HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Wardy Residence_PA2012-140CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
January 3, 2013 Meeting
Agenda Item 3
SUBJECT: Wardy Residence - (PA2012 -140)
1111 Dolphin Terrace
• Site Development Review No. SD2012 -005
• Modification Permit No. MD2012 -017
APPLICANT: Amen and Traci Wardy
PLANNER: Patrick J. Alford
(949) 644 -3235, palford(Qnewportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
A request for approval of a Site Development Review to allow an increase in the
boundaries of Development Area B for the purpose of the construction of a pool and
retaining walls in Development Area C. The application also includes a request for a
Modification Permit to allow a retaining wall over 8 feet in height from finished grade.
These improvements are proposed in conjunction with the construction of new single
family residence.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. _ approving Site Development Review No. SD2012 -005
and Modification Permit No. MD2012 -017 (Attachment No. PC 1).
1
2
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 2
LOCATION
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
ON -SITE
RS -D (Single -Unit
R -1 -B (Single -Unit
Single -unit residential
Residential Detached )
Residential -Bluff Overlay)
NORTH
RS -D (Single -Unit
Residential Detached)
R -1 (Single -Unit
Residential)
Single -unit residential
SOUTH
CM (Commercial
CM (Commercial
IE
Offices
Recreational and Marine)
Recreational and Marine)
EAST
RS -D (Single -Unit
R-1-13 (Single-Unit
Single -unit residential
Residential Detached)
Residential -Bluff Overlay)
WEST
RS -D (Single -Unit
R -1 -13 (Single -Unit
Single -unit residential
Residential Detached
Residential -Bluff Overla
S
4
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting
The project site is located in the Irvine Terrace community at 1111 Dolphin Terrace.
The project site consists of 18,359- square -foot. The project site was previously
developed with a single -unit residence, which is now demolished, and the site is
currently undergoing grading for a new, two -story, 10,691- square -foot single -unit
residence. Building permits have been issued for the construction of the residence.
The project site topography consists of a graded pad on the northern half of the lot, and
slope on the southern half that drops down to Bayside Drive. The remnant of a ravine
that cut into the bluff face prior to the development of Irvine Terrace causes the
contours of the slope to curve inland towards Dolphin Terrace.
Adjacent uses consist of single -story, single - family residences to the east, west, and
north (across Dolphin Terrace), and Bayside Square office complex and the Newport
Beach Yacht Club to the south (across Bayside Drive).
Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct series of retaining walls on the slope to support a
pool /spa, lawn area, and terraced planters in the rear yard. The heights of retaining
walls for the planters range from 2 feet to 8 feet above finished grade. The height of the
retaining wall paralleling the western property line is 14 feet above finished grade at the
highest point.
A portion of the pool and retaining walls encroach into Development Area C, as defined
by the Bluff Overlay District. Development Area C allows a limited range of accessory
structures that does not include swimming pools and retaining walls. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a Site Development Review to modify the development area
boundaries so that these proposed structures are located within Development Area B as
depicted on the Project Plans (Attachment PC 2).
The application also includes a request for a modification permit to allow a retaining wall
over 8 feet in height from finished grade. Section 20.30.040.A.2 of the Zoning Code sets
the maximum height of retaining walls at 8 feet measured from finished grade at the base
of the wall. The section of the retaining wall in question is located near the western side
property line. The section that exceeds the 8 -foot height limit runs approximately 28 -feet,
6- inches and is approximately 14- feet -high at the highest point (See Figure 1 below).
0
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 4
Figure 1 — Side Retaining Wall
DISCUSSION
Analysis
General Plan
The site is designated RS -D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) by the Land Use
Element of the General Plan and is located in the R -1 -B (Single -Unit Residential
Detached, Bluff Overlay) Zoning District. The proposed structures are consistent with
this land use category and the zoning district.
Local Coastal Plan
The City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) sets forth goals, objectives, and
policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone in accordance
with the Coastal Act. CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -10 specifically addresses the bluffs along
Bayside Drive, including Irvine Terrace:
0
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 5
4.4.3 -10. The coastal bluffs along Bayside Drive that have been cut and filled by the
Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point developments are no longer subject
to marine erosion. New development on these bluffs is subject to the
setback restrictions established for bluff top development located on a
bluff not subject to marine erosion.
CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -5 relates to bluffs not subject to marine erosion and requires
principal structures and major accessory structures to be set back from the bluff edge in
accordance with the "predominant line of existing development:"
4.4.3 -5. Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff not subject to
marine erosion to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the
predominant line of existing development in the subject area. This
requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory
structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be
increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the
development.
The City does not have a certified Implementation Plan. However, the Bluff Overlay
development areas (see discussion below) were generally derived from a development
line established by the Irvine Terrace Community Association (10 -feet from the top of
bluff) and a blanket rear setback variance adopted in 1954 for this area (13 feet below
the top of the curb). Since development has adhered to these limits for decades, these
development limit lines generally represent the predominant lines of existing
development for this area. Therefore, the Bluff Overlay development areas are
considered to be consistent with the CLUP.
CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -14 requires swimming pools located on bluff properties to
incorporate leak prevention and detection measures. A condition has been included to
ensure compliance with this policy.
