HomeMy WebLinkAbout03_Valencia Residence Modification Permit_PA2025-0012CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT
April 24, 2025
Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Valencia Residence (PA2025-0012)
▪Modification Permit
SITE LOCATION: 10 Whitesands Drive
APPLICANT/OWNER: Mark Valencia
PLANNER: Jenny Tran, Associate Planner
949-644-3212 or jtran@newportbeachca.gov
LAND USE AND ZONING
•General Plan Land Use Plan Category: Single Unit Residential Detached (RS-D)
•Zoning District: Newport Ridge (PC53) Planned Community
PROJECT SUMMARY
A request for a modification permit to allow the construction of retaining walls in the rear and
side setback with a maximum height of 17 feet when measured at the base of the wall from
finish grade where the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) limits the height to 8 feet
maximum. The higher retaining walls will allow the applicant to excavate the sloping hillside
in the rear of the property for future development of accessory structures. The proposed
retaining walls will be approximately 1.5 feet from the existing grade of neighboring
properties to the rear and side.
RECOMMENDATION
1)Conduct a public hearing;
2)Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division
6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment; and
3)Adopt Draft Zoning Administrator Resolution No. _ approving the Modification Permit
filed as PA2025-0012 (Attachment No. ZA 1).
1
Valencia Residence (PA2025-0012)
Zoning Administrator, April 24, 2025
Page 2
Tmplt: 01/18/23
DISCUSSION
•The property is located in Newport Ridge which is a residential community situated
north of Newport Coast in the eastern area of the City. The property is currently
developed with a two-story, single-unit dwelling, attached garage, pool, and
accessory structures. The surrounding properties in the neighborhood are similarly
developed with primarily two-story, single-unit-dwellings, attached garages, and
related accessory structures.
•The property is approximately 13,934 square feet. However, approximately 3,700
square feet of the property in the rear has a sloping hillside with a severe slope of
approximately 30%. Four other properties on the same side of Whitesands Drive
have a similar sloping hillside in the rear of the property, but the other surrounding
properties in the neighborhood consist of mostly flat lots.
•The grade difference between the bottom to the top of the slope is approximately
17 feet. The project proposes to excavate the rear of the property to create a flat
area for future development of accessory structures. Excavation of the rear of the
property would require retaining walls up to a maximum height of 17 feet when
measured from finish grade at the base of the wall to retain the adjacent soils.
Figure 1 below shows a section of the hillside with the existing grade, finish grade,
and retaining wall.
Figure 1: A section view of the grading plans that show the existing grade, finish grade,
and retaining wall.
Rear Property Line
Proposed Wall
2
Valencia Residence (PA2025-0012)
Zoning Administrator, April 24, 2025
Page 3
Tmplt: 01/18/23
•Section 20.30.040(A)(2) (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls) of the
NBMC limits the maximum height of a retaining wall to eight feet measured from
finish grade at the base of the wall, not including any required guardrails.
Development of the rear of the property would not be possible without retaining
walls that exceed the allowed height due to the severity of the slope and elevation
of the adjacent property to the rear.
•The applicant is requesting a modification permit to allow retaining walls that
exceed the allowed height in order to excavate the rear of the property to create a
flat lot for future development of accessory structures. The retaining walls will be
located entirely on the subject property and the height will follow the approximate
height of the existing grade on the adjacent property. From the neighbor’s
perspective on the side and rear of the property, the retaining walls will be
approximately 1.5 feet from existing grade where the NBMC allows a maximum of
6 feet from existing grade.
•The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as Single Unit
Residential Detached (RS-D) and the property is located in the Newport Ridge
(PC52) Planned Community Zoning District. This property is intended to be
developed with a range of detached single-family residential dwelling units on a
single legal lot. The project will not change the intended use of the property and
will allow the property owner to utilize a portion of their lot that is currently unviable
for development due to the physical characteristics.
•All future development will comply with the development standards of the Planned
Community (PC53 Newport Ridge) and NBMC. Only the construction of accessory
structures or uses are anticipated at this time. The density and characteristics of
the property will continue to be compatible with the neighborhood as it will maintain
a single unit dwelling with accessory structures.
•A Preliminary Soils Engineering and Geologic Report was prepared by NTS
Geotechnical, Inc. dated September 6, 2024, for the project. The report analyzed
the Property and provided recommendations for the design and construction of the
retaining walls. The report concluded that the Property can be developed without
adverse impact onto or from adjoining properties with implementation of the
recommendations contained within the report.
•The retaining walls will not create a visual obstruction to the adjacent properties as
the height will follow the elevation of the existing grade. Additionally, the project is
located in the rear of the property and will not be visible from any right-of-way,
including Whitesands Drive.
3
Valencia Residence (PA2025-0012)
Zoning Administrator, April 24, 2025
Page 4
Tmplt: 01/18/23
•The PC53 Planned Community does not have a maximum site coverage for the
property. However, the sloping hillside in the rear currently prevents the owner from
being able to utilize the entire property for development, whereas other properties in
the neighborhood do not have the same limitation.
