HomeMy WebLinkAbout1472 GALAXY DR1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
*NEW FILE*
1472 Galaxy Dr
08/27/1998 15:52 7144767303 PACIFIC NEWPORT BLDS PAGE 02
• .._ _ _.... _.._ PETE WILSON. Govemol
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 0MC 3
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangale, 101h Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802.4302 RKERGBNCY PERMIT
(562) 5905071
T0: William and Melinda Patton
1472 Gala_xv nr.
Newport Beach CA 92660
Is 4 V
15600
July 21. 1)98
Date
5-98-240G
(Emergency Permit No.)
1472 Galaxy Dr Newport Beach Orange County ---
Location of Emergency Work
Installation of blufftOP stabilization svotem consisting of 17 pilings with
30 foot lone tie b ek anchors — work Proposed
Proposed
This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your
representative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I
understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected
occurrence in the form of elope failures_ requires iimnediate action to
prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential
public services. 14 cal. Admin. Code Section 13009. The Executive Director
hereby finds that:
(a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than
permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits
and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless
otherwise specified by the terms of the permit;
(b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed
if time allows; and
(c) As conditioned the work proposed would be consistent with the
requirements of the California coastal Act of 1976.
The work is hereby approved, subject to the conditions listed on the =averse.
very Truly Yours,
Peter M. Douglas
Executive Director
Title: District Manager
F?7 4/88
1..
08/27/1998 15:52 7144767303
PACIFIC NEWPORT ELDS
PAGE 03
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The enclosed form must be signed by the prone tv owner_ and returned
to our office within 15 days.
2. only that work specifically described above and for the specific
property listed above is authorized. Any additional work requires
separate authorization from the Executive Director.
3. The work authorized by this permit must be completed within 30 days
of the date of this permit.
4. Within 60 days of the date of this permit, the permittee shall
apply for a regular Coastal Permit to have the emergency work be
considered permanent. If no such application is received, the
emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 150 days of
the date of this permit unless waived by the Director.
S. In exercising this permit the applicant agrees to hold the
California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for
damage to public or private properties or personal injury that may
result from the project.
6. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary
authorizations and/or permits from other agencies.
Condition #4 indicates that the emergency work is considered to be temporary
work done in an emergency situation. If the property owner wishes to have the
emergency work become a permanent development, a coastal permit must be
obtained. A regular permit would be subject to all of the provisions of the
California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditions
may include provisions for public access (such as an offer to dedicate an
easement) and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the
property assuming liability for damages incurred from Storm waves.
if you have any questions about the provisions of this emergency permit,
please call the Commission Area office.
Enclosures: 1) Acceptance corm;
cat Local Planning Department
TH, SR, RR, RMR, FILE
0884G
1) Regular Permit Application Farm
08/27/1998 15:52 7144767303 PACIFIC NEWPORT BLDS PAGE 04
COASTAL
tUTA COAST AREA
)YOKi�60
OOLZott-�1011, 2
1PJ0 BEACH, CA !!lOR.1476
EMERGENCY PERMIT ACCEPTANCE FORM
TO' CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST AREA
PO Box 1450
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416
(562) 590-5071
RE. Emergency Permit
INSTRUCTIONS: After reading the attached Emergency Permit, please sign this form and
return to the South Coast Area Office within 15 working days from the permit's date.
I hereby understand all of the conditions of the emergency permit being issued to me and
agree to abide by them.
I also understand that the emergency work is TEMPORARY and that a regular Coastal Permit
is necessary to make it a permanent installation. I agree to apply for a regular Coastal Permit
within 60 days of the date of the emergency permit (i.e., by September 22, 1998), OR I will
remove the emergency work authorized by such permit in its entirety within 150 days of the
date of the'emergency permit (i.e., by December 21, 1998).
r�
S' >� Mura-6f ryropelrty owne
William Patton
Name
1472 Galaxy Dr_
Address
Newport Beach CA 92660
August 5, 1998
Date of Signing
C CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
CALIFORNIA - THE
dALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
'South Coast Area Office
n 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
ng Beach, CA 90802-4302
590-5071
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SEP Z 9 1999
Filed:
February 6, 1999
49" Day:
March 29, 1999
180th Day:
Waived
2701" Day
November 5, 1999
Staff:
SFR-LB
Staff Report:
September 23, 1999
Hearing Date:
October 12-15, 1999
Commission Action:
AM PM
7181911011111211121�'TAUF REPORT: REGULAR CALENDAR
t-
APPLICATION NO.: 5-98-240
APPLICANT: Bill Patton AGENT:
PROJECT LOCATION: 1472 Galaxy Drive, City of Newport Beach, County of
Orange
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Permanently authorize the installation of 16 caissons
along the eastern edge of the building pad to enhance slope stability which
were allowed under an emergency permit (5-98-240-G). Repair of backyard
is of
damaged by installation of the caissons. Two hundred cubic yards
of grading are proposed.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the development, which consists
of installation of the sixteen subterranean caissons with five special conditions.
Special conditions contained in this staff report concern: assumption of risk,
conformance with the geological recommendations, implementation of a
landscaping plan, conformance with a drainage and runoff control plan, and a future
improvements deed restriction.
