Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Text Amendment 03-01 - Through Lot Development Standa January 3, 2005— Council/Agency Agenda— Page 6 Motion to move G-2a forward. Approved 7— 0 G-2a. (City Council) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with Findings for Approval -Approve for Introduction as Amended Ordinance No. 3692 Amending Chapters 203 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Relating to Definitions, and Fencing and Yards -Continued from the December 20, 2004 Meeting (450.20)—Ordinance No. 3692 - "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Sections 203.06 and 230.88 Thereof Relating to Definitions, and Fencing and Yards." Recommended Action: 1) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with Findings for Approval; and 2) After the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3692, by roll call vote. Communication submitted by Tom Scott is included in the agenda packet. Councilmember Dave Sullivan recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. Councilmember Debbie Cook reported orally, stating that the issue is really about the "fill"and not the walls. Councilmember Gil Coerper and Don Hansen expressed opposition to approval of the item due to property rights and the differences in geography of the through lot properties. Councilmember Keith Bohr also stated opposition, after having visited several properties in question and discussing the compromise with various parties. Councilmember Cathy Green made the Motion to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01. She stated she had toured through lot locations and does not find the proposed ZTA to be logical because there is not one solution. Councilmember Cook expressed the concern that the CC&Rs have not been enforced. She stated opposition to the walls, and the compromise solution. Mayor Jill Hardy cautioned that ugly walls could still be built, and stated that she would have wanted to see a compromise. She stated that she will vote against denial in order to make a statement, while she expects the item will fail. Motion amended to add denial of Ordinance No. 3692. Approved denial. 4— 2— 1 (Hardy, Cook No, Sullivan Abstain) (8) November 15, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 8 D.: PUBt.;LC:,H ARINGS Anyone wtsl tnc�,to'spew ors an"PEN puk lid' a in �ts�rey�ie�steri�o cornple�t�� afikached Ok town-grid°give lt''tn t ie ergeartt t Arms located near the'1Spea 6e0 Rod(Um';' D-1 is a public hearing opened and continued at the 1014104 meeting. The public testimony section of this hearing has been closed. A notice was posted by the City Clerk's Office pursuant to the Brown Act, notifying the public that the item is being continued to this meeting (the number remains as D-1). D-1. (City Council) Public Hearing Opened (and Closed for Public Testimony) and Item Continued from October 4, 2004 to Consider Approval of Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) Amending Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Relating to Definitions, Accessory Structures and Fencing and Yards -Approve Introduction of Ordinance No. 3685A, B, or C (450.20) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Chapters 203, (210 introduced in an alternative Ordinance — see agenda packet) and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear and street side yards of through-lots. A through lot is defined as having frontages on two parallel streets. The proposed amendments are generally intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height on slopes and rear portions of through lots, require the sloped portion of a through lot to be fully landscaped and require fencing on a through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing within an exterior side yard. Location: Citywide Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this Agenda Item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on (Thursday before meeting) September 30, 2004. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said meeting and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk 1. Continue with staff report 2. Continue City Council discussion (public testimony portion of hearing closed 10/4/04) 3. Close public hearing item Six communications submitted in opposition to the proposed ZTA 03-01 are included in the agenda packet. Alternative Actions: The City Council may make the following alternative motions: (9) November 15, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 9 Gity G!eFk Feads by title, approve by FGII Gall vote, iRtFedLIGt*GR Of OFd8nanre No. 3685A �4.e AFC 2.App eve Zgning Text AmeRdmon4 Ale 03_01 with Ci n4*nnc fer Approval and afteF the City G!eFk Feads by title, appFeve by FOR Gall vote, intred----rvt�-n n-f. COR-I.RaRGe No. 3685B �4.p QFdinanGe of the City of Huntington BeaGh AngenGWgg the Huntington BeaGh Zenk4g an OR 3.AppFeye Z.g..n,ng--Text AmeRdFnen} Ale, 03 01 with Find*Rgc fer Appmy l •+nel fteF the Gity Clerk reads by title, appFeve by Fell all vete intred,wtinR Of OFdonanre No. 3685C a , Reiating to n , (AttaGhmeRt No-.4) OR 4. DeRy Zen!Rg Text AmeRdFneRt01. Motion made earlier in the evening to reopen public testimony portion of the hearing. Approved 6- 0- 1 (Sullivan - abstain) Councilmember Sullivan recused himself from participation due to a possible conflict of interest. Planning Director Howard Zelefsky orally reported and introduced Planner, Paul DaVeiga who presented the PowerPoint report. Discussion was held regarding the Conditional Use Permit and the mailing notification process and differences in slope heights/setbacks. Prior to announcing public hearing speakers, City Clerk Flynn restated the Late Communications announced earlier. Council inquired regarding allowance for decks on setbacks. Motion made to retain current policy and adopt Alternative No. 2(Planning Commission/Staff Recommendation). Councilmember Cook gave reasons for opposition to the motion. Failed 2-4- 1 (Hardy, Boardman, Cook, Winchell- No, Sullivan - abstain). (10) November 15, 2004 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 10 An amended motion was made that: A combination wall and view fence with a total maximum height of eight feet, measured from the adjacent grade, to be located at a minimum ten foot setback, measured from the secondary frontage property line. Also, no CUP process, no retaining wall at the foot of slope, give definition of primary and secondary frontage per October 4, 2004 Council action, and if pursued, variance notification would include all residents on the street which faces the wall. Approved 4- 2- 1 (Green, Cook-No, Sullivan -abstain) Motion to continue with meeting to complete entire agenda. Approved 6- 1 (Green -No) (7) October 4, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing is requested to complete the attached pink form and give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms located near the Speaker's Podium. D-1. (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) Amending Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Relating to Definitions and Fencing and Yards -Approve Introduction of Ordinance No. 3685 (450.20) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Chapters 203, (210 introduced in an alternative Ordinance —see agenda packet) and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear and street side yards of through-lots. A through lot is defined as having frontages on two parallel streets. The proposed amendments are generally intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height on slopes and rear portions of through lots, require the sloped portion of a through lot to be fully landscaped and require fencing on a through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing within an exterior side yard. Location: Citywide Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this Agenda Item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on (Thursday before meeting) September 30,2004. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said meeting and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk 1. Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing 4. Following public input,close public hearing "Communication submitted by Mike Palikan in support of Staff's recommendation of ZTA 03- 01 and a petition addressed to the Planning Commission dated July 15, 2004 from Gilbert Island Through Lot Property Owners; communication submitted by Darrach G. Taylor in support of Staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations; communication from Jack Croshwait to Council dated October 4, 2004 includes a petition; communication submitted by Shawn Hollub and by the Salem Family are included in the agenda packet. Recommended Action: Motion to: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Ne. 1} and 2 AfteF Gity G!eFk Feads by title, appFeve fGF intredUGtiGll by Fell Gall vote, Ordinanee No. BeaGh Zoning and Subdivision C)FdjnanGe by Amending SeGtiGns 203.06 and 230. theFeef Relafipg to De€;nit-ions and F=ePsiRg and YaFd"(AttaGhFneRt "T, o.i). (8) October 4, 2004 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 8 Councilmember Sullivan recused himself since his house is a through-lot. Associate Planner Paul Da Veiga presented Power Point report. Staff responded to Council inquiries regarding frontage, CUP process, notification, fence height, condition of sidewalks, and conditions of block walls. Speakers spoke in support of proposed Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA) and ordinance regarding maintenance of walls, landscaping, and undeveloped slopes. Speakers spoke in opposition to proposed Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA) and ordinance regarding increase in CUP application cost, slope fencing, property rights, slope erosion, restricting development by property owners, decreased property values, and diversity of the affected through-lot neighborhoods. Staff responded to Council inquiries regarding real estate documents and how they address double frontage, CC and R's, retaining walls and Planning Commission vs. Zoning Administrator hearings. Motion to direct staff to return to Council at the November 15, 2004 Council meeting to define the guidelines of what a wall could look like on a through-lot, starting CUP at Planning Commission level, notification process, and primary and secondary frontage definitions. Approved 5- 0- 1 (Sullivan abstained) (7) November 15, 2004-CouncillAgency Minutes- Page 7 Mayor Pro Tem1BLT Committee member Hardy stated reasons for her opposition to the BLT Committee's recommendation and for her support of the existing policy- Council/BLT Committee member Sullivan stated reasons for his support of the BLT Committee's recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Hardy suggested amending the motion to direct Public Works to encourage curb and gutter repair, if needed, at the homeowner's expense. The maker of the motion and the second agreed_ Councilmember Cook suggested amending the motion to clarify for the homeowner who is responsible if the curb or gutter is damaged in the process of tree removal, in the event the contractor pulling the permit looks to the owner for compensation. The maker of the motion and the second agreed_ The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Cook,Winchell NOES: Boardman ABSENT: None (Redevelopment Agency) Oral Report Presented by the City Administrator Penelope Culbreth-Graft; PowerPoint Presentation by the Deputy Executive Director David Biggs Regarding Discussion of Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment/Other Revenues,Assets and Debt (1160.10) City Administrator Penelope Culbreth-Graft gave an oral report. Deputy Executive Director David Biggs presented a PowerPoint report titled Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach—Discussion of Tax Increment/Other Revenues,Assets&Debt. (City Council)City Clerk Presented an Oral Report Regarding the Internet Online Agenda Packet (160.10) City Clerk Joan L. Flynn presented an oral report regarding the Internet Online Agenda Packet. Deputy City Clerk Patricia Albers demonstrated the steps necessary to access the information on the City's internet website. The following is a public hearing opened and continued at the 1014104 meeting. The public testimony section of this hearing had been closed. A notice was posted by the City Clerk's Office pursuant to the Brown Act, notifying the public that the item is being continued to this meeting. FLo ty Council)Public Hearing Held Regarding Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA) No.03-01 (Throught Development Standards)to Consider Amending Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the ntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO)Relating to Definitions, cessory Structures and Fencing and Yards—Item Opened and Continued from October 4y 2004. (Public Testimony Portion Closed October 4,2004 and Reopened at This Meeting) Ordinance No.s 3685 A/B/C Not Approved for Introduction—New Ordinance to Return at a Date Uncertain (450.20) Mayor Green announced that this was the time noticed for a public hearing to consider the fallowing: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach CITY OIL HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: November 15., 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 Council/Agency Meeting. Held: ///.s` a� Deferred/Continued to:,- T_ _� � _.` 310-S ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved Denied ity i?erkX Sig re Council Meeting Date: November 15, 2004 Departm Number: PL04-21 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EE REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' >- SUBMITTED BY: PENE�p�EE CIk�BRET�F , City Administrator I PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning/z---,/ SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: At the October 4, 2004 City Council meeting, the zoning text amendment was continued to the November 15, 2004 meeting with the public hearing closed. The City Council directed staff to return with alternative guidelines for design of block walls within the rear and street side yards of through-lots. The intent of the guidelines is to create a standardized block wall design that allows for limited expansion of yards while still preserving the aesthetic qualities of slopes at the rear of through lots. Based on the direction of the City Council, staff analyzed several block wall designs currently existing in Huntington Harbor. Four alternatives for through lot fencing have been provided for City Council review. Each alternative is provided in this report and is accompanied by a technical drawing and the text modifications necessary to implement each block wall design under a conditional use permit request. Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1, "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for approval and ado t Ordinance No. cz A including the design criteria identified on Alternative ." (Attachment No. 2) , PL04-21 Through Lots(3) -2- 11/2/2004 2:35 PM r REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 2. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for approval (Attachment No. 1) and adopt Ordinance No (Attachment No. 3) (Planning Commission/Staff Recommendation) 3. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for approval (Attachment No. 4) and adopt Ordinance No. (Attachment No. 4) (Original City Council Direction with Five Modifications) 4. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01:. Analysis: The purpose of each alternative is to provide a standardized block wall design to be applied to through lots that back up to a local street. The goal of a standardized block wall design is to create uniformity in the appearance along the rear of through lots and to allow property owners the ability to expand their rear yards into the existing slope while preserving the aesthetic qualities of slopes at the rear of through lots in Huntington Harbor. Below are three options for processing block wall requests that can range from administrative approval to Planning Commission approval. ❑ Walls or fences that comply with the new design criteria are permitted by right. All other variations in design would require approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator; or ❑ Walls or fences that comply with the new design criteria are permitted by right. All other variations in design would require approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission; or ❑ Walls or fences that comply with the new design criteria require approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. All other variations in design would require approval by the Planning Commission. The following design alternatives have been provided for City Council review: ALTERNATIVE A This design alternative would allow for a low wall with a maximum height of two feet along the rear property line. A second wall would be permitted at a setback of five feet from the rear property line with a maximum height of six feet measured from adjacent grade. The second wall could be either retaining, non-retaining, or a combination thereof. Staff would also include a requirement that the wall be constructed of decorative materials such as split- face block, stone, brick, etc. In addition decorative pilasters would be required at ten-foot intervals along the entire length of the block wall. The following text amendment would be required to implement this design. PL04-21 Through Lots(3) -3- 11/4/2004 10:53 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 3. Fences or walls within the rear yard setback area of a through lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. Fences or walls that exceed 42 inches in height, and are located within the rear yard or exterior side yard setback of a through lot with a grade differential in excess of three feet, may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission, provided they comply with the following design criteria: a. A retaining wall with a maximum height of two (2) feet, measured from the top of the highest adjacent curb, shall be located along the rear property line. b. A second wall with a maximum height of six (6) feet, measured from the adjacent grade, shall be located at a five-foot setback from the rear property line. The wall may be retaining, non-retaining, or a combination thereof. c. Pilasters shall be placed at ten-foot intervals along the entire length of the wall. The wall shall be constructed of decorative materials such as split- face block, stone, brick, etc. (See Exhibit below) lit Qk InMt l l !II I tlllll( It. lily ill Ik PL04-21 Through Lots(3) -4- 11/2/2004 2:35 PM 1 ' REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 ALTERNATIVE B This design alternative would permit a six-foot wall at a setback of seven feet from the rear property line with a maximum height of six feet measured from adjacent grade. A minimum slope ratio of 2:1 is also required. Staff has included a requirement that the wall be constructed of decorative materials such as split-face block, stone, brick, etc. In addition decorative pilasters would be required at ten-foot intervals along the entire length of the block wall. The following text amendment would be required to implement this design. 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 3. Fences or walls within the rear yard setback area of a through lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. Fences or walls that exceed 42 inches in height, and are located within the rear yard or exterior side yard setback of a through lot with a grade differential in excess of three feet, may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission, provided they comply with the following design criteria: a. A wall with a maximum height of six (6) feet, measured from the adjacent grade, shall be located at a five-foot setback from the rear property line. The wall may be retaining, non-retaining, or a combination thereof. b. The minimum slope ratio shall be 2:1 spanning from the top of curb to the base of the block wall. c. Pilasters shall be placed at ten-foot intervals along the entire length of the wall. The wall shall be constructed of decorative materials such as split- face block, stone, brick, etc. (See Exhibit below) 4 k _ III W l =16t=tll Iplllll a � �lCFlllt Q ? u�+7 u� PL04-21 Through Lots(3) -5- 11/2/2004 2:35 PM v REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 ALTERNATIVE C This design alternative would allow for a low wall with a maximum height of two feet along the rear property line. A second combination wall and view fence would be permitted at a setback of nine feet from the rear property line with a maximum wall height of three feet topped with a five-foot tall view fence, measured from adjacent grade. The second wall could be either retaining, non-retaining, or a combination thereof. A minimum slope ratio of 2:1 shall also be required. Staff recommends a requirement that the wall be constructed of decorative materials such as split-face block, stone, brick, etc. The following text amendment would be required to implement this design. 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 3. Fences or walls within the rear yard setback area of a through lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. Fences or walls that exceed 42 inches in height, and are located within the rear yard or exterior side yard setback of a through lot with a grade differential in excess of three feet, may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission, provided they comply with the following design criteria: a. A retaining wall with a maximum height of two (2) feet, measured from the top of the highest adjacent curb, shall be located along the rear property line. b. A combination wall and view fence with a maximum height of eight (8) feet, measured from the adjacent grade, shall be located at a nine-foot setback from the rear property line. The maximum height of the wall shall be three (3) feet and the maximum height of the view fence shall be five (5) feet. The wall may be retaining, non-retaining, or a combination thereof. c. The minimum slope ratio shall be 2:1 spanning from the top of curb to the base of the block wall. d. The wall shall be constructed of decorative materials such as split-face block, stone, brick, etc. (See Exhibit below) PL04-21 Through Lots(3) -6- 11/2/2004 2:35 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 m� Wo ` � of l= �r'_b<< ALTERNATIVE D This design alternative would allow for a low wall with a maximum height of two feet along the rear property line. A second combination wall and view fence would be permitted at a setback of ten feet from the rear property line with a maximum wall height of 18 inches topped with a five-foot tall view fence, measured from adjacent grade. The second wall could be either retaining, non-retaining, or a combination thereof. A minimum slope ratio of 2:1 shall also be required. Staff would again recommend a requirement that the wall be constructed of decorative materials such as split-face block, stone, brick, etc. The following text amendment would be required to implement this design. 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 4. Fences or walls within the rear yard setback area of a through lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. Fences or walls that exceed 42 inches in height, and are located within the rear yard or exterior side yard setback of a through lot with a grade differential in excess of three feet, may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission, provided they comply with the following design criteria: a. A retaining wall with a maximum height of two (2) feet, measured from the top of the highest adjacent curb, shall be located along the rear property line. PL04-21 Through Lots(3) -7- 11/2/2004 2:35 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 b. A combination wall and view fence with a maximum height of six (6) feet six (6) inches, measured from the adjacent grade, shall be located at a ten- foot setback from the rear property line. The maximum height of the wall shall be 18 inches and the maximum height of the view fence shall be five (5) feet. The wall may be retaining, non-retaining, or a combination thereof. c. The minimum slope ratio shall be 2:1 spanning from the top of curb to the base of the block wall. d. The wall shall be constructed of decorative materials such as split-face block, stone, brick, etc. (See Exhibit below) itt=uu t tit I Z i=bt�1111= t1'J t� TII=Utl_tl1 �=unit► 41 11 ►I ilm u1 H/A SUMMARY: The provision of design criteria within the HBZSO for block walls located at the rear of through lots provides clear direction to the homeowners. It is recommended that block walls that comply with the aforementioned design standards be approved administratively (without a CUP). However, any block wall that seeks deviation to the design standards should be subject to a conditional use permit and review by the Zoning Administrator. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 for the following reasons. ❑ The amendments clarify the definitions for certain terms relating to through lots by identifying both the front and rear yards as frontages. ❑ The expanded public notification regarding a CUP for walls and fences that deviate from the design standards allows for greater public participation and awareness. ❑ The incorporation of design criteria will allow for limited expansion of yards areas while preserving the aesthetic appearance of slopes at the rear of through lots. PL04-21 Through Lots(3) -8- 11/2/2004 5:20 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page Description 1. Findings for Approval -ZTA No. 03-01 2. Ordinance No. 7 5-k including legislative draft. 3. Ordinance No. u Z5 3 including legislative draft. (Planning Commission/Staff Recommendation) 4. Ordinance No.3&J5�including legislative draft. (City Council Directed with five modifications) 5. City Council Staff Report dated October 4, 2004 RCA Author: PD, HF PL04-21 Through Lots(3) -9- 11/2/2004 4:55 PM ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAD' AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUB,'VISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 203.06 AN 30.88 THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, AND FENCIN AND YARDS WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning a Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Coup it have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider a Zoning Text Amendmdgfit, which amends Sections 203.06, and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivis on Ordinance relating to definitions, and fencing and yards; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the Ge,eral Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Coune^I of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections 20 .06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are herebyzce nded in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordinhall take effect thirty days after its,adoption. PASSED AND ADOP D by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held the day of , 2005. Mayor REVIEWED AN AP OVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: �c ✓City A 6m ator i y Attorney INI IATED AND APPROVED: JeU" (,w Director of Pla4ding ord/04zoning/amend 203 06 and 230 88 2d LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 203.06 Definitions Frontage,Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontag Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that ext ` s along the rear property 1 e adjacent to a local street. 230.88 Fencinx and Yards A. Permitted Fence sand Walls. 3. Fences or walls ^f yar-a thae� are� al g the secondary frontage of a through lot shall not excee\athrough in height. This subs ction shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. Fenceat exceed 42 inch in height, and are located within the secondary frontaugh lot, may be ermitted provided they comply with the following design a. A combinatiowall and A fence with a maximum height of eight (8) feet, measured front grade shall be located at a ten-foot setback from the rear property .� b. The maximum height of the re 'ning wall shall be three (3) feet and the maximum height of the view fence shall e e (5) feet. (See Exhibit Below) View Fence O a i c Retaining tl Wall (— tl I 1 U Min. Setback No- 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Adminis trator Exception: For through lots abutting a local street only, any deviation to either height or setback of walls as described in Section 230.88.A.3. shall be subjec oto the variance provisions of�Section 241.10 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and/Subdivision Ordinance. In additio to the standard notification process, the notification shall be expanded to include all operties along the entire block that face the -6condary frontage of a through lot. e ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 SUGGESTED KNDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 203, Chapter 210 and Chapter 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments clarify the definitions forocertain terms relating to walls and fences, expand the public notification to include property owners whe face the rear of through lots, and specifies design criteria for walls at the rear of through lots. Thezoning text amendment will allow for greater public participation and the design criteria established will create a uniform design standard4or wall design. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards pres'ribed for, the zoning Y/district for which it is proposed. The amendment will result in increased compatibility between properties based on a standardized block wall design at the rear of through lots. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change. The need for expanded notification for conditional use permits on residential through lots and design criteria for block walls are desired by the community. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice by codifying definitions and design criteria that that will regulate the development of block walls at the rear of through lots and protects the general welfare of tt e public through additional notification requirements. 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) Attachment 2.1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Penelope Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning #%W SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (Through-Lot Fencing Standards) DATE: January 3,2004 The purpose of this memo is to provide clarification on the contents of the attached legislative draft. The legislative draft provides the two newly added definitions in Chapter 203 and the through lot fence design and administrative process within Chapter 230.88. These are the only amendments proposed by Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01. A complete copy of both chapters is attached for your reference. If you should have any questions, please contact Paul Da Veiga at(714) 374-5394. Attachments: Ordinance No. 3692 with Legislative Draft Chapter 203, HBZSO Chapter 230.88, HBZSO Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 203.06 Chapter 203 Definitions _ (3248-6/95,3334-6/97,3482-12/00,3520-2/02,3568-9/02) Sections: 203.02 Applicability 203.04 Rules for Construction of Language 203.06 Definitions 203.02 Applicability The meaning and construction of words and phrases defined in this chapter shall apply throughout the Zoning and subdivision ordinance, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning or construction. 203.04 Rules for Construction of Language In addition to the General Provisions Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, the following rules of construction shall apply: A. The particular shall control the general. B. Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, the following conjunctions shall be interpreted as follows: 1. "And" indicates that all connected words or provisions shall apply. 2. "Or" indicates that the connected words or provisions apply singly. 3. "Either . . . or" indicates that the connected words or provisions shall apply singly but not in combination. 4. "And/or" indicates that the connected words or provisions may apply singly or in any combination. C. In case of conflict between the text and a diagram, the text shall control. D. All references to departments, commissions, boards, or other public agencies are to those of the City of Huntington Beach, unless otherwise indicated. E. All references to public officials are to those of the City of Huntington Beach, and include designated deputies of such officials, unless otherwise indicated. F. All references to days are to calendar days unless otherwise indicated. If a deadline falls on a weekend or City holiday, it shall be extended to the next working day. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-1 9/02 G. Chapter and section headings contained herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit,modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of any section hereof. H. The words "activities" and "facilities" include any part thereof. 203.06 Definitions Abutting. Having district boundaries or lot lines or combinations thereof in common. Access, Lateral. Public access along the coast. Access, Vertical. Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline. Alley. A public or private way having an ultimate width of not less than 20 feet permanently reserved primarily for vehicular service access to the rear or side of properties otherwise abutting on a street. Alter. To make a change in the exterior appearance or the supporting members of a structure, such as bearing walls, columns,beams, or girders,that will prolong the life of the structure. Amendment. A change in the wording, context or substance of this ordinance, or a change in the district boundaries on the zoning map. Animal, Exotic. Any wild animal not customarily confined or cultivated by man for domestic or commercial purposes but kept as a pet or for display. Animal, Large. An animal larger than the largest breed of dogs. This term includes horses, cows, and other mammals customarily kept in corrals or stables. Animal, Small. An animal no larger than the largest breed of dogs. This term includes fish, birds, and mammals customarily kept in kennels. Antenna. Any structure, including but not limited to a monopole, tower, parabolic and/or disk shaped device in single or multiple combinations of either solid or mesh construction, intended for the purposes of receiving or transmitting communications to or from another antenna, device or orbiting satellite, as well as all supporting equipment necessary to install or mount the antenna. Antenna, Amateur Radio. An antenna array and its associated support structure,such as a mast or tower, that is used for the purpose of transmitting and receiving radio signals in conjunction with an amateur station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Antenna, Communication. All types of receiving and transmitting antenna, except satellite dish antenna, including but not limited to cable television antenna,wireless communication antenna, FM digital communication antenna,microwave telephone communication antenna, amateur radio antenna, and short-wave communication antenna and other similar antenna. (3568-9/02) Antenna Height. The distance from the property's grade to the highest point of the antenna and its associated support structure when fully extended. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-2 9/02 Antenna, Satellite Dish. An antenna for the purpose of receiving or transmitting communications to or from an orbiting satellite. Antenna Whip. An antenna and its support structure consisting of a single, slender, rod- like element which is supported only at or near its base. Approach-Departure Path. The flight track of the helicopter as it approaches or departs from a designated takeoff and landing area, including a heliport,helipad, or helistop. Architectural Projections or Appurtenances. Features on a building which provide visual variation and/or relief but do not serve as interior or exterior living or working space. Area, Net Lot. The total horizontal area within the property lines of a parcel of land exclusive of all rights-of-way or easements which physically prohibit the surface use of that portion of the property for other than vehicular ingress and egress. Street Area to be dedicated 250' .57 5 r 3 gross acre net acre 230' L 100' J.d 100' 203-area.BMP LOT AREA Arterial. Any street,highway or road designated as an arterial street in the General Plan. Attached Structures. Two or more structures sharing a common wall or roof. Balcony. A platform that projects from the wall of a building, typically above the first level, and is surrounded by a rail balustrade or parapet. Basement. A story partly underground and having at least one-half of its height above the average adjoining grade. A basement shall be considered as a story if the vertical distance from the average adjoining grade to the ceiling is over four feet. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-3 6/97 Roof Second Story First Story Finished — If this basement ceiling is more than 4'ft.from Grade Basement average adjoining finished L _ _ _ _ grade,the basement is considered a story. 203-BASE BASEMENT Bay Window. A window that projects out from an exterior wall. Bedroom. The term bedroom includes any room used principally for sleeping purposes, an all-purpose room, a study, a den, a room having 100 square feet or more of floor area or less than 50 percent of one wall open to an adjacent room or hallway. Blockface. The properties abutting on one side of a street and lying between the two nearest intersecting or intercepting streets, or nearest intersecting or intercepting street and railroad right-of-way,unsubdivided land,watercourse, or city boundary. F[T 7n] M 203-BLK BLOCKFACE Boarding House. A building with not more than five guest rooms where lodging and meals are provided for not more than 10 persons,but shall not include rest homes or convalescent homes. Guest rooms numbering six or over shall be considered a hotel. Building. Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls for the housing or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind. Caretaker's quarters. A dwelling unit on the site of a commercial, industrial,public, or semipublic use, occupied by a guard or caretaker. Carport. A permanent roofed accessory structure with not more than two enclosed sides intended for vehicle storage. Cart/Kiosk. Any portable, non motorized unit used by a vendor as described in Section 230.94. (3248-6/95,3334-6/97;3482-12100) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-4 12/00 City. The City of Huntington Beach. Clinic. An establishment where patients, who are not lodged overnight, are admitted for examination and treatment by one or more of a group of physicians, dentists, optometrists, psychologists, or social workers practicing together. Coastal Zone. A geographic zone adjacent to the shoreline, the boundaries of which are determined by the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended. Collection Containers. Containers or buildings with a gross floor area of 500 square feet or less used for the deposit and storage of household articles or recyclables. Commission. The Huntington Beach Planning Commission. Community Apartment Project. A project in which an individual interest in land is coupled with the right exclusively to occupy an individual unit, as provided in Section 11004 of the California Business and Professions Code. Completely Rebuilt. Rebuilding the nonconforming structure or use as it had legally existed immediately prior to its destruction. Conditional Use. A use of land that, due to the specific nature and unique characteristics of the use, requires special standards and discretionary review. Condominium. An estate in real property consisting of an undivided interest in common in a portion of a parcel of real property together with a separate interior space in a residential, industrial or commercial building on the real property, such as an apartment, office or store. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of the real property. Conforming Building. A building that fully meets the requirements of Title 17 (Building Regulations) and also conforms to all property-development regulations and requirements prescribed for the district in which it is located. Convenience Market. A retail use in conjunction with gasoline sales in which the sales room exceeds 200 square feet. Court. An outdoor, unenclosed area intended to provide light, air, and privacy for individual dwelling units in multi-family projects. Coverage, Lot or Site. The percentage of a lot or site covered by roofs,balconies, fireplaces, architectural projections, or overhangs extending more than 2.5 feet from a wall, decks more than 42 inches in height above grade, and stairs. Deck. A platform, either free-standing or attached to a building,but without a roof, that is supported by pillars, posts, or walls (see also Balcony). Demolition. The deliberate removal or destruction of the frame or foundation of any portion of a building or structure for the purpose of preparing the site for new construction or otherwise. Density Bonus. An increase in the proposed number of units of twenty-five percent (25%) or greater over the number permitted pursuant to the current zoning and general plan designation on the property. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-5 6/97 Director. The Director of Planning or his or her designee. (3520-2/02) Distribution Line. An electric power line bringing power from a distribution substation to consumers. District. A portion of the city within which the use of land and structures and the location, height, and bulk of structures are governed by this ordinance. The zoning ordinance establishes "base zoning districts" for residential, commercial, industrial,public and open space uses, and "overlay districts," which modify base district provisions and standards. Drilling. The digging or boring of a new well into the earth for the purpose of exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or other hydrocarbons, or for the purpose of injecting water, steam or any other substance into the earth. Dwelling Multiple Unit. A building or buildings designed with two (2) or more dwelling units. Dwelling, Single Unit. A detached building designed primarily for use as a single dwelling, no portion of which is rented as a separate unit, except as permitted by this Code. Attached single family dwellings shall be considered as multi-family. Dwelling, AccessoKy Unit. A fully equipped dwelling unit which is ancillary and subordinate to a principle dwelling unit located on the same lot in the RL zone. Also known as second dwelling unit or"granny unit." Dwelling, Studio Unit. A dwelling unit consisting of 1 kitchen, 1 bathroom, and 1 combination living room and sleeping room. The gross floor area shall not exceed 500 square feet, or it shall be considered as a one bedroom unit. Also known as a single, a bachelor, or an efficiency unit. Dwelling Unit. One or more habitable rooms with only one kitchen, and designed for occupancy as a unit by one or more persons living as a household unit with common access to all living, kitchen, and bathroom areas. Energy Facility. Any public or private processing,producing, generating, storing, transmitting, or recovering facility for electricity, natural gas,petroleum, coal, or other sources of energy. Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A report complying with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing guidelines. Environmentally Sensitive (habitat) Area. A wetland or any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. Exemption, Categorical. An exception from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a class of projects,which have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment. Family. A single individual or two or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-6 2/02 Feasible. Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (333"/97) Floor Area, Gross. The total enclosed area of all floors of a building measured to the outside face of the structural members in exterior walls, and including halls, stairways, elevators shafts at each floor level, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and habitable basement or attic areas,but excluding area for vehicle parking and loading. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Determined by dividing the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot by the area of that lot. FLOOR AREA RATIO FAR of 0.5 Wash- FAR of 1.0 L"- i FAR of 1.5 203-FAR FAR Frontage. The linear length of a building which contains a public entrance or a lot measured along the property line adjacent to a street or easement. Functional Capacity. The ability of an environmentally sensitive area to be self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. General Plan. The City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Grade, Existing. The surface of the ground or pavement at a stated location as it exists prior to disturbance in preparation for a project regulated by this ordinance. Grade, Street. The top of the curb, or the top of the edge of the pavement or traveled way where no curb exists. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-7 6/97 Guest House. Living quarters within a main or an accessory building for the sole purpose of providing for persons employed on the premises, or for temporary use by guests of the occupants of the premises. Such quarters shall have no kitchen facilities, and shall be limited to one room, no greater than 500 square feet in size with no more than three plumbing fixtures. Height of Building. A vertical dimension measured from the top of the highest roof to the top of the subfloor/slab directly underneath. (See Section 230.72.) Helipad or Helistop. A heliport without auxiliary facilities such as waiting room, helicopter parking, fueling and maintenance equipment. Heliport. An area, either at ground level or elevated on a structure, that is used or intended to be used for the takeoff and landing of helicopters, and includes some or all the various facilities useful to helicopter operations, including helicopter parking, waiting room, fueling and maintenance equipment. Home Occupation. Business activity conducted in a dwelling unit in a residential district that is incidental to the principal residential use of a lot or site. Illumination,Direct. Illumination by means of light that travels directly from its source to the viewer's eye. Illumination,Indirect. Illumination by means only of light cast upon an opaque surface from a concealed source. Incentives. Policies, programs or actions taken by the City designed to ensure that a development will be produced at a lower cost. Junk Yard. The use of a lot, or contiguous lots, or any portion thereof for the storage of junk, including scrap metal, or other scrap materials, and/or for the dismantling or wrecking of automobiles or other vehicles or machinery. Kennel. Any premises where four or more dogs or cats at least four months of age are kept for any purpose. Kitchenette or Kitchen. Any room or part of a room which is designed,built, used, or intended to be used for food preparation and dishwashing; but not including a bar, or similar room adjacent to or connected with a kitchen. Landscaping. An area devoted to or developed and maintained with native or exotic plantings, lawn, ground cover, gardens,trees, shrubs, and other plant materials, decorative outdoor landscape elements,pools, fountains,water features,paved or decorated surfaces of rock, stone, brick, block, or similar material (excluding driveways, parking, loading, or storage areas),and sculptural elements. Plants on rooftops,porches or in boxes attached to buildings are not considered landscaping. Landscaping,Interior. A landscaped area or areas within the shortest circumferential line defining the perimeter or exterior boundary of the parking or loading area,or similar paved area, excluding driveways or walkways providing access to the facility(as applied to parking and loading facilities or to similar paved areas). Landscaping,Perimeter. A landscaped area adjoining the exterior boundary of a parking or loading area, or similar paved area, excluding driveways or walkways which provide access to the facility. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-8 6/97 Perimeter Landscape Interior Landscape iz Interior Landscape I I r Interior Landscape z z K". LANDSCAPING: PERIMETER INTERIOR Lodger. Any person other than a member of a family renting a room for living or sleeping purposes. Lot. Any numbered or lettered parcel shown on a recorded final map, record of survey pursuant to an approved division of land, or a parcel map and abuts a street, alley or recorded access easement. STREET (Reversed Comer Lot Interior Interior Interior Comer L:2 Lot Lot Lot E_ Lot Through Lot Interior Flag Interior Interior Lot Lot Comer Lot L Lot I Lot Reversed Comer Lot STREET 7 LOT TYPES 203-LOT Lot, Comer. A site bounded by two or more adjacent street lines that have an angle of intersection of not more than 135 degrees. Lot Depth. The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front-lot line to the midpoint of the rear-lot line, or to the most distant point on any other lot line where there is no rear- lot line. Lot,Flag. A lot with developable area connected to a street by a narrow strip of land that includes a driveway. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-9 6/97 Lot or Property Line, Rear. A lot line, not a front lot line, that is parallel or approximately parallel to the front lot line. Where no lot line is within 45 degrees of being parallel to the front lot line, a line 10 feet in length within the lot,parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line, shall be deemed the rear lot line. Lot or Property Line, Front. The street property line adjacent to the front yard. Lot or Property Line, Interior. A lot line not abutting a street. Lot or Property Line, Side. Any lot line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. Lot or Property Line, Street. A lot line abutting a street. Lot, Reverse Comer. A comer lot, the side line of which is substantially a continuation of the front lot line of the lot to its rear. Lot, Street-Alley. An interior lot having frontage on a street and an alley. Lot, Through. A lot having frontage on two dedicated parallel or approximately parallel streets. Lot Width. The mean of the horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at mid-points 20 feet from the front lot line and 20 feet from the rear lot line, or from the rearmost point of the lot depth in cases where there is no rear lot line. Front Lot Line Front Lot Line x n. X Q 0 4 o y Lot Width=(x+y)/2 LOT WIDTH zo3-LOrW Lower Income Household. A household whose annual income is at or below eighty percent (80%) of Orange County median income as defined by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development. Manufactured Home. A structure transportable in sections which is a minimum of 8 feet in width and 40 feet in length,built on a permanent chassis, and designed to be a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation. Manufactured home includes mobilehome. Mezzanine. An intermediate floor within a room containing not more than 33 percent of the floor area of the room. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-10 6/97 Mezzanine:madmum 33 percent of floor area below_ Floor Below I01�2 MEZZAMNE Moderate Income Household. A household whose annual income is at or below one hundred twenty(120%)percent of Orange County median income as defined by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development. Municipal Code. The Municipal Code of the City of Huntington Beach. Negative Declaration. A written statement briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment which meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (3334) Net Site Area. See Area,Net Lot. New Well. A new well bore or well hole established at the ground surface. Redrilling from the well bore or well hole of an existing well greater than 150 feet from the existing well bore shall constitute a new well. Nonconforming Structure. A structure that was lawfully erected but which does not conform with the current development standards. Nonconforming Use. A use of a structure or land that was lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the current zoning ordinance. Off-Street Loading Facilities. A site or portion of a site devoted to the loading or unloading of motor vehicles or trailers, including loading berths, aisles, access drives, and landscaped areas. Off-Street Parking Facilities. A site or portion of a site devoted to the off-street parking of motor vehicles, including parking spaces, aisles, access drives, and landscaped areas. Oil operation. The use or maintenance of any installation, facility, or structure used, either directly or indirectly,to carry out or facilitate one or more of the following functions: drilling, rework, repair,redrilling,production,processing, extraction, assisted recovery, stimulation storage or shipping of oil gas or hydrocarbons from the subsurface of the earth. Oil operation site. The physical location where an oil operation is conducted. Open Space, Common. A usable open space within a residential development reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the development and their guests. Open Space, Private. A usable open space adjoining and directly accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-11 12/00 Open Space, Total. The sum of private and common open space. Open Space,Usable. Outdoor or unenclosed area on the ground, or on a balcony, deck, porch or terrace designed and accessible for outdoor living, recreation,pedestrian access or landscaping. Usable open space does not include parking facilities, driveways, utility or service areas, any required front or street side yard, any space with a dimension of less than 6 feet in any direction or an area of less than 60 square feet. min min min 6 ft. 10 ft. loft. Patio Terrace Balcony Front Yazd Private Open Space Private Open Space Common Open Space USABLE OPEN SPACE Oversize Vehicle. Any vehicle which exceeds twenty-five (25) feet in length, seven(7) in width, seven(7) in height, or a weight of 10,000 pounds, motorized or nonmotorized. Oversize vehicle also includes any equipment or machinery regardless of size. Parking Structure. A structure used for parking or vehicles where parking spaces, turning radius, and drive aisles are incorporated within the structure. Patio. A paved court open to the sky. Permitted Use. A use of land that does not require approval of a conditional use permit or temporary use permit. Planned Unit Development UD). A large scale development of a parcel or of a combination of related parcels to be developed by a single owner or group of owners acting jointly, involving a related group of uses,planned as an entity and having a predominant developmental feature which serves to unify or organize development. Porch. An open or covered platform, usually having a separate roof, at an entrance to a dwelling, or an open or enclosed gallery or room,which is not heated or cooled,that is attached to the outside of a building. Private Property. Property owned in fee by an individual, corporation,partnership, or a group of individuals as opposed to public property. (3249-6/95,3334;3482-12/00) Project. Any proposal for new or changed use, or for new construction, alteration, or enlargement of any structure, that is subject to the provisions of this ordinance. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-12 12/00 r Public Property. Property dedicated through acquisition or easement for public use which includes but is not limited to streets, alleys, parks, public right-of-ways, and sidewalks. (3249-6195,33-4-6197;3482-12/00) Qualifying Senior Resident. A person who is 62 years of age or older. (Section 51.2 of the California Civil Code.) Remodel. The upgrade of the interior or exterior faces of a building or structure without altering to any degree the structural integrity. Residential Infill Lot. A residential infill lot is a parcel of land which, at the time of application for a building permit, is contiguous to one (1) or more existing developed single family residential properties and is: (3301-1 v95,3334-6/97) i 1. A vacant parcel intended for detached single family development, or (3301-11/95, i 3334-6/97) 2. A parcel with an existing residential structure which rill have fifty percent(50%) or more square footage of the habitable area removed in order to construct a remodeled or new multistory detached single family dwelling unit. (3301-1 M5,3&u4 n7) Room.Habitable. A room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code for sleeping, living, cooking,or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed places as closets, pantries,bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries,attics, foyers, storage spaces,utility rooms, garages, and similar spaces. Senior Housing. Housing for a family in which at least one person per unit is 60 years old or older, or for a single person who is 60 years old or older. Setback Line. A line across the front, side,rear of any private or public property which delineates an area adjoining a property line in which erection of a building,fence,or other structure is prohibited except as otherwise provided in the zoning ordinance. Significant Disruption. Having a substantial adverse effect upon the functional capacity. Single Ownership. Holding record title,possession under a contract to purchase, or possession under a lease,by a person, firm, corporation, or partnership, individually, jointly,in common, or in any other manner where the property is or will be under unitary or unified control. Site. A lot, or group of contiguous lots not divided by an alley, street, other right-of-way, or city limit, that is proposed for development in accord with the provisions of this ordinance,and is in a single ownership or has multiple owners, all of whom join in an application for development. j Specific Event. A short term temporary use of public property as defined in Section 5.68.010. (3249-6/95,3334-6-97;3482-12f00) Specific Plan. A plan for a defined geographic area that is consistent with the General Plan and with the provisions of the California Government Code, Section 65450 et seq. (Specific Plans). i Huntingtcn Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-13 12/00 Stock Cooperative. A corporation formed for the primary purpose of holding title to, either in fee simple or for a term of years, any real property where the shareholders of the corporation receive a right of exclusive occupancy in a portion of such real property and where the right of occupancy is only transferable by the transfer of shares of stock in the corporation. j Story. That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface , of the floor or finished undersurface of the roof directly above it. Structure. Anything constructed or erected that requires a location on the ground, excluding swimming pools, patios, walks, access drives, or similar paved areas. Takeoff and Landing Area. That area of the helicopter facility where the helicopter actually lands and takes off. Transmission Line. An electric power line bringing power to a receiving or distribution substation. Usable Satellite Signals. Satellite signals from all major communication satellites that, when viewed on a conventional television set, are at least equal in picture quality to those ! received from local commercial television stations or by way of cable televisions. Use, Accessory. A use that is appropriate, subordinate, and customarily incidental to the main use of the site and which is located on the same site as the main use. Value. The monetary worth of a structure determined by the valuation figures used by the_ Director for the purpose of calculating building permit fees. Very Low Income Household. A household whose annual income is at or below fifty (50%)percent of Orange County median income as defined by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development. Wetbar. A fixed installation within a dwelling unit providing cold and/or hot water to a single sink without a garbage disposal at a location other than a kitchen or laundry. A wetbar area shall not include a stove, range,or similar appliance usually found in a kitchen, and if such wetbar is located in a room or a portion of a room with a stove, hot plate,range, oven or other type of kitchen facility, it shall be deemed a separate kitchen. Wetland. Lands within the coastal zone which maybe covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, fresh water marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps,mudflats, and fens. Window, Required. An exterior opening in a habitable room meeting the area requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Yard. An open space on the same site as a structure,unoccupied and unobstructed by structures from the ground upward except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, including a front yard, side yard,or rear yard. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-14 12/00 Yard, Front. An area between the front lot line and the front setback line extending across the full width of a site. The front yard of a comer lot shall adjoin the shortest street property line along its entire length. Where one street property line is at least 75 percent of the length of the other street property line,the Director shall determine the location of the front yard. Yard, Rear. An area between the rear lot line and the rear setback line extending across the full width of a site. On a corner lot the rear yard shall extend only to the side yard abutting the street. Yard, Side. An area between the rear setback line and the front setback line and between the side property line and side setback line. The side yard on the street side of a comer lot shall extend to the rear lot line. Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach. (Rest of Page Not Used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-15 6/97 J REAR YARD STREET FRONT YARD LOT LINE ,,, LOT LINES W Q Uj Q LU N W LU W } h W W W H N N 1 S/OF` In Q 1 �p p I H LU 1- W I LLWl W W Q ce N w N - 4~7 _ STREET FRONT YARD STREET FRONT YARD STREET FRONT YARD � I � CORNER LOT EXAMPLES REAR YARD REAR YARD REAR YARD lyI I o — ' I SIDE ¢ YAR W } of I p i N I W I SIDEYARDSUl STREET FRONT YARD STREET FROM YARD STREET FROM YARD INTERIOR LOT EXAMPLES REAR YARD REAR YARD �—LOT LINES SIDE YAR LEGEND ARDy� — I — _ _ BUILDING(ZONING)ENVELOPE STREET L — — — (TWO DIMENSIONAL) - - - - - � LOT LINES • :��r FRONT YARD STREET FRONT YARD SIDE YARD ODD - SHAPED LOT EXAMPLES REQUIRED YARDS Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 203 203-16 6/97 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 230.88 A. Time Limit. 1. A Christmas tree sales facility shall not be open for business during any calendar year prior to Thanksgiving. 2. A Halloween pumpkin sales facility shall not be open for business during any calendar - year prior.to October 1. 3. A single agricultural product sales facility shall be approved for a period of time not to exceed 90 days. B. Merchandise to be Sold. A permitted Christmas tree or Halloween pumpkin sales facility may not sell items not directly associated with that season. Only one single, season agricultural product may be sold at any one time. C. Site Standards. 1. Storage and display of products shall be set back not less than ten(10) feet from edge of street pavement, and shall not encroach into the public right-of-way. 2. A minimum of ten(10) off-street parking spaces shall be provided. 3. Ingress and egress to the site shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works to insure that do undue traffic safety hazard will be created. 4. Temporary structures shall comply with Building Division standards. 5. Electrical permit shall be obtained if the facility is to be energized. 6. The facility shall comply with fire prevention standards as approved and enforced by the Fire Chief. D. Bond Required. Prior to issuance of a business license and approval by the Director, a five hundred dollar($500) cash bond shall be posted with the City to ensure removal of any structure, cleanup of the site upon termination of the temporary use,and to guarantee maintenance of the property. A bond shall not be required for a seasonal sales facility operated in conjunction with a use on the same site. E. Removal of facility. The seasonal sales facility shall be removed and the premises cleared of all debris and restored to the condition prior to the establishment within ten calendar days of Halloween, Christmas, or the expiration of the time limit for single season agricultural product. 230.88 Fencing and Yards No portion of a required yard area provided for a structure on a lot shall be considered as part of the yard area for any other structure on the same or an adjacent lot. In all districts,minimum setback lines shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way line. Diagrams A,B and C are hereby adopted to illustrate the provisions of this chapter. Where any discrepancy occurs between the diagrams and the printed text, the text shall prevail. Yards and fencing shall comply with the following criteria in all districts or as specified. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-35 3W A. Permitted Fences and Walls. I. Fences or walls a maximum of forty-two(42)inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot, except screen walls on lots in the RMHH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three(3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two(42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-M7,341a3iss) 2. Fences or walls a maximum of six (6)feet in height may be located in required side and rear yards, except as excluded in this Section. Fences or walls exceeding six (6) feet in height may be located in conformance with the yard requirements applicable to the main structure except as provided for herein or in the regulations of the district in which they are located. a. Fences.and walls located adjacent to arterials along the rear and/or street side yard property lines, and behind the front setback,may be constructed to a maximum total height of eight(8) feet including retaining wall with the following: (3525-2102) (1) The proposed building materials and design shall be in conformance with the Urban Design Guidelines. (3525-2/02) (2) Extensions to existing wall(s)shall require submittal of engineering calculations to the Building and Safety Department. (3525-2i02) (3) The property owner shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of landscape area(s) and wall(s)and required landscape area(s). (3525-2/02) (4) Approval from Public Works Department. (3525-2102) 3.1 Fences or walls in the rear yard setback area of a through-lot shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height. This subsection shall not apply,to lots abutting.arterial highways. 4. In the RL district, garden or wing walls or fences equal in height to the first floor double plate,but not exceeding nine(9) feet,which are perpendicular to and entirely within a side yard may be constructed to the interior side property line and to within five (5) feet of the exterior side property line provided they are equipped with a three(3) foot gate or accessway. 5. When residential property abuts open or public land or property zoned or used for office, commercial, or industrial purposes, an eight(8)foot high solid masonry or block wall may be constructed on the common side or rear property line. 6. In order to allow variations in the street scene in R districts, fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42)inches in height may be permitted at a reduced front setback of six (6)feet subject to plan review approval by the Director in conformance with the following criteria: a. The reduced setback shall be only permitted for five(5)or more contiguous lots under the same ownership and only at the time of initial construction of the dwellings. b. Such walls shall not encroach into the visibility triangular area formed by measuring seven and one-half(7.5) feet along the driveway and ten(10) feet along the front property line at their point of intersection. c. Such walls shall conform to all other applicable provisions of this section. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230.36 ^^^ 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: a. Where a retaining wall is located on the property line separating lots or parcels and protects a cut below the natural grade, such retaining wall may be topped by a fence, wall or hedge of the same height that would otherwise be permitted at the location if no retaining wall existed. b. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard"abutting an arterial or exterior side yard and contains a fill of two(2) ft. or less or protects a cut below the existing grade, such retaining wall may be topped with a six(6) ft. decorative masonry wall. c. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting a local street,the maximum retaining wall height shall be twenty-four(24) inches as measured from the adjacent curb and may be topped with a maximum eighteen(18) inch decorative wall or fence for a total height of forty-two(42)inches. d. (1) The maximum height of a retaining wall on the front property line shall be thirty-six(36) inches as measured from the top of the highest adjacent curb. Subject to the Director's approval,a maximum forty-two(42) inch high wall or fence may be erected above the retaining wall with a minimum three(3) foot setback from the front property line. (3334-6197,3410-3/99) (2) In the RMH-A subdistrict, the maximum height of a retaining wall on the front property line shall be eighteen(18) inches as measured from the top of the highest adjacent curb. Subject to the Director's approval, a second retaining wall f up to-eighteen(18) inches in height may be erected above the eighteen(18)inch high retaining wall with a minimum three(3)foot front setback. A wall or fence up to forty-two(42) inches in height may be erected on top of the retaining wall with the minimum three foot front setback. (See Exhibit below.) (341a3/99) j Required Tree/Palm 7r Landscaping I 1 Front \ICJ Building' nrnnr"rty IinP. j may 41" Patio '-Atli May-18- . Rrraininv WalkSidewalk/Parkway Max.18" *See Maximum building height in Chapter 210 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-37 3/99 e. All retaining walls abutting a street shall be waterproofed to the satisfaction of the Director. f. Retaining wall and fence combinations over eight(8) feet in height shall be constructed with a variation in design or materials to show the distinction. Retaining wall and fence combinations over six(6)feet in height shall be designed without decorative block or cap block, except if equal in strength to the main portion of the fence. 8. The height of any fence,wall or hedge located in the front yard setback shall be measured from top of the highest adjacent curb. All other fence heights shall be measured from existing grade. 9. Any fence or wall located on the front property line shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 10. In the industrial districts,nine(9) foot high fences may be permitted in the side and rear setbacks up to the front building line subject to plan review approval by the Director. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section maybe permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. 12. Within the coastal zone,no gate,fence or wall shall be permitted that restricts or obstructs public access to the shore. (3334-&97) B. Required Walls. 1. When office, commercial or industrial uses abut property zoned or used for residential, a six (6) foot high solid six(6)inch concrete block or masonry wall shall be required. If a wall meeting these standards already exists on the abutting residential property, protection from vehicle damage shall be provided by a method approved by the Director. The maximum fence height shall be eight(8)feet at the common property line, subject to the same design standards and setback requirements as specified for six(6) foot high fences. 2. Industrial screening walls abutting arterial highways shall be architecturally compatible with surrounding properties, constructed of a minimum six (6)inch wide decorative masonry block,and designed with landscape pockets at thirty-five (35)foot intervals along the street side sufficient in size to accommodate at least one (1) 15-gallon tree. Approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator shall be required prior to construction of such walls. C. Visibilitv. 1. On reverse comer lots and comer lots abutting an alley,no fence, wall or hedge greater than forty-two(42)inches in height may be located within the triangular area formed by measuring ten(10) feet from the intersection of the rear and street side property lines. 2. On comer lots,no fence,wall, landscaping,berming, sign, or other visual obstruction between forty-two(42) inches and seven(7) feet in height as measured from the adjacent curb elevation may be located within the triangular area formed by measuring twenty-five Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 23038 (25) feet from the intersection of the front and street side property lines or their prolongation. Trees trimmed free of branches and foliage so as to maintain visual clearance below seven(7) feet shall be permitted. 3. Visibility of a driveway crossing a street or alley property line or of intersecting driveways shall not be blocked between a height of forty-two (42)inches and seven(7) feet within a triangular area formed by measuring ten(10) feet from intersecting driveways or street/alley and driveway. pRpp �ry�E 1p•�� 10 Q�°ENE • • � 230-CORP DIAGRAM A - - • - . - - • - - - ; o _ _ t _ . . 10• O _ 10, 10* STREET/ALLEY DIAGRAM B Huntington Beach Zonirg and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 23039 "7 REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY � ; .—a lay �* I,, 0• , tl• I x T�M� ~ THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL i., A 42 inch high fence may be constricted on any portion of the lot. ® Indicates the portion of the lot on which a 6 foot high fence may be constructed. 'A' Indicates nidaurn front yard setback. Diagram C I,i7,9� GbMOR1Y/dFiCLM 230.90 Contractor's Storage Yards/Mulching Operation Contractor's storage yards in conjunction with public facility improvement contracts, and mulching operations on unimproved public or private property may be permitted subject to the following_ A. Initial approval shall be for a maximum of two (2) years. The use shall be eligible for a maximum of three one year extensions by the Planning Commission. B. The development shall comply with parking, access and setback requirements contained in Chapter 231. 230.92 Landfill Disposal Sites Excavation of landfills or land disposal sites shall be subject to the requirements of this section. These provisions are not intended to apply to grading and surcharging operations,permitted Hi.ntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Ctapter 230 230-40 6/97 Huntington Beach City Council 12-21-04 Re: Property Rights of Through Lot Owners. Dear City Council Members My name is Tom Scott and I live at 4212 Windsor Drive, corner of Windsor and Bedford Lane, and the back of the lot backs up to Westport. One side and the back of the lot have landscaped banks. (Approx 1200 sq. ft) This is property that I have paid for and I feel that I, or a next owner should be able to develop it as other people in the area have done. I don't have plans to make any changes at this time, but want the option to in the future. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Tom Scott 4212 Windsor Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92649 714-846-6435 ® c- cry_.:-. FROM FAX NO. Dec. 29 2004 11:29AM P1 411 zl- • � ��,,�'�,�, ��•yo���Z¢./• III////// s - ����� /J r �, ..•�..�� -rr.� ��.� ,-��` � ITS ram- �C, _o I • _6or/ -��-- ('IT (,L E R K CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 2004 OEC 2q A 0: 30 FROM : FAX NO. : Dec. 29 2004 11:54AN P1 CI C Y I"L E R K' Ll CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 1004 DEC 2 q A 10: 51 2-0 T L-A-t, � �n���� F�-T ��-'� �j � R-� 1rV� �1 Cam,., - � �' � �a� • f i n C- QLRt 1 I \4A Lo v FROM FAX NO. Dec. 29 2004 11:55AM P2 i l,,L iv C{u Gi T i CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 2004 DEC 29 A 0: 5� i 16542 Mariana Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 December 29,2004 To: Honarable Mayor Hardy and City Council Members 1 r0ir1; 1 si�ph and Eleanor Nissim We are very much o e to e ordinance 03-01 that would infringe on our property rights. Please support our rights as homeowners and vote "No"on this very inappropriate ordinance. Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:21 PM To: Jones, Dale; Esparza, Patty; Flynn, Joan; Ehring, Liz Cc: Zelefsky, Howard Subject: FW: Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 O_ -----Original Message----- From: Thkiese@aol.com [mailto:Thkiese@aol.com] rn G-)��-_, =- Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1: 13 PM To: City.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus M o r- Subject: Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 '- Honorable Mayor and Council Members: W D My name is Thomas Kiesewetter, I live at 16601 Melville Circle on Gilbert Island and I own a "through-lot". I am hopeful that the Council will vote against Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 03-01 and follow the Planning Department' s original findings that the ZTA is inconsistent with the Master Plan. I am asking the City Council to carefully consider the amount of public input voiced in opposition to the amendment. I hope the Council is getting the picture that a small group of single-focus citizens have taken the issue of "ugly walls" and turned it into a serious matter of property rights with significant opposition. The issues brought up at the last public comment session not only demonstrated the diverse rational for opposition, but also demonstrated the overwhelming vigor of those "against". Please realize that this amendment gained momentum in near secrecy and behind partially closed doors. Now that the issue is in an open and publicized public forum the true view of the affected community is being heard. Please, listen to your Staff, look at the Planning Department' s finding that the Zoning Text Amendment is inconsistent with the Master Plan, and vote against Zoning Text Amendment 03-01. Respectfully, Thomas Kiesewetter �pos� 1 JAN-03-2005 11:39 MITSUBISHI MOTOR P.,01 C11-Y CLERK CITY OF r HW4T11`4G-FON BEACH, CA Z005 JAN -3 P : 1 _ !2 b i FACSIMILE COVER SHEET DATE; 1/3/05 TO: Honorable Mayor Jill Hardy & City Council Members FAX: (714) 374-1557 RE: Agenda Item G-2a FROM: Mike Palikan DEAR CITY CLERK, PLEASE ENSURE THAT THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS INCLUDED IN THE "LATE COMMUNICATIONS" PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THE JANUARY 3, 2005 MEETING. THANK YOU. Number of pages including cover sheet: JAN-03-2005 11:39 MITSUBISHI MOTOR P.02 r Petition in opposition to Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to d.eay Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, entitled Through of elopment Standards_ tore Printed Name Address Date Signat4re Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address ` _ - Pate r—� �. Ai / c l.5 Signature , Print d N e i c � Ad-dress Date ..-�- Gv:f ` j firn r rs �-tf Signature Printed Name 49L1 S.*.a t� _IAA I•o JJ� Address _T Date Signature Printed Name r dress Date SlinAllite Pri:n Address Dat a r�- ed Name JT Address I3a JAN-03-2005 11:40 MITSUBISHI MOTOR P.03 Petition in opposition to Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, entitled Through Lot Develop nt tandards. Si ' ture Printed Name Address Date 0 t0 a4 Signature Printed Name L7ag7 #X Address Dat d4' _� tll � �yIT10 Si m NrLate Name Address i 0 tN rc.V4 0,T r' Date ij g g)L, r` St afar Printed Name I f q)M Address bate C C� NCO `�a( I �C✓ Si attire w Printed Name Ad s Date signgt Printed Name v-L uc _ A ss hate 17 / i0y Signatwe Printed Name Address Date /A Signature Printed Nam -770 AN4 !`` Address hate JAN-03-2005 11:40 MITSUBISHI MOTOR P.04 �. Petition in opposition to Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03.01, entitled Tlvou Trot Develo ment Standards. Signat Prrnnted Name / Address Date Signature Printed N//4me Address Date Signature 1 ' Printed Name l Address Date Signature Printed N e A s Da1;e SigGnat Printed Name / Address Date _ Sign// Printed ame Wignature Date . ` Frinted ame Address Date Mt' ure Printed Nape �' Address Dato JAN-03-2005 11:40 MITSUBISHI MOTOR P.05 Petition in opposition to Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, ad:d Through Lot D�evelo tandards,•y i'gnatgre Printed Name Date Si afar i ted N Address Date 1L-1k br signature printed Name Address Date i t Printed Name f . Ad Date. Signature Printed Name Add s Date. i Signature / 1 1 Printed Name `Address Date, Signs Printed ame Address Date r Signature Printed Name "'' Address Datcy JRN-03-2005 11:40 MITSUBISHI MOTOR P.06 Petition in opposition to Zoning 'Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, entitled"Through Lot Development Standards. Si re Printed Name _-4 t 7 Z f,../f w D S<j ,L D!4 -7 - /1 — p 4 Address Date Si tore Printed Name 11-772- 2- Address Date Signatur Printed N e `7 — it - Ott Ad&ess Date ( � ter -- ignature Printed Nam J�, ti J'StJ1 t bpi '-11 f I a r Address Date L c�lr�rk� � z��— �,Cl f•[� lIn �.. l T�"c�yC C�� Signature Printed N 'me -Add 7 Address Date ignatur_e/ Printed e� Address UIJ�P,c- �;b Date Signature Printed tame Address 4 Date 12AA— Ar,77- Al true �'rinted,�r c �T PA. Address rate JAN-03-2005 11:41 MITSUBISHI MOTOR Petition in opposition to Zoning 'Text Amendment 03.01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, entitled Through Lot Develo� went S ds_ 5 u Pri ted am c Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name r-�• Address Date JAN-03-2005 11:41 MITSUBISHI MOTOR P.08 Petition in opposition to Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 ('Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigaed urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, entitled Through Lot Development Standards. Si to Prime � e i 6 __• -- - Address Date 1 S Signature J Print d Name or Address Date Si 1 . Printed; ame 7 a 1 r� Address Da�tG� Signature Printed Name Address Datr Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date TOTAL. P.oe Page 1 of 2 Jones, Dale _ From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 2:08 PM To: Flynn, Joan; Ehring, Liz; Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Opening "Closed" Public Testimony re: D-1 Through lots Amendment Z 3 C-) r FYI. I responded to let her know she can speak under public comments at 6:00 pm tonight. D -----Original Message----- From: Adrienne Parks [mailto:aparksl@msn.com] Sent: Monday,January 03, 2005 1:51 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus Subject: re: Opening "Closed" Public Testimony re: D-1 Through lots Amendment Dear City Council Members, I strongly urge you to re-open to "public" testimony tonight's City Council meeting, Monday, Nov. 15, 2004. And, secondly, to allow the next Council seated in December to continue the review of same. When I picked up the meeting agenda, I noted that you had unilaterally (and without public comment) closed said meeting to any further testimony. Needless-to-say, I was and am surprised at your action when clearly information about retaining walls and the latest building technologies is still coming in and needs to be reviewed and discussed re: D-1, the zoning amendment re: through lots. This is not a closed item to many of your constituents, especially those through lot residents who will be charged by the city a$8,400.+permit fee to build a wall, plus charged $200-500. in affected neighbor "notification" letters. You yourselves asked your staff to review retaining wall design possibilities and report back to you at this meeting -- and since you are our representatives, surely you should have no problem with our participating in your review of same. That requires we, too, have input to said discussion and ultimate outcome - especially as this proposed amendment threatens to illegally usurp homeowner property rights. Instead of an amendment, what the city can do is let all city residents know of the latest in building technologies and materials re: "Segmented Retaining Walls ((SRW)," walls in general, and masonry finishing techniques not extant at the time most existing through lot retaining walls were City-permitted and constructed. Home owners throughout Southern California, from Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano to Aliso Viejo,Newport Coast, and Oceanside have all allowed their property owners to utilize state-of-the-art building materials, design, and good taste to create neighbor- friendly communities (see photo package submitted today, Monday,November 15, 2004). Perimeter walls can be attractive. There are a wealth of wall designs, colors, masonry dyes, stucco textures, trellises, and other vegetation solutions that property owners can utilize to make the expression of their property rights more palatable to the down hill folks. This degree of neighborliness need not be legislated, merely requested. "Through lot" property owners who wish to build out their property are good people, supportive neighbors, tax payers, and concerned citizens who only want the best for their neighborhoods. And are willing to work with the affected "down" hill folks by interacting with them in a neighborly way -- not under Council mandate. Please keep government out of our back yards. Since this is the last Council Meeting before the newly elected board takes office, I urge you to not vote on D-1 tonight. All pertinent information has not been heard nor sufficiently reviewed. Much continues to come in. Please allow the next seated City Council to review all of the information regarding this issue before they vote on this amendment. Thus, since all has not been said, I urge you to re-open tonights D-1 discussion and participation by the public and to not vote on said issue tonight but allow the new Council to again take up the issue when it is seated in December. Thank you, Adrienne Parks — 1/3/200s i Page 2 of 2 Westport Drive homeowner 15 year resident of Huntington Beach 1/3/2005 FROM THE- GOODWIN'S PHONE NO. r 760 7670605 Dec. 30 20,34 12:55PM P1 .Surf City— -HB.Urg. 30 I)ec;em.ber 2004 To All City Couuas,el Members: My nam is Donald Goodwin. My address is 16492 Somerset Lame,HB- 92649(on Gilbert Island). Regarding the upcoming meeting and vote on Jan. 3 about through lot changes. I submit the following: I have lived in Huntington Barbour for over 40 years. I walk:my dog around Gilbert Island twioe a day when 1 am tyre. l am very familiar with every interior(thorough lot) on tlis island. The perception seems to be that all of these resident,want to build tall unsightly walls on or at the bottom of their banked buck yards. It is completely false as I know nwny of the residents and basically all they want is to be assured that they improve their property in a.manner that will be very compatible with all other homeowners on Gilbert Island. In fact, it is my observation that those residents that have irripmved their"banked" areas of their lots take inuch better care of the area than those wbo have left the ices plant and shrubs over gmw their brinks. In many instances the plants have overgrown the side walk area and I must walk in the street. The latest improved lot belongs to Mr. Jay Earl and I know of no one that is not thrilled with the new look of his back yard and bank area. In fact I spore with the;owner on Peale Lance directly amss from Mr.Earl's back yard and they are very happy with the results. I sincerely believe that the configuration of two short retaining walls Re Mr. Earls could be used as a guide line nx)del for future development. Mr.Earl's plans were approved by the city after much discussion and careful planning by the various staff and city planners. I see no reason whatever to change the process as all recent development in Huntington Harbour is thoroughly sc:nitatuzed by the city planners. To change the existing rules and process is a very shortsighted view and will only be for the benefit of very few dissident bom)wners who have a history of opposing almost all development in the Harbour. I strongly support the concept to nott change the code and to leave the project approval to the various agencies and thek staffs who work very hafts to snake all projects compatible and enhancing to our community. I wish I cxauld attend the January 3sd meeting but wi.l I be out of town,. Thank you for taking this letter under consideration. st siner�aly, onald.Goodv DG/emg Vr c001 b`J 1.10 Vl o�DNII rtir 1 -3 2 0,— �HIRL EY DOO 17041 WESTPORT DR. , HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 P. 0. BOX 115, SUNSET BEACH, CA 90742 (714)981-7098 Mayor Hardy 7z Council Members City oFHuntington Beach 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -<<_ fr-n Tj ZE CI1 Dear Mayor Hardy and Council Members Sullivan, Bohr, Coerper, Cook, Green and Haisen:t, I am writing you to voice my concerns with proposed ordinance amendment G2c. As you know, I, along with the majority of my neighbors, am opposed to the proposed ordinance; amendment. We believe the community's needs would be better served by allowing us to build fences in our backyards along the following lines: 1. A minimum three-foot set back from the property line; 2. A retaining wall high enough to be level with the backyard of the lot; 3. A six-foot fence allowed on top of the retaining wall; 4. A requirement that both the retaining wall and the fence be decorative and attractive. 5. A requirement that landscaping be planted between the retaining wall and the sidewalk. I have enclosed a copy of the plans for a wall I would like to install on my property showing the decorative features and landscaping. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Shirley Do �� �.sSouR�(a eia"wc ��Ged YtWEs i3�WR"oR,4YOL ! rr '� r�" ' =I.i.E> d '.D .i '• - 7-2•S►s YLI. �GIOE7.�}'g`"L'' �'� 5,q'r z"`�y #�g i�'^ '� .•1 � y ' ter-CO"� --�',' _." � 2'-�"—� 'All ! - .- � � 6 J 1L�►.I. s�tx,1,_�" � � i ,_ 1..,�• p,a. a,YY�7.�,►►,n.,av WD.wia. E i x to-V No.f"Er Cup.I.V"OPLT- C MT l"a WOA" I>TCZ-Ee1 4* .. Q' 4v . � 1 1 t �}►ID.per-(. � 1_ " 1 � tep.atic pi's 111 1 1 ' , -r ` i - I .I ail,=! � �1 `_ �• (�f �xa f• is :- j- — .F.a+Rib servo �.r.�yTil+o+ 11 xls. anWvet. val MAIL".�_�� ` i'�4� - � ..>.r>.R SUi/.i 1��_rr, OR*M .H+id is asa+J�J I't i �1=' •r j >�ry a I:�'�i� T-2•�t'i si'-o� t "�A1llI►�G-1 L1�1.L e• y5'=!'-pp t•w. eiT( gT/►+oiwa '- PL1rFl t2o, '� ti t I 2 Ix8 ►-1D.nwo. 1 I Y(o•x3'WD_ruicb `i 7 ••� � :.�.1._�. 'xb'klfoyGo�l.�laGk� • `— ( �ZAI►1I>•iG 1.1AL1- �7�'( vI>✓L•!) � i 3 1 1 t�'D.colt Kp i 4a G�IMX Tr'z- j TT 1 i " � F.►•t L.4.R-G-�E D �'L.�.f�l . -- (. ��TAI wiNC LJALC-) s= ' Dear Mayor Hardy Date: 12-29-04 To: Dear Council Member Hansen Sullivan. 1 Bohr, Coerper, Cook, Green and Hansen: From: Shirley Dc►o Fax: Fax: 626-965-5200 TEI: TEI: 714-981-7098 ( ) REPiy ( ) UrgEnt t ) REviEw The sulotion to put landscaping be planted between tpe retaining ".1J wall and the sidewalk: 1. Plant blossom trees, bush clovers and hygrangeas. ect. (example : the wall of the 405 s bound- freeway) or-Ivy Leaves. -4J i Y 2. Plant some large and small Azaleas shrubs, Japanese Maple Tree and Tsukiyama, ect. (example: Picture from Disney Land Downtown ) ,} 4 y. k a _v 01/03/2005 16:53 7105033992 'JACOBS PAGE 01/03 JACOBS r-P1 G I M E E R 1 N C. AEU tz" ;IT' C1"ERK 5757 Plaza Drive, Suite 100 CITY Y OF Cypress, CA. 90630 HUNTINGTON PEACN. CA TEL:(714)503-3400 - FAX: (714)503-3992 1005 JAN -3 P 5: 014 Fax Toe City Clerk From: Scott McCallister Company: City of Huntington Beach Pages: 3 Fax: 714-536-5233 Phone: 714-503-3737 Date: 1/03/05 Re: Letter re:ZTA No.03-01,Agenda Item G2aCC: File 12 Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑Please Reply ❑Please Recycle i Subject: Please process include the attached into the Councifs correspondence regarding Agenda G-2a_ Should you have any questions, please call me ASAP. Scott McCallister Jacobs Facilities Inc. 714-503-3737 office 714-503-3992 fax G JAN-03-2005 15:39 710503399E 96% P.01 01/03/2005 15:53 7105033992 .JACOBS PAGE 02/03 January 3, 2005 To: Mayor Hardy (to City Clerk via Fax (714) 536-5233 City Council Members: Bohr, Coerper, Cook, Green, Sullivan and Hansen Subject: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 Amending Ordinance No.3692, 1/3/05 City Council Agenda No.G-2a. We purchased our property in Huntington Harbor two years ago, with the rights to enjoy the full use of our home, property and neighborhood. We were made aware of the existing issues between the planning department and HHPOA,relative to building a fence/wall in the `sloped area' of our through lot property. Having been in the design and construction industry, a licensed General Contractor for 24 years and in the professional services/Construction Management Industry, I felt it was incumbent upon us to ensure we understood the issues prior to finalizing our home purchase. We met on several occasions, prior to closing our escrow,with the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, to review the case history relative to the prior property owner. We were informed by Paul Da Veiga, that the City Counsel had directed the Planning Commission/Department Staff to draft a Zoning Text Amendment to amend Huntngton Beach's Subdivision Ordinance to regulate through lot development. Paul Da Veiga stated that the Planning Department Staff did not support a Zoning Text Amendment as proposed by the Planning Commission, but rather felt that the existing process of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was adequate. Based upon this input we proceeded to finalize our home purchase and closed escrow in 12/02. As noted in my several previous letters to the City Counsel and Planning Commission,I am requesting that you deny the proposed Zoning Text Amendment No.03-01 as outlined in the City Council's 113105 Agenda item G-2a. Approving this ordinance will have a gross impact to our property, some of which are: • Limiting the use of our property • Dictates the use and development of our property rights • Negatively impact our property values • Impact our ability to sell our property • Limits and reduces our security • Selectively imposes restrictions to through lot owners, which others currently benefit and enjoy • Deviations from this ordinance would impose financial hardship those seeking a variance in lieu of a CUP as exists now Over the past two years we have come to really enjoy Huntington Beach and the Huntington Harbor community. I cannot believe that there is not an ability to meet a compromise here given the significance of this issue and the potential legal impacts based upon approval of this ordinance. .TAN-03-2005 15:39 7105033992 96% P.02 01/03/2005 15: 53 7105033992 JACOBS PAGE 03/03 In closing, we strongly request the City Counsel deny the Zoning Text Amendment No.03-01. Again as noted above it is the opinion of the current Planning Department that the existing procedure and process of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)for those who seek zoning changes is appropriate. I trust that you will utilize your position on the City Council to support all the people and their property rights as property owners of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Scott&Jennifer McCallister 17171 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 cc: File JPH-03-2005 15:39 7105033332 96% P.03 Page 1 of 3 Flynn, Joan From: Bazant, Denise Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 4:39 PM To: Jones, Dale; Flynn, Joan; Ehring, Liz; McGrath, Jennifer; Balkee, Anita; Culbreth-Graft, Penelope Subject: FW: Please forward to City Attorney in advance of tonights CC meeting z c o -----Original Message----- From: Adrienne Parks [mailto:aparksl@msn.com] ,c`:_I Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 4:27 PM , C: To: ci .administrator@surfci -hb.or -a r tY tY 9 c�C Subject: Please forward to City Attorney in advance of tonights CC meeting Dear Ms. Penny Culbreth-Graft, y c-� D 1 can't find the email address for the city attorney who advised Council Member Debbie Cook that she did not have a conflict of interest. All through lot owners would beg to differ. I am pasting a copy of my email to the CC re: the very real 11appearnace" of a definite impropriety in Ms. Cook's favoritism, cronyism, and clear quid pro quo re: two specific Roundhill (downhill of through lot) residents. Thank you, Adrienne Parks TO CITY COUNCIL (I have highlited in red the text that the city attorney may not be familiar with and may wish to review). re:G2a-G-2a.