•The project has been reviewed by the Building Division and conditions of approval
are included to ensure development complies with applicable California Building
Codes and the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Furthermore, approval of
any City permits, including this Modification Permit, does not relieve the applicant
of the legal requirement to observe covenants, conditions, and restrictions that
may be recorded against the property or to obtain community association
approvals.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because
it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
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
before the scheduled hearing, 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.
APPEAL PERIOD:
An appeal or call for review may be filed with the Director of Community Development within
14 days following the date of the action. For additional information on filing an appeal,
contact the Planning Division at 949-644-3200.
Prepared by:
____________________________
Jenny Tran
Associate Planner
LAW/jt
4
Valencia Residence (PA2025-0012)
Zoning Administrator, April 24, 2025
Page 5
Tmplt: 01/18/23
Attachments: ZA 1 Draft Resolution
ZA 2 Vicinity Map
ZA 3 Project Plans
5
Attachment No. ZA 1
Draft Resolution
6
RESOLUTION NO. ZA2025-###
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
MODIFICATION PERMIT FOR RETAINING WALLS THAT
EXCEED 8-FEET IN HEIGHT AS MEASURED FROM FINISH
GRADE LOCATED AT 10 WHITESANDS DRIVE (PA2025-0012)
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Mark Valencia (Applicant), with respect to property located at
10 Whitesands Drive, and legally described as Lot 17 of Tract No. 14912 (Property)
requesting approval of a modification permit.
2. The Applicant proposes a modification permit to allow the construction of retaining walls in
the rear and side setback with a maximum height of 17 feet when measured at the base
of the wall from finish grade where the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) limits the
height to 8 feet maximum. The higher retaining walls will allow the Applicant to excavate
the sloping hillside in the rear of the Property for future development and accessory
structures (Project). The retaining walls will be approximately 1.5 feet from the existing
grade of neighboring properties to the rear and side.
3. The Property is designated Single Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan
Land Use Element and is located within the Newport Ridge (PC53) Planned Community
Zoning District within Residential Planning Area 1.
4. The Property is not located within the coastal zone.
5. A public hearing was held on April 24, 2025, online via Zoom. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of
the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3,
because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Class 3 exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of
new, small facilities or structures that include, but are not limited to, accessory
(appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and
fences. The Project proposes to construct retaining walls along the rear and side yards
of the Property to allow for future development in the rear.
7
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2025-###
Page 2 of 9
10-18-21
3. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable.
The Project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical
concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within
a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical
resource.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
Modification Permit
In accordance with Section 20.52.050(E) (Modification Permits – Required Findings) of the
NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the
neighborhood;
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Property is located in Newport Ridge, which is a community northwest of Newport
Coast, towards the eastern boundary of the City. Newport Ridge is a neighborhood that
is primarily developed with two-story, single-unit dwellings, garages, and accessory
structures. This neighborhood was developed in the County of Orange before Newport
Ridge was annexed to the City in September 2000.
2. The Property is developed with a two-story, single-unit dwelling with an attached two-
car garage, pool, landscaping, and other accessory structures. The rear of the property
has approximately 50 feet (depth) of sloping hillside with trees and landscaping. The
property is approximately 13,934-square-feet, however, approximately 3,700-square-
feet of the property to the rear has a severe slope of approximately 30%.
3. This Property is one of five properties on the same side of Whitesands Drive that have
sloping rear yards that are difficult to develop. However, other properties in the
neighborhood, including the properties across from Whitesands Drive, are primarily flat
lots and are able to develop the rear of the properties within the allowed development
standards.
4. The properties located behind the Property on Bridgeport Road are also able to develop
the rear of the properties and many are developed with accessory structures such as
pools, patios, trellises, and other accessory structures allowed within the PC53 Zoning
District. The Project proposes retaining walls that range from 3 feet to 17 feet when
measured from finish grade where the NBMC allows a maximum of 8 feet when
measured from finish grade. The retaining walls will allow the rear yard to be excavated
in order to allow future development in the rear, similar to surrounding properties in the
neighborhood.
8
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2025-###
Page 3 of 9
10-18-21
5. The rear of the lot will be excavated to a finish grade similar to the majority of the lot for
the primary residence and future development will not be visually impactful to the
adjacent properties. Additionally, since the Project and future development will be
situated in the rear of the Property, it will not be visible from the public right-of-way.
6. Should this modification permit be approved for the increase in height of retaining walls,
future development in the rear yard will still be required to comply with the PC53 Zoning
District and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC development standards.
Finding:
B. 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. The elevation at the bottom of the slope is approximately 639 feet and the elevation at
the top of the slope is approximately 656 feet. The grade differential within this rear area
is approximately 17 feet, which is a slope over 30%. The Property is not limited by
maximum site coverage as long as development conforms to the setbacks and height
standards of the PC53 Planned Community. The Property has a required side setback
of five-feet and a rear setback of 10-feet. However, the sloping rear of the property
prevents development, such as accessory structures, without excavating the rear of the
property. Therefore, the slope essentially acts as a 50-foot setback under current
conditions.
