Council receive and file this report.

Attachments:

Notification:

Attachment 1: List of Future Streamlining Opportunities None.
5-25-22 I 1 0A-3
H-6
222
Signs
Simplify
Applications
Residential
Buildings
Accessory
Structures

ATTACHMENT I
List of Future Streamlining Opportunities
• Sign programs with City Planner approval, except for historic structures and signage on new development and major remodels approved through a discretionary process. For such signage, allow subsequent review with ZA approval (ys. PC).
• Monument signs with City Planner approval when they consolidate advertising of multiple tenants.
• Finish work on consolidating applications with similar findings to simplify our process and make it more intuitive (note: Council initiated this in the past).

We would expand this to include signage applications and possibly combining special events/temporary use permits.
• Currently, new development and additions over 500 square feet on sites with 3+ units within 300 feet of residential zoned historic structures are subject to PC approval of Cultural Heritage Permits , except for projects:
1) Not visible from right of way adjoining historic structure sites, 2) Not in the architectural overlay,
3) Not abutting historic structure sites,
4) Not on sites with historic structure sites, or
5) Not visible from a public view corridor.

New buildings and additions over 500 square feet require PC approval. Staff suggests allowing projects with City Planner approval vs.

PC if located 100-300 feet from historic structures.
• Minor remodels/additions to single-family and duplexes adjoining historic structure sites (not in architectural overlay).
o Allow additions under 50% with ZA approval vs. PC if not screened from the street. Currently, the limit is 500 square feet w/ZA approval. o Allow ZA to approve accessory buildings visible from street ( currently PC).
o Allow staff to approve accessory buildings screened from the street. • Accessory structures (all sites) -Allow with City Planner approval where a project has proposed materials and design in character with the primary building's appearance and has a height and size that maintain visual focus of primary buildings from the public right-of-way and support an open street scene along the block on the same side of the street as the project. • Residential accessory buildings - Allow with City Planner approval up to height limit of the zone (vs. 15 feet) if they comply with setbacks. • Nonresidential accessory buildings with ZA approval vs. PC. • Allow walls over 3 ½ feet in front yard/street side yard with City Planner approval if criteria are met (and we incorporate common conditions into the zoning code).
1 5-25-22 I 1 0A-4
H-7
223
•
Parking
•
•
Design
Guidelines
ATTACHMENT 1
Allow off-site and shared parking agreements with 2A or City Planner approval (vs. PC).

Update City Design Guidelines (General Plan Implementation Measure) Codify design guidelines as objective development standards to simplify review and processing (some of this work is underway with the Housing Element Rezoning Program and the West Pico Corridor Specific Plan Update).
2 5-25-22 I 1 0A-5
These minutes will be considered for approval at the Planning Commission meeting of 06-22-2022.

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 8, 2022 @ 6:00 p.m.

San Clemente Community Center Auditorium
100 Calle Seville, San Clemente, CA 92672
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org/live or Cox Channel 854

CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Crandell called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente to order at 6:02 p.m. The meeting was offered in person at The City of San Clemente Community Center Auditorium, located at 100 Calle Seville, San Clemente California, and also via live stream through the City's YouTube Channel or live on Cox Channel 854.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Cosgrove led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Cameron Cosgrove, Gary P. Mccaughan, M.D., Karen PrescottLoeffler; Chair pro tern Scott McKhann, Chair Barton Crandell.

Commissioners Absent: M. Steven Camp
Staff Present: Adam Atamian, Deputy Community Development Director Sara Toma, Senior Planner
*Christopher Wright, Associate Planner 11
*David Carrillo, Assistant Planner
Matthew Richardson, Assistant City Attorney
Eileen White, Recording Secretary
*Participated in meeting via teleconference

4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
None

5. MINUTES
A. Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 18 2022.

IT WAS- MOVED BY eOMMISSIONER-MCCAtJGHAN-SECe>NDED -sy

COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED ATTACHMENT 6
I-1
224
I-2
225
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 2022 Page 2 TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 18, 2022,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS SUBMITTED.

6. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
None

8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Conditional Use Permit. 22-165, Ashiatsu by the Sea Massage (Carrillo) A request to consider a massage establishment at a multi-tenant suite, within a commercial plaza, located at 1401 North El Camino Real, Suite 100, within the Neighborhood Commercial 2 Zoning District.

David Carrillo, Assistant Planner, narrated a PowerPoint Presentation entitled, "Ashiatsu by the Sea, CUP 22-1 65," dated June 8, 2022. A copy of the Presentation is on file in the Planning Division.

Sheila Neumann, applicant, was available for questions.

Chair Crandell opened the public hearing.

Deputy Director Atamian read aloud two letters received concerning this item.

Susan Neal, partner at previous location, submitted a letter recounting the positive experience she had with Ms. Neumann during their partnership; supported approval of the current proposal.

Suzette Shoulders, provided a letter detailing her experience as a customer of Ms. Neumann at her previous workplace and recommended approval of the request due to Ms. Neuman's professionalism and skill; described the results she experienced as a patient.

Chair Crandell closed the public hearing.

In response to questions from the Commission, Assistant Planner Carrillo and Deputy Community Development Director Atamian described the formal certification, documentation and license requirements to be fulfilled during the approval process; described staff's ability to access and inspect the workplace unannounced.

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCKHANN, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO:

I-3
226
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 2022 Page 3 1) DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM

THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1: EXISTING FACILITIES); AND;
2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 22-012, A RESOLUTION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 22-165,

ASHIATSU BY THE SEA MASSAGE, TO ALLOW A MASSAGE
ESTABLISHMENT AT A MUL Tl-TENANT SUITE WITHIN A COMMERCIAL PLAZA LOCATED AT 1401 NORTH EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100.
[DECISION FINAL. SUBJECT TO APPEAL OR CALL UP BY COUNCIL.]

9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Permit Streaming (Atamian)
A City-initiated review of potential streamlining opportunities.

Sara Toma, Senior Planner narrated a PowerPoint Presentation entitled, "Permit Streamlining, San Clemente,' dated June 8, 2022. A copy of the Presentation is on file in the Planning Division.

Deputy Director Atamian advised that, in response to direction from City Council, Planning Staff has prepared a list of potential streamlining opportunities and is requesting input from the Planning Commission. The List will be presented to City Council for review at its June 21 , 2022, regular meeting. Comments, suggestions and proposed revisions/concerns from the Commission will also be presented to Council at that time.

Chair Crandell opened the public hearing, and there being no public testimony, closed the public hearing.

The Commission reviewed the List with staff and provided the following commentary:
• Expressed concern with proposed relegation of review level for certain types of projects that may generate controversy and public interest/testimony; opposed changing certain projects' review levels from a governing body with noticing requirements, to staff/department review that does not require resident notification.
• Suggested that in order to allow changes to levels of review, such as monument signage, the City should develop and codify objective and detailed design standards to ensure projects are complementary to the U1ld1ng arch1tec ure, area themes, an location aes1gnat1ons.

I-4
227
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 2022 Page 4 • Expressed concern with relaxing level of review for projects within prescribed distance of historic homes; requested staff identify situations/instances where the level of review may be bumped up to a higher level.
• Requested examples, potential exemptions, and identified instances where changes in level of review, and subsequent elimination of notification requirement, could occur for accessory structures, including setbacks, height limits, wall heights, locations within proscribed distance of historic homes, accessory structures joined to existing structures, etc. • Requested identification of landscape/hardscape projects subject/not subject to review level especially with regard to historic homes and locations within proscribed distance of historic homes, including clarification of "minor" designation, the use of historic landscaping materials and architectural standards.
• With regard to parking agreements, commented that level of review that includes public notification is important when the subject properties seeking agreements are located in or adjacent to residential areas. • Requested examples of standards, real instances and potential scenarios that would allow a level of review change for al lowing residential on different floors of mixed-use buildings.
• Commented that before permit streamlining can occur, the City's Specific Plans need to be updated and scrutinized carefully with permit streamlining in mind.
• Check boxes on applications are a great addition to alert applicants as to when additional plans/documents/certifications/licenses, etc., have to be submitted.
• Commented that permit streamlining may be difficult to achieve if the City does not have adequate Planning staff.
• Although a premium price to expedite may help, an economic downturn will also affect the streamlining effort.
• The City currently has the ability to estimate the time an application will take as it moves through the process, and this should be shared with the applicants. However, staff should avoid attaching automatic timelines to projects; tickler files to ensure projects are on track are more efficient and increase transparency.
• Outreach to other departments, such as Engineering and Inspections, will also help to coordinate and maintain accurate timelines. • Ensure the public/applicants are consistently kept informed as to the status of projects to increase transparency and manage expectations. • Incorporate text messaging when there are time delays; codify guidelines with objective standards; encourage complete packages (as much as possible) at time of submittal.
• Expressed concern with changing any height standards, movement of property lines, and Zoning Code changes without the public notification - proeess. -- -- -
I-5
228
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 2022 Page 5 Larry Culbertson, President of the San Clemente Historical Society was in attendance and expressed concerns with streamlining's impact on historical resources.

Deputy Director Atamian noted this draft will be presented for City Council input at its June 21, 2022, meeting; requested Commissioners contact staff if they think of any other comments.

10. OLD BUSINESS
None

11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Tentative Future Agenda
B. Staff Waiver Memo and Reports
Deputy Director Atamian announced that Counci l has canceled its July 5, 2022, meeting; noted there are no items of business currently on the Commission's July 6, 2022, agenda. The Commissioners expressed support for canceling their July 6, 2022, meeting.

