20230418_PH2_Wallentine — Laguna Niguel City Council, April 18, 2023

CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Jonathan Orduna, Community Development Director
DATE: April 18, 2023
SUBJECT: A Public Hearing to Consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of Variance VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence), a Deviation Request From the Minimum Setback and Driveway Length Standards for an Unpermitted As-built Garage.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, and then take the following action:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-1425, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny Variance VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence).

BACKGROUND
Property Information
• The subject property is located at 30292 Grande Vista and includes a single-story single-family home constructed in 1963. A small addition was permitted and constructed in 1988. The property location is shown in Figure 1, below. • The property is located within the RS-3 Zoning District and is generally located in the neighborhood south of the intersection of Crown Valley Parkway and Niguel Road referred to as the Pacesetters. The Pacesetters neighborhood is built-out and consists of similarly sized residential lots with single-family tract homes built in the 1960s.

Project History
• In September 2021, a Code Compliance Case was opened due to a citizen complaint related to unpermitted construction within the front yard setback of the subject property. The property owner as well as persons working on the construction of the unpermitted structure were notified multiple times, in person and in writing by Code Compliance staff that the structure was not in compliance with development standards established in the Laguna Niguel Zoning Code (LNZC) and that building permits were required prior to any further work. The property owner continued construction without building permits and the garage

Page 2 ends

structure was completed. The garage is approximately 240 square feet in area and is located four feet from the front property line. The garage is finished with wood siding and a shingle roof. See Figures 2 and 3, below for before-and-after photos from Grande Vista.
• After an extended period of inactivity in remedying the code violations and issuance of administrative citations, Jonathan Wallentine, applicant (property owner), subsequently applied for Variance VA 22-01 on June 23, 2022 to allow the garage to remain.

Figure 1: Project Location
de Vista
enecia

Page 3 ends

Figure 2: Property Street View (Pre-Construction)
30292
Figure 3: Property Street View (Post-Construction 2022) 30292
Project Description - Variance VA 22-01
The subject property is located in the RS-3 Zoning District of the LNZC. LNZC Section 9- 1-35.4 defines the applicable development standards for garages, carports, and driveways in residential zoning districts. The as-built garage does not comply with the minimum front property line setback (setback at four feet where a minimum of 17 feet is required) and minimum driveway length standard of 20 feet (less than 20 feet provided).

Page 4 ends

The applicant has applied for Variance VA 22-01 to deviate from these development regulations.

Preceding and following application submittal, the applicant was informed that City staff would be unable to support the proposal in consideration of the objective nature of the required findings needed to approve a Variance.

Planning Commission Action
On December 13, 2022: The Planning Commission continued the item without consideration at the request of the applicant.

On January 24, 2023: The Planning Commission continued the item again without consideration at the request of the applicant.

On February 14, 2023: The Planning Commission held a publicly noticed hearing to consider the proposal. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission completed deliberations, and took unanimous action (4-0, with one absence) to adopt Resolution No. 23-01 denying Variance VA 22-01. In summary, the Planning Commission found that the evidence and facts related to the project did not support the necessary findings to approve the project, as specified in LNZC Section 9-1-114.3. This notably included:

1. Surrounding Uses - The Planning Commission determined that project approval would create conditions incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. As discussed at the meeting and detailed in the staff report, prior to the adoption of the current LNZC in 1999, the minimum front setback was only 10 feet compared to the current 17 feet. Based on a windshield survey of the Pacesetters neighborhood performed by City staff consisting of approximately 170 homes, there did not appear to be any residential properties that include homes, garages, or other comparable structures built as close as the subject unpermitted garage at four feet from the front property line. Additionally, relevant to public safety, it was noted that the Public Works Department had reviewed the project and did not support the substantial reduction in garage setback, which could compromise traffic and pedestrian safety.

Also relevant to incompatibility, the location of the garage structure at four feet from the front property line was noted as affecting the street scene and character of the neighborhood. Garages positioned farther back on residential lots consistent with setback standards provide for a more open streetscape, architectural appeal, and landscaping opportunities. Although this project alone may not substantively degrade the overall aesthetics of the community, it would be precedent-setting for this neighborhood and citywide. If this project was approved, other property owners may seek similar building setback reductions to expand the utilization of their property at the potential cost of curb appeal, community character, and surrounding property values.

