San Clemente zoning administrator approves 82‑sq‑ft addition and conditionally allows existing overheight front wall at 107 West Avenida Keyes

The City of San Clemente zoning administrator on March 20 approved a development permit and conditionally approved a minor exception to allow an existing overheight front patio wall and guardrail at 107 West Avenida Keyes, a single‑story home adjacent to a designated historic resource.

Planner Jessica Gattney, assistant planner in the City of San Clemente planning division, told the zoning administrator the proposal (project 24‑576, development permit 25‑042) would add an 82‑square‑foot addition and a 50‑square‑foot covered porch to a 1,281‑square‑foot house on a 4,400‑square‑foot lot. Gattney said the project was reviewed under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and “was found to be consistent” with standards intended to protect nearby historic features.

The issue before the zoning administrator centered on a nonconforming front patio wall and guardrail. Gattney reported that a short front wall encroaches about 3 inches into the public right of way and ranges from roughly 9 to 21 inches in height, while another portion of the wall was described in staff materials as ranging between about 48 and 60 inches and being paired with a 42‑inch guardrail that triggered the minor exception request. Gattney recommended denial of the minor exception permit as written because the wall exceeds zoning height limits, lacks the required stepback design, and does not meet the front yard setback.

The applicants, identified in the record as Steve and Diana Patagona, told the zoning administrator they purchased the house in reliance on the real estate listing, which emphasized the deck and a permitted guardrail installed in February 2019. The applicants said they were unaware that the decking and patio extension lacked a permit, expressed concern about the potential cost to reconstruct the wall, and said neighbors have submitted letters in support of keeping the deck and railing. The applicants also offered to add plantings and containers and to work with staff on additional landscaping.

In response, the zoning administrator noted the guardrail had previously been permitted while the decking extension and underlying retaining wall had not, and said the city may require additional investigation or a building permit to legalize the existing conditions. Engineering and planning staff indicated they would support an encroachment permit for the roughly 3‑inch intrusion into the right of way, subject to a condition requiring removal if future public works require access.

After discussing the case and the public comments, the zoning administrator said, “I will determine that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and adopt resolution ZA 25‑005,” and moved to approve the development permit while conditionally approving the minor exception with revised findings and additional conditions. The final action maintained approval of development permit 25‑042 and revised the findings for minor exception permit 25‑063. The zoning administrator replaced condition 4.2 to require the applicants to install and maintain climbing vines in the front planter so they do not exceed the guardrail height and so they cover at least 75% of the guardrail facing the sidewalk. A new condition 4.3 requires that, if the lower front planter (which encroaches approximately 3 inches into the public right of way) must be reduced or removed in the future, the applicants must maintain the climbing vines in some other approved fashion.

Staff and the zoning administrator also noted that the guardrail itself and any retaining walls over 30 inches will require a building permit to verify code compliance. The zoning administrator advised that applicants must initiate the landscaping (structure and plantings) before a planning final so building permit final cannot be issued until the landscaping requirement is initiated; staff said the plantings need not be fully grown at final but should be installed to show how they will mature to meet the coverage requirement.

The zoning administrator closed the public hearing and approved the resolution with the revisions discussed on the record. There was no recorded roll‑call vote; the action was taken by motion of the zoning administrator and documented in resolution ZA 25‑005. The hearing was a continued public hearing from an earlier date and the file shows engineering and planning divisions support an encroachment permit for the limited public‑right‑of‑way intrusion. The applicants were advised that legalization of the deck/retaining conditions may involve additional inspections or work to meet current building code requirements.

The zoning administrator adjourned the meeting and scheduled the next special zoning administrator session for March 24, 2025, at 3 p.m. at the Community Development Department.