HomeMy WebLinkAboutUrgency Ordinance 3242A and Code Amendment 94-4 7G/ APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
it
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AC i d"
CITYC K
Date: July 5, 1994
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members CD 94-46
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator r ,,
Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development (.e%�
Subject: URGENCY ORDINANCE AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 94-4
Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception OOR am 3-1 /)�9
Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: 3a '
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On July 6, 1994, the City Council adopted a 45-day moratorium on single family infill lots. The
Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would address compatibility issues between
properties to minimize impacts on existing homes.
Code Amendment No. 94-4 is an urgency ordinance which establishes a review process and
development standards for single family residential infill projects, including requirements for
height, setbacks, window locations, architectural design, public hearing process and staff review.
The staff will be prepared at the meeting to offer modifications to the ordinance approved by the
Planning Commission to clarify and streamline the review process for infill homes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
- . -� 0
"Approve Urgency Ordin nce No. , '-.''.knd Code Amendment No. 94-4 with findings
Qs occ 32$42A 4 9
� i/. �ea/.n c�►� :nar,�e �1/c. tt.�cls�netit A/o. S. "
11 �'
Planning Commission Recommendation:
C
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON JUNE 28, 1994: i.-
THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY GORMAN, TO APPROVE THE
INFILL URGENCY ORDINANCE AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 94-4 WITH FINDINGS
(AS MODIFIED) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Kerins, Gorman, Dettloff, Inglee, Newman, Richardson, Biddle
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION PASSED
Staff Recommendation:
Motion to:
"Approve the Infill Urgency Ordinance and Code Amendment No. 94-4 with findings as presented
in Ordinance No. 3242B and A nc/men/ A/o. 3. "
ANALYSIS:
On June 6, 1994, the City Council approved a forty-five (45) day moratorium on the issuance of
building permits for low density, single family residences. The staff was directed to create an
ordinance addressing infill development issues and return to City Council as soon as possible.
Approximately 77 properties are currently affected by the moratorium. As of June 1993, there are
approximately 167 acres of vacant Low Density Residential remaining throughout the City. On
June 20, 1994, the City Council further clarified the moratorium by approving the following
definition:
Residential Infill Lot-An infill lot is a vacant parcel of land intended for single
family development which is adjacent to one or more existing single family
residential units excluding parcels which are separated by streets or alleys.
Room additions are exempt from this definition.
Urgency Ordinance and Code Amendment No. 94-4 include requirements that address public
notification, architectural design and setbacks for residential infill lots. The Urgency Ordinance
and Code Amendment No. 94-4 are intended to be an initial step toward addressing issues related
to infill developments. The primary issues include building height, pad height, mass, window
locations and architectural design. Each of these issues is addressed within the Residential Infill
Ordinance. It is anticipated that the ordinance will mitigate the concerns addressed by the
Homeowners, Planning Commission and staff.
The Districts most affected by the Urgency Ordinance are the R1, Low Density Residential,
Oldtown and Townlot Districts. Setbacks within Oldtown and Townlot are less than R1 (3 ft.
side yards in lieu of 5 ft. sideyard setbacks). This difference will make it more difficult to alter the
footprint, window locations and mass within the Oldtown and Townlot Districts. Both Oldtown
and Townlot Districts have minimum lot areas of 2,500 square feet. The minimum lot area within
the Rl District is 6,000 square feet. The smaller lot size further restricts the design opportunities
found within the R1 District.
Staff recommends public notification for all residential infill lots will consist of posting of the
property with a sign measuring three (3) feet by four(4)feet, three (3) days prior to submittal for
plan check to the Department of Community Development. The sign will include the nature of
the request, height of proposed structure and square footage of residence. The sign will also
include the name of the applicant or proponent. The telephone number for the Department of
Community Development shall also be listed on the sign. Comments regarding the issuance of a
RCA 7/5/94 2 CD 94-46
� u
building permit shall be forwarded to the Community Development Director for consideration.
According to the City Attorney, decisions of the Community Development Director shall be final.
Staff is recommending the posting of the property in lieu of a public hearing for the following
reasons:
1. Posting of the property allows all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the project;
2. The posting of the property is more cost effective and time effective than formal public
hearing process;
3. Disputes regarding the proposed structure are appealable to the community Development
Director. Revisions to plans can be made more quickly and efficiently; and
Summary of Planning Commission Meeting on June 28, 1994:
The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance prepared by staff and a draft ordinance created
by the Residential Infill Committee. The Planning Commission acted on each section of the
proposed ordinance and created an ordinance which is a mix of both ordinances. The following is
a summary of the Planning Commission actions on June 28, 1994:
Section 9730.87.1 General Provisions
The Planning Commission modified this section by replacing the word"development" with
"design" and deleted"architectural" in the first sentence, added a sentence which extends areas
covered by an adopted development agreement and moved a section from Privacy Design
Standards to this section.
Section 9730.87.2 Definition
The Planning Commission voted to replace the City Council adopted definition contained in the
ordinance with the subcommittee's definition. The subcommittee definition includes location
criteria for vacant lots which will be subject to the infill ordinance.
RCA 7/5/94 3 CD 94-46
i 3
Section 930.87.3 Infill Lot Design Considerations Privacy Design Standards
The Planning Commission moved a fifth design standard which addresses compatibility
considerations such as lot size, lot frontage, building layout, building configuration, grade
differentials and building height to General Provisions.
Setbacks
The Planning Commission also modified the section regarding the location of swimming pool
equipment and air conditioning units. The Planning Commission added language to require these
units to be enclosed to minimize or eliminate noise.
Exceptions
The last revision to this section deleted the four(4) exemptions proposed by staff. The Planning
Commission agreed with the subcommittee recommendation to delete the exemptions until a
comprehensive infill ordinance is prepared at a later date.
Public Notification Requirement
The Planning Commission deleted the requirement to post a sign on the site which would inform
the neighborhood a general description of the project, the name of the applicant and the phone
number of the Community Development Department. Instead of the sign, the Planning
commission approved the following notification process:
Thirty days prior to the submitting construction plans for building permits, the applicant
shall notify abutting property owners, by first class mail, of the proposed development.
At the time of plan check submittal, the applicant shall provide a signed affidavit which
lists abutting property owners and when the notice was mailed. Abutting property owners
shall have ten(10)working days from plan check submittal to review and provide
comments to the Director of Community Development. Building permits shall not be
issued until the ten(10) day review period has elapsed.
Based on the opinion of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission voted to retain the language
contained in the sign section which states:
"All comments received regarding the issuance of a building permit on an infill lot shall be
forwarded to the Community Development Director for consideration. Decisions of the
Community Development Director shall be final."
The Urgency Ordinance will sunset at such time that a more comprehensive infill ordinance is
approved and adopted by the City Council. It is anticipated that the Residential Infill Committee
will make recommendations on the infill ordinance within 60 to 90 days. An update of this
meeting will be provided on July 5, 1994.
RCA 7/5/94 4 CD 94-46
0 • 0
I
r
Attached for the Council's review are the public comments from the June 6, 1994, City Council
meeting which addressed the subject of infill development.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not Applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may approve Urgency Ordinance and Code Amendment No. 94-4 with
amendments as presented by staff on July 5, 1994.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Urgency Ordinance(Planning Commission Approved)
2. Urgency Ordinance(Staff Version)
3. Findings for Approval
MTU:MSF:MS:lp
RCA 7/5/94 5 CD 94-46
a
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 3242A
(adopted 7/5/94)
(effective 7/5/94)
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING ARTICLE 973 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS PERTAINING TO
RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does
hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Article 973 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby
amended by adding new sections 9730.87 to 9730.87.2, inclusive, to read as
follows:
9730.87 Residential Infill Developments - General Provisions. These residential
infill requirements are intended to minimize impacts on adjacent residential
developments and provide development standards that insure compatibility and
appropriate design for projects located within existing residential neighborhoods,
Unless to do so would contravene the terms of an existing Development
Agreement.
The location, site plan, and building design shall be harmonious and
compatible with the streets, driveways, property lines, and surrounding
neighborhood. Compatibility considerations shall include, but not be limited to: lot
size, lot frontages, building layout, building configuration and design, building
product type, grade height and building height relative to existing dwellings, and
visual intrusion concerns. The Director of Community Development shall cause all
requests for plan check and issuance of building permits for infill lot development
to be reviewed in accordance with Section 9730.87.2.
9730.87.1 Residential Infill Lot - Definition. An infill lot is a vacant
parcel of land intended for single family development which is
adjacent to one or more existing single family residential units
excluding parcels which are separated by streets. Room additions
are exempt from this definition.
1
G1007R/k/07/07/94
1 4
I 7
9730.87.2 Infill Lot Design Considerations.
A. Privacy Design Standards.
1 . New residences shall off-set windows to insure maximum
privacy for existing residences. The use of opaque glass or similar
material, should be used for all bathroom windows facing existing
residences. Consider locating windows high on elevations to allow
light and ventilation, and insure privacy.
2. Minimize the canyon effect between houses by clipping roof
elevations on sideyards. Provide roof line variations throughout infill
development.
3. Provide architectural features (projections, offsets) to break
up massing and bulk.
4. Upper story balconies shall be oriented toward its own front
or rear yard areas.
B. Setbacks.
1 . Whenever possible all base district setbacks shall be maximized to
provide increased separation between new developments and existing
residences. Footprints for new residences shall be off-set to increase
privacy.
2. Provide offset in front building setbacks throughout infill
development.
3. Pool equipment and air conditioning equipment shall be located at
a location which maximizes its distance from existing residential
development, and minimizes its distance from the new structure
which it serves.
C. Miscellaneous.
1 . Pad height for new construction shall match to the extent
possible, grades of adjacent residences. Any property owner who
intends to add more than 2 feet of fill to an infill lot or to add any fill
to a lot where the grade differential is already 2 feet or more above
an adjacent lot shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer that there is no other acceptable method to drain the
property adequately.
2
G1007R/k/07/07/94
2. Landscaping shall be designed to maximize privacy for both
existing residences and new residences.
3. When possible driveways shall be located on the side of the
property closest to the driveway on the adjoining property.
D. Public Notification Requirements.
Three days prior to submittal for plan check, the applicant shall give
notice of the application to adjacent property owners by first class
mail. The notice of application shall include the following:
a. name of applicant
b. location of planned development
c. nature of the planned development, including maximum building
height and square footage.
d. the City hall telephone number for the department of Community
Development to call for viewing plans.
e. the date by which any comments must be received in writing by
the Department of Community Development. This date shall be 10
working days from plan check submittal.
f. the address of the Department of Community Development.
The applicant shall submit proof of mailing of the notice when
submitting the application for plan check. The adjacent property
owners shall have ten (10) working days from plan check submittal to
provide comments regarding the application to the Director of
Community Development. All decisions of the Director regarding the
application shall be final.
SECTION 2. This emergency ordinance shall be rescinded when a more
comprehensive infill ordinance is approved and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach.
SECTION 3. This emergency ordinance shall become effective immediately
according to the authority of Huntington Beach City Charter §501 .
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this emergency measure for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety is necessary as
building permits are being held on infill lots resulting in extreme hardship to owners
of these lots throughout the city.
SECTION 5. Ordinance No. 3240 is hereby rescinded upon the adoption of
this emergency ordinance.
3
G1007R/k/07/07/94
l 7
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of
July , 1994.
Mayor
A TEST.: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
aatteezace__ .�City Clerk
,� -City Attorney P,sz- 7-7-'v/
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIAT AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Dir c r of Co ity *ewe ent
4
G1007R/k/07/07/94
410
Emergency Ord. No. 3242A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ).
I CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of
the City Council of the said City, do herby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was read to the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
5th day of July 19 94 , and was passed and adopted by
at least four-fifths (4/5) affirmative votes of said City Council .
AYES: Councilmembers:
Silva, Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell , Leipzig, Sullivan
NOES: Councilmembers;
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Robitaille
e ;"1010•
eaft#4442/7
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
) ,
ORDINANCE NO. cja.��—A 0 ,/
O
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING ARTICLE 973 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS PERTAINING TO
RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does
hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Article 973 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby
amended by adding new sections 9730.87 to 973'6.87.2, inclusive, to read as
follows:
9730.87 Residential Infill Developments - G neral Provisions. These residential
infill requirements are intended to minimi impacts on adjacent residential
developments and provide development standards that insure compatibility and
appropriate design for projects locate within existing residential neighborhoods,
excluding those areas with an existi Development Agreement.
The location, site plan, and ilding design shall be harmonious and
compatible with the streets, drive ays, property lines, and surrounding
neighborhood. Compatibility co siderations shall include, but not be limited to: lot
size, lot frontages, building lay ut, building configuration and design, building
product type, building densitgrading height differentials and building height
relative to existing dwelling and visual intrusion concerns.
The age and anticip d permanence of buildings on adjacent properties
shall be considered.
9730.87.1 Residential Infill Lot - Definition. An infill lot is a vacant parcel of land
intended for single fa ily detached development which has a property line within
60 feet of one or mo a properties on which single family residential units are
located (such prop, ties within 60 feet on which single family residential units are
located are herein fter called "abutting Properties").
9730.87.2 Infill of Desi n Considerations.
A. Privacy esign Standards.
1 . New residences shall off-set windows to insure maximum
privacy for existing residences. The use of opaque glass or similar
material, should be used for all bathroom windows facing existing
residences. Consider locating windows high on elevations to allow
light and ventilation, and insure privacy.
1
INFILL2.DOC6/k/06/29/94 /� /
,4" G. ale, / / I
2. Minimize the canyon effect between houses by clipping roof
elevations on sideyards. Provide roof line variations throughout infill
development.
3. Provide architectural features (projections, offsets) to break
up massing and bulk.
4. Upper story balconies shall be oriented toward its own front
or rear yard areas.
B. Setbacks.
1 . Whenever possible all base district setbacks shall be maximized to
provide increased separation between new developments and existing
residences. Footprints for new residences shall be off-set to increase
privacy.
2. Provide offset in front building setbacks throughout infill
development.
3. Pool equipment and air conditioning equipment shall be located at
a location which maximizes its distance from existing residential
development, and minimizes its distance from the new structure
which it serves. Pool equipment and air conditioning equipment shall,
in addition, be located in a closed structure to minimize or eliminate
noise.
C. Miscellaneous.
1 . Pad height for new construction shall match to the extent
possible, grades of adjacent residences. Any property owner who
intends to add more than 2 feet of fill to an infill lot shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that there is no other
acceptable method to drain the property adequately.
2. Landscaping shall be designed to maximize privacy for both
existing residences and new residences.
3. When possible driveways shall be located on the side of the
property closest to the driveway on the adjoining property.
D. Public Notification Requirements.
Thirty days prior to submittal for plan check, the applicant shall give
notice of the application to abutting property owners by first class
2
INFILL2.DOC6/k/06/29/94
mail. The applicant shall submit proof of mailing of the notice when
submitting the application for plan check. The abutting property
owners shall have ten (10) working days to provide comments
regarding the application to the Director of Community Development.
All decisions of the Director regarding the application shall be final.
SECTION 2. This emergency ordinance shall be rescinded when a more
comprehensive infill ordinance is approved and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach.
SECTION 3. This emergency ordinance shall become effective immediately
according to the authority of Huntington Beach City Charter §501 .
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this emergency measure for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety is necessary as
building permits are being held on infill lots resulting in extreme hardship to owners
of these lots throughout the city.
SECTION 5. Ordinance No. 3240 is hereby rescinded upon the adoption of
this emergency ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of
, 1994.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
2,4,
City Clerk -61-. City Attorn66./9--
�
-ZT-v./
REVIEWED AND APPRO INITIATED AND APPROV D:
Ci y Administrator Director of Communi Development
3
INFILL2.DOC 6/k/06/2 9/94
•
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
ss.
