HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing Appeal Planning Commission Approval Condition r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION _ C �
30UTH COAST AREA
2O Box 1450 July 1 SU
200 Oceangate,10th Floor �7E/LONG BEACH,CA 90802.4416 CITY CLE
RK
CITY
HUNTINGTON BEACH.CA
IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
8 JULut 2� A �o� i? ;.
NEW APPEAL
PERMIT NUMBER: A-5-HNB-98-248
APPLICANT(S): Darrach Taylor
APPELLANT(S): Naomi Cohen
DECISION BEING APPEALED:
Appeal by Naomi Cohen from decision of City of Huntington Beach granting permit with conditions
to Derrach Taylor to construct back yard improvements consisting of a 12 foot high wall 40 feet in
length, a 400 sq.ft. expansion of an at-grade pool deck, and a new at grade staircase located at
16661 Wellington Drive in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County.
PROJECT LOCATION:
16661 Wellington Drive (East Of Peale Lane And North Of Gilbert Drive, Huntington Beach
(Orange County)
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION:
DATE: Tuesday, August 11, 1998
TIME: Meeting begins at 10:00 AM ITEM NO: Tu 19b
PLACE: Waterfront Hilton Beach Resort
21100 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 960-7873
HEARING PROCEDURES:
People wishing to testify on this matter may appear at the hearing or may present their concerns
by letter to the Commission on or before the hearing date. Copies of all correspondence will be
provided to the Commission if received a minimum of three working days prior to the public
hearing. Written comments may be of any length; oral testimony may be limited to 5 minutes or
less for each speaker,depending on the number wishing to be heard. Section 30625(b) of the
Coastal Act requires the Commission to hear an appeal unless the Commission determines that no
substantial issue is raised by the appeal. In its consideration of whether the appeal raises a
substantial issue, the Commission may decide to take testimony from the public.
In that case, proponents and opponents will have three minutes per side to address whether
the appeal raises a substantial issue. If the Commission finds that a substantial issue is
raised the Commission will proceed to a de novo public hearing on the merits of the project.
If the Commission finds that no substantial issue is raised, the local government's action on
the coastal development permit is final.
No one can predict how quickly the Commission will complete agenda items or how many will be
postponed to a later date. The Commission begins each session at the time listed and considers
each item in order, except in extraordinary circumstances. Staff at the appropriate Commission
office can give you more information prior to the hearing date. Questions regarding the report or
the hearing should be directed to Steve Rynas, Orange County Area Supervisor, at the South Coast
Area office.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY /V PETE WILSON,Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Once
200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 Filed: June 22, 1998
Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 49th Day: Opened and
(562)690.5071
Continued
180th Day: Decemb , 1998
Staff: SFR-LB
Staff Report: July 23, 1998
Hearing Date: August 11-14, 1998
Commission Action:
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON APPEAL
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
APPEAL NUMBER: A-5-HNB-98-248
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Huntington Beach
DECISION: Approval with special conditions.
APPLICANT: Darrach Taylor AGENT:
PROJECT LOCATION: 16661 Wellington Drive in the City of Huntington Beach,
County of Orange
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of an eight (8) foot high retaining/block wall
with a three (3) foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light fixtures
above the wall for a combined height of 12 feet, six (6) inches, in lieu
of a maximum six (6) foot high wall within the rear yard setback area.
The new wall will be forty (40) feet in length and will extend (10) feet
into the rear yard slope and will accommodate a 400 square foot
expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-grade staircase
will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located
on the north and south portion of the new wall. Seventeen (17) linear
feet of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall will remain at
the top of the slope (north side).
APPELLANT: Naomi Cohen
A-5-HNB-98-248 (Taylor)
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Staff recommends that the Commission, after conducting a public hearing,
determine that N2 SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE EXISTS with respect to the grounds on
which the appeal has been filed because the project, as conditioned by the City of
Huntington Beach, is consistent with the certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal
Program and the public access policies of the Coastal Act.
The appellant contends that the proposed project is not consistent with Coastal Act
Policy 30251 since the proposed backyard improvements have not been designed
to protect views along scenic coastal areas, would not minimize the alteration of
natural landforms, and would not be compatible with the character of surrounding
area.
Commission staff recommends that the Commission_find that the appeal of the
.. local government action raises no substantial issue because the private view issue
was evaluated appropriately by the Huntington Beach Zoning Administrator in
conformance with the Huntington Beach certified Local Coastal Program, does not
pertain to the protection of a significant coastal resource and does not raise a
statewide concern.
SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS:
1. Local Coastal Program for the City of Huntington Beach
2. City of Huntington Beach materials submitted as the file for Coastal
Development Permit 97-33 and Conditional Use Permit 97-83 issued by the
City of Huntington Beach.
3, Coastal Development Appeal A-5-LGB-98-141 (Gray and Trudeau)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - MOTION AND RESOLUTION
A. MOT/ON ON SUBS TANT/AL ISSUE
The staff recommends that the Commission find that Appeal No. A-5-HNB-98-248
of the City of Huntington Beach's action of approval of Coastal Development
Permit 97-33, raises NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE with the grounds listed in Section
30603(b) of the Coastal Act.
Page: 2
A-5-HNB-98-248 (Taylor)
RESOLUTION:
The Commission determines that no substantial issue exists as to conformity with
the certified Local Coastal Program with respect to the grounds on which an appeal
has been filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30603, as discussed in
the following findings.
MOTION:
/move that the Commission determine that Appeal No. A-5-HNB-98-248
raises N[Q substantial issue as to conformity with the certified Local Coastal
Program for the City of Huntington Beach.
Staff recommends a YM vote. This would result in the finding of no substantial
issue and the adoption of the following findings and declarations. A majority of
Commissioners present is required to pass the motion.
FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
The Commission hereby finds and declares:
I. APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS
The appellant contends that the project is not consistent with Coastal Act Policy
30251 since the proposed backyard improvements have not been designed to
protect views in a scenic coastal area, will not minimize the alteration of natural
landforms, and would not be compatible with the character of surrounding area.
The appellant specifically contends, that the project would block a view which is
currently uninterrupted, that it would create a precedent for altering the character
of the neighborhood, and that the project would encroach within a required fifteen
0 5) foot setback requirement from the curb for houses located on Gilbert Drive.
According to the appellant, the "green hill slopes of Gilbert Drive" would become a
"back-alley", bounded by "uneven walls of all kinds and shapes". Consequently,
the appellant believes that the project would adversely affect the value of the
properties on Gilbert Drive.
Page: 3
A-5-HNB-98-248 (Taylor)
II. APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT
Pursuant to Section 30603(a) of the Coastal Act and Section 245.32 of the City of
Huntington Beach's Zoning Code, only certain types of development may be
appealed to the Coastal Commission. The types of appealable development include
development that is between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or
within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or the mean high tideline of the
sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greatest distance. Based on this
criteria, the decision of the City of Huntington Beach to approve CDP 97-33 is
appealable to the Commission because the proposed development is within 300
feet of the inland extent of any beach or the mean high tideline of the sea where
there is no beach.
B. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Pursuant to Section 30603(b) of the Coastal Act, the grounds for appealing a
coastal development permit to the Commission is an allegation that the
development does not conform to the standards of the City of Huntington Beach's
Local Coastal Program or the public access policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
The development approved by the City of Huntington Beach is located at 16661
Wellington Drive in the County of Orange (Exhibits 1 and 2). The project site is on
Gilbert Island which is located in Huntington Harbour.
In October 1997 the applicant applied to the City of Huntington Beach for a coastal
development permit to undertake the proposed project. The Huntington Harbour
Property Association through a letter dated December 6, 1997 (Exhibit 6) states
that the plans submitted were reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and
found to be consistent with and in compliance with the intent of the CC&Rs.
The Zoning Administrator on January 21, 1998 conditionally approved the
proposed project. At the public hearing, City staff stated that the proposed project
would not block views, would be compatible with the surrounding area, and would
improve the aesthetics of the street (Minutes of the Zoning Administrator's Public
Page: 4
y
A-5-HNB-98-248 (Taylor)
Hearing). City staff also noted that the eight (8) foot high retaining/block wall with
a three (3) foot high wrought iron fence and light fixtures for a combined height of
twelve and half (12.5) feet exceeded a six (6) foot height limit (Minutes of the
Zoning Administrator's Public Hearing). The Zoning Administrator noted that the
height limit could be exceeded through a conditional use permit (Minutes of the
Zoning Administrator's Public Hearing). The Zoning Administrator, according to the
minutes of the public hearing visited the project site and determined that there was
no overall continuity in greenbelt landscaping, that the project would not block
views, was designed properly to integrate with the existing deck, and would be
landscaped. (The Greenbelt is a bank separating the sidewalk from existing
residential development along Gilbert Drive. The Greenbelt between the applicants
property and Gilbert Drive is currently almost eighteen feet deep and ten feet high,
see Exhibit 2. The project as approved by the City would result in the Greenbelt
being reduced in width to ten feet.)
Several persons spoke in opposition to the proposed project at the Zoning
Administrator's public hearing (Minutes of the Zoning Administrator's Public
Hearing). The appellant, Ms. Cohen, stated that the proposed project, would be
precedent setting, lower property values, block her view and sunlight, create
additional noise, and would affect the structural stability of her stairway. Other
project opponents stated that the project would reduce the Greenbelt area, that the
project was too high, and would be an eyesore.
A representative from the Huntington Harbour Homeowners Association stated that
the Association had reviewed and approved the proposed project (Minutes of the
Zoning Administrator's Public Hearing).
The Zoning Administrator found the project consistent with the Huntington Beach
LCP since it would conform to the General Plan and would not impact public views
or access to coastal resources as none exist at the site. Special conditions imposed
by the Zoning Administrator were associated with using energy saving lighting,
minimizing the spillage of lighting, conformance with the Uniform Building Code,
drainage plans, landscaping plans, and site clean-up following construction.
Following the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project, Ms. Cohen and other
Gilbert Island homeowners appealed the project on February 2, 1998 to the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed project and approved the project with conditions on April 28, 1998.
Minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing indicate that both proponents
and opponents spoke on the proposed development. Issues raised were the same
as in the public hearing by the Zoning Administrator. In response to the concern
that the proposed development would destabilize soil thereby endangering the
Cohen foundation, the Planning Commission questioned City staff. City staff
indicated that the construction plans would be reviewed and approved by a licensed
structural engineer prior to issuance of the building permits.
Page: 5
A-5-HNB-98-248 (Taylor)
Ms. Cohen then appealed, on May 7, 1998, to the City Council, which heard the
appeal on June 1, 1998. Issues raised at the City Council public hearing were the
same as presented at the public hearing before the Zoning Administrator. Both
opponents and proponents spoke before the City Council. The City Council denied
the appeal.
The City's action in approving coastal development permit 97-33 occurred
concurrently with one other local government action which was the approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83. The project description contained in the
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 is the same as that of coastal development
permit 97-33. Only coastal development permit 97-33 is subject to this appeal.
The Long Beach Office of the Coastal Commission received the notice of final local
action on June 10, 1998 (Exhibit 4) and opened the appeal period on June 11,
1998. The Long Beach Office of the Coastal Commission received the appeal of
Ms. Cohen on June 22, 1998. The appeal period closed on June 24, 1998 without
any additional appeals being received.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The development approved by the City of Huntington Beach is located at 16661
Wellington Drive in the County of Orange (Exhibits 1 and 2). The purpose of the
backyard improvements is to extend the pool deck around the pool to improve pool
safety and usability of the pool. Currently the pool deck does not extend fully
around the pool.
The City's approval is for the construction of an eight (8) foot high retaining/block
wall with a three (3) foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light fixtures above the
wall for a combined height of 12.5 feet, in lieu of a maximum six (6) foot high wall
within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be forty (40) feet in length
and will extend (10) feet into the rear yard slope and will accommodate a 400
square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-grade staircase
will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two (2) combination
retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and south
portion of the new wall. Seventeen 0 7) linear feet of the existing combination
block/wrought iron wall will remain at the top of the slope (north side) (Exhibit 2).
Page: 6
A-5-HNB-98-248 (Taylor)
V. SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ANALYSIS
For the Commission to accept the appellant's appeal, the Commission must find
substantial issue. The term "substantial issue", however, is not defined in the
Coastal Act or its implementing regulations. The Commission's regulations simply
indicate that the Commission will hear an appeal unless it "finds that the appeal
raises no significant question" (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section
131 15(b)). To find substantial issue on this appeal, the Commission will assess
whether the appeal raises a substantial issue of consistency with the City's
certified Local Coastal Program. In making that assessment the Commission
considers whether the appellant's contentions regarding the local government
action raises significant concern in terms of the extent and scope of the approved
development, the support for the local action, the precedential nature of the
project, whether a significant coastal resource would be affected, and whether the
appeal has statewide significance.
Even where the Commission chooses not to find substantial issue, the appellant
nevertheless may obtain judicial review of the local government's coastal permit
decision by filing petition for a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.5
In making her appeal, the appellant cited Section 30251 of the Coastal Act which
concerns the protection of Visual Resources. Pursuant to Section 30603 of the
Coastal Act, however, the grounds for appealing a coastal development permit is an
allegation that the development does not conform to the standards of the certified
Local Coastal Program (LCP). Though Section 30251 of the Coastal Act is not a
reference to a certified LCP policy, the Huntington Beach LCP does contain Visual
Resource Policies which can be used for evaluating the project as approved by the
City. Section 9.5 of the Huntington Beach LCP contains the Land Use Policies for
evaluating the consistency of the City's coastal development permit. Section 9.5.3
contains the Visual Resource policies. Section 9.5.3 which preface the relevant
visual resource policy notes: "The coastal zone contains significant visual
amenities, including the ocean and shoreline, natural bluffs, wetland areas and
mature trees. Public views to these visual features in the coastal zone are
"resources"in themselves. New development can disrupt and destroy visual
resources and public views. The following policies focus on protecting and
enhancing existing visual amenities in the coastal zone primarily through regulation
of the location and design of new development." Policy 6a states:
Ensure new development within the coastal zone includes the features
listed below and establish review procedures for implementation.
Page: 7
A-5-HNB-98-248 (Taylor)
• Preservation of public views to and from bluffs, to the
shoreline and ocean, and to wetlands.
• Conservation of energy and facilitation of public transit
through design and siting.
• Adequate landscaping and vegetation.
• Evaluation of project design regarding visual impacts.
The appellant broadly contends that the project has not been designed to protect
views along scenic coastal areas, would not minimize the alteration of natural
landforms, and would not be compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
The appellant specifically contends, that the project would block a view which is
currently uninterrupted, that it would create a precedent for altering the character
of the neighborhood, and that the project would encroach within a required fifteen
(15) foot setback requirement from the curb for houses located on Gilbert Drive.
According to the appellant, the "green hill slopes of Gilbert Drive" would become a
"back-alley", bounded by "uneven walls of all kinds and shapes". Consequently,
the appellant believes that the project would adversely affect the value of the
properties on Gilbert Drive.
The project site is in an urban residential area and is on the inland side of Gilbert
Drive (Exhibit 1). Policy 6a which was previously cited clearly establishes that
public visual resources are to be protected and enhanced for the public benefit.
Public access and public views of the water in Huntington Harbour from Gilbert
Drive are blocked by existing residential development on the seaward side of Gilbert
Drive, Summerset Lane and Peale Lane. Moreover, the development approved by
the City would be on the inland side of Gilbert Drive. The Zoning Administrator,
noted in his findings that the deck extension and wall would not impact public
views or access to coastal resources. The Zoning Administrator, to specifically
evaluate view concerns conducted a site visit. To address view concerns the
Zoning Administrator conditioned the project to provide landscaping to soften the
visual impact of the wall and that the wall be stuccoed to match the applicant's
house.
The appellant also alleges that an existing bank (Greenbelt) which is approximately
18 feet wide by ten feet high just inland of Gilbert Drive (Exhibit 2) is a "natural"
land form and that its alteration for purposes of constructing the retaining wall
would be an adverse visual impact. The appellant further alleges that the project as
approved by the City would encroach into a required fifteen (15) foot setback. The
photographic evidence submitted by the City documents the existence of
man-made features such as privacy walls, retaining walls, and stairs either on the
face of the bank, immediately at the top of the bank or even at the toe of the bank.
Page: 8
A-5-HNB-98-248 (Taylor)
The appellant has a stairway and garage which traverses the face of the bank and a
retaining wall at the base of the bank. Further, as previously noted this bank is
located in a highly urban residential development. Based on the degree of existing
urban development the Commission finds that the bank does not constitute a
natural land form nor is it a public visual resource.
The issues raised by the appellant are private view issues. These issues were
extensively evaluated at the local level first by the Homeowners Association, then
by the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, and finally the Huntington
Beach City Council. The applicant noted before the City that there are six (6)
properties in the immediate vicinity that have deck and wall structures which
exceed the six (6) foot height limit and/or are located in the rear yard slope. The
City staff report (Exhibit 5) to the City Council states that: "The retaining/block
wall located within the rear yard will be compatible with surrounding uses because
there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties and the new
wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping will be
installed to improve the aesthetics of the street. In addition, the wall will be
separated by a staircase on the applicant's property and a planter on the appecant's
side property line which would provide a separation from the appelant's property of
approximately three feet at the top of the slope and approximately a ten foot .
setback at the toe of the slope. " The project.has been conditioned by the City to
address local concerns related to private views.
Basically this is a dispute between neighbors concerning the preservation of
one neighbor's view versus the other neighbor's right to build backyard
improvements. The project site is in a built out residential neighborhood and
would not result in public view impacts. The proposed retaining wall is on
the inland side of Gilbert Drive and public views of the water at Gilbert Island
are blocked by existing residential development on the seaward side of
Gilbert Drive.
The Commission has intentionally not entered the arena of attempting to mediate
among individual property owners by attempting to protect views from the
windows of private homes or from other places where the public is not welcome to
enter at will. While the approval of back yard improvements such as a high wall in
an established neighborhood which enjoys views of the coastline undoubtedly
raises a significant concern among those who stand to lose a portion of a view to
which they have become accustomed, the Commission finds that private view
impacts do not demonstrate that the City of Huntington Beach has approved
development which is inconsistent with its Local Coastal Program.
The Commission finds that the project was appropriately evaluated and
conditioned at the local level. Further, the Commission finds this appeal has
not identified a significant adverse impact on a coastal resource (such as a
Page: 9
A-5-HNB-98-248 (Taylor)
public view or public access) nor does it raise a significant statewide concern
which requires Commission involvement.
Finally, the Commission finds that the development as approved by the City
would not have an adverse impact on public access since the project site
does not provide public access, it already has a single family residence
on-site, and the addition of the backyard improvements would not change
the intensity of use at the site. Public access and public recreational
opportunities exist at Sunset Aquatic Regional Park, Surfside Beach, Sunset
Beach. Sunset Beach is approximately one third of a mile southwest of the
project site.
Thus even if the appellant had raised an issue with the relevant LCP visual
resource policy. The administrative record demonstrates that the City of
Huntington Beach complied with Policy 6a by evaluating the project's design
in terms of it visual impacts (Exhibit 4). The project does not involve the
protection of public views to and from bluffs, the shoreline, and the ocean.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, Commission finds that the City
approved coastal development permit issued for the backyard improvements
as approved by the City raises no substantial issue with respect to the
grounds on which it was appealed or conformance with the public access
policies of the Coastal Act.
Page: 10
.
� W
•
♦ .aem►
No
•
♦ or
w
• w
•
/1 IL p
/
•CYO
PRO CT
r
d �
Z v /
� t
EXHIBIT No. 1
• � � Application Number:
• ? Y A-5-HNB-98-248
Location Map
California Coastal
Commission
Jj A Vicinity Map
.,�,
CUP. / CDP 9.7.33
„
WNTII=C?4=4M R.Ill DIM Cie
MUM L*M*AQh tNIMI UStl 114 04/-/2Z/ 19t-"-So 11:44Rn lu aiu;rm -r r.3i3
OclMA v GATE cxsrrac v.L W.L
V.I.db NAIL
I n I !! 6 II I Iltll I I III ,�it I w II 1 ul 141111VI it f1,111 11111ill !I 1111111ij, v rwff
r rwff1 *0"TCH sn w,iTf
E:LM"G v
1090010M WALL r
t %nIAILC A30VC SLOP[ 1
.•- _ p Ib TQP Cr CX=T= WALL L7.NOvC
ST SLZK TO X PL.A%M le S Wv vA LLLTo
<M NATCH
W - \10
P PA &
�n� usao .tee I ID' �ALL�•oOrOtCs
V /
LOW sum.
��N 9199�
1
C Nsuc V,a
RE NG A
GOAS� 1� wovE Exn% W.u.L yo i.....
t1YCDa�►L.�MIN as Aw vwv
Aa�t OOnM"16 .
r>r
1
— 1 -
RECEIVED
O C T 2 31997 .
IST DEPARTh1�=NT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
t.• .. - ti3. .:.� ate. M
fO a dw= -
' •• ..• � . .. .. :II Lilt\ni`tr
• �Y Chime ;e Idle
F RUPOSED DECK FORA MR. 5 MRS. R. TAYLI3R
16661 WELUNGTON DR.
HUN 1 INGTEIN BEACH
562 592-5090
a DESIGN A 1 RAY HARFER PDQL CONSULTANT
5333 RURAI RIDGC CIR.
ANAHLLK CA. 92807 637-2301
r EXHIBIT No. 2
Application Number:
_ A-5-HNB-98-24u
Project F
California Coastal
Commission
fo�o lof In��t1-�a�-(ib n� •
• �(01072
EXISTING Q•GATE
EX•STINS V.1
3' W.I.
W.I. RAIL
I i i N1 F com T SIP CM E S . —T—
• _Oo EXI 1 C- F L +J
!• y,i, PROPOSED VALE. . . '
AIIOVE SLOPE pr �/
SP tD -.Slot TOP OF EXIST003 VAuL 17.MOVE
•'OPE T i�Qi/ •1► TO. EF SLOPE
0 K PLAIITED S NEW-WALL TO IIATW
_CAErt?MIL+•
FACE VIEW
0,q 7_1
��'l/L� (I���L�N6�oN •
FA
1001,
�as��l� .• �clsr�rc, mac_ . y .
•�Trle Fxl�wc, •
PXlyti e, Dow.
i
♦os� • SC.e PC —
•
/ S /A' eel L
. c (y W1DBE P"AITEA-
GILBER-r' �R �VE RECEIVED
APR 0 91998
DEPARTMENTOF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
a
P u• art-flows t�nare cKis'h>� waH�-�C2 '
GONDI-116NAU
05% FePMI'r ,
[IT
rro pow Wool t
/A r� tip
•�t• ,
•
i;• f •p i
I(dirt)
ALLoweP
�Y CODE � . _ :•
TA)eloOR.. .
CojaiN 1 Use Fecm&
10 Rear.WA . I vest .
s
i -
101
s
O
Nkr- -
—. __ � _. --- - - : -. _—._ N ._ — ----._--. ._— •- — ....—.ram. —,— —__.
i
' � � ''IZew+ove cx;sfi • bl� wo►I�
67. IA4A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
PETEWLSON,Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION H
ECE
South Coast Area Office RU (
200 Oceangste,.IDth Fkw a
Long Beach,CA 90e02-.C= APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT �uN ���8
(562)SW5o» DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
(Commission Form D) CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
Please Review Attached Appeal Information Sheet Prior To Completing
This Form.
SECTION I. Aooellant(s)
Name, mailing address and. telephone _number of appellant(s):
c Z
ip Area Code Phone No.
SECTION II. Decision Being Appealed e
1 . Name of loc /p rt CA W\
government: l`0
f
2. •Bri f descriptio of evelopmen b in Q V33
appealed: ex 1 7
v - ur.
3. Development's loc ion street addre s, assessor's arcel
no. , cross street, etc.): _�. e -- ��nsf a
4. Description of decision being appealed:
a. Approval ; no special conditions:
b. Approval with special conditions:
c. Denial:
Note: For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial
decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless
the development is a major energy or public works project.
Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable.
TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION:
EXE
APPEAL NO: Applic
DATE FILED: A-5- 8
DISTRICT: al
H5: 4/88
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 3)
State briefly your reasons for this aooeal . . Include a summary
description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master
Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is
inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing.
(Use additional paper as necessary.)
s 0 IQ Ea ilea I h
o
• r�3.S . 3 3 tiJ Gl/l
S t
o he C'A pys V1
C:L1: w► i
Ifo 's aI e� ,ow(L�
((`` y r_ .
Note: The above description need not be a complete or exhaust f+ie mc,k-,e4 Qkq�L�
statement of your reasons of appeal ; however. there must be
sufficient discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is
allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal , may
submit additional information to the staff and/or Commission to
support the appeal request.
SECTION V. Certification
The information and facts stated above a correct to the best of
my/our knowledge.
(71
Signature of Appe lant(s) or
Authorized Agent
Date
, ro
NOTE: If igned by agent appellants)
must also sign below.
Section VI. Agent Authorization
I/We hereby authorize to act as my/our
representative and to bind me/us in all matters concerning this
appeal .
Signature of Appellant(s)
Date
- -lAnfd__Ih^Om. _✓lc<CJ � 3__D_T'. k��i'CR41"O�N _ I'Grm ..-- A e
f
— -- ----- ---
m;te all'era.h'on _ D�q- . nahU.r,�
DiSua. ComfG. �''1D ��.--.��(`�t_..�`h�_
.J
OL
-Coin-
7"
. Co�st'c��— un i In Fer r �.c�('� ---
__ ell-
or hood i f' iS 170� Co-M ec �`l'�le
bef_� Dr fIC)f LA�*j �IL
eat
Y
_.004d _fr_oY+ti. .Pa3e .10f Off j;CCA .fj-0V% .PlC)Y M
b Coi
_6) . Mam-ac-i- ..i& G_yz -Sone,-
. sef' 92.6
r
----
--8 0Wi�'2� -- -
}tr _Ffc��`�-lL��•orro�skl� 3K��_.C�,• I.b�t. i�c...— ----
--�1ez� ��e
�r) M s., �.u,l`� oh' s _. 3 3Sz lb e+t- D r_ .
.G Cok�P-rt � 167 11 Peale-
-4Y) Rr&
-. /�{p, r ueri�`e l�orrisbn I(,582 �or•+�e,-se.F fir . _
r�t� M s. • R�el� _ �ous�e�r �GS�isome�✓SeF I�h . . __.
�S .. ks, .Tan2 psi hG�1 � .SomP�-SQ-�' kyi _
I� �f � Mrs . NickL� ,�CYLIde-1I'"O� l(o961 Some-,-Selt" 2
1� I�{r., Y Mrs . 904r0ej Fr,'ejman ) Somerset 1 „-.
!X 3 ..INt. ' . fN�S • ,�wt /�ObGSSct �y � /(�(� 02 SOm '2,-S�F �.r
GerG-jd A�pner� 3442
— --- - -- --- ----- - - ---
3481 Gilbert Drive, Huntington Beach, Califomia 92649
June 17, 1998
Califomia Coastal Commission
South Coast Area
P. O. Box 1450
200 Oceangate, 101 Floor
Long Beach, Califomia 90802-4416
RE: Coastal Development Local Permit#CDP 97-33
I would like to appeal Coastal Development Local Permit#CDP 97-33 for the following
reasons:
1. All the houses on the hill on Gilbert Drive currently exist within a 15 foot set back
from the curb. By allowing Mr. Taylor an exception,wherein he can extend into
the hill slope and wherein he is allowed a 7 foot setback, you are establishing a
precedent for others to follow. When this happens, the uninterrupted green hill
slopes of Gilbert Drive will be devoured! Uneven walls of all kinds of shapes and
mis-shapes will spring forth and the entire slope will disappear. As Councilman
Bauer expressed in the Council Meeting of June 1, 1998,this use permit opens a
Pandora's Box, which will subsequently change the entire character of the whole
island„ creating a "hodge-podge" and a"back alley' look to a street which is
currently open in view, a street with streamlined, pride of ownership homes, a
street whose owners have spent thousands of dollars to purchase into. 'There
ought to be a uniform policy for this island,' Councilman Bauer declared,"a
uniform policy for all.' The way we operate currently,every home on the hill can
build something different. At least this should be postponed until there is some
consistency in policy. The Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association's
President, Mr. Jerry Umer, also expressed his strong opinion that there needs to
be established a universal policy, so as to prevent the character of Gilbert Island
specifically and Huntington Harbour in general from deteriorating.
2. And indeed that is why the residents on the south side of Gilbert Drive so
strongly oppose this project—they fear that this"hodge-podge"will ultimately
devalue their homes. Twenty-three such neighbors have signed a petition
against CUP 97-83. They have written letters and have expressed their opinions
in appeal meetings, they have paid money to appeal, and yet their voices have
been blatantly ignored. Why? Because of misrepresentations and half-truths by
staff. What are these misrepresentations and.hatf-truths?
Misconception#1 'The applicant has.neighbors who support his project.'
All his supporters,with one exception, live on the hill and therefore are not
impacted at all. Quite the contrary,the supporters would actually benefit if CUP
97-83 passes, because that would give them permission to follow suit.
Misconception#2'The HHPOA endorsed the project'
By tradition, prior to endorsing any project,the HHPOA notifies the neighbors
within 300 feet of the project and consults with their opinions. By the admission
of the HHPOA President, Mr. Jerry Umer, no such notification was given to the
neighbors. This was because Mr. Umer, unfortunately, underwent heart surgery
at the time. And yet, in the three appeal sessions,the approval was mentioned
without this crucial fact and as if it carries the support of the neighbors,which, in
fact, it did not.
Misconception#3 "The block wall will be compatible with surrounding walls,
because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties.'
They fait to mention that all those"similar decks and walls' (with the exception of
one tiny balcony on stilts), are located on a different street entirely, on Peale
Lane, and the"hodge-podge"created on that street is the very reason why the
residents on Gilbert Drive are opposing CUP 97-83. They do not wish Gilbert
Drive to deteriorate into that"back-alley' look which will ultimately cause a loss of
value to their homes.
Misconception#4 'Staff does not believe the project will impinge on the privacy,
obstruct views and air.'
Currently, any person looking onto Gilbert Drive,from the bridge, can view the
entire slope from Peale Lane to Somerset Drive—a beautiful, uninterrupted view
of green. By offensively intruding into the slope,to within 7 feet of the curb,the
view is suddenly cut off at mid-point. Instead of the uninterrupted hillside slope of
green,the eye is obstructed by a huge sandbox, 12.5 feet high,which blocks the
view and stops the eye at that point.
Misconception#5'There will be no loss of value to neighbors.'
By establishing a playground at the face of my house, sun umbrellas, deck
chairs, etc., (my house,which is contiguous to the Taylor residence, is unique in
that its front faces Gilbert Drive and is contiguous with the back walls of the all
the other houses) by this fact, per appraisers report, my house would be
rendered an non-conforming piece of property, a fact which will depreciate its
value by 5.-10 percent($53,000 in today's value). If the neighbor on the other
side follows suit,this loss would double. Moreover, most.of the residents on the
south side of Gilbert,fear the loss of value to their homes, due to the"hodge-
podge which will inevitably be created.
3. Noise and Privacy A stairway has been affixed to the backside of the circular
stairway at 3481 Gilbert Drive. This stairway is unsightly and ruins the aesthetic
look of the entire street. It invites added parking, added noise and traffic which
the neighbors on the south side of Gilbert Drive are strongly objecting to.
4. 1 would like to quote from a letter written by Dr. Morrison's wife, Marjorie,which
she addressed to the mayor and the Councilmembers on June 1, 1998. 'The
Christian Corporation,that developed Huntington Harbour, hired the finest civil
engineers money could buy. All of Huntington Harbour is man-made, including
the hill in the center of Gilbert Island. The slope going around the sides of the hill
was intentional. It serves two purposes. First, covered with green vegetation
(which is required by our CCR's), these slopes give sum o�rt to the hill from
erosion and collapse...Secondly, it provides a very pretty green skirt beneath the
lovely homes on the top of the hill, which those of us living across from the hill
expected would always be there,when we bought our properties. When buyers
of the homes on top of the hill chose to buy up there...they could see the size of
the rear yard. If it was not large enough to accommodate their lifestyle (pool and
deck)why did they buy such a property? Surely not to meet these desires by
endangering the safety of the hill and those property owners living across from
In summary, I would like to request that Coastal Commission Permit 97-33 be rescinded
or at least postponed, until a universal policy is established, that will apply uniformly to
all the residents of the island. If you allow this one project to go forward, it will establish
a precedent wherein it would be difficult to deny to other applicants. Gilbert Island,
constituting the main thoroughfare to the island,the "Wilshire Boulevard'of this island,
so to speak, should be the pacesetter and the symbol for the beauty of this island. By
allowing this protrusion as a wedge which blocks the view, you would be setting a
dangerous precedent that would ultimately destroy its unique hillside character,thereby
undermining the values of the houses surrounding the hill.
I will be overseas from August 5 to September 8, 1998 and would request that the
hearing not be scheduled during that period of time.
Th7nk you for your consideration,
Naomi Cohen
1. r*101•.:Yr. '.i:l:il
mAy ultima)s!y start numerous other nomo, to do the same.
2. GilbPrt Island is godly lacking in tanascape and planted area;. Tew!wal! will
causri an in!e,rup:icn !n the ;.riginal ple.ttcd sloping 'ml;sidu design.
1, therefore res,;•usctiuiiy request that the I IWnoruners raquett for a z.;ning variance be
denied.
LO-
V.11-1-1-15L
5 4/!1R_IZ.f t... t!I
�,(r,,r7.
per
j
e. �.. •�,�.r���;
!ces 4''1_�_���:r„!�- 7�i�• -� -L�� t h
... �'!.�':�£YI__j�G1.?S'_4�1__�_1�¢.�7�:. a�C•..r'.5.�._...._ _...) •ls�•_�c'...
. • _ sf�+� �ARVC��EReicr�.�y..-.�.���� .:Sam�ks:�t _ .. . .�.. .1� `7�G .
opy: �)�M m0 `�SA�YSO/YIfJRSEJ---. •. .. - 1 �n �r6
1 Jaw
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY D
CITY CLERK REVE
June 8, 1998 JUN 101998
NOTICE OF ACTION CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33
APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT [A-5-HNEB-98-248
HIBIT No. 4
tion Number:
-Applicant: Darrach Taylor ice of Action
Appellant: Naomi Cohen, et al. (Huntington Harbour Residents) California coastal
Commission
Planning Commission's _
Request: An appeal of the ' approval for construction of an eight
(8) foot high retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light
fixtures above the wall for a combined height of 12 feet, six (6) inches, in lieu of
maximum six (6) foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be
40 feet in length and will extend ten (10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and
south portion of the new wall. Seventeen (17) linear feet of the existing combination
block/wrought iron wall will remain at the top of the slope (north side).
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive).
Coastal Status: In the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone.
Environmental Status: The above item is categorically exempt from provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the
Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, filed on
December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development
Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and
action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final
City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of
'Published and notification inadvertently sent as Zoning Administrator instead of
Planning Commission
(TNophons:714.636 M)
' t
• Notice of Action
Coastal Development Permit
Page Two
Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is
applicable.
Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on June 1, 1998
and your request was:
Approved
X Conditionally approved (see attached)
Denied
Withdrawn
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the
action taken by the City Council is final.
The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal
Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S. 30603 and California Administrative
Code S. 13319, Title 14.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code S. 30603, an appeal by an aggrieved person must
be filed in writing, and addressed to:
California Coastal Commission
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802
Attn: Teresa Henry
The appeal period begins when the commission receives this notice of action-and
continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission's review period and as
to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin
construction prior to that.
Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application
becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval unless actual construction
has begun.
Sincerely yours,
Connie Brockway, CIVIC
City Clerk
( Enclosure: Statement of Council Action—June 1, 1998
cc: City Administrator
City Attorney
Community Development Urector
;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
June 8, 1998
Mr. Charles Damm, Director
California Coastal Commission
South Coast Area Office '
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
-- — ---- Long Beach, CA- 90802-4302
RE: STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH REGARDING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33—TAYLOR
RESIDENCE-16661 WELLINGTON DRIVE—HUNTINGTON HARBOUR
Dear Mr. Damm:
Attached is a Statement of Action which reflects only the motion on the above
referenced appeal. A complete set of minutes will be forwarded in the next two days.
Also enclosed is a copy of the items in the Council packet of the 6/1/98 Council meeting.
The appellant's photo slides and the Community Development Department's schematic
renderings are on file but have not been included at this time.
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
CB:cjg
(Telephone:714436 5M)
STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
*********-Indicates Portions Of The Meeting Not Included In The Statement Of Action
Council Chamber, Civic Center
Huntington Beach, California
Monday, June 1, 1998
An audio tape recording of the 5:00 p.m. portion
of this meeting and a video tape recording of the 7:00 p.m. portion
of this meeting are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Mayor Dettloff 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: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Sullivan, Garofalo (Bauer arrived at
5:09 p.m.; Garofalo arrived at 5:14 p.m.)
Absent: None
t:ttttt*ttttttttttttt�t*tattttettttttttttttttttet*ttt*ttt*ttt�rttttttttettttttttttttttttttttttttttt
l (CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL FILED BY NAOMI COHEN TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33 -TAYLOR RESIDENCE -
16661 WELLINGTON DRIVE, E/PEALE LANE, N/GILBERT DRIVE -HUNTINGTON
HARBOUR-APPEAL DENIED
The Mayor announced that this was the meeting set for a public hearing to consider the
following:
Applicant: Darrach Taylor
Appellant: Naomi Cohen, et al. (Huntington Harbour Residents)
Request: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval for construction of an eight
(8)foot high retaining/block wall with a three (3)foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light
fixtures above the wall for a combined height of 12 feet, six (6) inches, in lieu of
maximum six (6)foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be
40 feet in length and will extend ten (10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two (2) -
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns)will be located on the north and
south portion of the new wall. Seventeen (17) linear feet of the existing combination
block/wrought iron wall will remain at the top of the slope (north side).
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive).
Page 2 - Statement of Action -City Council Meeting -6/1198
Coastal Status: In the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone.
Environmental Status: The above item is categorically exempt from provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the
Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, filed on
December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development
Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and
action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission within ten (10)working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final
City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of
Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is
applicable.
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
" -— — -"--Coundil'S action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or — --
someone else raised at the public hearing. Direct your written communications to the
City Clerk.
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green to approve the following Planning
Commission and staff recommendation: Uphold the Planning Commission's action,
deny appeal, and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development
Permit No. 97-33 with findings and conditions of approval as set forth in Attachment No.
1 to the Request for Council Action dated June 1, 1998.
Discussion was held by Council, and Scott Hess, Senior Planner, responded to
questions including Mrs. Cohen's comments regarding the Master Plan. Senior Planner
Hess also reported on how the applicant could build to meet the city's code
requirements without a Conditional Use Permit.
The motion made by Garofalo, second Green to uphold the Planning Commission's
action, deny appeal, and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal
Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings and conditions of approval as set forth in
Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action dated June 1, 1998 (see attached)
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Garofalo
NOES: Bauer, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
Page 3 -Statement of Action -City Council Meeting -611198
l: Mayor Dettloff adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at 11:45 p.m. to Monday, June
8, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. in Room B-8, 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, California
ATTEST:
/s/Connie Brockway /s/Shirley Dettloff
City Clerk/Clerk Mayor
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 the
1st day of June, 1998.
Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 8th day of
June, 1998.
City Clerk and ex-officio Cl&k of
the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
i
i '
ATTACHMENT NO. I
i
FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 /
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33:
f
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.97-33:
1. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 to permit the construction of an eight(8) foot high
retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot high wrought iron fence and eighteen(8) inch light fixtures
above the retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six(6) inches, in lieu of a
six(6)foot high wall,within the rear setback area, approximately eight(8)feet from the rear property
line. The new wall will be forty (40) feet in length and will extend (10) feet into the rear yard slope
and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. The deck
extension and wall will conform with the General PIan, including the Local Coastal Program. The
- —proposed deck extension and•wall will not impact public views or access to coastal resources as none
exist at the site. --�-
2. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,
the base zoning district, as well as other provisions of the Municipal Code applicable to the property.
The proposed development will conform with all applicable City Codes as allowed by the conditional
use permit.
3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner
that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program.All infrastructure currently exist at the site.
4. The proposed wall conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
California Coastal Act. The development will not adversely impact public views or public access.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97.83 for the establishment,maintenance and operation of an eight(8)
foot high retaining/block wall with a three (3)foot high wrought iron fence and light fixtures above
the retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six(6) inches, in lieu of a six
(6)foot high wall,within the rear setback area,approximately eight(8) feet from the rear property.
The new wall will be forty (40) feet in length and will extend(10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck.The deck extension and
wall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor
detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the,neighborhood since the proposed
wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable for this
type of development.
q
611198 CD98-26
2. The deck and retaining/blockwaIl located within the rear yard setback will be compatible with
r^ surrounding uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties.
Furthermore,the retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and provided with
bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
3. The proposed combination block/retaining 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 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be
located. The structure will be in conformance with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with the
-approval of the 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 Low Density Residential on the subject property. In
addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
a. Require that non-residential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be
compatible with-and convey-the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures_
(LU 9.3.3). -- --— -
b. Ensure that structures and sites are designed and constructed to maintain their long-term quality
(LU 4.2).
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83/
COASTAL PERMIT NO. 97-33:
1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated October 23, 1997,shall be the
conceptually approved layout with the following modifications:
a. 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.
b. The 18-inch high light fixtures located above the wrought iron fence shall have a dimmer switch.
c. The eight foot(8) foot high combination retaining/block wall shall be stuccoed and painted to
match the on-site residence and shall be screened with berming and landscaping.
d. The rise and run of the stairs shall be constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code
requirements.
� I
_. .._6/1/98 _.. _ - _ -. CD98-26
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 the
working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural,structural, electrical,
mechanical and plumbing).
b. Submit design calculations for the retaining wall,which includes any possible surcharge from the
pool deck.
- c. Shade in the area of all new work on the site plan.