2. Special Circumstances - The Planning Commission found that that there were no special circumstances applicable to the subject property. As discussed at the meeting and detailed in the staff report, the residential properties within the

Page 5 ends

Pacesetters were developed as tract homes in the 1960s. These properties, including the project site, are comparable in size, shape, and topography. The subject property does not include a unique physical hardship that restricts the enjoyment of this property beyond that of the surrounding properties. The applicant has the same use, enjoyment, and constraints of their property experienced by other property owners in the neighborhood.

3. Preservation of Property Rights - The Planning Commission found that that the granting of the Variance was not necessary for the preservation of a property right afforded to others and otherwise denied to the subject property. The current zoning regulations that apply to the subject lot also apply to all of the properties in the vicinity. The applicant already enjoys a level of use of their property comparable to the neighborhood and the lot conditions of this property are comparable to those throughout the Pacesetters.

4. No Special Privileges - The Planning Commission concluded that if the project was approved, the Variance would be a grant of "special privileges," inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the area and would establish a precedent that would likely have negative citywide ramifications.

For additional details, please refer to the February 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report (provides a comprehensive project summary and analysis), adopted Resolution No. 23-01, and meeting minutes (Attachments B, C, and D respectively).

PUBLIC NOTICE
A notice of public hearing describing the project, date, time, and location of the hearing was advertised in the Laguna Niguel News at least 10 days prior to the hearing date.

Hearing notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries. Additionally, a notice was also posted at City Hall and was made available on the City website.

ANALYSIS - APPEAL
On March 1, 2023, Jonathan Wallentine, applicant (property owner), submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Variance VA 22-01. The appeal authority of Planning Commission decisions is the City Council. The stated grounds for the appeal are included in the appeal letter submitted by the applicant (Attachment E) and focus on four issues, which are summarized below (in italics), followed by City staffs response.

1. Discrimination Against Disabilities
The appeal letter asserts that the applicant is seeking a reasonable accommodation request.

The appellant further contends the applicable LNZ Variance findings are discriminatory against persons with disabilities. The applicant's father (lives across the

Page 6 ends

street at 30301 Grande Vista) is disabled and has difficulty visiting according to the appellant. A new concrete walkway has been created between the primary driveway and the residence at 30292 Grande Vista. The subject structure is built over a portion of this walkway. The as-built structure and hardscape improvements serve to improve accessibility for the owner's disabled father to and from the house according to the appellant.

The applicant applied for a Variance only. The criteria and process for consideration of a reasonable accommodation request for individuals with disabilities to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities are entirely separate and distinct from the subject Variance. The applicant did not apply for a reasonable accommodation, the findings for which are set forth in LNMC Section 9-1-39 and are materially different from a variance. Action on this Variance does not preclude the applicant from separately seeking reasonable accommodation in accordance with federal and/or state housing laws. The LNZC Variance findings are nondiscriminatory and comply with Government Code Section 65906. The purpose of a Variance is to allow a deviation to a development standard when the physical characteristics of a certain property would not permit the property owner to develop and use the property in a manner similar to other properties in the neighborhood. As detailed in Resolution No. 23-07, the Planning Commission found that all of the mandatory findings to approve a Variance could not be made and therefore denied the request.

2. Special Circumstance
The appeal letter asserts that the special circumstance in this case is that the applicant's father became handicapped after he moved in across the street from the subject property, and due to the driveway grade at the subject property, the applicant's father has trouble visiting.

The applicable Variance findings are limited to considering special circumstances related to unique physical conditions of the subject property that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The residential properties within the Pacesetters neighborhood were developed as tract homes in the 1960s.

These properties, including the project site, are comparable in size, shape and topography. The subject property does not include a unique physical hardship that restricts the enjoyment of this property beyond that of the surrounding properties. The applicant has the same use, enjoyment, and constraints of their property experienced by everyone else in this neighborhood; this includes terraced lots on sloping streets and driveways with varying inclines.

For reference, the applicable code provisions relate only to the unpermitted garage structure. Demolition of the structure would not preclude the applicant from maintaining the as-built hardscape improvements (flatwork), which according to the applicant provide the desired path-of-travel for his disabled father. To the extent that a reasonable accommodation is requested by the applicant in the future, there are many other ways to ensure that the applicant's father can use and enjoy his son's property without altering the City's zoning regulations. A reasonable accommodation is only appropriate if it is necessary under the circumstances.

Page 7 ends

3. Type of Structure
The appeal letter asserts that the structure is not a garage, but instead a minor unenclosed accessory structure.

The stated project description in the Variance application, submitted on June 23, 2022, by the property owner is to allow the as-built garage to encroach within the minimum front setback. The LNZC defines a "garage" as "a building or portion of a building used primarily for the parking of motor vehicles." The subject roofed structure features an operable garage door, a driveway, and at least at times has been used for the storage of motorcycles, which qualify as motor vehicles (refer to Figure 4, below). City staff has and continues to maintain the structure is a garage.

