PC Resolution-09-07-14-03PC RESOLUTION NO. 09-07-14-0
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 is proposing a grading plan for the legalization of a series
of retiaing 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 disapprove", 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 meeting
on July 14, 2009 and pursuant to Section 9-2.313 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:
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,
PC Resolution 09-07-14-0 . 2 July 14, 2009
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 generally
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 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 property. Additionally the proposed and previously performed work
does not blend the grading into the existing terrain, and 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;
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 this finding.
f
PC Resolution 09-07-14-0 3 July 14, 2009
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 Planning
Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano herebydenies the project.
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, July 29, 2009.
Denied this 14th day of July, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Cohen, Vice Chairwoman Ratcliffe, Commissioners Kerr, Williams,
and Mocalis
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Commissioners Neely Tatarian
� �' '- .-
Sheldon
-Sheldon Cohen, Chairman
Grant Taylor, Wetary