{
d. Provide the details for the new stairs,handrails and guardrails.
e. Show the path of the retaining wall drainage on the site plan.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for
review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of Community
Development.
b. A Landscape planting and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
and approved by the Departments of Public Works. The Landscape plan shall address
improvements to be made in the rear yard from the pool to Gilbert Drive and shall include type
and location of shrubs to be planted to screen the wall. The landscape plans shall be in
conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design
Guidelines. (PW) (Code Requirement)
Ic. The foundation for the retaining wall shall have a reverse footing (i.e. not from the exposed face of
the wall) unless the rear slope has a minimum of 42"of earth above the footing facing the street
(Gilbert Drive) to allow for roots and drainage.
4. All landscape planting and irrigation shall be completed prior to final building inspection.
5. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied
with.The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan
and elevations are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued
I until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for
conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the
proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by
the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO.
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:
( 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development.Permit No. 97-33 shall not become
effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 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 Department of
Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date.
3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, 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. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code,Building
-- - — ---Division, and Fire Department as-well as applicable local State and Federal Fire Codes Ordinances,
P PP ,. . _... _._
and standards, except as noted herein.
S. Construction shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be
prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays.
6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 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
O_ range and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2)days of the
Zoning Administrator's action.
r
V I
CD98-26
CK)
'Sf:?o. Mo
Council/Agency Meeting Held: / 9 F
Deferred/Continued to: �'L��.� EXHIBIT No. 5
IdAyr ved O Co itionally Approved 0 Denied 2)e-P�-4,y City CIE
Nara^,., .ta-tc.ti-No Application Number:
pp A-5-H N 6-98-248
Council Meeting Date: June 1, 1998 Department ID IN
City Staff Report to
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH the City Council
California Coastal
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Commission
z .
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERSrn
=
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator AV N CD
� r—
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director
c�
SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND-COASTAL
PERMIT NO. 97-33 APPEAL (TAYLOR RESIDENCE-WEtLlkGTON
DRIVE)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Altemative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,
Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Naomi Cohen, neighbor at 3481 Gilbert
Drive, of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 for a residential pool deck and combination
block/retaining wall. Rick Taylor, the applicant received approval from the Zoning
Administrator and the Planning Commission (on appeal) because the project is compatible
with the surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to properties within the area. The
subject property is located in Huntington Harbour on a raised inner triangle on Gilbert Island
at 16661 Wellington Drive.
The appeal asserts the project should be denied (Alternative Action No.1) for the following
reasons: 1) The residence at 3481 Gilbert Island is the only front facing home on Gilbert
Drive; 2) The property value of the home at 3481 Gilbert Drive will be reduced; 3) Noise
impacts will increase; 4) The rear yard ingress and egress (proposed at-grade stairs) diverge
from the Master Plan (original subdivision); 5) Objections to project due to incompatibility of
new wall; 6) Misrepresentation of support by the Huntington Harbour Architectural
Committee; 7) Establishment of a precedent.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the project be approved with conditions
of approval (Recommended Action).
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
F
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
1. `Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings and conditions of approval
(Attachment No. 1)."
Planning Commission Action on April 28, 1998:
THE MOTION MADE BY INGLEE, SECONDED BY TILLOTSON, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-
33 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: INGLEE, TILLOTSON, LVIENGOOD, KERINS, SPEAKER
NOES: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN,
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED
Alternative Action(sl:
The City Council may make the following alternative motion:
1. "Overturn the Planning Commission's action by denying Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings for denial.' (Appellant's
Request)
2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No.
97-33 and direct staff accordingly."
CD98-26.DOC -2- 05121/9812:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1. 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Rick Taylor, 16661 Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive)
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 represent a
request to construct an eleven foot (11) foot high combination retaining/block wall.and
wrought iron fence with eighteen (18) inch light fixtures above the wall. The new wall will
have a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six (6) inches, in lieu of a maximum six (8)
foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be 40 feet in length and it
will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard slope and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and south
sides of the wall (Attachment No. 6). The applicant is requesting this project for the following
reasons:
• Provide adequate and safer deck space on the west side (street side) of the lap pool.
• Remove a portion of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall and construct a
new wall to accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of the at-grade pool deck/patio
area in the rear property.
• Enjoy additional sunlight on the pool deck, since the pool deck adjacent to the home is
shaded by the roofline of the residence.
• Replace the at-grade staircase on slope to continue maintenance of the planted slope
area and the planter in the public right-of-way.
B. BACKGROUND
On January 21, 1998, the Zoning Administrator approved the project with conditions,
based upon the findings that the new wall and the expansion of the at-grade deck and wall
will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity
nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The
proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the-site is
physically suitable for this type of development (Pages 4.1 through 4.6 of Attachment No.
4). The combination retaining/block wall and wrought iron fence located within the rear
yard setback will be compatible with surrounding uses because there are decks and walls
in similar locations on adjacent properties (Page 3.1 of Attachment No. 4). Furthermore,
the combination retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and the
applicant will provide bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
CD98-26.DOC -3- 05/2119812:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Ms. Cohen et. al. (Gilbert Island Homeowners) appealed the Zoning Administrator's
approval to the Planning Commission (Pages 5.1 through 5.12 of Attachment No. 4). The
appeal included seven letters in opposition and a petition of 24 signatures. Prior to the
Planning Commission hearing, 14 residents indicated verbal approval, two letters of
support were submitted, and two of these residents asked that their names be removed
from the petition which accompanied the Planning Commission appeal. A total of 14
households were in support of the project and a total of 20 households were in opposition
to the project.
During the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting six individuals, including the
applicant and a Huntington Harbour Property Owners'Association (HHPOA)
representative, spoke in support of the project and two residents spoke in opposition of the
project. The Planning Commission approved the project with a 5-2 vote requiring that the
wall be stuccoed and painted to match the residence on the subject property. Two
Commissioners opposed to the project believe it will be incompatible with the adjacent
residence (3481 Gilbert Drive) because it faces Gilbert Drive and will be impacted by the
proposed wall extension.
D. APPEAL:
An appeal to the Planning Commission's approval was filed by Naomi Cohen on May 7,
1998 (Attachment No. 2). The appeal is based on the following:
• The home at 3841 Gilbert Island is only front facing home on Gilbert Drive (Attachment
No. 5)
• The property value of the home at 3481 Gilbert Drive will be reduced
• Rear Yard ingress and egress (at-grade stairs) diverge from the Master Plan (original
subdivision
• Noise impacts will increase
• Objections to project due to incompatibility of new wall
• Misrepresentation of support by the Architectural Committee
• Establishment of a precedent
E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The project proposal is fully analyzed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report
dated April 28, 1998 (Attachment No. 4). The following is an analysis in response to the
appeal of the project:
C098 26 -4- 05/21/98 2:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Location, Ingress and Egress, and Property Value Impacts
The proposed wall will be located adjacent to the staircase leading to the front entry and
planted slope area of property to the south of the site (3481 Gilbert Drive), which is a split
level home with a garage on the street level and living area on the second and third levels.
The retaining/block wall located within the rear yard will be compatible with surrounding
uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties and the
new wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping will be installed
to improve the aesthetics of the street. In addition, the wall be separated by a staircase on
the applicant's property and a planter on the appellant's side property line which would
provide a separation from the appellant's property of approximately three feet at the top of
the slope and approximately a ten foot setback at the toe of the slope.
The appellant indicates that the proposed project diverges from the Master Plan (Original
Subdivision) for Gilbert Island since stairs (ingress/egress) are proposed in the rear yard
slope. Staff has reviewed the tract file for the original subdivision and found that there
were restrictions placed on vehicular access for lots located on the upper raised triangle of
Gilbert Island, but there were no restrictions for pedestrian ingress and egress on the rear
yard slope which is privately owned. Ms. Cohen (3481 Gilbert Drive) has indicated that her
home is the only one that faces the street on Gilbert Drive and abuts the rear yard of the
adjacent property. However, Staff has found that there are two other homes on Gilbert
Island also having a front entry that faces the street and are adjacent to a rear yard. Ms.
Cohen's is concerned that her home will be buried by the new wall, however, it will be
separated by a staircase on the applicant 's property and a sloping planter area and the
living area at the Cohen residence is on the second and third floor and will not be
impacted by the proposed wall.
Staff does not believe that the project will impinge on the privacy, obstruct views, light, and
air of the adjacent property owners or negatively affect the appearance of the
neighborhood. The proposed combination block/retaining wall and wrought iron fence
within the rear yard setback will not directly impact any living area of the adjacent
properties. The new combination retaining/block wall and at-grade pool deck expansion
will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity
nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since
the proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is
physically suitable for this type of development.
CD98-26 -5- 05/21/98 1:50 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION _
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Noise Impacts
According to the appellant, there has been noise disturbance from the subject property in
the past, and there is concern that the expanded pool deck will increase the people and
noise from the property. The Police Department has indicated that they have not received
any complaints regarding noise or other disturbances at the site. Staff does not feel that
the deck expansion and new wall will result in an increase of noise to the property.
Compatibility, Architectural Committee, Precedent Setting _
Staff found several properties in the immediate vicinity that have deck and wall structures
which exceed the six (6) foot height limit and/or located in the rear yard slope and has
identified properties on the inner raised triangle of Gilbert Island which have developed
decks and walls on and over both the rear and front yard slopes (Attachment No. 5).
These properties are on Gilbert Island and in close proximity of the subject site. The
Architectural Committee of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (HHPOA)
reviewed the plans and provided a letter in support of the project and a set of plans which
were stamped approved to the Planning Division (Pages 8.1 through 8.5 of Attachment No.
4).
The retaining/block wall located within the rear yard, will be compatible with surrounding
uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties and the
new wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping will be installed
to improve the aesthetics of the street. The planted slopes on the inner raised portion of
Gilbert Island are privately owned and maintained. Staff does not feel that green belt will
be degraded since 17 linear feet of the existing wall will remain in its current location and
40 feet of the new wall will be setback T-9" from the rear property line, at the toe of the
slope and a total of 17 feet and 9 inches from the street (Attachment No. 6). In addition,
the slope will be planted and the wall will be screened with shrubs.
Postponement of Protect
The appellant has submitted a letter dated.May 13, 1998, requesting that the public
hearing for the appeal be re-scheduled to July to allow additional time to prepare for the
appeal (Attachment No. 3). The previous appeal letter dated May 6, 1998, requested that
the Council hearing would not be scheduled between August 1, 1998 and September 5,
1998. When Staff received the appeal letter, the request to postpone the hearing was
discussed with the applicant, and he indicated that his supporters could only attend the
June 1, 1998 meeting, and they would be unable to attend a hearing at a later date due to
other commitments.
CD98-26 -6- 05/21198 2:57 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
F. SUMMARY
Staff feels that the proposed project will result in ample open space and the proposed
design of the wall will be compatible with the neighborhood character. The wall will be in
substantial compliance with the Land Use Guidelines and the Coastal Element of the
General Plan. The project was approved by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Commission and is supported by staff because:
• The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan,
incorporating a creative design that results in an attractive and viable residential area.
• The project is consistent with the objectives of the RL-CZ standards of the code in
achieving a development that has an integrated design which properly adapts the
development to the surrounding terrain and uses in the area
• The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety, nor
detrimental to the value of the improvements in the area because since the wall is
designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable
for this type of development
• The project provides good land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically
pleasing types landscaping site layout and design.
• The wall is consistent with other walls and decks in the neighborhood and combination
block/retaining walls have been approved for similarly zoned lots with sloping rear
yards.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachment(s):
1. Findings and Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 97-83 and CDP No.
97-33 (Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation)
2. Letters of Appeal from Naomi Cohen dated May's(, 1998 and May 14,
1998
3 Ms. Cohen's letter for postponement of hearing dated May 13,1998
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 28, 1998
5. Gilbert Island Map (indicates properties with walls and decks)
6. . Site Plan and Elevations dated April 9. 1998
CD98-26.DOC -7- 0512119812:55 PM
- • �G.tpN
J
Z H December 6, 1997
.� .,..,,..�...... �4� N 2 91998
ALIFORNIA Architectural Review Committee
TAL COMMISSION SunsetoBeach CA 90742-0791
DARRACH G TAYLOR
16661 WELLINGTON DRIVE
DEC 0 8 1997
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 COM,4��PTMpEVBLOP.1E
NT
RE: Property at: 16661 WELLINGTON DRIVE
Approval of Proposed Plans.
Project: 00559:0183
Dear Property Owner:
The plans submitted to the Committee for the proposed
project at the referenced property address have been reviewed
by the Committee and found to be consistent with and in
compliance with the intent of the CC&Rs and are therefore arr
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. The project is carried out in conformance to the plans
submitted;
2. Any significant changes to the plans be submitted to
the Committee for review prior to execution.
Thank you for helping us keep Huntington Harbour a special
place to live by cooperating with our review program. We hope
you have a successful project.
Jar Urner
ARC secretary EXHIBIT No. 6
Architectural Review Committee
. Application Number:
A-5-HNB-98-248
Pioperty Owners
Association Letter
• California Coastal
Commission
Huntington Harbour Property Owner's AssociatIonAnc.
P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 (7 14)840-7877
7 August 1997
To: Huntington Beach Planning Departmejpt
From: Darrach G. &Delores A.Taylor
16661 Wellington Drive '• ��,.
Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Subject: Narrative for Pool Deck Extension Concept If I
r
Our property is located on the raised inner triangle of land comprising three cul de sacs of homes on
Gilbert Island in Huntington Harbour.
The proposed concrete pool deck extension- 10'X 4 0'(avg) or 400 square feet-is neerled to provide _
adequate and somewhat safer space around the lap pool for use by family and/or friends,always in discreet
numbers,and to add time to the afternoon sunlight which is presently cut off by the roof line early in the
afternoon.
Presently,the entire rear patio area is 23' (avg)X 59' including the 14' (avg)X 42'pool/spa,and
approximately another 10'X 12' equivalent space for pennanent trees and planter areas and garden
window, leaving about 600 square feet for'people area'.long and narrow. (See photo nos. 1-6).The
proposed deck on the opposite side of the pool would add about 400 square feet(10 X40 avg).The hillside
- 17.5' X 59' -lias little use or purpose, is covered with ice plant because the soil (from original
dredging) is so poor and requires considerable maintenance. Stairs are proposed to the sidewalk to replace
the current ones for access for continued maintenance of a smaller area of hillside and parkway ice plant
as well as sidewalk and gutter.
The retaining wall would be stuccoed and painted to match house and planter areas. The wall would be
capped with bull nose brick to match existing decor,and the wrought iron fence and post lights would be
retained. All would enhance the property's appearance from the neighbors'perspective.
This extension would merely replicate,and in some cases in more finished fashion,what other property
owners have done over the yeah on the hillsides on dais inner Gilbert Island triangle.The following
appear to be comparable extensions or variances with referenced photos,starting first with the views of
the neighbors on either side of our property:
1). 16672 Wellington Drive (photo nos.7-10)
Wooden patio I F from sidewalk and pool deck wall 13'from sidewalk on Gilbert Drive.
2). 3481 Gilbert Drive (photo nos. 11-13)
Raised property line wall 9'from sidewalk.
3). 16502 Mariana Circle (photo nos. 14-16)
Pool deck 6'from sidewalk on Somerset Drive;stain and railing to sidewalk
Adjacent house, 16491 Somerset Drive,is 11'from sidewalk.
4) 16521 Mariana Circle (photo nos. 17-19) .
Pool machinery deck/wall installed 7'from sidewalk on Peale;patio/pool extends t j
sidewalk(57'long).
5). 16641 Melville Circle (photo nos.20-22)
Wooden patio is 12'from sidewalk on Peale. '''LL}} •�'•
Page 2. (Continued)
6). 16651 Melville Circle (photo no..22)
Glassed in patio 12'from sidewalk on Peale.extends 60'with high bushes to sidewalk full length of
property.
Finally,the hillside on Gilbert Drive for our property showing where the proposed"extension would be
constructed,about 7'from the sidewalk. (photo nos.23-26)
Your concurrence with this proposed concept will be appreciated.
�. NpN 1iAp�C �
C• fi. ell
z '': E
�s ys-A OPT
��?OPERT�I O
T
2 W997
all ,....... c9
see - -
t'?:7Y
EXISTING SIDE WALK
TOE OF SLOPE PROPOSED STAIRS
HANDRAIL
W.I W/ LITES
A RETAINING WALL L CONCRETE DECKING
W.1. rENCE
REMOVE EXISTING WALL
EXISTING SELr—CLOSING L LATCHING GATE
PLANtER EXISTING POOL
P/
P
NG'TON SPA
ro
��i•�1;iAA
VATC
PROPOSED DE OR: MR. & MRS, R. TAYLOR
EXISTING V 1. V 1. RAIL.
ExIS1IN6 VA-L
n: PRUNED VALL
7-
N
M '
O� p�
S:oPt STEPS
1�A
'� � • '' N rAM VIEV
ed
AROWER' o
.� Ro m slaw PIR rOSEI
VALL ViV.L RAIL
N i7CSTM
O.
9" i )
-OLLr LS1 SIDE
uN�i IIEtAMM VAIL. L Ea CKWE WKINII '
o.
m
are wmx
o own gamma a IA "CAU SEQC V
Down
calm RM
r
e,.
ID4 %
m1-
PROPOSED DECK FOR, MR. & MRS. R. TAYLOR OY �
16661 WELLINGTON DR. �F z�i X
HUNTINGTON BEACH yJ`
562 592-5090
DESIGN BY: RAY HARKER POOL CONSULTANT ~
5333 RURAL RIDGE CIR.
ANAHEIM, CA. 92807 637 `308 '�
FROM 01-15-98 02:59PM TO 3747540 E21 P.2/2
W.1. RAIL FXISTING V.T.
EXISTING WALL
32' W.1 HANDRA1Li 1/2' TUr� SED WALL
VERTICAL PICKETS 4' p.C.
STEPS SLOPE 1.5 TO 1
SLOPE TO BE PLANTED W/ICFPLANT
FACE VIEW
S=1?' R SPRINKLER HEAD
3' DRAINLINE FROM LEACHLINE INSIDE RETAINING WALL
ExISTbA SIDE v*LK THRU CURB TO �TREET
mr Lf SLOPE 5 P/L
5 ;5 .5 S
rRara m j
Wi LII*Ft
RETAINING WALL L CONCRETE IIFCKING
w. PENCE 5 SCOPE OF NEW WORK
P
SELL-=SWG i LATrWbr- WTL
EXISTM Ka.
ROPOSED DECK FOR: MR. s. MRS. R. TAYLOR
16661 WF.I.-LINGTON *DR.
HUNTINGTnN BEACH
562 592-5090
DESIGN BY+ RAY HARKER PLJr'.11_. CONSULTANT
5333 RURAL RIDGE CIR.
ANAHEIM, CA. 9?807 637-2308
p Ij
en
Inc. NGro
Gc� �
STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS •re:�:y��s '
1
FOR
12'-0" TALL
RETAINING WALL
AT
m TAYLOR Residence
16661 WELLINGTON DR.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA.
PREPARED FOR:
RAY HARKER POOL CONSULTANT
5333 RURAL RIDGE C1R.
ANAHEIM, CA. 92807
DESI'3N BASED ON SANDY SOIL vik FESS/o
PER J.B.C. 1994 EDITION. y
FOUtJOATION PRESSURE: 1500 PSF 0.575
PAS:;►VE PRESSURE: 150 PCF/FT Exp. 12-97
ACTIVE PRESSURE: 30 PCF (LEVEL) 1
FRICTION: 0.25 ery
MAI.-I RIAL SPECIFICATIONS: OF
CON RETE: f'c = 2000 PSI 23 97
MASONRY: f'm = 1500 PSI 9/ /
REINFORCING: Fy = 40000 PSI (Grade 40) (or as noted j
. 1332 N. Miller Street#201 Anaheim,California 92806 Fax:(714)528-8283 Phone:(714) 528-820?.�
• POOL ENGINEERING,INC. - Title : 12'-0"RET NG WALL
133214.MILLER ST.0201 Job# •97-182 ..,jnr*. DHR Date: SEP 23,1997
ANAHEIM,CA. 92806 Description....
FAX:(714)528-8283 30 PCF,1500 PSF BEARING
PHONE:(714)528-8200
CANTILEVERED RETAINING WALL DESIGN Pace 1 of
`GENERAL
retained Height = 12.00 ft . Allow Soil Bearing = 1,500.Opsf
Walt height above retained soil 1.50 ft Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method
Slope Behind Will _ 0.00:1 Active Soil Pressure Heel.Side _ 30.0 psf
Height of Solt over Toe s 22.00 in Active Soil Pressure-Toe Side a 30.0 pcf
Passive Pressure s 150.0 pcf
Soil Density s 110.00 pcf Water table height over heel s O.Oft
_FOOTING DATA SLIDING DATA ,
Toe Width = 5.25 ft Friction Factor @ Footing&Soil s 0.250
Heel Width s 2.00 ...neglect ht.for passive s 12.00in
Total Footing Width ■ ---725-
Foo•ing Thickness s 12.00 In lateral Sliding Force s 2,620.2lbs .
less Passive Pressure Force a • 2,652.1lbs
(R�1T A A less Friction Force s - 1.342.2lbs
Disti.nce from Toe a 5•75 ft Added Restraint Force Required s 0.0lbs
Widbi s 12.00 In
Depth s 16.00In
SURCHARGES PLTEZY075TEIiA
Surcnarge Over Heel = 122.5 psf Axial Dead Load s O.Olbs
Suro-arge Over Toe s 330.0 psf Axial Live Load = O.Olbs
Axial Load Eccentricity = 0.0in
_ADCED LATERAL LOAD ON STEM A ADJACENT FOOTING DMA t
Latelai L0aQ W.0 Jos A01acent Footing Load lo03
...Height to Top 0.00 ft Footing Width = 0.00 ft
...Height to Bottom = 0.00 ft Eccentricity = 0.00 in
Wall to Ftg CL Dist s 0.00 it
Wind on Stem = 17.5 psf Footing Type Line Load
Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall = 0.0 ft
FOOTING DESIGN RESULTS
re ■ 2,000 psi Minimum Footing Rebar Options......
Fy s 40,000 psi
Mi*aum As% s 0.0014 Toe Stde...... Heel Side....
Reber Cover @D Top a 2.00 in #4 @ 7.00 In Not req'd
Rebei Cover @ Bottom s 3.00 In #5 @ 10.75 in Mu<S•Fr
Upwa'd Soil Pressure Under Heel Omitted #6 @ 15.00 In
. Toe Heel ACl Factored Soil Pressure ■ 1'889 0 psf #8 Lb#7 Lb 20 In
MV:From Upward Loads 19,762 13 ft•# #9 Qa 20.7..500 in
In
Mu':From Downward Loads ■ 13,152 495 ft-# #10 0 43.50 in
Mu: Used For Design = 6,600 483 ft4t
Key Reinforcement
Actual One-Way Shear 1528 12.74 psi
Req'd=Mu<S'Fr
Allo r = 76.03 .76.03 psi
-.;'TON OI1 F ,
�c
r, APB -
w 1 nv9
L. �- a•
DATE -
Retsi - c P Yp.- EAERZAC�
POOL ENGINEERING,INC. Title : 12'•0*RETi 4G WALL
1334N.MILLER ST.0201 Job# :97.182 L.,,1r. DHR Date: SEP 23.1997
ANAf'EiM,CA.92806 Description....
FAX:(1.14)528.6283 30 PCF.1500 PSF BEARING
PHONE:(714)528-8200
SIGNSUMMARY
Total Bearing Load s 5,369 Ibs Summary of Stem Section Designs....
...resultant ecc. = 14:50 in • Top: 6 in Mas,04@48.00 in@Edge,From 13.5 ft to 10.0 ft «
Soil Pressure Q Toe 1.461 a 1.500 psf. 2nd: 8 In Mas,05@16.00 in@Edge,From 10.0 ft to 7.3 ft
Soil Pressure Q Heel _ 0 <= 1,500 psf 3rd: 12 in Mas,05@ 8.00 in@Edge, From 7.3 ft to 4.7 h
ACI Factored Press @ Toe 1,889 psi 4th: 16 in Mas,#7@ 8.00 in@Edge,From 4.7.ft to 2.0 ft
ACI Factored Press @ Heel = 0 psf sth: 16 in Cone,#6@ 8.00 in@Edge, From 2.0 ft to 0.0 ft
Footing Shear Q Toe = 16.3 <= 76.0 psi
Footing Shear Q Heel = 12.7 <= 76.0 psi
WALL STABILITY RATIOS
Overturning Stability Ratio : 1.95
Sliding Ratio Ratio s 1.52
I CON. ASTIZO'V :
�G•O i.�'Qt
-�� 0
r..
ATE \�'L
..Pow
1`
RTY
FtstainPro V4.Os c 589�6 EtJEF�CAL�—
ON
'POOL ENGINEERING,INC. a Tide = 12'-0"RET 4G WALL
1332 N.MILLER ST.*201 � ` Job 0 •97.182 L,.,rnr: DHR Date: SEP 23.1997
ANAHilM,CA.92806 D 1997 Description.... -
FAX:(714 528-8283 D 30 PCF. 1500 PSF BEARING
'.0 �L+.;
PHONE:(714)528-8200
•• t
CANTIL $�.q INING WALL DESIGN Pop 2 of
^SUMMARY OF OVERTURNING 8 RESISTING FORCES 8 MOMENTS �"___"--"-' '--
......OVERTURNING...... -RESISTING.....
Force Distance. Moment Force Distance Moment
Item Ibs ft s ft
Heel Active Pressure • 2,969.3 4.65 13,80 x`
Soil Over Heel ryt r 880.0 6.92 6,086.7
Sloped Soil Over Heel s ��
Surcharge Over Heel
Adjacent Footing Load
Toial Dead Load on e Active Pressure Stem '1SAN H 2OR�°;r� 0.94 -113.7 a� 0.00
Son Over Toe 1x .Z, 8.8 .63 2,779.2
Surcharge Over Toe t7r
1.42 -36
Stem Weights) 1 , ' ; ;. a ,665.8 5.78 9 630.4
Earth Stem Transitions �,► ,+ .y P►
� 476.7 625 2,980.1
Footing Weight s\ti 1,087.5 3.63 3.9422
Key Weight = V'P P..I.( 200.0 6.25 1.250.0
Vert.Component s
Added Lateral Load
Load%@ Stem Above Soil 26.3 13.75 360.9
TOTALS 2,626.2 O.T.M.. 5,368.r R.M. s w 26.668.6
Vertic 31 component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure
Toe Surcharge Not Used To Resist Overturning Resisting/Overturning Ratio 1.95
Heel Surcharge Ne!Used To Resist Overturning
�Tl:M CONSTRUCTION 8 DESIGN '
Top Stem 2nd Stem 3rd Stem 4th Stem _ Sih Stem
Stem OK Stem OK Stem OK Stem OK iR OK
Design at this height above ftg a 10.00ft 7.33 ft 4.67 ft 2.00 ft 0.00 ft
Wall Material Above"Ht" = Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Concrete
Thickness 6.00 in 8.00 In 12.00 in 16.00 in 16.00 In
Rebar Size # 4 # 5 # 5 # 7 # 6
Rebar Spacing a 48.00in 16.00 In 8.00 In 8.00 in 8.00 in
Rebar Placed at = Edge Edge Edge Edge Edge
Design Data
fb/FB+fa/Fa ■ 0.856 0.960 0.940 0.927 0.741
Total Force @ Section 153.1 lbs 509.4 Ibs 1.077.1 Ibs 1.860.3 lbs 4,032.0Ibs
Moment.-Actual s 179.Oft-# 11015.8 ft-0 3,078.8 ft-# 6,952.6 ft-# 19.036.7 ft-#
Moment.-Allowable ' = 209.1 ft-# 1,058.0 ft-# 3.274.4.ft.* 7,502.3 ft-# 25.692.5 ft-0
Shear....Actual s 4.99lbs 9.10 psi 11.33 psi 13.80 psi 24.66 psi
Shea.....Allowable s 19.36 psi 19.36 psi . 19.36 psi 19.36 psi 76.03 psi
Bar Embed ABOVE Ht. s 20.00In 14.14 In 23.88 in 16.00 in 12.00 In
Bar Embed BELOW Ht. = 20.00in 14.14 In 23.88 in 12.15 in 6.87 In
Wall Weight s 63.0psf $4.0 psf 133.0 psf 175.0 psf 200.0 psi
Rebar Depth 'cr s 2.75in 525 In 9.00 in 13.00 in 13.63 in
Masonry Data
fm s 1,500psl 1,500 psi 1,500 psi 1,500 psi
Fs • 20,000 psi 20.000 psi 20,000 psi 24.000 psi
Solid Grouting Yes Yes Yes Yes
Speciallnspection = No No No No
Modular Ration' s 25.78 25.78 25.78 25.78
Short Term Factor a 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Equiv.Sond Thick. s 5.60in 7.60 In 11.60 In 15.60 in
Concrete Data
rc a 2,000 psi
f y s 40.000 psi
Main ro V4.03 c fV697 EVER-CACG�`
DARR.ACH G. TAYLOR
16661 Wellington Drive.Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Telephone:(562)592-5090 Fax:(562)592-1987
5 July 1998 JUL 61998
Mr. Steve Rynas, OCA Supervisor EXHIBIT No. 7
California Coastal Commission Application Number;
PO Box 1040 'Re: , A-5-HNB-98-248
200 Oceangate, 10 h Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4416 Taylor letter
California Coastal -
Dear Mr. Rynas, Commission
As you pursue your investigation of Mrs. Naomi Cohen's appeal, I would
first direct your attention to her request for a considerable postponement,
which is totally characteristic. At one of the previous hearings, she was
represented by an attorney and Mr. Maniaci was present, so I see no reason
why we can't go forward and finish it in August in Huntington Beach, if
necessary, substantially meeting the 49 day criteria. I believe that I am
entitled to a reasonably timely process and decision. From my perspective, I
started this minuscule project in July 1997, with the application, documents,
drawings, and fees submitted for a formal processing start in October. We
received the Property Owners' Association's and the City of Huntington
Beach Community Development Department stars approval shortly
thereafter. From January to - June 1998, we received the Zoning
Administrator's approval, the Planning Commission's approval, and the City
•Council's approval of CUP #97-83 and CDP #97-33, all the while enduring
Mrs. Cohen's challenges and appeals on a variety of changing reasons..
It seems that *the issue before -you is whether these approved Huntington
Beach permits meet the requirements of California Coastal Act, and its
regulations, and I believe they clearly do. • I have also carefully read Mrs.
Cohen's reasons for the appeal, with `Exlvbit A', none of which seems to
support the finding of a Substantial Issue, including a questionable citation. I
am compelled to respond to the remainder, particularly due to the extent of
her inaccuracies:
Page 2
The construction of a 10 foot wide pool deck alongside an existing 40 foot
lap pool, utilizing a portion of our privately owned slope, and designed to
integrate with our home as well as the neighborhood including the re-
landscaping, is not in violation of the Coastal Act or LCP. Gilbert Island is a
single tract (#4677) of 94 homes (96 lots) and is characterized as an urban,
not scenic area. It already has six previously approved patio decks (four pool.
decks) which extend over the privately owned.slopes, recently as close as 6
feet from the sidewalk. Additionally, three homes, including her own, were
cut into the slopes, which she chooses to completely ignore.
Now to "Exhibit A' (and the two attached lists of names):
Item #1 addresses the two dozen privately owned homes with slopes facing
Peale Lane, Somerset Lane, and Gilbert Drive, as one street alone cannot be
divorced from the entire tract of homes. The original developer planted ice
plant on-the slopes of the individual properties and encouraged the many
builders to leave the slopes alone for overall sales enhancement purposes. It
is also true that virtually all of the original Gilbert Island waterfront homes
were single story, and homes on the upper tier had great views (we could
actually see the beach and ocean as far as Bolsa Chica State Beach in 1973).
But as the Island properties increased significantly in value, two and now
three story waterfront homes have and are replacing the single story
properties, so we now get to see huge, lot filling houses across the street as
our view. An active appellant, Mr. Maniaci's recently approved three story
house, presently under construction around the corner on Somerset, will
erase the views of at least two upper tier Wellington Drive homes. But none
of this is in violation (public view) of the Coastal Act or Local Coastal Plan.
Similarly, starting in the 1970's, and continuing from time to time to the
present, deck extensions, whether or not associated with pools, have been
routinely approved for upper tier Gilbert Island homes, so owners could
enhance their properties and life styles in the same manner. as waterfront
property owners, and again not in violation of the Coastal Act or LCP. Our
plan is to be the most aesthetically compatible and best integrated with the
neighborhood, and all the approving bodies have agreed. Councilman Bauer
was addressing the rear lot line wall issue, and a similar situation on the
Roundhill and Westport streets across the Harbour where 13 foot retaining
Page 3
walls have/are being built to extend patios to the rear lot line. And when Mr.
Urner, President of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners' Association
said he is working with the City about this same lot line issue, he clearly"told
the City Council members that Mr. Taylor's project did not fit into this
category as it did not extend to the rear lot line.
Item #2 and so-called Misconception ("M')#1 addresses the signatures on the
petition attached to Exhibit A. The attached legible copy of the January 1998
petition header contains the following project description, either being in error
or intentionally provocative, "a 12 foot concrete block wall with a fence on
top..........", and the added verbiage suggesting to the sidewalk Mrs. Cohen
is still touting this out-of-date document, while the facts are quite otherwise
and which overstates current support as well.
First, a number of petition's signers withdrew once they knew the facts, and
these withdrawals are on record, including a number who have subsequently
written or appeared on our behalf at the hearings. Second, the list of names
on the appeal itself still includes homeowners who withdrew, also on the
record. It is a blatant fabrication that "All his supporters, with one
exception, live on the hill............ ". You will see on the attachments that
87% of the Gilbert Island residents, and 69% of those residents. whose
property abut Gilbert. Drive do not oppose our project. Indeed, the
attachment also reflects that 78% of the Gilbert Drive waterfront homeowners
on Gilbert Island do not oppose our project, and the two waterfront home-
owners, directly opposite our property (Lindsay and Nichols), either spoke
for or wrote on our behalf. While all these statistics probably have little
bearing on the outcome under the regulations, they should bear out just how
Mrs. Cohen misstates the opinions of this neighborhood.
M#2 says "The HHPOA endorsed the project. It did, and although it did
not notify the neighborhood within 300 feet (which is not a legal require"
went), the City did for each of the three hearings. The CC&R's permit the
HHPOA to make its own independent judgment, .and once it had my
documents and drawings, it did, and has supported the project ever since. _
Page 4
"The block wall will be compatible..........::". Of course it will.
M#3 says
And it will look even better than the others, possibly the standard which Mr.
Umer and the City are seeking. Gilbert Island is the entity, not Gilbert Drive,
= on which Mrs. Cohen's house is the real problem.- Mr. Urner stated at the
City Council hearing that he believed 30 years ago there was a construction
error in the building of Mrs. Cohen's home ( 3 story and cut into the slope,
when there were still private views ).
M#4. "..........will impinge on privacy, obstruct views and air. " Mrs.
Cohen's house already also seriously impacts our privacy. But I don't
believe this is the issue before the Coastal Commission. View is the public
domain in this case, and neither Mrs. Cohen's nor ours, which are both
impacted by the multi-story waterfront homes, are at issue. Our project
simply doesn't impact the public, nor will it block anyone's view.
M#5 says "There will be no loss of value to the neighbors." Interestingly.
Mrs. Cohen says not one word about neighbors until the last sentence, which
is the first time this subject has ever been raised by her. On file with the City
is a real estate professional's written opinion indicating that "the Taylor pool
deck extension should virtually have no effect on the value of the property at
3481 Gilbert Drive The 78% of Gilbert Drive homeowners, who don't
object, obviously don't believe they will loose any value; and some say it will
only enhance.
Item 43 under "Noise and Privacy", addresses the approved stairs, which
replace the existing steps, generally used for the slope's and parkway's
landscape maintenance, as well as to occasionally sweep the sidewalk and
gutter. Mrs. Cohen has previously suggested that this will be used for parties
with noise, parking and traffic. These stairs would rarely be used for.general
use as we've only had a couple of patio parties over the last 25 years, and
will continue to be used occasionally for maintenance, rather than having to
drive to that portion of our property. Their placement, adjacent to -our
common line wall,. is the best, both from a design standpoint, as well as
aesthetically for the entire neighborhood.
Page 5 .
Item #4 and In summary.......The Morrisons have lived in the Harbour a long
time as have we. Early in the development of Huntington Harbour, the
Christiana Corporation needed more area, beyond the created islands, .to
place earth dredged from the .channel without having to haul it away, and
decided on the middle of Gilbert Island, not all the propaganda to which the
Morrisons apparently succumbed. It was Christiana who also wrote the
CC&R's, which remain virtually unchanged today, but provide for. the .
HHPOA to render decisions, including exceptions, for property development: -
This included Mr. Maniaci's recent height exception for his 3 story house,
almost alongside the Morrisons. It's great for them to suggest that "the
pretty green skirt..........would always be there, when we bought.....'.', and
yet not expect similar development in the face of 2 and 3 story waterfront
houses blocking the views of the upper tier of homes.
Gilbert Drive is simply a neighborhood street, one of three, each a block long,
which constitutes the lower streets on our triangular shaped island with its
single access and very little traffic. It certainly isn't a public thoroughfare.-
However,*it is our desire to see all Gilbert Island properties improved for
quality living and increased value, and we have already done our share over
25 years and will continue to do so as a result of this project.. The succinct
HB/CDD's staff summary, for the City Council, is attached for easy review.
As I said at the outset; this long letter was unfortunately required by the
misstatements which Mrs. Cohen continues to serve up. I trust you should
have little trouble in finding ........:...No Substantial Issue..............
permitting us to finally go ahead with our insignificant project for a little more
space for our enjoyment..
Thank you for your consideration..We would certainly appreciate an August
hearing date, in Huntington Beach, if required, which would be convenient
for all concerned. I would like to reiterate our invitation for a site visit at.
your convenience, as our project is hard for me to explain, in order for you to
properly visualize it: Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely, Attachments: (5)
`� "''�-
Jh
, 4 y
15
pF
�� + � ''�%r•1 n a. ` III_
^f•
�Y•
Ar „
' ���•'�y,7 �L 'V+o.�w �°.kip '' M
4 rye'
ji
r 1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1. 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98.21
F. SUMMARY
Staff feels that the proposed project will result in ample open space and the proposed
design of the wall will be compatible with the neighborhood character. The wall will be in
substantial compliance with the Land Use Guidelines and the Coastal Element of the
General Plan. The project was approved by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Commission and is supported by staff because:
• The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan,
incorporating a creative design that results in an attractive and viable residential area.
• The project is consistent with the objectives of the RL-CZ standards of the code in
achieving a development that has an integrated design which properly adapts the
development to the surrounding terrain and uses in the area
The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety, nor,
detrimental to the value of the improvements in the area because since the wall is
designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable
for this type of development
The project provides good land planning techniques with maximum use of aestheticall,
pleasing types landscaping site layout and design.
The wall is consistent with other walls and decks in the neighborhood and combi. )r
blocktretaining walls have been approved for similarly zoned lots with sloping rear
yards.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of tt
California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachment(s):
leiV
1. Findings and Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 97-83 and CDP Nc
97-33 (Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation)
2. Letters of Appeal from Naomi Cohen dated May 7, 1998 and May 1,
1998
3 Ms. Cohen's letter for postponement of hearing dated May 13.1998
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 28, 1998
5. Gilbert Island Map (indicates properties with walls and decks)
S. Site Plan and Elevations dated April 9, 1998
CD98-26.DOC -7- 0=119812:55 P
—ARF�E ARE 02 LOI C
GILBERT ISLAND _ . .•._•I• fSEE RpTfl , ,
t - ISEE A!
RE ri i,i `i.S; f'.yin•!, dfj,
_'• I NNARf GE A v ' dy +s tiy�'., •.`�''S`; :`1,T• 1t�; ,i"�'r,r 5r%?"
if
SOMERSET LANELAO
•'
a• SQMFNSf r .n o, 90 'ovm� .�.i^.. ^;C$rA •'t. � •k. � �. �
ZI
�a`•N a A6
'�'a• a- +s b a` ` : _;� � tea. + W
\ 4 a mew. sa N C RIM •'.:
�>> �� � a, 9\ f s �\...J`�� "'ca• �<a ,i j NEYl/NG1t7W • p
.� '� 9 � A�,�. �rev r y J� sta• �
44
10
v PARK
filbert Island Homeowners' eo �•�, .
ogitions on CUP#97-33
4-4_/
end: \� `�. ` Fq ,� ' �a;'; ac e '.
�•� sJ ,t. tea. •
For Approval �'� s� .` ^+°,� • a. .ti ,
("W"-withdrew petition support)
Tt {.
i\ \ IS
Neutral or Silent 87 %
0A=ainst Approval �� �• N •,�;,'': �'
;:,; . I June 1998
Pool Deck Extensions
nmw
_ I
�2 LOT c
GILBERT DRIVE 9 JJAd 7
29 -o
`Gilbert Drive' Homeowners' 40 F~ r
_positions on CUP #97-83
�� _ 3 � 6p• Q "r� �' m I
B3
Legends t�
0
For Approval
("W" - withdrew petition support) h
ctt h 3
Neutral or Silent a= `
L _
79 h Y/
Against Approval m W
/o
Pool Deck Extension Site
/6
O r. ..
m• /3
44
1 June 1998
PETITION
i
1 , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.97-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.97-
33 (TAYLOR RESIDENCE).
} I the undersigned, hereby strenously objects to the construCtion of a 12 foot concrete
block watt with a lar4e on top and the removal of the existIng landscaping for the
;4 folkw n8 reasons:
i 1. The concrete wail will create 3 NON Ega IM NG CONDITION which
t
may ubutety► start numerous other homes to do the same.
2. Giibert Island is sadly lacking In landscape and planted. areas. This wall will
cause an interruption M the original planted sloping hillsida design.
