The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About22 - Quick Appeal - PA2001-190 - 1208 E Balboa BlvdCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 8, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: a 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell • �< soa `� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: None SUBJECT: Quick Appeal (PA2001 -190) 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard SUMMARY: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Modification Permit No. 2001 -108 requesting the retention of an existing patio cover that encroaches 12 -feet beyond the original property line into the abandoned right -of -way of the former East Bay Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. APPLICANT: Gary Quick LOCATION: Approximately 150 feet east of the intersection of "D" Street and E. Balboa Boulevard. GENERAL PLAN: Residential, Single Family Detached ZONING DISTRICT: R -1 (Single Family Residential) On December 6, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on an appeal of the applicant on the denial of Modification Permit No. 2001 -108. The Commission voted unanimously to uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee and deny the appeal. On December 19, 2001, Mr. Quick filed an appeal of the Commission's action. The appeal cites selective enforcement of city codes as grounds for approval of the Modification Permit (Exhibit No. 1). The applicant's patio cover was installed without the benefit of permits, which led to an enforcement action. The applicant believes that the city is not enforcing the codes uniformly and this belief should cause the city to approve the Modification Permit and building permit for the patio. The Planning Commission considered this argument, but based its decision upon the required findings for a Modification Permit, the facts of the application and public testimony. The applicant presented his belief that the patio cover' did not block the views of nearby properties, and was therefore, not detrimental. This information was not deemed compelling by the Planning . Commission in the light of neighborhood opposition including the abutting property owner's testimony that the patio cover blocks their view. The Planning Commission was unable to make the finding for approval of the requested modification permit and denied the appeal. The draft minutes from this meeting are attached as Exhibit No. 2. The attached appeal does not express any new information that was not presented to the Planning Commission. The applicant believes that selective enforcement of city codes is grounds for approval of a Modification Permit. Staff does not agree with the applicant's contention that the city is selectively enforcing its codes. The applicant has identified a number of properties with what he believes have similar violations that have not been investigated by the city. Both Building and Planning Department staff are presently investigating each of the sites identified by the applicant for compliance. The enforcement activities are an example of uniform enforcement as the policy of both the Building and Planning Departments is to investigate potential violations when they are identified. After an assessment of the facts and relevant codes, staff takes appropriate action to enforce the Municipal Code. The finding necessary to make for approval of a Modification Permit is stated in Chapter 20.93 and is as follows: In order to grant relief to an applicant through a modification permit, the Modifications Committee shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, andfurther that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal of Modification Permit No. 2001 -108 Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE JAMES W. CAMPBELL Planning t _ /.i As Exhibits SePlanner Senior _�;( Cam/ 1. Appeal of Planning Commission action filed December 19, 2001. 2. Excerpt of draft minutes of December 6, 2001 Planning Commission meeting 3. Planning Commission Staff report dated December 6, 2001 with exhibits. MD2001 -108 Appeal January 8, 2002 Page 2 of 2 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 At rL[%,AI IUN I U ArrtAL UtUMIUN UI' I Ht rLANNINii (.-UMMl551UN Application No. :91 QEC 19 )18 '50 Name of Appellant or person filing:_ Address: W Date of Planning Commission decision: 4�7- G . 20 © % Regarding application of: 1'i ©O 1P1e ?7670 Or- Pex#,//T for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) l=ev i2 ry IVIA9 - i /Gc't 7fdN Reasons for Appeal: / /Q rn r 7—.0 s,4teoe.77-lyaa; Date z 16— FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: n �o,X l °t 20 O 1 Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Se- 20.95.050) cc: Appellant Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) File �EALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.0408 Appeal Fee: $298 pursuant to Resolution No. 2001 -46 adopted on 6-26-01 (eff. 7/1/01) (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) Exhibit No. 1 z THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY 11 0 •City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX airper'on Tucker noted his agreement with Commissioner McDaniel's sta ments. It is a permitted use and the parking space use doesn't seem to be an iss .There are situations where someone is over parked but it shouldn't go on forev . I agree with Commissioner McDaniel that an application should be filed by a t e certain so that there is an end. If it turns out that Commissioner Kiser's positio 's the one that more people want to go with then of course I would support th as well. Commissioner Gifford ked if Commissioner Kiser would add verbiage that any application for an extenss be filed by and then insert a date certain. Commissioner Kiser agreed as lagg as it would not put us in a worse position Ms. Clauson stated that it would difficult. My suggestion was that the approval be with a condition that an desire for any extension of that date would have to be applied for and ap oved by the Planning Commission before that date. And that would be tough Ndo within that 60 -day period. Commissioner Kiser said it would come back to thame people. This seems an unnecessary step. Commissioner Agajanian asked to consider inserting the w final in his motion. The maker of the motion agreed. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford DRAFT Noes: Selich Absent: Kranzley SUBJECT: Quick Appeal 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard • PA2001 -190 Appeal of the denial of Modification Permit No. 2001 -108 requesting the retention of an existing patio cover that encroaches 12 -feet beyond the original property line into the abandoned right -of -way of the former East Bay Avenue Mr. Jim Campbell offered the following information on modifications granted within the surrounding area with similar situations: Records related to the 1100, 1200 and 1300 blocks for East Balboa there were no modifications on file for any encroachments in the setback for the 1200 block of Balboa. For the 1100 block we have 2 modificaitoins primarily for side yard encroachments although there is a patio depicted on one of the plans; the second one was for a bay window to encroach into the second floor balcony on East Bay. These encroaches range from 3 feet 6 inches and 2 feet 11 inches. On • the 1300 block there are two encroachments, one for a six -foot high wall and 6 20 Item 7 PA2001 -190 Decision Upheld Exhibit No. 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 linear feet into the abandoned right of way that extended out to the bulkhead line. Another one was for a five -foot high pool protection fence around a spa at 1310 East Balboa that is five foot high into the abandoned right of way. Ms. Temple noted that the appellant has brought a number of potential similar encroachment issues to the attention of the code enforcement and building department. We have reached a conclusion on some and are still working on others. A number of the addresses given to us have other forms of approval, such as variances approved many decades ago, which authorize them. We have discovered some that do require permits and we are pursuing all the necessary actions to get them properly permitted. In one particular area on East Bay Front on Balboa Island there is an active project in Public Works to look at encroachments and the public right of way in a fashion similar to the ocean front encroachments several years ago in the West Newport area. So, those are in separate processing and will be resolved ultimately in that fashion. However, there are some numbers where we are pursuing appropriate permits and potential modification of permits as well on other installations of similar nature. Chairperson Tucker stated that the Commission is not interested in hearing issues concerning neighbors or how issues come to our attention. We operate under an ordinance, we do not operate under emotion or try to decide who is right or who is wrong, we just want the facts. Gary Quick, 1208 East Balboa stated he has nothing new to add to the staff report. Chairperson Tucker asked the appellant why he thinks a modification would be appropriate in his case. Mr. Quick answered that for eleven years of cruising the bay, he got the idea from many of the homes in Newport Harbor. Chairperson Tucker stated that we have an ordinance that says certain things have to occur to justify a modification, what someone else has done is not one of them. You need to speak why this modification is not harmful to your neighbor's tranquility, social welfare or property values. Why does this modification come to the level that is insignificant and has no negative impact on your neighbors? You need to argue that point, not what someone else has done elsewhere. Mr. Quick answered that other than what is in the report, he has a letter from an architect saying that in his professional opinion that this was not about views, it was about aesthetics. Chairperson Tucker answered aesthetics is certainly one of the features, but in this particular case, there is very little were view has come into play for us. Usually when a modification matter comes to us, if is an insignificant affront to what our standards are and doesn't usually hurt anybody and is beneficial for the property in question. You have neighbors who are all saying this is hurtful, and is something 21 INDEX • i'l L 1 I •City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 that should not occur. We want to hear from you why if is not hurtful to them. Mr. Quick answered that in his opinion it does not block their views. Public comment was opened. Bill Shepard, 1206 E. Balboa, next door to this project. My comments have to deal with part of the ordinance, justification for findings for variances, one was deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties. Chairperson Tucker stated this is a modification, not a variance. Mr. Shepard stated that there is substantial gain by the applicant that would change the character of the neighborhood and all of our other comments are in letters that we have written and sent to you. Chairperson Tucker noted the findings: 'In order to grant relief to an applicant through a modification permit, the Modifications Committee shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious • to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code.' These are the findings that need to made, so the extent that others are going to speak to it, the comments should be if you are against this, how is it detrimental. Mr. Shepard answered that it blocks views, gives an advantage to that particular property versus other properties in the area and those are two distinct disadvantages to the neighborhood. It does block my view somewhat. Douglas Wood, 1214 East Balboa Blvd, stated that this modification application exceeds the allowable height limits, obstructs the views for the neighbors, exceeds allowable setback limits, covers allowable open space and is a detriment to property values. There are nine letters from neighbors submitted and a number of other people who could not come tonight because of other commitments. The fact is that the neighborhood is opposed to this modification. Dan Gilliland, 1134 East Balboa Blvd., stated he is approximately 180 feet westward of the subject property. I want to express my feeling that this should be denied as it is an abomination. It does all the things that the neighbors have mentioned. I want to see this denied and get on with it. In thirteen days it will have been six months since this was erected. At that time the people erecting it knew it was in violation, they had no permit. Public comment was closed. 22 INDEX I✓ iJ i�.' 4, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Commissioner McDaniel noted that he has not seen or heard anything that would cause him to overrule the Modification Committee decision. I uphold their ruling. Commissioners Kiser, Agajanian, Selich and Gifford stated their agreement with upholding the decision. Chairperson Tucker stated that the items that have been granted in the past are not in the scope or nature that this one is. I am not seeing the justification, as sympathetic as I am to the property rights of an individual at some point they do stop. I feel the same. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee and deny the appeal. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: KranAey INDEX 0 OBJECT: Salavati Condominium Conversion Permit Appeal Item 8 605 Iris Avenue PA2001 -196 PA2001 -196 Appeal o e approval of Condominium Conversion Permit No. 2001 -017. The Modified decision o• applicant req sts relief from three conditions of approval. Modifications Committee Ms. Temple noted by code, the Modificaitoins Committee deals with most condomersion permit applications. This one was considered and co applied. Of the three conditions, which the appellant has objecs related to a requirement that the two single \re000n garages be required ll up garage door as opposed to a flat panel garage door. Th Modification Commission imposed this requirement is bec ause the carpo spaces that immediately front the two garages, are below the minimum dept equired for residential parking spaces. While the Code does not have any spec 'c requirement that roll up garage doors be installed in any particular case, it h been a standard action on the part of the City and the Planning Commission require roll up garage doors when a driveway apron or parking space be it req ' ed or not required parking in any dimension less than 20 feet in depth be alloweh,,only in association with roll up garage doors. This has to do with the concern th cars parked on the driveway apron or in this case a carport adjoining an a would tend to encroach across either a sidewalk or a code required seNCoun to an inclination of most drivers to not park inordinately close to a rage door wanting to leave sufficient space for the door to be ithout having to move the vehicle or potentially damage the bumpeThat is the reason for the condition and is a standard condition evi of contained in any code requirement nor in any policy adopteun ' 23 o ee . c��soaY�* CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 6443229 Hearing Date: Agenda Item: Staff Person: Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Quick Appeal (PA2001 -190) 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard December 6, 2001 fi James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 14 days SUMMARY: Appeal of the denial of Modification Permit No. 2001 -108 requesting the retention of an existing patio cover that encroaches 12 -feet beyond the original property line into the abandoned right -of -way of the former East Bay Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee and deny the appeal. APPLICANT: Gary Quick LOCATION: Approximately 150 feet east of the intersection of "D" Street and E. Balboa Boulevard. • GENERAL PLAN: Residential, Single Family Detached ZONING DISTRICT: R -1 (Single Family Residential) Background On October 24, 2001, the Modifications Committee denied the referenced Modification Permit based upon the findings contained within the attached letter of denial. The applicant appealed the decision on November 5, 2001 citing selective code enforcement and his belief that the project is not detrimental to the area. Discussion The applicant installed a permanent canvas awning to his residence in July of 2001 without the benefit of a building permit. The awning measures 24 -foot wide by 12 -foot deep and is located on the bayward side the residence within the front yard setback. The project requires a Modification Permit and a building permit for the awning to remain in its present location. The Districting Map establishes a 0-foot front yard setback from the bayward lot line. The setback issue is further complicated by the fact that bayward of the lot line is an abandoned street that is . now legally part of the property. This abandoned right -of -way, in addition to any remaining dry portion of the lot, is legally used for private purposes by each property owner. Staff has interpreted the 0 -foot setback indicated on the Districting Map at the bayward lot line as the establishment of Exhibit No. 3 Cl the front yard setback line. Any portion of the lot, including the vacated street, bayward of this line would be within the required front yard by definition and structures proposed therein would need to comply with the applicable encroachment standards. Structures above 3 feet in height, including the applicant's proposed awning, are not permitted without first securing a Modification Permit. A copy of the Districting Map and an enlarged section is attached to the letter of denial attached to this report as Exhibit No. 1 The existing residence is located at the front setback line, and therefore, the entire awning encroaches within the required front yard. The Modifications Committee denied the continued encroachment as it would be the first such encroachment, be used as a precedent for similar requests and impair light and views to the detriment of neighbors. Eight of the remaining 11 property owners in the block submitted letters of opposition. The Peninsula Point Homeowners Association also voiced its opposition to the project. In response, the applicant has submitted a long list of what he contends are similar awnings and shading devices that appear to encroach within front setbacks along the bay. The applicant believes the existence of these similar encroachments proves that the City is selectively enforcing the setback standards. Many of the sites indicated by Mr. Quick are located on Lido Island. Lido Island was granted a Variance in 1960 for shade awnings to encroach in the front yard setback abutting the bay. The Building Department is currently investigating all of the sites identified and has issued several notices of violation. Several cases were found to be permitted and several found to be exempt from permits. Staff believes that the information submitted by the applicant does not present contrary evidence to the findings made by the Modifications Committee that was based upon the specific facts and circumstances of this case. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Modification's Committee and deny the appeal. The Modifications Committee stipulated that the awning be removed within 30 days of the effective date of the action or other date as indicated by the Planning Commission or City Council. The applicant has submitted a request that consideration of this matter be deferred to January due other personal commitments. The Commission may choose to continue the item to January 3, 2002. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner all 1. Letter requesting a continuance dated November 20, 2001. 2. Denial letter for Modification Permit No. 2001 -108. 3. Appeal filed November 14, 2001. 4. Project plans CC No. 2001 -017 Appeal December 6, 2001 Page 2 of 2 • • • 'L' 0 0 Exhibit No. 1 Letter requesting a continuance dated November 20, 2001 FROM : Confidante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Gary Quick 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Balboa, CA 92661 home:. 949/673 -8718 November 19, 2001 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax: 949/644 -3229 Re: My request for an extension of the December G" Modification Appeals Board Dear Mr. Campbell: Before I spoke with you this morning, l had a short visit with Pat 'Temple in the hallway. I had asked her about the rescheduling and she told me that by law a meeting had to be scheduled within 30 days, however, she said to see you for an extension into the first of the year. I am requesting this extension for the following reasons: Due to the mix -up today, as I said to you on the phone, l was waiting for a return phone call or letter from my November 71' letter asking for an extension. Nobody from the City called or sent me a letter so I assumed that my request would be granted until January 2002. In reference to our conversation this morning, I can see that my request has not been granted. As I explained to you, my calendar for the week of December 6 is quite full. Along with my adoption situation, I have a fund raiser on Monday 12/3 in the late afternoon /early evening at one of my restaurants. Tuesday 12/4, I have a mediation hearing. Thursday 12/6, the Sunset Beach Community Association has asked me to attend a special meeting. Saturday 12/8, I have a CHOC function to attend as my business is a contributor of teddy bears for children this time of year. I am hoping that the members of the Board will consider my request and reschedule this meeting in either We December or in January 2002. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, 6-XA7, q btlwr__ Gary Quick 0 i 0 Exhibit No. 2 Denial letter for Modification Permit No. 2001 -108 1S October 24, 2001 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLAMNTING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926N (949) 64 +3200; FAX (949) 644.3250 Gary Quick 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard Balboa, California 92661 Application No: Applicant: Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Request Denied MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2001 -103 (P.-k2001 -190) Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia. 644 -3206 Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date FILE COPY Modification Permit No. NID2001 -108 (P x2001 -190) Gary Quick 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard Lot 5, Block 19, East Side Addition to the Balboa Tract To allow the retention of an existing patio cover that encroaches 12 -feet beyond the original property line into the abandoned right -of -way of the former East Bay Avenue. The building setback is designated as zero along the original property line and the Zoning Code restricts structures beyond the original property line to a maximum height of 3 -feet. The patio structure measures approximately 10 -foot 6- inches above the existing grade of the site. A condition is included for the removal of the patio structure within 30 days of the effective date of the action. The Modifications Committee on, October 24, 2001, unanimously disapproved the subject application withoutprejudice (3 noes and 0 ayes) and made the following findings and condition: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: The Modifications Committee determined that in this case, the proposal would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons: • The encroachment as proposed is the only one of its kind in the 1200 Block of East Balboa Boulevard fronting on the Bay (north side of East Balboa Boulevard). • The front yard setback in this block of East Balboa Blvd is established on Newport Beach Districting Map No. 12 and, as shown. specifies that the location of structures shall be limited to the original lot lines established by the original tract map, Eastside Addition to the Balboa Tract. 11 October 24, 2001 Page 2 • The approval of such an encroachment could set a precedent for the approval of similar requests that cumulatively could be detrimental to the neighborhood. • Structures on sites adjoining the subject property and in the vicinity generally maintain the required setback and do not extend beyond the original property line of the-subject 1200 Block of East Balboa Boulevard. • The increased shadow effect created by the size and location of the patio cover adversely affects the light otherwise enjoyed by the adjoining residential properties. • The size and location of the patio structure creates a visual impairment that is detrimental to the adjoining residential properties. • There are other alternatives that can be implemented that will accommodate the applicant's shade needs. CONDITION. 