As a point of reference, the LNZC defines an "accessory structure" as "a building or structure, the use of which is subordinate and incidental to the main building or use on the same parcel." Specific examples of accessory structures cited in the LNZC include: patio covers, gazebos, trellises, arbors, play equipment, decks, storage sheds, and greenhouses. A garage is not included in this definition.

Figure 4: Streetview of Motorcycles in Garage
Although City staff has determined the structure is a garage, for discussion purposes, the structure still would not comply with the LNZC development standards if deemed an accessory structure. Accessory structures are required to be located in the rear 50% of a residential property (back yard). Exceptions can be made for minor unenclosed structures to be located in the front 50% of the property (front yard). The LNZC lists the following specific examples as allowable in a front yard at City staff's discretion: arbors, trellises, porte-cocheres, and gazebos. The subject structure/building with a shingle pitched roof differs considerably in terms of scale, massing, size, and the spirit and intent of these provisions for incidental structures.

Considering the subject structure as a "minor unenclosed structure" would be unprecedented. Regardless, even minor unenclosed structures are required to be

Page 8 ends

setback a minimum of 10 feet from a front property line. Whether the unpermitted structure at four feet from the front property line is classified as a garage or a minor unenclosed accessory structure, as now asserted by the appellant, in either case, it does not comply with the LNZ development standards, and the material denial findings of the Planning Commission would remain applicable.

4. Reason for Appearance of Structure
The appeal letter asserts that the purpose of the structure is to cover the concrete pad and match the landscaping in the neighborhood, add safety and privacy to the main house, and provide handicap accessibility due to the slope of the driveway.

The appearance of the structure or its purpose does not change any of the denial findings adopted by the Planning Commission in Resolution 23-01, nor the City Council findings in draft Resolution No. 2023-1425 attached to this report (Attachment

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects that are denied (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15270 and 21065).

ALTERNATIVES

1. Articulate findings supported by substantive and factual evidence to approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's action denying Variance VA 22- 01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence).

2. Provide City staff with other direction.

FISCAL REVIEW
There would be no direct fiscal impact as a result of denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's action.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved this report and corresponding Resolution as to form.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, and then take the following action:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-1425, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny Variance VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence).

Page 9 ends

JamaraS Retoussean Rents Slato
Tamara S. Letourneau Nicholas Ghirelli
City Manager Interim City Attorney
Fate Aro
John Morgan Katie Crockett
Development Services Manager Senior Planner
atha Glen
Jonathan Orduna
Community Development Director
Attachments:

A. Resolution No 2023-1425 (VA 22-01)
B. Planning Commission Agenda Packet, February 14, 2023 C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-01
D. Minutes of the Planning Commission, February 14, 2023 E. Grounds for Appeal Letter, Jonathan Wallentine, submitted March 1, 2023

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2023-1425 (VA22-01)
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-1425

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF LAGUNA NIGUEL, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE

APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY VARIANCE VA 22-
01 (30292 GRANDE VISTA - WALLENTINE RESIDENCE)
WHEREAS, the AUTHORIZED AGENT Roger Wallentine, 30301 Grande Vista Ave., Laguna Niguel, CA 92677, on behalf of the PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT Jonathan Wallentine, 30292 Grande Vista Ave., Laguna Niguel, CA 92677, requested approval of Variance VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence) to allow a deviation from the minimum setback and driveway length standards for an unpermitted as-built garage. The project site is located at 30292 Grande Vista Drive, generally located southwest of the intersection of Niguel Road and Crown Valley Parkway in the Single- Family Residential (RS-3) Zoning District.

WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing describing the project, date, time, and location of the December 13, 2022, Planning Commission meeting was advertised in the Orange County Register at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Hearing notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries. Additionally, a notice was also posted at City Hall and was made available on the City's website.

WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, at the request of the project applicant, the Planning Commission of the City of Laguna Niguel continued the item to the January 24, 2023, Planning Commission meeting.

WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, at the request of the project applicant, the Planning Commission of the City of Laguna Niguel continued the item to the February 14, 2023, Planning Commission meeting.

WHEREAS, on February 14, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Laguna Niguel held the public hearing and considered all evidence presented by City staff and interested parties. After closing the public hearing and deliberating, the Planning Commission denied Variance VA 22-01 by adopting Resolution No. 23-01, because all findings required for the approval of a Variance could not be made.