• I. ftref ore respeafully request that the Homeowners retest for a xW ig variance be
denied
1
AMA ADDRESS P.
gg
177 Q..,44 L C 4-1 G NQr 1 - 1
1
! 3 _r�
D
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
June 25, 1998
California Coastal Commission
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Long Beach, Ca 90802-4302
Dear Sir:
RE: COMMISSION APPEAL NO. A-5-HNB-98-248
In compliance with your Commission Notification of Appeal letter received by this office
this date, enclosed please find the following information:
• Copies of all information contained in our file relative to the above appeal
• Public Comment forms completed by members of the public who addressed
Council relative to this issue
• Copy of the City Council Minutes for the Council meeting of June 1, 1998
• Copy of the Action Agenda for the Council meeting of June 1, 1998
• Video tape of the Council meeting of June 1, 1998
Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
cbmemos/98-106cg
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
IK
J� City of Huntington Beach
P.O.Box 190-2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,California 92648
HUNTINGTON BEACH
From the desk of. Connie Brockway, CMC
City Clerk
Telephone: (714) 536-5404
Fax: (714) 374-1557
V,3
�A
STATE OFCALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST AREA
Pb Box 1450
200 Oceangate,10th Floor
LONG BEACH,CA 90802-"16
(562)590-5071
COMMISSION NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL
s
DATE: June 24, 1998 C=
co - �
TO: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190 '_ r
Huntington Beach, CA92648
> r�� rri
FROM: Steve Rynas, Orange County Area Supervisor
l .A.
RE: Commission Appeal No. A-5-HNB-98-248 r .
Please be advised that the coastal development permit derision described below has been
appealed to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
30602 or 30625. Therefore, the decision has been stayed pending Commission action on the
appeal pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30623.
Local Permit#: CDP 97-33
Applicant(s): Darrach Taylor
Description: Appeal by Naomi Cohen from decision of City of Huntington Beach
granting permit with conditions to Derrach Taylor to construct
back yard improvements consisting of a 12 foot high wall 40 feet in
length, a 400 sq.ft. expansion of an at-grade pool deck, and a new
at grade staircase located at 16661 Wellington Drive in the City of
Huntington Beach, Orange County.
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (East Of Peale Lane And North Of.Gilbert
Drive, Huntington Beach (Orange County)
Local Decision: Approved w/Conditions
Appellant(s): Naomi Cohen
Date Appeal Filed: 6/22198
The Commission appeal number assigned to this appeal is A-5-HNB-98-248.. The Commission
hearing date has been tentatively set for July 7-10, 1998 in San Francisco.
Within 5 working days of receipt of this Commission Notification of Appeal, copies of all
relevant documents and materials used in the City of Huntington Beach's consideration
of this coastal development permit must be delivered to the South Coast Area office
of the Coastal Commission (California Administrative Code Section 13112). Please include
copies of plans, relevant photographs, staff reports and related documents, findings
(if not already forwarded), all correspondence, and a list, with addresses, of all who provided
verbal testimony.
A Commission staff report and notice of the hearing will be forwarded to you prior to the
hearing. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Rynas at the South Coast Area
office.
[k CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PET LSON,Govemor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION HoSouth Coast Area Office E _
200 Oceangate,.10th Floor
Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT �U�
(562)590.5071 DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
(Commission Form D) CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
j Please Review Attached Appeal Information Sheet Prior To Completing
This Form.
SECTION I. Appellant(s)
Name, mailing address and telephone number of appellant(s):
-tip Area Code Phone No.
SECTION II. Decision Being Appealed
C4
1 . Name—of loc /p rt
N.uyi,�,`n. n e CZ•
government: I`
2. -Sri f =escriptio of evelopmen in
appealed: rn 1�33
,V _ u�.
3. Development's loco ion street addre s, assessor's arcel
no. , cross street, etc.): a� �' ('e5i P:y�Ce — I ���f�! yJ 11(n3bh Or,
l
4. Description of decision being appealed:
a. Approval ; no special conditions:
b. Approval with special conditions:
c. Denial :
Note: For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial
decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless
the development is a major energy or public works project.
Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable.
TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION:
APPEAL NO: f --67:- I/UCl 007b��y� •
DATE FILED: • Af •
DISTRICT: 59 040
HS: 4/88
•
t
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 2)
•5. Decision being appealed was made by (check one):
a. _Planning Director/Zoning c. &I anning Commission
Admi ni Vtrator _
b. ZCi ty Counci 1./Board of d. Other
Supervisors •
6. Date of local government's decision: to
7. Local government's file number (if any):
SECTION III. Identification of Other Interested Persons
Give the names and addresses of the following parties. (Use
additional paper as necessary.)
a. Name and mailing address of permit applicant:
n y\
b. Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified
I (either verbally or in writing) at the city/county/port hearing(s).
Include other parties which you know to be interested and should
receive notice of this appeal .
(1) of4 S .
(2)
(3) 'e ,
(4) IQ r
-,cor+d On ,0 o�
m a r le a e5'
SECTION IV. S a�JP ItC bv\
Note: Appeals of local government coastal permit decisions are
limited by a variety of factors and requirements of the Coastal
Act. Please review the appeal information sheet for assistance
t in completing this section, which continues on the next page..
_�1nFc�__QrrQm, ✓lac� � .3__oT� k10� 1( CLH-.'Con__Form_— a e
� II
-------- ---
_ ►-o_n��c�i-m;.�.e--F�-e_.aIf'e.X� h'.or_n-o�q"
�---
�arac,f�P�r—c2�f'�ie--.Sutc�u.nP�ac�
yutav
li __60
_..CoasFa�---Co-mm_ts_s,'o_n__iS ---
ad�-�
l:of r e__
b iolaf'�eoP = _Tk�e._ _.s, �`e fi .�Io�.k .. _a _ oi�-r—
--`Oln-+'c.k _i s __ cu.r.r2r�� t,f.n in�er f ----
�-�ea��s.. -P.r,�
iS _ no ComrCc 6_t'Vle LO ti 0 ---
(nof
. � -�c�e<Fc�.<<�_ - •?� 91a.�C.F-�'or � as_ ro _ uOh�
del
'_' bit' �ra �
I
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 3)
State briefly your reasons for this appeal .' . Include a summary
description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master
Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is
inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing.
(Use additional paper as necessary.)
mo Oprd Cpaltcld OV, rh i t797 -33
al-
3 3 I r
CZSrG41 C�r�.�.S��� bif ro
GC f- M f
. r A-
n dcl F a
o S i��
((``co o n yy V200,
Note: The above description need not be a complete or exhausti�ie m c,'rk-4 na e-
statement of your reasons .of appeal ; however, there must be r
sufficient discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is
allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal , may
submit additional information to the staff and/or Commission to
support the appeal request.
SECTION V. Certification '
The information and facts stated above a correct to the best of
my/our knowledge.
- Signature of Appe lant(s) or
Authori%ed Agent
Date
NOTE: If Vigned by agent. appellant(s)
must also sign below.
Section VI. Agent Authorization
I/We hereby authorize to act as my/our
representative and to bind me/us in all matters concerning this.
appeal .
Signature of Appellant(s)
i
. Date
i
-co o m. �a c� e.1 .o'�' are I;ca .h'oH
33 berf{�� • - I� R L'9_9z��l.�I - ---
.�� ��. �.
Ar.
2-1- - ---- -
q�
1it Or _
� orn1� 13. _ ___ -------
go, r uEr� �e. l�Orrr'sbn /�582 S �erSef'
I`f). 1�{. S. • � I� ouS�e-�'' / � s7JZsome-✓�SeF _ ._----
!S_ _ ►� s •f�nE �in � l61� (� �- -So " kyl
1� v 1� rS ITL4rJ�� Fr�'ecQw�� n � lL� ��C1.- Somerset I ti• .
�.�1 .. M C_ N{r5 • . SCAm MO b OAS SOL SomeeseF �
L- A( 61f
3481 Gilbert Drive, Huntington Beach, California 92649
June 17, 1998
California Coastal Commission
South Coast Area
P. O. Box 1450
200 Oceangate, 10t' Floor
Long Beach, California 90802-4416
RE: Coastal Development Local Permit#CDP 97-33
1 would like to appeal Coastal Development Local Permit#CDP 97-33 for the following
reasons:
` 1. All the houses on the hill on Gilbert Drive currently exist within a 15 foot set back
from the curb. By allowing Mr. Taylor an exception;wherein he can extend into
the hill slope and wherein he is allowed a 7 foot setback, you are establishing a
precedent for others to follow. When this happens, the uninterrupted green hill
slopes of Gilbert Drive will be devoured! Uneven walls of all kinds of shapes and
mis-shapes will spring forth and the entire slope will disappear. As Councilman
Bauer expressed in the Council Meeting of June 1, 1998, this use permit opens a
Pandora's Box, which will subsequently change the entire character of the whole
island„ creating a"hodge-podge" and a"back alley" look to a street which is
currently open in view, a street with streamlined, pride of ownership homes, a
street whose owners have spent thousands of dollars to purchase into. "There
ought to be a uniform policy for this island,"Councilman Bauer declared, "a
uniform policy for all." The way we operate currently, every home on the hill can
build something different. At least this should be postponed until there is some
consistency in policy. The Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association's
President, Mr. Jerry Umer, also expressed his strong opinion that there needs to
be established a universal policy, so as to prevent the character of Gilbert Island
specifically and Huntington Harbour in general from deteriorating.
2. And indeed that is why the residents on the south side of Gilbert Drive so
strongly oppose this project—they fear that this "hodge-podge"will ultimately
devalue their homes. Twenty-three such neighbors have signed a petition
against CUP 97-83. They have written letters and have expressed their opinions
in appeal meetings, they have paid money to appeal, and yet their voices have
been blatantly ignored. Why? Because of misrepresentations and half-truths by
staff. What are these misrepresentations and half-truths?
Misconception#1 "The applicant has neighbors who support his project.'
All his supporters,with one exception, live on the hill and therefore are not
impacted at all. Quite the contrary, the supporters would actually benefit if CUP
97-83 passes, because that would give them permission to follow suit.
Misconception#2"The HHPOA endorsed the project.'
By tradition, prior to endorsing any project, the HHPOA notifies the neighbors
within 300 feet of the project and consults with their opinions. By the admission
of the HHPOA President, Mr. Jerry Umer, no such notification was given to the
neighbors. This was because Mr. Umer, unfortunately, underwent heart surgery
at the time. And yet, in the three appeal sessions, the approval was mentioned
without this crucial fact and as if it carries the support of the neighbors, which, in
fact, it did not.
Misconception #3"The block wall will be compatible with surrounding walls,
because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties.'
They fail to mention that all those"similar decks and walls' (with the exception of
one tiny balcony on stilts), are located on a different street entirely, on Peale
Lane, and the"hodge-podge'created on that street is the very reason why the
residents on Gilbert Drive are opposing CUP 97-83. They do not wish Gilbert
Drive to deteriorate into that"back-alley" look which will ultimately cause a loss of
value.to their homes.
Misconception #4"Staff does not believe the project will impinge on the privacy,
obstruct views and air."
Currently, any person looking onto Gilbert Drive, from the bridge, can view the
entire slope from Peale Lane to Somerset Drive—a beautiful, uninterrupted view
of green. By offensively intruding into the slope, to within 7 feet of the curb, the
view is suddenly cut off at mid-point. Instead of the uninterrupted hillside slope of
green, the eye is obstructed by a huge sandbox, 12.5 feet high, which blocks the
view and stops the eye at that point.
Misconception#5"There will be no loss of value to neighbors.'
By establishing a playground at the face of my house, sun umbrellas, deck
chairs, etc., (my house,which is contiguous to the Taylor residence, is unique in
that its front faces Gilbert Drive and is contiguous with the back walls of the all
the other houses) by this fact, per appraisers report, my house would be
rendered an non-conforming piece of property, a fact which will depreciate its
value by 5—10 percent($53,000 in today's value). If the neighbor on the other
side follows suit, this loss would double. Moreover, most.of the residents on the
south side of Gilbert, fear the loss of value to their homes, due to the"hodge-
podge'which will inevitably be created.
3. Noise and Privacy A stairway has been affixed to the backside of the circular
stairway at 3481 Gilbert Drive. This stairway is unsightly and ruins the aesthetic
look of the entire street. It invites added parking, added noise and traffic which
the neighbors on the south side of Gilbert Drive are strongly objecting to.
4. 1 would like to quote from a letter written by Dr. Morrison's wife, Marjorie, which
she addressed to the mayor and the Councilmembers on June 1, 1998. "The
Christian Corporation,that developed Huntington Harbour, hired the finest civil
engineers money could buy. All of Huntington Harbour is man-made, including
the hill in the center of Gilbert Island. The slope going around the sides of the hill
was intentional. It serves two purposes. First, covered with green vegetation
(which is required by our CCR's),these slopes give support to the hill from
erosion and collapse...Secondly, it provides a very pretty green skirt beneath the
lovely homes on the top of the hill, which those of us living across from the hill
expected would always be there,when we bought our properties. When buyers I
of the homes on top of the hill chose to buy up there...they could see the size of
the rear yard. If it was not large enough to accommodate their lifestyle (pool and
deck)why did they buy such a property? Surely not to meet these desires by
endangering the safety of the hill and those property owners living across from
In summary, I would like to request that Coastal Commission Permit 97-33 be rescinded
or at least postponed, until a universal policy is established,that will apply uniformly to
all the residents of the island. If you allow this one project to go forward, it will establish
a precedent wherein it would be difficult to deny to other applicants. Gilbert Island,
constituting the main thoroughfare to the island, the"Wilshire Boulevard"of this island,
so to speak, should be the pacesetter and the symbol for the beauty of this island. By
allowing this protrusion as a wedge which blocks the view, you would be setting a -
dangerous precedent that would ultimately destroy its unique hillside character, thereby
undermining the values of the houses surrounding the hill.
I will be overseas from August 5 to September 8, 1998 and would request that the
hearing not be scheduled during that period of time.
Th nk you for your consideration,
Naomi Cohen
uw:.•. wan will, h 1:,,W:u oil lop all() tho r:.11171,wai t,i vvi oxisting iundsc:+p;ng for Ilse
following reasons: t'OnGs. o PD,S I.✓�1
1. Th.)c6rxrc!e •.-sl: i i!i c-n,:e •i ,tit 1N hr%�w,-'`. _ :.�."ill :vlt ►.i�I
may ultimaie!y stait numerous other nomos to dc: the same.
: 2. Gilbert Island is Godly lacking in lanuscape and planted area,;. Thist wal! will
cans% an inte-rup:icn In tho viginal plaotcd sloping h,Gsidu desig o.
1, therefore rospectiully request that Ine I lomeruners requsot for a z;,ning variance ba
denied.
NAME _ ' AUDf3 5S UI7 F..
CM
_152`��TJ. � . _. ._....._. ---- -• --c--, r-h
. i.. Orn C_.r s.L�_. ._
1f4 �EN S r n
Sgm�ks:Fr - !-.1 i -72
raFy. LZ5 rn M0 GA -SSA�Y-- I(,(vOJ. _Som�sFr• ;�� 011
i 4'
from the desk of:
EVELYN SCHUBERT
Deputy City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
,�S 7 (714) 536-5405
G? -e �
C
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
5:00 P.M. - Room B-8
7:00 P.M. - Council Chamber
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Monday, July 6, 1998
An audio tape recording of the 5:00 p.m. portion of this meeting
and a video tape recording of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Dettloff 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: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
ITEMS
There were no persons present to address Council regarding the study session or closed
session items scheduled on the agenda.
(CITY COUNCIL) STUDY SESSION - METHODOLOGY FOR INTRODUCING MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (100.10)
Mayor Dettloff referred to the two memorandums she has provided to the City Council
regarding the subject of the Council becoming and an earlier date regarding
upcoming major development projects.
Community Development Director Fallon reported on her communication to the City Council
dated July 6, 1998 titled Methodology for Introducing Major Development Projects which the
City Clerk has included in the Ctiy Coucnil's late communication packet. She reviewed the
existing process for reviewing major development projects and also reviewed alternative ways
for the City Council to be kept apprised of pending major development projects.
I
i
Page 2 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/15/98
Each City Councilmember mmented on Community Development Director Fallon's report.
Comments were made oQ he need to not Ir Lcror anage the Planning Commission-as be in a
�etx position to influence u�f�^ <����� ��. s he Councif bgLaware of developer s'proposals such
as�`�a developer would like high-riseythat the developer not be told it doesn't16o'in this town. The
Council would like to be aware of proposals such as higF Jse.
City Attorney Hutton was requested to keep Council apprised of the p94wa4e;;&of Council input
on projects prior to their presentation to Co City Attorney Hutton reported on the
differences between items under Council authorityA--!
MOTTO O RECESS TO CLOSED SION
A motion wa made by Harman, se d Sullivan, to recess the City Council to closed
session to con 'der the following it s. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, arman, Gr �n, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
NOES: None /
ABSENT: None
(City Council) Closed Sessi - ty Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to
meet with its designated re esen 'ves William Osness, Personnel Director, and Daniel
Cassidy, Esquire, Liebert, Cassidy Frierson, regarding labor relations matters - meet and
confer with the following 4nployee or 'zations: MSOA, POA, PMA, MEA, MEO, HBFA, and
SCLEA. (120.80)
RECONVENE
i
Mayor Dettloff rec vened the regular meetings of the Ci C ncil and Redevelopment
Agency in the Co cil Chamber at 7:00 p.m.
(CITY COU ;) REPORT OF ACTION TA JKEN AT APRIL 6, 1998~C\LO D SESSION
REGARDING NT VS. CITY OF HU NGTON BEACH - ORANGE,,CO TY SUPERIOR
COURT CAS ;'NO. 8530 (120.8
Deputy City Attorney D'Allesa " o reported that the City Council, by a vote of 4- (G en and
Sullivan, No) (Julien Abse , on A . 6, 1998 in closed session authorized settler t this
personal inju` case - G nt vs. City o untington Beach. On May 13, 1998, a se a nt
check of$51 00 wa xchanged for the sign Release.
CITY COIF IL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CA
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
June 10, 1998
NOTICE OF ACTION
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33
APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT
Applicant: Darrach Taylor
Appellant: Naomi Cohen, et al. (Huntington Harbour Residents)
Planning Commission's
Request: An appeal of the * approval for construction of an eight
(8) foot high retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light
fixtures above the wall for a combined height of 12 feet, six (6) inches, in lieu of
maximum six (6) foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be
40 feet in length and will extend ten (10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and
south portion of the new wall. Seventeen (17) linear feet of the existing combination
block/wrought iron wall will remain at the top of the slope (north side).
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive).
Coastal Status: In the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone.
Environmental Status: The above item is categorically exempt from provisions of the
_California Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the
Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, filed on
December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development
Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and
action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final
City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of
*Published and notification inadvertently sent as Zoning Administrator instead of
Planning Commission
(Telephone:714-536.5227)
oZo o p ca.�
�-� / o
✓ 1: `r
Notice of Action
Coastal Development Permit
Page Two
Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is
applicable.
Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on June 1, 1998
and your request was:
Approved
X Conditionally approved (see attached)
Denied
Withdrawn
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the
action taken by the City Council is final.
The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal
Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S. 30603 and California Administrative
Code S. 13319, Title 14.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code S. 30603, an appeal by an aggrieved person must
be filed in writing, and addressed to:
California Coastal Commission
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802
Attn: Teresa Henry
The appeal period begins when the.commission receives this notice of action and
continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission's review period and as
to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin
construction prior to that.
-Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application
becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval unless actual construction
has begun.
Sincerely yours,
Connie Brockway, CIVIC
City Clerk
Enclosure: Statement of Council Action--June 1, 1998
cc: City Administrator
City Attorney
Community Development Director
14"r l/ /--/ LJ. CP -J_�-- p L ay—
;, j& CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
uj2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
June 8, 1998
NOTICE OF ACTION
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33
APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT
Applicant: Darrach Taylor
Appellant: Naomi Cohen, et al. (Huntington Harbour Residents)
Planning Commission's
Request: An appeal of the * approval for construction of an eight
(8) foot high retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot.wrought iron fence and 18-in_ch_ light= ~TT
fixtures above the wall for a combined height of-k.t feet, six (6) inches", in lieu of
maximum six (6) foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be
40 feet in length and will extend ten (10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and
south portion of the new wall. Seventeen (17) linear feet of the existing combination
block/wrought iron wall will remain at the top of the slope (north side).
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive).
Coastal Status: In the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone.
Environmental Status: The above item is categorically exempt from provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the
Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, filed on
December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development
Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and
action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final
City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.and Section 13110 of the California Code of
*Published and notification inadvertently sent as Zoning Administrator instead of
Planning Commission
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
Notice of Action
Coastal Development Permit
Page Two
Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is
applicable.
Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on June 1, 1998
and your request was:
Approved
X Conditionally approved (see attached)
Denied
Withdrawn
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the
action taken by the City Council is final.
The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal
Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S. 30603 and California Administrative
Code S. 13319, Title 14.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code S. 30603, an appeal by an aggriev_en:rx�ust
-..�:�:>. _ _
be filed in writing, and"addressed to: = : =—
California Coastal Commission
Attn: Mr. Chalres Damm, Director
245 W. Broadway, Suite 380
POB 1450
Long Beach, California 90801-1450
The appeal period begins when the commission receives this notice of action and
continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission's review period and as
to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin
construction prior to that.
Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application
becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval unless actual construction
has begun.
Sincerely yours,
G�
Connie Brockway, CIVIC
City Clerk
Enclosure: Statement of Council Action--June 1, 1998
cc: City Administrator
City Attorney
Community Development Director
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
1fl
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
June 8, 1998
Mr. Charles Damm, Director
California Coastal Commission
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
RE: STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH REGARDING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33—TAYLOR
RESIDENCE-16661 WELLINGTON DRIVE—HUNTINGTON HARBOUR
Dear Mr. Damm:
Attached is a Statement of Action which reflects only the motion on the above
referenced appeal. A complete set of minutes will be forwarded in the next two days.
Also enclosed is a copy of the items in the Council packet of the 6/1/98 Council meeting.
The appellant's photo slides and the Community Development Department's schematic
renderings are on file but have not been included at this time.
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
CB:cjg
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Indicates Portions Of The Meeting Not Included In The Statement Of Action
Council Chamber, Civic Center
Huntington Beach, California
Monday,June 1, 1998
An audio tape recording of the 5:00 p.m. portion
of this meeting and a video tape recording of the 7:00 p.m. portion
of this meeting are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Mayor Dettloff 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: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Sullivan, Garofalo (Bauer arrived at
5:09 p.m.; Garofalo arrived at 5:14 p.m.)
Absent: None
(CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL FILED BY NAOMI COHEN TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33 -TAYLOR RESIDENCE -
16661 WELLINGTON DRIVE, E/PEALE LANE, N/GILBERT DRIVE - HUNTINGTON
HARBOUR -APPEAL DENIED
The Mayor announced that this was the meeting set for a public hearing to consider the
following:
Applicant: Darrach Taylor
Appellant: Naomi Cohen, et al. (Huntington Harbour Residents)
Request: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval for construction of an eight
(8) foot high retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light
fixtures above the wall for a combined height of 12 feet, six (6) inches, in lieu of
maximum six (6) foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be
40 feet in length and will extend ten (10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and
south portion of the new wall. Seventeen (17) linear feet of the existing combination
block/wrought iron wall will remain at the top of the slope (north side).
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive).
Page 2 -Statement of Action - City Council Meeting - 6/1/98
Coastal Status: In the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone.
Environmental Status: The above item is categorically exempt from provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the
Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, filed on
December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development
Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and
action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the`notice of final
City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of
Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is
applicable.
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. Direct your written communications to the
City Clerk.
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Gree Y pprov`thd'followirig Planning
Commission and staff recommendation: Uphold the Planning Commission's action,
deny appeal, and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development
Permit No. 97-33 with findings and conditions of approval as set forth in Attachment No.
1 to the Request for Council Action dated June 1, 1998.
Discussion was held by Council, and Scott Hess, Senior Planner, responded to
questions including Mrs. Cohen's comments regarding the Master Plan. Senior Planner
Hess also reported on how the applicant could build to meet the city's code
requirements without a Conditional Use Permit.
The motion made by Garofalo, second Green to uphold the Planning Commission's
action, deny appeal, and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal
Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings and conditions of approval as set forth in
Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action dated June 1, 1998 (see attached)
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Garofalo
NOES: Bauer, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
Page 3 -Statement of Action -City Council Meeting - 611198
Mayor Dettloff adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at 11:45 p.m. to Monday, June
8, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. in Room B-8, 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, California
ATTEST:
Vs/ Connie Brockv+ia � ' 7= '"t=`- '' "-""" /s% Shirle 'Dettloff k
Y - Y�
City Clerk/Clerk Mayor
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 the
1 st day of June, 1998.
Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 8th day of
June, 1998.
City Clerk and ex-officio Cl&k of
the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
f '
i
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
i
FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 /
I COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33:
1. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 to permit the construction of an eight(8) foot high
retaining/block wall with a three(3) foot high wrought iron fence and eighteen (8) inch light fixtures
above the retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve(12)feet and six (6) inches, in lieu of a
six (6) foot high wall, within the rear setback area, approximately eight(8) feet from the rear property
line. The new wall will be forty (40) feet in length and will extend(10) feet into the rear yard slope
and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. The deck
extension and wall will conform with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The
proposed deck extension and wall will not impact public views or access to coastal resources as none
exist at the site.
2. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,
:the base zoning district, as well as other provisions of the Municipal Code applicable to the property.
-The*proposed development will conform_with all applicable City Codes as allowed by the conditional"use permit.
3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner
that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure currently exist at the site.
4. The proposed wall conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
California Coastal Act. The development will not adversely impact public views or public access.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83:
I. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of an eight (8)
foot high retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot high wrought iron fence and light fixtures above
the retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six (6) inches, in lieu of a six
(6) foot high wall, within the rear setback area, approximately eight(8) feet from the rear property.
The new wall will be forty(40) feet in length and will extend (10)feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. The deck extension and
wall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor
detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since the proposed
wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable for this
type of development.
� 2 .
q
611198 CD98-26
2. The deck and retaining/blockwall located within the rear yard setback will be compatible with
surrounding uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties.
Furthermore,the retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and provided with
bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
3. The proposed combination block/retaining 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 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be
located. The structure will be in conformance with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with the
approval of the 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 Low Density Residential on the subject property. In
addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
a. Require that non-residential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be
compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures
(LU 9.3.3).
b. Ensure that structures and sites are designed and constructed to maintain their long-term quality
-. (LU 4.2). -
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 97-83/_
1 COASTAL PERMIT NO. 97-33:
1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated October 23, 1997, shall be the
conceptually approved layout with the following modifications:
a. 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.
b. The 18-inch high Ight fixtures Iocated above the wrought iron fence shall have a dimmer switch.
c. The eight foot(8) foot high combination retaining/block wall shall be stuccoed and painted to
match the on-site residence and shall be screened with berming and landscaping.
d. The rise and run of the stairs shall be constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code
requirements.
JO
611198 CD98-26
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 the
working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical,
mechanical and plumbing).
b. Submit design calculations for the retaining wall, which includes any possible surcharge from the
pool deck.
c. Shade in the area of all new work on the site plan.
d. Provide the details for the new stairs,handrails and guardrails.
e. Show the path of the retaining wall drainage on the site plan.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for
review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of Community
Development.
b. A Landscape planting and irrigation plan shall be submittedathl]epartment of PublicWorks
and approved by the Departments of Public Works. The Landscape plan shall address
improvements to be made in the rear yard from the pool to Gilbert Drive and shall include type
and location of shrubs to be planted to screen the wall. The landscape plans shall be in
conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design
Guidelines. (PV) (Code Requirement)
i
i
c. The foundation for the retaining wall shall have a reverse footing (i.e. not from the exposed face of
the wall) unless the rear slope has a minimum of 42" of earth above the footing facing the street
(Gilbert Drive) to allow for roots and drainage.
4. All landscape planting and irrigation shall be completed prior to final building inspection.
5. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied
with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan
and elevations are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued
until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for
conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the
proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by
the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO.
11
611198 CD98-26
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 shall not become
effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 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 Department of
Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date.
3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, 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. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building
Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances,
and standards, except as noted herein.
5. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be
prohibited Sundays and Federal.holidays.
6. The applicant shall submit a check'in the amount of$38.00 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 Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the
Zoning Administrator's action.
T
7' �Z
y �
611198 CD98-26
`L
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
5:00 P.M. - Room B-8
7:00 P.M. - Council Chamber
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Monday, June 1, 1998
An audio tape recording of the 5:00 p.m. portion of this meeting
and a video tape recording of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Dettloff called the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:08 p.m. in Room B-8.
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL
Present: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Sullivan, (Bauer arrived at 5:09 p.m.), (Garofalo
arrived at 5:14 p.m.)
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING STUDY SESSION & CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
ITEMS
There were no persons present to address Council regarding the study session or closed
session items scheduled on the agenda.
(CITY COUNCIL) NON-AVIATION ALTERNATIVE REUSE PLAN FOR EL TORO (THE
MILLENNIUM PLAN)
City Administrator Silver introduced Mayor Pro Tern Richard Dixon of the city of Lake Forest
who presented a video by the El Toro Reuse Plan Authority (ETRPA) regarding its Non-Aviation
Alternative Reuse Plan for El Toro (The Millennium Plan).
670
Page 2 - Council/Agency Minutes -06/01/98
Mr. Dixon introduced John Bridges, Principal, Cotton Beland Associates, who made a brief slide
presentation on The Millennium Plan - Making a Difference for the Next Generation prepared by
the El Toro Reuse Plan Authority. Topics covered by the slides include Plan Formulation;
Division; Long Term Quality of Life; Millennium Land Use Plan; Millennium Reuse Plan; Plan
Districts; Education, Research and Technology Development; Education, Research and
Technology Mixed Use; Village; Arts and Cultural District; Arts and Cultural Development;
Village Center; Arts and Cultural Residential; Park and Open Space; Features; Recreational
and Cultural Activities; Sports and Entertainment District; Sports and Entertainment
Development; Public Transit; Pedestrian Network; Economic Benefits; Development Phasing
Plan; and Financial Analysis.
The Millennium Plan is the official non-aviation alternative for the reuse of MCAS/EI Toro and
was approved by the ten-member board of directors of the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority.
The Millennium Plan will be presented to the Orange County Board of Supervisors acting as the
local reuse authority for MCAS/El Toro.
Mr. Bridges, Principal, Cotton Beland Associates, then presented a video on The Millennium
Plan.
Mr. Dixon, Mayor Pro Tern of the city of Lake Forest, spoke regarding the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process; the possibility of a National Football League
stadium that would be privately funded; a Smithsonian West; a convention center; and a
performing arts center.
In response to Councilmember Green, Mr. Dixon reported on aspects of the multi-tiered
Environmental Impact Report. He stated The Millennium Plan is an alternative plan to the
aviation plan.
In response to Councilmember Green, Mr. Dixon stated that he did not know what the county's
term "fatal flaw" meant.
In response to Councilmember Garofalo, Mr. Dixon spoke regarding the "public benefit" method
of conveyance of the property from the federal government, The Millennium Plan, and the
Aviation Plan.
In response to Councilmember Garofalo's comments regarding how the City Council can
support The Millennium Plan when Huntington Beach will not gain from the plan, Mr. Dixon
stated that he is not urging Council support but is making The Millennium Plan presentation
because a non-aviation plan has to be presented pursuant to federal government direction.
Councilmember Sullivan presented questions regarding the financial aspects of The Millennium
Plan versus the Aviation Plan and the cost to the public.
Mr. Dixon commented on Councilmember Sullivan's comments on the opposition to the airport
from the burgeoning high tech industries in that area. Mr. Dixon reported on the difference
between an airport being built in an open area with businesses coming into the airport versus
businesses and development already being located in an area and the airport being inserted
into the area.
671
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 3
The composition of the types of groups which worked on The Millennium Plan was reported on
by Mr. Dixon at the request of Councilmember Julien.
Councilmember Harman spoke regarding the possibility of a land swap of the Bolsa Chica as
part of The Millennium Plan or the Aviation Plan, and Mr. Dixon reported that he could envision
the Bolsa Chica land swap being a part of either plan.
The requirement for the federal government to clean the property was discussed. Mr. Dixon
informed Council that the federal government has received The Millennium Plan. He stated that
the federal government has an evaluation plan which is called the EIS. Mr. Bridges, Principal,
Cotton Beland Associates, stated that 85% of the land is clean (surface), and the ground water
is being cleaned.
Councilmember Bauer gave examples of how The Millennium Plan did not have a direct benefit
to Huntington Beach. Councilmember Bauer stated that a land swap of the Bolsa Chica is a
long shot in the proposed development.
The Mayor and City Councilmembers extended their appreciation to Mr. Bridges, Principal,
Cotton Beland Associates, and to Mr. Dixon, Mayor Pro Tern of the city of Lake Forest, for their
attendance and presentation at this meeting.
MOTION TO RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
A motion was made by Julien, second Green, to recess the City Council to closed session to
consider the following items. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien; Harman, Green., Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Closed Session - City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to meet with its
designated representatives William Osness, Personnel Director, and Daniel Cassidy, Esquire,
Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson, regarding labor relations matters -meet and confer with the
following employee organizations: Marine Safety Officers' Association, Police Officers' .
Association, Police Management Association, Municipal Employees' Association, Management
Employees' Organization, Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association, and Surf City Lifesaving
Employees'Association. (120.80)
Closed Session - City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with
its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the city is
a party. The title of the litigation is Michael Corcoran v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. -
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 79 30 14 or Subject: Corcoran v. City of Huntington
Beach, et al. (120.80)
Closed Session - City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 to consider
personnel matters. Subject: Public Works Director Employment. (120.80)
672
i 1
Page 4 - Council/Agency Minutes -06/01/98
RECONVENE
Mayor Dettloff reconvened the regular meetings of the City Council and Redevelopment
Agency in the Council Chamber at 7:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL
Present: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
Absent: None
FLAG CEREMONY AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Flag Ceremony and Pledge of Allegiance were presented.
CITY CLERK ANNOUNCES LATE COMMUNICATIONS WHICH PERTAIN TO ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA
Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings)Act, City Clerk Brockway announced the following late
communications regarding Agenda Items which had been received following distribution of the
agenda:
AGENDA ITEM C-1B -TREE REMOVAL
Memorandum from Daryl Smith, Acting Public Works Director, dated May 29, 1998, Subject:
Tree Removal Policy
AGENDA ITEM D-2 - PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 97-33
Communication from Naomi Cohen, Appellant, dated June 1, 1998 submitting slides that are a
part of her original letter of appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development No. 97-33 -Taylor Residence, Wellington Drive,
Huntington Beach and requesting that staff include said slides at the hearing or permission for
her to present them
The Following Communications In Support Of The Appeal Filed By Naomi Cohen To The
Planning Commission Approval Of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 And Coastal
Development No. 97-33 -Taylor Residence, Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach
Communication from Claude N. Cohn, 16711 Peale Lane, Huntington Beach, dated May 29, 1998
Communication from Abby and Harvey Friedman, 16622 Somerset Lane, Huntington Beach,
dated May 23, 1998
673
'ro
06/01/98 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 5
Communication from Marguerite M. Morrison, 16582 Somerset Lane, Huntington Beach, dated
June 1, 1998
Communication from Robert and Mildred Helfer, 3472 Gilbert Drive, Huntington Beach, dated
May 28, 1998
The Following Communications In Opposition To The Appeal Filed By Naomi Cohen To
The Planning Commission Approval Of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 And Coastal
Development No. 97-33 -Taylor Residence, Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach
Communication from Philip and Jennifer Blaustein, 16652 Melville Circle, Huntington Beach,
dated May 29, 1998
Communication from Rod and Cindy Skjonsby, 16642 Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach,
dated June 1, 1998
Communication from Donald and Ellen Goodwin, 16492 Somerset Lane, Huntington Beach,
dated June 1, 1998
Communication from Judith Nichols, 3492 Gilbert Drive, Huntington Beach, dated June 1, 1998
Communication from Harry and Neta Gagen, 16511 Peale Lane, Huntington Beach, dated
June 1, 1998
A letter opposing the appeal had been received from Rich Taylor dated May 27, 1998 and
included in the City Council packet.
The Following Late Communication Was Received From The Community Development
Director
Slide presentation from Community Development Director Fallon dated June 1, 1998 regarding
the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83, Coastal
Development Permit No. 97- 33 (Taylor Residence Wall Extension, 16661 Wellington Drive)
and diagrams showing the following: 1. Existing Section, 2. Allowable Section, and
3. Proposed Section
Agenda Item F-1 - Mid Year Budget Report
Slide presentation from Deputy City Administrator-Administrative Services Director Franz, dated
June 1, 1997 regarding the mid-year budget report
Slide presentation from Acting Assistant City Administrator/Fire Chief Dolder titled Information
Technology Needs for the City of Huntington Beach dated October 27, 1998 relative to the mid-
year budget report
674
i tl
Page 6 - Council/Agency Minutes -06/01/98
Communication from Bill and Mary Jane Wily dated May 28, 1998 opposing any name change
of the Bolsa Chica Mesa
PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY AND HUNTINGTON
BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
Mayor Dettloff read the provisions of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the
city and the Huntington Beach Police Officers'Association that had been reached by Council.
She stated that the proposed memorandum had been voted on as follows:
AYES: Julien, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Garofalo
NOES: Harman, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
CITY NEGOTIATIONS WITH FIRE ASSOCIATION
Mayor Dettloff read a statement titled City Negotiations With Fire Association dated
June 1, 1998. The communication presented an update on the status of negotiations and
informed that in view of the membership's rejection of the two-year proposal, the city and the
Firefighters'Association will be conducting further meet and confer sessions. The document
was provided to the City Clerk for public review.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Mayor Dettloff read a statement titled City of Huntington Beach Law Suit Against the Public
Employees Retirement System dated June 1, 1998. The document summarized the city's
reason for pursuing the PERS litigation. Mayor Dettloff stated that questions concerning this
litigation may be directed to the city's legal counsel, Peter J. Brown, of the firm of Liebert,
Cassidy and Frierson. The Mayor stated that this document was submitted on a vote of Council
as follows:
AYES: Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan
NOES: Julien, Garofalo
ABSENT: None
City Attorney Hutton stated that she once again would like to announce that neither she nor her
deputy city attorneys represented the city on PERS litigation due to the fact that they are
members of the PERS system.
675
Y
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 7
(CITY COUNCIL) REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN AT CLOSED SESSION REGARDING CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V. MONTGOMERY WATSON, INC., ET AL -OCSC CASE
NO. 76 59 40 (120.80)
City Attorney Gail Hutton announced the following action taken in closed session on
April 20, 1998 regarding City of Huntington Beach v. Montgomery, Incorporated, et al, the City
Council, by a vote of 6-0 (Julien absent), authorized settlement of this case in the sum of
$91,086.00.
(CITY COUNCIL) COMMENTS BY COUNCILMEMBER HARMAN ON THE PENDING PERS
(PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM) LAWSUIT (700.50)
Councilmember Harman addressed Council regarding his communication on the Council
Agenda setting forth his intent to make a public statement concerning his personal views and
opinions on the PERS lawsuit which deal with an unfunded city liability in the approximate
amount of$12,000,000.
Councilmember Harman stated that he believed that it is important to explain the difference
between the PERS "pickup" and the PERS "rollover". He explained each term at length.
Councilmember Harman stated his position on the matter including his position that PERS
should pay the cost that PERS had illegally approved.
City Clerk Brockway announced that copies of the statements made by Mayor Dettloff earlier in
the meeting relative to the PERS lawsuit and city negotiations with the Fire Association will be
available at her desk or in her office the following morning.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
BECKY HARVILL, teacher, Huntington Beach High School, introduced the following students
who addressed Council regarding their efforts to raise funds to obtain the art work"The Rime of
the Ancient Mariner" from Seacliff Shopping Center mural: PIPER TAYLOR, RYANN
CROFOOT, ERIK CABRERA, CHRISTOPHER BINAI, JESSICA HUNSAKER, JENNIFER
STANFORD, CHANDA GUNN, and RYAN ADAMS.
The students expressed their opinion to the City Councilmembers and audience that the mural -
"The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" -would be useful, protected, and safe and would be in an
educational environment at the Huntington Beach High School.
The students expressed hope that their fund-raising efforts and goal will succeed.
CONNIE BOARDMAN spoke in support of Councilmember Sullivan's item on the agenda
requesting that Council approve the official position that the name of the Bolsa Chica Mesa will
remain Bolsa Chica Mesa. Ms. Boardman spoke in opposition to the accidental removal of
trees in Huntington Central Park caused by the forthcoming equestrian event. She spoke
regarding the damage to the nests that were possibly in these trees this time of year.
Ms. Boardman spoke in opposition to a private citizen giving direction to a city staff member to
tear down a 30-year-old healthy tree for a VIP tent for the event. She urged Council to take
action so this does not occur again.
676
Y'
Page 8 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/01/98
ROBERT CRONK expressed his appreciation for the Community Development Director's
efforts to correct the problem on the Crest View Environmental Impact Report and appreciation
for her meeting with the neighbors.
BOB BIDDLE, representing Huntington Beach Tomorrow, spoke regarding the Meadowlark
Development Plan which will appear before the Planning Commission in the near future.
Mr. Biddle stated that a planned five-acre park was now reduced and arrangements for an lieu
fee for parks had been made. He stated that he believes Council needs to raise the in-lieu fees
as probably the developer will get $5,000,000 in home sales in exchange for$180,000 in in-lieu
fees. Mr. Biddle requested Council's attention to the matter of in-lieu fees as well as guidance
to the Planning Commission in this regard.
DAVE FLYNN thanked the City Attorney, Fire Department, and Code Enforcement Division of
the Community Development Department for their efforts relative to solving the code problems
on Morse Circle. He spoke in support of the proposed agenda item relative to Ordinance
No. 3397 -Administrative Citation Enforcement. Mr. Flynn thanked the Council for their efforts
to stop development of the Bolsa Chica area.
