HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Councilmember Deb (12) �. CITY OF HUWIPJGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
JOAN L. FLYNN
CRY CLERK
June 23, 2005
Shirley Doo
P. O. Box 115
Sunset Beach, CA 90742
Re: NOTICE OF ACTION —Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03— Doo Wail
Dear Ms. Doo:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday,
June 20, 2005 took action on the following Public Hearing: Public Hearing to Consider
Appeal Filed by Councilmember Debbie Cook of the Planning Commission's Approval
of Conditional Use Permit No.05-03 (Doo Retaining Wall located 17041 Westport
Drive,west of Bedford Lane)—Applicant, Shirley Doo.
Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 to construct a combination retaining
wall/wood fence with a maximum height of 11 feet at a staggered setback of three feet to
five feet eight inches in lieu of the maximum height of 42 inches allowed within the rear 15-
foot setback of a through lot. Enclosed are the action agenda pages 7 & 8.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227.
Sincerely,
rn lynn
k
Enclosure: Action Agenda Pages 7 & 8
Findings and Conditions of Approval
cc: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
Councilmember Debbie Cook
(TeWptwne:714r36 5227)
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 0"3
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment
and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to
section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the establishment and maintenance of a combination
retaining wall/wood fence involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing,
therefore no filrther environmental review is necessary.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 for the establishment and maintenance of a combination retaining
wall/wood fence with a maximum height of 1 I feet at a staggered setback of three feet to five feet
eight inches, in lieu of the maximum height of 42 inches allowed within the rear 15-foot setback of a
through lot,will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the
vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The wall
is proposed with quality materials including split face concrete block and a decorative wood fence
design which will be aesthetically appealing when viewed from the street. Several of the through lots
along Westport Drive have been developed with similar walls.
2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses that consist of properties
developed with similar walls within the rear yard setback. The adjacent property to the west consists
of a I0-foot high combination retaining/block wall at the rear property line. The subject wall will
have setbacks that vary between 3 feet to five feet eight inches based on the staggered wall design.
Landscaping is proposed within the setback, which will soften the appearance of the wall when
viewed from Roundhill Drive.
3. The proposed conditional use permit 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
(HBZSO). The HBZSO allows for a deviation to the maximum height requirements within required
setbacks with the approval of a conditional use permit.
4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent
with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property. In
addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
c_ Avoid building materials, colors,and construction elements that visually dominate their setting
and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood(LU 9.1.2.b).
d. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting
sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.Le)
(05sr1 l CUP 05-03 Appeal) Attachment No.1.1
The project will be developed with a landscape setback ranging from three feet to five feet eight
inches, which will improve the aesthetics along the frontage of the property and soften the appearance
of the proposed wall. In addition the use of split-face block combined with a decorative wood fence
will break up the massing of the proposed wall.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. The site plan,floor plans,and elevations received and dated January 25,2005 shall be the
conceptually approved design.
2. Prior to issuance of block wall permits a planting and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the departments of Planning and Public Works.
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION.
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from
the property owner,and each of their heirs,successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers,and employees from any claim, action or
proceedings,liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or
employees, to attack,set aside,void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any
approval granted by the City Council,Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this
project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should
cooperate fully in the defense thereof_
(05sr1 L CUP 05-03 Appeal) Attachment No_ 12
(7) June 20,2Do5-CouncillAgency Agenda -Page 7
Roosevelt Lane (west side, north of Warner Avenue, south of Pearce Drive)—Applicant,
Hank Jong, EGL Associates, Inc. (420.40)
Public hearing to consider appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 16682ICondibonal Use Permit No. 04-16 (Roosevelt Lane Condominiums):
Applicant: Hank.long, EGL Associates, Inc.
Appecant: Dave Sullivan, Mayor Pro Tern
Request: Tentative Tract Map(lTM):To subdivide a 41,054 sq_ft. parcel into one lot for
condominium purposes; Conditional Use Permit(CUP): To permit(a)construction of 13 three-
story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot; and (b) patio
fencing exceeding 42 inches in height(proposed 43 inches)within the required front yard setback.
Location: 16811 Roosevelt Lane (west side of Roosevelt Lane, north of Warner Avenue, south of
Pearce Drive)
Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this item is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
On file: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,Catifomia
92W,for inspection by the public_ A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's
Office on Thursday,June 16,2005.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the
application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to
the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-
5271 and refer to the above items_ Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
1. Staff report
2. City Council discussion
3_ Open public hearing
4. Following public input,close public hearing
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation:
Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with findings
and modified conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1.)
Assistant Planner Ron Santos gave PowerPoint presentation. Council and staff
discussed Affordable Housing issue, drainage situation, open spaces and setback area,
and six-foot versus eight-foot block wall along Roosevelt Lane frontage. Public Hearing
opened, 2 speakers, Public Hearing closed. Approved Recommended Action as
amended—on site would have two medium affordable units for sale or offsite, one low
and one very low affordable rental units applicant's choice, and eliminate "g"from
Conditions of Approval of TTM 16682.
Approved 7— 0
D-2 (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Councilmember Debbie
Cook of the Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 (Doo
Retaining Wall located 17041 Westport Drive, west of Bedford Lane)—Applicant, Shirley
Doo (420.40)
(8) June 20, 2005-Council/Agency Agenda-Page 8
Public hearing to consider appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use
Permit 05-03 (Doo Retaining Wall):
Applicant: Shirley Doo
Appellant: City Council Member Debbie Cook
Request: To permit the construction of a combination retaining wall/wood fence within the rear
yard setback of a through lot. The proposed retaining wall measures five (5)feet in height and will
be topped with a wood fence measuring six(6)feet in height for a maximum height of eleven (11)
feet. The combination retaining wall/wood fence is proposed with a meandering setback ranging
from three(3)feet to five (5)feet eight(8)inches measured from the rear property line. Location:
17041 Westport Drive (south side of.Westport Drive,west of Bedford Lane)
Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this item is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
On file: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California
92648,for inspection by the public_ A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's
Office on Thursday.June 16,2005.
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 Counc:il's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to
the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-
5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk-
1_ Staff report
2. City Council discussion
3. Open public hearing
4. Following public input,close public hearing
(Sixteen communications regarding this item are included in the agenda packet.)
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation:
Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment
No. 1).
Mayor Pro Tem Sullivan recused himself. Associate Planner Paul Da Veiga gave
PowerPoint presentation. Public Hearing opened, 9 speakers, Public Hearing closed.
Approved 5— 1- 1 (Cook No, Sullivan Abstain)
ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION + "\
OF
Date of Plannink Commission Action
TO: Planning Dept. (2 copies) DATE:0 j
City Attorney (1 copy)
FILED BY: v,C A �l .vy�\ �4 \J �k co K--
REGARDING: ��.�ti�c til��✓� �- �� 4` rv�` � `� —
Tentative Date for Public Hearing:
I
Copy of Appeal Letter attached.
LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P.MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Joan L. Flynn
City Clerk X5227 Fee Collected
FOB
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
City Council Interoffice Communication
To: Joan Flynn, City Clerk
From: Debbie Cook, City Council Member
Date: June 2, 2005
Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.05-03 (DOO RETAINING WALL)
The purpose of this memo is to appeal the Planning Commission's approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03. The proposed alteration of the existing rear slope
with the construction of a combination retaining wall and wood fence will be detrimental
to the general welfare of surrounding residents. In addition, the proposed wall is not
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood based on the proximity of the wall to the
rear property line.
xc: City Council
Planning Commission
Penny Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator
Robert Beardsley, Acting City Administrator
Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning
II. d
31>
J
r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA _,-�,,,
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-21
Council/Agency Meeting Held: 0
Deferred/Continued to:
AApproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied C' ler s Si ature
Council Meeting Date: June 20, 2005 =DepartmeWD Number: PL05-21
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CIT NCIL E RS {
SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULBRETWGRAFT�Cl dministr r -
PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03 (Doo Retaining
Wall - APPEAL)
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 Council Member Debbie Cook of the
Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03. This application
represents a request by Shirley Doo to construct a combination retaining wall/wood fence
with a maximum height of 11 feet at a staggered setback of three feet to five feet eight
inches in lieu of the maximum height of 42 inches allowed within the rear 15-foot setback of
a through lot.
The Planning Commission conditionally approved the project and is recommending the City
Council approve the request based on the design of the proposed wall, which includes
substantial setbacks, breaks in the wall surface, and use of quality materials. Staff
recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission and is recommending
that the City Council approve the request with the suggested conditions of approval based
on the proposed design. The recommendation is consistent with prior block wall approvals
which have been developed with a landscape setback to soften the appearance of the wall
as viewed from Roundhill Drive.
Funding Source: Not applicable.
PL05-21 Doo Wall 6/13/2005 10:33 AM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-21
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 with findings and conditions of approval
(ATTACHMENT NO.1)."
Planning Commission_Action on May 24, 2005:
THE MOTION MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR
APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DWYER, SCANDURA, RAY, LIVENGOOD, BURNETT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: DINGWALL
ABSTAIN: FUHRMAN
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
1. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 with findings."
2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 and direct staff accordingly."
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Shirley Doo, P.O. Box 115, Sunset Beach, CA 90742
Location: 17041 Westport Drive (south side of Westport Dr., west of Bedford Ln.)
Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 represents a request to construct a combination retaining
wall/wood fence with a maximum height of 11 feet at a staggered setback of three feet to five
feet eight inches in lieu of the maximum height of 42 inches allowed within the 15-foot rear
setback of a through lot pursuant to Chapter 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance.
The retaining portion of the wall measures approximately five feet and will follow a staggered
pattern with sections proposed at a three-foot setback and others at a five foot eight inch
setback from the rear property line. The wood fence, located above the retaining wall, will be
PL05-21 Doo Wall ;,3-' 6/13/2005 10:33 AM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-21
not be staggered and will be setback five feet eight inches for its entire length. The wood
fence will have a varied height between five and six feet, measured from the top of the
retaining wall. The conceptual planting plan proposes three trees along the frontage of the
wall and includes areas of dense landscaping. The materials proposed include split-face
block on the retaining portion of the wall topped with a decorative wood fence.
The homes along Westport Drive were developed as through lots and are located at a
substantially higher grade than the adjacent street (Roundhill Dr.). As a result, 18 out of the
35 through lots along this residential street have filled either the entire or a portion of their
rear slope to allow for an expansion in their usable rear yards. The subject tract was
originally developed with 6-foot high wood fences at the top of the slopes. The subject
property is currently developed with a 42-inch high wood fence at the top of the existing
slope, which is setback approximately 11 feet from the rear property line.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning Administrator approved the project without modifications on April 20, 2005. Two
neighborhood residents spoke in opposition to the proposed wall citing that the Conditions,
Covenants and Restrictions (CC & R's) for the development do not allow modifications to the
rear slopes of through lots within Huntington Harbor. They also expressed concern
regarding the aesthetics of the proposed wall. Three speakers spoke in support of the
requested wall (including the applicant). They commented favorably on the design of the
wall and indicated that it should be used as an example for similar requests in the future.
See Zoning Administrator Minutes (Attachment No.4).
Former Planning Commissioner Randy Fuhrman appealed the Zoning Administrator's
approval on April 21, 2005. The reasons for the appeal were that the location of the wall
within the rear yard setback was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that
alteration of the slope with the proposed retaining wall/wood fence would be a detriment to
the general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity.
On May 24, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal and to
discuss the proposed project. There were a total of six persons who testified in support of
the project and four persons who expressed their opposition to the project. Neighborhood
residents who testified in favor of the project cited the quality design proposed by the
applicant and the substantial landscape area in front of the wall, which would beautify the
street scene along Roundhill Dr. Those who spoke in opposition to the proposal cited non-
compliance with the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC & R's), the excessive
height of the proposed wall/fence, and the loss of the existing slope at the rear of the subject
site. See Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment No. 3)
The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation and approved the
proposed retaining walllwood fence design without modifications based on the substantial
setbacks, breaks in the wall surface, and use of quality materials. Also, that due to the
sloping rear yard, the actual visible portions of the wall total nine, feet six inches ff-6") in
PL05-21 Doo Wall -A-- 6/13/2005 10:33 AM
� 3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
JOAN L. FLYNN
CITY CLERK
June 23, 2005
Shirley Doo
P. O. Box 115
Sunset Beach, CA 90742
Re: NOTICE OF ACTION —Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03— Doo Wall
Dear Ms. Doo:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday,
June 20, 2005 took action on the following Public Hearing: Public Hearing to Consider
Appeal Filed by Councilmember Debbie Cook of the Planning Commission's Approval
of Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 (Doo Retaining Wall located 17041 Westport
Drive, west of Bedford Lane) —Applicant, Shirley Doo.
Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 to construct a combination retaining
wall/wood fence with a maximum height of 11 feet at a staggered setback of three feet to
five feet eight inches in lieu of the maximum height of 42 inches allowed within the rear 15-
foot setback of a through lot. Enclosed are the action agenda pages 7 & 8.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227.
Sincerely,
rlynn
k
Enclosure: Action Agenda Pages 7 & 8
Findings and Conditions of Approval
cc: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
Councilmember Debbie Cook
(Telephone: 714-5365227)
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment
and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to
section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the establishment and maintenance of a combination
retaining wall/wood fence involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing,
therefore no further environmental review is necessary.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 for the establishment and maintenance of a combination retaining
wall/wood fence with a maximum height of 11 feet at a staggered setback of three feet to five feet
eight inches, in lieu of the maximum height of 42 inches allowed within the rear 15-foot setback of a
through lot, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the
vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The wall
is proposed with quality materials including split face concrete block and a decorative wood fence
design which will be aesthetically appealing when viewed from the street. Several of the through lots
along Westport Drive have been developed with similar walls.
2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses that consist of properties
developed with similar walls within the rear yard setback. The adjacent property to the west consists
of a 10-foot high combination retaininglblock wall at the rear property line. The subject wall will
have setbacks that vary between 3 feet to five feet eight inches based on the staggered wall design.
Landscaping is proposed within the setback, which will soften the appearance of the wall when
viewed from Roundhill Drive.
3. The proposed conditional use permit 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
(HBZSO). The HBZSO allows for a deviation to the maximum height requirements within required
setbacks with the approval of a conditional use permit.
4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent
with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property. In
addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
c. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting
and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood (LU 9.1.2.b).
d. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting
sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.Le)
(05sr t i CUP 05-03 Appeal) Attachment No. 1.1
The project will be developed with a landscape setback ranging from three feet to five feet eight
inches, which will improve the aesthetics along the frontage of the property and soften the appearance
of the proposed wall. In addition the use of split-face block combined with a decorative wood fence
will break up the massing of the proposed wall.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 25, 2005 shall be the
conceptually approved design.
2. Prior to issuance of block wall permits a planting and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the departments of Planning and Public Works.
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from
the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indernnify and hold
harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or
proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or
employees, to attack, set aside,void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any
approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this
project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should
cooperate fully in the defense thereof.
(05sr11 CUP 05-03 Appeal) Attachment No. 1.2
(7) June 20, 2005 -Council/Agency Agenda -Page 7
Roosevelt Lane (west side, north of Warner Avenue, south of Pearce Drive) —Applicant,
Hank Jong, EGL Associates, Inc. (420.40)
Public hearing to consider appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 16682/Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 (Roosevelt Lane Condominiums):
Applicant: Hank.long, EGL Associates, Inc.
Appecant: Dave Sullivan, Mayor Pro Tern
Request: Tentative Tract Map (TTM): To subdivide a 41,054 sq. ft. parcel into one lot for
condominium purposes; Conditional Use Permit (CUP): To permit (a) construction of 13 three-
story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot; and (b) patio
fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (proposed 43 inches)within the required front yard setback.
Location: 16811 Roosevelt Lane (west side of Roosevelt Lane, north of Warner Avenge, south of
Pearce Drive)
Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this item is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
On file: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California
92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's
Office on Thursday,,tune 16,2005.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the
application as outlined above_ If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to
the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. if there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-
5271 and refer to the above items_ Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
1. Staff report
2. City Council discussion
3. Open public hearing
4. Following public input,close public hearing
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation:
Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with findings
and modified conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1.)
Assistant Planner Ron Santos gave PowerPoint presentation. Council and staff
discussed Affordable Housing issue, drainage situation, open spaces and setback area,
and six-foot versus eight-foot block wall along Roosevelt Lane frontage. Public Hearing
opened, 2 speakers, Public Hearing closed. Approved Recommended Action as
amended-- on site would have two medium affordable units for sale or offsite, one low
and one very low affordable rental units applicant's choice, and eliminate "g"from
Conditions of Approval of TTM 16682.
Approved 7—0
D-2 (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Councilmember Debbie
Cook of the Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 (Doo
Retaining Wall located 17041 Westport Drive, west of Bedford Lane)—Applicant, Shirley
Don (420.40)
(8) June 20, 2005-Council/Agency Agenda - Page 8
Public hearing to consider appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use
Permit 05-03 (Doo Retaining Wall):
Applicant: Shirley Doo
Appellant: City Council Member Debbie Cools
Request: To permit the construction of a combination retaining wall/wood fence within the rear
yard setback of a through lot. The proposed retaining wall measures five (5)feet in height and will
be topped with a wood fence measuring six (6)feet in height for a maximum height of eleven (11)
feet. The combination retaining wall/wood fence is proposed with a meandering setback ranging
from three (3) feet to five (5)feet eight (8) inches measured from the rear property line. Location:
17041 Westport Drive (south side of Westport Drive, west of Bedford Lane)
Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this item is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
On file: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California
92648,for inspection by the public_ A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's
Office on Thursday,June 16,2005.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the
application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-
5271 and refer to the above items_ Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
1. Staff report
2. City Council discussion
3. Open public hearing
4. Following public input,close public hearing
(Sixteen communications regarding this item are included in the agenda packet.)
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation:
Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment
No. 1).
Mayor Pro Tom Sullivan recused himself. Associate Planner Paul Da Veiga gave
PowerPoint presentation. Public Hearing opened, 9 speakers, Public Hearing closed.
Approved 5— i— 1 (Cook No, Sullivan Abstain)
ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-21
height. The Planning Commission also found the project to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood in which 18 of the 35 through lots on Westport Drive are
developed with various walls within the rear yard setback.
C. APPEAL:
On June 2, 2005, City Council Member Debbie Cook appealed the Planning Commission's
action (Attachment No. 2) citing that the project would be a detriment to the general welfare
of the surrounding neighborhood through the alteration of the rear slope and incompatibility
of the wall with the neighborhood based on its proximity to the rear property line.
D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The main issues to consider when reviewing this request are compatibility issues with the
surrounding properties and visual impacts to residents along Roundhill Drive. The Planning
Commission staff report has been attached (Attachment No. 4) and includes a complete
analysis and letters of supportlopposition.
Compatibility
The 35 lots fronting on Westport Drive, which include this site, were originally developed as
through lots with a substantial grade differential from the street (Roundhill Drive — directly
behind these properties). As a result, all of these properties had a rear yard slope with a
fence at the top of the slope. Some residents have maintained their slope and have planted
ice plant and various other types of landscape material. A total of 18 out of the 35 through
lots have filled their slope and developed retaining/block walls along the rear property line.
The resulting condition is a mix of the original slopes and block walls, some of which were
built at the rear property line and others that are setback with a landscape planter.
The proposed block wall will be compatible with surrounding properties based on the varied
setback of the wall in relation to the properties located to the east and west of the site. The
abutting property to the west is developed with an 11-foot high combination retaining/block
wall along the rear property line (0' setback). The abutting property to the east is developed
with the original slope, approximately 11 feet in depth, and a six-foot tall wood fence located
at the top of the slope. Based on the setbacks proposed (3' to 5'-8") and staggered design,
the proposed wall represents a transition in design between the zero property line wall to the
west and the original slope condition to the east. The setback will also provide landscaping
which will soften the appearance of the block wall as viewed from Roundhill Dr.
The materials will consist of split-face block topped with decorative wood fence, which will
break up the massing of the wall. Staff supports the proposal based on compatibility with
surrounding properties through the use of varied setbacks, substantial landscaping, and
quality materials proposed on the wall.
PL05-21 Doo Wall 6/13/2005 10:33 AM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-21
Visual Impacts
Staff is in support of the proposed design of the block wall based on the landscape planters
provided in front of the wall and the staggered design with varying setbacks. The Design
Guidelines indicate that wall sections greater than 50 ft. in length should incorporate a
landscape setback into the block wall design to soften the appearance and massing of the
block wall. In addition, the General Plan contains policies such as LU 9.2.1.e, which indicate
that adequate landscape setbacks should be provided along street frontages and should be
integrated with abutting sidewalks to allow for continuity throughout the neighborhood.
The Urban Design Guidelines also encourage the use of varied materials on block walls
adjacent to street frontages. The use of split-face block on the retaining wall topped with a
decorative wood fence will allow for a visual break in the massing of the wall as viewed from
Roundhill Dr. Staff supports the design of the wall based on the use of varied materials
coupled with the staggered design of the wall.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section
Class 1, Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the establishment and
maintenance of a combination block and retaining wall involves negligible or no expansion of
the use beyond that previously existing, therefore no further environmental review is
necessary.
Attachment(s):
NumberCity Clerk's
Page . Description
1. Suggested Findings/Conditions of Approval (CUP No. 05-03)
2. Appeal memo from City Council Member Cook dated June 2, 2005
3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated May 24, 2005
4. 1 Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 24, 2005
RCA Author: PDV/HF
PL05-21 Doo Wall ,6` GM312005%.33 AM
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.05-03
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment
and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to
section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the establishment and maintenance of a combination
retaining wall/wood fence involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing,
therefore no further environmental review is necessary.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 for the establishment and maintenance of a combination retaining
wall/wood fence with a maximum height of 11 feet at a staggered setback of three feet to five feet
eight inches, in lieu of the maximum height of 42 inches allowed within the rear 15-foot setback of a
through lot, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the
vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The wall
is proposed with quality materials including split face concrete block and a decorative wood fence
design which will be aesthetically appealing when viewed from the street. Several of the through lots
along Westport Drive have been developed with similar walls.
