910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
Mayor Knoblock
Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Loeffler
Councilmember Wu
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
5:30 p.m. - Business Meeting
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
MISSION STATEMENT
Information concerning City Council Meeting protocols and procedures is contained at the end of this agenda.
The City of San Clemente, in partnership with the community we serve, will foster a tradition dedicated to:
Maintaining a safe, healthy atmosphere in which to live, work and play; Guiding development to ensure responsible growth while preserving and enhancing our village character, unique environment and natural amenities; Providing for the City’s long-term stability through promotion of economic vitality and diversity…
Resulting in a balanced community committed to protecting what is valued today while meeting tomorrow’s needs.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is the state law that requires the City to evaluate and document the potential environmental consequences of discretionary decision. (See, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.3; and the “CEQA Guidelines” at California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). For each item that requires a CEQA determination by the City Council, there is a reference to that determination on this agenda, and more information regarding the CEQA analysis is included in the documents that accompany this agenda. To the extent that City staff determines that particular items are not subject to CEQA, there will be no indication of a CEQA action on this agenda.
DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Pursuant to Government Code § 84308, City Council Members are disqualified and not able to participate in any agenda item involving contracts (other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts), franchises, discretionary land use permits and other entitlements if the City Council Member received more than $500 in campaign contributions from the applicant or contractor, an agent of the applicant or contractor, or any financially interested participant who actively supports or opposes the City’s decision on the agenda item since January 1, 2023. Members of the City Council who have received, and applicants, contractors or their agents who have made, campaign contributions totaling more than $500 to a City Council Member since January 1, 2023, are required to disclose that fact for the official record of the subject proceedings. Disclosures must include the amount of the campaign contribution and identify the recipient City Council Member and may be made either in writing to the City Clerk before the agenda item or by verbal disclosure during consideration.
1 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025 CLOSED SESSION (4:30 P.M.)
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a)&(d)(2)
Number of Cases: 1
Facts and Circumstances per Government Code section 54956.9(e)(2): Alleged violation of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civil Code sections 4000, et seq.) as set forth in the attached letter from Angelo and Lisa Garruba.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION Whether to initiate litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) Number of Cases: 1
BUSINESS MEETING (5:30 P.M.)
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION – Pastor Brieann Knutson, San Clemente Presbyterian Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
1. Special Presentations
A. Presentation of Proclamation to Daughters of the American Revolution declaring September 17-23, 2025 as Constitution Week.
Presentation of Proclamation to Kitty Carretti and Anne Grey, Daughters of the American Revolution, declaring September 17-23, 2025 as Constitution Week, in recognition of the 238th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution.
2. Council Member Reports
3. Oral Communications (Part 1)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. Speakers may address Council once during either Oral Communications Part 1 or Part 2. A total time limitation of 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications Part 1, with each speaker being allotted 3 minutes in which to give his or her presentation. Speaker order is determined by the order in which speaker cards are provided to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk at the meeting. Speakers that cannot be accommodated during Oral Communications Part 1 will be invited to address Council during Oral Communications Part 2, which appears on this agenda as Item No. 12. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions
2 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025 posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.
4. Motion waiving reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances
5. Consideration of agendizing items requiring immediate action Per Government Code section 54954.2(b) and 54956.5. Any items agendized will be considered under New Business, unless otherwise determined by a majority vote of the City Council.
6. Closed Session Report - City Attorney
7. Staff Communications
8. Public Hearings
The Public Hearing process includes a staff presentation, a presentation by the applicant not to exceed ten (10) minutes, and public testimony (not to exceed three minutes per speaker). Following closure of the Public Hearing, the City Council will respond to questions raised during the hearing, discuss the issues, and act upon the matter by motion.
8A. CONSIDERATION TO INTRODUCE, AND CONDUCT A FIRST READING OF, AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE ZONING AMENDMENT, ZA25-362, TO THE
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A HEIGHT
EXCEPTION, OF UP TO 55 FEET TO THE PLATE LINE AND 62 FEET TO
THE TOP OF THE ROOF OR HIGHEST PROJECTION, FOR A HOTEL
(BUILDING 15) AT THE OUTLETS AT SAN CLEMENTE; AND
CERTIFICATION OF ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARBLEHEAD
COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN (STATE CLEARING HOUSE NO. 1995091037),
WHICH HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 Public Hearing to consider a text amendment to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) development standards within Section 502 (V)(D), which establishes height standards for commercial development within the Regional Commercial Zone of the specific plan area. The proposed amendment would allow the hotel to use the same height exception that exists for the theater use. The City Council will also consider using Addendum No. 6 to the previously certified EIR for the MCSP (SCH No. 1995091037) for the proposed amendment, which has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, and concludes that proposed amendments to the MCSP would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the prior EIR and related addenda.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council introduce, and conduct a first reading of Ordinance 1795, entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
3 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025 CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 6
TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH NO. 1995091037)
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND APPROVING ZONING AMENDMENT ZA25-362 TO AMEND SECTION
502(V)(D) OF THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN) TO ALLOW
A HOTEL WITH THE SAME HEIGHT EXCEPTION GRANTED TO THE
THEATER, FOR A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 55 FEET TO THE PLATE LINE AND 62 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF OR HIGHEST PROJECTION.
8B. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT (PHP) 25-343 TO AMEND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN PERMIT (SPP) 99-16 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 99-17 TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HEIGHT OF THE HOTEL, FROM 45 FEET UP TO 62 FEET, AT 401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA TO INCLUDE A ROOFTOP
RESTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR DINING AND INTERIOR KITCHEN AND RESTROOMS ON A 1.7-ACRE PARCEL (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER [APN] 691-422-04) WITHIN THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN (MCSP) AREA, AND FINDING THAT ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE MCSP
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DEMONSTRATES NO NEW
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW IS NEEDED, CONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES §15162 AND §15183
Public Hearing to consider the proposed amendment to the previously approved hotel development. The proposed amendment would allow the hotel to use the same height exception that exists for the theater use, as authorized by proposed Addendum No. 6 to the MCSP. The City Council will also consider Addendum No. 6 to the previously certified EIR for the MCSP (SCH No. 1995091037), which has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, and concludes that proposed changes to the approved project addressed in this addendum would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Further, the City Council will consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162 (Subsequent review of Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declarations) and §15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning).
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-137, which will:
1. Approve PHP25-343 to amend Commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP) 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-17 to modify the previously
4 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025 approved hotel at 401 W. Avenida Vista Hermosa to allow for an increase in height to 62 feet to incorporate a rooftop restaurant with outdoor dining.
2. Find that Addendum No. 6 to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) demonstrates no new significant impacts and that no further environmental review is needed, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections15162 and 15183.
8C. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-224, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-223, DISCRETIONARY SIGN PERMIT 25-263, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-225 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK COMPLEX AT 1000 CALLE CORDILLERA WITH 11 NEW
BUILDINGS ON VACANT LAND, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MASTER SIGN
PROGRAM, A LAND AND CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FOR INDIVIDUAL
OWNERSHIP OF EACH BUILDING/SUITE, AND PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF A 30-FOOT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, PUBLIC UTILITY AND
STORM DRAIN PURPOSES, AND MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Public Hearing to consider Development Permit 25-224, Conditional Use Permit 25-223, Discretionary Sign Permit 25-263, and Tentative Tract Map 25-225 to develop a new light industrial business park complex with eleven new buildings on vacant land, in conjunction with a Master Sign Program, and a Tentative Tract Map for a land and condominium subdivision, to allow for individual ownership of each building and/or each industrial suite. A 30-foot easement for public access, public utility, and storm drain purposes will be partially abandoned.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution 25-138, which will:
1. Determine that the project does not require further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15183.
2. Conditionally approve Development Permit 25-224, Conditional Use Permit 25-223, Discretionary Sign Permit 25-263, and Tentative Tract Map 25-225 for the Luminar Business Park project.
5 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025 8D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE FAILURE OF
BROADMOOR SAN CLEMENTE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO ENFORCE
CERTAIN COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&RS)
Public Hearing to review the Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (CC&R) violations and determine whether the City of San Clemente shall assume enforcement duties as permitted under Article XII of the Broadmoor Homeowners Association Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (CC&Rs). Should the City take on enforcement responsibilities, the reasonable costs incurred, including reasonable attorney fees, may be assessed to the Homeowners Association, potentially leading to a uniform assessment against each lot within Broadmoor San Clemente.
Staff Recommendation
Open the public hearing, receive public testimony and comment, close the public hearing and determine that the Broadmoor Association has continued enforcement of its Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CR&Rs), and continue the public hearing to January 20, 2026, to allow the Broadmoor Association’s process to continue according to their specified timelines.
9. Unfinished Business
None.
10. New Business
10A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 50 - AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING (Agendized by Councilmember Wu, with the support of Mayor Knoblock and Councilmember Loeffler at the September 2, 2025 City Council meeting.) Staff Recommendation
Determine whether to adopt Resolution No. 25-139 entitled A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A POSITION OF OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 50 ON THE NOVEMBER 2025 BALLOT.
6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025 10B. CONSIDERATION OF MAKING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS STATISTICS
AVAILABLE VIA THE CITY WEBSITE
(Agendized by councilmember Loeffler, with the support of Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier and Councilmember Cabral at the September 2, 2025 City Council meeting.)
Staff Recommendation
Determine whether to add Public Records Requests to the City website and choose from the following options below:
1. Direct Staff to add Public Records Requests to the City website via the JustFOIA search engine effective September 17, 2025.
OR
2. Direct Staff to include a monthly report of Public Records Requests on the City website beginning with August 2025.
OR
3. Direct Staff to add Public Records Requests to the City website via the JustFOIA search engine AND include a monthly report of Public Records Requests to the City website beginning with August 2025. 10C. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION PROVIDING DIRECTION TO
COMPLETE A WATER COST-OF-SERVICE STUDY AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A DRAFT PROPOSITION 218 NOTICE FOR A FUTURE PUBLIC
HEARING
Staff Recommendation
1. Receive a report, consider public comment and provide direction regarding inclusion the following components in the Cost-of-Service Study to be returned to City Council for further review and consideration:
a. Develop a uniform rate for all customers.
b. Increase the total fixed revenue recovery from 32% to 36% to continue improving revenue stability that is more aligned with the City’s fixed costs.
c. Continue to utilize a pass-through approach to clearly distinguish (a) the external costs of imported water from (b) the City’s costs of treating, storing, and delivering that water.
7 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025 d. Include Municipal Water District of Orange County fixed costs in fixed meter charges.
e. Institute new Demand Management Rates based on the six stages of water shortage levels ranging from 10%-50% water reduction.
f. Develop a five-year rate increase.
AND
2. Adopt Resolution No 25-140, which will direct staff and the consultant to complete the Water Cost-of-Service Study based on the City Council’s direction as to components to be included for further review and consideration and direct staff to prepare a draft Proposition 218 notice for consideration at the November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. 10D. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE(S) TO
REPRESENT SAN CLEMENTE AT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING
Staff Recommendation
Determine whether or not to appoint a voting delegate to represent the City at the Annual Business Meeting of the League of California Cities Annual Conference on October 10, 2025, and also determine whether or not to appoint an alternate(s) to vote on the City’s behalf in the event the voting delegate is unable to vote at the Annual Business Meeting.
11. Consent Calendar
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion unless Council or Staff requests removal of an item for separate discussion and action.
A. City Council Minutes
Staff Recommendation:
(1) APPROVE THE SPECIAL AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2025.
B. Commission/Committee Minutes
Staff Recommendation:
Receive and file the following:
(1) BEACHES, PARKS, & RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2025.
8 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025 (2) BEACHES, PARKS, & RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL
MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2025.
C. Warrant Register
(1) APPROVE WIRE TRANSFER NOS.
3301 THROUGH 3308 AND WARRANT NOS.
606950 THROUGH 607063, PAID ON
9-5-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,721,075.74
TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER $4,721,075.74
Payroll Register
APPROVE WARRANT NO. 987 AND
AUTOMATIC DEPOSIT ADVISES 106009
THROUGH 106352, FOR THE PERIOD
8-18-25 THROUGH 8-31-25, PAID
ON 9-5-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $616,306.10
TOTAL PAYROLL REGISTER $616,306.10
11D. CONTRACT AWARD - LIFEGUARD TOWERS REPLACEMENT (2025) AND
FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-141, which will:
1. Find the Lifeguard Towers Replacement (2025), CIP Project No. 22104, categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 2 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Section15302.
2. Award the Lifeguard Towers Replacement (2025), construction contract to Capo A General Contracting as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.
3. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25- 47, by and between the City of San Clemente and Capo A General Contracting, providing for Lifeguard Towers Replacement, in the amount of $111,900, in a form substantially similar to Contract No. C25-47 provided as attachment 2 of the Administrative Report dated September 16, 2025, and on file with the City Clerk.
9 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025 11E. CONTRACT AWARD - DEFINED BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-142, which will:
Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25-48, by and between the City of San Clemente and Milliman, Inc., providing for Defined Benefit Administration Services, in an amount not to exceed $45,000 annually, and authorize the City Manager at his discretion to exercise two (2) one-year extension options.
11F. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REQUEST FOR DELAY OF MEASURE M2 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
PROGRAM (CTFP) FUNDS FOR THE POCHE BEACH WATER
RECLAMATION PROJECT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-143 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING THE REQUEST FOR DELAY OF MEASURE M2
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAM (CTFP)
FUNDS FOR THE POCHE BEACH WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT.
11G. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION REGARDING INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL OF RED CURB AT THE DRIVEWAY OF 2470 SOUTH OLA VISTA,
AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES, 14 CCR SECTION 15301) OF THE STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-144, which will:
1. Find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2. Approve the red curb modification as illustrated in Attachment 1 of the Administrative Report dated September 16, 2025, and on file with the City Clerk.
10 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025
12. Oral Communications (Part 2)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation, not to exceed three minutes. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.
13. Future Agenda Items
14. Reports
A. City Attorney
B. City Manager
15. Adjournment
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled to take place on October 7, 2025.
Closed Session will begin at 4:30 p.m. and the Regular Business Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.
11 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025
CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES
RULES FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL
• Members of the public may address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente.
• If you wish to address Council, please complete one of the blue speaker cards located at the entrance to the Council Chambers and turn it in to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk. • Persons wishing to address Council concerning an agendized item will be invited to address Council during the time that Council is considering that particular agenda item.
Persons wishing to address Council concerning a non-agendized issue will be invited to address Council during the “Oral Communications” portion of the meeting. • When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Please limit your presentation to three minutes.
PRESENTATION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS TO COUNCIL
In order to ensure that Councilmembers have adequate time to consider written materials concerning agenda items, it is strongly recommended that such materials be submitted to the City Clerk by noon the date preceding the Council meeting.
MEETINGS RECORDED AND TELEVISED
City Council meetings are broadcast live and are replayed periodically on Cox Communications Local Access Channel 854. Meetings are also available for live-stream or post meeting viewing from the City’s website.
Meetings are also recorded via audio CD and/or DVD and retained as a City record in accordance with the City’s records retention schedule.
USE OF ELECTRONIC VISUAL AIDS BY PUBLIC AT MEETINGS
To allow staff adequate time to confirm software compatibility, individuals wishing to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentations at the meeting, must submit the electronic files to the City Clerk by no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Only compatible electronic formats will be permitted to be used on City audio/visual computer equipment. Staff makes no guarantee that such material will be compatible, but will use its best efforts to accommodate the request. Electronic presentations shall be limited to visual media, without prerecorded audio narration, that augment a live verbal presentation addressed to the City Council. The display of visual media shall be ancillary to, and not presented in place of, live verbal narration. Members of the public shall not be permitted to connect equipment to the City's computer system. Members of the public shall not be permitted to access the internet from the City's computer equipment. Visual presentations must be provided to the City Clerk in a display-ready format. In no case shall Staff be required to develop a presentation for public use.
This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, compiling of City records, downloading data from websites, or gathering or modifying data provided by the public.
LENGTH OF MEETINGS
At 11:00 p.m., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon at this meeting and will continue all other agenda items to a future meeting.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (949) 361-8200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.
COMMUNICATION DEVICES
To minimize meeting distractions and sound system interference, please be sure all personal communication devices are turned off or on silent mode.
12 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 16, 2025
MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd floor, San Clemente. Closed Session are considered at 5:00 p.m. and the Business Meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Additional meetings of the City Council may be called as needed.
AGENDAS, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN MATERIALS Agendas and Administrative Reports are available for review and/or copying at the City Clerk’s Department as soon as agendas are posted, by accessing the City’s website at www.san-clemente.org. An “Inspection Copy” of agenda materials is also located at the entrance to the Council Chambers during meetings for public review. All written material distributed to a majority of the Council after the original agenda packet was distributed is available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Department, located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, during normal business hours.
The City Clerk’s Department offers an agenda packet subscription service free of charge. If you wish to receive email copies of City Council agendas, which include hyperlinks to staff reports and other back-up material, register at http://san-clemente.org/enotification.
13 910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8A.
Submitted By: Community Development
Prepared By: Adam Atamian, Community Development Director Subject:
..titl e
CONSIDERATION TO INTRODUCE, AND CONDUCT A FIRST READING OF, AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE ZONING AMENDMENT, ZA25-362, TO THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A HEIGHT EXCEPTION, OF UP TO 55 FEET TO THE PLATE LINE AND 62 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF OR HIGHEST PROJECTION, FOR A HOTEL (BUILDING 15) AT THE OUTLETS AT SAN CLEMENTE; AND CERTIFICATION OF ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN (STATE CLEARING HOUSE NO. 1995091037), WHICH HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 ..body Fiscal Impact:
There is no direct fiscal impact to certification of Addendum No. 6 to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP); however, a project that utilizes the height exception, if approved, could see proportionate increases in either Transient Occupancy Tax or in sales tax from expanded floor area.
Summary:
Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 25-85, adopted June 17, 2025, staff initiated Zoning Amendment (ZA25-362) to amend the MCSP, and completed the required environmental review, to establish additional height allowances for the hotel building (Building 15) on the Outlets property that are consistent with the established height allowances for the other landmark structures (theater and parking structure) within that development. Due to the significance of this matter and its alignment with broader City economic and land-use planning priorities, the City Council directed that the proposed amendment to the MCSP bypass the Planning Commission review process and be brought directly to the City Council for consideration and action, consistent with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and State law.
Consistent with that direction, the City Council is being asked to consider an amendment to the development standards contained within Section 502(V)(D) of the MCSP to include an exception to the maximum height for a single hotel development, similar to the existing exceptions for the other landmark buildings at the Outlets property. The proposed height exception would allow a hotel development to reach a maximum of 55 feet to the plate line and 62 feet to the highest roof projection, consistent with the approved theater building. The height exception for the parking structure would remain unchanged at an average plate line height of 40 feet. No other MCSP development standards or land uses would be modified.
14 Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8A.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
Addendum No. 6 (Attachment 2) to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearing House (SCH) No. 1995091037) was prepared to evaluate the proposed modification to the MCSP standards. The addendum evaluates the proposed increase in height, specifically for the hotel use previously approved for Building 15 in the approved commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP 99-16) within the Regional Commercial (RC) designation. A map showing the location of Building 15 is provided in Figure 1, below.
Figure 1
The following findings are necessary for approval of the Specific Plan Amendment. The draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) provides an assessment of the project’s compliance with the findings.
Specific Plan Amendments: Section 17.16.030(G), Required Findings.
1. The proposed specific plan or specific plan amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan.
2. The uses proposed in the specific plan or specific plan amendment are compatible with adjacent uses and properties.
3. The proposed specific plan or specific plan amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare.
4. The proposed specific plan amendment will not create internal inconsistencies within the specific plan.
15 Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8A.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
Based on the analysis provided in Addendum No. 6, the proposed modification would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts already identified in the certified 1998 MCSP FEIR. Further, the proposed modification to the standards in the MCSP would accomplish the goals of the Specific Plan and General Plan and would not result in inconsistencies or incompatible uses within the specific plan area.
Background:
On August 5, 1998 the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 95-01, Specific Plan 95- 02, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 8817, Site Plan Permit (SPP) 97-16, and a Development Agreement. The applicant revised the commercial portion of the project and on July 7, 1999 the City Council approved Site Plan Permit 99-16, Conditional Use Permit 99-17 and Sign Exception Permit 99-18. The modified project consisted of 700,140 gross square-feet (SF) of commercial uses including 443,860 SF of specialty retail, 176,232 SF of entertainment and 80,048 SF of general retail.
On April 9, 2003, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) conditionally approved the Marblehead Coastal project, while acknowledging that most, but not all, of the property lies within the Coastal Zone. Land outside of the Coastal Zone, including the subject parcel and Building 15, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the CCC. The plan approved by the CCC would preserve additional environmentally sensitive habitat areas, set development back from preserved areas, require substantial restoration and enhancement of open space that is currently degraded, reduce the number of residential lots from 424 to 313 and approve the 141,500 square-feet of commercial space within the Coastal Zone. These conditions remain effective for those portions of the Marblehead Coastal project within the Coastal Zone.
On September 16, 2003, the City Council approved an Amendment to TTM 8817 to reconcile differences between the CCC approval and the City's previous approval. On July 20, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-61, which certified Addendum No. 5 to FEIR 95-01 and approved an Amendment to commercial Site Plan Permit 99-16, including the addition of a hotel and conference center outside the Coastal Zone.
On June 25, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution 25-85 which, among other things, directed staff to “initiate an amendment to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan and carry out required environmental review to establish additional height allowances for the hotel building on the Outlets property that are consistent with the established height allowances for the other landmark structures within that development, including the theater building.” Resolution 25-85 further directed staff to present an ordinance directly to the City Council for consideration and action due to the significance of this matter and its alignment with broader City economic and land-use planning priorities.
Discussion:
Staff reviewed the potential amendment with several environmental consultants, and there was consensus that an Addendum was the appropriate environmental document to process the revision to development standards within MCSP Section 502 (V)(D). Staff evaluated proposals and interviewed several consulting firms with CEQA expertise and selected Aspen Environmental to complete Addendum No. 6 (Attachment 2) to the previously certified FEIR for the MCSP (SCH No. 1995091037).
16 Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8A.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
Addendum No. 6 evaluates the proposed modifications to the development standards against the original FEIR and identifies no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts that would occur when compared with the project approved by the Certified FEIR. Additionally, there is no new information associated with the amendment that was not known at the time of the original FEIR and that indicates the potential for any new or more severe environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the original FEIR. Therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document. The document acknowledges that the primary resulting change would be to aesthetics given the proposal could result in an increase in height to a hotel development. The Addendum analyzes key observation points (KOPs) around the approved hotel site and provides updated renderings from those KOPs within Section 3 of the Addendum which illustrate the existing and proposed conditions.
The Addendum concludes that:
1. Land use consistency remains unchanged; the hotel is an allowable use in the RC designation.
2. Noise impacts would not be increased; all construction and operational noise would remain subject to City standards and the mitigation identified under the FEIR.
3. Aesthetic impacts to public views remain consistent with the 1998 FEIR; the hotel and theater continue to function as intended architectural landmarks.
4. Other environmental topics analyzed in the 1998 FEIR (e.g., traffic, air quality, geology, biological resources, public services) remain unaffected by this modification, and no impacts within the new environmental topics added to CEQA since the 1998 FEIR are identified.
As discussed in detail in Section 4 of the proposed Ordinance, the proposed amendment to the MCSP is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City’s General Plan and remains necessary and desirable to implement its provisions. The amendment preserves designated public view corridors from key vantage points, maintains the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives, and is consistent with circulation, mobility, and noise policies. The modification allows a height exception for a hotel (Building 15), similar to the existing allowance for the theater, without creating new or more severe environmental impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR.
The proposed amendment does not change permitted uses within the MCSP, where hotels are already conditionally allowed, and is therefore compatible with adjacent properties. The modification supports the Regional Commercial designation by maintaining the theater and hotel as landmark features of the site, while continuing to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Finally, the amendment applies only to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) and does not create any internal inconsistencies with other provisions of the MCSP.
Council Options:
Introduce Ordinance No. 1795, and conduct a First Reading, to approve ZA25-362 to amend the MCSP and certify Addendum No. 6 (Recommended Action) which would accomplish the following:
a. Find the Addendum demonstrates no new or more severe significant impacts, and no new information indicating new or more severe impacts.
b. Certify Addendum No. 6 to the MCSP FEIR.
17 Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8A.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 5
c. Determine the Specific Plan Amendment meets the required findings for approval. d. Approve the amendment to MCSP Section 502(V)(D).
Modify and then introduce, and conduct a First Reading, of Ordinance No. 1795. Continue the item with the direction to staff to provide additional information, such as requesting additional environmental review (e.g., supplemental visual simulations or updated noise modeling). This would extend the review timeline and require additional staff time and consultant resources.
Deny the Modification to the MCSP. This action would deny the addition of the hotel as eligible for a height exception. The hotel would remain subject to the 45-foot maximum height otherwise applicable under the MCSP.
Environmental Review/Analysis:
Addendum No. 6 (Attachment 2) to the previously certified EIR for the MCSP (SCH No. 1995091037) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 which requires a Lead Agency to revise a certified EIR to accurately reflect any changes or additions to the project, changes in conditions under which the project is undertaken, or to add new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, changes to the approved project addressed in this addendum would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, nor is there any new information disclosed since the certified EIR that indicates the potential for new or more severe environmental impacts.
Recommended Actions:
Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council introduce, and conduct a First Reading of, Ordinance 1795, entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH NO. 1995091037)
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND APPROVING ZONING AMENDMENT ZA25-362 TO AMEND SECTION 502(V)(D) OF THE MARBLEHEAD
COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN) TO ALLOW A HOTEL WITH THE SAME HEIGHT EXCEPTION GRANTED TO THE THEATER, FOR A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 55 FEET TO THE PLATE LINE AND 62 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF OR HIGHEST PROJECTION.” ..end
Attachment:
1. Ordinance No. 1795
2. Addendum No. 6 to the previously certified EIR for the MCSP (SCH No. 1995091037)
3. Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan Final EIR which can be found at the following link:
https://www.san-clemente.org/home/showpublisheddocument/50253/636846196849400000 Notification:
Provided pursuant to the requirements of SCMC 17.12.100 for public hearing items. 18 Attachment 1
4912-8790-3335 v1
ORDINANCE NO. 1795
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING
ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL
SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH NO. 1995091037) PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT AND APPROVING ZONING AMENDMENT ZA25-
362 TO AMEND SECTION 502(V)(D) OF THE
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN) TO
ALLOW A HOTEL WITH THE SAME HEIGHT
EXCEPTION GRANTED TO THE THEATER, FOR A
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 55 FEET TO THE
PLATE LINE AND 62 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE
ROOF OR HIGHEST PROJECTION
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1998, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) (State Clearing House (SCH) No. 1995091037); and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 95-01, Specific Plan 95-02, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 8817, Site Plan Permit (SPP) 97-16, and a Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999, the City Council approved Site Plan Permit 99-16, Conditional Use Permit 99-17, and Sign Exception Permit 99-18, revising the commercial portion of the project to consist of 700,140 gross square feet of commercial uses, including 443,860 SF of specialty retail, 176,232 SF of entertainment, and 80,048 SF of general retail; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) conditionally approved the Marblehead Coastal project, while acknowledging that most, but not all, of the property lies within the Coastal Zone. Land outside of the Coastal Zone, including the subject site (Building 15), does not fall under CCC jurisdiction. The plan approved by the CCC incorporated conditions that preserved additional environmentally sensitive habitat areas, set development back from preserved areas, required substantial restoration and enhancement of degraded open space, reduced the number of residential lots from 424 to 313, and approved 141,500 square feet of commercial space within the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2003, the City Council approved an Amendment to TTM 8817 to reconcile differences between the CCC approval and the City’s prior approval; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-61, which certified Addendum No. 5 to FEIR 95-01 and approved an amendment to commercial Site 19 Ordinance No. 1795 Page 2
4912-8790-3335 v1
Plan Permit 99-16, including the addition of a hotel and conference center; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-085, which, among other things, directed staff to initiate an amendment to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan and carry out required environmental review to establish an additional height exception for the hotel building on the Outlets property consistent with height allowances for the other landmark structures, the theater building, clock tower, and the parking structure.
Resolution 25-085 further directed that the proposed amendment bypass the Planning Commission review process and be brought directly to the City Council for consideration and action; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance (Ordinance) amends Section 502 (V)(D) within the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) to effectuate the Project and the Council’s directives on the same; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente has prepared Addendum No. 6 to the certified MCSP FEIR to evaluate the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) through Zoning Amendment ZA25-362, which would designate the hotel as eligible for the same maximum height exception currently provided for the theater, clock tower, and parking structure; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, the City as Lead Agency has determined that the proposed modification would not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially more severe impacts than those previously analyzed in the certified FEIR, and no new information has been disclosed indicating the potential for new or more severe impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City has further determined that the Addendum demonstrates consistency with the Centennial General Plan, including policies that encourage visitorserving lodging near freeway interchanges, preserve public view corridors, and ensure compatibility with community character.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as fully set forth in this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, that:
A. As demonstrated in the analysis of Addendum No. 6 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (SCH No. 1995091037), the proposed modification would not result in new significant environmental effects.
B. The proposed modification would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects.
20 Ordinance No. 1795 Page 3
4912-8790-3335 v1
C. No new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final Environmental Impact Report was certified as complete, has become available that shows the potential for any new or more severe impacts than those already analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
D. No new mitigation measures or alternatives are required.
E. An Addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
SECTION 3. Certification of Addendum No. 6. The City Council hereby certifies Addendum No. 6 to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 1995091037).
SECTION 4. Based on the findings in the addendum and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration is required for the proposed modifications.
SECTION 5. Specific Plan Amendment Findings. With respect to ZA 25-362, the City Council finds the following with respect to the amendment to the MCSP in accordance with the required findings enumerated within SCMC 17.16.030(G):
A. The proposed specific plan or specific plan amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan, in that:
1. The General Plan’s Land Use Element and Urban Design Element identify public views as resources of community importance, and Policy UD-2.05 and Policy UD-5.14 require new construction and building design to preserve designated public view corridors. The proposed hotel height exception does not alter public view corridors from West Avenida Vista Hermosa, Avenida Pico, Camino Capistrano, or the El Camino Real Bluff trail, which remain the focus of the MCSP’s designated vista points. While some private views from inland neighborhoods may experience obstruction, the Final EIR’s aesthetics analysis prioritized public views, which remains consistent with City policies to preserve public view corridors.
2. The proposed height exception would remain consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation, as described in the General Plan’s Land Use Element and Urban Design Element, and the modification would not alter a public view corridor.
3. The proposed modification would also remain consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan’s Mobility and Complete Streets Element requiring new development to maintain adequate circulation and multimodal access (e.g., Policy M-1.01, M-1.19, M-1.25).
4. Development of an approved hotel utilizing the height exception would remain subject to the City’s standard noise control ordinances (i.e., San Clemente Municipal Code Chapter 8.48), as well as General Plan Safety Element policies to control ambient and stationary noise 21 Ordinance No. 1795 Page 4
4912-8790-3335 v1
conditions, including entertainment-related noise on residential and other sensitive uses (i.e., Policy S-4.01 and Policy S-4.08) B. The uses proposed in the specific plan or specific plan amendment are compatible with adjacent uses and properties, in that:
1. No changes of use are proposed.
2. Hotels are an existing conditionally permitted use within the MCSP.
C. The proposed specific plan or specific plan amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare, in that:
1. Modification of MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) to allow the hotel (Approved Site Plan Building 15) to be permitted with an exception to the maximum building height, similar to the theater, would not result in any new or more severe significant Land Use impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR.
2. The proposed modification would stay consistent with the purpose and intended use of the Regional Commercial designation. The modification would not conflict with any of the goals and objectives of the MCSP. The additional proposed height for the hotel would be the same as the current allowable exception for a theater and clocktower.
This additional exception would support the City’s intent of having a theater and hotel as the landmark features of the MCSP’s regional commercial center.
3. Construction of the approved hotel under the proposed modification would continue to be subject to the City’s updated policies intended to minimize noise exposure. The project would not create any new significant noise impacts and would not increase the severity of previously identified impacts presented in the Final EIR.
4. The height exception for the hotel structure would not create any significant new aesthetic resource impacts or significant changes to the impact conclusions presented in the Final EIR. Impacts to viewsheds from the height exception would be of equivalent magnitude to those identified in the Final EIR.
D. The proposed specific plan amendment will not create internal inconsistencies within the specific plan, in that:
1. Only MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) is being amended, and there are no further references to MCSP Regional Commercial development standards that would conflict with this Section.
SECTION 6. Approval of Zoning Amendment ZA25-362. The City Council hereby approves Zoning Amendment ZA25-362 to amend MCSP Section 502(V)(D) to read as follows (new text bolded and underlined):
“D. Maximum Height – The maximum height to the top of the roof or highest projection shall be 45 feet. The maximum average height to the plate line of a building shall be 37 feet. Exceptions to this maximum building height are permitted for a hotel [Approved Site Plan defines as Building 15], theater [Approved Site Plan defines as Building 22], and parking structure in the entertainment portion of the regional commercial center. The maximum average height to the plate line of a parking structure shall be 40 feet and to the plate line of a hotel and theater shall be 55 feet. The maximum height to the highest 22 Ordinance No. 1795 Page 5
4912-8790-3335 v1
projection of an architectural feature for a hotel, theater or clock tower is 62 feet.” SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not offset the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause the same to be published as required by law, and the same shall take effect as provided by law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, _______.
ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the
San Clemente, California City of San Clemente, California 23 Ordinance No. 1795 Page 6
4912-8790-3335 v1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, hereby certify that Ordinance No. 1795 having been regularly introduced at the meeting of _______________________, was again introduced, the reading in full thereof unanimously waived, and duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _____day of _____________, _______, and said ordinance was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
24 Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan
Final EIR Addendum No. 6
SCH Number 1995091037
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO.6 Prepared for
City of San Clemente
Community Development Department
Submitted by
September 2025
$WWDFKPHQW
25 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 2025 i
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1
1.1. CEQA Compliance ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Background and History ............................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Incorporation by Reference ...................................................................................................... 4
2. Description of the Proposed Project ................................................................................. 5
2.1. Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.2. Project Description .................................................................................................................... 5
3. Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................... 7
3.1. Land Use and Related Planning ................................................................................................. 7
3.1.1. Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions .................................................................. 8
3.1.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions ...................................................... 8
3.1.4. Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 9
3.2. Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1. Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 10
3.2.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions ................................................................ 10
3.2.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions .................................................... 12
3.2.4. Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 12
3.3. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................ 13
3.3.1. Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 13
3.3.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions ................................................................ 15
3.3.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions .................................................... 16
3.3.4. Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 18
4. Other Resources Analyzed in the Final EIR ..................................................................... 36
5. Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................... 42
6. References ..................................................................................................................... 44 TABLES
Table 3-1. Regional Commercial Development Standards ........................................................................... 7 Table 3-2. Consistency with Regional Commercial Development Standards ............................................... 9
FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3-1. KOP Locations ........................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3-2a. KOP-1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3-2b. KOP-1 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3-3a. KOP-2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 22 26 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 2025 ii
Figure 3-3b. KOP-2 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3-4a. KOP-3 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3-4b. KOP-3 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3-5a. KOP-4 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3-5b. KOP-4 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure 3-6a. KOP-5 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3-6b. KOP-5 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 3-7a. KOP-6 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3-7b. KOP-6 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 3-8a. KOP-7 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3-8b. KOP-7 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3-9a. KOP-8 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 34 Figure 3-9b. KOP-8 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 35 27 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SEPTEMBER 2025 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1.1. CEQA Compliance
The Marblehead Coastal Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City of San Clemente (City) on June 23, 1998, which was followed by the City’s approval of the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) on August 5, 1998.
This addendum to the previously certified EIR for the MCSP (SCH No. 1995091037) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 which requires a Lead Agency to revise a certified EIR to accurately reflect any changes or additions to the project, changes in conditions under which the project is undertaken, or to add new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, changes to the approved project addressed in this addendum would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, nor any new information indicating as such, as discussed herein.
The MCSP is both a planning and regulatory document that implements the goals, policies, and objectives of the City of San Clemente General Plan while providing guidelines and regulations for development within the MCSP planning area. The MCSP EIR is a programmatic document that may be used by the City to tier the environmental analyses of future projects under the MCSP that require discretionary review.
Proposed modifications to planned development presented in the MCSP (i.e., land use designations, design guidelines, development standards) would require updates to the MCSP EIR or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
Prior to any development, the City must approve a comprehensive site plan specific to proposed residential and commercial uses within the MCSP. In 1999, the City approved a comprehensive site plan (Site Plan Permit 99-16) for the MCSP’s regional commercial center (i.e., Marblehead Coastal Promenade) (City of San Clemente, 1999). The site plan permit was amended in 2004 to allow development of a retail outlet, restaurants, theater, and hotel and conference center (City of San Clemente, 2004). Since its initial approval, the hotel design was modified to include a roof deck, which would increase the building’s height above the MCSP’s maximum height requirements within a regional commercial center. The MCSP includes exceptions to this maximum height requirement for a theater, parking structure, and clock tower.
In deciding whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR is necessary or if an addendum is appropriate, the standard of review is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support a determination that the changes in the project or its circumstances are substantial enough to make major modifications to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). A subsequent or supplemental EIR may also be required if new information, not known at the time the prior EIR was certified, becomes available and shows new or more severe significant environmental impacts. If the project would not cause new or more severe impacts, and only minor technical changes are required, the lead agency may adopt an addendum (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15164).
The City has determined that including the hotel as an additional exception to the maximum height requirement within a regional commercial center requires only clarifications to the MCSP Final EIR and warrants preparation of an addendum, not a subsequent or supplemental EIR. The information presented in this 2025 Addendum demonstrates that the impacts and mitigation requirements identified in the 1998 Final EIR remain substantively unchanged by the proposed modification. This supports the finding that the proposed modification does not raise any new issues and does not exceed the level of impacts identified in the certified MCSP Final EIR.
28 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SEPTEMBER 2025 2
This 2025 Addendum also demonstrates that the proposed modification is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of San Clemente Centennial General Plan (City of San Clemente, 2014). The General Plan encourages visitor-serving uses such as lodging within the Marblehead Coastal commercial area (Policy ED-4.05), and requires new development to be compatible with community character (Policy LU2.01). The General Plan also places strong emphasis on protection of public views (Policy UD-2.05 and Policy UD-5.14). As discussed in Addendum Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, the proposed height exception for the hotel would remain consistent with these policies, since it applies to a previously approved visitorserving lodging use, does not alter approved setbacks or intensity, and would be subject to design review procedures that ensure compliance with the City’s Spanish Colonial Revival architectural standards.
The following sections provide additional detail regarding the proposed modification and findings.
1.2. Background and History
Certification of Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan Final EIR 95-01 (SCH No. 1995091037) On June 23, 1998, the City Council certified the MCSP Final EIR 95-01 (SCH No. 1995091037) and concurrently adopted Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (City of San Clemente, 1998c). The MCSP authorized 116.7 acres of residential use, 60.4 acres of regional serving commercial use, 1.0 acre of coastal commercial use,
9.4 acres of public open space, 49.5 acres of private open space, and 13.6 acres of circulation facilities (City of San Clemente 1998a).
The Final EIR analyzed potential environmental impacts to 13 issue areas and determined that, with the exception of Air Quality, no significant impacts would occur following implementation of mitigation measures and enforcement of applicable policies and standards prescribed in the City of San Clemente Municipal Code. The Final EIR determined that Air Quality impacts associated with short- and long-term air-quality emissions would remain significant and unavoidable despite implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Implementation of the MCSP required approval of the following discretionary actions either by the City Council or the California Coastal Commission:
General Plan Amendment 96-01
Specific Plan 95-02
Coastal Development Permit
Development Agreement
Tentative Tract Map No. 8817
Residential Site Plan Permit 97-16
Commercial Site Plan Permit 99-16
Conditional Use Permit 99-17
Sign Exception Permit 99-18
ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϭƚŽD^W&ŝŶĂů
/Zϵϱ-01, July 1998
Addendum No. 1 addressed revisions to the MCSP that were requested by the City Council to allow up to 20 acres of multiple-family residential as an optional land use within the Regional Commercial (RC) component of the MCSP. The remaining 40.4 acres of the RC area remained designated for regional 29 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SEPTEMBER 2025 3
commercial uses at a 0.35 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (i.e., 615,000 square feet). None of the other land use designations within the MCSP were affected by the revision. ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϮto MCSP Final EIR 95-01, February 2000
Addendum No. 2 addressed modifications to Tentative Tract Map No. 8817 and to Residential Site Plan 97-16 that allowed for the preservation of additional wetland habitat through the following changes:
Reduction of 10 residential lots (revised total of 424 residential units); Reduction of the average single-family lot size by 119 square feet (revised total of 7,017 square feet); Reduction of 1.1 acres of commercial center net acreage (revised total of 59.3 acres); and Reduction of 54 commercial parking spaces (revised total of 3,664 spaces).
The proposed modification allowed an additional 2.92 acres of existing wetland habitat to be preserved, for a revised total of 4.82 acres of wetland habitat within the MCSP. ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϯ to MCSP Final EIR 95-01, August 2003
Addendum No. 3 addressed additional modifications to Tentative Tract Map No. 8817 to respond to concerns expressed by the California Coastal Commission. The modifications reduced the development footprint from canyon and drainage areas and away from bluffs. Changes included the following:
Reduction of 111 residential lots (revised total of 313 residential lots); and Reduction of 7.7 acres of commercial center net acreage (revised total of 51.6 acres).
Under the proposed modification, the MCSP increased the total acreage of preserved areas to include 7.4 acres of wetland habitat, 125.88 acres of open space, and 82.31 acres of upland habitat within the coastal zone.
ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϰto MCSP Final EIR 95-01, December 2003
Addendum No. 4 addressed proposed refinements to the MCSP’s Open Space component as defined in the Marblehead Coastal Project Public Parks and Trails Master Plan (PPTMP), which was approved by the City Council on March 2, 2004. The PPTMP provided detail on specific amenities to be incorporated into the MCSP’s public park parcels, open space parcels, and trail network. The proposed refinements were specific to Sports Park, Pico Park, Trident Canyon Park, East Branch Park, and Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat. ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϱto MCSP Final EIR 95-01, May 2004
Addendum No. 5 addressed additional modifications to Tentative Tract Map No. 8817, Residential Site Plan 97-16, and Commercial Site Plan 99-16. Changes included the following:
Increase in size of Sports Park parking lot to accommodate 73 additional parking spaces (revised total of 158 parking spaces);
Shift residential lots slightly east and north (in the neighborhood adjacent to Shorecliffs Middle School) to establish an open space ocean view corridor at the southern terminus of Street RRRR; Public trail extensions and improvements;
Reduction of 33,709 square feet of commercial use (revised total of 641,534 square feet); Modification of commercial parking structure to accommodate an additional 606 parking spaces (revised total of 1,299 parking spaces); and
30 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SEPTEMBER 2025 4
Reorientation of the four-story hotel to be parallel with the Central Canyon (in lieu of its previously proposed location parallel to the freeway).
1.3. Incorporation by Reference
As stated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15150(a), an EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that has been made part of the public record. This approach is suitable for public agencies to reduce delay and paperwork (CEQA Guidelines Section 15006(t)). All documents pertaining to the approval and adoption of the MCSP are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof.
The documents incorporated by reference, which will be cited as appropriate throughout this EIR Addendum, include the following:
City of San Clemente. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marblehead Coastal General Plan Amendment 96-01, Specific Plan No. 95-02, Tentative Tract Map, Site Plans, Conditional Use Permit, and Sign Exception Permit. Certified June 23, 1998
City of San Clemente. Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan. Adopted August 5, 1998. Amended December 6, 2022
City of San Clemente. City of San Clemente Centennial General Plan. Adopted February 4, 2014.
Amended December 20, 2016
31 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2025 5
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1. Project Location
The 248-acre planning area for the MCSP is located in the western portion of the City of San Clemente that is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, the Interstate 5 Freeway (I-5) to the northeast, and other City neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast. The project site is a 1.7-acre parcel that is within the MCSP’s Regional Commercial (RC) designation southeast of the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I5 interchange. Figure 2-1 illustrates the location of the project site.
Figure 2-1. Project Location
2.2. Project Description
The proposed project involves a modification to the development standards and permissible exceptions within the MCSP’s RC designation. The RC designation conditionally permits visitor-serving lodging such as hotels pursuant to Section 106 of Chapter 1 and Table 5-3 of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998a).
In 2004, the City approved a hotel development on a 1.7-acre parcel (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 691-422-04) that would have a maximum building height of 37 feet to the plate line and 45 feet to the top of the roof or highest projection, consistent with RC standards specified in MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) (City of San Clemente, 1998a and 2004). MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) also specifies that certain buildings are permitted with an exception to the standard height limit, allowing increased heights for the theater and parking structure. The proposed project would designate the hotel use, expected to be developed on the
1.7-acre parcel (“project site”), as eligible for the same height exception that is granted to the theater, 32 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2025 6
which would be a maximum building height of 55 feet to the plate line and 62 feet to the top of the roof or highest projection—a maximum potential height increase of 17 feet.
The proposed project would modify MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) with insertion of the bold and underlined text shown below.