(City Council)Approve Zoning Text Amendment No.03-01 with Findings for Approval-Approve for Introduction as Amended Ordinance No.3692 Amending Chapters 203 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO)Relating to Definitions.and Fencing and Yards-Continued from the December 20,2004 Meet ing_(450.20)-Ordinance No. 3692-"An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Sections 203.06 and 230.88 Thereof Relating to Definitions,and Fencing and Yards."Recommended Action: 1)Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with Findings for Approval;and 2)After the City Clerk reads by title,approve for introduction Ordinance No.3692,by roll call vote. Dear City Council Members and Staff, Please note that the proposed zoning amendment that targets only through few through lot owners in the city, and, specifically those in the Harbour is actually in total defiance of California and Federal law. This relates to the unlawful "taking" of personal property rights without compensation. Specifically California law re: eminent domain. Please refer to California real estate statues to verify. http://www.dre.ca.gov/relaw.htm The fact is that the govt can not take or restrict property rights without a valid public policy reason and those deprived must be compensated if there is a loss How does this apply to your proposed invasive zoning amendment? As I'm sure you know, Huntington Harbour was built in 1963 -- before more contemporary and restrictive CC&R'S were dreamed up. There is no "common ground" in the Harbor that residents pay into re: upkeep. There are no attractive, well maintained horse trails for our leisurely rides for we have no horses in our small lots. Even in the Harbour, the state of residential development in the 1960's was such that developers did the least they could do to maximize their profit.They also respected the personal property rights of the homeowner to develop their purchase as they see fit- always of course within the bounds of city building codes. Thus since 1963, homeowners have applied for"Conditional Use Permits" at a cost of variously between a forty dollars in the '60's to several hundred dollars in 2004. Plans have been submitted to the city, permits granted, building inspectors oversaw the construction of perimeter walls-to include footings, drainage, and the like. So the build-out, 1/3/2005 11316 i Page 2 of 3 i home improvement, and enjoyment of the personal property owners "property" rights (not privileges...but deeded and Federally protected rights) have always been respected. Until now. Please note that in Chapter 5, Title to Real Property, p.93, re: "Certain Covenants and Conditions Are Void." It states: "Covenants and conditions that are unlawful, impossible of performance, or in restraint of alienation are void." We would contend that any interpretation of the HHPOA CC&R's that would allow the "unlawful" "taking" of personal property without compensation is automatically VOID. Ditto any interpretation of the HHPOA CC&R's that would require "impossible of performance" are void. And lastly, any interpretation of the HHPOA CC&R's that cause "restraint of alienation" are void. Certainly California Real Estate Law allows under "Deed Restrictions" that restrictions imposed by deeds, or in similar private contracts, may be drafted to restrict for any legitimate purpose, the use of occupancy of land... "However the right may not be exercised in a manner forbidden by law," p. 93. Please read careful the Deed Restrictions paragraph. "Restrictions prohibiting the use of property on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, national origin, age (generally), disability, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status,orsource of income are unenforceable understate and federallaw.In addition, conditions considered unreasonable or "repugnant to the interest created" are prohibited by Section 711 of the Civil Code. I specifically stress "source of income" as there seems to be a misapprehension among some few council members that Harbour residents "have too much" land - and therefore should be willing to give up anywhere from ten to thirty per cent(10-30% of the deeded land for which they pay property taxes -for the aesthetic and momentary enjoyment of two residents who live on Roundhill. Also, I call your attention to same chapter, paragraph entitled "Zoning Regulations," page 95. This specifically states "However, zoning restrictions, to be valid, should be substantially related to the preservation or protection of public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. They may be uniform and cannot be discriminatory or created for the benefit of any particular group." Again,I must call your attention to the last sentence abo ve; 'They may be uniform and cannot be discriminatory or created for the beneFt of any particular group." As has been noted in numerous council meetings, public testimony, emails, faxes, phone calls, and personal one-on- one council/citizen meetings, the origins of this particular zoning amendment is clouded in secrecy- and was perpetuated in secret meetings for over two years - masquerading as a "Beautification" (BLT) Committee conveniently begun at the behest of a "down" through lot resident. Council Member Debbie Cook got immediately on the BLT bandwagon stating that she likes "open spaces" and "no walls."And if walls are necessary only "attractive"walls. This was stated to three of my friends and myself the last big hoopla re-election campaign fundraiser held for Debbie Cook by a planning commission member who lives in one of those lovely new "horse-trail" communities with designer landscaping and common spaces paid in to by all. As I have noted before, none other than "downhill" through lot malcontent Randy Furman greeted us at the sign-in table for Ms. Cook's fundraiser- as he had conveniently "volunteered" to be her re-election campaign treasurer, overseeing critical incoming and outgoing funds. And, we find out now that Ms. Cook has just appointed him to the planning commission. More quid pro quo? In last month's Council hearing, Ms. Cook stated that she checked with the City's Attorney to determine if she had a conflict of interest and should recuse herself from championing the cause of the two Roundhill instigators who will benefit greatly from the passage of this zoning amendment. She stated that the City Attorney told her that she did not. Perhaps the attorney should re-advise Ms. Cook. Given that the City of Huntington Beach has recently been mired in the horribly bad publicity surrounding the indictment of former Council member Pam Houchen and her cronies, obviously mired in a back-scratching, quid pro quo gambit, I would suggest that the mere "appearance" of a genuine conflict of interest should on its face alone be sufficient to cause the City Attorney, a prudent and responsible staff member, to suggest that Ms. Cook recuse herself immediately. Ms. Cook also stated that she has "friends" on both sides of the issue. I think we would all like to know what friends 1/3/2005 Page 3 of 3 she has who live on the affected through lot properties, if any of them served on her re-election committee overseeing the collection of funds, and if she has appointed any of them to the planning (or any other) commission. Needless to say, I hope this zoning amendment fails this evening. I hope the council's good sense will prevail. Thank you for your time, Adrienne Parks Westport Drive homeowner 1/3/2005 TO �zyo �� N�i it c� ►�Y C O C,((1[{j C I�'1 i' T o$1 rs � His slop {�,Y.aC�5 D s WGi5 re ! 0r7l oV7, cc U vG i ��Um T i � rI<� f�"J eT�1ci Yalr�v ce 4 Sr e 6r�Tr Gt S i i RECENED FROM AS OF PUBLIC RECORD 0 OU L MEETING O 17061 Westport Drive CITY Cl RK FFICE JOAWLFLYNN.GTYCLERK Huntington Beach, California 92649 December 30, 2004 Dear Ms. Shirley Doo, First let us take this opportunity to welcome you to our wonderful neighborhood. We are disappointed that we were not home and did not have an opportunity to meet you on December 8th We would be pleased to support your effort to build a retaining wall at the rear of your new property. As you may know our property has a retaining wall at the rear of our property. It has greatly enhanced the privacy of our backyard and restricted direct sightlines into our rear facing windows. We did our best to have our retaining wall constructed in an attractive fashion. We believe we were sucessful. Several of our rear neighbors on Roundhill commented favorably on the appearance of wall once it was completed. Of course we are not the most objective judges, but we do think it is more attractive than most of the "landscaped slopes." We would hope that the City Council does not deny you the same opportunity to improve your property. We hope they do not accommodate the wishes and tastes of a few. We resent the efforts to impose their arbitrary standard of taste on all owners of through lots. I'm sure they would resent an attempt to dictate the landscaping of their front yards, which we have the priviledge of viewing everyday. We empathize with you over the unfortunate difficulties you are encountering in our city. Sincerely, Alt'IL- George (Mike) Smalley Valerie Smalley ''��'.�r:� ro°�'-!:r�`�',,°e4•;+ ^ , KSM •v+'F ,':`•ems,,#'` ,a,�:;.�ai,•.,�'•�r. >' .`^:.nv A, J+,'}+"�^,,•,»., :v r a' _ '°w "w.`' :,ice `a4u - .y�arx" `f n} :^ijfrn •r• „°�k3; "'£� y,^ ,tve MKGr�3'` `;` ".4.' •'`.`s .%c.° .� % t�rs - �' - ,s" �} � r r ,.s �; �� �yfi, F '� ,�-'.4?;9•„�,.q,� �,p'ae•'. "& §"' a°�•�" '& i. � Y # a4'�`�t�ta>,,,., ' ; '�.',•�x'a sdf,M_,, ..v �€r��` ,��' s^c.,� p���, ,� -" °•'tit ., .� °,0 � e �Fna,�, � a�'' ,,�"`"". � �,a.••�',•yea"""" x'x'T-.-+-�":� °' �+' i ,r ��— rc"� ��,°<<�',. 5 .t. i:;.:s�'' k... ,; ".n• ',�` '.' '� .. „r- a -t.;a'. F - x �' �"�•n° r' 9, �;.g„tr3'}" ,. , , ( .y z,° 3 rr,,;.> v„•,�' w�", �' ;. P.° Cl " "' �,t'°f'«+'^','*,;:�° a'„ .t�ar,,.�N: y.re'} t ^,. ,._,s :.>'s.$''•t, sa,. a 't- y? ,.'x•, 'rf -s..� t 4R Y"', q .l^' "{y �.Fs �:s�: -yxw.�, , ���_,x°,9� u�,�� "j "+ � , r". c �-�t x ,� 'z z ° � #�y,r� ,�nL tL,¢4�.sS1 ,a�§• x� 4� XA11AV'a'r 44, a� ap r 'S �` �s,Jg �*m - � �'' �. a' fit,,, 5- ���n,i� '�„rtgL d d �' k "--t°: ''`�'K„�, }q•.a�`�' S N i"""�',r �0.* m .� ����""k�'�p b��"y"7 �W 'h "'w'+t4 �'� + r� - - ry :;`"i, - ' a s ''- -, ar.^Twz 3v.• .,&Z211 t T•„ ,t�_ y`,r �:." xr p¢.p �� .'y "`, x _ ,df' «e. a?ems �" }ic�: � ! �. h4 e 64 .da'k a - ��= R� `''f.` ,3 ." • �K ,L 7y y 'a 4 g -}n s a.n, €# i a'�" ,"' R y ' It y� g,q' '"y'd! �.{ y} ¢^��pv'cz ,y`yeT" F C�+_ r} "y$ w0 'k..S, '€•t;a � .i i" '9v. �ks'1"i F+�` rn3 A� 1`�•i#"6"3.F#LF$,q'*s..y# +r`:.x Y , kf -imc `avY r,"In 6 °V fIrl T equ, #. th 0 g5 i 7"�b`•,,.t�s`i 4 3,i -R 4,t 'r.6 y � ° .a3�., t p' y Y ' •�`° ,3* • ti.+•�..s i.t^§b :p '_ 6 Xi �. ,4," '.a ' r , -.�. * '4.35�'s•+� .r ''* °+•.�r t '.4 ' xNt' ¢��A«L- CV, �' { u+w��, "d '+r-'N.*'*e.S^�` i -r Vr '• rY ..k, f� - x�" E`k k 401 2 � �� '� kY4 n � js`�"r+ 's .,a � � •.:i>'�r' � °" �v�r`r -m a,f :"'1p4b i '.'. ✓ d �ty , gd Uila¢i 9R j .� �.'°fir z�"�t ��r�� �" r'�� `i��.t�",�'�,�t "t�j'" c�xa '� � '"',�t�,'-,.,.� P ,�, ��� k�+•`r�� �� �"�, ?,.��, ��' e Y 1�� � � J"�ts.J���-� aF'4�Po�� Ri d vy�` � F"� d"- , Y� �}• .i sn 5� r h e' - n'k� � � i�>4 � "x�i"^ =�• fi� � "�' fie, a,�' -" �,.�..,s�.3��'r ;� .w,�+ y, i a� �,� �- r<, 3�,r. g. :� §rove.°. ��• '°r+ sr 4�.�`t'��";,b�r.��.•;d� ,.� S�.w. ,, f�,�.'��;: r�'x"€�` '• '%„ �a�;6, ,,.� .gn •�tw*'� >, �id�. ;x� �°� •.'�.,- .,� '"�":7�a�"'�t rr''� y, ��.;r T' *.ara �`,�?e �a"'y y .z .r .:L$gc� ;�` �'�" ,�$ " ,',K r rev. �ona N�le �;ll �/Lhl 60 beep ✓al aP ��s� �Ulsp u� el o n �efLp � � (S�e_ / fbk 'P2 d�cG NCL/� P Pel l 40 1 / /ou', Li co C " P l c� cv b �s��.d'✓`G tee-, � �.s.:� U 1 CA4 � T w cj 1-7 o W� s t-(� �,had s we Ac"'y � 41.7G CA �z� �5 { If w ♦ t 4L w *cam- --1019 vo ok All � j ii �i ,r G 4 t 3 ;r December 8,2004 Ms. Shirley Doo 17041 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Shirley, I was pleased to have a discussion with you on December 6,2004,regarding your approved and permitted building project, including landscaping/exterior walls. My wife and I strongly support your desire to enhance and beautify your property, as it will also greatly benefit the entire neighborhood. Let us know if we can be of assistance to you at any time during your project. Thank you again for your efforts. Sincerely, Scott and Jennife?McCallisteP 17171 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 r ' r December 5,2004 To Whom It May Concern; My husband and I have no issues with Shirley Doo building a retaining wall on her property at 17041 Westport Dr Huntington Beach, CA. We own and occupy a home on the same street. Sirl ly, {r J Ann and Charles Pedersen 17181 Westport Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649 r r Zee ,le�i 4A--t-e All �l r n r ,fie Lr�.-� �� ,���.�eo�,ax �. ,� �;�i� �re .Q�.c .a.daa/l�'i� �ila.3�x�,�.�C f/.���..ti�� �3-env �-�/o ff 2,1 7 Camel) v10 c( S7 q r -7b t,4 (74) 7 clk- 111 � � `i 1v1 Cl lc�4�C 7-71 I'J'z C93 5e- vu fl; 6L cork /9/<D /L�J�) ! 1 �) ! I(�ER � 7031 WES'M�/rf ��. -�Ltrl`�ivr� '��E'rzCfi. CIA jdd `f7` � � � 4'� 377- 8fr � � :��Uuppprt 0+ ce..J-M.vv'ivi � uociJ aid (a,,.,tcJ s o,_fe_. UV\, (J- 17o 4f We's Vvo �CAl )ru4, rn4po,4v) �j ZD Av 7- ,ei T pi" RECENED; PF OUNARTHUR & JENNIE HASEGAWSP FWA 16901 Westport Drive JOAN L RiniCIY CM Huntington Beach, CA 92649 City of Huntington Beach August 25, 1997 Department of Community Development 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62 New retaining wall at 16901 Westport Drive Parcel Number: 178-321-0; Tract Number: 4880; Lot Number: 151 Dear Ms. Kimberly Klopfenstein: This is being prepared in response to the Notice of Filing Status dated August 21, 1997. We have been informed that our application has been deemed incomplete for processing and would like to provide information and/or corrections to continue the processing of our application. The following items are in response to the three corrections stated in the letter: 1. A check for$350 which is payable to the City of Huntington Beach for a Coastal Development Permit Fee is in accompaniment of this letter. We understand that a new application is not required since the Coastal Permit will be in conjunction with our CUP application. 2. The plans have been revised to reflect a 3'-0"clearance from the existing fire hydrant to our proposed block wall. Three (3) copies of the corrected drawings are being submitted as directed by Kim Klopfenstein via telephone on August 22, 1997. 3. There are no trees in the back of our lot as can be seen in the photos submitted with the original application. The only vegetation to be removed is the iceplant on the slope,which incidentally is quite unsightly due to a disease. After walking extensively around our neighborhood, most of the people that have built out to the property line do not have landscaping to screen the wall. We are opposed to having landscaping screening the wall due to the maintenance involved with the plants and also the possibility of having rodents thrive in the vegetation. Our proposed wall will be simplistic in design which will not detract from the natural beauty of our neighborhood. We are looking forward to proceeding with this proposed project and are willing to expend efforts towards the beautification of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association. Should there be a need for additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to call me at (310) 331-7427 during the day or(714) 840-4160 at home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Art Hasegawa Jennie Hasegawa 16901 Westport Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 •Y ARTHUR & JENNIE HASEGAWA 16901 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 City of Huntington Beach September 17, 1997 Department of Community Development 2000 Main St, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62 New retaining wall at 16901 Westport Drive Parcel Number: 178-321-0; Tract Number: 4880; Lot Number: 151 Dear Ms. Kimberly Klopfenstein: First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time out after the public hearing to talk with us. We appreciate your input and expertise in processing our application. We have been in contact with our landscape architect and would like to address some of the concerns that were expressed in the meeting of September 17, 1997: 1. We are planning on using a gray color split face concrete block as our fence. This wall will not be made out of a standard unfinished concrete block that is commonly used throughout the area but instead will be aesthetically pleasing. The top of the wall will be finished with a precast decorative concrete cap which will be run along the entire length. 2. We are proposing to add pilasters every 15' to 20' along the entire length of the wall. Although this will be a significant cost impact (additional 10-15% construction cost), we feel that this will enhance the wall and will break up the height of the proposed 11"-0"wall. 3. As was indicated in the meeting, we will be installing landscaping in the corner area contained within the 25'-0" setback. The tentative plan is to install one or possibly two queen palm trees with colorful ground cover and uplighting accents. This will carry the landscaping theme used in our front yard and will tie it all in nicely. 4. Although we had submitted pictures of surrounding homes in the area that have wall heights over 1 l'- 0", we had neglected to furnish the corresponding addresses. At 16961 Westport Drive (five houses away), the property has a wall that is 14'-7" from the sidewalk to the top. In addition, the following five properties located between 17101 Westport, and 17141 Westport all have walls that are over 1l'- 0". There is also 17085 Westport that has three(3)sections at close to 10'-0" and a center section that goes up to approximately 14'. 5. The objective of this project is not only to upgrade and beautify our property but in addition, to obtain the maximum use within our property boundaries. By forcing us to have a 2'-6" setback, the cost incurred in undertaking a project of this magnitude will not be justified if we are to comply with this setback. With the expected rains forthcoming, we are looking forward to proceeding with this proposed project as soon as possible. Should there be a need for additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to call me at (310) 331-7427 during the day or (714) 8404160 at home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Art and Jennie Hasegawa ARTHUR & JENNIE HASEGAWA 16901 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 City of Huntington Beach October 3, 1997 Department of Community Development 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62 New retaining wall at 16901 Westport Drive Parcel Number: 178-321-0; Tract Number:4880; Lot Number: 151 Dear Ms. Kimberly Klopfenstein: A meeting was held with Mr. Jerry Urner of the Huntington Harbour Homeowners Association and myself on Thursday, October 2, and with his guidance and cooperation, we were able to finalize and agree upon certain key issues regarding our proposed landscaping. The accom- panying sketch is representative of what we would like to do. As stated in the prior letter dated 18 September, we will be using a gray color split face concrete block with a precast concrete cap with an 18" x 18"pilaster approximately every 18' on center. The Association was in agreement with the proposal with the following exceptions: 1. We have proposed a 2'-0" high planting area with a precast concrete finished cap in front of the wall for landscaping purposes. Originally, we had proposed the width of this planter to be 12" wide. The Association was concerned that 12" would be too small of an area for planting and we agreed upon a 15"width. This will easily accommodate standard 15-gallon potted plants for ease of installation. 2. The Association would like to see us extend the non-retaining portion of the wall to the full 6'-0" height as currently allowed by City codes. This will force any future projects to all have the same wall height from the lot level and maintain a sense of continuity. We are in agreement and will revise our sketch to reflect the additional 6"in wall height. The Association seemed to like the selection of our materials to be used for our project. We will be utilizing a gray split face concrete block, such as depicted in the accompanying photograph with,a precast concrete cap running the entire length of the wall on both the full height wall and the 2'-0"high planter. In addition,the 18"x 18"pilasters will have matching caps. Again, with the expected rains forthcoming, we are looking forward to proceeding with this proposed project as soon as possible. Should there be a need for additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to call me at (310) 331-7427 during the day or (714) 840- 4160 at home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Art and Jennie Hasegawa Copy: Jerry Urner OFFICE of the ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • CALIFORNIA • NNNA/A//�/NAINNNI�I/�//�I/�/A//�//�J/'�IA/A/I�I NNNNNA/NNNN/�//.INA//V ICI P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 NOTICE OF ACTION October 16, 1997 PETITION DOCUMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-62/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-24 (HASEGAWA WALL) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Arthur& Jennie Hasegawa, 16901 Westport Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To allow an 11 foot high combination retaining/block wall within the side and rear yard setback, at the toe of the slope adjacent to the sidewalk. LOCATION: 16901 Westport Drive (south of Davenport Drive) PROJECT PLANNER: Kim Klopfenstein Dear Applicant: Your application was acted upon by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Huntington Beach on October 15, 1997, and your request was Conditionally Approved. Included in this letter are the Conditions of Approval for this application. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Zoning Administrator is final unless an appeal is filed to the Planning Commission by you or by an interested party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the action and grounds by which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) if the appeal is filed by any other parry. The appeal shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within ten(10) calendar days of the date of the Zoning Administrator's action. The last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee for the above noted application is October 27, 1997. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62/ Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24 Page No. 2 Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-24: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24 to permit a combinationiblock retaining wall along the street side and rear property line, as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the plans policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposed wall will not impact public views or access to coastal resources as none exist at the site. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24 is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program applicable to the property. The proposed development will conform with all applicable City Codes as allowed by the conditional use permit. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure currently exist at the site. 4. The proposed wall conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-62: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62 for the establishment,maintenance and operation of the combination block/retaining wall along the street side and rear yard property line, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since the proposed wall is designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood and the site is physically suitable for this type of development. 2. The wall located adjacent to the sidewalk, at the toe of the slope, will be compatible with surrounding uses because there are similar walls in the side and rear property of residences within the neighborhood. Furthermore,by creating two separate walls,the area between the walls could be landscaped to screen the upper wall and improve the aesthetics of the street. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62/ Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24 Page No. 3 3. The proposed combination block/retaining wall will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The structure meets the minimum setbacks, and the wall height as permitted with a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining the quality of life for current and future residents of Huntington Beach(LU1). b. Ensure that structures and sites are designed and constructed to maintain their long-term quality (LU 4.2). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-24/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-24: 1. The site plan,floor plans and elevations received and dated October 6, 1997, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The elevations shall depict the following: 1) An 11'-0"maximum high block/retaining wall, adjacent to the sidewalk, at the toe of the slope, along Davenport Drive. 2) A 2'-0"maximum high block/retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk on Wesport Drive and an 11'-6"block/retaining wall (exposed height of 9'-6")which will be setback 15"from the lower wall to provide a planter area. 3) The 15"planter area between the two walls facing Westport Drive shall be planted and the landscaping shall be maintained Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62/ Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24 Page No. 4 4) The entire wall shall consist of gray split face block with a gray trim cap. 5) The wall shall have 18"by 18"columns/pilasters placed every 18' along the entire wall. b. The wall shall maintain a minimum clearance of 3'-0" from the existing fire hydrant located in the public right-of-way. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover page of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing). 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of Community Development. 4. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein, including: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Community Development Department. b. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 5. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62/ Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24 Page No. 5 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24 shall not become effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24,pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. The Department of Community Development will perform a comprehensive plan check relating to all Municipal Code requirements upon submittal of your completed structural drawings. Please be advised that the Zoning Administrator reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request for entitlement of the use applied for in relation to the vicinity in which it is proposed. The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan reflecting conformance to all Code requirements. It is recommended that you immediately pursue completion of the Conditions of Approval and address all requirements of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code in order to expedite the processing of your total application. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62/ Coastal Development Permit No. 97-24 Page No. 6 I hereby certify that Conditional Use Permit No. 97-62 and Coastal Development Permit No. 97- 24 were Conditionally Approved by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on October 15, 1997, upon the foregoing conditions and citations. Very trul y us, Herb Fauland Zoning Administrator HF:KK:kjl xc: Property Owner *"s�`�-��3'�-: �t �wt F� - - r NP Ql ''�"��-fir!'�� �`.'y; � "PL,•g�4"s �.`,-s`�Y-G �s� 3w�5 ' t 7 N irk mng- Y r s Rr,-631 tt,. 4. -- F e..C- ( ,�3"i °.-'3 z- 4 d „) i f _ q .�}�.' � ":3+: •'a Fs.�-���"�2�-}".° �- ---<°�rt -r `.,. -s,��x-. '.',,.�,jaw ..;� _ .'.a��'Rd� '�-`�� 3 ,,�� •W..�;:;-`rc">'s;s:.c.'�,'�t ,.�,..,-�*.. ate''r'-m' x `�, `�Ti?��-.�%�` a-�.-rs?f- `:2,�- 'Ste'.E•X-�_se-_�'�"`�c=;«f�g,.' �+;, - - •is� `p -.�r�7�,;,5:,.z3:.`en:;.b' '` x�k` v '�P �'�, T*-_.-ra-*s'$ ;� _ ;�.. _. .it*.�-< �`i` s#,._ �«.k` Y.�,;."..�'���r�::.�.�_'``yi '� ��' �C- 4"�� �•t:� - •' - _ �,, '.r a'x' -,� .���k� ��'s�y`�i ��_�-r.`_-s.-:."' iL. It �'. < r srF��at t � � j s 7 'v'1'�>a[ #y 4 %4T'L -� sP-tWi ? J` ,'{5 iq• .�4-x F Y t 1 u h�} �.V y°! - '3�'•� t �v 3 K' i �. �- ��s. 7 f� �ir'Pw,. C' .°�'�i'„ d�� 'y"�'4x'rr+�s;'•�'� ,�. r tt 1q Y o l,t.t`„ w J n�f GV I �q^I. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 203 and Chapter 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments clarify the definitions for certain terms relating to walls and fences, expand the public notification to include property owners who face the rear of through lots, and specifies design criteria for walls at the rear of through lots. The zoning text amendment will allow for greater public participation and the design criteria established will create a uniform design standard for wall design. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amendment will result in increased compatibility between properties based on a standardized block wall design at the rear of through lots. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change. The need for expanded notification for conditional use permits on residential through lots and design criteria for block walls is desired by the community. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice by codifying definitions and design criteria that that will regulate the development of block walls at the rear of through lots and protects the general welfare of the public through additional notification requirements. 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) Attachment 2.1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 203.06 AND 2Y0.88 THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, AND FENCING ANb YARDS WHEREAS,pursuant to the California State Planning and Zonin Law,the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have//held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider a Zoning Text Amendment, whic/amends Sections 203.06, and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to definitions, and fencing and yards; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections 203.06 and 230.88yof the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 5200_ ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVE/ APPROVED AS TO FORM: c City Ad ' inistrator ity Attorney INITI ED AND APPROVED: 1/ Di ctor of Planning -ord/04zoning/amend 203 06 and 230 88 2d ORDINANCE NO. ��c�� )q"Ct Oor i� it LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 0kD'4AdCX`A)a • 31092-' 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the ront property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends alon the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 3. Fences or walls along the second ry frontage of a through lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height. This subsection shall notfapply to lots abutting arterial highways. Fences or walls that exceed 42 inches.in height, and are located within the secondary frontage of a through lot, may be permittedzimum ided they comply with the following design criteria: a. A combination retaining and block wall with a ma height of eight (8) feet, measured from the adjacent grade, shall be located at a ten-foot setback from the rear property line. /all b. The maximum height of the retaining wall sbe three (3) feet and the maximum height of the block wall or view fence shal be five (5) feet. (See Exhibit Below) Block Wall or View Fence 0 � 11.=111 — c Retaining I 1(I Iff Wall I� 1 cri =Ill !! lill ll! — ►r l Ii= " lil=gyp 10' —0" Min. Setback ' LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning/Administrator. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed for a through lot abutting a local street, may be permitted subject to an approval of a variance by the Zoning Administrator. In addition to the standard notification process, the notification requirements shall include all properties that that face the secondary frontage of a through lot along the entire block. PAC-14-2004 22: 17 P.01 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET DATE: 12/15/04 T0: Honorable Mayor Jill Hardy & City Council Members i FAX: (714) 374-1557 RE: Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 FROM: Mike Palikan DEAR CITY CLERK, PLEASE ENSURE THAT THIS LETTER IS INCLUDED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET FOR THE DECEMBER 20, 2004 MEETING. THANK YOU. Number of pages including cover sheet: c 0 pCDr .. L D c'> O � O n tEC-14-2004 22: 17 P.02 Mike Palikan 17097 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 846-1849 December 15, 2004 Honorable Mayor Jill Hardy and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 via facsimile only Re: ZTA 03-01 Honorable Mayor and Council Members; This letter is in reference to the proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) which has been exhaustively reviewed by Planning Staff and Planning Commission. I urge you to reject the Amendment which was initially proposed ("Amendment") and decline to adopt any laws which would unreasonably restrict our property rights. This entire matter arose over one issue...aesthetics. The proponents (mainly residents of Roundhill) argue that their views are affected. But many of their homes are oriented towards the rear of their lots, and their living and dining rooms face their rear yards. What's more, many of the proponents' properties already face walls. We're not proposing anything obnoxious, just to put up retaining walls and fences on property which is ours, which we have paid for and continue to pay taxes and insurance on. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but property rights are tangible, objective and substantial. Ocean views are not even protected in Huntington Beach, so why would we protect someone's view of another's back yard? There are substantial costs involved with this Amendment. It deprives us of the use of a substantial portion of our property for which we pay taxes on. Multiply the value of all our properties by the square footage which we would lose and you will get an idea of our combined losses. This hurts all of us, especially those of us on fixed incomes who rely on their property value for retirement purposes, and to pay for their care if they are forced to move into an extended care facility or nursing home. We will be forced to disclose the restrictions to prospective buyers, which makes our properties, less marketable, like when a buyer learns that they can't erect a sufficient wall or fence, even for security reasons. 1 • D,; C-14-2004 22: 18 P.03 This Amendment hurts in other ways as well. When the City takes property by inverse condemnation, it compensates landowners for taking their land, but there is no such suggestion in this Amendment. And although the CUP process should remain, the proposal to have it heard before the entire Planning Commission for an application fee is $8,300+ with no guarantee of approval is outrageously expensive. Those who favor this Amendment say that their property values will decline if walls are built, But retaining walls, like swimming pools and spas, actually add value to land. When the improved property becomes more valuable, so do neighboring properties, ("comps"), Our homes would increase in value from a well designed, well maintained, uniformly appearing set of walls, giving the community a sense of continuity. The CC&R issue has been debated frequently. But we have no mandatory membership, no mandatory dues and no common areas in our community, I believe that the CC&R's are merely advisory. Had the developer intended our slopes to be common areas, it would have created landscape easements, with all members to pay for maintenance. The developer did not build retaining walls because of the expense. And obviously, it was a business decision . by the developer to not limit buyer's rights to develop slopes, as that would hamper the initial sales of these lots. In fact, the Huntington Beach Property Owners Association ("HHPOA") placed a warning on the CC&R's which indicates that they should not be relied on. Compare these circumstances to the cooperative community in which you live, or have lived. Twenty-two walls have been allowed to be built with the knowledge, and in some cases, the blessing of the HHPOA. So any objections by the HHPOA should be disregarded. What's more, at the Planning Commission Public Hearing of September 14, 2004, the President of the HHPOA stated that the HHPOA can enforce the CC&R's against any homeowner. If this is so, then why is the City even contemplating this issue? Why should the City attempt to interpret CC&R's, or get involved in private property disputes? If this Amendment passes, it will set a precedent for any homeowner's association to force Council to intervene in even the most minor disputes. Changing CC&R's is the job of homeowner's association's. Those of us who purchased homes with undeveloped slopes relied on the condition of the many other developed rear yards to improve our lots the same way. That is, to extend our rear yards to our rear property lines, and build retaining walls with fences. Please deny the proposed Amendment, allow us to build rear lot line retaining walls and fences as a matter of right, and restore our property rights. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, 2 TOTAL_ P.03 FROM :JOE N1SS1M FAX NO. :562 592 5e78 Dec. 12 2004 09:06PM Pi 16542 Mariana Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 December 12, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor Hardy and City Council Members: Subject: Proposed amendment 03-10 We would like to impress upon you that both through-lot homeowners and the city council of Huntington Beach have very common goals in keeping the unique aesthetic look of Huntington Harbour as it very well deserves. As residents of Gilbert Island for over 38 years,we have loved all aspects of our surroundings. In all this time there was only one dispute involving slope remodeling in Gilbert Island. We would like to ask each council member to change seats with through-lot homeowners just long enough to ponder the predicaments we find ourselves in. Possibly being ordered to take down existing structures that were put up in good faith and incur unforeseen financial burdens undermines our rights as property owners. Dictating and imposing new standards on homeowners, after the fact, does not seem democratic, let alone fair. We ask your support in upholding our property owner's rights and rejecting proposed amendment 03-10. ince• ly, iph and Eleanor Nissim Ld ry) }- -=3r 0 0 :L ^ _ '.0. �-off}` FROM FAX NO. Dec. 15 2004 12:40PM P1 FJ�J/ G'(°k e T C.�0 f �r &17e I'J -PSI Dear Sirs: j Thought human beings do not always agree on what is beautiful they do recognize styles. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the patterns of style can be described. Style in many Irvine are very restrictive,very conformed allowing very little variation. Some people see this as beautiful. Huntington Harix,r by contrast is composed of great a diversity and has a history of freedom of expression. We did not spend our hard-earned money on style of an Irvine community. We love the ocean,the rustic nature of old piers r `—' and yes the creative diversity of homes in Huntington Harbor. This is what the existing n community has bought into. Ln _ People must exercise trust in elected officials;life is too short for everyone to follow S� Uj every detail of law—making. We clearly saw the precedence set by the community when we bought into it. We believed reasonable lawmakers would support a substantial _ C= precedence. Again, I take medicine recommended by my doctor without studying pharmacology by myself. I need to leverage off of trust. This is also the common sense trust we used buying in to the Harbor- Finally,we hear much of this started because of a wall. Some individual doesn't like looking at the wall. I have nixed feelings on walls- To me is more important what a wall hides rather than what it looks like. The 35-foot houses on our island have walls. They obscure our view of the ocean;many who have moved here did so at a time when the ocean was visible. Now that is complained about hides ones backyard no an ocean view. Personally, having a backyard gives me a little privacy. I can walk out in it and watch weave its web without being interrupted.. Walls that obscure ones private property and do not obstruct ocean view have been,well accepted by the human race in most places and times. In short, if we in Gilbert look around someday and see tremendous diversity of 35 foot skyscrapers,some with Japanese roofs,some with modern metal garage doors,some that look like mediation temples, some Mediterranean styles and find that we are not given similar freedom of personal expression in our raodest hills without paying $8000 plus dollars(just for the evaluation of a plan)then we will know that our trust has been misplaced. Also it would be obvious that the will of a small minority not.respecting the precedence of current style,perversely and unfairly were able to push an absurd and incongruent law through your organization.. People can easily recognize the style of Huntington Harbor,is freedom and kingship to the ocean. One must figure out what they like and if they still they want to change it all to their own image,maybe there are some vacancies in Irvine. Yours truly Stephen B.Rowell and Elizabeth Z. Rowell,M.D. 14 � '2 J Elizabeth Z. Rowell, M.D. � Jones, Dale From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:15 PM To: Zelefsky, Howard; Flynn, Joan; Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Zoning Text Amendment o Cz d —r -----Original Message----- C From: Thkiese@aol.com [mailto:Thkiese@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:04 PM c- To: City.council@surfcity-hb.org co Kr= Cc: Pat Dapkus v 4,rn -- Subject: Zoning Text Amendment C T LAj c7 © 2> Honorable Mayor and Council Members: My name is Thomas Kiesewetter, I live at 16601 Melville Circle on Gilbert Island and I own a `through-lot". I am hopeful that our new Council members will take a fresh look at Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 03-01 and follow the Planning Department' s original findings that the ZTA is inconsistent with the Master Plan. I am asking the City Council to carefully review the issues and also disclose personal ties to either side of the issue for the sake of clarifying possible conflict of interest (e.g. , quid pro quo) . The recent financial debacle at the sports complex, and indictments involving condo developments shout for a more open or "transparent" council. The Planning Department presented a well-researched report that found the Zoning Text Amendment inconsistent with the Master Plan. The Council chose to ignore (and one member shamefully vilified) the staff recommendation. The current Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association Board is misrepresenting itself as the voice of the Harbour. Please ask the HHPOA for hard facts and figures, not just comments read from a script. In the past, through-lot walls have been built with the approval of the HHPOA along with the City and Coastal Commission. What has caused the reversal in HHPOA' s stance? "Property rights" is a term that has been bantered around during public discussion and has significant meaning on Gilbert Island. The quote below is from the Staff Report from Paul Da Veiga dated July 13, 2004 and is listed as attachment 3.3 (the attachment is from Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210, page 210-19, proposed paragraph W) . 11 ... the rear yard set back for through lots ... shall be increased by an additional 10 feet as measured from the crest of the slope." 1 This paragraph will render a majority of through-lots on Gilbert Island "non compliant". In fact, my house is 3-feet from the crest of my slope and my neighbors both have pools that are less than 10-feet from the crest. The issue is two fold. First, the additional 10-feet set back from the crest of the slope changes the original focus of complaint from "ugly block walls" to "property rights" (as the amendment will "take" control of the rear portion of my house and place it within bureaucratic control) . Second, the definition and extent of "grand fathering" existing structures is not clarified. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 has generated a great deal of discussion and controversy and the new Council Members give us an opportunity for a fresh look. Please, listen to your Staff and look at the Planning Department' s finding that the Zoning Text Amendment is inconsistent with the Master Plan. Respectfully, Thomas Kiesewetter 2 December 17, 2004 Respected Mayor Hardy and City Council Members: We reside at 4172 Windsor Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 and have a through lot. The Zoning Amendment No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) affects our property rights. Since the amendment did not get approved due to an administrative error, we now have a hope that you will reconsider our request to deny the proposed amendment. Huntington Beach Harbour properties are unique. No property is alike. All properties are diversified and do not conform to any "track home"type standards. When we moved here in1992, we decided to live here on the premise that we could extend our backyard and fully enjoy our property and home. We did extend our backyard about seven years ago and enjoying it with our family. This diversity of homes in the harbour enhances the property value as well as the aesthetics. There are more beautiful walls and fences than number of slopes in the harbour. RoundHill Group (RG) and Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (HHPOA) were successful in passing the amendment,without addressing our issues, on November 15, 2004 with the previous council. We also came to know that the HHPOA started demanding to an existing home owner that he remove the existing wall at his own expense, even though the previous owner built the wall with proper permits and approval from the HHPOA two years ago! With the new city council presiding, we hope that this proposed amendment be evaluated fairly and thoroughly. We request that you deny this proposed amendment restoring our property rights. Desire of the "chosen few"proposing this amendment can not become a reality over the rights of the affected "through lot"property owners. T Sincerely L' -1 -v Harsha&Jay Sheth 4172 Windsor DrivecD w +- Huntington Beach, CA 92649. � I ..O o Jones, Dale From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 8:51 AM To: Zelefsky, Howard; Flynn, Joan; Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Through lot property dispute in Huntington Harbour Fyi z -----Original Message----- o From: Hardy, Jill Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 5:31 PM a To: Dapkus, Pat � -)--a' Subject: FW: Through lot property dispute in Huntington HarbourN c -r'"`�(7 CD r ... Moo�� > 7) n .s� -----Original Message----- From: "Dave Lake" <dlake@socal.rr.com> co :> Sent: 12/17/04 4 : 16:05 PM To: "jhardy@surfcity-hb.org" <jhardy@surfcity-hb.org>, "dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org" <dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org>, "kbohr@surfcity-hb.org" <kbohr@surfcity-hb.org>, "gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org" <gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org>, "dcook@surfcity-hb.org" <dcook@surfcity-hb.org>, "cgreen@surfcity- hb.org" <cgreen@surfcity-hb.org>, "dhansen@surfcity-hb.org" <dhansen@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Through lot property dispute in Huntington Harbour Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, My name is David Lake. I live at 16961 Concord Lane in Huntington Beach and I have a through lot. I have lived in my home for three years and am still new to the issue of walls and slopes on through lots. I have attended the last few council meetings pertaining to the slope/wall issue and am learning more about the issue as I go. I am hopeful the City Council can resolve this dispute. I had accepted the earlier recommendation that a compromise is in order. I am hopeful you can find a solution to this issue that is fair. At this time however I wish to communicate my concerns regarding stories that are circulating the neighborhood about the treatment of citizens by other citizens. I do not have all the facts so I cannot say that everything I hear is correct but the stories I have heard are quite alarming. One story pertains to a new neighbor who I am told had received permission from the City to remodel both her home and back yard to include some slope remodeling. The leader of the "Anti-Wall Faction" without permission trespassed upon the person's property, Lc�� took measurements of the work being done and when approached by the owner of the property insisted that work on the project be halted immediately. This woman threatened legal action if work on the slope was not terminated. I have confirmed this took place and I am curious to know how a citizen can demand that a project be stopped if it was approved by the City? I have seen the project and I cannot imagine how such a project could have been started without the approval of the City. If a citizen is disturbed by construction being performed by another citizen upon one's property are there not better ways to resolve the dispute through the City Planner's Office? Is a personal confrontation like this the best way to proceed and does it accomplish anything? The second story I have heard also deals with a new resident to the Huntington Harbour neighborhood. I am told this family moved into their home and after a few months received a letter from a Law Firm which supposedly represents the Huntington Harbour Home Owners Association. The letter stated that the new resident must immediately tear down the wall at the rear of their property and restore the area to a landscaped slope like what many of us currently have. This again seems preposterous. First of all I thought we had determined in past City Council meetings that the Huntington Harbour Home Owners Association is a voluntary Association and as such did not have the authority to make such demands. Secondly if an individual buys a home in the area that already has a wall in place how can a new property owner be forced to make such costly modifications to the property after the fact? I know this slope issue has been an ongoing problem for many years and has come to a head recently. I am concerned that citizens are taking matters into their own hands. It seems to me the "Anti- Wall Faction" is terrorizing the neighborhood and I think it should be stopped. What right do they have to be taking these sorts of actions? I hope these stories are presented at the next City Council Meeting and I hope you will address them and put a stop to such actions if they are indeed taking place and if such actions are indeed improper. I also hope you will do your best to resolve this dispute over property rights in a fair and timely manner so this type of bickering is stopped. Our neighborhood really needs some leadership. Please do not let us down. Sincerely, David Lake 16961 Concord Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Phone: (714) 846-0987 2 ORDINANCE NO. 3�D AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON B CH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND I7BDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 203.06� d 230.88 THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND FENC G AND YARDS WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider a Zoning Text Amendfnent, which amends Sections 203.06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdi ision Ordinance relating to definitions and fencing and yards; and After due consideration of the findings aqd recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, t e City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the eneral Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the Ci/033.06 il of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sectionsnd 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby ended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordnance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND AD TED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof he on the day of 3200 ATTEST: iREVIEWEDkDAP Clerk Mayor ROVE APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Adminio4trator RV 'ty AttorAey 0 -II Z�I II " � ;fNITI TED AND APPROVED: ector of P arming ord/04zoninJamend 210 etc/9/23/04 ATTA MAIT N1' . �"i LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 203.06 Definitions Frontage,Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along,the front property line adjacent to a local street. Z Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. / 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 3. Fences or walls within the rear yard setback area of a through lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting�arterial highways. Fences or walls that exceed 42 inches in height, and are located within the rear yard or exterior side yard setback of a through lot, may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission provided they comply with the following design criteria: (As Determined by the City Council) 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot requiring a conditional use permit shall provide public notification to include all properties that face the secondary frontage of a through lot, along the entire street abutting the subject lot. ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 203.06 and 230.88 THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND FENCING AND YARDS WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider a Zoning Text Amendment, which amends Sections 203.06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to definitions and fencing and yards; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections 203.06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach'at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 200_ ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED ND AP ROVE APPROVED AS TO FORM:' City Administrator G}ty Atto ey � . INITI TED AND APPROVED: rector of Panning ord/04zonin-!amend 210 etc/9/23/04 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — Planning Commission/Staff Recommendation 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot requiring a conditional use permit shall provide public notification to include all properties that face the secondary frontage of a through lot, along the entire street abutting the subject lot. ATTACHMENT 4 Ll ATTACHMENT NO.si-*' SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL —ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 203, Chapter 210, and Chapter 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments clarify the definitions for certain terms relating to walls and fences, expand the public notification to include property owners who face the rear of through lots, and specifies design criteria for walls at the rear of through lots. The zoning text amendment will allow for greater public participation and the design criteria established will create a uniform design standard for wall design. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amendment will result in increased compatibility between properties based on a standardized block wall design at the rear of through lots. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change. The need for expanded notification for conditional use permits on residential through lots and design criteria for block walls are desired by the community. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice by codifying definitions and design criteria that that will regulate the development of block walls at the rear of through lots and protects the general welfare of the public through additional notification requirements. 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) Attachment 2.1 ORDINANCE NO. 5�P' 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON B CH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND S BDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 203.06, 210.06,PO.08 and 230.88 THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, ACCESSO Y STRUCTURES AND FENCING AND YARDS WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider a Zoning Text Amendment, which amends Sections 203.06, 210.06, 230.08 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zopng and Subdivision Ordinance relating to definitions, accessory structures and fencing and y yards; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, thekity Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections 20s.06, 210.06, 230.08 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 200 ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND AP P D: PPROVED AS TO FORM: C y Administrator P( l ity At orney c (INIIT TED AND AP ROVED: Di ector of Planning ord/04zoninJamend 210 etc/9/23/04 TTAC,H-11 E N T ° LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — City Council Directed 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 210.06 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict J' Provisions Minimum Setbacks Rear (ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that backup to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. (W) The rear yard setback of aJ hrough lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the sub property is located. The rear yard setback for through lots with a grade differential of three feet or greater between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall be increased by an additional 10 feet, measured from the crest of the slope. / 230.08 Accessory Structu/s B. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An, accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no setback is required for accessory structures excluding garages and carports, which abut an alley. Accessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Accessory structures shall be prohibited within the rear yard setback area of through lots backing up to a local street. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open o p p n at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsectibn may be attached to a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest'of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. F. Decks. deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard except for decks on �gh th, lots backing up to local streets, with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the to of curb and crest of slope, which shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — City Council Directed 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fFences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet"from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height Way not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (-3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 3. Fenees or walls within th Aumd setback area of throl 1 a, lot sh4 11 not e�ceeed 4 2 inches in Lpight Fences, walls and any other visible structures/shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crestyof the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of AV less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: e. , maximum retaining wall height four-(24) inehes as fneastifed ftem t o" adj aeent eurb and may be topped-will- a maximum eighteen (18) ineh deeor-ative Wall �1 11. Deviations from the maximum height regrements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission Public notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners and tenants within a 1000-foot radius from the subject site. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — City Council Directed REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY / 45° 25' 'A' •A' 'A' 45 .p- 40 29 Je 4i JA g) YA 9�y 1DT' / 1p• 10'�— THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 inch high fene may be constructed on any portion of the lot Exception:No walls allowed within rear yard area of a through lo abutting a local street ®/Indicates that portion of the lot on which a 6 foot high fence may be constructed. "A"indicates the minimum required front yard setback and rear yard setback of a through lot ahuffinn a Inral street_ 25 /Dia ram C 43 8,23,94 G:X1WDRAM30SB82814P jJ J 1 1� A ATTACHMENT 5 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: October4, 2004 Department ID Number: PL04-21 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULBRETH-GRAFT, City Adminis ator PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis, Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 is a City Council directed amendment to Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear and street side yards of through-lots based on a sub-committee recommendation. The proposed amendments are intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height on slopes and rear portions of through lots, require the sloped portion of a through lot to be fully landscaped and require fencing on a through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing within an exterior side yard. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the zoning text amendment with only two changes to the current ordinance (Recommended Action). The two recommended changes are to include definitions for "primary frontage" and "secondary frontage" and to expand the public notification radius from 300 feet to 1,000 feet for conditional use permits. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommended changes as a compromise between the City Council's directed amendment and staff's original recommendation of no changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for approval (Attachment No. 1) and adopt Ordinance No. (Attachment No. 2) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON SEPTEMBER 14 2004: THE MOTION MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY STILTON, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01, WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, LIVENGOOD, SCANDURA, RAY, STILTON, DINGWALL NOES: THOMAS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s': The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for approval and adopt Ordinance No. (City Council Directed with Five Modifications) (Attachment No. 3) 2. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for denial. (Attachment No. 4)" Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: Citywide Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 is a request to amend Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The request is a City Council directed zoning text amendment to further regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures along the rear yards and street side yards of through- lots. A through lot is defined in Chapter 203.06 Definitions as a lot having frontages on two dedicated parallel or approximately parallel streets. B. BACKGROUND: In February 2002, the Beautification, Landscape, and Tree (BLT) Sub-Committee recommended that a "C" item be placed on the City Council agenda directing staff to prepare a zoning text amendment to address block walls at the rear of through-lots. The City Council approved the item and directed staff to prepare a zoning text amendment with the following modifications: PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -2- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 1) Require any fence built within the rear yard area of a through lot be located at the top of grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double frontage lot. 2) The setback areas (slopes) shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. 3) Structures including walls and fences of any height shall not be permitted on the sloped portions of a through lot. 4) The term "Primary Frontage" and "Secondary Frontage" shall be set forth in the ordinance. 5) Conditional Use Permit notification should include all property owners facing through lots. In addition to the recommended amendments to the zoning ordinance, the City Council directed staff to consider the points listed below in a memo dated April 24, 2002 from former Council member Ralph Bauer. ❑ Recognition should be given in any ordinance to the fact that on a double lot there is a "front" and a "back". See Definition of Primary & Secondary Frontage in this report under Section 203.06 ❑ Landscaping should encompass 100 percent of a lot (at least back part). See Subsection No. 230.88.(S)(4) in this report. ❑ Walls or fences along the back of the lot should require a permit (including those of 42 inches or less). Retaining walls that retain a slope or other surcharge require a building ,,—)permit. (�// Any Conditional Use Permit (CUP) dealing with the backside should be heard by the full Planning Commission. See Subsection 230.88.A.I I in this report. ❑ All relevant Urban Design Guidelines should be part of any ordinance. ❑ If a wall is granted under a CUP, it should include the following features: a. Setback from the public right of way. b. A height limit. c. Landscaping between the public right-of-way and the wall including vines that cover the wall. d. Adhere to engineering specifications to make sure the will not fail should dirt be piled against it. e. Wall should adhere to Urban Design Guidelines. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The subject zoning text amendment has been through three Planning Commission study sessions (May 25, June 8, Aug. 10) and three public hearings (July 13, Aug. 10, Sep. 14). Several amendments to the through lot development standards have been discussed by the Commission and testimony from the public has been taken at each of the public hearings and study sessions. Staffs recommendation throughout each of the public hearings is that the fencing ordinance remain unchanged. PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -3. 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 At the September 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, there were a total of six persons who spoke in favor of the proposed zoning text amendment and 17 who spoke in opposition. Staff provided the Planning Commission with four alternatives for amending the zoning ordinance based on the past study sessions and public hearings. These alternative were as follows: ❑ Alternative A reflected the City Council direction to prepare a zoning text amendment with five modifications. o Alternative B was proposed by Commissioner Livengood and allows for some limited fencing options within the rear sloped areas of through lots. ❑ Alternative C was proposed by Commissioner John Scandura and allows for 42-inch high fencing to be allowed within the rear yard area of through lots. ❑ Alternative D was the original legislative draft presented at the July 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. It represents a combination of the City Council directed changes and additional Planning Commission recommendations that were developed at the June 8, 2004 Planning Commission study session. Following the discussion regarding the four alternatives, the Planning Commission recommended changes to the ordinance that addressed two of the five main amendments directed by the City Council. The first recommendation adds two new definitions to Chapter 203 of the HBZSO. These definitions are as follows: Frontage, Primary - The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary- The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. The second recommendation is to increase the public notification requirement from a radius of 300 feet to 1000 feet from the subject site. The Planning Commission believes that the two recommendations strike a compromise between the staff recommendation of no change and the City Council direction, and allows property owners to make improvements to their properties. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: There are approximately 118 through lots backing up to a local street, throughout the City. The majority of these through lots (75) are found in Huntington Harbor. All of the through lots located in Huntington Harbor were developed at a higher grade elevation than the street located to the back of the property, which results in a varying slope condition within the rear yard. The slope areas vary in their horizontal dimensions from seven feet up to 25 feet in PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -4- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 depth. The grade differential or vertical dimension also varies from four feet up to 14 feet in height, measured from the top of the adjacent curb. The front and rear yard setback requirement for a through lot is 15 feet since each frontage faces a local street. The new definitions provide clarification that a through lot has both a primary and secondary frontage. The terms "primary frontage" and "secondary frontage" will allow for distinction between the front and rear yards of a through lot. The increase in notification is based on the potential aesthetic impacts to the street scene and to a neighborhood as a result of proposed through lot fencing. The proposed amendment will provide additional notification to property owners who face the secondary frontage of a through lot and increase neighbor hood awareness of fencing requests in excess of 42 inches in height. City Council Directed: A legislative draft of the proposed changes that reflects the five changes directed by the City Council has been prepared (Attachment No. 3). The following analysis lists each of the five issues followed by the corresponding code section that would be amended based on the City Council's direction: Issue #1 Require any fence built within the rear yard area of a through lot be located at the top of grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double frontage lot. Issue #3 Structures including walls and fences of any height shall not be permitted on the sloped portions of a through lot. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address these two issues: 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) 3. 42—iRGh Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -5. 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. The modifications to this subsection are intended to prohibit fencing of any height within the rear yard area of through lots. This modification is recommended to preserve the existing slopes and eliminate the possibility of fencing within the sloped area. By eliminating all fencing on the slopes, the aesthetics of the street will be protected, and views from neighbors that face the rear of the subject through lots will not be disrupted with block walls. The current ordinance limits the height of fences along the rear property line of a through lot (or any lot) to 42 inches. As noted earlier, many homeowners take advantage of this allowance and enclose their yards to expand their useable space and also to add aesthetic, safety and security to their properties. The ordinance requires a CUP for any wall or fence that exceeds 42 inches in height proposed along the rear property line of a through lot. The amendments would not allow fencing of any height within the rear sloped area of a through lot. Regulating the location of fences that do not require a building permit is difficult to enforce since 42-inch high walls can be placed anywhere on a residential lot without a building permit. In addition, the amended section is specific to Huntington Harbor through lots and does not apply across the board to all lots under the same zoning classification. This results in specific requirements that are directed at a very limited number of properties. Issue #2 The setback areas (slopes) shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 210.06 RL, RM, RMH, RH, AND RMP Districts: Property Development Standards (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirety landscaped with plant material with no visible hardscape. The additional subsection is intended to require the owners of through lots to fully landscape and maintain the rear sloped area. The recommended modifications are proposed to maintain and create a more attractive street scene along the rear of the subject lots and preserve the views of the neighbors who live across the street. In addition, the amendment is intended to require the use of plant material that will control erosion and possibly eliminate loose soil and plant material being washed onto the public sidewalk. Staff does not support the additional landscape provision as proposed based on the landscape maintenance requirements that already exist in the HBZSO and Municipal Code. Chapter 8.16 Weed Abatement of the Municipal Code requires that property shall be kept PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -6- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 free of weeds at all times. In addition, since the subject properties are through lots they are subject to front yard landscape requirements under Chapter 232 of the HBZSO. Issue #4 The term "Primary Frontage" and "Secondary Frontage" to be set forth in the ordinance. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. The addition of the above-noted definitions is intended to reinforce that through lots have two frontages and are subject to front yard setback limitations within the front yard and secondary frontage at the rear of the lot. Staff supports the proposed definitions as they provide clarification regarding setback requirements for through lots. Issue #5 Add that any Conditional Use Permit (CUP) notification should include property owners facing through lots. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Public notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners and tenants within a 1000-foot radius from the subject site. These modifications would require that CUP requests for fencing for through lots be processed under a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission. Staff does not support this modification. The request for additional fence height has been a common and frequently requested entitlement in recent years. The City has attempted to streamline and PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -7- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 reduce the overall cost to homeowners seeking such entitlements. The current CUP process takes approximately two to three months, requires a fee of $1,937, and requires review by the Zoning Administrator. A CUP reviewed by the Planning Commission takes approximately four to six months to process and the fee is $8,396 . Staff does not believe a CUP request to increase fence height warrants the additional cost and time of a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Staff does support the proposed increase from 300-foot notification to 1000-foot notification based on additional community input and involvement for these CUP requests that have the potential to affect the aesthetics of a neighborhood. The expanded notification would increase the costs to applicants and the City, but at a nominal cost. The average price for a title company or consultant to prepare a radius map and labels for 300-foot notification is approximately $250. The average price to prepare 1000-foot notification is approximately $500. This represents an increase of$250 for the homeowner. The additional cost incurred by the City in mailing out the additional notices is approximately $100 to $200 per application. SUMMARY: Staff supports the two changes recommended by the Planning Commission as they are intended to clarify definitions related to through lots. In addition, they allow for additional public notification that results in more neighborhood awareness regarding CUP requests for block walls at the rear of through lots. The current ordinance will adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents by including them in the public hearing process and ensuring that proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01, as recommended by the Planning Commission, for the following reasons: ❑ The amendments clarify the definitions for certain terms relating to through lots by identifying both the front and rear yards as frontages. ❑ The expanded the public notification regarding walls and fences proposed to be constructed at the rear of through lots allows for greater public participation and awareness. o The current ordinance already requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet for fencing over 42 inches in height on the rear of through lots and requires a conditional use permit for fencing deviations from the code. ❑ The CUP process allows for flexibility and review of a proposed wall within the 15-foot rear setback on a case-by-case basis. Such review allows for review for compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines and addresses compatibility issues with surrounding properties. PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -8. 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 20, City Council Resolution No. 4501, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page Description 1. Findings for Approval — ZTA No. 03-01 (PC and Staff Recommendation) 2. Ordinance No. including legislative draft. 3. Ordinance No. (City Council Directed) including legislative draft. 4. Findings for Denial —ZTA No. 03-01 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 14, 2004 6. 1 Power Point Slide Presentation RCA Author: PD, HF Findings for Approval —ZTA No. 03-01 PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -9- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 203, 210 and 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments clarify the definitions for certain terms relating to walls and fences and expand the public notification regarding walls and fences proposed to be constructed at the rear of through lots, thereby furthering the City's development goals and allowing for increased public participation. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amendment clarifies the definitions for certain terms relating to walls and fences and expands the public notification requirements regarding walls and fences proposed to be constructed at the rear of through lots. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change. The need for expanded notification for conditional use permits on residential through lots is desired by the community. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice by codifying definitions that are related to the development standards for through lots and protect the general welfare of the public through additional notification requirements. (04NOA0914) _- , ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 203.06 and 230.88 THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND FENCING AND YARDS WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider a Zoning Text Amendment, which amends Sections 203.06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to definitions and fencing and yards; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections 203.06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 200_ ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: � C City Administrator `ty AttorAey INITI TED AND APPROVED: rector of Pfanning ord/04zoninJamend 210 etc/9/23/04 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — Planning Commission Recommendation 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot requiring a conditional use permit, shall provide public notification to include all property owners and tenants within a 1000-foot radius from the subject site. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 203.06, 210.06, 230.08 and 230.88 THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND FENCING AND YARDS WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider a Zoning Text Amendment, which amends Sections 203.06, 210.06, 230.08 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to definitions, accessory structures and fencing and yards; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections 203.06, 210.06, 230.08 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 200_ ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: AS TO FORM: City Administrator JPPROVED y A orney '�j'(� =�;� iq 1 y INIT TED AND AP PROVED: Di ector of Planning ord/04zoninJamend 210 etc/9/23/04 { BS LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — City Council Directed 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 210.06 RL.RM,RMH.RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Setbacks Rear(ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 - (i)(i)(W) (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the sub'ect property is located. The rear yard setback for through lots with a gra�e differential of three feet or greater between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall be increased by an additional 10 feet, measured from the crest of the slope. 230.08 Accessory Structures B. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no setback is required for accessory structures excluding garages and ca orts which abut an alley. Accessory structures shall be setback a minimum of fives) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Accessory structures shall be pprohibited within the rear yard setback area of through lots backing up to a Iocal street. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structureyrovided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. F. Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard except for decks on through lots backing up to local streets, with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, which shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — City Council Directed 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fFences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest oslope. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: e. a abutting,ll a leeal street, the b b 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Public notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners and tenants within a 1000-foot radius from the subject site. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — City Council Directed REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY II �1 i� I II is 10'F THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 inch high fene may be constructed on any portion of the lot f � A' Exception:No walls allowed within rear yard area of a ;i through lot abutting a local street I ® Indicates that portion of the lot on which a 6 foot high fence may be constructed. "A"indicates the minimum required front yard setback and rear yard setback of a through lot ahuttinn a Inaal ctreot. X 17e Diagram C ea7,w cwwo77ws7osexsMr �: G-•/icc:a� --- ���/��--a�� 'P v�-�-�11�3�� �t�1,I z`��f.,!nib--�' ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 203, 210 and 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is not consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments will further regulate walls, fencing, and accessory structures at the rear of through lots thereby reducing the ability of these homeowners to expand their homes to meet their economic, physical, and social needs. The code amendment will reduce fencing options available to homeowners and will limit the ability to expand rear yards of through lots abutting a local street. The result of the reduced buildable area, will affect property values and limit the expansion of these homes to accommodate for the needs of growing families. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is not compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amendment result in burdensome developments standards that specifically target a select number of properties, and are not applicable to all properties under the same zoning designation. 3. A community need is not demonstrated for the change. Limitations on fencing, accessory structures, and setbacks for through lots already exist under the-current code. In addition, an administrative remedy for requests above the code limitations is provided with the conditional use permit process. The CUP process allows for flexibility and review of a proposed wall within the 15-foot rear setback on a case-by-case basis. Such review allows for review for compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines and addresses compatibility issues with surrounding properties 4. Its adoption will not be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice as it results in an ordinance that is difficult to enforce based on the lack of reliable information regarding the locations of slopes. The amendments create additional standards that are only applicable to a small percentage of the properties under the same zoning classification, thereby limiting an owner's right to develop their property in a similar manner as the majority of other properties under the same zoning classification. 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) Attachment 2.1 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTI�CTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning BY: Paul Da Veiga, Associate Plann� DATE: September 14, 2004 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH-LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS — CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 10, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the August 10, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, the zoning text amendment was continued to the September 14, 2004 meeting with the public hearing open. At the August 10, 2004 study session, public testimony was provided and the Planning Commission discussed standards for through-lot fencing. The item was continued in order to analyze revised drafts of the ordinance, alternative designs, and the issue of through lot fencing as it relates to all of the affected properties in Huntington Harbor. As a result, and included in this report, are four alternatives for through lot fencing standards. Alternative A reflects the direction of the City Council. Alternative B is based on Commissioner Livengood's recommendations at the August 10, 2004 Planning Commission Study Session and provides additional fencing options. Alternative C was proposed by Commissioner John Scandura and allows for fencing with a maximum height of 42 inches within the rear yard setback. Alternative D is the original legislative draft presented to the Planning Commission at the July 13, 2004 public hearing. Staff continues to recommend denial of the proposed changes to the ordinance and supports the existing language in the zoning code. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for denial (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (City Council Directed—Alternative A) with findings and forward to City Council for adoption." (Attachment No. 2) B. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (Commissioner Livengood's Recommendation- Alternative B)with findings and forward to City Council." (Attachment No. 3) C. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (Commissioner Scandura's Recommendation- Alternative C) with findings and forward to City Council." (Attachment No. 3) D. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (July 13 Planning Commission -Alternative D) with findings and forward to City Council." (Attachment No. 3) ANALYSIS: The primary purpose of the proposed zoning text amendment is to further regulate fencing; landscaping and accessory structures within the rear yard area of through lots as directed by the City Council and BLT Committee. Based on several study sessions including testimony from the public and discussion by the Planning Commission, four alternative ordinances have been developed to address this issue. The four alternatives for the zoning text amendment are summarized as follows: ALTERNATIVE A — CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED This option reflects the City Council direction to prepare a zoning text amendment that addresses the issues listed below. The legislative draft for Alternative A is provided in Attachment No. 2. The corresponding amended code sections are identified under each separate issue. Issue#1 Require any fence built within the rear yard area of a through lot be located at the top of grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double frontage lot. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fFences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) inehes in heFences, wa is and any other visib a structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear pro erty line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from�"he rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not appl to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference Mess than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Issue #2 The setback areas (slopes) shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 230.88 RL. RM, RMH, R.H. AND RTNM Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -2- 04srl9sZTA 03-01(2) (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material with no visible hardscape. Issue #3 Structures including walls and fences of any height shall not be permitted on the sloped portions of a through lot. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) walls within the r-eaf yard setbaek area of R thrqu gh!at shall net exeeed 4 2 :,,ehes i heeiE t. Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not appl to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference Mess than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Issue#4 The term "Primary Frontage" and "Secondary Frontage" to be set forth in the ordinance. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 203.06 Definitions Frontage. Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage. Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. Issue #5 Add that any Conditional Use Permit (CUP) notification should include property owners facing through lots. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -3- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Public notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners that face the rear of a through lot along the entire abutting street, within the residential block. In addition to the recommended amendments to the Code, the City Council directed staff to consider the points listed below in a memo dated April 24, 2002 from former Council member Ralph Bauer. Each of these points is either currently addressed in the HBZSO and Urban Design Guidelines, or has been included in the proposed zoning text amendment. ❑ Recognition should be given in any ordinance to the fact that on a double lot there is a "front" and a"back". See Definition of Primary &Secondary Frontage in this report under Section 203.06 ❑ Landscaping should encompass 100 percent of a lot (at least back part). See Subsection No. 230.88,(S)(4) in this report. ❑ Walls or fences along the back of the lot should require a permit (including those of 42 inches or less). Retaining i valls that retain a slope or other surcharge require a building permit. ❑ Any Conditional Use Permit(CUP) dealing with the backside should be heard by the full Planning Commission. See Subsection 230.88.A.11 in this report. ❑ All relevant Urban Design Guidelines should be part of any ordinance. ❑ If a wall is granted under a CUP, it should include the following features: a. Setback from the public right of way. b. A height limit. c. Landscaping between the public right-of-way and the wall including vines that cover the wall. d. Adhere to engineering specifications to make sure the will not fail should dirt be piled against it. e. Wall should adhere to Urban Design Guidelines. ALTERNATIVE B —.COMMISSIONER LIVENGOOD Alternative B allows for some limited fencing options within the rear sloped areas of through lots. This alternative would allow a retaining wall with a maximum height of 2 feet at the base of the slope and a wall with a maximum height of six feet at the crest of the slope measured from the adjacent grade nearest to the rear property line. The upper wall may be a combination retaining/block wall provided the retaining portion does not exceed 30 inches. A minimum setback distance of six feet shall be maintained between the rear property line and the crest of slope. In addition, a maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 shall be maintained. The purpose of this option is to allow for fencing alternatives and limited expansion of rear yards of through lots,while still preserving a substantial amount of the sloped area. The following illustrations identify three different possible fencing scenarios under the proposed alternative: PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -4- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) Scenario #1 —The slope is modified to the maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 allowing an increase in the rear yard. A six-foot high block wall is ti placed at the crest of the slope at a six-foot setback k. from the rear property line. t $ f 10 s +I 4P ► � Scenario #2—A six-foot high block wall at the top of the slope setback six feet I from the rear property line, with a two-foot high l retaining wall at the base of 5 the slope allows for an increase in the rear yard area. I The maximum allowable slope ratio. is 1:1.5. 11tl all • ��5 �i tui I. � lut-tfrf=� l� n — �t�tl t'1trJ. «lcQ��c� t�a,a. Y�.a-cam PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -5- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) Scenario #3—A combination retaining/block wall with a total height of 6 feet is located at the top of the slope and a two-foot high retaining wall at the base of the slope in order to allow for an increase j in the rear yard. A minimum i setback of six feet and maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 allows for the preservation of _4 a portion of the slope. . _> > Tt U���1�5�• 14.1GIz7•��The legislative legislative draft for Alternative B is provided in Attachment No. 3. In order to allow the fencing identified in Alternative B, the following code sections would be amended: 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fr-ences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 3. Fences or walls located along the rear property line within the re affrd set afea of a through lot abutting a local street shall not exceed 42 inches two feet in height. A fence or wall with a maximum height of six feet, measured from adjacent grade nearest to the rear property line, may be placed at the crest of th slope within the rear setback of a through lot, provided that a minimum setback of six feet is maintained between the crest of slope and rear property Iine. The upper wall may be a combination retaining/block wall provided the retaining portion does not exceed 30 inches and t�e overall height of the wall does not exceed six feet. A maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 shall be maintained along the rear sloped area of a through lot. This subsection shall not apply,to lots abutting arterial highways. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -6- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) c. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting a local street, the maximum retaining wall height shall be twenty-four(24) inches as measured from the adjacent curb f f- teta height o a 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Public notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners that face the rear of the through lot along the entire abutting street within the residential block. ALTERNATIVE C— COMMISSIONER SCANDURA Alternative C allows for 42-inch high fencing to be allowed within the rear yard area of through lots. It also requires an additional five-foot building setback to the crest of slope for all structures including patios and decks. Alternative C also requires that the rear sloped area of a through lot be landscaped with plant material. The legislative draft for Alternative C is provided in Attachment 4. ALTERNATIVE D —LEGISLATIVE DRAFT- JUL Y 13, 2004 Alternative D is the original legislative draft that was presented at the July 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. It represents a combination of the City Council directed changes and additional Planning Commission recommendations that were developed at the June 8, 2004 Planning Commission study session. The legislative draft for Alternative D is provided in Attaclunent No. 5 (Pages 5.15 — 5.25). The additional changes incorporated into the legislative draft include the following: 1) In order to distinguish between through lots a slope at the rear and through lots that are relatively flat, the Planning Commission recommended that the code amendments only pertain to lots with a grade difference of three or more feet. 2) The Commission requested that addition language be added to require that the rear slopes of the subject lots be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. 3) Increase in the rear setback for through lots with a grade difference of three or more feet to require an additional 10-foot setback measured form the crest of the slope toward the residential structure. 4) A five-foot setback, measured from the crest of slope, was recommended for all accessory structures including patios and decks that are proposed within the rear yard. 5) All requests for fences or walls within the rear yard setback of through lots shall require the approval of a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission. PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -7- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) SUMMARY: Staff supports the current provisions and processing requirements in the HBZSO. The current ordinance limits the height of fences along the rear property line of a through lot to 42 inches. The code requires a CUP application for any wall or fence that exceeds 42 inches proposed along the rear property line of a through lot. Although staff does not unilaterally support increases to fence height, in some cases the physical characteristics and constraints on the property warrant the need for an increase in fence height. The current CUP process adequately protects the health, safety, and welfare of residents by including them in the public hearing process and ensuring that proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. Staff believes that the zoning text amendments identified in this report are not necessary in light of the current restrictions already existing in the HBZSO. Staff recommends that Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 be denied for the following reasons: ❑ Incompatible with the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is proposed by specifically targeting a select number of properties under a general zoning classification. ❑ Inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan because the proposed amendment reduces the options available for usable rear yard area, accessory structures, and residential additions in residential zoning districts,thereby limiting the expansion of these homes to accommodate for individual housing needs. ❑ The current ordinance already requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet for fencing over 42 inches in height on the rear of through lots and requires a conditional use permit for fencing deviations from the code. ❑ The CUP process allows for flexibility and review of a proposed wall within the 15-foot rear setback on a case-by-case basis. Such review allows for review for compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines and addresses compatibility issues with surrounding properties. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Denial—ZTA No. 03-01 2. City Council Direction—Alternative A-Legislative Draft—Chapters 203, 210&230 (HBZSO) 3. Alternative B -Legislative Draft—Chapters 203, 210 & 230 (HBZS0) 4. Alternative C -Legislative Draft—Chapters 203, 210 & 230 (HBZSO) 5. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 13, 2004 6. Letters in Opposition/Support of ZTA No. 03-01 PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -8- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE A 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontaee, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 210.06 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RIMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Setbacks Rear (ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 - (I)(J)(W) (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subject property is located. 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fpences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) 3. ,, inehes in hit- Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited " within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: b b a local stifeet, the inwaEaum awall heig a a U _ LEGISLATIVE DRAFT -- ALTERNATIVE A 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street,with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Public Notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners that face the rear of a through lot along the abutting street, within the residential block. REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY 77777 .�.. I.A. /7° \ .A. 17° 77.1 y lA' � � iza , 10' THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 inch high fene may be constructed on any portion of the lot A' Exception:No walls allowed within rear yard area of a Y through lot abutting a local street ® Indicates that portion of the lot on which a 6 foot hlgh fence may be constructed. "A"Indicates the minimum required front yard setback and rear yard setback of a through lot ahuttina a fora)ctrRet. 17° Diagram C A,21,0/ G7pwORAxV70.9R2MP LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE D 203.06 Definitions Frontage,Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear a property line adjacent to a local street. 210.06 RL,R.M,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RVI RMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Setbacks Rear(ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 - (I)(J)(W) (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subject property is located. 230.03 Accessory Structures B. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no setback is required for accessory structures excluding garages and c orts which abut an alley. Accessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five7(5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Accessory structures shall be prohibited within the rear yard setback area of through lots backing up to a local street. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. F. Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height maybe located in a required yard except for decks on through lots backing up to local streets, with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, which shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE B 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fFences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3199) 3. Fences or walls located along the rear property line area of a through lot abutting a local street shall not exceed 42 ins two eet in height. A fence or wall with a maximum height of six feet, measured from adjacent grade nearest to the rear property line, may be placed at the crest of the slope within the rear setback of a through lot, provided that a minimum setback of six feet is maintained between the crest of slope and rear property line. The upper wall may be a combination retaining/block wall Krovided the retaining portion does not exceed 30 inches and the overall eiaht of the wall does not exceed six feet. A maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 s0l be maintained along the rear sloped area of a through lot. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: e. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting a local street,the maximum retaining wall height shall be twenty-four(24) inches as measured from the adjacent curb and tBay b + a it ...� :., ,,, eighteeft (1 8) , eh eeer-ative wall e-fenee f f a total height f f_. , twe (42) inehen 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Public Notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners that face the rear of a through lot along the abutting street, within the residential block. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE B REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY 45 40 tm LL a 1♦ THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 inch high fene may be constructed on any portion of the lot A. Exception:No walls allowed within rear yard area of a through lot abutting a local street except as provided for in Chanter 230.88 ® Indicates that portion of the lot on which a 6 foot high fence may be constructed. "A"indicates the minimum required front yard setback and rear yard setback of a through tot ahuttina a Inral straat. Dia ram C 25 =194 GAMWOHAVAUNIU MP LEGISLATIVE DRAFT -- ALTERNATIVE C 210.06 RL.RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RNI RMH-A RAM RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Setbacks Rear (ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots. (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The rear yard setback for through lots with a grade differential of three feet or greater between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall be increased by an additional five (5) feet, measured from the crest of the slope. 230.08 Accessory Structures B. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no setback is required for accessory structures excluding garages and carports, which abut an alley. Accessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curt and crest of slope. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. F. Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard and shall not extend beyond the crest of slope. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE C 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Fences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3199) 3. Fences or walls within the rear yard setback area of a through lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: c. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting a local street, the maximum retaining wall height shall be twenty-four (24) inches as measured from the adjacent curb and may be topped with a maximum eighteen (18) inch decorative wall or fence for a total height of forty-two (42) inches. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope and are greater than eight (8) feet in height, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE C REVERSE CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY 43 10, 10. R' THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 Inch high fence may be constructed on any portion of the lot. ® Indicates that portion of the lot on which a 6 foot high fence may be constructed. "A"Indicates the minimum required front yard setback and rear yard setback of a through lot ah3rftinn a Inral ctraPt. a. Diagram C S12391 G.AMWORAW23041MIMP �f City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTIN�ON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Pl BY: Paul Da Veiga, Associate Pla er DATE: July 13, 2004 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH-LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: o Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 request: - Amendment of Chapters 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures on through lots Staff s Recommendation: Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 based upon the following: - Incompatible with the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is proposed by specifically targeting a select number of properties under a general zoning classification. - Inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan because the proposed amendment reduces the options available for usable rear yard area, accessory structures, and residential additions in residential zoning districts, thereby limiting the expansion of these homes to accommodate for individual housing needs. - Results in an ordinance that is difficult to enforce based on the lack of reliable information regarding the locations of slopes RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 as proposed by the Beautification Landscaping and Tree Committee and Planning Commission with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward to City Council." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings and forward to City Council." (Beautification,Landscaping and Tree Committee/Planning Commission Recommendation) B. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 and direct staff accordingly." FL .V_. ' t..y:�....:,Etna Ctr. El Ly.yi .+_ T } th, '-Y'.I.J'':•'+ �,,�:?, j'?c.id(�'� :,(f..,yC?'jh'-L'' -l.... ._L— _i . L o, _.------ LI i� : I� V i ,�� y t ,i7t m � _ J. 7MI fks- WARN= TALBM l-; �'y� •'I.ir^�{::�}„�i:'::�,�4;`"-\'.c':riV''yz� � \ .7 91MAiufUll9 KAKmTox f c 'Z1e.,�, ;u_,S-i I,.�;j•++.J6-i�a�.�:e.F.;�OuG,}'�iN.�L1G�.;�;P.:Z.I�i'! C••11..,, .:...,- [� [� f.mac'{ _ .. }',f1�� L_LL.. 4'J� J` J, .- re64 .,...._.. •'�-� �L.;:L_.:• �[7 rr'II '�" ",::,...:,J�[�-�I � �.7: 'k``-Ti: t•' �`4:i`,, ��•, :.�L ��� ,1�-, r `�I I Ll r [--I;-' i L f _ -1,� .,? 4���a ..c'.3e:.J�.:_i, S:� � ,at ;t. g:�,'t.• .IT(.c,� !i�' •.'.r�i ��..: l 4� j,l' ,rr, y .;\ �ti ,-7.'.-L.!.,a L.i +t'•o„ a c An ••}',;'t:�;f.,'�;f=+,f: �t�(ti:C^v, •.�`url' _`.`�. �',•f., -,tr".,:�•:'j•`�•.ti~'yc", ace ?`'�'.,`v 9r° �i�.�... io.�' ��_ � r? .,%. t �t•. ..-vvr r. __ _ 1... ._ — J .•'� .. Cam.— � •r(.,\ ..�� ,,.1-t,:.'�^—�. �. LJ , r, j .�'rc . .!\, o ,y .C^� nb,o ' Bnning Ave, •::�';:fi�z 5�:�:..}' .''•.-. 'I���:I�i _ Elk ..t .:r f'•'3.:'t7 S=rr--�� 4.4 � ; 'jt''ihD'J,':�=�•V: LL•.; 'C7.'. t:.l') :�.: \:,, ,, ,., ~• e _�- �f jl.'11"it.'...._.. VICINITY MAP Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 Citywide PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -2- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) Ait F" .'S.,d i L �'7 7`-•�..o,+ '� ��R L��. .�.........:."/ PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 is a request to amend Chapters 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The legislative draft containing all of the proposed amendments is provided in Attachment No. 3. The following is a list of the proposed Chapters and subsections that are being amended: ❑ Chapter 210 Residential Districts Chapter 210.04 - RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls Chapter 210.06 -RL, RIM, RIMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards ❑ Chapter 230 Site Standards Chapter 230.08—Accessory Structures Chapter 23 0.8 8—Fencing and Yards The request is a City-initiated zoning text amendment on behalf of the Beatification, Landscape, and Tree (BLT) Committee and City Council. The purpose of the amendment is to further regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures along the rear yards of through-lots. A through lot is defined in Chapter 203.06 Definitions as a lot having frontages on two dedicated parallel or approximately parallel streets. In February 2002, the BLT Committee recommended that a"C" item be placed on the City Council agenda directing staff to prepare a zoning text amendment to address block walls at the rear of through- lots. As a result, the City Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment with the following modifications: 1) Require any fence built within the rear yard area of a through lot be located at the top of grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard(corner lot) of a double frontage lot. 2) The setback areas (slopes) shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. 3) Structures including walls and fences of any height shall not be permitted on the sloped portions of a through lot. In addition to recommended amendments proposed by the BLT Committee, the Planning Commission proposed additional modifications/additions by straw votes at a Study Session held on June 8, 2004. These additional recommendations include the following: 1) In order to distinguish between through lots a slope at the rear and through lots that are relatively flat, the Planning Commission recommended that the code amendments only pertain to lots with a grade difference of three or more feet. 2) The Commission requested that addition language be added to require that the rear slopes of the subject lots be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible harscape. PC Staff Report-7/13/04 -3- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) ,a cc .;• Y:.is �` r;::m-. � .�' �Gt 3) Increase in the rear setback for through lots with a grade difference of three or more feet to require an additional 10-foot setback measured form the crest of the slope toward the residential structure. 4) A five-foot setback, measured from the crest of slope, was recommended for all accessory structures including patios and decks that are proposed within the rear yard. 5) All requests for fences or walls within the rear yard setback of through lots shall require the approval of a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission. Background The current HBZSO and applicable sections permit fences or walls with a maximum height of 42 inches to be located within any portion of a residential lot without the need for building permits or zoning entitlement. In addition, the code permits a 24-inch high retaining wall topped with an 18-inch high block wall along the rear property line of a through lot abutting a local street. Historically, one of the more common inquires made by homeowners is "how high can I build a fence on my property." The allowance of a 42-inch high wall or fence is a common occurrence throughout the City and homeowners use this to maximize their yard areas. In addition, many homeowners enclose their yards for aesthetic, safety and security reasons. The HBZSO also requires that a minimum 40 percent of a front yard shall be entirely landscaped. Since through lots have two frontages, the rear yards are subject to front yard landscaping requirements. This requirement also applies to rear portion of through lots. Finally, accessory structures are not allowed to encroach within a front yard setback. The rear yard setback for a through lot is equal to the front yard setback,therefore, a fifteen-foot setback is required for any accessory structure on a through lot. Any requests for fencing that exceed 42 inches in height(measured from the top of nearest adjacent curb) are subject to a conditional use permit (CUP) before the Zoning Administrator. Staff analyzes and makes recommendations for or against the proposed wall height and design based on the findings of compatibility with the neighborhood and general compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines. Approximately 70 requests for fencing in excess of 42 inches have been processed since 1994 throughout the entire City. The majority of these requests include courtyard fencing that are located within the front setback and exceeds 42 inches in height. Several conditional use permits have been approved for combination retaining and block walls in excess of the permitted height in Huntington Harbor. Staff has generally supported these requests based on the grade differential, proposed setback, enhanced landscaping, and decorative block wall material. Prior to 1988, retaining walls up to eight feet in height were permitted along the rear property line of through lots. Block walls with a maximum height of six feet could be placed on top of a-retaining wall because at that time the measurement of fence height was taken from the adjacent grade (See Attachment No. 4.5). The result of the fencing requirements allowed many homeowners to build combination retaining and block walls at their rear property line in order to increase the usable area in their rear yards. The process at the time was to only obtain a building permit. Since 1988, the code has been amended to limit the height of walls to 42 inches along the rear property line of through lots. The issue of a possible zoning text amendment to further regulate block walls along the rear yards of through lots has been on-going since the denial of the "True Block Wall" (CUP No. 01-09) in August of 2001. This was a request to increase the usable area in the rear portion of a through lot located on Westport Ave. in Huntington Harbor. The homeowner's request included constructing a combination PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -4- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) retaining and block wall along the rear property line, which extended the rear yard by seven feet and resulted in a 10-foot high block wall along Roundhill Drive, which is located across the street from the subject site. The request was ultimately denied on appeal by the City Council. However, the True's did build a 42-inch high block wall on the rear property line as is permitted by right. The neighborhood group who opposed the True wall, sought to further regulate placement of walls and fences within the rear sloped areas of through lots in Huntington Harbor. The group attended several BLT Committee meetings and voiced their concerns regarding the effect these combination retaining and block walls have on the aesthetic appearance of their streets and potential adverse impacts to their property values. The BLT Committee concurred with the neighbors and forwarded a memo to the City Council indicating their recommended modifications to the HBZSO in regulating walls and fences, accessory structures, and setback requirements for through lots. Based on the BLT Committee's recommended modifications, the City Council directed staff to prepare a zoning text amendment that addresses the issues raised by the BLT Committee. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan based on the following: A. Land Use Element Goal L U 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and fiiture residents of Huntington Beach. The proposed text amendment will further regulate walls, fencing, and accessory structures at the rear of through lots thereby reducing the ability of these homeowners to expand their homes to meet their economic, physical, and social needs. The text amendment will reduce the buildable portion of the subject properties with the additional rear yard setback of ten feet. The result of the reduced buildable area, will affect property values and limit the expansion of these homes to accommodate for the needs of growing families. B. Housing Element Obiective HE 5.1: Promote equal housing opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice. The proposed text amendments results in additional restrictions placed on the subject lots, which are not applicable to other properties under the same zoning designation. The result of such amendments limits the ability of these homeowners to expand their homes or have certain accessory structures within their rear yard area that are permitted to other properties under the same zoning designation. PC Staff Report-7/13/04 -5- (04sr19 ZTA03.01) Ai 1 :.yam. �f'r. _ a� � ✓ C. Urban Design Element Goal UD 6: Through the development or design review process, require or continue to: a) review all projects for potential visual impacts to surrounding areas; All fencing requests that are not in compliance with the HBZSO require the processing of a CUP under the current code. Through the CUP process, staff makes recommendations regarding compatibility with adjacent properties pursuant to the Urban Design Guidelines and a formal public hearing is required to give neighbors the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The current process is adequate in regulating the compatibility of fencing at the rear of the subject lots. The proposed code amendment will place additional restrictions on fencing that are not necessary based on the current requirements already in place in the zoning ordinance. Zoning Compliance: The proposed zoning text amendment would result in additional limitations on the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear yard setback area of through lots. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Staff reviews CUP requests for fencing at the rear of through lots for compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines (UDG). The UDG indicate that perimeter walls or fences greater than 50 feet in length should incorporate at least two of the following design features which are proportionate to the wall length: ❑ A minimum two-foot change in plane for at least 10 lineal feet. ❑ A minimum 18-inch high raised planter for at least 10 lineal feet ❑ A minimum 18-inch change in height for at least ten lineal feet ❑ Use of pilasters at 50 foot maximum intervals and at all changes in wall planes Environmental Status: The proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Coastal Status: Not applicable Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -6- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) Public Notification: A one-eighth-page legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on July 1, 2004, and notices were mailed out to the affected property owners, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix) as well as all interested parties. As of July 8, 2004, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received in response to the hearing notice. ANALYSIS: The primary purpose of the proposed zoning text amendment is to prohibit the placement of fences and regulate the required landscaping and accessory structures within the rear yard area of through lots. Staff has identified approximately 118 through lots backing up to a local street, throughout the City. The majority of these through lots (75) are found in Huntington Harbor. All of the through lots located in Huntington Harbor were developed at a higher grade than the street located to the back of the property, which results in a varying slope condition within the rear yard. The slope areas vary in their horizontal dimensions from seven feet up to 25 feet in depth. The grade differential or vertical dimension also varies from four feet up to 14 feet in height, measured from the top of the adjacent curb. The remaining 43 through lots located throughout the City, are relatively flat and do not have the sloped condition that is common in Huntington Harbor. The proposed zoning text amendment was brought before the Planning Commission at two study sessions (May 18, 2004 & June 8, 2004). The neighborhood group in favor of the amendment was present at both meetings and provided a copy of the CC &R's for Huntington Harbor to the Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that several slope requirements/limitations identified in the CC &R's be incorporated into the amendment. Staff has prepared a legislative draft of the proposed changes that reflects all the recommendations of the BLT Committee and Planning Commission into one draft document(Attachment No. 3). The following is a staff analysis of the amended sections that addresses the recommendations by the BLT Committee and Planning Commission: LANDSCAPING &FENCING ❑ Chanter 210.06 (S)(4)—Landscaping On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely Iandscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots,with no visible hardscape. The additional subsection is intended to require the owners of through lots to full landscape and q Y p maintain the rear sloped area. The recommended modifications are proposed to maintain and create a more attractive street scene along the rear of the subject lots and preserve the views of the neighbors who live across the street. In addition, the amendment is intended to require the use of plant material that will control erosion and possibly eliminate loose soil and plant material being washed onto the public sidewalk. PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -7- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) FU Staff does not support the additional landscape provision as proposed based on the landscape maintenance requirements that already exist in the HBZSO and Municipal Code. Chapter 8.16 Weed Abatement of the Municipal Code requires that property shall be kept free of weeds at all times. In addition, since the subject properties are through lots they are subject to front yard landscape requirements under Chapter 232 of the HBZSO. o Chapter 210.06 M—Additional Provisions The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The rear yard setback for through lots with a grade differential of three feet or greater between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall be increased by an additional 10 feet, measured from the crest of the slope. The additional subsection is intended to clarify the setback requirement for through lots while distinguishing between through lots in the Harbor and those located throughout the remainder of the City. Through lots in the Harbor are distinguished primarily by their sloped and landscaped rear yard areas. The Planning Commission added the provision to through lots that have a three foot or more grade difference between the top of nearest adjacent curb and crest of slope to help clarify the applicability of the provision. The.additional ten-foot setback is proposed to be measured from the crest of the slope, which is the point where the sloped grade meets the flat or relatively flat grade of the remainder of the lot. The additional ten-foot setback is proposed to limit the massing of structures at the crest of the slope thereby protecting the views from neighboring properties. Staff supports the clarification of the rear yard setback requirements for through lots in the first sentence of this subsection. This modification is necessary to specify the required rear yard setbacks for through lots, which was not clearly defined in the HBZSO. Staff does not support the remainder of the provision. Staff does not support the additional 10-foot setback measured from the crest of slope. The first concern is determining the location of the crest of the slope. This will be difficult or impossible on lots that have experienced substantial erosion or have been altered through the years. In addition,the crest may be different and meander across each lot resulting in a fence location that may be different on each lot. The differing crest may result in a fence pattern that may be staggered. It is also difficult for planning staff to identify the crest of slope on a site plan when a homeowner is requesting permits over the counter. There is not a reliable in-house resource that staff can reference to determine the exact location of the crest of the slope. The determination may require a field verification or submittal of engineered plans by the homeowner. Also, in some cases the provision will render several of these homes as legal non-conforming based on the building's existing footprint and setbacks. The legal non-conforming status could substantially restrict future improvements to the home and potentially impact property values. The proposed zoning text amendment would limit the ability of a homeowner to expand their residence to accommodate expansion and the upgrade of their property. In several cases the additional 10-foot setback would eliminate the possibility of a room addition at the rear of the property. PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -8- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) ❑ Chapter 230.88 A. 1. —Permitted Fences and Walls Except as otherwise provided in this section, Mences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RIMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. The modifications to the subsection are intended to prohibit fencing of any height within the rear yard area of through lots. The BLT Committee and Planning Commission are recommending this modification to preserve the existing slopes and eliminate the possibility of fencing within the sloped area. By eliminating all fencing on the slopes, the aesthetics of the street will be protected, and views from neighbors that face the rear of the subject through lots will not be disrupted with block walls. The current ordinance limits the height of fences along the rear property line of a through lot (or any lot) to 42 inches. As noted earlier, many homeowners take advantage of this allowance and enclose their yards to expand their useable space and also to add aesthetic, safety and security to their properties. The ordinance requires a CUP for any wall or fence that exceeds 42 inches in height proposed along the rear property line of a through lot. The amendments would not allow fencing of any height within the rear sloped area of a through lot. Regulating the location of fences that do not require a building permit is difficult to enforce since 42-inch high walls can be placed anywhere on a residential lot without a building permit. In addition, the amended section is specific to Huntington Harbor through lots and does not apply across the board to all lots under the same zoning classification. This results in specific requirements that are directed at a very limited number of properties. ❑ Chapter 230.88 A. 3. —Permitted Fences and Walls Fenees er- walls within the fear- ya:,-d setbaek area ef a tlueugh lot shall net exeeed 42 inehes in height. Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. The modifications to the subsection are intended to prohibit fencing of any height within the rear and street-side yard area of through lots. The BLT Committee and Planning Commission are recommending this modification to preserve the existing slopes and eliminate the possibility of fencing within the sloped area. By eliminating all fencing on the slopes, the aesthetics of the street will be protected, and views from neighbors that face the rear of the subject through lots will not be disrupted with block walls. Staff is in favor of the existing code,which allows fences of 42 inches or less in height to be located within the rear setback area of through lots. As a matter of right, the current HBZSO allows 42-inch high walls anywhere on a residential lot. The proposed amendment would primarily single-out properties within Huntington Harbor and applies development standards that differ from the majority PC Staff Report—7/13/04 .9- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) of other properties under the same zoning classification. Currently, if a homeowner would like to exceed the maximum 42-inch fence height, a CUP is required. Although staff does not unilaterally support increases to fence height, in some cases the physical characteristics and constraints on the property warrant the need for an increase in fence height. The current CUP process adequately protects the health, safety, and welfare of residents by including them in the public hearing process and ensuring that proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. ❑ Chapter 230.88 A. 7.—Permitted Fences and Walls 3,1�her-e a retaining wall is en the pr-epeily line ef a rear- yard abut4ing' a leeal street, the maxa,-­- retai b wall height shall be twenty 93:ur- (24) inehes as ineasured ffem ` he adjaeeiit eur-b aft p b See discussion under Chapter 230.88 A.3. above. ❑ Chapter 230.88 A. 11. —Permitted Fences and Walls Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. The modifications to the subsection would require that any requests for deviations to the fencing requirements for through lots be processed under a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission. The BLT Committee recommended Planning Commission review because of the overall impact the subject walls have on residents in Huntington Harbor. The BLT Committee concurred with the neighborhood group that the subject walls change the character of a street and negatively impact the entire neighborhood, and therefore should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff does not support the Planning Commission review of CUP requests for fencing within the rear yard area of through lots. The request for additional fence height has been a common and frequently requested entitlement in recent years. The City has attempted to streamline and reduce the overall cost to homeowners seeking such entitlements. The current CUP process takes approximately two to three months, requires a fee of$1,937, and requires review by the Zoning Administrator under the same public notification and hearing process as the Planning Commission. The current entitlement process does allow applicants, neighbors, and any interested party the opportunity to appeal any decision to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council. A CUP reviewed by the Planning Commission take approximately four to six months to process and the fee is $8,396 . Staff does not believe a CUP request to increase fence height warrants the additional cost and time of a public hearing before the Planning Commission. PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -to- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ❑ Chanter 230.08 B. —Accessory Structures - Location Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet.from the rear property line except that no setback is required for accessory structures, excluding garages and carports, which abut an alley. Accessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Accessory structures shall be prohibited within the rear yard setback area of through lots backing up to a local street. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. The purpose of this subsection is to regulate placement of accessory structures on through-lots to ensure that accessory structures shall not occupy any portion of the rear yard setback. Specific requirements are added for through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet, which require an additional setback to be measured from the crest of slope. The purpose of these specific requirements are to ensure that the sloped areas along the rear yards of through lots in Huntington Harbor are preserved to improve views to and from neighboring properties. Staff does not support the proposed provision because several of these homes will not be able to build accessory structures such as patios, sheds, workshops, or similar structures, as they would encroach within the five-foot setback to the crest of slope. It is also difficult for planning staff to identify the crest of slope on a site plan when a homeowner is requesting permits over the counter. There is not a reliable in-house resource that staff can reference to determine the exact location of the crest of the slope other than field verification or the submittal of engineered plans by the homeowner. In addition, the restriction would potentially prohibit homeowners of through lots the ability to place such structures that are typically permitted on lots under the same zoning classification. o Chapter 230.08 E.—Accessory Structures—Patio Covers Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. See discussion under Chapter 230.08 B. above. ❑ Chapter 230.08 F.—Accessory Structures—Decks Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard except for decks on through lots backing up to local streets, with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, which shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope. See discussion under Chapter 230.08 B. above. PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -11- �^(04sr19 ZTA03-01) SUMMARY Staff does not support the proposed zoning text amendment as it is proposed because it will prohibit fencing and walls in the rear yard area of through lots, restrict the placement of accessory structures above and beyond the current limitations that already exist, and significantly limits future additions to homes at the rear of through lots. The amendment results in standards that are only applicable to select properties and are not applicable to the majority of residential properties under the same zoning classification. The additional 10-foot setback proposed will result in some of these properties being classified as legal non- conforming. The legal non-conforming status could substantially restrict future improvements to the home and potentially impact property values. The additional setback limits the ability of homeowners to expand their residence to accommodate for a growing family, or significantly upgrade their property. The proposed ordinance will be difficult to implement and enforce, may cause some properties to become legal non-conforming, impose restrictions on select properties that are not imposed on lots under the same zoning classification, and will increase the entitlement cost and time to residential property owners Staff supports the current provisions and processing requirements in the HBZSO. The current ordinance limits the height of fences along the rear property line of a through lot to 42 inches. The code requires a CUP application for any wall or fence that exceeds 42 inches proposed along the rear property line of a through lot. Although staff does not unilaterally support increases to fence height, in some cases the physical characteristics and constraints on the property warrant the need for an increase in fence height. The current CUP process adequately protects the health, safety, and welfare of residents by including them in the public hearing process and ensuring that proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. Staff recominends that Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 be denied for the following reasons: ❑ Incompatible with the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is proposed by specifically targeting a select number of properties under a general zoning classification. ❑ Inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan because the proposed amendment reduces the options available for usable rear yard area, accessory structures, and residential additions in residential zoning districts, thereby limiting the expansion of these homes to accommodate for individual housing needs. ❑ Results in an ordinance that is difficult to enforce based on the lack of reliable information regarding the locations of slopes ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Denial—ZTA No. 03-01 2. Draft Ordinance No. 3. Legislative Draft— Chapters 210 & 230 (HBZS0) 4. Site Plans/Cross Sections—Possible Through Lot Fencing Scenarios 5. City Council "C" Item - BLT Committee memo dated 9/27/02 PC Staff Report-7/13/04 -12- (04sr19 ZTA03-01) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 210 and 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is not consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments will further regulate walls, fencing, and accessory structures at the rear of through lots thereby reducing the ability of these homeowners to expand their homes to meet their economic,physical, and social needs. The code amendment will reduce the buildable portion of the subject properties with the additional rear yard setback of ten feet. The result of the reduced buildable area, will affect property values and limit the expansion of these homes to accommodate for the needs of growing families. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is not compatible with the uses g p g P authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amendment result in burdensome developments standards that specifically target a select number of properties, and are not applicable to all properties under the same zoning designation. 3. A community need is not demonstrated for the change. Limitations on fencing, accessory structures, and setbacks for through lots already exist under the current code. In addition, an administrative remedy for requests above the code limitations is provided with the conditional use permit process. 4. Its adoption will not be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice as it results in an ordinance that is difficult to enforce based on the lack of reliable information regarding the locations of slopes. The amendments create additional standards that are only applicable to a small percentage of the properties under the same zoning classification, thereby limiting an owner's right to develop their properly in a similar manner as the majority of other properties under the same zoning classification. (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 210.04, 210.06, 230.08, AND 230.88 THEREOF RELATING TO SETBACKS, FENCING, AND LANDSCAPPI iG REQUHUMENTS tiVTTHIN- THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF THROUGH LOTS WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01, which amends Sections 210.04,- 210.06, 230.08, AND 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision.,Ordinance relating to setbacks, fencing, and landscaping within the rear yard area of through lots; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections 210.04, 210.06, 230.08, AND 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk i Atto ey REVIEWED AND APPROVED: if AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Planning G:ord1nance\ZTA03.O1 I •' - �'` = -; fi :i': LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RMH-A RMH RH RVIP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Building Site 6,000 6,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 10 ac. (A)(B)(C) Width (ft.) 60 60 25 60 60 N/A (3334-6197.3410.3/99) Cul de sac frontage 45 45 - 45 45 N/A (3334-6/97 3410-3199) Minimum Setbacks D R) Front (ft.) 15 15 12 10 10 10 (E)(F) (3334.6197,3410.3193) Side (ft.) 3,5 3;5 J;5 J;5 -3;5 - (G)(I)(J) (3334.6/97,3410.3199) Street Side (ft.) 6;10 6;10 5 6;10 6;10 10 (H) (3334.6/97.3410.3199) Rear (ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 - (I)(J) W) Accessory Structure (3334-6197,3410.3/99) Garage (K) (3334-6/97,3410.3/99) Projections into C ' Setbacks (L)(R) (3334.6197,3410.3/99) Maximum Height (ft.) Dwellings 35 35 35 35 35 20 (M) (3334.6197,3410.3/99) Accessory Structures 15 15 15 15 15 15 (M)(R) (3410.3/99) Maximum Floor Area - - 1.0 - - - (33346/97.3410.3/99) Ratio (FAR) (3410-3/99) Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.) 