The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 - Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Appeal - AppealAppeal Ap,,rlJ�.--.{a o n City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive t ' 0 rl ,, 176151 Newport Beach, CA 92653-6915 949-644-3005 Appeal the Decision of: D Hearing Officer - NBMC §20.64 Operator License - NBMC §5.25.060 (Attention: City Manager) Winning Commission - NBMC §20.64 O Zoning Administrator _§95.45.080 (F) LJ Other - NBMC §20.64 aro Appellant Information: Names): , �� • �+ Address: Clerk's Date & T irwF; S REC51VED 7'114 DEC - f I P11 3: 3 5 r- r._ - r Applicah ppb <<F_ees.P- Stant to Master 1=ee cep dii�1 'da 9-22-'l5: ;fearing Officer - $1,536.00 JPerator License - $692.00 Commission - $1,536.00 noir Ig Administrator - $1,536.00 Otner - $ , f'S.,& �- A^, A vz- K.- #4A,, -s 6 5 -3 r, G- P't V L CityfStatre/Ziip: )e, er-'� c-�-� r.�__ Phone: g q Z11 -6663 Fax: 'I'q+1 00 2-"14 3 Email1 ► , re -c ►'Yt ►� . C c?M Appealing Application Regarding: Name of Applicant(s): A A r � GAnC- '�' i nn 5 Date of Decision: 17 Project No.: TA �0 I i� - 0a ci- -- ,c owty No.: -2-0 i G -- 00z- on4 M-2-0 146 3 Site Address: _ 7o-q6z - - ��- �- Ave-- Description vgDescription of application: Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a }separate sheet if necessary): £ C ±4- C L- C G( I Signature of Appellant: -- -- --.. . FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Appeal filed and Administrative, rec evti` cj�� &/:�� City' Jerk mac: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File Cashier Code. CDD004 Bate: 20 N o o I G bek_z-- , 20 F:1UserslClerkiSharedlFormslAppee' �7p1. Ge Updatec 1c 25. .; -Coalition against Santa Ana Ave cottages as a 3 story Development" November 28, 2016 Planning Commission City clerks office 100 Civic Center Drivel PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Planning Commission, 20662 Santa Ana Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 T 969 216 5063 F 9A9 630 2943 Sanndire0@pmail.cam On behalf of the `Coalition against Santa Ana Ave cottages as a 3 story Development' we are appeal- ing the planning commission, s a,,:,- r `ve Santa Ana Ave cottages. This is a letter to express concern for the safety and compiience i sr;j Santa Ana Ave Cottages proposal. It is also going to open up the city of Newport Beach to law,_z:uits from all the surrounding properties which are adversely affected by this out of place 3 stor.. r; on- ti. This 3 story property will also breach the privacy of the surrounding properties and create fife acid safety hazards for itself and surrounding properties. `Coalition against Santa Ana Ave co- ayes as a 3 story Development' sites the following reasons: I. Does not fit the neighborhood - The Santa Ana Ave Cottages propose ;:c a �_ not fit the area. A three story, 7 unit rental apartment complex into an area of one and two story homes? Yes the area is RMD but all properties whether they are single family residences, or apartments are all 2 story maximum. There are no 3 story dwelling in Newport or in Costa Mesa and the design is not in architectural harmony with the rest of the area. 2. No precedent for three story dwelling in this area - Does the city want to approve and ?r7nm.,f',he liability of two 33 foot high three story dwellings, one that is 100 feet long and ors-. 75 ;_:; . _..- s� 5 feet from the next door neighbors which are both sin- gle story single family residences. 3. Planning Commission ignored .,:,.es brought up by surrounding property owners - Planning commission ignored all the is. ,:es raised by Five property owners in the area who wrote let- ters etters and even ignored the experif .�- . { . --- inspection by Commissioner Erik Weigand Who could not find parking anywhere and It was such an egregious issue for him that he made a formal request to the liaison to Costa Mesa ro request more street parking in that area. They have also ig- nored the fact that it will reduce the p. 1 values of all properties adjacent to the proposed three story development We invite all seven commissioners to com e meet at the site in person, drive separate cars and lets see where you have to park to visit the 20452 Santa Ana Ave property. You will need to walk a quarter of a mile to park your car, 4. Property Value Decline of all adjacent properties - AI1 the adjacent and surrounding properties values will drop significantly due to the lack of privacy that a 3 story dwelling will create on the surrcunding one story dwellings. Is the city of Newport Beach asking the neighbors to effectively pay for this development by us being forced to take significant property value cuts to approve a 3 story building that does not fit the area and has no precedent in the area? The city is opening itself up to rilassive liability with this approval due to dealing value of the surrounding property and a breach .)e ua rua ,w to surrounding properties. 