Chair Crandell commented that there is an upcoming Planning Commission Seminar in Dana Point in November; requested staff consider organizing and supporting Planning Commissioner attendance.

12. ADJOURNMENT

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, SECONDED BY

COMMISSIONER COSGROVE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO ADJOURN AT 9:45 P.M. TO THE REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 22, 2022, AT 6:00 P.M. IN-PERSON AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER, LOCATED AT 100 CALLE SEVILLE, SAN CLEMENTE, CA, 92672, AND TELECONFERENCE AVAILABLE TO

THE PUBLIC VIA LIVE STREAM FROM THE CITY'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL OR LIVE ON COX CHANNEL 854.

Respectfully submitted,
etf/40~~ artCrandell, Chairman
A~
-----~v4d-~----- - - - ---------------
Adam Atamian, Deputy Community Development Director
I-6
229
These minutes will be considered for approval at the Planning Commission meeting of 02-08-2023,

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

PLANNING COMMISSION
January 18, 2023@6:00 p.m.

San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org/live or Cox Channel 854

CALL TO ORDER
Chair McKhann called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was offered in person at San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California, 92673, and also via live stream from the City's YouTube Channel or live on Cox Channel 854.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair pro tern Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLLCALL
Commissioners Present: Barton Crandell, Brent Davis, Karen Prescott~Loeffler Gary P.

Mccaughan, M.D.; Chair pro tern M. Steven Camp, Vice Chair Cameron Cosgrove, Chair Scott McKhann
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Adam Atamian, Deputy Community Development Dir./City Planner John Ciampa, Contract Planner
Jonathan Lightfoot, Economic Development Officer
Christopher Wright, Associate Planner II
Matthew Richardson, Assistant City Attorney
Ryan Stager, Deputy City Attorney (Item 8.C.)

4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
None.

5. MINUTES
A Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 21, 2022.

I-7
230
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 18, 2023 Page5 Amended as follows:
1) Modify Condition 3.19, and add Conditions 4.20, 4.21, and 7.21 as proposed by Economic Development Officer Lightfoot.
2) Add a new condition of approval (4.22) authorizing an additional Increased Density Bonus to allow the applicant the opportunity to adopt and design the best uses •for the two existing Urban Open Areas located in the upper parking area. 3) Ensure the project is adequately conditioned (GOA 4.23) to require the applicant to ensure the roof mechanical units do not exceed the height of the parapet wall intended to screen the units.
[DECISION FINAL SUBJECT TO APPEAL OR CALL UP BY COUNCIL] Chair McKhann recessed the meeting at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m.

C. Zoning Amendment 22-366 - Zoning Permit Streamlining A request to consider a City-initiated amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the San Clemente Municipal Code to:
1) Reduce the level of public hearing decisions for several planning application types, while maintaining public minutes of decisions and appeal procedures when experience has shown the projects have not had issues of significant public concerns or impacts to prompt a higher level of public review. For example, smaller additions to residences less than 500 square feet visible from the street currently require Planning Commission review, and are proposed by this ordinance to be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator;
2) Modify the Zoning Code for administrative approval of minor projects requiring design review in the Architectural Overlay, adjacent to, or involving, historic structures, and nonresidential properties; to add general standards, projectspecific standards, and change the types of projects and circumstances which would be eligible for staff-level approval, subject to appeal with pem,its disclosed publicly for transparency. Currently, there is a broader category of projects eligible for administrative approval. The proposed ordinance replaces this with lists of projects that may be approved by staff if they meet the general and project-specific standards (e.g., projects that won't affect character defining features of historic structures, such as a privacy fence constructed of certain materials), and the City Planner would have discretion to forward applications to a public hearing if warranted;
3) Consolidate planning applications to simplify submittals and administrative processing;
I-8
231
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 18, 2023 Page 6 4) Allow beer and wine sales for indoor, on-site consumption in restaurants with food service by-right with a State license; and
5) Clarify planning permit review procedures to facilitate staff and public understanding and implementation (e.g., how requests for alcohol sales/service are processed for hotels and entertainment venues).

Christopher Wright, Associate Planner II, narrated a PowerPoint Presentation entitled, "Zoning Permit Streaming, ZA 22-366," dated January 18, 2023. A copy of the Presentation is on file in Planning Division.

Deputy Director Atamian explained that at its meeting on May 25, 2022, City Council directed staff work with the Planning Commission to identify a list of ideas for streamlining various permit procedures in the Zoning Code. On June 8, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed staff's suggested streamlining ideas and provided input. At its meeting of August 16, 2022, City Council considered the Planning Commission's input, initiated the proposed zoning amendments, directed staff to pursue the ideas presented at the meeting.

Chair McKhann opened the public hearing. The public hearing will remain open until the item is re-agendized for Commission consideration.

During the ensuing discussion, the Commissioners, either individually or in agreement, provided the following commentary:
• Suggested that Public Noticing should still be completed for those projects that currently require a Public Notice to ensure that residents living adjacent to and/or those that could be negatively affected have the opportunity to provide input.
• Established that staff would have the ability to refer applications to a higher level at a public hearing if the City Planner determines a proposal has potential for significant public concerns or impacts.
• Requested staff identify where the bottlenecks are in the permit approval process to determine the best path to improve.
• Expressed concern regarding the number of applications that would be changed, especially in locations in areas of the City that have established character.
• Requested staff provide the date and time of City Council's review of this proposal for the Commissioners' review of the meeting discussion. • Discussed the pros and cons of story poles, including high costs, value to the public, and purpose if the applicant provides adequate and accurate computerized before and after views.

Deputy Director Atamian encouraged the Commission to contact staff in the event they have additional questions or comments. Additionally, the Commissioners can request to meet with staff individually or in small groups I-9
232
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 18, 2023 Page? for a better understanding of the proposed Amendments. The Commissioners should arrange to meet with staff within the next two weeks in order to bring back the item for the March 8, 2023, Regular Planning Commission meeting.

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, SECONDED BY

COMMISSIONER CRANDELL AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO CONTINUE ZONING AMENDMENT 22-366 - ZONING PERMIT STREAMLINING, WITH THE

PUBLIC HEARING HELD OPEN, TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 8, 2023.
[ITEM CONTINUED. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION PENDING.]

9. NEW BUSINESS
None

10. OLD BUSINESS
None

11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Staff Waivers
B. Tentative Future Agenda
Reports received and filed.

Commissioner Crandell commented that as a rule, the City requires developers provide storage areas for residential units. Storage area (that can only be used for storage, and does not reduce maximum square footage) in order to charge electric cars, store surlboards, gardening equipment, etc., in order to maintain order in the neighborhood. He requested staff review the State's and City's regulations regarding storage and report back regarding any potential opportunities to require storage for additional units.

Vice Chair Cosgrove reported that homes above the Beach Trail by Linda Lane have lost ground under their patios and it appears there has been landslides in the area. He expressed concern with public safety and requested information on the City's policies and liability protections on ground movement.

Deputy Director Atamian will forward him information regarding the City's hazards and bluff erosion policies.

12. ADJOURNMENT
I-10
233

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

PLANNING COMMISSION
March 8, 2023 @ 6:00 p.m.

San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org/live or Cox Channel 854

CALL TO ORDER
Chair McKhann called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente to order at 6:01 p.m. The meeting was offered in person at San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California, 92673, and also via live stream from the City's YouTube Channel or live on Cox Channel 854.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair pro tern Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Barton Crandell, Brent Davis, Gary P. Mccaughan, M.D. Karen Prescott-Loeffler (8:25 p.m. arrival); Chair pro tern M. Steven Camp, Vice Chair Cameron Cosgrove, Chair Scott McKhann
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Jonathan Lightfoot, Economic Development Officer, (Acting Commission Secretary)
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Community Development Director
Christopher Wright, Associate Planner II
Matthew Richardson, Assistant City Attorney

4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
None

5. MINUTES
A. Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2023.

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, SECONDED BY

COMMISSIONER CRANDELL AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 22, 2023, PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AS SUBMITTED.

6. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None
I-11
234
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 8, 2023 Page 2

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
None

8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Zoning Amendment 22-366 - Zoning Permit Streamlining A request to consider a City-initiated amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the San Clemente Municipal Code to:

A. Clarify planning permit review procedures to facilitate staff implementation and promote public understanding;
B Consolidate planning applications, making it easier for the public to understand which zoning permits are required and to submit applications, and reduce staff time on report writing, which allows the reallocation of those resources to other City priorities and review of other project applications. These amendments preserve findings for project consistency with planning documents, such as the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Design Guidelines, use compatibility, quality design, historic preservations, and other planning issues. Therefore, the amendments maintain a focus on ensuring projects implement community goals and policies for quality of life;
C. Update the staff-level apprqval process for minor architectural changes.

Currently the Zoning Code has a "staff waiver'' application that functions as a permit rather than a waiver. There are approval findings, an ability to add conditions, and types of eligible projects, including a broad category: "Other minor projects that do not substantially alter the visual appearance and/or architectural integrity of the property or structure." The proposed Ordinance replaces the staff waiver application with an "Administrative Development Permit" to:
1) Replace criteria for review of administrative applications. Currently, there are required findings that would be replaced with objective general and project-specific standards, (e.g., projects that won't affect characterdefining features of historic structures, such as a privacy fence constructed of certain materials). The general standards address design issues, such as architectural style, materials, colors, massing, scale, and historic considerations. The project-specific standards are additional objective criteria for eligible projects, such as types of windows that are minor for staff approval.
2) List types of eligible projects for staff approval that meet general and project standards. The existing broad category for eligible projects would be removed with a list of specific set of projects staff has authority to act upon.