6,000 2,904 * 1,742 1,244 - (3334-8197,3410.3/99) Maximum Lot ' Coverage (%) 50 50 50 50 50 75 (V) (3334.6197.3410-3/99) Minimum Floor Area (N) (3334.8197.3410.3199) Minimum Usable Open Space (0) Courts (P) (3334.6/97,3410-3199) Accessibility within Dwellings (Q) (3410.3199) Waterfront Lots (R) (3334.6197,3410.3199) Landscaping See Chapter 232 (S) (3334.6197,3410.3199) Fences and Walls See Section 230.88 Lighting (T) (3334.6197,3410.3199) Underground Utilities See Chapter 17.64 Screening of Mechanical Equipment See Section 230.76 Refuse Storage Areas See Section 230.78 (3410.3199) Antenna See Section 230.80 (3410.3/99) Performance Standards See Section 230.82 Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 231 Signs See Chapter 233 Nonconforming Structures See Chapter 236 * Lots 50 feet or less in width= 1 unit per25 feet of frontage Lots greater than 50 feet in width= 1 unit per 1,900 square feet N/A=Not applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 210-6 3/99 i LEGISLATIVE DRAFT RL,RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Development Standards Bulkhead Solarium Projecting deck 2 1/2' Max. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 51 45 45 • 5 min. house 5. min. Property line +1 71n.ldhrnn WATERFRONT LOT PROJECTIONS (3334-6/97) (S) Landscaping (1) A minimum 40% of the front yard shall be landscaped. For single family residences in the RIMH-A subdistrict, a minimum 3 foot wide landscape planter along the front property line (excluding max. 5 ft. wide walkway) may be provided in lieu of the 40% requirement. A maximum 18 inch high planter wall may be constructed along the front property line. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (2) All required trees specified in Chapter 232 shall be provided. (3410-3/99) (3) All subdivisions shall provide a minimum 5 foot wide landscaped area along arterial streevhiahway property lines. The actual required width shall be determined during the planning process. Maintenance of said landscaped area shall be by a homeowners association, property owner or other method approved by the City of Huntington Beach. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) ( 1 0 4) n through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots with no visible hardscape. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 210-18 3/99 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Development Standards (T) Lighting. A lighting system shall be provided in all multi-family projects along all vehicular access ways and major walkways. Lighting shall be directed onto the driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director. (3334-6197) (U) See Section 230.08: Accessory Structures (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) (V) Solid patio covers open on at least 2 sides may be permitted an additional 5% site coverage. Open lattice patio covers are exempted from site coverage standards. (3410-3/99) (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be �equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subiect property is located. The rear yard setback for through lots with a grae differential of three feet or greater between the top of curb and crest of slope shall be increased by an additional 10 feet as measured from the crest of the slope. 210.08 Development Standards for Senior Projects This section establishes development standards for Senior Residential Projects that maybe permitted by the Planning Commission. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) A. Minimum Floor Area. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum floor area of 450 square feet. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) B. Minimum Setbacks. The project shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of, the district applicable to the site. (3334-6/97) C. Minimum Distance between Buildings. Minimum building separation shall be 10 feet. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) D. Building Design. No structure shall exceed 180 feet in length. To provide variation in building facades, two of the following architectural elements are required as part of each building: sloped roofs; bay windows; awnings; roof eaves; cornices; balconies; or patios. (3334-6/97) E. Open Space Requirements. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 1. Private Open Space: A minimum of 60 square feet of private open space for studios or one bedroom units and 120 square feet for two or more bedrooms, with minimum dimensions of 6 feet. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 2. Common Open Space: A minimum of 2,500 square feet for the first 50 units, and an additional 50 square feet for each unit over 50. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 3. Community Club House: An enclosed community or clubhouse facility containing minimum 7 square feet per unit, and a total area of minimum 400 square feet, may satisfy up to 50% of the common open space requirement. The clubhouse shall include handicapped bathrooms and kitchen facilities to be used by project residents and their guests only. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) F. Elevators. Buildings with more than 2 levels, including living areas or parking, shall have elevators. (3334-6/97) G. Parking. Parkin- shall comply with Chapter 231. Any parking space over and above the one space per unit shall be marked for guest use. (3334-6197) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 210-19 ` " s` " ' "' --^—� --�/99 EGISLATIVE DRAFT 230.08 Accessory Structures A. Timing. Accessory structures shall not be established or constructed prior to the start of construction of a principal structure on a site, except that construction trailers may be placed on a site at the time site clearance and grading begins and may remain on the site only for the duration of construction. B. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-2 6197 fir•.-,��f''.,_� •a,n nn'y�{rc�- �_� :iQ�'''� � ✓� iJ\.J 11J 1J1 a 1 1 ♦ JJ 81 i principal structure on a An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no ack is required for accessory structures, excluding garages and carports, which abut an alley. ccessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on throu h lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top o curb and crest of slope. Accessory structures shall be prohibited within the rear yard setback area on through lots backing up to a local street. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. C. Maximum Height. 15 feet, except a detached garage for a single family dwelling may exceed the maximum height when it is designed to be architecturally compatible with the main dwelling and does not include habitable floor area. D. Maximum Size in RL District. In an RL district, the total gross floor area of accessory structures more than 4 feet in height that are not attached to a dwelling shall not exceed 600 square feet or 10 percent of lot area, whichever is more. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to,a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between tie top of curb and cr of slope. F. Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard except for decks on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, which shall be setback a minimu of five (5) feet from the crest of slope. G. Separation. The distance tween buildings on the same lot shall not be less than 10 feet. e � Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-3 5100 rr ,EGISI.,ATIVE DRAFT A. Time Limit. 1. A Christmas tree sales facility shall not be open for business during any calendar year prior to Thanksgiving. l. A Halloween pumpkin sales facility shall not be open for business during any calendar year prior to October 1. 3. A single agricultural product sales facility shall be approved for a period of time not to exceed 90 days. B. Merchandise to be Sold. A permitted Christmas tree or Halloween pumpkin sales facility may not sell items not directly associated with that season. Only one single, season agricultural product may be sold at any one time. C. Site Standards. 1. Storage and display of products shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet from edge of street pavement, and shall not encroach into the public right-of-way. 2. A minimum of ten (10) off-street parking spaces shall be provided. 3. Ingress and egress to the site shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works to insure that no undue traffic safety hazard will be created. 4. Temporary structures shall comply with Building Division standards. 5. Electrical permit shall be obtained if the facility is to be energized. 6. The facility shall comply with fire prevention standards as approved and enforced by the Fire Chief. D. Bond Required. Prior to issuance of a business license and approval by the Director, a five hundred dollar ($500)cash bond shall be posted with the City to ensure removal of any structure, cleanup of the site upon termination of the temporary use, and to guarantee maintenance of the property. A bond shall not be required for a seasonal sales facility operated in conjunction with a use on the same site. E. Removal of facility. The seasonal sales facility shall be removed and the premises cleared of all debris and restored to the condition prior to the establishment within ten calendar days of Halloween, Christmas, or the expiration of the time limit for single season agricultural product. 230.88 Fencing and Yards No portion of a required yard area provided for a structure on a lot shall be considered as part of the yard area for any other structure on the same or an adjacent lot. In all districts, minimum setback lines shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way line. Diagrams A, B and C are hereby adopted to illustrate the provisions of this chapter. Where any discrepancy occurs between the diagrams and the printed text,the text shall prevail. Yards and fencing shall comply with the following criteria in all districts or as specified. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-35 '6l97 'L' <J11JllIx 1 1 V L "ANXIL1' 1 A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen wall on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) 2. Fences or walls a maximum of six (6) feet in height may be located in required side and rear yards, except as excluded in this Section. Fences or walls exceeding six (6) feet in height may be located in conformance with the yard requirements applicable to the main structure except as provided for herein or in the regulations of the district in which they are located. a. Fences and walls located adjacent to arterials along the rear and/or street side yard property lines, and behind the front setback, may be constructed to a maximum total height of eight (8) feet including retaining wall with the following: (3525-2/02) (1) The proposed building materials and design shall be in conformance with the Urban Design Guidelines. (3525-2/02) (2) Extensions to existing wall(s) shall require submittal of engineering calculations to the Building and Safety Department. (3525-2/02) (3) The property owner shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of landscape area(s) and wall(s) and required landscape area(s). (3525-2/02) M"'k(4) Approval from Public Works Department. (3525-2/02) 3. Fences, wa is and any other visibe structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots i with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. 4. In the RL district, garden or wing walls or fences equal in height to the first floor double plate, but not exceeding nine (9) feet, which are perpendicular to and entirely within a side yard may be constructed to the interior side property line and to within five (5) feet of the exterior side property line provided they are equipped with a three (3) foot gate or accessway. 5. When residential property abuts open or public land or property zoned or used for office, commercial, or industrial purposes, an eight (8) foot high solid masonry or block wall may be constructed on the common side or rear property line. 6. In order to allow variations in the street scene in R districts, fences or walls exceeding f forty-two (42) inches in height may be permitted at a reduced front setback of six (6) feet subject to plan review approval by the Director in conformance with the following criteria: a. The reduced setback shall be only permitted for five (5) or more contiguous lots under the same ownership and only at the time of initial construction of the dwellings. b. Such walls shall not encroach into the visibility triangular area formed by measuring seven and one-half(7.5) feet along the driveway and ten (10)feet along the front property line at their point of intersection. c. Such walls shall conform to all other applicable provisions of this section. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-36 T :�� EGISLATIVE DRAFT 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: a. Where a retaining wall is located on the property line separating lots or parcels and protects a cut below the natural grade, such retaining wall may be topped by a fence, wall or hedge of the same height that would otherwise be permitted at the location if no retaining wall existed. b. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting an arterial or exterior side yard and contains a fill of two (2) ft. or less or protects a cut below the existing grade, such retaining wall may be topped with a six (6) ft. decorative masonry wall. e. a ll b 1 iffiaNimum r-atainhagwall height a e. d- (1) The maximum height of a retaining wall on the front property line shall be thirty-six (36)inches as measured from the top of the highest adjacent curb. Subject to the Director's approval, a maximum forty-two (42)inch high wall or fence may be erected above the retaining wall with a minimum three (3) foot setback from the front property line. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (2) In the RMH-A subdistrict, the maximum height of a retaining wall on the front property line shall be eighteen (18) inches as measured from the:top of the highest adjacent curb. Subject to the Director's approval, a second retaining wall up to eighteen(18) inches in height may be erected above the eighteen (18) inch high retaining wall with a minimum three (3) foot front setback.° A wall or fence up to forty-two (42) inches in height may be erected on top of the retaining wall with the minimum three foot front setback. (See Exhibit below.) (34,10-3/99) i Required Tree/Palm 71 Landscaping I Front Building*. nrnnnrty line j may Al" Patio Max,18" Retsinina Wallc Sidewalk/Park-way Max.1 R" *See Maximum building height in Chapter 210 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-37 3�99 c - iLi 1X131-J A 11 V E 1J1" A r t d. e: All retaining walls abutting a street shall be waterproofed to the satisfaction of the Director. e. f- Retaining wall and fence combinations over eight (8) feet in height shall be constructed with a variation in design or materials to show the distinction. Retaining wall and fence combinations over six (6) feet in height shall be designed without decorative block or cap block, except if equal in strength to the main portion of the fence. 8. The height of any fence, wall or hedge located in the front yard setback shall be measured from top of the highest adjacent curb. All other fence heights shall be measured from existing grade. 9. Any fence or wall located on the front property line shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 10. In the industrial districts, nine (9) foot high fences may be permitted in the side and rear setbacks up to the front building line subject to plan review approval by the Director. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning cm ministrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. 12. Within the coastal zone,no gate, fence or wall shall be permitted that restricts or obstructs public access to the shore. (3334-6/97) B. Required Walls. 1. When office, commercial or industrial uses abut property zoned or used for residential, a six (6) foot high solid six (6) inch concrete block or masonry wall shall be required. If a wall meeting these standards already exists on the abutting residential property, protection from vehicle damage shall be provided by a method approved by the Director. The maximum fence height shall be eight (8) feet at the common property line, subject to the same design standards and setback requirements as specified for six (6) foot high fences. 2. Industrial screening walls abutting arterial highways shall be architecturally compatible with surrounding properties, constructed of a minimum six (6)inch wide decorative masonry block, and designed with landscape pockets at thirty-five (35) foot intervals along the street side sufficient in size to accommodate at least one (1) 15-gallon tree. Approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator shall be required prior to construction of such walls. C. Visibilitv. 1. On reverse corner lots and corner lots abutting an alley, no fence, wall or hedge greater than forty-two (42) inches in height may be located within the triangular area formed by measuring ten (10) feet from the intersection of the rear and street side property lines. 2. On corner lots, no fence, wall, landscaping, berming, sign, or other visual obstruction between forty-two (42) inches and seven(7) feet in height as measured from the adjacent curb elevation may be located within the triangular area formed by measuring twenty-five Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-38 6/97 EGISLATIVE DRAFT (25) feet from the intersection of the front and street side property lines or their prolongation. Trees trimmed free of branches and foliage so as to maintain visual clearance below seven(7) feet shall be permitted. 3. Visibility of a driveway crossing a street or alley property line or of intersecting driveways shall not be blocked between a height of forty-two (42) inches and seven(7) feet within a triangular area formed by measuring ten (10) feet from intersecting driveways or street/alley and driveway. pRop�R14/iyf N� • CVFs6 f1E • 230-CORD DIAGRAM A 10 10' 10' 10' 10' _ 10' 10. 10' 220.netb STREET/ALLEY DIAGRAM B Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-39 6/97 X�"10.ul-11 1 V 1'j Llt(-11r 1 REVERSE INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT CORNER LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY • . i i THROUGH CORNER LOT THROUGH LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL r _ A 42 inch high fene may be constructed on any portion of the lot j �s A' Exception:No walls allowed within rear yard area of a i through lot abutting a local street ® Indicates that portion of the lot on which a , 6 foot high fence may be constructed. I "A"indicates the minimum required front yard setbac and rear yard setback of a through lot abutting a focal street. Diagram C smga eeawoaaMnoss¢sn,r Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-40 ,, 'z�" `='x ''"i 3 ° fi/97 " I : :�i��. .:r':;;. pia": '.`''':•i.r":"�(s � _ rl " I� t.... _.. 1��: ;` 6✓,:�u-.> r � ` // .,lit�_�;:, ,��1, a3 1L IE J(1[. t 1=Nll 1lI IR ItLI--jll[�. fill-= �t(l tilt=,�ltl=1►! I (( tT111 V. a e r 011-1._-L-r r- y M t '"lam ti t �►i' titi -�- cict `� �a ti�� I • �vo -- ttl=1111= �. } titt at�la.l�" ate- ��G-�. �49- . r Ts�rGcf�a/G- s � I od 0� PC- ^11'lt J l k A4AXV GpULt7 F315 UP ILL- +Its - Zt �b....1AG�DJ.'C� �-�►1�- . ® `- 27 7_71 - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -JICity Council interoffice Communication To: Honorable City Council Members From: Mayor Debbie Cook, Chair, Beautification/Landscape/Tree Committee on - behalf of Mayor Pro Tern Connie Boardman and City Council Member Ralph Bauer Date: September 27, 2002 Vk' Subject: C" ITEM FOR OCTOBER 7, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING — DOUBLE FRONTAGE (THROUGH) LOTS IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Huntington Harbour is unique in the city in having double fronted lots. In the Harbour there are many residents who look out onto the back slope (secondary frontage) of the home across the street, rather than the front yard of their neighbor's home. Over the years, fencing has been approved for the secondary frontage, which has resulted in walls replacing the back slope of the home. Homeowners have done this to increase the usage of their backyards, but the effect on the homeowner across the street has been to change their view from that of a nicely landscaped slope to one of a tall concrete block wall. The Beautification/Landscape/Tree (BLT) Committee has,spent several months working with homeowners in the Harbour to develop a recommendation for Council direction. These residents in the Harbour understand that a property owner can appeal any new development standard through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The BLT Committee recommends that the City Council make a motion to direct the Department of Planning to initiate &process a zoning text amendment adopting additional development standards for double frontage lots. These standards include the following: 1) Require any fence built on the secondary frontage of a double-frontage lot be located at the top of the grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double- frontage lot. . 2) The setback area noted in No. 1 above shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. — 3) No structures including walls and fences of any height shall be permitted on the secondary frontage of a double-frontage lot., In addition, staff should consider the seven points listed in the attached memo from Council Member Bauer dated April 24, 2002. Attachment: Council Member Bauer Memo dated 4-24-02 xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway Howard Zelefsky �2J C11 . JF HUINTINGTON BEACH City Council interoffice Communication . To: Debbie Cook, Mayor CE IVED Connie Boardman, City Council Member APR 3 Q ZOOZ Scott Hess, Principal Planner From: Ralph Bauer, Mayor.Pro Tem erl— Date: April 24, 2002 Subject: SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT DOUBLE FRONTAGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS 1. Recognition should be given in any ordinance to the fact that on a double lot there is a "front" and a"back". 2. Landscaping should encompass 100% of a lot (at least the back part). 3. -Wall or fences along the back of the lot should require a permit (including those of 42 inches or'less). 4. Any C.U.P. dealing with the backside should be heard by the full Planning Commission. 5. Back fences along the top of the grade,should be no higher than those on the side of the house. 6. All relevant urban design guidelines should be .a part of any ordinance. 7. If a wall is granted under a C.U.P., it should include the following features: a. Set back from the public right-of-way. b. A height limit c. Landscaping between the public right-of-way and the wall including vines that will cover the wall. d. Adhere to Engineering specifications to make sure wall will not fail should dirt be piled against it. e. Wall should adhere to urban design guidelines. RHB:cf September 6, 2004 Respected City Council Members: We reside at 4172 Windsor Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 and have a through lot. The proposed Zoning Amendment No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) affects our property rights. Huntington Beach Harbour properties are unique.No property is alike. All properties are diversified and do not conform to any"track home"type standards. When we moved here in1992, we decided to live here on the premise that we could extend our backyard and fully enjoy our property and home. We did extend our backyard more than six years ago and enjoying every minute of it.It is our constitutional right to use and enjoy our property. This diversity of homes in the harbour enhances the property value as well as the aesthetics. There are more beautiful walls and fences than number of slopes in the harbour. We would appreciate and counting on your denial of the proposed amendment. Desire of the"chose few"proposing this amendment can not become a reality over the rights of the affected "through lot"property owners. City of Huntington Beach Sincerely, SEP 0 7 2004 Harsha &Jay Sheth 4172 Windsor Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649. i I September 3, 2004 Joe and Eleanor Nissim 16542 Mariana Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i Attention: Members of the City Council: Please be advised that Eleanor and I have lived at the above residence on Gilbert Island since 1966. We enjoyed every minute of it. As of late, we are troubled and disturbed to hear rumblings of changes that infringe on owners property rights. Proposed amendment 03-10 is intrusive and offensive and ill conceived. Currently, there are enough ordinances in place that provide checks and balances regarding conformity. We are much opposed to any new ordinances relating to our slopes. Sincerely, Joe Nissim Eleanor Nissim I `r ell ;f'S v}y 3 d i City of Huntington Beach 't0'd "1F1101 .. SEP 0 7 2004 Dear Sir, 2 September 2004 Please be advises that I am opposed to Amendment 03-01 . 1 would like to keep the rules and my current property-rights to-remain as they stand September 2, 2004. Sincerely, Pamela Nesseth 18572 Mariana Circle Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 ,T, O ATn City of Huntington Beach Thomas Klesewetter SEP 0 7 2004 16601 Melville Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 330-4259 Planning Commission and City Council: I am writing in regards to Zoning Text Amendment No.03-01 otherwise known as the "Through-Lot Development Standard" or the "Round Hill" issue. have learned a lot about local government politics in the last couple of months and I have been surprised at how vulnerable 1 am to changes affecting my property rights. "trust" my elected officials and their appointed commissioners to listen to the experts they have working for them. The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, in a Staff Report to the Planning Commission, has recommended to deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 on grounds that it targets a select number of properties, it is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan, and is difficult to enforce. The City currently has an existing "conditional use permit" process which formalizes i the ability of neighbors to voice opposition to code exceptions at a neighbor's property. The process, controlled by the City allows focused scrutiny by those citizens closest to the issue. A Zoning Text Amendment is not needed and will only serve to limit the property rights of through-lot owners. My fear is that a small, aggressive and devious pro-amendment group has applied political pressure and the Commission (and City Council) feels they must appease them. Hopefully, the large number of anti-amendment citizens now stepping forward will demonstrate the amendment has strong and increasingly unified opposition. Recently, "apathy"was used to describe the lack of initial action by the anti- amendment homeowners. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For our system of government to work, we the citizens must trust our representatives. Unfortunately, this "public trust" has been violated. My neighbors, and myself believed we had representation through the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association (HHPOA) and were shocked to find that the Board has had an undisclosed and biased conflict of interest in favor of the amendment. Why has the City Council and Planning Commission not heard anti-amendment opposition in the past? HHPOA deliberately kept the issue out of the membership view. My "public trust"was restored, somewhat, because the Planning Commission directed a Public Notice to be mailed to property owners with through-lot properties. I am hopeful that the impetus for the mailer was the realization by the Commission that they Gal q `` •. 1 t` /.•'� •'� 'I ai 8 x"S'�n 3 it:i n,•a.l L4.li ? 7 + ..e-....W+.: had not heard from "the other side". The mailer alerted the property owners that critical restrictions were about to be placed on their property. The Planning Commission and City Council is now (finally) hearing both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, during the last Planning Commission meeting, one of the Commissioners made comments that indicate his mind is already made up in favor of the Amendment. I am hopeful that the remainder of the Commission and the City Council is still seriously considering the issue and resist the inclination to "vote on it" so that it"goes away". A vote in favor of the amendment will seriously compromise the property rights of the through-lot owners. The words "eminent domain"were spoken in jest at the last Commission meeting. Ironically, it has been a serious topic of discussion at meetings of through-lot owners. In newer areas of Orange County, slopes are owned and maintained by the city or the association. If the City of Huntington Beach decides to dictate how a slope is designed, planted and maintained is it also prepared to purchase the slope from the property owner? And, who will be the one who decides the aesthetics of the slope? A drive through the "Round Hill" area reveals conforming slopes that can be either lush green or unkempt and dying. Retaining walls can be seen that are stark gray or attractive stone with softening landscape. Please, accept the current "conditional use permit" process as the mechanism for neighbors to voice opposition to code exceptions at a neighbor's property. Please, listen to your experts in the Planning Department when they recommend denial of Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01. Please, listen to the affected property owners who are raising the issue of property rights. Please, review the validity of the representation by the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association. Please deny Zoning Text Amendment No.03-01 otherwise known as the "Through-Lot Development Standard" or the "Round Hill" issue. Sincerely, Cc: Council Members Planning Commissioners Paul DaViega Y�.�,ii•?fir }}bJ:�� 1�ggY�'f�j � 4;+!` �.-- Huntington Aeac' AUG 3 12004 CZ40 r � L pity of Huntington 800011 September 8, 2004 SEP 08 2004 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Commissioners: Re: Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 During study sessions on the above referenced Zoning Text Amendment, Staff presented amendments to Chapters 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to fencing, landscaping and accessory structures on through lots. These discussions were arduous and illustrated the convoluted nature of the existing codes and ordinances with reference to double- fronted lots. The intention in lobbying for Additional Development Standards for Double Fronted Lots was to add clarity and specificity to the existing codes with regard to improving or building on these unique lots. After reading and listening to comments by double-fronted lot owners, it is obvious clarification is of the utmost importance. Incorrectly, many of these through-lot owners view the rear of their property as merely their backyard. Backyard ordinances would apply if these properties backed up to say Warner Avenue or any other arterial highway. But they don't. These backyards back up to a local street and have front-facing neighbors, therefore, they are defined as double-fronted lots and are subject to the same ordinances as any other front yard in a low-density residential neighborhood such as Huntington Harbour. Homes facing one another on a local street, such as the streets in Huntington Harbour, are separated by the width of the street plus a 24-foot wide buffer. This buffer is comprised of a 5-foot wide parkway, a 4-foot wide sidewalk and by City code a 15-foot front yard setback for a total of 24 feet. Across the street from the homes on Roundhill Drive there is no parkway, the sidewalk is only 2-feet wide and in some cases there is no setback because cinderblock retaining walls as high as 12 feet have replaced the original landscaped embankments. In other words, 22 feet of open space have been removed. The end result is no landscaping and an alley-like appearance. Now I ask you, what's wrong with this picture? Intuitively, we all know if we are thinking big picture. This can't be a good thing for our neighborhood or for any neighborhood for that matter. The 2002 Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee's objective was not to change these lots to coincide with current code restrictions. This is not practical, since many of these lots do not have the necessary rear footage to meet the current setback requirements, and enforcement is not in the neighborhood's best interest. The BLT's objective was to maintain the continuity and original intent of the neighborhood by keeping the open space as well as respect the rights of the through lot owners by maintaining the individuality of the original, useable backyards. In keeping with the BLT's recommendations, define the front and rear of these lots as primary and secondary frontages. Streamline and eliminate the maze by adding the secondary frontage to the Additional Development Standards Section 210 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In doing so, stipulate no structures on the slopes, fences at the top of the grade and 100 percent landscaping for the slopes. The expectations for the rear of these lots would then be clarified regarding improvements and building, in much the same way as the Additional Development Standards for waterfront properties. After all, waterfront lots and double-fronted lots are both through lots; that is, both the fronts and the rears are open to public view. Because waterfront properties are unique and any and all changes to the waterfront impact the public view and the neighborhood, the City added waterfront properties to Section 210 Additional Development Standards. The City should do the same for double-fronted lots Citywide regardless of the community. Build and preserve communities and neighborhoods don't destroy them. Sincerely, Carole M. Garrett 17163 Roundhill Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 cc: Howard Zelefsky Scott Hess Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association ivt is _ C h;iliVUl �I •I �.hi N��,'(N�� t,j 4�ii'1�•f�i'•J•,j I�j4. City cf Hunf(ngton Beach ,�, t .• SER 0 8 2004 1 :;: = �_ � 1� 71; ; �= r1 '1 L` � -w ��`� �r.�. i-..�� i�s('- h `�: y t� ;,)t; i� t•�s 1•; t:'!� i't lG,�,U\u �'� S 4)VCC 1 k c—.., ;i 13'L yam' f �7k j 1;1•�'.,..1, ,l(. �T1i- '„ � r f �i •�9.� ` it � +', y ::�,.�;..�Y1hf 4�:��-� . . .�� '�'C�' � fir". ����-1 {•i C. i�: t�� ',: L� � ��.ti i i�iC�' .�'�-'t 111.az ...,}y6 '.. --MC ?�OP lea: _ _ � •� � j r j .�!� V.L.\ '�•l,�';L ..... �:,,,.� .�"''.�r'��,' .�.\14'. .. t.\ i' A, \�. .�`r._jb•`:+;.1 N;j.�1��L. .�;V;I.L�!C--1 l "+=. �� e_t� -t:.� �:s `.: t`: 1�:�t• i f\ Dot`ik) �-` ''!,��41�.```tit�L; �'.`�Ca;ti.' 1•�i?S� �1�o`:���� ��•?�`'�1'c;��r y� �'z? . "�';�'�=`G=. �1�%'+K `i t• i=• `' CLidV"lT�r,Vt� T`t NEW ' l T CJti2 v'` tJ L: c. 'c{�.. +'�v v: e 1.>v K�i�ti.'v L� T2 �?7- .tZi'4U .���:��'�/ �{'k �%•N C`G�1vj i�V C�,if-1� fvN� . _ ���r• � j�t'� '�kv C x -t \mac ►l � �" �:r "i�f��L� , .:M--\3 v-�v C.'Cr.. ��'tyc. L•z� ((�41 � + t� -!P Gi 1. LtET "S A Cct:7 xffla�l A; .. tIN -1Lv l r.: ATTACHMENT NO t 1 .;i i_; City of Huntington Beach Manfred &Karin Lengsfeld SEP 0 82004 16907 Rondhill Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Aug. 31, 2004 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, Through-Lots Dear Commissioners: During the study-session on August 10 regarding the through-lot embankments on Gilbert Island, Roundhill and Westport we listened to the homeowners. These thoughts came to our minds : The situation on Gilbert Island and on Roundhill/Westport is different as we already stated in our letter dated July 16. The road on Gilbert Island is a winding road up to the top of the island, houses are on the outside of the street, through-lot embankments are to the inside of the street. This situation is different from that on Roundhill/Westport. Both are long streets, Roundhill being longer and straighter than Westport. The view changes towards the embankments from the position of the opposite houses. In the event Of further development, homeowners on a winding road with an embankment across from them would have a wall straight ahead from them but a wider view to the right and to the left. Homeowners on a relatively straight street with a developed embankment would only see a wall straight ahead, to the left and to the right. f The visual effect for these two cases for the same walls and the same strip of landscaping is entirely different. On Gilbert Island there seem to be issues between the homeowners on the waterfront and homeowners with through-lots. Almost no changes have been made on Roundhill concerning the height of the houses. Most of the houses are one story homes. Their roofs are much lower than the walls of developed embankments. Iceplants on the embankments are a good solution, they keep the ground in place and store so much water that they even retard fires. It is possible that iceplants are not readily available, but in this case there are many other kinds of_Qroundcovers used in our area, which have the same effect. Solutions have been found for similar embankments as seen in Corona Del Mar and Laguna Beach and even on Freeway embankments. Concerning earthquakes: We can just believe that the homeowner from Gilbert Island with his papers from the City in hand stating that his property is not Iocated on an earthquake fault comes from out of state and has no idea about the enormous destructive energy an earthquake releases. Here is a small passage from the book "Huntington Beach, The Gem of the South Coast, pg, 94 : THE EARTH SHAKES AND SHAKES AND SHAKES I'or those living in Orannc County in the I d.;Us, the catt•thquakc of A larch 10, 1933, and the great flood of 1935 will firing back vivid mtcnlorics. illniost cacrvnnc who %%-us abmc the agc of three wben the carthqu111W occurred rill renicniber exactly where they were wid what they Nvcrc doing when tic earth started to shake. idost can even tell you that the quake I nin at 5:54 p.m. 'I')lc Long 13cach L;arthcivakc, so called I)CCaUSC that city sulTcrcd the most damage, was centered in the Ocean about three and one hall' milts southwest of Newport 13each. 01'111c four deaths resulting from tic trembler, three occurred in Santo r\na and one in Garden Crowe. 111e cllinulevs al' hundreds of homes throughout the county wcrc• damaged or destroyed. Huntington H;cach received some of the worst damage in Oranoc Cocmty. 'I'lie I'I'Utlt walls o(' several brick buildings collapsed and the stl'Uc(Llfe of nruly of ehe oil dcrricics destroyed.'I'hc fire station was rendered unusable and the men haul to sleep outside in tents li,r about it month «•[life the building Seas being repaired. We experienced the Big Bear quake and the Whittier quake in Orange County and we had the feeling that the ground was swinirning away beneath us as liquefaction can affect this particular zone. In case the epicenter is right here how would it look then? We cannot prevent earthquakes but we can take precautions whenever we are building something. We have to keep to codes, which are reflecting our knowledge about earthquakes at the time. In case the regulations for through-lot embankments should ever be changed for all through-lots, the regulations should include the maximum height for all walls on embankments, also the material of walls and the minimum width for the strip of landscaping at the foot of the walls. It seems to us that problems come up because ideas have not been fully thought through. With that in mind, there should be different groups of through-lots to ensure solid property value for all homeowners and conformity to neighborhood beautification deeds. The general regulations adjustments should be made for steeper embankments, embankments at straight streets and so on. Thank you for taking your time to discuss tlus problem. Sincerely, 7 �J G� ce.N � N0' FACSIMILE COVED . SHEET PATE: TO: FAX: RE: ,7Zt4 03 - ©/ FROM: Mike Palikan 17097 Westport Drive PHONE: (714)846-1849 DEAR STAFF, THIS DOCUMENTATION IS IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER DINGWALL'S CONCERNS ABOUT RETAINING WALLS AND/OR OTHER TYPES OF STRUCTURES BEING BUILT ON THE SLOPES. THIS NATURAL HAZARD DISCLOSURE REPORT CONFIRMS THAT MY PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN AN ALQUIST-PRIOLO FAULT ZONE, NOR IS IT LOCATED IN A LANDSLIDE HAZARD ZONE, OR A LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ZONE. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS PORTION OF MY REPORT IN THE COMMISSIONERS' PACKAGES FOR THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 14, THANK YOU, Number of pages including cover sheet:J JVI VV LVV7 VJ•�1J , ,V� Disclosure The 5wadard far Escdlenee and Reliabilit,source Natural Hazard Disclosure Report Residential Standard Version Customer Support: 800.880.9123 E9crow Number: 31657-MS Order Number: 042202-00213 Dated as of.- 4/22/2002 Deliver To Michael Meyers THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT IS INTENDED Sur Real Estate FOR THE EXCLUSIVE 13ENEFIT AND USE OF THE RECIPIENT($)• 16872 Balsa Chica St Ste 100 NO PERSON OTHER THAN THE RECIPIENT(S)SHOULD RELY Huntington Bcach,CA 92649 UPON,REFER TO,OR USE THIS REPORT,OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS REPORT,FCR ANY PURPOSE,THE RECIPIENT(S)SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THE EXPLANATION OF Recipient SERVICES,AND,THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS Michael Meyers CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. Subject Property 17097 Westport Dr Huntington Beach.CA 91649 NO RECIPIENT MAY RELY OM THIS REPORT UNLESS FULL 178-283-03 PAYMENT FOR IT 18 M"E. INFORMATION Form—Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement Attachment SECTION 1: NATURAL HAZARD SUMMARY A Special Flood Hazard Area(Any Type Zone"A"or I'V") 1 An Area of Potential Flooding(Government Code Section 8589.4) 1 Wildland Area Forest Fire Risks and Hazards(Public Resources Code Section 4136) 2 Very High Fire Hazard Severity zone(Government Code Section 51183.5) 2 Earthquake Fault Zone (Public Resources Cade Section 2821.9) 3 Seismic Hazard Zone(Public Resources Code Section 2694) 3 SECTION II: Explanation of Services.Conditions and Stipulations-Read Carefully iA a :a(4C 1 u3!' SECTION I: Natural Hazard Summary (continued) Subject Property; 17097 Westport Or,Huntington Beach,CA 92649 APN; 178-293-03 ALCUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE DETERMINATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION I DISCUSSION: Earthquake Fault Zone maps are delineated and compiled by the California State Geologist pursuant to the Alquiat-Prieto Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.During an earthquake,structures located directly over fault zones(surface fault traces)could sustain damage as a result ofa seismic event producing resulting from ground fault rupture(surface cracking).For the purposes of thib report,an Earthquake Fault Zone is generally defined as an area approximately 1/4 mile in total width(1,320 feet)located on either side of a known active or potentially active earthquake fault. An"active"fault as defined by the State of Califomia,Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology as an earthquake fault that has produced ground surface displacement(ground surface rupture)within the last eleven thousand years.A"potentially active'fault defined by the Stare of Califomia,Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology as those faults that have produced ground surface displacement(ground surface rupture)within the last 1.5 million years. Seurce(s)of data:State of California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology.California Public Resources Code Seaton 2621 ET SEQ FINDINGS: Based on a review of the official Earthquake Fault Zone Mep(s),issued by the California Slate Geologist the company reports: IS located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. ✓ IS NOT located in an Alquist-Pciolo Fault Zone, SEISiMIC HAZARD ZONE DETERMINATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: The intent of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 is to provide for a statewide seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist cities and counties in fulfilling their responsibilities for protecting the public health and safety from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction(failure of water-ssturoted soil),landslides and other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. Under this act,The California Department of conservation is mandated w identify and map the state's most prominent earthquake hazards. Information produced by these traps is utilized(in part)by cities and counties to regulate fbrure development.Development/Consauetion permits may be Withheld until adequate geologic or soils investigations are conducrad for specific sites,and mitigation measures are incorporated into development plans. Source(&)of data:California Public Resources Code Section 26% FINDINGS: Hawed on a review of the official map(s)issued by the State of California,Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology,the Company reports: Yes-Landslide Hazard Zone No-Landslide Hazard zone Map not released by state Yes-Liquefaction Hazard Zone No-Liquefaction Hazard Zone Map not releasad by state END OF SECTION I 4/27J2 02 042202-00213 3 ` TOTAL P.03 Lugar, Robin From: PhilipRB@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:34 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; lugarr@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus Subject: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 TO: CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION We wish to register our opposition to the proposed amendment # 03-01 (through lot development standards). We want this amendment to be denied. The proposed amendment is far too reaching, intrusive and could not be applied equitably to all homeowners. Note that our property is not a through-lot. Case in point: our neighbor's backyard is a mess, the backside of his home is in shambles, dog feces litter the yard... never mind that he is the President of the Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association !(supporters of this amendment). Surely there must be Zoning Standards for unkept yards ? Hypocrisy is cheap. Sincerely, Philip &Jennifer Blaustein 16642 Melville Circle Huntington Beach CA 92649 9/9/2004 �. A ca"g``�r'':� it'�,.�a_s� '� �r.�`'.a � r.,�'•.