D. Maximum Height - The maximum height to the top of the roof or highest projection shall be 45 feet. The maximum average height to the plate line of a building shall be 37 feet. Exceptions to this maximum building height are permitted for a hotel, theater [Approved Site Plan defines as Building 22] and parking structure in the entertainment portion of the regional commercial center. The maximum average height to the plateline of a parking structure shall be 40 feet and to the plateline of a hotel and theater shall be 55 feet. The maximum height to the highest projection of an architectural feature for a hotel, theater or clocktower is 62 feet.
As part of the San Clemente City Council’s 2004 approval of the hotel (City Council Resolution No. 04-61), the City determined that the proposed hotel and theater, identified as Building 15 and Building 22 in the MCSP’s Approved Site Plan, are intended to be architectural landmarks within the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 2004). Adding the hotel use as eligible for the maximum height exception is consistent with the existing height exception provided for the theater in MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) (City of San Clemente, 1998a) and aligns with the City’s expectation of these buildings functioning equally as the anchoring architectural landmarks of the property.
33 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 7
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This chapter will identify the resources evaluated in the MCSP Final EIR that may experience potential impacts from the proposed project. Any potential changes to the type or severity of the impact that was evaluated in the Final EIR will be discussed in detail. All other resources evaluated in the Final EIR whose analysis would not be affected by the proposed project are discussed in Addendum Chapter 4.
3.1. Land Use and Related Planning
3.1.1. Baseline Conditions
The proposed project site is within an RC zoned component of the MCSP, which allows for general retail commercial, factory outlet stores, promotional and specialty retail, restaurants, entertainment, professional offices, financial institutions, lodging, and similar regional serving uses (City of San Clemente, 1998a). The project site is at the north end of a regional commercial center that includes a Chick fil-A restaurant to the northwest, an urgent care medical facility to the southwest, the Outlets of San Clemente (outlets) approximately 500 feet to the southeast, and parking lots supporting each of these businesses.
A 5.8-acre undeveloped parcel separates the project site from the outlets. The entirety of the project site is outside of the coastal zone.
The MCSP’s RC designation is intended to “create a place for land uses that are appropriate for freeway accessibility, create needed commercial stability in the community, and establish an outstanding image for San Clemente and surrounding residential areas” (City of San Clemente, 1998a). As stated in MCSP Section 502 (V), the RC designated area must be developed as part of a comprehensive site plan for the MCSP’s regional commercial center that is subject to MCSP guidelines, regulations, and development standards. The development standards for the RC designation are listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Regional Commercial Development Standards
Development Standard Definition
Minimum Lot Area The minimum lot area for a Site Plan shall be a 51.5-acre comprehensive plan with uses as contained in Table 5-3 of the MCSP.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the project area shall be 0.35.
Individual parcels within a Site Plan Permit area need not comply with this FAR, as long as the overall Site Plan FAR does not exceed 0.35.
Maximum Project Area Coverage The maximum project area coverage shall be 50%. Individual parcels within a Site Plan Permit need not comply with this maximum coverage, as long as the overall Site Plan coverage, including parking structures, does not exceed 50%.
Maximum Height The maximum height to the top of the roof or highest projection shall be 45 feet. The maximum average height to the plateline of a building shall be 37 feet. Exceptions to this maximum building height are permitted for a theater [Approved Site Plan defines as Building 22] and parking structure in the entertainment portion of the regional commercial center. The maximum average height to the plateline of a parking structure shall be 40 feet and to the plateline of a theater shall be 55 feet. The maximum height to the highest projection of an architectural feature for a theater or clocktower is 62 feet.
34 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 8
Development Standard Definition
Setbacks for Structures The minimum average setback of all buildings with frontage along arterial streets, including those set back towards the rear of the commercial center (but directly visible from these streets), shall be 50 feet.
The minimum setback from the property line along I-5 (I-5 right-of-way) shall be 30 feet. For buildings with average platelines of up to 30 feet high (excluding architectural features such as towers) adjacent to Avenida Pico or Avenida Vista Hermosa, the minimum setback, as measured from right-of-way, shall be 30 feet. Architectural projections (such as architectural towers, arcades or trellises) may encroach to a maximum of 5 feet into the 30-foot minimum setback.
Source: Section 502 (V) of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998a) In July 1999, the City Council approved a comprehensive site plan (Site Plan Permit 99-16) for construction of a regional commercial shopping center (i.e., Marblehead Coastal Promenade) within the MCSP’s RC designated area (City of San Clemente, 1999). Condition of Approval No. 9 for the permit requires a business hotel with conference facilities to be sited at the northern portion of the commercial center.
Site Plan Permit 99-16 was amended in July 2004 to include a hotel for the project site, which is defined as Building 15 (City of San Clemente, 2004). The proposed hotel development was found to be consistent with the RC development standards. Condition of Approval No. 6 for the permit amendment includes a statement that the hotel is intended to be an architectural landmark with the theater. Condition No. 6 further states that if either the hotel or theater is not constructed, an alternative structure must be developed that can serve as an architectural landmark (City of San Clemente, 2004).
3.1.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions
The MCSP Final EIR evaluated consistency of the Marblehead Coastal project with the goals and objectives of the San Clemente General Plan, as well as the compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses.
The MCSP amended the City’s General Plan to replace the Mixed Use designations with specific land use designations that would permit future development on the site. The MCSP established permitted uses and development standards to ensure the site would be developed in a consistent manner and conform to all provisions in the General Plan. The Final EIR determined that the MCSP remains substantially consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element as it would require development to incorporate a unified and distinctive character and would integrate parks, streets, walkways, and trails (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The Final EIR also determined that the MCSP policies relating to the regional commercial design and access features do not conflict with existing or proposed uses near the project site. Furthermore, the compatibility of existing and future uses would not be compromised because the regional commercial component of the MCSP is separated from the existing residential development by open space buffers, proposed residential development, and setbacks. The Final EIR concluded that development of the RC component of the MCSP would not result in any significant impacts.
3.1.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions
As stated in City Resolution 04-61, the theater and hotel are intended to be landmark features of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 2004). A maximum height projection of 62 feet is permitted in an RC designation for an architectural feature associated with the theater. The proposed modification to the maximum allowable height for the hotel would be identical to the allowable height for the theater, and would be consistent with the intended use and design of the hotel and theater as architectural landmarks within the RC designation. Given that the RC designation already provides for this height exception to 35 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 9
accommodate architectural features, inclusion of the hotel in the maximum height exception would be a minor modification that would not alter the intent or application of the RC development standards (see Table 3-2). Furthermore, this minor modification would not conflict with any existing or proposed uses near the project site.
Table 3-2. Consistency with Regional Commercial Development Standards Development Standard Consistency
Minimum Lot Area Consistent. The hotel would be developed within the Approved Site Plan area for the MCSP’s regional commercial center. No changes would be made to this development standard.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio Consistent. The hotel would be developed within the Approved Site Plan area for the MCSP’s regional commercial center. No changes would be made to this development standard.
Maximum Project Area Coverage Consistent. The hotel would be developed within the Approved Site Plan area for the MCSP’s regional commercial center. No changes would be made to this development standard.
Maximum Height Consistent. The maximum height requested for the hotel is consistent with the maximum height allowed for the theater building. The theater and hotel are envisioned (per original approvals by the City) as the two landmarks structures of the Marblehead Coastal Promenade, suggesting that allowing the same height exception for both properties would be consistent with the goals for the overall development of the regional commercial center.
Setbacks for Structures Consistent. The hotel would be developed within the Approved Site Plan area for the MCSP’s regional commercial center, which complies with the minimum average setback of 50 feet for all buildings with frontage along a major arterial. No changes would be made to this development standard.
Source: Section 502 (V) of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998a) The proposed modification is consistent with the City’s 2014 Centennial General Plan. The General Plan’s Land Use Element designates the project site as RC and describes the purpose of tourist-related commercial uses to attract and provide services to visitors. The General Plan Economic Development Element specifically encourages visitor-serving uses such as lodging within the Marblehead Coastal commercial area (Policy ED-4.05) (City of San Clemente, 2014). As stated in the City Council’s 2004 approval of the hotel (City Council Resolution No. 04-61), the hotel and surrounding commercial development was designed to match the City’s Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, which would ensure consistency with the General Plan’s Land Use Policy LU-2.01 that requires new commercial development to demonstrate compatibility with community character (City of San Clemente, 2014).
3.1.4. Summary of Findings
Modification of MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) to allow the hotel (Approved Site Plan Building 15) to be permitted with an exception to the maximum building height, similar to the theater, would not result in any new or more severe significant Land Use impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR. The proposed modification would stay consistent with the purpose and intended use of the RC designation.
The modification would not conflict with any of the goals and objectives of the MCSP. The additional proposed height for the hotel would be the same as the current allowable exception for a theater and clocktower. This additional exception would support the City’s intent of having a theater and hotel as the landmark features of the MCSP’s regional commercial center. 36 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 10
Overall, while the amended maximum height for the hotel is a minor modification to the RC development standard, there would be no change to the purpose and applicability of the MCSP’s development standards. The height exception would only apply to a specific property (Building 15) that is intended to serve as an architectural landmark together with the approved theater, and would not apply to any other use in the RC zone. Furthermore, confirming the hotel as an eligible landmark structure with a height exception supports the City’s adopted economic development and visitor-serving objectives while maintaining consistency with community character policies.
The maximum height exception for the approved hotel would not adversely affect land use compatibility or policy consistency. All potential land use compatibility impacts associated with development of the regional commercial portion of the MCSP were adequately evaluated in the Final EIR. No new or more severe significant impacts to land use or relevant planning policies and programs would occur from the proposed modification of MCSP Section 502 (V)(D).
3.2. Noise
3.2.1. Baseline Conditions
The Final EIR documented a transportation-dominated noise environment, with I-5 as the primary source and arterial traffic as a secondary source. Ambient conditions were characterized using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at existing off-site neighborhoods, schools, parks, and at planned receptors within the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
Residential and commercial development implemented under the MCSP has established ongoing operational noise sources along arterials within the planning area, and specifically within the RC zone.
These sources include vehicle pass-bys, parking lot activity, loading, HVAC equipment, and landscape maintenance associated with built uses. The overall ambient environment adjacent to the project site remains transportation dominated with I-5 as the primary contributor, and arterial traffic and localized on-site activity providing secondary contributions, consistent with the conditions described in the Final EIR (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
3.2.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions
The Final EIR applied the City’s community noise exposure criteria using CNEL and the State interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL for habitable rooms. For residential outdoor use areas, the Final EIR used 65 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable exterior level. These thresholds governed significance determinations and the design of required noise attenuation for new residential development within the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
Construction Noise
Final EIR Section 4.3.4.1 identified short-term construction noise as a potentially significant impact where heavy equipment would operate near existing sensitive receptors. Required measures included restricting construction to City-allowed hours, maintaining effective equipment mufflers, and locating stationary equipment and staging areas away from occupied dwellings. Construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant following implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.3-1a and MM 4.3-1b.
MM 4.3-1a All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the City Engineer or designee. 37 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 11
MM 4.3-1b Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the grading and construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate via an access/staging plan that all construction equipment staging will be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings.
The Final EIR also identified heavy construction equipment and overlapping grading and building activities as temporary noise sources with the potential to elevate daytime ambient levels at nearby receptors. The Final EIR determined that these effects would be addressed by Standard Condition (SC) 4.3-1.
SC 4.3-1 As a condition imposed on grading permits, the City of San Clemente will limit the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and prohibit such activity on Sundays and holidays. The City will ensure that construction time limits are enforced for the duration of construction activity on the project site. Additionally, the City shall enforce Municipal Code Section 27A-18 for grading and equipment operations, which states that equipment start-up cannot be conducted between 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m., nor on Saturdays, Sundays, and City holidays, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. The hours can be longer or shorter, based upon the City Engineer's findings of health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding community.
Operational Noise
The Final EIR modeled roadway noise from I-5 and adjacent arterials for existing and future with - and without - project conditions and reported CNEL at reference distances along key links serving the site.
Final EIR Section 4.3.4.1 concluded that non-project-related traffic on I-5 was expected to mask project-related noise at receptors outside the Marblehead Coastal project area (City of San Clemente, 1998b). The Final EIR found that first-row residential lots along perimeter roadways would experience exterior CNEL above 65 dB without attenuation. To ensure compliance, the Final EIR required a project-level sound attenuation program specifying perimeter barriers, setbacks, and other site design features to achieve 65 dB CNEL or less at private outdoor use areas, and 45 dB CNEL or less inside habitable rooms. The Final EIR also required tract-level acoustic analyses at the time of precise grading and building permits and, where needed, enhanced building components for facades facing perimeter roadways to meet the interior standard. Operational noise impacts were determined to be less than significant following implementation of MM 4.3-1c and MM 4.3-1d.
MM 4.3-1c Prior to the issuance of residential precise grading permits and building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for, a final sound attenuation plan. All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 dB CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) in outdoor living areas and an indoor standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County-approved acoustical consultant shall indicate that standard six-foot perimeter walls will be adequate to -satisfy these standards in a manner consistent with applicable City Ordinances or shall indicate other appropriate mitigation measures.
MM 4.3-1d Prior to the issuance of building permits, any two-story developments within 145 feet of Vista Hermosa or El Camino Real, or within 175 feet of Avd. Pico should have a structural noise attenuation analysis performed to verify that structural components are adequate to meet the interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL.
Based on the thresholds and measures summarized above, Final EIR Section 4.3.4.2 concluded that construction and operational noise would be less than significant with mitigation and with 38 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 12
implementation of the required sound attenuation program and building design measures (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
3.2.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions
The following section explains how the effects of the project would be consistent with the noise analysis and conclusions presented in the MCSP Final EIR.
Construction Noise
The height exception would not change the noise-related construction requirements for the hotel structure. Any construction within the MCSP will remain subject to the Final EIR construction noise measures and conditions (i.e., MM 4.3-1a, MM 4.3-1b, and SC 4.3-1) regulating City construction hours and practices (Final EIR pages 4.3-9 to 4.3-12). The proposed modification would not change the location of construction relative to sensitive receptors, nor would the modification alter any applicable mitigation measures. As a result, no new significant construction noise impacts would occur and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from what was presented in the Final EIR.
Operational Noise
The height exception may shift some of the hotel’s mechanical equipment, rooftop appurtenances, or guest amenities to a higher elevation than what was described in the 2004 Approved Site Plan (City of San Clemente, 2004). However, the Final EIR requires development within the MCSP to incorporate stationary-source noise controls that achieve applicable City noise limits at the nearest off-site receptors, including shielding, parapets or screens, equipment selection, and siting (Final EIR pages 4.3-10 to 4.3-12).
These noise-reduction measures are independent of building height and will remain binding on any future hotel development within the RC designation. To further ensure consistency with current City policy frameworks, development of the approved hotel utilizing the height exception would remain subject to the City’s standard noise control ordinances (i.e., San Clemente Municipal Code Chapter 8.48), as well as General Plan Safety Element policies to control ambient and stationary noise conditions, including entertainment-related noise on residential and other sensitive uses (i.e., Policy S-4.01 and Policy S-4.08) (City of San Clemente, 2014).
As discussed in Addendum Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, the RC zone is characterized by commercial activity and major transportation corridors, and the Final EIR concluded that stationary-source noise would be less than significant with implementation of MM 4.3-1 and SC 4.3-1 (Final EIR page 4.3-12). Allowing the hotel structure to be eligible for the RC zone’s existing height exception would not introduce new noise sources beyond those evaluated for the RC zone, nor would it change the proximity of noise sources to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed modification would not create a new significant operational noise impact or make a previously identified impact more severe.
3.2.4. Summary of Findings
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would allow the approved hotel use within the RC area to utilize the same maximum height exception already afforded to the theater and parking structure.
This modification would not introduce a new land use type, alter the location of development relative to sensitive receptors, or change the City’s applicable noise standards or adopted mitigation measures.
Construction of the approved hotel under the proposed modification would continue to be subject to the City’s updated policies intended to minimize noise exposure. The project would not create any new significant noise impacts and would not increase the severity of previously identified impacts presented in the Final EIR. No new mitigation measures are required to avoid or minimize potential impacts from this proposed modification.
39 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 13
3.3. Aesthetics
3.3.1. Baseline Conditions
At the time that the MCSP Final EIR was certified in June 1998, the 248-acre MCSP planning area was undeveloped (i.e., contained no permanent structures), although previous disturbance from former agricultural production, access roads, and bluff stabilization activities were evident in the viewshed (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Public views of the MCSP planning areas consisted of rows of eucalyptus and other mature trees along the I-5 corridor, with partially visible expanses of the Pacific Ocean (City of San Clement, 1998b).
Over the last 27 years, the planning area has been developed consistent with the MCSP, which includes commercial development within the MCSP’s RC zone and residential development within the MCSP’s Residential Low (RL) zone. The project would be located on a 1.7-acre parcel that was previously approved for a hotel development. A building permit was issued for the hotel in 2019 (B19-099); however, the project was tabled due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the permit expired in 2022. The project site is surrounded by commercial development (i.e., Marblehead Coastal Promenade) as described in Addendum Section 3.1.1. The Marblehead Coastal Promenade is bound by major transportation corridors that include I-5, West Avenida Vista Hermosa, and East Avenida Pico. The MCSP Final EIR Section 4.11.1 describes the I-5 corridor as an Orange County-designated viewscape corridor, while the interchanges at West Avenida Vista Hermosa and at Avenida Pico are described as primary City entrances (City of San Clemente, 1998b). The transportation corridors are further surrounded by residential development and public facilities (e.g., schools, churches) that extend northeast and southwest of the I-5 corridor.
Description of Key Observation Points
To provide context for the existing conditions surrounding the project site, this addendum includes baseline photos for eight Key Observation Points (KOPs) that are relevant to the project site. The purpose of selecting a KOP is to consider the degree of change from the most prominent and sensitive existing views of the site. KOP locations were based on an initial assessment of areas from which the hotel’s proposed height may be visible within one mile of the site. Areas in which the project could be visible are characterized as the “seen area,” which is depicted in Figure 3-1 as the area shaded in green. A seen area map integrates multiple lines-of-sight around a fixed reference point (i.e., the hotel with the modified height) while accounting for the local topography to identify the areas from which the site might be visible.
It should be noted that a location may be within the seen area, but intervening vegetation may screen views of the site from that location.
All KOP figures are included at the end of Addendum Section 3.3. Figure 3-1 illustrates the location of each KOP relative to the project site. Figures 3-2a through 3-9a provide a baseline photo for each KOP.
Below is a brief discussion of the KOP viewsheds.
KOP-1: Avenida Vista Hermosa. KOP-1 (Figure 3-2a) is located northeast of the MCSP planning area on Avenida Vista Hermosa, approximately 0.3 mile northeast of I-5, and is oriented southwest towards the project site. Avenida Vista Hermosa is a public roadway with ocean views that are partially obstructed by residential units and mature trees in the viewshed. The location of KOP-1 is within the southernmost segment of Avenida Vista Hermosa from which the hotel would be visible.1
1 The southernmost segment of Avenida Vista Hermosa that falls within the project’s seen area was selected as the site for KOP1 to allow for a more conservative evaluation of the degree of visual change along this roadway. As KOP-1 is closer to the project site than points further north of KOP-1, the hotel simulation as seen from KOP-1 would show a more prominent degree of change.
40 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 14
KOP-2: Jim Johnson Memorial Park. KOP-2 (Figure 3-3a) is located within the northwest corner of the MCSP planning area, at the eastern perimeter of the Jim Johnson Memorial Park that is adjacent to the I-5 offramp to West Avenida Vista Hermosa. KOP-2 is oriented southeast towards the project site and is representative of views from both the public park and from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange. As discussed in Addendum Section 3.3.1, the I-5 interchange at West Avenida Vista Hermosa is characterized as a primary entrance to the City. Mature trees and park facilities are dominant features in the viewshed and partially screen views of the MCSP’s commercial development. KOP-3: Sea Summit Pedestrian Trail. KOP-3 (Figure 3-4a) is located within the MCSP planning area, at the Sea Summit trailhead that is at the junction of West Avenida Vista Hermosa and Avenida Costa Azul.
KOP-3 is oriented northeast towards the project site and represents the views of recreationists who access the trail. Dominant features in the viewshed include West Avenida Vista Hermosa’s four traffic lanes and landscaped median, as well as the southern perimeter of the recently constructed urgent care facility that is located within the MCSP’s commercial development. KOP-4: Pacific Coast Church (Private View). KOP-4 (Figure 3-5a) is located northeast of the MCSP planning area in the Pacific Coast Church parking lot, approximately 200 feet north of I-5, and is oriented southwest towards the project site. Although KOP-4 is located on private property, it was selected due to its proximity to the project. The urgent care facility is a dominant feature in the viewshed from KOP-4, with background views of the ocean partially obstructed by residential units. KOP-5: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). KOP-5 (Figure 3-6a) is located east-northeast of the MCSP planning area on the southern slope of the Highland Light residential community approximately 70 feet north of Calle Frontera, which is a public roadway. KOP-5 is oriented west towards the project and has a higher vantage than Calle Frontera to approximate views from the residential properties nearest to the project site (within the Highland Light community). The undeveloped property southwest of KOP-5 is the dominant feature in the viewshed, while the urgent care facility is notably visible in the viewshed’s middleground. Background views of the ocean are mostly obstructed by the existing commercial development, residential units, and mature trees. KOP-6: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). KOP-6 (Figure 3-7a) is located east-northeast of the MCSP planning area on Avenida Faceta, approximately 0.3 mile northeast of I-5, and is oriented west towards the project site. Avenida Faceta is a private roadway and is only accessible to residents of the Highland Light community. KOP-6 would not be a public view but is included to provide context to the anticipated degree of visual change for established residences within the Marblehead Inland planning area. The viewshed from KOP-6 provides unobstructed ocean views, with residential units and vegetation as prominent features in the landscape.
KOP-7: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). KOP-7 (Figure 3-8a) is located east-northeast of the MCSP planning area at the entrance to the Highland Light community, west of the gatehouse and approximately 100 feet north of Calle Frontera. KOP-7 is oriented west towards the project site. Views from KOP-7 would typically be seen only by residents within the Highland Light community as they exit the community. KOP-7 was selected to provide additional context to the anticipated degree of visual change from established residences closer in proximity to the project site than KOP-6 within the Marblehead Inland planning area. The viewshed from KOP-7 provides a mostly unobstructed view of the ocean and distant coastline, with residential units and vegetation as prominent features in the landscape.
KOP-8: St. Andrew’s By the Sea UMC (Private View). KOP-8 (Figure 3-9a) is located east-northeast of the MCSP planning area in the parking lot for St. Andrew’s By the Sea United Methodist Church (UMC), approximately 680 feet northwest of the Avenida Pico/I-5 interchange, and is oriented west towards the project site. Although KOP-8 is located on private property, it was selected as a representative view 41 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 15
from the adjacent residential and public serving facilities (school, day care, military family outreach) located along the eastern boundary of the Marblehead Inland planning area. The viewshed from KOP8 provides a mostly unobstructed view of the ocean and distant coastline, with residential units and commercial development (i.e., outlets) as prominent features in the landscape.
3.3.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions
The Final EIR evaluated the effects of the MCSP on the existing landscape and visual quality of the planning area. The EIR’s aesthetics analysis focused on impacts to viewsheds and conflicts with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for development.
Impacts to Viewsheds
The Final EIR analyzed changes in the public viewsheds from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange and the Avenida Pico/I-5 interchange. The Final EIR concluded that views would be altered by the proposed regional commercial development southwest of I-5. These impacts include the following:
Views from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange would be significantly altered by proposed interchange construction and site development. Commercial development would dominate the foreground viewshed, with residential units comprising the middleground elements. Views from Avenida Pico/I-5 interchange would encompass commercial structures in near middleground views (at Avenida Pico and I-5), as well as distant middleground and background commercial elements extending northward along the I-5 corridor. A portion of the viewshed would be obstructed by the nearest commercial structures and some already partially interrupted westward ocean views would be cut off completely.
Primary ocean views to the southwest would be unaffected within the MCSP planning areas along West Avenida Vista Hermosa, Avenida Pico, El Camino Real, and Camino Capistrano.
Given the size and undeveloped character of the MCSP planning area, Section 4.11.4.1 of the Final EIR determined that views of the planning area from key public viewsheds would be significantly altered from implementation of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b). However, the MCSP established seven vista points within the planning area to enhance visual access to the coastline. Five vista points are located in the southern portion of the planning area (El Camino Real Bluff trail and Marblehead Coastal Park) and two vista points are located in the proposed commercial development along West Avenida Vista Hermosa and serve as plaza/view overlooks. The Final EIR Section 4.11.4.1 concluded that since the project would retain and enhance the most visible portions of the site through these vista points, the visual uniqueness and vividness inherent in those scenic elements would not be diluted by site development (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The Final EIR also discussed changes in the views of the MCSP planning area from residential communities such as Marblehead Inland and Colony Cove and determined that residential views would be adversely affected by the MCSP. The Final EIR concluded that while existing residents’ concerns related to view preservation, property values, and quality of life are valid and important matters, the evaluation of significant effects is focused on impacts to views from public areas and view easements. The EIR’s aesthetics impact analysis did not focus on impacts to views from an individual private lot. Final EIR Section
4.11.2 states the following:
Although some residents directly adjacent to and inland from the Marblehead Coastal area will object to having their views altered, there are nonetheless various public policies that support public gain to the unavoidable detriment of private preference. For instance, Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states in part that “the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.” 42 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 16
Therefore, while private views of open space and coastal resources are not overlooked in the analysis, public viewsheds that have the potential to serve as recreational aesthetic resources for the greatest number of people bear more influence on the determination of impact significance. (City of San Clemente, 1998b, 4.11-8) Conflicts with scenic and visual quality objectives
The Final EIR analyzed the MCSP’s compatibility with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for development as articulated in the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. As described in Final EIR Section 4.11.3, the General Plan promotes good quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation as important components of a project’s design process prior to City approval. The Final EIR explains that this design review process would ensure that development under the MCSP is consistent with the MCSP’s Design Guidelines that address scenic view and resource protection. For example, per Final EIR Section
4.11.4.1, the MCSP was found to be consistent with Orange County’s viewscape corridor designation (for I-5) due to the MCSP’s required development setbacks and landscape buffers along the freeway corridor (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.11.3 also explains that the General Plan does not contain specific conditions relating to the preservation of scenic quality that are applicable to the MCSP. Final EIR Section 4.11.6 concluded that with implementation of the standard conditions and design review procedures imposed by the City of San Clemente, visual impacts associated with development under the MCSP would remain at a less-than-significant level (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
3.3.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions
The height exception for the hotel structure would result in the same types and severity of aesthetic resource impacts as described in the MCSP Final EIR. The following section describes the effects of the modified height exception on viewsheds and its consistency with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for development.
View Simulations: Impacts to Viewsheds
Visual simulations have been prepared for each of the eight KOPs to illustrate the degree of change that would occur from modification of the hotel’s allowable height. These simulations are included at the end of Addendum Section 3.3 (Figures 3-2b through 3-9b). Below is a discussion of anticipated viewshed changes from each KOP.
KOP-1: Avenida Vista Hermosa. Figure 3-2b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from KOP-1. The majority of the hotel would be screened by the mature trees along Avenida Vista Hermosa. Even with the modified height, the hotel structure blends into the background of existing commercial and residential development. There would be no notable change in the current viewshed from KOP-1.
KOP-2: Jim Johnson Memorial Park. Figure 3-3b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from KOP-2, which is representative of views from the public park and West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange. The hotel structure is partially screened by the mature trees along West Avenida Vista Hermosa, although the structure would be prominent in the viewshed given this KOP’s close proximity to the project site. As discussed in Addendum Section 3.3.2, the Final EIR determined that views from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange would be significantly altered by site development under the MCSP and further stated that commercial development would dominate the foreground viewshed (Final EIR pages 4.11-9 to 4.11-10). Therefore, changes in the viewshed as shown in KOP-2 would be consistent with the Final EIR’s conclusions of significant alterations to views from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa interchange resulting from the MCSP’s proposed commercial development.
43 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 17
KOP-3: Sea Summit Pedestrian Trail. Figure 3-4b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from the Sea Summit trailhead at KOP-3. This KOP is oriented towards the MCSP’s regional commercial center, where the hotel structure would be a dominant feature in the viewshed.
While the trailhead is located at KOP-3, the trail network extends southwest through the MCSP planning area towards the coastline. The trail provides recreationists with ocean views, and the location of the hotel northeast of the trailhead would not interfere with the coastal viewshed along the trail network. As discussed in Addendum Section 3.3.2, the Final EIR explained that development under the MCSP would preserve ocean views from plaza/view overlooks along West Avenida Vista Hermosa. Per the MCSP’s Approved Site Plan, the hotel structure (Building 15) would be located northeast of West Avenida Vista Hermosa and would not disrupt ocean views from established vista points. Consequently, the proposed modification to the hotel’s height would be consistent with the Final EIR’s conclusions that the MCSP is designed to retain and enhance the most visible portions of the planning area (i.e., coastal views) through vista points (West Avenida Vista Hermosa, Avenida Pico, El Camino Real, and Camino Capistrano) that would not be diluted by site development (Final EIR pages 4.11-12 and 4.11- 14).
KOP-4: Pacific Coast Church (Private View). Figure 3-5b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from the Pacific Coast Church parking lot. The hotel structure would be a dominant feature in the viewshed given this KOP’s close proximity to the project site, and the hotel would obstruct ocean views. This obstruction would be an adverse change to the viewshed from KOP4. As described in Addendum Section 3.3.2, the Final EIR discussed the effects of the MCSP on the views from the Marblehead Inland community northeast of I-5. The Final EIR concluded that the open space and coastal components of viewsheds from individual lots within the Marblehead Inland community would be adversely affected by development under the MCSP (Final EIR page 4.11-10). Therefore, changes in the viewshed as shown in KOP-4 would be consistent with the Final EIR’s conclusions of significant alterations to private viewsheds resulting from the MCSP’s proposed commercial development.
KOP-5: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). Figure 3-6b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from the residential properties adjacent to Calle Frontera within the Highland Light community. The hotel structure would alter the viewshed by becoming the dominant feature due to its size and massing. The hotel would also create an additional obstruction to ocean views from KOP-5, which would be an adverse change to this viewshed. The Final EIR discussed the effects of the MCSP on the views from the Marblehead Inland community and concluded that the open space and coastal components of viewsheds from individual lots would be adversely affected by development under the MCSP (Final EIR page 4.11-10). Therefore, changes in the viewshed as shown in KOP-5 would be consistent with the Final EIR’s conclusions of significant alterations to private viewsheds resulting from the MCSP’s proposed commercial development. KOP-6: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). Figure 3-7b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from Avenida Faceta within the Highland Light community. Due to the distance of KOP-6 from the project site, and the design of the hotel to match the surrounding Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, the hotel structure would blend into the existing development within MCSP’s regional commercial center. The hotel would not obstruct ocean views from KOP-6 and there would be no notable change in the current viewshed.
KOP-7: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). Figure 3-8b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height at the entrance to the Highland Light community. Due to the distance of KOP-7 from the project site, and the design of the hotel to match the surrounding Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, the hotel structure would blend into the existing development within MCSP’s regional commercial center. While the hotel would slightly obstruct coastal views, the ocean would remain 44 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 18
visible along the entire viewshed from KOP-7. Overall changes to the current viewshed would be minimal.
KOP-8: St. Andrew’s By the Sea UMC (Private View). Figure 3-9b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from the residences located along the eastern boundary of the Marblehead Inland planning area, and the adjacent public serving facilities (church, school, day care, military family outreach). Due to the distance of KOP-8 from the project site, and the design of the hotel to match the surrounding Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, the hotel structure would blend into the existing development within MCSP’s regional commercial center. The hotel would not obstruct ocean views from KOP-8 and there would be no notable change in the current viewshed.
Conflicts with scenic and visual quality objectives
As described in Addendum Section 3.3.2, the Final EIR concluded that the MCSP’s Design Guidelines would ensure future development under the MCSP is consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for good quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation. The General Plan’s Land Use Element and Urban Design Element identify public views as resources of community importance, and Policy UD-2.05 and Policy UD-5.14 require new construction and building design to preserve designated public view corridors (City of San Clemente, 2014). The proposed hotel modification does not alter public view corridors from West Avenida Vista Hermosa, Avenida Pico, Camino Capistrano, or the El Camino Real Bluff trail, which remain the focus of the MCSP’s designated vista points. While some private views from inland neighborhoods may experience obstruction, the Final EIR’s aesthetics analysis prioritized public views, which remains consistent with City policies to preserve public view corridors.
The height exception for the hotel structure (Approved Site Plan Building 15) would match the height of the regional commercial center’s theater (Approved Site Plan Building 22), which would be consistent with the City’s intent that the hotel and theater function as architectural landmarks for the MCSP’s RC zone (City of San Clemente, 2004). The City further stated its intent that this architectural landmark designation would apply to two developments within the RC zone, and that if either the hotel or theater was not constructed, an alternative landmark structure would be required (City of San Clemente, 2004). Therefore, the height exception for the hotel structure would remain consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives. Furthermore, the proposed modification would have no other change to the RC development standards (i.e., minimum lot area, setbacks, landscaping, signs, etc.), and the hotel (Building 15) would continue to adhere to these RC design guidelines and development standards.
3.3.4. Summary of Findings
The height exception for the hotel structure would not create any significant new aesthetic resource impacts or significant changes to the impact conclusions presented in the Final EIR. Impacts to viewsheds from the height exception would be of equivalent magnitude to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed height exception would remain consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for good quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation, as described in the General Plan’s Land Use Element and Urban Design Element, and the modification would not alter a public view corridor. No new mitigation measures are required to avoid or minimize potential impacts from this proposed modification.
45
<MI`FEWNW`JTV`XMI`ZNI[WMIH`WXYH]`[EW`GEQGYQEXIH`JVTR`E` HILVII`ZNI[`IRESEXOSL`JVTR`E`WUIGNJOG`LITLVEUMNG`QTGEXOTS`NS`TVHIV`XT`UVIHNGX`[MNGM`WYVVTYSHNSL`JIEXYVIW`RNLMX`FI`ZNWNFQI`JVTR`NX`WNRNQEV`XT`VTXEXOSL`XMI`QNLMX`WTYVGI` TJ`E`QNLMXMTYWI`<MI`NSNXOEQ`WXYH]`EVIE`JTV`XMNW`ZNI[WMIH`ESEQ]WNW`NS`9ES`QIRISXI``YXOQN^IH`E` `RNQI`VEHNYW`NSXILVEXOSL`RYQXOUQI`QNSIWTJWNLMX`EVTYSH`E`JO\IH`VIJIVISGI`QTGEXOTS`NS`TVHIV`XT`UVIHNGX`ESH`REU`NXW`TZIVEQQ`ZNI[WMIH` <MI`GTSZIVWI`TJ`XMNW`RIXMTHTQTL]`NW`EQWT`XVYI`XMI`VIWYQXOSL`WXYH]`EQWT`VIZIEQW`[MNGM`WYVVTYSHNSL`EVIEW`RNLMX`WII`XMI`JO\IH`VIJIVISGI`UTNSX`NS`XMNW`NSWXESGI`XMI`VTTJ`QTHLI`EXTU`XMI`MTXIQ` TV`XMNW`ESEQ]WNW`XMI`ZNI[WMIH`VIJIVISGI`
UTNSX`[EW`JO\IH`EXTU`E`WUIGNJOG`LITLVEUMNG`UTNSX`GISXIVIH`EX`XMI`UIEP`TJ`XMI`VTTKTU`QTHLI`EQXOXYHI`WIX`EX` `
<`EFTZI`LVTYSH`IQIZEXOTS`ESH`GTSXOSYTYW`<MI`VIWYQXOSL`WIIS`EVIE`REU`EFTZI`WMT[W`XMI`EVIEW`GTHIH`NS`LVIIS` FTXM`SIEV``HNWXESX`JVTR`[MNGM`XMI`SI[`MTXIQ`
FI`ZNWNFQI`JVTR`VIEW`GTHIH`NS`LVIIS`EW`
RE]`WXOQQ`FI`WGVIISIH`JVTR`ZNI[`F]`NSXIVZISNSL`QESHWGEUI`[MNGM`NW`STX`E`ZNI[WMIH`UVTGIWWNSL` UEVERIXIV`<MI`WTYVGI`HEXE`UVTZNHIH`JTV`XMNW`ZNI[WMIH`WXYH]`[EW`NS`XMI`JTVR`TJ`YXTH[L`ESH`4 `JOQIW`<MI`UTWNXOTS`ESH`MINLMX`TJ`XMI`SI[`MTXIQ`[EW`RTHIQIH`JVTR`WNXI`UQESW`ESH`IQIZEXOTSW`UVTZNHIH`F]`XMI` EUUQNGESX`
)LJXUH
.23/RFDWLRQV
:/?/:/` 7`,5`
<
`
`
_ 482'
<`*2<$20
8
9`B"
8 `482'
<` -% "<`
`A%9%*
` )
D`29
8A<%20`42%0<9` )24W`
A
1&`A&;=`#
8.3;`
(&.`(3#1;31`
.
.38&+`68)`=`
`;3@=#`3 8.6
;
`;@..&=`&D+
`
=8&+`#
`
6& &`3;=`#@8#`
#&!#+1`+&!#<`
8 ;&
1=&+`3..@1&=D`
#&!#+1`+&!#=`
8 ;&
1=&+`3..@1&=D`
#&!#+1`+&!#=`
8 ;&
1=&+`3..@1&=D`
;>`18
C;`D`=#
`
;
`@.`
46 )LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
#%
%#!"%
!%
$!"%
"
%
%
"
%
+*."0"*(6 +.56
)6
36
%
20"*(6
6 16
".0(
6
6 16
6&#$
/6
!
"( 6
'
-6%
(.6
446
0
6
66
6&6
333
/,
)
16 47
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
%
+ !#+
* ++*'(+& "'+
*')
+' )
(" +
+
"$+
"(" +
+*."0"*(6 +.56
)6
36
%
20"*(6
6 16
".0(
6
6 16
6&#$
/6
!
"( 6
'
-6%
(.6
446
0
6
66
6&6
333
/,
)
16 48
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
!
&
&
&
#
&
"& "&
%#$
&
$
&
&
$
&
*)-!/!)'5 *-45
(5
25
$
1/!)'5
5 05
!-/'
5
5 05
5%"#
.5
!' 5
&
,5$
'-5
335
/
5
5
5+%5
222
.+
(
05 49
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
%
+ !#+
+" '" + "&
+$&+
*')
+' )
(" +
+
"$+
"(" +
*)-!/!)'5 *-45
(5
25
$
1/!)'5
5 05
!-/'
5
5 05
5%"#
.5
!' 5
&
,5$
'-5
335
/
5
5
5+%5
222
.+
(
05 50
9 : :
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
'
'
"'"$#'
&
'#!'
%"#'
#
'
'
#
'
.-1%3%-+:#.18:
,:
6:
( 53%-+:
:"4:
%13+
:
:"4:
:)&'!2:
$
%+#:
* 0:( +1:
77:
3 :
:
:/):
666 2
/!,!4:
51
9 : :
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
$
+ "+
&+&(
'+*+'%+
)&(+&
('! +
+
!#+
!'! +
.-1%3%-+:#.18:
,:
6:
( 53%-+:
:"4:
%13+
:
:"4:
:)&'!2:
$
%+#:
* 0:( +1:
77:
3 :
:
:/):
666 2
/!,!4:
52 )LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
%
!"%
#
%
$!"%
"
%
%
"
%
*)-!/!)'5 *-45
(5
25
$
1/!)'5
5 05
!-/'
5
5
05
5%"#
.5
!' 5
&
,5$
'-5
335
/
5
5
5%5
222
.+
(
05 53
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
%
+ !#
+
$+"'(+)&+
*')
+' )
(" +
+
+ "$+
"(" +
*)-!/!)'5 *-45
(5
25
$
1/!)'5
5 05
!-/'
5
5
05
5%"#
.5
!' 5
&
,5$
'-5
335
/
5
5
5%5
222
.+
(
05 54
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
%#% !"
# %
$"#%
#
%
%
#
%
+*."1"*(7 +.67
)7
/47
%
31"*(7
7 27
".1(
7
7 27
7&#$
07
!
"( 7
'
-7%
(.7
557
1
7
77
7&7
444
0,
)
27 55
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
'
- #%
-
"-
*- ()"*
-
,)+
-)!+
*$"-
-
$&- $*$"-
+*."1"*(7 +.6
)7
/47
%
31"*(
27
".1(
27
&#$
0
!
"(
'
- %
(.
557
1
&
444
0,
)
27 56
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
%#% !"
# %
$"#%
#
%
%
#
%
,+/#1#+)7!,/67
*7
47
&
31#+)7
7 27
#/1)
7
7 27 7'$% 07
"
#)!7
(
.7&
)/7
557
1
7
77
7'7
444
0- * 27
57 )LJXUH E
.23 9LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
'
- #%
-
"-
*- ()"*
-
,)+
-)!+
*$"-
-
$&- $*$"-
,+/#1#+)7!,/67
*7
47
&
31#+)7
7 27
#/1)
7
7 27 7'$% 07
"
#)!7
(
.7&
)/7
557
1
7
77
7'7
444
0- * 27
58 )LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
%#% !"
# %
$"#%
#
%
%
#
%
+*."0"*(6 +.56
)6
36
%
20"*(6
6 16
".0(
6
6 16 6&#$
/6
!
"( 6
'
-6%
(.6
446
0
6
6
6&6
333
/,
)
16 59
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
'
- #%
-
"-
*- ()"*
-
,)+
-)!+
*$"-
-
$&- $*$"-
+*."0"*(6 +.56
)6
36
%
20"*(6
6 16
".0(
6
6 16 6&#$
/6
!
"( 6
'
-6%
(.6
446
0
6
6
6&6
333
/,
)
16 60
)LJXUH
D
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
"
*
*
$%*
#'$*
)*%*$
*&
*
($%
*
%
*
* !*
%
*
+*."1"*(8 +.78
55)8
5/48
%
31"*(8
8 28
".1(
8
8 28 8&#$
08
!
"( 8
'
-8%
(.8
668
1
8
88
8&8
444
0,
)
28 61
)LJXUH
E
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
!(
0
$&
0 *+0#).*0/0+0*0,"0
-*, 0*", +%#0
0 0
%'0 %+%#0
+*."1"*(8 +.78
55)8
5/48
%
31"*(8
8 28
".1(
8
8 28 8&#$
08
!
"( 8
'
-8%
(.8
668
1
8
88
8&8
444
0,
)
28 62
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 36
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
The following section provides a brief summary of the resources that are fully discussed in the Final EIR, and whose analyses have been incorporated by reference in this EIR Addendum. References to the applicable Final EIR sections and the MMRP (Final EIR Exhibit EIR-4) are included throughout the following discussion.
Transportation and Circulation
Section 4.2 of the Final EIR evaluated the effects of transportation and circulation under the MCSP, including trip generation for the RC component, intersection and freeway ramp operations, site access, internal circulation, and the timing of frontage and off-site improvements (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The Final EIR concluded that traffic impacts under the MCSP would be less than significant with implementation of standard conditions and uniform codes identified in Final EIR Section 4.2.3, and with implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.2-1 and MM 4.2-2 (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The Final EIR utilized a level of service (LOS) analysis for evaluating traffic impacts. Since 1998, the approach to traffic analysis under CEQA has replaced LOS with a metric that utilizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A common approach to evaluating VMT is to conduct a trip-based assessment of a project’s transportation impacts. The Final EIR’s transportation analysis remains consistent with this revised approach as it evaluated trip generation effects under the MCSP, for which it calculated future projections of trips per day for each of the MCSP land use types. The potential trip generation effects associated with the MCSP’s commercial center (including a future hotel development) were included in the vehicle trip calculations. Furthermore, the Final EIR evaluated the MCSP’s proposed design features to reduce vehicle trips through improved access to public transit and multi-modal public trails (Final EIR Section 4.2.4.1).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not modify the approved circulation framework, anticipated vehicle trips, or the scope, timing, and applicability of transportation improvements identified in the Final EIR and MMRP (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Traffic associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, was fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.2.4.1. The proposed modification does not authorize an increase in development intensity or alter circulation patterns. Development would remain subject to the MCSP Circulation Plan and RC development standards for parking and access. The proposed modification would also remain consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan’s Mobility and Complete Streets Element requiring new development to maintain adequate circulation and multimodal access (e.g., Policy M-1.01, M-1.19, M1.25). Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to transportation and circulation, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.2.
Air Quality
Section 4.4 of the Final EIR evaluated construction and operational emissions for buildout of the MCSP, identified significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, and adopted mitigation to control fugitive dust and reduce exhaust emissions from construction equipment and project operations (City of San Clemente, 1998b). The Final EIR also addressed consistency with applicable regional air quality planning assumptions based on the land uses and intensities permitted by the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998a and 1998b).
The Final EIR concluded that short- and long-term air quality emissions from development under the MCSP would remain significant and unavoidable, even after the implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.4-1a, MM 4.4-1b, and MM 4.4-2a to MM 4.4-2h.
