HomeMy WebLinkAboutH-3c - CorrespondenceIsabel C. Andrews
AKA (Isabel Pease))
P .0 . Box 395
211 Evening Canyon Road
tea-°= rv. , :°�� Corona del mar, Calif 92625
N
may 31, 1975
Community Development Dept.
Newport Beach, Calif
Dear Sirs.
Regarding your hearing on the subject of increasing rear
yard setbacks on Buck Gully:
I am not familiar with any problems on the Gully North of
Coast highway so cannot express an intellgent opinion. That
should be left to those who already live there.
H- 3 6")
But, I am familiar with the Gully South of the highway,
and am a.bsolittely opposed to building farther $put into
th4 Canyon than the already established structures. The prime
value of our highly assessed properties is the view, We are
paying high taxes for unusable land only so we can have our own
and protect other'4 views. If the request for extensive i to exte_ ,ion
of structures farther he canyon is for someone's special_
benefit it should be �d We have deed restrictions on
Evening Canyon and all strutures come under our architectural
committee. To the end that everyone is protected.
I can see no valid reason for any further intruotion into
the canyon, and consider eh value of the green belt, water shed,
and open space of supreme value, and one who J�h should be protected.
Copy to Planning Commission.
Thank you,
Sincerely, ,
.'"
r�ti :F s:
a
0
AJ.�o R A Y
Construction Co.
License No. B-1 126426 (714) 642-4210
188 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California 92627
June 2, 1975
City Council
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Calif,
Re: Proposed Ordinance to Create Setback along Buck Gulley
Gentlemen:
I have studied Mr. David Dmohowski's study dated April 8 1975,
and also the proposed ordinance both relating to a setback along Buck
Gulley.
As I stated at April 8th study session, we do not oppose a
setback requirement in this area. However, it seems that the 100 '
setback mentioned in the proposed ordinance is excessively stringent
in the case of our property (408 Hazel Drive).
Mr. William Frost, of Ruab, Bein, Frost, and I have reviewed an
aerial topo of the site and believe that our lot is "buildable" far
beyond 100' without jeopardizing Buck Gulley or adjacent views. In
fact, the existing garage which is on our property is considerably
beyond the proposed setback.
While we, too, are interested in the preservation of Buck Gulley,
there is also some question in my mind that an ordinance is necessary.
All but three lots within the affected area are fully improved. Would
not the heavy cost prevent the three remaining owners of undeveloped
property from building too deep into Buck Gulley?
Yours truly,
James W. Ray
J. Ray Construction Co,, Inc.
cc: William J. Frost (Raub, Bein, Frost)
JWR/ker