The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCUP 89-57/CDP 89-32-BILL RIDGEWAY DESIGN-HHPOA Appeal to F , 00 7- CvuN�,c �- A-++Y UCEIVED CITY CLERK D�rtcfdr CITY OF 16391 Ardsley Cll�J'JL'GTOtd B_ACH CALIF. /" C A44/ Humboldt Island pp p Huntington HarbotkQ QA a2V4 e421a 3 9 April 1990 �r�yGo4P Mr. Tom Mays, Mayor And City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 6392 Gloria Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mayor Mays and City Council : I appreciate your time and interest in my home remodel efforts. While we complied with all City Code requirements we lost our C.U.P. appeal due City Council discretionary findings . These findings were generally centered around a perceived lack of Harbour interest in third floors based on H.H.P.O.A. testimony. We lost your vote ."fair and square" in public forum; our plans for a third floor loft are dead. Our Coastal Development Permit (C.D.P. ) was denied by default at the same time as our C.U.P. The C.D.P. denial was based on the slim technical grounds that with the third floor -denied the plans are technically deemed to be "not compatible. " If we remove the offending third floor loft our plans are once again compatible and the C.D.P. can be approved by the City Council . We are willing and eager to remove the offending third floor loft. We are requesting your support of our request to reconsider our C.D.P. denial and approve our revised home with only two stories. Failure to obtain a City Council reconsideration of our C.D.P. will cause use great financial hardship and cost us needless time _ delay. All aspects of our plan have been approved by Staff and the Planning Commission _ 100k. Removal of the loft brings our plans into 100% total compliance with City Code. We do not seek variance or exception, only approval of our C.D.P. so we can proceed without additional needless expense and delay. I would like to discuss the details of this request with you in person. Please call me at (714) 846-4056 anytime at your convenience so we can arrange a meeting before the meeting 16 April 1990. Thank you in advance for your time and effort. Sinc rel Sincerely, 1 John `Briscoe Debbie F. B. ' Briscoe i The o day, April 12, 1990� C. Ommunitv News ton Beach Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Los .Alamitoslossmoor for Hunting Y _ Chan in g g Newcomers who want the harbor to maintain the ambiance that drew them to it have begun to find themselves at logger- headss g } with newcomers who want to remod- el times at :. el their million-dollar investments to suit themselves. In the forefront of the fray is the approxi- mately 800-member Huntington Harbour ' f harbor Property Owners Association, with a , ��r"`"' � board of directors revitalized with harbor W. s lad neophytes. The voluntary association, nearly dormant since the mid-1970s, has 5 Residents, association again assumed its role as defender of the often at odds over rules rules and regulations that govern the ap- pearance and ambiance of the area. . "I think people are very, very proud to y ,t The Register Ann Pepper be here," said Rosen, an association vice T president who moved into his Edgewater . ea carreon/rhe Register HUNTINGTON BEACH — From the Avenue home four years go. John and Debbie Briscoe are one of two families in Huntington Harbour deck off his living room, Joe Rosen looks "They love their community.And all the who want to add a third story to their home. toward Davenport Island across blue and association is trying to do is keep people in white yachts moored in a channel splashed compliance with the harbor's codes,cove Disputes such as these soon might force .[t is not unusual for a buyer to the association into court to enforce other lank down a $500,000 down pay- with yellow light. nants and restrictions. We're looking out regulations, Rosen said. And as new set- nent for a$1 million harbor home, Nearby, children play on small private for homeowners to make sure a neighbor beaches and workmen trim flawless lawns does not deprive them of the enjoyment of tiers step up the pace of rebuilding and =obb said. _ remodeling in the harbor, its tranquil John Briscoe was one of the two next to driveways with BMWs and their property. g q y channels might be in for more storm lrorneowners whose plans for a Porsches. The association tackles neighborhood g y Huntington Harbour has lolled in the disputes over issues such as satellite dish- times. liir d story were lopped off through sunshine this way since the late 1960s after es, overgrown greenery and walls. "'Tlie original people here were Ire association's efforts. Admiralty, Gilbert, Davenport, Humboldt Last year, 140 issues came before the from Douglas Aircraft, the upper- The association argued that Il+rce story homes are not within and Trinidad islands were built,developed group, and only two of them were not set- middle class of the time," said and settled. tied relatively amiably, Rosen said. John Cobb, who has lived in the ilotthe wanted harbor's regulations and are Those landed the association before the harbor for 15 ears and sells real dcr wfmted by most harbor rtoo But the harbor is changing. As its origi- y tic;nt:;. 'Three-story homes are too nal property owners grow older, they are City Council last month where board mem- estate from his office in the Har- assive, often shadow adjoining bert argued against two families who Dour Mall. "But now it is doctors, +p selling their homes or they are leaving g g 'l�ai•�.l>;. them to their children.And the newcomers wanted to build third stories. attorneys and people with their ' property and can lower neighbors values, association have brought fresh energyand ideas—not The council sided with the association own businesses who live here. I always harmonious ones. and sent the families back to design two- don't think some of the original i:rokesmen said. story structures. buyers could afford to buy here now. tZ The Orange County Register Wednesday,April 11-Thursday,April 12,1990 4NC HARBOR: Changes not always harmonious FROM 1 Briscoe said he views the organi- K1.ation as a platform for personal r Briscoe said he hopes to move ppower plays and political agendas the association in a new direction. What they saw when they came association. 'Vbf various board members. If the people in the harbor want here, that' 'why they stayed. I m "It' 's not that were against pro- "My plans did not get approved, g Mange, Rosen said,he is ready to just trying to convince people now gress," Rosen said. "We'll go any- to I'll change them," said Briscoe, Via them change it. that if we want to keep what we where progress takes us, just so 'nvho paid more than$800,000 for his ; "But people here want to keep have, then we have to support the long as we all go there together." :}iumboldt Island home. "That's The harbor what it is. Thev like r:jolt important. What is important ;gas that the association has control jiver half a billion dollars'worth of . ►';i•eal estate. And I don't think they ®Ugh SE'1S i 1 ;fare spending the association's Huntingt�h ;money wisely, and I don't think 0hey are enforcing the codes,cove- �-96ants and restrictions fairly." Neighbors in Hunfington Harbour Briscoe complained that it was became embroiled in a recent ;difficult for an at-large member to dispute over whether tWo families !speak at association board meet- should be allowed to add third.::: pings, that agendas are published stories tot herr homes The Ai ''too late to review them and make a (amilies.were denied their request,° ,! and sa the Homeowners' Preyuest to speak,and that meeting Association rn the:commun: R,minutes are kept in a biased fash wants too'muchpower "They need to be accountable," he said. "If they are going to be ,~ HUNTIN ,responsible for the harbor, they ` H need to be open and responsible , ;with the people in the harbor." r Rosen denies that the board is 1 , r `a.inaccessible to members at-large. John Briscoe wants to do every- L thing his own way without regard Islands: >' N to the association's rules, he said. ®Humboldt '1'lie two men will get to discuss ®Admiralty . ,;(heir differences further. Briscoe ®Trinidad does not intend to let the matter lie. "I think the harbor should be TMRoglsty promoted — the beautiful homes that are being built here and the lifestyle that the harbor has,"Bris- y oe said. "There should be strong support for harbor beautification �v the association. Instead the J)oard is concerned with issues out- side the harbor—like protection of the ecology in the Bolsa Chica Wet- )ands." P EIRZIEZ & ABSC SAT ES 3720 EAST ANAHEIM STREET, SUITE 202 LONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90804 (213)494-0996 FAX(213)597-8363 April 2, 1990 Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 Mayor Mays and Members of the City Council, I am Manuel E. Perez, planner and licensed architect,representing the appellants, Mr. William T. Dalessi and the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association. For the record, I would like to establish my credentials to speak on this item. I am the immediate past chairman of the City of Long Beach Planning Commission. I have been a member of, and chaired the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Commission and Design Review Board. I have also served as the planner for the City of Brea. Thus, I feel professionally qualified to speak on the subject before . you. The issue before you has been improperly reviewed by both staff and commission. The appropriate action is to send the matter back to the commission for re-evaluation'and re- hearing or to deny it. It cannot and should not be approved in its current state. It is not surprising that your staff report discounts the reasoned appeal made by Mr. Dalessi and the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association. I am sure that they would like this battle between neighbors to go away. However, the battle between neighbors has been given greater import by the actions of the staff and commission. The way to diffuse the potential explosion is to properly review and process the case. To do that you must send the matter back for the commission and staff with the direction to properly consider the issues of this case. The issues are simple and should be of concern to you and your staff: - The 452 angled parking is nor covered under the existing zoning ordinance and therefore requires a change to the zoning code or a variance or "conditional exception" for it to be approved. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated hardship or unusual conditions which would warrant their being granted this approval which could be demanded by any other resident of Huntington Harbour. i The conditional use permit granted by the planning commission contains substantial errors in fact. The commission's finding that '.'Privacy will not be affected as the windows on the third story visible from the exercise loft face the street..." In fact the windows face the garage and`entry of Mr. Dalessi. There are also numerous other factual errors expressed by the staff and commission. - Due to the many exceptions granted by the commission, it is incumbent upon the City to adequately address the environmental impacts. The staff report states that the appeal letter has taken the issue out of context. I offer that staff has taken a conveniently limited and restrictive view of this issue. I suggest staff review Section 15300.2 (b).on cumulative impacts, and 15300.2 (c) on significant effect. I offer the opinion that the granting of a conditional exception under the guise of a conditional use permit would have far-reaching and significant impacts upon the City of Huntington Beach. - The project, as approved by the planning commission, grants one individual, the ability to build closer to the seawall than his neighbors. The project is contrary to the CC&R's of the community in its front and seaside setbacks. I offer that in all of these areas the project is in violation of the coastal development guidelines of the City and the State. I hope that the council will send the matter back to the planning commission or deny it outright. The item before you has been improperly processed, heard and acted upon by your commission. I hope that you rectify the error of your staff and commission by requiring proper and appropriate review of this issue. Respectfully, Manuel E..Perez, AIA r GEORGE E. LOCKE, M.D., F.A.C.S. " Inc. Epilepsy and Neurological Surgery 2865 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 105 Long Beach, California 90806 (213) 427-0322 April 2 , 1990 Mayor and City Council Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach, CA 92649 SUBJECT: 1 . ) Request of Mr. & Mrs . John Briscoe regarding the modification of their home at 16391 Ardsley Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 9264.9 . 2 . ) Appeal of Planning Commission Action- 16391 Ardsley Circle CUP 89/57 , CDP 89-32 Hearing Scheduled April 2 , 1990 Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen: We wish to congratulate you on your previous unanimous decision to approve the Briscoes' application regarding the planned modification to their home. We respectfully appeal to you to reject this appeal and reaffirm your previous decision based on written and oral testimonies. and augmented by the professional opinions of your technical staff . on behalf of my husband Dr. George Locke, M.D. and myself , we wish to again express our unequivocal support for the modification plans of the Briscoes' . We had previously written a letter of support (see attached) and personally requested that the letter of February 19 , 1990 be entered into the City Council's record. The main portion of that letter was additionally most eloquently read by our neighbor Ms. Julie Lund. We again request that both our letters of support be entered into the official record. Best Regards, ,1 r. Alison Locke, F.B.O.A. , Dr. Georgt E., Lock , M.D. Residents/Owners-16462 Barnstable Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 GEORGE E. LOCKE, M.D., F.A.C.S. Inc. Epilepsy and Neurological Surgery r 2865 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 105 Long Beach, California 90806 (213) 427-0322 RESIDENTS: 16462 Barnstable Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 February 19 , 1990 Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach, CA Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is written on behalf of my wife , Dr. Alison Locke and myself to express our unequivocal support on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. John Briscoe regarding their application to remodel their existing home on Ardsley Circle, Huntington Beach, CA. I wish first of all to make some general comments , then I hope you will allow me the opportunity to make some observations as a new American, a brain surgeon and scientist, and as an ethnic minority. I have had the opportunity and pleasure to meet the Briscoes. They are a very fine, hard-working, kind and elegant couple. In their application to remodel their home, they have followed every existing regulation and rule and have complied in totality not only with the law, but in the spirit of the law that exists in Huntington Harbor regarding modifications , additionally, they have taken their plans to most of the residents of Huntington Harbor who would be impacted by their remodeling, and have explained in detail their plans. It is my understanding that . there are some people who disapprove of the Briscoes' plans. Some of these individuals I understand have not given the Briscoes the opportunity to discuss their plans with them. This, in my humble opinion, is unfair. Let me now address you as a new American. I hear talk about maintaining the `status quo' of the existing housing structure plans in Huntington Harbor. Allow me to remind you that this country of ours has become a great country for many reasons; two of the most important reasons are that we as Americans have insisted, and for the most part have succeeded in advocating the rule of law. J PAGE 2 The Briscoes have followed the law, and to deny them the opportunity to remodel their residence would not only be unjust, it would be un-American. Another reason that we as Americans have become so strong as leaders of the space age, leaders .of medicine , economics etc. , is that we have not been afraid to change the status quo if the end results may be of greater benefit to the larger body politic. I look across the channel from my study and I can see the Briscoes' home, and the fact is that the houses of Huntington Harbor are tract homes . Some of us like to get away from the tract-like appearance and modify our homes. There' is no question in my mind that the modifications that the Briscoes propose will enhance the scenery of the Harbor. What is equally important is that their modification in no way affects the view of anyone , certainly not of the channel or the bay , which is why most of us purchase water-front homes. Might I remind you, honorable Commissioners , that on almost every occasion that we Americans have insisted on the status quo, that this has been to our detriment. For example, for two decades , automotive engineers have advised us that we must change our gas-guzzling cars , and change the shape and quality of our cars. But we insisted on maintaining the status quo, now the Japanese, the Germans and the Swedes out-distance us. When we. Americans decided to change the status quo, our cars have improved. This is just one example of how detrimental the status quo can be to us. Twenty-six years ago when I came to this country as a foreign student to begin my neurosurgical training, I was appalled at the injustice and racism that occurred openly in this country. Many of us , young and old, black and white, tall and short, fat and thin, journeyed to all parts of this country to protest the status quo. On a - personal note, I was twice beaten and have been thrown in jail because of civil disobedience to demonstrate against injustice and to encourage the rule of law. I have no regrets for the pain that I suffered because, the status quo was cruel , barbaric and un-American, and which of us today would not agree that these efforts and pain and determination by so many to insist on fairness and justice and total respect for the law has not made this a better land? 1 PAGE 3 As a neurological surgeon, there are procedures that I could .not do ten years ago, because they were thought inoperable, that was the status quo, but we as physicians and scientists did not accept this . We plunged ahead and created new tools and techniques so that now we perform some of those "inoperable operations" , which today is of great benefit to all of us . I respect , the opinions of those who disapprove of the modifications of the Briscoes' home because in a democratic society, whilst we may not always agree with those that dissent, their opinions should be heard and respected. It appears to me that the Briscoe's have obtained the approval and the blessings of the majority of the . residents of Huntington Harbor. Since this is a. democratic country, I implore. you to abide by the rule of law, and let us do the truly neighborly and American thing, let the Briscoe's modify their home, particularly since they have complied and respected the laws and the ordinances and their plans. not only enhances the scenery ( in our opinion) , but more importantly, blocks no ones view. As one who has fought injustice all of my life , in Europe, the Caribbean and America, I recognize the absolute value of freedom of expression, voting rights , and equality. These are all guaranteed to all of us in the Constitution. Almost two decades ago when my wife and I decided to migrate to the United States, we chose this country because it is a just country that proclaims equal justice for all , and allows all of us the opportunity to equally express ourselves . One of the most poignant, emotionally uplifting experiences that we have had was on the first occasion that we had the opportunity to vote as new Americans.. The voting station was at the house of Dr. Richardson on Ardsley Circle (please note that Professor Dr. Richardson has approved the modifications) . They knew (the Richardson's ) that as new Americans this was our first opportunity to vote, and they took time off from their duties to take photographs of my wife and myself and some of the other people in their home to celebrate this glorious event. That was not only a neighborly act, that was the American way. This is the Huntington Harbor that is forever seared with gratitude and joy in our hearts. My wife and I hope that you will approve-the remodeling plans of the Briscoes. To do otherwise, in our opinion, would not only be unfair, it would be unjust, and worst of all , decidedly un-American. ` . Page 4 Bes a ards , George E. Locke, .D. F.A.C.S. Professor and Chairma Dept. of Neurosurgery nd Epilepsy Center King/Drew Medical Center Director, Institute of Neurological Sciences Drew/U.C.L.A. School of Medicine /pm Page 4 Bes a ards , G `Q George E. Locke , .D. F.A.C.S. Professor and Chairma Dept. of Neurosurgery nd Epilepsy Center King/Drew Medical Center Director, Institute of Neurological Sciences Drew/U.C.L.A. School of Medicine /pm LL55-9£5 (blL) iaaigo uoilemopi aiignd'Paaa •E) wegliM uoilewao;ui ailgry;o 9ai}4p 8ti9Z6 V1Na031I` O 133HIS NIVN OOOZ HOVM3 N01.JNIlNnH -JO A.L10 "� JOHN & DEBBIE BRISCOE 16391 ARDSLEY CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92469-2113 Conditional Use Permit 89-57 Coastal Development Permit 89-32 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVOCATES - cJ 1. Debbie Briscoe Owner of Subject Property 2. Robert Lund - ` Attorney at Law, Resident Huntington Harbour 3 . Bill I Norma Marshallu Neighbor & Resident, Huntington Harbour 4. Joan "J.P." Peoples �. Licensed Realtor, Huntington Harbour resident , 5. Carl Johnson California State Licensed Civil Engineer 5. Vince Van Deth Resident Huntington Beach, Industrial Engineer Report 6. Bill Ridgeway Architectural Design Development 7. John Briscoe Owner of Subject Property SPEAKER & TOPIC AGENDA 1. DEBBIE BRISCOE GENERAL SITUATION AND INTRODUCTION OF AGENDA -- Review of speakers and their topics - -- Review of steps taken to gain approval to date • Neighbor meetings & plan modifications • HHPOA/ARC approval by default and failure to notify • City Planning Staff total HH Code compliance • Planning Commission total unanimous 7 to 0 approval -- City Council: support home improvements & city renewal 2. ROBERT LUND H.H.P.O.A. STANDING & PREVIOUS COURT CASE LOSSES -- Review H.H.P.O.A. prior record of arbitrary, capricious and selective enforcement -- Discuss H.H.P.O.A. history of lost cases -- H.H.P.O.A. is voluntary and without standing in court 3. BILL I NORMA MARSHALL CURRENT 3-STORY NEIGHBORING HOME OWNER -- Review personal history of prior City Council approval of their three story home on Ardsley Circle -- Share experience with neighbors on Ardsley Circle that simply want no home improvement changes on the street -- Advocate the right of property owners to use. their land for highest and best use (while following the Code) / 4. JOAN PEOPLES V REAL ESTATE VALUE INCREASE WITH IMPORVEMENT \ 5. CARL JOHNSON PROPOSED HOME PLANS ARE SAFE AND SOUND -- Review personal State License background as a Civil Engineer and a General Contractor -- Proposed driveway and garage design on 16391 Ardsley is safe and consistent with good design principals -- Cul de Sac location means there is no "standard garage" 6. VINCE VAN DETH INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ENGINEER APPROVAL -- Read Dave Arnold letter regarding safety of design -- Support home and community investment and development as a long-time resident of Huntington Beach -- Neighbors outside of the Harbour support home improvements 7. BILL RIDGEWAY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT -- City protocol & total Code compliance throughout project -- Cul de Sac location supports unique design solutions -- Loft on 3rd floor creates a minimum building mass -- Proposed plan fits well with other existing 3rd floors on Ardsley Circle and on Humboldt Island -- There are no view encroachments with neighbors, planned concrete block walls eliminate all neighbor contact 8. JOHN BRISCOE REVIEW OF CC&R'S AND HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CODE -- Project Concepts • Parking: 4 current, 5 total in new plans • Bedrooms: Four current, 4 new plans (3+1 Master Suite) • Loft: Add 490 sq.ft. exercise loft in bldg. center • Views: Special angled design = NO NEIGHBOR VIEW LOSS • Height:. 30" with _Loft, 25' with deck + 5' rail = 30' • if proposed 3rd floor loft is denied building looks the same either way -- CC&R's (Codes, Covenants, & Restrictions) • 30' building heights allowed • 3rd floor Lofts allowed if 60% of lower floor • 10' front yard setbacks allowed • 5' waterside bulkhead setbacks allowed • H.H.P.O.A. By-Laws total compliance with all City Code -- Huntington Beach City Code • 3rd Floor Lofts allowed with C.U.P. 0 10' front yard setbacks allowed 9. CONCLUSIONS OTHER CONCERNED CITIZENS SIGNED-UP TO SPEAK OUT ON: -- Property rights of home owners to improve their homes -- Fair, equal, and impartial enforcement of City Codes -- Respect for citizens rights in the Law versus private associations unaccountable to any legal authority -- Supporting Staff and Planning Commission decisions CITIZENS IN SUPPORT AND ATTENDANCE 1. Mr. & Mrs. Bill and Norma Marshall 16386 Ardsley Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92469 2. Mr. & Mr. Robert and Joan Lund 16472 Barnstable Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 3 . Dr. & Dr. George and Alison Locke 16462 Barnstable Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 4. Mr. & Mrs. Vince and Diane Van Deth 17602 Misty Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 5. Mr. Jim Perry 19105 Shoreline Lane #5, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 6. Mr. & Mrs. Bruce and Jeannine 20012 Tranquil Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 7. Mr. & Mrs. Rick & Karen Batt 9881 Starr Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 8. Mr. Michael Buley 4752 Pearce #A, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 9. Mr. -Jeffrey Snegg 16871 Coral Cay Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 10. Mr. Robert Delmonte 17042 Lowell Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 11. Mr. Mike Kessler 21312 Summerwind Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 12. Mr. Don Rice 17732 McKinney Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 13 . Mr. Craig Suskind 18062 Freshwater Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 14. Mr. Jim Tate 19762 Providence Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 15. Mr. Zid Loox 9592 Bay Meadow, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 16. Mr. William Lindsey 8431 Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 17. Ms. Joan "J.P. " Peoples 16184 Mariner Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 18. Ms. Keri Barnett 6922 Spickard Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 OTHER A. Mr. Carl Johnson, Lic. Civil Engineer 30500 Caliente Street, Canyon Lane, CA 92380 B. Mr. Joe Custer 900 Ohio #B, Long Beach, CA 90804 JOHN & DEBBIE BRISCOE 16391 ARDSLEY CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92649-2113 C.U.P. & C.D.P. APPLICATION (89-57) (89-32) ACTION ACTION/STATUS 1. DESIGN DREAM HOME Bill Ridgeway Design hired, initial plans drawn DONE: JUL 189 2. INTRODUCE PLANS TO NEIGHBORS Debbie & John walk neighborhood for opinions Bill Dalessi only neighbor to reply(fence & view) DONE: AUG 189 3. RE-DESIGN HOME PLANS for neighbor concerns Increased setback distance from water No view impact for Bill Dalessi on revised plans DONE: AUG 189 4. OBTAIN H.H.P.O.A. ARCHITECT REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVAL Hand carry plans to Joe Rosen, Chairman: 30 AUG 89 HHPOA/ARC fails to notify Briscoe of decision CC&R's CLAUSE IV,Section 18(b) : Plans are deemed APPROVED approved if notice is not sent within 30 days BY ARC PLANS APPROVED BY DEFAULT/FAILURE TO NOTIFY 1 OCT 89 Fully Comply with CC&R's (CLAUSE IV,Sec.4) 5. SUBMIT PLANS TO STAFF Preliminary plans submit to Staff: general review Staff Review and Approve Plans by Briscoe DONE: DEC 189 6. CONTRAgT WITH JEROME "JERKY" BAME, Attorney Engaged Attorney for legal assistance DONE: DEC 189 7. OBTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL OF PLANS C.D.P. 100' NEIGHBORS = 7 total, 4 approve 57% APPROVAL C.U.P. 300' NEIGHBORS = 35 total, 23 approve 66% APPROVAL 8. HUNTIN TON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL 100% APPROVAL Meeting 21 FEB 90, unanimous approval UNANIMOUS Support Letters: Marshall,Locke,Ruzics,Englehart 7 to 0 Hong Plan Rey Concepts -- Parking: 4 current, 5 total in new plans -- Bedroom: 4 current, 4 new (3+1 Master Bedroom/Office suite) -- Loft: Add a 490 sg.ft. exercise loft in center of bldg. -- Views: Special Angled design = NO NEIGHBOR VIEW IMPAIRMENT -- ode: Plans comply with all City Building Codes -- 5etbacks:Each floor steps back, NO SUN or LIGHT IMPAIRMENT -- '3rd Floor:Existing 3 story home across street: 16386 Ardsley -- style: Existing Mediterranean home nearby: 16402 Ardsley -- Height: 301proposed; 25' if not approved = looks about same 9. CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCESS (See Staff & Planning Commission Work) 10. BUILDIN_G_ENGINEERING & ENERGY CALCULATIONS & SOILS TESTING 11. PLAN & CITE CHECK & FINAL CITY APPROVAL 12. BEGIN CONSTRUCTION A:\ARDSLEY\C-U-P\2ACTPLAN JOHN & DEBBIE BRISCOE 16391 ARDSLEY CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92649-2113 C.U.P. & C.D.P. APPLICATION (89-57) (89-32) HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION (H.H.P.O.A. ) A.R.C. Architectural Review Committee ISSUES with APPLICABLE CITY CODE and CC&R's 1. LOFT ALLOWED: H.B. CODE & CC&R's H.B.Code: Section 9110.1 "Permitted Uses. The following subsections list permitted uses and the approval process for each one. " H.B.Code: Section 9110.1 (c) "The following uses may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission. " H.B.Code: Section 9110.1 (2) "Building heights between twenty-five (25) and thirty (30) feet, and/or third stories pursuant to section 9110.4(a) . CC&R's: CLAUSE III, Definitions (Page 3) "Story, Half: A space under a sloping roof which has the line of intersection of roof decking and wall not more than three (3) feet above the top floor level, and in which space not more than sixty percent (60%) of the floor area is completed for principal or accessory use. " 2. 30' HEIGHT ALLOWED: H.B.CODE & CC&R's H.B.Code: Section 9110.1 (see above) , Section 9110.1 (c) (see above) , Section 9110.1 (2) (see above) . CC&R's: CLAUSE IV, Section 2, Building Height (Page 3) " . . .no two story building or garage shall exceed thirty (30) feet in building height. . . " NOTE: see allowed half-story loft rooms allowed above second story floors (see above) ADDED NOTE: CC&R's clearly allow 30' building heights. 3. 