This makes the administrative process more objective. The projects that don't meet eligibility criteria would require a public hearing. Also, the City Planner would continue to have the authority to refer applications to a public hearing if finding a proposal has potential for significant public concern or impacts; and
I-12
235
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 8, 2023 Page 3 3) Record of staff approvals would be included in City Council packets for transparency and public oversight of staff decisions. Currently, staff waiver decisions are reported to the Planning Commission in their agenda packet and the City Council reviews the minutes at the follow-up hearing with review of Planning Commission minutes.

Christopher Wright, Associate Planner 11, narrated a PowerPoint Presentation entitled, "Zoning Permit Streamlining, ZA 22-36," dated March 8, 2023. A copy of the Presentation is on file in Planning Division.

Chair McKhann opened the public hearing.

Larry Culbertson, San Clemente Historical Society President, requested staff clarify standards and guidelines; opined that reducing the level of review required for qualifying projects located near historic structures is not sufficient to protect the historic structure; recommended full environmental review of the proposed amendment due to its potential to negatively impact the environment; suggested complete overhauls of the Zoning Code and Planning Division are unnecessary.

Wayne Eggleston, former Planning Commissioner and City Councilmember, cautioned that the proposed revisions in the amendment may not sufficiently protect San Clemente's assets, which are primarily the beach and historical structures; recounted an example whereby a less seasoned Planning Division official approved a large project on a Coastal Canyon lot that was ultimately unanimously denied by the California Coastal Commission. Advocated for more projects to require public hearings, including reviews of vacation rental units and development on any Coastal canyon or bluff, to protect neighbors' property rights.

Acting Secretary Lightfoot read a letter submitted by Commissioner PrescottLoeffler detailing her concerns regarding proposed revisions that would eliminate or reduce public hearings on projects, as well as revisions to reduce the 500 feet review requirements for historical structures.

Commissioner Davis read his statement listing concerns he has with the proposed amendment. He thanked staff for their efforts and diligence; commented that although the proposed amendment is an attempt to reduce staff's workload, it will also reduce the City's oversight of projects that may result in negative impacts on the City and its residents; suggested increase in permit fees to cover the costs of the review process; confirmed the need for the Commission to ensure no negative impacts will occur before moving forward with changes.

Chair McKhann closed the public hearing.

I-13
236
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 8, 2023 Page 4 Commissioner Prescott Loeffler arrived at 8:25 p.m. and noted she had been listening to the meeting via the City's website while in transit from the airport to the meeting.

Discussion ensued regarding the proposed revisions as presented in the Summary of Proposed Permit Streamlining Items, dated March 8, 2023, as well as the corresponding red-lined and draft copies. Planner Wright responded to questions, provided clarifications and revised language when warranted; and suggested continuing discussion of the item to the next Commission meeting on March 22, 2023.

Commission Comments/Suggestions:
• Suggested that the Commission systematically review each streamlining proposal within Attachment 2, one at a time.
• Expressed a preference that public notice and hearings should be maintained. Streamlining of review from a public hearing decision to staff should not be pursued.
• Commented that protection of historic resources is important to the community so the review process should continue to reflect this. • Supported a change to allow the Planning Commission to appeal administrative approvals of minor architectural and site plan changes, in addition to City Council. This will provide added oversight and transparency of decisions.
• Supported consolidating public hearing applications in a way that preserves focus on General Plan consistency and quality of life. This will save time for staff, review authorities, and the public.
• Supported clarifying zoning regulations to facilitate consistent City implementation and use by the public, so long as the updated tables and language reflect the' Commission's recommendations for changes to the streamlining proposals
• The Commission provided recommendations on support or modifications to item numbers 1-1 O of Attachment 2, which summarized the proposed streamlining initiatives. Staff tracked and annotated the recommendations, which are generally summarized above.
• The Commission expressed a desire to continue discussion of the streamlining initiatives to complete their review of item numbers 11-17 of Attachment 2 at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Staff indicated that a memo would be prepared for the March 22nd meeting, but that the primary report materials would remain the same for the continuance.

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, SECONDED BY

COMMISSIONER CRANDELL AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO CONTINUE ZONING AMENDMENT 22-366, ZONING PERMIT STREAMLINING, TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 22, 2023.
[ITEM CONTINUED. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION PENDING.]

9. NEW BUSINESS
I-14
237

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

PLANNING COMMISSION
March 22, 2023 @ 6:00 p.m.

San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org/live or Cox Channel 854

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Crandell led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLLCALL
Commissioners Present: Barton Crandell, Gary P. Mccaughan, M.D., Vice Chair Cameron Cosgrove, Chair Scott McKhann
Commissioners Absent: Brent Davis, Karen Prescott-Loeffler, Chair pro tern M. Steven Camp Staff Present: Jonathan Lightfoot, Economic Development Officer, (Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission)
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Community Development Director
John Ciampa, Contract Planner
Christopher Wright, Associate Planner II
Ryan Stayer, Deputy City Attorney

4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
None

5. MINUTES
A. Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 81 2023.

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, SECONDED BY

COMMISSIONER CRANDELL AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 8, 2023, PLANNING
COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AS SUBMITTED.

I-15
238
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 2023 Page 3 BUILDING AND SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT LOCATED AT 1351
CALLE AVENZADO.

Amended as follows:

Add Condition No. 7.8 as follows: "All doors and windows to remain closed during religious services and events."
[DECISION FINAL. SUBJECT TO APPEAL OR CALL UP BY COUNCIL.] B. Zoning Amendment 22-366 - Zoning Permit Streamlining A request to consider a City-initiated amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the San Clemente Municipal Code to:

A. Clarify planning permit review procedures to facilitate staff implementation and promote public understanding;
B. Consolidate planning applications, making it easier for the public to understand which zoning permits are required and to submit applications, and reduce staff time on report writing, which allows the reallocation of those resources to other City priorities and review of other project applications. These amendments preserve findings for project consistency with planning documents, such as the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Design Guidelines, use compatibility, quality design, historic preservations, and other planning issues. Therefore, the amendments maintain a focus on ensuring projects implement community goals and policies for quality of life;
C. Update the staff-level approval process for minor architectural changes.

Currently the Zoning Code has a "staff waiver" application that functions as a permit rather than a waiver. There are approval findings, an ability to add conditions, and types of eligible projects, including a broad category: "Other minor projects that do not substantially alter the visual appearance and/or architectural integrity of the property or structure." The proposed Ordinance replaces the staff waiver application with an "Administrative Development Permit" that:
1) Replace criteria for review of administrative applications. Currently, there are required findings that would be replaced with objective general and project-specific standards, (e.g., projects that won't affect characterdefining features of historic structures, such as a privacy fence constructed of certain materials). The general standards address design issues, such as architectural style, materials, colors, massing, scale, and historic considerations. The project-specific standards are additional objective criteria for eligible projects, such as types of windows that are minor for staff approval;
I-16
239
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 2023 Page4 2) List types of eligible projects for staff approval that meet general and project standards. The existing broad category for eligible projects would be removed with a list of specific set of projects staff has authority to act upon.

This makes the administrative process more objective. The projects that don't meet eligibility criteria would require a public hearing. Also, the City Planner would continue to have the authority to refer applications to a public hearing if finding a proposal has potential for significant public concern or impacts; and
3) Record of staff approvals would be included in City Council packets for transparency and public oversight of staff decisions. Currently, staff waiver decisions are reported to the Planning Commission in their agenda packet and the City Council reviews the minutes at the follow-up hearing with review of Planning Commission minutes.

D. Streamline the level of review required to approve several project types, while maintaining public minutes of decisions and appeal procedures, when experience has shown the project have not had issues of significant public concerns or impacts to prompt a higher level of public review. The proposed streamlining is described in Attachment 2 of the administrative staff report. The streamlining includes: 1) reducing the level of hearing required, such as changing the review authority for a project type from a Planning Commission decision to Zoning Administrator Review; and 2) in three limited instances, the proposed amendments change the decision process from a discretionary public hearing decision to a staff level ministerial process with required approval of an Administrative Development Permit.

Christopher Wright, Associate Planner 11, narrated a PowerPoint Presentation entitled, "Zoning Permit Streamlining, ZA 22-36," dated March 22, 2023. A copy of the Presentation is on file in Planning Division.

Chair McKhann opened the public hearing.

Don Brown, former Planning Commissioner, opined that most of the existing time delays, which led to direction from the City Council that staff streamline the permit process, are caused by administrative delays out of the Commission's control. On the Planning Division end, the previous permit streamlining exercise has reduced time delays. Existing time delays occur either outside of the Commission control, due to a lack of trained employees, and/or lack of coordination between the departments. The Commission needs to continue its oversight in order to guide the City's growth in accordance with the General Plan.

Larry Culbertson, San Clemente Historical Club President, opposed the majority of the proposed streamlining revisions because they are unnecessary and could lead to disastrous results. The level of specificity and discretionary review are needed for guided growth; applicants and residents alike benefit when a panel of I-17
240
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 2023 Page 5 experts review projects; buffers for historic structures are important for preservation and recent history has shown that insufficient review can result in farreaching negative impacts. He noted that Wayne Eggleston, former Planning Commissioner and City Councilmember, shares his views but was unable to attend tonight's meeting due to illness.