WHEREAS, on March 1, 2023, Jonathan Wallentine filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Variance VA 22-01 to the City Council.

WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing describing the appeal and project, and identifying the date, time, and location of the April 18, 2023, City Council hearing was advertised in the Laguna Niguel News at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Hearing notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries Additionally, a notice was also posted at City Hall and was made available on the City's website.

Resolution No. 2023-1425 Page 2
VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence)
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Laguna Niguel held a public hearing and considered all evidence presented by City staff and interested parties. After closing the public hearing and deliberating, the City Council adopted this Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the application.

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of the resolution have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Laguna Niguel hereby resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The City Council finds each of the facts in the preceding recitals to be true and correct.

SECTION 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). CEQA does not apply to projects that are denied pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15270 and 21065.

SECTION 3. SURROUNDING USES. Approval of the application creates conditions that are incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. There are no other structures (other than walls and fences, which have different setback requirements) in the vicinity that have been permitted as close to the front property line as the as-built, unpermitted garage, which is four feet from the front property line.

Additionally, the location of the unpermitted garage structure four feet from the front property line affects the street scene and character of the neighborhood. Garages and other similar accessory structures which are consistent with the development standards provide for a more open streetscape, architectural appeal, and landscaping opportunities.

This project would establish a precedent for this neighborhood and citywide, which would over time substantially change neighborhood character. Approval of the project would create a condition incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity Additionally, the decreased setback and driveway length affects visibility and consequently the safety of pedestrians and vehicles on the street from cars exiting the subject site due to decreased sight lines.

SECTION 4. NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which, when zoning restrictions are strictly applied, deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations. The grade of the driveway, cited by the applicant as a special circumstance, is not a special circumstance as it does occur in many other properties in the vicinity. The residential properties within the Pacesetters neighborhood were developed as tract homes in the 1960s. These properties, including the subject site, are comparable in size, shape, and topography. The subject property does not include a unique physical hardship that restricts the enjoyment of this property beyond that of the surrounding properties.

The applicant has the same use, enjoyment, and constraints of their property experienced by other property owners in the neighborhood.

Resolution No. 2023-1425 Page 3
VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence)
SECTION 5. PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. The granting of the Variance is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and otherwise denied to the subject property. The current zoning regulations that apply to the subject lot also apply to all of the properties in the vicinity. The property owner already enjoys a level of use of their property comparable to the other property owners in the neighborhood and the lot conditions of this property are comparable to those throughout the Pacesetters.

SECTION 6. GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. The grant of the requested Variance would constitute the grant of special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations. The LNZC includes specific provisions to ensure each single-family residence provides a minimum garage setback and driveway length. These requirements aid in preserving neighborhood aesthetics, traffic safety, and available parking. The City of Laguna Niguel has never approved a Variance from this standard since the adoption of the current LNZC in 1999. In the City's history, there have been three similar applications and all three were ultimately redesigned or withdrawn prior to formal action by the Planning Commission due to the lack of project merits in meeting the Variance findings. Since the subject lot does not suffer from a unique physical hardship, the granting of a four-foot front setback for the unpermitted accessory structure would constitute a special privilege not afforded to other similar properties in the vicinity.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that on the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence before it, the City Council does hereby deny the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's denial of Variance VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence).

SECTION 10. CITY CLERK CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 2023:

Kelly Jennings, Mayor
ATTEST:

Marissa Asistin, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT B
Planning Commission Agenda Packet, February 14, 2023

CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL
PLANNINg CoMMIssIon STaff RePOrT
1989
To: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 14, 2023
SUBJECT: Variance VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence) - CONTINUANCE - A request for a deviation from the minimum garage setback and driveway length standards to allow an un-permitted as-built detached single-car garage (approximately 240 square feet) located 4' from the front property line, where a minimum 17' setback is required.

The subject project was scheduled for consideration at the December 13, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. At the request of the property owner, the item was continued to the January 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. At the January 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, at the request of the applicant, the item was continued a second time to the February 14, 2023 meeting.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, and then adopt Resolution No. 23-01, denying Variance VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence).

PROJECT PROPONENTS
Property Owner/Applicant: Authorized Agent:

Jonathan Wallentine Roger Wallentine
30292 Grande Vista 30301 Grande Vista
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
(949) 441-9847 (949) 228-6220

PUBLIC NOTICE
A notice of public hearing describing the project, date, time, and location of the hearing was advertised in the Orange County Register at least 10 days prior to the original hearing date of December 13, 2022.