2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses that consist of properties
developed with similar walls within the rear yard setback. The adjacent property to the west consists
of a 10-foot high combination retainingiblock wall at the rear property line. The subject wall will
have setbacks that vary between 3 feet to five feet eight inches based on the staggered wall design.
Landscaping is proposed within the setback, which will soften the appearance of the wall when
viewed from Roundhill Drive.
3. The proposed conditional use permit 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
(HBZSO). The HBZSO allows for a deviation to the maximum height requirements within required
setbacks with the approval of a conditional use permit.
4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent
with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property. In
addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
c. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting
and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood(LU 9.1.2.b).
d. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting
sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.Le)
(05srII CUP 05-03 Appeal) Attachment No. 1.1
The project will be developed with a landscape setback ranging from three feet to five feet eight
inches, which will improve the aesthetics along the frontage of the property and soften the appearance
of the proposed wail. In addition the use of split-face block combined with a decorative wood fence
will break up the massing of the proposed wall.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 25, 2005 shall be the
conceptually approved design.
2. Prior to issuance of block wall permits a planting and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the departments of Planning and Public Works.
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from
the property owner,and each of their heirs,successors and assigns,shall defend,indemnify and hold
harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or
proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or
employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any
approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this
project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should
cooperate fully in the defense thereof.
(05sr 1 i CUP 05-03 Appeal) Attachment No_ 1.2
ATTACHMENT 2
a
a ;F
To: .fi t Flynn, CRy Clerk
h,
Frofn.. Debbie Oook, CityCounedi'maw
Date: June 2, 2005
Subject: A P P VAL 00 PL4 M WO V 9 d 0 WS I M VA 0
The pine of this, rend, ,.
% tli the mnstmidlonof a wnibirmOm ' VW.
to:tie gi, : �.� l� 1
c ompadble with the amm
rear property
�
,.Ise
xc: City Council
Planning
Fanny Culb- ° t
Hord
_-- 4
E
LATTACHMENT 3
4,20 May
2 DRAFT
May 4 2005
Page 10
B-2. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 0"3 DOO RETAINING
WALL): Applicant: Shirley Doo Appellant: Planning Commissioner Randy
Fuhrman Request: To permit the construction of a combination retaining
wall/wood fence within the rear yard setback of a through lot. The proposed
retaining wall measures five feet in height and will be topped with a wood fence
measuring six feet in height for a maximum height of eleven feet. The
combination retaining walltwood fence is proposed with a meandering setback
ranging from three feet to five feet eight inches measured from the rear property
line. Location: 17041 Westport Drive (south side of Westport Drive, west of
Blair Lane) Proiect Planner: Paul Da Veiga
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No.
05-03 with suggested findings and conditions of approval."
The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Dwyer visited
the site and spoke with neighbor Carole Garrett and a property rights attorney;
Commissioner Fuhrman recused himself from any action on the item to avoid
any possible conflict of interest due to bias or impartiality; Commissioner
Scandura described his past participation on Planning Commission action
related to through-lot development, spoke with staff and drove by the site;
Commissioner Burnett met with Carole Garrett and visited the site;
Commissioner Livengood described his past participation on Planning
Commission action related to through-lot development, spoke with the applicant,
Carole Garrett and Nora Gibbs, and walked the property; Chair Ray described
his past participation on Planning Commission action related to through-lot
development, spoke with applicant, Carole Garrett and Nora Gibbs and visited
the site.
Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner, provided a staff report that outlined the
project's location and surroundings, described existing through-lots fronting
Westport and Roundhill Drives, described elements proposed in the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP), indicated that the request was approved by the Zoning
Administrator on April 20, 2005, identified the number of individuals who spoke in
support and opposition to the project, identified the reasons for appeal as land
use compatibility and it's being detrimental to the general welfare of the persons
residing in the vicinity, addressed concerns related to the project's visual
impacts, massing, landscape setbacks and wall materials, and provided staffs
recommendation to approve the request.
Commission questions/comments:
Chair Ray asked if the 11' wall height identified on page 7 of the staff report was
measured from top of curb adjacent to the street. Mr. Da Veiga confirmed.
Chair Ray asked staff to confirm permit dates for existing walls surrounding the
project. Mr. Da Veiga responded that the information was not readily available,
but that the City assumes that all existing walls went through the building permit
process.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes DRAFT
May 24,2005
Page I I
Chair Ray identified a correction to the number of through lots identified in the
staff report on Westport Drive. He also asked if a specific plan exists for the
area in question. Mr. Da Veiga replied that no specific plan is in place for that
area, and that it is zoned RL (Residential Low Density).
Chair Ray asked if the surrounding homes were built in accordance with the
development plans and/or standards existing at the time they were built. Mr. Da
Veiga confirmed.
Commissioner Livengood asked if the current code includes standards or
guidelines related to retaining wall and earth movement or slippage. Mr. Da
Veiga explained that all retaining walls must be inspected and approved by a
licensed, structural engineer, and that certain code requirements apply.
Chair Ray asked how the City takes into account the project location
transversing the Inglewood earthquake fault line. Mr. Da Veiga responded that
the issue is addressed within the Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards and
guidelines.
Commissioner Burnett asked if the existing, mature trees on the project site are
being kept or removed. Mr. DaVeiga identified the 2 to 1 tree replacement
condition on the property, and explained that the applicant has proposed 3 new
trees along the frontage and greater setback areas.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED:
Norma Gibbs, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item and discussed her
past activity in providing support on the applicant's request to the City Council.
She voiced concerns about why the property owner has faced such difficulty in
developing her own property, especially when the request was brought before
and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Adrienne Parks, Westport Drive, spoke in support of the item, calling the wall
proposal well designed, both esthetically and structurally. She identified a new
initiative in the California legislature that addresses statewide standards for
common interest developments, calling for architectural committees that deliver
fair, good faith decisions that are made within a reasonable amount of time. She
also discussed Commissioner Fuhrman's refusal to leave the room after
recusing himself from action on the item during the Commission's May 10, 2005
study session, and his past participation on through-lot discussions before the
Planning Commission and City Council. She criticized certain Roundhill Drive
residents for trying to govern the property rights of others. She also discussed
the Huntington Harbor Property Owner's Association's (HHPOA) role in ensuring
that property owners abide by the Harbor's Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&R's), and how the City should not become involved in that
enforcement.
Richard Batistelli, president of the HHPOA, spoke in opposition to the item. He
indicated that the HHPOA's membership involved 1200 properties with
approximately 3,600 residents. As a Huntington Harbor resident for
approximately 5 years, he spoke to clarify legal misconceptions about enforcing
the HHPOA CC&R's. He also referenced late communication submitted by the
(05pcm0524)
PC Minutes DRAFT
May 24,2005
Page 12
HHPOA's attorney regarding membership and CC&R enforcement. He stated
that variance approvals of this type are detrimental to older communities, and
urged the Commission to deny the request.
Chair Ray informed the public of late communication mentioned by Mr. Batistelli
as being received by Attorney Stanley Feldsott, Law Offices of Feldsott, Lee,
Iger & Lew.
Shirley Heras, Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the item. A 40-year
resident of Huntington Beach, she discussed the different types of walls and
embankments within the Harbor, urging residents to abide by the HHPOA
CCR's. She described the request as cutting edge and stated that it was
incompatible with the neighborhood.
Carole Garrett, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item and in favor of
the 51 property owners who face lots with similar retaining walls. She discussed
documentation related to slope enhancement and retaining wall activity occurring
during the past 40 years. She discussed the City Council's recent decision to
deny a request related to development of through-lots because a compromise
could not be reached that would satisfy public opinion. She also discussed how
a 15-foot setback is sufficient to prohibit development and how double-fronted
lots are considered to lie within the interior of the tract. She described the
applicant's proposal as detrimental to the tract and community, and stated that
the current code restricts such a request on double-fronted lots. She urged the
Commission to deny the request.
Mike Palikan, Huntington Beach, spoke in support if the item. He disagreed with
information provided by Mr. Batistelli on HHPOA membership and opinion. He
stated that the City should not be involved in issues related to the HHPOA
CC&Rs, although they should investigate CUP violations. He also described the
7A as qualified to approve the request, and addressed the reasons for the
appeal itself, including land use compatibility and the positive impacts the project
brings to the neighborhood through a responsible, well-planned development for
an older community, and detrimental, because it makes homeowners take notice
of their dilapidated properties.
Jackie Satterwaite, Mariana Circle and Gilbert Island resident for 40 years, spoke
in support of the item and described the various looks of walls, decks, trees and
landscaping throughout the community. She discussed the 27 through-lots on
Gilbert Island and stated that the HHPOA does not enforce the CC&Rs, rather
that they are not enforced until someone takes legal action against another. She
described the request as a way to improve safety for children and inhibit erosion.
Dave Lake, Concord Lane, spoke in support of the item. As a through-lot owner,
he expressed his disappointment with ice planted slopes that fail to rejuvenate
themselves, and others infested with weeds. He also discussed his review of the
HHPOA's CC&Rs and how he could not find any information indicating that the
applicant was in violates. He described the proposal as an attractive
improvement to the neighborhood and stated that those opposing the project will
say no to anything other than iceplant-covered slopes.
(05p=0524)
Minutes May
DRAFT
May 24,2005
Page 13
Shirley Doo, Westport Drive, spoke in support of the item and thanked the
Commission for their time. She wanted to clarify she is not violating the
HHPOA's CC&Rs as stated by Mr. Batistelli or Ms. Garrett because the HHPOA
does not represent 1200 homeowners and does not have an architectural
committee to review such a request. She explained how she was unaware that
the HHPOA would not support her plans for property improvement when she
purchased her property in June 2004, expecting to be able to build similar to
other walls within the neighborhood. She described herself as artistic, and that
her proposal will make the slope attractive. She also described the automatic
water system in place for landscaping and voiced concerns about whether or not
the request involved arguing over a wall, or the view, asking if she has the ability
to request that Roundhill neighbors change their property frontage. She stated
that too much time had been spent on this request, and that everyone should
take care of his or her own property.
Carrie Thomas, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor property owner rights, and
explained her experience as a past Planning Commission Member with through-
lot development. She described the presence of both attractive and ugly walls
within the community and suggested that the applicant consider a compromise to
build the retaining wall at a height to 8 feet, voicing concerns about 11 to 12-foot
walls being too massive. She also discussed the importance of considering the
rights of all homeowners, suggesting that the Commission not take any action at
all, and allow property owners to handle their own business in court, if necessary.
WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS_
CLOSED
Commissioner Livengood described City Council's action on through-lot
development as "status quo", in other words, do what has been done in history.
He also agreed with a statement made by a resident who described the area as
"hodge podge", stating that no uniformity in walls exists within the harbor and
that anything would work to improve the area. He stated that CC&R's are not
enforceable by the City and voiced concerns about"tilt-up" style walls. He
voiced support for the project because of setbacks being met (minimum 3 feet
and 5 feet), and for the applicant including a built-in water system for
landscaping.
Commissioner Dwyer asked about how CC&Rs or Property Association
restrictions effect City code requirements. Leonie Mulvihill, Commission
Counsel, responded that the CC&Rs are not enforceable by the City, only by
their respective homeowners and homeowner's associations.
Commissioner Scandura stated that the applicant is well within her rights to file
for a CUP that allows for development within the 15-foot setback given the City
Council's recent decision for"status quo" on through-lot development. He also
stated that the City will not enforce CC&Rs because it would greatly effect the
development standards, and that through-lots are not easements or right-of-
ways, they belong to the property owner. He described the project as a well-
designed enhancement to the area, and stated that concerns about screening
the slope have been addressed with quality material and a tree replacement
policy. He also complimented the landscaping features and voiced support for
the project.
(D5p=0524)
PC Minutes DRAFT
May 24,2005
Page 14
Commissioner Burnett described the issue as difficult. She stated that she
viewed videotape of previous public hearings on through-lot development,
including comments made by several public speakers. She also discussed the
time she spent time with resident Carole Garrett and how her visit to the area
revealed walls in disrepair, overgrown with unattractive vegetation, or massive
walls with a zero lot line that she found to be appalling. She explained how
Roundhill Drive is narrow at 36 feet wide, while the average street is 50 feet
wide. She also voiced concerns about the sidewalk width on Roundhill being 24
inches. She mentioned the City Counc il's decision to remain "status quo" on
through-lot development, and explained how each request must be decided on
its own merits, not what is stated within the CC&R's. She complimented the
applicant for the extraordinary measures for setbacks to maintain lot line
integrity, beautiful drawings and pleasing landscaping, all for which she is in
support of.
Commissioner Dwyer informed the public that audio speakers are provided in the
Caucus area so that Commission Members and staff can hear the meeting while
they temporarily leave the Council Chambers.
Chair Ray thanked Nora Gibbs and Mike Pallikan for their comments. He
commented on the properties that have pleasing rear yards with very nice wails
and landscaping. He also mentioned some properties that are ok, and some that
need great attention to bring them up to City standards. He described the
"status quo" decision by City Council and property owner's rights through the
CUP/public hearing process. He discussed two issues including what is the
impact of the improvement on the property itself, and it's effect on surrounding
properties. He described some area walls as prison-like (too tall and massive
with gray block walls) that do not enhance surrounding properties. However, he
stated that the applicant's proposal provided artistic quality with quality
landscaping and tree replacement. He voiced support for the proposal and he
concurred with former Commissioner Thomas about reducing the height of the
retaining wall, wondering if the Commission would consider action to reduce the
wall height to 8 to 9 feet.
Commissioner Scandura disagreed with Chair Ray's request to reduce wall
height because of the applicant's dedication to maintain 3 to 5 foot setbacks. He
also asked staff if the setbacks identified in January 2005 are what will be
approved with the request. Mr. DaVeiga confirmed, and also explained that the
wall height varies certain areas with reduced sections of 9.5 feet
Chair Ray asked if the applicant needed to provide an irrigation plan. Mr. Da
Vega responded that condition of approval no. 2, on Attachment 1.2 describes
irrigation plans being submitted during plan check.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO
APPROVE STAFFS RECOMMENDATION.
Commissioner Livengood asked about condition no. 2 on Attachment 1.2 and
whether or not to add to the condition that an irrigation plan must be included in
the setback areas. Scott Hess, Planning Manager, referred to code requirement
listed under condition no. 1.a. on Attachment 6.2.
(05p=0524)
Minutes May 2 ,2DRAFT
May 4005
Page 15
Commissioner Burnett asked if it were possible to condition the project that no
future plans for swimming pool would be allowed without City approval. Mr. Da
Veiga explained that a request for a swimming pool would require the applicant
must submit plans through the Building Department plan check process.
Chair Ray asked if the motion maker and motion second would consider
amending the motion by reducing the retaining wall in each section by 1 foot?
Commissioner Scandura explained that the varying heights, along with mature
trees that will provide a wall screen in the future make the request unnecessary
so he denied the amendment.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO
APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03 WITH SUGGESTED FINDINGS
AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Burnett
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dingwall
ABSTAIN: Fuhrman
MOTION APPROVED
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-
03
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CE
The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on
the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the
establishment and maintenance of a combination retaining wall/wood fence involves
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, therefore no further
environmental review is necessary.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 for the establishment and maintenance of a
combination retaining wall/wood fence with a maximum height of 11 feet at a
staggered setback of three feet to five feet eight inches in lieu of the maximum
height of 42 inches allowed within the rear 15-foot setback of a through lot will not be
detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or
detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The
wall is proposed with quality materials including split face concrete block and a
decorative wood fence design which will be aesthetically appealing when viewed
from the street. Several of the through lots along Westport Drive have been
developed with similar walls.
2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses that consist of
properties developed with similar walls within the rear yard setback. The adjacent
property to the west consists of a 10-foot high combination retaining/block wall at the
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes DRAFT
May 24,2005
Page 16
rear property line. The subject wall will have setbacks that vary between 3 feet to
five feet eight inches based on the staggered wall design. Landscaping is proposed
within the setback, which will soften the appearance of the wall when viewed from
Roundhill Drive.
3. The proposed conditional use permit 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 (HBZSO). The HBZSO allows for a deviation to
the maximum height requirements within required setbacks with the approval of a
conditional use permit.
4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan.
It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on
the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies
of the General Plan:
a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate
their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood (LU
9.1.2.b).
b. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is
integrated with abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the
neighborhood. (LU 9.2.1.e)
The project will be developed with a landscape setback ranging from three feet to
five feet eight inches, which will improve the aesthetics along the frontage of the
property and soften the appearance of the proposed wall. In addition the use of
split-face block combined with a decorative wood fence will break up the massing of
the proposed wall.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 25, 2005 shall
be the conceptually approved design.
2. Prior to issuance of block wall permits a planting and irrigation plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the departments of Planning and Public Works.
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if
different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including
attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack,
set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any
approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board
concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action
or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof.
(05p=0524)
ATTACHMENT 4
F 2
MAX
--,_........ ......... .
HU n
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Plannin
BY: Paul Da Veiga, Associate Plann
DATE: May 24, 2005
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03 (Doo Retaining Wall)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: Shirley Doo,P.O. Box 1.15, Sunset Bench, CA 90742
APPELLANT: Randy Fuhrman, Planning Commissioner
LOCATION: 17041 Westport Drive (south side of Westport Drive, west of Bedford Ln.)
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
a Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 request:
- To construct a combination retaining wall/wood fence with a maximum height of l l feet at a
staggered setback of three feet to five feet eight inches in lieu of the maximum height of 42 inches
allowed within the rear 15-foot setback of a through lot.
• Staffs Recommendation:
Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 based upon the following:
- General Plan goal to avoid building materials, colors,and construction elements that visually
dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood.
- High quality materials are proposed and include split-face block on the retaining portion of the
wall topped with a decorative wood fence.
- Design is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines,which encourage the use of landscape
planters and breaks in the wall surface.
- The staggered setback of the wall allows for a significant amount of landscaping at the base of the
wall to soften its appearance when viewed from R.oundhill Drive.
- The potential impacts including visual will be minimized by the staggered setbacks, landscaping
and use of high quality materials
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 with findings and suggested conditions of approval
(Attachment No.1)."
•1 .C�a
l Ya�otn�
MGM
suam
17-1
l
Ib�
i
lVaRkWum
l , IAM
ase�un
smema
l
l
l
l
SUBJECT SITE
it
'VICINITY MAP
Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03
17041 Westport Dr.
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PC Staff Report--5/24/05 -2- (05srl I CLIP 05-03 Appeal)
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as:
A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 with findings for denial."
B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 and direct staff accordingly."
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Conditional Use Permit No. 01-20 represents a request to construct a combination retaining wall/wood
fence with a maximum-height of l 1 feet at a staggered setback of thee feet to five feet eight inches in lieu
of the maximum height of 42 inches allowed within the 15-foot rear setback of a through lot pursuant to
Chapter 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
The retaining portion of the wall measures approximately five feet and is topped with a wood fence that
ranges in height from five feet to six feet in height. The wall will follow a staggered pattern with sections
proposed at a three-foot setback and others at a five foot eight inch setback. The conceptual planting plan
proposes three trees along the frontage of the wall and includes areas of dense landscaping. The materials
proposed include split-face block on the retaining portion of the wall topped with a decorative wood fence.
The homes along Westport Drive were developed as through lots and are located at a substantially higher
grade than the adjacent street(Roundhill Dr.). As a result 18 out of the 35 through lots along this
residential street have filled either the entire or a portion of their rear slope to allow for an expansion in
their usable rear yards. The subject property is currently developed with a 42-inch high wood fence at the
top of the existing slope,which is setback approximately 11 feet from the rear property line.
Zoning Administrator Action:
The Zoning Administrator approved the project on April 20,2005:(Attachment No. 4). Two
neighborhood residents spoke in opposition to the proposed wall citing that the Conditions, Covenants
and Restrictions (CC & R's)for the development do not allow modifications to the rear slopes of through
lots within Huntington Harbor. In addition,those in opposition expressed concern regarding the
aesthetics of the proposed wall. Three speakers spoke in support of the requested wall (including the
applicant). They commented favorably on the design of the wall and indicated that it should be used as
an example for similar requests in the future.
In consideration of the testimony given by the applicant and neighborhood residents,the Zoning
Administrator approved the project as recommended by staff for the following reasons:
❑ The wall is proposed with quality materials including split face concrete block and a decorative wood
fence design which will be aesthetically appealing when viewed from the street. Several of the
through lots along Westport Drive have been developed with similar walls.
PC Staff Report—5/24/05 -3- (05sr I I CUP 45-03 Appeal)
❑ The subject wall will have setbacks that vary between 3 feet to five feet eight inches based on the
staggered wall design. Landscaping is proposed within the setback,which will soften the appearance
of the wall when viewed from Roundhill Drive.
❑ The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent
with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property. In
addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting
and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood (LU 9.1.2.b).
b. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting
sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.1.e)
j2pea •'
Planning Commissioner Randy Fuhrman appealed the Zoning Administrator's action on April 21, 2005
(Attachment No. 5). The reasons for the appeal are as follows:
❑ Land use compatibility and the potential impact to the surrounding neighborhood as a result of the
proposed retaining wall/wood fence
❑ Alteration of the existing embankment and placement of a retaining wall topped with a wood fence
within the rear setback of a through lot is a detriment to the general welfare of persons residing in the
vicinity.
ISSUES:
Subject Property And Su"oundinz Land Use,Zoniniz And General Plan Desi nations:
fi _. t ' " ..?. € Ee -•2i .. .:_k 'c� •_
•uLius��e. `.E .s' .•�.:- 'xS;"..
Subject Property: Residential Low Density RL(Residential Low Residential
Density)
North, South,East Residential Low Density RL(Residential Low Residential
and West of Subject Density)
Property
General Plan Can ormance.
The General Plan Land Use designation on the subject property is RL-7 (Residential Low Density—7
dwelling units per acre). The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
City's General Plan, including:
a. Pod icy L U 9.,1.2.b-Avoid building materials, colors,and construction elements that visually dominate
their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood.
PC Staff Report—5/24/05 -4- (05srI I CUP 05-03 Appeal)
b. Policy L U 9.1.3.e -Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated
with abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood.
The project will be developed with a landscape planter ranging from three feet to five foot eight inches in
width along the sidewalk. The planter will improve the aesthetics of the streetscape and soften the
appearance of the proposed wall. The planter will minimize the visual impact of the proposed wall by
providing an additional setback. Retaining wall/Fence combinations in excess of 42-inches in height
within the rear yard setback have been permitted for block wall requests in this neighborhood.
Zoning Compliance:
This project is located in the RL (Residential Low Density)zoning district and complies with.the
requirements of that zone with the exception of the subject request.
Urban Design Guidelines Conformance:
The proposed project is in substantial conformance with Chapter 2.10.c of the Urban Design Guidelines
that indicates that wall sections greater than 50 ft. in length should incorporate landscape planters into the
block wall design to allow for landscaping to soften the appearance of the block wall. The project will
include a three to five foot eight-inch wide landscape planter to act as a visual buffer from Roundhill
Drive and is in conformance with the Design Guidelines.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to section Class 1, Section
15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the establishment and maintenance of a combination block and
retaining wall involves negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that previously existing,therefore no
further environmental review is necessary.
Coastal Status: The proposed project is within the non-appealable portion of the Coastal Zone and is
exempt from the processing of a coastal development permit.
Redevelopment Status: Not applicable.
Design Review Board: Not applicable.
Subdivision Committee: Not applicable.
Other Departments Concerns and Re uirements:
The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services and Building and Safety have
recommended conditions that are incorporated into the conditions of approval. There are no unique or
special conditions of approval. A list of applicable standard code requirements by the respective
departments has been incorporated into a letter that was previously transmitted to the applicant and has
been provided for reference purposes only(Attachment No. 6).
PC Staff Report—5/24/05 -5- (05sr11 CUP 05-03 Appeal)
Public Notification:
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on May 12, 2005, and
notices were sent to property owners of record within a 500 ft.radius of the subject property,
individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant,
and interested parties. As of May 19, 2005,26 letters in support and 10 letters in opposition to have been
received.
Application Processing Dates:
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATOR'PROCESSING DATES :
Conditional Use Permit: March 23, 2005 Within 60 days from the date of a complete application:
May 23, 2005
The Zoning Administrator heard the project on April 20, 2005, which complies with the State of
California Planning,Zoning,and Development Laws relative to mandatory processing times.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting to expand the usable rear yard at the subject property by filling a portion of the
slope within the rear yard and constructing a retaining wall/wood fence with a maximum height of 11 feet.
The setback ranges between three feet and five feet eight inches to the rear property line. The main issues
to consider when reviewing this request are compatibility issues with the surrounding properties and
visual impacts to residents along Roundhill Drive.
Compatibility
The 35 lots fronting on Westport Drive were developed as through lots with a substantial grade
differential from the street(Roundhill Drive—directly behind these properties). As a result,all of these
properties have a substantial slope. Some residents have maintain6d their slope and have planted ice plant
and various other types of landscape material. A total of 18 out of the 35 through lots have filled their
slope and developed retaining/block walls along the rear property line. The resulting condition is a mix of
the original slopes and block walls, some of which were built at the rear property line and others that are
setback with a landscape planter.
The proposed block wall will be compatible with surrounding properties based on the varied setback of
the wall in relation to the properties located to the east and west of the site. The abutting property to the
west is developed with an 11-foot high combination retaining/block wall along the rear property line(0'
setback). The abutting property to the east is developed with the original slope, approximately 11 feet in
depth, and a six-foot tall wood fence located at the top of the slope. Based on the setbacks proposed(Y to
5'-8") and staggered design,the proposed wall represents a transition in design between the zero property
line wail to the west and the original slope condition to the east. The setback will also provide
landscaping which will soften the appearance of the block wall as viewed from Roundhill Dr. The
materials will consist of split-face block topped with decorative wood fence, which will break up the
PC Staff Report—5/24/05 -6- (05srl i CUP 05-03 Appeal)
massing of the wall. Staff supports the proposal based on compatibility with surrounding properties
through the use of varied setbacks, substantial landscaping,and quality materials proposed on the wall.
The following area plan identifies the locations of walls within the vicinity of the subject site:
14 a.-d; u. CAL) ...
Visual Impacts
Staff is in support of the proposed design of the block wall based on the landscape planters provided in
front of the wall and the staggered design with varying setbacks. The Design Guidelines indicate that wall
sections greater than 50 ft. in length should incorporate a landscape setback into the block wall design to
soften the appearance and massing of the block wall. In addition,the General Plan contains policies such
as LU 9.2.Le,which indicates that adequate landscape setbacks should be provided along street frontages
and should be integrated with abutting sidewalks to allow for continuity throughout the neighborhood.
The scale and mass of an 11-foot block wall at a zero setback is not typically found in a residential
neighborhood. However,because of the unique configuration of the subject lots with the sloping portion
at the rear yards, staff has processed requests for taller block walls by recommending landscape setbacks
that reduce visual impacts to residents along Roundhill Drive and pedestrians who may travel along the
sidewalk.
The Urban Design Guidelines also encourage the use of varied materials on block walls adjacent to street
frontages. The use of split-face block on the retaining wall topped with a decorative wood fence will
allow for a visual break in the massing of the wall as viewed from Roundhill Dr. Staff supports the design
of the wall based on the use of varied materials coupled with the staggered design of the wall.
PC Staff Report—5/24/05 -7- (05sr11 CUP 05-03 Appeal)
Meal
The primary reason for the appeal is land use compatibility and potential impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood as a result of the proposed combination retaining wall/wood fence. The appellant also cites
that the alteration of the existing embankment is detrimental to the general welfare of nearby residents.
As was identified in the Analysis section of this report, 18 of the 35 rear slopes along Westport Drive have
been modified by individual property owners with various retaining wall and fence combinations. The
majority of these walls/fences exist along the rear property line with little or no landscaping. The proposal
incorporates a staggerred setback, landscaping,and quality materials that will soften the scale and mass of
the proposed wall/fence. The proposed wall/fence will be compatible with adjacent properties and will
not be detrimental to the general welfare of nearby residents based on the following:
❑ General Plan goal to avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually
dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood and to provide
adequate landscape setbacks along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting sidewalks and
provides continuity throughout the neighborhood.
❑ Design is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines,which encourage the use of landscape planters
and breaks in the wall surface.
❑ The subject wall will have setbacks that vary between 3 feet to five feet eight inches based on the
staggered wall design. Landscaping is proposed within the setback,which will soften the appearance
of the wall when viewed from Roundhill Drive.
❑ The wall is proposed with quality materials including split face concrete block and a decorative wood
fence design which will be aesthetically appealing when viewed from the street. Several of the
through lots along Westport Drive have been developed with retaining wall/fence combinations within
the rear yard setback.
❑ The use of split-face block combined with a decorative wood fence will break up the massing of the
proposed wall.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval--CUP No. 05-03
2. Site Plan and Wall Elevations dated January 25,2005
3. Narrative dated January 25, 2005
4. Minutes of the April 20, 2005 Zoning Administrator Meeting
5. Appeal Letter dated April 21, 2005
6. Code Requirements Letter dated May 17, 2005
7. 26 Letters in Support
8. 10 Letters in Opposition
SH:I]F:PD:rl
PC Staff Report--5/24/05 -8- (05srI1 CUP 05-03 Appeal)
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA:
The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment
and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to
section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines,because the establishment and maintenance of a combination
retaining wall/wood fence involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing,
therefore no further environmental review is necessary.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT NO.05-03:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 for the establishment and maintenance of a combination retaining
wall/wood fence will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the
vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The wall
is proposed with quality materials including split face concrete block and a decorative wood fence
design which will be aesthetically appealing when viewed from the street. Several of the through lots
along Westport Drive have been developed with similar walls.
2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses that consist of properties
developed with similar walls within the rear yard setback. The adjacent property to the west consists
of a 10-foot high combination retaining/block wall at the rear property line. The subject wall will
have setbacks that vary between 3 feet to five feet eight inches based on the staggered wall design.
Landscaping is proposed within the setback, which will soften the appearance of the wall when
viewed from Roundhill Drive.
3. The proposed conditional use permit 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
(HBZSO). The HBZSO allows for a deviation to the maximum height requirements within required
setbacks with the approval of a conditional use pen-nit.
4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent
with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property. In
addition,it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
c. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting
and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood(LU 9.1.2.b).
d. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting
sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.1.e)
(05sr11 CUP 05-03 Appeal) Attachment No. 1.1
The project will be developed with a landscape setback ranging from three feet to five feet eight
inches, which will improve the aesthetics along the frontage of the property and soften the appearance
of the proposed wall. In addition the use of split-face block combined with a decorative wood fence
will break up the massing of the proposed wall.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 25, 2005 shall be the
conceptually approved design.
2. Prior to issuance of block wall permits a planting and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the departments of Planning and Public Works.
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from
the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,action or
proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or
employees,to attack, set aside,void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any
approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this
project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should
cooperate fully in the defense thereof.
(05sri1 CUP 05-03 Appeal) Attachment No. 1.2
' rl°��■ Ft0oM .woofi8lJ.
- �rW�4L i w8.i11oMMwktie W+lNr.nwN
• 'a:wao►►keli�l�k•. +IMMf�fa'loimu►o►i�+..
wo►tecc. k ro.}E �7rsYf v><.NlurfNiYpN war.ch
aWkiRR./ ffpu1 sY-pop. cr9f ul-9r7i.
l.o-F o, *Jan.';* &S1 ii OM O Apo a¢.
u
CDs• .Zool GE.6. l sMiAM MPb.
n au y• HoNe.• .
v dEC11wof etpsk' • .1��3 J LE-1.
1 Woi.ANlo►• sx.a?nti APoHlaJ •pYwL .
almokarW& LIZ& -f ■AS.4, sLgo�i ter•
oo ►taps. a 6908 W
/ 1 ma 0 9® - 9 0 �•, 11 V%P&141Rk*APLP k091.s M.
+� dk&PAro, 7s2 a*.4vusfow5 a[gal.dAMA4E.-
.�f.s- , 2 OPFLI. sot-R'kks.
ti•J e ��
i 9!e-,e i
f
' 1
%�9 Mom •
NNO {11�
yN MM1.i0
—�f � l •IR o L 1.
Jim, MIAf
FtkVre 1F 1 Y.... . D • r r.*^. *w..aram"a ••••, ii�1 E ki�� l.MoL v7 • y.wijiTJ HAP,
j �w PA iwT, 66a
Esi+a NaNkAr+ 4•+r.r:•
I
_ Sam s+Aa bAMWW.
OWNYAW
• MULOU , ` r nnuxak 1M0.
•',_4• o ... ,�, '� . is n1 � �� .
��..11 G..1`,��tt ��tt +� •• �.AIt' t�kIPJ��M•i far M
WJYr•'����k�4. $. �•'.1'..cE — .. .�M,„.�r r:r P"�1..�r,.w...w.
C 1ti♦d IEAI.L 4rfM647 - . a a�rwl.�.p.r r w w�R
r-swr.
c 00.
oft
tirstsro•rt� 4ktwk0r
11
�� i•lc� rM.... �'�. may— tit .® *.•+t
Ll
easur-4av FLAW• SIYE FLAN e.�ik_ur � '� `�"":',
.I+fr-lwll kit.l4 1 (hl 1 1..1L•.ko-o
{p
y. J_
t
r
X
r
-
I./�Z�l�,ll�if
{91 I Y
-1.[IL�llft� "-�I�i
L��'�� .�u.
�rr�ri LAI- `T,p Ft y ►. i ,�3�, r`. r.��!�i!ti�r. `'`"' *l z-'� - r L ..i
r. r+
��,, (fit +�rr.f����►,i
k
1 f l
._
■ —t -12 'aN .. �'jw•dam } ,
t
�� CfG�7 ja"i W y;r 1 • 1 e� t
l
t
. C i��a.� S�t�.c �-i rr� �r f n►��.�zr )
t � Rio f�•. ,.
�93/}e'�'f9 ram„�,�. •,k� i,' 1`�• '' .�. 'i.:f •1'•
1 '1 i•••
1 i 1
DIt1D'U{t IBx
Qu.�eNks.i11� ,�.# ea",i=.fi 14. 1T�f f �JiYtKlt� �a-,f=„i=is f ?,as ;
Ter i�i ��� �? � y ,,. -•i '^" .
rllWer+.+ae rxq•t' 'R+tir k';»;;; >_ i;ls.esro�•<''�:"= _ +. yst�+n+�
•p4VIlO �Tf?t'GF f¢I4[f•IiIJ"'�%•��� Oy.TC■�{pQ`•i• 4} L �r----
v.! YrW t lour or'!H 3114hii:. i
r�+r
i;W� � '.•ii 9ocrs i[Ln+ +►�1--' •jcgfi az�
AJ
Jan 24, 2005 o �� �
SHIRLEY DOO
P. 0. BOX "- 1 15
SUNSET BEACH, CA 90742
17041 WESTPORT DR. ,
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS LETTER IS TO EXPLAIN WHY IT IS NECESSARY TO BUILD A
RETAINING WALL ON MY PROPERTY:
FRIST, . THERE IS THE ISSUE OF SECURITY PART NEEDS .TO BE
_ ADDRESSED. NATURALLY, THESE MUST BE SURE FORM OF BARRIER BETWEEN
A PRIVATE BACKYARD AND THE PUBLEIC STREET OF A COMMUNITY. I HAVE
A CHILD AND I WOULD ENJOY THE PRIVACY OF A BACKYEAR BY KNOWING
SHE IS PROVIDED A DEGREE OF SECRRITY THROUGH A RETAINING WALL.
ALSO, A RETAINING WALL WOULD INCREASE PROPERTY VALUE. THIS
ADDED BENEFIT CAN UPGRADE THE PROPERTY VALUE OF ALL WHOM ARE IN
= SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IF THEY CHOSE TO EXTEND THEIR BACKYARD AND
BUILD RETAINING WALL. THEY ARE THIRTY FIVE HOUSES ON MY STREET,
AND TWENTY-TWO HOUSES ALREADY BUILD A RETAINING WALL.
LASTLY, A RETAINING WALL AIDS IN LANDSCAPING AND IMPROVES
NEIGHBORHOOH ALSTHETICS. THIS OUTDOOR DESIGNING IS AS IMPORTANT
TO THE COMMUNITY AS INDOOR.
PLEASE CONSIDER ALLOWING ME TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL.
BEST REGARDS,
SHIRLEY O
714-981 -7098
ATTACHMENT NC. �---
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Room B-8 -Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntinaton Beach California
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005 - 1:30 P.M.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren
STAFF MEMBER: Paul Da Veiga, Rami Talleh, Ron Santos,
Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary)
MINUTES: April 6, 2005
APPROVED AS SUBMITTED
ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE
ITEM 1: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03 (DOO RETAINING WALL)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Shirley Doo, PO Box 115, Sunset Beach, CA 90742
REQUEST: To permit the construction of a combination retaining wall/wood
fence within the rear-yard setback of a through lot. The proposed
retaining wall measures five feet in height and will be topped with
a wood fence measuring six feet in height for a maximum height
of 11 feet. The combination retaining wall/wood fence is
proposed with a meandering setback ranging from 3 feet to 5 feet
8 inches from the rear property line
LOCATION: 17041 Westport Drive (south-side of Westport Drive, west of Blair
Lane)
PROJECT PLANNER: Paul Da Veiga
Paul Da Veiga, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose,
location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the
proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the
executive summary. Staff stated that the proposed project is consistent with the Urban Design
Guidelines.
Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the suggested findings and subject to
the suggested conditions as outlined in the executive summary.
Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, and staff discussed communication received from the
public. Staff stated that a letter in opposition has been received from the homeowner's
association, which has been forwarded to the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Broeren stated that
she received and reviewed a letter of apposition received from Carole Garrett, 17163 Roundhill
Drive, neighboring property owner, and a letter in support from Mike Palikin.
ATTACHMENT N( 4 . 1
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
Richard Batistelli, 16899-C Algonquin Street, president, Huntington Harbour Homeowner's
Association (HOA), referenced the opposing letter from the HOA, stated that the proposed
project is in violation of the CC&Rs, would be a negative impact, and urged denial by the
Zoning Administrator.
Carole Garrett, 17163 Roundhill Drive, neighboring property owner and member of the HOA
board, spoke in opposition to the proposed project stating that it is in violation of the CC&Rs,
and urged the Zoning Administrator's denial of the request.
Adrienne Parks, 17085 Westport Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in support of the
proposed project, stated that the CC&Rs are not an issue here and the CC&Rs should grow
with the neighborhood. Ms. Parks complimented the architect on the beautification that the
proposed wall would add to the harbor.
Shirley Doo, 17041 Westport Drive, applicant, presented reasons in support of the request and
urged the Zoning Administrator's approval.
Norma Gibbs Brandel, 17087 Westport Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in support of
the proposed project stating that it will beautify the neighborhood. Ms. Brandel urged the
Zoning Administrator's approval.
THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE
REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Ms. Broeren and staff engaged in discussions concerning vegetation and landscaping.
Ms. Broeren confirmed with staff that fencing to the rear of the property, at a height of
42-inches and within the 15-ft. setback, could be installed without a conditional use permit.
Ms. Broeren stated that she has taken a number of trips to the subject portion of the harbor at
various times. She stated that the City has approved a variety of walls, some with slopes, in
various setbacks with landscaping. Ms. Broeren stated that the proposed project is attempting
to maximize the use of the subject property and improve the slope. She stated that the subject
property currently is not aesthetically appealing.
Ms. Broeren stated her appreciation concerning the CC&Rs. She stated that the City Council
determined that the City is not responsible for the enforcement of CC&Rs and that it would not
be appropriate to change the code consistent with what the CC&Rs dictate.
Ms. Broeren stated that she concurs with staff's assessment that the project complies with the
Urban Design Guidelines in terms of providing a variety of material, heights, and landscaping,
and creates a variety of interest on the street as well as an improvement relative to the property
directly adjacent to the subject property.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING
ATTACHMENT
G:XZAXZAM INTS\05=0420.DOC 2 (05=0420)
ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10)
CALENDAR DAYS.
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the
environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the establishment and
maintenance of a combination retaining wall/wood fence involves negligible or no expansion of
use beyond that previously existing, therefore no further environmental review is necessary.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 for the establishment and maintenance of a combination
retaining wall/wood fence will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working
or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the
neighborhood. The wall is proposed with quality materials including split face concrete
block and a decorative wood fence design which will be aesthetically appealing when
viewed from the street. Several of the through lots along Westport Drive have been
developed with similar walls.
2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses that consist of
properties developed with similar wails within the rear yard setback. The adjacent property
to the west consists of a 10-foot high combination retaining/block wall at the rear property
line. The subject wall will have setbacks that vary between 3 feet to five feet eight inches
based on the staggered wall design. Landscaping is proposed within the setback, which will
soften the appearance of the wall when viewed from Roundhill Drive.
3. The proposed conditional use permit 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 (HBZSO). The HBZSO allows for a deviation to the maximum height
requirements within required setbacks with the approval of a conditional use permit.
4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is
consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject
property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General
Plan:
a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their
setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood (LU 9.1.2.b).
b. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with
abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the neighborhood. (LU 9.2.1.e)
The project will be developed with a landscape setback ranging from three feet to five feet eight
inches, which will improve the aesthetics along the frontage of the property and soften the
appearance of the proposed wall.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03:
ATTACHMENT NO. .
G:1ZAIZAMIN105105zm0420.DOC 3 (05zm0420)
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 25, 2005 shall be the
conceptually approved design.
2. Prior to issuance of block wall permits a planting and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the departments of Planning and Public Works.
3. Existing trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36 inch box
tree or palm equivalent (13' to 14' of trunk height for queen palms and 8 ' to 9' of brown
trunk).
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if
different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and
costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul
any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council,
Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly
notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense
thereof.
ITEM 2: TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 06-07 HUNTINGTON SURF AND SPORT
OUTDOOR SALES
APPLICANT: Aaron Pai, 300 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 408, Huntington
Beach, CA 92648-9264
PROPERTY OWNER: Mohammed Zeidan, 200 Main Street Suite 103, Huntington
Beach, CA 92648
REQUEST: To permit outdoor sales on approximately forty-nine (49) days per
year for a period of five (5) years from 2005-2009.
LOCATION: 126 Main Street (southeast comer of Main Street and Walnut
Avenue)
PROJECT PLANNER: Rami Talleh
Rami Talleh, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose,
location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff stated that the previously
approved temporary use permit for the subject site allowing outdoor sales for up to 22 days per
year and for a period of four years has expired. Staff presented a review of the proposed
project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive
summary.
Staff presented Exhibit A, which shows the proposed tables relocated and the number of racks
reduced from five to three as a recommended alternative to the proposed plan. Staff also
suggested that the permit be reduced from 49 days per year to 22 days and from five years to
two years in order to address any concerns that may arise.
ATTACHMENT NO.
G:\ZA\ZAMIN\05W5zm0420.DOC 4 (05zm0420)
CITY 4F HUNTINGTON BEAC
� �VE
Inter Office Communication
Planning Department APR 2 2 2005
City of Huntngton Beach
TO: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning
FROM: Randy Fuhrman,Planning Commissioner �14/44/�
DATE: April 21,2005
-SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ZONING ADMWSTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03(DOO RETAINING WALL)
I hereby appeal the Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Pen it No. 05-03 based
on land use compatibility issues and the potential impact to the surrounding neighborhood as a
result of the proposed retaining wall/wood fence. The alteration to the existing embankment and
placement of a retaining wall topped with a wood fence within the rear yard setback of a through
lot can be considered a detriment to the general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity.
xc: Planning Commission
Scott Hess,Principal Planner
Herb Fauland,Principal Planner
Paul Da Veiga,Associate Planner
File
Winemo-17041 Westport(Appeal)
ATTACHMENT NO. _^__�
1'E,:
JAI 'e . City of Huntington Beach
yf Y 1 ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALlFORNIA 92648
} DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Phone 536-5271
Fax 374-1640
374-1648
May 16, 2005
Shirley Doo
17041 Westport Dr.
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
SUBJECT: To construct a combination retaining wall/wood fence with a maximum height of
11 feet at a staggered setback of thee(3)feet to five(5)feet, eight(9) inches, in
lieu of the maximum height of 42 inches allowed within the 15-foot rear setback
of a through lot
Dear Shirley:
Please find enclosed a list of city policies, standard plans, and development and use
requirements, excerpted from the Huntington Beach Zoning&.Subdivision Ordinance and
Municipal Codes,which are applicable to the above named project. The list is intended to assist
you in identifying requirements, which must be satisfied during the various stages of project
implementation. All requirements listed, along with any conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission,would be effective upon final approval of your project.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the respective source department if you have any questions
regarding the enclosed list. I may be reached directly at(714) 374-5394.
