MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 19, 2025 @ 6:00 p.m.
San Clemente City Hall Council Chamber
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cosgrove 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.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Cosgrove led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair Cameron Cosgrove; Chair Pro Tem M. Steven Camp; Vice Chair Gary P. McCaughan, M.D; Barton Crandell; and Karen Prescott-Loeffler
Commissioners Absent: Brent Davis
Staff Present: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
Brendan Hanley, Contract Planner
Gena Burns, Deputy City Attorney
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 ORDER OF BUSINESS/SPECIAL PRESENTATION
None.
5. MINUTES
A. Receive and file Minutes from Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 5, 2025.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCKHANN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CAMP, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER DAVIS ABSENT, TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR STUDY SESSION OF FEBRUARY 5, 2025.
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2025 Page 2
6. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 24-568, Delabar Residence, 143 Calle Cuervo A request for the Planning Commission to approve a first and second floor addition to increase the floor area of an existing single-family residence by about 500 square feet and to push out the 2nd floor balcony and implement glass guardrails.
The residence is within Tract 8185, which is within the Presidential Heights planned residential development (PRD) community. This request includes an amendment to the entitlement for the Tract 8185, allowing additions and alterations to building footprint within a given parcel in this tract.
The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities).
Chair Cosgrove opened the public hearing.
Commissioner McKhann disclosed that he had visited the Delabar project site.
Contract Planner Brendan Hanley presented a PowerPoint entitled: “Delabar Residence, Development Permit 25-020/PHP 24-586.” A copy of the presentation is on file in the Planning Division.
Staff outlined the proposed improvements and relevant review criteria:
• The subject property is an attached condominium with two neighboring units on each side with shared “party walls.”
• Proposed improvements include a 520 sq. ft. addition; redesigned 176 sq. ft. balcony with railing; and an interior remodel.
• The project is subject to development standards from a 1974 tentative tract map. Per the entitlements, the residence conforms to all setbacks and standards in its current state.
• The previous Presidential Heights 2 Homeowners’ Association (PH2) board of directors (HOA) approved a previous draft of improvements in February 2024 with the conditions that the City of San Clemente Building Division approve all aspects of the proposed project; and that the HOA receive a copy of the approved plans from the property owner; and that subsequent changes to the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2025 Page 3 plans from the City or the Applicant need to be reviewed by the HOA governing body.
• Typically, Planned Residential Development (PRD) standards are established by the developer and reviewed during the entitlement process. There are no objective standards for lot coverage or additions in Presidential Heights 2. Due to the applicant's project scope being a significant change from the standard model style approved under the PRD, it is subject to a discretionary approval process that necessitates a request for a Development Permit. • There was significant public interest and several public comments made in opposition of the project at the Zoning Administrator meeting on January 23, 2025 where inconsistencies in draft versions of the plans were also addressed. • Presidential Heights 2 legal counsel intends to seek future PRD amendments to establish clear standards for allowable alterations to the residences. • The planning department received comment letters from neighbors focusing on privacy, views, lighting, and shared structures.
• At the January 23, 2025 meeting, the Zoning Administrator acknowledged some permitted modifications at properties in PH2; but also noted that some residences presented as evidence are in PH1, a different community. The ZA determined that due to the project’s significant changes and public impact and/or concerns, the Planning Commission is the appropriate Review Authority.
• The Planning Division received comment letters focusing on consistency in reviewed applications and plans, privacy, community character, current state of the project, views, lighting, and shared structures.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions regarding the project scope. Staff confirmed that major remodels would be required to be compliant with the current version of the California Building Code; confirmed that the City’s Municipal Code requires HOA approval prior to building permit issuance; but conceptual projects reviewed through a discretionary process do not require HOA approval. If there were to be an approval of a plan that the HOA has not approved, it will go back to the HOA before issuance of building permits.
Commissioners also asked clarifying questions related to PRDs and the Development Standards in the City, and staff confirmed that:
• Several PRDs in the City do not have clear, stand-alone guidelines for modifications and alterations within the community.
• Since the Municipal Codes does not allow for a clear pathway for the PRD modifications, the avenue to request those modifications is through an amendment to the underlying original approval.
• Amendments are governed by San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC)
17.12.180 - Applicant Requests to Change Approved Applications, which establishes three avenues for modifications based on public impact.
In response to the Commissioners’ question to staff regarding the proposed addition being compliant with the community’s governing documents, a discussion ensued that highlighted:
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2025 Page 4 • The PH2 CC&Rs do not provide clear Development or Design Standards. • An attachment in the report revealed the guidelines may change over time at the desire of the community.
• The City is not obligated to enforce CC&Rs.
