Design review subcommittee reviews Luminar Business Park plans; asks for more landscaping, limits on public-facing uses

San Clemente City’s Design Review Subcommittee on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, reviewed plans for Luminar Business Park, a proposed commercial development in the Rancho San Clemente specific plan area that would include 11 buildings and 474 parking spaces and that requires a conditional use permit, development permit, tentative map notation and a discretionary sign permit.

The project team described the site, the circulation and an “amenity hub” at the center of the plan; staff and commissioners focused their feedback on landscaping along the north ridgeline, the project’s color palette and the master sign program, as well as controls to keep more public-facing commercial recreation uses from overwhelming shared circulation and parking.

"We have a a review of a public hearing project ... it's called Luminar Business Park," the subcommittee chair said at the start of the presentation. David, the city planning staff member presenting the item, summarized the proposal: "As far as the project description, briefly, it's an industrial complex with 11 contemporary style buildings. This project includes 474 parking spaces," he said.

Rick Lutzky, the owner’s representative, told the subcommittee he represents SC Holding LLC, the site owner, and that the owner intends a long-term, family-held development: "I'm Rick Lutzky. My company is Lutzky Development. I'm acting in the capacity as the owner's representative here representing, an LLC, SC Holding LLC, which is owned by a gentleman named Fasha Majore." Designer Francisco Quadias described the team’s design intent: "we we wanna make sure that the project belongs and fits in."

What was proposed

- Permits sought: conditional use permit (CUP) for a commercial recreation tenant building, a development permit, a tentative track map (noted "for condominium purposes") and a discretionary master sign program. - Program and site: 11 buildings with a mix of office, light industrial/warehouse and one building in the plan designated for commercial recreation uses; a new private street, Via Verona, connects the two campus pads; a central amenity hub (team said the amenity hub is "about 3,000 square feet"). - Access: two drive points from Calle Cordillera and Calle Sombra; pedestrian connections to an existing ridge/trail; the site slopes downward west-to-east with a grade difference the team said they are accommodating in the design. - Parking: 474 on-site spaces total. The applicant intends to reserve one building for commercial recreation and asked that the city allow commercial recreation uses in that building that meet a 1 space per 200 square feet parking ratio. The project team said they would maintain an on‑site parking management table that tracks tenant square footage and required parking so staff can confirm the shared parking balance as tenants lease space.

Key items subcommittee and staff flagged

- Hillside/visual integration: staff recommended the applicant use more earth‑tone accent colors on north‑facing elevations to better comply with the city’s hillside development requirements and to present additional visual simulations (viewshed studies) showing how the development will appear from offsite vantage points.

- Landscaping and ridgeline screening: commissioners and staff emphasized landscape design along the north property line and the need to soften the high retaining walls. The project team and landscape architect described a planting strategy that relies on planting vines at the base of tall walls and increasing evergreen massing where feasible. The project team said the geotechnical report constrains irrigation and infiltration along parts of the north wall; staff and the team agreed to work with city landscape reviewer Pat Murphy on plant selection and placement.

- Geotechnical and stormwater constraints: staff noted geotechnical conditions on the slope require limited or no infiltration in some locations. The project team said they are planning closed, lined stormwater solutions and a planting bench at the base of walls so vines can be irrigated and maintained without introducing infiltration into sensitive slope areas.

- Signage and entry portals: the applicant presented a master sign program and two portal wall concepts. Staff asked the applicant to refine the monument sign/portal design and to clarify which elements are project identification versus tenant identification; the sign shown in the package included a taller logo element the team said could be up to 15 feet. Staff indicated the planning record will need to justify any height or area exceptions and requested refined drawings showing the monument sign in context with landscape and approach views.

- Commercial recreation and circulation/parking controls: commissioners asked the applicant to limit the kinds of public‑facing uses that could locate at the commercial‑recreation building (for example, to exclude schools or other high‑drop‑off uses that would generate different parking and drop‑off patterns). The applicant and staff proposed a condition to allow only commercial‑recreation tenants that meet the 1 space per 200 square foot ratio in that building and to require a sitewide parking‑management plan and property manager oversight to ensure shared parking is not exceeded.

Public comment and concerns

A member of the public, resident Amanda Quintanillo, spoke during the meeting and raised traffic and slope stability concerns about the site and asked whether the project had consulted adjacent homeowners’ associations and whether traffic effects had been studied; she also reminded staff and the applicant of the community’s previous opposition to very large distribution uses on the same site. She said, "I'm really concerned ... how much traffic was gonna be coming through this area," and asked for clarity about soil/landslide risk.

Applicant and team responses

The applicant’s representatives repeatedly described the project as a long‑term investment intended to produce multi‑tenant business suites and an amenity that would be used by tenants. The team explained how they sited a single building close to Calle Sombra to house commercial‑recreation uses, so those uses would not circulate through the whole campus. The applicant also said on‑site management, CC&Rs and a tenant schedule would control commercial vehicle or outdoor storage and protect shared circulation.

Process and next steps

No entitlements were granted at the design‑review meeting. The subcommittee asked the applicant to return with clarified landscape plans, view simulations from offsite vantage points, a refined sign program and a parking‑management approach. Staff said it will work with the applicant and with Pat Murphy (the city’s landscape reviewer) to test revisions before the formal public hearing. The project team and staff said the project is tentatively scheduled for planning commission review in August (staff indicated the first August meeting was targeted), and the design review subcommittee is scheduled to meet again on July 23, 2025.

Quotes (selected)

"We have a a review of a public hearing project ... it's called Luminar Business Park," the chair said at the start of the item.

"As far as the project description, briefly, it's an industrial complex with 11 contemporary style buildings. This project includes 474 parking spaces," David, the city planning staff member, said during his presentation.

"I'm Rick Lutzky. My company is Lutzky Development. I'm acting in the capacity as the owner's representative here representing, an LLC, SC Holding LLC, which is owned by a gentleman named Fasha Majore," the owner’s representative said when introducing the development team.

"we we wanna make sure that the project belongs and fits in," designer Francisco Quadias said of the team’s design intent.

"I'm really concerned ... how much traffic was gonna be coming through this area," resident Amanda Quintanillo said during public comment.

Ending

The subcommittee did not take final action on any entitlement at the meeting; members instead requested the applicant revise the landscaping, signage and parking‑management materials and coordinate those revisions with city staff and Pat Murphy before the planning commission hearing. The design review subcommittee will reconvene on July 23 and the project team anticipates formal planning commission review in August.