The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.1_Materials Received_PA2010-153vvr 'EiVED BY COMMUNITY AUG 16 2011 Correspondence Item No. 4a Duong Remodel and Addition PA2010 -133 DEVELOPMENT� ��yyO�R Ba p Peters�BO"ttal to Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 18, 2011, Agenda Item 4 NEWPO Members of the Planning Commission, We have reviewed Mr. Campbell's Staff Report re: 3002 Breakers Drive.. While we support Mr. Campbell's recommendation for zoning code changes to provide public notice when determinations change setbacks, this recommendation does not go far enough. The report misrepresents his original determination by using a phantom second determination to justify a flawed lot size. This was done only after his error was discovered and long after his original determination. First, let me call your attention to Mr. Campbell's report and the attachment of his November 29, 2010 determination. It is one item, a singular determination that footnotes the incorrect lot size. It was based on a code section that had nothing to do with lot size; it pertains only to setbacks. The lot size was substantially reduced from the basis of a prior City Council Ordinance without any reliance on zoning code. This allowed a remodel design with a P floor that exceeds standards. Mr. Campbell states on page 4 that he relied on Code section 20.12.020.A, Rules of Interpretation, to justify determining the lot to be less than 30 feet. Yet, again looking at the attachment, there is no mention of this code section anywhere on it. In his Discussion section, page 3 of his report, he refers to "these two determinations' and implies they complied with code from the outset. This is misleading. Had there been two determinations he could produce them, and they would both be dated November 29, 2010, each referencing appropriate code sections. He can't, because one of them never existed until Ms. Brandt decided, in her opinion, it should have. When we met with Mr. Campbell and Ms. Brandt on July 27'h, Mr. Campbell conceded the lot size he determined was wrong. After going back to the property owner without success, Ms. Brandt reviewed the situation with the City Attorney. She told me this in a phone call. We then received the attached letter dated August 3, 2011; you can see they made haste to issue an "opinion" that the one, flawed determination was really always two. They came up with the "Rules of Interpretation" code section to retroactively add to the split version of the determination. The only place this code section is ever mentioned is the August P letter and Mr. Campbell's report. It was never a part of the original determination. If you take a close look at these documents, it is clear that the determination of lot size has been misrepresented in the report. This alone should be enough to put this project on hold. Unfortunately, Ms. Brandt's recent "opinion" was cited by the City Attorney to shut off our appeal to the City Council. The City Attorney stated on the record that "Ms. Brandt indicated there were two determinations made fully in compliance with the Ordinance." The actions of staff have been injurious and have disregarded substantially the property rights of the surrounding neighbors. Giving notice for setback Determinations will help and we ask you to act on that recommendation, but the problems run deeper than that. We hope you will take a close look not only at the process, but at this "opinion" and how staff has used it to seek to rewrite history, all to avoid correcting a simple mistake. We would like the record to reflect what really happened. We would like this report to be made accurate to the documents, including the August 3, 2011 letter which Mr. Campbell did not provide or even mention in his report. We would also like the building permit to adjust the buildable 3rd floor square footage. We ask Ms. Brandt and Mr. Campbell again to correct this error. For staff, this was a simple mistake, with too much effort invested into justifying their actions. As neighbors to the property in question, we must live with this mistake for the next 20 years, or more. Please, do the right thing, the ethical thing and revise the scope of this project. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT August 3, 2011 Mr. and Mrs. Peters 3018 Breakers Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 SUBJECT: 3002 BREAKERS DRIVE, DIRECTOR DETERMINATION OF ALTERNATIVE SETBACK AREA LOCATIONS Dear Mr. and Mrs. Peters, In response to your inquiry regarding the Planning Directors decision for 3002 Breakers Drive, I have had the opportunity to more fully review the background information. As noted in the attached Director Determination of Alternative Setback Area Locations, dated November 29, 2010, it is my opinion that two Director determinations were made for that property. The first determination was made in respect to the alternative setback area, which is authorized by the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.30.110 C (Setback Regulations and Exceptions — Alternative setback area location). As noted on the attachment, the Director determined that there were two "side" setback areas, one "other" setback