Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Hearing-Appeal PC Denial Use Permit No 90-70 6 iro
LA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK July 12,•1991 Mr. and Mrs. Mehran Ahrestani 18842 Manitoba Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mehran Ahrestani: The City Council at its July 1, 1991 City Council meeting approved your appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of the Use Permit No. 90-70. The appeal was approved with conditions. The minutes of the meeting including the conditions of approval will be forwarded to you in the neat future. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney City Administrator Community Development Director Mike Connor, Community Development Department I 1051 K (Telephone: 714-536-5227) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION July 1, 1991 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator r V Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Develo� ent 4-17 Subject: APPEAL OF _THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL 1 / OF USE .PERMIT NO. 90-70 A P'P M0 &I W/C ope , , Consistent with Council Policy? 40,;�Yes [ I New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an 'appeal of the Planning Commission' s denial of a request to permit an existing six (6) 'foot high wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot high columns . This request was originally denied by the Zoning Administrator on January 2, 1991 and the appeal was denied by the Planning Commission on May 7, 1991. RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: "DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 WITH FINDINGS. Planning Commission Action on May 7, 1991: ON MOTION BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO DENY THE APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Kirkland, Dettloff, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Zoning Administrator "s Action on January 2, 1991: USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 'DENIED WITH FINDINGS. PIO 5/85 ANALYSIS• The applicant and appellant (Mehran Ahrestani) is requesting approval for an existing a six (6) foot tall fence with seven (7) foot columns constructed along the front and side property lines in conflict with the required fifteen (15) foot frontyard •setback requirement . The fence was constructed without building permits and was brought to the City' s attention through a citizen complaint. The project is located at 18442 Manitoba, north of Ellis Avenue and west of Delaware. Mr . Ahrestani has stated his reasons for installing the fence in front of his property was for protection. The property is located at the end of a down hill street (Yukon St. ) and there is a possibility that a ' drunk driver or run away car could crash into his house and injure his family. He feels that a fence. can prevent such an accident . Because of the unique location and lot shape, his home is easily accessable to burglers (two months ago somone cut- the top of his covertable and took his stereo and speakers) . He 'feels the fence will protect his house against burglary. He has also had neighbors pets use his front yard as a restroom. Finally he feels that the fence and landscaping will increase the value of his property and provide the neighborhood with a better view. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, staff received two petitions from area homeowners . One in support of the existing fence with 47 signatures and one in oppositions to the fence with 23 signatures . In their appeal letter dated May 15, 1991 Mr. and Mrs . Ahrestani raise three comments related to the findings for denial of the Use Permit. These comments are listed below and followed by a response from staff : Comment la : The applicant stated that there were no persons present at the Planning Commission hearing to speak against the request, however there were three persons present to speak in favor of the request. In addition, the applicant questioned the validity of a petition against the fence which was submitted. - Although the petition contained 24 signatures, there were no addresses provided to verify the signatures. The applicant went on to state that they would be willing to alter the fence as recommended by the alternative action. Staffs Response The 300 foot mailing list includes only a portion of the residences in the neighborhood which would have a direct view of the fence . from the front yard. There are many residents. in the neighborhood outside of the 300' foot radius who would pass by the Ahrestani ' s fence on a daily basis . Staff has reviewed the signatures on both RCA 7/l/91 -2- (9991d) of the petition' s submitted which request removal of the fence. One petition has 17 signatures which was submitted prior to the Zoning Administrator ' s meeting and one has 23 signatures which was submitted prior to the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission. Staff has reviewed both petitions against each other as well as against the county tax rolls and has found many of the signatures to match each other as well as to match the names of property owner ' s within the area. As a result staff believes these petitions to be signed by persons who would view this fence on a daily basis . The applicant ' s petition of 47 signatures contains many of the residents within the immediate neighborhood including the immediate neighbors on both sides and across the street . It should be noted however, that over half of the signatures (24) . are by residents along Ellis Avenue and Delaware Street who would be less likely to encounter the fence on a regular basis . One (1) signature shows an address located near Edwards and Slater (6572 Renrick Circle) . Comment lb' The applicant stated that there are houses in the neighborhood with similar fences including the house next door. The applicant also stated that the concerns regarding the sewer system were irrelevant because the sewer is in the street . . Staff ' s Response: FUNDING SOURCE• Not Applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Motion to: "Approve the appeal with the fence as constructed and overturn the Planning Commission' s denial of Use Permit No . 90-70 with suggested findings and conditions identified in Attachment -No. 2 . " 2 . Motion to: "Approve the appeal with modifications to the existing fence and overturn the Planning Commission' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with suggested findings and conditions of approval identified in Attachment No . 2 . " ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Denial 2 . Alternative Action - Suggested Findings and Comditions of Approval 3 . Alternative Action - Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval with modifications to the existing fence 4 . Appeal letter dated May 16, 1991 5 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 7, 1991 6. . Location and Information Maps MTU:MA:MJC: lp RCA 7/1/91 -4- (9991d) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the six (6) foot fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line will be detrimental to: a . The general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity because the appearance and location of -the fence does not blend with the immediate neighborhood. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of the fence. There are no walls or fences located in the front yards of any other properties in the neighborhood. In addition, the fence spans across an existing sewer easement at the south end. 2 . There are no special circumstances associated with the shape or location of the property which make the proposed six (6) foot fence on the front property line necessary in order to preserve property rights . 3 . The location, site layout, and design of the proposed fence does not properly adapt the proposed structure to streets, driveways or other adjacent homes in a harmonious manner. The fence is not compatible with other properties in the neighborhood which generally do not have fences in the front yard setback. The fence spans across a six (6) foot sewer easement which crosses the southernmost portion of the property which conflicts with city requirements . Attachment No. 1 (9991d-5) ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 : 1 . The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a ._ The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The fence provides for upgraded landscaping and improvements within a neighborhood that generally does not have upgraded landscaping or improvements . b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. The fence provides for upgraded landscaping and improvements within a neighborhood that generally does not have upgraded landscaping or -improvements . 2 . The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map. The property lies within the low density residential land use area which allows for single family residences . The fence is an accessory structure to the residence. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70: 1 . The fence as constructed shall be the approved layout and design. Attachment No. 2 (999ld-6) ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING FENCE USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a . The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The fence provides for upgraded landscaping and improvements within a neighborhood that generally does not have upgraded landscaping or improvements . b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. The fence provides for upgraded landscaping and improvements within a neighborhood that generally does not have upgraded landscaping or improvements . 2 . The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map. The property lies within the low density residential land use area which allows for . single family residences . The fence is an accessory structure to the residence. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 : 1 . The fence as constructed shall be modified to include the following: a. Brick columns and additional landscaping on the street side of the fence. b. The fence shall be staggered to provide landscape pockets . c. The fence shall be painted to match the adjacent fence. d. The fence shall be provided with a gate at the southerly edge of the property for access to the sewer easement . The gate system shall .be approved by the Department of Public Works. 2 . The fence shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval after redesign. Attachment No. 3 .R (9991d-6) May 15 , 1991 c _; r t o n n FROM: MR. and MRS Ahrestani o _ 18842 Manitoba Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel : ( 714 ) 841-9609 — TO: City Council SUBJECT : APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 REQUEST: To permit an existing six ( 6 ) foot tall wrought iron fence . Or permit for modification of existing fence based on Zoning Administrator recommendation (Reference Staff Report dated May 7 , 1991 , Section 11 . 0 Alernative Action -- Please see Page 4 of this document . ) Here in, we are submitting our request for appeal of use permit No . 90-70 . On May 6 , 1991 Huntington Beach Planning Commission disapproved our appeal for use permit No . 90-70 based on the following findings . SECTION 1 . a. Planning commission letter dated May 10 , 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document. "THE GENERAL WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING IN THE VICINITY BECAUSE THE APPEARANCE AND LOCATION OF THE FENCE DOES NOT BLEND WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. " RESPONSE: According to the Huntington Beach city procedure for appeal , city has send letter to all houses in 300 feet of the subject parcel reguarding use permit No . 