MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 21, 2026 @ 6:00 p.m.
San Clemente City Hall Council Chamber
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cosgrove called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente to order at 6:01 p.m. The meeting was offered in person at San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California, 92673, and also via live stream from the City’s YouTube Channel.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chair Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair Cameron Cosgrove; Vice Chair M. Steven Camp; Chair Pro Temp Scott McKhann; Gary McCaughan (arrived at 6:06 p.m.); Brett Freeman; and Patrick Griffin
Commissioners Absent: Karen Prescott-Loeffler
Staff Present: Christopher Wright, Senior Planner
David Carrillo, Lead Project Planner
John Ciampa, Contract Planner
Brendan Hanley, Planning Technician
Justin Tomayo, Acting Deputy City Attorney
Tamara Tatich, Recording Secretary
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.
4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/SPECIAL PRESENTATION
None.
5. MINUTES
A. Receive and file Minutes from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of December 3, 2025.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 2
IT WAS MOVED BY PATRICK GRIFFIN, SECONDED BY BRETT FREEMAN, AND CARRIED 5-1, VICE CHAIR CAMP ABSTAINED, COMMISSIONER PRESCOTTLOEFFLER ABSENT, TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2025.
B. Receive and file Minutes from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of December 17, 2025.
IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, SECONDED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER ABSENT, TO CONTINUE APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 17, 2025 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
6. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 23-478, Shoreline Church Remodel, 211 Avenida Fabricante
A public hearing to consider a request for an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 13-006 (AM CUP13-006) to remodel and internal expansion of the existing church sanctuary to 579 seats and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23- 478) for a proposed daycare use at a property in the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan area. A Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP 25-557) is requested for shared parking and off-site parking for the additional parking required for the proposed intensification and new uses to the site. The project is also requesting a Development Permit (25-560) for exterior façade enhancements and two new decks at the rear and east side of the property that would partially extend over the property lines and into the adjacent Private Open Space (OS2) zoned lot (under ownership of Shoreline Church). The proposed decks are necessary to provide the state-mandated outdoor play area for the proposed daycare use.
The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction of Small Structures).
Having heard no disclosures reported by the Commission pertaining to the project, Chair Cosgrove opened the public hearing.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 3 Contract Planner Ciampa summarized a presentation titled, “Shoreline Church, AM CUP 13-006, CUP 23-478, MCUP 25-557, & DP 25-560.” A copy of the presentation is available by contacting the City of San Clemente Planning Division. Staff’s presentation highlighted:
• The church property is located within the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan in a business park zoning area, with adjacent private open space parcels.
• The original 2013 conditional use permit allowed 308 seats and a daycare for 80 children, but daycare use was never activated and expired. • The current proposal includes internal expansion (no building footprint increase) to accommodate more seating, preschool use, and upgrades to outdoor play areas via decks extending over private open space. • Parking demand for weekday operations (preschool, offices, café) would be met on-site (72 stalls restored after COVID-related changes), but weekend sanctuary service demand requires off-site parking agreements with 290 spaces within 1,000 feet and shuttle services.
• A traffic and parking management plan was reviewed and deemed adequate by City Traffic Engineers. Staggered preschool drop-off times were proposed to reduce congestion.
• Noise considerations: Amplified music during services requires doors/windows closed per municipal code; preschool noise exempt but mitigated with sound-absorbing fencing and operational measures. • Deck extensions over private open space parcels require lot tie agreements; this approach is consistent with precedent in the city. • Facade enhancements include awnings, siding, hardscape, and shade structures, designed to be consistent with the building’s architectural style. • Public Concerns: Two letters were received from the public expressing concerns about the facility's operations and the expansion of the decks into the open space area.
Commissioners Questions and Discussion:
• Clarification was sought on how parking agreement’s function, pedestrian circulation from off-site lots, noise mitigation, and the nature of the daycare/preschool program (ages 3-5, parents provide lunches, quiet nap times).
• Commissioners expressed concerns about the lack of formal Business Park Association (BPA) approval and potential for litigation but were advised by the city attorney that BPA approval is a private matter not required for city approval and should not influence the commission’s decision. • Noise and environmental concerns raised by public letters were addressed by staff and city attorney, who found no substantial evidence to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); the project was recommended for Categorical Exemption.