63 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 37
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the approved land use types within an RC designation, nor would it change the construction measures applicable to development under the MCSP. Operational emissions associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, were fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.4.4.2. The Final EIR concluded that project-related emissions would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District significance thresholds for primary exhaust pollutants (i.e., ROC, CO, NOx) (Final EIR pages 4.4-15 to 4.4-16).
Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant air quality impact, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.4.
Soils and Geology
Section 4.5 of the Final EIR evaluated geologic, seismic, and soil conditions for buildout of the MCSP, including potential for strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction and differential settlement, expansive soils, slope stability, erosion during grading, and long-term performance of engineered slopes and retaining systems. Final EIR Section 4.5.4 described the MCSP grading plans and requirements for a comprehensive geotechnical investigation, plan review, construction monitoring, erosion and sediment control, and conformance with applicable building and grading codes. The Final EIR concluded that implementation of SC 4.5-1 as well as the mitigation measures and standard engineering practices summarized in the Marblehead Coastal Geotechnical Report would ensure that geotechnical impacts would remain less than significant (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not modify the approved land use types within an RC designation, nor would it change the mitigation measures, standard conditions, and engineering practices required for construction under the MCSP. The soil stability and suitability for development of the RC area, in which a hotel is an allowable use, were fully analyzed in Final EIR Section
4.5.4. The Final EIR concluded that all proposed commercial structures would be subject to the specific technical recommendations in the Marblehead Coastal Geotechnical Report, and construction would adhere to the seismic stability and reinforcement requirements of the Uniform Building Code (Final EIR pages 4.5-8 to 4.5-9). Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant geotechnical impact, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.5.
Population and Housing
Section 4.6 of the Final EIR evaluated the MCSP’s potential to induce population growth, displace housing or people, and conflict with adopted regional growth forecasts. Final EIR Section 4.6.4 addressed the buildout of MCSP land uses, including the RC component, and concluded that development would occur consistent with the Specific Plan and applicable growth projections, with no displacement of existing housing (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the approved land use types within an RC designation, nor would it remove or replace any existing housing. Employment generation associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, was fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.6.4. Development within the regional commercial center would remain subject to the Approved Site Plan. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to population and housing, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.6.
Cultural/Scientific Resources
Section 4.7 of the Final EIR evaluated archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources within the MCSP and identified sensitivity based on prior investigations and underlying geologic units (City of San 64 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 38
Clemente, 1998b). The Final EIR concluded that impacts to cultural resources under the MCSP would be less than significant with implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.7-1a to MM 4.7-1g (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not authorize new ground disturbance within the MCSP beyond that evaluated in the Final EIR. Ground disturbance associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, was fully analyzed in Final EIR Section
4.7.4. The proposed modification does not authorize an increase in development intensity, and development would remain subject to the adopted mitigation measures that address grading and excavation of a project site. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to cultural resources, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.7.
San Onofre Emergency Evacuation Plan
Section 4.8 of the Final EIR evaluated emergency preparedness within the MCSP in coordination with the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station emergency planning framework, including public alerting, designated evacuation routes, emergency vehicle access, and consistency with the City’s standard conditions, uniform codes, and adopted procedures (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.8.4 described the MCSP’s circulation and access improvements and required compliance with the Nuclear Element of the City’s General Plan.2
The Final EIR concluded that the MCSP would have no significant impacts to public safety and would not affect the San Onofre Emergency Evacuation Plan.
Although the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is no longer in operation, spent nuclear fuel continues to be managed and stored at the facility. As such, the San Onofre Emergency Evacuation Plan remains a relevant planning document. The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change evacuation plans nor create an impediment to emergency access routes. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to public safety, established evacuation plans, and designated evacuation routes, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.8.
Public Services and Facilities
Section 4.9 of the Final EIR evaluated demands on public services and facilities for MCSP buildout, including fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, parks and recreation, libraries, and related public facilities (City of San Clemente, 1998b). The Final EIR concluded that impacts to public services would be less than significant with implementation of standard conditions and uniform codes identified in Final EIR Section 4.9.1.3, Section 4.9.2.3, Section 4.9.4.3, Section 4.9.5.3, and Section
4.9.6.3, and with implementation of adopted mitigation measure MM 4.9.4-1 (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the site’s existing RC land use designation, nor would it change the mitigation measure and standard conditions specific to fire protection, police protection, school facilities, and utility facilities required for development under the MCSP. The hotel is an allowable use within the MCSP’s regional commercial center and would be subject to the requirements of the Marblehead Coastal Fuel Modification plan that serves to reduce fire risk within the MCSP (see Final EIR pages 4.9-24 to 4.9-25). Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no 2 Discussion of the since-decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is now contained within the Safety Element of the City’s Centennial General Plan. In March 2025, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that incorporates the latest policy guidance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.
65 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 39
new significant impact to public services and facilities, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.9.
Hydrology and Flood Control
Section 4.10 of the Final EIR evaluated drainage patterns, stormwater runoff and water quality, construction-period erosion and sedimentation, flood hazards, and the master drainage and flood control improvements for MCSP buildout (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.10.4 described the MCSP’s Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan and site-specific drainage plans that identify erosion and sediment control practices. The Final EIR concluded that hydrology and flood control impacts would be less than significant with implementation of standard conditions and uniform codes identified in Final EIR Section 4.10.3, and with implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.10-1a, MM 4.10-1b, MM 4.10-2, and MM 4.10-3 (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not modify the approved land use types within an RC designation, nor would it change the mitigation measures and standard conditions required for construction under the MCSP. Issues related to flooding, erosion, and siltation associated with development of the regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, were fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.10.4. The Final EIR concluded that construction under the MCSP would follow the recommendations of a Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, and that all development would be subject to standard construction best management practices (Final EIR pages 4.10-16 to 4.10-17).
Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new impact to hydrology and flood control, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.10.
Biological Resources
Section 4.12 of the Final EIR evaluated biological resources within the MCSP, including sensitive habitats, special-status species, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement, and edge effects from lighting, noise, and human activity (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.12.5 identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements for construction and operations, including limits on grading within designated open space, preconstruction surveys, nesting bird protections, construction monitoring, landscape and lighting controls, and long-term open space management. The Final EIR concluded that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.12-1a to MM 4.12-1c and MM 4.12-2a to 4.12-2c (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not authorize new disturbance within the MCSP beyond that evaluated in the Final EIR. Vegetation removal and habitat disturbance associated with development of the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, were fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.12.4. The Final EIR concluded that construction under the MCSP would comply with the biological restoration and enhancement measures specified in the MCSP’s Resource Management Plan (Final EIR pages 4.12-16 to 4.12-23). Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to biological resources, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.12.
Recreation
Section 4.13 of the Final EIR evaluated parks, recreation, and open space under the MCSP, including provision of on-site open space, trail linkages, and access to nearby recreational amenities (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.13.3 concluded that implementation of SC 4.13-1 would prevent the physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities as well as offset the need to construct or expand new recreational facilities beyond those planned as part of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b). 66 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 40
During the initial buildout of the MCSP, the applicant was subject to in-lieu park fees and dedication of parkland to meet the requirements of the City’s Park Acquisition and Development Code (Final EIR page
4.13-6). The calculation of in-lieu fees and land dedication requirements under the MCSP already accounted for the MCSP’s RC component in which a hotel is an allowable use. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to recreation, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.13.
Other CEQA Topics
Since the 1998 certification of the Final EIR, there have been updates to the CEQA Guidelines that address additional topics such as energy, greenhouse gas emissions, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The following is a summary of these topics and a discussion of how the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not trigger a new significant impact that was not addressed in the MCSP Final EIR. Energy. The requirement to evaluate a project’s energy implications was added to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation) in 2009 and incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) in 2018. Prior to 2018, an EIR’s discussion of energy resource impacts was typically included in an analysis of the project’s irretrievable commitment of resources. MCSP Final EIR Chapter 9.0 describes the substantial commitment of energy resources (i.e., diesel fuel and electricity) that would be required to fully develop the MCSP. As the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the approved land use types or planned development under the MCSP, there would be no new impact or a change in the severity of energy resource impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Chapter 9.0.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Although the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions was not incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines until 2010, the MCSP Final EIR fully analyzed the emission impacts from both mobile source and stationary source pollution. For example, Final EIR Section 4.4.4.2 discussed emission impacts generated from energy consumption, which was characterized as on-site natural gas combustion for space and water heating, and off-site electrical generation from in-basin power resources (City of San Clemente, 1998b). These energy consumption emissions are typical examples of greenhouse gas emissions and were addressed in the Final EIR’s analysis. The Final EIR concluded that future growth under the MCSP would contribute significantly to a sub-regional and regional air pollution burden. As the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the approved land use types or planned development under the MCSP, there would be no new impact or a change in the severity of impacts from the emissions discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.4. Tribal Cultural Resources. A CEQA requirement to evaluate impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources was incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines in 2016. MCSP Final EIR Section 4.7 discussed tribal cultural resource sites that were recorded in the vicinity of the MCSP area and one resource site that was recorded within the MCSP area (City of San Clemente, 1998b). To mitigate potential impacts during development under the MCSP, the Final EIR included mitigation measure MM 4.7-1a (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4) to address undiscovered resources. The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not authorize new ground disturbance within the MCSP beyond that evaluated in the Final EIR. Ground disturbance associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, was fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.7.4. The proposed modification does not authorize an increase in development intensity, and development would remain subject to the adopted mitigation measures that address grading and excavation of a project site. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to tribal cultural resources, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.7. Wildfire. The evaluation of wildfire-specific risk was added to the CEQA Guidelines in 2018. The MCSP Final EIR addressed wildland fire risks (Final EIR Section 4.9.4.4) and discussed specific fuel modification 67 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 41
requirements to minimize risk within the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b). On March 24, 2025, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) issued updates to its recommended Fire Hazard Severity Zones within Local Responsibility Areas. The updated maps indicate that the project site would continue to be located outside of a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2025). As such, the updated maps indicate that there would be no change in the fire hazards associated with the project site. Accordingly, the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would have no new significant impact associated with wildfire, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.9. 68 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SEPTEMBER 2025 42
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) to include the hotel as eligible for the same height exception granted to the theater has not altered the fundamental objectives of the MCSP as reflected in the certified EIR. Adding the hotel use as eligible for the maximum height exception aligns with the City’s expectation that the theater and hotel would function equally as the anchoring architectural landmarks of the Marblehead Coastal Promenade. The proposed modification would only apply to the single hotel property that was previously identified in the Approved Site Plan as an architectural landmark, and would have no other change on the RC development standards under the MCSP.
Addendum Section 3.1 (Land Use and Related Planning) explained that the MCSP’s RC designation already provides for this height exception to accommodate architectural features, and inclusion of the hotel in the maximum height exception would be a minor modification that would not alter the intent or application of the RC development standards. The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) would not conflict with any existing or proposed land uses near the project site. No new significant impacts to land use or relevant planning policies and programs would occur from the proposed modification.
Addendum Section 3.2 (Noise) concluded that any construction within the MCSP would remain subject to the City’s standard conditions and adopted mitigation measures. Such measures would include restrictions on the allowable hours of construction and ensuring that operational noise does not exceed exterior noise standards. Noise within the MCSP’s RC zone continues to be characterized by commercial activity and major transportation corridors, and the proposed modification would not increase the proximity of commercial uses within the RC zone relative to sensitive receptors. The project would not create any new significant noise impacts and would not increase the severity of previously identified impacts presented in the Final EIR.
Addendum Section 3.3 (Aesthetics) described the purpose of the City’s design review process to ensure that development under the MCSP is consistent with the MCSP’s Design Guidelines that address scenic view and resource protection. Section 3.3 included photographs of existing conditions and visual simulations from 8 KOPs to evaluate baseline conditions against the proposed conditions, which demonstrated consistency with the aesthetics findings of the Final EIR. As part of the City’s approval for the MCSP’s regional commercial site plan, the City stated its intent that development of the hotel and theater should reflect the roles of these structures to serve as architectural landmarks for the Marblehead Coastal Promenade. Given this planning direction, the proposed height exception for the hotel to match the allowable height of the theater would remain consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for good quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation. Furthermore, the proposed modification would not alter the viewshed from an established vista point. Impacts to viewsheds from the height exception would be of equivalent magnitude to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required to avoid or minimize potential impacts.
As described in Chapter 4, the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) would not result in any new substantial environmental impacts nor increase the severity of previously identified environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed height exception for the hotel structure would not introduce a new significant impact from what was presented in the certified EIR, nor require the development of new mitigation measures. The City has determined that an addendum to the certified Final EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the additional exception to the maximum height requirement within a regional commercial center.
In conclusion, the proposed modification is not only consistent with the certified MCSP Final EIR, but also advances the City’s adopted long-term policy objectives under the Centennial General Plan. By supporting visitor-serving lodging in a regional commercial location, preserving designated public view corridors, 69 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SEPTEMBER 2025 43
maintaining compatibility with community character, and adhering to established design review standards, the proposed modification reflects and reinforces the City’s vision of San Clemente as the “Spanish Village by the Sea.”
70 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
6. REFERENCES
SEPTEMBER 2025 44
6. REFERENCES
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. [online]: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed August 27, 2025.
City of San Clemente. 2014. City of San Clemente Centennial General Plan. Adopted February 4, 2014.
Amended December 20, 2016.
_____. 2004. City Council Resolution No. 04-61. Adopted July 20, 2004. _____. 1999. City Council Resolution No. 99-68. Adopted July 7, 1999. _____. 1998a. Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan. Adopted August 5, 1998. Amended December 6, 2022. _____. 1998b. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marblehead Coastal General Plan Amendment 96-01, Specific Plan No. 95-02, Tentative Tract Map, Site Plans, Conditional Use Permit, and Sign Exception Permit. Certified June 23, 1998.
_____. 1998c. City Council Resolution No. 98-40. Adopted June 23, 1998 71 Attachment 3
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8B.
Submitted By: Planning Division
Prepared By: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
Subject:
..titl e
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT (PHP) 25- 343 TO AMEND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN PERMIT (SPP) 99-16 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 99-17 TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HEIGHT OF THE HOTEL, FROM 45 FEET UP TO 62 FEET, AT 401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA TO INCLUDE A
ROOFTOP RESTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR DINING AND INTERIOR KITCHEN AND RESTROOMS ON A 1.7-ACRE PARCEL (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER [APN] 691-422- 04) WITHIN THE MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN (MCSP) AREA, AND FINDING THAT ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE MCSP FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
DEMONSTRATES NO NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NEEDED, CONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES §15162 AND §15183 ..body
Fiscal Impact:
There is no direct fiscal impact, but the City could see increased sales tax from the proposed rooftop restaurant operations.
Summary:
The City Council is asked to consider an amendment to the approved Site Plan Permit 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit 99-17 which established the master site development plan for the commercial portion of the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP). The MCSP allows hotel uses within the Regional Commercial (RC) zone, and a hotel was approved by the City Council in 2004 under a previous amendment to these permits and as reviewed by Addendum No. 5 to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). That hotel was approved through City Council Resolution 04-61 for 120-130 rooms at a height of 45 feet, which is the standard height limit for the RC zone.
The Applicant now requests to modify that approval to allow for an increase in height. The proposed height increase for the roof is ten feet (resulting in a total building height of 55 feet) with an additional 7 feet to accommodate the elevator towers (resulting in a total height of 62 feet for that projection), which would allow for the establishment of a rooftop restaurant with outdoor seating.
In accordance with San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC) 17.12.180, applicant requests to amend previously approved projects are to be referred to the final decision-making authority for the original project when the proposed modifications are “significant enough to warrant discretionary review and have the potential for public impact or concern.” Therefore, this 697
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8B.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
amendment request requires a public hearing with the City Council, which approved both the original commercial site plan in 1999 as well as the modified site plan to include a hotel in 2004.
Background:
On June 25, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution 25-085 which directed staff to prepare an amendment to the MCSP development standards within Section 502(V)(D) to allow the already-approved hotel to reach a maximum of 55 feet to the plate line and 62 feet to the highest roof projection, consistent with the approved theater building height exception to the RC zone.
Staff prepared that amendment for consideration alongside Addendum No. 6, which evaluated the proposed increase in height against the FEIR. The MCSP Amendment is being considered as a separate public hearing item on this same September 16, 2025 City Council agenda. The Addendum No. 6 analysis concluded that the amendment would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects identified in the certified 1998 MCSP FEIR. It also found that there is no new information, not available at the time of the FEIR, that would indicate the potential for any new or more severe impacts. Further, the Addendum concludes that the proposed modification to the standards in the MCSP would accomplish the goals of the Specific Plan and General Plan and would not result in inconsistencies or incompatible uses within the specific plan area.
Discussion:
The site is located adjacent to Interstate 5 (I-5) and Avenida Vista Hermosa (see Figure 1, subject site highlighted in blue). The hotel project (“Lodge”) site is bounded by other commercial development to the north and west, I-5 to the east, and Marblehead Canyon to the south between the remainder of the Outlets at San Clemente property. The Lodge is located approximately 450 feet from the residential development at Sea Summit to the west; 750 feet from the Pacific Pointe Apartments across I-5 within the Marblehead Inland Specific Plan area; and 950 feet from singlefamily homes across I-5 within the Marblehead Inland Specific Plan area.
Figure 1 - Project Location
698
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8B.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
Foundation and grading permits were approved in 2018, followed by a building permit for the approved project (B19-0099) in January of 2019, for a four-story hotel and conference center comprising 133,515 square feet with 130 guest rooms. The approved height for the hotel is 45 feet (plus a 6-foot permitted encroachment for the elevator override).
The applicant has submitted an application to modify the hotel plans to accommodate a rooftop lounge—an extension of the restaurant and bar service already approved for the main restaurant within the hotel. The proposal includes a 5,800 square-foot open-air rooftop deck (with 171 dining seats and 33 bar seats) as well as 4,600 square-feet of enclosed fifth-floor area (comprising support services for the proposed rooftop dining area, such as elevator service, kitchen area, storage, restrooms, and corridors). The revised project is 138,115 square feet. The proposed height increase for the roof is ten feet (resulting in a total building height of 55 feet) with an additional 7 feet to accommodate the elevator towers (resulting in a total height of 62 feet). Figures 2a and 2b, below, show the previously approved north elevation and the proposed north elevation (all elevations can be found in greater detail in Attachment 4, Plan Set). Figure 3 shows the proposed rooftop plan.
Figure 2a: Approved North Elevation
Figure 2b: Proposed North Elevation
Figure 3: Roof Plan
699
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8B.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
The existing approved master commercial site plan for the Outlets at San Clemente property, which includes the hotel parcel, includes 3,264 parking spaces (plus an additional 35 tandem spaces). The combined parking demand for all uses on buildout was estimated to be between 2,793 and 2,923 parking spaces plus spaces for the hotel conference center.
The City-approved 2019 building permit plans included a conference center, lobby restaurant, and an outdoor pool deck. The amended project requests a roof deck restaurant. The net change in parking demand is an increase of 47 spaces. The 2004 site plan amendment indicated a surplus of more than 200 spaces, which was further increased as a result of the City and Coastal Commission approved conversion of buildings 9-11 from retail and restaurant use to medical use (recently opened Providence medical facility). This conversion was noted to result in a reduction of parking demand by 34 parking spaces in the April, 2020 staff report to the Zoning Administrator. Even if the project is approved with its additional 47 parking spaces, the commercial site plan would still have a surplus of 190 parking spaces. The impacts of all parking spaces at the Outlets were fully analyzed in the Final EIR. The original project included 3,718 parking spaces, and subsequent amendments and addenda analyzed alterations to the parking supply finally arriving at a count of 3,264 as approved by the Amended Commercial Site Plan 99- 16 in 2004.
Table 1: Parking Demand Comparison (2019 Building Permit vs. 2025 Amendment) Use Ratio 2019 Building Permit 2025 Version
Hotel rooms 1.1/room 130 rooms: 143 spaces 130 rooms: 143 spaces Conference
Center 1/4 people* 519 people: 130 spaces 519 people: 130 spaces Lobby
Restaurant 1/4 seats 144 seats: 36 spaces 144 seats: 36 spaces Rooftop
Restaurant 1/4 seats N/A 204 seats: 47* spaces
Basement:
spa, gym, etc accessory accessory accessory
Total 309 356 spaces
*Per SCMC 17.28.205, 16 outdoor seats do not require parking when 32 or more seats are parked
Additional considerations regarding potential impacts of the proposed project modifications include noise and lighting, which staff reviewed. The proposed amendment does not include a request for outdoor amplified sound or live entertainment. The rooftop restaurant, and the hotel operations generally, will be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance which establishes noise thresholds applicable to commercial properties throughout the City. While this request does not include any unique or unusual lighting systems, the rooftop restaurant, and the hotel operations generally, will be required to comply with the City’s lighting standards which establish regulations for lighting applicable to commercial properties throughout the City. Approval of specific light fixtures is handled during the Building Division’s permit/inspection process, which includes input and review by Planning Division staff. During this process, City staff will ensure that lights on the rooftop will comply with the City’s lighting standards. 700
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8B.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 5
However, should the applicant, in the future, wish to provide amplified sound, live entertainment, or different lighting systems that require additional discretionary review, staff has included a new condition of approval to require that such future amendments shall be the purview of the Planning Commission, and not the City Council as this amendment requires, unless appealed.
Based on the foregoing, and staff’s further review of the amended plans (Attachment 4) and proposed changes to the previously approved hotel project, staff supports the request subject to the City Council’s approval of an amendment to the MCSP development standards to provide a height exception for the hotel building within the RC zone, as governed by Section 502(V)(D), of the MCSP. Proposed Resolution No. 25-137 provides additional detail and justification for how this project is able to meet the required findings for approval.
Council Options:
Adopt Resolution No. 25-137, to approve PHP25-343 to amend Commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP) 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-17 which will accomplish the following:
1. Modify the previously approved hotel at 401 W. Avenida Vista Hermosa to allow for an increase in height from 45 feet to 62 feet to incorporate a rooftop restaurant with outdoor dining and elevator towers (Recommended Action); and
2. Find that Addendum No. 6 to the MCSP Final EIR demonstrates no new significant impacts and that no further environmental review is needed, consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15162 and §15183.
Modify Resolution No. 25-137, and then approve PHP25-343. Continue the item with the direction to staff to provide additional information. Additional information requested could include the preparation of further technical analysis (e.g., supplemental visual simulations or updated noise modeling). This option would extend the review timeline for the project and require additional staff time and consultant resources. Deny the proposed amendment and reject the additional height for the hotel.
Environmental Review/Analysis:
Addendum No. 6 (Attachment 3) to the previously certified FEIR for the MCSP (State Clearing House [SCH] No. 1995091037) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 which requires a Lead Agency to revise a certified EIR to accurately reflect any changes or additions to the project, changes in conditions under which the project is undertaken, or to add new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, changes to the approved project addressed in this addendum would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects identified in the 1998 FEIR and subsequent addenda.
Nor is there any new information, not disclosed at the time of the prior environmental analyses, that shows the potential for any such new or more severe impacts.
The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density 701
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8B.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 6
established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in Addendum No. 6 to the FEIR, which was adopted per current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. The project description assessed in the 1983 EIR included the development of a hotel and conference center within the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan, and the increase in height to 62 feet to accommodate a rooftop restaurant and elevator towers will not produce any new or more severe impacts that were not discussed in the FEIR, in Addendum No. 6 to the FEIR, and other prior analyses.
If the City Council approves the separate MCSP amendment and certifies Addendum No. 6, then the increased height and features of this modified project are also Exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162 (Subsequent review of Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declarations) and §15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning).
Recommended Actions:
Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 25-137, which would:
1. Approve PHP25-343 to amend Commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP) 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-17 to modify the previously approved hotel at 401 W. Avenida Vista Hermosa to allow for an increase in height to 62 feet to incorporate a rooftop restaurant with outdoor dining; and
2. Find that Addendum No. 6 to the MCSP Final EIR demonstrates no new significant impacts and that no further environmental review is needed, consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15162 and §15183.
..end
Attachment:
1. Resolution 25-137
2. Resolution 04-61 with Exhibit 1: Conditions of Approval
3. Addendum No. 6 to the previously certified FEIR for the MCSP (SCH No. 1995091037)
4. Amended Plan Set
5. Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan Final EIR which can be found at the following link:
https://www.san-clemente.org/home/showpublisheddocument/50253/636846196849400000 Notification:
Provided pursuant to the requirements of SCMC 17.12.100 for public hearing items. 702
Attachment 1
4934-9616-2407 v1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-137
AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE APPROVING PUBLIC
HEARING PROJECT 25-343 TO AMEND
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN PERMIT (SPP) 99-16 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 99-17 TO MODIFY
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HOTEL AT 401 W.
AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA TO ALLOW FOR AN
INCREASE IN HEIGHT FROM 45 FEET TO 62 FEET TO
INCORPORATE A ROOFTOP RESTAURANT WITH
OUTDOOR DINING; AND FINDING THAT ADDENDUM
NO. 6 TO THE MCSP FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT DEMONSTRATES NO NEW
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND THAT NO FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NEEDED,
CONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES §15162 AND
§15183
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1998, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) (State Clearing House [SCH] No. 1995091037); and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 95-01, Specific Plan 95-02, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 8817, Site Plan Permit (SPP) 97-16, and a Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999, the City Council approved Site Plan Permit 99-16, Conditional Use Permit 99-17, and Sign Exception Permit 99-18, revising the commercial portion of the project to consist of 700,140 gross square feet of commercial uses, including 443,860 SF of specialty retail, 176,232 SF of entertainment, and 80,048 SF of general retail; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) conditionally approved the Marblehead Coastal project, acknowledging that most, but not all, of the property lies within the Coastal Zone. Land outside of the Coastal Zone, including the subject site, does not fall under CCC jurisdiction. The plan approved by the CCC incorporated requirements that preserved additional environmentally sensitive habitat areas, set development back from preserved areas, required substantial restoration and enhancement of degraded open space, reduced the number of residential lots from 424 to 313, and approved 141,500 square feet of commercial space within the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2003, the City Council approved an Amendment to TTM 8817 to reconcile differences between the CCC approval and the City’s prior approval; and
703
Resolution No. 25-137 Page 2
4934-9616-2407 v1
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-61, which certified Addendum No. 5 to the MCSP Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approved an amendment to commercial Site Plan Permit 99-16, to include the addition of a hotel and conference center; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 approval denoted an anticipated maximum parking demand of 3,061 parking spaces for the entirety of the commercial site plan development, including 349 spaces for the hotel (211 for hotel rooms and 138 to support the conference center); and WHEREAS, impacts of all parking spaces at the Outlets were fully analyzed in the Final EIR for the original project, including 3,718 parking spaces; and subsequent amendments and addenda analyzed alterations to the parking supply finally arriving at a count of 3,264 as approved by the Amended Commercial Site Plan 99-16 in 2004, rendering a surplus of 203 spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City and Coastal Commission approved conversion of buildings 9- 11 from retail and restaurant use to medical use in 2020 and 2022 respectively, resulting in an additional surplus of 34 parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City approved a substantial conformance plan set in January of 2019 (B19-099) for a four-story hotel and conference center comprising 133,515 square feet with 130 guest rooms, a conference center, lobby restaurant, and outdoor pool, with a total parking demand of 309 spaces; and
WHEREAS, this 2025 proposed amendment would allow an increase in height from 45 feet to 62 feet to establish a roof deck restaurant, with an updated project parking demand of 356 parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the net increase in parking demand (47 spaces) is less than the available surplus of 237 spaces; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-085, which, among other things, directed staff to initiate an amendment to the MCSP and carry out required environmental review to establish additional height allowances for the hotel building on the Outlets property consistent with height allowances for other landmark structures, including the theater building; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente has prepared Addendum No. 6 to the certified MCSP FEIR to evaluate the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) through Zoning Amendment ZA25-362, which would designate the hotel as eligible for the same maximum 62-foot height exception currently provided for the theater and clock tower; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, the City as Lead Agency has determined that the proposed modification would not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially more severe impacts than those previously analyzed in the certified FEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has further determined that the Addendum demonstrates 704
Resolution No. 25-137 Page 3
4934-9616-2407 v1
consistency with the Centennial General Plan, including policies that encourage visitorserving lodging near freeway interchanges, preserve public view corridors, and ensure compatibility with community character; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2025, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1795 (Ordinance) to certify Addendum No. 6 to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 1995091037) and to amend Section 502 (V)(D) within the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) to effectuate the Project and the City Council’s directives on the same; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2019, an application was submitted by Lodge at San Clemente, LLC, 4100 Macarthur Blvd 100, Newport Beach, CA, 92660 to request to amend previously approved commercial Site Plan Permit 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit 99-17 to increase the height of the previously approved hotel to incorporate a roof top restaurant with outdoor dining; and
WHEREAS, the City's Development Management Team reviewed the proposed amended project for consistency with the General Plan policies and other applicable City ordinances and policies; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Subcommittee reviewed the 2004 project between November 24, 2003, and June 7, 2004; and subsequently reviewed the amended project proposal on June 10, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2025, the City Council of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application in accordance with SCMC
17.12.180 (Applicant Requests to Change Approved Applications) and considered evidence presented by City staff, the project applicant and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated fully herein and adopted as findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, that as demonstrated in the analysis of Addendum No. 6 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (SCH No. 1995091037), the proposed modification would not result in new significant environmental effects. The proposed modification would also not substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives are required. No new information, not known at the time of the prior analyses, has been disclosed that shows the potential for any new or more severe impacts. An Addendum is therefore the appropriate environmental document under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Following the City Council’s certification of Addendum No. 6 to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan FEIR (SCH No. 1995091037), no further environmental review is required, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162. 705
Resolution No. 25-137 Page 4
4934-9616-2407 v1
The City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, that, as demonstrated in the analysis within Addendum No. 6 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (SCH No. 1995091037), the project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Section 15183 allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, that the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in Addendum No. 6 to the FEIR, which was adopted per current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. The project description assessed in Addendum No. 6 to the 1998 EIR included the development of a hotel and conference center within the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan, and the increase in height to 62 feet to accommodate a rooftop restaurant and elevator towers will not produce any new or more severe impacts that were not discussed in the FEIR, in Addendum No. 6 to the FEIR, and other prior analyses.
SECTION 3. Amendment Findings and Conditions. With respect to PHP25-343 to amend Commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP) 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99- 17, the City Council affirms the findings made within Resolution 04-61, with the following revisions (added text is in bold, underline; deleted text is in strike-through):
A. Section 2 (F)(1) is revised to state: “The proposed commercial uses comply with the maximum 45-foot height limit of the Marblehead Specific Plan Regional Commercial zone. The theater and hotel comply complies with the maximum 55-foot height limit and a maximum architectural projection of 62- feet.”
B. Section 2 (E)(4) is added to state: “Addendum 6 was prepared to evaluate an increase in allowable height for the hotel use and demonstrates that the proposed modification is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of San Clemente Centennial General Plan (City of San Clemente, 2014). The General Plan encourages visitor-serving uses such as lodging within the Marblehead Coastal commercial area (Policy ED-4.05), and requires new development to be compatible with community character (Policy LU-2.01).
The General Plan also places strong emphasis on protection of public views (Policy UD-2.05 and Policy UD-5.14). As discussed in Addendum Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, the proposed height exception for the hotel would remain consistent with these policies, since it applies to a previously approved visitorserving lodging use, does not alter approved setbacks or intensity, and would be subject to design review procedures that ensure compliance with the City’s Spanish Colonial Revival architectural standards.
706
Resolution No. 25-137 Page 5
4934-9616-2407 v1
C. Section 2 (A)(4) is added to state: “The project is consistent with General Plan Policy ED-4.05, which encourages visitor-serving uses such as lodging within the Marblehead Coastal commercial area; Policy LU-2.01, which emphasizes compatibility of new development with community character; and is consistent with the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan goal.
D. Section 2 (A)(5) is added to state: “The project directly achieves the first four objectives of the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan which are to:
1. Provide for a variety of land uses within the Specific Plan area capable of generating significant new tax revenues to the City.
2. Promote Regional Commercial Uses to Generate Sales Tax Revenues.
3. Enhance Existing and Future Public Access to the Coast.
4. Enhance Future Public Recreation Opportunities along the Shoreline by Providing Upland Recreation and Visitor-Serving Areas Designed to Support Recreational Use of Public Beaches in the City.
E. The following Conditions of Approval are appended to those existing conditions enumerated under Exhibit 1 of Resolution 04-61:
1. (Condition 86): Planning: Roof Deck Noise and Lighting. Amplified noise or entertainment are not requested or approved through this resolution. Should the applicant, in the future, wish to provide amplified sound, live entertainment, or different lighting systems that require additional discretionary review, the property owner shall submit a future amendment for review by the Planning Commission, not requiring approval by the City Council, unless appealed.
2. (Condition 87): Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Plan Submittal: The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below to the OCFA for review. Approval shall be obtained on each plan prior to the specified event:
i. Prior to OCFA clearance of a final map or issuance of a precise grading permit or a building permit, if a grading permit is not required:
1. fire master plan (service code PR145)
2. alternative methods and materials (AM&M) request
(PR910)
ii. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
1. architectural for Group R-1 Occupancy (service codes PR268) and for Group A-2/A-3 Occupancies (service
code PR200)
2. tanks storing hazardous materials (service codes
PR300), if a diesel generator will be included in the
scope of work
3. battery (service code PR375), if a back-up battery
707
Resolution No. 25-137 Page 6
4934-9616-2407 v1
system will be included in the scope of work
4. emergency responder radio system design (service
code PR928); this submittal may be deferred when
acceptable to the Building Department, but the required conduit must be installed prior to concealing interior
construction
5. underground piping for private hydrants and fire sprinkler systems (service code PR470-PR475)
iii. Prior to concealing interior construction:
1. fire alarm system (service code PR530)
2. fire sprinkler system (service codes PR425).
3. hood and duct extinguishing system (service code
PR335)
iv. Prior to occupancy:
1. emergency responder radio system testing (service
code PR928)
3. (Condition 88): Emergency Responder Digital Radio System: An emergency responder digital radio system shall be provided in this structure. Refer to CFC 510 and the OCC/OCFA DAS/BDA guidelines (available at ocfa.org) for requirements. Evidence of compliance with emergency responder digital radio system design and performance criteria shall be provided prior to occupancy.
4. (Condition 89): Temporary/Final Occupancy Inspections: Prior to issuance of temporary or final certificate of occupancy, all OCFA inspections shall be completed to the satisfaction of the OCFA inspector and be in substantial compliance with codes and standards applicable to the project and commensurate with the type of occupancy (temporary or final) requested. Inspections shall be scheduled at least five days in advance by calling OCFA Inspection Scheduling at 714- 573-6150.
SECTION 4. Approval of PHP25-343. The City Council hereby approves Zoning Amendment PHP25-343 to amend Commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP) 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-17 to modify the previously approved hotel at 401 W.
Avenida Vista Hermosa to allow for an increase in height to 62 feet to incorporate a rooftop restaurant with outdoor dining subject to the above conditions of approval and those set forth in Exhibit 1 of Resolution 04-61.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, _______. 708
Resolution No. 25-137 Page 7
4934-9616-2407 v1
ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the
San Clemente, California City of San Clemente, California
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-137 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
709
RESOLUTION NO. o 4-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN PERMIT (AM SPP) 99-16, MARBLEHEAD COASTAL COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998 the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 8817, Site Plan Permit (SPP) 97-16 and Coastal Development Permit 97-42 to allow the subdivision of 250.6 acres and the development of a 434 single family residential dwelling units. Site Plan Permit 97-17, Conditional Use Permit 97-18 and Sign Exception Permit 97-19 to allow development of the commercial portion of the project were denied; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999 the City Council approved Site Plan Permit 99-16, Conditional Use Permit 99-17 and Sign Exception Permit 99-18 to allow the development of 443,860 square-feet of specialty retail, 176, 232 square-feet of entertainment and 80,048 squarefeet of general retail; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2000 the City Council approved an Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 8817 and Site Plan Permit 97-16 to preserve additional exi$ting wetland habitat and reduce the number of homes from 434 to 424 and allow other related modifications to the previously approved project; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2001, the City Council conceptually endorsed the site plan revisions prior to the applicant submitting an application to the California Coastal Commission; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, the California Coastal Commission conditionally approved the Marblehead Coastal project; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2003, the City Council approved an Amendment to TTM 8817 to preserve additional environmentally sensitive habitat areas and other open space, reduce the amount of developed acreage including a reduction in commercial square footage and the number of residential lots from 424 to 313; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2004, an application was submitted by MT No. 1, LLC, 16592 Hale A venue, Irvine, California 92606 to request to amend previously approved commercial Site Plan Permit 99-16 to allow the development of approximately 641,534 square-feet of commercial uses including a 120 to 130 room hotel, conference center, theater, restaurants and outlet retail uses; and
Attachment 2
710
Resolution No. _ O 4-61 Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Division completed an Environmental Initial Study for the above referenced project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In accordance with Section 15164 of CEQA, the Planning Division prepared an Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 95-01 for the Marblehead Coastal Project (State Clearing House Number 95091037). The Addendum addresses the impacts of modifications to the Site Plan Permit, updates previous studies and provides new analysis; and WHEREAS, the City's Development Management Team reviewed the proposed Site Plan Permit for consistency with the General Plan policies and other applicable City ordinances and policies; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Subcommittee regularly reviewed the proposed project between November 24, 2003 and June 7, 2004 and provided comments; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application and considered evidence presented by City staff, the project applicant and other interested parties and continued the item to June 16, 2004 and;
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application and considered evidence presented by City staff, the project applicant and other interested parties and adopted a resolution recommending approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the City Council of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application and considered evidence presented by City staff, the project applicant and other interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the San Clemente City Council certified Marblehead Costa} Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 95-01 (SCH NO. 95091037). Certification of the document also included the adoption of Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. On July 1998, February 2000, August 2003 and December 2003. the City Council certified Addendums to FEIR 95-01. Addendum No. 5 to FEIR 95-01 considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Addendum No. 5 to Final EIR 95-01 thoroughly addresses proposed modifications to the Marblehead Coastal Project. Based on proposed modifications, no substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the Environmental Impact Report; there are no substantial changes with 711
Resolution No. 04-61 Page 3
respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Environmental Impact Report, and there is no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Environmental Impact Report was certified as complete, no new significant environmental impacts would occur, nor would the severity of the impacts previously identified increase. The environmental review pursuant to Section 15164 (Addendum EIR) of the State CEQA Guidelines appropriately addresses environmental considerations associated with project revisions and none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs) occur. All records pertaining to the FEIR and Addendum are contained in the Planning Division of the City of San Clemente.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of San Clemente finds and determines as follows with regard to Amendment Site Plan Permit 99-16:
A. The proposed commercial development is pemlitted within the subject zone pursuant to the approval of a Site Plan Permit and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Marblehead Specific Plan, the goals and objectives of the San Clemente General Plan, and the purpose and intent of the zone in which the development is being proposed in that:
1. The proposed project provides for retail outlet stores, restaurants a theater, hotel conference center and other permitted uses within the Regional Commercial portion of the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan area.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of San Clemente General Plan in that is has been determined that no encroachment into designated open space will occur as a result of the development of this project.
3. The proposed project is consistent with all other aspects of the City of San Clemente General Plan and the Marblehead Specific Plan with respect to grades, drainage and sanitary facilities, including alignments and grades thereof; location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; lot size and configuration; traffic circulation and access; and other specific requirements.
B. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of development that is proposed in that Planning Area RC IA is designated for regional commercial development.
C. The proposed regional commercial development, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity, in that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Marblehead Coastal Specific Plans, fits well within the surrounding community and will not be developed until all utility services are 712
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page4
available. All sewer and water services which will be provided to the site are the responsibility of the owner and his/her designee, and as conditioned, no building permits shall be issued prior to proof that such water and sewer systems can accommodate the project.
D. The proposed regional commercial development, as conditioned, will not be unsightly or create disharmony with its locale and surroundings, and the general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, in that:
1. The regional commercial site is buffered from adjacent land uses through the use of grade separation and landscape screening.
2. Roofs are designed to include parapets that will adequately screen roofmounted equipment. The flat smface of the roof and roof-mounted equipment will be painted to match the color of the tile roof.
E. The proposed regional commercial development will minimize or eliminate adverse physical or visual effects which might otherwise result from unplanned or inappropriate development, design or location, and will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City of San Clemente, in that:
1. A condition of approval requires that delivery trucks comply with a truck routing plan to avoid conflicts with other vehicles and pedestrians.
2. Commercial parking meets or exceeds minimum standards.
3. Pedestrian sidewalks are proposed through the commercial development and an extensive public trail system is also provided.
F. The architectural treatment of the regional commercial project complies with the San Clemente General Plan, the Marblehead Specific Plan, and the San Clemente Zoning Ordinance in areas including, but not limited to, height, setback and color, etc., in that:
1. The proposed commercial uses comply with the maximum 45-foot height limit of the Marblehead Specific Plan Regional Commercial zone. The theater complies with the maximum 55-foot height limit and a maximum architectural projection of 62-feet.
2. The commercial development complies with the minimum average setback of 50-feet for all buildings with frontage along a major arterial.
G. The architectural treatment of the commercial project complies with the architectural guidelines in the City of San Clemente Design Guidelines and the Marblehead Specific Plan, in that:
713
Resolution No. o 4 -61 Page 5
1. The architecture incorporates a variety of Spanish-influenced design elements to strengthen San Clemente's unique character and historic identity of the "Spanish Village by the Sea".
2. The building facades incorporate vertical and horizontal articulation to reduce apparent massing.
3. Varied architectural styles are balanced with unifying elements of building materials and project landscaping.
Section 3: The City Council hereby approves Amendment to Site Plan Permit 99-16 Marblehead Coastal Commercial Development, subject to the above Findings, and the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2 o th
ATTEST:
STATEOFCALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE)
day of ,Jn 1 y , 2004.
,,
~Q.~, --=-
Mayor of the City of
San Clemente, California
I, Myrna Erway, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. O 4-61 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the 2 O th day of Ju 1 Y , ~ O O 4 __ , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ANDERSON, DAHL, DOREY, EGGLESTON, MAYOR RITSCHEL
NONE
NONE
714
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page6
715
Resolution No. , o 4-61 Page 7
EXHIBIT l
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN PERMIT 99-16 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
l. AM SPP 99-16 is subject to these conditions and a11 applicable Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 8817 as approved by the City Council on September 16, 2003 with Resolution 03-75. Prior to Final Map approval for any portion of AM TIM 8817, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Council for, a Final Map prepared under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor. The Final Map(s) shall be subject to all pertinent requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and shall substantially conform to AM TIM 8817, AM SPP 99-16, City standards, and all other applicable approved plans, codes, ordinances, statutes and regulations. •• (Plng.) __ (Eng.) __ _
2. This project is approved subject to the provisions of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 95-01 and subsequent Addendums and the mitigation measures adopted with FEIR, included by reference with these conditions of approval. (Ping.) __
3. The owner or designee shall develop the approved project m conformance with all applicable submittals approved by the City subject to modifications by these Conditions of Approval. Any deviation from the applicable submittals recommended for approval by the Planning Commission shall require that, prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner or designee shall submit modified plans and any other applicable materials as required by the City for review and obtain the approval of the City Planner or designee. If the City Planner or designee determines that the deviation is significant, the owner or designee shall be required to apply for review and obtain the approval of the City Council. (Ping.) __ _
4. The owner or designee shall not pave any street under which Cable TV conduit is to be placed without actual notice to Cox Communications or their successor in interest, for the installation of cable conduit. Notice shall be sent to the following address: Cox Communications, General, Manager, 29947 Avenida de las Banderas, Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688. (Ping.) __
5. The owner or designee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of San Clemente and its elected and appointed boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees from any and all actions, suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, obligations, and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' fees and costs) which may arise, directly or indirectly, from the acts, omissions; or operations of the owner or owner's agents, contractors, subcontractors, or employees concerning Amendment to Site Plan Permit 99-16 when such action is brought within the time period provided under 716
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 8
Government Code Section 66499.37. The City shall notify the owner or designee of the pendency of any such action and request that the owner or des1gnee defend such action. If the owner or designee fails to do so, the City may defend the action and the owner or designee shall pay the cost thereof. The provisions herein shall not apply to the extent such damage; liability or claim is caused by the willful misconduct or sole active negligence of the City, or the City's officers, officials, agents, employees or representatives. (Ping.) __ _
6. AM Site Plan Permit 99-16 is approved with the intent that the theater (Building 22) and the hotel (Building 15) are architectural landmarks for the project. If either the hotel or theater is not constructed, then alternative architectural landmarks shall be developed.
The development of alternative landmarks shall require the submittal and approval of an Amended Site Plan Permit including review by the City's Design Review Subcommittee, Planning Commission and City Council. This condition is in addition to Condition Nos. 38 and 39 which also relate to the theater and hotel buildings._ ••(Ping.) __
7. The commercial bridge shall include the following design revisions to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee and the City's architectural consultant: ••(Ping.) __ A. Provide a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of the bridge.
B. Corbels on the lower bridge beam shall be the same dimension as the support posts.
C. Provide decorative posts between the bridge support columns and the decorative arch.
8. The reinforced earthen structure that supports the service road and utilities on the east side of the canyon shall incorporate the following design features to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee and the City's architectural consultant: ••(Ping.) __ A. The surface of the structure shall be constructed using integral earth-tone color concrete (such as green or beige) and have a rough surface.