George Gregory, resident, commented on difficulties he's faced during Planning and Engineering review; noted damage to a historic building near his property as a result of chronic homelessness; encouraged streamlining of minor projects.

Chair McKhann closed the public hearing.

Discussion ensued regarding the proposed revisions as presented in the Summary of Proposed Permit Streamlining Items, dated March 22, 2023, as well as the corresponding red-lined and draft copies saved from the last meeting. Planner Wright responded to questions, provided clarifications and revised language when warranted and advised the changes should be ready for review at the Commission's Regular Meeting of April 19, 2023.

Comments/Suggestions:
• Agreed with speaker Don Brown that many of the delays are outside Planning Division staff or Planning Commission control. • Suggested thorough review of how/when project roadblocks/delays have occurred in the past in order to specify the exact reasons why the project did not proceed in a timely manner, and make recommendations for changes according to the facts discovered; proposed a future "phase 2" of streamlining, to include meetings with architects who routinely submit projects to clarify where/when the roadblocks occur.
• Recounted a recent Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) meeting where a "minor remodel" was reviewed. DRSC review revealed the project had been mischaracterized as "minor''. The difference between a "minor'' and "major'' remodel must be carefully and thoroughly delineated. • When streamlining projects results in Planning Commission/staff loss of control and oversight, the result will be loss of City legacy, charm and quality of life for its residents. The existing process has played an essential role in guiding development to its current status as a city well known for its charm, historical preservation and enduring legacy.
• Commended Planner Wright for his knowledge, ethical standards and longevity with the City as he is an asset to both the Planning Division and Planning Commission; commented the City needs a specialized historic planner on staff to continue its legacy as preserved historical enclave; I-18
241
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 2023 Page 6 suggested the recent misclassified project undergoing review greatly emphasized the importance of the DRSC and Planning Commission providing oversight for new and/or inexperienced planners. • Expressed a desire to meet with the City Manager to encourage additional staffing resources.
• Commented that the new standards are being proposed in lieu of maintaining/increasing funds and budget for the Planning Division; • Opined that many project delays/roadblocks are due to lack of communication and/or cooperation between departments.
• Suggested implementation of applicant advocates or ombudsmen to help applicants navigate the system.
• Supported retaining the 300 feet separation of projects from historic resources.
• Established that Planning Division staff undergoes historic structure training and that staff has the Secretary of the Interior standards for guidance. • Suggested that the City Planner or Zoning Administrator should be involved in minor or major classification decisions.
• Reviewed the "Summary of Proposed Zoning Permit Streamlining Items" (Attachment 2 of the staff report), focusing on items 11-17 which were not reviewed during the March 8, 2023 public hearing.
• Suggested revisions including maintaining the existing 300-foot distance from historic properties standard currently in use;
• For the proposed Administrative Development Permit, which would replace the Staff Waiver, the Commission recommended several changes, including:
o Requiring canvas for awnings on historic structures, but allowing flexibility of materials on properties that are not historic or in the Architectural (A) Overlay;
o Supported staff approval of certain improvements if adequately screened from the street;
o Agreed that landscape changes hidden from public view can be considered minor and that tree removals that meet certain criteria should be exempt from a zoning permit, such as trees that are unhealthy or destructive to surrounding property
I-19
242
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 2023 Page 7 o Recommended standard language for roof tiles, stucco treatment, and window types should be specific to historic structures and those located in Architectural Overlay;
o Noted that porches are referenced in two separate sections of the standards;
o Supported staff's proposal to develop a City color palette for exterior colors of historic/Spanish architecture buildings.
o Recommended including the table version of the City's Window Policy in the Amendment.
• The Commission supported the staff recommendations on items 13-17, including removing the requirement for a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow beer and wine service at restaurants and accessory to other limited uses; and supported review of shared parking, off-site parking, and Discretionary Parking Permits by the Zoning Administrator instead of the Planning Commission.

IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR MCKHANN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR

COSGROVE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO CONTINUE ZONING
AMENDMENT 22-366, ZONING PERMIT STREAMLINING, TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2023.
[ITEM CONTINUED. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION PENDING.]

9. NEW BUSINESS
None

10. OLD BUSINESS
None

11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Tentative Future Agenda
Reports received and filed.

Chair McKhann thanked his fellow Commissioners for attending the meeting and being engaged with its topic; requested staff review other areas of Planning that are frustrating the public and alert the Planning Commission to affect change.

I-20
243
These minutes will be considered for approval at the Planning Commission meeting of 05-03-2023.

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

PLANNING COMMISSION
April 19, 2023 @6:00 p.m.

San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org/live or Cox Channel 854

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair pro tern Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Gary P. McCaughan, M.D., Chair pro tern M. Steven Camp, Vice Chair Cameron Cosgrove, Chair Scott McKhann
Commissioners Absent: Barton Crandell, Brent Davis, Karen Prescott-Loeffler, .

Staff Present: Jonathan Lightfoot, Economic Development Officer, (Acting Planning Commission Secretary)
Laura Coury, Assistant Planner
Kyle Webber, Assistant Planner
Christopher Wright, Associate Planner II
Elizabeth Mitchell, City Attorney
Eileen White, Recording Secretary
On a 4-0 straw vote, the Commission voted to rearrange the agenda. These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and.do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.

4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
None
I-21
244
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 19, 2023 Page3 1) Determine the Project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and;
2) Adopt Resolution no. PC 23-007, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 22-255,
SANCHO'S TACOS ALCOHOL SERVICE, LOCATED AT 1101 SOUTH EL

CAMINO REAL AND FIND THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
UNDER SECTION 15301 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES (14 CCR§ 15301, CLASS 1: EXISTING FACILITIES)."
[DECISION FINAL. SUBJECT TO APPEAL OR CALL UP BY COUNCIL.] Deputy City Attorney Mitchelle stated for the record that the Planning Commission's action may be appealed within ten days of its decision.

8. Zoning Amendment 22-366 - Zoning Permit Streamlining A request to consider a City-initiated amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the San Clemente Municipal Code to:

A Clarify planning permit review procedures to facilitate staff implementation and promote public understanding;
B. Consolidate planning applications, making it easier for the public to understand which zoning permits are required and to submit applications, and reduce staff time on report writing, which allows the reallocation of those resources to other City priorities and review of other project applications. These amendments preserve findings for project consistency with planning documents, such as the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Design Guidelines, use compatibility, quality design, historic preservations, and other planning issues. Therefore, the amendments maintain a focus on ensuring projects implement community goals and policies for quality of life;
C. Update the staff-level approval process for minor architectural changes.

Currently the Zoning Code has a "staff waiver'' application that functions as a permit rather than a waiver. There are approval findings, an ability to add conditions, a_nd types of eligible projects, including a broad category: "Other minor projects that do not substantially alter the visual appearance and/or architectural integrity of the property or structure." The proposed Ordinance replaces the staff waiver application with an "Administrative Development Pem,it" that:
1) Replace criteria for review of administrative applications. Currently, there are required findings that would be replaced with objective general I-22
245
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 19, 2023 Page 5 choice to install story poles or utilize computer programs; requiring thirdparty certification of the simulation results; or only requiring story poles/computer simulations if requesting a height variance. Discussion of this topic will continue at the June 7 meeting.
• Discussion of revising language regarding deadlines on inactive projects, including number of days before applicant is contacted as well as the amount of time the applicant has to respond after being contacted. Planner Wright'will bring back revised language for further discussion. • Discussion of public noticing requirements and whether in-concept reviews for non-discretionary applications in the Coastal Zone should require noticing or whether certain types of applications in the Coastal Zone should require noticing. Staff noted that the Long Range Planning team is currently working on the Local Coastal Program, and that considerations of this issue could be addressed under that work program ..
• Suggestion to revise the Special Activities Permit request process, including potential to allow for approval of several activities at the same time rather than limiting it to one approval per year. Also suggested that certain types of Special Activities Permits may require Planning Commission review to ensure that proper notification is occurring for events and additional scrutiny for events in sensitive areas .. Staff clarified that Special Activities Permits are managed by the Planning division for activities on private property, while Special Event Permits are managed by the Beaches Parks and Recreation Department for activities on City Properties, including City-sponsored events.
• Consideration of revising the appeal process to allow the Planning Commission to appeal projects approved at the Zoning Administrator level. • Established from staff that any testimony provided by a Planning Commissioner at higher level meetings can only be presented as a private citizen unless permission has been granted to speak for the ·commission.

The public hearing for this agenda item will remain open during its continuance.

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, SECONDED BY VICE

CHAIR COSGROVE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO CONTINUE ZONING AMENDMENT 22-366, ZONING PERMIT STREAMLINING, WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD OPEN, TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2023.
[ITEM CONTINUED. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION PENDING.]

9. NEW BUSINESS
A. General Plan Strategic Implementation Program (SIP)
A request to forward a recommendation to the City Council on the approval of an annual update to the General Plan Strategic Implementation Program for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 ("FY24")
“Forward with the Dream”
1 | Page
June 7, 2023
To: San Clemente Planning Commission
From: Larry Culbertson
Re: Zoning Amendment 22-366 – Zoning Permit Streamlining Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Historical Society’s concern regarding Zoning Amendment 22-366 has not diminished since our letter of February 15. Despite city staff’s explanations, we believe that this Amendment would be a step backward in the long march toward providing protection for San Clemente’s historic resources and enhancing the village character we all cherish.

