Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Conditional Exceptions - 1976-1977-1979 - 79-41, 77-42, 77-4
Mob , AAJ City of-- fluntington Beach PA. sox in CALWOONIMA Deli OFFICE OIL 'THY CITY CLERK Deteeber 20. 1979 Mr. Mort Coma 76" Liberty Street Huntington Beach. CA 92647 � I Dear Mr. Corona: The City Counri i of the City of Nunt4 ngWn Beach at its mvul ar meeting hold Menday,, Decor 17, 1979 apprvved Conditional Exceptions Nos. 79-41 , f 79-42, 79-43, 79-" and 79+-47. Please contact the Dapartmnt of Development Services for further i ntats�ti an. Sincerely yours. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clark AMi:cd CC: Jim Pal in - CAAwuni ty Services Director , 4q) �. 7 �/w 7q 4L �3 try rrtr. Superior Court - ai;ROVEA BY CITY COUNCIL OF T"M STATE OF CALIFORNIA f In and for the County of Orange •� D1 A�lAlr' -LqM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAM CITY CLERK ,F PLIH�A310N _,......_.w. Pub. Wearing - Appeal £tote nF('atlifornia ) ,� �` � CMrnty��f nranue 1x" I� a Janet L. Schuhrke That I am and at all times herein mentinned was a citizen of the Uni►ed States,over the slte of twenty-one vearn.and that I am not a party tv.nor interftud in the a1mve entitled matter: that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the i } Muntinarton Beach Independent Review r.newspaper of general circulation,publiahed in the City of Hun t inretorl Beach County of Orenge and which newspaper is published for the disemination of local news and intelligence of a general cha-ac- ter, and which newspaper at till times herein mentioned had and still has a Igma fide subscription list of paying subRcribers, and which rtlwspnper has been establiahwi, printed and puh- liahed at regular intervals In th3 .aid County of Orsinge for a ptrimxl exceeding one year, that the notice, of which the Pnntaed is a printed cony. has been published in the rosular and entire isaue of Bald rewspaper,asbd not in any supplement thertaf,on the fnilawin`dates,La wit: DeCe Mbe r b v 1979 1 certifv for declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregu- ing is true and convet. .......... .. .. ..... . CIO& in.this ..day or . Rigtttsture berm No C�r•atar. REQUEST FOR CITY CCKJNCIL ACTION Stibmittad by Jam .FI. Pa 1 i n Department Development Services s ._._.., (;,Sts pftp&V0 December 17, , 19 79 Backup Material Attactred EX Yes [3 No Sub)dc# APPEAL, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NOS. 79-4141 79-42 , 79-43, 79- 46 , 79-47, A REQUEST TO MEASURE THE CORNER CUT-OFF FROM CURB LINE TO CURB LINB. City Administrator's Comments Approve as Recommended . St+aternimt of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Fundi" Source, Alternative Actions, , ►TFNT„ _ I UVE Transmitted for consideration is an appeal to the Planning Commissions denial of ' Conditioral Exception Noa. 79-41, 79-42, 79-43, 79-46, and 79--47, a request to measure the corner cut.-off from curb line to curb f 13.rre vs. ,praperty lix to groPerty line as required by Section 9356 . 4 (c) (21 of the Huntington Beach ' Ordinance Code,. UC§&=M T 12N 1 The Planning Commission: and staff recommendc that the City Council sustain: the Planning Commission 's denial of Conditional Exceptions 79-41, 79-42, 79-43, 79-461 and 79-47. hNuaglS: A QLANT Robert Lee Corona ' AND APPLICANT: 7699 Liberty St. Huntington Beach, Ca. , L '. lo: 401 19th St. , 6A7 19th ;t. , 327 21st: St.. , 628 21st St. , and 623 20tb St. $=V=s To permit measurement of the corner cu+. -off from curb Une to curb line vs. property line to property line as required by Section 9356. 4 (c) (2) of the Huntington Mach Ordinance Code. This would allowa five (5) ',sduare f"•titii�mi-E .-"encroacr,�ent iota than .required corner cut-off �3tPtE" "s� �eCt ,parcels. l • � � . Page Two PLANNING C9ML§SJQL4, ACTIQN QN XgVgNMER .6, 179: ON MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY GREER, THE FIVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS WERE DENIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: .'AYES: Stern, Greer, Winchell, Bauer, Baril , Kenefi.ck NOES: None: ABSENT: Shea ABSiAII: None " 1. The granting of these requests would constitute a grant of fspecial privilege not consistent wit!: ether properties in the i vicinity under the same zoning. I 2. There is no special Circumstance on the subject properties which would deprive them of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the same zoning. 3. Granting of the conditional exceptions is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of substantial property rights. On November 260, 1979, the planning Commif lion reviewed Conditional Exception Nos. 79-.41, 79-42, 79-.43 , 79-46, and 79-47, a request to measure the corner cut-off from curb line co curb line vs . property lire to proirarty line as required by Section 9356 .4 (c) (2`, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Cade. 9yt allowing the curb line to clirb line measurement•, the applicant could achieve an encroachment of approximately five (5) square feat into the regnired 25 ' x 25' corner cut-off . The encroachment would be necessary if the proposed building is to be built according to the architect ' s plans. Prior to this tims, ataff was directed by Council to prepare a code amendn,e t allowing a curb line to curb lime measurement in � lieu of the 25 ' x 25 ' ,property line to property line measurement. The staff re:commend. a a 371 x 37 ' curb line to curb line measurement. Because of the pend:,..,g code amendment, staff recommended approval of the five conditional exceptions in anticipation that the code amend- ment would be approved by the planning Commission. This procedure has been done in the paat by staff to assist the developer in saving time when multiple applications and code amendments have been filed. The code amendment was revised by the Planning Comt ii iss .on on November Za, 1979 by retaining the 251 x 25 , property line corner cut-off and subsequently the five conditional exceptions were also denied by the Planning Commission on November 20, 1979. The Commission found that granting of theae requests would constitute a grant of, special privi- lege and that tyre were no special circumstances on the subject rroperrties which would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under they same zoning. y _ _ —. I i u, " q Page Threes ENV1Rt7NM—EP__1M INEGRMATION: Pur. Sijant to the California Environmental Quality Act cf 1970, the conditional exceptions are a Class 5 Ce,tagorical Exemption . M'Y'X N IV§ ACTION: Reverse the planning commission' a action and approve Conait,ional Exception Nos,., 79-41, 79-.420 79-43, 79-.46, and 79-47, allowing a five (5) sq. ft. bu:lld'- g encroachment into the required 25 ft. x 25 ft. corner cut-off , IKXQP 1. Area Map 2. Letter of Appeal received and dated Novembar 30, 1979. 3. Planning Coo mission Staff Report dated November 20, 1979. Respectfully submitted, &IS, r . sl n, DIrejctor�� Department of Development Services JWP:MS:gr: i I i 1 I i mum . 1f • f ' � ram: L• 'j► � lrrn��% i t�i►_/ /� �irY cterx �... A� p CbVA �r�`St�! ��,cr���- �,'� �n.� psi r.? / '�: ,f�• - 770,4, ..4a ,... /74A /-Z1JC % a 074,M �c Los G-� Oc 5Va,( log" f •� T 1 •', t11 I P ;t. OF i .M ZONING DM 10 9. 6- 11 a IONAL D IS T R IC T MAP IQ- 6-II T t Y'J NOTE: It it 411F1 Ila NIIRN 1 i710 %1. 11••1 Lu•v'•• 1•, •1•, [I tar _� '11 i'•f r.l^ aWit. In I+I ,1.11. � � CIII LrL I Lit N 'Y• IACI O 11f • li'GENa' . UNTING - . . . . �I1•I..Ar eA•s1.c Cfr'I73CC 2-;1 1.9 rl, �1. •.1 Lr"I•./ai•1Irl.l,r..••u.rtn.�l nl...ol..l r nrqU.r�lJ rr fgna.l•np l rfrl1ul...a1ra,v1 raN•ItIa�,luI YlI[i�SM•1i 1 4 ratC 1 hHI�GI li•.r I '('JI Y111••\ fVtl V'•1 r'•.tl /� � ( I � j ` n 7.1a it 1,�1 ''. i 'i .r:CI'v• n.p 1 lu,• It A N �r 1'. \ . � � l) 11 Ill �I n l 1 A 1, 1 1' O 1; 11 I A LII.07 1.1 1'1 :t` 1 •1 • I�' 1 , • • • '.1. �A11 n'111• AMENDED BY R ME to li auto SE • I� S�r7 npr 1 ,w: 1 0 t I ,•r.V11 .•'+ b. ,•.Dr"'M I141111,1ie 7�IIi1.11,•1.11, IU 10,71•IJI'11,irAl1R•IIRl1,rI./11Lh)III'}I InJti l,rdh•U'JI. i •i• 1,:J tJNMI ■'Ir of •ut1Jll'1+ •r aal U(N,il'll lb:,qIiltl,I. e5•h.c,,e rl, • '' '_ ''I ,I t.•a 7 ,n 'c, ,r•,� ..�.rtl U N.r NI r rl :1 d..,11 ,V 1. ,•��� � If .• r., WI Ir 1Yl 1�1■. SI r(Y 1• f 1 ✓ ,7 i �1 . Y�.1 %� � •r� trr.w, a•I.h r.•,I.nw J 1 •• •r,li QI n'►ISVu►,.w�1 CI , •1k11. M2•f1 IN REA NV 40 � '� /� t»s>' ::.� �, .,.+•;�` / !' •lam: w \ , 51 L at 10 lot 0.1 �. r" /� frr•�.. 11 .�JP! N AWA / t c ' .`• . •\ �Q./ •% /. ''S\J\. '11.M Al rFr Ir eve 1 I —— ■i>�A.■fr��r■�MR1r■r�■■rr.�r Irrf�irai��rr■wP. 1 I , l 1 ' huntingtai beach development services department a-Wo AL f f -RIEPORT.- TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Servi.ces/Planni.ng VATE: November 20 , 1979 ! SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NUS. 79-41 , 79-42, 9-43, 79-46 , AND 79-47 APPLICANT: Corona Const. & Dev. Inc. DATE ACCEPTED: 7699 Liberty September 24 , 1979 Huntington Beach, Cali . � ZONE : Townlot BE. UE 1 n t ST. xt� allow a encroachment of Specific Plan approx . five ( 5 ) sq . ft. into the required 25 ' x 25 , corner cut-off, in lieu of Section GENERAL Pam: 9356 .4 (c) (2) , by permitting Madium Density measurements for corner cut- Residential offs from curb line to curb line . LOCATIONS : Northwest corner of 19th St. and Orange; southwest corner of 19th St . and Palm; South- west corner of 21st ,St. and Oranc-e; southeast corner of 21L-':. St . and Palm; and south-- eant coro-r of 20th St . and Palm. . o�JC3GESTFD ACTION- f Approve requestzd Care-11J.tinnal Exceptions with the recommended findings and cond.�tior.-s a., r;ut]-i ned in Section 7 . 0 , . 0 HISTpRY: The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their October 31, 1979 meeting, referred subject Conditional Exceptions to the ]Manning Commission to be considered following action taken on Proposed Code Amendment No. 79-6 . -3.Q.- 92ffl- MY OF ,1§SUES: The major ieet e of concern is whether or not the proposed exceptions would create P eight angle or visual encroachment to the motoring public and thereby creating a life/safety ganger. C.� A•f M-!3A i CE, Nos . 79-41 , 79-42, 79--43 , 79-46 , 79--47 Page Two 4. 0___ANAT YSIS As stated in the staff report fur Code Amendment No, 79-6 , the purpose of which is to establish an equitable measur-ement in the location of structures on corner lots , City Council in- structed staff to establish a method whereby there could be uni- formity throughout the community . The applIcant' s proposal shows an encroachment of approximately five (5) square #eet into the twenty-five ( 25) ft. corner cut- off (8 . 9356. 4 (c) ( 2) ) requirement. It should be noted that said encroachment does not violate base district aetbac•k (front, exterior yard ) requirements , and would be located well in back of the thirty-sever. (37) f t . rout--off proposed by Code Amendment No. 79-6 (Exhibit A ) . tt has been ieterinined by Public Works Department , that the pro- posed encroachment would not be hazardous to public gdfet:y as long as structures are located in back of the thirty-seven (37) foot cut-riff dimensions . (See letter dated 11/2/79) , 0„_ENVXRO MENTAL aTATUS Subject Conditional Exceptions are categorically exempt (Section 15.105, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act ,' 1970) . 6 .0. SURROUFDYNg L1�,�TD USE, ZONING, AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS : Surrounding properties zoned "Townlof Specific Plan" and General Planned "Me(lium Density Residential . " 7 ._0 _ FINDINGS. AND CONDITIONS : 1. The granting ,if these Conditional Exceptions does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconbistent upon other properties in like - ore classifications within the community. 2. Because of sp-oclal circVmst.:nces applicable to these properties (twenty-five (25) foot widths) , the strict application of code requirements was found to deprive subject properties of privi- leges enjoyed by other properties within the community. r 3 . The granting of these conditional exceptl'ons are found not •.o adversely affact the General Plan. TT �1E ,bP ROYALt 1.' The site plans ,received and dated Noveuber 15 , 1979shall be the 4pproved layouts . 6t"ACHMENTS =(3c 1 1 . Area Mhp 2. Public Works Letter dated 11/2/79 3 . Exhibit "A" mom r i NbIteh Decor 6, 1979 fte tc arde 9MIC! Cr rMic NIM M f . 6PPEAL. TA 7VA PLANING CAI sS I ON'S DENIAL OF COMt1ITIWAlr I PfiIONSS V-41, ? -4 . 79-43, 79-460 4-47 W"C8 15 1110112 91 M WWt a p&l to bararbq will be ha I d by the City Cone i l of the pity of OWtifttem ft*th, In the Cana it Clamor of tM Cirwle Coster, Wontifteas Bomb,, at elw b" r of VA,, or at as yea tbareator as pet ribla, on y 70 4Wy •! Ir er . 19•, , for this a of aaai an aiwel to the Nlaaaing C4noissioe's dznia! of Conditimial fwwtiorrs Mos. M41 , 7 , 79-43, 19-46. 70-47 an Mlovember 2, 1979. Said CwWitiorwl Em"tim are to allow to emrwaclrant of approximately five (5) sq. ft. of structure WAP the "ired 95 ft. by ES ft. corror cut-off and %mv referred to the PUmirog Commissim by SJoe Omrd of Za►ning Adjusomts. The subject parcels are Imted at the northast corner of 19th St. arrd Orange Ave, soutkmt. coreors of 19th St. and Palo Ave. and 21st St. end Palsy Ave. and the southeast corners Gf 21st St. and Pair, Ave. and MO St. and Palo Ave, A 1"41 description is owe file in the Department of Devi1opumt Servit.�. frrUl pov an inviftJ to #tom s414 brag a empow t fr "r ert #aft said . �i-�611 tom► is Off of t� 'City ft aft, IDOL Mlaim Stmts ftningtoo Inch, CA. 92W (714) S36-6227 ems_ r 4..191 film MI►• WM911 'nM MWO r �� s i� Si. li�aa►taa�tl► ty lst�c I s .l a, r" li atom TO YK IN CMIUION'S KN1AL OF OMITIOWL i W429 W43o "a YO-Ai CIR 15 SIM dot a p6tio 'Mswl*.i will be bold by dwo City Coatefl of to City of dot Sooak$ to tm mil ftedorr of the Ci►vif fir. 6MAMM Bomb. at the Derr of eMmt ,.�..In ww:..�. ► aoMr . t!OWD for do 1womm of 141orbW 66 OMNI " tint p100141 Commission's dollar of Cooditiael f tims on. T9-419 7142, 19-43,, Wli. IS-41 on *Wmd , 2a 1979. Said Cooditiawal Eartians are to Allow to w-oaclow nt of Ow"XimAtall► fiwe (6) Sq. ft. of stmxtwo low Ow n"Ired 2S ft. by 25 ft. mw cut-off +end wart referred to tle Flaming Comessiom by tlw Msrd of Zniag Ujust vats. Tim subject Parcels art located at t mortl ost cow of )ft St. am!rd Oram a Ave, swAhmt c w rs of 19th St: and Palo Ave. and 21st St. and Palo Awn. arA the sWheast corws of 21st St. &OW Palo Av-*. sow 2'fth St. arA Palmy Awt. A )"a! description is on file in the Oepartosnt of DmIapoent Serw i ces. . *At lareosubW parsmw wo imiag to stood t•i41 b*4wh* amp ' oo dwir o ol61W for of 464bot soldOW gal r 1010 nrmttAaw My 1so Mai Of floo of the City C .6 20fiG ftirs Street, Awt irgUm 9MCh. CA. 02 (71 a) $36-6227 SAM:_ SOME tiUS AIIALS Me VOWwrth ��►» >i .Y i a 1' 7 a; YM tiy` 1 ' NOTICE. TO CLERK TO SCHEDUIX PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ,w ,�'j�• ,,h7 A 43 r 1-I 4'0 i ��r 0 TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: FROM: PLEASE SCPXDUZ A PUBLIC HEARINC USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICL FOR THE !'7 Tl� DAY OF � �.� 1�1L - 191 AP' s Pre attached AP' s -will follow ✓ + No AP' s • j Initiated by: I Planning Commission Planning Cupartment ' I Petition * Appes l Other Aduption of Environmental Status (x) _ G YES NO I Rater to ;��in f' Planning Department - Extension #,� 7 for additional information. e If g dal , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . Joe I , UNIWA � I�, d.�-If,f�.�r � A� :� '/ ✓�/._I I �,}..�1��� �✓ / '`�y,��./fir✓/j / .f f .I�. ���,�J�'\•iv'i'.� v 60 ' h 4�����,'�1,/•r� 1 ui`+L ���,.r.�-.��. !' A'I..r �,I �T� ����, �� �l_� I � 1�. �i'�r � y�� �� ate, � �� ; ► �� � ` , �.�11'. (.O�• (/�.'1 `�i� ��� ��'r �. ..-•� �,.i� 111.1. .�.i� it%'l. � .� J . �:� / �� �. ��-� ��. �+�l.i!_�/, J�•�V1��1 �r/ � . 1 �• �1,•` �•� , — C:Z•'%�.t� �ft'� s i � ':� r..•(.I�.l'!� �'.... '�,�i. .� .rt';':;.•. ���/-+• r� w .r'' • _ '• ,/ S�.�t�•�!4%�� (!_ tf�' uC :�/,. i 1� ;•./, f'.�(f:s i11 L iJi• 'l.' , �i " �1 f . . .� ��� �. �' � ! '.Y_ l �fJt,+ ' lJ✓';tf;1 '�✓�•1' .rr!� •;•.�'_' l(1,I�1.^M �T 1 �Lr'!rf' II.l� �_ � .. ' 1 . ' ��f\_ I�rr�.i f i Jt � .� ..r. .�I.,; ,I �,�,'" •��/ V rL l.�.' .`-•I�+�r� � i,- �f f '�. f+ ��� ,�i...f /I I f-� %• I r kit '�'r`, .',•l r i tip•. � I I F i I 1 'i r x i I a 1 6R 1r 3 'y+, � . ..gI.11f,11+r �.•M...1fti s I►IINf�.ram M�w•11.�1�•r►f1111ry•fw!. .+.. •r1' r•. /• .. it 1 ' • C. E . 79-46 cif ; 12�-6-79 Page 1 ' .' 1 Mf. ....••.. .. .., .. 1•. , 1 .1 ., .It , . 1. . i . ..1 •.• •. 1. 1 w, .• . . . .. • .. •, 1. . .. ..1 r 1 1. 1• . .. . . . .. ,.• , , .. ., . , . . .. • . • . . ., .. ,. .•,.. 3 114 1 df; 023-321-33 at x. 9u n r g ; � ohn h . Cusack 1 " � 1 Hairbour 1,ane : 693� President.e Or , xun�intrjt,on Beach, CA 92640 : Nun-".-ington Beach , CA 92648 1 , .* •v/••../•••1 •• . .. . .• •.a •. •.• •. . r• 1 . , .. •. 1f••a 1.1•. . .. .• ... 0 •r•,Y•I.11 df: 023-121-A4 df D& d D. Dahl : Loren A. Moll 409 20iih Strost 6822 President'e Dr. Murstington beach, CA 92648 ; Huntington Sea&j, CA, 92648 r •. Y• •••••11.1•.• . •1+r1.a1/r/ ...r. ,• .. /. 1...11 . . . .•• a ...•.. 1 •• .•. .. 1•••• 11. 1 . . r •/ .. 11• /./f••1 IM I•.11 /•/1111i . 1111111•.. Ei 3 1�4�-23 df, 023-321-•37 df : 1 a. n Gana ; Robert A . Jassen, at al 173 1 Beach Blvd. : 6782 Presidents Dr . emu•►l'J ington Beach, CA 92647 : Huntington Beach , CA 92648 ♦. •..0 I i 1. •f1•••1•..1 .r■••1•1•1 1•.•. .•/••/1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1•. .•.. ... . ....• .•. .. .. .. .It. •, . .. ../ ►•1•..i 1 1//1 f1.•1 . ••••I//1 1 1 .. 1 f 1U � 3i.-02,0 elf: 023-321r-40 df 846k Dollar Dev. , Inc:. : $and Castle Homeowners Assoc • 163 1 Beach Boulevard : 16371 Beach Boulevard : ftn ingtoo Beach, CA 92647 : Suite 240 Huntington Beach , CA 92647 'T I -1•, .i.•.• ..1 ,.,.1,•.•.•• .. '_, 1,f/1/1 1. 1 .• 1 0-6 /it a•. .•. ••.. ..... .1.... .. ,. . .. woo f...i...•/.,.•1.1 f.1 1/ /, , . ,..,.Y./ r + • Rot 0. Chetty . $83 Preesidente Dr. i Ru" ington Leach, CA 9264E • f 023 '3 r • • . . 1 •/+•��113.... 1. . . . . . .. ..••Y .. .•1//.��. .. . . . . a, 1 r. •. ...•• i ./•• 1• 1•. 1.1.. •• ... • .. . . 1• 1 1.•s.•1 ••••i/.1 1 . . 1 . •1 /•I•• to ld Watanabe et eI . M President* Dr. dun ington Beach, CA 92648 • ••11••... . ... . . .. . . . . . •• .. .It• . .• It r.• .1 .It ..1 •. 1 1.1 r ••. ••••/ •• ••/ .•••1• •.. . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . I 1. . It 1 1 1 1••••1 Y•1 1/ 1 1 . . . . . , 123"321-29 df: It* n P. Samingstan 07 Presidente Dr. un ington Steeh, CA 92640 1.. ...• .• . , . .. •• . •1 .• .•. . ..1•• •r.1 •••••.•• ••1 a.•.•../••••.1 .•. . . . . . . . . .1.•//••III 1•►If•/•0101111 df: tu A!* Albert It Presidente Dr. tn ington Beach, CA 92648 . .1•/••/Y r. •.i . . . . •. 1 .• .• .■ . ... 1/ .• 1 1 1 • . . ,,• . 1.. ... ... . .. . . . / 1 . .. , .• 1. 1■1 ••/•1./f• 1 1 1 .//f•.•1•../••f Y off 1 . 19 321»21 elf: V y L. Du 9of,a : - Praaidente Dr , t / p ibgton ftach, CA 92648 • It .1 - Nose /ff1/I.1.11•/11O.1.1IYIf . .1111 /40 /0000� I • • r i oa4 ; Y r F.. . f : CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 79-46 : • 1.2 6-79 • 1 • ..�•a..�•a1 616 ..1.a•a a a..a•0.....• ff■w1. ......■+• / i ... •.1..•a1•.f. ../ •.Ir. I..f 1\. .1 .. .al .. ..... t •aa .. /a a a a 1.l a..a 1 •aa - df 023-1t.3-09 df : 023-114 -09 df Colt Ana Cons t . A Dev.. Co 7699 Lib�.rty Street ; Clvde E. Jonee , Jr . : Dorothy E . Arnold �Itxrftington Peachy CA 93647: 13241 JennriCh Ave . :P . O. aor 228 Garden Grove , CA 92643 : Huntington Beac!-h , CA 92648 • .V a f...a 1 1■a ....• ` 1••....a.t.•..■1 1. .. 1 /• 1 ./..•.•w/...o Y.1.. r.•.•..a/f..• r..r• .• 1• . .. 1.1.. 1••Y.1./r.1....s..•.a r 1 r•..a••.. 1.. s: !` : 023-113-�10 df : 023-114-11 bf They Huntington Beach co , : Thomas X . Johnson ;C'raig B . Carste:ns 21 0 Main Street 609 20th St . , Apt . A 1908 Acacia Ave . Hu tington Beach, CA 92646 ; Huntington Beacht :A 92648 ;Huntington Beach , CA 92648 1 w 1 \• ♦ .• ./J...a.. /•I•a•....•■1 a/.a....a 11 a a 1••.L 1 b•/I..a a.a a t/. 1.\...f 1 •1..f a I •. . 1 1 ♦. I a t .t 1..1.1 r a ...I 1• / .. .1 .•'1••I r • •• 02 -,OfY�-61 df 023-113-11 cif : p23-114-12 df 1 H tingtom Beaoh. Co . : Kathryn J. Matthewn Joseph Romme.lfanger Property Tax Division : 621 20th St. , Apt . A : 621 19th St. Apt . A22 BUph Street ; Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Nuntingtor. Beach, CA 92644 gal Fra<nciaco, CA 941120 f ` • a•,)y. •I�C_11•.. ..t r•1.a 1.f...1 Y.•4�../ •/.f r.•.i 1 0/./a/•... A . . . . .. Y. ,. r / . . 1 .. / .I/a 1 a I Y a 1 I f 1 1 I A 1..a I Y 1 f.1►.I 1 i !►I 1 a I 1 t' Q ��17a .67 f~.71 : 023--113-1.3 df :023-114-13 df 1� St#dard Oil Co. of Calif. , Milton A. Jelinow.;;cz et al :Larry I . Mali lay i Pr rty Tax Div . 64772 C:andleberry Ave. : 20862 H%xnter Lane P.t�. Box 349o5 : Seal Beech, CA 90740 :Huntington Beach, CA92646 8 " 1"ranewi.sco, CA 94119 1 1•. o• .a.t be, 1 .. 1. ../. a t 606D. . 1 •.\a a... .. .11••/ ....... ....•.. . . . .. , ■1 I•a Y 1 a a a a I 1 1 1 . , . . 1 1 a a• 1 a 1.. ,1 1. f � -•�� -113-14 , 15 df 023-114 -14 df Do*othy Z. Fields : Gladys H . Bryant :John L. Peterson 921 12th St. Apt . 4 : 6139 Morth Faust Ave . :4915 East 5th Street Sante Monica, CA 90403 : Lakewojd, CA 90713 :Long Beach , CA 90014 .1 .. •.. ..a.1 .../.1. 1 •. 1 a .w ..• /.•. 1.`.a.. Y•/•/ 1•... I\.\ - ..•.. . � .1 1. • 1•/ 1 1 1•1 1. 1•1•• I�1 1 1 I•o 1 a ' '61`14113-03 cir' : 0Y_"i13-Y6 df :023-114-15 df Lldyd A. Wickstrom : Ronald W. harford :mi*chell Stanoff 3775 Cottontail Lane : 612 21st. St. :607 19th Street toed Ono* , CA 93402 : Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ;Huntington Beach , CPA 92648 . a. • 1 . • • •• •. .. ... 1. .•. 1 a Y. / .• a •1 •I"'......... 1/.a.,a.••1/a 1•.Y. ..a••1 1 1 1.. .. n 1 . . 1 I . f. 1•. / /.f .�a 1 a 1 .1 I . ' I 1 1 1 1 . O rY�r -l�4 aid 0 '3-f13-1' df :023-114-16 d Ter*eb Adams : Michael W. Fedderly ' :Timothy N. Bortvit 19661 Quiet say Lane ; 610 21st Street 605 19th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 : Iiuntingtort Beach , CA 92648 ;Huntxngton Beach , CA 92648 1 • .. /w., w •a•• .. .r•.a•la. . .I •. ..•1..Y.11•�. tl• r •. • /�•.1.■I/•••/1a.•.1• ,• •1 � . ..• . . f 1..1.• 1tl• .1.11 Y.•• 023�-1 3-06 df df 1 Urb�n R*conistruction Corp. : Richard N. Sallmonson, et al :Wayne R. Mathieu 221p4 Hawthorne Boulevard : P .O. Box 1314 :612 20th Street Torkesice, CA 90505 b Newport Beach , CA 92663 rHuntington Beach, CA 92648 a.�.. .1.Y, a. .. . . .. . . ....... ...• \. .. . .. . . /.• . .. n. 1.. . 1 / 1 1 .... 1....1 1. 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 I 1.1 1 G 1. 1.I 1... 1 .► .a ' d 3}-1i3-0Q df ; 023-114-•03 df ;023-114-19 df (Am go A. Green, Jr. : Lowell U. Zehnder :Mary Go 8katetedt 943 Bayan Avenues 201 14th Street ;C/o Personal Prop. Msxnagamen Ike• inster, CA 92683 : Huntington Beach, CA 92648 :5142 Warner Ave. Suits 106 :Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ..ar1 f6/ .. r. 6/4191 41 a... •..a 11 rw....••111..aa la a•••a...rl . .• . . . . • . . 1a.11aa11a1a11r1.• 1.1111Y 1111/1a/ 111 . 1111.1 a1 a/ w • ♦ 1 1 • • a Y r r• a r r 1•/r a a•••• 1.. • .. •. . r. .a 1 . 1. 1 a a.. . A• .r . a 1 h.. .• .. • •... .• .. 1•. . . . •. •• . •. • . .• • .1.a •.1..l ..•. .• .r 1 •• ..a ■• 1 •• • r ••a 1 a 23-114--03 0xWtfUetirr, & OWN 00 I'mell L 49 Ubwty Strwt CG 7�I-q 7 201 14t1, 'I-rest Beach, Wif L r 6, 1979 PH) Hwtingtm Beach.. calif 2647 ' ; 93648 r .. rA•r•a1•a.a.. ..ra1.•w•. ..11• ••• ••1• .11.1a►..r•►•1/araraaala.• . •• I. . . . r . . . . ..1�. .. . 1a/a1 ••Ia ••a r•aa•1• .a1aa .I Ali. 1.1 .. . .. .. . HMtirWM Beach CO. 2�"1�-��`49 23-114-09 Wn stxeet Clyde ! r GttY3� Jr D=thiy E Arnold ngtm , calif10241 ► enrich At,enue P.0. Bait 229 8 Gmztien Giovet Calif : Ehmtiryftm Beech, Calif 92643 : 9260 •r• ••••r►1 a.•. ...a 1 .. .. 1 a r.A•.•..1 ..1 a. •1 10/r-r•/•err.•a.. ..•1 a..•r 1 a a 1 •a. .. a .1 a• . .a 1 •0 1 I a•a•1 11•1 r a 1 r a•/ a r 1 a 1 11 a ..1 r r 10• a a a• 1 ;1-113-•41 23-113-10 23-114-11. BeWi OxWeny hams K Johnam Craig B emrstlens Cd)L 00 of Calif 609 2Oth St Apt A � 1908 Acacia Av e F 7bx Divisim A ,H mtingto * DeWlt, Calif Itantirm t on teach, Calif Bush Btr'eat 92648 92648 ••fI036 r•r 1 r r A•1•r a A......•.. ..•••. .••/•r/•• . •. 1■a••a••a a 1•1 1 1 1 1/a a 1•a•• •a•a•.. 1.a .. . . . • .a .•. 1 1 •. •.•a•I r• 1raraa. 11Araa. . 1a . •1"1r'er�cir�o, Calif 23--113-11 23-11,4-12 20 Kathryn J Mttr A-.'w m JosephW k nol fw%jer 621 2Oth St Apt A 521 19th Stivet Apt A .�......��._...... ....r�.____ mnungton Beaa- 1, calit amtirwmn &Nwb Calif 92648 92648 � a � .. . .. .. 1 .: .. .• . r . . . .... .1 • .. . .../. 1 1 . 1 1 1 ..,.. . .... ..1.. .....•.r .. r . . , • , . 1 r.1.•.1.1 too-bads 1.1 off .1.....1 1 . 113--02 23-11.3-r13 23-114-13 8 B'ielda Milton A 3elimdez et el Lury 1 ltlila y 3 12th Street Apt 4 4772 Ave 2O852 Rmter Law "mica, Calif Boa Bmvah, Calif H=t jn gtran Eea�h• Mir 0.3 : 90740 92646 .• . . . . r . , .. . . .. ,.... .. a 1 1 1 .a. 1 . ..../••••1•• 1•. . to 1 1 a 1 a• 1 1 1 A 1.. 1.. 1• . . 6 .r . r , . • 1 !.1 a 1 1 a r. 1 . 1 a I a or.1•1/ 1 a//I 1 1 113-03 23-113-14 23-114-14 h Widuftram N Gladys H BryantIlvhn L T�eteram 75 Oottvntail lam 6139 N FaUSt AVeime 4015 E 6th Street Oeoar Calif to kewoW Wif lmg Pewh, calif 9 02 9071.3 90814 1 1 a•.a 1 .•• a• •. • • . . .. .. • 1 ... •• .a •a.a 1. •. 1 a a .. 1 •• . 1••I.•1 a•a 1 a r 1/.•a.a a.a 1 a • .• . , r •. •r . . . , I 1• r• 1 1 I•. •/1 I•I I/1 I I a 1 • . . 29 113-104 23-1.1j-16 23-114--15 Adffas Ftnalci W Harfcad Hitt*ll Star aff 1 1 Quiet. Bsy lam 612 213t street 607 19th Street iH.rigtlon Beach, Calif Hunt.ai t n ftwh, Calif Mmtingtr n Heach, Calif 92648 92648 • a• ■.a• •. • •. •. r. . . .• . . a 1• .a.. r• •.....e • •1•I I.. .. . 1 •..,•.1.a.•a.•a r.a r/.a a a••• a . . 1 1 1•. .1 ••..1 .1 1•a//r./•/.r 1 i/A•••./r 1 . 2 113-06 23-113-17 23-114-16 IWAVIDtr U tion Wri Michael W Orly : fMMDthy N Bortvitt: Hortbat,"ne Blvd. 610 21st Street 505 19th Street we, Calif Bmtirgton Besrh, Calif Huntit t.--, B wh., Calif 1 92648 92648 r. ••• ■• .• . . .1 •. . r•. •1 • •..1. .. . • 1 1 .. . . . .•... . . .!.a.... .. . . .. . . • . . . .. 1 1 1 • 1 1• 1•1••A•1 r 1 1 a 1.1 1 r A•• a a . a r 1 r 1 11}.p4 23-114,02 i 23-114-27 A Grem Js Richard N et al Wbyna R NbU ee 32 Nv~ At++i %= P.O. Box 1314 612 20th Strvet 3 i! Nit Brach, Ca1.if 92663 : Hunt4ti goon Bach o Calif 926 • A• • 1.• •1•1 I•.a 1 1..r. 1 a.a••.•r•• 1 a.I ..••••a 0.. 1 • .1 I•1••1 r•1 a I.. 6, .. 1 ...• .•1 1.••• /•0,06066041UP&I Ito 68 /•/•r••. • •••r /a • 1 1 go 1 WMNiM—� • • 1 • • A • i • r .1� • F � M� 1'. 1 � • • I • • � I e •.•.r e r I r Y 1.1• • •I. .!• .• I• ..• •!I • . . / .• 1.1 1 •. 1•I.••I 4.6 .I.,Yee.•.. .•..•. •► . . .... .• .•• .L..•••r./..•• I.I /•••1.••• •.r• 2 114-Il9 QQyyaa��t'My / i }2�3�14y1LM2axtm at a} Y. 079-47 1 sty "m m9pt Dec. 6, 197 9 j,I'H) ; 7212 y twi-*r Chive 5 42 �aC �1mmum Suite 106 I 1 Hknl tin;Can EwAch, Ca.i f Beach, C rli.fe 92649 9264E e■ •e• e•7.•.►• r Y•••1 1' •• •• .r 1 1 Y•• .I .• . I . 1 .I I••90.06*0 1.e.1 Y.I r/•. I• . •I.• `..•. ..• • .r`••1 r I•.•.1 e•1.e O Y I• ...e.1 e e.r e it Y.1..e■1 . n 2 23-141-08 23-1 i 1-'2 3 N Homo y TiLUlQ Emil R M AIt o 1 529 Nzr law 801 Delia%wv utn_%nt 21505 Lost Riven Prive gGm ftm:h, Calif Wntington bench, Calif M Dia=d Bazv Calif 9 649 61 92647 91765 /e ••••Go" . 1 •••e.e• 1 I e. ...I. ••I .e I• •• 1 ..Y e•••• • •!•1/.I r • ..... I.• .. ....• . . . . I .I..I•.e e e e e e e e It I,e•.I.. .e•...1.I•1 /w f . . 2 114 -22 24-141.-12 23-141-24 a 0 Wh1 awiotte E kUlt in Circle T C 20th Btr�rat t 839 14th Street 610 E 17th St Suiye 201 Beech, Calif Hwtin#m 0MC110 cal-if Santa Area, rAlilf 640 92648 92701. f• •1 1+ I r 1 1 1 e•e ...� !• 1 ..!.e I .e r.r f f..t. . ••J I .e!.e e/1 e Y 1 f f f••.•..I e h.1...1 e .... . I ., I e 1 e 1 1 1 . 1 .1 1 1 . 1 1. I f.e 1 i•e e•..• e e e..)e f. • 2 114-23 w 23-141-13 23--141r-25 M ftme Cerra Lbe F, Haskirm v alliam Krtxt',.al 1 301 Borsch Blvd 19811 Sr=Vr_liff law 1831 xanola M 44 Beach, Calif Hmtangtun Baach, Calif LA tea, Calif 47 92648 90631 e e l 1 . . . . .• . . •.••/• f►• •. • I li 1 1 1 1 1 - • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 • .•.1• •I.. f r r'. • I r . 1 f 1 /•f v$e.I e/.f f e 1 e/1 r 1.1 1 1 I 1 I/e L e e Y I 2 141•-02 23-141-17 23-141-26 ancdo L Hardeay John L Petervin Dwinis Paden 0. Bam 678 4915 E 6th Street 622 19th Street' B orb Calif Lzig Beach, Calif F.mtiajg•tm Beach, Calif 8 90814 92648 • /Y /e • . . I w 1 ...•.e. •• I. .. •. • •• . • .f 1 1/e r•Y I•1-... /s e r f •e I.e•e. f.. . • • 1 •1 • I I I /f v f•1 e•L 7 Y..1 /1 1 f 1 1 I . . .l 1 1/e e l 141-04 23-141-1.8 73-141-27 IL Kxvee* wyr. V Shembin Gem-" it rimm 6 la-th b'ktx t 617 18th Street 620 19th street {ngtm Reach, Coif mmtixgta: o&wh, Calif. Hmtin� Beach, Calif 6 92648 92C48 • ♦.•..•• . ..e . ... . •I•.f•1.e ..1 I • . .f .. I e.• .I e•e//1 e r 1 f r..•.I e e e r I• . e••.• .I r • .I.• J•.•...a.. ./• . . . i •. f♦ e.••1.1 .. 2 141-05 23-e1.41.119 23-291-01 h Down Catherine A Akbatewla at al � Dmqlas IiavF jena Drive 6 4lisba 081 901 thrive 200 Ne.�rm Awmue 7252 B eft, C3 ,if C�les> le, Calif Bunfiit�gtm be", Calif 7 91.201 92648 I .• .1 r.•e .f..e•.L.. , ..1 . . .• .I• ••.f■ r..• . • .•e.f.•.1 1•f NO f.•f.•• .w 1 •..I.•r I 1.•I•I . • . . ,. . . . . • • fee fee e• 1•1.f I 1.J.�e /. .. . . 141-00 23-141-20 23--291-02 Prakash ? A*er't H Hay Michael L Kirsch 0 19th street 2749 AUmtzoog Drive 7246 Havenrock Drive. React1, Calif Omta Maaa, Calif Hmtirgton Beach, Calif 92626 92646 . • • ••1.. r • . . . • , I • • • .. ..•.e e.• / .. .. ..e•• •. ` •w. .• . . I . . . . 1. . I . . I . • . •• I..r 1 •• . . • . ..•/e...I•e 1 r 141y07 23�141i21 23-291-03 i 39 ealblr � et al Oa11w Agency 7242 c Drives hng"O mill P.O. Bw 8240 Hantingt or Hesch, Calif ramtain 'Valley, Calif 92708 ? 92648 I .r• r•L. 11 •• .. ••e..Y e•.I e Y r NO e l e e •.••+• 1•. .•e••f.eeelr•..1•••Yef.+r•.1.r.e.I•.1Sol i. e•10/ 1•IIe 11/ 1 • 1. 1111f 1•Ir11 . . . . llfbl • • S*+• e • • • 1 1 I ti •/ ..11. Iw1 a/ ' 291-04 23-321-'31 ' CE f'151-�47 : Larry To leis 73 Drive Deueca ,e.r 6, 1979 (JH) : 6852 Prrteidente 1h'i.ve ki�twgtr�n Beach, Calif 1iucitinc3tan Besac!•i, Calif 92 8 : 92619 1• .t•••.•r••\//Y I r/\.••••■..I•I... .. .•I.• ..•• ..Y Y•r\I\1••.. ./ •./..\...... .I . ./ .. . 1...I•I Y 1 1./1•/.1.\..I.\a\ 1\\1•.1.Y. 1.I I\1 2 291-M 23-291--13 23-321-33 1i Brad Iey Marshall J• Sc Affer ,7olm B Cusack 72 2 HsvwwoL-k Drive 19881 Saltwater Circle 6832. Presidente Chive Heacho Calif ftitingtan Bf►acb, W.if molt-irlitm Hoak), [.Calif 9' 48 92645 92649 •• ••�i\N.1..Y....r.Y a f 1 1 1 \\a....■.\•I.I Y.I f 1.. .. I I I I I I I.w...a. ..1 1 1 /► r I... . •• . . - . \ 1//1 1 1 1 Y\1 1 1 1 1 1 . , t 1 1 ■1 1 1 1..I f f U Y\..•\ 1 2g1.�46 a 23-291-14 : 23-321-34 D 2UI" r lydia w Hines Tin A Moll Hbvmnra* Drive 7 436 Dahlia Avenue : 6822 Presidente Drive trim ton Beach, Calif Wawa Del, Mar, Wif MmUngton Beadi, Calif 9 0 92625 92649 06 .•Y Y•I w 1 1\14 Y I r 1 1 i..•./..r r.../\1.1.1 1• /...I I a•.Y 1 1 I Y Y\•..r..... .\1../...1.\I r 1 ..1 ...\I r••1..■w.w./f• l I.• . I r• •I Y Y..1• 1.. 1 1 1 291-07 23-291-40 23-32140 17 Hi[tashesreBoadmlk lim owers Assn : Send 04stle Homaawneril Asia 7 6 Egvrer Drive LDmda Prcgerties Im 16371 Beach Blind SbUte+ 240 Hawh, Calif P.O. Boat 1185 Huntirx tin Bearho Calif 92 8 Santa Anda, Calif 92711 92647 1 • •• f 1/Y..+1 .1 . . . . I . .. 1•.., r t•1.\ 1 . . 1 ..\.1 / . , ••.• r•r.. r... 1 , . . . .• .. 1 .• 1 1 ..I 1•1 Y..1 1 1•Y•••1\f I•f YY 1 2 291-0 23-231-22 � ie►s M M=is Kota G Chetty Drive 6831 Pmaidente Drive o BBwh,Calif. Huntizxjtm Beech, Calif 92 8 : 92649 1 • .. ,, . .. .1 . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. I .... ..... .. ....,............. I\ ... 1.•\r./1. ,.• . . . . , , .1 . , / 1 ..1 . • . I I 1 1 1 7 391-09 23-231--23 11 % Jedi.nak Itcrtial.d T Watanabe et al 72 ` Havwulock Drive 6841 Presidente Drive ; aw,hr Calif Elunt iiYftm beach, Calif. 9 8 92649 • .. .••\ I 1.1• . . •• ■. • . . •. • •. • r .\.•• . . .• . . •• . .r.• .. • ... . . . , 1• 1 .L .1 1 ■\ 1 I 1 . . . . . • • ..e . • •/Y I 1 • I , 1 . 291-10 ,• 73-231.-24 1, Vi:culin Sara Dollar cavelapmnt Inc 72 2 Hwmrdwk Drive 16371 Beach Blvd t i iix3ton BaWh, Calif Hunting...sin Beach, Calif 92 8 92647 , • I a. ..• • .. . • • • . . .. .. • • .r r\1•1.1•.Y ■. • r .. � •• . 1 1 . . . 1 1 1 1.1 .1 . 1 1 1 I• 1 1.. •• \ I I 1 1 1 r , . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 2R-11 23-231-25 us S Barta Steven P Seadmg9on : 1 91. sal,twatl0ar ci1mu 6871 Presidente Drive ; Beachr Calif H►nat.ingtm Beach, Calif 8 92649 1 . .. . .1.....1...\1./.1.1 /. , 1 1 1 1 / 1/ , 1 1 1.1.I 1.1 f.. •, .1 1...1.Y 1 I 1 I 1 1 . i 2 291�-12 73-231-27 P Ihiel Paul M Albert 7 flatltmter Circle 6891 PzVsidente Drive Butchr Calif nmtingtam Beach, Calif 92649 a 1 � ' r 1 r I . , I r 1 1 .. . .■.Y. V . . . I. ,. 1.. I 1 . . 1 I , , . ► • • ..•.•.►•. 1. I .. I. . . .. . . .. .. . ..1 . .I I. . . , . f .. ....1 .{ ... .. ..... .•..■ 1• ...•. .w. 1 . {COX 9-4i - fi, 1979 w r e ' ••• .�.•••••.♦• ••1•1.•■• /.•.•• / . • • ■/ \• / •I r• •••••••,•r. I••■•■r'goal • r•• •• 1• 1 •, 1 • • .• •• I 1 • ■. • • •.r Y 1 a I •//.•••■1 . 1/••r/• •I •• 1 • • - o l55-a7 ' I 1 Light ra r 237 C1��s1 . r,t BMc h j Ch. 92663 ••• sr/rr.■ee•4.�\. /•....••.•••••1♦. ..ae/ .r.\a•!1/e•IP•1•/.a .. 1.. .11■....r1 .• .. .a. ..1.Ia. . .•1. /...■••••I e..•I.I ..r••••1•r .. • • 02 5-09 / •001+ ■ 1 FWARA Beacho Ch. 92648 • a ' too •1 M.•.••• • • r/.1 .. •. 1 1 1♦■•■e•/■I 1 . I 1 1 •. ••1 a 1••1•1 •• •• •• !• .. •M••■1 ■a 1 a 1•. Y a 1. .1 .••• 1 r• •r• 1 ••r..1 r•.1 r.•r... •• \•a IN a•a . . a23w Wises IS •• 2x tM* Breeze Lm* ih, CA. 92646 a M i [/f••mod• r a■a•• 1 r• •. •1 1 .•1 1 1 .a 1• 1 •1 •a a•9fa■11 • r r I 1e•\•ee Ir • •• . . • +.••.1.. ♦I r/••. • I I. . , • 1 •.♦.1 1 /•.••1•a• •••a a•a•1■\1•1 aY� • 1 ■ / J + • • ristez, CA. 92683 • • 1 .• •a ■ r •• • •/I 1 I. .• r .. . . • •. r . • .• 1•\\•/•1•e\•••• • . . • . •.. r• .• •• . r. . • . .1 •II\I.1ae.\•1.1•■ea1•••••\1e• Y• f•1 ♦. • a ■ 1 • a e • 1 • • • • r a • /•r•../■ ••••\•1 I r 1.I •r a•• • .•1• .• •• r 1 r •• •• I ••..I . 1 r r I I 1 I • I •1 r r I / 1 .• 1•1 1• 1 r•\•1•1■1.•{f•e• ■ r Y \ ■ 1 • • . 1 • e � • r r•1 •.• \ .•. ••r . • • • a•• •• I.1 I .•• • • • • • • • •• 1•w. I••1 1• \•1•••. • • ••• ♦a • •• I I• •• . I . •. a I a• I•1 • r 1 • lot I.•••e•••1 e•1 1 e e••••.• I • ♦ • ■ r a ♦ •a•• ••Y•• ••. • . . • . • . . 1• • •1 •• •. I 1■e•• •a••1 •. r•••1•!••\1.1.1' . 1••••\•1..1.1•••11a•••e•/•• •1 ••••\aa1 .1 •l111 II Ia1111ete• 111•• •066 Y 1 • a + 1 • e / • 1 • a L601• too 9066996694,9444/t•a•1614•11.1•••••t a•1•••t•t••Y•••ae I• 1I.1••a•.Ia1.1••1.10 aa11 a•e•1l11••t1 Y1111 1 .1 ee/e1111e 1./•/ • • 11• • e • e • e Y • r • S • t Y • 1 ■ Ail ■ f I •. .a.1 /.. .1 \a a a. . .. ... • r+ •■a•. r• 1 .• • 1■ � • ■ •a ..•1..■...�•• ••r•.a •t •. .I.■.• ►► I.1 \. \.• •• \.•./.1 .■•►a I./ r r Cz 9-41 023y-151-�0�3 02:i-I51--'l7 .r 6; 1979 Cladye Harris ; David Mialuao 425 Ea Ocoan Blvd. Apt:. 200 : 411 Lath Stet IAOM 8 'Ohr CA\ 90802 ; Hunt.irgWi Beacto CA. 92648 1 , I r• .f.. •. ►Y .■ ■.• •\ . . lot — a •1 •. .• • • • .• 1■• . . ■ •► ■/ /.../ \.•.••a 1■a a a Otsego". 1 -4 1 .. .r • .. .. •.1 a..a a•a a..■ 1 • •r a•• •. 1 a1. .• a. 02 128-06 Omtrarl Pet mltwum Corp. 023-151-35 j t�2:r-151-18 Culler & Baileys Helen Psk ridge ; Stewi, Talbe•x:t P. . Scar 319:� 421 18th Street : 413 18th Strmt tit 1 TX 7961tiA Iitua tr 19 n c acfi; CA. 92648 Hrrntd.ngt Dn Beach, CA. 92648 • •■.f.1■a■.■1■.■.aa•r■aa..1•a.araa \■a■laaaa111rr1 . Ia9,aaa•la.•111 •aaaal■I.. a•. •1 . •I .I . 1 -• ..•■1•a•falaral ■■11 ..a ... 6. .6 . . 02 128►-08 ' Cant 023r-151-09 023-151-�19 el 8� I pAym&-M rxrda ; Gregory xbera et ai t a. ooe View Avenue 815 E. Heverly Pl. 419 18t-h Street Santa Ame CA. 92701 Hunti,-gon BeWhr CAA.. 92648 ....... .a1 .. a•.1.. . •I.110a904r404,0.. .0 .. .......,.lafaraa. .a\,Ia. la.la.\ I. . .1• . . . . . .. 1 . . .rr. •ra11 •a . 1 ••/.0.1009. 0 02 120-13 023•-151-10 Oz3-a151-21 t4unaz wry mrC jY;m y b George Wrx:ru et al so 2 Cmo= Avenue 406 15 th Sheet.. 415 lath Street ter, CAA. 92683 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington B"Che C.A. 924A8 a / I • . I . . .a 1. .. . . . . a a a I I 1 1 I•a■1 a 1 • . • .• . . . . . . . . . .■. .I .1 a .1 /a 1 f/a 1 a f.f f 1 1 1 1.a f / 1 OZ 128-16 023-151-11 023-151-r22 vatur 31 19th Strftt Cracchioto : Charles Parrish Fred Warren � 'rI+irqbon Hanch r Ch. 92648 407 18th Street 417 18th Stoat Huntirigton Ewch, CA 92648 Huntingt cu Seac h g CA. 92648 ■ as /.ar •• . . .. r . . \ . . . . .• aa lfl a.\ .• rr. 1 .. .. .. . . .... .. . . I .I a•\ Iaaa1 ■11.1 .■ .Ilfalala/ .. a • 01 128a-17 ■ 023-151-13 1 19th Stet Peter Van Elten Saxrd & Surf PrWertiee 405 18th Street P.O. Box 2103 tlxrgrbncr 1. 92648 Huntington Headh, CA. 92648 Seal Beach, CA. 90740 •a ..aa► ..•a. .. • . . ■ . •. � • • • • • • . a . . . \ a./■11aa/. r. ., . .. .. . .. • . . . .• . • . r . . . 11 .. \. . . . r1 .• 1 ■a .• 0 .. .■..1f.a11a1.a . . 120-22 023-1.51-14 023-155-02 ttt PAym et al �1ph C o Irvin Sim 3 20tri Street 403 18th Street 239 No Kmter r CA. 92648 Huriti.,Wton &-mch, CA. 92648 14�,6 Angeles, CA. 90049 ■ a //a.... .1a■.1.• • •r . . . •. .n..• .■ ... • .r ••. • . . .1 •.... .• aa .•. ••.. \• • . . . . •. r .. r . l .a a111.1.•/,11afa 1■aaa a.al 0 1.28-a23 023-151-15 023-15 -OE t parp. !arty Stacy/nm.&Id 1;llie ��155 Icalcaxu LI7th.OISItreet % C�xinsel�r Realty 5378 EnForia Avenue Beache CA. 92648 2120 Min St. Suite 250 Culver City, CA. r 17230 thntttngton Beach, Ca. 92648 • .. . . • . .. a. I a 1 1 a 1 . ...a a a a.a•1 1 1 a a a.1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 a a a a 1 1 1 1 a a c r r 1 1 1. .. 1 a . . . 1 a . .I a a 1 1 a a a•I I a/a 1 f a a 023-151-16023-155 '16gMet' M.J. C s lstatt� : George �.,jntor ttftt : 409 18th Street : 323 Via Lido Sound Hlb cbe Ca. 92648 Huntington bmeh, CA. 92648 : Newport aaacho CA. 92663 •, .. . . .. , ..\,................1.1.a ,Y/f 1 a a a a 1 .1 a f a a a a 1 a a a a 1 a a 1 a a 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 a 1 1 1 a■ 1 1 . I .a I a 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 a I I 1/ r J � 1,k , 'It,MnJ ■ . :�61 4 • . 1• .• . .Y.1•1 1. ..\ 1...1 . 1•. /• • • 1 • . •. . \ \ . .1 •\•1 1.... 1 •..• I.. •• ! .. 1. . . • • .. • 1 • •/ •. •. 1 1 I.. .. •f ..• •..,/•1 I.I 1•1• 79�41 023-124-01 023-124-17 6, 1979 : aama W" Dcrm Pars6i .9762 Bellfield Ln. 425 19aa strut p 1 fluntirgton B the (A. 92648 Hunriri3trm &Mdl, CPS. 92640 1 / . •Y .r 11 r..•.1.I.1.•1 Y•1./••/ I. .• .. . •. . . .••7•I r 1 L 1 •I 1 I. . • , r .f .•.. .. .• • •.• . • 1. . . •. . 1. .• /. •.\\ / 1 1.• • I . .. /•I 1• \ • . 1 Y . • Cat. & l r►t 023-124-•02 023--124-18 76 Eldon Bagat,ad .Judy Cla* z. BeactI CA 901 Catalina Averny-- 427 19th Street Seal &uwh, CA. 90740 NunUngton Beach, C.A. 9264F1 • /.■■.!.•1.\.. •r1\• 1r 11.•.•.1.. got.l 61 PiiI1 r11.•111 • 11• • �.r/.. •r /r1.1 .•... •• I . •. ../�. •. ... 1. ..•r11.1•\11 r•1.O•Yr . . 1 . . , • 02.T1 24-03 •. 023-12 7'-09 Hm 21 Mtlitt $ttiqtca c t Co. : HM40 d ` Oalld, Dc*"rs & Spray teach, \JA1 : 6731 ViaCarona Dr. 3075 W{.lbUire Blvd. RMtir tM Etach, C.A• 92647 Suite Sol LA8 Angeles, CA. 90005 . I•I YI... • /• .•. ..• .1 \. ,11 .1•.....r \ ,,,,I•.►1111 • ••.••.... I...•.. .1. 1.1•. •. . .. , -I..r/.1 r•.«•..•.1••r•111•Ir..1. . . • OX 123-37 023-124-05 02.3-127-11 Beach Cb. C D- Hr e Aabert Gordon Divisim 2C63 Walnut Avenue 8115 S. rjoem View Avenue 22. Bush St. Beaah, CA. 90806 MittJAr, CA. 90602 ftmrxaw, Ch. 94120 • ■ .•1 •1♦•.111. .1 I11.. . . , . r . I11I.1 , 1. 1■1 19/90/4111.111I.•IY 111 I.1 •• .•II.11.1 d 17.348 : 023-124-09 023-1271-12 Bertino qt=w Wadi Playrmnd D=44 P. . Sm 8223 = 4202 Branford Dr. 6661 Morning Tide Dr. Beach a. 90808 : IILuitington beach, CA. 92649 Huntington Dearia, CA- 92648 ..1 1•1 1 1 •. . . .• .... .. /. ... /I . ., . , . 1 \ . 1 I. I I I./•1 1 1 1 1 4•1 ./I•1•r 1•••/• 02 12'V 09 023-124-13 023-.127-17 Signal Oil Cb. Steven Griger Elizabeth Berry 39 3 Lan Beach B1W. 921 12th Street: 323 20th Street: Beach, CA. 90807 Huntingtm teach, CA. 92648 Huntimjtan Beach, M. 92648 • •. I..•1.1..Y •• .• •. •. ... . . . •.... .. • • . 1 • . . ..,\•• . •. •..••. . . ••. ... .. . 1 . . . . .. I 1 1 •. 1•. .. •1 1.1 •/1•1 •1 1 1 1•1 Y••••4 1 I•• 1 1 . . 02. 123-10 o23--a.:4-14 023-127-18 wi ttthm aer Tart Finn, Joseph Gerrimm 12 61 "Mmu St. : 6721 Onmtry Circle 14122 Rad trill Avaium Gram, Ch. 92641 Mmtirsgtm Bewh, CA. 92648 ITust.in, CA. 92680 I I . . I . . . .. . . . .. ..1....,.. ... .. . . . .. I . ,. I . 1 .., 1 / 1. 1 .. /1 1./ .,..1.1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1• /. 1.1... 1. . 02 123-11 c 023-1.24-15 023-1.28-02 Mi Qmt (Prank Wright Ew&l Plegel 21 20th St. 43.1 19th Street J.I. Hathaway ton 9mch, M. 92648 H'untirxltaon Bench, CR. 92648 P.O. Box 3404 Santa Fe S'priMs, CA. 90670 .«. ...... .. . ... ., .I Y.... 1. I .. ., f.I•. ../,.1.I.1...1 1./ ,• . .1 1•..,,.. 1.,.1.I 1. , ./ .. , . 1 . . 1 . • / " , . . , .1., ,► 1► 1 /. . 1 1 1. , 1. 1 02 123-12 023-•124-16 � 023��128-03 "air Lois Steam . �0 3M Stzwt - Apt. A : 2542 lAmIta Grwrk C Z , CR. 92648 : L'�q 8eat#ti, CA. 90815 1520 20 N N. Aane m lfi [�. . Pacific :tl.isadee, CA. 90272 ..• •�.r•►.. 1 .\ ./ .. 1..••1•1.{!{1.•9 0•••.•10 1 •■••t Y•••«•.1•. .1•••.1 r/•I•/•..•. 1•I 1 I I•1.1 ••••I 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 r � r • i • • 5 • ' R {1 r n. h,r • • 'H•r�••••r• rr qy .1••. 1. I 1 •r 4• rite . Y. ,.1 •1 •.1 r 1 . 1 . . 1 •• . 1 1 1 1 1 •, • . I• 1 •• • I.f 1 1 • 1 1 1. •1 1. I .• ..1.• /.•i• I Iz 76-42 023-29].w yd 023-r321-•25 Doc fit" 6, 1979 Beachwalk Hm 3wnerts Assn. : Eteven 8araii;gscn Oft . IrKmd-i Prgperties Zrx,. 6811 t'zeaic me Or. 3 P.G. t 11$5 Hunti.ngtan EkWhp Ch. 9264.8 w-u:.ta kA, CA. 92711 ; 1 •Y ••►r.r• •• \•. I.. • .•• .. . .• .1 •• r•I .. . 1 I,..,r I I 1 .1/•... •I I.. •I 1 r . •1 • • .• . .. . . r • • 1• r 1 w. ••I •1 .I .. 1 I 1 1 1 1\1 /1 1 w 1■/•- 1 .r •• 1 02 293�11 023-292-01 023-321-27 ra wis Bwta 19922 Maritime Lays haul Albert19 .�i Salt tsar Cir+cl� 6891 Fmsidente Dr. tfunttrgtnn Beach, CA. rj2648 ft ngtaan Beech, Ch. 92648 HftmtirvitLni bezzdi, CA. 92648 r .• •..... .. 1 •I 1• . 1 • ••. -1.1 •I 'Goes •.1 •• 1.1 1.014 1 1 ..1• ..{,• 1 1 1 .. I../1 .• 1•. •. r • • .• r •w ,� • ••••...•.•\..\.. 00 i•1 •........•1.•. 1 M• . o ► - 2 i 023--i92-01 2 � Febeat Brue n Jr. : 023-321-31 I,uory DuPoia 19 7 Wt�we►ter circle 2406 Hw4..xar Blvd. Apt. 204 : 6852 P;.eeideente Tyr. Be-a�, Ch. 92648 LcetA i CA. 92626 �ti ngton Beach, CA. 92648 . , . . • 1.• .1 . .1 • 1 1 . • . I.1•1.I •/ \•• .1 .. /\ .1 •....1 r..1.. • /• r •I i 1 I• ..1 1• . •• 1 1 .r I.1.1 •I I.1.1 1 1 . •1 1/ / ►.•\.•....i \i 1 . 02 241-�13 02z.•292-03 !r 023-321-40 rt Tingley I Schaffner ��" Sand Castle F�'mws Awn. 1 8alb F tser Cixrlet 1991.2 tKari tfine Lars ; 16371 Peach 91vd. a9t>on Beachr M. 92648 lluntit�gtx�n F ac t, CA. 92648 suits 240 • • tiuntL-gtan Beach, CA. 92647 .. . . 1, .. . . 1 . . .. .1 . 1. . I . ....1.1/ , .1..../1.,•. .. 1 n.. . .. . .. . .. . / . /. 1.1 ., ,...1../..••1.1 1•1 1 1 1• 1 1 1,l r 1■1 1/1 Q 291-14 023-292-04 Edward Crook Rime 19906 MMiLIM 3Ane � 4 Dah7.i ter, .�11. 72625 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 / , i • r .•• l 1\ 1. 1 . •. 1 I •r 1•....1.•.1 1 •1 • . 1 I I 1•1•1.... • . • •.. \. .r I.1 ••••1 • . • •I r •• •I 1 1 1•w 1.///1 1 1 r•1•1•/•1 1.1 1 w ' 02 291"35 023--292-05 z Bradfoxd Johnson 19902 Mar'-We Lane ' T72Hwenrock n hl Ch. 92648I�untingten ,�ch, (.A. 92468 1•-35 02.3-297�-06 � Y �� Virginia Randall 19892 Maritime Lane 724 Have Dr. CA. 92468 thsatirx3ty m beach, CA.. 92649 ... ....*1 ..../ .. 1.1.../.•. .1 .. ..1 . , 1. 1 . .. . . . . 1... . . .... .i. . ... . , . .. I . 1 1 . 1 . 1 .1 •. , .i . 02 291-37 �berk�ur 023.292-07 i , Ernest Loughrey 124 HaVenzack Dr. 198g6 Maritime L Bes+ch, Ch. 92648 Huntingtm leach, Ck. 92648 1/1.. 11 1 1 . .. , 1 1 1.. .. I 1/0/1/1/1 1. 1/•1 r/•1 1 1 1.1 1.1.1 r 1 I to:1 1.1.1 1 1 1/1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 291r38 023-321-24 Pbor Sand dollar Dery lopmit Inc. PAW Ciroal #520-C 16371 Bewh Blvd. Hoscho CA. 92648 Huntington beach, CA. 92647 • .•. rr 1.1111 • r l• r • IIIr/r11.1.1•I Ir 1/1...• 1•.•••1i.•.•/1••11 1.101••1/11.1.1 .•I i•11\•1.11 Y 1.1/6 1/11 . 1111 r 119611.1 I11 A I 1 0 0r • r 1 •aaplt 1 M w " •,� ,r A Y 0 • 1 a 1 1 ■ f 1 a!a a r f /.t a!►• r r I.1 •.•.• .I 1. r.!!.• .1 • // • •• 1••!•a/..►•• ••• ■f• . •► ••1 I. •!•I .•1 •r •• I . •• 1 1..• too •.. ■.• V• ! 1 1•1 /• /.I a••.1 •• ••.••.! 1 1 023-141,.2a C�2?�2y1--Q7 79-42 Y r+ti 1 icl.x•�x:h 6, 1979 Ro Hazy 7246 Haaennx* Dr. 2749 A2battxus rx. �^ Huntington Beads, CA. 92648 Masao, CA.Ox a Mas . 92.,`26 . a..a.•..a•a�,•!..•a• •.!i!.• •!.•1 •f I•• 1 1 1 . •I 1•,..J.f•I 1 a^•a••..•/ • !• 1.■•I!Y /•.1• •• •• / I 1 . ..i ••■•/ 1.1.••• I•1.•a•I.I /I 1 1 Y.•.•►, d2 141-06 023-291�-o3 RO,"Ia►sh a23--141-22 Neil xuatrmr 61 19th 3tseet David Ba4an et a1 � 72,4z Hat�nxt�c.k Dr. tir*gban Beachr CA. 92648 721:Z Deep Harbor Cyr. ffy-mt-Anqtom fjeadij CA. 92+64F a►a.aal.►.a a•aa/as ease*to of bell .t►• set:1 as Iaa as as I►Y as Y f1 ...a a//a!a t 11• .•a►1 91•. . •:a a I as ►.a a■Ia Y.Y.••a.a1 ar aa0 as Ia .+. •'•.•• •, 0i 141-07 • 023-291--04 831Vexmen et al 023•-141-23 : Rmrwn Mel&= 19. Iby h��rrrn�e Phil Nolte � 7236 Dr.]4r .It, Ch. 90025 2I504 Lae River Dr. ; HuntiMbon Beach, CA. 92648 • Olamand Bar, Me 91765 ; ..........1.! 1••f a/a I••••a a 1/If 1 a//. ..1 a..•.....•......f......1..•.•...Y •a I.. ...of/►1.•a a I•I•.I■/a f bevel•f i a•.a.1-a a a . 141-08 023-291-05 ftwio 023-t141- 24 Mbert B arcle �D St. Circle T O=p. x° • 610 Be 17th St. Suitz 201 7232 Haven�lt Dra Ungton t CA. 92647 Santa Ar♦a, CA. 92 i01 HtnntirrItM Beach. C h. 9264.' t•1.•a a•a. .•... .a•r 1.I 1 a a a f....■•f f 1 I ■■ a a •a f a 1 I 1 1 1 1 a I a Y/1 a /a 1•►.•I r/a a a a t.••/ I a 1• / .•..I a a•a a a./►,/f 1 a/a/f a 106 a 1 10 I•1 a a a•I a I � 14,1�-].2 % 023-291-06 25 Idttb Fultal : WillWilliam Kr Robert mar 93 14th Sttwt ; 1831 Ka la Rd.til = 7222 Hamuxxic or. Beach, CA. 9264 8 : 16�1 K ate]a ! . LA Habra, CA. 90631 HuntingtonfleadY, CP.. 92648 ! a 1 a 1 a.a 4.6 a.I/f/► ••1 1. 1.1•r ..•a•a 1 f I 1.1• 1• 1 .. •• .•1 1•Y a 1 a a a t,•a a a f 1/1 I I a 1 a 1,a.1 I■a•• . 1 • I 1! 1 a •a 1 t'I 4000646 *.Set to i Y Y.a a•t a 1 f a f a I 02 Z41--I3 d2 .r141-26 023-'291-07 Hunklm Sill F reshea 'a 19 Wrealiff Ln Dennis R 7216 Havwnrocic Dr. Beach, CA. 92648 622 19t1i S*xeet Huntingt= Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 ; . •..,l...l.l a.Y.....Y1 .1.. ../.....•. .. •. .. /.... .. /./r..•. f....■..........1r/.. .. r. .. I .I ..1 .11. 1 .01 a t•1 a 41.a•t a a•a f 1 a 1/►1.. I )24 141-17 •023-291-08 bes t 023-141-27 twar]as Morris 19 E. bth street � Gorge raw 7212 Havairtxdc Dire, r a mch, r'' Y 90814 620 Atli btreet Htslti.rgt m Beach, CA. 92b4S Hunt i ngtc n Beach, CA. 92648 1 I a I a•a a►I►1• a/a•Y•....•. 1.1 1. •1 . 1 1 ••••I. ...•a a 1...•■a a a •n a.a a.1 1 1 1• .14•..... I. 1 • a 1 .a f. . •I/e$## I s l e/t 1 a•,•,It to I a 1 12 141-18 023--291-09 min # k jkjk jk:cj jkjkjklwr Faeeei.l je&nak 1 18+ St. 7206 Havenitck Dr. Beech, CA. 92648 Huntin#m ch, CA. 9.2648 1 a I I /4, a...Y.1..,a t a/ to 1 . l 1 1 a a/a t..I Y I off....1...►a.1.1 1 1 . ....I I a..I...1....... .. I f 1 1 .1 1 ■I I I I bill l a l I l Ili i Z 14 -19 r t la st Al 023-291-01 � 023-291-10 AbbaDcaglas ,7mw Jdm Viculin tam ►��1701 7252 Havem=k Dr. : 7202 HaveraWk Dr. { ttghun tM 13"che CA. 92648 : HunUn t m B ch, CA. 92648 j Y i♦ •♦♦ Io w a-*a.l.,1I/r1..ta'aa/a.•es•$off if a a f•f a♦a.,•f 1110 " 1 10►66006♦f a l a l f•Y a I I trl Yl aaaatiYl a111 . 1• IIIII IYI a111111 II I111 � • a 1 1 i ;n 1 .. . . .♦ . . ... . . . .. . 1 . .. . , , • .. .. .... ..... ..\.. . . ... ., ..1,.... .. .... I . .., ,.\/a, 1 r•1 1., • .I I. 0.6090. M 79•-42 02.3--114-UY : 023-114 -1.7 Offer 6, 1979 ; Richard Sslamson et al : Wayne M%thfes DOM ; P.O. HM 131.4 612 20th Street Paga 1 NewPort Beach, CA. 92663 Hw Ungbm Beath, CA• 92548 •. w e 1 Y i • O Y. .. .. 1\a f a r• •e , ►l e 1 ...III f r„ O 0 Y,r 0.• ■/ 1. 1 1 1 + ,.f a ... •.. . , • . • 1 1 1 1 of . Y f Y d, (1964 /0 0 11•►•1 1 1 fee I Y I 000or ar 03wt• 6 Dwelgmmt 023-114-•03 023-114-19 7699 tibwty IAOWII r M � aty SkaxotAdt: H1bi 1 C]t1 i, tom. 201 14th Street C/O P+erWMI Prolaerty Nyk tt Ilwik�.� 514.'�. �rrrer Ate. - quite 106 x7 I ,, GA. 9264�3 Huntingtc n Beach, CA. 92649 • 4■0101•af .6.0, .►1/ •, 1116\•4.01. 0 0001I 110./\111 .00 1.00. , . .a • . ., ... is .►.►. , •. .. . .. .ar \., •f 1.\001000. •010010611610-01101 • Ttw Hung irames Beach Oo. 023-114-09 14-21 2110 Min Street Dorothy Arnold �a�+ee A�#h�h t�tt,.i.�tAA f.�:h, CA. P.O. Box 228 16�29 Nalt�cxu- I.iu1e Hu Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 : zitingtdn Beach, CA. 92649 • ,••A•i.1 I. \1 .•.w •i a.... •.• 1•.. .. , ,..• • •1 •.f./ .'I .1 I I 1 •a.. % •11s-+08 023-114,-11 ` r 023-114-22 0 Can ; C�ralig Cam tr Dstivi.c9 Dahi 9.j32 Bever: Ave : 1908 Acacia Av+srrae L"Witaar, a►. 92683 : Hu nti� Beach, C%. 9264b 608 20th St. Nunt_ingtm Beacti, Ch. 92648 f r, , . . .• 1 . I . . . , . ,•. „► ♦•1\, i l 1....,.... , .. , .. . • . . . . ., 1\1.1 .. .....1 OI OY 0010111...110.010{.OI 02A--U3-0c 023-114-1.2 023-114-23 Clyde ibms Joseph del f a c H. Mimes Ganz 10241 Jamrich Avet m 621 19th Street Apt. A. 17301 Beach Blvd. Carden C,rove, CA. 92643 Huntington Beach, CA. 926148 . Huntri mIton Beach, CA. 92647 1 . • . .•••I •a, .i r• f .. .f •. •. ... e •• •• . .. . .• , ,• , 1/.�I.••\ /...r r I .,• • . • , 1.1 •1 1\1••/••i•.1 obi ••1 1. 1. 1 1'r r . 1..!1 I•1 ► . 02 -113-10 023-114--- 023-141-01 "Itxx" johnIson Larry W _lay Huntington Head Co. 609 20th St. k)t. A. 20862 W, er• Lave Huntington Pewlir CA. 92648 Hunting? Beach, CA. 92646 1 , 023-. 3-I1 023--114 .4 023-1.141-02 !�!t Mat:than John P anaw Francis Hardesty 621 Oth Street Apt. A. 4915 F• 6th Strut P.O. Box 678 1 to Beach, 11. 92648 Ltxig au#t, CA. 90814 Hi•n':tirgton 8 h, CA. 92648 �Z3-a1I .�3 023-114-15 423-141.-04 � 1ton Jelirowicz et al Mitcihell Stonoff art KrebsII 772 Ave. 607 19th Street 616 19th St•.nget �Owch, Me 9074A Kmtington Beach, CA. 9264E Hwntixrgtr. CA. 92648 .. ..1 .�.•• /. . .. . . .• .. ..1 .. .. ., 1 •. ,. , . /• .. 1.1 ,/../.1 . .►1.1 Y f .. 1.. .• 1 •f.. 1. . . 1 .1. ,1 ,.. .. 1 •1 ., , ,1 . . .1 ►r 1, .,.I,.1..I 3 U3- 023-114--16 0231-141-05 G�attt 139'H fb Pam t Ate. ` 1'm�Y 8artvi t : Ibcow e t24. 90713 605 19th St. 6901 Vista Dal 901 or. HMtingtoe► SWch, Ch. 92648 Huntai.igt m Beach, Ch. 92647 i .Y.r• ♦. -, 1 • .,1 •, .0.0 Y Y 0 0 0 1 0 1.a a, 0 0• •0 0 I ■I r•0 1 0 1 06 1 .I I/I.0//. .1..,i••Y►I• a I/ /1 1. 0.1 0 . • 1 1 , 1 1 0 1 1 1 f I/a 1 1 1 1 . 1. 1,0 0. 3 114-01 • Baic h 00. to • �rll�dlQn r Ck. 9412G • eY .h • I 1 � 1 • \•. . • 1 1 • r 1 • 1 •• • •• • • •+. Y.• 1• • 1 . • •• •.1 I• 1 • •• . •• •1 • • •. • • • 1 I I I. •• I• • • ••f •I . •.••1 1 I • . ^ry, 79-43 023-1.?•3-06 023-124-•15 �r 6, 1979 William Wilson P'r.�nlc Wright 16961 Bolero Lary 411 19th Street. pie 1 Ihinti.nx,�tc-ol 5"cht cA. 92649 H�m�:rr�q�n Beach, CA. 926 :� •r. .. ., ... •. . .. , • 1. .. •: .. . r. • . ../.. /. 1.1 .I • . . .. . 1 1_ 1 . ., • . . . .. .. .w , • .• . • . ... .. .. . . Qt s CX t. [Jewexc tint 023-123-0:9 023i1-1.24-1.6 BunGi 76" Li.Iraer'ty rx3r.An Signal Oil W. Loie RAM 3913 7mg eaddl Blvd. 2542, Vuelt~a Gmde Muntinqtpn Beach, CA• Icrig Eefich, CA. 90807 Lot,q Beach, Ch. 90815 Y • 1 1 ••.. • 1•• •• • . . . • • • •• •.r •. • • •.1 I 1 1\-1 \• I 1 1•1 1• 1• • • •. • . .• '.• • • . . • 1 •1 • • I 1 I r• • . •• . • 1 I I r I 1 .• I.••( 1 • � t��7 Co. 023-•123--1p (�23-126-10 Z1•�•1 Main Street OA*n Kitthalmw Gail Pickart 7 San Ma hkv t rtiirgton Beach, CA. 92648 Garden gi(Zuwj CA. 92641. � Cbmna Del Mi.= CA. 92625 • •..•.I. . •• •, •• . • .• . .. I e . .�1 .. 1 ••.. . 1.1�+/f/ • •., . . •• .•...•.• • 1, . / r . • 1• 1 • / 1• 1 .• 1. .I .1 1 1•1 f 1 1 f f.•.. • 023•-123-11 � 023-3,26-•11 023•-122-05 Mlichael t3xaxit Frank Bu ttraa ray walaey 217 20th Street oral Trust Bark W" 8Mn 17bAgW.n Hili3 Fes. Huntington Beach, CA. 9264L TR 91a3 MiFnrt ti, CA. 92660 P.O. Fox 54410 Te m Arnx I .1 .... . . .1 . . . . . . , . . • . !. •.,1.,1,,,I. . • • r I . . I• I •1 •1 1•1 1 1 1/1 1 1 1••.1 1/ 1/f•• • .1 1 1 1 1 1•. 02 1 '-06 Los Angeles, CA. 90054 Lain." tWlsey 023-123-12 -- Dc%W d Weir •_.....•...__._,..1.w•� .......�....,. rt ,aC$k. 92660 Mup 4U1, a0ttt Street Apt. A 1 tluntirx tm b3achr CA. 92648 a ..•• ••.. . .. s 1 . .. .. •r 1. i I 1 .1 f•. • .1 1 • 1 • • 1 . 1{ 1 1 • •1 /1. I 1 1 1 1 ■41 1 1. .. 1 1 1 1 f 1•19. 1 1 023-123-01 023-124-02 023-126-12 Sinn Griger .E]dmi Bags t and MY Ne1m'Lw Wpy Trask 921 12th Stmet , 901 Catalina Avenue 1763 Royal Oaks Dr. Apt. a Hmtirgtm Bea►cb, CA1. 92648 Seal Beach, C.A. S0740 17wrte, CA, 91010 • . •. . r .. . • .. • + • . . 023-123-02 . 023-124-03 023•-127-01 howel7 Zduzler „ Hawaznd ivy Lma►ld heir 201 14 th 9t wt 6731 Via C.a ara Dr. 401 "Oth Street Art. A tRMtington Beach, CA. 92648 a Hunti.rygtcn Bwoh, CA. 92647 FTuntirwm B-Act., Ch. 92648 • ..1 1•\ .. . 1 . . . . . .,.. ....1 .. . •... ..� ••.. . . ••• n•r•• .• • , I .\ 1• 1• 1 •. . .• 1 1 1. 1 •1 1. 1 / • f,1 1. 1• 1•1 •M. 023-123-'03 023-124-05 023-127-02 Amid Slu enthal : C•D. tivwe David Vickm 9041 F49"tt& Dr- 2863 Walnut Avenue 18068 Santa Arabel•la St. *WtingtM , CA. 92646 : long Bch, CA. 90806 Fountain V&l•1ey, C.A. 92700 ..•. •. • . . . .. . .. 1.1•1 .. . ... , . 1. 1.. .1 1 1 . . • I{1 /f .,i.1 1.. ,/ 1 • 1 I •1 r I I 1 I •1 1 •, 1•/ 23-1.23-04 023-124-09 023-12 7-03 Wowd Oravecz : Zl m" wbxd J&m Prao.-r Pursell 32a.S' May St. Apt. A 4202 Bra and or. El Segundo Prop. mapott bmkchp cK. 92663 Huntirgbm BwCh, Ch. 92549 311 Mann St. ZI Segundbt Chi. 90245 �/.Y Y f f 1.•/1.• •• 1 ••1 ..�+1•.1/ 1..••A•.1•/.1�I 1 1 I•f.•1....1 1 1 .••/1.1..1• •••• 1•1•.•••..1./•1 •. . • • • 1 1 • 1•I 1• 1 I 1 I • . 023423-0 I + • non &WM Low + j• ' bme Ott 9213H • 1 w1. •■.F ..• /•....I .a f •. .I• // 1./a. see •... .a • • . ■•.. .•■•1 a.a■..a .a. .. /..■•• 1 a.1 •. 1/a.I a. . a 1 .. I a/ of I.. ./ beef. /. I I 1 4 1 1 a f a I ■•■■/ .. ••. . . CK 79"-43 02:3-127-14 023-1.28-15 abler 6, 1979 art Martin : Cx+arles Maxaiull. Dim 309 20th wt? st 96:39 Lai mora Circle Page 2 Huntington Be-ach o CA. 11,12648 Fbunta in Valley, CA. 91703 1 . . ..a.•.♦■ 1•e•a.■a.. f a a. see 1.I a a. ... •. 1. 1. . • ..■1•I / /I . • .Y.■. •.... .■. .1• • a I . .. •. •. •. . • . ....• •...\ ■■.1. ./ J•1 ■1 ..n w a 1•••1■. .• but 023-127-04 023-127-15 023-126-16 X ire jaws Trodxiguez et al Salvat or Cracchiolo Cbmt De clop meet Co. 311 20th Stet 311 19tt: Street 241 C atyd Avenue tTtaYtixtgtao Beach, C.A. 92646 r1unt:ljogton Beach, (A. 92648 Low fie, (3k. 90803 a.•. ••••• ./.. ..I a 1 a 1 1..■.•a a•1 ..1 a,...A a a a a 1 / 1-1 1 16/a a a..•/ a a a a 1 a.../F•e 1,.1 a a 1 1 1 a /a/to 1 a.,a.a a■a.a .......•.•.........I f.. 023-127�-05 � OZ.3-1Z7-17 Elizabeth Berry 02--r-128-17 OoMt Developmt OD. 323 20th Street Ignatius Ttbi.n 241 Girard Avenue :uaitingt�an Bach, CA. 7264809 19th Street Loryg Beach, CA. 90603 Huntixtoh Beach, CA. 92468 ■•a..1••f Is a 44 400 404 Y..••J/..•a•.. 11,a.1.a . 11•.•••1.1...•.a a■/■a ./1 1 1.a.1 a 1 r ■...... •• . .. .a f a a .Y a.•.. 1 a.1 a I• I.I.a.a 1 I a I I•a•I a.I 023�-127-06 1 023. 127-18 023-128-22 ,Ta>ts-loll: Schlege 1Taeeph Qsr )ese Kenneth Myles et a1 9391 bresIoatet Circle 141.22 W Hill AN'Mae ; Bead, C.A. 97.646 �sti:t, CA. 92680 3Z4 �Oth Street • Huntirqtcn Beach, CA. 92648 .. •. ... . . ., I. , , ... ... ., 1..• 1 . ...,.1 1..•...1 f ..... ....1..1./a a.. ..a•. .. . . ..1 .It....... , .. 1. . .1 .a.I 1•••..a 1 Y 1..1.. 11 023�-/1�27-07� � 023�- 128-02 0?,3•�1Z8-Z3 David .by�ai F ►- 1 Pl j De Vet ie i V OOM. 15241 Vermont St. J.I. iiathmay 305 17th Strwt Motutlretsr, CA. 92683 P.O. &w 3404 : Huntingt►m aeack, CA. 92648 Santa Fe Springs, CA. 90670 . . . . .. .. .•. ... /. ......... . .. ... .. .. ... . . ........a..../ .....Y. ... ....., .• f 1 • 1 . I • "1 1 1 a 1.I 1•1 .a I f/ 1 1 1. . . I f . 1. 1 a 1 i . 1 1 1•1 1. 1•1 1 023-Ma-08 0 3-128W03 D"Iie H.A'it Gerald Zaio 3055 Keystone St. 1520 N. Amalfi Dr. aml=k, CK. 91504 pacific pajisadesr CA. 90272 a • • I . .. 1 .. I . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . 1 . • ./ 1 a. •I■.•.a /. . . • . • •..... .. a.. a a .. I.I .. off of 00 1 .. .I two 1•1•1 1101 a.•a/ 1..■a•.•.••. f 023•-127-09 023-128-05 Gaxild, Bowers Spray C.rawn Central Petrolem Corp, � 3075 N12shirre Blvd. c/o Cullers & Bailey lets 801 • r •o.+I11 P.O. BOac 3193 ; Log A lea, CA. 90005 AbilLew o TX 79604 .. •. . .•. .. . . . 1/........■.... . . ... . .. .■..a 6 •a Y Y a•a•1 .Y 1■• .•.w.F...1 11 f .a . .f 1. . .1./ 1•... .. . .1 . . .a 1 1 a 1 1 1•. 1 r 1.. /.1•0•F••`o r 1 023-127-11 023-•126-08 X't O=don Fobert 0Drtjrn al lS S• tic em View Avenue a 0115 So Clan View Avenue Whittier, Ch. 906G2 Whittler, M 90602 a a•a•..It I...■.. .. .. 1.a/1/a 1 1 1 .. .. . I../er It a a a a 1...♦a•a a a l 1 0{...■1•a a a.•..../••1 1 1 1 a 1 a 1 1.1/f 1 a l{I{ ./ . I f 1 1 I.1{I I I I a 1 02.3-M-12 023-128-10 Mymxd Durda Dell GM 6"1 Homing Tide Ora 307 19th Street , 0%. 92648 tluntingtm CA. 92648 ■ ` 1 Iar.••..•••.a1a1....1•.aaa•I.ia1•a•.•60aa1•01006 a••a a a l a l - • 1.1a11•.•••1•a111•r111a.a►1+a1ItI1.1a1 •. 1 . . . 11111. ....1 /1 . . . . . • I1 /• .1 � 023-129-13 y Gal* t x i CA. 9M83 : I l• I i r, fir � 1 ti OW v Mombvi-rr hl' the t; 1 ty Count`. 1 .1 Ml�llrihlst'z; dl' t1N i'.t :►rrr!iri�� Gc�ruu�a:�c� l . �t 1i'ltOM: Aacla ante City Attorney SUbsrCT : Varli.-st4us from 'Zoning Law.i ' Uoaltlnrw Is a 1*94113tolh o lund use accoriflnjr, to u comlivelirrrrrlvu p1an udopt►ed by the Planning Comml tea ion and C i Ly Council Ir Lho city porsivant to a •%ijte en"ling out. , to wit : Sect Lorca 6,00 cq *eq . of tho GvVermoNnt Co4e , or charter nut.hor l ty . � The try ;riC pover for ironirro; lu derived from dtsc! t. lon 11 ; Artivii.' 11 of tilt cali,Ceirhis 4`onatlt,utlarr whlc:h containrl time j;vnrrt. c t polLtst, r l?cauct, Lu cttle:t . The contititutiunal vighL of :nunlelpalltIvo Lo song cei-tair, a,reeas of the city anrtd the aannct•ioriing of tite puln,"iViv upari which auob rIghtp as 1'ounded have b(,t±n s,.lttivd olnue M.LLlt r V . R2L or ruh le -Woem,, 19rs C4.1 . 4 j7 , driAded ita 1925, The courts have Ions; ;"oogn 1 ttd that no )rd inance curs be de-n i grid ' to govern ani control literal y wlLhout vxcept•ion every individual f pnl.cei or property within a c ! t,,, . 'ru l;(tvine etanrint-do to cuvur all possible aituationt► without the ripcosaaity of provWingr roo � titre p,,rant tng of va vlariceu wti)u ld be m .oviAldab le ta:+K , and One i llal. wuu) J tax the Im:&gifiat l.Qrt . ,, Tho onluenti,a_l req utrament of a varlivwc 1 :j it howin&_tthhut_ etrirt �r :�r�crmcii� '_�k►e zcr,btw :ynz^; . r� nG would crru..�'_'�rra ur�ne�cer�3ar '...- <� :_:,If,�.. bUi'�t�rr. sh�aw .�r�,_hur t+lr lh 3:i:�.YNo�yrs oii th� a`�►pl i- .W. . •� varla►n�e 3s neve.v a. roattor O 'HwIt , l:rxt l� h matter 6T f'ul1y eiitli.r+ the d1:;.1roLIon of tla+: IllannLng Cornrnlzsiun and i taia � l t.y Council . The doc' ilslon of such will not bo dio - tiji+ :d In tho absterac e of ra, iluf'ect, in proct—itaire ur an uutri.gltt at' ttf $c:x•etlorr . ( Far :Aad N . Sir, M IL. •cr , 11r6 Cal C . P-11P . 2d 111a l l Argt:hon H-- upt3� n � v . C 1 ty art' Arvjlr�1n i 1,15 C,11 . App . . � .r,..�_ •�...••..._.. ....�._.__.._ ` * Uie tr irdzhip teat i.p the drily 1r;a;-� l:; f>». ;,ppl y llig the var'l-,trti.e , tho foil.owirr v, 14 :111111111:11w of wlatit. ilrrlitaiC1;�.• I.c� f�;i ;•I��, „: 1 ) a is art unnecescar h:ird-oh ! , nut iratc!arcic&tt try the. ordLnnrlc�� . ` t, In not n/!evu.sary to f'l l'i'(. f 'Aw pu1'pO':,l' Uild Intent ril` Oi!` I1';, FF , r y • , ELLS Y'I'"! v r S� • N f r C'1 r •.�"'�� s•.1FM.-1.1..�•+.r.r�Y .i.�M...M,-�w`har i'�• MT�•wr'aa '' r 'J ire a r au• •nw .. . � ., ,'� + Mol it t.w..10114 t;c, P-mint r' the, k;.tLY `01urbc 1 l l fl:traef► l 1)(,1' -tip.