The major issue of this staff report is development on a coastal bluff -top adjacent
to an ecological reserve. The applicant requests that the Commission not prohibit
the use of an existing in -ground irrigation system. The applicant contends that the
lawn area has been designed to minimize the introduction of irrigation water into
the ground and consequently the proposed irrigation system would not adversely
affect slope stability.
LOCAL APPROVALS RECEIVED: Grading/Caisson approval in from the City of
Newport Beach dated August 27, 1998.
.ems
mr
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 2
SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: City of Newport Beach certified Land Use Plan. •
Coastal Commission permits 5-83-840 (Julien), 5-85-062 (Braman),
5-87-653 (Patton), 5-93-308 (Pope Trust), 5-93-367 (Rushton), 5-94-288
(Lewis), 5-98-496 (Ferber) and 5-98-524 (Penfil). Limited Geotechnical
Distress Investigation of existing Residence and Garage at 1472 Galaxy Drive
by NorCal Engineering dated February 28, 1999. Engineering Geologic
Response to Soil Report Review GPC No. 825-98 by Scot P. Farquhar, Inc.
dated September 4, 1998 and Supplemental Geotechnical Distress
Investigation to Existing Residence and Garage at 1472 Galaxy Drive,
Newport Beach, California by NorCal Engineering dated June 30, 1998.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution:
Approval with Conditions.
The Commission hereby GRANTS a permit, subject to the conditions below, for the
proposed development on the grounds that the development, located between the
nearest public roadway and the shoreline, will be in conformity with the provisions
of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 including the public access and
recreation policies of Chapter 3, will not prejudice the ability of the local
government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program
conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any
significant adverse effects on the environment within the meaning of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
11. Standard Conditions.
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and construction
shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized
agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and
conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If construction has not commenced, the permit will expire two years
from the date on which the Commission voted on the application, or in the case of
administrative permits, the date on which the permit is reported to the Commission.
Construction shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable
period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the
expiration date.
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 3
. 3. Compliance. All construction must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as
set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth
below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by
the staff and may require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be
resolved by the Executive Director of the Commission.
5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the
development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee
files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the
permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be
perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all
future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.
Ill. Special Conditions.
1. ASSUMPTION OF RISK, WAIVER OF LIABILITY, AND INDEMNITY
A. By acceptance of this permit, the applicant acknowledges and agrees that: (i) the
site may be subject to hazards from landslide, bluff retreat, erosion, and earth
movement; (ii) to assume the risks to the applicant and the property that is the
subject of this permit of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with
this permitted development; (iii) to unconditionally waive any claim of damage or
liability against the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees for injury or
damage from such hazards; and (iv) to indemnify and hold harmless the
Commission, its officers, agents, and employees with respect to the
Commission's approval of the project against any and all liability, claims,
demands, damages, costs (including costs and fees incurred in defense of such
claims), expenses, and amounts paid in settlement arising from any injury or
damage due to such hazards.
B. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant
shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to
the Executive Director incorporating all of the above terms of this condition. The
deed restriction shall include a legal description of the applicant's entire parcel.
The deed restriction shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns,
and shall be recorded free of prior liens that the Executive Director determines
may affect the enforceability of the restriction. This deed restriction shall not be
removed or changed without a Commission amendment to this coastal
development permit.
IJ
Future DeveloptWnt Deed Restriction
This permit is only for the development described in coastal development
permit No. 5-98-240, Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations
section 13253(b)(6), the exemptions otherwise provided in Public Resources
Code section 30610 (b) shall not apply to the entire parcel. Accordingly, any
future improvements, including but not limited to repair and maintenance
identified as requiring a permit in Public Resources section 30610ld) and Title
14 California Code of Regulations sections 13252(a)-(b), which are proposed
within the parcel shall require an amendment to Permit No. 5.98-273 from
the Commission or shall require an additional coastal development permit
from the Commission or from the applicable certified local government.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the
applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction in a form and content
acceptable to the Executive Director, reflecting the above restrictions on
development within the parcel. The deed restriction shall run with the land,
binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens
that the Executive Director determines may affect the enforceability of the
restriction. This deed restriction shall not be removed or changed without a
Commission amendment to this coastal development permit.
All final design and construction plans, including foundations, grading and
drainage plans, shall be consistent with all recommendations contained in the
Engineering Geologic Report prepared by NorCai Engineering and dated
February 28, 1998. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit, for the Executive
Director's review and approval, evidence that an appropriate licensed
professional has reviewed and approved all final design and construction
plans and certified that each of those final plans is consistent with all of the
recommendations specified in the above -referenced geologic evaluation
approved by the California Coastal Commission for the project site.
The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved
final plans. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be
reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plans
shall occur without a Commission amendment to this coastal development
permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is
required.
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 5
• 4. LANDSCAPING PLAN
A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the
applicant shall submit, for the review and [written] approval of the Executive
Director, a plan for landscaping to protect the ESHA values of the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect.
1. The plan shall demonstrate that:
a. All vegetation planted on the site will consist of native or non-native
drought -tolerant plants which are non-invasive.
b. All required plantings will be maintained in good growing condition
throughout the life of the project, and whenever necessary, shall be
replaced with new plant materials to ensure continued compliance
with the landscape plan.
c. No permanent irrigation system shall be allowed within the property.