Of the 16 Proposed Permit Streamlining Items in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, eight would affect historic resources or the projects within 300 feet of them. The effect would be less protection for those historic resources and the neighborhoods around them.

It is important to remember that our Municipal Code requires that we protect not only our historic resources, but also our entire city’s identity as a Spanish village. The following is Municipal Code

17.16.100.A.1.b.Cultural Heritage Permit Purpose and Intent.

The purpose and intent of the architectural review with a cultural heritage emphasis is to provide for the review of projects affecting the City's cultural and/or historical resources. Along with the general goals for architectural review provided above, the process is intended to: 1) preserve and strengthen San Clemente's historic identity as a Spanish village, 2) preserve and strengthen the pedestrian-oriented areas designated in the General Plan as such, 3) preserve and protect those places, sites, buildings, structures, neighborhoods, objects, and improvements, manmade or natural, having a special historical, cultural, or architectural interest, 4) protect and enhance the City's attraction as a historic community to tourists and visitors, 5) promote the use of historic properties for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the City.

The proposed changes to the decision levels would be a disaster. Errors have occurred over the years with the existing Staff Waiver process. To rename the process Administrative Development Permit and then give one individual even more responsibility just about guarantees even more errors.

The combination of the Design Review Subcommittee review followed by the scrutiny of the seven-member Planning Commission has guaranteed high quality results with San Clemente ATTACHMENT 7
246
“Forward with the Dream”
2 | Page
discretionary projects for decades. Although not required, it seems we have historically had at least half of the Commissioners be experienced architects. The idea of turning over any of the decision-making process of important projects to a Zoning Administrator or City Planner of unknown experience and talent does not sound wise. The established criteria for what are important projects have worked well and do not need to be rewritten.

It is interesting how little interest the public has demonstrated for Streamlining. Over the past year, only two letters, your attachment 7, have been submitted. Neither was supportive of the proposed amendment. It would seem that no one is unhappy with the existing Zoning Code or decision-making process. Please, just leave it as be.

In closing, I urge you not to relinquish any of the decision-making responsibilities you have to staff. And to not downgrade the quality of protection afforded our historic resources in the existing Zoning Code.

Sincerely,
Larry Culbertson, President
247
“Forward with the Dream”
1 | Page
February 15, 2023
To: San Clemente Planning Commission
From: Larry Culbertson
Re: Zoning Amendment 22-366 – Zoning Permit Streamlining Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Historical Society is concerned about the Zoning Permit Streamlining being considered by the City. The project proposes many changes in a lot of areas, our concern lies in the effect it would have on our historic resources and the “village character” that is so important to what makes up San Clemente.

I apologize for not attending the January 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting to address our concerns. Frankly, the 213-page Staff Report was rather intimidating, and I did not feel qualified to testify. After carefully reading the report, listening closely to the recording of that meeting, and meeting with staff, a vague understanding of the project is emerging.

So many great points were raised by Commissioners at that meeting. - High level of concern for the importance of preserving San Clemente history (that warmed my heart).
- Support for the sanctity of the public’s right to know about projects, before they happen, and being able to have their concerns heard and considered.
-Council need to appreciate that they are asking for tradeoffs – faster approvals for less public input. -Need to consider the property rights of the neighbors as well as the applicant. -Need to appreciate that the writers of our current Code had determined that our historic resources were the heart of the City and they wanted to protect it. -The 300-foot discussion was had, and they decided in favor of protection. -There have been projects 300 feet away from historic resources that did affect the resource. -The number of CHP’s each year is not large.
-Need for Council to appreciate that much of the delay in the permitting process has nothing to do with Planning. Engineering, Building, OCFA, Public Works, et. al., all contribute to delays.

Environmental Review - What is being proposed is an enormous change to our Zoning Code. Some changes would adversely affect our historic resources. The changes to our discretionary review process would have dire consequences on those resources. The proposal to decrease the protected area surrounding some historic resources from 300 feet to 120 feet is particularly odious. Franky, I do not understand how staff can recommend that the amendments be found exempt from CEQA. There is absolutely no certainty that the Ordinance would not have a significant effect on our cultural environment. It certainly would.

J-1
248
“Forward with the Dream”
2 | Page
February 15, 2023
Administrative Development Permit – If I understand correctly, this would be reviewed only by staff. It is what we used to call a Staff Waiver. It would have a list of items eligible for this process.

The problem is we are understaffed. We do not even have a City Planner. You should not consider approving this new program until we get a full staff who has been here for a few years. It would be insanity to turn over even low level decision making to people who are not completely familiar with San Clemente’s Code and culture.

San Clemente is a historic town. We have 203 Designated Historic Resources, 5 of them on the National Register. Yet we have no Historic Preservation Officer. For years, the City has placed inexperienced planners to act in that position. As soon as they become proficient, they are transferred, or they leave. How can we have any hope that this proposed more lenient system will be good for historic preservation. It cannot.
120 feet vs. 300 feet - Staff has proposed that we slash the area within which Planning Commission approval is required from a 300-foot radius down to a 120-foot radius. The rationale offered is that the purpose and intent of a Cultural Heritage Permit is focused on the historic building. The proposed changes would make the CHP be just about the historic building. The Architectural Overlay and proximity to historic resources are less important and would receive less review. Development in that outer ring would no longer receive PC review it would drop all the way down to Administrative Development Permit which would only receive Staff Decision Without Public Hearing. This would be a catastrophe for historic preservation.

I believe that a thorough reading of Municipal Code 17.16.100.A.1.b. Cultural Heritage Permit Purpose and Intent (copied below) indicates that the zone of architectural review should extend far enough to ensure that projects do not negatively impact our historic identity as a Spanish village. 120 feet would not provide the necessary protection that our resources deserve.

The purpose and intent of the architectural review with a cultural heritage emphasis is to provide for the review of projects affecting the City's cultural and/or historical resources.

Along with the general goals for architectural review provided above, the process is intended to: 1) preserve and strengthen San Clemente's historic identity as a Spanish village, 2) preserve and strengthen the pedestrian-oriented areas designated in the General Plan as such, 3) preserve and protect those places, sites, buildings, structures, neighborhoods, objects, and improvements, manmade or natural, having a special historical, cultural, or architectural interest, 4) protect and enhance the City's attraction as a historic community to tourists and visitors, 5) promote the use of historic properties for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the City, 6) encourage and, where specified by this title, require architecture which reflects the community's historic pedestrian-oriented character, and 7) ensure compliance with the purpose and intent of the City's Architectural Overlay District for those projects within the district.

J-2
249
“Forward with the Dream”
3 | Page
February 15, 2023
Regarding the phrase, “Properties located further than 120 feet and two parcel, whichever is greater, up to 300 feet…” I do not understand it. What does the, “whichever is greater” refer to? What happens at the 300-foot line? We had a nice straight forward 300-foot rule. Replacing it with this new confusing standard is not streamlining.

We have been monitoring development for many years. We have not agreed with every decision the City has made. But the overall effect of existing Municipal Code on cultural heritage has been positive.

The discretionary oversight given to the Planning Commission by Municipal Code has resulted in high quality projects that are sensitive to preservation. This is not limited to projects directly involving historic resources but all of those in the Architectural Overlay and those outside the AO but in proximity to historic resources, even 300 feet away. And thank you for expanding the Architectural Overlay in the upper pier bowl, great move.

Council gave you a mandate to streamline the Zoning Permit process. Staff did an incredible job of assembling ideas to make this happen. Consolidating applications and clarifying procedures will help the effort. If replacing the Staff Waiver process with an Administrative Development Permit is what it takes to placate Council, then by all means do it. But please do not strip away the protections that have served our historic resources so well for all these many years. Please leave historic resources out of any attempt at streamlining. It is not needed and would be harmful.

Sincerely,
Larry Culbertson, President
J-3
250
From: Jim Holloway
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 2:55 PM
To: Chris Duncan; James, Gene; Atamian, Adam; Gallardo‐Daly, Cecilia; Lightfoot, Jonathan; Crandell, Barton
Cc: Jim Holloway
Subject: Suggestions for maintenance and improvement of process.

I have recently run into many of you at the grocery store, Zebra cafe, Chamber meetings, and elsewhere. The topic of streamlining keeps coming up So...

The following [on the next pages] are some ideas I put together in 2021 for Don Brown, at his request, on ways to improve the process.

The suggestions have to do with operational improvements, rather than policy. The suggestions are very simple and cheap and should lead to operational efficiency for both the staff and applicants.

Jim
J-4
251
J-5
252
Hello Don,
Hops your recovery is going well and you wHI soon be 0111 the pool! dee agai · . SpeaJdng of 1~he pool deck, that reminds me of one of ,01L1r pool ,deck dlsou ss ions.