10' FRONT SETBACK ALLOWED: H.B.CODE & CC&R's H.B.Code: Section 9110.6 "Setback (front yard) . The minimum setback from the front property lines for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows: Side Entry Garage Ten (10) feet. " CC&R's: CLAUSE IV, Section 4, Location on Lot (Page 4) "Except as otherwise authorized by any applicable use variance or conditional exception granted by the City of Huntington Beach. . . . " (NOTE: H.H.P.O.A./ARC acts in place of Hunt.Harbr.Corp. ) Huntington Harbour Corp. Conditional Exception UV 1689 Dated 3 March 1964, Page #2 , Section 3 , "On waterfront lots (1 through 248) . . .a front yard setback of 10 feet, except that the setback shall be 20 feet where the garage is entered directly from the street. " NOTE: CC&R's clearly allow 10' setback side turn garages. a:\ardsley\c-u-p\cc&rcode 4. 5' BULKHEAD SETBACK ALLOWED: H.B. CODE & CC&R's H.B. Code: Section 9110.8 "Setback (rear yard) . The minimum setback from the rear property shall be as follows: Dwelling and open unroofed stairways - Ten (10) feet except may be reduced to five (5) feet if rear yard abuts. . .public waterway. . .which is a minimum of one hundred (100) feet in clear width. " "Open, unroofed balconies - Ten (10) feet, except may be reduced to five (5) feet if rear yard abuts a public waterway. " NOTE: Ordinance 11077 (Section 9110.81 passed 3 August 1964. H.B. Code: Conditional Exception UV 1689 H.B. Planning Commission, Tuesday, March 3, 1964, Page 2 "To allow subdivision and development of the property for use for single family dwellings and apartment structures as follows: 1. On waterfront lots. . . 2. Reduction of lot frontages. . .Tract Map 5481. 3 . On waterfront lots (1 through 248) . .a front yard setback of 10 feet. . . 4. On waterfront lots (lots 1 through 248) . a rear yard setback of 10 feet from the bulkhead. 5. On waterfront lots, side yard setbacks of 5 feet. . . CC&R's: CLAUSE IV, Section 4, Location on Lot (Page 4) "Except as otherwise authorized by any applicable use variance or conditional exception granted by the City of Huntington Beach prior to the date of said Covenants. . ." NOTE' CC&R's executed 6 May 1965 NOTE: Both Conditional Use #689, and City of Huntington Beach Ordinance 1077 BOTH PREDATE CC&R's and thus take precedence over CC&R's. 5 IMPORTANT: DUTIES OF THE ARC & HHPOA -- The Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association was cooperated in 1964 with Articles of Incorporation filed under document #469011 of 15 April 1964, with the Secretary of the State of California.. -- The H.H.P.O.A. operates and must abide by its BY-LAWS and REGULATIONS adopted April 1964 and revised February 1984 . What the By-Laws say about the Architectural Review Committee: BY-LAWS: Section 10,Committees,Subsection C Standing Committees. 1. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. This committee shall consider and approve or disapprove any plans. . . . .Nothing herein shall be construed as authorizing or empowering said committee. . .to change or waive said Covenants, except as herein provided. Said committee may adopt rules and regulations. . .and said regulations shall be consistent with regulations, ordinances and codes in effect in the City of Huntington Beach, California. NOTE: By-Laws clearly obligate the H.H.P.O.A. and the ARC to support and follow exactly whatever City of Huntington Beach codes are in effect at the time plans are submitted. The ARC and H.H.P.O.A. have no right either in the- CC&R's or in the By-Laws to invent new codes and rules that contradict or restrict City of Huntington Beach law. The ARC and H.H.P.O.A. are not permitted in the By-Laws to circulate, petition, or protest City of Huntington Beach "regulations, ordinances and codes in effect. " The ARC is charged with following City law and is not permitted to advocate new law or make changes to the City code on its own. NEAR-CAOMRP Home Office: GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1230 Blue Gum Street,Anaheim, CA 92806 714 630-4800 FAX 714 632-7315 March 26, 1990 Mayor & City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Re: Residence for John & Debbie Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Circle Huntington Beach, CA To The Honorable Tom Mays & The City Council of Huntington Beach: Ihave been engaged by John and Debbie Briscoe to review the driveway design and several comments made by certain interested parties. I feel I can comment on these issues due to the fact that I am a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of California (RCE #36655) , and possess a General Engineering (A) and General Building (B) Contractors License (#382034) in this state. In reviewing the driveway configuration, I feel that it is the best possible design for a drive in a cul-de-sac, and for the position of the house in its orientation to the street itself. It forces the cars to egress and ingress in the natural flow of traffic, i.e. counter clockwise in the cul-de-sac. As to safety and general design, in my opinion, this is the best solution for a cul-de-sac drive. As to the issue of "folding" cars into a driveway, I cannot see this being an issue; the plans that I have viewed show the driveways are a straight shot into .the garages, not curved. As to the issue of "stomping" landscape, the design shows 10, wide drives for each car which for the average car being 6 ft wide, this gives 2 ft on each side for entering and existing from the car. I doubt that any landscape destruction will occur. Sincerely, AR-CAL CORPORATION r ohn Sol �---- President CJ/j S Branch Office: 28636 Front Street, Ste. 102, Rancho California , CA 92390 714 699-7525 FAX 714 676-7362 i- Member of License No.131 230077 Al 230077 Associated General Contractors of California Mr. David Arnold 2730 Bonanza Street Rocklin, CA 95677 20 March 1990 Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor and City Council: I am pleased and proud to have been a resident of Huntington Beach during the 19801s. As a graduate of California State University at Long Beach and a currently practicing industrial engineer with Hewlett Packard I feel I am qualified to comment on building design and safety. Mr. and Mrs. Briscoe have asked me to review their plans as an industrial and building safety expert. In this capacity I have several comments to make regarding the Briscoe home remodel: 1. The proposed driveway configuration at the cul de sac end of Ardsley Circle represents a unique design solution to a difficult lot shape. On a curved circle all driveways will meet in the center; there is no single "correct" exit angle. Conclusion: The driveway is safe and represents good design. 2. The proposed walls and landscape barriers in the Briscoe remodel plans prohibit any car from crossing over onto neighboring properties; there is no possibility of trespass. Conclusion: The driveway is safe and represents good design. 3. The proposed driveways will allow and permit a car to be parked in front of each garage door on the driveway apron; in addition to three parking spaces inside the garages for a total of 5 (five) parking spaces. Conclusion: The driveway is safe and represents good design. As a former long time resident of Huntington Beach I believe the overall proposed plans will be an asset to the community and add value to neighboring homes. Sincer y i Dav Arnold NE = GHI30R A P P R O V A L 6 6 C . U . P . 300 FEET NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL ARDSLEY CIRCLE SOUTH HUMBOLDT fron ARDSLEY SOUTH TO BRIDGE ARDSLEY CIRCLE NORTH HARROLD i CAROLYN NORING JEPm i VILK ENGLEBART GARY PAZORNLK 90-WAETA 16361 Ardsley Circle Res: 1987 4006 Humboldt Drive Res: 1973 16362 Ardsley Circle Res: 1989 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TuLand: $ 25 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TuLand: $ 56 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TWmd: $ 160 (714) 846-7940 Improv: $ 81 Lot 224,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 7,200 APPROVED APPROVED Tax IN: 178-062-24 House: 3,432 NEIL i EVELYN KLEIN CARL i GWEN PHILLIP 16365 Ardsley Circle Res: 2986 16366 Ardsley Circle Res: 1983 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 363 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Ta&nd: $ 44 (714) 592-2950 Inprov: $ 53 APPROVED Lot 240,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,100 Tax IDf: 178-062-40 House: 3,215 LARRY i DIANE WEBSTER 6 6 o KENNY i DOLORES BALL 16371 Ardsley Circle Res: 1977 16372 Ardsley Circle Res: 1969 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TWAnd: $ 206 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxIand: $ 67 (714) 846-1730 Improv: $ 95 (714) Inprov: $ 70 Lot 226,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 Lot 239,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 Tax IDf: 178-062-26 House: 2,925 ARDSLEY CIRCLE POINT Tax IDf: 178-062-39 House: 3,372 GLENN i KATHLYN RICHARDSON RM MOORE ROBERT i SONDRA BLAU 16375 Ardsley Circle Res: 1966 16401 Ardsley Circle Res: 1986 16376 Ardsley Circle Res: 1987 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TuLand: $ 59 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tagand: $ 74 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TWand: $ 58 (213) 592-3055 Inprov: $ 92 APPROVED Lot 131,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 6,600 APPROVED Tax IDf: 178-062-31 House: 3,376 CHERYL ORR i VI PHELPS KELLY (JOHN) HARRISON MICHAEL i CATHY THONGS 16381 Ardsley Circle Res: 1978 16402 Ardsley Circle Res: LA, CA 1 16382 Ardsley Circle Res: 1981 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TuLand: $ 59 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tadand: $ 69 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tuland: $ 89 (714) 840-1425 Improv: $ ill (714) 840-2351 Improv: $ 78 Lot 228,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 APPROVED Lot 237,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 Tax IDf: 178-062-28 House: 2,776 Tax IDf: 178-062-37 House: 3,176 [Attorney-Rieden,Dlsy,Dybns j BILL i MARGO DALESSI [Bill Nork(213)436-52031 DAM i PHYLLIS JONES BILL i ROM MARSHALL 16385 Ardsley Circle Res: Orange,CA 16412 Ardsley Circle Res: 1977 16386 Ardsley Circle Res: 1976 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tid&nd: $ 325 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tadand: $ 281 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Ta&nd: $ 110 (213) 592-2323 Inprov: $ 184 Lot 229,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 4,978 APPROVED APPROVED Tax IDf: 178-062-29 House: 3,740 JOHN i DEBBIE BRISCOE ERVIN i LINDA RUZICS BARBARA i EVERETT LEE 16391 Ardsley Circle Res: 1989 16396 Ardsley Circle Res: 1989 16392 Ardsley Circle Res: 1986 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxIand: $ 454 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TuLand: $ 273 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxIand: $ 63 CDP CUP APPLY' APPROVED APPROVED MOBA 123 A:\ARDSLEY\C-r",•""--. 35 HONES / 23 IPPROVE 6 6 -% C . U . P . 300 FEET NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL BARNSTABLE SOUTH HUMBOLDT betveen ARDsm & BARNSTABLE BARNSTABLE NORTH TOM 6 BETTY LOU EVANS RICHARD 6 JEAN MCALPINE 3952 Humboldt Drive Res: 1982 16412 Barnstable Circle Res: 1974 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TuLand: $ 54 Huntington Harbour,G 92649 Taxiand: $ 25 APPROVED '.. APPROVED GERALD 'JERRY' d BEVERLY ME [Computr Sls] GENE b ELLIOTT 3962 Humboldt Drive Res: 1986 16422 Barnstable Circle Res: LA, CA Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 351 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TuLand: $ 423 (714) 846-4342 Improv: $ 164 (213) 277-2659 Improv: $ 234 Lot 222,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 Lot 219,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,294 Tax IDI: 178-062-22 House: 3,332 Tax IN: 178-062-19 House: 2,360 JDSTIN b JEAN BAKER [USC MA OrgansfiBells] MELVIN 6 SUSAN MARKS (&PEDIATRICS) 3972 Hu�boldt Drive Res: 1985 16432 Barnstable Circle Res: 1986 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: S 56 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tadand: $ 402 APPROVED APPROVED Office: (714) 847-2595 Pacifica Hlth FRANK LAW (Single/Divorced) (M.D.) DAVID 6 EVELYN MAYBERRY [Repblcn Prty] 16441 Barnstable Circle Res: 16442 Barnstable Circle Res: 1981 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 59 (714) 840-6869 Improv: $ 65 APPROVED Lot 217,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 BARNSTABLE POINT Tax IDf: 178-062-17 House: 2,879 COMM i BARANA ELSIE 6 ATKINSON LARRY & JOANNE WILLIAMSON [Inventor-breathng] 16451 Barnstable Circle Res: 185 16441 Barnstable Circle Res: LA, CA 16452 Barnstable Circle Res: 1987 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TuLand: $ 464 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tuland: Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 466 APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED DARRELL b CROSBY ALBERT fi ZEKARIA GEORGE 6 ALLISON LOCKE [Neurosurgon 6 Jaaaca] 16441 Barnstable Circle Res: Orange,CA 16492 Barnstable Circle Res: 1979 16462 Barnstable Circle Res: 1979 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 325 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 66 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 350 APPROVED NO OPINION APPROVED Office: (213) 964-5728 LUND ASSOCIATES (aother of Robert Lund) EDWARD 'ED' & MILLIE DEMPSEY ROBERT 'BOB' 6 LUND [Attorney] 16471 Barnstable Circle Res: 16482 Barnstable Circle Res: 1971 16472 Barnstable Circle Res: 1973 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 71 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 66 APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED TOSHIBA 123 A:\ARDSLEY\C-D--'-_—_. 35 HONES / 23 APPROVE 178 -06 04 FJ 6 o s�I 03 14 f 35 'Tina- 1- Homers /413 2 3 A P P R O V E 13 0 2 s• �.� • '• �P s .a NUNSOLDr • , l DIV EAD t/Nl '• f"' s. : Zia �W. A NEAR UNR so ! ; T I O IN V i � '�, C�► rr ! 11a, 19 ..4 1%%r�yrL.IJffl�e t!~ ;• ��L - ' ��'T�-- '°'°• 'jell�I�1�I�I R � � lip1. _ .. tM LOT E ♦��. JOWN t Iq. _ to _ • ^. )(5.1 • 9 •r `` NfAD LINE OULKNEADQ ♦ I �y ► (O LINE- S n'' \�T 1 \ /FRNfAO o A y , !/ G M' C\b�.• MIL riff AREAS S&P" WiTMIN LOTS Y AW X AAD DES/6NArro Or ARABIC AVA/ERALS • AND LErrERS OELIMf/rE AREAS WWM 1 rs.i— 4 12 C 2 i ra_., ARE AiPuRrENANr AND ALLocArfO To i /� tR r' , ' M' ! •r . /i' lL _ LOrS OEIR/N6 CORRESPONO/N6 Lor nr.r NUWDERS. PON LOr o•1 r 4 1 rr,.r \ /.S3ACrai_r .u-r 1 ;A9N'LOr o• - e Ss• •- ' A - AMSS WfrS O - DECK AND NAAFI AREAS S- OOA! SLIPS M- M'NARfA" AfARCN lyf. ASSESSOR'S E � {OOR 176 PAGE 06 COUNTY Of ORANGE X= �j�i��Ov�' 35 Total Homes / 20 APPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REVIEW & APPROVAL OF BRISCOE PROJECT STATEMENT OF APPROVAL We, the undersigned, have seen and reviewed the proposed plans for the remodel of the existing single family residence at 16391 Ardsley Circle, H.B. We feel this will be an asset to the neighborhood with no adverse environmental impact, and further request that this proposal be passed as submitted. PRINT NAME ADDRESS APPROVED 1 . Gary Pazornik 16362 Ardsley Circle YES 2. Barbara Pazornik 16362 Ardsley Circle YES 3 . J. Kelly Harrison 16412 Ardsley Circle YES 4. Bill Marshall 16386 Ardsley Circle YES 5. Norma Marshall 16386 Ardsley Circle YES 6. Ervin Ruzics,M.D. 16396 Ardsley Circle YES 7. Linda Ruzics 16396 Ardsley Circle YES 8. Neil Klein,M.D. 16365 Ardsley Circle YES 9. Evelyn Klein 16365 Ardsley Circle YES 10.D. Everett Lee 16392 Ardsley Circle YES 11 .K. Richardson 16375 Ardsley Circle YES 12.Sondra Blau 16376 Ardsley Circle YES 13.Danny Lee Jones 16412 Ardsley Circle YES 14.R. T. McAlpine 16412 Barnstable Circle YES 15.Jean McAlpine 16412 Barnstable Circle YES 16.Larry Williamson 16542 Barnstable Circle YES 17.George .Locke,M.D. 16462 Barnstable Circle YES 18.Alison Locke,M.D. 16462 Barnstable Circle YES 19.Susan Marks 16432 Barnstable Circle YES 20.Mel Marks,M.D. 16432 Barnstable Circle YES 21.Frank Law,M.D. 16441 Barnstable Circle YES 22.Ed Dempsey 16482 Barnstable Circle YES 23 .Millie Dempsey 16482 Barnstable Circle Y S 25.Robert Lund 16472 Barnstable Circle YES 26.Joan Lund 16472 Barnstable Circle YES 27.Lund Associates 16471 Barnstable Circle YES 28.Betty Crosby 16461 Barnstable Circle YES 29.Tobin Campbell 16481 Barnstable Circle YES 30.Corrado Barana 16451 Barnstable Circle YES 31.Jeff Englehart,M.D. 4006 Humboldt Drive YES 32.Vilma Englehart 4006 Humboldt Drive YES 33 .Betty Lou Evans 3.952 Humboldt Drive YES 34.Tom Evans 3952 Humboldt Drive YES 35.Justin Kramer 3972 Humboldt Drive YES 36.Jean Kramer 3972 Humboldt Drive YES A:\ARDSLEYI,�C—U-P\PETITION We, the underbigned, have seen and reviewed the proposed plans for the remodel of the existing .single family residenos at 16391 Ardsley Circle , H.B. Ne feel this will be an asset to the neigh- borhood with no adverse environmental impact, and further request that this proposal be passed as submitted. PRINT BANE ADDRESS SIGRATURE 1 .'Afi 20nnrtiL L �Ct[ v G2 . 2. 39 V � I 7. Li� .;� i c s i b 3g AY-4 C,-. 10. N A� aSJ� 12. �,-< <,✓ ��,Ez1.� /lam 2 a�4-, s�� < < � F �,./ 14 ,E 46 a gMvA. aj ' . ti III //cc t 16t 17. 18. L M n 1 19. ti /6 clY/ 112 20 �r ( 35 Total Homes / 23 APPROVE N.e, the underbigned , have seen and reviewed the proposed plane for the remodel of the existing single family residence at 16391 Ardsley Circle , H. B. We feel this will be an asset to the neigh- borhood with no adverse environmental impact, and further request that this proposal be passed as submitted. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE -1, JCA, 1-41 b=3& /*� 1(4 4. 4=4r '��" 16 3 r Sle ate, 6. 8. �uSTIN 'RAM�� `17� NLNl30��i DR . J 9. ,j6A, J K'RAME' L y om3ocnr 10. 11 . jOaW Al 12. LA_ aL��- -a-c.1 14.Ms. Betty Crosby 16461 Barnstable Cir Signed Letter 16 FEB 90 15.Mr. Corrado Barana 16451 Barnstable Cir Signed Letter 16 FEB 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 35 Total Homes 23 APPROVE GEORGE E. LOCKE, M.D., F.A.C.S. Inc. Epilepsy and Neurological Surgery 2865 Atlantic Avenue,Suite 105 Long Beach, California 90806 (213)427-0322 RESIDENTS• 16462 Barnstable Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 February 19, 1990 Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach, CA Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is written on behalf of my wife, Dr. Alison Locke and myself to express our unequivocal support on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. John Briscoe regarding their application to remodel their existing home on Ardsley Circle, Huntington Beach, CA. I wish, first of all to make some general comments, then I hope you will allow me the opportunity to make some observations as a new American, a brain surgeon and scientist, and as an ethnic minority. I have had the opportunity and pleasure to meet the Briscoe's. They are a very fine, hard-working, kind and elegant couple. In their application to remodel their home, they have followed every existing regulation and rule and have complied in totality not only with the law, but in the spirit of the law that exists in Huntington Harbor regarding modifications, additionally, they have taken their plans to most of the residents of Huntington Harbor who would be impacted by their remodeling, and have explained in detail their plans. It is my understanding that there are some people who disapprove of the Briscoes' plans. Some of these individuals I understand have not given the Briscoes the opportunity to discuss their plans with them. This, in my humble opinion, is unfair. Let me now address you as a new American. I hear talk about maintaining the `status quo' of the existing housing structure plans in Huntington Harbor. Allow me to remind you that this country of ours has become a great country for many reasons; two of the most important reasons are that we as Americans have insisted, and for the most part have succeeded in advocating the rule of law. i NEIGHBOR SUPPORT PAGE 2 16 The Briscoes have followed the law, and to deny them the opportunity to remodel their residence would not only be unjust, it would be un-American. Another reason that we as Americans have become so strong as leaders of the space age, leaders of medicine, economics etc. , is that we have not been afraid to change the status quo if the end results may be of greater benefit to the larger body politic. I look across the channel from my study and I can see the Briscoes' home, and the fact is that the houses of Huntington Harbor are tract homes. Some of us like to get away from the tract-like appearance and modify our homes. There is no question in my mind that the modifications that the Briscoes propose will enhance the scenery of the Harbor. What is equally important is that their modification in no way affects the view of anyone, certainly not of the channel or the bay. which is why most of us purchase water-front homes. Might I remind you, honorable Commissioners, that on almost every occasion that we Americans have insisted on the status quo, that this has been to our detriment. For example, for two decades, automotive engineers have advised us that we must change our gas-guzzling cars, and change the shape and quality of our cars. But we insisted on maintaining the status quo, now the Japanese, the Germans and the Swedes out-distance us. When we Americans decided to change the status quo, our cars have improved. This is just one example of how detrimental the status quo can be to us. Twenty-six years ago when I came to this country as a foreign student to begin my neurosurgical training, I was appalled at the injustice and racism that occurred openly in this country. Many of us, young and old, black and white, tall and short, fat and thin, journeyed to all parts of this country to protest the status quo. On a personal note, I was twice beaten and have been thrown in jail because of civil disobedience to demonstrate against injustice and to encourage the rule of law. I have no regrets for the pain that I suffered because the status quo was cruel , barbaric and un-American, and which of us today would not agree that these efforts and pain and determination by so many to insist on fairness and justice and total respect for the law has not made this a better land? NEIGHBOR SUPPORT PAGE 3 As a neurological surgeon, there are procedures that I could not do ten years ago, because they were thought inoperable, that was the status quo, but we as physicians and scientists did not accept this. We plunged ahead and created new tools and techniques so that now we perform some of those "inoperable operations" , which today is of great benefit to all of us. I respect the opinions of those who disapprove of the modifications of the Briscoes' home because in a democratic society, whilst we may not always agree with those that dissent, their opinions should be heard and respected. It appears to me that the Briscoe's have obtained the approval and the blessings of the majority of the residents of Huntington Harbor. Since this is a democratic country, I implore you to abide by the rule of law, and let us do the truly neighborly and American thing, let the Briscoe's modify their home, particularly since they have complied and respected the laws and the ordinances and their plans not only enhances the scenery (in our opinion) , but more importantly, blocks no ones view. As one who has fought injustice all of my life, in Europe, the Caribbean and America, . I recognize the absolute value of freedom of expression, voting rights, and equality. These are all guaranteed to all of us in the Constitution. Almost two decades ago when my wife and I decided to migrate to the United States, we chose this country because it is a just country that proclaims equal justice for all , and allows all of us the opportunity to equally express ourselves. one of the most poignant, emotionally uplifting experiences that we have had was on the first occasion that we had the opportunity to vote as new Americans. The voting station was at the house of Dr. Richardson on Ardsley Circle (please note that Professor Dr. Richardson has approved the modifications) . They knew (the Richardson's) that as new Americans this was our first opportunity to vote, and they took time off from their duties to take photographs of my wife and myself and some of the other people in their home to celebrate this glorious event. That was not only a neighborly act, that was the American way. This is the Huntington Harbor that is forever seared with gratitude and joy in our hearts. My wife and I hope that you will approve the remodeling plans of the Briscoes. To do otherwise, in our opinion, would not only be unfair, it would be unjust, and worst of all, decidedly un-American. NEIGHBOR SUPPORT NEIGHBOR SUPPORT Page 4 Bes a ards, z:Q George E. Locke, 14.D. F.A.C.S. Professor and Chairma Dept. of Neurosurgery nd Epilepsy Center King/Drew Medical Center Director, Institute of Neurological Sciences Drew/U.C.L.A. School of Medicine /pm NEIGHBOR SUPPORT --- --------- ------ ----------- ----------------- Aze .iaw- ...... op�o, oC &-- ---1 4- 0- ---------- _,ojAe ,-Z-4- V-2-00L------- • j NEIGHBOR SUPPORT -2 1 • 1 1 11 1 1 • s � • 1 � � 1 1 V , '� � � � � _ �� a �) �` • � •` � 1 ww r . ` lay u to L . t.>• r i 1 � r •� . • • ♦ 1 • 1 � A 1 • Ai lb I e r r � I / • , • of • �' s 0 AND •, 1 ! • • • -� • • OF , i� AMP 410 1 i • 1 •� At `I Dr. aO Mrs. Jeffrey H. Engleharl 4006 Hum6ol& Drive Hunlinglon each, CR 92649 — --- ---- ---- ----_ ti-r� Zl rs - -r/ ----_._d e.J� �5- .. - - _ Cti - J �- � J Cd es � � - -- -- ------ -- -- ------- - � Loll e__ oe 2--ec x 4's �-- 4p , re grip a pe7 �� l" i?'1 ,,5 - 2 �_,e—' O":oei e-- ol I I ,I I I I i / Mr. Corrado Barana 16451 Barnstable Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92469 16 February 1990 Mr. John Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Circle, Humboldt Island Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2113 Dear Mr. Briscoe: I appreciate your time and effort to show us the plans for your home remodel and addition. By way of this letter we would like to join all of the other neighbors that have signed your petition stating: We, the undersigned, have seen and reviewed the proposed plans for the remodel of the existing single family residence at 16391 Ardsley Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2113 . We feel this will be an asset to the neighborhood with no adverse environmental impact, and further request this proposal be passed as submitted. Again, thank you for keeping us appraised of your plans and intentions, and good luck on your project. Sincerely, Corr ` o Barana a:\ardsley\c-u-p\letters\barana Mr. Darrell Crosby 164#1 Barnstable Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92469 16 February 1990 Mr. John Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Circle, Humboldt Island Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2113 Dear Mr. Briscoe: I appreciate your time and effort to show us the plans for your home remodel and addition. By way of this letter we would like to join all of the other neighbors that have signed your petition stating: We, the undersigned, have seen and reviewed the proposed plans for the remodel of the existing single family residence at 16391 Ardsley Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2113 . We feel this will be an asset to the neighborhood with no adverse environmental impact, and further request this proposal be passed as submitted. Again, thank you for keeping us appraised of your plans and intentions, and good luck on your project. Sincerely, Darrell Crosby a:\ardsley\c-u-p\letters\crosby - t Fill 0 0 o o® 000 Ma e I n® I ..� - - -: -- -000 'y IIIrfry U . ! Q M J Li _.. NORTH ELEVATION or.:'p•.;b � - —m—z - mommspy+R _ I I1 n n -- _ . 1 1 - -' - i --_ SOUTH ELEVATION ....�•.;o i y `� O t, y O O O — * " ff O • .._ _ _. I FjW y rn 1 i i I F 8 aA /lam 11` A ��// �I' 1, •w �w I"i pall • •nn i��r ID 1� 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GfORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor C .�'•r�,.�'��A COASTAL COMMISSION . SOUTH COAST AREA 2A5 WEST SROADWAY, SURE 380 LONG BEACH, CA 9W02 7 (213) "0.3071 Date 6/15/90 Commission Reference # 5-HNB-90-14 NOTIFICATION., OF APPFAI_ PERIOD TO: City of Huntington Beach FROM: California Coastal Commission Please be advised that on June 1 , 1990 our office received .a notice of local action on the coastal development permit described below: --- Local Permit # CDP No. 89-32 Name of Applicant Rill Ridgeway Design Project ('c>;.ription, Location Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling, not to include a third story. 16391 Ardsley Circle. S/O Edinger Ave, W/0 Saybrook Lane Unless -an appeal is filed with the Coastal Commission, the action will become final at the end of the Commission appeal period . The appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on June 25, 1990 Our office will notify you if an appeal is filed. Note: The notice of local action did not include written findings supporting the decision. So that we may complete our record of this decision, please forward a copy of the adopted findings to our office within 30 days. (This note is applicable only if a check mark has been entered. ) L, yuu nave any questions, please contact us . 5223D 4 -ZGITY,CLEW CITY OF FU17:�F:%1tiGT0?i E=rir}{,CA-LFF.. John & Debbie Briscoe JUR ZZ M 43 a'l '90 16391 Ardsley Circle Humboldt Island Huntington Harbour, CA 92649-2113 15 June 1990 Mr. John Bowers Staff Attorney Counsel California Coastal Commission 631. Howard Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, Ca 94106 (415) 543-8555 Dear Mr. Bowers: I am the owner of 16391 Ardsley Circle, Huntington Beach, CA which has been approved for remodel under local CDP #89-32 (Commission Reference # 5-HNB-90-14) . There has been a serious error in my permit process that must be corrected immediately. Ms. Theresa Henry in my local South Coast Area California Coastal Commission office has stated that you personally authorized a change in administration of the law by the extension of my CDP appeal period. The City of Huntington Beach City Council/Redevelopment Agency met on Monday 21 May 1990 to approve my CDP #89-32 . . This approval was posted in City Council Meeting Minutes for public viewing and comment; and the hearings were conducted in an open public forum. My unanimous approval by City Council is a matter of public record. The City of Huntington Beach, through the offices of City Clerk sent notice of approval to the South Coast Area Coastal Commission on 25 May 1990. The local office lost this notice and refuses to acknowledge receipt, and the Huntington Beach City Clerk failed to obtain proof of delivery. A corrected copy was sent 30 May 1990. A third corrected copy was sent 31 May 1990. In each and every case the fact of City of Huntington Beach City Council approval effective 21 May 1990 was clearly indicated. In a form letter dated 15 June 1990 the South Coast Area Coastal California Commission admits to receipt of "local action on coastal development permit #CDP 89-32 . The admitted date of receipt is stated to be 1 June 1990. The proper and correct legal appeal period would then extend ten working days from 1 June 1 to 14 June 1990. According to the City of Huntington Beach in a public notice published in reference to PRC S. 30603 that " . . .The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days. . .Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. " T The letter dated 15 June 1990 from the South Coast Area Commission sets an appeal period that extends from date of receipt 1 June 1990 until 25 June 1990. This arbitrary, capricious and selective extension of appeal date beyond the legal allowed ten working days is unacceptable. It is not in the purview of administrative agencies to make-up new law on-the-spot that abrogates legal guarantees specified in the code. There is no compelling public interest in the arbitrary extension of my appeal period. City of Huntington Beach approval of CDP 89-32 is a matter of extensive public record. Notice of appeal period is a matter of public record through the "Notice of Action" letters sent 25 May, 30 May, and 31 May 1990. The selective and random assignment of appeal periods based on when local offices get around to sending out letters is unacceptable. ACTION REQUESTED 1. I demand that the proper and legal ten (10) day appeal period be reinstated to run from date of receipt 1 June to 14 June 1990. This must be confirmed with a corrected copy of "Notification of Appeal Period" to be mailed by the South Coast Area California Coastal Commission as soon as possible. 2. I request your acknowledgement of source responsibility for the legal opinion that authorized extension of appeal deadline on my CDP 89-32. In the event that you did not issue the opinion please direct notify me of the source of the authorization. 3 . I demand a written legal opinion citing rationale and basis for allowing capricious appeal period extensions for the South Coast Area Commission office in general and my CDP 89-32 in specific. You must cite California State law and precedents. 'ncerely, J hn F. Briscoe Attachments: South Co Area letter 15 June 1990 Huntington Beach City letter 31 "May 1990 cc: Governor of the State of California Mayor of the City of Huntington Beach BRISCOE " 4 r�- 16391 ANDSMY CIRCI:E �`i ,9 d P tit; EIUMBOLDT ISLAND HUNTINGTON HARBOUR j 21 JUN 0 ,�"•"•�� ''Aj IVOHNIA 92649.2113 U.S.A. /990 'Yosemic. 'Yosemicet_•�, 1 y� Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk JJ�\ City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach Ca 92648 11,1 ,.I tali ,JIMIII MI AIMl!l,,It 11111!„If CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 25, 1990 NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57 APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. 2nd Street Long Beach, CA 90803 REQUEST: To permit the remodel and addition to an existing single- family dwelling including a third story. The dwelling is 'proposed to have 4 , 994 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage . LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle - S/O Edinger Avenue, W/0 Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on May 21, 1990 and your request was : Approved X Conditionally approved - with review and approval of plans by Community Development Director . Denied Withdrawn Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final . The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S . 30603 and California Administrative Code S. 13319 , Title 14 . -t 10 5 7K (Telephone:714-536-5227) J Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit Page Two Pursuant to PRC 5.30603 , an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission' s review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney Community Development Director John Briscoe Bill Ridgeway Design Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association 1057K LA, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 30, 1990 CORRECTED COPY NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 IN-CONJ3TN.GTLQ 1-W.ITH-O t 'Z'-IONALmUSE PEIt I-I_T NO_. 8t9--5-7- APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. 2nd Street Long Beach, CA 90803 REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling, not to include a third story. LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle - S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) . Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on May 21, 1990 and your request was : Approved X Conditionally approved - with review and approval of plans by Community Development Director . Denied Withdrawn Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final . The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S . 30603 and California Administrative Code S. 13319 , Title 14 . (Telephone:714-536.5227) t , Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit Page Two Pursuant to PRC 5. 30603 , an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission' s review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed . Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. ) Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney Community Development Director John Briscoe Bill Ridgeway Design Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association 1057K T&7' /for-AA, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 31, 1990 CORRECTED COPY NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. 2nd Street Long Beach, CA 90803 REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling, not to include a third story. LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle - S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on May 21 , 1990 and your request was : Approved X Conditionally approved - with review and approval of plans by Community Development Director . Denied Withdrawn Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final . The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S. 30603 and California Administrative Code S . 13319 , Title 14 . 10 5 7 K (Telephone: 714-536-5227) Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit Page Two Pursuant to PRC 5. 30603 , an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission' s review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval , ' unless actual construction has begun. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB :me CC: City Attorney Community Development Director John Briscoe w/^ Bill Ridgeway Design Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association 1057K 3 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Room B-8, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, May 21 , 1990 A videotape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk' s Office. Mayor Mays called the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: MacAllister, WinchelI , Green, Mays, Silva Erskine arrived 8:50 p.m. ABSENT: Bannister PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & INVOCATION The Flag Ceremony and Invocation was conducted by Daisy Troop #41 , Co-Leaders Rusty Hobart, Sandy Wahrenbrock. PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP CONTEST AWARD - Tom Van Tuyl , President of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, stated he would present the 1990 Pride of Ownership award to Mr. Gibbons, who was unable to be present. SILVA/BANNISTER - ATTENDED PERSONNEL COMMISSION Councilman Jim Silva, Council Liaison to the Personnel Commission, stated that he and Councilman Bannister had met with members of the city' s Personnel Commission. (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 - APPROVED - (REMODEL OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING NOT TO INCLUDE A THIRD STORY) (420.40) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing continued open from May 7, 1990 to reconsider the following: (On April 16, 1990 the City Council approved an appeal filed by the Huntington Harbour Property Owner' s Association and denied Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32. Page 2 - Council/Agency Minutes - 5/21/90 APPLICATION NUMBER: Coastal Development Permit No.89-32 APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design, 5828 E. Second Street, Long Beach, CA 90803 APPELLANT: Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle - S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE: R1-CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling, not to include a third story. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 , Class 1 , and Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit. An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from when the Coastal Commission receives the Notice of Action from the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commission, 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380, POB 1450, Long Beach, California 90801-1450. The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified - by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. Included are 5 communications from Gerald Selvin, President of Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association written to John Briscoe. The Community Development Director presented a staff report. He reported that the City Attorney' s opinion had been rendered and that it was a legal recon- sideration. He stated that the reconsideration for Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 was not in violation of the Brown Act. He stated that Bill Dalessi ' s comments and Bill Ridgeway' s letter were incorporated in the back-up material . The Community Development Director stated he would delete the words "with a third floor" in the Alternative Finding For Denial , Page 6 of the RCA dated May 21 , 1990. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Bill Dalessi , representing appellant,. Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, spoke in opposition of Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32. He stated that the plans should be reviewed by the Architectual Board of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association and that there needs to be further study before a final Council action. F Page 3 - Council/Agency Minutes - 5/21/90 ' John and Debbie Briscoe stated they had followed city code on their proposed project and requested Council approval . Bill Ridgeway, applicant/appellant, described the preliminary plans using drawings and requested Council approval . There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Winchell , to uphold the Planning Commission action and approve Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 with the following Findings and Conditions of Approval as shown on Attachment No. 2 of the May 7, 1990 RCA: Findings for Approval - Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32: 1 . The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the R1 zone as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed single family dwelling can be pro- vided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. The proposed development is within a tract which already has full public improvements. 4. The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access exists presently, nor will exist after construction of the proposed structure. Conditions of Approval : 1 . The proposed site plan, floor plans, and elevations shall be the concep- tually approved layout. Final plans shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval . In reviewing the final plans, the Director shall verify that the following development standards are met: a. The maximum building height shall be 25 feet as defined in Section 9080.22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Any floor area above the second story shall be non-habitable with a short ceiling approximately six W ) feet and no interior wall finishes or exterior windows. b. The garage entry shall be at a 90 degree angle to the street. Area for two (2) full-sized, on-site parking spaces shall be provided on the drive. Page 4 - Council/Agency Minutes - 5/21/90 C. The structure shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the bulk- head. Projecting decks, if any, shall maintain a minimum setback of five (5) feet from the bulkhead and be designed to minimize impacts on views from adjacent properties. d. Community Development Director shall review and approval the plans. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. b. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1 ) dwelling unit. 3. Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations . b. A two (2) inch domestic/fire water service connection shall be required.- C. The applicant shall meet all applicable local , State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards . 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. All building spoils , such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material , shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and. Federal holidays . 7 . Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1 ) year of the date of final approval , or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays NOES: None ABSTAIN: Silva ABSENT: Bannister, Erskine c n 3c - NOTICE T0: THE PLANNING ,DEPARTMENT FROM: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK THE AP LISTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR NOTIFICATION MAILINGS BY THE CITY CLERK MUST BE THE LATEST .AVAILABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIVISION -T. +INS. ***PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE LIST MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE MAILING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS SENT. DATE 3Ao /90 S'I'�PATORE VERIFYING ADEQUACY OF LIST Frank R Law .r I Richard T McAlpine, Jr1 John K Harrison 16441 Baf?'c'istable Cir 16412 Barnstable Cir 16412 Ardsley Cir (:. untingt,on Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, .CA 92649 178-062' 07 178-062-20 178-062-32 Corrado Barana Tom H Evans Danny L Jones 16451 Barnstable Cir 3952 Humboldt Dr 5885 Paramount Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Long Beach, CA 90805 17£ -062-08 178-062-21 178-062-33 Darrell G Crosby Gerald E Urner Jeanne L Siegel 747 N Rodeo Cir . 3962 Humboldt Dr 16396 Ardsley Cir Orange, CA 92669 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-09 178-Q62-22 178-062-34 Albert Zekaria Justin A Kramer D Everett Lee 16492 Barnstable Cir 3972 Humboldt Dr 16392 Ardsley Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178--062-12 178-062-23 178-Q62-35 Edward J Dempsey Harold A Noring Francis W Marshall 16482 Barnstable Cir 16361 Ardsley Cir 16386 Ardsley Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-13 178-062-24 178-062-36 Robert H Lund Neil E Klein Michael D Thomas Hunts Barnstable Cir 16365 Ardsley Cir 16382 Ardsley Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-14 178-062-25 178-062-37 George E Locke Laurence C Webster Robert I Blau 16462 Barnstable Cir 16371 Ardsley Cir 16376 Ardsley -Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062=15 178-062-26 178-Q62-38 Larry H Williamson Glenn D Richardson Kenneth L Ball 16452 Barnstable Cir 16375 Ardsley Cir 16372 Ardsley Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-16 178-062-27 178-062=39 David B Mayberry Cheryl M Orr Carl A Philipp 16442 Barnstable Cir 16381 Ardsley Cir 16366 Ardsley Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, `�CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-17 178=062.-28 178-062-40 Melvin I Marks William T Dalessi Gary Pazornik Barnstable Cir Hunts 16385 Ardsley Cir 16362 Ardsley Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-18 178-062-29 178-062-41 j Gene M Elliott Harrison Moore 10333 Santa Monica Blvd 16401 Ardsley Cir Jeffrey H hart Los Angeles,, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 4006 Humbolldtdt D Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-19 178-062-31 178-062-42 i James K .Johnson ► James K Johnson James x Johnson •Ritthazd E clacklin Richard E Macklin ' Richard E Macklin 4052 Humboldt Dr 4052 Humboldt Dr 4052 Humboldt Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington B,eac,h,, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, .CA 92649 1-78-062-49 178-062-49 ! 178-062-49 Huntington Harbour Corp Huntington Harbour .Corp Huntington Harbour Corp 4241 Warner Ave vZ 4241 Warner Ave 4241 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-51;52 178-062-51;52 178-062-51;52 Elsie M Atkinson Elsie M Atkinson Elsie M Atkinson 13633 S Central Ave 13633 S Central Ave ✓ 13633 S Central Ave Los Angeles, CA 90059 Los Angeles; CA 90059 Los Angeles, CA 90059 178-062-53 178 062-53 178-062-53 Lund Associates Lund Associates Lund Associates 16471 Barnstable 16471 Barnstable 16471 Barnstable Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ! Huntifgton Beach, CA 92649 178-062-54 178-062-54 178-062-54. Occupant H!intinaton harbour Peters 16402 Ardsley Circle I'roperty Met's h8soc. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 16915 Edgewater bane Hkintington Beach, Ch 92649 4. 178-062--33 ' John & Debbie Briscoe Bill Ridgeway Design 1.6391 Ardsley Circle 5828 East 2nd Street iluntin ton Beach, CA 92649 9 Long Beach, CA 90803 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 31, 1990 CORRECTED COPY NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. 2nd Street Long Beach, CA 90803 REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling, not to include a third story. LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle - S/0- Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on May 21, 1990 and your request was : Approved X Conditionally approved - with review and approval of plans by Community Development Director. Denied Withdrawn Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final . The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S.30603 and California Administrative Code S. 13319 , Title 14 . \q4 (OVER) h��{ 10 5 7K (Telephone:714536-5227) Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit Page Two Pursuant to PRC S.30603, an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission' s review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me . CC: City Attorney Community Development Director John Briscoe Bill Ridgeway Design Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association 1057K a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 30, 1990 CORRECTED COPY NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57 APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. 2nd Street Long Beach, CA 90803 REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling, not to include a third story. LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle - S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on May 21, 1990 and your request was : Approved X Conditionally approved - with review and approval of plans by Community Development Director. Denied Withdrawn Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final . The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S. 30603 and California Administrative Code S. 13319, Title 14 . \q0 COVER, h M� (Telephone:714-536-5227 Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit Page Two Pursuant to PRC S.30603, an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission' s review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney Community Development Director John Briscoe Bill Ridgeway Design Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association 1057K CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 6, 1990 Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. 2nd Street Long Beach, CA 90803 Dear Sir: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held April 2, 1990, denied with findings, your application relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57, Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedures of the State of California you have ninety days from April 6, 1990, to apply to the courts for judicial review relative to the Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely yours, L�i•7liC� �"L•lYl,/� Connie Brockway City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney Community Development Director City Administrator John Briscoe Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association �t,afa,Q �ivmcaa.c-9-►� 1051 K (Telephone:714536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 IN CONJUNCTION WITH C NDJ-ZIONA:kr -USE PERM-I-T—Nfl=--89�57 APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. 2nd Street Long Beach, CA 90803 REQUEST: To pe\\ mit the r model and addition to an existin singl family dwelling including a third sto The dwelling is proposed to have 4 , 994 uare feet of habitable area and a 767 sq are N5oot garage. LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle - S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on April 2, 1990 and your request was : Approved Conditionally approved (see attached) X Denied Withdrawn Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final . The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S .30603 and California Administrative Code S. 13319 , Title 14 . 10 5 7K (Telephone:714-536-5227) y Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit Page Two Pursuant to PRC 5. 30603 , an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission' s review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk i 1057K - . . ,`v"`^~ CITY CLERK CITY 8r HVoTmcTnupE/cx.CuUF- ��u�� M�� h�� Association, Inc. Huntington Harbour w* ��w� �y �� ,v ��w�w m�.��w4�^��W��y ��w P. 0. BOX 791 SUNSET BEACH, CALIF. 90742 May 14, 1990 Connie Brockway H. B. City Clerk Dear Connie: At the 7 May City Council meeting you may recall that I protested having three letters from Mr. Briscoe (totally unrelated to the Council topic at hand) entered into the record and distributed to each Council person without rebuttal . This is particularly so since I claimed that the statements in the Briscoe letters were distortions of the , truth, and contained inflamatory untruths. I was pleased that the Council granted me the right and / opportunity to enters my letters, in response to Briscoe, . | into the same records. � Attached are my 4 response letters. I would appreciate your duplicating them and distributing them to each Council person, plus one for your records. Sorry to put you to this extra work, and I do thank you. Y. lvin, Pres. -71f ( / ' ' ` »�' ) ' ° '' ] �� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Fla2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 10, 1990 Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. 2nd Street Long Beach, Ca 90803 Dear Sir: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on May 7, 1990 continued the public hearing open to May 21, 1990 regarding Council's reconsideration of their approval of the appeal to the Planning Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, City Clerk CB:kw CC: Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association (Telephone: 714-536-5227) John F. Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Circle Humboldt Island Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2113 1'.May. 1990 � z Mr. Gerald J. Selvin President Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association ry p rn 16732 Baruna w � � Huntington Beach, CA 92649 --c A:\EXECSESN (Executive Session) =_ y T Dear Mr. Selvin: `_ This letter is to confirm the contents and conduct of the HHPOA meeting 2 May 1990. CLOSED MEETINGS After my wife Debbie and I requested HHPOA action on the gas station violation of City Environmental and Public Works Code you called the entire meeting into Executive Session. Without provocation you then kicked out ORLY John and Debbie Briscoe. You allowed 4 other members- at-large to remain including my neighbor Bill Dalessi. In a gross misuse of Robert's Rules of Order you called the entire meeting into secret Executive Session. The use of Executive Session to conduct normal and routine business behind closed doors is unusual to say the least; you errored in citing City Council Study Sessions as your precedent. Study Sessions are not used for routine business and voting on public matters. The City Council meets in public, publishes public agendas, and makes decisions open to the public. MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES After repeated requests .by phone and in writing for meeting agendas and meeting minutes the Board of Directors has failed to make these available. This kind of conduct can only .lead to the conclusion: a. Committee Meetings (Architectural Review Committee) are held in secret, -unscheduled and unannounced sessions. b. Committee proceedings are presented to secret and closed "Executive Session" Board of Directors meetings. c. Minutes are published and kept secret from members even after requests by phone and in writing. d. Agendas are not made available to members on request which makes it impossible to speak on specific topics. e. Architectural Review Committee decisions regarding the homes in the harbour are kept secretly hidden away from any public or HHPOA member examination. NORMAL & OPEN CONDUCT Secret meetings and hidden decisions are not the norm for our American democratic organizations and institutions. I request that you open up our HHPOA to the "sunshine of daylight. " Meetings must be conducted in open view of the public and published minutes must be made available to members of the HHPOA. Sin rely, 16391 Ardsley Circle Humboldt Island Huntington Harbour, CA 92649-2113 1 May 1990 Mr. Mike Adams Director of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Adams: The Huntington Beach City Council has been generous in granting us the opportunity to have our Coastal Development Permit (CDP 89-32) reconsidered. We look forward to a speedy review of our revised plans without the third floor loft. We believe that our revised plans meet both the letter and the spirit of the law embodied in our City Building Codes . By meeting all code requirements should assure approval of our. CDP ,89-32 . I would like to emphasize our intention to meet all building codes; we ask for neither use variances nor exceptions in our proposed home remodel plans. Our plans have been subjected to multiple reviews and approvals by Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council . The only possible area discretionary judgement ( 3rd floor loft CUP) has been removed. Since all other aspects of the plan have passed this lengthy, costly and exhaustive review process I would like to request the City Council condition CDP 89-32 approval on your review as final- and binding. Anything less would cause us additional needless expense and time in a process we have already passed through. I hereby request that CDP 89-32 approval by the City Council be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development Mike Adams. This review will assure compliance with City Code and his decisions will be final and binding. Thank you for your assistance. Yincrely, [; ! F. Briscoe nm p r C n m John F. Briscoe 16391 Ardsley .Circle Humboldt Island Huntington Harbour, CA 92649-2113 1 May 1990 Mr. Gerald J. Selvin President Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association 16732 Baruna Huntington Beach, CA 92649 A:\MISSMEET (Missing Meeting Minutes) Dear Mr. Selvin: This letter is to confirm the contents of our phone conversation regarding errors, omissions, and corrections of HHPOA meeting minutes as required under State of California Corporation law. HHPOA minutes must represent an accurate and complete record of business conducted by,the Board of Directors and Committees. 1. On 7 March 1990, as one of the first orders of business in the regular meeting of the HHPOA, Norm Smith called for a motion to, " . . .deny John and Debbie Briscoe the right to speak during the meeting. " HHPOA President Norm Smith called for the question and received a unanimous voice vote acclamation approval by the Board of Directors approval without dissent. This vote was missing from the minutes presented at the 4 April 1990 meeting; acting President Joe Rosen was asked to correct the r, omission at the conclusion of the meeting. 2. On 7 March 1990, the Board of Directors approved a motion to share expenses in collusion with William Dalessi for testimony by Mannie Perez. The vote and discussion allowed Mannie to testify before the City Council with a spending cap not more then $200.00. On 4 April 1990 during the regular HHPOA meeting, acting President Joe Rosen submitted a motion to pay the invoice bill as submitted by Mannie Perez in full. John Briscoe, attending member at large, asked for disclosure of the amount and was informed $900.00. J. Briscoe stated that $900.00 was much larger then the approved amount; the recording secretary then asked Joe Rosen, "Do I have to put his comments in the minutes, he wasn't even invited to attend this meeting!" =Joe Rosen then ruled attending member J. Briscoe out of order. 3 . On 4 April 1990 a Board of Director member raised the question of taking an official vote by the Board to be on record as opposed to all third floor additions. Acting President Joe Rosen stated that this would not be wise since there might be some occasions where a third floor could be approved and that the Board should not pass such a motion. The motion died for lack of a second after Joe Rosen's co ents. Sinc ely, John F. Briscoe ,• 1639.1- Ardsley" Circle Humboldt Island Huntington Harbour, CA 92649-2113 1 May 1990 Mr. Gerald J. Selvin President Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association 16732 Baruna Huntington Beach, CA 92649 A:\OPENQST (Open Issues/Questions) Dear Mr. Selvin: This letter is to confirm status of answered questions regarding conduct of my HHPOA and renew my request for missing information. For your review, I have attached copies of my original letters. 1. This confirms your statements that Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings are unscheduled, unannounced and closed to everybody including home owners with plans under consideration. Further, you have refused to reveal and make public any decisions made by the ARC; all plan approvals, exceptions, and denials are held to be secret and only revealed to the property owner. Repeated requests to see the 140 decisions Joe-Rosen- claimed the ARC made in 1989 have been absolutely denied. 2. I have requested access to review the minutes of the Board of Directors for the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association. This access has been denied and delayed and deferred and to date I have not been allowed to see the minutes of my own HHPOA. 3. You have told me that I am not allowed to attend my own HHPOA meeting as a member at large; and that I must petition and request permission for the privilege to attend and speak during the meeting. Further, when I notified you I would attend the meeting of 2 May 1990 you told me by phone that I could present my request. And then you went further to tell me that I would be asked/directed to leave the meeting. The Board of Directors meeting would then be-:closed to me and all other members not on the Board of Directors. Again let me, assure you that I believe the HHPOA has a valuable role in my community. And I firmly belive in "sunshine meeting conduct" where everything is open and above-board. Secret and clandestine activities that violate the spirit of open public accountability are a serious violation of trust. yhn ly. riscoe i qy REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION May 21, 1990 Date lI- Submitted to: Honorable Mayor a Atq Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator P A U1 m Prepared by: Mike Adams, Director, Community Development o r^rn Subject: RECONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-3R r up O Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception 4 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is a reconsideration of the City Council ' s approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 .