Hearing notices were also mailed to property owners within 300' of the project boundaries. Notice was also posted at City Hall and was made available on the City's website. At the Planning Commission meeting on December 13, 2022, the project was continued to the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 2023. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 24, 2023, the project was continued to the egular Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 2023. No further noticing is required because th learing was continued to a date certair
Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence) Page 2
February 14, 2023

BACKGROUND
Site Characteristics
The project site is an approximately 10,800 square-foot property zoned single-family residential (RS-3), improved with a one-story single-family home constructed in 1963. A small addition was permitted and constructed in 1988. The property is generally located in the neighborhood south of the intersection of Crown Valley Parkway and Niguel Road, often referred to as the Pacesetter community. The area surrounding the property is built-out and consists of similarly sized residential lots with single-family tract homes. This tract development happens to be one of the oldest neighborhoods in Laguna Niguel and is not located within a Homeowners' Association. Figure 1 shows the location of the subject property.

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show views of the property from the street (Grande Vista) as existing prior to September 2021.

Figure 1 - Project Vicinity
nde Vista
Figure 2.1 - Street View of Property prior to Construction of Garage and Hedge Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence) Page 3
February 14, 2023
Figure 2.2 - Street View of Property prior to Construction of Garage Project History
In September 2021, in responding to a neighbor complaint, it was discovered by the City's Code Compliance Division that a garage was being constructed in the front yard of the subject property without a required building permit and in violation of the Laguna Niguel Zoning Code (LNZC) development standards (setbacks). A Code Enforcement Case was initiated (CE21-0618), and the property owner and his contractor were informed of the structure's non-compliance with zoning standards and need for a building permit prior to completion. Nevertheless, construction continued and the garage was completed without City approvals. After an extended period of inactivity in remedying the code violations, an administrative citation was issued to the property owner. The property owner subsequently applied for the subject Variance in June 2022 to deviate from City standards to allow the garage to remain. Proceeding and following application submittal, the property owner was informed that City staff would be unable to support the proposal in consideration of the objective nature of the required findings needed to approve a Variance.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a request by the property owner/applicant, Jonathan Wallentine, to deviate from the LNZC minimum garage setback and driveway length regulations for an as-built 240 square-foot single- car detached garage located 4' from the front property line. The garage is finished with wood siding and shingle roof to match the existing residence. Images of the as-built garage can be seen in Figures 3.1 and

3.2. The applicant's project description and justification for the Variance is included as Attachment B.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project is located within Community Profile Area 9, Sub-Profile Area A of the Laguna Niguel General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Residential Detached, which allows for single-family detached residences with ancillary accessory structures such as garages.

Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence) Page 4
February 14, 2023
Figure 3.1 - Street View of Proposed Garage (As-Built)
30292
Figure 3.2 - Street View of Proposed Garage (As-Built)

ZONING CODE CONSISTENCY
The subject property is located in the RS-3 Zoning District of the LNZC. LNZC Section 9-1-35.4 defines the applicable development standards for garages, carports, and driveways. Table 1 below provides a comparison of the proposed project and the applicable garage standards. As identified in the table, the proposed garage does not comply with the minimum front property line setback and minimum driveway length standard. The property owner has applied for Variance VA 22-01 to deviate from these development regulations.

Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence) Page 5
February 14, 2023
Table 1 - Project Comparison to LNZC Development Standards LNC Development Standards Proposed Complies
(30292 Grande Vista) (Yes or No)
Structure Height 35' max Not provided Yes
k35'
Property Line Setbacks Front: 17' Front: 4' No
Right Side: 5' min Right Side: >35 Yes
Left Side: 5' min Left Side: 7' Yes
Min Driveway Length (from 20' min No
back of sidewalk)
Variance
LNZC Section 9-1-114.3 establishes the procedures for approving a Variance. In order to approve a Variance, the decision-making authority (Planning Commission in this case) must make a series of positive findings as prescribed in the LNZC. These include a determination that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, complies with CEQA, and a series of additional findings specific to Variances (discussed below). It is important to note, unless each and every finding can be made, Variance VA 22-01 cannot be granted.
• Surrounding Uses - The required finding is:
"Approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity."
Neighborhood Compatibility
To support a finding that the proposed project is consistent with surrounding uses, the applicant has provided a photo survey (included as Attachment C) that includes two examples of other residential properties in the neighborhood with homes and/or garages that extend closer than 17' to the front property line'. No other details or specific setback information for these two properties were provided. Based on City staff's review, these two properties may comply with former development standards and qualify as legally nonconforming. Prior to the adoption of the current LNZC in 1999, the minimum front setback was only 10' compared to the current 17'. Based on these two examples and a separate windshield survey of the Pacesetter neighborhood performed by City staff, consisting of approximately 170 homes, there does not appear to be any residential properties that include enclosed buildings or structures built as close as the subject un-permitted garage at 4' from the front property line. Approval of the project would create conditions incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. 1 The applicant's photo survey also includes several examples of residential properties in the neighborhood with fences and walls of varying heights and locations within front yards. The physical characteristics and LNZC development standards for fences/walls are distinctly different from garages.

Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence) Page 6
February 14, 2023
Also relevant to incompatibility, the location of the enclosed garage structure at 4' from the front property line aftects the street scene and character of the neighborhood. Garages positioned farther back on residential lots consistent with setback standards provide for a more open streetscape, architectural appeal, and landscaping opportunities. Although this project alone may not substantively degrade the overall aesthetics of the community, it would establish a precedent for this neighborhood and citywide. If this project was approved, other property owners may seek similar building setback reductions to expand the utilization of their property at the potential cost of curb appeal, community character, and surrounding property values.

Neighbor Support
Included in the applicant's project description and justification letter (Attachment B) are signatures from nine neighbors (including the applicant's father who lives directly across the street) indicating that they do not object to the applicant's requested deviations from development standards for the as-built garage. Gauging neighbor support or objection is always valued input for any application. However, the required Variance findings that exclusively relate to unique physical constraints of an individual property and ensuring there would not be the granting of a special privilege do not take into consideration the quality of project design or community support. If the Planning Commission were to find that there were adequate grounds for this Variance, it would be difficult to deny any subsequent Variances for similar projects, even if there were objections from neighbors.

Public Safety
The proposed project features a garage setback and driveway length that is significantly less than required by Code. This yields an undesirable condition in which sight lines for drivers exiting the garages and driveway of the subject property and the visibility of pedestrians on the sidewalk are now compromised due to the close proximity of the garage building to the front property line.

The City's Public Works Department has reviewed the project and does not support the substantial reduction in the garage setback, which compromises traffic and pedestrian safety. • Special Circumstances - The required finding is:
"There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property including size, shape, topography location, or surroundings, which, when the zoning regulations are strictly applied deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations."
In the applicant's project description and justification letter (Attachment B), he notes that the motivating factor for building the garage was to provide handicap accessibility for his father who lives directly across the street on Grande Vista. According to the applicant, his father has difficulty negotiating the incline of the driveway in his wheelchair when visiting. The new garage provides a flat area for his father to park and then more easily access the applicant's home. The applicant also indicated that this flat area provides a flat area for his children to play.

While the applicant may have compelling personal reasons for the requested deviations from the development standards, the applicable Variances findings are limited to considering special Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence) Page 7
February 14, 2023
circumstances related to unique physical conditions of the subject property that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The residential properties within the Pacesetter neighborhood were developed as tract homes in the 1960s. These properties, including the project site, are comparable in size, shape and topography. The subject property does not include a unique physical hardship that restricts the enjoyment of this property beyond that of the surrounding properties. The applicant has the same use, enjoyment, and constraints of their property experienced by everyone else in this neighborhood. • Preservation of Property Rights - The required finding is:
"The granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district and otherwise denied to the subject property."
The current zoning regulations that apply to the subject lot also apply to all of the properties in the vicinity. The property owner already enjoys a level of use of their property comparable to the neighborhood and the lot conditions of this property are comparable to those throughout Pacesetter neighborhoods.
• No Special Privileges - The required finding is:
"The Variance permit's required conditions of approval assure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to the same zoning regulations."
The LNZC includes specific provisions to ensure each single-family residence provides a minimum garage setback and driveway length. Collectively, these requirements aid in preserving neighborhood aesthetics, traffic safety, and available parking. The City of Laguna Niguel has never approved a Variance from these standards since the adoption of the current LNZC in 1999, or since incorporation in 1989. In the City's history, there have been three similar garage deviation requests to the subject application. All three were ultimately redesigned or withdrawn prior to formal action by the Planning Commission due to the lack of project merits in meeting the rather objective Variance findings.

The subject lot does not suffer from a unique physical hardship that limits the applicant from the enjoyment of their property comparable to the neighborhood. If the project was approved, the Variance would be a grant of "special privileges," inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the area. Should the Planning Commission approve this Variance, which would be the first of its kind, it would establish a precedent that would likely have citywide ramifications.

There are no "special circumstances" associated with the physical condition of the project site.