90-70 . In response to such a notice on May 6 , 1991 planning commission hearing not even one person showed up to object toward the fence . The only objection was a letter with 23 signatures without any printed name or address , therefor it is not clear who signed the petition and also it cannot be verified if those people live in the 300 feet of the subject property. This is going to bring up a serious question about the validity of that letter. We are requesting that the city council to consider this fact. On the other hand on May 6 , 1991 we have submitted to the planning commission the petition with 48 signatures with printed names and addresses in favor .of the fence and that can be easily verified for the validity. And also two . of my neighbors showed up PAGE 1 in favor of the fence and expressed their opinion which clearly indicated not only they do not have any objection but also they like the fence and they believe the fence is giving better look to the neighborhood and increase the property value . However, as we indicated on our request at the begining , we are willing to follow the zoning administrator' s recommendations to modify our existing fence so that it be more compatible with the neighborhood. ( Reference Staff Report dated May 7 , 1991 , Section 11 . 0 Alternative Action -- Please see Page 4 of this document ) . SECTION 1 . b. Planning Commission letter dated May 10 , 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document . "PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE FENCE . THERE ARE NO _ WALLS OR FENCES LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARDS OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION, THE FENCE SPANS ACRESS AN EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT AT THE SOUTH END. " RESPONSE: It is not true which there are no wall or fence located in the neighborhood, for example my adjacent neighbor have bricks wall and fence with the same hight on front of his property . And also there are more houses in the area with the fence . Reguarding the sewer system, the fence has nothing to do with that because the sewer system is located outside of the fence next to street and can be accessed easily by city if required. SECTION 2 . Planning Commission letter dated May 10., 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document. "THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SHAPE OR LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH MAKE THE PROPOSED SIX ( 6) FOOT FENCE ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE PROPERTY RIGHTS. " _RESPONSE: . Please refer to the copy of my letter to the City Of Huntington Beach dated Jan. 12 , 1991 (Please see Page 6 of this document) . 1 PAGE 2 I In conclusion, we like to add that there are other houses located in the city of Huntington Beach with fence or wall with the same hight or higher than our fence and we believe that- the dinial of our request for use permit 90-70 is clear case of discrimination. We would like to indicate that the construction of this fence cost us more than $12 , 000 . 00 'and we would appriciate your approval of the use permit 90-70 . Or at least approve the permit for modification of the existing fence based on zoning administrator' s recommendations . (Reference Staff Report dated May 7 , 1991 -- Please see Page 4 of this document ) . Regards 74 Mehran Ahrestani Firouzeh Farmand Ahrestani PAGE 3 huntington beach department of community development STAf f EPOR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development - DATE: May 7, 1991 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 APPLICANT/ Mehran Ahrestani DATE ACCEPTED: . APPELLANT: 18442 Manitoba Lane April 15, 1991 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Mehran Ahrestani May 15, 1991 OWNER• ZONE• R1 REOUEST: To permit an existing six (6) foot tall wrought iron GENERAL PLAN: Low Density fence with seven (7) foot Residential tall columns on the front property line pursuant to EXISTING USE: Single Section 9771(L) of the Family Residential Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ACREAGE: 0. 19 acres (8, 190 sf) LOCATION: 18442 Manitoba 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Deny the appeal of the Zoning Administrator' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with findings and conditions of approval. 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Use Permit No. 90-70 is a request to permit a six (6). foot tall wrought . iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line pursuant to Section 9771(L) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. C), A-FM-23C +iC. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1 LAND USE: Single Family Residence North, East, South and West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1 LAND USE: Single Family Residences 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6. 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7 .0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 .0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to obtain permits for an existing six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line. Such a fence would normally require a 15 foot setback. Section 9771(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code permits deviations from the Yards and Fence Standards pursuant to approval of a use permit. The applicant ' s request was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator on January 2, 1991. The application was denied because it is not compatible with the majority of the surrounding neighborhood and because the fence spans across a six (6) foot wide sewer easement that runs along the south end of the property. In addition, one letter and a petition from residents and homeowners in the Huntington Rivera Tract objecting to the fence were submitted to the Zoning Adminstrator. Subsequent to the Zoning Administrator's denial, an appeal was filed by the applicant which cites six (6) reasons why he feels that the fence should be permitted. The following is a list of the reasons with a staff response following each one: 1. My use permit request was denied on Janary 2, 1991, because of incompatibility with the other neighbors . As I indicated on my original request there are fences in the neighborhood which are compatible to my fence. Staff Report - 5/7/91 -2- (9536d) 1 Response: The property to the south has a retaining wall which is topped by a 42 inch tall wrought fence which is permitted by Section 9771(g) (1) and (4) of the code. Although there are properties with six (6) foot walls or fences on the property line abutting Manitoba Lane, these walls are on exterior side property lines which are permitted under Section 9771(b) of the code. There are no fences- or walls which exceed 42 inches in height within any front yard setback in the immediate neighborhood. All existing walls and fences within the immediate neighborhood, with the exception of the applicant' s request, meet the standards of Article 977. It is staff ' s position that the structure does not blend with the existing neighborhood, therefore, staff does not support the request. 2 . My house is located at the end of a downhill street, and there is a possibility of a runaway car coming into my house. I have spent my life savings to install this fence in order to secure my house from runaway cars for protection of my family. None of the house locations of my neighbors are similar to my house. Response: Runaway cars may not be stopped by a six (6) foot wrought iron fence. A 42 inch high block wall may be better suited for this purpose and would not require a use permit. 3 . The other reason they denied my use permit was because some of the neighbors signed against this permit. As far as, I talked to my surrounding neighbors, none of them have any objection toward my fence. Response: There- were no comments in favor of the request submitted in writing or presented verbally at the hearing, except from the applicant . 4 . Because of the unique location of my property and my lot shape, (I have more than 120 feet of front) it is very easy for burgulars to gain access. Two months ago somebody cut the top of my convertable and took my stereo and speakers . The fence will protect my house against burglary. Response: There are a number of home security and yard lighting systems available that could provide equal, if not better, security to the home and would still be quite compatible with the neighborhood.. 5 . The fence will protect my children from the street and' from possible car accidents or kidnapping, and will allow them to play in the yard freely. Staff Report- 5/7/91 -3- (9536d) Response: The subject property has a large side yard in addition to a rear yard. A six (6) foot fence could be constructed 15 feet from the front property line that would meet code, serve the same purpose and be more compatible with the neighborhood. 6 . Landscaping in. conjunction with the fence will increase the value of my property and giving better views to the neighborhood. Response: Although additional landscaping will provide some screening for the fence, it will not eliminate the visual impact that the fence has upon the neighborhood. 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: ti Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the Zoning Administrator' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with the following findings: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the six (6) foot fence with seven . (7) foot tall columns on the front property line will be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity because the appearance and location of the fence does not blend with the immediate neighborhood. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of the fence. There are no walls or fences located in the front yards of' . any other properties in the neighborhood. In addition, the fence spans across an existing sewer easement at the south end. 2 . There are no special circumstances associated with the shape or location of the property which make the proposed six (6) foot fence on the front property line necessary in order to preserve property rights . 3 . The location, site layout, and design of the proposed fence does not properly adapt the proposed structure to streets, driveways or other adjacent homes in a harmonious manner. The fence- is not compatible with other properties in the neighborhood which generally do not have fences in the front yard setback. The fence spans across a six (6) foot sewer easement which crosses the southernmost portion of the property which conflicts with city 'requirements. Staff Report 5/7/91 -4- (9536d) 11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: If the Planning Commission determines that the fence has merit, it may be possible to modify the fence so that it is more compatible with the neighborhood. Possible modifications may include the replacement of portions of the fence with brick columns, staggering the setback for sections of the fence to provide additional -visual relief, and painting the fence to match the adjacent wrought iron fence. The Planning Commission may: Approve the appeal of the Zoning Administrator ' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with the conditions that the fence: a. Be provided with brick columns . b. Be staggered to provide landscape pockets . c. Be painted to match the adjacent fence. d. Be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval after redesign. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map -L ,,,.. 3. Site plans dated November 16, 1990 HS:DLf:kj 1 Staff Report - 5/7/91 -5- (9536d) In �� 7AlBERT T- Mr; O--)ARV�2E,,.I�P DMI MIA ea RMI-CD MI-A -SR RMI-CD R4 2 SR � +i L CF-R MI-CD -- '� :" MI-A R4'SR �Kl CF-R :ice:.-:. :a RI j C2 KLI _ on:o (RA-0-CD) ,N RI '.... y RI C 2 MI-CD M I MIS ONTARIO DR 50 RI ^ RI RI � MI I trx CR -OUEBEC RI RI _ `I";•,,.: "hrn R 3 -------- e• I( RI RI CF-C 1: �anla�n ._ ALIIERTA OR CF-R RI RI [R�l x R3 .I 4 (RA-0-CO) W Mn':"J MI-CD RI i ,o op CF-R —�---, �no'.0 MI a YVKON DR d �N4NKLIN OR C4 (MI-CD) 0 R' RI R3 R3 Ao• .'I n 1�:.I 2•I 90 (MI•crn P MI-CD RI R3 RI R2 RS R3 Euis RI 8 Mkt MI-0-CD , .M,o01 R 2 R2 C 2 ,/ / eo. C2 O M , U. I ..� .. �. / • 3 RA-0-CD+ R2 10 M2-0 O 6.Ot A'. )i91>10 OP Q �C41 -- a•l(1 1eo M I—0 (DISTRICT o InIRA —0 RZ i Two)& ue UP 90-70 %- HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION C 0 7691 z 7682 � M 3 �NiTo 12 G.5 3 3 16 //� T >.`�= ►�slQEy� 7692 /.• 24 I Da\vc "`/AY GARAGE 18432 • POL6 LOCAT\O�.I SIDEWALK LINE 18442 SUBJECT BD.ROOM PROPERTY a 7702 18 Z ,51 18441 :R;';. "•r .t �i f. � � � i,� .vi�riit!