Any existing in -ground irrigation systems shall be disconnected and
capped. Temporary above ground irrigation to allow the
establishment of the plantings is allowed. The landscaping plan shall
show all the existing vegetation and any existing irrigation system.
d. The applicant shall submit written evidence from the California
Department of Fish and Game (Department) demonstrating that the
Department has approved the landscaping plan.
e. Landscaped areas in the front and side yards can include potted
ornamental plants provided that they are non-invasive, are placed on
drained hardscape, and do not allow water to percolate into the soil.
Plantings shall be undertaken using accepted planting procedures,
consistent with fire safety requirements. Such planting shall be
adequate to provide ninety (90%) percent coverage within ninety (90)
days and shall be repeated, if necessary, to provide such coverage.
2. The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components:
a. a map showing the type, size, and location of all plant materials that
will be on the developed site, the irrigation system, topography of the
developed site, and all other landscape features, and
b. a schedule for installation of plants.
B. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved
final plan. Any proposed changes to the approved final plan shall be reported
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 6
to the Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plan shall occur
without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless
the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required.
5. DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF CONTROL
Prior to issuance of this permit, the applicant shall submit for the review and
approval of the Executive Director a drainage and runoff control plan with an
evaluation of the existing system's compliance with this special condition. The
drainage and runoff control plan shall show that all roof drainage, including roof
gutters, collection drains, and sub -drain systems for all landscape and hardscape
Improvements for the residence and all yard areas, shall be confined on site. The
purpose of such a system will be to collect and discharge all site drainage to the
street through piping without allowing water to percolate into the ground. if such a
system for conveying site drainage to the street currently does not exist, the
applicant shall be responsible for installing a drainage and runoff control system
which conforms to the plan as approved by the Executive Director within ninety (90)
days of issuance of this permit. The applicant shall maintain the functionality of the
approved drainage and runoff control plan to assure that water is collected and
discharged to the street without percolating into the ground,
IV. Approval Findings and Declarations.
The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows:
A. Project Description and Location
The proposed project is located at 1472 Galaxy Drive in the City of Newport Beach,
County of Orange (Exhibits 1,2, & 3). Galaxy Drive is located on a bluff above
Upper Newport Bay and the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The residence
is on the bayside side of Galaxy Drive, hence, the subject site is located between
the nearest public roadway and the shoreline of Upper Newport Bay. The bluff is
geotechnically active and has been prone to failure. The Commission has issued at
least five coastal development permits for slope repairs on Galaxy Drive. Appendix
A (page 16) is a review of prior Commission actions on Galaxy Drive.
On June 14, 1998 the applicant applied for an emergency permit as the rear yard
was evidencing signs of distress. The geotechnical investigation submitted with
the emergency permit application noted that lateral movement occurred due to
recent heavy rains, that cracks had formed in the hardscape located in the
backyard, and that the residence had experienced differential settlement. Based on
these observations and subsurface testing, the geotechnical report dated February
28, 1998 by NorCal Engineering concluded that the rear yard and bluff face had a
static factor of safety of less than 1.0. To stabilize the rear yard and bluff NorCal
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 7
recommended that the rear yard should be stabilized with piles placed in a row
along the eastern portion of the building pad area. Consequently the Executive
Director issued an emergency permit (5-98-240-G) to install sixteen subterranean
caissons as recommend by NorCal on July 24, 1998. This emergency permit was
reported to the Commission at its August 13, 1998 meeting. A copy of this permit
is attached as Exhibit 6.
This application is the follow-up permit application to permanently authorize the
placement of the sixteen caissons authorized under the emergency permit
(5-98-240-G) and to repair the hardscape damaged through installation of the
caissons. The proposed project also involves the removal of 200 cubic yards of
material to make room for the installation of the caissons. This material was
disposed at a landfill outside of the coastal zone.
The project site was subject to two previous coastal development permit actions.
On September 25, 1987 a waiver was issued for the addition of 390 square feet to
the home under 5-87-653 (Patton). This was an addition on the bayward side of
the house. On November 1, 1983 a waiver was issued for the addition of 1 160
square feet on the landward side of the residence under 5-83-840 (Julian)
B. Geologic Hazards
The subject site is developed with a single-family residence and is on a coastal bluff
overlooking Upper Newport Bay. Consequently, the bluff on which the lot is
located is subject to failure due to water induced erosion from rainfall, irrigation,
and tidal action. According to the applicant's geologic consultant, the rear yard
began to exhibit signs of distress following El Nino rains in 1997-1998. The
apparent cause of this slope distress was the infiltration of rainwater into the
subsurface.
Concerning bluff stability in the general vicinity of the project site in 1978,
Commission staff noted through a working paper for the San Diego County
Regional Coastal Wetlands Workshop (July 20 and 21, 1978) that: "The slopes of
the western shore of Newport are slumping into the bay quite rapidly. The main
cause of this is the irrigation of lawns in urban areas on the bluffs above Upper
Bay. This irrigation has altered the water table which in turn has decreased the
stability of the bluffs." In a letter dated May 3, 1998 Richard T. Higley wrote that:
"It has been the experience of the CNB City Geologist that all past slope failures on
this stretch of coastal bluff have in part been triggered by hydrostatic loading
caused by perched groundwater conditions. "
0
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 8
The Commission has issued at least five coastal development permits for slope
repair or stabilization along Galaxy Drive (see Appendix A on page 16). The number
of permit applications for bluff stabilization and bluff repairs on Galaxy Drive
demonstrates that this bluff overlooking Upper Newport Bay is geotechnically
active. Development of coastal bluffs is inherently risky, Section 30253 of the
Coastal Act states, in relevant part:
New development shall.
