Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Development Permit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning administrator approves 82‑square‑foot addition at 106 Esplanade

2372670 · February 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of San Clemente zoning administrator on Feb. 20 approved a development permit for an 82‑square‑foot addition at 106 Esplanade, finding the modest rear addition would not negatively affect an adjacent historic residence and is categorically exempt from CEQA.

Zoning Administrator Adam Matamian approved a development permit on Feb. 20 for an 82‑square‑foot rear addition to a home at 106 Esplanade, determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and adopting Resolution ZA 25‑002 to approve Development Permit 25‑040 subject to conditions.

The project planner, Miss Gattney, told the zoning administrator the proposal includes a kitchen and dining area addition with a porch accessing the rear yard, two remodeled bathrooms, a walk‑in closet, relocated exterior door, a new HVAC system, a replaced service panel and two new street trees. Gattney said staff found the project consistent with required findings for a development permit and with applicable zoning requirements, including setbacks, height limits and lot coverage. She recommended adoption of Resolution ZA 25‑002 to approve the project.

“The addition cannot be seen from the public view of the historic home nor the subject home, thus it will not have a negative impact on the historic structure nor change existing neighborhood character,” the planner said during the hearing. The planner also noted that sidewalk repairs are a condition of approval and will be completed through the building permit process.

Adam Matamian, who presided as zoning administrator, said he reviewed the staff report, visited the site earlier in the week and found the addition to be “quite modest” and sufficiently removed from the adjacent historic residence to avoid adverse effects. Matamian then moved to adopt staff’s recommendation, saying, “I will move staff’s recommend recommendation, and determine the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA and adopt resolution ZA 25 dash 0 0 2, approving development permit 25 dash 0 4 0, subject to attached conditions of approval.” He closed the public hearing and approved the resolution as moved.

Representatives for the applicants, identified in the record as Scott Woodland and Connor Woodland, said they had nothing further to add and expressed a desire to begin work promptly. The record notes the zoning administrator corrected the resolution’s date language from 2024 to 2025 before finalizing the action.

The approval is limited to the improvements described in the staff report and is subject to the project conditions attached to Resolution ZA 25‑002, including the sidewalk repairs required during the building permit process. No formal vote tally was recorded in the hearing transcript; the action was taken by the zoning administrator on the record.