Loading...
PC Resolution-18-09-11-04PC RESOLUTION NO. 18-09-11-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEALS AND AFFIRMING, WITH ONE MODIFICATION, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF ZONE VARIANCE (ZV) 18-001 AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 18-003 RELATED TO PROPOSED LAND USE IMPROVEMENTS AT 31341 ANDRES PICO ROAD (APN: 124-201-30), THE GRIFFIN RESIDENCE (APPLICANT: ROBIN GRIFFIN) (APPELLANT: BRYAN JOHNSON) Whereas, property owners Gary and Robin Griffin request approval of a Zone Variance (ZV) 18-001 to allow a six-foot encroachment into the required sixteen-foot rear yard setback for a detached accessory structure greater than 450 sq. ft. and a ten-inch reduction of the required six-foot separation between a detached accessory structure and the main building at 31341 Andres Pico Road; and Whereas, property owners Gary and Robin Griffin request approval of a Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 18-003 to allow grading and installation of retaining walls to accommodate a new one-story 609 sq. ft. accessory structure and the conversion of an existing 134 sq. ft. storage room to a private chapel at 31341 Andres Pico Road. The proposed project requires the site to be cut by 35 cubic yards, and filled with 5 cubic yards, for a net export of 30 cubic yards of soil; and Whereas, at a duly noticed Public Hearing conducted on July 25, 2018, the Zoning Administrator received staff's report, considered public testimony, determined that the findings required for approval of a Zone Variance could be made and adopted ZV Resolution No. 18-07-25-01 approving ZV 18-001; and, Whereas, the proposed grading is considered a minor grade change and qualified tor a Director review. The Development Services Director approved Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 18-003 on July 26, 2018 as it was determined that all the necessary findings for approval were met; and, Whereas, the proposed project has been processed pursuant to Section 9- 2.301, Development Review of the Land Use Code; and, Whereas, the Environmental Administrator has reviewed the project pursuant to Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that the project is Categorically Exempt (Section 15303; Class 3 (a) "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures") from further review. The project is consistent with Section 15303 because the proposed project includes the construction of a new one-story 609 sq. ft. accessory structure, the conversion of an existing 134 sq. ft. storage room to a private chapel and the repair and modification to an existing office area attached to the rear of the garage in a residential zone; and PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 2 September 11 . 2018 Whereas, the Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Administrator's determination pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has considered all project environmental documentation and technical studies; and, Whereas, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of ZV18-001 was filed on August 9, 2018 by Mr. Bryan Johnson ("Appellant"), the property owner of the adjacent easterly property; and Whereas, the August 9, 2018 appeal of ZV 18-001 made the six assertions quoted below: 1. The applicant's representative acknowledged at a public CHC hearing (that is on video tape) that with a few minor design modification the applicant could build the project without requiring the variance. Requesting/granting this variance was for personal gain and not out of special circumstances. 2. Staff's report and findings are nothing more than a broad based unsubstantiated opinion. They do not identify the actual special conditions of the property nor identify previous variance granted that would specifically justify their support of the special circumstances for this Variance. All they do is list every variance ever approved in the neighborhood. 3. The applicant's lot did not come about through "organic development" as stated in the Staff report. The applicant specifically and intentionally purchased additional property from the adjacent neighbor and did a lot line adjustment in order to create the site for their new accessory structure. The applicant, through the advice and guidance of architectural professionals, made the decision on how large and what shape to make the additional site. If a mistake was made by the applicant and their consultants on how large to increase their lot and the applicant cannot achieve their desired goals, that is not hardship put rather professional .error. 4. The granting of this variance has bestowed special privileges to the applicant to build a taller and larger accessory structure than is allowed by the ordinances. These special privileges are not enjoyed by the two adjacent properties. Both of these adjacent properties have significantly smaller lots and more challenging lot shapes. Yet both of these properties have either built or received approval to build accessory structures that meet the 450 SF limitation, meet the structure height/rear yard setback requirements and did not require any variances. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 3 September 11. 2018 5. Staff has incorrectly identified the prosed project as a single-story building with a basement. In fact, it is a 22' tall, two story building that is trying to masquerade itself as a single-story building by artificially raising their natural grade by 4' to the detriment of the neighbor in order to have the bottom floor qualify as a basement. This is an obvious ploy on the part of the applicant and raises into question Staffs reasoning for pushing this controversial project through the approval process. 