1. The existing non - conforming patio cover structure shall be removed within 30 days of the effective date of this action for denial or after the effective date of any subsequent action taken, unless otherwise revised by the Planning Commission or the City Council. The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the date of the decision. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $714.00. Please contact the Planning Department, Current Plans Division for full particulars. MODIFICATIONS CON941TTEE By Qr. -- Javier S. GarciavAXP, Senior Planner Chairperson JG:mem F: \Users\PLMShared \PA7s \PA2001- 190VMD2001.I Wdeny.doc Attachments: Vicinity Map Letter of Justification submitted by Applicant Copy of Districting .Map No. 12 and enlarged portion Appeared in Opposition: Hannah and George Bell. 12'19 East Balboa Boulevard Steve Shepherd, 1206 East Balboa Boulevard Dan Gilliland. 1134 East Balboa Boulevard Harriet and Peter Pallene. 1310 East Balboa Boulevard Douglas M. Wood, 1214 East Balboa Boulevard Appeared in Support: Applicants/owvrrers Barbara and Gary Quick, 1108 East Balboa Boulevard • October 24, 2001 Page 3 Letters of Opposition: • Andrew Rose, 1200 East Balboa Boulevard Kathleen C. Kay, 1204 East Balboa Boulevard Wm Shepard c/o Steve Shepherd, 1206 East Balboa Boulevard Harriet and Peter Pallene, 1210 East Balboa Boulevard William House, 1212 East Balboa Boulevard Douglas M. Wood, 1214 East Balboa Boulevard Margaret Stewart, 1216 East Balboa Boulevard Richard Hambleton. 1218 East Balboa Boulevard Balboa Peninsula Point Association • 1� a;l PA2001 -190 for Modification Permit No. MD2001 -10$ 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard L 0 1 Subject Property T� , aaAL �'ltl+J:i r{ @44 �yy.. u 1 ?� -4,v. . -, µ'4:J /f, f W+ � 1- ' . ' il•'�= BALBOA BLVD E i Ji N 0,. Fee* VICINITY MAP N= 5 PA2001 -190 for Modification Permit No. MD2001 -10$ 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard L 0 VA— !U01- 1901ur JID2001 -103 1203 E. Balboa Boulcvard DATE OF AIL• ETIVC - October 2.{, 2001 Proiect Description and Justification: Description: 12' x 22' Patio cover & 5' x 18' balcony shade /awning. Justification: Original purpose of sun shade - to provide Homeowner (Gary) a way to enjoy yard & view, and protection from permanent eye condition (extreme solar sensitivity — see letter). Conforms to other similar bay -front sunshades (see photos: 8 similar awnings within 2 -3 blocks either direction). Objective review by our architect, Dennis LaRoche: Causes no view obstruction to neighbors, any objections are based on aesthetics only. Street awning was in place for weeks (see attached Site Regulations) with inspectors driving down Balboa Blvd daily. No citation was issued until neighbors = complained. Also, see attached letters to Mel Flenner and Steve Hook, dated 7/11, 7/29, 7/30, 8/20, & 9/5. Mel & Steve threatened us with daily fines and legal action by the city Attorney of Newport Beach. And in fact, we were fined. The actions of the Building Dept were deliberate and intentional. • Brief Neiahborhood Historv: I purchased my home in 1989. When I moved in, my neighbors at 1206 were already living there. Around 1992 the vacant home at 1210 was purchased, torn down, and rebuilt. I had a friendly relationship with both neighbors. By 1995 both neighbors were telling other neighbors about their desire to purchase my property so they could turn it into a side yard. I would not sell, but there remarks continued until I began my remodel in May 2000. Once I started my remodel my neighbors became hostile. They immediately began complaining to the Building Dept., and they hassled my construction crews througlhout the remodel. As a result of their continued efforts to interfere I received 2 stop -work orders and 1 complaint about the height of my patio deck. However it was proven to be within height lints. It is clear their dissatisfaction with my sunshade has nothing to do with view obstruction. Because I wouldn't sell, neither neighbor was able to benefit from having extra space between the houses, more privacy, and the increase in value that would bring to their property. • 7A JX Page 20.60 -6 Site Regulations side yard setback Its distance from the property line shall be not less than 26 inches plus the amount (if any) that the width of the lot exceeds 30 feet The substandard side yard created thereby shall have a clear passageway 26 inches wide, unobstructed by fences, artility meters, hose bibs, or any other appurtenances which could interfere with use of the passageway by emergency personnel or equipment. F. Fire places and Chimneys Fireplaces and chimneys not to exceed 8 feet in width, may project to a distance of 2 feet into any required fivru or rear yard setback of 10 feet or more for any residential structure; provided, that the fireplace and chimney must be located not less than 5 feet from any side yard setback line. Fireplaces and chimneys not to exceed 9 feet in width may project to a aiadmasa distance of 2 feet, 6 inches from any side yard setback line provided that such encroachment must be at least 2 feet from any side property line. OAwnings. Canovies. Marguem and Shades. Awnings, canopies, marquees, or shades may project up to a maximum of 5 feet into required yards as follows: O P;o p . C.; n = Residential Districts: Front: One half the depth of the required front yard Side: 0 feet Rear: 2%: feet . Vertical Clearance: 6K feet above grade RSC, APF, and RMC Districts: Front: One half the depth of the required front yard Side: 2 fee ` Rear: One half the depth of the required rear yard s Vertical Clearance: 8 feet above grade. All Other Commexial Districts: Front: One half the depth of the required front yard Side: 0 feet Rear: 21 /s feet Vertical Cleararce: 5'/2 feet above grade Any such projection from the building shall be supported entirely by the wall of tL-- building, and shall meet all requirements of the Building Code. • 11/24-99 / W. ANDREW CIF.S, M.D., F.A.C.S. A Medical Corporation OPHTHALMOLOGY • OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY 400 Newport Center Drive Suite 404 • Newport Beach, California 92660 • (714) 640 -2023 August 13, 2001 RE: Gary Quick To Whom It May Concern, Gary Quick had Lasik surgery August 13, 1999. He has a visual condition, which warrants protection from bright lights and sunlight If you have any further questions, • please contact this office at the above listed number. ,-S-' cerely, W. Andrew Cies, M.D. r,,�,..,...r. _.... ... - -- _ / cE e . II I `1 call I1F 1a J 0 i L �. 0 La 0 T� O a' 1� 0 o. s to -R-1 A s R 1 +. 16.p`< Ott° ♦t li Fq g So -O A4r//O•P /rY LOCA T /OL/ ae vt slc+j / n- .rrr .✓a S.. S:i iG.iw /Lf 2'.s :Y- lJ1.rA - LiA...r �fY. /(i..✓,li �J 0A•O. NCL 793 ror -'r i2f• l.t +'r r! / /I. w! ,r-JY.I.Piro..e R-3 D roa'fwrni r/ �e /dvt B /r� I J'ar.,.. F,en/ JafSick ONO 121. M G"4 L612 1,2 -3 F*OM R] TO 11.2 1077 4,7 -0 L FROM R1 TO 11•r Q -11 -f7 A- Z). O.f o. IS S I .tL.Oi.'rd SQTA.G.t� ai �„-rw..-.re �no6 d 3� Si�s+a4 AfO. /"!F COrr s/ 21. Ocx.,H r,. S/J UsCL7G o'.Sf; J�c.r Avl LOr Z - lfL4J. /d J:ry4eX rryr wn 1/ / 12 .. CN 'W"A4J.t 0-29-72 (A • 31/ °® O STTSCTow KTSA= OF 2 -i rrrr Tr aA -kAQX a FOOT 3CrZA r TO rwr RWtaro I LOCATld,+00Tw scc a sgxa kn., KT7trA •C- =0'F• sTIC03. OID.M..11-N I AIZ6014 v+.IMY) rf00'1117iJt7 a.i+rr SV ,Att,A".V<rT.cv...7 riots 0..2 io Ono NO )O -N At20rT SPECIFIC 1.Ore4 TICS TO rP* a.21 -10 f� J O pale noni..'nJrew a. rtJSe 3x.;,}3909 To: J Gama r '_�_'� ^• - -e' y •q.02 PM °" •� ^ ANDREW S. ROSE 1200 East Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 949- 723 -5806 RECEIVED m` October 22, 2001 PLANNING DEPA R'MFNT CITY OF NE'W-` =A H Planning Department City of Newport Beach AM OCT 22 2001 PM Attie J. Garcia 330 Newport Blvd. 7181911011111211iMi4A6 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: ;Wodincation Permit MD2001-108 (P.42001 -190) Ladies and Gentlemen: I am in receipt of a notice of hearing for the above referenced request for a Modification of the Zoning Ordinance by Mr. Gary Quick of 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. relating to the potential retention of an existing patio.cover on his property in violation of the zoning code. I live a few doors away and regretftuly. I must register my objection to his request and urge you not to grant the Modification. lviy reasons follo«: 1. I understood that zoning law meant that one asked first, and then built any such non -confer :aura structures if given permission. Surely living on the bayfront as we are privileged to do, W. Quick %%ould have realized that our properties are highly regulated. If somehow the zoning ordinance slipped his :and or that of whoever installed the cover, surely a quick glance in either direction up or down the bayfrent would have at least put him on notice that no one has such a structure and perhaps a quick call to the City mighr be in order. I believe he knew or should have known of the zoning restrictions and that it is bad public policy to later ratify something that should not have been done in the first place. 2. The patio cover breaks up an aesthetically pleasing line formed by the bay front side of many houses, a line that is slightly curved viewed from my house and alloxvs views of all the interesting snd varied architectural styles present in the neighborhood. His patio cover severely limits that view. Ar:d surely a permanent structure is not necessary in any event. 3. Perhaps most importantly, eranting such a modification would set a terrible precedent. I ha: a ~e narrowest of all the houses along the bay&ont in this neighborhood. I often wish I had a larger lMng room The zoning ordinance prevents trig from adding, for example, a solarium extending into the =at e and however much I might like that larger living space, I believe it is correct in doing so. (Ard I understand that such a solarium could now be created using materials and techniques not rmtch mere sophisticated than Mr. Quick's patio cover. In other words, just put plastic sides on his cover and you've got one!) Should any of us be allowed to do that and thereby break up our neighbors' views? No! For those reasons I urge the Committee to refuse the request and not grant the modification requested. Sincerely, �- Andrew S. Rose FR 05 • City of Newport Beach Building Code Enforcement 3300 Newport Btvd. Newport Beach Calif. Dear Sirs, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTII'EN7 CITY Or - AM OCT 19 2001 FM 71819 110 111112 111213141516 1 I am writing regarding the property at 1208 East Balboa Blvd. The owner has built • a permanent patio cover out over his building line. I believe this to be a violation of the building code. Please have the owner remove this violation as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Kathleen C. Kay 1204 East Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach Calif 92661 949.673 -3749 October 9, 2001 To: The City of Newport Beach. From: William C. Shepherd 1206 E. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Phone: 949- 673 -6833 e -mail: shepherd billamsn.com Subject: 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. ILLEGALLY INSTALLED CANOPY I am on a trip until the end of October. I have been informed that an appeal to the Planning Department, to allow this canopy to stay, will be heard before I return. This memo is written to inform you that I am opposed to allowing this canopy to stay. My reasons are fisted below: 1.It was put in knowing it was in violation of both the building code and planning code. I know this because the day it was put in, June 19, 2001, I took pictures of it when it was almost completed. The two men building it said to me if I was going to the city, please give them a couple of days to get a permit. Later the owner came out and told me he was going to the city the next day to get a permit. 2.The second reason is a process one. Can the City allow it to be better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. After the canopy was put its. I check with the City to determine if I could put one is I was told it was a Planning Variance and would not be approved. I find it hard to believe this variance is even being considered, it sends the • wrong message. 3.I understand that a reason being used is that other illegal canopies exist on the harbor. Two wrongs don't make a right. An example of this is 1208 E. Balboa Blvd sea wall that is 10 to 15 feet beyond the current acceptable limits. Does this mean others should be allowed to extend their sea walls without asking permission and then put in for a variance? 4.This is the second time we have run into an issue with this owner and building changes. A year ago he remodel his home and the original plans submitted were incorrect about the location of the house on the lot. Does it now have a one -hour fire -wall facing our house? Our life has been made miserable, by our neighbor, since we talked to the city, about this canopy. He has been told when we check with the city about the canopy, after which he yells and screams at us. It is important that this issue be resolved as quickly as possible. We are a country of laws and fair treatment undek the law. We should not allow breaking the law to be rewarded. 0 f� Peter C. Pallette 1210 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 (949) 673 -2289 Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Attention: Planning Director Re: Modification Permit No. MD2001 -108 (PA2001 -190) Ladies and Gentlemen: RECEIVED SY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY or tit . ", -.. -.. -_.aCH AM C -: 2001 PM 7i8i51l011 il:d;.;4131�iS18 C October 17, 2001 I am writing with respect to the variance application submitted by Gary Quick to allow the installation of a non - conforming canopy on the bayside of his residence at 1208 East Balboa Blvd. For the record, I am his immediate next door neighbor to the east, and I strongly object to the presence of said canopy for the following reasons: 1. The canopy is in conflict with the Newport Beach Building Code, which applies to all residents; 2. The canopy substantially impairs our views to the west; 3. The canopy blocks our afternoon sun, which is particularly important given our northern exposure; 4. If allowed to stand, there is a likelihood that the petitioner will further enclose the area covered by said canopy by hanging eisenglass or other material from its steel structure, fiuther exacerbating 91, 2, 3 above (for reference, please envision a permanent party tent where the canopy is); 5. This canopy — if allowed to stand — may well become the lynchpin for other siinilar installations, the net result of which is the neighborhood will look like a trailer park; 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is a high probability that the ambiance of gur neighborhood, and value of these expensive homes will be diminished. The petitioner erected this structure with blatant disregard for the City's codes, and the wishes of our neighborhood He is now attempting to justify his actions by retroactively identifying other seemingly non - conforming canopies around the community, most of which are probably grandfathered or legal by virtue of a permit having been pulled prior to their installation. Whatever the reasons, the existence of the minimal number of other canopies should not be allowed to invalidate the fact that the vast majority of home- owners have chosen to respect and comply with local law for the good of the community. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that this offensive canopy be removed. Thank you. • Cordially yours, PIC P llette Peter C. Pallette 18662 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200 Irvine, California 9@74= 92612 (949TXXq 833.7737 Mr. Garcia, Just in case you have not received a letter or two in connection with the removal of Mr. Yuick's canopy at 1208 E. Balboa Blvd., enclosed herewith are copies of the various letters which I am aware of that have been directed to the Planning Depart- ment. Also enclosed are some photos which my wife took to illustrate the intrusive nature of this struc- ture. As you will see, our view to the east is in tact, but our view to the west is largely obliter- ated. In varying degrees, the same may be said for the views of our neighbors. I, and several of our neighbors, will attend the Modifications Committee hearing on;i4ednesdav to answer any questions which you or your colleacues may have. Thanks for your interest in this significant com- munity problem. Res ctfull P er C. Pa lette • CC: Councilman Todd Ridgeway 60 A11Hear, Inc. • P.O. Box 330 Aurora, OR 97002 USA voice: (888) 732 -6378 fax. (888) 732 -7275 http ;llww v.AllHear.com AllHear®AllHear.cam (generic e-mail) Planning Department C/O Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Thursday, October 18, 2001 RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NFVIan1-7 °_A�-H ACT 2 3 ZQQj Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 AM PM 7�819�10�11�12�1ic�3�4�5�6 Dear Sir: I have a residence at 1212 E. Balboa Blvd. I am writing regarding a buildg code violation of a neighbor who lives two doors from me at 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. The owner is Mr. Gary Quick. Our properties have a street lot and a bay side lot. The building code prohibits building housing structures on the bay side lot. Without a building permit Mr. Quick has put up a structure that violates the building restriction of his and our property. This structure obstructs adjacent property views and compromises property values of adjacent properties. I strongly recommend that the city require removal of this structure. • Sincerely, William F. House, M.D. Sent by Fax to 949 833 -9322 i o 7 Douglas M. Wood and June L. Wood 1214 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa, California 92661 Phone 949 - 673 -5824 Mr. Larry Tucker, Planning Commission Chair Mr. Jay Elbettar, Building Department Director 0&. Patricia Temple, Planning Department Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 RE: Building Code Violation at 1208 East Balboa Boulevard CITY oc ,.. _..:.. Ah1 OCT 0 9 ZC'Ci iii • October 7, 2001 We are writing to express our opposition to a possible appeal to keep the "outside of setback" installation of an approximately 15 -foot deep canvas awning at 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. • This installation obstructs our view. View, as you recognize, is an element of property value. Unquestionably, this awning will reduce property values in the neighborhood. • If this installation is approved, others will be encouraged to install such out of code structures drastically changing the character of our neighborhood. We understand this homeowner has submitted a listing of about 30 similar violations in the City. Even if such were the case, it is wrong to allow this code violation. More wrongs don't make a right. Also, approval of this wrong could lead others to do the same, exacerbating the problem. We and our family have been on the Peninsula for more than 50 years. In the history of this neighborhood no one has ever been allowed to build such a structure. As we live in such close proximity on 30 -foot lots we have learned the importance of respecting the rights of others. This installation clearly violates that principle. Do. as M Wood _gp: Councilman Tod Ridgeway City Manager Homer Bludau J e L. Wood , J- RECEIVED EY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY ()c MARGARET M. STEWART AM OCT 22 ZOO' PM 250 LAMIRADAROAD ggg10111t123456 PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 91105-1019 I I I I I III I I I October 17, 2001 Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Modification Permit No. IvID2001 -108 1208 East Balboa Boulevard Oppose modification The "existing patio cover" was recently installed without permit and immediately the neighbors objected to it. Current zoning regulations that limit structures to the designated setback and to a maximum height of 3 feet have been in place for many years. The limits were designed to provide views and open space for all the residences along the bay front. They work well. Since these regulations were in effect before the current owner purchased his property and their existence was available information, he should never have attempted to build the patio cover. The current patio cover has been installed as a permanent structure with electrical lines and permanent posts. It is in effect a structural addition to the house. We object to the structure and oppose granting modification on the following points: • It exceeds allowable height limits • It exceeds allowable setback limits . • It obstructs views for neighbors • It is a permanent structure with electrical installed • It covers permeable open- space • It sets a precedent for future construction beyond current limits and effectively changes current zoning regulations To give a modification permit to this intrusive structure ultimately sets a precedent for future construction. It will change the utterly the "street scape" of this area. This precedent is completely unacceptable. .Sincerely, Mareazet/C f. and R. Bruce Stewart . Property owners at 1216 East Balboa Blvd., Balboa, CA 92661 PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY C)F NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92MS RE: GARY OUICK 1208 EAST BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92661 FROM: RICHARD HAMBLETON 1218-FAST BALBOA BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92661 (9491673-6131 PECEIVED Bv PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY C)F kj=14 : :M AM OCT 2 2 2001 PM 718191101111 12111213191516 OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY CONCERNED ABOl1TTHE CANOPY ON THE BAY SIDE OF MR. Ol1ICK:S HOME. THE CANOPY DOES NOTCOMPLY WITH THE CITY OROINANCE AND IS IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE. THE CANOPY, IN OUESTION. BLOCKS THE SUN AND VIEW OF NEIGHBORS AND IS CONSIDERED VERY • OB.IECTIONABLE ... AS WELL AS NON - COMPLIANT. THANK YOIJ FOR CONSIDERING OUR SERIOUS COMPLAINTS. RICH D HAMBLETON 6 - �-�►e� w 101A; f a a t, u �J 826. BALBOA, CALIFORNIA 92661 October 19, 2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Jay Garcia 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Jay: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY CIF NEWP^ 'T BEACH AM OCT 2 3 2001 PM .71819110111112111213141516 1 An issue has come to the attention of the Board of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association that we as a board would like to comment on. At issue is a large awning that was built by the owners of 1208 W. Balboa Blvd. and whether the owners should be given a variance for this structure. We understand that the awning was built without the necessary building permits and encroaches approximately 18 feet into the setback. Both of these issues are reasons to deny the request for a variance. It sets a bad precedent to approve a variance after the resident does not apply for the necessary permits and looks for a variance after complaints are made against the structure. Encroaching 18 feet into the setback and potentially blocking neighbors views is also a bad precedent that we would not want to start on the bay front.as it than blocks all of our views of the bay. As an association, we agree that the building codes are there to protect the look and feel of our community and that they need to be adhered to. Sincerely / �rn Kim Bibb President Balboa Peninsula Point Association �5 0 • 11 Exhibit No. 3 Appeal filed November 14, 2001 ,. Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Hm/949- 673 -8718 • Balboa, CA 92661 Ofc /562 -592 -1926 City Of Newport Beach Modification Permit Appeals Committee 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92658 I purchased my home in 1989 knowing one day I would do a complete remodel. Over the years I believe I have carefully looked at every house in Newport Harbor, to gather exterior ideas for my remodel. In looking at the dozens and dozens of awnings I came to the conclusion that an awning would add to my exterior appeal and provide a sunshade, as I have an extreme eye condition that would prevent me from using my patio. Not realizing that my sunshade would cause such anger and hostility at the time. (Reference: Comments made by neighbors to the Modification Committee at the conclusion of the Permit Hearing). I have given the City many examples and many reasons why my sunshade should be permitted. However, my examples seem to always be "dismissed ". • Below is a list of my concerns: City Officials have told me: The 3 -foot height limit violations ink neighborhood, that I have sited as examples, do not compare to my 3 -foot height limit violation. 