• Clarification with staff regarding the approved 308 seats being expandable to 700 seats, which is within the request for 579 seats. • Confirmed that the approved daycare use was approved but lapsed due to non-usage.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 4 Applicant Presentation:
Architect and applicant Tony Torres introduced Pastor George Hulse from Shoreline Church who provided an introduction about the church and its community. The applicants addressed the Commissioners’ questions and concerns:
• BPA: The applicant stated that the association is inactive with no formal meetings; however, they obtained signatures from individual property owners for CC&R amendments related to open space use.
• The deck addresses open space requirements for daycare, maintaining drainage and minimizing site impact.
• Expansion of the worship room will occur within the existing footprint by removing a storage room.
• Shared parking agreements will handle parking requirements, with volunteers managing pedestrian traffic and parking
Christopher Scott, Shoreline Church Director of Financial Stewardship was introduced to explain how traffic flows between the different properties.
Public Comments:
Brooklyn DeSoto: Preschool teacher and resident, spoke about the difficulty for working parents to find safe daycare. She believes the program would benefit children's cognitive, social, and motor skills. The timing of the program, with nap time from 12:30 to 2:30, would minimize noise impact on neighboring businesses.
Jaimie Holtz: Shoreline congregant and resident, mentioned that Shoreline will be implementing a program called "Pick My Kid" to help with traffic flow.
Laura Wilson: Shoreline congregant, educator and resident, believes there is a need for another faith-based preschool in San Clemente and that the church has an incredible facility for it.
Kayla Merwin: Shoreline congregant and resident, agrees that there is a need for preschool in the community, praising their care for the church body and community.
Following public comments, the Commission requested staff to describe the two public comment letters received. Senior Planner Wright reviewed the first from a BPR stating the board hasn't taken action, so their position isn't confirmed.
Deputy City Attorney (DCA) Tomayo and Senior Planner Wright explained that the Municipal Code doesn’t require a business park association’s approval for the Planning Commission to act, and that the requirement applies to residential homeowners’ associations. DCA Tomayo advised that CC&Rs are private documents between private parties, does not involve the City, and is not considered a Finding for making a determination; and cautioned the Commission to not rely on the CC&Rs in rendering a decision.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 5 The second letter from a property owner questioned the project's compliance with CC&Rs. DCA Tomayo stated that he reviewed the letters and did not find any substantial evidence being set forth in the letter that would change the analysis that is included in the staff reports and resolutions.
COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN MADE A MOTION TO REQUIRE BUSINESS PARK
ASSOCIATION APPROVAL A PREREQUISITE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION. THE MOTION DID NOT MOVE FORWARD DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO A DATE UNCERTAIN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN.
COMMISSIONER MCKHANN MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR CAMP, AND PASSED 4-2, COMMISSIONERS GRIFFIN AND MCCAUGHAN OPPOSED, COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER ABSENT.
Additional Public Comment (out of order due to oversight of speaker card):
Sandi Montez: Author of one of the letters and speaking on behalf of Carol and Tom Alexander, neighboring property owner expressed their concerns for parking and noise impacts and asked the issues are fully studied. Ms. Montez was also the author of one of the letters regarding the Rancho San Clemente Business Park (RSCBP) CC&Rs and stated that the BPA being referred to by the applicant is a sub-association and not RSCBP, the master association. Ms.
Montez stated that nothing has been addressed with the RSCBP and that there is not a parking lease agreement with the neighboring property as outlined in the staff report exhibit.
Applicant’s Responses to Public and Commissioner concerns:
Mr. Scott, clarified the BPA differences and the parking agreements made for weekdays versus weekends in that the preschool and café will not require parking agreements for the weekdays, in that the traffic routing efforts with parking agreements and a shuttle are on the weekends only when the businesses are not operating. Weekday parking is within the existing CUP.
Chair Cosgrove closed the public hearing.
Commissioner discussion continued regarding the BPA CC&Rs, CEQA and noise impacts. Chair Cosgrove polled the members to determine each members’ position on the item.
CHAIR COSGROVE MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR CAMP, MOTION PASSED 5-1, COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN OPPOSED,
COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER ABSENT TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT
IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA PURSUANT TO THE CEQA GUIDELINES §15301 AND §15303 AND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC 26-006 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-006, DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 23-478, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-557, AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-560, SHORELINE CHURCH, 211 AVENIDA FABRICANTE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPORVAL.