6. The existing accessory structure that is being remodeled requires a height variance also. Staff incorrectly identified the roof deck and handrails that are being added to this existing structure as being part of the new proposed structure and thus being covered by the ZV 18-001 variance. Per the building code the roof deck and handrails are part of the existing structure and thus require their own height variance in order to be constructed. Whereas, an appeal of the Development Services Director's approval of GPM 18-003 was filed by the Appellant on August 10, 2018; and Whereas, the August 10, 2018 appeal of GPM 18-003 made the ten assertions quoted below: 1. The grading work that is to take place on an existing pre-graded sloped with a 2:1 grade, a. The applicant is proposing to dig into the pre-graded slope to depth over 6'. This depth is greater than the 2' grade change allowed in 9-2.323 (f). b. The proposed project does not honor the recommended terracing of building pads on sloped sites as stated in the ordinances. c. The proposed 6' cut will be so close to the neighbor's property line that it will require engineered temporary shoring to support the existing neighbors structure, hardscape and buildings d. If the temporary shoring is not removed (it is typically buried in place) the applicant will not be able to reinstall the required landscape planting 2. The proposed landscape retaining walls will be 4' tall which will allow the applicant to level off the grade of their existing side yard 2: 1 slope with the highest point of their and the neighbor's existing slope. The net effect is that by raising the grade, the neighbor's finish grade elevation will be 4' taller than the neighbor's grade along their joint property line. This is greater than the 2' grade change. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 4 September 11, 2018 3. The proposed grading walls fail 5 of the 6 conditions required per policy directive 08-03. The only condition that they can meet is that the walls are not located in the front yard setback. Which tells you that the design of the walls is really bad. 4. Approval of the landscape walls in the GPM is significantly affecting the neighboring property view of the subject property. a. With out the non essential landscape walls, the applicant would not be able to build a 22' tall, two story structure and call it a single story structure over a basement. b. Loss of privacy. These non essential landscape walls are allowing the applicant to build their first floor elevation 3' above the first floor elevation of the uphill neighbor and taking away the neighbors privacy in their outside living space and also allowing the applicant to look into the interior space through the neighbor's ground floor windows. c. Loss of sunlight and horizon views. These non-essential walls are allowing the applicant to build their accessory structure 22' above the grade of the applicants existing residence thus blocking sunlight and the views of the surrounding mountains for the neighbor. 5. The proposed project does not minimize the use and height of retaining walls as required by the ordinances. The applicant is proposing to build non essential landscape walls that have nothing to do with the structural support of the proposed project and/or landscape design for the site 6. The proposed project does not meet the requirements for natural landform grading. The applicant is proposing to install retaining walls to level out an existing natural slope at its highest elevation for the sole purpose of circumventing the definition of a "story" to the detriment of the neighbor that shares the property line and same slope as the applicant. 7. Staff has incorrectly identified the applicants proposed structure as a single story over a basement. a. The grading plans do not support the claims made in the architectural documents regarding the Story Diagram calculation b. The definition of a "First Floor" is determined pursuant to the California Building Code. The CA building code requires the measurement of grade to take place at the property line. Unless the applicant builds their retaining walls all the way onto their property line (which will be impossible without an easement from the neighbors) the PC Resoluti on 18-09-11-04 5 September 11 , 20 18 finish grade will actually be the finish grade of the neighbors and not the artificial grade the applicant is proposing. 8. The approved grading plans are missing all the retaining walls required to build the accessory structure and thus should have been returned for corrections rather than approved. 9. The staff report incorrectly states "for the purpose of creating additional usable area in the northeast corner of the property, no viable alternative is available". a. The landscape property line retaining walls shown on the grading plan are not required for any practical, structural or usability purpose. Their sole purpose is to artificially raise the grade to circumvent the ground floor of the accessory structure being defined as a story and thus the first floor. b. If the applicant eliminated these proposed landscape retaining walls the structural design of the accessory building will actually be simplified because the first floor retaining walls would no longer have to support this artificially raised finish grade. 