JIM WALKER, representing Neighborhood Networks, commended the Council and staff for
being a leader in the development of proposed Administrative Citation Enforcement Ordinance
No. 3397 appearing on the agenda. Mr. Walker stated that this ordinance can be an example
for other cities to follow.
GERALD CHAPMAN spoke regarding the Meadowlark Development and the payment of in-lieu
park fees as the land will not be dedicated. Mr. Chapman stated that the city's in-lieu fee has
not been updated since the 1980's, and if Council believes the fee schedule should be updated,
he would recommend it be done immediately.
DEAN ALBRIGHT addressed Council regarding the history of the soil remediation on the Mola
Project several years ago and in reference to the present grading of the Shea Company
property at the southerly terminus of Graham Street north of the Orange County Flood District
Channel. Mr. Albright informed Council that it was his opinion it was not disking that occurred
on the Shea Company property but was grading as evidenced by the red markers. Mr. Albright
presented photographs demonstrating his opinion.
TOM LOGAN urged all voters to vote on June 2, 1998. Mr. Logan thanked Councilmember
Sullivan for placing the item on the agenda relative to the City Council adopting the official
position regarding the name of the Bolsa Chica Mesa remaining as such. He spoke regarding
the importance of retaining this name. Mr. Logan thanked Councilmember Sullivan for his past,
present, and future efforts to preserve the Bolsa Chica.
JEFF LOPEZ, Huntington Beach Firefighters'Association, read a letter he had written to
Council regarding the reasons he began employment with the city. He stated that as an
Orange County firefighter he could have retired at 25% more compensation than at Huntington
Beach. He stated that the Huntington Beach paramedics are the lowest paid in the county.
Mr. Lopez spoke in opposition to the benefit taken away that was promised when he was first
employed. He stated that he believed this benefit should be replaced by something of equal
value.
677
06/01/98 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 9
ANDY ZEPEDA, Huntington Beach Firefighters'Association, stated that employment
negotiations are a very important issue. He stated that he came from employment at the city of
Fullerton and presented reasons why he had left that city. He thanked Fire Chief Dolder for
hiring him; however, he stated that his expectations had not been met in Huntington Beach.
Mr. Zepeda stated that he will always do his job to the fullest. He requested that the
Councilmembers visit the fire stations to see the work performed. Mr. Zepeda stated that he
believes recovery of mistakes can be made by Council, and the fire department employees can
work with Council as a team. He requested that the firefighters be given a wage of which they
can be proud.
TOM WILSON, Huntington Beach Firefighters'Association, stated that the city benefits from
experienced firefighters. He read a letter of appreciation from a mother relative to the accident
in which four teenagers were assisted by the delicate work done by the paramedics as a result
of a head-on crash on Pacific Coast Highway caused by a suicide-type driver. He stated that
Council can show its appreciation by adjusting the budget to make it meet the priority of safety
first in this city.
JOHN LEGG, Huntington Beach Firefighters'Association, spoke regarding the efforts of people
in the community who have made the city a fine place to live, citing Councilmember Bauer as
an example, by being part of the formation of the Central Library. He then cited the
contributions made by safety employees who came to the city because of the city's ability at
that time to recruit the top candidates.
RONALD THOMPSON, Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association, described his past five and
a half years as a firefighter, stating that due to several retirements in the fire department there
has been a great deal of overtime required of employees. He stated this overtime resulted in
the detrimental comment that the firefighters are members of the "$100,000 Salary Club". He
spoke regarding retirement benefits taken away and the offer to them now which he believes is
insufficient.
CYNDY CALDWELL-SCOTTI informed Council that she had been a resident of this city many
years ago, had moved, and was now considering moving back with her husband and children.
She stated she has read that police and fire employees are the lowest paid in the county. She
stated that this means these employees are not valued. Mrs. Caldwell-Scotti informed Council
that when she had worked with the Chamber of Commerce in this city that the City Council
members at that time valued the work of the safety employees.
PHIL DIMENTO stated that he has a feeling the Council does not value their firefighters. He
cited a few of the attributes of the firefighters including outstanding work ethic, pride,
professionalism, and a sincere desire to serve the citizens of Huntington Beach. He stated
when firefighters respond to calls, they save lives and protect property and work diligently to
ensure a positive outcome on all calls; that this is due to their outstanding work ethic, and they
are proud of the level of service they provide day and night. Mr. Dimento stated that the
firefighters face many hazards, and their salary compensation should be increased.
678
Page 10 - Council/Agency Minutes -06/01/98
CORMAC O'CONNELL, Huntington Beach Firefighters'Association, stated the reasons he had
come to work for the city including the level of professionalism of the fire department. He stated
that he is offended with the comparison of firefighters to Radio Shack employees. He spoke
regarding the type of services performed by firefighters and spoke regarding their risk of
contracting infectious diseases.
BOB DUTTON, Huntington Beach Firefighters'Association and member of the Southeast
Huntington Beach Property Owners'Association, addressed Council regarding the letter sent by
the city in the city's water bill which outlined the amount of the budget devoted to public safety.
He cited the surrounding cities which dedicate greater amounts of their budget to public safety.
Mr. Dutton spoke regarding the employees who have been lost to the cities of Fullerton, Laguna
Beach, and Rancho Cucamunga. He informed Council that it costs the city about $60,000 to
replace a paramedic. Mr. Dutton stated that the city has not been able to attract the quality of
employees or employees with experience as it once did.
CHRIS GRUBER, Huntington Beach Firefighters'Association, informed Council of the
employees in the city who earn higher hourly rates than do firefighters and do not have more
education than firefighters and do not face risk. He stated that these employees deserve their
salaries; however, he makes the comparison in order to demonstrate the completely different
nature of the firefighters'work yet the lower salary compensation for the firefighters. He stated
these employees do not require HIV testing for a year as a result of their work or wear
protective gear that can melt in a fire. Mr. Gruber informed Council that last May 9 was
National Fire Services Day and was not recognized on the City Council agenda as was
Municipal Clerks' Week or Veterans' Day.
TOM GILBERTSEN, Huntington Beach Firefighters'Association, spoke regarding the fact that
firefighters are the fire department, that the fire department has been here since 1909 and will
continue to be here. He stated that firefighters are loyal to the citizens and city and refuse to let
current circumstances change this fact.
FRANK MEAD stated that he had come from employment at another city's fire department that
had faced a situation similar to the situation in Huntington Beach. He spoke regarding the
events that had transpired in that city which were detrimental to that city. He spoke regarding
the fact that there are 18 firefighters currently testing for employment in other city fire
departments.
RAY CASILLAS stated that the city is becoming a "stepping stone" fire department where
employees begin employment and go on to some other city fire department. He stated that
some years ago experienced firefighters from other cities applied to the City of Huntington
Beach, but no longer. Mr. Casillas requested that Council let the firefighters know that-Council
cares.
679
06/01/98 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 11
TIM GREAVES stated that when he began with the city fire department the city had the most
well-respected fire department in the nation. He stated that he has the faith that collectively this
problem will be resolved. Mr. Greaves stated that to clarify the math issue which arose at the
last Council meeting, over a three-year period if 10% increase is given toward the end of that
period it is 10% after that - up until then it is not 10%. Mr. Greaves stated that the city has the
right to sue PERS but questioned why the Council does not take care of its obligation to the
'employees, and the employees would join the Council in suing PERS, and it could be settled
'that way. He informed Council that the cases cited regarding PERS and other cities are similar
but are not the same or the city would not be in this lawsuit. Mr. Greaves stated that the PERS
"rollover" benefit is lawful.
JOHN CONNER read from a letter written by retired Fire Chief Ray Picard that presented the
history of the PERS "pickup". He questioned why a benefit of equal value had not been offered
to the employees by the city and also why lawyers were hired in this matter.
ERIC ENGBERG informed Council that he believes it is time for the leaders of this city to
provide a fair wage scale and for the benefits already given to the employees be honored.
BRUCE SPENCER, Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association, referring to Councilmember
Harman's statement earlier in the meeting, informed Council that nowhere in the PERS lawsuit
does Council ask PERS to make payment. He stated that many cities provide this benefit but
only the City of Huntington Beach does not want to pay the benefit. He stated that PERS did
not lead the city astray, that money has come back from PERS which was not used to pay for
this benefit.
FRANCISCO FONSCIA, owner of Francisco's Restaurant, stated that he treats his employees
as the backbone of his business and requested that the city also do so. He stated that others in
the community feel the same way he does. Mr. Fonscia stated that he wants a professional
firefighter responding to his emergency needs, not a firefighter just out of training. He
questioned whether he would have his daughter now if an inexperienced firefighter had
responded during her time of need. Mr. Fonscia requested that the City Council settle the
firefighters' negotiations.
JAMES LACY, Fire Captain,spoke regarding the symbol which his fire helmet represents
including loyalty to residents as well as the fact that it had saved a firefighter years ago when a
firefighter had been severely injured in the downtown area. Mr. Lacy spoke regarding his own
disability retirement and the fact that firefighters do not live very long after they retire. He spoke
regarding the PERS issue stating that he believes Council does not want to pay for it. He
requested a fair salary for the firefighters.
GEORGE SHINROCK informed Council that as a firefighter his salary does not qualify him to
buy a home in one of the new developments in Huntington Beach. He spoke regarding the
other firefighters who cannot afford to live in the city and live elsewhere. Mr. Shinrock stated
the reasons why he believes there is questionable Council leadership.
680
Page 12 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/01/98
JOHN FITZGERALD stated that he is a firefighter in another city. He informed Council that fire
fighting is a profession that only a few people can do well. He cited some of the skills in which
a firefighter must become proficient structure -fire fighting tactics and strategy, high rise fire
tactics and strategies, and fire extraction and rescue procedures including hazardous materials
response. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that more firefighters are killed on an annual basis than in any
other profession. He stated that Huntington Beach does not currently have the reputation as
the best city for which to work. He informed Council that he believes Huntington Beach will
become a "stepping stone" fire department.
EILENE MURPHY urged Council to vote for Councilmember Sullivan's agenda item
recommending that the City Council adopt the official position that the name of the Bolsa Chica
Mesa is the Bolsa Chica Mesa and not the Warner Mesa. She informed Council that she has
given each Councilmember a copy of a map from 1873 where it shows the Bolsa Chica Mesa
and the entire Bolsa Chica area and it is called Bolsa Chica. Ms. Murphy wished
Councilmember Sullivan good luck in tomorrow's election and stated that he has been a
wonderful Councilmember for the last six years and thanked him for his effort in spearheading
the Sunday library opening.
(CITY COUNCIL) ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR DETTLOFF REGARDING PIER PLAZA
Mayor Dettloff thanked Councilmembers Julien and Garofalo and the 20 cultural groups who
have worked on the Pier Plaza Grand Opening. Mayor Dettloff announced some of the
celebration events planned.
APPRECIATION EXTENDED TO BOB KAKUK FOR MEMORIAL DAY SERVICES'
PLANNING
Councilmember Garofalo thanked Bob Kakuk, representative of the Vietnam Veterans of
Orange County, for his fine planning of the recent Memorial Day services held at the Veterans'
Memorial at City Hall.
(CITY COUNCIL) STATUS OF ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ANNEXATION
POLICY AND NEED FOR CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE -COUNCIL AD HOC
COMMITTEE APPOINTED - COUNCILMEMBERS BAUER AND HARMAN
The City Council considered a communication dated June 1, 1998 from the City Administrator
reporting on discussions with the Orange County Water District regarding proposed changes to
its annexation policy and recommending an ad hoc committee of the City Council be formed.
City Administrator Silver presented a report and requested the Mayor appoint two
Councilmembers to work with staff regarding the Orange County Water District Annexation
Policy.
Mayor Dettloff appointed Councilmembers Bauer and Harman to serve on the ad hoc
committee on the status of the Orange County Water District Annexation Policy.
681
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 13
(CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY) CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ON
REMOVAL OF TREES FOR GTE CLASSIC AT EQUESTRIAN CENTER - CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO REVIEW TREE REMOVAL POLICY
The City Council considered a communication Daryl Smith, Acting Public Works Director, dated
May 29, 1998 regarding Tree Removal Policy.
City Administrator Silver reported on the issues that arose under Public Comments and referred
to Acting Public Works Director Smith's report dated May 29, 1998.
Acting Public Works Director Smith reported on Councilmember Sullivan's questions regarding
the type of trees that will replace those removed. He stated that the replacement trees would
be paid for by the GTE Classic.
Councilmember Bauer stated the reasons why he believed a City Council committee should be
formed to review the policy on tree removal.
Mayor Dettloff appointed Councilmembers Garofalo, Bauer, and Harman to review the Council
policy on tree removal.
Councilmember Garofalo spoke regarding the matter and what he believes is the need to hold
the public and private sectors accountable.
City Administrator Silver stated that the GTE Classic is to reimburse the city for the amount of
the cost of the event and that he would come back with a memorandum in writing.
(CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING -ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-38 -TO AMEND CITY
FEE SCHEDULE BY AMENDING COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES (340.20)
Mayor Dettloff announced that this was the meeting set for a public hearing to consider the
following:
Public hearing for the purpose of amending the city fee resolution by amending the Community
Services Department fees as follows:
Increasing the hourly fee for public use of the Council Chambers; increasing the participation
fee for the junior lifeguard program; increasing the fee for the aquatics program; adding fees for
special use permits; and expanding and increasing fees for specific events. The estimated
amount of yearly revenue to be raised by the proposed amendments is $15,000. These fees
will be used to offset increased staffing and maintenance costs.
Legal notice was provided by the Community Services Department.
Mayor Dettloff declared the public hearing open.
682
Page 14 - Council/Agency Minutes -06/01/98
There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral
or written, the hearing was closed by Mayor Dettloff.
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Julien, to adopt Resolution No. 98-38 amending the city
fee schedule by amending fees for the Community Services Department- "A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Resolution No. 5159 Entitled "A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing a City Fee Schedule"As To Services,
Facilities and Activities Offered Under the Community Services Department(Supplemental Fee
Resolution No. 66)." The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL FILED BY NAOMI COHEN TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33 -TAYLOR RESIDENCE - 16661 WELLINGTON DRIVE,
E/PEALE LANE, N/GILBERT DRIVE - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR -APPEAL DENIED (420.40)
The City Council considered a communication from the Community Development Director.
A communication dated May 27, 1998 from applicant Rich Taylor opposing the appeal.
Mayor Dettloff announced that this was the meeting set for a public hearing to consider the
following:
Applicant: Darrach Taylor
Appellant: Naomi Cohen, et al. (Huntington Harbour Residents)
Request: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval for construction of an eight (8) foot
high retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light fixtures above the
wall for a combined height of 12 feet, six (6) inches, in-lieu of maximum six (6) foot high wall within
the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be 40 feet in length and will extend ten (10) feet into
the rear yard slope and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool
deck. A new at-grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and south
portion of the new wall. Seventeen (17) linear feet of the existing combination block/wrought iron
wall will remain at the top of the slope (north side).
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive).
Coastal Status: In the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone.
683
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 15
Environmental Status: The above item is categorically exempt from provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and
includes Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, filed on December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the
above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing,
City Council discussion and action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the
Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City
-action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and
-Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14,
Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable.
Legal notice as provided by the Community Development Department to the City Clerk's Office had
been mailed, published and posted.
Scott Hess, Senior Planner, using slides presented a staff report. He informed Council that later in
the meeting he would report on the diagrams affixed to the Council Chamber wall. He presented
slides that the applicant had submitted. Senior Planner Hess stated that the appellant had
submitted a letter requesting postponement of the public hearing. He presented reasons why this
hearing had not been postponed. Senior Planner Hess stated he had received several phone calls
and letters in favor of the project.
Late Communications Announced By The City Clerk
Pursuant to the Brown Act, City Clerk Brockway announced the following late communications
regarding Agenda Items which had been received:
Communication from Naomi Cohen, Appellant, dated June 1, 1998 submitting slides that are a
part of her original letter of appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional.Use
Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development No. 97-33 - Taylor Residence, Wellington Drive,
Huntington Beach and requesting that staff include said slides at the hearing or that she be
granted permission to present them
The Following Communications In Support Of The Appeal Filed By Naomi Cohen To The
Planning Commission Approval Of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 And Coastal
Development No. 97-33 -Taylor Residence, Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach
Communication from Claude N. Cohn, 16711 Peale Lane, Huntington Beach, dated May 29, 1998
Communication from Abby and Harvey Friedman, 16622 Somerset Lane, Huntington Beach,
dated May 23, 1998
Communication from Marguerite M. Morrison, 16582 Somerset Lane, Huntington Beach, dated
June 1, 1998
Communication from Robert and Mildred Helfer, 3472 Gilbert Drive, Huntington Beach, dated
May 28, 1998
684
Page 16 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/01/98
The Following Communications In Opposition To The Appeal Filed By Naomi Cohen To
The Planning Commission Approval Of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 And Coastal
Development No. 97-33 -Taylor Residence, Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach
Communication from Philip and Jennifer Blaustein, 16652 Melville Circle, Huntington Beach,
dated May 29, 1998
Communication from Rod and Cindy Skjonsby, 16642 Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach,
dated June 1, 1998
Communication from Donald and Ellen Goodwin 16492 Somerset Lane, Huntington Beach,
dated June 1, 1998
Communication from Judith Nichols, 3492 Gilbert Drive, Huntington Beach, dated June 1, 1998
Communication from Harry and Neta Gagen, 16511 Peale Lane, Huntington Beach, dated
June 1, 1998
A letter opposing the appeal had been received from Rich Taylor, applicant, dated
May 27, 1998 and included in the City Council packet.
The Following Late Communication Received From The Community Development
Director
Slide presentation from Community Development Director Fallon dated June 1, 1998 regarding
the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83, Coastal
Development Permit No. 97- 33 (Taylor Residence Wall Extension, 16661 Wellington Drive)
and diagrams showing the following: 1. Existing Section, 2. Allowable Section, and
3. Proposed Section
Mayor Dettloff declared the public hearing open.
RICK TAYLOR applicant stated that he is chagrined that Council, with the multitude of important
city issues before them, had to listen to this piddeling 400 square foot pool deck extension which
has already been approved by the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association,
recommended three times by the Community Development Department and approved by the
Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. He presented reasons for his request that his
application be approved, including to provide a little additional space in a very small patio, to
increase the late afternoon sun which is cut off by the roof quite early and most importantly for
increased safety of the pool for grandchildren and their little friends. He presented reasons why he
believed the appeal was not warranted. Mr. Taylor stated that some signers of the petition, that is
a part of the letter of appeal, had removed their names as shown on the chart on the Council wall.
He referred to a letter on file in the city from a realtor stating that there will be virtually no loss of
value to Mrs. Cohen's property.
685
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 17
IRENE COOPER stated she is a resident of Gilbert Drive, her home is diagonally across the street
from the project. Ms. Cooper described how she believes the proposed project will break the flow
of the landscaped hillside. She stated that if this project is approved that she believes it will be only
right to let everyone else on the top of that slope to put in what they want to do, go into the slope,
forget the set backs and wall rules which would create the look of an alley way on Gilbert Drive and
would lower the property values of all of those on the right hand side of Gilbert Drive. She stated
that at no time did the association ever poll or contact the residents on Gilbert Drive nor was she
aware that the Association works with people to ignore set backs and codes.
PAUL MITCHELL stated he is a neighbor of the applicant and that his property abuts their property
on the west side. He stated that in his opinion the latest design enhances the appearance of all the
property around there because it is a much better appearance than dirt and ground cover. He
stated that while his house is not going to be affected directly by Mr. Taylor's proposal he still feels
it will be an enhancement of the property values, not only of the applicant, but the rest of the
property in the area.
JERRY URNER, representing the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association spoke
regarding procedures which led to the approval by their Architectural Review Committee on
November 24, 1997. He stated that the proposed project involves a retaining wall that because it is
to be built on the slope at the rear of the property will exceed six feet in height and therefore require
both a deviation from the CC & R requirements and a city Conditional Use Permit. He spoke
regarding the normal procedure that is used to notify property owners which had not been done on
the application due to his surgery. He stated that this notification is not legally required. Mr. Urner
stated that he believed 30 years ago there was a construction error in the building of Mrs. Cohen's
home. He stated that to his knowledge neither the Association nor the city has a master plan for
those wishing to build on the slope which rings the center of the island, or in other Huntington
Harbour areas where a slope exists at the rear of the properties. He stated that the Association is
currently working with city staff to correct this deficiency; it is too late for this case.
ROBERT MANIACHI stated that he will soon be residing at 16642 Somerset Land on Gilbert
Island. He stated that he wished to clarify for the applicant, Mr. Taylor, who stated he is a cohort of
Mrs. Cohen that he has just met her for the first time at this hearing. Mr. Maniachi stated that
Gilbert Island has one weakness, the lack of trees and shrubbery and that he opposed the
application because of the loss of more of the shrubbery and the landscaped hillside. He
requested that the hillside not be sacrificed. Mr. Maniachi spoke regarding what he believes will be
the effects on Mrs. Cohen's home including the way her home is located and her bedroom window
will be right next to where the desk and the pool deck is causing a hardship. He stated his concern
with the maintenance relative to the palm tree going over the sidewalk causing a person to walk in
the street. In this regard he questioned if this project is approved is there some kind of a
performance bond that the applicant would be required to provide so that the landscape is
maintained in a better manner than it is now.
686
Page 18 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/01/98
DALE WOOD stated he is a real estate appraiser and a real estate consultant. He presented
reason why the property will be devalued including taking away an existing corridor. He spoke
regarding why he believes the staircase is a primary issue; that the property owners would not only
increase his deck area but enhance the value of his property by bringing additional parking onto his
property. He stated that in future home ownership this could increase traffic in that area. He stated
that he believed it is not a fair issue for the applicant to enhance his property at the cost of another
property owner as the tract was laid out the way it is now. Mr. Wood spoke regarding why he
believes the two examples of other properties referred to by the applicant are not relevant to this
proposal, and that they also could be a potential detriment to their surrounding area.
FRED CAPPER stated that his home and Mrs. Cohen's home were the only homes that face out
on Gilbert Island; all the rest of the homes in the center part of the island have their back yards
facing the greenbelt as their backyards. He gave reason why he had signed a petition against this
application including that other homes that have already been approved to extend their back yards
into these areas were poorly done and that the applicant's property had not been taken care of
causing it to be unsightly for the those surrounding the lower level. Mr. Capper, referring to a
previous speaker's question regarding bonding for sidewalk maintenance, stated that six years ago
he had contacted the city because the residents have the iceplant growing across the sidewalk into
the street causing his four year old to have to go out into the street, and was told by the city to
contact the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association. He stated that he thinks this
overgrowth still occurs in areas on the island. He stated that his wife is a real estate agent on the
island and they both believe the project will increase property values.
JERRY LINDSEY, resident of 3502 Gilbert Drive, spoke regarding why he believes the applicant's
request should be approved including that this project will not cause destruction of the greenbelt as
it was destroyed in 1967; that the wall is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood; it is slightly
closer to the street and slightly higher.
KATHERINE BARON, spoke in support of the appeal. She stated that she had never received
notice; that she believes everyone's property will be devalued and also opposed it due to noise
problems
MILDRED HELFER informed Council she was speaking in favor of the appeal. Mrs. Helfer
questioned why the city wants to take on the liability for redesigning the area known as Bear Hill on
Gilbert Island and to breach its only city codes. She stated that there seems to be no mention of
the fact that in addition to the wall there will be two retaining walls built. She stated that she does
not consider this wall to be the usual description of a retaining wall; that a very large sandbox is
being built. She stated that this project will add 400 square feet to his property which she does not
believe is a petty addition. Mrs. Helfer spoke regarding the neighborhood misconception that the
property owners on the brow of the hill are required to maintain the slopes for the benefit of the
other property owners. She stated these slopes are maintained for the purpose of preventing
erosion and protecting their homes.
687
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 19
BOB HELFER spoke in support of the appeal. He questioned the necessity of a Conditional Use
Permit when there is a city ordinance allowing a 6 foot retaining wall, that this wall will be 12 1/2 feet
in height. Mr. Helfer stated that he has been on the Huntington Harbour Property Owners
Association Board and that it is absolutely not true that the property owners gave permission, that
they did know about this. He spoke regarding the Huntington Harbour Property Owners
Association Board's main concerns was to at least keep the CC & R's and not to give variances
and Conditional Use Permits. He stated this is opening up the whole street to walls; that he thinks
this should have been a variance not a Conditional Use Permit; that city codes must be depended
upon; that plants should not be taken away as they prevent air pollution. He stated it was not the
Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association per se that approved it, it was the Architectural
Review Board Committee.
DORA KAIKAINAHAOLE stated she lives one house away from the applicant. She stated that she
believes the project is compatible to the neighborhood. She stated that the applicant has been very
concerned about the landscaping appearance and most interested in the safety of and the looks of
their neighborhood. She stated that she came from Hawaii and the landscaping appeals to her.
She stated that the applicant is concerned with safety and has always hired someone to trim the
palm tree which is something which not everyone does.
VIOLETA SERRA, 16651 Peal Lane, spoke in support of the application. She stated she resides in
a waterfront home that looks across to a hillside that is similar to the one in question. She stated
that she believes it is a good improvement for the Taylors and the rest of the Island as it sets a
future standard for the reasonable use of the privately owned hillside.
HELEN SHEPARD stated she lives next door to the applicant and spoke in support of the
application. she cited a past instance where the Planning Commission had told her that her
neighbors down the hill had the right to improve their property with a second story to their home.
She stated she did not like the ruling but agreed they had the right to do it. Ms. Shepherd stated
that as far as she can see, this project will be very eye appealing and unobtrusive to their
nneighbors. She stated that the comment that the view of the greenery on the hillside will be
stopped by this project is in error as it is stopped by the wall and house of the Cohen residence.
MICHAEL LIFF, 16671 Melville Circle, spoke in support of the project as he recognizes an obvious
intent to provide first class architectural design and appropriate engineering and that it will be an
asset not a liability to the community. He stated that he believes the applicant is appropriately
exercising their rights to develop their property as they see fit within the context of the
neighborhood and the CC & R's.
Additional Communication From Appellant Announced
City Clerk Brockway stated that when she had announced the communication at the beginning of
this hearing she had neglected to announce the communication from Naomi Cohen dated
June 1, 1998 wherein Mrs. Cohen had submitted slides that were part of her original appeal letter
and she had requested that the slide presentation be made by her or the staff. City Clerk Brockway
stated that the city staff has these slides.
688
Page 20 -Council/Agency Minutes -06/01/98
NAOMI COHEN, appellant, expressed her objections to what she believes are the gross
representations made by Mr. Capper and Mr. Taylor regarding their statements that there are two
houses on Gilbert Island that face the back walls of the other houses; she stated the walls of those
houses are not contiguous with the back walls of the houses on the hill; their sides are contiguous.
She stated that her house is unique, one of a kind, there is no house like it and she is being
sacrificed. Ms. Cohen responded to other statements made stating that she could not have made
an entrance through Gilbert Island as it is a land locked piece of land. She spoke regarding the
petition signed by 23 neighbors opposing the project. She described the many ways the proposed
project will detrimentally affect her home including loss of an unobstructed view of neatly
landscaped lawns, flowers at driveways, there is a 12 1/2 foot wall that protrudes within 7 feet of
the curb, and noise from interior. She spoke regarding the proposed devaluation of her property
stating that an appraiser had stated her property would be converted immediately to a non-
conforming use and estimated a reduction in value of 5 to 10%, and more if the neighbors to the
west should do the same. She stated that there is one fact that cannot be argued in clear
conscience and that is that a house without the proposed project, which conforms to the rest of the
houses on the street and with an unobstructed view to the left and right, is worth infinitely more,
that the amount it may be devalued is not known, but that it will be devalued, Mrs. Cohen stated
that most of those in support live on the hill and it is to their advantage to support the project. She
addressed Council regarding notification problems. Ms. Cohen stated her disagreement with staff
that the project integrates with the existing neighborhood and does not impact the neighbors
adversely, as the neighbors residing along Gilbert and Somerset have expressed their opinions
otherwise in letters and by signing a petition.
There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral
or written, the hearing was closed by Mayor Dettloff.
In response to Councilmember Sullivan, Mrs. Cohen stated that she was not the original owner of
the land. She stated that it was a landlocked piece of land and she supposes that is why the city
approved the plan for her residence rather than dividing the lot.
Councilmember Bauer stated that he had a number of observations including that the people on
Wellington, Mariana, and Melville would generally be supportive of the project as they would be
able to do similarly, that there are inconsistences in planning in the area each time there are new
Planning Commissions, Councils and staff. Senior Planner Hess responded to Councilmember
Bauer's questions regarding the need to develop standards, so that everyone is treated the same;
that building to the sidewalk requires a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Bauer stated that
he would like to see this hearing postponed for reasons of determining consistency and because of
flaw in neighborhood notification.
Councilmember Garofalo presented questions to staff regarding trimming of the palm tree.
Senior Planner Hess responded to the question of overgrowth on the sidewalks, stating that the
homeowner is to maintain the growth and if they do not the city will do so and charge for it.
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green, to uphold the Planning Commission's action, deny
the appeal, and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit
No. 97-33 with Findings and Conditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment No. 1 to the Request
for Council Action dated June 1, 1998.
689
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 21
Councilmember Sullivan stated the reasons why he did not believe the project should be approved;
the unusual circumstance of Mrs. Cohen's house fronting on the street, that it is too much of an
impact on the Cohen residence and the extra staircase egress is unacceptable.
Senior Planner Hess responded to Mayor Dettloff questions regarding the matter including
Mrs. Cohen's comments regarding the Master Plan and the applicant's current staircase. He
reported on the exhibit on the Council's wall showing how the applicant's wall could be built without
a Conditional Use Permit.
The motion made by Garofalo, second Green carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Garofalo
NOES: Bauer, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 11:00 P.M.
Following a motion made by Julien, second Garofalo, the City Council approved adjourning this
meeting at 11:00 p.m. and deferring any items not acted upon other than those issues
determined by the City Administrator to be necessary. The motion carried by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Julien, Green, Bauer, Garofalo
NOES: Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS APPROVED
On motion by Garofalo, second Green, Council approved the following Consent Calendar
items as recommended by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY) MINUTES -APPROVED AND ADOPTED -
Approved and adopted the minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency adjourned
regular meeting of April 27, 1998 and regular meeting of May 4, 1998 as written and on file in
the Office of the City Clerk.
690
Page 22 - Council/Agency Minutes -06/01/98
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED HOLLY-SEACLIFF PROJECT MANAGER REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH PLC LAND COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES
(600.10) -Approved the Holly-Seacliff Project Manager Reimbursement Agreement, as prepared
by the City Attorney, between the City and PLC for the term of September 1, 1997 to
August 31, 1999, subject to mutual agreement by the City and PLC and authorized the Mayor and
City Clerk to sign.
(CITY COUNCIL)APPROVED BUDGET REVISION FOR JUNIOR LIFEGUARD AND POOL
AQUATIC PROGRAMS (320.45) -Approved an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 97/98 budget
by appropriating $40,000 for the Junior Lifeguard program, Account No. 348, and $19,522 for
the Pool Aquatics program, Account No. 358.
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED CONTRACTOR SELECTION FOR SEWER RE-LAY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - CC-1033 -S/E OF BANNING & BUSHARD - BID AWARD TO
PETER C. DAVID, INC. (600.60) - 1. Accepted the bid submitted by Peter C. David Company,
Incorporated.; 2. Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract for the Sewer
Re-lay Improvement Project for a total bid amount of$295,876; and 3. Authorized the Public
Works Director to expend $360,257 to cover contract cost of$295,876, estimated construction
change orders of$44,381 and anticipated supplemental expenses of$20,000.
(CITY COUNCIL)APPROVED CORRECTIONS TO GENERAL PLAN FIGURES CE-3
(POTENTIAL FOR 2010 CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS) AND ERC-1
(GEOGRAPHIC RESOURCES) (440.50) -Approved corrections to General Plan Figures CE-3
and ERC-1 corrections to the street classifications and the depiction of symbols for geographic
resources respectively. (The proposed corrections are administrative in nature and do not
result in substantive changes to the General Plan or its conclusions, goals, objectives and
policies. The Planning Commission approved the corrections on May 12, 1998 and
recommends approval by the City Council.)
(CITY COUNCIL) DEFERRED FROM MAY 18, 1998 -APPROVED AMENDMENT TO THE
CONTRACT WITH PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH, INC. AND AMENDMENT TO
THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ARNEL RETAIL GROUP FOR PREPARATION
OF THE CREST VIEW SITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -S/S TALBERT AVENUE,
E/O BEACH BOULEVARD (600.10) - 1. Approved Amendment No. 1 to Agreement between
the City of Huntington Beach and Planning Consultants Research, Incorporated for Preparation of
Two Separate Environmental Impact Reports For The Crest View School Site And The Rancho
View School Site for additional services in the amount of$25,455.00 to prepare the Crest View
School Site Environmental Impact Report for a total contract fee not to exceed $131,876.25,
Attachment No. 2 to the Request for Council Action dated June 1, 1998.
Communication from the Community Development Director dated May 25, 1998 titled Draft EIR
for Crest View School Site/RCA for PCR Contract Amendment and Arnel Reimbursement
Amendment- includes a report on error discovered in the Draft EIR
691
'r
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 23
Communication from the Community Development Director dated May 29, 1998 transmitting a
letter from PCR, consultant, regarding the site plan error in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 14660 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 14660 WITH BONDS AND AGREEMENTS (BELMONT) PLC LAND COMPANY - S/E
CORNER OF ELLIS & GOTHARD (HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN AREA) (420.60) -
1. Approved Final Tract Map No. 14660 and accepted the offer of dedication, improvements, and
bonds pursuant to findings and requirements (Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action
dated June 1, 1998); and 2. Approved Subdivision Agreement between the City and PLC Land
Company and authorized execution by the Mayor and City Clerk. (Faithful Performance Bond,
Labor & Material Bond No. 3SM91366900, Monument Bond No. 3SM91367000 -American
Motorist Insurance Company)
(CITY COUNCIL)APPROVED FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 15531 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 15531 WITH BONDS AND AGREEMENTS (CAPE ANN) JOHN LAING HOMES — S/E
CORNER OF PROMENADE PARKWAY AND SEAGATE DRIVE (HOLLY-SEACLIFF
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA) (420.60) - 1. Approved Final Tract Map No. 15531 and accepted the
offer of dedication, improvements, and bonds pursuant to findings and requirements
(Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action dated June 1, 1998); and 2. Approved
Subdivision Agreement between the City and John Laing Homes and authorized execution by
the Mayor and City Clerk. (Faithful Performance Bond, Labor& Material Bond No. 361549 and
Monument Bond No. 3351550 - Seaboard Surety Company)
(CITY COUNCIL) ACCEPTED BID FOR SYCAMORE AVENUE SEWER PROJECT—
CC-1045— BID AWARD TO SANCON ENGINEERING II, INC. —APPROVED CONTRACT
(600.60) — 1. Accepted the bid submitted by Sancon Engineering II, Incorporated;
2. Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract for the Sycamore Avenue
Sewer Project, CC-1045 for a total bid amount of$38,330; and 3. Authorized the Acting Public
Works Director to expend $46,163 to cover contract cost of$38,330, estimated construction
change orders of$3,833 and anticipated supplemental expenses of$4,000.
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR GOTHARD STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDENING BETWEEN GARFIELD AVENUE & CLAY STREET -
APN. 111-150-21 (ATKINSON) -ACCEPTED TWO DEEDS (COVERING ONE PROPERTY)
AND APPROVED ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS (650.20) — 1. Approved the acquisition of
Assessor Parcel No. 111-150-21 (Atkinson); 2. Approved and authorized execution of the
escrow instructions by the Deputy City Administrator, Administrative Services Director; and
3. Accepted the two easement deeds for the parcel described herein and authorized
acceptance by the City Clerk with recording to follow through indicated escrow.
692
Page 24 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/01/98
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS -
D'AMBRA -CORREIA - HARTFELDER (110.20) -Approved reappointments of Dennis
D'Ambra, William Correia, and Don Hartfelder to second terms on the Board of Appeals to
expire on June 30, 2001.
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED SELECTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS -
ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY -APPROVED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND ADOPTED
RESOLUTION NO. 98-39 -AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 97-88 RELATIVE TO SALARY
AND BENEFITS FOR NONREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES (600.10) - 1. Approved the
recommendation of the City Administrator to hire Robert F. Beardsley as the Director of Public
Works; 2. Approved the Employment Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and
Robert F. Beardsley for the position of Director of Public Works and authorized the City
Administrator and City Clerk to execute same; and 3. Adopted Resolution No. 98-39
amending the Nonrepresented Employees Salaries Schedule to reflect the revised Director of.
Public Works salary (Range 607) - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Resolution No. 97-88 and Modifying the Salary and Benefits for
Nonrepresented Employees."
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT -APPROVED EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND APPROPRIATION
(320.45) -Approved and authorized an Equipment Replacement Fund appropriation of$24,150
from the McDonnell Douglas lawsuit settlement to allow the Fire Department to replace its
records management system.
(CITY COUNCIL) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NOS. 98-40, 98-41 AND 98-42 CALLING FOR
NOVEMBER 3, 1998 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR CITY OFFICERS - (FOUR
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND CITY ATTORNEY) (620.20) -Adopted the following
resolutions required to conduct the November 3, 1998 General Municipal Election:
1. Resolution No. 98-40 - Calling and Giving Notice of the General Municipal Election to be.
held November 3, 1998 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be held
on Tuesday, November 3, 1998 for the Election of Certain Officers as Required by the
Provisions of the City Charter", and 2. Resolution No. 98-41 - Requesting the County Board of
Supervisors to consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election -
November 3, 1998 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to Consolidate a
General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 1998 with the Statewide General
Election to be held on the Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code"and
3. Resolution No. 98-42 - Regulations for Candidates' Statements (200 words) - "A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Adopting Regulations for
Candidates for Elective Office Pertaining to Candidates'Statements Submitted to the Voters at
an Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1998."
693
I
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 25
(CITY COUNCIL) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT AND
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 - DEFERRED TO JUNE 15, 1998
(320.20)
The City Council considered a communication from Deputy City Administrator-Administrative
Services Director Franz requesting several amendments to the 1997/98 Budget based on a
mid=year review of departmental needs.
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Julien, to defer consideration of the communication
from Deputy City Administrator-Administrative Services Director Franz regarding the mid-year
budget report and budget amendments for Fiscal Year 1997/98 to the Council meeting of
June 15, 1998. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
NOES: Harman
ABSENT: None
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATION ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE NO. 3397 -APPROVED INTRODUCTION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 3398 AMENDING NUISANCE CODE -ADOPTED RESOLUTION
NO. 98-43 FEE SCHEDULE FOR CIVIL FINES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CODE VIOLATIONS
AS AMENDED (640.10)
The City Council considered a communication from the City Administrator and City Attorney
transmitting proposed ordinances/resolution representing a new alternative code enforcement
tool for use by city staff. The proposed ordinances would not replace any existing criminal, civil,
or administrative procedures but would add the ability to impose civil fines for violations of the
city's municipal code including housing, fire and building codes. The procedures followed are
similar to the city parking citation program which was removed from the criminal court system
and made an administrative process several years ago. (Fee Schedule 1 as revised by the
Legal Affairs Committee as outlined in the memorandum dated May 28, 1998 from the City
Attorney.)
City Attorney Hutton and Jennifer McGrath, Deputy City Attorney, presented a report regarding
the provisions of the proposed ordinances and resolution.
Following discussion, a motion was made by Harman, second Garofalo to approve the following
recommended action: 1. Approve introduction after reading by title by the City Clerk of Ordinance
No. 3397 entitled "Administrative Citations"- "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Adding
Chapter 1.18 to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Establishing Administrative Procedures for
Civil Citations and Civil Fines for Municipal Code Violations'; 2. Approve introduction after reading
by title by the City Clerk of Ordinance No. 3398 amending Huntington Beach Municipal Code
Section 17.10 — "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.10 of the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Pertaining to Nuisances and Enforcement", and 3. Adopt
Resolution No. 98-43 as amended entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Establishing the Fee Schedule for Civil Fines for Administrative Code Violations."
694
Page 26 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/01/98
The motion carried by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(CITY COUNCIL) DEFERRED FROM MAY 18, 1998 -APPROVED INTRODUCTION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 3394 - UPDATED VERSION OF HBMC CHAPTER 10.42 - RESIDENTIAL
PARKING PERMITS (640.10)
The City Council considered introduction of Ordinance No. 3394 after City Clerk reads by title -
"An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 10.42 of the Huntington
Beach Municipal Code Pertaining to Residential Parking Permits." (Proposed changes will
clarify the implementation of new permit districts, the day-to-day administration of the permit
districts, and the enforcement'of the districts.)
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Julien, to approve introduction of Ordinance No. 3394
after City Clerk reads by title. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(CITY COUNCIL) -ADOPTED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 3399 - EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY- PROHIBITS, CONTROLS OR RESTRICTS USE OF BICYCLES, MOTOR
VEHICLES, SKATEBOARDS, IN-LINE SKATES IN THE NEW PIER PLAZA AREA (640.10)
The City Council considered adoption of Emergency Ordinance No. 3399 - "An Emergency
Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.12 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code Pertaining to Pier Regulations and Activities Permitted on the Pier."
A motion was made by Garofalo, second Julien, to adopt Emergency Ordinance No. 3399 after
City Clerk reads by title. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(CITY COUNCIL) COMMENCEMENT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION TO FORCE THE CLEANUP OF
THE CLOSED GUN RANGE - DEFERRED TO JUNE 16, 1998 (290.10)
The City Council considered a communication from Councilmember Harman regarding the need
to clean up the closed Police Gun Range.
695
06/01/98 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 27
Councilmember Harman requested that this agenda item be placed early on the June 15, 1998
agenda.
City Attorney Hutton stated that last Friday she had received a.Request for Legal Services from
the Community Services Department and that she would prepare a report within a week.
Community Services Director Hagan reported.