It should be noted that the project site is located within and meets the conditions of
Categorical Exclusion Order E -77 -5; therefore, the project will not require a coastal
development permit.
Bluff Overlay District
Both the Land Use Element and the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan
contain polices calling for the protection of bluffs and other landforms. The Bluff (B)
Overlay District was established to implement these policies.
The Bluff Overlay District is applied to a number of areas of the City that contain bluffs,
including the south side of Dolphin Terrace in Irvine Terrace (See Attachment PC 3,
Bluff Overlay Map B -2).
rW,
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 6
Each lot on Dolphin Terrace within the Bluff Overlay District is divided into three
development areas:
Development Area A covers the area between the front property line adjacent to
Dolphin Terrace and a 10 -foot setback from the top of the existing bluff. Area A
allows for the development and use of principal and accessory structures, and
accessory structures allowed in Areas B and C.
11. Development Area B covers between the 10 -foot setback from the top of the
existing bluff and a line established at an elevation that is 13 feet below the
average elevation of the top of the curb adjacent to the lot. Area B allows for the
development and use of accessory structures, including swimming pools, spas,
and hot tubs; walls, fences, and retaining walls, and patio covers, decks, and
gazebos. Principal structures are not allowed.
III. Development Area C covers all portions of the lot not located in Areas A and B.
Area C allows for the development and use of limited accessory structures,
including landscaping /irrigation system, drainage devices, on -grade trails and
stairways, and property line walls and walls, not including retaining walls.
Section 20.28.040.1 of the Zoning Code allows development area boundaries to be
adjusted through the approval of a site development review to allow structures and
grading not otherwise allowed.
The proposed adjustment would shift the Area B /Area C boundary up to 34 feet down -
slope to include the portions of the proposed swimming pool and retaining walls within
Area B. This adjustment would increase Area B by approximately 1,444 square -feet.
In accordance with Section 20.28.040 of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission
must make the following findings for approval of an increased development area:
1. The increased bluff development area will ensure a slope stability factor of safety
greater than or equal to 1.5 at the end of the economic life of the development for
the static condition of the bluff or a factor of safety greater than or equal to 1.1 for
the seismic condition of the bluff or canyon, whichever is farther landward,
2. The increased bluff development area will provide adequate protection from the
erosion factors for the economic life of the development,
3. The increased bluff development area will be compatible and consistent with
surrounding development, and
4. The increased bluff development area will not have an impact on public views,
sensitive habitat areas, and is not otherwise detrimental to the general public
health and welfare.
M
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 7
Staff believes that the facts are in evidence of support of the required findings to allow
the proposed adjustment to shift the Area B /Area C boundary to include the portions of
the proposed swimming pool and retaining walls within Area B:
• The applicant's geotechnical consultant has provided a geotechnical analysis
(See Attachment PC 4) demonstrating that the existing descending slope has
a slope stability factor' of safety greater than or equal to 1.5 at the end of the
economic life of the development for the static condition of the bluff.
Furthermore, the proposed improvements in the rear yard will be supported
by deep pile foundations supported into competent bedrock that will provide
stability to the structures and also increase the factor of safety of the
descending slope.
• The proposed retaining walls, pool /spa, and planters are consistent with the
surrounding development in the Irvine Terrace community, which is
characterized by varying degrees of development along the bluff area
adjacent to Bayside Drive (See aerial photos, Attachment PC 5).
• The proposed Area B /Area C boundary is consistent with the predominant
line of existing accessory structure development on the adjacent properties.
• There are no public viewing areas in the vicinity to the project site, so the
project will not have an impact to public viewsheds; also, the project will
provide extensive landscaping on the slope to assist in screening the
proposed retaining walls and pool /spa from view by travelers on Bayside
Drive.
• There are no sensitive habitat areas on the site or in the immediate vicinity.
Site Development Review
In accordance with Section 20.52.080.F of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission
must also make the following findings to approve a site development review to modify
the development area boundaries so that these proposed structures are located within
Development Area B:
1. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district;
2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Subparagraph
C.2.c:
' Slope stability factor is a term that describes the structural capacity of a system beyond the expected or
actual loads. The slope stability analysis assesses the safe and economic design of a human -made or
natural slope and the equilibrium conditions.
0
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 8
1) Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any
applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies
related to the use or structure;
2) The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious
relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent
development; and whether the relationship is based on standards of
good design;
3) The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of
structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas;
4) The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular
access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading
spaces;
5) The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas
and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and
6) The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and
compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protections); and
3. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly
growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard
to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed
development.
Staff believes that the facts are in evidence of support of the required findings to
approve the site development review:
• The proposed structures are accessory to a single -unit residence and
therefore consistent with the General Plan land use designation and the
zoning district, and the project site is not located within a specific plan
area.
• The proposed planter retaining walls are terraced at varying heights,
which serves to break -up their mass. Extensive landscaping on the slope
is provided to assist in screening the proposed planter retaining walls and
pool /spa from view from Bayside Drive; these project design features will
not increase the bulk or scale of development on the slope and provide an
aesthetic treatment that is compatible with the surrounding development.