�' September 6, 2004 Respected City Council Members: We reside at 4172 Windsor Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 and have a through lot. The proposed Zoning Amendment No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) affects our property rights. Huntington Beach Harbour properties are unique.No property is alike. All properties are diversified and do not conform to any"track home"type standards. When we moved here in1992,we decided to live here on the premise that we could extend our backyard and fully enjoy our property and home. We did extend our backyard more than six years ago and enjoying every minute of it. It is our constitutional right to use and enjoy our property. This diversity of homes in the harbour enhances the property value as well as the aesthetics. There are more beautiful walls and fences than number of slopes in the harbour. We would appreciate and counting on your denial of the proposed amendment. Desire of the"chose few"proposing this amendment can not become a reality over the rights of the affected"through lot"property owners. Sincerely, Harsha& Jay Sheth 4172 Windsor Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649. -J / Page 1 of 2 Da Veiga, Paul From: Carole Garrett [garrett.cm@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:25 AM To: Lugar, Robin; DaVeiga, Paul Subject: Fw: ZTA 03-01 Public Hearing 9-14-04 Robin, Thanks for your help in forwarding this to Kristin Stilton -----Original Message ---- From: Carole Garrett To: Thomas. Carrie ; Dingwall. Bob ; Davis, Ron ; 5candura. John ; Liven good, Tom Neil ; Ray. Steve Cc: Hess. Scott ; Zelefsky. Howard Sent:Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:09 PM Subject: ZTA 03-01 Public Hearing 9-14-04 Planning Department Staff: Please include this message in the public record for the hearing on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 regarding the above referenced Zoning Text Amendment. Note: I do not have e-mail addresses for Paul Da Veiga or Kristen Stilton so they have not received a copy of this message. Dear Planning Commissioners: What was the intent of the slopes in Huntington Harbour? The best way to get an accurate, unbiased answer is to go directly to the source. So two years ago one of my Roundhill Drive neighbors, Marilyn Willsie, contacted Raymond Logan a former Vice President of the Huntington Harbour Engineering and Construction Company. Mr. Logan signed the CC&Rs for Tract 4880 on the Mainland in Huntington Harbour on August 19, 1974. When Mrs. Willsie spoke to Mr. Logan he still lived here in the Harbour in a waterfront home on Ondine. Mr. Logan explained to Mrs. Willsie that"Roundhill Drive was designed to be a one-sided drive with the vista across of a sloping round hill the full length of the street. To accomplish this the property line separation from one side of Roundhill Drive to the other was lowered, the sidewalk on the double-fronted lot side narrowed to only 2 feet and the parkway eliminated. The compromise of giving up these features was more than compensated for by the lovely green hill Roundhill Drive homeowners faced." I contacted Mr. Logan myself this week to ask him if he would be available to attend the Planning Commission meeting on the 14th. Unfortunately, Mr. Logan has sold his Ondine property and retired to La Quinta, so driving almost 300 miles round trip is out of the question. However, we had a long telephone conversation about the slopes as he was most interested, sympathetic and willing to share his experience. Mr. Logan's first home in Huntington Harbour was a double-fronted lot. He was the original owner of 4172 Windsor Drive which backs up to Westport Drive. Mr. Logan felt he had "the premier" lot in all of Huntington Harbour--no neighbor behind him, a very large back yard and a view of the water from his second story and his home was on the highest lot in the Harbour. He lived there for approximately 8 years until he sold and purchased his waterfront home on Ondine. As a homeowner of a double-fronted lot on Windsor Drive and a Vice President of the Huntington Harbour Engineering and Construction Company, it was always Mr. Logan's impression the slopes were protected. In response to the presence of the walls and the loss of many of the embankments, he said "We managed the CC&Rs very tightly and then turned them over to the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association. Unfortunately, we didn't do as good a job as we intended." According to Mr. Raymond Logan, 78842 Lima, La Quinta, CA 92253, telephone 7601777-1331, there is no question about the intent of the neighborhood with regard to the slopes. The slopes were never intended to be developed —they were to be landscaped and viewed by facing neighbors—in this case, Roundhill Drive homeowners. ATTACHIMENTNO 9/9/2004 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Carole M. Garrett ATTACHMENT NO. r� 9/9l2044 Mike and Donna Manee t 6j j t Mariana Circle Hungtington Beach, Ca. 9z6.dg (j 62) 592-7777 August 10, 2004 140109�1�Ir%l ' City Of Huntington Beach Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Pro Tem Jill Hardy City Council Members: Connie Boardman, Gil Cooper, Pam Houchen,Debbie Cook and Dave Sullivan Planning Commissioners:Ron Davis,Robert Dingwall, Torn Livengood, Steve Ray,John Scandura,Jan Shornaker and Carrie Thomas Subject:ZTA Na. 03-o t Through Lot/Double Front Lots While the Planning Department Staff has had the unthinkable task of hying to find some reasonable changes they were right in recommending to vote to deny the Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-o t as stated over a month ago. Any cornpramise is unacceptable. By approving the amendments you are taking away our rigbts as homeowners. The homeowners on Roundhill state that they have the right not to have to look at an ugly'wall. Well, here we are talking about aesthetics. They are not saying that the walls are unsafe and could collie down in an earthquake, not that the walls that were built within the last t o years are not up to current code, but that they don't like having to look at them. Well that is notgood enough in my opinion. They say it is their view. What view? They are not looking at a sunset, they are not looking at the water, they're looking at a neighbor's backyard. These double fronted lots do not have two entrances. These are people's backyards,where if they want they should be afforded all the privacy they want and all the security they deserve. We on Gilbert Island have had 3 story houses built obstructing our views, but nothing could be done about it. We have had houses go up that took up almost all of the lot, now you have a few select homeowners trying to take our rights as property owners away. You are letting these people have a direct say in my property values. Many of the homes on Gilbert Island don't even have the zo foot setback that is now recommended. What you are then suggesting that these homeowners don't even have the right to improve try what property they own and pay taxes on without paying any exsorbnt fee with not guarantee that the CUP will be approved. The z,oning regulations that are in place today are sufcient to keep from having the to ft cinderblock walls. If someone wants to try, they can file for a CUP and then their neighbors have the right to voice their concerns and objections. With the suggested amendmentsycu will even be limiting our rights to keep our property as is in the event of an earthquake and our wall came down. We would have to pay almost $8400.00 to keep what already exists. These amendments that you are suggesting are more unfair than fair, They are singleing out approximately 65 homeowners andgiving them special rules, while the approximately 34 Roundhill owners and the other 8j,goa in Huntington Beach don't have these rules. The owners of through lots or double fronted lots have the burden of maintaining both sides. We cannot just cement our slopes to keep the weeds(cut or to help with erosion. Many of us spend a considerable amount of money to make our slopes pleasing for everyone and if in some cases this means a wall, it should be allowed. ;C n 7 n Wn �—'1 !.�r� �./ If you pass this amendment every property owner with a slope will be forced to disclose the new amendment if and when they sell their house. This will negatively impact any sale, The owners on Roundhill won't have to disclose a thing other than the fact that there art now hard feelings amongst neighbors because of aesthetics. I believe the commission fells that they have to make changes to keep the Roundhill people happy. Why? These changes are unfair and only affect slope owners by limiting their rights. I urge to phase follow the original recommendations of the Staff Report and vote to Deny Zoning Text Amendments o3-ot. And please don't feel you have to ►nake changes that are unfair to slope owners just to make a few happy. Thank you for your consideration, Sinc ly, CLI Donna Manee 1�� , I I , (I I II �� I I � i i 1 i'1 1 , � � • �jJ�t"' 1,CiY I)� �f' T, 1� -.., t'i., ruts.. ����r�-s'1'���� �«e _ram•'- ., SI ids,. '\�h\ • .k t, •�r..rt 1,(lJ. _d s:p,,.,.-�,n..•��:' `,i; '':i .p..- , •..w. f' - _ ~•u'.�,?�� e+i ter,. � ,J-'�. s�I '�5• �nt '§1..1= 1n.;_ 'i' �•L"s ;,f' �t1 t �" a'.., .cs �L't�^ i },, t - n �t _'i' -1 IaFa. �1 rL i�✓yr s NO F - ,,'f� i '� 'r'Ir � +�C_�"+�.'rilb' I: 1 i' i� � {�,...�� y •�. � �NI, � e �8+ Jl✓.Y. rya t,ni�' h � {i",�. .>'it+y K,l,��i�f'r����l.'.t'•a^s��� „G,raLv. ...+�� 3;. 1 r V �► ff�� {xFr+ '� r r ��F;'37N f 7 �.nt'1 ! $$�r'�h.• �+ �Ji ' / �. � 1"Pa i r' t w i � � I !/ \ '. �7 fk. � r,��. :-:�,:-�`i�;g'`- r,' 16 r: ."�:t � �•-1r)�Uv - 'In�i c lid . IF, II ilk ICIj ' ..# r �, _ fr_ z A• , Y_ '+ �*a. '"4—ez bib., ✓. �'�=. 111 irk jm �— A Jack,and Jackie Satterthwaite 16501 Mariana Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 562/592-2125 To: Mayor Cathy Green Mayor ProTem Jill City Council: Connie Boardman, Gil Coerper, Pam Houchen, Debbie Cook, Dave Sullivan Planning Commissioners: Ron Davis, Robert Dingwall, Tom Livengood, Steve Ray, John Scandura, Carrie Thomas, , Kristin Stilton Planning Department: Howard Zelefsky, Scott Hess, Paul Da Vella Subject: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 We built our house 39 years ago on Gilbert Island in Huntington Harbour. Front and back (slopes) have changed thru those years. Our neighbors had the option to utilize their property. Some slopes have walls, decks, pools, bushes short and tall, trees, ice plants (dead and living), bougainvillea etc. There is a variety of houses and landscaping styles in the neighborhood. We all live with our neighbors differences. Isn't that what neighborhoods, cities, towns, and states are all about? Isn't that what makes our town and our country-special - living with individual differences? Now almost 40 years later a small group of residents are backing Amendment No. 03-01 which will change our private property and utilization options. Does this mean the whole city would not be able to build walls and decks on their slopes, because they are not esthetically pleasing to the eye??? The whole amendment was made because a small group of residents found it displeasing to look at walls while driving in and out of their driveways. I heard a comment that Roundhill looks like an alley. An alley has garages, cars, trucks, and trcish cans. I have never seen these items on the slopes. Interpretation of the walls, decks and dead ice plant is "all in the eye of the'beholder*. Along with our property rights there are a few other concerns. The slopes are eroding under the ice plants. Our .15" to l 7' path on the slope side of our 32' wall is just about gone. If a child climbs the wall now and goes over it he/she will roll right down to the curb and into the street. These 32' walls are called "leap over walls. "Leap over in, and leap over out . It's easy access to the street below. Jack was robbed at gun point on�our front porch. The robbers ran away and lept over the wall to their car at the bottom of the slope and sped off. Several other slope neighbors have been robbed as well. Recently at the end of Melville the police and the canine dogs were chasing burglars up a neighbors slope and into her yard. Yes, we would like to have more security walls in our backyards like our neighbors. What's more appealing for a burglar to leap over a 32' wall or a 6' wall? Privacy is an issue because a 32' wall doesn't hide much. Anyone driving by can look in our small backyard. The wind is more of a personal concern. It is very windy on the hill. On many days we can not enjoy our yard with family and friends because it is just too windy! There are already 22 homes on Roundhill and Westport with walls. This means that the 26 remaining homes would not have the property right options to utilize and expand their backyards. That just doesn't make sense. It would be a loss in resale value where backyards have not been expanded. There are 5 walls with no vegetation. I was told by a Roundhill resident, 'It's not about wall vegetation it's about no walls, period!' When does a neighbor have the right or power to tell another neighbor what they want to look at on the slopes when they drive in and out of their garage? When we first built our home in the Harbour on the hill there were only I story houses on the streets below. That was a selling feature not a disclosure that we would have a view lot since we didn't live on the water. Then as time passed 2 story houses came. Yes, we lost 85% of our view. Then more time passed and 3 story houses were built. It's okay that houses can go up 30'- 35' but slope houses won't be able to go out 8'- 10' to make bigger safer backyards. Where is the justice in this theory! We have grown with the changes in our neighborhood the past 39 years. It is a really wonderful place to live and raise children. How can the city make an esthetic beauty code to please everyone. For the past 39 years we've been looking at a weed infested yard on the corner of Admiralty and Channel. Neighbors look at a 3 story house still in the process of being built after 7 years. Seven years of looking at a 'porta potty' on the side walk an eye sore. Another house looks like a 5,000 sq. ft, orange pumpkin. We as neighbors learn and accept individual differences. The enclosed pictures are of Gilbert Island and the mainland Roundhill and Westport. I didn't send any wall pictures of Roundhill and Westport because you have all seen them on the wall in the study session room at City Hall. So... yes, I object to Amendment 03-01 . Let's leave the plan as is. Thank you for reading my concerns over this amendment and how it will affect our neighbors, neighborhoods, and individual personal property rights /r _ J 41� ONING TEXT AMENDMENT O . 03 =01 HROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT TANDARDS 7� Applicant: City of Huntington Beach ate : October 4 , 2004 i� PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT o City Council directed amendment on behalf of the Beautification, Landscape , 8v Tree Committee u Amends Chapter 203 , 2 10 and 230 of HBZSO o To regulate setbacks , fencing, accessory �.� structures , and landscaping on through 3S'd lots -PI Through lots have frontage on two �'' parallel streets CITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED AMENDMENTS o All fencing at top of grade o Setback areas completely landscaped L3 No fences or structures within sloped portions of through lots o The terms "Primary" and "Secondary" �y frontage shall be included in the ordinance v Conditional Use Permit notification shall D" include all property owners facing through � � lots CITY COUNCILmDIRECTED AMENDMENTS - \1j ''jltt ttii _Itli - - �P itfill -- fill" ��,,, a`�i�'i�t� •Jilt ! �r sue] PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS � Defines the terms Primary Frontage and Secondary Frontage in the HBZSO � Increases the noticing requirements to include all property owners within a 1000-foot radius of the subject site . u Accomplishes two of the five City Council directed amendments to the HBZSO . 1� ``1 FENCING REQUIREMENTS — Pre- 1988 L3 Retaining walls up to 8 feet, topped with a six-foot block wall were allowed along the rear j2Mpe,rline of a throu&h lot �._ ice• E--- �- ---�tr�c-1- �'►.tc��� /__._.__ --____---I1:•= q 4 IJ-- _ o «11 t_........ It lit l it 16t1 LLtI !4' oe dlli=tub 47 4 ✓' r3E UP- -7-t, g I LI .mot r<�tit, � l .►_�.� UP -ram <<` i►J 431C-Ar.SIT` r FENCING REQUIREMEN''T'S - Since 1988 Currently, the HBZSO limits fences to a height of 42 inches along the rear property lin.,.e--o,f,-a throw h lot_-__ t'T�' i �X l��/ J rs.r,+y G• 1-tr ca.a✓ Y�^P.re'-,� i A t1l=till= 44 l; ' ___"` _Iii[ .�NIr�✓,�If a.� �=jtt f-r� y/.e2cr4411clrllo- EXIS'T'ING BLOCK WALLS 3 i IAII . . . ....... otr i a� 1 Iy Y7 C f K Tyr � L77 t WIN- Ea • _3.. i- t L, } Fri J ' • •:i: 1 EXIS'T'ING BLOCK WALLS Mi " iL _:A'tk d`114 }ti' T,7 < 4 Y ' � 3 �g� Gvr S � �YY dP g : .c t EXISTING BLOCK WALLS .............. .. ......... ter' � rx � , lax Ito r� S ii it.*„ 9. ,•jr 5�tiX�. , �{q, y 7��j� iil. � - _4 f .j'.i ` �.. eY n n. yN1w r .,� �tl®e r' �.tr ?ao 4 4.,'tF S c Y r y{ x ar 1 > i •r #-±,. 1}'1 f;� a .��' 9 _ A� "rP ....` �# '�� "'i �';'�'"�� i �� °��.' d ,�i;k chi Fv.%A'� ro `ia}: , ✓ .S,.�Y ,''�-• t � :r •-,�"-� fi '�1 ' tt r'�' q::J kry.�yFy g�` y :*t Yx � ,4.q r4 ' r4'�.�'� i'�i�,F ti„�„+x�^� >r y-1'�, ` �„y' "'— � 7,: cA Y 5 a+�" ,� 5 '`r ?� � `<t y 1 �. S �•.tr rf ) � �;� t «.f�ell t * t s `.+Og > .c "'+R;`s w '> .:t .v ♦ a s v y*Y s .,q• +►��:t• Bk ♦�"`� '� ' .�' -vd �'.g 3 ��"�{� +W cox �' •�e<R � - Ott ,kg "` 's���a i4��r�`"`.1,. #��k��°� ' c �. •Pe Wy'Ib�~.- y. Y/C {lam ,.�,,,,,Y .v 5 ; f. F� t '.{d,i}.yy"t �Rr ,4. >¢s tag`k r ry i,1.,. :t� ` iy' F".`.tQy •'� �V«^A�' °j trj�h�'si' �,,a.'"'.C. t :3,~mot. �:: ,.r .�J ✓° ��-� i` '':+r ^.v.=�'.1+ }J., . �' �" �.t: �;'�s.o;1"� k i.Y�'c. y i fir. F t 9}r, ,r�r , � fir. - k�q�'ry t,-.. oW�r •. .�„"k +� .� ,,.,4;a3, ,S%,•G".,. r r�t.,,..:y.sa.��+.,dR'y f�` e»�y�+gym 5 _��, r' .�*�� '.,4�v�i5-:w�, ,{��A-e •��t��r�r.�•� '°a��a', .".it�.-.���'R�S'�.-vr� ,, �a� �>; `q .A* { #.:,�, ` ,•;` �< p��,f�tg,,�i�T�,�rt3u ,, }�„ •#�� yY, t p, a- t 1�` '' ,, _ SM�,'- �:� ..� :,�' # Its k s '� ?� ,r °ad*,r>'�,������ccc��� w�Ag �;r;•:�G^ d. .o � �' £ts�a ��',k�` �r "ri5,.�'+ a` �'—'$. "¢n."P.,• #y:✓:-•�Y �'"i �a;%,. .5• .j 'yy'.r;�i. d` i ( 4. ,#- ny .tk.�� !-. 6 `� �kt R °'r.' •J J «•,:.: e';<�.,' w-. §., Roe s .ar v tl tvt•W��r�t'a- Y"- .r � ,� 1t # .�"t' y. i ! f °', .,:,y S' - 3 ~'Yi' m,."fl }fi 4", r �, ..y 1r S A. t!• $A.r ` ., �>+^s. `"!4,%�.:F � .' -''� ;., �' ,#� r ri' ;: � '� y ".� _,�e.�! �'" ,,t ��, �.s•[ r• t f^t.h'yytt �- 4 t w'_�; .�. :t. ;f„ �;c* r ��{.,t. � �. . 'it � �a"(•`'`at � J�# 4 9{y a'� x� 2", �', sA, a .1 f'`' � r <ki 632xr fi`r- d r A ].{ a } 'L" f 't� t;w'�j�, tt' v. :,t r � :. 3 n f�rc� a{�.� r��'"� a. r ,j*p$ rpA'�"s�„A•;.;'rct-�! `,f.� ° fi(i ;�xj..�}�� y... ° art'+ ».yr rt s�ox�e. ` �i 'Y ;'r ' i t f _.A �.. t?9": r f i�1"-tr ? �.a� -{ � w r�'A ram`.t? i w f �i�:1 1• � `�7 .'f_�;ri r„i,. � i Y'e t t ":r �s.F���w2'��� r ': t 6 i s,1r� �'�f✓s,.T+'Y i;, r Ek�:?•�F� '�� ,=i.�.. � y;y� u�s�.',y t•' :?".i��"e, - p''� r 4.1 �. %.r' rt__ 1, �< ,., ."`}..y. ,� r^t F4t`i t F• #I 1.�� � ��"� -t�y����� °i.� ���"..:..', �� � rws�i j. 4 ,� 4t`: k.. r .,r ^° 4 t r A n t 'Yr,e ? rN:-., ,:) ... vb. a ,. 3 �}�,}♦ ,y.� 7,r r�+7 {�i}r, r �y<t = r ""t , "'�,,. 1 p i {t ��' Y +.� � r } ;��,s� fr^6a t{•.4 ,{4. i'v ;'n. .t� �5 .,'., d tq�## s� H:: •. p' �`+ �9 d' S- � � s 'r� �'.r.b. fi a�;e� rl r ' ".,'�°ry-a� «`i n �,.,a��2' s' � 'a�.�'��Oe€�•Ss,�•t?��: � .j .R� 4� +'` A,+�ev.,A. � 1 A a p' v gt if"- ief 14 ax STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the zoning text amendment as I - -1 it-ja 12 al IQ a a * Cwommission based on the following: Additional definitions clarify terms relating to through lots o Additional noticing requirements allow for increased public participation Current ordinance already contains limitations on fencing and requires a CUP for requests to exceed the maximum �� 42-inch height limit a j 1 27 :Lit -' RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2004 (Continued from 10/4/04) RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorne ) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWA,_WED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: PD/HF/HZ -7 Leon Salem & Family 16662 Melville Circle HB, CA 92649 Nov. 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street, HB, CA 92648 Subject: Reject Zone Amendment 03-01 Please don't set a precedence with this frivolous taking of property rights. Zone amendment 03-01 selectively denies (- 4 dozen) homeowners the right to make minor landscaping improvements on their own property (without first paying over $8000 in fees for a CUP hearing). The current zoning code requirement is already very restrictive and makes it virtually impossible to create a landscape design that is distastefully overbearing or harms the neighborhood. Not a single problem example has been cited (that is built to the current code). All major improvements (> 42" wall height) already require a CUP. We are homeowners on Gilbert Island. When we purchased our home we had a view of the harbor. Today we only have a view of two newly built large homes. We now plan to build some planters with trees on our slope to provide some privacy from the two large new homes (planters are needed so the trees can grow straight with annual flowers around the base). But, Zone amendment 03-01 will require us to pay over $8000 for a CUP hearing to approve the planters. Shouldn't all good neighbors beautify their property in a limited way? Who is harmed by this minor landscape improvement? It is an injustice to impose select homeowners with frivolous property restrictions. Homeowners are entitled to equal property rights to enhance their privacy and comfort and to equally define their own vision of beauty. There is no good reason for this amendment. Please Reject Zone Amendment 03-01. C CD �� CUC(r L C _A_-ekC s Of'('Y;tP4 RECE11VIFD Joseph and Eleanor Nissim NOV 0 8 2004 16542 Mariana Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 CitY COf Huntington Beach October 31, 2004 tY Council office ti z a r Council Member Pam Houchen -° McD City of Huntington Beach ri t 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 N � Council Member Houchen: We are shocked that in this wonderful country where democracy reigns,that our rights as homeowners can be so diluted by the ordinance-amendment 03-10. Our home represents more than just a place to live. It represents our right as free citizens of the community to acquire property and make choices to improve and upgrade that property. Coming up with this latest ordinance,which can result in causing many of us to redo things,to meet with the needs and tastes of a select few, reeks of demagoguery. Please protect our rights and vote against this ordinance-amendment 03-10 and keep the law as it is. Thank you. Sincere y, Joseph Nissim and Eleanor Nissim RECEIVED mn%i0 2004 i o un g on each OA Ef i I (\ 2a ti i MOO d {(` r;p"Elp NOU-09-2004 04: 18 r tkS C r-IJtn.4�11 Mike Palikan 17097 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 846-1849 November 9, 2004 P � o � Honorable Mayor Cathy Green j City Council Members City of Huntington Beach c� z 2000 Main Street `A f Huntington Beach, CA 92648 via facsimile only 1 Re; Through lot issues ! Honorable Mayor and Council Members; This letter is in reference to the direction given to Staff at the October 4 Public Hearing. These issues stem from Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, and I request that you reject the proposals contained in that amendment and any laws which would restrict our property rights. One of the issues proposed by the Amendment was initiating the CUP process at the Planning Commission level. The proposed approximate $80400 CUP application fee is exorbitant. We are not developers or large corporations, but merely regular homeowners just like you, who absorb all of the costs out of our own pockets. Payment of this fee does not guarantee that our permit will be approved. In fact, if our permit is not granted, none of the feeds refunded! Is it really fair to charge a homeowner$8,400 just for the privilege of applying for a permit to build a block wall or a fence? This outrageously high fee punishes applicants and stifles home improvement. There are other costs associated with this issue as well. When we sell our homes, if we are forced to disclose to prospective buyers that our properties have restrictions, they will become less marketable and less valuable. Because most people are concerned about security, a buyer might withdraw an offer if he or she learns that installing a protective fence or wall is forbidden. This issue creates a financial hardship on those of us who depend on our properties as the major source of our retirement income. Unfortunately, some of us will be forced to sell our properties in order to pay for extended care facilities or nursing homes. Given the uncertainty of Social Security, we need to conserve what money we have so that we can afford proper care in our advanced years without burdening the rest of'society. 1 NOV-09-2004 16:01 99% 'P.01 i Initiating the CUP application at the Planning Commission level directly contradicts the A streamlining process which the City has been implementing. Streamlining is designed to facilitate the permit process, yet it is being proposed that applications for through lot owners be raised to the higher level, thereby becoming more arduous and costly: The same standards should apply to through lot owners as they do for all homeowners. On the same principle, the Amendment was drafted in such a way as to target only owners of through lots whose properties have slopes, Obviously, there was a reason these owners were being singled out, but the result is that not all residents with similar properties would be treated equally. Approximately 22 homes in Huntington Harbour have fences and walls on their rear lot lines, as is evident on Roundhill, We have already established a precedent in our City, and recent purchasers like us reasonably believed that we could do the same. The notification to neighboring property owners should be kept reasonable and in line with current policies so as not to unfairly burden applicants. To do otherwise inequitably targets us, and imposes more unreasonable costs (not merely that of stationery and a stamp, according to Planning Staff) on us. Regarding frontages, like most other yards in the City, our.homes have both front and rear yards, which are readily distinguishable, We don't have garages or driveways in our rear.yards. Our house numbers are revealed on the fronts of our homes, not the rear. The U.S. postal service delivers correspondence to the mail boxes in the fronts of our homes, not to our rear yards. Our guests and other callers alert us to their presence and enter through our.front doors (only criminals enter our properties through our rear yards). We don't have fences running the width of our properties parallel to the street in the front of our homes, only in the rear. Our homes are situated the same as those in which two neighbors share a rear lot line. The only difference is that our rear lot line happens to be shared with a street. In fact numerous side lot lines are shared with a street, for example the homes directly across from ours.- Our homes have three distinct lot lines and yards, two bordering the side, one bordering the front, and one bordering the rear. Please understand that we feel very strongly that we should be allowed to make f improvements on the property which we purchased and on which we pay taxes, and i that includes erecting a wall and fence on our lot line. However, we do care about our City and want to be good neighbors, and with this in mind we are willing to agree to a reasonable compromise. For example, use of attractive construction materials, maintaining foliage, and allowing-a small (18" or so) setback to give the look of depth, This results in the loss of some of our property, and higher costs for extra construction, but will result in a more uniform appearance relative to the existing through lot walls, thereby giving the community a sense of integrity and continuity. During the past few months, Planning Commission, Staff and Council has received many signatures on petitions as well as a multitude of letters from through lot owners. 2 NOU-09-2004 16:'01 9G% 'P.02 r NOU-09-2004 04: 18 P.03 These citizens ask that-the City refrain from stifling their property rights for the benefit of a few residents who have recently become particularly sensitized to aesthetics. Not the same aesthetics associated with those who want to preserve our natural habitats, but the aesthetics associated with those who want to benefit only themselves at the expense of another's property rights. Please review those letters, understand P that we want to be good neighbors, and reassert our property rights for us. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, 3 TOTAL P.-03 NOU-09-3004 16:.Q1 9?% P.03 �{wr���J ' oJ�I�erZc� (J� REOEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC RE D R COU ME OF cl CL RK OF �'�,[ o ���in , r UV CLERK 6 �EIVED FP L.FLYNN, PUSUC RE CITY be�F ",To 1 r. LL 6A 9,-) y Z) 1 F � 1 / ZJ / r cam' �-�--4- 1-9 .AZ OZ- ��-�-�-b-e c V +R t \ r L & rVl 1 1-Q f L t 7 � Z December 5,2004 To Whom It May Concern; My husband and I have no issues with Shirley Doo building a retaining wall on her property at 17041 Westport Dr Huntington Beach, CA. We own and occupy a home on the same street. r: S' erely, ' �� 1 JIAnn an d Charles Pedersen 17181 Westport Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649 December 8, 2004 Ms. Shirley Doo 17041 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Shirley, I was pleased to have a discussion with you on December 6,2004,regarding your approved and permitted building p0roject, including landscaping/exterior walls. My wife and I strongly support your desire to enhance and beautify your property, as it will also greatly benefit the entire neighborhood. Let us know if we can be of assistance to you at any time during your project. Thank you again for your efforts. Sincerely, Scott and Jennifer McCalliste 17171 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 r j s Oeri'7�� �1y el-I 46 7L � .arc .�-o,¢�' � �.��;u� �ume - CA9a6�9 .1 4, ta 17 0 -7 2-1�/o Y xf 74 Xz, ,t�� �—� 7 a� � Aae-r--Z � Ak-r-r-, R 77 L -7 17 1170 OnA� -0� f 44 ��� . P4-t�Z,CS I -7cjlb� UJI� TPGPl P(l , 4-�um-(ofr,$)-j OPEW41, o(q) E40 - o S I AoPA'Ry--s 1(9 n,-S:A ,CiD V7 Chrl f�LALLIJ JW <�LAMP-J lrz� j-r,� o2 f r n-�- 7 xt", 1 '7e`-( ��.3 A IZ .....lAz jj r ` -P)�,)V il �s'i�l 4 ,Vr- n Of O-iT 04- /�C I e � 7031 �VEs�C rf oh 377 F� 35/ 17o 4� we's l o IV I 1 dF1 `j l �j laoa r Q s I ------------- i / rj •cam. 3-77- �.r� j� �JY LJf1cL December 8,2004 Ms. Shirley Doo 17041 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Shirley, I was pleased to have a discussion with you on December 6,2004,regarding your approved and permitted building project, including landscaping/exterior walls. My wife and I strongly support your desire to enhance and beautify your property, as it will also greatly benefit the entire neighborhood. Let us know if we can be of assistance to you at any time during your project. Thank you again for your efforts. Sincerely, P Scott and Jennifer McCalliste 17171 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 r �GTON AS F C FROM. R �~ OF OFFICE J� OG J0M L Comm December 8, 2004 a AA*k" 4 Architectural Review Committee A�RT'y O`t'1 P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach CA 90742-0791 Ms. Shirley Doo 17041 Westport Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 RE: Doo Residence Property at 17041 Westport Drive , Huntington Beach, CA Approval of plans Dear Shirley: The building plans submitted to the Committee on 12/08/04 for the proposed project at the referenced property address have been reviewed by the Committee and found to be consistent with and in compliance with the intent of the CC&Rs and are therefore APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project is carried out in conformance to the plans submitted; 2. Any significant changes to the plans be submitted to the Committee for review prior to execution. 3. This Committee will deny and/or object to any request for a variance which violates the CC&R's of this Association. However, the rear garden/retaining wall, as was dicussed with you and your legal counsel on December 10, 2004, is not in compliance with the C, C, &R's of this Association, and therefore are not approved. Thank you for helping us keep Huntington Harbour a special place to live by cooperating with our review program. We hope that you have a successful project. R. Batistelli President Member, Architectural view Committee Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Assoc!at!on,lnc. P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 (714)840-7877 f HUNTINGTON HARBOUR a+noAaSa,Arrirrp �`, \ � � O Ru•nNd AQL �°X �' �'irC h.�': •lam / �SJ A�.)A/•,4r� ,C,�" - >..� `r,....�/'.• g•l N-- 43 �' ��O \.�'t`4 ♦ '--wu Y;. .. ..- �n J sue,, °Nx`' N a .. ��,`w.�. �C� "FF�'-`. .x�-4.,',-s�'i+' �.:tj: % � / ,^�„✓A�ri2 � l'L'.9^+1nnOrt � ` ^LAnt•\`w.� .,,.yc.`� %�'3-: mCn•x.-" '-/f/C 'a.. .' :�I f//� � P • \ cQRse '\..` „��:_:. w z�. .,ryg`i `ti:.'"- ,,.: $t/�/'",y`I h (..'^ll,, t � - "\�\•, w���i �kcs 3��� � [ ".��(:� \arywLaen.``,y� tti���'!'•c�.a/,� c�4t �+ *'ram `..-+. TdAnfi,.Wy �'�'4 \kA�F,+��Mv G �w„�� _��A? y'. .•�` SAC l3/ ,��'�•�tr�,w•.....1 *{, i1 / M �,1! _ ' ` .a,.y.., 1 ,l t�``•'-"riy�'„.�,3r �. .�, - ti��nc, R cyz* // � �� - ,:{�a. .: ,°" � � �1 � .� ��, Eat a �'„ `^.✓' �-�<'�,�'o��r �`��. Nunl tan Mena ✓ 4✓ rView PAA air Cry i 'j:;t. Fri Lr �1f`' l° 0%ftcm FS�"°F yMHgay1irN ,s,-. ^Tz:.�,`>':r°'� P�4 .. \ ?�,"\�'1^`["s+� '•iY �.Y: I�(,� „? AF1fNMM11 CtlMlAINIWIIM ,RAddEM � ansran map Of. . . LOS ANGELES and VICINITY # FREEWAY SYSTEM mmw MIN RAY a POINTS OF iNThRf:ST AND -AS. 4UNTINOTON HARBOUR l/ • �Yl�:t't. �^O'✓' �i,.{[... Yv li..�. 1� W-�'i c'T-S �:.p a,_�n"v.gu,«. } 2' Oh+ t _•rSF. •+i .i t .'-_j;Tip;;:.F;.9•�9.t-G�""3?., t� f ,'� rncns '.t. r.. _ Z. .'tl t� i:. �Y V'\ .�.<i`f�..= ..x e'��.'v •3-' '���;r1r�`� .-.4.zl �y'o. RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC RECOR R T�NC EE1 OF O D 1. WESTPORT DR., (1) CITY CLEMK OFPICE JOAN L FLYNN,CITY CLERK ,QQ � } •sy�t�'•t. .. r•� Wsll� 1T ,t� 'r � p's,Y�•;� gp IM ' � ----°•-•�.. ..r-r..�^--�-- t��r�9�I�Yit I'll 2. WESTPORT DR. , (2) 01 � ,.J'�5�4•y^?s _ /� ...a......�_. _� K•_' -L�jis,:-p, .,tom-c �.- .t.� - � .. _ •'�> �-'u`,,C7.�+,,,,�,,.....a'. � ��e�fi«•''• _ 'C424.''1�'1:..�3�, iro, mot. ��� �' Vm "/}fy ,-.ti"_ - '�*t nr `L�'•,Y': ''�r:t-'%'rvT`6,1�'."'�.3.� n.;="=: `''6 ' D �,� '�nL '� ^'-^•,,4.-:4ar �`t,fi'' 4. .C' .*7 C:y. �' •� 7 •l •L-'�,"r-'� �' k` '4 -`R' t'-Y� _ �.�=>�.,,�.,^� ._.;.axe'`-='•.�_;:-c:,�z£'�•:�: �+,�,� c.. �,'"_�.`t._3 � aM. tom. - _ - `''_` 0. _ _ ._ *.«' �: _•. 1� ? { :�� t t '.`�5�,.��. - �»�t�if iulr `;>r r,h 4,'� F d.N: c �� ,�' �.S`� y �,�� ¢' kl .�����s, ��1� �M•. 9A, �i. �'�� ttl. I,,a � �,�,.'�. Y,^, o � � � fir•' wtN k,' �`.7''�'r•s'� PA �p� a � � v � �r1 �` f '.x• a�� _mow, ra.. �'� ..� � d t}�r j•_+ �'�^ P+'S� �'' '� �� o o `� �� 1',., f7�. t �tip„� i�'�19��r�' • �n �.p _ _ et 7�t� `i N•r a(nr',.1��'r F>h` c ��t � }: io'�,t� �:a.l?ti+t.<�$ �t2�`48�4� ,.d .j _-- ._. .•,— 'a,.��• .,; ,>; N t. d� ^"�S .r - �. Y 41L.,.1f$.• ., ' ��,;. �;':�' ,� .r•. fir, mlr � �a�.'. re Fa-I 4, .:� - �, .--.a: _t �r-t'='(;��I, �;t y;'�.gfx�a H .." �"'��'.. ,•�ap4tl 3'" � � �^ .ems ��^*^�Yi•:}t�,' �Y» ;gar'^ •.,,- y.,;c ate' �'" - .. ,. � �r�,yt t y c A F-I � r� 'a;'�':.•�"�•fit:'y7s .,Jr a'B F �� ry i'�" H .�p. Stg r i, �"r �_ .�. t7'•...a1a,. ,��..' .',� �"�"� li 7 5�x+v;,h�'�� f,7, a„ � w n 'r !".:,� '��, �,•R�. � 1 ..r ': d rrla;�t "a,� ;Jz:'4 t•�"'s;�' �k. �e,"�-`f;',N'�i��,�Xr,,}n/�:�'� ay,"r,r ,�;,� I r'I< IA J •r ��R' '...r:k'f'a`� H.-,.��r � i `7� �k 4_, a 4 ''t 'r'y� ',ri�^w,i:t4�,`,;"^. � �VS-.�✓'�-=z•{ ;iq_t','�'(+9`;;rrar�Yf,'�;yy�n"�' i �,. it - "�}������+ ��a 1{!1� i�, t��`'a 6`" ,r�G��„• �;1�� .�sf';�` ,�K��"tf.�}l�;N!`����' � 1. "f�1��_ ��S �+��a` s' � :•1 �Ij kT� a ti. .e. +7'�Ij�•�1„_' �i..FlL��tii�`{'ir i"?' 7I °wk R,} '�P`����, },:I .r t 4 �`,•.^%R.' Ea .� -- %61W���q',j}��,l'�t�' ( K1,��, .�`,. ,.t, r 4c •..'st` .:.� �� L iEkF I �v�' '�'z t �fj�,Y �s?t `-�,ej s �1- '�Y � d si .� :�'+ Z i 11 a l• _ f �¢i a, �° {x�t t -r•hR •`% ', ;z �4'rr'll =i- e,• v} All .�� stl .1 i '"k`+ Vy rivkT -T , 4r.+~f tif. tiy.` ' Y!r" •"x wfl ,� s •'i'*''7a. xJ.at`7�, +' }' :'':.'.• y� w a,�i �, !,J v�4.p:� i .!!' .,�k,_. .�` ,. •,-,. �,1yyy�H' � �I�;, J'; .,�, „r.:„�.�:, ,pypr�Mrs,`� 1rt.w '�° :7: 7 -:ihi+�: �,`�T` .P'. 4, {ar• { '��'4{.M q' 3 r 'fit"Y., '✓-k' �,{, �,y� �, + •� �� � �� d,�6 7 �� �� � flu7 ! )r)l T l kl•,� 5''i3�'sit�," L rot4^ f r.�d f"�•+t tt��� ,,,_7�'� �' 1+i� :!` R 'r __�`. 3- -, 'ss4si7l•:kTi?; i t!iti .r �' tt-.�^;Y•d'���'P£gY.. aYYY,,�.. 1` e,t,•':1,{{ v''3`y' .,¢, -K :.7;f is y ° �'-arlt 7i:' K141:is� y fy• , r Rr' '1'k . Y�ikt".` ,�: ^,�•y� + �• � f t � � i t'r 1t"y"7•+ �, �, 3 z ';`'_,��•.rp$c;r�f'"•�';"�"�;" 46 `a'�•_d,�.. .t`+ •ti:• �F7 =mot. , � k^.J - '• / R t "11. .�;;,, '� J�.,.;,;x; Y,.' .`X..v l 1 ai�'}],� ail a�„°'-•` :r. .d"�y°.y,,.. �. ;�: '`••�'' .� '#':Re' ��' i�4`ffi"-^" �;�1".;.=r1,i''ilw� ,_g'�t *��: 7 (�i�`?; • Zrr,4,�Y'�� •»J •'�'r'�� �• :$ ;}t `#•i t� �'1 '�'rr' �5. t Si t. ,+('< -t 132 � "• �� "�'•c +•>Y', k ,t�'4'� 'P x qy .;, .,�1?' .r-. °E�� [ � `I i a�+t''�<<i��� .si`�•,y(1�:'� �1f,1'... .!�'' �••��u+,. a�, ,;. �'"'d�:�i� � t a�,1.. � - •� �' ¢ - ..},1,r TL+r �le�.., �v�tr a.. Li`�'.•�,7� �4Y �,••p ., :O :S 1 •etys 1 �t��) c.� '.1 tr ,.1 ; :..U,k.,f5 �r.•!iy'```�•r 3�S �' •u� •� Y� '3 'tz,';}.:.-. t y' t• j �i,,.r �. t r. �y '� y .i•' ;�,b '-j4'k• b .X'��f{ ; •��;i;��:��s,. fw,y:�.,; �;.,.,;;�... ,�� •-��,+��1�^y,l�:.s .�.� 'h,;� r'.• "r� 'r,,�`..t r � '4;.,G. �. > u�=,a, ',.F• k c l� ` ti�3 ¢Y r,�r :��. i.'px�yl' �,.t S.i}. l �,R t'� r>N'"14f.a vY'w+}''k,,,r,-=,M'nr•+y. .i�' ,ttYif{"�✓ulgi .. 's � ,r }•�'' a cn i�.�fi •' � t III '�jr � '3 � Y M'rf. 1 ♦Yk * k�`� �}J ay f•��� T � 4�� { ,u�,F tl �` i`P +�.t. �,�R�/lTa1 y� Frt .y S '� As. ( R `;t`1",,�,..:•,�. 't;r,�n E `Y�'f�,`tlr t• ��'-'�+`srl"«'•6'�}..f!+.t.ry�$�xl ,�� �4�����'t" /� � 1 1 tj'�„i� '♦ r.'b�p'.', .(y:`{F ^ 4 nS�•'4.�:'x`J,(.•Y3?Yt •.;�:Ira''�1 .} y r � ��!'ei((�'t �I�'k•I"P'�+'`1�4'� �"�.�yt . S�'�'":w Lti 1•,y ;�'"'"v`,id �" � z n' � '31 �D 3. WESTPORT DR., (3) Nr Wn tt • b' z te�,,k.�r 'S:L•fie f S.ki� �� t��'1i A�w'&a l: � ,y�,`k�' - .: � yn� w ._ � po "�. J' >a*pAx?�' S .a#4 �a [ "ya�,v •l-+Q,L'"�-.'wT _ z i C C t R h Cr R C a f DEC LA RAT I ON OF C Tract No. 4880 z t 1recordedd Jan Limitations,Covenants,Condition:, kesMditins ReStr1Qt1 recorded C espy 28p 1963 And Reservations Affecting The Real Property :. in Book 6440v page 208 0. R. Known As Trad No. 48130 (Huntington Harbour Unit Me. 4) tli - in The City of Huntington Beach, � e County of Orange,California 't CC THIS DECLARATION, made this loth sots, administmtorn, itgd assigns for the day of January,,1963, by HUNCINGTON benefit of each such tot,part or parcel and DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS ¢, O LN HARBOUR ENGINEERING&CON- for the mutual benefit of all such lots,parts (• :, STRUCTION CO.,a California corporation and parcels and the respective owners there-(hereinafter called"Declarant"). of. It is the intent of the Declatant that FOR HUNTf N CTON HARBOUR W I T N E S S E T•H: each of said Covenants shall ix mutual arul tJ.. equitable servitudes upon and in favor of WHEiwAS, Declarant is the record each lot, part or parcel-of or in said rein owner of the real property described in property and the preseat,or future owner of UNIT NO. Clause I of this declaration (hereinafter owners thereof and its,his or their heirs,sue- somctimes referred to as "said real prop- eessors, administrators .executors•and as. erly"); and signs,all as a part of a common and,general WHEREAS, Declarant has'established plan and scheme of development and ice- pmvement of said real property, a general plan of development of said real property and the tots tltercia.for the bene- fit of said real property and each and every t lot, part or parcel thereof or therein arm CLAUSE desires to secure the uniform development property Subject To This Declaration => of said real property and said lots, parts x and parcels in accordance with said plan; The real s situ propertyinwhich e subject t*aaid Covenants is situated in the City of Hunt- O f NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby ington Reach, County of OnuiM State of 1 f declares that said real property and each California, and is described and shown as t and every lot, part or parcel thereof or lots 44 through 172. inclusive,on the final 1 therein is and shall be owned, held, cans- map for Tract No. 4880 in the City of I ferrcd, sold,conveyed,hypothecated or en- Huntington Beach which map was recorded t cumbered, Icaaed, rental, used, occupied, in the Office of the County Recorder,Orange maintained, altered, and improved subject County. California, on November 16. 1962 to the limitations,covenants,cooditioas,re- in Book 172, at Pages 12-19, inclusive, of strictioos,reservations,exceptions and terms Miscellaneous Man Records (bereinartcr (hereinafter collectively referred to as"aid referred to as"said tract map'). - Covenants") hereinafter set forth,as a part of and pursuant to a common and Rencral f plan of development and improvement of CLAUSE I 1 suid real property. Said Covenunls shall run I General Purposes of'This Declaration with the land, and shall bind, be a charge upo?,and inure to the benefit of all of said Said real property and*very lot,parr re f al;prdtierty and each bur, part or parcel parcel thereof or therein is subjected to saiod thereof or therein and to Declarant,its suc Covenants to insure the proper use and ap- cessors or assigns, and each owner of any prupriate and uniform development and im- such im,part or parcel and his heirs,succes- provement thereof;to protect each owner of 1 . Y c z 9 c „ c CC I r- c c .ram :my lot, part or parcel in or of said read DWELLING- A residential building for single C Loy LINE, Sow: Any boundary line of a erected only after approval in writing bus Z propctly against such improper use of any family occupancy permitted to be built here- lot which.is not a frout or rear/at blue. first been obtained from the Architectural other such lot.part or parcel as may deproci- under, not including accessory buildings or alc the value of its or his property;to guard garages. Review Committee. C $tORY: T7rat portion of a building included agaiustthe erection.un said real property of between the. surface of any floor mud the -- buildings of structures built of improper or FAxttLr: One. 1nnrL persons each related surface of the floor next above;or,if there Pullding Height--One and Trvo Soury C unsuitable materials; to encourage the erec- in the other by blood, marriage, or legal is no floor above,the space between the Moor &n!drstgs v tion of atttactive improvements on said real adoption,or a group of not more than three and the ceiling next above. A hasemcnt shall No dwelling or garage shall he constructed, properly at appropriate locations; to secure persons.not nil so related,together with his not be counted as a story. erected, placed, altered. Or maintained on and maintain proper setbacks from streets or their domestic servants, maininining a any lot which is more than tine story without and adequate free spaces between structures; common household in it dwelling. STORY, HALF: A space under a sloping prior Written approval of the Architectural and in general to provide for a high type and roof which has the line of intersection of Review Committee. Subject to said approvai quality of development anti improvement it. GARp61K: A beildhtg or poaion of a holld. roof decking and wall not more than three of the Architectural Review Committee two. and on said real property. (3) feet above the top floor level, and in in$des. nod for the;rtrioac of park)pg and story dwellings or garages may be ocm- which, space not more ihnn sixt eicen[ {':� sheltering nutomeb"u, whethe, attactri, pt y p strutted, erected, plated, altered or main- princi) of the fluor area is completed for partially atlac;•-d �: separate- ��om the ruined on any lot,it being the intention and CLAUSE III dwelling. principal ur accessory use. desire of Declarant that two-story dwellings Definitions $IRucmr: Anything erected,constructed, or garages be permitted to be cnnstrucled at GRADE; Any excavation or fill,of any com- placed,laid or installed in,on or over said certain locations in void real property. No For Ilse purposes hereof the fallowing bination thereof,upon all or any part(if a one-story dwelling or garage shall exceed explanations and definitions of word terms real properly the use of which requires a twenty20) feel in building height,no two- and phrases shall govern,unless the context results from any excavation or fill. story dwelling or garage shalt exceed thirty thereof indicates a different meaning: WA-rxaFRONT: The lot line or lines as shown (30)feet in building height,and no accessory ARcurrEcrURAL REymw CommrrrEet The Loy: Each parcel of land shown"a lot in on said ttaci map,which adjoin a waterway. building or structure shall exceed ten (10) Cummittee provided for in Clause V hereof. the ncmded final map of said real property feet in building height unless a greater height and designated tin said map by a separate WATERWAY; Any lands now covered or is first approved in writing by Ihe.Architec. BAssmEl,ir' A portion of a building located number,pn,vided,that no lot designated by hereafter covered by navigable waters of tural Review Committee. only underground and having mote than high or low tide whether within, adjacent P t letter or designated cl i number other or contiguous to the boundaries of Tract two-thirds of its clear!loot-to-ceiling height than 44 through 172,inclusive,on said tract a 3. llnrelllog Size. below the average grade of the adjoining map shall be deemed a lot within the moon- No. 4880; Lots A, B, C and 1) shown on ground at the building front. ing of said Covenants. said tract map shall be considered water- Without the prior written consent of the -7-1 ways. Architectural Review Committee the ground X ButLotNa: Any structure having a roof,sup- nor area of each dwelling, exclusive of LoT AAeA: The area of a horizontal plane trpotYs, open terraces, open Pa Z ported by columns or by walls¢»d intend bounded by the vertical planes through front, c nos, open for the shelter,housing,or enclosure of ai- CLAUSE IV porches and breezeways, shall be not loss Q and tear lot lines. person, animal, chattel Or property of any side, than, kind. Genera) Restrictions 13uaun+a,ACCESSORY: A subordinate build- LoT Lma,Faoxr: That boundary line of a (a) I,600 square feet on a In( having lot which is along a stroet line except as 1. Land t ae and Building Type, an area of 7,199 square feet or less;and ing or portion of a principal building other otherwise designated by the Architectural All lots shall be used for rival single than q garage,the use of which is incidental p ° (b) 2,1tN1 square feet on a lot Navin Review Committee. On corner Lou,l.e.,b1s s to that of the principal building and custom- family residence purposes linty- ce building aqutve tat or enure. bounded on two sides by streets, the front shell be constructed,erected,placed,altered an area of 7,200 ary iu connection with that casts. lot line shall be the line designated by the or maiete(ntd on any lot,except one dwell- 4 ���1Lot. ButLntNG HEIGHT: The vertical distance Architectural Review Committee. ing.designed by a licensed architect and . measured from [he cs(ablished ground level designed and erected far occupancy by one Without fhe prior written consent of the to the highest point of the following: (i) LOT LtNe,RFaR: That boundary line of a family, and one private garage•eontttining Atchitectural Roviev¢Committee,no build- the top side of the ceiling trams in the case lot which is most distant from and is,or is not leas than two (2) parking spars; pro- ing shall be located ion a lot neares to the of a flat roof; (ii) to the deck line in the approximately,parallel to the front lot line. vided, however, said garage may contain front lot line,or a side lot line adjoining a case of a mansard roof; and (iii) to the If the rear lot line Is less thin ten(10)feet such additional number of parking spaces as street or a waterfront than fifteen(15)feet. mcau level of the top side of rafters between in length,or if the lot forms a point tit the shall be first approved in writing by the No dwelling shall be located starer to the the caves and the ridge in the case of a rear,the rear lot line shall be deemed to be Architectural Review Como itlee. Any rear lot line than twenty(20)fotet,or nester gable,hip or gambrel roof. Chimneys shall a line ten feet in length within the lot,par- (triage shall be used solely by the owners or to a side lot line than five (5) feet. Ttmnit not be.included in calculating the building allel to and at maximum distance from the occupants of the dwelling to which it is courts and swimming pools shall be con- height. front lot line. nppurtenant. Accessory buildings may be strueted only.at such locations as shall have Y. 3 0 � w I z • c G I f`t CC ' I R C C .A been lira epprutcd in wrifing by the Archi- pavements on which said lots face or abut 13, Underground Wiring. and a plot plan showing and fixing the loci, G 4ccturd Review Comnurfee and shall be or to which they rare adjacent. Said lands No lines or wires for communication or tiun of sucls structure, with rrfercnco err ,crcencd harm :111 sheets h) a visual banter and parkways shall be kept clean and cleat streets and lot line% (and the grading plan, nnved to witing (,y the Architectural of refuse and shall not be P used for the ark- the transmission of electric current or power C Pt shall be constructed,placed,or permitted to if r approval td I %JiLoaf{ have been tint%rhtng llJ kcr•icw(ummiu,:c. ing nF private or commercial vehicles a' for approval to and approved in urnmg by be placed anywhere in or upon any lilt other ho:us or trailers. The tarn "commefcial C the Architectural Review C ommiuve. Su.h vehicles"shall include all untomobiles, sea- than within buildings or stwuures or at- ,p 5, Dttveways. glans and specifications. Color scheme. pl+.t I wagons,to+ckst boats,watucrnft,other lathed to the walls thereof,unless the same Access driveways nod other paved areas shall be contained in conduits,or approved Plan and grading plan;shall he suhmiucJ m "3 land, air and water vehicular equipment writing ovca the signature of the nwner +a 3 for vehicular use on a tat shall have a weal- which shall beer signs or have rimed on cables constructed, placed, and maintained @ P his duly authorized agent on a form prepared lag surface a concrete or asphaltic a concrete, the side of same an reference to any com- underground or approved u or ender build or the equivalent thereof. Plans and Specifi• y lags or Other approved StnaGU[cS, by the Archiectural Review Committee, rttercial underinking or enterprise. Approval by said Committee of the esecuon, edgingons for all driveways,culverts,pavement k.. : construction. installation; placement, altera- edging or mockers shall be first approved `- �.