County of Orange )
I am a Citizen of the United States and a PUBLIC NOTICE
resident of the County aforesaid; I am NOTICE OF
over the age of eighteen years, and not a URGPUBLIC
C HEARING
EA ORDIINGCE
party to or interested in the below AME CODE
ND DCON0.94.a
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of (Residential
Mil Developments)
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that the Huntington
newspaper of general circulation, printed Beach City Council will'
hold a public hearing in the
and published in the City of Huntington Council Chamber at the
Huntington Beach Civic
Beach, County of Orange, State of Center, 2000 Main Street, ' ON FILE: A copy of the
Huntington Beach, Califor- proposed request is on file
California, and that attached Notice is a nia, on the date and at the in the Community De-
time indicated below to re- velopment Department,
true and complete copy as was printed ceive and consider the 2000 Main Street, Hun-
statements of all persons tington Beach, California
who wish to be heard rela- 92648, for inspection by
and published in the Huntington Beach tive to the application de- the public. A copy of the
scribed below. • staff report will be available
and Fountain Valley issues of said DATE/TIME:Tuesday,July to interested parties at City
5,1994,7:00 PM hall or the Main City Li-
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: APPLICATION NUMBER; brary (7111 Talbert Av-
Urgency Ordinance and enue)after June 30,1994.
Code Amendment No.94-4 I ALL INTERESTED PER-
APPLICANT: City of Hun- SONS are invited to attend
tington Beach said hearing and express
LOCATION:City-wide opinions or submit evi-
ZONE: R1, Single Family dence for or against the
June 23, 1994 Lot ential, Plan,RA,Reswn, in application as outlined
Specificabove. If you challenge the
dential Agricultural, Down- City Council's action in
town Specific Plan, Ellis- court, you may be limited
Goldenwest Specific Plan,, to raising only those issues
Meadowlark Specific Plan you or someone else
and Holly-Seacliff Specific raised at the public hearing
Plan. described in this notice, or
r REQUEST: To create de- in written correspondence
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that velopment standards for delivered to the City at, or
residential intill projects in- prior to,the public hearing.
the foregoing is true and correct. cluding compatibility re- If there are any further
quirements for height, set- questions please call Mike
backs, window locations, Strange, Senior Planner at
architectural design, public (714)536-5271.
hearing process and staff Connie Brockway,
19 9 review. Huntington Beach City
Executed on ENVIRONMENTAL STA-
June 23 , Clerk
TUS: Categorically exempt Published Huntington
at Costa Mesa, California. pursuant to Section 15308,
Class 8 of the California Beach-Fountain Valley In-
Environmental Quality Act. dependent June 23,1994.
COASTAL STATUS: Not 062-675
applicable ----
,,,,h(„7,_...„-__e,
Signature
ORDINANCE NO. 5a_
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 9730 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING A SECTION PERTAINING TO
RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENTS,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ordained by t f e"City of Huntington Beach that
Chapter 9730 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Codealis hereby amended by adding section
9730.87; said section to read as follows:
SECTION 1. 9730.87 Residential Infill Developments
9730.87.1 General Provisions The residential infill requirements are intended to minimize
impacts on adjacent residential developm�.ents, provide development standards that insure
compatibility and appropriate architectural design for projects located within existing residential
neighborhoods.
9730.87.2 Definition
An infill lot is a vacantparcel of land intended for single family development which is
adjacent to one or m5 re existing single family residential units excluding parcels which
are separated by streets, alleys. Room additions are exempt for this definition.
9730.87.3 Infill Lot Design Considerations
A. Privacy Design/Standards.
1. New residences shall off-set windows to insure maximum privacy for
existing residences. The use of opaque glass or similar material, should be
used for all bathroom windows facing existing residences. Consider locating
windows high on elevations to allow light and ventilation, and insure privacy.
2. Minimize the canyon effect between houses by clipping roof elevations
on sideyards. Provide roof line variations throughout infill development.
3. Provide architectural features (projections, offsets) to break up massing
and bulk.
4. Upper story balconies shall be oriented toward its own front or rear yard
areas.
B. Setbacks
1. Whenever possible all base district setbacks shall be maximized to
provide increased separation between new developments and existing
residences. Footprints for new residences shall be off-set to increase privacy.
2. Provide offset in front building setbacks throughout infill development.
1
INFILL.DOC6/k/06/22/94
3. Pool equipment and air conditioning equipment shall be located within
rear two thirds of the lot to minimize noise.
C. Miscellaneous
1. Pad height for new construction should match to the extent possible,
grades of adjacent residences. Any property owner who intends to add more
than 2 feet of fill to an infill lot shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer that there is no other acceptable method to drain the property
adequately.
2. Landscaping shall be designed to maximize privacy for both existing
residences and new residences.
3. When possible driveways shall be located on the side of the property
closest to the driveway on the adjoining property.
Exemptions:
a. Homes which are 25 feet in height or less; these homes will be reviewed
to determine compliance with design guidelines.
b. Homes which are 50 feet or more from an existing single family home;
these homes will be reviewed to determine compliance with design
guidelines.
c. Custom homes which are designed as part of a new subdivision of
custom homes; these homes will be reviewed to determine compliance
with design guidelines.
d. Homes which are built to the same zoning standards as the adjacent
homes. These homes will still be reviewed to determine compliance with
design guidelines.
D. Public Notification Requirements. The property which is subject to the infill design
guidelines ordinance shall be posted with a sign containing notice of such structure at least
three (3) days prior to submitting plans for plan check. The applicant shall submit to the city an
affidavit verifying that the sign was posted on the site in a timely manner. The sign shall
conform to the following requirements:
1. Shall be twelve (12) square feet in sign area [three (3) feet by four(4)
feet], and shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height.
2. Shall be located not less than one (1) foot nor more than ten (10) feet
inside the property line.
3. Shall not be illuminated.
4. Only one such sign may be displayed per street frontage unless
otherwise permitted by the Director of Community Development.
5. Shall include only the following factual information:
2
INFILL.DOC6/k/06/22/94
a. Nature of the request, to include building height and
square footage of residence.
b. Name of applicant or proponent.
c. City Hall telephone number (Department of Community
Development).
6. The lettering style shall be standard type face (Helvetica or similar). The
lettering size shall be 2 inch capital letters. All other letters shall be one (1) inch
in size. All letters shall be black upon a white background.
7. The sign shall remain in place until after the building permit has been
issued by the Department of Community Development.
8. All comments received regarding the issuance of a building permit on a
infill lot shall be forwarded to the Community Development Director for
consideration. Decisions of the Community Development Director shall be final.
SECTION 2: This emergency ordinance shall be rescinded when a more
comprehensive infill ordinance is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach.
SECTION 3: This emergency ordinance shall become effective immediately according
to the authority of Huntington Beach City Charter§501.
SECTION 4: The Council finds that an emergency measure for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health or safety is necessary as building permits are being
held on infill lots resulting in extreme hardship to owners of these lots throughout the city.
SECTION 5: Ordinance No. 3240 is hereby rescinded upon the adoption of this
emergency ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at
a regular meeting thereof held on the day of_ , 1994.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk APPROVED,AS TO FORM:
REVI WED D APPR ED'
,6-�2aCity Attorney
City Administrator INITIATED AND APPROVE :
Director of Community Development
3
INFILL.DOC6/k/06/23/94
ATTACIIMENT NO. 3
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
URGENCY ORDINANCE/
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 94-4
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CODE AMENDMENT NO. 94-4:
1. Code Amendment No. 94-4 creates requirements for the orderly development of residential infill lots,
including public notification, setback and architectural design.
2. Code Amendment No. 94-4 is consistent with the goals and policies contained with the City's General
Plan.
•
Attachment - 6/28/94 _ (pcsr051-5)
TO: MIKE STRANGE 07
FROM: ROBERT FRANKLIN
DATE: JUNE 14, 1994
SUBJECT: JUNE 6, 1994 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMENT MATRIX
Attached is a matrix which includes the public comments from the June 6, 1994 City Council
meeting regarding infill concerns.
•
meminms islands holly 6/14/94
JUNE 6, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC COMMENTS MATRIX:
- Why were 31 new single family dwellings in the SeaclifT neighborhood, which exceed 25 feet.
in height and should have required a conditional use permit, issued building permits?
The City Attorney has provided a legal opinion which states that the requirement to
require a conditional use permit of new single family dwellings should have been
removes with a prior code amendment and does not apply to these homes.
The new single family homes are two stories and will invade the privacy of the existing homes
in the Seacliff neighborhood.
Currently, the zoning code does not address the placement of second story windows.
Staff has been directed to develop guidelines to address the location of second story
windows.
Amend the zoning code to require a conditional use permit for single family homes which
exceed 25 feet in height.
Staff is working on a revision to the zoning code which will address the concerns
expressed by the Seacliff neighborhood.
Expedite thel proposed code amendment which will establish guidelines for the construction of
single family homes in existing,neighborhoods.
Staff is preparing an emergency ordinance which will address the concerns of the
Seacliff neighborhood. The emergency ordinance is scheduled for the June 28, 1994
Planning Commission meeting and is tentatively scheduled for the July 5, 1994 City
Council meeting.
Impose a moratorium on the issuance of building permits until the infill guidelines have been
adopted by the City Council.
On June 6, 1994, the City Council adopted a 45 day moratorium which will allow staff
to prepare the infill guidelines.
Require Seacliff Partners to design one and two story models.
The City currently does not have the authority to require Seacliff Partners to design
one story models. The infill guidelines should mitigate the concerns associated with
two story homes.
infill islands holly 6/14/94
•
_ The proposed single family homes contain second story windows which are too large: ..
Staff in considering a requirement which will require different glass materials for
windows located in sensitive areas.
The proposed single family dwellings are too large for a standard single family lot.
The proposed single family dwellings comply with the minimum setback requirements.
Staff is reviewing the elevations of the proposed dwellings and will attempt to reduce
the bulk by altering roof lines and roof styles.
Reduce the second story window area in order to reduce the privacy impacts.
Staff is reviewing the floor plans and will recommend minimizing window area in
sensitive locations.
Infill concerns will become a city-wide issue.
Staff is preparing an emergency ordinance which will establish city-wide infill
guidelines for new single family dwellings.
Mitigation measures contained in Negative Declaration No. 90-28 adopted by the City
Council not followed. -
The mitigation measure no. 8 states."provide project compatibility as to lot size, -
frontage, building layout and density." Staff as implemented the mitigation measure
within existing development codes.-Staff is currently developing guidelines which will
address the concerns of the Seacliff neighborhood.
infill islands holly 6/14/94
-
•
•
•
•
. .
CEI
‘4,m4g4oww2,,w,.4w.;
• -, • • • •
, . .
. . . •.•
. .
. •
•
• ..
•. „
••
..
.. •
• •
• '
.• ..
0
•
• • '
;7, 0.4.40.00giogaiwig3.00*.oftwgoak
. . . . .
• • . ,•
. . . . .
•
- .•;
-77-)"4-7/-,7 •
/ -g-V22 1-477.0„ E?. 72-1?
-2
712 717 • , . •
•:•.1r
••.‘:• : •.; . .,
, '-'7177-62/if fd-r-Ve;tA/e?-
.27-711P
7-v
_2777.
j-0.2.12ae -77
4 ,
STREETSCAPE INC.
15641 PRODUCT LANE,SUITE 7 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92649
714-898-4842 TELECOPIER 714-898-9394
June 27, 1994 r
JV )\-
Melanie Fallon ,:` +ar o kx4`
Director of Communtiy Deve 9p 4.'�
City of Huntington Beach ,Ut104'�
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: 45 day moratorium on building permits
Dear Director Fallon
As a small business owner in Huntington Beach for over 9 years, Huntington Beach homeowner for
over 21 years, and member of the FANS Advisory Board, I urge you support a lifting of the 45 day
moratorium on building permits.
Many local small businesses, including my own, are still struggling in the face of a continued
Southern California home building slump. This moratorium will directly and negatively affect my
business. The loss or postponement of even one project order will force me to lay off at least one of
my six employees.
I feel that this moratorium is unfair to both the Seacliff Partners, who have met all city requirements,
and to all Huntington Beach property owners.
I understand that the rights and wishes of the existing homeowners who have voiced complaints must
be acknowledged. However, their opinions should not override the interests and opinions of the many
city residents and businesses who are suffering from this drastic and unwarranted action.
Sincerely yours,
C-___Ya- tee-6 4, -Lv
Patricia Stier
President
Streetscape Inc.
PAS/sjs
s3
HOME PLAN FINANCIAL
T ,June 28, 1994 P `� ; �� r
Mayor Linda Moulton Patterson JUN 0 1994
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Cirr OF FiL):7,,
CITY CO:_:::;:,! CFFiC=
Dear Mayor Patterson:
You and the City Council passed a moratorium on in-fill single family homes.
This was done without study orregard to the implications to the city, the
businesses, or the citizens. A moratorium is for the purpose of studying, but
this action and the causes of this action appear to fly in the face of dealing
with an issue on a responsible level. As a resident of Huntington Beach City
and the Seacliff Community, and a businessman in the city I am asking you to
remove this moratorium.
You have stopped single family permits for all single family `in-fill' building.
If there was a bonifide problem your response appears to be a knee jerk
reaction. In fact you don't seem to have meant to stop all building and you
did not identify what was to be defined as the in-fill lots you were addressing.
Evidently you meant to address the homes being developed by SeaCliff
Partners. This is a project that is represented by years of work by the
developers and the City. These plans have been in front of the City and have
been approved by the City. Does the City staff have the professional ability
to do the job we are paying for? Will the Council take it upon themselves to
review every question On an ad hoc basis so that any project approval is not
really approved; any permit issued is not really a permit until Council has also
reviewed it? If so then let me suggest that we can solve some budgetary
problems by letting many staff members go.
Your actions have stopped work that will be very expensive from opportunity
cost and actual cost. This will apply to the developer as well as the City. Are
you aware of these costs?
You have a responsibility to hear public issues and take appropriate action.
You are not going to be able to make everybody happy. But you are going to
have to be responsible in your evaluation of problems and determine if you , %
19425 MacGregor Circle,Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Are serving the citizens in general. I want you to start managing the,City
through the resources available to you; to determine the City's effective
vision and conduct business accordingly. I will be surprised if you find this
includes second guessing the staff work so that you apply a moratorium in
this manner on this type of project.
The property is going to be developed. It needs to be done on a quality basis.
I want to see that tax base start paying more taxes into the city. Please turn
your attention to how you can help this program rather than an over-reaction
that results in a moratorium.
Remove this moratorium!
Extremely Sincere,
am L. Garza
e3
1
4 .::: , ,. toC . _ •.. . • ►4 .. ...
Rhyme Realty, 4952 Warner Ave., Suite 232, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 • (714) 846.3044• Fax: (714) 846.6204
June 24, 1994
Ms. Linda Moulton Patterson, Mayor
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
•
Dear Ms. Patterson:
I have lived and worked in Huntington Beach for the greater part of 24 years. Although I am a
member of the FANS Advisory Board and have an obvious desire to see the Seacliff projects
succeed, this is a letter I have wanted to write to the city for years. The recent building
moratorium has enraged me enough to actually put my thoughts to paper.
For years the leadership of this city has had an attitude that was unfair and detrimental to the
business climate of Huntington Beach. Last year'I received, at my business, a reprint of an article
that appeared in California Business, from the city. When I saw that Huntington Beach was
selected as the best place to do business in California, I nearly laughed myself to death. I
understood how California Business arrived at their conclusion when I read their five "crucial"
criterion. Too bad they never took into account the attitude of the City Council and Planning
Commission as regards respecting the property rights of homeowners (or would-be homeowners)
and business owners when writing the article.