� l�11�, Lt►Ihih�i)�, f t)II l'h, i it yy 1 ariancom from Boning loetw:i it ( 3 ) It mutt be Nacull;rr t co Llle.- poet icului• lot or paree►l for which ttl� YaC�t�t141� is tluu�l,t, . � ) Tilt$ Circuslo t,ance av at: not lit, contmoll to Other Parcels ill they pat�il�t�tlaa• done: PInancial or pecuniary h%jr(Ohip is not s gro►rnd for grantint a vbrlence! . ,The : ro6trt:a ance mliut, not r,t: soinething that has been br(►ueilt abdvt throulgh the act and, :nor►dua tr c f thu owner. ( 7) :hp, granting may not amount to c, special privllogs or rIght whIdt► is not Otorded to the owners In the sutra by the ordl.. nrxitCet , , It mutt to a n1t.aatiort wher-9 , i f the viarianc•t? lea denled , it Would deprive tiler o'•'ner of privilwgeu c:rrjoyerl by other prop- eealt,164 In the aurae eoije , 1 ` ` t 9 ) It F,i;rot L&.* a cortiriIrArin wr !t1•7 t.hc- Kr artti.r►g of the varlar'"It 1 Will not n►tttO r :.ally tie d0` tr1 eY! tai to t,ha werlfarT and 111.ji4r ouu to of h r p1r.�) et't .y or hilprovement;a in Ithe atimc ,,one i or xtlel��,t?�rh�soe9 , It, can visfely be acid that trht:' vE vlr� .nne rule hAw been more alluntad i rr-.Krm,irm •ti'!"arlT •111 hg_.. �.. ;A w i:` . . h d .. that E h1*6 Pollee ,9hwuTct,. be rC � 'r�eC1 is 'nit A"ant so with t i .e ObJect of suer ixina the ►,1- 1v11v81r3 �f• vro errti >. ^ lyniljar• l.y lu -,- t:cd and zoned , ( Metes v , Lpo.,; d Gars. . 2 d A var,! {vniie vejvl ',pc.ue'.+ th., rRj,,Aao.plulti•: ;..,a of the •,,,oning classVIT.1 - ca. r lot, &,; a wharte and I.:• granted t o re1leve a h+tr+aj QAWL,�r:ll any w+ ',!i rev-paut tc.� aT��_ � t � c:�a1 ��_:_1;•U1 �yc�C?_ti,i`_pr .ale Y . Minney y , �i �...,. �. Aiij .6 • i��'�'T. ;'1�`}li,�'d :� `i� JY a aiiiiiit;r hs� rd_ :tt�ip exS�trx with r co ie�:L to hind t,ttrr ughout i:he r one , 5.:..ta E DC is e+riuen �: o the unrm of I'll)l er3;06 s of the eaf the ZUric and• would" Ar•o v,)de Che cin' 000tlflti , IL s11tie3 NOT Prrivi (i(! a proper Uloi3" _ i'dr a variable . 1`re` i6ni.t:t'; o;•1! 1nonce vhcold bo umeii•. 1u . . J,he vnun l vaol once s 1 t:us t;At) ► tax ts:l.:; "Isere ' be c.,usr: of its �� ctir�"tt �ifi�:�rt'o��,1►y , ttit �ar�l�,��r•��Vod IoL d0c�tti n:)t E+urpiiC Sty;• use • i- by the owner4r�r the same j,ur�,,�.;, ., ,,ir•j•1,yr. cl t,v c,ttict' prc�,,,,•r• y owner•o 1 t•.t.t:a ~ante zariv .. A typical i r,,�at. lur► t c t;Trc' 4,ha Y( w tut; rrh t;�:t�'" ccw . 4Tth(., requirc-d m1olnitim :.qu;art: rQout v,e r'r'•r+.ttrvd by the ordl- nancf. but because of t'6u r--juir-me:nto cannot Ire met , :.•4 All AIINNIr �'t~Irtl�UrurlrsuW IMP, tea vkmb / or cite. t'i t.y (••t 111 rl 1: • ntrNt Flamtlns Cimma ee imi f'�r►+ ' Varlando.t 1'r*a Zenelnji Limit Thla ewWl.tlon 006ked at Use 1. 1mr• the 7,ontntt, t'�'er,:ticit. l : tr:► w.'t'ir a4apt9d or extevided to Include tit 1 :: property . Per Napo till ca 1 t.y v1doned tho strvot thus autt Lnt. ►towra u lot tt lzv cat' t.hv t1Wty ac- quirted d, placer of It through coridimuintion rov t.l►c: 01' a trots u ld 1AC or o fre ewAy , TO deny ei varl ante let the oame 11 LARDS 61 d ;� ,1 �1 Ingexperienceor the ! nLe'rrt 0' U110 '� te1a '�ot;Ils not.ie► experiencerierCatedsel'i►ly b� ►laLrlinen...,) t�� other pr"w"g,"adjoiningsa would probably be an abta:ae.' uC �flac:r•F' Glvra . UjokS tV,' t + err alelelr of the coon , It Oft cotrti1t. lu�n with t•e- s i g •,.C+ rotepli acime atTirmat 1 ve Act. or the owner , 'f th! h 4�M �ShOuld be properly donled . tlttet who ;u19CIA _o j pro trt t onurttn o-nt or a varl. • u • uowcrc at ic t im4� u sa]4� r oAr11►ht. ►•.r►n� w Immesinse fin u nj rum n ilsia ri - lr`ttiia_. li They eltanjing Wiaractev ul" a ne! lghhcirhoud has tioen hold to tic.1 � 14t&hbor-hood has at 4n vd tro ttucit Un PxLent; an- v . lijypp'r it y,4&r 1 anc , 'e a� � it should rukr anr p, :l LI��TTa an-an ccii�ii'c '&r It lid it j 1't: t ��rw l sc) , tne MUM of spot .#.Oiling . The 'M617. t~t1mt, s p`"p rTT�—['ur�u Iy �ci c cc,t'►+i«a ctt 1 uuS does not ntcerrtv*r11y iWan t,hht thcr.•►e tv. a harcluhip tAnder• caL*e later . � In Kellet•11 it may he Laid that' .. =•: ( 1 ) A var•lance :should or►ly tic granted whin xi unnecem5ar 11tsrd:rhljl peculiar to at partiru.1hr wo-ircrl veauli.:tfrom t� r psi d c:tif'QvCe- Weenrl OF io of ,lattice r►nd which wa:: not lrtt.enkl%:-d by ,alit! ovd1 - r►ance and will not, huvo a detrimc.•ntal et'!'ect uoor� cttic�i• iro,p- R r'ty . ( 2 ) Anything tic•yund the scolit, of it;ood.; h1p im tiot :r c•1 r �:lan�,' t,@r�;.• ti►rti, .iutai Civ., 1.ha grant. 1r,K mV ;r varl;rnvo ;-arid th.%t t•ho ext. r - Ols•.! cif au414 power' .111(1ul.41 Ue UU 1ln,it. a�i . ( 3 ) whet fier' or not a V41% I 911VO 6110Al►i -1,0 lien, In the: :' l►lr�Nt , t'1'�1::�1t�tJti tC AIM V01011tot1 notw.,- d l :'.: vv 1. tc1rt 0' the :W.- min l :Arat.ive body . ( 4 ) If ttte~ev la the e v 1 delle .• t.v :suitrc►rt Liles rind 1 ttt! ,i1• t;lia %*!ijmLntntrat1ve toiuly t.t►c,t 1'lta►tlrar will roL be fllaturbed by the courto . ( ) reset ► lary hardship is vrver a ground I'mo tlit' t7t'rint: irtir, of a variance , .w,. • Y 0 .,� 4RmAlar;O oC ti►r t; �.'u1;�1�� 11. � ' I�rl�`Ch 1901 .y J Lind ill glint f1j/, Lip f o11 �:, VI�i'YII.'1'`.L•11 f't'n�r � �ir�l►� [�uti�t� • . ( � A vortwoce shomid nivitlr tw mwil to gr'IlIit. rk :+pr(; I a m-.4. . A varlarice Should netver Its: tAlMar) t o CONIC- ' L a U 11.111 t 1 CN11 4$cab jot to this eill. I vv zons,* . ;t A M 904d t owur be 14no-d excopi tit iscik 1t1+ 1d, to 0 r+mN�! ' m tr1r.1%ta :w. :►c��ti�'�ir�t ether Owlielas Limier 01 'rA 1*41420 MoVOrn t nM chal, Zonis , ,4 It�x#r�actY C��i�X M1�b�a�.t tad, /s/ i.cvu Ann. *robs I I LOU ANt M 1%Whja4 ' AUDI&% it Attorfley LAM :Ahb y � , Y I 5 I@ .rrr•ik. i y MUM aAIA & asSoc1a (es Ll A A C h I T A C T U A E P L A N N i N C I I M Mehl Wiltshire iT*nUe f ullorlon, California E3633 • OFO.1222 February 17 , 1991 f Huntington Beach City Council Re: Webb Morrow Pesidence at 3801 Ragtime Circle, Huntington Beach, CA. Gentlemen: As the architect who +dersignad the Morrow residence 1 wish to record the purpose wW *vents that led to the design and placement of the wall in question at the Webb MorrKrw residence. As an architect , I granted to study my design from all aspects of the site, till four sides, of the building, not just the front, also horizontal and verftcai ply..:3s. The reasi-m for the front wall was three fold; first, to serve as a transition from external to internal apace, (I call is" an entry court) . Secondly , the nigher front wall in tlae front court would visually reduce the overall height of the building, the third item requested by my client was security, thus we added enough height to provide this element. With these items in mind, we phoned the , city and requested information pertaining to setbacks and lot coverage; then we completed the preliminary designs which were submitted to the city and coastal i crommisaiori for review and were approved . During the course of design and construction serious problems arose that imposed serious design constraints. The most serious was, the ahort 82' long south property line, and the narrow 45' wide fronrtuge. The building was laid out from the rear Ott the seawall , and then came for card, The residence was started first and construction on the front wall came shortly after , foundations were dug and pourer' with concrete. Then I was informed by Mr. Morrow that the wall could not be built in it's present location , unless we had approval from A city review committee, asking for a set- back var lance . I then visited the (cite► and Mr. Morxstiw asked me to help rill out the application for the raview committee. I also toured the island looking at other situations asWlar to ours. My observation showed that only one block away in the same type oul-de-lace the people had built not only a high wall but had a roof on top of it, G had looked at thin prof ect several months earlier before starting my prelimina-Aes), This wall was buf t approximately ten feet from the property line. ,FM,trther inspacUan of the island showed >r t several conditions where high walls Uve bow built into the required set-bac:;•s, there Is evert one that to built right on the prctp*rty line. Having seers all these different situations , I proceeded with the a oHaat . 1 evon telephoned the city and I believe I talked to a Mr. Shaw, arpking Us awdetame in reading the intent of the questions asked in the form. He even Wieat this, should trot be as big problem , and was aware that several mhers had betm grslntaed set-back rr odUleationa In a lmila;tr eircumstanoes. I I i -1- i 1 R= t#tgton Sesah City Council w ' pit to( 2 DrAving Ws time, from preliminary drawingo to the present, Mr. Morriw and his sib-owtraotors have felt that all phased of his plans had been approved. t rww%tly looked at the approved plane and noticed the front sot-back of the building had Won dimensioned but not the wall. But if you scale the plans it clearly shvWs the wall extending into the set-back area. I personally feel that the uralll does no harm to the other residences in the area , as it does not block anyone's view . does wt cause any safety problems, and several other people in this community have w#cyed set-back variances with similar prrbtems. Moving the wall would be of no visual benefit io the neighborhood or neighbors . In fact,, the welt would no longer reduce the visual height .of the Douse as much an it does now. However, the effect inside the courtyard would be to cause a small, "cramped" inpression . In view of the above, I believe that denying the exception would benefit no one; and would detract from the external and internal appearance of the house . Very tru: ours , Thomas Maurer, AIA. 2e N 1 .; r1i• ie M`V gordon m. jamieson, d.d,,S,, InC. 18"2 beach blvd., huntirWon F.each, ca. 92648 1714) 964-1992 3442 Sagamore Dr. Huntington Beach.Ca. February 16, IF81 untin Ston 'seach City Council ]P OO. sm 190 XWtLUStWA Beach r Ca. 92648 Dear Council Members i As a homeotmer on Trinidad Island , I am submitting this letter in defense of Mr. Wobh Morrow. It is beyond my coWr+ehen4ion why he is being singled out as having failed to meet agoime conetruntion code One has just to observe the entirety of the structure to realise that his home is a work of art and a definite asset to our cotamunity. The courtyard in question is tastefully dme and blends naturally into the surroundings. Singling out Mr. Morrow appears to be an act of harassment rather than an bm"t toncertn for our neighborhood's appearance. In my c pilion,, the property at 3841 Ragtime Circle is ae "WIAS of bitty" eaad I congratulate Mr. Morrow on his creation, Respectfully ours, t Dr. rdon J esan r 1 i a fig a mob • OUNITI CONSTRUCtM S1 GUNITE 0 EN�IN[' Nti CQNVC11�1r s TKW anal • &A / ��``'' 1 , f1b" 91645 February 11 , 1981 To: Menders of The City Council f Huntington Beach, California SubJect: Exterior Walls on the Webb Marrow Residence 7o Whom It May Concern: fly name is David Cometa and I am the Senior Vice President for Superior Gunite Company of North Hollywood, California . Our company has dune various projects in and around the Huntington Beach area, ranting from Sea Walls to Retaining Walls to Reservoirs , etc. I am quite familiar with both Structural and Aesthetic Walls and find the Wall in question on the Morrow's Property to be tutall,y acceptable, I also feel that it couldn' t be anything but an asset to the neighborhoods of Huntington Harbor and Huntington Beach , California . Si er 1y y�xairSIR5, ' L7 David C. Cometa, Senior Vice President DC:rs q' R' Y P F i' I„ CQNTAACYOR'i LIC&Nrt *070034 l I 1 l 1 t r mom ou 1 \. •..,o . t Wmono=nwbf r off! CONIn4c Mmue,Wimdmtm a".CAWbMIA 92mg )8464X41!(21 3) 5W2416 hti� t li i n, Hut-iriNG11ON HARBOUR REALTY February 16, 1981 Mr. Webb Morrow 3801 Ragtime Circle Huntington Beach, Calif. 92649 Dear Mr, Morrow: I Pursuant to your request I have personally viewed and innpected your single family residence located at �801 kaglime Circle, Huntington Harbour, Huntington Beach. Based on this inspection and ray knowledge and experiences gained over the past 22 years as a Real Estate Appraiser and Realtor for three Govermmntal Agencies and various private enterprises , it Is my personal professional opinior, that not only is the subject property, Including all perimiter and courtyard walls , architec- turally compatible and esthetically pleasing In appearance, but an asset to the neighborhood as well as Trinidad Island and Hun- tington Harbour. S i cerel y , � 01 i Vernon E. S i th Realtor Huntington Harbour Realty r I „�; �►reef� e'str K�►MMM crxawre.lea,rM+as�M ism.Tak eseti� : :;� 4 y li. 11 Ii .f. yl „ ly do 1 FdA uaty 14, 1981 Huntington Bench City Cou»c.lt Huntington Beach, Ca -jonnia RE: 3801 Ragtime Cie Huntington Beach, Ca, It is up-c"on, a6 a Huntington Hanbou& ae,6ident and tax-pcyeh, .that M. and Mna. Web Mov_ow a1-wu i not be So,lced .to Mean. doam the btock. a �n .the 4'ton,t aaea n6 the iA homQ. I can't quite come .to .teAmz u:i.#I pe.opte who wou-d want � auch a thing in .the jiut pface o,6 iN conattactaon hu .in no way haAmed anyone, n,�jn It" it diztAaaed 6nom .the beauty o6 .that.#. ahea, The home a i t6 entiAety .i.6 qai te. bteatttakl ng and iA con& i.ve to the an.ea. Cu,6tom home 6'ite.a, in my opbtion, au to be luA t .that, "euA tom". I j fihi6 waU wa6 made o 6 met t:mial-A that did not "btend with ,the 6.twc,t"e", .then I c;outd un.ueutand .the qu ation, I woutd ti.ke .to eee the Couneil auppo.tt M. and MU. MoAAow in theix endeavors to Live. peace6atfy� in .the HaAbom, wi thou t 6ou ing .them► to hemove that A ix h F'aa taken so much time .to comptety— i�od t e.ineenet N, 44-& Violet K. Hamond 4489 Moe Vaive Hw&Caqton Beach, Ca. 92649 714-846.8916 ' J } e• ' Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, California To Whom It May Concern: T feel that the block wall conlstructed on the front area of the residence at 3801 Ragtime Circle is not only a beautiful addition to, but completes the " total" look of the home . I do not f ii.a that it is distracting to the adjacent p►ropertfese but adds to tLe beauty of the neighbor- hood . The residence in question is not unique to the area , therefore, I cannot understand the concern. Privacy is hard to come by with homes eo close together, and this wall tends to provide privacy, not only for the owners, but for their neighbors as well . i I feel that the Mall should definitely he Left up ! � Sincerely, Bob R. Williams 5781 Sands drive Huntington Beach, Ca . 714-898•"4234 N f�$v�w$B � � � •1 .f "� f, >1 pt sir •,� � e. �� { ,r mow-"".^ N , M ,• .4 �'. � � � � G 10 Al F 'fir • �. .� � :% r f�j�.1 ^�r� % +'(�.+ +Y { r r. 'iPZ4. � a.. 1411, At .. .� { r 16 n �w a f � r Y: y� lNalOiM';a' Z •�•'�� � ' �Pr •of � � I bra ` d Alt it r '1 C-ZL-,t �T .�IL �.d.-��..-,L � �l!-.�[-..E..�..�,.._.•! �, ,lL�. �_ lc-•�._. c. �-C�-�GZ Gt-.�:r•- �—�,... t.....-•�t� Ll-c��_ ��-��c..� its—�.�..— C,��—x��. '—� '� , 114 1 1 L_ ♦x - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - rw ! �1 V\t eNhed Flunda1 Consuttants, Inc, OW MrATV OW.,StAU FO n xr SM" CA Leo rm mla February 12, 1981 + ; Hutnti.ngtotL Beach City Council Huntington Beach, Celi.fornla RE: 3801 Ragtime Cirr.,Ye Huntington Beach, Ca. Honorable Council Members: As a concerned citizen, and a Huntington Harbour resident• , I ' have had the opporLuni.ty to view t'jie above-referenced prcperty I at the request of the owners , Mr , and Mrs. Web Morrow. 1 The general subject area is on-water which features luxury homes for water-oriented, upper-income families. The nelghbcrhood is 100% built-up to nev Luildings, comparable, + for that most part , to the subject property. In my opinion, the highest and best and most profitable use has been main- tained in the construction of this custom single family residence . ' Hevirr hewed the propert.r, observing it from all areas, i specifically the cou:tyarcl wall in question, I find that it adds to the beauty of the structure. 1n my opinion, 1 do not feel that said wall distracts nor is unpleasant to view. 1 I would find It disheartening to learn that these people may be forced to remove a portion of their residence, as conetructior of saw. has brought no damages to others. Rsapectfully submitted, .J Patricia C. Allan 3341 Taupe Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 114-840-1504 (residence) PCA:dI r r•r , 4' J {{tt I YI, VI February 101 1901 City Council City of Huntington Reach Buntington Beach, California Gent lessen t We are concerned about complaints regard in; a wall auzrounding a courtyard at 3801 Ragtime Circle . We, can see nothing wrong With the location or the design of the wall in question. It is very attractive a.rid adds nothinq but beauty to the neighborhood. It has obviously beer carefully planned and is not objectionable in any way. Sln(:E,'L-Q?Iy , Ve4l c: t • � i 1 i)r 'i i o 'r r. ',k.��Sa,r.( � Y '�*al � � ���y+..� 'yOR,}� �• Y' m��+ y 4 ' ', Rr,�i�,,' 1,4 l r ,` r, �� `�I�} t�;'L'� �� {rtti+ ,r..iy^� yi.. �"N"yli���-!�4• �M�F ,� i�� �1 yy. +/'�' M f .`, ��' r �'� "•��w r� �'r!- f 'ln .l r ;y' �• k'`,'t�� �4r {,��' 1•,` f t ti �r +'Sty'%•Tr r` ! N t,,,,�� ♦` �' ;� ' �r %`;lP`„u'� i .ils T Abe'; oil hi wor y � � ' ., a, �'�:� � ' " ._ .},� ��.��1�• � •:`a �'k" �r �'.aw'i't'14 rA ri,i���c!µ .:,Tip,,,,',t.n',� •{ a ��' F'�, „•yr a r r , —+r.11,+iti..nw.�r..r..a•.r..Mcs.,....a. .. _.. ._ ......__.__.. ._.•..... . .. _.__.. .._.. .,.�..-..__... ....—...,.�. .._. .. ., ____ ' y •ti .^.+.a•._r+�++--.-+«....a. ..��..�....._,.��-..r_� .• .�....�.-ti•.-•..Ir ter... _ _..�. ..�t:...._�`.�_:._.. �r.. ..�..._..."......—. -. __.."...._. .._.., -. .._.. .... •ira .. 5 �w.i/MGM-,�w.�+...yr_•ns..u_.�yr.,.•a. .._ . .... � T Ap .ww w,»�y.+_..��.�.,W_,.Y— +__�—"•.n � �.•....._����i'��.... f _ � Nam..__•.._,..........,. '�h 7R�i���• r r r' J'4 Nil' -Jm T ,•: . ", i 2.' 7 Asz. Niw v w .. ,w,.,.s _ . rSW^ �{�II�#t h a I f ,, , � •t,rv{ A,► L" 2 j ,�� d' .. t '� _ , �r a •;,� l �• , ^ r 4� xF � f r 4., ry + Y r': i r„Sri, M. RICMARD RAIL D, P. M. SO If I.&NO OVACH i0U4iVMW .; LrONO !!NIGH+ GA.IFORNIA 60607 CM CGUMM city of Boach ' Wb ary writing this better re"rcU g the front 0. weal ly. at 3801 Fegtime Circle. It is our opinfan that the wail is in no may umttractive or obatructing in { nat=*. The h= has been beautifulay &signed and minded in evwy nwpwt. Ella pees it ewry =wring , Qdle jagging$ and we are quite familiar with the sur- rounding homes, traffic, etc. and it dose not appear that this va11 in question could posgdbly � ! effect & yc m or eaything. it is hazy noticeable be- cat it absolutely blends in with the rest of tl* Moors. Eighty per'amt of the bames, nt only an Trinidad Island, ter" ' th¢tyughlauit. this harbor use the courtyard design becw►m our lots am alell and it creates a muurs secure entzy. . * eanmt i m Sir a that having the seams wall closer to the hams would erAwaxe the beauty of it. If &pything, it would be more unattractive. If we went to nWm an issue of this ratter, va ce n ` cartAinly begin making the ramcls of the harbor and find hlmdxeds of hwes who have atrocious, unatt=ctive ad3it ms that ham been qvroved by our City or xmYtie nor or iimpefted. These his shm44 be called an the = pest Img beftrre aonmm who has gam l sary and Obw'f sly had @ 8 bdautif►A Job. l i ,A 'r `d 1(•{ �G; " `i� f h � r ` } irM1Y' �,., • r � w rlt��°Y � + `r� J1 .' 1�ti'' �•�. �,,i ���"tlf{+�M11��,,. /,R, 1 .,•Y,�r�Y r'.,o-M• �"'r l'7�� i,yA���3�� � �h �r!�,^� r�hi �bh'�•�1•'.:r, � Y7i 3y :.1 ° • ! ,� !r'T', M �� �'/���r �,( ^, + R r �.��• ' ROO �• ( F / 4. I ' 'ti H. RICKARC RAC 0. F. MN. �;,, ,•';�`' ,°r' ' , *011f i.ONd ■tAiNi iOt11.rY'AfIC iN�tr:;r�", �.�lO tif;lll.li. s�IP�RNM iOi07 qua. 9, 1981 Page 2 !me in owrtaixx],y a banutiW a&Uttan to our .4 SAIN d aid is iz W way OUt Of line. ' 8irmMly, �a. Dr. ard X t , H. Tdct Ard Ras 3671 Pirate. C&le ftnt_i ngtm Bombc!i f ch 92649 a ow+ i M1 r . 1 a. K•L•IY4.� ..1. i ' '4 r ��+j •� M1 � 3rl "r7���rJ • Y pp y ^j7i1' sal r , y � 'rap � ' r .• "' i �' M y a♦ r! p •�c.✓.., �t IA • • 'I + ti -, it! I .i, ,♦ ♦ + ',�• :•a'•, �,i,, ... , .'4+ l I v � �A }f , 1 i, 4475 Outrigger Circle Huntington Beach , Calif. 92649 (714) 840-3777 February 16, 1901 RuntLogton Beach City Council City of Huntington Beach � 2000 $*in Street .: ntLngtvn beach, Calif. 92648 f wish this to go on record. This letter is to voice mar approval of the new residence at u. $ 0�'1. Ragtime Circle Huntin tan Beach. � � r 9 T ct,ioularly like the Spanish Courtyard and in no way find 6fte' naive a It should, be obvious ,to all concetn*d r any ObJ40tions would. at** from jealousy, 4nd harassment rather than ' #PA the architectural elegence from this eddifice+ the entire house is very tastefully done and certainly will odd 'valu* to the neighborhood. 'Hospectfully, Nancy E Zrr:ow 1 ' 1 yyL1, 7, d I A 4L �" �� r;• �,�y � phl;* 's;�. M r +�pFll r ►/� r �" �' r M? '21rV� '.4 • ty! i. V , 1�4,i"�'1 1� � 1 'l•' ' f ✓' w A.r. 1 r r i�rr''i'��r.b„� 6. r r5 rl• ,.� n i.� r, MV 'i� � `"',YMlry.. t• I�l��,'r 1 '/'• � I11 • � '� 1 r��f'•�iy. .. ,' � 1 1 f t, ', r,IM Fr�' �y••n i'1. �uuM,�}^y1y.1' 7;'�Y''.�•'•fMJI�A'�„I^ ..r�•Itl�Iu V� � . X• r rtiSr�'xy� r f �n�Fi••�''h r '•Y'�r � ', ,r ''J i',• � I� ♦ 'r'; '•.'•, vJM{ ., y , •• 11Jr a I .r � . � • / wX.n'..Ie�Maiw'F wMKi w9 hlfy. r �r 4'' i M 1 ' rl r d.T r 1 hh i •`II�I� �`f.i y X Afl r (714) 545-8040 February 16, 1981 Huntington Beach City Council City of Huntin jton Beach .� 20.00 grin Street x ` Ountington Beach, Clati f . 92648 To be put on record. I imigrated to the United States 12 years ago from Burope and in my extensive travels around the world , over 48 countries, I have found few houses as beautifully .done than the Morrow residence at 3801 Ragrime Circle, Huntington Beach. It a"ears to that anyone having knowledge of history and the fine furntehings of the Morrow redfdence would appreciate and respect the taste An which it was built . I Feel that any harassmentrto the 'Morrow' s is from pure jealousy and disrespect of their taste. It also appears to me that three-fourths (k) of the houses on Trinidad Island have something over 420 high in the set- back area. The neighbors should be pleased with such a beautiful house in their neightborhood as it will only add value to theirs . Respectfully, Daniel Dick •i; Ir•;' •ti'' r� ' lit` h a' 'I4- 1. ti Yb .. . 'I 4491 Boardwalk Huntington Beach , Calif, 92649 ` (714) 840-2566 r` February 16, 1981 Rdatington Beach City Council Ci*1:y of Huntington search 2000 Main street xuntington Beach , Calif. 92648 To be put on record. This letter is to voice my feelings of the Marrow residence at 3801 Ragtime Circle, Huntington Beach. I think the house is the most beautiful and well cone in, the Harbour area and in no way detracts from the beauty of i neighboring houses. I see no negative aspects of the Courtyard as it is in keeping with the architecture of the entire house. As a Barbour resident with great pride I hope that this Argument is settled in favor of the Morrow residence. Sincerely, r ��; Mar, L, Sterile ' i' ti i � +r G ,. Jr•ref •'� r 19Lr .i 1�` .yp I 1° 1 7 y r 1 yr � . r e f '.IM M' A�. +' :'' , . ..may r' „ N, , •, INC IRA O-R MOTORS f•;,Arl, tir rti-- Beach Fbbuary 17, 1981 Noely Circle Iftufftsom beach To Whom in May Concern, . I am writing concerning the front courtyard wall at 3801 Ragtin a Circle. selm.- . I cannot see why anyone could possibly object to the a bavanes of f4is wall in question. It certainly looks in keeping with the house. I do not believe it would make the wall look better to move it back. Thor* el're so »axy homes on Trinidad Island that have a wall or even a of the hoctsey in the 151 setback. Why should these people be persecuted two Jealous neighbors ? Pkr 6ne else abjects. Certainly, I do not. 1 �YI+t•r TA. r"' ¢ Nowta 40 Pratt Xxoeutive decreta,ry r VO ra+� t� '~;��'+ �, , 1 ',.1T M, r 'i� r M,Ly,{•r,�, �y"'y��'.'� �ti�.; '�jN��w M i r��►,,�yyy t � r Y•,� r � r '/ ,�j"F' rJ^,� M•' �� 3��",f�'i't� �4'•T �4 �r '��Y'• ` ti� ;1lt�i'�rF�rS� ������•JuL�jr•`.'F•A��� %':ti'4 r•,L �,. r.F�� � 'w rr,,.+j',r� i •� 1.::���r�- � y�S' r.���� 4 ��� • 1 '''^' 1'"••� •!� 77-►►., •,♦•... •,,�,���:•Y "•,'d4'Ar",.�`.,.'P �,1��i�i�r} yI �'� r• '.i . 71 �"A ±,,1Ir •�iA r t ��' , � �W,+�M� q•�4 �� �� �F� .� �� �r�, +��� ! `1t�rY. 'f�'�,r' �kA'j�; � #f",������,. 1 �t� �� i �, w, '��' �'�'t• ��J��;f"° �� r' 4 V h !�.i �' y' 'r f ( ��� '��y:,33�A����,Y +M� � ,1{y� F '� � ',a ^ r 'a1 `��:i', 4 w f ; ,, �y�'�^•� , y .A�k ``�` a. $�i��`(f `."�!+ owifi I ��3 �a � �' i� r7� •�' �.. i 4�,4 r�,'� , d���r t.l�� N���,.t } ri�111{i � .� �1 t�41,�4 V l„ iM p ''�f i J,� n � rr ., �,�r •.�� � � �� � ^ � � d W aa� i � �'yi , yy � r r • �'r, , r`�'+ ,� MblM�yti..i>r,.�t,'NM IM'.'•yy.�..0 ti'..i4'I�� "�!`���� �y��•.,�l�Ayq,'�'�}',�'��( •1�h;�'9Mt'�' ".�.. •,1't^,Rb.,�,�',. I,�.,,. _,. .�ti � ..^� .r tc� t�lr fr�• LId J Its'. T CITY OxmC=L C!ty 01 Huntington Beach � stun ing1 ton beach, California I�1 VV � We lore no objection to the courtyard front Mall at 3#0 time Circle, Huntington Beach, California, it is t�►t#1 ly acceptable to us* Sincerely$ C. a • f x*� ��'� �y :AI I�i� rySd '•' i� i�� �� r 1 id 4L�'!an sal.:"� Trr �. "�.� •^r Y ty 4'i,i�ygJ.7 ,nl_}, 'T' Iyy I 7. '1 ,{� ,�1'1R1 f �F n� )1 t4Pi Ti -7t � �� l� 'r y�' ,? I'�, !' aY�{ # „f.q� X:!�V i1 1 grt'rli1' f,1 1 �1ll1, . •n �,� " 4�� � ad �' t� ' l r► A r ' !ak ,���� �11 1.• y!-:,rY. n"?k �y 'M''•�� •n **4,� INl ��` 'rl n• �,iti Al y 11T f ' February 101 loll ys, CM COUNCIL 'City of Runtington X*ach Huntington Reach, California Gentlemen: 9 , I ,.1 We have no objection to the courtyard front wall at 3801 Ragtime Circle, Huntington Beach, California. It to totally acceptable to us. 1`r Sincerely, �I I R / 11 1 ) - + i + k"sari rr •� " 1p� {�y`Y' ,yw r� ��,�} �� FK',S� �! ANti° %iY °Y+y- 4 ��Y�u' YAM ,hz,"� '• r 'W�`'�,tM(y�, 1 1 14 W. `Mw 7LI n lip n - f���) ♦ ° wd?{�r� } ,1 '� + A may' L .,. ' ;` , ,�, �,1 ,• . •tip;+, , rr, �, ,,++,. � r'1. - „• of I qu r. ,; - M61l;*'yAya+.*t'+�" • `,v+`rb{aR. �r;�r+, .. ., �r.d`wr+.iw,M t„r I i caw,, , ``II vp ' Irebruary 18, 1 .481 Cifr COIL Cift Of Huntington Beach Nualington Beach, California w t�entl*rr�en: a We b4v* no oh *ction to th* courtyard front Wall et ` 3801 tim*' Circler Huntington Beach# alifornia. Yt totally acceptable to us. r; i ere Y,r • � ' ram, rR I � 4. ! N�'�t yy �,^ � `� r ` ti�1 �IIF a ♦ '� o- ��n y� w Ta:^.. Y`e prM jhr° 7 u { 1 � ��i'♦yy+ '��p ♦ ro r � k r Yr '�P ^ T� '� ,i�. s r y; ` � l ti � 1 �;• p♦y� 1 ;�'�'A� 1,M j ♦}',.i 1 '�i;t d �� rY ,,�p�� ,{� N y Zr � l Jr� �� .rJ� 4�!A(�,� �,�yy� ..:P�1r� ���,� � ''s •�!F' �9'�'���M �1 .} ,k• +J.',Mlu, 'i r r ti, �N �Yr Fj 1 c c* r� �,l} a A �! ♦ A,.�*a ° I♦ '� r •r ' i iw q �1' '�]L 1 .l1 i��, riff l,h t�'91�raj at W. � t , ll � °, ,f ,1(.� •dl� 11�1, �{�'�1 � �'> An ♦ ,a, Y� tiri'� ■ r � e F,°M , t� a�•• ��,7 t ° tl r on ,,,y,(� M1,4p0i �` 1'iR i, .1'�11 ♦�� l'r•�'y ; I ,° a t �.r 1 1 r..l�, d, 1 1I f �y 1 4 Y:'Y f r?�� rl r � . rl.11�, r f 1 yry�,,,i;;l t ;I p �+�`�, r�i�• �rN,t } a y .��N y 1rY♦, u„ �a��t� ••4 •�Ilt •}'�„h`' ��, i,� i ��TTrr � .;rx I1''�4T{"�rl { �-� � 'M rM• A �, ( '�i�,l ,i�` ,�f„�r•d �i�, '�yli 1 ri, h,�Y wir � 1• '.(' r.n. ,( `r• °R}k• d.� 1 y 4� r�Yr w� � r11I�p awl r���� �1 rr•1 Y'�/J•�•1` 5^F♦` ,.A � . '�'! �1 '1,, 1 �� • 1 , I �L �,dw �,T';� RY� � ,��y�y.,• ••�� y �I,..,,,r•�.r i.tr.NA,r, ..�, ul� -r �d �11♦ } r ' 7 �r Robs;uory 10, 1981 CITY COaL� City of Ountwngton Beach Huntington Utach, California I. y r Gentlrwwen s , Wj have no obi*ction to the courtyard front wall. at 3001 Ragtlwe Circler Huntington Bea,-ft,.h, California. ;4 It to totally acceptable to us. sincirel�, j , �r � �+ �'S��,�-y1•-�y,�h, to�,+r.�i,r^' .�Y�r.��r.l�{'`'�R f'Mµ '�e,�1�Jm n Illh"'S��xIY'NAY i.'Y�'+�/Thi'-.,it F .`; � 1' 4 �' iN' 13L7Rr F'! y,, '..R fh ,� f "'1 �i t� s1l�� •� ''k , 7/ a,i'!� �'1 1� '� � �I h w I�r 1.{�• , Ir i. , � N11•' � �*' � ,I irr �r� 11, �� � j f�i�� �r 7!' ;r � � a'• �, ,� .Ay� � k r��f•l' � , M ��Ihy�� �,�i� �'' � � It ,f� ����1 d NI�SM ��tl r 1 (L♦lyl l�f ��� *� T"�+ � � ��� r „�rp, rip t� '�1'�'•' '' � � _ �. ��•'r . . " r Februrkry 10 r 1001 CITY COUNC l L City of Huntington beach Huntington be ach# California ` tint x a�atsn= i We hags no Objection to the courtard front wall at 3001 Ragtime Circle,. Huntington Beach, ifornia. It is totally acceptabler to us . 00/ � xy, � �N �h,`*1���,� Y C ��.j1�lt �1 d��°� r � 11 •yV'-Y1 � �y� l�+'�Z� �y�'� � '� '3'�'�S �"��'�'T� " � r � At :IM rPM M R�:> ?.''•�asurv,�'A� Wow,,h�,�.., .s,.^rn+'1lkR"F '�' •���r��:��.R...x .Jo. • yw�, .� .'. o ', :�, �r lrr�:• .,'•,tip February 10, 1961 CITY xx City of XUAtington Beach ,., Huntiavtc,n Bahah, California 11d have nO Obje0tion to the courtyard front gall at 9001 RWING Circle, Huntington Bauch, callfornia, It is totallX accOpteble to us* Sincerely, ; � pr I tt "'IP -0 - ') ! 4",� - . I '' I too. Y `l'A` Ir��r1 `1 Y+yT 1 ' � ' i.r 11 r r,� r } j ,v { i �y } it t " ikA,i ,AM ��/r+ a ,:•9 �lj, T.t L-r r'y i ,�rr ' •,! i �, ,�;+• , 1� �. , . `fit T, �� r �'i 'v.'•�'` ��«4 � ,' • '� {'d ���r'��,Mn . '��� r . • :'A YMi..1l ,..+,r'R R1M� �tiaW+r�-to, h�.wl��.'�!��'Rih—to.60... yi i r' • ��b�u�t�* 1�. 1��1 .�r r. city COUNCIL •4� City Rif , s"tington se��h � Huntington 8sacb- California We have no objection to the at fCalifornia.ront wall 3601 Ragtio* Circle, Huntington Beach, sa It is totally acceptable to Us . Q,.{ � �iticerely, , f ?;elf e z i • i• G a r M J N lop, its r' February 10# 1991 CITY COUNCIL City of Huntington Beach Nuatington Beach* California We have no objection to the courtyard front wall at 3001 Ra9tiat Circler Huntington Beach, California. It is totally acceptable to us. Sincerely, r � ` l , 01, ?Arctto- 3-7 5a7+SC',.AP &-I qwOki -Flo V-rro� (04 , 07. �'r ;• _ ' 41 M •� �,1r'S j�pi µ•��7C,J�{�` r Sri f !i,l��r iS 1� ��W. 4T r!� i 4 y n * r r 1 I C,wk` AI,yi. 14 t. • n '� ;�/'h'r'�' a,'•1 r.. '6 .',� w� Sr r���4 '�: •r,�F #y � � � �'x��*y .fZ 1' '�� 177 yr Q W �F �,r r r •� Ir r �` rt �Y '4. o .o-M' r r4 �N r'�$r��y � 'FtrSt' �1MM; � ATr7�1}�ilf •��i' �1y�'' '� rer' '•'^ S ��Yrr � , Ai . r IL �y� r.baK +�"•L A• 1rd 33 out of the 35 horr,ee on Sundaacer (Phkatime Oirale in a cui-de-sap off of amftnaer) have wall a or houiee whim the 15 flt e not back. 1' G the walls are zero r >a so$ back, same as h1ah as 8 ft. Courtyards17* it 3751 Nimble roof of garage over is 7190 not back �F pi29Letez ofgarage 1018*" + Courtyard has 7 ' high wall 1010" from probSerttx 1 3701 Esoapade pilasters 1311011 set beLok xmix 6110*0 high 3692 Escapade 81 hi wall 1419" back 3682 Escapade 71 hi wall 1119" back ' 3672 Escapade Filai§tere 61811 hi $* 9 ' 8" back 1rjt: ' i hT'Fyri t�yy�,,;ae,� 11i,1.��$f�(n'E �� { h �lYVlr .�i ��, �_� �5�•a,,,• �•w L -.! ��t,..� '' �. S'�YR/1 �R' ),�� ""' Y y I�iM�'11'y ''k"'�Il�'� �.l � Y � _I , „� J �1.* . �'• t✓n� �1 i I, �^ML�'t I/� 5 N h Y.. Y� ,�11 * � � �I' r�l��b������. Y.�� yP''i'S•, �'� •'f,'q 1 Vi�,: ��� ,y � ,��It�,�,,• �h � � '•` ' ����•� Z; i� 1. � M• .f �, �y� i I W' ` � . r ''rk r M,.� 1, �► t� • -sic �,.w��€ ir'1�� yy'y�*'• 1, +d►FL't0 rvi Lyr �! W'Ma d11'�v 'eY�t1 � ,.;N�►r �t :R �� r �,, .�i'l wr �• i 06iLd Atald 0MLOWA-vill 4�1 "odation E' fir^ J A`I�t 11 i 6j��J{✓�, N1,1 1 ' upt 20 1979 �yyyyW�Q(.Wa � 1�t L • i .,W. Wsbl� Ho aw 3431 Aa ucativa tin4ton Beach. Ga. 92649 Re: Approved Architectural Plan,.i Dear Mir. Mor rm: ftelosedl please find, the approved set of j lams $Ig�•d bath by the City of Nunzington ACh Bu ding Codes and the Architin tural Review Commit tee. Sincerely, j TRINIDAD ISLAND Rs' ASSOCIATION Are ro :l0.0 21w I1A d dwolc, im mod, �6mla 02t4 J iL�ti!'iriY�1��T`+��`I�►'iI�M`+r�w. w.�r..rr�.ry�r..�r.r.....,..+,..,.�...+..�.�..�..w�..+—w�«..r`..�..r�..��.�.�..�.�.�..rw•—�+f+r./w.w�� —w,ra..r.ai..,.�.....:..a, --- --. .� �ii�i i+i• �I � • 1IC s ,•+'1 M I � s CW 1ANW111WI H INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION zo 444'00j ►x�nw TO Alicia Wentworth Frnrn Richard Barnard City Clark Assistant to City Administrator subject APPEAL. TO CONDITIONAL Date .January 19, 1981 MKIRTION 79-20 4 Sawed on erroneous Information I received fray the appellants I authorized you to proceed to accept an appeal. I have thus since received additional information from Davela runt Services that indicates that. the appeal period had expired and that the appellant had right to file the appeal . please return the appeal fee to Mr. Webb Moral. If you need his address, you can get that Information from Savoy Be l l av i a, 1 Development Services. RBrcw 1 .. .. Vol 1:' v ',� 1•. ,'M N + a�S {• � ' yam, . r r ,11 tF' y1 1 rtrrway '1 ,+. 1 1, 1Yi.w*rl•�a'.•.14—r , , \ u..1 n •a i 1" .�1h J"�fl»� i ;1}��.n, Ar�' •�l', v: �`.4.::Gra Y r Filed 1p r b #or e + ��r or x att"h�. 130t10e $atl 9r►lling lidt to Cla rk rat for 11 notices Letter of • 1onation f*r CtCy Vmne i 1 publ i e #� y � hearing for Meeting ligtead Nborrt by O $elm . ,, i y.� i •.A '•r1 .. ' ZJ,':, +. . s, .. +�` a area l�iere: srei numerous example's o���arage� wa.1'i a-, house walls and garden walls that range up to zero set-back from the sidewalk. 3. GRAN'TINa EXCEPTION 79-20 WOULD NOT S.FFFCT THE CHARACTER OR APPRAItANCE OF THE AREA. If the wall were awved back beyond the 15111ne the external appearance to neighbors and passersby would not be Improved , the change would not even be noticeable to outsiders. In foot, one of the purposes of the; wall is to visually reduce the overall height of the house. Marring the wall cloomr to the house will reduce this beneftefal affect. 4. WITHHOLDING EXCEPTION 79-20 WOULD BENEFIT NO ONE. The appearnee of the neighborhood world not improve, the character of the neighborhood would not change, it would mean denying a type of exception that has been granted many times in the past. Surely it would be unfair to grant so many, and suddenly clamp down and refuse one more, less extensive, encroachment, especially when the area is already almost completely developed . _l- �rr+ �, �y11 , ! � r �x 1N( �, +'�, - 1 j. ..,,�` � Ai�, �'• 1 :. r�' ''i �;"1�'�ti�� 1� � �r � �, K y�� •,. 1 W � 1 'r, w �,. �1, .` ♦ *� �i n.K'��A hl 5�.rtia ! .rid. r 4"1d11�_ �P1b >r 4 ew .••r � 1 r+ ,r MYrW•�..�..I.r.i.+.' �:��1����,SS: r r Jay f�T, �;+y� �' � or �` DAM -swoon MAJO ftb1 is a", Of LOU r or aR"at att, hrd l ►1 oottao opd ea 31ir4g list to Clark for lSStl notice; ' Letter of OVIAmti� for City OOIu���1 � •1 �'ar Apotxri ab��p pubile �y *cum ` '� r '�l'4 r'(' titj \ 1 rff$1 � 'd.l T r, r � r\ :T' f �K'S` `k,'✓, '.f w r•. v4--* -,., ,.R, y { s, 1 t,y . �°',,♦ ,��' '$ r r'Mgda >�,14� y • 94 '�!!'¢ y 1'i K r Y'r'"} t� 1 i'h� , �"I" t r 1 :i u,ti I,�yy.• r k' y ! w ' ' �, iy,y � ,�, `' ''I . r� 1 �_. � r A�'Jkl•Ty,+)}r.r%c, ,I r,F' ' y � r "�'M,^,rM j°'� _ r1m �' ... ��\ �� err� SIN v ,ry, !'•4Q/Ll4' ,M'',''W. �'+r,.r.. ',d 1.: •r•:' . w1�'f:rb,Y i 1 dat+uary lot loll ` To: lluntin&n Soach City council 1 no: ,.Pmw Aiming oosamispion Appr vol a( C9p4ftkm&1 Exo pdm 79-20 to requested for the reaons given below ; �t6eptIM 79-00 Is 0 request t7-fiiam ermit the front oonrtyerd wall to y enact .Ltd the 10r pet boot ! s,depth zero to 0'1", and the total length ot t1w, At it �► 0' of tbs sprpaxlmrte B0� width of floe Iot at is point. I A drawing $0 0ached obvvftg the requested viception. 1 . THg XXOMION RXQUESTED 18 A VERY MINOR ONE. The vexa tion requested is a very minor one, and is heeded to preserver the ar�i rah iA �►► of the design. yi • $t1CR, t NO ".E COMMON IN THE AREA. Klthin out block of the property in question there to an almost identleal exception where the amain wall of to house itself is within 1019" of the 0.4'ea w� and the w*U is only 711" from the sidewalk. In 79-20, the main w-dl+ a$the house a%a all beyond the 151 set back, at one paint as finch as 40 feet. Ow j m►Wft,.`.e area there are numerous examples of garage walls, house walls and gard-in vaUs that range up to sere set back from the sidewalk. 3. GRANTING EJiCEpTION 7A-$0 170UI.D NOT EFFECT THE CHARACTER OR APPZAEANCE OF THE AREA. . 1 00 wall were moved back beyond the 14'line the external appearance to M' aid passersby would not be3,Orproved, the change would not errari bps not 'ble to outsiders. in foot, one of the purposes of the wall In to v muelZa,► ride the overall heigbt of the house. Moving the wall closer to the hou" vriU reduce this benetlietsl effect. 4. WITOWLDINQ XtCIPTION 70-20 WOULD UNEFIT NO ONE. The appearrAe at the naighborbood would not improve, the character of ` the xeighb r!! would not chimp. it would ocean denying a type r+( exception f that has been granted mo ny times in the past. Suraly it would be unfair to grant so vmkn r o and suddenly clamp down and refuse one more, lees extensive 9 encroachment . especislly when the area is already almost , completely develop". ,•I X'',1. a x . •: d W x"I ior �� 1Y1h.., �'v11•, ,. .� 'dr:• •, � v lwyr, .N14- .. +r 6 �:,•, IX . •f tt 1'• ti DENMO TIM EXCRPTION WOULD DAMAGE THIS OWNER. The tram courtyard waa designed to provide a spacial transition from external to internal areas. lltorvh4g the wall will cause the courtyard to appear "cramped" withv rt any benefit whatever to outut dery+ neighbors, or the appearance of the Was. 0. ;&NUKMET Ig 80 REASONABLE, WHY DID THE PI ANNING COMMISSION Dow ! ' i We$ UA presu d at the'ur +sting i,ben the matter was board. This was. because 1 had been Informed that the matter would n-it be on the agenda. When. belatedly, I was informed that the matter had been restored to the agu0s, it Sias too Late for me to prepare or to be present. A transcript at that boarimg is attached. It should be Noted ftt nowhere in the seven- too pWs of dtacussion it there a single statement o by anyone, deflMng my detHmenta►l effect that would recruit from granting the exception. NO OWBCTIONS WHRE VOICED BEFORE THE FLANS WERE APPROVED. j The pis including the wall . were submitted to the Coastal Commissim . the CiZr. and the homeowners before the hearing at which the mliginal plans wore approved. No objections were voiced. The plans were not marked to show Mat additional approvals were required, as would normally be the case. Therefore, construction proceeded in the good faith belief that all necessary approvals had been obtained. In view of the foregoing, it In respeatfully requested that the Exception 79-20 be gredtcrd. I will be present at the council melting of February S. 1901 , to personally request flUe exeeptitm and answer any questions regarding it. Very truly yours f � Wobb Morrow cc: City Council flyers 0 ('. r•, 1 �{ • y u -,r ,. +- y •� -,A- f 9'�b'{' 1" '� •'�•��' A+i 'A w tf �r y � l n,�1 r .'/�'�`,c ���• �;,¢L�y '''1+ l• } •, yr � •r r' � i), �• '� • er'f`:�• 'J r`'• r � .� ,N~� P � , n' � �,iSN •rG'• r� ♦� '•, �{ •�ri '' ,•'1�1 .. '7 yr . ��� � �� ,'1 p 'S.'�7 r; w�- +. .o yIz. 4. �. r _ 't`ITS •a �' t�'r �'tr l � � � ,V4 � ear 1�1,' ,. V '�,�7. 40,1' ,ii,Mlw�WIC!•r:,v.�.y, 'r, .-:�I�r•,1 .�. r� .. .� 'i0'!�,..�{W<�iJ r�. � yy �,M, d 17.. .'w'1k NV".��I..i" JV4,�1, ..,. ..Ms .. r. .'-W..•a.,... •i 11 1 • C9 i • • I C: } ' J ` N C9 L U -Ao VWAO 9 soft 0 46 00 ,.' ol jol Af cloo f • � d • • , .� , ; ,�'„ '!r ;••.+ M'►f�'"1' ��y1{"�' �: ''' ; 1 , �,;s•"•, ' ''1 �� + I�9';.'•,' '�:'�, 1, -la,; t y' ,,.., `` �•' 1 Al , ipp Y Jylr'1'4Ri l:•'1.,iµgl ,. ,,w+1W•',rJ-•'W_I•Nr' • .. r "M � • 1(�,� Plannit �` ( ssio:l Iee r IC, 19g0 J► ` !/ . C"UNICUTIQNSt r vannis Riff, 3791 Ragtime Circle, addressed the Commission, in regard to a wall being constructed in alleged violation of the zon-- log ordinance next door to hie place of residence . He said that the wall had been constructed beginning 2pturday morning, December 13, and thw, owner had informed neighbors -Ift was being constructed with t p0jimission of the City. Dr. Miff further discussed. the legality pg thxi action and questioned whether this property owner was to be sllgv god to violate the Code with impunity. In response to questioning from the Commission, Savoy Be llavia re- viewed the history of the F - ject, informing the Commission that the wall had been requested through` a Board of zoning Adjustments conditiondl, exception, had been denied and subsequently appealed to the= Planning Commission in September. At the public hearing bef-ore tho Commission the request had been continued at the applicant ' s . yrwguetst to the Posting of December 16 , 1980, but had i.nadverti ntli► not: been included on the evening ' s agenda , Thee_ippl icant, however,� haj' been ' in contact with the Department first to fi a a resques•k for WOR withdrawal 'of this condf Elonal exception on December 15 and v%tn to request another continuance upon being• informed thet ttie project wooled be ,.,heard as a discussion item by the Planninq Commis- s. .10 at this December 16 meeting . In regard to the actual c Ion- struction of the wall, Mr. Bellavia noted that the wall on the south property line has been constructed to an illegal height of six (6) feet via a building permit issued specifically for a wall height of forty-two (42)• inches. The Building Division has issued a stop work order; however, the fence can the south property line has been totally constructed over the past weekend . The Commission discussed etnforcEment: of the ordinance code, and legal c6 insel Charles Matheeis and Secretary James Perlin reviewed the steps open to the applicant And the options available to the City in this; regard. ' Mr. Matheein outlined the time frame for enforcement in—the event the City is required to take legal action to correct any viola- tion. . chair"m Portar reopened the public hearing on the appeal to Condi- tional fxcetption No, g 0-Z9, xe anoth Yaryan, 3782 Ragtime Circle, property owner directly to the south"bl the sub jset residence, addressed the Commission to state that the owner of subject property had violated their prior agreement by c6hattr'ucting the val,l without the approval. by the City of his_ variance and con`setquently. ho— (Mr. Yaryan) is oppose_ VC` the wall . Its hip cp:LniMn--nro' hbrdahxp *has been demonstrated as required by coi e , and he further stated that uninspect:ed electrical work had been in- stalled And covered within the pilasters for the wall . The wore no other persons to speak for or against the proposed walk,, asnd"t1 PWbl-1c `bearing ons cloy vd • In closing-"the hearing ,' Chairman Porter expresses—directed *..hat: Dr. Riff ' s opening remarks; be included as part of the public hearing record. te i ;'r. +�l ��,ids M • � , . � y.'� •��r6�.'.R• wd'yi 4' • •,� tom, `•. , -. f• i;M•. ',�1•�J ""fir, - _i, •�t•.V , �14 '14tftvtese INA. Flarning comissfon � combe; 261 IFIC r Palo 1 0 go ooiftlbxlori discussed thi proposal and • the information pre- Owed by staff and the public . Oil NOTION . BY BAUER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION DETERMINED NOT TO ACCL"PT THE APPLICANT 'S REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-29 •IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE -WALL HAS BESN CONSTRUCTED IN THE 111ELD WIT140UPPAENEFIT OF AN APPROVED VARIANICL, .k� AND TO SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF E BOARD Or ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BY THE DEN AU,,.W,, gPNIQIT%0NAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-29 WITH ThZ FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTEt P 3 OI MR OENiIAL t nywii�liY Yuu��.......��� r 7 , 1 . The' applicant has failed t ov i __b r��p as man`- date:d by the ordinari co a to justify granting a conditional exception. 2. Grea o! „ems � a would' c ns f tea�g ant ` of special privilege not consistent w tfi other propert3.es under sfm'3 �c.ia'aaues ax:e�� and under the siame sorting classification . AYES: Bannister, Kentefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, • Hager NOES: • None ABSENT: None , A TAIN: None ON NOTION BY BANNS ER AND SECOND BY.BAUER THE PLANNING DIVISION WAS QUESTED TO INVESTIGATE NOT ISSUINV. ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT OR 9'INAL INSPECTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROJECT UNTIL ALL STRUCTURES ON THE SITE COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE PLANS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITYr BY THE FOLIAYdING VOTE AY88s Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter , Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOES= t�ar�a AESENTr 'None ABSTAIN1s lions REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS t XON1OICTIONAL USE PERMIT No. 79-23/TENTATIVE TRACT' NO. 10853/ ENV'IRONlMEN'Ili1L IMPACT REPORT NO. S 0-5 (Cont. from September 16 , 1980) Applicants Mola Devel p ment Company To 'permit construction of a 224-unit condominium project in a one- lot subdivision of 14 acres located on the east side of Bolsa Street approximately 700 feet south of Warner Avenue. ' Jim Barnes -reviewetd the history of the project and the environ- mental assessments on the property, and described the CFQA-mandated procedures which have been followed in the dissemination of the savironmentil impact report. He noted that it had been sent to a, 12-16-80 -- P.C. t t4 y;'. .4 • . M- a , . ur. 1 ;, 7 � . liar' i�t as px �.ri Comeissi,on Mastro s ember 16 19� G4' emu.•• .� r—w stiff% My nexte is d*nnis (tiff. I live at 3791 R'agtimee Circle. I an * physician* I have lived in this city for &pproximately six years* I have worked in the city and I own rental proporty In the ei.tyr and I am no sure that any of that is more Impor- a" tent than if• I eras to say that I was an imr4gratnt and arenti"g :,,on spafb" at. An ltuntington beach, or sore important tha a ix I Mks to say tMt I was as builder building industrial buildings a axaianizag to have a lot of iyr,flueetice in the city. _ As I .,, stand hares, I an filled with a lot of mixed emotions and they first one is a lot of anger. And what r sae referring tQ specifically in Conditional • Bxception* No. 80-29 , first brought F; up its August# put down to September 16, and suppos4dly resched- ule d,. ;or this evening. I am angry for a lot of reasons and my 40 anger is shared by all of my neighbors, and the reason for the anger is bocauss this is the third time we have been here. The first two meetings where it was schedulied, we were not in- fcjrrneed that it had been canceled, and we did not learn that it waa to be brought up, or that this was not to be brought ujl � today, until a few hours ago. I am very hopeful and very grateful that 'i even am allowed to be given a chance to be sere and to speak and wbat I wouXd like to do , basically, iie to ' take a vow minutes and beg your indulgence to give you .a lfttlo bit of case history of this issued .ard to discusi,1t* `} I think that this is probably possibly and very likely one of the most important issues that you deal with. It is not an 'ietsus• of a silly wall. It is an issue of whether you taavea a vu r se'.. it in an issue of. whether you have any power. It is .Aii issue of whether an oidinary citizen of this community hse any rights at all, and it is an issue of whether people sitting hers, in a fancy roam behind fancy desk4 issuing ver- dicts and decrees have any abilities to carry out the soninj rules and regulations of the City. And it really is open to questioh mwng the people in our neighborhood. Little bit of background: Many months ago when this home was btting built I spoke to the builder of this house and he told _J + r• r �•CyA 'r4 t ..1r n.' ' r ',a,.� r .I. ,`, ,d i , M�,* `�� .. . . ' ����� .,,.,_ .� �� � ����� EMI � • i d r Ll r ; me hewas g ng to build the most pee»live home in Hunt- ex�►�: • #.a9tab Harbour. 'go did not say the niceast# he did not sway ' the prettiest# he did not say anything elves . He said the most expensive home in Huntington Harbour. Several ronths thereafter when he Tot into a fight with the neighbor to the west over a wail that was being built, and which Is -at issue now and at three other meg9tings, he said, and I quota# and I gwta ' withobt the benefit of a witniasas to substantLatee this at leaft three* othsr neighbors have been told the *an* ^Aq he, Bald; "I will do what t want to,. t know a lot of pimple# 1 have ' a lot of money, and it" gill go whatever way 1• want. they can try teo clock it, they can try to put up w rules, but r will do what I want. " Subsequent to that there war a hoari.ng about a variance and before that hearing for the visrlince 1 went and Y spoke to my neighbors and my neighbors spoke to me and mall the neighbors in our little tiny cul-de-sac ,said '`wee do 'not want this wal l" and the reasons are unin portantt b+acaeusze that is not really the issue that is here. And the thing that was most scary to me and really depressing was the fact that one 'neighbor, a woman whose husband works for the Federal Bureau of Inves4 gation, said "It is a waste. You are a little ' pesrson, we are all 21ttlee persons, he is a builder and he le going to get what he -wants. " . . lend that is really scary* if a secretary told roe that, if an ordinary housewife . told me that, but when somebodi who is the wife of a person , ..hat hoe blare In the PSI for ZO -years tells you you don':t ' halves ; a chance you say are you in Chicago or are you in Huntington Beach? And it is ' scary. And we went to this hearing and ' ther hearing and the hearing commission said, Quote: "Theeree is no reason, justificatir n# or legality for the wall to the east. The wall to they west may be justifa.eds we turned down the whole thing • because you are applying for a wall to the east, you are applying for a wall to the went. Re-apply for the wall to the- rest and there is a good chance that you will get it. " Okay? SUbs*queetnt to that, again with an incredible mount of auidacity, both walls were applied for on a conditional excep- tion and an appeal was made to this body. Since that time � there have been two graze for extensions and Moth times the reason for the extension wns' an inability to contact mee. ., r , y y lei Y+i 77 , nA i.tyr{.1 Y' Y 'MY•l1 '•, .'1:1 +' t',ay.� li 11nr A y', KANyy�! �„�,' ,� t i'f- •r R �r'y�t1•�it'«'*t ..' n^+ N,,, .��.,•r i aM. '�lj`+piy,l ri 1 ` M XxceRt for one period of approximately tern days, 1 ; am availablop unfortunately, night and day to onybody with any oomplai.nt. I an so avoilablp it is disgusting. Interestingly the parson that was supposed to be unavailablA (sic) to con- Y tact sea was a landscaper . excuse me, an architect, and P yesterday when we were discussing this thing with the" builder r, : in, ,question he said "The/r easo" that the' architect co, uld not apnt of you when T first requested to discuss this, on a personal re'n 'itLorAhip before we got into any of this mess was because a I j u►t found out, he died in October. "., And that is , interesting, hsc " )a e •the reasons that he gave for continuations were that • r I miald not be preached. To mare a long story short, Saturday . F rAday .night• a load of slumpstone was delivered to the home some time after $ o'clock. Saturday morning any of a number of builders started ,putting up a wall. The wall that was *ppliod for was 6-foot wall, the wall that was built . . M u to me, the wall that was applied for and turned down by this body vas a six-foot wall, the gall that was built in � incredibly •higher than that. The wall to the want was con- structed - the mall to tho east was not constructed. The reason. it was net 4�onstructed was because my ear was over � there at that wall, and frankly it was not such a -good car, a so I didn't care if he laid in the concrete to build it over 1 the mall,, He told me in front of a man who he claimed to he iris' lau rr, that be had permission from the City to build Mat �a11. And *.bis man who he clilmerd to be his lawyer said that he had perraission from the City to build his wall. POW h* -said to me oral to they othar neighbors r "Call the . City Council on Monday." The implication being 'once it is built., � t" *cheer "- us, they or* not going to do anything. " I am a big man In the City. " 1 Okay. Sunday the wall was built send he came up to me and he was very nice and I said ' You are not an honorable man. You had an agreaAent with the man to the west and you built the gall amyway despite your agreement. " and he said the man to the test dial not put up his wall fast enough, and the reason tl,• man to the west die not. pint up his wall was because the wall is illegal. The questions that I am really asking 1 j r r 1 1 004 are really simple and the point is , is what is the point of this committee? What is the point, of .coning regulations? ,'hat is the point of denial?. What is the point of anything if they cannot-• he carried out , number one, and number two , is how the hell could somebody be turned down on an exception, make three appeals , none of them ever be granted, and build a wall and claim that hei6d exception to it and was allowed to? I do not know what the point is of the City having any rulen and having any committees, spending time, money, energy in meetings, if they cannot be carried out. Now, I have been told by people who are knowledgeable about construction. and I know notching about construction, I know nothing about, the processes and this is the first time I have even considered it necessary to defend my rights on anything except a personal basis that this horns is filled with zoning vi.olations. What f� I believe has to be done if this committee is to have any pur- pose and I think this is a hell of a lot more important than enforcing stories about 30-story office buildings, because why deny 30 story office buildings if they are going to build it anyway and you are going to let them? It is stupid , and there is no point in having rules and making decisions if ypu don ' t do something about. What should be done is that this house • should not be allowed to be finished until such time as it is in compliance with the rules of this City as set out by the ' governing boards and is in compliance ' with the rules - denial of variances set r_ttt by the City. Otherwise one has to ques- tion the reasons for the existence of City government in the City and this committee in general . I am disillusioned, but I am very hopeful . We are having 20 people at our house tonight; my wife will kill me if I do not get home, so I re- quested the ability to speak first. That- is the only fear I Chairman have. Thank you. s pow r: Well, I have some of the same concerns as your do. I think the last regular meeting we talked about whether we have any control over anything or not. I think it is an appropriate time to discuss them. We have a report relative to this. sa►uers One of then in to determine whether the allegations are true and what ix the . Page 5 • r' 1 Por er : 'phis ,C . E , was I presume readver. tised for this evening . 15 that correct or oot correct? , Bellavia: No, ter. . Chairman, it was not- advertised, we did call the two adjacent property owners and did announce to them that it would be back up. It was one of those items that just didn ' t: get rescheduled.Porter : Is it necessity to re-advertise? Bellavia : No . Ott is not. Palin: No . No necessity to readvertise it,. It was continued to this date specific. '• Porter: A,1right. Then we do not have any problem taking action on it this evening, do we? Palin: No. Po�r : Okay. too the Bauer: Did we just get thlit this evening? po�rs Yeah. I just saw it this evening . Bauer: Additional background on what it is we are talking about here? porter: I think so. do you wish to speak ©n the same subject, sir? voice in Audience: Yes, I do. Porter: Alright, fine. Why don ' t you give us your name? Bauer: mr. Chairman, before ..a launch into something that frankly has caught me unawares could we perhaps get some background and understand what it is we are talking about here and who the izdividualrs are who are involved in this think and what have you? Porter:: Alright, fine. Bauer: Because it may be on the agenda as a result of appearing on our desks this evening,, but it certainly wasn 't on the agenda to my knowledge. Porter: Well, that is the only reason that I brought it up or allowed this to proceed under oral coneaunications . f s because . Ram U*rS Got some additional background to kind of bring us up to apeed. pow rt •01tay. why don't you indulge us for a few minutes while the staff and then we will let you give your testiviony. be�avia: Yes, Mr6 Chairman and Commissioners, this application came before you about three months ago - three and a half months ' ago - as was indicated by the speaker. The property owner on Ragtime had requested to our Board of Zoning Adjustments for a C.B. to allow a patio wall or a garden wall above 42 inches z - - - A ............... 1 Page 6 'y in hdight to be constructed within the front }►ard setbacksy , within the 15--toot front yard setback . The requirements under the R1 regulations require that all structures over 42 inches be set back a minimum of 15 feet . The applicant went to the BZA - the BZA did not feel that he had a valid request or hardship - that he had aI/ alid request, not a hardship - and the application was denied . At that time he appealed it and it was brought before the Commmission. Tha :Cbmmission did continue it twice, both by request of the applicant, and the last con- tinuance was in September 16 of this year and he stated to the Commission that he wanted to work the problems out with the adjacent property owners . It was scheduled for tonight and unfortunately it did not get caught and we did not put it on the regular agenda, but we did prepare a handout memo for xhe i commission . Bauer: Have the walls indeed been built? ael,lavl,�: One of them along the south property line - maybe Mr. Palin can point out which one has been constructed . Bauer: And is that wall legal? Bella�via_: Moe it is not. It is illegal . There was a building permit isniued, on it; however, the building permits was only for a 42 inch high wall. Was that wall legal? Bellavia: Alp, it is not. Oh, the 42 inch high woulc. be, yes. Porter: Does it specify on the building permit that it is 42 inches high? bell avia: Yes . It does, and it is 6 feet in height. Bauer: Who is the applicant? Bellllavia: The applicant, I he li eve , is Mr. Webb Morrow. Bauer: And are we within our rights to either confirm or deny the request this evening or ? Ae llaviat: Yes. You can. Portert Let me ask a quewtion before this goes on . There is a letter here supposaadly signed by the gentleman that ,says he is with- drawing his application for variance and is going to build the wall on the north property corner to a inaximum of 42 inchea rather than 6 feet? A r C page 7 Be41 iA- : Y+�� . , Yesterday he r:ar�e in in the early morning and requested to withdraw the application . PPoxter: Then what are we denying? Kene tick : Marc Bellavia : The application would - the Planning r.ommission would have to concur with the withdrawal . You do not have to grant the with- drawal. Kenef,ick: May I ask a question? Porter : Sure. X*nefi�ck : Mr. Riff, did you nay that the fence ,an the south . , no wait a minute, which is the one? The north property Line is the one he has written us a letter on today. Did you say that that ona was in fact already over 42 inches at this particular time? Drat: I do not know north from south, east from west . I am on the south side? 1 am on the Y,orth side. The north side wall was onli, - it was not constructed only because of the presince of my gar. Also, despite the fact that he had a letter from my lawyer stating that the wall was illegal because it was on my property line ithout my permission, he still was going to btlild it in Saturday and only the presence of my car kept it from being built. As it stands now. he has built n 92 inch wall in � the front and cn plans going to 6 :Feet back towards the harbor . F 3 g One interesting thing is that this - the appeal was based on hardship. This is a 9 ,000 square foot house for two people; it is hard to find hardship involved in building that on one of the largest .iota in Huntington Harbour. So the wall on the south has been totally constructed , the wall on the north is just a little: pilaster has been built and $hat his intentions are beyond that I do not know. Keneef ick: Thank you. Schumcher: I would like to know I think this man painted out some- thxng that has been bothering me for a long time , and that is there: have been numerous cases that we all have been aware of And other people have brought to us of violations to codes and ordinances and the whole thing and nothing ever happens on them. And x think this attitude of "I will build it and what cats they do to me?