Councilmember Green requested that this item discussion of the Huntington Beach Police
Officers' Association plans - be placed on an agenda of an informal meeting between the
Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, City Administrator and the new officers of the Huntington Beach Police
Officers' Association. He stated that two informal meetings have been held with the new
officers. The City Council determined that Councilmember Harman's communication relative to
commencement of legal proceedings against the Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association
to force the clean up of the closed gun range be placed on the June 15, 1998 agenda would be
deferred and placed on the June 15, 1998 agenda following the public comment portion of the
meeting.
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED REQUEST FROM MAYOR PRO TEM GREEN -TO ATTEND
THE AMERICAN COASTAL COALITION IN WASHINGTON, D. C. -JUNE 13-26, 1998
(120.10)
The City Council considered a communication from Mayor Pro Tern Green which had been
deferred to June 1, 1998 requesting approval by Council to attend the American Coastal
Coalition in Washington, D.C. from on June 23-26, 1998 for a cost of$1,450.
A motion was made by Green, second Sullivan, to approve the request from Mayor Pro Tern Green
to attend the American Coastal Coalition in Washington D.C. June 23-26 for a cost of$1,450.
Couricilmembers Garofalo and Harman spoke regarding the importance of this conference.
The motion made by Green, second Sullivan, carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED OFFICIAL POSITION REGARDING NAME OF THE BOLSA
CHICA MESA (440.60)
The City Council considered a communication from Councilmember Sullivan regarding the
following subject: For many years, the bluff overlooking the Bolsa Chica Wetlands has been
known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Recently, the landowner has decided to call the Bolsa Chica
Mesa the Warner Mesa for rather obvious political reasons.
A motion was made by Sullivan, second Harman, that the official position of the City of Huntington
Beach is to continue to refer to the Bolsa Chica Mesa as the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The motion
carried unanimously.
696
Page 28 - Council/Agency Minutes - 06/01/98
(CITY COUNCIL) CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF CITY COUNCIL AD HOC
SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING EMPLOYEE COMPARISON STUDY DEFERRED TO
JUNE 15, 1998 (120.45)
The City Council considered a communication from Councilmember Sullivan regarding the
following subject: For some time there has been discussion as to whether employee benefits in
Huntington are particularly generous when compared to other cities. The California League of
Cities' total compensation comparisons only include benefits which cities have in common.
Therefore, the relative position of the city could represent an incomplete picture.
The City Council directed that the agenda item regarding a possible ad hoc subcommittee
regarding Employee Comparison Study be deferred to June 15, 1998.
ADJOURNMENT -CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A motion was made by Harman, second Green to adjourn the regular meetings of the City
Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at 11:45 p.m. to
Monday, June 8, 1998, at 4:00 p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California.
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:
City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman
697
Council/Agency Meeting Held: 9
Deferred/Continued to:
�Ap r ved ElCo-4itionally Approved El -
Denied 5", 43 City Clerk's Signature
5- n rrss -A/o
ouncil Meeting Date: June 1, 1998 Department ID Number: CD 98-26
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
M c
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
C
-< Ef n::;
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator.001 N -=�—I <
N -<C")1rT
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director
G z �
SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND-COASTAL
PERMIT NO. 97-33 APPEAL (TAYLOR RESIDENCE-WELLINGTON
DRIVE)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,
Attaehment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Naomi Cohen, neighbor at 3481 Gilbert
Drive, of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 for a residential pool deck and combination
block/retaining wall. Rick Taylor, the applicant received approval from the Zoning
Administrator and the Planning Commission (on appeal) because the project is compatible
with the surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to properties within the area. The
subject property is located in Huntington Harbour on a raised inner triangle on Gilbert Island
at 16661 Wellington Drive.
The appeal asserts the project should be denied (Alternative Action No.1) for the following
reasons: 1) The residence at 3481 Gilbert Island is the only front facing home on Gilbert
Drive; 2) The property value of the home at 3481 Gilbert Drive will be reduced; 3) Noise
impacts will increase; 4) The rear yard ingress and egress (proposed at-grade stairs) diverge
from the Master Plan (original subdivision); 5) Objections to project due to incompatibility of
new wall; 6) Misrepresentation of support by the Huntington Harbour Architectural
Committee; 7) Establishment of a precedent.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the project be approved with conditions
of approval (Recommended Action).
Or
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
1. "Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings and conditions of approval
(Attachment No. 1)."
Planning Commission Action on April 28, 1998:
THE MOTION MADE BY INGLEE, SECONDED BY TILLOTSON, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-
33 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: INGLEE, TILLOTSON, LVIENGOOD, KERINS, SPEAKER
NOES: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN,
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion:
1. "Overturn the Planning Commission's action by denying Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings for denial." (Appellant's
Request)
2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No.
97-33 and direct staff accordingly."
CD98-26.DOC -2- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Rick Taylor, 16661 Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive)
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 represent a
request to construct an eleven foot (11) foot high combination retaining/block wall and
wrought iron fence with eighteen (18) inch light fixtures above the wall. The new wall will
have a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six (6) inches, in lieu of a maximum six (6)
foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be 40 feet in length and it
will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard slope and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and south
sides of the wall (Attachment No. 6). The applicant is requesting this project for the following
reasons:
Provide adequate and safer deck space on the west side (street side) of the lap pool.
Remove a portion of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall and construct a
new wall to accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of the at-grade pool deck/patio
area in the rear property.
Enjoy additional sunlight on the pool deck, since the pool deck adjacent to the home is
shaded by the roofline of the residence.
Replace the at-grade staircase on slope to continue maintenance of the planted slope
area and the planter in the public right-of-way.
B. BACKGROUND
On January 21, 1998, the Zoning Administrator approved the project with conditions,
based upon the findings that the new wall and the expansion of the at-grade deck and wall
will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity
nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The
proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is
physically suitable for this type of development (Pages 4.1 through 4.6 of Attachment No.
4). The combination retaining/block wall and wrought iron fence located within the rear
yard setback will be compatible with surrounding uses because there are decks and walls
in similar locations on adjacent properties (Page 3.1 of Attachment No. 4). Furthermore,
the combination retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and the
applicant will provide bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
CD98-26.DOC -3- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Ms. Cohen et. al. (Gilbert Island Homeowners) appealed the Zoning Administrator's
approval to the Planning Commission (Pages 5.1 through 5.12 of Attachment No. 4). The
appeal included seven letters in opposition and a petition of 24 signatures. Prior to the
Planning Commission hearing, 14 residents indicated verbal approval, two letters of
support were submitted, and two of these residents asked that their names be removed
from the petition which accompanied the Planning Commission appeal. A total of 14
households were in support of the project and a total of 20 households were in opposition
to the project.
During the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting six individuals, including the
applicant and a Huntington Harbour Property Owners' Association (HHPOA)
representative, spoke in support of the project and two residents spoke in opposition of the
project. The Planning Commission approved the project with a 5-2 vote requiring that the
wall be stuccoed and painted to match the residence on the subject property. Two
Commissioners opposed to the project believe it will be incompatible with the adjacent
residence (3481 Gilbert Drive) because it faces Gilbert Drive and will be impacted by the
proposed wall extension.
D. APPEAL:
An appeal to the Planning Commission's approval was filed by Naomi Cohen on May 7,
1998 (Attachment No. 2). The appeal is based on the following:
The home at 3841 Gilbert Island is only front facing home on Gilbert Drive (Attachment
No. 5)
The property value of the home at 3481 Gilbert Drive will be reduced
Rear Yard ingress and egress (at-grade stairs) diverge from the Master Plan (original
subdivision
• Noise impacts will increase
• Objections to project due to incompatibility of new wall
Misrepresentation of support by the Architectural Committee
Establishment of a precedent
E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The project proposal is fully analyzed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report
dated April 28, 1998 (Attachment No. 4). The following is an analysis in response to the
appeal of the project:
CD98-26 -4- 05/21/98 2:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Location, Ingress and Egress, and Property Value Impacts
The proposed wall will be located adjacent to the staircase leading to the front entry and
planted slope area of property to the south of the site (3481 Gilbert Drive), which is a split
level home with a garage on the street level and living area on the second and third levels.
The retaining/block wall located within the. rear yard will be compatible with surrounding
uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties and the
new wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping will be installed
to improve the aesthetics of the street. In addition, the wall be separated by a staircase on
the applicant's property and a planter on the appellant's side property line which would
provide a separation from the appellant's property of approximately three feet at the top of
the slope and approximately a ten foot setback at the toe of the slope.
The appellant indicates that the proposed project diverges from the Master Plan (Original
Subdivision) for Gilbert Island since stairs (ingress/egress) are proposed in the rear yard
slope. Staff has reviewed the tract file for the original subdivision and found that there
were restrictions placed on vehicular access for lots located on the upper raised triangle of
Gilbert Island, but there were no restrictions for pedestrian ingress and egress on the rear
yard slope which is privately owned. Ms. Cohen (3481 Gilbert Drive) has indicated that her
home is the only one that faces the street on Gilbert Drive and abuts the rear yard of the
adjacent property. However, Staff has found that there are two other homes on Gilbert
Island also having a front entry that faces the street and are adjacent to a rear yard. Ms.
Cohen's is concerned that her home will be buried by the new wall, however, it will be
separated by a staircase on the applicant 's property and a sloping planter area and the
living area at the Cohen residence is on the second and third floor and will not be
impacted by the proposed wall.
Staff does not believe that the project will impinge on the privacy, obstruct views, light, and
air of the adjacent property owners or negatively affect the appearance of the
neighborhood. The proposed combination block/retaining wall and wrought iron fence
within the rear yard setback will not directly impact any living area of the adjacent
properties. The new combination retaining/block wall and at-grade pool deck expansion
will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity
nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since
the proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is
physically suitable for this type of development.
CD98-26 -5- 05/21/98 1:50 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Noise Impacts
According to the appellant, there has been noise disturbance from the subject property in
the past, and there is concern that the expanded pool deck will increase the people and
noise from the property. The Police Department has indicated that they have not received
any complaints regarding noise or other disturbances at the site. Staff does not feel that
the deck expansion and new wall will result in an increase of noise to the property.
Compatibility, Architectural Committee, Precedent Setting
Staff found several properties in the immediate vicinity that have deck and wall structures
which exceed the six (6) foot height limit and/or located in the rear yard slope and has
identified properties on the inner raised triangle of Gilbert Island which have developed
decks and walls on and over both the rear and front yard slopes (Attachment No. 5).
These properties are on Gilbert Island and in close proximity of the subject site. The
Architectural Committee of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (HHPOA)
reviewed the plans and provided a letter in support of the project and a set of plans which
were stamped approved to the Planning Division (Pages 8.1 through 8.5 of Attachment No.
4).
The retaining/block wall located within the rear yard, will be compatible with surrounding
uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties and the
new wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping will be installed
to improve the aesthetics of the street. The planted slopes on the inner raised portion of
Gilbert Island are privately owned and maintained. Staff does not feel that green belt will
be degraded since"17 linear feet of the existing wall will remain in its current location and
40 feet of the new wall will be setback 7'-9" from the rear property line, at the toe of the
slope and a total of 17 feet and 9 inches from the street (Attachment No. 6). In addition,
the slope will be planted and the wall will be screened with shrubs.
Postponement of Proiect
The appellant has submitted a letter dated May 13, 1998, requesting that the public
hearing for the appeal be re-scheduled to July to allow additional time to prepare for the
appeal (Attachment No. 3). The previous appeal letter dated May 6, 1998, requested that
the Council hearing would not be scheduled between August 1, 1998 and September 5,
1998. When Staff received the appeal letter, the request to postpone the hearing was
discussed with the applicant, and he indicated that his supporters could only attend the
June 1, 1998 meeting, and they would be unable to attend a hearing at a later date due to
other commitments.
CD98-26 -6- 05/21/98 2:57 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
F. SUMMARY
Staff feels that the proposed project will result in ample open space and the proposed
design of the wall will be compatible with the neighborhood character. The wall will be in
substantial compliance with the Land Use Guidelines and the Coastal Element of the
General Plan. The project was approved by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Commission and is supported by staff because:
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan,
incorporating a creative design that results in an attractive and viable residential area.
The project is consistent with the objectives of the RL-CZ standards of the code in
achieving a development that has an integrated design which properly adapts the
development to the surrounding terrain and uses in the area
The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety, nor
detrimental to the value of the improvements in the area because since the wall is
designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable
for this type of development
The project provides good land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically
pleasing types landscaping site layout and design.
The wall is consistent with other walls and decks in the neighborhood and combination
block/retaining walls have been approved for similarly zoned lots with sloping rear
yards.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachment(s):
F— City Clerk's
Page Number
1. Findings and Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 97-83 and CDP No.
97-33 (Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation)
6
2. Letters of Appeal from Naomi Cohen dated May7, 1998 and May 14,
1998
3 Ms. Cohen's letter for postponement of hearing dated May 13,1998
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 28, 1998
5. Gilbert Island Map (indicates properties with walls and decks)
6. Site Plan and Elevations dated April 9, 1998
CD98-26.DOC -7- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
MSF:HZ:SH:KK:kjl
CD98-26.DOC -8- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
yJ e% a C�er,• .�
�C�l
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:
® Ayr ved ❑ CoNitionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature
p '1 eH 'et
Council Meeting Date: June 1, 1998 Department ID Number: CD 98-26
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
M c
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS m
c-�
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrators fiJ N o—{"C�,
N 't C-)r-.
m rz
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director .e
G Z �
SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND-COASTAL
PERMIT NO. 97-33 APPEAL (TAYLOR RESIDENCE-WEtLIINGTON
DRIVE)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,71
Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Naomi Cohen, neighbor at 3481 Gilbert
Drive, of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 for a residential pool deck and combination
block/retaining wall. Rick Taylor, the applicant received approval from the Zoning
Administrator and the Planning Commission (on appeal) because the project is compatible
with the surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to properties within the area. The
subject property is located in Huntington Harbour on a raised inner triangle on Gilbert Island
at 16661 Wellington Drive.
The appeal asserts the project should be denied (Alternative Action No.1) for the following
reasons: 1) The residence at 3481 Gilbert Island is the only front facing home on Gilbert
Drive; 2) The property value of the home at 3481 Gilbert Drive will be reduced; 3) Noise
impacts will increase; 4) The rear yard ingress and egress (proposed at-grade stairs) diverge
from the Master Plan (original subdivision); 5) Objections to project due to incompatibility of
new wall; 6) Misrepresentation of support by the Huntington .Harbour Architectural
Committee; 7) Establishment of a precedent.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the project be approved with conditions
of approval (Recommended Action).
r
' lv-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
1. "Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings and conditions of approval
(Attachment No. 1)."
Planning Commission Action on April 28, 1998:
THE MOTION MADE BY INGLEE, SECONDED BY TILLOTSON, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-
33 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: INGLEE, TILLOTSON, LVIENGOOD, KERINS, SPEAKER
NOES: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN,
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion:
1. "Overturn the Planning Commission's action by denying Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings for denial." (Appellant's
Request)
2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No.
97-33 and direct staff accordingly."
i
I
I
CD98-26.DOC -2- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Rick Taylor, 16661 Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive)
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 represent a
request to construct an eleven foot (11) foot high combination retaining/block wall and
wrought iron fence with eighteen (18) inch light fixtures above the wall. The new wall will
have a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six (6) inches, in lieu of a maximum six (6)
foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be 40 feet in length and it
will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard slope and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and south
sides of the wall (Attachment No. 6). The applicant is requesting this project for the following
reasons:
Provide adequate and safer deck space on the west side (street side) of the lap pool.
Remove a portion of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall and construct a
new wall to accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of the at-grade pool deck/patio
area in the rear property.
Enjoy additional sunlight on the pool deck, since the pool deck adjacent to the home is
shaded by the roofline of the residence.
Replace the at-grade staircase on slope to continue maintenance of the planted slope
area and the planter in the public right-of-way.
B. BACKGROUND
On January 21, 1998, the Zoning Administrator approved the project with conditions,
based upon the findings that the new wall and the expansion of the at-grade deck and wall
will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity
nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The
proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is
physically suitable for this type of development (Pages 4.1 through 4.6 of Attachment No.
4). The combination retaining/block wall and wrought iron fence located within the rear
yard setback will be compatible with surrounding uses because there are decks and walls
in similar locations on adjacent properties (Page 3.1 of Attachment No. 4). Furthermore,
the combination retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and the
applicant will provide bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
CD98-26.DOC -3- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Ms. Cohen et. al. (Gilbert Island Homeowners) appealed the Zoning Administrator's
approval to the Planning Commission (Pages 5.1 through 5.12 of Attachment No. 4). The
appeal included seven letters in opposition and a petition of 24 signatures. Prior to the
Planning Commission hearing, 14 residents indicated verbal approval, two letters of
support were submitted, and two of these residents asked that their names be removed
from the petition which accompanied the Planning Commission appeal. A total of 14
households were in support of the project and a total of 20 households were in opposition
to the project.
During the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting six individuals, including the
applicant and a Huntington Harbour Property Owners' Association (HHPOA)
representative, spoke in support of the project and two residents spoke in opposition of the
project. The Planning Commission approved the project with a 5-2 vote requiring that the
wall be stuccoed and painted to match the residence on the subject property. Two
Commissioners opposed to the project believe it will be incompatible with the adjacent
residence (3481 Gilbert Drive) because it faces Gilbert Drive and will be impacted by the
proposed wall extension.
D. APPEAL:
An appeal to the Planning Commission's approval was filed by Naomi Cohen on May 7,
1998 (Attachment No. 2). The appeal is based on the following:
The home at 3841 Gilbert Island is only front facing home on Gilbert Drive (Attachment
No. 5)
The property value of the home at 3481 Gilbert Drive will be reduced
Rear Yard ingress and egress (at-grade stairs) diverge from the Master Plan (original
subdivision
Noise impacts will increase
Objections to project due to incompatibility of new wall
Misrepresentation of support by the Architectural Committee
Establishment of a precedent
E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The project proposal is fully analyzed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report
dated April 28, 1998 (Attachment No. 4). The following is an analysis in response to the
appeal of the project:
CD98-26 4- 05/21/98 2:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Location. Ingress and Egress, and Property Value Impacts
The proposed wall will be located adjacent to the staircase leading to the front entry and
planted slope area of property to the south of the site (3481 Gilbert Drive), which is a split
level home with a garage on the street level and living area on the second and third levels.
The retaining/block wall located within the rear yard will be compatible with surrounding
uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties and the
new wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping will be installed
to improve the aesthetics of the street. In addition, the wall be separated by a staircase on
the applicant's property and a planter on the appellant's side property line which would
provide a separation from the appellant's property of approximately three feet at the top of
the slope and approximately a ten foot setback at the toe of the slope.
The appellant indicates that the proposed project diverges from the Master Plan (Original
Subdivision) for Gilbert Island since stairs (ingress/egress) are proposed in the rear yard
slope. Staff has reviewed the tract file for the original subdivision and found that there;
were restrictions placed on vehicular access for lots located on the upper raised triangle of
Gilbert Island, but there were no restrictions for pedestrian ingress and egress on the rear
yard slope which is privately owned. Ms. Cohen (3481 Gilbert Drive) has indicated that her
home is the only one that faces the street on Gilbert Drive and abuts the rear yard of the
adjacent property. However, Staff has found that there are two other homes on Gilbert
Island also having a front entry that faces the street and are adjacent to a rear yard. Ms.
Cohen's is concerned that her home will be buried by the new wall, however, it will be
separated by a staircase on the applicant 's property and a sloping planter area and the
living area at the Cohen residence is on the second and third floor and will not be
impacted by the proposed wall.
Staff does not believe that the project will impinge on the privacy, obstruct views, light, and
air of the adjacent property owners or negatively affect the appearance of the
neighborhood. The proposed combination block/retaining wall and wrought iron fence
within the rear yard setback will not directly impact any living area of the adjacent
properties. The new combination retaining/block wall and at-grade pool deck expansion
will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity
nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since
the proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is
physically suitable for this type of development.
CD98-26 -5- 05/21/98 1:50 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Noise Impacts
According to the appellant, there has been noise disturbance from the subject property in
the past, and there is concern that the expanded pool deck will increase the people and
noise from the property. The Police Department has indicated that they have not received
any complaints regarding noise or other disturbances at the site. Staff does not feel that
the deck expansion and new wall will result in an increase of noise to the property.
Compatibility. Architectural Committee, Precedent Settinq
Staff found several properties in the immediate vicinity that have deck and wall structures
which exceed the six (6) foot height limit and/or located in the rear yard slope and has
identified properties on the inner raised triangle of Gilbert Island which have developed
decks and walls on and over both the rear and front yard slopes (Attachment No. 5).
These properties are on Gilbert Island and in close proximity of the subject site. The
Architectural Committee of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (HHPOA)
reviewed the plans and provided a letter in support of the project and a set of plans which
were stamped approved to the Planning Division (Pages 8.1 through 8.5 of Attachment No.
4).
The retaining/block wall located within the rear yard, will be compatible with surrounding
uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties and the
new wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping will be installed
to improve the aesthetics of the street. The planted slopes on the inner raised portion of
Gilbert Island are privately owned and maintained. Staff does not feel that green belt will
be degraded since 17 linear feet of the existing wall will remain in its current location and
40 feet of the new wall will be setback 7'-9" from the rear property line, at the toe of the
slope and a total of 17 feet and 9 inches from the street (Attachment No. 6). In addition,
the slope will be planted and the wall will be screened with shrubs.
Postponement of Proiect
The appellant has submitted a letter dated May 13, 1998, requesting that the public
hearing for the appeal be re-scheduled to July to allow additional time to prepare for the
appeal (Attachment No. 3). The previous appeal letter dated May 6, 1998, requested that
the Council hearing would not be scheduled between August 1, 1998 and September 5,
1998. When Staff received the appeal letter, the request to postpone the hearing was
discussed with the applicant, and he indicated that his supporters could only attend the
June 1, 1998 meeting, and they would be unable to attend a hearing at a later date due to
other commitments.
CD98-26 -6- 05/21/98 2:57 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
F. SUMMARY
Staff feels that the proposed project will result in ample open space and the proposed
design of the wall will be compatible with the neighborhood character. The wall will be in
substantial compliance with the Land Use Guidelines and the Coastal Element of the
General Plan. The project was approved by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Commission and is supported by staff because:
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan,
incorporating a creative design that results in an attractive and viable residential area.
The project is consistent with the objectives of the RL-CZ standards of the code in
achieving a development that has an integrated design which properly adapts the
development to the surrounding terrain and uses in the area
The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety, nor
detrimental to the value of the improvements in the area because since the wall is
designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable
for this type of development
The project provides good land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically
pleasing types landscaping site layout and design.
The wall is consistent with other walls and decks in the neighborhood and combination
block/retaining walls have been approved for similarly zoned lots with sloping rear
yards.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
Page Number
1. Findings and Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 97-83 and CDP No.
97-33 (Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation)
2. Letters of Appeal from Naomi Cohen dated May 7, 1998 and May 14,
1998
3 Ms. Cohen's letter for postponement of hearing dated May 13,1998
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 28, 1998
5. Gilbert Island Map (indicates properties with walls and decks)
6. Site Plan and Elevations dated April 9, 1998
CD98-26.DOC -7- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
r
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
MSF:HZ:SH:KK:kjl
CD98-26.DOC -8- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
SS. -
'•'•+`^-'^^�a-port public heann ;�-Cif
County of Orange ) PUBLIC NOTI,C�E I Council dis`cuussion a9nd cy
NROTICE OF Il flhetabove i e�°m`m i action
ap
rPrUBLIC;,HEARINgG� pealed�to th`ei1Coastal Cpm-
BEFOREttTiHE4; mission within ten (10)
1 am a Citizen of the United States and aCITY�tOUNCIL
woikmg days roomm the date-
resident of the County aforesaid' I am NTlNG 0Ard F of receip t the notice f
r HUNTINGTON BEACH f�naC�ty acuon -by the
[ -NOTICE HEREBY Coastal Commission ursu-
over the age of eighteen years, and not a GIVEN that `on��fvlo aye antrtoySect on 245 32 t ne
party to or interested in the below June , �1998700%�PMn Huntmgton�Beach�2o^�gs
the Cdy Council Chambers aril Subdivision O dinance
entitled matter. 1 am a principal clerk of 2000 Mam Street rH u7i and�Section; 13110 or the
ton Beaf h thCity C�ou�n Cali(orma Coe of Regufa-
wJl-.;hold a "p�ubl ce'anng lions (r�uhless Title 14;
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a on'the followingitem:�`` section A35:73F+ofathe�Cali_
newspa er of general circulation printed CONDITIONAL USE P R forma AdministrativeCod'e
MIT.,;! O� 9T831(O'AT L� is�applicable�{The Coastala
DEVELOFP`1ENrT PEt T Commission$address is
and pu lished In the City of Huntington NO;'9733AP,PEA4) (( SouthCo't Area. .Office,
Beach County of Orange State of LOA RESIDE,CTv- 1200oeea^gate, roth.Floo"
.
plicant Darrach`�Tayllo�r'Ap Lcng Beach CA 90802-
pella`�n` t, --Naomi Cohe D2�^iXne number (3^`1'0)
California, and that attached Notice Is a et (Hunti^glon Ha bor 570-uk71
IReSiiientsReques'Anap (�NF L. o, of the
true and complete copy as was printed rpea,of the��Zoy, ^"g Admmis' pr c�o'0c egr is ,s on ftle
gyrator apprrooval `1or:�co it tt#e C�m u�i, Develop
and published in the Huntington Beach striiC'tion of-_an eightBj meet Ucpr ; 20b0
toot�high"' eta�nin'g/block4 P1ain�St ee;TtFuhgton
and Fountain Valley issues of said kwa!-,9 il�h a�th (8 o0, li�chh .� fur �a s2P-1st
,wrou ht rroyn=fence,and 18 fo'r mspecpon bypithe, ub�'
mch'tliytixfur"s'abOv'eRlhe IiAo toihe staff red
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: I A spy �.
twall-foZa co bmed�dei ht port w�ill-b Mv�ailable -
of 12`Dfeet=six (6) inches,(,n o rested pies at�'C-ity Hall
lieu" f Vazim��SSii 6• I the"Main City, ILibrar,
toot high -wall Within It "(71.11 Talbert:Avenue) after
`rear.yardsettiack areaXThe May 26,�1'998 f
new wall will be�40 feet m tfAL'L INTERESTED PER-
length and will extend ten SQNS_arre my led to attend
May 21, 1998 r(10)*feet mto,theJrearyard �aiiiheanng and express.
�Igp@ andw111�(ascom� opinions or: submit
modate a 4l)0 square�9oot 'derxce for o� against theme,�.`�
expansion of anaexistmgLat ap,phcationj asj,�uthne'ag
¢above�lf,4you,' hallenge tf1e?
grade pb'6I deck!%Ar new.a City.#�Counciif action m�
grade�staircas`ef�wiIl be yo 1`courtyourmaybe�(limded
I declare, under penalty ofperjury, that cated on th�outh side-of tope tAY Ohl`those issues
the foregoing IS true and correct. 1heErearFyard and�twos�(n) you o9 s eon :else
g g combination �tain�ng/ raisedYat tha publ�cyheanng �
wrought irontwmg w'alts(re des6nbed5in thisnotjce oral
turns) will�tie�Located iwntten0correspon&ence
the north and south ortion 1=
r P delivered to-the#Cityat- oar
of thernew wall Seventeen pnor to the•public hearing. ,
May 21 7 99� (17);linear feet of the exist — mac ,rr r
Executed on If there are an further-
s ing �eombination l`block/ ^H u-- >
wrou ht iron?�walZ`will re questions please call the
at Costa Mesa California. g 3 r , � g
main at the to Plannm Division at 536
p�,of. the 527+1 and refer to-- the
slope (north side) Loca
¢ above item. Direct your.-
hon �166_fit1 Wielhngto^ W=�i jen communic'atlops
Dnve ea"s of Peale and t-
n°orth�(oPrGilbert"'Dnve) theCiy�Clsrk
P-'rojectPfanner: 'Khm 38onn�le BrockTway, -
FKlopfenst0n' _ City C;erk
INOjTICE 6S HEREBY CltysoPHuntingtonBeams
GIVEN thatythe above item 2000Main Street, 2nd
is kaiegosricall'y'�,+ezrempt Floor Huntingto�Beach,
front the royisions of the '' �h" �S.
P. California 92648 (r71�4).536-
�CalifOrnia bEnviron�meental 5227
Signature ,ouality Act ,lt i I'6ated n vaxc
the:appealable jurisdiction ublished P Huntington
of he'�Coastal Zone and m' Beach Fountain Valley sy
cludesCoya'stal De e?oldependentfvlayr2l i99By z
meetPermitNoi9733053�519
filed-on December
m�conjuricfiiin�f,�with�the
�above iegtiest�T�he�oast�a'1
Developmen tPe;m;t;;hear-
ding`consists:of;�-a�stafi.re.'=.
6(9 Yte,�. - Caen. ►�a..w
Council/Agency Meeting Held: - 8 4�Q o' q 0
Deferred/Continued to:
!Ayr ved ❑ Co eitionally Approved ❑ Denied �e.�~�y City Clerk's Signature
$- iG Norman L�t-✓+-v--No
ouncil Meeting Date: June 1, 1998 Department ID Number: CD 98-26
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
x
M c
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS =�
c-)
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator-0 OJ
N �C-)
CX7 r--.,"
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director* '� � 441
SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND-.CC6&STAL
PERMIT NO. 97-33 APPEAL (TAYLOR RESIDENCE-WEiLIINGTON
DRIVE)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,
Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Naomi Cohen, neighbor at 3481 Gilbert
Drive, of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 for a residential pool deck and combination
block/retaining wall. Rick Taylor, the applicant received approval from the Zoning
Administrator and the Planning Commission (on appeal) because the project is compatible
with the surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to properties within the area. The
subject property is located in Huntington Harbour on a raised inner triangle on Gilbert Island
at 16661 Wellington Drive.
The appeal asserts the project should be denied (Alternative Action No.1) for the following
reasons: 1) The residence at 3481 Gilbert Island is the only front facing home on Gilbert
Drive; 2) The property value of the home at 3481 Gilbert Drive will be reduced; 3) Noise
impacts will increase; 4) The rear yard ingress and egres's (proposed at-grade stairs) diverge
from the Master Plan (original subdivision); 5) Objections to project due to incompatibility of
new wall; 6) Misrepresentation of support by the Huntington Harbour Architectural
Committee; 7) Establishment of a precedent.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the project be approved with conditions
of approval (Recommended Action).
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
1. "Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings and conditions of approval
(Attachment No. 1)."
Planning Commission Action on April 28, 1998:
THE MOTION MADE BY INGLEE, SECONDED BY TILLOTSON, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-
33 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: INGLEE, TILLOTSON, LVIENGOOD, KERINS, SPEAKER
NOES: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN,
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion:
1. "Overturn the Planning Commission's action by denying Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings for denial." (Appellant's
Request)
2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No.
97-33 and direct staff accordingly."
CD98-26.DOC -2- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Rick Taylor, 16661 Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Location: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive)
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 represent a
request to construct an eleven foot (11) foot high combination retaining/block wall and
wrought iron fence with eighteen (18) inch light fixtures above the wall. The new wall will
have a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six (6) inches, in lieu of a maximum six (6)
foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The new wall will be 40 feet in length and it
will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard slope and two (2)
combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and south
sides of the wall (Attachment No. 6). The applicant is requesting this project for the following
reasons:
Provide adequate and safer deck space on the west side (street side) of the lap pool.
Remove a portion of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall and construct a
new wall to accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of the at-grade pool deck/patio
area in the rear property.
Enjoy additional sunlight on the pool deck, since the pool deck adjacent to the home is
shaded by the roofline of the residence.
Replace the at-grade staircase on slope to continue maintenance of the planted slope
area and the planter in the public right-of-way.
B. BACKGROUND
On January 21, 1998, the Zoning Administrator approved the project with conditions,
based upon the findings that the new wall and the expansion of the at-grade deck and wall
will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity
nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The
proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is
physically suitable for this type of development (Pages 4.1 through 4.6 of Attachment No.
4). The combination retaining/block wall and wrought iron fence located within the rear
yard setback will be compatible with surrounding uses because there are decks and walls
in similar locations on adjacent properties (Page 3.1 of Attachment No. 4). Furthermore,
the combination retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and the
applicant will provide bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
CD98-26.DOC -3- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Ms. Cohen et. al. (Gilbert Island Homeowners) appealed the Zoning Administrator's
approval to the Planning Commission (Pages 5.1 through 5.12 of Attachment No. 4). The
appeal included seven letters in opposition and a petition of 24 signatures. Prior to the
Planning Commission hearing, 14 residents indicated verbal approval, two letters of
support were submitted, and two of these residents asked that their names be removed
from the petition which accompanied the Planning Commission appeal. A total of 14
households were in support of the project and a total of 20 households were in opposition
to the project.
During the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting six individuals, including the
applicant and a Huntington Harbour Property Owners' Association (HHPOA)
representative, spoke in support of the project and two residents spoke in opposition of the
project. The Planning Commission approved the project with a 5-2 vote requiring that the
wall be stuccoed and painted to match the residence on the subject property. Two
Commissioners opposed to the project believe it will be incompatible with the adjacent
residence (3481 Gilbert Drive) because it faces Gilbert Drive and will be impacted by the
proposed wall extension.
D. APPEAL:
An appeal to the Planning Commission's approval was filed by Naomi Cohen on May 7,
1998 (Attachment No. 2). The appeal is based on the following:
The home at 3841 Gilbert Island is only front facing home on Gilbert Drive (Attachment
No. 5)
The property value of the home at 3481 Gilbert Drive will be reduced
Rear Yard ingress and egress (at-grade stairs) diverge from the Master Plan (original
subdivision
Noise impacts will increase
Objections to project due to incompatibility of new wall
Misrepresentation of support by the Architectural Committee
Establishment of a precedent
E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The project proposal is fully analyzed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report
dated April 28, 1998 (Attachment No. 4). The following is an analysis in response to the
appeal of the project:
CD98-26 -4- 05/21/98 2:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Location, Ingress and Egress, and Property Value Impacts
The proposed wall will be located adjacent to the staircase leading to the front entry and
planted slope area of property to the south of the site (3481 Gilbert Drive), which is a split
level home with a garage on the street level and living area on the second and third levels.
The retaining/block wall located within the rear yard will be compatible with surrounding
uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties and the
new wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping will be installed
to improve the aesthetics of the street. In addition, the wall be separated by a staircase on
the applicant's property and a planter on the appellant's side property line which would
provide a separation from the appellant's property of approximately three feet at the top of
the slope and approximately a ten foot setback at the toe of the slope.
The appellant indicates that the proposed project diverges from the Master Plan (Original
Subdivision) for Gilbert Island since stairs (ingress/egress) are proposed in the rear yard
slope. Staff has reviewed the tract file for the original subdivision and found that there
were restrictions placed on vehicular access for lots located on the upper raised triangle of
Gilbert Island, but there were no restrictions for pedestrian ingress and egress on the rear
yard slope which is privately owned. Ms. Cohen (3481 Gilbert Drive) has indicated that her
home is the only one that faces the street on Gilbert Drive and abuts the rear yard of the
adjacent property. However, Staff has found that there are two other homes on Gilbert
Island also having a front entry that faces the street and are adjacent to a rear yard. Ms.
Cohen's is concerned that her home will be buried by the new wall, however, it will be
separated by a staircase on the applicant 's property and a sloping planter area and the
living area at the Cohen residence is on the second and third floor and will not be
impacted by the proposed wall.
Staff does not believe that the project will impinge on the privacy, obstruct views, light, and
air of the adjacent property owners or negatively affect the appearance of the
neighborhood. The proposed combination block/retaining wall and wrought iron fence
within the rear yard setback will not directly impact any living area of the adjacent
properties. The new combination retaining/block wall and at-grade pool deck expansion
will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity
nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since
the proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is
physically suitable for this type of development.
CD98-26 -5- 05/21/98 1:50 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
Noise Impacts
According to the appellant, there has been noise disturbance from the subject property in
the past, and there is concern that the expanded pool deck will increase the people and
noise from the property. The Police Department has indicated that they have not received
any complaints regarding noise or other disturbances at the site. Staff does not feel that
the deck expansion and new wall will result in an increase of noise to the property.
Compatibility, Architectural Committee, Precedent Setting
Staff found several properties in the immediate vicinity that have deck and wall structures
which exceed the six (6) foot height limit and/or located in the rear yard slope and has
identified properties on the inner raised triangle of Gilbert Island which have developed
decks and walls on and over both the rear and front yard slopes (Attachment No. 5).
These properties are on Gilbert Island'and in close proximity of the subject site. The
Architectural Committee of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (HHPOA)
reviewed the plans and provided a letter in support of the project and a set of plans which
were stamped approved to the Planning Division (Pages 8.1 through 8.5 of Attachment No.
4).
The retaining/block wall located within the rear yard, will be compatible with surrounding
uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties and the
new wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping will be installed
to improve the aesthetics of the street. The planted slopes on the inner raised portion of
Gilbert Island are privately owned and maintained. Staff does not feel that green belt will
be degraded since 17 linear feet of the existing wall will remain in its current location and
40 feet of the new wall will be setback 7'-9" from the rear property line, at the toe of the
slope and a total of 17 feet and 9 inches from the street (Attachment No. 6). In addition,
the slope will be planted and the wall will be screened with shrubs.
Postponement of Project
The appellant has submitted a letter dated May 13, 1998, requesting that the public
hearing for the appeal be re-scheduled to July to allow additional time to prepare for the
appeal (Attachment No. 3). The previous appeal letter dated May 6, 1998, requested that
the Council hearing would not be scheduled between August 1, 1998 and September 5,
1998. When Staff received the appeal letter, the request to postpone the hearing was
discussed with the applicant, and he indicated that his supporters could only attend the
June 1, 1998 meeting, and they would be unable to attend a hearing at a later date due to
other commitments.
CD98-26 -6- 05/21/98 2:57 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
F. SUMMARY
Staff feels that the proposed project will result in ample open space and the proposed
design of the wall will be compatible with the neighborhood character. The wall will be in
substantial compliance with the Land Use Guidelines and the Coastal Element of the
General Plan. The project was approved by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Commission and is supported by staff because:
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan,
incorporating a creative design that results in an attractive and viable residential area.
The project is consistent with the objectives of the RL-CZ standards of the code in
achieving a development that has an integrated design which properly adapts the
development to the surrounding terrain and uses in the area
The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety, nor
detrimental to the value of the improvements in the area because since the wall is
designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable
for this type of development
The project provides good land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically
pleasing types landscaping site layout and design.
The wall is consistent with other walls and decks in the neighborhood and combination
block/retaining walls have been approved for similarly zoned lots with sloping rear
yards.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachment(s):
NumberCity Clerk's
Page
1. Findings and Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 97-83 and CDP No.
97-33 (Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation)
2. Letters of Appeal from Naomi Cohen dated May (, 1998 and May 14,
1998
3 Ms. Cohen's letter for postponement of hearing dated May 13,1998
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 28, 1998
5. Gilbert Island Map (indicates properties with walls and decks)
6. Site Plan and Elevations dated April 9, 1998
CD98-26.DOC -7- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-26
MSF:HZ:SH:KK:kjl
S
CD98-26.DOC -8- 05/21/98 12:55 PM
aim � �s a sue, a-�> ��$ � s�F� �� � ,, .r - .µ.me s..aa� -.�-�. �� �
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83 /
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33:
1. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 to permit the construction of an eight(8) foot high
retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot high wrought iron fence and eighteen (8) inch light fixtures
above the retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six (6) inches, in lieu of a
six (6) foot high wall, within the rear setback area, approximately eight(8) feet from the rear property
line. The new wall will be forty (40) feet in length and will extend(10) feet into the rear yard slope
and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. The deck
extension and wall will conform with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The
proposed deck extension and wall will not impact public views or access to coastal resources as none
exist at the site.
2. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,
the base zoning district, as well as other provisions of the Municipal Code applicable to the property.
The proposed development will conform with all applicable City Codes as allowed by the conditional
use permit.
3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner
that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure currently exist at the site.
4. The proposed wall conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
California Coastal Act. The development will not adversely impact public views or public access.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of an eight(8)
foot high retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot high wrought iron fence and light fixtures above
the retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six (6) inches, in lieu of a six
(6) foot high wall, within the rear setback area, approximately eight(8) feet from the rear property.
The new wall will be forty (40) feet in length and will extend(10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. The deck extension and
wall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor
detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since the proposed
wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable for this
type of development.
6/1/98 CD98-26
2. The deck and retaining/blockwall located within the rear yard setback will be compatible with
surrounding uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties.
Furthermore, the retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and provided with
bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
3. The proposed combination block/retaining 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 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be
located. The structure will be in conformance with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with the
approval of the 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 Low Density Residential on the subject property. In
addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
a. Require that non-residential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be
compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures
(LU 9.3.3).
b. Ensure that structures and sites are designed and constructed to maintain their long-term quality
(LU 4.2).
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83/
COASTAL PERMIT NO. 97-33:
1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated October 23, 1997, shall be the
conceptually approved layout with the following modifications:
a. 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.
b. The 18-inch high light fixtures located above the wrought iron fence shall have a dimmer switch.
c. The eight foot(8) foot high combination retaining/block wall shall be stuccoed and painted to
match the on-site residence and shall be screened with berming and landscaping.
d. The rise and run of the stairs shall be constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code
requirements.
6/1/98 CD98-26
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 the
working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical,
mechanical and plumbing).
b. Submit design calculations for the retaining wall, which includes any possible surcharge from the
pool deck.
c. Shade in the area of all new work on the site plan.
d. Provide the details for the new stairs, handrails and guardrails.
e. Show the path of the retaining wall drainage on the site plan.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed:
a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for
review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of Community
Development.
b. A Landscape planting and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
and approved by the Departments of Public Works. The Landscape plan shall address
improvements to be made in the rear yard from the pool to Gilbert Drive and shall include type
and location of shrubs to be planted to screen the wall. The landscape plans shall be in
conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design
Guidelines. (PW) (Code Requirement)
c. The foundation for the retaining wall shall have a reverse footing (i.e. not from the exposed face of
the wall) unless the rear slope has a minimum of 42" of earth above the footing facing the street
(Gilbert Drive)to allow for roots and drainage.