���,F4�'�'?4'�'`�,.��+�`'i! '�r 'ri+tn,. e '!r i ' L� Ya sS ����V�:p rt a ' x'•;Y _ �` r+ '�;�" i J�"rr yu,. J." Wit• v: , ? c��ry,y�,tkk✓�,� tS3 ' Iz •r; r rt11f�.�r r• � ��:, ,� ,� }�' •.t a�C Alt ��`r t ' 1 + y y� ., r .,�.N^"X', f„_f�'rt�°J' liV'.hk S Zd! ..�,lr� T k i t t Y o' t r t3 R•- f f'". 1t Y e7r I , ?�r'! ''�Ct 7 �\T �•kt`i,r p �TPm r/ J. l:r •�l /yam. 'a � C' r`i' f� ib. l' h '�i. f Ci1 � Y S"' ' O: r7� ., Fet:' • C n 1' t ��•� +-�i C.'i N �X ,n, t �/• Q L a `' 7 .7 / 4 i� :L Cf ?`.r. •'t.4r 4._ S•tid + t' r t j;�? ..,. O �. .. �/'\ •' � 1 'i �v. �4, ,'yYr '7 tip'.,.?*� i '3yhb� � t,� ;� P� �• 'F ;- L t' Y� t ..1 1r - Ttri•� y A4� 4 t �+s��r'.1S :f'.%•� :I"'• ,r ti^S_f�5:,�:;r u�; ,tw� .�L•f.,. ' .� Yfc� ,. Y Qr f, '( ry'/ %%..�� fir. r .A:�1; + �'t�:� j V.. h d Y• � �Y r. ip,g+ i r !h '� s L, 4 r ., .' •.' ; {t Y' k Alt. ,, f !'�.` ,.; f. iY r ,r.: i. ..�;., y, •'7'+r ;Y;l,~ �eF:M1. '•� r; ?�.. ..{. :i.. 't .1 �'• %.'3." ,� '�.'.. ;rj'ay�M: --i' . .'Lr 'A' t;Y i ;::1'.'+'.!' •~v,'y".;3i •.i i!'y:• }/ r ,_ , t.• '��". �t ..}•.i rd 'J `4'' �w"•Sg�:1' f. Yi.iC �� '�fiti� < rw, � .y .r ,;/ Is \ pr;..3..`^I,' 3'' •r l•r. Fr 1 a�a �,�..i art ti'}a�h.�.�L•'!1 • _'ft: \. i '`` +• "S�' '� �1p' 'N',•,, :Y�'�' J, 7 F't�,I,'�a..S� .^��' i^f'y':Y �bf'". �7�}. .,•is•:Y ...r^ A4,11 �, .;, .' i+j` r.r:. i. .xt:;i.t k'!r s�{i, + 7 t .;1•: y��4�, r i.. .,hr.17 a t...w;: ,. f 't .•F, i' t' �i ji.,u:�.:' •/••.ie*nr1yt, �'��..:.:. r'_ ':.:.�«r',,yap, F,K f. '1'�G 1j_'O:T.'• �.�.. t St ,.'••1"'l4, ,,x••`rn,:41 ;I:;':l. t .�1� �>yF 4 't`✓ Y r. ..T.. ..�•"f:^ ..yS I \, .. ,d.' r }"' V a77_ 1 a'.vTe I±"f]T���• �,.'. � �. �!r•� / ;, '~.' r� r<r, ;., �� j '��1�:�!'r!.,. `'-« �. -,r: '1 `f.• y 4 d��y �•rh'`.t~.?� ? 'Y� �`J�lr^7 h 1,� n.. ac :�}- '��1'�, 7' E f >' v`f -'t r.nr lilt �•' r .. x' �y�,t t' ';�. + r .� � t \ . vU S 7A'72 h� p :�,.� � �?} t �' \ i r� V�KC..P: Se •er.- . �5 � }Yfr,Ci: < ` .r'f 1 ��^sf t {} � �,s , tM ft�' F. t \ �, `J I " .: �� •• t' Ir`. K• {«f5b 1„1' � •II..Y �R„ . Y Sa..A"lr r q � �... .' r•: ♦ , �i ,,yy�t L >:., 1, � y .\ � .L �v, _ivr � J ' 'l.T�' > 7• �4 J,13+'�V�aS � 'Y �� . '• aJ'Iyhs .t \ r a lPo • 1 h; a .+ '\r •,,'.�� > � A ,; TAI) [�/rvlh / //✓� y }, Lr. •i � r7K/T/le/II U,. 7 ``4 ., ✓ /'�/� �+Ys�fl }¢��L'fyi`< �. �`, + r,�•�'. ' us^4!f'}"�, , rL ft .,\ J4 r`7'rte: t J+'"„R .i.; •`r i / : t /"c'ap./�m pJ�V. q k r 0 � �`�.r.y! y, � .F rJ'\` * �' _��•{„���7r':•,'-t•}�'d}tr�,,'lir'+� ' J. j� 'n: / _ G� 'Y R` 4ah>:t � ♦ v r� i� �ii�� 1�� �'�t� 4�+� �r Y•� ,��f�IJ �. ,t ^ ' {,w. a� tEr•� A��i': t t�SF •4••t>:y �`rf`•p^µj� '1S ` 1* f 4 3,L' r +�•5 'fie YJ ; J f t 1 OAP 1 �F C7 A—P f.�GsF 1 I ;r \it•1 + r�Y'; 4 a � } � F M1Y, ' 'tc Y�'CS,'Ilr � x il. ,Yf •t MrL'� �.w't qp t r'°'rr�'.�r.Yi'i t•T 1. r S .. .-..., .l. + 7 ♦ �i.,t�^d�� 4 ',i r�•aF,�' �t t $ s,r 'Y�.�1 6 5.�y h * , .. '. 7 t r � , t t+ +.�,�-r 6ti`�t�a •A'd r+ rr �'/''j� .Ix)r•1:nT"' '��;F � • .i �� yam' .. v7S'!"1 N�r��'r1 .0 r,. h� r �\ �Rf r�,���H t R 1���•ir.�4�'t'S' a V-.A �' yti' p .,... n. 'P ,ir S ti y = `. 4 1r� L.; u V'•3� F4'i 't 2_rt ct 3 •" "� 7 ;�, e 3z �'' ,:,y.sF ��r h �ily'?'C'rd.YY ¢'.4J•ft`+�" �.t^ .�� � r .�.� I .�'nh r.' 1 (+�j J'y"'►v / i may./ r o r A�r—�;f* �J} ti. r r r ! t 'r•` a', ��� Y �n.Irs l Jrr Authorized to Publish Adverdsemtint4 of aft kinds indttdtrtg publia naticee by Decree at the duperior Court of Orange Caur% Caffan*Number A 214 SeOwnber 29. 1961.and A-24831 June 11,ISM STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. 1 am a principal clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and pubfshed In the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as. was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach,Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: ZONE`.•R1 ' June 21, 1991 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUEST:To permit a six (6) foot tall wrought iron NOTICE OF:_ fence with.seven (7).foot' PUBLIC HEARING ,tall columns on the front' APPEAL OF THE jproperty line pursuant to PLANNING' ,Section 9771(1) of.the Hun COMMISSION'S •:tington Beach. Ordinance, DENIAL OF Code. This was originally' USE PERMIT N0.90.70 denied by the Zoning Ad- ministrator and the denial (To permit a six (6) was subsequently upheldi foot tall Iron fence with by the Planning Commis-' seven (7) foot tall col..sion. umns on the front ENVIRONMENTAL STA- property line) TUS: Categorically'exempt NOTICE IS HEREBY pursuant to Section 15301,' Class 1 of the' California GIVEN that the Huntington l Environmental Quality Act,. t Beach City Council will! COASTAL STATUS: No hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the I applicable Huntington Beach' Civic .ON FILE: A copy.of the Center, 2000 Main Street, proposed request is on file Huntington Beach; Califor- in the Community Develop-. nia, on the date and at the ment -Department, 2000 time indicated below to re- Main Street, ,Huntington t time and consider the Beach, California 92648, 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the ceive statements of all persons for inspection by the pub- t •�g who wish to be heard rota- tic. A copy of.the staff re- tO Din )s true and eorreC�. - port will be available to in g live to the application de- terested:parties at City Hall scribed below. or. the Main City Library DATE/TIME: Monday, July (7111 Talbert Avenue) after C,, June 2L. 1 1 1991,7:00 PM June 27, 1991: Executed an , �99� APPLICATION' NUMBER: ALL INTERESTED PER- Appeal of the- Planning SONS are invited to attend at Costa Mesa, Califomia Commission's denial of Use Permit No.90.70 said hearing and express APPLICANT/APPELLANT: opinions or .submit ee dence for or against the Mehran Ahrestani �� y L LOCATION: 18442 Mani- application: as outlined Z above. If there are an fur- toba Lane • n!o Ellis Av- ther questions, please call Signature enue e/o Huntington Michael Connor; Assistant Street Planner at 536.5271. Connie, Brockway, City Clerk Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot June 21, 1991 \.v) r 1h349 PROOF OF PUSUCATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING i APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 (To permit a six (6) foot tall iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, July 1, 1991, 7: 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 APPLICANT/ APPELLANT: Mehran Ahrestani LOCATION: 18442 Manitoba Lane - n/o Ellis Avenue - e/o Huntington Street ZONE: R1 REOUEST: To permit a six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line pursuant to Section 9771(L) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. This was originally denied by the Zoning Administrator and the denial was subsequently upheld by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerks 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 City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 27, 1991 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to -attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Michael Connor, Assistant Planner at 536-5271. Connie Brockway City Clerk (9935d) '` ****************** 159-042-06 159-042-07 Prepared for : Steven Doron Tani-a Simkins Requested by : P O Box 4125 18432 Delaware St 'Rep : BH Hunting.ton Beach , Ca 92605 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-042-08 159-042-09 159-042- 10 Margaret Ford Federico Flores Shirley A Rowland _ 18442 Delaware St 7761 Ellis Ave 7771 Ellis Ave Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 159-042- 11 159-043- 16 159-043- 17 Grace Steingraber Russell A Kavanagh Aaron B Jacobs 7781 Ellis Av 18412 Delaware St P O Box 9175 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 South Laguna , Ca 92677 1S9-043- 18 159-045-07 159-045-08 Sreedhar R Yetur Richard H Schultz William J Garland 18392 Delaware St 18381 Delaware St 18391 Delaware St Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 159-045-09 159-045- 10 159-045- 11 Edmund F Maechler Anthony Lego James Berk 18401 Delaware St 18411 Delaware St 20741 Reef Ln Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-045- 12 159-045- 13 159-045- 14 John E Muirhead Michael Frank Roche Mehran Ahrestani 18431 Delaware St 18441 Delware St 18442 Manitoba Ln Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Huntington Beach , Ca 92691 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 I 159-045-15 159-045-16 159-045- 17 Robert A Goossens Delores D Dayton James P Vincent 18432 Manitoba Ln 18422 Manitoba Ln 17551 Berlark Cir Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 159-045-18 159-045- 19 159-053-01 Garry A Shrum Mario A Rivera Manuel . R Basurto 18392 Manitoba Ln 18382 Manitoba Ln 7711 Alberta Dr Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-053-02 159-053-03 159-053-04 Francisco Basurto Stephen G Kellogg Paul R Adams 7701 Alberta Dr 7691 Alberta Dr 7671 Alberta Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 159-054-01 159-054-02 159-054-03 Craig Pracon Robert A Collen Pamela J Walker 7691 Yukon. Dr 8567 Phoenix Ave 7671 Yukon Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Fountain Valley , Ca 92708 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-054-04 159-054- 11 159-054- 12 Vikram P Doshi Barbara A Smith Michael Stephenson 7661 Yukon Dr Smith , Barbara A 7672 Alberta Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 7662 Alberta Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 Huntington Beach , Ca ltl -Ub4- 1J 1D9-UZ) I •+ [ �U-voj-v i Joseph G Rodriguez W J Elston Kim Janney 7692 Alberta Dr Elston , C H 18451 Delaware St ' Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 7702 Alberta Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 Huntington Beach , Ca 926 159-055-02 159-055-03 159-055-04 Charles Wertz Hannah E Flynn Hannah E Flynn - 18461 Delaware St P O Box 368 P O Box 368 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 159-055-05 159-055-06 159-055-07 Hannah E Flynn Hannah E Flynn Hannah E Flynn P O Box 368 P O Box 368 P O Box 368 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 159-055- 13 159-055-14 159-055- 15 Christop Kossmeyer Harindra Desilva Eugene H Opfer 7662 Yukon Dr 7672 Yukon Dr 19231 Worchester Ln Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-055-16 159-055-17 159-055- 19 Louis R Pena Harvey A Greenleaf Arnold Diaz 900 -K Lake Front Dr 7702 Yukon Dr 6201 Foxshield Dr Raleigh , Nc 27612 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 933-87-037 *SEARCH COMPLETE Creek Huntington RECORDS READ: 48 Homeowners Assn RECORDS RETURNED: 48 P O Box 11785 LAST APN : 159-131-01 Santa Ana , Cal 92711 COPYRIGHT TRW 1988 .L LABELS FENCE 9981d JEFF HOWARD MR. WILLIAM 7692 Yukon 7701 Ellis Ave. #D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RON TRACE MARLA YEOMANS 7692 Yukon 7711 Ellis Ave. #A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JENNIFER LAUX AL FONTANA 7692 Yukon 7711 Ellis Ave. #B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DAENA HO GARY KAPPES 18482 Huntington Street #4 7721 Ellis Ave. #B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . ARLENE KOZY PAM RIGGS 7631 Ellis Ave. #B 7721 Ellis Ave. #A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SID WHIT JOY SPEAR 7651 Ellis Ave. #C 7721 Ellis Ave #D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JANET THORNTON ERICKA SMICINSKI 7671 Ellis Ave. #A 7721 Ellis Ave. #D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 BRYAN DEE LAURIE BASSART 7701 Ellis Ave. #C 7731 Ellis Ave. #A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 KIRT ZITTEL RESIDENT 7701 Ellis Ave. #D 7731 Ellis Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESIDENT TOM LYFORD 7731 Ellis Ave #D 7682 Yukon Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESIDENT BILL HELMOLD 7731 Ellis Ave #D 7682 Yukon Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 THE GREENLEAF FAMILY RESIDENT 7702 Yukon Dr. 18412 Manitoba Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESIDENT RESIDENT 7731 Ellis Ave. #D 18373 Manitoba Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 BOB GOOSSENS RESIDENT 18432 Manitoba In 18373 Manitoba Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JAMES HATHAWAY JINNIE JONES 7631 Yukon Dr. 18372 