PC Resolution-11-12-13-01PC RESOLUTION NO. 11-12-13-1
GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 11-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A GRADING PLAN
MODIFICATION FOR TRACT 9382, LOT 9 TO ALLOW FOR GRADING AND FILLING OF
A SLOPE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ALONG THE REAR
PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND REMOVAL OF THE TRACT DEVELOPMENT
LANDSCAPE THAT FACES ORTEGA HIGHWAY; LOCATED AT 27652 ROSEDALE
DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED 550 FEET EAST OF BELFORD TERRACE
(ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 650-191-08)(GASPAR PASTOR).
Whereas, Gaspar Pastor has requested approval of a modification to
authorize revisions to the grading plan for Tract 9382, Lot 9. Requested improvements
include grading and filling of a slope to remain and to construct a retaining wall with vines.
The grading and removal of shrubs and trees was conducted by the property owner in
2007 without the benefit of land use entitlements and permits. The project has been a
code enforcement case since that time and the applicant is now seeking approval to
legalize the previously constructed/installed improvements on the property located at
27652 Rosedale Drive which is General Plan -designated Low Density (LD) and classified
"RS -10,000" (residential single -family -10,000 s.f. lot minimum) 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, pursuant to Section 3.06 of the City's adopted CEQA Guidelines, and
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5), CEQA does not apply to disapproved
projects; and,
Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted a duly -noticed public hearing
on December 13, 2011 pursuant to Title 9, Land Use Code, Section 9-2.335, City Council
Policy 5, and Planning Department Policy 510 to consider public testimony on the
proposed project and has considered all relevant public comments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning
Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings
as established by Section 9-2.323 of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan
Capistrano:
The proposed grading modifications would be inconsistent with the General Plan,
Land Use Code, Design Guidelines, and applicable specific plan or comprehensive
development, including but not limited to requirements for ridgeline protection,
natural landform grading, minimizing use and height of retaining walls, and effective
use of landscaping for erosion control and aesthetics because the proposed grading
PC Resolution 11-12-13-1
December 13, 2011
concept includes a retaining wall with a height ranging from 5.8 feet to 10.5 feet and
approximately 210 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a new pad area of 3,300 square
feet, respectively. The grading plan does not propose horizontal slope rounding to
transition the proposed retaining wall and proposed grades into adjoining natural
slopes. In evaluating the visual impact of the proposed grading and retaining wall
design, staff notes that the property is situated in a visually prominent area adjacent
to Ortega Highway and that the proposed graded pad would not conform to the
character of the neighborhood. All other private rear yard slopes in Belford Terrace
situated directly along Ortega Highway are heavily landscaped with trees and
shrubs and buffered from Ortega Highway by the existing masonry subdivision
privacy wall at the top of the slope. The applicant has removed that portion of the
privacy wall along his property line, removed slope landscaping and installed a
graded pad.
Furthermore, the City's General Plan Community Design Element states that "Major
travelways including both vehicular and rail provide the public with a visual image of
the quality of life envisioned by the community. Scenic corridors include designated
arterials contained in the Circulation Element and the railroad corridor that passes
through the City. The following design criteria are provided to ensure that these
scenic corridors are developed with a sense of care to aesthetic values:
Buffer to screen existing un -slightly features outside of the right-of-way.
Use of innovative design features for bicycle, sidewalks, equestrian trails,
boundary walls, and parkways.
Attention to building design features that are proposed adjacent to a
scenic corridor.
The proposed retaining wall will be highly visible from Ortega Highway which is
considered a "primary arterial". The proposed retaining wall is inconsistent with the
General Plan because it will deviate from the design of the Tract development
perimeter wall resulting in incompatible materials and an unsightly visual condition
due to the lack of design uniformity and compatibility. Furthermore, the submitted
"landscape" plan does not thoroughly address screening of the proposed pad area.
The City's Design Guidelines, Community Design Goal 3 (Policy 3.3) states that
projects should "Preserve and enhance scenic transportation corridors, including
Interstate 5 and the railroad." The proposed grading and retaining wall are
inconsistent with this goal because they will be highly visible from Ortega Highway.
In addition, the City's Design Guidelines Chapter 2, Single Family Residential
Section C.1 (Grading) states that.-
a.
hat:
a. "Landform preservation should shape and guide site development.
Grading should not substantially alter natural grades to increase the area
of developable land. Grading of or within characteristic topographical
PC Resolution 11-12-13-1
December 13. 2011
areas such as ridgelines, unique hillside features and creeks is
prohibited".
b. "Innovative grading techniques such as contour grading that incorporate
use of variable slopes, both vertical and horizontal, and meandering tops
and toes of slopes are encouraged".
c. "Smooth, gradual transitions between manufactured and natural slopes
are encouraged".
d. "Use of retaining walls should be minimized. Where use of retaining walls
cannot be avoided, they should be screened to the maximum extent
possible and use of plantable retaining walls should be employed as part
of the design solution"; and,
2. The proposed grading modifications would be inconsistent with the approved site
plan, preliminary grading plan, landscape plan, grading standards, and design
concepts of the original project as approved by the reviewing authority because the
project proposes to remove a portion of the existing subdivision perimeter wall while
in 1976, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 9382 (Maurer
Development/Belford Terrace) per Resolution #76-7-27-9 which contains condition
#11 which states that:
"A masonry or block wall shall be provided between the development and Ortega
Highway. The wall shall be such design and height so as to effectively buffer the
development from the arterial highway. In addition, the area between the wall and
sidewalk shall be provided with groundcover and street trees. An irrigation line with
separate water meter shall be designed and installed to service subject landscape
area. "
The Tract Map was developed with a perimeter slump stone wall to mitigate noise
from Ortega Highway, provide privacy for homeowners, and establish a consistent
design theme with trees and shrubs on the slope area between the wall and Ortega
Highway. Furthermore, the lots were developed with property lines extending
beyond the rear yard block walls. The slopes within the landscape areas were
created as part of the subdivision mass grading plan. This type of grading was
designed to accommodate the construction of dwelling units with setbacks taken
from the top of the slope and not from the property lines which extend beyond the
perimeter wall. The pad design concept was purposely intended to place the units
away from Ortega Highway and provide substantial landscape screening along the
large manufactured slopes that are adjacent to Ortega Highway.
The non -permitted grading extends into the landscaped slope area which makes it
very visible from Ortega Highway as well as from the adjoining EI Nido Mobile Home
Estates. The applicant is proposing to extend his usable pad area by installing a
PC Resolution 11-12-13-1 4 December 13, 2011
retaining wall that ranges from a height of 5.8. feet to 10.5 feet within 45 feet of
Ortega Highway; and,
3. The proposed grading modifications would be inconsistent and incompatible with
immediately -adjacent lots or units, including but not limited to blending of slopes
with adjacent property boundaries, rounding of slopes at both top and bottom to
blend the grading into the existing terrain, and a design which harmonizes the
design with the natural contours of the property and surrounding lots because the
proposed grading concept includes a retaining wall and approximately 210 cubic
yards of fill. The proposed conceptual site plan is designed to accommodate a
3,300 square foot pad area for potential development.
The proposal does not propose horizontal slope rounding to transition the retaining
wall and proposed grades into adjoining natural slopes. In evaluating the visual
impact of the proposed grading and retaining wall design, staff noted that the
property is situated in a visually prominent area and that the proposed pad area
would not conform with the character of the neighborhood where adjacent lots have
a landscape buffer of approximately 50 feet. Furthermore, the non -permitted
grading substantially deviates from the graded condition of adjacent lots along
Ortega Highway which have slopes that blend into each other and blend to the
grades along the sidewalk located at Ortega Highway. The applicant's grading and
retaining wall do not harmonize with the design of the contours on the surrounding
lots; and,
4. The proposed grading modifications would be inconsistent with the applicable zone
district setback standards because as designed, the graded pad area would provide
additional area for future development on the lot. This area could potentially be
used for accessory uses including tennis court, swimming pool, sports court, pool
cabana, playground equipment, etc. all which are highly visible from Ortega
Highway. The proposed retaining wall would be located 1'-3" feet to 4'-0" from the
property line; which is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the design
standards and setbacks under Section 9-4.513. The submitted grading plans do not
provide a detailed landscape plan as required under Section 9-4.513(e) and staff
concludes that the project is not consistent with the provision and standards in this
Section; and,
5. The proposed grading modifications would 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 because the proposed
grading plan does significantly alter the grades near adjacent properties and has
visual impact on the property located to the west. The contours are not matching
those of the adjacent property and the proposed 5 gallon Eugenia shrubs will not
screen the interior of the property significantly, thereby, not screening the retaining
wall and future accessory uses on the lot. The retaining wall and graded pad area
will be highly visible from Ortega highway which is considered a scenic corridor.
PC Resolution 11-12-13-1
December 13, 2011
Furthermore, the applicant proposes to install a 4"drain line on the property and run
it through the adjacent private property to the west (Lot 8), through the Belford
Terrace Landscape District and ultimately drain into the Caltrans right-of-way at
Ortega Highway. The City manages the landscape district and has not been
contacted by the applicant with this proposal. Furthermore, the City was not
provided with written authorization from the property owner of Lot 8 authorizing such
improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning
Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby denies the proposed Grading Plan
Modification.
EFFECTIVE DATE & FINAL APPROVAL: This project approval shall
become effective following expiration of the fifteen (15) day appeal period without filing of
an appeal application. The appeal period shall expire at 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, December
28, 2011.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 2011, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Ginny Kerr, Jeff Parkhurst, Timothy Neely, Robert
Williams, and Vice- Chair Gene Ratcliffe.
NOES: None
RECUSE: Chairman Sheldon Cohen
ABSENT: Commissioner Roy Nunn
Gene Ratcliffe, Vice-Chairl"
William A. Ramsey, AICP, Princial PI nner
Secretary