2. The Applicant is requesting to construct concrete caisson/piles retaining walls in order
to grade and expand the rear yard. A Preliminary Soils Engineering and Geologic Report
was prepared by NTS Geotechnical, Inc. dated September 6, 2024, for the project. The
report analyzed the Property and provided recommendations for the design and
construction of the retaining walls. The report concluded that the Property can be
developed without adverse impacts onto or from adjoining properties upon
implementation of the recommendations contained within the report.
3. The Grading and Retaining Wall plans prepared for the Project are designed consistent
with the recommendations of the Preliminary Soils Engineering and Geologic Report
provided, including the proposed heights of the retaining walls.
4. Expansion of the rear yard would allow the Applicant to develop the rear of the Property
in the future with structures that are accessory to the primary dwelling. This is consistent
with neighboring properties that are able to develop the rear of the property with
accessory structures for the full enjoyment of their properties. Any future development
will be required to comply with development standards set forth in the PC53 Planned
Community text and NBMC including, but not limited to, setbacks and height.
Finding:
9
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2025-###
Page 4 of 9
10-18-21
C. 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:
1. Fact 1 in support of Finding B is hereby incorporated by reference.
2. In order to lower the grade in the rear of the Property to create a flat area for
development, retaining walls up to 17 feet measured from finish grade are required.
Pursuant to Section 20.30.040(A)(2) (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls) of
the NBMC, the maximum height of a retaining wall is limited to eight feet measured from
finish grade at the base of the wall, not including any required guardrails. An increase in
the height of a retaining wall may be requested with the approval of a Modification
Permit.
3. Pursuant to Section 20.30.040(D) (Measurement of Fence or Wall Height) of the NBMC,
the height of a fence, hedge, or wall shall be measured from existing grade prior to
construction at the location where the fence, hedge, or wall is located. In the side and
rear setback, the maximum allowed height of fences, hedges, and walls is six feet
measured from existing grade. The retaining walls will generally follow the existing
grade, and the tallest portion of the wall will be located along the rear property line and
is less than three feet measured from existing grade prior to construction.
4. The intent of the NBMC to limit the height of retaining walls when measured from finish
grade is to prevent tall walls that are visible from public right-of-ways and neighboring
properties, especially when sloping hillsides are heavily excavated and the grade is
lowered. The Project will consist of retaining walls that are completely contained to the
backyard of the Property and built into the hillside. The retaining walls will not be visible
from the public right-of-way including Whitesands Drive. Further, the height of the
retaining wall will follow the height of the existing grade to decrease visibility to
neighboring properties.
Finding:
D. 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
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Without granting approval of the modification permit, approximately 15-feet of the 50-
foot sloping hillside could be excavated to ensure retaining walls do not exceed 8 feet
when measured from finish grade. The Property has a rear setback of 10-feet and does
not have a maximum site coverage. The sloping hillside prevents the Property from
being developed to the allowed extent of the Property’s development standards.
10
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2025-###
Page 5 of 9
10-18-21
2. The intent of the Project is to allow future development of accessory structures in the
rear of the Property in conformance with the development standards of the PC53
Planned Community. Surrounding properties in this neighborhood are able to develop
the entirety of their property with a primary dwelling and associated accessory structures
without the limitation of a sloping hillside in the rear.
3. Excavation of the rear of the Property is allowed. However, in order to do so, retaining
walls are required to support the hillside and adjacent properties that abut the side and
rear. Limiting the height of the retaining walls to eight feet when measured from finish
grade would only allow a portion of the rear yard to be useable.
4. An alternative design to excavate the rear of the Property would be to terrace the slope
with a series of leveled flat areas and retaining walls that do not exceed the allowed
height. However, this approach would create a rear yard that is unusable for future
development.
Finding:
E. 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:
1. Facts 2 and 3 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The retaining walls will be located within the Property and will not create visual
obstructions to the neighboring properties to the side and rear. The tallest portion of the
retaining wall will be along the rear of the Property and will step down to approximately
match the height of the existing grade before excavation. The proposed plans do not
include a guardrail at the top of the slope. However, if a guardrail is required in the future
to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), the guardrail would be 3.5 feet high,
which is less than the maximum allowed height of 6 feet from existing grade in rear and
side yard setbacks.
3. Any proposed future development on the Property will comply with all development
standards of the PC53 Planned Community including, but not limited to, allowed uses,
setbacks, height, and square footage. The Property will still maintain a single-unit-
dwelling with accessory structures that is consistent with the neighborhood as well as
the NBMC.
4. The Building Division has reviewed the Project and conditions of approval are included
to ensure the Applicant is required to obtain all necessary permits and to demonstrate
compliance with the California Building Code and other applicable Codes.
11
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2025-###
Page 6 of 9
10-18-21
5. Approval of any City permits, including this modification permit, does not relieve the
Applicant of the legal requirement to observe, covenants, conditions, and restrictions
that may be recorded against the property or to obtain community association approvals.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds this project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has
no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Modification
Permit filed as PA2025-0012, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the
Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning
and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2025.
_____________________________________
Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Zoning Administrator
12
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2025-###
Page 7 of 9
10-18-21
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Project-specific conditions are in italics)
Planning Division
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped
and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of
approval).
2. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. 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
Modification Permit.
4. The Modification Permit (PA2025-0012) shall expire unless exercised within 24 months
from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions)
of the NBMC, unless an extension is otherwise granted.
5. This Modification Permit may be modified or revoked by the Zoning Administrator if
determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or
maintained are 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. Fences, hedges, walls, and guardrails within required setbacks shall comply with the
height requirements pursuant to Section 20.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Wall, and
Retaining Walls) of the NBMC when measured from the existing grade prior to
construction.
7. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to
the approved plans, may require an amendment to this Modification Permit or the
processing of a new modification permit.
8. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “A” shall be
incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the
building permits.
9. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with
the approved landscape plan. 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
13
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2025-###
Page 8 of 9
10-18-21
kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of
regular maintenance.
10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning
Division.
11. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
10.26 (Community Noise Regulations) of the NBMC and other applicable noise control
requirements of the NBMC.
12. Should the Property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
13. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity –
Noise Regulations) of the NBMC, 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 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction
activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays.
14. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the 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 Valencia Residence Retaining Walls
including, but not limited to, Modification Permit (PA2025-0012). 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 the 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
15. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City’s Building Division
and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-
adopted version of the CBC.
14
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2025-###
Page 9 of 9
10-18-21
16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a final soils engineering
and geologic report. The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Building
Division.
15
Attachment No. ZA 2
Vicinity Map
16
VICINITY MAP
Modification Permit
(PA2025-0012)
10 Whitesands Drive
Subject Property
17
Attachment No. ZA 3
Project Plans
18
TITLE SHEET
1
1
WDID: _ __C______
G-
SHEET OF
REVISIONSNO. REVISED BY APPROVED BY DATE
7
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
19
2
2
0
SCALE:
5' 10'20'
1"=10'
LEGEND:
369.03FS
369
X X X
GAS GAS GAS
SS SS
WW
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
WDID: _ __C______
G-
SHEET OF
REVISIONSNO. REVISED BY APPROVED BY DATE
7
20
630.00
650.00
660.00
670.00
630.00
650.00
660.00
670.00
640.00 640.00 640.00
650.00
660.00
670.00
640.00
650.00
660.00
670.00
630.00 630.00
G-
SHEET OF
REVISIONSNO. REVISED BY APPROVED BY DATE
7
E E
℄
⅊
NOTE:
PRECISE GRADING
3
3
0
SCALE:
3' 6 12'
1"=6'
TYP. EARTH SWALE SEC.
AREA DRAIN DETAIL
CONC. V-DITCH DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
21
G-
SHEET OF
REVISIONSNO. REVISED BY APPROVED BY DATE
8
4
4
0
SCALE:
3' 6 12'
1"=6'
SHORING/RETAINING
WALL PLAN
22
G-
SHEET OF
REVISIONSNO. REVISED BY APPROVED BY DATE
8
SHORING/ RETAINING
WALL DETAILS
5
5
REBAR PER SECHEDULE
TIES PER SECHEDULE
#6 @ 6" O.C.
#6 @6" O.C.
4G-5
1G-5
5G-5
2G-5
3G-56G-5
23
G-
SHEET OF
REVISIONSNO. REVISED BY APPROVED BY DATE
8
SHORING/
RETAINING
WALL NOTES
5.1
5.1
SHOTCRETE FOR RETAINING WALL MATERIAL SPECIFICATION INSTALLATION PROCEDURE FOR CONCRETE PILES GENERAL NOTES:
STRUCTURAL STEEL
WELDING
REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONSCONCRETE FOR PILES ’
TYPE OF WORK DESCRIPTION
PILE SURVEY MONITORING (BY OWNER):
ADDITIONAL GRADING NOTES
SLURRY
TIMBER ’
EPOXY
’
DESIGN CRITERIA
REINFORCING STEEL
OBSERVATION BY SHORING ENGINEER:
’
BACKFILL SLOPE(HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL)EQUIVALENT FLUIDPRESSURE
CANTILEVERED SHORING
24
G-
SHEET OF
REVISIONSNO. REVISED BY APPROVED BY DATE
7
“
”
“” “”
1.2 m m
a
x
1.2 m ma
x
NOTE:INSTALL FIBER ROLLALONG A LEVEL CONTOUR.
Fiber rolls
1.2 m m
a
x
1.2 m m
a
x
INSTALL A FIBER ROLL NEARSLOPE WHERE IT TRANSITIONSINTO A STEEPER SLOPE
FIBER ROLL200 MM MINSLOPEVARIES
300
m
m
min
100
19 MM X19MMWOOD STAKESMAX 1.2 MSPACING
mmmax
VERTICAL SPACINGMEASURED ALONG THEFACE OF THE SLOPEVARIES BETWEEN2.4 M AND 6.0 M
EROSION CONTROL
6
DETAILS
09-16-2024
25
G-
SHEET OF
REVISIONSNO. REVISED BY APPROVED BY DATE
7
7EROSION CONTROLPLANEROSION CONTROL
7
0
SCALE:
3' 6 12'
1"=6'
EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION NOTES QTY UNIT
LEGEND:
26
From:Tran, Jenny
Sent:April 23, 2025 9:49 AM
To:surflaw@aol.com
Cc:Jurjis, Seimone; Mark Joseph Valencia, Esq.; Leon, Jasmine; Martinez, Savannah; Zdeba,
Benjamin
Subject:RE: Valencia Residence PA 2025-0012
Hello Mr. Greer,
Thank you for your comments regarding this project.