Manitoba Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESIDENT PETER & VIVIAN SHIU—ROBLES 7691 Yukon Dr. 7711 Alberta Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SMITA DO SHI RICH CHUN i 7661 Yukon Dr. 7701 Ellis Ave. #C Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ROBERT & HELEN MEIKLEJOHN P J WERTZ 7622 Yukon Dr. 18461 Delaware St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 • I .F; PHI DUONG 18451 Delaware St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESIDENT 6572 Rennrick Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 THU NGUYEN 18451 Delaware St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 B.J. THIELEN 18311 Delaware St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DAVID TURNER 18362 Manitoba Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ASENATH BAILEY 7702 Quebec Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I i �1~�1 _ ) i 11-;(:,- COAST TITLE COMPANY L i ORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY furnishes you the foregoing information for your sole use and benefit, subject strictly to the understanding that this information has been obtained from THE CURRENT ASSESSORS TAX ROLLS. On this basis , ORANGE COAST TITLE verifies the information fur- nished and assumes no liability in excess of the fee charged for this report. Dated: 4-11-91 Cust. Service Representative BRAD HUSTON CUSTOMER SERVICE i I ORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY j 17011 Beach Blvd.,Suite A Huntington Beach,CA 92647 I (714)847-1747 I i 640 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 106, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 71A/558-2836 i �- COAST TITLE COMPANY TO: THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF: HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 89 OF TRACT 3563 (SUBJECT PROPERTY) SUBJECT APN# 159-045-14 OWNERSHIP: A LIST OF TH OWNERS OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN A 300 FOOT `RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, TOGETHER WITH A MAP SHOWING SAID LAND, IS ATTACHED HERETO. I i 640 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 106, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 W 4/558-2836 f ,r - -+rn May 15 , 1991 FROM: MR. and MRS Ahrestani 1484-2- Manitoba Lane `!- Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel : ( 714 ) 841-9609 TO: City Council SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 REQUEST: To permit an existing six (6 ) foot tall wrought iron fence. Or permit for modification of existing fence based on Zoning Administrator recommendation (Reference Staff Report dated May 7, 1991 , Section 11 . 0 Alernative Action -- Please see Page 4 of this document. ) Here in, we are submitting our request for appeal of use permit No. 90-70 . On May 6, 1991 Huntington Beach Planning Commission disapproved our appeal for use permit No.. 90-70 based on the following findings. SECTION l .a. Planning commission letter dated May 10, 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document. "THE GENERAL- WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING IN THE VICINITY BECAUSE THE APPEARANCE AND LOCATION OF THE FENCE DOES NOT BLEND WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. " RESPONSE: According to the Huntington Beach city procedure for appeal , city has send letter to all houses in 300 feet of the subject parcel reguarding use permit No. 90-70. In response to such a notice on May 6 , 1991 planning commission hearing not even one Person showed up to object toward the fence. The only objection was a letter with 23 signatures without any printed name or address, therefor it is not clear who signed the petition and also it cannot be verified if those people. live in the 300 feet of .the subject property. This is going to bring up a serious question about the validity of that letter. We are requesting that .the city council to consider this fact. On the other hand on May 6 , 1991 we have submitted to the planning commission the petition with 48 signatures with printed names and addresses in favor of the fence and that can be easily verified for the validity. And also two of my neighbors showed up PAGE 1 in favor of the fence and expressed their opinion which clearly indicated not only they do not have any objection but also they like the fence and they believe the fence is giving better look to the neighborhood and increase the property value . However, as we indicated on our request at the begining , we are willing to follow the zoning administrator' s recommendations to modify our existing fence so that it be more compatible with the neighborhood. (Reference Staff Report dated May 7, 1991 , Section 11 . 0 Alternative Action -- Please see Page 4 of. this document) . SECTION 1 .b. Planning Commission letter dated May 10 , 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document. "PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE FENCE. THERE ARE NO WALLS OR FENCES LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARDS OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION, THE FENCE SPANS ACRESS AN EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT AT THE SOUTH END. " RESPONSE: It is not true which there are no wall or fence located in the neighborhood, for example my adjacent neighbor have bricks wall and fence with the same hight on front of his property. And also there are more houses in the area with the fence . Reguarding the sewer system, the fence has nothing to do with that because the sewer system is located outside of the fence next to street and can be accessed easily by city if required. j SECTION 2 . Planning Commission letter dated May 10 , 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document. "THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SHAPE OR LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH MAKE THE PROPOSED SIX ( 6) FOOT FENCE ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE PROPERTY RIGHTS. " . RESPONSE: Please refer to the copy of my letter to the City Of Huntington Beach dated Jan. 12 , 1991 (Please see Page 6 of this document) . I PAGE 2 I I In conclusion, we like to add that there are other houses located in the city of Huntington Beach with fence or wall with the same hight or higher than our fence and we believe that the dinial of our request for use permit 90-70 is clear case of discrimination. We would like to indicate that the construction of this fence cost us more than $12 , 000 . 00 and we would appriciate your approval of the use permit 90-70. Or at least approve the permit for modification. of the existing fence based on zoning administrator' s recommendations. (Reference Staff Report dated May 7, 1991 -- Please see Page 4 of this document) . Regards Mehran Ahrestani Firouzeh Farmand Ahrestani I PAGE 3 .R. 11.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: If the Planning Commission determines that the fence has merit, it may be possible to modify the fence so that it is more compatible with the neighborhood. Possible modifications may include the replacement of portions of the fence with brick columns, staggering the setback for sections of the fence to provide additional visual relief, and painting the fence to match the adjacent wrought iron fence. The Planning Commission may: Approve the appeal of the Zoning Administrator' s denial of Use Permit No . 90-70 with the conditions that the fence: a . Be provided with brick columns . b. Be staggered to provide landscape pockets . c. Be painted to match the adjacent fence. d. Be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval after redesign. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map 2 . Narrative 3 . Site plans dated November 16, 1990 4 . Petition from area property owners and residents 5 . Letter from Harinora de Silva dated December 15, 1990 6 . Appeal letter dated January 12, 1991 7 . Minutes from the Zoning Administrator' s meeting of January 2, 1991 HS:N :kj 1 PA G£ y Staff Report - 5/7/91 -5- (9536d) I • Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9264$ May 10, 1991 Mehran Ahrestani 18442 Manitoba Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 REQUEST: To permit an existing six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line pursuant to Section 9771(L) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. LOCATION: 18442 Manitoba . f DATE OF ACTION: May 6, 1991 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the six (6) foot fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line will be detrimental to: a. The -general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity because the appearance and location of the fence does not blend with the immediate neighborhood. b._ Property and improvements in the vicinity of the fence. There are no walls or fences located in the front yards of any other properties in the neighborhood. In addition, the fence spans across an existing sewer easement at the south end. 2 . There are no special circumstances associated with the shape or location of the property which make the proposed six (6) foot fence on the front property line necessary in order to preserve property rights . PA GE 5 kr City of Huntington Beach Mehran Ahrestani -' Department of Community Deve 18442 Maintoba Lane 2000 Main Street - j E D, Huntington Beach , CA 92648 RPE CrHuntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel : ( 714 ) 841-9609 ��� ^{ ► 1991 Ref . : Permit 90-70 COMMuNrrY ..EVELOPMENT, January 12 , 1991 PLANNING DIV)SION To Whom it may concern Herein I am requesting for appeal on permit No . 90-70 because of the following reasons : 1 . My used permit request was denied on- January 2 , 1991 because of incompatibility with the ohter neighbors . As I indicated on my original request there are. fences . in neighborhood which are compatible to my fence, therefor denial of my use permit can be consider as a discrimination. 2 . As I indicated before my house is located at the end of the downhill street , and there is a possibility of a runaway car coming right to my house . I have spend my life saving to put this fence in order to secure my house from runaway cars for protection of my family. Non of the house location of my neighbors is similar to my house . On January 2 , when the person who was incharge, denied the permition of my use permit asked me this question: "SIR HOW MANY TIMES A RUNAWAY CAR HAS COME TO YOUR HOUSE" . Accidents happen once and I do not want to take such a risk. 3 . The other reason they denied my use permit was because some of the neighbors signed against this permit. As far as I talked to the most of my surrounding neighbors, non of them have any objection toward my fence and I can backup this by bringing my neighbors approved signatures to the next hearing. 4 . Because of unique location of my property and my lot shape , I have more than 120 feet front and make it very easy to access to my house for the burglers. ( i .e. Two months ago somebody cut the top of my convertible and took my sterio and speakers ) The fence will protect my house against burglary. 5 . The fence will protect -my children from -accessing to street and possible car accident or .kidnapping , and allow them to play in yard freely. 6. Landscaping which I am. in process of it which fence is part of it will increase the value of my property, also giving better view to the neighborhood. Rega ds PAGE 6 Mehran Ahrestani ` CASH RECEIPT • CIT-Y OF hUNT1NQTON bEACh P.O.BOX 711 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)536.5200 i HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY TREASURER-DONALD L WATSON �.� /' DATE ISSUING DEPT. / RECEIVED FROM )t2 ) ' ADDRESS //G L/ /�`Ir T L /i �7l ja ///6. Tl FORu✓` /f L_ Ec..6� li�...�— �C�r!�ILL /V AMOUNT RECEIVED ❑ CASH CHECK. $ i RECEIVED BY. REVENUE FUND ACCOUNT DEPT. DIY.'::ir. z ::-"AMOUNT.:":.: � G�/ � CSC /�/G �:�G�G%• FINANCE APPROVAL INITIAL TOTAL $ / AMOUNT RECEIVED 'I i6/45 ltirf zy?i OBI!.!rj t'3J.Q<; 593120 ISSUING DEPARTMEi 1 � i MEHRAN AHRESTANI 5424 FIROUZEH FARMAND 18442 MANITOBA LN.714/841-9609 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 , 1 9 16-66/1220* $ . PAY O• / JJ ' _ 2- v6 O (� TO T.9 ORDCR OF Bank of America Main S Ellis Branch 0894 18691 Main Street - Hune-gton Beach.CA 926488 7 MEMO _�� J / /,yl O SIGNATURE 1: 12 200066 II: 5L+ 2t,/11089Li61,10 2 793110 I Office of the City Clerk �4 nI& City of Huntington Beach -{^ ;,r4 F P.O.BOX 190 S•6 JU11 ! CALIFOR NIA 92648 +• �� ,:•i a; ,? �;;:? " ._ : ?. 