I live in Huntington Harbour. I know what the owners of DBS McKays went through before they
were finally allowed to open their doors, and what Hughes Market went through in order to
expand. Both these projects are of major value to the residents and business owners in the area.
The City should be bending over backwards to encourage this type of growth, not throwing up
roadblocks every step of the way.
For several years I have encouraged builders not to purchase land in the City of Huntington
Beach. Last year I encouraged a personal friend who is a developer not to build here, but to go to
Yorba Linda. He did, was issued building permits after one planning commission meeting, and
has now completed his project of townhouses. He was totally amazed at the cooperation of the
city officials. I have never heard a builder or homeowner make the same statement about our
city.
Now the building moratorium. When will city officials ever stop giving in to the demands of the
vocal minority. I thought this was a free country and property owners had certain constitutional
`Specializing in earning the sale with Integrity, Competence, and a Smile!' -3
Moulton-Patterson Page 2.
June 28,'1994
rights. You issued building permits. Based on those permits, property owners, both individuals
and major builders, made commitments and incurred liabilities. Then the city reneges at the drop
of a hat,just to please a few voters with special interests. If a private individual conducted their
business the way the City of Huntington Beach has done for years, they would be tied up in a
hopeless abyss of lawsuits. It is only a matter of time before the city is involved in a horrific
lawsuit, costing its taxpayers millions of hard-earned dollars.
This country was built on the firm foundation of freedom. If we don't stop chipping away at that
foundation, the "building" will collapse. Please lift the moratorium on building.
Respectfully,
("1/44VC4144-e--
Nancy Rhyme
Owner
-3
Ci
Carole Q. bueride
15811 Wicklow Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
June 29. 1994 '
Mayor Linda Moulton Patterson
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main (Street
Huntington beach, CA 92648
Madam Mayor,
As a member of'the Advisory board of'FANS and a resident of Huntington beach for 28 years I oppose the
moratorium imposed by the City Coucil. I find it totally unfair to stop progress on the building of homes alter
the city agreed to the building and development of(Seacliff.
Please lift the moratorum so building, can continue.
•
(Sincerely,
Carole Q. buerkle
+�
JUL 01 1994
C-ATY OF HIJIN NGTJN 1. ACH
CITY COes s-1,. OFFICE
D-3
ism
Taurus Insurance Agency, Inc.
Independently Owned and Operated
15140 Transistor Lane
Huntington Beach,CA 92649
Bus.(714)379-1300
Fax(714)379-1312
s . h
lA
JUN271994
June 24 , 1994
,t1hf I
Melanie Fallon
Director of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Director of Community Development :
It has come to my attention that The City Council has put into place a
45 day moratorim on the issuing of any building premits for
construction of single-family homes on "in-fill" lots .
I am personally asking you to lift this moratorium, this moratorium
will hurt jobs and business development in Huntington Beach . We
surely do not want to hurt the business enviornment in Huntington
Beach any more then it has already suffered . Huntington Beach just
does not seem to understand that without new businesses coming into
the area, Huntington Beach will die . That would mean alot of City
Employees and Huntington Beach residence out of jobs .
I am a member of FANS and havoc,, worked _n Huntington Beach for 16 years
and find this moratorium to be unfair and detrimental to the business
climate of the City.
Regard?
wn . , I U Taurus Ins . Agency, Inc .
Insurance Systems Unlimited
Our Knowledge /s your Best Insurance•M
fiii F
JUN3 0 1994
IT7 OF 1-11.1:,.NcTON B'ACH
CITY co :�= << OFF!C
June 27, 1994
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: 45-Day Moratorium on Building Permits
What is the sense in stopping the growth in the city by placing a moratorium on building in the
city?
Since 1991, business license permits are down 5%, Prop. 13 has limited revenues to the city,
and now, without considering the financial impact to the city, Council has hysterically placed a
moratorium on the positive, professional building of the Seacliff project.
I am further disturbed by the fact that, as a small business owner, this gives a negative opinion
of the city and to the future investors in Huntington Beach. This will impact not only my small
business, but other businesses in the city, and ultimately revenues to the city. Where is the
future of Huntington Beach? If existing businesses cannot grow, and new businesses choose
Fountain Valley, where is the money going to come from for schools, streets, police protection,
etc., etc., etc. Who is going to pay for this?
Please check reality and avoid further damage to the city and its reputation. Lift the moratorium.
Sincerely,
Susan Reeder-Barr
Owner
PrintMasters
•
ul� `'rr„ 177 _
" 1994
CIT7QFHUit;-`^"` ^• n
CAMBRIA C'TY C,�,.
• C 0 L L E I 0 N June 28, 1994
To Whom This May Concern:
I am writing this letter to express my personal concern
regarding the moratorium on issuing building permits that
now exists in Huntington Beach. I am currently a member
of FANS and have worked in Huntington Beach for over a
a year. As such, I feel very strongly that the moratorium is
not only an unfair practice, but. ,is also extremely detrimental
to the thriving business community of which I am a part.
As a sales representative for, the Cambria Collection
in Huntington Beach, I feel I can offer a rather unique
perspective in terms of how this development serves to
enhance both the residential and business community of
Huntington Beach.
The Cambria Collection homes built within the Sea Cliff
neighborhood stand to raise the property value of the
existing neighborhood, and thereby create a new and
enlarged sales market for. residing Sea Cliff home owners.
Further, Cambria offers to create substantial business
opportunities to the Huntington 'Beach community in terms of
securing new home owners who potentially will :
1 . open businesses within the community .
2 . shop in local stores.
3 . support neighborhood restaurants , and other
business enterprises such as health clubs.
4 . be employed by local businesses or corporations .
5 . enroll their children in local public or
private schools .
It is my sincere wish that you reconsider lifting
the building moratorium in Huntington Beach so that the potential
for increased job and business opportunities in this fine
Community is not severely limited. I have thoroughly enjoyed
being a participant in Huntington Beachts growth and development
as a viable suburban community. And I certainly wish to remain
very active in that capacity in the future.
Placing a building moratorium on Huntington Beach at
this time only curtails progress with respect to increased
revenue earned by local businesses . In the long run, it
hurts everyone-- the neighborhood home owner, our schools
and businesses, and everyone in -our community .
Thank you for your time in this most important matter .
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me at the Cambria Collection (536--9911 . )
Sincerely ,
(hid
Markolita K. Camden
688 I Rodarte Circle, Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-99 I I _3
•
• 4952 WARNER AVE.
� SUITE 320
� ,' �" 10 s `.0 , HUNTINGTON BEACH
� �r> CALIFORNIA 92649
yt�y °s (714)840-8895
} �0 .ym' FAX#(714)840-4955
June 28, 1994 /'
! ,
Linda Moulton Patterson J i N 3 0 1994
Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
200 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C'T Y
Re: 45 Day Moratorium on Issuing Building Permits
As a business professional and home owner in Huntington Beach,I am alarmed that the
city has yet again displayed disfavor toward the business community. Contractors
simply cannot afford to have building loans sit idle at high interest rates. This hurts their
businesses and ultimately,Huntington Beach business. The time for community input is
at the time of planning approvals,not after they're moved ahead'are ready to build.
From having tried to make a simple alteration to my own home,I was outraged at the
unprofessional and impolite treatment by permit office staff. So what happened to the
red carpet treatment? And to Mike Uberuaga's plan to make city officials more
responsive to the needs of business and the community?
Though a member of FANS, my greatest concern is about the small business impact of
your actions. If in fact,this entire calamity is to only address concerns about a specific
development, why are you making a blanket rule that is unfair to all involved? If the
issue is really about single story homes being built next to multiple story homes, them
possibly we should bulldoze all of downtown and start over. But wouldn't that really be
as unrealistic as this measure?
Please reconsider this matter,
7/(11.
Denise de Vines
Owner: 322-A 19th St., Huntington Beach, CA 92648
— 3
u
.uJ
y
Scheduling Consultants, Inc.
r
f r.
June 27, 1994 t ;'� I++' y 17fJU
N 3 (01994
'Ms...Linda.Moulton Patterson Ir'r OF Hi -L
Mayor, City of Huntington Beach c'TY
c�.
2000 Main Street a A};
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: Building Permit Moratorium
Dear Mayor Patterson:
As a resident of Huntington Beach for over 14 years and a member of FANS, I feel that
placing an arbitrary moratorium on building permits is both unfair and detrimental to the
business climate of the City.
It seems to me that after years of planning, the city had plenty of opportunities to review
in-fill guidelines. Now when major money is being committed by Seacliff Partners and
because certain people with their own agenda complain, the city takes this action.
What is to be gained from this moratorium? The only thing I see is increased housing
costs and a further erosion of our budgets for schools and libraries.
Surely;the concern of taxpaying citizens affected by growth should be studied, but waiting
till the last minute is not fair,to the people who have placed their faith and money to better
our community.
I am asking that the 45 day moratorium on building permits be lifted immediately.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Gam/
Brad W. Estill
18546 Pueblo Circle
Huntington Beach, CA
92646
620 Newport Center Drive • Suite 400 • Newport Beach, California • 92660 • (714)721-0909 • FAX(714)721-9124D—3
•
'v. ••,,
i
•
i
�'
•
•
/4 • XE. • /6Q. ' �'AI✓0 i Gifu n/G C.' /4 J2 , '+
' .. 1 0/5/ 7- ':
. '0' /15\)(2_ u e L1� 2 i`; /
. /h\ro ,w,.,../ey Pcrodi;• c..,.7-.. • . , .' • . • ••• ..'
•yYI�� nip 'O ( f ��
Yo v. 5I/0c/c-0 \I•t/%' ' .1 CCoSS ,r LL 0 z/'
S to / T r- •.,g Ul•L_O cQJ • /9✓va
/ ,-- Ato /(07- - .,./"9/ /
I.
o-1 l( C airs+✓�c /,C. /�o 1 7-/J(� ,
(Eo .Ur- 0 v r 0 cid ^t 4/ ,47 /o
. . ./ S.
/ - /dL %U v t ,-( ow,_; et_74, .<7,, 3i' - 4,J
1 ,� > / � ,
•
l ::.-- -tsar /q Lit- .b 12/r, f,-0., (.1/4
Vi .
,, .4:_, , , .•, .
. , . . , . , L.5-, , . .
. : . .... ... . .
. 111. .,(4/
` : , 3
".e':� 1 . _c 1� -) �/
ADVERTISING DESIGN n II 5981 Engineer Drive
G �JOD �JI � Huntington Beach
III II California 92649
714 898-7744
Fax 898-8722
June 28, 1994
Melanie Fallon SUN 2 9 1994
Director of City Development
City of Huntington Beach ULPAB1 N .,.
2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 COMMUNITY DcVti
Dear Ms. Fallon,
I am writing in response to Huntington Beach City Council's recent implementation of the
Moratorium on building permits. I find this inappropriate decision unfair and detrimental to
the business climate of Huntington Beach.
As a member of the FANS Advisory Board, and an owner of a local Huntington Beach
business for over 10 years, I feel this decision will be harmful to individuals economically, as
well as to the local economy as a whole.
Lifting this Moratorium is essential to the continious of a successful union between
Huntington Beach as a business and as a community.
Sincerely,
Ryan Rieches
President
ler)
-D-3
1�
.-
amkPoant: Hmounamfam Agmog9 fncco
"Brokerage Planning for the Busy Professional"
L
all
UN 3 E11994
CW1-70:
CITY CO' 0 F,
June 28, 1994.
Linda Moulton Patterson
Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Linda:
I find it very puzzling and disturbing to see that the City
Council has put in place a 45 day moratorium on issuing any
building permits for construction of single family homes on
in-fill lots . With the slow down' of the economy here in
Orange County over the past year, and the sliding prices of
homes, I would think the city council would be interested in
sending a message to potential businesses and people
interested• in locating in Huntington Beach, that they are
welcomed here. A moratorium stops payment of school and
library fees which are so important to the school districts
and the city.
I hope that you will consider lifting the moratorium, since
it does send such a bad message to people who wish to settle
or start a business in Huntington Beach. This moratorium
hurts jobs and business development. I am a member of FANS,
and have worked in Huntington Beach 21 years . I find this
moratorium to be unfair and detrimental to the business
climate of the city. I am a small business owner here and
will probably be here until my retirement.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
h-h1-0-160
DONALD M. PANKHARD, CLU
5
• DMP/mf
2130 Main Street,Suite 240 • Huntington Beach,CA 92648-0551 D- 3
(714)960-6569 • (800) 523-0605 • Fax(714)960-9542
. . ,
-,.._ /
/ );'' .21. 'V c..3._, (• /---c--)t-/V10--izz.2--i-e)--414--9---1
,jp/-1,c-11 - • . - /__ ,, e/9 ?1Z 6 1.07
17,
,e. . 7- / 9, q ,,
(I F, ,r-c- i7.,., p v,r 7
Ll'. • i ii
. JLi'.\13 0 1994
-227c7o-vi _{,77
oc90 ')l ‘,- -t il.kt-e-e -
. • 7_27-7t Cae.„-,(4.,, e 4 ,,.7, 6 a CIT'7.0F 1-ii,jfCr i',;'.7:; 2.1i% L k..Lj'H
Y-r--4:--'---' -1--<1"-I -t-C)--; --;)--17
P-e-At-44 ' (if-e-- ,.--"YYt---:r-AC---ef-- t----•LL-t...--L.-e-f___, - t.9-
/17--/ZA.1,5 -4.--1,- - --;
.
1-;,o-e--‘1 4A,t_}. c_ s\-6z-pi,t,e. •-, --2 '0a-441;v• • I
-t-rd:• -e--) . ‘....e...-z, -
--f-r--1,---7-.06 Ti -e--4-' 77-VZ-0---i--42Zer-Le-L-e--1- .) " --e-e--- ---6-c-r1-6-ez--'4--A--) .
.4., e.--te-vv1--eza-
-29-1
9--4"--"--" t--Li
• 0
. •-E ("-- .t-1 -.---y"KL- e_----e- --e,---''..
a) <?:4,_,,,c_- ,24..._e÷, /
• /
c_..-- et---4-{-e---' /0/
/
-168_Z-Gt-e• e 7) 1 ,2-.6 471(S2
i .. ..
I l•
D. --3
ISU* TAURUS INSURANCE AGENCY
15140 Transistor Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
(714) 379-1300 FAX #379-1312
ifrA
JUN281994
June 27 , 1994 r.
Melanie Fallon CC1MMUi��l"''�%��' �OPMEIN
Director of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
The city council has again shown their contempt for business by
placing a 45 day moratorium on bulding permits .
This hurts property owners , material provides and workers . More
importantly it also reduces tax revenue to the city in the form of
sales tax as well as the fees imposed upon new construction.
I urge you to recommend lifting this moratiorium for the benefit
of the citize,ns of Hu t-t gton Beach.
a Law en- e
•
1
(1'4144
•
'froS21 64-7-7X •
r6 ‘z-e7
gl
ii'13V4717.)1\30
/`, J : •
t'66t
"'A 4.q fTh
4g- - ` 72 ' f5;Jcvcs1.9,73.
I - iftei)) .."''-
On X TOURS AND CRUISES
TRAVEL
•
8512 OXLEY CIRCLE • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 • (714)963-4646 • FAX(714)963-7447
-D? EeEll ,W E
June 22, 1994 �1 119
IN
JUN 2 4 7994
Linda Moulton-Patterson, Mayor CITE'OF HUNT!NCiTON BEACH
City of Huntington Beach CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Linda:
This letter is written in connection with the recent decision by the City Council to issue a moratorium on new
SFR construction in Huntington Beach. This ill conceived and hastily passed action is detrimental to the
citizens and the business community of Huntington Beach.
The action of the City Council will have long a term effect on future projects and business development in
Huntington Beach. As a retired banker with 30 years experience in lending I know this action will create
concern among lending institutions that might be looking at financing future development in Huntington Beach.
The instability created by this moratorium will have ripple effects that may jeopardize numerous projects.
I question how the City can give approval to a project, collect the developer fees, allow the builder to invest
many dollars in a project and then withhold the issuance of building permits without so much as a phone call
to the developers. If the building code needs to be revised I support that action. However I do not the
support an action that changes the rules on existing projects in the middle of development.
Consider how you might feel if your son or daughter went thru their entire school year studying their text
books, meeting all teacher requirements, completed all assignments and passed the final exams for their courses.
Then the day before graduation, and the issuance of their diploma, the School Board decided to change the
requirements for graduation and withheld their diploma. I doubt this would meet with your approval.
I feel the action taken by the City Council is inappropriate and could very well subject the City to legal
action. I would appreciate receiving a response from you regarding your position on this matter.
Sincerely,
s R. Torline
President
1
-3
The Thompson Comp!
6317 West Slauson Ave. "
Culver City,California 90230 TEraEniff
(213)870-9021
JUN 2 9 1994
CITY OF Hi_ ::'O 1` b- C .•
Thompson CITY OFFICE
June 24, 1994
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City of Huntington Beach, CA
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attn: City Clerk
Re: CPU No. 94-10, 5555 McFadden Avenue
Dear Honorable Mayor and distinguished Councilpersons:
As the owner of several industrial buildings within the city of
Huntington Beach, and specifically a very nearby property at 5451
McFadden Avenue, I am writing to express my very strong opposition
to the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
The Huntington Beach Industrial Park was developed, and is presently
being used, as an INDUSTRIAL park, not an area for swap meets, beer
and wine sales, etc.
I consider this proposed use to be an abomination and would
irreparably damage my properties as well as the reputation that the
city has earned as a good home for light industrial uses.
I urge you to ratify the decision of the Planning Commission and to
deny this use.
Very truly yours,
Robert Thom son
RT:hr
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPERS AND REALTORS
D - 3
ADVERTISING DESIGN D9oi Licguncer[Jrive
11111)
Hunlington Beach
L. fnl California 92649
714 898-7744
+ + V Fax 898-8722
June 28, 1994
Linda Moulton Paterson
Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. Paterson,
I am writing in response to Huntington Beach City Council's recent implementation of the
Moratorium on building permits. I find this inappropriate decision unfair and detrimental to
the business climate of Huntington Beach.
As a member of the FANS Advisory Board, and an owner of a local Huntington Beach
business for over 10 years, I feel this decision will be harmful to individuals economically, as
well as to the local economy as a whole.
Lifting this Moratorium is essential to the continious of a successful union between
Huntington Beach as a business and as a con munity.
Sincerely,
Ryan Rieches
President
pp EtE OE \-\ ,1
jug 2 9 1994
n,�CY
CITY CO't r
r
D- 3
! 1
DIANE M. SORENSEN
16642 Tiburon Place, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 310/592-1660
June 27, 1994
To Whom It May Concern:
JUN281994
Ot&' rRTMt:i`H.
RE: 45 Day Moratorium COMMUNITY DE LtsPM GAT
I hereby request that you immediately lift the moratorium on the issuing of building permits.
Such a moratorium hurts jobs and business development.
I am a member of Friends and Neighbors of Sea'cliff, have lived in Huntington Beach for 18
years, and believe this moratorium to be unfair and detrimental to the business climate of the
city.
Sincerely yours,
Diane M. Sorensen
• 3
Marilyn and. Gayle Holman
- _ 17461 Lido Lane
hIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICIIIlNINII ISBN Huntington Beach, CA 92647
I '1I II II III (714) 342-5328 n
JUG 2 7 199
•
DEp
June 24, 1994 CQMMUNry
Melanie Fallon 't
Director of Communtiy Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach. CA 92648
Dear Citizens Representative.
My wife and I have been residential home owners in Huntington Beach
for 28 years. We enjoy the environment, the variety of our neighbors and the
support they provide to local business and other venues.
We do not support the "in-fill" lot building permit moratorium recently
enacted by city government. Such action denies the necesssary and desired
growth of our community. This hold on building permits for "in-fill" lots only
perpetuates the regressive attitude of "I have mine but you can't have yours".
We have been members of the FANS group since its inception and
having attended meetings of the City Council and the Planning Commission, we
find Sea Cliff Partners to be cooperative and sincere in their enhancement of the
community.
Pease be fair in your representation.
Sincerely,
a7r-'1
D-3
--t0T.,,--....„ ,?." a., 1-15 .,7,,s crt i.-.,„ cll., ig, el,' c?:. ?,‘ ; ,. :-i--- Ni -; r 6-
i ...3t.
.k.
0 - „.c..
f. v AN5 :fr. ? . c 52 N 54 r 0 ? f%)
A " < 2 4- 0 , 3 i —c .
4 ',, , z - ;' % .—.. '- '
Eo ; N\,Nk ., , __J y2 ..r. p, 6" ,-• v-- --r- e , " 3 2
s:?D 0 ,. . ,r e.P ...4. rit
Ph diez < n ?.... r 7...
(ti -fr t P (4-- , 1 e -,_1., D 4- epo. ' (0 5 (a F
-1-- r p 1 1. .o. (.......„,
�� C�J -f1 Co (2 Q r o r r' ( (. 2 m
A1 r P, ' o G=.•• r) i-- 5 G , H
... TI --3
�. '� . ,tea 6--
- N � 7
1? VI 3 ,1 (% r 4. L, , ,
CD
co
am r. 'i'' Fi z _r
yr V 'O �'
N 73 73 N ��JJ�V// m yniI,:
N co
. 1 S —
mz :w
RLCEI v:
J U L 011994
June 30, 1994 U PARTMEN OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Melanie Fallon
Director of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms . Fallon,
I am appalled by the recent activities of the City Council in
regards to the building moratorium currently in effect here in
Huntington Beach.
This moratorium is not only having a negative affect on jobs and
business development, but it is also depriving Huntington Beach
of badly needed revenues as well .
I am a community involved volunteer, resident and business man,
as well as a Board member for FANS and have lived in Huntington
Beach for over eight years .
In view of the current state of affairs in our city, both in the
development and business areas, I hope You will urge the City
Council to come to their senses and lift this unneeded and
unwanted moratorium, at their next meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Robert L. Traver
Pacific Ranch
7402 Coho Drive #105
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
apera'°")
T-3
• ' " 7 Weea7:)e I ea 7 .,
De Lii lo CHEVROLET Geo 18211 BEACH BOULEVARD,P.O.BOX G,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF.92648
TELEPHONE(714)847-6087•(714)549-3331
i , t
E
R11994
.,. FM1 JUNE 30 , 1994
MELANIE FALLON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
DEAR MS . FALLON:
I AM WRITING TO YOU AS THE OWNER OF A MAJOR RETAIL AUTOMOBILE
DEALERSHIP IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AS WELL AS AN ADVISORY
BOARD MEMBER OF FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS OF SEACLIFF.
IT IS VERY DISTURBING TO LEARN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ACTED TO
APPEASE THE COMPLAINTS OF A VOCAL MINORITY, Ai1D IN DOING SO , HAS
BROUGHT A SOURCE OF JOBS , REVENUE TO THE CITY AND CERTAINLY INCOME
TO LOCAL BUSINESSES TO A VIRTUAL STANDSTILL.
THE MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUING OF PERMITS ON SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
CONSTRUCTION MUST BE LIFTED. THIS ACTION HURTS EVERYONE AND DOES
LITTLE FOR A CITY THAT ADVERTISES ITSELF AS A "FRIEND TO BUSINESS . "
I BELIEVE THE CITY COUNCIL ACTED WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT TO THE EFFECT
THIS DECISION WILL HAVE AS IT RIPPLES THROUGH THE COMMUNITY. I AM
ALSO AWARE THAT MORE THAN 85 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE APPEARED FOR
PERMITS HAVE BEEN TURNED AWAY, THROWING CHAOS INTO THEIR SCHEDULING
AND COMMITMENTS FROM FUNDING SOURCES FOR THEIR PROJECTS .
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY, IT ' S RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES , IT
IS IMPERATIVE THAT THIS MORATORIUM BE LIFTED AT THE EARLIEST
POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY.
SINC RELY,
DA ID' DELIL
PRESIDENT
DD/SH
ilft124)
3,-3
June 23 , 1994
reltrIvgD
,por
Melanie Fallon r ~°
Dir. Community Development JUN 2 7 1994
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA
92648 COMMLNR�.V� L� N
I am writing to adamantly complain about our City Council deciding to impose a 45-day
moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the City of Huntington Beach.
I can sympathize with those few individuals complaining about losing their blue-sky views
and/or feeling as if their privacy is being invaded. There is little doubt I would feel the
same way were Ito be a homeowners affected by new construction. I also understand the
desire of the City Council to resolve this issue on behalf of those residents.
However, I believe a grave injustice has been committed by the City Council in that they
are ignoring the rights of Seacliff Partners. Seacliff Partners has properly adhered to all of
the administrative and governmental requirements that allows them to legally develop and
build their property. In an effort to avoid just such a problem they, Seacliff Partners, has
made concerted efforts to contact and appease those effected homeowners. To the best of
my knowledge they have gone the extra mile; they have, without legal obligation, had over
50 meetings with various HOA's and members of the community, relocated windows and
changed home locations on their lots all to satisfy those few individuals.
In light of the economic climate in the State of California and particularly here in the City
of Huntington Beach I can not imagine that this is the message we want to send to
business and developers who are willing to invest in our city.
I respectfully request that you remove this moratorium and allow Seacliff Partners to
continue to develop and build their property without further delays and expense..
My wife and I have been conducting business in the City of Huntington Beach for almost
15 years and have, like most, been hurt by the recent turns in our local economy. We
welcome the contribution being made by Seacliff Partners and the openness with which
"The Company" is now conducting business.
Regards,
PERO'S RESTAURANT
Jim a Maria anth is
Proprie rs
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss.
County of Orange )
•
I am a Citizen of the United States and a PUBLIC NOTICE T
resident of the County aforesaid; I am NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
over the age of eighteen years, and not a URGENCYD
ORDINANCE
party to or interested in the below AMENDMENTNO94.4
entitled matter. i am a principal clerk of Will Developments)
NOTICE IS HEREBY
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a GIVEN that the Huntington
Beach City Council will
newspaper of general circulation, printed hold a public hearing in the
Council Chamber at the
and published in the City of Huntington Huntingtoner, Beach Street,c
Beach, County of Orange, State of Huntington Beach, Califor- ON I-ILE: A copy of the
nia, on the date and at the I proposed request is on file
California, and that attached Notice is a time indicated below to re- in the Community De-
ceive and consider the velopment Depa tionrtment,
statements of all persons
true and complete copy as was printed2000 Mainfor will Stre be availableet, Hun•'
who wish to be heard rela-
tive tington, Beach
to the application de- gp648 inspec by
and published in the Huntington Beach scribed below. thestaff public.rt A copy, C alifornia,of the
DATE/TIME:Tuesday,July repo
and Fountain Valley issues of said 5,1994,7:00 PM to Interested parties at City
APPLICATION NUMBER: hall or the Main City Li-
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: Urgency Ordinance and brary (7111 Talbert Av-
enue)Amendment No.94-4 enue)after June 30,1994.
APPLICANT: City of Faun- ALL INTERESTED PER-
tington Beach SONS are invited to attend
c LOCATION:City-wide said hearing and express
ZONE: RI, Single Family opinions or submit evi-
Residential, Oldtown, Town dence for or against the
Lot Specific Plan, RA,Rest. application as outlined
June 23, 1994 dential Agricultural, Down- above.
you g
9 above. If challenge the
town Specific Plan, Ellis City Council's action in
Goldenwest Specific Plan,' court, you may be limited
Meadowlark Specific Plan to raising only those issues
and Holly-Seacliff Specific you or someone else
Plan. raised at the public hearing
REQUEST: To create de- described in this notice, or
velopment standards for in written correspondence
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that residential infill projects in- delivered to the City at, or
eluding compatibility re- prior to,the public hearing.
the foregoing is true and correct. quirements for height, set- If there are any further
backs, window locations, questions please call Mike
architectural design, public Strange, Senior Planner at
hearing process and staff (714)536-5271.
review. Connie Brockway,
ENVIRONMENTAL STA- Huntington Beach City
Executed on June 23 i 199 4 TUS: Categorically exempt
pursuant to Section 15308, Clerk
at Costa Mesa, California. Class 8 of the California Published Huntington
Environmental Quality Act. Beach-Fountain Valley In-
COASTAL STATUS: Not dependent June 23, 1994.
applicable 062-675
k .
u/
Signature
042,Atolent ( �3
•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
URGENCY ORDINANCE AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 94-4
(Residential Infill Developments)
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: Tuesday, July 5, 1994, 7:00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Urgency Ordinance and Code Amendment No. 94-4
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
LOCATION: City-wide
ZONE: RI, Single Family Residential, Oldtown, Town Lot Specific Plan, RA,
Residential Agricultural, Downtown Specific Plan,Ellis-Goldenwest Specific
Plan, Meadowlark Specific Plan and Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan.
REQUEST: To create development standards for residential infill projects including
compatibility requirements for height, setbacks, window locations,
architectural design, public hearing process and staff review.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15308, Class 8 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public.
A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City hall or the Main
City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 30, 1994.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit
evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the
public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Mike Strange, Senior Planner at 536-
5271.
Connie Brockway
Huntington Beach City Clerk
g:legals\0338 OTh
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
URGENCY ORDINANCE AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 94-4
(Residential Infill Developments)
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: Tuesday, July 5, 1994, 7:00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Urgency Ordinance and Code Amendment No. 94-4
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
LOCATION: City-wide
ZONE: R1, Single Family Residential, Oldtown, Town Lot Specific Plan, RA,
Residential Agricultural, Downtown Specific Plan, Ellis-Goldenwest Specific
Plan, Meadowlark Specific Plan and Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan.
REQUEST: To create development standards for residential infill projects including
compatibility requirements for height, setbacks, window locations,
architectural design, public hearing process and staff review.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15308, Class 8 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public.
A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City hall or the Main
City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 30, 1994.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit
evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the
public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Mike Strange, Senior Planner at 536-
5271.
Connie Brockway
Huntington Beach City Clerk
g:legals\0338
Approved by City Administration
•
COVER SHEET
F. OR
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
N/A YES NO
( ) Does Heading of Notice Reflect City Council Hearing (Not PC)
(X) ( ) ( ) If appeal, are appellant shown on legal notice?
( ) ( ) If housing is involved, is "legal challenge paragraph" included?
( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the RESIDENT labels attached and is the Coastal
Commission Office on the labels?
( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, has the Master Legal Notice Document been used.
Is Title Company verification letter attached?
Y
( y, ( ) ( ) Were the latest Assessor's Parcel Rolls used?
X) ( ) ( ) Is the appellant's name and address part of the labels?
( ) Is day of public hearing correct- Monday/Tuesday?
( ) ( ) Has the City Administrator's Office authorized the public hearing to be set?
( ) ( ) ;0<) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council?
( ) ( ) Are the appellant/applicant's names and addresses on mailing labels?
"ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the
City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. Written communications
may also be sent to the City Clerk. If there are any further questions,please call (insert name of Planner)
at 536-5227
For Public Hearings at the City Council level, please insert the above paragraph of the public
hearing notice:
CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET -2ND FLOOR
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
(714) 536-5227
PUBHER
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST
MAILING LABELS I.
(KL145) 3/2/93 .
President William D. Holman Planning Director .H.B. Chamber.of Commerce Pacific Coast.Homes .. City of Westminster -
- 2-210 Main Street,Suite 200 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250. . - 8200 Westminster Blvd.
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ! Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 Westminster,CA 92683
Judy Legan Pres.,H.B. Hist. Society Planning Director
H.B./F.V. Board of Realtors C/O Newland House Museum City of Seal Beach
8101 Slater Ave. ! 19820 Beach Blvd. 211 Eight St.
Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 j Seal Beach,CA 90740
President Chairperson CA Coastal Commission
Amigos De Bolsa Chica Historical Resources Bd. .Theresa Henry
P. O. Box 3748 Comm. Services Dept. 245 W. Broadway,Ste 380
Huntington Beach,CA 92605 2000 Main St. I Long Bch,CA 90802
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 - -
Charles Grant Robert Joseph
Friends of the HB Wetlands Council on Aging Caltrans District 12
21902 Kiowa Lane 1706 Orange Ave. '2501 Pullman St.
Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92705
Edna Littlebury Director
Golden St.Mob. Hm. Owners Leag. Local Solid Waste Enf.Agy.
11021 Magnolia Blvd. O.C. Health Care Agency
Garden Grove,CA 92642 - P.O. Box 355
Santa Ana,CA 92702 - .
President County of Orange/EMA Dominick Tomaino
Huntington Beach Tomorrow Michael M. Ruane,Dir. Seacliff Homeowners Assoc.
411 6th St. P.O. Box 4048 6812 Scenic Bay Lane
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Julie Vandermost
BIA-OC County of Orange/EMA Huntington Harbor HOA
9 Executive Circle#100 Thomas Mathews,Dir,Planning P. O. Box 791
Irvine Ca 92714-6734 P. O. Box 4048 Sunset Beach,CA 90742
Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
Richard Spicer
SCAG County of Orange/EMA Bill Lilly
818 West 7th, 12th Floor Bob Fisher,Dir. HHHOA ARC
Los Angeles,CA 90017 P.O. Box 4048 168351Algonquin St. #119
Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA.92649
E.T.I. Corral 100 Planning Dir. New Growth Coordinator
Mary Bell ; City of Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Post Office
20292 Eastwood Cir. P. O. Box 1200 6771 Warner Ave.
Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Costa Mesa,CA 92628-1200 Huntington Beach,CA 92647
Y \I
•
•
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST Pg. 2
(1211b)
Norm Smith,Environmental Planning Dir. Mr.Tom Zanic
Board Chairman - City of Fountain Valley - • Seacliff Partners - -'
4053 Aladdin Drive 10200 Slater.Ave. - - - 520 Broadway Ste. 1170
Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Santa Monica,CA
Pacific Coast Archaeological Planning Department OC County Harbors,Beach
Society,Inc. Orange County EMA and Parks Dept.
P.O. Box 10926 P. O. Box 4048 P. O. Box 4048
Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 ,Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
Attn:Jane Gothold
JERRY BUCHANAN California Coastal Commission
HB City Elementary School District South District Office
P. O. Box 71 245 W. Broadway No. 380
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Long Beach,CA 92802-4458
964-8888
GARY BURGNER Dr. Duane Dishno
HB Union High School Disrict HB City Elementary School District
10251 Yorktown Avenue PO Box 71
Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92626
964-3339 964-8888
MARC ECKER David Hagen
Fountain Valley HB Union High School district
Elementary School District 10251 Yorktown
17210 Oak Street Huntington Beach,CA 92646
Fountain Valley CA 92708 964-3339
JAMES JONES
Ocean view elementary
School district
17200 Pinehurst Lane
Huntington Beach CA 92647
RON FRAZIER
Westminster school district
14121 Cedarwood Avenue
Westminster CA 92683
•
CSA
730 El Camino Way#200
Tustin,CA 9680
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
SUBJECT: dez,,citiCi P. iy u9M'-r44- /41 . `l)‘ -
DEPARTMENT: 6/4 4404 17
MEETING: r s/9/
NUMBER OF OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS: !JP'
,..iyuo a-0 D to FjAS%;-.rer•• (PER- Initial)
AUTHORIZATION: r .�_
Ray Silver Assistant City Administrator
July 5, 1994
To Whom It May Concern:
I wish to express my opposition to the Moratorium that the City Council has placed on building
permits for construction of single family homes in the City of Huntington Beach. It is my
understanding that this action was taken without notifying Seacliff Partners in advance and that
this moratorium may, in fact, be illegal.
Seacliff Partners has a development agreement in place with the city. The city should honor this
agreement and allow this developer to immediately proceed with their project.
As a member of Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff and an employee in the City, I am in favor
of seeing this building project succeed. It is good for jobs. It is good for business and it is good
for our community.
Lift the moratorium.
ncerely, '
Gl +,
r .0
n^�rn
Jim Matlockew
I E
Dale L.Dunn er Assoc.
Consulting
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
c
x
..y
July 1, 1994 cn
r-
r
Michael Uberuaga
City Administrator
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Uberuaga:
I am writing to express my concern about the 45-day moratorium put into effect by the City
Council, and the subsequent attempt to single out one specific development firm to bear the
exclusive brunt of this action.
My concern is the effect on the businesses of our community as well as the city financial burden
that such a moratorium creates. In Seacliff Partners, you have a company ready, willing and
financially capable of investing in this community not only through city fees, but in providing
valuable infrastructure improvements and many environmental benefits such as oil clean-up and
planting thousands of trees. They are also very supportive of community non-profit activities.
This company has made every effort to meet with all affected neighbors that will agree to meet,
and has attempted to adjust their projects to satisfy a high percentage of their requests for
changes.
I ask you and the City Council to put an end to the restrictive moratorium and support your staff
in solving any remaining issues.
Sincerely,
7,12
Dale L. Dunn
D ,3 . •
17302 Almelo Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649
714-846-4982 FAX 714-841-1542
Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff
2124 Main Street, Suite 146, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714.374.1919 FAX 714.969.9121
June 29,1994
r -4
Mr. Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator
City of Huntington Beach m
2000 Main Streetrrl
r S
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - 0
—0
y
Dear Mr. Uberuaga: - ~'
On June 6th, the Huntington Beach City Council placed a moratorium on
issuing permits for single family home construction that fell under the general,
but undefined, category of in-fill lots. While this broad brush painted
individuals and developers alike the focus seems to have been SeaCliff
Partners' Cambria homes under construction on former oil islands in existing
neighborhoods.
Mr. Uberuaga, this development represents years of extensive review and
work by the City staff. It represents an approved project, a project that will
make a very positive contribution to the community in every instance. Yet
the Council takes a few minutes to listen to complaints and drops a bomb on
the project. Do you folks talk?
I had occasion to meet with a Council member after the moratorium. He
spoke to the issue of meeting City code. He opined that they may have to
enact code that was in effect at the time of original SeaCliff construction!
How do you feel about applying that concept to sign ordinances?
I asked the Councilman if he had confidence in the City staff. He didn't
answer. I asked him again. He does not seem to have confidence. Is the
staff competent? If not lets fix that problem. If the Council is going to
operate this way we may need less staff.
It seems the Council reacted precipitously. As President of Friends and
Neighbors of SeaCliff(FANS), an organization of 350 citizens/
businesspersons, I call upon you to get these projects back on track. End this
moratorium and get the Council to deal with issues of visionary direction to
the City rather than second guessing existing programs. A:)/ .
CRecycled
II
Delillo CHEVROLET Gee18211 BEACH BOULEVARD,P.O.BOX G,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF.92648
TELEPHONE(714)847-6087•(714)549-3331
x
z
J U N E 30, 1994 c.ii
—4 -7J
:r r-.Z
Ui 1,. .c4)rn m
LINDA MOULTON PATTERSON �' =C'
--D -
MAYOR, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET r
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 •
DEAR MAYOR PATTERSON:
I AM WRITING TO YOU AS THE OWNER OF A MAJOR RETAIL AUTOMOBILE
DEALERSHIP IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AS WELL AS AN ADVISORY
BOARD MEMBER OF FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS OF SEACLIFF.
IT IS VERY DISTURBING TO LEARN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ACTED TO
APPEASE THE COMPLAINTS OF A VOCAL MINORITY, AND IN DOING SO, HAS
BROUGHT A SOURCE OF JOBS , REVENUE TO THE CITY AND CERTAINLY INCOME
TO LOCAL BUSINESSES TO A VIRTUAL STANDSTILL.
THE MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUING OF PERMITS ON SINGLE—FAMILY HOME
CONSTRUCTION MUST BE LIFTED. THIS ACTION HURTS EVERYONE AND DOES
LITTLE FOR A CITY THAT ADVERTISES ITSELF AS A "FRIEND TO BUSINESS. "
I BELIEVE THE CITY COUNCIL ACTED WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT TO THE EFFECT
THIS DECISION WILL HAVE AS IT RIPPLES THROUGH THE COMMUNITY. I AM
ALSO AWARE THAT MORE THAN 85 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE APPEARED FOR
PERMITS HAVE BEEN TURNED AWAY, THROWING CHAOS INTO THEIR SCHEDULING
AND COMMITMENTS FROM FUNDING SOURCES FOR THEIR PROJECTS.
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY, IT'S RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES , IT
IS IMPERATIVE THAT THIS MORATORIUM BE LIFTED AT THE EARLIEST
POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY.
SINC ELY.
DA ID DEL 1
PRESIDENT
1 /
DD/SH
JUSTINE DiMAURO
2323 West Beverly Drive
Orange, California 92667
July 5, 1994
To whom it may concern:
As an employee in the city of Huntington Beach, I ask you to please lift
the moratorium. If I was a resident of the City, I would say, "Lift the
moratorium" before the city is sued for actions that are not legal.
Sincerely yours,
r
A).)7/(,,t ,-----
4/1
ci +mrtt
USTINE DiMAURO a
M r'
Tl
JIM DWYER v G !``I"
16111 BEACH BLVD
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92647
TO: MEMBERS OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
REF: MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMITS
1. It was brought to my attention that a 45 day moratorium has been
put into effect on issuing any building permits. I feel this will
have a major impact on jobs and business development in our community
during a critical time in our economy. Recently I have seen an
improvement in our economic outlook which this moratorium could
reverse.
2 . As a Realtor, I have worked in Huntington Beach for the past three
years since retiring from the Air Force. I feel this moratorium will
have a detrimental effect on the business climate of our city.
3. I request that you review your decision and remove this moratorium
on issuing building permits.
4 . Should you have any questions please call me at (714 ) 842-6691 .
C'&4/1177
/P—'
JAMES P. DWY R
REALTOR
MEMBERS OF FANS
Lrt C ry
rn
rnm
za . .
rG=
�I 2
J /
VAPrazr
lydripirittratipsi
• Arra� TA
~• Main street Cale 3
. A
?NZ
-tf1 +
•
JUNE 30, 1994
Linda Moulton Patterson,Mayor
Mi;mbers of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2C00 Main Street sal
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 .�. -
U11 �ny
Dear Mayor Patterson &City Council Members:
..
cc�
I am writing in response to your recent moratorium action against the Holly Seacliff -t-
Development. As a member of the FANS Advisory Board and having lived/worked
in Huntington Beach for the past 8 years, I find this moratorium to be an inappropriate
response to a simple resolvable issue between the homeowners, developer and the
city.
The negative ramifications to this action are numerous:
1. The economic effects to the city(fees lost/deferred)
2. Local Jobs Lost/Suspended
3. Local Business that the developer utilized decreased
4. Anti-business climate personified by the Council (Red Carpet....Where?)
5. Overall lack of trust in your staff and the developer to effectively deal
with the issue at hand.
I want you to seriously consider lifting this inappropriate moratorium at your July 5th
Council Meeting. Issues such as infills, bathroom window locations etc. can be more
effectively dealt with around a meeting table with all concerned parties.
Sincerely,
)0Lik,_e1-2za..„
Suz ntid Beukem`� -
a
• I
5 Z2 Main Street. Ilitintington Ueda!, CA 92€ 8 (114) 9E0-919i►
c �
June 29, 1994 '-- X
try
Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson -'= 'm
City Hall "'
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
ca;
•
Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson:
This letter is regarding the moratorium on new single family homes that was imposed
by the City Council on June 6th. 1 urge you to reconsider and vote to lift the
moratorium.
First off, I have lived in Huntington Beach for 11 years. I am currently a member of
the FANS Advisory Board, but don't take that to mean a blanket approval of all that
they do. I joined because I wanted to know and have input on what was going to
happen in our city.
I have talked to a lot of people who live in Seacliff- old and new. I heard their
complaints about the new building and it raised sufficient question in my mind that I
called Urban West (Tom Zanic) for some answers. I am disappointed that the City
Council could not take the time to do this themselves.
I am really surprised at how quickly you voted to ban all building after a few comments
at the city council meeting. I have been working to stop Seapoint from going through.
Instead of banning that right away, a focus group was formed to study the issue and
come up, hopefully, with a workable alternative. Urban West has been willing to come
to these meetings and work with us. My understanding is that they also worked with
the many homeowners affected by their Cambria homes.
Again, I am really amazed at how quickly you acted to stop everything. I notice that
the builder is still putting in all the trees, plants, and road improvements required by
the city. (In fact, the Seapoint extension was the city's idea, too.) Is it fair to stop
their building, costing them thousands of dollars a day in loan costs, and yet expect
them to keep up their end of the city improvements. How are they supposed to pay for
all this?
In talking to other business owners here in Huntington Beach, I find that we are not a
very business-friendly place in general. The permit process is apparently very
frustrating and the rules of the game keep changing mid-stream. I hope that all
changes in the future and that everyone, homeowners, business owners and developers,
are treated with equal consideration.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
1(azu
Laura Madariaga
6121 Morningside Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
/CD V
J
HUNTINGTON 7'.I SEACLIFF
CORPORATION
June 30, 1994
Mr. Michael Uberuaga
City Administrator cr
City of Huntington Beach
Ym
2000 Main Street. -�-� r
=n nt
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 •rn�'
--t-a '
Re: 45-Day Moratorium on Building Permits ; T
Dear Mr. Uberuaga:
This letter is a request to lift the 45-day moratorium on the issuing of building permits.
Although the moratorium decision was based on many points of view from the
Huntington Beach City Council, the decision is very obstructive. I had hoped to see
people from Huntington Beach thrive and grow, but with this moratorium, we are
essentially shooting ourselves in the foot!
In order for us to "Buy Huntington Beach," we must support that theory with jobs...the
moratorium defeats creating jobs. In order for new businesses to move into the area,
we must offer homes for these people. They will surely go elsewhere to establish
themselves both in their homes and their businesses...the moratorium strikes again.
What if you have grown up in Huntington Beach and are deciding to build...can you
afford to be patient or will you build in another city?
I am a member of FANS and have lived in the city of Huntington Beach for 25 years. I
find this moratorium to be unfair and severely detrimental to both the residential and
the business climates of Huntington Beach. In order for Huntington Beach to move
upward in a downtrend economy, I cannot stand by and watch this moratorium remain
on the books.
Sincerely, 0"W.t.144
�--
Larry Cubit
Property Manager D
3
Huntington Seacliff Corporation
2124 Main Street Suite 130 , Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-8525 FAX (714) 536-0129
June 29, 1994 /Variyr r13A'r y FAA
Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson /2 37/4
City Hall "V
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson:
This letter is regarding the moratorium on new single family homes that was imposed
by the City Council on June 6th. I urge you to reconsider and vote to lift the
moratorium.
First off, I have lived in Huntington Beach for 11 years. I am currently a member of
the FANS Advisory Board, but don't take that to mean a blanket approval of all that
they do. I joined because I wanted to know and have input on what was going to
happen in our city.
I have talked to a lot of people who live in Seacliff- old and new. I heard their
complaints about the new building and it raised sufficient question in my mind that I
called Urban West (Tom Zanic) for some answers. I am disappointed that the City
Council could not take the time to do this themselves.
I am really surprised at how quickly you voted to ban all building after a few comments
at the city council meeting. I have been working to stop Seapoint from going through.
Instead of banning that right away, a focus group was formed to study the issue and
come up, hopefully, with a workable alternative. Urban West has been willing to come
to these meetings and work with us. My understanding is that they also worked with
the many homeowners affected by their Cambria homes.
Again, I am really amazed at how quickly you acted to stop everything. I notice that
the builder is still putting in all the trees, plants, and road improvements required by
the city. (In fact, the Seapoint extension was the city's idea, too.) Is it fair to stop
their building, costing them thousands of dollars a day in loan costs, and yet expect
them to keep up their end of the city improvements. How are they supposed to pay for
all this?
In talking to other business owners here in Huntington Beach, I fmd that we are not a
very business-friendly place in general. The permit process is apparently very
frustrating and the rules of the game keep changing mid-stream. I hope that all
changes in the future and that everyone, homeowners, business owners and developers,
are treated with equal consideration.
Thank you. (�
Sincerely, 2ECEIIVED
JUL 0 51994
Laura Madariaga cc: Shirley Detloff CITY OF HU TINGTON E ACH
6121 Momingside Dr. Michael Uberuaga CITY CO4VCIL r F10E
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Melanie Fallon ,
/ V/3
1 �
RECEIVED
CITY CLERF
HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIA Q u'TYDK
,
5 July 1E 45 2 i4 F11 '94
Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson
City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson :
Enclosed herewith is a point paper expressing the Huntington
Seacliff Homeowners ' Association position regarding the Urgency
Ordinance - Development Standards for Residential Infill Projects,
Item D-3 on this evening ' s City Council Agenda. It is
respectfully requested that the Council consider our position
carefully.
Many residents living in Upper Seacliff (from Clay Avenue south to
the model homes and between Goldenwest and the golf course) who
now have one of the new homes being built next door are upset by
the height , privacy intrusion , and neighborhood incompatibility.
One result of this unhappiness has been pressure to have the City
adopt an infill ordinance code. This need will be increasingly
important across the city in the years to come after all the big
tracts are developed .
Adjacent neighbors will have to live with infill homes next door
for many years . The new homes should be an positive addition and
not a detriment to the preexisting neighborhood . What is needed
is a requirement to let adjacent homeowners know what is planned
to be built and a timely chance to submit comments . This should
provide an opportunity to work out details with a developer and/or
the City to preserve privacy and property values .
Thank you for your kind consideration .
Very truly yours ,
e ey . Metzel , r . , resident
1 391 Shady Harbor Circle
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
(HSHA) 4 July 1994
Subject : Urgency Ordinance for Residential Infill_ Developments
6 June City Council imposed a 45 day moratorium on building
permits for single family homes .
20 June City Council exempted certain types of single family
homes from the moratorium.
21 June City Council modified exemptions to require Director
of Community Development review using guidelines.
28 June The Planning Commission was advised by the City
Attorney that decisions of the Director of Community
Development cannot be appealed because they are
administrative decisions and the Code allows only
discretionary decisions , such as those of the Zoning
Administrator or the Planning Commission, to be
appealed . The Commission then considered the draft
Urgency Ordinance . We agreed that the language about .
exemptions applied to the moratorium only and should
be left out . Much language we supported was adopted
by the Planning Commission , but they put in a very
brief notification procedure and left out any appeal .
29 June HSHA got a copy of the Request for Council Action for
the Council Meeting scheduled for 5 July. The
Planning Department included in the package both the
Planning Commission' s version of the draft Urgency
Ordinance (Ordinance 3242-A) and the Planning Staff ' s
original version (Ordinance 3242-B) .
We support a requirement that all infill lot developments should
require either a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the Planning
Commission or a Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator . The
latter is probably preferable because it costs less and takes less
time. Either would provide for notification, public comment , and
the possibility of an appeal .
If the Council will not require either a CUP or a UP for infill ,
the HSHA supports the Planning Commission 's "A" version of the
draft Urgency Ordinance with two modifications :
* In paragraph 9730 .87 Residential Infill Developments -
General Provisions a sentence should be inserted that .
says , "The Director of Community Development shall cause
all requests for plan check and issuance of building
permits for infill lot development to be reviewed in
accordance with subparagraphs A. , B. , and C. of paragraph
9730.87.2 Infill lot Design Considerations. " As written ,
the draft ordinance needs but does not contain such an
explicit requirement .
• r
* Second , the following subparagraphs D. and E . should be
substituted for subparagraph D. of 9730 . 87 .2 Infill lot
Design Considerations :
"D. Public Notification Requirements
On the day the applicant submits plans for plan check,
the applicant shall notify by first class mail all
owners of property abutting the planned infill
development lot . Letters of notification shall give a
brief description of the planned development and include
the following:
a. name of applicant
b. location of planned development
c. nature of the planned development , including
maximum building height and square footage.
d. the City Hall telephone number for the Department
of Community Development to call for viewing plans.
e. The date by which any comments must be received in
writing by the Department of Community Development .
This date shall be the 28th calendar day after the
date of mailing.
f . The address of the Department of Community
Development .
The applicant shall submit to the city, concurrent with
submitting plans for plan check, a copy of each
notification letter and an affidavit that certifies that
the required letters were mailed including date of
mailing.
E. Review Process
The Department of Community Development shall make
submitted plans available for review by abutting
property owners. All written comments received
regarding the issuance of a building permit on an infill
lot shall be forwarded to the Director of Community
Development for consideration. The Director of
Community Development shall respond in writing to
letters of comment no less than five calendar days
before issuing a building permit . The building permit
shall not be issued sooner than thirty-three calendar
days after receipt of plans for plan check. Decisions
of the Community Development Director shall be final . "
The recommended change provides a better opportunity for
abutting property owners to submit comments and provides for
a shorter time from submission for plan check until a
building permit can be issued , 33 versus 40 days .
Page 2
r
YHEIMEILL aroo arnos kO o 9 :LW0
"Brokerage Planning for the Busy Professional"
1 p
JUL 0 51994
�IT r :i
June 28, 1994
CITY CF-!"-
Linda Moulton Patterson
Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Linda:
I find it very puzzling and disturbing to see that the City
Council has put in place a 45 day moratorium on issuing any
building permits for construction of single family homes on
in-fill lots . With the slow down of the economy here in
Orange County over the past year, and the sliding prices of
homes, I would think the city council would be interested in
sending a message to potential businesses and people
interested in locating in Huntington Beach, that they are
welcomed here . A moratorium stops payment of school and
library fees which are so important to the school districts
and the city.
I hope that you will consider lifting the moratorium, since
it does send such a bad message to people who wish to settle
or start a business in Huntington Beach. This moratorium
hurts jobs and business development . I am a member of FANS,
and have worked in Huntington Beach 21 years . I find this
moratorium to be unfair and detrimental to the business
climate of the city. I am a small business owner here and
will probably be here until my retirement .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, x
440,6,////7 7�c �/ - 'm m
DONALD M. PANKHARD, CLU -n
DMP/mf y
2130 Main Street,Suite 240 • Huntington Beach, CA 92648-0551 '5
(714)960-6569 • (800) 523-0605 • Fax(714)960-9542
7T
y, 0p� `' �+
ppo_Nki :\I
RECEIVED
,•
JUL 5 1994
t Main Street Cate •:•*:
` CITY OF 4UN'fitiG'iU��tsEACH
�1a�i 77 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFiCE
.`418V.IP fiZA
411W.Armor 0
•
JUNE 30, 1994
Linda Moulton Patterson,Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mayor Patterson&City Council Members:
I am writing in response to your recent moratorium action against the Holly Seacliff
Development. As a member of the FANS Advisory Board and having lived/worked
in Huntington Beach for the past 8 years, I find this moratorium to be an inappropriate
response to a simple resolvable issue between the homeowners, developer and the
city.
The negative ramifications to this action are numerous:
1.The economic effects to the city(fees lost/deferred)
2. Local Jobs Lost/Suspended
3. Local Business that the developer utilized decreased
4. Anti-business climate personified by the Council (Red Carpet....Where?)
5. Overall lack of trust in your staff and the developer to effectively deal F•
with the issue at hand.
I want you to seriously consider lifting this inappropriate moratorium at your July 5th
Council Meeting. Issues such as infills, bathroom window locations etc. can be more
effectively dealt with around a meeting table with all concerned parties.
Sincerely,
- r1/'
uzan Beukema _.
322 Main Street, 11luntin2ton Death, CA 92648 t71.4 9GC-9197
MINIMINnwallEMMIIIMIW 1
Connie Brockway,City Clerk --_
City of Huntington Beach `� " '"`'" ti�'-,..L,y g�. �" �' t' _cs._
Office of the CityClerk f?r g' ''k �= 9� "1 I�s��"1•.."'
ei:CooitiP.O. Box 190 J(KJ23 '�d .�?. I z •
\1 .;
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P' s�'' I ' Y *
a
, i 9440, ./\\ '� ' r- Th
.\.),
gel\V1NGIno ir on; t'o
���` Director
/t/O �;toRpoR4TfO Solid Waste Enf R,�l
1 ••.9 � Local S '`„ V (it
�i�;;' y; O.C. Health C Age!I'isE �v Q '' . N.
P.O. Bo` ti35 5 Cic,, a,. _I lk
c., ..„...„.: ..,.....z.r,
%
\9#G,' `e8 7 1999 p6. '.OA''1 wr"�`J taa ��
>�UNTVif�i/i LEGAL NOTICE - PUB EARING : .''c��'
.r
•
• f 7( ��-911 r r
r T rr f .f.
y
m..' url� 'ai a
Yjlii h).J
4' L
OF PUBLICATION `�°' };,,+` r ` ,�
�.e .nyr 7 is'.
PROOF � � y�,�f - ��_
•
• OF CALIFORNIA)STATE . r1r ,4`�`��"=�,�`��}J�5 .
its � �.','•
) I
SS. z �
•
i .i
'County of Orange ) 9 kr
I 'am a Citizen of the United States and a :
r }
« w"F aN�i^�'
of the 'County aforesaid; I am ;` ?` ' -; {
resident 6A6 , ,
over the age of eighteen years, and not a Y ,
party to or interested in the below «
entitled 'matter. I am a principal clerk of `° ,{
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a
- newspaper of general circulation, printed fit- '
and published in the City of Huntington
_ fr,4• f,, ,
Beach, County of Orange, State o
California, and that attached Notice is a ' , • ; ; _-
true and complete copy as was printed � 4
and 'published in the Huntington Beach ;
and Fountain Valley issues of said • 1 F ,
newspaper to wit the issue(s) 'of:. ,.
_T 7rr1 w$.:
• July 16, 1994
z .
L
- ..1 bt r,! S 3 ,r jli.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that ask 9:•1 `k
• the foregoing is true and correct. fJ�
July 16 W r ▪ ,
1994
a�'4
J /
Executed on — x {
California. .. -a> rr. . '-p
at Costa Mesa, r h} or- ,�
pup�'�W� 'ht,� tikt i¥ . �T'tr�_.,.
sift r3e
'( y 4"r L 1'A.4 ,Y yr
Signature •
•
/27 a c:-.
IrsRa eilwrr icw 7-FpBL�Lt"r ltNGTLCE.Sh ifs • pew a f a�. z tk #0 •
r' DEVELOP 'NTS surrounding neighbor ash.�.i rp yi•p , jotre,g 1-
NOW, THERE •HE, th . Compatibility.consid '.1'.,.iNew-residencjes sfral f", i , d City Council of e<:CI or one 'shall include, but offset. windows.to 'n " t t 1.k
Huntingtonl Heath, does ...+e be limited to,lot size,,'maximua.anvacy for exf ]'ri�� � ' i ,a,,,d.� t'r . a
hereb ordain a follows lot•fronts es building lay in ,residences" Trye use ;t ,Zt Q� t `;S'
1 SECTION 1 A cle'.973 of out buildIn , confi ura for; c a ue ,g 6tS[ ., l^�mob^
the Huntington each Ordl .and dest of huildi 9 f p e glass or"simi r, ," $ tfjrditgrn-i y A t ; It,,a.,l
type
grades height and for all bathroom;wind _ 'lineal.andiaia w
Y g g;height relative to facing existing. residert Ica t y' �mxn1! l e tea , ' ',-sectfone 9730 87 to•existing dwellings and+vfs Consider locatingwrni shall y,7, .' r
9730 872,; inclusive to uat Intrusion_concerns r,Tho hi h onLelevations to kair;_ ti e
ts4 read'as=follows "_ Director of Community De-.lightandventilation,ant >;stance GBaRfE,aC >'.
4��PIJH�Ha �� w afy'a�`
.. . "•973a87 Residential•Inflil:.velopment;shall cause all sure piivacy�r _ Xsad a Ii o ,�gr«
�`� GEII[", 'Developme•nts ,"General requests Yor planr;`.check :2_Minimize the cariyuri, • minimizes>Iisa i ,_,_ ti g ,rL l — '
ef3, {�[tOfl!1/1ILC>r + V�visio ge These
ements dare Pe mils ua ce of building fecF bell een i?Gases`Cijt 7,a new 'it ni'iR, n ',
i,.;. fadatOt.32424 4 de- side root eleVafio , _,` `:0 u i u
a�,. , mt(ended td tninimiie im velopment:fo be ieinewed slde ds rErovidec ro L .
}fs rY
E -ii /,. ,,Ii pacts on adjacent residert ins accordance witf Section Fvanations,throughout in; Pace
wt $elt"act�va a i, r tlal developments anti pro- 9736 872 ' s
sR vide develb d'everapment c;.. sue 421, y5;�LS,(94� . pment ,,stand 9730'871Aesidential mull Provide, archit`ct' i s •••'''t'rusb re. S
",(.'.ANEmistdENC f aids that. insure compat •Lot -Definition Rn ii u lli lot,feat 4 ' ° a
�' ibili and tires 1Fpon ectfo "
er, colon NCE`OF ty appropriate de• is=a vacant-parcel of land isets;to break.up mat aL?aya -r i fg
tt } sign for :projects located intended.for sin le famii andrbulk+ -r' ?- c
i4 ND � �E lohtrr existing residential development whictr iedaja { �pp�`it baf' e�yag
neighborhoods' Unless to cei to one°or more:;exist shall be oriented to Y v' d4
j kcAME iDIN,G - do: s•o •wool- contravene ing single.family residential`awrrr¢,frootly;or rea, �yfa �nr tit-,,, :1 "i
t . ,. the terms of an existing Do• units• excluding parcels areas:! i a'
_ ', .,cT_iL1EELCLlilIlllI+LGTiQI�C velopmerrtAgreement'; which, `are S;separated b 8'�,Setbaciig "�r w� '�''' is+� *" }
',a IREACH'OiDIINANCE` The location, site `plans streets Room additions•are 1r:.tWbenaver''possiblep all demon C
s�:C46EBT4r/LDDI,Cam g g ' p .
���'' � i end bwitlin' desi n shall ezem f froni:this definit("on f[ias�dls�tict<setbae(r� (;(��r�oa� ,
0 HENf;SEotiQNs be:i:hamonious and'tom 9730 872 1irfiil L'of Design be.maxfmizedyto p ovide: that tt'rere'tie�r+7u fail •
I. _BEL S ClltiINS tpatibl0 with the streets Considerations increased' 'separation be-ieept'ahri,,nettiodl, ''dye
Rl lII ti driveways propeny:llnes A;Prlvaoy Design Stand tweers new_de eelopmenfst the;pr� a •
CTVzi z.' - --0- ' '. nettI spin Sling a�!
party to or interested in the below r4iiiis �i ' e0°m'��i,
ivy Ydrtbgg E�€ t
idi..,. o ,seed
• entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of • dert� „ t� .
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a w1101.
,140-lp aik,lr +o
then sideP'a #hIR
newspaper of general circulation, printed hd`asestktgtieti�way(•o
tfiacadjbljc N ttjf :rtf -v j
and published in the City of Huntington
uImmQll�u ,4�
Beach, County of Orange, State of • �� ,�; 4 ,; �
California and that attached Notice is a Y .
r ten a>rrrt n
true and complete copy as was printed pl� toa
and published in the Huntington Beach ap�
Qfr_ eat
• and Fountain. Valley issues of said �a , �, . . ,::
ticraavtd they praprred
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: • ;dertelat;ma>t1 rrraudtn$
• h
ouriit haft;�telepftdne •
��iiiit .
•
July 16, 1994• i tfia dater hyr1wfd'cfilanji
••
0iraawr1*` • .
ql::
ba°"10Gtwi
plan cfiecic"stibm(ttac : It.I
I declare, under pena• lty •of perjury, that � !�� tt1y
pan errt4 mtr7iln a ,-/
• the foregoing is true and correct. "el° 't i
xe app►rcaitt stralf sub
prgo afl"ma014.,of�thee no-
,trce'when isuubmi x-ther
aapppliaaticn,fr.pia ei.cl
Tihe"ad
• July 16 / 19 9 4 ierstshal Vic( wr irkrali
Executed on d`dy ta.p prBFp �_-
at-Costa Mesa, California. t•rratfi=ilppravdeo-ovrttmettts(
a ih
• ttr` `Direda ° "
•
D'avelop ne detasiar '
of tlae:•D q®gazdjpg R;_
• final.tRirait[a it a the'
F aEY3 ` ''eta
' Tifac n 1 •
'_t
camprehenst fafni a dl`
i nanCER'�'fs ptaverfb
tieacfte t,,t -, t ,T•
ni rC
Signature sf rlalinancThrh'e
gAncy ocdinaneee sfialfber
cdrieseffectrve`rimmedfatoly- •
according fa the'authoriityt'
of::Huntington;:6eacLt'
, SCharterSectfotiiS0ter,_ ':•'
SECTION'4t„;;Tiher Coturcil
flnds. tfiatz th emergency
measure Fo'rtfiep lmmedtate;
preservation;of!then iutillc
_ peace r health'"or:safe t'Cs
•
/ "' 2 ti I,necessary as"buiiding per-
:`� mite.am 1.iv ,w, ..rs11
� y T6 I994 rreili ' :er-
c re4Gnwdeitip ,, '
itiie.:AC(c-7wairenckttitffter 'if'
• :toiek sa '.:,,
I declare, under penal•
li.ktk.c.t.
'°fty of perjury, thatip e„a,�the foregoing is true and correct. a `� �`�}
nuaH sub .
malkibe'i 4`ttierit =
apotplwttit
t i� �Pe ;awc '
Executed on JAY 16 4 ' �° t
at Costa M 99 esa, California. ''
i a .r. L ,-.. ' /
•
••
urea .U. ' r J
K1
Signature •
� i ,� "
�rame�eft ��t
•
,•
tftf'•1, ...'
•
'°speatt•
C_ • rmCaf `
fni •n • ,i•
/-7 2
.J - _ Stdgfj
.._ 3rotseCot
•
i ofigili O Q ar if
•
�tYoRN , r. .B�aachlBY
',OP,g Mgr er8a6
IieIL ointheeSttadar•otwri
,^ , �s�Fra,-r a a
c a do f
�tAcTMEFz �cv �ai
U6ar''Uia��f a sarifiW .
I ice,�?a6iil*
• Et, ,'EGtkAtc kf i
*Q° 1tr ,n �toiretar
1��Jmtappmea Fi4"i 1 4�,644 i
�/,s.��..y 'por i C +,
4 LICQ'Intt.ftrAlr �
•
0fly
JcJFIatut ►� ergo} �,�I
,CYe�fcLC � i' S6
; � ► .JHeactn r ' a
. i}ae'rtt Ele•{����F r
pg FMtheksar ati4 .
r��t��# ��VYBst �y
. Q o�p{} Cafiaal�gf�°r�et
erCe Cirtt tt'I z ,
•
ad3P,t+�a�j by a~pa ':
iaV
Efts [ atflanatry .1
tieiiireQtiV&'rr , of_ii
r gOaii e.trRi0 r''
0.4§STar S;
CD 94-42
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date: June 20, 1994
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCI
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administratol/- i4 mv,o E�19_
Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development c c
Subject: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MORATORIUM
Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: ✓ p.s
6 ..o* 4e,e odmv 1/14 < ' ,e L 2`.017.0- z C;te
7.i a
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: # .'/-41- 0'c CIO
(ou:4417es " '2ir h'eaw,sda,fddrlloh04 af"4.// L e7Ge+'n ee(";y Ct.gm pet/D•rteyei . �=rn, re Se ren ,
On June 6, 1994, the City Council adopted a 45 day uilding moratorium on single family homes 0.•-sai„
on infill lots. The Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would address Cp t^^L41.44.5
compatibility issues between properties to minimize impacts on existing homes. The staff has
prepared a definition of"infill lot" in order to clarify the City Council's intent and is also
recommending a process to allow the Community Development Director to exempt certain homes
from the moratorium.
RECOMMENDATION: .�.
? -J
Motion to: (0) _<iD41',
wtta
1. "Adopt a definition as recommended by staff of infill lot;" and
M
2. "Allow the Community Development Director to exempt properties that comply with tinfll
design guidelines policy established by staff."
ANALYSIS:
Since the inception of the moratorium, 85 homes have either requested building permits, or are
currently in plan check anticipating receiving a building permit for single family homes. Many of
the homes are separated from other existing homes by streets, alleys or public easements. Other
homes are part of a larger tract that will be adjacent to existing tracts of homes. In an effort to
clarify the City Council's intent the staff has prepared the following definition of infill lot.
•
An infill lot is a vacant parcel of land intended for single family development
which is adjacent to one or more existing single family residential units excluding
parcels which are separated by streets, alleys or public easements. Room additions
are exempt for this definition.
The use of this definition will narrow the scope of the moratorium and provide for clarification to
the staff and the public.
The staff is also recommending that an exemption process be established which allows the
Communiy Development Director to review homes to determine whether they are consistent with
staffs infill design guidelines (see Attachment No. 1). If the Community Development Director
determines that the single family home is consistent with the design guidelines then a building
permit will be issued. Decisions of the Community Development Director will be final until the
moratorium expires.
Single family homes which meet one of the following criteria will also be exempt from the
moratorium:
1. Homes which are 25 feet in height or less;
2. Homes which are 50 feet or more from an existing single family home;
3. Custom homes which are designed as part of a new subdivision of custom homes; and
4. Homes which are built to the same zoning standards as the adjacent homes. These homes will
still be reviewed to determine compliance with design guidelines.
It is anticipated that the staff will present an urgency ordinance to the Planning Commission on
June 28, 1994, which will codify staffs policy memo on infill design guidelines. If approved by
the Planning Commission, the ordinance will be presented on July 5, 1994 to the City Council and
be adopted as an urgency action. Until that time, the process outlined above, would clarify the
moratorium.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Infill Design Guidelines
MTU:MSF:HZ:kjl
RCA- 6/20/94 2 (g:RCA/CD94-42)
-y
I. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _
- - INTER-DEPARTMENT •COMMUNICATION •
HUNTINGTON BEACH --
TO: Planning Staff ,
FROM: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director -3 -
DATE: - June 1, 1994- -
SUBJECT: INFILL DEVELOPMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS -
In the last few months there have been a number of concerns raised by citizens relative to
development on existing lots in single family residential neighborhoods. These concerns
involve new and remodeled houses that are significantly larger than surrounding houses, that
include a site layout incompatible with'their surroundings, and that invade the privacy of
surrounding properties. In addition, the City of Huntington Beach Housing Element
includes a policy, "Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse
of residential land on existing residential development."
Applicability:
After a review of the situation, staff concurs that additional review should be conducted to
ensure compatibility of infill single family housing development. Therefore, in order to better
address these concerns and to implement the Housing Element policy, these guidelines shall
apply in the following cases:
❑ New single family residences (SFR) on vacant lots in any residential zone; and
❑ Any new or SFR additions that have a ridgeline exceeding 25' in height in R1 zones.
Required Information:
A) All development plaris(e.g., over-the-counter, entitlement submittal) shall include the
following additional information:
1. Plot existing conditions on adjoining lots (e.g., uses, building footprints, building
window locations, fences or walls, driveways, parking areas, landscaping areas); include all
setback dimensions.
2. Identify building height and number of stories of adjoining buildings.
This information should be provided to the best of the applicant's knowledge. Photographs
should accompany the drawings.
B) The applicant(e.g., architect, builder) shall be responsible for providing evidence that the
proposed development meets the guidelines. This can be accomplished by providing notes
on the plans, photographs, etc.
a - M
INFILL DEVELOPMENTS IN _.ESIDENI'IAL NEIGHBORHOODS 06/O1/94Page 2
• . _ - Guidelines:. -.
A) The proposed development shall be designed as follows:
1. The building shall be compatible with the neighboring houses in terms of proportion,
size, mass,-and height. - -
a. Minimize areas of maximum height; setback higher portions of structures from_
property lines-to reduce the appearance of height; avoid crowding or
overwhelming neighboring residences. -
b. Minimize creation of a vertical canyon effect between houses.
c. Provide roofline variations.
d. Provide architectural features(windows, doors, etc.) to break up massing and
unacceptable bulk.
2. The site layout shall be compatible with its surroundings.
a. Provide offsets in the front building setback.
b. Site driveway locations on the side of the property closest to a driveway on the
adjoining property.
3. It shall minimize the invasion of the privacy of surrounding properties.
a. Orient upper story balconies toward on-site front or rear yard areas.
b. Orient second story'windows to protect your neighbor's privacy. Consider
translucent windows or high windows to allow illumination while protecting
privacy.
These guidelines are not meant to discourage unique and inventive design solutions. They
serve as a,guide to assure compatibility with adjoining existing developments.
(hess'h:memos/infll I)
z
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss.
County of Orange )
PUBLIC NOTICE I CONNIE BROCKWAY,
URGENCY The duly elected, qualified
City Clerk of the City of
I am a Citizen of the United States and a ORDINANCE NO.3240 officiog Clerk eofh the d ex-
City
•
resident of the County aforesaid; I am AN INTERIM Council of the said City,do
ORDINANCE OF hereby certify that the fore
over the age of eighteen years, and not a THE CITY OF going ordinance was read
HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 to the City Council of the
party to or interested in the below IMPOSING A City of Huntington Beach at
MORATORIUM ON a regular meeting thereof
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of held on the 6th day of June
THE ISSUANCE OF 1994, and was passed and
IN-FILL,SINGLE adopted by at least four-
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a FAMILY,LOW fifths (4/5) affirmative votes
DENSITY,NEW of said City Council.
newspaper of general circulation, printed CONSTRUCTION AYES: Counclimem-
BUILDING PERMITS bers: Silva, Moulton-
and published in the City of Huntington The City Council of the Patterson, Wlnchell,
City of Huntington Beach Leipzig,Sullivan
Beach, County of Orange, State of does hereby ordain as fol- NOES; Councilmem-
lows: bers:None
California, and that attached Notice is a SECTION1.ThattheHun- ABSENT: Council-
tington Beach Municipal members: Bauer, Robl-
true and complete copyas wasprinted Code Is hereby amended taille
p pursuant to Government
and published in the Huntington Beach /S/ Brockway,
Code Section 65858(a)(c). Cityy Clerk and ex-
and Fountain Valley issues of said SECTION 2. There is a officio Clerk of the City
current and an immediate Council of the City of
threat to thepublic health, HuntIfornla
ington Beach, Cal-
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: safety welfare and that '
the approvaland pubof additional Published Huntington
building permits for in-fill, Beach-Fountain Valley In-
single family, low density, In-
dependent June 11,1994.
new construction which is
p 062S955
required in order to comply
with a zoning ordinance
would result in that threat
r to the public health, safety
and welfare.
June 11, 1994 SECTION 3.A moratorium
on issuance of such build-
ing permits is hereby im-
posed for 45 days.
SECTION 4. This interim
I declare, under penalty perjury,of er ury, that ordinance shall become ef-
fective`J fective immediately accord-
the foregoing is true and correct. ing to the authority of Gov-
ernment Code Section
65858(a)(c) and Huntington
Beach City Charter Section
501.
PASSED AND ADOPTED
Executed on June 11 1 99 4 by the City Council of the
/ City of Huntington Beach at
at Costa Mesa, California. a regular meeting thereof
on the 6th day•of June,
1994.
STATE OF " _
CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE)ss:
CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
ig(/_
Signature -
I
Seacliff Partner
,A joint venture of Pacific Coast Homes and U.W.C.Development Corp.
June 20, 1994
Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson
City Hall
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
• Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: City Council Moratorium
Agenda Item F-1 •
We are writing to you regarding the Council's June 6 action to declare a moratorium on new
single family home building permits in the City. •
We request that the Council to take the necessary action to allow the issuance of building
permits for our applications received before June 6,1994.
Thank you for your attention in this very important matter.
Sincerely,
•
SEACLIFF PARTNERS
By: New Urban West, Inc.
Tom Zanic
Vice President
cc: Members of City Council
Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator
Gail Hutton, City Attorney
Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development
Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director •
•
•
4
4{520 Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 394-3379 Fax (310) 394-68 7 2
El 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660. (714) 721-9777 Fax (714) 729-1214
r /
�f
1 -� r;11e4'-.16 f1r4"-Alirr.-aJ
1 !EtwEC
CITY LERN
'TY OF
June 15, 1994 HUxr3rar , : =,:r , ALIF.
JUN 17 2 19 NI TN
Councilman Jim Silva
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Councilman Silva:
This letter is to express our concern over the recent moratorium placed on "infill"
residential home building in the City of Huntington Beach. In October 1993 we
purchased a custom home site lot in Central Park Estates. This lot is located on Derby
Circle just off Saddleback Lane (Lot 11). This lot is situated in a previously approved
new development with many homes in the process of being built. Our home site does not
boarder any existing homes. Since July of last year we have been working on plans with
our Architect, Brent Sears. We have spent thousands of dollars in their development with
close adherence to the City's building requirements and with advice from the staff at the
Huntington Beach Planning Department. Therefore it came as quite a shock that a
moratorium was placed on residential building.
In the Council's impromptu decision to impose the moratorium we wondered whether the
Council members took into consideration the potential hardships inflicted on those
individuals affected by the decision. First, our plans were delivered and not accepted by
the City's planning department the day after the moratorium was made. This 45 day
delay will cost us at least$4500.00 in interest payments. This assumes that this action is
lifted within the 45 days imposed. I am certain the Council is aware that real estate
interest rates are on the rise and we are unable to apply and lock in what may be the
lowest rate available today. We are planning to build a large home and fractions of a
percent increase in financing impact our monthly payments significantly. Additionally,
any building requirements that may be revised may require additional time by our
architect for which we will be charged for his time and any time required for re-
engineering of our plans.
We understand this moratorium was placed as result of a concern by certain residents of a
SeaCliff development about proposed building by SeaCliff Partners. We strongly believe
that others should not be penalized for projects that do not impact a particular
neighborhood. In fact, the City should handle the SeaCliff issue on its own merits and
not place undue hardships, both financial and psychological, on individuals who have
purchased a lot and developed plans in good faith while relying on the City's previously
approved master plan and the development's previously approved CC&Rs and
architectural guidelines.
Page 2
Councilman Jim Silva
June 17, 1994
•
We wish to reiterate that our lot does not boarder any existing homes. The development
has recently been through the approval process with the City and should not be subject to
this moratorium. We are asking that the Council revise the moratorium and apply it only
to the affected SeaCliff development.
We will be attending the City Council meeting on Monday, June 20 and plan on
addressing this issue with the Council.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward to meeting you
personally on Monday.
Sincerely,
OS°
.y B. Davis
2_
WAGNER & LICIIMAN / - v
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 f— '"
Irvine, California 92714 j ��'r' , 'ea�"!7
Barbara E.Lehman Telephone; (714)474.6967,_
Direct Dial 474.6965 Telecepiir: (714)833-0192
June 3 , 1994
J
Linda Moulton-Patterson SZI^Nt, 4P-b
Mayon' Ltc-iN roan J. kvx.cek_
c/o City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach �101n� o- PLcoeb 4+ 6-6-19
HallCity 2000 714 Qm — �{ J�)IG COh�rnan'�S
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 G—0—a tf Coon frf(ei
Re: Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association --
Height Limits on Structures Infill Lots and Oil
Islands
Dear Mayor Patterson:
we represent the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association
( "Association" ) . The Association and its members are deeply
disturbed about the height and bulk of structures planned for, or
currently being constructed on, the infill lots and oil islands
within the jurisdiction of the Association. In many cases,
building permits for homes between 25 and 30 feet in height have
been issued without the Conditional Use Permits ( "CUP" ) required
by Section 9110 . 1(c) ( 2) of the Huntington Beach City Code , or
the public hearings attendant upon such permits. Where building
permits have not already been issued, the CUP requirement is
being circumvented by the alteration of plans to make houses
either slightly less than or slightly more than the 25 to 30 foot
range that is subject to the CUP requirement.
Finally, the Planning Commission is contemplating a
recommendation that the Code be amended, not to close the
loophole, and require CUPS for any structure up to the maximum of
35 feet, but to delete the existing CUP requirement even for
structures between 25 and 30 feet.
In light of the above, the Association urges the Council , in
the strongest terms to:
( 1 ) Amend the Code to require a CUP for any structure above
25 feet to the maximum allowable height of 35 feet, where those
structures are built on infill lots within existing developments
All references to the "Code" will be to Code Section
9110 . 1 (c) ( 2 ) unless otherwise indicated.
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 2
and on oil islands proximate to them. The logic is compelling
that where a rationale exists for informing surrounding residents
of structures that will tower over them and their properties to a
height of 29 feet 11 inches, there is also a rationale for
informing them of structures that will be even higher.
(2) Expedite approval of a Code amendment by placing it on
the agenda for action at the June 20, 1994 Council meeting.
(3 ) Instruct the Department of Community Development to
impose a building permit moratorium until such date as the
Council acts upon the proposed Code amendment.
I .
CUPS SHOULD B + REQUIRED FOR INFILL STRUCTURES,,
UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35 FEET
1. The Council Clearly Intended To Require CUPs For
Structures Of The Maximum Allowable Height.
The Code states, in pertinent part:
(c) Conditional Use Permit. The following
uses may be permitted subject to the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning
Commission:
(2) Building heights between 25 and 30 feet,
and/or third stories pursuant to Section
9110 . 4(a) .
In her Memorandum to Community Development Director Melanie
Fallon of April 28, 1994, the City Attorney recommends and opines
that:
We recommend that a clean up ordinance be
immediately introduced and adopted to remove
Section 9110. 1(c) (2) of the Zoning Code,
which requires single-family dwellings .
between 25 and 30 feet to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit. It appears to have
been left in the Code by mistake, and there
is not apparent reason to retain this
illogical and atavistic requirement.
s ' Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 3
The City Attorney is quite correct in her assertion, also
contained on page 3 of the Memorandum that "since the Code allows
dwellings with heights of up to 35 feet subject to the issuance
of a building permit, it makes little sense to require dwellings
with heights between 25 and 30 feet to obtain a CUP. " Where she
is incorrect is in her conclusions, i.e. , that the requirement is
"atavistic or illogical" or that the CUP requirement should be
eliminated in order to render the various sections of the Code
consistent with one another.
Up to 1992, the maximum building height for residential
structures was 30 feet. In that year, Ordinance No. 3152 was
passed. It raised the maximum building height for residential
structures to 35 feet. At that time, the Council omitted to also
extend the CUP requirement. Up to 1992, the Council imposed the
CUP requirement on all structures up to the then current maximum
of 30 feet. Regulation of structures up to the current maximum
of 35 feet would be entirely consistent with the original intent
and action of the Council in regulating the height of structures
up to the original maximum of 30 feet.
Even Section 9110. 4(c) requiring Use Permits for structures
with habitable space above the second story, does not obviate the
need for Conditional Use Permits. It is not merely the existence
of habitable space above the second floor that makes residing
next to a 30 to 35 foot structure unbearable. It is the shear
bulk of the structure, the almost inevitable attenuation of
sunlight and air, and the alteration in neighborhood character
which such structures bring about which make them a proper
subject of a CUP. Thus, because homes with habitable space above
the third story currently require the issuance of a Use Permit,
does not render the requirement of a CUP for homes of the same
height and bulk without habitable space above the second story
inconsistent. What is inconsistent is to regulate structures
with habitable third stories by some means and leave homes of
exactly the same height without habitable space entirely
unregulated.
• Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 4
2. Citizens Residing Next To Structures Above 25 Feet In
Height Are Entitled To Notice And The CinDortunity To Be
Heard, But Never Received Such Notice Or opportunity_
Leaving aside the question of whether it is desirable or
consistent, the Code now requires that CUPs be issued for
structures of 25 to 30 feet. Government Code Section 65905
requires that public hearings be held in conjunction with the
granting of a CUP. Despite these clear mandates, CUPs were never
.required for 31 structures of 25-30 feet in height in upper
Seacliff and the attendant public hearings never held. These
structures have already been granted building permits, and are in
various stages of completion.
Moreover, in a last minute attempt to evade the CUP
requirement, lots in lower Seacliff which have not yet been
granted building permits have been raised or lowered to mere
inches below the minimum and above the maximum height requiring
CUPS. If these last minute changes had not been made, an
additional 16 homes in lower Seacliff would have required CUPs.
Because of the City's failure to abide by its own Code and
because of the developer's cynical avoidance of the Code's
requirement, the citizens residing on contiguous properties have
been denied information about the characteristics of the houses
with which they will have to live for many years to come. Such a
denial of relevant information is a direct violation not only of
express statutory mandates, but also of constitutional due
process.2
2 All of the above applies to the treatment of oil
islands which are separate tracts, as well as to infill lots
within existing tracts. Even though contiguous residences may
not be within the same tract as the offending structure, nothing
in the Code narrows its application to houses within the same
tract.
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 5
II.
ACTION TO EXPAND HE CODE'S MANDATES
TO STRUCTURES ABOVE 30 FEET MUST TAKE PLACE EXPEDITIOUSLY
TO FORESTALL THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
FOR REMAINING PROPERTIES IN LOWER SEACLIFF
1. This Council Should Expedite Passage Of A Revised
Ordinance,
In light of the foregoing, the Association urges the Council
to act quickly to prevent further violations of the terms and
intent of the City Code. A committee has been designated to
study the amendment of the Code. While that committee studies,
plans are being revised which exempt structures from CUP
requirements, and building permits are about to be issued.
Therefore, the Association urges that the City Council ask
for the immediate drafting of an ordinance revising the Code to
include structures up to 35 feet within the CUP requirements,
where those structures are located on infill lots or oil islands.
The Association further urges that the revised ordinance be
placed on the City Council agenda an acted upon no later than
June 20, 1994.
2. A_ Moratarium On The Issuance Of Building Permits For
, •uctures Above Fee u1 ediately Se Imposed.
On or about April 13, 1994, the Director of Community
Development imposed a moratorium on the issuance of building
permits for structures in excess of 25 feet pending a resolution
of the purported conflict between Code Sections 9110. 1 (c) (2) and
Section 9110. 4. The moratorium was lifted on or about May 2,
1994.
The reasons for the imposition of the moratorium have not
changed. The Code sections are still inconsistent. Now
additional reasons for a moratorium have become manifest. If a
moratorium is not imposed, building permits for all the oil
islands and infill lots will have been issued long before the
Council can reach a decision regarding a revised ordinance. By
the time a decision is reached, it will have become irrelevant.
For that reason, it is critical that a moratorium be imposed
until the Council has had an opportunity to reach a decision
about the way in which it wishes to treat the development of oil
islands and infill lots.
a
Linda Moulton Patterson
June 3, 1994
Page 6
III.
CONCLUSIONS
Residents in proximity to the currently developing oil
islands and infill lots are being forced to live with structures
that often tower as much as two stories above their own homes,
depriving them of light, privacy and the use and enjoyment of
their property. Because the City never enforced the CUP
requirement for structures between 25 and 30 feet, neither the
proximate residents nor their Association were given notice of
the height, bulk and shear magnitude of the planned structures.
Nor were they afforded the opportunity to make their feelings
known to the decision makers through the public hearing process.
Now, City staff recommends that residents be deprived of
even the formality of the CUP requirement, even though its
legislative history clearly indicates the Councils intent to
require CUPs for buildings of maximum height currently 35 feet.
Instead, the staff recommends that the CUP requirement, even for
structures between 25 and 30 feet, be eliminated from the Code.
The Association urges the Council to the contrary. It urges
that the Council approve an ordinance requiring CUPs, with their
attendant notice and hearing requirements, be imposed upon all
structures above 25 feet to the maximum height of 35 feet where
those structures are constructed on infill lots and oil islands
within, and in close proximity to, existing neighborhoods. The
Association further urges that the Council take such action with
all deliberate speed, and that, in the meanwhile, a moratorium on
the issuance of building permits for the designated structures be
imposed. The Association believes that to do otherwise is to
deny citizens of Huntington Beach the right to notice and
procedural due process, and the substantive right to have a say
about what happens to their individual homes and neighborhoods.
We thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
&SAWA /0412,4012U4-4a,,(4,)
Barbara E. Lichman
BEL/sb
` ,
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 3240
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF IN-FILL,
SINGLE FAMILY, LOW DENSITY, NEW CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING PERMITS
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended pursuant to
Government Code § 65858(a)(c).
SECTION 2. There is a current and an immediate threat to the public health, safety and
welfare and that the approval of additional building permits for in-fill, single family, low density,
new construction which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in
that threat to the public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 3. A moratorium on issuance of such building permits is hereby imposed for
45 days.
SECTION 4. This interim ordinance shall become effective immediately according to the
authority of Government Code § 65858(a)(c) and Huntington Beach City Charter § 501.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof on the 6th day of June, 1994.
•
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
filf
City Clerk City torney
REVIEWED AND ADOPTED:
lty Administra or
1
1\s\Ord:Moratorium\6/7/94
U_rgency Ord. No, 3240
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )•
I CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of
the City Council of the said City, do herby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was read to the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
6th day of June 1994 , and was passed and adopted by
at least four-fifths (4/5) affirmative votes of said City Council .
AYES: Councilmembers:
Silva, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan
NOES: Councilmembers;
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Bauer, Robitaille
• dread,
City Clerk and ex-offici Clerk
of the City Council of the—City
of Huntington Beach, California
. t •
TO:
.. �
SUBJECT: - :17.----Y..---1-- z� G (:)-1*--r ° ta
4NUHf NINGTON BEACH
DATE: - From the Desk of
C — , GAIL HUTTON
City Attorney
j (714)536-5597
4oi: �" ^2,,ilX. 't t71�3} fr 4 .4•".•-.!, E,s•e5'fi �u ����C
j ,
r; f
C
u
•
•
{tr---.\--.---
•
krt"---1."--3174----- h.,,) P-<----j.----, .
.
,
•
0 -
{ t}
•
•
;,, t t i,. ,2 2 }''2Y7 < Y :$:}•, t,;s,,;: 2 ;,. :.: •:.; ti yt ,t, <- t 'i,. t?� -22
.,�h .Sr>>E 7,Y s,. TT +4 tj p,'' 2,. ., t,..i <�> ,f ,¢.{,,?,. �. A? , ;{ �t�3 . ,,}1e.. ,^, ,�ryy 5 t s4'.,, 2• , s ., �} C3,
+,{,.,i, ,2 �i }, -,s Ni$:,1 4.F''}.3 ,}S ,;,,;..} ;;2i';5:. <x5 t,.�{ MM , ,.7 q,<, ,i s 25< 24i st, Ro.;8, e
;,',,; ,,,yK�,,Ca � ;+'`} ';: {> .}.,, Z. .q{,.,7 t. ,; Y`,'.23{ ,S ,r i} } .,<, . „e., ,t'5 1,72 £ }: , n s y i<•:. 3,..u
,,,,. s,s.. > „y}, {. ,, } }<:`.. }t.,;, .},..�.. 2V. ;+.25 �,, .:£,s," s:',7 i ,Z ,� .�. ` tt ,,...r' , 3+ 2. , ,,.�. ,}. 7 �,<# r %
3Y ,. S4kk} F`}, ^.,, 22y� f..3?s,.-. t s, 3 ,-, ,., 'f r t} .} }:},Y,..,.,t,Z,t;�,,. 23. <,n7,2t ,: at..s.,,t..
},z. }}k y> z .3,2 ,F'y } kf itt i lh3 , }ilk t` t 0,F , t '?' C ,. },.y f•'}}!•,!!'.<S :�t:<• T #{}E3. •S, ,,,{ ,,q .st,
,,2.�t! ?�','.�} �c}�,,,{ }e, � r,��,>£f .ft� 2{i ��,}�{: r n �.3<t s., �'7 ,'t <} j , {3•�, .ir,s{ � �{ ,ikf�•3 ,.� < .�5�.�„£ }.35<,,y,,}}�3^
`•?((.t5E23G7t k 5 2Sf•...u,,,. ss£} {}:}t ,y>,T 5'.,,k,{.}••;'•,:', .£, {2�:{�t�yf ,. 23 s >`f.s. y's•!':. :::.<75(, . 2 }. .t S �fY i3t^ �3 s rff �tt�5 22�1 fel}S �
..y.•S. yt� '}L.,�. 2..:... . •. < y C e < ii5i:.�.l.
•
t .
. 1.ji74" " - ---.1 3:. --e-1:--.)7;7-16--- -v e-7, , , •
.,:
(-'4'.-r ()I'd' . f
- -P
I
---.0„.„..v 2r2--i-y c'
ru-7-7,44 r7x,A7-70--,--lx-e--x !
2 i --?--%-r-ye:
. ,
.
,
----:7-1---L., rell-r1 .07,-, • ,"!_)-9717 W ' /I '
,-).--=--.c-7-v-e--7
.
-, t%-t_.<---- ---J.---,s=
AA/
....___
c2-74
-zp Ana-47 4, , , c'?
,,_____ :-------
1 9721 cr?-/-
, !
P G F 10 - -il'elr
0 i:1529 • / Z 1- -..' '3 ) .01 --:-- ---t--- - -P-- '' Rf-- rA _v
.4 .
•
•---f7-7-711/ ( - 1 ‘I ‘t-
--a-2/ --N.e., • e
• ,,,,e, , ,/ -- -?-77- --11,7reir-2 i /._--7-0z/
. . A
qr*-
1: \erfill,
0
h b-2--•
•
.---
,--- -4 fr ...C.- , i • .'
/ . 11-1-y ----e:---- - v-- -
, . i
. I .
, .
. .
--t_t-egt---Ite
, .
kg h-rn
-_____
/ es--S27y7
•
,-2,--- --,-91 , )--?---"°---- ---Ne---t--)-r-L6' `-- --/-4="
. ---41".".. e.--> C71 e e"..?•111I'V. .-- ..
--. .
a ' f