2. On certain parts of the Bay, the City said there is a "blanket approval' for sunshades, however PERMITS are still required. (Only one person has bothered to take out a Permit, and there has been no enforcement on the scores of illegal structures). 3. The City also stated, "If the whole block agreed, I could keep my sun shade ". I find it interesting that one block can have a sunshade and another cannot. 4. The City is asking me to conform to the 3 -foot height limit code. They are not asking others to comply with that same code on my block, in the immediate area, or, in fact, anywhere in Newport Harbor. 5. The neighbors who submitted letters against Permitting my sunshade gave inaccurate information and made totally untrue statements. Many of them are in violation of this very code, causing my views to be impaired. But, to date, no "stop work order" has been issued, no fines, no citations of any kind. 1 of 2 NMI A i Page 2 of 2 6. A City Official came to my home, and examined and photographed my sunshade. I asked, "While you were at my house, did you look around the neighborhood and notice anything else?" He said, "Yes, I noticed other violations". What is being done about them? The City Official told me "it will take time to check out the other violations ". I asked, "Why cite me first when their violations have been in place for a much longer period of time? " This question was not answered. 7. From the beginning I have been told that all information is confidential. I was reminded of this several times as I worked my way through this process and attempted to make inquires. I was told to prove the "conformity" of my structure by providing a list of other similar structures. I was told this list would also be kept confidential. It was not. While City Officials maintained everyone else's confidentiality, they did not keep their commitment to me, in fact, they used the information publicly. (Reference: My letter to Jay Garcia dated 10/28/01). 8. Some City Representatives have been difficult to work with, they have been arrogant, threatening, and have not let up. The City threatened us with legal action, fines, and has made inappropriate remarks to my wife and myself. (Reference: Letters dated 7/20, 8/11, 8/29, 8/30, 9/5, 9/10, 10/28). 9. From June 1989 through April 2000 I had a very friendly relationship with all of my neighbors, this came to an end at the beginning of my remodel. While we were helpful, courteous and did not interfere during our immediate neighbor's home improvements and new construction they did not give me the same curtsey. I strongly believe these issues started in May 2000 at the beginning of my remodel, and my neighbors have not stopped. When my house was 7 -feet in the air, they began complaining . to the Building Department, interfering with my workers, at a cost to me of thousands of dollars. I am asking for "fair" treatment, and I am asking not to be singled out on selective enforcement due to neighbor's aesthetic prejudice who have the same or similar violation themselves. I most certainly would not ask for any special treatment, just fair treatment. Laws should be uniform and in place before they are enforced, and when enforced, they should apply to everyone. So far enforcement has been selective and without any uniformity. • t, 0 0 Proiect Description and Justification: Description: 12' x 22' Patio cover & 5' x 18' balcony shade /awning. Justification: Original purpose of sun shade - to provide Homeowner (Gary) a way to enjoy yard & view, and protection from permanent eye condition (extreme solar sensitivity — see letter). Conforms to other similar bay -front sunshades (see photos: 8 similar awnings within 2 -3 blocks either direction). Objective review by our architect, Dennis LaRoche: Causes no view obstruction to neighbors, any objections are based on aesthetics only. Street awning was in place for weeks (see attached Site Regulations) with inspectors driving down Balboa Blvd daily. No citation was issued until neighbors complained. Also, see attached letters to Mel Flenner and Steve Hook, dated 7/11, 7/29, 7/30, 8/20, & 9/5. Mel & Steve threatened us with daily fines and legal action by the city Attorney of Newport Beach. And in fact, we were fined. The actions of the Building Dept were deliberate and intentional. 0 Brief Neighborhood History: I purchased my home in 1989. When I moved in, my neighbors at 1206 were already living there. Around 1992 the vacant home at 1210 was purchased, tom down, and rebuilt. I had a friendly relationship with both neighbors. By 1995 both neighbors were telling other neighbors about their desire to purchase my property so they could tam it into a side yard. I would not sell, but there remarks continued until I began my remodel in May 2000. Once I started my remodel my neighbors became hostile. They immediately began complaining to the Building Dept., and they hassled my construction crews throughout the remodel. As a result of their continued efforts to interfere I received 2 stop -work orders and 1 complaint about the height of my patio deck. However it was proven to be within height limits. It is clear their dissatisfaction with my sunshade has nothing to do with view obstruction. Because I wouldn't sell, neither neighbor was able to benefit from having extra space between the houses, more privacy, and the increase in value that would bring to their property. q • 0 Pap 20.60.6 Sik Regok*m side yard setback. Its distance from the property line shall be not leas than 26 inches plus the amount (if any) that the width of the lot exceeds 30 fad. The substandard side yard crestedthemby sball have a clear passageway 26 hwheswide, unobstructed by fences, a6litymeters. hose bibs, or any other a pprutenanceswluchcould interfere with use of thepassaveway by emergency personnel or equipment. F. Eqylim sad (2limnevs Fireplaces and chimneys not to exceed 8 feet in width, may projedto a dbW= of 2 feet into any required from or rear yard setback of 10 feet or more for any residential stmdme; provided, that the fireplace and chimney must be located not less than 5 feet fiom any tide yard setback line. Fireplaces and chimneys not to ameed 9 feet in width may project to a mwdmtmn distme of 2 feet, 6 iffihes frmn any side yard setback line provided that such ent must be at least 2 feet from my side property line. OA may project up to a mmdamm of feet into required yards as follaws: o ?cop. e:"* Residential Districts: Froat One half the depth o_f the required front yard Side: 0 feet Rear: 2%feet Vertical Clearance: 6% fed above grade RSC, APF, and RMC Districts. the depth of the tuequired fioat yard Side: 2 fat Rear. One half the depth of the required rearyard Vertical Clearance: 8 feet above grade. All Other Commercial Districts: Front: One half the depth of the required front yard Side: 0 fat Rear: 2% feet Vertical Clearance: 5% fed above grade Any such projection fium the building shall be supported entirely by the waD of the . building, and shall meet all requirements of the Building Code 110499 N t� Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Ofc: 5621592 -1926 ® Balboa, CA 92661 Home: 949/673 -8718 October 28, 2001 Jay Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Jay, In the beginning of this awning issue, I asked Mel Flenner to tell me who turned me in. He stated, the information is confidential and the city has a non - disclosure policy. Also in a meeting with Patricia Temple, she assured me that any information that I gathered and gave to the City as proof of similar violations would be kept confidential. In our meeting Wednesday, 10/24 one or more complainants knew about the list of violations I submitted to the City of Newport Beach. The City's disclosure of my list leaves me open to retaliation and violates the City's policy, including my right to privacy. The complainant's comments during this meeting, and the cruel and snide remarks made afterward, clearly prove the issue here is not about views, it's not even about my awning, it's about three people • (Peter & Harriet Pallette, and Bill Shepherd) rallying anyone who will listen (from the neighborhood or the yacht club) to go along with their agenda. It was obvious so I'm sure you noticed, some people who attended and wrote letters could not see my awning from their properties. The way they viewed it was by invitation to a get- together at the Pallette's home, which was arranged for the express purpose of viewing my property — I know this because we were home at the time. At the meeting Bill Shepherd's son, who said he was an architect, spoke with such venom over this issue it was impossible to believe all that anger was over this awning. In fact, he made a point to bring up completely unrelated and false accusations about my house not having proper construction and not being built to code. Of course his accusations are untrue. If anything, my remodel was scrutinized even more because of several calls my neighbor's made to the Building Dept. to report their complaints. In spite of their constant interference and the delays it caused, my remodel was completed and signed -off by the inspectors. With this level of neighborhood behavior, and the selective enforcement that erupts out of filed complaints, do you think it was ever possible for me to get a fair ruling? I got my ideas while cruising the bay and viewing similar patio shades. I would like to obtain a copy of the tape- recorded hearing of Oct 24a'. I am happy to pay the cost. I will be appealing before the deadline and I would like to discuss this issue with you in person. I will call you for an appointment. td3 Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Hm/949- 673 -8718 Balboa, CA 92661 ofc/562 -592 -1926 October 24, 2001 Jay Garcia Senior Planner City. of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Jay, Thank you for returning my telephone call , and thank you for being willing to have a meeting with me. As I wade through the various Building, Planning & Enforcement Departments it seems that although the laws are in place, they are only enforced at 1208 E. Balboa. I'm becoming more confused about City policies as I continue to observe more and more unenforced violations. Regarding my belief that the list I provided would be kept confidential: Please ask Patricia Temple she will tell you that in our meeting she specifically said the information would be kept confidential — that is an absolute fact. I gave you, Patricia Temple, and Steve Hook a copy of my Sept. 10th violations -list addressed to Mel Flenner as discussed and as I was told to do. We provided you with copies of the list because of • the contentious treatment my wife and I received from Code Enforcement - I can prove that if need be. As you are well aware, in the meeting of September 7th, my wife expected to have a meeting with you, but she was blindsided when the meeting began. She. was not told the meeting would include Director Pat Temple, Manager Steve Hook, and last but not least the City Attorney. Is this common practice? To make matters worse, let's not forget the threats from Mel Flenner and Steve Hook saying to us since nothing had come across our desk we're going to refer the matter to the City Attorney. At that point we had only written (3) letters and made many telephone calls to Mel and Steve beginning day 1 of our stop work order. But, none the less, we were accused of stonewalling and we were fined $100. Now, you are telling me the list is "public information ". It would appear that we continue to be given conflicting information, and we have been singled out and bullied by the city of Newport Beach all along in this matter. So I am suggesting a meeting with you, and anyone else you would like to bring, at my house so I can show you the violations on people who wrote letters. I will call your secretary later in the week for an appointment at your office or at my home, prior to my appeal deadline of November 16th. Attached is my response to your letter dated 10/24/01. LIL1 Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Hm/949- 673 -8718 • Balboa, CA 92661 Ofc/562 -592 -1926 October 29, 2001 Jay Garcia; Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Jay, This is my response to your letter dated 10/24/01. Request Denied.• "Zoning code restricts beyond 3 feet". Response: In general, and specifically, that rule is not enforced on the 1200 block of East Balboa and all of Newport Harbor. Findina for Denial. 1. "In this case ". Response: No consistent enforcement of zoning codes. • "Only one of it's kind". Response: According to the statements made on Oct. 24s', that would not be considered factual. • • "Set a precedent for approval of similar requests that could be detrimental to the neighborhood" Response: That would mean all of the sunshades on Lido Island are detrimental. The words "if everybody" were used at the 10/24 meeting, if that were the case, we would be similar to Lido Island. However, I do not necessarily believe that would be the case. Neighbors can have plants, trees, and umbrellas that block views and light — so views are not really protectected and blockage is not enforced. • Generally maintain the required setback and do not extend beyond the original property line of the 1100 block. Response: I believe I can clearly show you — that is not the case with 3-4 homes on the 1200 block. • "Shadow effect" Not true. The way the sun rises and sets MY HOUSE causes the shadow not the sunshade. I don't get to enjoy unobstructed views because of the trees, umbrellas & bushes. My neighbors would not have their umbrellas up all summer if light blockage were the issue. • "Visual impairment that is detrimental" So do trees, bushes, and umbrellas create visual impairment that could be considered detrimental? It seems that much of the wording in your ruling of 10/24 is unique and crafted exclusively for my neighbor's desires, not the building codes. • City laws need to be consistent — they are not. Proof The Committee said to me I must use similarities in my defense but all of the similarities I have sited seem to be rejected. L4 4 -S 11/5/01 Questions for Jay: 1. Did you read my last 2 letters? (Discuss) 2. Pay $714.00 to appeal — appeal to who? a. How long? 3. How many more appeals do I have? a. Cost? b. Who do I continue to appeal to? c. Time frame? 4. Who came to my house, from the City? (Photos were taken). 5. (I didn't want to be argumentative at the modification meeting but) Why was the code I showed you irrelevant? (Our balcony). (The planning desk gave it to us). 6. Pat said the "list" would be kept confidential. 7. Barbara's meeting was with you — why were Pat Temple & the City Attorney there? a. Is this typical for a simple Q &A regarding the Modification Process? 0 0 8. Nearly ALL of the "3 foot height max" violations are not permitted. • There are many view - blocking structures that have been in place for years. a. The structures I took photos of and submitted, are in violation. Even the ones that have different set - backs. 9. The codes that are being enforced at my hoarse are not being enforced at several other Bayfront homes: a. Lido Island may have a blanket Modification but a Permit is still required — only one permit was issued — no enforcement. b. Why not see -me -last when there are so many other violations, and some have been in place for years. No stop work orders, no fines, no modification permit fees —just quiet enjoyment. c. If a neighbor doesn't complain a person can build what ever they want? L41 i Page 20.03 -11 Definitions Parking Space: An unobstructed space or area other than a street or alley that is permanently reserved, maintained, and accessible for the parking of 1 motor vehicle. Parking Space, Covered: A building or portion of a building, open or enclosed by walls or doors on not more than two sides, that is designed or used to shelter a parking space. Parking Space. Enclosed: A building or portion of a building, completely enclosed by walls or doors on three or more sides, that is designed or used to shelter a parking space. Parking Space, Tandem: A parking space within a group of 2 or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other. 6 Patio Cover: A solid or open roof structure not exceeding 12 feet in height and covering a patio, platform, or deck area. Patio covers may be detached or attached to another structure. Patio covers may be enclosed and used for recreational and outdoor living purposes, does not include structures used as carports, garages, storage rooms, or habitable rooms. Permitted: Permitted without a requirement for approval of a use permit. Person: Any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind, including public agencies. Pier: Any fixed or floating structure for securing vessels, loading or unloading perspns or property, or providing access to the water, including wharfs, docks, floats, or other landing facilities, and dry docks. Pierhead Line: A line established to define the bayward limit for piers and float -type structures. Plot Plan: A plat of a lot, drawn to scale, showing the actual measurements, the size and location of any existing structures or structures to be erected, the location of the lot in relation to abutting streets, and other such information. Porch: A covered platform, usually having a separate roof, at an entrance to a dwelling, or an open or enclosed gallery or room, which is not heated or cooled, that is attached to the outside of a building. Preexisting: In existence prior to the effective date of this code. Prepackaged Food: Any processed food prepackaged to prevent any direct human contact with the food product upon distribution from the manufacturer. Project: Any proposal for new or changed use, or for new construction, alterations, or enlargement of any structure, that is subject to the provisions of this code. Proscenium. Garage: The structural frame of a garage door. "t;g /If' /N 00It 14 ess T /Nd ` u/ta/99 u% • V�e r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVENUE DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BLVD + P. O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH; CA 92658 -8915 . E -Mail Address: RevenueHelp@Ciry.Newport- Beach.ca.us �L�• X '��€ F�YF".' %'..a � t ___ d[�� 3i : �k� � h �}�,� 4 �' b b ... .,.r . '4 GARY AND BARBARA QUICK 1208 EAST BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 Service BUILDING CITATION -1ST FINE BUSINESS NO: C2001 -0539 NOTICE DATE: 09/11/2001 DUE DATE: 10/04/2001 Qty Unit Price Extension 1 $100.00 $100.00 Total Invoice: $100.00 Adjustments: .00 Penalties .00 Payments: .00 Past Due: .00 Total Amount Due: $100.00 • Total Amount Due $100.00 0 1208 E. Balboa Blvd.. Gary Quick Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Balboa CA 92661 Fax: 949/673 -0788 Home: 949/673 -8718 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Gary Quick DATE: October 28, 2001 SUBJECT: 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. On October 28 I called Mel Flenner, Building Inspector, City of Newport Beach, and gave him violations for 1206 E. Balboa, 1212 E. Balboa, 1214 E. Balboa, 1216 E. Balboa, and 1218 E. Balboa. • This afternoon at approximately 3:45 p.m., Mel Flenner called my home and told me that he does not take complaints. He told me to call a woman named Susan at 644 -3280 who will log in all the complaints and disburse them. I'm documenting this because prior to this Mel Flenner was the one who had always come to my home with a complaint from the neighborhood and I know personally that he has talked to the neighbors directly. • 51 Fk%OM conridante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Sep. 18 2001 09:31AM P1 Gary Quick 1.208 E. Balboa Blvd. Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Balboa, CA 92661 Homc: 949/673 -8718 July 20, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mel: Thank you for taking the time-to speak with me on Wednesday, July 18 and Thursday, July 19. As I said to you in our conversation, l will be applying for a permit for my patio. Mel, l know without a question that I left a message for you approximately three weeks ago telling you that 1 would be in for a permit as I have had continuing problems with my neighbors only after ] started my remodel in May 2000. Up until flint time, and for the last 10 years, there was never a problem. 1 know that you are aware of the first problem that 1 had with this neighbor in question in reference to my patio deck. I le questioned the height of my deck, but soon found out that] was within the Building Department guidelines: As I started to -you on-tlmcphonei apemlit -. for canvass in many cities and comities is not always required because it is not considered a permanent structure, but I was not sure in this case. Only one out of the hive canvasses that I have put on my house is in question. Your help is appreciated, and I do understand that in a situation like this flint the City of Newport Beach has to remain neutral. 1 just hope that the City of Newport Beach and the Building Department has uniformity in their rules its there are several awnings on the Peninsula and on Balboa Island that exceed the 54" extension. That would indicate to me that permits have been issued to these folks. Once again, thanks 1br your consideration. Sincerely, Gary Quick bec: I.I. Doug Fletcher Newport Beach Police Department Fax: 949/644 -3794 PA2001 -190 for MD2001 -108 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard DATE OF MEETING - October 24, 2001 • • • 52- Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 • (949) 673 -0788 August 11, 2001 Mel Fhemrer Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Awning permit Dear Mel, On Thursday, August 9, I was assisted by Gregg Ramirez at the Planning Department. Because he was unable to locate our plans he asked that I return with them for his review. On Friday, August 10th, I returned with two sets of plans showing two different views. After Gregg's initial review, he suggested that I look into the possibility that the section of our property in question might be regulated by Public Works. I then spoke to Mary, who referred me to another young man, who in turn called over a man named Gil. Gil determined that the `Sweated land" in question became private property, and referred me back to Gregg. After approximately 2 hours at the building dept, it was determined that the best course of action for our permit would be to apply for a Modification Permit. I was provided with an application and the information I needed to get started. Everyone was very patient and helpful, however, I did leave without one important piece of information: the exact code or limitation this awning is subject to. No one at the building dept was able to provide a copy of the code. I am hopeful that you can help. I am enclosing a self - addressed, stamped envelope.. Please, we would greatly appreciate any assistance you could provide. We still don't know what the limitations are, and in looking around our neighborhood, it looks as if there aren't any. There are awnings everywhere, of varying heights, shapes, and sizes. My next step will be to obtain the maps and plans that are necessary for review by the committee. As Gary explained in an earlier conversation, we are aware this became an issue as a result of our surrounding neighbors complaints. It seems they have turned this into their "personal crusade" against us, odd as that sounds, because after all, it is just an awning. Nonetheless, we would appreciate our dealings with the city be kept confidential. Respectfully, Barbara Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 • (949) 673 -0788 August 29, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City, of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Awning permit Dear Mel, My husband called me this morning and told me you left a message on his cell -phone answering machine. Your message went something like this ... since I haven't seen anything cross my desk I'm going to turn this over to the District Attorney. While I have done everything I have been instructed to do, you on the other hand have not given me the courtesy of responding to my letter to you dated 8/11/01. In that letter I notified you of the steps I have taken so far, and requested additional information from you. Although I enclosed a self - addressed and stamped envelope, I received no response from you, in writing or by telephone. I have enclosed a copy of that letter. - -- In addition to my August 10'h meetings (as outlined in my 8/11 letter) I have an appointment on September I lei with Jay Garcia in the Planning Department. I am aware that a couple of neighbors have complained about our awning, and while you told me that you stay neutral, based on your handling of this situation I'm afraid your bias is showing through your actions. Your threat of legal referral was completely unnecessary. If my letter didn't provide you with enough information, you could have contacted me. A simple telephone call would have cleared this matter up. Sincerely, Barbara Quick 5t.1 • Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 Fast Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 August 30, 2001 Steve Hook City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Awning permit Dear Steve, Thank you for meeting with me this afternoon. A shocking telephone message from Mel Flenner prompted the meetings this afternoon with MeL • Mel left a message on my voice mail stating that because nothing has crossed his desk he will be referring this matter to the City Anorney. I attempted to have a meeting with Mel, but his supervisor, John Burckle, kept interrupting me. Because we were in a small office it was not possible to exclude him from our conversation, so I politely asked him to please let me finish Within the first 4 minutes of our conversation he interrupted and said, "Come on Mel, this meeting is over". Jiffs attitude and arrogance was unbelievable, I thought city employees were to be helpfid to the residents of Newport Beach For the record, I am not trying to stonewall, hold up, or avoid this matter or the city of Newport Beach. Proof of this is: 1) My letter to Mel on July 20m (one day after I received the stop work order), 2) W wife's personal appearance at the planning department on August 1016, 3) And her follow up letter on August I Id-summarizing that meeting and fixture measures to be taken. 