You said th t someti1mes people ask you ho the pJ inn ng process. fs going th.ese· days. Your standard reply is thati •s ike· being on a sh p. You see1 about 1 So/o oif wh: · s going on. above· 1dec'k But you h· v · no idea hars go r ng on in the Boiler Room~ :(No mistaking you ·. re Navy guy!) That s. id. the f on ow~ng a re some observations ab out what·s go 1ng o rrn lb elo . d crks, I h•av, • is cussed some of the,se idea.s with G abrie II .aind hav1e m,emioned 81 few oth·er He·ms, o Step n a nie.
he 15311 North IEI Camino Rea I Pu , ~ ik House· application was recently approved by th 1Planning1 CommissJon. T1he, .applica: ·on consisted of plcms for the r1ehabi!Htation and reuse of am existing1 histonc building1 nd ·site. ~n addition to the normal app~tcatron requirements there were· fwe reports and studies at w,e11e req ues,ted in 1order to process thi ·· apprl'cat1 on • . A raffle swdy

2. A no;ise s udy

3. A h1istoric resources report
4 . A valet par. lng1 pan
5 A pubHc sa· ety and op .r, -dons report (PSOR)

1. Tra1ffi c Rreport
The engineer~ng depart ent's traffic engine r asked fer a traffic study, as a part 1of the, .H·st round of DMT evrew. lln my mind this, was an in.appropriate r1equ · st gnven th:-, zon·ng and scats of the project IFonunatelyi Gabriel sug geste and Ste phani'e ·fa ciJ ltated meeting regarding th ~s to pf c.

P 'or to the meeting 1 point. d cut Via emai~ the fonowing information:
• The, project com pH d with Genera I Plan po icy.

J-6
253
• The project compl ed wi h1 all 2.oning code fiequirements, • 8 ecau e• 1of the first two 1items above the· p rro J1ect qualified fior ,an exemption to ttie CE QA process.
• he pmj ct density was o l1y at BO% 1of the FA allowed by Zonmg ood es for ni Is pr1operty.
• El Rs and raffic ana ys~s or recent General P1I a,n updates analyzed property at max·mum FARs altow d by u1nderty·ng1 Gen rat Plan . esignations. The calculatlons show that if pmj,e.cts, along, Ei Camino Real a e at o belo allowable FAR st ndards then traffic lev I:s of' s ,v-·ce alrowed lby the G neral Plan would be ma·n· ah,ed. • FoHowing the a, op~1on of 1.hr , most ireoent Gen r I Plan~ Ot Zoning Code was u1pdat d . 1ncluding EIR and · raffle a111a ys1s. · .h·ch :showe - that if proJects ere irmited too , . ow maximum allowed FAR square ootages then tra --i c level of s rv,ce goa1s . ould be m,a 1nta; ne d.
• A men ·oned above·. this pro1ec is at 80% rof allowable FAR. • At the fao litated rme tang. e Ci y• tra 1·c: engin r iqu',ckly drop ed his request' fo a traffic study ro this proj c ·
Sugg stion:
h City's Traffic- Eng·n er is fairly n w o the Cit . di ional a en-1ding h pll i o ss, previous CEQA nalys1s 1ncJudmg ra tc nal sis), and he CEQA exem tion P-rocess ou1· av oth e app ica t . nd - ul · I C s aff e1mbers ome i
2 . oise Study
As he res,taurant .and ent rtainment sect1or of the ~ocal ,economy becom more and more sign,ifl can • it · ill be important o oons,id er impacts upon res'd,en ial areas of noise ,generated in com e1FCfal di t:ricits. Noise1 ·s udie•s a e the re fore Important a· d sho u l!d be produced when , ipp~ ~cat~on · .2u requesting alcohol service ampi~ 1ed music or liv1e e:nte.rt inment.

Sugg stion:

J-7
254
oise stucHes are nol 1s ed on es an ar subm1 aJ checkl s . lt is not 1expected thart noise studies wo1.d · be requested for a I a pJica ·ons Uust as grading plans and drainage plans ,ar,e not ir . quested or every appll __: tion). Howevell'~ · he noi , d · 1 in 1 be requested {i.e. alcohol! permits~ amp~ fie noise permfts, hve en ,e ainmen permit ,. i .s ould be nQted on he u mi al ch c ij • OthenNise1, the aip . Ire n · is not even. aware that a noise study w,D b · . r,equested. T is happened in our casJe.

WhEH'II the app.Ucant became aware that a noi·se study . as required, the applicant was given the1 res,ponslbility to hir1~ a noise consult.an . The· appfican.t did ~ire a profess~onal noise consultant who then c.ondu,cted nee · ss.a ry no~se measureme,nts and produced the· study. U nfo1rtunatefry 1 some· 1of he v,oca bu a ry used by the cons u rtant' w -s. u n.fam i liair cir ru nclear to the, staff. his ultima ly r suite 1n he n ed o produce thre i r..a ions.of y.

Suggest on:
1:t would b _ much rmore t1me efficle·nt
retained a qu - nor e consulta i who fi sta i · in r .. That ieon,sultant would pro u ·. hes· udy, saving both !le aippHcant and City staff lhe ime n _ cessary o, go through several revie. s, edits, comme1111ts and tteratfons. of the study. This process oufl'd be s i 'b:11 r a th · xLst· ag Cit, p ra c:ti ce o &eru:Hng nut I ind cape pla r-; s o · '7 e C ttt s ~ ind sea p · plan ch ~ consulta . ~so the City sends out pJ1ans .o the Ci1y's ·. Jstoric resources consultant fo,ir his.tori· resouroes reports,

3. H is.tormc Res.ouroe Report
Th js wen we . Because 1the City trusted and u n•d1erstood t h,e vocabulary used by ttle n istoric re.source con sultan 1 and was · " m Ilia r - i h1 this consulltan · the· pro uction and review of ih,e histor'c resourc s report went smoothfy
SuggesUon·
The way the historic resouroes 1repo1rt was handled shoutd b a mod II for ho,w noise· reports shau1d be produced ..
. V afet P,e rking Plan
P o uct[on of he valet par ing plan ent fairl:Y well. Perhaps predtctably, the engineering staff as ed for more and more· deta'I as the.· plans w re.

J-8
255
developed. The e111gineeriing staff ah;o came up w~ h m tipi hat ir s oen rios. ,eanr h ile, · he p lann i lf1I g, staff kept the i Ii' 1eye oni the b lg ger picture. I' · a va ~et pa rki 11 g plan 1could rr1
t b · wo rke.d out, tnen h - .attemative
ould be for the appltcant o, ask ·kl parking waivers (based upon historic pro:·. rly p rkhig wafver provjsions In the code) ' hlch could potentially im1pact adj cent residentla i areas. Finally, a vai.et o '- e r,ations plan as, agreed' upon, produced and presented to he 1
lanli!ling Comm,iss~on for
approval.

Sugg· tStion:
_ o 1e of an observation than a uggest on i de.ta Us and a view of th, bmg picture, ,a,ne1 both mportant T ree-way con, e1rsa ions be eerrengineerin la n n iing arnd the .--: pplri ca1 .a re ital In or e ta ac e•ve ·th bes poss1 b e p!a n s. The soon.er ~ej ~~rn get ba c ·. to . ac .. -to-fa~e me etin.g . _o ork _ _, ut ~r!!. . . 1 sues bette . N' e . \JU&,- re ,. 'Y ho.& a:.. -""tl ~ .. ~, ~CR .. . ~~ ~il, u_¥ _ ~a~1ru: , · .. J 6,;Jq · r1(}&. ~ ,rd,r)j, 1iJL . _a.. CJ .· .· ·

5. Pu I c Safety and! Op ratron Re. ort (PSO·. , ~ . ·· , M , c)l The i nitsnt of th· 1 P SOR is, to consolidat a description of ropera _ional _. p:-. ~ t, practices and pmoed u r,es o, a proposed pr,oject Into a,ne concJse narrative. This is thou . ht to make it 1eas1er ,and more e chant for Sheriff and Code Enfo11'Cem· nt staff to r,eference the operational conditions a d re(lui re meRts cf a pro· ec hat has re oeived C rity P~ a nnirn g1 approvals. There a ·e se,veral signifi'cant problems · th this approach.

The rs protHem ,s that ft rs is to be a tandaro p ac ice fo o c i vo't i g Loho~ m Jiti _ d musie. or liv entertain ent1 then this, requi rem en 'Shou~d be comm 1.1 nicatedl to applicants p,r[or to subm· .ttal of plans. Currently Uiis fie q uiremen · is, 111 ct made known to app! lea nts un~I I ·they have g.one rough 0ITT1e round of D :r re,views. 1s requiramen · should be added 10 the submittal checklist and che 1ed as required tf mt is appl r c .1,· . ~ nforrni ng applicants ,of this, r,eq,ui re:m ent upfront and pnor to sub mi 1al ,_ m sav ' lhe applicant and staff' a ,cons.·derrabl 1e amount 01f time
The second problem1 is that once the ap1plicant is mformed o.f the requ1 rem ent to s LI bm it a PSO R~ there s no gufdance g en o the a:p p1'ica rli' a ,o the con ten , o:r format of P SOR.. I 111 the case of the Pu b.li . House app icatlon guld.ance as to con en: and format o.f the PSOR . , snot g1rven until very late ln the process. 1Only after the th~rd ri0und ,of Mr· review was a, P SOR temp I ate offered to the a p p'I ica nt.

J-9
256
Finally\ the most. serious problem th the PSOR is that it wrn not accomplish its intendad1 pu~pose. lni fact, it wm make mclie . ork for he She·rJff s and Code Ernfor,ceme nt staff and mak,e he~ Ii en orce ment ac1jvities no more but less 1effic1·ent. You may ask, why ,rs thJs? .How c -n this be? 1 Oveli' Ume. as a. res.ult. of the developm.ent review process nd g od work by th C.rty s aff. P ~ n n rng Com mission and appl I cant ' .ea ms. a high~ u a lity mos le o·f d ve1I op m ents has been estabn shed In the City. This h ~g ~qua I ity mosa,ic i,s measuired ·n lel'1ms of form and function. Examp:I s of hfgh quality f o ~ js demonstrated by our g · eat Spa n1 isM Colan tail Revival ,architecture and quality landscape plans. Eu mples ,of thoughtful and efficient fun c.tion include our considerations fo,r placement of tr ·sh enclosures parking, ADA a.ccess et1c.