5. Newport Beach opening Itself to -egai a-posure from Property owners adversely affected - As a 7 unit 3 story project it is ncr ":.! area and we are unanimousiy going to appeal this ap- proval. However we support this F,''= ra. a 2 story design which reflects the density and architec- tural classification of the area without impacting parking, violating other property owners rights and exacerbating a precarious intersectic.-, s traffic flow and safety. This will not violate the surrounding property owners property rights and orini g the city under legal exposure for knowingly approving a project that will cause the decline of many others. 6. Mrs. Brandes gave false testimony to the Planning Commission regarding the next door neighbor supporting the project - I know this because I am the next d"L ^aighbor she was falsely claiming that I supported the protect. She also gave false testimony to me the next door neighbor that the development would be a two sto- ry development and then the the plans are revealed they were 3 story. 7. Traffic and public safety - Three story and too many units %4!d :,!read] dangerous Intersection. Does the city want to approve and accept the liability and block the vision and more than doubly: the traffic coming and going from a procerty 'wat is less than 100 feet from an Traffic light intersection with an average of one accident _- r :_-1ths and where the posted speed limit 45 mph? 8. Fire Hazard and poor functional ' ei, With no access to the backyard excs ,,,, ?r'uuah the garage this is a fire hazard and design flaw that can not be approved without the airy a,:O-ep ing the liability of approving such dangerous and haphaz- ard structural design. Also with a 5 toot deep back yard there is no room for any fire escapes. 9. Parking - By his own admission when Commission 9- Erik Weigand came here to inspect the property he could not find parking anywhere in the vicinity. It was such an egregious issue for him that he made a formal request to the liaison to Costa Mesa to request more street parking in that area. Which I explained to him later in the meeting why they can not and will not put parking there. Yet the entire commissioner panel still approved a plan to add four more 3 story units and 10 more cars to this already restrictive parking situation. 10. Drainage - A Sloped land with drainage out the f7�t,r the property is impossible. There lot drains on to my lot. Seven units draining on to my lot. :- _ ,::.:;ty want to approve and accept the liability of a property with unproper drainage and sloping of tyle lot? In addition the sunken garages will constantly flood the way this property is designed with nr: rd in any of the units and expecting the water to drain down the driveway is 11. Aesthetic - The three story block with little to no ar0,z. aural styling and which loops more a kin to a prison cel block than a "cottage". 12. Trash - There is not enough s,r; t i.ti~.n;aue to provide for each of the 7 dwelling to have 2 or three cans out from of the property. The Prule::L wui require a dumpster and this has not been included in the already impacted parking situation. These are the twelve points that the 'Coaiitlon against Santa Ana Ave cottages as a 3 story Develop- ment' will sight as why this project is not good for the area. The project is trying to put too many units in a property that can not handle it and the neighborhood property owners are being asked to suffer heavy losses property losses in order approve a project that does not fit the area in the first place In conclusion, The 'Coalition against Santa Ana Ave cottages as a 3 story Development' is not anti growth we are interested in maintaining our property values, the architectural harmony and safety of our neighborhood which this 3 stcr°r r :; . j+ l,l erode. We will support a design with 2 story dwelling and less units which will mitigate tri_ issues raised with this appeal. Sincerely yours, 'Coalition against Santa Ana Ave :,Nt; Gc = • a ? story Development' and Dunn Voyer City of Newport Reach Revenue 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92669 949-644-3141 Welcome 000931-0001 Meg W MISCELLANEOUS CDD004 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES 2017 Item: CDD004 1 @ 1,536.00 CDD004 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES Subtotal Total 12/0112016 03:41PM 1,536.00 -------------- 1,536.00 1,536.00 1,536.00 CHECK 1,536.00 Check Number 0061022517 -------------- Change due 0.80 Paid by: DIRECT CAPITAL GROUP INC. Thank you for your payment CUSTOMER COPY DUPLICATE RECEIPT