The modification permit is to allow the construction of 17-foot tall retaining walls on the property where the NBMC only
allows retaining walls to reach a maximum height of 8 feet from finish grade. The modification permit only relates to the
retaining walls. Any future development must go through the process to obtain permits as necessary. If the applicant
chooses to move forward with permitting an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) within the rear yard, then building plans,
including but not limited to architectural and structural plans, for the ADU must be submitted and reviewed prior to
permit issuance. If the properties behind 10 Whitesands Drive proposes new structures in their rear yards, building plans
for permits would need to be submitted and reviewed for safety and the retaining wall would be taken into consideration
in the review.
Per Section 20.48.200 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the NBMC, an ADU is allowed on a residential property with a single-
unit dwelling and does not require discretionary approval. Further, if the retaining walls were only for the portion of the
hillside slope to support the development of an ADU and not the entire rear yard, a modification permit would not be
required as the NBMC allows taller retaining walls when they are an integral part of a principal structure or ADU. The
retaining wall and ADU, in that situation, would only need approval of a building permit without a public hearing.
Approval and issuance of a building permit, both for the retaining walls and for any future development, such as an ADU,
does not relieve the owner of any legal requirements to obtain community association approval. Additionally, the permit
review for an ADU must still comply with the standards set forth in Section 20.48.200 such as the required parking
requirements of one parking space for the ADU.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss further.
Regards,
Jenny Tran
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
Office: 949-644-3212 100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Zoning Administrator - April 24, 2025 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Valencia Residence Modification Permit (PA2025-0012
From: surflaw@aol.com <surflaw@aol.com>
Sent: April 22, 2025 12:11 PM
To: Tran, Jenny <jtran@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik
<eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Barto, Michelle <MBarto@newportbeachca.gov>; Weber, Sara
<SWeber@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren
<lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Valencia Residence PA 2025-0012
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using
the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Ms. Tran:
My wife and I live at 19 Bridgeport Road and are writing with regard to the above reference application
for a variance to construct a seventeen (17) foot retaining wall.
First, it appears that the applicant desires to build his 17 foot retaining wall to facilitate future
development of a "related accessory structure." The first issue that concerns us is just what sort of "related
accessory structure" Mr. Valencia proposes to build. If his desire is simply to expand his backyard and add
more patio space, an extension of his pool or a gazeebo, then there would be very little concern with the
proposal, assuming that the engineering secures the slope and does not endanger the homes above him.
In, on the other hand, Mr. Valencia is intending to add a dwelling unit to the back of his property, that
intent raises numerous structural, community and legal issues which need to be addressed and, in
fairness, disclosed to the community prior to the issuance of a variance. A clear and transparent answer to
that inquiry would, hopefully, relieve a significant amount of concern and opposition regarding the proposal.
The fact that Mr. Valencia has chosen not to return my phone call, unfortunately, does nothing but heighten
our concern.
Without going into specific detail with regard to the issues that would arise if Mr. Valencia were to
attempt to construct an accessory dwelling at the back of his property, and without waiving our rights to
introduce and pursue those rights if Mr. Valencia were to pursue constructing a new dwelling, there would
appear to be significant problems with the consequences of his request. They include, but are not limited
to:
a. The proposed engineering of the retaining wall and subsequent compaction of the slope, while
apparently sufficient for the proposed wall, does not take into consideration subsequent construction on the
top of the slope by neighbor behind him. The engineering does not appear to be able to support any
additional weight or pressure from subsequent construction above;
b. Parking and traffic concerns with regard to ingress and egress, availability of additional parking as
required by code and the potential destruction of surface streets from construction vehicles and the
removal and transport of a significant amount of dirt;
Zoning Administrator - April 24, 2025 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Valencia Residence Modification Permit (PA2025-0012
c. The failure to notify and receive approval from the Homeowners Association as to the significant
change anticipated and envisioned by the construction of a 17 foot wall coupled with the failure to comply
with applicable HOA processes and procedures;
d. The dwellings impact on the character and nature of the community and its architectural and aesthetic
standards
e. Emergency access to the property and surrounding residences and areas and a failure to provide any
health and safety information; and
f. Other issues pertaining the construction of an additional, non-conforming structure in what, the City of
Newport Beach itself has characterized as a community of "two story, single unit dwellings."
Again, an understanding from the applicant as to his ultimate intentions regarding the usage of the
modification would be extremely helpful in determining whether this is a project that the community can
embrace or must oppose.
And finally, given the uncertainty of the consequences of the proposed project, it is requested that, as a
condition of any approval of the modification and variance, the Ciy require that the applicant post a bond in
an amount sufficient to cover whatever prospective damage might result from this activity prior to the
commencement of any work.