Consequently, if this Variance was approved, it would be challenging for the City to deny any other future requests for relief from these same regulations, otherwise approval of this project would be a grant of special privileges.

Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence) Page 8
February 14, 2023

CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Caland 210 ironmental Qualiy Act (CEOA) does not apply to projects that are denied (CEASections

CONCLUSION
Based on the information provided in the application and available in City records, all findings required for the grant of a Variance pursuant to LNZC Section 9-1-114.3 cannot be made as discussed in the staff report and the attached draft Resolution No. 23-01. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application for Variance VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista - Wallentine Residence).

Respectfully submitted,

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Prepared By: Reviewed By:

Hate ThO
Katie Crockett John Morgan
Senior Planner Development Services Manager
Reviewed By: Submitted By:
salla Flen
Paul Early Jonathan Orduna
Assistant City Attorney Community Development Director
Attachments:

A. Draft Resolution No. 23-01
B. Project Narrative/Justification
• Neighborhood Photo Survey
D. Project Plans
Attachment A
Draft Resolution No. 23-01
RESOLUTION NO. 23-01

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE VA 22-01
(30292 GRANDE VISTA - WALLENTINE RESIDENCE)
WHEREAS:

The AUTHORIZED AGENT Roger Wallentine, 30301 Grande Vista Ave, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677, on behalf of the PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT Jonathan Wallentine, is requesting a deviation from the minimum garage setback and driveway length standards to allow an unpermitted as-built detached single-car garage (approximately 240 square feet) located four feet from the front property line where a minimum of 17 feet is required. The project site is located at 30292 Grande Vista Drive, generally located southwest of the intersection of Niguel Road and Crown Valley Parkway in the Single-Family Residential (RS-3) Zoning District.

A notice of public hearing describing the project, date, time and location of the meeting was advertised in the Orange County Register at least 10 days prior to the original hearing date of December 13, 2022. Property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries, were mailed notice of the hearing. Notice was also posted at City Hall and on the City's website. At the noticed public hearing on December 13, 2022, the Planning Commission voted, at the request of the Applicant, to continue the item to the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 2023, and at the January 24, 2023 meeting, voted, at the request of the Applicant, to continue the item to the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 2023.

The Planning Commission of the City of Laguna Niguel finds and determines as follows:
a. Consistency with the General Plan - The project is consistent with the Laguna Niguel General Plan. The project is located within Community Profile Area 9, Sub-Profile Area A of the Laguna Niguel General Plan, which is comprised of residential uses oriented around the El Niguel Golf Course and is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Laguna Niguel. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Residential Detached, which allows for single-family detached residences with ancillary accessory structures such as garages.
b. Consistency with the Laguna Niguel Zoning Code (LNZC) - The project is inconsistent with the Laguna Niguel Zoning Code (LNZC). The subject property is located in the RS-3 Zoning District. LNZC Section 9-1-35.4 defines the applicable development standards for garages, carports, and driveways. The as-built condition is inconsistent with the front setback requirement (four feet where 17 feet is required) and minimum driveway length (less than 20 feet where 20 feet is required). The applicant has applied for Variance VA 22-01 to Resolution No. 23-01 Page 2
Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista Drive - Wallentine Residence)
deviate from these development standards.
c. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - CEQA does not apply to projects that are denied pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 and 21065.
d. Surrounding Uses - Approval of the application creates conditions that are incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. There are no other enclosed structures in the vicinity that have been permitted as close to the property line as the as-built, unpermitted garage, which is located four feet from the front property line. Additionally, the location of the enclosed garage structure at four feet from the front property line affects the street scene and character of the neighborhood. Garages and other enclosed structures positioned further back on residential lots consistent with setback standards provide for a more open streetscape, architectural appeal, and landscaping opportunities. Although this project alone may not substantively degrade the overall aesthetics of the community, it would establish a precedent for this neighborhood and citywide which would over time substantially change neighborhood character and potentially affect surrounding property values.