10. The staff report incorrectly states "the project has been designed to maintain the natural contours of the property and surrounding lots as shown on the plans, and do not effect the overall topography of the site or adjacent properties" a. Staff is well aware of the conditions of the joint slope that we share with the applicant because we received a GPM approved from them allowing us to gently terrace our slope with retaining walls. b. Rather than Staff requiring the applicant to match/complement our terracing they are allowing the applicant to completely level their slope and artificially raise their property 4' above our gentle terracing. c. The staff report does not provide valid or logical justification for their support of the landscape retaining walls at the joint property line. d. Why is staff allowing the applicant to build property line retaining walls that are higher than the grade/retaining walls of the adjacent property if they serve no purpose other than to allow the applicant to circumvent the definition of a "story". And result in damage to the neighboring views, privacy, and sunlight. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 6 September 11. 2018 Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on September 11, 2018, pursuant to Title 9, Land Use Code, Section 9-2.311 to consider public testimony the Appeals and has considered all relevant public comments; and, Whereas, the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission in this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented as well as the entirety of the administrative record, which is incorporated herein by this reference. The findings are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and, Whereas, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings and determinations as to the Appellant's six assertions in the August 9, 2018 appeal: 1. All property owners who contemplate an improvement to their property have the choice to build to existing Land Use Code development standards or seek a variance from those development standards. If a property owner applies for a zone variance, staff will review and analyze the specific circumstances related to the property and determine if the findings required for approval can be made. In this instance, staff prepared an analysis of the Applicant's variance request and determined that the necessary findings required for approval could be made, as enumerated in the attached staff report, and recommended approval of ZV18-001. The Zoning Administrator considered staff's analysis and the public testimony and determined that approval of the requested variance was warranted. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination. 2. The staff report detailed specific findings of fact to warrant approval of the zone variance. This included identification of special circumstances applicable to the property and identification of five properties within the same zoning district, and in the immediate vicinity, that received variances for structures not meeting the code required rear yard setback, as detailed in finding #1 of the staff report for ZV 18- 001. Staff did not list every variance ever approved in the neighborhood as asserted by the appellant, rather, the listed variances are germane to the subject zone variance as they all involve a reduction in the rear yard setback for either a primary or accessory structure. The Zoning Administrator concurred with staff's findings and adopted ZV Resolution No. 18-07-25-01, approving ZV 18-001. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 7 September 11. 2018 3. The discussion of Finding #1 in the staff report for ZV 18-001 states that the subject property was developed in 1929 and is located with the Mission Residential District (MRD) -4,000 which contains properties that were generally developed in the early-mid 1900's, pre-dating the City's Municipal Code. As a result, staff noted that the immediate area surrounding the Applicant's property was organically developed based on the topography of the land. This resulted in many of the surrounding parcels containing structures not conforming to the City's current development standards, including rear-yard setback requirements and the separation requirement between a detached accessory structure and the main building. Moreover, staff does not believe that the previous lot line adjustment is relevant to the findings required for approval for a zone variance. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination. 4. The granting of ZV 18-001 did not bestow special privileges to the applicant. Finding #2 of the staff report for ZV 18-001 details how the granting of the variance does not constitute the granting of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone district in which the subject property is situated. Furthermore, ZV 18-001 is related to a rear-yard setback encroachment and reduction of the separation requirement between a main building and an accessory building, not building height or size. The proposed accessory structure complies with the height and size limitations for a detached accessory structure as stipulated within Title 9, Land Use Code, of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code (SJCMC). SJCMC Section 9-3.501 (b )(2)(A) states that the height of a detached accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the principal structure