B. The slope at the base of the structure shall be planted with native trees and other native plants to screen the structure.
9. Signage and Signage Monuments are not part of this review. Any signage for this proposed development shall require the owner or designee to submit for review and obtain approval of an Amended Sign Exception Permit. •• (Ping.) __ 717
Resolution No. 04-61 Page9
ISSUANCE OF PERMITS
10. Prior to issuance of any permit, the owner or designec shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that all existing survey monuments are located in the field in compliance with AB 1414 for restoration by the Registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor in accordance with Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. (Eng.)__ __
11. Prior to issuance of any pennits, the owner or designee shall submit written consent to all of these imposed conditions to the Community Development Director or designee. The owner or designee understands that the resolution will be of no force or effect unless such written consent is submitted to the City. (Ping.) ___ _
12. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review and shall obtain approval by the City Engineer or designee, plans for the regulation and control of pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMPs). The owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that the project meets all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Federal, State, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, County and City guidelines and regulations, in order to control pollutant run-off and shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer or his designee that the required NPDES permits has been obtained. (Eng.) __ _
13. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review a project binder containing the following documents: (Eng.) __ A. Notice of Intent filed with the California State Water Resources Control Board (NPDES Permit).
B. Water Quality Management Plan containing Operational Best Management Practices (BMPs ).
C. Copy of project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
D. Evidence of Compliance with the approved Regional Runoff Management Plan (ROMP).
14. Prior to issuance of any permit, the owner or designec shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that the project meets all requirements of the Orange County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Drain Program, and Federal, State, County and City guidelines and regulations, in order to control pollutant run-off. If final guidelines are not in place, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer or designee for, plans for the regulation and control of pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMP's). (Eng.) __
718
Resolution No. O 4-6 1 Page 10
15. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the City Engineer shall determine that development of the site shall conform to general recommendations presented in the geotechnical studies, including specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and fill, slope stability, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage, and recommendations for further study. (Eng.)_
16. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the limits of grading shown on the Tentative Map must be verified by the Geotechnical Engineer. The owner or designee shall not be allowed to go beyond the limits as shown on the Tentative Map, unless approved by the Director of Community Development. (Eng.) __ (Plng.)_ __
17. Prior to issuance of any grading permits unless previously provided, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that a 4(d) Section 7 or Section 10 permit has been obtained prior to commencing activities that would impact the gnatcatcher. •• (Plng.) __
18. Prior to issuance of any grading permit unless previously provided, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that a Section 404 Permit and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Agreement have been obtained prior to impacting wetlands and other waters of the U.S. hnpacts to applicable wetland habitats shall be mitigated in a manner acceptable to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG. ••(MM 4.12-1 a) (Plng.) __
19. Prior to issuance of grading permits unless previously provided, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that, at a minimum, plans and appropriate permits for the following on-site mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources have been approved:
A. Preservation of 6.90 acres of existing wetlands, and restoration and enhancement of an additional 4.6 acres of wetland habitat, located within the Marblehead Canyons (Lots C, G, Land S), as well the three detention basins (Lots K, T, XX).
B. Preservation of 10.4 acres of existing sage scrub habitat, and restoration and enhancement of 70 acres of sage scrub habitat, within the Canyons and open space adjacent to the preserved and restored wetlands.
C. Completion of the implementation of the measures required under the dudleya reserve translocation and management plan approved by the California Coastal Commission under CDP 5-97-136 in 1997, and CDP 5-03-013.
D. Provision for buffers around wetlands in canyon bottoms.
E. Funding under the Habitat Management Plan adequate to provide for long-term monitoring and management of preserved and restored biological resources. ••(MM 4.12-l.b) (Ping.) __
719
Resolution No. 04-61 Page 11
20. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that a monitoring biologist, acceptable to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game, has been retained and shall be on site during any clearing of coastal sage scrub. •• (Plng.L_
21. Prior to issuance of any grading pennits, the owner or des1gnee shall submit for review and obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for an acoustical analysis report prepared by a County-approved acoustical consultant. The report shall describe, in detail, the exterior noise environment and preliminary requirements.
Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise standards may be included in the report in which case it may also satisfy the following conditions:
A. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the owner or designee shall provide evidence acceptable to the City Engineer, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer or designee, that:
1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with operating and maintained mufflers.
2) No internal combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the City Engineer or designee.
3) All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance Division 6 (Noise Control).
4) Stockpiling and/or vehicle-storage areas shall be located as far as practicable and out of view from dwellings to the extent feasible. 5) The City of San Clemente Noise Ordinance, limiting the hours of construction and construction equipment maintenance to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and to the days of Monday through Friday, excluding City holidays, shall be enforced.
B. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits and building pennits for the hotel, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for, a final sound attenuation plan. All hotel guest rooms shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an indoor standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County-approved acoustical consultant shall indicate that these standards will be 720
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 12
satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable City Ordinances or shall indicate other appropriate mitigation measures.
•(MM 4.3-1.a, 4.3-1.c, 4.3-1.d) (Eng.)_ (Bldg.) __ _
22. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, rough grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer or designee. Said plans shall include provisions for:
(Eng.) __ _
A. Stockpiling of topsoil for placement on finished slopes.
B. Erosion and siltation control.
C. Dust control.
D. Planting of vegetation on all exposed slopes as required by the Grading Ordinance.
E. Temporary sedimentation basins and sandbagging if necessary.
23. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, a fossil preservation plan shall be approved by the City Planner. A qualified paleontologist (able to meet the criteria of, and be experienced in scientific methods acceptable to, the section of Vertebrate Paleontology of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) identified in the pJan shall attend any pre-grade meetings and monitor grading operations. lf fossils are discovered, the paleontologist shall be empowered to divert or redirect grading in the vicinity of the remains in order to evaluate and salvage exposed prehistoric fossils. The plan shall provide for the following: ••(MM 4.7-1, 2.e) __ (Eng.) __ A. Sufficient time allowed for adequate evaluation and recovery operations to be completed. (MM 4.7-1, 2.a, 2.b)
B. Marine and non-marine terrace sediments and sand lenses in the Capistrano Formation to be screened routinely for micro-vertebrate and invertebrate remains. (MM 4.7-2.c)
C. All fossils collected to be catalogued, analyzed, and prepared to the point of identification, with the remains to be placed in the Orange County designated repository and/or a permanent systematics institution with a research and/or educational interest in fossils. (MM 4.7-2.d)
24. This project shall be subject to all provisions of the Archaeology Plan prepared by Gavin H Archer, RRPA, dated November 2002, as amended by the Archaeological Monitoring Treatment Plan dated February 20, 2003 and as further modified by the Coastal Commission by Condition No. 26 of Coastal Development Permit No. 5-03-013. •• (Plng.) __ _
721
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page 13
25. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and obtain the approval of the City Engineer or designee, a precise grading plan as required by the City Grading Manual and Ordinance. (Eng.) ___ _
26. Prior to issuance of precise grading and building permits, lhe owner or designee shall submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in compliance with all pertinent requirements including, but not limited to, the City's Landscape Guidelines, apphcable Specific Plans, and guidelines contained in the City's Master Landscape Plan of Scenic Corridors except as modified by the Coastal Development Permit 5-03-013. A site-specific soils report, prepared by an authorized professional, regarding the tests and analyses of the agricultural suitability of the soil and recommendations shall be submitted for review for selected areas. (BP&R) __ _
The following standards shall apply for landscaping design, unless otherwise approved by the City or as modified by Coastal Development Permit 5-03-013:
• (Plng.L ____ (Eng.) (BPR) __ _
A. Minimum parkway tree size shall be 15-gallon for canopy trees and ten-foot ( 10') brown trunk height (BTH) for palms.
B. Trees shall be planted and staked at thirty-foot intervals in commercial parkway areas. Trees shall be located in a manner to avoid blocking public and private views to the fullest extent feasible.
C. Landscape materials within the private commercial lots shall be installed in substantial conformance with the approved site plans, landscape concept plans, construction drawings and professional practices.
D. Landscaping shall not conflict with vehicular sight distance and shall comply with Orange County EMA Standard 1117.
E. All parkway trees shall maintain the following distances from improvements:
1) 10' O" from water, sewer and storm drain lines;
2) 5' O" from hardscape (curbs, sidewalks, street lights, utility boxes, fire hydrants, post indicator valve, fire detector checks, etc.), unless an approved species is planted in a tree well with 24" deep, continuous circle, root control barriers that are securely fastened at the joint with ribs inward; 3) 5' O" from drive approaches; and
4) 25' O" from curb return at street intersections.
722
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 14
F. All landscape irrigation systems shall be designed using the City's reclaimed water standards. In the event reclaimed water is not available at the time the system is put into operation, the system may be connected to the potable water system.
When reclaimed water is available, the system shall be converted to reclaimed service. The owner or designee shall install reclaimed water service lines to the meter locations for future connection when reclaimed water is available.
27. Prior to issuance of precise grading and building pennits for Buildings 14, 17, 19, 22 or 24, as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall submit landscape plans for the Caltrans right-of-way between Interstate 5 and the commercial pads. The landscape plans shall provide a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcovers which enhance the building facades in a manner acceptable to the City Planner or designee. •• (Plng.) __ _
28. Prior to issuance of precise grading plans and building permits for Buildings 14, 17, 19, 22 or 24, as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall submit landscape plans for the Open Space Lots "SSS" and "1Tf'' (the slope on the south side of the commercial site) to be approved by the Community Development Director or designee. The grading plans and landscape plans shall include the following design features: ••(Ping.) __ _
A. Non combustible screen wall shall be natural finish and designed to blend into the natural environment to the fullest extent feasible.
B. Slope landfonn grading shall incorporate landform grading techniques such as variable slope ratios to create a more natural appearance.
C. The coastal sage scrub restoration within the Habitat Management Plan area shall incorporate plant materials with a variety of textures, colors and mature heights in a manner to create a gradation in height toward the commercial site to the extent consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and as approved by OCFA.
29. Prior to the issuance of grading and building pennits, the owner or designee shall be responsible for updating the City's mylar Precise Zoning Map by integrating the recorded map into the appropriate sheet(s) of the Zoning Map in a manner satisfactory to the City Planner or designee. (Ping.). __
30. Prior to issuance of building pennits, the owner or designee shall pay all applicable development fees in effect at the time, which may include, but are not limited to, RCFPP, public safety plan check, transportation corridor fees, etc. (MM 4.L-1) (Eng.) (Bldg.) __
723
Resolution No. o 4-6 1 Page 15
31. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the owner or designee shall include within the first four pages of the working drawings a list of all Conditions of Approval imposed by the final approval for the project applicable to the particular phase of development. (Bldg.)_ __
32. Prior to issuance of any grading permits and following lhe completion of initial grading/earth movement activities, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction' of the City Planner or designee that all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel are marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking or storage of equipment or materials, or other such construction activities, shall be permitted within such marked areas. In addition, during construction activities, coastal sage scrub areas identified for protection and located within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves, as recommended by the monitoring biologist. ••(MM 4.12-2.c, 2.d) (Plng.)_ __
33. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designec shall submit a copy of the City Engineer approved soils and geologic report, prepared by a Registered Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer, which conforms to City standards and all other applicable codes, ordinances, statutes and regulations. The soils report shall accompany the building plans, engineering calculations, and reports. (Bldg.) __
34. Prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise authonzed by the City Engineer or designee, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that all underground public utilities necessary to allow construction to proceed for the Development Phase in compliance with the City-approved Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program have been completed in accordance with the approved plans, and that the as-built progress plans for said improvements, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, have been submitted and approved by the City Engineer or designee. (Eng.) __
35. Prior to issuance of commercial building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for, plans indicating all/any exterior fire-resistive features into the structures with exposed side facing to fuel modification zone and/or very high fire hazard severity zone that are required by building and fire codes. (Bldg) __ _
36. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Planner or designee for, landscape plans which indicate that all ground-mounted utility structures and equipment, including, but not limited to, standpipes, backflow prevention/double detector check equipment, shall be located out of view, from a public street and/or adequately screened through the use of walls and/or landscaping, to the fullest extent feasible. (Plng.) __ _ 724
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page 16
37. Prior to the issuance of precise grading plans or building perm1ts for any parking lots or parking structure, the owner or designee shall submit a parkmg lot construction phasing plan. Any parking areas disturbed but not developed as parking lot or parking structure shall be hydroseeded or treated in compliance with the City's erosion control standards to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee. ••(Ping.) __
38. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the theater (Building 22), as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall submit and obtain the approval of architectural construction documents indicating that the theater floor is relatively flat and the building is designed in a manner to a11ow for potential future adaptive uses other than a theater. ••(Ping.) __
39. Prior to issuance of building permits for Buildings 12 and 13 within the hotel development area, as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall submit and obtain the approval for building pe1mits for the construction of the hotel and conference center (Buildings 14 and 15). If the hotel and conference center are not developed, then the owner shalJ submit an application for an Amended Site Plan Permit for the hotel development area including the possible redesign, modification or elimination of Buildings 12, 13, 14 and 15, as well as the parking lots and related improvements that serve those buildings. The intent of this condition is to ensure that the hotel portion of the site is developed in a comprehensive manner. •• (Plng.) __ _
40. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits and building pemlits for the hotel, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for, a final sound attenuation plan. All hotel guest rooms shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an indoor standard of 45 dB CNEL in an habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County-approved acoustical consultant shall indicate that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable City Ordinances. The report shall describe, in detail, the exterior noise environment and preliminary mitigation measures. Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise standards may be included in the report. •(Bldg.)__
41. Prior to the issuance of building permits for commercial buildings, the owner or designee shall submit plans for review and approval by_the City's architectural consultant. Staff shall review the buildings for compliance with the Amended Site Plan Permit and Design Review Subcommittee Meeting Minutes. This review is in addition to other standard submittal and review requirements. •• (Ping.) __ _
42. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Buildings 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall subm1t for review by the City's architectural consultant, the City Planner or designee and the Design Review Subcommittee, architectural elevations for the following elevations: Building 16 North and South elevations; Buildings 17 and 19 West elevations; Building 18 North and 725
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page 17
East elevations; Building 20 North, East and South elevations; Restaurant Buildings 9 and 12. ••(Ping.)_ __
43. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designcc sha11 submit for review and obtain the approval of the City Planner or designee for plans indicating the following (unless otherwise approved by the City's architectural consultant):
••(Ping.) __ _
A. Two-piece clay tile roofing shall be used with booster tiles on the edges and ridges and random mortar packing. The mortar shall be packed on 100 percent of the tiles in the first two rows of tiles and along any rake and ridgeline, and shall be packed on -20 percent of the tiles on the remaining field. Mortar packing sha11 serve as bird stops at the roof edges. The thickness of pack shaJI be determined by the City Planner or designee.
B. Variations in tile color and size between individual building segments is encouraged. Tile roofing for the theater (Building 22) should be larger than other buildings to correspond with the bigger scale of the theater.
C. Roof slopes shall vary from 3.5: 12 to 5.5:12 wilh an average of 4:12.
D. Stucco walls with a 'steel, hand troweled' (no machine application), smooth Mission finish and slight undulations (applied during brown coat) and bull-nosed corners and edges, including archways (applied during lathe), with no control/expansion joints.
44. Prior to issuance of any commercial building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review and obtain approval of the Director of Community Development or designee plans indicating that the height of any roof mounted equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall intended to screen the equipment. Shed roofs (non-full roofs) shall be a minimum width of 16-feet. The non-tile portions of the roof and the roofmounted equipment shall be painted in such a manner as to cause the equipment to blend with the roof when viewed from surrounding areas. Additional screening devices may be required in conjunction with tenant improvements if deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. •(Ping.) __ _
45. Building permits shall not be issued unless the project complies with all applicable codes, ordinances, and statutes including, but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Fire Code, Security Ordinance, Transportation Demand Ordinance, Water Quality Ordinance, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and the Uniform Codes as adopted by the City. (Bldg.) __
A. The type of construction and allowable building floor area of each building shall comply with 2001 California Building Code Section 504 and table 5-B. Prior to 726
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 18
issuance of building pennits, a licensed architect shall submit building area calculations to show that all proposed construction is within allowable building area code limitations for the proposed construction type.
B. Fire-resistance of exterior walls and openings must comply with 2001 Californai Building Code Section 503.3 and Table 5-A based on distances to actual and artificial property lines between buildings.
C. Provide handicapped accessible path of travel from the bus drop off areas to building entrances per 2001 California Building Code Section l 131B.4.
D. Provide accessible path of travel between all groups of buildings. Indicate path of travel to Buildings 6, 7 and 8 from other areas per 2001 California Building Code Section 1127B.l.
E. The number and size of handicapped parking spaces must comply with 2001 California Building Code Section l 129B and l lB-6.
F. Incorporate all/any exterior fire resistive features into the structures with exposed side facing to fuel modification zone and/or very high fire hazard severity zone that are required by building and fire codes.
46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall submit a copy of the City Engineer approved soils and geologic report, prepared by a registered geologist and/or soil engineer, which conforms to City standards and all other applicable codes, ordinances, statutes and regulations. The soils report shall accompany the building plans, engineering calculations, and reports. (Bldg.) __
47. Prior to the Building Division's approval to pour foundations, the owner or designee shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City Building Official or designee that a registered civil engineer that is licensed to do surveying or land surveyor has certified that the forms for the building foundations confonn to the front, side and rear setbacks are in confonnance to the approved plans. (Bldg.) __
48. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Planner or their designee for all street names and addresses associated with the project. (Ping.) __ _
49. Prior to the Building Division's approval of the framing inspection, the owner or designee shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City Building Official or designee that a registered civil engineer that is licensed to do surveying or land surveyor has certified that the height of all structures are in conformance to the approved plans. (Bldg.) __
50. Prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise authorized by the City Engineer or designee, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the. City Engineer 727
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 19
or designee that all water, sewer and/or stonn drain facility improvements necessary to serve the development have been completed in accordance with the approved plans, and that the "as-built" plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, have been submitted and approved by the City Engineer or designee. (Eng.)_ __
51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit evidence of the onsite fire hydrant system to the Fire Chief and indicate whether it is public or private. If the system is private, it shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief prior to building pennit issuance, and the applicant shall make provisions for the repair and maintenance of the system in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website for a copy of the "Guidelines for Private Fire Hydrant &/or Sprinkler Underground Piping." (Fire) __
52. Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map or the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The "Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection" fonn shall be signed by the applicable water district and submitted to the Fire Chief for approval. If sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available an automatic fire extinguishing system may be required in each structure affected. (Fire) __ _
53. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for any required automatic fire sprinkler system in any structure to the Fire Chief for review and approval. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 for additional information. (Fire) __
54. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Chief for all fire protection access roads to all portions of the exterior of every structure on site. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access. (Fire) __
55. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and City Staff of plans for all public or private access roads, streets and courts. The plans shall include plan and sectional views and indicate the grade and width of the access road measured flow-line to flow-line.
When a dead-end street exceeds 150 feet or when otherwise required, a clearly marked fire apparatus access turnaround must be provided and approved by the Fire Chief.
Applicable CC&R's or other approved documents shall contain provisions which prohibit obstructions such as speed bumps/humps, control gates or other modifications within said easement or access road unless prior approval of the Fire Chief is granted. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access." (Fire) __ _
56. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit plans and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for fire lanes on required fire access roads less 728
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page 20
than 36 feet in width. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbs and signage and include a detail of the proposed signage including the height, stroke and colors of the lettering and its contrasting background. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelmes for Emergency Access Roadways and Fire Lane Requirements. (Fire)_ __
57. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire Chief in consultation with the City Staff for a precise fuel modification plan and program. The plan shall indicate the proposed means of modifying vegetation to reduce the risk to structures. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guideline for Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance." (Fire)_ __
58. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer, under the supervision of the Fire Chief, shall have completed the portion of the approved fuel modification plan determined to be necessary before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval shall be subject to an on-site inspection. (Fire)__ __
59. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall obtain the approval from the Fire Chief for the construction of any gate across required fire department access roads. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Design and Installation of Emergency Access Gates and Barriers." (Fire)_ __
60. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for combustible construction, the builder shall submit a letter on company letterhead stating that water for fire-fighting purposes and allweather fire protection access roads shall be in place and operational before any combustible material is placed on site. Building pennits will not be issued without OCFA approval obtained as a result of an on-site impection. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 to obtain a copy of the standard combustible construction letter. (Fire)_ __
61. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Chief if required per the "Orange County Fire Authority Plan Submittal Criteria Form." Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 for a copy of the Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans prior to submittal. (Fire) __
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
62. Prior to the issuance Certificates of Occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that all exterior lighting is designed, arranged, directed or shielded per the approved plans, and in such a manner as to contain direct illumination on site, thereby preventing excess iJlumination onto adjoining site(s) and/or street(s). (Ping.)_ __
729
Resolution No. 04-61 Page 21
63. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or designee shall submit evidence that the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and lease agreements for the commercial development include a statement that: •• (Ping.) __ A. Delivery trucks shall be required to comply with the truck routing plan.
B. A parking management plan shall be included with each tenant lease agreement which requires that employees do not park in the parking lots adjacent to Buildings 9 through 15.
These statements shall be in addition to the CC&R requirements identified as Condition No. 17 for AM TIM 8817 as adopted by Resolution No 03-075.
64. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or des1gnee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Building Official or designee that the project has been constructed in conformance with the approved sets of plans and all applicable, codes, ordinances, and standards. (Bldg.)_ __
65. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy and/or acceptance of improvements by the City Engineer or designee, the owner or designee shall submit "as-built" plans prepared by a registered civil engineer for all applicable streets, traffic signals, street lights, sewer, water, storm drains, street signs, striping, traffic markings, painted curbs and all other required improvements. (Eng.)_ __
66. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the owner or designee shall install, if applicable, all underground traffic signal conduit, including, but not limited to, signal, phone, power and loop detector; and other appurtenances, including, but not limited to, pull boxes; needed for future traffic signal construction at the intersections listed above, and as needed for future interconnection with adjacent intersections per the City Engineer or designee's direction, in accordance with the submitted and approved street improvement plans. Estimated costs for this work shall be deducted from any cash-inlieu payments (financial security) required for corresponding signals as a condition of approval of AM TIM 8817.
(Eng.) __ _
67. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that the following have been installed per the approved improvement plans (if applicable): public and/or private street name signs, regulatory and informational signs constructed of high intensity sheeting and .080 aluminum, traffic pavement markings controlling arterial, collector and residential street intersections, centerline and Jane line striping, and curb painting. (Eng.) ___ ,
68. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Maintenance Manager or their designees 730
ResolutionNo. 04 _ 61 Page 22
that all street improvements have been completed and accepted and that any damage to new or existing street right-of-way during construction have been repaired/replaced. (Eng.) (Maint.) __
69. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy and acceptance of improvements by the City Engineer, or designee, for each Development Phase in compliance with the City-approved Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program unless an exception is granted by the City Engineer, the owner or designee shall submit as built plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, depicting all underground public utilities compJeted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for that Development Phase. (Eng.) __
70. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Beaches, Parks and Recreation Director or designee that parkway trees have been planted and staked according to the submitted and approved landscape plans. (B,P&R) __
71. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for each Development Phase in compliance with the City-approved Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program, the owner or designee shall submit a letter, signed by a Registered Landscape Architect, to the Community Development Director or designee, stating that all materials for all landscaped areas and irrigation have. been installed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee, in consultation with the Beaches, Parks and Recreation Director or designee, that all landscaped areas and 1mgation, including but not limited to median/parkway/slope landscaping and irrigation, have been installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans. This requirement excludes the area covered by the Habitat Management Plan. (Plng.) (BP&R) __
72. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for Buildings 2 through 5 or the parking structure, the owner or designee shall submit a letter, signed by a Registered Landscape Architect stating that all landscape materials and inigation including, but not limited to potted plants on the parking structure, landscape plantings at the perimeter of the parking structure and vines on trellis structures have been installed in accordance with the approved plans and standard professional practice.•• (Ping.). __
73. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the hydrant location on the street as approved by the Fire Chief, and must be maintained in good condition by the property owner.
Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website for a copy of the "Guideline for Installation of Blue Dot Hydrant Markers." (Fire) __ _
74. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the fire alarm and sprinkler system shall be operational in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. (Fire)_ __
731
Reso]ution No. O 4-6 1 Page 23
75. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the approved fire lane plan. The CC&R's or other approved documents shall contain a fire lane map, provisions prohibiting parking in the fire lanes, and an enforcement method. (Fire)_ __
76. Prior 'to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the fuel modification shall be installed and completed under the supervision of the Fire Chief with an approved plant pallet consistent with the approved Fuel Management Plan. The CC&R's or other approved documents shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation. The fuel modification zones shall be subject to triennial inspections.
(Fire)_ __
RELEASE OF FINANCIAL SECURITY
77. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Planner that the appropriate Association has been formed and that the CC&R's have been reviewed by the City Attorney, approved by same and recorded. (Ping.)_ __ (Eng.) __
78. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that all survey monuments damaged or destroyed are restored. "Comer Records" shall be prepared for submission to the City Engineering Division and for filing with the County Surveyor's Office in compliance with AB 1414. All restorations of survey monuments shall be certified by the Registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor in accordance with Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. (Eng.) __
79. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall submit (if applicable) as-built plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, depicting all street, traffic signal, sewer, water, and storm drain improvements and street signage and signage placements, traffic markings and painted curbing and all required improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, or designee: (Eng.) __
80. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer or designee for, a videotape, filmed in the presence of a City Staff representative, of all sewer and drainage improvements (if applicable). The videotape shall become the property of the City. (Eng.) __
81. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall submit (if applicable) the following items, certified by a Registered Civil Engineer, to the Engineering Division:(Eng.) __ A. All construction improvement plans in digitized format (DXF file format). 732
Resolution No. O 4- 61 Page 24
82. 83.
84. 85.
*
•
••
B. Original mylars of all improvement plans corrected and certified by the engineer of record to be "As Built".
C. Duplicate mylars of the recorded Final Map.
D. Original mylars of all improvements and utilities at a scale of l "=40', or at an appropriate scale to be determined by the City Engineer or designee Prior to release of financial securities, the owner or designec shall submit to the City on 8 l/i'' x 11" sheet Centerline and Intersections Monument Ties signed and wet stamped by a Registered Engineer or Surveyor (Eng.)_ __
Prior to release of financial securities, the owner or designec shall provide a warranty bond in an amount of 25% of the faithful performance bond for each improvement accepted by the City. This warranty bond shall remain in place for one year from the date of acceptance of the improvement. (Eng.) __
Prior to the release of financial security, all water and sewer systems, e.g. pump stations, generators, reservoirs, PRV's, etc. shall be fully tested, in the presence of a City Staff, to verify system performance in accordance with design specifications. (Eng.) __ Prior to release of financial security, if any of the areas within the development were in a flood zone, the owner or designee shall file and obtain approval of a letter of map revision from FEMA to revise the FEMA flood zone map. (Eng)_ __ All Conditions of Approval are Standard, unless indicated as follows:
Denotes modified Standard Condition of Approval
Denotes project-specific Condition of Approval
i :\planning\marblehead\amspp99-16\amspp99-16commccres.doc 733
Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan
Final EIR Addendum No. 6
SCH Number 1995091037
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO.6 Prepared for
City of San Clemente
Community Development Department
Submitted by
September 2025
734
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 2025 i
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1
1.1. CEQA Compliance ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Background and History ............................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Incorporation by Reference ...................................................................................................... 4
2. Description of the Proposed Project ................................................................................. 5
2.1. Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.2. Project Description .................................................................................................................... 5
3. Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................... 7
3.1. Land Use and Related Planning ................................................................................................. 7
3.1.1. Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions .................................................................. 8
3.1.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions ...................................................... 8
3.1.4. Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 9
3.2. Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1. Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 10
3.2.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions ................................................................ 10
3.2.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions .................................................... 12
3.2.4. Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 12
3.3. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................ 13
3.3.1. Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 13
3.3.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions ................................................................ 15
3.3.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions .................................................... 16
3.3.4. Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 18
4. Other Resources Analyzed in the Final EIR ..................................................................... 36
5. Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................... 42
6. References ..................................................................................................................... 44 TABLES
Table 3-1. Regional Commercial Development Standards ........................................................................... 7 Table 3-2. Consistency with Regional Commercial Development Standards ............................................... 9
FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3-1. KOP Locations ........................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3-2a. KOP-1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3-2b. KOP-1 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3-3a. KOP-2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 22 735
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 2025 ii
Figure 3-3b. KOP-2 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3-4a. KOP-3 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3-4b. KOP-3 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3-5a. KOP-4 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3-5b. KOP-4 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure 3-6a. KOP-5 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3-6b. KOP-5 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 3-7a. KOP-6 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3-7b. KOP-6 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 3-8a. KOP-7 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3-8b. KOP-7 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3-9a. KOP-8 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 34 Figure 3-9b. KOP-8 Visual Simulation ......................................................................................................... 35 736
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SEPTEMBER 2025 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1.1. CEQA Compliance
The Marblehead Coastal Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City of San Clemente (City) on June 23, 1998, which was followed by the City’s approval of the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) on August 5, 1998.
This addendum to the previously certified EIR for the MCSP (SCH No. 1995091037) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 which requires a Lead Agency to revise a certified EIR to accurately reflect any changes or additions to the project, changes in conditions under which the project is undertaken, or to add new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, changes to the approved project addressed in this addendum would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, nor any new information indicating as such, as discussed herein.
The MCSP is both a planning and regulatory document that implements the goals, policies, and objectives of the City of San Clemente General Plan while providing guidelines and regulations for development within the MCSP planning area. The MCSP EIR is a programmatic document that may be used by the City to tier the environmental analyses of future projects under the MCSP that require discretionary review.
Proposed modifications to planned development presented in the MCSP (i.e., land use designations, design guidelines, development standards) would require updates to the MCSP EIR or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
Prior to any development, the City must approve a comprehensive site plan specific to proposed residential and commercial uses within the MCSP. In 1999, the City approved a comprehensive site plan (Site Plan Permit 99-16) for the MCSP’s regional commercial center (i.e., Marblehead Coastal Promenade) (City of San Clemente, 1999). The site plan permit was amended in 2004 to allow development of a retail outlet, restaurants, theater, and hotel and conference center (City of San Clemente, 2004). Since its initial approval, the hotel design was modified to include a roof deck, which would increase the building’s height above the MCSP’s maximum height requirements within a regional commercial center. The MCSP includes exceptions to this maximum height requirement for a theater, parking structure, and clock tower.
In deciding whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR is necessary or if an addendum is appropriate, the standard of review is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support a determination that the changes in the project or its circumstances are substantial enough to make major modifications to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). A subsequent or supplemental EIR may also be required if new information, not known at the time the prior EIR was certified, becomes available and shows new or more severe significant environmental impacts. If the project would not cause new or more severe impacts, and only minor technical changes are required, the lead agency may adopt an addendum (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15164).
The City has determined that including the hotel as an additional exception to the maximum height requirement within a regional commercial center requires only clarifications to the MCSP Final EIR and warrants preparation of an addendum, not a subsequent or supplemental EIR. The information presented in this 2025 Addendum demonstrates that the impacts and mitigation requirements identified in the 1998 Final EIR remain substantively unchanged by the proposed modification. This supports the finding that the proposed modification does not raise any new issues and does not exceed the level of impacts identified in the certified MCSP Final EIR.
737
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SEPTEMBER 2025 2
This 2025 Addendum also demonstrates that the proposed modification is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of San Clemente Centennial General Plan (City of San Clemente, 2014). The General Plan encourages visitor-serving uses such as lodging within the Marblehead Coastal commercial area (Policy ED-4.05), and requires new development to be compatible with community character (Policy LU2.01). The General Plan also places strong emphasis on protection of public views (Policy UD-2.05 and Policy UD-5.14). As discussed in Addendum Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, the proposed height exception for the hotel would remain consistent with these policies, since it applies to a previously approved visitorserving lodging use, does not alter approved setbacks or intensity, and would be subject to design review procedures that ensure compliance with the City’s Spanish Colonial Revival architectural standards.
The following sections provide additional detail regarding the proposed modification and findings.
1.2. Background and History
Certification of Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan Final EIR 95-01 (SCH No. 1995091037) On June 23, 1998, the City Council certified the MCSP Final EIR 95-01 (SCH No. 1995091037) and concurrently adopted Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (City of San Clemente, 1998c). The MCSP authorized 116.7 acres of residential use, 60.4 acres of regional serving commercial use, 1.0 acre of coastal commercial use,
9.4 acres of public open space, 49.5 acres of private open space, and 13.6 acres of circulation facilities (City of San Clemente 1998a).
The Final EIR analyzed potential environmental impacts to 13 issue areas and determined that, with the exception of Air Quality, no significant impacts would occur following implementation of mitigation measures and enforcement of applicable policies and standards prescribed in the City of San Clemente Municipal Code. The Final EIR determined that Air Quality impacts associated with short- and long-term air-quality emissions would remain significant and unavoidable despite implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Implementation of the MCSP required approval of the following discretionary actions either by the City Council or the California Coastal Commission:
General Plan Amendment 96-01
Specific Plan 95-02
Coastal Development Permit
Development Agreement
Tentative Tract Map No. 8817
Residential Site Plan Permit 97-16
Commercial Site Plan Permit 99-16
Conditional Use Permit 99-17
Sign Exception Permit 99-18
ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϭƚŽD^W&ŝŶĂů
/Zϵϱ-01, July 1998
Addendum No. 1 addressed revisions to the MCSP that were requested by the City Council to allow up to 20 acres of multiple-family residential as an optional land use within the Regional Commercial (RC) component of the MCSP. The remaining 40.4 acres of the RC area remained designated for regional 738
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SEPTEMBER 2025 3
commercial uses at a 0.35 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (i.e., 615,000 square feet). None of the other land use designations within the MCSP were affected by the revision. ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϮto MCSP Final EIR 95-01, February 2000
Addendum No. 2 addressed modifications to Tentative Tract Map No. 8817 and to Residential Site Plan 97-16 that allowed for the preservation of additional wetland habitat through the following changes:
Reduction of 10 residential lots (revised total of 424 residential units); Reduction of the average single-family lot size by 119 square feet (revised total of 7,017 square feet); Reduction of 1.1 acres of commercial center net acreage (revised total of 59.3 acres); and Reduction of 54 commercial parking spaces (revised total of 3,664 spaces).
The proposed modification allowed an additional 2.92 acres of existing wetland habitat to be preserved, for a revised total of 4.82 acres of wetland habitat within the MCSP. ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϯ to MCSP Final EIR 95-01, August 2003
Addendum No. 3 addressed additional modifications to Tentative Tract Map No. 8817 to respond to concerns expressed by the California Coastal Commission. The modifications reduced the development footprint from canyon and drainage areas and away from bluffs. Changes included the following:
Reduction of 111 residential lots (revised total of 313 residential lots); and Reduction of 7.7 acres of commercial center net acreage (revised total of 51.6 acres).
Under the proposed modification, the MCSP increased the total acreage of preserved areas to include 7.4 acres of wetland habitat, 125.88 acres of open space, and 82.31 acres of upland habitat within the coastal zone.
ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϰto MCSP Final EIR 95-01, December 2003
Addendum No. 4 addressed proposed refinements to the MCSP’s Open Space component as defined in the Marblehead Coastal Project Public Parks and Trails Master Plan (PPTMP), which was approved by the City Council on March 2, 2004. The PPTMP provided detail on specific amenities to be incorporated into the MCSP’s public park parcels, open space parcels, and trail network. The proposed refinements were specific to Sports Park, Pico Park, Trident Canyon Park, East Branch Park, and Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat. ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵථEŽ͘ථϱto MCSP Final EIR 95-01, May 2004
Addendum No. 5 addressed additional modifications to Tentative Tract Map No. 8817, Residential Site Plan 97-16, and Commercial Site Plan 99-16. Changes included the following:
Increase in size of Sports Park parking lot to accommodate 73 additional parking spaces (revised total of 158 parking spaces);
Shift residential lots slightly east and north (in the neighborhood adjacent to Shorecliffs Middle School) to establish an open space ocean view corridor at the southern terminus of Street RRRR; Public trail extensions and improvements;
Reduction of 33,709 square feet of commercial use (revised total of 641,534 square feet); Modification of commercial parking structure to accommodate an additional 606 parking spaces (revised total of 1,299 parking spaces); and
739
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SEPTEMBER 2025 4
Reorientation of the four-story hotel to be parallel with the Central Canyon (in lieu of its previously proposed location parallel to the freeway).
1.3. Incorporation by Reference
As stated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15150(a), an EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that has been made part of the public record. This approach is suitable for public agencies to reduce delay and paperwork (CEQA Guidelines Section 15006(t)). All documents pertaining to the approval and adoption of the MCSP are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof.
The documents incorporated by reference, which will be cited as appropriate throughout this EIR Addendum, include the following:
City of San Clemente. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marblehead Coastal General Plan Amendment 96-01, Specific Plan No. 95-02, Tentative Tract Map, Site Plans, Conditional Use Permit, and Sign Exception Permit. Certified June 23, 1998
City of San Clemente. Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan. Adopted August 5, 1998. Amended December 6, 2022
City of San Clemente. City of San Clemente Centennial General Plan. Adopted February 4, 2014.
Amended December 20, 2016
740
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2025 5
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1. Project Location
The 248-acre planning area for the MCSP is located in the western portion of the City of San Clemente that is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, the Interstate 5 Freeway (I-5) to the northeast, and other City neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast. The project site is a 1.7-acre parcel that is within the MCSP’s Regional Commercial (RC) designation southeast of the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I5 interchange. Figure 2-1 illustrates the location of the project site.
Figure 2-1. Project Location
2.2. Project Description
The proposed project involves a modification to the development standards and permissible exceptions within the MCSP’s RC designation. The RC designation conditionally permits visitor-serving lodging such as hotels pursuant to Section 106 of Chapter 1 and Table 5-3 of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998a).
In 2004, the City approved a hotel development on a 1.7-acre parcel (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 691-422-04) that would have a maximum building height of 37 feet to the plate line and 45 feet to the top of the roof or highest projection, consistent with RC standards specified in MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) (City of San Clemente, 1998a and 2004). MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) also specifies that certain buildings are permitted with an exception to the standard height limit, allowing increased heights for the theater and parking structure. The proposed project would designate the hotel use, expected to be developed on the
1.7-acre parcel (“project site”), as eligible for the same height exception that is granted to the theater, 741
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2025 6
which would be a maximum building height of 55 feet to the plate line and 62 feet to the top of the roof or highest projection—a maximum potential height increase of 17 feet.
The proposed project would modify MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) with insertion of the bold and underlined text shown below.
D. Maximum Height - The maximum height to the top of the roof or highest projection shall be 45 feet. The maximum average height to the plate line of a building shall be 37 feet. Exceptions to this maximum building height are permitted for a hotel, theater [Approved Site Plan defines as Building 22] and parking structure in the entertainment portion of the regional commercial center. The maximum average height to the plateline of a parking structure shall be 40 feet and to the plateline of a hotel and theater shall be 55 feet. The maximum height to the highest projection of an architectural feature for a hotel, theater or clocktower is 62 feet.
As part of the San Clemente City Council’s 2004 approval of the hotel (City Council Resolution No. 04-61), the City determined that the proposed hotel and theater, identified as Building 15 and Building 22 in the MCSP’s Approved Site Plan, are intended to be architectural landmarks within the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 2004). Adding the hotel use as eligible for the maximum height exception is consistent with the existing height exception provided for the theater in MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) (City of San Clemente, 1998a) and aligns with the City’s expectation of these buildings functioning equally as the anchoring architectural landmarks of the property.
742
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 7
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This chapter will identify the resources evaluated in the MCSP Final EIR that may experience potential impacts from the proposed project. Any potential changes to the type or severity of the impact that was evaluated in the Final EIR will be discussed in detail. All other resources evaluated in the Final EIR whose analysis would not be affected by the proposed project are discussed in Addendum Chapter 4.
3.1. Land Use and Related Planning
3.1.1. Baseline Conditions
The proposed project site is within an RC zoned component of the MCSP, which allows for general retail commercial, factory outlet stores, promotional and specialty retail, restaurants, entertainment, professional offices, financial institutions, lodging, and similar regional serving uses (City of San Clemente, 1998a). The project site is at the north end of a regional commercial center that includes a Chick fil-A restaurant to the northwest, an urgent care medical facility to the southwest, the Outlets of San Clemente (outlets) approximately 500 feet to the southeast, and parking lots supporting each of these businesses.
A 5.8-acre undeveloped parcel separates the project site from the outlets. The entirety of the project site is outside of the coastal zone.
The MCSP’s RC designation is intended to “create a place for land uses that are appropriate for freeway accessibility, create needed commercial stability in the community, and establish an outstanding image for San Clemente and surrounding residential areas” (City of San Clemente, 1998a). As stated in MCSP Section 502 (V), the RC designated area must be developed as part of a comprehensive site plan for the MCSP’s regional commercial center that is subject to MCSP guidelines, regulations, and development standards. The development standards for the RC designation are listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Regional Commercial Development Standards
Development Standard Definition
Minimum Lot Area The minimum lot area for a Site Plan shall be a 51.5-acre comprehensive plan with uses as contained in Table 5-3 of the MCSP.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the project area shall be 0.35.
Individual parcels within a Site Plan Permit area need not comply with this FAR, as long as the overall Site Plan FAR does not exceed 0.35.
Maximum Project Area Coverage The maximum project area coverage shall be 50%. Individual parcels within a Site Plan Permit need not comply with this maximum coverage, as long as the overall Site Plan coverage, including parking structures, does not exceed 50%.
Maximum Height The maximum height to the top of the roof or highest projection shall be 45 feet. The maximum average height to the plateline of a building shall be 37 feet. Exceptions to this maximum building height are permitted for a theater [Approved Site Plan defines as Building 22] and parking structure in the entertainment portion of the regional commercial center. The maximum average height to the plateline of a parking structure shall be 40 feet and to the plateline of a theater shall be 55 feet. The maximum height to the highest projection of an architectural feature for a theater or clocktower is 62 feet.
743
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 8
Development Standard Definition
Setbacks for Structures The minimum average setback of all buildings with frontage along arterial streets, including those set back towards the rear of the commercial center (but directly visible from these streets), shall be 50 feet.
The minimum setback from the property line along I-5 (I-5 right-of-way) shall be 30 feet. For buildings with average platelines of up to 30 feet high (excluding architectural features such as towers) adjacent to Avenida Pico or Avenida Vista Hermosa, the minimum setback, as measured from right-of-way, shall be 30 feet. Architectural projections (such as architectural towers, arcades or trellises) may encroach to a maximum of 5 feet into the 30-foot minimum setback.
Source: Section 502 (V) of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998a) In July 1999, the City Council approved a comprehensive site plan (Site Plan Permit 99-16) for construction of a regional commercial shopping center (i.e., Marblehead Coastal Promenade) within the MCSP’s RC designated area (City of San Clemente, 1999). Condition of Approval No. 9 for the permit requires a business hotel with conference facilities to be sited at the northern portion of the commercial center.
Site Plan Permit 99-16 was amended in July 2004 to include a hotel for the project site, which is defined as Building 15 (City of San Clemente, 2004). The proposed hotel development was found to be consistent with the RC development standards. Condition of Approval No. 6 for the permit amendment includes a statement that the hotel is intended to be an architectural landmark with the theater. Condition No. 6 further states that if either the hotel or theater is not constructed, an alternative structure must be developed that can serve as an architectural landmark (City of San Clemente, 2004).
3.1.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions
The MCSP Final EIR evaluated consistency of the Marblehead Coastal project with the goals and objectives of the San Clemente General Plan, as well as the compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses.
The MCSP amended the City’s General Plan to replace the Mixed Use designations with specific land use designations that would permit future development on the site. The MCSP established permitted uses and development standards to ensure the site would be developed in a consistent manner and conform to all provisions in the General Plan. The Final EIR determined that the MCSP remains substantially consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element as it would require development to incorporate a unified and distinctive character and would integrate parks, streets, walkways, and trails (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The Final EIR also determined that the MCSP policies relating to the regional commercial design and access features do not conflict with existing or proposed uses near the project site. Furthermore, the compatibility of existing and future uses would not be compromised because the regional commercial component of the MCSP is separated from the existing residential development by open space buffers, proposed residential development, and setbacks. The Final EIR concluded that development of the RC component of the MCSP would not result in any significant impacts.
3.1.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions
As stated in City Resolution 04-61, the theater and hotel are intended to be landmark features of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 2004). A maximum height projection of 62 feet is permitted in an RC designation for an architectural feature associated with the theater. The proposed modification to the maximum allowable height for the hotel would be identical to the allowable height for the theater, and would be consistent with the intended use and design of the hotel and theater as architectural landmarks within the RC designation. Given that the RC designation already provides for this height exception to 744
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 9
accommodate architectural features, inclusion of the hotel in the maximum height exception would be a minor modification that would not alter the intent or application of the RC development standards (see Table 3-2). Furthermore, this minor modification would not conflict with any existing or proposed uses near the project site.
