Resolution Number 01-11-20-01RESOLUTION NO. 01-11-20-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO DENYING APPEAL OF VASILE PETEAN AND UPHOLDING
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 01-9-11-4
Whereas, appellant Vasile Petean has filed an application for a modification to the
grading plan previously approved for a four (4) lot subdivision (Parcel Map 98/29) at the
location of 33571 Valle Road, San Juan Capistrano, and
Whereas, the grading modification requests that the grading pad approval for Lot
#1 of Parcel Map 98129 be altered so as to allow the construction of two smaller building
pads (about 330 and 225 square feet in area) to the rear and adjoining the previously
approved building pad, and
Whereas, this property is subject to specific grading plan review under the city's
Hillside Management zoning regulations pursuant to M.C. 9-2.307, and
Whereas, Parcel Map 98/29 allows for the construction of residential units on each
respective lot with conventional pad -on -grade design, and
Whereas, Municipal Code section 9-2.307(i) specifically regulates any proposed
changes to previously approved graded lots, and
Whereas, the Planning Commission has reviewed, considered, and denied the
applicant's grading modification request as setforth in Planning Commission resolution 01-
9-11-4, and
Whereas, the Planning Commission found that the application for the grading
change did not meet the criteria of Municipal Code section 9-2.307i(iii), and
Whereas, the City Council conducted an appeal hearing on this matter on
November 6, 2001, and
Whereas, the Council has carefully considered the testimony from the applicantand
a number of adjoining neighbors, and
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Applicant's appeal is denied and the decision of the Planning
Commission is upheld.
Section 2. The City Council makes the following findings in support of its
-1-
determination:
a) The Planning Commission determined that in light of evidence presented to it that
the proposed modification would result in development of applicant's parcel #1 with
residential unit construction that would not be compatible with immediately adjoining
housing construction a part of parcel map 98/29. The Planning Commission found in
resolution 01-9-11-4 that "...the proposed grading alterations would allow single-family
residential design and construction with partially subterranean building additions resulting
in a building mass which would be incompatible with the existing, adjoining residential
development which consists of conventional pad -on -grade construction..." and that this
incompatibility was therefore not consistent with subpart (iii) of M.C. 9-2.307(i). The City
Council agrees.
The photographs presented to the Council during the hearing clearly show that
applicant's proposal will result in grading and a resulting square footage addition to the
main structure which will be inconsistent with immediately adjacent units, namely, lots 3
and 4 of this parcel map. Those lots are graded for and now accommodate residential
homes of a lower profile, one story dimension.
b) Testimony from the neighbors who live in the immediate area reinforced the
evidence presented by staff that the proposal would not be consistent with the other
developed lots in this subdivision because of the substantial disparity between unit
construction on lots 3 and 4 in relation to applicant's lot #1.
(c) The applicant's argument thatthe proposal is only about the grading oftwo holes
and nothing more, is not well taken. The code grading criteria and the existing grading
plan approval for the subdivision entail a consideration of physical grading issues, plus a
consideration of the applicant's proposed construction that will follow after the grading
compared to adjoining unit construction. The applicant is interpreting the code criteria in
his own terms. The Planning Commission application of the code criteria is appropriate
under all of the factors presented to the Council.
The findings of the staff report dated November 6, 2001 (pages 5-6) are
incorporated by reference in further support of the Council's determination.
Accordingly, the Council upholds the Planning Commission denial of the grading
plan modification proposal.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1094.6(b), the applicant has ninety (90) days
from date of mailing of this written determination to the applicant to file a judicial action to
contest the validity of said action.
-2-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November 2001
�14a& 7qaa/—
WY HART, MAYOR
ATTEST:
/ -
M�ARET R. MONAHAN, CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
I, MARGARET R. MONAHAN, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 01-11-20-01 was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a regular meeting thereof, held the 20th day
of November 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bathgate, Gelff, Swerdlin and Mayor Hart
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Campbell
r2. Gam_
R. MONAHAN, City Clerk
3-