Ov,er time and having .see.n the lb_ nefits of this t ougntful developm;ent re·view process,, t~e Sheriff's departmen and' Cod . Enforc men among1 cUiers have beguin to a,dd operational oondi rons m appl!catiions. Exampl'es of these operational condttions. include requiring alcohol b ve _ge service· training for employees, requiremerrnts for Security !Personnel n1 certalni circumstances. hours ,of opera ·011 for rve entertainment etc The PSOR ~s meant t,o consolidate these ,ope at on con dUion s into one· concise document How verr there Bli9' several sig1niflcant prob~ems wirth th s approach
any complaints r. g rd'ing operational condrtions ,occur a1t' night. The Code Enforcement staff do .· snot work 24/7 365 and is not availab~e at nrghl to enforce ,or even ascerta·n if ce ah'II conditions pertajning to a spec'fic::
1 rojeci a,re ba ing me . The She·rfffs deputies have lim nted access and knowl
1 edge regaming s ~ ciflc conditions of pprov,a w ichi app y to pecific projects. Therefore, the deput es cannot re,nforce oond itions of BIP p1toval.

Sjnrce appHcaUons for ·nd~vidual 1pr,ojec s are prooessed o,ver many years oond1tr.ons of a pprova~ r1e · ard ing opera Iona~ iss es vary from proj -c to proj,ect ovell" that !long time period. As a consequence, op ·r · tional con itlons .are inconslstent from o · e prop· rty to e next Even adJacEmt properttes that hav,e id"- nrcal r-eal I e operations wHI have d · eren conditions o,f approva,~ concer111ng the opera fons of thos,e properties. This m1akes it nearly impcss1ible for She-'ffs, deputies to renforoe condi ions hat have t0i do wm, operations.

J-10
257
Sugg es~ion:
he City shO'uld bandcm efforts to1 apply· op rati.onal condi,tions of approva, on a cas -by-case basis as ap,p,lica· tons ere u, ·- de to the Cly. lnst,ead the C.ity should form a · o rking giroup th at wil ,come up ·t - general leg·s a ·on hat .applies operati'onal lb -st practices. across the board and consistently t,o a II prop erUes in the comm ercia~ districts. For exam p11e, a~ II businesses ha s . . rv.,e, I coho.I must pr,ovide tra ~ning to servers, a1 U Uve
en ertainment s,hall cease at 1 O p m., security personnel m be requ ri d hen specific criteria ,are met (.Etan iclpated crowd I vels). 1Prev.iio1.i1s conditions of approval having to de with operat~onal ssues will be1 superseded by the ger1 era I leg ~latfon revl1ewed by the Planning1 Comm~ssion and adopt d by the C. y Gouncit
Den,
So much, for m1y observ lions about what iiS going1 on in the Bo't~e Room.

To continue fhe· analog ~ all syste·ms requ· re periodic ma i1 e na nee and 1rep~acemen · cf obsolete p_ rts. The development revie process is gen, r,ally achievrng good results. y su , gesti'ons are meant as ,a chec'kJist for ong1oing ma·nr enanoo .and repl ce.me,nt of some parts.

See. you on the poo! deck
Jlim
“Forward with the Dream”
1 | Page
June 7, 2023
To: San Clemente Planning Commission
From: Larry Culbertson
Re: Zoning Amendment 22-366 – Zoning Permit Streamlining Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Historical Society’s concern regarding Zoning Amendment 22-366 has not diminished since our letter of February 15. Despite city staff’s explanations, we believe that this Amendment would be a step backward in the long march toward providing protection for San Clemente’s historic resources and enhancing the village character we all cherish.

17.16.100.A.1.b.Cultural Heritage Permit Purpose and Intent.

The combination of the Design Review Subcommittee review followed by the scrutiny of the seven-member Planning Commission has guaranteed high quality results with San Clemente 258
“Forward with the Dream”
2 | Page
discretionary projects for decades. Although not required, it seems we have historically had at least half of the Commissioners be experienced architects. The idea of turning over any of the decision-making process of important projects to a Zoning Administrator or City Planner of unknown experience and talent does not sound wise. The established criteria for what are important projects have worked well and do not need to be rewritten.

Sincerely,
Larry Culbertson, President
259
ATTACHMENT 8
260
Department:

Prepared By:

Subject:

Fiscal Impact:

Summary:

Background:

Discussion:

AGENDA REPORT

SAN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Meeting Date: July 20, 2021
Community Development
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Community Development Director

CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING AN APPEAL HEARING FEE
Agenda Item \ d-P\
Approvals:

City Manager ~j)
Dept. Head
Attorney --- Finance 1dl-:::::"
Yes. At this time,. the cost for all unsuccessful appeals is covered by the appeal hearing fee deposit charged to the appellants. A change from a cost-recoverable · deposit to a flat fee would result in a partial coverage of the City's costs to prepare and conduct an appeal hearing. The proposed appeal hearing fee would partially cover the costs to prepare and conduct an appeal hearing, resulting in the remaining costs to be covered by the City, whether or not an appellant is successful in their appeal. Based on the average City staff-time costs per hearing and the typical number of hearing requests received each year, the average yearly fiscal impact is estimated to be $11,672.20, should all appeals result in a hearing.

Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution establishing an appeal hearing fee of$500.

On June 15, 2021, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1715 which eliminates the full cost recovery provisions of San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC) Chapter

1.22 and provides instead for an appeal fee for unsuccessful appeals should the City Council establish a fee by resolution, The City Council, at that meeting, directed staff to provide a proposed resolution to establish a hearing fee for the Council's consideration at the time of the Ordinance No. 1715 second reading. The City Council expressed intere$t in a flat fee that is not burdensome for potential appellants, but also expressed concern with establishing a fee that is too low and would not allow the City to have some recovery of the true costs of preparing for and conducting the appeal hearing.

The City is authorized to charge a fee that does not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of conducting an appeal hearing. Based on the appeals filed in the preceding three years, staff's average cost estimate to provide appeal hearings was $1,667.22, with a lowest cost estimate of $748.43. Due to the significantly varying complexity of appeal hearings and the staff time required to conduct them, determining a minimum set fee is challenging. Attachment 3 provides examples of staffs estimated hearing fees for two appeals. These examples provide an analysis of the costs of appeals while also demonstrating the variation in their complexity.

In order to offset some of the costs of conducting appeal hearings, while also ensuring that no appellants pay more than the potential minimum cost of a hearing, staff proposes a hearing fee of $500. This amount would cover the minimum costs of the Community Development Agenda Report
7-20-21 / 12A-1
Agenda Report Page2
contracted hearing officers' time and incidentals, such as the hearing officer's mileage costs, and materials and postage. This fee is based on the minimum amount of time a hearing officer would be required for any hearing, that being three hours. The City's contracts with hearing officers stipulate an hourly rate of $150, and three hours of their time costs $450. With mileage, materials, and postage costs typically about $50, the total fee would be $500. The proposed hearing fee will result in an average cost to the City of $1,167.22 per hearing, the amount of the $1,667.22 average hearing cost uncovered by the proposed hearing fee. The City typically receives about 10 appealhearing requests per year, which would amount to an average yearly fiscal impact of $11,672.20 should all appeals result in a hearing.

Recommended
Action: STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT the City Council 1) adopt a Resolution entitled A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE,

CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A FIXED FEE FOR APPEALS UNDER CHAPTER

1.22 OF THE SAN CLEMENTE MUNICIPAL CODE, and 2) adopt Ordinance No. 1715 entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SAN CLEMENTE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 1.22 RELATING TO FEES FOR ADMINISTRA TlVE HEARINGS AND APPEALS.

Attachments: 1. Resolution - Appeal Hearing Fee

2. Introduced Ordinance No. 1715

3. Fee Analysis - Two Estimated Hearing Fee Calculators

4. City Council Agenda Report dated June 15, 2021 and Ordinance No. 1715.

Notification: None.
7-20-21 I 12A-2 261
Approvals:

AGENDA REPORT

SAN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Meeting Date: June 15, 2021
City Manager � .15
Dept Heacljti 11.r C&l>
·1
Department City Attorney
Community Development Department
Prepared By: · Scott C. Smith1 City Attorney
Cecilia Gallardo�Daly, Community Development Director
Attorney
Finance
Subject: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMEND/NG SAN CLEMENTE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 1.22 TO SET A FIXED FEE FOR APPEALS AND ADMINTSTRATJVE HEARINGS Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact of this amendment is dependent upon the appeal hearing fee cost. At this time, the cost for all unsuccessful appeals is covered by the appeal hearing fees charged to the appellants. Any set appeal hearing fee that does not cover the cost of some or all hearings will have a negative impact on the City's finances, as those currently unbudgeted costs will then be paid for by the general fund.

Jackground: In 2018, the City Council amended Chapter 1.22 of the San Clemente Municipal Code ("SCMC") to authorize full recovery of costs of administrative hearings and appeals from individuals seeking those hearings and appeals ("appellants") when their appeals are unsuccessful. At its meeting on June 1, 2021, the City Council asked that staff prepare and present an ordinance repealing that full cost recovery and providing instead for a fixed fee.