• The recommendation for the Planning Commission to approve the project because it meets the findings based on the criteria of the Development Permit. • In cases where a PRD community has adopted clear design and development standards, staff would support modifications administratively under SCMC
17.12.180 – so long as they do not contradict basic underlying zoning requirements, such as the maximum height of the zone.
Applicant Geoff Delabar addressed questions or comments that had been discussed:
• The party walls are double-wall framed with sound boards between units, and the project will make upgrades.
• There will be fire sprinklers, and the unit will be updated to current Building Standards.
• The upper deck was reduced following the ZA meeting to not impact the neighbor’s privacy.
• Believes modifications are the same or similar to that of other units that have been updated.
• Changing to glass railing because the wood railing hid the view and was rotted. • Unit is to remain a three-bedroom unit.
Architect Greg Jordan gave more description to the glass rail on the balcony and stated that there are many units that have completed similar modifications and pointed them out to the Commission. Mr. Jordan added that the HOA’s position is that the interior modifications are not in the approval purview.
The Commission stated that they defer to design or standards dictated the HOA and/or CC&Rs, such as windows on garage doors.
The Commission asked the applicant to clarify the following:
• The demolition to the unit occurred in July 2024, which remains the current condition of the unit.
• The neighbors’ objections from the applicant’s perspective being primarily the balcony that has been redesigned and noise regarding a reversed floor plan. • How the character of the community has been maintained, vis a vis impact of elevation changes in courtyard, consistency of proposed modifications with previously modified units in the community, and modifications are not exceeding footprint and comply with setbacks.
Public Comments:
Ilse Berke, long-term resident and architectural committee member stated that they made errors in what was previously approved and that they would not approve those modifications today. The original application was denied by the architectural committee, however the HOA approved. The community units Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2025 Page 5 were designed for maximum privacy. An end date was never disclosed on the application.
Susan Mazzarella, next-door neighbor (shared wall) – Outdoor living space with ocean view is on the first floor. By the neighbor reversing the floorplan, they lose their privacy on their patio and the upstairs living space causes issues others in the community. There are clauses in the CC&R that state that both owners of the shared party walls must agree in writing to any proposed unit modifications. Neighbors did not approve the project, but were aware.
Joe Mazzarella, next-door neighbor (shared wall) – proposed modifications increase approximately 35% and there will be increased noise. The bedroom will be exposed to their living area. They are proposing a balcony in the front courtyard, which has not been done in the community. The review committee denied the plan for valid reasons, they no longer were approving any modifications made to balconies and that they do not have to follow previous approvals made by past committees.
Suzanne Rutherford, next-door neighbor (shared wall on opposite side of Mazzarella) – expressed frustration that her property has been exposed for nearly a year and was not covered for six months until neighbors’ insistence.
Ms. Rutherford expressed privacy concerns. Requested visual displays of proposed project.
Matt Plaxton, general counsel of HOA – explained that the HOA approved the plans on appeal but that the plans changed since that approval. The revised plans that were presented at the Zoning Administrator’s meeting have not been reviewed by the HOA or the architectural committee. The revised plans need to be resubmitted to the architectural committee for review and approval or denial. Mr. Plaxton also asked that the clause “these plans are approved by the HOA” be removed from the Resolution.
Carol Glasheen, resident and architectural committee – the committee voted against the proposed plans based on the reversal of the floor plan. The construction should be changed due to the weight of the kitchen on the second floor. Expressed noise and privacy concerns, and frustration that demolition continued after stop work orders were issued.
Paul Beeike, resident – asked why applicants is rewarded for not following the process, and that his demolition released asbestos without asbestos abatement.
Applicant’s Rebuttal to Public Comments:
• Mr. Delabar stated that an end date was never discussed in the process, and it would be difficult to state such.
• There are other units that have modified their space with the same square footage, only in a different configuration. No other units have a second-floor Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2025 Page 6 balcony overlooking the courtyard area, but it’s not a negative impact. It is a design feature to mitigate massing rather than increase usage space. • There are two units that have increased their balconies substantially and can peer into neighbor’s courtyards. This plan does not go as far as those units and they compromised the view to increase the length of the privacy wall to allow more privacy.
• The applicant is aware that any changes to the plans need to be resubmitted to the architectural committee.
• There are no kitchen appliances or bathrooms along the upstairs shared wall, and therefore noise is not an issue.
• The unit was built in 1978 when asbestos was no longer used in the construction of homes.
• All the interior demo was done before the exterior walls were removed.
The applicant then responded to further clarifying questions from Commissioners:
• The applicant stated that they were not aware of any other units; however interior renovations are not in the HOA’s purview. Mr. Delabar stated that the weight load of the kitchen can be addressed with engineering. • The only change not seen by the HOA is the reduction of two feet on the balcony.