4) Barbara's upcoming September I lth appointment with Jay Garcia As Barbara stated in her August 20 letter, although she sent a letter to Mel requesting additional information, she was not given the courtesy of a response of any kind (although she provided a self- addressed and stamped envelope). So now three letters have crossed Mel's desk. I want to thank you for providing me with a copy of the code pertaining to the awning. No one else would give us this information. I am also providing you with a self - addressed and stamped envelope. If there are any other building codes that pertain to awnings other than the one you gave me (Section 301.2.1 Building Permits, item #10) I would appreciate a copy. By the time. you get this letter, Barbara will have called you for an appointment. 1 of 2 0 ro /VGr 6,ide- 7141704 /$v1Z-A-A , CoOA �;a `1 Gary Quick I Steve Hook Continued. Page 2 of 2 As you have been made aware, this is about my neighbors and their egos. One neighbor had Mel come to my house to measure our patio because he didn't like it being higher than his. Mel said our patio was well within the height limits. This same neighbor said to me, if I can obtain a permit he would Iet it go. I know neighbors continue to call Mel inquiring into the status of my permit. Weeks ago Mel told me that if I wanted any information concerning a complaint I would have to have an attorney subpoena the records, as they are conaidered private - public. I would appreciate equal treatment. The only information my neighbors need to know is that we are going through proper channels. Other than that, should this not also be considered private - public? One of my neighbors told me he called Mel, and Mel said to him, Gary Quick sent in a loner. I believe my confidentially has been breached and bias has been shown. Sincerely, Gary Quick 0 L A 5L Gary & Barbara Quick • 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Balboa, CA 92661 (949) 673 -0788 September 5, 2001 Steve Hook Building Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Our meeting of Tuesday, September 4th Steve, After getting over the shock from my meeting with you last Tuesday (following your four day vacation) I find it necessary to follow up with a letter. .. I. was so startled by your augmentative and aggressive treatment toward me that I walked away stunned. I still cannot understand why you found it necessary to fine us $100 on 9/4 when you knew we were • pursuing the modification process: 18 1. My husband went to your office Thursday, 8/30 to obtain a copy of the administrative code (which no one had provided, although we had requested it several times) as you know, he spoke to Mel Flenner, John Burckle, and yourself. You were told we were in the process of applying for a modification permit. My husband'knew I had additional questions and asked if I could call upon you. 2. I called you the afternoon of Thursday, 8/30, reached your voice mail and left a message. 3. You returned my call late that afternoon and left a message on my voice mail. 4. I was unable to reach you that day and my questions went unanswered. I went into your office the next day, Friday, 8/31 and I was told you would be out until Tuesday, 9/4. 5. I went to your office on the afternoon of Tuesday, 9/4 and you informed me that my husband and I are "lust delaying and blowinlr smoke " and todu you fined us $100. Based on the measures Gary and I have taken since finding out our awning required a permit, this action by you seems not only unnecessary and unwarranted but down right intentionally mean- spirited. Your department's actions cause me to call into question whether it is even possible for us to have a fair hearing over our modification request. As you know, I am keeping my upcoming appointment with Mr. Garcia on September 11*' — I still have unanswered questions about this application process. I would apreciate it if you would not carry Barbara Quick �j) Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 10, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax (949) 644 -3250 Re: Violations in our neighborhood Dear Mel, Copies to: PatriciaTemple Jay Garcia Steve Book As our neighbor, Peter Paulette, did not have to be correct when he insisted you come out and check the legal height of my deck, I am asking for equal treatment. We are providing you with addresses of properties that have awnings or structures that appear to exceed 54" and have no permits: 1000 East Balboa Blvd Awning 1022 East Balboa Blvd. Structure 1024 East Balboa Blvd Awning 1202 East Balboa Blvd. Retractable 1401 Bay Ave. East Structure 1411 Bay Ave. East Awning 1413 Bay Ave. East Awning 1415 Bay Ave. East Awning 1501 Bay Ave. East Structure 225 East Bay Front Awning 227 East Bay Front Awning Also, the Balboa Island market has a retractable awning that far exceeds 54" and hangs dangerously low into the sidewalk area. As we match addresses to dozens and dozens of photographs with potential violations, we will forward these addresses to you for inspection and possible citation. Thank you for your prompt attention, Gary Quick 0 9 Gary Quick •1208 E. Balboa Blvd. Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Balboa, CA 92661 Home: 949/673 -8718 September 10, 2001 Patricia Temple Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Patricia: My wife was a little upset after the 9:00 a.m. meeting on Friday, September 7. After she called me, I cut my trip short and came straight home to deal with this matter. I called my architect and we had a meeting that same afternoon at 4:00 p.m. Dennis LaRoche told me that he would call Jay Garcia on Monday. • Patricia, we intend to fully cooperate with your department. My wife very much appreciated your helpful manner. We have not experienced any civil treatment whatsoever from Steve Hook, Mel Flenner, or John Burckle. As a matter of record, we have been lied to,, misinformed, bullied, stonewalled, and threatened with legal action on two occasions by both Steve and Mel. I believe this to be intentional infliction and very unnecessary- - - -.- Attached are copies of our letters to Mel and Steve, keeping them informed every step of the way. in addition to the letters, there were several phone calls made from Barbara and me. They knew all along that it was our intention to go through all channels and try to obtain a modification permit. I appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Gary Quick cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager bcc: Hal Nelson, 24422 Avenida de la Carlota #200, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 11 5� Quick Residence Subject: Quick Residence Date: Mon, 10 Sep 200107:28:07 -0700 • From: "Barbara W." <studio I salon@earthlink. net> To: ptemple @city.newport- beach.ca.us 9/10/01 Patricia, My husband, Gary, returned earlier than scheduled from his trip, so he could meet with our architect on Friday evening. our architects name is Dennis LaRoche and he will be calling Jay Garcia. I just wanted to keep you informed as we work our way through this process. Barbara Quick • 60 Q /10 101 10'0? AM FROM : Cmridante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Sep. 12 2001 02:53PM PI _ Gar Quick Gary E. Balboa Blvd. Ofc: 5621592.1926 Balboa, CA 92661 Home: 9491673 -8718 September 12, 2001 Todd Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tem City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: My Patio Cover SDear Todd: My architect, Dennis LaRoche, thoroughly surveyed my patio cover from all angles and told me this is about aesthetics, not views, as my patio cover is not blocking either neighbors' views. 1 appreciate you calling the City Altorney of Newport Beach who will reverse the penalty and send me a letter. Thank you very much. Regards, C Gary Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 10, 2001 Mel Flermer Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax (949) 644 -3250 Re: Violations in our neighborhood Dear Mel, As our neighbor, Peter Paulette, did not have to be correct when he insisted you come out and check the legal height of my deck, I am asking for equal treatment. We are providing you with addresses of properties that have awnings or structures that appear to exceed 54" and have no permits: 1000 East Balboa Blvd Awning 1022 East Balboa Blvd. Structure 1024 East Balboa Blvd Awning 1202 East Balboa Blvd. Retractable 1401 Bay Ave. East Structure 1411 Bay Ave. East Awning 1413 Bay Ave. East Awning 1415 Bay Ave. East Awning 1501 Bay Ave. East Structure 225 East Bay Front Awning 227 East Bay Front Awning Also, the Balboa Island market has a retractable awning that far exceeds 54" and hangs dangerously low into the sidewalk area. As we match addresses to dozens and dozens of photographs with potential violations, we will forward these addresses to you for inspection and possible citation. for your prompt attention, • 1 Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 18, 2001 Mel Flenner Copies to: PatriciaTemple Certified Building Inspector Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach Steve Hook 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax (949) 644 -3250 Re: Violations in our neighborhood — 2nd Letter Dear Mel, We are providing you with addresses of properties that have awnings or structures that appear to be in violation of your building codes: 810 Bay Ave. East Awning 1038 Bay Ave. East Awning 1220 Bay Ave. East Structure 1240 Bay Ave. East Structure 1350 Bay Ave. East Structure Bay Ave. East 203 Via Lido Soud Awning 205 Via Lido Soud Structure 209 Via Lido Soud Structure 213 Via Lido Soud Awning 215 Via Lido Soud Awning 219 Via Lido Soud Awning 221 Via Lido Soud Awning 229 Via Lido Soud Awning 231 Via Lido Soud Awning 233 Via Lido Soud Awning • 235 Via Lido Soud Awning 237 Via Lido Soud Awning I...have.recei .� ved 2 _. copies of this letter-,—one fdisa6h of the above named: Page 1 of 2 612 9/18/01 From: Quick . To: Flenner Page 2 of 2 301 Via Lido Soud Awning 309 Via Lido Soud Awning 315 Via Lido Soud Awning 327 Via Lido Soud Awning 329 Via Lido Soud Awning 333 Via Lido Soud Awning 507 Via Lido Soud Structure 515 Via Lido Soud Awning 519 Via Lido Soud _ Awning_.___._. 523 Via Lido Soud Awning 535 Via Lido Soud Awning 609 Via Lido Soud Awning 611 Via Lido Soud Awning 617 Via Lido Soud Awning . 629 Via Lido Soud Awning 653 Via Lido So- u-d Awning 751 Via Lido Soud Awning 759 Via Lido Soud Awning 835 Via Lido Soud Awning As we continue to match addresses to dozens and dozens of photographs with potential violations, we will forward these addresses to you for inspection and possible citation. In reference to our last telephone conversation, when you said to me, I need you to get me access I can either provide you with photos or, I will be more than happy to show these to you by electric boat, at your convenience. It will take less than 2 hours to show you between 30 — 50 violations. As you also said in our last conversation, you had an extremely busy day ahead of you with 2 areas, however, that is no excuse for rude behavior, I do not appreciate you hanging up on me. I have always been respectful to you, and the others at the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your prompt attention, Gary Quick • M Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 • (949) 673 -8718 September 19, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 __._ _ ----- Fax (949) 6443250 Re: our correspondence dated 9/18/01 - Address corrections. I* Dear Mel, I mistakenly provided my husband with incorrect addresses: The first 5 addresses were recorded as `Bay Ave. East' on Gary's correspondence of 9/18. The properties are located on West Bay Ave. The correct addresses are listed below: 810 West Bay Ave. 1038 West Bay Ave. 1220 West Bay Ave. 1240 West Bay Ave. 1350 West Bay Ave. Barbara Quick . Copy: Patricia Temple Jay Garcia Steve Hook Awning Awning Structure Structure Structure �1 Gary & Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949)673 -0788 • 8/14/01 Gregg Ramirez Planning Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Gregg, Thank you for calling me back regarding my missing plans. As we discussed, on Monday I brought in 2 sets of plans. Our engineering calculations were on 8 '/2x 11" paper and were rolled inside of one set. Those 8 '/2 x 11" plans are still missing. I don't recall whether or not the plans were still intact after we looked at them, but they were unrolled and reviewed again at the Public Works counter. Both counters had other plans and paperwork on top of them. Perhaps my plans were mixed in with someone else's. If they turn up, please call, I think we need them for our Modification Permit. Thanks for your help, 0 NMI THIS. NOTICE TO BE REMOVED ONLY BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IOU MUST APPLY FOR A PERMIT AT THE CITY OF NEWPORT 3EACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 48 HOURS. NVESTIGATION FEES WILL BE CHARGED FOR WORK STARTED VITHOUT�PERMLT; 'C TY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PHONE: 949 - 644 -3275 PERMIT REQUIRED FOR WORK IN PROGRESS NO BUILDING PERMIT Building violation observed NO ELECTRICAL PERMIT Electrical violation observed -1 NO PLUMBING PERMIT Plumbing violation observed ❑ NO MECHANICAL PERMIT Mechanical violation observed F NO POOL PERMIT Construction violation observed NO GRADING PERMIT Construction violation observed ❑ - Remove this stub and bring it with you when you come to the Building Department to apply for a permit. STOP WORK ORDER STUB ate: Time: rry y JAm; PM spector: % - ontact op Work Requiring a permit: ;=x _.. - ans Required? (18"x 24" minimum size): El Yes CI No -CA 92663 LOCATION: �� O DATE: TIME: AM PN INSPECTOR: CONTACT: _ PERMIT REQUIRED FOR WORK IN PROGRESS ❑ NO BUILDING PERMIT Building violation observed ❑ ❑ NO ELECTRICAL PERMf- Elect,�.al violation observed El ❑ NO PLUMBING PERMIT " Plumbing violation observed ❑ ❑ NO MECHANICAL PERMIT Mechanical violation observed ❑ ❑ NO DEMOLITION PERMIT Construction violation observed ❑ ❑ NO FENCE PERMIT Construction violation observed ❑ ❑ NO GRADING PERMIT Construction violation observed ❑ VIOLATION: 12oll GII / ��A YOU MUST APPLY FOR A PERMIT AT THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 48 HOURS. PENALTY FEES WILL BE CHARGED FOR WORK STARTED WITHOUT A PERMIT. THIS NOTICE TO BE REMOVED ONLY BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1 FROM : Confidante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Jul. 13 2000 05:52PM Pl. Gary Quick UA8 Jim Bob" +& S521S924M gfta, CA Home; 944/573-8718 M. Fda FROI E GaryQuick DATE: Jtme 27, 2000 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Building went YeamA* the Building Deparonent of Newport Beach cmne by my construotion sibs at 1208 B. Balboa Blvd, Newport Beach and said that we did not have a ?? permit or housing permit which, in fact, we did. It is very costly to have the work stopped on my • job. This is the second time this has happened. i • Im 0 0 • NOTICE OF ADMIlVISTRATIVE CITATION i MY OF NEWPORTBFACH BUIIDINGDFPARTAIENI' CODE}N90RCEMENT 3396 NewpmtBtsd NewpoRBeack CA 9M58 Citation No C 2001 -05' ,33 (909) 6443T15 Citation/Comdon Dale 9-+4 — 01 Time1� 101 A Y' Aninspm-iotof Ilk pmrnismImaed at most E. &.ILen Dkyl. crux -i m ule ury of lvewport ueacn, reveatea a vlo ttlot(s) of we Newport tseactl municipal gads. Name ofo�roemdatoen: _T�„i,.�. Qnr i..M.., Q..: Addrea if different tt® violation: Pj 1ST. CITATION $100.00.........15 NOW DUE AND PAYABLE THENExTIEYNL gTATmN IS NOW PENDING AND YOU MAYBE C TED EACH DAY THE VIOLATION COPTIINUFS. OTHER PNFORCaY4NTAC170N AND PENALTIES MAY ALSO RESULT W Wb671ANCE 6 NOTACMNIM OR WYOU ODN9'B9UETOIGNORETIM QTAMON. [ 1 2ND. CITATION $200.00.........2 NOW DUE AND PAYABLE [) 3RD. CITATION $500.00..........15 NOW DUE AND PAYABLE THIS VIOLATION(S) WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION ON 7-161-01 . AND YOU HAVE NOT OORRECM OR RESOLVED THE VIOLATION(S). ' PURea wmw 00DESnc11745), CORRECTION(S) REQUIRED: :JAS. ..:moo Ov 0h+d: M<.:ledfio Gwy u,J.&uba a Qti;ek ark 1-409 W KalbeeaBlwl . RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED BY DATE 9 -4-01 SIGNAIUNEOFOFFM FRUNAMOFOMM `` wo 1&, 4c,5&- 5''(e -je, Rcoi - 2-`101 'IOLATTON(S) CLEARED AS OF (DATE INSPECTED). WHITE (Violation Copy) CANARY (Hearing Copy) PINK (Offi=Copy) • �q IT n`calhed F Live Load =15 PSF, Uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 0 PSF H N1n. Schedule 40 Interior Tress Feeling Top Bottom Web Bins Dfa. Depot Columns 55RR. 1• 10 FL 1-4- 3Y 'A• 'A• 'A• r 'A• 'Ar 'A• 'A• r r r T 1% Ph 15 FL r '4' 'A• Yw• %* 2'V r B 1'h 20 FL r r P in 10 Yf r 4' 2 Man AwnTubeg Round --j a_ ... ..........14-- 13 Interior Teas Fuentes 1'A• Prof. H Mtn. Top Bottom Web leasing Die. D @Pm Column 5 R 1' 'A. • W 'A• 'A• r 5• 1 10 FL 1-4- W Y1 'A• 'Q' re v 1% 1s FL r W °A• W W r8• S'S• 1% 20 R. r 8• 1• 1• 1• T 5' 4' 2 5.500 AwnTuboe Sq.16 Ga. 3W Inulor Tres Fooling 4 0a Prol. H Min. Tap Bottom Web Bradag M. Boo Columns 5 R. 1. Ye, Y.• win W r T rA 10 FL 1' 4• W Yw• 'W Yr 2'r T 1'A 15 FL r 1• Yf r r rr 8'6• 20 R. r r 1W 1'A• 1Yr t'k' r 4' AwnTube° Sq.18 Ga. Inert Tres Prof. N Mtn. Tap Battens Web Bracing Dl. Depth Columns 5R. 1• r/: W Or Yl r r 1% 10 R. 1'r Yl W Yl 'A• r r T I% 15 R. r r %* r 1• 2*5• rr 20 R. 2'r 134• 1Ye 1114- 1'A• T v use p" how Doer dedgns Top Anchor Forces pnqu ie 5 R. 10 FL 15 FL 20 FL Tension Lb. 110 240 456 800 Stem LO. 110 220 240 460 Bottom Anchor Forces Projeetlon 5 R. 10 FL 15 R. 20 R. Tendon Lb. 150 270 520 800 Show Lb. 10 to 10 10 Nominal Dimension of a Pipe Pipe lima are sometimes described by Weir MMM dimension m6er Wan Wetr true entente dtamdw. For nampfe. a 11/! SeheOale 40 *0 stre actually des an golds diamew d 1.900 into not 1.500 IMMS. The table below cross- refemmu s the nominal ddruaslou of a pipe rIW 0f spud eumde diameter. Nod Bet a 11rnTobs tabe ardr an Dumb diemalr @gnat to m smaller one de Sdreduls 40 pipe con Ian s Wians Well M still be as OM W men stronger then We Canons Wb* PAW016 pipe dm_ Schedule 40 Pipe AwnTubes Hound Tube p w ooftw Has ova* way Slor Moth - aw awewler &VP 3r SAID 12 0a 0.815 15 Ga Ile 1.050 1169 IAN Man 3'1.315 --j a_ ... ..........14-- 13 1'A• 1.Fi60 sea 1.560 14 ea 1311 1.900 Sao 1.900 15 0a Z'_ . _2..374._.... _004. .. ......2.315. _jigs. 2'A• ... 2.975 5 0a r 5.500 508 3W 4.000 4 0a • • _ CP - • k�AVi =ia • r� F-- Live Load =15 PSF, Uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 25 PSF Prot. 5 R. 10 R. 15 R. 20 R. H Min. I. 1'r r r r Schedule 40 Interior Tree Top Bottom Web *191" W '? W W '? '? W 31' Is '/r 1' '/0 1 W 1' 1' 1' Footing 0ht. Depth r 3' rr r r r T B' 9' 4' Columns 1% 1% 1% 2 1410 1790 AvmTubee Round Fooft 180 Prof. H ban. Interior Tress Footing Depth Columns H han. Top BOM tub B IMg Y r Columns R Jim 1'r 1' W 1' '/r rr 9' 10 FL 1'r Yr W '? '? rr r 1'h 15 FL r 1' W '/r ' rr a'r 1% ze R. r r 1W 1' 1' 1' 9' M 2 AvvnTubd' Sq.1S Ga. hdadorTrns Mteder In= FeotOlg Prol. PP H Min. Top Bonwom Web B iO,g 2. Depth Columns a 11 V r 1'/4 10 R. 10 R. 1' 4' 1' Yr W '/r rr 9' 1% 15 R. r 1? '? 111do 1' r r 9' r 20 R. 20 FL rr - - - - - - - P allied Live Load =15 PSF, Uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 40 PSF Prol. 5 FL 10 FL 15 R. 20 FL B ago. 1' 1' r r r r AwnTubee Sq.1s Ga. Tendon Colu mo 1% 1'h 1'h 2 1410 1790 Mtedor Toms Fooft 180 Prof. H ban. Top Bottom Web Bracing Dig. Depth Columns 5 R. 1' ? '? W '? ' r 9' 1% Jim 1'r 1' W 1' '/r rr 9' 1'h 15 R. r 1'? '? 1'? 1' rr T r 10 zom rr - - - - - - - •Ose pipes from other design 1W 1' 1' T r 4' Live Load =15 PSF, Uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 40 PSF Prol. 5 FL 10 FL 15 R. 20 FL B ago. 1' 1' r r r r Top Anchor Forces Tendon Colu mo 1% 1'h 1'h 2 1410 1790 AwnTubee Round Lb. 180 Purl. N Mho. 1,290 Sheer Lb. 190 970 580 790 Oh. Bottom Anchor Forces Prejudge S R. 10 R. 15 R. 20 FL Tension Lb. 190 270 520 800 Shaer Lb. 10 10 10 10 Live Load =15 PSF, Uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 40 PSF Prol. 5 FL 10 FL 15 R. 20 FL B ago. 1' 1' r r r r Schedule 40 under Trees Ton Bottom Web Brechnp W '? '? '/f W '? W W 1W W 1' '/r 1 W 1' 1' 1' Feeling 018. Depth r r rr 9' r r T r Y 4' Colu mo 1% 1'h 1'h 2 10 R. 15 R. AwnTubee Round Feefto 290 Purl. N Mho. Intsdor Trea Footing 5 R. Rol. NSHR Top Sodom WebBoudng Oh. Depth Columns 5R. 1' W Ye '? '? r T 1 10 FL t' 4' 1' W W W 2'r 9' 1 15 FL r P? '? 1'? '? r r rr 1% 2e FL rr 1W 1' 1' T r 4' 2 AwnTubee Sq.16 Ga. hdadorTrns Footing Prol. H Min. Top Bottom Web Bracli Div. Depth column 5 R. 1' '/r Yr '? W r r 1'/4 10 R. 1' r 1' '? 1' '/0 r r r 11h 15 FL r 1W W 1'? 1' rr WE" 20 R. - - - - - - - - .2. 0 t AwnTubee Sq.1S Ga. 5 R. 10 R. 15 R. Inmder Tren Feefto 290 Purl. N Mho. Top Bottom Web eraslthg ML 090 Column 5 R. 1' '? W '? °? r T 1% 10 R. TIC 1' 14F '? 1' W 2'r S 15 R. r - - - - - - - 20FL rr 520 500 Shear Lb. use Pipes ban other design 10 10 0 t Top Anchor Forces Projection 5 R. 10 R. 15 R. 20 FL Tension Lh. 290 550 1,250 2,150 Shear Lb. 910 590 920 1,250 Bottom Anchor Forces Projection 5 R. 10 R. 15 FL 20 R. Tension Lb. 190 270 520 500 Shear Lb. 10 10 10 10 0 t I Tv -210 SKI-I ?'t fn# r ij - MI • 0 4 If I It E a LAC, T A l -1-5 N� 3 x �S • 0 0 Im a IL 1�11%wjm mfig�;�A; mg O r6 0 (D IP I ,,n r6 }Sam 13 0 IF 14\\ 3a,�p._EnsF \4,j �LYJ ti\s 3 6 /7 ,oad\ E. 6 \hoa 0 p i i r t,, �� _` _u ,,,.. �, ._.,.. f `.: ,-_ mow, _� � � i t� _ _ u i �' L S19 , Sa3 YI a- :t 7-� Ti G.- . ... ri _ } ti i; tom' �i 1--M; -_�_ .•� ..w i { f_. ■ ' =j .; � � .._ ��_, �"- �� , � '' • . 1 :: �; =i ", `. � . �.� , I �� , zy[ ,TTY,. _. I..T_ O y a�r.r v-h, �, � � `,e; ; .. .. dC_ • �' i ir. +e rt 3• F 4� ` �)M( �, t R i" .T? � t U' `i6 ; _ {_ t L M'. 1� 1 i 1 �5 F � ,►�,�„ .� low.- v AY ow p: yr y +. i Exhibit No. 4 Project plans 4� Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Hm/949- 673 -8718 Balboa, CA 92661 Ofc /562 -592 -1926 °Ot OEC 26 P-1:28 City Of Newport Beach nPFiC , C T':!_ :!T" C'•_FRA. Modification Permit Appeals Committee IRIT Eaci. 