4. All landscape planting and irrigation shall be completed prior to final building inspection.
5. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied
with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan
and elevations are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued
until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for
conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the
proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by
the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO.
6/1/98 CD98-26
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 shall not become
effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 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 Department of
Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date.
3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, 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. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building
Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances,
and standards, except as noted herein.
5. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be
prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays.
6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 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 Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the
Zoning Administrator's action.
6/1/98 CD98-26
348.1 Gilbert"Drive,Huntingtor�Beach; California 92649 '
May:l4,,1998
CO
City Council c,_,-t�-;.
City of Huntington Beach o,6 r.
n-.y rrt
2000 Main Street _ :n.
Huntington Beach,California 92648 _ ..
Cl)
Gentlemen: =
I would like to make a correction.o•paragraph one; page one, of.my Getter,dated,,
May.6, 1998: In this-paragraph, I-mentioned'that none of the lots on"Gilbert Hill fiave
in from the back side. I have driven.carefully around the hill and found two-
such stairways.. One.is on Peale Lane and one on_S:omerset.'N6ne are on Gilbert'Drive. -
Most importantly,•however; no ingress or egress exists next,to the-face of a.house;such
as in my case. My house is the only house on Gilbert Island whose front is contiguous
with•the backs of all the adjacent houses on the street and.as such, is most unique and -
vulnerable.
Sincerely,
Ot
Naomi Cohen -
following.rpasons:.
?. Th.) cnr.;Wrz :v i!i c'c;..I� .; r•�:,N �'r,►;; :.C• 't)I. r, ti.i i: l
may ultimaWy start of;mprous other to de the sarrl .
2. Gilbert Island is Godly lacking in lanoscape and planted are:: w�;l! ;yill
catis.- an into,rup:icn 41 the viginal pla.'itcc sloping �i'I�icie clt. •ia�.
I, thereforo rmpuctlully request that inp I lomoconnrs, n;que�,t for a z,;nir,g •rariani;p ba
don ied.
i
NAME.... :._... - ---- - _ - - ADDRESS._._. .�_r_._..... ......_ . _. .. U,��E.
12
CG --- .3.1_ L-�. C_- .tie �. /�r-- .. �� • �� -s
- -
• � • l
44
cto
I
LENIr!�.U�?._.... .. t
s��j . . �4ARVr-k:---F��ic'm�3y. ..�..��..��`� .Sc�n)�:�S�F_ t' _ ► �- ��� `;`� ,
rAry. :j11h1 ry)0 CiAl S S A L I IL(v0� .SomCASET .10 ��<G
y %r.r
I
i
3481 Gilbert Drive,Huntington Beach, California 92649
May 6, 1998
T
c
cry --i
City Council
City of Huntington Beach �' Q o
- _ 2000 Main Street 73 > 70�'
Huntington Beach, California 92648 w :;-
w �
N D
Gentlemen:
I would like to appeal conditional use permit 97-83 for the following reasons:
I. ERRONEOUS STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommended approval of the project to zoning administration saying the.
"Project will not be.detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety, nor to the value_
of the improvements in the area, since the...wall is designed to integrate with the existing
neighborhood." These opinions are erroneous. I live at 3481 Gilbert Drive, on the hill,
contiguous to Mr. Taylor's house. .My house is the only house on the hill whose front
faces Gilbert Drive. The access to all the other houses on the hill, including Mr.
Taylor's house, is from another street. The front of my house is currently flanked, on
both sides,by an even line of the back fences of the houses on the hill and by an
: uninterrupted view of the green slopes, cascading to the left and right of my house and
along the entire west side of Gilbert Drive. This is according to the Master Plan of the
City: Mr. Taylor asks to diverge from this master plan. The staff states that Mr. Taylor's
wall "is consistent with other retaining walls which have been'approved for similarly
zoned lots." This is not true. The latest lot that was approved was approved in 1987, on
Peale Lane which is a different street altogether. The.slopes on Peale Lane, as a result,
look unattractive today--cantilevered lots and unkempt slopes--which degrade the
aesthetic look of the street. The Gilbert slopes are aesthetically appealing by comparison
(please see slides). Most importantly, none of the lots that were approved on any hart of
this island are contiguous to a house like mine, whose face is lined up with their rear.
Additionally, none of these lots have ingress and egress from the back as in the case of.
use permit 97-83. These two very important facts are totally ignored red by taff
recommendations.
The use permit granted to Mr. Taylor, allows his yard to protrude offensively into
the east boundary, straight into the face of my house, blocking the view and giving my
house a lop-sided appearance. I have consulted an appraiser, with 20 years experience,
who will testify that my property will be converted thus to a non-conforming property
and by this fact will be reduced in value by 10%($53,000 or more).
H. I HAVE A PLAYGROUND AT THE ELEGANT FRONT ENTRY TO MY HOUSE
...with a pool deck and all its attendant paraphernalia such as pool equipment, sun
umbrellas, deck chairs. Should I decide to sell the house, who would want to buy my house
with a playground stuck in its face. I would need to reduced the price considerably in order to
make it salable.
III. NOISE LEVEL
The pool lies right underneath my bedroom window. Whenever people carry a
normal conversation;I can hear every word they say. I had to call the police once to stop
conversations around the pool which disturbed my sleep until 2:00 a.m. At the last
meeting, someone said there was no police report to that effect,but Mr. Taylor's own
admission to this fact in his recent letter to the neighbors testifies to the veracity of this
fact.
IV INGRESS AND EGRESS
Never anywhere is there a mention by staff, in their report,that there is an
ingress-egress planned for the pool deck, from Gilbert Drive. This is an added digression
from the Master Plan. No ingress-egress has been granted so far on this island on any
deck._This ingress-egress will provide access to,Mr..Taylor's property.for parties;with
attendant.noise, parking, and traffic along the east side of my house.
V.. DISSONANCE WITH SURROUNDING AREA AND OBJECTIONS FROM
NEIGHBORS
Staff said that Mr. Taylor's.addition is designed to integrate with the'existing
neighborhood. It does not. There were 23 signatures.and several letters from neighbors
testifying to this effect. All these neighbors passionately objected to this project(see
attached copy of signatures and letters). Mr. Taylor brought several voices in his support,
however,this support came from people who were not impacted directly by his addition
because they live up on this hill. The weight of these voices,therefore, should not be
considered, with the 23 people in opposition, who live on Gilbert Drive and Somerset "
Drive and are therefore impacted directly. Twenty-three neighbors feel that Mr, Taylor's
protrusion ruins the aesthetic look of the street and will establish a precedent for others to .
follow suit,thus creating a depreciation of the entire street which will ultimately effect
the.value of their properties.
VI. MISREPRESENTATION OF SUPPORT .
The head of the association purportedly represented the inhabitants of Gilbert
Island, but he really spoke only for himself. The 23 neighbors who opposed the project
claimed he never consulted them; nor brought this issue to their consideration." To give
weight to his vote as if to many,is to misconstrue his vote, since he only speaks for
himself.
VII. " DISASTROUS EFFECTS IF A PRECEDENT IS ESTABLISHED -
According to appraisers, my house with this impact will be devalued by 10% or .
$53,000 in todays value but if my neighbor to the left follows suit, it will be buried on
both ends. It will now be worthless: Light and view will be blocked on-both ends and
the front appearance will be marred. If this happens,I will be ruined financially. I am a
recently widowed, retired woman. The equity of my house is my security for the.rest.of .
my life..I am an ordinary citizen,but a law-abiding one and a good neighbor_. I do not
deserve to have.my property rights abused in this manner.
I request that the City Council reverse use permit 97-83. I bey each Council
Member to ask himself this question: "Would I spend thousands of dollars to buy a
pride-of-ownership house, with a pool and deck stuck in its face?"and then vote with
their conscience: Clearly I am asked here to sacrifice thousands of dollars for my -
neighbor's divergence from the Master Plan.
I request the City Council to allow me to state my position,with slides and with
an appraiser who will testify to facts, oft property valuations,based on 20-years "
experience. I request not to schedule the"meeting between August 1,and September 5,
1998, as I will not be able to attend during this period, for personal.reasons.
Thank you for your consideration;
a U„"'"
Naomi Cohen
f
a £
s aam
RECEIVED
MAY 131999
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C r F y Chu n c� L--7'once.
Nou yl
CP
De nf CC/ uwu wS
to ���i �� � � o � e p,P,c
V
G Cow ' nu e4. r c,eecc,� u7�nt•c, as
j u Tu Vic.
s �o o sown eL v, rr� CovLsr�'�-u��s
k; Of vne � cL v-(
Sef(�e�
('clu-txl)ell i s
Pctss�'or c, ik � � c� � (� as
a � Fisk L,`c�� Ta
S'Ugqe3� �' o ` e, ro S �,r� a : ._ �2.S-2w�a,(7.�
o n
0 Ta V",P- 1 0-41
I�r .VIA �
Mb.
f I .
�A ` 'N HuntmgtonBeach Department of Community Development�� S f` t '
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
BY: Kimberly Klopfenstein, Planner
DATE: April 28, 1998
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 97-33 (APPEAL) (TAYLOR RESIDENCE)
LOCATION: 16661 Wellington Drive (east of Peale Lane and north of Gilbert Drive)
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 represent a request to
construct an eleven foot (11) foot high combination retaining/block wall and wrought iron fence with
eighteen(18) inch light fixtures above the wall. The new wall will have a combined height of twelve (12)
feet and six(6) inches, in lieu of a maximum six(6) foot high wall within the rear yard setback area. The
new wall will be 40 feet in length and it will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-
grade pool deck. A new at-grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard slope and two
(2) combination retaining/wrought iron wing walls (returns) will be located on the north and south sides
of the wall.
Ms. Cohen et al (Gilbert Island Homeowners) appealed the Zoning Administrator's approval of the new
combination wall to the Planning Commission for the following reasons:
Engineer has determined that project will destabilize soil, endangering Cohen foundation (adjacent
. property at 3481 Gilbert Drive).
. The structure will be an eyesore which will obstruct view, air and light.
Expanded pool use will add to exisitng noise problems which have been a nuisance.
The new wall would devalue the property, degrade the greenbelt, and set a precedent for further
encroachments on the slope.
Staff recommended approval of the project to the Zoning Administrator and is recommending that the
Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and Coast Development Permit request based
on the following reasons:
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, incorporating a creative
design that results in an attractive and viable residential area.
• The project is consistent with the objectives of the RL-CZ standards of the code in achieving a
development that has an integrated design which properly adapts the development to the surrounding
terrain and uses in the area.
The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety, nor detrimental to the
value of the improvements in the area because since the combination block/retaining wall is designed
to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable for this type of
development.
V.,oK23L
kujw
*,Aa�
ITOM="
Amba
PRO CT
�4 '
i
777 ✓
I-
J� Vicinity Map
CUP 97-83 / CDP 97-33
NUHnNcror+ee,►cN •
HUNT@=N BEACH?"%Nr4G DWISION
I
• The project provides godu land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types
of landscaping, perimeter walls, site layout and design.
• The wall is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and combination block/retaining walls
have been approved for similarly zoned lots with sloping rear yards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Uphold the Zoning Administrator's action by approving Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal
Development Permit No. 97-33 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)."
(Staff and Applicant's Recommendation)
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as:
A. "Overturn the Zoning Administrator's action by denying Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and
Coastal Permit No. 97-33 with findings for denial."(Appellants' Recommendation)
B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 and direct
staff accordingly."
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: Darrach Taylor, 16661 Wellington Drive,Huntington Beach, CA 92648
APPELLANT: Ms. Cohen et al (Gilbert Island Homeowners).
REQUEST: To construct an eleven(11) foot high combination retaining/block wall and wrought
iron fence with eighteen(18) inch high light fixtures on the top of the wall.
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE:
November 23, 1998 January 23, 1998 (ZA Action)
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS:
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
--. .- ..
Subject Property: RL-7 Low Density RL-CZ, Low Density Single Family
(east of Peale and Residential Residential-Coastal Zone Residential
north of Gilbert
Drive)
North, South, East RL-7, Low Density RL-CZ, Low Density Single Family
and West of Subject Residential Residential-Coastal Zone Residential
Property:
Staff Report-4128/98 2 (98SR25)
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97- 33 represent a request to
construct an eleven(11) foot high combination retaining/block wall and wrought iron fence with eighteen
(18) inch high light fixtures, within a ten (10) foot high slope, as measured from the top of curb. The top
of the combination wall/fence (not including lights) will be sixteen (16) feet in vertical height above the
curb (combined 5' high slope and 11' high wall). The maximum wall height allowed in the rear ten (10)
foot setback area is six(6) feet, pursuant to 230.88 (A) of the HBZSO (Attachment 2.2)
There is-an existing pool in the rear yard which is enclosed by a fifty seven (57) foot long, six (6) foot
high combination retaining/block and wrought iron wall and eighteen (18) light fixtures, located at the top
of the rear yard slope. The applicant proposes to remove forty (40) linear feet of the wall and construct of
a new eight(8) foot high stuccoed retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot high wrought iron fence and
five (5), eighteen(18) inch light fixtures, for a combined height of twelve (12)feet and six (6) inches.
Seventeen(17) linear feet of the existing six(6) foot high combination wall will remain at the top of the
slope in the present height at the north side of the property.
4' The new wall will be forty (40) linear feet and extend ten (10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-grade staircase
will be located on the south side of the rear yard slope. Two (2),twelve (12) foot and six(6) inch high
matching returns (wing walls) consisting of block and wrought iron will be located on the north and south
sides of the wall.
The subject property is in located in Huntington Harbour on a raised inner triangle on Gilbert Island. The
front of the property faces Wellington Drive (cul-de-sac) and the rear property faces Gilbert Drive. The
pool is located on the level portion of the rear yard and is currently enclosed with a combination
block/retaining wall and wrought iron fence; the remainder of the yard slopes down towards Gilbert Drive.
The applicant has requested to remove a portion of the existing combination retaining/block wall at the top
of the rear yard slope, and construct a new combination block/retaining and wrought iron wall
(Attachment No. 6)for the following reasons:
Provide adequate and safer deck space on the west side (street side) of the lap pool.
Remove a portion of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall and construct a new wall to
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of the at-grade pool deck/patio area in the rear property.
Enjoy additional sunlight on the pool deck, since the pool deck adjacent to the home is shaded by the
roofline of the residence.
Replace the at-grade staircase on slope to continue maintenance of the planted slope area and the.
planter in the public right-of-way.
Staff Report-4/28/98 3 (98SR25)
Zoning Administrator Action:
On January 21, 1998, the Zoning Administrator approved the project with conditions. The Zoning
Administrator approved the project based upon the findings that the new wall and the expansion of the at-
grade deck and wall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the
vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since the
proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable
for this type of development(Attachment No. 4). The combination retaining/block wall and wrought iron
fence located within the rear yard setback will be compatible with surrounding uses because there are
decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties (Attachment 3.1) Furthermore, the combination
retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and the applicant will provide bermed
landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
Appeal.
The decision of the Zoning Administrator's action was appealed by Ms. Cohen et al (Gilbert Island
Homeowners) with seven(7) letters in opposition and an accompanying petition of 24 signatures, on
February 2, 1998 (Attachment No. 5). The appellants are in opposition with the findings of approval for
the conditional use permit and coastal development permit for the following reasons:
Engineer has determined that project will destabilize soil, endangering Cohen foundation(adjacent
property at 3481 Gilbert Drive).
The structure will be an eyesore which will obstruct view, air and light.
Expanded pool use will add to existing noise problems which have been a nuisance.
The new wall.would devalue the property, degrade the greenbelt, and set a precedent for further
encroachments on the slope
ISSUES:
General Plan Conformance:
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and the Land
Use Element designation of Low Density Residential Coastal Zone (RL-CZ) on the subject property. The
subject property is required to maintain a minimum ten(10) foot rear setback, and the proposed
combination block/wrought iron wall will maintain a seven(7) foot and nine (9) inches from the rear
property line adjacent to the inside of the sidewalk,at the toe of the slope. However,the wall would
maintain a total setback of seventeen(17) feet and nine (9) inches from the curb face (Gilbert Drive),
since there is a four(4) foot sidewalk and a six(6) foot wide planter between the rear property line and the
street. In addition, the slope adjacent to the new wall would be planted. The proposed project will comply
with the following General Plan policies:
a. Require that all non-residential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be
compatible with and convey the visual scale and character of residential structures (LU 9.3.3).
b. Ensure that structures and sites are designed and constructed to maintain their long-term quality(LU
4.2).
Staff Report-4/28/98 4 (98SR25)
Zoning Compliance:
t This project is located in the Low Density Residential Coastal Zone (RL-CZ) district. This district allows
for single family residential. The following is a zoning conformance matrix, which compares the proposed
project with the development standards of Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone:
SECTION ISSUE„� ,CODE PROVISION PROPOSED
210.06 Permitted Uses Single Family Residential Single Family Residence
Minimum Parcel Size 6,000 square feet 6,500 square feet
Minimum Frontage 45 feet 35 feet
Maximum Site 50% 31%
Coverage
Minimum Front Yard 12 feet 45 feet
Setback
Minimum Interior Side 5 feet 5 feet(south)
Yard 17 feet(north)
Minimum Rear Yard 10 feet 7`- 9" from rear property line
17'-9" from curb face (Gilbert
Drive)
230.88 Fence or Wall Height 6 feet 12 ft. and 6 inches combined:
8' block/retaining
3' wrought iron
18" light fixtures
*Conditional Use Permit
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Coastal Status:
The proposed project is located within the appealable portion of the Coastal Zone and pursuant to Section
245.06 of the HBZSO, this project requires a Coastal Development Permit.
Redevelopment Status: Not applicable.
Subdivision Committee: Not applicable.
Other Departments Concerns:
The Departments of Public Works and Fire, and Building Division have recommended conditions which
are incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Police Department has no concerns.
Staff Report-4/28/98 5 (98SR25)
Public Notilcation:
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on April 14, 1998, and
notices were sent to 45 property owners of record within a 300-ft. radius of the subject property, the
applicant, and 44 interested parties.
ANALYSIS:
There are two (2)primary issues with the proposed request: land use compatibility and circumstances of
the subject lot.
Compatibility
Staff does not believe that the project will impinge on the privacy, obstruct views, light, and air of the
adjacent property owners or negatively affect the appearance of the neighborhood. The proposed
combination block/retaining wall and %Tought iron fence within the rear yard setback will not directly
impact any living area of the adjacent properties. The new combination retaining/block wall and at-grade
pool deck expansion will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the
vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since the
proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable
for this type of development. According to the appellant,there has been noise disturbance from the
subject property in the past, and there is concern that the expanded pool deck will increase the people and
noise from the property. Staff does not feel that the deck expansion and new wall will result irrand
increase at noise in the property and the Police Department has indicated that they have not received any
complaints regarding noise or other disturbances at the site.
The proposed wall will be located adjacent to the staircase leading to the front entry and planted slope
area of property to the south of the site (3481 Gilbert Drive), which is a split level home with a garage on
the street level and living area on the second and third levels. The retaining/block wall located within the
rear yard, will be compatible with surrounding uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations
on adjacent properties and the new wall will be stuccoed to match the residence and bermed landscaping
will be installed to improve the aesthetics of the street. In addition, the appellant's concern about soil
destabilization will be addressed, since the applicant will be required to submit plans and design
calculations, which are stamped by a registered civil engineer for review and approval of the combination
block/retaining wall by the Building and Safety Division.
The applicant notes that there are six(6)properties in the immediate vicinity that have deck and wall
structures which exceed the six(6) foot height limit and/or located in the rear yard slope(see Attachment
No. 3). These properties are on Gilbert Island and in close proximity of the subject site. Staff found that
all but one of the structures have been permitted by the City(records are unavailable for one site). The
Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association(HHPOA) is in support of the project and recommends
approval of the Conditional Use Permit request(Attachment No. 8). The Zoning Administrator and the
Harbour Association have approved similar requests in the City for combination block/retaining walls
exceeding six(6) feet in height, which are constructed to increase the usable rear yard area, and located on
sloping yards abutting a street. Staff does not believe that the proposed combination wall would not set a
precedent for development on the hillside/greenbelt and would be consistent with development of decks
and walls in the immediate neighborhood. The property owner at 16632 Gilbert Drive submitted a letter
indicating that the project is compatible with other yard extensions which have been allowed to be
developed in the neighborhood. (Attachment No. 7).
Staff Report-4/28/98 6 (98SR25)
Circumstances of Subject Lot
RL zoned properties in the Huntington Beach are typically pad lots with level front and rear yard areas.
The existing residence and pool are located on the level area of the lot and portion of the rear yard slopes
downward toward Gilbert Drive. The subject property was developed with a pool in the rear yard and the.
only way to increase the usable rear yard area and expand the at-grade pool deck, is to allow a retaining
wall within the rear yard slope. The applicant proposes to remove forty (40) linear feet of the existing
fifty-seven(57) foot, long and six (6) foot high retaining/block and wrought iron wall.
The new wall will be located seven(7) feet and nine (9) inches from the rear property line (toe of the
slope) inside of the sidewalk, adjacent to Gilbert Drive (Attachment No. 2). However, the wall will
maintain a total of seventeen(17) feet and nine (9) inches from the street; since there is a four(4) foot
wide sidewalk at the toe of the rear yard and a six(6) foot wide planter, adjacent to the curb face on
Gilbert Drive. Additionally, the applicant proposes to install bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics
of the wall, and the two 10 to 12 foot high palms located in the planter adjacent to Gilbert Drive right-of-
way, will also provide screening of the new wall.
S i i IARY:
Staff feels that the proposed project will result in ample open space and parking, and the proposed design
of the wall will be compatible with the neighborhood character. The wall will be insubstantial compliance
with the Land Use Guidelines and the Coastal Element of the General Plan.
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the
following reasons:
• The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, incorporating a creative
design that results in an attractive and viable residential area.
• The project is consistent with the objectives of the RL-CZ standards of the code in achieving a
development that has an integrated design which properly adapts the development to the surrounding
terrain and uses in the area
The project will not be detrimental to the general health,welfare and safety, nor detrimental to the
value of the improvements in the area because since the addition/remodel are designed to integrate
with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable for this type of development
The project provides good land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types
of architecture, landscaping,perimeter walls, site layout and design.
The wall is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and combination block/retaining walls
have been approved for similarly zoned lots with sloping rear yards.
Staff Report-4/28/98 7 (98SR25)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings and Suggested Conditions for Approval
2. Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations dated April 9, 1998
3. Narrative
4. Zoning Administrator Notice of Action for Approval.
5. Appeal Letters and Petition with Signatures
6. Applicant's Letters
7. Letter in Support of Project
8. Huntington Harbour Architectural Committee Letter dated Dec. 6, 1997
Staff Report-4/28/98 8 (98SR25)
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83/
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.97-33:
1. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 to permit the construction of an eight (8) foot high
retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot high wrought iron fence and eighteen (8) inch light fixtures
above the retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six(6) inches, in lieu of a
six (6) foot high wall, within the rear setback area, approximately eight(8) feet from the rear property
line. The new wall will be forty(40) feet in length and will extend(10) feet into the rear yard slope
and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. The deck
extension and wall will conform with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The
proposed deck extension and wall will not impact public views or access to coastal resources as none
exist at the site.
2. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,
the base zoning district, as well as other provisions of the Municipal Code applicable to the property.
The proposed development will conform with all applicable City Codes as allowed by the conditional
use permit.
3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner
that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure currently exist at the site.
4. The proposed wall conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
California Coastal Act. The development will not adversely impact public views or public access.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of an eight (8)
foot high retaining/block wall with a three (3) foot high wrought iron fence and light fixtures above
the retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve (12) feet and six(6) inches, in lieu of a six
(6) foot high wall,within the rear setback area, approximately eight(8) feet from the rear property.
The new wall will be forty (40) feet in length and will extend (10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. The deck extension and
wall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor
detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since the proposed
wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable for this
type of development.
(98SR25)-4/28/98 Attachment 1.1
2. The deck and retaining/blockwall located within the rear yard setback will be compatible with
surrounding uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent properties.
Furthermore, the retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and provided with
bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
3. The proposed combination block/retaining 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 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be
located. The structure will be in conformance with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with the
approval of the 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 Low Density Residential on the subject property. In
addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
a. Require that non-residential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be
compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures
(LU 0.3).
b. Ensure that structures and sites are designed and constructed to maintain their long-term quality
(LU 4.2).
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 97-83/
COASTAL PERMIT NO. 97-33:
1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated October 23, 1997, shall be the
conceptually approved layout with the following modifications:
a. 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.
b. The 18-inch high light fixtures located above the wrought iron fence shall have a dimmer switch.
c. The eight foot(8) foot high combination retaining/block wall shall be stuccoed and painted to
match the on-site residence and shall be screened with berming and landscaping.
d. The rise and run of the stairs shall be constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code
requirements.
I
i
(98SR25)-4/28/98 Attachment 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 the
working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical,
mechanical and plumbing).
b. Submit design calculations for the retaining wall, which includes any possible surcharge from the
pool deck.
c. Shade in the area of all new work on the site plan.
d. Provide the details for the new stairs, handrails and guardrails.
e. Show the path of the retaining wall drainage on the site plan.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed:
a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for
review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of Community
Development.
b. A Landscape planting and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
and approved by the Departments of Public Works. The Landscape plan shall address
improvements to be made in the rear yard from the pool to Gilbert Drive and shall include type
and location of shrubs to be planted to screen the wall. The landscape plans shall be in
conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design
Guidelines. (PW) (Code Requirement)
c. The foundation for the retaining wall shall have a reverse footing (i.e. not from the exposed face of
the wall) unless the rear slope has a minimum of 42"of earth above the footing facing the street
(Gilbert Drive) to allow for roots and drainage.
4. All landscape planting and irrigation shall be completed prior to final building inspection.
5. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied
with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan
and elevations are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued
until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for
conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the
proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by
the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO.
(98SR25)-4/28/98 Attachment 1.3
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 shall not become
effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 shall become null
and void unless exercised within one year of the-dafe of final approval or such extension of time as
may be granted by the Director pursuant to.a written request submitted to the Department_ of
Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date.
3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33,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. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code,Building
Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances,
and standards, except as noted herein.
5. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be
prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays.
6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 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 Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the
Zoning Administrator's action.
(98SR25)-4/28/98 Attachment 1.4
FROM L'IMAGE ENTERPRISES 714 637-7557 04-09-98 11:44AM TO 3741540 a7 P,3/3
Cr12TINa 31 GATE Cxtttwc
W.I. RAIL m rill
— 1 V] rCN
: CTNG TO FiaTCH f[iSTTNr
N i cr 1 trSGHT
EYISTIMG v VV .
,I{+'n
PP�SED VALE � —
W VISAMC ARDVC SLOP£ I
--- Ib TDP Cr rS=TTNG VALL 0' A=vr,
SEEPS //� IUL ty SLOPE
SLOP£TO DC PLANTCD 7 NCV VCLL TO PATLTI
MCC Vi£v
Pil J
Wl W Lj14S 7 VuLl VNL AoIL
C�lSTinr,
OKam LW SLlpL
.a�cns
e.is VnLC
REMOVE DISTING V4LL yD i..•• —
A:tl4�T0
Con"sm
µ
P/L
L.usitNG P7,
u5,
r+ra+rr+
Or • et
TA a"»
/ PRUPOSED BFCK FORS MR. & MRS. K. TAYLOR
16661 WELLINGTON DR.
/ HUN I INGTEIN BEACH
562 592-5090
DESIGN R 1 RAY HARKER FOOL C UNSULTANT
5333 RURAI RIDGC CIR.
ANAHLLM. CA. 92807 637-2308
111,5
ATTACHMENT NO.�,- )
EXISTING 5' _ATE EXISTING EXISTING
-
a 3 VA.
W.I. PAIL
U141 FENCING TO MATCN EXlsT:4u
li �I _ I ( _ j FENCE HEIGHT
EXISTING- WAL 3�
PROPOSED WAL_- _d
9' V!S48LE ABOVE SLOPE � Ip! �
_ . TOP OF EXIST[11I,; VAr_L I3'.ABOVE
TO_ IF SLOPE
STEPS SLOPE TO BE PLANTED y���� NEW WALL TO 4ATGH
FACE VIEW
.�en Gl�>=S�Rr bR I �e
o i
;� i cal:snl,r s:oE vAUc � 57'
1 P/L
I PQC?3SE4 STAIRS
" 1 � /D PROPCSED
' 1 VI W/ L:TE4 /�v� IIANDfi41L� 'WALL W/'41.1. RAIL
� E:cfSTfM:;
POl]L3' ;
1.5�; ;LOP=
ID
/
1.t FI Ii.E S10E WA'_K
rTl �
Z REMOVE EXISTING WALL
Ij .2TUIG UU—CLMING L LATCJ+6 GATE SI]E VIEV
Z ( PLA41ER EKISIUG POOL
0
7 August 1997
To: Huntington Beach Planning Department
From: Darrach G. &Delores A.Taylor
16661 Wellington Drive rG Z
Hn on Beach,CA 92649
u i
})—S-qz-,Sogo
Subject: Narrative for Pool Deck Extension Concept
Our property is located on the raised inner triangle of land comprising three cul de sacs of homes on
Gilbert Island in Huntington Harbour.
The proposed concrete pool deck extension- 10'X 4 0' (avg) or 400 square feet-is needed to provide
adequate and somewhat safer space around the lap pool for use by family and/or friends,always in discreet
numbers,and to add time to the afternoon sunlight which is presently cut off by the roof line early in the
afternoon.
Presently,the entire rear patio area is 23' (avg)X 59' including the 14' (avg)X 42'pool/spa,and
approximately another 10'X 12' equivalent space for permanent trees and planter areas and garden
window,leaving about 600 square feet for'people area', long and narrow. (See photo nos. 1-6).The
proposed deck on the opposite side of the pool would add about 400 square feet(10 X40 avg).The hillside
- 17.5'X 59' -has little use or purpose, is covered with ice plant because the soil(from original
dredging) is so poor and requires considerable maintenance. Stairs are proposed to the sidewalk to replace
the current ones for access for continued maintenance of a smaller area of hillside and parkway ice plant
as well as sidewalk and gutter.
The retaining wall would be stuccoed and painted to match house and planter areas. The wall would be
capped with bull nose brick to match existing decor,and the wrought iron fence and post lights would be
retained. All would enhance the property's appearance from the neighbors'perspective.
This extension would merely replicate,and in some cases in more finished fashion,what other property
owners have done over the years on the hillsides on thus inner Gilbert Island triangle.The following
appear to be comparable extensions or variances with referenced photos,starting first with the views of
the neighbors on either side of our property:
1). 16672 Wellington Drive (photo nos.7-10)
Wooden patio 11'from sidewalk and pool deck wall 13'from sidewalk on Gilbert Drive.
2). 3481 Gilbert Drive (photo nos..11-13)
Raised property line wall 9'from sidewalk..
3). 16502 Mariana Circle (photo nos. 14-16)
Pool deck 6'from sidewalk on Somerset Drive;stairs and railing to sidewalk.
Adjacent house, 16491 Somerset Drive,is 11'from sidewalk.
4) 16521 Mariana Circle (photo nos. 17-19)
Pool machinery deckhvall installed 7'from sidewalk on Peale;patio/pool extends to 10'from
sidewalk(57' long).
5). 16641 Melville Circle (photo nos. 20-22)
Wooden patio is 12'from sidewalk on Peale.
,�TTACN�-Ii 0,'1ENT NO. !
Page 2.(Continued)
6). 16651 Melville Circle (photo no.22)
Glassed in patio.12'from sidewalk on Peale,extends 60'with high bushes to sidewalk full length of
property-
Finally,the hillside on Gilbert Drive for our property showing where the proposed extension would be
constructed,about T from the sidewalk. (photo nos. 23-26)
Your concurre<with concept will be appreciated.
, TT AC'r{�1!ENT NO. 3-
Ewa 0
OFFICE of the ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • CALIFORNIA
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
(714) 536-5271
NOTICE OF ACTION
January 21, 1998
PETITION DOCUMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83/COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERINnT NO.97-33 (TAYLOR
RESIDENCE)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Darrach Taylor, 16661 Wellington Drive,Huntington Beach, CA
92649
REQUEST: To construct an eight(8) foot high retaining/block wall with a four
(4)foot high wrought iron fence and light fixtures above the block
wall for a combined height of twelve (12)feet, in lieu of a six(6)
foot high wall,within the rear setback area, approximately eight(8)
feet from the rear property. The new wall will be forty(40)feet in
length and will extend(10) feet into the rear yard slope and will
accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade
pool deck.
LOCATION: 16661 Wellington(east of Pacific Coast Highway and north of
Gilbert Drive)
PROJECT PLANNER: Kim Klopfenstein
Dear Applicant:
Your application was acted upon by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Huntington Beach
on January 21, 1998, and your request was Conditionally proved. Included in this letter are
the Conditions of Approval for this application.
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance,the action
taken by the Zoning Administrator is final unless an appeal is filed to the Planning Commission
by you or by an interested party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the
action and grounds by which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said
appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00)if the appeal is
• filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and
Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. The appeal shall be
submitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within ten(10) calendar days of the date
of the Zoning Administrator's action.
ATTACHMENT N0. -�
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83/
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33
Page No. 2
The last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee for the above noted application is
February 2, 1998.
Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any
application becomes null and void one(1)year after the final approval,unless actual construction
has begun.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERbUT NO. 97-33:
1. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 to permit the construction of an eight(8)foot high
retaining/block wall with a four(4)foot high wrought iron fence and light fixtures above the
retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve (12)feet, in lieu of a six(6) foot high
wall,within the rear setback area,approximately eight(8)feet from the rear property lime.
The new wall will be forty(40)feet in length and will extend(10) feet into the rear yard
slope and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck.
The deck extension and wall will conform with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal
Program. The proposed deck extension and wall will not impact public views or access to
coastal resources as none exist at the site.
2. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 is consistent with the requirements of the CZ
Overlay District,the base zoning district, as well as other provisions of the Municipal Code
applicable to the property. The proposed development will conform with all applicable City
Codes as allowed by the conditional use permit.
3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a
manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure currently exist at
the site.
4. The proposed wall conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter
3 of the California Coastal Act. The development will not adversely impact public views or
public access.
�TTAC WAI E NT NO.
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83/
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33
Page No. 3
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 97-83:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 for the establishment,maintenance and operation of an
eight(8) foot high retaining/block wall with a four(4) foot high wrought iron fence and light
fixtures above the retaining/block wall for a combined height of twelve (12)feet, in lieu of a
six(6) foot high wall,within the rear setback area, approximately eight (8) feet from the rear
property.The new wall will be forty(40) feet in length and will extend(10)feet into the rear.
yard slope and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool
deck. The deck extension and wall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons
working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and
improvements in the neighborhood since the proposed wall is designed to integrate with the
existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable for this type of development.
2. The deck and retaing/blockwall located within the rear yard setback,will be compatible with
surrounding uses because there are decks and walls in similar locations on adjacent
properties. Furthermore, the retaining/blockwall will be stuccoed to match the residence and
provided with bermed landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the street.
3. The proposed combination block/retaining will 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 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district
in which it would be located. The structure will be in conformance with the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance with the approval of the 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 Low Density Residential on the subject
property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General
Plan:
a. Require that non residential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be
designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of
residential structures (LU 9.3.3).
b. Ensure that structures and sites are designed and constructed to maintain their long-term
quality(LU 4.2).
AT TACHMENT NO.
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83/
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33
Page No. 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83/COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-33: .�..
1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated October 23, 1997, shall be the
conceptually approved layout with the following modifications:
a. 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.
b. The lights located above the wrought iron fence shall have a dimmer switch.
c. The eight foot high retaining/block wall shall be stuccoed and painted to match the
residence and shall be screened with berming and landscaping.
d. The rise and run of the stairs shall be constructed in compliance with the Uniform
Building Code requirements.
2: Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be.completed:
a.• Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover page of
all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural,
structural, electrical,mechanical and plumbing).
b. Submit design calculations for the retaining wall which includes any possible surcharge
from the pool deck.
c. Shade in the area of all new work on the site plan.
d. Provide the details for the new stairs,handrails and guardrails.
e. Show the path of the retaining wall drainage on the site plan.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed:
a. Submit copy of the revised site plan,floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No.
1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of
Community Development.
ATTAN"FN N0.
C
J
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83/
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33
Page No. 5
b. A.Landscape planting and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public
Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works. The Landscape plan shall
address improvements to be made in the rear yard from the pool to Gilbert Drive and
shall include type and location of shrubs to be planted to screen the wall. The landscape
plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
and applicable Design Guidelines. (P`V) (Code Requirement)
c. The foundation for the retaining wall shall have a reverse footing (i.e. not from the
exposed face of the wall)unless the rear slope has a minimum of 42"of earth above the
footing facing the street(Gilbert Drive)to allow for roots and drainage.
d.. All landscape planting and irrigation shall be completed prior to final building
inspection/within 12 months of approval of the project.
e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and
verified by the Community Development Department.
f. 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.
4. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are
complied with. The Community Development 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 Community Development 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.
PfFORMATIQN ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREiy1E`"TS:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 shall not
become effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33 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 Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration
date.
ATTACF1 MEN,s T N0. _
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83/
Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33
Page No. 6
3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke_Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83
and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33,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. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code,
Building Division, and Fire Department as well as-applicable local, State and Federal Fire
Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein.
5. Construction shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction
shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays.
6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice
of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to
the Countyof Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development
within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action.
The Department of Community Development will perform a comprehensive plan check relating
to all Municipal Code requirements upon submittal of your completed structural drawings.
Please be advised that the Zoning Administrator reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request
for entitlement of the use applied for in relation to the vicinity in which it is proposed. The
conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan reflecting conformance to all Code
requirements.
It is recommended that you immediately pursue completion of the Conditions of Approval and
address all requirements of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code in order to expedite the
processing of your total application.
I hereby certify that Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-
33 were Conditionally Approved by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on January 21, 1998,upon the foregoing conditions and citations.
jVeL, truly yo s,
Herb Fauland
Zoning Administrator
HF:KK:kjl
ATTACHMENT NO. �,C
r'-
i
Michael Todaro
Attorney at Law
Also Member State Bar of Teaa
Oceangate Tower Liberty Bank Tower
100 Oceangate Suite 1200 17011 Beach Blvd Suite 900
Lon-Beach,CA 90802 i Hundn9t3-3 Bca_'i,C k 92647.
Ph(562)628-5522 Ph(714)375-6616
Fz(562)628-5599 Fz(714)%3-1250
2/2/98 ----
Huntington Beach Office of the Zoning Administrator
Room B-6 Civic Center
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
Re: Permit Nos: 97-83 a 97-33 ( Taylor Residence )
Appeal of Naomi Cohen et al with exhibits 1 ( petition ), 2 ( photos ), 3 ( letters )
Ms. Cohen and attached petitioners object for many reasons Including the following:
I. Engineer has determined project will destabilize soil, endangering Cohen foundation.
2. The structure will be an eyesore which will obstruct view, air, and light,essentially
burying Ms. Cohen.
3. Expanded pool use will add to existing noise problems which have already been a
nuisance day and night. Bedroom window is directly above pool and police have had to
come at 2 A.M. for loud noise.
4. Permitting this invasion of the greenbelt could set a precedent for further
encroachments In the future by residents backing on Gilbert.
All things considered, this will devalue the property approximately $100,000.00 and will
affect the others facing Gilbert in similar fashion.
One man has drowned out the voices of over two dozen residents in a ruling which clearly
flies in the face of all four paragraphs of Its own findings re: # 97-33. We respectfully
request these permits be denied, or, at the very least, be postponed pending further
analysis.
Thanks.
G'Z G i
Michael Todaro Naomi Cohen
a"j i t1�11 i}`l i t�V� 1`10 �--
PETITION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.97-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.97-
33 (TAYLOR RESIDENCE).
I the undersigned, hereby strenously objects to the construction of a 12-foot concrete
block'wall with a fence on top and the removal of the existing landscaping for the"
following reasons:
1. The concrete wall will create a NON-CONFORMING CONDITION which
may ultimately start numerous other homes to do the same.
2. Gilbert Island is sadly lacking in landscape and planted areas. This wall will
cause an interruption in the original planted sloping hillside design.
I, therefore respectfully request that the Homeowners request for a zoning variance be
denied.
9-�
.� NAME ADDRESS DATE
79
rr,
Lit
GCy-J- So i�-r ^,a I - ! Cl - $
o -
L4
op
2111L(
e -
'f-?L5D tat I� ?0-2 C L
z
�z < u"rzpq- - l- t9-98
c n
in 56d., �;Y/
I O'� �i,,
?j 5 L2
� ' � TN
r�
I
r mo
!r;k---/11i M- .PO-,,
•F'
��M—So
ram_ ��
i►.-./ill%--!�'-
!W%
_ f�.
Y
•
01/20/1998 13:42 7149E SANCON ENGI AG PAGE 02
I
PETITION
CONDITIONAL USE PER MT Kf'''07-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.97-
33 (TAYLOR RESIDENCE".
I the undersigned, hereby'�ise Iyr objects to th®' nstcuctiori: of a 12 foot concrete
block wall with a fence on'.#op ghe removal of the existing landscaping for the
following reasons:
ate a NI�1tING CONDITION wh;ch
. The concrete °v lC _O N:Cb. POR
may ultimately $tart n' ous other homes to do the same.
2. G.ilbert Island 18 dly cIng +n landscapo and:planted areas. This wall will
cause an interrupj.F66. �' ie original punted sloping hillside design.
I, therefore respectfully r Wl the Homeowners request for a toning variance be
den led. .
E ADDRESS
! NA DATE
. - Z29 -�
N.