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, food, and fire
hazard.
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute
significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or
surrounding area or in any way require the construction ofprotective devices that
would substantially alter natural landibrms along bluffs and cliffs.
To evaluate the site's stability the property was subject to several geotechnical
investigations performed by NorCal Engineering. The first report included
subsurface exploration, logging, soil sampling, and laboratory testing to determine
the existing soil conditions at the site and to provide data and specific
recommendations relative to the design of the proposed development. The first
study is titled "Limited Geotechnical Distress Investigation" by NorCal Engineering
and is dated February 28, 1998. The project number is 7074-97. A second study
titled "Supplemental Geotechnical Distress Investigation" was prepared by NorCal
Engineering and is dated June 30, 1998. A third study by Scot P. Farquhar, Inc.
was prepared on September 4, 1998 and is titled "Engineering Geologic Response
to Soil Report Review GPC No. 825-98, dated May 3, 1998"
The first geotechnical report prepared by NorCal Engineering (dated February 28,
1998) noted that the heavy rains (1997-1998) had apparently triggered rear yard
slope instability at 1472 Galaxy Drive. In a letter dated April 26, 1999 NorCal
Engineering stated that due to the large amounts of rainfall over a long period of
time that groundwater levels rose to the point that the groundwater Was near or
slightly above the slide plane depths, causing saturated conditions and a decrease
in slope stability. Furthermore, the September 4, 1998 report by Scot P. Farquhar,
Inc. noted that the bedrock strata has an "out of slope" dip component which is a
structural topographic condition that is generally considered least favorable with
respect to gross slope stability. The report by Farquhar notes that no active
groundwater was noted in the fill or marine terrace deposits. Seepage, however,
was encountered in the potential landslide materials and bedrock strata as indicated
on the boring logs. No seepage was noted for the bluff face.
�J
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 9
NorCal Engineering concluded in this first geotechnical report that: "Based upon
our evaluations, the rear yard area and steep descending slope have a current
safety factor of less than 1.0 under static conditions. Horizontal cracks from % to
l inch have occurred in the concrete slabs and brick patio across the rear pad area
during the recent heavy rains. The eastern portion of the residence has also been
adversely effected with the maximum differential settlements of 1 114 to 2 inches
noted adjacent to the rear yard area." During installation of the soldier piles
(authorized under the emergency permit) inspections were made which indicated
that the groundwater depth had dropped five to twenty feet below the slide plane.
To assure bluff stability on the subject property and to protect the subject property
NorCal Engineering recommended the installation of a row of piles along the eastern
edge of the building pad (Exhibit 4). NorCal Engineering recommended that the
piles should extend at least ten feet into competent bedrock materials. Though the
evaluation by NorCal Engineering concluded that the project would enhance slope
stability, NorCal did not make any recommendations concerning drainage, irrigation,
or landscaping.
The second geological evaluation by NorCal Engineering (dated June 30, 1998)
added tieback anchors to the geotechnical consultant's recommendation for
enhancing slope stability. These tiebacks were not installed. According to a phone
conversation with NorCal Engineering the project without the tiebacks has a factor
of safety of approximately 1.25 meaning that the tiebacks are not necessary for
achieving minimal bluff stability or insuring the protection of the single family
residence.
Based on the mechanism of failure and the need to minimize the infiltration of
water into the bluff slope to decrease the potential for slope failure the Commission
finds it necessary to impose several special conditions. Minimizing the infiltration
of water can be achieved by reducing irrigation, through drainage improvements,
and through the use of vegetation.
To assure that the site is appropriately landscaped for purposes of minimizing the
infiltration of water into the bluff, Commission finds it necessary to impose a
special condition to require that a landscaping plan consisting of native or drought
tolerant plants be prepared for the review and approval of the Executive Director
prior to issuance of the permit. The landscaping plan shall be prepared by a
licensed landscape architect and shall incorporate the following criteria: 1) to
minimize the introduction of water into the ground, no permanent in -ground
irrigation shall be permitted, temporary above ground irrigation to establish the
plantings is permitted; 2) landscaping shall consist of native or deep rooted
drought tolerant non-native plants which are non-invasive. Invasive, non -indigenous
plant species which tend to supplant native species shall not be used; and 3)
5-98-240 (Bill Patton) 1
Page: 10
Ornamental plants that are in pots which are non-invasive and are placed on drained
hardscape which does not allow water to percolate into the soil will be allowed in
the front and side yards. Additionally, the landscaping plan shall also show the
existing plants and irrigation system. Through this special condition, one of the
contributing factors to bluff failure, the introduction of water into the ground, will
be minimized.
A drainage and runoff control plan was not submitted. Controlling surface runoff is
another method of reducing the potential for water infiltration into the bluff. To
assure that the site is appropriately drained to minimize the infiltration of water into
the bluff a drainage and runoff control plan should be prepared and implemented to
assure that surface runoff is collected and discharged to the street. Therefore, the
Commission requires that a drainage and runoff control plan shall be prepared and
submitted for the review and approval of the Executive Director prior to issuance of
this coastal development permit. The drainage and runoff control plan shall also
evaluate the effectiveness of the existing on site drainage. If the existing on -site
drainage is not consistent with the requirements of this condition, the applicant
shall be responsible for installing a drainage and runoff control system, which
conforms to this condition within ninety days of issuance of this permit.