10
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 9
• The proposed structures do not include any improvements to the public
right -of -way or off - street parking facilities; therefore, the project does not
involve any issues relating to the adequacy, efficiency, and safety of
pedestrian and vehicular access, or parking and loading spaces.
• The project will provide extensive landscaping on the slope to assist in
screening the proposed retaining walls and pool /spa from view from
Bayside Drive. The project has been conditioned to provide water efficient
plant and irrigation materials.
There are no public viewing areas in the vicinity of the project site, so the
project will not have an impact to public viewsheds and Bayside Drive is
not identified as a coastal view road.
• The proposed structures are designed and conditioned to be harmonious
with the surrounding development to not present a hazard to the public
convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the Irvine Terrace community.
Modification Permit
A modification permit is required to allow a retaining wall up to 14 feet in height along the
western side property line. Section 20.30.040.A.2 of the Zoning Code sets the maximum
height of retaining walls at 8 feet measured from finish grade at the base of the wall. In
accordance with Section 20.52.050.E of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission
must also make the following findings to approve a modification permit:
1. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the
neighborhood;
2. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical
characteristic(s) of the property and /or structure, and /or characteristics of the use;
3. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated
with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in
physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Code;
4. There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar
benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and
occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public, and
5. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or
welfare, to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or
11
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 10
the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with
the provisions of this Zoning Code.
Staff believes that the facts are in evidence of support of the required findings to
approve the modification permit for the increased height of the retaining wall:
• The proposed retaining wall is proposed to be located outside of the side
setback area in -line with the exterior walls of the residence, so it will not
present an abrupt drop -off in elevation with the adjacent property. Also, the
proposed retaining wall will run perpendicular, not parallel, to Bayside Drive,
which will not present a massive wall surface when viewed from the roadway.
• The project will provide extensive landscaping on the slope to assist in
screening the proposed retaining wall from view by travelers on Bayside
Drive.
• The project site has topographic characteristics that are unique to other bluff
properties in Irvine Terrace. Prior to alteration by the Irvine Terrace
development, the bluff face on the project site contained a ravine, which still
causes the contours of the slope to curve inland towards Dolphin Terrace
(See topographic map, Attachment PC 6). This topographic feature presents
a practical difficultly that requires more extensive grading and retaining
structures in order to attain parity with the adjacent development.
• The project site is topographically - constrained relative to the two abutting
properties; alternatives to the increased height of the retaining wall would
further constrain development on the project site.
• The proposed retaining wall is proposed to be located outside of the side
setback area and will be topped with a 42- inch -high glass guardrail to avoid
negative impacts to the abutting property.
• The proposed retaining wall will not result in change in density or intensity of
development on the project site; the single -unit residence will have a building
height and floor area that is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code.
Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures).
The Class 3 exemption includes the construction of one single - family residence and
accessory structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.
12
Wardy Residence
January 3 ,2013
Page 11
The proposed development involves the construction of a new single -unit residence,
retaining walls, pool /spa, and planters. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for an
exemption under Class 3.
Public Notice
Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of
property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of-
way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least
10 days prior to the decision date, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at
City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by:
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
Submitted by:
Bren
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions
PC 2 Project plans
PC 3 Bluff Overlay Map B -2 Irvine Terrace — Dolphin Terrace
PC 4 Coast Geotechnical letter
PC 5 Aerial Photos
PC 6 Topographic Map of Dolphin Terrace
Deputy Director
13
14
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution with Findings and
Conditions
1.5
10
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. SD2012 -005 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO.
MD2012 -017 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1111 DOLPHIN
TERRACE (PA2012 -140)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Amen and Traci Wardy, with respect to property located at
1111 Dolphin Terrace, and legally described as Lot 10 of Tract No. 5130 requesting
approval of a site development review and a modification permit.
2. The applicants request approval of a site development review to allow an increased
development area within the Bluff Overlay District for the construction of a series of
retaining walls to support a pool /spa, lawn area, and terraced planters within
Development Area C.
3. The subject property is located within the R -1 -13 (Single -Unit Residential -Bluff Overlay)
Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is RS -D (Single -Unit
Residential Detached).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is RSD -A (Single -Unit Residential Detached).
5. A public hearing was held on January 3, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of
the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
2. The Class 3 exemption includes the construction of one single - family residence
and accessory structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools,
and fences. The proposed development involves the construction of a new
single -unit residence, retaining walls, pool /spa, and planters. Therefore, the
proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Class 3.
17
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 2 of 10
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 20.28.040.1 of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must
make the following findings for approval of an increased development area through the
approval of a site development review:
Finding:
A. The increased bluff development area will ensure a slope stability factor of safety
greater than or equal to 1.5 at the end of the economic life of the development for the
static condition of the bluff or a factor of safety greater than or equal to 1.1 for the
seismic condition of the bluff or canyon, whichever is farther landward;
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The applicant's geotechnical consultant has provided a geotechnical analysis
demonstrating that the existing descending slope has a slope stability factor of safety
greater than or equal to 1.5 at the end of the economic life of the development for the
static condition of the bluff.
A -2 The proposed improvements in the rear yard will be supported by deep pile
foundations supported into competent bedrock that will provide stability to the
structures and also increase the factor of safety of the descending slope.