on the building site. As demonstrated by the Building Height Diagram on Sheet A.1 of the architectural plans, the proposed accessory structure has a proposed height of 17'-8" while the existing principle structure, the single- family home with attached ~ara~e, has an existin~ hei~ht of 17'-9". Therefore, the height of the proposed accessory structure is code compliant. Per Appendix A, Definitions, of the Land Use Code, an accessory structure is defined as "Anything constructed or erected on the same lot or parcel as the principal use or approved conditional use that requires a building permit and has a permanent fixed location on the ground or is attached to something having a permanent fixed location on the ground which is incidental and subordinate to the main building or structure." The 17'-8" tall, 609 sq. ft. detached accessory structure meets this definition as it is incidental and subordinate to the 17'-9" tall, 2,526 sq. ft. main building with respect to height and size. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 8 September 11. 2018 5. The height of the proposed detached accessory structure is not 22'. Appendix A, Definitions, of the Land Use Code provides criteria for measuring allowable building height in a hillside area. Said definition states, in part, that the height is measured from the uppermost and lowermost finish grades of a building, typically measured at a point 5' away from the vertical building wall. The applicant demonstrated the height of the proposed accessory structure complies with this on Sheet A.1 of the architectural plans. The Applicant has demonstrated, via a Story Analysis on Sheet A-1 of the architectural plans, that the proposed accessory structure consists of a single-story structure with a basement as defined by the City's Land Use Code. The Land Use Code definition of a basement and story is stated as: Basement: Any floor level below the first story in a building (see Figure 2). CJUIWLSPACll Figure 2 Story: That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the top floor and the ceiling or roof above, as shown in Figure 1. If the space between the upper surface of the top floor and the roof above is designed for habitation, then it is considered a story. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under-floor space is more than six (6) feet above grade for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or is more than 12 feet above grade, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. However, the Applicant's story analysis does conflict with the finished grades detailed on the Applicant's submitted grading plan with respect to the portion of the finished floor above the proposed basement that is more than six feet above grade for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter. Exhibit A identifies a condition of PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 9 September 11 , 2018 approval requiring the story analysis on the construction plans to be revised to be consistent with the finished grades detailed on the submitted grading· plan to accurately reflect a single-story structure with a basement. The applicant is proposing to modify the grade adjacent to the southern wall of the proposed structure; there will be no modification to existing grades adjacent to the northerly, easterly, or westerly walls of the proposed structure. The applicant is raising the grade a maximum of 4' along the southeast portion of the structure for approximately 2 linear feet. The next 5.5 linear feet consist of a grade change of 3.5' to 1 ', with the modified grade meeting natural grade within another 5 linear feet. As a result, the modified grade only impacts 12.5 linear feet adjacent to the southern wall of the structure with the majority of the grade differential being less than 2'. Furthermore, the Administrative Approval of GPM 18-003 detailed specific findings of fact to warrant approval of the proposed modified grade. Lastly, the height of the proposed retaining walls along the side yard setback adjacent to the Appellant's property is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Code which permit a fence/wall up to 6' in height within the required side yard setback. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination and adopts the condition of approval noted in Exhibit A. 6. The existing 134 sq. ft. detached accessory structure, that is currently utilized as a storage shed and is proposed to be converted to a private chapel for the resident's use, is currently set back 9'-10.25" from the rear property line. The structure has an approximate height of 9'-5", thereby satisfying the rear-yard setback requirement per SJCMC 9-3.501 (b)(2)(0), which requires accessory structures less than 450 sq. ft. in size to maintain a minimum setback that is equivalent to the accessory structure's height. The proposed improvements related to the conversion of the storage shed to a private chapel will not result in the detached accessory structure exceeding 9'-10.25" in height; as result, the 134 sq. ft. detached accessory structure will continue to meet the rear-yard setback requirement. For the purpose of reviewing a proposed land use improvement for compliance with the Land Use Code (Title 9), definitions or requirements contained in the Building Code (Title 8) are not applied. With that being said, it is important to note the Land Use Code's definition of a Building: Building: Any structure for the shelter, housing, or enclosure of any person, animal, article, chattel, or property of any kind; when any portion thereof is completely separated from every other portion thereof by a division wall or firewall, without openings, each such portion shall be considered a separate building. The proposed 609 sq. ft. accessory structure will be attached to the existing 134 sq. ft. storage shed which will be converted to a private chapel; however, there will be no access or openings between the accessory structure and the chapel as they PC Resoluti on 18-09-11-04 10 September 11. 