Two second-story rulings are separate from one another

Walt Davenport

I believe your Thursday editorial (“Home-addition options must be

kept open”) missed the mark with regard to the Planning Commission’s

denial of a second-story addition on Sumatra Place at Monday’s

meeting.

I don’t believe that any of the five votes to deny this addition

was a vote against second-story additions in general or specifically

against the concept of a second-story at this location.

In my 22 years as a planning commissioner, I have frequently

defended homeowners’ rights to add a second story to a single-story

home. In casting my vote against this particular project, I made it

clear in my comments that the vote had to do with the mass and

placement of the proposed addition and not with the issue of it being

second story.

At least two other commissioners made comments specifically

stating that their votes for denial were not votes against the right

to build second-story additions.

It was even suggested to the homeowner that the commission would

be willing to review an alternative plan which, while still being

two-story, would reduce the impact on adjacent properties.

I believe your editorial chose two recent, unrelated actions --

one by the City Council and one by the Planning Commission -- and

extrapolated these to be a policy shift with regard to a homeowner’s

right to add a second story. I don’t believe this to be the case.

These were simply two unrelated items, dealing with issues that went

well beyond the single issue of two-story additions, that happened to

occur close together in time. Don’t blow it out of proportion.

* WALT DAVENPORT is a Costa Mesa planning commissioner.