Table 3-2. Consistency with Regional Commercial Development Standards Development Standard Consistency
Minimum Lot Area Consistent. The hotel would be developed within the Approved Site Plan area for the MCSP’s regional commercial center. No changes would be made to this development standard.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio Consistent. The hotel would be developed within the Approved Site Plan area for the MCSP’s regional commercial center. No changes would be made to this development standard.
Maximum Project Area Coverage Consistent. The hotel would be developed within the Approved Site Plan area for the MCSP’s regional commercial center. No changes would be made to this development standard.
Maximum Height Consistent. The maximum height requested for the hotel is consistent with the maximum height allowed for the theater building. The theater and hotel are envisioned (per original approvals by the City) as the two landmarks structures of the Marblehead Coastal Promenade, suggesting that allowing the same height exception for both properties would be consistent with the goals for the overall development of the regional commercial center.
Setbacks for Structures Consistent. The hotel would be developed within the Approved Site Plan area for the MCSP’s regional commercial center, which complies with the minimum average setback of 50 feet for all buildings with frontage along a major arterial. No changes would be made to this development standard.
Source: Section 502 (V) of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998a) The proposed modification is consistent with the City’s 2014 Centennial General Plan. The General Plan’s Land Use Element designates the project site as RC and describes the purpose of tourist-related commercial uses to attract and provide services to visitors. The General Plan Economic Development Element specifically encourages visitor-serving uses such as lodging within the Marblehead Coastal commercial area (Policy ED-4.05) (City of San Clemente, 2014). As stated in the City Council’s 2004 approval of the hotel (City Council Resolution No. 04-61), the hotel and surrounding commercial development was designed to match the City’s Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, which would ensure consistency with the General Plan’s Land Use Policy LU-2.01 that requires new commercial development to demonstrate compatibility with community character (City of San Clemente, 2014).
3.1.4. Summary of Findings
Modification of MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) to allow the hotel (Approved Site Plan Building 15) to be permitted with an exception to the maximum building height, similar to the theater, would not result in any new or more severe significant Land Use impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR. The proposed modification would stay consistent with the purpose and intended use of the RC designation.
The modification would not conflict with any of the goals and objectives of the MCSP. The additional proposed height for the hotel would be the same as the current allowable exception for a theater and clocktower. This additional exception would support the City’s intent of having a theater and hotel as the landmark features of the MCSP’s regional commercial center. 745
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 10
Overall, while the amended maximum height for the hotel is a minor modification to the RC development standard, there would be no change to the purpose and applicability of the MCSP’s development standards. The height exception would only apply to a specific property (Building 15) that is intended to serve as an architectural landmark together with the approved theater, and would not apply to any other use in the RC zone. Furthermore, confirming the hotel as an eligible landmark structure with a height exception supports the City’s adopted economic development and visitor-serving objectives while maintaining consistency with community character policies.
The maximum height exception for the approved hotel would not adversely affect land use compatibility or policy consistency. All potential land use compatibility impacts associated with development of the regional commercial portion of the MCSP were adequately evaluated in the Final EIR. No new or more severe significant impacts to land use or relevant planning policies and programs would occur from the proposed modification of MCSP Section 502 (V)(D).
3.2. Noise
3.2.1. Baseline Conditions
The Final EIR documented a transportation-dominated noise environment, with I-5 as the primary source and arterial traffic as a secondary source. Ambient conditions were characterized using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at existing off-site neighborhoods, schools, parks, and at planned receptors within the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
Residential and commercial development implemented under the MCSP has established ongoing operational noise sources along arterials within the planning area, and specifically within the RC zone.
These sources include vehicle pass-bys, parking lot activity, loading, HVAC equipment, and landscape maintenance associated with built uses. The overall ambient environment adjacent to the project site remains transportation dominated with I-5 as the primary contributor, and arterial traffic and localized on-site activity providing secondary contributions, consistent with the conditions described in the Final EIR (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
3.2.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions
The Final EIR applied the City’s community noise exposure criteria using CNEL and the State interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL for habitable rooms. For residential outdoor use areas, the Final EIR used 65 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable exterior level. These thresholds governed significance determinations and the design of required noise attenuation for new residential development within the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
Construction Noise
Final EIR Section 4.3.4.1 identified short-term construction noise as a potentially significant impact where heavy equipment would operate near existing sensitive receptors. Required measures included restricting construction to City-allowed hours, maintaining effective equipment mufflers, and locating stationary equipment and staging areas away from occupied dwellings. Construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant following implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.3-1a and MM 4.3-1b.
MM 4.3-1a All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the City Engineer or designee. 746
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 11
MM 4.3-1b Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the grading and construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate via an access/staging plan that all construction equipment staging will be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings.
The Final EIR also identified heavy construction equipment and overlapping grading and building activities as temporary noise sources with the potential to elevate daytime ambient levels at nearby receptors. The Final EIR determined that these effects would be addressed by Standard Condition (SC) 4.3-1.
SC 4.3-1 As a condition imposed on grading permits, the City of San Clemente will limit the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and prohibit such activity on Sundays and holidays. The City will ensure that construction time limits are enforced for the duration of construction activity on the project site. Additionally, the City shall enforce Municipal Code Section 27A-18 for grading and equipment operations, which states that equipment start-up cannot be conducted between 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m., nor on Saturdays, Sundays, and City holidays, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. The hours can be longer or shorter, based upon the City Engineer's findings of health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding community.
Operational Noise
The Final EIR modeled roadway noise from I-5 and adjacent arterials for existing and future with - and without - project conditions and reported CNEL at reference distances along key links serving the site.
Final EIR Section 4.3.4.1 concluded that non-project-related traffic on I-5 was expected to mask project-related noise at receptors outside the Marblehead Coastal project area (City of San Clemente, 1998b). The Final EIR found that first-row residential lots along perimeter roadways would experience exterior CNEL above 65 dB without attenuation. To ensure compliance, the Final EIR required a project-level sound attenuation program specifying perimeter barriers, setbacks, and other site design features to achieve 65 dB CNEL or less at private outdoor use areas, and 45 dB CNEL or less inside habitable rooms. The Final EIR also required tract-level acoustic analyses at the time of precise grading and building permits and, where needed, enhanced building components for facades facing perimeter roadways to meet the interior standard. Operational noise impacts were determined to be less than significant following implementation of MM 4.3-1c and MM 4.3-1d.
MM 4.3-1c Prior to the issuance of residential precise grading permits and building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for, a final sound attenuation plan. All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 dB CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) in outdoor living areas and an indoor standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County-approved acoustical consultant shall indicate that standard six-foot perimeter walls will be adequate to -satisfy these standards in a manner consistent with applicable City Ordinances or shall indicate other appropriate mitigation measures.
MM 4.3-1d Prior to the issuance of building permits, any two-story developments within 145 feet of Vista Hermosa or El Camino Real, or within 175 feet of Avd. Pico should have a structural noise attenuation analysis performed to verify that structural components are adequate to meet the interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL.
Based on the thresholds and measures summarized above, Final EIR Section 4.3.4.2 concluded that construction and operational noise would be less than significant with mitigation and with 747
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 12
implementation of the required sound attenuation program and building design measures (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
3.2.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions
The following section explains how the effects of the project would be consistent with the noise analysis and conclusions presented in the MCSP Final EIR.
Construction Noise
The height exception would not change the noise-related construction requirements for the hotel structure. Any construction within the MCSP will remain subject to the Final EIR construction noise measures and conditions (i.e., MM 4.3-1a, MM 4.3-1b, and SC 4.3-1) regulating City construction hours and practices (Final EIR pages 4.3-9 to 4.3-12). The proposed modification would not change the location of construction relative to sensitive receptors, nor would the modification alter any applicable mitigation measures. As a result, no new significant construction noise impacts would occur and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from what was presented in the Final EIR.
Operational Noise
The height exception may shift some of the hotel’s mechanical equipment, rooftop appurtenances, or guest amenities to a higher elevation than what was described in the 2004 Approved Site Plan (City of San Clemente, 2004). However, the Final EIR requires development within the MCSP to incorporate stationary-source noise controls that achieve applicable City noise limits at the nearest off-site receptors, including shielding, parapets or screens, equipment selection, and siting (Final EIR pages 4.3-10 to 4.3-12).
These noise-reduction measures are independent of building height and will remain binding on any future hotel development within the RC designation. To further ensure consistency with current City policy frameworks, development of the approved hotel utilizing the height exception would remain subject to the City’s standard noise control ordinances (i.e., San Clemente Municipal Code Chapter 8.48), as well as General Plan Safety Element policies to control ambient and stationary noise conditions, including entertainment-related noise on residential and other sensitive uses (i.e., Policy S-4.01 and Policy S-4.08) (City of San Clemente, 2014).
As discussed in Addendum Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, the RC zone is characterized by commercial activity and major transportation corridors, and the Final EIR concluded that stationary-source noise would be less than significant with implementation of MM 4.3-1 and SC 4.3-1 (Final EIR page 4.3-12). Allowing the hotel structure to be eligible for the RC zone’s existing height exception would not introduce new noise sources beyond those evaluated for the RC zone, nor would it change the proximity of noise sources to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed modification would not create a new significant operational noise impact or make a previously identified impact more severe.
3.2.4. Summary of Findings
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would allow the approved hotel use within the RC area to utilize the same maximum height exception already afforded to the theater and parking structure.
This modification would not introduce a new land use type, alter the location of development relative to sensitive receptors, or change the City’s applicable noise standards or adopted mitigation measures.
Construction of the approved hotel under the proposed modification would continue to be subject to the City’s updated policies intended to minimize noise exposure. The project would not create any new significant noise impacts and would not increase the severity of previously identified impacts presented in the Final EIR. No new mitigation measures are required to avoid or minimize potential impacts from this proposed modification.
748
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 13
3.3. Aesthetics
3.3.1. Baseline Conditions
At the time that the MCSP Final EIR was certified in June 1998, the 248-acre MCSP planning area was undeveloped (i.e., contained no permanent structures), although previous disturbance from former agricultural production, access roads, and bluff stabilization activities were evident in the viewshed (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Public views of the MCSP planning areas consisted of rows of eucalyptus and other mature trees along the I-5 corridor, with partially visible expanses of the Pacific Ocean (City of San Clement, 1998b).
Over the last 27 years, the planning area has been developed consistent with the MCSP, which includes commercial development within the MCSP’s RC zone and residential development within the MCSP’s Residential Low (RL) zone. The project would be located on a 1.7-acre parcel that was previously approved for a hotel development. A building permit was issued for the hotel in 2019 (B19-099); however, the project was tabled due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the permit expired in 2022. The project site is surrounded by commercial development (i.e., Marblehead Coastal Promenade) as described in Addendum Section 3.1.1. The Marblehead Coastal Promenade is bound by major transportation corridors that include I-5, West Avenida Vista Hermosa, and East Avenida Pico. The MCSP Final EIR Section 4.11.1 describes the I-5 corridor as an Orange County-designated viewscape corridor, while the interchanges at West Avenida Vista Hermosa and at Avenida Pico are described as primary City entrances (City of San Clemente, 1998b). The transportation corridors are further surrounded by residential development and public facilities (e.g., schools, churches) that extend northeast and southwest of the I-5 corridor.
Description of Key Observation Points
To provide context for the existing conditions surrounding the project site, this addendum includes baseline photos for eight Key Observation Points (KOPs) that are relevant to the project site. The purpose of selecting a KOP is to consider the degree of change from the most prominent and sensitive existing views of the site. KOP locations were based on an initial assessment of areas from which the hotel’s proposed height may be visible within one mile of the site. Areas in which the project could be visible are characterized as the “seen area,” which is depicted in Figure 3-1 as the area shaded in green. A seen area map integrates multiple lines-of-sight around a fixed reference point (i.e., the hotel with the modified height) while accounting for the local topography to identify the areas from which the site might be visible.
It should be noted that a location may be within the seen area, but intervening vegetation may screen views of the site from that location.
All KOP figures are included at the end of Addendum Section 3.3. Figure 3-1 illustrates the location of each KOP relative to the project site. Figures 3-2a through 3-9a provide a baseline photo for each KOP.
Below is a brief discussion of the KOP viewsheds.
KOP-1: Avenida Vista Hermosa. KOP-1 (Figure 3-2a) is located northeast of the MCSP planning area on Avenida Vista Hermosa, approximately 0.3 mile northeast of I-5, and is oriented southwest towards the project site. Avenida Vista Hermosa is a public roadway with ocean views that are partially obstructed by residential units and mature trees in the viewshed. The location of KOP-1 is within the southernmost segment of Avenida Vista Hermosa from which the hotel would be visible.1
1 The southernmost segment of Avenida Vista Hermosa that falls within the project’s seen area was selected as the site for KOP1 to allow for a more conservative evaluation of the degree of visual change along this roadway. As KOP-1 is closer to the project site than points further north of KOP-1, the hotel simulation as seen from KOP-1 would show a more prominent degree of change.
749
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 14
KOP-2: Jim Johnson Memorial Park. KOP-2 (Figure 3-3a) is located within the northwest corner of the MCSP planning area, at the eastern perimeter of the Jim Johnson Memorial Park that is adjacent to the I-5 offramp to West Avenida Vista Hermosa. KOP-2 is oriented southeast towards the project site and is representative of views from both the public park and from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange. As discussed in Addendum Section 3.3.1, the I-5 interchange at West Avenida Vista Hermosa is characterized as a primary entrance to the City. Mature trees and park facilities are dominant features in the viewshed and partially screen views of the MCSP’s commercial development. KOP-3: Sea Summit Pedestrian Trail. KOP-3 (Figure 3-4a) is located within the MCSP planning area, at the Sea Summit trailhead that is at the junction of West Avenida Vista Hermosa and Avenida Costa Azul.
KOP-3 is oriented northeast towards the project site and represents the views of recreationists who access the trail. Dominant features in the viewshed include West Avenida Vista Hermosa’s four traffic lanes and landscaped median, as well as the southern perimeter of the recently constructed urgent care facility that is located within the MCSP’s commercial development. KOP-4: Pacific Coast Church (Private View). KOP-4 (Figure 3-5a) is located northeast of the MCSP planning area in the Pacific Coast Church parking lot, approximately 200 feet north of I-5, and is oriented southwest towards the project site. Although KOP-4 is located on private property, it was selected due to its proximity to the project. The urgent care facility is a dominant feature in the viewshed from KOP-4, with background views of the ocean partially obstructed by residential units. KOP-5: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). KOP-5 (Figure 3-6a) is located east-northeast of the MCSP planning area on the southern slope of the Highland Light residential community approximately 70 feet north of Calle Frontera, which is a public roadway. KOP-5 is oriented west towards the project and has a higher vantage than Calle Frontera to approximate views from the residential properties nearest to the project site (within the Highland Light community). The undeveloped property southwest of KOP-5 is the dominant feature in the viewshed, while the urgent care facility is notably visible in the viewshed’s middleground. Background views of the ocean are mostly obstructed by the existing commercial development, residential units, and mature trees. KOP-6: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). KOP-6 (Figure 3-7a) is located east-northeast of the MCSP planning area on Avenida Faceta, approximately 0.3 mile northeast of I-5, and is oriented west towards the project site. Avenida Faceta is a private roadway and is only accessible to residents of the Highland Light community. KOP-6 would not be a public view but is included to provide context to the anticipated degree of visual change for established residences within the Marblehead Inland planning area. The viewshed from KOP-6 provides unobstructed ocean views, with residential units and vegetation as prominent features in the landscape.
KOP-7: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). KOP-7 (Figure 3-8a) is located east-northeast of the MCSP planning area at the entrance to the Highland Light community, west of the gatehouse and approximately 100 feet north of Calle Frontera. KOP-7 is oriented west towards the project site. Views from KOP-7 would typically be seen only by residents within the Highland Light community as they exit the community. KOP-7 was selected to provide additional context to the anticipated degree of visual change from established residences closer in proximity to the project site than KOP-6 within the Marblehead Inland planning area. The viewshed from KOP-7 provides a mostly unobstructed view of the ocean and distant coastline, with residential units and vegetation as prominent features in the landscape.
KOP-8: St. Andrew’s By the Sea UMC (Private View). KOP-8 (Figure 3-9a) is located east-northeast of the MCSP planning area in the parking lot for St. Andrew’s By the Sea United Methodist Church (UMC), approximately 680 feet northwest of the Avenida Pico/I-5 interchange, and is oriented west towards the project site. Although KOP-8 is located on private property, it was selected as a representative view 750
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 15
from the adjacent residential and public serving facilities (school, day care, military family outreach) located along the eastern boundary of the Marblehead Inland planning area. The viewshed from KOP8 provides a mostly unobstructed view of the ocean and distant coastline, with residential units and commercial development (i.e., outlets) as prominent features in the landscape.
3.3.2. Summary of Final EIR Impact Conclusions
The Final EIR evaluated the effects of the MCSP on the existing landscape and visual quality of the planning area. The EIR’s aesthetics analysis focused on impacts to viewsheds and conflicts with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for development.
Impacts to Viewsheds
The Final EIR analyzed changes in the public viewsheds from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange and the Avenida Pico/I-5 interchange. The Final EIR concluded that views would be altered by the proposed regional commercial development southwest of I-5. These impacts include the following:
Views from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange would be significantly altered by proposed interchange construction and site development. Commercial development would dominate the foreground viewshed, with residential units comprising the middleground elements. Views from Avenida Pico/I-5 interchange would encompass commercial structures in near middleground views (at Avenida Pico and I-5), as well as distant middleground and background commercial elements extending northward along the I-5 corridor. A portion of the viewshed would be obstructed by the nearest commercial structures and some already partially interrupted westward ocean views would be cut off completely.
Primary ocean views to the southwest would be unaffected within the MCSP planning areas along West Avenida Vista Hermosa, Avenida Pico, El Camino Real, and Camino Capistrano.
Given the size and undeveloped character of the MCSP planning area, Section 4.11.4.1 of the Final EIR determined that views of the planning area from key public viewsheds would be significantly altered from implementation of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b). However, the MCSP established seven vista points within the planning area to enhance visual access to the coastline. Five vista points are located in the southern portion of the planning area (El Camino Real Bluff trail and Marblehead Coastal Park) and two vista points are located in the proposed commercial development along West Avenida Vista Hermosa and serve as plaza/view overlooks. The Final EIR Section 4.11.4.1 concluded that since the project would retain and enhance the most visible portions of the site through these vista points, the visual uniqueness and vividness inherent in those scenic elements would not be diluted by site development (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The Final EIR also discussed changes in the views of the MCSP planning area from residential communities such as Marblehead Inland and Colony Cove and determined that residential views would be adversely affected by the MCSP. The Final EIR concluded that while existing residents’ concerns related to view preservation, property values, and quality of life are valid and important matters, the evaluation of significant effects is focused on impacts to views from public areas and view easements. The EIR’s aesthetics impact analysis did not focus on impacts to views from an individual private lot. Final EIR Section
4.11.2 states the following:
Although some residents directly adjacent to and inland from the Marblehead Coastal area will object to having their views altered, there are nonetheless various public policies that support public gain to the unavoidable detriment of private preference. For instance, Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states in part that “the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.” 751
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 16
Therefore, while private views of open space and coastal resources are not overlooked in the analysis, public viewsheds that have the potential to serve as recreational aesthetic resources for the greatest number of people bear more influence on the determination of impact significance. (City of San Clemente, 1998b, 4.11-8) Conflicts with scenic and visual quality objectives
The Final EIR analyzed the MCSP’s compatibility with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for development as articulated in the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. As described in Final EIR Section 4.11.3, the General Plan promotes good quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation as important components of a project’s design process prior to City approval. The Final EIR explains that this design review process would ensure that development under the MCSP is consistent with the MCSP’s Design Guidelines that address scenic view and resource protection. For example, per Final EIR Section
4.11.4.1, the MCSP was found to be consistent with Orange County’s viewscape corridor designation (for I-5) due to the MCSP’s required development setbacks and landscape buffers along the freeway corridor (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.11.3 also explains that the General Plan does not contain specific conditions relating to the preservation of scenic quality that are applicable to the MCSP. Final EIR Section 4.11.6 concluded that with implementation of the standard conditions and design review procedures imposed by the City of San Clemente, visual impacts associated with development under the MCSP would remain at a less-than-significant level (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
3.3.3. Consideration of Changes to Impact Conclusions
The height exception for the hotel structure would result in the same types and severity of aesthetic resource impacts as described in the MCSP Final EIR. The following section describes the effects of the modified height exception on viewsheds and its consistency with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for development.
View Simulations: Impacts to Viewsheds
Visual simulations have been prepared for each of the eight KOPs to illustrate the degree of change that would occur from modification of the hotel’s allowable height. These simulations are included at the end of Addendum Section 3.3 (Figures 3-2b through 3-9b). Below is a discussion of anticipated viewshed changes from each KOP.
KOP-1: Avenida Vista Hermosa. Figure 3-2b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from KOP-1. The majority of the hotel would be screened by the mature trees along Avenida Vista Hermosa. Even with the modified height, the hotel structure blends into the background of existing commercial and residential development. There would be no notable change in the current viewshed from KOP-1.
KOP-2: Jim Johnson Memorial Park. Figure 3-3b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from KOP-2, which is representative of views from the public park and West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange. The hotel structure is partially screened by the mature trees along West Avenida Vista Hermosa, although the structure would be prominent in the viewshed given this KOP’s close proximity to the project site. As discussed in Addendum Section 3.3.2, the Final EIR determined that views from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa/I-5 interchange would be significantly altered by site development under the MCSP and further stated that commercial development would dominate the foreground viewshed (Final EIR pages 4.11-9 to 4.11-10). Therefore, changes in the viewshed as shown in KOP-2 would be consistent with the Final EIR’s conclusions of significant alterations to views from the West Avenida Vista Hermosa interchange resulting from the MCSP’s proposed commercial development.
752
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 17
KOP-3: Sea Summit Pedestrian Trail. Figure 3-4b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from the Sea Summit trailhead at KOP-3. This KOP is oriented towards the MCSP’s regional commercial center, where the hotel structure would be a dominant feature in the viewshed.
While the trailhead is located at KOP-3, the trail network extends southwest through the MCSP planning area towards the coastline. The trail provides recreationists with ocean views, and the location of the hotel northeast of the trailhead would not interfere with the coastal viewshed along the trail network. As discussed in Addendum Section 3.3.2, the Final EIR explained that development under the MCSP would preserve ocean views from plaza/view overlooks along West Avenida Vista Hermosa. Per the MCSP’s Approved Site Plan, the hotel structure (Building 15) would be located northeast of West Avenida Vista Hermosa and would not disrupt ocean views from established vista points. Consequently, the proposed modification to the hotel’s height would be consistent with the Final EIR’s conclusions that the MCSP is designed to retain and enhance the most visible portions of the planning area (i.e., coastal views) through vista points (West Avenida Vista Hermosa, Avenida Pico, El Camino Real, and Camino Capistrano) that would not be diluted by site development (Final EIR pages 4.11-12 and 4.11- 14).
KOP-4: Pacific Coast Church (Private View). Figure 3-5b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from the Pacific Coast Church parking lot. The hotel structure would be a dominant feature in the viewshed given this KOP’s close proximity to the project site, and the hotel would obstruct ocean views. This obstruction would be an adverse change to the viewshed from KOP4. As described in Addendum Section 3.3.2, the Final EIR discussed the effects of the MCSP on the views from the Marblehead Inland community northeast of I-5. The Final EIR concluded that the open space and coastal components of viewsheds from individual lots within the Marblehead Inland community would be adversely affected by development under the MCSP (Final EIR page 4.11-10). Therefore, changes in the viewshed as shown in KOP-4 would be consistent with the Final EIR’s conclusions of significant alterations to private viewsheds resulting from the MCSP’s proposed commercial development.
KOP-5: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). Figure 3-6b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from the residential properties adjacent to Calle Frontera within the Highland Light community. The hotel structure would alter the viewshed by becoming the dominant feature due to its size and massing. The hotel would also create an additional obstruction to ocean views from KOP-5, which would be an adverse change to this viewshed. The Final EIR discussed the effects of the MCSP on the views from the Marblehead Inland community and concluded that the open space and coastal components of viewsheds from individual lots would be adversely affected by development under the MCSP (Final EIR page 4.11-10). Therefore, changes in the viewshed as shown in KOP-5 would be consistent with the Final EIR’s conclusions of significant alterations to private viewsheds resulting from the MCSP’s proposed commercial development. KOP-6: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). Figure 3-7b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from Avenida Faceta within the Highland Light community. Due to the distance of KOP-6 from the project site, and the design of the hotel to match the surrounding Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, the hotel structure would blend into the existing development within MCSP’s regional commercial center. The hotel would not obstruct ocean views from KOP-6 and there would be no notable change in the current viewshed.
KOP-7: Highland Light-Residential (Private View). Figure 3-8b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height at the entrance to the Highland Light community. Due to the distance of KOP-7 from the project site, and the design of the hotel to match the surrounding Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, the hotel structure would blend into the existing development within MCSP’s regional commercial center. While the hotel would slightly obstruct coastal views, the ocean would remain 753
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2025 18
visible along the entire viewshed from KOP-7. Overall changes to the current viewshed would be minimal.
KOP-8: St. Andrew’s By the Sea UMC (Private View). Figure 3-9b includes a simulation of the hotel with the modified height as seen from the residences located along the eastern boundary of the Marblehead Inland planning area, and the adjacent public serving facilities (church, school, day care, military family outreach). Due to the distance of KOP-8 from the project site, and the design of the hotel to match the surrounding Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, the hotel structure would blend into the existing development within MCSP’s regional commercial center. The hotel would not obstruct ocean views from KOP-8 and there would be no notable change in the current viewshed.
Conflicts with scenic and visual quality objectives
As described in Addendum Section 3.3.2, the Final EIR concluded that the MCSP’s Design Guidelines would ensure future development under the MCSP is consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for good quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation. The General Plan’s Land Use Element and Urban Design Element identify public views as resources of community importance, and Policy UD-2.05 and Policy UD-5.14 require new construction and building design to preserve designated public view corridors (City of San Clemente, 2014). The proposed hotel modification does not alter public view corridors from West Avenida Vista Hermosa, Avenida Pico, Camino Capistrano, or the El Camino Real Bluff trail, which remain the focus of the MCSP’s designated vista points. While some private views from inland neighborhoods may experience obstruction, the Final EIR’s aesthetics analysis prioritized public views, which remains consistent with City policies to preserve public view corridors.
The height exception for the hotel structure (Approved Site Plan Building 15) would match the height of the regional commercial center’s theater (Approved Site Plan Building 22), which would be consistent with the City’s intent that the hotel and theater function as architectural landmarks for the MCSP’s RC zone (City of San Clemente, 2004). The City further stated its intent that this architectural landmark designation would apply to two developments within the RC zone, and that if either the hotel or theater was not constructed, an alternative landmark structure would be required (City of San Clemente, 2004). Therefore, the height exception for the hotel structure would remain consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives. Furthermore, the proposed modification would have no other change to the RC development standards (i.e., minimum lot area, setbacks, landscaping, signs, etc.), and the hotel (Building 15) would continue to adhere to these RC design guidelines and development standards.
3.3.4. Summary of Findings
The height exception for the hotel structure would not create any significant new aesthetic resource impacts or significant changes to the impact conclusions presented in the Final EIR. Impacts to viewsheds from the height exception would be of equivalent magnitude to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed height exception would remain consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for good quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation, as described in the General Plan’s Land Use Element and Urban Design Element, and the modification would not alter a public view corridor. No new mitigation measures are required to avoid or minimize potential impacts from this proposed modification.
754
<MI`FEWNW`JTV`XMI`ZNI[WMIH`WXYH]`[EW`GEQGYQEXIH`JVTR`E` HILVII`ZNI[`IRESEXOSL`JVTR`E`WUIGNJOG`LITLVEUMNG`QTGEXOTS`NS`TVHIV`XT`UVIHNGX`[MNGM`WYVVTYSHNSL`JIEXYVIW`RNLMX`FI`ZNWNFQI`JVTR`NX`WNRNQEV`XT`VTXEXOSL`XMI`QNLMX`WTYVGI` TJ`E`QNLMXMTYWI`<MI`NSNXOEQ`WXYH]`EVIE`JTV`XMNW`ZNI[WMIH`ESEQ]WNW`NS`9ES`QIRISXI``YXOQN^IH`E` `RNQI`VEHNYW`NSXILVEXOSL`RYQXOUQI`QNSIWTJWNLMX`EVTYSH`E`JO\IH`VIJIVISGI`QTGEXOTS`NS`TVHIV`XT`UVIHNGX`ESH`REU`NXW`TZIVEQQ`ZNI[WMIH` <MI`GTSZIVWI`TJ`XMNW`RIXMTHTQTL]`NW`EQWT`XVYI`XMI`VIWYQXOSL`WXYH]`EQWT`VIZIEQW`[MNGM`WYVVTYSHNSL`EVIEW`RNLMX`WII`XMI`JO\IH`VIJIVISGI`UTNSX`NS`XMNW`NSWXESGI`XMI`VTTJ`QTHLI`EXTU`XMI`MTXIQ` TV`XMNW`ESEQ]WNW`XMI`ZNI[WMIH`VIJIVISGI`
UTNSX`[EW`JO\IH`EXTU`E`WUIGNJOG`LITLVEUMNG`UTNSX`GISXIVIH`EX`XMI`UIEP`TJ`XMI`VTTKTU`QTHLI`EQXOXYHI`WIX`EX` `
<`EFTZI`LVTYSH`IQIZEXOTS`ESH`GTSXOSYTYW`<MI`VIWYQXOSL`WIIS`EVIE`REU`EFTZI`WMT[W`XMI`EVIEW`GTHIH`NS`LVIIS` FTXM`SIEV``HNWXESX`JVTR`[MNGM`XMI`SI[`MTXIQ`
FI`ZNWNFQI`JVTR`VIEW`GTHIH`NS`LVIIS`EW`
RE]`WXOQQ`FI`WGVIISIH`JVTR`ZNI[`F]`NSXIVZISNSL`QESHWGEUI`[MNGM`NW`STX`E`ZNI[WMIH`UVTGIWWNSL` UEVERIXIV`<MI`WTYVGI`HEXE`UVTZNHIH`JTV`XMNW`ZNI[WMIH`WXYH]`[EW`NS`XMI`JTVR`TJ`YXTH[L`ESH`4 `JOQIW`<MI`UTWNXOTS`ESH`MINLMX`TJ`XMI`SI[`MTXIQ`[EW`RTHIQIH`JVTR`WNXI`UQESW`ESH`IQIZEXOTSW`UVTZNHIH`F]`XMI` EUUQNGESX`
)LJXUH
.23/RFDWLRQV
:/?/:/` 7`,5`
<
`
`
_ 482'
<`*2<$20
8
9`B"
8 `482'
<` -% "<`
`A%9%*
` )
D`29
8A<%20`42%0<9` )24W`
A
1&`A&;=`#
8.3;`
(&.`(3#1;31`
.
.38&+`68)`=`
`;3@=#`3 8.6
;
`;@..&=`&D+
`
=8&+`#
`
6& &`3;=`#@8#`
#&!#+1`+&!#<`
8 ;&
1=&+`3..@1&=D`
#&!#+1`+&!#=`
8 ;&
1=&+`3..@1&=D`
#&!#+1`+&!#=`
8 ;&
1=&+`3..@1&=D`
;>`18
C;`D`=#
`
;
`@.`
755
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
#%
%#!"%
!%
$!"%
"
%
%
"
%
+*."0"*(6 +.56
)6
36
%
20"*(6
6 16
".0(
6
6 16
6&#$
/6
!
"( 6
'
-6%
(.6
446
0
6
66
6&6
333
/,
)
16 756
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
%
+ !#+
* ++*'(+& "'+
*')
+' )
(" +
+
"$+
"(" +
+*."0"*(6 +.56
)6
36
%
20"*(6
6 16
".0(
6
6 16
6&#$
/6
!
"( 6
'
-6%
(.6
446
0
6
66
6&6
333
/,
)
16 757
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
!
&
&
&
#
&
"& "&
%#$
&
$
&
&
$
&
*)-!/!)'5 *-45
(5
25
$
1/!)'5
5 05
!-/'
5
5 05
5%"#
.5
!' 5
&
,5$
'-5
335
/
5
5
5+%5
222
.+
(
05 758
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
%
+ !#+
+" '" + "&
+$&+
*')
+' )
(" +
+
"$+
"(" +
*)-!/!)'5 *-45
(5
25
$
1/!)'5
5 05
!-/'
5
5 05
5%"#
.5
!' 5
&
,5$
'-5
335
/
5
5
5+%5
222
.+
(
05 759
9 : :
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
'
'
"'"$#'
&
'#!'
%"#'
#
'
'
#
'
.-1%3%-+:#.18:
,:
6:
( 53%-+:
:"4:
%13+
:
:"4:
:)&'!2:
$
%+#:
* 0:( +1:
77:
3 :
:
:/):
666 2
/!,!4:
760
9 : :
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
$
+ "+
&+&(
'+*+'%+
)&(+&
('! +
+
!#+
!'! +
.-1%3%-+:#.18:
,:
6:
( 53%-+:
:"4:
%13+
:
:"4:
:)&'!2:
$
%+#:
* 0:( +1:
77:
3 :
:
:/):
666 2
/!,!4:
761
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
%
!"%
#
%
$!"%
"
%
%
"
%
*)-!/!)'5 *-45
(5
25
$
1/!)'5
5 05
!-/'
5
5
05
5%"#
.5
!' 5
&
,5$
'-5
335
/
5
5
5%5
222
.+
(
05 762
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
%
+ !#
+
$+"'(+)&+
*')
+' )
(" +
+
+ "$+
"(" +
*)-!/!)'5 *-45
(5
25
$
1/!)'5
5 05
!-/'
5
5
05
5%"#
.5
!' 5
&
,5$
'-5
335
/
5
5
5%5
222
.+
(
05 763
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
%#% !"
# %
$"#%
#
%
%
#
%
+*."1"*(7 +.67
)7
/47
%
31"*(7
7 27
".1(
7
7 27
7&#$
07
!
"( 7
'
-7%
(.7
557
1
7
77
7&7
444
0,
)
27 764
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
'
- #%
-
"-
*- ()"*
-
,)+
-)!+
*$"-
-
$&- $*$"-
+*."1"*(7 +.6
)7
/47
%
31"*(
27
".1(
27
&#$
0
!
"(
'
- %
(.
557
1
&
444
0,
)
27 765
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
%#% !"
# %
$"#%
#
%
%
#
%
,+/#1#+)7!,/67
*7
47
&
31#+)7
7 27
#/1)
7
7 27 7'$% 07
"
#)!7
(
.7&
)/7
557
1
7
77
7'7
444
0- * 27
766
)LJXUH E
.23 9LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
'
- #%
-
"-
*- ()"*
-
,)+
-)!+
*$"-
-
$&- $*$"-
,+/#1#+)7!,/67
*7
47
&
31#+)7
7 27
#/1)
7
7 27 7'$% 07
"
#)!7
(
.7&
)/7
557
1
7
77
7'7
444
0- * 27
767
)LJXUHD
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
%
%
%#% !"
# %
$"#%
#
%
%
#
%
+*."0"*(6 +.56
)6
36
%
20"*(6
6 16
".0(
6
6 16 6&#$
/6
!
"( 6
'
-6%
(.6
446
0
6
6
6&6
333
/,
)
16 768
)LJXUHE
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
'
- #%
-
"-
*- ()"*
-
,)+
-)!+
*$"-
-
$&- $*$"-
+*."0"*(6 +.56
)6
36
%
20"*(6
6 16
".0(
6
6 16 6&#$
/6
!
"( 6
'
-6%
(.6
446
0
6
6
6&6
333
/,
)
16 769
)LJXUH
D
.23([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
"
*
*
$%*
#'$*
)*%*$
*&
*
($%
*
%
*
* !*
%
*
+*."1"*(8 +.78
55)8
5/48
%
31"*(8
8 28
".1(
8
8 28 8&#$
08
!
"( 8
'
-8%
(.8
668
1
8
88
8&8
444
0,
)
28 770
)LJXUH
E
.239LVXDO6LPXODWLRQ
!(
0
$&
0 *+0#).*0/0+0*0,"0
-*, 0*", +%#0
0 0
%'0 %+%#0
+*."1"*(8 +.78
55)8
5/48
%
31"*(8
8 28
".1(
8
8 28 8&#$
08
!
"( 8
'
-8%
(.8
668
1
8
88
8&8
444
0,
)
28 771
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 36
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
The following section provides a brief summary of the resources that are fully discussed in the Final EIR, and whose analyses have been incorporated by reference in this EIR Addendum. References to the applicable Final EIR sections and the MMRP (Final EIR Exhibit EIR-4) are included throughout the following discussion.
Transportation and Circulation
Section 4.2 of the Final EIR evaluated the effects of transportation and circulation under the MCSP, including trip generation for the RC component, intersection and freeway ramp operations, site access, internal circulation, and the timing of frontage and off-site improvements (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The Final EIR concluded that traffic impacts under the MCSP would be less than significant with implementation of standard conditions and uniform codes identified in Final EIR Section 4.2.3, and with implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.2-1 and MM 4.2-2 (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The Final EIR utilized a level of service (LOS) analysis for evaluating traffic impacts. Since 1998, the approach to traffic analysis under CEQA has replaced LOS with a metric that utilizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A common approach to evaluating VMT is to conduct a trip-based assessment of a project’s transportation impacts. The Final EIR’s transportation analysis remains consistent with this revised approach as it evaluated trip generation effects under the MCSP, for which it calculated future projections of trips per day for each of the MCSP land use types. The potential trip generation effects associated with the MCSP’s commercial center (including a future hotel development) were included in the vehicle trip calculations. Furthermore, the Final EIR evaluated the MCSP’s proposed design features to reduce vehicle trips through improved access to public transit and multi-modal public trails (Final EIR Section 4.2.4.1).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not modify the approved circulation framework, anticipated vehicle trips, or the scope, timing, and applicability of transportation improvements identified in the Final EIR and MMRP (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Traffic associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, was fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.2.4.1. The proposed modification does not authorize an increase in development intensity or alter circulation patterns. Development would remain subject to the MCSP Circulation Plan and RC development standards for parking and access. The proposed modification would also remain consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan’s Mobility and Complete Streets Element requiring new development to maintain adequate circulation and multimodal access (e.g., Policy M-1.01, M-1.19, M1.25). Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to transportation and circulation, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.2.
Air Quality
Section 4.4 of the Final EIR evaluated construction and operational emissions for buildout of the MCSP, identified significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, and adopted mitigation to control fugitive dust and reduce exhaust emissions from construction equipment and project operations (City of San Clemente, 1998b). The Final EIR also addressed consistency with applicable regional air quality planning assumptions based on the land uses and intensities permitted by the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998a and 1998b).
The Final EIR concluded that short- and long-term air quality emissions from development under the MCSP would remain significant and unavoidable, even after the implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.4-1a, MM 4.4-1b, and MM 4.4-2a to MM 4.4-2h.
772
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 37
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the approved land use types within an RC designation, nor would it change the construction measures applicable to development under the MCSP. Operational emissions associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, were fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.4.4.2. The Final EIR concluded that project-related emissions would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District significance thresholds for primary exhaust pollutants (i.e., ROC, CO, NOx) (Final EIR pages 4.4-15 to 4.4-16).
Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant air quality impact, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.4.
Soils and Geology
Section 4.5 of the Final EIR evaluated geologic, seismic, and soil conditions for buildout of the MCSP, including potential for strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction and differential settlement, expansive soils, slope stability, erosion during grading, and long-term performance of engineered slopes and retaining systems. Final EIR Section 4.5.4 described the MCSP grading plans and requirements for a comprehensive geotechnical investigation, plan review, construction monitoring, erosion and sediment control, and conformance with applicable building and grading codes. The Final EIR concluded that implementation of SC 4.5-1 as well as the mitigation measures and standard engineering practices summarized in the Marblehead Coastal Geotechnical Report would ensure that geotechnical impacts would remain less than significant (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not modify the approved land use types within an RC designation, nor would it change the mitigation measures, standard conditions, and engineering practices required for construction under the MCSP. The soil stability and suitability for development of the RC area, in which a hotel is an allowable use, were fully analyzed in Final EIR Section
4.5.4. The Final EIR concluded that all proposed commercial structures would be subject to the specific technical recommendations in the Marblehead Coastal Geotechnical Report, and construction would adhere to the seismic stability and reinforcement requirements of the Uniform Building Code (Final EIR pages 4.5-8 to 4.5-9). Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant geotechnical impact, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.5.
Population and Housing
Section 4.6 of the Final EIR evaluated the MCSP’s potential to induce population growth, displace housing or people, and conflict with adopted regional growth forecasts. Final EIR Section 4.6.4 addressed the buildout of MCSP land uses, including the RC component, and concluded that development would occur consistent with the Specific Plan and applicable growth projections, with no displacement of existing housing (City of San Clemente, 1998b).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the approved land use types within an RC designation, nor would it remove or replace any existing housing. Employment generation associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, was fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.6.4. Development within the regional commercial center would remain subject to the Approved Site Plan. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to population and housing, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.6.
Cultural/Scientific Resources
Section 4.7 of the Final EIR evaluated archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources within the MCSP and identified sensitivity based on prior investigations and underlying geologic units (City of San 773
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 38
Clemente, 1998b). The Final EIR concluded that impacts to cultural resources under the MCSP would be less than significant with implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.7-1a to MM 4.7-1g (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not authorize new ground disturbance within the MCSP beyond that evaluated in the Final EIR. Ground disturbance associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, was fully analyzed in Final EIR Section
4.7.4. The proposed modification does not authorize an increase in development intensity, and development would remain subject to the adopted mitigation measures that address grading and excavation of a project site. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to cultural resources, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.7.
San Onofre Emergency Evacuation Plan
Section 4.8 of the Final EIR evaluated emergency preparedness within the MCSP in coordination with the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station emergency planning framework, including public alerting, designated evacuation routes, emergency vehicle access, and consistency with the City’s standard conditions, uniform codes, and adopted procedures (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.8.4 described the MCSP’s circulation and access improvements and required compliance with the Nuclear Element of the City’s General Plan.2
The Final EIR concluded that the MCSP would have no significant impacts to public safety and would not affect the San Onofre Emergency Evacuation Plan.
Although the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is no longer in operation, spent nuclear fuel continues to be managed and stored at the facility. As such, the San Onofre Emergency Evacuation Plan remains a relevant planning document. The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change evacuation plans nor create an impediment to emergency access routes. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to public safety, established evacuation plans, and designated evacuation routes, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.8.
Public Services and Facilities
Section 4.9 of the Final EIR evaluated demands on public services and facilities for MCSP buildout, including fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, parks and recreation, libraries, and related public facilities (City of San Clemente, 1998b). The Final EIR concluded that impacts to public services would be less than significant with implementation of standard conditions and uniform codes identified in Final EIR Section 4.9.1.3, Section 4.9.2.3, Section 4.9.4.3, Section 4.9.5.3, and Section
4.9.6.3, and with implementation of adopted mitigation measure MM 4.9.4-1 (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the site’s existing RC land use designation, nor would it change the mitigation measure and standard conditions specific to fire protection, police protection, school facilities, and utility facilities required for development under the MCSP. The hotel is an allowable use within the MCSP’s regional commercial center and would be subject to the requirements of the Marblehead Coastal Fuel Modification plan that serves to reduce fire risk within the MCSP (see Final EIR pages 4.9-24 to 4.9-25). Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no 2 Discussion of the since-decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is now contained within the Safety Element of the City’s Centennial General Plan. In March 2025, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that incorporates the latest policy guidance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.
774
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 39
new significant impact to public services and facilities, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.9.
Hydrology and Flood Control
Section 4.10 of the Final EIR evaluated drainage patterns, stormwater runoff and water quality, construction-period erosion and sedimentation, flood hazards, and the master drainage and flood control improvements for MCSP buildout (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.10.4 described the MCSP’s Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan and site-specific drainage plans that identify erosion and sediment control practices. The Final EIR concluded that hydrology and flood control impacts would be less than significant with implementation of standard conditions and uniform codes identified in Final EIR Section 4.10.3, and with implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.10-1a, MM 4.10-1b, MM 4.10-2, and MM 4.10-3 (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not modify the approved land use types within an RC designation, nor would it change the mitigation measures and standard conditions required for construction under the MCSP. Issues related to flooding, erosion, and siltation associated with development of the regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, were fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.10.4. The Final EIR concluded that construction under the MCSP would follow the recommendations of a Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, and that all development would be subject to standard construction best management practices (Final EIR pages 4.10-16 to 4.10-17).
Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new impact to hydrology and flood control, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.10.
Biological Resources
Section 4.12 of the Final EIR evaluated biological resources within the MCSP, including sensitive habitats, special-status species, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement, and edge effects from lighting, noise, and human activity (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.12.5 identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements for construction and operations, including limits on grading within designated open space, preconstruction surveys, nesting bird protections, construction monitoring, landscape and lighting controls, and long-term open space management. The Final EIR concluded that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of adopted mitigation measures MM 4.12-1a to MM 4.12-1c and MM 4.12-2a to 4.12-2c (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4).