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92658 I purchased my home in 1989 knowing one day I would do a complete remodel. Over the years I believe I have carefully looked at every house in Newport Harbor, to gather exterior ideas for my remodel. In looking at the dozens and dozens of awnings I came to the conclusion that an awning would add to my exterior appeal and provide a sunshade, as I have an extreme eye condition that would prevent me from using my patio. Not realizing that my sunshade would cause such anger and hostility at the time. (Reference: Comments made by neighbors to the Modification Committee at the conclusion of the Permit Hearing). I have given the City many examples and many reasons why my sunshade should be permitted. However, my examples seem to always be "dismissed ". Below is a list of my concerns: 1. City Officials have told me: The 3 -foot height limit violations ink neighborhood, that I have sited as examples, do not compare to 1y 3 -foot height limit violation. 2. On certain parts of the Bay, the City said there is a "blanket approval' for sunshades, however PERMITS are still required. (Only one person has bothered to take out a Permit, and there has been no enforcement on the scores of illegal structures). 3. The City also stated, "If the whole block agreed, I could keep my sun shade ". I find it interesting that one block can have a sunshade and another cannot. 4. The City is asking me to conform to the 3 -foot height limit code. They are not asking others to comply with that same code on my block, in the immediate area, or, in fact, anywhere in Newport Harbor. 5. The neighbors who submitted letters against Permitting my sunshade gave inaccurate information and made totally untrue statements. Many of them are in violation of this very code, causing »y views to be impaired. But, to date, no "stop work order" has been issued, no fines, no citations of any kind. 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 6. A City Official came to my home, and examined and photographed my sunshade. I asked, "While you were at my house, did you look around the neighborhood and notice anything else? " He said, "Yes, I noticed other violations ". What is being done about them? The City Official told me "it will take time to check out the other violations ". I asked, "Why cite me first when their violations have been in place for a much longer period of time? " This question was not answered. 7. From the beginning I have been told that all information is confidential. I was reminded of this several times as I worked my way through this process and attempted to make inquires. I was told to prove the "conformity" of my structure by providing a list of other similar structures. I was told this list would also be kept confidential. It was not. While City Officials maintained everyone else's confidentiality, they did not keep their commitment to me, in fact, they used the information publicly. (Reference: My letter to Jay Garcia dated 10/28/01). 8. Some City Representatives have been difficult to work with, they have been arrogant, threatening, and have not let up. The City threatened us with legal action, fines, and has made inappropriate remarks to my wife and myself. (Reference: Letters dated 7/20, 8/11, 8/29, 8/30, 9/5, 9/10, 10/28). 9. From June 1989 through April 2000 I had a very friendly relationship with all of my neighbors, this came to an end at the beginning of my remodel. While we were helpful, courteous and did not interfere during our immediate neighbor's home improvements and new construction they did not give me the same curtsey. I strongly believe these issues started in May 2000 at the beginning of my remodel, and my neighbors have not stopped. When my house was 7 -feet in the air, they began complaining to the Building Department, interfering with my workers, at a cost to me of thousands of dollars. I am asking for "fair" treatment, and I am asking not to be singled out on selective enforcement due to neighbor's aesthetic prejudice who have the same or similar violation themselves. I most certainly would not ask for any special treatment, just fair treatment. Laws should be uniform and in place before they are enforced, and when enforced, they should apply to everyone. So far enforcement has been selective and without any uniformity. 0 0 Proiect Description and Justification: Description: 12' x 22' Patio cover & 5' x 18' balcony shade /awning. Justification: Original purpose of sun shade - to provide Homeowner (Gary) a way to enjoy yard & view, and protection from permanent eye condition (extreme solar sensitivity — see letter). Conforms to other similar bay -front sunshades (see photos: 8 similar awnings within 2 -3 blocks either direction). Objective review by our architect, Dennis LaRoche: Causes no view obstruction to neighbors, any objections are based on aesthetics only. Street awning was in place for weeks (see attached Site Regulations) with inspectors driving down Balboa Blvd daily. No citation was issued until neighbors complained. Also, see attached letters to Mel Flenner and Steve Hook, dated 7/11, 7/29, 7/30, 8/20, & 9/5. Mel & Steve threatened us with daily fines and legal action by the city Attorney of Newport Beach. And in fact, we were fined. The actions of the Building Dept were deliberate and intentional. Brief Neighborhood History: I purchased my home in 1989. When I moved in, my neighbors at 1206 were already living there. Around 1992 the vacant home at 1210 was purchased, torn down, and rebuilt. I had a friendly relationship with both neighbors. By 1995 both neighbors were telling other neighbors about their desire to purchase my property so they could turn it into a side yard. I would not sell, but there remarks continued until I began my remodel in May 2000. Once I started my remodel my neighbors became hostile. They immediately began complaining to the Building Dept., and they hassled my construction crews throughout the remodel. As a result of their continued efforts to interfere I received 2 stop -work orders and 1 complaint about the height of my patio deck. However it was proven to be within height limits. It is clear their dissatisfaction with my sunshade has nothing to do with view obstruction. Because I wouldn't sell, neither neighbor was able to benefit from having extra space between the houses, more privacy, and the increase in value that would bring to their property. 4 0 LI PaV20sos Site RepWass side yard setback Its distance from the property line sba11 be not less than 26 inches plus the amount (if any) dint the width of the lot exceeds 30 feet. The substandard sideyardcreatedthereby shall have a clear passageway26 incheswide, undbs ructed by fences, utility meters, lose bibs, or any other appartenanceswhichcould intea&ae with use of the passageway by emergency personnel or equipment. F. uAp1ae s and Chimneys Fireplaces and chimneys not to exceed 8 feet in width, may project to a distance of 2 feet into any required from or rear yard setbaehof 10 feet or more for any residential struchne: provided, that the fireplace and chimney must be located not less time 5 feet from any aide yard setback lime. Fireplaces and chimneys not to exceed 9 feet in wifh nay project to a maximum distance of 2 feet, 6 inches from any side yard setback line provided thin such Ott must be at least 2 feet f mn any side property line. ( G.) Awes Canomes Marmzas.aA Shades _Anmh*4 ades may project up to a MWdW mr of 5 fed into required yards as follows: O Nor. C: -, e fiont Side: 0 feet Rear: 2% feet Vertical Clearance: 6V2 feet above grade RSC, APF, and RMC Districts: Font the donth of the finer yard Side: 2 feet Rear: One baifthe depth of the required rear yard Vertical Clearance: 8 feet above grade. All Other Commercial Districts: Front: One half the depth of the required front yard Side: 0 feet Real. 2% fm Vertical Clearance: 5% feet shove grade Any such projection from the building shall be supported entirely by the wall of the building, and still meet all requirements of the Building Code. 1r04M 17nW. ANDREW CIES, M.D., RA.C.S. A Medical Corporation OPHTHALMOLOGY '• OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY 400 Newport Center Drive • Suite 464 • Newport Beach, California 92660 • (714) 640 -2023 August 13, 2001 RE: Gary Quick To Whom It May Concern, . Gary , Quick had Lasik surgery August 13, 1999. He has a visual condition, which warrants protection from bright lights and sunlight. If you have any farther questions,. please contact this office at the above listed number. cerely, W. Andrew Cies, M.D. n.».�,.AT" ,.,- —... —.._ _ Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 October 28, 2001 Jay Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Jay, Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Home: 949/673 -8718 In the beginning of this awning issue, I asked Mel Flenner to tell me who turned me in. He stated, the information is confidential and the city has a non - disclosure policy. Also in a meeting with Patricia Temple, she assured me that any information that I gathered and gave to the City as proof of similar violations would be kept confidential. In our meeting Wednesday, 10/24 one or more complainants knew about the list of violations I submitted to the City of Newport Beach. The City's disclosure of my list leaves me open to retaliation and violates the City's policy, including my right to privacy. The complainant's comments during this meeting, and the cruel and snide remarks made afterward, clearly prove the issue here is not about views, it's not even about my awning, it's about three people (Peter & Harriet Pallette, and Bill Shepherd) rallying anyone who will listen (from the neighborhood or the yacht club) to go along with their agenda. It was obvious so I'm sure you noticed, some people who attended and wrote letters could not see my awning from their properties. The way they viewed it was by invitation to a get- together at the Pallette's home, which was arranged for the express purpose of viewing my property — I know this because we were home at the time. At the meeting Bill Shepherd's son, who said he was an architect, spoke with such venom over this issue it was impossible to believe all that anger was over this awning. In fact, he made a point to bring up completely unrelated and false accusations about my house not having proper construction and not being built to code. Of course his accusations are untrue. If anything, my remodel was scrutinized even more because of several calls my neighbor's made to the Building Dept. to report their complaints. In spite of their constant interference and the delays it caused, my remodel was completed and signed -off by the inspectors. With this level of neighborhood behavior, and the selective enforcement that erupts out of filed complaints, do you think it was ever possible for me to get a fair ruling? I got my ideas while cruising the bay and viewing similar patio shades. I would like to obtain a copy of the tape- recorded hearing of Oct 2e. I am happy to pay the cost. I will be appealing before the deadline and I would like to discuss this issue with you in person. I will call you for an appointment. Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Hm/949- 673 -8718 Balboa, CA 92661 ofc /562 -592 -1926 October 29, 2001 Jay Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Jay, Thank you for returning my telephone call, and thank you for being willing to have a meeting with me. As I wade through the various Building, Planning & Enforcement Departments it seems that, although the laws are in place, they are only enforced at 1208 E. Balboa. I'm becoming more confused about City policies as I continue to observe more and more unenforced violations. Regarding my belief that the list I provided would be kept confidential: Please ask Patricia Temple she will tell you that in our meeting she specifically said the information would be kept confidential — that is an absolute fact. 1 gave you, Patricia Temple, and Steve Hook a copy of my Sept. 10th violations -list addressed to Mel Flenner as discussed and as I was told to do. We provided you with copies of the list because of the contentious treatment my wife and I received from Code Enforcement - I can prove that if need be. As you are well aware, in the meeting of September 7th, my wife expected to have a meeting with you, but she was blindsided when the meeting began. She was not told the meeting would include Director Pat Temple, Manager Steve Hook, and last but not least the City Attorney. Is this common practice? To make matters worse, let's not forget the threats from Mel Flenner and Steve Hook saying to us since nothing had come across our desk we're going to refer the matter to the City Attorney. At that point we had only written (3) letters and made many telephone calls to Mel and Steve beginning day 1 of our stop work order. But, none the less, we were accused of stonewalling and we were fined $100. Now, you are telling me the list is "public information ". It would appear that we continue to be given conflicting information, and we have been singled out and bullied by the city of Newport Beach all along in this matter. So I am suggesting a meeting with you, and anyone else you would like to bring, at my house so I can show you the violations on people who wrote letters. I will call your secretary later in the week for an appointment at your office or at my home, prior to my appeal deadline of November 16`n. Attached is my response to your letter dated 10/24/01. Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Hm/949- 673 -8718 Balboa, CA 92661 Ofc /562 -592 -1926 October 29, 2001 Jay Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Jay, This is my response to your letter dated 10/24/01. Request Denied: "Zoning code restricts beyond 3 feet ". Response: In general, and specifically, that rule is not enforced on the 1200 block of East Balboa and all of Newport Harbor. Findings for Denial: I. `In this case ". Response: No consistent enforcement of zoning codes. • "Only one of it's kind ". Response: According to the statements made on Oct. 24th, that would not be considered factual. • "Set a precedent for approval of similar requests that could be detrimental to the neighborhood" Response: That would mean all of the sunshades on Lido Island are detrimental. The words "if everybody" were used at the 10/24 meeting, if that were the case, we would be similar to Lido Island. However, I do not necessarily believe that would be the case. Neighbors can have plants, trees, and umbrellas that block views and light — so views are not really protectected and blockage is not enforced. • Generally maintain the required setback and do not extend beyond the original property line of the 1200 block: Response: I believe I can clearly show you — that is not the case with 3 -4 homes on the 1200 block. • "Shadow effect" Not true. The way the sun rises and sets MY HOUSE causes the shadow not the sunshade. I don't get to enjoy unobstructed views because of the trees, umbrellas & bushes. My neighbors would not have their umbrellas up all summer if light blockage were the issue. • "Visual impairment that is detrimental" So do trees, bushes, and umbrellas create visual impairment that could be considered detrimental? It seems that much of the wording in your ruling of 10/24 is unique and crafted exclusively for my neighbor's desires, not the building codes. City laws need to be consistent — they are not. Proof: The Committee said to me I must use similarities in my defense but all of the similarities I have sited seem to be rejected. 11/5/01 Questions for Jay: 1. Did you read my last 2 letters? (Discuss) 2. Pay $714.00 to appeal — appeal to who? a. How long? 3. How many more appeals do I have? a. Cost? b. Who do I continue to appeal to? c. Time frame? 4. Who came to my house, from the City? (Photos were taken). 5. (I didn't want to be argumentative at the modification meeting but) Why was the code I showed you irrelevant? (Our balcony). (The planning desk gave it to us). 6. Pat said the "list" would be kept confidential. 7. Barbara's meeting was with you — why were Pat Temple & the City Attorney there? a. Is this typical for a simple Q&A regarding the Modification Process? 8. Nearly ALL of the "3 foot height max" violations are not permitted. There are many view- blocking structures that have been in place for years. a. The structures I took photos of and submitted, are in violation. Even the ones that have different set - backs. 9. The codes that are being enforced at my house are not being enforced at several other Bayfront homes: a. Lido Island may have a blanket Modification but a Permit is still required — only one permit was issued — no enforcement. b. Why not see -me -last when there are so many other violations, and some have been in place for years. No stop work orders, no fines, no modification permit fees —just quiet enjoyment. c. If a neighbor doesn't complain a person can build what ever they want? i I (I�O Page 20.03 -11 Defmitions Parking Space: An unobstructed space or area other than a street or alley that is permanently reserved, maintained, and accessible for the parking of 1 motor vehicle. Parking Space, Covered: A building or portion of a building, open or enclosed by walls or doors on not more than two sides, that is designed or used to shelter a parking space. Parking Space, Enclosed: A building or portion of a building, completely enclosed by walls or doors on three or more sides, that is designed or used to shelter a parking space. Parking Space, Tandem: A parking space within a group of 2 or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other. Patio Cover: A solid or open roof structure not exceeding 12 feet in height and covering a patio, platform, or deck area. Patio covers may be detached or attached to another structure. Patio covers may be enclosed and used for recreational and outdoor living purposes, does not include structures used as carports, garages, storage rooms, or habitable rooms. Permitted: Permitted without a requirement for approval of a use permit. Person: Any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind, including public agencies. Pier: Any fixed or floating structure for securing vessels, loading or unloading persons or property, or providing access to the water, including wharfs, docks, floats, or other landing facilities, and dry docks. Pierhead Line: A line established to define the bayward limit for piers and float -type structures. Plot Plan: A plat of a lot, drawn to scale, showing the actual measurements, the size and location of any existing structures or structures to be erected, the location of the lot in relation to abutting streets, and other such information. Porch: A covered platform, usually having a separate roof, at an entrance to a dwelling, or an open or enclosed gallery or room, which is not heated or cooled, that is attached to the outside of a building. Preexisting: In existence prior to the effective date of this code. Prepackaged Food: Any processed food prepackaged to prevent any direct human contact with the food product upon distribution from the manufacturer. Project: Any proposal for new or changed use, or for new construction, alterations, or enlargement of any structure, that is subject to the provisions of this code. Proscenium. Garage: The structural frame of a garage door. 1124/99 kI csS T 11U6 J T 1 �fj r G �'N l�A'!JB J�.v.� i� d Tcv�S 07 -�74se Cam_ 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVENUE DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BLVD P. O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 E -Mail Address: RevenueHelp @City.Newport- Beach.ca.us GARY AND BARBARA QUICK 1208 EAST BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 Service BUILDING CITATION -1ST FINE BUSINESS NO: C2001 -0539 NOTICE DATE: 09/11/2001 DUE DATE: 10/04/2001 Qty Unit Price Extension 1 $100.00 $100.00 Total Invoice: $100.00 Adjustments: .00 Penalties .00 Payments: .00 Past Due: .00 Total Amount Due: $100.00 Please detach and return the lower portion of this invoice with your payment 1208 EAST BALBOA BLVD NBR : C2001 -0539 NEWPORT BEACH, CA NOTICE DATE: 09/11/2001 92661 DUE DATE: 10/04/2001 Total Amount Due $100.00 V Gary Quick 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Balboa, CA 92661 Fax: 949/673 -0788 Home: 949/673 -8718 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Gary Quick DATE: October 28, 2001 SUBJECT: 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. On October 28 I called Mel Flenner, Building Inspector, City of Newport Beach, and gave him violations for 1206 E. Balboa, 1212 E. Balboa, 1214 E. Balboa, 1216 E. Balboa, and 1218 E. Balboa. This afternoon at approximately 3:45 p.m., Mel Flenner called my home and told me that he does not take complaints. He told me to call a woman named Susan at 644 -3280 who will log in all the complaints and disburse them. I'm documenting this because prior to this Mel Flenner was the one who had always come to my home with a complaint from the neighborhood and I know personally that he has talked to the neighbors directly. FOOM : Confidante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Sep. 18 2001 09:31AM P1 •5 Gary Quick 1.208 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 July 20, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mel: Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Home: 949/673 -8718 Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on Wednesday, July 18 and Thursday, July 19. As I said to you in our conversation, l will be applying for a permit for my patio. Mel,1 know without a question that 1 left a message for you approximately three weeks ago telling you that I would be in for a permit. as I have had continuing problems with my neighbors only atler I started my remodel in Muy 2000. Up until that time, and for the last 10 years, there was never a problem. 