B. Public Hearing Permit (PHP) 25-488 / DP25-294, Rasta Taco, 424 N. El Camino Real
A public hearing to consider a request to consider Development Permit (DP) 25- 294 for site improvements to remodel an existing single-story building and construct an accessory building for restrooms and accessory patio spaces to support outdoor dining at 424 N El Camino Real, which is in the Mixed Use 3.0 Zone and within the Central Business and Architectural Overlays.
The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction of Small Structures).
Chair Cosgrove disclosed that the project had been presented to the Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) that was attended by Vice Chair Camp and Chair Pro Tem McKhann and opened the public hearing.
Planning Technician Hanley summarized a presentation titled, “Rita Chiquita Site Improvements, PHP25-488 DP25-531, January 21, 2026.” A copy of the presentation is available by contacting the City of San Clemente Planning Division.
Commissioners Questions and Clarifications:
The Commission clarified with staff that the applicant was seeking approval of a plan that was previously submitted to the DRSC and not the modified version presented post DRSC meeting. Planning Technician Hanley stated that the Commission has the ability to approve either the pre- or post- meeting plans and that the difference between plans are a minor exterior changes and architectural detailing. The site plan and floor plan are the same that DRSC reviewed.
Applicant Statement:
Chris Foerstel, the applicant and designer, introduced Mario Melendez, the owner.
• Foerstel explains that the intention at the DRSC meeting was to add "spider legs" to connect the fascia boards.
• Mr. Foerstel didn't think it was fair to compare the project to the Kaufman house.
• The "spider legs" would make it difficult for people to move around in the tight space.
• The original intention was to leave the Chris Able building untouched. • Mr. Foerstel is concerned that making connections would require a lateral on the building.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 7 • The new structures will feature T111 siding and beams around the patio cover, keeping the Chris Able building as the focal point. • Closing the curb will add two on-street parking spaces, bringing the total to about 30 seats.
Commissions Discussion:
Vice Chair Camp updated the other commissioners on the DRSC meeting:
• The DRSC was generally agreeable to maintaining the mid-century modern feel.
• They reviewed a previous, more evolved design last year that was too expensive.
• The location on El Camino Real is prominent and should be scrutinized more closely.
• The DRSC presented images of mid-century modern designs, including the Kaufman house, to inspire cohesive design elements.
• The DRSC felt the original design was disjointed and suggested connecting the fascia to link the buildings for a stronger architectural statement. • Not inclined to require the new design
• A suggestion was made to approve both versions as options.
Applicant’s Response:
Foerstel responded that tying the fascia board together across the front would be problematic due to the property line and the block wall that was the original firewall, and shared the owner prefers to leave the Chris Able building alone.
Commission Discussion:
• The design is referenced as a condition of approval, specifically 1.3. • Condition 1.3 reads "substantial conformance with approved plans.” "Substantial conformance" suggests flexibility in the design. • The main difference between the two designs is the continuation of the fascia board.
• El Camino Real frontage architectural designs is the primary focus, allowing comprise of removing the “spider legs” design feature from the rear.
Applicant’s Response:
Applicant agrees to running the fascia line across El Camino Real frontage to connect the two structures, and removing the spider legs from the rear as an acceptable compromise.
Chair Cosgrove closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN, AND SECONDED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER ABSENT
TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA PERSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES §15301 AND §15303, AND APPROVE RESOLUTION PC 26-001, PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT 25-488, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-294, RASTA TACO, 424 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WITH A MODIFICATION OF CONDITION 1.3 DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 8 TO STATE, “THAT THE CONFORMANCE OF THE APPROVED PLANS AS REFERENCED BY THE FRONT ELEVATION ON ATTACHMENT 5” WITH
CLARIFICATION THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPTS THE REMOVAL OF THE
SPIDER LEG ELEMENTS AND CONTINUING THE FASCIA BOARD ELEMENT ON THE FRONT ELEVATION.
C. Continued Public Hearing Item, Streamlining Batch Amendment A continued public hearing of the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the City of San Clemente Municipal Code Titles 2, 16, and 17, to streamline review processes for various types of projects, and be consistent with State Law, and clarify code sections. This includes a reworked Zoning Administrator review process that allows the City Planner to make decisions if a notice of future decision is sent to property owners within 300 feet of a site and there is not a request for an administrative hearing.
Staff recommends that the zoning amendments not be considered a “project” as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5), because the revisions relate to the ongoing administrative or discretionary activities and organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore do not constitute a “project” as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.).
The public hearing remained open from the December 17, 2026 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
Lead Project Planner Carrillo summarized a presentation titled, “Streamlining and Cleanup Amendments, January 21, 2026.” A copy of the presentation is available by contacting the City of San Clemente Planning Division. The topics were based on the feedback from the last meeting:
Zoning Administrator Review Process:
• Staff continues to mail notices of future public hearings to properties within 300 ft of the project site, including information on requesting an Administrative Hearing.
• Staff should be mindful of projects that could benefit from review by the design review subcommittee.
• Staff should maintain a public interest list for certain areas with previous concerns to notify residents within a 300 ft radius.
• Staff proposes removing the Planning Commission's ability to call up a zoning administrator decision; alternative language would allow the Planning Commission to review public appeals of Zoning Administrator decisions.
Dark skies ordinance/lighting ordinance:
• Staff recommends removing this item from the current amendments to work on a more comprehensive lighting ordinance.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 9 • Recommendation: Designate the Design Review Subcommittee as a task force to advise staff on lighting standards and work with the Dark Skies organization.
Temporary Parklet Dining:
• Commission Recommendation: the City Council should hold a hearing specifically for the parklet dining program to determine if it should be extended, revised, or terminated.
• Staff still recommends changing the code to extend the program from July 1st, 2026, to January 2029.
• Staff plans to present this item to the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Business Association on February 4th for feedback before going to the council.
Administrative Approval for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM):
• Allows new development on new parcels created from a tentative parcel map (four parcels or less) with a building permit.
• Currently, the code requires a discretionary process for any new development on new parcels created from any subdivision.
Commissioners Questions to Staff and Discussion:
Staff reviewed the redline changes of the appeal process with the Commission.
After discussion, the Commission unanimously preferred that the Planning Commission continue to be the hearing body for Zoning Administrator public appeals; however, would relinquish the right to review the Zoning Administrator decisions for the purpose of elevating, or calling up the project to the Commission for approval.
Commissioner McKhann requested §15.36.070 specific to grading permits be modified to state 250 cubic yards from the current 50 cubic yards. Staff suggested a motion be made to present the modification to the City Council.
Discussion on timing for permits and triggers for when a geological report is needed. Commissioners suggested adding a Minor Grading Permit to cover 50 to 250 cubic yards that is obtained through the Building Division versus Public Works as a streamlining measure for the City Council to consider.
The Commission had a discussion on fire regulations related to SB9 projects, and the removal of §17.86.010(E8) and the ramifications of doing so. The Commission was not supportive of remove processes that removed fire hazard mitigation measures. Staff suggested the Commission make general recommendations to staff to research the issues so staff can consider opportunities to remove some of these rules without creating unintended consequences, all of which will then be included in the report to City Council.
Chair Cosgrove closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR CAMP, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER ABSENT TO
DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 26-006 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 10 ZONING AMENDMENT 25-547 ZONING PERMIT STREAMLINING CLEAN-UP
AMENDMENTS BEING PROPOSED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, AND ADDITIONALLY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING:
• 3A: PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN THE ROLE AS THE
REVIEW BODY FOR PUBLIC APPEALS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DECISIONS.
• 3B: PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTS STAFF TO COMMUNICATE TO THE CITY
COUNCIL THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD EXTEND THE PARKLET PROGRAM FOR THREE YEARS.
• 3C: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGES THAT STREAMLINE THE GRADING PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS BY ADDING A "MINOR GRADING PERMIT " OPTION FOR PROJECTS THAT MOVE BETWEEN 50 AND 250 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL.
9. NEW BUSINESS
None.
10. OLD BUSINESS
None.
11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Commissioner Reports
Chair Cosgrove will not be available for the February 18, 2026 meeting. Vice Chair Camp will chair the meeting.
B. Tentative Future Agenda
Written report provided with the following changes:
• February 4, 2026 meeting may be cancelled.
• New Business items to be scheduled to February 18, 2026 meeting; and Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) to the March 4, 2026 meeting.
C. Administrative Permit Report
Written report provided.
D. Staff Reports
• Senior Planner Wright mentioned the SIP is part of the General Plan, and was last updated with the prior budget. Staff intends to get feedback on the SIP before it's incorporated into the draft long-term financial program. • David Carrillo was promoted to Lead Project Planner in the Planning Division.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2026 Page 11
12. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned to the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to be scheduled for Wednesday, February 18, 2026 at 6:00 p.m., which will be held at the San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente, California.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Cameron Cosgrove, Chair
Attest:
___________________________
Christopher Wright, Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission DRAFT