Approval of the project would create a condition incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. Additionally, the decreased setback and driveway length, due to the four-foot setback from the sidewalk, affects visibility and consequently the safety of pedestrians and vehicles on the street from cars exiting the subject site due to decreased sight lines.
e. No Special Circumstances - There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which, when zoning restrictions are strictly applied, deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations. The grade of the driveway, as mentioned in the applicant's project narrative, is not a special circumstance as it does occur in many other properties in the vicinity. The residential properties within the Pacesetter neighborhood were developed as tract homes in the 1960s. These properties, including the project site, are comparable in size, shape, and topography. The subject property does not include a unique physical hardship that restricts the enjoyment of this property beyond that of the surrounding properties. The applicant has the same use, enjoyment, and constraints of their property experienced by other property owners in the neighborhood. f. Preservation of Property Rights - The granting of the Variance is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and otherwise denied to the subject property. The current zoning regulations that apply to the subject lot also apply to all of the properties in the vicinity. The property owner already enjoys a level of use of their property comparable to the other property Resolution No. 23-01 Page 3
Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista Drive - Wallentine Residence)
owners in the neighborhood and the lot conditions of this property are comparable to those throughout the Pacesetter neighborhoods. g. Grant of Special Privileges - The grant of the requested Variance would constitute the grant of special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations. The LNZC includes specific provisions to ensure each single-family residence provides a minimum garage setback and driveway length. Collectively these requirements aid in preserving neighborhood aesthetics, traffic safety, and available parking. The City of Laguna Niguel has never approved a Variance from these standards since the adoption of the current LNZC in 1999. In the City's history, there have been three similar applications similar to the subject Variance application and all three were ultimately redesigned or withdrawn prior to formal action by the Planning Commission due to the lack of project merits in meeting the Variance findings.

Since the subject lot does not suffer from a unique physical hardship, the grating of a four-foot front setback for an enclosed accessory structure would constitute a special privilege not afforded to other similar properties in the vicinity.
h. No Use Variance - The approval does not authorize a land use or activity which is not permitted in the applicable zoning district.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance VA 22-01 (30292 Grande Vista Drive - Wallentine Residence) to allow a single-car garage at four feet from the front property line at 30292 Grande Vista Drive, generally located southwest of the intersection of Niguel Road and Crown Valley Parkway in the Single-Family Residential (RS-3) Zoning District. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Resolution No. 23-01 Page 4
Variance VA 22-01
(30292 Grande Vista Drive - Wallentine Residence)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the action taken herein shall not be deemed final until the 16th day after the date of the Resolution. Any aggrieved party may appeal any part of this action to the City Council prior to the expiration of the foregoing period by doing so in writing to the City Clerk and stating the reasons for the appeal.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14'h day of February, 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Jonathan Orduna
Community Development Director
Roger Green
Planning Commission Chair
Attachment B
Project Narrative/Justification

LAGUNA NIGUEL PLANNING
The motivating factor for building the garage was important for handicap accessibility for my father who had one of his legs amputated because of his service in Vietnam. Since my existing driveway is extremely steep and very hard for my father to negotiate the incline I decided to reduce the steepness and create a new garage. Now my father can use his wheel chair and manage by himself to come over. He owns the house right across the street. He comes over almost daily to see the grandkids. At some time in the near future I'm planning to build a granny apartment on the property (with permits) when he gets older.

Another factor for the garage was a place for which my two children can have a flat area and I don't have to worry about them going into the street and getting hit by a passing car.

We have had alot of comments about the addition from all the neighbors on the appearance and how well it looks with reference to the existing house, and that was the whole intent was to make it look like it was built with the original structure.

I really didn't pay much attention to the setbacks as this is Pacesetter One and there is very little conformity in the entire neighborhood. My dad's house across the street, which was built new in 2007, has a garage nine feet from the property line. My garage is twelve feet from the property line. At 30302 Grande Vista the garage is ten feet from property line and at 30332 Benecia ave the existing house is six feet from property line These are just some examples of the inconsistencies. I could point out every home on Grande Vista and the surrounding neighborhood and they would not meet Laguna Niguel compliance code.

A couple of years ago I pulled a permit for a perimeter fence and when the inspector came out to inspect he said my rear perimeter fence was not on the property line and he refused to sign off on the building permit. I cannot remember the inspector's name and I don't even know if he still works for the City, but you could look it up. Since I have a recorded deed showing that my fence is legally on my property. But on his way out he noticed an additional room added on to the side of the garage, which was under Laguna Beach code. He asked if it was ever permitted. I said I didn't know. He shrugged his shoulders and commented on the fact that nothing in Pacesetter One complies and is why we don't approve many permits here.

I know of a recent total remodel at 30276 Granda Vista and it was being inspected almost daily during my garage construction. I haven't the foggiest reason why the inspector wouldn't have notified me and stopped construction in its early stages, so I assumed the inspector really didn't care about Pacesetter One. I am definitely in the wrong and I am willing to make it right with the city. I have letters from most of my current neighbors complimenting me on how nice the garage looks and what a compliment to the neighborhood it is. @
To whom it may concern
We are neighbors of Jonathan Wallentine who resides at 30292 Grande Vista Ave.