Until that time, it is respectfully requested that this hearing be continued until such time as the applicant
can provide a more comprehensive understanding as to his ultimate intentions.
Otherwise, it is respectfully requested, for the reasons cited above, that the request be denied.
Phillip B Greer
19 Bridgeport Road
(949) 584-9379
Zoning Administrator - April 24, 2025 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Valencia Residence Modification Permit (PA2025-0012
From:Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>
Sent:April 23, 2025 11:31 AM
To:CDD
Subject:Comment on ZA Item 3 (4/24/2025 meeting)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using
the Phish Alert Button above.
With regard to Item 3 on the April 24, 2025, Zoning Administrator agenda (PA2025-0012):
1. The staff report and resolution repeatedly use the term "finish grade," which echoes its use in the
project plans and at exactly two places in the City's Municipal Code (Subsections 15.10.030.A.1
and 20.30.040.A.2). I believe that in all those cases this is a misprint for the term "finished grade," which
appears dozens of times in the NBMC.
2. I'm not sure why the report and resolution say the proposed walls would have "a maximum height of 17
feet when measured at the base of the wall from finish [sic] grade" when the project plans shown on
handwritten pages 2 and 21 indicate a height of barely over 15 feet between the top-of-wall and the ground
at its base.
3. More substantively, I doubt the residents at the top of the slope, at 11 and 15 Bridgeport Rd., could be
particularly happy with this proposal, as it would transform what is presumably a stable grade supporting
their homes into something whose stability is at the mercy of a structure maintained by a neighbor.
4. Additionally, as someone similarly situated to the Bridgeport Rd residents, with a home on flat ground at
the top of a grade similarly supported, at its base, by a 6' retaining wall, I am concerned about the fall
hazard the creation of a 15' drop presents to those neighbors, as well as those to the sides on Whitesands
Dr. Some years ago, a neighbor of mine was seriously injured by rolling down the slope adjoining our yards
and falling to the ground at our retaining wall's base. Falling 15 feet would have been even more serious,
and possibly fatal. The Google 3D simulations of these properties do not provide sufficient detail to discern
if there are existing structures on the property lines that would prevent access to the tops of the wall from
the adjacent properties. If there are not, I would think this property owner's installation of fall-prevention
guardrails would be necessary to protect the neighbors' safety. Even if there are existing barriers along the
property lines, access to the wall top from the subject property itself appears possible and the inclusion of
guardrails would seem warranted -- yet the project plans show none.
-- Jim
Zoning Administrator - April 24, 2025 Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received Valencia Residence Modification Permit (PA2025-0012
From:Linh Bui <linhnbui@yahoo.com>
Sent:April 23, 2025 1:41 PM
To:CDD
Subject:Valencia -10 Whitesands
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using
the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Sir/madam,
I have the following concerns/inquiries regarding the retaining wall proposed by the homeowner.
Dimension - Only the height, 17 feet, is mentioned. How wide is the width and the degree of its lateral extension? I assume
at least the width of the property
The allowed height is 8 feet only
Issues related to construction - Who will be responsible for maintaining and repair of the structure in the future, including
but not limited to clearing debris, proper drainage, signs of erosions, cracking and instability and in the case of future
property sale
Will the retaining wall alter the natural drainage, and/or disrupting the existing habitats. This is my biggest concern
Is the retaining wall able to accomodate the soil pressure, future soil settling and erosion
How will the appearance fit/corporate with the existing neighborhood aesthetic, The Pointe at Newport Ridge
Regards,
Linh Bui
Zoning Administrator - April 24, 2025 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Valencia Residence Modification Permit (PA2025-0012)
My wife Kathleen Peterson and I are writing regarding the request for a modification permit by Mark
Valencia, the co-owner of 10 Whitesands, Newport Coast. (Project File No.: PA2025-0012.) He seeks
the City’s permission to construct a 17 foot tall retaining wall in the hillside behind his home. The matter
is set for a public hearing on April 24, tomorrow, at 10:00 a.m.
For the reasons set forth below, we request that the City deny the application.
My wife and I have lived at 11 Bridgeport Road, Newport Coast since the property was developed in
1994, more than thirty years ago. Our lot is the most impacted by this permit request as our rear property
line completely abuts the Valencia property. The proposed wall would run 18 inches from our back lot
line.
We have read the emails sent by two other uphill neighbors, Phil Greer, who lives at 19 Bridgeport Road,
and James Ganion, who lives at 9 Bridgeport Rd. They express several concerns, which we share. We
are especially concerned that the proposed wall could make it much more difficult and / or expensive to
add a pool to our property should we or a future owner wish to do that. We request that you consider
these concerns carefully.
We write to express additional pressing concerns.
First, by way of background, we do not approach building requests with a NIMBY
attitude. The Valencia application is literally in our backyard and it would be easy to approach any
request for change with a knee-jerk opposition. That is not our goal.
The Valencia lot and the several next to it on Whitesands are generously cut lots with deep backyards.