A e;. ZA --4- f— fq — A
f
T NO- ,�i
l
ATTACH M1 E N
is d , , �-•,� ..:�a: -. . :�:�n= . ._ . __. _ . . . -� _...
PETITION
1
I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.97-83ICOASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT N0.97-
1 33 (TAYLOR RESIDENCE),
1 the undersigned.hereby strenously objects to the ccrstruction of a 12 toot concrete
block wail with a fence an top and iris removal ci the wdst sg landscaping for the,
E fclkWng reasons:
I. The concrete wail will create a NON-CONFORMING CONDITION which
{. may uit nately Start numerous other homes to do the same.
t 2. Gibert Island is sadly tacking in landscape and planted areas. This wall will
cause an interruption In the original planted sloping hilLside design.
1,therefore rev=futly request that the Homeowners request For a zoning variance be
denied.
1
NAME DATE
E r- 1446
: ._..� ZZ., 5Qm F7�' r t _rib'
i
f
i
. I
I
TOTAL P.01
ACH�%Ayf--NT NO. ,
JAM-21-Se 11 . 15 FROM.FE DEPT. ID.2 f 69 PAGE
Ll
PE'.TON
F�4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.97-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT N0.97-
33 r.FAYLOR RESIDENCE). '
I the undersigned, hereby strenously objects to the construction of a 12 foot concrete i
block waU with a fence on top and the removal of the existing landscaping for the i
following reasons:
1. The concrete wall will create a NON-CONFORMING CONDITION �vhi�h
may ultimately start numerous other homes to do the same.
2. Gilbert Island is sadly lacking in landscape and planted areas. This wall will I
cause an interruption in the original planted sloping hillside design.
I, therefore respectfully request that the Homeowners request for a zoning variance be I
denied.
' 1
NAME ADDRESS -DATE i
i
a <G: GC oM ma
6rA �L. �. i e r /l r` / "`
��-�id�- -
3 rli 1
Y v
i
1
';ACHINI NT NO.
CIA
- - = ��;+�t�i✓s'1�� icy; ctl �z ��5
s U 13 ,)Ca-t- q2 U(l'Z / T, Cam'�""c-�iV 62, (ic/iit LS
Aa CZ/1 UCH y y��%J �"TO�fiivztF-
t-yI�CN t-- W/)-s 7::-:l p-s-l- 9 w /.-T, 14-N D C U v y L-p
lictVf N 5-
02/02/1998 11:07 . 7148912524 SANCON ENGINE�4ING PAGE 0
February 2, 1998
Nick DiBenedetto
16526 Somerset Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
City of Huntington Beach ;.
Planning Commission
RE: .Conditional Use Pernit 183
Dear Commissioners:
The construction oft retaiig wall within the landscape slope on Gilbert Drive
would be an unsightly cba*t6'- aesthetics of the-neighborhood.
I am in opposition of,yvur`MWoval of the cop.. itional permit.
Sincerely,
L �
Nick DiBenedetto
ATTACHMENT NO. - �
4ffZ
` .. e�7
cor
IMENri NO.
3472 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach 92649
January 30 , 1988
Re:Conditional Use Permit 97-83
To the Planning Commission of Huntington Beach:
We are protesting the planning staff ' s approval of this
Conditional Use Permit partly on the grounds that the
required notice sent to residents within the 300 foot
notification area was inadequate and misleading. The project
is to build a walled structure, fill the enclosure with dirt
and pave over it with concrete and enclose it ' with a wrought
iron fence . This will enlarge the back yaard patio and bring
it closer to the street.
This structure along with the cement stairway to the street
will eliminate a large area of the green hillside which is a
valued and beautiful feature of the entire tract. This green
area has been maintained on the Gilbert Drive side of the
hill except for the two houses which of necessity front on
Gilbert and at the corner of Gilbert and Peale because they
are land-locked above.
The staff' s suggested findings for approval cannot be applied
to this- project. The findings claim that the "proposed wall"
will integrate with the existing neighborhood and will not be
detrimental to property values. They also claim that "the •
wall" will improve the aesthetics of the street . The greatest
threat presented by this building project is that it will set
a new low for the development of other properties on the
hill . Pursued over the years this will destroy the green belt
which is a distinctive and valued feature of the area, a
source of pleasure not only to the locals but to all who
drive or walk about the area. This is a large price to pay
for the aggrandizement of one resident.
Yours truly,
Robert and Mildred. Helfer
`c
� T►nc�-ir�=NT NO. �(�
acn
I tit ��i, 9tl,�{9►
4�,
Lv
a
/LLj �jC�r !/� ����•GC� /� Q�� //L�' /�-•�'�•�/ B(.Cr97l�tQ—
cL�C� .tat 1;)a 4e, 04 c;¢
3522 Gilbert Drive
Hunt ington._Beach, California
92649
To:
City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission-
Reference to conditional :use permit :.
Granted to D.G. Taylor.
16661 Wellington Drive
Huntington Beach, California
92649
We strongly object to the construction of an 8 foot wall
plus 4 feet of wrought iron on top of that with a combined
total of 12 feet within 8 feet of the public sidewalk on
.the residential street Gilbert Drive . From our vantage
point tthis amounts to a 12 foot "fence" . We feel this would
be very unattractive , not in harmony with all property
along Gilbert Drive and jeopardize our property values .
.we understand that Mr. Taylor claims to have worked with
the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association with
his plans. We are members of this organization directly
effected by this 12 foot "fencer . We were never informed
by this organization, that they worked or were working with
this individual to get permission to not follow codes
*which have a direct effect on their members along Gilbert
Drive .
Sincerely,
A71 ACHMIENT N0. ��
D.G. (RICK) TAYLOR
16661 Wellington Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
23 April 1998
To: Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners
Livengood (Ch) Tillotson (VCh)
Chapman Biddle
Speaker Inglee
Kerins
Subject : Approved CUP 97-83 ( Taylor)
In my remarks at the forthcoming 28 April 1998 hearing concerning a
neighbor's appeal of my approved insignificant project, I would like to take
the high road and avoid nastiness and recrimination, notwithstanding what
you might hear, and simply operate on the premise that we really have the
right to improve our property provided what we do meets the standards, it is
compatible with the neighborhood and it is aesthetically sound. We care
about our neighborhood, more than many, and believe we meet these tests.
You would also discover that we are considerate neighbors who maintain our
property.
We have attached both communications to all Gilbert Island residents, which
I think will speak for themselves. We have unfortunately a very difficult
neighbor who is the primary appellant. We also have the original petitioner
who is not a Gilbert Island resident, and who has obtained approval to build a
three story home, in excess of the CC&R height limitations, which is
presently under construction. It's like he's got his, now the rest of us should
maintain a greenbelt solely for his benefit. We have another long time
neighbor and letter writer who decries the loss of green space, yet planted his
own parkway in concrete!
We are certain that you run into this sort of thing all the time. Our island has
93 homes, two-thirds waterfront which were virtually all single story at the
outset, giving the inner and higher level homes great views. We, for instance
at one time, could see the ocean at Bolsa Chica State Beach, but in the normal
ATTACHMENT NO. ,
2
course of events, we get to look across the street at a gigantic house. That
is only proper for an owner; we knew it when we moved here and opted
not to buy a waterfront home, then or later. Roughly half the waterfront
homes are now two or more stories and the rest will obviously go up over
the next few years. Without provoking a fight between the waterfront
home owners, and those on the inner circle, it should simply be sufficient
to allow reasonable property use for all residents.
We seek only your prompt denial of the appeal, and to provide us with the
opportunity to build in time for summer, which the Zoning Administrator
and the HI POA approved.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
�—t
Attach
D.G. (RICK) TAYLOR
16661 Wellington Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
(562)592-5090
23 April 1998
Re: Approved CUP #97-83
Pool Deck Extension
Dear Gilbert Island Neighbor,
On 23 January, we wrote to you concerning our approved pool deck extension and a
possible appeal which has in fact materialized. We regret having to bother you again with
this really insignificant project, but it does have some bearing on owners' rights to develop
and utilize property in the way they see fit, obviously within the law and regulations, and
being aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood. We think we meet the test.
Our neighbor, Mrs. Naomi Cohen, has alleged, generally, that we will endanger the
foundation of the common line wall, which we won't; will construct an eyesore, which is
specifically what we intend to avoid; will obstruct view, air , and light, which it won't
and isn't covered by the code anyway; and will add to existing noise prohlems, which is a
fiction as we are frequently away, on which she has commented, but in any event are very
normal and considerate people. She has a bedroom window directly above our pool and
says she has had to call the police at 2 AMfor load noise. The facts are that her bedroom
window is equally an intrusive to our privacy, and the single incident in question, over a
very long period, occurred in 1990 when our son Scott had a small group of college
friends over for a swimming party; the policeman said that he was not concerned about
the noise level, but that he had been called. Nevertheless, one party in all those
years........ and I might add that those young men are all Naval Aviators today, including
our son who is in the Mediterranean, on duty for our country.
Additionally, appellants allege that permitting this invasion of the greenbelt could set a
precedent for further encroachment......The precedent has already been set in our
judgment, and we think it is rather amazing that off water home owners, who unhappily
but with prior suspicion, lost or will loose their views, must now maintain the greenbelt in
a fettered manner, paying taxes and maintenance, without the ability to responsibly use
one's property. This is the property rights issue. The remainder of Mrs. Cohen's letter is
emotional nonsense to which we will not respond.
The hearing will be before the full Planning Commission on Tuesday, 28 April 1998 at
7 PM. Since so many of you have called us in support, we would like to ask as many of
you as possible to attend and speak on our behalf as it's also in your interests. Simply
ATTACNI,LNT NO.
-2-
check in on arrival at the City Council Chambers, indicating your interest in speaking on
behalf of the approved CUP 97-83 (TAYLOR). If you cannot attend, please telephone
Kim Klopfenstein, Community Development Dept. (714 / 374 - 1683) prior to the
meeting to express your support.
One further word - the original petition, signed by owners of 17 Gilbert Island homes,
contained the following project description, either in error or intentionally provocative,
"a 12 foot concrete block wall with a fence on top..................... and the added verbiage
suggesting to the sidewalk. We'd sign that petition too. The attached representation
hopefully demonstrates an 8 foot stuccoed wall with about a three foot light wrought iron
fence, 17 feet from the street, with green trees, shrubs, and ice plant. For those of you
who wish to remove your names from that erroneous petition, which is still part of the
record, please call Kim to that effect.
As. we said in our original letter, we have every intention of making this aesthetically
attractive, perhaps a model for those future property usage enhancements, along with the
larger homes being built on our island, increasing value for all. It is each property owner's
obligation to DO IT RIGHT, BUT WITH THE RIGHT TO DO IT. We regret having to
be so direct.
To those of you who are able to help through offering to speak at the 28 April meeting,
who have already written on our behalf, or who call Kim in support, let us thank you in
advance. Also, to all of you, please feel to call us.
Sincerely,
e.l 4--, '
Attach
.. jet
�►': :• .w, .fit s.,sf �'
Jr
h.
t
r;
Y
t
r
W 7 a 7
1,
w•YID
i
r^� ,1
D.G. (RICK) TAYLOR
16661 Wellington Drive
Huntington Beach CA 92649
(562) 592-5090
23 January 1998
Re: Pool Deck Extension
Dear Gilbert Island Neighbor,
Wednesday afternoon, at the close of a public hearing at the City Hall, the Huntington
Beach Zoning Administrator approved our petition for a 400 square foot (approximately
10'X 40') extension of our pool deck area towards the street on the Gilbert Drive. Many
of you did not receive a notice because you live outside the 300 foot notification area
(which is handled by the City), or you heard about it from a non Gilbert Island resident
builder who did not have all the facts, but submitted a petition anyway.
We have now become aware that there will be an appeal attempt with the appellants
apparently sharing the $600 filing fee. Since the City did not do our project description
justice in its notification, we thought we would distribute a letter to all of you. That way,
you would know what our intentions are, as well as what the Zoning Administrator
approved, particularly since they are one and the same, as a result of our working with the
City's Community Development Department and the HH Property Owner's Association.
We, have lived in this home for almost 25 years, have raised two sons here, have steadily
improved our property, both inside and out, from its original rather poor condition, and
care about our neighborhood and its appearance.
We have a very small backyard, and when we built a lap pool in 1989, considered
extending out over the hill on Gilbert Drive. For a number of reasons including our
dissatisfaction with a wooden cantilever design, we did not go forward with the extension
and built the pool within the confines of the existing fencing. We have now settled on a
modest concrete deck extension utilizing only about 400 of the available 1000 square feet.
The block wall will be about 8' in height, only part of the way down the hill and certainly
not on the sidewalk property line. It will be stuccoed and painted to match the house, and
will have a 3-4 foot wrought iron railing on top which will be the same height from the
street level as exists today. The hillside will be re-landscaped, the watering system
adjusted, and bushes of an appropriate height will be planted at the base of the wall. There
will be stairs extending from the existing gate, unobtrusively adjacent to the common
property line black rock wall. We will continue to maintain the parkway ice plant and the
palm trees we planted a few years ago. (See layout on reverse side.)
We have every intention of making this aesthetically attractive, perhaps a model for those
property usage enhancements coming along with the larger homes being built on our
island, increasing value for all. Please support us by not joining the appeal. Thank you.
W.I. RAIL
EX7WALPROPOSED WAI.I
STEPS
SLOPE
FACE VIEW
C=T%NG Sac WALX
57• P/L
PRGM= STAL S
W.1 W/ LITES NANaitAa.
RCTAINING VALL i CCWIMM =XING
Vt FD+CC
SELF-=SD4 LATCHM GTE
PLANTER D=T" PML
P/L
P
SPA,
P/L
EXISTING RESIDENCE Pic
r
April 20, 1998 ?�
9p�
City of Huntington Beach c ?3 �40
Planning Commission 49
2000 Main Street �ij3-
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Ft�oc
Re: Conditional Use permit 97-83 (Taylor)
�FkT
We request that the Permit be granted to Applicant. We also reside on Wellington Drive
and believe that the project is compatible with similar other construction on Gilbert
Island. Each neighbor has,to some extent, suffered a degree of changing views. Six years
ago,only one of five water homes in our direct view were two story. Currently three of
the five are two story and a three story is under construction. Other residents of Gilbert
Island have constructed yard extensions similar to this application.A project that is
consistent with other,previously approved projects, is a compelling reason to approve the
application. This project is certainly more consistent with the neighborhood than the
recently approved three story home.
Yours truly,
Ronald and Geagy
16632 Wellington
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
AiACHMENT NO.:=
i
' �GTON
J� OG
H H December 6, 1997
Architectural Review Committee
�?Y O P..O. Box 791
Sunset Beach. CA 90742-0791
ECE , � ;
DARRACH G TAYLOR E
DEC 0 S 1997
16661 WELLINGTON DRIVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 COM,��UEPA
PAR T,+I S;g7.0r
TY oel" -Op
RE: Property at: 16661 WELLINGTON DRIVE
Approval of Proposed Plans.
Project: 00559 :0183
Dear Property Owner:
The plans submitted to the Committee for the proposed
. project at the referenced property address have been reviewed
by the Committee and found to be consistent with and in
compliance with the intent of the CC&Rs and are therefore ar
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The project is carried out in conformance to the pl;
submitted;
2 . Any significant changes to the plans be submitted t(
the Committee for review prior to execution.
Thank you for helping us keep Huntington Harbour. a specii
place to live by cooperating with our review program. we hop(
you have a successful project.
Jer Urner
ARC Secretary
Architectural Review Committee
Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association,inc.
P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 (714)840-7877 ni ---SST NO.1
7 August 1997
r YC.
To: Huntington Beach Planning Departure t
61
From: Darrach G. &Delores A.Taylor
16661 Wellington Drive .• y �;:•���'
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Subject: Narrative for Pool Deck Extension Concept
Our property is located on the raised inner triangle of land comprising three cul de sacs of homes on
Gilbert Island in Huntington Harbour.
The proposed concrete pool deck extension- 10'X 4 0' (avg) or 400 square feet-is needed to provide
adequate and somewhat safer space around the lap pool for use by family and/or friends,always in discreet
numbers, and to add time to the afternoon sunlight which is presently cut off by the roof line early in the
afternoon.
Presently, the entire rear patio area is 23' (avg)X 59' including the 14' (avg)X 42' pool/spa,and
approximately another 10'X 12' equivalent space for permanent trees and planter areas and garden
window, leaving about 600 square feet for'people area', long and narrow. (See photo nos. 1-6).The
proposed deck on the opposite side of the pool would add about 400 square feet(10 X40 avg).The hillside
- 17.5' X 59' -has little use or purpose, is covered with ice plant because the soil (from original
dredging) is so poor and requires considerable maintenance. Stairs are proposed to the sidewalk to.replace
the current ones for access for continued maintenance of a smaller area of hillside and parkway ice plant
as well as sidewalk and gutter.
The retaining wall would be stuccoed and painted to match house and planter areas. The wall would be
capped with bull nose brick to match existing decor,and the wrought iron fence and post liglits would be
retained. All would enhance the property's appearance from the neighbors' perspective.
This extension would merely replicate,and in some cases in more finished fashion,what other property
owners have done over the years on the hillsides on this inner Gilbert Island triangle. The following
appear to be comparable extensions or variances with referenced photos, starting first with the views of
the neighbors on either side of our property:
1). 16672 Wellington Drive (photo nos.7-10)
Wooden patio I V from sidewalk and pool deck wall 13' from sidewalk on Gilbert Drive.
2). 3481 Gilbert Drive (photo nos. 11-13)
Raised property line wall 9'from sidewalk.
3). 16502 Mariana Circle (photo nos. 14-16)
Pool deck 6' from sidewalk on Somerset Drive;stairs and tailing to sidewalk.
Adjncent house, 16491 Somerset Drive, is I V from sidewalk.
4) 16521 Mariana Circle (photo nos. 17-19) I
Pool machinery deck/wall installed 7' from sidewalk on Peale, patio/pool extends t�
sidewalk (57' long). a X
5). 166.31 Melville Circle (photo nos. 20-22) D ., [TtA'•V
Wooden patio is 12' from sidewalk on Peale.
v� _ :N7
r r
Page 2. (Continued)
6). 16651 Melville Circle (photo no.22)
Glassed in patio 12'from-sidewalk on.Peale,fextends 60'with high bushes to sidewalk full length of
Property
Finally,the hillside on Gilbert Drive for our property showing where the proposed extension would be
constructed,about 7'from the sidewalk. (photo nos. 23-26)
Your concurrence with this proposed concept will be appreciated.
Ot4 HA.�� C
• .:
s>
0
p�O'Pa ,
�- ':TY �'
EXISTING V 1. W 1. RAIL
EXISTING WA-L i
n PRGPOSED WALL
m
N
7
� IIAA�
SLOPE STEPS
IN o`
�
rACE VIEW
o
.• 0 r rycsraa site vKa1c
AROi�EIZ'�� fUIL It
.•• f PA"sn srwa PR[IPCISEB
VALL m V/Vl. RAII.IMA7AMl. I
m EX:STRIG
inPmL9• LSi SLOPE
um-1 REIA911V; V41. L C011CREIC DECKING
vt frrct SIDE WALK
a
m
o O[ISfoG MF-M8SMA LA101114 CAWSIDE V
1 'A
H.Ltf[R txrsrrw raL /f
Ln
m 'w
ItS
0
Z ,
rn PROPOSED DECK FOR, MR. & MRS. R. TAYLOR
16661 WELLINGT❑N DR. F �A
�..
HUNTINGTON BEACH J
562 592-5090
DESIGN BY: RAY HARKER POOL CONSULTANT
5333 RURAL RIDGE CIR.
c3lANAHEIM, CA. 92807 637--2308
EXISTING SIDE VALK
Met TOE OF SLOPE PROPOSED STAIRS
v r .
ti= HANDRAIL
c W.I W/ LITES
RETAINING WALL L CONCRETE DECKING
W.I. FENCE
REMOVE EXISTING WALL
EXISTING SELF-CLOSING L LATCHING GATE
PLANTER EXISTING POOL
P/
P/
ar'r'Ti 1(�('�f '�►�1 SPA
V
3-4
z
o
'/ PROPOSED DE OR: MR. & MRS, R. TAYLOR
x w t arN .
4.1
P
A3
- -- _ ; RA -A ARE ` 02
(SEE 29 AfOTE1 ` ` 30 95 s3,4 7
3
CT 32 31 'a
1' TR � O
o , 6� 28
,2.
RSE LANE
SOME 7 rlo
� W 0 2�
5 84
86 G5� . 85 � 7.
_ 26
UP�jf"4l ✓ ^� O 25
�✓( 1 P WELLINGTON DRIVE a ,00 v�
NviAiN � `� s 0 (1
ram► U u
6O�j109
24
�/J v�WELLINGTON
`4 l v PARK
12
N ^i iCaB ioz' � � 23
/07
r �-
��� 22 0
1A,
i••�• ��rGl`-'� ' ``c� 17 o f e 1 v N 15 20 .
/03 3a 16
J9
o
/0 s
h �F mop C5�/ 78
77 3 o W 18
c Lcr/ s K
69
70
16 :
72 �5j 4 3 so 0
\ .v 73 O NQ 15 J
rs.\or�1 T4 75
76
LOT "C;, �2 / 0 /4 30
TRACT 4499 �� 13 1
NO 4677 � ff
MARCH 197/
Lcr A
TRACT 4677---"-)
—
o w - -5 are,
� 35TR TO
36
/ \ 37 O c
87
\ 38
\ 39 5
40
t 4/ GO � Q
LI�G'f
PRE 43 fi b I i,b �� s( %YEL I
Ge
0
C � O
e e9 R�jG �JG y,Q`ram .b7• dl �a- io;.35'//O
N
a ANA CIRCLE: �o MELV/LLE C/RCe
ARl 3
W
' 3
s,9•� PEAL E �W Or&-i— ✓L�� FE/IC.G W mil. LHN�-
�.,.c�
' '41p44.V9 FO •• f 0 .. .. 5G
o NO. 4 617
23 0 25 26 27 28 O O 31 32 33 O O 3E
�'S5 6350'S6 af- 57 58 59 601 6/ 62 63 64 651 66 67
I
- — wh' RFAGE REA ( EE NO I I
/ PARCEL NUMBERS 178 41
;N CIRCLES 42 ,
NORTH EASTERLY L/NE OF
COT "C TR;.CT 4499.
r
No
u',U�
I I f\JaTw
3�81 L41tzleoor
EXISTING,5'LATE EX 31 W.I. V.I
W.I.
m V.I. RAIL d 1@• _
sI 7j I I ' I i U.1 FE CINC T t1PTCx EiRS w
vAL
EX
I C- 3
PROPOSED VALE- .
9' V:SASLE ABOVE SLOPE
i�Pyfp-p -Vop TOP OF EXISTOri VA6L 13'.ABOVE
STEPS ! J. TOE CF SLOPE
I :_OPE TG B£ PLANTED �ih PIEv VALL TO ygT1
FAZE V1EV
l ra'�G 1 I,�J�c�i N6i o N
. c/
SPA
------------------------
�a rfiRG� Dffx
wF�x>w
' a .
r2seo
-f eF su Te'(AArklI �AtL-
�• - � GIL '1�Lr,? �R �VE RECEIVED
APR 0 91998
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SISAN W. CASE, INC. -Ila e+7 ryLlL4A
` OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE
917 Glenneyre Street, Suite 7,Laguna Beach, CA 92651
PHONE(714)494-6105 FAX(714)494-7418
•16661 WELLINGTON CIR 9971049 0,. 1N Ejg—s t+1
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
178 401 05
300' LISTING
SEPTEMBER 15 1997
178 401 01 1 178 401 02 2 178 401 03 3
Ronald &Genevieve Nagy Rodney Skjonsby John & Dora Kaikainahaole
16632 Wellington Cir 16642 Wellington Cir 16662 Wellington Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92 9 Huntington Beach CA 926 Huntington Beach CA 92649
`178 40104 4 178 401 05 5 178 401 06 6
Charles Shepherd Darrach Taylor Paul Mitchell
16672 Wellington Cir 16661 Wellington r 16641 Wellington Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beac CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 07 7 8 401 08 8 178 401 09 9
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Ph ip Bla tein Barnet Cohen
PO Box 190 166 Iville Cir 3481 Gilbert Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hunti ton Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 10 10• 1 8 401 1 11 178 401 12 12
Ken Kawaguchi oseph Cop a Donald Cason
16662 Melville Cir 16672 Melvill Cir 16691 Melville Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Be h CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 13 13 178 401 14 4 178 401 15 15
William Fred & Louise Capper Michael Liff Raymond Abraham
16702 Peale�n 16671 Melville Cir 16651 Melville Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 �` Huntington Beach CA 9 49. Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 16 16 178 401 17 .17 178 402 01 18
Maurizio& Kathy Bonac' i Stephen & Elizabeth Rowell Gary Paul &Gregory Raymond Rexro
16641 Melville Cir 16621 Melville Cir 8822 Artesia Blvd
Huntington Beach C 2649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Bellflower CA 90706
178 402 02 19 178 402 03 20 178 402 04 21
Harvey &Abby riedman ASTROTEL COMMUNICATIONS CO Jane King
4458 Westch ter Dr 17906 Crusader Ave 16662 Somerset Ln
Woodland s CA 91364 Cerritos CA 90703 Huntington Beach CA 92649
1784 '05 22 178 402 06 23 178 0207 24
Bob e;Williams Katherine Baron CITY F HUNTINGTON BEACH CIT
26 Orange Ave 3552 Gilbert Dr
S'n al Hill CA' 1908066 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntingto Beach CA 92648
�O�iyt-9�CDr?VWj55 Jan C 1'Nr,t l do S11,r 1 C-4s
1-78 401 01 1 178 401 02 2 ` 178 401 03 3
Ronald &Genevieve Nagy Rodney Skjonsby John & Dora Kaikainahaole %`7y
16632 Wellington r 16642 Wellington �`i< 16662 Wellington N
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach92649
i.
178 401 04 4 178 401 05 5 178 401 06 6
Charles Shepherd Darrach Taylor Paul Mitchell
16672 Wellington Cir 16661 WellingtonZSq. 16641 Wellington
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649.
1 01 07 � l� 178 401 08 8 178 401 09 9 ✓
CITY O INGTON BEACH Philip Blaustein Barnet Cohen /)aornt dohat.
PO Bo 90 16642 Melville Cir 3481 Gilbert Dr
Hun! ton Beach C 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 10 10 V 178 401 11 11 ]/ 178 401 12 12
Ken Kawaguchi Joseph Coppa Donald Cason
16662 Melville Cir 16672 Melville Cir 16691 Melville Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 13 13 ✓ 178 401 14,. . 14 ✓ 178 401 15 15
William Fred Louise Capper Michael Liff.; Raymond Abraham
16702 Peale Ln 16671 Melville Cir 1665'1 Melville Cir
Huntington-Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649. Huntington Beach CA-92649-----,
178 401 16 16 '� 178 401 17 17 ✓ 178 40.Z 0ffa-
✓
Maurizio&Kathy. Bonacini Stephen &Elizabeth Rowell Gary Paul Raymond Rexrc16641 Melville Cir - 16621 Melville Cir 8822 ArtesHuntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Bellflower
178 402 02 19 178 402 03 , 20 178 402 04 21
Harvey&Abby Friedman ASTROTEL COMMUNICATIONS CO Jane King
4458 Westchester Dr 17906 Crusader Ave 16662 Somerset Ln
Woodland Hills CA 91364, Cerritos CA 90703 : Huntington Beach CA 92649.
178 402 05• 22 178 402 06 23 17 0<To
Bobbie Williams _ Katherine Baron CITY 0 BEACH C1T
2676 Orange Ave ^111�' 3552 Gilbert Dr
Signal Hill CA 90806 Jl Hunti.ngton1Beach CA 92649 H mgto648
178 402 08 25 178 402 09 26 178 402 10 27
Jim Martin Joel Cooper Frank Kershner
3532 Gilbert Dr 3522 Gilbert Dr 1210 Fullerton Rd
Huntington Beach CA 92649. Huntington Beach CA 92649 City Of Industry CA 91748
178 402 11 28 17 402 12 1 -29 178 402 13 30 v
Jerome&Amber Lindsay Sr.- Charle Robert Helfer_
3502 Gilbert Dr 134 a ew t 3472 Gilbert Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Baldwin Park CA 91 Huntington Beach CA 92649
(f4(10 97-93 6)
178 402 14 31 �/ 178 15 32 178 402 16 33 ✓
Jerry To.liver Gerald & Gary& Ruth Leibowitz IT
�.
3452 Gilbert Dr 3442 Gilbe 3422 Gilbert Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Hun ' on each CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 402 17 34 178 402 18 35 ✓ 178 411 01 - 36
Prank Joseph Piotrowski Robert Donovan Junco Tirso Del
3412 Gilbert Dr 3402 Gilbert Dr, 4924 W Sunset Blvd -
HunGngton Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Los Angeles CA 90027
178 411 02 37 178 412 01 38 ✓ 178 412 02 39
Richard Morrison Winifred Farrell. Gerhold VonReidl
.16582 Somerset Ln 16622 Wellington Cir 16602 Wellington Cir#C-2. .
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 412 03 40 �/� 178 412 04 41 1781 3 01 4 ��
Pete Valov Jeffrey Reed &Pamela Ann Nesseth CITY O ON BEACH
16592 Wellington p D 2 16572 Mariana Cir PO Bo
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 - Hu gton Beach A 92648
178 414 43 / �Q� 178 414 02 44 ✓ 178 414 03 45
Deborah<�:, y John &Gwen Crosthwait Art&Carol Munoz
16581 Melville Cir' 16591 Melville Cir . 16601 Melville Cir
Huntington Beach CA 9264 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
17 651 02 46 1786 11 47
STA FORNIA STATE O ORNIA
N° t-4,0 s
- ---- -------- . - J� 2L �ZS
.� P ,(jb0
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECIZLIST "B"
MAILING LABELS - March 31, 1998
President 1 Huntington Harbor POA 10 FANS \l 16
H.B. Chamber of Commerce P. O.Box 791 Carol Ann all Y"1
2210 Main Street, Suite 200 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Chambers wsletter Publishers
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 P.O. Box 54
Huntington each, CA 92646
Judy Legan 2 William D.Holman 11 Edna Littlebury 17
Orange County Assoc.of Realtors PLC Gldn St.Mob.Hm. Owners Leag.
25552 La Paz Road 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 11021 Magnolia Blvd.
Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 Garden Grove, CA 92642
Pre,,, ent 3 Mr. Tom Zanic 12 Pacific C t Archaeological 18
Ami s De Bo a New Urban West Society, c.
P.O ox 3748' 520 Broadway Ste. 100 P.O. Box 0926
Huntington Beach, CA 92605 Santa Monica,CA 90401 Costa M , CA 92627
Attn:Jane othold
Sunset Beach CommunityAssoc. 4 Pres.,H.B. Society ((�� 13 County of range/EMA 19
Pat Thies,President C/O Newl d House Mush Michael M Ruane,Du.
PO Box 215 19820 Beach lvd. P.O. Box 48
Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0215 Huntington each,CA 92648 Santa Ana, A 92702-4048
President 5 Chairperson 14 County of range/EMA 19
Huntin n B omorrow .. Historical Resources Bd. Thomas ews
PO Box 5 Comm.Services Dept. P. O. Box 4 48
Huntin n Beach,CA 92648 2000 Main St. Santa Ana, A 92702-4048
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Julie V ermost 6 Council on ging 15 Planning D artment 19
BIA-OC 1706 Oran Ave. N Orange Co ty EMA
9 Execut a Circle#100 Huntingto each,CA 9 8 P. O. Box 4 48
Irvine C 92714-6734 Santa Ana, A 92702-4048
I
Richard icer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 County of range/EMA 19
SCAG Seacliff H Tim Miller
818 West th, 12th Floor 19391 Shad Harbor Circle P.O.Box 4 8
Los Ange ,CA 90017 Huntingto Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana, A 92702-4048
E.T.I. Corral 100 8 John Roe 16 Planning Dir 20
Mary Bell Seacliff H City of Cost esa
20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 Sur1, ,'
Lane P. O. Box 12
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntingteach,CA 92643 Costa Mesa, 92628-1200
Mark To o 9 Lou Man 16 Planning Dir 21
Environm tal Board Chairman Seacliff I City of Foun in Valley
16301 Los 'erdes Lane 19821 Oceat Bluff Circle 10200 Slater ve.
Huntingtol Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fountain Val. y, CA 92703
g:labels\phnlbls
1
C u P 9 7—F-3
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B"
MAILING LABELS - May 7, 1998
Planning Dir. 21 Dr. Duane Dishno 29 Cou4 U, w Estates HOA 37
City of Fountai Valle( HB City Elementary School Dist. Carrie Thorr as
10200 Slater Av PO Box 71 6642 Trotter Drive
Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92626 Huntington 3each CA 92648
Planning Directo 22 Jerry Buchanan 29 Country Vi Estates HOA 37
City of Westmin ter HB City Elementary School Dist. Gerald Cha man
8200 Westminste Blvd. 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire ircle
Westminster, CA 92683 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntingto Beach CA 92648
Planning Directo 23 James Jones 30 HB Hamp ns HOA 37
City of Seal Beac Ocean View Elementary Keystone F acific Prop.Mangmt. Inc.
211 Eight St. School district 4100 NewF ort Place,Suite 350
Seal Beach,CA 9C 740 17200 Pinehurst Lane Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Huntington Beach CA 92647
California Coastal Commission 24 Ron Frazier 31 Sally Grah in 38
Theresa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlar 4L Area
South Coast Are Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Geldi g Circle
200 Oceangate, 1 th Floor Westminster CA 92683 Huntingto Beach, CA 92649
Long Beach, CAt
2802-4302
California Coas Commission 24 Patricia Koch \_\� 32 Cheryle B caning 38
South Coast ArOffice HB Union Hi School Disrict Meadowla k Area
200 Oceangate, Oth Floor 10251 Yorkto n Avenue 16771 Ro evelt Lane
Long Beach,C 92802-4302 Huntington B ch,CA 92646 Hunting n Beach, CA 92649
Robert Joseph 25 CSA 33 Koll Co any 39
Caltrans Distri 12 730 El Camin Way#200 4343 Von arman
2501 Pullman St Tustin, CA 9 680 Newport each, CA 92666
Santa Ana,CA 705
Director 26 Goldenwest College 34
Local Solid Was Enf. Agy. Attn: Fred Owens.
O.C.Health Ca e Agency 15744 Goldenwest St.
P.O.Box 355 Huntington Beach CA 92647
Santa Ana, CA 2702
New Growth C ordinator 27 OC County rbors,Oach 35
Huntington Bea Post Office and Parks Dep .
6771 Warner Ave P. O. Box 404
Huntington Beac CA 92647 Santa Ana, C 92702-4048
Marc Ecker 28 Huntington ach Mall 36
Fountain Valley Attn: Pat Ro rs-Laude
Elementary School District 7777 Edinger ve.#300
17210 Oak Street Huntington each CA 92647
Fountain Valley CA 92708
g:1abe1s\phn1b1s
cu,� 1- -Z3
Resident Liberty Bank Tower Sam Mobassaly
3502 Gilbert Drive Michael Todaro,Attorney at Law 16602 Somerset Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Huntington Beach,CA 92647
Ms.Lindsay Naomi Cohen Greg Grani
3502 Gilbert Drive 3481 Gilbert Drive 3302 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Kay on Ray Harker Robert Manianci
3552 G' Drive 5333 Rural Route 17906 Crusader Lane
mgton Be h,CA 92649 Anaheim,CA 92807 Cerritos,CA 90703
Resident Nick Di Benedetto Resident
16711 Peale Lane 16562 Somerset Drive 3532 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Resident
Helen Houser Mr. and Mrs.Harvey Friedman 3422 Gilbert Drive
16572 Somerset Lane 16622 Somerset Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Joyce Nikolau
Jan ing 3382 Gilbert Drive
16662 et Lane Robert and Mildred Helfer
�472 Gilbert Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649
H mgton Be h,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Gerald Jones Mrs. Marguerite Morrison Ruth Otis
3442 Gilbert Drive 16582 Somerset Lane 3352 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
i
Jo nd Irene eper �\&01— Fred and Louise Capper i
352 rive U 16702 Peale Lane
untington Beac , A 9 649\ Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Win►>�rA
1`�\K � Petrowski
G/KLOPFENS/TAY2LB 16622cle U► \`uyT 3412 ► ive
H ngton 92649 Hunti on CA 92649
PC MTG 4/29
Notice for CDP 97-33/CUP 97-83
CUP 97-83 LB
Mr. •nd Tars. �tchell
16641 eton Drive . \u
Ilu ngton Beac A 92649
Rick Ta \ Kathy and Carl Kctland
1666 ellin� Drive 16561 Peale Lane
tington Beach; A 92749 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Robert Gardiner >Hinggton
d ne Nagy op
P.O.Box 1175 to
�!
Camp Verde,AZ 86322 Bea CA 92649
Yeng Chen
1856 Via Arroyo
La Verne, CA 91750
12—
v/
Charles Nichols
3492 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach,CA 92649
1-7 - qo'2---1- v
Gerald&Marilyn Jones
P.O.Box 337
Sunset Beach,CA 90742
Aprol Van Wie
P.O.Box 150
Huntington Beach CA 92648-50
Sylvia Augustine
3151 Airway Ave Suite N-2
Costa Mesa,CA 92663-1740
Anthony Ursino
419 Main Street# 148
Huntingom Beach,CA 92648
CyP97-F,.3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,June 1, 1998,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
97-33 (APPEAL) (TAYLOR RESIDENCE): Applicant: Darrach Taylor Appellant: Naomi
Cohen, et.al. (Huntington Harbour Residents) Re uest: An appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approval for construction of an eight(8)foot high retaining/block wall with a
three(3) foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light fixtures above the wall for a combined height
of 12 feet, six(6) inches, in lieu of maximum six(6)foot high wall within the rear yard setback
area. The new wall will be 40 feet in length and will extend ten(10)feet into the rear yard slope
and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two(2)combination
retaining/wrought iron wing walls(returns)will be located on the north and south portion of the
new wall. Seventeen(17) linear feet of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall will
remain at the top of the slope(north side). Location: 16661 Wellington Drive(east of Peale
Lane and north of Gilbert Drive) Proiect Planner: Kim Klopfenstein
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone
and includes Coastal Development Permit No.97-33,filed on December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the
above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing,City
Council discussion and action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission within ten(10)working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by
the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations,or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of
the California Administrative Code is applicable. The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area
Office, 200 Oceangate, l Oth Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4302, phone number: (310) 570-5071.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000
Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report
will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after
May 26, 1998.
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 Division at 536-5271 and refer to the
above item. 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
r
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,June 1, 1998, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.97-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
97-33 (APPEAL) (TAYLOR RESIDENCE): Applicant: Darrach Taylor Appellant: Naomi
Cohen, et.al. (Huntington Harbour Residents) Request: An appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approval for construction of an eight(8)foot high retaining/block wall with a
three(3)foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light fixtures above the wall for a combined height
of 12 feet, six(6) inches, in lieu of maximum six(6)foot high wall within the rear yard setback
area. The new wall will be 40 feet in length and will extend ten(10)feet into the rear yard slope
and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two(2)combination
retaining/wrought iron wing walls(returns)will be located on the north and south portion of the
new wall. Seventeen (17) linear feet of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall will
remain at the top of the slope(north side). Location: 16661 Wellington Drive(east of Peale
Lane and north of Gilbert Drive) Project Planner: Kim Klopfenstein
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone
and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33, filed on December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the
above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report,public hearing,City
Council discussion and action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission within ten (10)working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by
the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of
the California Administrative Code is applicable. The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area
Office, 200 Oceangate, 1 Oth Floor,Long Beach, CA 90802-4302, phone number: (310) 570-5071.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000
Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report
will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after
May 26, 1998.
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 Division at 536-5271 and refer to the
above item. 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
REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL OF RCA
Department: RCA 1
Title T
Council Meeting-Date: �p - -q °� »> Date of This Request:
REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?):
<'
EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA
�necessary-to this agenda?):
I \
CONSEQUENCES How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?):
No 1 MAAZiT --10
Signature: R Approved O Denied O Approved O Denied
Initials
Required r� '
Department Head a Silver Michael Uberua a
Request for Late Submittal
Requests for Council Action (RCA's) are due and considered late after
the City Administrator's deadline which is 5:00 P.M. Wednesday ten
days prior to the Council meeting at which the item is to be heard. This
deadline reflects the time needed prior to Agenda Review for
Administration staff and the City Administrator to review all RCA's and
their support material prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk for
placement on the preliminary agenda. It also provides time for the City
Clerk's office to review the item and add proper wording for the item to
the preliminary agenda for discussion at Agenda Review the following
Monday.
The Request for Late Submittal form provides a vehicle for RCA's to be
submitted after the Wednesday, deadline when there are extenuating
circumstances .which delayed the item and when action on the item is
necessary at the upcoming Council meeting.
Late items can agendized only with signed authorization on the Request
for Late Submittal form by the Assistant City Administrator or the City
Administrator.
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT:
SUBJECT: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-83
and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-33
(Taylor Residence)
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
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 Attached
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 Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the CityAttomey) 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
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
"REVIEWED RETURNED FOR ED
Administrative Staff ( ) ( )
Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( )
City Administrator (Initial)
City Clerk ( )
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM:
(Below • . For Only)
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk �',• �;'�� ,_ �.S P:,-_,:.. s
P.O. Box 190 • ��
Huntington Beach, CA 92648Ae
•a•"rr� \i�a'j.+/+ Crt T r1r//— .rrr r a.�
178 402 05 22
INS�o Bobbie Williams
�1'B 2676 Orange Ave
i `'��"'• �� Signal Hill CA 90806
=i-- - WILL676k 908066010 1997 10 05/23/98
WILLIFY IAMS
ENDER OF NEW ADDRESS
4952 WARNER AVE STE 223
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-5505
LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING
I '
1
X / Tit
1
E- w(OAA{ t larl
i E-13104{�
1 I
'oo
I
-
1
1 I
• i � � I I ( I I I I I � � , II I � I
I 1 I I 1 I I I
• , I I 1 ' � I � i I 1 I i ; O I i ,
' f�����I'Ik I • I � I i � I r � .I �V1 �� , 1 I i I
I I 1 I
•1 i i i � i I I t 1 I I 1
4
Z .