Although adherence to the geological consultant's recommendations will minimize
the risk of damage, the risk is not eliminated entirely, Galaxy Drive has been prone
to bluff failures on a consistent bases. Therefore, the standard waiver of liability of
condition has also been attached as a special condition. By this means, the
applicant is notified that the lot is in an area that is potentially subject to slope
failure, which could damage the applicant's property. The applicant is also notified
that the Commission is not liable for such damage as a result of approving the
permit for development. In addition, the condition insures that future owners of the
property will be informed of the risks and the Commission's immunity of liability.
This special condition was imposed on development located at 1942 Galaxy Drive
under coastal development permit 5-85-062 (Braman), at 1448 Galaxy Drive under
coastal development permit 5-98-524 (Penfil), and at 1454 Galaxy Drive under
coastal development permit 5-98-469 (Ferber).
Since the coastal bluffs adjacent to Galaxy Drive are active, future development
adjacent to the bluffs could have an adverse impact on bluff stability if not properly
evaluated. For this reason, the Commission is imposing a special condition which
states that any future development or additions on the property, including but not
limited to hardscape improvements, grading, landscaping, vegetation removal and
structural improvements, requires a coastal development permit from the
Commission or its successor agency. This condition ensures that any future
development on coastal bluffs, which may affect the stability of the bluff and
residential structures, receives review by the Commission. The Commission
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 11
imposed an informational future improvements special condition for development
occurring at 1730 Galaxy Drive under coastal development permit 5-94-288
(Lewis), at 1448 Galaxy Drive under coastal development permit 5-98-524 (Penfil),
and at 1454 Galaxy Drive under coastal development permit 5-98-469 (Ferber).
The geotechnical-consulting firm has prepared the plans submitted with the
application. The plans, however, have not been certified as incorporating the
recommendations of the geotechnical reports prepared by NorCal Engineering dated
February 28, 1998. To ensure that the geotechnical consultant's recommendations
are instituted, it is necessary to impose a special condition requiring verification
that the project plans are in compliance with the recommendations of NorCal
Engineering. Accordingly, the applicant must submit prior to issuance of the
permit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, plans (caisson plans)
signed by a certified geotechnical engineer which incorporate the recommendations
made by NorCal Engineering geotechnical investigation (PN 7074-97).
Therefore, the Commission finds, consistent with the requirements of Section
30253 of the Coastal Act, that the in -ground irrigation system be capped and
disconnected and that the remainder of the proposed project is approved as
conditioned for: an assumption of risk deed restriction, future improvements, the
implementation of a landscaping- plan, compliance with a drainage and runoff
. control plan, and conformance with the geotechnical recommendations.
C. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
The project site is immediately adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve managed by the California Department of Fish and Game. The Ecological
Reserve is a 752 acre wetland habitat sanctuary. In 1968 the California State
Legislature authorized the Fish and Game Commission to establish ecological
reserves for the purpose of protecting rare and endangered wildlife, aquatic
organisms, and critical habitat. Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve was
established for the principal purpose of preserving and enhancing a saltwater marsh
ecosystem. Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act states:
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and
parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which
would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the
continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
Upper Newport Bay (Bay) is one of the last major estuarine habitats remaining in a
near natural condition in southern California. The Department of Fish and Game
41 notes that the Bay is ecologically valuable due to the fact that it supports many
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 12
resident and migratory birds; many species of plants and animals; and that the Bay
is a nursery for numerous marine organisms. The Upper Newport Bay Regional
Park, Existing Conditions Report (May 30, 1990) identifies a total of 22 natural
communities within Upper Newport Bay. Furthermore, the Bay is an important
recreation area and supports nature study, bird watching, and fishing. According to
the Los Angeles Times (Monday, July 22, 1996) over two million persons per year
visit the Ecological Reserve. Thus, the Ecological Reserve is an important coastal
visitor destination because of its ecological value and for its recreational benefits
such as open space, and bird watching. Human activity, in the form of increasing
urban development adjacent to the Ecological Reserve has had significant adverse
effects on the Bay. Major adverse effects include increased sediment flowing into
the Bay, the elimination of natural vegetation, and the elimination of habitat
adjoining the Bay.
Concerning ESHA degradation, Commission staff noted in a working paper for the
San Diego County Regional Coastal Wetlands Workshop (July 20 and 21, 1978)
that: "Excessive sedimentation is probably the biggest problem facing Upper
Newport. The lack of proper watershed management and in particular poor grading
practices have accelerated erosion and sediment transport, This process is
endangering ecological habitats." As re -emphasis of sedimentation as a problem,
the Los Angeles Times (April 6, 1992) wrote that urban development adjacent to
Upper Newport Bay has caused silt to flow into the Bay. The Bay is dredged on an
on -going basis to remove accumulated sediments (coastal development permit
5-97-071 (County of Orange)).
