Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPub Hear Appeal Councilmembers Cook & Bauer Planning Commiss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK November 2, 2001 Debra True 17171 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Ms. True: Please find enclosed the August 20, 2001 minutes of the regular meetings of the City of Huntington Beach City Council/Redevelopment Agency at which there was action taken regarding the following: (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer of the Planning Commission's Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 (Applicant Debra True for a Block Wall at 17171 Westport Drive, n/o Courtney Lane) Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk Enclosure gJfollowup/appeaftlnute letter 2001.doc (Telephone:714536-5227) File Notes Office of the City Clerk Huntington Beach, California SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS ON ON DELIVERY --- ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete �Rpec b (Ple P'nt Clear1 Date o livery item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. )e �V y ■ Print your name and Address on the reverse C. Signature s that we can return the card to you. a= / ❑Agent ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. X L� ❑Addressee D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1? ❑Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No Deja True 17171 Westport Dr. Huntington Bch. , CA 92649 3.�Se(rvice Type Y'�Certified Mail ❑Express Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number(Copy from service label) "109g 1220 0001 5-7-79 %030 PS Form 3811,July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-00-M-0952 PAAN City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190-2000 Main Street ,Huntington Beach, California 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us From the desk of: Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk Telephone: (714) 536-5404 Fax: (714) 374-1557 (5 31 o1 GZ� ark ao 7b AW 7 / 4, %wz7z� a� 79 Z'7 6�2*� 711"--�- 4-2 t at z' -t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. ANNUAL REVIEW AND MONITORING REPORT—DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Request: Annual review of the Downtown Parking Master Plan addressing building activity between June 1, 2000 and June 1, 2001 Location: Downtown Specific Plan area (generally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Acacia Avenue and Second Street) Proiect Planner. Wayne Carvalho *X2. APPEAL FILED BY MAYOR PRO TEM DEBBIE COOK AND COUNCIL MEMBER RALPH BAUER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF COASTAL.DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.01-06 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09(TRUE BLOCK WALL): Applicant: Debra True Appellants: Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook and City Council Member Ralph Bauer Request: Appeal of Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 to permit the construction of a combination 4-foot high retaining wall and a 6- foot high block wall with a total height of ten (10)feet, along the rear property line of a through lot, in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height. Location: 17171 Westport(west side of Westport Drive, approximately 45' north of Courtney Lane) Proiect Planner: Paul Da Veiga NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is covered under Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2, approved in conjunction with the Downtown Specific Plan. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 2 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 2 is located in the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06, filed on February 2, 2001, in conjunction with the above request. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 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 the City Clerk's Office after Friday,August 17, 2001. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If.there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (g:1ega1s:CCLGFRM2) CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: © — P TMEl "I': 1�1.;r.1+J�.1 1i. MEETING DATE:DE p I . CO ACT: I=' .tL_ bah► VC 452A_ PHONE:_ X /AAl )S Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(andlor Redevelopmeat Agency)hearing? Are the date,tday and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) ( ( ) If an appeal,is the appecant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? I . Is a map attached for publication? ' Is a larger ad required? Size ( } ( ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ; - Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) (✓f ( ) Are the appellanes name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) (V f O - if Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mafling labels? I ( ) (VI, ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? ( ( ) ( ) Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept items only) Pleas complete the following: - 1. Minimum days from publication.to heating date 2. Number of times to be published ' 3. Number of days between,publications 21 0 Dependable Business Services CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS/RESIDENTS LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT -7 7 j A-&-r97e r f lid. E-1-4y►'t"i (/= THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM METROSCAN,A DATA SOURCE, UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED. r� 6" 0— DATE: ;o "-Oa IS 9TOUT DEPENDABLE BUSINESS SERVICES,INC. 871 N Maplewood St, Orange, CA 92867 (714) 744-2845 Fax (714) 744-5123 Pager (714) 804-2097 Email: dstout@socal.rr,com Web Site: dbsinc.org zmootn reea meets �•� L� DI`' p .-fG ZC vim' of `C use temptate im :).Lou- - 78 282 09 1 178 282 10 2� 178 282 11 r 3 dichael•&June Machara Hugh E&Laurie D Conners III Syed Najeebullah 7121 Courtney Ln 17152 Westport Dr PO Box 1132 iuntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Lakewood CA 90714 78 282 12 4 178 282 13 5 178 282 14 5 Aildred Kuraoka Robert D Yates Jonathan&Janet Townsley 7122 Westport Dr PO Box 2388 17102 Westport Dr iuntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 78 283 06 7 17828307 8 17828308 9 Nilliam M Schoenfeld Kenneth R Jackson Lory Eugene&Sharon L Larson .7105 Westport Dr 17111 Westport Dr 116812 Baruna.Ln iuntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i Huntington Beach CA 92649 _78 283 09 10 178 283 10 11 17828311 12 3arold Quan Julia BaUy Chris Tsimerekis !7141 Westport Dr 171 Westport Dr 17161 Westport Dr 3untington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 L 78 283 12 13 178 283 13 14 178 284 04 15 vlark S True Charles L&Jo Ann Pedersen Marcus A Deemer 17171 Westport Dr 17181 Westport Dr 17136 Courtney Ln 3untington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 j :78 284 05 16 178 284 06 17 178 284 07 18 "oseph&Kathleen H Moore Dennis R ONeill Robert N Hanson 7142 Courtney Ln PO Box 2209 17158 Courtney Ln -iuntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach.CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 [78 284 08 19 178 284 09 20 17828410 21 "harles C Bennett Daniel&Rina Barton Robert&Deborah Snedden 17164 Courtney Ln 17170 Courtney Ln 17178 Courtney Ln 3untington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 17828411 22 178 284 12 23 178 284 13 24 'ohn&Nancy Weingarden Ernest A Ramirez William A Sosnowski .7186 Courtney Ln 17192 Courtney Ln 17198 Courtney Ln 3untington.Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 .78 284 14 25 17828415 . 26 178 284 16 27 Wta Scrofani John&Kimberly Evans Joseph C Scheitzach .7206 Courtney Ln 17214 Courtney Ln 17220 Courtney Ln funtington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 .78 284 17 28 17828418 29 178 29121 30 William Ruskin Wood John W Cronn Sheldon Grossman .7226 Courtney Ln 17232 Courtney Ln 17131 Edgewater Ln iuntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 n� AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® C-D�� p�_o(o f cv ersl—01 --WL uiNiaLr iur 71ou- 178 291 26 17829202 33 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR MARINA Jay&Nancy Snelson LLC 17132 Edgewater Ln 17141 Edgewater Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 178 292 03 34 17829204 35 17829205 36 Mari L Webster Terry F Stelzer Edward A Devlin 20 Eugenia Way 17148 Edgewater Ln 17156 Edgewater Ln FIillsborough CA 94010 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 17829206 37 17829207 38 17829208 - 39 Dinko Klarin Shahin M Mahallatti John Szot 17164 Edgewater Ln 17172 Edgewater Ln 17180 Edgewater Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 178 292 09 40 17829210 41 17829211 42 foseph L Schwartz Richard E Willsie Stuart C Shorr 17188 Edgewater Ln 17187 Roundhill Dr 17179 Roundhill Dr 4untington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 178.292 12 43 17829213 44 178 292 14 45 ?eter B Shores GARRETT GEORGE N 3RD Joseph A Falcon 17171 Roundhill Dr 17163 Roundhill Dr 17155 Roundhill Dr 4untington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 178 292 15 46 17829216 47 178 29217 48 rail Goldberg Stoter Jack C Smiley Wayne&Debra Schindler 17147 Roundhill Dr 17139 Roundhill Dr 17131 Roundhill Dr iuntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 .78 292 18 49 Cheodore C Patten .7127 Roundhill Dr iuntington Beach CA 92649 178-291-22 Ira Toibin 17141 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 *AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a NOTICE of h'S-HEREBY IVEN PUBLIC HEARING GIVEN that Item No. 1 is covered under! resident of the County aforesaid; I am BEFORE THE CITY Environmental impact over the age of eighteen years, a i nd not a COUNCIL OF THE Report n nur ap:; CITY OF proved n cojurictiorr I party t0 OC interested in the below HUNTINGTON with the Downtown spe BEACH ci is Plan. NOTICE IS HEREBY NOTICE IS HEREBY entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of GIVEN that on Monday, GIVEN that Item No.2 t categorically exempt' August.20, 2001, at 7:00 from the provisions of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT a p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000, Main I Env California Environmental Quality newspaper o general circulation, printed Street, Huntington 'Act. and published in the City Of Huntington Beach, the City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY will hold ll public hearing GIVEN that Item No.2 is' on the following planning located in the non-ap- Beach, County of Orange State of and zoning items: pealable jurisdiction of 1. ANNUAL REVIEW the Coastal Zone and in AND. MONITORING RE- cludes Coastal Develop- California, and that attached Notice is a PORT - DOWNTOWN ment Permit No. 01-06, true and complete copy as was printed PARKING MASTER- filed on February with I PLAN: Applicant: City of ,2001, in conjunction with and published in the Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Plan- Ithe above request. Wing Department Re- ON FILE:A copy of the quest: Annual review of proposed request is on and Fountain Valley issues of said the Downtown Parking &fit in the City Clerk's Of- master Plan addressing ,fice, 2000 Main Street; newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: building activity,between .Huntington Beach,-Cali-' June 1, 2000 and June fomia 92648, for inspeo- 11 2001 Location: Down- tion by the public.A copy town.Specific Plan area i of the staff report will be (generally bounded by available to interested Pacific Coast Highway,'i;parties at the City Sixth.Street, Acacia Av-I Clerk's Office after Fri- enue and Second day August 17, 2001. Street)'Project Planner: ALL INTERESTED AL1gUSt 2, 2001 Wayne Carvalho PERSONS are invited to 2. APPEAL FILED BY attend said hearing and MAYOR PRO TEM express opinions or DEBBIE COOK AND submit evidence for or, COUNCIL MEMBER against the application RALPH BAUER OF THE as outlined above. If you PLANNING COM challenge the City Coun- Ideclare, under penalty of perjury, that MISSION'S APPROVAL sirs action in court,,you OF COASTAL DE- maybe limited to raising the foregoing is true and correct. VELOPMENT PERMIT only those issues you or NO. 01-06 AND.CONDI- someone else raised at TIONAL USE PERMIT the public;-hearing de- NO. 01-09 (TRUE scribed in this BLOCK WALL): -Appli- notice, or in written cor- Executed on AUgUSt 2 2001 cant: Debra True Ap- respondence delivered I pellants: Mayor Pro Tern to the City at,or prior to, at Costa Mesa, California. Debbie Cook and City" the public 'hearinany It Council Member ,Ralph! there are any further Bauer .Request: Appeal questions please call the of Coastal Development Planning Department at Pgrmit .No. 01-06 and 536-5271 and refer to, Conditional Use Permit: the above_items. Direct' No. 01-09 to permit the& your written communica- construction of-a combi tions to the City.Clerk. nation 4-foot high retain- Connie Brockway, ing wail and a 6-foot high. Grey Clerk, block wall with,a total "� of height of ten (10) feet, Huntinggtton Beach, along the rear property 2000 Nlaitt Street, 2nd Floor, line of a through lot, in lieu . if ` the 42-inch' Signature maximum height. Loca- HCalifornia Beach,6 tion: 17171 Westport; (714) 5365227 (west side of Westport Published Huntington Drive, approximately 45', Beach• Independent y ) August 2, 2001 081-113 north of Courtney Lane I Project Planner: Paul Da • n `# 0l--n��Gc�to 64- ps 3 PUE HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST`°B" MAILING LABELS—Pee,ngnr-_--eee_ G_iabels\Lssbds//\Public H ' oC./Oo"L O/ President 1 Huntington Harbor PO A 10 -FANS 16 H.B.Chamber of Commerce P.O.Box 791 oha Njiles 2100'main Street,Suite 200 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 9425 Castlewood Circle Huntington Beach,GA 92648 tiagton Beach,CA 92648 Judy I.egaa 2 William D.Holman 11 Sue ohnson 16 Orange County Assoc.of Realtors LC 196 1 Quiet Bay Lane 25552 La Paz Road 2 Corporate Plaza Drive Hun' n Beach,CA 926 8 Iaguaa Hills,CA 92653 wport Beach CA 92660-7912 esident 3 Mr. •m Zanic 12 Edna 'ttlebury 17 s De Bolsa C ' New rbaa West Gidu S Mob.Hen.Own Legg. 16531 Bo ' a Street,Suite 312 520 B dway Ste. 11021 din Blvd H on Beach, 2649 Santa ca,CA 90401 Garden ve,CA 9264 Sunset Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres., .Hirt Sodetp- 13 Pacific C t Archaeolog cal 18 Pat Thies,President C/O N d House Museum Society,In PO Box 215 19820 Be ch Blvd: P.O.Box 1 926 Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0 5 Hun' Beach,CA 92648 Costa Mesa, 92627 Atta:Jane thold resident 5 Communi Services De t. 14 County of O /E 19 uatiagton Beach T morrow Chairperson Nfuuchael M. e, O Box 865 Historical Res urces Bd. P.O Box 4048 92648 Santa Ana,CA 9 7 2-4048 Julie Vaadermo 6 Council on 15 County of OMAn 19 BIA C 1706 Orange A Thomas � 9 F-%= tive a#100 Huntington Bea 92648 P.O.Box 4048 Irvine. 92 14 6734 Santa Ana,CA 2702 8 Ricbard pi 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Planning De mt 19 SCAG Seacliff HOA Oange Co ty EMA 818 W t 7th, 2th Floor 19391 Shady r e P.O.Box Los_ des, 90017 Huatmgtoa B ch,CA 2648 Sacra Ana, 92702-4048 E. X Corra1100 8 John Roe 16 Caaaty f Orange/EMA 19 b Bell Seaclitf H A qin er 0292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 S e Lane PJD. ox 4048 umtmgton Beach,CA 92 Hunti ngt Beach,CA 92 Ana,CA 92702-4048 Frank Caponi 9 Lou one 16 P Dir. 20 Environmental Board C tatrrnnn Sea . HOA of Costa Mesa 6662 Glen Drive 198 Ocean Bluff Circle .O.Box 1200 HuuiiVoa Beach,CA 92647 H tuigtoa Beach CA 92648 Caeca Mesa,CA 92628-1200 PUBLIC' UUNG NOTIFICATION CIUCKLIST ULING LABELS—February 2,2001 G:La17ds\Ube1s`Public Hearing Planning Dir. 21 r.Duane Dishno 29 ovatry Yew Estates HOA 37 City of Fountain Valley City Elementary School Dist a Thomas 10200 Slater Ave. 2 51 Craimer Lar� G 2 Trotter Drive untain Valley,CA 92708 H tington Beach,CA 92648 tington Beach CA 92648 Planning ctor 22 j uchanan 29 Co Yew Estates HOA 37 City of Wes ' s HB ty Elementary School Di Geral Chapman 8200 Westmins Blvd. 2045 Craimer Lane 6742 Circle Westminster 83 Hun' gton Beach,CA 92648 Huntca n Beach CA 92648 P1 Director M James es 30 HB tons HOA 37 City Seal Beach Ocean ew Elemeatary Keystone acific Prop.M gmt Inc. 21 ght St. School tact 16845 Vo Karman Aven ,Suite 200 al Beach,CA 90740 17200 P urst Lane Irvine,CA 2606 Huntingto Beach CA 92 7 California Coastal Commission 24 Barbara Win 31 Sally Grah 38 Theresa Henry Westminster chool Di ct Meadowlark ea South Coast Area Office 14121 Ced od Ave' a 5161 Gelding ' e 200 Oceaagate,IOth Floor Westminster 9268 Huntington B ch, 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Califomia Coastal Commission 24 Patricia Koch 32 Cheryle Brow ' 38 South Coast Area Office HB Union High of Disrict Meadowlark Ar 200 Oceangate,loth Floor 10251 Yorktown enue 16771 Roosevelt ane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beac 92646 Huntington Beac CA 92649 bert Joseph 5 CSA 33 Hearthside. es 39 s District 12 730 El Canino ay 00 6 Executive e, 'te 250 33 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Tustin,CA 92 0 Irvine,CA 9 14 CA 92612-1699 Directo 26 I Goldenwest liege 34 Bolsa Chic Land This 40 ',ocal Soh Waste Ea£ Attn:Fred wens Naary I) oQan ).C.Heal' Care Agency 15744 Gol enwest St 4831 Los atos O.Box 3 Huntin Beach CA 926. 7 Huatin Beach,CA 9 49 ata Ana, 92702 .w Growls Co ator 27 OC C ty Harbors,Beach 35 Bolsa . 'ca Land Trust 40 iatington Bea ost Office and P Dept Evan eary,President (71 Warner Av . P.O. ox 4048 1812 ort Tiffin Place hatiagton Be h, 92647 San Ana,CA 92702-4048 Ne ort Beach,CA 92660 Mrc Eck- 28 ` H tington Beach Mall 36 J Scott 41 Fcuatain alley Elementary ool Dist. :Pat Rogers-Laude HBNA I-P10 -Street I 77 Edinger Ave.#300 032 Capistrano Lane Foun Valley CA 92708 untington Beach CA 92647 untington Beach,CA 92646-8309 cr - 100 178-282-10 178-283-10 Occupant Occupant 178-283-11 17152 Westport Dr. Occupant 17151 Westport Dr. Huntognton Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17161 Westport Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 178-284-09 178-284-10 Occupant Occupant 178-284-11 17170 Courtney Ln. 17178 Courtney Ln. 17186 Courtney Ln. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 . 178-292-10 178-292-11 178-292-12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17187 Roundhill Dr. 17179 Roundhill Dr. 17171 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 178-292-13 178-292-14 Occupant Occupant 17163 Roundhill Dr. 17155 Roundhill Dr. . Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 (DomesticU.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT Only; C3; Article Sent To: m 21 Ob'd �* E Postage $ N r`- t_f) Certified Fee Postmark rq Return Receipt Fee Here O (Endorsement Required) C3 Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) C3 Total Postage&Fees $ r mName(Please Print CleerW(To be completed by mailer) [P• Street Apt.No.;or PO Box Na. Er O -^ _. N City,State,ZIP+4 3800,July 1999 See Reverse for Instructions CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: August 26, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL01-27 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved Denied PefP Cler s ignature Alt Al G tj- Council Meeting Date: August 20, 2001 Department ID Number: PL01-27 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COU IL MEMBERS o SUBMITTED BY:''f B( ,RAY SILVER, City AdministratorfV1 4- C) PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09/COA TAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 01-06 (True Block Wall) w Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for the City Council's consideration is an appeal by Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook and City Council Member Ralph Bauer of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit 01-06. This application represents a request to construct a 10-foot high combination retaining and block wall at a zero-foot setback along the rear property line of a through lot. The Planning Commission conditionally approved the project and is recommending the City Council uphold the conditional approval since it is consistent with similar block walls existing along Westport Drive and is consistent with recently approved block walls within the subject tract. Staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission and is recommending that the City Council approve the request with the suggested conditions of approval because the recommended design provides a two-foot wide landscaped planter creating a visual buffer and increased setback from the adjacent sidewalk (Attachment 5.2). Staff has worked with the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association to develop a block wall design that provides visual uniformity and an additional setback to the rear of these through lots. The recommendation is consistent with prior block wall approvals in the area and establishes a design for future block wall developments along Westport Drive. PL01-27 8/6/01 3:35 PM I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL01-27 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with findings and conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2001 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planning Commission Action on April 24, 2001: THE MOTION MADE BY MANDIC, SECONDED BY BORDEN, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 01-06, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, KOKAL, KERINS, MANDIC, BORDEN, HARDY NOES: NONE ABSENT: SHOMAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with findings for denial." CAtfactiiaenf 6� 2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Debra True, 17171 Westport Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Location: 17171 Westport Drive (West side of Westport Drive, approximately 45' north of Courtney Lane) PL01-27 � 8/6/01 3:35 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL01-27 Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 represent a request to allow a 10-foot high combination block wall and retaining wall at a zero setback along the rear property line of a through lot, exceeding the maximum height of 42 inches, pursuant to Chapter 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The subject property is a through lot and has frontages on Westport Drive and Roundhill Drive. As a result, the subject property is subject to a 15-foot front yard setback at both the front and rear of the property. Section 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code indicates that fences or walls within the setback of a through lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height, however, deviations from the maximum height requirements may be permitted subject to an approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. The proposal consists of a six-foot high block wall on top of a 4-foot high retaining wall along the rear property line of a through lot abutting an18-inch wide sidewalk (Attachment 5.1). The applicant has'requested development of the block wall to allow for more usable space within the rear yard. The property is currently developed with a 6-foot high wooden fence approximately 14 feet from the rear of the house at the top of the existing slope. The homes along Westport Drive were developed as through lots and are located at a substantially higher grade than the adjacent street (Roundhill Drive), located at the rear of these properties. As a result, a number of these homeowners have filled the sloping portion of their rear yards and developed retaining/block wall combinations to allow for increased rear yard area. The resulting condition is a mixture of the original slopes and block walls ranging from 7 feet to 14 feet in total height. B. CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY: The applicant was cited for the construction of a block wall without a permit in August of 2000. The inspection revealed that excavation activities were occurring at the subject site and soil was encroaching onto Roundhill Drive. On September 1, 2000, a follow-up inspection revealed that the soil had been removed from the public right-of-way. Since the notice of violation, the property owners have brought the property into compliance. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Zoning Administrator approved the project on April 4, 2001. The applicant appealed the project on April 16, 2001. The primary reason for the appeal was Condition 1(a) that requires that a two-foot wide landscape planter be provided along the rear property line. The applicant appealed this condition as it results in a two-foot reduction in the usable rear yard area. On June 26, 2001 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the proposed project. There were a total of five persons who testified in favor of the proposed project and PL01-27 4- 08/10/01 8:26 AM 3 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL01-27 three who testified in opposition to the block wall. Neighborhood residents who testified in opposition to the block wall cited several concerns. The residents noted the excessive height of the wall as viewed from homes along Roundhill Drive (facing these walls), the materials used for construction, the visual change caused by the loss of the landscaped slope area, and the lack of uniformity among similar walls that have been constructed in the neighborhood. Residents who testified in favor of the project cited the precedent that has been created in the neighborhood, and the rights of the property owner to make use of their property. The Planning Commission concurred with staffs recommendation and approved the proposed block wall adding a condition that split-face block shall be used to match prior block wall approvals. The objective of the Commission in approving the application was to create a design for block walls along double frontage lots, which would provide a landscape setback and allow for uniformity along the street frontages. The recommended 2-foot wide planter reduces the visual impacts to residents along Roundhill and softens the scale and mass of the proposed 10-foot wall while providing the applicant with an adequate rear yard. D. APPEAL: On July 6, 2001, Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook and City Council Member Ralph Bauer appealed the Planning Commission's action (Attachment No. 2) citing that the project is not in compliance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. The applicant has applied for discretionary approval under a conditional use permit to the Zoning Administrator that was approved and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission under appeal. The conditional use permit process allows deviations to the development standards for fencing. The following section is an analysis of the request along with staffs recommendation. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The main issues to consider when reviewing this request are design/compatibility issues with the surrounding properties and visual impacts to residents along Roundhill Drive. Design/Compatibility The lots on Westport Drive were developed as through lots with a substantial grade differential from the street (Roundhill Drive) directly behind these properties. As a result, all of these properties have a substantial slope. Some residents have maintained their slope and have planted ice plant and various other types of landscape material while others have filled their slope and developed retaining/block walls along the rear property line. The resulting condition is a mix of the original slopes and block walls, some of which were built at the rear property line and others that are setback with a landscape planter. PL01-27 08/10/01 8:26 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL01-27 Staff has worked with the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association for the past six years in an attempt to bring a compatible and uniform block wall design to this neighborhood. The recommended design is for block walls along the rear property lines of through lots to be provided with a landscape planter. Recommending similar block wall designs for future requests will result in a more compatible and uniform streetscape along Roundhill Drive. Two other,properties along Westport Drive have been developed with a similar block wall design that incorporate the landscape planter. As recommended by staff, the block wall design will be compatible with recently approved walls in the immediate vicinity and result in a streetscape that is attractive, compatible and in conformance with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. Guidelines for retaining and block wall combinations along the rear of through lots were approved under Resolution No. 1381 on May 1, 1987 (Attachment 5.3). The first alternative for the wall design consisted of a maximum six-foot retaining wall located at the rear property line followed by a maximum six-foot high block wall, set back five feet from the rear property line. The second alternative provided a three-terraced approach with a maximum 6-foot retaining wall at the rear property line followed by another retaining wall set back three feet from the property line, and finally a third wall set back six feet from the property line. The recommended design provides a two-foot setback to the rear property line which allows the applicant to increase the amount of usable rear yard by five feet and still provide a landscape buffer protecting views from Roundhill Drive. The guidelines which were established under Resolution 1381 would result in a substantial loss of usable rear yard, and would only allow the applicant to increase the usable rear yard area by one to two feet. Visual Impacts Staff believes that a 10-foot block wall along the rear property line, with no setback or landscaped area would have an adverse visual impact for residents along Roundhill Drive. The Design Guidelines indicate that wall sections greater than 50 ft. in length should incorporate an 18-inch raised planter into the block wall design to allow for landscaping which will soften the appearance of the block wall. In addition the General Plan contains policies such as LU 9.2.1.e which states that adequate landscape setbacks should be provided along street frontages and should be integrated with abutting sidewalks to allow for continuity throughout the neighborhood. The maximum height of a block wall on a through-lot within the 15-foot setback is 42 inches. However, because of the unique configuration of the subject lots, staff has processed requests for block walls exceeding the maximum height requirement by recommending a two-foot wide landscape planter. The two-foot wide planter minimizes visual impacts by providing a setback that minimizes the mass and scale of the wall as one is standing or walking on the sidewalk. PL01-27 =g- 8/6/01 3:35 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL01-27 F. SUMMARY Staff recommends that the City Council approve Coastal Development Permit 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit 01-09 with conditions based on the following: ♦ The two-foot planter with the appropriate landscaping will soften the scale and mass of the block wall and provide an additional setback from the sidewalk along Roundhill Drive. ♦ Similar block wall requests have been approved and constructed in the nearby vicinity and staff has recommended approval with the addition of a landscape planter to minimize visual impacts. ♦ The 2-foot wide landscape planter will act as a visual buffer to the 10-foot wall for residents along Roundhill Drive that will have direct views to the rear of the subject property. Environmental Status: The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section Class 1, Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the establishment and maintenance of a combination block and retaining wall involves negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that previously existing, therefore no further environmental review is necessary. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description ` 1. Suggested Findings/Conditions of Approval (PC Recommendation) 2. Appeal letter to the City Council dated July 6, 2001 331 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 26, 2001 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 26, 2001 5. Alternative Block Wall Designs RCA Authors: PD/HF 6. sw jj9 estcd frh a f'?gS f'er- .Ae,0 is/ PL01-27 71- 8/6/01 3:35 PM 6 6,T-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY August 24, 2001 CITY CLERK Debra True 17171 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Dear Ms. True: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, August 20, 2001 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer of the Planning Commission's Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 (Applicant Debra True for a Block Wall at 17171 Westport Drive, n/o Courtney Lane). The City Council did not sustain the Planning Commission action of April 24, 2001. The action taken by the City. Council denied the Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with Findings for Denial (Alternative Action No. 1). The Action Agenda and Findings for Denial are enclosed. The August 20, 2001 minutes of the denial of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. THIS IS A FINAL DECISION. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1094.6 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA YOU HAVE NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THIS NOTICE TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at(714) 536-5227. Sincerely, 7 Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6 Suggested Findings for Denial Action Agenda Pages 8-9 cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Paul DaVeiga,Asst. Planner g1followup/appeal/90dayltr.doc (Telephone:714-536-5227) PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, on August 24, 2001, 1 served the foregoing documents(s) described as: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Debra True 17171 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 a, [X] BY MAIL-- I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach, California. I am "readily familiar"with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. b. [ ] BY MAIL-- By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California, addressed to the address shown above. c. [ ] BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee. d. [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named above. e. [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to no. INSERT FAX NUMBER. . I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 24, 2001, at Huntington Beach, California. - N*--- CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1094.6 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and _ party defined; ordinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency,other than school district,as the term local.agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government.Code,or of any commission,board,officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section.1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date onwhich the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision,or for a written decision or written findings supporting the decision,in any applicable provision of any statute,charter;or rule,for the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not announced at the close of the hearing,the date,time,and place of the announcement of the decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration,the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the expiration of the period during which'such reconsideration can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written decision or written findings,the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is mailed by fast-class mail, postage prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or*certificate of mailing,to the party seeking the writ. Subdivision(a) of Section 1013 does not apply to extend the time,following deposit im. the mail of the decision or findings,within which a petition shall be filed. (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by*the local agency or its commission,. board,officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 190 days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcn'bing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the transcript of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer,the final decision,all admitted exhibits,all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission,: board,officer,or agent,all written evidence,and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision(c)within 10 days after the date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision(b),the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record-is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has one: (e) As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5. suspending,demoting,or dismissing an officer or employee,revoking, denying an application for a permit,license, or other entitlement,imposing a civil or administntice penalty,fine, charm or cost, or denying an application for any retirement-benefit or allowance. (f) Iri making a final decision as defined in subdivision(e),the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision,"party"means an officer'or employee who has been suspended,demoted or dismissed;'a person whose permit,license,or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended,or whose application for a permit,license,or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter, unless the conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a.shorter statute of limitations,in which case.the shorter statute of limitations shall apply. (Amended by Stats.1983, a 818, § 3; Stats.1991,c. 1090 (,LB.1484),16; Stats.1993, a 926(A.B.2205); § 5; Stats.1995,c.898(S.B.814),$ 1.) ATTACHMENT NO. 6 0 o z ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 0 C COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/ = _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 � a (TRUE BLOCK WALL) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 for the development of a combination 10-foot retaining/blockwall in the rear yard of a through lot does not conform with the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program. The proposed wall will negatively impact public views because of the loss of the landscaped slope area. 2. The project is not consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, and other.applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. A ten-foot block wall is not a permitted use in the RL-(Residential Low Density)zone and requires approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed increase in the allowable height of the block wall from 42 inches to ten feet will have a negative impact to residents who live on Roundhill Drive and those who travel the sidewalk adjacent to the subject property because of the scale and mass of the proposed wall. 3. The proposed development has been provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure is currently in place,therefore, no further improvements to the infrastructure shall be required. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreation exists on the subject site,therefore,no impacts exist. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for the establishment and maintenance of a 10-foot high combination retaining/block in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height at a zero setback in lieu of the minimum 15-foot setback,will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall consists of a six-foot block wall on top of a four-foot retaining wall resulting in a loss of the landscaped slope thereby impacting the view of adjacent property owners. The proposed 10 foot block wall will be out of scale with the adjacent sidewalk. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 2. The conditional use permit for the 10-foot combination retaining/blockwall will not be compatible with surrounding properties because the adjacent property to the south has a landscape slope. The proposed wall will result in a lack of continuity between adjacent properties. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for a ten-foot high combination retaining/blockwall will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Code allows block walls with a maximum of 42 inches along the rear property lines of through lots within the required 15-foot setback. The request exceeds the maximum height limit by six feet, six inches. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential,Low Density on the subject property and the following policy of the General Plan: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. (LU 9.1.2.b) As a result of its scale and mass, the proposed wall will visually dominate the street scene along Roundhill Drive and result in inadequate landscaping at the rear property line. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal Olsr24 (8) August 20, 2001 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 8 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing is requested to complete the attached pink form and give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms located near the Speaker's Podium. D-1. (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer of the Planning Commission's Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 (Applicant Debra True for a Block Wall at 17171 Westport Drive n/o Courtney Lane) (420.40) Public hearing to consider: Applicant: Debra True Appellants: Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer Request: Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer to the Planning Commission's Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 to permit the construction of a combination 4-foot high retaining wall and a 6-foot high block wall with a total height of ten feet, along the rear property line of a through lot, in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height. Location: 17171 Westport Drive (west side of Westport Drive, approximately 45' north of Courtney Lane). Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this agenda item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Coastal Status: Notice is hereby given that this agenda item is located in the non- appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06, filed on February 2, 2001, in conjunction with the above request. On File: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 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 the City Clerk's Office after Friday, August 17, 2001. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct you written communications to the City Clerk 1. Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing 4. Following public input, close public hearing (Continued on Next Page) (9) August 20, 2001 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 9 *"Communication and petition submitted by Carole Garrett on August 14, 2001 listing approximately 34 signatures of persons opposing CUP No. 01-09. "*Communication from Marilyn Willsie, dated August 14, 2001 in opposition to CUP No. 01-09. Recommended Action: Motion to: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with findings and conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2001 (Attachment No. 1). [City Administrator recused himself as his residence is in the vicinity,] [DENIED CUP No. 01-09 with findings for denial on Attachment No. 6 (5-2 Green, Garofalo No)] CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK August 24, 2001 California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 10" Floor Long Beach, CA 90801-4302 NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06 Applicant: Debra True Appellants: Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer Request: Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer to the Planning Commission's Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 to permit the construction of a combination 4-foot high retaining wall and a 6-foot high block wall with a total height of ten feet, along the rear property line of a through lot, in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height. Location: 17171 Westport Drive (west side of Westport Drive, approximately 45' north of Courtney Lane). Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this agenda item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Coastal Status: Notice is hereby given that this agenda item is located in the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06, filed on February 2, 2001* in conjunction with the above request. On August 20, 2001, the Huntington Beach City Council denied Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 with Findings for Denial (Alternative Action No. 1). g:/followup/appeal/coastal comm/cdp 01-06.doc 1 (Telephone:714-536.5227) The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Green, Garofalo ABSENT: None Sincerely, d't'r'� Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:jh Enclosure: Suggested Findings for Denial cc: Debbie Cook, Mayor Pro Tem, Huntington Beach Ralph Bauer, City Councilmember, Huntington Beach Ray Silver, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Paul DaVeiga, Asst. Planner g:/followup/appeal/coastal comm/cdp 01-06.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO. 1 r; SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL cao, c COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.01-06/ _ _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 0 C-) cap b. (TRUE BLOCK WALL) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06: I. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 for the development of a combination 10-foot retaining/blockwall in the rear yard of a through lot does not conform with the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program. The proposed wall will negatively impact public views because of the loss.of the landscaped slope area. 2. The project is not consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,the base zoning district, and other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. A ten-foot block wall is not a permitted use in the RL(Residential Low Density)zone and requires approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed increase in the allowable height of the block wall from 42 inches to ten feet will have a negative impact to residents who live on Roundhill Drive and those who travel the sidewalk adjacent to the subject property because of the scale and mass of the proposed wall. 3. The proposed development has been provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure is currently in place,therefore, no further improvements to the infrastructure shall be required. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreation exists on the subject site,therefore,no impacts exist. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for the establishment and maintenance of a 10-foot high combination retainingiblock in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height at a zero setback in lieu of the minimum 15-foot setback,will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall consists of a six-foot block wall on top of a four-foot retaining wall resulting in a loss of the landscaped slope thereby impacting the view of adjacent property owners. The proposed 10- foot block wall will be out of scale with the adjacent sidewalk. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 2. The conditional use permit for the 10-foot combination retaining/blockwall will not be compatible with surrounding properties because the adjacent property to the south has a landscape slope. The proposed wall will result in a lack of continuity between adjacent properties. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for a ten-foot high combination retaining/blockwall will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Code allows block walls with a maximum of 42 inches along the rear property lines of through lots within the required 15-foot setback. The request exceeds the maximum height limit by six feet, six inches. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential, Low Density on the subject property and the following policy of the General Plan: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. (LU 9.1.2.b) As a result of its scale and mass,the proposed wall will visually dominate the street scene along Roundhill Drive and result in inadequate landscaping at the rear property line. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Indicates Portions of the Meeting not included in the Statement of Action 5:00 P.M. - Room B-8 7:00 P.M. - Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Monday, August 20, 2001 An audiotape of the 5:00 p.m. portion of this meeting and a videotape of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Call to Order Mayor Julien Houchen called the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Roll Call Present: Green, Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen, Garofalo, Dettloff, (Bauer arrived at 5:04 p.m.) Absent: None Reconvened City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting -7:00 p.m. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Roll Call Present: Green, Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen, Garofalo, Dettloff, Bauer Absent: None (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer of the Planning Commission's Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 (Applicant Debra True for a Block Wall at 17171 Westport Drive, n/o Courtney Lane) (420.40) Mayor Julien Houchen announced that this was the time scheduled for a public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: Debra True Appellants: Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer Request: Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook and Councilmember Ralph Bauer to the Planning Commission's Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 to permit the construction of a combination 4-foot high retaining wall and a 6-foot high block wall with a total height of ten feet, along the rear property line of a through lot, in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height. 4 Location: 17171 Westport Drive (west side of Westport Drive, approximately 45' north of Courtney Lane). Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this agenda item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Coastal Status: Notice is hereby given that this agenda item is located in the non- appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06, filed on February 2, 2001, in conjunction with the above request. A motion was made by Dettloff, second Bauer to deny the Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and.Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with Findings of Denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 6). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Green, Garofalo ABSENT: None Adjournment—City Council/Redevelopment Agency Mayor Julien Houchen adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, August 27, 2001 at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. /s/Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: /s/Connie Brockway /s/ Pam Julien Houchen City Clerk-Clerk Mayor-Chairman STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach ) I, Connie Brockway, the duly elected City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on August 20, 2001. Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this 24th day of August, 2001. /s/Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California B : Deputy City r } Y ATTACHMENT NO. 6 0 c ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO. 1 2_ SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL C _ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/ = i CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 C- A (TRUE BLOCK WALL) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 for the development of a combination 10-foot retaining/blockwall in the rear yard of a through lot does not conform with the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program. The proposed wall will negatively impact public views because of the loss of the landscaped slope area. 2. The project is not consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,the base zoning district, and other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. A ten-foot block wall is not a permitted use in the RL-(Residential Low Density)zone and requires approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed increase in the allowable height of the block wall from 42 inches to ten feet will have a negative impact to residents who live on Roundhill Drive and those who travel the sidewalk adjacent to the subject property because of the scale and mass of the proposed wall. 3. The proposed development has been provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure is currently in place, therefore,no further improvements to the infrastructure shall be required. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreation exists on the subject site, therefore, no impacts exist. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for the establishment and maintenance of a 10-foot high combination retaining/block in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height at a zero setback in lieu of the minimum 15-foot setback, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall consists of a six-foot block wall on top of a four-foot retaining wall resulting in a loss of the landscaped slope thereby impacting the view of adjacent property owners. The proposed 10- foot block wall will be out of scale with the adjacent sidewalk. CDP 0 1-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01 sr24 2. The conditional use permit for the 10-foot combination retaining/blockwall will not be compatible with surrounding properties because the adjacent property to the south has a landscape slope. The proposed wall will result in a lack of continuity between adjacent properties. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for a ten-foot high combination retaining/blockwall will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Code allows block walls with a maximum of 42 inches along the rear property lines of through lots within the required 15-foot setback. The request exceeds the maximum height limit by six feet, six inches. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential, Low Density on the subject property and the following policy of the General Plan: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. (LU 9.1.2.b) As a result of its scale and mass, the proposed wall will visually dominate the street scene along Roundhill Drive and result in inadequate landscaping at the rear property line. CDP 0 1-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 At('IID FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-061 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 for the development of a combination 10-foot retaining/blockwall as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposal is for a combination block/retaining wall in the rear yard of a through lot. The proposed wall will not negatively impact any public views or access since there are none existing at the subject site. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Walls are a permitted use in all zoning districts. The Zoning Code allows a deviation from the standards for height of walls within a required setback subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All the required findings have been made to allow the increase in blockwall height. 3. The proposed development has been provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure is currently in place, therefore, no further improvements to the infrastructure shall be required. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreation exists on the subject site, therefore, no impacts exist. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for the establishment and maintenance of a 10-foot high combination retaining/blockwall, consisting of a six-foot blockwall on top of a four-foot retaining wall, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall, as conditioned, will be developed with a landscape planter that will improve the appearance of the blockwall along Westport Drive. 2. The conditional use permit for the 10-foot combination retaining/blockwall will be compatible with surrounding properties because the blockwall, as conditioned, will be consistent with other blockwall developments on properties along Westport Drive including those developed at 16901 and 16911 Westport Drive, which have been developed with a landscape planter. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for a 10-foot high combination retaining/blockwall will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Code allows for a deviation from the height requirements within the required setback area with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal Olsr24 Attachment No. 1.1 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential, Low Density on the subject property. The project, as conditioned, will be developed with a 2-foot landscape setback along the adjacent sidewalk which will improve the aesthetics of the streetscape and soften the look of the proposed wall. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. (LU 9.1.2.b) b. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.1.e) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 2, 2001 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The site plan shall be amended to depict a 24-inch wide planter in front of the proposed blockwail. The applicant shall provide a section drawing which dearly depicts an 18-inch high planter wall, a two foot landscape planter, the proposed 10-foot retaining/blockwall, and the amount of fill which will be retained by the proposed wall. b. The site plan shall depict colors and building materials proposed. c. The site plan shall indicate the type and spacing of landscaping within the required 2-foot landscape planter. Landscaping shall be distributed throughout the planter with sufficient height and variety of plant material to allow for visual interest. Landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. d. The proposed retaining and block wall combination, and the 2-foot wide landscape planter shall be constructed of split face block with a decorative cap to match the existing block wall at 16901 Westport in design and color. e. The applicant shall provide an automated irrigation system to the new planter to allow for a consistent water supply to landscaping. f. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and shall not encroach into the public right of way. g. All drains must be shown on the site plan, Show type, size, location, and discharge. (BD) CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal Olsr24 Attachment No. 1.2 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the second page of all working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing). 3. Prior to final building inspection and approval, the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. b. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. c. All existing mature trees that are to be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'—14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and S' —9' of brown trunk). (PW) 4. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. if the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 shall not become effective until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is April 4, 2002, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Coastal Development Permit No. 01- 06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01 sr24 Attachment No. 1.3 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Zoning Administrator. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal Olsr24 Attachment No. 1.4 T LY'6 ' 20' NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Planning Commission Action r� TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: City Attorney (l copy) n i FILED BY I r I Ro"Qu- Pro im REGARDING: � U �'Q� (000A Out! ft He. 0 1-0& � a wd) Tentative Date for Public Hearing-. 'I a �Q Q�Q, Q 1� 1►/O Q Copy of Appeal Letter attached. LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Connie Brockway City Clerk x5227 t t RK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CIEU CITY CITYY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO HUNT114GTON BEACH,CA ZO JUL -b A 11- 34 To: Connie Brockway, City Clerk From: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member Debbie Cook, Mayor Pro Tern Date: July 6, 2001 Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 01-09 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT NO 01-06 (TRUE BLOCK WALL) Conditiortal Use Permit No. 01-09 Coastal Development No. 01-06 (True Block Wall) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2001. The subject property is at 17171 Westport Drive. We are hereby appealing the Planning Commission's action based upon the following reason: • The project is not in compliance with City code. RB/DC:cf ,,��: �\ F �• � � s t 3 � �, ',� y' yr% \\\\ \\� -� t �5 a z"�. -'a` �.� % i -, i .:• h -, � ��€., � ..s.:�E .gym �� ?y/ �ii,�ps \a. � �'.��.�- s /e � �� �� �i� � �� �� i. ..,. •i ,< � .. ;t�y� PC Minutes Page 2 6/26/01 DRAFT B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1. APPEAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 01-06 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 (TRUE BLOCK WALL): Applicant/Appellant: Debra True Request: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval to permit the construction of a combination 4-foot high retaining wall and a 6-foot high block wall with a total height of ten (10) feet, along the rear property line of a through lot, in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height. Location: 17171 Westport (west side of Westport Drive, approximately 45 feet north of Courtney Lane) Proiect Planner: Paul DaVeiga ♦ Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 request: Construct a 10-foot high combination retaining and block wall along the rear property line of a through lot. ♦ Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 request: - Construct a 10-foot high combination retaining and block wall in the coastal zone. ♦ Staff's Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with modifications based upon the following: - General Plan goal to avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. - Complies with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Residential Low Density development standards. - The potential impacts including visual impacts will be minimized by conditions imposed. ♦ Staff 3s Suggested Modifications: Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01- 06: - A 24-inch wide landscape planter shall be constructed directly in front of the proposed wall and adjacent to the abutting sidewalk at the rear of the subject property. - Landscaping shall be distributed throughout the planter with sufficient height and variety of plant material to allow for visual interest and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. Commissioner's Hardy, Kokal, Livengood and Mandic disclosed that they visited the project site. Staff made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission inquired about landscape planter maintenance, the Huntington Harbor Property Owner's Association (HHPOA) Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), sidewalk width, yard depth, wall height,design and material, the number of residents who support or oppose the construction of a (GAMinutes\01 p=0626) ATTACHMENT NO. 3____1_ P Minutes Page 3 Du F T 6/26101 ten (10) foot retaining wall and what types of walls exist on other properties within the tract. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Carole Garrett, HHPOA, spoke in opposition to the item and provided the Commission with digital photos showing super-imposed examples of an 11-foot retaining wall, other photos that illustrate properties from different street locations, and landscape examples she believes compliment retaining walls. She stated that she had a petition containing signatures from neighbors who oppose the applicant's request and urged the Commission to deny the block wall request. Shirley de Heras, Westport Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the item because she feels that the neighborhood properties appearances need to become more consistent. She also voiced her concerns about the HHPOA CC&R's. Joseph Falcon, Roundhill Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the applicant's request and expressed his concern with the lack of aesthetic consistency in wall design and construction (size, material and landscape embankment elements). Gerald Urner, HHPOA, informed the Commission of past activity before the Zoning Administrator with regard to wall standards for the area. He cited staffs recommendation as the past standard approved, along with lighting and landscaping for an aesthetically pleasing look. He supports staff's recommendation. Nina Patten, Roundhill Drive resident, informed the Commission that she never received notification from any neighbors when their walls were being constructed. She supports establishing guidelines for wall design and opposes the applicant's request because it is not consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan. Julie Baily, Westport Drive resident, likes the diversity of walls within the neighborhood and supports residents rights to build any kind of wall they wish. She supports the applicant's request to construct the wall near the street in order to provide an extended play area within the applicant's backyard. Debra True, applicant, informed the Commission that the HHPOA is a voluntary organization. She discussed sidewalk width and how it varies throughout the neighborhood. She stated that 17 of the 35 homes within the neighborhood have the same sidewalk width they request in their application. She also mentioned that the need for backyard space is critical for her children's safety due to an alleged kidnap attempt experienced in their neighborhood. She also mentioned that a realtor advised that the value of her home would increase with the wall improvement, and that many neighbors support her request. a (GAMinutes\01 p=0626) TT P D I E T O. , P Minutes DRAFT Page 4 6/26/01 Mark True, applicant, suggested that if the Commission decides to deny their request, all walls within the neighborhood not in compliance with the goals of the City's General Plan should be removed or reconstructed. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission asked staff to explain the alternative recommendation that allows for a "step-up" affect related to the landscape planter(width of planters 5' total setback each). The Commission asked about wall design, material and lighting recommendations by the staff and HHPOA. It was suggested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to both parties that the standard wall material be split-faced block. The Commission asked the applicant to provide an approximate cost of wall construction and the applicant replied $10,000 to $20,000, depending on material and height. The Commission asked what the Zoning Code standards are for wall height and backyard setbacks. The Commission suggested modifying the current landscape guidelines included in the HHPOA CC&R's with help from staff and the City's Landscape Architect to establish design guidelines that ensure future consistency in wall design and construction. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MANDIC, SECOND BY BORDEN,TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Hardy, Kerins, Mandic, Livengood, Kokal, Borden NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 for the development of a combination 10- foot retaining/block wall as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposal is for a (GAMinutes101p=0626) ATUL H NA, ENT N0. /. P Minutes DRAFT Page 5 6/26/01 combination block/retaining wall in the rear yard of a through lot. The proposed wall will not negatively impact any public views or access since there are none existing at the subject site. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Walls are a permitted use in all zoning districts. The Zoning Code allows a deviation from the standards for height of walls within a required setback subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All the required findings have been made to allow the increase in block wall height. 3. The proposed development has been provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure is currently in place, therefore, no further improvements to the infrastructure shall be required. 4. The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreation exists on the subject site, therefore, no impacts exist. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for the establishment and maintenance of a 10- foot high combination retaining/block wall, consisting of a six-foot block wall on top of a four-foot retaining wall, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall, as conditioned, will be developed with a landscape planter that will improve the appearance of the block wall along Westport Drive. 2. The conditional use permit for the 10-foot combination retaining/block wall will be compatible with surrounding properties because the block wall, as conditioned, will be consistent with other block wall developments on properties along Westport Drive including those developed at 16901 and 16911 Westport Drive, which have been developed with a landscape planter. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for a 10-foot high combination retaining/block wall will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Code allows for a deviation from the height requirements within the required setback area with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential, Low Density on the subject property. The project, as conditioned, will be developed with a 2-foot landscape setback along the adjacent sidewalk which will improve the aesthetics of the streetscape and soften the look of the proposed wall. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: (GAMinutes\01pcm0626) Qp? ( t,'�' 3.`T P Minutes DRAFT Page 6 6/26/01 a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. (LU 9.1.2.b) b. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.1.e) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 2, 2001 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The site plan shall be amended to depict a 24-inch wide planter in front of the proposed blockwall. The applicant shall provide a section drawing which clearly depicts an 18-inch high planter wall, a two-foot landscape planter, the proposed 10-foot retaining/blockwall, and the amount of fill which will be retained by the proposed wall. b. The site plan shall depict colors and building materials proposed. c. The site plan shall indicate the type and spacing of landscaping within the required 2-foot landscape planter. Landscaping shall be distributed throughout the planter with sufficient height and variety of plant material to allow for visual interest. Landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. d. The proposed retaining and block wall combination, and the 2-foot wide landscape planter shall be constructed of split face block with a decorative cap to match the existing block wall at 16901 Westport in design and color. e. The applicant shall provide an automated irrigation system to the new planter to allow for a consistent water supply to landscaping. f. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and shall not encroach into the public right of way. g. All drains must be shown on the site plan, Show type, size, location, and discharge. (BD) 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the second page of all working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing). (GAMinutes101pcm0626) ATTZ MENT NO. �� PC Minutes Page 7T Page 1 3. Prior to final building inspection and approval, the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. b. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. c. All existing mature trees that are to be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13' —14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'—9' of brown trunk). (PW) 4. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the.plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 shall not become effective until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is April 4, 2002, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday -Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (GAMinutes\01pcm0626) AT TA,A C ME 0. PC Minutes DRAFTPage 8 6/26/01 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Zoning Administrator. B-2. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-04• DESIGN REVIEW NO. 01-20 (TUNA TOWN PATIO ENCLOSURE): Applicant: Bob Thornton Request: To permit the enclosure of a 600 square foot covered patio area for interior dining space. Location: 221 A Main Street (west side, south of Olive Avenue) Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho • Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 01-04 request: - Enclose existing 600 sq. ft.'covered patio area for interior dining space. Staffs Recommendation: Approve Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 01-04 with modifications based upon the following: - The.proposed enclosure will be architecturally compatible with the existing building. - The enclosure will continue to be used for dining purposes. - The enclosed dining area will comply with all zoning provisions including parking. • Staffs Suggested Modifications: - Apply marble tile base element around the entire enclosure (south side). - Allow option for clear glass windows to allow more light into the dining area. Commissioner's Kerins, Kokal and Borden disclosed that they visited the site. Staff made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission inquired about wall height in the dining area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Bob Thomton, applicant, spoke in favor of the item and explained to the Commission that Tuna Town operates during the evening hours to upscale customers, has an approved outdoor dining area in front of the restaurant and would benefit from enclosing the patio dining area adjacent to the City plaza. He stated that all codes would be met. (GAMinutes\01 p=0626) 37 3 s ± t :�e categorically exempt pursuant to Class 4, Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act which states that minor temporary uses of land, having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, do not require any further environmental review. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 01-04: 1. Temporary Use Permit No. 01-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of the model home complex and sales trailer will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed use is temporary and is consistent with the character of the development in the area. Ample parking and directional signage will be provided for the use. Adequate dust control measures will be taken pursuant to recommended conditions of approval. Customer and construction traffic interference will be minimized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 2. The temporary use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the area is approved for detached single family residential units. 3. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in the Palm Goldenwest Specific Plan, Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required'for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The request is allowed by approval of the entitlement and all code requirements will be met including the provision of adequate parking. 4. The granting of the temporary use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use Horizontal-Specific Plan W-sp) on the subject property. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 01-04: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated February 14, 2001 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Building setbacks, siting, and design shall comply with Tentative Tract Map 15795, Coastal Development Permit No. 00-01, and Conditional Use Permit No. 00-68. b. The trap fence shall be limited to a maximum height of 42 inches. (Code Requirement) c. The project identification sign shall be located outside the 25-foot by 25-foot corner visibility cut off. All other signs near or adjacent to a driveway must be located outside the 10-foot by 10-foot driveway corner visibility cut off. (Code Requirement) d. All structures over 5,000 sq. ft. in size shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinklers and alarms. Shop drawings shall be submitted at the Building Department and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) e. Model identification flags shall be limited to a maximum of five. Flag locations shall be identified on the building permit plans. At g IE ENT O. •V> 7.A Minutes 0404/01 8 (01zm0404) f. If outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. g. The driveway entrance to the parking lots shall be a minimum of 27 feet wide. (PW) 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the index. b. Show security provisions for the site in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 426 for all gates, locks, fencing, telephones, construction parking, and phasing. (FD) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, a$5,000 cash bond shall be posted with the City to. guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and all Code requirements. 4.. Fire hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible materials delivery. Prior to installation shop drawings shall be submitted at the Building Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. (FD) 5. During construction and grading operations, the applicant shall: a. Wet down areas in the late morning.and after work is completed for the day. b. Use low sulfur fuel(.05%)by weight for construction equipment. c. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days(first stage smog alerts); d. Discontinue construction during first stage smog alerts. e. Water trucks shall be available on the site and shall be used throughout the day in areas where the vehicles travel and the soils are processed to keep the soils damp enough to prevent dust raised by the construction activity. f. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m., or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. g. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. h. Track idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. TNO ATTACHME ZA Minutes 0404/01 9 (v =0404) i. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. j. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. 6. Prior to final building permit inspection and approval and commencement of use, the following shall be completed: a. The on-site street system between(and including) the entryway and the farthest model home shall be completed prior to commencing sales operations. This includes, but is not limited to, signs, striping, and activation of street lighting. (PW) b. All facilities shall be accessible as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. (PW) c. Interference between customer and construction traffic shall be minimized to the extent feasible, to the satisfaction of the Traffic Division. (PW) d. Roadways and fire hydrants shall be paved and in service prior to the existence of combustibles on-site. (FD) e. Fire lanes shall be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No. 415. (FD) f. A Fire Protection and Access Plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department in compliance with City Specification No. 426. (FD) g. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. (FD) h. Security gates shall be designed to comply with City Specification No. 403. (FD) i. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and homeowner hardware. (FD) j. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification No. 424. (FD) k. 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. 7. The model home sales office shall be discontinued within 30 days following the close of escrow of the last unit and shall not be expanded,into a general business office for the contractor or developer. (Code Requirement) 8. The temporary trailer sales office shall not be converted or expanded into a general business office for the contractor or developer. The applicant shall remove the temporary trailer from the subject site within 30 days following final building permit inspection and approval for the model home complex. ITT NOT N . . ��--- ZA Minutes 0404/01 10 (01=0404) 9. Temporary signs and flags shall be permitted as part of the temporary use permit. The signs and flags shall be removed upon the close of escrow of the last unit. 10. All conditions of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15795, Coastal Development Permit No. 00-01, and Conditional Use Permit 00-68 shall remain in effect. 11. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REOUIREMENTS: 1. Temporary Use Permit No. 01-04 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed. „ 2. Temporary Use Permit No. 01-04 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of fnal approval which is April 4, 2002, or,such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Temporary.Use Permit No. 01-04, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the B BZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Zoning Administrator. ZA Minutes 0404/01 11 kJ1=0404) 9. The project shall comply with all provisions of the HBFC and City Specification No. 422, Well Abandonment, and HBMC Section 17.04.085 and City Specification No. 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:40 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2001 AT 1:30 PM. Ma Bet Broeren Zoning Administrator :rmk AiW ilY'c:..,i vl tl 1 ZA Minutes 0404/01 12 (01=0404) April 16, 2001 Mark & Debra True 17171 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714-840-0712 Dear City of Huntington Beach, We are writing this note to appeal the recommendation made by the zoning commission on our conditional use permit 01-09 for the construction of a combination 4-ft. high retaining wall and a 7-ff. high block wall on our through lot. The commission has recommended a.2 ft. wide planter, 18" high, in the rear of our property, constructed with irrigation. The purpose is to make the block wall more attractive by adding greenery that "camouflages" the wall. We had proposed the same wall, without the planter, to be covered with greenery, without the lights and sprinkler system. Our proposed version will accomplish the same final effect but allow us to fully utilize our property. Due to the current energy crisis, the cost of using lights and sprinklers and the cost of installing them, will be an unnecessary expense.for all; The True family, the City of FIB, and SCE. Because we are proud homeowners, we fully intend to maintain the greenery on the wall. We feel this should meet the City recommendation and provide a better view for our neighbors than the plain block wall. Sincerely, Mark & Debra True Huntington Beach Homeowners since 1984 ATTACHMENT . Chapter 2;Single-Family Detached Residential a t : T: b. Open space areas should be located within Enhanced community perimeter wall approximately 1,500 feet from every dwelling c. Walls sections greater than 50 ft. in length in the new development. should'incorporate at least two of the following c. Open space areas should be provided in large design features which are proportionate to the meaningful areas,not unusable fragments. wall length: ■ A minimum 2-ft. change in plane for at least 10 d. Natural amenities such as existing mature trees ft. views and topographic features should be preserved and integrated into the design. ■ A minimum 18-inch high raised planter for at least 10 ft. IO.Walls and Fences ■ A minimum 18-inch change in height for at least a. Walls and fences should be architecturally 10 ft. enhanced and should be constructed with materials such as masonry, metal, wood or a ' Use of pilasters at 50 ft. maximum intervals and combination thereof. Tiered planting should be at changes in wall planes provided adjacent to perimeter walls along street frontages to soften their appearance. ■ A minimum 4-ft.high view fencing section for at least 10 ft. b. Community perimeter walls should be of masonry construction or ornamental metal(view fencing) and sited to accommodate a minimum d. Gates should be provided in walls or fences to fifteen (15)ft. landscaped setback. allow emergency access and to facilitate convenient pedestrian access to activity areas and adjacent uses. e. Walls should be eliminated or sited to provide additional setbacks areas at project entries to accommodate distinctive landscaping, ornamental gateways, signage and street furniture. f. Walls should be curved or angled at comer locations along street frontages. 2-6 City of Huntington Beach Design Guidelines A` `AfiMI ENT NN 0 A2`� i ;., ... ��'��,� :•. „j � ji� � � s,jail of City of Huntington Beach,Planning Department J� STAFF REPORT Nl1NTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Paul Da Veiga, Assistant Pla DATE: June 26, 2001 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06 (True Blockwall) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Debra True, 17171 Westport Drive,Huntington Beach, CA 92649 LOCATION: 17171 Westport Drive (West side of Westport Drive, approximately 45' north of Courtney Lane) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ♦ Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 request: - Construct a 10-foot high combination retaining and blockwall along the rear property line of a through lot. ♦ Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 request: - Construct a 10-foot high combination retaining and blockwall in the coastal zone. ♦ Staff's Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with modifications based upon the following: - General Plan goal to avoid building materials,colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. - Complies with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Residential Low Density development standards. - The potential impacts including visual impacts will be minimized by conditions imposed. ♦ Staffs Suggested Modifications: Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 - A 24-inch wide landscape planter shall-be constructed directly in front of the proposed wall and adjacent to the abutting sidewalk at the rear of the subject property. - Landscaping shall be distributed throughout the planter with sufficient height and variety of plant material to allow for visual interest and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. ATTACHMENT NO. •••• J-I IN, e un PROJECT , . , SITE zuml l yomcmaw I `) J Z W o •MIM Y p I a O ¢ !! s mN 2 r - •wamlc w I 3 a t T r � F 3 � )GEWATER ORION AVE Y BAY CF—R r �• W 3 W V r > r C N E. S •LOS PATOS clt *&k WEy T Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 17171 Westport Drive ATTACHMENT NO. 2 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with suggested findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)". ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with findings and modified conditions of approval"(Applicant/Appellant's Request) B. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 with findings for denial." C. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 and Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit 01-09 represents a request to allow a 10-foot high combination blockwall and retaining wall along the rear property line of a through lot, exceeding the maximum height, pursuant to Chapter 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Coastal Development Permit 01-06 represents a request to allow a 10-foot combination block and retaining wall along the rear property line of a through lot pursuant to Chapter 245.10 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal consists of a six-foot high blockwall on top of a 4-foot high retaining wall along the rear property line of a through lot with a zero foot setback from the abutting street(Roundhill Drive). The applicant has requested development of the blockwall to allow for more usable space within the rear yard. The property is currently developed with a wooden fence approximately 14 feet from the rear of the existing house. The homes along Westport Drive were developed as through lots and are located at a substantially higher grade than the adjacent street(Roundhill Drive),located at the rear of these properties. As a result, a number of these homeowners have filled the sloping portion of their rear yards and developed retaining/blockwall combinations to allow for increased rear yard area. The resulting condition is a mixture of the original slopes and block walls ranging from 7 feet to 14 feet in total height. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PC Staff Report 6-26-01 -3- CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 Background Recent entitlements for blockwalls within this tract have required that a landscape planter be located in front of the proposed wall to allow for a landscape buffer and provide screening mechanism to reduce the visual impact of these blockwalls for homeowners along Roundhill Drive. Entitlements issued at 16901 and 16911 Westport Drive were approved with recommendations by staff for a planter directly in front of the blockwalls. These blockwalls were setback approximately 22 inches from the existing sidewalk to provide an adequate planting area for landscaping material. The height of the blockwalls range from 11 feet to 12 feet in total height. In the past, staff has worked with the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association in recommending a blockwall design that minimizes the visual impact to residents with direct views to these walls and pedestrians'who walk the sidewalk. The recommended blockwall with a landscape planter is an acceptable design by the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association. Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator heard the project on April 4, 2001 (Attachment No. 4). The blockwall was approved with modifications that included a two-foot wide, 18-inch high landscape planter along the rear property line to allow for a landscape buffer. The blockwall was proposed by the applicant along the rear property line without the recommended two-foot setback that would allow for an additional 7 feet of usable rear yard. The Zoning Administrator concurred with staff s recommendation that resulted in the blockwall and landscape planter combination. Neighborhood residents who testified in opposition to the blockwall at,the meeting cited several concerns. The residents noted the excessive height of the wall as viewed from homes along Roundhill Drive (facing these walls),the materials used for construction,the visual change caused by the loss of the landscaped slope area, and the lack of uniformity among similar walls that have been constructed in the neighborhood. Residents who testified in favor of the project cited the precedent that has been created in the neighborhood, and the rights of the property owner to make use of their property. In light of the testimony given by the applicant and neighborhood residents,the Zoning Administrator approved the project as recommended by staff for the following reasons: ♦ Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for the establishment and maintenance of a combination retaining/blockwall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall, as conditioned,will be developed with a landscape planter that will improve the appearance of the blockwall along Westport Drive. ♦ The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the blockwall, as conditioned,will be consistent with other blockwall development on properties along Westport Drive. ATTACHMENT NO. PC Staff Report 6-26-01 -4- CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 ♦ The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Code allows for a deviation from the height requirements within the required setback area with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. ♦ The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential, Low Density on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Goal LU 9.1.2.b -Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. Goal LU 9.2.Le -Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. Appeal: The Zoning Administrator's action was appealed to the Planning Commission by Debra True, the applicant/property owner,on April 16, 2001 (Attachment 5). The reasons for the appeal are listed below: ♦ The Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit were granted based on the condition that the applicant provide a two-foot wide planter as a visual buffer from Roundhill Drive, thereby resulting in a reduction of useable area in the rear yard. ♦ A 10-foot high blockwall covered in landscape material is more effective than the approved two-foot planter with landscape in front of the blockwall as a visual buffer from Roundhill Drive. Code Enforcement History March 7. 2000- Code Enforcement staff notified Property owner that a permit is required for the construction of a retaining wall. August 14. 2000—An inspection of the subject property revealed that excavation activities were occurring at the subject site and piles of soil were encroaching on to Roundhill Drive as a result of the construction activities. A notice of violation was issued by Code Enforcement requiring the property owner to obtain a building permit for the construction activities occurring on the property. On September 1, 2000 a follow- up inspection was conducted and revealed that the piles of soil had been removed from the public right-of- way. Since the notice of violation,the property owners have brought the property into compliance. January 23, 2001 —In response to a resident complaint regarding runoff and erosion at the subject property,the Code Enforcement Division performed an inspection of the subject property that revealed signs of runoff and erosion resulting from excavation and fill of the sloping portion of the property. On March 8, 2001 a follow-up inspection revealed that the applicant had backfilled the dirt onto the slope and had provided new vegetation and as a result, the case was closed. ATTACHMENT 4 .03 PC Staff Report 6-26-01 -5- CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND iISE Subject Property: Residential Low Density RL-CZ(Residential Low Single Family Density; Coastal Zone) Residence North South, East, Residential Low Density RL-CZ(Residential Low Single Family and West of Density; Coastal Zone) Residences Subject Property: General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use designation on the subject property is RL-7 (Residential Low Density—7 dwelling units per acre). The proposed project, as modified by conditions of approval, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan, including: a. Policy L U 9.1.2.b -Avoid building materials,colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. b. Policy LU 9.1.3.e - Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. The project, as conditioned,will be developed with a two-foot landscape planter along the sidewalk that will improve the aesthetics of the streetscape and soften the appearance of the proposed 10 feet high wall. The two-foot wide planter will minimize the visual impact of the proposed wall by providing an additional setback. Similar designs have been approved for blockwall requests in this neighborhood. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the RL (Residential Low Density)zoning district and complies with the requirements of that zone with the exception of the subject request. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The proposed project, as modified by the conditions of approval, is in substantial conformance with Chapter 2.10.c of the Urban Design Guidelines that indicates that wall sections greater than 50 ft. in length should incorporate an 18-inch raised planter into the blockwall design to allow for landscaping to soften the appearance of the blockwall(Attachment 6). The project,as conditioned,would include a two- foot wide, 18-inch high landscape planter to act as a visual buffer from Roundhill Drive and would be in conformance with the Design Guidelines. ATTACHMENT NO. PC Staff Report 6-26-01 -6- CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 Environmental Status: The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to section Class 1, Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines,because the establishment and maintenance of a combination block and retaining wall involves negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that previously existing,therefore no further environmental review is necessary. Coastal Status: The proposed project is within a non-appealable.portion of the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 is being processed concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 pursuant to Chapter 245 of the ZSO. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works and Building and Safety have recommended conditions that are incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval.No comments or conditions were received by the other departments. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on June 14, 2001, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, occupants within a 100 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification, applicant, and interested parties. Staff has received numerous telephone inquiries from the applicant and surrounding residents regarding the proposed application. As of June 20,2001,one item of written communication has been received by a surrounding property owner in opposition to the development of any blockwall at the rear of the property. ANALYSIS• The applicant is requesting to expand the usable rear yard at the subject property by filling the sloping portion of the rear yard and constructing a 10-foot high combination retaining and blockwall along the rear property line at a zero foot setback. The main issues to consider when reviewing this request are design/compatibility issues with the surrounding properties and visual impacts to residents along Roundhill Drive. C � . _-, -- PC Staff Report 6-26-01 -7- CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01 sr24 Design/Compatibility The lots on Westport Drive were developed as through lots with a substantial grade differential from the street (Roundhill Drive) directly behind these properties. As a result, all of these properties have a substantial slope. Some residents have maintained their slope and have planted ice plant and various other types of landscape material while others have filled their slope and developed retaining/blockwalls along the rear property line. The resulting condition is a mix of the original slopes and blockwalls, some of which were built at the rear property line and others that are setback with a landscape planter. Staff has worked with the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association in an attempt to bring a compatible and uniform blockwall design to this neighborhood. The recommended design is for blockwalls along the rear property lines of through lots to be provided with a landscape planter. Recommending similar blockwall designs for future requests for properties along Westport Drive will result in a more compatible and uniform streetscape along Roundhill Drive. Two other properties along Westport Drive have been developed with a similar block wall design that incorporate the landscape planter. As recommended by staff,the blockwall design will be compatible with recently approved walls in the immediate vicinity and result in a streetscape that is attractive,compatible and in conformance with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. Visual Impacts Staff believes that a 10-foot blockwall along the rear property line, with no setback or landscaped area would have an adverse visual impact for residents along Roundhill Drive. The Design Guidelines indicate that wall sections greater than 50 ft. in length should incorporate an 18-inch raised planter into the blockwall design to allow for landscaping which will soften the appearance of the blockwall. In addition the General Plan contains policies such as LU 9.2.Le which indicates that adequate landscape setbacks should be provided along street frontages and should be integrated with abutting sidewalks to allow for continuity throughout the neighborhood. The scale and mass of a 10-foot blockwall at a zero setback is not typically found in a residential neighborhood. The maximum height of a blockwall in the Residential Low Density zone without a conditional use permit is six feet. However, because of the unique configuration of the subject lots with the sloping portion at the rear yards, staff has processed requests for taller blockwalls by recommending landscape planters that-reduce visual impacts to residents along Roundhill Drive and pedestrians who travel along the sidewalk. The two-foot wide planter minimizes visual impacts by the providing the following: ♦ An increased setback of two feet minimizes the mass and scale of the block wall as one is standing or walking on the sidewalk adjacent to the wall. ♦ The increased setback allows for a pedestrian scale for persons walking along the sidewalk. ATTACHMENT iv �- .mow._ PC Staff Report 6-26-01 -8- CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal Olsr24 ♦ Landscaping will be distributed throughout the planter area with sufficient height and variety of plant material to allow for visual interest and will screen a large portion of the block wall. Appeal The primary reason for the appeal is Condition 1(a)that requires that a two-foot wide landscape planter be provided along the rear property line. The applicant has appealed this condition as it results in a two-foot reduction in the usable rear yard area. The rear yard with the blockwall, as approved by the Zoning Administrator,would result in an approximate 19-foot deep back yard in lieu of a 21-foot deep backyard. Staff does not support the appeal because of the following reasons: ♦ A 10-foot high block wall at a zero foot setback is not compatible with other walls along Westport Drive that have recently been approved with a landscape planter. ♦ The absence of landscaping in front of the proposed wall would result in a visual impact to adjacent residents. ♦ An adequate rear yard'(19-feet)remains for the enjoyment of the property owner. SUMMARY Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Coastal Development Permit 01-06 and Conditional Use Permit 01-09 with conditions based on the following: ♦ The two-foot planter with the appropriate landscaping will soften the scale and mass of the blockwall and provide an additional setback from the sidewalk along Roundhill Drive. ♦ Similar blockwall requests have been approved and constructed in the nearby vicinity and staff has recommended approval with the addition of a landscape planter to minimize visual impacts. ♦ The 2-foot wide landscape planter will act as a visual buffer to the 10-foot wall for residents along Roundhill Drive that will have direct views to the rear of the subject property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval 2. Site Plan dated February 2, 2001 3. Narrative dated February 2, 2001 4. Minutes of the April 4,2001 Zoning Administrator Meeting 5. Appeal letter dated April 16, 2001 6. Chapter 2.10.c—Urban Design Guidelines 7. Letters of Opposition from Carole Garrett dated April 4, 2001 &June 19, 2001 SH:HF:PD:rl ATTACHMENT NO. _�.._�.. PC Staff Report 6-26-01 -9- CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01 sr24 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 for the development of a combination 10-foot retaining/blockwall as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan,.including the Local Coastal Program. The proposal is for a combination block/retaining wall in the rear yard of a through lot. The proposed wall will not negatively impact any public views or access since there are none existing at the subject site. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Walls are a permitted use in all zoning districts. The Zoning Code allows a deviation from the standards for height of walls within a required setback subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All the required findings have been made to allow the increase in blockwall height. 3. The proposed development has been provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure is currently in place, therefore,no further improvements to the infrastructure shall be required. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreation exists on the subject site, therefore, no impacts exist. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for the establishment and maintenance of a 10-foot high combination retaining/blockwall, consisting of a six-foot blockwall on top of a four-foot retaining wall, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall, as conditioned, will be developed with a landscape planter that will improve the appearance of the blockwall along Westport Drive. 2. The conditional use permit for the 10-foot combination retaining/blockwall will be compatible with surrounding properties because the blockwall,as conditioned,will be consistent with other blockwall developments on properties along Westport Drive including those developed at 16901 and 16911 Westport Drive,which have been developed with a landscape planter. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01 sr24 ATTACH E ,N .__A !d 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for a 10-foot high combination retaining/blockwall will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Code allows for a deviation from the height requirements within the required setback area with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential, Low Density on the subject property. The project, as conditioned, will be developed with a 2-foot landscape setback along the adjacent sidewalk which will improve the aesthetics of the streetscape and soften the look of the proposed wall. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. (LU 9.1.2.b) b. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.Le) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 2, 2001 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The site plan shall be amended to depict a 24-inch wide planter in front of the proposed blockwall. The applicant shall provide a section drawing which clearly depicts an 18-inch high planter wall,a two foot landscape planter,the proposed 10-foot retaining/blockwall, and the amount of fill which will be retained by the proposed wall. b. The site plan shall depict colors and building materials proposed. The type of block shall be compatible with adjacent properties and shall be subject to approval of the Planning Department. c. The site plan shall indicate the type and spacing of landscaping within the required 2-foot landscape planter. Landscaping shall be distributed throughout the planter with sufficient height and variety of plant material to allow for visual interest. Landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. d. The applicant shall provide an automated irrigation system to the new planter to allow for a consistent water supply to landscaping. e. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and shall not encroach into the public right of way. f. All drains must be shown on the site plan, Show type, size, location, and discharge. (BD) CDP 01-06/CUP 0i-09 Appeal 0Isr24 ° ' 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the second page of all working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing). 3. Prior to final building inspection and approval,the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. b. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire,pipe, and other unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. c. All existing mature trees that are to be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with a 36"box tree or palm equivalent(13' —14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'—9' of brown trunk). (PV) 4. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 0 1-06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 shall not become effective until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 0 1-06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is April 4, 2002, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Coastal Development Permit No. 0 1- 06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09,pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable fees from the Building,Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-69 Appeal 01sr24 ATTACHMENT NO. �_� 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code,Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the Cop=of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Zoning Administrator. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01 sr24 Aff CHM ENT . —�W—?L ■■■■■■■/■■■L� ..�w■.t�ii■■��sil■�■�■ /!■!/I�■e■■Ite■■mil■■■e/ ■ H■■■■■we/ri■■'�■■■i�■IPr`�:�'r1OL�f��■"'i��: ®laii■®IIWe/H■R.i■■■■e ■■■■■■■■■■H■■■■' ■■ifl'i■iYE��eGii■C/IL`�i'G ■■■HII■■/■■■■■t�'i;il'■■■■ iiioiiiiiiiiiiil''�io�■■�iii=a■■�i!■il�i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r�■■■e■■■�auulae ■/luc��►,r�a■u>,..�sarsr:.,� sEMMAIMMI 101 rlNH■■■■■c!l WINE ■11■111I:■I■��i►�1C:1:>II�!I��Z�.■11►���■��■e/■■■■■/■■!■■■■/e■i■■■■■/■■N!!lCa\'!�■/ ■11lI�!\H■■�I■■■C:��I■■1 ■■ ■!■■!■/■■■■■■■■11/■/It/■■■■■■!�'E�CalJ■■ ■Iln�.ar�,lr'��.�■�i�r:el����;e��, : ■� .� ��'�Irnrncrr�■R�m��■■I■■!■■■■/r.:r��-s►�1■■ ■■/■■■/e��■�■■�e■id■rr■■■■■■■r.:��■►.��,u►��u>uEu�e�_�_�■■u■■/■■■■linl�llr/'�1■■ ■■H■■■■�7G!!!!P.■■I■■■!®■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■a/■■■■■/HI■/■■■■■■L(r�t•�1c�'1■/ ■■■■■■/■■e■■/H�l■■■I■■■III■■■11�'\■■■■!■/ii!■!■■■■■■■i■L�■'®F3C��■■L��1�■■■/ ■■■■■■■■■■w■■■■�l■■■1■t•.;r,;,rr�lwe■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■■/■!il■�■1�:s®�:!>I�1■■■■ ■e■■■■■■■■!!■■!�i■■■I■eluri■�IHe■■■/e/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1�>■eew:�®■�:ir■■■■ w■■!■e■■■/■H■■�l■Is�i■/■ee■ee■■■■■■■■■s■■■■■■/■■■■■cee �an■1■■■■■■■■ H■■■■/!!■/■■■!�1//■!■■■/■/■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■W/■Ills■®l�Isgti/■■�I■!►1■■ H■■■■/■■■■■/■■�I■■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■ liiii�a..r���®��t ■F�■®E I fIt�J■1111■L`NEE ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■,1■/■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/■MI!>I�1C�iIl�lg6�lirl�■�:+■■ /■e■■■■■■■sir,\I!■■■ ���■■■.i�e■■■■■■■■ee■■■■■■ee !ee ■i■R�s ■:m ■HH■/e■���r�a■sl■■■/■■■e/e■■■e■■■w■■/s■■■■■/■■■■■�er�lel��-l■��;I r��■ pas /■■■■■s■■:iel■e-�■11■■■■■■■■■e■e■■■e■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■c�e��ee�■�rc�■�. ■He/■■e■��1.�/�11■■■/■/■■■ee■■■!■■/■■■■■■■■■■■/■/■�z�r�ue��■ea��a■:� ■■■■/e/lsails.�e■■11■■■■e■■■■■■■e■■■r�/■■e■■■■■■�■/■■■■r.�ac���=ar.;�e�■�/■ ■//■■■/■■arm n■11■w■e■■■■■■■■■■■e■■1■■e■!■■■■■moo■■■ ���t ij�::�ca■v =pie■■ ■■■■■■■■■'!'■►Vi■■■11■■■/■■■■■■■/■■■ ■■■H■■■■■■■■■■■■f:i I'�IS iilillri\1la�■h1■■ ■■■■■■■■t=�■'`!■■■11■■■�■■a■■■■/■■■■�■■■//e■■I•iA.1_�■■■■■■Eraii�iiC��11!!�'����!■■�Mi■ ■■■■■■■■itr7■LNS■!11■■■,■■■■■■■■■■/■/■■■!!e■■■�li�■■e■■■■-�■LaJifill■■■I\■■■ ®■e■■■■■/e■■/■■1�■/e■s■■■�l�a����n��r�■■i•c��l<al■■■■■/■/Icw■■�■■■■■■■■■cam,. e■■■cal/■■■■■■■■111■!■■■■■■■■■■■/■®■■■■!!■■■■■■■■■/i■■■■ill■■■■►tee■■e■ !I■■I�':i+i■■■■■■■e■9B■■■L!■■■■■■■■■■■0■■■1■■■■e■■■■■■■■IL:1/■■■■J■lfiJ ■:1■ ■ ■■■srin�lwe■I�ee■.a■l�■■ee■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■es■ee■■I■■■■rr■■��.1 ■■■ e ®■w®�I��I>er������r�e���ll�►.�c�:�■��■■■■■r■1�■w�le■®\Insr�■r�el�e■\■■■I■■■■��/■e■■■■■c:■ ■■■lacyerw■1�■■■+rive■�■vie■w■■e��►���.�L■�a:u�l®��a���■®�i■■■■■i■■■■■■■■!■ to■■st■ram■���;T�:r�■on■■■■I■erg■rye■■■■■■■e■s/■■■■■r■w■■■r,�®\■■■■■n!■■■�■■ ■■■sell/®■■■■■■■!■■r�■�.r.e�l■■■■■■■■■■�®®■r�lce■■i�;,d►s■■IiRc�ywl���■e ■e■■■■w�■■■e■la■lere■r,■i■ee■■��■r�/:�u�w��®■mere■■��®®��rwc����,r�■ryra■!■ ■■■!■■/SOR 0", L �■11�11■►■��■®�iP■eAl��!�i��■1������!■■.■■®►�c.�■r11�►nM1►i��■��■■■■ IW■/■■Ir; \■aA■■■�it'�1®■ !L!■11►a■■■■!®■■■■■�®®G®!■e■■■o��,iJ■ir:.�h'�r ■ ■■■■ /■®its;����.'�:dGsi71®I®!l11lfit�■■■®■■■■■!8■■L�!®!®fig®■®��®■■13;+ICI Rla�■■■■■e■■!■■ ®■elrwli■■enule.��.._����� -a������ sa;���� ���_�� _ ��e■/■MEN■■■e®■ !]Ilr/ill,r�ll�■a�!��ir-e■■�i�■®�®IRe�� � ►����®®��®®®�®®�? Elr �e■!�n®■ ��■®■■ v� �_ saw ►� � r Intended Use for Yard expansion at 17171 Westport Drive Our plans to expand our yard seven feet are for the purpose of putting a swing set in the yard for our 2 1/2 year old. Our yard is currently not wide enough, in my mind,to accommodate a swing set safely. This will be a safe play area for our daughter, as we live one house from a corner where no one acknowledges the stop sign. (Courtney and Westport). Thank you for your. consideration. Mark and Debra True ✓to W�C�a/�C,• U�'�' C.e �2�%1 �r�G�.�vl` _fv C C 7 7 c 7 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2001 - 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Paul Da Veiga, Wayne Carvalho, Amy Wolfe, Ramona Kohlmann(recording secretary) MINUTES: March 7, 14, and 21, 2001 Minutes were approved ORAL COMMUNICATION: None ITEM 1: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 21, 2001 MEETING) (TRUE RESIDENCE) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Debra True, 17171 Westport Dr., Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To permit the construction of a combination 4-ft. high retaining wall and a 7-ft. high block wall with a total height of eleven(11) ft., along the rear property line of a through lot, in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height. LOCATION: 17171 Westport Drive(west side of Westport Drive, approximately 45'_ north of Courtney Lane) PROJECT PLANNER: Paul Da Veiga Paul Da Veiga, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs stating the purpose, location and zoning of the requested project. Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the findings and subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report, and because the proposed project is consistent with the Design Guidelines. Several telephone calls were received in opposition to the request. No written comments were received in response to the public notification. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, stated'that she drove to the project site. Ms. Broeren and staff reviewed photographs of block walls and wooden fences in the surrounding area. A general discussion ensued concerning the various heights and condition of the walls and fences. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Jerry Urner, consultant to the Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association, stated that the original proposal for the requested project did not have the current configuration. Mr. Urner stated that as long as a City standard is maintained, the HOA will approve the project, provided that it meets with the standard along the rest of the street. He stated that an 18" planter exists on the subject street and a 24" planter on the street in front of it. He stated the City imposed these standards. Ms. Broeren confirmed with staff that the 18" standard is not codified but is a goal that the City is trying to achieve for minimal planter width. Debra True, applicant, 17171 Westport Drive, presented photographs of the current site and surrounding area as well as letters from neighboring property owners in support of the proposed project. Ms. True stated that the reason for the wall is to provide security for her child. Carol Garrett, 17163 Roundhill Drive, neighboring property owner, opposed the requested project. Ms. Garrett presented a petition stating that two-thirds of the property owners on Roundhill Drive and one-half of the property owners on Westport Drive oppose the proposed project. Ms. Garrett presented a written statement opposing the request and future construction or replacement of any retaining wall or fence, which includes eliminating setbacks and landscaped embankments. She presented numerous written documents and exhibits in support of their opposition including copies of CC&R's. She stated that the proposed project does not meet the intent of the CC&R's. Peter Shores, 17171 Roundhill Drive, neighboring property owner situated in back of the proposed site, spoke in support of the request. Mr. Shores stated that the wall would allow him privacy as well as security for the applicant's child. Julia Baily; 17151 Westport Drive, neighboring property owner, stated that she had no objection to the proposed project. Elfriede Geiger, 17001 Westport Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition of the proposed project stating that all future walls would cause a devaluation of their property. Joe Falcon, 17155 Roundhill Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition of the proposed project based on lack of uniformity with existing walls and no set standard. Christina Yates, 17112 Westport Drive, neighboring property owner, stated that the wall would be an asset if beautified and agreed with the applicant's need for privacy and security for their child. Nancy Winegarden, 17186 Courtney Lane, supported the proposed project stating that the lack of walls in the neighborhood encourages weeds and overgrown ivy in the walkways. Shirley De Heras, 16941 Westport Drive, stated that she opposes further development of walls in the neighborhood. Nicos Tsimerekis, 17161 Westport Drive,gated-that he supported the-proposed project. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms.Broeren asked Mr.Umer, concerning the letter submitted by the HOA,if the wall with the pilasters at Davenport and Roundhill Drives was agreed to by the HOA. Mr. Urner stated that the design as mandated by the City was approved by the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Broeren and staff discussed the City's Park Tree and Landscape Department's involvement in staffs amended recommendation for a minimum two-foot wide.planter;the difference in height ZAMinutes0404/01 2 ATTACHMENT .. ~:,-w0404) between the applicant's property and the adjacent property with the block wall; and staffs research whereby a total height of 11 feet is recommended. . Ms. Broeren stated that while the City does consider CC&R's,.the City does not enforce the CC&R's. Ms. Broeren stated that she appreciates the concern for the inconsistency and non-permitted walls existing in this area. She stated that the City tries to improve the situation while at the same time respecting the property owner's rights, which has been achieved by establishing the landscape planter walls. She explained that an informal standard has been set to evaluate the requests as they come forward to the City Planning Department. Ms. Broeren stated that the wall, as recommended by staff, would result in more rear yard area than the City's minimum rear-yard setback requirement. She stated that aesthetics is a concern; that the landscape planter wall is an improvement over the current situation on the proposed site; and that a precedent has been set for this type of design. Ms. Broeren stated that she would approve the request as recommended by staff. She asked staff to revise the Findings and Conditions of Approval as follows: Add to Finding No. 1: Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 for the development of a combination 10-foot retaining/block wall as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. Add to Condition No. La: The site plan shall be amended to depict a 24-inch wide planter in front of the proposed block.wall. Add to Condition No. Lc: Landscaping shall be distributed throughout the planter with sufficient height and variety of plant material to allow for visual interest. Landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. Add to Condition No. Ld: The applicant shall provide an automated irrigation system to the new planter to allow for a consistent water supply to,landscaping. Add Condition No. e: All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and shall not encroach into the public right of way. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 WERE APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SHE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN(10) WORKING DAYS. . ZA Minutes 0404/01 3 (01=0404) FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the establishment and maintenance of a combination block/retaining wall involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, therefore no further environmental review is necessary. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 for the development of a combination 10-foot retaining/block wall as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposal is for a combination block/retaining wall in the rear yard of a through lot. The proposed wall will_not negatively impact any public views or access since there are none existing at the subject site. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Walls are a permitted use in all zoning districts. The Zoning Code allows a deviation from the standards for height of walls within a required setback subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All the required findings have been made to allow the increase in block wall height. 3. The proposed development has been provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure is currently in place, therefore, no further improvements to the infrastructure shall be required. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreation exists on the subject site, therefore, no impacts exist. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for the establishment and maintenance of a combination retaining/block wall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall, as conditioned, will be developed with a landscape planter that will improve the appearance of the block wall along Westport Drive. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the block wall, as conditioned, will be consistent with other block wall development on properties along Westport Drive. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, The Zoning Code allows for a deviation from the height requirements within the required setback area with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A-A NO. ZA Minutes 0404/01 4 (O1zm0404) 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential, Low Density on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. (LU 9.1.2.b) b. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.1.e) The project, as conditioned,will be developed with a 2-foot landscape setback along the adjacent sidewalk which will improve the aesthetics of the streetscape and soften the look of the proposed wall. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PER HT NO. 01-06/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. - The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 2, 2001 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The site plan shall be amended to depict a 24-inch wide planter in front of the proposed block wall. b. The site plan shall depict colors and building materials proposed. The type of block shall be compatible with adjacent properties and shall be subject to approval of the Planning Department. c. The site plan shall indicate the type and spacing of landscaping within the required 2-foot landscape planter. Landscaping shall be,distributed throughout the planter with sufficient height and variety of plant material to allow for visual interest. Landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. d. The applicant shall provide an automated irrigation system to the new planter to allow for a consistent water supply to landscaping. e. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and shall not encroach into the public right of way. f. The applicant shall provide a section drawing which clearly depicts an 18-inch high planter wall, a two foot landscape planter,the proposed 10-foot retaining/block wall, and the amount of fill which will retained by the proposed wall. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim.on the second page of all working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits(architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing). �; ENT 0. .p. ZA Minutes 0404/01 5 (01=0404) b. All drains must be shown on the site plan, Show type, size, location, and discharge. (BD) 3. Prior to final building inspection and approval, the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. b. All building spoils such as unusable lumber,wire, pipe, and other unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. c. All existing mature trees that are to be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13' —14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8' —9' of brown trunk). (PW) 4. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REOUIREMENTS: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01=06/Conditional Use Permit No..01-09 shall not become effective until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Coastal Development Permit No. 0 1- 06/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes,. Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. ZA Minutes 0404/01 6 (01=0404) 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Zoning Administrator. ITEM 2: TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 01-04 (NAUTICAL POINT MODEL HOMES) .APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Grant Fluegge,Lennar Homes of California; 24800 Chrisanta Dr., Suite 100, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 REQUEST: To allow the temporary establishment of a model home complex and sales office trailer within an approved single family subdivision. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street, within the Boardwalk development PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho Wayne Carvalho, Staff Planner, displayed project plans stating the purpose, location and zoning of the requested project. Staff recommended approval of the project based upon the findings and subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report. No written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Grant Fluegge, 24800 Chrisanta Dr., Suite 100,Mission Viejo, applicant, requested clarification of Condition No. 1.d. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 01-04 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SHE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10)CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 98-8 was previously prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines and the City Council found that the project, which involves the construction of single family homes, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the environment. The temporary use of the property as a model home complex is *l 1�4151��T- t I-A, �Z. . ZA Nliuutes 0404/01 7 lii1104 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 R Before the Zoning Administrator on Wednesday,April 4,2001 ? rJ The following consists of four sections: I.Statements, II Background Information with Exhibits A,B,C,D and E; 1I1.Specific Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs),and IV. Petitioners I. STATEMENTS PURPOSE: • Oppose Conditional Use Permit No.01-09(True residence, 17171 Westport Drive,Lot 118, Tract 4880) • Oppose future construction or replacement of any combination retaining wall/fence which includes or included the elimination of the property setback and landscaped embankment/slope as specified in the CC&Rs for Tract 4880 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No.01-09 Permit construction of a combination 4 foot high retaining wall and a 7 foot high block wall with a total height of eleven(11)feet in lieu of the 42 inch maximum height along the rear property line of a through lot. ARGUMENTS FOR OPPOSITION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No.01-09: 1. Errors and omissions of Conditional Use Permit No.01-09 as submitted and outlined above • Necessitates removing existing 7 foot rear setback from Roundhill Drive • Necessitates removing existing rear slopetembankment 2. Conditional Use Permit No.01-09 violates the General Purposes of the Declaration of Limitations for Tract 4880 which states: • Secure and maintain property setbacks from streets • Insure proper use and appropriate and uniform development and lniprovement 3. Conditional Use Permit No.01-09 violates Clause IV Articles of CC&Rs for Tract 4880 • Fences or walls shalt not exceed 6 feet in height at anyplace on any lot(Clause IV, Article 18) • Existing grade or slopes shall not be replaced in whole or in part(Clause IV,Article 22) 4. Architectural Review Committee ofthe Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association and the City of Huntington Beach inappropriately deviated from General Purposes of the Declaration of Limitations and Clause IV Articles of CC&Rs to Tract 4880 by approving combination retaining walls/fences that included the elimination of property setbacks and landscaped embankments/slopes • Deviation from Clause IV Articles,without the consent of owners of other lots,is only permissible in order to cant'out the General Purposes(i.e.insure uniform development and secure and maintain property setbacks)of the Declaration of Limitations(Clause IV Article 23(a)) . Deviation from Clause IV Articles includes the right to increase setback requirements, but not to diminish Covenants except by permit given pursuant to subparagraph(a)of Paragraph 23(Clause IV Article 23(b)) • Pern fission to deviate does not constitute a waiver ofenforcement with respect to any of said Covenants as to other lots(Clause IV Article 23(a)) • Approval of any plans or grading plans shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the Architectural Review Committee of its right to object when the same features are embodied in subsequent plans with respect to any other lots(Clause IV Article 17(c)) Al 1twCHMEE T-NO, II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION THEN: Original site plan for lots in Tract 4880,Unit 4,dated 1963 • 129 residential lots on 6 terraced streets • 46 through lots • with rear embankment/slope and setback • Westport Drive—20 • Concord Lane--6 • Windsor Drive--5 • with rear embankment/slope and setback as well as frontage facing a rear embankment/slope and setback • Westport Drive-- 15 • 51 lots with frontage facing a rear embankment/slope and setback • Roundhill Drive--36 • Westport Drive-- 15 FROM THEN TO NOW: Tract 4880 effective March 2001 • Prior complaints of non-uniform development,random deterioration of property setbacks (embankments/slopes)and excessive fence heights(EXHIBITS A,B and C) • Inappropriate deviation from CC&Rs regarding rear combination retaining walls/fences on through lots in Tract 4880 has resulted in the following violations(EXHIBIT D-Photos) • General Purposes of the Declaration of Limitations • Removed or modified,rather than secured and maintained,property setbacks from streets • Lack of uniform development and improvement • Clause IV Articles • Excessive violations to fence height limitations • Removed or diminished rear embankments/slopes • Removed existing,original grade • Specifics • 20 of a possible 46 through lots in Tract 4880 have modified rear setbacks and added rear combination retaining walls/fences • Overall heights range from T10"to 14' • Setbacks • 1 wall/fence(Windsor Drive)has a 3'setback planter • 2 walls/fences(Westport Drive)have a 2'setback planter • Remaining 17 abut curbing or have minimal planting area measured in inches • Variety of non-uniform materials for retaining walls/fences and treatments includes • Cinder block,split face block,slump stone • Wood slats,wood lattice,wrought iron,glass • Some covered with plaster or stucco and painted • Some covered with plant material,others bare • Building permit approval process for rear combination retaining walls/fences on 20 through lots(EXHIBIT E) • 2 built without a building permit(NP) • 2 built with a building permit--no final inspection or denied(NI) • 4 build outs do not comply,or exceed specifications,of building permit(E) • 8 building permits are non specific(NS) • 4 build outs do not exceed specifications of building permit(NE) • Impacted property values • Valuations impacted positively on an individual basis due to increased rear yard size • 20 lots with existing rear retaining wall/fence • 11 remaining lots with rear embankment/slope • Valuations impacted negatively on an aggregate basis due to resulting neighborhood blight • 36 lots with frontage facing an embankment/slope(Roundhill Drive) • 15 lots with frontage facing an embankment/slope as well as a rear embankment/slope(Westport Drive) • Conservative valuation estimates effective March 2001 • $520,000 average per individual lot • $26,000,000+combined valuation of 51 lots affected negatively BOARD of zone; ADJUSTMEnTS .® A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -CALIFORNIA �,�' P. O. BOX 190.92648 PHONE (714)536-5271 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 23 , 1983 APPLICANT; Mr. Jay Jeffries APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Exception No . 83-2 NJOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Huntington Beach in the lower level of the Civic Center, Room B-6 , 2000 Main Street, City of Huntington Beach, California, at the flour of 1 : 30 P.M. on Wednesday, March 2, 1983 for the purpose of considering a petition for a conditional exception General Request : To permit a patio cover to encroach 4 ft. 4 inches into rear yard setback (for patio support posts ) . General Location: 1-716 Westport Avenue :' A legal description is on file with the Department of Development Services, Planning Division. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing . and express their opinions for or against the proposed petition . Further inform- ation may be obtained .from the office of the Secretary of the Board of Zoning Adjustments, in the Department of Development Services , Planning Division, Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California; telephone number: (714) 536-5271 . Very truly, t `.:. __ _•_ ....::...... :� glen K. Godfrey, Secretary - - Board of Zoning Adjustments 1. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-2 Applicant: Mr. Jay Jeffries 17161 Westport Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Request: To permit a patio cover to encroach 4 ft. 4 inches into rear yard setback (for patio support posts) . Location: .17161 Westport Avenue Environmental Status: Categorical Exemption, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970 . ACTION MOTION SECOND AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN APPROVED,.__.-._._ CONDITIONALLY APPROVED DENIED CONTINUED- TTrENT N . -1- BZA 3/9/83 3 March 1983 Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments City of Huntington Beach Dear Mr. Godfrey, The relationship between Westport Drive and Roundhill Drive is a very unique one. The fronts of all property on Roundhill Drive (homes numbering 35) face the rear of all property on Westport Drive. Consequently, all construction to Westport's rear yards has an impact, both aesthetically and financially to Roundhill homeowners. It is not our purpose to cause neighborhood dissension. Our primary concern is that a precedent could be set with Mr. Jeffries' encroachment to the very limit of his rear property line. It is our belief that Roundhill Drive should not be viewed and dealt with as if it were an alley way to Westport Drive. Therefore, we are asking that you deny Mr. Jeffries' request for Conditional Exception No. 83-2. To clarify our concern for precedent setting and to support our request for denial we have prepared a pictorial display of the areas in question. As can be seen, as little as six. years ago there was a continuous embankment of ice plant facing Roundhill residents. What has followed has been a r-•andom. ..deterioration of that embankment. A precedent was set with the construction of a retaining wall ; and it was just that, a retaining wall combined with plant material and wrought iron. What has followed has been a variety .of higher cinderblock retaining walls, lacking in uniformity, with less and less plant material . Since the construction of his own retaining wall , Mr. Jeffries has started a .patio structure extending to 'the rear outer limit of his property. This construction was started without benefit of a building permit. If this encroachment is permitted, another precedent is set, and it is anyone' s guess what might follow. Mr. Jeffries indicated the reason for his desired encroachment is due to his severe western sun exposure. The homeowners on Roundhill understand his problem, as it is one that is shared by everyone, both on Westport and Roundhill . We disagree with Mr. Jeffries" solution to this problem. Acceptable means of dealing with this exposure are any one, or a combination of, the following: construction of unobtrusive patio covers, tinting of windows, installing shutters or draperies and planting sun screening shrubbery. A Westport homeowner and the President of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association recently stated in a local t i _ dw _ f�•''r�l 1fi � `33 i .ghat caun be done tO inpro1C F''6 :i:1L'i3i. .. •�� of our street? It in u.. ejy a much worse eY P.O. 'o 190 �. .:..'. i sore 't:2an TV aeria.l.. iiu:2ti::gt„t: Ben:h, G.k y t .• 1 Dear Sir: ' S i::c:erLly, yea_•a Since ;;c moved (into the {i :a1e z�:�e l:. Fields Roundnill. Drive we have heard (csp2cially fror.. ; -that it in the dut of all :'.arbour rer'—Jenj:_� to keep tt':�7.2' h0%^ • j• � r•S• ll•:e clays ago t e �`:all•`� nett door - and y ardc not Only goat a:ut attractive. A:,o years ado our neiz•hbors neighbor tri^.,c:cd the ice plan-; or, our Westport built a large' s.i i � and left all the clippings for anyone else '•� g G_y +all'..lCaving no :Ao?� for.:planting any vines and �a:,ing no effort � to clean up. e101 } improve.• tr a appearanca of the •'Borlin Wall" j s since; 6.10.of t.ho' re` ibor-- azsured .tar ... ... � � -a try years ! cc,H.H..;,.0.:i. Ghat he as plaanin g to i..prove it, b:it nothing 11 has been. done. Not only :s t►e wall ugly, but ;instead; of-.-topping, it with attractive r•- \iron-wo_,., l :; whey, used old wood .'fencing: It is .a. real eye;ore !f :M°j 'ac :from our homes and•-YoU .d x: ; .. a surelybQ..:a Rxvj great deter_ai:t if �,e ir' - �i. :< ante d, F.a n st.11 f fortt:n2ti. ,r,e;= '� ^'x - . ,�. ..;„.rY don t):.. It•'ha::" arc: ed > , t. S: LQVe � aw+ o. .M r<v.• t a i , <2;•3�]i�C0r-ments '.fro v 151torS. H: •:rN .irFa- '•�..p: .y "ae' +- :r: .•r- y. • _.r v S t .< �^Y •f •d t - .. .t1,• f >:t. Sy,,�. .]...' .tea• : _ "ice``. Y*t�"'F f_.•.p 4�.",r'IF�'4,r'" t.• '' .r - LAM- j•�'+�� '•Tie.��K' .�-.. fir. ry. 'C.::� _ .-Y,•.Zf �M.,.. j. • 'ti." .� ... � i �. i�.:i..'!y� •'!Ts.3.`-'J'C'if•,'!f�+. ;+•�.-. ;�.�. ,s. +ry•: y:<,. .,►-m'r.'.•''!' i:•. .:Y'•J. ^'.... a, • w. .•'K.. ;. '•,Z.•l`-'�n`. ^' � H,: 't• z '�rL�';r: 'r:ti�i.w r�;t'.`w1 4r•' 'ii,'�'s9••,.r•F' ~.`d e .f r'e'X�1 �'1.-•t:;,'ti „'.�•r%�,-.!]wY..Y ,��`--tyJrr•:y.jz.,: ;3•.yf•'�':e��a jy,:�sL�v, -s.•�y7•',A.•.-,e.•.,�i :fir.:: - :T.ii�.•hy.� _+�:7¢�•:rs�`'�•il.ik�++�",1�'�:ir-a;"'.'�i1•�:.�3Ct•�?'s�f�'z`•��i+•.�1�5":'Si.w�1.'lr+il;.�i/•��"�'t�y�� ...s .w.�i•�'�.�'�'F: •CAL:::si'�.'lrS].7NS71'� :it:S:t�!"At.'Sv'Mui�X�cC;,�.1�'�..tr'�le�w"OL•f:Lci�N i O i J. City of Huntington Beach 1 P.O. BOX I90 CALIFORNIA 92648 ! OFFICE OF VIE CITY ADMINISTRATOR (� I• ' August 5, 1933 Mrs. Stanley Fields 17035 Roundhill Drive Huntington Beach, California 92649 Dear Mrs. Fields: Your letter to Councilman Mandic regarding the wall that was constructed by your neighbor has been referred to me for investigation. I apologize for the late response. Our Development Services Ckcpartment reports that a permit was issued for the retain- ing wall at 17031 Westport. Subscouently, the owner added approximately three feet of weathered wood fencing atop this wall. The addition of this fencing does not re- quire a building permit. There are several retaining walls adjacent to the one on Westport with %arious treatments. These styles and treatments are the options of } i the various homeowners and because of their limited height,do not require a building Permit, and are not subject to control by.the City, unless they present a safety hazard. I understand your concern for the appearance of your neighborhood. it might be wise to contact the H.H.P.O.A. a-ain to explore the possibilities of drawing up some neigh- borhood guidelines for these wall designs. Sincerely, T Charles V .hompson, HUNTINGTON BEACH City Administrator DEVELOPMENT Ct.;T:pj SERVICES ` AUG 8 M3 cc: City Council Members Jim palin, Director of [development Services PO Huntfn ton box 19 8 Uach, CA 92648 ' F ��TACHIVIr 3� Telejohrrne 536•5202 REQUEZ s' FOR CITY COUNCIL AC1 !ON Date July ln, 3982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W �•`V . Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: Doug LaBelle, Director, Community Development 4�w Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-33 - ARTHUR AND JUNE ASCOLESI Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: y STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Mr. & Mrs. Charles Chisholm, et. al,. to the Planning Commission's approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 87-11 in conjunction,with Conditional Exception No. 87-33. Coastal Development Permit No. 87­11 is a request to permit the construction of a retaining wall over 6 feet in height for the purpose of retaining more than 100 cubic yards of fill material. Conditional exception No. 87-33 is a request to permit a wall to encroach into the required 15 foot setback. RE t�OMN ENDATION Planning Commission action of June 16, 1987: ON MOTION BY LEIPZIG AND SECOND BY PIERCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 87-33 BASED ON A MODIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES A.OR B AS PRESENTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 1381, BASED ON FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Pierce, Silva, Schumacher, Higgins NOES: Summerell, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11: 1. The retaining wall/block wall combination conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards-,of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. The coastal development permit is consistent with the CZ suffix zoning require- meets, the R1 Zoning District, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property, because a setback variance has been granted. " i¢r P .,x 4� 4� V �i e`m+�'3 Est' li i l -U. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. Staff's recommendation is that the City Council approve Coastal Development Permit No. 87-11 and Conditional Exception No. 87-33 in accordance with Resolution No. 1381, based on the findings and conditions of approval that are outlined in the Alternative Action section of this report. ANALYSIS Coastal Development Permit No. 87-11 is a request to permit the construction of a retaining wall/block wall combination 9 feet 8 inches in height along the rear of a double frontage lot, for the purpose of retaining more than 100 cubic yards of fill material. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-33 is to permit the subject wall to encroach into the 19 foot setback that is required when a rear yard abuts a street. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of April 29, 1987, referred the matter to Planning Com- mission because a number of residents expressed concern regarding the height of the wall and materials used for construction, and the City's policy for determining the maximum height of such walls. In recent years, a number of building permits have been issued for retaining wall and fence combinations over six feet in height along rear property lines adjacent to streets. These permits were issued without processing of height variances based on Code Section 9770.9, which states, "the height of a fence may be measured from either side. No por- tion of a retaining wall needs to be included in determining overall height restrictions." Thus, a 6-foot high fence on top of an 8-foot high retaining wall was determined to be only a 6-foot fence, requiring no variances. The definition of rear yard (Section 9080.137) has recently been amended to state that, "where a rear yard abuts a street it shall meet front yard requirements of the district." Thus, a double frontage lot such as the subject lot must maintain a 15-foot setback for structures over 41 inches high in both the front yard and the rear yard. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-34 is therefore required for the proposed wall to be located on the rear property line abutting the street. The subject lot fronts on Concord Lane, and slopes downward in the rear to abut Westport Drive. The applicants propose to construct an 8 to 10 foot high retaining wall on the rear property line, with a 4 to 6 foot high privacy wall on top (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 - original and proposed conditions). Approximately 9 feet 8 inches of the wall has already been.constructed, in violation of permits issued for a 6 foot high retaining wall. At the .Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting on April 29, 1987, several neighborhood residents testified in opposition to the proposal, citing among their primary concerns the excessive height of the wall as viewed from homes along Westport Drive (facing the retaining walls), the materials used for construction, the visual change caused by the loss of landscaped slope area, and the lack of uniformity among similar walls that have previously been constructed in the neighborhood (see attached minutes). The Board referred the item to Planning Commission because they determined that there was a need to establish a policy regarding the construction of walls in areas where there is a significant grade differential. 7TACHMIENT 3 � RCA July 20, 1987 - (8575d) V/ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11: I. The site plan and elevations received and dated April 7, 1987, shall be revised to conform with staff's recommendations, in accordance with Resolution No. 1381, AIternative A or B. 2. All conditions of Conditional Exception No. 87-33 shall apply. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 877-33: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to.the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The subject property is a double frontage lot with a significant grade differential. 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in.order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. A retaining wall/block wall combination over six feet in height is necessary to ensure privacy, due to the slope in the rear of the lot. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-33 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone clas- sifications. The wall will step back from the street level and will incorporate a planter area. 4. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-33: . 1. 1 The site plan and elevations received and dated April 7, 1987, shall be revised to conform with staff's recommendations, in accordance with Resolution No. 1381, Alternative A or B. 2. 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. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. Alternative 2: Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 87-11 and Conditional Exception No. 87-33 based on the following findings: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11: I. The proposed wall is not consistent with the CZ suffix zoning requirements, the R1 Zoning District, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property because it does not conform with the 15' setback required along the rear of a double frontage lot. ATTACHMENT NO. RCA - July 20, 1987 (8575d) CF F k .. h• N � i w r a Al CI_ /� C I ` IS i ` I: p a ` \ o R1 C7 i u Y7 A J� • U :y ' A RI Cl jkV CF-R F c -z �;,a • R3 R 2 , R2 R2 R2 RI Cl Z E.L!lISL. .. .__ I Vu 0i - 0-G f1► r. 'k -, ( ..- R, ME im 'UA, s�i"' 'c� " R2 I AM R2 R2 F LU � / 1 CZ U sic i 1 n tfy PI CZ i I �.- -_ N USP N . hl CI NI Ct CI. L4-CZ r r - �/s9 t�. ra4_ -1•�: C�` Rl tz `' ,. R3 R3 F . i0 a:`' i i c S 1 tt RI too Cl '9 A�a Ri CZ e,a .,-u Y „`��• R I-CZ j R 3 f cl , ti; I-cz RI-Cz u R! R3 =P` a,.ct R2 R2 ., R3-19 E .$ WR•CZ-FP2 Z P ....1.. - R2 CZ ,��„u.n L�/ 1,.., bA, n� u RI of k' •truw.r.. j I RICZ1 W Tm I m M 0: R) C fi Ni.NTwG10N n41100" CC ` C9, RI CZ e.Tccus veu,cn• �� co R Rl- r-c r t1 a cz Rl-CZ V RI-cz _ RI-c: ' �. •� nt I WARNER C10f, -O.- 1 tY7-4--3�) • "UNTtf+GIC1H MACH HUNTWGTON MACH PLANNING DIVISION 9880 APPE_'OF �'_ :;_iINC .OKMISSION DECISION BY KE`IrEr-;'I_-� OF WESTPORT DRIVE We are bringing this appeal to the City Council for reversal of a decision which was passed by the Planning Commission on June 16 , 1987 regarding the retaining walls built on Concord Dr. by Mr. and Mrs . Miguel Coello and ►1r. and Mrs . Archur Ascolesi and facing residents or Westport Dr . We feel that the Planning Commission did not address the specific problems that face us because of their decision to ac- cept an illegal retaining wall ( with conditions ) . We are certain that the construction of the 121 ' cement block wall over the 6 ' permit limit was an act of blatant disregard for both the re- scrictions of 'the building code and their neighbors ' rights to an at- tractive environment and protected property values . Additional reasons for our appeal are as follows : 1 . Permit issued for 6 ' wall a ) Builder disregarded limit and went up to 12 ' in order to Level the wall with their backyards . We feel this was an act of deception. b) Enough cement blocks were delivered for a 12 ' wall . The builder did not grout over 8' wall in anticipation that the 12 ' wall would have to be shortened to 8 ' - another act of deception. c ) Cicy inspector erred in signing it off at 8 ' when oni a 6 ' permit was issued. As stated on page 4 of the Staff .c-Z!porr_ to the Planning Commission dated June 16 , 1987 , "Staff member- , Laura Phillips , reported that the applicants obtained build- ing permits to build a 6 ' high retaining wall ; however , the wall was constructed higher than 6 ' . " After the inspect- ion , the wall continued growing to 12 ' . Retaining walls not built to code ( Safety Factors ) a) The 12 ' wall was not built to City Standards for retaining walls . As stated by Virgil Simonick, a registered profes- sional engineer , "The foundation as built , does not conform even to the requirements of a 7 ' reataining wall . " b► City at risk in case of even a minor earthquake with this retaining wall passed by the City . c) Inglewood-Newport Fault goes right through Westport Dr. - we are even more at risk. 3 . Confusion at the Planning Commission Meeting a) Commissioners were not aware of the building codes , safety standards and unique circumstances of our streets (Westport D. and Roundhill Dr. ) where the sloping , terraced property ATTACH DIVIILET N nuntingtun beach development services department A Ep ®R TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: June 16 , 1987 SUBJECT: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO . 87-33 APPLICANT/ June and Arthur Ascolesi DATE ACCEPTED: OWNER: 16931 Concord Lane April 7 , 19&7 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REOUEST: To permit the construction MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE of a retaining wall over Waived by applicant six feet ( 6 ' ) in height for the purpose of retaining ZONE: R1-CZ (Low Density more than 100 cubic yards Residential District- of material, and to permit Coastal Zone) a wall to encroach into the required 15 ' setback GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential LOCATION: 16931 Concord Lane (west side of Concord Lane EXISTING USE: Single approximately 140 feet family dwelling south of Davenport Drive) LOT SIZE: 7935 square ft. I 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 87-11 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 87-33 as modified by staff, in accordance with Resolution No . 1381 based on the findings and conditions of approval outlined in this report . 2 .0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Coastal Development Permit No. • 87-11 is a request t°O permit the construction of a retaining wall/block wall combination 9 feet-8 inches in height along the rear of a double frontage lot , for the purpose of retaining more than 100 cubic yards of fill material . Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-33 is to permit the subject wall to encroach into the 15 foot setback that is required when a rear yard abuts a street . These items were continued from the May 19 , 1987 Planning Commission meeting at the applicant ' s request. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their ATTACHMENT NO. 2 A-FM•23A e without processing of height variances based on Code Section 9770 . 9, which states , "the height of a fence may be measured from either side. No portion of a retaining wall . needs to be included in determining overall height restrictions. ' Thus, a 6-foot high fence on top of an 8-foot high retaining wall was determined to be only a 6-foot fence, requiring no variances . The definition of rear yard (Section 9080 . 137) has recently been amended to state that, "where a rear yard abuts a street it shall meet front yard requirements of the district. " Thus, a double frontage lot such as the subject lot must maintain a 15-foot setback for structures over 42 inches high in both the front yard and the rear yard . Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-33 is therefore -required for the proposed wall to be located on the rear property line abutting the street. ANALYSIS: The subject lot fronts on Concord Lane, and slopes downward in the rear to abut Westport Drive. The applicants propose to construct an 8 to 10 foot high retaining wall on the rear property line, with a 4 to 6 foot high privacy wall on top (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 - original and proposed conditions) . Approximately 9 feet-6 inches of the wall has already been constructed, in violation of permits issued for a 6 foot high retaining wall. At the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting on April 29 , 1987, several neighborhood residents testified in opposition to the proposal , citing among their primary concerns the excessive height of the wall as viewed from homes along Westport Drive (facing the retaining walls) , the materials used for construction, the visual change caused by the loss of landscaped slope area, and the lack of uniformity among similar walls that have previously been constructed in the neighborhood (see attached minutes) . The Board referred the item to Planning Commission because they determined that there was a need to establish a policy regarding the construction of walls in areas where there is a significant grade differential . On May 5 , 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No . 1381 establishing "Design Criteria for Rear Block Walls on Double Frontage Lots in Huntington Harbour" (see attached) . The resolution allows for two alternatives, both of which require a stepping back from the street when retaining wall/block wall combinations exceed six feet in height . Alternative A calls for a two-tiered wall with one planter area, and Alternative B for a three-tiered wall with two planter areas (see Figures 3 and 4) . Both alternatives also require a 5 foot by 5 foot tree well cut-out every 60 feet (1 per property) at the property line, and allow for additional height as needed with materials such as wrought iron or glass. (49 Staff Report - 6/16/87 -3- , i � N p;s343d) 4 . The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 87-33 : 1 . The site plan and elevations received and dated April 7, 1987 , shall be revised to conform with staff ' s recommendations , in accordance with Resolution No . 1381, Alternative A or B. 2 . 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. 3 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department . 11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may: ( 1) Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 87-11 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 87-33 as proposed by the applicant ' s plans, based on findings and conditions of approval ; or ( 2) Deny Coastal Development Permit No . 87-11 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 87-33 based on findings . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO 87-33 : 1 . Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks , such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . 2 . The subject property was legally subdivided and developed in a manner consistent with applicable zoning laws . 3 . Encroachment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties in the vicinity and would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon these properties . 4 . The proposed structure will not be -compatible with adjacent properties to the west. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO , 87-11 1. The wall does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan because it does not conform to Code. ATTA" MY4�` " F Staff Report - 6/16/87 -5- (8343d) . r . .. '`„ j . l F E 1 Imo. k2 ,, ]Rkft -Ct �i, �.;.« h �. 'C �% •i '9� y 2`' C:f k I F",Z, n1 \ ', _ kl c7 �` N\ o* /�: R3 R2 R2 R2 R2 Fit it oil -ofPFAMf�o f `M 5 2 1 ; 1 + \ I•.�1,i�•2 h L4C WI ,„ R « <J ,>w R2 R' 2 R2 R2 F a—cz w CZ CZ �I -^ i \p N Fe NI 1 C.'Y-CZ S? r - r 0 � l Y � a nlDAVIWGRI (! 1 1 '. ,�'. °r 1 ? I Z o ;; ;, " ��__._ - ; R 3 R 3 R3 , F rrt2 Q•�`�1 G Q . C l RI'U RI-CZ R Al C2 , ' i c 3 I c N N FR3.1R 3II-czRI-CZ �? r+s p, ...rR3 �, ��y. 2 R 2 • �,' ,.Ilr: WR CZ-fP2 P. yy R / ^r R3,19 u.are R2- Law cz .l �, NI _ RI � �' '° .wK.ra+r. 1111.�11 WR-CZ-FP2 � 1 RI re M1MiGION HAXCNJN �j.aul�n,a,t �+ AIA R � � `L1' � • RI-CZ RhCL ... 1 R 1 C Z AT CCo6 SPtUFIC PC Ael \ c� Cf-c U ► _ � O�/ItW P. r RI-CZ Ft ^ •r\• •" AVE (WARNER " — 4 AVE ' �I CZ _ .- RhCi ct)fl — ` HUNTING/ON StACN HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION c S ,6 1 7. All building such a-s unusable. lumb.:r, wire, pipe, and other surplus .,.)'r unus-able material , shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. AYES : Evans , Godfrey, Kre ' Poe, Smith NOES : None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-11 APpligant;_ June and Arthur Ascolesi A request to permit construction of a retaining wall over six feet (61 ) in height for the purpose of retaining more than 10d cubic yards of material . The subject property is located at 16931 Concord (West side of Concord Lane approximately 140' feet South of Davenport Drive) . This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 3 and Class 5 , California Environmental Quality Act , 1986. Les Evans suggested that Coastal Development Permit No . 87-11 and No . 87-12 be considered at the same time due to the request for the wall being identical as the properties are adjoining . The applicants were present and agreed to the suggestion . COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-12 Appl ir.„mint Mjguel and Sonja Coello A request to permit construction of a retaining wall over six feet ( 6 ' ) in height for the purpose of retaining more than 100 cubic yards of material . The subject property is located at 16951 Concorn (West side of Concord Lane approximately 200 feet South of Davenport Drive. This request is' covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 3 and Class 5 , California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff member, Laura Phillips , reported that the applicants obtained building permits to build a 6 ' high retaining wall; however, the wall was constructed higher than 6 ' . When a complaint was filed with the City, the work was stopped . She said that staff had received numerous telephone calls from residents objecting to' the height of the wall and the lack. of uniformity. The issue that has come up effects other walls in the Harbor and in the City; therefore, staff is attempting to establish a standard for walls where there are slopes ... Zta-ff -recommended the Board to open' the public hearing, hear the public testimony and continue to allow staff time to do further research. ATTACHMENT NO. (8116d) -4- 4/29/87 - BZA / e/ Shirley de Heras , I.*- Westport Drive, spoke _.. opposition of -the .. requests. She also felt the va*I*ue of .the -riomes would be decreased because it looks like a prison wall . Elfriede Geiger , 17001 Westport Drive, spoke in opposition of the requests . She had not given approval to the applicants for the construction . She was concerned because if this type of wall was permitted to continue, her property could face a 20 foot wall . D. J . Chisholm, 16901 Westport Drive, spoke in opposition of the requests . Requested that something be done to prevent walls over six feet . Margaret Bromberg, 16971 Westport Drive, spoke in opposition of the requests . She was concerned that other residents might want to build similar walls which would decrease property value. Ruth Swift , 17089 Westport Drive, spoke in support of the requests . She said the wall is not unsightly. Arthur Ascolesi , applicant , spoke in support of the requests . Joyce Goldenson, 16831 Baruna Lane, a Huntington Beach Realtor, spoke in opposition of the request . She said the concrete and the height would decrease property value in the area . Russel Spears , 16951 Westport , spoke in opposition of the requests . He indicated that he had not signed the agreement for the construction. He went on to say that the street was beautiful before construction of the wall but now looks like an alley. June Ascolesi , applicant, reported that the concrete type wall was chosen because she had been advised that concrete was the strongest type of wall . She said the wall , when completed , would be covered with greenery and would be beautiful . Arthur de Heras , 16941 Westport Drive, spoke in opposition of the requests . Ruby Devin, 3561 Aquarius Drive , spoke in support of the requests . She said the wall is attractive . There were no other persons to speak for or against the requests and Board discussion began with the public hearing left open . The Board discussed a need for a city-wide policy on how future walls are going to be built where there are slopes . T T NO. : .- ( 8116d) -6- 4/29/87 - BZA RESOLUTION NO. 1381 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR REAR BLOCK WALLS ON DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR WHEREAS, there are double frontage lots within the Huntington Harbour area o-f the City where a significant grade differential necessitates construction of retaining wall and fence combinations over six feet in height, within the rear yard setback adjoining a public street, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that currently permitted retaining wall and fence combinations over six feet in height are aesthetically undesirable, and WHEREAS, the purpose for which the retaining walls are intended can be attained in a manner that is compatible and harmonious with surrounding land uses, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission states that Staff Alternative A and B per attachment shall be the standard for construction of retaining wall and fence combinations over six feet in height in the rear yard setback adjoining a public street . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 5th day of May, 1987, by the following roll call vote: AYES : Silva, Schumacher, Higgins , Pierce; Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NAYS : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: mes W. Palin, Secretary Planning Commission Chairman „L"1/ ATTACH ENT NO. ' ..L_« .,........+ _ C;ii /R7 (8038d) ountington beach development services department STAtr REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: May 5, 1987 SUBJECT: REAR BLOCK WALLS ON DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR 1 . 0 ANALYSIS • In recent years , a number of building permits have been issued for retaining wall and fence combinations over six feet in height along rear property lines adjacent to streets . These permits were issued without processing of conditional exceptions (variances) based on Code Section 9770 . 9 , . which states, "The height of a fence may be measured from either side. No portion of a retaining wall needs to be included in determining overall height restrictions. " Thus , a 6 foot high fence on top of an 8 foot high retaining wall was determined to be only a 6 foot fence, requiring no special permits. The recent construction of a retaining wall/block wall combination on two lots along Concord Lane in the Huntington Harbour area has evoked some controversy regarding this code interpretation. The lots in question are through lots , which front on Concord Lane and slope downward in the rear to abut Westport Drive (see Figure 1) . The homeowners wish to construct 8 foot to 10 foot high retaining walls on the rear property line, with 4 foot to 6 foot high privacy walls on top (see Figure 2) . Neighborhood residents are concerned about the excessive height of the walls as viewed from homes along Westport Drive (facing the retaining walls) , the materials used for construction, the visual change caused by the loss of the landscaped slope area, and the lack of uniformity among similar walls that have previously been. constructed in the neighborhood. 2 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting, for the Planning Commission' s consideration, two alternative designs for retaining wall and fence combinations that will address these concerns . Staff Alternative A allows for an initial six foot high retaining wall at the property line, topped by a 5 foot wide planter area stepping back from the back of side wall. Another six foot high section of retaining wall could then be placed It the rear of the planter (see Figure 3) . Staff Alternative B also allows for an initial 6 foot high MENT NO. i A-FM-13A EXHIBIT D(1 of 12) �`;_ '�jt'` •''�t ?�p bK �" : •S�,i}k,,�.et ! '' yY'?¢e��i[.Fl tit r�' t4J a�A iu�i t wiz i i k .. ,-� ^k�'j•�� }, X'ikxy i, cy}yTK,�`t Le a m -kt"" 'tr x� 7 +r,1.y� :t�,.a :s3S. .4.a ��t,1wsT" Skx� Fer cn Mu a rn"J` t'J k ylS7 M Y .."FZ !-fi�t"tF1'i�„.`•.x¢f s,�YY"F`.Xf� i;�y'c#e�ei}`�•�,� Ate' � -�'x°�`e�" •� tS ;,,• ,n.a aS. �., S4 S},-iS•rtiS z't �.'!".c [iz�,ss sae✓.c',F'a�•sYF•+s's#' T-jw..w,* ,ri t'+Y61'j':t`t0.1%,�.T[ is. 4••� i I".- tiY'KIt{� j� 3{�f�' ^Y11 4EY 3+ •+ ,e'7 ps t k K r. 'f r.!.S3 rt 7 k y 3• y! S(� F Y• a Y M. +r `a ., ^F �y,x�. L.i}i,✓.s.av�'t�s-�`�._ h fit• '' �`� CT�'+'�`�6t�* t ifc� K a .•{ ' iW °k rw 4 '-s Est . z 3t-��[s,?i`�'i''�.a„,s3 v}.er�:t��� a�t.�` t,i�� tit-.�[,n t`'�..-� y''A�.;'''�•�`/`,[ii"-� i'fy"n ra <^v�p"' If�ff5K5L It ra'`f ,0..4;1 '! ) t� f� YS.{' �"' t .fi.A,.•N y1.1 •S.�f$'IS N.itf,t F�.k 't`!' 3 N 1 �. . t a v 3 ix 7 a F � � ��q �•a a} rs [�t.e-r b „ ?� +� �f TM a a Fes,.s'\��" 4"iffi S .st Jy h% �;4.t �{ )f°K� �'V.`tY�#yb da.r�u,kkzo-a-r ,r{ Jah. � h t_.r t�•r r< �r �[' 2 ys t t ? :.•�i�x dF� ,� r4t +,a,s\.4 @ "hr r Y .E ts'K y.,G�,i.+�y`l ti .1 �i i � '�s t. fZiP" ry[i<T�e` "ai sA rrY`t' 1 r¢ k h''.F r Z xi A -[..L"•. ><i'•• x 7-� a2ar}°r •.? :F rr1„ s1 a + { xp i 4a .m: ` 'S' s i t .e, c aC;r•.� ^" ..vim . .';" •t.1j°°a. 'y `4, ?� t AA �/" ...Fl �' 7 ri`f i§Ih-7� Y i ty� -] it 'Y'4i:' T k R•�' t` ' >f i. '�M���t�`a, \7"i�' '�:�e.3 e ! vK`"w t{ u•,.t'e. vti z t � �o �v W?"t^, r. ! R � .a q.. �- nJ � '{e ar�.f *,s'7�S a�n � s� �.Ar" t r y.r�" t.� Z•�' s.=f �� " Y•, � �,,.£++b`� � .4 i���fi �` Z4�c.!iw b�'a"e xJ. z��K � �+K" .sr�$�� try 3�f t. hail�} N s' + �' t r x 3�r t4�'r•4 `a'",Yc �� .S' �t-;$ Sri -�EaYt'�'jY�,y�fiy4�'.�y,..M.�.. . � �•y ri�¢r i."^�`in'" •m-.r`" t-K+�k +�`w+�Y. :�'� ac4 -�q �°a ;�.-"t c � ��`!'d �1 u�) a�y �f'[i�Siiss ����t. '�'iut. Fi,k�,�,.�8,+i... is�3•q�:Sn{.r G ":.e d3xt �',NN 4.AS` ...Y Rear Wall/Fence of 17161 Westport Drive(Lot 119)as seen from Roundhill Drive Overall Height 7'10" •AR�Cr. y� =89 g iP wtC. 4 '"J7a a t, [! .13J[�..iy'J7j,.. ,�,h�•�a�•v qa 1t xJ' FF•� y z a d Y Rear WanTence of 17141 Westport Drive (Lot 121)as seen from Roundhill Drive Overall Height 10'10" 1 AC wil NAB A T — n_1 Exhibit D(2 of 12)5 rt. r 7 t t J . s i t 2*. e t �y' r .r Jo+y.. •, ,.'�} �. t _'� ati.- t �.pr'- uf. Lti,+•,F2wi r 4a'�.0 �k''1 !a^.. t i!'. J Y'!• 1�sr I a k r � • �� . s R j �T i3 y�retd^ge•�j i x7Reti � � �.« �� f ,,G'l� "� ,i�_. r }sri '� " _'2��=.ii x^.+ '�i1ai!•,�!`''_ '� . J } i.� O�i' � 01 :3 S �.F��.y rat a• .,t sl �d4'��r�{h^F- yw.�iF r �f ':'Y� • r /C< to• xL 5;,;}•v" P-ltS' ,.e9s•..-'i+yS_ * ly `t'' f �1 y ,ir.clr� •t �°'�ey f�'-y��� "a s�y7�L+� b y -�^5 � �ri� "}A Yr' {'`' t 'w x si+ t •.�.a.�'tti.'��: Rear Wall/Fence of 17121 Westport Drive(Lot 122)as seen from Roundhill Drive Overall Height 11' y n{F.x.: 't 4 i ;J9r zr Jt �.E rlh 5-1�'y�MLx•s F,.c� r �l l ^icrvr'"A i*, .J tls5,.!F° x `yrr..'�i�Ky'•v, j'.grc s�.x r 'cy'�i,F"�1 x ir�,�-s�'y .�rx:3. �s-� .71 ' r 3'h:Ja L 't- s � t�„x• •tS' '•xt' �y,.;+.a x�y'�t; At §'��i,�i,$.,, �'}` ? [` ,,,J��yy�,,xxxy3y9+'',sv'bbqq i L •F N N yJ� f' } r 3 �, 5> a4.�'Y 4: "kP iA •'LyG'L+73'Fjt`hri.L^..l.. �bz�A.'k ��+pi.'1:' ~ -0}'yr T1`,�'ti,�.ayx,x d?• -� q�ytar rrv+n v a . k {-' a` t�{,�. 'a..�—•.,.:,ry..�L a vl,s r N as xt� �'f ,.�--ter � t••rt ��„.�,,i�,"'�s�"'a .'t"y'f ���q��•„•,-y-� } �x .�..�' i _ e �-.+�.�r t a "!:"" e•r Nt�c L �,R Y r'� "`+.. +PSF Y• y,. f s r '`t t txi t �,t,� •xrr�, a•�� � 5 s " �'.s 5 ts9t a�""--y��5'rr� �a`" �r� �- z m"•i i * .;_- K a a'S. r.�, r„sX¢�i ya xQ •€ r aryl-r ri'.t '�+" r.....,. +x•y a„R'.' ;3 A. n F,f >! A, Ent 4 v- a-•w 'ij'ukt•'" ¢4 .r''"'�'.`k. .t ,ts,i.6 "•. F y,'�i{ p[+a..•i3 •6� . aS�SrS,.f�?• �" �RiY < b JSGy 4k �y F.Nb >ie` �.�dc�m vFF•f as.£�£ �^ z�.�v"l'F'4?�['.k''d"1 n°q` ' ? t't'rf'r �" "� xt v.'. `€t� tJ•s .,fit c"'x �.+ xWn,�• t �' x+,t b .•" ? ° .r''t+x`' ,k-�`� ,a sy � { t six - 9x,.�Yh GA 'AMP tjyx"�,�'+'x't w rn elr�?ly�§"ix tts d�t'� �Y :'�.A jjl�,` C7•), '�L•y ;i 'r't{"•C;4L"�y,"a�', .F':� j Ee 1 1^J• "S��`..�r-:s z�,�.a v5 x s 4 l�•e. i 3 tl -rrtzz.''fi`X K x i'`�. F �x •�,�k; "�ghi'� Qyr ,s�.,r�.�n,w�{�+,`•'��t.r, �'Srs'�'_u�xy�r.�, '{�" �'t" ',<N .'�.• e' ..:.•.,�SS,1 aS ... .. ..... t.-?ti� .�l R�.z•y�.�k, �Y.. Rear Wall/Fence of 17111 Westport Drive(Lot 123)as seen from Roundhill Drive Overall Height 1 l'10" g� NO. wj n E Exhibit D(3 of 12) + M I - .t� r >R r lf .w sL"y .+r �Yti y��'j ty�s1�✓ }'� 1 .... 4KSIQ �iF.4 f9 J "F/{Y• i 1 r f tiv� x r, ri it) r ' k $f t 'r_ lr Y Y : i u+•iy luJ..-.a' fi FF !4 t i Rear Wall/Fence of 17105 Westport Drive(Lot 124)as seen from Roundhill Drive Overall Height I 5" ir. Jr �t "`L.:�s�'' 7"�`�iF"rah r 4 Sp�-�"41� �} .f•: tS'1:'� �.r .Zt• F4 .1 �}�� s t � at�r�ivY��$ y'.1"'4'i� -T �yi 7�b Ra• + {s i'ri�4�Mtyt r �.�yF�.[! r r. e � , ,� �':;:� � a;'� i♦pis � .. e i }y �t4' ;t �.,.• 4 L ':3i ' S Y PYG it}1t f S.: • .art i`+ W'"t r t� t t ';ge4L �i�+ � � '£+t��i, =z &tit��,.;e'�� � ,� S•F c y .. s a_1, r e 4 $� )>S}f t,}�� �t>• iR m�-,+S s r fi�r�ffi s �t 7 a Tj { - . ,* ti. k�.✓+ a N- x �..5�y y'f •�* - S.iJ y1' 1 'fir. 4 cj.�t Pt x azK4P�t xt� "t,'�rt�;r3 '�f w•C�,h.a�. '�'tf`�cyn"t>,y�'`"� y+l t.��'�F: r¢1`e'3t���r�:�t�J ; f .,.'r�„`*�,�,.� a.f+ v iV t � �x � • C> s . t* 's'�� b7�"tt t*,. +7r{i�1�R wh�ttc r�73it-i ��•`' VW } taa''�ya:` :. :° i' � "�a ��>�tr s� n� �r<xr. 'a � tri F.�'ti•+{�•-� � ��:�� .P "` `�- .,1' S r. �h et �. ♦3, �Y Z�4 a r �`ji tr�T.� y�Si$ d�$,�p i rta yi S�a�#¢¢ b_F+wi t �. <. �. Rear Wall/Fence of 17101 Westport Drive(Lot 125)as seen from Roundhill Drive Overall Height 11'5" A �. , �F'-,M I a Exhibit D(4 of 12) lilt 77 { t L s f + ! f , t sk � } •^w6cti"'. i.� � w? ii ro 4:£ a ,r y :'+,s 5'�'` 4 ' { at t i1s'�l$•r'�..�^t+ "{ � .y i ' t r9 .. �, r 5 E t zXf t s h#3ti e o �# rst � ! � t o S"f t, E � n.tJ;tfi} ts4 sAr s zyfi��� z ' '' •9� }�.• ti : K3i 5. ! +'i[P.il ki �l�` t f } i FF]� i 1. °Y.4,i' ......'.. ., k..kr.+ ...}n b :y ^� .. t l.:...is ^•r.^.y:.! ;c... Rear WWI/Fence of 17087 Westport Drive(Lot 132)as seen from Roundhill Drive Overall Height 12' ' .._ �.s .r � ♦ r .T-_ - It z- i�� r t''k' wL, � i t�W'F. t� �s •5 ;xf �l . lt�,+,.`- ' � asf'S-. > ti§k�' - .s r RF t• r i L1M1). . '�ti3 ,.[ s'�'tP'i#•,�s,�y`-w.s,�`Y!�ya-++•'fir.'tip�a�`�f 1� +✓ qq�4 !c K��er�,�JIr� V a - r 5 l kpYt� 4�.ez�^'r—'__ ,; s�•+!.o....�acr* �""F_T. f L, �ii X f Jh P C z+� Nt h, a i �-". L ..ram 1 ::L•.�f k R { t d ! t }f t a 4 X L J rf t i ' .J �y$ tLT -.�hY...t L"d.i'��� !'� � ..-"f' i .. k + 4 • °"{ �Y,� - t i �. Inv..y, •z, ice('+ i vt �.1 ir. ri .3 � }� C. X � y:� t1#,'3,, r#.s L�4's � \ !'f• ; L�f Y F m. Ls ! � e -i 4 F t.{ s � � 1 J �,..' YtcFfi t ty$iee7 ♦ : :3 P.s,. �.. y}� i+x'�ti Ja•3rT€'f.t'A't Sat h{YJ3Pa'- Y dis'tt4-4f tP t<t s�g.k•nt nty°}at�{''t tr 7 Pvy t3. s{kY'''�,Y,3'sx i`",yF"' rr V(T�tT A S.:h A K TUN C G � a.� ♦°'r 31 Kx Y j. Wa;��k d�l 2�3�1?� y�'r. �. �h +Sk trs� p.ti n.y t Lr at - ♦ S '''r ._. �r¢r4Y< r"{.s 'Ji.. *z4�apsY y'j .r: 't1rJt•5'.J-M1"il"8�3• k s{'0 fin. TAR Bey..r c^w':£ .> L +ix h Li'aYK'a'yQ: '' aF S�r'1~j"r -•c.�is a i,.+f t{e rr'A'g.)yr,,#.si a qm da t {. } t�J 4�F fr; 2 i if t y i�i;Mki{�t'!aX•t,:y c�p'�^P r'f"kr iaa�:'xh T.tY' Y�y•s-F� 'i5 '„"� •1�i�6i�i��"�{`.riGL't'�R...rt 'i y r. ����� 4 ;2{ t. s a i fiY 7 ..t' Y1 .F. �:,s 1iT. '�'S•iJ,S �5�'.:Y^.,zr �z',^ m� t t s i.. .-,�� ...:.,•.fi.. ..� I., ...., ,::.r.r, rA :•,la.:5-t. ..�.ai';'A'.w.r KX-..ti'.. w..o:y n .._,.,:. . .F Rear WaMence of 17085 Westport Drive(Lot 1.33)as seen from Roundbill Drive Overall Height 12'4" Exhibit D(S of 12) K ax.iJ sa a � s F y 1: �- ¢¢ '�\� i Y 4 � ' Y YSaj k i N C Y i 5 r"�£t'aMl s` ".��,4 4��,R• 'd�:' r it >s �ti:�'' ak �r t 4 .4 `* Y.2�L7 n2'�,yi '1M1 R T?fr �sFf s•�_i� �6L{ys.�h�dy r7� � ���`��i{sy n`i '' r.. ? Fj ..r x.�\ c i yw�� ..:y'i' t�'Y_'h .... -.�..'• -,vr„j;,.. .� ",a,e{5..... `,.:,z°t ' �,k 1 s M T+ At IR •u , Y I y , ,,. 1• t � yL.,.yfa t t [ �._ } tl r Rear Wall/Fence of 17083 Westport Drive(Corner Lot 134)as seen from Roundhill Drive Overall Height 9' 10" wfA , r �TTa��i T N� Exhibit D(6 of 12) IN r \l } t r y^"v� d +Ss t ��. w-,n�,.'+ t-^; { �'.: t t •e2a�,.st }4�r.i$ X m a 2 y t } rS t v+r6 1 A`Abs ^"^,�Cr - a > 3 C 7 a t •'Y F a+ u -s. y � 1 S Yn ....� F� yc' + z r -."7 -} s .s� _aikL" F• r `` r 5 Y ,s }.a a y s l3 xn T 2wr if a i Y't� 1�N h iY Sl T Rear Wall/Fence of 17081 Westport Drive(Comer Lot 135)as seen from Roundhill Drive Overall Height 7'10" s '�a`( 1 1 6.'Y�r�. } J.'rr�.r; ri :•J"5�. 4�� r; L�.s.. - r=y: : ��f r t f•.�..1 �J-�F��, a . � S � F r r a!{ S f�_�� 1�� �, fit' ''�•ro,} '} 'i.-. '•ti�iL . . 1� y �y r rt� S -;. � �r iS a w�i,•i�,t'�'.�'��• e �.r - �': IF- ,+^'Li� .• �v�'t � :.T � ll�S,, r•-t. - t t �n � Si•� '�}"•'"_. � f t - �1• AC �i ✓ - tT� 1,{ >t+-r '341". `k.'r.. 1 ,fir ,� :�.It S "-.�t-.M. '.�'�•Mc�'i��f - - ti f;- 5 *, f Y1-. sf..+7" F it _ -r �r" �•� s �i � t ' o -� �� �� Kh✓y+ �9' rr�� 1, S '7 �'' � �T'.Q� '�'_ l r„ i .. •�Kd+� ���1 q'` �;riti�.,aa.�y7�' �' �fr t .+i y. U?.�.� � ,.e � r. t!6•' Exhibit D(&of 12) 'v �s •• ,r ft1�t9 al''y 3L } A '. f•Y'ki� - , ►r ,��s�„�• +��"'� '7 • � ty ' 4�� rya a. S w r 1•[Y`6•'+�r,{s'.7•Ir Ry!•i�f.�liyt•,�S�,A �ir,���}r ��ir•>,t,�if' 1,t � 1'• fi r•' _r �,�1'�. .. •"��$t�tf' S"t �p�}�4�rn�1 S°�''�... �!! 'P� S +f�C�w .. w�+�l� e: .�. �, � �,1:• �. a., z •ss f L5 Si M g .' Y �'." T R� 35,t t .t ��<�,. !4•�4 1 Rear Wall/Fence of 17021 Westport Drive(Lot 141)as seen from Roundbill Drive Overall Height 10'6" r1s }s tnq } �•a ��F i{ ter , 0.2 ... ,t 7 �'y p 1'a :�i�? t•t� x �y3 � r'', i S" t } fs P s + l • .. 1 :old f •� ,r. r '�-G �^'�i�t'ftY..��, �s< �� an,. � •t., -t Yr s t '' .�►.. SAMs. aa �C .Fi ;:,` ►�u.► � A�,•r.�,{C s Eli" T s .a r a ... j j•� . .,1 ` tr�'t`f�,�.t' �r�}3�}jA x K `��. F GT r '. t .. C;� __T� •�•i 4 t�W^pt 4`R - ti we sF _ � f. '} ,,�4 7 ^+•f. Rear Wall/Fence of 16961 Westport Drive(Lot 146)as seen from Roundbill Drive Overall Height 1,V A a Ai�ALIva�. � CXnIUIL 1J t7 Ul 1.4) or'��• Jpf t''Js a✓ .a'''T}. `i�"`tu r� ` lr ..IJ w xpv{��'i4 {3 art fixi �Fk r s t y°'�`'r.1� I nf,, f<. a,r ti a-f u q 5S f�•i *t .. s r'y. a r ♦ t'µ t t •. - xr r• ----ids. 5f ' f -- � i 4� L LPG �' � S •+' a X L''" - '!• i. s. 7f ._ <� 7�t i e �4. k"y v��"�^".�f''a.a�...ry•�� + ,,r.. i�f S� t -�i ) 1{t# 'V 8y�y.. •''��£' �,y""'� �.p 'tigr"•s�'r� .r �� �� � * y.. ��y . Y yr .... RE f. i'�-�n{•'�'" C �' i' '!QV 'r 9nYt -_�> ram,.,.+*•"' ..�4, t. .i - r' E�.w� y h o ,.,or -.:�„S' .5 e '' r f •r { h s '.}:' i f. . 77 41f t r. ��1' ?• -� ,y a. f � t ' 5 ail: - t t"'- a __ 4� • � +-i.:r{ 4_. ? Y� 4 i:3..Imo. 9 t��^?- r S. 5 5 �c o..