Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press staff for clearer "roof element" rules and refinements to accessory‑structure, retaining‑wall and sign standards in zoning cleanup
Summary
The Planning Commission spent an extended session on Batch 2 zoning cleanup amendments — clarifying patio‑cover setbacks, retaining‑wall landscaping and guardrail transparency, sign definitions, and a contested draft definition of "roof element" for height averaging — and directed staff to return with more diagrams, legal advice and a Design Review Subcommittee or study‑session discussion before forwarding an ordinance to council.
The San Clemente Planning Commission on March 18 conducted a detailed review of Batch 2 of proposed zoning cleanup amendments, focusing on accessory‑structure setbacks, retaining‑wall standards, sign clarifications, and a proposed definition of “roof element” intended to simplify height calculations.
David Carilla, the lead project planner, summarized the proposed edits. He said patio‑cover setbacks would be measured from the property line to the patio post rather than from wall to wall, retaining walls would require a minimum setback to adjacent walls or fences equal to the taller structure’s height, required guardrails that are visible from the street should be transparent to reduce visual massing, and a two‑foot planted area would be required at the base of certain retaining walls in visually significant areas. “We’ve clarified that the setback is from the property line to the post of a patio cover,” Carilla said.
On signs, staff proposed clarifying the temporary banner permit type, distinguishing flags from flag signs (commercial copy) and continuing to prohibit wind‑driven signs such as feather banners, streamers and inflatables. Carilla showed examples and said the changes are intended to reduce inconsistent interpretations and to aid applicants and staff in project review.
The meeting’s most contested discussion centered on the draft “roof element” definition, which staff proposed to help architects complete height analyses. Commissioners pressed staff for clearer guidance and more examples for varied roof types (hip roofs, dormers, shed/flat roofs, stepped/multi‑level roofs and sloping lots). Several commissioners flagged one draft sentence — that “height measurements must be balanced with an equal number of points on each side of the building” — as unclear and potentially “architecturally stifling.” As one commissioner noted, that balancing requirement could force artificially symmetric architectural decisions rather than simply provide objective measurement points.
Commissioner McCann and others urged staff to supply additional diagrams and to refine the relationship between a roof element, its key points, the ridge/peak and how averaging is calculated on sloping lots. Carilla and staff agreed they would work with design‑review experts (staff indicated Chris Wright would be available as a roof‑height expert) and consult legal counsel to determine whether the Design Review Subcommittee or a Planning Commission study session is the appropriate forum for a deeper technical review.
The commission also debated retaining‑wall requirements. Commissioners sought clarity about how the two‑foot planting strip would be applied where a wall footing or sidewalk already occupies a narrow area, and asked staff to explicitly allow a 42‑inch transparent guardrail directly on top of a retaining wall where the building code requires fall protection while discouraging stacked opaque walls that create excessive combined height and massing.
Outcome and next steps: the commission did not adopt the ordinance; instead, members directed staff to refine the draft language and graphics, consult the city attorney about routing the item to the Design Review Subcommittee, prepare a one‑page summary and more examples, and return to the DRC or a study session (target: April) for further technical review prior to a future Planning Commission recommendation to City Council.