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not authorize new disturbance within the MCSP beyond that evaluated in the Final EIR. Vegetation removal and habitat disturbance associated with development of the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, were fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.12.4. The Final EIR concluded that construction under the MCSP would comply with the biological restoration and enhancement measures specified in the MCSP’s Resource Management Plan (Final EIR pages 4.12-16 to 4.12-23). Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to biological resources, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.12.
Recreation
Section 4.13 of the Final EIR evaluated parks, recreation, and open space under the MCSP, including provision of on-site open space, trail linkages, and access to nearby recreational amenities (City of San Clemente, 1998b). Final EIR Section 4.13.3 concluded that implementation of SC 4.13-1 would prevent the physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities as well as offset the need to construct or expand new recreational facilities beyond those planned as part of the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b). 775
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 40
During the initial buildout of the MCSP, the applicant was subject to in-lieu park fees and dedication of parkland to meet the requirements of the City’s Park Acquisition and Development Code (Final EIR page
4.13-6). The calculation of in-lieu fees and land dedication requirements under the MCSP already accounted for the MCSP’s RC component in which a hotel is an allowable use. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to recreation, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.13.
Other CEQA Topics
Since the 1998 certification of the Final EIR, there have been updates to the CEQA Guidelines that address additional topics such as energy, greenhouse gas emissions, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The following is a summary of these topics and a discussion of how the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not trigger a new significant impact that was not addressed in the MCSP Final EIR. Energy. The requirement to evaluate a project’s energy implications was added to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation) in 2009 and incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) in 2018. Prior to 2018, an EIR’s discussion of energy resource impacts was typically included in an analysis of the project’s irretrievable commitment of resources. MCSP Final EIR Chapter 9.0 describes the substantial commitment of energy resources (i.e., diesel fuel and electricity) that would be required to fully develop the MCSP. As the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the approved land use types or planned development under the MCSP, there would be no new impact or a change in the severity of energy resource impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Chapter 9.0.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Although the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions was not incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines until 2010, the MCSP Final EIR fully analyzed the emission impacts from both mobile source and stationary source pollution. For example, Final EIR Section 4.4.4.2 discussed emission impacts generated from energy consumption, which was characterized as on-site natural gas combustion for space and water heating, and off-site electrical generation from in-basin power resources (City of San Clemente, 1998b). These energy consumption emissions are typical examples of greenhouse gas emissions and were addressed in the Final EIR’s analysis. The Final EIR concluded that future growth under the MCSP would contribute significantly to a sub-regional and regional air pollution burden. As the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the approved land use types or planned development under the MCSP, there would be no new impact or a change in the severity of impacts from the emissions discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.4. Tribal Cultural Resources. A CEQA requirement to evaluate impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources was incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines in 2016. MCSP Final EIR Section 4.7 discussed tribal cultural resource sites that were recorded in the vicinity of the MCSP area and one resource site that was recorded within the MCSP area (City of San Clemente, 1998b). To mitigate potential impacts during development under the MCSP, the Final EIR included mitigation measure MM 4.7-1a (Final EIR Chapter 11 and Exhibit EIR-4) to address undiscovered resources. The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not authorize new ground disturbance within the MCSP beyond that evaluated in the Final EIR. Ground disturbance associated with the MCSP’s regional commercial center, in which a hotel is an allowable use, was fully analyzed in Final EIR Section 4.7.4. The proposed modification does not authorize an increase in development intensity, and development would remain subject to the adopted mitigation measures that address grading and excavation of a project site. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to tribal cultural resources, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.7. Wildfire. The evaluation of wildfire-specific risk was added to the CEQA Guidelines in 2018. The MCSP Final EIR addressed wildland fire risks (Final EIR Section 4.9.4.4) and discussed specific fuel modification 776
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
4. OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR
SEPTEMBER 2025 41
requirements to minimize risk within the MCSP (City of San Clemente, 1998b). On March 24, 2025, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) issued updates to its recommended Fire Hazard Severity Zones within Local Responsibility Areas. The updated maps indicate that the project site would continue to be located outside of a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2025). As such, the updated maps indicate that there would be no change in the fire hazards associated with the project site. Accordingly, the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would have no new significant impact associated with wildfire, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in Final EIR Section 4.9. 777
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SEPTEMBER 2025 42
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) to include the hotel as eligible for the same height exception granted to the theater has not altered the fundamental objectives of the MCSP as reflected in the certified EIR. Adding the hotel use as eligible for the maximum height exception aligns with the City’s expectation that the theater and hotel would function equally as the anchoring architectural landmarks of the Marblehead Coastal Promenade. The proposed modification would only apply to the single hotel property that was previously identified in the Approved Site Plan as an architectural landmark, and would have no other change on the RC development standards under the MCSP.
Addendum Section 3.1 (Land Use and Related Planning) explained that the MCSP’s RC designation already provides for this height exception to accommodate architectural features, and inclusion of the hotel in the maximum height exception would be a minor modification that would not alter the intent or application of the RC development standards. The proposed modification to MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) would not conflict with any existing or proposed land uses near the project site. No new significant impacts to land use or relevant planning policies and programs would occur from the proposed modification.
Addendum Section 3.2 (Noise) concluded that any construction within the MCSP would remain subject to the City’s standard conditions and adopted mitigation measures. Such measures would include restrictions on the allowable hours of construction and ensuring that operational noise does not exceed exterior noise standards. Noise within the MCSP’s RC zone continues to be characterized by commercial activity and major transportation corridors, and the proposed modification would not increase the proximity of commercial uses within the RC zone relative to sensitive receptors. The project would not create any new significant noise impacts and would not increase the severity of previously identified impacts presented in the Final EIR.
Addendum Section 3.3 (Aesthetics) described the purpose of the City’s design review process to ensure that development under the MCSP is consistent with the MCSP’s Design Guidelines that address scenic view and resource protection. Section 3.3 included photographs of existing conditions and visual simulations from 8 KOPs to evaluate baseline conditions against the proposed conditions, which demonstrated consistency with the aesthetics findings of the Final EIR. As part of the City’s approval for the MCSP’s regional commercial site plan, the City stated its intent that development of the hotel and theater should reflect the roles of these structures to serve as architectural landmarks for the Marblehead Coastal Promenade. Given this planning direction, the proposed height exception for the hotel to match the allowable height of the theater would remain consistent with the City’s scenic and visual quality objectives for good quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation. Furthermore, the proposed modification would not alter the viewshed from an established vista point. Impacts to viewsheds from the height exception would be of equivalent magnitude to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required to avoid or minimize potential impacts.
As described in Chapter 4, the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502 (V)(D) would not result in any new substantial environmental impacts nor increase the severity of previously identified environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed height exception for the hotel structure would not introduce a new significant impact from what was presented in the certified EIR, nor require the development of new mitigation measures. Further, no new information, not known at the time of the Final EIR, has surfaced indicating the potential for new or more severe significant environmental impacts. The City has determined that an addendum to the certified Final EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the technical adjustment to add the additional exception to the maximum height requirement within a regional commercial center.
778
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SEPTEMBER 2025 43
In conclusion, the proposed modification is not only consistent with the certified MCSP Final EIR, but also advances the City’s adopted long-term policy objectives under the Centennial General Plan. By supporting visitor-serving lodging in a regional commercial location, preserving designated public view corridors, maintaining compatibility with community character, and adhering to established design review standards, the proposed modification reflects and reinforces the City’s vision of San Clemente as the “Spanish Village by the Sea.”
779
MARBLEHEAD COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR ADDENDUM NO. 6
6. REFERENCES
SEPTEMBER 2025 44
6. REFERENCES
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. [online]: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed August 27, 2025.
City of San Clemente. 2014. City of San Clemente Centennial General Plan. Adopted February 4, 2014.
Amended December 20, 2016.
_____. 2004. City Council Resolution No. 04-61. Adopted July 20, 2004. _____. 1999. City Council Resolution No. 99-68. Adopted July 7, 1999. _____. 1998a. Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan. Adopted August 5, 1998. Amended December 6, 2022. _____. 1998b. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marblehead Coastal General Plan Amendment 96-01, Specific Plan No. 95-02, Tentative Tract Map, Site Plans, Conditional Use Permit, and Sign Exception Permit. Certified June 23, 1998.
_____. 1998c. City Council Resolution No. 98-40. Adopted June 23, 1998 780
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
COVER SHEET
1 THE LODGE
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR RESUBMITTAL 1
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
781
)(
)(
)(
)(
)( )(
)(
)(
)(
)(
[
[
[
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* 6,7(3/$1
1257+
758( 1257+
&DOOH 'H
/RV 0ROLQRV
,QGXVWULDV &DOOH 'H
( $YHQLGD 3LFR
$YHQLGD 9LVWD +HUPRVD
352-(&76,7(
AUG 27, 2025
782
24" x 42"
F.E.
CMDAP
Cable Motion
Dual
Adjustable
Pulley
95T Discover Treadmill
95C Discover
Upright 95R Discover
Recumbent
LifeCycle GX
ADA
ADA
95X Discover Cross-Trainer
95X Discover Cross-Trainer
95X Discover Cross-Trainer
ADA
CMDAP Cable Motion
Dual Adjustable Pulley
Adjustable Bench
SDR2 Signature
Two Tier Dumbbell Rack
Stretching Mat
Med Ball
Tree
Bosu Ball
Stretching Mat
95T Discover Treadmill
95T Discover Treadmill
95T Discover Treadmill
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
PLATING
HOT
COOKING
COOLER FREEZER
COOLER
24" x 48"
18" x 36"
18" x 42" 18" x 42" 18" x 36"
18" x 36" 18" x 24"
24" x 48"
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
3 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
NORTH
TRUE NORTH
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
783
T T
SLIDER
COMPLIANCE
ADA
SLIDER
COMPLIANCE
ADA
SLIDER
COMPLIANCE
ADA SLIDER
COMPLIANCE
ADA
SLIDER
COMPLIANCE
ADA
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
T T T
T T T
T
T
T
T T
F.E. F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
18" x 48"
24" x 48"
18" x 48"
30 LF
40 LF
30 LF
VAN
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
4 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
NORTH
TRUE NORTH
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
784
7 )( )( )(
7 7 7
7 7 7 7
)(
)(
7 7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
6(&21')/2253/$1
6(&21')/2253/$1
1257+
758( 1257+
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
785
T
T
T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T T T
T T
T T
T
T
F.E. F.E. F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
T
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
6 THIRD FLOOR PLAN
NORTH
TRUE NORTH
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
786
SLIDER DOOR
COMPLIANCE
ADA
SLIDER DOOR
COMPLIANCE
ADA
SLIDER DOOR
COMPLIANCE
ADA
SLIDER
POCKET DOOR
COMPLIANCE
ADA
general
shower
F.E. F.E. F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
7 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
NORTH
TRUE NORTH
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
787
6
6
79
$9
6 6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6
6
6 6
6
6
6 6
6 6
6 6
79
$9
6 6
6
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* 522)3/$1
522)7239(18(3/$1
1257+
758( 1257+
.,7&+(1
6)
6725$*(
6)
0(1 :20(1
%$5
6)
5$,6('3('(67$/
3$9(56
7<3
:,7+
812&&83,('522)
(/(9
6)
+$1'5$,/72(;,7
6(59,&((/(9$725
&2175$67&2/2572,1',&$7((;,73$7+
6725$*(
6)
',1,1*
6)
',1,1*
6)
',1,1*
6)
',1,1*
6)
6)',1,1*$5($
6).,7&+(1$1'6)6(59,&(6
7$%/(0,1,0803/80%,1*),;785()$&,/,7,(6 6)2&& 2&&3(5&3&3$*( 7$%/($
2&&83$17/2$')$&725
:$7(5&/26(7
0$/( )(0$/(
/$9$725,(6
0$/( )(0$/(
85,1$/
$$66(0%/<5(67$85$176
7<3(62)2&&83$1&<
:$7(5&/26(7
0$/( )(0$/(
/$9$725,(6
0$/( )(0$/(
85,1$/
$$66(0%/<5(67$85$176
7<3(62)2&&83$1&<
6) 2&&
0$/(
)(0$/(
0$/(
0$/(
)(0$/(
2&&0)
6) 2&&
2&&0)
0$/(
)(0$/(
0$/(
0$/(
)(0$/(
-$1
812&&83,('
522) 812&&83,('
522)
812&&83,('
522)
6)522)7239(18(
(/(&
63($.(57<3
7(/(&20/(*(1'
79&211(&7,21
$9&211(&7,21
&(,/,1*63($.(5
/$1'6&$3(3/$17(563($.(5
685)$&(0281763($.(5
6 6
6
6
1257+
1,1*
6)
63($.(57<3
1,
AUG 27, 2025
788
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
COLORED ROOF PLAN
9 COLORED ROOF PLAN NORTH
TRUE NORTH
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
789
APPROVED SCR
10 PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
APPROVED SCR ELEVATIONS
THE LODGE
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
790
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
PROPOSED ELEVATION
11 PROPOSED ROOF TOP ELEVATIONS
THE LODGE
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
791
PROPOSED ELEVATION
12 PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
PROPOSED ROOF TOP ELEVATIONS
THE LODGE
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
792
R5 R5
1 CROSS SECTION
SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0"
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
31'-4"
4TH FLOOR
21'-2"
3RD FLOOR
11'-0"
2ND FLOOR
0'-0"
FIRST FLOOR
42'-6"
ROOF DECK
55'-0"
PROPOSED RIDGE
55'-0"
PROPOSED RIDGE
62'-0"
PROPOSED HIGH POINT
62'-0"
PROPOSED TOP OF DOME
ELEV. KITCHEN
/ RESTROOM
KITCHEN
/ RESTROOM BAR
SECTION
13 0
5 10
20 40
45'-0"
PARAPET WALL /
ROOF RIDGE
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
793
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
GUESTROOM UNITS
14 ,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
794
SLIDER
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
PRESIDENTIAL SUITES
15 ,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
795
2" STAINED WOOD
CASING
4" PLASTER FRAME AROUND
DOOR OPENING
EDGE OF BALCONY
FLOOR
WROUGHT IRON
RAILING
FURNITURE PER
SCHEDLUE
SLIDING GLASS
DOOR
ASSEMBLY
2" STAINED WOOD
CASING
4" PLASTER FRAME AROUND
DOOR FRAME
2" STAINED WOOD
CASING
4" PLASTER FRAME AROUND
DOOR FRAME
2" STAINED WOOD
CASING
4" PLASTER TRIM
FIN. FLR.
CL
2" STAINED WOOD
CASING
4" PLASTER FRAME AROUND
DOOR FRAME
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
16 ,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
796
10'-6" A.F.F.
PAINTED MTL BRACKET
@ EACH SIDE TYP.
PLASTER TRIM
SURROUND
PAINTED TUBE STEEL
AWNING FRAME
FABRIC AWNING
4'-0"
1'-6"
8" 2'-4"
METAL BRACKET @
EACH SIDE TYP.
FABRIC AWNING
PAINTED TUBE STEEL
AWNING FRAME
PLASTER FINISH WALL
STONE SILL
ALUMINUM WINDOW
TOP OF BALCONY
GUARDRAIL
3'-0"
2" WOOD FRAME, STAINED
12" WIDE 2X BOARDS,
STAINED
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
17 ,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
797
2'-9"
7 1/2" 2'-7 1/2"
7'-2"
6'-0"
METAL FINISHED
DOME
GFRC DOME BASE TRIM
FAUX STONE FINISH OVER FOAM
CORNICE
FAUX STONE FINISH OVER FOAM
TRIM ARCH SURROUND
FAUX STONE FINISH OVER FOAM
CORNICE
TAPPERED WALLS WITH PAINTED
SMOOTH PLASTER FINISH
1'-5"
4'-8"
7"
5'-0"
7'-2 3/8"
8'-6" 6'-9 3/4"
2'-9"
6'-9"
4"
1'-9"
14'-4 5/8"
11'-11 1/2"
GFRC FINIAL
1'-1 1/2"
2'-1"
2 3/4"
METAL FINISHED
DOME
GFRC DOME BASE TRIM
FAUX STONE FINISH
OVER FOAM CORNICE
PAINTED SMOOTH
PLASTER FINISH
DECORATIVE GFRC
SCROLL BASE
FAUX STONE FINISH
OVER FOAM CORNICE
TAPPERED WALLS WITH
PAINTED SMOOTH
PLASTER FINISH
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
18 ,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
798
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
LIGHTING CONCEPT
19 1 LIGHTING CONCEPT
SCALE NTS
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
799
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
LIGHTING PLAN
20 ROOF TOP VENUE - LIGHTING PLAN NORTH
TRUE NORTH
SQUARE RECESSED DOWNLIGHT
LIGHTING FIXTURE KEY
SQUARE RECESSED WALL WASHER
ROUND INGRADE UPLIGHT
MONOPOINT MOUNTED ADJUSTABLE
DOWN LIGHT
RECESSED RAIL LIGHT
SMALL DETAILED STRIP LIGHT
WALL MOUNTED SCONCE
CATENARY FESTOON LIGHT
XC CATENARY LIGHT
XA FLOODED LIGHT
XR SURFACE MOUNTED LIGHT(FACING DOWNWARD
XU.2 SURFACE MOUNTED LIGHT AT PLANTER(FACING DOWNWARD)
XS WALL SCONCE
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
800
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
LANDSCAPE PLAN
21 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE NTS
LANDSCAPE AREA: 455 SF.
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
801
F.E.
ADA
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
BOARD RM
340 SF
23 15
2 4.6"
STAFF
445 SF
30 15
1 6.0"
CORRIDOR
MEETING
630 SF
42 15
2 8.4"
MEETING
580 SF
39 15
2 7.8"
BOARD RM
420
28 15
1 5.6"
BOARDROOM
456 SF
31 15
1 6.2"
SPA
6,005 SF
60 100
2 12.0"
CONFERENCE
200 SF
14 15
1 2.8"
12 21
YOGA STUDIO
1,170 SF
23 50
1 4.6"
FITNESS
1200 SF
24 50
1 4.8"
24 OCC LESS THAN 50
30 30
12 KITCHEN
2,340 SF
12 200
2 22.4"
ELEV
160 SF
1 300
1 0.2"
WATER
325 SF
1 300
1 0.2"
MPOE
150 SF
1 300
1 0.2"
ENG
270 SF
1 300
1 0.2"
LAUNDRY
575 SF
6 100
1 0.3"
6 1
1 1
156
99 129' TRAVEL
DISTANCE
TO AN EXIT
102' TRAVEL
DISTANCE
TO AN EXIT
B
B
B B
B A-3 A-3
B
B
FE
FE
FE
FE
1 ELEC
100 SF
1 300
1 0.2"
1 OFFICE
665 SF
7 100
1 1.4"
TOTAL 353
99 30 23 28 21 21 20 19 31
92' TRAVEL
DISTANCE TO
STAIRS
+107' FROM
STAIR TO EXIT
ON FIRST FLOOR
199' TOTAL
150' EXIT
ACCESS TRAVEL
DISTANCE
172' TRAVEL
DISTANCE
TO AN EXIT
FE
FE
STORAGE
1,450 SF
5 300
1 1.0"
5 B
1 1 1 B
1 GENERATOR
180
1 300
1 0.2"
EMERGENCY
SPECIFY "EXIT ROUTE"
SIGN AT EXIT DOOR,
TYP
REFER TO EXITING NOTE #2 FOR
POSTING OCCUPANT LOAD SIGN AT
ASSEMBLY AREA, TYP.
ASSISTING LISTENING SYSTEM
SHALL BE PROVIDED AT MEETING
ROOMS PER CBC 11B-219.2.
11 TRUE NORTH
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
1 EGRESS BASEMENT PLAN
SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" N
EXITING PLAN LEGEND EXITING NOTES
2 5.6"
28 5636 SF
200
4.2" (32")
28 CALCULATION FOR AREA EGRESS
CALCULATION FOR REQUIRED EGRESS AT STAIR (ACTUAL)
32"
28 CALCULATION FOR EGRESS AT DOOR
4.2"
NAME
BASEMENT
EGRESS PLAN
22 ,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
802
T T
SLIDER
COMPLIANCE ADA
SLIDER
COMPLIANCE ADA
SLIDER
COMPLIANCE
ADA SLIDER
COMPLIANCE
ADA
SLIDER
COMPLIANCE
ADA
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
T T T
T T T
T
T
T
T T
F.E. F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
18" x 48"
24" x 48"
18" x 48"
30 LF
40 LF
30 LF
36 135
27.0"(32")
GUESTROOMS
5,418 SF
27 200
5.4"
GUESTROOMS
7,597 SF
38 200
7.6"
76 MEETING A
3435 SF
229
15 2 45.80"
76 77
MEETING B 53
2,385 SF
159
15 2 31.80"
53 53
STORAGE
860 SF
3 300
0.6"
1 3
276
138
28 MEETING
487 SF
33 15
5.4"
33 5
KITCHEN
944 SF
200
1 1.0"
BAR/DINING
250
3,738 SF
15 1
2 50.00"
2 25.40"
1,193 SF
LOBBY
2 OFFICE
100
12 1
1,900 SF
127
15 2.4"
15 REGIS.
250 SF
3 100
1 0.6"
2ND
BELL
180 SF
2 100
1 0.4"
5 104
208
156
BSMT
104
2 2
LOBBY
189
37.80"
MEETING RM
138
22 2,840 SF
15 2
208
31.20"(68")
104
15.60"(68")
22 3.30"(68")
276
41.40"(68")
138
20.70"(68")
138
20.70"(68")
76 11.40"(68")
22 3.30"(32")
R-1
R-1
A-3
A-3
A-3
B
28 FE FE FE
FE
FE
B
99 BSMT
99 14.85"(68") BREAKAWAY DOOR IN
DIRECTION OF EGRESS
EGRESS DOOR(.15):
99 BST
TOTAL 1055
A-2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
FE
FE
FE
199' STAIRS
TO ELEV.
198'-0" STAIRS
TO ELEV.
22 POST OCCUPANT LOAD SIGN
AT ASSEMBLY & DINING AREAS
PER CBC 1004.3 NEAR MAIN
EXIT OR EXIT ACCESS DOOR
22 22
3.30"(32")
SPECIFY ASSISTIVE LISTENING
SYSTEM AT MEETING ROOMS
PER SECTION 11B-219.2 OF
CBC. PROVIDE SIGNAGE PER
SECTION 11B-216.104 OF CBC
DESIGN LIVE LOAD
=100PSF
DESIGN LIVE LOAD
=100PSF
DESIGN LIVE LOAD
=100PSF
DESIGN LIVE LOAD SHALL BE
POSTED USING DURABLE
SIGNS PER CBC 106.1.
DESIGN LIVE LOAD
SHALL BE POSTED
USING DURABLE SIGNS
PER CBC 106.1.
DESIGN LIVE LOAD SHALL BE POSTED
USING DURABLE SIGNS PER CBC 106.1.
17 28
*CONVERGENCE PER 1005.6 ONLY OCCUR WHERE THERE'S FLOOR ABOVE AND BELOW CONVERGE AT INTERMEDIATE LEVEL. BUT IF REQUIRED TO COMBINE, EXIT LOAD IS 208 + 156 = 364 ; 364 x .15 = 54.60 WIDTH POOL
1,460 SF
29 50
1 5.8"
POOL
106 SF
2 50
1 10.0"
TERRACE
4605
307
15 2 10.0"
OUTDOOR BAR
120 SF
1 100
1 0.2"
250
50.00"(68")
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 194
46 OCC - FIXED SEATING
307 OCC - TERRACE
31 OCC - POOL
1 OCC - BAR
385 OCC TOTAL
194
38.80"(42")
194
194
38.80"(42")
6 7
(2) 30"x48" MIN
WHEEL CHAIR SPACE
EXTERIOR AREA FOR
ASSISTED RESCUE
PER 1009.7
PROVIDE SIGN
"EXTERIOR AREA FOR
ASSISTED RESCUE"
PER CBC1009.9
DEFERRED SUBMITTAL
DEFERRED SUBMITTAL
DEFERRED SUBMITTAL
DEFERRED SUBMITTAL
DEFERRED SUBMITTAL
250
50.00"(68")
250
50.00"(68")
NEW SIDEWALK TO
CONNECT TO
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EXTERIOR AREA FOR
ASSISTED RESCUE
PER 1009.7
(2) 30"x48" MIN
WHEEL CHAIR SPACE
EXTERIOR AREA FOR
ASSISTED RESCUE
PER 1009.7
PROVIDE SIGN
"EXTERIOR AREA FOR
ASSISTED RESCUE"
PER CBC1009.9
TRUE NORTH
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
2 EGRESS FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" N
PROVIDE 2 1
2" I-STUD @ 24" OC. WITH
(1) LAYER OF 1" FIRE SHIELD SHAFT LINER ON THE UPPER SIDE AND (2) LAYERS OF 1
2" FIRE SHIELD GYPSUM BOARD AT LOWER SIDE OF SHAFT LINER PER UL# V438
SURFACE FOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL MEET SECTION 11B-302 STABLE,FIRM, AND SLIP RESISTANT.
PROVIDE ADA APPROVED "FOREVERLAWN" SYNTHETIC GRASS OR APPROVED EQUAL PRODUCT.
EXTERIOR PATH OF EGRESS
GROUND FLOOR
EGRESS PLAN
23 ,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
803
T
T
T
T
TV
F.E. F.E. F.E.
T T T T
T T T T T
TV
T
T
T
F.E.
F.E.
TV
T
T
2,119 SF
11 200
2.2"
3,751 SF
19 200
3.8"
GUESTROOMS
5,418 SF
27 200
5.4"
8,158 SF
41 200
8.2"
TOTAL 98
33 32
GUESTROOMS GUESTROOMS
GUESTROOMS
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1 FE FE L
L L
L L
195'-6"
EXIT STAIRS
TO ELEV.
FE
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
FE
3 3 3 3 3 3
198'-0" STAIRS
TO ELEV.
33 T
T
T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T T T
T T
T T
T
T
F.E. F.E. F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
T
2,925 SF
15 200
4,661 SF
200
4.66"
GUESTROOMS
5,418 SF
27 200
5.4"
8,057 SF
41 200
8.2"
TOTAL 106
35 36
GUESTROOMS GUESTROOMS
GUESTROOMS
3.0"
23 R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1 FE FE L
FE FE
FE
195'-6" STAIRS
TO ELEV.
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
198'-0" STAIRS
TO ELEV.
35 TRUE NORTH
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
2 EGRESS THIRD FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" N
TRUE NORTH
1 EGRESS SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" N
SECOND AND THIRD
EGRESS PLAN
24 ,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
804
T
T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T T T T T
T T
T
F.E. F.E. F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
T
2,851 SF
15 200
3.0"
4,444 SF
23 200
4.66"
GUESTROOMS
5,171 SF
26 200
5.2"
7.8"
TOTAL 104
34 35
GUESTROOMS GUESTROOMS
GUESTROOMS
7,712 SF
39 200
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1 FE
FE
FE
L
L FE FE
195'-6" EXIT STAIRS
TO ELEV.
198'-0" EXIT STAIRS
TO ELEV.
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
35 (4)
(2)
(1)
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
1,300 SF
0 0
0.00"
CLOSE OFF*
1,300 SF
0 0
0.00"
CLOSE OFF*
202 SEATS
202
53.40"
ROOF TOP DINING
300 SF
2 200
0.40"
BAR
950 SF
5 200
1.00"
KITCHEN
450 SF
2 300
0.40"
STORAGE
500 SF
2 300
0.40"
STORAGE
2 2
5 2
202
TOTAL 213
71 71 71
71 21.30"(44")
OPEN STAIR ( x.0.3)
71 21.30"(44")
OPEN STAIR ( x.0.3)
71 14.20"(44")
ENCLOSED STAIR ( x.0.2)
198'-0" EXIT STAIRS
TO ELEV.
194'-0" EXIT STAIRS
TO ELEV.
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
TRUE NORTH
1 EGRESS FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" N
TRUE NORTH
1 EGRESS ROOF PLAN
SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" N
MEN WOMEN
*EVENT SPACE IS PROHIBITIVE AS THIS SPACE WILL INCREASE STAIR WIDTH REQUIREMENT TO ABOUT 60" AND 45" DOOR IN ADDITION THEATER/EVENT SPACE WILL RESULT IN ADDITIONAL 300 OCCUPANTS WHICH WILL REQUIRED:
3 MALE WC, 6 FEMALE WC, 2 URINAL, 3 MALE LAVATORIES, AND 4 FEMALE LAVATORIES
FOURTH AND ROOF
EGRESS PLAN
25 ,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
805
CONVERSE
3,790 SF
146
142
138
134
130
NIKE
1ST: 9,850 SF
2ND: 9,675 SF
TOTAL: 19,525 SF
H&M 1ST: 11,002 SF
2ND: 8,812 SF
TOTAL: 19,814 SF
AVAILABLE
8,262 SF
AVAILABLE
10,342 SF
120
RESERVED 144
1ST: 3,507 SF
2ND: 46,174 SF
TOTAL: 49,681 SF
BAKERY
LOGISTICS
CENTER
STORAGE
TEL
ELEC
ELEVATORS FROM
LOWER LEVEL PARKING
STAIR TO SUITE 122
UPPER LEVEL
1ST: 4,943
2ND: 1,842
TOTAL: 6,785
208
517
298
EBF
EBF
EBF
EBF
EBF
EBF
EBF EBF
SMF SMF
EBF
SMF
27 531 SF
3,117 RSF
3,003 USF 116
ROCKWELL'S
3,859 SF 2,865 RSF
(2,647 USF)
1,316 RSF
(1,259 USF)
1,856 RSF
(1,715 USF)
AUNTIE
ANNE'S AVAILABLE
KITCHEN
COLLECTION
STARBUCKS 632
628
624
620
616
612
600
608
5,615 RSF
(5,373 USF)
RUBY'S
1,812 RSF
(1,699 USF)
SLAPFISH 1,322 RSF
(1,265 USF)
RMCF
LE CREUSET 1,889 RSF
(1,771 USF)
WEST AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA
AVENIDA PICO
G
BLAZE PIZZA
2,741
A
EBF
EBF
EBF
EBF
AT&T
4,724
BOWLOLOGY
1,172
RESERVED
E
300
1,700
666 218
2 B
EBF
3,260
EBF EBF
EBF
SMF
PUMA
5,004 SF
PANERA
BREAD
3,904 SF
476
480
AVAILABLE
7,456 SF
EBF
EBF
AVAILABLE
3,971 SF
464
468
17 3,691 SF
3,290 SF
2,538 SF
2,780 SF
3,888 SF
9,397 SF
3,721 SF
LUXURY MALL
AVAILABLE
NAUTICA
COLE HAAN
ZALES
AVAILABLE
CALVIN KLEIN
HANES
8,604 SF
2,114 SF
3,506 SF
9,411 SF
3,511 SF 2,852 SF
PEARL
IZUMI
3,035 SF 3,270 SF
LUGGAGE
FACTORY BASS
3,700 SF
VANS GUESS
TOMMY HILFIGER
SKECHERS
PUBLIC
RESTROOMS200
180
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
PUBLIC
RESTROOMS
CROCS
CUSTOMER
SERVICE MAILBOXES
EBF
ELEC.
ROOM
TEL.
AVAILABLE
1,270 SF
OWL FISH
3,698 SF
2,529 SF
GRAYSE
2,504 SF
AVAILABLE
2,123 SF
LEVI'S
3,355 SF
5,699 SF CLARKS
BOSTONIAN
3,292 SF
JOCKEY
2,654 SF VAN HEUSEN
3,815 SF
PLANET
BEAUTY
1,976 SF
CHICO'S
3,016 SF
WHBM
2,725 SF
ELEC.
ROOM
OSH KOSH
3,796 SF
3,795 SF
PAPAYA
6,118 SF
SUN DIEGO
5,830 SF
SUNGLASS HUT
1,113 RSF
(807 USF)
508
510
512
514
516
518
524
528
530
534
ASICS
LOFT
FLIP FLOP SHOPS
SWAROVSKI 1,011 SF
520
500
NEW BALANCE
4,081 SF
2,810 SF
UNDER ARMOUR
9,581 SF
DAISY SHOPPE 2,545 SF
502
327 SF
AVAILABLE
2,790 RSF
(2,661 USF)
2XU
2,069 RSF
(2,006 USF)
506
540
542
544
548
550
562
584
580
576
554
558
572
566
1,354 RSF
(980 USF)
3,009 SF
560
CARTER'S
4,178 SF
7,928 SF
AVAILABLE
9,154 SF
TILLY'S
162
158
154
150
7,704 SF MAINTENANCE
DN
NIKE
1ST: 9,850
2ND: 9,675
TOTAL: 19,525
H&M
1ST: 11,002
2ND: 8,812
TOTAL: 19,814
PROPOSED
THEATER
1ST: 3,507
2ND: 46,174
TOTAL: 49,681
CROSSOVER
HEALTH
1ST: 585
2ND: 6,271
TOTAL: 6,856
STORAGE
LOGISTICS
CENTER
STORAGE 1,283
144
138
130
AVAILABLE
4,815
122
120
1ST: 4,943
2ND: 1,842
TOTAL: 6.785
3,211
583
(LOW CLG)
85 DISPLAY
INTERSTATE 5
PHASE 1
BUILDING 20
BUILDING 22
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 19 BUILDING 21
BUILDING 18A
BUILDING 18AA
PAD 7
PHASE 2
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
BUILDING 17A
& CAFE
CROSSOVER
HEALTH
EDDIE BAUER
COLUMBIA
SPORTSWEAR
1,397 SF
RESERVED
1,230 SF
505
504
RESERVED
PEPPERTREE LANE
ZUMIEZ
424
420
414
412
400
408
410
DDC
B.O.H.
17,499 SF SLIDER COMPLIANCE ADA SLIDER
COMPLIANCE ADA
SLIDER COMPLIANCE ADA SLIDER
COMPLIANCE ADA
SLIDER
COMPLIANCE ADA
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E. F.E. F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
F.E.
18" x 48" 24" x 48" 18" x 48" 30 LF 40 LF 30 LF
VAN
VAN
VAN
VAN
0' 100' 200' 400'
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
S
W
N
E
THE LODGE
PROJECT NO. 16-1901
SHEET
SHEET NO.
401 W. AVENIDA VISTA HERMOSA, SAN CLEMENTE, CA
ROOF TOP VENUE - AMENDMENT TO SCR
PARKING ANALYSIS
26 34,846 sq ft
44,690sq ft
39,282 sq ft
LOT261
LOT
319 LOT
320
LOT
321
YY VIA G
T
DDC
LOOP ON GATE
LOOP ON TIE-IN POST
174.15
173.15
172.15
171.15
170.15
174.15
173.15
172.15
171.15
170.15
T
116
33 21
28 21
13 500' SIGHTLINE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY
HERMOSA
AVENIDA VISTA
30 -' 0" 4 -' 0"
SIDEWALK ESMT.
ST. ROW
P.L
R.O.W.
R.O.W.
W
P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L
4 Bridge
LS
Service
Court
V ni e pocket
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
DG path
DG path
LS
LS
LS
DG path
LS
V ni e pocket V ni e pocket
EXIT
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS LS
LS
LS
Serv
Co
ice
urt
PARKING COUNT:
117 STALLS PLANNED
120 STALLS PROVIDED 315 WestAVH 6,600 gsf
395 A WestAVH 4,760 gsf 395 B West AVH 4,980 gsf 395 C West AVH 7,600 gsf W
end;
urant/
o parking
area has been
quirements
se Architectural
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8C.
Submitted By: Community Development
Prepared By: David Carrillo, Associate Planner
Subject:
..titl e
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-224, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-223, DISCRETIONARY SIGN PERMIT 25- 263, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-225 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK COMPLEX AT 1000 CALLE CORDILLERA WITH 11
NEW BUILDINGS ON VACANT LAND, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MASTER SIGN
PROGRAM, A LAND AND CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF EACH BUILDING/SUITE, AND PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF A 30-FOOT EASEMENT FOR
PUBLIC ACCESS, PUBLIC UTILITY AND STORM DRAIN PURPOSES, AND MAKING FINDI
..body NGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Fiscal Impact:
There is no direct fiscal impact. However, if the project is constructed, the property will be reassessed, and the City will receive increased property taxes as a result of the development.
Summary:
The applicant proposes a light industrial business park project on two vacant parcels (688-151-03 and 688-151-04) within the Rancho San Clemente Business Park (RSCBP). The project site is a
20.2 acre irregularly-shaped vacant lot in the Business Park Zone within the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan. See Figure 1, below, for an aerial view of the project site.
Figure 1 – Aerial View of Project Site
1432
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8C.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
The site was mass graded with a pad that is visible from the San Clemente Ridgeline Trail and scenic corridors including Avenida Pico, Camino Vera Cruz, and Avenida La Pata. The site has a downward slope from east to west with a grade difference of 100 feet. The project site has two access points – one from Calle Cordillera to the west and one from Calle Sombra to the east.
Surrounding land uses include industrial businesses to the north, east, and west, and multi-family residences to the south beyond the Ridgeline Trail, which sits about 70-feet above the project site. Access to the Ridgeline Trail is currently provided via Calle Cordillera and Calle Sombra, among other trail access points within the business park. A 30-foot-wide easement is in place along the south property line for public access to the trail and for public utility purposes; this easement will partially remain in place after the proposed project is constructed. The site also has a 3-foot easement for public utility and incidental purposes along the eastern and western property lines. The nearby major arterials are Avenida Pico and La Pata that connect to the primary collector street through the business park, Calle Amanecer.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project (for reference, the corresponding staff report is provided as Attachment 6, and available online here) at a public hearing on August 20, 2025, and found it to be consistent with permit findings, General Plan Goals and Policies, Design Guidelines, and development standards. The Commission adopted Resolution PC 25-012 (Attachment 2) unanimously, recommending that the City Council approve the project subject to conditions of approval and find that the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183.
Background:
When multiple permits are processed concurrently, the Zoning Code calls for a decision on all of the applications to be made by the highest review authority. Since the project involves a Tentative Tract Map for a land subdivision, which requires City Council approval, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission on all concurrent permits, including:
A Development Permit, to allow for the site plan improvements on a nonresidential lot, including the construction of 11 new light industrial buildings; A Conditional Use Permit, to allow a commercial recreation use within the Business Park Zone;
A Discretionary Sign Permit, to establish a Master Sign Program for a project that includes new buildings; and
A Tentative Tract Map, to allow a land subdivision (creating one parcel per building) and condominium subdivision (allowing for individual air space ownership of each suite).
The Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) reviewed the project on June 25, 2025, and supported it moving forward to the Planning Commission. The DRSC Staff Report and minutes dated June 25, 2025 are published on the City’s website for public review. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on August 20, 2025, and considered staff’s project analysis as outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 20, 2025 (Attachment 6) and 1433
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8C.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
adopted Resolution PC 25-012 recommending that the City Council approve the project subject to conditions. See Attachment 3 for the Planning Commission minutes.
Discussion:
The applicant proposes to grade the site to develop an upper and lower campus. A total of 11 one-story industrial contemporary buildings with mezzanines are proposed, with seven buildings on the upper (east) campus and four buildings on the lower (west) campus. A private street, Via Farrona, is proposed that will connect Calle Cordillera to Calle Sombra, providing access to each campus from either side of the development. Pedestrian access from the lower campus to the upper campus is provided via stairs and a ramp on the south side of the site. A communal area, labeled as “amenity hub” on the plans, is proposed on the upper campus, and would provide indoor and outdoor shared gathering spaces for informal meetings, breaks, and socializing. The amenity hub is centralized on the site for access to all occupants, and also includes an elevated deck offering ocean views.
A six-foot wide pedestrian pathway is proposed along the southern property line for access to the adjacent ridgeline trail, and concurrently proposes to partially quitclaim the existing 30-foot easement to maintain public access to the trail. Trash enclosures are proposed throughout the site to serve all buildings. The project would include 487 parking spaces to accommodate uses such as professional and medical office, warehouse, light manufacturing, and commercial recreation. See Figure 2, below, for the proposed site plan.
Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan
Proposed landscaping consists of a variety of trees and plants offering a colorful palette, and is provided at each site entry point and along the front of each building. Existing landscaping will remain on the east and west side of the site, primarily on existing slopes. Large, angular freestanding walls serve as entry portals at both entry points. Proposed building materials consist of concrete, aluminum, and transparent and spandrel glass1. The proposed building color palette consists of primary (gray), secondary (light blue), and accent (green, orange, and blue) colors. All
1 Spandrel glass: opaque glass used in building facades, typically between floors, to conceal building components like vents, wires, and slab edges.
1434
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8C.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
buildings would have the primary and secondary colors, and one of the accent colors. See Attachment 5 for the conceptual architectural plans, including a materials board.
Additionally, the applicant proposes a Master Sign Program (Attachment 4), and is requesting a Tentative Tract Map for a land and condominium subdivision. The land subdivision would create one parcel per building, and the condominium subdivision is to allow for individual ownership of each suite.
As further analyzed in proposed Resolution 25-138, the project is consistent with the policies, goals, and development standards of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan and the San Clemente Centennial General Plan. As described in the Resolution, the findings for approval of each permit can be met.
Council Options:
Adopt Resolution 25-138 approving the project with conditions and finding that the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183.
Continue the item with direction to staff to provide additional information. Deny Resolution 25-138, which would not permit the development of the project as submitted.
Environmental Review/Analysis:
The project does not require further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 because the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan in 1983 accounted for the development type and intensity proposed in the Business Park zone, and there are no changes proposed by this project or its circumstances, nor any new information not available in 1983, that indicates that new or more severe environmental impacts may occur from the proposed project beyond the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR. Nor are any new mitigation measures or alternatives available that would substantially reduce onsite project impacts beyond those analyzed in the prior EIR. Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan policies, design guidelines, and development standards.
The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. However, Section 15183 still requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. The project description assessed in the 1983 EIR included the development of the subject project site as a business park, along with other uses within the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan such as residential, commercial, open space, and a school.
Here, the project consists of a business park complex with 11 new industrial buildings, without changes to the specific plan’s land use map. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar 1435
Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Agenda Item: 8C.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 5
or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project is consistent with relevant mitigation measures adopted in the 1983 EIR relating to geology, soils, and topography; hydrology; water quality; biological resources; land use; visual and aesthetic resources; traffic and circulation; energy; and community services and public utilities. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Furthermore, any potential environmental impacts within areas added to CEQA since the 1983 EIR, such as energy, greenhouse gas emissions, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire, were already analyzed within other sections of the 1983 EIR, and no new or more severe impacts have been identified that were not analyzed in those sections of the 1983 EIR.
Recommended Actions:
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 25-138, which would:
1. Determine that the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183; and
2. Conditionally approve Development Permit 25-224, Conditional Use Permit 25-223, Discretionary Sign Permit 25-263, and Tentative Tract Map 25-225 for the Luminar Business Park project.
..recommendation
..end
Attachment:
1. Resolution 25-138 with recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Signed Resolution PC 25-012
3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated August 20, 2025
4. Master Sign Program
5. Conceptual Architectural and Landscape Plans
6. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 20, 2025
7. Public Comment – Rancho San Clemente Business Association Re: Annexation of Property into Association
8. Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan EIR Documents can be found at https://www.sanclemente.org/department-services/planning-services/specific-plans Notification:
Public notices were distributed and posted per City and State requirements. Staff has received one public comment on this item from the Rancho San Clemente Business Association (RSCBA) provided in Attachment 7. The RSCBA is asking the City to require annexation of the project site into the association.
1436
4912-4170-3271 v1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-224,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-223, DISCRETIONARY
SIGN PERMIT 25-263, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-225,
LUMINAR BUSINESS PARK, TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WITH
11 NEW BUILDINGS ON VACANT LAND, IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, AND A LAND AND
CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FOR INDIVIDUAL
OWNERSHIP OF EACH BUILDING/SUITE, LOCATED AT
1000 CALLE CORDILLERA, AND FINDING THAT NO
FURTHER REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IS REQUIRED (14 CCR
15162 AND 15183)
WHEREAS, in 1983 an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 82122412) was adopted for the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan (RSCSP), which included land uses such as industrial (business park), residential, commercial, open space, and a school; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2025, an application was submitted by SC Holding LLC, 411 Amapola Avenue, Torrance, CA 90501 for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 25-223, Development Permit (DP) 25-224, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 25-225, and Discretionary Sign Permit (DSP) 25-263, and deemed complete on July 1, 2025, which is a request to allow the construction of a new industrial complex with 11 new buildings on vacant land, in conjunction with a master sign program, and a land and condominium subdivision for individual ownership of each building/suite, in the Business Park Zone within the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan. The site’s legal description is N TR 12125 BLK LOT 11/N TR 12125 BLK LOT 10, and Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 688-151-03 and 688-151-04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division completed an initial environmental assessment of the above matter in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the City Council determine that the project does not require further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15183. This is recommended because the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan accounted for the development type and intensity contemplated herein in the Business Park zone, and there are no changes proposed by the project or its circumstances, nor any new information unavailable at the time of the 1983 EIR, that indicates that new or more severe environmental impacts will occur from the proposed project beyond the potential impacts already analyzed in the prior EIR. Nor are any new mitigation measures or alternatives available that would substantially reduce onsite project impacts beyond those analyzed in the prior EIR. Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan policies, design guidelines, and development standards; and 1437
Resolution No. Page 2
4912-4170-3271 v1
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2025, the City's Development Management Team (DMT) reviewed the proposed project and determined it complies with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable City ordinances and codes; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2025, the City’s Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) considered the project and supports it with design changes related to landscaping and signage; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2025, the City Council of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.
The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated fully herein and adopted as findings of the City Council.
Section 2. CEQA Findings.
Based upon its review of the entire record, including the Staff Report, any public comments or testimony presented to the City Council, and the facts outlined below, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed project is consistent with the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan and its underlying Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 82122412). Therefore, no further review under the California Environmental Quality Act is necessary pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
The potentially significant environmental impacts from the project were already analyzed in the prior EIR adopted for the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan in 1983. No changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new information available, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR. In fact, the proposed Project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, and the proposed FAR is .27. The Project results in half of the floor area allowed in the Business Park zone, and less than, or approximately equal to, half of parking spaces required for a project at the maximum FAR 1438
Resolution No. Page 3
4912-4170-3271 v1
of .5. In addition to a FAR less than the maximum, the proposed building heights are below or at the maximum allowed height of 35 feet, and as a result the site will also see a lower intensity of trip generation because the project will only authorize single-story structures.
Therefore, all the potential environmental impacts of the Project were analyzed in the prior EIR and no changes or revisions to that document are necessary. Nor is there any new information of substantial importance, not known at the time of the adoption of the EIR, that indicates new or more severe impacts or the availability of new alternatives or mitigation measures, and no changes to the prior EIR are necessary. Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan policies, design guidelines, and development standards as outlined in the findings below.
The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR.
In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements.
The project description assessed in the 1983 EIR included the development of the subject project site as a business park, along with other uses within the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan such as residential, commercial, open space, and a school. Here, the project consists of a business park complex with 11 new industrial buildings, without changes to the specific plan’s land use map. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project is consistent with relevant mitigation measures adopted in the 1983 EIR relating to geology, soils, and topography; hydrology; water quality; biological resources; land use; visual and aesthetic resources; traffic and circulation; energy; and community services and public utilities. Moreover, although new issue areas have been added to CEQA since the prior EIR, such as Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire, the project’s potential impacts in each of these areas were analyzed in the prior EIR and there are no changes proposed by the project or its circumstances, nor any new information unavailable at the time of the 1983 EIR, that indicates that new or more severe environmental impacts will occur from the proposed project beyond the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR. Precise grading must be based on the project-specific geotechnical study that is subject to final review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of any permits, and is required to include an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan (geology, soils, and topography). In addition to the required precise grading plan, the project is deemed a Priority Project under the State NPDES permit and a Final Water Quality Management Plan will be required prior to the issuance of any permits (water quality). The project does not alter any streambed nor propose development on areas zoned as open space, with exception 1439
Resolution No. Page 4
4912-4170-3271 v1
of trees being planted on the adjacent open space hill to the north of the project site, in the event the project applicant obtains authorization from the association that owns said adjacent open space (biological resources). The applicant is proposing storm drain improvements onsite to accommodate runoff water generated onsite under developed conditions, and to control runoff downstream (hydrology). A final comprehensive landscape plan must be approved and implemented, consistent with the preliminary comments provided by the City’s Landscape Consultant which address compliance with the Hillside Development policies, and ensure the preservation of the adjacent ridgeline view (visual and aesthetic resources). Internal roadways within the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan that provide access to the project site, including parking areas in compliance with parking requirements, have been previously provided and will remain. Additionally, Regional Circulation Financing and Phasing Program (RCFPP) impact fees are applicable to this development, per the original subdivision requirements of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan (traffic and circulation). All new buildings are subject to nonresidential building standards in Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code (energy). The project site is in a developed area where public services and utilities are available to support the project. The project’s water and sewer systems were reviewed by the Utilities Division and Orange County Fire Authority for compliance with water and sewer standards, including fire flow standards. The project does not propose removal or an alteration to the nearby water reservoir (community services and public utilities).
Since the 1983 certification of the RSCSP Final EIR, there have been updates to the CEQA Guidelines that address additional topics such as energy, greenhouse gas emissions, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The following is a summary of these topics and a discussion of how the proposed project would not trigger new or more severe significant impacts in these areas that were not addressed in the RSCSP Final EIR.
Energy. The requirement to evaluate a project’s energy implications was added to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation) in 2009 and incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) in 2018. Prior to 2018, an EIR’s discussion of energy resource impacts was typically included in an analysis of the project’s irretrievable commitment of resources. The RSCSP Final EIR Chapter identifies project related energy demand on pages 85-87. As the proposed modification to MCSP Section 502(V)(D) would not change the approved land use types or planned development under the MCSP, there would be no new impact or a change in the severity of energy resource impacts from the discussion provided therein, and the project will be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 21: “The use of natural heating and cooling through variable shading, overhangs, clerestory windows, louvers, and other technique shall be included in project design to the extent feasible.” Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions was not incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines until 2010. The RSCSP EIR addressed on-site energy consumption emissions, which are typical examples of greenhouse gas emissions, in its review of the Energy analysis. The Final EIR concluded that the project would result in significant and unavoidable increases in natural gas and transportation related energy consumption and emissions. As the proposed project would not change the approved land use types or planned development under the RSCSP, there would be no new impact or a change in the severity of impacts from the Energy discussion provided in Final EIR Table K.
1440
Resolution No. Page 5
4912-4170-3271 v1
Tribal Cultural Resources. A CEQA requirement to evaluate impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources was incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines in 2016. The RSCSP Final EIR included a Cultural Resources report in Appendix C, summarized on pages 29-31 of the EIR. Paleontological Resources were discussed in Appendix D and on pages 32-
33. To mitigate potential impacts during development under the RSCSP, the Final EIR included Mitigation Measures 11 and 12 to address undiscovered resources. The proposed project does not authorize an increase in development intensity, and development would remain subject to the adopted mitigation measures that address grading and excavation of a project site. Accordingly, the proposed modification would have no new significant impact to tribal cultural resources, and there would be no change in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided in the Final EIR. Wildfire. The evaluation of wildfire-specific risk was added to the CEQA Guidelines in 2018. The RSCSP Final EIR addressed fire risks, but not specific to wildfire. The Final EIR included Mitigation Measures 23-26 to ensure sufficient water access, fires suppression systems, and also the provision of a new fire station – which is operational at 48 Avenida La Pata. On March 24, 2025, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) issued updates to its recommended Fire Hazard Severity Zones within Local Responsibility Areas. The updated maps indicate that the project site would continue to be located outside of a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2025). The southern edge of the site (near Calle Cordillera) is partially within the Moderate Severity Zone. The proposed project would have no new significant impact associated with wildfire, and there would be no change (or a potential reduction) in the severity of impacts from the discussion provided related to fire protection within the Final EIR.
Together, all the above project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
Section 3. Development Permit Findings.
With respect to Development Permit (DP) 25-224, for new non-residential buildings, the City Council finds as follows:
A. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, in that:
1. The project consists of high-quality contemporary architecture and landscaping, with 74 adaptable tenant suites within 11 buildings that can be combined and occupied by industrial-type uses, such as, medical offices, light manufacturing, professional offices, research and development, service uses, and warehouse/wholesale, and commercial recreation with a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, an amenity hub is provided for tenants/employees with amenities such as a gym, golf simulator, and an ocean-view deck. The 74 new industrial suites totaling 234,714 square feet of floor area will increase job opportunities within the Business Park, while remaining compatible with surrounding development, consistent with the following developmental policies of the City: Industrial Land Use Goal, which states, “Create and maintain diverse employment opportunities located in areas that provide 1441
Resolution No. Page 6
4912-4170-3271 v1
strategic advantages for employers to locate in San Clemente, provide headof-household jobs, generate municipal revenues, and improve quality of life, while minimizing impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.”; and the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Goal, which states, “Maintain and promote the Rancho San Clemente and Talega Business Parks as a premier office and industrial location for start-up businesses, expanding businesses, and for businesses relocating to San Clemente.”; and Land Use Element Policy 8.01 - Priorities, which states, “Pursuant to the Economic Development Strategy, we assign a high priority to those initiatives, investments, and development approvals that contribute to our vision of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park as a premier office and industrial employment center that capitalizes on San Clemente’s access to the Orange County and San Diego County markets.”;
2. The project consists of adequate setbacks between the buildings and streets, and between each building, for compliance with minimum setback requirements and drive aisles meeting Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and CR&R standards. Prominent landscaped buffers are proposed on the west and east side of the project adjacent to the streets. To the north of and adjacent to the project site is a landscaped strip of land zoned as open space (OS2), providing a natural buffer between the project and the nearest developed site to the north. The project includes a small landscaped buffer with a pedestrian walkway on the south side of the project site, for access to the adjacent ridgeline trail, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-3.03 – Buffers and Setbacks, which states, “We require that new uses and buildings, characterized by differing functions, activities, density, scale and massing, to provide conditions of approval, landscaped buffers and/or setbacks between uses to prevent or reduce adverse impacts.”;
3. The project’s mass, scale, and form are compatible and in character with surrounding industrial development in that the proposed buildings consist of one story with mezzanine levels, human scale elements such as entry canopies over primary entry doors, typical industrial building footprints, and flat roofs. Surrounding industrial buildings consist of one, two, and three-story buildings with flat roofs, and similar building footprints. The project and existing development generally consist of long uninterrupted wall planes as expected to accommodate industrial-related uses, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-5.10 – Scale and Massing, which states, “We require that the scale and massing of development be compatible with its surroundings and with the General Plan, applicable specific plan and or area plan.”;
4. The site has a downward slope from east to west with a grade difference of 100 feet, and sits at the highest point within the Business Park and about 70- feet below a ridgeline, near the Knob Hill and Forster Ranch Ridgeline Trail public vista points. The proposed development has two zones - a higher pad on the east side with seven buildings and a lower pad on the west side with four buildings, with a landscaped buffer in between both pads. The site plan is consistent with General Plan Policy UD-5.14 – Building Design with 1442
Resolution No. Page 7
4912-4170-3271 v1
Topography, which states, “Building design shall consider the site’s natural topography, public view corridors and adjacent building profiles so that canyonization is avoided.”;
5. Proposed landscaping consists of drought-tolerant and native species primarily on the development's edges and throughout the development, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-5.18 – Drought Tolerant/Native Species Landscaping, which states, “Ornamental plantings in new, nonresidential development should consist primarily of drought tolerant and California native species. Only in small areas and special public locations, such as high-use areas of parks, should lawns or other high water use vegetation be used.”; and
6. The project incorporates bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented features such as walkways, an amenity hub, and bicycle parking throughout the development.
The project supports recreational goals by providing a walkway that connects the ridgeline trail to sidewalks at both Calle Sombra and Calle Cordillera.
Additionally, the project also provides a shower within the amenity hub to encourage active transportation to the development, consistent with General Plan Policy M-2.48 – Bicycle- and Pedestrian Oriented Site Design, which states, “The project incorporates bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented features such as walkways, an amenity hub, and bicycle parking throughout the development. The project supports recreational goals by providing a walkway that connects to the ridgeline trail. Additionally, the project also provides a shower within the amenity hub to encourage active transportation to the development.”
B. As conditioned, the proposed project complies with zoning regulations, in that:
1. The tallest building point is proposed at 35 feet, in compliance with the height limit of 35 feet;
2. The project provides significantly more than a 20-foot setback from Calle Cordillera and Calle Sombra, in compliance with the minimum setbacks of 20 feet from Calle Cordillera, and 15 feet from Calle Sombra;
3. The project’s FAR is .27 (234,714 square feet), in compliance with the maximum FAR of .5 (451,935 square feet);
4. The project is conditioned to comply with Trip Reduction and Travel Demand Management standards pursuant to SCMC 17.76 (Condition of Approval
4.15);
5. The project provides 487 parking spaces, where 487 parking spaces are required for the anticipated uses; and
6. The project meets landscaping requirements in that 15% of the site and the front setback area is landscaped.
1443
Resolution No. Page 8
4912-4170-3271 v1
C. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines, in that:
1. The site has a downward slope from east to west with a grade difference of 100 feet, and sits at the highest point within the Business Park and about 70- feet below a ridgeline, near the Knob Hill and Forster Ranch Ridgeline Trail public vista points. The proposed development has two zones - a higher pad on the east side with seven buildings and a lower pad on the west side with four buildings, with a landscaped buffer in between both pads. The proposed grading resulting in the two pads follows the site's topography. Additionally, the one-story nature of the project helps maintain visibility of the ridgeline located behind the project, consistent with Design Guideline 302 VI. Ridgeline Views, which states, “Building pads should be designed and sited in a manner that compliments the natural topography and does not interrupt the view of the primary ridgeline from selected public vista points. The ridgeline should be visible as a backdrop for development, allowing for the appearance of ridgeline between the roofline and the skyline.”;
2. The project consists of stairs and an accessible ramp which directly connects the upper and lower building pads. Additionally, a pedestrian path is provided along the south of the property, providing access to each building pad and the adjacent ridgeline trail, consistent with Design Guideline 303 III.A. Pedestrian Orientation, which states, “The siting of buildings around common pedestrian walkways is encouraged. Pedestrian walkways should be provided connecting individual buildings.”;
3. Proposed exterior lighting consists of fixtures that direct light downward.
Additionally, as a condition of approval, a photometric plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division, prior to issuance of a building permit, to ensure lighting remains within the project site, consistent with Design Guideline 303 III.B. Outdoor Lighting, which states, “Parking lot and outdoor lighting should be the minimum needed to accommodate safety and security, while minimizing impacts on surrounding residential areas.
Lighting of any facility should be oriented away and shielded from neighboring residential properties. In addition, the lighting should not be excessively intense so as to impact neighboring properties nor passing traffic on adjacent streets. Decorative fixtures with shields to direct light downward should be used for overhead lighting. Bollard or other low-height lighting should be used whenever possible for pedestrian areas. Light fixture design should be consistent with the character of the project.”;
4. One six-foot high and 10-foot-wide code-compliant, project identification sign is proposed on the northeast corner of the site with the development's name.
The sign consists of fabricated aluminum and low-profile LED lighting, consistent with Design Guideline 303 III.C. Project Identification Signs, which states, “Projects should be identified by low-level monument signing in order to provide business center identification. Such signs may include logos and 1444
Resolution No. Page 9
4912-4170-3271 v1
should be harmonious in scale, form, materials, and colors with project buildings, walls, and other structures. Signs must comply with the Sign Ordinance.”;
5. Proposed building footprints have insets at each suite's entry with staggered angled facades along each building's front elevation. Additionally, each suite has a canopy projecting over its entry. Low-height landscaping is also integrated along the front of suites, consistent with Design Guideline 303 II.D.
Variations in Building Footprint, which states, “Building footprints should be designed with variations composed of insets, entries, corners, and jogs integrated with adjacent outdoor areas in order to create visual interest and give a sense of small scale.”;
6. Sufficient space is provided in between buildings to accommodate landscaping, walkways, and drive aisles that meet OCFA and CR&R standards. The site's natural topography allows for landscaped buffers that screen project parking areas from adjacent streets, consistent with Design Guideline 303 III.E.1 Parking Lot Buffering, which states, “There should be a buffer area of at least five (5) feet between buildings and parking areas or driveways in order to avoid placing paved vehicular areas next to building walls. Except where there are walkways, this buffer area should be landscaped. Parking and circulation areas should be screened from the street by landscaping and berming.”;
7. The project provides free-standing architectural walls at each site entry made up of concrete and aluminum which accommodate project signage as a gateway feature into the site. To further emphasize the entries, decorative paving and landscaping is also provided at each entry, consistent with: Design Guideline 304 I.A. Project Entries, which states, “Major project entries should be designed as special statements reflective of the character of the project in order to establish identity for residents, commercial tenants, and visitors.
Special paving textures, flowering accents, and specimen trees should be used to reinforce the entry statement.”; Design Guideline 304 I.E. Decorative Paving, which states, “Decorative paving at project entries and interior project pedestrian areas should be used. This should consist of brick, tile, pavers, stamped concrete, or similar materials.”; and Design Guideline 305 III.G Entries, which states, “The main public entrance should be readily visible from the street, parking area, and pedestrian connection. Emphasis on the entry can be achieved by concentrating a secondary material at the entry with a major projection or recess.”;
8. Landscaping in the form of trees and low-height planting is provided along the property edges, and within the development, for compliance with Hillside Development policies, consistent with Design Guideline 304 I.D. Boundary Landscaping, which states, “Boundary landscaping should be installed along all property lines with at least one tree planted for every 30 lineal feet on average. Also, landscape mounding should be used along all arterial highways unless determined unfeasible by the Planning Commission or City 1445
Resolution No. Page 10
4912-4170-3271 v1
Council as appropriate, due to safety or other site considerations.”;
9. The proposed buildings have flat roofs and a maximum height of 35 feet with building lengths close to 400 feet, to accommodate industrial-related uses.
Parapet walls are provided, with some corner portions extending higher than the rest of respective buildings to visually improve roof lines. The parapet walls also provide screening for rooftop equipment. Each building's front elevation consists of canopies, canopy signage, staggered suite entrances with an angled façade, landscaping, signage, a mix of wall materials that make up geometric patterns, and accent colors. Additionally, all other building elevations contain the same level of detail with the exception of the entry canopies and canopy signage, consistent with: Design Guideline 305 III.A.
Building Mass and Form, which states, “Massing should be simple and possess strongly integrated geometric forms. The massing should relate to the internal function and nature of the space it is intended to enclose. The building should contrast the solid mass of facade with the lighter elements of the entry. The facade should clearly identify and direct people to the entry.
The use of strong shadow lines created by recesses and projections are highly encouraged.”; Design Guideline 305 III.B. Articulation, which states, “Differentiation of building facades through the use of materials, colors, and architectural details is encouraged. One-sided architecture, where only the dominant street frontage possesses articulation, should be avoided. If a separate parking structure is provided, the design should be integrated.”; Design Guideline 305 III.C. Roofs, which states, “The roof of a larger buildings should generally be flat with the minimum slope necessary for adequate drainage. The use of mansards and other pitched roofs on the major structures are discouraged. Gabled roofs may be acceptable for smaller buildings. Flat roofs should be surrounded by a parapet which is a continuation of the facade material.”; and Design Guideline 305 III.D.
Screening of Equipment, which states, “All roof equipment should be screened to prevent equipment being visible from an off-site horizontal line of sight. This can be done with either a parapet or screen wall designed to be an integral part of the building. Any roof-mounted equipment which is visible from an adjacent building or from surrounding terrain should be located in a compact, neat, and organized manner. Such equipment should be painted to match the surrounding roof surface. Exterior wall drainage, utilities, cabinets, and other systems should be integrated into the design.”; and
10.The predominant material is painted and textured concrete, with secondary materials such as glass and metal. The color palette consists of gray/blue tones as primary colors, and green, orange, and blue as accent colors, consistent with: Design Guideline 305 III.E., which states, “Wall materials are divided into two categories. Those dominant materials which comprise seventy (70) to ninety (90) percent of the building's elevation, should consist of painted or textured concrete, brick, split-faced block, or glass (not to exceed 70%). Glass should not have a reflective factor of greater than thirty percent.
The remaining accent or entry materials should consist of tile, plaster, glass block, stone, and some metals. Prohibited materials include wood siding, 1446
Resolution No. Page 11
4912-4170-3271 v1
shingles, and pre-engineered types of metal siding. If covered parking or a parking structure is included, the design details and materials should be integrated and complement the major building.”; and Design Guideline 305 III.F., which states, “Dominant materials generally should be in the range of earth tone, gray, or off white. Secondary material colors should complement and act as a tasteful accent to the dominant material color.” D. As conditioned, the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity, in that:
1. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant will plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
2. All required parking for the project is provided on site;
3. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
4. The project provides a pedestrian pathway along the south of the property for public access to the adjacent ridgeline trail;
5. Exterior site and landscaping lighting is provided throughout the site, subject to Building Code standards. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 4.14 requires approval of a photometric plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit;
6. The project is subject to the California Building Code Standards, Orange County Fire Authority standards, and other applicable Code requirements;
7. The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR);
8. The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, 1447
Resolution No. Page 12
4912-4170-3271 v1
community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183; and
9. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan.
E. The proposed project is in character and compatible with the properties in the neighborhood, in that:
1. The project’s mass, scale, and form are compatible in character with surrounding industrial development in that the proposed buildings consist of one story with mezzanine levels, human scale elements such as entry canopies and man doors, typical industrial building footprints, and flat roofs.
Surrounding industrial buildings consist of one, two, and three-story buildings with flat roofs, and similar building footprints. The project and existing development generally consist of long uninterrupted wall planes as expected to accommodate industrial-related uses;
2. All required parking is provided on site with landscaping along parking areas; and
3. Project identification and landscaping is provided at entry points.
Section 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings.
With respect to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 25-223, for the commercial recreation use, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The proposed use is permitted within the subject zone pursuant to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all the applicable provisions of Title 17, the San Clemente General Plan and the purpose and intent of the zone in which the use is being proposed, in that:
1448
Resolution No. Page 13
4912-4170-3271 v1
1. The project consists of 74 adaptable tenant suites that can be combined and occupied by industrial-type uses, such as, medical offices, light manufacturing, professional offices, research and development, service uses, and warehouse/wholesale, and commercial recreation with a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, an amenity hub is provided for tenants/employees with amenities such as a gym, golf simulator, and an ocean-view deck. The 74 new industrial suites totaling 234,714 square feet of floor area will increase job opportunities within the Business Park, while remaining compatible with surrounding development, consistent with the following developmental policies of the City: Industrial Land Use Goal, which states, “Create and maintain diverse employment opportunities located in areas that provide strategic advantages for employers to locate in San Clemente, provide headof-household jobs, generate municipal revenues, and improve quality of life, while minimizing impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.”; Rancho San Clemente Business Park Goal, which states, “Maintain and promote the Rancho San Clemente and Talega Business Parks as a premier office and industrial location for start-up businesses, expanding businesses, and for businesses relocating to San Clemente.”; and Land Use Element Policy 8.01 - Priorities, which states, “Pursuant to the Economic Development Strategy, we assign a high priority to those initiatives, investments, and development approvals that contribute to our vision of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park as a premier office and industrial employment center that capitalizes on San Clemente’s access to the Orange County and San Diego County markets.”
B. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use that is proposed, in that:
1. The commercial recreation use is restricted to operate within one building only, and Condition of Approval No. 7.5 limits the operation of a commercial recreation use to require no more than 76 parking spaces;
2. Condition of Approval No. 7.6 restricts drop-off/pick-up zones unless approved by the Planning Commission. This restriction facilitates vehicular and pedestrian circulation while other industrial-related uses are operating on site;
3. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant may plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
4. All required parking for the project is provided on site;
5. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards; 1449
Resolution No. Page 14
4912-4170-3271 v1
6. The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR); and
7. The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
C. As conditioned, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity, in that:
1. The commercial recreation use is restricted to operate within one building only, and Condition of Approval No. 7.5 limits the operation of a commercial recreation use to require no more than 76 parking spaces;
2. Condition of Approval No. 7.6 restricts queuing and drop-offs/pick-ups on drive aisles unless a revised site plan which accommodates queuing and drop-offs/pick-ups is approved by the Planning Commission. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 7.9 requires all customers to park and walk to their destination. These conditions of approval facilitate vehicular and pedestrian 1450
Resolution No. Page 15
4912-4170-3271 v1
circulation while other industrial-related uses are operating on site. The applicant is also required, as a Condition of Approval, to incorporate the restrictions and requirements above in CC&Rs;
3. Condition of Approval No. 7.7 requires commercial recreation classes to be staggered by a minimum of ten minutes in between the end and start of each class;
4. Condition of Approval No. 7.8 requires that property management maintain and provide to the Planning Division an updated parking table that tracks the amount of parking spaces available as suites are occupied;
5. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant may plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
6. All required parking for the project is provided on site;
7. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
8. The project provides a pedestrian pathway along the south of the property for public access to the adjacent ridgeline trail;
9. Exterior site and landscaping lighting is provided throughout the site, subject to Building Code standards. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 4.14 requires approval of a photometric plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit;
10.The project is subject to the California Building Code Standards, Orange County Fire Authority standards, and other applicable Code requirements;
11.The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR);
12.The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines 1451
Resolution No. Page 16
4912-4170-3271 v1
section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183; and
13.The project site is in a developed area where public services and utilities are available to support the project.
D. As conditioned, the proposed use will not negatively impact surrounding land uses, in that:
1. The commercial recreation use is restricted to operate within one building only, and Condition of Approval No. 7.5 limits the operation of a commercial recreation use to require no more than 76 parking spaces;
2. Condition of Approval No. 7.6 restricts queuing and drop-offs/pick-ups on drive aisles unless a revised site plan which accommodates queuing and drop-offs/pick-ups is approved by the Planning Commission. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 7.9 requires all customers to park and walk to their destination. These conditions of approval facilitate vehicular and pedestrian circulation while other industrial-related uses are operating on site. The applicant is also required, as a Condition of Approval, to incorporate the restrictions and requirements above in CC&Rs (Condition of Approval No.
2.6);
3. Condition of Approval No. 7.7 requires commercial recreation classes to be staggered by a minimum of ten minutes in between the end and start of each class;
4. Condition of Approval No. 7.8 requires that property management maintain and provide to the Planning Division an updated parking table that tracks the amount of parking spaces available as suites are occupied; 1452
Resolution No. Page 17
4912-4170-3271 v1
5. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant may plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
6. All required parking for the project is provided on site;
7. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
8. The project provides a pedestrian pathway along the south of the property for public access to the adjacent ridgeline trail;
9. Exterior site and landscaping lighting is provided throughout the site, subject to Building Code standards. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 4.14 requires approval of a photometric plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit;
10.The project is subject to the California Building Code Standards, Orange County Fire Authority standards, and other applicable Code requirements;
11.The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR);
12.The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, 1453
Resolution No. Page 18
4912-4170-3271 v1
community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
13.The project site is in a developed area where public services and utilities are available to support the project.
Section 5. Discretionary Sign Permit Findings.
With respect to Discretionary Sign Permit (DP) 25-263, for the Master Sign Program, the City Council find as follows:
A. The design, including lighting, scale, length and materials, of the signs is consistent with the intent of the design elements of the General Plan, Design Guidelines, and Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan in which the sign is to be located, in that, the proposed signage consists of a monument sign, project identification signs, and tenant building and canopy signs made of flat cutout aluminum letters/numbers to be mounted with stainless steel hardware and painted with satin colors. Illumination consists of halo-lighting on the project identification signs located at each entry, and low-profile LED lighting on the monument sign. Tenant building and canopy signs are non-illuminated. Tenant and canopy signage is appropriately placed within each suite’s façade and above each suite’s entry. Signage for the corner suites consists of two signs – one at the front elevation and one at the side elevation – that are placed higher on the building than the inline tenants. The higher placement of the corner suite signage is appropriate given that the parapet walls above the corner suites extend higher than the rest of the building’s height, allowing for more space between the top of the text and the roofline. The only sign allowed for inline tenants would be at the front elevation, not counting window signage. Window signage is allowed up to 25% of the respective glass panel surface area, and for tenant identification. The monument sign and project identification signs would be mounted on structures made of concrete and aluminum, compatible with the project’s architecture and materials;
B. The design, scale and materials of the signs harmonize with the architectural design and details of the building or site it serves, in that, the proposed signage consists of a monument sign, project identification signs, and tenant building and canopy signs made of flat cutout aluminum letters/numbers to be mounted with stainless steel hardware and painted with satin colors. Illumination consists of halo-lighting on the project identification signs located at each entry, and lowprofile LED lighting on the monument sign. Tenant building and canopy signs are non-illuminated. Tenant and canopy signage is appropriately placed within each suite’s façade and above each suite’s entry. Signage for the corner suites 1454
Resolution No. Page 19
4912-4170-3271 v1
consists of two signs – one at the front elevation and one at the side elevation – that are placed higher on the building than the inline tenants. The higher placement of the corner suite signage is appropriate given that the parapet walls above the corner suites extend higher than the rest of the building’s height, allowing for more space between the top of the text and the roofline. The only sign allowed for inline tenants would be at the front elevation, not counting window signage. Window signage is allowed up to 25% of the respective glass panel surface area, and for tenant identification. The monument sign and project identification signs would be mounted on structures made of concrete and aluminum, compatible with the project’s architecture and materials; C. The design and scale of the signs is appropriate to the distance from which the signs are normally viewed, in that, tenant building and canopy signs are nonilluminated, and the majority of signage is visible from within the development, and any signage facing north, would either be partially of fully screened by trees.
Tenant and canopy signage is appropriately placed within each suite’s façade and above each suite’s entry. Signage for the corner suites consists of two signs – one at the front elevation and one at the side elevation – that are placed higher on the building than the inline tenants. The higher placement of the corner suite signage is appropriate given that the parapet walls above the corner suites extend higher than the rest of the building’s height, allowing for more space between the top of the text and the roofline. The only sign allowed for inline tenants would be at the front elevation, not counting window signage. Window signage is allowed up to 25% of the respective glass panel surface area, and for tenant identification; D. The design and materials of the signs provide a contrast between the background and letters, in that, the buildings consist of a variety of concrete patterns and textures, and an earth tone gray/blue primary color palette; E. The provisions of the Master Sign Program ensure consistency in design and style of all new signs, in that, tenant signage is limited to a consistent size with no illumination, flat cutout aluminum letters to be painted a satin color. Additionally, illumination for the project identification signs and monument sign is clearly indicated in the Master Sign Program. An elevation drawing is provided which shows the perimeters for new building signs; and
F. All new signs within the Master Sign Program are in compliance with the sign design standards, in that, all signs are required to be of a permanent material such as aluminum, all support hardware is made up of steel and compatible with the project’s architecture and design, all building signs are non-illuminated, lighting for the project identification signs and the monument sign is provided in a manner (halo-lighting and low-profile) which minimizes light or glare upon adjacent residential properties and the public right-of-way, and landscaping is provided around the project identification signs and the monument sign.
Section 6. Tentative Tract Map Findings.
With respect to Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 25-263, for the land and condominium 1455
Resolution No. Page 20
4912-4170-3271 v1
subdivision, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find as follows:
A. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the type of development, in that:
1. The proposed buildings will be served by common infrastructure and site features such as drive aisles and parking;
2. Proposed lot sizes are consistent with the minimum required lot size of 10,000 square feet within the Business Park Zone and surrounding pattern of development;
3. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant will plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
4. All required parking for the project is provided on site;
5. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
6. The project site is in a developed area where public services and utilities are available to support the project;
7. The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR);
8. The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time 1456
Resolution No. Page 21
4912-4170-3271 v1
the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
B. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development, in that:
1. The proposed buildings will be served by common infrastructure and site features such as drive aisles and parking;
2. Proposed lot sizes are consistent with the minimum required lot size of 10,000 square feet within the Business Park Zone and surrounding pattern of development;
3. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant will plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
4. All required parking for the project is provided on site;
5. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
6. The project site is in a developed area where public services and utilities are available to support the project;
7. The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR);
1457
Resolution No. Page 22
4912-4170-3271 v1
8. The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
C. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that:
1. The proposed buildings will be served by common infrastructure and site features such as drive aisles and parking;
2. Proposed lot sizes are consistent with the minimum required lot size of 10,000 square feet within the Business Park Zone and surrounding pattern of development;
3. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant will plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
4. All required parking for the project is provided on site;
5. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
6. The project site is in a developed area where public services and utilities are available to support the project;
1458
Resolution No. Page 23
4912-4170-3271 v1
7. The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR); and
8. The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
D. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that:
1. The subdivision will create buildings and/or suites for separate ownership of spaces used to support business park-oriented uses within an existing business park, and separated from residential uses by 420 feet. Additionally, separate discharge and AQMD permits will be required as applicable;
2. The proposed buildings will be served by common infrastructure and site features such as drive aisles and parking;
3. Proposed lot sizes are consistent with the minimum required lot size of 10,000 square feet within the Business Park Zone and surrounding pattern of 1459
Resolution No. Page 24
4912-4170-3271 v1
development;
4. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant will plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
5. All required parking for the project is provided on site;
6. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
7. The project site is in a developed area where public services and utilities are available to support the project;
8. The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR); and
9. The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require 1460
Resolution No. Page 25
4912-4170-3271 v1
further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
E. As conditioned, the subdivision, with its provisions for any design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, in that:
1. The project consists of high-quality contemporary architecture and landscaping, with 74 adaptable tenant suites that can be combined and occupied by industrial-type uses, such as, medical offices, light manufacturing, professional offices, research and development, service uses, and warehouse/wholesale, and commercial recreation with a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, an amenity hub is provided for tenants/employees with amenities such as a gym, golf simulator, and an ocean-view deck. The 74 new industrial suites totaling 234,714 square feet of floor area will increase job opportunities within the Business Park, while remaining compatible with surrounding development, consistent with the following developmental policies of the City: Industrial Land Use Goal, which states, “Create and maintain diverse employment opportunities located in areas that provide strategic advantages for employers to locate in San Clemente, provide headof-household jobs, generate municipal revenues, and improve quality of life, while minimizing impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.”; Rancho San Clemente Business Park Goal, which states, “Maintain and promote the Rancho San Clemente and Talega Business Parks as a premier office and industrial location for start-up businesses, expanding businesses, and for businesses relocating to San Clemente.”; and Land Use Element Policy 8.01 - Priorities, which states, “Pursuant to the Economic Development Strategy, we assign a high priority to those initiatives, investments, and development approvals that contribute to our vision of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park as a premier office and industrial employment center that capitalizes on San Clemente’s access to the Orange County and San Diego County markets.”;
2. The project consists of adequate setbacks between the buildings and streets, and between each building, for compliance with minimum setback requirements and drive aisles meeting OCFA and CR&R standards.
Prominent landscaped buffers are proposed on the west and east side of the project adjacent to the streets. To the north of and adjacent to the project site is a landscaped strip of land zoned as open space (OS2), providing a natural buffer between the project and the nearest developed site to the north. The project includes a small landscaped buffer with a pedestrian walkway on the south side of the project site, for access to the adjacent ridgeline trail, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-3.03 – Buffers and Setbacks, which states, “We require that new uses and buildings, characterized by differing functions, activities, density, scale and massing, to provide conditions of approval, landscaped buffers and/or setbacks between uses to prevent or reduce adverse impacts.”;
1461
Resolution No. Page 26
4912-4170-3271 v1
3. The project’s mass, scale, and form are compatible in character with surrounding industrial development in that the proposed buildings consist of one story with mezzanine levels, human scale elements such as entry canopies and man doors, typical industrial building footprints, and flat roofs.
Surrounding industrial buildings consist of one, two, and three-story buildings with flat roofs, and similar building footprints. The project and existing development generally consist of long uninterrupted wall planes as expected to accommodate industrial-related uses, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-5.10 – Scale and Massing, which states, “We require that the scale and massing of development be compatible with its surroundings and with the General Plan, applicable specific plan and or area plan.”;
4. The site has a downward slope from east to west with a grade difference of 100 feet, and sits at the highest point within the Business Park below a ridgeline, outside of any public view corridor. The proposed development has two zones - a higher pad on the east side with seven buildings and a lower pad on the west side with four buildings, with a landscaped buffer in between both pads, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-5.14 – Building Design with Topography, which states, “Building design shall consider the site’s natural topography, public view corridors and adjacent building profiles so that canyonization is avoided.”;
5. Proposed landscaping consists of drought-tolerant and native species primarily on the development's edges and throughout the development, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-5.18 – Drought Tolerant/Native Species Landscaping, which states, “Ornamental plantings in new, nonresidential development should consist primarily of drought tolerant and California native species. Only in small areas and special public locations, such as high-use areas of parks, should lawns or other high water use vegetation be used.”;
6. The project incorporates bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented features such as walkways, an amenity hub, and bicycle parking throughout the development.
The project supports recreational goals by providing a walkway that connects to the ridgeline trail. Additionally, the project also provides a shower within the amenity hub to encourage active transportation to the development, consistent with General Plan Policy M-2.48 – Bicycle- and Pedestrian Oriented Site Design, which states, “The project incorporates bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented features such as walkways, an amenity hub, and bicycle parking throughout the development. The project supports recreational goals by providing a walkway that connects to the ridgeline trail. Additionally, the project also provides a shower within the amenity hub to encourage active transportation to the development.”; and
7. The project is conditioned to comply with Trip Reduction and Travel Demand Management standards pursuant to SCMC 17.76 (Condition of Approval
4.15).
1462
Resolution No. Page 27
4912-4170-3271 v1
F. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision, in that, easements for public access and public utility purposes will be quitclaimed, partially quitclaimed, and relocated.
Section 7. City Council Approval.
Based on the foregoing recitals and findings, and the written and oral comments, facts, and evidence presented, the City of San Clemente City Council approves Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 25-223, Development Permit (DP) 25-224, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 25-225, and Discretionary Sign Permit (DSP) 25-263, Luminar Business Park, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A.
Section 8. Certification.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City of San
San Clemente, California Clemente, California
1463
Resolution No. Page 28
4912-4170-3271 v1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, Laura Campagnolo, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. _________ was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
____________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
1464
Resolution No. EXHIBIT A
4912-4170-3271 v1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-224, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-223, DISCRETIONARY SIGN PERMIT 25-263, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-225
LUMINAR BUSINESS PARK
1.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.1 Within 30 days of approval of this application, the applicant shall submit to the City Planner a signed acknowledgement concurring with all conditions of approval on a form to be provided by the City.
Failure to submit this acknowledgement may be grounds to revoke this approval.
Planning
1.2 The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Clemente and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, proceeding, fines, damages, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, against the City, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City concerning this project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Planner, Zoning Administrator, or City employees or environmental finding. Applicant shall pay all costs upon request by the City. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter at the applicant’s expense. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter at the applicant’s cost. If the applicant fails to so defend the matter, the City shall have the right, at its own option, to do so and, if it does, the applicant shall promptly pay the City's full cost of the defense.
Planning
1.3 Use and development of this property shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans, material boards and other applicable information submitted with this application, and with these conditions of approval.
Planning
1.4 The applicant shall comply with all applicable current and future provisions of the San Clemente Municipal Code, adopted
ordinances, and state laws.
All
1.5 Use of the subject property shall conform to all occupancy requirements, including posting of signs related to the maximum occupancy limitations.
Code
Comp
1.6 Development Permit 25-224/Conditional Use Permit 25-223/ Discretionary Sign Permit 25-263/ Tentative Tract Map 25-225 shall Planning
*
1465
Resolution No. Page 2
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
be deemed to have expired if within six years of approval the project is not commenced, or the project permitted by the approved application has lapsed, as defined by Zoning Ordinance Section
17.12.150.
1.7 Within five business days of project approval, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a check made payable to the Orange County Clerk-Recorder in the amount of $50 for filing the CEQA Notice.
Planning
1.8 The applicant shall promptly pay and replenish an estimate of and any outstanding balance for City reviews, such as the WQMP review, CC&R review, and any other deposit account expenses related to this project within 10 days’ notice from the City of any deposit or replenishment request or notice of outstanding balance.
Planning
2.0 PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP
2.1 The final map shall indicate that all streets, drainage, storm drains, sewer, street lights, street signage and striping improvements within the interior of this subdivision are private and shall be maintained by the Master Association and/or Sub-association, or such other provision for maintenance which may be subsequently approved by the City Council. (SCMC Section 16.36.030)
Public
Works
2.2 Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer evidence that the County Surveyor has approved a digitized tract/parcel map pursuant to Orange County Ordinance No. 3809 dated January 28, 1991. The owner or designee shall pay for all costs of said digital submittals, including supplying digital copies to the City of the final, County Surveyor-approved digital map in DXF format.
Public
Works
Buyer Notification
2.3 The applicant shall submit to the City Planner and obtain approval from the City Attorney’s Office of a buyer's notification disclosure form, to be given to all potential buyers of the lots/units, which indicates the existence, operations, characteristics, and potential exposure to nuisance/objectionable odors/risk of upset/hazards of the following:
Prima Deshecha Landfill
TRW
United States Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
Ford Aerospace
Fire hazard due to wildland exposure (Fire - FP16)
Planning
1466
Resolution No. Page 3
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
The Forster Ranch ridgeline trail and connections
Orange County Flood Control Channel
City of San Clemente Wastewater Treatment Plant
Owens-Illinois Sand and Gravel Operation
Condominium Conversion
2.4 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner that each existing tenant has received the following notices:
A. Ten days' written notification by mail that an application for a public report will be, or has been, submitted to the
Department of Real Estate, and that such report will be available on request.
B. Written notification by mail of the intention to convert 180 days prior to the termination of tenancy due to the
conversion.
C. Notice of an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the tenant's respective unit upon the same terms and
conditions that such unit will be initially offered to the general public, or terms more favorable to the tenant. The right shall run for a period of not less than 90 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report, unless the tenant gives prior written notice of the intent to not exercise the right.
Planning
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs)
2.5 The applicant shall submit to the City Planner, and obtain approval from the City Planner, City Engineer, Fire Chief and City Attorney’s Office of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) which shall include the following provisions:
A. Creation of a Master Association and/or a Sub-association or other entity managed by declarant during the period in which declarant owns at least one parcel within the project for the purpose of providing for control over the uniformity of boundary fencing, and the perpetual maintenance
responsibility of areas including, but not limited to, (delete or add as appropriate) all common areas, open space,
slopes, fuel modification zones, private medians and
greenbelts, arterial highway parkway landscaping, irrigation systems, landscaped areas, walls, driveways, parking
areas, trash areas, structures, private streets, street lights, and drainage. All streets, drainage, street lights, street signage and striping improvements within the interior of the subdivision designated as private shall remain private and shall be maintained by the Master Association and/or Subassociation, or such other provision for maintenance which Planning
Public
Works
Fire
1467
Resolution No. Page 4
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
may be subsequently approved by the City Council. In
addition, the CC&R's shall indicate all other areas to be owned and maintained by the Master Association and/or
Sub-association and that maintenance of all private
drainage facilities shall be in conformance with NPDES
requirements.
B. Within 15 days of the establishment of the homeowners association and/or the commercial property owners
association, the owner or designee is required to furnish the Board or Officers of each association a copy of each
approved tract map, a copy of the approved site and fencing plan, copies of all approved landscaping plans, a complete set of construction plans for the various residential model types, and approved plans indicating the locations and
characteristics of all major project components, utilities, and related data.
C. Following recordation of each final tract map, each Master Association of this tract shall submit to the City Planner, for distribution to the Fire and Beaches, Parks and Recreation Departments, and shall re-submit annually, a list of all current Property Owner Association officers of the
Association.
D. A statement indicating that open space (as provided in Lots C, D, & E) shall be retained by deed restriction as
designated open space in perpetuity and maintained by a Master Association and/or the Sub-association, and that no development or encroachment shall be permitted within the designated open space.
E. A statement indicating that proposed amendments to any portions of the CC&R's, as determined by the City, shall be submitted for review to the City Planner, and shall be
approved by the City Attorney’s Office, prior to the
amendments being valid.
F. A statement indicating that storm drain facilities shall be inspected regularly as follows:
1) Open channels, catch basins and pipelines inspected
annually before storm season and removal of debris as
necessary.
2) All facilities shall have debris and sediment removed either manually or by mechanical methods. Flushing
shall be used in emergency situations only.
G. A statement obligating the Association(s) to provide to the City Engineer annual reports in the month of June in
compliance with the reporting requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City with respect to the NPDES program.
H. Identification of all fire prevention and defense provisions including: a) a fire lane map; b) provisions which prohibit 1468
Resolution No. Page 5
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
parking in fire lanes and a method of enforcement; and c) provisions for maintenance of fuel modification zones
including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation and the inspection and correction of any deficiencies in the irrigation system three times a year; and a method for
keeping fire protection access easements unobstructed. A statement shall acknowledge that approval of the Chief of Fire Protection Services shall be required for any
modifications such as speed bumps, control gates, or
parking changes.
I. A statement indicating that the commercial recreation use allowed in Building 1 shall operate as follows:
1) The commercial recreation use shall operate in a
manner that does not require more than 76 parking
spaces;
2) Commercial recreation classes shall be staggered by a minimum of ten minutes in between the end and start of
each class, and all schedules on business flyers and
social media platforms shall reflect the ten-minute gap. 3) A statement indicating that schools, and day cares are not allowed, unless entitlements are approved by the
City and CC&Rs are amended to allow schools and day
cares.
4) A statement indicating that drop-off/pick-up zones are not allowed unless an amendment to the project is
approved by the Planning Commission.
5) A statement indicating that the property
manager/association shall be responsible for
maintaining and providing to the Planning Division an
updated parking table that tracks the amount of parking spaces available as suites are occupied.
K. A statement incorporating the following Conditions of Approval into the CC&R’s:
1) Bicycle parking shall be provided in a manner consistent with the California Building Code and locker facilities shall be provided in a secure location for use by employees or tenants who commute to the site by bicycle. The number of facilities/racks to be provided shall be at the rate of at least five racks for every 100 employees or fraction thereof. 2) All customers shall park in a designated parking space and walk to their destination.
3) A commuter information area shall be provided that offers employees appropriate information on available
transportation alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle.
This area shall be centrally located and accessible to all employees or tenants.