area, and no "rear' setback area. A second determination regarding 'lot width" was also stated in the documentation. The Director determined that "The lot is considered 30 feet wide or less for purposes of third floor development (NBMC Section 20.28.180 A.3 Third floor regulations)." This determination was made pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.12.020 Rules of Interpretation, A. Authority, and the decision was based on the unusual shape of the property. Both of these determinations are considered final, as the 14 -day appeal period has long since expired pursuant to the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to telephone me at (949) 644 -3226. Sincer ly, Y KIMBERLY BRANDT ICP Community Development Director Attachments: Director Determination of Alternative Setback Area Locations, dated November 29, 2010 Excerpt of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.12.020 Rules of Interpretation, A. Authority 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach. California 92658 -8915 Telephone: (949) 644 -3226 • FLx: (949) 644 -3250 • www. newporl bcaclhca .gov /communllyclevelopinent PLANNING DEPARTMENT 33W NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORTBEACH, CA 92663 (949) 644-3200 FAX'(949) 644 -3229 Director Determination of Alternative Setback Area Locations Address: 3002 Breakers Drive Date: November 29, 2010 Section 20.30.110 C (Setback Regulations and Exceptions — Alternative setback area location) In cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. The reorientation of setback areas is not applicable to the bluff overlay district. Pursuant to this section, the Acting Planning Director established the following alternative setbacks: ., .Yard: -.S&tbaic 7R5a �rt tTOn 1 Front 5' Breakers Drive Side 3' Side 3' Rear N/A No rear setback for this property Other 3' All other setbacks are considered side and setbacks. Comments: The lot is considered 30 feet wide or less for purposes of third floor development (Section 20.48.180 A.3). On behalf of James W. Campbell, Acting Planning Director By_ Fen u no, Assistant Planner Attachments: Plans showing setbacks and buildable area / O r. q + CL a -\';r x s , a�sl /o- - c = Q ! ! / II m II � :f� "/r� (:•tY'�<v�t... `rl) Q/ Jl V A sag g /j/�,,l/ LL Qt k o a a s t j c o a'x S N. c') -t 111 (0 I— F- / i / d i 196E -519 1666) VO' +eye lap euom0 o OINV�SVQ - �BIIVYp SZ9Z6 anl,d s/a>Iee,9 ZOOS A O /� y� - 6uonp yueFi / \IJ® Sa a�Ile8jQ z r•— / O r. q + CL a -\';r x s , a�sl /o- - c = Q ! ! / II m II � :f� "/r� (:•tY'�<v�t... `rl) Q/ Jl V A sag g /j/�,,l/ LL Qt k o a a s t j c o a'x S N. c') -t 111 (0 I— F- / i / d i Chapter 20.12 — Interpretation of Zoning Code Provisions Sections: 20.12.010 — Purpose 20.12.020 — Rules of Interpretation 20.12.010 — Purpose This Chapter provides rules for resolving questions about the meaning or applicability of any part of this Zoning Code. The provisions of this Chapter are intended to ensure the consistent interpretation and application of the requirements of this Zoning Code. 20.12.020 — Rules of Interpretation A. Authority. The Director has the authority to interpret the meaning of provisions of this Zoning Code, including maps, and to apply and /or enforce the Zoning Code. The Director may also refer any interpretation to the Commission for input or a determination. An interpretation made by the Director may be appealed to the Commission in compliance with Chapter 20.64 (Appeals). B. Language. When used in this Zoning Code, the words "shall," "must," "will," "is to," and "are to" are always mandatory. "Should" is not mandatory but is strongly recommended; and "may" is permissive. The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future tense includes the present. The singular number includes the plural number, and the plural the singular, unless the common meaning of the word indicates otherwise. The words "includes" and "including" shall mean "including, but not limited to." C. Calculations. Residential density. When the number of dwelling units allowed on a site is calculated based on the minimum site area per dwelling unit, any fraction of a unit shall be rounded down to the next lowest whole number. For example, where a residential zoning district requires a minimum site area per dwelling unit of 1,500 square feet; a site of 10,000 square feet would be allowed 6 dwelling units. Example: 10,000 sq. ft. site area / 1,500 sq. ft. per unit = 6.66 dwelling units This would be rounded down to 6 dwelling units 2. Other calculations. For calculations other than residential density, the fractional /decimal results of calculations shall be rounded to the next highest whole number unless otherwise specified. Time limits. Whenever a number of days is specified in this Zoning Code, or in a permit, condition of approval, or notice provided in compliance with this Zoning Code, the number of days shall be construed as calendar days unless otherwise specified. Where the last of the specified number of days falls on a weekend, holiday, or other day the City is not open for business, the time limit shall extend to 5:00 p.m. on the following business day. October 26, 2010 Newport Beach Zoning Code, Title 20