}t ��4 S. s.;l•... i� i �� � s s� �~•t #� f ts$�� y .� ��i� f• tr. t, •�• '•s. ' �� '� t """� if i is i� l4tfi. �Yti s� Y •"`� ,,,,,,, �, � �� . . _,k " t A 3 Jzlk� i���i� pc hyy3 yc r. rl it T � `t�,F£..r .Tw'ti•r`'a 1 Fy f -1'oi r L 7 �.F ,�a�a x s .�t h t t. .1.p 3eae 3 j ur+a< w x., a^ sue. F - � a i y d H-x4 �;�,r '1`+��4•i5• �+r g � �c?"J c 7'f r F S ':�"3 r Y""xr sd r k .. s�c s^i gaaB >'C"d f,�q K t Ci 'y "i,• ?.v�; 5 $? �" k r1>,#_ 9(rr y.,g s ,> a.•, ''R E5M b i¢,�3 t 3. ;S$F 1 > i•S' -. yxia tq� ` Y E d i13 ..J� •Fyd�i 41`91.4y?cµ µr.7.. e }rt.,,.r �.fcE'�+�5#s D§ •' Af t33,ti r'i^`... v 1 r.'7 r x s�k t..'. s r � r'zw•� „v�3y in h d+ay�%' `,r'ai hr a t�,tip..;.�����-'��six;"`•�.•�s•`t�n,. 'fir F .r t �, s .....o j .i^� a t• { Rear Waluence of 16911 Westport Drive(Lot 150)as seen from Roundbill Drive Overall Height 11'with a 2'Setback Planter Exhibit D(11 of 12) L i avi Z. � )t.i�.{. 7•w, s '���. �t?mot . .vr tea• q?..f,r�' �"I�9 Q �� ��� '� M,1a./'=Y1�,7 11 wY lts,.t y. . may..±i... j •� � �+!S�1 { RRIF .71 Not 0ay � t 2 vt ,jti' 4b tTA� i tstit �. '' .r i'�>Y`,yr.jw.y�''���:s.. fl ti, f .:i�•i' 5�"a�" at = • '4 r! d es`k eo a t i z y ot�+iL i4 r gyp}( �t � yr '•u�i+^.R,t��. {.�FX�7x. `�s��j�P s`'•�"''�i+x�y>>r y���'u �a r,r L t J ��p,t'�';� . ��r.. rr- i � *f�fp,�iti a$f uhfl'¢�y�k'l�i �v' "�'x� :S x5� �.S �`'I °F IF 'J� � Zy K a b 4 i- _ .•. {t"�^+'- e•ri...e� +�''.ti4 i -•? a r y1 '�,':� atS'�,�f,x'�s: �. q i fi•� ('a.; :,s ,.n " :};. Rear Wall/Fence of 16931 Concord Lane(Lot 154)as seen from Westport Drive Overall Height 7'8" y 1■■■■ f Y t Y uaxs '4 r se PIN 1 %''•76s'7 ai`tj7"�,j T y �xrt Yd f ?rt?.�- a. •°a s t r F1`Y C.�b. i4 •staff^s � xl�y '1 `�kg�..:.''ycst .Y.T � ' - 1. �• " 4 �' � ;` „to �5,��{{ C Ali ,� 1 1 Rear Wall/Fence of 16951 Concord Lane(Lot 155)as seen from Westport Drive Overall Height 7 8" ATTACHMENT NO. Exhibit D(12 of 12) 5 y, i �yP U Y� r •ir F iP_ ,t�v.Ys''i�t a.�'.f'+sT. •�fi,,�""L: _ c s t 1�y 4! .fir yAd - " '}�1 t �! � it°'`ra+F'�r p1 ����Yilffi��.'A�,a �i • . i ': � t` ��r' .�fr. -a La F�f:- �� �" "��t Fq + ��� 7 �. €-� � ti`�:, te�a.• gift r^, � 1 a't�� fr�tn y�.3p tt � r ..., rtyTR(�Yi Via. �xt "� �"}. 4t•�rt. ati , .�yP7'! "�# ;"�'• tr tt� � ., R �(� ' iy"-_'. '�(( ^'. !, „• 3t .,T''�^c �E•t�. "e'. r+. .. ��.. .i;• ,'v"tt�?• cajc,�Sc'.J�"P#i��tx.' �°:.. . �'�,�9 t'il ,i�i� * k'����.'��" �� y tit P1 }.}��,# i^'� h �t. '• r i _,1lt,txrl:� ���� e,rLq��*Y* 7.. 3 ��.� ��a - s y t \ Ap'M Yi zh'- t r 4!i�'4t F 3.k Y'iy et ,Y•� 7 r'3 f! t�-yi 1 tT :.4 x S 1 f rrt J'n kYA of f cat :„�aa ,e t• : ...j„a a ,'x'LC `7 Rear WaIVFence of 4172 Windsor Drive(Lot 159)as seen from Westport Drive Overall Height 11'9" y "k i,10 + 7 4�• a .rY r x ut)j '� a r S,t ?y f 4 t. =r i ,.;' �^`r 'yr t 4 ••+„a�'r3W� rE tf d$R'tt;"'v' j +atit� .,yrXs o'� t sP w�14`:. E n, ✓ °'�'"' tx!p nx .�],ti�'„r W t rt N� �i�, ( _�` ;�d:r ..r�� a.,�?r� u8�-0,-r J r• -:��,r• �r. t �.0 ar`.� �.t n �. �T '.•- yrv�� ,w.•., f � > ', tom•• a r �{„ tcVgi's'��YJ( v? ` �3i kq Van av��,.r •z���5.¢ik`„>rt � v F•9 �ta t 43�rx�x� ��'��+�v'�`�r� 1- .�?i+t =.��t}'��n�'� S+x.x�N r '4, t - d a � '��r,,,�r-Y�SSS.,•t•p �'R�S. - .�*RR :�'2�C z ..-.1.;..'.a.aq:§x . '•. .::r'. _. ,...?.•P.... �..c'..tY f(, 1 a s„ a:. Rear Wall/Fence of 4202 Windsor Drive(Lot 161)as seen from Westport Drive Overall Height 12'with a 3'Setback Planter EXHIBIT E P e t of 2 DATE DATE OF DATE BUILD OUT PERMIT FINAL PERMIT PERMIT SPECIFICATIONS PERMIT LOT ADDRESS STREET NAME RETAINING WALLIFENCE ISSUED INSPECTION EXPIRED RETAINING WALLIFENCE CODING 151 16901 Westport Drive Hasegawa,Arthur/Jennie 1 l'bik;2'setback planter 12/05/1997 01129H 998 5'6"R;6'W abate;140 L.F. NE ISO 16911 Westport Drive Vis,Bernhard/Lorene Il'bik;Zsalbackplanter 05/12/1999 DENIED sit face bik,T R;5'W;67 L.F. NI 149 16921 Westport Drive NWom Mark/Fran 148 16941 Westport Drive deHems,ArtlShirley 147 16951 Westport Drive 148 18961 wastport Drive V bik;6'wood;as grew 12/07/1995 01105/1996 6"blk;6'H;91 L.F. E 145 16971 West ort Drive Bromberg, aret 144 least Weslpart DriveHaduong,Hm 143 16991 Westport Dave Longman,Roberl/Donna 142 17001 Was Drive G Aloie/Elldede 141 17021 Westport Drive 6'6"W 4'wood;2 drains;green 04/27/1982 Per H.B.aid plan 405 NS 140 17031 Westport Dave 6'6"N•4'wood;green 04 1611982 04127/1982 per H.B.std plan NS 139 17041 I Westport Drive Perryman.Xftalnia 138 17051 1 Westport Drive Penlcale,Janet 137 17051 W ort Drive Smalley, e/Valette 5'S"alum ,4'wrought imn NO PERMIT NP 136 17071 Westport Dave Takasuka,RandlophKris 135 17081 Westport Drive Kenyon,ChadeslJosie V 4"blk;2 6"wrought iron 10/20/1972 OV0511973 150 L.F. NS 134 17083 Westport Drive Mit MM,Pavie T 4"bik;2'6"wrought Iron 07/06/1978 12xl2 N •H 42";12'max o c.T NS 133 17085 W Ddve W3"bik;4'1" lass 9128//81 8'R;62 L.F.;VW;28 L.F. E 132 17087 Westport Drive f3(bN7Norma 9'bliq 3'wrought Iron 0 20/1981 0WBII981 6' er atd Dan 1 80 L.F. E 131 17089 West Drive Swig,AgrertlRuth 130 17091 Westport Dave F GkMe 129 17093 Westport Odve Lynch,John/Mary Jane 128 17095 Westport DrWe 127 17097 Westport Drive 128 17099 Westport Drive Hume, 125 17101 W art Ddve E um,Dou taslEgle 7'7"blk;T 10"wrought iron 09/11/1981 09/28H981 plan 4071408;53 L.F. NS 124 17105 Drh/e T 7"bk T 1Ir wrought iron 09/11/1901 09/28/lost 58 L.F. NS 123 17111 Westport Drive Jackson Kenneth/D.A. 7'10"bik;4'wood Mce 00/11/1981 09/2811981 58'L.F. NS 122 •17121 Westport Drive T bik;4'wood slats;drain;some green 1228/1981 04/02/1982 per city aid Ian 408/406,,4'above;80 L.F. NS 121 17141 W Dave Quan,Harms 6'10"bik;4'wood slats;all areen 12/2811981 04/0211982 per city aid plan 408(406;4'above R;60 L.F.;4'8"R portion of W;8'R NE 120 17151 ley.June , 119 17161 W Drive T 10'bik;4 drains to public sidewalk NO PERMIT 6"bik;G High;60 L.F. NP 11e 17171 Wes DMus True,Mark/Debm 117 17181 W Dfire Pedersen,ChedeslJoArm Footnote' Permit do@ng NP no bullcling permit NI no final inspection or denied E e)ceeds permits cations IL NS non spedfic pemrit NE does not exceed Its ecificetions E'er 1 EXHIBIT E( a e 2 of 2 DATE DATE OF DATE BUILD-OUT PERMIT FINAL PERMIT SPECIFICATIONS PERMIT LOT ADDRESS STREET NAME RETAINING WALLIFENCE ISSUED INSPECTION EXPIRED PER PERMIT CODING 152 16901 Concord Lane 153 16911 Concord Lane 154 16931 Concord Lane Ascolesi,Arthur/June T 8";all green 08/17/1987 09/01/1987 6'max R;6 max W;69 L.F. NE 155 16951 Concord Lane Stewart,Daniel T 8";white plaster 08/21/1987 09/01/1987 6'max R;8'max W;5'wrought iron;70 L.F. NE 156 16961 Concord Lane Hull,Billie Lee 157 16971 Concord Lane 163 16902 Concord Lane Shaffer,Richard 164 16912 Concord Lane 166 16922 Concord Lane 166 16942 Concord Lane 167 16M Concord Lane 158 4162 Windsor Drive Sullivan,Dave/Ka 159 4172 Windsor Drive 6'9"bik;5'wood slats;4 drains;green 01/02/1997 09/22/1997 6'H R;2'W(wood)abutting st.;110 L.F. E 160 4192 Windsor Drive Horluchl,Frank 181 4202 Windsor Drive Ben-Ezer,Oded/Talli 17 bik;T setbackplanter 05/08/1998 NO FINAL 02/04/1999 7'3/4"R,VW above;3'setback planter NI 162 4212 Windsor Drive Scott,Thomas/Lavonne Footnote: Permit Codin NP no building permit NI no final inspection or denied E exceeds permit specifications ,NS nonspecific permig NE does not exceed permit specifications .5N a III. SPECIFIC COVENANTS,CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS(CC&Rs) Clause IV,Article 18 of CC&Rs for Tract 4880 "No fence,wall,hedge or other.visual barrier over six(6)feet in height,save and except for trees approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee,shall be erected or grown at anyplace on any lot." Clause IV,Article 22 of CC&Rs for Tract 4880 "Without the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee,(ii)no existing grade shall be altered or modified by changing its location or the direction of its slope or be replaced,in whole or in part. Any applicant for a deviation from the foregoing requirements shall famish said Committee with such engineering or geological data concerning erosion,earth movement,drainage,hazards to persons or public or private property and any other matters which said Committee shall deem material thereto." Clause TV,Article 23(a)of CC&Rs for Tract 4880 "The Architectural Review Committee shall have the right and privilege to permit the owner of any lot or lots(without the consent of owners of other lots)to deviate from any or all of the Covenants set forth in this Clause IV,provided that such deviation is necessary In order to carry out the general purposes of this declaration. Any such permission of said Committee shall be in writing and shall not constitute a waiver of said Committee's power of enforcement with respect to any or said Covenants as to other lots." Clause IV,Article 23(b)of CC&Rs for Tract 4880 "Said Covenants constitute the minimum conditions and restrictions applicable to lots. Declarant hereby reserves a right to add or impose by a supplemental declaration other and more stringent limitations,covenants,conditions,restrictions and reservations with respect to any lot or lots now or hereafter owned by it,including the right to increase setback requirements and square footage requirements with respect to buildings and other structures and otherwise to increase and supplement,but not to diminish said Covenants affecting said real property except by permit given pursuant to subparagraph(a)of this Paragraph 23." Clause II,General Purposes of This Declaration of CC&Rs for Tract 4880 "Said real property and every lot,part of parcel thereof or therein is subjected to said Convenants to insure the proper use and appropriate and uniform development and improvement thereof,to protect each owner of any lot,part of parcel in or of said real property against such improper use of any other such lot,part of parcel as may depreciate the value of its or his property,to guard against the erection on said real property of buildings or structures built of improper or unsuitable materials;to encourage the erection of attractive improvements on said real property at appropriate locations;to secure and maintain property setbacks from streets and adequate free spaces between structures;and in general to provide for a high type and quality of development and improvement in and on said real property." Clause IV,Article 17(c)of CC&Rs for Tract 4880 "The approval of the Architectural Review Committee of any plans or specifications,color scheme,plot plan or grading plan submitted for approval for use on any particular lot,shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the Architectural Review Committee of its right to object to any of the features or elements embodied therein if and when the same features or elements are embodied in any subsequent plans and specifications,color scheme,plot plan or grading plan submitted for approval with respect to any other lots." IV. PETITIONERS OPPOSING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01.09 B FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY RETAINING WALLIFENCE WHICH INCLUDES OR INCLUDED THE ELIMINATION OF PROPERTY SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPED EMBANKMENTSISLOPES AS SPECIFIED IN THE CCSRs FOR TRACT 48W. STREET ADDRESS TRACT 48M(LINIT 4) NER TURF HOMEOWNER SI NATURE 2 ! ' 3 6 R VIC 17,4 ;3 Gc.9e! cr -isz-rt s 7e a 7i i69 p 7 1"1093 f�N�f.ot/.cr. IZ Q C. :..&AL P 41 Y r• rl-v - &ftm C VNn -.,.R�. TA 0 eT I r rICpAJPi O 12 13 y U O r!w 14 16�� (,l)Es� 0+f ��Y N ►2��/I ' ,s Kej T-O s nu 17 l b V ! go N D • �/ !c cG /tr�NC,� is 79 �Uti��/�� F sue.` ,�! rJ/vr A-o r�i ig X-A&K Lori M�zbc • ' c+�iN 20 11107 R(,,,Vtjpj4ILL PA. ZX CIO.— �ItUlak"'��� 211 24 (la , v l L p O 25 lb 90 7 'vtr�rv/�Yc c �9• ,�.emg S'. 26 28 ✓ f. a.� 29 ! B 7 4 ors• 71Q G �� �� a 0 4 9 IV. PETITIONERS OPPOSING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-M B) FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY RETAINING WALLIFENCE WHICH INCLUDES OR INCLUDED THE ELIMINATION OF PROPERTY SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPED EMBANKMENTS/SLOPES AS SPECIFIED IN THE CCBRs FOR TRACT 4880 STREET ADDRESS TRACT 4880 NIT 4) HOMEOWNER SIGNATURE HOMEOWNER SIGNATURE i 1 I l OQ IZDV NIA 41 LL / Q Z>4 2 . 3 Z>o 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12" 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 IV. PETITIONERS OPPOSING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09 FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY RETAINING WALL/FENCE WHICH INCLUDES OR INCLUDED THE ELIMINATION OF PROPERTY SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPED EMBANKMENTS/SLOPES AS SPECIFIED IN THE CCBRs FOR TRACT 4880 STREET ADDRESS TRACT 4880 UNIT 4) HOMEOWNER SIGNATURE HOMEOWNER SIGNATURE / .)r Qy �s 2Sr ryA7 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 r3O s 21960 BOOK 6410 PAGE 208 DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON HARBOUR UNIT No. 4 RECORDED AT REQUEST OF ORANGE COUNTY TITLE CO. IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIF. 9:01 AM JAN 28 1963 RUBY McFARLAND,County Recorder $13.20 THIS'DOCUMENT HAS BEEN TRANSCRIBED FROM A COPY OF AN OFFICIAL RECORD WHICH IS NOT IN ALL INSTANCES FULLY LEGIBLE. THEREFORE, HHPOA CANNOT BE CERTAIN THAT THIS DOCUMENT ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE OFFICIAL RECORD AND WE ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ANY ERRORS OF OMISSION OR COMMISSION. HHPOA HAS PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EASE OF READING DUE TO THE POOR QUALITY OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. OFFICIAL RECORDS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY RECORDER. IT IS NOTED THAT THE PAGE NUMBERS IN THIS TRANSCRIPTION DO NOTMATCH THOSE IN THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT;THIS IS DUE TO THE LARGER PRINT SIZE USED IN THE TRANSCRIPTION. CIF . . CLAUSE I Property Subject To This Declaration The real property which is subject to said Covenants is situated in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and is described and shown as lots 44 through 172, inclusive, on the final map for Tract No. 4880 in the City of Huntington Beach which map was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California, on November 16, 1962 in Book 172, at Pages 12-19, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Map Records (hereinafter referred to as "said tract map"). CLAUSE II General Purposes Of This Declaration Said real property and every lot, part or parcel thereof or therein is subjected to said Covenants to insure the proper use and appropriate and uniform development and improvement thereof; to protect each owner of any lot, part or parcel in or of said real property against such improper use of any other such lot, part or parcel as may depreciate the value of its or his property; to guard against the erection on said real property of buildings or structures built of improper or unsuitable materials; to encourage the erection of attractive improvements on said real property at appropriate locations; to secure and maintain proper setbacks from streets and adequate free spaces between structures; and in general to provide for a high type and quality of development and improvement in and on said real property. CLAUSE III Definitions For the purposes hereof the following explanations and definitions of words, terms and phrases shall govern, unless the context thereof indicates a different meaning: Architectural Review Committee: The Committee provided for in Clause V hereof. Basement: A portion of a building located partly underground and having more than two-thirds of its clear floor-to-ceiling height below the average grade of the adjoining ground at the building front. Building: Any structure having a roof, supported by columns or by walls and intended for the shelter, housing, or enclosure of any person, animal, chattel or property of any kind. Building, Accessory: A subordinate building or portion of a principal building other than a garage, the use of which is incidental to that of the principal building and customary in connection with that use. 2 ATTACHMENT N . .�S THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. 0 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. Structure: Anything erected, constructed, placed, laid or installed in, on or over said real property the use of which requires a location on or in the ground. Waterfront: The lot line or lines as shown on said tract map, which adjoin a waterway. Waterway: Any lands now covered or hereafter covered by navigable waters at high or low tide whether within, adjacent or contiguous to the boundaries of Tract No. 4880; Lots A, B, C and D shown on said tract map shall be considered waterways. CLAUSE IV General Restrictions 1. Land Use and Building Type. All lots shall be used for private, single family residence purposes only. No building shall be constructed, erected, placed, altered or maintained on any lot, except one dwelling designed by a licensed architect and designed and erected for occupancy by one family, and one private garage containing not less than two (2) parking spaces;.provided, however, said garage may contain such additional number of parking spaces as shall be first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. Any garage shall be used solely by the owners or occupants of the dwelling to which it is appurtenant. Accessory buildings may be erected only after approval in writing has first been obtained from the Architectural Review Committee. 2. Building Height - One and Two Story Buildings. No dwelling or garage shall be constructed, erected, placed, altered, or maintained on any lot which is more than one story without prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee. Subject to said approval of the Architectural Review Committee two-story dwellings or garages may be constructed, erected, placed, altered or maintained on any lot, it being the intention and desire of Declarant that two-story dwellings or garages be permitted to be constructed at certain locations in said property. No one-story dwelling or garage shall exceed twenty (20) feet in building height, no two-story dwelling or garage shall exceed thirty (30) feet in building height, and no accessory building or structure shall exceed ten(10) feet in building height unless a greater height is first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. 3. Dwelling Size. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. All- THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. • The use of any garage, carport, driveway, parking area, waterfront, wharf, slip, ramp or other facility which may be in front of or adjacent to or part of any lot as a habitual parking place for commercial vehicles is prohibited. The owners of lots shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of lands and parkways located between their lot lines and the edges of street or thoroughfare pavements on which said lots face or abut or to which they are adjacent. Said lands and parkways shall be kept clean and clear of refuse and shall not be used for the parking of private or commercial vehicles or boats or trailers. The term "commercial vehicles" shall include all automobiles, station wagons, trucks, boats, watercraft, other land, air and water vehicular equipment which shall bear signs or have printed on the side of same any reference to any commercial undertaking or enterprise. 10. Plant Diseases or Noxious Insects. No owner shall permit any thing or condition to exist upon his lot which shall induce, breed or harbor infectious plant diseases or noxious insects. 11. Nameplates, Television or Radio Antennae and Towers, Laundry Drying Facilities or Flag Poles. There shall be not more than one nameplate on each lot. Said nameplate shall be not more than 72 square inches in area, and shall contain the name of the occupant and/or the address of the dwelling. It may be located on the door of the dwelling or the wall adjacent thereto, or upon the wall of an accessory building or structure, or it may be freestanding in the front or sideyard, provided that the height of the nameplate is not more than twelve (12) inches above the adjoining ground grade. No television or radio antennae, or tower, or laundry drying equipment shall be erected or used outdoors, whether attached to a building or structure, or otherwise, unless first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. 12. Temporary Structures. No trailer, basement of an uncompleted building, tent, shack, garage or barn, and no temporary building or structure of any kind shall be used at any time for a residence either temporary or permanent. Temporary buildings or structures used during the construction of a dwelling shall be on the same lot as the dwelling, and such buildings or structures shall be removed immediately after the completion of construction. 13. Underground Wiring. No lines or wires for communication or the transmission of electric current or power shall be constructed, placed, or permitted to be placed anywhere in or upon any lot other than within buildings or structures or attached to the walls thereof, unless the same shall be contained in conduits, or approved cables constructed, placed, and maintained underground or concealed in or under buildings or other approved structures. 6 A j NO- THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. notice of its disapproval to the person or persons applying for said approval at the address set forth in the application therefor within thirty (30) days from the date said plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan and grading plan are presented to the Architectural Review Committee. If notice of disapproval is not so sent, the plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan submitted shall be deemed to have been approved by the Architectural Review Committee in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 17. (c) The approval of the Architectural Review Committee of any plans or specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan submitted for approval for use on any particular lot, shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the Architectural Review Committee of its right to object to any of the features or elements embodied therein if and when the same features or elements are embodied in any subsequent plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan submitted for approval with respect to any other lots. (d) No building or other structure for which any plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan have been approved by the Architectural Review Committee shall be erected, constructed, installed, placed, altered or maintained except in strict conformance with said plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan and grading plan and such conditions and requirements as the Architectural Review Committee may impose in connection with its approval of the same. Any deviation from said plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan in such erection, construction, installation, placement, alteration or maintenance shall nullify the approval of the Architectural Review Committee required by this Paragraph 17, and shall be deemed to have been undertaken without said Committee's:approval or consent. (e) After the completion of the erection, construction, installation, placement or alteration of any building or other structure in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 17, the Architectural Review Committee will, upon application of the owner of said building or structure, or his agent or representative, issue a certificate that said building or structure has been so completed, if a majority of said Committee determines such.to be the fact. (f) Neither Declarant nor the Architectural Review Committee shall be responsible for any defects in any building or other structure erected, constructed, installed, placed, altered or maintained in accordance with or pursuant to any plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan approved by the Architectural Review Committee or any conditions or requirements that said Committee may have imposed with respect thereto. 18. Visual Obstructions. No fence, wall, hedge or other visual barrier over three feet in height, save and except for trees approved by the Architectural Review Committee, shall be erected or grown on any lot at any place where a barrier of greater height would obstruct or impair the view of waterways, waterfronts and streets from other lots. No fence, wall, hedge or other visual barrier over six (6) feet in height, save and except for trees approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee, shall be erected or grown at any place on any lot. The 8 ATTACHMENT NO. TWS-IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. thereof, with a slope steeper than the ratio of one and one-half feet(1 1/2')horizontal to one foot (1') vertical, and(ii) no existing grade shall be altered or modified by changing its location or the direction of its slope or be replaced, in whole or in part. Any applicant for a deviation from the foregoing requirements shall furnish said Committee with such engineering or geological data concerning erosion,earth movement, drainage, hazards to persons or public or private property and any other matters which said Committee shall deem material thereto. (b) All grades having a slope steeper than the ratio of two feet(2') horizontal to one foot (1') vertical shall be planted and maintained with growing vegetation sufficient to control erosion of such grades. All such vegetation and the watering and maintenance facilities therefor shall be approved by said Committee. 23 Relaxation and Addition of Covenants. (a) The Architectural Review Committee shall have the right and privilege to permit the owner of any lot or lots(without the consent of owners of other lots)to deviate from any or all of the Covenants set forth in this Clause IV, provided that such deviation is necessary in order to carry out the general purposes of this declaration.' Any such permission of said Committee shall be in writing and shall not constitute a waiver of said Committee's powers of enforcerment with respect to any of said Covenants as to other lots. (b) Said Covenants constitute the minimum conditions and restrictions applicable to lots. Declarant hereby reserves a right to add or impose by a supplemental declaration other and more stringent limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations with respect to any lot or lots now or hereafter owned by it, including the right to increase setback requirements and square footage requirements with respect to buildings and other strictures and otherwise to increase and supplement, but mot to diminish said Covenants affecting said real property except by permit given pursuant to subparagraph(a) of this Paragraph 23. CLAUSE v Architectural Review Committee 1 Creation. The Architectural Review Committee is hereby created with the rights, powers, privileges and duties herein set forth. It now consists of two members: L. W. DOUGLAS,JR. and GEORGE POTTER, JR., which two members may hereafter designate a third member. At all times after the selection of said third member said Committee shall consist of three members. In the event of death, incompetency, resignation or inability to act of any member of said Corimmittee,the remaining member or members shall designate a successor. Notwithstanding the foregoing,Declarant shall have the right and power at all times to remove any or all members of said Committee or to fill any vacancy or vacancies: Declarant may in its sole discretion at any time assign by supplemental declaration 10 ATTACHMENT NO. . THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOr GUARANTEED. Option To Purchase 1 Reservation. To preserve the value inherent in said real property and to keep a constant market therefor, Declarant reserves to itself and its successors and assigns an assignable option to purchase any lot or lots together with any improvements thereon on the same terms and conditions as may be contained in any bona fide offer that any owner thereof may receive for the purchase thereof or any bona fide offer or counter-offer that such owner may make for the sale thereof at any time or times. Declarant, its successors and assigns shall have forty-eight (48) hours following 9:00 o'clock A.M. of the first business day after actual receipt by it of notice from any such owner of any such offer or counter-offer to exercise its option to purchase said lot or lots and improvements. Said notice shall specify the lot or lots affected, the terms and conditions contained in such offer or counter-offer and the names and addresses of the offeree and offeror. Declarant may exercise said option by a written notice delivered to said owner or mailed to said owner's address by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, within said 48-hour period in which notice Declarant shall agree to purchase said property and improvements upon the same or more favorable terms and conditions. Should Declarant fail within said period so to exercise its option, then the owner of said property shall have the right to sell said property and improvements to the person making such offer or receiving such offer or counter-offer but only upon said terms and conditions and subject to each and every limitation, covenant, condition, restriction and reservation and term herein contained. This option shall terminate 21 years after the death of all issue of L. W. Douglas, Jr., President of Huntington Harbour Corporation, living on the date on which this declaration is recorded unless sooner terminated. 2 Invalidity of Assignment- Reverter. Any transfer or assignment of any lot made in violation of this Clause VI shall be void and of no force or effect. Declarant's transfer of each and all of the lots is made upon the express condition that any transfers, assignments, or conveyances of said lots shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this Clause VI, and should any lot or lots be transferred, assigned;or conveyed in violation of any provision of this Clause VI, said lot or lots shall immediately revert to Declarant, its successors and assigns who may thenceforth reenter and take and hold the same. 3 Termination. The provisions of this Clause VI may be terminated at any time by supplemental declaration executed by Declarant and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California, and if so terminated, said Clause shall be inoperative as to all owners or purchasers of lots in said real property. 12 . ?3 ArACHMENT N - THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. address may be changed from time to time by supplemental declaration executed by Declarant and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California. 3 Termination. The provisions of this Clause VII may be terminated at any time by supplemental declaration executed by Declarant and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California, and in any event shall terminate 21 years from the date of recordation of this declaration. CLAUSE VIH General Provisions 1 Effective Date of Covenants. Subject to Paragraph 4 of this Clause VIII, each of said Covenants set forth in this declaration shall continue and be binding as set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Clause VIII for an initial period of thirty (30) years from the date of recordation hereof and thereafter for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years each. 2 Covenants to Run With the Land - Purchaser's Contract. Each of said Covenants shall run with the said real property and each,lot, part or parcel thereof and bind Declarant, its successors, grantees and assigns, and all parties claiming by, through, or under it. Each purchaser of any lot, part or parcel of or in said real property shall by acceptance of a deed or other conveyance for any such lot, part or parcel thereby-be conclusively deemed to have consented to and agreed to all of said Covenants for himself and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns and does by said acceptance covenant for himself and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to observe, perform and be bound by said Covenants and to incorporate said Covenants by reference in any deed or other conveyance of all or any portion of his interest in any of said real property or any lot, part or parcel thereof or therein. No lot, part or parcel of or in said real property or interest therein shall be granted, transferred, conveyed or assigned except by an instrument executed and acknowledged by the Grantees, transferees, conveyees or assignees therein named in substantially the same form as Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof or such other form as shall have been first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. 3 Violation of Restrictions: Enforcement. (a) Upon any violation or breach of any of said Covenants, Declarant or the Architectural Review Committee may enter any lot, part or parcel in or on said real property upon or as to which such violation exists, subject to applicable provisions of law, and may alter, correct, modify, remedy or summarily abate and remove, at the expense of the owner of 14 AMCHM NT NO. - 7 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. (c) Any such consents shall be effective only if expressed in a written instrument or instruments executed and acknowledged by each of the consenting owners and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. A recordable certificate by a reputable title insurance company doing business in Orange County, California, as to the record ownership of the lots shall be deemed conclusive evidence thereof with regard to compliance with the provisions of this section. Upon and after the effective date of any such change or changes, it or they shall be binding upon all persons, firms and corporations then owning any lot, part or parcel in or of said real property and shall run with the land and bind all persons claiming by, through or under any one or more of them. 5 Mortgages and Deeds of Trust. Said covenants herein set forth shall be subject to and subordinate to all mortgages or deeds of trust in the nature of a mortgage now or hereafter in good faith, encumbering any of said real property, and none of said Covenants or other provisions shall supersede or in any way reduce the security of mortgage. However, if any of said real property is acquired in lieu of foreclosure, or is sold under foreclosure of any mortgage or under the provisions of any deed of trust in the nature of a mortgage, or under any judicial sale, any purchaser at such sale, his or its grantees, heirs, personal representatives, successors, or assigns shall hold any and all such property so purchased or acquired subject to all of said Covenants. 6 Severability Clause. If a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold invalid or unenforceable any part or all of any of said Covenants or other provision contained in this declaration, such holding shall not impair, invalidate or otherwise affect the remainder of this declaration which shall remain in full force and effect. 7 Assignment of Declarant IsRights and Powers. Declarant, its successors and assigns reserves the right to vest any corporation or association with all or any of the rights, privileges, easements, powers and duties herein retained or reserved by Declarant by a supplemental declaration and assignment which shall be effective when recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California, and Declarant shall thereupon be relieved and discharged from every duty so vested in such other corporation or association. 