2018 will be completely separated by a division wall. As a result, per the City's code definition of a "Building", although the accessory structure and the proposed chapel will be touching, they are considered separate buildings by the City's code since they have no internal relationship. The existing 134 sq. ft. detached accessory structure currently meets, and will continue to meet, the rear-yard setback requirement for a detached accessory structure; therefore, the rear-yard setback variance request only applies to the proposed 609 sq. ft. accessory structure, which consists of a 34 7 sq. ft. basement living area and a 262 sq. ft. sitting room on the first floor with a 134 sq. ft. balcony. While the accessory structure's 134 sq. ft. balcony will be supported by the 134 sq. ft. proposed chapel, there will be no direct access or openings between the 134 sq. ft. chapel and the balcony, therefore the balcony is considered part of the proposed new accessory structure and not part of the proposed chapel conversion. The Zoning Administrator concurred with staff's determination and adopted ZV Resolution No. 18-07-25-01, approving ZV 18-001. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings and determinations as to the Appellant's ten assertions in the August 10, 2018 appeal: 1. With respect to the assertion under 1.a., SJCMC Section 9-2.232 (f) does not limit grade changes to 2', rather it identifies the criteria for determining which grading modification applications require review by the Planning Commission and which require administrative review. A major grade change, subject to review by the Planning Commission, consists of a change in elevation for primary structures of 2' or greater. The subject application is considered a minor change, which is subject to review by the Planning Director, per Section 9-2.323 (f), as it involves a grade change for an accessory structure, not the primary structure. With respect to the assertion stated under 1.b., the Appellant does not cite specific ordinances requiring terracing of building pads on sloped sites. There is another portion of the City's Land Use Code that applies to properties in the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district [Section 9.3.301 (c)(2)(F)(ii)] which requires "the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances through restrictions on successive padding and terracing of building sites in hillside areas." However, this project is in the MRD-4,000 district, which has no such requirement. The assertions under 1.c and 1.d are not applicable to the required findings for approval of a Grading Plan Modification. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 11 September 11. 2018 2. As addressed in staff's response to the above assertion, SJCMC Section 9-2.232 (f) does not limit grade changes to 2'. Furthermore, at no point is the Applicant's grade 4' above the Appellant's grade. The Applicant is proposing a retaining wall along the southerly side property line that is shared with the Appellant; said wall will be installed for a length of 17 linear feet directly adjacent to the Appellant's own proposed retaining wall. When comparing the Appellant's approved grading plan (Attachment 7, Enlarged View) to the Applicant's plan, the Applicant's retaining wall will be a maximum of 2.20 feet above the height of the Appellant's retaining wall and only for a few linear feet. In fact, after 9 linear feet the Appellant's retaining wall adjacent to the Applicant's retaining wall will actually be 2.27 feet above the Applicant's retaining wall adjacent to their southerly side property line. Therefore, staff believes that the Appellant's assertion is unsubstantiated. Lastly, and as enumerated within the attached staff report for GPM 18-003, the required findings for approval of a Grading Plan Modification were made. As a result, the proposed modification to existing grade is in conformation with the Land Use Code. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination. 3. On September 12, 2008, the Development Services Department created Policy Directive 08-03 in order to provide clear, consistent, and fair determinations for Grading Plan Modifications. The policy states that a Grading Plan Modification may be approved through an Administrative Approval if any one of the following six findings is made: 1) The grade differential and retaining wall height shall not exceed four feet (4'), except for emergency repairs; 2) The proposed or modified grade and retaining wall shall not be visible from any public right-of-way, road, public access, or trail; 3) The proposed or modified grade and retaining wall shall not be located in a front yard setback area; 4) The proposed or modified grade and retaining wall shall be lower (i.e. down slope) than the grade on the adjacent property; 5) Any grade and retaining wall over two feet (2') shall be screened and/or landscaped to soften the wall and be aesthetically attractive; 