PC Resolution-10-03-09-02PC RESOLUTION NO. 10-3-9-02
GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 09-002 SCAROLA
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
JUAN CAPISTRANO DENYING 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 LOCATED AT 33561
VALLE RD. SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 (APN: 675-331-04).
WHEREAS, Vito Leonardo Scarola, owner of real property described as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 675-331-04 located at 33561 Valle Rd., San Juan Capistrano; and,
WHEREAS, Kurt Saxon, engineer and applicant 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-
2.343, Sign Permit 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 has determined that
per Section 15270 (a) (Projects Which Are Disapproved), "CEQA does not apply to projects
which a public agency rejects or disapproves"; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Environmental
Administrator's determination pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
March 9, 2010 and pursuant to Section 9-2.301 of the Municipal Code to consider public
testimony on the proposed project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the
City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings:
Policy 1.1 of the Safety Element of the General Plan establishes that "Reduce the
impacts from geological seismic hazards by applying proper development
engineering, building construction, and retrofitting requirements". The applicant
has failed to supply the City with the necessary information to satisfy this policy.
Further the Planning Commission determined this information necessary due to
the complexity of the potential geotechnical issues. The proposed design meets
the Design Guidelines and the applicable sections of the Land Use Code.
However failure to establish the competency of the design using proper
development engineering, building construction, and retrofitting requirements of
PC Resolution 10-3-9-02 2 March 9, 2010
the proposed project with respect to the General Plan, establishes the proposed
project is inconsistent with the General Plan, 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 was approved in
2002. The proposed project has been redesigned in such a context that it is
generally consistent from a design perspective with respect to the previous
approvals. The applicant has failed to produce technical studies which establish
from a soils and geotechnical perspective a consistency with previous approvals.
Therefore the proposed project cannot be determined to be consistent with
previous approvals, and;
3. From a design perspective the proposed grading plan modification is consistent
and compatible with the adjacent lots. Due to failure to submit technical studies
which establish from a soils and geotechnical perspective consistency with
adjacent lots the proposed project cannot be determined to be consistent with
adjacent lots. Therefore the intent of this finding cannot be made, and;
4. The proposed project delineates all existing and proposed structures. Further all
structures are located outside all setback areas or other areas restricted from
development. However due to failure to submit geotechnical and soils reports
staff cannot ascertain an adequate setback from tops of toes of slopes. Therefore
due to the inability to determine the existing and proposed structures are located
a minimum distance from the tops and toes of slopes based upon requested
information not being submitted, this finding cannot be satisfied, and;
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 design has been augmented to limit
the visual impacts appropriately. However potential geotechnical or soils related
impacts cannot be weighed and therefore this finding cannot be met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning
Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby denies Grading Plan Modification (GPM)
09-002.
EFFECTIVE DATE & FINAL APPROVAL: This project denial 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, March 24, 2010.
Denied this 9th day of March, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Cohen, Vice Chairwoman Ratcliffe, Commissioners Kerr, Mocalis,
Neely and Tatarian
PC Resolution 09-7-14-02 3 March 9 2010
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Commissioner Williams
Sheldon Cohen, Chairman
Grant Taylor, Secretary