8 Mailing Address for Notice. Each owner of a lot shall file the correct mailing address of such owner with Declarant and shall notify Declarant promptly in writing of any subsequent change of address. Declarant shall maintain a file of such addresses. A written or printed notice, deposited in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, and addressed to any owner at the last address filed by such owner with Declarant shall be sufficient and proper notice to such owner wherever 16 TTNENT NO. THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this instrument to be executed by its President, attested by its Assistant Secretary, and its Corporate Seal to be hereto affixed, the day and year first above written. HUNTINGTON HARBOUR ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. By President ATTEST: Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) On January 10, 1963, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared JOHN G. MOFFATT known to me to be the President, and GORDON A. MACDONALD known to me to be the Secretary of HUNTINGTON HARBOUR ENGINEERING& CONSTRUCTION CO., the corporation that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Carolyn M. Alexander Notary Public in and for Said County and State My Commission Expires March 13, 1965. 18 ATTACHMENT . THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. r (1) General and special county taxes and city taxes, if any, for the fiscal year (2) Limitations, covenants, restrictions, reservations, encumbrances, easements, conditions, rights, rights of way, exceptions and other matters of record; and (3) Limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, exceptions and terms affecting said real property set forth in that certain declaration dated January 10, 1963, and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California, on January _, 1963, in Book , pages , inclusive, [insert recordation data for the foregoing declaration]. Grantee by his acceptance of this deed agrees to observe, perform and be bound by all of the terms hereof and all of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, exceptions and terms contained in the aforesaid declaration and agrees to incorporate the same by reference in any deed or other conveyance of all or any portion of any of said real property. Grantor Grantee 20 ATTACHMMT NO. , THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. �, ` �" t`•:r�;.+1C• ''^.GRbS .rf•::4y: i, 7aC.:Y..•�..t.•r, :..e.r.y 1 >_._;:�t-rose ' ��-<�•.�..�.�,. :h�._ �.qggip -.•.«.,_, 7T:'. • .4 ;e.:tR,",'t t. •` �ti. t•:i ../;•-.• ryye� �'•'•':�'� .R�:'^•:.. 5a`'r:w'w,r_, :Ft'S�I�1�^J� .y�'i .:�xlZR2�:'d.'f3;s�.r'�•�4:;' �• �`.:' .:.:. �e: z 6 _ •• 5t�.{.. �'ti: +a's. ;t: _li:.;y,.r• _ >7`rwrs r.'+*.;;-: IT tNGTON'-"HA riOfIR'.ENC,INEEWWC; i" i;�`'-rt•`- "'i""'1 H� a 1tECORDIP1f1.FtEQUfi3TE6 BY r-dSXls:: '& CONSTRUCTION.COMPANY BLAIIt FlRST AMERICkN TITCE INS ' ATTN_ ..• ':TBP.ROLD E .`- :: , .� `3025 O yTo Z3oulevard -Santa'Dmonical California '90404* _Z RDED►N OFFICIAL RF ORAMGECOUNTy CAIIFQN ' A CARtYL� : SUPPLEMENTAL-DECLARATION OF• LIMITATIONS, COVENANTS, .CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS TRACT 4880 - 14bNTINGTON I4AREOUR UNIT NO. _4, ORANGr, COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This Supplemental Declaration- is made this l�day of HbJ&USr 1974- by RUNTINGTON IIARBOUR LNGIt:LERII:G G COI: S'TRUCTIW CU!?''• NY, a,- Rdvada corporationi, (hereinafter rcfc^red to as "DcclaranE''Y) wit1.3'reference' to the following facts: A. On January 28 , .1963, Declarant recorded a document entitled "Declaration of Limitations, Covn.nants; Conditions Restrictions and re:Prvi-iti.ons Af:fec. ting The Real 'Property Y.ric:'.'n Ps Traet 4880 (Huntindton .iiarbour Unit. Fi: 7 4) in the City of f ' 1h ntin1,tm Beach, County of Orange, .Califorriid"•, in tinny 6�10; Page 208, of the Official Rebords of Orange-County, California _- (hereinafter referred to as "the Original Declaration") , s.zid property being more full.y 1described therein. - >a B. ' Said original Declaration provided in Section 1 of CLAUSE V thereof for the creation of an Archite^_tural Reiiew Committee to-.enforce certain provisions of that•'instrument. Said • Archit.ectural Committee was initially: composes] of L. W.. DOUGLAS, JR.:, GEORGE POTTER, 3R. , and, a third member to- be designated by the " -' first two'members. C•. The aforesaid section also stated that "Declarant may in� its sole di:creti.on at any time a'saic;n:by supplementa-1• declaration •its pm err. of removal and•'atjpoint:ment,with respect.-•���-- to said Cor.•„rittee to.such association or corporation as Declarant may.select and subject,.-.to* suclk tenns -and conditions with respect to- the, exercise thereof as Declarant may impose." - 'D Declarant has completed development of ,th'e property subject, to the Original Declaration and.-desires to as-,ion- its = , powers. of appointment and removal' with respect 'to said 'Comr,:itiee. . a. • to an ganization corprised of owners of property within the HuAirigtan•Harbotlr cvrranunity. - _ rec TtmRnF0nE Leclaiant pursuant;,to r pursuant, 1 of _ .•: �:..K CLAUSE 'V .of Said: Oiig'1nir•Declaratidn, does' herebk assign its •powers .6f -removal aryd •appoi.ntmnnt'with•he:troc: to .the. Architec— t onal'.P.eview 'Cc+mrrittee,.created" by •said 'Oricjin3'1•ncclar 'tion .to the F.W1TI2IGTON' BARDO.:R 'PFOPER,TY*oiwEILS ;IiSSOCIATION, a• California -'=nonprgfit •corporation subjhct`to the conditions' hereinafter set forth. i' t THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEFT). `T � ` a OX 4: 42 &-1 x567,. STATE OF CALIFOR14IA SS:' C.013NTY OF. LOS ANGF.LE:S• , f On -before-me, the undersigned, a ?rotary ub i•c 1A and tor said State, personally appeared ' tit ) known to 'Tee. to be the �- President, •and SEE known to' me to rse the Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Ir.st ie rti nt, known to Inc to,be .thc persons• who executed the within InsLrulrent on behalf of.' the corporation therein named, c and acknow)ed�jcd to me. .that such *corporation executed the 1:'ithin ins:truv.snt purstlenL• to its .by-lavm or a resolution of its board of-' directors'. t1J''1'I•!i: S I7• c and officia seal.. ; • ''�OFFICIAL SEAL • PATRICIA D. KIIIEEN NOTAR, PUi LIC•CALIFORNIA - f : PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN • J/✓� /1 �/�) J��/ LOS ANGELES CUUNTT • • __._..—. (� -CA +-. MF Commission Expires lone 17, 1977 ita:::e iy}i;C Ur Pr171tCU) •••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••�.� S'�?►,i•: C::' CALIJ•'Or<?�L1L�%..: ) _.. . - 8 c0/L,4wa e•1f. ) SS• T 1, lie in andfor saia 5_tz!,�+ erred t.o •axybp the ---- --- ><n _ ".�5..."':::�'^j Oi t}iC' r_CZ`�)::-''r1..3.CT •_ �tIy_ � w..°. :[n r 't•o: ri;c to 'rr t.. Lhc 1 within Tnstrt:nc:nt on h.,11alf of the. c _ ''tbLcxcin r, Rsa••c:, ;Ify:tlr;:;tf?t,• c S1 Tec1 +v,:. a;: therms n c;:ecvi.n(l the; with.111 in:;T:rvr��ri' pur.uanL to-'zts - s- :r- resolution o:r its k,L•i,r.�l ol- rljrgctorz. • •• ter. �• _ h,,-,,d.1 ,and +o 4:z__- al sec � r Si.Gnatltre ,_. / /1� � . _,.__._ OFFlCL4l•-SEAL. i 1•ii3m�.' (y'YiCd Oti 1 S n.1:C �'— 'a- C MARY E. TNOMASNOTARY PUBLIC•CALIFORNIA•"ORANGE•COUNTYommission Expires Dec.30,197t j 1mS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. June 20, 2001 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Dear Commissioners: Re: Conditional Use Permit 01-09 To fully appreciate our reasons for opposing Conditional Use Permit 01-09 please imagine yourself standing out in front of your home looking across and down the street. You see a long string of green landscaped embankments and perhaps some trees and shrubs. The view is there because all 36 homes on your street face the rear of the double frontage lots across the street. Your home is situated on a premier off-water lot in the upscale water front community of Huntington Harbour and you couldn't be happier. The view in concept is like a waterfront view of the main channel. And then the image changes...today as you stand out in front of your home you may see a 7 foot or even a 10 foot concrete wall either abutting the sidewalk or maybe even set back somewhat -- but the greenery is limited and inconsistent and your once premier street takes on an alley-like appearance and is now referred to by many as a prison with sing sing walls. Your"water front" view has been blocked--blocked in by block wall construction. This picture is all too familiar to 33 of us 36 petitioners against this Conditional Use Permit. Our homes face the rear of a double frontage lot,therefore, our interest is localized unlike the vast majority of those who favor the Permit. The long string of landscaped embankments that I described earlier has been interrupted randomly with retaining walls and fences that are inconsistent with one another and dominate their location. This is illustrated in the photos in our presentation to the Zoning Administrator. Note the dominance of the wall at the comer of Davenport and Roundhill-- it's 11'. In our view, the removal of yet another embankment continues the assault on the character of the neighborhood as well as the property values of all property owners and the community at large. On the plus side, landscaped embankments still out number retaining walls/fences. And, 2/3 of the homeowners on Roundhill Drive want to keep it that way. The petitioners have noted their concerns and commitment in a recent survey. Based on the wishes of the majority, we have outlined a plan for updating and maintaining the embankments including acceptable standards for setbacks and rear fence heights. You should each have a copy of the survey summary as well as the detailed results. 51,4 Huntington Beach Planning Commission Dated June 20, 2001 Page 2 of 2 ------------------------------------------------- In the context of keeping the landscaped embankments and in the order of importance,the survey results indicate the majority of the petitioners favors: (1) covering the existing walls completely with plant material (2)updating the embankments with some shrubbery. (3)rear fence heights do not exceed 6'and comply with the City's current guidelines (4)materials and configurations of the rear fences are left to the discretion of the individual homeowner As a group we have made a commitment to implementing and funding improvements to our streetscapes and now we are asking for your help. Stop the assault on the property values and desirability of homes on Roundhill Drive and portions of Westport Drive. Restore the integrity and meaning of a double frontage lot. Overturn the Findings for Approval and deny Conditional Use Permit 01-09. Thank you for your consideration, OZ Carole M. Garrett 17163 Roundhill Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (714) 846-0752 ,VTACHMENT NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09 Planning Commission Appeal Hearing--June 26, 2001 E� , ►, : Submitted by and available for questions: Carole M. Garrett(714) 846-0752 Attached is a rebuttal to the Zoning Administrator's findings for approval. In addition,the 36 petitioners against Conditional Use Permit 01-09 were surveyed. The goal was to develop a plan for double frontage lots in Tract 4880 based on the views of the majority of affected homeowners. The purpose, assumptions and background information for the survey are outlined below as well as a summary of the survey results. A copy of the survey questionnaire and a complete tally of the results are attached. As reflected on the survey tally, 32 of the 36 petitioners are localized to this issue because their property faces the rear of a double frontage lot(unlike the vast majority in favor of Conditional Use Permit 01-09). PURPOSE: • Retain the original embankments and setbacks thus the integrity of double frontage lots • Limit the fence height to a maximum of 6' • Achieve an aesthetic standard consistent with other newly developed areas in the City of Huntington Beach(i.e. Huntington Seacliff and Summer Lane) • Discontinue issuing Conditional Use Permits for setbacks and fences ASSUMPTIONS: • Guidelines for fences and embankments on double frontage lots in Tract 4880 comply with the City Zoning Ordinance and the CC&Rs • Standard freeway ice plant remains the standard ground cover for the embankments • Maintenance of the embankments is shared by double frontage lot property owners as well as property owners facing the embankments • These guidelines are applicable when and if any changes or upgrades are made to the affected double frontage lots;therefore, uniformity is accomplished over time. BACKGROUND: Existing fence height guidelines are as follows: • City Zoning Ordinance --42"maximum in rear yard setback area of a double frontage lot • Building Code--where there is a swimming pool, T minimum and takes precedence over the City Zoning Ordinance • CC&Rs --6'maximum anvnlace on any lot SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS AND PROPOSED PLAN: • Rear fence heights are determined by the individual homeowners but consistent with the current guidelines and do not exceed 6 • Rear fence materials and configurations are determined by the individual homeowners • Add drought tolerant shrubbery to the embankments for interest, screening and updating; homeowners as a group to pursue implementation and funding • Cover existing retaining walls with Boston Ivy to soften and reduce dominance as well as minimise maintenance CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09 Zoning Administrator Hearing-- April 4, 2001 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL/REEUT T AL • Is not detrimental to • general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity • the value of the property/improvements in the neighborhood • increases property values of an Rq-1jI-xTIDUAL lot • increases useable lot si-e • increases privacy in real yard • decreases property values of.ALL homes facing the walls and the community at large • destroys streetscape and creates an alley-like appearance for hones facing the walls • reduction of open space as provided-for in the original site plan for Tract 4880 • Consistent with other block wall development on properties along Westport Drive • Of the 20 e�dsting xails there are 10 inconsistent variations e 3 nth the proposed configuration(not in close proximity to the True propert-)' • 6 with a combination of cinderblock and wrought iron with no measurable setback * 11 other individual variations with no measurable setback • 26 remaining lots (majority)with consistently.landscaped rear embaiknnents/slopes • Complies with provisions of the Low Density Residential District provisions of the Zoning Ordinance • Deviation from height requirements within the required setback area with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit • As per Section 230.88 Fencing and Yards: Fences or walls in the rear yard setback area of a through-lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height • Does not adversely affect the General Plan and is consistent with the following goals: • Avoid construction elements that • visually dominate their setting ® proposed 10' wall/rence w/2' setback planter comT) x. ed to existing adjacent fences • to the south: 5'6" wall with a 6' setback • to the north: 710"wall with no setback(constructed in 1983) • If proposed wall/setback specifications are applied to all 26 remaining'Lots, some combination walls/fences are estimated to exceed 20'in height • contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood(LU 9.1.2.b) • original site plan included • 6 terraced streets with landscaped embankments/slopes • 46 double frontage lots • 26 lots(majority) still comply • Includes adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that • is integrated with abutting sidewalks and • provides continuity throughout the neighborhood(LU 9.2.Le) • 17 of the existing 20 walls have no measurable setback • plant material is inconsistent -- different varieties, some hang or cling, others upright • coverage rate is inconsistent —some walls are covered most are not • remaining 26 (majority) double frontage lots have consistently landscaped embankments/slopes AM9.WENT ° . $3 QUESTIONNAIRE (please check the appropriate boxes) REAR FENCE HEIGHT (on double frontage lots) ❑ Favor gny fence height as long as it is consistent with the current guidelines and does not exceed 6' ❑ Favor one height for all fences on top of the embankment of all through lots Which height?(42" eliminated as some lots have pools) ❑ 5' ❑ 6' Comments Ae REAR FENCE CONFIGURATION AND MATERIALS(on double frontage lots) ❑ Favor a standard configuration consisting of ONE material only If so, select a maximum of 2 possible materials ❑ Split face cinder block(existing at the corner of Davenport and Roundlvll) ❑ Cinder block ❑ Slump stone ❑ Plastered block ❑ Grape stake(wooden) ❑ Cedar slats(wooden) ❑ Favor a standard configuration consisting of a COMBINATION OF TWO materials only If so, select a maximum of 2 possible materials for the base,and ❑ Split face cinder block(existing at the corner of Davenport and Roundhill) ❑ Cinder block ❑ Slump stone ❑ Plastered block ❑ Grape stake(wooden) ❑ Cedar slats(wooden) Select a maximum of 2 possible materials for the Lop `Wrought iron without pilasters ❑ Glass panels separated by posts ❑ Lattice(wooden) ❑ Grape stake(wooden) ❑ Cedar slats(wooden) ❑ Not concerned about standard fence configurations and materials Comments ` , ° M .f . .S --OVER-- TRACT 4880 EMBANKMENT SURVEY RESULTS,DATED JUNE 2001—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09 _,... f�arfence. M•_„ tenCeeonfiguratibNmated�!§ shru6baryfctemtmr�mienis.�...::: pfantma6e<falforexfstingnatalninp:welis ROUNDHILL DRIVE ariji one 5 feet 6 feel 1 2 no opinron covered Ses.':no no o inion donate particlpate yes, fig ivy: other no no o inion 1 16901 Roundhill Drive x x 2 16907 Roundhill Drive z, 3 16916 Roundhill Drive x x x x % x x; x 16923 4 16931 Roundhill Drive x x:'c X x x 5 16939 Roundhill Drive x c x x x x x 6 16947 Roundhill Drive x z k•:_ x: 16963 rental �? u 7 16971 Roundhill Drive x x X�: x x x:z 8 16979 Roundhill Drive x x.- i; � ? x X 9 16987 Roundhill Oriva x x } x v x x i 10 17003 Roundh8l DrNa x r x h z,;, — 11 17011 Roundhill Drive x f x X :_ 17027 rental _ 17035 rental 17043 170511 12 17059 Roundhill Drive z : z z z; x 7 x 17067 yes 17075 13 17083 Roundhill Drive 14 17089 Roundhill Drive ". x aX x x 15 17093 Roundhill Drive 16 17107 Roundhill Drive X x r ; x �[ x 17 17115 Roundhill Drive 17123 rental 78 17127 Roundhill Drive x tl , x 19 17131 Roundhi0 Drive x X E x 17139 c 3 ar ZO 17147 Roundhill Drive x y}1l x X X �xr_ x 21 17155 Roundhill Drive tc : ' 74 x x x 22 17183 Roundhill Drive X x x N x r 5 17171 F tea 1zyr- k 23 171711 RoundhtlI Drive ' 24 17187 Roundhl9 Drive x x x r' acX E: x x WESTPORT DRIVE 16901 has wall n — 16911 has wail16921 f` 25 16941 WestportDrive �' x x x rym rN: X X >f ".�a7�; 16961 has wall 26 16971 Westport Drive , 27 16881 WestportDrive ^X airy` x �x 28 16991 W rtDrive X x 29 17001 We rt Drive x x x 17021 has well 17031 has wall S rs 'f r 7 ti%` x`6 -�x= 30 17041 W Drive X. " x ? x x. 31 17051 W rtDrive y 17061 has wail x 17071 17081 has wail 17083 has wall �*;k 17085 has wall t r 17087.has wall 17059 32 17091 Westport Drive 17093 17095 r £� r 17097 17099fflg ,ri 17101 has wall ro 17105 has wall 17111 has wall 17121 has wall 17141 has wail r �' 17151 �v 17161 haswailr y 17171 1 ws 17181 CONCORDLANE Fgg 16901 Concord Lane 16911 16931 has wall 16951 has wag 1697 f z w . P Tr WINDSOR DRIVE 33 4162 Windsor Drive 4172 has wall 4192 s 3 4202 heewall �— EDGEWATER LANE 34 18972 Ed ewater Lane 35 17036E ewater Lane 36 '1718811idgywater Lana z x x c i r£;: x x _1 . �.' �,_. � y k � � , ,i ?, x .: ;,,. PRO', CAP/a,-ER'S DIRECT SON �f f 6' SO. PILASTER do/ 3%ES a 32' O.G. Ut crc l=ll•l l���. . CMU WALL ! BEHIND AIL po =G' falpY ATTACHMENT NO. �, PRC' CAP/OWNER'S GIRL �Y .009 .I I .I 16' S0. PILASTER dt 34 TES 0 32' OX, � I I • I llll= 1�Et= � -" rw�A rti. J 8 CMU WALL SENNO A� ATTACHMENT NO. �z?_. r f _ .. a"1 ;{ '•J .00 000 ;'i yy� a � . t _.. , .. l ti i. 00 00 714 'rl c- ATTACHMENT NO. s. +�� �� �•: a as €a� �� � �� � 3 TTR4 T ATTACHMENT NO. 6 - o z ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL c COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06/ i CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 C co a (TRUE BLOCK WALL) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 01-06: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 01-06 for the development of a combination 10-foot retaining/blockwall in the rear yard of a through lot does not conform with the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program. The proposed wall will negatively impact public views because of the loss of the landscaped slope area. 2. The project is not consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,the base zoning district, and other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. A ten-foot block wall is not a permitted use in the RL-(Residential Low Density) zone and requires approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed increase in the allowable height of the block wall from 42 inches to ten feet will have a negative impact to residents who live on Roundhill Drive and those who travel the sidewalk adjacent to the subject property because of the scale and mass of the proposed wall. 3. The proposed development has been provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure is currently in place,therefore, no further improvements to the infrastructure shall be required. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreation exists on the subject site, therefore, no impacts exist. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for the establishment and maintenance of a 10-foot high combination retaining/block in lieu of the 42-inch maximum height at a zero setback in lieu of the minimum 15-foot setback, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall consists of a six-foot block wall on top of a four-foot retaining wall resulting in a loss of the landscaped slope thereby impacting the view of adjacent property owners. The proposed 10- foot block wall will be out of scale with the adjacent sidewalk. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 2. The conditional use permit for the 10-foot combination retaining/blockwall will not be compatible with surrounding properties because the adjacent property to the south has a landscape slope. The proposed wall will result in a lack of continuity between adjacent properties. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-09 for a ten-foot high combination retaining/blockwall will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Code allows block walls with a maximum of 42 inches along the rear property lines of through lots within the required 15-foot setback. The request exceeds the maximum height limit by six feet, six inches. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential, Low Density on the subject property and the following policy of the General Plan: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. (LU 9.1.2.b) As a result of its scale and mass,the proposed wall will visually dominate the street scene along Roundhill Drive and result in inadequate landscaping at the rear property line. CDP 01-06/CUP 01-09 Appeal 01sr24 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CUP 01-09/CDP 01-06 (TRUE BLOCK WALL) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001 33 e_ 3 3 3 3 n� A dlz 71' IKE T ,i �3 ° ��3 ,:3 RGA AT7A CS HIVI,ENS.,� ,333 STA , ° Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attomey) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLA?NATION FOR MISI;NG 3ATTACHIIANTS ,3 REVIEWED ' �� RETI�RNED�' �'3FORINARDED„ Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR`RETURN3 1 ITEM 1 "I P. Aid . Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:PD:kjl CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 � Re: DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT IN TRACT 4880 Revised Effective 8/17/O1 (original submittal receipt date stamped 8-15-01) Before the City Council on Monday, August 20, 2001 PETITIONERS'PURPOSE 1 - H 11 Oppose Conditional Use Permit 01-09 as applied to '' t - True residence, 17171 Westport Drive,Lot 118,Tract 4880, and l 25 additional double frontage lots with embankments out of 46 total T Request Action o Enforcement of existing Zoning Ordinance and Building Code as o applied to double frontage lots in Tract 4880 15' setback with 42" rear fence height N o=, Goal o ---< cv o r 4_ Respect the rights of ALL property owners rn-n Maintain the intended character of the neighborhood Achieve anaesthetic STANDARD consistent with other developed areas with landscaped embankments y Supported by Petition signed by 35 households with 47 signatures (Exhibit A) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09 as applied to the Planning Department Staffs 1997 'New Standard" Permits construction of a combination 4'high retaining wall and a 6'high block wall with a total height of 10'in lieu of the 42"maximum height along the rear property line of a through(double frontage) lot. STAFF'S POSITION AND PETITIONERS'REBUTTAL • Eliminating the embankment and replacing it with a 4'retaining wall topped with a 6'fence provides rear fencing for privacy and safety and is consistent with other such fences/retaining walls in Tract 4880 REBUTTAL: Excessive height variance at a total of 10' Violates the existing Zoning Ordinance which mandates a 42"rear fence height on a double frontage lot Note: overall height measurement is taken from the outside of the rear yard which includes the retaining wall and fence in total, which is an update from the previously enforced ordinance applied to prior retaining wall/fences in Tract 4880 Safety hazard with an unsuspecting 10'drop to concrete planter/sidewalk below(fence measures 6'from the interior of the rear yard) Currently 20 retaining wall/fences, 3 built to the 1997 New Standard 26 REMAINING EMBANKMENTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE CUP 01-09 DECISION STAFF'S POSITION AND PETITIONERS'REBUTTAL (continued) • Abutting the retaining wall with a 2'setback planter provides sufficient setback REBUTTAL: Excessive variance Violates existing Zoning Ordinance which mandates a 15'setback on a double frontage lot Lot 118's current setback is 7;• 8'less than mandated by the Zoning Ordinance • Construction elements and landscaping minimize visual impact REBUTTAL Dominates the setting and contrasts significantly with the character of the neighborhood(Exhibit B) APPLICANTS'(DEBRA TRUE)POSITION AND PETITIONERS'REBUTTAL • Setback is unusable space and subject to property taxes REBUTTAL: Embankment is consistent with the intended character of the neighborhood Embankment provides open space for homes facing rear of a double frontage lot For homes facing the rear of a double frontage lot, open space is limited by 50'wide street versus typical 60'wide Note: Vehicular access from rear of double frontage lot to rear street is dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach per Tract Map • Enlarging backyard makes more room for children's safety REBUTTAL: True's lot(118)is approx. 145'deep vs. 100'for typical neighboring lots Front yard is very large and atypical for the neighborhood and provides viable options for a fenced play area Lot 118's embankment currently measures approx. 7'deep, 8'less than mandated by the Zoning Ordinance. The additional 8'is in the backyard. Rear fence height of 6'with a 10'drop to concrete planter/sidewalk below is an unsuspecting hazard especially for active children • Consistent with neighbors'approval. REBUTTAL: Homeowners facing double frontage lots are directly affected Roundhill Drive homeowners(all 36 face a double frontage lot) I for 24 against CUP 01-09 Westport Drive homeowners(15 face a double frontage lot out of total 35) 0 for 7 against CUP 01-09 With the exception of I Roundhill Drive homeowner, all other supporters of CUP 01-09 are not directly affected(their homes do not face a double frontage lot) CONCLUSIONS • Previous concepts of a STANDARD that deviated from the Ordinances and Codes have not held up to a test of time and commitment First retaining wall/fence, 1973(Exhibit C) Resolution 1381,1987(Exhibit D) "New Standard," 1997 (Exhibit E,F) • Approval of the Planning Department Staffs "NEW STANDARD" results in Case by case review and/or revision for the remaining 25 double frontage lots due to the wide disparity in embankment heights Projected height for retaining wall/fences of 18' in some cases(Exhibit G) • Maintain the intended character of the neighborhood (Exhibit H) • Achieve an AESTHETIC STANDARD consistent with other developed areas with embankments(Exhibit 1) • Retain the embankments and endorse the STANDARD that respects the rights of ALL property owners • Enforce Zoning Ordinance and Building Code regarding double frontage lots • 15' setback • 42" high rear fence; or 5' for homes with pools bad mi rdm Cil Y C1_{._'I,, CITY OF fIU��1TIP�1G TOI�I QEACH, CA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-09 Re: DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT IN TRACT 4880 2001 AUG 15 P 12: 4 L, Before the City Council on Monday, August 20, 2001 PETITIONERS'PURPOSE Oppose Conditional Use Permit 01-09 as applied to �� True residence, 17171 Westport Drive,Lot It 8, Tract 4880,and 25 additional double frontage lots with embankments out of 46 total Request Action Enforcement of existing Zoning Ordinance and.Building Code as applied to double frontage lots in Tract 4880 10'setback with 42"rear fence height Goal Respect the rights of ALL property owners Maintain the intended character of the neighborhood Achieve an aesthetic STANDARD consistent with other developed areas with landscaped embankments Supported by Petition signed by 35 households with 47 signatures(Exhibit A) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09 as applied to the Planning Department Staffs 1997 'New Standard" Permits construction of a combination 4`high retaining wall and a 6'high block wall with a total height of 10' in lieu of the 42"maximum height along the rear property line of a through(double frontage) lot. STAFF'S POSITION AND PETITIONERS'REBUTTAL • Eliminating the embankment and replacing it with a 4'retaining wall topped with a 6'fence provides rear fencing for privacy and safety and is consistent with other such fences/retaining walls in Tract 4880 REBUTTAL: Excessive height variance at a total of 10' Violates the existing Zoning Ordinance which mandates a 42"rear fence height on a double frontage lot Note: overall height measurement is taken from the outside of the rear yard which includes the retaining wall and fence in total, which is an update from the previously enforced ordinance applied to prior retaining wall/fences in Tract 4880 Safety hazard with an unsuspecting 10'drop to concrete planterlsidewalk below (fence measures 6'from the interior of the rear yard) Currently 20 retaining wall/fences, 3 built to the 1997 New Standard 26 REMAINING EMBANKMENTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE CUP 01-09 DECISION STAFF'S POSITION AND PETITIONERS'REBUTTAL (continued) • Abutting the retaining wall with a 2'setback planter provides sufficient setback REBUTTAL: Excessive variance Violates existing Zoning Ordinance which mandates a 10'setback on a double frontage lot Lot 118's current setback is 7;• 3`less than mandated by the Zoning Ordinance • Construction elements and landscaping minimize visual impact REBUTTAL: Dominates the setting and contrasts significantly with the character of the neighborhood(Exhibit B) APPLICANTS'(DEBRA TRUE)POSITION AND PETITIONERS'REBUTTAL • Setback is unusable space and subject to property taxes REBUTTAL: Embankment is consistent with the intended character of the neighborhood Embankment provides open space for homes facing rear of a double frontage lot For homes facing the rear of a double frontage lot, open space is limited by 50'wide street versus typical 60'wide Note: Vehicular access from rear of double frontage lot to rear street is dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach per Tract Map • Enlarging backyard makes more room for children's safety REBUTTAL: True's lot(118) is approx. 145'deep vs. 100'for typical neighboring lots Front yard is very large and atypical for the neighborhood and provides viable options for a fenced play area Lot 118's embankment currently measures approx. 7'deep, 3'less than mandated by the Zoning Ordinance. The additional 3'is in the backyard. Rear fence height of 6`with a IO'drop to concrete planter/sidewalk below is an unsuspecting hazard especially for active children • Consistent with neighbors'approval REBUTTAL: Homeowners facing double frontage lots are directly affected Roundhill Drive homeowners(all36face a doublefrontage lot) I for 24 against CUP 01-09 Westport Drive homeowners(15 face a double frontage lot out of total 35) 0 for 7 against CUP 01-09 With the exception of I Roundhill Drive homeowner, all other supporters of CUP OI-09 are not directly ected(their homes do notface a double frontage lot) CONCLUSIONS • Previous concepts of a STANDARD that deviated from the Ordinances and Codes have not held up to a test of time and commitment First retaining wall/fence, 1973(Exhibit C) Resolution 1381,1987(Exhibit D) "New Standard," 1997(Exhibit E,F) • Approval of the Planning Department Staffs "NEW STANDARD" results in Case by case review and/or revision for the remaining 25 double frontage lots due to the wide disparity in embankment heights Projected height for retaining wall/fences of 18' in some cases(Exhibit G) • Maintain the intended character of the neighborhood (Exhibit H) • Achieve an AESTHETIC STANDARD consistent with other developed areas with embankments(Exhibit I) • Retain the embankments and endorse the STANDARD that respects the rights of ALL property owners • Enforce Zoning Ordinance and Building Code regarding double frontage lots • 10' setback • 42" high rear fence; or 5' for homes with pools IV. PETITIONERS OPPOSING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09 _ JBL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY RETAINING WALL/FENCE WHICH INCLUDES OR INCLUDED THE ELIMINATION OF PROPERTY SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPED EMBANKMENTS/SLOPES ' � C AS SPECIFIED IN THE CCSRs FOR TRACT 48W STREET ADDRESS TRACT 4880 UNIT 4 M NER TURE HOMEOWNER SI NATURE ( R �� �4"L <�a,�ci Sr ,e 2 '1 3 1 cl N/�S Cr �� B ,o�;�o<-r� a ea ; vv, s (3/ 7 �1%-oN g ! 16115 NvRM7w, 1`� ""4 r, Tit y(o 9 i�93q k� 4111 �. ,o i � cud ti k\ '- I) r rIcc,Je,- 12 ~� cy wLcrar+ �ti���rl� 13 +t Nxt D lti0 r��- v D c7" 1a --16987 15 /'7J 8 `) o v Nn 11 N,Zv' N S rl l2dl-+ 16 1� o5q vend I<�, TEI�1 s Rau 17�I6 g7 R01 to i4,Ll DIn(a V` ' LJ c uc/Ur,vG�k — — ;-ACI<- LoP;IJ M�j'zac"k' �' vt7i(V 20 71b' 1 VL)N ILL ,'-. -,-� gam- �fi I N 1 A , 21 - N .22 7/ D Pidh i I / 23 24 1� �/ � IL' 1_L F� O 4-e-�•+ 2-5 J69�7h'IJCl/!QH/�L C 26 27 )R ?J L 28 — f 29 , I J �� • a c 30 I ( I IV. PETITIONERS OPPOSING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09 (B) FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY RETAINING WALL/FENCE WHICH INCLUDES OR INCLUDED THE ELIMINATION OF PROPERTY SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPED EMBANKMENTS/SLOPES _ AS SPECIFIED IN THE CCBRs FOR TRACT 4880 STREET ADDRESS TRACT 4880(UNIT 4) HOMEOWNER SIGNATURE HOMEOWNER SIGNATURE 0 O 1 -10! f lZOUN46141LL / -� 2/G Gi iA-1J5.. 