Discussion: The current version of SCMC Chapter 1.22 contains basic provisions relating to fees for administrative hearings and appeals ("appeals"). Sections 1.22.01 o through 1.22.030 provide for payment of the costs of unsuccessful appeals from unsuccessful appellants rather than coverage of them by the general fund. At Its June 1, 2021 meeting, the City Council asked staff to return with (1) an ordinance amending Chapter 1.22 to provide instead that appeals be subject to a fixed fee, which would be recoverable by successful appellants, with the inclusion of a provision to allow a hardship waiver, and information on a fixed fee amount.

The attached draft Ordinance ellminates the full cost recovery provisions of Chapter 1.22 and provides instead for an appeal fee for unsuccessful appeals as set by resolution of the City Council. (The provisions of Section 1.22.040 providing for fee refunds from unsuccessful appellants are now consolidated into Section 1.22.020.) If Council were to introduce this draft Ordinance for first reading, it could simultaneously give instruction of what, if any appeals fee should follow. Staff could then prepare and notice a resolution adopting an. appeals fee for subsequent Council consideration. The fee could be set to take effect concurrently with the effective date of the Ordinance. The remainder of City Council Agenda Report
---
6�15�21 / 98-1
7-20-21 I 12A-12
(
262
Agenda Report Page 2
Recommended
Chapter 1.22 would remain Intact The current information related to fees is {- based on the actual amount of fees collected for the -cost of the appeal hearings , held.

Fee Collected
$3,597.27
$1,614.37
Appeals tend to involve complicated cases that require additional staff time for the preparation of the report and supporting documentation. In addition, the hearing may take up to. a full da.y of staff and the Administrative Hearing Officer's· time. Prior to the appeal hearing fee, the cost of the Administrative Hearing Officer was covered by the GenerE;ll Fund. The last budgeted amount for the hearings to cover the cost of the Administrative Hearing Officer was $1 o ,000. The consideration of a flat fee for an appeal hearing In the amount of $250 to $500 per appeal would llkely not be cost recoverable. In comparison, the fee to appeal a Planning Permit by a hearing body is a flat fee of $1,250.99.

Actions: STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT the City Council:

1. Consider introducing for first reading an Ordinance entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF. SAN CLEMENTE,

CALIFORNIA AMENDING SAN CLEMENTE MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 1.22 RELATING TO FEES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
Hl=ARINGS AND APPEALS
.2. Give staff direction on the possibility of bringing back a resolution establishing an appeals fee pursuant to this Ordinance, Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance
2) Agenda Report from June 1, 2021
6-15�21 / 98-2
7-20--21 I 12A-13
(_
263
Average of hearing fees collected
..
r
I ..
•:,;::" �� $AN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCiL MEETING
Me�Ung D�te�May·1, �018
:• Agehda ltefm ({_�ft .
·· ··Approval$: ..
.Cit:, Ma_rmgar ---
Oapt H�ad
Attorney �:;t::t::::"'
flnange
D�partment. City Attorney
Prepared By; ·soott Smith, City Attorney
ORPINANOi: AM.t:NOl�� MUNlQIPAt Cops TO R�COVE:R. COSTS OF AnMINl$l"AA TIVS Hl:AAIN(38 ANO /;f PSA!..S
Ftlscsi lmpt1.ct: U adopted1 tOQether w!th-a re®lt.Jtion establishing reasonable fees, the City will be able to reooverth� oasts t:issqd!�ted with conducting admlnliatrative hearings and appeals In �ose oases where the City prevails in the P,ro�dlrig, Summary,◄ $�ff reoo.mmends th!:lt th$ City Cou11otr a) lntro<lude the attaoMd ·ordinance whioh authorizes the reoqveiy of fee$ for .adminlatratlve hean.ngs an<l tippealsl gives the Olly so!� disor�tion, to ponsolidate muttlpte· administrative eltatlon challenges by the s.sms person into �me hearingj limits the number of times a hearinQ may be c¢ntfnued, and ntakes aom� mlnQr oorre¢ttoM to the code relating to-adnifnlstraUve · citatlons1
·
and b) direct st�ff to notice a pubJla hearing pyrsua.nt to Govemment Gode Seotlol')s 86018 and 66018 � adopt a resolutlon ·e.stabtishlns reasonabfe h�aring (ees. ' ·
. '
Sac.kgrot.ind: The City Man.ag,r reqyested that an ordinance be prepared to ali4W the Ciw to recover the oosts associated with oonduotlng ��mlnlstrative heatings and E1ppeala In thos� oases whare·the Cfty preva!ts In the prooeedtng.
_ . Dl$cusslon: murent!y when t� ·olty coriduots an adrril�tstrabVe hearing or app�t, It bearf? tne flmmolaf' burden of processing and cofll;fucllng these prtloeedlngs, lnoludlng an staff time, mafe,rlals and the fee,� and c;ost$ for a hearing officer, with the �oeptlon of haartogs conducted pursuant to Muntclpal Code section s,eo.020 relating to· sh oppl_ng carts, Since these ptoceadlngs ar� typJoaHy loi.tiatecl by persons ·Seek!n.g review of an administrative deolston or �h�lle.ngfng the imposition of a fine1 the CO$t of ihe prooeedlngs shour� b� borne by such persons, unless they pr$vall in the · proceeding,
New Chapter 1.2.2 provfdea that any person seeking an admtntstratlve hearing Qr f!Ung an appeal undir any provision of the Municipal Code shall be requl� to pay the costs assoalated with the hearf ns1 and deposft those cos� with the requeJt. for hearlng/notloe of appe"al, unlesi auoh person prevails fn the �earing/appeal, In the event that a person seeking the hearing or appeal pr�valls crt soma Qf the olafma1 it ' shall be responsible for only 1/2 of the costs,
In addition to. the oost reoovery provfs!ons of new Chapter 1.22, the ordinance amends Munioipat Code Section 1.20.0800 to gfve the City sole discretion ta (. \_ Pk_deptAgendaRaport 5--1�18 I 9A-1
6-1-21 / 9C-5
6-15-21 / 98-12
7-20-21 I 12A-23
264
~
,.JJ I'\
. II t 4.£ BN KR I I I l I I I iiilt .it~
i
\. I • 'Aseti.dftltti� llage2
oonaol!dmi., oha!lenga$. tP muli!pl$ admlnfetratMt oltatlons by the same petrlQn lttto a single hearlrtS1· and llmrts fhe number Qf oontlnuanc:ee that may be g�nt«J for administrative hearings and lippeiah�1 and make several other modifrbatfons In ChE!pter 1 ,20 to be oani�!stent with the new prcwJ�lons relating to ·oost recovary. The proposed ordinance also am�ds Seotlo11 1,20,090 relating i<> fudlo!al reView �f admlnistrm!Ve cttat!Qrta to oorreot a roferettoe to the 01:1IWomla Governmer1t C\ide a1;1d to update tha address of tha Oral1g� county Superior Ooott where appeala from admintstrath/e �tatron determinations are flied.
. I , .
•
Last1Y1 In order to comply with Gov.ammeht Code Sabtlons 66016 anq '36018, It is reoommanded thai the Ctty Caunoll dlrfmt a½�ff to provide tto-lice for a. j;Jublic he�rlng ta be held bafore the Clty Counoll to adopt1 by ra-sah,1tlan1 ihe new feea for appeah,,. \Nhloh wlfl be on a,iima and m;tforlals recovery basls, · . . ·
lieaoirttrnmded . .
'I
·� l '
I
I
:/ (" , , � \
-,,., j i
l
•, I
. 1
I
!
I
i
I
. Action: Srm �COMMSNoa THA, tha City Council a) lnu-oduce the attijoh� ordinance which 1) a<lda .a new Chapter 1.� to the Mutdcfpaf Cods relatlng ta iaes for adml11!.stratlve heating$ aria appeals and 2) amends Saotion 1,20,090 relating to Judicial re"JieW of administrative tl!tatlo�a to oorrect a reference to the Governh'lant Cade and update the address for thei Orange 0011nty Superlor Court, and b) diraot staff to n9tlae- a p1;1bHo hearing pursuant to Govmnment Cr:Rts"'Se::titi'm---0001"Enfna tf®'1 e ts eatabliah. . . !
i
'
'
'
I
i
l
. ,
(.
'
i
'
(
Notifl�fJon:
masonabfa hearing fees, ·
. ,
1, OROINANCS NO:�.: AN Ol=IDlNANCa Or THI: OITY'COUNOIL ()f' iHE OITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNfA. AOlJl'N0 A NEW CfiAP1'E!R 1,22. 'TO llTL,E; 1 Or 11-fE SAN CLEMEN'Jt MUN1Cf PAL CODE lie.LATING TO f:�ge PO� AOMINlSTRATMi HEARi.NG$ ANO APP5Al.S ANO ·AMENDING SSOitONs

1.20.oao AN)) 1.2Q.090 OF. CHAPl'ER 1.20 Or 'TITLE 1 OF THS MUNIOlPAL CODE �E:LA11NG TO JUDICIAL RSVJSW OF AbMlNISTAATIVa CITATIONS, Notloo Qf fee to be pub ff shed n l'lotad above,
o-1 �113 / 9A--2
6--1-21 / 90"6
. i
'
. f
,/
6-15-21 / 9B-13
7-20-21 I 12A-24
i
· I
!
I
I
I
l
I
i
i
265
' !
J.

I
1 Agenda Item: 10A
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24

San Clemente City CouncilSeptember 5, 2023

San Clemente City Council
September 5, 2023