1 know that you are aware of the first problem that 1 had with this neighbor in question in reference to my patio deck. 11e questioned the height. of my deck, butsoon found out that 1 was within the Building Dcparurwnt. guidelines. As I. stated to you on- thc-phonei a permit for canvass in many cities and counties is not always required because it is not considered a permanent structure, but 1 was not sure. in this case. Only one out of the five canvasses that I have put on my house is in question. Your help is appreciated, and 1 do understand that in a situation like this that the City of Newport Beach has to remain neutral. I jus-t hope that the City of Newport Beach and the Building Department has uniformity in their rules as there are several awnings on the Peninsula and on Balboa Island that exceed the 54" extension. That would indicate to me that permits have been issued to these folks. Once again, thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Gary Quick bee: Lt, Doug Fletcher Newport Beach Poliov Department Fax: 9491644 -3794 PA2001 -190 for MD2001 -108 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard DATE OF MEETING - October 24, 2001 Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -0788 August 11, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Awning permit Dear Mel, On Thursday, August 9m, I was assisted by Gregg Ramirez at the Planning Department. Because he was unable to locate our plans he asked that I return with them for his review. On Friday, August 100, I returned with two sets of plans showing two different views. After Gregg's initial review, he suggested that I look into the possibility that the section of our property in question might be regulated by Public Works. I then spoke to Mary, who referred me to another young mart, who in turn called over a man named Gil. Gil determined that the "vacated land" in question became private property, and referred me back to Gregg. After approximately 2 hours at the building dept, it was determined that the best course of action for our permit would be to apply for a Modification Permit. I was provided with an application and the information I needed to get started. Everyone was very patient and helpful, however, I did leave without one important piece of information: the exact code or limitation this awning is subject to. No one at the building dept was able to provide a copy of the code. I am hopeful that you can help. I am enclosing a self- addressed, stamped envelope. Please, we would greatly appreciate any assistance you could provide. We still don't know what the limitations are, and in looking around our neighborhood, it looks as if there aren't any. There are awnings everywhere, of varying heights, shapes, and sizes. My next step will be to obtain the maps and plans that are necessary for review by the committee. As Gary explained in an earlier conversation, we are aware this became an issue as a result of our surrounding neighbors complaints. It seems they have turned this into their "personal crusade" against us, odd as that sounds, because after all, it is just an awning. Nonetheless, we would appreciate our dealings with the city be kept confidential. Respectfully, Barbara Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -0788 August 29, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Awning permit Dear Mel, My husband called me this morning and told me you left a message on his cell -phone answering machine. Your message went something like this ... since I haven't seen anything cross my desk I'm going to turn this over to the District Attorney. While I have done everything I have been instructed to do, you on the other hand have not given me the courtesy of responding to my letter to you dated 8/11/01. In that letter I notified you of the steps I have taken so far, and requested additional information from you. Although I enclosed a self - addressed and stamped envelope, I received no response from you, in writing or by telephone. I have enclosed a copy of that letter. — In addition to my August I Os' meetings (as outlined in my 8/11 letter) I have an appointment on September l la' with Jay Garcia in the Planning Department. I am aware that a couple of neighbors have complained about our awning, and while you told me that you stay neutral, based on your handling of this situation I'm afraid your bias is showing through your actions. Your threat of legal referral was completely unnecessary. If my letter didn't provide you with enough information, you could have contacted me. A simple telephone call would have cleared this matter up. Sincerely, Barbara Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 August 30, 2001 Steve Hook City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Awning permit Dear Steve, Thank you for meeting with me this afternoon. A shocking telephone message from Mel Flenner prompted the meetings this afternoon with Mel. Mel left a message on my voice mail stating that because nothing has crossed his desk he will be referring this matter to the City Attorney. I attempted to have a meeting with Mel, but his supervisor, John Burckle, kept interrupting me. Bemuse we were in a small office it was not possible to exclude him from our conversation, so I politely asked him to please let me finish, Within the fast 4 minutes of our conversation he interrupted and said, "Come on Mel, this meeting is over'. His attitude and arrogance was unbelievable, I thought city employees were to be helpful to the residents of Newport Beach. For the record, I am not trying to stonewall, hold up, or avoid this matter or the city of Newport Beach. Proof of this is: 1) My letter to Mel on July 2& (one day after I received the stop work order), 2) My wife's personal appearance at the planning department on August 10'b, 3) And her follow up letter on August 111 summarizing that meeting and future measures to be taken. 4) Barbara's upcoming September I Ith appointment with Jay Garcia. As Barbara stated in her August 29" letter, although she sent a letter to Mel requesting additional information, she was not given the courtesy of a response of any kind (although she provided a self- addressed and stamped envelope). So now three letters have crossed Mel's desk. I want to thank you for providing me with a copy of the code pertaining to the awning. No one else would give us this information I am also providing you with a self - addressed and stamped envelope. If there are any other building codes that pertain to awnings other than the one you gave me (Section 301.2.1 Building Permits, item #10) 1 would appreciate a copy. By the time you get this letter, Barbara will have called you for an appointment. I oft p/o Ntlr4::;1/de- 7-d)7i9- /3014�054ai-_ CoOgO Gary Quick / Steve Hook Continued, Page 2 of 2 As you have been made aware, this is about my neighbors and their egos. One neighbor had Mel come to my house to measure our patio because he didn't like it being higher than his Mel said our patio was well within the height limits. This same neighbor said to me, if I can obtain a permit he would let it go. I know neighbors continue to can Mel inquiring into the status of my permit. Weeks ago Mel told me that if I wanted any information concerning a complaint I would have to have an attorney subpoena the records, as they are considered private - public. I would appreciate equal treatment. The only information my neighbors need to know is that we are going through proper channels. Other than that, should this not also be considered private - public? One of my neighbors told me he called Mel, and Mel said to him, Gary Quick sent in a letter. 'I believe my confidentially has been breached and bias has been shown. Sincerely, Gary Quick Gary & Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Balboa, CA 92661 (949) 673 -0788 September 5, 2001 Steve Hook Building Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Our meeting of Tuesday, September 4th Steve, After getting over the shock from my meeting with you last Tuesday (following your four day vacation) I find it necessary to follow up with a letter. I was so startled by your augmentative and aggressive treatment toward me that I walked away stunned. I still cannot understand why you found it necessary to fine us $100 on 9/4 when you knew we were pursuing the modification process: 1. My husband went to your office Thursday, 8/30 to obtain a copy of the administrative code (which no one had provided, although we had requested it several times) as you know, he spoke to Mel Flenner, John Burckle, and yourself. You were told we were in the process of applying for a modification permit. My husband knew I had additional questions and asked if I could call upon you. 2. I called you the afternoon of Thursday, 8/30, reached your voice mail and left a message. 3. You returned my call late that afternoon and left a message on my voice mail. 4. I was unable to reach you that day and my questions went unanswered. I went into your office the next day, Friday, 8/31 and I was told you would be out until Tuesday, 9/4. 5. I went to your office on the afternoon of Tuesday, 9/4 and you informed me that my husband and I are "just delaying and blowing smoke " and today you fined us $100 Based on the measures Gary and I have taken since finding out our awning required a permit, this action by you seems not only unnecessary and unwarranted but down right intentionally mean - spirited. Your department's actions cause me to call into question whether it is even possible for us to have a fair hearing over our modification request. As you know, I am keeping my upcoming appointment with Mr. Garcia on September I is — I still have unanswered questions about this application process. I would appreciate it if you would not carry out your threat to "fine us every day until the application is submitted ". Barbara Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 10, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax (949) 644 -3250 Re: Violations in our neighborhood Dear Mel, Copies to: PatriciaTemple Jay Garcia Steve Hook As our neighbor, Peter Paulette, did not have to be correct when he insisted you come out and check the legal height of my deck, I am asking for equal treatment. We are providing you with addresses of properties that have awnings or structures that appear to exceed 54" and have no permits: 1000 East Balboa Blvd Awning 1022 East Balboa Blvd. Structure 1024 East Balboa Blvd Awning 1202 East Balboa Blvd. Retractable 1401 Bay Ave. East Structure 1411 Bay Ave. East Awning 1413 Bay Ave. East Awning 1415 Bay Ave. East Awning 1501 Bay Ave. East Structure 225 East Bay Front Awning 227 East Bay Front Awning Also, the Balboa Island market has a retractable awning that far exceeds 54" and hangs dangerously low into the sidewalk area. As we match addresses to dozens and dozens of photographs with potential violations, we will forward these addresses to you for inspection and possible citation. Thank you for your prompt attention, Gary Quick Gary Quick 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 September 10, 2001 Patricia Temple Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Patricia: Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Home: 949/673 -8718 My wife was a little upset after the 9:00 a.m. meeting on Friday, September 7. After she called me, 1 cut my trip short and came straight home to deal with this matter. I called my architect and we had a meeting that same afternoon at 4:00 pair. Dennis LaRoche told me that he would call Jay Garcia Oil Monday. Patricia, we intend to fully cooperate with your department. My wife very much appreciated your helpful manner. We have not experienced any civil treatment whatsoever from Steve Hook, Mel Flenner, or John Burckle. As a matter of record, we have been lied to, misinformed, bullied, stonewalled, and threatened with legal action on two occasions by both Steve and Mel. I believe this to be intentional infliction and very unnecessary. _. Attached are copies of our letters to Mel and Steve, keeping them informed every step of the way. In addition to the letters, there were several phone calls made from Barbara and me. They knew all along that it was our intention to go through all channels and try to obtain a modification permit. I appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Gary Quick cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager bcc: Hal Nelson, 24422 Avenida de Is Carlota #200, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Quick Residence Subject: Quick Residence Date: Mon, 10 Sep 200107:28:07 -0700 From: "Barbara W." <studio I salon@earthlink. net> To: ptemple @city.newport- beach.ca.us 9/10/01 Patricia, My husband, Gary, returned earlier than scheduled from his trip, so he could meet with our architect on Friday evening. Our architects name is Dennis LaRoche and he will be calling Jay Garcia. I just wanted to keep you informed as we work our way through this process. Barbara Quick 9110/01 10:02 AM, FROM : confidante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Sep. 12 2001 02:53PM P1 - Gary Quick 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. We: 5621592 -1926 Balboa, CA 92661 Home: 949/673 -8718 September 12, 2001 Todd Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tem City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: My Patio Cover Dear Todd: My architect, Dennis LaRoche, thoroughly surveyed my patio cover from all angles and told me this is about aesthetics, not views, as my patio cover is not blocking either neighbors' views. 1 appreciate you calling the City Attorney of Newport Beach who will reverse the penalty and send me a letter. Thank you very much. Regards, Gary Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 10, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax (949) 644 -3250 Re: Violations in our neighborhood Dear Mel, As our neighbor, Peter Paulette, did not have to be correct when he insisted you come out and check the legal height of my deck, I am asking for equal treatment. We are providing you with addresses of properties that have awnings or structures that appear to exceed 54" and have no permits: 1000 East Balboa Blvd Awning 1022 East Balboa Blvd. Structure 1024 East Balboa Blvd Awning 1202 East Balboa Blvd. Retractable 1401 Bay Ave. East Structure 1411 Bay Ave. East Awning 1413 Bay Ave. East Awning 1415 Bay Ave. East Awning 1501 Bay Ave. East Structure 225 East Bay Front Awning 227 East Bay Front Awning Also, the Balboa Island market has a retractable awning that far exceeds 54" and hangs dangerously low into the sidewalk area. As we match addresses to dozens and dozens of photographs with potential violations, we will forward these addresses to you for inspection and possible citation. Thank for your prompt attention, J i Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 18, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax (949) 644 -3250 Re: Violations in our neighborhood — 2 "d Letter Dear Mel, Copies to: PatriciaTemple Jay Garcia Steve Hook We are providing you with addresses of properties that have awnings or structures that appear to be in violation of your building codes: 810 Bay Ave. East Awning 1038 Bay Ave. East Awning 1220 Bay Ave. East Structure 1240 Bay Ave. East Structure 1350 Bay Ave. East Structure Bay Ave. East 203 Via Lido Soud Awning 205 Via Lido Soud Structure 209 Via Lido Soud Structure 213 Via Lido Soud Awning 215 Via Lido Soud Awning 219 Via Lido Soud Awning 221 Via Lido Soud Awning 229 Via Lido Soud Awning 231 Via Lido Soud Awning 233 Via Lido Soud Awning 235 Via Lido Soud Awning 237 Via Lido Soud Awning I.have received -V copies of this letters one for each of the above named: Page 1 of 2 9/18/01 From: Quick To: Flenner Page 2 of 2 301 Via Lido Soud Awning 309 Via Lido Soud Awning 315 Via Lido Soud Awning 327 Via Lido Soud Awning 329 Via Lido Soud Awning 333 Via Lido Soud Awning 507 Via Lido Soud Structure 515 Via Lido Soud Awning 519 Via Lido Soud Awning 523 Via Lido Soud Awning 535 Via Lido Soud Awning 609 Via Lido Soud Awning 611 Via Lido Soud Awning 617 Via Lido Soud Awning 629 Via Lido Soud Awning 653 Via Lido Soud Awning 751 Via Lido Soud Awning 759 Via Lido Soud Awning 835 Via Lido Soud Awning As we continue to match addresses to dozens and dozens of photographs with potential violations, we will forward these addresses to you for inspection and possible citation. In reference to our last telephone conversation, when you said to me, I need . oy a to get me access, I can either provide you with photos or, I will be more than happy to show these to you by electric boat, at your convenience. It will take less than 2 hours to show you between 30 — 50 violations. As you also said in our last conversation, you had an extremely busy day ahead of you with 2 areas, however, that is no excuse for rude behavior, I do not appreciate you hanging up on me. I have always been respectful to you, and the others at the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your prompt attention, Gary Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 19, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax(949)644 -3250 Re: Our correspondence dated 9/18/01 - Address corrections. Dear Mel, I mistakenly provided my husband with incorrect addresses: The first 5 addresses were recorded as "Bay Ave. East" on Gary's correspondence of 9/18. The properties are located on West Bay Ave. The correct addresses are listed below: 810 West Bay Ave. Awning 1038 West Bay Ave. Awning 1220 West Bay Ave. Structure 1240 West Bay Ave. Structure 1350 West Bay Ave. Structure �.. Barbara Quick Copy: Patricia Temple Jay Garcia Steve Hook ✓ ' Gary & Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949)673 -0788 8/14/01 Gregg Ramirez Planning Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Gregg, Thank you for calling me back regarding my missing plans. As we discussed, on Monday I brought in 2 sets of plans. Our engineering calculations were on 8 '/z x 11" paper and were rolled inside of one set. Those 8 '/2 x 11" plans are still missing. I don't recall whether or not the plans were still intact after we looked at them, but they were unrolled and reviewed again at the Public Works counter. Both counters had other plans and paperwork on top of them. Perhaps my plans were mixed in with someone else's. If they turn up, please call, I think we need them for our Modification Permit. Thanks for your help, THIS NOTICE TO BE REMOVED-ONLY BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT YOU MUST APPLY FOR A PERMIT AT THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 48 HOURS. INVESTIGATION FEES WILL BE CHARGED FOR WORK STARTED WITHOUTA,PERMIT. 5 •� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. • NEWPORT BEACH, CA92663 PHONE: 949- 644 -3275 PERMIT REQUIRED FOR WORK IN PROGRESS NO BUILDING PERMIT Building violation observed E] NO ELECTRICAL PERMIT Electrical violation observed ❑ ❑ NO PLUMBING PERMIT Plumbing violation observed ❑ ❑ NO MECHANICAL PERMIT Mechanical violation observed ❑ NO POOL PERMIT Construction violation observed ❑ ❑ NO GRADING PERMIT Construction violation observed ❑ Remove this stub and bring it with you when you come to the Building Department to apply for a permit. STOP WORK ORDER STUB 'tans Required? (18" x 24" minimum size): 'Ll Yes ❑ No LOCATION: „-CA 92663 DATE: _ TIME: AM INSPECTOR: CONTACT: PN PERMiT REQUIRED FOP, WORK IN PROGRESS ❑ NO BUILDING PERMIT Building violation observed ❑ ❑ NO ELECTRICAL PERMI' Eleci,.al violation observed ❑ ❑ NO PLUMBING PERMIT Plumbing violation observed ❑ ❑ NO MECHANICAL PERMIT Mechanical violation observed ❑ ❑ NO DEMOLITION PERMIT Construction violation observed ❑ ❑ NO FENCE PERMIT Construction violation observed ❑ ❑ NO GRADING PERMIT Construction violation observed ❑ VIOLATION: !�� /! GlI % L/L/; I I 3 '� .�/ YOU MUST APPLY FOR A PERMIT AT THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 48 HOURS. PENALTY FEES WILL BE CHARGED FOR WORK STARTED WITHOUT A PERMIT. THIS NOTICE TO BE REMOVED ONLY BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FROM : Canfidante Keys PHONE NO, : 6519415 Jul. 13 20M 05:52PM P1 Gary Quick tzar see > cam: s6ars4�14z6 ftb6 CA How: 449/6734718 M. File FROM Clary Quick DATE: Juts 27, 2000 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Building Departuient Yeaerday The Building Departinent of Newport Beach came by my coniouction site at 1208 R. Balboa Blvd, Newport Beach and said that we did not have a 77 permit or housing permit which, in llict, we did. it is very costly to have the work swpped on my job. This is the second time this has happened NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUIDINGDEPARTMENT Citation No. C2Gp1—O5'11 CODE ENFORCEMENT 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92656 (909) 64027S Cltation(Conection Date 9-4 — o \ Time 1 O A WA An inspection of the premises located at 12-o 8 r-. R VrA • 9' 2." 1 in the City of Newport Beach, revealed a violation(s) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ofowrerorbsinez: &L�4 MA4 oatA.� Q�:e)k— If different Own [q 1ST. CITATION $100.00 ......... IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE THE NEXT LEVEL CITATION IS NOW PENDING AND YOU MAY BE CITED EACH DAY THE VIOLATION CONTINUES. OTH R ENFORCEMENTACHON AND PENALTIES MAY ALSO RESULT W CObff MCE IS NOT ACHIEVED OR IFYOU CONTINUE TOIGNORETHIS CITATION. [ ] 2ND. CITATION $200.00 ........... IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE [ ] 3RD. CITATION $500.00 ........... IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE THIS VIOLATION(S) WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION ON '7-161-0% , AND YOU HAVE NOT CORRECTED OR RESOLVED THE VIOLATION(S). CODESECIMM: CORRECTION(S)REQUIRED: Rp- V. +... u.., "e or .L 6..;I �er�,i o. •,�. iti5a a. Ma..leA RECEIPT a.-cti Q. itkttz --% 12-08 SIGNATUREOOFFICER PnW7NAa:WORM ma /i1�� . — "4e-je, h0o - 2-`101 VIOLATIONS) CLEARED AS OF (DATE INSPECTED). WHITE (violation Copy) CANARY (Hearing Copy) PINK (Officer Copy) (;;�alhed 10 L ti Live Load =15 PSF, uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 0 PSF Proj. H Min. Schedule 40 Interior Tmas Fooling Top Bottom Web gracing Die. Depth Columns 5 R. 1' 'h 'h' 'h" 'h' 2' 3' 1'/4 10 R. 1' 4' 'h' 'y 'h" 'h" 2'r 3' 1'h 15 R. 2' 'h" '/P NO 'h' 2'r 3'r 1'h 20 R. r V 1" 1" 1' '/40 3' 4' 2 _,.... . IJ14 .__ AwnTubea Round 11/40 1.650 960 Interior Tress FaoOng 14 Ba Prol. H Min. Top Bottom Web Bracing Dla. Depth Celumne 5 R. T 'h' 'h' 'h' '/? 2' 3' 1 10 R. 1' 4" 'h " '/P 'h" Me 2' 0" 3' 1'h 15 R. r 'b' '/4, '% NO 2'r 3' r 11h 20 FL 2'6' 1' 1' 1" 1' 3' V. 2 31h' AwnTube° Sq. 16 Ga. 4 Ga Interior TmsB Footing Pro). H Min. Tap Bottom Web gracing Die. Depth Columns 5R. 1' 'An 'h" 'h' '/i" 2' 3' 1% 10 R. VC 3/40 'h" '/P 1/0 2'r 3' 1'h 15 A. 2' 1" '/P 1" 1' 2' 6" T r ' 20 R. 2'V 1'/40 Ve IIl Ph' T 4' AwnTube° Sq.18 Ga. Interim Trees Footing Prol. H Mb. Top Bottom Web Bracing Diu. Depth Columns 6R. 1' sle '/P '/P '/P r S. 1% 10 R. VC 'h" '/40 '/P 'h° r r 3' 1'h 15 R. r 1" '/P 1" t" 2'r 3' 6" ' 20 R. 2'r Ph' tbi 1' /P I 3' 4' ' *Use pipes from other designs Top Anchor Forces Projection 5 R. 10 R. 15R. 20 R. Tension Lb. 110 240 460 800 Shear lb. 110 220 340 460 Bottom Anchor Forces an 5 FL 10 FL 15 R. 20 FL ITSPIM:18891,001L, Lb. 130 270 520 800 b. 10 10 1 0 10 Nominal Dimension of a Pipe Pipe sizes are sometimes described by their nominal dimension rather than their true outside diameter. For example, a 11)2" Schedule 40 pipe size actually has an outside diameter of 1.900 babas not 1.500 losses. The table below cross-references the nominal dimension of a pipe with It actual outside diameter. Nate that a AwnTobe tube with an outside diameter equal to or smaller than the Schedule 40 pipe can have a thinm wall and still he as strong or noun stronger than the corresponding schedule pipe site. Schedule 40 Pipe AwnTubel�'Round Tube P4v Oafetde WEN ObJew Welt Ban ammow saw Olemeter "so 'h" 0.840 1260 0.815 1568 '/P 1.056 11 Ga 1.629 14 Ga ?'_..._.......1,516 ._.._tO Gp.. ._ _,.... . IJ14 .__ 14.Ga_..._. .. 11/40 1.650 960 1.660 14 Ba 1'h" 1.900 gas 1.900 13 as ,Y_ _2.376_ ,864 _2.375. 13 Go. 21h' 2.675 6 Ga 3" 3.500 5 Ga 31h' 4.000 4 Ga 50 Live Load =15 PSF, Uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 25 PSF Pro). 5 FL 10 R. 15 R. 20 R. N Min. 1' 1.4" 2' 2' G Schedule 40 Interior Truss Top Bottom Web Bracing 'h" 1/2* h" ' 'h' 'h" 'h" 'h' 'h" 1' 3/e 1" 3/40 1' 14" 1" 1" 1" Fooling Dia. Depth r 3' 2'S" 3' 2'6" 3' 6" 3' 4• Columns 11h 1'h 1'h 2 Interior Truss Footing AwnTube° Round H Min. Top Bottom Web Bracing Dla. Depth 5 R. Interior Truss Footing 2' 3' Pro). N Min. Top Bottom Web Bracing Dla. Depth Columns SR. P 'h" 'h' 'h" 'h' 2' 3' 1 10 Ft. 1'4" 3/4' 'h' 'K 'h° 2'6* 3' 11h 15 R. 2' 1" 3/4' 3/4" 3/4" 2'6" 3' a" 11h 20 Ft. 2'60 Or 1" 1" 1" 3' 4• 2 AwnTube° Sq. 16 Ga. Interior Truss Interior Truss Footing Prol. Prol. H Min. Top Bottom Web Bracing Dia. Depth Columns SR. 1' % $14, 3/P 3/f r 3' 11h 10 R. 1'4' 1' 3/3" 314' '/i r 6" 3' 11h 15 Ft. r 1'/4" 3/41 1' 14" 1" 2' r 3' 6" ' 20 R. r 6" - - - - - - - allied Live Load =15 PSF, Uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 46 PSF Prol. 5 R. 10 R. 15 R. 20 FL N Min. 1' 1.4" 2' 2160 AwnTubee Sq. 18 Ga. Projection 5 R. Interior Truss Footing Prol. H Min. Top Bottom Web Bracing Dla. Depth 5 R. 1' 31e '/P 'h' 3? 2' 3' 10 Ft. 1' 4" 1" 3/,* 1" % 2160 3' 15 R. r 1'/I °/i 11h' 1" r 6" 3.6" 20 FL 2'6" — — — — Use pipes from other designs 520 Live Load =15 PSF, Uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 46 PSF Prol. 5 R. 10 R. 15 R. 20 FL N Min. 1' 1.4" 2' 2160 Top Anchor Forces Projection 5 R. 10 R. 15 R. 20 R. Tension Lb. 180 410 790 1,230 Shear Lb. 190 370 580 790 Dla. Bottom Anchor Forces Projection SR. 10 R. 15R. 20 R. Tension Lb. 130 270 520 300 Shear Lb. 10 10 10 10 Live Load =15 PSF, Uplift =15 PSF, Snow = 46 PSF Prol. 5 R. 10 R. 15 R. 20 FL N Min. 1' 1.4" 2' 2160 Schedule 40 h rlor Truss Top Bottom Web Bracing 'h" 'h° 'h" 'h° 3/4, 'h' 31P 'h" VII 3/P 1" '/P 1'? 1' 1' 1' Footing Dla. Depth 2' T 2'r 3' 2'V 3-0- 3' 4' Columns 1'h 11h 1'h 2 10 R. Ph AwnTubee Round Tension Lb. 290 650 1,250 Interior Truss Footing 310 Prol. H Min. Top Bonom Web Bracing Dla. Depth Columns 5 FL 1' ' 'h' h" r 3' 1 10 R. 1' 4" 1" 'h" 2160 3' 11h 15 R. 2' 1' /P Yf 1'? 3/e 2' 6" 316' 11h 20 R. 2'B" 1'h" 1" 1' 1' 3' 4' 2 AwnTubee Sq. 16 Ga. Interior Truss Footing Prol. H Min. Top Bottom Web Bracing Dia. Depth Columns 5 R. 1' 3/P 3/i 3h" 3/P r 3' 11h 10 R. 114, 1" 3/4" 1" 3/41 216- 3' 11h 15 R. r 1'/P 3? 1'h" 1" 2'60 3' 6" 20 R. - - - - - - - - .2. Columns Top Anchor Forces 1'h 5 R. 10 R. Ph 20 A. Tension Lb. 290 650 1,250 2,160 AwnTube® Sq. 18 Ga. Interior Truss Fooling Prol. H Min. Top Bottom Web Bracing 01a. Depth Colon 5 Ft. 1' 'R' 1/0 3/P 'h" r 3' 1'/. 10 R. 11C 1'/, 3? 1° 3/47 r 6" 3' 11G 15 R. 2' - - - - - - - 20 R. r 6" - - - - - - - `Use pipes horn other designs Top Anchor Forces Projection 5 R. 10 R. 15 Ft. 20 A. Tension Lb. 290 650 1,250 2,160 Shear Lb. 310 590 920 1,250 Bottom Anchor Forces Projection 5 R. 10 R. 15 Ft. 20 FL Tension Lb. 130 270 520 B00 Shear Lb. 10 10 10 10 oll. i II P�As� i�ctt�rE c if s S•T��L- ��S�T} it /LAC, SILL -Ew r El ''. r.: r E. wt, wit _ ,,� 0 '( j ,` s a �� s' � � �, -, �. ,_ f�, � � �. 1� ', �� I 'i.i - ',.. � � �,A,,- -.�3: - A r, i, � _ � - � ..," _ . i, r '.. -�;�;, �' � _` _ ;� �„ �. ��; �' ' �� ;, i� ,, c� Imo. '"��. 'lam „'�1 ., .... - I' : ' . _ 1 ? y r J 1., �, 4 � �'. � '�. �: w,... •�. 