- The request is to remodel and add on to an existing single family dwelling, pursuant to Section 989 . 5.4 (6) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. On May 7, 1990, the City Council continued Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 to the May 21, 1990, City Council Meeting to provide the City Attorney' s Office adequate time to determine if the Council ' s action to reconsider. this item conformed with the provisions contained in the Brown Act. RECOMMENDATION• City Council Action on April 16, 1990. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECONDED BY MACALLISTER TO RECONSIDER COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57 A REQUEST TO REMODEL AND ADD ON TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING A THIRD STORY. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell, Green, Bannister, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Silva, Mays A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECONDED BY MACALLISTER TO REAFFIRM THE ACTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57 THUS DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THE THIRD STORY ADDITION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MacAllister, .Winchell, Green, Bannister, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Silva, Mays PIO 5/85 City Council Action on April 2. 1990 . A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECONDED BY GREEN, TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF AND DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BASED ON FINDINGS. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Green, Mays, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: MacAllister ABSENT: None Finding For Denial - Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32: 1. The remodel addition to an existing two-story single family residence with a third floor as proposed does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the Coastal Element to the General Plan with respect to compatibility to surrounding properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Planning Commission action and approve Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 with findings and conditions of approval as shown on Attachment No. 2. ANALYSIS: On February 21, 1990, the Planning Commission approved the applicant ' s request for an addition to an existing single family home including a third story. This action was subsequently appealed by the Huntington Harbour Homeowners Association. The applicant ' s plans have been modified to replace the third floor which was denied by the City Council as a part of Conditional use Permit No. 89-57 with a roof deck. Additionally, the new setback adjacent to the bulkhead has been modified to show a minimum of 10 feet. This will help to preserve existing views of Christiana Bay from adjacent properties . COASTAL STATUS The proposed project is adjacent to Short Channel and is within an appealable/non-categorical exclusion area of the Coastal Zone. All projects within this zone are required to obtain approval of a coastal development permit in compliance with the provisions contained within Article 989 . 5 . The project as resubmitted complies with all development standards contained within the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and is consistent with the City' s adopted Coastal Element. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act. RCA - 5/7/90 -2- (5596d) FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Reaffirm action of April 2, 1990 by approving the appeal thus denying Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 with findings . ATTACHMENTS 1. Area map 2 . Proposed Findings & Conditions of Approval 3 . Alternative Finding for Denial MA:HS:TR: jr RCA - 5/7/90 -3- (5596d) PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 89-32 : 1. The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the R1 zone as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed single family dwelling can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. The proposed development is within a tract which already has full public improvements . 4 . The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access exists presently, nor will exist after construction of the proposed structure. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The proposed site plan, floor plans, and elevations shall be the conceptually approved layout. Final plans shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval . In reviewing the final plans, the Director shall verify that the following development standards are met: a. The maximum building height shall be 25 feet as defined in Section 9080.22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Any floor area above the second story shall be non-habitable with a short ceiling approximately six (6 ' ) feet and no interior wall finishes or exterior windows . b. The garage entry shall be at a 90 degree angle to the street. Area for two (2) full-sized, on-site parking spaces shall be provided on the drive. c. The structure shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the buldhead. Projecting decks, if any, shall maintain a minimum setback of five (5) feet from the bulkhead and be designed to minimize impacts on views from adjacent properties. 2 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. RCA - 5/7/90 -4- (5596d) Page Two Proposed Findings and Conditions of Approval b. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. 3 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations . b. A two (2) inch domestic/fire water service connection shall be required. c. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, cState and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 4 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 6 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8 :00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 7. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. RCA - 5/7/90 -5- (5596d) ALTERNATIVE FINDING FOR DENIAL 1. The remodel addition to an existing two-story single family residence with a third floor as proposed does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the coastal element to the general plan with respect to compatibility to surrounding properties . RCA - 5/7/90 -6- (5596d) RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTING T ON 9EAC14.CALIF. may 15 9 50 A0 '90 Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. P. O. BOX 791 SUNSET BEACH, CALIF. 90742 May 5, 1990 John F. Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Cr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Mr. Briscoe: This letter is in response to your letter dated May 1, 1990. A letter to you from the writer dated March 6, 1990 endeavored to answer the many requests and demands in your 4 different letters to Mr. Joe Rosen, the HHPOA ARC Chairman, each dated Jan 27, 1990. Read the March 6 letter again. I must refuse to accept that your May 1 letter confirms the status of anything, and repudiate your statements in your letter as, at the least inaccurate, and perhaps even dishonest in places. All 3 of your numbered paragraphs in your letter contains partial or distorted statements, extracted from the more complete facts previously given to you, and lead to your wrong statements and conclusions . Additionally, you seriously mis-stated the things you said to me and that I said to you in our telephone conversations of 4/23, 4/24 and 4/26 with respect to your attending an HHOA Board of Directors meeting, and I personally resent this bending of, and ignoring, the truth to suit your own (unknown) objectives. The HHPOA, not Your HHPOA, has operated for many years with full support and approval of the general membership. It has earned the respect of the community, and continues to do so. It has operated within the guidelines of its by-laws. Your barrage of demands, blatantly distorted statements and letters, and telephone calls--despite our efforts to treat you with courtesy and respect--has become disruptive and annoying, and has consumed time disproportionate to its value. Isn't there something more positive and constructive that you can use your time for? r d A Selvin . PzF- 1,111wPd/y ��Y RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF AML NUkTIPtf,T;;=,.' r4L1F. PAY 15 119 AMI `90 Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. P. O. BOX 791 May J1l SfVgREACH, CALIF. 90742 John F. Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Cr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Mr. Briscoe: This letter is in response to your second letter dated May 1, 1990, in which you referred to ". . .the contents of our phone conversation. ." etc. It is unfortunate that you persist in distorting facts and extracting partial facts to reach your desired end. The minutes of the HHPOA Board of Directors meeting are reviewed by the Board members, corrected if necessary, and then voted into the record. We feel that the minutes are complete and accurate. You reference the 7 March meeting of the Board, and quote the then president, but you are very inaccurate in your quote. You were told by the president that you were at a Board meeting, NOT a general membership meeting, and that the Chair would afford you the privilege of staying at the meeting provided that you did. not address the Chair or the Board, and were silent. There was no motion or vote on this topic since none was needed. You insisted on attending the 4 April Board meeting, and were again reminded of your situation, as at the 7 March meeting. Your letter states ". . .the regular HHPOA meeting. . .". It was not. The meeting was an HHPOA Board meeting, but you know that and choose to ignore facts. You were out of order again in speaking out. Your conduct was disruptive. The vote by the Board to pay Mr. Perez invoice was proper. Mr. Perez was retained to help the Board in its appeal before the Huntington Beach City Council against two three story house CUP's. To accuse the Board of Directors of acting ". .in collusion. ." with Mr. Dalessi is despicable and a lie. We have acted to support several large groups in the Harbour in opposition to two three story additions, and Mr. Dalessi is a part of one of the groups. I agree with the Board action in not passing a motion for categorical opposition to ALL three story homes or third story additions in the Harbour. We hope this letter sets the record straight with more complete facts. Won't you please do the same in future correspondence? Ct P-i . RECEIVED CITY CLERK C?TY OF ay K 9 49 Ni HuntingtonProperty °SD Harbour Pro ert Nners Association, Inc. P. O. BOX 791 May SfiNS9T9$EACH, CALIF. 90742 John F. Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Cr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Mr. Briscoe: Reference your letter of 3 May, to which I am replying. You did NOT confirm the . ."contents and conduct of the HHPOA meeting of 2 May, 1990." The meeting you attended on 2 May was NOT, as you state, an IHPOA meeting. It was a meeting of the Board of Directors of HHPOA. You are not a member of the Board. You do not have the freedom to attend such meetings unless invited by the president. The true facts are not as you reported them. They are: Immediately after the Board meeting was convened, and the roll taken to confirm a quorum, the Chair announced the presence of four guests invited by the chair for the purpose of their being considered for committee or Board membership. The Chair also advised the Board that Mr. Briscoe had been invited by the Chair at his request specifically and only to tell us of a property maintenance problem at the gas station at the corner of Algonquin and Davenport. The chair acknowledged Mr. Briscoe, who told the Board of his perceived problem that required action. After a brief discussion, the Chair turned the Briscoe matter over to the Property Maintenance Committee to investigate, to act on or report back to the Board at the next Board meeting. At that time the chair advised Mr. Briscoe that he had no further business before the board, and he was to leave. The chair advised Briscoe of the related portion of the HHPOA By-Laws that mandated that the Board of Directors, under the By-Laws, operates under Roberts Rules of Order. The pertinent section of Roberts Rules was read to Briscoe, wherein it was described that Board of Directors meetings are normally conducted as "Executive Session", closed to all except as invited by the Chair for some specific purpose, and only for that purpose. The chair again asked Briscoe to leave. Out of order, Briscoe asked any board member to invite him to stay. Out of courtesy, the Chair permitted the Briscoe request to stand. There was over 30 seconds of silence, with no Board member replying. The chair again instructed Briscoe to leave, which he did with mumbled threats and protests. SPY SELVIN to Briscoe--May 11, 1990--Page 2 Mr Bill Dalessi, who had been invited by the chair, immediately asked to be excused and left the meeting. There was no reason for the chair to call the meeting into executive session, and I did not. It already was. I did not cite Huntington Beach City Council procedures, others did. The HHPOA is not the City Council. The HHPOA is not a governmental agency, nor is it subject to "Brown Act" rules. The HHPOA operates in accordance with its legally registered California corporation By-Laws. The chair did not err in its procedures or rulings, and you should stick to ethical reporting of the facts, not the way you wish they were. Don't lecture us about things you are so twisted about that you will not listen or learn. You write of Meetings and Minutes: My letter to you of March 6 covers the points you try to make. Please read it and the HHPOA By-Laws again. You will find that your statements in your May 3 letter are not truthful, and since you keep repeating the same groundless complaints and accusations letter after letter, many people feel that you are only writing to harass the organization. This must stop! Normal and Open Conduct is your next section of lecture and complaint: I really don't like to get lectures from a biased pedant who seems to only know how to distort the truth, lie, and not contribute a positive thing. fjw Ct Y C-0 P`( CALIF: Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. P. O. BOX 791 SUNSET BEACH, CALIF. 90742 March 65 1990 Mr. John Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Mr. Briscoe: At the February meeting of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (HHPOA) Board of Directors there was a discussion of the several requests for information which you had sent to Mr. Norman Smith, HHPOA President, and Mr. Joseph Rosen, Chairman of the HHPOA's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) I was requested to reply to your requests, in the context of the Board's discussion and agreement. Since there is overlap and duplication in some of the letters, I am taking the liberty of consolidating the responses in the. interest of brevity. The following should answer your questions and requests: You asked for a copy of the HHPOA By-Laws. The rules of order you referred to are referenced within the By-Laws. This document is available to any member who requests one. A copy is attached. The HHPOA Articles of Incorporation may be made available for your inspection by your contacting the President of the HHPOA, who will try to arrange a mutually convenient time. You have been provided with the names and addresses of the members of the ARC. Telephone numbers are not provided, because we feel that contacts should be through the Chairman of the ARC. We do not encourage individual homeowners who have an action before the ARC to individually "lobby" ARC members. The ARC reports to the Board of Directors of the HHPOA, as stated in the By-Laws ; not directly to the general HHPOA membership. The ARC meetings are not regularly scheduled, but are held when- particular issues arise, plans are submitted that require review, or other matters need ARC review or action. At least two of the three members meet on such topics. Meetings can be as frequent as several times a week, or spaced by a month or more, as the circumstances dictate. copy -�,�.a.cd 'I HHPOA--BRISCOE--March 6, 1990--Page 2 The general ARC philosophy with respect to proposed building construction and modification plans is that "the submitted plans speak for themselves". Therefore we prefer that homeowners not attend ARC meetings. The ARC Chairman does accept telephone calls from homeowners and the ARC tries to make it easy and comfortable to work with us. When plans are not clear, or we are uncertain of some detail in the plans, we contact the homeowner directly, and visit the homeowner, preferably at the homesite. Topics of uncertainty or possible conflict with the CC&Rs can be discussed and usually resolved. This is what the ARC attempted to do when two ARC members visited you at your home and reviewed your plans with you on Jan. 13, 1990. Letters of approval or denial are sent by the ARC directly to the homeowner after such review, and on-site meetings if such are required. I should add that any homeowner who has a particular topic to present or discuss with the Board of Directors may request permission to attend a Board meeting by contacting the President of the HHPOA and explaining his desires and topic(s) . We try to accommodate such requests and set aside agenda time whenever possible. We hope the above material answers the questions and requests contained in your letters, and helps you understand how the HHPOA and its ARC operate. I was pleased to hear from you in our telephone conversation of March 4 that your plans presently being revised for submission to the Huntington Beach planning board will show that you do not plan to expand you house toward the bulkhead line, and that it will remain at least 10 feet back from the bulkhead line. Sincerely, AS�#aldlvin, Secr. cc: N. Smith J. Rosen ' f �C Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including I >�V public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, CTdomia, Number A-6214, September 29, 1961, and A•24831 June 11, 1963 STATE OF CALIFORNIA G County of Orange 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, Said appeal must be in i PUBLIC NOTICE writing and must set forth in printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, NOTICE OF I detail theactions and I PUBLIC HEARING (grounds by and upon which County of Orange, State of California, and that RECONSIDERATION ;the applicant or interested OF THE party deems himself ag- attached Notice is a true and complete copy as CITY COUNCIL'S grieved. There is no fee for DENIAL OF 'the appeal of a coastal de- was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, COASTAL I Pment permit. An ag- DEVELOPMENT grived person may file an ap- Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain PERMIT NO.89-32 peal to The Coastal Com- (Remodel of mission with ten (10) work- Valle Irvine, the South Coast communities and existing single ing days from when the Y+ Coastal Commission re- famlly dwelling i ceives the Notice of Action Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit not to include from the City of Huntington a third story) the Issue Beach, pursuant to Section s) of. NOTICE IS HEREBY Beach of the Public ion GIVEN that the Huntington , Re- sources Code, in writing to- Beach City Council will hold California Coastal Com- a public hearing in the Coun- mission; 245 W. Broadway, cil Chamber at the Hunt ;Suite 380, POB 1450, Long ington Beach Civic Center,, ,Beach, C a l i f o r n i a April 26, 1990 .2000 Main Street, Hunt- �B e a c 1450(21 159o-r n i ington Beach,California,on ; The Coastal Commission 1. the date and at the time'in- review period will com- consi dbelow t receive and review after the City appeal consider the statements a period has ended and no ap- all persons who wish a be peals have been filed.Appli- cants must be notified by the Cation described below. Coastal Commission as to DATE/TIME: Monday, the date of the conclusion of May 7, 1990,7:00 PM the Coastal Commission re- 'Coastal view.Applicants are advised 'Coastal Development NUMBER:Per-mit No.89-32. not to begin construction prior to that date. APPLICANT: Bill Ridge- p ON FILE: A co .way Design,5828 E.Second PY of the Street, Long Beach, CA Proposed.development plan 90803 is on file in the Community LOCATION: 1 6 3 9 1 Development Department, .Ardsley Circle S/O Edinger ?000 Main Street, Hunt- Avenue, W/O Saybrook ington Beach, Califor nia (Lane(Humboldt Island) 92648,for inspection by the ZONE:R1-CZ(Low Densi- Public. A copy of the staff tty Residential-Coastal Zone) report will be available to i REQUEST: Remodel and 'interested parties at City ;addition to an existing single 'Hall. ALL INTERESTED PER- declare, under penalty of perjury, that the i'family dwelling, not to m- 1SONS are invited to attend clude a third story. I.aid hearing and express foregoing Is true and correct. IS E N V I CatN M catty e ENTAL ,opinions or submit evidence -empt pursuant to Section for or against, the appli- 15301,Class 1,and Section 'cation as outlined above. If April 26r A 0 15303, Class 3, of the Cali- there are any further-ques- Executed on p , 199— fornia Environmenal Quality I tions please contact Thomas Act. Rogers, Assistant Planner, at Costa Mesa, California. COASTAL STATUS: AP- at 536-5271. PEALABLE(See Below) Connie Brockway, Hunt- This project is in the ap- pealable portion of the I Published Orange Coast coastal zone. Daily Pilot April 26, 1990 Under the provisions of Th351 Signature 'the Huntington Beach Ordi- L nance Code, the action taken by the City Council is ifinai unless an-appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission; by the applicant or an ag- grieved party._ C - PROOF OF PUBLICATION d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION May 7, 1990 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Mike Adams, Director, Community Development Subject: m Subject: RECONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-k? om< m -a Y Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception C= Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is a reconsideration of the City Council ' s approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 . The request is to remodel and add on to an existing single family dwelling, pursuant to Section 989 . 5 .4 (6) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. RECOMMENDATION• City Council Action on April 16, 1990 . A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECONDED BY MACALLISTER TO RECONSIDER COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57 A REQUEST TO REMODEL AND ADD ON TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING A THIRD STORY. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell, Green, Bannister, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Silva, Mays A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECONDED BY MACALLISTER TO REAFFIRM THE ACTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57 THUS DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THE THIRD STORY ADDITION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell, Green, Bannister, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Silva, Mays No 5/85 City Council Action on April 2 , 1990 . A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECONDED BY GREEN, TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF AND DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BASED ON FINDINGS. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Green, Mays, Bannister, . Silva, Erskine NOES: MacAllister ABSENT: None Finding For Denial - Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 : 1. The remodel addition to an existing two-story single family residence with a third floor as proposed does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the Coastal Element to the General Plan with respect to compatibility to surrounding properties . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Planning Commission action and approve Coastal Development Permit No . 89-32 with findings and conditions of approval as shown on Attachment No. 2 . ANALYSIS• On February 21, 1990, the Planning Commission approved the applicant ' s request for an addition to an existing single family home including a third story. This action was subsequently appealed by the Huntington Harbour Homeowners Association. The applicant ' s plans have been modified to replace the third floor which was denied by the City Council as a part of Conditional use Permit No. 89-57 with a roof deck. Additionally, the new setback adjacent to the bulkhead has been modified to show a minimum of 10 . feet . This will help to preserve existing views of Christiana Bay from adjacent properties . COASTAL STATUS The proposed project is adjacent to Short Channel and is within an appealable/non-categorical exclusion area of the Coastal Zone. All projects within this zone are required to obtain approval of a coastal development permit in compliance with the provisions contained within Article 989 . 5. The project as resubmitted complies with all development standards contained within the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and is consistent with the City' s adopted Coastal Element . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 , Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. RCA - 5/7/90 -2- (5596d) FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Reaffirm action of April 2, 1990 by approving the appeal thus denying Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 with findings . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Area map 2 . Proposed Findings & Conditions of Approval 3 . Alternative Finding for Denial MA:HS:TR: jr RCA - 5/7/90 -3- (5596d) DINGE - AVE EDINGER i - r '; I: :... - (EEC a y RI CZ ..-..----- JI.0 -CZ` J RJ:G '::..,• j R4 CZIT RI Z p • ! RI . I. IF�f�R. RI ,LRI WR-CZ _ p 2 :�..♦ R CZ M H v 7,'�' I.�IS t �::•. '� - _ eRI PRELUDE. , RI k�,J•• I•CZRl- SUTE �yy Z-FP2 /R l coN� p� 8 RI - MINUET cz— Ri CF-R-CZ Ri- "•,pi, Rl-C2 RI W J 07. CI ^4 �r e• / . i( V J ♦ ��\qe )1 R�,,� 2 i RHAPSODY \,Js RI CZ ' RI-CZ RI-Cz ? �' s ,RI HI CZ c ry 'r�C� I?yp ti m , ......... RI-CZ -------- WR-CFPZ o RI•C- z� �C G a OPERETTA F _ i RI CZ �♦ CZ DR D LL F 1A00 \ --------- (�Q IQ Cl �.°c rr[R SCENARIO F p C M H CZ _ R 2 '^ /C' WR-CZ-FP2 ism m HEIR...- - Cy�♦ /•��,�� /(�,(�` 9£9 C� �� 9C CHRISTMN4 ]D•373]'M�% R3 v 20'2YE ST.62 iQti a "„rD, CF-E C� /'CZ ✓l v 1i fir° , /C Gti ° n:F•::a:^sca:;i,_ R2 R3 1-0 RI CZ CF-RW oft _ PICKWICN CR ''I. 2 CC]s �.1~ =,r •\ P " ` Zy BRANFORD RI-CZ /�. ;• v �Dpsf R 3 j R 2 R 2 �`��\'G1, I ` C•� �j G1, ' vm-crFPz v pa°,� �'�•'•. /. ` r"L _ s iti i2 PF.ARCF J C D P89-10-3z �. > HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 89-32 : 1. The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the R1 zone as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed single family dwelling can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. The proposed development is within a tract which already has full public improvements . 4 . The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act . No public access exists presently, nor will exist after construction of the proposed structure. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations shall be conceptually approved and final plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval . 2 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. b. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. 3 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a . An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations . b. A two (2) inch domestic/fire water service connection shall be required. ATTfACNMCWT �a . Page Two Proposed Findings and Conditions of Approval c. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards . 4 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 6 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7: 00 AM to 8 : 00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 7. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. ALTERNATIVE FINDING FOR DENIAL 1. The remodel addition to an existing two-story single family residence with a third floor as proposed does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the coastal element to the general plan with respect to compatibility to surrounding properties . i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �. INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Michael T. Uberuaga, Mike Adamsi° To City Administrator From Director, Community Development Subject TIHRD STORY ADDITIONS Date April 16, 1990 IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR This memorandum is in response to conversations I have had with Councilpersons Winchell and Green concerning a request for reconsideration of Council action on the Briscoe application (for a third story addition at 16391 Ardsley Circle). Staff can support a reconsideration of the Coastal Development Permit application due to the fact that the standard coastal findings for approval can be made. This project will not have a detrimental effect on the existing infrastructure nor impede public access or recreational activities. The project is also consistent with the City's General plan and Coastal Element as the request is to retain a single family residence. Action for reconsideration of the Coastal Development Permit will not, in and of itself, allow for any expansion to the existing dwelling but rather allow the proponent to keep his application active and provide him with an opportunity to redesign his submittal in an effort to comply with City codes. The extent and nature of the redesign may or may not trigger the requirement of a conditional use permit which would then be subject to another public hearing. This item was one of two such projects acted upon at the Council hearing of.April 2, 1990. These projects are: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 & Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-25 & Coastal Development Permit No. 90-1). If Council does take a reconsideration vote for the first item, it may be appropriate to include both projects. Action for reconsideration of this item should be scheduled for the next available City Council meeting. cc: Councilwoman Grace Winchell Councilman Peter Green MA:ss f (5488d) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RECONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL' S DENIAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 (Remo del, of existing single family dwelling not to include a third story) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday , May 7, 1990, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Coastal Development Permit No . 89-32 APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. Second Street Long Beach, CA 90803 LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE: R1-CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) REOUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling, not to include a third story. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, and Section 15303 , Class 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. (Please See Other Side) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from when the Coastal Commission receives the Notice of Action from the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any questions or further details necessary please contact Thomas Rogers , Assistant Planner, at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (5580d-1, 2) !-rank I, Law �ticnara i MCAbIPlne, Jr � K narriyson 412 Ardsl 16441 Eansrable Cir - 16412 e C>r - dunti•ngton Beach, CA 92649 1 Huntington :Beach ' CA-:9.2649 �� ,` Huntin ton Beach' CA 92649 g _ 178-062-07 178-062=20.::' _ '-17.8-062-32 z� Corrado Barana i Tom H -Evans - - L Dariny L--Jones- -- -- 16451 Barnstable Cir 3952 Humboldt Dr _ Q � 5885 Paramount Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649Long Beach, CA 90805 178-062-08 i 178-062-21 __:. 178-062-33 Darrell. G Crosby Gerald E Urner - ! Jeanne 1, Siegel. t 747 N Rodeo Cir 3962 Humboldt Dr 16396 Ardsley C.ir Orange, CA 92669 +(� Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 u 178=062-09 178-0.62-22 178-062-34 a: :\lbert ''/.ekaria ! Justin A Kramer D Everett I.ee 16492 Barnstable Cir. 3972 Humboldt Dr 16392 Ardsley Cit. !.,ntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-1.2 1.78-062-23 178-062-35 JF(Iward J Dempsey Ilarold A Norin; i I.-rancis W Marshall 16482 Barnstable Cir 16361 Ardsley Cir i Cir 1.6386 Ardsley j Frtunt LngCOn Beach, CA 92649 k Huntin Lon Beach CA 92649 I fiuntin ton Bn ech CA 92649 k 1 73-062-13 b 2 - 1.78-062-24 i 1-78-062-30 �V, I &;bert Ii Lund v Neil E Klein T`tichael. D 'Thomas 1.6472 Barnstable Cir. 16365 Ardsley Cir 16382 Ardsley C:ir }>jmt.i.ngton Beach, CA 92649 Huntin ton Beach CA 92649 1 Huntin gLon Beach CA 92649 t 78-062-1.4 1.78-062-25 178-062-37 George E Locke Laurence C I�'ebster i Robert T liLnu 1 �462 Barnstable Cir 16371 Ardsley Cir ! 1.6376 Ardsley (Jr Huntington Beach, CA 92649 H J26! < � c� Huntington Beach CA 92649 , Huntington Bunch CA ,9 178-062=15 178-062-26 ' 178-062-38 ! Larry H Williamson Glenn D Richardson Kenneth L Ball. )6452 Barnstable Cir ; 16375 Ardsley Cir. 16372 Ardsley Cit. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ! Huntington Beach CA 9264-9 Huntington Beach' CA 92649 J78-062-16 i 178-062-27 ; 178-062=39 David B Mayberry 16442 Barnstable Cir Cheryl M Orr- - . Carl A Philipp c 16381 Ardsley Cir. 16366 Ardsley Ci_r. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-17 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9261:9 178-062-28 1.78-062-40 Melvin I Marks William T Dalessi I Gary Pazornik j, L6432 Barnstable Cir 16385 Ardsley Cir 16362 Ardsley Cir. }+,• lluntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-18 Huntington Beach, CA .92649 ;'= Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-29 _ 178-062-41 Gene M Elliott i Harrison Moore ` ! . Jeffrey H Englehart t 10333 Santa Monica Blvd 16401 Ardsley Cir Los Angeles., CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92 4006 Humboldt Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649 \178-062-19 178-062=31 ^T = 178-062-42 James. K .Johnson games K Johnson. James h Jultnsuu E 'olacklin �' Richard E Macklin Richard E Macklin 4052 Humboldt Dr ? 4052 Humboldt Dr i 4O52 .Humboldt Dr Huntin ton BeachCA 92649 Kantington Beach, CA 92649 ; -Huntin&On Beach,, CA 92649 I g i1.78-062-49 178-062-49i 1178-062-49 . Huntington Harbour Corp Huntington Harbour Corp I Huntington Harbour Corp `: 4241. Warner Ave ' 4241 Warner Ave 4241 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-5l.; 52 178-062-51;52 178-062-51;52 I - Elsie M Atkinson Elsie M Atkinson j Elsie PI Atkinson 1.3633 S C:entral. Ave 1-3633 S Central Ave / 1 1.3633 S Central Ave X Los Angeles, CA 90059 Los Angeles, CA 90059 ` Los Angeles, CA 900594`;r�r. 1.78-062-53 178-062-53 178-062-53 i 1 � Lund Associates Lund Associates Lund Associates 1.6471 13arnstabl.e 16471. Barnstable 1647.1. Barnstabl-e Ilunti.ngton Beach, CA 92649 ` Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beacti, CA 92649 178-062-54 1-78-062-54 178-062-54 OCCUI)all t i HnntA ngton Ilarhour Peters 16072 Arclsley Ci. cle Property Owner's Assoc. Huntington beach, CA 92649 16915 Ell�eti+ater Lane � I Huntington Beach, U 92649 176-062--33 Juhn & Uehbi e Briscoe BilllRi ev Design , 16.191 Arrlsley (:lrcle 5828 g d Street Ilunt:ington Beach, CA 92649 I,o Beach, C 9080h 1 I I 5.11 `k;C*CPC'j'D�Vj� 5 bae CA 1 I I I i I _ t i I - i .. I j City of Huntington BeachP R 9 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9264' ;!; As1 $ " v d' UU Huntington Harbour Corp 4241 (darner Ave Huntington Be 1.78-062-51;5, 1`E.',RIWA-R ya(-!G TIME E<XLPIR' rf h.�=:i+ :Fit• tir r-..�. !-Eij � ,r:_,.,. RETJ.�1=�1~d TO SE:MLM � City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648f! °''a is M1!•� _ _ - ,h v Hiinti.ngton linrhmtr CorD -- 424:1. Warne P,1 :. L 18-062-5.1 IS39 ! . HUNT PNFAI�A M" Ctzltx 4 City of Huntington Beach: .. .. _{,ati, .. -. ;_.___ -} 1C ...e}tips''. P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9264 , i HiJntington Harbour Corp 4241 Warner Ave Huntington l3each, CA 92649 178-062-51.; 52:j _.. ..._ . Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including ` public notices by Decree of the Superior Courlot Orange County, Califomia, Number A-6214, September 29, 1961, and A-24MI June 11,19P3. 9a I STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange am a Citizen of the United States and a _ resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the Puguc noTlcr —Bald appeal 1.' writing and must set forth in age of eighteen years, and not a party to or NOTICE OF, detail the actions and ` . PUBLIC HEARING grounds by and upon which. interested in the below entitled matter. I am a APPEAL OF THE the i applicant or Interested PLANNING .I . party deems himself prinapal cleric of the ORANGE COAST DAILY COMMISSION'S grieved. There is no lee for APPROVAL OF I the,appeal of a coastal de- PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation CONDITIONAL USE ; veiopment permit. An ag- o PERMIT NO. grieve person may file an d ! printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, 89-57 appeal to the Coastal Com- 4, COASTAL mission within ten(10)work- County of Orange, State of California, and tl Iat DEVELOPMENT i Ing days from when the I PERMIT NO.89-32 j Coastal 'Commission re- attached Notice is a true and Complete Copy as (Remodel of I calved the Notice of Ac ! single i from the City of Huntingtion exlatln ton was printed and -�family dwelling-,� -I Beach, pursuant to Section and published in the Cosa Mesa, Including a 30603 of the Public Re- Newport Beach, g third Aory) sources Code,'In writing to;. Huntin ton Beach Fountain NOTICE IS HEREBY California Coastal Com GIVEN that the Huntington mission, 245 W. Broadway, Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Beach City Council will hold Suite 380, POB 1450, Long ' a public hearing In the Goun- Beach, California Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit cll Chamber at the Hunt- 90801-1450(213)590-5071 i the issue(s) of: Ington Beach Civic Center, The Coastal Commission 2000 Main Street: Hunt- review period will 'om- Ington Beach;California;on mence after the City appeal the date and at the tlme In- period has ended,and no ap- dicated below to receive and peals have been filed.APO- consider the statements of cants will be notified by the I March"2�, 1-1990 all persons who wish to be Coastal Commission as to I. heard relative to the'appli- the date of the conclusion of cation described below. the Coastal Commission re DATE/TIME: Monday, view.Applicants are advised April 2,1990,7:00 PM not to begin construction APPLICATION NUMBER: prior to that date. (Appeal of Planning Com- .I ON FILE: A copy of the mission's Approval of Con- proposed Development plan j iditlonal Use Permlt No. I is on file In the Community 189-57/Coastal Development I Development Department, ;Permit No.89-32 I 2000 Maln Street, Hunt- I APPLICANT: Bill Ridge- I Ington Beach, California. ;way Design,5828 E.Second '92648,for inspection by.the Street, Long Beach, CA public. A copy of the staff ,90803 report will be available to I j L O C'A T I O N: .16391 j 'interested parties at City .; ,Ardsley Circle,south of Ed- I Hall., inger Avenue, west of_ i I ALL .INTERESTED PER- (Saybrook Ln. (Humbolt I I SONS are invited to attend. 1 (island) sold hearing and express '•. ZONE:RI-CZ(Low Densf- !opinions or submit evidence Ity Residential—Coastal for or against the.application :I (Zone)- as outlined above. If there REQUEST: Remodel and are any questions or further I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the l addition to an existing single details necessary please" family dwelling Including a contact Thomas Rogers,As- foregoing is true and correct- third story. The dwelling Is j sistant Planner at 536-5271. proposed to have 4,994 , ' . Connie Brockwiy, Hunt- square feet of habitable area Ington Beach City Clerk March 22, 0 and a 767 square foot gar- i Published Orange Coast Executed on , 199 agENVIRONMENTAL Daily Pilot,March 22, 990Th2 / at Costa Mesa,Califomta. STATUS: Categorically ex- empt pursuant.,to Section 15301,.Ciass 1,and Section j 15303, Class 3, of the Cell- fornia Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: AP- Signature i 'PEALABLE(See Below) ! This project is in the ap- pealable portion of the coastal zone. Under.the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordl- "! hance Code, the action j taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed I to the Coastal Commission - I by the applicant or an ag- grieved party. PROOF OF PUBLICATION �l Authorizod to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of.the Superior Courl of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, September 29, 196T;and —"— A-24831 June 11.1%3. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange = I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a COASTAL STATUS: AP- principal clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY 1.PThis projBLEects s inithe ap- NOTICE RI eatable. portion of the PUBLIC NEARING.: IP 1 PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, APPEAL OF THE coastal zoPLANN he provisions of COMM SSION'S the Huntington Beach Ordi- printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, APPROVAL'OF nance. Code, the action CONDITIONAL USE Itaken by the City'Council is County of Orange, State of CaGfomia, and that PERMIT NO: final unless an appeal is filed 89r57 to the Coastal Commission ; attached Notice is a true and complete copy as COASTAL !by the applicant or an ag- i DEVELOPMENT grieved party, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, PERMIT NO.89-32 Said appeal must be in 1. (Remodel of writing and must set forth in Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain existing single detail the, actions and, family dwelling grounds by and upon.which Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Including a the applicant or interested La una Beach issues of said newspaper to Wit third story) party deems himself ag g pope I NOTICE IS HEREBY the ippeal of a coastal de- eved. There is no fee for GIVEN that the Huntington, the issue(s) of. Beach City Council will holdj velopment permit. An ag-' a public hearing in the Coun- grieved person may file an cil Chamber at the Hunt-I appeal to the Coastal Com. ington Beach Civic Center,1. mission within ten(10)work-I 2000 Main Street, Hunt- ing days from when the March 23, 1990 1 ington Beach,California,on Coastal Commission re the date and at the time.in- ceived the Notice of Action dicated below to receive and from the City of Huntington consider the statements of I Beach, pursuant to Section 1 all persons who wish to be 30603 of the Public Re- heard relative to the appli- sources Code,in writing to: cation described below. California Coastal Com DATE/TIME: Monday, I mission, 245 W. Broadway,! April 2, 1990,7:00 PM Suite 380, POB 1450, Long', APPLICATION NUMBER: i Beach, C a l i f o r n i a Appeal of Planning Com- 90801-1450(213)590-5071. mission's Approval of Con- The Coastal Commission' ditional Use Permit No. review period will Com 89-57/Coastal Development mence after the City appeal; Permit No.89-32 1 period has ,ended and no ap-1 APPELLANT: Huntington I Peals have been filed.Appli-:'y Harbour Property Owners cants will be notified by the Association P. Y Coastal Commission as to APPLICANT: Bill Ridge- I the date of the conclusion of'! . way Design,5828 E.Second the Coastal Commission re- Street,. Long Beach, CA view.Applicants are advised 90803 not to begin construction LOCATION: . 16391 I prior to that date. Ardsley.Circle,south of Ed- i ON FILE: A copy of the in er Avenue,. west of proposed development plan j declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Saybrook Ln. (Humbolt is on file in the Community ! forego) Is true and corTeet- Island) Development Street, , Hunt- "� � ZONE:R1-CZ'(Low Densi- , ty 'Residential—Coastal ' ington Beach, California Zone) 92648,for inspection by the March 23 REQUEST: Remodel and public. A copy of the staff , Executed on , 199 o addition to an existing single I` report will be available to family dwelling including.a I interested parties at City at Costa Mesa, California. third story. The dwelling is Hall. proposed to have 4,994 ALL 'INTERESTED PER- square feet of habitable area .I SONS are invited to attend and a 767 square foot gar- said hearing and expr9ss age. opinions or submit evidence E N V I R O N MENTAL for or against the application Signature STATUS: Categorically ex- I as outlined above. If there empt pursuant to Section i!are any questions or further 15301,Class 1,and Section details necessary please +15303, Class 3, of the Cali- contact Thomas Rogers,As- fornia Environmental Quality i sistant Planner at 536-5271. Act. -—�I Connie Brockway, Hunt-' Ington Beach City Clerk Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot March 23,1990 f281 PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 (Remodel of existing single family dwelling including a third story) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, April 2, 1990, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission' s Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57/Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 APPELLANT: Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. Second Street Long Beach, CA 90803 LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE: R1-CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling including a third story. The dwelling is proposed to have 4, 994 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, and Section 15303 , Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. (Please See Other Side) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit. An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from when the Coastal Commission receives the Notice of Action from the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any questions or further details necessary please contact Thomas Rogers, Assistant Planner, at 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (4485d-4 , 5) i Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648. NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT : _ Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E . Second Street Long Beach, California 90803 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT NO. 89-57/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling including a third story. Dwelling is proposed to have 4_, 994 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage . LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle DATE OF APPROVAL : February 21, 1990 Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach. Planning Commission on February 21, 1990 , and your request was : Approved X Conditionally approved (see attached) Denied Withdrawn Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal is filed to the. City Council by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved . Said appeal must be submitted to the City Clerk' s office within ten ( 10) working days of the date of the Commission ' s action. There is no fee. for .the appeal of a coastal development permit . In your case, the last day for filing an appeal is March 7 , 1990 . Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit No . 89-32 Page Two This project is in the Appealable portion of the coastal zone . Action taken by the Planning Commission may not be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission unless Title 14 , Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. Section 13573 (a) (3) states that an appeal may be . filed directly with the Coastal Commi.ssio.n if the appellant was denied the right of local appeal because local notice and hearing procedures for the development. did not comply with the provisions of this article . The other three grounds for direct appeal do not apply. If the above condition .exists , an aggrieved person may file an appeal within ten ( 10) working days , pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission 245 .W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed . . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one ( 1) year after the final approval , unless actual construction has begun. Sincerely, Mike Adams , Secretary . Planning Commission by: Hal Simmons Senior Planner MA:HS : kla (4955d-5 ,6) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 i (Remodel_ .o existing single family dwelling including a third story) NOTICE IS HE EBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a pu lic hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Cent r, 000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California , on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the . statements of al persons who wish .to be heard relative to the application descr ' bed below. DATE/TIME : Monda April 2 , 1990 , 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: A eat of Planning Commission ' s Approval of Con itional . Use Permit No . 89-57/Coastal Deve\ee t Pe mit No . 89-32 ��211�rT; -l�un�4-any-}6varr n� �y pw� S l -Ssoc/a A/o� APPLICANT: Bill Ridgewan 5828 E. Secoet Long Beach, 03 LOCATION: 16391 Ardslel - S/0 Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE Rl-CZ (Low Densiide tial-Coastal Zone) REOUEST: Remodel and addi an xisting single family dwelling including a thir . T dwelling is proposed to have 4 , 994 square feebitab a area and a 767 square foot garage . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, and Section 15303 , Class 3 , of the - California En ironmental Quali.ty Act . COASTAL .STATUS : APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the oastal zone.. Under the provisions of the Huntington' Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING _ (Continued) Said appeal must be in writing and* must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or inte ested party deems himself aggrieved. There is no fee for the a eal of a coastal_ development permit . An aggrieved person may fi an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from when the Coastal Commission receives the Notice of Action fro the City of -Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the ublic Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commissi n 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 9 801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal, Commission review period will commence after the City appeal per-io.d..;.has_,_ended and no appeals h ve been filed . Applicants :. will be no.tifred� by tYie Coastal Commiss on as to the date of the -`conc1 sion .of--the Coastal Commission r view. Applicants are advised A snot„to b4noeg n cons,truc,4on prior to th t date . '. ONFIL`Ey _� dopy oft}e ' proposed de elopment plan is on file in the Community 'De'velopment De artment 2000 Main Street, - � Hunting;t:on Beach, Calif rnia 92648 , for inspection by the rx�, -- copy of the taff report will be available to ` n'terested p�a,r.ties at ity Hall . r ALLIcNTERESTEDPERSO_NS are invi d to attend said hearingand express opinions or sukiinit evid nce for or against the application lication PP as_:outl''i'nedabove� If",there a e any questions or further details - nece'ssar y :phea:se"'corit'ac 53 t Thom s Rogers , Assistant Planner, at 6=5271'. C nnie Brockway Huntin ton Beach City Clerk (4485d-4 , 5) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 (Remodel. of existing single family dwelling including a third story) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California , on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, April 2 , 1990, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission ' s Approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 89-57/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-32 APPELLANT: Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. Second Street Long Beach, CA 90803 LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle S/0 Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE: R1-CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling including a third story. The dwelling is proposed to have 4 , 994 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, .Class 1, and Section 15303 , Class 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone . Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an- aggrieved party. (Please See Other Side) i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from when the Coastal Commission receives the Notice of Action from the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5.071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeal.s have been filed . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any questions or further details necessary please contact Thomas Rogers, Assistant Planner, at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (4485d-4 , 5) i (i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 (Remodel. of existing single family dwelling including a third story) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California., on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, April . 2 , 1990, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission' s Approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 89-57/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-32 APPELLANT: Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. Second Street Long Beach, CA 90803 LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE: Rl-CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) REOUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling including a third story. The dwelling is proposed to have 4 , 994 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, and Section 15303 , Class 3 , of .the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone . Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or anaggrieved party. (Please See Other Side) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from when the Coastal Commission receives the Notice of Action from the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 , for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . ALL. INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any questions or further details necessary please contact Thomas Rogers , Assistant Planner, at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (4485d-4 , 5) l j� i :i .NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 (Remodel. of existing single family dwelling including a third story) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, April 2, 1990, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission ' s Approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 89-57/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-32 APPELLANT: Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. Second Street Long Beach, CA 90803 LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE: Rl-CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling including a third story. The dwelling is proposed to have 4 , 994 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, and Section 15303 , Class 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS : APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone . Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an- aggrieved party. (Please See Other Side) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten ( 10) working days from when the Coastal Commission _ receives the Notice of Action from the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 , for inspection by the public . A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any questions or further details necessary please contact Thomas Rogers , Assistant Planner, at 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (4485d-4 , 5) :i 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 (Remodel, of existing single family dwelling including a third story) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the .date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, April 2, 1990 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission ' s Approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 89-57/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-32 APPELLANT: Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. Second Street Long Beach, CA 90803 LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle S/0 Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE : Rl-.CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling including a third story. The dwelling is proposed to have 4 , 994 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, and Section 15303 , Class 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone . Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant .or am aggrieved party. (Please See Other Side) i i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING- (Continued) Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal . to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from when the Coastal Commission receives the Notice of Action from the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any questions or further details necessary please contact Thomas Rogers, Assistant Planner, at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (4485d-4 , 5) f I I d :1 .NOTICE .OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 (Remodel. of existing single family dwelling including a third story) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, April 2, 1990 , 7: 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission' s Approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 89-57/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-32 APPELLANT:' Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. Second Street Long Beach, CA 90803 LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle S/0 Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE: Rl-CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling . including a third story. The dwelling is proposed to have 4 , 994 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class1, and . Section 15303 , Class 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an- aggrieved party. (Please See Other Side) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from when the Coastal Commission receives the Notice of Action from the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any questions or further details necessary please contact Thomas Rogers, Assistant Planner, at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk i (4485d-4 , 5) i i 1 i I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 (Remodel. of existing single family dwelling including a third story) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date .and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, April 2 , 1990 , 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission' s Approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 89-57/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-32 APPELLANT: Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design 5828 E. Second Street Long Beach, CA 90803 LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle S/O Edinger Avenue, W/O Saybrook Lane (Humboldt Island) ZONE: Rl-CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) REOUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling including a third story. The dwelling is 'proposed to have 4 , 994 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, and Section 15303 , Class 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL .STATUS : APPEALABLE (See Below) This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone . Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an, aggrieved party. (Please See Other Side) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved . There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from when the Coastal Commission receives the Notice of Action from the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California. Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000. Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any questions or further details necessary please contact Thomas Rogers, Assistant Planner, at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (4485d-4 , 5) I r 4 ,St from the desk of: PAT MYLES ' DEPUTY CITY CLERK L (714) 536-5209 G This address and name appear on the Assessor's Books-for all of - these AP #'s: . Huntington Harbour Corp. 424.1. Warner Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 The post office had your name and .address on all of the returns as "FORWARDING TIME EXPIRED" P.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 f Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 AP# 178-315-51&52 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR RLTY 178-363-63&64 16390 Pacific Coast Hwy #200 178-062-51&52 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-375-17&18 178-311-01&02 Office of the City Clerk .... .. -..�.. .-.v�w �_.� ,,.�a� _ -ity of Huntington Beach 'r7 r�-R g x("J.R x o a o9 i i t t 2 2 '9 �.0.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 "- . .( ?c A P: 1 ON 1HAR OURACORP 2 HUNTIN 4241 WARNER AVENUE ^ l4IittTOTH 140.em R L T I HUNT EEACH CA nT4.RN TO �EhlGfc r Office of the City Clerk I& City of Huntington Beach . .. . .._--n_ ../_.., _.-_....... . ,. P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 AP : 178-363--63 AND 64 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP. 4241 WARNER AVENUE HUNTINGTON. BEACH, CA. 92647 �tpINO TIME ExpIREU 'NUNTG T N f•IARStIR RLTY 16 q0 PAC. 4-S7 -H'w'Y :#2 00 HUNT BE ACt4 RETURN TO SfSweR i =(S n'� Y 'd •s Office of the City Clerk '�nte City of Huntington Beach PRI"r r Min 2 � '9y P.O.BOX 190 :^ r+ r == �`• - CALIFORNIA 92648 i s � � � a • ` a' feu ary.�a �.{ # AP: 178-315-51 AND 52 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP. 4241 WARNER AVENUE HUNT241 9"b54-9300: FtJFcU C� N 'm* F-xPxAF'D! HUN'TGTN HARBOR. RL i Y 1 0 : RAC C—C'r Ht4)' E4. HUNT SEAj:M CA r` fLETURN TO SENDER ti City of Huntington Beach • .-..�. ,..,�,.....�e..� � -_ �f\ _``��`' �`===--, fps _F a1 l 5�;m aJ•JJ a�'; i P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 1A S,s AP: 178-375-17 AND 18 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP. 4241 WARNER AVENUE H[MTTNr:Tnh7 RRA(`61- 0A o')cn� _ iti t� TiztF; :408OR RLfY . HUNT EEAQWCAil W4SFENDFr't 2 2 '9i j P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Y �, }: Huntington Harbour Corp 4241 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-062-51_;52 HUNT241 92G493003 1 3a9 03/2`4j90 $HUNTCTN HAROOR RLTY :9€�: FAC CSTHt�;' - :�0l : R TURN TO SENDE'1 = • April 2, 1990 Position Paper Huntington Beach City Council Property Owners Against Three Story Homes In Huntington Harbour Reference: Conditional Use Permit#89-25/Coastal Development Permit#90-1, and Conditional Use Permit#89-57/Coastal Development Permit#89-32. Speakers This Evening: (1)General Situation-Property Owners Against Three Story Homes, - Robert L. Chick (2)Why the Harbour Community Is Against These 2 Three Story Homes,- Manuel E. Peres:`'- (3) CC&R's Are In Effect On All Harbour Property, -Joseph Rosen z (4)Huntington Harbour Architectural Setting, -Mary Ellen Hoseal (5)Environmental Concerns,-William E.Kavasch (6) Survey Results of 2700 Harbour Residents,- Stewart Zuck `'m (7) Summary _ ^' Speakers: -� (1). General Situation - 2 Pending Requests for Third Story Home Permits At y Huntington Harbour. c •Good evening my name is Dr. Robert L. Chick, I am a scientist and businessman, and I am here to speak as a Huntington Harbour property owner against three story homes. - •At issue-2 specific three story homes 16872 Baruna Lane and 16391 Ardsley Circle and a request for a zoning change to two story homes only for the Harbour Community. •We met with the City Planning Department and worked out a plan for Harbour home modifications exclusive of third story construction. �.. •We conducted a survey of all 2700 Harbour property owners as to their views regarding two and three story homes. •Will of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners is against three story homes. (2) Why The Harbour Community Is Against These 2 Three Story Homes. • Good evening my name is Manuel E.Perez,I am a practicing Architect,the former Chairman of the Long Beach Planning Commission, the former Chairman of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Commission and Design Review Board,and I am here to speak as an architectural consultant for the Huntington Harbour property owners. • I have reviewed the City planning code, the CC&R's, and the two proposed designs. • Items the property owners find unacceptable with the 16391 Ardsley Circle remodeling. •Items the property owners find unacceptable with the 16872 Baruna Lane remodeling. •We request that the Council disapprove these 2 three story homes and zone Huntington Harbour for two story homes only. (3). CC&R's Are In Effect On All Harbour Property. •Good evening my name is Joe Rosen,I am the Director of the Architectural Committee for the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, and I am here to speak as a Huntington Harbour property owner against three story homes. • CC&R's established in 1964, approved by the state and City of Huntington Beach. • CC&R's are implemented by Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association. •Highlights of CC&R's-homes limited to one and two stories in height. •Per the agreement worked out with the Planning Department we believe all CC&R issues can be accommodated except the three story issue. (4). Huntington Harbour Architectural Setting. • Good evening my name is Mary Ellen Hoseal, I am an attorney, and I am here to speak as a Huntington Harbour property owner against three story homes. •The current architectural setting,consistent with the CC&R's, is one and two story homes. •Less than 1% have third story protrusions, and none of these have 2000 square feet on the third floor. / 1 l April 2, 1990 Position Paper Huntington Beach City Council Property Owners Against Three Story Homes In Huntington Harbour Continued: •We encourage our neighbors to improve their property consistent with the established CC&R's,original setbacks, architectural ascetics,and preservation of neighbors views. •Harbour residents are not alone in disliking inappropriate housing modifications. •Two surveys support our position against the Baruna Lane and Ardsley Circle homes. •We request that the City Council disapprove these 2 three story homes and zone Huntington Harbour for two story homes only. (4). Environmental Concerns. •Good evening my name is Bill Kavasch,I am retired mechanical engineer,and I am here to speak as a Huntington Harbour property owner against three story homes. •General trend and environmental concern on the encroachment of bulkhead setbacks. •Possible earthquake impact of a three story home on Davenport Island access. •We request that the Council disapprove these 2 three story homes and zone Huntington Harbour for two story homes only. (6) Survey Results of 2850 Harbour Residents. •Good evening my name is Stewart Zuck, I am a businessman,I am the Treasurer of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, and I am here to speak as a Huntington Harbour property owner against three story homes. • Over 2850 Huntington property owners were surveyed by mail starting March 16, 1990. •The survey addressed preferences for two,three,or three story homes with special considerations. •The results of that survey involved xx responses,with xy in favor of two story homes, xz in favor of three story homes, and xx in favor of three story homes with special provisions. •The will of the people has spoken. •We request that the Council disapprove these 2 three story homes and zone Huntington Harbour for two story homes only. (7) Summary. • In the last 18 minutes you have heard the voice of the Huntington Harbor property owners speak clearly, speak specifically, and speak aggressively against three story homes. •Huntington Harbour residents are not alone in desiring to maintain a quality to life. •We have presented the rational as to why both of these houses, 16872 Baruna Lane and 16391 Ardsley Circle should be disapproved from third story construction. •We have worked out a plan with the City Planning Department so that we can meet our CC&R objectives in a harmonious implementation. •We have presented the environmental,technical,and architectural impacts concerning three story homes. •We have presented the results of a 2850 home survey of Huntington Harbor property owners views as to three story homes. •We request that the City Council respect the wishes of the property owners and disapprove these 2 three story homes and zone Huntington Harbour for two story homes only. • On behalf of all of our speakers,we thank the City Council for the opportunity to speak, your valuable time, and your vote to support the will of the Huntington Harbor people. Huntington Harbour Property Owners Appellant Robert L. Chick,et al 2 J. HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Mr. Joseph M. Rosen, Vice President P. 0 . Box 791 Sunset Beach, California 90742 March 28 , 1990 Mayor Tom Mays and City Council Members 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re : Appeal of Planning Commission Action - 16391 Ardsley Circle CUP 89/57 , CDP 89-32 Hearing Scheduled April 2 , 1990 Dear Mayor and Council Members: The Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (HHPOA) supplements its letter of March 5 , 1990 , Appeal from Planning Commission Action CUP 89-57/Coastal Development Permit 89-32 , by providing the following information supporting our request for your denial of subject permits . In August of 1989 , Mr . John Briscoe, current owner of the property located at 16391 Ardsley Circle , submitted an incomplete set of ,plans to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) of the HHPOA and requested that the plans be reviewed. By letter dated September 25 , 1989 (copy attached) , the ARC disapproved Mr. Briscoe ' s plans stating that they were in violation of the CC&Rs . Mr . Briscoe' s letter of December 29 , 1989 (copy attached) , ignores the ARC ' s September 25 , 1989, letter and claims that his plans were approved. The ARC letter of January 4, 1990 (copy attached) , advises Mr. Briscoe that his plans were disapproved and were improperly submitted . On January 13, 1990 , Mr . Briscoe submitted a revised incomplete set of plans to the ARC for review. This revised set was also disapproved by ARC' s letter of January 29 , 1990 (copy attached) . Notwithstanding his submittal of a revised set of drawings and all of the correspondence included herewith, 11r. Briscoe stubbornly maintains the position that the plans for remodeling his residence on Ardsley Circle have been approved by the ARC. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is true, however, is that when Mr . Briscoe purchased his dwelling in Huntington Harbour he became legally obligated to observe, perform and be bound. by the CC&Rs. Now, Mr . Briscoe is seeking aid from the City of Huntington Beach in the form of a v -1- \ Conditional Use Permit strengthening his resolve to break the obligation to abide by the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs were legally recorded with the Orange County Recorder by the developers of Huntington Harbour in the early 1960s . The purpose of the CC&Rs is to assure the proper use and appropriate and uniform development and improvement of Huntington Harbour property. For more than twenty-five years the property owners in Huntington Harbour have reasonably respected the conditions and restrictions set forth in the CC&Rs. However, in recent years with the value of Huntington Harbour property increasing significantly, speculators have been acquiring homes , remodeling to maximize profits and then reselling the homes . This activity has given rise to the receipt of more and more complaints by the HHPOA from the concerned residents of the community. They are crying that enough is enough and they will not stand for it any longer. They are insisting that the HHPOA take action to stop the construction and remodeling of homes that are not in compliance with the CC&Rs. In view of the demands being made by our property owners , HHPOA sent out over 2800 questionaires polling the owners on their views of three story developments in the Harbour. While the poll could not be completed by this writing the results so far indicate that 787 do not want any three story homes in the Harbour, 12% would consider three story home under certain conditions and 10a believe three story homes are appropriate. Of the 127 that would consider three story homes under certain conditions , the most common conditions stated were: 1 ) the home was subject to the neighbors ' approval, 2) the three story residence would not interfere with anyone' s view . In other words, the conditions placed on approval of third stories would virtually exclude third story construction making the number of property owners not wanting three story homes adding up to over 90%. We hope that final results of the poll will be available by the April 2 , 1990 , meeting whereupon they will be made available to the Council. Article 9110 . 4 (a) ( 1) of the Huntington. Beach Ordinance Code requires that the Planning Commission consider the safety and welfare of surrounding residents prior to approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) . The poll taken (see paragraph supra) would indicate that neither the welfare nor the safety of our surrounding residents have been considered . Article 9110 . 4 (a) (3) requires that the Planning Commission consider the age and anticipated permanence of buildings on adjacent properties prior to approving a CUP . For the most part , the buildings surrounding 16391 Ardsley Circle are one and two story homes . Our poll results to date indicate overwhelmingly that three story homes are not desireable in this community and that third story remodeling is not contemplated by the vast majority of our neighbors . Our CC&Rs exclude the construction of three story homes leading us to seek legal relief in the event that the Council does not recognize the stated wishes of our community . Article 9110 . 4 (a) (4) requires that the Planning Commission consider any other criteria it deems necessary to preserve the health, safety, welfare and convenience of the neighborhood. It is conceivable that the Commission was mislead by Mr. Briscoe ' s Neighborhood Petition wherein Mr . Briscoe obtained the signatures of 33 residents of the Harbour representing approximately 19 households stating that they approved the proposed plans submitted by Mr. Briscoe . It was '_earned later that man; of the signatures obtained by Mr. Briscoe were obtained under false pretenses . Some of the signatories to Mr. Briscoe ' s petition stated that they signed the petition because they were informed that Mr . Briscoe changed the plans and eliminated all of the objections by all of the neighbors . After learning that most all of the neighbors still objected to Mr. Briscoe ' s plans and that he did nothing to eliminate the objections , many of the signatories signed a new petition prepared by the neighbors repudiating their previous signatures and confirming their objection to Mr . Briscoe ' s plans. Mr. and Mrs . Kramer did not sign the petition, but did send a separate letter to the Mayor and City Council, a copy of which is attached . Nevertheless, whether the Commission was mislead or not , it is clear now that the residents of the community of Huntington Harbour do not want any more three story single family residences in their community . We ask you, our elected representative, in view of Article 9110 . 4 (a) to respect the rights and judgement of our community by overturning the Planning Commission' s action and denying the Conditional Use Permit NO . 89-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 . Respectfully yours , OS H M ROSEN, Vice President HU. TI14 ON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION -3- Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. g p Y P. O. BOX 791 SUNSET BEACH, CALIF. 90742 G,prttprnber 2 r-Q Mr. John .~ri zco 1630- 1 Ards 1,et/ Circle H,urtIrctor: a.eacn, C31i r^ia 9'^6-4 9 J ;. al LI v cL. ' T^e re'��'arai Re` ,,ew Committee ,f the Hunt,.nc-t^n Barbour rvCfr';1 ,.��mml �� 11 111 r c y h nl s ; rJ.ti n �wre. s Asso�l�ticr has re��,e�r✓e., the ;.�lar„ subm�tt_.. :,�� ou r A.�..�;U.,._ 7;C, 1 a0c) ti .ii.:ihpri i'h Q+gip ♦f rl p rp,v� ♦ pli r1 n nn ;pii ^t 1 .,ZG i ip�/ sir arm I le sIt,- of y1,e : emc,d I Ir: : r0Noc-ec at �r'3„ e f Proposed r n • f f rrv+ in n ,It 'hi- .�i^ We find the ,,reuosed 1 emocel it�y i� Berl cl ;��ec ;1� ac�oor:.arce ,N: h � �� I:�rs would be in violation of the set nac;: provisions of Clause V,. paracraor -' cf file De,IarotiV^ Limitat ors, Cluvemarr,: „ ,ru•�:��J, � ar:c Reservations (CC&Rs') for Tract No. 5481 . Further, we find that the proposed third floor is out of keeping with the general intent to maintain two story residences in the area and would be inharmonious with other residences on Ardsley Circle. Based on these findings, the plans you submitted to this committee are herein disapproved. In accordance with Clause IV, paragraph 18, no building shall be altered unless the plans for such alteration have first been approved by the Architectural Review Committee. Sin ely, Rosen, Chairman Architectural Review Committee. cc: All residences on Ardsley Circle with ;. addresses that end in an odd number. 16391 Ardsley Circle Huntington Harbour, CA 92649-2113 29 December 1989 Mr. Joe Rosen, Chairman Huntington Harbour Architectural Review Committee 16915 Edgewater Lane Huntington Harbour, CA 92649 (714) 840-4575 Dear Mr. Rosen: I am pleased to confirm my residence and home ownership in Huntington Harbour, at 16391 Ardsley Circle. After consultation with my attorney Mr. Jerome M. Bame, I am writing this letter to affirm my rights under the terms of Limitations, Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and Reservations affecting my home. This letter is to confirm your receipt of my home remodeling plans 30 August 1989. My wife, Debbie Briscoe handed you our home plans in the front yard of your home located at 16915 Edgewater Lane 30 August 1989, which initiated the waiting period covered under the terms of Clause IV Section 18 subsection (b) . This section states "If notice of disapproval is not so sent, the plans and specifications. . . .shall be deemed to have been approved by the Architectural Review Committee. . . " The Committee has sent no notice of disapproval, hence my building plans are approved. Let me commend you and your committee on your wise decision not to undermine the City of Huntington Beach building codes. Your personal inspection of my home apparently revealed the obvious violations of City and Huntington Harbour "CC&R" codes by my neighbors on all sides. Your wise decision to let the City enforce building standards under the power of City law was a good one. Additionally, I applaud how you carefully read Clause IV Section 24 wherein you are charged with " . . .the right and privilege to permit the owner of any lot. . .to deviate from any or all of the Covenants. . . " Further, you are charged with an important responsibility to make your decisions " . . .without the consent of owners of other lots. . . " (Clause IV Section 24) . I will submit my landscape plans after we have built our basic home in order that our landscape architect can correctly design plant locations to building size. Thank you again for your help and support in the construction of our home. If you have any questions please call (714)846-4056 or write. Let me compliment you on the progress of your home; it is certainly another beautiful large-scale home addition to our Huntington Harbour. Sincerely, l ! John F. Briscoe -- i Huntington Harbour Property Ownors Association. Inc. P. O. BOX 791 SUNSET BEACH. CALIF. 90742 January 4, 1990 Mr. John F. Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2113 Dear Mr. Briscoe: Re; Your letter dated 29 Dec. 1989: Pleased be advised that the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (HHPOA) sent a letter dated September 25, 1989, to you at 16391 Ardsley Circle. In this Letter the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) of the HHPOA disapproved the plans which you submitted to the ARC on 30 August, 1989, for the reasons stated therein. A copy of this letter is enclosed herewith. Additionally, it is brought to my attention that at the time you submitted the plans you were not the owner of the property on Ardsley Circle. Plans submitted for ARC consideration in accordance with the CC&Rs must be submitted by the property owner or his duly authorized agent. Further, as you were advised during a telephone conversation a complete set of plans is required prior to any approval by the ARC. Since you did not submit a complete set of plans on 30 August, and in fact have not submitted a complete set to this date, even if you were the property owner the 30 day rule would not take effect until the missing plans and specifications were submitted. If you are now in fact the owner of 16391 Ardsley Circle and wish to submit a set of plans conforming to the Limitations, Covenants , Conditions , Restrictions and Reservations affecting your Property we will be pleased to review them. Sincerely, Jot'Rdsen,� Chairman HHPOA ARC January 29, 1990 Mr. John Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2113 Dear Mr. Briscoe: Please reference the HHPOA letter of September 25, 1989, wherein you were advised that the plans submitted by you on August 30, 1989 would not meet the set back provisions of the Declaration of Limitations, Covenants , Conditions , Restrictions and Reservations (CC&Rs) applicable to your property at the above address . After reviewing the plans which you offered to J. Selvin and myself on 13 Jan. 1990, the Architectural Review Committee finds that this offering fails to correct the setback violations as stated in referenced letter. Further, it now appears that set back requirements have not been met on both the street side and water side of the residence. Additionally, we continue to find that the third floor (loft) is out of keeping with the general intent to maintain two story residences in the area and would not be harmonious with other residences on Ardsley Circle. Consistent with our findings both in the referenced letter and herein the Architectural Review Committee cannot approve your plans as submitted. Sincerely, Joe Rosen, Chairman HHPOA ARC W JUSTIN KRAMER INCORPORATED 1028 WEST EIGHTH PLACE LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90017 AREA(213) 627-7337 March 22 1990 Honorable Tom Mays, Mayor and Members of City Council City Hall City of Huntington Beach, California Concerning Appeal from Planning Commission Action CUP-89-57 and Coastal Development Permit 89-32 Please be advised that we signed a petition for John Briscoe approving his .house plan upon being told by Mr. Briscoe that he had revised the plan to meet the requirements of his next- door neighbor and that except for Mr. and Mrs. Noring whom he said objected because of the traffic going up and down Ardsley Circle, and Mr. and Mrs. Larry Webster whom they had been unable to contact, they had the approval of all the neigh- bors. We find that this is not -true and, had we known the true facts , we would not have signed his petition. Please withdraw our names as supporte s of his project because we oppose it in its present form. . I � J st Krame e n ramer 397� Humboldt Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 John & Debbie Briscoe 16391 Ardsley Circle, Humboldt Island Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2113 16 March 1990 Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: City Council Hearing CUP 89-57, CDP 89-32 ca-.�9Q Dear Mayor and City Council : `w = '` This letter directly answers each issue and concern raised irl tue 5 March 1990 letter requesting an appeal to the City Plannir Commission unanimous 7 to 0 approval of our home plans. In addition, this letter will address accusations against Staff reprimanding them with accusations of failure to perform their jobs with due diligence. Debbie and I have purchased and moved into our home on Ardsley Circle in 1989. We had plans developed for remodeling our home in April 1989 and showed these same plans to our neighbors William (Bill) and Margo Dalessi. William (Bill) T. Dalessi Is. a high-powered influential attorney in Long Beach. Using his position as a lawyer, Bill has consistently opposed new buildings on Ardsley Circle over the past few years and our home is no exception. Unfortunately for Bill, he has failed to demonstrate any basis in City of Huntington Beach code or law for denial of our building permit. After his most recent loss in front of the Planning Commission, Bill has persuaded the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (H.H.P.O.A. ) to pay for his efforts in front of the City Council. Bill has somehow persuaded thb H.H.P.O.A. into violation of their own By-Laws that require total compliance with all City laws. Bill and the H.H.P.O.A. are using member dues to pay for testimony that contradicts City code and violates H.H.P.O.A. By-Laws. And now William T. Dalessi, attorney at law, has produced a three. page appeal filled with many claims and accusations. Our letter will address each issue, item by item. We look forward to the City Council sustaining the unanimous approval from Staff and Planning Commission. Thank you. I Sin erely, Sincerely, iscoe Debbie Briscoe JOHN & DEBBIE BRISCOE 16391 ARDSLEY CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92649-2113 C.U.P. & C.D.P. APPLICATION (89-57) (89-32) - ACTION PLAN ACTION/STATUS 1. DESIGN DREAM HOME Bill Ridgeway Design hired, initial plans drawn DONE: JUL 189 3. INTRODUCE PLANS TO NEIGHBORS Debbie & John walk neighborhood for opinions Bill Dalessi only neighbor to reply(fence &view) DONE: AUG 189 3. RE-DESIGN HOME PLANS for neighbor concerns Increased setback distance from water No. view impact for Bill Dalessi on revised plans DONE: AUG 189 4. OBTAIN H.H.P.O.A. ARCHITECT REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVAL Hand carry plans to Joe Rosen, Chairman: 30 AUG 89 HHPOA/ARC fails to notify Briscoe of decision CC&R's CLAUSE IV,Section 18(b) : Plans are deemed APPROVED approved if notice is not sent within 30 days BY ARC PLANS APPROVED BY DEFAULT/FAILURE TO NOTIFY 1 OCT 89 Fully Comply with CC&R's (CLAUSE IV,Sec.4) 5. SUBMIT PLANS TO STAFF Preliminary plans submit to Staff: general review Staff Review and Approve Plans by Briscoe DONE: DEC 189 6. CONTRACT WITH JEROME "JERRY" BANE. Attorney Engaged Attorney for legal assistance DONE: DEC 189 7. OBTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL OF PLANS C.D.P. 100' NEIGHBORS = 7 total, 4 approve 57% APPROVAL C.U.P. 300' NEIGHBORS = 35 total, 23 approve 66% APPROVAL 8. HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL 100% APPROVAL Meeting 21 FEB 90, unanimous approval UNANIMOUS Support Letters: Marshall,Locke,Ruzics,Englehart 7 to 0 Home Plan Key Concepts -- Parking: 4 current, 5 total in new plans -- Bedroom: 4 current, 4 new (3+1 Master Bedroom/Office suite) --. Lo Add a 490 sq.ft. exercise loft in center of bldg. -- Views: Special Angled design = NO NEIGHBOR VIEW IMPAIRMENT -- Co Plans comply with all City Building Codes -- Setbacks:Each floor steps back, NO SUN or LIGHT IMPAIRMENT -- 3rd Floor:Existing 3 story home across street: 16386 Ardsley -- Style: Existing Mediterranean home nearby: 16402 Ardsley -- Height: 301proposed; 25' if not approved = looks about same 9. CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCESS (See Staff & Planning Commission Work) 10, BUILDING ENGINEERING & ENERGY CALCULATIONS & SOILS TESTING 11. PLAN & CITE CHECK & FINAL CITY APPROVAL 12. BEGIN CONSTRUCTION A:\ARDSLEY\C-U-P\2ACTPLAN JOHN & DEBBIE BRISCOE I 16391 ARDSLEY CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92649-2113 C.U.P. & C.D.P. APPLICATION (89-57) (89-32) HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION (H.H.P.O.A. ) A.R.C. Architectural Review Committee ISSUES with APPLICABLE CITY CODE and CC&R's 1. LOFT ALLOWED: H.B. CODE & CC&R's H.B.Code: Section 9110.1 "Permitted Uses. The following. subsections list permitted uses and the approval process for each one. " H.B.Code: Section 9110.1 (c) "The following uses may be permitted subject to the approval of- a conditional use permit by the planning commission. " H.B.Code: Section 9110.1 (2) "Building heights between twenty-five (25) and thirty (30) feet, and/or third stories pursuant to section 9110.4(a) . CC&R's: CLAUSE III,_ Definitions (Page 3) "Story, Half: A space under a sloping roof which has the .line of intersection of roof decking and wall not more than three (3) feet above the top floor level, and in which space not more than sixty percent (60%) of the floor area is completed for principal or accessory use. " 2. 30' HEIGHT ALLOWED: H.B.CODE & CC&R's H.B.Code: Section 9110.1 (see above) , Section 9110.1 (c) (see above) , Section 9110.1 (2) (see above) . CC&R's: CLAUSE IV, Section 2, Building Height (Page 3) " . . .no two story building or garage shall exceed thirty (30) feet in. building height. . . " NOTE: see allowed. half-story loft rooms allowed above second story floors (see above) ADDED. NOTE: CC&R's clearly allow 30' building heights. 3. 10' FRONT SETBACK ALLOWED: H.B.CODE & CC&R's H.B.Code: Section 9110.6 "Setback (front yard) . The minimum setback from the front property lines for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows: Side Entry Garage Ten (10) feet. " CC&R's: CLAUSE IV, Section 4, Location on Lot (Page -4) "Except as otherwise authorized by any applicable use variance or conditional exception granted by the City of Huntington Beach. . . . (NOTE: H.H.P.O.A./ARC acts in place of Hunt.Harbr.Corp. ) Huntington Harbour Corp. Conditional Exception UV 1689 Dated 3 March 1964, Page #2 ,_ Section 3 , "On waterfront lots (1 through 248) . . .a front yard setback of 10 feet, except that the setback shall be 20 feet where the garage is entered directly from the street. " NOTE: CC&R's clearly allow 10' setback side turn garages. a:\ardsley\c-u-p\cc&rcode 4. 5' BULKHEAD SETBACK ALLOWED: H.B. CODE & CC&R's H.B. Code: Section 9110.8 "Setback (rear yard) . The minimum setback from the rear property shall be as follows: Dwelling. and open unroofed stairways - Ten (10) feet except may be reduced to five (5) feet if rear yard abuts. . .public waterway. . .which is a minimum of one hundred (100) feet in clear width. " "Open, unroofed balconies - Ten (10) feet, except may be reduced to five (5) feet if rear yard abuts a public waterway. " NOTE• Ordinance 11077 (Section 9110.81 passed 3 August 1964. H.B. Code: Conditional Exception UV 1689 H.B. Planning Commission, Tuesday, March 3, 1964, Page 2 "To allow subdivision and development of the property for use for single family dwellings and apartment structures as follows: 1. On waterfront lots.. . . 2. Reduction of lot frontages. . .Tract Map 5481. 3 . On waterfront lots (l through 248) . .a front yard setback of 10 feet. . . 4 . On waterfront lots (lots 1 through 248) . a rear yard setback of 10 feet from the bulkhead. 5. On waterfront lots, side yard setbacks of 5 feet. . . CC&R's: CLAUSE IV, Section 4, Location on Lot (Page 4) "Except as otherwise authorized by any applicable use variance or conditional exception granted by the City of Huntington Beach prior to the date of said Covenants. . . " NOTE. CC&R's executed 6 May 1965 NOTE: Both Conditional Use #689, and City of Huntington Beach Ordinance 1077 BOTH PREDATE CC&R's and thus take precedence over CC&R's. 5. IMPORTANT: DUTIES OF THE ARC & HHPOA -- The Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association was cooperated in 1964 with Articles of Incorporation filed under document #469011 of 15 April 1964 , with the Secretary of the State of California. -- The H.H.P.O.A. operates and must abide by its BY-LAWS and REGULATIONS adopted April 1964 and revised February 1984 . What the By-Laws say about the Architectural Review Committee: BY-LAWS: Section 10,Committees,Subsection C Standing Committees. 1. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. This committee shall consider and approve or disapprove any plans. . . . .Nothing herein shall be construed as authorizing or empowering said Committee. . .to change or waive said Covenants, except as herein provided. Said committee may adopt rules and regulations. . .and said regulations shall be consistent with regulations, ordinances and codes in effect in the City of Huntington Beach, California. NOTE: By-Laws clearly obligate the H.H.P.O.A. and the ARC to support and follow exactly whatever City of Huntington Beach codes are in effect at the time plans are submitted. The ARC and H.H.P.O.A. have no right either in the- CC&R's or in the By-Laws to invent new codes and rules that contradict or restrict City of Huntington Beach law. The ARC and H.H.P.O.A. are not permitted in the By-Laws to circulate, petition,. or protest City of Huntington Beach "regulations, ordinances and codes in effect. " The ARC is charged with following City law and is not permitted to advocate new law or make changes to the City code on its own_. M1,- ce«,-s RECEIVED r CITY CLERK CITY OF WILLIAM T. DALESSI HUNTIttGT k g; "C'i CALIF. 16385 Ardsley Circle Huntington Beach, California 92649 hR 26 7 58 AM '9Q March 23, 1990 Mayor and. City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Appeal of Planning commission Action - 16391 Ardsley Circle CUP 89/57 CDP 89-32 Hearing Scheduled April 2 , 1990 My neighbors, and I, have appealed the action of the Planning Commission approving the above project. We are supportive of reasonable remodeling, rehabilitation and additions to the homes in Huntington Harbour. However, we are dismayed by the apparent .lack of concern shown by the Planning Commission to our existing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions , and to the Zoning Code regulations of the City of Huntington Beach. This wanton disregard for the explicit laws , rules and regulations of our community will result in the destruction of a beautiful and desirable community amenity, spacious dock-side homes with indoor and outdoor living and entertainment areas. Oursis not a community which needs to have its homes built to the excessive maximum proposed by our neighbors , Mr. and Mrs. Briscoe. There are three issues which you must consider: 1) the lack of environmental review of the proposed project, 2) the conditional use permit regarding the third story, and 3) the "conditional exception" or "variance" for the oddly designed driveways. The key issues are as follows : 1 . The .project was not reviewed for its potential impact on the environment . A "categorical exception" should not be applied to this proposed project which stretches the bounds of reason in planning and environmental impact. they should be required to prepare required environmental documents such as an Environmental Impact Report, Focused EIR or Negative declaration. The house, as designed, will encroach into the established set-back lines from the bulkhead line, it will also be casting permanent shadows on my southerly property line. Their driveway, as proposed, will necessitate crossing over my driveway and running the full length of the sidewalk in front of my home to park their cars. These are all foreseeable impacts which should be discussed in an environmental document. I 2. The City of Huntington Reach Zoning Code (Section 9110. 4 ) allows a maximum building height of 30 feet and/or 3 stories provided that : " (a) The proposed building shall not have a detrimental effect on the general health, safety, welfare or privacy of surrounding residents . . . " " (b) The location, site plan and building design shall be harmonious and compatible with the streets, driveways , property lines, and surrounding neighborhood. . " It is my belief that neither or these conditions have been met, or even addressed, in the Planning Commission approval. obviously, the proposed project does have a detrimental effect on us, the surrounding residents , and the proposed design is not harmonious or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It is my belief that Conditional Uses should only be approved when there is a compelling reason for their being allowed. If they are simply to be automatically granted, then why would you need to have a conditional use? 3. The approval of the driveway design can only be done as a "Conditional Exception" (variance) . This major deviation from the established standards of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes requires that the applicant show why complying with the existing standards is not possible or would deny them a basic right enjoyed by others in this same zone. The proposed design attempts to obtain rights which others in the same area do not have. The enclosed sketches show the difficulties foisted on my property if this variance were to be approved. This is not a request to have the same rights as the neighbors , but a blatant attempt to obtain unique rights . In addition, the applicant proposes to build a cantilever deck across the entire water-side property line. The City' s regulations limit the amount of coverage to 80% . This proposed deck appears to extend across the entire bulkhead, with the exception of the ramp to the dock. This again is a blatant attempt to obtain rights that other neighbors do not have. Therefore, I ask that you deny their request to obtain special rights and privileges which are not warranted or deserved. Please overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. e pectfull_v, WIT LIAM T. DALESSI WTD/kkm cc: City Attorney City Clerk California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission -2- i d (Gd�aAQE) /CLLk6 4 Priese I 1 i `~ t�A L 4� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date April 2, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator C Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developmen Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: i STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration, is an appeal by William T. Dalessi and Joseph Rosen, representing the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, to the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 . Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 is a request to construct a third story loft to a single family dwelling. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 is required pursuant to Section 989 . 5 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code as the subject property is located within an Appealable/Non-Categorical Exclusion Area of the Coastal Zone. RECOMMENDATION• Planning Commission action taken on February 21, 1990 : A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Shomaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57: 1. The proposed three-story dwelling does not have a detrimental effect on the general health, safety, welfare and privacy of the surrounding residents or on surrounding property values . \ The proposed structure will be constructed in compliance with all Huntington Beach Ordinance Code development standards and in accordance with the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Huntington Beach. /�� PI O 5/85 Y Privacy will not be affected as the windows on the third story visible from the exercise loft face the street and the other windows as conditioned will not permit views onto adjacent properties; therefore, no additional visibility onto adjacent properties will be present as a result of the increased building height and third story. 2 . The location, site plan and building design are harmonious and compatible with the streets, driveways, property lines and surrounding neighborhood. The property is located within a cul-de-sac; therefore, the possibility of a traffic conflict pulling out of the subject drive is minimal . The proposed project is located on Humboldt Island which already has 15 homes with a third floor. Additionally, there is a two-story home located on each side of the subject property. 3 . A majority of the homes on- Humboldt Island were constructed in the mid to late 1960s . As a result of the increasing land values, - numerous remodels/rebuilds are occurring and will continue to occur throughout the island. The proposed three-story dwelling is compatible with the recent remodels/rebuilds on the island. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 89-32 : 1. The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the R1 zone as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed single family dwelling can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. The proposed development is within a tract which already has full public improvements. 4 . The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access exists presently, nor will exist after construction of the proposed structure. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Action taken by the Planning Commission on February 21, 1990, by denying the appeal . RCA 4/2/90 -2- (5165d) ANALYSIS• The applicant proposes to extensively remodel and add on to an existing single-family dwelling at 16391 Ardsley Circle. The proposed project includes a stairway tower to a third floor exercise loft and attic area. As approved by the Planning Commission, the proposed single-family dwelling will have approximately 5,000 square feet of habitable area and a 767 square foot garage. In their letter of appeal, Mr. Dalessi and Mr. Rosen, representing the Huntington Harbour Home Owners Association, contend that Planning staff improperly processed the subject application and that the project should be sent back to the Planning Commission for "proper" analysis and review. The appellants have cited three major areas in which they believe staff erred. First, the project requires a "Zoning Standards Variance" for the third story loft and the garage configuration in lieu of a Conditional Use Permit; Second, the project was given inadequate environmental review and requires an environmental impact report; and third, the project is not in compliance with the plans, policies and requirements of the Coastal Land Use Plan. Each of the above arguments is discussed below. 1. VARIANCE REQUIRED IN LIEU OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The appellant has stated that a variance to the development standards is required to approve the proposed third story loft. This statement is incorrect. Section 9110.4(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code specifically states "a maximum building height of thirty (30) feet and/or three (3) stories may be permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. " Using the definition of building height contained in Section 9080 .23 of the Code, the proposed project will have a maximum height of twenty-eight (28) feet. The appellant has also stated that the proposed garage configuration requires a variance as it encroaches into the front yard setback. Section 9110. 6 of the Code requires a twenty-two (22) foot front yard setback for front entry garages or a ten (10) foot setback for a side entry garage. The proposed garages are at a forty-five (45) degree angle to the street and could, therefore, be classified as either a front or side entry. In either case, the intent of the code is to require two (2) enclosed parking spaces as well as to provide adequate space for parking two (2) vehicles on-site without overhanging the sidewalk or public right-of-way. The applicant ' s proposal does provide for three (3) enclosed parking spaces (two (21 in tandem) and two (2) driveway parking spaces (one full-sized and one compact) . Given the additional parking space provided in the garage and the two (2) spaces provided in the driveways, staff is satisfied that the proposed garage configuration provides adequate on-site parking and meets the intent and letter of the Code. RCA 4/2/90 -3- (5165d) At the February 211, 1990 Planning Commission meeting, concern was raised that the driveway configuration would require or encourage vehicles to cross over the neighbor' s property to get into the driveway. Staff does not believe this is a legitimate concern as the approved plans indicate a low block wall (less than forty-two [421 inches in height) along the property line to the public right-of-way. This wall would effectively prohibit any vehicular ingress or egress over the neighbor' s property. Additionally, a condition was placed on the project that required the landscaped areas to be reviewed by the Director of Community Development to assure adjacent property compatability. 2. Inadequate Environmental Review: The appellant has indicated that the proposed project is not exempt under Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because " 'only. . . . small facilities and structures . . . . where only minor modifications are made. . . . . . ' fit this category" ; therefore, an environmental impact report is required. The quote from CEQA is taken out of context and is misleading. The extent of the remodel and addition essentially amounts to the construction of a new home. Under Class 3(a) of CEQA, " . . . in urbanized areas, up to three (3) single family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. " Additionally, the project also falls within the Class 1 exemptions of CEQA as *the project is an alteration to an existing : structure, i:s less .than 10, 000 square feet, is located in an area where all -public -services and facilities are available for maximum development of the general plan, and is not located in an environmentally : sensitive area. 3 . Coastal Development Permit: The appellant has stated that the project does not conform to the City' s Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The project as approved by the Planning Commission conforms to all development criteria contained within the Code. The mandatory findings required to approve a coastal development permit are discussed in the attached Planning Commission staff report. In this case, the Planning Commission determined that all mandatory findings were present. Summary: In response to the letter of appeal, staff believes that the subject conditional use permit and coastal development permit were processed in full compliance with both the letter and spirit of City and State requirements . A detailed analysis of the project is contained in the attached February 21, 1990 Planning Commission staff report. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. RCA 4/2/90 -4- (5165d) ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The City Council may approve the appeal by overturning the Planning Commission' s action taken on February 21, 1990 and denying Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 with findings . ATTACHMENTS• 1. Letter of Appeal dated March 5, 1990 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 21, 1990 . 3 . Draft Minutes of February 21, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. MA:TR: lab RCA 4/2/90 -5- (5165d) RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY O NUNTINI.-,TON a_ CALIF, FfiR � ?5 i eta March 5, 1990 Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Appeal from Planning Commission action CUP 89-57/Coastal Development Permit 89-32 As neighbors directly affected by the proposed building, we request that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach return to the Planning Commission the above project as being improperly processed and approved by them. The project requires "Zoning Standards Variance" approval and not a "Conditional Use Permit" for the additional story, the improper design of the angled driveway and encroachment into the required setbacks on the front and rear yard. The project also requires an adequate environmental impact report of the discretionary permits being requested from the city. Furthermore, we ask that the council direct staff to property document, analyze and report on the specific relief being requested by the applicant from the city' s zoning, subdivision and building codes. The details are as follows: Conditional Use Permit Vs. Standards Variance: The applicant' s request for a height variance is not a function of a conditional use or deprivation of right enjoyed by other neighbors-except for one neighbor, located directly across the street. What is the purpose of having zoning standards if it can be simply altered by an incorrect application for a Conditional Use Permit with no environmental clearance? They are asking to develop a home which will exceed, in square footage, the land area of their lot. They are also asking to be permitted to disregard existing covenants, conditions and restriction. While it is not the responsibility of the City to enforce the CC&R' s, it should not be approving projects which are in acknowledged direct violation of them. The design, as presented, is a farcical attempt to obtain approval for a full third story. The "open" railing on the third floor looks down directly into the bathroom of the front bedroom. Is this a new design concept? The applicant should be requested to go back to the drawing board. l •`r r c�n m� Mayor and City Council Page 2 March 5 , 1990 The parking layout in both the straight and turn-in garages allowed by the City allow one to park a car on the apron approaching the garage. The design, as proposed, will not allow one to park an automobile in front of the garage area without overhanging on the landscape. In other words, the nice sketches show a curved driveway, yet we know that automobiles cannot be "folded" to fit on the narrow driveways as shown. The result will be a trampling of landscape as drivers attempt to enter the garages "straight-on" . Coastal Development Permit: The staff report indicates that the first finding of fact required by the Coastal Development Permit is " . . .that the proposed project conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Land Use Plan. . . " How can staff support a project as being consistent, which requires so many variances from existing regulation? The project was before the planning commission because it deviated from existing regulation. There are numerous other concerns with the way in which the staff has ignored the city' s responsibility for upholding the requirements of the Coastal Act. Environmental Clearance: Staff indicated that the proposed project was "categorically exempt" from the requirements of CEQA. That is not so. Review of Class 3 exemptions indicates that only " . . . small facilities and structures. . .where only minor modifications are made. . . " fit in this category. Therefore, we believe that staff is in error in not reviewing the potential impacts of this project on the scale and character of the neighborhood, its shading of adjacent structures and the potential dangers of its vehicular entry design in a neighborhood which has "rolled curbs" . It is a tortured logic which states that this project will not have an impact on its site or to its neighbors. In conclusion, it is our hope that the City Council will remand this case, back to the Planning Commission, to be heard with complete, correct, and meaningful information. Specifically, we ask that the project be required to: 1 . Apply for a standards variances for: -Height -Number of stories -Encroachment into established building setback areas -Design of driveways which do not permit parking of cars without overhanging the required landscape areas v • Mayor and City Council Page 3 March 5, 1990 2. Obtain Coastal Development Permit for the above variances 3 . Provide full and appropriate environmental documentation of the above actions in the form of an Environmental Impact Report or Focused Report. As long time residents of the City of Huntington Beach, it is not our desire to "limit change" , but to insure that change contains the quality which we, and our neighbors, have enjoyed in this area. What is being proposed is simply quantity - without quality. The City can benefit from having a remodel and addition to this existing house which has the support and concurrence of the affected neighbors, not their opposition and mistrust. Send this project back to the staff and Planning Commission for proper and appropriate review and hearing. Respectfully Yours , William T. Dalessi Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association By: e Rosen, Chairman rchitectural Review Committee yO- y 575 WTD/kkm cc: City Attorney City Clerk California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission •:d y huntington beach department of community development STAff REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 21, 1990 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 APPLICANT: Bill Ridgeway Design DATE ACCEPTED: 5828 E. Second Street January 22, 1990 Long Beach, CA 90803 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY John & Debbie Briscoe March 23, 1990 OWNER: 1350 Avonrea Road . San Marino, CA 91108-2305 ZONE: R1-CZ (Single Family Residential-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: Remodel and addition to an existing single family GENERAL PLAN: Low Density dwelling including a Residential third ' story. Dwelling is proposed to have 4,994 EXISTING USE: Single family sq. ft. of habitable area and a 767 sq.ft. garage. LOT AREA: Approximately 5, 100 _sq. ft. LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 and Coastal Development . Permit No. 89732 with findings and conditions of approval. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 is a request. for a remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling which includes a gymnasium on the third floor. Article 9110.4 states that the maximum building height within the R1 zone is 25 feet and 2 stories. A maximum height of 30 feet and/or 3 stories is permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 is required as .the property is located within the non-categorical exclusion area of the Coastal Zone. A-F M-23C or 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: Rl-CZ (Single Family Residential- Coastal Zone) LAND USE: Single family dwelling North, West and East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1-CZ (Single Family Residential- Coastal Zone) LAND USE: Single family dwellings South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space Water ZONE: WR-CZ-FP2 (Water Recreation-Coastal Zone-Floodplain) LAND USE: Short Channel 4 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5 .0 COASTAL STATUS: Not .applicable. i The proposed project is adjacent to Short Channel and is within an appealable/non-categorical exclusion area of the Coastal Zone. . All projects within this zone are required to obtain approval of a coastal development permit in compliance with the provisions contained within Article 989 . 5. Section 989 . 5.4(6) states that in order to approve a coastal development permit, the Planning Commission must -make four (4) findings of fact: 1) that the proposed project conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and. standards of. the Coastal. L•and Use Plan (C-LUP) ; 2) that the proposed project is consistent with the CZ suffix and the base zoning district (Rl) as well as other applicable provisions of the .Huntington Beach Ordinance Code; 3) that the proposed project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner consistent with the C-LUP.; and 4) that the development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the. California Coastal Act . The proposed project, as submitted, conforms with the above requirements in that the project complies with the development standards contained within the Huntington Beach Ordinance. Code, is consistent with the C-LUP permitting low density residential -on the Staff Report - 2/21/90 -2- (4665d) i site, already has adequate infrastructure as the subject property is within an existing tract with infrastructure in place, and complies with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act since no coastal access exists at the site presently nor will exist after construction of the proposed project . 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes a remodel and an addition, including a third floor loft, to an existing single family dwelling. at 16391 Ardsley Circle. The proposed structure includes a stairway tower to a third floor exercise loft and attic area. Section .9080 .23 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code states that building height is determined by .the vertical distance from a referenced datum (existing grade) to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof and, in an R1 zone, the highest point of the roof shall not be more than five (5) feet above the maximum permitted height. Therefore, a single family dwelling with a maximum height of 25 feet could have the peak of .its roof at 30 feet. The proposed structure' s roof has a height of 28 feet as measured by Code with the peak of the roof at 30 feet above existing grade. The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the proposed project with the development standards. Section Issue Required/Permitted Proposed 9110 .4 Building Height 25 ft/2 stories 30 ft ./3 stories* 9110 . 5 Site Coverage 55% 54 . 5% (2, 781 sq.ft. ) 9110 . 6 Front setback 10 ft. side entry 10 ft. ** garage or 22 ft. front entry garage 15 ft. dwelling 16 ft. 11 ft. balcony 11 ft . 9110 . 7 Side yard setback 5 ft. 5 ft . 9110 .7 Rear yard setback 5 ft. 5 ft . * Conditional Use Permit requested ** Discussion of garage configuration below. Staff Report - 2/21/90 -3- (4665d) . The development, as proposed, has two garages at a 45 degree angle to Ardsley Circle, one with area for two cars in tandem and the other large enough to accommodate one car (three cars total) . The garage corners are setback 10 feet from the front property line. This is a hybrid garage configuration which the Zoning Code does not specifically address . A true front entry garage would require a 20 foot setback, while a true side entry garage would permit a 10 foot setback as requested. In either case, the intent of the code is to require two garage spaces as well as to allow the parking of two vehicles on the driveway without overhanging the sidewalk (see Attachments 3 and 4) . The applicant ' s unusual proposal would provide three garage parking spaces (two in tandem) , and two driveway parking spaces (one full sized and one compact) . Given the additional parking area to be provided within the garage, staff is s ' sfied that the driveway configuration provides adequate off�-s t parking. Also, since the garages are angled at 45 degrees, oii' he corners approach the 10 foot setback, with the roll-up doors((((( a gling away from the front yard. Staff believes that this configuration provides adequate on-site parking and front yard setback. The Commission, however, may . wish to condition that the one compact driveway space be expanded to full size. Article 9110 .4(a) requires that the Planning Commission consider the following guidelines when considering the request for a third story addition: (1) The proposed building shall not have a detrimental effect on the general health, safety, welfare or privacy of surrounding residents, or on surrounding property values . (2) The location, site plan and building design shall be harmonious and compatible with the streets, driveways, property lines, and surrounding neighborhood. .(3) The age and anticipated permanence of buildings on adjacent properties shall be considered. (4) The Commission shall consider any other criteria it deems necessary to preserve the health, safety, welfare 'and convenience of the neighborhood. The applicant ' s project will be constructed in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach. Ordinance Code, except height . A three-story structure exists directly across the street at 16386 Ardsley Circle. Privacy should not be negatively affected as the windows visible from the exercise room face towards the. street, not adjacent properties . Staff is recommending that the other windows or openings on the third floor which are accessible from the attic area be frosted or have some .other treatment acceptakile to the Department of Community Development to eliminate views into the adjacent properties. Staff Report - 2/21/90 -4- (4665d) i The proposed project including two on-site parking spaces will be compatible with the streets, driveways, property lines, and surrounding neighborhood. The building design is mediterranean in style with a red tile roof and should fit in well with the many custom homes in the immediate vicinity. Two petitions have been circulated through the neighborhood, one opposed to and one supporting the project . The one opposing the project was submitted by the Huntington Harbour Property Owner' s Association and argues that the project does not comply with the community' s CC&Rs in respect to building height and rear yard setback. The petition is signed by two officers of the association and eight property owners in the immediate of the subject property, six with Ardsley Circle addresses . The City historically has not enforced private CC&Rs as they are private agreements between the association and the property owners . The City' s jurisdiction is confined to the provision of the Zoning Code. The petition supporting the project was submitted by the applicant . The petition is signed by 33 property owners representing 20 properties in the immediate vicinity, 9 with Ardsley Circle addresses. Both petitions and maps to show who signed the petitions are a part of this report as Attachments No. 6 and 7. 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 with the following findings and conditions of approval: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 89-57: 1. The location, site layout as conditioned, and design of the proposed two story single family dwelling with a maximum height of 30 feet properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The structure is proposed to be consistent with the development standards contained within the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because it is consistent with the policies of the Land Use Element. 3 . The proposed three-story single family dwelling with a maximum height of 28 feet is not detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, or privacy of the surrounding residents, or on surrounding property values. The subject structure is proposed to be constructed- in compliance with all Huntington Beach Ordinance Code development standards and in accordance with the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Huntington Staff Report - 2/21/90 -5- (4665d) Beach. Privacy will not be affected as the windows on the third story visible from the exercise loft face the street and the other windows as conditioned will not permit views onto adjacent properties; therefore, no additional visibility onto adjacent properties will be present as a result of the increased building height and third story. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 89-32 : 1. The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 89--32 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the R1 zone as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed single family dwelling can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. The proposed development is within a tract which already has full public improvements. 4 . The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access exists presently, nor • will exist after construction of the proposed structure. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated December 21, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications:. a . Third floor windows or openings which face adjacent properties shall be frosted or treated to prohibit views into the adjacent properties . b. Roll-up garage doors shall be required. 2 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. b. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. Staff Report - 2/21/90 -6- (4665d) 3 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. b. A two (2) inch domestic/fire water service connection shall be required. c. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 4 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 6 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7: 00 AM to 8 : 00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 with findings. ATTACHMENTS• 1. Area map 2 . Narrative 3 . Diagram of typical side entry garage configuration 4 . Diagram of typical front entry garage configuration 5 . Reduced site plans, elevations and floor plans 6 . Petition opposing proposed poject 7. Petition supporting proposed project 8 . Letter in support of proposed project dated January 25, 1990 HS:TR:kla • Staff Report - 2/21/90 -7- (4665d) / DINGE AVE EDINGER ;a. I RI-CZ , >'G,Z �i \ RI-CZ a WR- Y sMH F Rl- .. 2'' :;.,__..•_�•RI-C - j Y:' •• /I ,! o RI PRELIAE RI-CZ: RI C a p c1 SUITE /mac WR Z-Fp2 R}C2' ` P LN. MINUET RIU /! q/c. �_�, R/•CIIw +rq cr z �r� � 2 �rr . '...s�� I q�r;v �'~d" s RI RHAPSODY RI-CZ ` RI'CZ RI CZ 1 y�� F 'RI-CZ> .ieoKrciiw:----• 1. ��1/ Ri- RAC i' �� wR RI-CZ ^ crFPz <OPERETTA a / II// /S RI c.`¢RI cz'RlCZJ RI-CZ '� �s �r�t\ - J L� N 'T' 8' ^O� _ .._......D6 T fc,uE r1[R lCENARq 4, < ' /C� � RJ,c 4 ; R, e� RI-CZ 4. �� /C2 �R�' CI o •':3;:; !IlRER w I R 2 oy / M M IEIL -Z-FP2 /ems I �/t CHRISTIANA !0 waoo W P R3 600 lT.62 ✓1 Z,� p , �Qti .,.R. R p CF-E+o R/ G1; ...ao:F •.:7.-,,....n,_CF-R R2 R3 _ V STAR `s '� c� RI-CZ j ��.�+7' Cfi - I.•PRaw. P J �PICKWICK CR 8RANF Gti .M!YMhM:YA z zz RI'CZ Y ��" pc+• `��c �Py R3 R2 R2 �C��ti �;� �•, �_` �J., yr � G,� wR-crFPz v ft�" ..�.-,.,..__�L �\,G la`g��-= '�,1, /.�`` /�• `_\ N ., RI-CZ f.L b }� PF.ARCF f CUP8 3-10-45-7 CD P89-4%-3z �- - HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION S • ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT n Response to required written narrative Item # 11. 11a. This application is necessary to allow construction of a residence in the R1-CZ zone pursuant to Article 911 , Section 9110. 1 (c) . This section allows for building heights of (30) thirty feet subject to a Conditional Use Permit. It has been determined that the new added off-street parking (new three car garage versus old prior two car garage) eliminates possible ground floor exercise room location. Maintaining existing bedroom count at four in both prior and proposed eliminated an exercise room on the second floor. New garage space and keeping bedroom counts the same left only one option: a third floor loft as proposed. The high point of the exercise loft roof peak exceeds ( 25) twenty-five feet and thus requires this approval as noted in the Code discussion of " . . .either a third floor or thirty feet. " 11b. Humboldt Island is a re-developing residential area serving single families. The newer of these homes in the area exceed the (25) twenty-five foot height limit and many have been built with three. stories. Lot 36 almost directly across the street is three stories high. Additionally, the roof line of Lot 41 (16362 Ardsley Circle) exceeds the (25) twenty-five height limit on the same street as the proposed project. llc. The project will consist of a single family residence on an existing site with established utility services. 11d, All the surrounding uses are single family homes in this R1-CZ zone. Pag e e - 1 �+Jwe44 r r , .. 1 v SIDE ENTR-Y- G-P\?L.AGrE 60' 1Jwe.11in _., � jA dla 9 5 Gara,o�e. ON -S I-T&I j A4"W 16� T r i ` nL... I=RON7- EN` fkY GARAGG7 fi Ipwe�►;� � J. 9 � t Al 9 1 � 9i t SP�ctS i�i��ur�� t A4" .001 . scab. C.i.�R J J u cl�.r =INfTY MAP �F-X'5.I{J6 (_)STO¢T MN-r-7 R:SI�uGE, AOW-csca f /, =vrcwrr _y_ I -F•--- :-o T— o , ' r 0 0 J zz— amm_it... ._ SITE PLAN - - '�� 01 �_SCP:�Yh.!: T'►!z�1. 50 cmrl 5L4- !•}+O M7�?CA A �.il rwa..JC.Ci.�'IYO!•2fo� (f 1�J�Dl{T21 5D20 E 2—STL�' i ,,..%.5 r.Z., j t B � r I � I I 1 I I t i I I I '�� :;.� I�� III ' . . RE9IDE►JTIAL� +i�MdDEL I I I I i i i I � I � '�•�X� i �'u� 1 1 � � -I ,..i•4 �'r'•I I i II I IJo I I QR i I �tN'B�Isco�i T Il 6,39t II II `. ARD9L HUNTiNQ N G i � � gut• , i ,x.$.I ! ; , I I ,` ,�o � �vi�,Naa��aa I ; � i I ;� �►�� • ,�;. I I i 3 iII'� i � f1�,11 i 3 � w 41 IL Milli e i _ JLJ - • I � I I I r � I i I - a ' i \ 4g a I � I � b Q - • If��ll �,�. • I I i RF.ti1DEN1IAL' REM13 ;6 I CD albN J` ill I 1 fI :1 IR ku l R 11,'� ICL wr I - i 4 • j 1 I 0 0 ®®, I 3 o -o j L� EDI LJJ LIilk 1 - IAs 'EJ r s� , i I 1-..1• ` i i ` R$ �DENCIt�I. �E DELI 1. r . � �6� ARDB '• }:np •�„ 1� �f _ 1 I n El ! ❑ _o F= -n o rn a o � t O ❑ — Z o I, 1 i 77 IL i 0fe 1-- i r, RE9IDENTIW REMtlDEL; k tl ' it I II it iiii R.-Ii�� '`V.� 7 I1 FO�: i 'Jbl1N BRISCDI 41 I � lj , 1 I i h fi 9� ARI DSiLEY I �RCLE IIINT2ICTON° �EAG�11.� CA� I i I � I � I i I I�•�y'�I I I f�•'-C1 I I Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. P. 0. BOX 791 SUNSET BEACH, CALIF. 90742 90742 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2000 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 190 P � HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 RE: CUP 8957 AND CUP 8932 DEFAR-rNiENj OF NT COMMUNITY DEVE•LOFME DEAR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: PLANNING DIVISION THE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION (HHPOA) AND THE RESIDENTS OF ARDSLEY CIRCLE WHO ARE SIGNATORIES HERETO, OPPOSE THE GRANTING OF ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR 16391 ARDSLEY CIRCLE BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLANS SUBMITTED, FOR THE—KOELOWINE, REASONS: 1. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY IS MADE UP PRIMARILY OF ONE AND TWO STORY RESIDENCES LIMITED TO HEIGHTS NOT EXCEEDING TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET. AN ADDITION OF A RESIDENCE EXCEEDING TWENTY FIVE FEET WOULD ' NOT BE HARMONIOUS OR COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. 2. THE ADDITION OF A RESIDENCE EXTENDING FIVE FEET HIGHER THAN ITS IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS MAY INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE ONE RESIDENCE, BUT ALSO MAY MAKE THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES LESS DESIRABLE AND THEREFORE DECREASE THEIR VALUE. 3. THIS AREA OF HUNTINGTON HARBOUR WAS DEVELOPED PRIMARILY TO LIMIT SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES TO TWO STORIES, AS EVIDENCED BY THE DECLARATIONS OF LIMITATIONS COVENANTS, CONDITIONS RESTRICTIONS D RESERVATIONS CC&R s . THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WERE AWAREIS RESTRICTION WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. PAGE 1 IF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS GRANTED THKN THE OTHER RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON HARBOUR WILL BE • OBLIGED TO SEEK CIVIL ACTION AGAINST A NEIGHBOR TO PREVENT VIOLATION OF THE CC&RCS . ACTIONS OF THIS NATURE DO NOT ADD TO THE GENERAL WELFARE , HEALTH OR SAFETY OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS . 4 . THE PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR 16391 ARDSLEY CIRCLE SHOW A GARAGE ENTRY THAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE TWENTY ( 20) FOOT SETBACK ( 10 FOOT FOR SIDE ENTRY GARAGE) REQUIRED BY THE CITY AND THE CC&R' s . YOUR SUPPORT IN MAINTAINING THE BEAUTY AND THE COMPATIBILITY OF HUNTINGTON HARBOUR IS SINCERELY APPRECIATED . SIGNED ; ` p NAME ��ll DA ADDRESS .0, Z '7`Z/ , Cam e)77 2 n J NAME /j ADDRESS It 13i- &�tA_otkt �•l�• �� Zb�/y NAME "z ADDRESS /63,��C / (.�c/lc.� Qt V 265 NAME ADDRESS NAME You k 1 ADDRESS 5 7 A ` . H S NAME 1 ADDRESS 14 3G/ �./' SLR Cam- NAME ADDRESS A;;; �6/491Akz 4u 4ftvz, NAME U • '�S. — l� ADDRESS 1 3la NAME - /G ADDRESS NAME Y 8f 2 . ADDRESS L �� n��r 9zGyI NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PAGE 2 374;1 375 J 3762 / 37 . a� 3771 3781 LJ 3702 781 3791CRO a 16 1641 3801 3791 3802 3801 r r� if) •J .4 i I i i�X 1 1 Y6r 1 6426 3812 3811 ; Ic�p9��O IsJj� ✓�f 3872 382 ICpSJ 16pyy 6•)G J,16ps 16356 3932 831 f-j BIMINI Qs s o IJ 1 i��l psc Is��cs d� J 3842 334 �c1 c 16J, 1 C Icy ,. - _�'`, l �.3 .: Z qi JBp 630 ISJ IS d� Al ^' i _+ _� 1-1 b� IsJ �1 G312 a I6 ol 1 6)cd Ic? 16246 ) /�s �,� c �cb eJyl 1 6j 162 s �y 625 �1b 6JJ6 0%�' 4, bt. C. 6`,p• IG� s�C16 S6 r' °�' c�`•�_ - [_,-�A 0 �yb tbVb`b4 1G�)J�1 Y i61�6� �Ip ^+ 1G19 BONAJR 16 Cy11 d� ^ b` ,�a b�, bb bb� I�?B 16�:66 61p✓ 620 �� _-� �--- 1621 +`- / / I ! 0 0 •� G� r---- r ^0dy16 6p�j Hybl O ti� �b4 O qbb n 16 B� J It, 5 1�j 16212 1622 n )f21G .0 _ �' 1 �/ 6 _ o •c q v vj 1 `�1•- Je?26 r 0�0o a ^� °O �j ��,0 .fit °V '0� 16 •a�l 61j6 �_ I �f � F- Ir r �' rn a o+ o• N f�16'16Jj? q °+°1°q`OT vCO� � 0� •p O �S1 7j�'16,62q? 6111 ~ � � $ Y e ar. N ►�- 160 s J�6 o a O 2 I C Is1 JB1 4032 T504 +�, o ccti`' r 16rs 6 ts111 d1Nt1S �\ 4052 N-1 ✓ ✓ �1•IS � l6•pJl 4051 I �� ✓ 4062 r m m N ��aQ "� I1 ra ✓ r~- o m o "' �� 406J 4072 N N 0.m N J 1 rsj 1S1 0 slprJl P YN G 4072 11 C 13NNd. 1s 61'1 1�a Is1S �6 0 0 = 4oe� �`� V O rQ 1s1o11dr d 61s. /641 . aka 4'yJl f `-1 Hof a 1�. 1s1 r sio pI J? 410 J- r rB • 16 i 62�/rsr+ s`'r `•� r srm rb 1J �� s �° _ a 6 �C 8 61 e� ''o. rs 1v d��lc 1 ------ ------ ----- 6 MF1yTF C alll r. ro1 rr, 012 aV" S, --- r 1v1 WIMOLEDON - 16252 16235 R ST�6 sr v °lyr 41,514 4171 r r 1 1624 6236 4��TFR rs rsrcl S� °1lps 41p1 aI °` 1624 62g2 . 1J0 Oq 1r Y `IQ. S`� pIJ i �0 I r r <� >� C1 -n m, MANDALAY CR. 62g6 6�1 a, p1 sl N c' 16�1? N N 1°.+ J6?31 6252 622 N o p1sISS �� P1 �1 C 421. N ^' "' J62 t• 62 6 a a ✓ ref �_- ��SSS...000 L N m . +. SS 2 626 1621 J p Y m ✓ I - O 4221 or. a 626J 2 Co W `^ v 1 4231 ° rJ- 1626616235 I_.. _.---•--"--- �1..._ FOREST NILLS-_ - 1 + i A > > Z m = O ! O i > m A r m m + I MONTERFY ! DR i ME 2 GHBOR TOTp, L PLAN APPROVAL NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REVIEW & APPROVAL OF BRISCOE PROJECT STATEMENT OF APPROVAL We, the undersigned, have seen and reviewed the proposed plans for the remodel of the existing single family residence at 16391 Ardsley Circle, H.B. We feel this will be an asset to the neighborhood with no adverse environmental impact, and further request that this proposal be passed as submitted. PRINT NAME ADDRESS APPROVED 1. Gary Pazornik 16362 Ardsley Circle YES 2. Barbara Pazornik 16362 Ardsley Circle YES 3 . J. Kelly Harrison 16412 Ardsley Circle YES 4. Bill Marshall 16386 Ardsley Circle YES 5. Norma Marshall 16386 Ardsley .Circle YES 6. Ervin Ruzics,M.D. 16396 Ardsley Circle YES 7 . Linda Ruzics 16396 Ardsley Circle YES 8. Neil Klein,M.D. 16365 Ardsley Circle YES 9. Evelyn Klein 16365 Ardsley Circle YES 10.D. Everett Lee 16392 Ardsley Circle YES 11.K. Richardson 16375 Ardsley Circle YES 12.Sondra Blau 16376 Ardsley Circle YES 13 .Danny Lee Jones 16412 Ardsley Circle YES • 14.R. T. McAlpine 16412 Barnstable Circle YES 15.Jean McAlpine 16412 Barnstable Circle YES 16.Larry Williamson 16542 Barnstable Circle YES 17.George Locke,M.D. 16462 Barnstable Circle YES 18.Allison Locke 16462 Barnstable Circle YES 19.Susan Marks 16432 Barnstable Circle YES 20.Mel Marks,M.D. 16432 Barnstable Circle YES 21.Frank Law,M.D. 16441 Barnstable Circle YES 22.Ed Dempsey 16482 Barnstable Circle YES 23 .Millie Dempsey 16482 Barnstable Circle YES 25.Robert Lund 16472 Barnstable Circle YES 26.Joan Lund 16472 Barnstable Circle YES 27.Lund Associates 16471 Barnstable Circle YES 28.Jeff Englehart,M.D. 4006 Humboldt Drive YES 29.Vilma Englehart 4006 Humboldt Drive YES 30.Betty Lou Evans 3952 Humboldt Drive YES, 31.Tom Evans 3952 Humboldt Drive YES 32.Justin Kramer 3972 Humboldt Drive YES 33 .Jean Kramer 3972 Humboldt Drive YES 5 7 g A P P R O VA L 35 Total Homes f 20 APPROVE On -OC 04 JN °,� 3 5 �' ota4L Homes r`1! P ,, •Q 20 .A P P R O V E $ .8 HUMBJLOT •' AlU EAD LINE M riD fI i s� A MEAD LIMP fo �, t 3D lJ � 2 nJ rr 11 1Ctt 19 afv. gqr��H.0Li1rffLL r, ICy L! oe RrwT,t�'' ue O • • ray-o Ter-e yr • ® � � 17 W It/ AC. �� 4 - rJr] AFAD LAW CC! Q • nB Q m >K,6 % - �fr µ wr NEAO LINE (ANT /ERNEAD ` w N �M ��?�• �r THE AWAS 04.94" IY►rN►N LOTS Ir JAm 31 TAD OES/6NerED DV ARABIC M/NERALS 1 • — AND LETTERS DELINEIri AREAS *Wm 2 rr�,.; •4 O (Z ` i T —- ARE APPURTENANT AND ALLOCATED TO A e-• r l rip W ' 1 i M r f �, L LOTS BEARIM CORRESPONDING LOT Nr-/ A 1 r,f.• Ir,-I rJ1-I � - NUMBERS. . ADRLOT G•I � 1 �A7W 1�OT C• rff- r� (A END !•' - , A - ACCESS WA VS O- DECK AND RAMP AREAS S- BOA! SL/PS M• M'NARfIrr AIARCN I y� ASSESSOR'S mAr ROOK 170 PAGE 06 O COUNTY Of ORANGE xs 0jvi4R0v r 35 Total Homes j 20 APPROVE We, the underbigned, have Been and reviewed the proposed plans for the remodel of the existing single family residence at 16391 Ardsley Circle , H. B. We Seel this will be an asset to the neigh- borhood with no adverse environmental impact, and further request. that this proposal be passed as submitted . PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE I 2. - '� _ - (' 1 Ste" �� r 4 4.'1 1 38/. l ?. 1-i rj-CA S Amt d e,I CI-. 106 13S VA/_ �� Wr 15, Tvo / �c � v16 _�" l �tG Y 40 i"►u its L� �� /�X �, �c., s - 17, 18. n 19. Fv-., A,ot Z&Aaa /6VY1 20 e 35 Total Homes 20 APPROVE We. the undersigned , have seen and reviewed the proposed plane for the remodel of the existing single family residence at 16391 Ardsley Circle , H. A. He f eel this will be an asset to the neigh- borhood with no adverse environmental impact, and further request that this proposal be passed as submitted. PRINT NAME ADDRESS ( - SIGNATURE 2. 3• w yzT S d 5 e 4,-g7 Xxdxs 1I;rs4C 6. 8. _'J5TINIC1ZAMO- H7z 14bNi-Bv,t>T 'DR . J u / 9. -1 6 A4N K 2 A M E'e- 3 9 7- /a u A4(3 0c 10, ,✓s 11 . fp 0 Al - 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. i . 35 Total Homes 20 APPROVE WIE: DEC3r M IB (D YZ 13 A ]PP' R ) V JAL T. a � 5 -a C . U . P . 300 FEET NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION REVIEW & APPROVAL OF BRISCOE PROJECT STATE14ENT OF APPROVAL We, the undersigned, have seen and reviewed the proposed plans for the remodel of the existing single family residence at 16391 Ardsley Circle, H.B. We feel this will be an asset to the neighborhood with no adverse environmental impact, and further request that this proposal be passed as submitted. PRINT NAME ADDRESS APPROVED 1. Gary Pazornik 16362 Ardsley Circle YES 2. Barbara Pazornik 16362. Ardsley Circle YES 3 . J. Kelly Harrison 16412 Ardsley Circle YES 4. Bill Marshall 16386 Ardsley Circle YES 5. Norma Marshall 16386 Ardsley Circle YES 6. Ervin Ruzics,M.D. 16396 Ardsley Circle YES 7. Linda Ruzics 16396 Ardsley Circle YES 8. Neil K1ein,M.D. 16365 Ardsley Circle YES 9. Evelyn Klein 16365 Ardsley Circle YES 10.D. Everett Lee 16392 Ardsley Circle YES 11.K. Richardson 16375 Ardsley Circle YES • 12.Sondra Blau 16376 Ardsley Circle YES 13 .Danny Lee Jones 16412 Ardsley Circle YES 14.R. T. McAlpine 16412 Barnstable Circle YES 15.Jean McAlpine 16412 Barnstable Circle YES 16.Larry Williamson 16542 Barnstable Circle YES 17 .George Locke,M.D. 16462 Barnstable Circle YES 18.Allison Locke 16462 Barnstable Circle YES 19.Susan Marks 16432 Barnstable Circle YES 20.Mel Marks,M.D. 16432 Barnstable Circle YES 21.Frank Law,M.D. 16441 Barnstable Circle YES 22.Ed Dempsey 16482 Barnstable Circle YES 23.Millie Dempsey 16482 Barnstable Circle YES 25.Robert Lund 16472 Barnstable Circle YES 26.Joan Lund 16472 Barnstable Circle YES 27.Lund Associates 16471 Barnstable Circle YES 28.Jeff Englehart,M.D. 4006 Humboldt Drive YES 29.Vilma Englehart 4006 Humboldt Drive YES 30.Betty Lou Evans 3952 Humboldt Drive YES 31.Tom Evans 3952 Humboldt Drive YES 32.Justin Kramer 3972 Humboldt Drive YES 33.Jean Kramer 3972 Humboldt Drive YES 5 'z 35 Total Homes 20 APPROVE 5 7 C . U . P . 3 U U NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL ARDSLEY CIRCLE SOUTH HUMBOLDT from ARDSLEY SOUTH TO BRIDGE ARDSLEY CIRCLE NORTH HARROLD & CAROLYN NORING JEFFREY & VILM ENGLERARt GARY PAZORNIK - 90-WAKITA 16361 Ardsley Circle Res: 1987 4006 Humboldt Drive Res: 1973 16362 Ardsley Circle Res: 1989 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 25 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 56 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 160 (714) 846-7940 Inprov: $ 81 Lot 224,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 7,200 APPROVED APPROVED Tax IDI: 178-062-24 House: 3,432 NEIL & EVELYN KLEIN CARL & GWEN PHILLIP 16365 Ardsley Circle Res: 2986 16366 Ardsley Circle Res: 1983 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 363 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 44 (714) 592-2950 Improv: $ 53 APPROVED Lot 240,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,100 Tax IDf: 178-062-40 House: 3,215 LARRY & DIANE WEBSTER 5 MY & DOLORES BALL 16371 Ardsley Circle Res: 1977 16372 Ardsley Circle Res: 1969 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 206 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 67 (714) 846-1730 Inprov: $ 95 (714) Improv: $ 70 Lot 226,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 Lot 239,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 Tax ID1: 178-062-26 House: 2,925 ARDSLEY CIRCLE POINT Tax ID#: 178-062-39 House: 3,372 GLENN & KATHLYN RICHARDSON RUTH MORE ROBERT & SONDRA BLAU 16375 Ardsley Circle Res: 1966 16401 Ardsley Circle Res: 1986 16376 Ardsley Circle Res: 1987 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 59 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tadand: $ 74 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tadand: $ 58 (213) 592-3055 Improv: $ 92 APPROVED Lot 231,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 6,600 APPROVED Tax ID#: 178-062-31 House: 3,376 CHERYL ORR & VI PHELPS KELLY (JOHN) HARRISON NICHAEL & CATHY THOMAS 16381 Ardsley Circle Res: 1978 16402 Ardsley Circle Res: LA, CA 1 16382 Ardsley Circle Res: 1981 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 59 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 69 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Tadand: $ 89 (714) 840-1425 Improv: $ 111 (714) 840-2351 Inprov: $ 78 Lot 228,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 APPROVED Lot 237,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 Tax IDI: 178-062-28 House: 2,776 Tax IDI: 178-062-37 House: 3,176 (Attorney-Riedmn,Dlsy,Dybns) BILL & MARGO DALESSI [Bill Work(213)436-52031 DANNY & PHYLLIS JONES BILL & NORM MARSHALL 16385 Ardsley Circle Res: Orange,CA 16412 Ardsley Circle Res: 1977 16386 Ardsley Circle Res: 1976 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxIand: $ 325 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 281 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 110 (213) 592-2323 Improv: $ 184 Lot 229,Block 062,Tract 5461 Lot Size: 4,978 APPROVED APPROVED Tax ID#: 178-062-29 House: 3,740 JOHN & DEBBIE BRISCOE ERVIN & LINDA RUZICS BARBARA & EVERETT LEE 16391 Ardsley Circle Res: 1989 16396 Ardsley Circle Res: 1989 16392 Ardsley Circle Res: 1986 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 454 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 273 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaQnd: $ 63 CDP CUP APPLY' APPROVED APPROVED TOSHIBA 123 A:\AMSLU\C-V 35 Total Homes / 20 APPROVE 5 '7 C . U . P . JUU r'Ek;ll NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL BARNSTABLE SOUTH HUMBOLDT between ARDSLEY & BARNSTABLE BARNSTABLE NORTH TON & BETTY LOU EVANS RICHARD & JEAN NcALPINE f952 Humboldt Drive Res: 1982 16412 Barnstable Circle Res: 1974 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 54 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 25 APPROVED .. APPROVED GERALD 'JERRY" & BEVERLY URNER (Computr Sls] GENE & ELLIOTT 3962 Humboldt Drive Res: 1986 16422 Barnstable Circle Res: LA, CA Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 351 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 423 (714) 846-4342 Inprov: $ 164 (213) 277-2659 Inprov: $ 234 Lot 222,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 Lot 219,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,294 Tax ID►: 178-062-22 House: 3,332 Tax IDI: 178-062-19 House: 2,360 JUSTIN & JEAN KRAMIER [USC HA Organs&Bells] KELVIN & SUSAN NARKS (MID-PEDIATRICS) 3972 Humboldt Drive Res: 1985 16432 Barnstable Circle Res: 1986 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 . TaxLand: $ 56 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Ta6nd: $ 402 APPROVED APPROVED Office: (714) 847-2595 Pacifica Hlth FRANK LAW (Single/Divorced) MD.) rJ � � DAVID & EVELYN MAYBERRY (Repblcn Prty] 16441 Barnstable Circle Res: )16442 Barnstable Circle Res: 1981 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 59 (714) 840-6B69 Inprov: $ 65 APPROVED Lot 217,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 BARNSTABLE POINT Tax IDI: 178-062-17 House: 2,879 CORRADO & BARANA ELSIE & ATKINSON LARRY & JOANNE WILLIAMSON (Inventor-breathng] 16451 Barnstable Circle Res: 185 16441 Barnstable Circle Res: LA, CA 16452 Barnstable Circle Res: 1987 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 464 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 466 (714) Liprov: $ 171 Lot 208,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 5,000 HOUSE NOT OCCUPIED APPROVED Tax IDI: 178-062-08 House: 3,564 DARRELL & CROSBY ALBERT & ZEKARIA GEORGE & ALLISON LOCKE (Neurosurgon & Janaca] 16441 Barnstable Circle Res: Orange,CA 16492 Barnstable Circle Res: 1979 16462 Barnstable Circle Res: 1979 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TuLand: $ 325 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 Taxiand: $ 66 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 350 (714) 840-3382 Inprov: $ 184 Lot 209,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: 4,978 NO OPINION APPROVED Tax IDf: 178-062-09 House: 3,740 Office: (213) 964-5728 LUND ASSOCIATES (mother of Robert Lund) EDWARD 'ED' & NILLIE DEMPSEY ROBERT 'BOB' & LUND [Attorney] 16411 Barnstable Circle Res: 16482 Barnstable Circle Res: 1971 16472 Barnstable Circle Res: 1973 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 71 Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 TaxLand: $ 66 (114) Inprov: 400t Size: 5,084$ 98 Lot 254,Block 062,Tract 5481 Lot Size: APPROVED Lot 214,Block 062,Tract 5481 L Tax IN: 178-062-54 House: Tax IDl: 178-062-14 House: 3,959 TOSHIBA 123 A:\ARDSLEY\C-U•-'------ 35 Total Homes j 20 APPROVE 1 / • ,• Ili . • •� 1 ♦ .) . i 1 Ab • 1 � ` � •� al • •, • • \ 1 1 I• ' ,• • . Wft 11 ► � / ' t • As DRAFTi f B-3 ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 89-57/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 APPLICANT: BILL RIDGEWAY DESIGN LOCATION: 16391 Ardsley Circle Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 is a request for a remodel and addition to an existing single family dwelling which includes a gymnasium on the third floor. Article 9110.4 states that the maximum building height within the R1 zone is 25 feet and 2 stories . A maximum height of 30 feet and/or 3 stories is permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is adjacent to Short Channel and is within an appealable/non-categorical exclusion area of the Coastal Zone. All projects within this zone are required to obtain approval of a coastal development permit in compliance with the provisions contained within Article 989 . 5 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 with findings and conditions of approval . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bill Ridgeway, 5828 E. Naples Plaza, Long Beach, applicant, spoke in support of the request. He asked if condition l(a) could be modified to read, "to be determined during construction if there is a problem. " He said he agrees to all other conditions and urged the Commission to approve. John Briscoe, 16391 Ardsley Circle, owner, spoke in support of the request . He gave a short history of the construction and said the proposed addition will not present any view impairments and feels it will improve his neighborhood. He said his designs are consistent with all CC&Rs of his Association which do allow heights up to 30 feet . He agrees with all conditions of approval imposed by staff and urged the Commission to approve. Debbie Briscoe, 16391 Ardsley Circle, owner, spoke in support of the request. She said she is very anxious to complete the proposed addition and remodel of her home and feels it will be beneficial to the neighborhood. T � _ Af�� PC Minutes - 2/21/90 � -3- (5120d) i i Joe Rosen, 16915 Edgewater Lane, Chairman of the Homeowners Architectural Review Committee, said the committee rejected these proposed plans because they did not feel they were harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood and felt that the proposed driveway would present a safety hazard. Chuck Bohle, 16431 Barnstable Circle, addressed his concerns with the proposed design. He said there are eight three-story homes on the island which are mostly located on the main channel . He does not feel a three-story home is consistent at this location. W. T. Dalessi, 16385 Ardsley Circle, felt it was unfair that a property owner has only four minutes to voice opposition to a project yet the applicant has months to establish good relations with staff and the Commission. He said Mr. and Mrs. Briscoe are "spec builders" and feels they will overbuild this house, sell it and move on, and the adjacent neighbors will be there forever. He does not want to live next door to a house that resembles a high rise. He feels that 5,761 square feet is definitely an overbuild for this location. His main objection is to the proposed location of the garage with the driveway having a 45 degree angle. He feels this will make an unsafe condition. Joan Peoples, 16184 Mariner Drive, realtor, spoke in support of the request. She feels the owners have taken all necessary steps to improve the home and make the neighborhood more desirable. She feels the remodel will upgrade the values of the adjacent homes . Robert Lund, 16472 Barnstable Circle, said he looks directly across the channel at the proposed home and feels it will be an enhancement to the area. Julie Lund, 16472 Barnstable Circle, said she lives across the water from this home and also feels it will be an improvement. She read into the record a letter from another adjacent homeowner (Dr. Locke, 16462 Barnstable Circle) . Joan C. Lund, 16472 Barnstable, spoke in support of the proposed request. She said she will be the most visually impacted and feels it is an improvement. Margo Dalessi , 16385 Ardsley Circle, said she is not objecting to the remodeling of a home, however would like to views, light and air protected and would like safety insured. She feels the proposed driveway is unsafe. She said the applicant received signatures on his petition after holding a meeting at her house with the concerned neighbors . She felt that he presented misleading information to the neighbors . i Cheryl Orr, 16381 Ardsley Circle, said she is opposing losing her view or her sunshine. She plans to stay in the area permanently and hates to see a spec house in the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 2/21/90 -4- (5120d) Bill Marshall, 16386 Ardsley Circle, said his plans for a three-story home was denied by the Architectural Committee and that he was responsible for killing the grass in the area because of his three-story home across the street. He spoke in support of the plans . Norma Marshall, 16386 Ardsley, said to give a facelift to a 25 year old home is beneficial. She said she improved her home a few years ago and caused a lot of commotion in the neighborhood. She doesn' t understand why people object to changes and does not feel that this home is a "spec" home. Ruth Moore, 16481 Ardsley Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. She feels this house will block the views of all adjacent homes except for the one on the corner. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A suggested amendment was made to condition l. a which stated that "the condition shall be reviewed at first framing inspection and may be waived if it is determined that privacy to the adjacent properties has been preserved" . Also, an added condition requiring review of all landscape areas by the Community Development Director to assure adjacent property compatibility. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Shomaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-57: 1. The proposed three-story dwelling does not have a detrimental effect on the general health, safety, welfare and privacy of the surrounding residents or on surrounding property values . The proposed structure will be constructed in compliance with all Huntington Beach Ordinance Code development standards and in accordance with the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Huntington Beach. Privacy will not be affected as the windows on the third story visible from the exercise loft face the street and the other windows as conditioned will not permit views onto adjacent properties; therefore, no additional visibility onto adjacent properties will be present as a result of the increased building height and third story. PC Minutes - 2/21/90 -5- (5120d) 2 . The location, site plan and building design are harmonious and compatible with the streets, driveways, property lines and surrounding neighborhood. The property is located within a cul-de-sac; therefore, the possibility of a traffic conflict pulling out of the subject drive is minimal . The proposed project is located on Humboldt Island which already has 15 homes with a third floor. Additionally, there is a two-story home located on each side of the subject property. 3 . A majority of the homes on Humboldt Island were constructed* in the mid to late 1960s . As a result of the increasing land values, numerous remodels/rebuilds are occurring and will continue to occur throughout the island. The proposed three-story dwelling is compatible with the recent remodels/rebuilds on the island. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 89-32 : 1. The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the R1 zone as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed single family dwelling can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. The proposed development is within a tract which already has full public improvements . 4 . The proposed single family dwelling conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access exists presently, nor will exist after construction of the proposed structure. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated February 14, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications : a. Third floor windows or openings which face adjacent properties shall be frosted or treated to prohibit views into the adjacent properties . This condition shall be + reviewed at first framing inspection and may be waived if it is determined that privacy to the adjacent properties has been preserved. PC Minutes - 2/21/90 -6- (5120d) - s t a b. Roll-up garage doors shall be required. c. Landscape areas shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director to assure adjacent property compatibility. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. b. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit . 3 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. b. A two (2) inch domestic/fire water service connection shall be required. c. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards . 4 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department . 5 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 6 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7: 00 AM to 8 :00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. PC Minutes - 2/21/90 -7- (5120d)