• The Commission asked if an agreement with the party-wall neighbors was obtained, and Mr. Delabar stated that the walls are double framed and apologized for leaving the neighbor’s wall exposed.
The Commission asked Staff if there was any enforceable requirement for the applicant to remedy the exposed structure in its current condition until the building permits are obtained. Staff clarified that the Building Official granted approval to the applicants to weatherize the building in spite of the current stop work order on the property.
Chair Cosgrove closed the public hearing.
The Commission acknowledged the intent and purpose of the original building design was specifically to maximize privacy, reduce noise, and provide enjoyment of the patio space for the benefit of all the residents. The Commission also stated that they are not obligated to approve projects based on a precedence of what previous Commissions approved and confirmed the dimensions of the proposed rear balcony.
The Commission discussed the required findings and their alternatives for taking action, including continuing the item so that staff can provide additional information, or denying the item with a Denial Resolution that can be with or without prejudice.
Discussed the preferred approval process when an HOA is involved. The city's zoning code provides the responsibility for administrative reviews; staff's discretion on the review level is based on factors including public concerns; Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2025 Page 7 Commission debated whether the Development Permit approval process should involve the HOA; and clarification that current discussion is about compatibility with the previously approved PRD.
Discussed whether the community wants the city to retain authority over architectural reviews versus relying on the HOA; the Commission expressed the view that city staff has the discretion to refer matters to the Zoning Administrator; debated whether HOA should handle certain approvals, with or without city input.
Discussed whether the HOA or the city should have primary authority; City Planner Lightfoot suggested considering the HOA’s role in resolving such decisions; Possible amendment proposal to challenge the staff’s interpretation of the code, suggesting a process deferring to the HOA; suggestion for HOA to finalize decisions to avoid back-and-forth between the City and HOA.
Commission discussed Code Enforcement as being is the quickest way to expedite safety concerns while the broader approval process continues.
Deputy City Attorney Burns cautioned against conditioning continuances on HOA approval.
City Planner Lightfoot acknowledged the Commission’s interest in having the HOA make a final decision on aesthetics in their community; he explained that the Zoning Code is permissive, meaning staff determines additions and modifications are only permitted to the extent identified in the Code. In this specific case, there is a lack of development standards to clearly allow for additions or alterations, leading to the interpretation that the issue should go through a discretionary process for substantial changes to standardized units within PRD communities.
City Planner Lightfoot suggested an alternative option for the Planning Commission could be to disagree with the initial interpretation and defer to the HOA, as long as any modifications are within the property's footprint and do not extend beyond the property line. This option might prevent the issue from being repeatedly referred back and forth between different bodies.
The Commission acknowledged the neighbors’ concerns, including reversing the floor plan; and was concerned about extending the party wall with adjoining neighbors. Expressed concerns about compatibility, such as the type of railing used and the width of the balcony. The key point is to ensure any modifications are harmonious with the existing property and neighborhood standards.
The Commission expressed a desire for the application to return to the HOA to receive approval of a complete plan set with clear scope, floor plans, and elevations; the Commission also expressed a desire for staff to pursue nuisance abatement of the building that is currently in an unreasonable state of partial demolition/ construction.
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2025 Page 8
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CRANDELL, TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT 24-568 TO A DATE UNKNOWN
TO ALLOW ALL PARTIES THE TIME NEEDED TO OBTAIN AN APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL HEIGHTS 2 HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION.
Upon discussion of whether the item should be tabled as opposed to continued, Commission Crandell withdrew his second of the motion. The motion died for lack of a second.
IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR CAMP, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER DAVIS ABSENT, TO:
1. Table Public Hearing Project 24-568, Delabar Residence, 143 Calle Cuervo.
2. For staff to present a policy proposal and discussion on the discretionary review of Planned Residential Development projects to the Planning Commission.
9. NEW BUSINESS
None.
10. OLD BUSINESS
None.
11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Tentative Future Agenda
B. Administrative Development Permit Report
C. Chair Cosgrove attended a Planning Directors of Orange County conference that was well attended by most cities in Orange County where I participated in the Planning Commissioners’ track. Take-aways were: Complaints in other cities that we do not experience in San Clemente is that our staff does an excellent job in reports and support; there is a phenomenal amount of development investments happening in Orange County.
D. Commissioner Prescott-Loeffler will not attend the March 5, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.
12. ADJOURNMENT
THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IT WAS
MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR CAMP, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER DAVIS ABSENT, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:07 P.M. TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD IN-PERSON ON MARCH 5, 2025, AT 6:00 P.M., AT THE SAN CLEMENTE CITY Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2025 Page 9 HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 910 CALLE NEGOCIO, 2
nd FLOOR,
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA.
Respectfully submitted,
Cameron Cosgrove, Chairman
Attest:
Jonathan Lightfoot, Secretary of the Planning Commission