The staff report sympathizes that beyond the large flat pad, there is a slope, not more flat pad. A premise
of the approval, it seems, is that the Valencias are unfairly being deprived of an even bigger flat pad
which they seek instead of the slope with they have. We are not sympathetic. There is plenty of space in
the Valencia backyard and those which neighbor it for a large pool and related sitting areas, or a large
Accessory Dwelling Unit. The Valencias took title in 2021. Their home, which was more than 25 years
old at the time, already had a beautiful large pool. The lot also was defined beyond their pool by the
unbuildable slope which ascends to—and which supports--our lot. If the Valencias wish to build an
ADU, they can replace their pool with such a structure. They may even be able to redevelop their lot for
a smaller pool and an ADU. In the abstract, we would have no objection to that. None of that would
require removing the entire slope which defines the back part of their lot and which supports our lot.
We don’t know the Valencias’s long-term goal, but the radical nature of the currently proposed work,
removal of an entire supporting slope, and the installation of a 17 foot tool retaining wall with many deep
caissons, suggests that they do plan to build a substantial ADU. Again, in the abstract, we have no
objection to an ADU.
Our main objection is that the proposed wall is entirely out of scale to and inconsistent to what already
exists. The slope in question does not stand alone. It defines the border of Bridgeport Road above and
Whitesands below. It doesn’t just run from our lot to the Valencia lot. It runs
From: Mark Peterson <mark@gomarkmail.com>
Sent: April 23, 2025 11:46 AM
To: Tran, Jenny <jtran@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Stapleton,
Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik
<eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Barto, Michelle <MBarto@newportbeachca.gov>; Weber, Sara
<SWeber@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren
<lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: surflaw@aol.com; jganion@cslawoffices.com; Kathleen Peterson (kathleenOPeterson@gmail.com)
<kathleenOPeterson@gmail.com>
Subject: Comments Re: Agenda Item No. 3, Application by Mark Valencia; April 24, 2025, Newport Beach
Zoning Meeting
April 23, 2025
Dear Ms. Tran and other Interested Parties:
Zoning Administrator - April 24, 2025 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received Valencia Residence Modification Permit (PA2025-0012)
along the back of six homes on Whitesands and up to the uphill neighbors of those homes on
Bridgeport. The applicant seeks to cart way the centerpiece of this six-home slope changing the
defining border of the upper and lower part of The Pointe.
Not only is the request inconsistent with this development as conceived and built, it also would be
contrary to the recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which encumber all
property in the development. (See County of Orange recorded doc. no. 93-0440672.) They state, in
part:
Slope Maintenance. Owners who are required to maintain slope areas within their Lots [slopes
not maintained by the Association] must maintain the landscaping upon such slope areas on a
condition that will prevent slope erosion in conformance with any requirements of the
Maintenance Association and the responsible Public Agency.
The Pointe at Newport Ridge is a hillside development project. Slopes are an integral part of
hillside development. Most slopes within the Development will be irrigated and planted by
Declarant and maintained by the Maintenance Association. This landscaping is a requirement to
prevent slope erosion, and is not intended for purely ornamental purposes. . . . Some slopes . . .
are to be maintained by the Owner. Owner responsibility for slope maintenance starts at close
of escrow or thereafter by written notice from
Declarant.
(CC&Rs, p. 48 (emphasis added), extended to Whitesands properties by docs. nos. 94-0577112 and
94-0577113.)
The application would allow for a reshaping of the defining slope between the two phases of the Pointe at
Newport Ridge. It also would be contrary to these CC&Rs which require that property owners “must
maintain” their slopes and landscaping. To truck away an entire slope and replace it with a 17 foot wall
is not maintaining the slope. The City should not countenance a direct violation of a recorded restriction.
The proposed violation of these CC&Rs is not technical or trivial. It is extreme. This is reflected in the
comparison of the proposal, a 17 feet tall, to the 8 foot maximum height for walls under the Newport
Beach Municipal Code and the 6 feet maximum of The Pointe at Newport Ridge Association
Architectural Guidelines. (Section V(B)(4), p. 13.)
The wall also would turn our property into one with a sheer drop at its rear, a result which we purposely
avoided when we shopped for a home. This is an unreasonable result, which we can’t have anticipated
and which the City should not facilitate.
The proposed wall also would be an extreme nuisance in its construction phase. The back windows of
our home are approximately 25 feet from the Valencia property line. The plans indicate the driving of
many deep and wide caissons, which I would expect will cause damage to our home and make living
here intolerable for weeks. While this level of intrusive construction is common in large commercial
developments, it has no place in a thirty-year settled neighborhood. For this additional reason, the City
should decline the application.
It goes without saying that the proposed wall, even if permitted by the City, will face review by The
Pointe Architectural Committee, which I expect will reject it. That said, the matter should
never get that far. The City should reject it in the first instance as uncalled for and violative of the
CC&Rs, the Architectural Guidelines, and the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
We thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Peterson
11 Bridgeport Road Newport
Coast, CA 92657 (949)
231-2231
MarkBiz@GoMarkMail.com
Kathleen O. Peterson
11 Bridgeport Road
Newport Coast, CA 92657 (949)
378-5002
KathleenOPeterson@gmail.com
Zoning Administrator - April 24, 2025 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received Valencia Residence Modification Permit (PA2025-0012)
From: Helena Melmet <hmelmet@gmail.com>
Sent: April 24, 2025 8:40 AM
To: Tran, Jenny <jtran@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Arlene Greer <arlenegreer@gmail.com>; Phil Greer <surflaw@aol.com>; Steve Melmet
<smelmet@melmetgroup.com>; James Ganion <jganion@yahoo.com>; Mark Peterson
<mark@gomarkmail.com>; kathleenpeterson@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Zoning Administrator Hearing Registration
Thank you Jenny.
The homeowners I have spoken to in our neighborhood are against this gigantic retaining
wall. I met with an architect and drove by the property a few days ago. He advised me that
this is not the way to retain such a large slope. That typically if you were to attempt to
retain a slope like this the retaining wall should start at 5 feet high and then a 4 foot planter
bed behind the wall and then construct another retaining wall of about 5 feet and
another planter bed behind that, That way the slope would be better secured. Having said
that, I am against this huge retaining wall for our community as it puts too many homes at
the top of this slope in danger of slope failure.
I think it is a dangerous retaining wall and the consequences to the homeowners on the top
of the slope and their ability to build a pool or any other structure becomes compromised,
not to mention the destabilization of the slope and the risk of slope failure is much greater.
Thank you again.
Helena Melmet
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:25 AM Tran, Jenny <jtran@newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
I received your voicemail and the link to register to the Zoning Administrator Hearing is here:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_MJPxXKwMShiTE5fri_pszw#/registration
Kind regards,
Jenny Tran
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
Office: 949-644-3212
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Zoning Administrator - April 24, 2025 Item No. 3e Additional Materials Received AFTER DEADLINE Valencia Residence Modification Permit (PA2025-0012)
From: James Ganion <jganion@yahoo.com>
Sent: April 24, 2025 10:28 AM
To: Tran, Jenny <jtran@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fw: Valencia Residence PA 2025-0012- Modification Permit- 10 Whitesands
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: James Ganion <jganion@yahoo.com>
To: rgrant@newportbeachca.gov <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; eweigand@newportbeachca.gov
<eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; mbarto@newportbeachca.gov <mbarto@newportbeachca.gov>;
sweber@newportbeachca.gov <sweber@newportbeachca.gov>; sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov
<sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov <lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>;
jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 at 07:31:53 AM PDT
Subject: Valencia Residence PA 2025-0012- Modification Permit- 10 Whitesands
Dear Ms. Tran and Distinguished City of Newport Beach Personnel:
My wife and I have lived at 9 Bridgeport Road, Newport Coast, for over 20 years. We have been made
aware of a modification permit by the owner of 10 Whitesands to construct a 17' tall retaining wall in the
hillside behind their home. That hillside is below and borders the corner of our lot adjacent to 11
Bridgeport Road (the Petersons' home). I have read the email sent by another uphill neighbor, Phil Greer,
who lives at 19 Bridgeport Road, and generally share the concerns raised by Mr. Greer. In addition to
what Mr. Greer has stated, I have not seen any analysis by the applicant or the City as to the impacts of
this proposed 17' wall on the uphill properties in terms of limitations or conditions/constraints/qualifications
that my be placed on future development/improvement of the uphill properties. For instance, my wife and
I plan to install a swimming pool on our property, and we are now concerned this retaining wall may
detrimentally impact that plan. Moreover, the Petersons or a subsequent purchaser may want to put in a
pool, but the existence of a 17' retaining wall may impact that in a negative way.
Also, in reviewing the Staff Report, which I only saw today for the first time, I see the City makes mention
of the fact other surrounding properties in the neighborhood consist of mostly flat lots. That is just not true
as to the other homes on the same side of Whitesands as the subject property- they all have slopes. But
more importantly, the fact is those "flat lots" behind the subject home that are on Bridgeport, such as
mine, are a fraction of the depth of the subject lot. All you need to do is compare the aerial view on pdf
page 17 of the Staff Report to see the already-developed portions of the Whitesands lots are equivalent in
size to the lots on Bridgeport. In other words, other lots in the community may be flat, but they are smaller
and that is how they were configured when we bought them, just like those lots on that side of
Whitesands were configured with steep slopes when they were sold. The community was designed and
approved this way. Choosing to buy a home with a large steep slope that was not developable as-is was
the buyer's choice to make at the time of purchase. But to complain after the fact and try to compare the
surrounding flat lots and suggest the slope on their lot is somehow unfair to them, and they should now
be able to flatten it and erect a 17' high retaining wall to be placed at or near the property lines is
improper.
Before the City votes to approve the modification permit, the applicant should address these issues in
more detail and the City should conduct the necessary analysis necessary to affirmatively represent to
neighboring property owners, particularly along Bridgeport Road, that approval of this wall will not limit in
any way their ability to make improvements, e.g., pools, on their lots.
James Ganion, 9 Bridgeport Road
Zoning Administrator - April 24, 2025 Item No. 3e Additional Materials Received AFTER DEADLINE Valencia Residence Modification Permit (PA2025-0012)