Finding:
B. The increased bluff development area will provide adequate protection from the
erosion factors for the economic life of the development;
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The project is conditioned to ensure that adequate protection of the house and
surrounding accessory structures for the economic life of the development.
Finding:
C. The increased bluff development area will be compatible and consistent with
surrounding development; and
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The proposed retaining walls, pool /spa, and planters are consistent with the
surrounding development in the Irvine Terrace community, which is characterized by
varying degrees of development along the bluff area adjacent to Bayside Drive.
WrA
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 3 of 10
C -2 The proposed Area B /Area C boundary is consistent with the predominant line of
existing accessory structure development on the adjacent properties.
Findinq:
D. The increased bluff development area will not have an impact on public views,
sensitive habitat areas, and is not otherwise detrimental to the general public health
and welfare.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. There are no public viewing areas in the vicinity to the project site, so the project will
not have an impact to public viewsheds.
D -2. The project will provide extensive landscaping on the slope to assist in screening the
proposed retaining walls and pool /spa from view by travelers on Bayside Drive.
D -3. There are no sensitive habitat areas on the site or in the immediate vicinity.
In accordance with Section 20.52.080.F of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must
also make the following findings for approval of a site development review:
Finding:
E. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district;
Facts in Support of Finding:
E -1. The site is designated RS -D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) by the General Plan
Land Use Element. This designation allows for a range of detached single -unit residential
dwelling units; each located on a single legal lot, and does not include condominiums or
cooperative housing.
E -2. The single -unit residence and improvements to be constructed are compatible with the
other single -unit residential land uses within the surrounding neighborhood.
E -3. The subject property is not part of a specific plan area.
Finding:
F. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified
in Subparagraph C.2.c:
a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any
applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the
use or structure;
19
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 4 of 10
b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious
relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development;
and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design;
c. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures
on the site and adjacent developments and public areas;
d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access,
including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces;
e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use
of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and
f. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance
with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protections); and
Facts in Support of Finding:
F -1. The proposed structures are accessory to a single -unit residence and therefore
consistent with its General Plan land use designation and the zoning district,
F -2 The project site is not located within a specific plan area.
F -3. The proposed planter retaining walls are terraced at varying heights, which serves to
break -up their mass. Extensive landscaping on the slope is provided to assist in
screening the proposed planter retaining walls and pool /spa from view from Bayside
Drive; these project design features will not increase the bulk or scale of development
on the slope and provide an aesthetic treatment that is compatible with the
surrounding development.
F -4. The proposed structures do not include any improvements to the public right -of -way or
off - street parking facilities; therefore, the project does not involve any issues relating to
the adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, or parking
and loading spaces.
F -5. The project will provide extensive landscaping on the slope to assist in screening the
proposed retaining walls and pool /spa from view from Bayside Drive. The project has
been conditioned to provide water efficient plant and irrigation materials.
F -6. The project has been conditioned to provide water efficient plant and irrigation
materials.
F -7. There are no public viewing areas in the vicinity of the project site, so the project will
not have an impact to public viewsheds and Bayside Drive is not identified as a coastal
view road.
20
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 5 of 10
Finding:
G. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of
the City, or endanger jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public
convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of the proposed development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
G -1. The proposed structures are designed and conditioned to be harmonious with the
surrounding development to not present a hazard to the public convenience, health,
interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the Irvine Terrace
community.
In accordance with Section 20.52.050.E of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must
also make the following findings to approve a modification permit:
Finding:
H. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the
neighborhood;
Facts in Support of Finding:
H -1. The proposed retaining wall is proposed to be located outside of the side setback area
in -line with the exterior walls of the residence, so it will not present an abrupt drop -off
in elevation with the adjacent property.
H -2. The project will provide extensive landscaping on the slope to assist in screening the
proposed retaining wall from view by travelers on Bayside Drive.
H -3. The proposed retaining wall will run perpendicular, not parallel, to Bayside Drive,
which will not present a massive wall surface when viewed from the roadway.
Findinq:
The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical
characteristic(s) of the property and /or structure, and /or characteristics of the use;
Facts in Support of Finding:
1 -1. The project site has topographic characteristics that are unique to other bluff
properties in Irvine Terrace. Prior to alteration by the Irvine Terrace development, the
bluff face on the project site contained a ravine, which still causes the contours of the
slope to curve inland towards Dolphin Terrace.
21
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 6 of 10
Finding:
J. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated
with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical
hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code;
Facts in Support of Finding:
J -1. The topographic characteristics of the project site present a practical difficultly that
requires more extensive grading and retaining structures in order to attain parity with
the adjacent development.
Findinq:
K. There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar benefits
to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the
neighborhood, or to the general public;
Facts in Support of Finding:
K -1. The project site is topographically - constrained relative to the two abutting properties;
alternatives to the increased height of the retaining wall would further constrain
development on the project site.
Findinq:
L. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or
welfare, to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the
City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the
provisions of this Zoning Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
L -1. The proposed retaining wall is proposed to be located outside of the side setback area
and will be topped with a 42- inch -high glass guardrail to avoid negative impacts to the
abutting property.