Maintaining the Bay's biological productivity and ESHA values is a critical concern
since estuaries are one of the most productive areas of the world. Tidal action
allows acres of saltwater, spreading over mudflats to reach sunlight and air. This
stimulates the growth of algae and plankton that begins the food chain essential to
wildlife and commercial ocean fishing. Coastal mudflats support seventy percent of
the birds using the Pacific Flyway. Birds known to frequent the Ecological Reserve
include the light-footed clapper rail and Beldings Savannah sparrow, Brown Pelican,
California least tern. The intertidal mud flats support cordgrass, pickleweed,
jaumee and the endangered salt marsh bird's beak. Some ocean dwelling fish such
as the California halibut and barred sandbass use Upper Newport Bay for spawning
and as a nursery.
Vegetation patterns in the watershed have been altered considerably by human
activity. These changes have resulted from agricultural use, increasing
urbanization, commercial development, and industrial development. Undeveloped
areas still contain and scrub vegetation that is typical of southern California.
According the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, Existing Conditions Report (May
30, 1990) exotic species, both plant and animal have invaded Upper Newport Bay. 0
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 13
These include non-native grassland species, which are infiltrating native habitat
such as wild oats, barely, fennel, and artichoke thistle. Introduced birds include
English sparrows and rock doves. Introduced mammals include the house mouse
and Virginia opossum.
To assure that development on property adjacent to Ecological Reserve is
consistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act, the Commission finds that
the applicant shall prepare prior to issuance of this permit a landscaping plan which
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Executive Director. To
minimize the potential for the introduction of non-native invasive species and to
minimize the potential for future bluff failure, a landscaping plan shall be prepared
by a licensed landscape architect and shall incorporate the following criteria: 1) to
minimize the introduction of water into the ground, no permanent in -ground
irrigation shall be permitted, temporary above ground irrigation to establish the
plantings is permitted; 2) landscaping shall consist of native or deep rooted
drought tolerant non-native plants which are non-invasive. Invasive, non -indigenous
plant species which tend to supplant native species shall not be used. Furthermore
to assure that the landscaping plan will be compatible with the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological reserve, it shall be reviewed and approved by the California Department
of Fish and Game; and 3) Ornamental plants that are in pots which are
non-invasive and are placed on drained hardscape which does not allow water to
percolate into the soil will be allowed in the front and side yards. Additionally, the
landscaping plan shall also show the existing backyard plants. Through this special
condition, one of the contributing factors to bluff failure, the introduction of water
into the ground, will be minimized.
Through these special conditions the Commission finds that the project is
consistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act which requires that
development adjoining environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and
recreation areas shall be designed to prevent impacts which would significantly
degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat
and recreation areas.
D. Public Access
The project site is on the seaward side of Galaxy Drive which is the first public road
immediately inland of Newport Bay. Section 30604(c) of the Coastal Act requires
that every coastal development permit issued for any development between the
nearest public road and the sea include a specific finding that the development is in
conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3. The
proposed development is located between the sea and the nearest public road.
L�
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 14
,
r
The proposed development is located on a lot with an existing single family
dwelling. The proposed development will not change the use nor intensity of use
of the site. Public access opportunities exist through Galaxy View Park which
overlooks the Bay and North Star Beach. The proposed development, as
conditioned, will not result in any adverse impacts to existing public access or
recreation in the area. Therefore, the Commission finds that the project is
consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
E. Local Coastal Program
Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act provides that the Commission shall issue a
Coastal Development Permit only if the project will not prejudice the ability of the
local government having jurisdiction to prepare a Local Coastal Program which
conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
The Newport Beach Land Use Plan was certified on May 19, 1982. The project as
conditioned is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The
proposed development will not prejudice the City's ability to prepare a Local Coastal
Program for Newport Beach that is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the
Coastal Act as required by Section 30604(a). 0
F. Califorhia Environmental Quality Act
Section 13096 of the Commission's administrative regulations requires Commission
approval of Coastal Development Permit applications to be supported by a finding
showing the application, as conditioned by any conditions of approval, to be
consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development
from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect
which the activity may have on the environment.
The project is located in an existing urbanized area. The proposed development has
been conditioned to assure that the project will not have a significant adverse
impact on coastal resources and has been conditioned to: provide an assumption
of risk deed restriction, for conformance with the geotechnical recommendations,
to implement a landscaping plan, conformance with a drainage and runoff control
plan, and that future improvements require either an amendment or a new coastal
development permit. The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with
the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. There are no other feasible alternatives
or feasible mitigation measures which would substantially lessen any significant
' 5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 15
W
• adverse effects the activity may have on the environment. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with CEQA and the
policies of the Coastal Act.
,0
0
H:\Staf freports\REGULAR\R98240. do c
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 16
Appendix A
Prior Commission Permits on Galaxy Drive
5-98-497-G, 5-98-524-G, and 5-98-524 (Penfil) at 1448 Galaxy Drive: The
Executive Director issued these two emergency permits in December 1998. These
emergency permits were reported to the Commission at its January 1999
Commission meeting. The project under these emergency permits consists of the
installation of caissons within the applicant's property along the eastern property
line and the removal of an existing gazebo that encroaches onto the Ecological
Reserve. Special conditions imposed required the use of best management
practices to minimize the migration of silt into the Ecological Reserve, that the
caisson be approved by the geotechnicai consultant in their new location, that the
caissons would not have off -site impacts, and that any disturbed areas be
revegetated with non-invasive, primarily native, drought tolerant plants. The
follow-up regular coastal development permit application was approved on August
10, 1999 with ten special conditions which required an assumption of risk deed
restriction, revised plans, conformance with the geotechnical recommendation, a
landscaping plan which requires the use of native and drought tolerant vegetation
and which eliminated in -ground irrigation, demolition of the gazebo, the requirement
to obtain a right of entry authorization if any work is done within the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, the use of best management practices, a coastal
development permit for future development, the submission and implementation of
a drainage and runoff control plan, and the requirement that within 90 days of
Commission action that the prior to issuance special conditions be met.
5-98-469 and 5-98-469-G (Ferber) at 1454 Galaxy Drive: The Commission
approved the installation of a grade beam wall to stabilize the slope at its meeting
of February 3, 1999. The Executive Director did not grant the request for an
emergency permit as the home was not in immediate danger. The Commission
approved the regular coastal development permit with ten special conditions which
required an assumption of risk deed restriction, revised plans, conformance with the
geotechnicai recommendation, a landscaping plan which requires the use of native
and drought tolerant vegetation and which eliminated in -ground irrigation, the
requirement to obtain a right of entry authorization if any work is done within the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, the use of best management practices, the
submission of plans for a colorized and texturized grade beam, a coastal
development permit for future development, to contact the Department of Fish and
Game to undertake full slope repair and stabilization, and the submission and
implementation of a drainage and runoff control plan. The applicant also requested
that the Commission re -consider the special condition prohibiting the use of an
in -ground irrigation system on his lot. The Commission heard this reconsideration
request on April 13, 1999 and upheld the imposition of the special condition
requiring that the existing in -ground irrigation system be disconnected.
5r 98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 17
• 5-98-240 and 5-98-240-G (Patton) at 1472 Galaxy Drive: The Executive
Director issued this emergency permit on July 21, 1998. This emergency permit
was reported to the Commission at its August 1998 Commission meeting. The
project under this emergency permit was for the installation of a blufftop
stabilization system consisting of 16 pilings with 30-foot long tieback anchors
located under the building pad. A retaining wall was not proposed under the
emergency permit. The follow-up regular permit application was received on
February 8, 1999.
5-94-288 (Lewis) at 1730 Galaxy Drive: The Commission approved this permit
at its February 1995 hearing. The proposed project consisted of the installation of
ten caissons for purposes of bluff stabilization with a three-foot high wrought iron
fence on top of the bluff and a six-inch high concrete curb along the bluffward edge
of an existing patio. One special condition was imposed requiring that an
amendment or a new permit be obtained for any future development.
5-93-308 (Pope Trust) at 1818 Galaxy Drive: The Commission approved this
permit at its September 1993 hearing. The proposed project consisted of
demolition of an existing damaged patio slab of approximately 1028 square feet,
installation of eight caissons, and replacement with a new patio of approximately
the same size in approximately the same location as the existing patio, construction
of a drain down the bluff face and storm drain outlet, and a boundary line
adjustment. Special conditions imposed included the submission of the final
property boundary lines, permission from the Department of Fish and Game to
perform development on the Ecological Reserve, Department of Fish and Game
approval of the restoration plan to restore the vegetation impacted by the project,
the removal of all debris following completion of the project, the requirement that
mechanized equipment can not be used on the bluff face, and conformance with
the geotechnical recommendations.
5-99-040 and 5-99-040-G (Fleming) at 1824 Galaxy Drive: The project
proposed under these applications is for the installation of a retaining wall and
caissons which would be placed two feet seaward of the applicant's property line.
Consequently the project would be located within the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve. The proposed retaining wall would be approximately 78' feet
long by 12' high. These permit applications were received January 28, 1999.
Both the emergency permit application and regular permit application are incomplete
pending an alternatives analysis consistent with the requirements of Section 30240
and 30251 of the Coastal Act and an evaluation of how the observed moisture in
the ground has affected slope stability.-_
z�
5-98-240 (Bill Patton)
Page: 18
5-85-062 (Braman) at 1942 Galaxy Drive: This was an Administrative Permit
issued by the Executive Director. The Commission concurred with the Executive
Director's determination on March 13, 1985. The proposed project consisted of
stabilization of earth and bluff beneath and immediately adjacent to a single-family
residence overlooking Upper Newport Bay. Special conditions included an
assumption of risk deed restriction, requirements to control runoff and reduce
erosion, the replanting of all graded areas with native plants, and conformance with
the geotechnical recommendations.
5-93-367 (Rushton) at 2000 Galaxy Drive: The Commission approved this permit
at its March 1994 hearing. The proposed project consisted of bluff stabilization
and repair including 528 cubic yards of grading, installation of 12 caissons and
construction of a retaining wall. The retaining wall and caissons were originally
proposed on the ecological reserve and not on the property owned by the applicant.
However, the Commission required that the caissons and retaining wall be relocated
onto the applicant's property. Special conditions imposed included the submission
of a landscaping plan approved by the California Department of Fish and Game, and
conformance with the geotechnical recommendations. One requirement of the
geotechnical recommendation was that the retaining wall could not be more than
four feet above finished grade. The purpose of this requirement was to minimize
the visual impact of a large retaining wall as seen from the Ecological Reserve. The
landscaping plan applies to the bluff face.