Sincerely,
Pa Da Vei
Ass ciate Planner
Enclosure
cc: Scott Hess,Planning Manager
Herb Fauland,Principal Planner
Terri Elliott,Principal Civil Engineer
Eric Engberg,Fire Division Chief
(g:2jUowe's\mrresp\IW45coderegnimmentsvdmbcrg2) ATTACHM NT' nn
CITY POLICIES,STANDARD PLANS,AND CODE RE(�,UIREMENTS OF THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING & SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND
MUNICIPAL CODE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.05-03:
1. The.site plan, and fence elevations dated January 25,2005 shall be the conceptually approved
layout. Construction plans/working drawings submitted for plan check shall depict the
following information:
a. The applicant shall provide an automated irrigation system to the new planter to allow for
a consistent water supply to landscaping.
b. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and shall not encroach into the
public right of way.
c. All drains must be shown on the site plan, Show type, size,location, and discharge. (BD)
2. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed:
a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the second page
of all working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits(architectural,
structural,electrical,mechanical, and plumbing).
3. Prior to final building inspection and approval,the following shall be completed:
a. Compliance with all conditions of approval shall be accomplished and verified by the
Planning Department.
b. All building spoils such as unusable lumber,wire,pipe,and other unusable material, shall
be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them.
c. All existing mature trees that are to be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with a
36"box tree or palm equivalent(13' —14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8' —9' of
brown trunk). (PW)
4. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The
Planning,Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan,elevations and
floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be
issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for
conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein.
If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement
reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO.
ATTACHMENT HOB.
(g:fnrmslplanninglCode lLeguiremertts Letter)
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REOUXREMENTS:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day
appeal period has elapsed.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 shall become null and void unless exercised within one
year of the date of final approval which is May 24, 2005,or such extension of time as may
be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning
Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date.
3. - The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03,
pursuant to a public hearing for revocation,if any violation of these conditions or the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs.
4. All applicable fees.from the Building,Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid
prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code,
Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal
Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein..
6. Construction shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction
shall be prohibited Sundays.and Federal holidays.
7: The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of
Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the
County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2)days of the
Planning Commission's action.
8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with
the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas,check with the
Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code"requirements.
(g:fbn=\plamw,g\Co&Requu'rements Leeta). ATTACHMENT N9,
17061 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach, California Jb2649 RE�F�vL�D
December 30, 2004
City of Huntington Beach
Dear Ms. Shirley Doo,
First let us take this opportunity to welcome you to our wonderful neighborhood.
We are disappointed that we were not home and did not have an opportunity to
meet you on December 8t'.
We would be pleased to support your effort to build a retaining wall at the rear of
your new property. As you may know our property has a retaining wall at the rear
of our property. It has greatly enhanced the privacy of our backyard and
restricted direct sightlines into our rear facing windows.
We did our best to have our retaining wall constructed in an attractive fashion.
We believe we were sucessful. Several of our rear neighbors on Roundhill
commented favorably on the appearance of wall once it was completed. Of
course we are not the most objective judges, but we do think it is more attractive A_
than most of the "landscaped slopes."
We would hope that the City Council does.not deny you the same opportunity to }
improve your property. We hope they do not accommodate the wishes and
tastes of a few. We resent the efforts-to impose their arbitrary standard of taste
on all owners of through lots. I'm sure they would resent an attempt to dictate the
landscaping of their front yards, which we have the priviledge of viewing
everyday.
i
We empathize with you over the unfortunate difficulties you are encountering in
our city.
Sincerely,
George (Mike) Smalley
Valerie Smalley
,ATTACHMENT NO. I%
FROM 5FS Public Wk5/Eng FAX N0. 562 4621231 Jan. 03 2005 08:16AM P2
January 3; 2005
To whom it may concern:
I am a homeowner in Huntington Harbour, and I support Shirley
Doo in her endeavor to construct a concrete block retaining
wall and fence on her rear lot property line of 17041 Westport
Drive in Huntington Beach.
In addition, I am requesting that the Huntington Beach City
Council not adapt an ordinance that would take away the right
of property owners to cfonstruct such a wall.
Respectfully submitted,
gut
Harold Quan
17141 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
ATTACHMENT NO. 1-1
Oec LJ57A boo
}�onoN�d�� zfill l}��
Sfo
�ibiq gel on
P�J� N�/e'_ ��
�Y�i�PI� To 'y77�1�Z. coj eGuti� g
ero,5 on� fa-urn, �ndNee/J °}�
J
ATTACHMENT NO, , .s
f !
'J
ATTACHMENT NO.
_ � ��-`� / f••�" ',, `� O i ter.• � ..-�.
P -
ATTACHMENT NO. � �
J
P �
e
cL
. i 1
ATTACHMENT NO.
b,e Cam .
C41:7
JA WET
ATTACHMENT NO,
December 5, 2004
To Whom It May Concern;
My husband and I have no issues with Shirley Doo building a retaining wall on her
property at 17041 Westport Dr Huntington Beach, CA. We own and occupy a home on
the same street.
r
3' erely,
d Ann and ChatImTedersexn
17181 Westport Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
w �
s
ATTACHMENT NO. -7-�
fi
December 8, 2004
r
Ms. Shirley Doo .
17041 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Dear Shirley,
I was pleased to have a discussion with you on December 6, 2004, regarding your
approved and permitted building project, including landscaping/exterior walls.
My wife and I strongly support your desire to enhance and beautify your property, as it
will also greatly benefit the entire neighborhood.
Let us know if we can be of assistance to you at any time during your project.
Thank you again for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Scott and Jennifer.McCalliste
17171 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach{,CA 92649y'
A
r ATTACHMENT NO. �-:
- `
-C L�. -• �-P-��-�-�GT r .��G �CJ ��� !� Y ~'��� .!-ter
i
ATTACHMENT NO. ?=1�
le
f
4,6,,4 a A-elat '
J
,YA
i
-S ye
" 4
F
f
ATTACHMENT NO. f° , 0
U
0
ATTACHMENT NO. '7.►y
p
r
ATTACHMENT N0. .7��
Z/%la Y
Z��Iv�tll
txe
' L
wi
s
f
f
ATTACHMENT NO.. :Z-,�.`�
hl �
P�
ATTACHMENT N0. �� ��
n -
A
ATTACHMENT NO. �• �
1
. rr
C"g
(71 XV �7
-- �:
. r
E
f
A
. rr
ATTACHMENT Y NO. :L-
ATTACHMENT NO. : -«
C Th
t p
CT7
17 f�
Q.
4 f�
alb i7 -t b rp, vrr,-
A
' Pr
ATTACHMENT NO, -L. _
9 -1
!' A13
�yf 46, -
MACHMENT
A�
A�
ATTACHMENT NO ?�
r 41 c ,
J4
R
ATTACHMENT NO, I }
t
_ ir^�fli{w1
t
1
�1
F
=1 A
j_
:f
1
:t
w°
i�
ATTACHMENT NC
I tJ
C� }J �IY b,J�Jt,L
ATTACHMENT NO. ��
�y,rON City of Hunfington Beach
MAY 18 2005
HH
May 18, 2005
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92548
Re: Conditional Use Permit 05-03; Property at 17041 Westport Drive
Dear Commissioners:
The Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association(the Association) has denied the request
made by the property owner to alter the slope/embankment and to relocate and increase the height
of the fence at-the above referenced address.
The current fence facing Roundbill Drive is forty-two(42)inches tall and at the top of the grade
which is within the fifteen(15) foot setback area from the property line. This property is a double-
fronted or through lot and, as such,both street sides of the property are controlled by the front yard
setback in Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code Section 23 0.8 8 Fencing and Yards.
Any increase in the height of the fence would put the fence out of compliance with the current code.
The Association has approved the application to alter the residence. The Association also approves
the replacement of the fencing like-for-like at the same height and.location. Enclosed are copies of
the letters to the applicant from the Association's legal counsel and the Association.
The.Planning Commission is hereby requested to oppose Conditional Use Permit 05-03 and
recommend denial of any alteration of the slope,grade,or embankment including any fencing other
than a like-for-like replacement at the same height and location.
Sincerely,
Richard Batistelli, President
Enclosures(2)
cc. planning Department w/o enclosures
ATTACHMENT NO.
Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association,lnc.
P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 (714)840-7877
32/1 4/2005 13:02 19497296018 FELDSOTT LEE PAGE 02
Fe:LDSO'rT & LF-E
A LAW CQRPORA7101`4
4 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 300 -
NCWPORT WEAC µ. CALIFORNIA 09060
www.cahoalaw.com
PAX lSPA91 7*0_60F2 www.con 9truotlondetecLoorn
February 14, 2005
Shirley Doo
P-Q. Box 115
Sunset Beach,CA
Re; Huntington Harbour Propi zrty Owners Association and Appiicatiou to Alter
Einbankmeat-and Build Retaining Wall at 17441 Westport DriYe,,Lot 139,
Tract 488O
Dear Ms. Doo:
This office sery"as gerim-al coumel to the Huntington Harbour Ptopert�;Owners Association.
("Association"). The Association has requested that we contact you to inform you that your M.
submitted application.dated January 24,2005 to alter the ern.ba i ment and build a xetaining wall at .
the above referenced address-is denied, Any alteration or modification to the slope,grade,drainage,
angle,location, direction,replacement in whole or in part, or other such ch=ge to the embanlanent
on the property is disapproved.
Clause IV,Section 17 of theDeclaration of Restrictions("Restrictions")for Tract No.4880
states.
"(a) No building or other structure of any kind, including without limitmion
dwellings, accessory. buildings, garages, ferices, walls, retaining walls,
bulkheads, sidewalks, steps, awnings, poles, swirarrxing pools arid tei'mis
courts shall be erected, constructed,installed, placed, altered or maintained
upon a* lot or-upon any street or parkway adjacent-thereto unless and until
complete and detailed plans and specifications therefor showing color scheme
thereof, if appropriate, and a plot plan showing and axing the location of
such structure with reference to streets and lot lines(and the grading plar;, if
requested) shall have been,first submitted for approval to and approved in
writing by the Architectural Review Committee. Such plans and
specifications, color scheme, plot plait and grading plan shall be submitted
in ATiting over the signature of the awne:or 1xis daly authc,rized agent or a
form prepared by the Architectural Review Comrrittec, Approval by said
Committee of the erection, construttion, iustalladon, placement,
alteration or maintenance of said structure may be withheld because the
sarne would or might, in its judgment, cause or result in a violation of
ATTACHMENT NO. _�
14f'Mu4 Id: 1-tLtJ�V I I LLL rHk3r- ua
FELDSOTT 6 LEE
A LAW coAPORATiOµ
Huntington Harbour
Doo Violation Letter
February 14, 2005
Page Two
said Covenants and also because of the reasonable dissatisfaction of said
Committee with the grading plan,location of the structure,color scheme,
f'uaish, design, proportions, architecture, shape, height, style or
appropriateness of the proposed structure or altered structure,materials
proposedto be used therein, kind, pitch or type of the roof proposed to
be placed thereon,or because of its reasonable dissatisfaction with any
or all other matters or things which, in the reasonable judgment of the
said Committee,would render the proposed structure inharmonious or
out of keeping with the general plan of improvement of said real
property." (Emphasis added.)
Clause IV Section 22 of the same Restrictions provides i.r^pertinent part:
"(a) Without the prior A-Titten approval of the Architectural Review Committee,
(.i)no grade shall be constructed,areco3structecl or maintained on any lot,
or any portion thereof, with a slope steeper than the ratio of one and
oue-half feet(I %:')horixontalto one foot(1')vertical,and(H) no existing
grade shall be altered or modified by changing its location or the
direction of its slope or be replaced,in whole or in part. Any applicant for
a deviation from the foregoing requirements shall furnish said Committee
with su(,h engineering or geological data couc:ermng erosion, earth
movemcn*.,drainage,hazards to persons or public or private property and any
other matters which said Conunittee shall deem material thereto.
(b) All grades having a slope steeper than the ratio of vwo feet (2')horizontal to
one foot(I')veTticai shall beplamed and maintained with growing vegetation
sufficient to control erosion of such grades. All such vegetation and the
watering and maiatenamce facilities therefor shall be approved by said
Committee." (Emphasis added.)
Demand is hereby made that you restore the original grade of both the embankment and the
rc&-slope area of your property,and plant vegetation sufficient to control erosion by co later than
February 28, 2005. Additionally, you are to make no funheT rnodificatimn or alterations to your
property without obtaining prior m-ritten approval from the Architectural Review Committee.The
existing forty-two(42)inch fence located at the top of the grade may be replaced with a li.lce-for-like
fence in the same location and of the same height.
The Association previously approved the building plans altering ONLY the home on the
ATTACHMENT NO.
rtL11�DUi 1 LU- PAGE 64
FEi.oso-rT & Lmr
LAW CORPORATION
Huntington Harbour
Doo Violation Letter
F e-braary 14,200 5
Page Three
property. As a.reminder,any significant changes to the pre�,ious ly approved bui Iding plans must be
submitted tp the ArehitecturO Review Committee for:eview prier to execution.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at the address shown below.
Very truly yours,
FELDS OTT & LEE
` - y
By:
StvheA S. Chan—
g
By.
St at FcldSott
SC/111
cc: Board of Directors
Huntington Harbout Property Owners Assn.
ATTACHMENT NO. _g
= HH 70 December 8, 2004
STY O
Architectural Review Committee
P.0- Box 791
Sunset Beach CA 90742-0791
Ms. Shirley Doo
17041 Westport Drive,
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
RE: Doo Residence
Property at 17041 Westport Drive ,
Huntington Beach, CA
Approval of plans
Dear Shirley:
The building plans submitted to the Committee on 12/08/04 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 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.
3. This-Committee will deny and/or object to any request for a variance
which violates the CC&R's.of this Association.
However, the rear garden/retaining wall, as was dicussed with you and your legal
counsel on December 10, 2004, is not in compliance with the C, C, & R's of this
Association, and therefore is not approved.
Thank you for helping us keep Huntington Harbour a special place to live by
cooperating with our review program_ We hope that you have a successful project.
R. Batistelli
President
Member,
ATTACHMENT NO. .��--
Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association,lnc.
P,O, Sox 791 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 (714)840-7877
City of Huntington Beach.
W 182005
Carole N- Garrett
17163 RoundhiffDrive
Huntington Bead, Cal 92649
18 May 2005
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Conditional Use Permit 05-03 for 17041 Westport Drive
Dear Planning Commissioners:
This is a request for denial of Conditional Use Permit 05-03. The referenced property is a
through lot, or double fronted lot,in Huntington Harbour.
As you know Required Findings for CUP approvals are contingent on the use not being
"detrimental"to the neighborhood and the surrounding properties. Further, Conditions for
Approval, as stated in Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 241.12,
require the use be"compatible"with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties or
in the surrounding area and "consistent with the General Plan."
An approval of CUP 05-03 is detrimental to,and not compatible and consistent with,the
"specific plan" for Huntington Harbour's Tract 4880. The Tract 4880 specific plan
consists of 130 properties on five streets i.e. Edgewater,Concord and Windsor Lanes;and
Roundhill and Westport Drives. The streets abutting the embankments were designed
narrower than standard, at 36 feet curb to curb;and the sidewalks abutting the
embankments were also designed narrower than standard, at 24 inches wide. Completing
the plan, standard 5-foot parkways were eliminated because green landscaped
embankments served as unique buffers.
These terraced streets and double fronted lots were specifically designed as the core or the
"heart,"if you will, of Tract 4880. The rear embankments of these double fronted lots are
not on the Tract's perimeter,these lots are within the Tract. Tract 4880 is not infill. The
74 double fronted lots in Huntington Harbour are part of the Harbour's specific plan and as
such are significantly different from the other double fronted lots in the City.
The majority of the City's other double fronted lots, which total approximately 35, are split
between Newberry Drive and Cottonwood, which are on opposite sides of the City to one
another. The remaining few lots are scattered in several other locations. Newberry and
Cottonwood are on the perimeter of their respective tracts, and as such are easily identified
as being infill.
ATTACHMENT NO. -
Planning Commission
Letter regarding CUP 05-03, dated May 18, 2005
Page two
The sizes of the horses in these two infill tracts vary significantly from the sizes of the
homes in adjacent tracts and surely the values do also. This is counter to the double
fronted lots in Huntington Harbour's Tract 4880,where the homes in adjacent tracts are all
part of the Harbour's master plan with homes of comparable size, design and value
potential.
Any approval for altering the embankments of the double fronted lots in Tract 4880
negates Tract 4880's specific plan and rightfully is detrimental to the neighborhood. The
embankments and the compromises to the specific plan, i.e. narrow streets, sidewalks and
no parkways,were negotiated with the developer and the City during construction in the
mid-1960s. In retrospect the design was cutting edge with landscaped"green belts"or
embankments. Similar designs have been incorporated into more recent specific plans
throughout Huntington Beach. Projects with such features have enjoyed enormous success
and skyrocketing valuations.
Don't strangle hold valuations for over 50 property owners in Huntington Harbour whose
properties face double fronted lots and do not have a waterfront view. Don't take away the
incentive to improve, upgrade and build out our properties. Our properties have the
potential to add tax dollars to the City coffers,too, as long as our Tract maintains its
uniqueness and remains consistent with the Tract's specific plan'and not run amuck with
exceptions to the building codes including approved variances and conditional use permits
that turn our streets into alleys. Without a consistent specific plan, it is not fiscally prudent
for many of the homeowners to invest significantly in their properties. What a shame;
make it equitable for all property owners in our neighborhood. Support the Harbour's
specific plan, enforce the existing ordinances and deny CUP 05-03. To do otherwise
affects our community's character and has long-term detrimental effects to property
valuations for the many homes facing the embankments in Tract 4880 as attested to by
various real estate professionals over the years.
Sincerely,
Carole M. Garrett
cc: Planning Department
ATTACHMENT NO. .�,
Chy ot Huntington Beach
MAY 18 2005 o cuuj
Manfred&Karin Lengsfeld
16907 Rondhill Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
17. May 2005
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Through Lots in our Neighborhood
Dear Commissioners:
After lengthy discussions by the Planning Commission and the City Council last
year about how to treat the 2°d front or the slope of the double fronted lots in our
neighborhood, the final conclusion was:
1. To leave the existing regulations in place
2. And to give each property owner who wants changes done to his/her
property in regard to the embankment the chance to apply to the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Shirley Doo on Westport is the first property owner since this decision to ask
for permission to develop her slope. In previous cases the main reason has been for the
extension of usable property and therefore an increase in property value. We are living on
Roundhill Drive and have to face these prison-like walls. They have been built in the past
when owners of double fronted lots somehow got the permission to construct them
although the layout of the development in this area originally was different. The
embankments were there to ease the appearance of narrow street and a narrow Vd
sidewalk and no front yard on the other side of the street at all. The embankment plus the
fence on the crest were the original regulations. People in charge seemed to have
disregarded and disrespected this at the time.
We are asking the Planning Commission to remember what has been said in all of
the hearings in the last year about this problem. We heard many times those walls with
the height like existing walls on Roundhill should not be built anymore, that any
development of the slope should be moved away several feet from the sidewalk and that a
view fence should be on top of the wall to soften the appearance of a cinder block
construction.
In the submitted drawing,Ms. Doo shows that she has given it some thought. But
all in all the wall/fence combination is still I V high from the street side, a very high
wall, the way walls were constructed in the past. Even as a protection against crime such
a high wall is not necessary because the wall starts now at the sidewalk level and has no
ATTACHMENT NO.
slope in front of it. What will Ms. Doo do with the 3' in front of the wall, will she plant
bushes or flowers there? Is the width of the cinderblock included in the 3' or not?It
sounds nitpicking but for 3' a deduction of 6" of cinderblock is already noticeable_ The
two latest walls at Davenport and Roundhill ended up with a plant-bed of 15" wide and a
wall towards the front which brings it up to approx. 24", the 2' feet recess that was
agreed upon. We just want to explain that somebody who agrees to a 3' recess can still
come up with undesirable solutions. Therefore detailed descriptions and drawings should
be made before he I she gets any permission to do anything at all.
We also believe it is absolutely necessary to have a civil engineer certify the
construction for soundness, in particular prohibit the addition of a body of water on the
filled-in portion of the properties with through-lots, be it added as a part of the
construction of the wall or at a later date. After all we are ruing in earthquake country, to
be exact on top of the Newport Inglewood fault.
We are also asking the new members of the Planning Commission to read
thoroughly what has been recorded about last year's study sessions and hearings and to
come out here and have a look at the situation.
Thank you for taking your time to read through our thoughts on this subject.
Sincerely,
�� • Z
ATTACHMENT NO. J .
City of Huntington Beach
MAY 8 2�05
May 17, 2005
The Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: CUP 05-03 for 17041 Westport Drive
To the Members of the Planning Commission
I am in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 regarding the Doo property.
The permit to construct a wall and fencing that will attain a total height of 11 feet is NOT
in keeping with the surrounding streets and specific plan for Tract 4880.
The current code calls for a 15-1oot setback from the front and rear property lines of
through lots. Ms. Doo's embankment is only 11 feet deep,BEFORE any alterations to
the slope. Further,the embankment's slope has a ratio of approximately 1-1/2 to 1-
Therefore, when one stands at street grade,either across the street or on the sidewalk next
to said property, the height appearance is actually much taller than 11 feet because the
fencing as proposed is not at street grade but cuts into an embankment.
Most people would like to do as they wish with their property, claiming personal property
rights, but they cannot. We ALL must comply with City, County and State zoning laws,
codes and ordinances. Otherwise we would certainly live in a chaotic state of affairs.
Stressing the adequacy of the existing code,the Planning Commission and City Council
turned down proposals to amend the code for through lot properties so as to be
compatible with Tract 4880's specific plan(ZTA 05-03) since these through lots are the
only ones City wide. Therefore,please enforce the City's existing code of a 15-foot
setback and 42-inch maximum fence height within the 15-foot setback area. Otherwise,
this plan for the Doo property, if approved as it is,will further the hodgepodge facing
Roundhill Drive properties.
Sincerely,
MARLENE LOPIN
17107 Roundhill Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
ATTACHMENT NO. ��'
May 18, 2005 Clty of Huntington Beach
MAY 8 2005
Planning Commission
ity of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: CUP 05-03 for 17041 Westport Drive
Dear Commissioners:
I am requesting denial of CUP 05-03 and the 11 foot retaining wall fence combination on the rear
embankment of the subject property on Westport Drive.
I have been the owner-occupant of my home, which faces the rear embankments of the homes on
Westport Drive, for over 30 years. During this time, we have seen the green belts or embankments fall
into disrepair and many have been replaced with concrete retaining walls. Some of the walls have been
landscaped but many have not' The prevailing attitude of the property owners of these embankments
has been out of sight, out of mind, and less maintenance is best.
As a result of these"concrete additions"to the interior of our Tract, the character of our neighborhood
has changed but not in a positive way. Our streets have taken on an alley-like appearance and have
been polluted with noise because-of the concrete masses. Most of the homeowners whose properties
face these embankments have not jumped on the current real.estate band wagon and upgraded and built
out their properties because valuations on our streets just haven't supported such endeavors. These
ertainly are detrimental effects..
When the first retaining wall was constructed in 1972, the City had no approval process for hearing
objections by surrounding homeowners. Since the CUP process, there have been.five more retaining
walls. All met with some opposition, although the notification radius has been quite limited. Since this
time, the property owners whose properties face these embankments have.spoken out about the blight
these HUGE walls have infused into our neighborhood. And, in 2001 the City saw the ills of previous
decisions and denied yet another one of these concrete masses. please follow the lead set in 2001 and
don't let this divisive issue rear its ugly head again. Give the property owners facing these embankments
an incentive to improve and upgrade their properties.
Having said all of this, I basically agree that homeowners should be allowed to do what they want with
their property... UNLESS... 1. They violate codes, covenants, and restrictions of the neighborhood and
the City, and... 2. There are numerous objections from other homeowners affected by these
modifications. These violations and objections are both present. Please deny CUP 05-03.
:7LRega ,
- � el �
George N. Garrett
17163 Roundhill Drive
luntington Beach, CA 92649
cc. Planning Department
ATTACHMENT NO. 8 . �
Clty,of Jiunfington Beach
MAY 18 2005
May 17, 2005
The Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: CUP 05-03 for 17041 Westport Drive
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am in opposition to the granting of CUP 05-03 regarding the.Doo retaining wall.It is
my understanding that the purpose of a CUP is to be an exception to the existing City
code and that any approval is not detrimental to the other neighbors or neighborhood.
When the City conditionally approves reduced setbacks and increased fence heights on
through lots in Tract 4880 in Huntington Harbour, such is not the case.
These through lots were SPECIFICALLY built, engineered and designed to have a slope
at the"other front side"of the property. They were never intended to have walls or other
structures built on them.Because the streets in this area are not straight, some slopes are
greater than 15 feet and many barely 6 feet in depth. In addition,the street facing these
through lots is narrower than average and the sidewalk adjacent to the slope is narrower
than a standard sidewalk. There are no green areas or parkways either because the slopes
were intended to provide relief and greenery. So,it is DETRIMENTAL to the
neighborhood and the surrounding properties, and in turn the City of Huntington Beach,
to have an 11-foot fencing/wall assortment that is not compatible with anything else
surrounding it.
In addition,Ms. Doo's lot only has an 11-foot setback from the rear property line
(sidewalk) and the current City code requires 15 feet. Current code also limits fencing
heights to a 42 inch maximum within this setback area. Are you not going to enforce the
City codes? Then why do we need them at all if everyone can get a CUP so they can do
as they please?
My neighbors and I would greatly appreciate your help and support in enforcing the City
codes and denying CUP 05-03.
Sincerely,
JACK LOPIN
17107 Roundhill Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
ATTAcHMENT No. _�LI;2�
B R Y A N T A Y L O R Cify of Huntington Be[tc
16939 ROUNDHILL DR , HUNTINGTON MAY � 8200
BEACH , CA 92649 ( 714 ) 8 4 0 - 6 0 8 4
May 17, 2005
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03
Doo Retaining Wall
Dear Planning Commission:
I urge denial of conditional use permit no. 05-03 based on health, safety, esthetic and
_ environmental reasons.
It is ludicrous to discount the work of the original design group of Huntington Harbor;
professional planners, soils engineers and architects. These individuals engineered, graded
and compacted the lots, designed the streets and built the homes in this distinctive area.
These lots were designed to be gradually sloping, stabilized by organic materials and gentle
declines. Your consideration, and ultimate rejection of this conditional use permit should
start with health and safety issues. Large vertical walls often retain tremendous amounts of
weight from the larger, newer homes and greater amounts of in filled dirt which directly
abut those walls. These walls are susceptible to major dislocation by seismic activity. As you
may be aware Westport and Roundhill Dr. are in an earthquake zone.
From an esthetic perspective, these lots were designed specific to a plan which
envisioned and implemented double sided lots with sloping greenbelts. These greenbelted
sloping lots rely on esthetic and environmentally friendly materials which are not as
susceptible to dislocation by earthquake and muffle and absorb sound pollution from the
adjacent roadways and homes.
The street below the property in question, Roundhill Drive was designed to be one-sided
with the view across of a sloping roundhill the full length of the roadway. To accommodate
this design the original developer decreased the roadway (or the property line separation
across Roundhill Drive) £rom sixty to fifty feet. The sidewalk of the double fronted homes
on Westport was decreased on Roundhill from the usual four feet to two feet with the
parkway between the street and sidewalk being eliminated.
I urge you to uphold the architectural and design integrity of our neighborhood as
delineated by the CC&Rs of Huntington Harbor. I urge you to follow city regulations and
zoning regulations which are designed to lend uniformity to the community on both an
economic and esthetic basis. I urge you to deny the granting of this conditional use permit.
Sincerely,
Brya r, co e 39 Roundhill Dr.,Huntington Beach
ALOIS &ELFRIEDE GEIGER
17001 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Phone/Fax 714-846-6103
E-mail address: funboat(a,verizon.net
May 18, 2005
Planning Commissioners
Planning Department
City of Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 (Doo Retaining Wall)
Hearing on Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Gentlemen:
Once again this old issue of pushing out on the rear embankment of properties and
putting up retaining walls with fences on top is coming before the Planning Commission.
Once again we are protesting the approval of a setback and retaining wall on a through lot
in Huntington Harbour. We have done this numerous times in the past, and spoken before
the City Counsel,because we are very opposed to this.
While this particular would not personally affect us,or our property values,we are still
opposed to it. Approving this setback and retaining wall will give license to other
property owners to do the same this, devaluation the properties facing these ugly,tall
walls.
It also will destroy the integrity of the CC&R's and render them totally useless.
Enough is enough! We are asldne the Planning Commission to enforce
;r the City's existing Code and dery CUP 05-03. We are also asking the
Planning Commission to have the courage to do so.
Thank you very much for your consideration and review of this issue.
Sincerely,
Al and Elfriede Geiger
.ATTACHMENT NO. .
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 (Doo Retaining Wall -
Appeal)
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005
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 Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attome ) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by qitX Attome ) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attome 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 FORWARDED''
Administrative Staff
Assistant City Administrator Initial
City Administrator initial
City Clerk }
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN:OF ITEM:
(Below Space For City Clerk-s Use Only)Author: HZ:SH:PDV
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 20, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on
the following planning and zoning items:
17 1. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03 DOO RETAINING WALL):
Applicant: Shirley Doo Appellant: City Council Member Debbie Cook Request: To permit the
construction of a combination retaining walllwood fence within the rear yard setback of a
through lot. The proposed retaining wall measures five (5)feet in height and will be topped with
a wood fence measuring six (6)feet in height for a maximum height of eleven (11) feet. The
combination retaining wall/wood fence is proposed with a meandering setback ranging from
three (3)feet to five (5)feet eight (8) inches measured from the rear property line. Location:
17041 Westport Drive (south side of Westport Drive, west of Bedford Lane) Project Planner:
Paul Da Veiga
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 9264.8, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will
be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, June 16, 2005,
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or
submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City
Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the
Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written
communications to the City Clerk.
Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 536-5227
6/7/2005
Impression antibourrage et i s6chage rapide www.averycom Ar/ER��fi241
Utiliser le gabarit 51600 �"`� 1-800-GO-AVERY
s('f(�'-el
Fa cl "
6179Z6 VD HOVgg NO.LJNI.L1 M 6t,9Z6 VO HDVEM NO.LOMINf1H 6V9Z6 VO HZ)Vgg NO.LJNI.LNnH
XG XOSQWM Z6117 MI Cl'dO3Q219 1569E 2Ia'I'IIHCIMnO-d 6£69I
lKvdnODO INVdnZ)DO J Nvdr1ODO
SL 60-£££-SLl £9 90-ZEE-8LI SZ 90-ZZ£-SLl
6V9Z6 VD HDVag NOIDNI.LNnH 6-b9Z6 VO HDVgg NO.Lr MUNM 6V9Z6 V3 HDVgg NOIDNUNM
Nl'd3LVAkRDUH 690Li MI-d3lVMgJQ3 990LI Xl'd9I,VlAHDU3 £ZOLI
lNvdflOOO .LNvdnODO .LNV&DOO
Zi ZI-16Z`BLI II Il-I6Z-SLi b 170-IoZ-SLI
M3AV-09-008-6 O0965 3XVIdWU @AJaAV asn
r.�ltFZ9 QJW3Ad woa tiaAe nnmm buquud a .4 eSpnw5 pue wer
Impression antibourrage et a s6dhage rapide www.averycom AWRY0 6241-
Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1-800-GO-AVERY
178-336-08 91 178-336-09 92 178-336-10 93
FREDERICK GATES GLENN GINOZA ALBERT A PERRON
17076 EDGEWATER LN 17084 EDGEWATER LN 17092 EDGEWATER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-336-11 94 178-337-01 95 178-337-02 96
FLORRIE SHERRY FERNANDO &DAP14NA ZAGO RAZVAN R&KRISTEN STIRBU
17100 EDGEWATER LN 17067 ROUNDHILL DR 17059 ROUNDHILL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-337-03 97 178-337-04 98 178-337-05 99
BCTA ANJOMSHOAA JOHN DESPOT HSU LIN
17051 ROUNDHILL DR 17043 ROUNDHILL DR 17035 ROUNDHILL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-337-06 100 178-337-07 101 178-337-08 102
BARBARA BYRD LUIS A CARDENAS MARY MAYOCK
17036 EDGEWATER LN 17044 EDGEWATER LN 17052 EDGEWATER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-337-09 103 178-337-10 104
FRANK WEBER MASARU SAKIOKA
17060 EDGEWATER LN 17068 EDGEWATER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-
�ujo o'
/aa A
Aa3AV-09-008-L ois uviaw3j.efasAb esn
Mtt,Z9 0AM3Ad worAjaAe•A&%% n 6ullulia ewj a8s)nwc oue wer
Impression antibourrage et a s&hage rapide www.avery-wm Q 1 AVEWO 62Al-
Utilisex le gabarit 51600 � 7-WO-GO-AVERY
178-332-04 61 178-332-05 62 178-332-06 63
RACHEL A GILLEN VERA J TOLMACHOFF JAMES EGGERS
16941 BEDFORD LN 416 W MINES AVE 16962 CONCORD LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 MONTE13ELLO CA 90640 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-332-07 64 178-332-08 65 178-332-09 66
JAMES B DICK JOHN P STEVENS TOBENETTE HOLTZ
16942 CONCORD LN 16922 CONCORD LN 16912 CONCORD LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-333-02 67 178-333-03 68 178-333-04 69
JOSHUA &LINDA ROREM ARTHUR R ASCOLESI DANIEL L STEWART
16911 CONCORD LN 16931 CONCORD LN 16951 CONCORD LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-333-05 70 178-333-06 71 178-333-07 72
DAVID LAKE LYLE E&EVA KILGORE DAVID A SULLIVAN
16961 CONCORD LN 16971 CONCORD LN 4162 WINDSOR DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-333-08 73 178-333-09 74 178-333-10 75
VIJAY &HARS14A SHETH FRANK J 14ORIUCHI ODED BEN-EZER
4172 WINDSOR DR PO BOX 3176 4202 WINDSOR DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 GARDENA CA 90247 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-333-I 1 76 178-334-01 77 178-334-02 78
THOMAS G SCOTT KENYON RANDOLPH &KRISTINE TAKASUKA
42I2 WINDSOR DR 17081 WESTPORT DR 17071 WESTPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-334-03 79 178-334-04 80 178-334-05 81
GEORGE M SMALLEY JANET R PERRICONE SHIRLEY DOO
17061 WESTPORT DR 17051 WESTPORT DR 17041 WESTPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-334-06 82 178-334-07 83 178-335-03 84
ANDRZEJ S&HELLA TARNAWSKI RAMON R&LYNN SILVER NORMA GIBBS
17031 WESTPORT DR 17021 WESTPORT DR 17087 WESTPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-335-04 85 178-335-05 86 178-336-04 87
CYNTHIA A FORSTHOFF PAVLE J MITREVSKI RONALD E MALECKI
17085 WESTPORT DR 17083 WESTPORT DR 17093 ROUNDHILL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-336-05 88 178-336-06 89 178-336-07 90
WILLIAM H MILLER KENNETH DUNN JOSEPH B& DIANE WAKED
17089 ROUNDHILL DR 17083 ROUNDHILL DR 17075 ROUNDHILL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
AV3AV-09-008-1 0094S 31VIdW31 4�fjaAv asn
wi1VZ9 Q)M3A V wortiene-A► M Buguud aatd e5PnLuS pue we(
Impression antibourrage et h s6chage rapide www-avery-cam�L. //' � �6241"'�
Utiliser le gabari#51600 /Q Q 4-AVERY (�iuD/o j
178-322-09 31 178-322-10 32 178-322-11 33
DONALD G WOLTER A &SANDRA WENINGER NORMAN M MITCHELL
16971 ROUNDHILL DR 16979 ROUNDHILL DR 16987 ROUNDHILL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-322-12 34 178-322-13 35 178-322-14 36
EUGENE S SIMONE THOMAS O&HELEN MORGAN YINCHANG LIN
17003 ROUNDHILL DR 17011 ROUNDHILL DR 17027 ROUNDHILL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-322-15 37 178-322-16 38 178-322-17 39
BRIAN D&MARLENE OLIVER MICHAEL P DENNIS THOMAS V&FLAVIA FRATTALI
17028 EDGEWATER LN 17020 EDGEWATER LN 17012 EDGEWATER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-322-18 - 40 178-322-19 41 178-322-20 42
ROSS A DE LA HAYE MARK &MELISSA JONES EMMA PIERCE
17004 EDGEWATER LN 16996 EDGEWATER LN 16988 EDGEWATER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-322-2 L 43 178-323-21 44 178-323-22 45
LOUIS C RABURN JAMES R THOMPSON WILLIAM H&MARY-ANNE NUESSE
16980 EDGEWATER LN 17007 EDGEWATER LN 17009 EDGEWATER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-331-07 46 178-331-08 47 178-331-14 48
MARCELLINE R&A SLATER VAL W MOORE CHARLES T SCHELL
16992 FAIRFIELD CIR 16972 FAIRFIELD CIR 16931 FAIRFIELD CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-331-15 49 178-331-16 50 178-331-17 51
FRANK COBURN ANDREW S BICOS CHRISTOPHER W CAMBRA
16941 FAIRFIELD CIR 16951 FAIRFIELD CIR 16971 FAIRFIELD CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-331-18 52 178-331-19 53 178-331-20 54
PETER J&EUNICE REBELLO ROY H RICHARDSON BRIAN A&BRENDA MC MILLIN
16981 FAIRFIELD CIR 16982 BEDFORD LN 1697213EDFORD LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-331-21 55 -178-331-22 56 178-331-23 57
GREGORY A&ELIZABETH PARKER BRUCE J&LAURIE MC DONALD LEIG14 GOTSMAN
16952 BEDFORD LN 16942 BEDFORD LN 16932 BEDFORD LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-331-24 58 178-332-02 59 178-332-03 60
W FISCHER MICHAEL P WERLHOF HOWARD GREENBAUM
16912 BEDFORD LN 16911 BEDFORD LN 16921 BEDFORD LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
AHMV-09-008-i g09LS 3iVldW3i akmAV asn
WLLtiZ9 �, � wor/Gane•nnmm BURUMd eaad ebPntuS pue we{
impression antibourrage et a sechage ri.r::tde www.averycornl2-VO0 119pp AVERY®6241-
Utiliser le gabarit 51600 11 `S 1-S00-GO-AVERY; �1�1p
178-291-01 1 1788--291-I0.2 2 178-291-03 3
PETER LEE CARMWN N MORROW DON ZIMMERMANN
17013 EDGEWATER LN 17017 EDGEWATER LN 17019 EDGEWATER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-291-04 4 178-291-05 5 178-291-06 6
GARVIN ROBETSON JAMES A MYERS BRYANT T HENRY
825 EUCLID AVE 17027 EDGEWATER LN 17033 EDGEWATER LN
ONTARIO CA 91762 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-291-07 7 178-291-08 8 178-291-09 9
HOWARD NAKASHIOYA ROBERT L&BRENDA BUSUTTIL SON NGUYEN
17039 EDGEWATER LN 17045 EDGEWATER LN 17051 EDGEWATER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-291-10 10 178-291-11 11 178-291-12 l2
PETER YOUNG STEPHEN &MICHELLE LONG KEITH &KINI JORGENSEN
17057 EDGEWATER LN 11103 MEANS 5871 WOODBORO DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 TUSTIN CA 92782 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-291-13 13 178-291-14 14 178-2914 5 15
JEAN H KIM HERALD A&CONNIE POSSIGIAN JAMES V ANDREWS
17073 EDGEWATER LN 17077 EDGEWATER LN 17081 EDGEWATER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-29146 l6 178-291-23 17 178-291-32 18
JEANNE SPRAGUE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP HUNTINGTON HARBOR MARINA
17085 EDGEWATER LN 4241 WARNER AVE 1442 GALAXY DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
178-321-03 19 178-321-04 20 178-321-05 21
MARK J& FRANCES MEYERS ARTHUR J&SHIRLEY DEHERAS GERALD D GROUNDS
16921 WESTPORT DR 16941 WESTPORT DR 16951 WESTPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-321-06 22 178-321-07 23 178-321-08 24
ROBERT F FRISHMAN THEODORE B PAJAK RAN HADUONG
16961 WESTPORT DR 16971 WESTPORT DR 16981 WESTPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-321-09 25 178-321-10 26 178-322-05 27
ROBERT W LONGMAN ALOIS GEIGER JOHN S RANCE
16991 WESTPORT DR 17001 WESTPORT DR 16931 ROUNDHILL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
178-322-06 28 178-322-07 29 178-322-08 30
NOLAN TAYLOR PHILIP A ODONNELL RICHARD C COATES
16835 ALGONQUIN ST 16947 ROUNDHILL DR 16963 ROUNDHILL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
��� � AWAY-09-008-1, �� @09&S 31VIdW3.1�eAt1 asn
w,6 bZ9 uioi•JGaae nnnnnn OulvmM aw-j a6pnws pue suer
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKUSI'`B" Doc A F V-e�
MAILING LABELS—April 22,2005 COUP 05
G:Labeis\Labels\Public Hearing
President 1 Huntington Harbor POA 10 Sue jo son 16
H.S. Chamber of Commerce P. O. Boa 791 19671 iet Bay Lane
19891 Beach Blvd.,Ste. 140 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Huntin n Beach,CA 92-648
Huntington Beach,CA 9264
ave Stefanides 2 William D.Holman 1 Edna Uttl bury 17
range County Assoc.of altors PLC Gidn St b.Hm.Owne Leag:
552 La Paz Road 19 rporate Plaza Drive 11021 M olia Blvd
L a Hills,CA 92653 Ne rt Beach CA 92660-7912 Garden G e,CA 9264
P ident 3 Jeffrey . Oderman 12 Pacific Coast haeo gical 18
gos De Bolsa Chica RUT &TUCKER,LLP Society,Inc_
165 1 Bolsa Chica Stre t,Suite 312 611 An Blvd,141h Floor P.O. Box 109
Hun" gton Beach,C 92649 Costa Me CA 92626-1950 Costa Mesa, 92 7
Ann;Jane Go Id
Sunse Beach Comm ity Assoc. 4 Pres.,H.B. ist Society 13 Director 19
Pat s,President C/O Newlan House M scum O.C. Ping &De .Services Dept.
PO Bo- 215 19820 Beach lvd. P.O. Box 4048
Sunset ach,CA 742-0215 Huntington Be ch,CA 2648 Santa Ana,CA 02-4048
President 5 Community Se es Dept 14 Vicky Wilso 19
Huntingto Be Tomorrow Chairperson O.C. Public acilitie &Res.Dept.
PO Box 86 Historical Resou Bd. P.O. Box 48
Huntington e ,CA 92648 Santa Ana, A 9270 48
Julie Vande st 6 Council on Agin 15 Planning rector 20
BIA-OC 1706 Orange Av . City of sta.Mesa
17744 Sky P Circle,#170 Huntington Be h,CA 648 P. O.B x 1200
Irvine CA 9 61 4441 Costa esa,CA 92628-1 00
Richard S cer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Pi Director 21
SCAG Seacliff HO City f Fountain Valley
818 West th, 12 Floor 19391 Shady arbor Circle 1020 Slater Ave.
Los An es,CA 9 17 Huntington each,CA 9264 Fo tain Valley,CA 9270
E.T_I. rral 100 8 John Roe 16 Pl g Director 22.
Mary ell Seacliff H A Ci of Newport Beach
2029 'astwood Cir. 19382 S dale Lane P. .Box 1768
Hun on Beach, 92646 Hun ' n Beach,CA 92648 N wport Beach,CA 92663-89
Ai ndncker 9 Lou one 6 P . g Director 23
E ironmental Board an Seacli HOA C. of Westminster
8 2 Grace Circle 19821 cean Bluff Circle 8 00 Westminster Blvd.
tington Beach,CA 9 46 Hun - gton Beach CA 92648 es CA 92683
NO
all
�., of �,ti, - s7s ! ^i `•4�� �'L k ��l_ �i' 6
-�v, r ��r t� r rr� -.-_SC�i ��� `'-%r � � ,�.. .v,.tF•,aY��� � �� -, � -
;s.
' $` c a r w
tlOs,
r °" Z'°fi _ '?.0 ''� Y 2 ��' m•cc�-�s a t ft.,
t.r� a. s'��:� �'�#�'�.'"�yr�p Y � ��• � z����� i��fit#`"=�.�" Y s`e, ZEN.,
r ' t'4
hr �xt a' 4c F s v s ray� + + ask
too v
� Gw i�r�.�i�`Y � +rCi'��� ��' A`r �'�a., y '•+ -.�, d a !1� 4
-
tY.t
_z,a,� r�,.a�"'gam � -�
� a
; +°a
-��*a..x_, _ `�.�.�—` ...s'�, �__ 5�°•__,'��r{.r� 'o- �"r 4.�6.� u � r.sr a 3:� E��"�.�s� 45-i�rs,�'�f�s
RM
,a ?i Ti
City Couft ero. oe n.
Joan n, City �t�rt�.
from: aebtaid,Goak, urty Councit tVtemEaer \ ,
!
t�ateF` Jur>e �, �Q05
ec� ��''PEALC?FP�4NN�[11�
� u
The p�r�os� df th�� r�te�b 4s �a appe omrrtissiot7's
��r�ifiorr�f�l��e Perrn��t�� (?� {}� ' The �sropbse�k afte�a�iart o€.the e�is�r�g;��ar skape
r7stitk"C fhrevrstr66fao of a coixtb[r�ation retarnkrig watk enduod fenceru�tt beetxime.
ntat
�o the �ener�rl wet#are of surroupdin� res�der�#s tn.a�da�ta�►the proposed wakl is nod
�or,�ptr�le rN4th fihe,surrou�dtnc� ne��hba�rheod based���ha prox�tx�irty o€foie g
rear p-ape brie: i :
c
k?tae��Er�� �Om117#ssl4il j
t PennyCutb6fh draft, G�t�r Ac#r�cr�t;�tra#o�' L Y E
RQber�`�+sarctste}�, Al drrtt�tstr��d€` k ,
YY
�loward �ekefsl�, b�rectar c7f�'�enr�irt ,� ,�
5
Y
W
k
k
1 rH i Y
l
!
S
, 3
W \
4 s x•4' M
w c
, i f
f � i Y Sti
1
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
the Califor
I am a Citizen of the United States and a OM OF
Environ-
ON FILE:Afcnia copy of the
resident of the County, aforesaid; 1 am BEFOR T E proposed request is on
CM COINI OF INE Office 2000 Me Main Street,
over the age of eighteen years, and net a (00. Huntington Beach, Cali-
party to or interested in the below entitled BEAtq forma
aon 92My . for
in-
specti,, NOTICE IS HEREBY A copy of the staff
matter. l ant a principal Clerk of the GIVEN that.on Monday, report will be available
F �A 1�� yF p�q A� C June 20, 2005, at 6:00 to interested parties at
HUt i NGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, p.m. in the City Council the City ClerWg office
Chambers, 2000 Main on Thursday, June 16,
a newspaper of general circulation, street, Huntington .2005.
Beach, the City Council ALL INTERESTED
printed and published in the City of will hold ll public kenning PERSONS weh invited to
attend
on the'foilowing planning attend said hearing and
,ate �+ and zoning items: express opinions or
Htion
untington
/-� Beach, County of Orange, (D 1. APPEAL OF submit evidence for or
State of California, and that attached MIT NO. 05-03AL E(D00 as outlined abo PER. against the ve.If you
RETAINING WALL); Ap- challenge the City
Notice is a true and complete copy as plieant; Shirley Doo Councirs action in court;.
was printed and published in the Appellant: Council you -may limited to
es
Member Debbie
ie Cook raising onlyy t those issues
Request: To permit the you or someone else
Huntington Beach issue of ,Said construction of a com hei."r the Qublic
bination retaining wall/ hearg des`cnbe�m this
newspaper to wit the Issue(s) o€. wand fence. within the notice, n in written
rear yard setback of a correspondence deliv-
through lot. The pro- ered to the City at, or
posed retaining wall prior to, the public
measures five (5) feet hearing. If there are any
in height and will be further questions please
topped with a. wood call the Planning De-
fence measuring six (6) partment at 536-5271
JDNE 9 2005 feet in height for a your
Maximum height. of items.F-Direct above
eleven (11) feet. The written•communications
combination retaining to the City Clerk.
wall/wood fence is JeanL n,
proposed with a mean- city clerk Effy a
dering setback ranging HuMing"n Beach
from three.(3) feet to 2000 Main Street,
five f5) feet eight (8) 2nd Floor
inches measured from Hmrtiagton Beach,
the rear property line. California 92648
I declare under penalty of perjury, that pot Drive
170a1 West- bush i36 untie
, , port Drive (south side Published Huntington
{ ,�ct,,} .of Westport Drive, west Beach Independent June
the 1e foregoing is true and corre _ of Bedford Lane)Project 9,2005 062.976
Planner:Paul Da Veiga
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that Item No. 1
Executed on JUNE 9,2005 from categorically Aroviis unsmof
at Costa Mesa, California.
Signature
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE
1 am a Citizen of the United States and a the California Environ
mentalQualityAct-
ON FILE:A copy of the
resident of the County aforesaid; 1 am N proposed retp+est is o I n
{�aOM file in the City Clerks
over the age of eighteen.years, and not a Office,200 Main Street,
arfOF Huntington Beach, Cali-
party to or interested in the below entitled HUffjo=JUCM fornia 92648. for in-
NOTICE. IS HEREBY spection by the public.'
matter. I am a principal clerk of the GIVEN that on Monday, A copy of the, staff
June 20, 2005, at 6:00 report-will AS available
HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT p.m. in the City Council to interested parties at
,, �_ Chambers, 2000 Main the City Clerk's Office
a newspaper of general circulaWn, Street, Huntington 2o0n0 Thursday. June 16,
Beach, the City Council ALL INTERESTED
panted and published In the City of will hold a public hemming, PERSONS are invited to
,�{,al le�aa the an the following plannin items: . g attend said hearing and
Huntington Beach, County of Orange, Od1. APPEAL OF express opinions or
CONDITIONAL USE PER- submit against vidence for app�icatior
State of Caltfomia, and that attached MIT NO. 05-03 (DOG as outlined above.If you.
RETAINING WALL): Ap- challenge the City
Notice is a true and complete copy as plieant: Shirley Doo Counci4s action in court,
Appellanwas rented and published [n the Member City Council you may be limited to
p f 1 Member Debbie Cook raising only those issues
1`• Request: To permit the you or someone else
Huntington Beach lSSCFe of said construction of a cam raised the ubl'c
binatlom retaining, wall/
wood fence. Within the hear�rg escrt ed m this
newspaper to wit the Issue(s) of: rear yarn} setback of a notice, or in -wrlttyn
through lot. The pro- corrispondence defiv-
posed retaining wall Bred to the City at,.or
.measures five (5) feet prior to, the public
in height and will be hearing.If there are any
topped with a wood further questions please
fence measuring six(6) call the Planning De-
JUNE 9 r 2005 feet in height for a partmgnt at 536.5271
maximum height of and refer to the above
eleven (11) feet. The Items. Direct your
combination retaining written communications
wail/wood fence is.totheCityClerk.
proposed with a mean- Jean L.Flys n,
dering setback ranging Y Clark City of
from three (3) feet to Ht,irtiggfon Beach
five (5) feet eight (8), 2111G� h+.S+rest,
inches. measured from .tad Fkm
the rear property line. Nunf agdon Beach,
Location: 17041 West- Cglifernla 92648
I declare, under penalty of penury, that port'Drive (south side Published $ngton
of Westport Drive, west .Publ
the foregoing is true and correct. of Bedford Lane)Project s ach Independent June,
�
.Planner:Paul Da Veiga
NOTICE ,IS HEREBY
GIVEN that Item No- 1
is categorically exempt
Executed on JUNE 9.2005 from the provisions o{
at Costa Mesa, Califomia.
Signature
June 13, 2005
L u
Dear Mayon Jill Hardy,
Remember who you represent, and the effort of all Gilbert Island property owners
have made to improve our community. Approve the building of Shirley Doo' wall! I
was shocked to hear Shirley Doo is having difficulty exercising her property rights. I was
active earlier in this year in our community struggle to assure all property owners have
rights to build on their property. I understand the Planning Commission and City Council
approved this in January 2005, I trust you will act in accordance with the decisions trade
my the people you represent and approve this request.
Sincerely,
?4�w
Mr. Everett A. Winkler
Mr. Everett A. Winkler
16521 Mariana Circle
Huntington,Beach, CA
92649
562-592-2500
m, ze
AZ
7 OsA
...... ... ......
...............
-4w
...........
40
oz K" Aif IvW,
............. ............
.......... ...
r
on4 —
S
yes.
1.. d 1 _..
E � !
Lt.-A V LS C*�Al 1-<-S. �L��Jc
s �
ail
!'I
r. J
— — — i -- — -- — — --' — — — ' -- — — —— — _ —
i
,
°I
ji
�E
f c
City Council Member
Huntington Beach, CA
June 13, 2005
Dear Mayon Jill Hardy,
Approve the building of Shirley Doo' wall! I was shocked to hear Shirley Doo is
having difficulty exercising her property rights. I was active earlier in this year in our
community struggle to assure an property owners have rights to build on their property. I
understand the Planning Commission and City Council approved this in January 2005, I
trust you will act in accordance with the decisions made my the people you represent and
approve this request.
Sincerely,
Ms. Gail L. Armstrong
Gail L. Armstrong
16521 Mariana Circle
Huntington, Beach, CA
92649
562-592-2500
�� ��� �—• ._ t_c�-. cam.`. �7
�J 1 _
Darrach G. Taylor
16661 Wellington Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 1uG i `
13 June 2005
Mayor Jill Hardy & Council Members
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Cook's Through Lot Wall Permit Appeal
Dear Mayor Hardy et al,
I have written frequently for almost a year now on this subject of through lot
owners' property rights, and one would think, since the Council has solidly
addressed its wishes on this issue, after long and thorough debates at all City
levels, that Councilwomen Cook: would have refrained from filing this
appeal. She has paid whatever political debts were incurred in the past and
this issue should be allowed to die. This is one of those conundrums in life
for which there is no happy solution available at this point. Councils long
ago made these difficult decisions, which were reaffirmed earlier this year.
It's just sour grapes for Councilwomen Cook and thankfully now departed
Commissioner Ferman to have appealed when the Planning Department has
its "marching orders."
I ask all of you to step up and vote down Cook's appeal on more than
adequate grounds and precedence. Otherwise, you are going to put each of
Huntington Harbour's through lot owners, who wish to properly more fully
utilize their property, through this arduous and unnecessary process, at least
for the next 3 V2 years until she is termed out.
The City has a lot of problems, far more serious than this one, already
resolved, and I trust you will all be able to focus on these issues, instead of
repeatedly wasting your time on such as this.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
' 1 �
Gi{��t�u�,t,r►glo�6�ach
JUN 13 Z005 1
_. AL SWIFT
Y 17089 Westport Drive
-- Huntington Beach, CA
August 9, 2004
(6217161
To.Ht 5ington Beach Planning Commissioners,
RE: zoning change amendment 03-01
Dear Commissioners,
My wife and I have lived in Huntington Harbor for thirty-one years. We now reside at
17089 Westport Drive and have lived her for the last twenty-one years. The Harbor has
always been a place we believe to be a beautiful and safe place to live.
Amendment 03-01 is absolutely wrong in intent. It is an attempt by a few to
unnecessarily burden the city with entirely unnecessary rules which target only a few
Harbor residents—unnecessarily.
These are the facts as I see them.
Just as the Roundhill homes were built to face Roundhill, and hence the back of
Westport,I must point out that the Edgewater homes were constructed such that the
back of their yards see the same slopes and walls seen by the Roundhill residents.
And, similarly,the Westport residents of which I am one, look out the front of our
homes onto the other side of Westport—itself full of old, tall wooden fences, cinder
block, and/or slump stone walls. Tall, unadorned walls.
The view doesn't necessarily get prettier because we live higher up the hill.
My wife and I must question why the Planning Commission has been issuing building
permits since the Harbor was first constructed for the construction of property line
fences and cinderblock and slump stone walls if this is not normal and customary for
any city planning commission?
We wonder, as do our Westport neighbors, why a small group of Roundhill residents
who, because of the placement of their homes(which are fronted by garages and
driveways—not living rooms—only see the back of our yards when they exit their
homes by car or on foot.
2
It seems a bit unreasonable that a few residents who look at our walls for only a few
minutes every day could conceivably be sufficiently inconvenienced that their
momentary view would necessitate zoning amendments. Especially amendments that
will adversely affect our right to build out our property with fences or walls as has
been standard practice for over the last thirty years.
Thank you in advance for your derati
4
Sincerely,
Al and Ruth Swift
JINN-15-2005 01:48 P.01
Uj
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
DATE: 40-5—
FAX-: _ (Y 53 'j 23 3
RE: C L) P 4
FROM: Mike Palikan
17097 Westport Drive
PHONE: (714) W-1849
HONORABLE MAYOR HARDY AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS,
PLEASE ACCEPT THIS CORRESPONDENCE IN REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM FOR THE JUNE 20, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, ENTITLED "APPEAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 05-03 (DOO RETAINING WALL)". THANK YOU.
Number of pages including cover sheet:
JUN-15-2005 13--22 98i P.01
JUN-15-2005 01:48 P.02
Mike Palikan
17097 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
846-1849
June 15, 2005
Honorable Mayor Jill Hardy
and City Council Members
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 via facsimile only
Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 (Doo retaining wail)
Honorable Mayor and Council Members;
This letter is in reference to the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Ms.
Doo's retaining wall. I urge you to reject that appeal and to approve the plans as
submitted and approved by both the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Commission.
I have reviewed the plans for Ms. Doo's fence and believe that this project is
aesthetically gratifying. To her credit, Ms. Doo has taken extra efforts to create a
pleasing and diverse style to the fence by insetting the structure at intervals, instead of
merely adopting a solid design.
The construction materials are more durable than the previous dilapidated wooden
fence. This proposed fence will create added value to her property, as well as to the
entire neighborhood.
The proposed fence offers a greater level of security for Ms. Doo and her family. This is
a prime concern for all residents.
You will recall that the related "through-lot issue" was extensively debated during the
public hearings over the defeated Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 last year and earlier
this year. Those who oppose any development whatsoever on our back yards have
challenged us again.
.A number of us merely want to erect retaining walls and fences on property which is
ours, which we have paid for and continue to pay taxes and insurance on.
Unfortunately, our modest requests will continue to be challenged unless the law is
changed.
Therefor6, I request that Council direct Staff to draft an ordinance allowing through lot
owners to build on their rear yards by right, that is without the need for a CUP. This
1
JIJN-15-200 5 13:22 9>3 P.02
JUN-15-2005 01:49 P.03
would alleviate the need for the City to spend countless Commission, Council and Staff
hours and public funds just to process requests for fences.
Please approve this project as submitted and develop a less restrictive ordinance for us.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and feel free to contact me should you have
any questions
Respectfully,
2
TOTAL P.03
JUN-15-2005 13:22 97% P.03
Jones, Dale
From: Randy T. Fuhrman [r.fuhrman@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8.41 AM
To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org -
Cc: djones@surfcity-hb.org; Randy Fuhrman
Subject: deny C.U.P. #05-03
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Subject; Deny C.U.F. Number 05-03
Zoning is a restriction of private property rights. All zoning i. .
such a -
restriction. These restrictions are placed on the property for
the
betterment of the community. HBZSO 230.88A3 fits the purpose
exactly.
Enforce your ordinance. This Council said that no further
ordinance was
needed since the one in place sufficiently protected the
community. The
HBZSO 230. 88A3 ordinance recognizes that this yard is a secondary
frontage;
it faces the front yards across the street. The embankments were
designed
to last in perpetuity, to maintain the neighborhood.
There is no reason to change this neighborhood in a detrimental
way.
Replacing the open embankments with in-your-face walls derogates
the
neighborhood.
The HHPOA works for the neighborhood, represents the HH community,
and wants
to keep the positive nature designed into the neighborhood. The
HHPOA has
denied the application for this wall, opposes this wall, and
recommends
denying this C.U.P.
Improvement of one asset to the detriment of others is not a
personal
property right. But, if the council wishes to approve projects
that are
incompatible with the neighborhood, will the council have any
problem
approving the request for a four story apartment building on the
residential
lot across the street from the wall that C.U.P_ 05-03 is
requesting? Why
1
i
allow one asset to be improved but not another? If the council
does not
wish to improve the community or maintain the positive nature of
the
community, what is next?
Changing the embankment to a tall wall within the setback i5 not
compatible
with the neighborhood. This is a discretionary call by the
council. The
walls irrevocably alter the character and nature of the
neighborhood. The
City of Huntington Beach recognizes this derogation and has an
ordinance
that prohibits the establishing of nine or eleven foot walls in
the setback
area. There is no reason that this council should forever change
the
character of the neighborhood .in a deleterious fashion.
Deny this Conditional Use Permit. The wall does not fit within
the City
ordinances_ The wall is not within the character of the
neighborhood. The
wall is not compatible with the neighborhood. There is no reason
to allow
this construction, unless you are willing to throw out the zoning
and allow
any change to the land because of private property rights.
Changes for the
better can occur within the parameters of the zoning ordinances.
Deny this
CUP request to change this neighborhood for the worse.
Take care,
Randy T Fuhrman
1.6915 Roundhill Drive
Huntington Beach CA 92649
(714) 377-4487
2
June 15, 2005
City Counsel -
City of Huntington Beach ` = _
2000 Main Street W.
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Re: Conditional Use Permit 05-03; Property at 17041 Westport Drive r-
Dear Counsel Members:
We have been residents of 17043 Roundhill Drive since 1996. Our house is one house away
from directly facing the rear frontage of 17041 Westport Drive. We are in opposition of this
proposal simply because it is in direct violation of current city codes (any fence above 42 inches
must set back 15 feet from the property line-)
Our understanding is that the current city codes exist so that the property owners are protected
and represented for any potential violations in their neighborhood.
With RoundhilI Drive already having a more narrow street and sidewalk due to the goring of
embankments, and now possibly changing, this will change the dynamics of Roundhill Drive in a
negative way. Roundhill Drive will feel more life an alley street (narrow street and sidewalk
against tall cement walls-)
The street and sidewalk on Roundhill Drive were not sized to accommodate retaining walls built
up to the sidewalk.
While this proposal will add property to value to 17041 Westport Drive, it will decrease property
values and openness on Roundhill Drive. Not one real estate agent will disagree.
Please consider the above reasons to deny CUP 05-03 on property 17041 Westport Drive.
Yours truly,
Carrie L Crisell
John Despot
CII�w (Y\OV k
Carofe .fit. Garrett
17163 RoundfiffDrive
Huntington Beach, Cal 92649
15 June 2005
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Conditional Use Permit 05-03 for 17041 Westport Drive
Dear City Council Members:
This is a request for the enforcement of current City ordinances which limit the height of front
yard fencing on local streets to 42 inches within a required 15 foot setback. In doing so, deny
Conditional Use Permit 05-03 and a proposed 9 to 11 foot high fence with a 3 to 5 foot setback.
The referenced property is a through lot, or double fronted lot on a local street in Huntington
Harbour and subject to H.B. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 230.88A.3. Permitted Fences
and Walls.
As you know Required Findings for CUP approvals are contingent on the use not being
"detrimental"to the neighborhood and the surrounding properties. Further, Conditions for
Approval, as stated in Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 241.12, require the
use be "compatible"with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties or in the
surrounding area and"consistent with the General Plan."
An approval of CUP 05-03 is detrimental to, and not compatible and consistent with, the
"development plan" for Huntington Harbour's Tract 4880. Tract 4880 consists of 130 properties
on five streets i.e. Edgewater, Concord and Windsor Lanes;and Roundhill and Westport Drives.
The streets abutting the embankments were designed narrower than standard, at 36 feet curb to
curb; and the sidewalks abutting the embankments were also designed narrower than standard, at
24 inches wide. Completing the plan, standard 5-foot parkways were eliminated in exchange for
green landscaped embankments as unique buffers.
These terraced streets and double fronted lots were specifically designed as the core or the
"heart,"if you will, of Tract 4880. The rear embankments of these double fronted lots are not on
the Tract's perimeter. These lots are within the Tract, have front facing neighbors and abut a
local street not an arterial highway. Tract 4880 is not infill. The 74 double fronted lots in
Huntington Harbour are part of the Harbour's development plan and as such are significantly
different from the other double fronted lots in the City.
The majority of the City's other double fronted lots,which total approximately 35, are split
between Newberry Drive and Cottonwood. These streets are not adjacent to one another but at
opposite ends of the City. The remaining few lots are scattered in several other locations.
City Council
Letter regarding CUP 05-03, dated June 15, 2005
Page two
Newberry Drive and Cottonwood are on the perimeter of their respective tracts,and as such are
easily identified as being infill with no significant grade differential.
The sizes of the homes in these two infill tracts vary significantly from the sizes of the homes in
adjacent tracts and surely the values do also. This is not the case with the 46 double fronted lots
in Huntington Harbour's Tract 4880, where 1300+homes in adjacent tracts are all part of the
Harbour's development plan with homes of comparable size, design and value potential.
Any approval for altering the embankments of the double fronted lots in Tract 4880 negates
Tract 4880's development plan and rightfully is detrimental to the neighborhood. The
embankments and the compromises to the development plan, i.e. narrow streets, sidewalks and
no parkways, were negotiated with the developer and the City during construction in the mid-
1960s. In retrospect the design was cutting edge with landscaped "green belts"or embankments
with significant and varying grade differential. Similar designs have been incorporated into
more recent specific plans throughout Huntington Beach. Projects with such features have
enjoyed enormous success and skyrocketing valuations.
Don't strangle hold valuations for Tract 4880's 51 property owners whose properties face double
fronted lots and do not have a waterfront view. Don't take away the incentive to improve,
upgrade and build out these properties. Tract 4880 properties have the potential to add tax
dollars to the City coffers,too, as long as the neighborhood maintains its uniqueness, remains
consistent with the Tract's development plan and its streets are not turned into alleys.
In their ongoing efforts of supporting the rights of all property owners and the betterment of our
community at large, the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association denied this request.
Do likewise;keep it equitable for all property owners in our neighborhood. Support the
Harbour's development plan, ENFORCE OUR EXISTING ORDINANCES and DENY CUP 05-
03. To do otherwise affects our community's character and causes long-term detrimental effects
to property valuations for the many homes facing the embankments in Tract 4880 as attested to
by various real estate professionals over the years. The issue of high walls calls to question, why
would the City approve a fence height of 11 feet on a local street with front facing neighbors
when the rear fences of properties on Courtney Lane, also in Huntington Harbour,that back up to
Warner Avenue, an arterial highway, have been limited to something much less than 6 feet in
many instances? From a City planning perspective, I hope you agree there is something unjust
and wrong with this picture.
Sincerely,
Carole M. Garrett
Manfred&Karin Lengsfeld
16907 Rondhill Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
June 14, 2005
City Council
City of Huntington Beach -
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re.: Through-Lots
Dear Council Members, y'
Living across from tall cinder-block walls we believe that the City should enforce
their Codes also in regard to double fronted lots. There are many reasons why these
Codes have been put in place. These reasons have been mentioned again and again at
study sessions and hearings_ City Codes are the only constants in this_ Members of the
Planning Commission and City Council are changing over the years. CUP's give too
much room for misuse. It all depends who has to decide. The next group of City Officials
does not feel responsible for what has been done before. This created the wall problem in
the first place. Who guarantees that we will not have tall walls again in 5 years from now!
We would like to thank Debby Cook for her persistence in this matter.
Sincerely
BRYAN TAYLOR
16939 ROUNDHILL DR , HUNTINGTON
BEACH , CA 92649 ( 714) 840 - 6084
June 15, 2005
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERIvIIT,:05-0
DOO RETAINING WALL r 1
x�
Dear Planning Commission:
Again I urge denial of conditional use permit no. 05-03 based on health, safety, esthetic
and environmental reasons.
It is ludicrous to discount the work of the original design group of Huntington Harbor;
professional planners, soils engineers and architects. These individuals engineered, graded
and compacted the lots, designed the streets and built the homes in this distinctive area.
These lots were designed to be gradually sloping, stabilized by organic materials and gentle
declines. Your consideration, and ultimate rejection of this conditional use permit should
start with health and safety issues. Large vertical walls often retain tremendous amounts of
weight from the larger, newer homes and greater amounts of in filled dirt which directly
abut those walls. These walls are susceptible to major dislocation by seismic activity. In the
property's current condition there are large trees with an extensive system of roots which
stabilize the lot.
From an esthetic perspective, these lots were designed specific to a plan which
envisioned and implemented double sided lots with sloping greenbelts. These greenbelted
sloping lots rely on esthetic and environmentally friendly materials which are not as
susceptible to dislocation by earthquake and muffle and absorb sound pollution from the
adjacent roadways and homes. The rear yard of this property currently contains mature,
fully developed trees and organic materials which blend harmoniously with the environment.
The street below the property in question, Roundhill Drive was designed to be one-sided-
with the view across of a sloping roundhill the full length of the roadway. To accommodate
this design the original developer decreased the roadway (or the property line separation
across Roundhill Drive) from sixty to fifty feet. The sidewalk of the double fronted homes
on Westport was decreased on Roundhill from the usual four feet to two feet with the
parkway between the street and sidewalk being eliminated.
I urge you to uphold the architectural and design integrity of our neighborhood as
delineated by the CC&Rs of Huntington Harbor. I urge you to follow city regulations and
zoning regulations which are designed to lend uniformity to the community on both an
economic and esthetic basis. I urge you to deny the granting of this conditional use permit
Bryan Taylor, Homeowner, 16939 Roun , Huntington Beach
f
June 15, 2005
_. r A
City Council r,I
iuuj 4 r
City of Huntington Beach '
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: CUP 05-03 for 17041 Westport Drive
Dear City Council Members:
I am requesting denial of CUP 05-03 and the 11 foot retaining wall fence combination on the rear
embankment of the subject property on Westport Drive.
I have been the owner-occupant of my home, which faces the rear embankments of the homes on
Westport Drive, for over 30 years. During this time, we have seen the green belts or embankments fall
into disrepair and many have been replaced with concrete retaining walls. Some of the walls have been
landscaped but many have not. The prevailing attitude of the property owners of these embankments
has been out of sight, out of mind, and less maintenance is best.
As a result of these"concrete additions"to the interior of our Tract, the character of our neighborhood
has changed but not in a positive way. Our streets have taken on an alley-like appearance and have
been polluted with noise because of the concrete masses. Most of the homeowners whose properties
face these embankments have not jumped on the current real estate band wagon and upgraded and built
out their properties because valuations on our streets just haven't supported such endeavors. These
certainly are detrimental effects.
When the first retaining wall was constructed in 1972, the City had no approval process for hearing
objections by surrounding homeowners. Since the CUP process, there have been five more retaining
walls. All met with some opposition, although the notification radius has been quite limited. Since this
time, the property owners whose properties face these embankments have spoken out about the blight
these HUGE walls have infused into our neighborhood. And, in 2001 the City saw the ills of previous
decisions and denied yet another one of these concrete masses. Please follow the lead set in 2001 and
dont let this divisive issue rear its ugly head again. Give the property owners facing these embankments
an incentive to improve and upgrade their properties.
Having said all of this, I basically agree that homeowners should be allowed to do what they want with
their property... UNLESS... 1. They violate codes, covenants, and restrictions of the neighborhood and
the City, and... 2. There are numerous objections from other homeowners affected by these
modifications. These violations and objections are both present. Please deny CUP 05-03.
Regards,
George N. Garrett
17163 Roundhill Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
HH
TY
June 15, 2005
City Council c
City of Huntington Beach -
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Conditional Use Permit 05-03; Property at 17041 Westport Drive
:.a
Dear City Council Members: -
The Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association(the Association) has denied the request
made by the property owner to alter the slope/embankment and to relocate and increase the height
of the fence at the above referenced address.
The current fence facing Roundhill Drive is forty-two (42)inches tall and at the top of the grade
which is within the fifteen(15) foot setback area from the property line. This property is a double-
fronted or through lot and, as such, both street sides of the property are controlled by the front yard
setback in Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code Section 230.88 Fencing and Yards.
Any increase in the height of the fence would put the fence out of compliance with the current code.
The Association has approved the application to alter the residence. The Association also approves
the replacement of the fencing like-for-like at the same height and location. Enclosed are copies of
the letters to the applicant from the Association's legal counsel and the Association.
The City Council is hereby requested to oppose Conditional Use Permit 05-03 and recommend
denial of any alteration of the slope, grade, or embankment including any fencing other than a like-
for-like replacement at the same height and location.
Sincerely,
TINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Richard Batistelli, President
Enclosures(2)
Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association,lnc,
P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 (714)840-7877
62/1412E95 13:82 19497296618 FELDSOTT -EE PAGE 9?
FE: LDSOTT & LSE
A LAW CORPQR.=T,CI^.
a CIVIC P-AZA, SUITS 30�D
NCW?ORT MEACM, CALIFOMNIA Q8®60
;v�a� 7aa-�ooa
www.cnhoalaw.com
www,conalruollondolool.QOm
/t7S 1D�41 739•�0�1
Februar}- 14, 2Q{}`
Shirley Doo
P,O. Box 115
Sunset Beach, CA
Re: Suntington Harbour Property Owners Association and Application to Ater
Embanknxeat au,d Build Retaining Wall at 17041 Westport DON,e, Lot 139,
Tract 4880
Dear lal5, Doo:
This office serves as general co=sel to the Hunihigton.Harbo ar Property Owners Association
("Associarion"). The Association has requested tl na we c,omact ycw 'to inform you that your m-
submincd application dated January 24,2005 w alter tilt embaiikmetjt and build a retaining wall at
the above referenced address is denied, Any alteration of modification to the slope, grade,drainage,
angle, location,direction,replacement in whole or in pan, or other such change to the embarAxnert
on the property is disapproved.
Clause IV,Section 1" of the Declaratit�n of Resrz'ictkl,ns("Restrictions") for Tract No. 4880
States:
"(a) No building oT other structure of any l i.nd, including without iiin.itamn
dwellings, accessory buildings, garages, fences, walls, retaining walla,
bulkheads, sidewLlks, step , awnings, poles, swimming pools and tennis
courts slral! be erected, consuucted, insTaj icd, placed, altered or rnainta:ncd
upon any lot or.upori any strcct or park-way zc-�jacent thereto unless and until
complete and detailed plans and speci�!eailons therefor snowing color scheme
thereof, if appropriate, and a plot plan shop+in. and .fixing the location of
such strur-tuie with reference to sweets r;1d Joe limes (and the grading plan; if
requested) shal.l have been first ;ubjnit.cd for approval to and approved in
writing by the Architectural Review Committee, Such glans and
specifications, color scheme, plot plait zmd grading plazi shall be submitted
in writing over the sigaanrr•c of the ownr:l: or b1s duly autlic-ized agent or, a
form vrcparcd �y the ,�.rc.lute.ctural Rcv;e�v C��rr mittee. Approval by raid
Committee of tlae erectinn, constl.ucti(III, inStrallarion, placement,
alteration or maintenance ol'said structure may be withheld because the
sartre would or u3ight, in its .judgwent, c.;use or result in a violaboo of
1� V4.1 LYf GGCJ;J 7.J:CAL Ijq 7l L7tcbltl I Ltt
L "
FELDSOTT & Lt=Pr
A LAW COMPORAT19N
H=t4ton Harbour
Doe Violation Lettez
February 14,2005
Page Two
said Covenants and also because of the reasonable dissatisfaction of said
Committee with the grading plan,loci tio❑ of the structure,color scheme,
finish, desidu, proportions, architecture, shape, height, style or
appropriateness of the proposed struc rui,e or altered structure,materials
proposed to be used therein, kind, pitch or type of the roof proposed to
} be placed thereon, or because of its reasonable dissatisfaction with any
or all other matters or things Nvbicb, in the reasonable judgment of the
said Committee, would render the proposed structure inharmonious or
out of keeping with the general pl€m of improvement.of said real
property." (Empha>is added.)
Clause IV Sectiazz L c f the same Restrictions r roe i.dcs in pertinent part:
"(a) without the "'),nor approval o the .architectural Review Committee,
(i)no gradv shall be constructed,ire unsrructed or maintained on any lot,
or any portion thereof, with a .slope steeper than the ratio of one and
one-half feet(X W)horizontal to one Poor (P)vertical,and(U) no existing
grade shall be altered or wodilied by changing its location or the
direction of its slope or be replaced., in whole or in part. .Any apphcartt for
a deviatio:_ tram the foregoing refit iAe :e;.ts shall furnish said Committee
with suwn _e-ittg or gcologic�d data c�rxe:er��irig, erosion, earth
movem; nm,d zirage,ha;�ai:ds to Der5or.�_: U tr:ublic pr.opert�;aztd any
other matte: which said Committee. shall ;:eerx: material thereto.
(b) A.11 gr le ::r_ ing a slope sit-eper thv) the ratio of two feet (2') honzontal to
one foci -T)•,en-ticai shall bt plajtted ant_1lu;;itaznzd with growing vegetation
5uffiGieni to ;;orjtrcl erosion of suC:) r:djC5. Ali such vegetatiara and the
N-mering a. ,i maintemmcL shalt be ap, roved by said
CUtz tt itte:. ' (Emphasis added.)
Demand is htze'by r;_: e. chat you restot"t the p gi:; ;l grade o`both the embaxz ment and the
rc&r slope area of your p:o,. rty, arid plar3t "eg ratio., 4uf;": :tint to cc�z�rrol erasir.,n by no later than
February 28, 2005. Add:- nally, You axe to make nl_ rU:theT modiftcati.ozrs ox al.terat ons to your
property without cbi,&n :;rioz Written Gl}l�'.'w,al :he :arc}utectural Review Committee. The
`} cx,isting forty-two H21 incl;, fence located at thz top of tl,c -radc may lac rcplac ed with like-for-like
fence in the same lcCLIt. : :.,:d or the same heigh(
The Association p:_,:o s'.y approvcc ;i e !: :', ans altering ONLY the home on tl'le
.±mow
..., r7IiVVJ aa.vs 17'i-1![ F-'_DSOTT LEE � ..,.,.
y.
FE1,DSOTT Lr-e
w SAW COR!`ORATION
F.
Huaitington Harbour
Doo Violation Letter
FebraW 14,2005
Page Tbxee
property. .As a remiridcr, �zry significant chanbcs to (he pre.vlousI y approved buiidi.ng plans must be
submitted tv the Architect. u' Review Committee for -e tew prior to execution.
If you have P-ny qu scions, please contain the under5igne.d at the address shown below,
w Very 1r.Llly our`,
FELDSC TT & LEE
te:�;:exi 5. clang
a" c .Fcldsott
SC/lb
ce: Board of Uireciors
Huntington Hzcbou, :piny Owners Assrr.
i
3
�ytty
l�
k
L
i
i.
" r
`TpN
�O
ti
z H H
December 8, 2004
Rry O`
arc Committee
P.0
Sung:.: ijC.:.i. 90742-0791
Ms. Shirley Doo
17041 Westport Drive,
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
RE: Doo Residence
Property at 17041 Westport Drive ,
Huntington Beach, CA
Approval of plans
Dear Shirley:
The building plans submitted to the ( , ;::: .:...:_ 1 12/08/04 for the proposed
project at the referenced property address hL. . :owed by the Committee and
Found to be consistent with and in compliant : ::tent of the CC&Rs and are
therefore APPROVED, sub-iuct :o the foHc\,.
l The project is carnt d o.�t in CO!. .: he puns submi?ted;
I Any significant changes to the r,s . ':Witted to the Committee for
review prior to execution
3. This Committee will deny and/u, ; ..ay request for a variance
which violates the CC&R's of
However, the rear gardeNretaining wait, :.5 :-used with you and your legal
counsel on December 10, 2004, is not in co! !; :., : .1 the C, C, & R's of this
Association, and therefore is not approved
Thank you for helping us keep Hun?in ;iV : : i. : special place to live by
cooperating with our review program. We i:c ;`: t:. have a successful project.
R. Batistelli
President
Member, r ��
Huntington Harbor Properr G., s Associotion,lnc.
P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beccl. (714)840-7877
RETAINING -WALL
1 WESTPORT DR .
� L of CUP No . 05*403
1 lip
11111mll SEIM
:1110!
.1
LAN T: CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
DEBBIE COOK
3
3
� 092005
z
ON
H SIDE OF WESTPORT DID. , WEST
DFORD LN .
lei D I lei C S
H14 SOUTH , EAST & WEST:
E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
� .�
\ \
Cal)
�
U)
to
IQD_ �
� [ .
:
% ®
,aUK
IL ~ \
�
� m -
.
ID I AL USEPERMIT:
RMIT All I I wFT HIGH OOMBINA'T'IOICI
NII IC WALL /WOOD FENCE
OSED WALL /FENCE LOCATED
Ili THE REQUIRED I 5owFOOT SETBACK
TO 5 FT. 8 IN. LANDSCAPE SETBACK
AID PROPERTY LINE
ADMINISTRATOR ACTION ON
050
OVED THE CUP REQUEST WITH
G S AND CONDITIONS AS
NT"ED BY STAFF
SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION
E SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT
ING COMMISSION ACTION ON
05:.
OVED THE CUP REQUEST WITH
NGS AND CONDITIONS AS
ENTED BY STAFF
SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION
FAKERS IN SUPPORT
NS FOR THE APPEAL:
ECT WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO
ENERAL WELFARE, OF THE
OUNDII`IG NEIGHBORHOOD
RATION OF THE EMBANKMENT &
TRUCTION OF A RETAINING
/FENCE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH
CENT PROPERTIES
. ...»... .,.,. ..e e._....<` S....._...F <,._.,...., s..<.,..,.»-...:<i<. ..SEE
:.¢........."`.:�.E 2 .:d �.. ........: E• ... .,.. �F..." EEE.FE.:. FEZ'»m--p
�EF".F.•'.k C
x
E
S
9
3
M 393h�
d
a
m R
I I
w 3(3
oil
oil
-line
mom
8 �NEW
S 3ygg 33!3
�wtLit�t 3d� 3k� 33�3�333
�3v`I3I3y} ..........
,.
flow
mom
s r -
a ' .
aa33 m� y,km�� 3 i iY3 i� -
S 3k SI �
[ i
1
{(EE &F S
"{ E{E EE
3 !
€
€!€�1€3[F(N I�;t a 31� 31€ ! € E3
',
��
4ffE€F t (€€k IN�H. =!a 1 €€j Ii!€[<El Ee.3.13.,<.
.°s..°M £'tiEE3FE3{EEEl 1'(f31E,3y(E'
� Mfml{EE�EEIEE�d`���"€
"W
sr
;E(
E a:i
E'..j
' E
E
IE
e
7 �g
3
p
mLS3AA 3HI 01 AJLH3
THE 35 THROUGH LOTS ALONG
PORT ARE DEVELOPED WITH
S WITHIN THE REAR SETBACK
SCAPE SETBACK WILL SOFTEN THE
RANCE OF THE WALL
ERED DESIGN OF THE WALL
S FOR A PORTION OF SLOPE TO
IN
NDSCAPE SETBACK SOFTENS THE
AND HEIGHT OF 7HE, WALL
QUALITY MATERIALS CONSISTING OF
FACE BLOCK TOPPED VYITH A
RATIVE WOOD FENCE
EKED DESIGN ALLOWS FOR
S IN THE WALL SURFACE
CING THE MASSING OF THE STALL
RECOMMENDATION
X14
l III: NERAL PLAN --
DOES NOT VISUALLY DOMINATE
UNDINGS
ISTENT VYITH THE DESIGN
LINES - USE OF LANDSCAPING AND
S IN WALL SURFACE
NG SETBACKS PRESERVE A PORTION
E SLOPE
TY MATERIALS -- SPLIT FACE BLOCK
ECORATIVE WOOD FENCING BREAK
ERALL MASSING OF THE WALL
uv'rrllLU (X imr
Lawyers
A Professional Corporatton
Michael A. Oswaid 16148 Sand Canyon Avenue Northern Califonia Office:
Irvine, California 92618
Calvin C.S. Yap Telephone: (449� 788-8900 One Maritime Plaza
Lynne Bolduc Telefax: (949} 788-8980� Suite 1044
Richard T. Hsueh San Francisco, California 94111
Carol A. Gefls
Chrlstopher T. JaJn Midwestern Office:
W101am L. Buus 53 West Jackson Boulevard
Chefrle I. Tsai Suite 1560
Stephen M. Hauptman Chicago, Illinois 60604
John Y. Kim
Linda L. Zhou of Counsel:
John D. Tran John W, Allured
5entor Counsel: Thomas G. Gardiner
Reed M. Williams
May 10, 2005
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL
(949) 729-8012
Stanley Feldsott, Esq.
Feldsott & Lee
4 Civic Plaza, Sn'ite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660 _
C...
Re: Shirley Do
17041 Nest Port Drive, Lot 139, Tract 4880
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Dear Mr. Feldsott.-
Thank you for your letter of March 21, 2005. As you may know, Ms. Doo submitted her
plans for altering her embankment and building a retaining wall on her property to both the City
of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Harbor Homeowners Association Architectural Review
Committee.
The City Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the plans on April 20, 2005. I
understand that Carol, a member of the Association's Architectural Review Committee,
prevailed upon Commissioner Randy Fuhrman to appeal the City's approval. We expect the
hatter to come up before the City Plarming Commission by the end of May or the first week of
June.
With respect to the Association's review of Ms.Doo's plans, the CC&R's do not prohibit
her planned retaining wall. The only requirement is that the plans be approved by the
Architectural Review Committee. The applicable section is §22 which provides:
A �-
(a) Without the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee, (i)
no ;grade shall be constnicted, reconstructed or maintained on any lot, or any
portion thereof, with a slope steeper than the ratio of one and one-half feet ( l 112')
horizontal to one foot (1) vertical, and (ii) no existing grade shall be altered or
modified by changing its location or the direction of its slope or be replaced in
whole or in part. Any applicant for a deviation from the foregoing requirements
shall furnish. said Committee with such engineering or geological data concerning
erosion, earth movement, draining hazard to persons or public or private property _
other any other such which the Committee shall deem material thereto.
(b) All grades having a slope steeper than the ration of two feet(2') horizontal to
one foot (1') vertical shall be planted and maintained with growing vegetation
sufficient to control erosion of such grades. All such vegetation and the watering
and maintenance faculties therefor shall be approved by said Committee.
In reviewing your letter of March 21, 2005, it appears the Architectural Review
Committee's only objection to the proposed retaining wall was with the grading plan.. Please
provide us with the specific deficiencies of the grading plan and Ms. Doo will submit a revised
grading plan which addresses the Architectural Review Committee's concerns.
A copy of the City Zoning Administrator's conditional approval is enclosed for your
review,
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Jeffrey E. Thomas
cc: Shirley Doo
i
..,.... 1-"" —--7
F;i__ _ �. .r _� '$■'aks Aug' � ._ _ � _— _... .._. � �
'1'IbTI+PfnTl^�TR'!!� f
I
1
• Ct�alr� l�-�xl� 1�� �rEr�+�l-� ]
3sI11 �p7,e1+x,4r+� :If k 11 1., i I ; a
'II II' ll "GIN
+r 1 f .tII t •h.t �,. tin_.
a 'anlr=�)XI f { � k 7`` •} III �lil.�, j;�.I..,� llk '
curly t7T1 8xtt ,.. � _ .
ob.�rlr16 Jsly `r.a �a-rtx;�S 'p "�'T9T; �JniltEt7-3� Na-,E�rE== '(1QI -5
-K
!�►+l rvwv v!MA"' "e�•r'■■ `�'i-,_t I�1STs 71�•� _ t■-�, �� 'Y11r" '_%_
rrnr�Sl �tri�7 9 s� .�
• .� Li�N�LN�•oreN LM��•:. /// i
t ::r l� '.. lots pi'm gxx
7! LIE
T-P+i47ai +1
.."y�fvAti eis`wa • goo �y sCli■ OIHrd.
-�.
w0.yY,L".�_�� �� � :•■+ r ' CRY .��cawM}!?J
1
V.
.� VA. x 6 i ID.aR1o.
Loa.bwcx-
..-��,
1. I TH ,C fJN C.J�F�JNO-
1 1 R
i�f1.c41c pi's .
TEA-amj OT0 4 4 ;I
ti � ' ' ' IT t Ti
f r y'F` F ■
Glll A�r.F�.n L71 llt i
Narina Brandel Gibbs
17087 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach, California 92649
City Council of Huntington Beach
Dear City Council Members:
For months we have been engaged in a discussion about the use of property in
Huntington Beach for those of us who have through lots. My neighbor, Shirley Doo, has
been the focus of this discussion.
Ms. Doo has proposed a fence on the Roundhill side of her property. This fence is
staggered and, in my opinion, will be quite lovely. She has encountered a series of
approvals and appeals on this fence.
The following is my understanding of the events:
• August 20, 2004 City of HB approved plans for house and wall
• October, 2004 Wall disapproved and set for public hearing at City Council
• November 20, 2004 City Council approved the wall
o City Planning Department required Ms. Doo to resubmit the plans for the
wall at a public hearing
January 3, 2005 Approval by HB City Council
April 20, 2005 Board of Zoning Administrators unanimously approved the
wall
o Appealed by Randy Fuhrman
• May 24, 2005 Planning Commission unanimously approved the wall
o June 3. 2005 Appealed by Debbie Cook
It is now June 20`h and the city council is to hear the same arguments over again. I have
great difficulty understanding why this is still an issue. At this point it borders on
harassment and this disturbs me very much.
Shirley Doo has submitted plans that will enhance the neighborhood. By far the majority
of the neighbors are with her. A few discontents oppose. Ms Doo has gone to
considerable effort to comply with all concerns and has bent over backward to appease.
In my opinion this matter should be resolved tonight. I urge your approval of the wall
she has proposed.
Tp�ank Pran
Normal Gibbs
Adrienne Parks
17085 Westport arise
Huntington Beach, CA
June 14,2005
Re: In Support of Shirley Doo wall
Dear City Council,
I am thoroughly in support of Shirley Doo's well-designed wall. It may well serve as a standard for
the entire beach community of what one well-intentioned neighbor can do to improve neighbor-to-
neighbor relations.
Additionally, I must call your attention to the enormous amount of precious Council and City staff
time that has been invested by the city by being unnecessarily dragged into and mired in a
specific property owners association minutia.
California Homeowners Association & their CC&Rs are not the business or jurisdiction of city
government—and a pitiful waste of City human resources. This non-intervention has long been
established in law—California real estate and property law as well as U.S. property law.This
distinction has been further highlighted by the recent amendments to the Davis-Sterling Act, the
amendments of which became effective January 1, 2006. They provide a clear, established, fair
and required solution to unreasonable neighbors. It's called arbitration and mediation and it takes
place entirely at the association level.
With the most recent amendments, there is an attempt at the California government level to state
clearly the duty of Homeowners Associations and their minions to resolve "neighbor" issues in a
"neighborly"way. Less intrusive government is, in essence,better.
The new requirements call for an internal dispute resolution process. Procedures which have not
been implemented by the executive board of the Huntington Harbor Property Owners
Association.
Procedures stipulate that Associations must provide for either a "meet and confer"dispute
resolution process or one that brings in an outside neutral party. (Civil Code Section 1363.810 et
seq. within a new Article V of the Davis Stirling Act, called"Dispute Resolution Procedure". )
This entire section requires associations to set up reasonable, fair, and expeditious procedures
for resolving neighbor disputes, or to accept a default process set forth in the statute,
Under the Davis-Sterling Act`Dispute Resolution Procedure," commencing with Civil Code
1363.810, the new law creates a two-pronged dispute resolution procedure that must be
implemented by a homeowner or an association prior to either filing a legal action for judicial relief
(with some exceptions).
The first prong is Internal Dispute Resolution ("IDR"). The second is Alternative Dispute
Resolution ("ADR")_ Neither IDR nor ADR has been offered to Ms. Doo.
Z
The disputes to which each is applicable now include"any"dispute involving the rights, duties, or
liabilities of a homeowner or association under the California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation
law, commencing with Corporations Code 7110 ("the Corporations Act"), the ACT, or the
governing documents of the common interest development association.
Under Internal Dispute Resolution Process ("IDR")an association must establish a fair,
reasonable, and expeditious process to resolve disputes and to make maximum reasonable use
of local low-cost mediation and other dispute resolution programs involving a neutral third party
facilitator.
The statutory test under the new law requires that it provide the following:
a)To be begun in writing by either party.
b) Prompt deadlines, including the maximum time an association can act on a member's request.
c)The association must participate, if commenced by a member.
d) If commenced by the association, a member may chose not to participate; however, if the
member does participate, the member may appeal to the board if the dispute is resolved by any
means other than by agreement of the member.
e)A resolution, pursuant to the procedure, will bind the association and is judicially enforceable
provided it is not in conflict with the law or the governing documents; however, a resolution will
only bind the owner and be judicially enforceable if memorialized in an agreement and is not in
conflict with law or the governing documents.
f)The procedure must allow the member and association an opportunity to explain their
respective positions.
g)The procedure must be at no cost the member.
Where a Homeowners Association does not establish its own OR procedure, a default meet-
and-confer procedure provided for in Civil Code 1363.840 will apply, which is expressly stated to
meet the requirements for a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure.
This default procedure requires:
(a) Either party may request the other, in writing,to meet and confer.
(b) The member may refuse; the association may not.
(c)The board must designate a board member to meet and confer with the member.
(d)The parties are to meet promptly, at a mutually convenient time and place, explain their
positions, and confer in good faith in an effort to re.-olve the dispute.
(e)A resolution of the dispute, agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, including the board
designee, is enforceable in court, provided that it does not conflict with law or the association's
governing documents, and is either within the authority granted to the board designee, or is later
ratified by the board_
3
Homeowners Associations are now, under 1363.850, required to provide the members with a
description of its IDR process when it submits its annual summary of the ADR process, as
required by existing 1354, and by 1369.590 of the new law. The IDR procedure must be
distributed with the ADR procedural information, annually with the Association budget and other
required by-law materials.
Should the IDR process be unsuccessful, the Association and Homeowner must comply with the
mandatory ADR process. This is required by both existing Civil Code 1354, and new 1358 et seq.
In addition to causing the enforcement of the IDR and ADR processes, changes include ADR as
applies to disputes to enforce the ACT and Corporations Act, as well as association governing
documents. This includes "medication, binding or non-binding arbitration, conciliation, and other
non-judicial procedures involving a neutral third party in the decision-making process and
stipulates the methods by which the"request for resolution"can be served on the other party.
And, the Davis-Sterling Act, ACT, does not leave out reference to Architectural Review
Committees-
Civil Code 1357.120 has been amended to establish guidelines for association rule making
procedures.The amendment adds subparagraph (a) (6)to include, among those operating rules
requiring written notice be given to the members for a 30-day review and comment period before
making the rule change"Any procedure for reviewing and approving or disapproving a proposed
physical change to a member's separate interest or common area."
Civil Code 1378 further stipulates requirements the Association must satisfy before an owner
may make physical changes to the owner's separate interest, if its governing documents require
such approval.
These requirements include the following:
a.The association must provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure for making
architectural decisions, including prompt deadlines the maximum time an association may
respond to an application, and the homeowner's right to request reconsideration of a disapproved
application by the board of directors. Such procedures must be stated in the association's
governing documents, which includes its operating rules.
b. The decision must be made in good faith, and may not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious.
c. The decision must be consistent with other governing laws, including the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act.
d. The decision must be in writing and, if the proposed architectural modification is disapproved,
must include an explanation of the reasons why it was disapproved and of the procedure that the
homeowner must follow in appealing the decision to the board of directors for reconsideration.
e. As noted in (4) aborre, a homeowner whose application is disapproved may appeal the
architectural committee decision to the board of directors for reconsideration.
f. The appeal hearing must take place at an open board meting.
4
The Act requires Associations provide annual notice to its members of any rules or other
requirements for the association's review and approval of a physical change to the member's
property.
All California Homeowner Associations are advised to review the existing architectural
procedures in their CC&R's and operating rules as soon as possible to ensure they adequately
comply with the new law-- as outdated CC&Rs are no excuse for failure to comply.
Revisions to the CC&Rs required to bring existing rules into compliance must be adopted by the
board pursuant to the requirements of Civil Code 1357.130, providing for, among other things,
written notice of the rule changes to the association members for their review and comment at
least thirty(30)days before the rule changes are adopted by the board.
For additional information see the full text of the amended Davis-Sterling Act or visit the California
Legislative Action Committee (CLAC)web site, www.clac.org. CLAC is a committee of the
Community Associations Institute (CAI), the"largest advocacy organization in America dedicated
to monitoring legislation, educating elected state lawmakers, and protecting the interests of those
living in community associations in California. CLAC represents six million homeowners residing
in 30,000 associations throughout California. Is comprised of association homeowners, directors,
and professionals. Is not a PAC (Political Action Committee), and makes no financial
contributions.
I whole-heartedly support Shirley Doo's well-designed wall as that which can serve as a model of
what one good neighbor can do to support her fellow neighbors. The personal time, money, and
thoughtfulness which Ms. Doo has incorporated into her architecturally-crafted wall is an
inspiration to our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration,
Adrienne Parks
Westport Drive resident
& HHPOA Member
i
!!! �J uw i 0
,I
�F
h�
�f
ow � .- .
is
O-d
UdA omd ze do 0,04 ti�� aq
�4
(l
sE
y .N
l
�E
{
June 13, 2005
Dear City Council,
I am writing to you that I whole-heartedly support Shirley Doo's wall, which is very well
designed and can serve as a model to other neighbors in Westport Drive.
Si ' dm,koc� A
Paul Mitrevski, M.D.
Westport resident
r
I
ji
i ILI
i
i{ J
3
,j
i
'4
f
June13, 2005
Dear City Council,
As a resident on Westport Drive, T support beautifully design wall which Ms. Shirley Doo
is going to build in her yard on 17041 Westport Drive.
Sincerely, A
Pandora Mitrevski
Westport resident.
/yr7 �+ Jq�y rll,�6
Ave-
/yl�/� �/J/ /�•
� a
SIf�/C.. , //I z:- bew
e `
_ ��,3,
June 10,2005
Dear Planning Commission:
1 support building the retaining wall at 17041 Westport
Drive, Huntington Beach as requested by the owner.
The wall will be a definite improvement, particularly,
since the next door neighbor already has a similar wall.
Sincerely:
Kenneth R. Jack'6
17111 Westport Drive
June 10, 2005
Dear Planning Commission:
I support building the retaining wall at 17041
Westport Drive, Huntington Beach.
The wall will be a definite improvement to the
property in looks,safety, and enhanced value.
The new beautiful landscaping will greatly
improve the view, benefiting all owners in the
area; and the proposed new watering system will
insure that the area is maintained.
Sincerely:
Deanne A. Jack
17111 Westport Drive
June 10, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Respected City Council Members:
1 am in support of Ms. Shirley Doo's rear wall project at her property located at
17041 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Sincerely,
9"-----I--e--4-Z-�
Jay Sheth
4172 Windsor Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
June 10, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Respected City Council Members:
I am in support of Ms. Shirley Doo's rear wall project at her property located at
17041 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Sincerely,
V
sha Sheth
4172 Windsor Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
June 140 2005
Hunt:lrzston Beadi-i City Council Members
Use Permit 05-03
Doo Retaining Wall
Dear I'Iembers,
Shl-i°ley Doo was granted a permit to build_ h.er home and
1 et -inirig i.,sall/Fence on th.e rear of h.er p,operty. `I"nis
po_:°r:rit was granted after a trough stud,.r made by cur
ias�t:i gran Be"-ch. Planning A.9 you al:i-oad-r k:zoz•J,
t zi Jo-,oa.,:-tnelit consists of ext7,emel y qualified ; rofe�ialonals,
I have no objection to the construction of Shirley Doots
;gall, TIer home and T:,all will be an asset to Huntington Harbour.
You may rest assured, that she will ma.int<-in her p_rope?rt;;r J , a
Inalm >r that-, ,•1ill please her neighbors .
Please vote ,,Ath. t?:ie Planning Depar:°tnre;riI; and the. Planni..g
Corrrrni� lion t:.) allow 1.1jploy Doo J o proceed with her plans
in accordance i-•ritl3 the perm .t sh-e was granted.
Sincerely,
June L.�As
71L,.-84o-6805
16931 Concord Lane
iintington Beach, Ca.
92649
June 13, 2005
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Council Members;
I support Ms. Shirley boo, my neighbor, in her efforts to
construct a concrete retaining wall at the rear of her
property, which is located at 17041 Westport Drive in
Huntington Beach.
I, along with many of my neighbors, have a retaining wall at
the rear of the lot, and it does not -seem fair that some
people in the City are trying to prevent Ms. boo f rom doing
likewise.
Very truly yours,
Harold Quan
17141 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
6-12-05
Mark Meyers
16921 Westport Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
To Whom It May Concern,
I am in full support of Shirley Doo at 17041 Westport Drive in Huntington Beach and her
plan to build a retaining wall on her property. It is her private property, and for the city
to stand in the way of her use of her property seems inappropriate to me. As an attorney
and a property owner, I find it offense that the opinions of a few neighbors can override
the constitutional rights of property owners. As far as the Huntington Harbour
Homeowner Association, I have lived at my property for six years. During this time
some neighbors have built walls,others have harvested weeds, ivy and rats. There has
been no consistent enforcement of any rules or regulations. In fact, when I bought my
property, my neighbor obtained a permit to build a wall. He built, I decided not to build.
His property is worth more than mine now that his yard is larger. My property is more
difficult to sell, and of less value because of the current involvement of the City and
restrictions on the use of my property.
Therefore,I think the proposed retaining wall will be an asset to the community and help
increase property values for all. For those looking at walls, remember in real estate,a
view is not guaranteed. Finally, for those on double sided lots, increased lot size and use
of private property has inherent value.
The City needs toe asonable and allow retaining walls to be built to code with design and
engineering approval.
VeIA truly yours,
Marls J. Meye ttome at law
6-12-OS
I am Natalie Meyers. I live at 16921 Westport Dr. Huntington Beach,Ca. I think Shirley
Dco at 17041 Westport Drive should be able to build a retaining wall. This is her private
property. The plan has been approved. The wall and the right to build the wall is both a
personal right and will benefit public welfare as well as improve the property values in
the area.
Sincerely,
Natalie Meyers
6-11-05
To: City of Huntington Beach
From: Fran Meyers
Resident, Owner of 16.921 Westport Dr.,Huntington Beach CA. 92649
I an in full support of Shirley Doo at 17041. Westport Dr., Huntington Beach in the use of
her property as she deems proper and build her retaining wall. It is her private property
and the city being further involved by denying her the wall is improper! 1..feel the
approved plans will be an asset to property owners in Huntington Harbour and the
surrounding community.
Sincerely,
_YJAIA-
Fran Meyers
Tr7Ii3�P {�eP-' i� w'N �en fi �/�
d
o�i�`fhe��74 w P-le. Cc)
�j
Pin
09
coo y� eeNrn ^ �e con
�n cjLI�
i co
—
mfi�er��raF� eP- u)1�1
¢ f hF Ve �al,C/ �lr�fer C� PN 9
C� i
� ceve
f 7
7/ yr/RL� LtG4Q
Mr.Dante]I-Stewart
f7/ �ve� ,r r�
7c)7/
A
. i t
r:
... _..ems, ...
Y
f� •
pig �-•i
� r`.
� Ata-�• �
CD
�` ,. ;��Pax .� - � �•
•_. - r1.-:i;F W:i°yr:ri[ e.+Y. :msar�..x. _s
tov� ., : �erw0aarew a �a�ra +a ser:
k�� Aa _
Wit�+. 'iMt �Yi -S'. �-a••`
�►iYilGr�aE�.••••"f9Yl�F�e{�L®Yt�fIM4
f
x `
}
r; t
`_ f f •
a'z'
_ a _
Nut
one
3 �ti
y
1 :
L
No
o
---'
i '=' `-.,.. . y_:..: ;s>. �._•.,yer.qZvi'.aa�:�s?y�,9"�'YN.��.il�R'!'�"'T�:'v, ,„�
f�
A
1�
}
LIU v�
� A
cy
ful
t
+�L
_ t
�l
r�
- ---
I — -
I `
i
7ve.vn �-- -
F .
No
LiLa
f .k
-� � r � I "�• III G •�..
r 5
J 1.�
1
I Y 1.
rtry]{e�r'sse k�K pr as ..k �'�` �k �� � �„�—• }, J1 h
k '
Icad ox-rJ
'jotsY;A gxz�
SHADY GA RNA.N
6REATR OF �PhxNG�
Z),5 '
E
di
` _ C
�.
G �� h
A. y+.� t•,�. ��., t f
r r.
PLAN T 0 ST 5• �� �
o i N I M r=N T �. r f A (PINK) SNOW CRYSTALS C vV W TF.)
6 , B U T T E'RFLY t3asH (PURME)
C. RAR FrARA KARS'r $QUCv%l NVt Lt<ER C PkEl),) T a TRAILl40 tcF- PLA4T PNtK
LAm PRAM N lMS S f EGT-A a l LI5
.D. r-rzs,riVAL GRASS CGIZ:DYLiNF ARK RU) (PI NK)
E , :7ADF- PLANT C&Rf��ith)
UL)/ . 0F -rHF- Nf NFz / -ArT FAN,rHUS A1-RICARQ; CruKPL)
/ C� HogT-A cGLb hI TtARA CCREF-N /vi WM TF ED€rR)
Y r �
R
K
•ram - _ - �;�; , 4 � �; ;� ��t r� ,
� � `�. — 'i �','1F�'' � r1+Y'�w••R a ',tit!'`^ w i }fir ti. i f- � 11. -
t
—lk N�w
IZ
44
• M
i, 'il rr
_ LoGuls�ria uein•ilirate
Snow Crystals'n'
%_ ! � .��'"i�(_S•Y�yi--_ - jar`
f'J '
GOLDENHCSTA "
v
TRAILING ICE PLANT PINK
Page 1 of 1
Jones, Dale
From: Dapkus, Pat
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:33 PM
To: Flynn, Joan; Jones, Dale
Subject: FW: Letter for 6-20 Council meeting
-----Original Message-----
From: Palikan, Heide [mailto:Heide.Palikan@avendra.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:24 PM
To: City.council@surfcity-hb.org
Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes
Subject: Letter for 6-24 Council meeting
Please print out the attached letter and include in the packets for Council. Thank you.
Heide Palikan
email: heide.palikan@av_endra.com
6/16/2005
Heide Palikan
17097 Westport Drive
Huntington.Beach, CA 92649
846-1849
June 16, 2005
Honorable Mayor Jill Hardy
and City Council Members
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 (Doo retaining wall)
Honorable Mayor and Council Members;
This letter is in reference to the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Ms.
Doo's retaining wall. I urge you to reject that appeal and to approve the plans as
submitted and approved by both the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Doo has taken great pains to create a fence that will enhance the surrounding area
and ensure safety and security for her family. A new fence of this kind will be a vast
improvement over the current weather beaten wooden fence.
I would also request Council direct Staff to draft an ordinance allowing through lot
owners to build on their rear yards by right, that is without the need for a CUP. This
would alleviate the need for the City to spend countless Commission, Council and Staff
hours and public funds just to process requests for fences. So much time and money
has been spent on this issue which could be put to better use.
There are a few residents in the area that insist on keeping the slopes. Unfortunately,
today's society makes the slopes a security concern. A block wall will offer more of a
deterrent. Please approve this project as submitted and develop a less restrictive
ordinance for us. Thank you for your time and consideration, and feel free to contact
me should you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Heide Palikan
1
City of Huntington Beach ' '^ 012H16209932
Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS JU
P.O. Box 190 $ 352
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE 26 yr
Col.-
REQUESTED NOW From 92648
CL
..r U5 POSTAGE
•h.� ►'il'1T9�� - L.M ������ `.�'�-L Jew 1
I78-291-23
HUNTI N HARBOUR C
W' 41 NE R AVE
IING�py (^ •..� ��— INGTON BE A 92649
- - RETURN
rY ca`.
LE �. o H RING
City of Huntington Beach c `r 012I6209932
Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS ' �t* .3
P.Q. Box 190 SERVICE �3
52
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 w osj091200
REQUESTED �� maiied From 92648
..... t US POSTAGE
$-334-05 : .g ;t+fa't' its r OB2&
SHiR.LEY DOO
17041 WESTPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649P01 1
ING
_ f �� �11YY YVY V
RETURN
TO SEtJDER
ATTEMPTED
UIMTY
MWING �i► ti, + , � ,Ei.., 1,►� �,3.,i. a .t .i�...l.t., i....,i,f