1 -- 1 j• l a GARy/KAPPES 7721 Ellis Ave. #B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 • IIII��rIIII�II��l1�111�,I�I��111 Connie Brockway,City Clerk y /`�; . PM .- City of Huntington Beach �,,:SU-•o7,Gti 5�w 2 f 5r is i ,. E t1 Office of the City Clerk 1 f' 1., �� ';.w,x� s !:,�.! a I �_ ,,=t+° �',;h ;..-%Or• , P.O.BOX 190 n /j f S'!Y•��u'•'��' a.r •�i�•t1 �,,`' :; •U, ' "� ;..•�.,�'.1'e�r ' .�,., CJ�2,C�'�/ 1�(Q 1. '.: yt' H'� cV'(, ^'(ti.. C_[FR.�.... i�..id._l't�..�..: ..��.: ..z� Huntington Beach,CA 92648 r� a r^� 159-043-18 �1 CSreedhar.—R.- Yetur 18392 Dct•aw... S un ing on Ca 9264> I NGtpy F�� ��Fo �,9„�CSEn._ C-jy yA !) 1909.► 0 yCF ppUN.TY Ca I FGAI NOTIrl: - PI)RI W NFARIKIS COnnie$r0c w` city of N ' City Clerk urttt 9 Tice rt Beach P O the City Clerk Hun tingtOn Box 190 Beach, Cq 92648 . t a y y Al �NCORAng4r© ,A +yam/��, f h a l S t y 1 t`, + r 7t A!ber t he�SQ� y Dr n to n each Q 'd Ca 92& g 4 caU,y FY AEG f , , ��,,: •:�. ;�: AL IVO TICE- p BL F2 = t r ; �lh 14 t ' 1 2 1 e? 4 • Pm t •' x.Y `V St a t t t S 1 : t 5 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK July 12,1991 Mr. and Mrs. Mehran Ahrestani 18842 Manitoba Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mehran Ahrestani: The City Council at its July 1, 1991 City Council meeting approved your appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of the Use Permit No. 90-70. The appeal was approved with conditions. The minutes of the meeting including the conditions of approval will be forwarded to you in the neat' future. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney City Administrator Community Development Director Mike Connor, Community Development Department 1051K (Telephone:714-536-5227) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION July 1, 1991 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members V , Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Develo ent 0 a 77-/-7 � Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL a , OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 A Pt Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal of the Planning Commission' s denial of a request to permit an existing six (6) foot high wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot high columns . This request was originally denied by the Zoning Administrator on January 2, 1991 and the appeal was denied by the Planning Commission on May 7, 1991. RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: "DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 WITH FINDINGS. " Planning Commission Action on May 7, 1991: ON MOTION BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO DENY THE APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Kirkland, Dettloff, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Zoning Administrator ' s Action on January 2, 1991: USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 DENIED WITH FINDINGS. PI O 5/85 ANALYSIS• The applicant and appellant (Mehran Ahrestani) is requesting approval for an existing a six (6) foot tall fence with seven (7) foot columns constructed along the front and side property lines in conflict with the required fifteen (15) foot frontyard setback requirement. The fence was constructed without building permits and was brought to the City' s attention through a citizen complaint . The project is located at 18442 Manitoba, north of Ellis Avenue and west of Delaware. Mr. Ahrestani has stated his reasons for installing the fence in front of his property was for protection. The property is located at the end of a down hill street (Yukon St. ) and there is a possibility that a drunk driver or run away car could crash into his house and injure his family. He feels that a fence can prevent such an accident. Because of the unique location and lot shape, his home is easily accessable to burglers (two months ago somone cut the top of his covertable and took his stereo and speakers) . He feels the fence will protect his house against burglary. He has also had neighbors pets use his front yard as a restroom. Finally he feels that the fence and landscaping will increase the value of his property and provide the neighborhood with a better view. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, staff received two petitions from area homeowners . One in support of the existing fence with 47 signatures and one in oppositions to the fence with 23. signatures . In their appeal letter dated May 15, 1991 Mr. and Mrs . Ahrestani raise three comments related to the findings for denial of the Use Permit. These comments are listed below and followed by a response from staff : Comment la : The applicant stated that there were no persons present at the Planning Commission hearing to speak against the request, however there were three persons present to speak in favor of the request. In addition, the applicant questioned the validity of a petition against the fence which was submitted. Although the petition contained 24 signatures, there were no addresses provided to verify the signatures. The applicant went on to state that they would be willing to alter the fence as recommended by the alternative action. Staff ' s Response- The 300 foot mailing. list includes only a portion of the residences in the neighborhood which would have a direct view of the fence from the front yard. There are many residents in the neighborhood outside of the 300 foot radius who would pass by the Alirestani ' s fence on a daily basis . Staff has reviewed the signatures on both RCA 7/l/91 -2- (9991d) of the petition' s submitted which request removal of the fence. One petition has 17 signatures which was submitted prior to the Zoning Administrator ' s meeting and one has 23 signatures which was submitted prior to the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission. Staff has reviewed both petitions against each other as well as against the county tax rolls and has found many of the signatures to match each other as well as to match the names of property owner ' s within the area. As a result staff believes these petitions to be signed by persons who would view this fence on a daily basis . The applicant ' s petition of 47 signatures contains many of the residents within the immediate neighborhood including the immediate neighbors on both sides and across the street. It should be noted however, that over half of the signatures (24) are by residents along Ellis Avenue and Delaware Street who would be less likely to encounter the fence on a regular basis . One (1) signature shows an address located near Edwards and Slater (6572 Renrick Circle) . Comment lb: The applicant stated that there are houses in the neighborhood with similar fences including the house next door. The applicant also stated that the concerns regarding the sewer system were irrelevant because the sewer is in the street. 1 Staff ' s Response: The adjacent neighbor has a 42 inch high fence on top of a 36 inch retaining wall which is permitted by code and does not require the approval of a use permit . Other fences in the neighborhood are located in side and rear yards, as permitted by code. Staff has found no fences located within the front setback area which exceed 42 inches in height within the immediate neighborhood. The attached map (attachment 12) shows the location of the existing sewer easement across the southerly six (6) feet of the subject property. The applicant ' s fence clearly spans across this easement. If the City Council should wish to grant the appeal and permit . the fence, staff recommends a condition that a gate system, approved by the Department of Public Works, be provided. Comment 2 The applicant raised safety concerns as a reason why the fence is necessary, particularly runaway vehicles, protecting his children and property theft or damage. Staff ' s Response: A 42 inch high fence, or a fence within the required setback would provide equal protection and would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. RCA 7/l/91 -3- (9991d) FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Motion to: "Approve the appeal with the fence as constructed and overturn the Planning Commission' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with suggested findings and conditions identified in Attachment No. 2 . " 2 . Motion to: "Approve the appeal with modifications to the existing fence and overturn the Planning Commission' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with suggested findings and conditions of approval identified in Attachment No. 2 . " ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Denial 2 . Alternative Action - Suggested Findings and Comditions of Approval 3 . Alternative Action - Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval with modifications to the existing fence 4 . Appeal letter dated May 16, 1991 5 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 7, 1991 6 . Location and Information Maps MTU:MA:MJC: lp RCA 7/l/91 -4- (9991d) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the six (6) foot fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line will be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity because the appearance and location of the fence does not blend with the immediate neighborhood. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of the fence. There are no walls or fences located in the front yards of any other properties in the neighborhood. In addition, the fence spans across an existing sewer easement at the south end. 2 . There are no special circumstances associated with the shape or location of the property which make the proposed six (6) foot fence on the front property line necessary in order to preserve property rights . 3 . The location, site layout, and design of the proposed fence does not properly adapt the proposed structure to streets, driveways or other adjacent homes in a harmonious manner. The fence is not compatible with other properties in the neighborhood which generally do not have fences in the front yard setback. The fence spans across a six (6) foot sewer easement which crosses the southernmost portion of the property which conflicts with city requirements . Attachment No. 1 (999ld-5) ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The fence provides for upgraded landscaping and improvements within a neighborhood that generally does not have upgraded landscaping or improvements . b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. The fence provides for upgraded landscaping and improvements within a neighborhood that generally does not have upgraded landscaping or improvements . 2 . The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map. The property lies within the low density residential land use area which allows for single family residences . The fence is an accessory structure to the residence. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO 90-70 : 1. The fence as constructed shall be the approved layout and design. Attachment No. 2 (999ld-6) ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING FENCE USE PERMIT NO, 90-70 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The fence provides for upgraded landscaping and improvements within a neighborhood that generally does not have upgraded landscaping or improvements . b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. The fence provides for upgraded landscaping and improvements within a neighborhood that generally does not have upgraded landscaping or improvements . 2 . The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map. The property lies within the low density residential land use area which allows for single family residences. The fence is an accessory structure to the residence. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 : 1. The fence as constructed shall be modified to include the following: a. Brick columns and additional landscaping on the street side of the fence. b. The fence shall be staggered to provide landscape pockets . c. The fence shall be painted to match the adjacent fence. d. The fence shall be provided with a gate at the southerly edge of the property for access to the sewer easement. The gate system shall be approved by the Department of Public Works . 2 . The fence shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval after redesign. Attachment No. 3 (999ld-6) C Cn May 15 , 1991 -C, r t FROM: MR. and MRS Ahrestani 18842 Manitoba Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel : ( 714 ) 841-9609 =� TO: City Council SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 REQUEST: To permit an existing six ( 6 ) foot tall wrought iron fence . Or permit for modification of existing fence based on Zoning Administrator recommendation (Reference Staff Report dated May 7 , 1991 , Section 11 . 0 Alernative Action -- Please see Page 4 of this document . ) Here in, we are submitting our request for appeal of use permit No . 90-70 . On May 6 , 1991 Huntington Beach Planning Commission disapproved our appeal for use permit No . 90-70 based on the following findings . SECTION 1 . a. Planning commission letter dated May 10 , 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document . ".THE GENERAL WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING IN THE VICINITY BECAUSE THE APPEARANCE AND LOCATION OF THE FENCE DOES NOT BLEND WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. " RESPONSE: According to the Huntington Beach city procedure for appeal , city has send letter to all houses in 300 feet of the subject parcel reguarding use permit No . 90-70 . In response to such a notice on May 6 , 1991 planning commission hearing not even one person showed up to object toward the fence . The only objection was a letter with 23 signatures without any printed name or address , therefor it is not clear who signed the petition and also it cannot be verified if those people live in the 300 feet of the subject property. This is going to bring up a serious question about the validity of that letter. We are requesting that the city council to consider this fact. On the other hand on May 6 , 1991 we have submitted to the planning commission the petition with 48 signatures with printed names and addresses in favor of the fence and that can be easily verified for the validity. And also two of my neighbors showed up PAGE 1 in favor of the fence and expressed their opinion which clearly indicated not only they do not have any objection but also they like the fence and they believe the fence is giving better look to the neighborhood and increase the property value . However, as we indicated on our request at the begining , we are willing to follow the zoning administrator' s recommendations to modify our existing fence so that it be more compatible with the neighborhood. (Reference Staff Report dated May 7 , 1991 , Section 11 . 0 Alternative Action -- Please see Page 4 of this document ) . SECTION 1 .b. Planning Commission letter dated May 10 , 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document. "PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE FENCE . THERE ARE NO WALLS OR FENCES LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARDS OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION , THE FENCE SPANS ACRESS AN EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT AT THE SOUTH END. " RESPONSE: It is not true which there are no wall or fence located in the neighborhood , for example my adjacent neighbor have bricks wall and fence with the same hight on front of his property. And also there are more houses in the area with the fence . Reguarding the sewer system, the fence has nothing to do with that because the sewer system is located outside of the fence next to street and can be accessed easily by city if required . SECTION 2 . Planning Commission letter dated May 10 , 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document. "THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SHAPE OR LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH MAKE THE PROPOSED SIX ( 6 ) FOOT FENCE ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE PROPERTY RIGHTS . " _RESPONSE: Please refer to the copy of my letter to the City Of Huntington Beach dated Jan. 12 , 1991 (Please see Page 6 of this document ) . I I PAGE 2 In conclusion, we like to add that there are other houses located in the city of Huntington Beach with fence or wall with the same hight or higher than our fence and we believe that the dinial of our request for use permit 90-70 is clear case of discrimination. We would like to indicate that the construction of this fence cost us more than $12 , 000 . 00 'and we would appriciate your approval of the use permit 90-70 . Or at least approve the permit for modification of the existing fence based on zoning administrator' s recommendations . (Reference Staff Report dated May 7 , 1991 -- Please see Page 4 of this document ) . Regards Mehran Ahrestani Firouzeh Farmand Ahrestani PAGE 3 huntington beach department of community development SYAff REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development - DATE: May 7, 1991 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 APPLICANT/ Mehran Ahrestani DATE ACCEPTED: APPELLANT: 18442 Manitoba Lane April 15, 1991 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Mehran Ahrestani May 15, 1991 OWNER: ZONE: R1 REOUEST: To permit an existing six (6) foot tall wrought iron GENERAL PLAN: Low Density fence with seven (7) foot Residential tall columns on the front property line pursuant to EXISTING USE: Single Section 9771(L) of the Family Residential Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ACREAGE: 0. 19 acres (8, 190 sf) LOCATION: 18442 Manitoba 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Deny the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with findings and conditions of approval. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Use Permit No. 90-70 is a request to permit a six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line pursuant to Section 9771(L) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. a, S A-FM 23C 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1 LAND USE: Single Family Residence North, East, South and West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1 LAND USE: Single Family Residences 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5 .0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6. 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 .0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS, The applicant proposes to obtain permits for an existing six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line. Such a fence would normally require a 15 foot setback. Section 9771(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code permits deviations from the Yards and Fence Standards pursuant to approval of a use permit. The applicant ' s request was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator on January 2, 1991. The application was denied because it is not compatible with the majority of the surrounding neighborhood and because the fence spans across a six (6) foot wide sewer easement that runs along the south end of the property. In addition, one letter and a petition from residents and homeowners in the Huntington Rivera Tract objecting to the fence were submitted to the Zoning Adminstrator. Subsequent to the Zoning Administrator' s denial, an appeal was filed by the applicant which cites six (6) reasons why he feels that the fence should be permitted. The following is a list of the reasons with a staff response following each one: 1. My use permit request was denied on Janary 2, 1991, because of incompatibility with the other neighbors. As I indicated on my original request there are fences in the neighborhood which are compatible to my fence. Staff Report - 5/7/91 -2- (9536d) Response: The property to the south has a retaining wall which is topped by a 42 inch tall wrought fence which is permitted by Section 9771(g) (1) and (4) of the code. Although there are properties with six (6) foot walls or fences on the property line abutting Manitoba Lane, these walls are on exterior side property lines which are permitted under Section 9771(b) - of the code. There are no fences- or walls which exceed 42 inches in height within any front yard setback in the immediate neighborhood. All existing walls and fences within the immediate neighborhood, with the exception of the applicant' s request, meet the standards of Article 977. It is staff ' s position that the structure does not blend with the existing neighborhood, therefore, staff does not support the request. 2. My house is located at the end of a downhill street, and there is a possibility of a runaway car coming into my house. I have spent my life savings to install this fence in order to secure my house from runaway cars for protection of my family. None of the house locations of my neighbors are similar to my house. Response: Runaway cars may not be stopped by a six (6) foot wrought iron fence. A 42 inch high block wall may be better suited for this purpose and would not require a use permit. 3 . The other reason they denied my use permit was because some of the neighbors signed against this permit. As far as I talked to my surrounding neighbors, none of them have any objection toward my fence. Response: There were no comments in favor of the request submitted in writing or presented verbally at the hearing, except from the applicant. 4 . Because of the unique location of my property and my lot shape, (I have more than 120 feet of front) it is very easy for burgulars to gain access. Two months ago somebody cut the top of my convertable and took my stereo and speakers . The fence will protect my house against burglary. Response: There are a number of home security and yard lighting systems available that could provide equal, if not better, security to the home and would still be quite compatible with the neighborhood. 5. The fence will protect my children from the street and from possible car accidents or kidnapping, and will allow them to play in the yard freely. Staff Report - 5/7/91 -3- (9536d) Response: The subject property has a large side yard in addition to a rear yard. A six (6) foot fence could be constructed 15 feet from the front property line that would meet code, serve the same purpose and be more compatible with the neighborhood. 6 . Landscaping in. conjunction with the fence will increase- the value of my property and giving better views to the neighborhood. Response: Although additional landscaping will provide some screening for the fence, it will not eliminate the visual impact that the fence has upon the neighborhood. 10. 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with the following findings : FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the six (6) foot fence with seven . (7) foot tall columns on the front property line will be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity because the appearance and location of the fence does not blend with the immediate neighborhood. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of the fence. There are no walls or fences located in the front yards of any other properties in the neighborhood. In addition, the fence spans across an existing sewer easement at the south end. 2. There are no special circumstances associated with the shape or location of the property which make the proposed six (6) foot fence on the front property line necessary in order to preserve property rights . 3 . The location, site layout, and design of the proposed fence does not properly adapt the proposed structure to streets, driveways or other adjacent homes in a harmonious manner. The fence is not compatible with other properties in the neighborhood which generally do not have fences in the front yard setback. The fence spans across a six (6) foot sewer easement which crosses the southernmost portion of the property which conflicts with city requirements. Staff Report - 5/7/91 -4- (9536d) 11.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: If the Planning Commission determines that the fence has merit, it may be possible to modify the fence so that it is more compatible with the neighborhood. Possible modifications may include the replacement of portions of the fence with brick columns, staggering the setback for sections of the fence to provide additional visual relief, and painting the fence to match the adjacent wrought iron fence. The Planning Commission may: Approve the appeal of the Zoning Administrator ' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with the conditions that the fence: a. Be provided with brick columns. b. Be staggered to provide landscape pockets . c. Be painted to match the adjacent fence. d. Be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval after redesign. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map 2 . Maprative- 3 . Site plans dated November 16, 1990 HS:b1f:kj 1 Staff Report - 5/7/91 -5- (9536d) �J ell TALBER7 - 1 •--- I �.M`I-C D 51 E.. i i M 1 'SRm MI-CD ff'k44T ' _ R4 SRn R2-SR �-.._.. R I -- C 4 i L CF-R MI-CD R I; MI-A R / I Ras ' IMiI (MI-CD) .. RI ( " IJ C F-R :oriea::::e: : 'RI C 2 I: I IMII 's' 1 I r r.'a-rrrt— � anon w ,..,,, y vrzo n.tl (RA-0-CD) = 3 RI RI C 2 ,0 MI—CD M I MI I} ONTARIO DR RI I% R1 RI IN I RI RI aoo.e C F-Cj y j _OUEBEC H III�r zee.l, � MI txNr cR. R3 le• --------- ! MII i RI Q RI :xx+lroa:cr:.o CF-C I -`• ALBERTA OR I« CF—R Ic.-.:�,:.:a:�.:�� RI RI RI r R3 (RA-0-CD) r, MI-CD RI F (II 1 F—R r.°,ro—1 F FRANKLIN A DR C4 V 'IUKDN DR d V _I (MI-CD) o o MI = a' RI R3 R3 �I on or ¢<L'i�. lMl-CD, I '- 3 •MI-nCDve�a°'V RI R3 RI R2 R] R] 1 —- —— MI-0-CD ! MI - R2. 'M1-01 I` R2 C2 O Mk. R 2 • RA-O-CD j' oP ,o MR 30 LEAE CR. / ••MbTirq...4 zn) v I; M2-0<.c a PR3 ) OPa oE M I—0 ro,ITRIGT2 Two)IRA-0 n L.; °, 2w. j UP 90-70 ',"le HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION C 0 7691 z 7682 3 3� To �zo'R 3, 12 6.5� 3 3� 7692 v 24 I 70 44' LEGiEND T T oa%vc wAy GARAGE 18432 0 POLE; LpcATION SIDEWALK LINE 18442 SUBJECT BD•R00M PROPERTY 0 7702 ' 18 4-51 18441 MI. Ar 4. W 44,y Vi".Yl z�� v 2T Vxl !lj pi wq qc,< Lool. .4 nq. 5-� A, r. Rft MERE I Air t.tx 1.9 ob & .............. .4. "C - 'oA;4y v P3 561L, ic.v f -", Y*7�.7 q'I; —z- • .......... O x I`3 "I"z, Ql� I.; 2r� Q v,rNU b - 14 IAKIM I 1-� 1 -MA Authorized to Publish Advan weft d d kinds induding publla rrod= by Dame d the Superior Court of Orarpe CCUW.Caitorni16 Number A014. 3epmmbw 29. 1961.and . AQMI June 11.1963 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: l am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. 1 am a principal cleric of the ORANGE COAST DAILY P;LOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of Califomia, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: Z0 4E�1 June 21 1991 'i WQUI-C NO�TiLCE REQUEST-:-To permit•a six (6) foot tall wrought iron aNOTiICEgtOF toot ,> ternee with sevenp(10)1 _' PUBLgGiHEARINGfi tall col141 on the• front APPEAL`OF THE" gR_ert�i p rs ua t 16 PUNNING i' Section 977�,1(1)rof the Hun- COMMISSION S:f"f ungton 8ea hh'�y' nancg tL DEIVIALOF " s Co�deJ�Tkhisrwas,org�nTily r r tden�edab�he Zoning Ad'' USE.PERMIT NO 9A•70 mmistra�tor andthe,tdenial, I(To permilfa six (,8)sDwas� subsequently c upheld ,foot tall Iron fence-with �hy�(thesPiariirng Commis'- Iu... (o)n thea!fEonll i IENVIR40 MEN!T L( $ A= propertyiine) '1a(ItTUSc Categorically exernpt� I k,--NOTICE 11S HEREBYi puWORtgtollfsefction�t!V,,E1t1.; Class 1 of-:the California SGIUE-N that the�Huntu gton Enviro mental0uality Act. Beachr City;iCouncil°j3w'll >COrAfSTAL S ATUS: Not hold"a*'public heartng-in`yte�I .licable Counc l'Chamber;att the �p y o the Huntingto`+ri� Beacht Civic ONF�ILE A q v Cjenter� 2000'`Maini Stre`et"( p oposed equest is on*flle ep - r-a.,, in the Comm nit {DeJelo Huntington Beach Calitor� �- -y v p� : :) merit De ariment 2000, rna gnrthefdate andfa n ,.p ,x fir' •++ FAa n Street-; HunUngtony Ilme�mdlca�ted;belogwAto're Beh*Ca tor�ria�92648; declare under penalty of perjury, that the � cons dyer,�he .01 peetiontb`y the pob= + + statements of;allxpegsons foregoing is true and correct. pp ' { 1 cAcopy of�thetsraff re- who wish t�o�be heard`rela tive to t 1%, l cat,on :deep pOk-w ll be a_vailableito;in= ter sled parties of City Hall scr bed below,. o wiw or the Main City Librarty DATBRIME:iMonday' uly. 1,991 7 0l!P@M P� �7111 Talbert Avenue) after eu June 21 nn 1 .r Juner27 1991 Executed an r r .77 APAJ'W" �TION, NUMBER r.4+it e rw cf yA,LL INITERESTCD PER- Appeal of t{e Pla ping SONS are`(inv'ited t Wflend at Costa Mesa, CaGfomia. Col 'mis'slon s denialot a said hearing and express �se,Permit No 90-. I YY pA�RP�ICfANT/APPELLyANT opmio[- 3 nor submits, f Me , e dencforoiagamithe h an Ahrestani wv LOCATION.":18442 Ma Inlr p{Vil, anon as,� ou�llned, toba'Lane nroi`Elli v")habovv.1 tyhere�are in r,I enu`e� 4 e/o Hun lPT,They quue�s,wnsIease c�aill Signature esr MlchaelCon�,nor�As�sistR�tl --- Planner at`536 27t Connie"'tBrockway,l fCity Clerk � �' ° �Pu llshed•_Orange Coas ne s, Daly Pilot�Ju 21 1;991 � y th344 35' �� PROOF OF PUBUCATION i `i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 (To permit a six (6) foot tall iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, July 1, 1991, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 APPLICANT/ APPELLANT: Mehran Ahrestani LOCATION: 18442 Manitoba Lane - n/o Ellis Avenue - e/o Huntington Street ZONE: R1 REQUEST: To permit a six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line pursuant to Section 9771(L) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. This was originally denied by the Zoning Administrator and the denial was subsequently upheld by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerks 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 City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 27, 1991. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Michael Connor, Assistant Planner at 536-5271. Connie Brockway City Clerk (9935d) ****************** 159-042-06 159-042-07 Prepared for : Steven Doron Tania Simkins Requested by : P 0 Box 4125 18432 Delaware St _°Rep : BH Huntington Beach , Ca 92605 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-042-08 159-042-09 159-042- 10 Margaret Ford Federico Flores Shirley A Rowland 18442 Delaware St 7761 Ellis Ave 7771 Ellis Ave Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 159-042-11 159-043-16 159-043- 17 Grace Steingraber Russell A Kavanagh Aaron B Jacobs 7781 Ellis Av 18412 Delaware St P O Box 9175 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 South Laguna , Ca 92677 159-04.3-18 159-045-07 159-045-08 Sreedhar R Yetur Richard H Schultz William J Garland 18392 Delaware St 18381 Delaware St 18391 Delaware St Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 159-045-09 159-045- 10 159-045- 11 Edmund F Maechler Anthony Lego James Berk 18401 Delaware St 18411 Delaware St 20741 Reef Ln Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-045- 12 159-045-13 159-045- 14 John E Muirhead Michael Frank Roche Mehran Ahrestani 18431 Delaware St 18441 Delware St 18442 Manitoba- Ln Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Huntington Beach , Ca 92691 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-045-15 159-045-16 159-045- 17 Robert A Goossens Delores D Dayton James P Vincent 18432 Manitoba Ln 18422 Manitoba Ln 17551 Berlark Cir Hunting.ton Beach , Ca 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 159-045-18 159-0.45- 19 159-053-01 Garry A Shrum Mario A Rivera Manuel R Basurto 18392 Manitoba Ln 18382 Manitoba Ln 7711 Alberta Dr Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 159-053-02 159-053-03 159-053-04 Francisco Basurto Stephen G Kellogg Paul R Adams 7701 Alberta Dr 7691 Alberta Dr 7671 Alberta Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92648 159-054-01 159-054-02 159-054-03 Craig Pracon Robert A Collen Pamela J Walker 7691 Yukon Dr 8567 Phoenix Ave 7671 Yukon Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Fountain Valley , Ca 92708 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-054-04 159-054-11 159-054- 12 Vikram P Doshi Barbara A Smith Michael Stephenson 7661 Yukon Dr Smith , Barbara A 7672 Alberta Dr Huntington Beach , Ca , 92648 7662 Alberta Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 Huntington Beach , Ca _ 159-054- 13 159-054- 14 159-055-01 Joseph G Rodriguez W J Elston Kim Janney 7692 Alberta Dr Elston , C H 18451 Delaware St Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 7702 Alberta Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 Huntington Beach , Ca 926 159-055-02 159-055-03 159-055-04 Charles Wertz Hannah E Flynn Hannah E Flynn 18461 Delaware St P 0 Box 368 P 0 Box 368 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 159-055-05 159-055-06 159-055-07 Hannah E Flynn Hannah E Flynn Hannah E Flynn P O Box 368 P O Box 368 P O Box 368 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 Balboa Island , Ca 92662 159-055-13 159-055-14 159-055- 15 Christop Kossmeyer Harindra Desilva Eugene H Op.fer 7662 Yukon Dr 7672 Yukon Dr 19231 Worchester Ln Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 159-055-16 159-055- 17 159-055- 19 Louis R Pena Harvey A Greenleaf Arnold Diaz 900 -K Lake Front Dr 7702 Yukon Dr 6201 Foxshield Dr Raleigh , Nc 27612 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264 933-87-037 *SEARCH COMPLETE Creek Huntington RECORDS READ: 48 Homeowners Assn RECORDS RETURNED: 48 P 0 Box 11785 LAST APN : 159-131 -01 Santa Ana , Cal 927'11 COPYRIGHT TRW 1988 LABELS FENCE 9981,d JEFF HOWARD MR. WILLIAM 7692 Yukon 7701 Ellis Ave. #D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RON TRACE MARLA YEOMANS 7692 Yukon 7711 Ellis Ave. #A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JENNIFER LAUX AL FONTANA 7692 Yukon 7711 Ellis Ave. #B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DAENA HO GARY KAPPES 18482 Huntington Street #4 7721 Ellis Ave. #B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ARLENE KOZY - PAM RIGGS 7631 Ellis Ave. #B 7721 Ellis Ave. #A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SID WHIT JOY SPEAR 7651 Ellis Ave. #C 7721 Ellis Ave #D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JANET THORNTON ERICKA SMICINSKI 7671 Ellis Ave. #A 7721 Ellis Ave. #D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 BRYAN DEE LAURIE BASSART 7701 Ellis Ave. #C 7731 Ellis Ave. #A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' KIRT ZITTEL RESIDENT 7701 Ellis Ave. #D 7731 Ellis Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESIDENT TOM LYFORD 7731 Ellis Ave #D 7682 Yukon Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESIDENT BILL HELMOLD 7731 Ellis Ave #D 7682 Yukon Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 THE GREENLEAF FAMILY RESIDENT 7702 Yukon Dr. 18412 Manitoba Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' RESIDENT RESIDENT 7731 Ellis Ave. #D 18373 Manitoba Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 BOB GOOSSENS RESIDENT 18432 Manitoba In 18373 Manitoba Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JAMES HATHAWAY JINNIE JONES 7631 Yukon Dr. 18372 Manitoba Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESIDENT PETER & VIVIAN SHIU—ROBLES 7691 Yukon Dr. 7711 Alberta Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SMITA DO SHI RICH CHUN 7661 Yukon Dr. 7701 Ellis Ave. #C Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ROBERT & HELEN MEIKLEJOHN P J WERTZ 7622 Yukon Dr. 18461 Delaware St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PHI DUONG 18451 Delaware St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESIDENT 6572 Rennrick Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 THU NGUYEN 18451 Delaware St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 B.J. THIELEN 18311 Delaware St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DAVID TURNER 18362 Manitoba Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ASENATH BAILEY 7702 Quebec:'Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ORANGE COAST- TITLE COMPANY ORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY furnishes you the foregoing information for your sole use and benefit, subject strictly to the understanding that this information has been obtained from THE CURRENT ASSESSORS TAX ROLLS . On this basis , ORANGE COAST TITLE verifies the information fur- nished and assumes no liability in excess of the fee charged for this report. Dated: 4-11-91 Cust. Service Representative BRAD HUSTON CUSTOMER SERVICE I ORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY 17011 Beach Blvd.,Suite A Huntington Beach,CA 92647 (714)847-1747 640 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 106, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 714/558-2836 ` rll ,0RANlC-.,E COAST TITLE COMPANY TO: THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF: HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 89 OF TRACT 3563 (SUBJECT PROPERTY) SUBJECT APN# 159-045-14 OWNERSHIP: A LIST OF TH OWNERS OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, TOGETHER WITH A MAP SHOWING SAID LAND, IS ATTACHED HERETO. 640 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 106, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 714/558-2836 y� �•� CST May 15 , 1991 �,��T p FROM: MR. and MRS Ahrestani 148-4-2- Manitoba Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel : ( 714 ) 841-9609 TO: City Council SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 REQUEST: To permit an existing six ( 6 ) foot tall wrought iron fence. Or permit for modification of existing fence based on Zoning Administrator recommendation (Reference Staff Report dated May 7 , 1991 , Section 11 . 0 Alernative Action -- Please see Page 4 of this document. ) Here in, we are submitting our request for appeal of use permit No. 90-70 . On May 6 , 1991 Huntington Beach Planning Commission disapproved our appeal for use permit No. 90-70 based on the following findings. SECTION l .a. Planning commission letter dated May 10, 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document. "THE GENERAL WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING IN THE VICINITY BECAUSE THE APPEARANCE AND LOCATION OF THE FENCE DOES NOT BLEND WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. " RESPONSE: According to the Huntington Beach city procedure for appeal , city has send letter to all houses in 300 feet of the subject parcel reguarding use permit No. 90-70 . In response to such a notice on May 6, 1991 planning commission hearing not even one person showed up to object toward the fence. The only objection was a letter with 23 signatures without any printed name or address, therefor it is not clear who signed the petition and also it cannot be verified if those people live in the 300 feet of the subject property. This is going to bring up a serious question about the validity of that letter. We are requesting that the city council to consider this fact. On the other hand on May 6 , 1991 we have submitted to the planning commission the petition with 48 signatures with printed names and addresses in favor of the fence and that can be easily verified for the validity. And also two of my neighbors showed up PAGE 1 in favor of the fence and expressed their opinion which clearly indicated not only they do not have any objection but also they like the fence and they believe the fence is giving better look to the neighborhood and increase the property value. However, as we indicated on our request at the begining, we are willing to follow the zoning administrator' s recommendations to modify our existing fence so that it be more compatible with the neighborhood. (Reference Staff Report dated May 7 , 1991 , Section 11 . 0 Alternative Action -- Please see Page 4 of this document) . SECTION l .b. Planning Commission letter dated May 10, 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document. "PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE FENCE. THERE ARE NO WALLS OR FENCES LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARDS OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION, THE FENCE SPANS ACRESS AN EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT AT THE SOUTH END. " RESPONSE: It is not true which there are no wall or fence located in the neighborhood, for example my adjacent neighbor have bricks wall and fence with the same hight on front of his property. And also there are more houses in the area with the fence. Reguarding the sewer system, the fence has' nothing to do with that because the sewer system is located outside of the fence next to street and can be accessed easily by city if required. SECTION 2 . Planning Commission letter dated May 10, 1991 -- Please see Page 5 of this document.. "THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SHAPE OR LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH MAKE THE PROPOSED SIX (6 ) FOOT FENCE ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE PROPERTY RIGHTS. " RESPONSE: Please refer to the copy of my letter to the City Of Huntington Beach dated Jan. 12 , 1991 (Please see Page 6 of this document) . PAGE 2 In conclusion, we like to add that there are other houses located in the city of Huntington Beach with fence or wall with the same hight or higher than our fence and we believe that the dinial of • our request for use permit 90-70 is clear case of discrimination. We would like to indicate that the construction of this fence cost us more than $12 ,000. 00 and we would appriciate your approval of the use permit 90-70. Or at least approve the permit for modification. of the existing fence based on zoning administrator' s recommendations. (Reference Staff Report dated May 7 , 1991 -- Please see Page 4 of this document) . Regards Mehran Ahrestani Firouzeh Farmand Ahrestani PAGE 3 f; 11.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: P If the Planning Commission determines that the fence has merit, it rf may be possible to modify the fence so that it is more compatible with the neighborhood. Possible modifications may include the replacement of portions of the fence with brick columns, staggering the setback for sections of the fence to provide additional visual relief, and painting the fence to match the adjacent wrought iron fence. The Planning Commission may: Approve the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 with the conditions that the fence: a. Be provided with brick columns. b. Be staggered to provide landscape pockets. c. Be painted to match the adjacent fence. d. Be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval after redesign. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map 2. Narrative 3 . Site plans dated November 16, 1990 4 . Petition from area property owners and residents 5 . Letter from Harinora de Silva dated December 15, 1990 6 . Appeal letter dated January 12, 1991 7 . Minutes from the Zoning Administrator' s meeting of January 2, 1991 HS: :kj 1 1 . . PAGE ti. Staff Report - 5/7/91 -5- (9536d) Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 May 10, 1991 Mehran Ahrestani 18442 Manitoba Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 REQUEST: To permit an existing six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line pursuant to Section 9771(L) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. LOCATION: 18442 Manitoba i DATE OF ACTION: May 6, 1991 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-70 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the six (6) foot fence with seven (7) foot tall columns on the front property line will be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity because the appearance and location of the fence does not blend with the immediate neighborhood. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of the fence. There are no walls or fences located in the front yards of any other properties in the neighborhood. In addition, the fence spans across an existing sewer easement at the south end. 2. There are no special circumstances associated with the shape or location of the property which make the proposed six (6) foot fence on the front property line necessary in order to preserve property rights . PA GE 5 City of Huntington Beach Mehran Ahrestani Department of Community Deve 18442 Maintoba Lane 2000 Main Street C } E D, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel : ( 714 ) 841-9609 114^; 1991 UEPra;';: .T OF Ref. : Permit 90-70 COMMUNITY EvELOPMENT, January 12 , 1991 PLANNING DIVISION To Whom it may concern : Herein I am requesting for appeal on permit No . 90-70 because of the following reasons : I . My used permit request was denied on January 2 , 1991 because of incompatibility with the ohter neighbors . As I indicated on my original request there are fences in neighborhood which are compatible to my fence , therefor denial of my use permit can be consider as a discrimination. 2 . As I indicated before my house is located at the end of the downhill street, and there is a possibility of a runaway car coming right to my house . I have spend my life saving to put this fence in order to secure my house from runaway cars for protection of my family. Non of the house location of my neighbors is similar to my house . On January 2 , when the person who was incharge , denied the permition of my use permit asked me this question: "SIR HOW MANY TIMES A RUNAWAY CAR HAS COME TO YOUR HOUSE" . Accidents happen once and I do not want to take such a risk. 3 . The other reason they denied my use permit was because some of the neighbors signed against this permit. As far as I talked to the most of my surrounding neighbors , non of them have any objection toward my fence and I can backup this by bringing my neighbors approved signatures to the next hearing . 4 . Because of unique location of my property and my lot shape , I have more than 120 feet front and make it very easy to access to my house for the burglers. ( i .e. Two months ago somebody cut the top of my convertable and took my sterio and speakers ) The fence will protect my house against burglary. 5 . The fence will protect my children from accessing to street and possible car accident or kidnapping , and allow them to play in yard freely. 6 . Landscaping which I am in process of it which fence is part of it will increase the value of my property, also giving better view to the neighborhood. Regards �— �� PAGE 6 Mehran Ahrestani CASH RECEIPT • CITY OF hUNTINC;TON MACh .We J� P.O.BOX 711 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)536-5200 r' HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY TREASURER-DONALD L.WATSON DATE / ISSUING DEPT. /" �' RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS G ''� < 7 6 FORii . 176 AMOUNT RECEIVED CASH CHECK $ �j RECEIVED BY REVENUE -.-.-.FUND --.--ACCOUNT. .-. -.'DEPT.---- ._':-DIV- k..t :�AMOUNT "DCPENSE ;T.T FINANCE APPROVAL INMAL TOTAL $ AMOUNT RECEIVED lL� Is . f i6/45 $20 0_00 593120 ISSUING DEPARTiV1Ei I MEHRAN AHRESTANI 5424 FIROUZEH FARMAND 18442 MANITOBA LN.714/841-9609 16-66/1220 � HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 ��/ t PAY - TO Tni ORDER OF Bank of America"'°' Main S Ellis Branch 0894 18691 Main Street Huntngton Beach,CA 926 8 MEMO�� __—SIGNATURE 1: 12 200066 W: 5L. 2411t089461110 27 r. 's s i :y s A. r� :1 s { a • Office of the City Clerk /• >�' City of Huntington Beach {"'r,v-�-I- ,;; P.O.BOX190 � L JUN2! ii CALIFORNIA 92648 S 6'%�•,� $ �,.�,.¢��� 4.1 �'�r��. a� : GARY/KAPPES 7721 Ellis Ave. #B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Connie Brockway,City Clerk pm a City of Huntington Beach i t . Office of the City Clerk iy i ki 24 P.O. Box 190 Gf C��� s :`� �+. V..; �` 'R �,�5 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 / 159-043- 18 Sreedhar----R Yetur 18392 De Taw..- S 9 Ca 9264f un in on , M I NGtUy Fob el 0� NGOR►ORIF �� �i(,n \�C/li� O (' �DUNTY LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING i Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach i aA CIli ��� I J F U.S.`"'STAi'c` j�� Office of the City Clerk ' r+G S i P.O. Box 190f vet L % S Ji1�2i 'yI •._ i `�r i i Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Q, 1 m E E i 7 III j. 72 Michael Stephenson 72 Alberta Dr tington Beach , Ca 92648 li ���taT INGtpy tv, O 'NCORPOR41- � C.3 i__ —=O` C�y /_�r"t� �._ t� _� _�--. r Ap.�F;yy ` ;4��! P��'Mcf+ : "7 �Fq�11?.��''•tSiR .+r•¢.!' � IYT7L. '63 Si�� 31iIf �iwF °OUNry ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING