Resolution Number 09-09-01-02RESOLUTION NO. 09-09-01-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE
APPEAL OF GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION 09-002, THEREBY
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON THE
PROPOSED GRADING PLAN FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF A SERIES OF
RETAINING WALLS AND GRADING THAT WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, OR THE APPROVAL OF A
GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION, REFERRING THE PROJECT.BACKTO
THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 AND THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 27, 2009 FOR REVIEW AND
RESOLUTION TO BE COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 31, 2009 AND
VERIFICATION THAT ALL WORK PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IS
CONSISTENT WITH HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT 91-03 FOR A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 33561 VALLE RD. SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(APN: 675-331-04)(KURT SAXON)(VITO SCAROLA)
WHEREAS, Vito Leonardo Scarola, owns the real property described as Assessor's
Parcel Numbers 675-331-04 located at 33561 Valle Rd., San Juan Capistrano; and,
WHEREAS, Kurt Saxon, on behalf of the owner is proposing a grading plan for the
legalization of a series of retaining walls and grading performed prior to the issuance of a
building permit, or the approval of a grading plan modification. The proposed project site is
General Plan designated as Low Density Residential (1 to 2 du/acre) and classified as
Specific Plan (GC) on the Official Zoning Map; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed project has been processed pursuant to Section 9-2.301,
Development Review of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, staff is recommending denial of the project and pursuant to Section
3.06 of the City's adopted CEQA Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to disapproved
projects. Therefore, staff is not recommending that the City Council take any action on
the project's environmental determination; and,
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public meeting
for consideration the proposed project and denied Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 09-
002 by resolution; and,
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2009 the City Council conducted a duly -noticed
public meeting for consideration of the appeal of Planning Commission denial of Grading
Plan Modification (GPM) 09-002; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San
Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings:
9-1-2009
1. The proposed Grading Plan Modification, which would legalize previously,
constructed walls and permit additional walls are not consistent with the General
Plan, Municipal Code, or Design Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed plan
does not incorporate terracing of retaining walls, and creates abrupt grade
changes along property lines. Further, the area of grading proposed and
previously constructed retaining walls are not limited to where they are
necessary for slope stabilization and create hard "unnatural" edges along
property lines. The proposed grading plan disregards the preservation of natural
slopes and ultimately creates manufactured slopes and building pads that
diminish the natural character and aesthetic quality of the preexisting hillside.
Therefore, because the proposed Grading Plan, does not incorporate terracing,
the restrained use of retaining walls, and substantially alters the natural grades
to increase developable land, it is found to be inconsistent with the General
Plan, Municipal Code, and the City's Design Guidelines, and;
2. The subject lot is the result of the approval of Hillside Management (HM) 91-03
in 1994, additionally a Single Family Dwelling and corollary grading which was
approved in 2002. The proposed and previously constructed grading
modifications are not generally consistent with the original project. Specifically
the areas of lands for development exceed the limitations of development as
specified by Hillside Management (HM) 91-03. Further the areas of grading and
the proposed retaining walls significantly exceed the previous administrative
approvals and create grading and retaining situations that are inconsistent with
the General Plan, Municipal Code, and the City's Design Guidelines, as well
precedence established by previous approvals. Because the project exceeds the
areas limited for development and significantly exceeds the previous
administrative approval, the proposed Grading Plan Modification is found to be
inconsistent with the design concepts of the original project, and;
3.. The proposed and previously constructed retaining walls and site grading are not
consistent, nor compatible with the adjacent property to the North. While the
proposed and existing (unpermitted) graded pads are consistent with the
southerly property, there are additional potential code violations on the adjacent
property to the south due to unpermitted grading. The proposed plan does not
avoid abrupt grade changes at the northerly property line and creates significant
impacts on the adjacent northern property. Additionally the proposed and
previously performed work does not blend the grading into the existing terrain,
and. creates significant differences between the natural grade and the site
grading. The proposed grading plan does not present a design which
harmonizes the design with the natural contours of the property and surrounding
lots and creates sharp edges along the property line. Because the proposed
grading plan incorporates significant grade changes along the property and fails
to harmonize the design with the natural contours of the property and
surrounding lots it is found to not be consistent or compatible with immediately
adjacent lots, and;
2 9-1-2009
4. The proposed grading plan is associated with a previously approved and
constructed residence. Additionally the applicant has indicated accessory
structures and a pool and spa to be located in the areas of the proposed
grading. The proposed location of the gazebo encroaches into the required side
yard setback. Further the proposed pool encroaches into the areas that are
designated to not include development. The proposed spa however is
appropriately setback from all lot lines and is located in areas designated for
development. Because the majority of additional buildings and/or structures
either fail to meet setback requirements and are located in areas designated not
to include development, the grading plan is found to be inconsistent with the
applicable development standards.
5. The proposed grading plan impacts two adjacent property owners. No trails are
immediately adjacent to the subject property. The property to the south does not
have adverse impacts to views, hydrology, water quality, or other aspects of
development. The property to the north of the subject lot is significantly impacted
by the proposed grading plan. The proposed and previously constructed
retaining walls create significant visual impacts and create a monolithic wall that
casts shadows of the adjacent property. Further the proposed retaining walls
that have altered the hydrology of the property causing seepage onto the
adjacent property. The proposed grading plan fails to mitigate any visual impacts
through limiting of grading, use of tiered walls, and the incorporation of plantings
to soften the walls. The overall effect creates a visually dominate structure which
causes visually blight to the northerly property. Because the proposed grading
plan causes significant impacts to other properties it is found to be inconsistent
with this finding.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of San
Juan Capistrano does hereby deny the appeal without prejudice request and upholds the
July 14, 2009 Planning Commission decision to deny Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 09-
002 for the proposed legalization of grading performed without the benefit of permit or
previous approvals. Subject to the full cooperation from the applicant in processing plans to
be consistent with the 2002 slope condition (Based on the proper benchmark) and full
review and confirmation of an adequate soils engineer report; staff directed to review all
prior submitted plans for consistency with the 91-03 Hillside management plan and if any
inconsistency arise staff is to retain an independent engineer to perform a topographic
survey of the property; and referred to the September 17, 2009 Design Review Committee
meeting and October 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting for review and resolution to
be completed by December 31, 2009.
3 9-1-2009
S�
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this / Day of September, 2009.
MARIA MORRIS. ACTING
MA K N ELSEN, AYO
4 9-1-2009
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
I, MARIA MORRIS, appointed Acting City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 09-09-01-02 was duly adopted by the City
Council of the,City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the 1 st day of
September 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Allevato, Hribar and Mayor Nielsen
N9 S:/� COUNCIL MEMBER: Freese and Uso
-
AFS t�l1fCOUNCIL MEMBER: None
S, ActiAg City Clerk
4 9-1-2009