2 2 17Q 1D SG Iv 3 a 5 i I 6 —7 —8�— — I 9 ; 10 11 12_j dft� 13 14 I 15 i 16 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 I IV. PETRIONERS OPPOSING (A) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-09 f (B) FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY RETAINING WALL/FENCE WHICH INCLUDES OR INCLUDED THE ELIMINATION OF PROPERTY SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPED EMBANKMENTS/SLOPES- -AS SPECIFIED IN THE CCBRs FOR TRACT 4880 STREET ADDRESS I TRACT 4880(UNIT 4) HOMEOWNER SIGNATURE HOMEOWNER SIGNATURE G s N 14A 2 3 i q i �r 5 6 7 8 !, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ---— 19 20 21 22 23 24 ! 25 26 ! 27 I 28 29 i 30 I � CON August 24, 2000 ' Architectural Review Committee P.O. Box 791 R7'Y O � Sunset Beach CA 90742-0791 Mark True Debra True 17171 Westport Drive o Huntington Beach CA 92649 tv --i- RE: Property at: 17171 Westport Drive o Disapproval of Proposed Plans Dear Property Owner: _ CO n The plans submitted to the Committee on 07-31-00 for the proposed project at the referenced property address have been reviewed by the Committee and found not to be consistent with and in compliance with the intent of the CC&Rs or with existing local standards set by the Committee and are therefore DISAPPRO VEp, for the following reasons: 1. The project does not conform to the following existing rules or standards; Block walls at the rear of properties on Westport Drive which are meant to fill in the sloped portion of the lot must conform to standard materials and configuration as required by the City's zoning administrator. The required material is beige split-faced block, The configuration required is a combination retaining wall and, non-retaining wall eleven feet high+I-with pilasters each ten to twelve feet. The wall must be set back to include a planter area two feet high and eighteen-inches wide(inside measurement)running the length of the wall. The edge of the planter may abut the sidewalk of the street below. The planter is to be plumbed with sprinklers and low voltage electric lighting. You may revise the plans to incorporate the requirements listed above and resubmit the plans to the Committee or you may submit your plans directly to the City building depa*nent for consideration as they are. City rules may require that you stand for a public hearing prior to consideration of your plans for approval. If so, you may make your case for City approval at that hearing. Paula Hetzler President Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association,lnc. \ P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 (714)840-7877 Submission by DEBRA TRUE City Council Meeting Agenda i tem 2 August 20 , 2001 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Includes : 10 homeowner letters 8 photo examples LN'�3 cOMMuN IcA 110,v it '7. 1 "' r<S .. r •' , 51 r y p� r fia`t+µr! � -�.,-ro,� 4 • � r � 3 t fit' r ' t�J�,,(�•F "fir' �. '- � � •• $' �-it��. L• � 1F �4r, i tt '• 1 N L 1ht � h ,• '�4 E� � ,,qq' �J t<! fj .5 t i, Sri .y E.y_ k t i•.;7 ..,\ � r� * V ' �xJ}�K a "Y^ �rll%•, �kl f ,t �j` �'J Yi r. 'fi k}t �,tt.,4-a i J �`s 1;�'r•J!� �.� t, lY.bt t`Y `^� t , x�, tt� � t ' � 1 ��• {�"V "� tt�t• • r trlr i� {{ 'tl a .} }I 'F a�k� l•.iE l � .. �'9'i a • k F S t i gv j ?mot c r r a — t - � t F , r - ': s.» ,-�,,,..a,re�� �r� i ,'<,kw. *�`"'k�t •t xz r a r h .t�'' F r Y T . � k ..., t 1 � 16 ,�t.� noi e r' s t` p a e $ t� r � E 1 £ y! g r x$r..vx3 ``' of-E ' i' ' I tri f`a act•`.� � � E 1� .� ,zYS / tn�'.• '.y �� ' d t k. s' +t a ra • t r i - �fZ -: "' t,t t'~Mr C x �t t r i I - •9-'c ./. e � wS �' • .� � 11 A ji. -� ' 1 �'� a •ti ?7; 77i� • or, :, nntlr 1 t S a ' ' . __ __ - dr I 1 i r r „ w.. ? Y e � C , .s C A�� A i i : i r , i w i r wE P .� n /�jr•-�, �,,.1�r?,t�', iar✓'_� -mot �, '`/ I K Y t _ c C ` �c , ti d 1 i r' - t _ >'1, jrpt i r Sharon J. Hernandez August 12,2001 16132 Santa Barbara Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Honorable City Council, I have been a Huntington Harbor homeowner for over 15 years. I have known Debra True for longer than that. I would like to share my thoughts on this issue, as it is obviously important to everyone in the community if the issue has gotten to your council. I am in always in favor of home improvement when it adds value and beauty to the neighborhood. When looking at the photo's Debra has shown me, it is obvious to me that the wall covered in ivy is a much more attractive view to look at. The overgrown slopes and planters need to be cleaned up, and a beautiful green covered wall is the solution. When driving the area, I notice that about half of the homes currently have the existing block wall. I cannot understand how you can deny her block wall if you have allowed the others. If you deny her wall, can we safely assume the others will be coming down to comply with City Codes? Please consider the upgrade of the neighborhood,by allowing the True family to build an attractive,green covered wall. It will make Roundhill Drive a much prettier place. Thank you, on Jrn dez August 20, 2001 Marcie Zeller 3572 Running Tide Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear City Council, I have been a Huntington Harbor homeowner for 17 years. My children are always visiting friends in the neighborhood and I have been driving down Roundhill Drive for years. Due to the fact that half of the fences are already brick, it makes no sense to oppose a wall that is adding to the continuity and beauty of the street. If you take a step back and look at the overall picture, you will see the situation stems from a person who is unhappy with life in general. The True's plan of adding a wall covered in greenery will only enhance the beauty of the street for the community. Please take a moment and put yourself in the True families' position. You will realize that their intentions and plans are a fair compromise between all parties involved. It amazes me that your procedures allow tax dollars to be spent in such a frivolous way, and waste the council members time. Thank you, Marcie Zeller John & nancee weingarden 17214 courtney lane huntington harbour, California 92649 August 20, 2001 Dear Honorable Council Members: This letter is to express our total and complete support for the True Family, residing on Westport, in Huntington Harbour. We are in favor of a block wall, WITHOUT a two-foot planter. Taking property away from a homeowner in a neighborhood WITHOUT a mandatory association is not acceptable. A planter that is not maintained properly can be just as much as an eyesore as a plain block wall. The True Family wants to cover the wall with greenery from the inside of their yard, where it will be much easier to maintain (water, etc.). We urge the City of Huntington Beach to allow the Trues to increase the size of their yard, as well as increase their property value with a well-constructed block wall. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (714) 846-5569. Sincerely, (N l t John & Nancee Weingarden August 19,2001 17171 Roundhill Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92,649 Huntington Beach City Council Honorable Members, My name is Peter B. Shores, I live directly across the street from the contested area where the proposed wall would be constructed. I have lived in my home for 23 years. During this period I have seen a number of walls constructed with the same proposed boundaries as those requested by Mr. and Mrs. Mark True. The present wood fence does not enhance the landscape nor does it provide the continuity with the other walls along the same boundary lines. As a home owner and one who would be facing the proposed wall I want to provide you with my feelings regarding the proposed request for variance and construction. I am not opposed to the construction of the new wall. As for building out to the sidewalk, there are a number of current walls with the same non-existent setback already in existence. Forcing the construction of an additional setback now would only add another inconsistent construction project. I feel that allowing the wall to match the current wall directly to the north would be in proper architectural constructs,proxided that quality materials and construction practices are adhered to. This continued uncertainty and expenditure of city funds to prolong a project that could have been completed by now is ludicrous There is one person directly responsible for this continued litigation. I refuse to become a part of a group which attempts to impose their will onto someone else under the guise of betterment/saving the neighborhood. The maximum utilization of ones property while maintaining aesthetic features to enhance the surrounding area is part of the responsibility of home ownership. I am appealing to your judgement to look beyond the petty complaints of some whom have more time to complain than they do to take proactive part in the betterment of our fine city. Res Yours, Peter B. Shores August 20, 2001 Nicos and Anna Tsemerekis 17161 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Honorable Council, We would like to offer our thoughts about the hearing this evening. We are in complete approval of the proposed wall by the True family at 17171 Westport Drive. This wall will add value to the neighborhood and add the needed privacy and space the growing True family needs. Please consider the request to add the wall with the attractive greenery covering it. How can you refuse them when there are so many others already built? Thank you. J' Nicos and Anna Tsemerekis y t John & Kimberly Evans 17214 Courtney Lane Huntington Harbour, CA 92649 April 2, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to express our total and complete support for the True Family, residing on Westport, in Huntington Harbour. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend today's hearing due to the date change. The proposed block wall will be in direct view from the front of our residence. With this in mind, we are in favor of a block wall, WITHOUT a two-foot planter. Taking property away from a homeowner in a neighborhood WITHOUT a mandatory association is not acceptable. Taking a walk on Roundhill (the street that abuts Westport), one can clearly see that the "uniformity" that the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association is striving for,just isn't there. As nice as it would be to have planters all the way down the street, it's just seems unjust to begin with this one residence. As 10-year homeowners on Courtney Lane and lifetime residents of Huntington Harbour, we would take offense if the City of Huntington Beach asked us to build and maintain a planter if we were to construct a new block wall. In addition, we would not be willing to give up two feet along our entire property line. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at(714) 840-8757. Sincerely, John & Kimberly Evans August 19, 2001 17171 Roundhill Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach City Council Honorable Members, My name is Peter B. Shores, I live directly across the street from the contested area where the proposed wall would be constructed. I have lived in my home for 23 years. During this period I have seen a number of walls constructed with the same proposed boundaries as those requested by Mr. and Mrs. Mark True. The present wood fence does not enhance the landscape nor does it provide the continuity with the other walls along the same boundary lines. As a home owner and one who would be facing the proposed wall I want to provide you with my feelings regarding the proposed request for variance and construction. I am not opposed to the construction of the new wall. As for building out to the sidewalk, there are a number of current walls with the same non-existent setback already in existence. Forcing the construction of an additional setback now would only add another inconsistent construction project. I feel that allowing the wall to match the current wall directly to the north would be in proper architectural constructs,provided that qualiq, materials and construction practices are adhered to. This continued uncertainty and expenditure of city funds to prolong a project that could have been completed by now is ludicrous There is one person directly responsible for this continued litigation. I refuse to become a part'of a group which attempts to impose their will onto someone else under the guise of betterment/saving the neighborhood. The maximum utilization of ones property while maintaining aesthetic features to enhance the surrounding area is part of the responsibility of home ownership. I am appealing to your judgement to look beyond the petty complaints of some whom have more time to complain than they do to take proactive part in the betterment of our fine city. Respectfully Yours, Peter B. Shores Wffiiam M. Schoenfeld, A.LA. 17105 Westport Dr.Ru+ttington Beach,California 92e•19 Pb.714-846-4237 Fax 7141404004 Friday, March 30, 2001 To Whom It May Concern. Subject: Constructit)n of retaining wall at 17 171 Wes-.:petrt Dr. i tuntingtmn Beach,92649. I have discussed with the owners of the property the: unproventents proposed to be made on Roun&ilt Dr. at the rear of 17171 Wt.,Stpcln Dr_ I have obsen-ed the site and feel that the suggested t 4 itttt►tto wn as proposed will beustigve enhanceement for the neighbc►nc(xxf As neighbors the have no opts Wffl tg and support the protect. William M. Schoenfeld,A.LA. 17105 Westport Dr. Huntington Beach, Califortkia 92649 Sincerely, j i William M. Schoenfeld, A.I.A. S March 22, 2001 To whom it may concern: Our neighbors, Mark and Debra True have requested we write a statement regarding the construction of a retaining wall in the back portion of their property. We have lived in the neighborhood for 13 years and have found that when an improvement is made to any house in our neighborhood it always increases the value of our home and all others in the area. The wall they want to construct will certainly be an improvement over the existing wood fence.. We live on Courtney Lane just around the comer and have no objections to the construction of this wall. Signed, Ernest and Jeanette Ramirez 17192 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 1 9"i`_ CITY CLERK CIT`r' OF T J T �., HUNTINGTON' PE CH, C I.�.I 0 2001 AUG 20 P 2-, 0 O N LiJ j w U) TTZ)� n to OLIJ LLJ d i i La ittl T 1 O-FOOT COMBINATION BLOCK WALL AND G WALL IN LIEU OF MAXIMUM 42-INCH MALL AT EAR YARD SETBACK ADMINISTRATOR ACTION (4/4/0 1 ) E CDP 01 -06 AND CUP 01 -09 FOR 10- FOOT ITH CONDITION REQUIRING A TWO-FOOT WIDE APE PLANTER AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO PLANNING COMMISSION (4/ 16/0 `I ) NT APPEALED OBJECTING TO TWO-FOOT NDSCAPE PLANTER CONDITIONED BY ZA G COMMISSION ACTION (6/26/0 1 ) ED CDP 01 -06 AND CUP 0 1 -09 FOR 10- GH BLOCK WALL WITH TWO-FOOT WIDE APE PLANTER TO CITY COUNCIL (7/6/0 1 ) PRO TEM DEBBIE COOK AND CITY COUNCIL RALPH BAUER APPEALED APPROVAL CITING MPLIANCE WITH THE HUNTINGTON BEACH AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE CODE J� gg jk­ pk pA V � � MITI !d4 9 . t e � \ v ` x Wg r a ' - ' v:fi v % .o � v v - a ME - v AAA\� K m NQ5 v - \ \\ Ei it too vq Aq 1 1 10 All,1, 1, At VITT 1 1 3111311 altar, v A MEMO? Y o F ilk 15050 IL I iw E �ll p i ems; °'i a c a x A",, � r SAV VON as R � _ _ ,, �,:,.,. �\��A�� � \x• A AA V A AVM � � � V� \w �r AAA\y�:�A• �, yA�v�:�\ � `\..;. V � �A �\.�V,a��.:V A :w����. �� ".A�> ���y����..,:o�\�a y: ����\ �\.v�� �.:•y C' s V�\ G h Mrs FF mw b V for ,ivv . e'b." 101 KNOW?1.: 1 � \`® � «2���� �\ � `��` � � � ` Iƒ � � � . ^ � }\\ ` �\ \ : � a ` } � � � � � \ ^ / � \ © �«s `� ° S} / � : f\�\ \ \ ^ � �� `� . �� ° } � ^ ^�� �\ \ ` . \ �~ � �� ©� } \ . �\ \ « \ �/ � � \ � � . . � � �� \ < < \�\�\\� \ . \ \: ` � } \\ � � \\ \' \\ � \� �\ } +\ � & _ © \ �\ \� � �\ � � » \\\/� } � � \�®} � ��\ � . �t \ r < e DWIRL All t 57 lit 00 E ATtVHM N ; :; ATTACHMENT NO.�� WE commends approval of CDP 01 -06 and CUP ased on the following: 1 0-foot wall with the two-foot planter and priate landscaping will soften the scale and of the block wall all will be consistent with other rear block in the neighborhood which have allowed ased rear yards for through-lot owners August 20, 2001 z N C o '71 m To: Huntington Beach City Council N C:) -� Fm; Randy T. Fuhrman, Resident of Roundhill Drive -0 ' Re: Public Hearing Item D-1, City Council Meeting on 8120/01 NJ 0 Please do not allow the building of the block wall requested in Coastal Development Permit number 01-06 and conditional.Use Permit number 01-09. The request to build the block wall at 17171 Westport Drive should be denied. History; The homes on Roundhill Drive were the recipients of a"compromise" made when the lots were designed. The Westport Drive lots were allowed to have a property lane only fifty(50)feet from the Roundhill Drive lots only because of this compromise. The usual distance of sixty(60)feet from property line to property line was decreased only because other compensating factors were put in place. Roundhill Drive was designed to be one-sided with the view across of a sloping round hill the full length of the roadway. In accomplishing this design, the roadway(or the property line separation across Roundhill Drive)was decreased from sixty (60)to fifty (50) feet. The sidewalk of the double front houses on Westport was decreased on Roundhill from the usual four(4)feet down to two (2)feet. The parkway between the street and the sidewalk was eliminated. These changes amounted to a reduction of seventeen(17)feet from the usual distance between the homes on the street_ This reduction was compensated for by the openness and green flora covered slope or hillside that faced the homes on Roundhill. The designers of Huntington Harbour made these changes with this"compromise" in mind. Discussion- This block wall will not be in conformance with the CC&Rs for Huntington harbour. One of the goals is continuity throughout the neighborhood. This continuity will be disrupted, if not destroyed, if this type block wall is allowed to be built_ Past breaking of the law is no excuse for allowing future infractions. That the Planning Commission has allowed the rules to be overlooked in the past is no reason to allow this and future improper actions. The Planning Cormrussion report cited the lots at 16901 and 16911 Westport Drive as examples of where it has allowed the construction of improper block walls and then tried to cite the establishment of these walls as reason to allow Re: Conditional Use Permit 01-09 1 CMINIG(�I to v T001j u1TveH jogjuH T099 M tTL XV3 8C:CT NOW. TC- 07 further degradation of the neighborhood. This circular logic only serves to harm Huntington Beach and our neighborhoods. The City Council should enforce the code and the regulations to not allow further degradation of our neighborhoods. The code stipulates a fifteen(15)foot setback from the lot line and a forty-two (42)inch wall height in this situation_ Do not allow further variances from this standard to erode the beauty and continuity of this neighborhood, The excessive height of block walls facing Roundhill Drive cause a visual change from space and greenery to tall vertical walls and loss of space. This changes the nature of the neighborhood from vestiges of green and openness to one that is cramped and harsh_ This is more than visual, it becomes visceral. The owners of the Westport Drive lots took that property subject to the rules and regulations. Now they are trying to implement changes for their own purposes to the detriment of the corrununity and their neighbors. This is not a property rights issue. The rules, regulations, and the compromise in establishing the double front lots on Westport Drive were known and are known. The owners knew, or should have known, what they were getting into when they got into the neighborhood. That there are zoning codes and regulations in our community is well known. The design on Roundhill Drive must be protected from assault by another Conditional Use Permit (C,U.P.)that harms the neighborhood. These are design and compatibility issues with visual and spatial impact to the neighbors and the neighborhood. To destroy the nature of a neighborhood piece-by-piece is insidious. One C.U.P. after another that changes the design, while using the rationale that previous C.U_P.s have been approved so therefore allowing this one to go through is correct will only result in harm to this neighborhood. The City Council must stop this adulteration of the plan for this part of the city and vigorously support the design as initially set forth for this neighborhood. An inadequate landscape buffer will exist after the ten(10)foot block wall is in place. Presently, there is a sloping hillside of greenery that will be replaced by a ten(10)foot high block wall with a two (2) foot planter right at the property line. This tall block wall will be fifteen(15)feet closer to the neighboring property line than if a forty-two (42) inch fence was placed at the top of the hillside as it should be according to code. This block wall, with its concomitant decrease in open space and greenery, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working and residing in the vicinity. There is an appreciable loss when the open space and greenery is replaced by a ten (10)foot high block wall fifteen(15) feet closer than a wall is allowed to be placed. Previous developments have harmed Roundhill Drive both in terms of safety and by eliminating the greenery open space. The block wall at 16901 Westport Drive has blocked views at the intersection of Davenport and RoundhiIl (South East corner) making the turning into Roundhill that much more dangerous for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Re- Conditional Use Permit 01-09 2 Zooln u2t1vaH .zogduH T099 M fTL Xk3 6C:ST NOW 1�tiu�%�;; There will be harm to the General Plan and to the Huntington Beach community that the CC&Rs, city zoning codes and regulations were established to prevent. Do not allow the character of the neighborhood to change simply because the Planning Commission has made mistakes in the past. Do not allow the continued adulteration of the neighborhood_ The neighboring homes on Roundhill Drive should not be treated as if their homes face an alley. The loss of continuity of the neighborhood is something that must be stopped. Continuing to allow piece-by-piece destruction of the design of the neighborhood will diminish the neighborhood and the city. All of us will suffer the loss. Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit number 01-09 be denied. The homes on Westport Drive shall abide by the city code for zoning that specifies the fifteen (15) foot setback and the wall height at a maximum of forty-two (42) inches. This code was written not just for the owners of the Westport Drive lots, but for the benefit of all members of this neighborhood_ The Westport lots shall not be allowed to put up fencing or walls that do not abide by the setback distances and maximum height restrictions with or without a two foot planter. Advise the Planning Commission and the Director of Planning that requests for deviation from the code and from the original design for this neighborhood will be looked upon unfavorably and the Planning Department shall make every effort to ensure compliance with the original design for Westport and Roundhill Drives. The"compromise" made for Roundhill Drive, with the diminished separation of property lines because of the hillside with fifteen(15)foot setbacks spanning the length of the roadway, shall not be breached again. Thank you for your assistance and support in this matter. r-� Randy T_ Fuhrman 16915 Roundhill Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Re: Conditional Use Permit 01-09 3 COO[n u1TvaH .zogJUH T099 M t% XVd WST NOX TOIOZi �•� v t , t i i Y CLERK 4941 . CITY OF IiUNTINGl-rJN BEACH, CA 1001 AUG 20 P I: 42 (� �'� 6 Vf car- fow ax. attjAj `- ' � . ..mot. �"T• /7 • ,�-t�pet�l��i�,..t...� �-�.-�.G�. ��� CAM M��1��T�� �•,� � � � � � � � � � �_ ��� � � _ a � � � � � 5 � q 3 � �j � �� d � � � � � '� � 9 � � � 3 � � � �� � � �� � � �3 �� �� �� ��� � a�1.e- G� p --_�--- ----YORKTOWN ----------_----- _ � i MCNDAY, AUGUST 20, 2001 comiaL ------ - ---P `-------- � G tS --CITY HALL L ----- i APPEAL CF MM'S H= WALL * COUNCIL i 17171 wwrpctu r*L i y GO DOWN STEPS CHAMBERS i PMSE COME TO SUPPORT US. IF YW DO 1r `------ ROOM g* i WISH TO SPFAR Y= PRUMENCE IS VERY y Il6KNTAW. PCH TRACT 48804: BLOCK WALL 17171 W,ESTPORT DR. FACTS YOU MAY NOT KNOW (THE INFORMATION BELOW APPLIES TO THE 15 LOPS ON WESTPORT AS WELL) DOUR FR U IOTS: On all of Roundhill Dr. (and 15 lots on Westport Dr.) you do not face the rear of a lot. You are facing a double front lot with frontage on Roundhill and Westport. Each side is to be treated the same under the City Code. This means that according to City Code the wall construction proposed by the Trues should not start at the property line but at a FIF'PEM FEET setback from the property line. This has been ignored in all of the walls already constructed. Again, on June 26,2001 , the Planning Commission approved=a giLinst-the'=c6de for wall construction to start at the property line. This is being appealed Monday, August 29th by Council Members Ralph Bauer and Debbie Cook. FIFTEEN FEET SETBACK: We just learned Friday, the 17th, that City Code on both sides of a double front lot requires a 15ft. setback for the construction of a wall. The height of wall allowed is 42in. but nevertheless this horrendous 10-11ft. wall was approved by the Planning Cmimission June 26, 2001. The True's present fence is setback 7ft. from their property line. We are asking.in dcatwomise.that ,they start their wall construction there even though it is not 15ft. from their property line. THE SIGN: I spoke with Ray Logan, a Vice-President of the Huntington Harbour Engineering and Construction Company. He signed our CC and R's. He said that Roundhill was designed to be a one-sided drive with the vista across of a sloping roundhill the full length of it. To accomplish this the property line separation from one side of Roundhill to the other was lowered from 60ft. to 50ft., the sidewalk on the double front lot side narrowed to only 2ft. and the parkway eliminated. The compromise of giving up these features was more than cmVensated for by the lovely green hill we faced. Roundhill gave up 17ft. for that sloping hillside - 10ft. between property lines, - 2ft. of sidewalk, - 5ft. of parkway. That compromise has now been made to look like a terrible mistake with the destruction of the slope by these concrete walls just 50ft. acrooss from us. Without the original om pramise at least they would be 67ft. away rather than. in our face at 50ft. BLOCK CONCRETE: Hong did these walls described as a diaster by one of the Commissioners cone to be? We should have united in opposition and some did but it was not. enough. We,�all must take responsibility-to stand-up for the design of our neighborhood. The design is protected by the City Code but one CUP after another has changed the scene on Roundhill. SETBACK DIAGRAM: The Trues on Westport would have to set a wall back from the property line of their across the street neighbors - 75ft. By Code they should set back 65ft. on Roundhill but the Planning Cb missioners have approved only a distance of 50ft. fran the Roundhill neighbor's property line. ( WHAT ALL MEANS is that property owneers LOT ion Westport and Windsor with double front PROPERTY LIM i lots have been allowed on one front of their double front lot to put up a wall right at WFSTPORT DR. 60ft. i their property line only 50ft. from their x iacross the street neighbors. On the other. front of their double front lot the wall TRUE'S PROPERTY LINE se 1would have to be 75ft. from the property LOT 0 ft. setback dine of their across the street neighbor:: PROPERTYiIhis is a difference of 25ft. Our side of ROUNDHIIZ 50ft. ] these double front lots has been treated as a back.alley. LOr PROPERry LINE 1 WESTPORT Oli� �' I''O11LIIrI��I I b(Y�Z EbIY)�r� August 14, 2001 z H (" n t�Q�� T� In regard to: x G11, CLERK �D>-' _��1 �[ CUP No. 01 -9 Q ° F CITY OF °z CI C!ER CDP No. 01 -06 CITY OF ROUNDHILL li }TON BED,`:'„ CA Appeal Aug. 20, 2001 1001 AUG 15 A P: �r Dear Mayor and Members o he Cit�`Lgot Enclosed are two pages of photos .showing the contrast between the north end of Roundhill Drive at Davenport and the south end of Roundhill Drive at Courtney. The distance between is o.5mi. Attachment A is of the recent landscaping (year 2000) of the lot at Roundhill, Courtney and Westport. This landscaping conforms to the original plan of 'our. Tract 4880-4. We are so indebted to the new owner for making their property that fronts on three streets so beautiful. This is the south end of Roundhill Drive. Attachment B is of the wail (year 1997) of the lot fronting on Westport, ,Davenport and Roundhill. This wall is the new standard to which we are objecting. This wall is overpowering. The block construction starts right at the property line. The distance to the property line across the street is only 50 ft. That property owner.at the west corner of Round- hille.and Davenport would never be allowed to construct an eleven f:t: :iwall at his property line because it is the front of his property. It seems to have been ignored. that the wall in the pictures is on the Roundhill frontage of .a double-front lot, with a required setback of 10 ft. or. perhaps even 15 ft. Please .nbtice the .wall is higher than the front of house directly across::from it. This ib the north end of,:1R0btdhi1l.- Drive. The Planning Commission has approved bringing this monstrous wall from the north end of Roundhill to -jut up above the geraniums at the lower left hand corner of Attachment A at the south end of Roundhill Drive. Please do not allow this gigantic blight of a wall to move south. We ask that Debra True not be granted CUP No. 01 -09 and CDP No. 01-06 which would allow her to replicate this overpowering wall right beside the beautiful .property of AttachmentA. We would. like all of Roundhill Drive to be reviewed with emphasis on enforcing the City Code. .At the Planning Commission hearing Roundhill was referred to as a disaster, disheartening to be sure .but perhaps with cooperation we can turn Roundhill around. Thank you for all you have done to beautify Huntington Beach. It 's enjoyed everyday, --___Marilyn Willsie Sincerely, '�7187 Roundhill DR. ��-L�� Huntington Beach, CA 92649 rxl �� y� O,�efR"rt,r � � •� 1 wed„ 1 '� ��/ 1 ' • I • u r r r , / ,I I � • rf 4 24 ` k r _ � � }"•fyy�� ar.!` yy 7", � tf i ilf� ,,�►_'"'"'-. :�� �a : � I �� -j �`j°, � �� '+ 1 •r�„ ! �',G • s ,. ( ,f rs•,': rt i�" i v r,q r�; ��Fw"'4 �:•` �r 1.y,Yr•�t# /���i �f�.J� ti, � ��y .. �`t`_ �t� , � f! �°��� i ter k s �, ,a! `" r�/ t (+',:�• ,r F .•,.a•J � .ram" A ;r "rr✓t , �. �.Q,Q f 777 SSS��� 1 .�=*tea» � �, .,«r S ��`,�•P?b" "y,n• .,r,._ - .��fi.yc�..+dh�,���L�PT+�b„4�ry ��ak, ��+1LL. ., __ ¢• u,.. a 4. .' u 1 ry 9L4jti /` 5 vx ^(, �1f^J�J/J+;hk'•�.p 1 ? r a it`..,'� ti J�` fl f r 1A4��{f�"�f�r�T; l �,f•) 4`Y.L ��/r lli {��ll!•s'�it i x } -k ya�y ew It e-;r � ,1,4 r d rT an • : V){ •t 1 � !'l�.'�Jli 5r r, � ! n,rr• ra s • I r !.v ,jT� CIy d•._.._. ..L.:__ '.. S�1 xr i�,��r i � , },I r J�RI t ��� <� a � s , '� � ..�._ �. q'>'j I�{M �i�91`}ail .M'�T ��'X� �.:�4h'� •��� ,}' , vY ,': .. r' rr r.R�• f ,n,/„��r y'r. ,,k z ,,� n t S `��, h.A�rE•!�J?ff�%JM,'i1a�•r,. f ` Y "ri 'A hi•t•.. 1 n r j��I K n; r! 1 `y1 , a Lk 5 r lS d� t,.,,.. Ti ���' -i s i Y 1!r �^�S�r{r� h P-f>"'yy -� yt {� 'i... (• �1, �'1(•�, R,aM��kr i )I'' ffa .' 1 Sri1r,Ir /ti`. a n .K, i '1- r -/� ✓�rx, t✓!�N"I i � � �, ti t a7 � y �if J ,�I�'� •.:'. N!ri,.�,,r,../'f, '" .�.r✓��!�f�f iY1SG;4�•ta� rJ�rlf rl,�,a)t, .,f �,?• S, l.'C•� k�'..1 d i ��, � .r µ�. �•r {t +C' +,..i,,,:4�S'f .. .�� Jd, . , r//' a` �g,�, a dry+ t .6 r 7 ! •I� ;,fi J;' a, T, rr A d' Y{ •t � yam, >'�;•Gi,/u; 'Ji 'rn� .f' ,''nr ``/,'�'„ i 'r.;, to r. 'rf J�"ra,.5.+,r,�•� �,i. .N.�,, 4,:" - -•�\ il, � � i.a1tt+, 'oi•''.�A`.t,S-',x� A1•I,rJ �. :.S r , ,, {.�I ✓ r ,,�y(., ) 4in .'•*'h ! ;�. r �,.. it'r �+�; 3 i;, r F 1.¢ ... !t f ,�(•,r.F}� J,,..� w . ,«.r,� i�}"�� ,�i,f' �, G,�S�,;!' w, S t,. � ,c:r�,,. { �,,x` ,. •�:,,� (..I,,, *I'. �:'�,.� �� �, ,�'St ' yrql{,1}•• W"Oi J y_ .rr' „ hr � ,1., u ' �1.r d ¢{�`��� .t•:'r.,'f,. �;(•i:1 � ��jj...��. �:f:.�)- ,!?: '} i,S,'��,, ,If Irt •i r�r.11 1'�}' r!S '!r"���'f.>♦ti.:...,� r'�,'l,if,t, , ,S •1, ' ! ? u!t/4{.y, `jai �. ••Il�jl�y(itr � /I,Y!��f l,,�f„''e;MCI '�`'i't '1S'.r. �•��' 1 .5 ,•1. �:'' � ,.'fa e. �Ijw :�. ' �_ y. �,. ,,4.f 'n_ 1 .•,r 1,�lrc'�\';d.r'� ;1• '- 1�c <f1 � �'� ♦s ,� Y.�r.'J'y�Jr �`I �S�t�>R �� C'*�h�7 � Y � Jt-� y� to f"ti �, ��d/ %. , •.tr,`p�i' `_ ., )rlp {., Ydt'F SI' .�r9crx , ,�� ,�� t ' 'r �r f�}�: r Y— ,�• f at;i���a� Y3,rw.'.?'�,+�,' �.: 1',♦ `'�1r�7��.,�'f14�KS� • ,�tt I� rfr� y� ���� y ��s� , r :< L i• r � ��� r zr, �,,yr„(re r •� i.� rl ( , !r Se f.� Jv sl7 '1?I1G:dx�k�p,♦y..:r1J� � h ' �,s, .-. .:... .:y � -!•< - - tia �.acLy .,"sSY �ni'r,i+ tl•� ����: ��.ti '1:{fw•T i 6. i ... �, rc"�•�- �'� ti 'S �i j� ` t(! i ~ Jf'� ., `-•u:.u. a ,�,., ,�, JJia , a� t •. ;, jy fiv'ir�i�p ,> / �'a 3 -,r-'. , !stl -�-..�_ �h' d, r� .t, t f:s ii tl �.• !�U tZ,: 1i\� d ' i �r r�� ! ':.-x --�--6--=�°:;,.�_�; •apt+� �� :•C6'j�trJl��lj'>';�.. � � ii S��„r`1,S 'Y 7{`{ �y' •j -�,j. . t mat• J�.:�.j1, ,f'�,. f♦ ,,,I{I I��, 3 -.tt f.�'; f • - L+�i{J�f^��i,'li�•'4-�US,�i � `�.�.�f' ...53 � , :�1..� i. r. l� t`/�?� `�t ( S r, lxt. i`{) s r♦ � r[,{��.'("? if i7.' �..�r 1�.�.� 1�•'tl\i fit: {y:. ��SI' � ..._.f �. - t•r �.' t!'1�i� � f1 f�� =�„`-�rt � '► :.7 'rY�T FF t •_.�--'�-�"i -r t � k. �(�i,�'• ' rl.l 1� .� .e� � �: �fis('i-�ty_. J•n.t..`r ?� f.'n�!���3�}'. L� , fl r • L • 'v1 t • � � y. 1. l�.Iw f' ' �, �. _.,_ }o - .,� —•--- :.. + `�� fri ,fie wias 7�- ^$ai Imo„ I '� ,�� y]�. j ,i' �,',• !. �syc'sRNME d f. r �! f�j�� A� � +z+,y�Ia N.�Dt•tG4-.��'`1 50 ME 3 WA MURNE : �{y + ' 4 6 ti.` a ar y• '.�'+ zY"+r f 'r;5 r to r� -�k.w 7 @, •�! (R• .a' 1'.i t• ;ya ' �'.���' �'+j.:�•r,}��?'�:S y Fly" �;- + .r...,a4�.'�7;�7,�y,�t � F".��✓ .a 4 +''' dA �q�;��G�Yy t`:, , Lt r ,1 .+�. 3 .� 1f F'�, q�f � f,�,rt�,r�•.- � �r~`��`�aYr��k,.�iC'.,.x.. ,..Na�• y� � �f�.' ��tursaL(...u�` •, �- � ;y }-e'�i*i t jj�}1}y:�f t ;a+.:j�f'�'� .�t11.''�^t{ti,»."a"�"''S.;'�. - -" t tr r r, ,rf �• :� ii��f>�.7'r ��. "�.s•f'� S+.T .. �w�c y J1�1 i l�'t'} e��t! tr '��R'':'s,�'�,,�,�°��'" ;e�•��;��i ,.��• �}r.+w.•.. ;fi�,+Lh �"' ij� +� .v r i n=?;�>f- t. �e�l r." - - ,,( t J ,�}+y`xl, },t � �.t t+ ti_r.�� ' • � , .__ •9w��rr ...�ia.�ic_.. _,-_..i r�+...=n. ,. .- - a.� 'm_.:�.:.. •t`1"�, - ,'��i �r.?`'; t rht:.io� y '_is ?.:..::'.!...:: t .7..- :�;• • H MUNRO • MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001 .2 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: Planning Annual Review and Monitoring Report: Downtwon Parking Master Plan Planning Appeal of the Planning Commissions' Approval of CDP No. 01-06 and CUP No.101-09 (True Block Wall) TODAY'S DATE July 27, 2001 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: 1C � APPROVED BY: Ray Silver City Administrator 7/27/01 12:40 PM OVERSIZED PHOTOGRAPHS NOT INCLUDED IN ELECTRONIC COPY TO VIEW, VISIT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE