HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Conditional Approval of Use Permit 93-90 - Seacliff CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
June 28, 1994
Seacliff Partners
520 Broadway, Suite 100
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Gentlemen:
The City Council of the.City of Huntington Beach at its adjourned regular meeting held Monday,
June 20, 1994, sustained the appeal filed by Councilmember Sullivan, denied Use Permit
No. 93-90, accepted the alternative grading plan that avoids the need for the retaining wall based
on findings of fact contained in Attachment No. 7 of the Request for Council Action dated
June 20, 1994(attached).
This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of
the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from June 28, 1994 to
apply to the courts for judicial review.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office-536-5227.
Sincerely,
Connie Brockway, CMC
City Clerk
CB:cc
Enclosure
cc: City Attorney
Community Development Director
City Administrator
g:cc\90dayltr
(Telephone:714536-5227)
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
USE PERMIT NO 93-90
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- USE PERMIT 93-90.
l. The establishment and maintenance of retaining perimeter walls will be detrimental
to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity, and be
detrimental to property values and improvements in the area. The perimeter walls
will adversely impact surrounding residential properties by creating an offensive
view.
2. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed retaining walls does not
properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent
structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The retaining walls will impact the
abutting property by,resulting in up to a 5.9 foot high grade differential.
3. The granting of Use Permit No. 93-33 will adversely affect the General Plan of the
City of Huntington Beach. The proposed retaining walls are not consistent with
the Estate Residential land use designation of the General Plan.
r Pu Mai ENTNn
•
Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 94.6
exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or
its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any
other papers in the case.
(d) Jf the petitioner files a request for Ihr record ns specified in
.subdivision (c) within 10 days after the dale the decision becomes fi-
ned aN provided in subdivision (b), the time within which a pelilitnl
put:want to Section 109•1.5 inlay he filed shall he extended to not later
than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either
personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec-
ord, if he has one.
(e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin-
istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis-
missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application
for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire-
ment benefit or allowance.
(f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the
local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within
which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section.
As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em-
ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person
whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a
permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for
a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied.
(g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the
governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this
section applicable. If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the
provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting-provision
in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter.
(Added by Stats.197G, c.276,p.581, § 1.)
Forms
See Califoruin Code Formn, Civil Procedure.
Library References
Adminir•trative Law and Prove-lure C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and
C-T=. Procedure 1 193.
Notes of Decisions
In general I that intblie cmploytnent rrlatlons I-onrd
Exhaustion of administrative remedies 2 had exi•InAvo Jurisdietion to determine
whriher the unfair pructice charges were
Inxlified.. nod, in view of trackers' failure
In rxlaoct their ndlniniAtrative remedies
I. In general under Ihr liod-ht Act, trial court erred in
Selimd board's voilat-•rul frer•rtnt; of granting writ of nnwdute to compel snper-
teaeher.' subirirm after bel;iotdog of new inteadent of distrirl nod others to rutsr
srhnol Year. %viiile ennlrnel uet;otimitoix saheb•% of vertnin teno ra. Atttndor Vul-
weri• iuvaliog. orruuhly wtis an unfair to-y 8-•i1,nabtry Eduentors Ass'u %. Newlin
prucliee its t•iolutiou of tho Itoddu Art nu (1979) aril Cul.Iiptr. 724, `,f.'S C.A.3d 251.
675
§ 1094.5 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Part 3
Note 378
11.1111416,11 for new trial dr ante.. Presrod t. mioe,l emm, i.—inner lined ou jurisdirlinn
t'alifornin 1'armpinyou•ut Iws, .\i peals itd. and did ooi doerrtdlrr nu-ritm, \\'ratern Air
(111,d) 1:17 ('ul.nplr. G11►, .57 t'..\.ad 29. lJoex Inc. Y. Sobieski (I1161) 12 Cnl.l(ptr.
Trial court'x Jndgoteal dewing writ of 71i), 1111 V.A.=d 309.
ntntulute to compel director of ngrirultoru Imes that letter dimcharging xeaior type
to set amide him derision rm-oking prtitimt• Ist clerk in office of vouol} clerk slated
ei s lirenme as aircraft post ill huminumm of Ihnt she wax guilly of a,iscondurt in re-
lies[ control wall rrcermed and cnxe re- moving publie recornlm front tho files and
atnnded to trial court with direetionx to mmlilating and mecreting them on vnrious
remand raso to director for purpose of tlutem, wherenx ill hcaring before couuly
i ret»ttxideriug the penalty previously im• civil mervice comtnimxiun evidence wens in•
posed, where it was found thnt some of traduced only ns to what look place on
the charges nitninxt petitioner worn not ono of the dates, did ant require the dill-
xapported by evidence. \\•ingffrbl v. trio court of appeal on nl.pral front judge
Director of Agriculture (11172) It* Cal. ment awnrding seufor typi..,t clerk writ of
Ifptr,019,29 C.A.3t1 20f). ntondnte, nftee reversing tl;o Judgmeut of
Proceedfug for review of dt•oinl by root- the superior enurt, to remnnd the matter
mimeloner of corporations of permit to to the commimsion for re••onsideration.
rhnnge voting rights, of mlotrrhoiderm whore there w•nx n siulilrtrity of facts xur-
would he remonded to mnperior court for runnding removaldocuments
of the ocuents un all
deterailnnritnt tvhothcr there ��nx subst:m= of the dales. 1'rmit v. Lam Angrlex Coun-
ty Civil Service Comtnisaiou (1952) 23►1
tial evidence to mupport coauafsaioner'8 11:2d 3.1U5 C.Aad 114,
fiudinea, where court improperly deter-
§ 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition;
filing; time; record; decision and tarty defined; or-
dinflnce or resolution
(a) Judicial review of any decision of a loom agency, other than
school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of
the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent
thl reof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if
i. the petition for writ;of mandate pursuant to such section is filed
'within the time limits specified in this section.
(b). Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day
following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no
provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi-
sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section,
the decisb:;11 is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision
for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec-
tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera-
tion can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu-
alit to.any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this
section on the date that reconsideration is rejected.
(c) The complele rrvord of the proceedings shall Ix- prepared by
till! kwal rtgenry or its vollimis!-ion, 1)t1nrd, offlver, or rl).ent which
inade the decision and shrill be delivered to the petitioner within 90
days sifter he has filed a written request therefor. The Ideal agency
may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or
otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tran-
Script of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any
proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted
674
t
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date: June 6, 1994
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrato +'ONN11T-11-
E9ED
COUNCIL
Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Dev
...---•-----.Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISS PEAL-------
APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 93-90
Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
u!c 2rc . .
to /� �i Qo yb�n ed A/r/�ehie�C/s� �7 /Y- 93-90
S ATEMENT OF I� f % 41
7117dh,1s
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal, by Councilmember Dave Sullivan, of the Planning
Commission's conditional approval of Use Permit No. 94-90. The request by Seacliff Partners is
to permit the construction of a continuous retaining wall that ranges 4'to 6.7' in height along the
northerly property lines of 15 single family residential lots (lots 48 through 62 of Tract 14009)
located approximately 550 feet north of Garfield Avenue, between Saddleback Lane and
Goldenwest Street.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation:
Motion to: "Sustain the Planning Commission's action and approve Use Permit No. 93-90
with findings and conditions of approval" (see Attachment No. 4).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON MAY 3, 1994:
THE MOTION MADE BY INGLEE, SECONDED BY NEWMAN, TO APPROVE USE
PERMIT NO.93-90 WITH FINDINGS(Attachment No. 4) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: GORMAN, INGLEE, DETTLOFF, RICHARDSON, NEWMAN
NOES: KERINS, BIDDLE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
MOTION PASSED
ANALYSIS:
Back round
In September of 1991, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map No. 14009, Conditional
Use Permit No. 90-47 and Conditional Exception 90-35 for a 128 lot single family master plan of
development, which included a potential school site. The variance approval included exceptions
to the two (2) foot cut and fill limitation, minimum lot width, and allowing for greater than a ten
(10) percent deviation for front yard setbacks. Four(4) lots were approved to exceed the two
foot cut and fill limit in the vicinity of Edwards and Garfield.
On July 7, 1992, the Commission approved Conditional Exception No. 90-35(R), a revised
request to exceed the cut and fill limitation on 20 additional lots. The developer submitted the
revised variance request as a result of engineering and drainage concerns discovered after the
initial Planning Commission action. The approved grading exhibits depicted slopes along the rear
property line of lots 48-62. The developer now requests retaining walls up to the height of the
approved building pad, and filling in the rear "slope" to allow for a flat back yard and drainage
toward the front (street).
On January 5, 1994 the Zoning Administrator referred this request to the Planning Commission
because they reviewed the original tract map. Since the Zoning Administrator meeting, the
applicant has revised his wall plan, reducing the number of wall height exceptions from 29 lots to
15 lots to reduce impacts to adjoining residences.
Project Description
The proposed retaining walls will be constructed of precision block material and topped with a six
(6) foot high combination split face/precision block wall. The total linear footage is approximately
1200 feet. The wall conforms with the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Design Guidelines and
with wall materials and colors for the perimeter wall plan for the tract previously approved by the
Design Review Board.
Presently, the applicant has a grading plan conceptually approved by the Planning Commission,
depicting slopes at the rear of 15 residential lots that taper to the same grade level as the property
to the north. A small swale traverses the residential lots to avoid drainage onto the American
Landscape Supply property to the north and for drainage purposes to Saddleback Lane. The
property has been graded but no homes have been constructed. The proposed continuous
retaining wall along the northerly property line of these 15 residential lots will allow the sloped
areas to be elevated (filled with dirt)to the same grade level as the building pad.
By allowing the lots to be graded at an even level, a greater amount of usable back yard area
(open space)will result. In addition, the modified grade will eliminate the need for any drainage
easements across the rear of the residential lots, or onto the American Landscape Supply
property. Surface water runoff will drain from the rear to the front of these lots and onto the
street as in any other subdivision. If the use permit is not approved, the single family residences
will still be built.
Zoning Compliance
The proposed walls require approval of a use permit because they exceed the two (2) foot
retaining wall height limit specified in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The code does
allow deviations to the height limit by approval of a use permit. If approved, the applicant will be
permitted to place a six(6) foot high screen wall on top of the 6.7 foot high retaining wall for a
total height of 12.7 feet.
In terms of entitlement processing, the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan specifies that all
development proposals receive approval of a Conditional Use Permit (master plan of
development) and a Tentative Tract Map. Conditional Use Permits require submittal of site plans,
floor plans, cross-section profiles and private open space areas for each lot, thus establishing the
maximum building envelope for each lot. A Tentative Tract Map application requires submittal of
a tentative map, a rough grading plan and depiction of all existing mature trees within the
proposed subdivision. Amendments to a Conditional Use Permit (master plan of development)
previously approved by the Planning Commission may be approved by the Commission pursuant
to a Site Plan Amendment with public hearing.
The applicant complied with these requirements for processing with the submittal and approval of
the original tract map, conditional use permit and variance in 1991. In 1992, there was a revised
variance request pertaining to grading that was processed and approved without a revision to the
tract map or conditional use permit, or site plan amendment because there were no revisions
proposed to the previously approved lot lines and street alignments (tract map), nor to the site
plan layout for each lot (conditional use permit). A site plan amendment is only required when
there is a revision to the master plan of development that reduces building setbacks, increases
building envelopes, adjusts lot lines, or revises street configurations. If there is a substantial
revision or a density increase, then a new conditional use permit must be submitted. Once an
entitlement is approved, subsequent actions are subject to applicable provisions of the code.
A couple of years ago, a homeowner of an adjoining developed tract had requested a variance to
the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill provision to fill in the rear sloping area of their back yard in
order to better utilize the space. The variance was approved. A site plan amendment to the
originally approved tract map and conditional use permit was not required because this did not
reflect a change to the master plan of development.
This request is to install retaining walls that exceed a maximum of two (2) feet in height. There is a
process outlined in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code that requires a Use Permit, notification of
surrounding property owners, and a public hearing. The applicant is adhering to that process.
Planning Commission Meeting
On May 3, 1994, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Use Permit No. 94-90 for the
continuous perimeter retaining wall. Four(4) people testified in opposition to the request, stating that
the grading was not conforming to the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan cut and fill requirements. They
further stated that the present grading would adversely impact their properties and property values.
The applicant spoke in support of the request, stating that the retaining wall would allow for better
drainage and a larger usable area on the lots, while minimizing impacts to adjacent properties. Mr.
Ronald Brindle, property owner of the American Landscape Supply business, also spoke in favor of the
request, and had submitted a letter supporting the walls.
Staff explained that the proposed walls were not adjacent to any existing residences, and that the
abutting property owner, Mr. Ronald Brindle, had no objection to the walls. Staff further reported that
the proposed walls would alleviate any drainage easements across the rear of the lots and onto the
American Landscape Supply property.
Reasons for Appeal
Councilmember Dave Sullivan appealed the Planning Commission action because he believes the
proposed retaining walls are necessitated by the grading of the area. He requested final action be taken
following the outcome of a neighborhood meeting with Planning Commission representatives.
Neighborhood Meeting
On Thursday, May 19, 1994, representatives of the Country View Estate Homeowners Association,
Seacliff Partners (applicant), Planning Commission, and City staff met to discuss the grading on Tract
14009 (Hamptons). The first issue discussed at the meeting involved the 1982 topographical map
referenced in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and its consistency with the elevations depicted on the
approved tract map. It was concluded that the base line heights on the approved tract map were
consistent with the 1982 topographical map.
Interpretation of the two (2) foot cut and fill limitation was also brought up for discussion. Staff
explained the lot averaging method that was used by establishing the highest and lowest point on each
lot, calculating its average grade, and analyzing whether the proposed lot/building pad was within two
feet, plus or minus, of the original grade. If a specific lot involved a cut or fill of more than two (2) feet
from the average original grade, a variance(conditional exception) was required for that lot. The key
element is that the approved plan identified the ultimate pad height (elevation).
Representatives of the homeowners association contested the use of averaging, arguing that the
specific plan does not allow for averaging. They further stated that the Planning Commission staff
report did not mention the use of averaging. Staff replied by informing the participants that
averaging was a common engineering practice when determining base elevations. In the case of
Tract No. 14009, averaging was permitted due to the relatively flat terrain on the south end of the
quartersection. The plan approved by the Planning Commission identified lot pad height
(elevation)based upon averaging.
Finally, a question was asked as to whether one would notice a significant difference if averaging
was not used. Staff responded by stating that the view from the street would not look much
different, however there would obviously be a difference if one was standing on the American
Landscape Supply property. It should be noted, however, that there are currently no residences
located north of the proposed retaining wall. Due to hydrology requirements for proper water
runoff, any development proposed on those lots will most likely require elevating the parcels to
match the adjacent grade elevations.
Summary
Based on the fact that the approved pad height by the Planning Commission in 1992 will remain
the same, with the only difference being the additional fill in the rear to provide drainage to the
front, staff supports the request. The request will avoid drainage onto and across adjacent
properties while providing a larger usable area in the back yard. The proposed walls will be
installed in a manner to minimize any visual impact to surrounding properties when they are
developed.
Environmental Status:
The project is exempted under Section 15305, Class 5 of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may make the following motion:
A. "Overturn the Planning Commission's action by denying Use Permit No. 93-90 with
findings (Attachment No. 7)."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site plans, grading exhibits and wall profiles dated March 22, 1994
3. Appeal letter dated May 9, 1994 from Councilmember Dave Sullivan
4. Narrative
5. Planning Commission Notice of Action
6. Planning Commission Staff Report Summary Page dated May 3, 1994
7. Alternative Findings for Denial
MTU:MSF:WC
(gArca's\cd94-32)
V
g
m
MC FAO BN
CENTER
.00 — — — — EDTKGER.
• ' HEII.
WARNER
♦ ♦ SLATER
7
�(+' TALBERT
♦ ELLIS z g
•` m
.CARFIELD
WALL � - - - - •
YORKTOWN
/
XAMS
.i .I.
/OHDIANAFOL03
, \ /
' ATLANTA
w
3--
HAMEM IN JRAMMTON
o /
c
c
BANNING
/
/
Adft UP 93-90
ATTA
CHMENT NO. -z
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
ELLIS - GOLDENWEST
QUARTER SECTION EXHIBIT
� J
11 76 I R f i 1410
IPP I
111 R O.M.90 IR2 I I
ru
I
IR [I II 70 --T-111
Io
In CT 140 5THE 107.
l'tlRl� ` —
IR n
TAR I1q!
y 1 73
4 IRA I
WAUS
• A
11 �RdPoS��
�CT
rRR[T 1 *001
—
r :-
TRACT• I;aIR
REVISIONS REFERENCES TIIP PLANNING EXHIBIT FOR O
o _ , KE,MI ELLIS/GOLDENWEST 1/4 SECTION
sN111 na I a I
d'-ceF 91 IMO CY?
I
Z07 A/0. 48 /-07 MO. 49 LOT MO. 5o Z07 A/0. Si Z07-A/0. Z07' M0. 58 Z07 A/0.
rW.-71.7
Irl.w.•47
-7
---------- ------------------
--------------- ------ ---------- --Z
----------------
UIAZZ A10 3 (200WIA16 5041711)
-1 07',Vl%
Z07'A10.
P.,
4 -7�—7`
- -
1. 171 --".7
TR MEM/7-Z
VZ
77' L 1
WALL A10, 4 WALL A10. 9 WALL NO. 6 WALL NO. 7 WALL A10. 3 MAZZ A/0. 4
(zooklma r aesr) (LOOlt-W& R/,-S;r) (L OOKIM6 Alle) (Z00AM16 51e) (I-00WIA16 eA57-) (ZOOWIA16 &A57)
,ILOT NO. 55 zor mo. 5G LOT M0. O LOT NO. 68 407-A10. 59 Z07-A10. O LOT A10. Gl GOT A10. 62
7 7 1.... .. 70,,W. 47.7
__z
........ ------------ --------
--- n//Wi--
AlegZlIze ACA RIA Z Z A10 4 r-1 00leIA16 504(177-1)
r
;Zw
REVISIONS REFERENCES WALL
7,&NrAr1i14' r&ACr/4009
—--cI—TYOF HUNTINGTON BEACH SHEET No.7
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
0
ir
0 :
I1
See aweer 3
r I
��nw (rRAc-ENT/4L [075 STREET SC6Nc
* 7.4ACT/NTSR/OR) (TR.4CT EXTERlOR�
LL,
07
J
-
i
iv,4LL SC//EO!/LE n
iclrl� Irrlril � �i ml...I�.ws..lc Ell
—Ir ...._
lei s J I a'I A i a'I �cceila•�/s'I/s'I:t'll•a s �FREi'/Z/ON
/y � � - � Cr—5a/T FACE.4YGYX/'ACE _
pR6C/y/ON lvzOC1; FACt A
NOTE:RETAINING WALLS SHOWN HEREIN
_ SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED-PER SEPARATE _:_- ____ eroee 7a da.gcR iaNbELES ecocx ea.-o�eie)�G7.0576
APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITS. �eLKOR �TO.e N9�O0M6GYUM avT
hldh'UF-7CTU?GD/N iUN{GiLGr"};CA.PCANT
_ RETtd/il/A1/G AW-1-1 OET�f/LS 0
A46240R 7a.-'MTC1/,O404X M4TR/X COCOA.Aar
-
�VJr_�MMIAL5 !-LTom{/L. _
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
IRVINE_ INC. -- - d -- --
. - - - THREE HUGHES - _ -
IRVINE. CA 92718 -
(714) 583_1010 - RtrV/h00: -
M
O
igEO.AEC.M':EC f.(S,.(gv:51'J.J WE w\ .•
FENCE--- AND . ;WALL PLAN -
-»«Eo T�.VTAT/(/E TRAC7 .A1,o 009
: :, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SHEET No. g oF7
WE. OEPGFTMENT OF PtIBLTC WORKS Z
A-
-
.T HM NT-NO-�
r
InterOffice Memo
To: Recipient
From: Dave Sullivan,City Council Member Z),5
Date: May 9, 1994
Subject: Appeal to Planning Commission Decision
Use Permit 93-90-Perimeter Retaining Wall
Appeal of Use Permit 93-90 from the Planning Commission Agenda of May 3, 1994.
The retaining walls are necessitated by the grading of the area. Adjacent homeowners,as well as some of
the Planning Commissioners have raised questions about the grading. A Planning Commission sub-
committee has been formed to look into the matter. Action on Use Permit No. 93-90 should be delayed
until the subcommittee makes its report.
CC: City Council
City Administrator
Community Development Director
LO
r
C
N _ �
"'O n
� a
r
L ?'
ATTACHMENT NO., >
4*
Seadiff Partners
A jo''nt venture of Pacific Coast Homes and U.M.C.Development Corp.
March 4, 1994
m
MAR 0 4 1994;.--
Mr. Wayne Carvalho
Community Development Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: Use Permit No. 93-90; Revised Plans
Dear Wayne:
Please accept this letter as Seacliff Partners' formal request to revise the above-referenced use
permit application to eliminate retaining walls in excess of two feet within the portion of
approved Tentative Tract Map No. 14009 located west of Saddleback Lane, as discussed with
you on February 16, 1994.
We understand that approval of a use permit is still required for the portion of the tract
located east of Saddleback Lane per our original application, and would appreciate your
assistance in scheduling this item for the April 5, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
Very truly yours,
William D. Holman
Project Manager
cc: Robert Franklin
Tom Zanic
Bryan Elliott
Tom McGannon
ATTACHMENT NO.�&,
❑ 520 Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 394-3379 Fax (310) 394-6872
,K'_23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 721-9777 Fax (714) 729-1214
Urban West (!#Ommunities
. . .. ... . ...
.. .. . . . . .
.
.... ... ... . .. .
. .. ... . . ..
November 16, 1993
TRACT 14009
WRITTEN NARRATIVE - USE APPLICATION
A)
REASON FOR INITIATING APPLICATION:
To request an administrative review of the perimeter
retaining walls and 6 ' freestanding walls.
B)
AREA DESCRIPTION AND POPULATION SERVED BY THE PROPOSED
USE OR PROJECT:
The existing site is proposed residential. The
surrounding land is commercial and residential land use.
Population served will be present and future residents of
the Huntington Beach Community.
C)
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND SERVICES:
108 single family residential units services provided as
conditioned on tentative tract 14009 .
D)
DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING USES:
The area surrounding the project consists of single
family residences and a nursery.
ATTACHMENT N0, b•.
520 Broadway, Suite 100 Santa Monica, California 90401
(310) 394-3379 Fax (310) 394-6872
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
•
P.O. Box 190 California 92648
Date: May 6, 1994
NOTICE OF ACTION
A12121ican : Seacliff Partners, 520 Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Subiect: USE PERMIT NO. 93-90 (REFERRED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR)
Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on
May 3. 1994 and your request was:
WITHDRAWN
APPROVED
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS XX (see attached).
DISAPPROVED
TABLED
CONTINUED UNTIL
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code, the action taken by the Planning
Commission is final unless an appeal is filed to the City Council by you or an interested party.
Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon
which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be
accompanied by a filing fee of twelve hundred ($1,200) dollars and be submitted to the City
Clerk's office within ten(10) days of the date of the Commission's action.
In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is May 13, 1994
Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any application becomes null
and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started.
ATTACHMENT NO. -
(pcc1007-3)
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
P.O. 90X 190 CALIFORNIA 92646
Ma}. 6. 1994
Seacliff Partners
520 Broadway. Suite 100
Santa Monica. CA 90401
SUBJECT: USE PERIMIT NO. 93-90 (REFERRED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR)
REQUEST: To permit the construction of a continuous retaining wall that ranges 4.0
feet to 6.7 feet in height along the north property line of 15 single family
residences pursuant to Section 9771 (1) of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code.
LOCATION: 18961 Goldenwest Street (along the northerly propem- line of lots 48
through 62 of Tract No. 14009, located approximately �60 feet north of
Garfield Avenue betxeen.S add]ebacl: and Goldenwest)
DATE OF
ACTION I.: 'May 2. 1994
FI\DINGS FOR APPROVAL -_USE PERMIT 013-90:
1. The establishment and maintenance of up to 6.7 foot high perimeter retaining walls %,,7ill
not be detrimental to the eeneral welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity,
nor be detrimental to propem values and improvements in the area. The proposed
perimeter walls are not adjacent to existing residences and will not adversely impact the
existing American Landscape Supply business.
2. The location. site layout. and design of the proposed retaining walls properly adapts the
proposed structures to streets. drive\,,-a\-s, and other adjacent structures and uses in a
harmonious manner. The retaining walls will allow for proper drainage of the new
subdivision while minimizing any impact to the abutting properties. Furthermore, the
\walls and additional gradin_ NN-ill provide a greater usable area on lots 48-62 of Tract
14009.
ATTACHMENT N0. -6L
(pcc1007-10)
Use Permit No. 93-90
Page Two
3. The granting of Use Permit No. 93-90 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the
City of Huntington Beach. The proposed retaining walls will be compatible with the
adjacent Landscape Supply and vacant properties when developed. The walls will
provide a larger usable area for the new estate homes which is consistent with the Estate
Residential land use designation of the General Plan.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 93-90:
1. The site plan, grading exhibits, and wall elevations received and dated March 22, 1994
shall be the conceptually approved layout.
2. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and
initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of
Public Works.
3. Building permits shall be obtained for all walls. .The site plan shall include (or reference
page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim.
4. All previous conditions of approval on Tentative Tract Map No. 14009, Conditional Use
Permit No. 90-47, and Conditional Exception No. 93-35(R) shall remain in effect.
5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Use Permit No. 93-90 if any
violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs.
6. Use Permit No. 93-90 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1)year of
the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning
Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a
minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date.
CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid.
2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances,
and standards.
3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code,
Building Division, and Fire Department.
ATTACHMENT NO.
(pcc1007-11)
Use Permit No. 93-90
Page Three
I hereby certify the Use Permit No. 93-90 (referred by the Zoning Administrator)was approved
by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on May 3, 1994 upon the
foregoing findings and conditions. This approval represents conceptual approval only; detailed
plans must be submitted for review and the aforementioned conditions completed prior to final
approval.
Sincerely,
Howard Zelefsky, Secretary
Planning Commission
by: '
Scott Hess
Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT N�. �,.
(pcc1007-12)
Huntington Beach Department of Community Development
STAFF REFORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAY 3, 1994
USE PERMIT NO. 93-90
(REFERRED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR)
(Tract 14009 Perimeter Retaining Walls)
Use Permit No. 93-90 is a request to permit the construction of a continuous retaining wall that
ranges 4.0 feet to 6.7 feet in height along the north property line of 15 single family residential
lots (48-62 of Tract No. 14009 adjacent to American Landscaping business) in lieu of the
maximum allowable height of two (2) feet. Section 9771(1) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code specifies that any deviation from wall height limitations may be permitted subject to
approval of a Use Permit. The applicant is requesting higher retaining walls in order to add dirt
to the rear of the lots to prevent drainage onto and across the rear of adjacent properties, and to
provide a larger usable area in the back of those lots. If approved, a screen wall up to six (6) feet
in height will be built on top of the retaining wall. On January 5, 1994,the Zoning
Administrator reviewed the request and referred it to the Planning Commission.
The Huntington Beach Zoning Administrator referred the use permit to the Planning
Commission because he felt that since the Commission reviewed the original tract, that they
should review this request. By installing the retaining walls and filling the rear of the lots, better
drainage around the homes to the front of each lot, and into the storm drain will occur. The
modified drainage pattern will also avoid any drainage easements across the rear of the lots.
Staff supports the applicant's request because the retaining walls and grading will not adversely
impact abutting properties or property values. The walls will abut, for the most part,the
American Landscape Supply business and other vacant encyclopedia lots to the north; no
existing residences are located adjacent to the proposed retaining walls.
B � 3
A- ACHMENTNOa
•
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
USE PERMIT NO 93-90
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- USE PERMIT 93-90:
1. The establishment and maintenance of retaining perimeter walls will be detrimental
to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity, and be
detrimental to property values and improvements in the area. The perimeter walls
will adversely impact surrounding residential properties by creating an offensive
view.
2. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed retaining walls does not
properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent
structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The retaining walls will impact the
abutting property by resulting in up to a 5.9 foot high grade differential.
3. The granting of Use Permit No. 93-33 will adversely affect the General Plan of the
City of Huntington Beach. The proposed retaining walls are not consistent with
the Estate Residential land use designation of the General Plan.
ATTAICHMENT N�a
•
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTING70N BEACH
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrato
From: Melanie S. Fallon, Director Community velopment
Louis Sandoval, Director Public Works /
,,e�4-t
Date: June 2, 1994
Subject: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14009 -
GRADING ISSUES
On April 9, 1994, Councilman Leipzig requested a report on the grading of Ellis-
Goldenwest Tentative Tract No. 14009 (the Hamptons). This tentative tract includes the
conveyance of 8.863 acres of property to the Huntington Beach School District from
Seacliff Partners. The request was for a report on possible inconsistencies with City
grading policies as they relate to this subdivision.
The following analysis is intended to answer questions and address issues raised by
members of the public at the last City Council meeting. Some of the identified issues were
discussed at a Planning Commission Sub-Committee meeting held on May 19, 1994, and
attended by interested homeowners, SeacliffPartners, two Planning Commissioners and
staff. Minutes of that meeting are attached.
Policies Guidinn Development
The City's General Plan, Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan are the documents which regulate development within the subject quartersection. Many of
_ the policies contained in these documents are competing with one another. The role of the..
Planning Commission is to balance the competing policies through the public hearing_
-- process. For Tentative Tract No. 14009, it was the Planning Commission's responsibility
to balance the need for adequate and proper drainage with the Specific Plan-policy of
minimizing alteration of the natural terrain. The Planning Commission ultimately
approved variances on 24 lots to the two (2) foot cut and fill limitation in an effort to
facilitate adequate drainage. Without the variance approvals, drainage of this project _
would have been across lots. Experience has shown that such-cross-lot drainage leads to
maintenance problems for future homeowners.
_ _ - TTACHMENT NO, L_ -
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 2, 1994
Page Two
Lot Averazina and Variances
Natural landforms always have some variation in vertical elevation over any given
horizontal distance. In the flatter areas of Huntington Beach that variation might be on
the order of one foot vertical change over a horizontal distance of 1,000 feet; this is
almost flat. In the hilly parts of the City that variation might be on the order of one foot of
vertical change over a horizontal distance of five feet. In either case, the ground elevation
of two points situated one foot apart will be different. In the flat area case, the difference
will be very small; in the hilly case, the difference will be much greater. Typical grading
design for residential development also results in a variation of finish grade elevations over
any given horizontal distance. This is done to allow drainage runoff to flow one way or
another, and to minimize the amount of earth material that needs to be moved from one
place to another. Therefore, if one wishes to evaluate natural terrain or grading design,
within a given outlined area, then some form of averaging must be used. Otherwise one
would have to look at an infinite number of points that vary, to some degree, from
adjacent points. In order to reduce otherwise indeterminate problems to manageable task,
various methods have been employed and accepted within the industry for determining
"mean proportions" or"medial sums" that represent otherwise unequal quantities, also
referred to as averages (Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged fifth). Some of these methods
are as follows:
1. Use centroid of area being evaluated.
'2. Take mean of corners of regular shaped polygon.
In deciding what method of averaging to employ, one must take into consideration the
purpose of the evaluation, uniformity of terrain or design grades over the area to be
evaluated, and the resources available to accomplish the evaluation. With these factors
defined, one can make a judgment as to which method of averaging to use, and over how
large an area to average. One must also be aware that topographic mapping of terrain; as
used in such an evaluation, usually represents average elevations as determined from aerial
photographs taken from a height of roughly 30 times the scale of the map; e.g., a 40 scale .
map made from photos taken at 1,200 feet. Contours shown on a topographic map are
considered acceptable if the contours are within 1/2 contour interval of actual ground
elevations;-e.g., the contours on a map with-two foot contours could vary by one foot
from the actual ground elevations. -
All tracts approved within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area after the adoption of
the Specific Plan have been evaluated by some method of averaging in order to determine
_ compliance with the two (2) foot cut and fill limitation. Staff has reviewed numerous
tracts within the Ellis-Goldenwest quartersection and has determined that the Planning
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 2, 1994
Page Three
Commission had granted variances to either the subdivider or individual homeowners.
Typically, a homeowner with a terraced lot who wants to add a pool would most likely
require a variance.
Site Plan Amendment or Variance
Another question raised by the grading of Tentative Tract No. 14009 concerns what
planning action is needed to allow a project design to deviate from zoning regulations.
Variances -A variance is a permit issued to a landowner by an Administrative Agency
to construct a structure, carry on an activity or deviate from a development standard
(other than density or use), not otherwise permitted under the zoning regulations. The
statutory justification for a variance is that the owner would otherwise suffer unique
hardship under the general zoning regulations because his or her particular parcel is
different from others to which the regulation applies, due to size, shape, topography or
location (Government Code Section 65906).
The concept is not that the basic zoning provision is being changed, but that the
property owner is allowed to use his or her property in a manner consistent with
established regulations with such minor variations which will place him in parity with
other property owners. Variances are, in effect, constitutional safety valves to permit
,adjustments when applications of a general regulation would be confiscatory or
-produce unique hardship. Therefore, cities in California are mandated to offer
property owners a variance process that will grant relief from a particular development
standard.
Site Plan Antendinent- Is a process which is used to modify an approved Master Plan
of Development. This process would apply to changes in building layout, massing,
new street alignments,.or alteration of boundaries of the site. Approval of a site plan
amendment is intended to produce no significant changes to the project, but at the
-same time, requires that the amendment improve the development. The use of the
property shall remain the same without a change in density.
The.applicatiori of a specific entitlement process must coincide with the request being
made by the property owner. The City must provide a property_owner with a
procedure where the findings could logically apply to the request-. For example, if an
applicant wanted to modify the number of units in an approved project, then a site plan
amendment would not be the proper vehicle, because the-findings could not be made.
The City is obligated to allow a property owner to file a new conditional use permit.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 2, 1994
Page Four
Conclusions
After careful 'review of the 1982 topographic map and the photographic evidence
depicting the site prior to grading, it is quite evident that the pre subdivided land had
little variation in the contours.
The Planning Commission approved the grading plan for Tentative Tract 14009 with
24 variances to the two (2) foot cut and fill limitation. The rough grading plan
submitted to, and approved by, the City is consistent with the Planning commission
approval.
The Planning Commission reviewed and approved Tentative Tract No. 14009 with a
detailed grading plan that illustrated how the finished pad would look.
C The actual grading of Tentative Tract No. 14009 was performed correctly and is
consistent with the rough grading plan, and with the Planning Commission approval.
The site would not look noticeably different if averaging was not granted by the
Planning Commission.
The subdivider would not have been permitted to provide terraced lots without
substantial deviations from the two (2) foot cut and fill limitation because the site was
relatively flat.
The existing rough grading which currently exists on the lots will be further graded
with precise grading. The finished lots will slope from the building pad of the house to
the street.
Prior to the subdivision of Tentative Tract No. 14009 the land was relatively flat -
After the land was graded, the property remains relatively flat.
Attachment: -
-. Minutes from May 19,1994 Planning Commission Sub-Committee Meeting
MSF:HZ:kjl
(k1128)
MINUTES
ELLIS-GOLDENWEST GRADING ISSUES REVIEW COMMITTEE
May 19, 1994
City of Huntington Beach,. City Hall, Room B-7
4:30 P.M. to 6:45 P.M.
Attendees:
Shirley Dettloff Roy Richardson Steve May
Melanie Fallon Wayne Carvalho Scott Hess
Barbara Lichman Julie Whittington Frank Blonska
Jerry Buchanan Carrie Thomas Bill Holman
Tom Zanic Tom McGannon Ray Silver
Summary: —
The.meeting was Chaired by Shirley Dettloff. Several issues relating to grading of Tentative Tract 14009
were discussed. Consensus was reached on some issues while .opinions on other issues remained.divided.
It was agreed, based on evidence and analysis presented by Steve May and Scott Hess, that the topographic
mapping provided and used by Seacliff Partners was substantially the same as that shown on the 1982
topographic map. However, while staff and representatives from the Planning Commission expressed the
opinion that the approvals issued for Tentative Tract 14009 were proper and in conformance with the
Specific Plan, representatives from the Homeowners Association disagreed. Following is an outline of the
proceedings:
Outline of Proceedings:
1. The following issues were identified:--
a. What provisions in the Specific Plan are applicable to grading? --
b. How does the topographic information shown on the grading plans compare to the 1982
- topographic datum specified in the Specific Plan?
C. How was averaging of topographic data applied in analyzing the tentative map and the
grading plans, and was averaging ari appropriate.method of analysis?
d. Should a Site Plan Amendment have been done rather than a variance?
• •
Ellis - Goldenwest Grading Issues Review Committee Meeting Minutes
5/19/94
Page 2 of 2
2. Melanie Fallon discussed provisions in the Specific Plan that relate to grading, and pointed out the
following passages:
I-B(6); "Preserve significant topographical features and minimize alteration of natural terrain".
M-D; "Grading activities for development in other areas [other than open space corridors] shall not involve
more than a two foot cut and a two foot depth of fill from existing topography as depicted in the 1982
topography contour map. Minor deviations may be permitted subject to the approval of Director of
Community Development. - - - All structural designs shall fit the natural land forms to the greatest
r extent possible. Use of terraces and split level structures shall be encouraged where appropriate."
3. Melanie Fallon produced and discussed photographs of the site taken before grading. Fallon pointed
out that the site appeared to be relatively uniform in grade, and did not appear to be undulating or
varying in grade. Carrie Thomas stated that such photographs can be deceiving, and may not truly
represent how the site appeared.
4. Steve May discussed the recently.completed technical comparison of the 1982 topographic datum
specified in the Specific Plan, and the 1985 topography used on the plans submitted by Seacliff
Partners. The analysis showed that the two maps are very close. Scott Hess produced the copy of
the 1982 topographic map which was identified in the Specific Plan.. There was general agreement
that the topographic data used by Seacliff Partners was no longer an issue.
5. Julie Whittenberg provided a video tape of existing development in the Ellis-Goldenwest area, with
the intent of demonstrating the difference between grading of earlier developments and Tentative
Tract 14009; However, the VCR would not play the tape provided. Nevertheless, there was general
agreement that the grading of Tentative Tract 14009 appears different than grading of existing
developments. Steve May stated that further grading would take place, after building construction,
which.would smooth out the abrupt grade changes now present in Tentative Tract 14009. Steve
May also stated that,.in his opinion, the appearance of grading of Tentative Tract 14009, when
completed, would not- be different than existing developments. Representatives from the
Homeowners Association did not accept this opinion.
f. As time ran out for this meeting, it was agreed that another meeting would be held to discuss-the
- school site grading.-Steve May will ewe schedule the meeting.-
- 7. A memo prepared by Steve May,dated April 13, 1994, was discussed. This memo indicates-which
- lots exceeded the two foot cut and fill limitation when measured by various methods.
MEETING ADJOURNED
by:
Steve May
AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY7CEiVEQ
18851 GOLDEN WEST STREET • HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 �L 1866
HUNTINGTi,N iiEt,CN.G4LIF.
JUNE 1, 1994 JUN 25 '94
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS IN REGARD TO USE PERMIT NO . 93-90
WE ARE THE MAJOR PROPERTY OWNER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE
PROPOSED WALL. WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS WALL FOR SECURITY
REASONS AND PRIVACY. ALSO , WE WANT -IT KNOWN THIS PROPERTY
WAS A FAIRLY LEVEL PIECE AS WE HAD OUR TREE OPERATION THERE
. FOR OVER 17 YEARS AND IT WAS FLAT LAND. THE PROPERTY HAD
TO BE GRADED SO �THE WATER WOULD DRAIN TO THE REAR INSTEAD
OF THROUGH OUR EXISTING BUILDING. THE ENGINEERS HAD TO
DIVERT ALL THE WATER DRAINING FROM GARFIELD AVENUE. WE ARE
IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL AND WANT OUR PROPERTY SECURED TO THIS
ADJOINING SIDE.
RESPECTFULLY.,
RONALD I. BRINDLE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
0 20451 Craimer Lane P.C.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964-8888
June 3, 1994
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
L,Av
Robert Mann,Ed.D.
President Mrs. Melanie Fallon
Catherine McGough Director of Community Development JUN 0 3 1994
Clerk City of Huntington Beach fi 1 iiviLb�; Ur
Shirley Carey 2000 Main Street
Member Huntington Beach, CA 92648 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Brian Garland
Member RE: Grading Issues-Huntington Seacliff School Site
Brian E.Rechsteiner
Member Dear Mrs. Fallon:
ADMINISTRATION The Huntington Beach City School District has completed an extensive review of the
Grading Plan and the Rough Grading at the new school site. The review was completed by
Duane A.Dishno,Ed.D. the District's Architect,our consulting Civil Engineer and District staff.
Superintendent Assuming that the developer's plan was accurately followed, as it appears to have been, we
Alan Rasmussen,Ed.D. can offer the following comments on issues raised by homeowners concerning the school
Assistant Superintendent site:
Personnel/Educational
Services 1. North Property Line-Existing grades will be matched along the existing
Jerry Buchanan north fence line. Drainage will be directed away from the existing fence
Assistant Superintendent line. Necessary cuts will be made to provide level access to the fire lane
Business Services that enters the site from Saddleback Lane at the north property line.
2. Comer of Garfield and Saddleback Lane-The final mean elevation of this
comer of the site will be virtually the same as the adjacent street grades.
This area will be the main parking lot and bus drop off which requires an
easy transition from the street.
I believe that this addresses the concerns raised by the homeowners. The two issues will
be resolved during the construction process. We currently estimate that construction will
commence in the summer of 1995 with the first students occupying the site in*ptepber of
1996.
1
Sincerely,
N)
.17, 2
'11 rn
tit �0 C3
t-n z
Dr. Duane Dishno s
-n
Superintendent
Fv
"We Are An Equal Opportunity Employee'
06/02/94 10:07 V714 729 1214 CUD PCH HBCO
02
7f45830759 H R 8 ASSOCIATE F-5fl5 T-045 P-06e JUN nd •7y M ODG
Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.
Pznnfng•,engineering•Sut-ueyfng
June 2, 1994
SEACLIFF PARTNERS
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660
A= Bill Holman
Re: Precise Grading for Lots 1n Tentative Tract No. 14009
The Hamptons—Huntington Beach
Dear Bill:
Attached is a sketch showing the relationship of the finished grading in the front yards to the
rough grading as it now exists for Tentative Tract No. 14009.
The rough grade "steps" in the front yards are as graded from the typical section on the rough
grading plan, which is also attached. The finish grade will be sloped as shown on the sketch from
the front of the house to the top of curb.
If you have any questions.do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES IRVINE,INC
Tom K McCannon,P.E.
Vice President
TRM:fh
Enclosures
W.O. 1079-1
(�nVQlBl�.pttra.do�
Three Hughes•.Irvine, California 92718• (714)583-1010• Fax(714)583-0759
O ces: Irvine• La Quints • Ins Vegas• Riverside/San Bernardino • San 1XW
Richard Hunsaker- Tom McGannon •Jobn Micbler • Doug Snyder
�1
MAR/ES 2!' 21,
RAW i/.eR/E5
p pvQ �� �� IS17 AIM?
10
>
I 1 ■ � ram•r .._" . + �+ s r •r � `
J N
4 0
- • cr,
oil
OD -
awmc 1 jf e4✓.f7low SELECT lMioowr orm g
�, c' �EMOyaL s s!ocK.niFc�,o Mdrepiat
a
a Of Tale SD/l S tw/d1AW.
W
TYPICAL ROUGH GRADING
U N,T.S: IM- I4009
ca_-__
Mov Edr?rl! AlgOL
ti M.0- 4RA7C
it
m
�/?t�X/?"�MaX) StdT .�''Gd�lNd L'v 4..'-1✓l. 4'A/i/M
F
V /O=/4 Pv ew. oRPrC.S.P. TEe
W 7 !rWewr .
Musesaker&Associates, AC �ryp Pwvpna&7 ONO
me, or,Ima r. You
P& nwl,�g•L�IF�gdie�eNgg•Sipveyle�g ., _ .. ,
nww liu* a•Irvine,Caf#'om a 92718•(714).583.1010 F.I.-`
arl me samoov AV wry roc
w..r- n t �..� .'' '=.�.�[j:' JA'OldfFl JW.VAM ' 71!ORd�N
-r
a
a
y �f-
� c
• 1 �44/V F/•1�r�i
1•
VARIC low
11
M f
!2 F'AlJ��� f
-7�
I., 7
Cc _..--
,4w
"w
zC •uz
a ,
a rMAP1,,044 /cA' XW;'' YARV %SerA%4CK
m M.rs.
407 9¢.
,n, f'�i�CJ f3Y•
Ru»saker& Inc. 8-2-9�'
,Plammi n-6irglincer ing A Surveying
Tb w ffuRho 1,In ow,Carlj(wmia sz?28.014)03.1010
0
RECEIVED
RK
WAGNER & LICHM c�C "'O F
r ING7Ct 0f [ .LIf.
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Irvine, California 92714 JUH 6 111 20 1H '94
Barbara E.Lichman Tele hone:p (714)474-6967 Direct Dial 474-6965
Teleeopier: (714)833-0192
June 3, 1994
G
BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
(714)374-1557
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
City Hall/�
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Madam Clerk:
Attached please find a letter to the City Council for
inclusion in 'the packet for the June 6, 1994 City Council
meeting, agenda, items "school site" issue and "retaining wall"
issue.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Barbara E. Lichman
Attorneys for Country View
Estates Homeowners Association
BEL/sb
Attachment
c:\wpdocs\bel\0011\001\0370\clerk i!' S
WAGNER & LICERIAN
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Irvine, California 92714
Barbara E.Lichman Telephone: ( 14)474-6967
Direct Dial 474.6965 Telecopier: 714 833-0192
June 3, 1994
Linda Moulton Patterson
Mayor
c/o City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Grading of Ellis-Goldenwest Ouarter Section
Dear Mayor Patterson:
We represent the Country View Estates Homeowners Association
( "Association" ) . The purpose of this letter is to convey to you
the deep concern felt by the Association in regard to the rough
grading of Tract No. 14009 in the Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter
Section ( "Quarter Section" ) . Specifically, it is the
Association's position that, in allowing depths of cut and fill
in excess of the two foot maximums prescribed in the Ellis-
Goldenwest Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan" ) , the development of
Tract 14009 violates the express terms of the Specific Plan;
deprives concerned residents of the opportunity to participate in
the planning of the tract through prescribed variance procedures
and public hearings; and contravenes the intent of the Specific
Plan that natural terrain be altered as little as possible,
natural land forms be preserved, and compatibility with
surrounding communities be promoted to the greatest extent
possible.
I .
FACTS
In September, 1991, the City Council approved Tentative
Tract Map No. 14009, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-47 and
Conditional Exception 90-35 for a 128 lot single-family master
plan of development, which also included a potential school site.
The Conditional Exception ( "variance" ) approval included
exceptions to the maximum two foot cut and fill grading
limitation. Four lots were approved to exceed the two foot cut
and fill limit based upon the alleged need to align the grade
elevation of the lots with the street elevations.
c:\wpdocs\beL\0011\001\0370\patter
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 2
On July 7, 1992, the Planning Commission approved
Conditional Exception No. 90-35(R) , for a revision to the
variance request to exceed the cut and fill limitation on 20
additional lots. The approval includes a Rough Grading Plan and
called for a total of 24 lots with variances. This revised
variance request was said to be a result of engineering and
drainage concerns discovered after the initial Planning
Commission action.
The approved Rough Grading Plan identified grading pad
heights for the entire lot and cut and fill deviations based upon
a lot averaging method. The averaging was accomplished by
establishing the highest and lowest point on each lot,
calculating its average grade, and analyzing whether the proposed
lot/building pad was within two feet, plus or minus, of the
original grade. If a specific lot involved a cut or fill of more
than two feet from the average original grade, a variance was
required for that lot. The plan identified the ultimate pad
height. However, no provision for such averaging is contained in
either the Specific Plan or the codes and ordinances applicable
to the remainder of the City.
In or about March, 1994, a question arose as to whether the
Rough Grading Plan for Tract 14009, as well as the grading plan
for the school site was in compliance with the Specific Plan
limitation on depth of cut and fill. Principal Civil Engineer
Steve May was asked to analyze the problem. In response, he
produced a memorandum on April 13, 1994 ( "May Report" ) . (The May
report is attached to this letter as Exhibit 1. ) Analyzing the
depths of cut and fill in Tract 14009, May compared design finish
grades with original grades as shown on the Rough Grading Plan.
The Specific Plan specifies that original grade shall be
determined from the 1982 Contour Map. However, at the time the
study was done by May, that Map was not available. Thus, he
assumed that the original contours shown on the rough grading
plan accurately represented the original contours on the ground.'
Mr. Mays study revealed that a total of 58 lots had exceeded
the maximum two foot lot cut and fill standard. Variances from
the cut and fill requirement were never obtained for the
additional 34 lots, above and beyond the 24 which had been the
1 The 1982 Contour Map was eventually discovered but not
in time for use in Mr. May's analysis.
c:\wpdocs\bel\0011\001\0370\patter
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 3
subject of the original variances. The school site grading also
exceeded the cut and fill requirements in several areas.
On May 19, 1994, a Planning Commission Study Session was
held, chaired by Planning Commission Chairman Shirley Detloff.
At that meeting, Planning Commission staff, including Steve May,
discussed the May Report as well as more recent discoveries with
regard to the grading of the project. The information elicited
was that, while Tract 14009 is not a hilly, or rolling terrain,
it is essentially the same grade as the contiguous communities.
Steve May also emphasized that the Map upon which the analysis
for the Rough Grading was based was virtually the same as the
1982 Contour Map upon which the Specific Plan bases its
standards.
II .
ANALYSIS
A. THE SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRES AN ABSOLUTE, NOT AVERAGED
TWO FOOT CUT AND DEPTH OF FILL FROM EXISTING
TOPOGRAPHY.
1. The Specific Plan Does Not Prescribe Or Even Allow
Averaging.
Nowhere in the Specific Plan is the method of "averaging"
for determining the depth of cut and fill mentioned. In fact,
Section III .D. states, in pertinent part:
Grading activities for development . . .
shall not involve more than a two foot cut
and a two foot depth of fill from existing
topography as depicted in the 1982 Topography
Contour Map. Minor deviations may be
. permitted subject to the approval of Director
of Community Development.
It must be assumed that the City Council, in approving the
Specific Plan, would have expressed its intent to allow a
modification of the absolute standard if it had been the
Council 's intent to do so. The key to construction of zoning
statutes is to determine and give effect to the intent of the
legislative body. Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San
Francisco, 177 Cal.App. 3d 892, 223 Cal.Rptr. 379 ( 1986) . In
determining such intent, the Court turns first to the words
themselves for the answer. Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation
c:\wpdocs\bel\0011\001\0370\patter
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 4
Appeals Board, 10 Cal.3d 222, 230, 110 Cal.Rptr. 144 (1973) .
Courts are required to give effect to statutes according to the
usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them.
Id. Because no mention of averaging appears, the Plan must be
construed as it appears on its face, and the two foot cut and
fill requirement interpreted strictly.
The fact that the Council saw fit to allow "minor
deviations" , in no way detracts from this analysis. It cannot
have been within the Council 's intent to consider the deviations
from the two foot cut and fill standard which result from
averaging as "minor" , where, according to the May Report,
deviations frequently exceeded four feet, or 100% of the two foot
maximum prescribed in the Specific Plan.
Finally, the City's staff attempted to justify its use of
averaging by opining that the use of averaging is a commonly
accepted method of determining grade in the engineering
community. Whether that is true has not yet been established.
Nevertheless, the Specific Plan does not permit it. Nor is
averaging designated as a methodology under any other applicable
City code or ordinance. Thus, ultimately, common use of
averaging is beside the point. The Association has a right to
rely on the standards set forth in the Specific Plan and
justifiably but mistakenly did so when it originally supported
the development of Tract 14009.
2 . Variances Should Have Been Obtained For The
Additional 34 Lots.
Notwithstanding its strict standards, the Specific Plan is
flexible. It permits the issuance of a "Special Permit" for
deviations from the standards set forth in it. Section II.B.
Here, variances were obtained first for four lots in September,
1991, and, then, for an additional 20 lots in July, 1992.2
However, the 34 additional lots which exceed the. two foot cut and
fill requirement were never the subject of a variance proceeding.
2 There is also a question as to whether this request
also constituted a revision of the Conditional Use Permit, and,
thus, should also have been the subject of a Site Plan Amendment
pursuant to Section II .A.3 . Where this Section is applicable, it
should also have been applied.
c:\wpdocs\bel\0011\001\0370\patter
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 5
The purpose of the variance process, and its attendant
public hearing requirement, is to give the public the opportunity
to review and comment on any deviation from normal development
standards which may potentially affect their community. No such
opportunity was afforded the Association or any other member of
the affected public here. The lots had already been rough graded
before the contiguous homeowners became aware of the potential
impacts.
The developer has now stated that this is indeed merely a
rough grading, and that the drastic deviations as well as the
harsh lines and angles of the current lots and pads will be
softened and sloped in the course of final grading. However,
there is no existing process through which the Association, its
members, or any other member of the public will be allowed to
review and comment on the Final Grading Plan. They will merely
have to trust informal assurances.
The Specific Plan does not place the burden on the public to
ferret out inconsistencies with its mandates, nor require it to
rely on the good will of developers or the City. The Specific
Plan provides for a variance process which the City and developer
acknowledged and utilized in 1991 and 1992, when apparently
convenient, and ignored later, when apparently inconvenient.
Nevertheless, the public has a right to rely not only on the
standards set forth in the Specific Plan but also on the
integrity of the City's processes. There is not now, nor has
there ever been any justification for ignoring the clear
procedural requirements of the Specific Plan. Therefore, the
Association hereby requests that all lots which exceed two feet
levels of cut and fill be made the subject of variance procedures
and attendant public hearings.
B. THE SCHOOL SITE SHOULD NOT BE CONVEYED TO THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT UNTIL AFTER THE ISSUES RAISED HERE
HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
As set forth above, the grading of the proposed school site
also violates the provisions of the Specific Plan. Nevertheless,
the City proposes now to convey the school site to the, School
District. After that conveyance, any changes to the grading of
the school site may become impossible. Therefore, the
Association requests that the City delay conveyance of the school
site to the School District until the issues raised in this
letter can be resolved.
c:\wpdocs\bel\0011\001\0370\patter
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 6
C. THE AVERAGING PROCESS AND THE RESULTANT DEPTHS OF
CUT AND FILL VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL POLICIES OF
THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
The goals and objectives of the Specific Plan are very
clear. They include, notably, "to preserve significant
topographical features and minimize alteration of natural
terrain" , Section I .B. 6. Moreover, a principal criterion for the
issuance of special permits is that they "be consistent with
objectives of the State Residential Development Standards in
achieving a project adapted to the terrain and compatible with
the surrounding environment" , Section II .B. l.d. Finally, the
Specific Plan, in setting forth the rules governing grading,
states, in pertinent part, "all structural designs shall fit the
natural landforms to the greatest extent possible. " Section
III.D.
Averaging, by its very nature, violates these underlying
goals. The purpose of averaging is to eliminate differentiation,
not to promote it. "Statutory language must read in context,
keeping in mind the nature and purpose of the enactment, and must
be given such interpretation as will promote rather than defeat
the objective of the law. " Terminal Plaza Corp_, 177 Cal.App. 3d
at 901.
As expected, the use of averaging has created a project
unnecessarily cutoff from surrounding communities. The City
staff opined at the Planning Commission Study Session on May 19,
that the topography of Tract 14009 is essentially flat, or at
least not rolling hills as in some other parts of the Quarter
Section. However, it was acknowledged by the staff at the same
time that other communities in the Quarter Section have
substantially similar topography according to the 1982
Topographical Map. The staff also acknowledged that the design
and grading of those communities are substantially more
responsive to the existing topography than Tract 14009 appears to
be. Now, residents of those communities who assumed the entire
Quarter Section would have a coherent personality must look out
their windows at flat tract homes behind their own, and at a
school site that is raised substantially above the level of their
homes.
In short, not only must the procedure set forth in the
Specific Plan or other City codes be strictly followed, but also
the intent underlying the Specific Plan strictly adhered to. The
Association therefore requests that the lots of Tract 14009 be
c:\wpdocs\bel\0011\001\0370\patter
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 7
regraded to strictly conform to the two foot cut and depth of
fill standards set forth in the Specific Plan, to the clear
policies of the Specific Plan, and to the surrounding community.
It further requests that after such regrading, any lots that
must, for drainage, or other credible reasons remain in violation
of Specific Plan standards, be the subject of the variance
process.
III .
CONCLUSIONS
The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan prescribes a maximum two
foot cut and depth of fill for grading of lots governed by the
Specific Plan, and specifically Tract 14009. No where does it
provide for a deviation from that standard through averaging, nor
does any other applicable City code or ordinance address the use
of averaging for grading purposes.
The City staff's own analysis, the May Report, reveals that
58 lots in Tract 14009 exceed that standard, some by a large
degree, and only 24 of those have been granted permission to do
so through the variance process. The school site is a particular
offender, with parts exceeding four feet above the remainder of
the tract. Those violations have resulted from the use of
averaging the depth of cut and fill, rather than the use of the
absolute two foot standard prescribed in the specific plan.
Finally, averaging violates not only the express terms of
the Specific Plan, but also its fundamental goals and objectives,
including the preservation of significant topographical features
and natural terrain, the achievement of compatibility with the
surrounding environment, and the harmonization of structural
designs to natural land forms.
The Association anticipates and welcomes further discussions
between the City, Seacliff Partners and the School District to
resolve these issues. Meanwhile, however, development of Tract
14009 proceeds apace. Therefore, the Association strongly urges
the City Council to enforce the goals and mandates of the
Specific Plan, and require the further grading of Tract 14009 to
absolute maximums of two foot cut of depth and fill, and, where
that is not possible because of drainage or other problems,
require that the reasons for such deviation be set forth through
the formal variance process.
c:\wpdocs\bel\0011\001\0370\patter
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 8
The Association thanks the City Council in advance for its
cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
l7JQ:� �i
Barbara E. Lichman
BEL/sb
c:\wpdocs\bel\0011\001\0370\patter
06,01/W4 07:26 '0714 8 0188 ORANGE COAST DIS _ Ofi2
•
CITY OF HUNTINGTONI BE' ACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
Hl;tiT14<T0�8E4CH
To: Robert E. Eichblatt, City Engineer...". . >'�i-A`_
From: Steve May, Principal Civil Engineer
Date: April 13 , 1994
Subj : ELLIS-GOLDENWEST TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14009 ROUGH GRADING PLAN:
COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC -PLAN CUT AND FILL LIMITATION -
As you know, a question has arisen as to whether or not tr.e Rough
Grading Plan for Tentative Tract 14009 is in compliance with _he Ellis
Golderwest Specific Plan limitation on the depth of cut and fill. 1
have performed a detailed technical. analysis of the plan to determine
the depth of cut and fill throughout the tract in order to allow staff
to evaluate the grading conditions, and to come to a: conclusion as to
which areas of the tract are, or are not, in compliance with the
Specific Plan. The results of that analysis are tabulated on page 2 of
this memo.
DESCR PTION OF THE PLAN:
The plan that was evaluated was the Rough Grading Plan for Tentative
Tract No. 14009, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, as approved by the
City on 10/6/93 . The plan shows 96 building lots and one, mass graded,
future school site lot. The building lots are designed to be graded ;.o
a uniform grade. A building pad is delineated within each building lot
by a dashed line. The future school site lot is designed to drain
uniformly to the northeast, in donformance with the natural contourrs of
the land. The plan also shows original ground contours.
METHODOLOGY USED FOR ANALYSIS:-
Depths of cut and fill were determined by comparing design finish
grades with original grades as shown on the plan. The Ellis Gol.denwest
Specific Plan specifies that original grades shall be determined from
the 1982 contour map. However, that map was not available. I assured
that the original contours shown on the Rough Grading Plan accurately
represent the original contours of the ground. Four different
conditions for were analyzed as describdd below:
1. School Site Lot Cut Or Fill. The depth of cut or f 1.1 was
determined at all points within the future school site lot. Areas where
the cut or fill exceeded two feet are delineated on the attached map.
2 Maximum Lot but Or Fill . The most extreme condition of cut or fill
within each building lot was determined and tabulated. In ail uses,
the extreme condition occurred at one of the four corners 4f the lots.
There were 58 lots where the depth of cut or fill at the extreme
condition exceeded two feet.
Page 1 of 2
06/01/94 07:27 00714 89 0188 1 ORANGE COAST DIS 1J003
Robert Eichblatt
Tentative Tract No. 14009 - - -
April 13 , 1994
3 . Ma.ximum Building Pad Cut Or Fill. The most extreme condition of
cut or fill within each building pad area was determined and tabulated.
In all cases, the extreme condition occurred at one of the four corners
of the building pads. There were 44 building pads where the depth of
cut or fill at the extreme condition exceeded two feet.
4.. Average Building Pad Cut Or Fill. The average depth of cut or fill
within each building pad area was determined and tabulated. The
average, original ground elevation was determined by averagng the
original ground elevations at the four corners of each building pad.
There were 27 building pads where the average depth of cut or fill
exceeded two feet.
Table of Max Cut Or Fill For Lots Exceeding 2' Cut or Fill
Note: * Indicates 2.0' or less of cut or fill
Lot Max Lot Max Pad Avg Pad Lot Max Lot Max Pad Avg Pad
No. CJF CIF C/F No. CLF _-tj- C/F
1 F 2. 3 F 2.3 * 60 F 2.9 F 2.7 F 2. 4
F 2 . 9 F 2.8 F 2.3 61 F 4 .6 F 4 . 4 F 2 .5
3 F 3 .2 F 2 .9 * 62 F 5.3 F 5. 1 F 2 . 9
4 F 3 . 7 F 3 . 2 F 2.8 63 C 3 . 6
5 F 3 . 1 F 2.8 * 64 C 4 . 5 C 2. 7
6 F 2 . 5 F 2. 1 * 65 C 6.7 C 4 .0 C 2 .7
7 F 2 . 5 F 2.5 * 66 C 6.8 C 5. 1 C 3 .9
14 s 2. 4 * * 67 C 6.5 C 5. 2 C 3 .9
15 F 2 . 3 * * 68 C 6.5 C 5. 0 C 3 . 5
16 F 4 . 3 F 3.4 F 2.4, 69 C 3 . 8 C 3 . 7 C 2. 2
17 F 3 . 7 F 3.2 F 2..5 70 F 5.7 F 4 . 1
18 'ram 3 .5 F 3.0 F 2.3 71 F 5. 1 F 4 . 1 F 2. 9
19 :' 3 .7 F 3. 0 * 72 F 2 .9 F 2 . 7
20 F 4 . 1 F 3 .0 F 2.2 77 C 4. 0 C 2 . 8
21 F 3 .7 F 3 . 2 F 2 . 3 78 C 3 .3 C 2 . 2
22 F 3 .5 F 2.9 F 2.3 79 F 2 .7 F 2 .4
23 F 3 . 0 F 2.2 * 80 C 3 .7
24 F 3 . 5 * * 81 C 3 .4
28 F 2. 6 * * 82 C 2 .6 C 2 . 3
36 F 2 . 2 F 2 . 1 * 83 C 3 . 3
50 F 2 . 1 * * 85 C 3 .0 C 2 . 6
51 F 2 . 3 F 2. 1 * 89 C 2.2
52 F 2 . 6 F 2. 6 F 2.4 91 F 2 . 4
53 F 2 .9 F 2.9 F 2.8 92 F 5. 3 F 3 . 2 F 2 . 6
54 33 . 5 F 3 . 4 F 3 .2 93 F 5. 3 F 3 . 8 F 2 . 1
55 F 4 . 0 F 4.0 F 3 .9 94 F 2 . 3
56 F 4 . 2 F 4. 2 F 3 .9 95 F 3 . 2
57 F 4. 6 F 4.6 F 3 . 7 96 F 3 . 6
58 F 4 . 6 F 4 . 6 F 4. 2
59 F 4 . 2 F 4 .2 F 3 .7
WM:s"'F71 asyx'.009.007
Page 2 of 2
•
•as fa -_.-. —' 1 J'. —_"_�`-�� '.t..1•• --- - —'N��•� - ____— __ —r- _ ' _ '- -. J '•`I
ex
IX
��•tJMb'�.Y.
— to -�� % GU' ��f •fZ.. ? �� I ���CCC _
00
�i• :r
gif
_ ---- -
c
. f l
•
Gt'ar•.w J✓ia'rcJ N✓Jr FJ�/Mt•/ f• ''•1 - •./"4 �rC la
yea;:w<v::fv..,aaeve�r ir... .. -' .. .,. I�lri. (•�� .,F _..- ' i
Ai
r
: sp Icon
r �: � �H' MAW 4
r .a 'sxlk w
{ h ^^
ARn
r5 Park 'lam'
Pop
MY
t s Y
MAI
�M t 4 x 4„ q t
a e, dam"
AVOW P ,
1
�t TWPO
� a
' t s
. yamOW pq 1 {� (VOW
�,
ye 4 u. 3 riSn6.b ?
# Y a �, ! } t i i 7 5:
art r r F 4 ;xl # �f ,:7f '� fey a A �`# # ,* k s 1Skti� ! it
y ie• le.°;,� �y 40 �'; �,
Qn
#r
wx en
Y i
I
it
6 p 011
i
3 1} 4 }..
F 1 1 u
L .y I F t' �+- 4 rt
yg f ' AV.
141,414
06 w
t e i s Y MOW—
1y-; t.; [+'�<K,I T Y=�{ �a y�} r r y� ' I ,}{ I j� �'-yly�� t '- Y •9 fi r'�'ts
Yr1P �Y#rll tfr'W!\FR�fMW iil �YI{'7M1Y � i ,��19If�l �� 4 � �'�'��!/� V 1dilAF�����? � '� '�,°. 42 k.••k'
�v. ��aryb, r
.,•..«• �,w 7 i loll1 a L� + i "h ld l7W Ftyu1 m r: iwJ'4llx OUR Nei: Ts
1tE8Y M4fitfSED jQ1001:1111Flnr Tyr*; nY1Tp�t0OUTiOrd OA Ct ►�*_,br THU �tallZ is: a 3�.1�.r
�`itFrtf�, �. �Y i4�tUS RiCI'ii�liD Tl��b tllGktE� OFF !fl Itl +t,' tJ4� �4wr.+w�i�F s� ELC y
k"S s
i77t F
An
I
f8 1 u w
rot
t Janos
f� l# � 'Y, d}X x "F' l 4 �:..
witty
k r 1Fd„ �RI 1 t .. 5 rc ?n+e KM 1
P4 F �,'r y,� e� f r s 00,
F e
1-� k n,
+
AM TOM
- n�; �F t'�9 } 5 { x £, aY ;xS 1
# ,� t•� r,'#a ',� y t f. a ', ,,� # �Iit 7'3 a ^nT+
\ ��r"�",� y x f ���➢ P:;-}t ldF 'i� �� i .a t a� i r ,? * �jel;� r3': � y�r;i 'R# f�Cfi ?i.' rf � t: !(°�'^J M1.�s„ G# s}d"F fa,
AR �`r I •e �`i �� # a ral: "� a�°£�^-a v �t 1 t � � �r
>'�t"�"»"1$t'��.:' �t.� Ck.�:e_'"�,.. ,«:4.)�,.'{i�'�r",�,. � s:.���..�` -k '��,s� 1>�:.r., �'�.(,t ,a'�, �;��. .W....., ...- `�. i�. ;•u�. .i w., .r`�t:: �.: at'':'i-�_�. 3. ��klA.�C�
m.
1I
. 5
it
' � 3
5 Park f'Pla a,r quite I000 `'g -
i+�m� i., ,",
pipet DYrF 'i�F6ItS
h
i . y,�l � ' K••
" I
Y� r
�J11: [.
ltytrrlt'' ,�LIIII,,�Itt j 1,',,1,"�,Ii I1 1L J,;1I,II,7.,,,I1�1,1n—,LiIIII��tI,I,,I,oL,I�;1I L,IL IL,,;r-���i,['L�I,I;tI,�I!',I�I',::,,�,,i,�'I",
•
i f" a
II
4.i iJtlifii"}.. Xlfpr1 Aet !kl
City ` .
'000 6i]q A'stxu
"
inlrn % t � f6r. this ' u '# r .
,.9 Ctb+9t Y 9r w er d ` ita�� +tach�0, � te,r '�:���z� � � "�'utlt3n#�ri$ w�1�" ;,
,��IOI`-�',I�1�-1'I,lt,I'.'".I iI,—j�1:�l:I i jIi�I!L'r�;oL�,L I�,'�t�.:I4,:,'I1'"�,,�I�";L�IIIt-��'�I-�I',I rL'I�',r J�I--,I:,I I�t,,;'�'�,ILILI,,�i,-i,I I�"i1i',,I',,I f.;i�f,1I,:1",.IIrI�,J i I I�,,I�,1,I"I'����-r;'����L,'�'�v�:II�.1,�I:L�L.I�r,I�,I II�I,.�1 I]I,,,L::�,,,�f I,,�:,��i I��tL:to,.I I LI,teI,�,,�,I,,.I..r�I�i'L,Ij 1III.�'II�,�ILLI�I,�'1��,',',!I,�,,,L1',II,iI�;��I�1t,1"LII'�I�:,,�,�,I�..1L L;",.'I,�,,,1,,r,,t-,;.l�I,1-'II,�It,)�,,i,,I,,,A�-�,',,,rI',��I,I';,;',,I:I�rI,"1,:,�,I�1I:�IL�,��,I,I,,,,.,,jL�,I'�L,!1:.I�,t,I,��I�:�,,L::�,��I,i,�'I,��4 r,,I�I��-.II,I,,7 I,,,LI I:,:AI,,I�I.,I�I,I:.�j,",�I7;,,I.1','r,�j..:,I,,��,,'��k,I i,�,Ii�1iL:,lI11L!I',,`,!,.,;III��rj,I'1i�`,I,,,'L,"�z��1�.�*:",9I��4,�;�II,I,I,J I'',��,I
issue v ,
` ' + wt�; rat .. WWWOOSAVOUI c t� �t� t t " .
$9,l��'i0;* �t'r
�'' w
"ti�x fi a tti v" 1,' >t
Lift 4tl s N ^►rat i xtt i V
L :
iiCEtt
.`' } —A . t
I"
,� 'b'I g I I< d:
e '
s � , ,� -.}L, ," 4i �� c
I
I '
a r 1 � ! y y .M ' �� F
`.� t k Iq �l v `.
g . k 7 k. J E u s r�� a
i 1`_ I _
11",
t4 9 d .
` I.rr'.4,n.�Tk$ "`--•+�.a 'n'y`,'�. n+tfirkt -*-+ *.>r»-,e:�wwa.,. +..
Seadiff Partners
Ajoini venture of Pacific Cmt Humes and G.W.C.Development Corp
s
G Z
June 2, 1994
Ms. Melanie Fallon, Director
Community.Development Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: Rough Grading and Precise Grading Plans
Tentative Tract Map No- 14009
Dear Melanie:
Enclosed please find a letter from Hunsaker &Associates, Inc., the project engineer for the above
tract, explaining how rough grading within the tract has been designed and how the grading will
be adjusted through the precise grading on each lot as homes are constructed.
During rough grading of the tract, the entire site was overexeavated to varying depths to achieve
adeqate soil compaction to support street improvements and residential structures and to
remediate areas of soil contamination from historic oil production operations on the property.
As illustrated on the "Typical Rough Grading" detail shown on the approved rough grading plans
and attached to the engineer's letter, the street areas within the tract have been undercut
approximately two feet below the final street grade. This is done to control runoff during
construction and accommodate the placement of remediated soils and structural base material
below the finished street. Within the lots, the front yard areas have been "notched" to provide
y an area to accommodate soils excavated from building foundations and underground utilities.
The pad grades have been set at the approved pad elevations.
As shown on the second detail, the front yards will be smoothed out during the precise grading
phase so that a smooth continuous slope will occur from the front of the house to the street.
Additionally,the streets will be constructed and raised to the approved final design grade. When
the tract is complete, the relationship between the homes and the street will be similar to other
tracts in the Ellis Goldenwest quarter section.
I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings of how the project was designed, how rough grading
has been performed and how the tract will look when complete.
--Very truly yours,
William D. Holman
Project Manager X
ec: Howard Zelefsky Steve May /
Robert Franklin Tom Zanic
❑ 1--20 Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 394-3379 Fax(310) 394-6872
Z3 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newpoit Beach, CA 92660 (714) 721-9777 Fax (714) 729.-1214 Y y
21
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
USE PERMIT NO. 93-90
(Perimeter walls for lots 48 through 62 of Tract No. 14009)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public
hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and
consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application
described below.
DATE/MdE: Monday, June 6, 1994, 7:00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval
of Use Permit No. 93-90
APPLICANT: Seacliff Partners
APPELLANT: Councilmember Dave Sullivan
LOCATION: 18961 Goldenwest Street (along the northerly property lines of lots
48 through 62 of Tract No. 14009, located 550 feet north of
Garfield Avenue between Saddleback and Goldenwest)
ZONE: Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan
REQUEST: To permit the construction of up to 6.7 foot high tract perimeter
retaining walls topped with up to six(6) foot high block walls (total
of 12.0 feet) pursuant to Section 9771 (1) of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:. Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15305,
Class 5 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development
Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for
inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to
interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert
Avenue) after June 3, 1994. `
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or
submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above.
If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there
are any further questions please call Wayne Carvalho, Assistant Planner at(714) 536-5271
Connie Brockway
Huntington Beach City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
USE PERMIT NO. 93-90
(Perimeter walls for lots 48 through 62 of Tract No. 14009)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public
hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and
consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application
described below.
DATE/TIME: Monday, June 6, 1994, 7:00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval
of Use Permit No. 93-90
APPLICANT: Seacliff Partners
APPELLANT: Councilmember Dave Sullivan
LOCATION: 18961 Goldenwest Street (along the northerly property lines of lots
48 through 62 of Tract No. 14009, located 550 feet north of
Garfield Avenue between Saddleback and Goldenwest)
ZONE: Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan
REQUEST: To permit the construction of up to 6.7 foot high tract perimeter
retaining walls topped with up to six(6) foot high block walls (total
of 12.0 feet) pursuant to Section 9771 (1) of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15305,
Class 5 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development
Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for
inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to
interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert
Avenue) after June 3, 1994.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or
submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above.
If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there
are any further questions please call Wayne Carvalho, Assistant Planner at(714) 536-5271
Connie Brockway
Huntington Beach City Clerk
InterOffice Memo
To: Recipient
From: Dave Sullivan,City Council Member
Date: May 9, 1994
Subject: Appeal to Planning Commission Decision
Use Permit 93-90-Perimeter Retaining Wall
Appeal of Use Permit 93-90 from the Planning Commission Agenda of May 3, 1994.
The retaining walls are necessitated by the grading of the area. Adjacent homeowners,as well as some of
the Planning Commissioners have raised questions about the grading. A Planning Commission sub-
committee has been formed to look into the matter. Action on Use Permit No. 93-90 should be.delayed
until the subcommittee makes its report.
CC: City Council
City Administrator
Community Development Director
a �
-a
T
) n "moo
n
a (-
• L
L
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT: Ci
MEETING:
NUMBER OF OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS: G'�9
(PER-Initial)
AUTHORIZATION:
Ray ilver Assistant City Administrator
• �
/1
Approved by City Administration •
COVER SHEET
FOR
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
NIA YES NO
( ) ( ) Has the City Administrator's Office authorized the public hearing to be set?
(Attach Asst.City Administrator's approval slip)
Is day of public hearing correct-Monday/Tuesday?
QQ ( ) Does Heading of Notice Reflect City Council Hearing (Not PC)
If ea , is appellant's name shown on legal notice?
( ) ( ) If the project includes residential use, is "legal challenge paragraph" included?
( } ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,has the Master Legal Notice Document been used.
Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council?
( ) Is Title Company verification letter attached?
( ) ( ) Were.the latest Assessor's Parcel Rolls used?
( ) ( ) Are the appel�l ran ap�plicant's name and addresses on mailing labels?
( ) ( ) If Coastal Developmeht Permit, are the RESIDENT labels attached and is the Coastal
YV Commission Office on the labels?
For Public Hearings at the City Council level,-please insert the below paragraph of the public
hearing notice
"ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the
City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further
questions, please call (insert name of Planner) at 536-5271
CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET - 2ND FLOOR
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
(714) 536-5227
PUBHER
s/�
iyK,o�2ccG 5�jtb�q�
(a
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
USE PERMIT NO. 93-90
(Perimeter walls for lots 48 through 62 of Tract No. 14009)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public
hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and
consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application
described below.
DATE/TE\IE: Monday, June 6, 1994, 7:00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval
of Use Permit No. 93-90
APPLICANT: SeacliffPartners
APPELLANT: Councilmember Dave Sullivan
LOCATION: 18961 Goldenwest Street (along the northerly property lines of lots
48 through 62 of Tract No. 14009, located 550 feet north of
Garfield Avenue between Saddleback and Goldenwest)
ZONE: Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan
REQUEST: To permit the construction of up to 6.7 foot high tract perimeter
retaining walls topped with up to six(6) foot high block walls (total
of 12.0 feet) pursuant to Section 9771 (1) of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15305,
Class 5 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development
Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for
inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to
interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert
Avenue) after June 3, 1994.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or
submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above.
If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there
are any further questions please call Wayne Carvalho, Assistant Planner at (714) 536-5271
Connie Brockway
Huntington Beach City Clerk
i I
I
i
APN: 110-015-57, 77 APN: 110-200-13-14, , 22, 321 APN:.110-200-21
Huntington Beach Company Huntington Be -= mpany i BLASGEN, MICHAEL W.
i 23 Corporate Plaza r250 23 Coro^- ._ la=a r250 33 WHIPPORWILL RD.
Newport Beach, CA 92660 New rt Beach, CA 92660 CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514
APN: 110-220-03-05 ( APN: 110-222-1-1 APN: 110-222-02
BRINDLE, RONALD 1. Smith, Tyrrell W TR Woodson, Hiro
18851 GOLDENINEST ST 12082 Chianti Dr. 10241 Barbara Anne
48 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Cypress, CA 90630
Huntington beach, CA 926
APN: 110-222-C3 ' " / ' ,PN: 110-222-r APN: 110-222-05
City of Hun`',- �� each Lang, Robert D. Tr Hubbs, Kenneth Harrald Tr
P O 0 41085 Avenida La Cresta 10651 Knott Avenue
HT tington Beach, CA 92648 Murrieta, CA Cypress, CA 90630
APN: 110-222-06 i APN: 110-222 7 APN: 110-222-08-09
Fuller, Leland C Butters, Lois P T, Ghodooshim, Yousef Tr
1001 Daffodil Dr P O Box 1209 320 Crown St
Lebanon, PA 17042 Paradise, CA 95957 Los Angeles, CA 90049
APN:110-222-10 APN: 1 10-222-11 APN: 110-222-13
Brindle, Ronald I. Young, Norma D--hy Tr Morton, Harold C.
18851 Golden West St. 9500 SW Greene :rg Rd. -11 P 0 Box 1097
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tigard, OR 97223 Carlsbad, CA 92008
APN: 110-222-14 APN: 110-222-':5 110-222-1 8
Spelts, Elizabeth Aden of Saunders, John ','d. Townley Nellie A.
Est of Louis C. Spelts 215 L o n a Beac;i 15! d r706 R I(,Box 23..,.
471 Walnut Place Long beach, CA 9:802 Mon,`ae ;CA 96064
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
APN: 110-222-19 APN: 110-222-2.0 APN: 110-222-21
Smmith, Raymond P Tr Tsai, James C J Powers, Mary E
22775 Carancho Rd. P O Box 9947 °o Sanwa Calif Bank
Temecula, CA 92590 Fountain Valley, CA 92728 P O Box 439
Pasadena, CA 91102
APN: 110-222-22 APN: 110-222-23 APN: 110-222-24
Kelter, Richard P Gustafson, Frank F DS Products, Inc.
5442 Old Pirage Ln. 1121 Alabama Defined Benefit Pension Plan
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 5362 Oceanus Dr #A
- Huntington Beach, CA 92649
APN: 110-222-26-28 APN: 110-222-29-30 APN: 159-351-02
Borghetti, Ronald P Sailer, Daniel F. Western Homex Corp
10208 Disney Cr P 0 Box 2224 P O Box 1188
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Oceanside, CA =2051 Sunset beach, CA 90742
SEACLIFF PARTNERS
• 520 Broadway Suite 100
Santa Monica, CA 90401
APN: 159-351-03, 17 APN: 159-351—C4 APN: 159-351-05
A. J. Faas & Sons Tsang, Samuel Y1. O. Nolff, Werner
6522 Totter Drive 6541 Trotter Driti: 6561 Trotter Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beac'-., CA 9264.8 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
hPN: 159-351-06 APN: 159-351-1'7 APN: 159-351-08
Orlando, Raymond John Wendland, Dale Coombs, Rochelle C Tr
0571 Tro-tter Drive 6592 Trotter Drive 6601 Trotter Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington 6eac;, CA 92648 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
APN: 1 .9.-351-09 APN: 159-351 0 ! APN: 159-351-11
Irvine, Tracy i Thomas, James `%','arren Walker, Charles W.
P O Box 1266. 6642 Trotter Drive 6622 Trotter Drive
Sunwet Beach;ICA 90742 Huntington Beachi, CA 92648 I Huntington Beach, CA 92648
ARN: 159-351-12 APN: 159-351-13 j APN: 159-351-14
O'Neill, Peter T. Engle, James M. Busche, Gene A.
6602 Trotter Drive 6592 Trot�er Drive 6572 Trotter Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
- i
,APN: 159-351-15 - APN: 159-351-t a APN: 110-222-13
Brindle, Ron- Young, Nor;..? D=��:hy Tr Morton, Harold C.
18851 wen West St. 9500 SW Greent`;:rg Rd. 4 11 P O Box 1097
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tigard, OR 97223 Carlsbad-,.CA 92008
APN: 159-351-18 APN: 159-351-19 APN: 159-351-20
Western Homex Corp Edwards-Lindbo:g-Dahl Country View H.O.A.
P. O. Box 1188 30110 Crown Val:ey Pkwy r206 17205 Pacific Coast H»y.
Sunset beach, CA 90742 Laguna Niguel, C.n 92677 Sunset Beach, CA 90742
APN: 159-352-11 APN: 159-352-12 APN: 159-352-13
Gurwell, Noll N. Duncan, Sandra R. Raboy, Nolan D.
6652 Shire Cir. 6661 Shetland Cir 6671 Shetland Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
APN: 159-352-20 APN: 159-352-21 APN: 159-352-22
Plunkett, Glenn P. Western Homex Corp. Country View H.O.A.
6672 Shetland Cir. P O Box 1188 17205 Pacific Coast Hwy.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 Sunset Beach, CA 90742
APN: 159-352-28 APN: 159-352-29 APN: 159-401-01
Hill, Gene N. Fisher, John T. SW Diversified Coscan Ptnrs
6722 Shetland Cir 6692 Shetland Cir. 19200 Von Karrnan r 400
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Bea&). CA 92648 Irvine, CA 92715
SEACKUFF
C.
6732
_ 3-15 ::untinatcn CA Si2_58-15: -
i
f
i _
APN: 159-401-02, 13, APN: 159-402-C3 APN: 159-402-04
Huntington Sh- .Assoc. j Gopalakrishnan. S ,:;araiyer Morrow, Glenn C.
1 i6= n A, m ,=ve n175 6712 Pimlico Cir. 6702 Pimlico Cir.
Irvine, CA 92714 Huntington Beac�, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
APN: 1 5-9-402-05 APN: 15,?-4C2-GA APN: 159-403-02
Tran, Cuong, Viet Turk, Daniel A. Pappoff, Robert P.
6701 Pimlico Cir, 6711 Pimlico Cir. 6711 Alamitos Cir
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntinaton Beach, CA 92648
i
APN: 159-403-03 APN: i 59-403-G4 APN: 159-403-05
Nelson, Terry D. Tarver, William E. Nguyen, Mai Tuyet
6701 Alamitos Cir. 6691 Alamitos Cir. 6671 Alamitos Cir
Huntington beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach. CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
APN: 159-403-06 APN: 159-403-07 j APN: 159-403-08
Jen, Horace P. Bent, James A. Ito, William K.
6672 Churchill Dr 6652 Churchill Dr 6661 Alamitos Cir
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ! Huntington Beach, CA 92648
APN: 159-403-09 APN: 15-9-403-1.0 APN: 159-403-11
Hamamoto, Naga Ahluwalia, Ranjit S:,nch Fujii, Chikau Rick
6662 Alamitos Cir. 6672 Alamitos C;r. 6692 Alamitos Cir
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
APN: 159-403-12 APN: 159- :C3-13 APN: 159-403-18, 21-22
Karsh, Laurence O. Pinero, Pac"-, Huntington Staores Ccmm.Assoc.
6702 Alamitos Cir. 6712 Alamitos Cir. 17641 Derian Ave r175
H.-n incton Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Irvine, CAS27!".
Total Property Management APN: 111-120-0a�-09,13-14,30 APN: 111-120-11-12
8011 Sky Park Cir, Ste L Thomas, Linda/John Lingle, Harold A Tr
Irvine, CA 92714 19782 Scenic Bay Ln. 3817 Atlantic Ave
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Long Beach, CA 90807
APN: 111-120-27 APN: 111-130-09, 14 APN: 111-130-10
Mitchell, Travis B. Williams Bobbie G Tr Huntington Beac N ny
355 S. Bristol Ste A 2676 Orange Ave 23 Cor aza n250
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Signal Hill, CA 90806 rt Beach, CA 92660
APN: 111-130-11-12 PN: 111-130-28 CS i ATcS
Mills, Elizabeth Jane City of Huntington " al!"� cy, �1'' c44APMAtJ
3260 Farmington Dr. P. O. Bo
Atlanta GA30339 Hu .,, g:on Bea ch. CA 92648 �01gZ 5rf(Re CP,.
H U►Jii C A17;LC't$
APN: 159-,5- - --
Andy T. Coetz Peter H. WhILUingion Byron C . Chilleme
6542 potter Dr 6592 Trotter De 6562 Trotter :r
92648-15 r:i::.t_n_=_:, __ CA =2648 Huntington =e_c.. CA 92-48
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
SS.
County of Orange )
I am a Citizen of the United States and a - ,
PUBLIC;NOTICE
resident of the County aforesaid; I am NOTICE:OF ,
over the age of eighteen years, and not a PUBLIC,HEARING
pPPEALOFTHE•
party to or interested in the below I PLANNING,
COMMISSIONS
entitled matter. I am a clerk of CONDITIONAL `
principal I APPROVAL.OF
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a f, :. USE PERMIT. .
i NO.93�90
newspaper of general circulation, printed If lPerimeterwalls £.
Z ;for lots;48
and published in the City of Huntington � through:82of
Tract
Beach County of Orange State of nNOTICEIS HEREBY'
r r GIVEN:'that the Huntington
California, and that attached Notice is a Beath„ y C�e mth 11
e,
holdgarpubliC hearing Inathe:
li.
true and coin lete co rinted Council Chamber at the:
p py as was p Huntington ;-Beach Civic !
and ublished in the Huntington Beach I Center; 2000 ch, Street;.
p I Huntington Beach,in
nla on-the date.and at-the
and Fountain valley issues of said ti me`inndICaed"leI w to ral ;AON FILE..,Axc�opyuof tFie
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: celvre awed conskder_: the : Proposed request is on file
statement' of a I 'persons n the Commurnty_'Develops
wtio`wish`to be heard reW ment Department,-200.0
tive to.,the application de :Main Street;, Huntington
I" scribed below. 'oex ns ec ao"p b i`�he`�pub�-1
DATE'/TIME;`_'Monday, t P y
June 6;1994 7:00 PM. IIC A, copy,1of-the,&staff r 6-
APPLICATION i NUMBER port will be-available to in-
terested.parties at Cif `.Hall
Appeal of the Planning or the' . City uv.Hall
May 26 1994 I Commission's:,.co rmit o, (7t'11 Talb&VAvenue)1'after
y r ;approval of Use PermiFNo June 3,1964Y
93-90 , ) ALL INTERESTED PER-
APPLICANT1(Seaclff Part=
ners tea. SONS are invited to attend
APP,ELLANTr Council said hearing ,and express_
I opinions or tsubmd-to'the
member Dave Sullivan CityI-le written evidence
declare, under penalty of perjury, that LOCATION 1(61 g olds for or agaIst�the apglic%
enwest Streetf alon the
a Lion.as outlined above .If
the foregoing is true and correct. northerly property lines-of yourchallenjer the Clty�
lots 48 through 62 of'Tract Councils,action an ;court;
Nd.14009,Ao-,ted=560`feet y �•
north of Garfield Avenue ou may be ini ed to rats=
between .Saddleback and Ing omeothose issues yyou
or someone-else raised•atl
'Goldenwest) �written..corresponddnce
the public hearing de-
Executed on May 26 4 ZONE Ellis-Goldenwest scribed In this notice or In:
199 Specific Plan :• i .: -,de-
at Costa Mesa, California. -REQUEST To permit the Iliveiedto the city at; or
construction of-up to :6.7 I prior to the.public-hearing.
foot high tract penme`ter re- If there are"any'.furttie'
taining -wall s:..toppad with questions .please call
up ao six- .(6)r foot -high Wayne Carvalho,-Assistant
block walls;(total',Of,_.12.0, Planner,at 536 5271.
feet) pursuant, to Section :, .Connie- Brockway,
9771 (.1 of the;Huntington Huntln , C_Ityl
Beach Ordinance Code`.-. g.ton Beach;
ENVIRONMENTAL ;STA Clerk
TUS: .Categorically exempt P�blisshedx' untingtton
pursuant to;.Secuon 15305; Beach FounMin Valley.. In-
Ctass-5 of the Calitorrna deperident May 26 4994.
Environmental.Quality Act a 054655;
Signature applcabeL STATUS: Not t, s
Corinie Brockway,City Clerk fu
-
City of Huntington Beach c
Office of the CityClerk '
P.O. Box 190 = .. r,Y 26Aq
y >;
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
V 1 L'
..__.------
------- - � C
n� .l: Sr"n
O
r
APN: 159-401-01 .Nv
SW Diversified Coscan Ptnrs
S�
INGTpy 19200 Von Karl�an n400
RPOB47 �FA� Irvine, CA 92715
O 77 i
FS 17, 1909•a
�, F CpON TY CP��
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING.
Connie Br ckway,City Clerk ..._r.� • ;�,
I City c'w' ton Beach
O ice of the City Clerk '.
.. P.O. BOX 190
i
b� • i
2 _Huntington h A 9 648
Beach,C
I -
i
:j APN: 110-222'-G7
Butters, Lois P Tr
ANT I NGTpy�F
P O Box.!209 �
1 Paradise, CA 9� CS7
I UN TV LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Connie Brockway,City Clerk ..,
City of Huntington Beach 46
4
Office of the City Clerk
r rDIY 26
P.O. Box 190 g I` 4\ E
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 t{' { 1:+ ' j E
vp Fo p� 4
R� -a-351-09
xracy
}fi P 126fi V �J p`'� `
c�
N •'
O =NCORPOR47F0 �`i1 _ e .
9` Ff� 77 1999.P� � •
CF cUUNT Y
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING !{F{FFFF{F till FF III F{{ti{F{{FFFIF3I{{i{Hit FtF{F{FF{{lFiFF{F!! f
- E...
Connie Brockway,City Clerk it E T Up,
City of Huntington Beach s o+yea + ti...,.✓ ,�`
26
Office of the City Clerk p`' T a s
P.O. Box 190 OT C�+RRfER S ''
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 T HAIVE gCX ED �.
/I,le�;,�PN: 15
wL?.f II t q6
1�51ast Hwy. L i.
NTINGTpy S . 'TCc_
lip
O@
C —
FCUUNTY
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ;;: ;tFFi:lF!lFcei�:l1=:lFli::F:::lll:I�:li: li:l :ll::t: l:f
Il,f III t1lrllmIrirll,fill rl1ll ONIMI-I onond - 3011ON IV931
y
a u 1
�"�'• ��rtlOdtl00M O
., CieuaQ `fig i g '�
cl 4T W 1 ' uo��u'��nH y019NI1N��
r\ � •�WO� 'r, d
Y .. . . .i n. . oea uo 6u u
. .. Z6`d '4 8 i .l H -
r -. r _ 8b9 J
w
'L UV c _ . . ..
•. r. ,• i �- cF 7 4: f �.q(•; L xO8 •�'d l. '
• . .; �aal0 A4!0 94110 93!90
4oea8 uo36u!tunH;o A4!0 r
n �;f
,.•r Nhal0 A4!0'AemNow8 a!uuo0 -
Connie Brockway,City Clerk aEtunar
City of Huntington Beach s wa - - -
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. BOX 0 FARRIERS []t NAYLb d4 a i ^ ^ • v !, .
ERt jC.//�� LW r f 4
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 JST HivvE .
•';Country V S`r .`-0'A,
r T T O5'.0 6iq 2st Hwy.ING
. 'Y
N
0 0
d
p arpe
N
f F •.
o
— To
2 f P
ri
O
COUNTY ca`
.LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING III If I fill III 11I„II,l if Il1„If I lilt III I1,,fill„IIl III I,II
Seactiff Partners
A joint venture of Pacific Coast Homes and U.W.C.Development Corp.
June 17, 1994
Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson
City Hall
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Agenda of June 20, 1994 -Appeal of Use Permit 93-90
Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson:
We are writing to you regarding the above item which was continued from your June 6, 1994
meeting.
Since the last City Council meeting we have met with staff and Councilmember Leipzig to
follow up on questions raised during the hearing.
As a result of that meeting our Civil Engineer has prepared an alternative plan for lots 48 - 62
of Tentative Tract Map No. 14009 that will meet the concerns regarding the height of the wall.
We have presented to Councilmember Leipzig and staff an alternative plan that eliminates the
need for a higher wall and also brings the grade closer to the original grade.
Although it is our preference to move forward with the Use Permit as approved by the Planning
Commission, it is possible, at an increased expense, to complete the project according to the
alternative plan. It is important that we have a decision on the application.
To bring the item to closure we respectfully request that the Council act to either:
1. Sustain the Planning Commission action on Use Permit No. 93-90, or
2. Overturn the Planning Commission action on Use Permit No. 93-90 and accept the
revised grading plan exhibit dated June 16, 1994 as the approved plans for lots 48
through 62 of TentativeTract Map No. 14009.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
SEACLIFF PARTNERS cc: Members of City Council
By: New Urban West, Inc. Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator
Melanie Fallon, Comm. Dev. Director
Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
Scott Hess, Senior Planner
Tom Zanic Wayne Carvalho, Assistant Planner
Vice President Steve May, Development Engineer
dT-"520 Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 394-3379 Fax (310) 394-6872
❑ 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 721-9777 Fax (714) 729-1214
CITY CLERK
CITY OF
June 15, 1994 (� ,I H:UHTING;ON ':�}[}a, CALIF.
..(UN 17 9
I PH 3q
Councilman Jim Silva
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Councilman Silva:
This ,letter is to express our concern over the recent moratorium placed on "infill"
residential home building in the City of Huntington Beach. In October 1993 we
purchased a custom home site lot in Central Park Estates. This lot is located on Derby
Circle.just off.Saddleback Lane (Lot 11). This lot is situated in a previously approved
new development with many homes in the process of being built. Our home site does not
boarder any existing homes. Since July of last year we have been working on plans with
ourArchitect, Brent Sears. We have spent thousands of dollars in their development with
close adherence to the City's building requirements and with advice from the staff at the
Huntington Beach Planning Department. Therefore it came as quite a shock that a
moratorium was placed on residential building.
In the Council's impromptu decision to impose the moratorium we wondered whether the
Council members took into consideration the potential hardships inflicted on those
individuals affected by the decision. First, our plans were delivered and not accepted by
the City's planning department the day after the moratorium was made. This 45 day
delay will cost us at least$4500.00 in interest payments. This assumes that this action is
lifted within the 45 days imposed. I am certain the Council is aware that real estate
interest rates are on the rise and we-are unable to apply and lock in what may be the
lowest rate available today. We are planning to build a large home and fractions of a
percent increase in financing impact our monthly payments significantly. Additionally,
any building requirements that may be revised may require additional time by our
architect for which we will be charged for his time and any time required for re-
engineering of our plans.
We understand this moratorium was placed as result of a concern by certain residents of a
SeaCliff development about proposed building by SeaCliff Partners. We strongly believe
that others should not be penalized for projects that do not impact a particular
neighborhood. In fact, the City should handle the SeaCliff issue on its own merits and
not place undue hardships, both financial and psychological, on individuals who have
purchased a lot and developed plans in good faith while relying on the City's previously
approved master plan and the development's previously approved CC&Rs and
architectural guidelines.
10000 �
� 1
Page 2
Councilman Jim Silva _
June 17, 1994
We wish to reiterate that our lot does not boarder any existing homes. The development
has recently been through the approval process with the City and should not be subject to
this moratorium. We are asking that the Council revise the moratorium and apply it only
to the affected SeaCliff development.
We will be attending the City Council meeting on Monday, June 20 and plan on
addressing this issue with the Council.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward to meeting you
personally on Monday.
Sincerely,
1
AB. avis
Connie Brockway,City Clerk ;
City of Huntington Beach 1.F�, �" U
Office of the City Clerk JUN 9 �4 S ''
P.O. Box 190 _ t� ^ _ 4
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 r ,� t� N `'f• _ F.
' .,
,
I
i
t
1 fA'�`::ii:1l'�.r:i l:1't'.<t l•�.:I. -
20/4
I �1TINGT I-I!.u"1 I:.:i.n1::1 t'.iir'i 1:::1'1 f:: lti ';.':':l;fj"l'....t;�9..
O���NGORPORq rF���
Q -
ppUNTY ca` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
1t1U11,,,111„All,till,,,lll]I:Il ,
j Connie Brockway,City Clerk
' City of Huntington Beach , ,., \�»i uH `�; { >`_;
a osrr J�� ^.F +L-Ej`.r�..zy�.
Office of the City Clerks eS T �pfr-`; f^
P.O. Box 190 e� r JUN 9 �� _ �--� I
�.: Z.
Huntington Beach,CA 92W S T CLASS M A �� r
3•� .,' Cgs+ ► s 4� lA?i E R
i
1
1.08
'. •:. :::� � � :I. f3c::�r••r.�:i.r:iL".:i.i•• h•Ir:i., :L C)r;
t
� pNt I NGTpy�u,ffo 1 It.0� _.i.i J ciii 1 ., d..11 Y .1 4J/ _.
o �NGOAP R F
c, - EwIL,s r32 90 71005 1594 Ob/14/94 \'
o ► �T-r- g SAZLL Y
- _ - t1O'•:ED LEFT NO AODREcS
9�C �FB i1.19og Fp �oQ UNABLE TO FORWARD
F RETURN TO SENDER
�pUNTY ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
lilt rf11ruf9119r11►9�frrr��frr��uf��rnrn�„�ru��rrr�jrre�
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach ..,-.. :.:.• r., ,a..,,. .....,.,q, `� eF t u;.�"'DoIAIs
Office of the City Clerk R JUN 9 Jai = ','
P.O. Box 190 ti,
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ,�;� s phi-� 1�1 c, ` [ y • ! �j�.r e e p
' 1
cr •.
17722 J.
ONGTpyc: t�:n; l-tl� I:;._t..r .,l '. ��.,...<:,
Q \MGOR YORq rF FA _
- y CRA1722 92647100E 1394 ObZ14/91+
9 " Z `R G MOVED LEFT NO €DDRESS
:ip UNABLE TO FORWARD
ARD
CF �Z 1909 \�0
Cp Cps RETURN TO SENDER
aNrr LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
I