ALOWA4�;LE
aew►ave ex�sfi W&Ac '' aiv
IT
f 1� , r• +err/ ~� /
i
. 1
T I ROPE T
00
07
CTilber�' 17r.
;
hroQ u' Glt Vows aemove exsti
9 �_
flrD posed fima
GONDI'�ION�I. �
rLT
1
��s-t' `9 �ro�oecl l�1a11 1 I.
t t
ALLO WE p
,( CODE \S4,
TAY�M ?ROFFa T
IF
I�
((Zrilwrt V(,P) KKTM ConjiioruAl Use Fecmit
. 10' Rear Yard i�u�es1'
?*
Jun 01 98 03: 10p Planning Division 714 374-1540 p. 1
JUN-01-99 03 :02 PM GAGEN AND CO 7149710832 P.01
Harry and Neta Gagen
16511 Peale Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
(562) 592-2245
June 1, 1998
z
.A
VIA FACSIMILE to: (714)374-1540
Scott Hess �1�LI-1- Ml
Community Development Dept. v por-.
City of Huntington Beach, CA T _T'X o
w s
Re- Taylor property on Gilbert Island Ln c,
tat D
Mr. Gagen and 1 would like to register our support for the pool deck extension
project proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Rick Taylor of 16661 Wellington Dr., our
neighbor on Gilbert Island
We believe that adequate research, disclosure and discussion preceded the
Planning Commission approval of this project earlier and do not understand why
it is being reconsidered again. We see no reason to disapprove of this proposed
project.
R
t
June 1 , 1998
City Clerk
Huntington Beach
Dear City Clerk,
My original letter of appeal to the City Council, dated May 6, 1998,
referred to a set of slides (please see page 1 of said letter) .
These slides are an integral part of said appeal letter.
I would like to ask the City Clerk to demonstrate these slides
at the hearing scheduled for tonight, after my six minute
presentation, or allow me to present them myself, after my
presentation, as they are part and parcel of said presentation.
Sin erely,
NAOMI S. COHEN, APPELANT
f. G
cc --�
Cc o rn ,
rn-n;o CD
tV �
J D
D tin ' l4
Y-3
ol
L
�3 yr Lei
z
a
V\
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA
Igg8 JUN - I P 2 Sg L fir
J
ty) �. .
RE EIV o
' I I ITY CLERK'
GITY i I H AlT:I GT It BEAC . C`A
I
I\
f I � +
I
I .
I
i
as -•I � •
I
N 2
1 Ln Cl)
Va —14M Ake_
1LlJL�,oL �►v � �� ...P�+�uc�t�w- i��'��J �ac.fr�c( �-e�
Ali
oo
,duw,�l-,( Caves u 2a��cct�t� 17 sum
the M, Z , A,
u� a.�.a- �,�-eon a.� �1Lc ;,�-v� � f�{i .'t-`�. �+ee�+P �`�( • �G "`'�
Az 11041w—Ir
t -
C�avfl�ve
/ b
i .
i
v �
N Appeal of
� da
Planning Commission's
Ujc"�>>-�
ro
r Approval of
Conditional Use Permit 97-83
Coastal Development Permit 97-33
(Taylor Residence Wall Extension
16661 Wellington Drive)
1
PROJECT PROPOSAL
♦ 8' high retaining/block wall with T wrought
iron fence and 18" high light fixtures
(12' 6" above slope in lieu of maximum 6')
♦ Allows for extended deck around pool for
greater safety and usability
2
1
G�
PROJECT HISTORY
• January 1998 Zoning Administrator
approved project with conditions
•Naomi Cohen (neighbor at 3481 Gilbert)
appealed decision to Planning Commission
•April 1998 Planning Commission approved
project
3
APPEALA S SUE S
• Ms. Naomi Cohen appealed Planning
Commission decision because:
■ Incompatibility - front of her house
adjacent to proposed rear wall
■ Decrease in property values
■ Increased noise to her property
■ Stairs too close to her property
4
2
APPEALS/ISSUES (con't.)
■ Establishment of precedent
•Appellant also requested postponement of
hearing
5
RECOMMENDATION
• Staff concurs with the Zoning Administrator
and Planning Commission and is
recommending approval because:
■ Consistent with other homes in the
neighborhood with rear yard walls along
local streets,
6
3
Recommendation (con't.)
■ Will not be detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood based upon
the proposed wall materials and enhanced
landscaping,
■ Consistent with the goals and objectives
of the General Plan.
4
JUN-01-98 MON 07 :55 AM ELLEN GOODWIN + 00000000000 P. 01
E �
DONALD GOODWIN
16492 Somerset Lane c
Huntington Beach,CA. 92649-2935 C=
Phone & FAX (562) 592-5345 9 q
i
:Z
cv.r__z
0
19cl g o
,Se-. IT +-less 1� C' T C7' n
e , y_ owc1
VLA0 N V V H a 1, Q
C P # et-7 - 8 3
2 VIA f�
ARcL N6 T- TAf L.o2 / Cok z rq �►2ope�Ty K�A�1S
`/I U
� s5u � 1 5vC3M�T T►-,e. ,�o � Io� ���. .
l
oat -6o,e2sg�j L.Ar%e_ Sjme-< 19 6Go
A ( I Tke e k A (v8cs j hA7 hAvQ
vcc- v RC c>S O ry G, LGett ( SL IDr cI. I kNsA) T'k
Gv1Ld.erz o4- MS Coker{ S hor"er AHd 1 CAN gec4f1
O"T Ot-I
ce MTO � L, Qera
T tie oN LY o N 6� % L c r i 'FAce � T�•A i �My
W %1--k ,P o 55 �3 l..� TW o C- X c e PT looks
dN1. �'eo2Re ( TKe 13u�i-derz.� US�d A 11 ok hi S
L or duLo N 1 o T►.e c •FRB ort SriL f3eQ 1
o t�c oT- u m d e 2 S 1 R k d. M Lo Yzs
JUN-01-98 MON 07 :55 AM ELLEN GOODWIN + 00000000000 P. 02
Pia e "2
o p P o N e N Ts "r'h v+T h v e TA 1<e ry t h e �os�T""►a rl
Tk N-r M R a- M(Zs T-►iy t otas P 2oa ecT wool- c
5 o rt a o Q 1 n,q ,e c, R Wt 'A M IA et c. a r.I-F
VA L, u ►� 6 Lie .
�.. V d t 2 e c T`l-7 P c c Qc)S s
IlAAtzi vAA (2. (Lc (_e L04_ % Ck hw5 'r .\ a SAME
SL d o nc �o Tk .e sr'2ee'T" (3c� � Hd �he�2
h o m L43?'I e rZ t m ►2 o v-erd.
T -c pRoCe2T``r 0- ON S IdC 2 h y A5 They Rc,2v,LT
TI.ce C r� mTq Le V-e re- d pool. -cc,f: PNW c. eve H
P L C lk ST� � 2 LJ �r d o ,� rt To Tt�e- `J` Tne t2,
TV L43 A-5 C-vM rLeTea ;A SOv T t9
ye c Wnd we ee2i(j,PgL No
V
To
use Thy i2 2o fee k
` k % I 3 ►eve. 15 Tk l�et�L 1 :55
� � Tb•,erz A pop-ere-Ty h4 :5 I � e
h To u s Fy A
�1 G
Irk C OR C v i2 S W i"T-!� yt (� CITY Cod s
JUN-01-98 MON 07 :56 AM ELLEN GOODWIN t 00000000000 P. 03
P�►�e 3
hNA AeTvp 1l �, ComTe i % %jTe5 'C`o ove r►el61,f&orzkoo& .
5-orpofz IMQ. o- MRS T&l t-o2 tr
05 Ti o ry Y4 n cL e L rh l�T T ti e
P(N rm The 12)eS 1 Te fee 5i� d
A 2 0� �� , s �rn 6Tf-ea
'96eL vc Tke2 IS No 5cDvr�C�
pi A-S TOR y (3� ecT ► ,nt-Ls ,
Le v;S L' d r� s d e aZ ��P2o ►K R 'T�?y L.o rz 5
Ro�ecr7V.
l C A ri►-(oT- Q c- PT- T tm e Co v Pl c i L M e e 7-i May
Tc� K L8 k— T h u s Th � S �A�•
`J incCc2� �
06-01- 8 0? : 01U FROM 11i TO CITY CLERK PO'
3472 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach, Ca .
May 28 , 1998
The Honorable. Shirley Dettloff
Mayor 'V 'Gf;�
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , Ca.
Dear Mayor Dettloff:
We aIe among those appealing the Planning Department ' s
generous grant, of a C . U . P . to Darrach Taylor which allows him
to build an 8 foot retaining/block wall in lieu of the 6 foot
wall specified in the city' s building code , thereby enabling
him to extend his existing pool deck by 400 square feet. This
wall will be topped by a 3 foot wrought iron fence and 18
inch light fixtures for a total height of 12 feet 6 inches
and will stand about: 7 feet from his rear property line
We are concerned because our home, where we have lived for
over 33 years , is diagonally across from the Taylors . The
proposed structure along with its return walls and stairway
to the street is a sorry replacement for the present green
slope.We refute the staff ' s findings that the structure will
integrate with the neighborhood and not be detrimental to
property values . They even claim that the wall will improve
the esthetics of the street . We are even more deeply
concerned because the structure will set a precedent for
other homes on the hill whose rear yards abut Gilbert Drive
and Somerset Lane . Over the years the green hillside, a
distinctive and valued feature of the area will be destroyed .
Because of a glitch in the operations of the Architectural
Review Committee of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners
Association, owners of homes in the area were not notified
that the project, was to be reviewed and had no chance for
input . before a decision was made. This surely makes
President Jerry Urners stanch support of the project in the
name of the Association of doubtful value .
We ask the council members to uphold the city ordinances and
see that they are applied fairly and evenly. This would give z
the citizens something to rely upon and would help avoid th Eg .
brouhaha and ill feelings which are now rampant in our co --i
neighborhood. � ��
i o—s"�ra
Yours++ truly,
R bert He. er �' �
z
Mfldred Helfer - iv C-)
o b
May 29, 1998
Mr. Scott Hess
Sr. Planner
Community Development Department
City of Huntington Beach
Reference: Approved CUP #97-83, Taylor residence
Mr. Hess,
This is to notify you of my support and complete concurrence with the
approved pool deck extension planned at 16661 Wellington Drive. I was
notified of this plan several months ago at which time I asked Mr. Taylor
to show me the projected outcome.
I can see no reason why someone would object to this project; there is no
intrusion or obstruction of anyone's property or privacy. On the contrary
the plan is quite compatible with the regulations in our neighborhood;
certainly more so than some of these large waterfornt projects going on.
I wish to register my support because of the potential precedent and impact
a rejection or denial may have on our community. The right of a property
owner to better and improve his residence without impairing someone elses
is fundamental. The project has already and righteously been approved and
should remain so.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any additional
information.
Sincere ,
ltti•- .-� C
Philip & Jennifer Blaustein
16642 Melville Circle E
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ! 6::;-
(562) 592 0058 D Mo�M
o
cn �'
Mr. Scott Hess, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Huntington Beach, CA
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
97-33 (APPEAL)(TAYLOR RESIDENCE)
O1 June 1998
Dear Mr. Hess,
The Taylor's request is not precedent setting for Gilbert Island's upper level
slopes. There are numerous existing examples of architectural extensions over
the sloping ground which transitions from the upper level to the lower level. The
sloping areas are contained in the lots owned by persons on the upper level of
Gilbert Island. They are not a common area greenbelt. We believe the Taylor's
wall is tastefully done and will be an unobtrusive addition. It will be the most
pleasing of all when compared to the existing extensions over the slope.
Respectfully,
Rod and Cindy Skjonsby
16642 Wellington Dr.
Gilbert Island
as
�-- C-)
_ �C-,rn
D -,rnm
n �
4 ?
Cn
to D.
D Taylor 562 592 1987 P. 01
562,M-1987 Fax
For a
Q M - Correspondence
U CDRe '
aC
V CV
>wc5 W �•
.�._.I CO
Q;��C~.7 j
O
To: HB CITY CLERK FM Rick Taylor
Pax: 714-374-1557 Pages: 2
Phone: Date; June 1, 1998
Raj City Council Agenda Item 0-2 CC: Scott Hess
Xx Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment 0 Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
e comments: Attached was faxed to Scott Hess last week, but he is unable
to locate. This family lives directly across the street from our project
under consideration tonight in Item D-2.
Please see it gets in the record.
Thanks < 3
D Taylor 562 592 1987 P. 02
LUMBER & HARDWARE CO. AC
13470 DALBWOOU•BALDWW PARK CA 91706•(626)964-9502 =
FAX(626)%2.1067
MEMO
NEWARECOD
A
4102
To: From:
Number of Pages:
(Including this cover sheet)
- L
Rom*rks:
eUl
.Q rV l l
u
b�
4jujc->>- 7
D.G. (RICK) TAYLOR
16661 Wellington Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
(562)592 -5090
z
27 May 1997 CO
N --� c-7
To: Mayor Dettloff& City Council Members
D �o�
A p
Subject: Approved CUP #97-83 (Taylor) G z
CO b
The Request for Council Action you received outlines a very long trail for a
very minor pool deck extension project, including the Huntington Harbour
Property Owners' Association's approval, the City Community Development
Department's recommendation (actually 3 times), the Zoning's Administra-
tor's approval, the Planning Commission's approval, and now this project,
with its huge file, is dragged before you. It seems there is no end.
I am attaching our third and concurrent communications to all 92 Gilbert
Island neighbors, in which we have attempted to respond to Mrs. Cohen's
6 May 1998 letter of appeal. We regret, of course, that Mrs. Cohen was
widowed last year, but object to her using this fact. We will not bore you
with redundancy; but please read the letter to our neighbors to set the record
straight. It was also my intention to address the remarks made by Mr.
Maniaci and Mrs. Cohen's lawyer at the Planning Commission hearing in
case they were repeated before you, but I have decided you have been here
before, and do not need my commentary to appreciate the nastiness and
recrimination to which we were subjected at the Planning Commission.
Another issue before you undoubtedly will be yet another Cohen request for a
time extension, a continuing tactic. The Staff has again objected due to the
length of this process; Mr. Urner (HIAPOA) has already changed his and the
City's schedule regarding the Huntington Harbour seawall meetings,
scheduled almost nightly for weeks. I had already informed a number of
volunteer speakers of the 1 June agenda date, and will start to loose them in
the coming summer vacation weeks. This process has been very long for such
a minor project, and I believe we do not deserve to be delayed any further.
I
2
There is one issue I must mention which we had passed at the previous
hearings, that being the Westport/Roundhill properties, as well as other
cantilevered decks. We have a more finished, aesthetically attractive and
compatible design, neighbor sensitive project, than the massive 13 feet, lot
line, block wall projects completed or currently approved and under
construction in Huntington Harbour. Most of our neighbors recognize what
we are trying to accomplish.
For the record, we have lived in our home since 1973, trying to be good
neighbors, and certainly continuing to improve our property, both inside and
out. This extension is to provide more space in a very small patio, to increase
late afternoon sun as the roof cuts it off early, and most importantly, to
provide opposite side pool access for safety of the grandchildren to be. We
are amazed at having been put through this extended process for such a small
but enhancing project, but assume it will come out right in the end.
We are also attaching tract maps which shows the representations of the
neighborhood, accurately reflecting the final status of signatures on the
original erroneous petition and letters and the subsequent rejections and
support through hearing presentations, telephone calls, letters, etc.
We look for the Council to Continue the CPU #97-83 so that we may proceed
with the construction of this minor, but aesthetically compatible and neighbor
friendly extension, for our enjoyment and our Island's enhancement.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Attachments (3)
TAYLOR RESIDENCE
EXTENSIONAFTER
Gilbert DriNe
l
r f l 4 1
4
T - � T cor c
9 dJ 4 7
6N
GS• / ]7af
ib•
`Gilbert Drive' Homeowners'
positions on CUP #97-83 m
63
Les?end• W
Q
0
For Approval a
("W" - withdrew petition support)
is b
13 _
u '
Neutral or Silent e/
10 IWO
N W
h y
>o- 79 2/
Q
Against Approval a H Q
�o
Pool Deck Extension Site 3
as 7 W /6
ro m c i
h /7
�9 h
/6 ,
-;
3j
Ne /5 _f
I
/4 j
60 /3
N
_ -
GILBERT ISLAND - -- f WNAREAVE; 02
• i - I g (SEE N 3 � ,
- --�' I OTE1 � I H5 �a 7
- I � � 29 a
- - - - �• WHARF GE ARE (SEE t)p TEi 13s 13B 3j J6 3S m \�
B 1 I'F G 6 GS' F3 F2 571 \ N
CO' Go S 20 FB �m
Sp F9 8 @....
LA � u
SOMERSET NE L
ma's
_.ems, s 6 66 cs 65 N
T G B e
-�• N SOM dos o
Mq 'o.•- �,.aa Gz33 0 �^ o> dA '' o � Go' � m
DEN s .04.E 3
C//9C c V c 3 9 F H 26
45. '3B3 LE P S N N. 1 L� 63
ON
k.09 ono' TOIV DRIVE
b 25 1
� ' � - n3• 0 n �q �[,(.11y�7 o Q Q
R/qNA v0 C/RCCE 6O�l09 1 3 u
5 e\4
39 'a•c7• W' EL(,INGTON -�
B2 M
6a ry H h �i 108 23
107 e 9
Nk
ll� c'c- n a BO 22 O
F'QGF `fl9 HIVsy-
\ .4:2J' J2' h
J• j/ J
`Gilbert UpWe"' Homeowners'
positions on CUP #97-83 No �f 20
pi 0
9
Legend:
• SS �4� /0 7 W B
For Approval 61 7
("W" - withdrew petition support) \� ® 69
70
� 49M i
72 3
Neutral or Silent \ 4j 4 73 /s J
/s F 74
\o�Ei 75 \ d
/4 30 �
J'o>. ro N
Against Approval 13•�
_ Pool Deck Extensions _
D. G. (RICK) TAYLOR
16661 Wellington Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
(562)592-5090
27 May 1998
Re: Approved CUP #97-83
Pool Deck Extension
Dear Gilbert Island Neighbor,
Here we go again! The Huntington Beach Planning Commission approved
our pool deck extension project on 28 April 1998, as many of you may have
seen on TV Channel 3. And guess what: Mrs. Cohen, our neighbor, and
presumably one or two others including Mr. Maniaci, have decided to again
appeal at the cost of $1200, against the most reasonable, neighbor- friendly
project we could undertake, short of those who want us to maintain a totally
private rear slope in a fettered manner, paying taxes and maintenance, with -
out the ability to use the property for one's benefit. We need your support.
In our letter of 23 April 1998, we rebutted each of Mrs. Cohen's allegations,
save the emotional comments. Her lawyer, who spoke on her behalf at the 28
April meeting, has now written the following over her signature, and again
we will respond as briefly as possible to a long diatribe.
She alleges (Cohen in italics) Erroneous (City) staff recommendations... ...
the City has approved this project at the Community Development Dept.
level, by the Zoning Administrator and by the Planning Commission, both
following open hearings. The Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Associ-
ation (HHPOA) approved after its review. We have been most patient, but
this is becoming harassment, and we are beginning wonder about some other
`agenda'. The allegations are really a lot of nonsense. It says that ... ...`The
latest (cantilevered) lot that was ... ... ... approved in 1987, on Peale Lane
... ... ....The truth is that the cantilevered pool deck at 16502 Mariana Circle,
overlooking Somerset, within six feet of, and with a stairway to the sidewalk,
was built in 1996 as part of a major renovation. It is adjacent to a home at
16491 Somerset, which faces in an opposite direction, as does Mrs. Cohen's.
Though hardly her fault but a fact, it is Mrs.Cohen's house which already
breaks the line of private green slopes on Gilbert Drive, contrary to her letter.
i
2
She further alleges that the Use Permit ... ... .....allows his yard to protrude
offensively into the east boundary, straight into the face of my house ( and
being suggestive of Mr. Maniaci's verbiage at the hearing, " it's like taking
somebody's face and putting it adjacent to somebody's rear end"). We
rather take umbrage at this most offensive remark by Mr. Maniaci... .... and
with the inference picked up by Mrs. Cohen's lawyer. But since they said it,
the reverse, with respect to our privacy, is certainly already more the truth!
It is further alleged that her property value will be reduced by 10%. She
added that I (she would) have a playground at the elegant front entry to
my house...with a pool deck and all ... ... ... ... ... ... ... We don't think so.
We asked for a written opinion by an experienced real estate professional,
and he has said there would be `virtually no impact' given `that Mr. Taylor
has designed a superior project ....'
The pool lies right underneath my bedroom window. Whenever people carry
a normal conversation, I can hear every word they say... .....Our home was
built before the Cohen home, and she purchased it knowing her side bedroom
window overlooked our patio. Frankly, it is an intrusion into our privacy.
The previous owners were courteous enough to respect that privacy. Perhaps
she should consider permanently closing in that side bedroom window.
Ingress and Egress... ... ....from Gilbert Drive... ... ...will provide access... ...
for parties, with attendant noise, parking, and traffic... ... ...This is really the
kind of desperate nonsense Mrs. Cohen is putting forward. The truth is that
the rear locked pool gate (and prior access) to Gilbert Drive has been there
since our house was built in 1965, and, as we have previously stated, is used
as access to maintain the hillside and trees, and to sweep the sidewalk and
gutter; we should not have to drive to get there. Her allegation has never
occurred in our 25 years of ownership. Further, 16502 Mariana Circle has
stairs for `egress' to Somerset, built in 1996, again contrary to her assertion.
Dissonance with surrounding area and objections from neighbors......the
City's Community Development Department says that Mr. Taylor's addition
is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood............and it will.
Some neighbors signed Mr. Maniac's original and erroneous petition, but
3
I am happy to report that a number of the families who signed and whose
properties touch Gilbert Drive, have called or written the City or testified,
that they have withdrawn their petition signatures, and now support our
project. Mrs. Cohen and her lawyer appear to be unaware of this fact.
The head of the association ( Jerry Urner, HHPOA)purportedly represented
the inhabitants of Gilbert Island, but... ...We have worked with Mr. Urner,
and have secured the approval of the HHPOA, even though at the time we
were not even members of that association. We have come to believe that the
HHPOA now generally represents the greater good for the Harbour residents -
(which included Mr. Maniaci's 1997 CC&R height exemption!), and we have
appreciated the support.
Lastly, she says.....Disastrous effects if a precedent is established... ... ... ....
the new standard we want, as the pool deck precedent has already been
established, is to build that `superior project' with utmost consideration for
our Gilbert Island neighbors. As we have said in our previous letters and our
communications to the City, it is our intention to make this small extension
aesthetically attractive, retaining or replanting the ice plant and other new
shrubs, along with resetting the irrigation system for automatic watering.
It is absolutely terrible to once more burden you with a 3 page letter on this
subject. But we have come to think it is important not to lie down in the face
of the repeated Cohen and Maniaci bashings, such we heard at both hearings,
particularly on 28 April.
The final hearing is before the City Council on Monday evening, 1 June, at
approximately 7:00 PM. If you can be there to support us, (and yourself),
we would be very appreciative. If not, and you have not already done so,
please write or call Scott Hess, Sr. Planner, Community Development Dept.
(714 / 536 - 5554, FAX 714 / 374 - 1540), registering your support, and
particularly if you signed the original erroneous petition. The speakers, and
callers and writers really helped at the 28 April hearing, and we thank all.
Sincerely,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING s i
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,June 1, 1998, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item:
❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.97-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
97-33(APPEAL)(TAYLOR RESIDENCE): Applicant: Darrach Taylor Appellant: Naomi
Cohen, et.al. (Huntington Harbour Residents) Re guest: An appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approval for construction of an eight(8) foot high retaining/block wall with a
three(3)foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light fixtures above the wall for a combined height
of 12 feet, six(6) inches, in lieu of maximum six(6)foot high wall within the rear yard setback
area. The new wall will be 40 feet in length and will extend ten(10)feet into the rear yard slope
and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two(2)combination
retaining/wrought iron wing walls(returns)will be located on the north and south portion of the
new wall. Seventeen(17) linear feet of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall will
remain at the top of the slope(north side). Location: 16661 Wellington Drive(east of Peale
Lane and north of Gilbert Drive) Project Planner: Kim Klopfenstein
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone
and includes Coastal Development Permit No.97-33, filed on December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the
above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report,public hearing,City
Council discussion and action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission within ten(10)working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by
the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations,or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of
the California Administrative Code is applicable. The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area
Office,200 Oceangate, loth Floor,Long Beach,CA 90802-4302, phone number: (310) 570-5071.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department,2000
Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report
will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after
May 26, 1998.
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 Division at 536-5271 and refer to the
above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
i
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,2nd Floor
Huntington Beach,California 92648
(714) 536-5227
S1SAN W. CASE, INC. -Ila V47 rY"fi
OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE
917 Glenneyre Street, Suite 7,Laguna Beach, CA 92651
PHONE(714)494-6105 FAX(714)494-7418
-16661 WELLINGTON CIR 9971049
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA
178 401 05 V
300' LISTING
SEPTEMBER 15 1997
178 401 01 1 178 401 02 2 178 401 03 3
Ronald &Genevieve Nagy Rodney Skjonsby John &Dora Kaikainahaole
16632 Wellington Cir 16642 Wellington Cir 16662 Wellington Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92 9 Huntington Beach CA 926 Huntington Beach CA 92649
17840104 4 178 401 05 5 17840106 6
Charles Shepherd Darrach Taylor Paul Mitchell
16672 Wellington Cir 16661 Wellington r 16641 Wellington Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beac CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
17840107 7 8 401 08 8 178 401 09 9
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Ph ip Bla tein Barnet Cohen
PO Box 190 166 Iville Cir 3481 Gilbert Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hunti ton Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 10 10• 1 8 401 1 11 178 401 12 12
Ken Kawaguchi oseph Cop a Donald Cason
16662 Melville Cir 16672 Melvill Cir 16691 Melville Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Be h CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 13 13 178 401 14 4 178 401 15 15
William Fred & Louise Capper Michael Liff Raymond Abraham
16702 Peale Ln 16671 Melville Cir 16651 Melville Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 9 49 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 16 16 178 401 17 .17 178 402 01 18
Maurizio& Kathy Bonac' i Stephen & Elizabeth Rowell Gary Paul &Gregory Raymond Rexro
16641 Melville Cir 16621 Melville Cir 8822 Artesia Blvd
Huntington Beach C 2649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Bellflower CA 90706
178 402 02 19 178 402 03 20 178 402 04 21
Harvey&Abby riedman ASTROTEL COMMUNICATIONS CO Jane King
4458 Westch ter Dr 17906 Crusader Ave 16662 Somerset Ln
Woodland ' s CA 91364 Cerritos CA 90703 Huntington Beach CA 92649
176 402 05 22 178 402 06 23 178 402 07 24
Bobbie Williams Katherine Baron CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CIT
2676 Orange Ave 3552 Gilbert Dr
Signal Hill CA 90806 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648
17840101 1 1: 178 401 02 2 178 401 03 3
Ronald &Genevieve Nagy Rodney Skjonsby John & Dora Kaikainahaole
16632 Wellington Cir 16642 Wellington Cir 16662 Wellington Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 04 4 178 401 05 5 178 401 06 6
Charles Shepherd Darrach Taylor Paul Mitchell
16672 Wellington Cir 16661 Wellington Cir 16641 Wellington Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92.649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649.
1 01 07 l 178 401 08 8 178 401 09 9
CITY INGTON BEACH Philip Blaustein Barnet Cohen 4 A&On1 CJbt' 41,-
PO Bo 90 16642 Melville Cir 3481 Gilbert Dr
Hunt' ton Beach C 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 10 10 178 401 11 11 178 401 12 12
Ken Kawaguchi Joseph Coppa Donald Cason
16662 Melville Cir 16672 Melville Cir 16691 Melville Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 13 13 178 401 14 14 178 401 15 15
William Fred &Louise Capper Michael Liff Raymond Abraham
16702 Peale Ln 16671 Melville Cir 16651 Melville Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 401 16 16 178 401 17 17 178 402 01 18
Maurizio& Kathy Bonacini Stephen &Elizabeth Rowell Gary Paul &Gregory Raymond Rexro
16641 Melville Cir 16621 Melville Cir 8822 Artesia Blvd
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Bellflower CA 90706
178 402 02 19 178 402 03 20 178 402 04 21
Harvey &Abby Friedman I ASTROTEL COMMUNICATIONS CO Jane King
4458 Westchester Dr 17906 Crusader Ave 16662 Somerset Ln
Woodland Hills CA 91364 Cerritos CA 90703 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 402 05 22 f 178 402 06 23 1>ington
<CA
Bobbie Williams Katherine Baron CEACH CIT
2676 Orange Ave I 3552 Gilbert Dr
Signal Hill CA 90806 Huntington Beach CA 92649 H8
178 402 08 25 178 402 09 26 ! 178 402 10 27
Jim Martin Joel Cooper Frank Kershner
3532 Gilbert Dr 3522 Gilbert Dr 1210 Fullerton Rd
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 City Of Industry CA 91748
.
178 402 11 28 17 402 12 C-29 178 402 13 30
Jerome &Amber Lindsay Sr. Charle Robert Helfer
3502 Gilbert Dr 134 a ew t 3472 Gilbert Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Baldwin Park CA 9 Huntington Beach CA 92649
�u� 97—k3 6
178 402 14 31 178 4F_15 32 178 402 16 33
Jerry'Toliver Gerald &maTrrM3;, 4�,,��� j Gary& Ruth Leibowitz
3452 Gilbert Dr 3442 Gilbe (�" 3422 Gilbert Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Hun ' on each CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
178 402 17 34 178 402 18 35 178 411 01 36
Prank Joseph Piotrowski Robert Donovan Junco Tirso Del
3412 Gilbert Dr 3402 Gilbert Dr 4924 W Sunset Blvd
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Los Angeles CA 90027
178 411 02 37 178 412 01 38 178 412 02 39
Richard Morrison Winifred Farrell Gerhold VonReidl
16582 Somerset Ln 16622 Wellington Cir 16602 Wellington Cir#C-2
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
17841203 40 17841204 41 178 301 4
Pete Valov Jeffrey Reed &Pamela Ann Nesseth CITY O ON BEACH
16592 Wellington Cir 16572 Mariana Cir PO Bo
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Hu gton Beach A 92648
178 414 01 43 178 414 02 44 178 414 03 45
Deborah Cottle John &Gwen Crosthwait Art&Carol Munoz
16581 Melville Cir 16591 Melville Cir 16601 Melville Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649
17 651 02 46 1786 11 47
STA FORNIA STATE O ORNIA
�10 fo o
tKfI
Mlk-
� j P .�C)Uv
"VI
Cap 9.7-F,3
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECIZLIST "B"
MAILING LABELS - March 31, 1998
President 1 Huntington Harbor POA 10 FANS \( �( 16
H.B. Chamber of Commerce P. O.Box 791 Carol Ann all Y"
2210 Main Street,Suite 200 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Chambers wsletter Publishers
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P.O. Box 54
Huntington each,CA 92646
Judy.Legan 2 William D.Holman 11 Edna Littlebury 17
Orange County Assoc. of Realtors PLC Gldn St.Mob.Hm. Owners Leag.
25552 La Paz Road 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 11021 Magnolia Blvd.
Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 Garden Grove,CA 92642
Pres. ent 3 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Pacific C t Archaeological 18
Ami s De B° �IWaNew Urban West Society, c.
P. O ox 371 520 Broadway Ste. 100 P.O. Box 0926 �(
Huntington Beach,CA 92605 Santa Monica,CA 90401 Costa Me , CA 92627 ' 1
Attn:Jane othold
Sunset Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres.,H.B. Society pp�� 13 County of range/EMA 19
Pat Thies,President C/O Newl d House Mun4 Michael M Ruane,Dir.
PO Box 215 19820 Beach lvd. P.O. Box 48
Sunset Beach, CA 90742-0215 Huntington each,CA 92648 Santa Ana, A 92702-4048
President ��jj 5 Chairperson 14 County of range/EMA 19
Huntin n Bk4womorrow.. Historical Resources Bd. Thomas M ews
PO Box 5 Comm.Services Dept. P. O.Box 4 48
Huntin n Beach,CA 92648 2000 Main St. Santa Ana, A 92702-4048
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Julie V ermost 6 Council on grog 15 Planning D artment 19
BIA-OC 1706 Oran Ave. Orange Co ty EMA
9 Execut a Circle#100 Huntingto each,C 9 k8 P. O.Box 4 48
Irvine C 927.14-6734 Santa Ana, A 92702-4048
r
F Richard icer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 County of range/EMA 19
SCAG Seacliff H Tim Miller
818 West th, 12th Floor 19391 Shad Harbor Circle P.O. Box 4 8
Los Ange , CA 90017 Huntingto Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, A 92702-4048
E.T.I.Corral 100 8 John Roe 16 Planning Dir 20
Mary Bell Seacliff H City of Cost esa
20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 Surf a Lane P. O. Box 12
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntingto Beach,CA 92648 Costa Mesa, 92628-1200
i
Mark To o 9 Lou Manno e 16 Planning Dir 21
Environm tal Board Chairman Seacliff HO City of Foun in Valley
16501 Los 'erdes Lane 19821 Oceaj Bluff Circle 10200 Slater ve.
Huntingtol Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fountain Val_ y, CA 92708
g:labels\phnibls
Cup 97-F3
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B"
MAILING LABELS - May 7, 1998
Planning Dir. 21 Dr.Duane Dishno 29 Cou4 Estates HOA 37
City of Fountai Valle( HB City Elementary School Dist. Carrie Thorr as
10200 Slater Av PO Box 71 6642 Trotter Drive
Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92626 Huntington 3each CA 92648
Planning Directo 22 Jerry Buchanan 29 Country Vi Estates HOA 37
City of Westmin ter HB City Elementary School Dist. Gerald Cha man
8200 Westminste Blvd. 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire ircle
Westminster, CA 92683 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntingto Beach CA 92648
Planning Directo 23 James Jones 30 HB Hamp ns HOA 37
City of Seal Beach Ocean View Elementary Keystone F acific Prop.Mangmt. Inc.
211 Eight St. School district 4100 NewF ort Place,Suite 350
Seal Beach, CA 9C 740 17200 Pinehurst Lane Newport E each, Ca 92660
Huntington Beach CA 92647
California Coast Commission 24 Ron Frazier 31 Sally Grah m 38
Theresa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlar Area
South Coast Are Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Geldi g Circle
200 Oceangate, 1 th Floor Westminster CA 92683 Huntingtoi i Beach,CA 92649
Long Beach,CA 92802-4302
California Coas al Commission 24 Patricia Koch \A� 32 Cheryle B caning 38
South Coast Ar a Office HB Union Hi School Disrict Meadowla k Area
200 Oceangate, I Oth Floor 10251 Yorkto n Avenue 16771 Ro evelt Lane
Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Huntington B ch,CA 92646 Huntingt n Beach,CA 92649
Robert Joseph 25 CSA 33 Koll Co any 39
Caltrans Districi 12 730 El Camin Way#200 4343 Von arman
2501 Pullman St Tustin,CA 9 680 Newport each, CA 92666
Santa Ana, CA 705
Director 26 Goldenwest College 34
Local Solid Wast Enf.Agy. Attn:Fred Owens
O.C.Health C e Agency 15744 Goldenwest St.
P.O. Box 355 Huntington Beach CA 92647
Santa Ana, CA 2702
i
New Growth C ordinator 27 OC County rbors,Oach 35
Huntington Bea Post Office and Parks Dep .
6771 Warner Ave P. O. Box 404
Huntington Beac CA 92647 Santa Ana,C 92702-4048
Marc Ecker 28 Huntington ach Mall 36
Fountain Valley Attn: Pat Ro rs-Laude
Elementary School District 7777 Edinger ve. #300
17210 Oak Street Huntington each CA 92647
Fountain Valley CA 92708
g:labels\phnlbls
(f -Z3
Resident Liberty Bank Tower Sam Mobassaly
3502 Gilbert Drive Michael Todaro,Attorney at Law 16602 Somerset Lane
Huntington Beach,CA 92649 17011 Beach Blvd. ,Suite 900 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Huntington Beach,CA 92647
Ms.Lindsay Naomi Cohen Greg Grani
3502 Gilbert Drive 3481 Gilbert Drive 3302 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Kay on Ray Harker Robert Manianci
3552 G' Drive 5333 Rural Route 17906 Crusader Lane
mgton Be h,CA 92649 Anaheim,CA 92807 Cerritos,CA 90703
Resident Nick Di Benedetto Resident
16711 Peale Lane 16562 Somerset Drive 3532 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Resident
Helen Houser Mr.and Mrs.Harvey Friedman 3422 Gilbert Drive
16572 Somerset Lane 16622 Somerset Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Joyce Nikolau
Jan ing<Beh,
(J�\ Robert and Mildred Helfer 3382 Gilbert Drive
16662ne 3472 Gilbert Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649
H mgto CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Gerald Jones Mrs.Marguerite Morrison Ruth Otis
3442 Gilbert Drive 16582 Somerset Lane 3352 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
JoIN nd Ir ,���(,U Fred and Louise Capper
352 rene eperive 16702 Peale Lane
untington Beac A 92649\ Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Wini arrel \�,� pp�, Petrowski �VU
G/KLOPFENS/TAY2LB 16622 W Circle u„Vr. 3412 i rive rw
H ngton Beach, A 92649 ` Hunti on CA 92649
PC MTG 4/29
Notice for CDP 97-33/CUP 97-83
C,4p 9743
J v
CA) 7J4 (5)
CUP 97-83 LB
Kir. d Nirs. ttchell
16641 s:ton Drive U \0
I lu ngton Beac A 92649
>1666ellin
/<Beach,
\\Ckv Kathy and Carl Ketland
e 16561 Peale Lane
92749 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Robert Gardiner >Htncyton
d ne Nagy
P.O.Box 1175 ' ton `
Camp Verde,AZ 86322 Bea CA 92649
Yeng Chen
1856 Via Arroyo
La Verne,CA 91750
1-78 — qo-- — 1 Z
Charles Nichols
3492 Gilbert Drive
Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Gerald&Marilyn Jones
P.O.Box 337
Sunset Beach,CA 90742
Aprol Van Wie
P.O.Box 150
Huntington Beach CA 92648-50
Sylvia Augustine
3151 Airway Ave Suite N-2
Costa Mesa,CA 92663-1740
Anthony Ursino
419 Main Street# 148
Huntingotn Beach,CA 92648
Cc/P17—F,3
0
...
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1998
DEPARTMENT SUBJECT:
REQUESTING:
Community Development CUP 97-83, CDP 97-33 - Darrach Taylor - 16661
Wellington Dr.
I
TODAY'S DATE May 14, 1998
VERIFIED BY
ADMININSTRATION:
APPROVED BY:
Ray Silver
City Administrator
5/14/98 2:46 PM
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUE T
w►� ���Na SUBJECT: C DYV iT i oI��A t� U,5xcr yac e-n'1 I
DEPARTMENT: W✓n m U IV I T-v X>E V, MEETING DATE:
CONTACT: �il v 5 7-E40NE:
N/A YES NO
Is the notice attached?
( ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or
Redevelopment Agency)hearing?
Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct?
( ) ( ) If an appeal, is the appeicant'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?
( ) ( ) 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?,�"eut> ` .0 'I"I iJ � ►VS
j
( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing
labels?
If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels attached?
( ) ( ) Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only)
Please complete the following:
1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date
2. Number of times to be published I
3. Number of days between publications
cm-de 8 yi CRY Cwk US POISTLcE
s
C V of Hw*Vton Beach
00ce of the Cky CMr "
P.O.Box 190 W,L j"L
Huntirom Beads,CA OMS �i�'�/Y d 4. H METER
C f1
Anthony Ursino
419 Main Street# 149 ���
TliliT is�vS�
Q� f Huntingom Beach,CA 92�'+xr/INCTD�q/N Sj Al
_ .
E:c c T it R t! tl l s_ a
►ATV ��' i) Pi C tt
LEG4L NOTCE E EU® G H G
ara� oil a 1111 gill III 111111
i
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. .
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH..
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,June 1, 1998,at".7:00 PM'in the.City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item:
❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.97-83/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.. .
97-33 (APPEAL)(TAYLOR RESIDENCE): Applicant: Darrach Taylor Appellant: Naomi
Cohen,et.al. (Huntington Harbour Residents) Re guest: An appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approval for construction of an eight(8)foot high retaining/block wall with a
three(3)foot wrought iron fence and 18 inch light fixtures above the wall for a combined height
of 12 feet,six(6) inches, in lieu of maximum six(6)foot high wall within the rear yard setback
area. The new wall will be 40 feet in length and will extend ten(10)feet into the rear yard slope
and will accommodate a 400 square foot expansion of an existing at-grade pool deck. A new at-
grade staircase will be located on the south side of the rear yard and two(2)combination
retaining/wrought iron wing walls(returns)will be located on the north and south portion of the
new.wall. Seventeen(17)linear feet of the existing combination block/wrought iron wall will
remain at the top of the slope(north side). Location: 16661 Wellington Drive_(east of Peale
Lane and north of Gilbert Drive) Project Planner: Kim Klopfenstein
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act. It is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone
and includes Coastal Development Permit No.97-33,filed on December 8, 1997, in conjunction with the
above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing,City
Council discussion and action. City Council action on the above item may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission within ten(10)working days from the date of receipt of the notice.of final City action by
the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations,or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of
the California Administrative Code is applicable. The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area
Office,200 Oceangate, l Oth Floor,Long Beach,CA 90802-4302,phone number: (310) 570-5071.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department,,2000
Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report
will be available to interested parties at City Hail or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after
May 26, 1998.
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 Division at 536-5271 and refer to the
above item. 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