L -2 The proposed retaining wall will not result in change in density or intensity of
development on the project site; the single -unit residence will have a building height
and floor area that is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code.
22
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 7 of 10
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Site
Development Review No. SD2012 -005 and Modification Permit No. MD2012 -017,
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated
by reference.
2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this
Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance
with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2013.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Michael Toerge, Chairman
Ic]'il
Fred Ameri, Secretary
23
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 8 of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Project- specific conditions are in italics)
Planning
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except
as modified by applicable conditions of approval.)
2. Site Development Review No. SD2012 -005 and Modification Permit No. 2012 -017 shall
expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in
Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is
otherwise granted.
3. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
4. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Site
Development Review.
5. This Site Development Review and Modification Permit may be modified or revoked by
the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed
uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the
public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance.
6. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to
the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review and
Modification Permit or the processing of a new site development review and
modification permit.
7. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owner(s) or assignee(s) shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
current property owner or the leasing agent.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning
Division.
9. A copy of this approval letter shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field
sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division
an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Site
Development Review /Modification Permit file. The plans shall be identical to those
24
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 9 of 10
approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy
shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17
inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Site
Development Review /Modification Permit and shall highlight the approved elements
such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans.
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and
irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall
incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the
plans shall be approved by the Planning Division.
12. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall
receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be
kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including
adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
13. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities that
produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -
generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays.
14. The pool /spa shall incorporate leak prevention and detection measures.
15. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees,
and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages,
actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and
expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of
every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly
or indirectly) to City's approval of the Wardy Residence including, but not limited to, the
Site Development Review No. SD2012 -005 and Modificaton Permit No. (PA2012-
017). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against
the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection
with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by
applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant
shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City
incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant
shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the
indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
Building Division Conditions
16. A geotechnical report shall be required with the submittal of construction drawings for
plan check. The project shall comply with any mitigation measures contained in said
report and the requirements of the Newport Beach Building Division.
25
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 10 of 10
17. Drainage and grading plans shall be required with the submittal of construction drawings
for plan check.
18. Drainage shall be conducted to a public storm drain. Filtration shall be required prior to
discharging water into public storm drains.
19. Pool and all site walls shall be founded on caissons and grade beams and shall include
seismic load contributions.
20. Shoring shall be required for cuts having depth greater than 1:1 distance to property line.
21. Pool drainage shall be clearly noted to discharge into approved public waste or storm
drains. Back flow devices shall be required for all fixtures below manholes.
Public Works Conditions
22. The existing 5- foot -wide sewer easement along the southwesterly property line shall be
vacated prior to the start of construction.
23. No work shall be permitted within the existing 6- foot -wide easement along the
northwesterly property line.
20
Attachment No. PC 2
Project Plans
27
M
C,
5EO7ION VIEW
xwe, w• -ro•
REAR ELEVATION
ziaa w• -iw
2�
U
w � U
� x
U
sZ
IL o
i
�ddd
a
�aa
cF
Y
YC`
�y
•R. 1
,:�`
sr'`j.4�` ®�
OI
MET2051DER05 SPP. (36" BO%)
3a
�r
O
LAURM N0511-15
'� •� �:
-
..
a _.
(24" =6 36" SOX)
__ _.
i Ti T ...
ti�'.1��
- -LL
,
O3
FLO�RIN6 LAASGADC
-! •
(LE.
-
O4
POTENTIAL 6LA55 SOREEN
PLAN VIEW
m' -Vo
5EO7ION VIEW
xwe, w• -ro•
REAR ELEVATION
ziaa w• -iw
2�
U
w � U
� x
U
sZ
IL o
i
�ddd
a
�aa
cF
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
-� REAN ELEV NON
m mlm e T
XEIOHTBNDY
I
nxNi.orw
N
U VN
V
z FU
cy a
aw
00
3 �z
8
z
w
W
Q
m
��Illi
p]14Y+LII�
M -1
B
NOV. 14, W12
SSEE ZION A
.w�wam ®r..m o�nwmw.�rmo mwamwvvriivm. rn <wninror�w.amr•mm.oawv..w.vevno nnvtta•m mnam xn... i. wv wm..eev.am.na..mua.nmai¢nn�wmnm w�awwv�owm.e+..eva..c mmrn..n.na..ea.e m^y.rq.n v.0
nR<�ia. —
UU
z
Q�
✓~' O z
0
Q
w
Z
O
r
U
w
N
O
J
m
M -2
NOV.IJ.1➢i]
_�
RMgy
191
k
g r
\ A Irr
\r r
® r r
r r
!
*,r /
e car • .0 is rue i
cxrinuc xourc ro arvPw i I\yr�• i
� 5
P
�l
}
Jl
Y iP
L
r 1
r
L
SITE PLAN
fir• iI�
p,I
\ W N
4, z ayV� a
V] z U
' a
�e I
\
I
' Y
1
P
\
3
a
DISCLAIMER LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SITE NOTES .w..•M�
^•� PARKING REOUIREMENTS N
v ��a BUILDABLE FLOOR AREA ALLOWED
.e..�.. y1133
31YlNll
M 's
Nuv H, 1113
ra....n wsm w....o..e. ®o— .....<v. 77
-- - - - - --
/• �'.`• I I I zR�g
-zl'`� �` �-s -�ri�— � '�r�. �„ Y 7 /mil � .M � r � •' � �. I � � � — _ _ _
-
of 2
Z'
Iztlm} "Xn
�R=a
Attachment No. PC 3
Bluff Overlay Map B -2
35
3�
111 �
0
0¢
R
J �9
�e0
RF
FR
0
o �z,
1101
1pl]
4 yq
E oES z F
Ih
j
13 ft Below Top of Curb - '
1015 -1541 Dolphin Terrace
1 � 724
O
Z �9B
Q >tt
h
+zll
115 BpN� FpppNFTFR ppASryWyF
O
i tiQ
0
IT /_
T `
�R
94
4i
M
Development Areas Delineated By: - DevelopmentAreaA
jG —Specified Distance from Front Property Line Develapment Area B
B -2 Irvine Terrace - Dolphin Terrace
• • Specified Distance Below Tap of Curb M//Devela p ment Area C
Specified Contour
MOO
Attachment No. PC 4
Coast Geotechnical letter
39
40
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
I20iINN Cummomvealth !Avenue_ I uI Jeri on. CA9'833 (h. (714) 37(1-1?I1 Ije, OWS70 -I'"
December 20, 2012 W.O. 377509 -07
Mr. Amen Wardy
535 East Coast Highway, Suite 363
Newport Beach, CA 92625
Subject: Response to City of Newport Beach, Panning Division,
Slope Stability, Proposed Rear Yard Improvements at
1111 Dolphin Terrace, Newport Beach, California.
References:
I. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for Proposed Residential Development at I I I I Dolphin Terrace,
Newport Beach, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, W.O. 377509-0 1, dated March 6, 2009.
2. Report Update, Proposed Residential Development at 1 111 Dolphin Terrace, Newport Beach, California; by
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, W.O. 377509-02, dated October 4, 2011.
3. Response to Geotechnical Report Review, Proposed Residence at 1I 11 Dolphin Terrace, Newport Beach,
California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, W.O. 377509 -05, dated June 19, 2012.
4. Response to Geotechnical Report Review, Proposed Residence at I l I I Dolphin Terrace, Newport Beach,
California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, W.O. 377509-06, dated November 30, 2012.
Dear Mr. Wardy:
In accordance with your request, COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. is responding to the City of Newport
Beach, Planning Division, dated December 20, 2012, prepared by Mr. Patrick Alford, Planning Manager for
the City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department. The review question is in regard to the
static and seismic slope stability based on the increased bluff or canyon development.
Response
Reference # 1 provided slope stability analyses of the existing man-made descending slope condition. The
analyses demonstrates that the existing descending slope has a static factors of safety in excess of 1.5 and a
seismic factor of safety in excess of L L The proposed rear yard improvements will be at a lower elevations
than existing grade, thus removing loading near the top of the slope and increasing the factor of safety of
descending slope. Furthermore, site improvement of the rear yard, i.e. pool and retaining walls, will be
supported by deep pile foundations supported into competent bedrock, which will provide stability to the
structures and also increase the factor of safety of the descending slope.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you.
Respectfully submitted:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Ming -Tarng Chen
RCE 54011
41
42
Attachment No. PC 5
Aerial Photos
43
44
Wardy Residence - 1111 Dolphin Terrace
View from the North
415
Wardy Residence - 1111 Dolphin Terrace
View from the South
40
Wardy Residence - 1111 Dolphin Terrace
View from the East
47
grw
► � V
,% /
zwv
JIM
dt
\ TY
�.. ,. k.
Wardy Residence - 1111 Dolphin Terrace
View from the West
42
Attachment No. PC 6
Topographic Map of Dolphin Terrace
49
50
e0 00 90 711 eo^aap 00
q - ONE 1ER
X015 pp 90 � )1E
�O )S9
60 S 90 c
hp59 i
712
¢ )JO
30 ]U
oM1,f y 724
)06
h O o )1A
106 1090 p
1073
O 109
ry
tiZOJ ��/ Jp Sp ^ ^^ J0 712
q40 30
60 ^.t+
OgEE Jp 80 )t
/
80 0010
E
_ MYSME Mt -
�o N
SO
c
'pp pOS cOe 'p '�' o trot n^
Vp 0
1303
p
�t b� 10 )7j) 60 S0e B
20 a ry 3p 40 >p 0
z0 J0 o s 0
a 10 d )0 0 212ft z0 0 0 O
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF DOLPHIN TERRACE
51-
ADDITIONAL
MATERIALS
RECEIVED
w
F
Oi nremasloErsos sue. rx sow
(24^ d eow
,r = f �IIIII����. - On.avcnlw srmue cnsc.coe
(IP.. �.�4AINVILLEN
POi@NiIAL bLA65 SL�N
PLAN VIEW
rxe In.l.a
STAFF PRESENTATION W
PA2010 -061 0� ` PORT
m
of /o3 /zoi3
Community Development Department- Planning Division
U
1
nipct Ovprvip
Site Development Review
To allow an increase in the boundaries of Development Area
B for the purpose of the construction of a pool and retaining
walls in Development Area C
Modification Permit
To allow a retaining wall over 8 feet in height from
finished grade
07/13/2012
Community Development Department- Planning Division
07/13/2012
Community Development Department- Planning Division
PLAN VI
Oj M�VD 5 SPP. (35' 3 X)
O7 LAbRU5 NOSILIS
(24" PM 36" BOX)
OFLOWERIN6 SNRLO GASI- D
(IM., BOI/6AINVILLEA)
O4 POTENTIAL 6LAS5 51-REEN
4
P DPvPIc
07/13/2012
ar,+ OA\ /Id
Community Development Department- Planning Division
i
LOT 10
TRACT 5130
vv.
Erishng
wuu .eslCLnI
cwun� nennx ucs sere AR
vaw Qew o<w
� II
5
P DPvPIc
in
'o 6.
L;)A\ /Id
1� II
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 6
8
O
t
<
\
f
IN
OA
PAT@
\
.aaw
1
3
�E
y.
TRACT 5130
"y
,,1`
fiistln9 reslCenre
h6 e,
i
7W iLR
a
GLQLe1PRD9 bP. I AR
1� II
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 6
8
O
t
<
\
f
IN
1� II
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 6
•ill•
M!
,gyp.
07/13/2012
A
•
Community Development Department- Planning Division
7
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 8
,.
.13'0 y�
`ore
ou �u
16
'0 JO 50
0
60
0
220
30
9
-
,2 _
>JO
-�,
1211^
0
gO
206
N 724
216
O S
N
717
1024 1032 16Cg ry
1016 1026 1M6 1056
y>'
716
c
..1066
1022
a
z
709
10
>�
>0 80
2020
>i2
_
2O
60 60
q"
2 61
^
�0
00
i0
^'
2�
Po
175
6f> 64HT4NE114
80
n
TEp
m
O
0
�G
c
C
609
-
s
Zp
__ 7p
9p
^
h
_
_
_. __
FAV51pE
OH
'1 (/
n
�
20
M
��g
0
ggg
�pM1 $M1
p
aO
^ro
Ao
0 �
D OOJ fC
DO2
1101
5p
9
go
.,
� 97,'15
0 �i1
>>Op
OpO!
O
O >O B
O•'O
10
'h
1262
'S0 "0
-
.
M1
Ole
2x
-.
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 8
07/13/2012
Community Development Department- Planning Division
■
I
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 10
log
rA
v
p�
..
�'1
YT
1 - .3'�
7
S
LL147, All
0
- -j —_
1 SITE PLAN stu�lv��eix —u- cH f,�.LSa"o
„aai�
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 10
07/13/2012
Community Development Department- Planning Division
PLAN VI
Oj M�VD 5 SPP. (35' 3 X)
O7 LAbRU5 NOSILIS
(24" PM 36" BOX)
OFLOWERIN6 SNRLO GASI- D
(IM., BOI/6AINVILLEA)
O4 POTENTIAL 6LAS5 51-REEN
OW
C ,
J
07/13/2012
•l ■ IN
DECK
Mn -C M. BEDROOM
111111111 11111111
I1 11111Pp
I11 \HIp11111pllllp11111
j SECTION OF RETAINING WALL
E%CEEDWC 8FOOT
IMI
WKHT LT
- BED. /3
ry 3B'd'
coos• *c ;m 1 1 11 1
i
SPA
POOL POOL EQUIP.
. VAULT
aas+WSe Fa +mnaw
F�J F.1J
Community Development Department- Planning Division
1, I
12
07/13/2012
Community Development Department- Planning Division
13
YAM►� F` '�... of �' - \y�a�iV �/`_ AIV�i `�. - s
�... .�' •s,t IY �. r.. .;yam► - �/ .a.� � '
lip
77
�d4
-'... • V � �++ +"
Et
All
07/13/2012
' =W- MiwxS4ww-
Community Development Department- Planning Division
r,
14
07/13/2012
A .
Community Development Department- Planning Division
15
07/13/2012
2 ' '
Community Development Department- Planning Division
16
07/13/2012
�- _-
— _ o� vicwcaws stows cwscu�
nE. msnimin�iu
Oa roreKr�u sun s:affN
PLAN View
Community Development Department- Planning Division
U
z�
e!
a
i
17
07/13/2012
96 —WT io
ey g
ta�a I( y�
tl� L
}
2H
R
-- _ --
M -I
Community Development Department- Planning Division
I
07/13/2012
Community Development Department- Planning Division
GIs
0
iW2
I
Prow
t-
!I
o'er'
ter-
t �w � _- � y •��. ' . . eta ,F ���
a;
a
Ti
� �I srzb "am -_cx -1EwLcewwsnax '�
=: =;_ � ErtP]
SITE PLAN � II U6+NLWRO
V- %� ...
M -5
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 20
07/13/2012
4r�
5
1
0
Community Development Department- Planning Division
21
1
For more information contact:
Patrick J. Alford
949-644-3235
PAlfordQa newortbeachca.gov
www.newportEeachca.gov
Items 1, 2, 3 & 4 Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission January 3, 2013
Comments on Jan. 3, 2012 PC agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6
Item No. 3 Wardy Residence (PA2012 -140)
The following comments are referenced to the handwritten page numbers in the 51 page PDF
staff report.
Page 8: In describing the proposed shift in the (Area B) /(Area C) boundary, it would have
seemed helpful to reference the drawing on page 30, which appears to illustrate the proposed
change in an overhead view.
That drawing references a "Variance 162" which apparently set the (Area A) /(Area B) boundary
for this lot 140' from the front property line, rather than requiring the "10 -foot setback from the
top of the existing bluff' specified for this area in Municipal Code Section 20.28.040.D.2.a.(1),
and allowed the house itself to extend down the bluff into what would normally be the restricted
Development Area C (that is, more than 13 feet below curb height).
I was also unable to find in the staff report any clear statement of what the curb elevation is, so
that the proposal can be objectively compared to the normal standard on Irvine Terrace of
setting the B/C boundary "13 feet below the average elevation of the top of the curb adjacent to
the lot" per NBMC Section 20.28.040.D.2.a.(2). One of the captions in the illustration on page
30 indicates the approved 68.09 foot elevation lawn area is alreadyl5 feet below the average
curb elevation (the extra 2 feet possibly being part of Variance 162 ?), suggesting the latter is
around 83 feet.
That illustration further suggests the proposed retaining walls (and therefore, the proposed
Development Area B boundary) would extend down to an elevation of 51 feet, or 32 feet below
curb height.
The above is difficult to reconcile with the statement on page 8 that "The proposed adjustment
would shift the Area B /Area C boundary up to 34 feet downslope" unless that is referring to the
horizontal shift (seen in the overhead view), rather than the vertical shift (seen in elevation).
The vertical shift seems to be up to about 17 feet below the current 15 foot limit.
Page 9: 1 likewise find it difficult to accept staff's assertion that "The proposed Area B /Area C
boundary is consistent with the predominant line of existing accessory structure development on
the adjacent properties." It seems consistent only when viewed from above. Assuming the
intent of the Bluff Overlay restrictions is to prevent development from cascading down the slope
beyond an elevation of 13 feet below curb height, and assuming the other properties have
followed that standard, extending down 32 feet below curb height is not consistent with
extending down 13 feet.
The main justification seems to be that this atypical, and normally unpermitted, encroachment
down the bluff will be screened from view.
Page 12: The assertion that the excess- height retaining wall "will not present a massive wall
surface" because it is perpendicular, not parallel, to Bayside Drive, surely depends on where on
Bayside Drive one is looking from. Being perpendicular minimizes the problem, but doesn't
eliminate it.
Items 1, 2, 3 & 4 Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission January 3, 2013
Comments on Jan. 3, 2012 PC agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6
The staff report is unclear as to what "negative impacts to the abutting property" are avoid by
topping the excess - height retaining wall "with a 42- inch -high glass guardrail. "I am guessing the
planner has safety impacts in mind?
Page 17: In Section 1, statement 5 should say "2013" rather than "2012."
Page 18: The opening paragraph of Section 3 cites Municipal Code Section 20.28.040.1, whose
title is "Adjustment of development area boundary." I find nothing in the Resolution that
clearly defines what adjustment to the boundary is being approved or where the new boundary
will be.
The illustration on page 30 of the agenda packet shows what it claims to be the current (Area
"B ") /(Area "C ") boundary (apparently following the 68.09 foot height contour), and a somewhat
arbitrary heavy line (having nothing to do with elevation contours) labeled "Predominant Line of
Existing Development." I assume the intent of the Resolution is to move the "B /C" boundary for
this one lot to that line, but I don't find that clearly stated.
In Fact B -1, the word "that" seems unwanted, making the sentence ungrammatical, at least to
me. I would suggest deleting it.
Page 19: Regarding Fact C -2, see previous comments. The proposed line is consistent with the
existing line only when viewed from above. Also, even when viewed from above, the adjacent
lot to the south (also in the ravine) does not appear to have developed out horizontally to this
limit.
Page 19: In Fact 1 -1, the use of the word "unique" is confusing, making it sound like many (or
all ?) Irvine Terrace bluff -top properties have the same problem. I think you mean the
topography of the project site is unique, in which case "to other bluff properties in Irvine Terrace"
should be deleted. Alternatively you could delete "unique" and say the topography of the project
site is different from (most) other bluff -top properties along Dolphin Terrace.
Page 22: In Fact K -2, the alternative would seem to be fill the area to the 13 foot below curb
level elevation. I assume that would involve building a retaining wall parallel to Bayside Drive,
would be detrimental to the stability of the existing slope, and would probably also require a
modification permit.
ft"01_" Plaza Corona del Mar (PA2010 -061)
The following c nts refer to the January 3, 2013 Staff Report, and the page references are
to the handwritten numbe equivalently, the pages in the 124 page PDF)
Although not relevant to the Commission's t decisions, one of my main concerns with this
project, to echo those expressed by Dan Purcell in t utes of the December 6, 2012
hearing (page 90), is the vacation, without any compensation f6dtheQity, of the public alley
easement at the rear of the Gallo's Deli property. I have not researched ation in the
1990's of the much larger segment that wrapped around the rear of the entire