6) The applicant shall demonstrate that no other viable alternative is available to reduce the proposed or modified grade and retaining wall height. As aforementioned, the subject application is considered a minor change, subject to Planning Director review per Section 9-2.323 (f), as the grading involves a grade change for an accessory structure. As a result, the proposed grading is not subject to review for consistency with Policy Directive 08-03. However, prior to the Director's consideration of the Applicant's grading proposal, the Appellant raised concerns to staff about the Grading Plan Modification review and Policy Directive 08-03. Therefore, although not required, staff's analysis within the staff report for GPM 18-003 included a discussion of the project's consistency with Policy Directive 08-03. The Development Services Director determined that two of the six PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 12 September 11 , 2018 findings contained within the Policy Directive could be made, not one as the Appellant asserts. The inability to make the four remaining findings is not in any way indicative of poor design, rather, it simply means that the conditions of the site or project required to make the remaining four findings do not exist. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination. 4. SJCMC Section 9-2.323(f) provides required findings for approval of a GPM. Required finding #5 states, 'The proposed modified grading will not cause adverse impacts to other properties, including but not limited to potential impacts on hydrology, water quality, views, trail easements, or other aspects of development." The impact to views is limited to the physical changes to the site that will result from the modified grading, not from the resulting structures. This is supported by the fact that the City's Municipal Code does not contain a view protection ordinance. The assertion stated within 4.a is not substantiated; thus staff is unable to respond. Further, the staff response to the seventh assertion outlines the structure is a one- story structure. With respect to the assertions stated within 4.b and 4.c, the project complies with all development standards for properties within the MRD-4,000 zoning district, other than the deviations permitted by ZV 18-001; additionally, the City's Municipal Code does not contain a view protection ordinance. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination. 5. Staff does find that the proposed grading modifications limit the use and height of retaining walls. The above-grade portion of the retaining wall, located within the required side yard setback, has a height of less than 5'. It is important to note that the height of the retaining wall is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Code which permits a fence/wall up to 6' in height within the required side yard setback. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination. 6. Staff does find that the proposed grading modifications meet the requirements for natural landform grading. The proposed grading includes a design which maintains, to the greatest extent, the natural contours of the property, as evident by the minimal cut and fill of the site, which totals a net export of 30 cubic yards of soil. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 13 September 11 . 2018 7. The Applicant has demonstrated, via a Story Analysis on Sheet A-1 of the enclosed architectural plans, that the proposed accessory structure consists of a single-story structure with a basement as defined by the City's Land Use Code. The Land Use Code definition of a basement and story is stated as: Basement: Any floor level below the first story in a building (see Figure 2). Figure 2 Story: That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the top floor and the ceiling or roof above, as shown in Figure 1. If the space between the upper surface of the top floor and the roof above is designed for habitation, then it is considered a story. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under-floor space is more than six (6) feet above grade for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or is more than 12 feet above grade, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. However, the Applicant's story analysis does conflict with the finished grades detailed on the Applicant's submitted grading plan with respect to the portion of the finished floor above the proposed basement that is more than six feet above grade for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter. Exhibit A identifies a condition of approval requiring the story analysis on the construction plans to be revised to be consistent with the finished grades detailed on the submitted grading plan to accurately reflect a single-story structure with a basement. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 14 September 11. 2018 Although not specifically cited within the Appellant's assertion that the definition of a "First Floor" is pursuant to the California Building Code, Appendix A of Title 9, Land Use Code provides the following definition for "Story, first": Story, first: The lowest story in a building that qualifies as a story as defined herein, or as determined pursuant to the California Building Code. The definition states that the lowest story in a building that qualifies as a story as defined herein, or as determined pursuant to the California Building Code. Staff qualified the structure as a single-story structure with a basement pursuant to the Land Use Code and not the California Building Code, which is consistent with past practice and the provisions of Title 9. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination and adopts the condition of approval noted in Exhibit A. 8. The Appellant does not provide specific information or identify location, size, etc. of the alleged missing retaining walls. Thus, staff is unable to respond to this assertion. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination. 9. The Appellant is referring to Finding #6 on page 5 of the staff report for GPM 18- 003 which states in part that "for the purpose of creating additional usable area in the northeast corner of the property, no viable alternative is available." As aforementioned, the subject application is considered a minor change, subject to review by the Planning Director per Section 9-2.323 (f), as the grading involves a grade change for an accessory structure. As a result, the proposed grading application was not subject to the review criteria contained in Policy Directive 08- 03. However, prior to the Director's consideration of the Applicant's grading proposal, the Appellant raised concerns to staff about the Grading Plan Modification review and Policy Directive 08-03. Therefore, although not required, staff's analysis within the staff report for GPM 18-003 included a discussion of the project's consistency with Policy Directive 08-03. The referenced finding correctly states that the purpose of the proposed modified grade and retaining walls is to accommodate a new one-story 609 sq. ft. accessory structure, with a basement, and the conversion of an existing 134 sq. ft. storage room to a private chapel. For the purpose of creating additional usable area in the northeast corner of the property for the proposed structure, the area must be graded as proposed and no other viable alternative is available. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 15 September 11, 2018 10. The Appellant inaccurately quotes Finding #3 on page 5 of the staff report for GPM 18-003. The finding actually states, "The proposed grading will remain compatible with adjacent lots, including a design which maintains to the greatest extent the natural contours of the properly and surrounding lots as shown on the plans, and do not affect the overall topography of the site or adjacent properlies". Furthermore, at no point is the Applicant's grade 4' above the Appellant's grade. The Applicant is proposing a retaining wall along the southerly side property line that is shared with the Appellant; said wall will be installed for a length of 17 linear feet directly adjacent to the Appellant's own proposed retaining wall. When comparing the Appellant's approved grading plan to the Applicant's plan, the Applicant's retaining wall will be a maximum of 2.20 feet above the height of the Appellant's retaining wall and only for a few linear feet. In fact, after 9 linear feet the Appellant's retaining wall adjacent to the Applicant's retaining wall will actually be 2.27 feet above the Applicant's retaining wall adjacent to their southerly side property line. Therefore, staff believes that the Appellant's assertion is unsubstantiated. Based upon the entire record and the foregoing, the Planning Commission rejects this basis for appeal of the Development Services Director's determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the oral and written evidence presented as well as the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby denies the Appeals and affirms the Zoning Administrator's determination made on July 25, 2018 and the Development Services Director's determination made on July 26, 2018 related to proposed land use improvements at 31341 Andres Pico Road, with one modification provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS: The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at San Juan Capistrano City Hall, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675. SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of this Resolution are severable. EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. PROTEST OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the applicant may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed on this development project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures established by Sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code. PC Resolution 18-09-11-04 16 September 11. 2018 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of September, 2018. Sergio otz, AICP, Assistant Development Services Director/Secretary Project#: Project Name: EXHIBIT A PC RESOLUTION NO 18-09-11-04 CONDITION OF APPROVAL Zone Variance (ZV) 18-001 & Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 18-003 Griffin Residence This condition of approval supplements the conditions of approval related to Zone Variance (ZV) 18-001 and Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 18-003. 1. 2. /Prior to submittal of plans to Building & Safety plan check, the story analysis on the construction plans shall be revised to be consistent with the finished grades detailed on the submitted grading plan to accurately /-eflect a single-story structure with a basement. The existing 134 sq. ft. detached accessory structure, that is to be converted to a private chapel, and the proposed 609 sq . ft. accessory structure shall be separated entirely by a solid division wall with no openings.