0
I®
A
r 4FJrC
rA . JC
..
x, ^•2'
.-
'7/
2
,%
W COAST Nifl
•.G
,_'
1 M'
... "•�`.•tell
10
NORTH
NorCal Engineering
SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
PATTON RESIDENCE
PRWECT 7074-97 1 DATE
� •'• LFlY(RfIfY
I
GUlQQNI
eJ 1
ro
WINE
((JJ�,��"'<<S
IIRUI��VE
_
EXHIBIT No. 1
Application Number:
5-98-240
Vicinity Map
California Coastal
SI
�'940
am
n
w
m
n
=
m
.�.
tD 0co
W
c
Z
d'
in
Np 3
Z
f)
m
C
m
N
d
m
7A. tva 42Z4 M. AI I-V-/W 14 #K
P_ A/. to - 27
i
NOIF - ASSESSORS ROCK A
PARCM MOVERS
swwrtYH CIRCLES
1
I17-67
�--
+, tCC/ 7-M"
ASSESSOKS MAP
#OOK 117 PAGE 67
COOMY OF ORANGE
N
0
0
I E.rc_
6"C•
gT-
6 CF
100 21 RC
6"CF
lt•
im 75 TC
6"CF
Property line
1° 550 F(
6 °U1LET
1°104
CF T,
6"
T1017,I TC
6 CFT'
a
m
X
_
y
cot
OmW
m00
z
-1
Z
L03-
C a
o
CA)
`\I ( � 7 � I I � �1 ;1 I II �.11 ,, i.11., •11 _
o xo Io
3CALE IN PET Propertyme I
I o
Fs
A I
� � FS F•s I . � i1p 7°
1po FS 87 5
S h Wwddeck
7°JI I .t
A K 3
4 \
'��� • Y � �c m I
p?97 °J 0 \
i 1 Prowlylkw
. \ Property lkm
NorCal Engineering
SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SITE PLAN
7o7497
FIGURE
as � / ,•� _- —• �
'IlewRCCE �RGYV _ _ — — — — —go _
22LICZ
bI bf
Q
�rwfrir V�
�v �� S Jbv�T.
CRACK 6,-'O'lfQCK 7
1
�pry�cl) NorCal Engineering
SOS AA• •EMCHNrAL CONSU.TAMS
0
o
Z
00
E C}
"
Cc
U
=N
Z cb
o
c
m
o Ci
m
U
X
to Li
r
o
o
W
a
a
a,uv«han
�40f
SCMZ FUT
SOLDIER PRE
AND GRADE BEAM LOCATION MAP
FMUW2
I''
coon,
eiJ
o GnrarCtBu.w, C�"�.iak, X tBy
!�t
)
t
I Ortm
.aT `a MW
b�
i
rAi�
f4,4
GINT
CAI
s
FI
. i_...�.IL.
ICD
ct
at
_ Gw
s•,anewe
rr
NorCal Engineering
S00ANOCEOTECMIC&CONSULTAWS
PROFILE VIEW
-
v�Troxa 1„ wNEXTOgTeEACN
OFSOLDIEflPILES
-
P�Hrt TWH7 Ore APp1�1M
fi
10UE
D
m
°�
to �
o0
o-
�
co z
.i
d
<
,p 3
Z
m
O m
�
d
�
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
cw.. Winw. 200 a.nq r
200 one,,om Ewer i
Ga0ea 4= angg cR pBnmm
Tot
Date
1472 Golan Dr.
-3-96-2400
Ltewoort Beach, CA 92660 (emergency Permit Woe)
1472 Calary Dr.. Nownort naaeh. nranna r. untw
Location of emargency Mork
30 foot Iona tieback anchors.
Work Proposed
This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your
representative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I
understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected
occurrence in the form of slooa failurelL requires immediate action to
prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential
public services. 24 Cal. Adman. Code Section 13009. The executive Director
hereby finds thats
(a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than
permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits
and the development can and will be completed within 70 days unless
otherwise specified by the terms of the permit;
(b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed
if time allows; and
(a) As conditioned the work proposed would be consistent with the
requirements of the California Coastal Aft of 1976.
The work is hereby approved, subject to the conditions listed on the reverse.
Very Truly yours,
Peter K, Douglas
executive Director
art
Tit)
72: 4/SS
1. The enclosed form must be signed by the property owner and returned
to our office within 15 days.
2. Only that work specifically described above and for the specific
property listed above is authorized. Any additional work requires
separate authorization from the Executive Director.
3. The work authorized by this permit must be completed within 30 days
of the date of this permit.
4. Within 60 days of the date of this permit, the permitter shall
apply for a regular Coastal permit to have the emergency work be
considered permanent. If no such application is received, the
emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 150 days of
the data of this permit unless waived by the Director.
S. In exercising this permit the applicant agrees to bold the
California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for
damage to public or private properties or personal injury that may
result from the project.
S. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary
authorizations and/or permits from other agencies.
Condition /4 indicates that the emergency work is considered to be temporary
work done in an emergency situation. If the property owner wishes to have the
emergency work become a permanent development, a Coastal permit must be
obtained. A regular permit would be subject to all of the provisions of the
California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditions
may include provisions for public access (such as an offer to dedicate an
easement) and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the
property assuming liability for damages incurred from storm waves.
If you have any questions about the provisions of this emergency prrmit,
please call the Commission Area office.
inciosures: 1) Acceptance sormi 2) Regular Permit Application loan
cc: Local Planning Department
TH, !R, RR, Rae, FILM
0884G