* I know the Coastal Commission answered that to a developer that went over the maximum height they were supposed � a i 14 . to and said "Take it off. . " Now, does the C:.ty }save any + � rights where they just blatantly gp against codes aald ordin- ances to go in and say do it. right? bellayia: Our building division has issued at "stop work" order on the project . Schumacher: When was that issued? P'alin & /► Sellavia: Monday . � wirrrr� Schumacher : Monday. After he clot the fence up. i Hellavias Most of it was constructed over l-he weekend. Schuma�c�zs Okay. So the stop work order iq on the interior of the house? Hellavia : ' Noy. They .were still working on the finishJng. The wall has not been completely finished. The major portion of the con- struction has been completed, but it is not in a finished state. Schumacher: So once now you have got a stop work order on it and he has gone ahead and built it without permission anyway. What is going to stop him? If somebody goes in and finishes it what are you going to do? Pa� lln: Well , there are a number of courses available to us . Now there are administrative remedies which arty person can seek out and j follow. He has one of those here: before you this evening. It depends upon your action and any subsequent appeal , if that is the course of action. He has to exhaust full administrative remedies . When that has famed and he has no additional recourse , then we can request prosecution, removal , uncovering so that proper inspecti(;ns can be made and the wall then would have to be constructed pursuant to plans on file , permits issues, and comply with- those plans . , Schumacher: And if he does not, then we sue him? Pt�ins Yes . Essentially. He would be fined, I would assume. I would have to defer to the attorney' s office on that. Charles Any one of a number of things can happen. There is no question Deputy �put� that the City can enforce the destruction of that wall . How- At .. ever, that taken time. At minimum I would guess 3 months before the entire action was completed and the wall was down. You can take hint to criminal task for being in violation, of our ordinances . Mos L of them are mi sdameanors, so you are E •i w" Pi9e 9 talking about a maximum of a $500 fine . It would be unlikely r that he would spend any time in Jail unl ss - it could he 6 inonths in jail ns a misdemeanor. That would be unlikely unless after repeated legal actions he failed to reirove the wall . That has been our experience. So there is no question that the City can enforce the destruction of the wall , but it is a time-consuming taski, One that we have addressed before because of the nature of 'the way that we have to pursue pro- secutions . We have sddr ssed the idea of citation over formal complaint tiling - nothing has ever happened, but that is just another issue. It is a time-consuming task but it can be done , yes. Porter : What is the probability that the City Atto:rney ' s office is going to pre .secute on a wall violation when there are several other outstanding issues relative to zoning and what' have you, you knot, that she seems to be unwilling to prosecate7 You tell me. You work there. Attorney: I am not sure that I understand the question? Porte-: I understand the question. There is a lot of pending stuff j you know that does not seem to be making it; you known, c rses 1 that I would consider of more import that a wall , but the fact remains that the wall is very important to the people who live ,:car it. My question in what is the probability of that curse being prosecuted when you look at some of the other things that aren ' t getting it? I guess that Is what it really boil£ down to. Attorney: That is pretty much a Jenorality, Chairman, I ' cannat address i that. I corn - I would be willing to cite you examples of situations where we have requirod people one very recent case a man had to move an actual building because of it being too close to the yard setL•ack. It took us a number of months before that happened, but in fart the building has been moved. And through my process - that was one prosecution that I hand- led - through that process there► was significant political intervention, not from this body, but because the man knew several people in the City. These were walls taht were put up in ocr way. So you have to understand, it is a time consuming task, many times there are roadblocks in the stay. I do not know that the City turns dawn the City Attorney' s office any prosecution that comes ::p. The ones that came across my waft � r „ i desk almost invariably are filed, but it is a process that we go through, one of which includes pre-criminal filing inter- view. Some people show up, some don ' t . Porter. Alright. Grace? l Wind: I just warted to clarify with Jim from what you said you are I ' indicating then I thought to us that we probably need to take action on the appeal despite the fact that the applicant has withdrawn .it. if we were to take - a firm action that we up- held the BSA for ey, inple that would be the best indication that we could give that we do not approve ,.of the fact that he went ahead and did something that was non-conforming. Would that be an action that would be the best basis for getting this wall removed? paallinn s Yes. I think the * action should- be based upon the merits of I the case and not necessarily that he has or has not constructed the wall. Wincchell: Through those findings given to us by the BZA and then deal with the other later? palin: Yes . winchell: Thank you. Bannisters Jim, is a contractor required to carry any type of City lic� aphing, , business license or anything of that sort in the City? Palinz Yes. Bannister: Couldn' t some action, be taken to withdraw these licenses until he complies`? palin: 'Yes. D_ Riff,: Excuse me. May I ask you a very quick question? Porter: No. Where is another gentleman and wax want to give him a chaan.e. we will get to the Asart of this. Xenefickt First thing I want to knew is do we - SAvoy, do we have a letter frca thfa gentleaan like this one saying that he is going to constaruvt a< wall to 42 inches on the south side too? From the earlier one that was v t thdraxwn? The first - I am assuming it .in . the first - one that we had that was 'for the south v- ll? bellovia: Whether we had a letter or not? Saying that he was __ng to? Nonefickt Yes. This ty" of thing that we have here. 3411f.vLas 14o not know. I can .research the ,File. I have if, tight here, it w;ll taker a few minutes . +: It1lnexiarl�: Check and see. I am rather curious. I think in a court of law page 11 a. judge would find it very interesting . .hat we have a letter from a gentleman telling us he is going to do this when in fact he has no intention of doing it. Secondly , isn ' t there a way that um can keep people out of a house that does not meet code simply by telling them they cannot move A? Hellavia: I would haver to defer to Ahe attorney " s office . Attorne Y wanted to address one other point, but I will go to yours right away . The City Atto.rney ' s office is faced with an after-the-fict type of situation once somebody moves in. K-enesf : ? do not think he has that is it -- 11t:hey have not moved in. That wets say point. They are not All and before 1 could put water ' in my swimming pool I had to have a mar, come and check off the sheet . Attorney : We can tall them not to move in. Hcwever, until somebody moves ir, we really don' t have a r eauon to seek any type of redress . It seams somewhat premature to seek an injunction against somebody moving in prior to their moving in . Kenefick: No. No, that is ' not what I meant. Do you not have tc• have � certain► functions before you are allowed to move into a house? � Do you not have to know that the wirings is safe, that the floors are in, that the roof is on? garters it is call-A a final inspection. Ktt ck: That is what. I am getting at. Okay. If in fact this house does spot meet a13, the criteria thAt the City sets up then in theme not a metl:.od for saying that you ;may not in fact move into this house? Now it used to be that Edison would not put a meter in on a house where there: was no permit, no final. inspection. Now I know there qre ways to do this . I am just saying, where there is a► will there is a way . palin: Yen. In fact the Department of Development Services through the certificate of occupancy process and final inspection releases daily numrous structures# and edison always checks with as and it has to be a final inspection prior to any hookup. Sauer: Was there a final inspection on this one? PALin: NO. Bauer: Wally sheen, don 't grant it. Kep#ticka There Vee go. That is, you know, the house doesn ' t do . W . pipe 12 , Bauer It does not conform to what the law says it has to conform with. Pik Iii ; Well, you know, I think there is A little more than that {,evolved. Are you going to ppen the h.aring and take testimony • .nd then , lose7 Porter; I guess we might as well proceed because we have at least one other person who wants to address the Commission . 1 Attorne s I just wanted to address/'an issue that Mr. $annia ter brought up with regard to the City' R ability to reject business licenses for failure to comply with codes . we tried that with regard to the banner towing in the sky ads ix you remember some years • ago. Because our business license ordinance is in the nature of a revenue-producing ordinance it does not enjoy the same statue an cantrol type of ordinance . In other words , probab..y we would have trouble revoking an ordinance - or revoking a license - under those circumstances . isters Is the licensing then for a tow truck operator different than the licensing for a contractor doing business in the City? Atto me Yes. Because the tow owrdinance has specific guidelines set up within at, whereas the contractor is simply the subject of obti.ning a business license to do business within the C:lty. It is strictly revenue-producing. You come in and pay your i Money and you get your license. You do not have to meet any standards. Grier: You mean that this - in other words, that has been going now - does anybody know what state of completion it is i:i now? In September it was possibly 50 or 60 percent - has any of your staff , anybody been out there to inspect this? Pal in: Yes. We had an inspector but not necessarily for the structure , yesterday. Wa had one, but on the wall . I do not know exactly how close to Completion the structure is , the dwelling. I have heard that he is trying to get occupancy for the holidays . I do not know that for a fact, however, because I have hot been out nor did I sand John 'Vogelsang out for the structure.. Based on the photographs that we took yesterday, it would indi cats that it its very close to occupancy. Port, Lot so ask you a question. who issues the C of O? You? pa�: 2%e department does, yes. The structural and final it off . There would be a request made for a C of O.. Edison 1,iauld iphania in, he would have to issue and phone the release over before, any electrical could be hooked np. PA g e 13 Greer: He hps to have the C of U in other words, has to have finai inspection . In ether words , the City has control of his water meter, or is the water turned on now? Pain: I coo not know really about the water . Greer : The gas company - in other words , he has to have approval front the City before he �an have a gas meter and he has to have an Edison meter Paling The electrical usually is the last hookup. Porters Savoy, did somebody have a comment out there? Bell: I ;ust wanted to answer CormissioneriKenefick ' s question. There is no previous letter in the file indicating that he was only going to build ra 42 inch wall along either property litre SannIster: Jim, does his body, have the authority, or the: control that would allow us to instruct or direct that no C of D be issued until tho plans - or until the building conforms? �. Pam: No. You �:ould request that we consider that. bannister: I would like to request that. Porter: Well , let 's have the hearing before we get carried away here . Who does have the authority to direct you not to - Direct you, not request you? Pa� lln: The City Adminittrator or the Council by vote. Porter: REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AN C.E. 80-29 and I believe there was someone else that wanted to address the Ccmmission. If that individual 9.*oulA do so at .this time. Give your name and put it on the router there, please. Kenneth Xar am, Lae owner of the property at 3782 RaUtime, the .... property to tha south. And just so that. I dry not go back through all the items that Mr., Riff has already covered, I would like to call. your attention to a memo sent by Mr. Morrow to. this committee. The fact that he had reached an agreement with a neighbor to the south. I with to tell you at this time that Mr. Morrow has since +tiolated that agreement by building the wall which he had agreed not to start construction on until he had actually received approval for, his variance. Therefore, l would like to. ge on record of -the fact that I am apposed to any such wall. As I understand it, the request for variancat one must be able to show heirdship. At least, this is what I re - cei.ved fres the City Atto.rney 's office back several month* ago. . Personally 1 feel that Mr. Morrow has failed to do so. He has Page 14 • .fir purchased one of the largest lots in the harbor, built one of the largest hones in the area , aind, any hardship the lie miry now have he has brought upon himself . He has completely violated as far as I am concerned his Public Works permit which he had I that I have talked to Public works or: We have had communica- tion with the Huntington Beach police Department who seem to be unable to got him to go with the parking ordinance in the area. And he has made corment to both Mr. Riff and me, quote : "we have - I have friends down at City Hall # " and if it would not be improper I would like to ask if anybody here tonight has had any piior dealings with Mr. Morrow or is any way connected • , to him on a personal basis? poi : I have no knowledge of anyone on the Commission. Yaryan: Since the discussion wlk. have had tonight, I do not understand vhy - I understand that Nil. Falin here is in charge of the inspectors, do not understand why they car:not refuse to issue c C of O. Mr, Morrow has told me personally that he has many friends as far as inspectors are concerned. I talked to Mr. palnn today; (even on the tape r could not unde:rstal.d the name Mr. Yaryan mentioned) one of my other t neighbors, has stated that the electriaal inspector who was out on Thursday refused to inspect the elec•trioal work that went into the pilasters of this wall. Mr. Marrow has since covered them up and has ccmpletea the wall with the exception of paint. .i feel - I find. it hard to believe that an .olectrical inspector can come out &M inspect the work that has already been covered . But M*.Morrow seems to have the ability to do these things And I would like to find somebody at City Hall who can do some- thing. Mr.: Marrow veels that money buys everything. And some of as vould like to believe that we, b* we rich or poor, we still have the same rights and I believe somebody here tonight could come up with some resolution to stop Mr. Morrow from moving into his bomee without complying with the ordinances. And I thank you for your time. Porter: Thank you, Mr. Ya<ryou. One thing t would like to do is make sure that Mr. Riffs previous -comments are contained as part :af ' the . record of the hearings even thovgh we had not opened it at the time. Anyone else wishing to speak to this issue? Mr. .j y • mom Page 15 Riff? where 3.9 he? Oh, he had to leave; okay. I guess there .r.. ' ,is no' one ease wishing to address the commission so I will i cloce the hearing on C.E. 80-29 Wes, before you ask your question, ler. tine go at this issuance of C cf 0 again . Are you telling me that the City Administrator can order you to issue it? Or the Administrator and the City Council by vote? ",a�; No. I certainly wort; fo�t the Administrator, so he would have the authority and we all work for the Council , as a majority , so . Porter: They have to vote:7 �.p4lin: Yes . Individual councilmember cannot ord .r a department head . . Porter: I see. Let me go at this from another direction. Then the only other way you might possibly issue it or not issue it would be . on the basis of a court order. Arn I correct? Poling No. I certainly would investigate to make damn sure that all the is were dotted and the i s are crossed before we issue out there on occupancy. If everything is true that has' been alleged here this evening , then there seems to be sufficient grounds to withhold a. final in granting occupancy. It, however, the dwelling itself is in total Compliance with everything and there is a separate permit as regLfred on walls, then you are going to have a difficult time holdf::.. up occupancy on one permit baaed upon a violation on the at.-cond permit. But we can certainly try. Porte rd Getting to that, I guess . Nannisterr: Hcw may permits have been issued? • -Po-, tter s Apparently more than one . Aamister: I wanted to make a ration actually in the same line as what you are talking about. I would like to make the motion that this body request that thA Planning Department not issue a C of 0 until all of the structure conforms to all of the plans as submitted and approved, V4 t Second.. Pis I tell yoia what. I am going to declare that motion out of order because I believe we should take action on the C. E. first. I agree wi ,_h waht you are saying but I think we ought to put the cart before the horse - I mean the horse befoij the ; if i Vhge 16 • rr• cart:, 1 think the motion that would be appropriate would be to deny C.L. 80-19 or sustain, ;I believe it is -3ustAin t,:.e Beard of Zcning :adjustments? Bellavia : Yes . , Porter : 6o we should be sustaining the BZA and denying C.L. 90-25 with the three finclinge as outlined on the atdti memo of December 16 , l�Ba. Sauer% So move. Kenefick: Second. winchell: My only question is do we need to deal with the fact that the applicant requested to withdraw it? Do we want it made ab- soliately clear that we are taking this action despite that '} rearrest? Or do we need that? a Porter: Staff havo any comrent? peli.4: Yeas. I think. the fact probably should be stated that the wall has been constructed, the construction of said wall would require, ceYtaialy a variance. The applicant has not followed through wiZh that; therefore, the Commission chose rot to accept ' the request for withdrawal but act on the prior application pending . Wirchell: Mould you accept all of that? Porter: Would the maker and the second approve inclusion of those }points? Yee? Okay. Any further dian anion on the motion? Call for the question. Bellavia: All ayes . Motion carries. Porters Chalr will not entertain the motion relative to the buildi.nq permit Bannister: •fly motion -is that this - body request that the Planning Depart- mant not issue a C of 0 until such a time as the structures com- ply to all of the plans submitted and approved by the City. xenefickt All structures? Okay. I second that. Porter: Mr. Bauer seconded it, but you agree with it? 1Cert�t Right. posm: is there any discussion? Z queen only think that is necessax-I to clarify the notion is that this is r'plative to alb. struc- tures so I presume that means the wall or the house or whatever. If there in no further discussion I will call for the question.'.: Bellavia: All ayes Motion carries . _ t3 C.S. 80-29 has been denied by the Commission and may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days . END AP REQI ESE FOR CITY CC.)UNCIL. ACTION }ZCA 7 9`51 ministration bubmhted by F14Yd Qs ? J.g ...._ Department A d ,.�.,. Date Prepred August 13 — 1 19-79 Backup Material Attached 0. '+des No Sub1ftt �.. DENIAL .,.OFCON01 110A,ENCL2T T,O.?9-I Z .PAR ING LQT COMRANY ......._. OF AMERICA City Administrator's Comments rM Approve as recommended � 2. . 1 Statement of Imie, R"wrnmendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actiona: $TA'TEMENT OF ISSUE: After additional review, the City Attorney has declared tha* the findings : tf fact adopted after the subject public healing 4 in- adewate . RECOAWINDAT ION : ' Rehtcr.43'szgs"vf'~-f-sr . A *e the aEtached findings of fact . ANALYSIP : At the Coun,it meeting of August h , 1979, the motion was made to sustain the Planning Commission dt cision and deny AR 79-45 , and after making findings of fact , deny CE. 79-17. Motion passed 5/ 2 . After , further roview, the.. C:'.ty Attorney has decided the findings made at the last meeting were not sufficieiit . FUNDIN3 SOURCE : No funds are necessary. i . i i ' 1 J Y J1 ' • 06 • Y^` J i REFOPE TnF. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTO14 BEACH, CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF PARR,INCa LOT COMPANY OF AMRRNA k1 TO THE PLANING C0MMISSTCN' S DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REV'Iew 79-45 AND CONDITIONAL F:XCFPTXON 79-17 FILDINGS = 1 . The applicant is Parking riot Company of America . 2 . The property owner is the State of California ( Ca1Tran s) . 3 . The property is locafed at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coaa'. Highway on the ncrtheast corner. 4 . The use is a seasonal parking lot . 5 . Such use has existed for a period in excess of two summer F seasons. 6 . A seasonal parking lot is a permitted Use of the property as zoned for no longer than two summer seasons unless the development standards of Huntington Mach Ordinance Code Sections 9730 .28 and 9728 .1 are complied with. 7 . Applicant has not, complied with the required development standards. S . ApplicAint ' s tenancy of the property is on a month-to-month basis . 9 . The limitation as to seasonal parking lots is a policy con- sideration imposed to obviate blight and to protec.. surrounding areas frays+ the detriment caused by the continuance of transitory uses such tk as seasonal parking lots. 10. Granting applicant ' s request mould violate the city' s policy as announced above and wculd cause detriment to the surround- ing arena. i 11. Applicant has shown no hardship excepting a speculative -r econcelc one., that the development hosts could exceed the beneficial use to be deprived . DECISION= Appeal denied , he decision of the Planning Commission is sustained . r' f 1 , r 1 .1, <r' n r.� -'p,alpp f•5 ; . 1 IPA Al 4� R 7q 9 APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL 11XCEPTIAN 79-17 FINDINGS: " 1 . The applicant is Parking Lot Company of America. 2. The property is located ar. Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway on the northeast corner. 3 . The property owner is Cal.Trans . 4 . The use is a seasonal parking lot. 5. The use has existed for a period in excess of two summer sedsvns . 6 . Seasonal parking lots are prohibited to exist for more than two unless the development st�nda�rds of Huntington. Betach ciinance Code Section 9728 are met . 7. Applicant has not met such standards . S . Applicant 's tenancy of the property is month-to-month only. 9 . Applicant contends that the costs of developing to the standards of Huntington Beach ordinance Code Section 9728 are outweighed by the beneficial use to be derived, and that the imposition of such standards under the conditions of the tenancy constitutes hardship as defined by city ordinance. j I 10. The limitation on the existence of a seasonal parking lot to two years is a policy consideration imposed to obviate blight and to protect surrounding areas from the detriment caused by the continuance of transistory uses such as seasonal panning lots . Togrant applicant ' s request would violate the city 's policy as announced above , would cause detriment to the eur- rounding area and applicant has shown no hardsh :.p excepting a speculative economic one. A 11� �I </7 � INTHE Superior Court or stew 5'rAT .0r CA1,1FOItNIA 'it Nrid Air the('iiunly oif lhnnge ors:�--.�:...._........._..._._�..�......�.�..__..-..�.�.----- CITYGF HUNTINGTON BEACH r CITf CLERK UALLC All ON Public Hear1rta 79-45 79-17 state of Valifnenin ) County if Orange )a"• Rita J. Richter 71tat 1 am and sc all times herein mentiOned wait a ritizen of the United wtattt,toner the a;e of twenty,one year++,and that 1 am not a party so, nor imerrnted in the above entitled matter: that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Nuntirdtan Beach Indeoendent Review a etewapaper orpomeral cimilatic.n,puhlinho4l In the City of Nointington DO�c:h County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the diatmination of local news and ;ntelligence of a Renernl charnc- ter, tied which itewspwper at all timee herein mentioned had and still has a buns 11de suhrcription Ilet of paying,aubecribers, and which newapaper has been established, printed and pub• liafhed at rttular intervals in the said County of Oranfe for a period eseft-ding one year; that the notice, of which the annexed Is a printed cr►py, has been published in the rEWular and entire taut ai said r+'wapaper,and not in+tny supplement thereof,an t!te folkvwipir dates,to wit: July 26# 1979 I certify 'or declarel under penalty of perjury that the foreRn• Ina(M trice and owrert, Otaved at............Pord.4m. oroyx .. ......... .. Call if i. tb,,a.g�► "'.Y-'Ixi Signature r f� 1r.M►w.aaf.�e» RED T FOR CITY NCI . ACTIN %bmhted by James W . Falitt.M.r�.�...�, .w....`. Development Services/Planning Ilepartrrierrtt aerte pWSred 3uly 30 , , 1p 79 Backup Material Attached El yet 0 No Subiett APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 79-3.7/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 79- 45 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A SEASONAL PARKING LOT FACILITY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BEACH BLVD. AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY City Administrator's Comments Ia1.IF.M���V - .y.u..� .._,...-. .__ .,�.1rAll �_wwwi• +MM.�..Aw- Mww.f�Y.w.1./VI.wYlAA�1�YY Wr..�a �Y ��.....�.�� Approve recommended ac z:.i.vr.. Statement of Issue, RecommwWation, Analysis, Fundinq Source, Aiterrrestive Actions: STATEMENT Or Issu£: A& Transmitted for consideration is an appeal to the Planning Commission ' s � denial of Conditional. Exception No. 79--1.7 and Actninistrative Review No. 79--45 . Administrative Review No. 79--45 ig a retlua9t to permit establishment of s seasonal parking lot at the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and pacific Coast Highway. Conditlonal Exception No. 79-17 is a request to waive the required improvements of said parking lot. PP E0MUUAT The planning CenmUssion and Planning Staff recommend that the City Council sustain the Planning Commission' s action of denial on both Administrative Review No. 79-45 and Conditional Exception No. 79-17 . ANALYSIS: APPELLANT: Parking Lot Company of America 18662 MacArthur Boulevard Irvine, Calif . APPLICAW: Parking Lot Company of America 18662 MacArthur Boulevard Irvine, Calif. LOCATION: The northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway RNOVEST: To permit the establishment of a seasonal parking lot between Memorial nay and Labor nay without site improvements per the requirements of Section 9730.28.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. r �• ti 1 l �•i k 1 : J Ir I f y I.w 'I AR 79-45/CE 79-17 Pdqe Two kJMJJJ_tJG COMM J S S I.0N KC:". J!2k': On July 3, 1979, ON MOTION 8Y STERN AND SECOND BY COHEN THE DECISIui,-' OF THE HOARD OF ZONING A.DJUSTMENTS WAS REVERSED AND ADMINIS`rRATIV'E REVIEW NO . 79-45 AND CONDSTTONAL EXCEPTION NO. 79-17 WERE DENIED FOR FETE FOLLOWING REASONS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: RSONS FQ DENIAL I. No appropriate findings of hardship can be made. 2. The variance does not comply with the Government Code . 3. Granting of the conditional exception would constitute the granting of special privilege. f 4 . Granting of the requests would violate Sections 9730 . 28 and 9730 . 28 .1 of the Huntington Beach Ordin�ince Code. AYES : Russell , Stern, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES : None AH,SENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None =UIOJ: On May 16, 1979 , the Board of Zoning Adjustments held a public � hearing to consider Administrative R,v iew No. 79--45 and conditional Exception No. 79--17 . It was noted by tie Beard of Zoning Adjust- menta that the proposal for the subject parking facility had been previously approved for the surnrer season of 1978 and suggested that the application be approved with identical conditions as those imposed in 1978 . The Board. approved Conditional Exception No. 79-3.7 with thy: following findings : 1 . The property on which the lot is proposed to be located is owned by Cal Trans and is under a month t 7 month rent agree- ment with the Parking Company of America . 2 , Since the Board has conditioned this use so that the approval shall expire the day after Labor Day, 1979, granting of this conditional exception will not adversely- affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. Granting of the conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to the property in I -_* same zoning classification On May 21, 1979, planning Commissioner John Stern appealed the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments. This appeal was hear,l by the Planning Commission, on July 3 , 1979. At that meeting, Commissioner Stern explained the reason for wbich he had appealed the request; the lot is a traffic hasard to both vehicels and � podetstrians, and does not comply with the City' s Ordinances relating l 1 hR 79-45/CE 79---17 Wage Three to temporary parking lots, it creates blight, and set an undesirable precedent for future applications of this nature .:n ether areas of the City. The Planning Commission overruled the 73oard of Zoning Adjustments ' decision and denied Condi•t:i.cnal Except.ic,.- No . 'J9--17 and A&nini- stratives Review No. 79-45 . The Commission also instructed the staff to investigate and bring back to the Commission in the near future as a discussion item the possibility of chancres .in the Ordinance Code which could include ownership of land by a govern- mental entity (upor± wt) ich only short term leases could be acquired) and other legal mechanism to broaden the criteria for the granting of conditional exception requests for businesses of the nature of seasonal parking lets jr similnr uses . The appellant is apparently to request a cco.tinuation of the hearing by the City Council of this item to the first meeting in September. This would schedule this appeal for the September 4 , 1979 meeting . The applicant requested the use of the subject property for seasonal parking lot only until September 4 , 9979. If the Council were to continue the item to the first meeting in September, the hearing would be held after the propused abatement of tae cub j ect use . ENV IR„QNME TAL STATUS;: The proposed parking facility is a temporary facility, therefore, tinder the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, it is a categorical exemption and no envirom--mental documentation is necessary. FUNDINQ SLjURCE: Not Applicable . ALTERNATIVE -ACTION: Reverse the Planning Commission' s decision and sustain the Board of Zoning Adjustment' s approval of Conditional Exception No, 79-17 and Administrative Review No. 79-45 . S!JU,QRT1Ng- l_NEPMTI()N_: 1 . better of Appeal 2 . Area Map 3 . ,Planning Commission Staff Deport dated July 3, 1979 4 . Planning Commission Minutes dated July 3 , 1979. R ep+eewtfully s matted; r e W. Palin, Director Development Services I�p r�,�1! �1,��,a,;;� :Y r • 1 PARKING COMPANY OF AMRICA INCORPORATED 18662 MscAahw' Boulevard ❑ Sultv. 200 Irvine. Caliturola 92715 D (714) 955.3180 July 25 , 1979 l'ionorable Mayor Con MacAllister Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach , CAliforaia II � ' Attention City Clark . A ; Icla M . Wdntworth . Rat Appeal AR 79-450 CE #79 17 . Gent Iemen : Request pub ! Ic hearing open and continued to September 4 , 1979. Thanking you In advance I remain , Sinceraly, PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA tA I Manuel Chavez X Asldent MC :gv PARKI. ` ti w �A. M 1 1 r ,5r'�wrl•IM✓r l �'�AO FARING COMPA.N�. OFCA I iNCOa�ltll'�� 1Kfiti� Ma<Arthur Bov!vvatd 0 Suite i;rl Indne. California 92715 f_i 1714! 9155.318o d., ' July 120 1979 Member of the City Council Huntington Ssach, California Re ; Administrative Review 79-45 rondltlonal Exception 79-37 t Appeal the Perking Company of America appeals the decision of the Planning CLnmisslon to the City Council . We feel that the Planning Commission was hasty in its decision and did not tleRe into account that the use is a temporary ; We feel that the use Is prtper . The Parking Company of I America is providing a service and we are conducting business In a business- like manner . 'rho lot,, if left unsupervised , could produce a hazard to the people whc park there and also to the City of Huntington Beach . Respectfully submitted , Manuel Chavez by And4 Chavez Perking Co. of AmericaPAR I i "f J. If• PM1 le.'�l .. ^ .J 'Yi'�1rf."3�L� ►,';Ll.M fea.:w'.Ma,1:,::'v.ti k' ' .. ,., _ . ...! F Y 1 . y��yp l� yl f �• d 1 y1, �\� 11111� l 1/ I•I 1 y ECTIONAL DI 'rkIc._r •I M/\ P 14'6WI .. ..,Y rinlc `/`■ .,,'^. •,Y'l 11�.••1'IYI OII.11. '•+•� ` 1 C.1'. � ! IIPp/YIN Y11Nrll 1, IIf10 ,. `�„ •.,.I CI .•,. l l G! J O CITY CP41NCq Ur1WY•1•f/ 40 Tf11 �,•I ���•„1,,,.,, �,,,1, Ir•�1. nn p1n IY bl:[0 QNC 4❑ �4 Nu A N �;1� ,'«"Ir Y•'' 1 11.,1 •n,rf.11 f�NrKl I r 1 L I��11 !■ OIN 1)) l �A 1 T \I'llN �i., � lj'i �J AJ It:;:{? ;"4 �>'i 1..�,I,w1 �1'•t/ ' / - 1 7i1 r1 11 A I'I I wn"�r'•IM I^..11; rl rHIr1C1 1 I )•6.11 11'�/ I 0ItAN �\ If; C' UN ! Y f l / 1 J u If Illf 1�1� f'y •1•-1••,.'. r•Ilwln•• � IE . , C WFORNJr1 M WAO ov zow CASE tlR.i�1.q�,i11M•�1•11•�f.l�wq.l,wf+••LN,,olrfa•.,�o,f1,Y1! 1„1� 1./ air. �.u7 flwrwlrlrar-nlarran•ul.aw.l�l I a It 1, w,•a . I•I„ 7n�.� I / Nil \ 1 11 '1•II aH} is �� ,.,- a' .�1.'1°` /:��-• 't ,�'y ,J�� , ,a I._J L _J�I ._,_._IL...1 l._t__._...__....�. ._.__,_ _._...�1 /'l_ 1 �' � � \/r'r:,.a�����r. I .,.�y ��' III ..._._.r,._..�•_.� .,�..�__.;��;..,��•-. ---3-;z,---- r' - �' I >!i • ( k Iff � w � 1 •• •.I In .fir \ ' '►1J /.� I 1 ,` •'I Ilf� I`�9 s fir,lr/y,tt l f'9� �• J l�l wrwwww .� - - -" -- - Irraw�lw Ir1aII•Yw�� .r J .Nr r.,yr' It f . TO: Planning Conunission FROM: Development Services , Planning DATE : July 3 , 1979 SUBJECT: APPEAL: CONDITIONAL EXCEP`.CION NO . 79•-1.7f ADMINI,',TR.ATIVE REVIEW NO. 79--45 Applicant: Parking Lute of. America C .E . DATE ACCEPTED% May 81 1979 18662 MacArthur Boulevard ?'rvine , California A.R. DATE; ACCEPTED: May 8 , 1979 Appellant: Commissioner J. Stern ZONING: RA P . O. Box 190 GENERAL PLAN : Commercial , Huntington Beach , CA (Mixed Develop. ) EXISTING USE : Vacant 1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Sustain the Board of 'Zoning Adjustments ' approval . 2 . 0 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS ACTION : (May 16 , 1973 Public Hearing) Conditional Exception Portion : It was noted by the Board that E e propose . Had been previously approved for t;.e summer season 1978 and suggested that the application be approved with identi - cal conditions as those imposed in 1.978. ON MOTION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY CROSBY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 110. 79-17 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS # BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS OF THE BOARD: 1 . The oroperty on which the lot is proposed to be locateC is owned by Caltrans and is under a month-ta-month rent agreemelit with the Parking Company of America . Z . Since the Board has conditioned this u9P so that the approval shall expire the day after Labor Day , 1979 , granting of this conditional exception will not adversely affect the Genera' Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. Granting of the conditic,nal exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injuriou3 to property in they same zoning classification. a APPOal C .E . 79-17/A. 19-45 July 31 1979 page 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: � A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO IS S[.ANCE OF PERMIrV = 1 . The site plan received and dated April 19 , 19790 shall be the approved conceptual layout:, subject to all conditions imposed on Administrative Review No . 79-45 . AYES : Spencer , Crosby, Ott NOES : None ABSENT: None Administrative Review Portion : ON MOTION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY CROSBY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 79-45 WAS APPROVED WITH TH:3 FOL.LOWING CONDITIONS , BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE : CONDITIONS OF APPROVIU: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMITS : 1. The site plan received and dated April 191 1979 , ahall be the approved layout. 2 . The project shall comply with all seasonal parking lot standards set forth in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. B. GENERAL CONDITIONS : 1 . This approval -s'iall terminate the day of.er Labor Day , 1979. ACES: Spencer, Cros - , Ott NOES : None ABSENT: None 3 .0 GENERAL INFORMATION : The applicant has rep asted a seasonal parking lot facility per Section 9730 . 28 . 1 0` the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code , as this s(::,-ti on only a llowa a maximum of two (2) summer seasons for any one location (..:)t) without being subject to provisions of Section 9730. 28 (temporary rom;1ercial parking lots) which requires more extensive: physical improvements. The applicant has a► seasonal lease arrangerient with Caltrans which includes a thirty (30) day c:ancelation provision coupled with a provision prohibiting physical alteration to the property. As the applicant had operated approved seasonal facilities for both the 1976 and 1977 summers, a conditional exception application was filed and approved last year (1978) . The applicaetiOng Currently before you are identical to last season ' s request and include the conditions that they shall terminate the day after Labor Day, 1979 . a i Appeal - C.E . 79-17/A.OA7�-'45 � .lull► 3, 1979 Page 3 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : This request is a Categorical Exemption, Class 1 , California Environmental Quality Act , 1970. 5 . 0 SURROUNDING 'LAND VSRf ZONING, AND GENERAL PL,A�ESTGNATION : The bulk of the subject property is vas ant and partially improved with asphaltic surfac ng and some curb and gut'-ers . Subject property was designated at one. time. i.s a frontage road for the defunct Beach Boulevard Freeway . Property to the west: aDd noxthwest is developed as a mobile home park and zoned R5 . It is surrounded on both the east And south by major state highways (Beach Boulevard and Pacific; Coast Highway) . The subject property is zoned RA. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the proper ',y as Commercial , Mixed Development. 6 . 0 RECOMMENDAT1CN: r+ Sustain the 13oard of Zoning Ad justmen-�:s ' approval of Conditional Except" on No , 79-17 and Administrative Review No . 709-45 based on the findings and conditions a 3 outlined in Section 2 . 0 of this report. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area Map 2 . Site Plan 3 . OZA Minutes June? 21 , 1978 - May 16 , 1979 4 . Letter of Appeal 5 . Sections 9730 . 28 , 9730 . 28 . 1 �e9 t Y M� tit .001 07 -'f 1 H V LLA CI- (- r-4 Jill- cc �. �_�- `--� ` '-rat • - � . tt1 ,- I • r1� !J' �� kt ! ! f t � � `r � rlr � .'irt il � JlJJrlrf-Jr 1 W 1 AD '16 �_ � - - - _ _ -j-�� r /`� : / r r r-� r � � , r ,''i� i � �rL, r r r r r r•� r i s / l r � i t ! � i r � r { r f 1 �xx♦� I t it .. Lr clC, r' - r 4oer� �4 X - 'C = aAM, - pp . • P.' R.i i Minutes,, N. B. of Zoning Ad justment_s .3une 22,, 1978 Page 13 Board review ensued . Bruce Crosby reported that the Tratffic Engineer is recommending no access to the property from 11acific Coast Highway. ON NOTION BY EADIE AND :SECOND BY CROS13Y ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW -NO. 7 Y 8-5y�5y�1WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING COND't TIONS , BY THE FOL- LOWING ►,F : CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : A. TO BE e:OMPL£TED PRIOR TO ISOIIANCE Or PLRMI^i'e : 1'. The si.ta plan received and dated tune 5 , 1978 , shall be the approved conceptual layout, subject to the following : s. The plan shall be modified to show no access to the property from Pacific "0,1AsF Highway . j 2. The . project shall comply with all s^asonal parking lot standards set forth in the, ordinance cede. H. GENERAL CONDITION: 1. This approval shall terminate the day after Labor Day, 1"" AYES : SPENCER, E'ADIE;, Cm,►05BY NOES : NONE AMENT : NONS CON07 TIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 7e 35 (In Conj ./AR 78-56 ) AF►�licant: Parking Company America 11 To permit use of a temporary parking lot without site improvements an reriu.ired by code , on property located at the northwest corner of Beach. Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway in an RA, Residential/ Agricultural district. 1 • This request is a Cntergorical Exemption, Class 1 , California Envir- OrAwntal Quality Act, 1970 . Chairman Eadie opened the public hearing . Frank Chavez and Per. Feldinf were present at the meeting. There being no persons to address the Board in regard to the req%,gist, the public hearing vas c losad. Secretary Spencer informed the Board that curls and gutters are al,refta►dy installed on the perimeter of the site and that the appileants are operating on A short-term lease: with CalTrans, the owner of the property. RZA 6--21-78 Page 13 A.i .1r,,,�. ■AIM f �*� y A.1 I. i . F M16,11utes, or Zoning AdIlastments June 21 , 1978 14 ON MOTION BY CROSBY AND ,`SECOND BY SPENCER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 73-•36 WAS APPROVED WT TH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDI- TIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING 'VOTE t FINDINGS OF ThF, 130ARD- 1. The Property on wh ; c:}r t:he :lnt i s Proposed to be located is owned b Cal Trans and is under a 30-day lease tO the Park- ing Company o:. 2. Since the Board has -Orlditi, med this use so that the approval shy � � :,•'"^; 'o g}ae day after Labor !.)a cvrldfti� �, Y, 1978 , granting of this e-nal. exec _ptlan will not- w.'versel- affect PI-clip: ok the City cor FIjtrltij,,(;Um Beach, the General 3 . c�rartt ,:g af." the • )11,di"t:io aj e p ]. not n xro ti��n � i be materially r3etr.i.rrte:7 tr: 1. t o ►hr ptzhl. i.c wr i..f.arc! or inc; u r.iotis to -,rope"' i.n thF� sarcic: 'zoning rty tion. COI1L TIONSS OP' A!IPRO AL: A . TO BE COM"'LETED PRIOR l'v ISSUANCE of _ E1; 1 1TS :! . The s,lto plan received arC.l dat.ec3 Jttnc 9 , 1978 , be the aI Pr0vC,c.i Coll cel:i:ual ? aycjut , sub jec:?� to all ?nci :t t i.mp05,.:d or) AdminIstraLive Rclr.i,e; No. 78--56 . A t.S s SF'r.i�C'�:h, :J1[3TE , CRI-),gLY N01.11• : NOi.11 ASSENT : NON r,o . 7F3- ) G ( ire Can , "- 36 ) -_c an t • Parking ;oj�L):;nv of America TO POrInit es-ab li.shrterlt c- != a t 0niporary parking lot l.c)cated az the nor.tilwost ►or1,er of %'.c�arh Dot.tle,rard and Pacific: Cost ffigh- way in an , .'. , Ke�,iderttiali .rlgxic�uXtsarGt District . This request is a Categorical Ex(_-Mpticn , C +,Zss 1 J California E;n- viranmental. Ouality A-:t, 1970 . Frank Chavez And Mr. . Ftldini were pres�,nt at the moet:i 11y . The B�, Ard reviewed the projected usC�, ON "OTION AY CROSBY AND SECOND RY 5I'I?NCI:}; 11C)IdtFIIS'I'�7' �VI; i�FV•II;tV NO, 78-•56 WAS APPROVET) WITH Till FOL OWING CONDITIONS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE F3ZX� 6�• 11-;rs Page 14 y n l 7Or tit i" r'd M 41n1, t a H. 6. Board of Zoning Adjustments Ift4meftye May 161 1979 1WI0l1 8Y SPENCER AND SECOND F!Y CROSBY PLOT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 70-3 WAS AP*k?.kOVL9p WITH THE rOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITX0l4, BY IRIT101, 0_A EB9VAL: 1 . The plan received and dated April 30 , 1979 , shall be the approved layout. �1 rimD7N�s 1. The Amendment does not constitute a substantia l change . 2. The proposed use of property remains the same . 3. The dwelling unit density will not be increased. 4. The adjustment results in an improved plan_ 5. The approval of th La amendment does not alter the original approval date. AYES: Spencer, Crosby, Ott NOES: None ABSENT: Done COND ONAL EXCEPTION ICU. 79-171 A22119 t-L— EW102Pomaanv .Qf... .19a To permit use of a temporary parking lot without site irnp. ovemet:ts as required by Code located at the northwest corner of Beach Houle- vard and pacific Coast Highway. f III ODNJUNCTION WITH: AMNISTRATIV'8 HEVIM NO. 79-45 � r l lC+ALLWa Cd12B,Sn`QLAME-:Ca i &' .� Vat eateblishment of a temporary parking lot located at the � "rtMftat corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. Those ;,plaications are �ca�teg�aricaY t temptions, Cass 1, C�,litoxnia vAr --ai puality Act, 1970. , Mir. Sob Webb was present to represenw the applications. The public boarlag was opened bn Conditional Ex:eption No. 79--17. I i r{y ./, ' fir•M i� r:a7f eJ , +t•• H.B . Board of Zoning Adjustments Xpdnasday, May 16, 1979 Pogo Five 1 board discussed the proposals. It was noted that the proposals had boon previously approved for the summer season 1978 . Chairman Crosby noted that the Traffio Department had no comments , however, the Polices Department had not yet responded to the application, therefore , it meta Suggested that the applications be approved with Identical conditions imposed upon the proposal in 1978 . There being no other parties present to speak on Conditional Except- Ion No. 79--17, the public hearing was closed. ON NOTION BY SPENCER 4ND SECOND BY CROSBY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 79 .17 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VC TE : rLINQINGS Of 1 . The propert on which the lot is proposed to be located is owned by Cal `Trans anc' is under =i 30--day lease to the Parking Company of America . x. Since the Board has conditioned this use so that the approval shall expire the day after Labor• Day, 1979 , granting of this conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . 3. Granting of the conditional exception will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zoning classiF!cation. A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE' OF PERMITS : 1. The site plan received and dared April 19 , 1979 , shall be the approved conceptual. layout, subject to all conditions imposed Qn Administrative Review No . 79-45. J�if�S a Spfnoer, Crosby, O t t t�OLd a Nona AMINT s None ,r. DN NOTIO14 BY SPENC39 AND SECOND BY CROSBY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO . 79-4S WAS APPROVED WITH TH.9 FOLLOWING CONDI'firONS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOT8 3 i E 4A. nutes: H.S. Board of Zoning Adjustments WO&Wadaye May M, 1979 va" six TUNA Qz ARP A• TO BE COMPLETED P'RXOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMYT-S s 1 . The site plan received and dated April 19 , 1979 , shall bP the approved layout 2 . The project shall comply with all seasonal parking lot standards set forth in the Huntington Beach ordinance Code . E. GENSRAL CONDITIONS : 1. This approval shall terminate the day after Labor Darr, 1979 . AYES a spencer, Crosby, Ott NOES : None ABSENT: None -Q&kLAN 6 SPECIAL EVENT NO. 79-9 Aoblicant: H1.intAjDg&.20 ya:llgSpgKt§ d 7'2nnis To permit a 1.0 kilometer ran within portions of the Huntington Beach Central part and can Huntington Beach public-rights-of-war. '4'he -,p,plicant was not present. Board discussed the application. It was noted that, the Traffic and Police Departments were not in favor of the application due to numerous traffic problems that might occur from such an event. 0" NOT'ION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY OTT SPECIAL EVENT No. 79-9 WAS DBNTED FOR THE FOLLOWING RZASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. Too great of an impnct on major street system, especially on a holiday. 2. There will be Fourth of July parade activities along the proposed route. 3. Shortage of Police manpower due to the events of the day (beach •�, traffic, parade, etc. ) would make enforcement end crowd control difficult . 4. Cost estimates for proper lP:11ice protection is considered to be too high for taxpayers to boar. k" i T� NEW r . Huntington Beech Planning Commission P.G. ■ox ISO CALIFORNIA 916411 Tot Planning Cortunission FROM: John Sterna planning Commissioner DATE: May 21 , 1979 �¢ SUBJECTs APPEAL TO BOARD or ZONING ADJUSTMENTS APPROVALS I wish to file an appeal to Conditional Exception 79-r17/Administrative Review 79-45 ; Conditional Exception 79--19; and Administrative Review 74-44 , all permitting temporary parking lots alcng Pacific Coast Highway . t am concerned about their use and the potential for City cperation . These requests were all approved at the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting of May 16 , 1979 . Joan Stern JS :df ' ti, . soma t •w, :r, a 11 � F Al 9739.27.6 _ � :,LNL A1_ hitu��lSLUNS � F'1J1NN1N� ; I�YII� go 97120L7.6 1EV'C"fLON, KKAitXNG AND NOTICE. Notice of intent to re` oko an admini, strative review approval shall be issued by the Doe-rd tO the al+plicatrt �� aft iias% tan (10) days prior to the hearing. No administrative review approval for the Care of nonzelated p,xeons shall be revoked without notice to applicant and hearlog. "r' (1936-5/73) r r ' f. 2730 27.7 APPEAL. Any decision or action of the Board of Zoning Adjustments ` shall be final unless a written apt :•al is Filed by any person aggrieved tMzvby or any member of the C.' •_y council with the Planning COMMssion withIn ten (lcl) r Up a►>fkax the 9oacd'r decision. pursuant to such nut-ice and hearia,g, the Planning osMdoiion shall make a determination. (1836-5/73! 9730.25.8 pE.�T:• Any person violating any of the provisions of Cect,.ons 9730. 27.1 to and including 9730.27.7 of this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, ' and shall be deemed guilty of a separate violation for each and every day, or portion , r tbarwf,r during which any viclation of any of the hrovisians of such sections is com- PLtted, continued or permitted. upon conviction of any such violati•oci, �,uch person shall be; punished by a fine of not rwre than Five iiundre.d Dollars ($500) r,r by imprison- sent up to SIX (6) months or both such fine and imprisonment for each such violation. (18'36-5/73i 8. 9730. 21 .9 SUMOIL-ITY . If aUy section, subsection, sentence , •:lause , phrase, or portion of sections 9130. 27 .1 through 9730. 27.61 or any amendments or revisions thereto, or the application thereof to any person, firm, corporation or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by, any decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not: affect the v.lidit~y of the remaining portions of such sections. 'l'1►c Ci.Ly Council of the City of iluntinyton Beach hereby declares that it would have -_,dopted such sections land each subsection, / • sentence , clause, phrase or portion thereof, including art!endinents or revisions thereto, irrespective of the fact that: one or more sections, subsections, sentences , clauses or phrases or portions be declared invalid or wiconstitutional. (1836-5/73) G. 9730.:Z8 TEMpO AP,Y COMMEKCTA..4 FARKING LOTS. Temporary parking lots may b3 Permitted for a period not exceed five (5) years subject to approval. of an administrative review application by the ' oard of mooning Adjustments. (a) All parking space di.rensions , striping, driveway widths and parking layout shall c-.apl.y with Article 973. (h) paving shall be two (2) inches of asphalt over ninety (90) percent compacted native sail or as ._ proved by the Department of wilding and Community Development. (o) on-aite signs $hall not exceed twelve (12) s;uare feet land shall be in accordance w` with the design established on the municipal parking lot at the plea, and shall + not otcged ton (10) feet. in height. (d) A thriee (3) foot wide (inside dimension) lan!scaped planter shall be provided 41pq street side property lines except for =riveway openings. t I (a) All requixed landscaping shall be subject to ppraval of the !?apartment of Public Works in accordance with standard plans and -f'secificatians on file in the Depart- m ut of Public Works. (f) All landscaped areas shall be provided with /I sprinkler ,ystem. �, f M1 rN ' GLNERAL Pk'-IViS1QN5 (9) The physical boundaries of the paYki•ng lot must be delineated by t:erimeter en- closures such as low profile pilaster, with cl�:tin or cable connectors: or law profile wood poles and heavy rope conuoct:ors. The design and materials are subject to approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. (h) Physical protection from vehicle and pedeaLrian damage to landscaping shall be provided by one of the fallowing n►ethods: . (1) Wheel bungs (asphalt, concrete, or wood) (2) Asphalt or concrete zurba (3) Any other design that will provide equal protection, subject. to approval by the Board of Zonincl AdjUSUIC:cs . K, (i) Perking lots that are designed :;o have automatically controlled entry devices ' shall have those devices set back twenty (20) :eet from the property line at rsuch entrance or at a distanca :stipulated by the board of Zoning Adjustments. (j) The Hoard of Zoning Adjustments may revoke use of a parking lot upon failure to comply with the conditions imposed at the time of approval , or failure to comply with ct ier city ordinances. The Hoard of Zoning Adjustments shall initiate permit revocation proceedings when the conditions of approval of the use permit have not been waplied with in the following instancc!g: (1) Failure or refusal of the property owner• to clean my the site or maintain the site in a clean condition and free of trash or debris. (2) A cundition which may tend to depreciate the value of the surrounding properties. t�k � S. :)730.28.1. SEASONAL PAMING LOTS . Seasonal larking lots shall be patkiny lots used to accommodate sununer parking between and including Memorial Day to Labor Day. Said lots shall only be permitted within one thousand (1000) yarc..% of the nean high tide line or the Pacific: Ocean. Seasona" lots may be permitted for a maa►xxmua of two (2) summer seasons subject to approval of an administrative review application by the Board of :zoning Adjustments. if a seasonal parking lot has been approved for two (2) consecative seasons, furtl er use as a seasonal parking lot is prohibited and may be continued only upon compliance with the conditions contained in Section 9730.28. The following conditions shall apply to reasonal parking lots: (a) Seasonal I-)ts shall be roped off for 13- undary designaLions. 3 (b) Lots must be oiled or graveled in accordance with specifications on file with the Department of Public Works. (e) parking stall diawnsions and drive widths shall comply with the provisions of Article 979. Ml parking spaces shall be clearly delineated to comply with standaxdn on file vith the planning Department. ,F . (d) The site shall be iaaintatned in a clean condition , free of trash o.�: debris. (e) The lot shall be physically secured during hours of nonuse to prevent overnight parking. (2008-9/75) . ,, „1, • J yW •sly lf'MwiWAll►h, �' •+ r ' Minutes , H ,B . P i ng commission July 3, 1979 s 769e 9 y9 4 . Drainage for the subdivision shall be approved by the Depart- ment of Public Works prior to the recordation of a final trap. This system shall be designed to provide for erosion and siltation control both during and after construction of the t project . AYES: Russell, Stern , Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES: gone ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None a, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 79-45/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 140 . 79-17 AE2 icant : Parkinq S,ot_ CompagX of America ' APPEAL to Board of Zoning Adjustments ' approval of a temporary commercial parking w.ot at the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. Commissioner Sterne the appellant in the case , explained the reasons for which he had appealed the requests : The lot is a traffic: hazard to both vehicles and rndestrians, it does not comply with City ordinances relating to -temporary parking lets , it creates blight, and sets an undesirable precedent for future applications of this nature in other areas of the City . Commissioners Saul and Russell described the situation that had previously existed on this and other sites near the beech, with indiscriminate and totally uncontrolled parking taking place. It was pointed out that the operator of the subject lot is on a 30-dsy lease with CalTrans, which makes it economically impossible to install the street improvements as required by code . Legal Counsel Jim Gcurges researched app) ioable code sections and gave his opinion that the clear intent of the code is to not permit seasonal parking lots for more than two seasons without requiring installation of improvements. After further extensive discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that , although provision of parking in the area is desirable , there is no Legal ground for granting the requests. ON MOTIO-o BY STERN AND SECOND BY COH!.N THE DEr'ISION 01 THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMEMITS WAS REVERSED AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 79-45 A" CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 79-17 WERE DEINIEli FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS , BY THE FOLLOWING 'VOTE: REASONS FOR DENIAL: 1. No Appropriate finding's of hardship can be made. 2. The: variance does not comply with the Government Code. 3 . Grantingof the conditional tional exception would constitute the grunting of special privilege. -9- 7-3-79 - P.C. y J .Y 1 .,y HfnutOMe H.B. flan,, Commission ,Idly 3 , 1979 Page 10 4M Granting of the xequarts would violate Sections 9730. 28 and 9730 . 29. 1 of the Huntington beach Ordinance Code, AXESt Russell , Stern, Cohen, Razil, Faone NOES : None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Because of the consensus of the Commission that some type of parking in the area is desirable , discussion took place on some manner of amending the code so that lots of this type could legally be allowed without burdening a seasonal operator with costly improvements . COMMissioner Russell expressed concern with too restrictive ordin- ances and suggested that code investigation needs to go further than just ownership by governmental bodies (as is the case with the sub-- ject park.,. zg lot) , pointing out that they Edison easement arenas are used by busineeb enterprises under special entitlements as well , and there may be other areas of the code which should be investigated so that businesses attempting to operate under various types of unusual circumstances will not be discouraged by City requi::e3ments. Legal Course! Jim Georges cautioned that what might apply to a publicly owned property might not apply to privately owned land such a$s the Edison easements . ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY RUSSELL LEGAL AND PLANNING STAFFS WERE INSTRUCTED TO INVESTIGATE AND BRING BACK TO THE COMMISSION IN THE NEAR FUTURE AS A DISC13SSIO►,, ITEM THE POSSIBILITY OF CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCE CODE WHICH COULD INCLUDE OWNERSHIP OF LANCE BY A GO''ERN- MENTAL ENTITY (UPON W iICH ONLY SHOR-11 TERM LEASES COULD BE ACQUIRED) AND OTHER LEGAL MECHANISMS TO BROADEN THE LEGITIMATE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF COUDITICNAL EXCEPTION REQUESTS FOR BUSINESSES OF THE NATURE OF THE SEASONAL PARKING LOTS OR SIMILAR USES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Russell, Stern, Cohen, Bazi.l, Paone NOES: None ABSZNT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Mar. Georges advised the Commission that upon instructions from the City Attorney all requests for legal opinion must be in the form of a vote action by the body of the Planning Commission and transmitted In written form by the secretAry of the Commission. P�NtNG DEPARTMENT ITEMS: --- .�_ Secretary Palin reviewed a communication received from James Georges in regard to two items from the ,7une 19 , 1979 meeting upon, which im- proper action had been taken by the Planning Commission. ON MOTION' BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY COHEN ITEM A-4 PROM THE CONSRNT AGWWA Off' JUNE 19, 1979 (CONFORMANCE WITH CENERAL PLAN 79-10) WAS RXCONSIDSRRD AND ENTERED INTO THE MINUTES POR FL7URE ACTION, BY "M roij4VING VOT$: -10- 7-3-79 - P.C. =a Moab ^oar„ �• f � . ,1�� _ rr'J P _.�....��� w�— ., _._.......•. -ir—��.waw+ ...o..d�•s:O�r I h, publish N. Ia. Independent Llcly 26 , 1579 NOTICE Or POSLIC RRARING APPAL TO PLANNING comassico Dum or ADKINI6TRILTIVE FEVIEW #79 -45 A CCND1TXCWAL EXCEPTION 079-17 IiMICZ IA IM Y GIV.-, that a public hea; ing will be held by the City Council +� of the City of Huntington beach, in the Council Chanber of the Civic Center, Suetingtcan Bo*cb, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon Lbereafter as possible, an *=d4►g, the 6th day of August, 1979, for the purpose of cons3.deriny an appeal of the Planning fission's action to deny Administrative Faview No. 79-45 and Conditional. F=*pt•.ion No , 79--17. This action was taken on July 3, 1979, and was a reversal of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of said applications. Administrative Paview :7o. 79-45 in conjunction wit, 00ndi.•kional Exoiption No. 79-•17 i2 a roqueat to parait the establishment of a tevVoraa,-y parking lot at; the n,>rth10est garner of Peach Boulevard and Pacific Count ;dighway without: site improver ants as "quir•d by code . A legal description is on file in the planning Department. All !.eta zeetsd pernans are invited to attend said hearing and 6gpreaa thr-Ir COW 3ker or agalUot said appeal. rW"r infotmtton may be obtaf v*4 frm the Orfioe of the City Clark, 2000 Win StZftty RUbtingtaa D"ch, Caliitrtla, 92648 - (714) 536+522(s. CITY pp' IJUWTl GTM BEA01 04 7/20/79 Ay: lieu it. Wat"rth City Clark 1 li d 34'4n, a � d An r + 1 LV y.• • ' V' NOTICt TO CtX2K TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING IT " } QTY CISOX I S O"Ica DATE: 2��q Lan^ .�. 1�)■].�"'.�y��� nJAIR SCMULE A PUB"IC NBARI,NG USYhtG THE liTTACIMD LEGAL NOTICE POR THE NY DAY CF 19 . r� qv l., Pe"AP a are attached AP's will f'ol1w No AF' a Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department _ -- Petition * Appeal Other Adoptt*n of Envirknwental Status (x) YES NQ War to PlanningDope *teseat � Exteasion feR' Adalfttonal Inforawtion. P164AW trraftit exact wn-ding to be required in the le$al . All 010; , t►� N� ' �t 't�t,. �`�+- 'C sar! 71 17 "W Mjj 14 NT I *0' -1[ g2goW `sue i yr, Tw `F f~i I I ' ! I I I ! I 1. w a-f —— — - — — — — air——- —- - N - —� .� ti r W ..—w — — — � �. — r IF r —— .�— — — ..��. � y — — .. — — — — — • • � r • � a .• - — W ! I Aft FA M- ' !�/��+� w r r w r. - w w r.�w!a.\..a.��w r w w,w ww Y�y r.�r w �.. r r+ + � ..w r ..-ice.,w r... a. w w. w r wr r•,r w� y,►.r 1••,�Iy1��� Ifi.r•��ww .. ..r.a,rrr��ar wl�Mar ar �. �. �.�•-.� ... r.r.�'��'r r ,� — — .. — ,. — - - r—.; �. � w — — — w rw.w ���r- r-.,r -1, ,� .•;�, 1'}'. ,�„ �M'''• �� is �v: ',� v �f ., f 'fr•. a.\'r`-r r.�r.�r\ r r .n •r .Ir w �qj w .�� Z. � r. ,r w.r,,-,:r w ,., � ,� .� -i•,•\.I.. � v'ww- .�T - \+11 , +'` --- •. - - - - - - --�- .L.�. �. � .. - w - r w - -w�. - •., w +. ,\. .1..•� .� - -. � .. � r .. r r'-w..,r.w.4, w; 55 I pp ,�� l��n�fc�►, Get �•' .I rr --- - - - - -- - ---- -- w- F,.rr. w - .,,.w- w- -... .. .� .,• ..r...�.^ ....� �. .� ... - - w .�_.-.,.-..--.- �.r - nx*409 1C11 ftach OMpmV UK UviAtim 45 Amb {Sl�ltban v�e�er� yyy � � r . —lr •1►r �...^.... �. ^. — — ... �. r. .� . — — ———.. — —— — — — — 'h.'•'.�y,• �. . Q I I i ORUf I . Cb y 1 Yr W — w —i � •�i w r� � w r w w T— r —••+ — — � — — N�„w wF.-. — a.af 1 — �.Y, w�w w w w—V.W�� 111�\ � .'1. UNU %a wy VIM+ Sftvaftdo Ct , c#Ih1f J I �. ��, ----- -- - — — - --- - -- - '� — - - - - -- - -..... - - - - - � a\'+•! rl �I A1MYior",q Oonpmy o� I I Y Ada � ! ,'"to 200 I ' • \ • . . . - I • • w .� - w - - .. .. -. - - - - .. - r r - rr - .. - I - - - - - - -. - - -- - - - - - .. - - - - - r I a •.i h ^� -y..,. ••r•.--.■�..a� .,.,.. .�1. , �■...r. ,ter Coity of fluntin stop Beach �: Y f� �'�•J`J i J J•�ryr.�./I.M�f J.H•.w,.µ♦-•�ik rI 1.V��•JVYi4I..l��r iYrVI•�I'•�•* 1 P o nox too CALIFORNIA 92644 • ' 6►1• I ii I. All. 1111 . + 11 1 ( 14 1< % Aurtust 1919 ` (1r. Manuel Chavez Perking Cor+o a n•y of Ahle r• i r:rr 18662 flarArthu--, Blvd. Irvine, CA. Dear fly . C11-idye,7- r • The City C(Renr.i l of the Cit-y of liuntincitoll t?r�ar:ll � t: its r r.►�;�rla�' lner�t.�►i9 held Monday, Autitist 20, I'M, df'tPl' nldkiri(i nf• fdcc . denied � your appeal to the f 1anninq Cuialiiss ion 's den idl of Cond-itiona, Excr_pt!or'i No. 79-17, This is a final duci s ion . Yuu are herel)y mist i f fi!d tha t pursuant to provisions of S. 10a4 .6 of the Code of Civil {'rocedure of the State of California you have ninety days from Awqust ?U 1979 to apply to the rMr"t-i for judicial oeview rel,Stivo tV tilt, city Councils dcnial of Administrative Keviet..- No . 79-15 and Conditional f'xceptior No. 79-17. 5 inrere ly, Alicia 11. Wentworth City Clerk AM:�t , r Enclosure r y fly i _A410 :►ITV ICE HUNTING TON DFLACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ►�nwclo+v i To CONNIE BROCKWAY Prnnrn GAIL HUTTON Clerk's Office City Attorney i SubjictMANUEL CHAVEZ Diute SEPTEMBER I'l , 1979 PARKING COMPANY OF' AMER.ICA DENIAL. OF CONDITION!1L EXCEPTION NO , 7 9-17 This is to notify you that the letter previously forwarded to me in regard to the above-captioned mr,.cter may be sent, to Mr . Chavez . That letter was dated August 221, Q.ATL HUI PEON City Attorney OH,/CJn i i w� r '.�.5 rye'i1 , ..•, v :���� A I, 1� Affidavit of Publication ft*of �► Maps at Ommoso atr of nnft*M ftwh ) ftIRM TwOur, bates duly, swam atr oath, says. 7 utt he is a dttssa of the Uniteed Stawk avw the age of twenty-ow yea m "Ot 110 la tf►e printair attd publialur of the HunUmton Beach NMN a w+s w aalwspapar at general cl"wadon pHnw " Pub. pslad In INWAmom Oftek i'artitwals and circulated in the said cmatr at Oftow ad o]n where and pubnow for the dismmina t OU ON WW and otbar flaws of a 8eseral &Procter, and him a bona floe fl+st sit payft subneers, and said paper has been �Nstbd wo publlshod In the State of Callfonds, eatw t 6=0 ON (dr at ]edM cue year next before the publication O lbe !!tvt lt;awertlm dt tMa bodes; and then Bald newspaper is not &V,ft 1 to ft lritsrtrort of, or pubrished feu the entertainment of any dwmkir mi a teed*. calltnp, m a* or dlenomination, w TU Mwftgtm Reach Now was adjudicated a le W newspaper at ob ulatiort by Judge C. K. Br.avetl in the Superior Court dt&iij t7aumW, s.7alii+orntea AgMd 27tb, MT by m ler No, A-ti931. of vdkb the omm=4 In at p ftlerd aW, wss pubRahed iu said news- pow at )ad .,_Q L_..i lks me. -— sammoneft mm the . 91 b _ dw of g$1112 aid r a72 and ad oe an _221h day of _9eD%Qmbe!r both da" lnduslvr, and our often during soli perla d and 'doe powcation as said paper wan avuriy iaaued, aid in the s1du* mmA entim Imm of said pewapapeu proper, *tad not in it VAPOmmat, mitt sold notice wits pubUdwd Herrin an the following da*K %mit dbltsher SubeexAmd and sworn to ory we this --- - h._.__ day of ��te��be►r , ig���- ,. -.�.-.---- Notary Public Orange County, C f ornla i IHOMAS D. Wi LUE ; � Kei,re"{ Itiwia�Caliie�ala � co 2r f.r�ww �• ^Pry M r L� ` R Olt ..4 ry''yyls ,t l Y' f . 11db 9/29i77 .tk yea Cdt�r 1!5 1 , l to Venial - AftittlstratLva peviw too. 77-100/ itt iwealtia. Nu. 77- • -- IMICS 18 10=1 41VW that a Publlo hoarirg will bo bold by the . City cowmil .of do City of WwWwtaft leach, in t1se Council s. chalber of %ba Ci+rla center e RMWWOR $@Ube at t1W houir of i„�, ,-.30 10.11. i or a soon ther"tUr as possible, on ' the , x tb doy of Orto=g , 1977 , for the put"* of 40"idering an annal to the denial by the P1a nni.n* Coesnission of Adsidtotrativo IIniew No. 77-100 and Conditiaersi tMeptioa D'o. 77-28. The Conditional bxaeptioD veq est to to peresit a five (s) loot encroacheent into the 10 loot interior side yard setback required where the unit or units are constructed at cero an tho opposite side ftrdl is lion of Section 9163. 2 .1(b) of the 7unt.ington keaah Ordbwuce Code. The .I AAftintstr,tire Review go. 77-100 request to to permit the construction of two (2) dwelling uufts on Site 2 said aria (1) dwelling uri.t on site 1 , to be construct4d at go" "tback on the Interior aaaareratt property lime pursusat to Scatiat 9163.2.1.1 of tho lbatiugtou batch OrAMmnce Coda. The subject property is located on the mouth- 'vest oavyrner or Californian Street avid Joliet Avenue is the 12 (Wive Density idontiatl District) . A lopl dascript1w. tie on file in the Planning Departmat Office. All luturoo tad pr veins arf' Umi to d to attar •aid herring MW 11COMMDD dwir oP1M1OW for OT Wl"t said �t isf rM f r ObtgiD�d fraw -6 Witler of dw City 4i.loft. 0/2 1 1177 TV or IM105 OWN t r 0 i �� i �irr� d'IXt''' +,.�M IL.6 r� w,r 1 , ��[�, ;,,��� ,'IIn• �,�,,,'.+ 'n i ;'( r���'C+ NI �a: rf J r,r) � 4 r�' +y ••M r'ti� r.��,f1 MM r. 'y, 11,. e. I,' I v4�`•rrM. i r •1 f 4 � ��'� ��t�� v ��I1' +�i � ��1�y '��,• ti, i .'! � i1 l �2 �� 111 �',Y*'j1�• '1 4 r �4 �, "tilf, �� � � 9 ,.! b � �;Y ,�1� �,'� I v ��1401 '.� dr �.. I• F r i,�`'� L N�1' 4 r ,• r TY^� .r� (r �•r�y lv "�sl �� ��'7� "" ��s sb q1� ► v .� �4' �'� r,f1A SS �"�1�� � ��yy 'a�`rti .i �j�v r� �• V Lrt, "f E l r{ �' v i ' ��. r tirJ :��iYr •. �J 4 � '4• fir ���' I LI v. 1 h 1 1 X r e„� yo1, i,yy,,�� �'i ° i : �a• lr`f r A• '1 �. 4 ti �y� , op Alm 6� C %e q6 ,�� R r r� �7�4���r � * I�� IY � - r t �. , r , qr„' r . . •�, ��•�ar+J��1 e �' it i� a 'a�J.p ry,lrl� �. � �•' n., •� • ..� � �'. AX+r4`WM � "'r s y '►6#!V}1�'MNM?;y, qw ;awr. c:5a " r:a .1�+'"�",:4rM AAA ,�� CAL ax&4o r fY tiAL, Qr4 j rl r I i ' I • may, I •r ,,,+,' 11 r r I'r'' 1Y /•v • r rti 1 v li 1 + !'{V`Il�r�i FI.1.•/MIR.�T'••"\I I.':.1,'r'Mi' /i . 1 1 i i r r ., � 1 O• •' .Ili. + . . i Y • • 1 r L• ' Cc #77-n Beaton • Alt 0� 100 1�1�p1 (�7H) �u � • 1 • r • 92648 * •��'M •M,�+•.rr••.1••••••r•••r/ I . .r. .. .. , . . . r• .• I••••••....•..11•...... . . .r..11. . . . 1 .. . . .. . . . '`.. b" 25`107-02 25-100-4-01 • ULU b mew Orris Patric* H willime aftuvtmm owmetfield= + 101S �1� Street0312 Thlbart Avwr��'•'' Af Stock 92648 ' ' 9X48 F . . , . 3 •1 14 25-107-03 25-l03-02 ! x Timms It Do mar • M1 Y011 C�rlil 'reila 10 " Sttt A1►YBtci t Wif fit, Calif 92648 � ng'bnn 8es�h, Calif 92648 29-107-W 25-103-03 Do its DIM Omm M tobw at al 1�C4.1ifamia Streat 20051 �t Cirt" art street tib ,, Ca1it ?z BrMadY, Calif itpgt n Asac#Y, t 1lf 92646 Z5-407-05 33-143-O5 lGwach lxma.Ld E Xmff Let Cal A Inter Cmliftwmia IstZest Willi= Jr 7bennin j et al 410 Knmville Ada moch, Calif 1003 l3i].iftoriia Street %sttingtco 9mach, Calif /; H ntfngtr�tt Bauch, Calif 92640 '3�1 03 25-107-06 25-103-06 r! l�i Jld�ra Caps m Haralg � j C� ter �. litbrnilr Stz O M i 1.2042 Alan 8tra�at Il �t ,eri wit if ; 1021'D mtingtrtan t�treat Garden Gram, Calif 03640 � • Calif 02648 ' • I •►••/., •11 v. .. , . Ir. l• r . . .. Ir• •I lr •r• ••••1 . . ... . 11 . .. 1 . . . , . Ir '1 25-107-07 25-103-07 ling► J it eptam S wqp"t I+.mId J Omwom 901 Ca i ac�ila sty 1016 Hmtirqbon 8►treet 2872 Rmtwey Avmw tinptx Bch, Calif p Boach, Calif Orpta ftsa, Calif U 92648 92626 23•-10"5 25-107-08 25-103-09 9 Area Jr PMWM H Cell at al Dqt of Yets Affairs 1761.2 � alvd swu 10 101,2 Hmti ngton Street Ep rl J e �atiag t� somah, C:a.I•if aurttirsp n beach, Ca,1if 1002 cal forma street 92647 92648 Hun titmAM $earth, Calif 926148 1 23w•d07 2!-107-09 25-103-13 Vlowia m Lwdm at al tttt E Kmjc.i 1pegeni a M G=w et al U ftirviw A" Apt 2 1p08 Hxtingtmn Street. g C Grow Aftiodia, Calif 409oft SomIAV Calif 421 Joliet Avenue 91006 92648 HmUngton barn, Calif 92648 , . , - . • 1 •. r.1•r 1 • 1.1••rr••11. ,v 1■ I.Ir ,.rr• yyy,•I•b�i 0.6 , 1 . . .► .• • ..te1 " .J. S . I. . . . .r , . • a �� ���^'^^r 1 I '1ht ,fir * r , N 1 ��f 1 —Y'�,,�,,���,,,ttt N:EY�' ',,*��.1 n '"M 1 � , •r IM 1 I i,�: \'Yll, Aw .. ' r a l9 0 •.411•as •.r.• . •. ••. . ., a.• .•• .•• •a •.6..�1• •.•• • •, .•.•.A ••••.■■ a • •• , •• a as l• 1 •a a . r a• . a. •�• r� � A9 977�100,4� BTf�� rS V ?A*Mw skm 1005 t * 190 1977 (JR) ftr"t �►!' ypdt�n . Calif • ?�� 93�48 w a �*•,;.ayAl!�ir•..p ,r., •■ ' •.•a ,••a. • •••....■. . .,a • 11 •ra••i •.r.. .,..1yr. •w• .1. r•.• •. rr.i. .. , .. .. r., 25--104-00 205"s Lar 9' Oran V amilt m WIULM F Pierce 9 Saa Ike► Stareet 5414 11wWA Stet 1001 Iuintwington Sts�eet V"i,ry, Ca1iti' _�, C jkI I DMON Calif 9=3 92649 2Swio •i6 2!,-•104-•10 25-053--" L 8y1M4 Ott H MOMW c a a • � c�i3 905 cal.��tt� i� ��0 streetBch, Calif v � 52648 ��� � 92619 as •••.■A ii■I a.•■.• ••.. . • •.•• . Y a a. •.as •� a. �•. a •• .• �, rA.r• .•• •rw. to r. r r•,�/• •�•.[,�r�y • .. •••�r . 1 r 11 ,•• 1.1r• a•1. • ••. 1+r ,104-12 It Imw at al . 420 � � t� f08 C RIifaHrn� street • AeMt , Chi# Hutltir bogy MORChe Coif Sum Se r?Y, Calf 84✓1 92648 ' 42648 . . . . . . . . . .••. I. •• ..a .. . . •. • •- • 1. .f• .• .•.•. .• 1••1■ 1•a /.,•a•1111•a .a � . . . .111ra•/ . 1NIa-43 2S-104-•13 53-•10 Uw M {� aeexs a Kathlee910 n f/�y B i lo�t+�tii��,y � l� S Pl��j lippe 206 Avatm 98aoh, Calif 92648 Search, Calif Hrigtrn Seach, Calif 92648 ■ .a •.... . is • , . . �r••1�18- 1 : 25-104-14 905 ire 9tmet 20401 Swven Sem Lam Cali HMtUVIt ► Beach, Calif 204 Cum Grande 92646 lMonte�lle�, Calif r 90b40 ■. .. .. , , . ., r ... . • . .• •. •' r ....a• ••a .• .. a 1 • .. a a. w - a ... •. . , . . . . . . , . . .. . . 1 a• r • , . 2go-104-05 25--104-15 -053-13 HaA C Ridwein Idith D ht Alice a NW 903 Delamm ftxeer 91.38 Darks ELlen Cuticle attt Vto�n seachy Calif 144 ale•, Calif211 Jeliet Avenue /8 F3 90035 1at'ltjtgton Beech, Calif 92648 •••Asa a . • . •• • . .• - • . . r. ♦ • . . ... a• a •a 1. 1 • . a.•a .• a•a.6 1 • .• a •. 1.1 1 .. a. .w 1 .11. . . . . . . 1a 9 • a14 rlt�!-46 5-053--02 Mon Dosh Sy S ilah t 25-053--16 Dmuld D Galittm at al 8447 Lal and Deive 1015 Hmrington Avenue 321 13th Stamt Beech, Calif ftwho Calif KwUrayston b h, Calif 946 92648 92648 .. . ..... see .D ..r • .. 6. •I. .. .. .n.. : . . .. a . •i a 1 . 1 a. a a a•.1 a.••••.• • . .. a: .r 1.. 1• ,a a . . a 25-104-07 25-053-03 2S•-053-17 !6Uy R Stawat Ethel C Gwxwy Orrin M Coley 3139 R Imahel 1009 HMtUVt0n Stet 216 Knoxville Avenue sold Calif Eimt Un Beach, Calif lhurtington Calif 91770 92648 ' 92648 r , • � � � •.• • . • •■,r .•■ • • . ■•. • • •. . . .• .ar •••. 1 a• •a•1�!!� a• .��•J� •• •a�••1�Y ' •� ___"w#may • — wat:.�:� • a • 1 • a � 1 • 1 r �} 1 A ISi, !IS r` Y, � rig a.. 1. t' • • _. 1'' •'' t11�y MI , •� 1 M ( ' ram, y, s • • b�ry�il�ylAN•.r♦fyY••••'.•••1••••f•f•1.1 •rr•••ti•.rr/•Ilff•tffl• r■•f11••r•••••••••r/•••//ffi•••1••1•/fr•.r•r••••••/•r..•• • .•• • /fr • • t tw 14 � t �e : 19, �1977 � }8srtlxly� • calif **id 64slow 000«0004*006••••r'•9r9\1•r1Yr . • / 10f•10Yflf66•404199f/4••000•f•0••••If1/r0irr gqrf.••••fr�flrflrll••f•f•11rrr1.1•••• • 1" � i �r77"1L1 f Avg" = 9111 m-wbm pert "50 k ttw" Ms" i47 NALLtali! , ■"if . . 9 A48 ` 921M • �r • i �..�••f•f•1r1•r••frfrffY•.•. .••..f.•rrf•1. . •/••rr.rr••••1s1••••frr•f11.11 •/.1••r••i•f/.. •n....r. •••..+•. . ... •Ii + � 30 2'"54-04 54-15 _ NNOOM V N*ml et al L kw*nm rr awrie S 00104" Oftast 841 ftankfwt 11aMrm 102a ,ufti U r`!*AI er�6, COW �erlmungtan nrwt, Calif BMescsh, CdY3f 9 92646 t •01#410T00■r•1/6 141 r a 1••/••./f•/01 r/•• 1 • • r •f•1111 111•fr• 1•r.1//1••.../r1�glt•••r•1 ..�1.1f 1••�•r,'1• • . . . , . offal 11•/•f/■/1 • f33-21 t 25-05 -05 2"W16 � 1 : Om Ric Leawd 9 Wsawits 324 Xkv=ViIU Ave m 901. t3tret 1 136 0 V it Aar 93110 r�qon smAto, adif tigbcBeache. Calif Um lien, C s 9 •tM•••f1•••I Af•♦•I f•1■Ir•••Yr1•f//••r•/•q•. . 1 rI f• 1 1 111♦11". • . ••1,1 • r/• 1.r 1 r .1 to It 111 . 1 1 1 // 11 1 r 1 1 . 1 1/1/1b 1•1 • Im ti gtmn Ht"K 222 Joliet AVWW s 9582 HMMUtan Aveaw,e 1, QelW ft*iMtm bacho Calif %Xttinom soft, Calif 92648 92646 1. :,r • — Jules . . 1 1 Y r I• • • 1 r .•••1 1//1 1 r Y 1 ■ 1 • 1 /1•.1/1 1 1 1 •1 • ' 2 5 23 25-054-07 25-OW19 86 H rarbus Axthter Riots Ridwud r Hxyin 1631 Fart is Lnt'�i MI. Pr�r by e m 211 � AvW= l8 kgt , Wi.f Wwwww er, Mlif HW*4rW= BaN th, Calif 9" 9 3 Z 92"0 • �f•M•a••1�1.•. .- • 1 . . • . . ■ 1 .r•r 1.1 ./ r.1 1 1 1 . ..•r■.....1 v6.1098 4.. •.1 t..•.••.. . ..•r. .•.r. •••.•.• •.•••....\.• . •. • 1 • .1 ../r•/1.• . 2"53--24 2."54-08 : 25-054-20 afte H WI Herb L Oa 8hwe Charlm 8 fthoenfeld us dirt ammm 214 Joliet Ave= 209 naval is Avemm Itset3t�gtsm 8ai►oh, Mlif HuntiMten Beach, Calif : Mintirgtl+orn 3wh, Calif 92648 9'`648 92648 •••r•1I.•f•••1 rr.rl•►1.•.r.r•.+.r. . •./1./141•r . . •. . . .. .. . .. ,•r.f/11 rI 1.1•/ 1.1•• 1 . 1 I1 . • 1111•...1• .. 54-01 25-05"9 24-181-01 919 t 208 Joliet hvwm : 32086 Cadw Capistrano B"ah, Calif kluntingtari Soh, Calif Stacy Juan cimpistraloo Calif i649 92648 92675 , 1 •.• r . , • •a .. • .. .�/1/r•.•/•r •. . .••• •1. .. 1/ 1•1•I 1••/•1•1 1/.// / 1 . 1 � 1. •. r .. • 25-05"2 25-054-11 24-181-02 Jim A G lkin : Ric had a d T WqW Mazy g Agbf-. eort 101 IB tinq# ftz"t Alan Webber P.U. poor 484 taRerrt rat , Calif 221 brad ..ipoel.ie Av�et 807 Hmtirgton AVwwe 9 Huntirgtcn Beach, Calif 92646 Huntizx7ttan Beach, Calif 92648 1••■■r 7� d/t,f�3 _ 1•.•//Y••1••\• .• 1 . . . . .••.•. .. •. .•. /... . 1 1/1/r/•••1. /r......•1 •/1•••1 1 r 1•1 •1 • . 1. 1. . . . . • write + : i f • 1 • 1 l r°. , R • Fa,�, � 1 YK 11 �"'+ii++#.lir,��y+r�, .. 1..� � 1�.• � ' .+k71r �.a�,�' +�-`7,'y?�" "�", � �w�'�'. .,.��ri', .. ,. . •..�,.•-' — ,.. .. \IrR,IV r.I Y., a ,�'�'�wa.wnp+dM4.�n:�,S, ., . „ 1• �0. • •yM'�*, ! a•,M�,I,•Y•,+• ?y�R 4,i4.7�.„�. +�'+ . . r 1 . •I •. . . •.I•I••.. • . .. .. . . Cl 077,-20 - -hgwwwaowl � muft at al 92647 •:+Ki »#a•%4 6,*J Y Y•1 w.•.i r .i.•.. + .. . .. 1 . • . + r•• •. !•. • • •• r ....• r a . . . . . a 1 . + .a . . . .. 24-M-14 24-214-09 OWLIV V Titolo C�civr Sol [MIA=* Btr"t 924 Wmotw A Blvd. 4 Calif h, Ckli t &nitre 705 92440 iOO, Anpawf Calif 90024 24-02 24-Z1-15 24-214-1.1. '0 air 41 H D rofty Ki11 1 A Gram r• N CMMlWA Avome 703 $ tale ]LOG R� otroat 1 ChIm hubmils92804 o Calif � 92448 Besc�h, Calif �'�,'1•.f����7..1\••,1. 1.-• ....a♦ r •. •Il � . r • • ■•sill • I\.IY• • l . . r• . . 11.. Ir . ' . . . ... . . . . . . . 24-21111-16 24--214-14 .� • � ip Ri y,e ll • ,�+ ♦ &M 717 9541 MdW Circle ! ------- No 01,11, om oadho Calif Smot,1: Ot nSwkckp Calif f : 92446 c 24 214-r02 24-214-14 ,1Mmilm a Pnkar Chary A pmormihna JAM* P halal + ti *Mlihe Cirt" 311 Hurtfvor+d Avenue 1009 8 sway h, Calif .4&&jj gtm Basch, Calif Santa Maria, Calif W49 92648 : 93454 24*2Y1-b7 24-214-04 M.B. Elomant ry final ftvar198� fit FCOB ZY l 770 - 17th Street 817 Delaware ftroot 306 Ud4snmoW is Ave Apt 0 Ku *UVbM 8wch, Calif lorWas Beach, CAZ.if Suntin9tcn Slate, Calif 92648 � 92648 • �1.11-08 24-214-05 T7apt• of AMM v p4dul"n David C Ft* 120 so. o1wing Stre t Is Amon 616 &r*1i tm Strmt Lois melee, Calif 90052 3-q-tat Fehr Calif BmtU t,:c:n Beach, Calif Attn: fiWf AwLstant VA" 92648 Design B .�M�\a•,►.\1\1\...••..•• bob .. i .1 .• 1••..6...\..I•1....r .•1•••.1 1 ..• 1• 1•r I•..• .• .•. 1. • ••.•I. 1..•.••I •• /.1 •. 1•r .. .. $A-•2�,1�12 24-214- 06 • beit`xy K yj--A grate M T.rish w1220 Palo 7612 Gate Hill Ci=la ftw*a1n Valley, Calif Huntington Beacho Calif 9"08 92648 �4�21.1'r13 24-214--07 a Williw@ Iola C Nutt 8o Dolaware strmt 806 HurAdr4tm Street ; bmtiMton Boom, Cij ii*frgtm Beach, Calif 92649 92648 • .• •.1.. ..,.,.. . • .. , , . , .. . . . seen I••••••I.. .. . . . .. .. . , . - . . . • / J �/ ° ` �„ � I _ •fir•. •"t'►.i' f 0. 1.y 1 �'^����• ,T f`. W, J�t' ti i • I (:� 1 ' i.. I l" i (� •i ���1�. ! �,:w ' i �111u 'J1 •:�d•r5.. , s:4' .ti„ 'ry,.�.rrr KY..Nfl gyp: ' lli ' i • ..rN.1 �i t a a t�h P"I�raa�a 01MMISSIlfr of MU TON Sams ia� IRU • )NISTRATIVE OR ME ME PA. IDOX In CALIFORNIA INW w ' !►I Honorable Mayor and City Council MW Planning Commission October 6, 1917 F1oy4 0. Belsito , City Administrator CORD1'1'IONAL 2CCEPTION N4. 77- B �ND =KtN1M1ATM REVIEW 77�4 6. r H: fi "PUL TO DENIAL 0 ski `t try Q Dexapp f .>: 920 Jal.lerttzs®t Huntington Reach California 92646 M �• PLf �� Sanar is Bouthw►eeat •corner of California Street and Joliet Avenue s **inistrative Review too. 77-100 is a request to permit ':;; �;;• thy► deuellop wnt of a three unit apartyaent building pro-r ponied to he constructed on a zero interior property lines and the development of an additional unit at the zero interior property line can a site which presently contains 2 residential units. Canditlonal Exception No. 77-26 has been filed in con- junction with Administrative Review No. 77-100 . Specifically, it is a request to permit a five (S) foot AAa roaehment into,the required ten 110) foot interior A44o yard sethagk- The ten (10) foot side yard is required by Section 9103.2.1.i (b) for resid,ential units that are v,�ed to constL`ttcted at the zero property line. .. ,, 6 I8, 810N ACTION; (September 7, 197 7) t Sr MMKU AND SECOND BY FINLEY THE PLANNING CO"'04ISSION SUS- 'UZ ORNIAL dX THE BOARD OF ,ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF CONDITIONAL . 77 -26 AM1 RVERRM THE AfiMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BACK TO THE Of 201AING ADJUSTMENTS TO ALA APPLICANT AN OPPOR'Z'LiNITY TO REVIEW HIS- PLUS IN COMORKANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE CODE WITH THE POLLOWZNG P10DIMS AND BY THE FOLDING VOTE 1. The proponent have failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship to Justify granting of the request. 2. Granting of subject request would bo entablishinq an undesirable precedent by allcwing the bulk of a building to be increased via the canditional exception application . X v S + r' r i1 �1 it r4k wr11i,`" ry �r ,. On r fcot aidM yard is a viable area for passive purp"es vbft ps"arly dosigned into a development* C. Granting of the request would constitute granting a special privilege r . not enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning classification . AX88: Finlay, Gibson, Newman, Hoffman Not#$ plates Axam s Shoa , Stern PWV2VQ COM14136ION RZM1I MATION: The Planning Commission rec ends that the City Council sustain its decision to deny Conditional Exception No. 77- 28 and refer Administrative Review No. 77-100 back to the Board of Zoning Adjustments for revisions to the site plan. SUMMARY ,AI�1 IS: The proposed residential project is to be developed on two separate sites. Site S presently contains two dwelling units . The applicant is proposing to construct a new four car garage with a two bedroom unit peer top which will provide for a total of three units on site I . Site 1L vhich is presently vacant is proposed to have three units and a four car garage. Subject properties were recently rezoned to the old Town Specific Plan District One. However, because the applicant filed the proposal prior to the effective date of the ordinance, the project is subject to the development standards of the past R2 zoning. These standards allow for the development of three units on each of the two sites . The Planning Department has reviewed subject property and has adete.rmincd that there are no unusual features, i. e. , shape, size, topography, etc . staff has also redrieavrad the proposed conceptual floor plans and fuels ,� ►;`;`' mWe wdsflootions this proposed site plan can, be brought i;xto vith applicable standards. M �„ x MAL STATUS: .�_. �hssrt is a Cats orical Exemption, Class III, California Enviro:l- + tlity Act, 716100 SQ?rQW;W9 INFOMATIDN: 1 . Area trap 2 . Letter of Appeal 3 . Staff Report Respectfully submitted , C 0. Sdw"4 D. Salich JNL UNCOLN IV T KN9&VILLE AVE- --, A Li AVE " �OLIET - _ __ - _ __ --- - --- OVA _ - � fVDIANAPOL15 AYE. ��` — s •�` J -- HARTFO S AVE. f _ --- --- C 1000 #► r SCAPA ir, IEEE COPIUITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 77-28 - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 77-100 zone R2 - E HUNTINGTOK BEACH PtA1G%M DEBT. E M - , y����" ,�L1 �� �•y7yiT�q .i r: �yx' I� 41 • r JA it • now 1t1 1 f UNIT ` UN IT 0 rsyIST)N ei 11_ 101Ca r sIZ T 7 006 Lois7 $ 15 UN 11- UNIT UNIT �. +.. L: f"reR TY t �.1 N I •7+ w•. ...,w. �... i ol- R?1 E TT — 28 Not% � p L.0 T -E A r� 9 f 1 Y �4 ' ,�, y. « ',�i' '�M•r`,'i•ar 1• . ,�,rt,r W'rr;�;y,.1 '�,.ti 1Y�/�- � . 1'1 � � lN,. c9. Au �•. r�1,.!"�,�}b•" -r.6:'','i'wN� M: r r, � r r ql6c16 � • ,I• 70 r C4KAo4,XC4 . ilk !r' i r ,I �UKriNGTON IBEAC4 PLANNING DEFT. P. o. 2� A �9► • , 41, y} 1 Vb 04) ba ♦ f1 ' ir..i- '�rK•....Y•--a—W'.{#14bi w.�.•.., �� warwr. .��.. M ._..i r• ,. f ,1 r FUM"KV Depart"at s` �r 94ptember 70 1977 77-Z8 p TO D iIAL DATE FILED: 5/�17/77 n X VANWOMMON W. MOVE Ems 77- "PEAL TO DENIAL "i': Henry G. DeLapp► 90 : ItZ 320 Joliet St. Sr ONintington .Beache Calif. 92645 GMZRAL PUM: Mledis., In D$ ty `.. : 'douthwest corner of California Pdoidential 8tretst and Joliet Avenue ; T: AdMini4trative Review No. 77-100 is a � reqftat to permit the development of a three unit airertment building ,proposed to be constructed on a zero interior p tarty 1' :*1 and the development of an additional unit at the Otero interior property line on a site which presently contains 2 residential units. tX..��: Conditional Ex'Ception No. 77-20 hate been filed in conjunction with Administrative view No. 77-100 a Specifically, it is a request to permit a firm (5) foot encrroach- sMnt into the required ten (10) foot interAor side and setback. The ten (10) foot side yard To required by Section 9163w2. 1 . 1 (b) i"or reshdantial units that are proposed to be constructed at the zero property line. Effi'M.RMTAL STATUS: The proposed residential developments are Class V Categorical Exemptions under the Rnvi.ronmental Quality Act. No further environmental assess- atefit is Mandatory at this time. 3# 0 }tIL;,rr [N i LL r r r•1, — : a w i ale ' •n f�. r"� IIS t Il r r r r+� •Z r � ry�}. it a `„•J• F w�r, t . y'. r M Yt 1'. Il! .y/A 51..r — \ r 'M . , , •„I r Jl 1,��'.IF^l" i• r: fir} •'' 1 09 17-26/ram 77-1e0 2 4MMh IWORNATION: t The proposed residential project is to be developed on two separate .• sites. Bite ..1 presently contains two dwelling units. The applicant r ; in pt sing to construct a new four car garage with a two kmadroom unit Wer top which will provide for a total of three units on Otte 16 Site xI which is presently vacant, is proposed to have three units *ad a four car garage. Both sit6s. prespplred to have baildings loc,-ted on the zero property line whiab require approval of ait Administrative Review application. One of the criteria net-assary for the utilization of a zero side yard setback is that.,'th* opposite side yard setback must ben tent (10) feet. The applicant' s proposed lan indicates only a five (5) foot opposite side: yard# and thus Conditional Exception No. 77-28 has been filed. $ I L1D USES AND ZONING: All surrounding properties are presently zoned Old Town Spac:ific Pleat ft tarict Oner and are developed with residential uses, primarily si.-agle family hcx5es. 4 .2. AXALY818: •wi r. They subject properties wvree recently re3zonoad to the; Old Town Spt.�c itic Plan - District one. T1awevi ir, because they applicant filed +the proposal prior to the effective date of the ordinance , the project is subject to the development standard' of the past R2 zoning. ' Those standards allow ,for the daftlopae nt of -three units on ;,ach of they two sites. i VU Board of Zoning Adjustments at its meeting of Junes 1, 1977 reviewed { '�ths proposal ceith the applicant. Based on the information submitted, the Hoard did not feel that any hardship had be smi demonsttatad which Mould j twtify the granting of the variance. As a result of the variance j denial, the Board also denied Administr4tive Review No. 77- 100 because ` plan was not in conformance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance The Planning Staff has reviewed the subject property and has determined i . ,: .. t +xrea •ire .ttiltaMaal urees, i.e. , shapeo . size, topography, etc. The Ca fit has also rd�T�.t3'iile$e��the prop-6-sad conceptual 116or plsris and-feels thit .with somr. : modifications the proposed site plan can be brought into conformance with -the applicable standards. The3reefore, the Planning Comission has the following alternative courses of action: 1. The Commission can sustain the Board' s denial of Conditional Exception No. 77-28 and ninistrative Review No. 77-100. This would have the effect of eliminating the "grandfather" status on the property which would result in only two units being permitted on each site. 3a ) 7A* eJ! • AIM � AN � � ti•!}. ♦ ea� 'r ''� ,�1�, � �i ',,y, ll .,dh ♦.wyrye•• � t 1 A Page Three CM 77- 29/AR 77-100 2. the Cession can sustain trio Board' s denial of Conditional Bxc*ption No. 77-28 and reofer Administrative Review No. 77-100 back to the Board of Xoni ng Adjustments so as to allcnr the applicant an opportunity to revise the plans to met the R2 standards in effect at the time of filing. This would allow for three units on each sits but wmId require revisions to provide for the proper side yexd setbacks. 3. The Cc fission can overrule •the Board and approve Conditional 2Xca tion No. 77-28 and Administrative Review No. 77-100 which wvnl� allow three rnit:s on each site, with a five foot encroach- Mont on Site 11 . 5. 0 AgCC?MMMATION s The Board of Zoning Adjustments recommends that the Planning Commission sustair its denial of Conditional Exception No. 77-28 and refer Admin-- . istrative Seviea ado. 77-100 back to the Doard of zoning Adjustments to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise the plans into conformance with the provisions of they Ordinance Code in effect at the time of filing the application, based on the following findings: 'r E I . The propo.xent has failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship to justify granting of the request. 2. Granting of subject request would be establishing an undesirable precedent by allowing the bulk of a building to be increased via the conditional exception application . 3. A ton-foot side yard is a viable area for passive purposes when properly designed into a development. 4,. Granting of the request would constitute granting a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning clansi- fication. sVC kt � b'1 � '�� '.r 1 yl � �.'��' �;-,•' '� � � t f �' ,a,y:ry,, S!•''��t' ,�. .,,. � '•���',n�;,. ''N`.y ; �YW (, •,,� �� 41 , rA,,, , . w `' ' �• r � /�A• e'� ,�; J � J�h{' �ur! �'�� `-' '�� off?.,�,hkL�.�, jl..: h� � 1.a • Y • ✓.F r i�� •• � 5 r +"" �. y .,�r'l hA �• .r d u.1w.o✓ m .r �� .i � �r .. � .. �. ray w'ri•:Al r R ooe 7 s f 3 C, x • �7 Ir ate Id � Z ' � s . HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. JUN 10 197"" � P. a. Box )" Hununston Mach@ CA 9" r306 mob Klaultee, H A1. arrd of tonitrg Ad juista*nts June I, 1977 Page 7 Eoaxetary Pa►lin reported that they applicant has ' requented a �ontirruaeca, ON WrIO" BY PALIN AND SECOND BY CROSBY ADMINI'STRATIVN REVIEW No. 77-401 WAS CONTII D AT THE RRQUEST OF THS APPLICANT, BY THE FOL- LOWN VMS t Avail PALZH, CROSR'Y, LIPPS 101M s NOC A SIM NONZ {� O TIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 77-28 (In Con j . OAK 77-I00) To permit a Five (5) foot encroachment into the 10-foot , interi.or side yard setback required where the unit or units are constructed At zero on the opposite side yard, in lieu of Section 9163.2. 1. 1 (b) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, located an the southwest corner of California Street and Joliet Avenua in an Up Medium Density Residential Distract . This request in ao Categorical Exemption, glass V. California En- vironmental Quality Act, 1970. Chairman Lipps opened the public hearino . Henry DeLapp was present at the meeting and presented the folle-wing justifications for his varianos requests to the 10-foot strip woull be used for active reareational purposes and would create a nuisance to the adjoining neighbors, • an" I) granting of the request is necessary to permit hiss to obtain the maximum use of his property. Ther© being no other persons present to speak for or against the prorosal , the public hearing was closed. i Thee ` zequeet was reviewed by the Voard. secretary Palin pointed out disc x9pa►nai,es on the plan - e.g. , insufficient information has ' be+aur. submitted to permit parking calculations to be made, eaves are shoran overhanging the property line on the front elevations, and doors and balconies have been shovin in the elevation proposed at xero. Mr. D+eLapp explained that each duplex has two, bedrooms and indicated that the overhang and openings in the zero wall were its •error. It was the consensus of the Hoard that the 17:tpnt of the provisions allowing zero isetback was not to permit the bulk of construction to be increased on a property but rather to conaolidate the setbacks into a usable, ten foot open space and allow flexi- bility in siting a building on a lot . ON NOTION BY PAUN AND SECOND BY CROSBY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 77-28 WAS DENI80 FOR THE FOLLOWING .REASON$, BY THE POLL WING VOTES BZA 6-1-77 Page 7 A r'ST'^'; ' � ICI r 1�.., � ! 1 •' 1 • �, .}i Minutes, if.VA Do of Son ,nq Adjustments w . Juno It 1977 a cur .+n w 1. The proponent had failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship to justify granting of the request. 3. Granting' of subject request would be establishing are undeeir- able opedent by allowing the bulk of a building to be increased 4 ; Vis tc conditional a=option application. 3. A tarn-foot side yard is a viable area for passive purposes when � properly designed into a 'dlevelopment. ;v 4. GraAitM of the request would constitute c�raritin9 of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties ih the same Zoning classificatio#s. ArEss PALtN, CROSDYt LIPPS 190231 14 Amu"t NM The Chairman explained the appeal procedure to the applicant . AD14INISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 77-100 (In Con j ./CL 77-28) ftgl icant s y Mena 0. Delspp To permit construction of two (Z) dwelling units on Site Z and one (1) dwelling unit on Site 1, to be constructed .at zero on the interior common property line pursuant to Section 9163. 2 . 1. 1 of the fluatington Reach Ordinance Code, located on the southwest corner of California Street and Joliet Avenue in an R2 , Medium Density E,e60antial District. This request is a Categorical Exemption, Class III, California Znvironvanta<; Quality Act, 1970. l Mr, D*L&pp was present at the meeting and the Secretary explained � to him the options he had on this project in light of the denial ; of the cmAitional exception request, said options being a► continu- a*oe to permit a revised site plan in compliance with code to be suitted or denial without prejudice in the event that he desires to appaal the Variance. The latter option would permit both actions to be appealed concurrently. If the applicant wishes to do so he: can request that the administrative review be referred Haack to the Board, with the eti.pulation that it will then be revised to comply, in the event that the Planning Commi3sion sustains the 11bard's denial. After further discussion, the applicant indicated his intention to appeal. ON NDTION BY PALIN AND SECOND BY CROSBY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 77-100 MS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BY THE FIOLIA)WING VOTE: AYES$ PALIN j CAOSSY, LIPPS NOES # moks -3 . 7 ANM Z t - BZA 6-1-77 page 0 a• fee � r r•1 • to ma �Y�4,y1'Y�r�t...1��^�,yl�ilylM � l � � /•'' I ' i fl Kim'•• �° Ji.+.`�,1�'.i .4.fr .�d. -.1• ��•'' � as liar L q.A.yF 11R'1'11kMT MI wa R'a J1.Ihlc IMI Ilrllliltdw+T1* f»If.itwlf lit ZO a" f!M Ott IIiWIR' sail qNl y+cf1t11 ,spiry irr rW It Iwl k ,.,.. 1, U1111 FA- INIMAIN *, Ilplrfa11r/1 1,see d� 1 ^ IL IP MM IF-i 11p1wN111 Tlto A 1 Itraww Now AM Pit ' M•�� I�T•11. 1 �*,;';�r:'"` i� �flrwl'Islftlf4RlCweNeN11 • ' +rtrriy�l�. .. �! i ruse Ill A1IN,1rf1.Ih1Alpmwkg �.� F111AW ltll 44140r ...-7 OWAM a AWM Us., }. �,'' Cy A�uwwl f7 Nr+l1i+� NrA �. ��"ry''�'�;' tl Iit11111reAfdly Ap�wwl !�ttlltwdgharlt�f\I►I►nlvvl ?,u.+lw+r c1 Ap " A V AY 171977 11 U Offt111a F 1' I l Ikft'fyttl lelrk to H/A ,� '•,''�;'' Affil" IC111 16, 11 AFprlltd• vc%41 N1. 1.1 HL are mill :lY,.,, All' , •i. .1 N IN LIRU UI'p L wllrl Iarr.r�.1 I,�..�{i��f tK 1 etflitll .••;1,! rrw.ar .. 2 :,MlclttitrrrlA 7 ftwlft *htlw wtwltel wmq%K-IW4 dM In a�lnterfr• �� Y�'�' r 1Ww1'tlf erlrrr wlwYwllw+Ndrr1' 0611 tousle 4 #Lift IMWMr's Prhel MOW ';: ;i'.,.a`l +. 1�1t ���� l�w lllftrk 7 tM 1 vie" fa l :41- ;• ;,!•.: NtIe111� 9ef�llflihlll b Mrpt t k .Ie A. Alelw ModMAwwJ/t raaww 4i�l1 +•..as_wa.... pp JUN11p1t71IMe rest top fwfYyf/rh VY:11f/M1'/e f.lf.flffKltO*trot d qvo-VAoyt • �'I`!' AM wr OvAI N1Nty n iwrn her thm rrgrr.l Adll foomph nl lmlr r jin-ilrel list rw wall 61'1p1440- Me at 14Mv Will p14" 611 epn crew 111 010 legation .hart tt a.n be used to better Adrentcxe rat rcaroctfea Ste. 01wat b111N1 tyr oenctrwttall will censer" enerpe 1 `fre mawrtAVtlnMM 111t'rn1 fit Int11d1.1llAIf11litd file MII)rail beJrtri' 1 I!r'w1i1111• 11 lbf�1ra;-rf WI'116m'off IM•tMln.trujnlg off wlNlelf*M 1164'V4101f).1W 1) I,yarawl•im pnipeny lend Irllwll►thtrwlsiwllMr'.►1w1�f1trrrhwti'1Nlwtkhf111. IMP Ily n111rt ItIM11l i 17wpIN NpfN1 r/1'1'Itlhlw H III rl'IIMN'1V1111 JnJ n111 11optiAl yw•1'Ial Ilrtvdt'Ife. WhrA cams Irrltq phfprrlflw 1A the rwlmr)'ml wa6•r oil kkntlrll i1ww doidwstmo,pw•rte tetptitrf lit rife follwhhlllr 1. whrl rM'1mmsl ewernttl/wl•awnly Id 1lethliewd'rt1I1te! (flp'hwit1f w1e,+Mlle.lapt"lly,IfteilntA lit wfmlMndiOrl Illeu 1 r1rocr 11 its lt,w/lga wckmilly e1)eyetif i. WfN thrl�w1t1w1A1w11 ISf,ilrlN,n roANuyfr at Frrnt al yKyeal ptirlk•w tmlftnfislrnt Wt:h nitnnil llnnililtn! o 11If}N thn f fN+flflwwtd f t/Ayurm nrrcfwry sett Iht`rh-orntlrwe And vori 1111'nt of wet'ew mfwe. WmIlrl N+eNw'nf It�lwd f 4.41r1r h•Awwh Why Ihr to udoge A this lirfllNrn1111'.ot-WI lan Will elope la'nlaleh 41ly/lalrutit-MA 141lltr FUblit: I ttertl�r t New avers AN11 Nw11@r%fiffll 111 •frle•1l,mit ifl.'IrllerlR Ilse�Nppk'wueul`bt 1►IN�MI M IF/lnrrr M1h 1i!Ifftw M11A11wINer 1/M floor pts"fly tm-m n,rr1111otin,1 Alton)tot tnlnril phglrrtl' I livrOn-Ifni rt t IrAlti'rptMdlf era opt fir• 1w/Tto,hr.p.11.•nprift.fast.na:alwlN.l h-1-ti Ao•elope,Aml learns s ft 171 197.7. 1 Iw i 1�INI•141h�1 Aryr1 Ii11r a aa � fit t�i fi � �, R ,,��C',���'LT�L�1� '••q�LAN r �,:�.•.,a.r��`•1' � ,,�;� a„ y ■ NOW tlly �M t11lferf r ���.,,,•� ,f � � 1 NtrWkw A�TMM'M7 NI N JUo"MENTS IFa got 1M ti''! S:1t1r IN' 1111NrINlilf�l NI:At;ll IIw11heM1irMloll(1t141 PW!Y«111 r, r rtrftelf/U/II '32 �..�- �1„NYi.�+r�,.�1�t�1�M•�rr„w,.�,,,,,rr■rr..rY��_ 1 1N'f7Tt1Nfi1 11'Ik aA1flM�Hf�N�N �. � 1'y'Yrwlstl rt IYr 1M .rrr `� a��a_ ��a`�` �.�� t uerlleYrn■!f e rrlrr rl of f;1' Kvii 1'Ir+Aaw�r_alnoo M 'Oil- MIA . . Ar1rr:MiM/AeYrlt�YiA lawTo Ak •.��. ,•d 'T1 n+' • � . ('T llvlN•,�h+111,'T{IN/IMM I ' �•;'�• . �,� r �I�A�/r ;�1 , 1 Y'11171M.1�IyMMd/I rnlf Seem Airsba Raw, r, Urlrr (may /yam IJ•Ippriwrfl rj hKeeswd Am I �alalfNy A�rt{wcri i C..{rrNh�lly'Aplitma) r flrlisrrlrfl V w M1Nrs of fr'4Y 171977 t'!hrkarm to P.C. I1 Nrfrrrefl batik of NRA /ptooll p11, V oli N Ai L] Apiprskili vr. ❑ Mo IJ br ....r..�.�k NI AM" 1w LlhuclF•�•?/1,1 Lb) :aee, (i1f A"C*OM 0`11tMF tlTr r 1. Al W AdelW, IN .t 1, xNlr cool urtrll! �, ,, IWO**"gem Mattel INltlefrf100NI{rt It 11l�eTM�Non --- /IAA+f11�INM�t�Ilnlfr�'tIN1�Mkt'1• -'- �h OiNf,7fHfltMf IAa,rerl+M'f p�r.+el nvllfbtY � I*ttlf � .,.,. 'trae'( � �....... /" �J too , Ww tlYaiiM_,�,�,�•.,.r,r,,,r Te.eYtltAip„r.,�.�� hrnite l� .nr r" IMrltt UM1�11bt111/I JfIl1MWICATMo INN f/►irraryYlrtely:tr11/ibrhllrrMitri li•re1,0 rtrrrtrnri•1 t AN or!*A+ 1pf►lr to wrm(fu Ihtt►V4W'%anal kq,1h Irl I{:iw re9MV`IW We Taw t I UFe ICl/fr 11'/MMI sr11y'!hr rtfd hfhnwnl,matnlrnrh.r.rtr Iq'rrfnan of Ihr Inc lee bNddmK applufl ffrr will r11rf lir fklrh hw'hlal 111 1104,Innrrrl welise r rr1 pirr�inl rrwiNht root rrrrrkInv In 1k,primly,for 1) inlv►iaw to prNysrty aloof Impm'r Itw7NY to Ihr Vit'nit)all kwh uwe or butkfinN Qe 1 he 011Kt Ilvr III a WAWIlli.,IA rn'cltlNfto tooIts arhim.)loft(• and if.-(fit INnI 4P6.00 prn•dror, *%top enhallfYrllg pvr+perttrt 111146•Fifteen) YnJ rMn an 1Jrntw•1fi auec rlataeiw ilmn•pkatr rc4"Wd Ito the rnlwllaw4i ' Whitt rtri-ef IIOW tatunlNetwrt apld)lee prtilalnpl properly(ICANoting ijae,wlupr,l 74nilfhy,location fit ? r•,• wtnnteliftt11Nd1 drpnvr it of prfv+lefoh flrrhlally rrtiuYittil M� 1 Mdl Ihr 1 awedder•1a1 1�{+lrintte ntrnleevtr is pwnl If VRVIIi 14tv{hNf +nrnn•lu/hi wl+fl a/wntal I+mtlaultflty w 1 Wht w fhn 1 4Wq woo1 t t l apt m M'rrtgr hrr 1hf r t�efw/Inn nJ rn roof nN•nl fd.+nr r rre wbab lost pM1rpl'rlI'fythet) rli� Pam 0 none um• a� pro)* .7 a�nrlr•rTft r,f Presenrl. soaln V to ?rfl/w166 wlallkA sflararrhlrrnt on 4dJoLnlna property, T hf/nr r/, by Ih ann 1 wkw 'Neth1 N+al f In wdl M Iw IAI.a It J ltenfcellal If,I hhr LLPtlfet "aror�+r +r+nr� �ian rd•'� a� +ldf! in{nt pr.prre .'�dllrrlk tr�strlr hsn thnf of tld �lnti r1nso r�`•er Intl {«rT+ 311tt o er4Q�1w`re r�arrotlin•�il'+I►tt rS11 , r! + oil re r e b U .r11M• ..�. 1*1�Ir,rt . ,1a4nnnlf on.-kid o for Bto 11h lrMl Ira tl hrM VA Iter frWW IIA Iri thn"*Its areal 1 sin Ile• rr•'I*rq tr'oo8s•I ow rufliwind.wid tool w'rtf•ti I+Ftq")'. I WitIrr Jrs1r►e fK erMfe+tpfMiMI1'.d -PWN /r fill Iwr a+.err Mrengf nl,1.,It,OW 111,4 fk•.1 of It off /k•Irl,r rrhl rennin L �"--;/'a'■=�t;- .ram..-..•�_..�_... 3m, IM 1 , 19 '41;t : ` LL TJ• + `y � Y . , ,rut •q � . �' .,� x, a i, . ORMsue= j'LAAIDI�/*i 40 SlM.SIP 11i .T =R" F�'t. T9 K AELXJI . The exterior of any pmposed building exceeding thirty (30) feet in height shall brM brok INO Modred (100) feet or more from the property line of any single-family r"i tial -46VOWNWat emept thot Ruch setback say be eighty-five (SS) feet where 4W6 lb" Ate is to be s paxatad tam such single-family rssid*ntial development by PO&UM atrupwr+er, such as camarta or gaara"$# aonsumted on a oaaiaan property UrWr or ee b WbWe void building site is to be separated from such, single-family 1M ^. rM"�+ �►t by a public right-of- sy, school, golf Wu rse, pOlic utility Oantr9l right-of-way or ahannel, which it sixty (Sid) feet or more �a al,r�t � •:. ��O�lOj7O.. 19►4�-1,/'�S; CIA -All yards shall be aieae=ed firoak the pros Wing property . Unes at fr*r the ultimate right-of-waY..l. _Rb.rv[arod W Art.(.cle 973. (17O5-1/73# 2lbt 2/77) S. 9163.1 FWMT YID« The minimum front yard shall be IS feet, exaept as provided in sections 9163.4 and 9166.5. + S 1010.3.2 SIRE.an* 9 d A.1.1 l ei S1 IUD. _ MXNItd1IA+1 SETBACK. (e nix%= interior o do yard setback for baldings thirty ( 34) feet or less in height shall be t n percent (10%) of the lot. width, provided further, said rids yard votbsc* teed not exceed five (5) feet, and shall not be less than i thcae (3) feet. "W PUL MwA interior side yard setback for buildings exceeding thirty (30) call rot be iris than teen (10) feet. (1512-7/69, 1952-1/75) � i ;91xG3.2,1* XLPRO SIDE YM. The side yard setback may be zero or of the lot provided that: (a) The lot: adja t to that side yard lea held under the same ownership at the time of initial 00 otion and the eerinix= aide yard setback for such adjacent lot is eit r ere r iWt lass than ten (10) feet; and �b The rL side yard setback is not less than ten (10) Feet and is perpetually main rear and clear from any obstructions other than a three (3) foot rer+�4 enc tr swixwAng .pools, normal lanlscaping; removable patio covers which May s to and not more than five (5) feet of the sida prof�erty line, or galAwn wallet or fenai4 Grossing said setback provided they are equipped with a gate, and racy are equ&l in height to first floor double plate but not exceeding ni he (9) feet; and W Tfhc, wal located at the zero side yard seetback it �:crostruc-+eci w ti rh mai»tenane:eai free, solid decorative vAsonry for the first story of the dwelling and the second :story is constructed wits maintenance-free, dcrora.tive masonry or masonry vone er with a minimum thickness of. f.wr► (a) inches. Decorative constxuction need not be used on that portion of the x tructure obncured from the vision of the adjacent Aide yard by the cult located at the rere side yard setback. "N., wall so con-- strucrod $hall intersect. >re&x property lines; and (4) No portion of the 4w*llinq or architectural features Nrojer�t over any property 11ro e; and r � I , �Ise •, 1• r I I c'I &etoErrsnyt. DWTJUCT 9 {', ■ 1■ Y Il.r. .Iwwll■Y!1 �lw�!■.��.IIw.�YI 1 I Fe �r��lrrlwl rrl�.� �w�+.�.WPMM •wl��a Irw Ir ■ .!■��■wwr�. 1 .i■/L.�i� . . � The width shall be as"wed alas$ a lima opidistolt to twmty (20) feet tree the front property 1=. $s.. l'6� ■ The vtdtb shall be sawed t�lty ( feet We the front property aline ato," a lire perp adieul,ar to the bisettof of the MrMt property litre. (1194 - 4/t(►f►) r S.916t. .1. ."M U*,t- $$ALM fttg 6221MIE StInt, ftmMM t The lot wUtb *M11 be omwmd alauS a Lim rwareadows Mr' to the iotertor We property line and tMssty (20) toot fne the f rMt property Xlaa. (IM - a/") � � �.' CA4CUf,ATltrt 3USMITTf6C. In all cases, a licensed land surveyor or �^ civil engineer shall svbali.t calculations showing lot widths, depths and areas. (1469-2/69) S. 9162.2.2 MEPTIONS. Any legal b»iiding site, as provided in S. 9162. 1.1 need riot sa*t the raq%Ared minimum lot: widths. (1194-4/66) S. 9 62.1 I YI.� �7zg81w 1 The maximum density shall rput exceed one (1) dwelling ■ � 1�1 unit far each tyro thousand (2000) square feet of 1-7t: area, provided not marts than nine (9) dwelUng units are locsted on any one parcel of land. (1077-8/64) a, 2161JA Led - 2-a. zlo 6) I ' .54 0162.4 LaT ►(Z. The ground floor area of all roofed structures on late ( not obutting a park, recreation area dr open land shall not occupy more than 50 psrreent of the lot area. The ground floor area of all roofed structures on lots abuttiaq a park., recreation area, at open land shall not occ Ispy more than 55 percent of the lot area. (1077-8/64) S. 9162.4.1 Pot the purpose of this Section, open land includes golf courses, sahwla, public utility right-of--gray, and flood control rights-of-way that provide o ^tnLWAR 10+0 feet in clear width. (1077-8/54) S. 9162.5 DID E R EENPA l ff"INGS. The minimum distance between the *Xtsrior *&Ila of main dwellings on the saws lot shall be 15 feet, except as provided, in Section 9162.5.1• (1077-8/64) . 1 S.. 9`162*5.1 MMA . (1017+6/64) BA—16Z�1 M&M �I)RIVU. Where an alley or drive is provided between stxuctures on the save lot, the m4nimum distance between the exterior walls of the buildings shall be increased equal to the width r-of the cAl.ey or drive. Said alley or drive shall be subject to the requirements of section 9166.9. (1077-fi/64) S. 9162.6 PMIMUM SUIIDINGN HEIGHT. T:se maximum buiidinrj height shall not exceed thirty (10) f,:qt, except as provided herein. (1077-6/64, 1512-7/69, 1952-1/75) S. 9162.6. 1 E SPTION. BUILDING HEIGHT. A maximum building height of thirty-five 35) feet may be permitted pursuant to the; previsions contained herein. 9/15/78 1 C.: r It +' .•r� '''" ' . � ', r ,•fir; l.;�� 3y w 17 r~�'r ♦•y1,,���rY ',P'• 1rI� y �1`Q K `�•' r� " r w!h ? V • ` 'i 1 Y �! f^i 4 ISM' . GO of Huntington Beach P.Q. 0ox fie OF e Ow THd MY CLIKKIK ..n Q*U*s9 119 1970 320 J4 9 0 CA 926" 1:Uty tomall e1 tins City of RoutinSton bowl at its �.ate r ,ti MU BAaday, October 179 19770, desired t 11 rb1'' o tbo ftwnius C,amisaicm l s denial of • itBtratft Raviov abd C`isgditioririal 8wceptib! NO. 77-28 d treed " 17-10 back. to the BZA fair revi,Sionr In ; the $10i pLane Ciky C1eY� ' AM/ate r _ r f i of Publication TW htt u ft pebtbr and p&Mw at ft lu mtlmtan seat* . a w`y�Nrii.�`d--��t�► neMgr w ad Intent �ir� k*m 1p�e+i�_u/it%� mw pub. ft H= *Wa� wd wwd In tho "..M Coaaty of cka"e anal e1eemrimv aad puMM" tar the dlt uminatlrm e! tooat aced otm um of a sa mW datraatwo old traa is bnm► flds of submibata and a m papa ?tar helm 4 ]fret ON �btlttwld In the State of CafOWaoaM a[aw", the st Mw one yor next twfm the pabfttloa off' 6 slat itmrnetft of Oft math; and the esid wwgapvr is not iftia sd to the it kmt of, or ptifb3i"d for the enterbd mr nt of any puttattlar d "6 probad"k U*%, eaUfnp. Roe at denem9»,atlan, or rum► smew *EMA 'Dw OardngM Beach Now war sd}rd rated a ttsvmpapor of akwhttiam I*,todpe a. K. swvet to the supwkw Court dt drama►, C"Ifoeola Adiust 91''th,IW by aedar No. A4Wn. VT a� rt the amma k a pt{ Wd wW►, was pubDOW to raid trews• ; ppt at AMA .ODA Isom 1 >d tlta ,�. del► at i $ imd a dlnd ao the _ 3.. dray.of fJunw 1 o am kwludm ttad as awo ftrw Bald pertaa and tinrY *ft rta Bald ;&Per was 9*90!A iy wa in the { ae�of eftwe talus of at" pewatww prorrerf atd not In a mppipat"t. sm mW mW-m was pdaWad tbwWn on the tolkwIad dn1ft *gut 1 ."as 1222 H bllaber bWxmlhsd mrd sworn to bdL" ore thb w I0fib, day of .w Notary Pubttc Onav Cotmty, Caulamla 46 -�-.. � ��+MY rtiBiMs�lilwrffb i 7— f � Wtr C ►��� � �,� 1��_�r+�n �M �tM. v.r,n�•'r:r�..Md• �'. �," ' "t���'�' ��i,'�• 4'' - ��� .�M�' '�i``,,nr�II'k �� .�+i,,,�:,�.< ",�••�7Np,N'�'`1,`�' •''k',r�''• n�i. � ,. �" .. � '"���'������' � ..;•�� ,�,� � �M "� � � :' ��, '•r,i.�;e�"� •'�`'•t.�:�•� 'BRA^' " � � � � '�e� � �. , � � ., 4•w....���..��N ��,*f5�t•i�4. ► City of Huntington Beach d Y * pk. MAX iM �Ii4M�'O�NM � a A JUM 21, 1r.,Y Et,;` Mr. Lo p. mIDhAdIw 201 I'anrt DO_ Ik. S@hMkr t Oto city CONDOS of the City of ngta 264ab at its xOmmm tinq bold fthday, Jma 20, 1977 d•►ded the 1 wbuft pm ; had filed selntivr to Conditiaml MoNtiom 77-1. OM nUtzati" toaisw 77-". it we may km at Moisten" to 7=0 p1da" do not homitata to OQOtwt office. 8ir�alitnly �i w City Mork AM tr Aa I r y '•w , u r loop Os gabnder 201 Atli dtrset Ruftbinoon Beach$ California 92640 536-17 d .'r Xar 279 1977 A„ got a able Mayor and Sounall Kewbommal 9 a of Runtin on 29ash 0alifcrH,ia IL, . 0 ! an apreal of conditional excerption ; 7 daai by the planning as iasion. My Totter 1 to %boo enclosed an a part of tea-.-appeal. lCummarize br4pt 1 have a lot which is 20 sroater in area than a surd 50 fobt lots theref ora I would like to ��M►*"Ge. the site coverage and iving area W 20%* appeal is bared uR 10 ,adoquato provision was not made for interior sized late in the lwvnlot specific plan. 24 The sin gd the to,, 'Act area is bein� st•ereow '1 ss sgw ft+ ,6Ah little variatf.ono �2mW t iter dictates that where the opportunity its as alterw4* chases should na aide ANF is but Oaboices is So troodca at iw r = a" Torn► leer wa-a#andard sized Lots is the et area and tobdo use is bast oubtr gilled bar , matio al OtstptIon rather than by going to the , rand espdnp ,. ot` an ordinance revisi*n. V ag� Nt roe naaib of this city couneil to toW your AsesdioN tours tru]°r, ancloaure { i ..w ` r4: April 27, 1977 r M McMers of the Planning Comissi,on, City of R=ttngton Dosoh On April 200 1977 Condltlonal SZOOption No. 77-18 was dtnled by ° the &o&rd of Zoning AQvista nts • + ' "0 aonditloftl exception ims to a11ow an increase in site coverage and square footage of luring area on a nori-standdrd rise lot in a •, the 'owlet Sp*oifi.e Plan .Area One,, Section B. N ; The reasons for denlil were: 1: That the sire of nori-standard sots was taken into consideration in establishing the epee i flo Flax 4l 2. Granting of this request vould set an uandosirable precedent f; and greatly Inoroane administrative load. 3, surriaient hordehip has not been domonstpated, In essence what I have is a nonfAonforming lot of only ten foot In width fah to provisiona k for In !article 89354. 4 of the Townlot dpo6io Plan . M�y proposed solution to this in to combine it Kith adjacent • lots to provide a larger building site . This larger lot is sixty y feet in frontage and 20% greater than a standard fifty foot lot in the area. What I am therefore requesting is that the allowed site coverage r and square tootags of living area be increased by 20%. This asms entirely logical to me. if a man has a larger lot he should be allowed to build a larger house. In the fssidental Ordinance R-1 through it-4 throughout the city site Qoverago is spec iflO as':a percentage of the lot area. There Is AQ. specific Ifti.ts on 21ving area outside of those imposed by ' wits oa" 1 setbacks, open spaaa Muirements , eta. Yet here is an 'area where land is a vory limited resburce Cris to dented reasonable use of bls property In relationship to its+ slate. It It Itter+ally a crime ag Inst our chIldren to under-utillse Ole a�et�rse, dumb : z Page 2 1 April 27 , I17k 'I Nearly all of the builders in the townlot area are chaffing under the restriction of 1800 square feet of living area in each house . At the present time there are probably one hundred homes under construction wnd/or for sale in this area. If you want to live in this area you can have your choice of any size hove ,you want as long as it is 1800 A;uare feet . The home wire I live tacks up to this property . Certainly I would not propose any development which I would consider to be detrimental to the area. The proposed development incorporates an Wntt of approximately 2200 square feet on 35 feet of frontage of the lot which would offer someone something that wa8 a little iargeer and better than what is currently available here . The intent,3t ie to upgrade the area . Due to the increased lot area the open space and yard areas are greater than those currently available In the typical 1800 square foot houses being built . ,i To take tui extreme example : Suppose ,you lived in thds area in an 1800 square foot house on a standard 25--foot lot and the family next door owned a 49-foot lot a.croas the street . If they said to you, "We plan to build a larger house on our lot" wouldn' t you want them too Wouldn 't you feel that a. larger more expensive house wcaAld help enhance the value of your place . Could you in Rood oonscience say to your neighbor, "No , you should build an 1800 square foot house on that lot . " Even though it ' s nearly tt+ice as big as .yours. I submit that no provision was made in the Townlot Specific plan for Lots that did not conform to increments of 25M-feet frontage and the reason was that there practically were none . To my knowledge this lot plus the adjacent one which is built on are the only nor;-- standard lots in the area . There mkt be others but if so very Pew and I would 111ce to have them pointed out to me . This brings us tc the second reason for denial which is increased adcainistratioe workload . Obviously there aren 't too many lots like this since this exception has never been requested before . I believe this is a negligible amount of workload plus Vie very reason for a conditional exception is to handle an exceptional case . If lots of varying frontage had been prevalent In this area I feel sure the specific plan wouldn' t have been written as it is In 25-feat increments . As fan as establishing an undesirable precedent , if good land use ' in an undesirable precedent then we should have more of them and if this results in inoreased workload then I guess that ' s the price of good land use. As for sufficient hardship the minute the Townlot Specific Plan was adopted without making adequate provisions eor reasonable use of Interim sized lots it automatically imposed a hardship, an in4ustices on the owner& of such late Page 1 April 17 , 1977 I therefore request each of ,you planning commissioners to reverse the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjuatment and allow me to build aomething that will be gust a little bit getter. Pinceeely, L. D . Zehnder 201 - 14th 8treet Huntington Beach, Calif. 536-1718 L To ; City Council , Fla-i�ng Dept, From: Leonarx ,'Wright 6-13-77 City of Huntingtc Beach 606 ith St , HB 92648 Subjects bequest to uphold denial of CE 77-18 and AR 7 I--66. ©well. Zehnder is ne kind of developer we want 1n the Townlot. He seems to create good developments , In the 600-block of 17th, he ' a building 4 htraes each han a different floor plan. This is unique among EMI Townlot buildars. His quality seems very good . His points have some merit . :investigate ohanxing the ordinance . The zoning ordinance might allow greater floor areas . But we must be oareful not to reduce oemmon open space (we don ' t want almost, all of the open space taken-up with -roof-tops and balconies ) . Wfir` to deny CE .� $ and AR 77 66 1 . Sgell,itt out in the ordinance . Some of our density problems resulted from using Q 'a. Although that 's not a problem here , we disapproves of using CE 's unless absolutely necessary . It 's better to have the ordinance cover all such conditions . 2 . Potential abuse. Lowell Zehnder may very well do an excellent ,fob if he gets his CE . But if Lowell gets it , everyone else should. Some lessor built,mrs might somehow abuse it and come up with an undesirable development, There may be only a few suoh non-standard lots remaining in the Townlot. But there probably are nonstandard lote elsewhere in the city, If we give a CE for this purpose., others could argue that their case is just as reasonable to get a CE for something different. We could be opening a Pandora's box. 3. They„oNinanee consideredvarious-sized lots . Planning Staff say that the ordinance was designed to inolYvie a range of frontages for enoh lot. to do as Mr. Zahnder requests would trend towards the Land Use Intensity approach . Notes s Citizens much prefer the present zoning over the LUI approaoh. . A better way is to modify the ordinance to allow more floor area . 4. bialrust o5Luld result. If Mr. Zehnder 's approach were used, City Staff Would have to daleulate the allowable floor areas eta . for each non-standard lot* Errors are likely to result. Developers would ce.tch and correct any errors against them. But would they call attention to errors in their favor? If not, City Staff could Later be criticized for aoting in collusion with developers . It,wou d result in unnecessar-y work. Staff says that it would substantially inoreaso their workload. Similarly, we don ' t want to feel obligated to check things out in the Townlot gust because someone wantia CE. . � � r t eu � Huntington Hench Planning Commission lei P.O. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO : Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission ATTN�i Floyd G. Belsito+ City Administrator DATE: June 13, 1977 RE: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 77-18/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 77-66 -- APPEAL TO DENIAL j APPELLANT : Lowell D. Zehnder 201 14th Street #1 Huntington Beach, California APPLICANT : Lowell D. Zehndcr 201 14th Street #1 huntington Bench, Cal.-. •ornia LOCATION : East side of 15th Street , approximately 50 feet irorth of Walnut Avenue in Townl.ot Specific Plan, Area One, Section B REQUEST: To permit construction of a triplex which exceeds the allowable site coverage by 500 sq . f t . (or 17 6) and exceeds the allowable building square footage by 1 , 100 sq. ft. (Oar 301) . PLANNING CC MISSION ACTION: ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY NEWMAN APPEAL TO DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 77- 66 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 77-18 WAS DSMIM) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : 1. The size of the lots was taken into consideration in the adoption of the ordinance establishing the Specific Plan, and that is the reason for the varying lot frontages in the calculation tables for density and number of units a]-.lowed . 2. Granting of this request would set an undesirable precedent which world greatly increase the administrative load in the application of the Specific Plan Ordinance. 3. Sufficient hardship has not been demonstrated to justify the grantinq of the request as submitted. AY1s: Parkinson, Finlay, Boyle , Newman MOM s ASSM R Gibson, slates � 4 � F Veda � I }) Page 2 It should be rioted by the Council that the Commission as a part of its denial action instructed the staff to determine the ntunber of lots in the Townlot Specific Plan Area which were of unusual ss re and to forinu- late suggestions on - how to allow tor their proportionate development, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION s Tha Planning Commission recomme:r,ds denial of Conditional Exception No . 'i 77-18 and Administrative Preview No . 77-66 For the reasons enumerated above . SUMMARY ANALYSIS : Conditional Exception No. 77-18 ;-nd Administrative Review No. 77-66 are: requests to allow the construction of three (3) unit apartment building which exceeds both by the allowable site coverage by 500 square feet or 17 percent, and the allowable building square footage by 1100 square: feet or 30 percer+t . The exception request had been sought by the applicant due to the fact that they proposed site ha3 sixty (60) feet of frontage versus the more normal fifty (50) feet which can be found throughout the Townlot Specific Plan Area. The Shard of Zoning Adjustments at its Meeting of April 2'0 , 1977 reviewed and denied the development proposal because they felt that flexibility to the ordinance via a conditional exception was not the proper procedure and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship. The applicant therefore appealed this decision to the Planning Commission. The Commission in its review of the proposal also felt thzt the conditional exception was not the proper procedure for increases in site coverage and flour area based on a larger lot area and therefore , sustained the Board' s decision for denial. The Commission determined that since there are approximately 35 such lots in the area that the problem mandated a permanent and uniform solution. Therefore, the Commission directed the staff to immediately pursue alternative suggestions . The staff has com- ple Led its• research on the problem and will. be recommending a code artiend- mant procedure which will address the larger site area lots within the Spoci€ic. Plan Area. Should the Commission concur on this solution to the }problem, it is anticip6ted that the amen3ment would be scheduled for public: hearing within t-%e next 45 days . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The planning Cousnissior. held a publir- hearing on the matter at its meeting of May 17, 1977 . Mr. Lowell Zehnder, ::he appellant and applicant, addressed the Commission and spokes in favor of the proposal stating that he felt it represented a good land use. He also stated that exception requests were intended to be directly proportional with the excesses in the lot area and that he was therefore willing to reduce the building square footage exception down to 20 percent since the excess in the area was 20 percent. Thore was no one else present to speak on the application either in favor or opposition. FT' Ir T, Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The requests are Categorical Exemptions Class V. and therefore require no further environmental assessment by the City Council . SUPPORTING INFORIKATION; 1 . Area Map I ' x . Letter of Appeal i 3 . Staff Report Respectfully Wch tted, 4 M ward ID Se Secretary I i ` \ ` �• � �� .\�. SCE` \. All CO f Q $000 % ```��r `•` .``�` SCLL[ 1N FEET CONDITIONAL EXCEPT13N NO. :7-18 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 77-66 zone: Section "B" Townlnt Specific Plan Area One �..T+ac.ro�. �c►c ' HUNTINGTON REACH PEANIONG DEFT. i 1 c, i BOARD of zoninG AWUSTMEnTS J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX I"•97b48 MONK(714) 596-527: TO: !Tanning Commission FROM: Hoard of Zoning Adjustments DATE : May 17 , 1977 SUBJECT: Conditional Exception No . 77-15 and Administrative Review No. 77-66 - Appeal to Board of Zoning Adjust- ments ' decision for denial . APPLICANT: Lowell D. Zehnder 201 14th Street 01 Huntingtr.i n Beach, `alifornia LOCATION: East side of 15th Street , approximately 50 ft . north of Walnut Avenue in Townlot Specific Plan, Area One , Section B. REQUEST; To permit construction of a triplex which exceeds the � allowable site coverage by 500 sq . ft. (ot . 17%) and axceeds the allowable building square footage by 1, 100 sq. ft. (or 30%) . APPELLANT : Lowell D . Zehnder BOARD OF ZONXNG ADJUST NTS DECISION AT PUBLIC HEARING - APRIL 201 is'7 Conditional Exception No. 77-18 After a lengthy discussion on the request for the increase in last coverage and building area $a well as administrative problems that would' be created by having building area as a ratio to lot area and the arguments for and against the proposal, the following motion was made by the Board. ON MOTION BY PALIN AND SECOND BY SPENCER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 77-18 WAS' DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : Reasons for Denial : 1. The size of the lots was taken into consideration in the adoption of the ordinance est&bliRhing the Specific Plan, and that is the rr.ason for the varying lot frontages in the calculation tables for density and number cf units allowed. a. Granting of this request Would set an undesirable precedent which would greatly increase the administrative load in the application of the Specific Plan ordinance. 4 r, a. CE 77-18/AR 77-6E Page Two 3 . Sufficient hardship has not been demozis rated to justify the granting of the request as submitted. AYES : Palin , Crosby, Spencer HOES: None ABSENT: None Administrative Review No . 77-66 Th* Board advised Mr. Zehnder of the alternative actions which could be taken on this application as it could not be approved as presently submitted clue to the denial on Conditional Exception 77-18. i ' Mr. . Zehnder indicated his intention to appeal the denial on the Con- ditional Exoeption and requested final action on the Administrative 0 Rev1aw Application by the Board of zoning Adjustments . � i ON MOTION BY PALI11 AND SECOND BY SP8NCER, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 77-66 WAS VENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pax 1 in, Crosby , Spencer NOES : None ABSENT: None: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTR '_ RECOMMENDATION : � i The Board of Zoning Adjustments recommends that the Planning Commission sustain the Board ' s decision to deny the request for the increased I coverage: and increased floor area. SUWLARY ANALYSIS : Mr . Lowei.l. Zehnder, the developer, was present at the Board meeting and spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Zah:ider indicated that he felt that than 60 ft. wide lot which he was proposing to develop was not taken into consideration in the adoption of the Specific Plan I.rea and that he should be allowed to increase the floor area and site coverage on a direct ratio to the increase in his lot width and area over standard 50 ft. lot within tables provided in the Specific Plan ordinance. He started that the-plan submitted for the Beard approval was in fact in • error as the aresh.iteot had taken some latitude in increauing the square footage of their Wilding over the 20 percant for which he had hoped to obtain approval . The ftard then reviewed with Mr. Zehnder the administrative disaster That could be created should the City have adopted an ordinance to allow site covveraga, building area, and open space ca :aulations on a direct re,tic to lut area. The Board also discussed tiie fact that in 1973 the City had pursued a riwLiar type proposal at which time the land use intensity gating scale was discussed and rejected primarily hscause of the 84hNinistrative problems them could be incurred Lt the public counter E i CE 77-18/,AR 77-'66 Page Three as well as inquiries over the telephone in giving prospective developers the information necessary for development of plans under such an ordinance. It was also pointed out: that numerous people appeared before the Plan- ning Commission and apposed the rating system because of the misunder- standing &nd confusion created on what intensity of development could be anticipated within a given dist.:ict of the City such as number of 'bedrooms, floor area, parking , and open spac„ requirements . The Board also informed Mr. Zehnder that the City does not currently have the time to individually calculate all necessary information required by Land use intensity fcr each property to be developed within specific plan areas . Many of Mr. Zehnder' 3 arguments presented to the Board Of Zoning Adjustments are attached herewith in his letter of appeal dated April 27, 1977 , therefore ,. they will not be restated ir. this transmittal . ADDXTIONAL INFORMATION: One of the arguments made .in Mr. Zehnder ' s letter of appeal and also an argument made at the Board of Zoning Adjustment ' s meeting was that the restriction on unit size is tending to create a sterile type unit within she Townlot Area . The Board of. zoning Adjustments and staff generally concur that the square footage of the unit should be re- analyzed and informed Mr. Zehnder of this at the meeting . However, we do not feel that the proper way of increasing unit size for additional flexibility in the Townlot Area ws proper via the Ccnditional Exception application. If the planning Commission concurs with the consensus of the staff that the size of thi units '.s somewhat restric rive , and that additional flexibility is necessary to create a more desirrble unit within the Townlot Area, the Plannir7 Commission should infst,uct the staff to analyze and come back ' 'ith a recommendation for a revision and amendment toy the Townlot Specific flan, Area One. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: I 1. Area Map I 2 . Letter of Appeal 3 . Action of Eoard of zoning Adjustment j 4. Board of Zoning Ad j ustmants' Minutes S. Site plan h pectfull submitted, es M. pelin, rotatryt4C A l�irliit! 6AN/77 - - soon pink ftstedrdi 80 WTIC19 tW IKIC xw Appoal to Denial teinditi.aerunl �eoeptiaen 77-ii i Aftisnlstzative ftvlw 77-" WTICE IS HERZ5Y NVN that a public Mari% will be told by the City Council of the City of *eti%torn haobe in thg Cemmil Chamber of the Cynic Couter, *mtlntaa beaeihIp at the hwr of 7,3 . P.M. * or as soft tbonattat - a poasiblo v on the 20rh dap of • , 1p 7 , for the pub• of emu idering an appeal to the denial by tM ilanninV CoaeireiOn Of CoA itiOnal hxception No. 77-18;hdainiutrative levi+a no. 77-66, which area raquest s tO POs'Ni:: I the construction cf a 3 unit apartmnt building which eexceeds the perimiesibleb site ravorage by 500 were feet or 17t, &W which also exceeds the allowable building rq!_elre footage by 1100 square feet or 300, The subject property is located ern the east side of 15th ,Street, approximteily S0 feett north of Walnut Avenue in the 'Tarnlot Specific Plan Area One, Sertica 8. All interested popme a to ate said bowl" wad 4xmse tloir op atow for or swine saidNNW _ . ..a► ►i frfther i*riforaati4ft my be obtalml 9 do MUM or tift city clock. UFO aloft 4 , I 1J , IpIp All h, ` NOTICR To CLERK, TO SCHM11.},, PURL:C HEARING TO: CITY CIJM'S CFP DATE: Mal WJJ PLMn SM$D= A PL)BLIC HEARING USING THE ATTAa $Y'i LEGAL NOTICE POR THE DAY cap , 1977 . f AP'o are attached AP'S will follow � No APIA initiated by: Planning Co=zU scion PlAW.nq Dapartmant • Other � l Adoption of Environmental Status � YES NwrLer of Excerpts 40 Publish Once I, , LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE Of PUBLIC HL ING CONOITIat�A.L EXCEPTION' No. 77.-1d/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. i 7-66 APPEAL TO DENIAL NOTIC1S IS HEREBY GXV3M that a public hearing will, be held by the City Planning ::o=Xzsion of the City o �►untin3't�ln B11 Lhl, Ca►lifornia�, for the purpose of considerinAN g of Conditional Exception No . 77-18/Administrativea Review No. 77-66, which are requests to pvrwit the construction of a 3 unit apartment building which exceeds tha permissable sit6 coverage by 500 square feet or 17%, and which al.po exceeds the allowable building square � footage by 1100 square feet or 30%. The subject property Is located can the east side of 75th Street, approximately 50 feet north of � Walnut Avenue in the Townlot Specific Plan Area One , Section B. Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 � P ON 9 , on May 17, 1977 in the Council Chaarbers Building of the Civic Center , 2000 Maine Stxuat* Huntington. Beach, Cdlifornia. All interested persons are invited to atteni acid hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed Conditional Exa."ption No. 77-16/Administraetive Review No. 77-66 Furt",-er information way he obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephones No. (716) S36-5271 DATED this „th day of May, 1977 w CITY PI AOMING COM ISSION H j Y Mward D. Selich r Secretary G „ . Jto* 1 .311 25►•lam 23-160-02 23 ', 10 1�l1t�h Ht:+ RidWxd M fir Iph B oftn ' 305 .l..ii;h Stzwt F.U.. AM In$ 1691.1 DW&wd Lww "Mt iMb3n ilOW 1, GLII-f �t MZAIWtCM W03ho Calif 92648 92653 92649 24-02:ir-Il 4i-168-03 23-159-U Lads C sogajAcarr Ebou” .1� Devl;d 8 Anw.toaYat�Mprett 303 13th Strwt 1142 S m 8tr 623 13th Street 1i=tuvton Aaach, w r ice Anpump 0 :1,1f Himtinq t C . Beach, C" 9i1648 90002 92648 23-164-01 21-IWOO 23-1.'S►��13 Dana is Parodh 1W.7 8 1''M Imm" Robot X DxAmr. 1"XI. LkAmm tam April A fit► 1= tam mivo Axit iVton Mach,, MWi 1107 at Avemn Nam 8Nd*, C014 92641? Fb. Pomod", Coif 91030 90254 23-II A-0Z 23-16"S 23-LW--13 L rmald 1►l a�za�c iicpl ` C Aw'dwey ft eel Mtm< 222 16th► Swat: 1002 m PA 10469 Apado tjvw bpamn wrung amacho Caw 8wau Aw.0 W if rb mtiu wu y, CLuf 92646 927006 92708 23-164-Vi 2.1-1.68-•J6 1notmo ENwohy NmrJA 9 tbarinq of aI Titla U awmm i Uv t schwi mint 1724 Mkin St. t 160 rimer ubmet 770-17th Stwut IAmt 4xjtwn Doachl Cm 1' am ftwwdsaa, Cali t Hwklngbm Dwtob,, (W J 92648 92649 94x.0 Attm: TAStAct supt. 23-•163-05 23•-168-p8 Dept;. of ouqp C wtor at al a omw at al 120 8o* a rt 3;iQ 33trd St xmt 16451 14LIdAM CUCIA Im AnVol"l CALU 90052 mart MOM. ca.:if amtinqtm brook, C1a.Llf Attn Staff 92660 92649 Dmign S 4-163-03 23-169-09 !40 F l i Orange Omot t mit 00 12- �l�!'10th Stx t: P.O. � 1067 �y {d 9balBeach, CaLliJ. Wal� , caa 90740 92647 23-163--14 23-166-•10 Lv" l; 9t"rtt 353V tjq % &ate 605 Mdbe 102 *ittiwt Calif 9001 IaW Dmobe C KW 90907 23r-1b8-01 23-150-09 WACM " omoftm RtdWd 2 Mm 124 lath otm&t L D S-h-I ul 26�8� fir � 171 r Calif 92708 y 1 1 St, I Iri 1 � 24-031-01 24-43.'S�8 c ue A Mbrritt Jr Car 477.-18 Aj4val Bill litic 1W'171. parbQ14-1 C: u AR 977-" - 1 Attu; H. J. WhMr1 y 1XVIM, ca11f AP a typed 2y Jam P.O. a* A193 92706 ylowtci, wwo 77016 24-.031-02 2 31-09 24-0 9 3A 9 CSC 2211r.,�th street19381 �' ta� Lain8119�� et �1 Aintlrgtan Tech, Calif RMUMUS Bmah., w if DCM'y, OAlif 90240 '�1264E3 92646 24-031.•-03 Low►U D., beetarder 24-O31-1.2 24-03-5-10 Wi.afrW J Cane aOl 14th SUset #1 Diwmil Z elt" Ltd 2017 :1 remit o Placeukftjw-tm. • Coif Be* taf ANUiM IbIlywMd, Wif 926" M W 7th 8tmoot 90068 Un I� Cali! W014 24--03:+--04 �!-p3,1�1,7 24-035-lX I dwwd T C oraon T001.1 D Van Atta, unwU. D 227 "LAL a t 17172 Su to I otel art 292 Villanmft Ad WitLregt+cn Lowhe Calif ftRswn WLLey, ca." LIWA Dismal CM)J 92648 92700 92626 24-031-13 24-031-14 24-035--12 CI-xis Bovy mar P Wall at &I Ong" C Vto Atta IIA1 Haskerville Rd AdXW F g 20187 AdWXU Drive .1AwA Alaml tc , Calif M 4Ut Btxuet WboMmd 011-0 C414 W720 Newpairt honcho C " 92660 91364 24-031-16 24-035-01 24-036-01. AlftV91 J WaolitO admard J supernwi= Rwsa lA D IIlis 328 14th St eet UA loth Strrwt 120 14t4 Sit Apt A IAnatinMan Bowh, Calif ArAirgton Beach, Cali Hwtingbou Beach, Csx.if 9264a 92648 92648 24-031-06 24-035-02 24-036-02 hunt iayy m Wach rToperties I FaIr=u Auwrtin et al Gloat" umrad ert al 305 17th Street 5745 2 Mm 16931 8D]Na Chi" Street Itntirs7t-n thutc y, Calif 2Uwm, a4rimm 9xtbVtM 13e cho Calif 9264d 857U 92649 24-031-07 24-035--05 24-036-03 James A Vi,ano eic al Um V Smith at al Se ma Z Acdxas et al 24651 Poria AVesum naadti S WPLY CO am* of i0wift Ht & Se t-assion Viejo, Calif 2863 Whl" Avwao xR #7WS2322 92675 I=Q Bewhp Wif 90+806 P.o.n=16358&#". 1 24-031-08 24-035-M 24-036-*4 Angie Ti chw1w at a]. Xtaat a C11 co x Iowa Ire Aix t P 3951 3 f� Wive Ham, .t�1ii f 305 l7th Stzwt a dt r 210 Awt Wtan .beach, C&W 92648 PawAe r Cal t 91107 92U9 w.i f'!fir�',• •' R A N or 24-036-05 24-032-06 24-024-20 Jame m Rabawm at al Riouird Cb=mrto IAKxz H YMj1UqtXX1 Hxmon PW ntnr WACORld W LbOMW 1414 Clive Avenge 73 Argedo play P.O. Sic 724 Hmtincjtm Beach, Gil iP Il 1"V w--h, Calif 90803 ' �mu*inom fie, calif 91V 48 92648 24«036-OG' 24-�D32-�17 24-U24-]4 u� L Il tl�� al Oliva R b C7o" Ja R Fm 49U1 heiui Circle 1206 S FWL% arivo U783 Ebn Wive rrc�Qe► Beach, Calif 92649 , calif c red 040, Coif 92f►49 926U 92324 ' 24-r0,36-07 24-032--10 24-024-13 L%U D : ►rra r et &-1 YAM L Je tumor Wilfred D O'Brian 106 W 4tt► St Suite 112 213 13th Street Qramw CG Santa Anal Calif ItLOAM. 4M acb, Calif Ixvine, Coll 32664 92701 92"9 24-036-00 24-032-U 24-024-12 mi►ctue l J major at aY RLd L d P Rmhm atuis m otmit 333 Portland Circle 111606tD 1114mm" 2046 E 78th Stmot kb,v*Angtcm fiwt, CaLif 11929 Culver Blvd #3 uw hair, Cal j L4,A AtzpUm, 0 "ii.! 90066 90001 24-036-09 24-032-23 24-024-15 Goorp tlttc Uraim 1 * R Muttim Carl X 3500 W !M Blvd Unit 446 $ ,� a1 311 141h 5t�+llbt 1ny3.ew�ocx�, Calif 17002 &qftCtx* L 409fto eev#a, Calif 90305 14� ato Bomhc i, Calif 92649 92649 U-036-10 24-032-24 24-025-( 4 Helen 1; put y4LLuam A Laurem M 0 Tadmw at ail ' 23 Diann AVWUe mumba� i�JLiaa Island, Calif ____ B Starer 1502 T FLacec�ae A�xe� 92G82 1848 t�►ImW Drrive Lar a*, Calif Call f 92660 90001 24-G32-01 24-024-05 24-025-20 Nam G loach Stem R DI I I an ift"w P Sidi 2000 Pars" St Apt. 13 6081 Anraette Circle 1820 W c2rW4 Avwm C bst a r kt9a, C.a.1.i f } � i, Cif 1 a, Cali,i' 92627 92647 91801 24-0 32-02 24-024-06 24-025--19 ka4 L Il►u:ins City Of Datimom Beach Dwa Sick 855 Ll buraco Drive P.O. � 190 1220 W 9 11vmm l�il.lurtxm, wif �o BUMM, Calif Alha*=, Calif 92632 91"1 24 -032-03 24--024-19 24-025-16 Katta nine R Maigt John R $C*dWf PONKIfil l4aaeto Vbm)e R Kahle 1420 OU" St w t 1230 V2 8 GarfigM Av�l xan 210 14th Street &ate , Calif bona, Cal f Ilontimjtm Smach, Calif ki7faA 92648 91841 l rw. rA. Affidavit of Publication State of California Coun:y of Orange s$ City it Hunttzgton Beach Goorge l?'erquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of hventy-one years. that he is the printer and publisher cf the Huntington Beach Nam, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- Ushed in Huntington Beach, (>lifornia and dr-nilatMi !n the E,cdd Commy of Orange en.1 elsewhere avid published .for the dissemination r of local and other news of a general character, and has a Wna fide rubwdption list of paying subscribers, an-i said paper has been established, printed w-A published in the Sh,te of California, and Count,,, of Omge, for at least ono year next before the publication of the Best intrtion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not to devoted to the !ntetst of, or publ!sh.Q for We entertainment of any partleular class. profession, 'trade, caltina, race or denomination, or any number thereof. �(a The Muntinatan Beach JKrw was adjudicated a legal newspaper of Xwwrol cicculatlen by Judas G. B. Scovel In the Superior Court of CftrA s County, Mforn% Au" 27M 393T by artier No. A-5931. That the LBZAL fIC _ LT-AT, Or 'ATIME f k '! of ehicb the anwxed is a printed copy, was published in said news- ~ gaper at kart gnipireto commov4ag &wra the —AL -.. day of 1 , and ending on the —Z6U day of ri 19.22—, both bays Inclusive, and as often during said period mW tirrm of publication as sald paper was regulirly issued, and In the 1A" m and entire issue of said pewspa!ier proper, and not in a ent, a no er and Wd notice as published therein on the follow'.ng reo tavrit: � 61 19_ 72 , l bllsher ,'� 'i Subscribed and suvrn to before rage this ... _.-27ttJ1 day of r MAY -., 19= r �_� Notary Public Grange County, California .wr--.w------r- -..------I 1 ' "AWAE D. WYLLIE Mokfil Malt- lihe+rts i Mr C*M*W" 9WIM i si~ I. is _ 76 - 9- 76y r e,y �. • ► ,fir 'S r k City of Huntington. Beach * P.C. max M *AW6W00WjA erg GFFWA or 'r IR an, CLIkK f JUnw 13, 1977 i I` r' 1 Jahn Thamen � 21202 M-wli Lane MmUngton boacsh, Ca. 92648 War Mr. fteant The City Conttoll of the City of M•MUngton 1taeh, at its regular P"tri ng hall on Monday, wine Or 1977 t ` granted the appeal Mhioh YOU had Mod to the der►Lal � by the Plaasix* CoasiSsion of ftntati vv parcel Map '16-69 and Coaditioml awdetLan 77-03. +I further inlaxwetion relative tw �ooditions of approval ,I aey be obtained free Lhe flamLnq impartment, ®incezely yours, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk MM/rib/ee �{ `4F iI I 4 r4� I, M1 �k Vj ..rr .•rr.1VF,.� LET'M OF APPEAL 701 N1iIRI16C'M N HYAG g G rTY COUNC i L MR i JOHN TROMAS RIMA14DIM i WMITIONAL is cc i`Imf K0. .76- 0 TWATIVI PAFG71 W 76-69 i 1 f John Thomat a tha cifterr of the property locatod a- 7781 Glenco' in jWmt1ngtAw Dwwh and the undersigned neighborhood property owners appeal the docesion lanning commisaian. We request that corAltiona,l *"eptienr no. approved and that the lot me&swing 115 x 13.5 be allawod to be divided into 2 paremis 60x 135 and 55 x 135. ' The p2auing donartment atatf report and recommendation "hich was submitted to the Winning Commission on 1,-18-77 and 3-30-7? did not co-.Agin th"uCh *AA al*umte fac-ts. Accordingly the fWingo and analsis Mar* also f i oq' "Lts. The report did not detail the neighborhood lot si.ses, this deolepment of the a m and did not conelder the ,dust property rights of the wrorm amd the mder0guod, The consensus of opinions and votes of the pLAni,ng ewiaston reveal dirrergwnt lines of thought, It to hoped jW gwpAn sad Mats for appeal will be heard by more sensitive indlvidualn who At consider the pasty roc4nt and present neighborhood development in relatloo to egnsMe property rights. The propoeod lot split mould provide one more unit if iche property Mae not divided. flowerer the process of a lot split is not a special privelage bat is awallable to any property owner who can effectively atilise build- able opsoe aocosding to the general plan of development in the area. The l.at � sputa a" aevat#tagt with the lot sizes In thensighborhood and will allow offlatent, devele"wat maoxdi<ng to r 2 zoning and 1 i compatible with past rooaat, w d pnsoat development. "n lot split erratea are lot (3511 ) under the newly created 60' froatage O ge to this specific rariance from the cede a ca ditional ptie4 Is r*gfts!bd. tt is appamat the code was iaplem ated t �o a valtontity ad a standavd of development of -tap sisea p t4401y it those largo lwamt aMoveleped mow. nw 60' ordimnee de" mK ap lately apply to the specific area of development. The part &4041►t1p Mi amwent develoPment has set, a pr*04daece for developaent. Tha peat majodty of lot fronttrg+vs area order 60' and recent apartment develop- lures oer 4tX'. 4599 501 # sad 35' fv=tap late. There an v , � , r� appVcKimate:ly 122 lots under 60' 1n the area and only a handful of lot.. :-re over such fronUeea aad, those conalat of mainly 915' lots. Both the planning dep"tment and plaming eammission approved my property being split under the 60' frmta& ordinance, Thoy approved tha split of the i 1�' foot parti,el into 2- 57.7' lots. Their approval of the lot splits under 60 " and they lot ai+sws in -Nhe area being develped reflect. that such a 60' ordinareca d&so not approp7•iatexy apply 1h yhis area. The lame majority of dsyelapsent ;rx the a-r*& is on, lots under 60'. Further— ' more the majority of development is on lots under 57 feet (91 ). Across from the sub jeeeat site on G1eacoe 2 fourplev*s are built on 601 and 55' lots. East of the site an Glercoee a fourplex is built on s. 57. 5'lot, There are 2 fovrplaxwe on 60' and 55' lots cm Alhambra and 2 duplexes being built on ore y 61 ` lat. The majority of 11 " lots have b6en split into 60 and W Those 113 ' Lets which were xplit into 2 Y?. 5 ' lots have old dup?.exos or dingle fwdly r9siudences on them, An exception is that 2 triplexes were built on 57, 5' 1 As but these late were only 120' deep not 135' deep whs�h In the depth of the subject property. i ty request. .for a triplex -to be built on a 55'x135' lot and a fourplex to be Wit on a 60'xt35' lot to in keeping with R-2 Boring and area development, l hermore the request** lot splits ensure preservation of property rights amid property value of owners of 115' lots. Owners who own 55x135' lots in th+ area are allowed to build a triplex on the lot according to p'2 zoning. l The •lainium required sgwxee footage for ;L triplex i-� 6000 square feet. The square footage on a 55xx35' lot -to ,',425 and Is 1,425 square feet over the miminium. An owner who owns a 60x135' lot: In the ares in able to build i a fourplex on the lot according to A-2 zoning. The m1minius requirement In 8000 sq. feet. The square footage of a box 135' lot is d,100 sq., X*e:t, and is 100 sq. feet over the siminium. According to my proposed lot split and dgveelopwnt there will be a total of 1025 sq. feet avar the mixi.mium requir*ment. With very proposal for a lot split only one `-,+t will be under the present 60' Ordiranco. With the sunested lot kplit offe,rod ly the department and approved by tha planning eomissiou 2 lots will by under the 60 ' Ordinance, Purthermaxo, according to their grapo"I a 57. Sx135' lot would Akld 7,762, 30 sq. feet. If only 2 triplexes are alioxod to be built on theme late there will be an ex on@ of 3,525 sq. feet. This excess of square footage is a waste of valuable UM which em how* another unit per B-2 coning, With this proposal the planning department ued planning cowi.asion act to punish property owner,& waing 115' lots. Furthermore their recomamadation is prediaadial apinst sash property sneers Nnd does not allow then the erase rights an the majority of property ornors in the area. Their reecoameendetion shows little appmiation and wbderstanding of owners property rights and even prevents the owners from aemplyb4 with the already eexisitng R-2 Bonin, in the area. I M �A 1 I y. 3 ' a' I 0 w# 1 i 1 G � n 4' A' 4 r' i ILF are 1 a Huntington Beach Planning commission P.O. Box ft" CALIFORNIA 99948 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council AT"I rlcld C. Belsito, City Adminietrator FROM? Planning Commission DATE; ,dune 5 , 1977 REI CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 77-G3/RZ'VISED TENTATIVE PAV,= MAP 76-69 : AriPEAL TO DENIAL APPELUWT: John ^':coa+a► 21?02 Knoll Lane Huntington Beach, California AFP ICANT% John Tho-.mas 21202 Xnoll Lane Huntington Beach, California TAWAITIONI Approximately 148 ft. east of Silver Lane and on the north aside ref Glencoe Avenue �ttVST: 10 permit a reduction of the mini.nam 60 ft. of frontage by 5 ft. for one of the lots on a proposed two (2) lot division of lard phUNING COMISSION ACTION: 09 14OT-TON BY ; ATES AND SP:COND BY BOYLE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NU. 77-03 WU 1)BNIED FOR THR FOLLOWIt.G REMONS BY THL FOX-LOWING VOTE: ,lasons fox Venial i. The granting of the Conditional Zxception will conat.ituLd a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical xonp classification. 9, 1 nlicant failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship. 40as Parkinson, Finley , Slates , Hoyle 001192 Gibson, Woman, Shea UNINT s None rV, WT10 i SY, SATRS UD SECOND BY BOYLE REVISED TSNTAT IVE PAR= moo 76-69 VU MOZEd POR THE FOLLOWING REASON BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. the applicatlon is not in confornance with standards of the garb Ordinance. Am$ parkin4mg Finlay, Slates, Boyle Was Gibron, NMwwn, Shea ma`s r ..4ft Page 2 PUNNING COMMISSION RECUMICNI)ATlON : The Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional Exception No. 77-03 and revised Tentative Varcel ,Mali 76-69 based on the above enumerated findings. SUMMARY AN kLY S I S : Conditional Exception No. 77-03 and revised Tentative Parcel Map No . 76 -69 are a request, tc permit a two (2) lot division of land , one lot having only 55 feet of. +rontage in lieu of the required 60 feet. The applicant had previously filed the same request. via-A-via Conditional Exception No. 7 6-•10 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 76-69 , which were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 18 , 1977 . This Commission approval , however, modified the Adth of the lots by s..:ecifying 57 . 5 feet of frontage versus the request for one 60 f t . and one 55 f t . lot. The applicant, because of his failure to appeal this decision, filed Conditional Exception No. 77-03 and Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 76-69, in order that the Commission could reconsider its previous approval of the 57. 5 foot lots . The reason for the appli- cant' s persistence on a 60/55 concept is that it results in one additional dwelling unit on the 60 foot lot. That; is the 60/55 pro- posal will allow a 4 unit building and 3 unit building respec- tivaly, whereas the 57. 5/57 . 5 lot split results in two 3 unit buildings. The staff .recommended the 57 . 5/57. 5 concept based on the fact that all past legal lot splits were recorded as 57. 5 foot lots and that the applicant s request fails to demonstrate hardship and would result in a special privilege . The Planning Commission once again concurred with the staff and denied the revised Tentative Parcel Map Nn. 76-69 and Conditional Exception No. 77•-03 . This action by the Commission allowed it:a previous approval of the 57 . 5 lots to stand and it is this action to which the a plicant has appealed . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: w The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request at its meeting of April 5, 1.977 . The applicant , Mr. John Thomas, Mr. Bob Wood , and Mr. Ernie Milder all spoke in favor of the requeut. Mr. Reg de la Cuesta spoke in opposition to the proposed lot split. ENVIRDNKENTAL STATUS : The planning Commission ha;x reviewed and approved Negative Declaration No. 76-126 and recommends approval by the City Council , having found that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. a ;r • IIIIN , 4S' a a page 3 SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. Area Map 2 . Staff Report 3. Letter of Appeal Respectfully submitted, E;DWARD D. SELICH SECRETARY ohn 1K. Cape Senior Planner I i R I 1 � N "HOME L Kim zbl r o ANI TI OQ I`T1G Ir MARK LN. loo -:v _._{ �• f���4 �� � � SIL4'E k LL HIVIR an ,AI rL I 'i j l r staf TOt planning Commission . fiRO14: Panning Department GATE: March. 30 , 19717 RE: CONDITIONAL EXCRPTIOti No. 77-03 IN CONJUNCTION WITH APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 76-69 BACKGROUND INF'ORKATIOCis In December, 1976 the applicant applied for Tentative Parcel Map 76-691 Conditional Rxception 76-10 and Negative Declaration No . 76-126 , The Tentative Parcel Map was to create two (2 ) parcels of land from one existing parcel . The subject property has 1.15 ft. of frontage on the � north side of Glatcoe Avenue approximately 148 ft . east of Silver- Lane. Conditional Exception No . 76-10 was to orNp,Le onb parcel of. 55 ft . of fXo^;r&ge with the other 60 ft. as• permitted per Code . At the January 18, 1977 meeting of the Planning Comminston' ,the Com- mission concurred with the staff ' s recommendations and approved ■�' Tentative Parcel Map 76-69 and Conditional Exception No. 76-10 with a condition that the parcel be divided into two 57 . 5 ' ft . Iota versus one 60 ft . and one 5 5 ft . lot. On March 18, 1977 the applicant reapplied for Conditional Exception No. 77-03 in order to create one parcel, of 55 ft . and the other of 60 ft . The applicant is requesting that the Planning commission reconsider their previous approval and approve Conditional. Exception No. 77- 03 . RECOW ATION: The staff still concurs that parity with what exists in the general vicinity is two 57 . 5 ft. hots and a spocial privilege would consist if one 60 ft . lot and another of 55 ft . would he allowed . Attached is the original staff report dated ,January 18 , 1977 . The staff still concurs with the original reeon:mendations and flndir�gs . Attachmentst Staff Report on TPM 76-69 and CH 76-10 dated 1/16/77 Conditions of Approval for TP K 76-69 Planning Commission Minutes dated 1-18-77 (pp 8,' 9,, 10# 11) AP Map showing recorded lots --lop t, . . 4 .,•wr-ar ram+ ���r--. � �•. ' 1 q�1�r rr• rr •r. lww rrr�� 1 - � ( rN..�.ir- -r-f.til•.� �-Tr OF 12. I I' 1 No ilk it fA -� . 80 3 i • r.•1 rr ��14.111 1 .r•III,.v�� it 4A OZ oo ALLWA ..,.ram � � i��i�/1� (ARMrt�if0�lYM�hEr// �1 OLIO, ioa-22 • r , yµµ '1 I 1 G.I 11.1r� y . A huntingtm t-' -: �xtr Pkulning ck"rtnwnt .1.1port t Planning Commf t -;i. xi IMMI Planni.ig Departments DATE January 18 , 1977 r ' 4 DATE •Yt� 12/23/76 21202 Kn(A.1 iznt�, � 11untingtan Bead- if Ca M&NUAT,QRY ESSIN2 'i ATION : AM rox. 11149' o;i:;L of S.iImr G'. ^cis Avr�. �• I^i?I1 P!,,-,N TO ,t cIi v"Sion. of la!k, 1 . IN CONJUNCTION W I.IrIl CONDl'1110NAT, 76-40 P 'I 1rIililt� �: : 1�J._,_.Y'�f%Q•� Cl , i I, !.202 m iol l i.,-mc ! ! ii, ,t . kk lnta.t'l�,t..�.)n .:3c'tl, C: 1:..if. K'1�1, T10NI ).4F;' coast of Ln. -mrl on (:11� north sicj�, of „l)I�J):_ R2 Ulenzccx� Ave. x cction of tkh- G ,slip imtm tip?' of fro-':aQr: by ; r 5' i,.)r oric of trle lots, i . 0 GENERALINEOPMATIQN: Tentative Parcel Map No. 76-69 in coijunc.t-ion with Conditional ception No. 76--10, filed on December 23 , 1976, is a request to allow a US ft. parcel of land to be subdivided into two parcels, one having 60 ft. of frontage and the ottier having 55 it. of frontage in 114M of the 60 ft. as required by the Gr¢inance Gods. The subject property is located on the nortl: side of Glencoe Avenue's rrt OPP=XiMtely 115 ft. east of 9i.) ver Leine. , i f Y Y r page Two Tom! 76-69/CE 76-10 ! , 24 PRZS►ENT LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is presently zoned RZ , Medium Density Resi- dential, and is developed with an older single family dwelling and two small. *vicessory buildings. The property to the west is zoned A1, and io developed with a church. properties to the north are both zoned and developed as/elementary school Site . The property to the east it also zoned R2; Lnd is presently developed with a single family dwelling. The properties to the South, across Glencoe Avenue are .,oned R2 , and are developed with multiple units and single family F 4wel lings. 3* d GZNZRAL PLAN AND LAND USE., The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property for mediunt density residential. Therefore, development of the subject property under the R2 zoning regulations is in com- pliance with the General Plan . ,•j 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS r Negative Declaration No . 76-12,6 was filed on December 23 , 1976 in con- junction with Tentative Parcel Map 76-69 and Conditional Exception 76-10 . j Proper notification has been made for Negative Declaration 76--126 . and to this date no comments have bEen filed. The staff recommends that: the Planning Commission grant Negative Declaration No. 76-126. , 5 . 0 STAFF ANALYSIS : Conditional Zxception No. 76-10 has been filed to allow a reduction in the lot width of one of the proposed parcels from 60 ft. per the require- ments of the Ordinance Code clown to 55 ft. Tentative Parcel Map 76-69 will create one parcel of 60 ft . by 135 ft. which equals 8100 sq. ft. and another parcel of 55 ft. by 135 ft. which equals 7*_' 25 sq. ft. Under Article 916 (R2, Medium Density Residential) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, these two proposed lots will yield a total of seven (7) units, four (4) units on the V ' ; sq. it. parcel and three (3) units on the 74:5 sq. ft. parcel . This is based on one unit for E each 2000 sq . ft. of land area : If the parcel is not divided into two parcels and developed as one building site of 11.5 ft. by 135 ft. or 15, 525 sq. ft. and one-half of the street section is added per Article 932, Apartment 9tau.3ards, the total gross site is 18, 975 sq. ft. Under Article 932 , this site will yield six ( 6) units based on one unit for each 3s 000 sq. ft. of gross area. If Conditional Exception 76-10 is granted, it will allow thr, applicant to develop one additional unit ove. what is permittad without the conditional exception. Therefore, ndi.tional Exception 76-10 will, grant a •sp►ecial privilege. The 115 ft. by 135 ft. lot size is common throughout the general area. Many of the lots have already been divided into smaller building sitespaS Hcwevor, all of the lots that have been divided by recordation of a parcel map have been divided into two parcels Moth having a frontage of $7 . 5 ft. each. Based on this dimension, a 57 . 5 ft. parcel. would fir; r: r IN Page T ree TPX 76-69/CE 76-. 10 have 7, 762 sq. ft. and would yield a throe ( 3) unit apartment and a r tutal of six ( 6) units for the overall site . In analyzing the request, the staff has determined that parity with what exists in the general vicinity is two 57 . 5 ft. loots and a special privilege would consist if one 60 ft. lot and another of 55 ft. would be allowed . 6.0 RSCOMMEN DAT I ON : In view of the abi-We information, the staff is recommending that Teentativa Parcel Nap 76--69 and Conditional Exception 76-10 bs approved with the Tentative Parcel Map revised to reflect two (2) lots each having 57 .5 ft. of frontage . The staff offers the following findings ,and conditions for your consideration . I FINDINGS': (TPM 76-69) L . The Planns .ommission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find tha-r., the proposed subdivision alone with its design improvements is consistent with General and Specific Plans .in t:he area in that a . The subdivision of thiY parcel in;_o two 5'7 . 5 ft . lots will not j allow more units than is allowed if property is not divided. i b. The two lot divi.aiun of land rnd the development of two I, s triplexes is in keeping with much of the existing development in the area FINDINGS : (C.E . 76-10) 1 . This request will not be detrimental to the public health, safety , and welfare of the community as the development proposed upon 57. 5 ft . parcels is proposed at the samF. intensity as that of surrounding uses . SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (TPM 76- 69) , I. The Tentative parcel Map be revised to reflect two 57.5 ft. lots. 2. A parcel map shall be: filed with and approved by the Department • of Public Works and recorded with the OrLnge County Recorder. ` 3. Glencoe Aversue shall be ledicated and improved to City standards • + at the time t:ho parcels are developed . 4. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntingi.on Be&ch' s � ` otear, systese at the ti" said parcels are developed. ► Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach" ss sewage system at the time said parcels are developed . 6. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcels are developed. 1 w . 1 ` �n f, r ages 00ur '•�r : TPH 76-69/Co 76-10 ' 1 1' 7. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances. I. The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district at the time said parcels are developed . 99 A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Department. 10. All trees over 6 inches in diameter or 6 ft . in height shall be retained or replaced at a ratio of two for one. 11. Reciprocal drive easement shall be provided between the two parcels to provide vehicular ingress and egress For both parcels over the common drive . .w SMB t gc r s, . rip.•. ..w ... V OF HunTlf) 4 fon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND f1VVIRONMEI4YA(. RESOURCES P. 0. BOX 190. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA OMIS 47141 536•5271 TOs Planning Commission s Department of Environmental Resnurcos DATIS s !iUWZCT: Negative Declaration No. R A PL CANT: John Thomas UE�Ts To permit a two ( 2) lot division of land and a conditional exception to reduce the required lot width from 60 ft. r to 5s ft. WCATION: The north sine of Glencoe Avenue , approximately 115 Ft. east of Silver Lar:e 4 � r Negative Declaration No. 76-126 was posted in the office of the City Clerk on January 6 , 1977 and as of January 14 , 1977 no con►ments have been received as a result of this public posting . � Recommendations : The Department of Envircnmental Resources rncommeneAs � ME t e F tinning Commission grant Negative Declaration No. , h,avinq founts that the proposed project will not have a significant Adverse effect upon the physical environment. No environmental impact report has been prepared for this projoc:t . Findings arm based upon the infonnatid.n contained in the negative declaration request, the public posting and subsequent preview and staff discussion. A/ cope Wit. of Environmental Ptagources old Fi. r,i .ab, Huntington Reach Planning Commission PA P.O. Box ISO CALIFORNIA 92446 t TBNTATIVB PARCEL ASAP NO. 76-69 Applioanta John Thomas 217.02 Knoll. mane Huntington Beach, California Requests To permit a two (2) lot division of land Location: Approximately 148 ft . east of Silver Lane and on the i north side of Glencoe Avenue Date of approval : January, 18 , 1977 FINDINGS : The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Heach dues hereby find that the proposed subdivision along with its design improvements is consistent with General and Specific Plans in the area in that : 1 i 1 . The subdivision of this parcel into two 57 . 5 ft . lots will not allow more units th,=n are allowed if property is not divided . 7 . The two lot division of lance and the development of two triplexes is in keeping with much of the existing development in the area . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Tentative Parcel, Map shall be revised to reflect. two 57 . 5 ft. lots . 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public .Works .anc, recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3 . Glenc;ve Avenue ,shad be dedicated and improved to City standards at the time the - parcels are developed . 4. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s water system at the time said parcels are developed. 5. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach ' s sewage system at the time said parcels are developed. C All utilities shall :)e installed underground at the time said parcels are developed . 7 . Compliance w1th all applicable City Ordinances , y I"iI�;x4CM� J 2. /rt ` TENTATIVE PARCEL MAR NO. 76-69 , Page 2 ' 8 , The property shall particip,-H.-c in the loc,il drainage assessment a district at the time said parcels are developed . 9 . A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Plan- ning Department . 10. AU trees over 6 inches in diameter at a 6 ft . in height shall be retained or replaced at m ratio of two for one of a minimum w; size 24 " box matsria.l . w 11. Reciprocal drive easement shall be provided between the two parcels to provide vehicular ingress and egress for both parcels '. ovar the common drive . ' + hereby certify that Tentative Parcel. Map No . 76-69 was approved by the Planning Commission of thu, City of Huntington Beach on January 18 , 197? upon the foregoing conditions . and Jr D ,91 e 1 i c Acting Secretary a W;, j t + i + op • / PA.' 01 n JUM kv ZWATM FARM NO 76-69 IGii 7 7-03 s ' WT CE IS Xt' dim that s Iio beWINS will be grid by tW , 1:031 C it of the titer of C1r sr of tho Civic Center, Iatiagtca Msebe at the hook of E' P.M. , or as oo= thereafter possible, an tloway the .�, tray of Auto , 1977 , for the Papua of 440140A" an appeal to the denial b9 the City Meaning Comission of Tentative ]Parcel Map 76-69 and Conditional Uneption 77+-03. gold hearing woo opened on Si1W7, bowev r due to publication of the incorrect Conditional Exception anober, the Comcil directed re-publication and re-aotifioati+ou of said hearlag. Temp, iye fsrral Mee 76-69 to a request to permit a two (2) lent division of land pursuant to Set ion 902i of th* tI ntington beach Ordinance Code . C„, „iti�lcceRt i' g 77-03 is a request filed In coaJoaation with said division of load, and would permit a reductiou of the aiat� 1 60 ft. of frmtsge by S ft . for me of the lets, in lieu of sectiou 9162 .2 of the tipdnetwon nth ordiname Code. "a doWK11 will also be considrrind the approval of Negating Declaration #76-124 foe for 7►aJftt, Which Will be a f wlag that the fa'a0 anad pro jert aril l Uot " a 0*40 6tant:ial adverse la+Wt upon the euvironomt. Th-4 subject pr-+"rty is legated tsly 148 ft. wwt of litter Lens and an the north.studs of Glaista* Avesm $it the 0 (lirdlo w Do sityr sss Sdkfttial.) piwtric t. 6" &W copy of the site plan is at file is the tlowlM Dffiar. WOWS ar WSW to attwd said b"WU* eft 91�+DM Iron or 'locust fold 02=1 sod for dw art mpVV sf �r ��iae'�ratiall and1Wabto►!�d fry tW '!' of ti�►!e Detlarat fan. city It# (714) 134-1226 �- 17� TV O ULM x loe rti�* �.a � V Am J air 11'6 rumn=, SP Ci IS t GIVO 1"As Woft will iir 60W by do , t etty COWW i I of the *icy so Cy r of Cbe Civu Cee • r dul bow od r ear IMSoog � � 1ANWAV 1 ti .� day dowfibb.S 4ft an , ananeal to tW dmW JW w. CL 91##Mwzr tiai .� racca 1 MV 74-69 Ord 07adWorrl a Z of e "31 Of dW a �riquar c to prx�i t two ! ) Irk �i1ar bird Mun+tingto�n Brach, offa aawn i xra+{ 1; �LLnt in con jrwction with said divisioa at I=& ire W%W Pusit a lra0-11iOt.# 1-A of tbe WAiM 60 ft. of lr"ta96 by 5 L"t. EM Bpi 41 WO IPW• li LL" 99 0MUM 9442 of 010 Suntingtan Brach orrdinam" C &C *4 Commi.l will AkUO be PowidnUM Aft L 0d 40"t,LVO a3iBBtti�w �7M1 i got the project, Arid► will ba • UrAip tkat dw Sri ts+rjovt WILL st kw a rwwtential adverse LB pk* thM soy "Au an 4460ft PC " 4n i+o MU4 apttasinately 146 tt. MWt off' "IV" L409 id ON WW rain Bm o! GUAM* ii em" A Mvol dtr 4wiption ad oVy oe do i4trr VUw sa do We Am the PUMOAM9 10iW 40 seem oam # of "d l�arr►� nrrir .firs0 the *I deed t" lit limb . =wad AP Two I go lam /1 4 i i• r MI L 'tf • 'i , .,r 'r t ;Z. i; Publisher! HurttlnOW Beach News, Mal► by 5 ft for one of the bh, In Neu Or 25, 1977. Section 91&21 of the HunUr4r arl Beach NaT141t OF PUBLIC NEAR l c, Ordinrnoe Code. fi AP!aM TO 011HIAL OF TRNTHTIVR 'rho Council will 8410 be W"MrinB thfi PANC[L MAP 7f 100001TIONAI. approval of Hotet+ive Deoterst:on *74125 I EJ(CRP1tION 77,v7 for the project, winch will be a flndln5l MOW I Ib HEREMY GIVEN tftst a public that the proppetrd project will not heave � hearing will be held by the Olty Council a substantial adverse impact upon that of tt+re City of Huntlntton warp, in less environment, The sublW property Is +,I CvvmH Charivbwr of the Chic Center, totaled apprend only a It, wet of Huntington Beech at the hour of 7134 Glencoe, Lane end on the nsrth skM of P.M., or me own thematter as poeatbM. Emnsil a Avenue ) the it9 (Medium on M�ond*y the bth day of June, 1917, 17enelly Aes{dentieq DitrtrtCt. far the purpom of considering an appsal A legal doscriytlon rnd emy of the Wis to the doniol by taw! City Planning Coat- plan Is on file M the f lenni, Y C?OW- missinn of Tentative parcel Map 76-59 rpent C4fIm. and Coo itio:W Exception 77-03. Said Xi interested peranns are Invited to hearing we-, opened cn 5/1s,77, h3wover ettend ssid hooring and expresa their due to publication of the Intxrect Carldi• opinions for or againet wit a"eol and tional Fxreption number, the LXi;ncil for o• agninft approval of said i ogaUft dlrected wpubllcst'on eiod re•natlficAllon Deeieretion. of said hsoring. Tootstive Parcel Map Further Inform-illor, may be obWned j 7609 is ■ request to pbrrnit a trv� (z) from the Office of the City Cierk. (714) ' lot divlslotl of land pursurr.' to Section 536.5225. 9W of the Huntington &,:ech Ordin*ncb DATEUr May 19, 1977, rode. Conditlotat Exemption TT-91 is a regn.est filed In conlunctir.n with said CITY OF HUNTINOTOfV emm divislon of Iar>rd, and would permit a re- fly: Alicia M. Wontworth auction of the minimum W ft, of frontage city clwtc w r n � ii� CT f 1}t�"�� i '�• � � ^-^-ter•._._ _�.�..r ,�, ,,.,� �,. _ _ � t r A �R r 1 r �'iliTliA , }r ee11� .r. i 1 t i r r<• ti'c;T a t' iL- ;Y.• , f 1, ADN1INISTUTION S. 9880 +w�w�+.//Mi .i yrM yr, ARTICLE 988 APPEAL (9721 1227, 1230, 1656 - 7/71, 1830 - 7/73) APPEAL BY APPLICAM OR INTERESTED PARTIES. Appeal may be made to the City Council from any decision, determination or requirements of the Punning Comaission by filing notice thereof in writing with the. City Clark withia ten (10) days after such decision cr determination or requirement is made. Such notice shall set forth in detail, the action and Svounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deem himalf aggrieved. (972) S. 9881 CMUNGE BY CITY 001TNCI1,. Tice City Council or any member thereof may request in writingwithin the test (10) day period for appeal, a hearing before the City Council to consider any decision or requirement of the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall specify in derail =he reasons for the appeal and the hearing on appeal shall be limited to such specified reasori. (1865 - 11/73) 5+ 9882 REPORT. The City Clark shall report the firing of such notice to '-he IFIlign-Ing Commission and a written report shall be subminted to the City Council by the Planning Commission or shall be represented at the hearing. The party whose decision, determination or requirement by the Planning Commission is uptm appeal, may submit a orritten report to the City Council for consideration. (972) NOTICE. The City Clerk sh411 give notice of any such appeal to all owners within 300 feet of an property on which an appeal to ., property Y P P Y PP 1 the "Ity Council has been filed, To .cover the expenses of such notice, a $ 75. 00 fee shall be paid by the applicant. Thia notice fee must be paid at the time notice of Appeal is filed. Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that a filing fee is necessary if the appeal ie i4ede by a member of the Clay Council. (12-27) So 2fi$4 AC;'rION ON APPUL. Said appeal shall be set for hearing within thirty (30) days, or longer, if requested by appellant, from the time the mutter is received by the City Clerk, together,• with that necessary fees. Upon the hcarlr4 of said appeal, the City Council stay affirm, overrule or modify the decision appealed from and enter such order or orders as are 4n harmony with the spirit and purpose of applicable provisions of Division 9, wit' . aasons stated_ In rasea of appeal of matters relating to conditional exception- the Cbuucil shall, prior to affirming the grant of or reversing the denial, of a conditional exception, mks findings of ffict in support of and relevant to the hardship standard. Meposition of app"Is by the City Council shall be fia,.al. (1230, 1656 - 7/71) S._2185 ISSU NC$ Of PERMITS OR FNTIMUMM PROHIBIT20. No permit or •ntltlemat shall be issued by any department of the city which pewit or ♦ itlawnt Is issued purevinat to any administrative procedures or 'aearfnga for which an appeal pari d is provided by this code, pending the expiration of such app"1 parLod or the final detemination of any appeal filed pursuant to this code. (1830 - 7/73) i 12/18/73 1, fN- V Affida-vit of Publication MAW ar CAM49WAI O"Mtycc city of Huntimeton Ht+ach OvarEt 8>•MWwr, beans duly sworn an oath, cayw: That he is a dtIM CC Se United Sgtata, Wier the aloe of twenty-one years, Tbltat be is ttw prlater arW publisher of the Huntin•;ton Beach Nrws, a weddy nowspsper of genwral C''rculatlon printed and pub- lhlwd in Huntintan ftwh, CaUfornla and circulated ley the aai I' Cmwty of Orange and elsewimm wW published for the dlsseMIMU at bail pad otter news of a general Character, and has a bona de RAMO'lptim list of subacribevs, awl said paper has n srtabilal%4 printed sat d ubllslied to the Stare of Califon, and CbLmty of Orange, for at east one year next b,,:ore the pub cmtfon of the fist Insertion of s notices; and the sold newspa is not devoted to �t Interest of, published for the entertainm � of any l particular eLiae, prolusion, de, calling, race or detta>r nation, or ate number tdersaf. y 71* HuntlAoan Desch t4 wsat adjudicated a le newsrpper of Smnul eirculation by Jud G. X. ScaYvel in the upthrior Cot,rt of a tnq►, C�IUornia A 27th. 1937 by zr No. A-5931. / p i . - -A0 - 4C which d* Omwxed is a printed co was published in staid news- ri`ps at least _•..nne aft'MM03civir from the --IL--.—_ day of 19M., and ending on the . '1.IL- day of Jva� ` II . 1 .. Wth days ina lusive, and is often durinIued, said period and � tWws at publication as said paper was regularly and in the regular Anal entire issue of said pawspaper proaer; and not in a suppbmeat, and said twtloe was paUlshed therein �1•,the following ta`data% idt: \ 11 Publisher R 8alswoUbed womm to Won tre •%ls 61h clay► ofMAIr � Notary Public Omnse County, California +sN C,uMy wr Div if. 1e7/ � I 4Il hM i• r- X,4 yr • ohm k 1� CITY OF HunflnGTOfl BEACH r DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOLUU; ► P. 0. 00)( 190, HIINT:NG1*GN BEACH, CALIFORNIA92648 (714) 536•5271 S/A r TO: Honorable Mayor and City (20Unc i 1 FIROKs planning Department VATS s May !Of 1977 Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator `y. i CONDITION►AL EXCEPTION NO. '7.1-03/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 76-69s i; APPEAL TO UENI hL i They appellant for the above referenced applications inadvertently referenced the exception request as Conditional Excepticrr, No. 76-10 instead of Conditional Ex0aption No. 77-03. Consequently-, the public notices of they pending appeal contained the erroneous number. The Staff, therefore, recomends a continuance! can the appeal to the City Coancil meeting of June 6 , 1977, in order to allow a renotif3.cation process to be completed. Recowmendationt The Planning Staff recommends that the appeal on Conditionai exception No. 77-03 and revised 'Tentative Parcel Vap No. 76•-69 he continued to the June 6, 1.97 meeting . Respectfully submitted, &dwrerd D. e i ch Director EDOIJINCIS .j FF � i' r r- f Y• ru....��v •� � � r I •� c N PHONE L 0e11A ` r I � f ' ANITA ' Ar'� CDCD r m i r �► _ �_ ' I 1 MARK LN. S N �+ .010 ILV LIP 49 • � � UCH � � .� �1 w fCA ew _ 1 KIV39 IrL 10 I ' I W • 1/ 1 1 f]d ��;, :-ram;;; �• .: 1. � tl�_ 'a r 0 rt is maw w ear . v� � err �► r , City- Coil of stir City of At I .dke Gftmgi Was 44461 or ew mm, t as Able$ as ear am t pum I of, M an apVr" to tho &. IV 00 et 9 " r etat euv* t r1 7"9 &ad gotAit DW ��' * ,��■tt�tlrrn 1 1� 7�i�i�� � Is 9"16"t to puoit 1% tp o (i) &ft "VWOM 6 I"d .musmak 904um 9rn of dw i�uj�tinpti ►n as AA i op Dwelt CLUM in am jwwt!►on rith said diviei+ol� tt 1 i A t ptrsM tr • s totl�aA the trtnst Go ft, of dtont&g0 by 5 ft. NM ft* 09 W* •1, AM liM 09 #tMMAW 916:4 d of ths NuntLav%on coo. um Council will Also be ~Idwbw 'the evoceftl as maptive Deahs SUM OW126 !or tm pro joct, Which will be a !ring dwt *0 pgqpwod p"jam Mill cat haw • substantial advorsa inmat tFn the iavinommt. US stbjarrt PNOPWtV iA lo►s&tdd approuLmataly 149 ft. "at of dilve Yaw And on tha aide of Gloom" hvemw in dw t2 (Hadiuw Daanitr ftWLft ►t&Al) tllAtsiot- A Lanai dsseription m d copy of a site wits is an file is the riirnoi t OffLos* . I All interOred person We 1r juw I* ittad fei'd b4m OW =Ple s their fee 9r 460jbmt 0e14 � � �`� ;w► itwftt rear my be to tv 10 CK99" oil +fir City I CAS , - ( 714) 3 36-5226 1i77 I,i i ii M1 u. . ry n• , + ';•.< J;�i �;r' to CLM TO PUW 1TC MBAR*may mmup A I't suc mmumG vsiva us Armam tmAL Nmcm FR v DAY ON 19770 yff Ap O$ am attached Ar's will follow + ' No Ap ee>. a i l+•. Initiated bys ` planaing Ct 4 Seiau PlanAng Department J. MIMI Other Adoption of Bnvironmintal Status # S IUD E �f � Alple VAP* IV aiman =%Poe COW 90M �i! d . 0 Chli "MAINGWO, Cam! 93"7 9 U647 •.,.mow L 7M mar L ao�a�v Sam f 47 7791 AUntm Avoca �I t par t.. eel � >q� DUM&O Calf 9*7 93447 93647 1WU" +; . 142-302-38 VVAOAo QILa �' &] Cww 93A47 93647 9 /7� � "2401-05JMW 143*- 14Z-1 1 ts 7").�(�sme Air►�em 7542 rotow Vale S moms 721 � tA>�U� Bwrseli, Calif Cal 47 Cal I 9"ob f Oldif 92"8 142-101-05 141-102-U 143-102-40 (Ail*1rWO M OW at &I amaw u I&ONt" old �T f 2"%!6-- sf 4uld 1052 71 Q Alholm Ukdt 3 o�ad, Cali! 90712 9247 9�47 suc ' f 143-101-07 142-1 13 143-102-4I 92647 ftec*4 Calf %Mt( Ndd&, Cali mmu �� f � 142-102-01 143-102-U 143-102-45 3tOLubm Wat at al 0=4 R M" BMW L pia M2 Glaxm Mean 7037 Alhmdit Awso s low Fall Rivw Ct HmtUqton bwah, Call f 1tIi 1 Assicht CLu.f ftwtaiY wuwr CR)Af 92f r 7 92"7 93700 I *•yF/ .i Ali:', 4-1 ','i ,,;;F, fl a l Ct 1- +r+h '` I + ' NMI) K c swat 2 UldW gr 'E •' 7 7732 OWLietft Uw Mire 7 l ) •, r ftuto i OMM an samcut Cal OW MO NIW7 M 160 0LMommo* A1 � � WdAckm d 71m, MwihiW ftivo ow"MAD a ! FOR ! " • X 7" t1119 , Mm kiftift Mis $ � 7 97 so ODOM$, 0" Z:s=l D"dho C031 11 92617 1 z 9 7 92"7 92"? 42403-06 I p4twt M Amp jamm A 1� Jw c 7 P.O. L Boo Call 7 7 m eta B=Cb. CMIJ 92617 M2 Albmd xa Avum 76" Ali MOO 16412 Larva i luatiMM 81■ffiah, CALL! 1. C+alIII Calii � 7 92"7 92"7 i 142-403-W 142-2WU 142- 1A JdW V Mod 3x IOAbmd L VIII� C VA"Ah r► 7�. 2 1111 a Am" lid MM* Imm � lkg*l POP�' 7 y �! 9 al;omQom## erg, Cali# 92"7 i t k.p Y „l l c VAN a!w r r ry 2 wit p� t soft at CAW COW C431C OU47 u3s, suvw IM" � 1 cluu 143-20,20 mil' »'safth Yn"1 �t.A.— all i 9�7 142-Z63-U 97 axam N Alt �,� �,XU � � ova caw � � � . 92647' Boa*, 'tea wit 9U47 142-Z84- 142- U 76 t+ i S w t a wit trivo 92"1 BNM*4 Ceti! %&d In IN MEMO C auf .�6d 7 W Ir �'�p�..� r •`���T•'�k, r•+.1�'• Itir�r./�..� u n N� .. 1 �� � r � � J�` : d rr'r� 31, M. PITY OF NYINGTON AEACH P.O. Rpx 714 ;�'' N�1MlTiNOfON •iACN, CALIFOI�11� "oft. , 171 41 E3i 1w111 � r CITY THASUPIR - WARREN O.MALL Of". 1961JI140 DATA A IVrfIVEa FROM ADDRESS ......_.�_._.. " ��..w wni i L=".L ��i�w �.��. ��fCJ' Lrr'rrwwi ■ ...�.�.�.. 0,01+ y' .I rl fr•. r AMOUNT RICILIV$O W�', AIFC�IVlO wy • i ACCOUNTOV A#Mp1JNT r �•: +wrw�wrrw.�.I��w.nw MAL IVY. 75082 cu �- rw f; OAoo 66 r o- e. VIC + K• r !Aar +� 4 war., i J � S r r + w � r l� •1 r J 7fi,'' awl 1',� ��W. r �,. + , >,'`� ^ J' j" r �r •k' ' , y�iy 1 • '•11� +�S ��c �'pW'11n t+i V' �; rh 1 . ., '1✓ !'{p I.JIB,tJ'� Jr � , •r `' ,y F !'IMin��� �� '�•`�,l' AlfiMa�i>zti..n'" '!`",` ; ' •. . , r '.il 4. ft" ft010% OW by f ICr 00 of 10 IMsa on NMloo`f ` or AN"0111111111111111111 co" 11111"Ift 4W TWAT" "M 0GUM11 VAR Mao be aaaldelint tbn do t1i,It fAf1lTiYiIAL aka Me 1 of pttva De�lar A*1 *76-1f :•, " : IOfI 71144 ibr i prolhit, wMoh wfil be a RMP.8 y r;r',S' • got VA Mep�ssed propet will not how NO'�IM Is NOMY t� ih# a pnrbfis NMratsrN�M rWrerse Ir W 1, vpOn this w•;' f !♦fly we be "M by ow wwwon"twhL T'!ra subjed proowtv Is Ism fsoaled sphltWnW*Y 148 ft. Met dI ' �Airlei) CMMINdri► of 1h� ChNO Q MGM, t#Il w lane and on Wo iwO side of "rrrtiwlan SON^ M of Iwur de IM Olwtwo Avw";i In On fti IMOMUM r,M Or M Won #04NNsr M p W4bh, ganrtAr Raa�dantlal� d �. rn yr 1M rd dth diV Iof Jwnb iu7 A Mel drwhifton and aW of tha aft 1 *a U al IN tfrt City MMnl plan Is en No M ow MWWN Depsa ` MUSIM of Tontolilw PMM Map 760 ment Olt oe. and Oenhttianat lxdaption 7741L 3W AN Interested parsons we inv1W to hOoft Male opened on 0/16/77, however *ttend hold he" and maws *W On b of the Irrnr+orrW *WI- 01w"iare tror or sp nst said appeM MW c tww a numw Use CrlUawit for " arinst aWme. of add N"Mvo rid+ ?, dks►olsd ne publhre!'40 anti rwnaWkelkM Dsrerirwtlan. of MNI h1r1+In11. T Pool MN► pliftsf iMorwrtion WAY be eblYnsd 7hN Is r nouert to parmft r bwD rfI "am the ONION of MO DAY CMrta. (7241 n�;': M 4INI loM of Land p muent to &MUD" y-SOL "a of at Mwrttnpan Mich O MM111006 DATM Wy► ill, Mr q gods. evedoMaosl dslwlNlr 71-A Is a re4usat flled in oonjunation with said CITY or MUNYINOrm B ACN dhdoion of land, and rroeld PO N! t rid ay, Altols M. Wentworth .ydudion of Wa wAnhv*m 40 ft of frvngs pV Olerk L 41 • ti 1� 0 `11 * 0F HUnTlntViOn BE ACH• �. .:. IDIPARTMINT OF KAHNNG AND MMONMENTAL RESOURCES i ,. , �, ra:��°� , . . l�i�►S�1�i� Co�htilleice: 4e 6`torit of shvi�ntal benoaroes • i Negative p#Cll►rltitiop NO* Thaft" i To petmit. a two (2) lot dLvi xion of land and s conditional excepz ion to reduce the inquired lot width from 6o ft. to 33 ftf M : The North aide of Gloncoe Avenue * approximately' lli ft. oast of Silver Las* a bs i cleration -No. 76-126 was ported in the office of the City i desk an January 6, 1977 and am of January 16 P 1977 no cents we bud received an a result of this public posting. 0, jgqMdgti9nss The aeparef ent of Unvironmental Resour'" 1 ann erg camLssion grant ,Negative Declaration .,. ' • bew foudd that the proposed p� ajd at will not have a !Sf`�►�Y+ ftk adverse effect upon the physical enviroment. No envi 0414 has been prepared for this project+ 101ndings ar t1�r infortivn contained in the nsgatirre declaration r , 116 posting and subaequtnt review and staff discussio�,. �? n . ope . t. of Snvirommental ftenour"s =9d f�' f c Fti t r e x 7 rUNW& with all 6OP110016 city Ordiran#ar,. 2prepWty hhsll postiaipate is the laavA drainage amea dt 0801 t at Oldt# "id r 00,1s ato dovela ed. • 1�, v .tthe rao t+dod il, be fi j*d with the Planning . All son Mot i iriQhvs ` 61 Csr 1 ft. in height shall be Ojr goplaaed at s ratio of � for an*, 1* hwlpotral drive assammt rhall be pravifad between the two r� o�i1�r id* vehicuAP"ar iraaa and "rose for both parcels Fv i i V6. A JKlI( 1 Taro i PRBdpiNT LANA U6R NR J 2 51 K2 ' "W subJect trefort i s presaptly soned R3 , Medium Density Resi- *MU a" a velar with an olden single family dwelling and t We w411 aaaeseory bu4i4ings. Tfa prqperty to the crest is xoned so# surd it 40VO3,ap wi th a church. Properties to the north are both +s►d anA dovel+ asiwlementairy school site. The property to the *met is also sonod Up and is presently developed with a single family dwelling. The properties to the south, across Glencoe Avenue O" . Boned Jtl, Red are devalaprrd with multiple units and single family 'I ilinds• . --�ltAL.Imo,, 892 U WE 99113 The Land Use Klement of the general Plan designates the subject property for medium density presidential. Therefore, development ' of thv subjec't property under' the R2 toning X"alationi is in com- pliance with the General Plan, JAR Negative, Declaration No. 76-126 w►as filed on December 23, 1976 in c7on- jaRotion with Tontat.iv a Parcel Map 76-69 and Conditional Sxcoption ?6-10. Proper notification has been made, for wagativ+e Declaration 76-136 . and to this date no aamumts have beam filled. The staff recomatends that j .tbe Flaming Coinission grant Negative Declaration No. 76-126. nditional 8Xception No. 76-10 hay boon filed to allow a reduction in the lat width of one of the proposed realm from 60 fte per the rtqui :G- s ent• of the Ordinance C040 down to 9 ft. Tentative Parcel Map 76 69 will create one parcel of 60 ft. by 135 ft. which equals 9100 sq. ft. : reld another parcel of 55 ft. by 135 ft. which equals 7425 sq. ft4 Under Article 016 tR3, Medico density Residential) of the Hufitington ' Brach Ordinanot Coder, these two proposed lairs will yield a total of r . "von (7) unfits, fount (4) units on the 8100 sq, ft, parcel and three! ( 3) writs on the 7425 eq. ft. Parcel., This is based on are unit for each 2000 aqh f t. of land .area; It the parcel is not divided into two p4*cals and 4ovmloped e� *no building site of ila ft. by 135 ft. or ` 13, 936 sq. ft. and one-half of the street section is added per Article, y 932 , Apartment Standards, the total grass site is 18, 9 7 S saq. ft. Undfix Article 933, this site will yield six (+6) units based on one unit for each 3,0a0 sq. ft. of gross area. if Ccoditional exception 7e-10 is granted, it will allow the applicant to develop one additional unit over what is poeruitted without the conditional exception. Therefore, Conditional Exception 76-10 will grant, a .special privilogo. The 115 ft. by 135 ft. lnt size is common throughout the general area . Many of the lots have already been divided into smaller building siteor^ However# all of the lots that have been divided by recordation of a - parcel map have been divided into two parcel* bath having a trontage of 57. 3 ft, each. Breed on this dimension, a 57. 5 ft. parcel would •A pY„ i r • page Three � TPH 76-49AX 76-10 ! • have 7 , 762 eq. fte and would yield a sae (3) unit apartment and a total of six (41 units got the ovoroll site* 1" .;+arm . .sing the ;aquest, the staff hag deterained that parity with µ; Whet exists In •the general vicWt Is two 97& f ft. late and a special fivileige woad i,st it ► 60 It. lot and another of 56 ft. would 6.0 M HgAT Ns In View of the above information# the staff is recommendinq that Tentative parcel Map 76-69 and Conditional Exception 76-10 be approved with the Tentative parcel Map revised to reflect two (l) lots each having 57 *5 ft. of frontage. The staff offers the following findings and oonditiaq,r for your consideration. I# The planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby rind that the proposed subdivision along with its design improvements is consistent with General and Specific Plats in the area in that a. The subdivision of this parcel into two 57 . 5 ft* lots will not allow mare, units than is allowed if property is not divided. b►. - The two lot division of land and the development of two triplexes is in keeping with such of the existing development in the area. UNOUgs (1C.H. 76-14 This reque will not be detrivertal to the public health, safety, a»d woXfora of the cawwnity as the development proposed upon 57.3 ft* parcels is proposed at the sane intensity as that of surrounding uses. •: The Tentative parcel. Map bs revised to reflect two 57.5 ft. lots. Z. A parcel aap shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with than Oranges County Recorder'd, I, Glencoe hvenue shall be dedicated and improved to City standards at the time the parcels are doveloped• 4. dater supply shall bo through the City of Huntington beach' s water. system at the time said parcels are developed. S. Sewage disposal shalGl, be through the City of Huntington Beach' s sewage system at the that said parcels are developed. 6, All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said Jarcels are develop". - `r X 77 1 'N I i`�'• :, 40 L 1.0 .Yf' Affi&vft of Pubikalion oral r r btf da4 swmrvb = a w an: Mat h..a is a do= avital fatsk "w the ap of twent7-wa mrs. no he Is ft psi W �m pbtb]ww of tlt I tatlmw Bead x a w of a'lra&Um ,P%Wd a W pub- ` mm in S t�ertp CU Wwa and ab�Aaa I Q ARM Mail de tx�tea��am pltftm for ft of mmm naum at J" sW trtt w mwit of a 1l+bt" cbewtee, and hae at b= No 1l■! of pyrLtQ atbt lbeti, and eam paw' has Won ptduted and pu6ti" in the staff of c:*w z* aw at OmW, fw at but oar ym;- not before thf pubUdetian d tba Mint lowI"mtr of *b t ; aw tlrr sold ueunpspur is not dhMalyd 1a tM intenst ati or public bW tar the enterhftr mt of arty padmW ebkm prehomko. ",mR tallft raft or denomloatim or "m nmftm Hearth New was adjmmted a lepat nawm viper of de" a"m by Jodp G. x l3cVM In the 8upd** Court f aL' Omp*,42h2tal t► AU60t.2ftk IIW by ardfr Na A L Tit "PLAL 'PO ISNIAL Or 90���'�D +•M ffie&m st 1s a printsd wW, Was fnblLrW In OW wws- A*W ''at, lwst are a� ` . 4_ L_ aly► ut ,,. bp` f`Y dadwdims an no day at ftbivarY we dayo finebui'vs. and d 00ft Am*18 am prrtod am tlmn t1w as mwd MW Was rgWarly 3 W4. WA in •tea j w "Irdw, s� !taus pt suid pewwpopw-pivp w, d not In a a said me" wsu p�bed tbeMn ollawinp datari s ... .�—. Feb. "haw ftb wrAW awl swam to bd"v def t h Qby at M ......�..�. L�.W '1 Notary Public Orange County, Caliiornla .O.-----------. .. •. --- -- - - - -! 4 14DTHOMAS A. WYLL19 "ft m4dawfirod I ()%-- ty4mw cam/ r tr�M111�Y1tS11� �jitii � r` I �w+�swr.rwwrrhrr w'��►�r.-.a r.a�a- i PXW Postcards 40 tNOTICS o/ muc #am= ON" SO 0W7iiL Or 00=210ma . 77- A Of If 10101 $IT= that a public bowleg will be bold by toe, City Cowell of tho City of Wetl"tm *@nho iQ , the Cambc1l Chm*s r of the Civic Cmtor. Ottistem . fsssh, of the how of �.,�. P.M. , or M soon t1ersafte r ss postible$ on � tho x'th 4W7 of match 1977 r for the pwpose of ate+ an xl to tbm dier�i&l by the pluming � � raiaeion of QittM&1 i� aLdrris� P �d o go. 77-2 to pumit the installa►t�ion at orowh*ad pager 11-mi t in lieu ut 1 ftotion 9730,8 of the Huntington beach dsd Cade. The OubJ40t PMP@XtY Is lWWtad at the narthveat corner nf. VaUart Avenue and hell Circle in the RS (Offico-profiririon&I District) . h legal description is on file in the PIAMLnq Owparlont Office. t All intsrsted pe!s"OM we 1"tud to its gald bert`i" md Urge" t1wir item for or smart t said + aa . Ba er iafs'"Wtiot NOY bo ObULNrd fsolr tW MUSS SS of tw City elm. o!o !6VW"4rft ty i 1 'F 1 A 1 Number of Excerpts 4a Publish Once 1b LECAL NOTICZ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 77-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Ca ty Planning Comission of the City of Huntington Basch, California, for the purpose of considering -Conditional , Exception 1Y���.IYrI�`f■1.� �1�1.■�►4■Ylii fir_ ■ No. 77-2 to permit the installation of overheakwer lines in. lieu of Section 9:30. 8 of the Huntington Beach 'Ordinance Code. The subject property is located at the northwest corn4r of Talbert Avenue and bell Circle in the R5 (Office-Professional District) . A legal description is on file in the planning Department Office. Said hearing will he held at the hour of 7: 00 I .M. , on February 1.5, 1977 , in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Center , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California-. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the prorosed Conditional Exception No. 77--2 Further information may be obtained from the City Planning DOpart.ment e Telephone No. (714) 536 -5271 DATED this 3rd day of February , 1977 CITY PLAM4INC COMMISSION By i Edward D. Selich Secretary � r i 44 4 ' 4 n NOTICE TO CLERK TO SClU OULN PUBLIC WAXING 'r ApF t., I., I 108 CITY CLMIS OFFICE DATE: �_... • `�. '1Msit � if ? " - " ' lLifl c SOMMMA A FVRLIC HEMUNG USXNG THE ATTACE,tRt'i LEGAL NAICE M THE DAY CIS' 1977. I i We are attached j Ap's Will follow so "'r Initidtad by: Planning Cominsion PI&MI Ag Department Other -� Aftption of Xnvirornmental Status 0 Kr.41, 1•I. 4 •.f 1 ,7 r , •'��,irk - f rY 92647 pe& st W Cb. Cali! 92" 4* 4 it al T"L jai � ! �►• � 1.11. ��a ar�ran, ! 9�7 l�i6a . r mil.-10 bkbgw Ctamok, #� 00 2045 Baud* ED" met W4?mt BW*6 CAW i 92668 165-18at420 3+ ri l - M I 9266$ JM�pa�M1, t'a ' 900ii1 9 ! 1r NOW 1 z Whipm st 41 at � wit - I= 0=0 An m Wamt And ex n Dumb, Cal 1 92646 9OM1r+� ]Ab-181-22 VP" a Millar tt al UUM a s •t al I& it MUM ft al 052 � tea, 1"U us* "te M ::U Oft ft=ft y2647 Ihm mm&4 C of MU Coll 902 omnwp adif 16.-�-IAU-26 159-181-U 139-161r-0 MWML lga uwmtmit Q* 3111A D IM& 1Mrol YOA P 770 JL Mai ft *A�t* 161 WOJL ftbw ci rds "Q ' A't�o Mbe OWN" ��ys,'a 11 i"9 9260 a i Y 16!r-M-34 159�^lr#l-25 LO-M-47 tbo as Club of Soutbam cbm a x BMW 1l UMI s MmM �� P.C. UK i2a ft 2 8bt 253 26t#L a nomm 1203 raft Wl 9"t SwAsme Tom Las l", Calif W56 %* caw gme 7 0 165^-3L81-3b LSO-14-U MO-M-49 WWWm A at sl rase A OLNUAW art Al M .19 Dowd Tombe 9819 a ?a IM Mt 6332 *Admy Drive 2622 Circa Mve Vpm C. Cam! �� Boma, Cal Ads tv k board%, Crl�rif 926f 0 90241 92647 1 a F�; •'rya,' / ,• AM Now a* a as am • a WON 1 I 1 tit S� at :� y • 7 �' M 1_01�11 ri-I r•I.I`'i"�_,l'r•i,: r 11 w . l l i ,' iS, ! 7�','y:,�+li`h�J'.: "�'RM"`7+,"a.i1'Nibanji ,i ,i+,. ._ . • tr , _w NNNUNItIN Bloat MINNiNg CIMMISSION P.Q. Box 1100 CALIFORNIA 900 901 Honorable Mayor and City Council ***I Planning Coi niosion DAT11 March 7, 1977 ATTXS Ployd 6. Belxito, City Administrator BEi CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 77-1 - APPEAL TO DENIAL : Bruce R. Miller D.D.S. 6993 garner Avenue NLh11►t�!r Nuntington Beach, California LOC`.ATIONt Northwest corner of Talbert Avenue and Bell Cir. Al2F DSST: To permit the installation of overhead power lines . i' PLilWIKG CONKISS ION ACTION: ON NOTION BY BOYLS AND SECOND BY SHEA CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIOm NO. 77-2 WAS D IEri FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : 1. The petition and accompanying information submitted by the applicant has not eaatablished exceptional circumstances or conditions that do not generally apply to the surrounding properties . 2. The requested exception is not necessary for the preservation of property rights . AUS1 Finley, Gibson, Shea, Newman, Boyle { NCI s bone hass1i' I Parkinson# Slates PLA1 ERG„rC2IT$S TON RECOMhiENDAT ION ral..IY. 4.�•/•.�V�111\IiY �A ..r. .I w The Planning Co mission recoaamends denial of Conditional Exception Me. 77-2 barred on the findings above. SUMMY AMYS 1 S 4 Conditional Exception No. 77-02 is a request to permit the overhead in- stallation of' elesctricai utilities to an office building that is presently ux,d*rconstruction of the northwest corner of Bull C .rcle and Talbert Avenun. This requested variance has beon filed in lienai of, the Hunt'ngton Beach Ordinance, Code Section 973E . 8 which specifically requires all now electrical util!,t ies to be installed underground. tl OU r 1 t Ala ',� • •�� Page Two ' CH 77-1 The subject site is located in an area that has been significantly developed for many years. Electrical services to these developm*nts is via overhead connections . The existing overhead lines that service the street lighting system in the area run over a portion of they pro- posed structure. Should the subject office bui.i.di,ng be required to install the underground Lacilitien it will, according to Southern California Edison Company, necessitate the boring under Talbert Avenue and the installation of a traffic pull box on the south side of Talbert Avenue and a junction box on the north side of Talbert. Therefore, the applicant feel.* that the costs for such an undergrounding ,system would be prohibitive and does not offset the benefits to be derived. The staff has investigated the subject site as well as the surrounding area and hab determined that the majority of the electrical services are via overhead connections. However, there are several new office and commercial 'f developments that have provided underground connections. (Please refer to attached map. ) The Automobile Club office building located directly east of the subject property has a complete underground system, including the lighting standards in the parking 'lot area. Therefore, a requirement that this additional new office building be serviced underground would be Consistent with all the other recent commercial development electrical systems. Additionally, the existing orre3rhead system on the south side of Talbert can be considered short term since a changes or recycling of the land uses can be anticipated in they near future. This recycling process will result in underground electrical service systems . ADDITION& L INFORMATION: The Planning Comission held a public hearing on the proposal at its Meeting of February 15 , 1977 . The applicant, Dr. Miller, addressed they Caamission and stated that he would be grilling to go underground with the utilities when the rest of the area did so. There was no one else present to speak on the matter. WMIRt WYNTAL STATUS: The requested variance for the installation of overhead utilities is m Class III Categorical Exemption and does not require any additional environmental assessment. SUPPORTING INFO MT'TON: 1. Area Map Z. Staff Repeat 3 . Letter of Appeal ATX, o fed Secretary EDB:J"C s gc Or .4•.. r•*:. • ..+-ram i .ata +-.n F,- 4.6 — IL 1 t 2 rd— R 1 it Iq T - -- - - - - -- AVENUE - •OF , ---- t ( CF- E i SCALD tM fEET COOD I T I ORAL Elf UYT I ON Mu. 77-2 �• .. ". - t Zalc l�lq► NEON ■EACM lAN11M RM. i r i 1M, I.y y j . •r. 1 •I ` rr•t C �i'r' Iuntirgton b6tAhpl lI WN d 't t •1• , : . TO: planning Commission p 1t: Planning Department robrvary 15, 1977 CST I�_NAL�$X+CEPTIdN NO. 7.7 2 Brute E. Miller D.D.6 _pALTE FILED: 1/13/77 6953 Warren Avenue >, Watingtm, Ca. Tr�A ORx p to 58_._ ING QATZ i r : Not'thw..st corner of TalbertAve. and Bell Cir. ZQ : R-5 r � ., �jENERA�_,PLPLN: &%QUM: 7b pu%dt the installation of overhead r lines. 4 . N • 1.0 ENVIRONMMAL STATUS: The requested variance for the installation of overhead utilities is a Class III Categorical Exemption and does not require any additional environmental assessment. :,0 I Q�11 _ INFO RATION: Conditional Excerption No. 77-02 is a request to permit the instal- lation of new overhead electrical utilities to a 1650 sq. ft. office building presently under construction. 3. 0 SURROUNDING LAND CASES AND ZONING: The property to the east is zoned R5 and developed with an office/ professional use. To the south ,acre properties zoned N and MI-A► and ei hor vacant, developed with older single family -homes, or heinn developed with a Commercial Center. The properties to the north are developed with multi-family residential in the R3 zone, and to the west is R2 upon which a church facility is developed . 4. 0 A�U#LXEIS: Conditional Exception No. 77-02 is a request to permit the overhead installation of electrical utilities to an office building that is presently under construction on the northwest corner of Bell Circle �.iIY�YYYY-�Y Y• 1-_. -� n M' I 444 , 43 77-2 Page TW ,and Talbert Avenue. This requested variance has been filed in lieu of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Cade Section 9730. 8 which specifically requires all now electrical utilities to be installed underground . The subject site is located in an area that has been significantly developead for many years . Electrical services to these developments is via overhead connections . The existing overhead lines that service the street lighting system in the area run over a portion of the pro- posed structure. Should the subject office building be required to install the underground. facilities it will, according to Svutne;. California Ellison- Company, necessitate the boring under Talbert Avenue and the installation of a traffic pull box on the south side of Talbert Avenue anA,. a junction box on the north side of Talbert. Therefore, the applicant feels that the casts for such an unaergrounding system would be prohibitive and does not offset the benefits to be deriveed. The staff has investigated the subject site as well as the surrounding area and has determined that the majority of the electrical services are via overhead connections. However, there are several new office and commercial developments that have provided underground connections . (Please refer to attached map. ) The Automobile Club office building located directly east of the subject prr)perty has a complete underground system, including t the lighting standards in the parking lot area. Therefore, a requirement that this additional new office building be serviced underground would be cottsi$teei�t with all the ether rent commercial development electrical systems. Additionally, the existing -overhead y systems on the south side of Talbert can be considered short term since a change or recycling of the land uses can be anticipated in the near future. This recycling process will result in underground electrical service systems. 5.d "C ENDATTON: The staff reconhends denial of Conditional Exception No. 77-02 based on the following findings: I. The petition and accompanying information submitted by the applicant has not established exceptional circumstances or conditions that do not generally apply to the surrounds g properties . ` • 2. The requested exception is not necessary for the preservation of property rights . JMC:gc K i!1llll�till�llltman numi3!!11[Il ieutufl!l lilt r lieu Lll t r 1�1�i i i lt1�!�ttrt!l i t i1ti1 unli LI f�Et if l tun >Puatinm � l�illi�t�i l , 001mil lliumlatflftl m t tifullllli111H111IM11,191!!# �! ttlttlt�ull�nl�rl�lriu��s��n�ri � t llllNlflill�[[ lflltt1131t1'lf[#itUl tl .�� � � fltflrflljit1111t111tA lf1�1lt1 a=�_ n�l�i llt3t��tjtt�ifiultttt I./�` ':�l� ��.�► .f�.!/• �� ' 1 llli lilll {f g 11R11 �it�l�tt1Rl�trlru�t�� f�.�I.� . lIMIlll ttli[ttlltiilttailtt�llA WrA Im"Il�lml llll.lil1:t11[l itf HI!l1tr11ft1�1H1f1 itr�ttultu�r�t �� :�� �� , • [ttgluiilttlll ill3t fll ► «usatt�stzu ffut � ;,rA0 0 FA 0PFd ron 0 P&A AorrA 'A i=Vwi .•�jiY' sl�s�ass�sssss !• . sss�s�asatl[rssr�aTial =S=�=fill=ice==SSA siir� siss�sa�s r asr�"�ssi�irrrsr�+r� srssrs aesssws:s�s• r�srs ss ss�t�s qr issFa . �s sr�rlri ra rr ssasaes+a� r �==i •s��fiss��i� �{1; =Si== =====5=!lExiitiriiw��s r w. is Overhead Servim Conditimml Existing Underground Service Zom R5 77-2 Subject Property I U MMIN 1 ♦ • �r WN �� t tt'ali' 4r,•,r r y f'S�"", I, w ' 1 " 'y0.�. I O,r� Il.�•, I ', i. r - '�'' •r '..J •,fir I' ful•; '•'ry;�14, k S .,hp„M.•....:.K..:�, 1>r,�.r o-a .f �I " �1r1 y' 7 06 -40 dad - - woo IF Ir IF r,F �I�f.1:�1 � ., •� � ,J � �I L�' /����� r `•'I i1'� 1 ,:;�': •:';• NON�,, i / , ,I r•1,� 1 l i � 1 /I�a �b ,• ISM r �. J'�.•lii.l i 1, -I� ��� �.. �'; .. ��'� •�.• •r . r do 1 Ir Ar'r 4Li s• �'• ,e r w{ c� rf 4C re r•. r 1 hMrr -,ji. ti.: `fin,,Y 1�A� CIS yr( ., f .�,�,�!„�f:• r '' '` ��, � .� ',9'1 I1 r rl !'�,•r' 1 1{, r�, rr .wIY•' •yl •''' •4 ��. jT °�, r%dl TI yy�k,,y�{ \ 'P 1 ,,�. ' A r {,nw,K• • r 1 r W ��••�' �. ' ,(T \ r �~' 1 •�'�'(�a.4 -+� ° ���� 1 , ,r;,r1 n �yl � 4�, :�'� � �♦' 4 'Y:r,'� ,.. y. a, 1 (r, , ,•14. 1'rl`- 't � y'1',�&�fv� i i 1� �., f;try 'f .' .•Y � ,•1jty;•,� � SS' •r •1,,•. 1.�1 i �Jr,, yyyyyy 1y. '• *'' ry, ., I io-�"' ,1, ',1°. I � .i!,. � , v, rya n A. ,�• �•','hfP'lC4R.Slf}r}II'r"'S,.,N'„ ;� ,Y�4i1"'.#'Y f'' I" . , .n,'�rv'�ly..rs/., '�., ,,�,. . y. t .' y y. Y„ '1 ,-¢'. 40 0 P-C.-C1,64 I _ r 04 owo dt sC' I i Ja I a,F'��1�' hill•' { L,'irl� 1 r`(' .RLy4f 6� 1�', YI�.,il'�' ` �� �� r • I ,,.r •�11 x� �'r�'•p,r.'•r'�dy'I?',l � � � �41 'r�• Rr• �K.t� .` ,'Jf Ata a � lie ' J isAt rip i�li>:ii�.. `OI-rIL. \Jr•I. J.,, Y _ ._.._ _.,,_ �'1;�N.•. y N l' r y. Socf:hern California Edison Company w � I HUNTINGTON p[ACN. CALIIORMIA 1t14/ January 131 1977 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Attention: Ur. Miller Subject: New Construction Talbert Bell Ci r. 3 t It is my understanding that you have applied to the City Planning Commission for a variance regarding the method of electrical service to your building at the north/west corner of Talbert Ave. and dell it Cir. in Huntington Beach. Underground service to the subject building would necessitate a bore under Talbert Ave. and the installation of a traffic pull box on the south side of Talbert. An overheard service will require overhead service conductors crossing Talbert in a north/south direction. Overhead lines exist at this location erossing "Talbert in a north/south direction. In my opinion, the area of Talbert and Bell does not qualify for future undergrounding under P.U.C. Rule 20-A governing undergr-ound conversion of overhead lines. It is therefore unlikely that this area will be converted -to underground in the foreseeable future. R. L. COOL I DGE Customer Service PlainnITUNiiiiGTON BEACH ituntington Beath PLANNING DEPT. RLC:da P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 9260 -v 1 ` %IU11i�NGlies kl $95 WARNER AVKNV9 I�14 TI1to KACN, CALIFORNIA 91447 nrt f t r'iL IM7•2914 , March 8 , 1977 ` lot Huntington Beach City Council PX t Public Hearing--Appeal to Denial of Conditional Exception No . 77-2 We are requesting a continuance for our hearing before the City Council from March 14 until March 21 as we will be unable to attend the assigned meeting due to conflicting schedules . Thank you for your conside,ra`tion. lieectfully, Dr. Bruce E. Miller j i 1 .J� City of Huntington Beach P.D. sox 1M CALWORNIA 9@84" OFF[(-'B OF THE CITY CLERK dutch 15, 1977 Bruce E. Miller, D.U.S. 6953 Nalrne x Avenue ,_•A 9.'1 -47 Kf: : i'ui, l �A•,t to l l CU11L.�1�;11)l1�tJ. 1XCU}. I:l,Ull ��•J. 1 '• Dear Ur. Killers Thg City Council, at its adjourned regular matinq of March 14 o 1977, ccntinued the Public Hearing Y- "al try Denial of Condi- tional Exception No. 77-2 - to March 21, 1977. Sincerely yours, Aliaia N. Wentworth City Clerk mom 1 E � ,A1mdavit of Publication sRaaft of t�ifomis .Y- Cb%mty at 01-amw ' C3W of 19"t ngtga Beach J George lr'arqubar, behig duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a eitimn & the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. 7hat he Is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach News, a weekly peprr of general circulation printed and pub- Halted is Huntington Beach, CU11farnla and circulated In the said County of Oeaw and elsewhere and published for the dissemination of lace] and o0jer rAin of a general character, and has a bona fide ssubw6ptit n Mist of paying subscribers, and said paper has beetti atabllahK psictesl and pubUdW in the State of Calffoiigs, and County of Orange, for at least dine year next before the V011caUon of the Brat insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not devoted to a* interest of, or published for the entertainment of any psrUcules class,, grofessfat, trade, caUitat, race or denomination, or arty umber thend. 7U Huntlra ah $each New was adjudic.a►ted a legal iwAmpaper of g oral eirculsktion by Judge G. H. Scovvl in the Superior Court of Orano Cmmty, Califxnia August 27th, IRV by order No. A-5931, 4 APr AL TO&PROVAL 01 CONLIT� IQN_ *L jam'{/T 00, I'/� of h die anim- ed is a priated copy, was published in said news- POW at keel 12112 I V UG ham the _1C th day of' F_e b UFkZ — 117, and andize an the 101h— duty of FebrUI Y -- le 77 ,, both days inclusive, and as often during Wd period and timed 4 publication as said paper was rep1arly issued, and in the r pbr and en" issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a supplement, aW said notim ass pabLtstted t1wivin on the following dates. to wait: / i PublLsh-r• Sa h=lbed and sworn to befwa an this - llth �. dry of Februar9 , 19-n— � r Notary Public Orange County, California I Twx"S n. WY�.,�.IE _ iMsrery flrwis.CG11 rat„ ante Ces+rll► + t Mt► "++++etuWK mho 741�- t i M..ft....;6_, Agri 1 1 MEMO .401 J Ali City of Hun fington Beach a P.O. mox in r ew MR" of =1 On CLm March 23, 1917 Jmms C. Vein berhy&m 742 Wain Stros` Sm isgt on Deaths Q& P7 6" Otar Mr, Van Dirh7rdam: The City Comall of the City of thotinaton Notch at its i rsgular mmatftw old Woodart PArtb 31, li1779 sastsiasd the dsciaian of the Plamieg Caudasion and approved dwiditl`w;►al Ucs;,t ion No. 77-62. If this off Ice my be of assistanL-oo pliaso do not hositote to contact us. Sinastslr yows, Alicia N. Wontwrth City Clark l..Ie+<,•,Ir ..nay l� .}.ry .. ..,. . r- nrs+Rn1�#T _ Publish 2,/10/17 IPM !ba to Mrde 20 tCi � i?V�,1C i1rG �� IaC'l!t''PZON NO, 76-62y WTICK IS MUDY 01M that a public Imartag will be told by tbs. City Caineil of the City of tUVt*" leach, in the C&tmC1l Cher of the civic Cmter o amt tour Nub a at the hauar of „M,, r y.M. I or m •o" tbaar+ealtar rr rweibls a an �may thW 22nd mmftm� day o= February MM.Wal for 'tho Pwrpm• of eftgidgring an appeal of the approval by than Plrrar&fng COOMMieei4a of Conditional bxception No. 76-62 which was a request to peral.t a fish (5) foot encroactmnt iA the rapktad ton (101 loot front yard Setback per Section 9203.1 of the Huntington Aeach � oxdinance Code. The subject property is located on the wet ride of Delaware Otraat, yrproximatcly twenCr-saver% (27) foet north of x1aira Avenue in an R3 OWdiamr-high Density Residential District) . A legal description is can file in tho Planning '"epartlkmt office. I All intom ttd pone w era jlMtaW to Ste de►ld irarbW Md arrr heir Lags fft of wbat said ,+�... my be Obtaled crew sir 0011" of tie Cicy anI 17 in W. Moog 1N= own y 4 Page d2 - Council FUnates - 5, )1 i7 filed by Vanderwood Corporation. CE 76-62 w-iuld have permitted a five-font encroach- nent in the required ten-foot setback per Section 9203. 1 of t::e Huntington Beach .l Ordinance Code on property located on the sQat side c:t Delaware Street , approximc.tely twenty-seven feet north of Elmira Avenue. A motion wag made by Vieder, seconded by Bartlett to approve the arnp.nded findings as aut forth on pages 1 and 2 of the Planning Department transmittal dated April 25. 1!i77 . Cmi,.icilman Coen spoke regarding the motion. the motion failed to pass by the following roll call vote: RIES : Bartlett , Wieder, Pattinson NOES: Coon, Gibbs , Siebert, Shenkman ABSENT: Note Dtscussion was held between the Council and Lhe City Attorney regarding procedure a-id the status of CC 76-62 in view of the Uiaure of the Council to adopt findings . Me. .dames Van Derhyden, representing Vandarwoad Corporation, the appellant, addressed Council regarding the matter. Tate City Attorney ruled that the Council action of sustaining the planning Conmiesion` s grant of the Conditional Exception .ias void because of lack of findings in surnort thereof and, therefore, a vew motion would be in order. A motion was made by Coen, seconded by Siebert, to overrule the decision of the Planning Comission and deny Conditional Exception No. 76-62. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES : Coen, Gibbs , Siebert , Shenkman NOES: Bartlett, Wieder, Pattinson ASSENT: None On motion by Coen, second Siebert, Council mada the: finding that no hardship � exists because of the failure of the applicant in the initial action to satisfy the Council that any of the conditions or criteria set fort:; in the ordinance code vere, in fact, found to exist. The notion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Coen, Gibbs , Siebert, Shenkman NOES: Bartlett, Wieder, Pattinson ABSENT : None w=fl_ ItATR STUDY - 1rU'tt' HER STUDY DIRLCUD - DEFEND TO 6/6/77 MEETING Yayor Pattinson introduced John Mandrell, Consultant, representing R.M.G. Engineering,, who had been employed by the City Council to conduct a rester rate study. The Director of Public Works informed Council that Kr. MYandrell had in the past served the City as Acting Water Superintendent at which time he had prepared a water rate study which indicated that in 1977/78 there would be a water deficiency, and as a moult, a further study va" undertaken by the City, with the aid of .Tohn Mandrell. A chart was displayed shoving four alternate rates for Council's consideration, together with charts showing the effect of each alternative un the various types of water users ; co"rison of residential water rates and Industrial water rates. I� f MOW r NMRS koom B-r, Civic Center Hunti,ngtom Beach, Galifornir mon4ay, May 23, 1977 A tape recording of this mottos is on file in the City Clerk's Office. liayor Pattinsoa called the adjoorae'd regular meet1vz of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 P.M. Present: Paktipaon, Coen, Gibbs, Shenlan (11artlett, Siebert, Wieder arrived 6: 30 P.M. ) i Absent: W-ne w Mayor Pattinson called an ftecutiva 5assion of the City Council to dincass perrsonaal and litigation ■attars. a The Mayor recessed the Council at 6:05 P.M. The meeting was rer:onvened at 7: 10 by the Mayor. i Pfi VrMj'NP•�S - O.C. SANITATION DISTRICTS #3 rx 11 , On wt;iou by Bartlett, second 9henkman, Covoctl ratified the appointments :wade by the Mayor to the Ocnage County Sanitatioc; Districts No. 3 and No. 11 as follows: O.C. Sanitatiou District 911 Mayor Ronald 1. Pa�tinsor Councilmen Ron Shealown Counc'lwomm Norwa zrandel Gibbs (Alrernate) O.C. Sanitation District 93 - Councilwoman Harriett X. wieder WAyor Ronald R. Pattinson (Alt=&tO The notion carried by unanimous vote. HEMBIE TION Acre 292ya 11m, LTD. PAHMMCY MIN On wtiLft by Minder, second Gibbs, Council directed that W. ChW.as Polyea, repreeeinting Charles P*Irea i Associate,o, and SKr. Joseph Karol, Attorney at Lev, nproteft the City in the bankruptcy hiaxing on the driftwood Inn Lease (lhmtIngton Ltd.) to iM hold en ,day 24. 1977. The lotion was carried unaninaxsly. M Tb• Clark pro amted a cam ication from the Plamiing Director containing amended findings in suplrort of the lurch 210 1977 decision of the City Council, sustaining the PIRMinb COMISGImn'a grant of Caidition«l Exception No. 76-62 an the appeal rd& it ' Page $16 � Council Minutes 4'�16/77 ld Q t_ . Np,;_2195,,-_`X KS T READ, DI MG - WA'I_W U ,,AN ORD XMNCE OF THE CITY OP HuNTINCTON MACH AMMING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING AID► AMING CERTAIN SECTIONS PERTAINING TO WATER WASTAGE. " . 21. A9 ...7 IUM _- UEEM MA I Ate► M .0.1 aMINIZE MA11119- "AN ORDIM&M OF THE CITY AP HUN'llllir.TCiBf bUCH AM MIN THE HU11TINGTON 1 W'I ORDINAM OWE BY AmENDIMrs, SECTION 14.20.060 P31MAINING TO RBFMS FOR IMSTAL-. ., LATION OF OV91MIEg M A11tS." i; Nei. 2191 - F!, _LN AS, AHEM S0, - ,��r��,D'i�Of UQLE TBLBVISICO $j1tV_I46 The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2198 for a first reading by title - "AN Otr 1MANCE OF THE CITY OF HUMINUTON BEACH AMI'MIND THN HUNTINOTQlt WACb MOM= CME BY AMMIN, SEMON 9754.3 PERTAINING TO UNDRIGEOUNDIlM4 OF C"12 TELEVISION SERVICE." Considerably, discussion was held between Couerail and staff regarding the ordinance arnd there was cony:-ri that developers who had taken out permits prior tv the aweead- meert would be unable to c"ly with the ordiumnes. The Assistant City Attorney stated that it would not be feasible to enforce !the code in such instances . The Director of Public Works suggested a mWifiaation to tea, ordinance which would rectify the situation. A nation wrs made by Shenkwean, second Conn, to give Ordinance No. 2198 a first reading by title as amended, with then addition of the following wording as (g) on Page 1 - "Whenover plans hays been appro"A and permits issued without the builder having been advised of the r6quis~ement of the installation of underground cable television ssrw:!re ," rind as Iten If) on Page 2. Notion carried utmmimously. The City Clark presented a comwenication from the Planning Director, transmitting amended findings rglativo to CA 76-62 - (request to permit a 5 foot oneroaehmunt in the required 10 foot front yard setback per S.9203. 1 of the Huntington Beech Ordinance Code, on property located on the west side of Velavare Street, apprtrai- rAtely 27 feet north of Stairs Avenue) , continued frog the May 2, 1977 Ctruwwil wresting. On motion by Shenknwn, second Bartlett, Council deferred covo-Aderation of this wetter to an adjourned regular meeting to be called for May ::5, 1977. Motion carried unaniwnously. M121MltEl"1rS .111C,.„lMM - APF1t M Ths City Clerk presented a conamicatien from ties Nnyor listing Council appoint- resnts to vo rtows City boards and comissioas, County. Stater, aiW .tag:'. -mat orgen- seatioos and City DepartrAints. On ieotton by Bartlett. secuW Shouluang Coe;ne-LI unanin usly opprovad the fiAloving liaison awintme"Cs City Adeeinistrator - (Pattinson, Shetbmaa, and Mader) City Policy and Coals - (Pattinsoa, Coon, mad Mimeses) Administrative Maijasawast Tom - (*atltieuloan. Siabort, and Vieder) Public Safety Mu ldf,ng & Casa+s,niti- pewilop me t, lire, Parbore 6 Soaahes, Police - Pat t inson, Bartlett, and Siebert) f r • I i 1 I ?*go 06 - Council Minutes - 2/22/77 Fo 1 lowing a reading by tit 1a of ordinaute No. 2171 - "AN OADINANCCH OF THE CITY HiNrINGTON BEACH AMENDING T= HLWrltiG'P N BNACli ORDxli.1 = CODE BY RePF.ALTNG ARTICLE 915 THEREOF, 6NTITLZD "ALTBkIdA'TYVZ KESIDIMIAL SUFFTX 1DISTRICT (-AR)", AND ADDING ARTiCL: 715 THERXTO, BNTITLKD "OLDTOW SPECIFIC PLAN," AND ESTABLISHING S'T'A10ARDS OP DEVELUPMERr THER9M. " On -motion by Gibbs, second Siebert , Council waived further reading of same by anantmous vote. $ C ffarkqC _ ZgLge QUI 110. 76-27 - aijc!rrlrn&p Mayor Wieder announced that this was the dray and hour set for a continvotion of a hearing opened at the February 1, 1977 meting ou a patition for a chsqp of tone frm R2-0 (Medium Density Aite>raantivae Assi.dential District) pursuant to Section 9150 of the Huntington beach Ordinance Codo, said propert7 loc*taod betwoon California and Delaware Stoats and between Toronto and Springfield Aveatune. Mayor Wieder declared the besting elated and diaeoatinued as prior action on Code Amendment No. 76-12 made action oars said Zom Came unnecessary. j !UILIC HMRING - C0WD-ZTt ,%j PZRKIT fZJ-17 Mayor Wieder announced that this was the day +ends hour set for the contiltuation from February 2, 1977 of a hearing to consider revocation of Conditiondl Use Permit No. 76-17 , to initiated by the City Council, for non-coaep'liataee with the previously imposed canditi*ng of approval. Said CcrAltional Use Permit allowed the continued 9peration of an existing cowaarcle! ho:se stable pursuant to Section 9391 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, :)a property located at Chas � southwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Coldeammest Streat in the RA-0-0 (Residential Agricultural District, combined with oil production, Civic District) . The planning Director addressed Council and stated that t1m operator had tow compl Led with all of the conditions or epproval. 'Where being no one to speak on the latter, and thara b( tn$ no further protests j filed , either oral or written, Lno hearing was elosed by tht 'Viovor. On motion by Coen, second Sieber!-,, Council found that Conditional Use Peraa lt, #76- 17 was Ln full comp 1 iaauce a;,ch the cond it Leans of approval as Imposed by the Planning Commission, and granted s modification to Condition No. a to read as foilawasi "Twmporary placeiat of waste materials Aall not exceed oaventy-two hours in a completely enclosed commercial also metal trash contains: with iremovel to off-site disposal dump." Notion carried by the following vote: AYZS : Bartlett , Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Nteder MK11t8: t1 AASRNT: Shenkman ARSTAYN: patt iftsoat AAL Mayon Wader announced that this was the day and how set for a poblic hearta>xg on an appeal filed by Vaade>rwo" Corporation to the approval by the Planning Canission of Conditioail Exception No. 74-62 utich was a velueast to permit • five '5) loot encroachment lea the required town (10) foot front bard setback per goawtiou 9205. 1 of L Pags if - Council Minutes - 2/22177 the Huntington Batch Ordinance Codo, can property located on the vast side of Delavaro Street, appro%IvAtely twenty-seven (27) feet north of tlwirs Avenue in an R1 (Died+ua- !I(Rh Density Residential District) , 'Nice Clerk Informed Council that all 14gel requirements for notification, publication, And posting had been Wet: and tFrt other than the letter of appeal , she had received no conrwunicdtions or written protests to the matter. Mayor Wieder declared the hearing open, Tom Wittf teed , tttorney, representing Vanderwood Associates, tice appellant , addressed Council regarding the order in which whe appellant and applicant should address the Council. nennies Rarwood, Attorney, reFrestating the applicant, addressed Comcil and gave reasons why he beliaved the appeal should be denied. In response to questions by Council, r-putt' City Attorney O'Conwr spoke tiegatding the matter. Viowgraphs of the area *ere ctsplar"s Mr. Winfield address** Comcil and presented the reasons why he believed the Ccmd.!tional Exception should bu denied. There being no one farther to speak on the matter, end there being tto lurther protests filed, either oral or written, the heariv4 was closed by the Mayor. A notion was made by Pattinsonj second Siebert, to sustain the decialon of the Planning Coiamission and approve Conditimal fteeption No. 76-62. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Gibbn Nns: Coen, Siebert, Wieder ARSE r: Shenkman I on motion by Wieder, second St0art, Covmcil continued tnt'ther decision on the appeal to CmWitLonal Exception No. 76-26 to t:tM March 14, 1977 Courecil meeting. Mition carried unanimously, RECE S RLTMWE Koyov iiieder called a recess of the Council at 10: 10 P.M. , which was later reconvowd at 10:25 P.M. Math Fuckland, addressed Cotmeil sad stated for the vm*rd that she had r+evar been a oember of e. 418614sat group. Rbe expressed eoscern me to the Involvrssent of the Police LOpArtwset srith the Lahr detorce t TaWliieece bait and inquired relative ti City pettielpstiau its this pr*Jwt and e4ether the rights of the cltixans had been violated, i Chief Robitaille reported on the progear sad stated that the Lana Inforeastent latelligeace Vast was paraded by tba Lahr tafoveersnt Assistemee Jldeinistratios, Msyz+r Nieder stated that the City Aaninistratoar, GMnoi.lMM ,Sid*rt, the PolLoo Chief, and she WOu14 weet to disoural the Batter. 1 i 1 , 1 page #S - Council Minutes - 3/14/77 A not ion wan made by Cibbs , second Siebert, to approve t:td steendmenr to Artie 1e 8 , Section 4 of the Environmental Council, bylaws relative to tha granting by the Execution board, of members requests for losste of absences. Notion carried by the following vote: AYES: Gibbs, Siebert, Sho0amen, Wieder Ross: Bartlett , Coen AB39NT: Pat'Aneon AGT�OV 911 LLGISIATIVE 20,N3$ The Clark presented a tra>r,smittal dross the City Administrator's office of recom- mendations on legislative (tens for Coune ff'a eonsideeetion. Discussion van hold between Council and Wtaff regardling 8b 164 -1 Compulsory Arbitration - Police and Fire, on which Council had previously taken a position in � opposition, A motion was mad* by Showman, second Kibbs, that Council concur with the League of California Cities and the affected Deportment Heads on the following legislative iteeas, with the exception of r6 164 - Casrpulaory Arcbitrttion - Police and Fire, and directed the City Administrator to forward letters to the proper legislative officials expressing the City's },oaition: Senate bill 4 - Support (Mandotory Refund Value - Recycling) - Oppose As 331. - (Partisan Municipal Elections) - Support - AsRembly Rill 389 (Advisory Mature of State Housing Element Guidelines Clarified) . Wtion carried unanimously. t=LL11QnZR SALF 2 ZIMW ARI Es/CCRMM The Clerk presented a tronealttal regarding the sale of City-owned properly located an the mouth sidft of Edinger Avenue, east of Cothard ►street. Discupbion was hold between Council arnd staff reglar ing the proposed sale. On motion by Siebert, second Gibbs, Council authorized the City Administrator to enter into negotiations with W 6 D Commercial Properties, ice. , for the sale of a 100' by 440' lot on the south side of Edinger Avenue, 416 feat cast of Cothard Ptrest, to recomended by the City Administrator. Notion carried unaniawasly. Owls't(W The Clerk prssratid an appall filed by VanderMood Corporation to the approval by ties+ Pleading C rAlasion of CaWitional Ikeeptiao No. 76-62 which was a requeat to p:VMt a five (S) toot enerosebwowt in the required tan (10) foot front yard setbscW per :sect ion 9203.1 of the Ont iWaft leech ardiaawai Code. Tho xub jest property it lamrtsd on the West side Of DoUnn Street, approximately twenty seven (27) z Tet nor:`tb of Elmira Avenue in an 13 (Madluw-Nigh Density Residential District) Following the public hearing which •ear elot,ed on Pabruary 7, '1971, a notion was c and seer.tided to sustain the 'Planning Commissions wpprovial of CmWitimal I i Psga f6 - Council Minutes - 3/14/77 Exception 76- 62. The mution resulted in a tie vote, thits sustaining the Planning Cams scion. Tho Council directed that tha matter be again presented at they March 21 , 1577 matting. 1 The City Attorney clarified the procedure vni::h should be fnitowed at this time. A motion was made by Gibbs, second Bartlett, to reconsider the action taken of the February 22, 1977 Council meeting relative to Conditifal Exception No. 76-62. Motion carried unanimously. A notion was made by Siebert, second Gibbs, to continue decision on Conditional Rxception No. 76-62 to the March 210 1977 Council mresting at which time Cauncilman dhenkmran will have hao an opportunity to listen to the tape of the public hearing pxocee'Ongs . Nation carried unaulvausly. PULIC,HIMUR ,,APUAL IQ OXIML.RW,IM WE PARSIT fam3l_Z APPEAL_DICNIED i Mayor Wieder announced that this was the day and hour sat for the continuance from February 7, 1977 of appeal filed by Thomas Whaling. Attorney, can behalf of Dennis Vinciguerra, tR the denial b7 the Planning C*mission of Conetti.o,taa Ute Pexuit No. 76-31 to permit the construction o: a skateboard park in the Cab (Righway 4"ossssrcial Dist- let) pursuatz to Section 9332(F) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance � C64s. The subijet property to located on t1k2 seat We of Beach $oulevard, epproximitely 1 ,000 ft . north of Rwditon Avenue. Mayor. Wieder stated that the hearing had been continued to provide an opportunity for cammnt on the information prepared on the environmental impact. The Planning Director addraused Council and otated that rh6 onviro=erital evaluation 61; '&he project via that the proposed skateboard facility would have no significant environments: impact on the surrounding area. i The iolluwing residruts spoka in opposition to CmWitiowl Use Permit 76-31. tatty Potter, Prestaent of the Surfside 11omtlewners' Association, Joe Petronia, Shirley Turner, and Doug Ise G antvoort . its de Hakag Attorney, addressed Council and stated that he ass representing the Surfaide Homeowners' Association. He appealed to Council to deny GonOttional Use Permit No. 76-31 . The Planning Director read sxesr*ta from the Rnvirorswentol Impact Study. 5111 Sussman, resident. addressed Coumil and stated his opinion that too much ulcer had Wen sper+t on the matter with ao nest facts cgain* to light* Otr„ill Vinciguerra# appellant* wA Attemy Thaws MhalleS representing the appellsrnt, addressed Comwil and gave reasons %hy, to their opinion, the + "&I to deenlel ref Conditional Use ascent ft. 76-31 should be approved. Nervy Lunt , writer of the taviroRrr>raartol Impact Study, addressed Council and verified � the accuracy of the report, the follarring persons spoke in fewer of the Conditional Use Perult: Pat Dawmy, 1laenti>aPoa Saseh 0ay's Club Director; Jiver Laaeddia, representing Coidoull hankcr; � lefty Schlott ; and ,limy Cochran, i . w i, i 11sa;e 110 - Council Minutes - 3/21/ 17 "AN ORDINWE OF 7HE CITY OF HUN rINMON 86ACH AMENDING THE HURrINGTON1 BL%CH MUNICIPAL COON 3Y AMNDING SECTION 14,48.050 TMUOF l FERTAINIIIG TO DRAINAGE FI BS. " -3182 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE Cl'T'!t OF 1t WIWrOV DE,idCH AMENDING 783 lt', WINGTON 8E/1CH ORDINAN(:H CM2 IT Atltelll' IM. DISTRICT MAP NO. V4 TO TYCL DI PRIC153 PU14 NO. 77-1 TO PRMDE FOR TO ALIGANUT OF TWO LOCAL STREETS UXAT13U 39tW1 IN WARWR AVENUI AIW IA6 PATOS AVENZ. " ,,.hut929=0& 9=0 _MOn..._.._ The e1ark presented an appeal filed by VaW�erwood Corporation to the approval by the planning Cornoission of Conditional exception No. 75-62 which was a request to perstit a five (5) foot, encroachment in the roauired ten (10) foot front yard sstbuak per S:aeti*n 9203. 1 of the Huntington Brach Ordinance Code, on property located on the west side of Delaware Street, approximately trwouty-satven (77) fret north of Elmira Avenue: in an R3 (Medium-High DsLaity Residential District) . A heariag vas hold on February 22, 1977 at which ties the decision of thn Plavnin& ,.C�isia.oa was sustained by a tie vote. Oat March 14, 1977 a motion to reconsider the decisicm way: adopted, with the atatter cantinuad too this date. I Coum" lean Sheakmat- eteced that he had listsood to the tape of the public hearing on this setter. Ov Wtion by Bartlatt, second Cibbs , Council slis+taiivad the decision of t',a Planes-.ne Coneission and approved Conditional Exception 76-6I and referred to and adopted the findings made by the planning Coa issiou. Motion carried by the following vote: AIRS: Bartlett, Pattirtson, Gibbs, Viedar NM-. Caen, St:snkwAn, Siebert ADSM: Nona 'USES TTHtN. Cghl?AL 1V.USTTw 11L�MJ— STUDY TW) Councilmen Shenkman requested that a study ba made of the exiating lanai Webs, such ai; interim or marginal , in the City's industrial corridor. He requested Chet staff return with information surd s recoum&adation relative t:u the kinds of busiildt�, _ existing in the corridor which way be non-conforming and whether a eajor re•4196ecs- tttent of the existing industrial uses in the corridor is necesaaar:y. Coaftilaft Oheaakun requested staff to Imestigate tho de` -Aopwat of an ordtaduce sirrllsw to that adopt#d recently in Ni masapolisl asshb* it nsWatory for all reaWintial structures to have a rase M detection systtrr. 116 stated that the C-I ty of ki"Wapolin requires: all homws Mitht:, a five-y"r period to hm "Oka det*ctorsl, thereby gi.virs6 rosidents sarapl:r tier tc oaeply with the ordi usaam. Fire Chief 'Picard stated that a mandatfty weeks date.`torr system mas a 4%.slrrable objective', add that there was some pending logisl.at loa requiring woke detectors an resale a,; certain rehabilitation of homes. 1 d - Council 1 HintA - or-6/77 `lift 12 Dlecussitm was held berarres Couatil ca the rratt*w. 0n notion by Barr Lett, see imW Sbeahn rro C,aooratl adopted llogative Declaration 77-10. xec ion carried by the falloving vote; AYi. : Bart Lett , rw Leder, Ca", Shoxnwu. Pettily 40198 , f tebart ASSENT: Gibbs it motion vse awde by t&rt lett, ereeAed Class, to alppire Coder Msubaost 77-1 and Siva urdt"ance No. 2194 a first reading by title reed waivinS fuartborr readisS. Wollo tug a rasd£ng by title , the v+acioe carried stirwreleftely. ?t. 'g....or aw=l..,, art Ci,unr l lwcuan Minder as gad that the followU4 iftsror hrd Meru sub"dtted for infor- ast ion purposes: U.S. liwre, A World SArport Article a "Revolt AS,ninat Prroorrty luxes"; City Hall Digest Airt Wls; Kana t WommatLan meter; H.S. Coate+ra me of Ikyota ar..l Mayors' leadership Institute. Colodits, We; Pollm-rep of VU Csnfareaaer with Private Developers; Policy laraderabip Codf e - '7b* 12"ot of Tax Rafe= ce California t.ocil Covermant - be14 Nara 17-15* 11077; W=tAr*an Zoaeg Teruel• Club Act Wit toe; Status of Huetladtoa Bomb COMVWW yrl+rty - PCK/Atlaors/amtiotou Lake ; Allied Arts C=ntesion lgmt on City Omial llsrMter Vigo Pout,& w:oecwitl and Warnar Aventw hire Stotion Srou"bre"king. TT�F1�vAi1cE AT U. S,, Coune i two men Wisdor stated tlimt tree "old be 4ttWW1n6j at no cost to the City, the fortheineing U.S. Conference of Heyorrs nerd Na"rs' Leederubip Institute in Columbus, Ohio during the next week. ''.mint, t lmen Coen xpoke regardtrA the 'mod to imM ftud>inge relative to their action i j�vi i a r the March 21 , 1977 s*at in& vAl.ch surstsinod the plarrainp Coarsission's nt,.,roval of Conditional Rxception No. 76-62. I he city Attorney read r.ha portions of tba ordiemuon cook relative to Cvtrditioua'1 i:xc ept tons and covMwnt•d an a better darttrrd lbrob 31t 1977 received from Mr. ?hones F. Winfield 1 11 , Attorney at Low, repreisaatUe TaW,ervood Associates* this appellant. t ho Cot3nct 1 requeeted that fludisp be provided for C mcf,l 's caaaiderstlas at the May 2 , 1977 uretias. STATUS OF P9 j&0Wr111�1, Counc 1 lwrrtn Sitbart iemuitred as to tba Ciity'• r0ops0re rirlativs to tor>rsspm4ame f rcm Mrs. Lorraine Faber; vhleit lead hem issaft" by the City ragw4l`jeer$ that a report relative to a pees tug perrrrewel uattow be rmWe wallable. Tlea City rAdrmia- ist~rotor informed Mr. Siebert that Ifialrolas Camt•>rp City outside Mb&oe IWlations Counsel had advised that the repwt should stet 04 =We milable vatil a "cisiarr on Ow ur t t e r had bees reds by the !arm 1 Solitr+d i I r r1 l" W� K CITY OF Hunfln (iTon BEACH ' V, 0. H Ox. 190, 11UNTIN(; T 0 N 1', AC11, CAI-11:011 N IA 92G-1IS (714) 536 5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FRONt planning department ATTN : Floyd G . Bel.sit.o, City Administrator RITE: April 26 , 1977 RE : CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 76-G2 The City Council at its meting of March 21 , 1977 approved the above referenced matter which was on appeal beCdUse of a. previous approval by the planning Commission. The approved Collditionall Exception provided for a five 05) foot encroachment into the required ten (10) foot front yard sso.tback for a recently completed. foti,, unit apartment building lo- cated on the west side of Delaware Street , 27 feet north of Elmira Street . Subsequent to the Council ' s approval., the City Attorney ' s office has received information that indicates a strong likelihood of litigation on the matter. Therefore the City Attorney has recommended that the Planning Department staff provide the Council with an opportunity to amend their previous findings for approval by incorporating more factual data into the findings . The Planning staff has reviewed the record of the proceedings on the matter and suggeetsal the following amended findings for approval I. The subject property fronts onto Delaware Street %hick is an eighty (80) foot right-of-way . The latest assessor' s maps indicate that the westerly half of Delaware Street is 35 feet from the centerline. The official street improvement plans on file with the City show the westerly half as having a 40 foot half street section . This inconsistency has resulted in a hardship on the applicant as to the true location of the site' s property line , 2. Existing improvements both to the north and south of the subject site were constructed to the City ' s old street improvement standards which contributed to the belief by the applicant that the westerly half of Delaware Street was a► 35 foot street section versus the required 44 feet. This five foot discrepancy is the basis for the encroachment request and also an additional factor of hardship on the applicant. 3. The requested setback encroachment is necessary for the preservation of *he existing building which has been constructed according to all the requirements of the City, with the exception of the front yard setback . Conformsrice with this setback could result in unreasorable expense for agAification of the building and denial of the enjoyment of sub- stantial existing property rights. %`: r+i 16 Conditional Exception No , 76-62 Page 2 4 . Thr give foot encroaclunent. into the required front:. yard Is not anticipated to be detrimental to -trhe health, welfare , or general well being of nurrounding properties . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department and City Attorney ' ^ :ittice recommend approval by the City Council. of the above enumerated amended findings for approval of Conditional. Exception No . 76--62 . 1►t?RpE.�ct�f` lly submitted , Edward D . gelich Director EDS :JMC: ja Attachments; 1 . City Council Minutes of March 21, 1977 2 . Planning Commission Minutes of. January 18 , 1977 . � h e J i Page 910 Couaci' Minutes .1/77 PVjjNAff&.a,..2179,., -�.:�C1...-I''rED DRAT ,HA '+E FEES "AN OVINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTING'TON SL.ACH AMENDING THI HUNT INGTO N JbEACM MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 14.48.050 THERJWF, PERTAINING TO DRAINAGE FXES." 1NA11: - ADO D - P .INte y N _rREirr z rtr 7 y 1 41AN ORDINANCE OF THE CM 00 9MINUrON SUCH AN EMING THI WAffIN+GTON BEACH CRDINANCF CODE BY AMEN DING DISTRICT MAP NO. :14 TO INCLUDE PRECISE PLAN 90. 77-1, TO PRMIVE FOR THE ALIGOMM OF TWO LOiCAL STRXETS LAOCATED 11EMEN WARNER AVINUE AND LDS PATOS AVEM. " + PA PEAL 0 F!'IKWAL• OF CONDITIONAL MECEPTION 76-62 - APPEAL DENIED .......�.�..�,�L w-w..�+..-w.r•�.��..r.�r r.r.rrr�rrrrr..r Tore Clark presented an appeal filed by Vander"ood Corporation to the approval by the Planning Commission of Conditional Exception, No, 76•62 which was a request to permit a five (5) foot encroachment in the required can (10) foot front yard setback per Section 9203. 1 of the 11untir.,3ton beach Ordinance Code, on property locattd on the vest side of Delavare Street, approxims►tely twenty-seven (27) feet north of Elmira Avenue in an R3 (FAdiumr-High density Residenttial. District) . A hearing was hold on February 22, 1977 at which time, the decision of the Planning, Comissiou was sustained by a tie vote. On March 14, 1977 a motion to reconsider tba decision ass adopted, with tLa butter continued to this date. Co.amilman Shankmn stated that ha had listened to the tape of the public haari,ng an this matter. On srotion by Bartlett, second Gibbs , Council sustained the decision of the Planning Cosrsission and eppravW Conditional Exception 76-62 and referred to and adopted the findings ends by the Plaxming Conssiesion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett , Pattlason, Gibbt, wieder 1M: Coen, Shenkman, Siebert ABSNR: Nona JaMIN IM W§ WITHIN THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL CORRIpOR - 9T1,1�I .T� ED_Y nM � +ram MiW Y�-fill Counci1ssan Shenkman requested that a study be made of the existing lard users, such as interim or margiasl, in the City's industrial corridor. He requestad that staff mos return kith inforusition and a recoaudation relative to the kinds of businesses existing in the corridor which may be nonconforming end whether a major -re-assess- sent of the existing Industrial use-s in the corridor is necessary. amen d 0%$ _- in N2UzSTW2 Councilmen ShevO man requested staff to investigate the development of an ordinance similar to that 4dopted recently in Ngiawspolis, making it mtadatory for all rasidential strruaturot to have a snake datectian synxsw. No stated that the City of Miraw"olis requires all hoeras within a five-year partod to have err ko detecturs, thav*by► giVing rasidentr arsple time to comply with the orrdisame, Fite Chief Picard stated that a mandatory smoke detector aysten Mat a desirable objectiva. and that there was *am pending lagislatios rw1uiring smoke doteators to resale oar certain rehabilitation of bonus . :i1� 1 t r , 'a Minutes - H. B. Plat ng Commission Tuesday, January '18 , 1977 Page 7 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-62 - APPEAL Applicant : Valley Consultants , Inc . , for L eck Santiago giant t icon W.i.nturburn for Valley Conuul t:ants� Inc: . This is a request to permit a live foot encroachment into the required ten foot front yard setback for property located on the west: side of Delaware Street , approxi:nate..ly 27 feet north of Elmira Avenue . John Cape present-end aerial slides of the structure and reviewed the staff report. He indicated that this application had been denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments at its December 1 , 1976 meeting . Dennis Harwood , attorney representing the applicant , addressed the Commission and stated that tie felt that an honr;st mistake had been made by the applicant when the property was surveyed . Ron Winterburn addressed the Commission and stated that the survey was done in May of 1975, and further discussed the needs for a variance . i It was noted that the applicant had actually brought the error in the survey to thL attention of the City when he went to pour cement in the rear yard . Jim Van Derhyden , adjacent property owner , addressed the Commission and spoke In opposition to the granting of the variance , stating that it was in direct violation of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . He further stated ghat it would set an undesirable precedent if ap- proved . He felt that if approved the adjacent property owners should be granted the same right . lie stated that it cut down on the view ' from his property . The public hearing was closed . Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY SHEA THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS WAS OVERRULED IN ITS DENIAL Of CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 76-62 AND THE PLANNING COM14ISSION APPROVED CONDITIONAL, EXCEPT:ON NO. 76-62 WITH THL; FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITION BY THE FOi.LOWING VOTE : 1 . The encroachment resulted from an unintentional error in judg- ment . • • 2 . Compliance with the required setback would .incur unreasonable expense . 3 . The gxanting of this Conditional Exception would not be detri- mental to 4-he health and welfare of the neighborhood or ad;mcent structureE -7- 1/18/77 - PC 4 � • Minutes H .B. Planning Commission Tuesday, JanuAry 18 , 1977 Page 8 CONDIT-LON ; , 1 . The drain spoute on the balconies shall be removed to a north/ solo`h area, in oi:der to avoid any detrimental effect that may be incurrod on the public right-•of-wa; areas . !?YES : Finley , Gibson, Slater, , Shea , Newman POES : Parkinson, Boyle e ABSENT : None TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO . 7 6-6 9 Applicant : John Thomas In Conjunction With I CONDITIONAL, !=EFTXON NO. 76-10 Anl icant: John Thomas Tentative parcel Map No . 76-69 in conjunction with Conditic-nal EXception No. 76-10 , filed can December 23 , 1976 , is a request to allow a 115 ft . parcel of land to be subdivided into two parcels , one having 60 ft . of frontage and the other having 55 ft , of frontage in Lief: of the 60 ft. as required by the Ordinance Code . � The property is located approximately 148 ft . east of Stiver Lane and on the north Bide of Glencoe Avenue. Ac w i ng Secretary Palin discussed the staff report stating that the staf-f, in analyzing the request, had determined that parity with what sexists in the general vicinity is two 57 . 5 ft. lots and a special privilege 4ould consist if one 60 ft . lot and another 55 ft . lot ire approved . The public hearing was opened. John Thomas , applicant, addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of his original request for a 60 ft . and a 55 ft . lot . Reg De La Cuesta addressed the Commission and spoke against the approval of the Conditional Exception. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON NOTION BY SLATES AND SPX.OND 3Y NEWMAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 76-126 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates . Sheaf , Newman, Boyle .4O38: gone ABONNT: None --8- 1/10/77 - PC .tea. 5 w r^ G 16 it, lId� lIAIw"•� d ZI-00 ' Attova" All" 1t, Ment+wt Tth' City Clark 5 ' r Silwect %Attar ft: Gz 76-62 " � Attached to a latter fra � ���� Attermy for Ya"egad AooOGLaterg reldtive to thedr by 1:0a it grantims Ct l6-62 ba slit aside. ti Also attacWW U the P.%bruary - i 1' w t to 'oklah be, also reform, !lease advise of to wbatior tbu '� .'fit p lutwe Camell Items. CC., 15ud B6141t0, City Adaft etwotion Id Solicho PlannU* bireotW, . I lot xr, I..Ow orrlcr.a I.to o.Keeam r. 8 8 F. N A N U 8 K © W N J. AZN14ETH■ROWN 5$5 SOUTH FLOWKH STHCF.T, CWTIt 14MI TIMC.,fHY JAY MILI_[R TF+CIMAID Or.WINhIKI.G III LOS ANCELES,CALItONNIA E)0017 610 NtWPORT Ciro,ER DNIVt,$UIT1 MG6 ANTHONY %ANZONKR1 MRW►ORT BEACH,CJV11/0a MIA W380 ►4ICt4d%KL.A.1.AL31',A TCLICPHONIF IP131 62-4-I00I TELl"F+40NC 171+11 DAA 6400 March 31 , 14 7'l (SPECIAL DELIVERY) Mayor &nd Members of the City Council City of Huntington peach 61 Post Office Box 00 Huntington Beach , California 92648 Re: Conditional Exception No. 76--62 - A,peal Dear Mayor and Members of City Council : i This letter is written on behalf of V'anderwood ,Associates; the appellant in the above-referenced case, to respectfully demand that the City Council set aside its action in uz rti n to rant the above--.referenced Con- ditional g q ditional Exce ?ticn on the rounds that said action was both � 9 ay substantil )ly and procedurally illegal and imp-Zoper, and in violation of both State lair and the express prouiel.ons of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. in purporting to grant the subject conditional exception without snaking the findings of fact in support of ant , relevant to that determination, the City Council acted in direct violation of Section 9884 of you: Municipal Code, and in opAn disregard of the provisions of Article 983 of your Municipai Code and the laws of the State of California as recited in my February 19 , 1977 letter try each of you regarding the above--referenced conditional exception. Further, your action wa,4 directly contrary to the statement of the procedures to bE followed and findings to be made as recited by your legal counsel during the public hearing on this matter. i In fairness to all of the parties involved, I would request your earliest attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, THO A5 F. WIMELD III Attorneys for Vanderwood Associates TrW/pl a CC, Vanderwr.*d Associates CI i R Pap #10 - Cowncil Minute 3/21/77 "AN ORDIHAMI OF THE CITY OF' MWIMTOl1 ZZA013 JNC TST HWrJW T0N Sucl MiNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDMG SECT ION 14.44.050 i`IdCUW, MWAYl WO TO DR&INWR IFEES." SUMMERt10. 21§2 ��LWPT12 :.- "T UM ff G t 77-1 "All O1WL1gAr.."6 OF TO CITY Of MMTUVM AMR Al1rNOX.!!Ci TO MMrIWT(r1 H&CH ORDIMWR CUPI by AM&fDXIW DISTRICT W" 50. 34 TO UMW PAXCISE PI AN NO. 77-1 TO PROVIDE FOR '1WO A.LIGIWFNT dP TVO LOCAL lTUMN U)'.gM BRTVIRN Wk=R ,AVIM AM LoW PATOS AVMM. POI+ TO APPROVAL OF .CM � - y - An L DglIYHq "0 Clark presa rated an appeal filed by VV.WeivwA Corporation to the approval by the Fanning Coismimsion of Conditional fxaaptloo No. 76-62 which was a request to permit a five (S) foot encroachment in the requATeed ton (10) *oot front yard setback per Section 9203.1 of the Huntin,Rtcen as4sh. Ordinal Code, on property located on the . vast side of Delaware Street, appaoximtely, tvanxy-sevarn (27) feat north of timirs Avenue in an R9 (Hadium-High Dousity 3441danti,+al District) . A ha* in w hid on Fab 7 3 r g as a February .2, 977 at which time the decision of the Plf,=i CammLssiou Was sustained by a tia rote. OR March 14, 1977 a motion to reconsider 1 decision was adopted, with the toatter c entLuumd to this date, 1 Councilman Sheakmaa stated that he had liskiusd to the Tape of the i Q public haariag on this matter. On notion by TArtlett, sa4:ond Gibbs , Comail sustsined W464y decisOn of than Planning (� Coaniss and approve Conditional Suaerpti.on 76-62 arred to d the fSadinga de by the Planing C��misstaa. lioti+�n carthe following vote: %ATBS: •`iartlett, Pa<ttinsom, Gih5s , weeder MACS; Coen, Shenhmnn, Siebert A569NP: Nona ,EllillngJ �UBES WITHIN T MUBSTAD Councilman Shen�man requested that a study be trade of the existing land uses, su: as interim or marginal, in the C&ty's industrial corridor. He requested that sta: � , •-eturn with information and a. relitive to for kinds of business existing in the corridor which may be non-conforaing and Anther a major to-assesssomt is ;necessary of the existing industrial uses in the ontlridor. smu DM C QR SYSTEM - Iff JOIN TZD Councilman ShGnk requentad staff to loA into the development of an ordinance seminar to that adopted recently in 1i1narWli.s, making it rsndatory for all residential structures tee b&V* s ssrOM detection systm. Be ste.teed drat the City of Hiamew Nlis requires AH boom wLtletel a lrive-y"r period to leave mroks detectors, thereby giving residents as*l e ties to 00ftly w1th the ordinance. Irtre Chief Picard stated that it ar►adatary s■oU Artector •ystm was a desirable ob jecti,ve$ and that deers rap $ON petieaftg legi6t,at1on requiring smaka detectors on resale eer certain rebabilitatiom b# bma. c • � � w I.AY! 0E-FIC£5 LEO d *1IMLM EBB1. N AN [) 11R. 0WN 0. CC UNSEL J. AIENOYETI♦ 6140vYH 615 1 00.I VI-C-N'Cp 511iEET, 51JITE I?UI miLLER THON IA P.WINFIRLO III LOS ANCELES,CAUroR.MLA !mow I)NIMIU17L 145t ANTHONY CAME4')N9R1 NLv.NUR) HLACII,CALIFORNIA W060 MICNALLA.LApNA TKLEP,-:ONE 11:131 GZ.'-)' 1001 Tr.LCGIIpNX171Al6-914 U+I60 April. 29 , 19 7 7 (SPECIAL DELIVERY) � 0 Mayor and Members of tho City Council City of Huntington peach Huntington Beach City liall. CIS AT"��Q 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , California 92648 Re : Conditional Exce t:.on NO . 76- 62 Honorable Mayer and Members of the City Council : I have previously corresponded with each of ,you in my capacity as attorney for Vanderwood Associates on February 14 , 1977 and March 21 , 1977 . - both of which correspondence: dealt with the necessity for your Honorable Beady malting specific and express findings of fact regarding those hardship standard: recited in Sections 9832 , 9832 . 1 , 9832 . 2 , 9832 . 3 and 9832 . 4 of your Municipal Code as expressly required by Section 9884 of said Municipal Code . in addition , I have made available to you excerpts of the ianguagea of the California Supreme Court ' s decision in Topan a Assn , For A Sonic_ Community v. cc•!,ntix of Los An es , 11 C-7U909-71.974 ) which sets forth 1n great detail the+ manner in which you may adopt and the specificity required , of any findings of fact in situations such as your review on appeal of a conditional exception. At the public hearing on this :subject on appeal on February 22 , 1977 , Deputy City Attorney John O 'Connor specifically advised thAls City Council of the findings which had to be made in your deliberation on this matter , as set forth in your Municipal Code. During your April 16 , 1977 discussion of the subject conditional exception , City Attorney Don Bonfa again specifically advised the City Councils of the findings that had to be made as contained in your Municipal Code in order for you to affirm the planning Commission ' s grant ,I Mayor And Met, :rs of the City Council April 29 , 1977 Page 2 of the subject c:ondition.11 ercreption, and that in fact , you could curly :Hake those findings if the evidence received at your February 22 public hearing or) this matter in fact supported each of those four findings . With this background, Vanderwood A,ssoclates must assume. that any action of your r City Council , or vote of any of its members , which is trot consistent with all of the: above recited legal advice , is undertaken deli.herately aria in disregard of the provisions of your code , and the Constitutional rights of Vanderwood Associates as property owrlers in your City. s Further, I wish to expressly go on record as advising the City Council that notwithstanding the fact that the Council MinuteF. for the March 21 , 1977 City Council weeting recite the fact that the motion to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission and approve conditi.onal exception 76-62 made at that meeting, made reference to and adopted the findings of the Planning commission, that this is indeed not a fact. No reference was made to, nor any action taken , to adopt the findings of the Planning Commission, and the tape of that meeting and the transcrip- tion we had prepared of that tape clearly so indicate . i Further, the staff report prepared by your Planning Department dated April 26 , 1977 , and purporting to provide findings which might be made by your Honorable Body regarding this conditional exception , recites four findings which (1) are not consistent with the provisions of your Municipal Code, nor legally sufficient to support the sustaining of the appeal , and (2) are not supported by the evidence received by the City Council on its public hearing on this matter , or indeed by the facts as they exist. The record be :)re your Honorable Body indicates that the building which s the subject of the conditional exception is in fact, t ilt five feet into the frontyard setb,%ck, that its cons' vatson at that location is the result of an error by alley Consultants , the surveyor of the owner# and that i the conditional exceptioa is denied , the building will hay• to be moved the required five feet to the rear. The prk perty owner has not come to your City 1 1 e.y. Mayor and Mer rs of the City Counci April 29, 197'/ Page a Council asking for r i.i.ef, because he does not need your assistance to protect his property rights in the subject building, if the conditional exception is denied , the property owner will get full satisfaction from the sur- veyor who erroneously set the location of the building . The evidF�nce before the City Council in the form of the photographs subrni.tted by Vanderwood -Associates , clearly indi- cates that the encroachment of the subject builai,ny five feet into the setback, interferes with and to some extent • destroys the vl'..ew from the building on Vanderwood. Associates property to the Pacific ocean . Further , the evidence before the City Council (contrary to the finding of tact contained in paragraph 2 of the April 26 , 1977 staff report) clearly j ind+cates that -the building of Vanderwood Associates imme- dieately to tho North of the subject property, is set back n feet from the true right of way from Delaware Street , t :,d that the property immediately South of the subject property, is set back in excess of ten feet. j 1 Fused on all of the foregoing , it is respectfully suggested that yc :r. Honorable Body has no legal recourse j but to deny the subject conditional exception, making those factual findings made by the Board of 'Zoning Adjustments when it turned down the request for this conditional exception, ns those findings are recited on page 1 of my February 14 , 1977 letter. Again , thank you for your careful consideration of the foregoing. I sincerely hope that ycu will. take that action which is the only action whi&. Is legally possible for you to take , to wit: the denial of the subject conditional exception, and will not necessitate Vanderwood Associates being Put to further expense to protect their legal rights and those of all of their neighbors and fellow residents of the City of Huntington Beach . Very truly yours , THOMAS F. WINFIELD III Attorney for Vanderwood Associates TFW/pla CC. Mr. Don Bon f a, City Attorney Vanderwood Associates 44 • 1�y t .1 r A M n r, BOARD of zonn; ADJUSTMEMS CITY OF HUNTING70N REACH-CALIFORNIA t` P. O. rox 19o.9260 PHOMI(714) $36.5271 TO: Planning Commisnion rROM: board of Zoning Adjustments uATE : January 16 , 1977 SUBJECT: Conditional Exception 2io. 76-62 - Appeal to Board of Zoning Adjustments' decision to deny . APPLI^ANT: Valley Ce !sultatita, Inc; . for Jack Santiago 20951 Brookhurst St. Huntington Beach, Calif , I" ,=ATION: West side of Delaware Street, approximately 27 ft. north of Elmira Avenue RE 1USST: Permit a filre (5) ft . encroachment into the required ten (10) ft . front yard setback. APPELLANT : Ron Winterburn for Valley Consultants , Inc:. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DECISION AT PUBLIC HEARING - DEC. 1 , 1976 After a lengthy discussion can the request for the five (5) ft. encroach- ment into the required ten (10 ) ft. front yard setback , and listening to testimony for and against the proposal , the following motion was Mda by the Board: ON MOTION BY PALIN AND SECOND BY LIPPS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76--62 WAS DENTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE% REASONS FOR DENIAL: 1. No special circumstances exist as to size, ohape , and configuration on the subject property that would warrant granting a conditional exception. Z . Granting of this request would constitute granting of special privilege not realized by other structures in the area. 3 . It is readily apparent from a visual review without actual meas- Ure m nt that tie structure: is in violation of the ordinance code, and the building should have been correctly located prior to con- struction. AYESs Palin, Crosby, Lipps NQZB S None Nor►e w'. Page Two BOARD OF ZO!vTNG ADJUSTMENTS ' RECOMMENDATIONS : The Hoard of Zoning Adjustments recoirmiends that: tlia Planning Corinission sustain the Board ° o decision to deny the roquesL for the five (5 ) ft. encroachment :into tree required ten ( 10) ft . front: yard setback . SUMMARY ANALYSIS -. Mr . Ron Winterburn , the! engineer . `or the development; Dr. and Mrs . David Schorr, awne. s of the property; and Mr . Jack SanLi.ago , devel.orc,_ -_-f f-h(,, structure, were present to address the Board in favor of the request:. AA:. Winterburn explained how the encroachment had come about and cited the +' expense of rorrecting the code violation. He stated that when the survey was originally performed, it was surveyed incorrectly per a,3sessorl s maps and that the control for the survey had been run Li for the front property line from another street anO based upon the location of the sidewalk wi.thi.n the parkway area on the property to the north, that they had assumed the corner staking of subject property was corn act . rr Mr . Winterhurn also informed the Board that corner staking for the rear property line was pulled in from a different street in order ::o establish centerline of the Alley. Therefore , the five (5) ft . di;-ferential in � K. depth was not picked up in t:-e survey . 1n his presentation, Mr. Winterburn stated that the centerlines on Delaware do not coincide north and south of Frankfort which created the mistake in the survey . Mr . Santiago indicated that as the property had been staked when tie was ready for construction , he laved in the framing for the foundation ten (10) ft . back of stakes and that the City had made an inspection prior to the pouring of the foundation which he assumed was the proper location . Additional, information has been sabraitted by the appellant as supplemental information for Planning Commission review. In this document , it states within Stem 4, "Although in the event the ultimate rig;zt--of.--way line of Delaware Avenue as adopted by the Master Plan of Arterial ,13treets is different than the existing property line, pursuant to the provit-ion of Section 9203 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code , the setback upon the subject property may be lawful . " It should be pointed out th4t the ultimate right-of-way line on Delaware Street is the same line as the front property line of the lots in gaestion. At this time there is no requirement for additional dedication from the west side of Delaware, nor has there ever been a request for additional dedication from the property Along the west:. side of Go�.laware since recordation of the original tract map. Other arguments made in the supplemental information is that the sidewalk was designed and engineered to be located in conjunction with the side- walk to the north of subject property . However, in reviewing the street improvement plans on file in the Deparl'ment of Public Works , it becomes evident that subject property Le constructed having a thirteen (13) ft. parkway in lieu of the standard eight (8) ft . parkway now required on secemdary arterial highways . u 7 • 1 I W G •r I W. s y5 tt V *� 1 Page Three It should be noted that there are a n;unber of variable sidewalks and parkway widths existing within the O t.y of Huntington Beach on arterial highways , and placement of curb line within the right-of-way should not h,!V* been used as documentation on n width or placement of the sidewalk nor location of front proper ter " i ne- . VITLOfiTAi, INFORMATIOU : - - .,w.w.� . 4 In tars►"atigatirj a rzu.► ber of applications and files within the City of Huntington Beach, there was no -vi denc,•e .found that would document the centerlin4 h�i. . ; 'pry Ft . sisterly from the front property line of the tWO lots in question . Therefore , it is assumed from the street improve- r,, n>ent plans on file with the Uep� rtment o¢ Public Works, tree record map on file for subject property, and a par(-.,(,I map existing to the east across Delaware on sublect property , that an error was made in the r . survey and corner loco .ion of Sab i .c.t x,r :-L�ei•Ly . SUPPORTING INFORNiA�'A. 1. Xrea Mar, 2 . Letters of Appeal Board. of Zoni.iia Act j ustm�-nt:: M.i-nutes 4. :fiction by Board c; , Zoning Ad ;;iistmen '.s can CE 76-7/2 5. A portion of the street .i_mparo•�,arnent ni.ans for. )De:l.awaru immedi-ately adjacent to propE:r;:y. 6. Copy t)f a ;rcel rap on prop-1-!ty to the east of subject property Respectflam.% y eubjn.itt,,d , $mesa:-, �.;.n Secretary 'rWP/ s n' f1 `o n l i4 s,1l, ♦ ^1►1 REASONS FOR CONSTRUCTION CIr 1N!1%k0VJ:.'MEN'r ENCROACHING I'fNi SET- BACK The plan of construction of improvements upon the subject property was designed and engineered to be constructed without requiring a variance or resulting in any violation of any of the ordinances of the City of Huntington Beach . Assuming that a -viola-- ti:on of any ordinance does exist, it was unintentional , it being the belief at all times of the applicant and the, property owner that the improvements Capon the subject property were being -r ortistLuctecd with a full ten ( 10 ) foot set-back frori the property line . The violation , if any, arises out of an apparent inconsistency in connection with the recorded tract map prepared for the Vista del Mar Tract on March 24 , 190 5 ; the: Assessor ' s Parce-I Map r.o. 1t ing to Block 504 of the Vista del Niar Tract,- the configuration acid location of other improvements within the area ( including constructed improve- ments) and a sidewalk .improvement adjoining the subject property. The inconsistencies are (1.) A map depictiny the location of the subject property (Lots 2 and 3 of Block 504 ) , adjo i r►ing streets and other imrrovements within the area is attached hereto as Exhibit- E . in setting the locat-ion of the improvement upon the sub- ject property , reference was made to the Tract, flap prepared in 19o5 and the Assessor' s parcel Map, both of which ar* zirentI dr:signate the westerly property line of Block 504 as being lo,,;atetd 35 .feet from the center line of Delaware Avenue (Wrich roadway commences a curve easterly within the area of the subject property) . (See copy of portion of Tract t4ap attached as Vxhihit F. ) Measuring the 3-- y` WMEb ' r f property line at .35 feet from the. centor line of Delaware Avenue places the improvements 10 feet behind the existing prODerty line , (2) in fact , however , thc: trUe center line: of Delaware Avenue -appears to be act 40 fees:. from L'he property line . In determin- ingthe location of the improvements , an existing sidewalk an an P adjoining property was utilized visually in determining the set-back line. The planned sidewalk .upon the subject: property was constructed in line with the existing sido;yal.k , and the snt--bacY. .f.ixc.d at teri ( 10 ) feet from the westerly Line of the sidewalk (.�ri `.h sidewalks t generally being erected upon the perimeter of the property line) . (3 ) In fact , the existing sidewalk. appoars sit five (5) feet from the proper+ -- line . (Sec Exhibits G and H representing photo-- (,raphs concernin,j- thy: al.lgnment of the existing :sidewalk wi.t.t1 the sidewalk to be co atru :t_ec" f ) Uno7 the adjoining block on Delaware Avenue: (south of. Elmira) improvements in the form of retaining walls and fences are located at the 35 foot sunposed property line , (See Exhi "At D, depicting retaining walls and .i.mproverrionts at th,1 _ur�posed property line within the adjoining block . ) The property was fully improved in ac-:ordatice with city i approved plant and specification: with the improvement believed to i be at a location tern (10 ) feet westerly from the easterly ?roperty I line . It is to be noted that the City Building Department in visually inspecting the foundation location and granting ac permit r. did , in connection with its inspection of March 24 , 1976 , approve the loundat:ion location as having complied with the ten (10) foot front yard set-back requirement. (See files of Building Depart- Monte Ci wy of Huntington Beach . ) a Fx a �,' ►+R1,,.'K?i' y:,, ;, ,; , t, . ter.._.-.y swim With the belief that the .Location of the foundation wAs irk full compliance with set-back requirements , the entire structure upon the subject property was completed , and it i; now ready for occupancy ;subject to securing the: requested variance . To require a removal, of the existing structure to meet the ten ( IC ) foot sate buck requiremen,. would impose an undue and. unreasonable burden upon applicant and property owner . THE LAW EAVORa GRANTINc3 A VARIANCE UNDER V18SE CIRCUMSTANCtS Although as a yeneral rule a party cannot create its own "hardship " to secure a variance by expendincj substanhial ,funds where j the part;iy knowingly spands those funds i» Violation of an existing ordinance , where such a violation is innac;enLly made and made in good faith , the law gcnerally favors a variance to approve such con- struction rather than requiring a substantial economic loss by the applicant . As is stated in Flegman , Larson and Martin , California 7.-oninq 'ravcice (1969) , pa le 282 : "As a practical. matter , [f tho self-induced ha,rshi.n is not unconscionable , the zoninq beard may grant a variance. For example, the 'inw.itting remodelling of a house that results is violation of the -oni.ng ordinance will often be authorized by a vc '.ance . " See also, Comment.. Zen : `Variance Administration in A'lamk� da Co, untX, 50 California Law review 101 (1962) . California Court of Ap peals has often upheld decisions cf city R ' }, P 1.; and count bodies y in granting variances where refusal of the variance will result in great economichardship and the devclopt r has incurred 4 substantial obligations pursuing his project "Innocently". . In the case: of Allen v . Humboldt P ounty Board oll.: suervi.sors , 241 Cal.App. 2d 158 , the California District Court of 2,ppeals upheid the granting c,f a variance for a developer primarily capon the grounds that tho developer had incurred substantial expense ::nd obligations in connection with the developmentt of a parcel of reel property 1' where he beliettred such parcel could be developed as anticipat%d , received support of a member of the city staff for such development; however, the ultimate development was in violation of county %oning ordinances . See also Lakessian v . C.i.ty of Sausalito , 218 Cal. . App . 3d 744 . CONCLUSION 111. .is respectfully submitted that the granting of a variance � as requested herein and reversal of the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments wuuAld be proper and appropriate, and it is respectfully requested that the Planning Corxmission grant applicant ' s request for Conditional Exception No. 76.-62 , as requested herein. HARWOOD tti ADKINSON r. ,t Bennis 41. Harwood Attorney for Applicant, Malley Consultants, Inc. -6- 1 V1 , .omb y 1. LAW OFFICES Lao 0,assaw E 3 8 E N AND 6 R O W N � or caUNs1/.L .A 11960it7h$MOWN 615 SOUTH PLOWER STRE.T, 'SUITt 1201 � I T10407 NY JAY MILI.LR T0604AS I,wiwPlaw NI IAA AhlGELFS,C�1LIFOltA11A 90017 l ao Ntwoo"ctli;E�DROVE,bum M11 ANtMQ�rY�NiOhRlti N[WPOItT dtACM,CALI/GRNIA 61610D MtCHAIMA.LADRA TELEPHONE 12131 klF4.1001 T[LCRMbN[ 17141 0" 0400 February 14 , 1977 EC �rl � WED Mayor and Members or' the City Council FEB i, ? 1�?77 City of Huntington Reach Post office Box 190 CITY Of flUKINGTCN BEACH Huntington Beach, California 92649 CITY COUNCIL OFFICE He: Conditional Exception No. 76-62+Appeal Dear Mayor and Axembers of City Council : This letter is written to amplify the legal position of Vanderwood Associates, the appellant in the above- referenced casq, and the owner of that property im:l.ediately adjacent to the building which is the subject of the coedit anal exception under consideration. The subject conditional. exception =.r3 a request for a five foot encroachment into the required ten foot frontyard setback on the subject property. The applicant , Valley Consultants , Inc. , civil cngineers or. the project , admit that they building was constructed five feet into the required setback area as a result of a surveyors mistake . The factual presentation made to the Board of; zoning Adjustments, and indeed the factual presentation made to the Planning Commission at its January 16 , 1.977 meeting, fully support the factual findings made by the Board of Zcning Adjustments when the turned down Condition: ! Exception No. 76-62 , to � wit: (a) REASONS FOR DENIAL: 1. No ape?.-Lai c rcumeFances exist as to size, � shape, and configuration on the subject 1 property that would warrant granting a conditional exception. 2. Grunting of this request would constitute granting of special privilege not realized by other structures in the area. 3. it is readily apparent from a visual review without actual measurement that the structure is in violation of the ordinance coder, and the building should have been correctly located prier to construction. , `fir . , .. .r � •, .�,,. r4 o, �10 Mayor and Membars of City Council February 14 , 1977 page 2 Nothwithstanding the virtually identical factual presentation made to them, the Huntington Beach planning Commission purported to grant the requested special exception for the following recited reasone : "I Exceptional Circumstances. An error in judgment was made' ln--ieadinj tie old surveys and assessor ' s maps. 7. Necessity to Pro ert Rights: Compliance with Me setback�- with the additional setback creates exceptional financial hardships in moving the building. 3. Absence of Detriment: The granting of the condiMoRal except on will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and general wellbeing of the surrolanding neighborhood . 4 . And the fourth case -- I can ' t find it because it is just goad faith that the applicant is willing and able to ca..•:�y out the purposes which the C.E. sty. . so that it is r. moot point at this time. But I am reading from our .little bible that we got from John some time ago. I tried to find the three reasona because I felt that the fourth was moot. " These findings of the Planning Commission , with the exception of their recognition that the problem was the result of an error or mistake by the 6urveyor, are factually unsupportable and are totally inadaquate to legally support the grant of a conditional exception. The provis Iona of Article �83 of your Municipal Code arm explicit as to findings required to tie meAdo by the City Council when granting a conditional exception. As the Zoning board clearly recognized in thin matter, such findings cannot be made under the facts involved in this particular ,situation. Indeaed, the Planning Commission in attempting to grant t: conditional exception, quite openly ignored these findings in an 0 *fort to soave the applicant the cost of moving his building. The intent of the Planning Cotamission may have been charitable, but their action was clearly illegal. Mayor and Habibors of. City Council February 14, 1977 page 3 In its most recent ruling in the area, the California Supreme Couz t in the case of To an a Assn. For A Scenic Cosesc'munit v. Count of Los An a es , 11 C 3'd 6; 511 13, r _lY_(1 )� Usct�sse�function of the court in reviewing the grant of a zone variance , or as it is called in Ruatington boach, a conditional exception. The Court stated: "Although the cases have held that substantial evidence must support the award of a variance in order to insure that such legislative requirements have been sa. :isfied (see, e .g. , Sille r v. Board of SuR r�vis ors (1962) 59 Cal . ?d 170; '481—C Cal.Rptr. 73 ,375P. 2d 41 ) : bradbeer v. F, n Mend (1951) 1D4 Cai.App. 2d 704 , 707 1232 X23 WT) , they 7have failed to clarify whether the adminsitrative agency must always set forth findings and have not. illumina- ted the proper relationship between the evidence , findings, and ultimate agency action. "One of the first decisions to emphasize the importance of judicial scrutiny of the record in order to determine whether substantial evidence supported administratiJe findings that the property in question inet the legislative variance require- ments was that penned by Justice Molinari it; Cow kiollow improvement Club v. Board off it A ea I f>' T ! ..Apg 6 Ca .Rptr . �4 Less than: one year .later, we followed the approach of that case in 8r+cadwa , La una etc. Assn. v. Huard of A eals (1. Ur Ca�'. 6 Ca .Rr p . 5 1/ P.2"d�W10I , and ordered that a zoning board 's grant of a variance be set aside because the party seeking the variance had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support administrat{ve findings that tha evidence satisfied the regiiissites fr.•r a vari. nce sot forth in the same San Francisco or&!! nce. "A song other functions, a findings requirement set"* to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-conclusions supportive of Its ultimate decision; the intended effect is to Ile 14 �* k= Mayor and Members of City Council ` February 14 , 1977 pages 4 d� S. facilitate orderly analyein and minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from ovidence to conclusions. (See 2 Cooper , State Aftinistrative Law (1965) pp. 467-468; Feller, Pros ectits for the Further StudX of Federal Administrative Mn-ling oar a of Appeal : Suggestions for Reform (1965) 12 U.C. L.A. L.Ray. 937 , 952. ) in addition, findings enable the reviewing court s �n trace and examine the agency' s made of analysis . (Sew California Motor Trans �)zt Co. v. public Ut111t��oC m. _ Ca , _ ffCif. Rpt�r. '§6b_j__ ,79 P. 21. 3241 ; Swars v. Council of the Cif of Valle J o {+949) 33 C a 1 2if 86-' , P-1 2-0 P. 2 "Ay setting forth a reasonable requirement for findings and clarifying the standard of judicial review, we promote the achievement of the intended scheme of land use control. Vigorous and meaning- ful judicial review facilitates , among other factors, the intended division of decision--snaking Labor. Whereas the adoptio: of zoning regulations is a legislative function (Gov.Code S 658.50) , the granting of variances is a quasi-judicial administrative one. (See Johnston v. Hoard of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal . 2 d 6 P'2if -b ; Ka as�av. Alcan Pacific Co. (1963) 222 Cal.App. 2d 626,634 5 Ca. Rp r. . ) If the judiciary were to review grants of variances superficially, administrative boardo could subvert thin intended decision-making structure. (See 1 Appendix to Sen. J. (1970) Reg. Seas. ) rinal Rep. of the Joint Committee on Open Space Land (1970) pp. 102-103 . ) They-could ' (ascend) .the zoning codes in the vise of a variance' (cow lia ow Ia rovemment, Mubv. Board of perm t Appealst supra, at p. an ren erincribing an n ese applicable -" state and local 1 slat on vas, ret�,+a�ments "Moreover , cour'�', s must weaninqfullZ reviaw rants of variances in ox ex to protect the interests o sea w K. t o n ro r.t near 1--lo _�o aro� or w c a vas ancea a sou t.. in . 4. ' ia�.vv - Y •v,ti '4 1 n• Y fir•�•;a :. 000fpl0" 1� 10 y:.. . M,•1• M Mayor and Members of City Council, rebruary 14 , 1977 AO page g .�I R" 0 schemes after all, is - similar in some respects w; to contract i eaMch aR.-Y core oe,t r is to use its an so .t w s es return or the assurance t ..at t .e use of nei ` ring2rqperty will be ar rearrce , ter�atccnae being that suchmutual rester can enhance total community welfare. (See, e. g. , 1 Appendix to Sen.YT. (1970 Rig. Sass . ) Final step. oil the Joint Committee on {' opan Space Land (1970) p. 91; Bowden , Article XXV111-- 22aning the Door to 0 n S ace Control (19 7 0) Pacific L.J. ; . ) If the nterest of these gLrtie© in rev'eiitiri un uWti�`ied,variance award' v nr o in lands nor, sut iccient. -y -pro-- tecte , t e consequence w e `subvers oA oT-E e critical reci rocit u on which zoning rusts. " (emphasis added. ) The basis for the conditional exception urged by the applicant herein is a personal hardship that will be suffered if the building is required to be altered or moved so that it no longer encroaches into the required ten foot frontyard setback. The concept of such "unnecessary hardship" was discussed by the Court in Zakessian v. City of Sausalito 28 C.A. 3d 794 (3.97:2) as followb . J. . "The basic element of ' unnecessary hardship' is pointed out in 8 McQuillan (1965 rev, ed. ) Municipal Corp rations, section 25. 167 , p&ges 542-544 , as follows : ' It is fundamental that the difficulties or hardships must be unique to justify a variance; they must be peculiar to the application of zoning restrictions to articular ro rt and not general in character since ieu t es or hardships shared by all go to the reasonableness of the zoning restrictions broadly ane render them invalid or call for their mod'.f ication by amendatory ordinance. In 7,'• other words, the plight of an applicant .for a variance must be due to peculiar circumstances and conditions, and it must be apeci.al or unique in contrast with that of other property owners a. y F FN 1 R J" N~ 4, Y eJ t. x4 INN * Mob and lVAmbers of City Council Pecuar_�y 14 , 1977 pa►+�r 6 In the came district . ' To the same effect see 58 American Jurisprudence, Zoning , section 204 , page 10511 101 Corpus Juris Secundum, Zoning, section 291Y 2 Anderson, o . cit. , sections 14 . 16 14. 321 and see the authorit e min ':hose works cited. "The rule is closely followed in California. blinney v. City of Azusa , 164 Ca.App. 2d 12 , 31. (330 g�. 51T quot ng r 7 oad, authority, states : 'A "variance" for rindue: hardship is grounded in conditions eculiar to the particuI.ar lot as diytini uishesd xom at. e;r rS ertyin�the u ems_ strict. Other authority states that a zone varlan e is -the means used to ' solve a ►ani.que problem for any property owner' Mich ter v. Pt jard of Sul2ervisors 259 Ca.App. ''d 99t 1.06 ? 6 Ca. Rptr . 5 or amelior- ation of unnecessary har.'dehips which , owing to specia.. c w&t , woW d result from literal enfonwmt of the: restrictive features of the ordixmice. "' (, v. Alcan Pacific Co. 222 Cal .App.2 6 63G_;macal . Rptr. 15TI ); anc-to relieve the "type of hardship which inheres in the, 2articular ra ert� , . . '' (Cit of San Marina v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 190 Cal. App, 2d 96, 4 . Rtptr. , P'2d 1051] Allen v. Humboldt County Bd. of Supervisors , 241 C_A_1-AFp_. 2a 158tfin Ca . Rptr. 4441 . ) A clear illustration of 'unnecessary hardship ' occurs when ti)e; natural condition or topography of one' s land places him at a disadvantage vis-a-vis other, lAndown-are in the zoning diNtrict . it is said: 'Satisfaction of the requirement than the circum- stances which ;result, in unnecessary hardship be peculiar to the applicant' s property is most clearly established where the hardship retlaites to the physical rharacteristiLa of the Land. where , for example, petculzatxi.ties of size, shape or grader of the parcel in question are unique and if the ha rd4hip relates tr these, the requirem*ut of unique circrymaatances is met . [y1 rf singuiar and related topographical features area lacking a the court say not find the c f rcums ta►nces which plague '` the applicant are different from those which affect I� 1 1 k l 14, ' I fit,•^ Y+^',: . 1 .f Mayor and Mambers of City Council `''' pebruary 14, 1977 page 7 the land of his neighbors. " (2 Anderson, __o_pp__ cit. $14 . 331 see also 8 McQuAllari , o.. . cit. S25&77. 0 Thin refinement of tho rule is recogn zed in California. (See Broadway. * Lac=& etc. Roan. v. Board of P supra, a e 1 , 2Z �1"T4 ; A1Y$ri v. ium- A .eaS+� . �i boldt Count Bd. of Su ervisors , au ra, �41 Cal—.App. 2d '�`• `,—�.` t eeler v. r! , caI. pp. 2d 3 4 8 354 [203 P: .) " . . there isyet mother element which must exist before'unnecessary hardship' may be found. , (lit is fundamental that any variance, . from a zoni.nig ordinance, administratively authorized by a zoning beard, must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning laws. . . " (8 McQuillan, 2a.Re�same cit , p. 573 , S25.151; see also 2 Anderson, or,.. 1�4 . 16 . ) California ' s Supreme Court expressLi ruts in this manner ; 'Strict adherence to the general scheme of a zoning ordinance may result ...n und-ue hardship with respect to certain parcels of land, and in order to insure the validity of the ordinance without impairing .its general purpose and intent, provision is ordinarily ;Wade for the graLting of variances and the impo5Ation of conditions . ' (Brim le v. Board of erv.isora•, ,supra, 54 Ca1. 2d 86, Or Iance6 a so apecia y recognizes this rule; before a variance may be granted it requires a finding (here made) . 'That the granting of such variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance. . off ' .•,:' it is obvious from the foregoing t' "unnecessary bacduhipO has to do with the unnecessary bar.,: ,iAy or physical itsp esibility of developing a given parcel of property in oe lieacs with the zoning ordinance. The tezv "hardship" In die particular context has a pa t-oular legal connotation . ewe a"n persoAal hardship+ Itx hagmax�, .a►reetn, i �21,';�•`•' HartLas CIII A�U i*s Zonipq Practice (1969) supplemented to /1 I 1IlIIfY�IiW■ ���.� ' �14�I +y. 1 I pl,r M i 1 .y �, r 4 etsi��.el� ira.WWrr /wd►�.iYer,l IYr •.;. . ... ._.. ..., LYE, 1� 7..E 1 • 1•�,«'�'•yr8 R�� •1 1' 1 4. Mayor and Mesaber s of City Council. robruar.y 14 , 1977 n° 1975, a leading treatise on California land use reglalation, the authors state at page 279: "The standard of hardship with regard to applications to variances . relates to the property, not to the parson who owns it (authorities r ' omitted"Although a larger house, in a growing family in needed, that kind of hardship does not justify a variance (authoritir+s omitted) . Preferences of the owner and long-term wrongful use should not be considered hardship. p poor cold widow is no more untitled to a variance so -that she can lease her property for a filling station , than is a tycoon. The suggestion in r ppbdaahl v. Alcan Pa_ c. ^o. (196311 222 C.A. 2d 626 . that a var a►nce was proper when granted to avoid the haxdshij. of a longer walk to town fur rest home residents, should be considered improper under a strict application of the law , "Allen v. Humboldt County Bd. f S!�pervisor�s (19 6 6) -Cad-T�,, i "ri s arm accurate statement about personal hardship% i ' It is doabtiful that the variance would have � been allowable under the county ordinance by reason of purely personal difficulty or hardship, as, for example, lack of funds. A considera"ale connection of the difficulty or hardship with the parcal of land as compared .:, with its surroundings probably would be necessary. ' ftrtheir, it clear that when the hardship to *elf-inducesd, it ewmot be the basis for the grant i ng of a coiiditionaal exceptlon (variance) . in Broadway, Laqvna Etc. V. of Pazuithmalsf 66 C. 2d 767 , 775 9 ) , tole wfo �a prOM Court •Ce1 a s "Turning to the board' s Inclose ion of the ' developer's adoption of superior building standards as an eiement of hardship upon the developer o, W* r :y• 1 4 .j y 7[:ii ai:i,.ir'niaY,':c•1�:�1.:...�.,...KaL..�.,u..a.., � t ., h I ,f 1 „_may+' Orr AOL R 1 Mt►yor wkd Kembers of City Council fir.. February 14 , 1 V 7 7 need only n►otc that such self-imr�osei burdens cannot le all ► Justify the g iY o a variance M o San . ino v. Raman Ca thol ic Arm is o ( , „a . pp. .: 697 , a ptr. !^ f 5,. Minnex V. C+t r of Asusd (1958) 164 Cal .App. 2d 12 . 3 p. d 255F, anp .d!sm. (1959) 159 U. S . 436 [3 L. 34. 2d 932, 79 S .Ct . 94111 cf. Caccla, v. Zoning Board of Review (7 955) 61 R. I . 14f _r11T_TM 870 , `(emphasis added. ) The above.-quoted proposition is €uarther supported by the recent case of Pettit v. Cit. of Fresno 34 C.A. 3d 2;1.3 (1973) , wherein the Court~cct"`es an iscussses 4 lang gist of cases where criminal conviction or destruction of an innocently, but illegally constructed building waa upheld by the court under circumstances where the property owner claimed Moth good faith, and that the dsve1opa,,nt had been undertaken pursuant to validly issued building permits . The .law .is clear t4alat a co,,�ditionai exception cannot issue to render. 'legal a build�.ng which is mistakenly constructed illegally. In the Mac hook ., tn�.� authors state nt page 2U1: "A landowner cannot expend money for construction or egviipmen t or s•tazt a business, then discover that Isis activity it illegal under the 2cning and successfully demand a► variance on the grouna of riarushir►. (Authorities omitted. ) " This is particularly so when that which is illegal about the stxucture is substantial and obvious and detrimental to bath the community and adjacent property owners. Based on the foregoing authorities, the advi.oe of your City Attorney which will be tortheming at your meeting : . and thn *videntiarry records in this cage, 1 respectfully suggeat that this City Coomci.l must affirm the appeal of Van4orwood Amsociaktas heir{sin, and deny the requestea conditional • �tttic�A« . ii ly 65. NN'IjVi,'• ' , ;rL f:,'�1:.1 I.III• '� � Qyr 'T'�4 rI'•, ,K + I 1' n yE 1" ..� �`�• �'t�� T".�{���.R 'L.y""7.T", Ti, ro 4l.'r5 la, . ,.iv,r•a. , r . 'M•r �` > t and Mager* of City Council • saary 14, 1977 page 1D Without unduly lengthening this letter, it should . also be noted that even were the law and the facts in this came such that a conditional exception could legally be garanted, the encroachment of five feet in a ten-foot setback, being the elimination of one half of that setback on a substantially developed street, cannot as a matter of faot or a matter of law, be considered a "minor" setback variance within the meaning of Section 15105 of Title 14 of the ." California Administrat4 ve Coos., and therefore could not be considered, as the City Staff has in this case, as categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Act of 1970. Thus, prior to the granting of a conditional exception to permit a 50% encroachneint in a frontyard setback, 1 ever_ if appropriate findings could be made (which they cannot here-An) , the law would .require an environmental evvalustion -if the proposed action under the provisions of " . the California Environmental Quality Act. See Wildlife Alivo v. Chickerin 18 Cal. 3d 190 (1976) . Indeed, an eriv�r`ozaanta ana ysis in the instant case would clearly establish the total inability of the City Council to make that finding required by Section 9832. 3 of your Municipal Coda, to wit, "that the granting of such conditional exceptions would not be materially detrimental to the public ,health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming land, r .: property or improvements in the neighborhood r,r the property" n for which such conditional exception is sough ^loarly the proposed conditional exception would perpetuate a situation which severely damages the property of vanderwood Associates and the surrounding neighborhood. Again let me apologize for the letegth of this document,, but the importance Of this matter , both to my clients and their investment in the adjoining property and to the general policies of land use in the City of Hwitington teach made such detailed consideration seem appropriate. Thank you for your kind consideration of our position in this matter. Respectfully submitted, N � Air t�..�ti..-�• � � �..- ...�t�t'''�? " I THOMAS F. W111FIFLD I TFW/pa Y'd r, A'' s♦ � • 11 r•• � l �V. • L / 1. '�, U aeber of Xxcerpts Publish Owcea ri 1 1 Mai '1• ICZ 21s 01P =C t`. CONDI'ft�Y'M " 3XCSpTION NO* •7 6-62 � WMICS IS NXIM 41M that a pablic hearing will be held by they City PUns ing Co issiean of the City of 8untiegton c s' California, for the purpose of considering an appeal sear L Xxae tion No. 76-67 f parrUrt a five (5) foot encroachment in the required ten (10) foot front yard setback per Section 9203. 1 of ' ' the Huntington Beach Oardinance Code. The subject property is located ca .the west side of lawatrs Street, "approximately twanty-seaaoMn (27) feet northJ21jaira Avenue in an Mo (Medium-High Density Residential District) . A legal description is an files in the Planning Depertawnt Office. Said hetariag will be hold at the hour of 7 00 P ON* $' an January 6, 1977 , in the Council Chambers building of the Civic Canter, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach , California. All inte:;e sted persons s are invited to attend said hearirrg and express their opinions for or against the proposed w Zoanditional !!Ception No. 76-62 . ` Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone no. (716) 516-9171 DATED this 23yd clay of December, 1976 •A 6 CITY PLANNING CCMISSION r SdwArd D. 6elich Acting Secretary /i �y ry `■ ,1 I� i :.I I .I. am ams k iA 6i' A FUSIJC MUM uSING M ATTN= LWAL MMICN FOR TIM L111t cr 197 lip'X are attached Area will follow i cT s� No AP'a ' Initioad by: Planning Department fez aw Adoption of Mvirormntal Status # ` YN NO 1 '�h M1, i • I •"', N, ', v~ 1 1 Jo'• #,mod kv 678M W222-08 s Mitt 2330 M-OW90 '' ate, aa�ie �' I MWOOM910" aim.Q. c13,t Di�r�br 4�it�crad 6 � 1��a xl�vrr 1 !�� i s Crib C �2447 92"7 0 u t� at4 �'1 Foe Gum � apt ila ��""�23fi3 ✓ 2 sa�oa f �m Baftch, Cali 92648 24-=-U st *t 271" J uWIM stayL AMUM 416 Ar"Ou � ] AMWA* tl�llfod�Lla► t "061 Beat#1►, Calif 92648 24-M**4 24-22"3 24-222-12 tom, ftvaland Wive f 4LS M,Ltar = SUMS I�►t3agb�on 2ersc4t Calif � MOU gtM B"Oh, Cali art13A 11 cn Wit, C LU $2647 9" Z S 24-221 24-222-13 COZOIS A Untmor *ntm it Quolun Rim R MUO 1077 IW +a C3=le 413 ws met 407 Dwtrcit Awswi LNar CIII WP* CC09KM dwmtiayCaa smachr tIAUf au t 3jk gtr:-n ftwa, cot 97034 92"s �3648 146»m-" 24-M-0 24-223-U wrAd Wauv et ma 8 Labe swotian J Had i P&d. Boon 411 Dose 6 $: Cal i. m �tr t , Cif bee h, calf tMar�ag� ►, OXI O 9 -3 92644 92618 ' 24-221-Od 24-222-06 24-223-02 � J Abbott Z A Hibnw John m 2?t>iJ t roaart �s b at al OAM355� Fi at Drive Cb$tA mom,, Calif 17297 W l �92651 651 B , Calif 92426 a (Ali 94649 t �2ai��3=o� 24►-221-Og �'- -07 a U11acY 1014 Gecwgia St Apt A MwtkaL L Mxqw 755 eewrly Drivkt Uluntilyyton Wadi, Calif 14M Palawan *W w-1 'fit", Calf ?.648 MarIM D" hwo Cklif 90291 92083 s, wwTT r,a^.'A cob Vl • ; + 1 + i 4 MII•4•1 I � • •� R r � I :y 4 Y, 1 r ,,x 24-242-22 r • saw $wow M73. C Go Domwr= tz1� t powl V ankLip wee 401 5" iwumm ftm&, Cal I■eN60 cot I matAll.1 In 9010* , Ca i! 92UB 92"1 • 241-212-05 26*223-07 �V 1-0i Id 17091 04b 8bftrt ttet r 9027 �i , C �o t ],if 92647 22 2U-07 24-242--06 st ,1 i� Not, mbr" r cow gumboJOHLO Calif iN 'r , CM14 2 90602 92548 2+%U+- 8 20� 2- r at al Vlta As== i 1 Wive 10712 nwA=L am 24 �r StWdM► Cale such- Wif 92646 92 9060 24423�40 24-22+-49 24•-242-19 M�Ip�! 0► 1� t 0►102 C: 6Q � hea1Vrx� Coif � !�vewoh, call 92�64� 1, Cs1il 926 R ftodom Mcbmw L IANti Hirer ►. Calif l R � Avwxr amtAilu bre. , Ca1if 92SlntA Aver► Calif 92101 92646 I 244•-0�. 2+-242-01 24-a.13-02 .7k al wullm C Goodw AUM wkud es 2. $ 4'�'esy t �011 s 4' .t 617 CIL � 9t fir !` 91 926�ii ► Cali �oa bow• Coif W224-02 24-242 24-213-03 homft Allen R A tiro R twin OU R s �it 2717 R 1Sio 6u DOLSO cue sts"t I audmu*o CAl 1► Calif 92 S46 9150492648 k � �A"f, f �tr �IT.�',��v'd l r�,'�J� +���• - „'� J '�v�rl'�gr '. � ` � ',.a i4�r 1� � 74� Y' Ty V�W....S�• r •S iY`, rj� e� �A,r, "!V 6Mi"�f� �� r �,a ry• 'Si.�r 4 Yr?�. r� e',� � l r, i ,ril �hr, '•'/ I�[ i .'"0 1.� f 1 h�M'{ .��I y �, � rllr�7l'A �d..'; r 1 r i ���y°.ry,° .iu. �' r� rr� � � r, ., �� �,�� ''>>. .1mli�r i� +�Y F• v , I rk.,r'tiM•t'N..',�f'tif.��'- ,r�, rfMvbk rl7;a r .s�'�. ��.ua, �` a i .r� Y• "Y I. M 14 Algal` ' ai It lid it fih�� art own )MON Okut Memabo CO 16 " all 4=, ftmet u;+ Dal*, i fw W owe 9 JUL !'its 770 m- 11*h Otx i 11; LQI. l 8 r caut ammo cis I if � 9e kttns DWxJ4t 24-43r10 , 1 Mupftq stim 1 b 606 t rt Los taxi 90M 1"Waltm aftch, C034 BAtftt !! JIM 92"8 am, W-u 24-,221.01 ,Amftu V Wdraftimr IVAX P R47 A AL 431 W Palo Ave na UdIandol Calif 92373 `r I Y at dl Q7 CaLifoxn1a BRi�rt UM-mm fi, tf 92640 U"2 A hlmn&tm U#$,I "Oft 8tmft ftft h � r f 7r h ,' YI A r #� �'I ". „ "4 iM.;,''IIr1y 4 ', �•�t' YV7 .41Mr rJ' •F.4 ( 'I^Rr{ r ' Ary� '�dSl1 .X'. y�;r1r •w ;Ida I 'y, t 14 '('� •J. f i!t''' a, 1 I � y��r I }► )y r9�1, + . 1 ^ •S°' FJr �Y t .y{�,1t ` I `'?1..►" f' A I !I�,� l F A: y �" �ff��^^" rl w� J+ .•� A k r J r 1 W F Ilk ; '")..t r4 a r. >m +t'A of �,�� �� i ; ! r k ! •, "+-I yr, .�.'+• +I,F f•,� II L, CL 1 ,J 4' /lr' * � YI �e•'. r r. '' .,, f .r r• . ,yr �t r. 1 wr11 J qp r 44 i� itl I III J f, - • , �!y ya L l y { ! �1 •. I 1, '.� A +Y,,fir. . I!�t � .Fl• J xl.7 yy�)R4 f'i t I. ' N N10OWN hook F i811i11 C 1011i81114 ` Namable Mayor and City Council ` tl ingr comission t tab 14, 1977 A : Floyd G. Belsitc, City Administrator COMMOINAlt EXCEPTION NO. 7 6-6 2 : APPrAL TO APPR07AL ,` 1 J!'a JaWn C. Vam Derhy4en Vanderrvood Corporation 742 Dtin Street Huntington Deach, California 92648 J ZCAXT: Valley Consultants, Inc. for Jack Santiago 20951 Brookhuket St. Huntington Beach, Calif. LOCILTION: bleat side of Delaware Street, approximately 27 ft. north ++I . Of. Eln►ira Avenue L�. 8T: Peetait a fiver (5) f t. encroactment into the required ten (10) ft. front yard setback. Mz85I0K rxaN: ON MOTION HY 81AT88 AND SECOND BY SHEOL THE HOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS K" OVEMLOOL111 ITS DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO& 76-62 AND THE PUAat IN►G COMMISSION APPROVED CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-62 WITH THE FOLLOWM FINDINGS AND CONDITION DY THE FOLLOWING VOTE .. The ancroachment resulted frcn. am unintentional error in judgment. 1. Compliance with the required setback would incur unreasonable expense. 1. The granting of this Conditional Exception would not, be l detrimental to the: health and welfare of the neighborhood or adjacent structures. CONDITION: 1. The drain spouts on the balconies shall be removed to a north/south ,'hers, in order to avoid any detrimental effect that may be incurred an the public right-of-way areas . AYES: Tinley, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman K028: Parkinson, Boyle "REIN: Nona, ' , h a PiiS\y,yir 5w errFtr H ^ 7'4 .A . •`„ '''"f Lv'� ! .� ,' r."y M, h.1iy Ord i� M Y !Y �Wp1 ti r I,. e.. rat Gi`� ' 'A > f�iq r i, . A,�1 fY.��,141�iY yr� SS��15. a �S ! �L,YL �f �1��"Y �♦ y�a r r 1 rIF., w �� ,� r IG $t � �,r ,, � "'iiiron.y.Ff+rf` 'F ', r d t 3.. r •+ (d 'iM ""a fr7 / ,3 j a K i.,fy ' "+�11�r o Sf:,r J11 r• � � r t � � � ' ri � , ^ �����f L� S r •��' _,}]'� ( l� fYA�l�1�+1 1 P, i h'' i„' '• . .. ,ti�.�' r i( ' ��6a{,����'�i r y t iF,r� �k 'r.r r � +I r� , r,ti •' r' � 1,�y rhyi'•. � r iM �r ..`aS�w$jY ;(Yl•'r►ubr�yt'�1,.'�y b„ ' ( l li i,.. i'•ifM1sWhA. '. i.�$'�,hrl'1 r1+yl. .n+ :,i' _ ,r• .rv. y. , r r r r r Ilk Pago T" Jr r Otaming CoOdiop .on reo oameads eppVcsyssl of conditional Exception ::. T ilow$t o Oonditional zwoption No. 76-61 is a request to per=it a five (5) foot encroachment into the rewired ter► (10) foot front yard setback for a four unit apartment building that was recently completed. The applicant for the variance rwpeRst has indicated r;hat the encroachment of the oxLeting building has resulted from an error in the original survey emd staking of the property. The reique►sted variance was considered .by the Hoard of Zoning Adjustments at its meeting of Dooember 11 1976 . The Board, after lengthy discussion. O"Jed the request because it fell: that the applicant failed to down" Otgate a hardssrhip$ and that approval would be a grant of special privi-- Xege. The applicant therefore appealed the request to the Planning Com- >asssion. The Planning CoMmission at ii ?. meeting of January 18, 1977 overruled the 4oard of Zoning Adjustments .:"`nQi i '�,pj:roved the request following discussion by the applicant as to how the erroneous survey occurred. Basically, the orroir occurred when, the assessor' s maps were used as the initial infor- mation source, as well as misleading existing improvements on adjacent roperrties+ The Commission felt that the costs that would be incurred to relocate the ,structure an additional five (5) feet from the street tight-of-way would not justify the resulting larger front yard. ADDITIONAL I!TQ MAT1ON: I The Comission held a public hearing on the proposal on January 16, 1977 . 1 k Mr. Dennis Harwood, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed 1 the Umissssion and stated that the exception request resulted simply from an honest mistake. Mr. Jim Van Derhydern, the appellant and adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition stating that it would set an undesirable precedent and that the adjacent property own6re should be granted the game right . IRSVIROI NTAL STATUS: The proposed exception is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption "Existing Facilities , " and requires no further environmental assessment. $ PPORTING INFORMATION 6. 1 . Area Map 2. Letter of Appeal 3. Staff Report Rats tfullv t ted, a Secretary 11 BD8 : :J�lC gc 4 A.0 r float 4p `�,, • tip +F VIM all WIN OH111,40 P IIi!W*!qirp,,-1n1 fvs I N H Him 10 MEN 11 a Im f AID on lingNu "Will Boom er . ' k t .r '_ rr ., • , Mrs t r'' R Nsy ,.'R� x. ,a1.F t . • + � .. r,§f ,�`. r r CFI L S t / {1 ! - t SY, It I I ! sg �N A,'1 r�r�r�. ""1�'� ,•' '�•' ' �' t t� ro •fit{•�) d , ou 'U '/{t•.1aiv.�v �.n L'�_rtm •YN`r Jt,ldvY11.L '.n)i. 1{!. . k .., ,•:v� otr .. . , i, 4' i "ML $HB`C►RE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ,� t .,,•, ;• ' ,;a ; .•, '" a; CITY 04Y HUHTINGTOO REACH J A RJ4-1 N. 7 corny o$ CNANG3 SrWATE OF CALIFORNIA P. 0 Box 190 rt. Huntington peach, CA 92648 ,ICKTION BY VALLM tY CONSULTANTS, INC . + Brookbuxat Ott"t Phintington Beach, Cali torni a tQ. } HATUR CP PP=EFD1NG: This is are appeal from the actions of the Board of Zoning .; Adjustment% denying a request by Valley Consultantsr Inc. , for a variance.: to permit a five (5) foot encroachment in the tor: (10) ' f i Front yard set-back, required by Section 9203 . 1 of the iWAington beach Ordinance Code,. This request relates to the secur- ing of a variance to allow compliance by a completed multiple-,unit 'residential dwelling unit located on Lots 2 and 3 of Block 504 of ;. ` the Vista del Mar Tract (the subject property) , which completed unit t�f ='r i,s• on the west side of Delaware Street approximately 27 feet north of ll.mira Avenue in an K-3 medium-high density residential district. FACTS TO BE PRODUCED BY APPLICANT: ' Applicant alleges and shall establish the following facts : (A) The subject property is improved with a multiple-family dwelling, which improvement ras been fully constructed in accordance with all Code requirements of the City of Huntington Beach (with the possible exception of the sett/-back encroachment by which this appeal requests approval) . ..1.. 'i_ Y. ' _r__ r 1 ,e I ds��h7i 1 � w, �'�: iAlr YYi T.—•• iY n r... y • Y ,, • • ',I^.�r+'y �Y S?y,,i I :. 'a• •h r ',, o`' J 'A• ,� .•�,Wy;� ' v •� h '' i 4'�j.�''jj.',f'ja{F;i r , r. '+ r��",—,•r`��,�i.,�C4 1u .y r•, K' � 1 r ,1 i M� eat property ty it located on the crest bide of �•'yAa�;` x,, , ,• j 141inato Avenue betWooft Xla ira atreat and Frankfort Street--the 'lA ii at that block representing dither undeveloped ed property or y , 'ix a+�-family residential improvements (see Exhibits A, or Cr and p, repre+sentin�.- g photographs of the area and thn 3�W_;Vvments cpnstructad upon the subject property) . (C) For the purposes of this appeal only, applicant acknowl- `1 4dgeae that the improvisments upon the subject property are set back tivet. (s) feet from the property line, while Section 0203 . 1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires that there shall exist a %sere (10) foot front yard set-back , (Although in than event the ultimate right of way line for Delaware Avenue as adopted by the t*Aer Plan of Arterial Streets is different thaI the existing property y line, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9243 of the " J HuntinVton Beach ordinance Code , the setback upon the sul� ee�:t 'y property may be 'lawfiil. ) (D) That any encroachment of structures within the iet-back � line ' As i-anocent, not unconscionable, and is not readily apparent fro* a visual revi.eur of he property, without actual measurement and Correction pri6r to the construction was not feasible under the circumstances. M Permitting the variance shall not constitute the granting of, any special privilege not realized by other structures within the area, will not violate the master plan of the City of Huntington Beach, and granting this variance W.11 prevent the occurrence of an undue hardship to the applicant and property owner . -2- All � y., k•1 ', f� �f � "rI' �Y I 'M � I� rrl� r ,.}I��'1�l�li , ..:Y7 k �J h ,,yW} ) , ;�. i • M1'•'4 a �� 1'R n'Wii',��1 '�,,��r i 1` fT r 1•' Inr 4�rV 1 rF ¢ �ppp1 1..! { r�' � 1 r 7 SI Jt 1 y G`yl � ! •d:�' r?� 1 nw 7 !�I•' ��^�,j' �'•. J �'"' �.t. r f r � ti, , I I • r r y4J ,LI'1'Y�1.7.: I�, f� ,�i L�T' �I f+ V I,,S'II�V+r,y,f. ••� � � � ' f p' 4 7 '/'�t `•, 1 a 1.• 11 M� rM 1 A 1 G� Ir. � }, ' " t�`�' �''�� V�,1/,.f ,rVFI.1 I,y l� :, � r ' rr rl'o- k •.l., r ,J', M fir!', li, � l'�'. ' ,f ;'•Ili,• .P, •,6r +, 1, '� 1V, ti �M� � 1, • r � .* *, •,•r �4�,,w �wla iW r w t r r 4' 14 ".t li 1 r' ,��1^����.. �'. �1,, zr�;' • s, yF 0 + , r �' ',�"1«�,j`;fr l•� ,';1 i^ w',.f' ', •r MOW r.• •r P �'. .M•1.YR,.ti�Ji1SY1CL•.�.,•�b.M'�."�'�.t.,.rw Yi M, .�:•� + '++.ti.. � ,•� o. ;"• ��.nLy'riw�:' i14+1`r In + 1:;y,,fir; ',,�r r •'r ";p r,.;'�e' r: � a• I A r, ,.,,•,1 „kit ay�Y�M•lilr��e, 1"N.. 1 .. ,r � .,,.•..,. - r 1 . I y f y ,.� IF r�'� IL 0-0 ow iL Of t a � Y�1 }V ....,..ter I r � ` ; two � ,r T r t ' •, , r •,fit { l �l�P 7 q.r i �,!' T .`,8��'1"1�� � � ��^''��„ i ig4T.�'w re�'. y�.� •�rr1 �!'�1y 1.( r _ w`t.tit•,^�1, ,• : r �, a. .',i .e... .,.. • 'r 3R.3# fterd Of Saniny AdJuStments street lights , etreet. sigr-e; street drainage, and sewer aril seater UAiA eXtenSianSt in full compliance with the City of Hunts lion Beach streaet standards and requirements, , OXNE AL. CONDITIONS; 1. A masonry wall shall be constructed , as conditioned on ConditionaI Exception ' 76-64, on the arterial street. 2 . Reciprocal easements shall be provided for ingress-egress, as conditioned on Conditional Exception No. 76-64 . 3. Automatic garagedoor openers for parking spaces 1 and 2, of the six-unite upon Lots 3 and 4 shall, be provided. r 4. Structures Shall be in compliance with the transfer, of noise requirements of those units located within, the 60 CNEL contours. of the subject property. AYES: PALIN, CR BY, LIPPS NOBS: NONE I Abo NONS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION No. 76-62 Aglicear�t: Malley Consultant.: -r r■ir�w��rar To permit r five (5) foot encroachment in the required ten (10) foot front yard setback per Section 9203 . 1 of the Huntington Beach Ordin- ance Code, located on the west side of Delaware Street, approximately twenty-seven (27) feet north of Elmira Avenue in an R3, Medium-High wnsloty Residential District. chairman Crosby informed the Board that this request is a Categorical fte mption, Class 'V, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970 , They Chairman opened the ptiblic hearing. Ron Winterburn, Dr. and Mrs. David. Sahorr, and Jack Santiago were present to represent the appli- cation. Mr. Wintarburn addressed the Board to explain how the en- croachment had come about and cited the expenee of correcting the code violation. j r Jim Tian der Hyden, owner of the adjacent property, addressed the Board in oppositio t to granting of the request because of the violation of the ordin&nce code involved and because it would constitute grant- ' ing of special privilege and would adversely affect other properties j in the vicinity. He also noted that the property has no size, conf .g-- � uration , or topographical constraints which would justify granting of � the request. There being no ether persons present to speak, for or against the pro- posa►1, the public hearing was closed. ; BZA 12-1-76 Page 5 11a' JIB i i1 t� ' A,.•L 1 I hr. fr bb 1 }T • Ninutms, H.6. Board of Zoning Ad j su+tments Decefter l o 1976 Purge 6 The Board reviewed the request in regard to the self-imposed nature of the hardship and actions by the City on a prior violation of a similar nature in which the applicant had been required to bring his pro,jict into compliance. CAN NOTION BY MIN AND SECOND BY LIPPS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-62 wu ounD rOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: RMONS FOR DENIAL: 1 . No special circumstances exist as to the size , shape, aad con- figuration of the subject property that would warrant granting of the Conditional Exception . 2 . Granting of this request would constitb:.e granting of special privilege not realized by other structures in the area. 3 . It is readily apparent from a visual review without; actual meas-urement that the structure is in violation of the ordinance code, and the building should have been correctly -located. prior to con- struction. i AYES: PALIN, CROSBY, *.;;YPS NOSS: NONE i ABSENT: NONE .1 • CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 'NO. 7 6-6 3 Mpli.cant: Coast Sign Display . I ;. Tp permit the erection of a freestanding identification sign at the property line it lieu of the required 48 foot setback per Section 9763. 3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, located on the west sidee' of Oaldenwest Street approximately 150 feet north of Warner Ave- nue in a C2 , Community burAness District. F> '` Chairman Crosby in�orined the Board that this request is a Categorical Sxesmption, C3,asas Vr California Envi,rortmental Quality Act , 1970. The' Chairman opened the public hearing. Jack Britton aras at the O m*s ting to represent the owner of the shopping plaza. Mr. Britton addresW the Board, raying chat the plaza gamer, the telephone com- pany, and union Oil Company have all gag ree' d to the location of the sign at tbip proposed .site. He also indicated that the restaurant operator wi 11 remove the existing roof sign in the event the subject sign in approved. There being no other persons present to speak for or against the project, the public hearinq was closed. The Board reviewed the request, taking into consideration the economic hardship claimed and whether or not the requested sign would provide better visibility from ,Goldenwest as desiredt the aggregate square footage within the cantor; and pdssible alternative locations for the • sign. The legal setback requirements were also explasiiied and discussed Ath .the applicant' a representative. It was the consensus of the board BZA 12-1-76 Page 6 Lpr r •' •r y � / if VANDEPW" ' corpmflon State Us"m No. B•286331 C 1,E RY, ^trrCF kk a Opnr <v 6ccvt�A 7 : of WfVaj 6yc APA6= =L"jOn ''j TA& pmwae u4 AZd • UfA Zd #v /Zle an appeal vl Ae daci4,lan CrAmt:44 ion pYn biq CpnAt�ona� f xt,jkUaa. 76-62 cO � 1. Ae m ap.u� CprdWuaml L5co*N&an 76-62 iod p atui envt�v�aer�� pp'�r. lzb.Le Noy JA dlAad vco4rt an al A tide 983 c.4 .fie prvlV. wde 4t memi u� ouot itwwrw IuA mjuedtc deal vl ! (r 4sZ �wAaiiva 76-&--) Ld be4V p4w e1 6.4 a t anep L be 4c:,Lmd wUA #fie C wt the pvw pert time 6eAi4 r c �ror�enf �.� dale, •J� y v �'.�I{ Y V � ��1. rAL'�1U:CIL#.� �l an�t'✓tccU(?cr ./�rx.,l�t+��1J.'+; J 1 �ril7t'�e�L!►tllatl : a C.lt . ed Ci 742 Mda St., H wncinvan Bch, lif. 9 r 4• f, Awe. �► At • - i t N, l 6 " FF t • n. 1 _ lt1 Y'tlr.n, tA . l i. ! j4• .�Wr wb �.- � • ..�.�`. •I, yr ' • -,tti..�J�'- l '-lam. 1 , \ -� , + 44 r t. a 'r* f , t% I •1- J. , � X ` r, ' 1 y I r r ) r �Y 16- lit �YA i. f $r' F r *• "W" ' �i• ��'V r Y . top #5 - Cnancit Minu • 3/1.4/71 A satyr woo rode by C4bba, second Siebert, to approve' the amendment to Article 8, 4 Asation 4 of the Enri tal Council Bylaws relative to the granting by the M cutioa Board, of members requests for leave of absences. Motion carried by the following vote: •'GCS: Gibbs, Siebert, Shankman, Oieder N=i' Mart.1eitt, Coo A�R�: prtt��ittson " . • j The Cleeft 'oiasuteed a tr4mo mittal from the City Admini.itrator's office of recom- amadations on legislative item for Council's consIderation. Discussion vas heeld'between Council and staff regarding SB 164 - Compulsory rArbitrAtion - Police amd hire, on which Council had previously taken a position in opposition. A motion we's made by Shankmen, second Gibbs, that. Council concur with, the League of California Cities and tho affected Department Heads on the following legislative items. idth� the ii&iptift of 5D 164 - Compulsory Arbitration - Police and hires and directed tki City Adrinistrator to' forvard letters to the proper logislitive i, officials expressing the 'City's position; Senate Sill 4 - Support (Mandatory lefund Value • Recycling) - Oppose AD 331 - (Partisan Municipal Elections) - Support, #. Assembl-r Bill 389 (Advisory Mature of State Housing Element Guidelines Clarified) . Motion carried unanimously. t.MUZZ20 Aff= Q_= J f. ZROPEUX - 8P.L GER/GOT_ ,- The Clersk presented a transmittal regarding the sate of City-owned property located on the: south side of Edinger Avenue, east of Cothard Street. Discussion was bald between 'Council and staff regarding the proposed sale. On nation by Siebert, second Gibbs, Council authorised the City Administrator to enter into negotiations with W 6 D Commercial Properties, Lnc. , for the sale of a 100' by 440' lot on the south side of Edinger Avenue, 416 feet east of Gothard Street, as racmammdeed by the City Administrator. Motion carried unanimously. MNIMI T PTED P L TO AZXIM Ai .1, . CZ .7i6 62 - ti UJ0.C=I The Clerk ptoseented an appeal filed by Vanderwood Corporatioa to the approval by the Planwing Commission oZ Conditional Exception No. 76-62 which was a request to, peetmit a five (S) foot ancroacbmat in this required ten (10) foot front yard setback per Setetion 9203.1 of the lhaati.ngton Brach Ordinance C-de. The subject property is located on the west side of Delawares Styrteet, approximately twauty seven (27) feet north of 31mirs Avenue in an 13 (Medium-High Deusity Residential District) . gollemdag the public: hearin; which was closed on February 7. 19779 o motion was Qmade and seconded to sustesin the Platmiing umtelesivn's approval of Conditional I J R;I POP f6 Cov ti 1 Minutes - 177 Vogseocloo 76-62. T1ta notion rasulted in a tie vote, thus sustaining the Planning dowdosios The Couessil directed that the Gunter be again presented at the re�h xi, 1977 ruins. The City ittorney clarified the procedure which should be followed at this time. y. A motion was w4de b P Gibbs second Bartlett, to reconsider the action taken at the � � 1rw,bruery 22, 1977 Council meeting relative to Conditional Exception No. 76-62. motion etUTW ummimousl.y. � notion vas ode by Siebert, second Gibbs, to continue decision on Conditional tivo No. 76-62 to the larch 219 1977 Council meeting at. whieb time Councilmen _Kepdaw,wIll hokum had an opportunity to listen to the tape of the public hearing ee "ass. Notion carried u w#Lmously. TO DJUM gE 20WIM&LUSE IT 76w31 - APPEAL DENIED �? Wow V194or announcod that this vaR the day and hour set for the continuance from B`ebruary 7, 1977 of appeal filed by Thomas Whaling, Attorney, on behalf of bonnie Vine;lporca,, to the denial by the Planning Comimisaion of Conditional Use Permit Y No. 16-31.' tc ""dt the constrwtion of a skateboard park in the Cr4 (Higi►way j Cowaerclal iotrict) pursiOnt to Section 9337(7) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance j Code. -to sublcet, property is located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, 1 approxii4tiiy 1,000 ft. north of Hamilton Avenue. ' J Mayor loader stated than: the hearing had been continued to provide an opportunity for cowimt on the information prepared on the environmental impact . °k} d The Planning Director addressed Council and stated that the environmental evoluetion of the project was that the proposed skateboard facility would have no significant eavir000mtal impact on the surrounding area. The following residents spoke in apposition to Conditional Use Permit 76-31. Ditty patter, Presidaret of the Surfsi4a Komesowners' Association, Joe Petroni.a, Shirley Tumors and Doug Le Gantvoort. ,Tint do 14�o, Attorney, addressee# Council and stated that he was representing the garfeide 1!6leteners' Associatioa. He appealed to Council to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 76-31 . The Pie Dirict:or Bread excerpts from the Erivirormental Impact Study, Dill Sussman, resident, addressed Council and stated his opinion that too awch time hate . beeme spent on the matter with no now facts coning to light. Decals Vinciguerra, appellant, and Attorney Thowj.% Wf aling representing the appellant, addressed Cowell and gave reasons vhy, in their opinion, the appeal to denial of Connditional Use Permit No. 76-31 sb+ould be approved. Nervy Ludt, writer of the Envlro meeatal Impact Study, addressed Council and ve!rifi4d -� the accuracy of the report. The following persons spoke in favor of the Conditional Use Permit: Pat Dcvney, Huntington Beach Boy's Club Director; Jive Landis, representing Coldwell Banker; Jerry Sablett; and J'iin Cochran , •,gir:�l,'.'R1ki M � � y{4 , .,1:tiA r� `1 Ih' K' _ .,� S X"IY"*O rA ,.•1 •� .µ ry f„ _ 11�''a3 it fI l' S.v n hr kl • .. .r b rV•W; •." .4{y.R;I . r 'f M• 'r,, ' y,r ti vZ/ ��, yr, 5 w 's �• './ 'l fl S{a.' kill 1 N 6OM041 AWn" 2/22/77 '1 t' Continuation of heesrivg opened an a p44titia r,_a au Cban o Ae s, f 03 with oil � p= to omit A& Dig ) tWAt, a, l1,+O�c. S _ �. _Reach C1x4iaa�p .. de. The subject party is located between Cali forma and Delaware ee aasxer 3trereet$ and batwom Toronto mad Spri"fiel,d 1►v�►eauos. RA: Ar ils ad,�E Da t 420, approve ��^ �•' 'N 7r rem 27 and i cs.go 217 W. rt I�V � x a 'gt--b3�_ C +�. V _ .BAN OR��lil►110E crry of TRI lUJlifi IIIGTON SUCH fiCS Cobs NY AEI 116 SBCTION 9061 TRRPJM TO PROVID1 FOR r CUM OF ZtlWNG 09 RNAL PROP$RTY LOCATED bRTMEN CALIFORNU AND DELAWARE STR99TS AND TORONrO AM SPRINGFIBLD AVENUES (20NE CARS go. 76-27) ." i wlea C USE PERMIT #76-17 estimation from 217/77 of a hearing to consider revocation of Ceaditiotwl Use Permit No. 76-171p , as initiated by the City Council, J for noze-campliance vith the previously imposed conditions of approval . Said Conditional Use Permit allowed the continued operrticn of an existing c:marercial horse stable pursuant to Sectior 9791 of the Ruentington beach Ordinance Code. The subject props;:ty Is located et the southwest corner of Ellis Avemm and Goldeenwest Street in the 4 NA,-0-0 (Residential Agricultural District combined with. oil production-Civic District) . RA: After hearing affirm reverse or, modify the decision of the PC, specifying facts relied upon is rendering said decision; may make any additional determination ttion or requirement it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. a. PUBLIC NMI= - / rc�._ �xc�rxop 6� �z EM2a. �L...Ta A,�� ,�_. � OF c�.., ...,r1 Rearing on an appeal filed by Vend mad erra�iQn to the approval by then Planning`�otamissiot of Conditional Exception No. Bch+•• was a raquerf" t .( �f°at.-rkczciice�it it r �i ton -toot Front, yard s t ck per Sect 1b .�F the Huntington aac a vde. a subject proow.rty ig located an the went ., silo of Delaware Street, approximately twenty-seven (27) foot north of Klmira Avenue in an X3 (Mediums-High Density Residential District) . PA: After hearing, tnAZ, ain tha PG and pp�e; ar overrule PC and deny, s hjL in�dings of fact r heed upon, aL �1 (212V77) (S) a" Ina PI n ' V. DIAL CQMMgjc&IOK$ R t minute tine limit par speaker - 30 virituta maximum speaking tim) 4t4— — oor 41 r" f 04 ve i w y' I i r { 1 t �y r `1 AA— OW, , ` r,�%,#'iM"'}I, „',�y ',u• �Yaic1 4''< ,b�*;"i:'y.rla�rr:;,n 'TA 7v t,w. y, Pebruary 22 , 1977 'r F TO: Ikon P. Bonfa r FROM: �•.;; Jahn O' Connor SUBJECT : Council Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1977 , Item E-2a, Appeal `.. to Approval of Conditional Exception No . 76--62 This is an appeal From the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Exception No . 76-62 . The Planning Com- mission granted a conditional exception whjch allowed five-foot encroachment into the front yard setbacks for a striieture on Delaware Street . The property owners In the vicinity have appealed on the basis that there was no justification for granting the conditional, exception and that the City Council should overrule the action of the Planning Commission. a. T PTO O 'CONNOR Deputy City Attorney y JOC' .cis 2. '��•{, it L.' '1 A. • ��r��!L*1� •off����W '�� , , '� F' P' ....... Y�= • � ICVANDffAY" P I . ems • 2Yp� van a mci, raaA►&A".iA Coms ' e ial x ivn 76 o appwvgd by P&/f/LCW Culmwee i,,u x' 1:e060a v #lie ruy 0 p"a[ - TAa pwe v4 #fiu &U&4 lie Sri Jaa apjwlraZ of the tleciwlttaL ,,!� the PJAWWUA� tint " fl Crndi&aaa. 4x n 76W). I � OA f4 f ' modUp rv•„ oldtr1 04 (�- Xkapfmi &DR*W, iA di1 11� t7 ! o f ;Ai Pnzv 'wde 77� ����,�•�:�1't ;.�,, 'I .� ,. � w + ,,�! a �aa • r . � �* �t's'It � 1.� l� � vuAt ac ,r��. r.l miU &L 1440 vUA A4k� a i poop A time k f o4a ill e �+chLeang dUe. , re Ilan opt TO I" ILL Qw.10 1 s ix ,4 'yF . LT I or e'' 1 C' n G AWUSTff*fffS W W MI 011 MACH-CALIFORNIA r.O. Box Ns-fsw got Plawing CovaissLon ' ! hoard Of� ions 17 Ad jurstrmnts MOM ditiemal Sxceptioa Po. 76-�� � Appeal to Board of ` toning Ad j ustasn ts' dec i.s ion to deny. APPWCMT: valley Consultants, Inc. for Zack Santiago 20*51 Brookha rst 0t. a. fluntiagton Btach# Calif. 1-MLT.l00a Wrest skis of Balowere Street* approximately 27 ft . north of � ra< Awanus L i,f , I !'s►=Lt a furs (5) ft. ancr"chment into the rs�quixed ten 1 (10) ft. front yard setback. t. 11yMLAW a fto WAnto rburn for VsIUW Ora sultatntse Inc * SIN AT P lhi - 02C. to 1976 After ar LeWhy dLaolussion an the it ' st for the five (5) ft. ereraaah- ' "at: $alto the S lrA 1 l0 f ft. >roatt yard .setback, and listening p &1&"Ot the pireposrl, the following motion gran by tW Oai"di di am= my PAM AND BY LIPPB, ITIONA16 XXCXI►TXON NO, 74-62 ' 1 !A "Whil Waaam by To kniMING Vo >t lam _0 ►r �. ft IrcuotaWN4 4mist as to site, shape, and configuration ft. Wit subjrpt arty that WM1d wirrant granting a conditional, b, 4xamtLag of this roar at MouN aonstLtute granting of special g►tivil"s not rrealinod by other strwatu res is the area. 31. It is re"lly appanat im a visual review without actual neas- x4ownt that the struatute is in violation of the ordinance codas, and the building should have bin correctly located prior to coL- , staevtiae. AT26 8 walla, Crosby# Lapps • e s � t II�Mia ' 'tit•`' 'i I'1. w' m' page TW 0 or SONINO 11Wti$'!NNFI8' MEC41MSNn AZONS: The Roard of Blotting Adjustments recc ends that the planning Commission F sustain this board'a decision to dcay the request for the five (5) f t. eneftaechment into the requirA ten (10) ft$ front yard setback. �.� I S�.MM YAA se Mr, Ron Mionterburre, the engineer for the devexupment= Dr. and Mrs . David +: Scharr* wnears of the psoperty; and Mr. Jack Santiago, developer of the irtrUcture, were present to address the Ward in favor of the request. Mr. MinterbUn explained' how the encroachment had come about and cited the espense of correatinq the code violation. He staffed that when the 00vey was osigLually peoroformod, it was surveyed incorrectly per assessor' s mps -send that the central for the survey had been run in for the front E p rty line franc another street and based upon the location of the sidewalk within the parkway area on the property to the north, that they had assuated .the corner staking of subject property was correct . Mr. Ninterburn also informed the hoard that corner staking for tl&,e rear property lint was pulled in from s different street in order to establish csnterlitne of the Alley. Therefore, the five (5) ft. differential in depth wee not picked up in the survey. In his presentation, Mr. Winterburn *toted that the centerlines on Delaware do not coincide north and south of prankfort which created the Mistake in the survey. Mr. Santiago indicated that as the property bad been staked when he was heady for construction , ht. Layed in the frlwe fcw the f�dation tore (10) ft. back of stakes and that the City bad Ainan inspection prior to the pouring of the foundation which he assumed was the proper location. Additional itfozontion has boon enbmitted by the appellant as supplemental information for plaming Commission review. In thin document, it stair. s vitbib Item Co vAlthdagh In the event the ultimate right-of-way lira of Delaware Avenue as adapted by the Master plan of Axteri.al Street$ is dittwrant than the exIstioog property lime, pursuant to the provision of Meation 9201 of the Huntington Owch Ordinance Code, the setback upon the subject roperty may be lawful. " It should be pointed out that the ;r 11tiMate right-of-way line on D02mware Street is trio some line as the tout pr nrty line of the Icts in question, At this time there is 4: no req ir—i-t for additional dedication from the crest side of Delaware, OW has theM ewers been a regueet for additional dedication fray the pa rty alo* t1w most side of Delaware since recordation of the r emigiteal trwt seep. Ober ar yams *%dee in the supplemntal information is that the sidewalk item designed aM ��eqsneered to be located in conjunction with the side- Waft to the north subject rt . Nowever reviewing in rviewin9 the street �t plans an fiLe in the ep�rtreent of Public Norks, it becomes v 4;;t that subject property in constrmted having a thirteen (i 3) f t . parkway in lieu of the standard Height (r) ft, parkway now required on secondary arterial highways. 4 . A',l :...TTTWWWi!!'111 1 i .R. Paggi Throe It 'should be noted that there are a number of variable sidewalks and Orkway widths existing within the City of Huntington beach on arterial high0ays, and plaoewent of curb Tina within the ri qht-of-way should not have' boon umrd ' as daauwrntation or width or placement of the sidewalk r nor lveation of froeat property line. fit irlslrgirtiq a rNr of applications and files withintheCity of N ►%iflgtoO ftlah, there was no evidence found that would document the oeutttline botr4 15 ft. easterly► trea the front property line of the ' two l6ta 3ti 9" tion. Therifore f it is assumed from the street improve�- ' t;'Janb on f11* with the Department of Public works , the record asap ofi' *i 'fbr *abject property# and a parcel map existing to the east aor"S DMlttftft on rwbj*ut prepert,y, that an error was made in the k $4" and, corner location of subject property. s 1. Area ap 2. 14tttrb of Appeal 3. Ord of toning Adjustments Minutes 4. Action by board of toning Adjustments on Cb 76-72 S. A rt'iom of the Street bWrovearent p tan a for Delaware Lmed i ate ly adldiat' to pro"rty. 6. Copy of a parcel vap on pry arty to the east of subject property 1�ispe��f�11f st�ittied f wi, pa1 Y J• Y ,i it ' •Ji b i VIO to,t' .V !k AYOVAL BEFORE TKE PLANNING COMMISSIONPT. _ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUP OF ORAW r 8TATh OF CAL11'ORNIX 1% t i ;P.-14 ,' T . . �'�i1f111..11.,i► '' t. 1,1 �'y��1 + XTL%L a"1,ir+r r, NO. 7 6-6 2 ""aft- `im by VAMW CONSULTA"O t INC* WisrookhAwax street ,r tie�ttsn 1�aa�� Cat l i f o�rt is !!l►TURN CW PROCHRDING : This is an appeal from the actions of the Board of Zoning iL Adjusts mte ding a request by Malley Consu.ltantef xnc. , for a k' variance 'to paredt a five (5) Foot encroachment in the ten (10) tope Front yard set-back, required by Section 9203 . 1 of the rain gton Teach Ordinance Code. Thin request related to the secur- Of a var,la�t to allow compliance by a completed m iltipl a-unit rpai'deatiati dd r elljsy unit located on Lots 2 and 3 of Block 504 of *fiD vii, doI Mar T3'act (the Mob j*ct property) , which cm. pleted unit wWt .side of Delaware Street approximately 27 fect north 191slak lrleriam is an 1t--3 wAi>► -high density residential district LtC11 'e "I*"* nod SMII •eetabllsh the following facts : JA4 "w OdWeet p peirity ie it roved wLth a nul.ti ole-faintly dwwrLl,i�pe�� Vbich ilupr WNWnt has be fully count-mated in accordance Withi,;e 11 P41a gni•rerssnts of the City of Hunting ton Beach W th the possible erxceptfcm of the set-beck aacroachment by which this vvpe•� requests approva i) . i • (R) The subject property is located on the west ride at Delaware: Avenue between Elmira Street and Frankfort Street--the balance of that block representing either undeveloped property or older style, single-family residential improvements Isce Exhibits A0 B, c, and D. representing photographs of the area and the+ iMp:0v&"nts constructed upon, the subject property) . (C) For the purposes of this appeal only, applicant acknowl- sages that this fmprovementj upon the subject property are set back five (5) feet from the proporty line , while Section 9203 . 1 of the Runtington beach Ordinance Coda requires that there shall. exist a tan (io) foot front yard set-back. (Although in the event the ultimate sight of way line for Delaware Avenue as adopted by the Master Plan of Arterial Streets is different than the existing property line, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9203 of the Runtington Beach Ordinance Coder, the set-back upon the subject r property may be lawful . ) (D) TI%at any encroachment of structures within the set-back line is innocent, not unconscionable , and is not readily apparent from a visual review of the pr'op►erty# without actual measurement and correction pricer to the construction was not feasible under the ciremstances. (E) Permitting the variance shall not: constitutc the granting of any special privilege not realized by other structures within the are&# will not violate the master plan of the City of Huntington Reach, and grantiang this variance will prevent the occurrence of ars undue hardship ,to the applicant and property owner . -2 - rY� h j Ifff r `v REASONS FOR CONSTRU. CTION OF IMPROVE_M NT ENC:ROACIIING 'rhe plan of construction of improvements upon the Aub jest I' 1 property was designed and engineered to be constructed without requiring a variance or resulting in any violation of any of the ordinances of the City of Huntington Reach. Assuming that a viola- tion of any ordinance does exist, it was unintentional , it being the belief at all -;.Lae* of the applicant and the property owner that the improvements upon the subject propnrty were being corstructed with a full tin (10) foot not-back f'ron the property lino . The violation, if any, arises out of are apparent: inconsistency In connection with the recorded tract map Prepared for the Vista del Mar Tract on March 24 , 19051 the A18e5300A parcel Map relating to Block 504 of the Vista del Mar Tract; the configuration and location of other improvements within the arse (including constructed improve-- 1 i' sents) and a sidewalk iapro�ement adjoining the subject property. The inconsiatencies are: (1) A map depicting the location of the subject property j (Lots 2 and 3 of Block 504) , adjoining streets and rather improvements within the area is attached hereto an Exhibit E . in setting the location of the improvement upon the sub- ject property, reference was made to the Tract :lap Prepared in 1905 and the Assessor' s parcel Map , both of which a arentl designate the westerly property line of Block 504 as being located 35 feet free the center line of Delaware Avenge (which roadway oammences a cutVa eadtierly within the area of the subject propartY) . (SCIC copy of portion of Tr&et reap attached as Rahihit F. ) rionsur i ng the G: r A i _ , Eno property line at 35 feet from the center line of Delaware Avenue placca the improvements 10 feet behind the existing proaerLy line . � (2 ) In fact , however , the true center lino of Delaware Avonue appears to be set 40 feet from t}1e property line . 2n datr..rmin- ing the location of the improvements , an existing sidewalk on an adjoining property was utilized visually in determining the set-back Dino. The planned sidewalk upon the subject property was constructed in line with the existing sidewalk, and the s?L--back was fixod at teen (10) feet from the westerly line of the sidewalk (with siricwalks generally being erected upon the perimeter of the property ],inn) . (3) In factr the existing sidewalk appears set five: (5) feet from the )property line. (See Exhibits G and H reprosontinq photo-- graphs concerning the alignment of the existing sidewalk with the sidewalk to be constructed . ) Upon the adjoining block can Delaware Avenue (south of Elmira) improvements in the form of retaining walls ,u•- ` and fences arse located at the 35 foot supposed property line. (Sne Exhibit D, depicting retaining walls and improvements at the supposed property line within the adjoining block . ) Tho property was fully improved in accordance with city approved plans and specifi4Oations with the improvement 'eliuved to bete at a location ten (10) feet westerly from the easterly nrnparty line . It in to be noted that the City Building Department in visually inspecting the foundation location and granting a permit did, in connection with its inspection of March 24 , 1976 , approve the foundation location as having complied with the tors (10) foot front yard set-back r$quirewnt. (Bee files of Building depart-- Mont, City of Huntington Beach. ) -4 n!!M With the belief that the location of the foundation was in Mull compliance with met--back requirement m, rite entire structure upon the subject property was Completed , and it is now ready for occupancy mubject to securing the requested variance . To rehu irt�! a removal of the existing structure to meet the ton ( 10) foot set- bAck requirement would impose an undue and unreasonable burden upon applicant and property owner . THR LAIR FAVORS GRANTING A VARIANCE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES rr��r �y.r.r�ri■ ` A1thoagh as a general rule a party cannot create its own "hardship" to secure a variance by expending substantial f_urds where t" party knowingly spends those funds in violation of an ixisting ordinance, where such a violation is innocently made and made in good faith, the law generally favors a variance to approve such con- struction rather than requiring a substantial economic loss by the applicant. As is stated in waounp Larson and Martin, C foriiia_Zoning practice (1969) , Page 2921 E ">ls a practi=al matttero if the self-induced harship is not unconscionable , the zoning board may grant a variance. pox example, the unwitting remodelling of a house that results in violation of the Boning ordinance will often be authorixee by a vOX ianO*-" a also, eomwrnt, Jon&aj Variance MoInistration in Alameda Count * SO California Law ReviOV 101 (1962) . r California Court of A"oala has ofte,t upheld decisions of city JV7 n4X Ar rJ 'ary fili i1J1 '. ;l I u " s � dye .q i and county bodios in granting vas lances where refusal of the variance will result in great economic hardship and the devclopc-r liar, incurred substantial obligations pursuing his project %nnocently " . In the caea of Allen v , Humbol3t County Board o: Supervisors , 241 Cal.App. ld 158 , the Californian district Court of nnnetal, ubheld the granting of a variance for a developer primarily upon the cTrounds that the developer had incurred substantial expense and obligations in connection with the development of a parcel of real property where he believed such parcel could be developed as ant-icipated , received support of a member of the city staff for such development; hoowevar , the ultimate development Was in violation of county 7.oning atdinancees , See also, Zakessian v. City of Sausalito, 28 Cal .App, 3d 794 . CONCLUSION R' It is respectfully submitted that the granting of a variance as requested herein and reversal of the decision of. the Board of Zoning Adjustments would be proper and a;pp,ropriate, and it is respectfully requeated that the Planning Commission grant applicant 's request for Conditional Exception No. 76-62, its requested Aherein . HAR"400b A Abxxt SOD nn s �1. arw ]attorney for Applicant, Valley Consultanta, Inc . 0 -6- PIPL , G... • _ _ � off r • - •ti i t � f t', I• N .0 • 1 1 • - � 1 I I • t 1 .�J 7i'• l it - -• a *n '�•��1•Y sue• �� =�� � I" it J� T"y -rk•-, - .-ti rtr�• -�. r`s ' ..��--ar-.rt •�t i t• r t • • ��10, � ` + � r - •� YY - It . 1. � - r'�� � �.•14� til .1, ,' 'h` �.+tom`• . �r �;� ,.,e: r♦ r•fir., �.'_-�♦ - �.���t•,t�� :.ti! r �1 -+� �'�. T ,:�r'I. ..1*� �♦�Vtl�,,,'4 +1y � Tf.�. r -�� .. .._ Jr 9"EXHIBIT D: - • �I �I • r 1 1 r x�r RAN r � a b" /I lv JU , -043 Li Ab __..- . __ __•?-_ Je s 1 oil EL. MIRA z /J /o , —41 z (.n --�� / ,i -.0 - - Jo�. ," Nei T S:b.1//t Isrj15[/ijf' J. , 71 u L M. M. /.F S.r •• ..� r. "EXHIBIT V +. ► y ,, � , _� �� � � w .* ' .\ I � I i i �•� � �`1 i I / � ,� ..tip. ,���.� ..r._•. JF+ -ar'y�• it/... .// ��f%I~��. 1/i'�j��fti. i i `i � I I ' ' � � � 1 .• � I r 4 i I i I ...... ..._ _�. _.. .,.. __. ,....w_ ......y.._,......_......_..,.�,.w...�.....,..-...-_�..�.4._ I ' �} . ... .. ...�... ....... . ....._.......,. -- ..�.. -- --...,.........�...��.....��,.......�.....' ..�. 1 I I � ..��� I { .... . ._.__.. .. . .. .. .�_......�..�..�...�.......-.-...�...T..�...... � f � 1 .; � � � ; � � � � . .. ..._. . ... .... ._. ....... ..... _._... ..r._ ....._._..._._..--�-----• i i . ' ' f ' ( ., '; � ,. 1 � � . w� ���•� � • � �l..' i � � -� �.r � . . ...f?_,...,... 1� ` i i � `' .` V"' t� ` ,` � � __ _. _-�_ �.__ ... . . - _ . .__yam_,. _._,.,_,. �.�:yrr• rw ST 4 A.j 14 le 1 •. . 1,� j 3elf Jw :. 1,f • "� - "� ^— tint .•7T.. �1.'-Y�� , �'` w�. Tom• r .a.. � �`� r' .-• �1. .r.,� � v � �� �' � r � / i - T �• � Y 7 1. � �i ■w �I .' . i ♦t Ij Y' i V �� r • r• ♦•� , ,' � w� _ '. _ is c "� .+, r — , • 1 1 M ' r } _ x .. . J r K A IN K F U K f KAN - PLANNiNG DEPT'. • '. so ELM IF? ri / _ P. 0. fox 100 1 Huntington Seach CA 92648 1 f. To " �� -�; - 1r1�T C'!�:.�//!•Tir�vd/.,�r.�e�lorJr.�.rJ�vlr �"'" . 20 J-0 �rct�7/ �dowdl irs�1/r:• ,•,�}Ir/•+im. - /�_^._.+.. -w,, _�......-.-. ,,,-" •.moo e+I;/�r r'��rr/-: +�,• . ,+ •fit ..».i..0 .._ _ •3 ° ,/cif ., -� -,- If Alf 60 1 � � Ob fA nol r-•...I.,N—Mhkf% ♦fir+-Owr:-.n.,wr..i.. .....•.�.•�+M,.�....�+�►.rl*mldW �' EXHIBIT " !�i•M' ..rw.o•� r �Y•�{I'��,•• . ,.ram=-.� , ' .. .��. +` a 'a .■.P1' ' ti / k1 BEACH J i M� tors W=h. CA 9?, Mf, WPM I f 7 lb i M;inuter, H.S. Board of Zoning Ad justmants Decor 1, 1976 r&9* S I street lights, street signs, atroct drainage, and s,�wer, anu � water main extensions , in Full compliance with the city of Huntington haach $trees; standards art•1 requirements . C. GENERAL CONDITIONS ; I 1 . A masonry mall sh,i:,1 bO constructed, as conditioned oil Conditional " f:xceptiOn 76-64 , -M the arterial street . Z . Aeciprcx+al ea►semerits shall he provided for ingress-egress , as conditioned on Conditional Lxceptiufs Na, 7�•-6e� . 3 . Automatic garage door openers For the six-unit* Capon Lots 3 and 4 shall begp.;o�ided l and 2 �� i 4. Struc"ureer shall be in caMpxidnce with the trarisfer of noise roquirments of those unite, located within the 60 CNEL contours of the subject property. AYS8 t PAYINO CROGRYj LIARS 11a8b'N'T s 61Ol�x COMITZ ONAL LXCierTzom No. 7 6-6 2 ica►n : vallALOY Consultants To permit a fine (S) foot encroachment in the required ton (10) toot front yard setback per Soation 9103. 1 of the Huntington Beach Ordin- ance Code, located on the wrsat GOO of Delaware Street , approximately twatttY~seven (27) feet north of Elmir&. Avenue in an R3, MOdl'um-High Density Residential bistriat. Chairman Crosby 3nrormed the Board that this regizast is a wategc�rical ZKOMPtion, C1aata Ve CalifOrniar 8'nvironmental Quality Act, 1970. 1 Thar Chaitan opened the public hearing. Rory winterburs., D_•, and Mrs. David Schorr, aid Zack gatttiago were present to represent the appli- cA'tioe• ! v- ftnterbura Addressed the board "to explain how the en- croa►chnont had arse about mend a tod the expense of correcting the cod* viOlart#on. ,Jim Van der Ryden, owner of the adiacont property, addressed the Board An sit.ian to granting of 00 rer4-Mot beta use of the violationof the 0Cd nm 00ft Involved and boon ux* It woo grant- , ing Of speosal privilege Md would 44wr+sely affect other propertiesix the vialsity. NO 4180 noted that the property teas no site, config- ut&tiani *r topographical C0n8traMlnt8 which would justify granting of the re"ext . "Wft bei ft no othar Paex40s present to SPOW for or against the pro- Is , tho public hearing was Cloado . . .P7V ask lk- 1-76 Page 5 finutea , M . B. board of zoning Ad joutments December 1. 1976 r� Pager 6 Then Board reviewed they reequost in regard to the self-imposed nature � of then hardship and actions by they city on a priorviolation of a *iratlar nature in which the applicant had boon required to bring his pros tct into compliance. ON KOTION BY PALM AND SECOND BY LiPPS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-62 MS DZNIXD r0A THE NOLLCMNIC AAASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS FOR DERIAL: I . No special circumstances exist as to tho size, shape, and con- figuration a,. the subject property that would warrant granting of the C4nd i t i rma l Exception . 2 . Granting of this request would constitute granting of special privilege not realf aced by other structures in the area . 3 . it is readily arpVarent Iran a visual review without actual ineas - uterr at that tPA structure is in violation of the ordinance code , Sind the building should hAver been correctly 10CAtad prior to con- struction. Algal PALM CP0$8Y, LIPPS NOBS$ NHS ABSENT: NONE Cd[ DETIONAL ZXCBPTION 'NO. 76-63 Applicants Cos ,�iian taisplm„� To*permit the erection of a freestanding identification sign at the prop6rty lints in lieu of the required 46 foot setback per Section 9163*3 of the Huntington beach Ordinance Code, located on the west side of Uolde nwast Street approxisiately 150 feet north of Warner Ave- nue in a C2, Community Business District . Chainw►n Crosby informed the Board that this request is a Categorical ttaomption e Class V, California lInvfronmental Quality Act, 1974, TM Chairow o emA the public hearing. Jack Britton was at the .imeting to represent the ene►r of th* shopping plat&. Mr. Britton ak rosserd the beard q sabring that the plazas owne r e the telephone com- pany , turd Union Oil Coa Wy ha* all agreed to the location of the, eign at the proposed site. He also indicated that this restaurant � Mrartor will remove On existing roof sign irs the event the subject n it approre d. Tbere Wnq no +ether persons present to spe&k for or against Chao project, the public hearinq was closed , ►rd revievod thw 'req1sst, taking into consie'deera-loon the economic 1E hgdoup e,1"wed a" Whether Or Prot the regrwstr sign would provi4e btrtttr rid0i1it lr" .ealdawrr vt as destv"I the aq regater square 4 4e alternative locati,ons f t khw �lre 1+ Val 0 rega��ts were also Axplailned' 4tscuiVW +rfth .the s"Itea st's rep1r4 rtatLVe* It was tho eansensue of the * a d ;J0 *iA 1=*1-76 Page 6 n r L --, .r .,.•-Y4•w y•� .A•Y11• IpH.��M. •r Or��+• Ift PA rr• .+ J .. ate 1 r rod olrvpwv4 Ww r r r►. I ,�• allrt� .,,� ' itmtr• i µ _ Art h ri 7,7'.��. >r. i.1� r`sr.wM twr+/,lf,'Y.'f,St J f• ,sec /. a ,r', ••, ,�•.. + 1 _ i y M 1 1 ..1 . , h ) • . • r • ', r�+ht•r.���.saw..�w�.�rr.w dr�r °rr�+-..�rnr«• ��.�..... ��.•++r . ...�7��.�..� .. . ;, `fir +• ' A~ t ." . , 1 i Ike 1, , . ,,•, , r •I , r; FF .00 � FF �� ' M •r •' FRA ,�• a• lift M- IN IF rIF IF ACRIF fe 40 !'�n ql-% %IF o 4,16 'A �• 61� •.� ''�*00 .•Mfg , �, •�T .n.,a�.���,,.awa� ra•�w,••��.rr.rw• �_,/ /M1M1� t� �:' • jjff r 51VA A IF , 1 �,��i O'.,J�, fi+Yy • I aRr , -� i cirroccu ells 0 (<1101`1 ` +V D L 17 , A N D BROWN 1 i1 n.' ',) ► 490dMi is 1-11CYw00 61� !,woof rtr*C11 Myli 1 1• !)UITt: 1'01 ILAIt11 ,1w• F11411 fl vsvmAs r *Pwne aP w L04 AM4GEt9J.CA1A01%W1A 90011 11u�11t*1'ctwr e1 uit„r11ur wet i *ti 11,01*040046r ca"10119". "C"MA1 I• frtA�O M1404A1aA.LAMINA Tit Lt01404M 11131 684- 10'01 ira910M01+1 Mal Oww 11A{O February 14 , 1977 I mayor and P1embers of the City Council City cf Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington search, California 92640 Ra : Conditional Exception No, 76-62-Appeal D1ar (Mayor and Members of City Council : This letter is written to amplify the legal position of vand►erwood Asssscyc:.i.a>rss> a r the arppailaant in the above-referenced came, and the owtncr of that property immediately adjacent to tho building which is the subject of the conditional exception under consideration. The subject conditional exception is a sroquest for a five foot encro chment into the required ten foot front.yar•d setback on the subject property . The axpplicant , Val "Aty Consu;.ta►nts , Inc . , civil engineers on the project, adsmIt that the building was constructed five feet into the required setback area as a result of a surveyor' s mistake. The factual presentation mado to the board of tuning Adtustmerte, and indeed the factual presentation shade to the Planning Comissssion at its January 18, 1977 reseting , fully support the factual findings -.ado by the Board of Zoning Adjustments when the turned down Conditional Exception No. 76-62 , to wit: (a) REASONS FOR UUNIAL: 1. Nei sp cla c zcums a1nccs: exist as to nine, shape , and configuration nn the subject property that would warrant granting a conditional exception. 2► Granting of this request would constitute -;ranting of sasp*cial privilege not realized b, other structures in the area. 3. It is readily apparent from n visual review without actual measurement that the structure is in violaticn of the ordinance code, and the building should . have been correctly located prior to c one tfruc t ion. 1 Lwka�. j A*7Va4lR*'. rf' . , ,y 1 Alt •' February 14 , 1977 � page 1 Nothwithstanding the virtually identical factual pre nentation made. to them, Hit Huntington Deach Plannii g 'f Commission purported to grant the requested special. exception for the following reci.tedi reasons: " I . Exce tional Circumstances . An error in judgmen was ma e n rta .ng Elie old surveys and assessor ' a maps. 2 . Neae*' S_i....tYY to Pro er tyy Ri h is : Compliance with the se--�ac - w tho�tional setback creates exceptional financial hardships in moving the building. 3 . Absence of Detriment : The granting of the condi'.ona x_ep on w ll not be detrimental to the health, welfare , and generai wellbeing of the surrounding neighborhood . 4 . And the fourth Game - 1 can ' t find it - because it is just good faith that tha applicant is willing and able to f:arry out the purposes which the C .E. no. ! so that it is a moot point at this time. But i am reading from our little bible that we got from John some time ago. l tried to find the throe reasons because l felt that the fuurth was nboot. j These findings of the Planning Umanigasion, with the except' ;n 1 of their recognition that the pxobltm was the result of an error or mistake by the surveyor, are factually unsupportable and are totally inadaquate to legally support the grant of a conditiona,? exception . The provisions of Article 993 of your Municipal. Code are explicit as to findings requires to sie made t,,y the City Council when granting as conditional exception . As the Zoning Beard clearly recognised in this matter , such findings cannot be made under the facts involved in this particular situation. indeed, the planning* Commiasion in attompting tr dru:at: the conditional exception, quite openly ignored these findings in an Wort Lo nova the applicant the coat of moving his building. 11he intant of the Planning Commission may have been cnaritable, but their action was clearly illegal . A. r�1 , h �+ F ,j'"' I " ..eP..i�. Y.,' � L 1.., . ..IDS."ti.11�iL:ry.d " •r C . February L4 , 1977 Rage 3 6` In its most recent ruling in the area , the California Supreme Court in th9 case of To dnaa Assn. For A Scen-*.c Commun; ty v. CounU of Los Angei_ .s�Ir id— 6, 5n- 3 , , 16-�1$�(�"M o 3�.scusAedthe�function of the court in rev iuwi.ng the grant of a zone variance , or as it is called .in Huntington Beach, a► conditional exception. The Court stated "Although the cases have held tchac substantial evidenco must support the award of n variance in order to insure that such legislative requirements have been satiafied .(ivae , e . g . , Sil ler v. Board of Supervisors ( 1962) 58 Cal . 2d P91 _' Pf12T ` Cal . itptr. 3 , 375P. 2d 411s pr/ldbeer v . England ( 1951) 104 Cal. App. 2d 7041 7Q7 1232 P.2a 301j) ,icy have iaiied to clarify whether the adminsitrative agency must always - set forth findings and have not illumina- ted 'the proper relationship totwean the evidence , fi.ndtngs, and ultimate agency action . "One of tho first decisions to emphasize the importance of judicial scrutiny of the record in order to determine whether substantial evidence supported administrative f ind,ings that the property in question met the legislative variance requirc— ments was that penned by Jua tico Molinari in Cow Hollow Im rr_ove+ment Club v . Board of Permit A pea, 6 T� 5 24 Ca .App. ,': a1.Rptr . 0� Less than one year later, we followed the approach of that case in Broadway, 'La una etc. Assn . v. Board of Appeals ( IT dw66 CaI .� 6'�j - Cal.~Aptr. I V 427 P . 2d 810) , and ordered that a zoning board ' s grant of a variance be set aside bocause the party seeking the variance had failed to ddu a sufficient evidence to support administrative .ndings thmt the evidence satisfied the requisites for a variance set forth in the same San Francisco ordinance. "Among other funl:t- tons , a findings requirement serves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-conclusions supportive of its ultimate decisiadij the intended effect is to 00, f R9 e+ lip f • IWAJAUULY 4 faUil i.tatP orderly analysis And minim: zc t)le ) likelihood that they agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions. (Saa 2 Cooper , State Administrative tatwr (1965) pp. 467-468; Feller , Pros ectus for. che+ rurthor stud of Federal Administrative Zoning boardx of Appalu 8uc3(Jastior.s for afnrm ( 1S65 ) 12 U. C, L.A. L. Rev. 937 , 952 . ) In addition, findings onables the reviewing court to trace and examino the agency ' s made of analysis . (Sae California Motor Trans ort: Co. Y . Public Utilitles Com. Ca �'�"c "�i 7�Cal . Rptr.W8 8 '"9 P. 2d 3241 ; Swars u , Council of the City_ of Valle o (1949) 33 Cal • 2a�v-677 61'1-12q P. 2i he 0 "Hy setting forth a reasonable requirement for findings and clarilyiing the standard of judicial' review, we promote the achievement of the intended scheme of land use contz,ol . Vigorous and meaning- ful judicial review facilitates , among other factors , 4 the intended division of docision-making labor. i Whereas the adoption of xcning regulations is a legislative Function (Gov. Code S 65850) , the granting of variances is a quasi -judicial administrative one • (See Johnat:on v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 3'. Cal. 2d 6 1 P . ;8 u �'_a�i�v, Alcan Pacific Co. (1963) 222 Cal .Ahp. 2d 626; 634 115 "ear., � Rptr. . ) If the jud+•cl,ary were to review grants of variances superficially , administrative boards could subvert this intended ducivion-making Htr.ucture . (see 1 Appendix to son , Y. (1970) Peg. 5ess . ) Final Rep. of the Joint Committee on Open Space Lard (1970) pp. 102-103 . ) T� could ' Jamend) the zon�in codeMirihe ui.sc of a variance ' (Cow 110 ow Im -ovement Club v. Board of A )eats, supra , at p. 1911 , do ran'aer meanin dose a�pp icab�— r• I..Y state and local Yolalat:iori proscribiny_ivariance requirements . "Morvovcr , courLs munt nwan i nci f to l lv review ci !"aIil;ti of V+)r1�'11f`�!!3 111 O 'U(1r t.0 �rc)tC'Ct t:��i(! i:1t:t;ICSt _._..��.. _ ._..._�__._.,....._.. ._.. i oT C 6i(why hAl- r rs in ru per ti nearby the parcel or h a-which a V r i nca s salt. A zoning +rrr. .�.u•.` wwr.r�rr■�.rr •...r ..r ... toy k v , ti r rt;Llt'UJL� l� , 1J I I pays` 5 l schrme , after, all , is similar. in !comp rOSP-!acts _ to a contract ; each ar C oos rights to use M 1511 as Tk'wi-Wis 5 return for tiro assurance tliat t u use o n ox ng�rtpat,ty�w�I o �+ s 1m ,ar y rr as tx e-te , the __raa�tior.a eyl)eirvg t ia t such mut•u r str^lion can enhance total coifutun.it•y welfare. (See , e. g. , 1 Appendix to Scn . J. ( 1970 Rena . Se.ss . ) Final. Rap . of the Toint Conimittee on open Space .Lend (1970 ) 1) . 91 ; Uowdcn , Artielt: XXV111-' "- YEVacitic enir�c the bate: to O cn S act. Control (1970) L.J . 1,50 , . Y f the ]nterest of these parties in 12revent'.ing uii usti ed vas ,once awards `foiici itxirin� an�or s;u�'ficien___l��yy _pro- r.ec to a consequenc e w111 6e SUT)vcy.r pan ar�tiie critical re_ ciprooc y upon which zonin regulation reestts. emphasis added. The basis for the conditional exception urged by the applicant herein is s pernanal hardship that will be suffered if the building is required to bo i.1ter. ed or moved so that it no longer encroaches into the required ten foot fxontyard setback. The concept: of such "unnecessary hardship" was discussed by the Court in 7.akesnIan v_ City, of Sausalito 28 C.A. 3d 794 (1972) as follow: : "Thc basic element of ' unnccossary hardship ' is pointed out in 8 McQuillan ( 1965 rev . ad . ) Municipal. Corporations , section 25 . 167 , pages 542-544 , as follows, : ' it is fundamental that- the difficulties or hardships must be uniqun to jusLify a variance; they must be peculiar to the application of zor:ing r.c.,;L- r. ict:ions to k,art:i r �arop�:� and not general in chrarictcr since dif f icul1ties or h,arrlship:: shared by all gc to the reasonableness of the zoning, rec-1trictione broadly and render them invalid or call rcr their modification by amendatory ordinance. In other words , the plight of an applicant for a variance must be true to pecul,Lar circumstances and conditions , and it must. be spoc i a l or unique in contrast with that of other property owners Oil 4g{ �'. page .� i � in the sane distri.ct: . ' TO the .•ame ' r fect see 59 American Jurisprudence , 7,oning , section 204 , page 1051 ; 101 Corpus auris becundum , %oning , section 291 ; 2 Anderson , o . cit . , sections 14 . 16 14. 32; and see the author t�.ee in these works cited. "'the rule is closely followed in California . Minne • v . Cit of Azusa , 164 Ca . App . 2d 12 , 31 1330 p. 533T, ir'q—broad authority , stages : E ' A "variance" for undue hardship is grounded in conditions eoculiar to the Prt:icular lot as distinguished from other 2Lo2artwin EU M district . . ' At"Tier aut or atatea that m zone varlan`Ce is the means used to ' solve a unique problam for any property owner ' (Richter v . Board of� Su "amelior- ationrvisors 259 CP, .App. 2d "9 , 106 169 a . Rtr .p . .or of unnecessary hardships which, owing to spacial c Miticns, wAild result from literal enforcctrent of the restrictive features of the ordirwuve."' ip 1 v. Aican Pacific Co. 222 Cal . App. Z 16, 63$_( 3�aA . Rptr. a FT-to relieve the "tlrpe of ha, dship which inheres in the pArticulair property . " ((Cityo f San Marano V. Roman CaEholic Archb i sho ) , 1WUl . App. 2d 86 , Ca L) rC. , P.—Ya 0511 ; Allen v . Humboldt Countv Sd . of WS ervi.sors , 241 I Ea , App. 2 `, na .f ptr. ITF7. — A clear illustration of ' unnecessary hardship ' occurs when the natural condition or topography of one ' s land -A aces him at a disadvantage vis-a-vis other landowners in the zoning district . It is said : ' Sat �sfaction of the regliiroment that the ciratim- stances which result in unneceosary hardship be pe::uV,ar to the applicant' s property is most clearly established where the hardship .relates to the physical characteristics of the land . Where, for example , peculiarities of size., shape or grade of the parcel in question are unique and if the hardship relates to theme, the requirement of unique circumstance, is met . . ( 11 1 if singular and related topographical fentures are lacking $ the court may not find the circumstances which plague the applicant are different from those which affect • I page 7 *14 f the land of h,,s neighbors . " (2 Anderson , op. cit . S14 . 33f see also 0 ftouillan, 2L�.-_ cit . 525.U7 _* This refinement. of the rule is recognized in California , (See Broadwa R , Laguna etc, Isom . v . Board of Permit A eat , 76T—,7T d;n 1= _v. Hum- boldt Count Dd.. of Su ervisors , aup'r�f4r'C�.r1pp. 2d ` ',"�1b�e Ler. v. � �Ca1 .Arp. 2d 348 , 354 ;203 P:'2d 3`�T , . . there isyet mother clement- which mtiGt exist before' unnecessary hardship' may he fount]. ' ( T ) t is fundamental that any variance ,- . from a zoning ordinance, a dminantratively authorized by a zoning board , must be 11i harmony with the general purpose and intent of the coning lawn. (8 McQuillan, op. cit,. , p. 5731 625 , 161 ; see also 2 P,.nderson, a.. cif:-- 114 . 16 . ) California ' s Supreme Court expresses ira came rule in this manner: ' Strict adherence to the ganearal ,scheme of a zoning ordinance may result in undue hardship with respect to certain parcels of land , and in order to insure the validity of the ordinance without impairing its general purpose and intent: , provision 16 ordinarily made for the r granting of variances and the imposition of conditions . ` (Hrin Icy v. Board of Supervisors , su�ra,, 54 Cal.. 2d 07 arJ'a nen ce 6J3�tsa spoci Y recognizes thiia rule; before a variance may ba granted it requires a finding there madel , ' That the granting of such variance will be in harmony with tho general purpose and intent. of this ordinance . It is obvious from the foregoing that "unnecessary hardship" nas to do with the unnecessary hardship or physical impossibility of developing a civtn parcel of property in compliance with the zoning ordinance. The term "hardship" in this particular context hat a particular legal connotation and does not mean personal hardship. In flagman , Larsen, i Martino California Toning ,r,ra+ctice ( 1969) , supplamented to 'i •M reabruary 14 , 1977 � 1 r page d 1975, a leading tircatise on C%liforr-14 land use regulation , the authors state at page '?79 : kl "The standard of hardship with regard to applications to variances . . relates to the property, not to the person who owns it (a:ithorities s' omitted) . "Alt.hou.;h a lar',,er house , ir, a yL ,%'inq tpmily is needed, that kind of hardship does not- justify a variance: (author. tti?s omitted) . Preferences cf the: owner and long-4erm wrongful use should not be considered d hardship. A poor old widow is no more entitled to a variance so that she can lease her property for a filling station , than is a tycoon. The sugyeation in K2 > >2dd hl v . Alcar. Pac . ( 1963) 222 C. A . 2d 6U. . that a variance} was proper when granted to avoid the hardship of a longer walk ;:o town for rest home residents , should be considered improper under A stricr application of the law. "Allen v , Humboldt C Y H : c3. of Super virors ( 1966� CI�ic1-115f, TKI . . cols to ins ,gin accurate statement. air-out versonal hardship: ' It is doubtful that the variance would have been allowable tinier the county ordinance by reason of purely personal difficulty or hardship , as, for example , lack of funds . A consirler'able connection of the difficulty or hardship with the parcel of land as compared with its surroundings probably would be neceassairy. 1 j Further , it clear that when the hardship: iu � self- induced, it cannot be the basis for the granting Of a conditional exccption (variance) . In pruadwa , La una Ltc . v. Boa f P ±R gals , 66 C. 2d 767 , 77U ,96 , the` ii-foxnia� ,q Supreme Court state: : "Turning to the board ' s inclusion of the detrc lopor ' s adoption of super iar. building standards as 4n element of hardship upon the developer , we ,1, F•TM . mayor ano ""moors o r , ty count i ) February 14 , 1-977 page 9 w, need only note that suoh golf -im WAGd hurdons cannat le ti! the awl n of nce. of see C no M. A a C o tGull 1VQ C&I.App. ga , 573 14 cal. Rptr. b47r; Ninne v, (:it o s (199Y1 1+64 Gal.App. 2d 12 , -� - App.#lid. ( 1959) 359 U .S . 436 ( 3 L. Ed . 3d 931 , 79 6. Ct . 9411 ; cf. Caccia v. zonin Board of R*viow (19$5) e3 R. I . 149 , .�. '. �d - 970F�•$'72_!"T......Temphas.ls added. ) The above -(pAotvd proposition is 'farther supported by the regent case of Pettit w . Cit. of Frio 34 C.A. 3d $13 (1973) r wherein the Cou�aS—s and '�+sclisses .a long List of cases where -c-_rr:.nal conviction or d ;structian of an innocently, knit- illegally Qonstruc:ted Luilding was vpheld ►ay th ,r court under circurstancas where t'rt9 property owner claimed both good f :i i t.h , and ' -,at the devrelop"n t hac been undert.-:,are pursuant to validly issued building permAr.s . The .law is clear that a conc1itionaal. cxcc j. tion conrIat issue to rondcr, legal az building wni.c.li is mistakenly constructed illegally , in tlt.o Hagman Mow , tnu authoYs state at page idl : ', A landowner cannot expend money for wonstraCtiorl Or equipment or start a tsusi less . then discover that: activity is i. ? ].F:ga l under the -nning and suer_• . -4sful.' y demand a varlaan(( e h t►.e grouna of narcisha.ti . ts�,uthori t. iee rna.h :�j , j This is particularly so when t )-.tat; wnic h is i.11CgA.l ahc.• t the structures is substantial and cL�vious and delzriment,dl ,.tip lot;, the community and adjaCer L prcperty owners . Haled on %Jib foregoir► � authorities , the advice of your City Attorney *, hich will be f.orthcomxny at your mee*ring and the evidentiary records in this car$ , I respoct:fully s.aggest that this City Council must, affirm the appeal of Vanderwood Rssociatos herein ., arc] deny the requested ct.)ndit:ional oxception. '�r7 .7 iO, y. { page 10 +� 4 ' Without unduly lengthening this letter , it should alsa be noted that even Were the law and tho facts in this case such that a conditional excerption could legally be granted, the ShOroachment of five toot in a tan-f"t setback, being the elimination of one half of that setback on a substantially developed st),,-60t , cannot air a matter of fact or a matter of law, be eansidered a "minor" setback variance within the meaning of Section 15105 of 'title 14 of the California Administrative Cade, +sad therefore could not be considered , as the City Rtarff has in this case, as categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Act of 1970. Thus , prior to the granting of a conditional exception to pmirmit a 50t encroachment in a ftontysrd seLback, even if appropriate findings could tie made (which they cannot herein) , the law would r*quire an environmental evaluation of the proposed action under the provisions of 4 the California Environmental Quality Act. Sage Wildlife Alive v. Chickering 18 Ca►l. 3d 190 (1976) . Indeed, i`uRi an env7ironmantal analysis in the instant case would clearly establish the total inability of the City Council, to make that finding required by Section 9834PL" . 3 of your Municipal Codes , to wit , " that the granting of such conditional exceptions would not be materially detrimental to the public: health, safety and welfare , or injurious to the conforming hand , property or improvements in the neighborhood of the property" for which such conditional exception is sought . Clearly the proposed conditional exception would perpetuate a situation which severely darnages the prop3rty of Varderwrood Associates � and the surroundings neighborhood . Again Yet me apologize for the length of this document, but the importance of thin matter , both to my clients and their investment in the ,adjoining property and � to the general policies of lend use in the C. ty of Huntington Beach made such detailed consideration seem appropriate . Thank you for your kind consideration of our position in this matter. Respectfully submitted , T! OMAS F . WYNC1 LLD IA T'IV/pa M VX= JINSOCIAN88 01 �,µ