2.6 The applicant shall provide a deposit for and reimburse the City all Planning 1469
Resolution No. Page 6
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
costs associated with review of the project CC&Rs, Disclosure Statements, and any other applicable documents by the City Attorney’s Office.
Easements
2.7 The final map shall depict the location of all easements for open space, trails, water and sewer easements, storm drains and storm drain maintenance access, public street lights, utilities, reciprocal access, emergency access, slopes and slope maintenance, and landscaping. All drainage easements shall be a minimum of 15 feet. No drainage facilities accepted for dedication or maintenance by the City shall be located within slopes. (SCMC Section
16.28.030)
Public
Works
2.8 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney that quitclaim deeds in favor of the City have been obtained from all persons having any interest in existing rights of way for pipelines for the conveyance of water, and for all rights to all underground water. The right to all underground water, but without right of entry to the surface thereof, shall be conveyed to the City. No easements shall be granted nor recorded over any portion of the property shown on the submitted record map between the date the tentative map is approved by the Planning Commission and the date the final or record map is recorded by the County Recorder. (SCMC Section 13.04.500) Public
Works
2.9 The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain approval from the City Engineer and the City Attorney of, reciprocal parking and access easements. The recording document shall specifically state the purposes of the easements to be the preservation of access and parking availability in accordance with City Ordinances and the State Subdivision Map Act. (SCMC Section 17.64)
Public
Works
2.10 The improvement plans shall clearly call out that all storm drain and sewer systems within the development are private systems and are privately maintained including that portion of the sewer system within the public right of way that connects to the sewer main within the Calle Cordillera. (SCMC Section 16.32.010) Public
Works
2.11 The applicant shall submit, and the City Engineer shall approve, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, which reflect consistency with the City's Water and Reclaimed Water Master Plans and standards. Said plan shall provide for the following:
A. Indicate a service system which provides, or allows for, independent water metering.
Public
Works
1470
Resolution No. Page 7
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
B. All water meters shall be tapped into the public water main and be located in the public ROW.
C. A double detector check shall be installed at the transition from public to private for water systems.
D. All reclaimed service lines shall have meters at the public ROW.
(SCMC Section 16.32.010)
2.12 The applicant shall submit to and obtain the approval of the City Engineer for wastewater improvement plans specific to the project, prepared by a registered civil engineer, which reflect consistency with the City's Sewer Master Plan and standards. (SCMC Section
16.32.101)
Public
Works
2.13 The applicant shall submit and obtain the approval of the City Engineer and Utilities Director for plans prepared by a registered civil engineer at a scale of 1”=200’ that depict all existing and proposed water services, sewer laterals and mains (including gate valves, pressure reducing stations, reservoirs, lift stations, pressure zones, fire hydrants, manholes, pipe sizes, pipe types and any other related appurtenances).
(SCMC Section 16.32.202)
Public
Works
Utilities
2.14 All improvement plans must be submitted (along with a plan check deposit in an amount determined by the City Engineer) for review and approval by the City Engineer. These plans include, but are not necessarily limited to, grading, improvements, water, sewer, storm drain, traffic signal, signing and striping, street lights and landscaping and irrigation plans. (SCMC Section 16.32.010) Public
Works
2.15 Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the owner shall provide independent water meters and separate services for each unit in building and the common area. All water meters shall be located in the public right of way or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (SCMC Section 16.32.010)
Public
Works
Reports
2.16 The applicant shall submit and obtain the approval of the City Engineer for a soils and geologic report prepared by a registered geologist and/or geotechnical engineer which conforms to City standards and all other applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. (SCMC Section 16.12.050)
Public
Works
General
2.17 Subject to the approval of the City Engineer, quitclaim deeds and Public 1471
Resolution No. Page 8
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
dedications as proposed on the Tentative Tract Map are subject to minor revisions due to the final water line improvement alignment and access easement locations. A blanket access easement on subdivision common area streets shall be dedicated to the City for ingress and egress access to its new water system improvements and to the off-site storm drain easement. An easement shall be dedicated to the City for access and use rights to the proposed private storm drain manhole(s) in the main drive aisle off of Calle Cordillera that connect to the City’s existing off-site storm drain system on the property to the north. A public pedestrian access trail shall be included for dedication on the Final Map (SCMC Chapter 15.36).
Works
**
2.18 The Tentative Tract Map proposes a full quitclaim of the existing storm drain, sewer and water line easements along the northern boundary. This results in the entire on-site sewer and drainage improvements being privately owned and maintained by the property owner(s). The existing sewer and storm drain utility improvements within these easements are proposed for quitclaim to the property owner(s) on an as-is conditional basis. As currently proposed, the quitclaim of these easements leads to limited accessibility for the City to access the off-site storm drain system which this development drains to within the adjacent property to the north. Prior to Final Map approval, the developer and the City Engineer will resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer through additional Final Map conditions of approval, which may include slight modifications to the improvement plans to allow the City permanent easement access rights to the two immediate upstream storm drain manholes, elimination of the first on-site storm drain manhole, and/or creation of vehicle access to the first manhole. (SCMC Chapter 15.36).
Public
Works
**
3.0 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
3.1 The working drawings shall include within the first four pages a list of all conditions of approval included in this resolution.
Planning
3.2 The City Engineer shall determine that development of the site shall conform to general recommendations presented in the geotechnical studies, including specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and fill, slope stability, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage, and
recommendations for further study. (SCMC Chapter 15.36) Public
Works
3.3 The applicant shall submit to and obtain the approval of the City Engineer of a precise grading plan as required by the City Grading Manual and Ordinance. (SCMC Chapter 15.36)
Public
Works
1472
Resolution No. Page 9
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
Abandonments
3.4 The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a copy of the recorded abandonment from the County of Orange, as well as evidence of recordation of any easements required as a condition of this abandonment. (SCMC Section 12.20.010)
Public
Works
Addressing and Street Names
3.5 The applicant shall submit to and must obtain approval from the City Planner for a plan depicting all street names and addresses for all of the buildings and facilities within the project.
Planning
Financial Security
3.6 The applicant shall provide separate improvement surety, bonds, or irrevocable letters of credit, as determined by the City Engineer, for 100% of each estimated improvement cost, as prepared by a registered civil engineer as approved by City Engineer, for the following applicable items: grading improvements; frontage improvements; sidewalks; sewer lines; water lines; onsite storm drains; and erosion control. In addition, the owner shall provide separate labor and material surety for 100% of the above estimated improvement costs, as determined by the City Engineer or designee. (SCMC Chapter 15.36)
Public
Works
Improvements
3.7 The applicant shall submit to and obtain approval of the City Engineer for frontage improvement plans. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of all required frontage improvements as approved by the City Engineer including but not limited to the following:
A. Sidewalk, including construction of compliant sidewalk around drive approach or other obstructions to meet current City standards (2% cross fall) when adequate right-of-way exists. Since the street right-of-way is approximately 8 feet behind the curbface, a sidewalk easement is/is not
anticipated to be required to be granted to the City. Said sidewalk easement shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City Engineer.
B. Contractor shall replace any damaged street improvements resulting from construction activities to the satisfaction of the City Inspector.
(SCMC Chapter 15.36 and Sections 12.08.010, and 12.24.050) Public
Works
NPDES
1473
Resolution No. Page 10
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
3.8 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that the project meets all requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Strom Sewer Permit, and Federal, State, County and City guidelines and regulations, in order to control pollutant run-off. (SCMC Chapter 13.40)
Public
Works
3.9 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the required NPDES permits have been obtained. (SCMC Chapter 13.40)
Public
Works
3.10 The applicant shall submit to and must obtain approval from the City Engineer fpr a project binder containing the following documents:
A. If the project is greater than 1 acre, a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the General Construction Storm Water Permit must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (refer to
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/st ormwater/construction.html ) and a copy of the NOI, a WDID number and a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be filed with the City;
B. If the site is determined to be a “Priority Project” (as defined by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Permit – refer to the following web address at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/pr ograms/stormwater/), a final Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) must be recorded with the Orange County
Recorder’s Office and filed with the City; and
C. A Final WQMP that addresses to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the uncompleted aspects of the Preliminary WQMP, including but not limited, to remaining corrections for additional analysis of infiltration testing and
documentation. (SCMC Chapter 13.40, 15.36).
Public
Works
General
3.11 Unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer, private improvements to be constructed within City easements shall be subject to approval of an Administrative Encroachment
Permit/Agreement that limits improvements to asphalt, sidewalk, curb, gutter, and low-lying landscaping not to exceed 36 inches in height. Improvements such as decorative pavers are subject to conditional approval of the City Engineer and may require additional requirements such as sleeving of the City utility improvements. (SCMC Chapter 12.20).
Public
Works
**
1474
Resolution No. Page 11
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
3.12 Unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer, the developer shall provide evidence of consent from any easement holders for development within easement areas to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (SCMC Chapter 15.36).
Public
Works
**
3.13 Unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer, the developer shall acknowledge in writing that the development is subject to all State water quality and storm drain discharge permit regulations.
This may include, but is not limited to, elimination of discharges such as subdrain and other non-storm related discharge. Project designs revisions may be required for compliance with such applicable regulations. (SCMC Chapter 15.36).
Public
Works
**
3.14 Landscape Plans shall be approved by the Utility Department.
Unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer, no trees shall be planted within City easements or within 10 feet of City utilities. All landscape irrigation systems shall be designed using the City's reclaimed water standards. In the event reclaimed water is not available at the time the system is put into operation, the system may be connected to the potable water system. When reclaimed water is available, the system shall be converted to reclaimed service. The owner or designee shall install reclaimed water service lines to the meter locations for future connection when reclaimed water is available. (SCMC Chapter 17.68).
Public
Works
**
4.0 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
4.1 The working drawings shall include within the first four pages a list of all conditions of approval included in this resolution.
Planning
Landscape Plans
4.2 The applicant shall submit, and must obtain approval from the City’s Consulting Landscape Architect, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan incorporating drought tolerant plants, prepared by a registered landscape architect, and in compliance with all pertinent requirements. (SCMC Section 17.68.020)
Planning
4.3 The following standards shall apply for all landscape plans specific to parkways, unless otherwise approved for private residential streets:
A. All landscape irrigation systems shall be designed using the City's reclaimed water standards. In the event
reclaimed water is not available at the time the system is put into operation, the system may be connected to
the potable water system. When reclaimed water is
available, the system shall be converted to reclaimed
Public
Works
Planning
1475
Resolution No. Page 12
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
service. The owner or designee shall install reclaimed
water service lines to the meter locations for future
connection when reclaimed water is available.
NPDES
4.4 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that the project meets all requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Strom Sewer Permit, and Federal, State, County and City guidelines and regulations, in order to control pollutant run-off. (SCMC Chapter 13.40)
Public
Works
Utilities
4.5 If the project pertains to a Food Service Establishment (FSE), the applicant shall submit, and the City Utilities Director shall approve, plans depicting the Fats, Oils, and Greases (FOG) controls, with the plans and design approved by the Orange County Health Care Agency.
Utilities
4.6 The applicant shall submit, and the City Engineer shall approve, plans depicting the installation of an approved double-detector check backflow assembly on any/all fire lines above ground and as near to the point of connection to the potable water system as practical, given functional and aesthetic considerations. An isolation valve shall be installed on any/all fire lines at the point of connection to the water main. (SCMC Section 13.04.350)
Public
Works
4.7 The applicant shall submit, and the City Engineer shall approve, plans depicting the installation of an approved reduced pressure principal backflow assembly on any/all potable water systems, and any/all irrigation systems, above ground, directly after each water meter as practical, and at a minimum height of 12” from the bottom of each assembly to ground level. (SCMC Section 13.04.350) Public
Works
General
4.8 The applicant, or designee, shall submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of said adjacent open space lot authorizes the applicant, or designee, to plant trees on said adjacent open space lot.
Planning
**
4.9 The applicant, or designee, shall submit to and obtain approval from the Building Division and Planning Division, a photometric Planning
Building
1476
Resolution No. Page 13
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit. **
4.10 The applicant, or designee, shall submit construction drawings in compliance with Trip Reduction and Travel Demand Management standards. Construction drawings shall include, but not limited to, the following items:
a. Applicant shall provide 22 parking spaces designated for carpool vehicles and 4 spaces shall be designated for
vanpool vehicles;
b. Applicant shall provide bicycle parking consistent with the California Building Code;
c. The applicant shall provide 1 “All Gender” shower facility; d. A commuter information area shall be provided that offers employees appropriate information on available
transportation alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle.
This area shall be centrally located and accessible to all employees or tenants. A notice informing employees of this commuter information center shall be posted in each
building that is larger than 25,000 gross square feet.
Planning
**
5.0 PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION
Engineering
5.1 Prior to acceptance of improvements by the City Engineer, the owner shall submit "as-built" plans prepared by a registered civil engineer for streets, traffic signals, street lights, sewer, water, storm drains, street signs, striping, traffic markings, painted curbs and all other required improvements. (SCMC Chapter 16.28) Public
Works
5.2 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Maintenance Manager that all street
improvements have been completed and accepted and that any damage to new or existing street right-of-way during construction has been repaired/replaced. (SCMC Title 12)
Public
Works
Landscaping
5.3 The applicant shall submit, and the City Planner shall approve, a letter from a registered landscape architect confirming that landscaping and irrigation have been installed in accordance with the approved plans.
Planning
Lighting
5.4 The applicant shall submit, and the City Planner shall approve, a letter from the preparer of the lighting plans confirming that all Planning
1477
Resolution No. Page 14
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
lighting has been installed in accordance with the approved plans, and that the lighting conforms to all standards set forth in the Municipal Code.
Surveys
5.5 Prior to approval to pour foundations, the applicant shall submit to and obtain the approval of the City Planner and Building Official of a survey prepared by a registered civil engineer that is licensed to do surveying or a land surveyor confirming that the building foundations conform to the required setbacks as set forth on the approved plans.
Planning
Building
5.6 Prior to approval of the framing inspection, the applicant shall submit to and obtain the approval of the City Planner and Building Official for a survey prepared by a registered civil engineer that is licensed to do surveying or a land surveyor confirming that the height of all structures conforms to the dimensions set forth on the approved plans.
Planning
Building
Signage
5.7 Prior to approval of any sign, the applicant, or designee, shall submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, of an updated Master Sign Program, which shall include that each tenant shall be limited to 64 square feet of signage and no individual sign shall exceed 64 square feet
Planning
**
General
5.8 A copy of the recorded Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be supplied to the City. (SCMC Chapter 15.36).
Public
Works
**
5.9 Prior to final inspection and/or Certificate of Occupancy, the parcels shall be formally merged or approved for a Tract Map to the satisfaction of the City Building Official, City Planner, and City Engineer. (SCMC Chapter 15.36).
Public
Works
**
6.0 PRIOR TO RELEASE OF FINANCIAL SECURITY
6.1 All catch basins and/or storm drain inlets shall be stenciled/marked on either the top of the curb or the curb face adjacent to the inlet "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN.” All catch basins shall
have filter basket inserts that capture litter and debris down to 5 mm in size. (SCMC Chapter 13.34)
Utilities
6.2 Unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit, and must obtain approval from the City Engineer, a Public
Works
1478
Resolution No. Page 15
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
video, filmed in the presence of a representative of the Public Works Department, of all sewer and drainage improvements. The video shall become the property of the City. (SCMC Chapter 13.30) *
6.3 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that all survey monuments damaged or destroyed are restored. “Corner Records” shall be prepared for submission to the City Engineering Division and for filing with the County Surveyor’s Office in compliance with AB 1414. All restorations of survey monuments shall be certified by the Registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor in accordance with Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. (SCMC Title 16)
Public
Works
6.4 The applicant shall provide a warranty bond in an amount of 25% of the faithful performance bond for each improvement accepted by the City. This warranty bond shall remain in place for one year from the date of acceptance of the improvement. (SCMC Section
16.32.020)
Public
Works
6.5 The waste debris enclosure shall be of appropriate size to accommodate bins for recyclable materials, organic waste (food and landscape trimmings) and trash. For residential projects, all waste bins must be substantially hidden from view from any public street or alley. (SCMC Chapter 8.28)
Utilities
6.6 All water and sewer systems, e.g., pump stations, generators, reservoirs, PRV's, etc., shall be fully tested, in the presence of a representative of the Utilities Department, to verify system performance in accordance with design specifications. (SCMC Section 13.24.120)
Utilities
7.0 OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Business License
7.1 A City Discharge Permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a business license or any discharge to the City sanitary sewer system. (SCMC Chapter 13.24)
Utilities
7.2 If the project pertains to commercial, industrial or manufacturing use that may discharge high-strength commercial sewage to the City sanitary sewage system, with between five hundred one (501) and nine hundred (900) milligrams of BOD per liter, the applicant shall submit, and the Utilities Manager shall approve, plans that have been approved by the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) Pretreatment Inspector. Upon approval of design a City Discharge Permit must be obtained prior to issuance Utilities
1479
Resolution No. Page 16
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
of a business license or any discharge to the City sanitary sewer system. (SCMC Chapter 13.24)
Commercial Recreation
7.3 All commercial recreation activities are to occur indoors. Doors and windows shall remain closed at all times that indoor amplified sound is being played during the operating hours of the commercial recreation use.
Code
Comp
7.4 The commercial recreation use shall operate only within Building 1, as shown on plans approved by the Planning Commission, unless the City Planner approves the operation of the commercial recreation use within another building.
Planning
**
7.5 The commercial recreation use shall operate in a manner that does not require more than 76 parking spaces.
Planning
**
7.6 Drop-off/pick-up zones are not allowed unless an amendment to the project is approved by the City Engineer and Planning Commission.
Planning
**
7.7 Commercial recreation classes shall be staggered by a minimum of ten minutes in between the end and start of each class, and all schedules on business flyers and social media platforms shall reflect the ten-minute gap.
Planning
**
General
7.8 The property manager shall be responsible for maintaining and providing to the Planning Division an updated parking table that tracks the amount of parking spaces available as suites are occupied.
Planning
**
7.9 All customers shall park in a designated parking space and walk to their destination.
Planning
**
7.10 If the City Engineer determines that the development’s parking and traffic are negatively affecting the project site, adjacent properties, or the surrounding street network, the applicant shall submit an amendment to Development Permit 25-224, Conditional Use Permit 25-223, Discretionary Sign Permit 25-263, and Tentative Tract Map 25-225 with a plan satisfactory to the City Engineer to address the parking and/or traffic issues, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section
17.12.180.
Public
Works
Planning
**
7.11 In the event that vehicle stacking or other issues cause circulation and/or queueing/crowding onto the public streets, then the Public
Works
1480
Resolution No. Page 17
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
business owner will be required to meet with City staff and propose solutions for implementation including, but not limited to, increasing the number of staff, modifications to the parking management plan and operations, business model modifications, etc. As part of this condition, there shall be no staging or activities within the street and sidewalk right of way (SCMC Chapter 12.20). **
7.12 No gates or vehicle prohibitive devices are allowed at the main entrances or across City easements unless specifically approved by the City Planner and City Engineer.
Public
Works
**
7.13 The Applicant (including any property owners and managers, and their designees) shall ensure that discharge of washwater and other pollutants are prohibited from entering the storm drain system. Applicant must prevent pollutants (e.g. sediment, trash, food waste etc.) and any washwater used during cleanup from entering the storm drain system (SCMC Chapter 15.36).
Public
Works
**
7.14 All landscaping and trees shall be maintained by the property owner. This includes any landscaping and trees within the public right of way or considered “street trees” (SCMC Chapter 15.36).
Public
Works
**
7.15 If the City Engineer determines that the project’s sewer system causes unacceptable odors to sewer manholes either privately or publicly owned, the property owner(s) shall be required to install odor filtration/capture devices within each manhole as determined by the City Engineer., but limited to the public manhole at the connection at Calle Cordillera and the first upstream public manhole. Unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer, these devices shall be maintained by the property owner (SCMC Chapter
15.36).
Public
Works
**
Storm Drain Markers
7.17 The storm drain markers required pursuant to Condition 6.1 shall be maintained in good condition by the applicant.
Utilities
* Denotes a modified Standard Condition of Approval
** Denotes a project-specific Condition of Approval
Strikethrough = text deleted post Planning Commission hearing Red Text = text added post Planning Commission hearing
1481
Resolution No. Page 18
Exhibit A
4912-4170-3271 v1
1482
RESOLUTION NO. PC 25-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONALLY APPROVE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-224, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 25-223, DISCRETIONARY SIGN PERMIT 25-263,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-225, LUMINAR BUSINESS
PARK, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WITH 11 NEW BUILDINGS ON
VACANT LAND, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MASTER SIGN
PROGRAM, AND A LAND AND CONDOMINIUM
SUBDIVISION FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF EACH
BUILDING/SUITE, LOCATED AT 1000 CALLE CORDILLERA,
AND FIND THAT NO FURTHER REVIEW UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IS
REQUIRED (14 CCR 15162 AND 15183)
WHEREAS, in 1983 an Environmental Impact Report was adopted for the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan, which included land uses such as industrial (business park), residential, commercial, open space, and a school; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2025, an application was submitted by SC Holding LLC, 411 Amapola Avenue, Torrance, CA 90501 for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 25-223, Development Permit (DP) 25-224, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 25-225, and Discretionary Sign Permit (DSP) 25-263, and deemed complete on July 1, 2025, which is a request to allow the construction of a new industrial complex with 11 new buildings on vacant land, in conjunction with a master sign program, and a land and condominium subdivision for individual ownership of each building/suite, In the Business Park Zone within the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan. The site's legal description Is N TR 12125 BLK LOT 11/N TR 12125 BLK LOT 10, and Assessor's Parcel Numbers 688-151-03 and 688-151-04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division has completed an initial environmental assessment of the above matter in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council determine that the project does not require further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15183. This is recommended because the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan accounted for the development type and intensity contemplated herein in the Business Park zone, and there are no changes proposed by the project or its circumstances, nor any new information unavailable at the time of the 1983 EIR, that indicates that new or more severe environmental impacts will occur from the proposed project beyond the potential Impacts analyzed in the prior EIR. Nor are any new mitigation measures or alternatives available that would substantially reduce onsite project impacts beyond those analyzed in the prior EIR.
Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan policies, design guidelines, and development standards; and
Attachment 2
1483
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page2
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2025, the City's Development Management Team (DMT) reviewed the proposed project and determined it complies with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable City ordinances and codes; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2025, the City's Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) considered the project and supports it with design changes related to landscaping and signage; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated and adopted as findings of the Planning Commission as fully set forth in this resolution.
Section 2. CEQA Findings.
Based upon its review of the entire record, including the Staff Report, any public comments or testimony presented to the Planning Commission, and the facts outlined below, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council finds and determines that the proposed project is consistent with the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan and its underlying Environmental Impact Report. Therefore, no further review under the California Environmental Quality Act is necessary pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15183.
The potentially significant environmental impacts from the project were already analyzed in the prior EIR adopted for the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan in 1983. No changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR. The proposed Project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, and the proposed FAR is .27. The Project results in half of the floor area allowed in the Business Park zone, and less than, or approximately equal to, half of parking spaces required for a project at the maximum FAR of .5. In addition to a FAR less than the maximum, the proposed building heights are below or at the maximum allowed height of 35 feet, and as a result the site will also see a lower intensity of trip generation. Therefore, all the potential environmental impacts of the Project were analyzed in the prior EIR and no changes or revisions to that document are necessary. Nor is there any new information of supstantial importance, not known at the time of the adoption of the EIR, that indicates new or more severe impacts or the availability of new alternatives or mitigation measures, and 1484
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page 3
no changes to the prior EIR are necessary. Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan policies, design guidelines, and development standards as outlined in the findings below.
The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. However, Section 15183 still requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. The project description assessed in the 1983 EIR included the development of the subject project site as a business park, along with other uses within the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan such as residential, commercial, open space, and a school. Here, the project consists of a business park complex with 11 new industrial buildings, without changes to the specific plan's land use map. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project is consistent with relevant mitigation measures adopted in the 1983 EIR relating to geology, soils, and topography; hydrology; water quality; biological resources; land use; visual and aesthetic resources; traffic and circulation; energy; and community services and public utilities. Precise grading must be based on the projectspecific geotechnical study that is subject to final review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of any permits, and is required to include an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan (geology, soils, and topography). In addition to the required precise grading plan, the project is deemed a Priority Project under the State NPDES permit and a Final Water Quality Management Plan will be required prior to the issuance of any permits (water quality). The project does not alter any streambed nor propose development on areas zoned as open space, with exception of trees being planted on the adjacent open space hill to the north of the project site, in the event the project applicant obtains authorization from the association that owns said adjacent open space (biological resources). The applicant is proposing storm drain improvements onsite to accommodate runoff water generated onsite under developed conditions, and to control runoff downstream (hydrology). A final comprehensive landscape plan must be approved and implemented, consistent with the preliminary comments provided by the City's Landscape Consultant which address compliance with the Hillside Development policies, and ensure the preservation of the adjacent ridgeline view (visual and aesthetic resources). Internal roadways within the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan that provide access to the project site, including parking areas in compliance with parking requirements, have been previously provided and will remain. Additionally, Regional Circulation Financing and Phasing Program (RCFPP) impact fees are applicable to this development, per the original subdivision requirements of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan (traffic and circulation). All new buildings are subject to non-residential building standards in Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code (energy). The project site is in a developed area where public services and utilities are 1485
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page4
available to support the project. The project's water and sewer systems were reviewed by the Utilities Division and Orange County Fire Authority for compliance with water and sewer standards, including fire flow standards. The project does not propose removal or an alteration to the nearby water reservoir (community services and public utilities). Together, all the above project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
Section 3. Development Permit Findings
With respect to Development Permit (DP) 25-224, for new non-residential buildings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council finds as follows:
A. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, in that:
1. The project consists of high-quality contemporary architecture and landscaping, with 7 4 adaptable tenant suites within 11 buildings that can be combined and occupied by industrial-type uses, such as, medical offices, light manufacturing, professional offices, research and development, service uses, and warehouse/wholesale, and commercial recreation with a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, an amenity hub is provided for tenants/employees with amenities such as a gym, golf simulator, and an ocean-view deck. The 7 4 new industrial suites totaling 234,714 square feet of floor area will increase job opportunities within the Business Park, while remaining compatible with surrounding development, consistent with the following developmental policies of the City: Industrial Land Use Goal, which states, "Create and maintain diverse employment opportunities located in areas that provide strategic advantages for employers to locate in San Clemente, provide headof-household jobs, generate municipal revenues, and improve quality of life, while minimizing impacts on surrounding neighborhoods."; and the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Goal, which states, "Maintain and promote the Rancho San Clemente and Talega Business Parks as a premier office and industrial location for start-up businesses, expanding businesses, and for businesses relocating to San Clemente."; and Land Use Element Policy 8.01 - Priorities, which states, "Pursuant to the Economic Development Strategy, we assign a high priority to those initiatives, investments, and development approvals that contribute to our vision of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park as a premier office and industrial employment center that capitalizes on San Clemente's access to the Orange County and San Diego County markets.";
2. The project consists of adequate setbacks between the buildings and streets, and between each building, for compliance with minimum setback requirements and drive aisles meeting Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and CR&R standards. Prominent landscaped buffers are proposed on the west and east side of the project adjacent to the streets. To the north of and adjacent to the project site is a landscaped strip of land zoned as open space (OS2), providing a natural buffer between the project and the nearest 1486
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page 5
developed site to the north. The project includes a small landscaped buffer with a pedestrian walkway on the south side of the project site, for access to the adjacent ridgeline trail, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-3.03 - Buffers and Setbacks, which states, 'We require that new uses and buildings, characterized by differing functions, activities, density, scale and massing, to provide conditions of approval, landscaped buffers and/or setbacks between uses to prevent or reduce adverse impacts.";
3. The project's mass, scale, and form are compatible and in character with surrounding industrial development in that the proposed buildings consist of one story with mezzanine levels, human scale elements such as entry canopies over primary entry doors, typical industrial building footprints, and flat roofs. Surrounding industrial buildings consist of one, two, and three-story buildings with flat roofs, and similar building footprints. The project and existing development generally consist of long uninterrupted wall planes as expected to accommodate industrial-related uses, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-5.1 0 - Scale and Massing, which states, 'We require that the scale and massing of development be compatible with its surroundings and with the General Plan, applicable specific plan and or area plan.•~
4. The site has a downward slope from east to west with a grade difference of 100 feet, and sits at the highest point within the Business Park and about 70- feet below a ridgeline, near the Knob Hill and Forster Ranch Ridgeline Trail public vista points. The proposed development has two zones - a higher pad on the east side with seven buildings and a lower pad on the west side with four buildings, with a landscaped buffer in between both pads. The site plan is consistent with General Plan Policy UD-5.14 - Building Design with Topography, which states, "Building design shall consider the site's natural topography, public view corridors and adjacent building profiles so that canyonization is avoided.'~
5. Proposed landscaping consists of drought-tolerant and native species primarily on the development's edges and throughout the development, consistent with General Plan Policy UD-5.18 - Drought Tolerant/Native Species Landscaping, which states, "Ornamental plantings in new, nonresidential development should consist primarily of drought tolerant and California native species. Only in small areas and special public locations, such as high-use areas of parks, should lawns or other high water use vegetation be used.'~ and
6. The project incorporates bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented features such as walkways, an amenity hub, and bicycle parking throughout the development.
The project supports recreational goals by providing a walkway that connects the ridgeline trail to sidewalks at both Calle Sombra and Calle Cordillera.
Additionally, the project also provides a shower within the amenity hub to encourage active transportation to the development, consistent with General Plan Policy M-2.48 - Bicycle- and Pedestrian Oriented Site Design, which states, "The project incorporates bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented features 1487
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page6
such as walkways, an amenity hub, and bicycle parking throughout the development. The project supports recreational goals by providing a walkway that connects to the ridgeline trail. Additionally, the project a/so provides a shower within the amenity hub to encourage active transportation to the development."
B. As conditioned, the proposed project complies with zoning regulations, in that:
1. The tallest building point is proposed at 35 feet, in compliance with the height limit of 35 feet;
2. The project provides significantly more than a 20-foot setback from Calle Cordillera and Calle Sombra, in compliance with the minimum setbacks of 20 feet from Calle Cordillera, and 15 feet from Calle Sombra;
3. The project's FAR is .27 (234,714 square feet), in compliance with the maximum FAR of .5 (451,935 square feet);
4. The project is conditioned to comply with Trip Reduction and Travel Demand Management standards pursuant to SCMC 17.76 (Condition of Approval
4.15);
5. The project provides 487 parking spaces, where 487 parking spaces are required for the anticipated uses; and
6. The project meets landscaping requirements in that 15% of the site and the front setback area is landscaped.
C. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines, in that:
1. The site has a downward slope from east to west with a grade difference of 100 feet, and sits at the highest point within the Business Park and about 70- feet below a ridgeline, near the Knob Hill and Forster Ranch Ridgeline Trail public vista points. The proposed development has two zones - a higher pad on the east side with seven buildings and a lower pad on the west side with four buildings, with a landscaped buffer in between both pads. The proposed grading resulting in the two pads follows the site's topography. Additionally, the one-story nature of the project helps maintain visibility of the ridgeline located behind the project, consistent with Design Guideline 302 VI. Ridgeline Views, which states, "Building pads should be designed and sited in a manner that compliments the natural topography and does not interrupt the view of the primary ridgeline from selected public vista paints. The ridgeline should be visible as a backdrop far development, allowing for the appearance of ridgeline between the roafline and the skyline.";
2. The project consists of stairs and an accessible ramp which directly connects the upper and lower building pads. Additionally, a pedestrian path is provided 1488
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page?
along the south of the property, providing access to each building pad and the adjacent ridgeline trail, consistent with Design Guideline 303 Ill.A. Pedestrian Orientation, which states, ''The siting of buildings around common pedestrian walkways is encouraged. Pedestrian walkways should be provided connecting individual buildings.';
3. Proposed exterior lighting consists of fixtures that direct light downward.
Additionally, as a condition of approval, a photometric plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division, prior to issuance of a building permit, to ensure lighting remains within the project site, consistent with Design Guideline 303 111.B. Outdoor Lighting, which states, "Parking lot and outdoor lighting should be the minimum needed to accommodate safety and security, while minimizing impacts on surrounding residential areas.
Lighting of any facility should be oriented away and shielded from neighboring residential properties. In addition, the lighting should not be excessively intense so as to impact neighboring properties nor passing traffic on adjacent streets. Decorative fixtures with shields to direct light downward should be used for overhead lighting. Bollard or other low-height lighting should be used whenever possible for pedestrian areas. Light fixture design should be consistent with the character of the project.';
4. One six-foot high and 10-foot-wide code-compliant, project identification sign is proposed on the northeast comer of the site with the development's name.
The sign consists of fabricated aluminum and low-profile LED lighting, consistent with Design Guideline 303 111.C. Project Identification Signs, which states, "Projects should be identified by low-level monument signing in order to provide business center identification. Such signs may include logos and should be harmonious in scale, form, materials, and colors with project buildings, walls, and other structures. Signs must comply with the Sign Ordinance.';
5. Proposed building footprints have insets at each suite's entry with staggered angled facades along each building's front elevation. Additionally, each suite has a canopy projecting over its entry. Low-height landscaping is also integrated along the front of suites, consistent with Design Guideline 303 I1.D.
Variations in Building Footprint, which states, "Building footprints should be designed with variations composed of insets, entries, corners, and jogs integrated with adjacent outdoor areas in order to create visual interest and give a sense of small scale.";
6. Sufficient space is provided in between buildings to accommodate landscaping, walkways, and drive aisles that meet OCFA and CR&R standards. The site's natural topography allows for landscaped buffers that screen project parking areas from adjacent streets, consistent with Design Guideline 303 I11.E.1 Parking Lot Buffering, which states, ''There should be a buffer area of at least five (5) feet between buildings and parking areas or driveways in order to avoid placing paved vehicular areas next to building walls. Except where there are walkways, this buffer area should be 1489
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page8
landscaped. Parking and circulation areas should be screened from the street by landscaping and berming. •~
7. The project provides free-standing architectural walls at each site entry made up of concrete and aluminum which accommodate project signage as a gateway feature into the site. To further emphasize the entries, decorative paving and landscaping is also provided at each entry, consistent with: Design Guideline 304 I.A. Project Entries, which states, "Major project entries should be designed as special statements reflective of the character of the project in order to establish identity for residents, commercial tenants, and visitors.
Special paving textures, flowering accents, and specimen trees should be used to reinforce the entry statement.•~ Design Guideline 304 I.E. Decorative Paving, which states, "Decorative paving at project entries and interior project pedestrian areas should be used. This should consist of brick, tile, pavers, stamped concrete, or similar materials."; and Design Guideline 305 111.G Entries, which states, "The main public entrance should be readily visible from the street, parking area, and pedestrian connection. Emphasis on the entry can be achieved by concentrating a secondary material at the entry with a major projection or recess.";
8. Landscaping in the form of trees and low-height planting is provided along the property edges, and within the development, for compliance with Hillside Development policies, consistent with Design Guideline 304 I.D. Boundary Landscaping, which states, "Boundary landscaping should be installed along all property lines with at least one tree planted for every 30 lineal feet on average. Also, landscape mounding should be used along all arterial highways unless determined unfeasible by the Planning Commission or City Council as appropriate, due to safety or other site considerations.•~
9. The proposed buildings have flat roofs and a maximum height of 35 feet with building lengths close to 400 feet, to accommodate industrial-related uses.
Parapet walls are provided, with some comer portions extending higher than the rest of respective buildings to visually improve roof lines. The parapet walls also provide screening for rooftop equipment. Each building's front elevation consists of canopies, canopy signage, staggered suite entrances with an angled fagade, landscaping, signage, a mix of wall materials that make up geometric patterns, and accent colors. Additionally, all other building elevations contain the same level of detail with the exception of the entry canopies and canopy signage, consistent with: Design Guideline 305 Ill.A.
Building Mass and Form, which states, "Massing should be simple and possess strongly integrated geometric forms. The massing should relate to the internal function and nature of the space it is intended to enclose. The building should contrast the solid mass of facade with the lighter elements of the entry. The facade should clearly identify and direct people to the entry.
The use of strong shadow lines created by recesses and projections are highly encouraged."; Design Guideline 305 111.B. Articulation, which states, "Differentiation of building facades through the use of materials, colors, and architectural details is encouraged. One-sided architecture, where only the 1490
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page9
dominant street frontage possesses articulation, should be avoided. If a separate parking structure is provided, the design should be integrated."; Design Guideline 305 111.C. Roofs, which states, "The roof of a larger buildings should generally be flat with the minimum slope necessary for adequate drainage. The use of mansards and other pitched roofs on the major structures are discouraged. Gabled roofs may be acceptable for smaller buildings. Flat roofs should be surrounded by a parapet which is a continuation of the facade material.'~ and Design Guideline 305 111.D.
Screening of Equipment, which states, "All roof equipment should be screened to prevent equipment being visible from an off-site horizontal line of sight. This can be done with either a parapet or screen wall designed to be an integral part of the building. Any roof-mounted equipment which is visible from an adjacent building or from surrounding terrain should be located in a compact, neat, and organized manner. Such equipment should be painted to match the surrounding roof surface. Exterior wall drainage, utilities, cabinets, and other systems should be integrated into the design."; and
10. The predominant material is painted and textured concrete, with secondary materials such as glass and metal. The color palette consists of gray/blue tones as primary colors, and green, orange, and blue as accent colors, consistent with: Design Guideline 305 111.E., which states, 'Wall materials are divided into two categories. Those dominant materials which comprise seventy (70) to ninety (90) percent of the building's elevation, should consist of painted or textured concrete, brick, split-faced block, or glass (not to exceed 70%). Glass should not have a reflective factor of greater than thirty percent.
The remaining accent or entry materials should consist of tile, plaster, glass block, stone, and some metals. Prohibited materials include wood siding, shingles, and pre-engineered types of metal siding. If covered parking or a parking structure is included, the design details and materials should be integrated and complement the major building."; and Design Guideline 305 111.F., which states, "Dominant materials generally should be in the range of earth tone, gray, or off white. Secondary material colors should complement and act as a tasteful accent to the dominant material color." D. As conditioned, the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity, in that:
1. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant will plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
2. All required parking for the project is provided on site; 1491
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page 10
3. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
4. The project provides a pedestrian pathway along the south of the property for public access to the adjacent ridgeline trail;
5. Exterior site and landscaping lighting is provided throughout the site, subject to Building Code standards. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 4.14 requires approval of a photometric plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit;
6. The project is subject to the California Building Code Standards, Orange County Fire Authority standards, and other applicable Code requirements;
7. The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451',935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR);
8. The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or gen~ral plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. However, Section 15183 still requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183;and
9. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan.
1492
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page 11
E. The proposed project is in character and compatible with the properties in the neighborhood, in that:
1. The project's mass, scale, and form are compatible in character with surrounding industrial development in that the proposed buildings consist of one story with mezzanine levels, human scale elements such as entry canopies and man doors, typical industrial building footprints, and flat roofs.
Surrounding industrial buildings consist of one, two, and three-story buildings with flat roofs, and similar building footprints. The project and existing development generally consist of long uninterrupted wall planes as expected to accommodate industrial-related uses;
2. All required parking is provided on site with landscaping along parking areas; and
3. Project identification and landscaping is provided at entry points.
Section 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings
With respect to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 25-223, for the commercial recreation use, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council finds as follows:
A. The proposed use is permitted within the subject zone pursuant to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all the applicable provisions of Title 17, the San Clemente General Plan and the purpose and intent of the zone in which the use is being proposed, in that:
1. The project consists of 7 4 adaptable tenant suites that can be combined and occupied by industrial-type uses, such as, medical offices, light manufacturing, professional offices, research and development, service uses, and warehouse/wholesale, and commercial recreation with a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, an amenity hub is provided for tenants/employees with amenities such as a gym, golf simulator, and an ocean-view deck. The 7 4 new industrial suites totaling 234,714 square feet of floor area will increase job opportunities within the Business Park, while remaining compatible with surrounding development, consistent with the following developmental policies of the City: Industrial Land Use Goal, which states, "Create and maintain diverse employment opportunities located in areas that provide strategic advantages for employers to locate in San Clemente, provide headof-household jobs, generate municipal revenues, and improve quality of life, while minimizing impacts on surrounding neighborhoods."; Rancho San Clemente Business Park Goal, which states, "Maintain and promote the Rancho San Clemente and Talega Business Parks as a premier office and industrial location for start-up businesses, expanding businesses, and for businesses relocating to San Clemente.'~ and Land Use Element Policy 8.01 - Priorities, which states, "Pursuant to the Economic Development Strategy, we assign a high priority to those initiatives, investments, and development 1493
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page 12
approvals that contribute to our vision of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park as a premier office and industrial employment center that capitalizes on San Clemente's access to the Orange County and San Diego County markets."
B. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use that is proposed, in that:
1. The commercial recreation use is restricted to operate within one building only, and Condition of Approval No. 7.5 limits the operation of a commercial recreation use to require no more than 76 parking spaces;
2. Condition of Approval No. 7.6 restricts drop-off/pick-up zones unless approved by the Planning Commission. This restriction facilitates vehicular and pedestrian circulation while other industrial-related uses are operating on site;
3. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant may plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
4. All required parking for the project is provided on site;
5. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
6. The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the build out of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR); and
7. The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. However, Section 15183 still requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that 1494
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page 13
were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new infom,ation that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
C. As conditioned, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity, in that:
1. The commercial recreation use is restricted to operate within one building only, and Condition of Approval No. 7.5 limits the operation of a commercial recreation use to require no more than 76 parking spaces;
2. Condition of Approval No. 7.6 restricts queuing and drop-offs/pick-ups on drive aisles unless a revised site plan which accommodates queuing and drop-offs/pick-ups is approved by the Planning Commission. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 7.9 requires all customers to park and walk to their destination. These conditions of approval facilitate vehicular and pedestrian circulation while other industrial-related uses are operating on site. The applicant is also required, as a Condition of Approval, to incorporate the restrictions and requirements above in CC&Rs;
3. Condition of Approval No. 7.7 requires commercial recreation classes to be staggered by a minimum of ten minutes in between the end and start of each class;
4. Condition of Approval No. 7.8 requires that property management maintain and provide to the Planning Division an updated parking table that tracks the amount of parking spaces available as suites are occupied;
5. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant may plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;
6. All required parking for the project is provided on site; 1495
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page 14
7. Adequate trash enclosures are provided per CR&R Environmental Standards;
8. The project provides a pedestrian pathway along the south of the property for public access to the adjacent ridgeline trail;
9. Exterior site and landscaping lighting is provided throughout the site, subject to Building Code standards. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 4.14 requires approval of a photometric plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit;
10. The project is subject to the California Building Code Standards, Orange County Fire Authority standards, and other applicable Code requirements;
11. The scope of the impacts from the proposed project was analyzed in the prior EIR that considered of the buildout of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area, and no changes to the project site or its circumstances are occurring, nor is there new previously unavailable information, that could result in new or more severe impacts than the potential impacts analyzed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project will result in a reduction in the intensity of development and uses allowed on the site, thereby reducing the risk of any potential environmental impacts below those considered in the prior EIR, in that, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Business Park zone is .5, or 451,935 square feet for the project site, and the proposed floor area is 234,714 square feet (.27 FAR);
12. The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. However, Section 15183 still requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. In this case, the project is precisely the kind of project envisioned in the 1983 EIR, which was adopted for current general plan, community plan, and zoning requirements. There are no effects of the project that are peculiar or unique to the project site, nor are there any new or more severe potentially significant onsite or offsite impacts of the proposed project that were not already analyzed in the prior EIR. The project elements and associated conditions of approval implement the mitigation measures identified in the 1983 EIR. For these reasons, the project does not require further environmental review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines section 15183;and
13. The project site is in a developed area where public services and utilities are available to support the proj~ct.
1496
-- --------- ---------------
Resolution No. PC 25-012 Page 15
D. As conditioned, the proposed use will not negatively impact surrounding land uses, in that:
1. The commercial recreation use is restricted to operate within one building only, and Condition of Approval No. 7.5 limits the operation of a commercial recreation use to require no more than 76 parking spaces;
2. Condition of Approval No. 7.6 restricts queuing and drop-offs/pick-ups on drive aisles unless a revised site plan which accommodates queuing and drop-offs/pick-ups is approved by the Planning Commission. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 7.9 requires all customers to park and walk to their destination. These conditions of approval facilitate vehicular and pedestrian circulation while other industrial-related uses are operating on site. The applicant is also required, as a Condition of Approval, to incorporate the restrictions and requirements above in CC&Rs (Condition of Approval No.
2.6);
3. Condition of Approval No. 7.7 requires commercial recreation classes to be staggered by a minimum of ten minutes in between the end and start of each class;
4. Condition of Approval No. 7.8 requires that property management maintain and provide to the Planning Division an updated parking table that tracks the amount of parking spaces available as suites are occupied;
5. The project is proposed entirely within the property, and no part of the development encroaches into the public right-of-way. However, the applicant may plant trees in the future on the adjacent open space lot to the north of the project, in the event ownership ·of the adjacent lot authorizes the planting of trees on said space. Condition of Approval No. 4.13 requires the applicant to submit to and obtain approval from the City Planner, or designee, a landscape plan showing the location and type of trees to be planted;