1 5 IL JOti *V w T a WIT .:tom„ Y r� O r6 i6 1 lVn V/ Q T a WIT .:tom„ Y r� O r6 i6 1 LII ti <L4 fA t 11 y III �� -. W r rb �;, �._II. �'�i �t;'! �;�; 4, `i Em wit. A 71*1 I it 71*1 I '711 11 RI IP 9. 2 � \ �_ �~ � � < - � \ � \` \ \\ �� , \» ©\ �.� - �% . \; c: 2� J y� ! �� \ \�� . � / \ . � � (� y \�,�j : \ .� i! � � \\g/ � {} � � � � \/ ��. �7 \ \ k� : (� � ~ r ;; , ��j ^ ` >x a . �` > §( � \ \\ , y \» � �«:�{ 22� ,��? / d s a5, �� : �� _. �� w«� d *± c � �\ \ � \�`: -., ` »� . .� a � ©2 . . � � \ §�� . > . . } . � . , , � .� .. , 2 � \ �_ �~ � � < - � \ � \` \ \\ �� , \» ©\ �.� - �% . \; c: 2� J y� ! �� \ \�� . � / \ . � � (� y \�,�j : \ .� i! F��Cl 'a IN Ul RAN zy tv not u i _ -�. i -.... � .yam ^vc�L` —." i n • : - - ` '. in v sl St. + 1's Q O a big r. Yid:: �� ^iv1'. �hv .Y,'�a'1` -�:� • �' • i t p1[--. .� i.e. -r. 'fl .�`�• !•ems.. �.!�r �'� -;�� , }. Mt;"'??:�. ;'a , ,� ^� fir,.•, 3 . ... � ';a` : :k ,t Y - A I. i ' i ir �Fffm� s. 1 f � N. v '� i �� . �_ �e �. t� . -�/ Y;: "� f: �` �,,. ti � ,� s j ✓� �� 4 i �e �. t� . -�/ Y;: r �4 i,f�- `@2 JAN -2 A9 :01 c1' 1' C '.....'1 1R I 8EAOH Douglas M. Wood 1214 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa, California 92661 Phone 949 - 673 -5824 Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 RE: January 8, 2002 Council Agenda Item Modification Permit No. 2001 -108 (PA2001 -190) Dear Mayor Ridgeway: January 2, 2002 I urge you and the City Council to reject the appeal by Mr. Gary Quick regarding the above Modification Permit. This modification has already be denied by the Modifications Committee, the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. The property in question is three doors from my residence. A canvas canopy was installed which extends beyond the setback line by approximately 12 feet. It is also about 10 feet -six inches above the existing grade. This is no temporary installation. It has a metal support structure and installed electrical fixtures. View, as you recognize, is an element of property value. Unquestionably, this awning will reduce property values in our neighborhood. Additionally: • It exceeds allowable height limits. • It exceeds allowable setback limits. • If allowed to remain it will set a precedent for others to exceed limits. Mr. Quick was informed before he installed the canopy that it would violate the code. Ignoring that advice he had the canopy installed in June 2001. It was "red tagged" by the City in July 2001. It is time for this matter to be settled and the offending canopy to be removed. Sincerely, Douglas M. Wood December 27, 2001 To: Newport Beach City Council Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg Council Member Garold B. Adams Council Member Norma J. Glover Council Member John Heffernan Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil Council Member Gary Proctor Cc: Planning Director Patricia L. 'Temple From: Sandy & Bill Shepherd 1206 E. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Phone: 949 - 673 -6833 Subject: Public hearing regarding an appeal submitted by Gary Quick of the denial of Modification Permit No. 2001 -108 (PA2001 -190) AW61 ➢CIIL 02 Al r..." a.. . r iIY ?FACl1 We will be on a trip when the public hearing is to be held on January 8, 2002. We support the denials of both the Modification Committee, and the Planning Commission. Justification for the removal of the patio cover (installed June 19, 2001) is covered in the Modification Committee Report. The process to either approve or remove the patio cover is approaching six months. I know there are more important issues facing the city, but this seems like an excessive amount of time and a final decision is needed, quickly. We are opposed to this patio cover and request you uphold the decisions of the Modification Committee and the Planning Commission to have it removed. If we can answer any questions for the council please leave a message at our phone number listed above and we will get back to you. Sandra H. Shepherd William C. Shepherd 1 Peter C. Pallette 1210 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 (949) 673 -2289 An Open Letter To... �ayor Tod W. Ridgeway Council Member Gary Proctor Council Member Norma J. Glover Council Member Gary B. Adams Re: Modification Permit No. 2001 -108 (PA2001 -190) January 7, 2002 Council Member Steven Bromberg Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil Council Member John Heffernan Dear Mayor Ridgeway and Honored Council Members: On January 8's you are scheduled to hear yet another appeal by the owner of an illegal and offensive canopy which was installed last June at 1208 East Balboa Blvd. with blatant disregard to the permit process and building codes ofthe City ofNewport Beach. In spite of what the appellant may try to tell you, he was aware of the necessity of securing the City's authorization before beginning installation of this totally non- conforming permanent structure. I am his next door neighbor to the east, for reference. Apart from its flagrant violation of our local codes, the canopy impedes our view up the bay, obscures the much needed sun of our north - facing residence, and — if allowed to stand — sets an unacceptable precedent which could lead to other similar installations in the future. All of these factors detract from the value of our real estate. Inexorably tied to this structure, and therefor part and parcel of it, is the owner's demeanor. Once he realized that I and his other neighbors would not support his illegal installation, he initiated a relentless campaign of disgusting verbal and visual harassment against several of us in an attempt to bully us into accepting the canopy. Six months of this nonsense, four visits by the NBPD to stop the appellant's harassment, and one media- tion hearing later (it produced zero positive results), the problem still exists. Many of us who attended the first variance hearing heard the appellant firmly and unanimously `DENIED!" Likewise when he appealed to the City Planning Commission. We urge the same proclamation from our City Council Members January 8. It is time to move on (as we enter the seventh month of this debacle). If you will deal appropriately with the canopy issue (by denying the appeal, and ordering its removal), then 1, our other neighbors, the NBPD, and the courts will deal with Mr. Quick's unwarranted abuse of us. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. R fully yours, v G i�. Pallette 2 -tr1 � t.r c z ti F9OM : Conr,dante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Sep. 16 2001 09:31RM PI Gary Quick 1.208 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 July 20, 2001 Mel Flemter Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Reach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mel: Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Horne: 949/673 -8718 Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on Wednesday, July 18 and Thursday, July 19. As I said to you in our conversation, l will be applying for a permit. for my patio. Mel, I know without a question that 1 left. a message for you approximately three weeks ago telling you that 1 would be in for a permit as I have had continuing problems with my neighbors only alter 1 started my remodel in May 2000. Up until that time. and for the last 10 years, there was never a problem. I know that you are aware of the first problem that I had with this neighbor in question in reference to my patio deck. Ile questioned the heightofmy deck, butsoon found out that 1 was within the Building Department. guidelines. As I. stated to you on the phone, a permit for canvass in many cities and counties is not always required because it is not considered a permanent structure, but I was not sure in this case. Only one out of the five canvasses that I have put on my house is in question. Your help is appreciated, and I do understand that in a situation like this that the City of Newport Beach has to remain neutral. I just hope that the City of Newport Beach and the Building Department has uniformity in their rules its there are several awnings on the Peninsula and on Balboa Island that exceed the 54" extension. That would indicate to me that permits have been issued to these folks. Once again, thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Gary Quick bcc: Lt.Doug Fletcher Newport Beach Polies Depai nuera Fax: 9491644 -3794 PA2001 -190 for MD2001 -108 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard DATE OF MEETING - October 24, 2001 Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -0788 August 11, 2001 Mel Flemrer Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Awning permit Dear Mel, On Thursday, August 9P" I was assisted by Gregg Ramirez at the Planning Department. Because he was unable to locate our plans he asked that I return with them for his review. On Friday, August 10�d, I returned with two sets of plans showing two different views. After Gregg's initial review, he suggested that I look into the possibility that the section of our property in question might be regulated by Public Works. I then spoke to Mary, who referred me to another young man, who in turn called over a man named Gil. Gil determined that the `vacated land" in question became private property, and referred me back to Gregg. After approximately 2 hours at the building dept, it was determined that the best course of action for our permit would be to apply for a Modification Permit. I was provided with an application and the information I needed to get started. Everyone was very patient and helpful, however, I did leave without one important piece of information: the exact code or limitation this awning is subject to. No one at the building dept was able to provide a copy of the code. I am hopeful that you can help. I am enclosing a self- addressed, stamped envelope. Please, we would greatly appreciate any assistance you could provide. We still don't know what the limitations are, and in looking around our neighborhood, it looks as if there aren't any. There are awnings everywhere, of varying heights, shapes, and sizes. My next step will be to obtain the maps and plans that are necessary for review by the committee. As Gary explained in an earlier conversation, we are aware this became an issue as a result of our surrounding neighbors complaints. It seems they have turned this into their "personal crusade" against us, odd as that sounds, because after all, it is just an awning. Nonetheless, we would appreciate our dealings with the city be kept confidential. Respectfully, Barbara Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -0788 August 29, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Awning permit Dear Mel, My husband called me this morning and told me you left a message on his cell -phone answering machine. Your message went something like this ... since I haven't seen anything cross my desk I'm going to turn this over to the District Attorney. While I have done everything I have been instructed to do, you on the other hand have not given me the courtesy of responding to my letter to you dated 8/11/01. In that letter I notified you of the steps I have taken so far, and requested additional information from you. Although I enclosed a self - addressed and stamped envelope, I received no response from you, -in writing or by telephone. I have enclosed a copy of that letter. In addition to my August 10`s meetings (as outlined in my 8 /11 letter) I have an appointment on September I Ph with Jay Garcia in the Planning Department. I am aware that a couple of neighbors have complained about our awning, and while you told me that you stay neutral, based on your handling of this situation I'm afraid your bias is showing through your actions. Your threat of legal referral was completely unnecessary. If my letter didn't provide you with enough information, you could have contacted me. A simple telephone call would have cleared this matter up. Sincerely, Barbara Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 August 30, 2001 Steve Hook City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Awning permit Dear Steve, Thank you for meeting with me this afternoon. A shocking telephone message from Met Renner prompted the meetings this afternoon with Mel. Mel left a message on my voice mail stating that becawe nothing has crossed his desk he will be referring this matter to the City Attorney. I attempted to have a meeting with Mel, but his supervisor, John Burckle, kept interrupting me. Because we were in a small office it was not possible to exclude him $om our conversation, so I politely asked him to please let me finish. Within the first 4 minutes of our conversation he interrupted and said, `Come on Mel, this meeting is over". His attitude and arrogance was unbelievable, I thought city employees were to be helpful to the residents of Newport Beach. For the record, I am not trying to stonewall, hold up, or avoid this matter or the city of Newport Beach. Proof of this is: 1) My letter to Mel on July 2& (one day after I received the stop work order), 2) My wife's personal appearance at the planning department on August 10*, 3) And her follow up liter on August l ls summarizing that meeting and future measures to be taken. 4) Barbara's upcoming September 11th appointment with Jay Garcia. As Barbara stated in her August 20h letter, although she sent a letter to Mel requesting additional information, she was not given the courtesy of a response of any kind (although she provided a self- addressed and stamped envelope). So now three letters have crossed Mel's desk. I want to thank you for providing me with a copy of the code pertaining to the awning. No one else would give us this information I am also providing you with a self - addressed and stamped envelope. If there are any other building codes that pertain to awnings other than the one you gave me (Section 301.2.1 Building Permits, item #10) I would appreciate a copy. By the time. you get this letter, Barbara will have called you for an appointment. 1 of 2 O to N67s 4oidG 7-iV704 /f3&t-AiA)r.- CoogO Gary Quick / Steve Hook Continued. Page 2 of 2 As you have been made aware, this is about my neighbors and their egos. One neighbor had Mel come to my house to measure our patio because he &d n't like it being higher than his Mel said our patio was well within the height limits. This same neighbor said to me, if I can obtain a permit he would let it go_ I know neighbors continue to cell Mel inquiring into the status of my permit. Weeks ago Mel told me that if I wanted any information concerning a complaint I would have to have an attorney subpoena the records, as they are considered private - public. I would appreciate equal treatment. The only information my neighbors need to know is that we are going through proper channels. Other than that, should this not also be considered private - public? One of my neighbors told me he called Mel, and Mel said to him, Gary Quick sent in a letter. I believe my confidentially has been breached and bias has been shown. Sincerely, Gary Quick Gary & Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Balboa, CA 92661 (949) 673 -0788 September 5, 2001 Steve Hook Building Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Our meeting of Tuesday, September 4th Steve, After getting over the shock from my meeting with you last Tuesday (following your four day vacation) I find it necessary to follow up with a letter. I was so startled by your augmentative and aggressive treatment toward me that I walked away stunned. I still cannot understand why you found it necessary to fine us $100 on 9/4 when you knew we were pursuing the modification process: 1. My husband went to your office Thursday, 8/30 to obtain a copy of the administrative code (which no one had provided, although we had requested it several times) as you know, he spoke to Mel Flenner, John Burckle, and yourself. You were told we were in the process of applying for a modification permit. My husband knew I had additional questions and asked if I could call upon you. 2. I called you the afternoon of Thursday, 8/30, reached your voice mail and left a message. 3. You returned my call late that afternoon and left a message on my voice mail. 4. I was unable to reach you that day and my questions went unanswered. I went into your office the next day, Friday, 8/31 and I was told you would be out until Tuesday, 9/4. 5. I went to your office on the afternoon of Tuesday, 9/4 and you informed me that my husband Based on the measures Gary and I have taken since finding out our awning required a permit, this action by you seems not only unnecessary and unwarranted but down right intentionally mean - spirited. Your department's actions cause me to call into question whether it is even possible for us to have a fair hearing over our modification request. As you know, I am keeping my upcoming appointment with Mr. Garcia on September I ls' — I still have unanswered questions about this application process. I would appreciate it if you would not care Barbara Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 10, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax(949)644 -3250 Re: Violations in our neighborhood Dear Mel, Copies to: PatriciaTemple Jay Garcia Steve Hook As our neighbor, Peter Paulette, did not have to be correct when he insisted you come out and check the legal height of my deck, I am asking for equal treatment. We are providing you with addresses of properties that have awnings or structures that appear to exceed 54" and have no permits: 1000 East Balboa Blvd 1022 East Balboa Blvd 1024 East Balboa Blvd 1202 East Balboa Blvd 1401 Bay Ave. East 1411 Bay Ave. East 1413 Bay Ave. East 1415 Bay Ave. East 1501 Bay Ave. East 225 East Bay Front 227 East Bay Front Awning Structure Awning Retractable Structure Awning Awning Awning Structure Awning Awning Also, the Balboa Island market has a retractable awning that far exceeds 54" and hangs dangerously low into the sidewalk area. As we match addresses to dozens and dozens of photographs with potential violations, we will forward these addresses to you for inspection and possible citation. Thank you for your prompt attention, Gary Quick v" Gary Quick 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 September 10, 2001 Patricia Temple Planning Director Cityof'Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Patricia: Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Home: 949/673 -8718 My wife was a little upset after the 9:00 a.m. meeting on Friday, September 7. After she called me, I cut my trip short and came straight home to deal with this matter. I called my architect and we had a meeting that same afternoon at 4:00 p.m. Dennis LaRoche told me that he would call Jay Garcia on Monday. Patricia, we intend to fully cooperate with your department. My wife very much appreciated your helpful manner. We have not experienced any civil treatment whatsoever from Steve Hook, Mel Flenner, or John Burckle. As a matter of record, we have been lied to, misinformed, bullied, stonewalled, and threatened with legal action on two occasions by both Steve and Mel. I believe this to be intentional infliction and very unnecessary. - Attached are copies of our letters to Met and Steve, keeping them informed every step of thew . In addition to the letters, there were several phone calls made from Barbara and me. They knew all along that it was our intention to go through all channels and try to obtain a modification permit. I appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Gary Quick cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager bcc: Hal Nelson, 24422 Avenida de la Carlota #200, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Quick ResiAmce Subject: Quick Residence Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 07:28:07 -0700 From: 'Barbara W." <studio I salon@earthlink. net> To: ptemple @city.newport - beach.ca.us 9/10/01 Patricia, My husband, Gary, returned earlier than scheduled from his trip, so he could meet with our architect on Friday evening. Our architects name is Dennis LaRoche and he will be calling Jay Garcia. I just wanted to keep you informed as we work our way through this process. Barbara Quick 1 1 01,1 9/10/01 10D2 AM•. PROM Conftdante KeyS PIoNE No. : 6519415 Sep. 12 2001 02.53PM P1 Gary Quick 1208 C. Balboa Blvd. OJc: 562/592 -1926 Balboa, CA 92661 Home: 949/673 -8718 September 12, 2001 Todd Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tem City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: My Patio Cover Dear Todd: My architect, Dennis LaRoche, thoroughly surveyed my patio cover from all angles and told me this is about aesthetics, not views, as my patio cover is not blocking either neighbors' views. 1 appreciate you calling the City Attorney of Newport Beach who will reverse the penalty and send me a letter. Thank you very much. Regards, po� Gary Quick �)DT l .tor MTRIM'W'LL.d'�U•a,51:tu nx +tv +u. v:y_.......�..; n. • ....... .. .... ........ .. Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 10, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax (949) 644 -3250 Re: Violations in our neighborhood Dear Mel, As our neighbor, Peter Paulette, did not have to be correct when he insisted you come out and check the legal height of my deck, I am asking for equal treatment. We are providing you with addresses of properties that have awnings or structures that appear to exceed 54" and have no permits: 1000 East Balboa Blvd 1022 East Balboa Blvd 1024 East Balboa Blvd 1202 East Balboa Blvd 1401 Bay Ave. East 1411 Bay Ave. East 1413 Bay Ave. East 1415 Bay Ave. East 1501 Bay Ave. East 225 East Bay Front 227 East Bay Front Awning Structure Awning Retractable Structure Awning Awning Awning Structure Awning Awning Also, the Balboa Island market has a retractable awning that far exceeds 54" and hangs dangerously low into the sidewalk area. As we match addresses to dozens and dozens of photographs with potential violations, we will forward these addresses to you for inspection and possible citation. for your prompt attention, 0 Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 18, 2001 Mel Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax(949)644 -3250 Re: Violations in our neighborhood — 2nd Letter Dear Mel, Copies to PatriciaTemple Jay Garcia Steve Hook We are providing you with addresses of properties that have awnings or structures that appear to be in violation of your building codes: 810 Bay Ave. East Awning 1038 Bay Ave. East Awning 1220 Bay Ave. East Structure 1240 Bay Ave. East Structure 1350 Bay Ave. East Structure Bay Ave. East 203 Via Lido Soud Awning 205 Via Lido Soud Structure 209 Via Lido Soud Structure 213 Via Lido Soud Awning 215 Via Lido Soud Awning 219 Via Lido Soud Awning 221 Via Lido Soud Awning 229 Via Lido Soud Awning 231 Via Lido Soud Awning 233 Via Lido Soud Awning 235 Via Lido Soud Awning 237 Via Lido Soud Awning I have received ,2 copies of this letter, one for each of the above named: Page 1 of 2 9/18/01 From: Quick To: Flenner Page 2 of 2 301 Via Lido Soud Awning 309 Via Lido Soud Awning 315 Via Lido Soud Awning 327 Via Lido Soud Awning 329 Via Lido Soud Awning 333 Via Lido Soud Awning 507 Via Lido Soud Structure 515 Via Lido Soud Awning 519 Via Lido Soud Awning 523 Via Lido Soud Awning 535 Via Lido Soud Awning 609 Via Lido Soud Awning 611 Via Lido Soud Awning 617 Via Lido Soud Awning 629 Via Lido Soud Awning 653 Via Lido Soud Awning 751 Via Lido Soud Awning 759 Via Lido Soud Awning 835 Via Lido Soud Awning As we continue to match addresses to dozens and dozens of photographs with potential violations, we will forward these addresses to you for inspection and possible citation. In reference to our last telephone conversation, when you said to me, I need you to at me access, I can either provide you with photos or, I will be more than happy to show these to you by electric boat, at your convenience. It will take less than 2 hours to show you between 30 — 50 violations. As you also said in our last conversation, you had an extremely busy day ahead of you with 2 areas, however, that is no excuse for rude behavior, I do not appreciate you hanging up on me. I have always been respectful to you, and the others at the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your prompt attention, Gary Quick Gary and Barbara Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 673 -8718 September 19, 2001 Met Flenner Certified Building Inspector City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax (949) 644 -3250 Re: Our correspondence dated 9/18/01 - Address corrections. Dear Mel, I mistakenly provided my husband with incorrect addresses: The first 5 addresses were recorded as "Bay Ave. East" on Gary's correspondence of 9/18. The properties are located on West Bay Ave. The correct addresses are fisted below: 810 West Bay Ave. Awning 1038 West Bay Ave. Awning 1220 West Bay Ave. Structure 1240 West Bay Ave. Structure 1350 West Bay Ave. Structure Barbara Quick Copy: Patricia Temple Jay Garcia Steve Hook 11 � ft Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Balboa, CA 92661 Home: 949/673 -8718 October 28, 2001 Jay Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Jay, In the beginning of this awning issue, I asked Mel Flenner to tell me who turned me in. He stated, the information is confidential and the city has a non - disclosure policy. Also in a meeting with Patricia Temple, she assured me that any information that I gathered and gave to the City as proof of similar violations would be kept confidential. In our meeting Wednesday, 10/24 one or more complainants knew about the list of violations I submitted to the City of Newport Beach. The City's disclosure of my list leaves me open to retaliation and violates the City's policy, including my right to privacy. The complainant's comments during this meeting, and the cruel and snide remarks made afterward, clearly prove the issue here is not about views, it's not even about my awning, it's about three people (Peter & Harriet Pallette, and Bill Shepherd) rallying anyone who will listen (from the neighborhood or the yacht club) to go along with their agenda. It was obvious so I'm sure you noticed, some people who attended and wrote letters could not see my awning from their properties. The way they viewed it was by invitation to a get - together at the Pallette's home, which was arranged for the express purpose of viewing my property — I know this because we were home at the time. At the meeting Bill Shepherd's son, who said he was an architect, spoke with such venom over this issue it was impossible to believe all that anger was over this awning. In fact, he made a point to bring up completely unrelated and false accusations about my house not having proper construction and not being built to code. Of course his accusations are untrue. If anything, my remodel was scrutinized even more because of several calls my neighbor's made to the Building Dept. to report their complaints. In spite of their constant interference and the delays it caused, my remodel was completed and signed -off by the inspectors. With this level of neighborhood behavior, and the selective enforcement that erupts out of filed complaints, do you think it was ever possible for me to get a fair ruling? I got my ideas while cruising the bay and viewing similar patio shades. I would like to obtain a copy of the tape- recorded hearing of Oct 24h. I am happy to pay the cost. I will be appealing before the deadline and I would like to discuss this issue with you in person. I will call you for an appointment. Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Hm/949- 673 -8718 Balboa, CA 92661 ofc /562 -592 -1926 October 29, 2001 Jay Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Jay, Thank you for returning my telephone call, and thank you for being willing to have a meeting with me. As I wade through the various Building, Planning & Enforcement Departments it seems that although the laws are in place, they are only enforced at 1208 E. Balboa. I'm becoming more confused about City policies as I continue to observe more and more unenforced violations. Regarding my belief that the list I provided would be kept confidential: Please ask Patricia Temple she will tell you that in our meeting she specifically said the information would be kept confidential — that is an absolute fact. I gave you, Patricia Temple, and Steve Hook a copy of my Sept. 10th violations -list addressed to Mel Flenner as discussed and as I was told to do. We provided you with copies of the list because of the contentious treatment my wife and I received from Code Enforcement - I can prove that if need be. As you are well aware, in the meeting of September 7th, my wife expected to have a meeting with you, but she was blindsided when the meeting began. She was not told the meeting would include Director Pat Temple, Manager Steve Hook, and last but not least the City Attorney. Is this common practice? To make matters worse, let's not forget the threats from Mel Flenner and Steve Hook saying to us since nothing had come across our desk we're going to refer the matter to the City Attorney. At that point we had only written (3) letters and made many telephone calls to Mel and Steve beginning day 1 of our stop work order. But, none the less, we were accused of stonewalling and we were fined $100. Now, you are telling me the list is "public information ". It would appear that we continue to be given conflicting information, and we have been singled out and bullied by the city of Newport Beach all along in this matter. So I am suggesting a meeting with you, and anyone else you would like to bring, at my house so I can show you the violations on people who wrote letters. I will call your secretary later in the week for an appointment at your office or at my home, prior to my appeal deadline of November 16th. Attached is my response to your letter dated 10/24/01. Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Hm/949- 673 -8718 Balboa, CA 92661 Ofc /562 -592 -1926 October 29, 2001 Jay Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Jay, This is my response to your letter dated 10/24/01. Request Denied. "Zoning code restricts beyond 3 feet ". Response: In general, and specifically, that rule is not enforced on the 1200 block of East Balboa and all of Newport Harbor. Findings for Denial. 1. `In this case ". Response: No consistent enforcement of zoning codes. "Only one of it's kind ". Response: According to the statements made on Oct. 246', that would not be considered factual. "Set a precedent for approval of similar requests that could be detrimental to the neighborhood" Response: That would mean all of the sunshades on Lido Island are detrimental. The words "if everybody" were used at the 10/24 meeting, if that were the case, we would be similar to Lido Island. However, I do not necessarily believe that would be the case. Neighbors can have plants, trees, and umbrellas that block views and light — so views are not really protectected and blockage is not enforced. • Generally maintain the required setback and do not extend beyond the original property line of the 1200 block. Response: I believe I can clearly show you — that is not the case with 3 -4 homes on the 1200 block. • "Shadow effect" Not true. The way the sun rises and sets W HOUSE causes the shadow not the sunshade. I don't get to enjoy unobstructed views because of the trees, umbrellas & bushes. My neighbors would not have their umbrellas up all summer if light blockage were the issue. • "Visual impairment that is detrimental" So do trees, bushes, and umbrellas create visual impairment that could be considered detrimental? It seems that much of the wording in your ruling of 10/24 is unique and crafted exclusively for my neighbor's desires, not the building codes. City laws need to be consistent — they are not. Proof The Committee said to me I must use similarities in my defense but all of the similarities I have sited seem to be rejected. I* 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Gary Quick Hm/949- 673 -8718 Balboa, CA 92661 ofc /562 -592 -1926 November 7, 2001 Jay Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Jay, With reference to our meeting last Monday, I will be sending you a letter to outline my understanding of our discussions. And again, I thank you for your time. Jay, I am requesting an extension of time: I would like this next meeting with the board members to be on the January/February calendar if at all possible. Not only are we quickly approaching the holidays, a very busy time in my business, but also my wife and I are trying to adopt a child. Our attorney has advised us to be prepared to leave the state, or travel south of the border, at a moments notice. Your consideration or assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Gary Quick Gary Quick 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Balboa, CA 92661 Home: 949/673 -8718 November 19, 2001 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax: 949/644 -3229 Re: My request for an extension of the December 6`h Modification Appeals Board Dear Mr. Campbell: Before I spoke with you this morning, I had a short visit with Pat Temple in the hallway. I had asked her about the rescheduling and she told me that by law a meeting had to be scheduled within 30 days, however, she said to see you for an extension into the first of the year. I am requesting this extension for the following reasons: Due to the mix -up today, as I said to you on the phone, I was waiting for a return phone call or letter from my November 7`h letter asking for an extension. Nobody from the City called or sent me a letter so I assumed that my request would be granted until January 2002. In reference to our conversation this morning, I can see that my request has not been granted. As I explained to you, my calendar for the week of December 6 is quite full. Along with my adoption situation, I have a fund raiser on Monday 12/3 in the late afternoon/early evening at one of my restaurants. Tuesday 12/4, I have a mediation hearing. Thursday 12/6, the Sunset Beach Community Association has asked me to attend a special meeting. Saturday 12/8, I have a CHOC function to attend as my business is a contributor of teddy bears for children this time of year. I am hoping that the members of the Board will consider my request and reschedule this meeting in either late December or in January 2002. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Gary Quick FROM-: Confidante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Dec. 06 2001 09:32RM P2 Gary Quick 1208 E.. Balboa Blvd. Ofe: 562/592 -1926 Balboa, CA 92661 Homc: 949/673 -8718 December 5, 2001 Ms. Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Sharon: Pax: 949/644 -3229 Pax: 949/644 -3250 I would like to give you an outline of events over the last month that arc somewhat disturbing to me. On 11/7, 1 wrote a letter to .lay Garcia, Senior Planncr, requesting an extension of the 12/6 hearing due to the Christmas holidays and my extremely heavy schedule, and particularly because I have another meeting in Sunset Beach at the Sunset Beach Community Association that conflicts with my meeting at the City Council in Newport Beach. 1 followed up that letter with several phone calls. On 11/19, I received a phone message from Mr. James Campbell in which he threatened to set aside my request because I did not give him the reasons for my appeal and he said 1 did not return the paperwork. 1 called Mr. Campbell and explained to him I not only turned in the paperwork on the 9'", but 1 wrote a letter to Jay Garcia on the 7" asking for a postponement of my hearing until January 2002. 1 told him that 1 was frilly prepared with all of the information and 1 would bring the packages to him right away. I told him that I did not hear from Mr. Garcia and I assnnncd that my request was granted. I stated that I did not understand the constant pressure or threats from the City of Newport Beach. 1 also wrote a request for an extension to Mr. James Campbell that. same day. I told Mr. Campbell that I would bring all the paperwork to his office right away. Al. that time, 1 decided to call pat Temple on my cell phone. She returned my call, however, I ran into her in the hallway where 1 asked her about my request for a continuance. She said, by law, the meeting had to be scheduled within 30 days, but to see Jim Campbell and he can resc cdule the mcetine. When I went to Mr. Campbell, he told me ... I doin't know why she did that. Jay Garcia and 1 went to her and she is the one who said, no, the meeting is going to be 12/6, ignoring my request. She told me that Jim Campbell could take care of the rcQuest for a f to . FROM.: Confidante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Dec. e6 2e01 e9:33RM P3 After Jim Campbell didn't return my phone calls that he promised to return, I called you, Sharon, on 11/30. You told me that you had no problem one way or the other, but referred me to the decision maker, Mr. Larry Tucker. I called Mr. Tucker Monday morning and he told me, as far as lie was concerned, that he was going to hear any opposition, but he would continue me to the January schedule. I asked him what I should do. He said to call you, Sharon, which I did, so you could check with the other members. When I called you on Tuesday 12/4, you told me that due to the Brown Act nobody could talk to the other board members and that it would be in my best interest to show up because of all the complaints. In summary, l have gone from Jay Garcia to Pat Temple who sent me to James Campbell, to Pal Temple, and then to you, Sharon, and from you to Larry Tucker and from Larry back to you, Sharon. As I have let it be known in earlier conversations and /or memos, I always felt that 1 was getting the run- around. Nobody in Ncwnort Beach gave me the courtesy of just saying no in the beginning. F-v_eryone made a decision to wait until less than 48 hours before the hearing to tell me that th rc.,is. no ury that my request would be met and that I nood to be there. I find this extremely unprofessional and downright insulting for the City of Newport Beach to act this way. As I mentioned to you, Sharon, Steve Hook was very it l- mannered toward my wife. She was offended by Mr. Hook's aggressive behavior, threats and improper comments during their two meetings. I could not attend citbcr meeting. in one meeting, my wife was expecting to have a 20 minute talk with Jay Garcia to get answers that we needed. While she was sitting in the conference room, in walked Jay Garcia, Patricia Temple, Steve i -look and one of the city attorneys. is this typically how these meetings are handled? You said to me that during 22 years you have found him to be extremely courteous. I'm sure he would be. 1 believe you would be either his boss or higher up in the Newport. Beach management. Sincerely, Gary Quick CC! Larry Tucker, Fax 949/752 -0885 FROM-: Confidante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Dec. 06 2001 09 MAM PS Gary Quick 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 December .5, 2001 Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Home: 949/673 -8718 Mr. lames Campbell Fax: 949/644 -3229 Senior Planner Fax: 949/644 -3250 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: December Oh Modification Appeals Board Hearing Dear Mr. Campbell: I have left several phone messages for you which have gone unanswered. At this point, l suppose I would expect this due to the way that the City of Newport. Beach has treated my wife and myself. In my phone messages to you, 1 asked if you knew who put the signs on my property in reference to the hearing scheduled for December 61. You have not given me the courtesy of answering that question either by faxing or returning my phone calls. For your information, at your request, I did call Sharon Wood and it was of no particular importance to her at the time whether I was scheduled for the December or January meeting. Just for the record, you did ask me to dill you on Thursday which I did. i also called you Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Y ou have not given me the courtesy of returning any of my calls. The only reason you bothered to call me at my desert home last week is because I called Sharon Wood. I am very sorry that you find it necessary to be disrespectful. As you well know, my wife and I have been extremely courteous throughout all of the negotiations with the Planning Department, the Building Department,and the Building Inspectors. Wehavenot.beengiven the same courtesy. Thank you, Gary Quick cc: Sharon Wood, Fax: 949 /644 -3229 Lany Tucker, Fax 949/752 -0885 FROM.; Confidante Keys PHONE NO. : 6519415 Dec. 06 2001 09:59RM P1 1208 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 December 5, 2001 Gary Quick Ofc: 562/592 -1926 Home: 949/673 -8718 Mr. Larry Tucker Pax: 949/752 -0885 Chairman of the Planning Commission .City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Tucker: Just for the record, as discussed with you on 12/3 over the phone, I have been asking for a continuance since November 7th with several phone calls and follow -up letters to Jay Garcia, Jim Campbell, Pat Temple, Sharon Wood, and also to you. I understand and appreciate the fact that you would allow me to present my case at the January meeting, however, at your direction I went back to Sharon Wood thinking that she would call the other members to get their approval. Her answer to me was that due to the Brown Act, she could not have any contact with them and she strongly urged that I show up at the meeting and that there is no way that it can be rescheduled at this point. I consider this to be not only extremely inconsiderate, but very unprofessional. Theycould tiinaofyge 1 believe this uproar is being caused by neighbors' complaints and people influence connected to the City of Newport Beach. I understand and accept your reasoning that you would rather see all of the awnings come down in Newport Beach ratter than grant me a permit. 1 have no problem with your reasons. The only thing I have ever asked for from anybody at the City of Newport Beach regarding this issue is for fair and equal treat lent. I have not received fair and equal treatment. Nevertheless, l do thank you for your consideration. See you at the meeting. Sincerely, Gary Quick the front yard setback line. Any portion of the lot, including the vacated street, bayward of this line would be within the required front yard by definition and structures proposed therein would need to comply with the applicable encroachment standards. Structures above 3 feet in height, including the applicant's proposed awning, are not permitted without fast securing a Modification Permit. A copy of the Districting Map and an enlarged section is attached to the letter of denial attached to this report as Exhibit No. 1 The existing residence is located at the front setback line, and therefore, the entire awning encroaches within the required front yard The Modifications Committee denied the continued encroachment as it would be the first such encroachment, be used as a precedent for similar requests and impair light and views to the detriment of neighbors. Eight of the remaining 11 property owners in the block submitted letters of opposition. The Peninsula Point Homeowners Association also voiced its opposition to the project. In response, the applicant has submitted a long list of what he contends are similar awnings and shading devices that appear to encroach within front setbacks along the bay. The applicant believes the existence of these similar encroachments proves that the City is selectively enforcing the setback standards. Many of the sites indicated by Mr. Quick are located on Lido Island. Lido Island was granted a Variance in 1960 for shade awnings to encroach in the front yard setback abutting the bay. The Building Department is currently investigating all of the sites identified and has issued several notices of violation. Several cases were found to be permitted and several found to be exempt from permits. Staff believes that the information submitted by the applicant does not present contrary evidence to the findings trade by the Modifications Committee that was based upon the specific facts and circumstances of this case. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Modification's Committee and deny the appeal. The Modifications Committee stipulated that the awning be removed within 30 days of the effective date of the action or other date as indicated by the Planning Commission or City Council. The applicant has submitted a request that consideration of this matter be deferred to January due other personal commitments. The Commission may choose to continue the item to January 3, 2002. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner r all 1. Letter requesting a continuance dated November 20, 2001. 2. Denial letter for Modification Permit No. 2001 -108. 3. Appeal filed November 14, 2001. 4. Project plans CC No. 2001 -017 Appeal December 6, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 Home: 949 - 673 -8718 / fax 949 - 673 -0788 December 7, 2001 Patricia Temple Director, Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Pat, Could you please provide me with the information discussed at the Modification Hearing last night? In particular, the people in the 1100, 1200, and 1300 block that received modification permits. If it is convenient, please fax the information, or I will be happy to come in and pick it up. Pat, for the record, on the morning of 12/61 called Mel Renner to inquire about what I believe to be violations at 1206, 1212, 1214, 1216, & 1218 East Balboa Blvd. At Mel's request, I phoned in these violations to a woman named Susan at 644 -3280, on 10/28. On 12/6 Mel said to me — you will have to call Steve Hook for this information. I called Steve Hook and he said to me — you will have to call Mel Flenner for this information. I told Steve — Mel sent me to you. Steve then said — Well, Mel will have to look up the information for you. I left a message on Mel's voice mail - to please give me the status on these violations. Thank you for your help, Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 Home: 949-673-8718 / Office: 562 -592 -1926 December 7, 2001 James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 fax 949 - 644 -3229 Re: Denial of Modification Permit on the above referenced property. Dear James, I would like to file an appeal to the City Council. If possible, I would also like to obtain 2 of the 12 packages I submitted. Jay Garcia told me that the packages I already submitted would be reusable when I appeal to the City Council. I would appreciate your help. At your convenience, please call me and tell me what I need to do to file this appeal. In addition to my home and office numbers: My pager is 949 - 634 -3230, my mobile is 949 - 436 -0634. Thank you for your help, Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 Hm: (949) 673 -8718 / fax: 673 -0788 January 6, 2002 Steve Hook City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax 644 -3250 Re: My letter to Jim Campbell dated 12/30/01 (forwarded) Dear Steve, Jim Campbell told me that he has turned the above - mentioned letter over to you and to speak with you about obtaining the information requested in that letter. Could you please fax this information to me at your earliest convi Tuesday 1/8 at 4 p.m., as I have a meeting with the City Council. Sincerely, I before Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 Home: 949-673-8718 / fax: 673 -0788 December 30, 2001 I A,,�--- 2,Z, James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 fax 949 - 644 -3229 Re: Report to the planning commission dated 12/6/01 Quick Appeal (PA2001 -190) 1208 East Balboa Blvd. Dear James, On the abovementioned report, page 2 of 2, paragraph 3, it says: "Several cases were found to be permitted and several found to be exempt from permits ". Not only is this statement written in the report but I also recall hearing Patricia Temple say these very words in response to one of Larry Tucker's questions. I am very interested in these findings. Please fax to me the addresses in which permits were granted and the addresses that were found to be exempt from needing a permit. Thank you for your help, Gary Quick Gary Quick 1208 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 Home: 949-673-8718 / fax: 673 -0788 January 6, 2002 James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 fax 949 - 644 -3229 Dear Jim, On December 19t`, when I filed an application to appeal the decision of the planning commission with the city clerk, I gave Lavonne five (5) packages. She put them in 5 of the 7 City Council Members mailboxes. Could you please provide her with two (2) more packages that you have, for the remaining 2 City Council Members? Thank you for your help, tXft) Gary nick HP Fax Series 900 Fax History Report for Plain Paper Fax/Copier Jan 06 2002 11:44am D= Time Jan 6 11:44am Sent Result: UK - black and white fax Identification ;., , S? 0:26 1 OK