�k' - 14. Signs- tion of maintenance o£isaid structure may in writing by the Architectural Review 10' 011W Diseases or Noxious Insects. Committee. No sign or advertising device of any kind be withheld because i4e same wnuld or No No shall permit any thing or con- shall be placed or maintained on any lot or might, in its judgment,cause or result in a dittos ill. exist'upsm his Jut which shall upon any other portion of said real property violation of said Covenants and also hccauw 6. Basements. induce, .breed or harbor infectious plant of the reasonable dissatisfaction of said No basement shall,be constructed on anydiseases sir noxious insects, Architectural the prior written Committee. at la the Architectural Review Committee.Declarant, Committee,with the grading Plan.location of lot without the prior written aproval of the however,may erect and maintain upon said the structure, color scheme, finish, desi!-a Archi+ectural Review Committee. lt. Nameplates, Television of Radio An- real property such Signs and other advcrtis- proportions,architecture,shape.height.attic tennae and 'Towers, Laundry Drying ing devices as it deems desirable in connec- or aptmfpristencss of the pmpttsed strut tare 7, Chimneys. Facilities or Flag Poles. tion with its operations fur the development os altered silunure,materials proposed to be No chimney shall extend more than four There shall be not more than one nouns- and sale of said real property, used therein,kind,pitch.or type of the rtmf (4) feet above the building height of any plate on each lot. Said nameplate shall be proposed a be placed actionthairisos,or because all dwelling without the prior wtioen approval not more,than 72 square inches in area,and 19. Oil and Mining Operations• its other matters dissatisfaction with any or all of the Archiieclund Review Committee, slants contain the name of the occupant other matters or things a which,m the reason. P No lot shall he used far the purpose of able judgment of the said Committee,would and/or the address of the dwelling. It may horing, mining,quarrying,exploring for,or reader the proposed structure inharmonious ` 8. Nuisances. be located on the door of the dwelling or removing water, oil or other hydrocarbons, or out of keeping with the general plan of No noxious or offensive activity shall be the wall adjacent thitreto, or upon the wall, minerals of any kind, gravel,air earth. No improvement of said real property. -s carried on,in or upon any part of said real of an accessory building or structure, or it machinery shall be placed,operated,or main- 9 property,nor shall anything be done there- may be freestanding in the front or sideyard, taincd upon any)of except such machinery (b) If the.Architectural Review Commit- aG on which may be,or may become,an annoy- provided that the height of the nameplate is as is usual and customary in connection with tee shall disapprove of any�[[laps and sperill- Z ante or nuisance to the neighborhood. No not more than twelve (12) inches above the maintenance of a private residence. cartons,color scheme-plopplan or grading C animals except dogs and Cats,and in OO event @ Sr the adjoining ground grade. No television or plan submitted for approval, it shall send more than two(2)dogs or rats shall he kept radio antennae,or fewer,or laundry drying notice of its disapproval to the person or or maintained on any lot. No burning of equipment shall bee red or used outdoors, 16. Home OccnpaHons- persons applying for said approval of the refuse shall be permitted outside any dwell- whether attached to building or structure, No gainful occupation,profession,or trade address set forth in the application therefor ing, except that the burning of leaves is or otherwise,rmless first approved in writing or other non-residential list, shalt be con- within thirty (30) days from the date said permitted as or if allowed by ordinance of by the Architectural Review Committee. ducted on any lot or in any building. plans and specifications,rotor scheme,plot tl+e City of Huntington Beach. plan and grading plan are presented to the 13. Temporary Structures. 1,7. Arelrilerfira! Controls. Architectural Review Committee. If notice 9 Parkin of disapproval is not so;sent,the plans and R--parkways. (a) No building or Darer structure of any No trailer, basement of an uncompleted -kind,including without limitation dweh-ings, specifications, anise scheme, plot plan os The use of any garage,carport,driveway, building,tent,shack,garage or barn,and no grading plan submitted shall be deemed to accessory buildings, garages, fenres;, walls, yawl ang area. waterfront, wharf, slip,ramp temporary building or structure of any kind have been approved by the ArcWttctural retaining walls, bulkheads,sidewalks,steps, Review Committx in accordance with the or otter facility which may he in front of or shall he used at any tune for a residence awnings, poles, swimming pools, and tennis I adjacent to or pan OF any lot as a habitual either temporary or permanent. 'Temporary provisions of this Paragraph 17. courts shall be erected,constructed,installed, parking place fur commercial vehicles is pro- buildings or structures used during the con- placed, altered or maintained upon any Int (c)The approval of the Architectural Re- i hibited. The owners of lots shall be respon- stnection of a dwelling shall ba on the same or upon any street or parkway, adjacent view Committee of any plans or speeifica- siblc for the maintenance and repair of lands lot as the dwelling, and such buildings or thereto"unless and until complete and Lions,color scheme,plot plan or grading plan land parkways located between their lot lines structures shall be removed immediately detailed plans and specifications therefor submitted fnr approval for use on any paf- und the edges of street or thoroughfare after the completion of construction. showing color scheme thereof,if appropriate, titular lot, shall not be deemed to be a I -Z C C cc I C G .P %aiver by the Architectural Review Corn- ill. Visual Obstructions. 21). Construction had Completion of one (twt (I•) vertical shall be planted and G mittee of its right,to abiect to any of the Dwellirg, maintained with growing vegetation sufh Z N fence, wall, hedge rnhcr visual time to consul erosion of such grades. All C features or elements emlrndied !hereto if (,artier over three feet in bright, save and The fits! Owner, or owners, of each lot g and when the same feanites or elements are such vegetation and the watering and main ,... except far trees approved by the Architec- of said real property agree that within seven embodied in any subsequent plans and speci-, total Review Committee,shall be erected or (7) months after the delivery of the deed tenance facilities therefor shall he apptnvcd -- fications,color scheme,plot plan or grading grown on any lot at any place where n bar- to ouch lot, such owner or owners will (il by said C'ommittee. G� plan submitted for approval with respect to rier of greater height would obstruct or tin_ commence Elie construction of it dwelling on any other lots. 23. Relaxation and Addition of Covenants. 2 pair the view of waterways,waterfronts and such tut,and(ii)comply with iheprovisiuns � (d) No building or other structure for streets from other lots. No fence,wall,hedge of paragraph 17 of Clouse IV of this (a) The Architectures Review Committee which any plain and sprciflcauuns, color or other visual barrier over six (b) feet in Declaration by submitting to and obtaining shall have the right and privilege to permit scheme,plot plan a grading plan have been a save and ewrr�t for trees approve)in - the approval of the Architectural Review Elie owner of any lot or tots (without Elie approved by the Architectural Review Com-_ �by the Architectural Review Commit- Comminec of the Flans and speclficalinns, consent of owner1-nficither lots) to deviate PP t Il bn erected or groom ar any place on color scheme, pint bin, grading plan and from any or all, that ovenants art forth in mittee shall be erected, constructed,install• ahj� lot The reatt;4iens set fntth in tt,is all other matters relating to said dwelling this Clause IV, prodided that such devis- ed. placed, altered or maintained except in paragraph IP may be waived or motlitiel which require approval of said Committee tion is necessary in order to carry out the strict conformance with said plans and specs- in writing by the A,ehirectural Review Com- prior to —mrencement of said constiuction. general pnrposea of this,declaration. Any fications, color scheme, plot plan and grad- mittee. The Architectural Review Committee Said owner or owneis further agues to com- such permission of said Committee shall ing plan and such conditions and iequire- shall also supervise the planting and growth plele construction of said dwelling within be in writing and shall not constimic a meats as the Architectural Review Commit- of trees and other shrubbery or vegetation such periud of time as may be specified by waiver of said Committee's powers of en- tee may impose in connection with its ap- on the lots in said real property (including said Committee which in no cast shall be forcemeat with respect to any of said C'uve- proval of the same. Any deviation from said existing trees)and may remove or direct the less than three (3) months after obtaining nants as to other lots. plans and specifications, color scheme, plot owner of any lot to iemove trees or othet the aforesaid approval of the Architectural (b) Said Covenants constitute the mini- plan or grading plan in such erection, con ,hrubbriy or vegetation or prohibit the plant- Review Committee. Said Committee for shuction, installation, placement, alteration p p mum conditions and restrictions riser applicable ing or growth of the same on any lei so that gaud cause,as determined by it,may extend In tors. Declarant hereby reserves aright or maintenauce shall nullify the approval of the view of streets,parkways and waterways any of the foregoing time limits. to add or uupose by a supplemental declara- the Architectural Review Committee required from other lots will not he unreasonably by this Paragraph 17, and shall be deemed obstructed or impaired. Each lot owner 211. ion otherts, and more stringent limitations, to have been undertaken without said Resrrhdlrtdiar frets, covenants,conditions,restrictions and rrscr- to have approval or consent, agrees to abide by any order of the Arehi- No portion of any lot less than all and vations with respect to any lot or lots now tecturslsReview Committee prohibiting the or hereafter owned by it,including the right !antis of trees or other shrubbery or ve e- shall easement covering a portion of any lot g (e) After the tumpJeuou of the emc4on, planting � shall be convoyed unless approved in writing to increase setback requirements and square ..11 consration or directing the cutting down,cutting footage requirements with respect in build- tefatructof installation,buildng placement or as- back or removal tit the sitme. by the Architectural Review Committee. � teratiun of soy building or other structure togs and other structures and otherwise in >C in accordance with the Qrorlal069 of this 22. Grades and 31nQe Control. increase lad supplement,but not to diminish � Paragraph 17. the Architectural Review said Covenants affecting(a) Without the prior written approval acid real properly CD Committee will, upon application of the except by permit given pursuant to subpitra- owner tt said building a structure, m his t9 Iandseaping of the Architectural Revicw Committee, (i) graph (a) of this Paragraph 23. no grade shall be constructed,reconstructed agent or representative, issue a certificate No landscaping of any lot,and no plant- or maintained on any lot, or any portion that said building or structure has been so ing or removal of trees, except minor thereof,with a slope steeper than the ratio CLAUSE V completed, if a majority of said Committee gardcoing, shall take place until plans for of one and one-half feet (I'A') horizontal Arehitedurai Rwiew Commi"eir determines such to be the fact, same have been fuse approved in writing by to one foot(1')vertical,and(if)no existing the Architecfuual Review Committer. After grade shall be altered or modified by chang- !' Creatfoa (f) Neither Declarant nor the Architec- the completion of a dwelling on any lot,the ing its location or the direction of its slope The Architectural Review Committee is tural Review Committee shall he responsible lot shall ire landscaped in a diligent manner or be: replaced, in whole or in part. Any hereby created with the rights,powers,priv- fur any defects in any building or other and in any event within such period as may applicant for a deviation from the foregoing ileges and duties herein set forth. It now structure erected, constructed, installed, be specified by said Committee. Such land- requirements shall furnish said Committee consists of two members: placed,altered or maintained in accordance soaping shall include at least one specimen with such engineering or geological data fI with or urmant to an plans and cifl- ttee,at least right feet in height,ur the front g g g e L. W. 1)OUGLAS, lR. and GE P Y t aPe concerning erosion, earth movement, drain- pO3•�R, IR., which two members may patinas,color scheme, plot plan or grading yard. The Architecturalthowner Review Commit- age, hazards to persons or public or private plan apptnvcd by the Architectural Review tee may require the owner of any 1st at any hereafter designate a third member. At all Committee of any conditions of require- time to further landscape any Int which in property and any other matters which said times after the selection of said third mem- the opinion Committee shall decor material thereto. ber said Committee shall consist of three roasts that said Committee may have im- p sins of said Committee is not land- posed with respect thereto. scaped in an adequate and attractive marine (b) All grades having a slope sleeper members. in the event of death, incompe- than the ratio of two feet (2')horizontal to tency, resignation or•inability to act of any O 6 7 C7 c C R cc I R C C .0 member of said Committee, the remaining otherwise, to clrinpe or %ehive said Qove- Said notice shall specify the lot or lots affect- CLAUSE V I 1 menther or membetd shall designnte a suc- pants except as herein st:eeifically provided. ed, the terms and conditions contained in � cesaor. Notwirhstaniling the foregoing. Any authorization, approval or decision such offer or counter-offer and the names Resale Declarant shall have the right and power made by said Committee must be in writing and addresses of the offeree and offeror. at all times to remove any nr all members • and signed by the secretai of said Commit- Declarant may exercise said option by P. 1. Resale of Lots and Iwpmvemeuts Of said Committee of to fill any vacaney a tee, and if for-any reason the secretary is written notice deliveird to said owner or Thereon. C vacancies. Declarant may in its sole des- unable to sign,then by the chairman thereof. mailed to said owner's address by certified Huntington Harbour Sales Cotporation,a tretfnn at any time assign by'supplemental or registered moil, postage prepaid, within California corpointinn, and its successors "C declaration its powers of removal and cap- 4• Roles and Regulatloue, said 48-hnur period in which notice Decla and assigns provided they be real estate :3 potaiment with respect to said Committee rant shall agree to purchase said property brokers licensed underthe Taws of the State reasonable to.such association or corporation as Declar- Said Committee shall adoptand improvements upon the acme or more of California,shall have the sole and atria- rules and regulatinus for the conduct of its ant may select and subject to such terms and favorable tams and conditions. Should rive right m all,offer to sell or list for sale, s�.X and may fit the time and lace conditions with respect to the exercise P y p Declarant fail within said period so to exer- as a real estate broker lany tot,part or parcel thereof as Declarant may impose. for itil rtegular meetings and for such extra- cise its option, then the owner of said of said real pr0ptsVT',V1 tch any owner or ordirtary4rrteetings as may be necessary,and property shall have the tight to sell said owners thereof may-vo to sell m offer for sw kag written minutes of its meetings, p person sale by or through Procedure. property and improvements to the ottgh s5rral estate broker m whiph shalt be open tot inspection to any making such offer or receiving such offer or brokers;each owner of a lot by his accept- All plates and specifications and other tot owner upon the consent of any true of materrs! requited ox permitted to be filed the members of said Committee. Said Corn counter-offer but only upon said terms and ante of a deed to said lot does covenant and with the Architectural Review Committee conditions and subject to each and every agree that said Huntington Barbour Sales ee shall by a majority vote elect one of limitalion, covenant, condition, restriction Corporation and We staid successors and as hereunder shall Ix filed in the nflice of mittits members as chairman and one of its Declarant at 9$64 Santa Monica Battle- and reservation and term herein.contained. signs shall have the aforesaid right. Any members as secretary, and the duties of This option shall terminate 21 years after owner of any such lot,part or parcel therm[ yard, 13rva9y Hills, California, or such such chairman and secretary shall be such the othzr office as Declarant shall specify in a as usually a death of all issue of L.W.Douglas, who desires to ell offer for sale any such supplesupplemental declaration. The Architectu- appertain to such offices. Any President of Huntington Barbour Corpora-a- lot,part of parcel byy or through a real csfate and all rules or regulations adopted by said lion,living on the date on which this declara. broker or broken shall execute and file with ral Rcvicw Commiueeb approval or disap- Committee regulating its procedure may be p tram is tecnrded unless sooner terminated. said Huntington Harbour Sales Corporation ruval on matters required by[hit.declara- changed by said Committee from time to a formal exclusive sales contract far a period lion shall he by majority vote of the Cum- time by majority vote and none of said rules of six(6)months in town designated by said mince. A report it writing setting forth the or regulations shall be deemed to be any 2. Invalldity, of Aedflon ent—Revertar. corporation stating therein the terms Bud decidoos of the Committee and the reasons part or portion of said Covenants.lhamfor shall therwttu he tranatritted to Any transfer or assignment of aoq lot conditions upon which such owner wishes the applicant by the .Architectural Review made in violation of this Clause VI shall be to sell or offers to sell and providing for a .7 Committee within Ft_drty(30)days after the CLAUSE V 1 void and of no force ofiseffect. Llecfarazies reasonable brokerage fee which shall in no => dote of filing anyl plans and specifications transfer of each and all of the lots is made event eccced the[cc,V any,recommended by or Other nurtstial by the applicant. Option to Purchase upon the express Condition that any transfers, the Huntington Beach Board of Realtors,inc. 2 assignments, or conveyances of said lots or the California Real Fatale Association, CD 3 Faaetioit. 1. Reservation. shall be made In accordance with the pro- Whichever is lower. In the event that said To preserve the value inherent in said visions of this Clause VI, and should any corporation shall not within one week from ne to nction of the Architectural Review real property and to keep a constant market lot or lots be transferred, assigned or con- receipt of said contract execute and return Committee,in addition to the functions set therefor,Declarant reserves to itself and its veyed in violation of any provision of this the same to such owner at his address stated forth tbtwheris fa this declaration,shall be successors and assigns an assignabla option Clause VI,said tot or Inis shall immediately in said contract,rand owoer;haU have the to usawlet and approve or disapprove any to purchase any lot or lots together with any revert to Declarant,its successors and assigns right to self,or offer to self,or list the some plans aed-vaciftafions or other material improvements thereon on the same temps who may thenceforth reenter and take and with any real estate broker licensed under the submitted to it with respect to buildings and and conditions as may be contained In any hold the same, laws of the State of California, but only other cttvctums to be erected,constructed, bona fide offer that any owner thereof may ` upon the terms-and conditions contained in installed, altered placed or maintained on receive for the purchase thereof or any bona 1 said contract. In the event that any such lots And stir the alteration or rctnodcting of fide offer or counter 3. TeroduatinsL offer that such owner � real estate broker with wham any such lot, or eddniont to any then existing structure may make for the sale thereof at any time Ibe provisions of this Claire VI may be part or pawl is listed shall receive an offer Lin lots ze u•at all stmctures shall conform or times. Declarant, its successors and as- terminated at any time by supplemental or counteroffer acceptable to the owner to the provisions hercof,the general plan of signs shall have forty-eight (48) hours fol- declaration executed by Declarant and re- and containing terms and conditions less detele,rnxvt and such rules as said Commit- lowing 9:00 o'clock A.M.of the first busi- corded in the Official Records of Orange favorable to the owner than those act forth tot rally Wopt for the improvement and ness day after actual receipt by it of notice County, California, and if so terminated, in said contract,or shall desire to offer any development of said seal property. Nothing from any such owner of any such'offer or aaM•©Iauae shall be inoperative as to all such Int,part or parcel upon terms and con. herein shall be construed as authorizing or counfer-offer to exercise its option to pur- owners or purchasers of lots fit suid teal ditions less favorable than those sot tomb in empowwins said.Committee by rule or chase said lot or lots and improvements. property. said contract,said owner shall again staecutis S 9 O 1 � Z C C I rc CC I C _ C and tilt with said Huntington Harbour Sales parcel thereof and bind Declarant, its auc- of said Covenants may be brought g at any (a) No such change or changes may br; C Corpuratinn a revised formal exclusive sales cessors, grantees and assigns, and rill time that such violation appears reasonably made effective within thirty(30)years fumh contract tor,the aforesaid tam,in the afore- parties claiming by, through, or under it. likely to occur in the future. In the event of the date of recording of Ibis declaralion; said form, the for the aforesaid fee, Each purchaser of any lot, part or parcel proceedings brought by Declarant or the and embodying s»ch less favorable terms of or in said real property shall by accept. Architectural Review Committee to enforce (b) Any such change or changes may and conditions,whereupon said curpnration once of a deed.or other conveyance for any or restrain violation of any of said Cove- he male effective at the end of said initial C shall have a like period of one week in which such lot, part or parcel thereby be con- nants,or to determine[he rights or duties of thuly (30) year period or at the end of any CJ to list the same for salt upon the terms and elusively deemed to have consented to and any person hereunder,and Declnant or the such successive twenty-five (25) year period —p conditions set forth in said revised contract. egteed to all of said Covenants for him- Architectural Review Committee prevails in if the record owners in fee simple of at least 3 Nothing herein contained shall preclude the self and his heirs, executors, administm- such prorecdings it may recover a mason_ two-thirds (7A) of said lots consent thereto owner of any tut,part or parcel of said real tors and assigns and does by said acceptance able attorneys fee to be fixed by the cmirt, prior to the tad of toy such period; property from selling or offering the same covetitxot fur himself and his heirs,executors, in addifinn to court costs and any other (c) Any such couaents shall be ufaaive for sale by means other than through a real adihinistratora and assigns to observe, per- relief awarded by the cuun in such fro• only if expressed ld a written instrument estate broker. form and be bound by said Covenants and ceedings. or instruments executed and acknowledged to incorporate said Covenants by reference by each of the consenting owners Rod m. 2. Address. in any deed or other conveyance of all nr (c) Said Covenants shall bind and inure any portion of his interest in any of said teal to the benefit of and be enforceable by corded in the Office of the County Recorder, For es of the notice provisions of Orange County,California. this Clacruseuse VII the adores: of Hunting- Property or any lot,part or parcel thereof or Declarant and the Architectural Review tou Harbour Sales Corporation is 16542 therein. No lot,part or parcel of or in said Committee and the owner or owners of any A recordable certificate by a reputable Chatham Place, Huntington Beach, Cali- real property or interest therein shall be lot,part or parcel in or of said property and title insurance company doing trasiness in forma. Said addre4q may be changed from granted, transferred, amveyed or assigned the respective heirs, successors and assigns Orange County,California,as to the record time to time by supplemental declaration except by an instrument executed and au- of each. The failure of Declarant or the ownership of the lots shall be deemed con- exccnted by Declarant and recorded•in the knowledged by the Grantees, transferees, Architectural Review Committee or of any elusive evidence thereof with regard to rom. Official Records of Orange County; Cali- conveyees or assignees therein named in sub- such owner,or of any other person entitled pliance with the provisions of this section. tornin. stantially the same form as Exhibit A to enforce auy of said Covenants to enforce Upon and after the effective daft of any such attached herein and by this reference made the same shall in no event be deemed a change or changes,it or they shall be bind- 3. Termination. a part hereof or such other form as shall waivaWf the right of such person or of any ing upon all persona, firms and corpora- have been first approved in writing by the other person entitled to enforce these re- does Wen owning any lot,part or parcel in 4 The provisions of this Clause VI1 may be Architectural Review Committee. strictiuns to enforce the same thereafter. or of said real property and shay[roar with terminated at any time by supplemental the land and bind all persons claiming by, declaration excoited by Declarant and re- 3. Vlohtfoa of ReMetlonst Rafortemeat. (d) Waiver or attempted waiver of any through or under any,one or more of Wem. .=y corded in the official Records of Orange of said Covenants with respect to any lot, County, California, and in any event shall (a) Upon any violation or breach of any part or parcel in or of avid real property X terminale 21 of said Covenants, Declarant or the Archi- 5. Moripga hue Deeds of Tent. yearn from the date of co- shall not be deemed a waiver thereof as to t m itt tcctural Review Committee may enter any Said Covenants herein set'forth shall he cordation of this declaration. any other lot,part nt parcel, nor shall the � lot,part or parcel in or on said real property violation of any of said Covenants upon any subject to and subordinate to all mortgages CLAUSE V I 1 1 upon or as to which such violation exists, other lot, pan or parcel or lots, parts or or deed;of trust in the nature of a mortgage subject to applicable provision of law,and parcels affect the applicability or enforce- now or hereafter in good faith,encumbering General Provisions may alter,correct,nudity,remedy or sum- any of said real r manly abate aunt remove,at the expense of ability other said t or parcants with respect to p rparov and none of said 1. Eltective Pate of Co�rtnants, any other lot,Part or Parcel. Covenants or other provision shall super- the owner of such lot,part or parcel,any. cede or in any way reduce the serarrity of a Subject to Paragraph 4 of this Clause VIII, thing or condition that may be or exist there- mortgage. Ilowever,If any of said real prop- each of said Covenants set forth in this on contrary to the provisions hereof. Dt- eny is acquired in lieu of foreclosure,or is declaration shall cunlinue and be binding as claraot or the Architectural Review Com- 4. Nullification of Covenants sold unclear foreclosure of any mortgage or set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Clauses VIR millet shall not thereby be deemed to have The record owners in fee simple o[ the under the provisions of any deed of trust in ` for an initial period of thirty (30) years trespassed upon such lot,part nr parcel and lots may revoke,modify,amend or supple- the nature cf a tttorlgage, or under any from the date of recordation hereof and shall be subject to no liability to the owner ment,in whole or in part,nay or all of said judicial sale,any purchases at such sale,his thereafter for successive periods of twenty- or occupant of such parcel for any such Covenants and may release from any part or or its gritntees, heirs, personal represents- five (25) years each. entry or other action talent pursuant to this P all of said Covenants all or any part of said lives, successors, or assigrm shalt hold any subparagraph. real property, but only at the following and all such property so pambased or ac. 2. Covenau ii to Ron With the Land— (b) Violation of any of said Covenants times and in the following manner; quired subject to all of said Covenants. Purdwees contract may be enjoined,abated,restrained or other- Each of said Covenants shall rim with We wise remedied by any lawful means or pro- i said real property and each lot, pan or cecrlings. Proceedings to restrain violation b • 10 Il I o -rl V z • c C I PC CC I R: C C .P . 3 ' 6 Sererablllty Clause. ]0. Headings. C •� Z It a court of competent jurisdiction shall 7lie headings o6;the i:ldtrses and nara- hold invalid or unenforceable any part or graphs heroin contained are for'coarenience OV all of any of said Covenants Or other pro-duly and shall not be used in thit construe- O vision contained 'in this declaration, such tion or interpretation of tbli declaration. holding shall not impair,invalidate or other cri - wise affect the remainder of this declaration . IN WII'NE$S Wimosm' Dedarant has � which shall remain in full force and effect, canscd this inslruinent to,be executed by its President, attested by its•Sc.rNary, and its 7. Assignment of Declaranl's Rights and C'nrporate Seal to-be hereto etlixed,the day POVIEM rind year first above wiritten. Declarant, its successors and assipms re- } serves the right to vest any corporation or HUNTINGTON HARBOUR association with all or any of the rights, ENGINEERING do ( J privileges, easements, powers and dudes CONSTRUCTION CO. J herein retained or reserved by beclarant by a supplemental declaration and assignment which shall he effective when recorded in B _/� t '�• the Office of the County Recorder, Orange President County, California. and Declarant shall thereupon he relieved and discharged from ATrEsr: evcty duty so vested in such other corpora- tion or assucieuoo. - S. Maitiag Address for Notice, Each owner of a lot shall file the correct mailing address of such owner with Declar- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ant and shall nntify Declarant promptly in } is writing of any subsequent change of address. Counn•ot•-Los ANGLES J Declatant shall maintain a file of such On 7anurry I0, 1963, before rite, the 9 addresses. A written or printed notice, de- 7C posited in the United States Post Office, undersigned, a Notary Public ill and for postage prepaid,and addressed to any owner said County and State, personally appeared at the last address filed by such owner with 1GxN G.MOFfATT known to me to be the Declarant shall,be sufficient and proper President, and GORDON A. MACDONALD known to me to be the Secretary of notice to such owner wherever notice: am l HUNTfNGTtIN HARBOUR ENGINEtiRINO dt CON- required in this declaration. Declarant's ad- STRucrtoN Co., the corporation that axe. dress,for the purpose of all notices required or permitted to be given hereunder is 9869 cured the within instrument,exec known w me ' be the persons who ho executed the within Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, to California or such other address as Declar- trtstrument on behalf of said corporation, ant shall specify ftum time to time by sup-, and acknowledged to me that said corpora- plenrental declaration executed by Declarant lion executed the within instrument pursuant _ and recorded in the Official Records of to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of Orange County,California. directors. 5.•. I WrrNES5'my.hand and'otficiat>Etal, Said Covenants do not supersede or affect � in any way any,limitations, covenants. re- _ lyq .A exa cr strlctions or reservations heretofore recorded 41+rGfary Public tit and for in the Official Records of Orange County, �f3aidlJotinty end State. Catitomia, pertaining In whole or is part I b to said real property. My Commission.Wire&March 13, 1965. 12 0 CO NUV-ey-eUU4:„y MUN U1 :Ub FM _ R _ FAX NO. _ P. 09/11 e",V„ � �{,> ,`.i� 3•Jc��ss'e�S'.bsJ�dr:ri�i„" T. era; ry"e N,a,,fa<:•.•- ' .:1.. 'w•s- .%s'?"a' .,n.r, .'t, J✓4°.,f ?p ;.fi ..c:1.•,,,• Y"•' -'•y>n:..r-.b`.-•.;aG,?-`.'r �i.j,. h, y,c'?:, �:afy�%.sI:;F?y', n,-.>t;:r,+`;'R±.:vS•"a"h+rr:7!::.M., �'�sk.s�'"'e�, rx. .:Ir,.- iK�x ,,:!P' E;7,4 •s•� i7r.;-3,,r Hr:i"'.%-::f`„=�Lrs.. +�:i`W,�:'=>'�r,.. .-4 tad "'?r�;" ` �',g'}.'if.. _ „n�[::�7:yk's*vy, S'ti' •`,,A:;F{r: ;r'',?'..: `7`.:.�i'^.Th�.�-.:f.`A? .x,•s`. {;� ..ua .,:fi ''• �`�,`�p f� -,+:.v , 3,•,"td:h _2.-x'� _ �'t :"4?`��ss :b', ,.K.,., ',.`�rj���% �^•s, .g ,.. - :i, �;��: k,a':f;�,K_.,�"x ir{„ .a?•.r�•y•� `�kzS�'� '`��'k"� s�.:.::-:,�I=vr, .,,;Fi•}e a..y.ca , -. ;!"�,!dY17i.- ;. ,,. Xi'.' :•.. s.a;,..rl '..•�a1_ .` 5•.•'re.•.3s v' f`xid`37y.,;✓".�•-..,k:` 5-. ..t=:: l� .s,yl;yw� � '..1`a� �.,'�•r.r` v'�'`-'�:� s ~���''`R`•'•_ i x•a.,,fi "r:�,.,.-.'w., : ,�,. .�•�,;�t4p ,:a,-','�r ,,c,. a•s, �i �i,L,x•aa):.. }y:i' ik- ft:'• 'Me;E,c?L G,o# . �> a'.. _ ._.p...._;,.:• r;F Sk• a �;i%. MIN YY's- :�X;v-.•., '•::>r- .Y.. -: ly n.yif��ic+..-l;•.:i�y3:L,',. ..:;: ..r r.•.•.,;._=i F : ,__.iy:f „- :G3C: x. .,).�y�%+:':v;�n.•-..?4� �q'' .;r�''' -:�'f9•it2 .!t^ pry'. ,. .Jf k•4�' :sr�„rv=;3(x` .» .,:f - •'"=+.,,, -�rt> r.S=: ,s4x::dr`.I-�•?i�1Qa _ _ �r7,; '`f S.,u�t-la:f``'-,4` ='f„iE�=2`4� - �:r.-'.;-.,.,.e .;r s!4;'',•;<�..f} s�.`L,r. -rr:-:'�"-:. ` hp�.- "•j,;,�"p;, wi!3,:n a'3:� 9}*yr - - �� �,, Tr4+".C,;k:�'•„(,.. ";..g::.'>?"' nd' .snv"�','t;'? "4*�J;.F;y'y .;rTJ.. at:;,: :Z,,In`�K *�.7•: r.a.,, -_2: Y,�, arly�• r;+�e-�.�'r .,s.}.a :i ._,,!t�:- ex}i:. „x;�,rr�� t�:s��'t-.,.,;>:`c;E:,`;.. `''#3=". ".'"-�: �`-,,'µr- - ;W.'Csir,., ww��[(��,, ,�• ;�•-'i� A,s,n�'•......-,�.w,. ,•.ii�<f,�,rr..r',.r.,•. -.;ys +�i+i" '"T�' •:k *,2•{,r, .R: •c f:� .a.q,5}!1• :j�'- r krX'.,(r ..:y. '�:•51;,,. .''':b.k'•�.:.;+3„`r ,,tr• }::;d- :S'Z.i_ .c.:(::r�L ; fe� ,.,r�� :r-. .,•,€�'� � .. Sri.`-r`';�, '''.�•Fl `� r.:.,..,�,,. :..r• ,r..-�i�;s?a.:�? ;+: ;?r:.��',r-?"., !:f�>';y:. :;�£Ri ,1-�.�R „r,."���;:.:w. :;•">rt; rzr`; �H�« :•Y,..,,�+ `".''#.�:'r•:3 'ram. .�s• ,,.. .:a:_.l° ;.5..``II `` �:. � `".'`:''.iy",''_"':b`.':,�,._u,,,-•5.r:x.. '_Y• :�� *Ai'G y, _:ir��`i`,s�5..... .i,- r,<h-....{f� •� �.? -S,r:; :3y�s"Yi=% .�q .�r�°°, .r,'• �fia :r%,5:,. ,�; ,.y, - .y�'.�:;-.: �efj.;:r:,-,!:�, H7• ' Z�.4s;w S• `max' Ur^: ,•[u. �:5r,.'•-�,r :•,;,. .r,"rx�:x•,d:•:Y: t:... .ww'r. ::-f;.r, '3"r"}" '�:v •:� ����.a •-=.w at� r+Z' 'y'i- :?�'� ::[i.J:.'i_ -:1'i t�s'`���4:(< ••-2,: y 4Yr.. +,V,. ..•b. _S'an-.r ..*1:4•',}r:.� `f` '-:�'. ia`r,n .:¢'`+.;:!i!'y�.....Y•._ �'j 4:1�- "t•n:> .r:,`+;� :,y: ..f .,:'ra--:tY.: - _ .�S [._ ,:.��>.. ,x •`'G'+ - .M.:' .•�`�' 'L': "it'`•;,: •Yr' T'?'�ti,c'ti�.. .:•:,,ems.: ..•f?:'�•- '+„<ir.r: :.L r ::S:y r•�-:�t:' y r.„ ' '.`'L1�f:;'t ::�',•i r" 1� ¢. .,mii .�•. �y;�,y - <C .:.ram .�...., - ;i;...- '+1 ,r -•0 pi>Y M1 �. ri:`+`� •viers '�Yi"r l;i .:b:x r •+uTs.p�s r�• :r'Sir. � ' s_ x�. w�^ ZRt 'r - •t" i t l- x r1(Vi Y'. 5+. - T: qth: f'.I r 7�Yyr`-.•.rr Ae u - a, a.^,z'u•>,.Iv b.f.,,..,,N`t<. -:,_,.:;�.-J„_...v.MOM— . :ts'*; .-...r.:^•:� -{ •� ,Y.. .F': .o_. , - �,.:., s r.�..rs.,:is 'c�,t-::r �:b'-.:. ?9, _'.e. vL^ar,, '.F.yr•., - „!, ?.Y:.,;!kk-:;r. - if •r r ..�- F'Yl. om':, ffl�:,y,,,,a::,.�(; .ta!• - Ott tf.. ^�:[�.ate+. - -n''r•;,TK :>. v P;- a -tb:rkP•: r.;�3�r`.r. ...t$r Xii` ,•c;: .r,r,.°�" ":re3-'13>. .4'.`s:'�n^u_mx.- <..:s'` %;.'lira T.. :•:i�' - _ S s;• WAL ion! .ti -'(y,., ria }d.��:t�'T":`.f''12.v - .;�F;•aiK"Y:S, `�+.'Mh �; �,}�;s;9., �,,�.-+1; �[��rr�l:.���'� { ,�,,a;•'. �e._w_.�t �;�fia�°k.$ym (�� ;�k�'�a`� �yy _,�,.. .F,3vt� : ' _„.,,'�, c;�,,',.`�;`;`-r.�r'-'�?' „•.��x:.<r_'.i�',}}a�!, 3f' ,. �x �'r}..�`���5: -i4t. - �;4�.T;,e.?.' , in.. ;,,t:-,„ r(•..,,y,..�,.,`.� ({J�:y9�[� '• - :'�:'%'. 're.?r,,,t:.fR,<,!s<:-•� it' r:<a. �.aYi3 ;_ ,F , r'•'S.•.k:J.,i .i: 4, '.,.i! (.•r ;:.N,Y_, w..v.y�, .'' . S�:S`,�rrt .?t�' "`:. -���.." 4`.�. •�i:;h;.r,.:, - >.iS�,Y.�.,s i=19'..�*•`"�;s;;rxs;.arc "g�;,rr�;`,:;a.- '.i:.`. - - .:� .'asrJ�S. ��. .ar_... •.a:';a;.�,_.x. .,�.�w'�A''`. '''.-7';� #ilr��.�4.-'� �'Q',•� �' �'� URN e]° i.ts�::F:e�i'be et jai;"' ::{: +.:�;I..q,e'.f;:; '��• ... /it1crtt*t• L,,.t'',• 1 .y > �^.�:j.:._'`'T .�y..' R:r3�l•r .`1't r. ,...• 3 i,i... Y':' - L;x?�j :••:�' xar;a r Gar<':r. ntra „r:' C":.5:;�:�:�. '? � _c};fT)i .'�..,•£t'cs'�i:ih;;• '.,•,. r. T ' :irsr'•rAvhi,u) Unit. �e��= gip Yrt.oL.ri t;k`' ,1°�.`'�<` of ;i:;-�..:'f#; ir.., ?:1.'�.''`. '�`' :.• 3�r Ce„ti.,.Wr..t'i,U." - •,'' - 7 Ja y .�;:':�')?�''%k,�,.,_S,rj".fli�i''�.:�:`;�1i�CJa"�!F3 C3f ' T =•�l };a....at. ��}ti T '�.r•:.z� ti"E i�a " Cixnr�c ,r,'r�tarrt: , 'C! 3.S.frrxn % NP 7Li;i7r'r, ffii tl:1';,r7 xC, f, U L - - 4 :'i4ti�s. s::rn��.y 6l�rxrYx�},,r,,; 4r �:•tr�,r..rr.i.-a_�il„j r ..^rr�($ fx lasa ;arcs Pnrrv.iveo 1n zrYcItInn t ;Inr;w�a3. tci�9,r:y, s iiil*<;.: ' `tra- t (.: Cr y: y' mi' ^ � C: a-s. rl..'C' ,> %.A!'.'t: d,13 r,`•r s Fa'Gt 'i''' a'At�,P .7� w- td(..�� i 7Yt�:. qJ, - �. ��'.���.� �-�L�w �'��r 1{re ,<'""F�rJ•1."•{'s r.$.4�.�{ _ �f. 1 �r'' ib44y ',C.. tr+'t.r. " •�. ':;n ',<: isrr r +tS.r,r, .:;� tit r .tom ti. y 'h.( ::xi:rfif^a :l .` ft.i2JY::`.� :rk�•J.ey� T ;:; l;i':rxj * l.` -91(L :�.r,f>r.:,':.t,4.n,r'.n1: r� ai1'i o our-D%stia., w, Y.'C7.,3 t:l'li;:fir�k•::i;._ k' %Xrf_ GUY ui1i3�i;'r- %Q the L' q -th. F:C :i Cx.r'4 C1:,c7r:.,ftifT3 is C3" �. I2 ?3r:r ry of � YEii., ):rnJ,i'i;Ci9r.J.�3r PhC 7,_.. )F4: j.'%Fi [:z• .'L}S):i•3j;{ii'MT.`.--$. (t;',(.`; a. r.�.•£� 'i..G ra t'i4Yr-f: r, .i 4:ntiT: asg:??:z::s7.# rrpaaL 3Itiflis��"sr,A •r;our i;r._;:: �• `i r3;s.s : to i.t,r, tv~d,,...hin tar_ .K Cl:v?:TS;ir J ('i h,=.iu�� :r,._sz:::s'r•r, `,r.:":.•:gtr,;,>h f cs :f,.,....,C•!_]irr',,�"f' � ,� :.::i :a.:,.> ct"; inspr 7• � . �� r>:ii.t ,:�•-,-.- �!2i Y?{,r;u, .t;L:, L°;-[ •. 1 '�r�+. cu ':`; form ., s '')1:.1.'�, !' y •�. f k v#����i;;� ��„+_#:;�,a�'ra,'st�tlr,i,`�3�kr±a�i3� :s�•';�:,q�'sy+s'�jLs'n",.�";SY.":.5: I b1`< )''� �, ,'�.J,:y .,�. ..�.�..Y:: ±��a•: 1.j.•.-YJ�!y.�':.e(�:.:�;r.t✓n.`}:+" "t::`';3: Saq's' Q .':7`k.:Q- v!. .n,R"•%..,'t.`r1,.A�t,' .,1'h' 4,+C^i;,';Lt - N. 4 ,:�''c"in,�CL�.,a,..v.J.?_• ��'t'•y�',t,v fh.`--v.' ,«.Y:'i� -F _3: �;t}_".. _ ,,'4i_' ..ka'.`�!f C:,a,Y'.5':."-i:.. .l:w a1'- 1!'...'i=ti�i:;'` _ l - -':,''i:4 ...,L.- w.•� .h•s,-,r: -::';fi--a'::• }., :.�.'..` .Y.e- 4 -#. 'lld',` ^:i." 6 ir., - il..•a 'Z:a`�ti' �g,":.., ..}: 'kt ,}^'>•.` .'T, .X•,, 5.. !a�,y. ,.'i".,.. iE'{�.,.t^''n :tr r. - ;A. ;'aw- i`+?k�`„n,"Gi^�' n:','w!- A. "T1'laia'A,,^nsy"ti`G.S..:'-t,. Y ..3` .,F.w`-:- 2 q�m .�. ,•:V'a";j`''n>' _ i"5::i;' ,.! �':}.';.,.�,.:4"i'� .3"'-`i ,a:a: ,-F.'!:1 r:3 r'A `3'� 6 S,a q S'. .iy4,•A ...�' "t1.. t'r :fi,': ,9i''t. y,.:� :' .t'tea.{Y r, a a .°''». y,y.<->-•yi_ _L6:' `::Mir-i,.Y''�": ` 1-.2;a •re�' �iX" -lu'i�i.'t•" r a'. <,r '"�- , .a -�'--"'•, , ;rv�` ' ' ':a: .� ..r;:.t �.rz,,.-. -_A_.,. ...-+.•,'.t,. �€: of :ze!?:�.r''�'•.m ..at ,.arl,e,J�%`',�, #.�s-L�',�' ,,,'�! �•, .�� �= �<?-•$# ::i:`��„ .�tir�� •�i�e :' �1:'�3?�?,:j`'rt t a'jl�:3� \ t ;"�+.,..` >``�,`.�,. _ ..S,L.-;;- ..v., „._ ,s,_k:.. -.;tS.••.z?.` +< .a s v:..l;t,s�Yzr,2.1`v'.- .,s ,.•s4.,tea, ,. ':+;"'•,irr - ' i ' a y,.:•3..,: kov' fi 1}v 5 .: k.�A z 4 .r.. o S S i? L?fjtq jl" k,,,yy�� k,i :, dn' z,'4; ::ffaiisk:;�� k, ` n Mg.....�.:lr, g;Y.:�,}_. 4. � .ram`;,:,:`"ar4`4:, .iv2 y.�•'.�.'?b•::�' x',`<,',,,.'�';�=�::g �,�t;i ts5 ` .,k �.,r5.-.,f: - ,r•..3;..T. ,t'.. '.vi,l - .Yra<.c..,, ;.<,'�,�'� -•''Lr�`,'�'<, - ,,.t d. +^'t cz. '`�S^x �,,ST�•"4•_ ^x,�'•, :+`[, .:.,1. ..ctt ' rt 'r`ti °'J ,�';: �,. �',� ,a•-=a 't;�:�r'.�t L a.<..+�? e7.;, /i:•Y' 4 '-sx' { �,y:.,.,..va; �� >.r s: i:'>a':,-•. s.::�"�: `'e C`L..',.i�r.'•.+a�'�L-'- - 9n>.h'f;,',:TL Af. '�<„r i+"', ;;4',.5�:..,.r-.�K. ..at4 .d trr.•_ �.�f:�""s'>ct:... �..t z �.;. g Y�r,'„�,. S't�...-r$a,3'.Y,:'re tiro_. ,xs �.+','�`,.•.-� ';:t .:�'ar `{X;.�•:v "'a'r`� ,a. k. '�-- -as.K+X •x>r,.,; �''S;. '�tY,� `'iy: ,'�{=•ex" 4,; ��' ><i.,t_ ��{ M.r •-b. ,�`>'` _ ,,r. - ;_: -�.. `'?z"-,''> Y, - ..1:�:�v,::c�_<'.?7':1:;' ..'�`k;ri�<�7`u;,..Y'?:;'y.,-;�.�, .�.�',�.':..':T• 'x�a;, ':i;a':�:".,>:.. '�;, h.d�. `':S•K:' .a' .�[�n rs"'�'�c:.:4'r': ;�<m`sy.,,...-"'t�?.r_ - - = .>,.. �,R'P�'�:a�� x-> e ,i.",�'�,+ .ih•:' ..t:e, :1?'r: r}".r: ,ra,'i`. 'v:gn�.`I,Y`-, `�?�c`,,;x?:, .�",i'i.. 1;'�+s'�•..�Y�:''�2.'r7�r ,K';$: 6a,'=�,�.�:r- ,a r .i'a'?1:�;,�:n'1b:.. ;,y,-,�, di-,?�i::ao-fifvrrh t\ ,a�`�=',: -$.�ti;.. �j;:�.. {s �:i:3' -vs,' f;k-�';:�.:-" _.sib, yk - ,Y"s,,v �,�.� .� ',.T,•:4 , ;c°t.. 'v_ ,a .�,.:., b ,>r �,« ,� i':s ,,fi�rr :cfic. i, r.,_ ^a:;�"=-. ,. F� � , " "<R 2R �r.; ,?i�,•yY=.�y��'_ � .'k}*�. t-�?`;h•:c.��-s: .>�t,2 -'{. •,-g`ry'±� Y. e,'s. ..%c\.;w,.x;§sw Yr.i� �»4�i:.t, F.i �tl.. �Y* ra,✓ ^-k+...; `. r q.r, ,a�'i: t� 4*C. `c'•�•''; r,��tj3 ;T;':pc�•.>.'r"�, .Cti:,_5r,�:,'« �y+;14r .,,'t '�.+',k, '^�-..,g:.-y*k`a, a .���:'� '=L, r,.7n",yt, '-;�y"'ht' c,rr.:t, I §�, ';zi,,.""ir� .-.rF,.c.,, .t,. ,.x..x,.-F':,so-- ..•;� qY,-a 1, v'A_`:fir,'• ,"`�•„,,, f �-,�.,+. -",,. +� 'L.� ."., .`�.:'� v 1 't?I N '�d'r, ,.4�� ,-�,,`.:.4 4:f`. •^.y"'..�`,'-y;''Fvi''v��,f,'S;�::.•k ;a 4 �-,''^`"'?�w`#'4% ";',F"s 1 ��•£i' ,y.�o:�>,; .�r:.�aetia :'i�r'+,'L�' s"K' `u,�c ��,*+t.� -Y(`: 3wz, ,�•,p ,` ','",. x } .�'' .^'eit• �f,`,,,c,;"^-':�'•'{Y-;r?lei='�Y, ,.,.yl.,,,"4�?,rA 91 y,rn ,. �'„.`t ,7.n�_'r�X t^�d.+.�i•,� ,�"'d`}';nw.••'�t::,r �.`''Y.. ',a"�•�a.,�„��'t:R•; +:,^ram :�,`a'i?+:`l,;na 1 �,' 1:�.. '�� k:, . -:.:}�j'..�,t:e ?"'as;5: lt,.'i,, :r ;t. -""e�-,,):, •-,�.^> `+,� ,,t• ,�t..,�,�.r.t�l, r,? :��. r- ,:i .�. _� �'��.�r;.-^�sd_--°T r '��eta:� •' .,n\ '}.'4i;,, ,vr.. .v=y-v {.,3.-. .'�,-.``�•-e.. S..'� ;.G?4:Rr�7' ,,.2{ .,�_ .�'TTx: r:�.5;"h�i•.�ac:.l9„�'. �x',�G.a,,�S'-'. .!,3:'t�:;,`d'i'�-.e �`,�kiasi`�`P"�=' f: \r�F�L-'�";r .. 3:�FFv: ?a '�r!';S ."'r`.rit'>,' yyy��� '-''` „t,_ .;'S. ti:: r.•3,...�.r•i.. .•C..!kKY:fi. ..§:' •. `,`y�?1`.fii ,!C' _«.`,>+c;. +F, C',- r hR,r- rs, - ,i't-, rn,. - s'i+;;l?:.t• � .� ,,�� ITN �k�p�' .�.+�':a,.,•«:,,` sph �;,rA:a`;t•, ,<`'�„�.,t' fir_g !.k�!: b :2:4 � :�:+;`s5,:i�:::rotit,: -a- yr;?i`i; u'• aa:c'�',,� +'t � 5,x 1•:����,•? :•lvw:':1b:- �."w,S.K :t,�' ,.r{` p ,Fp, y'-'.,'" .t'1'a.:9. 1a,N,';: 't+,'.��'.� 1'z" 't4,M: �°;�'-•..." . �, ftr?a, � _.nL, •�. �.,e: �S,.Es. .�•:,�:r��,,,.�.yc-" �"�'"` t'.:.:,,J'�..>tl}S%,�h$`'�; -:.�`�•X�-,N�C,_t e;�'t:=�'va�.. .ax;.. -' `�'a -� �-.,'t,?<7�•. ;;Aw. .ir, ,r,: „e,� 2t', .,.1?r:�_,�='M1r�i,S,',r,,, C� ;x„).t .?'. .,a y,.,,,.,..:- �t`2: n• ..4:'"-,,.... .'.�,`,�o.l.�-.. .as�•t,.,s� ..l ,,,,t, .Y=,.'� ?'�t4 x� h., ,.it^,,. rri"•L@ r'SS..x� .3 � k'�8,.: ..,7ttr,`;<t i-�':`' 'SC^.>.t t'` :!y'C.y;:::S.+_,'5..: .t°,:m?� .fit,�<'fv�,y'-s-,r•. - T t't..ti..,. •?:,� .'-t" (. -w." .t3g ,r:,. ..rd• ,.Y4>, ,[,a.,.Y;.�,., ..q•.:,-ta, :++ ,..y,;n .,'t;;'. .r�.a.: 3a.'w,.,; -::�x�:.:. a;nti..... ,ar.�yw':f.(?'s:; 4`'u'r ,49 lia, 'tiY... +�,`,`�i'";,,. '.-u"'•.-x •` :>l4f- - S;•�: ,a rr,'^ i'.:" '�°'r�,,ta, m•� :w.a \..z. -�; .�,. : :=,< :.a, : r3,C 4.. :,3..- ..S�,r k .r,!'. .3_ - :,, +.r!bt ,xi;. ,-At`._ .tk` v -' ;. 1; ,k, ,�:'-��," :!ttS,t... ,�;�F;.,:; ,,; ,,.:i.t=`,�.,,,a.. r.',:ar`., ;:.'�:,,,..=�x..: r:x+;:-r:•r:;°. r .n?+ -:.�, k ,.�•.>ats a? '�` �n�.,,._ r=s=n.<-���. ♦-u: ;a. xr' rd?:css:.ts.. - `�Tt:�r .r.'§Yyi�, M;T.�a�;' u :ft-a w1.-.pz'`•.;:t ,�-r;a•'4^ - ,,,,�_t;;, v!,'r.:...,v.;k:ti,',r,'+%'. �,�.��� ''`, it.a.. r�',' ,'-�ut':, '.:�"•:-t,x,.Xi :.�i,ai9 `a.r: s�. _'S.' a•',,.'.,:ti".5{,�.'. � &F rs.ca .,',[,.,,a.,r -C ' „ �'tv ,.fir... <r��Z;.•, -.;:'?;,z:;; - �4 �1,` `^j"SY�._ Yw.'.::�,`:,;`a�; •^'t.:E`:;t't=` _{,.;,-.�: �:�"-,i:=a`I;'c..,,'as�:". ,.q'J #:ty�' cyq '• t"'•'s•.:F. wj �`"• - "T'.n�F+•:,'-.":?.,... ,c1.,=.p..J .'k,;.^.�:^:: .'�� ' !{' ati^ , .r.,e,,. -�,`ixi,.,, .r` 9:,;:':::� '..,t�,;.r:� ,-a�`•i i',k.-r •@ i� .•�+�' ,.�%i,. -�'7� "�.' .z..�•; Y?•[,r.:;. �'�.,• _y, .- � 't <�,t, ,.<-,:Yf,,,.',;:x+ .•ars e.",l. .�'tt..,,.,. �5':c:;i,:,,t•. .:.�ac� .l1.r' ;';-1 G, '�....5 av;£'r t � 1 Gn':'c4-•, ,..:Zw :.,,, ,r,k: "<4'��'�;�'^�r:�'.S�:i- 1 .<.:`•, ''A t2: ..,r,'. .��,:'_ 'r`:�-• ,'=V:.<J.i _ .i � ..,t.:�� .e,:^. �"i ':s .-t tdr..•re%-.,4:?,�'''c, ,��.1 k,` .'�. ,�(� ,t ,vz"•R�#.. -a� - �M,;''.•'_, .•�• �;i `3..4e .Y �`. - :' \ e v #'• - al\• �y' 4, ,4.. y��-,:- :ri:.'•.r :]. :'i:ir: 4�_nr ..x.,».> q' a-.ak. ra�Fy ,, - - -•: '+ 'r�w` Ell, izr_ h P,SS ':r C,1" C,,..:x":3..,Yj ii, ,•@�^.•. -,,`tea,• :,i..t.s V.,l•.,v,:'t•,^�,:� y .•a.'vy,..}'` - h`'n�' .:�" ,if"\t,<. .'�. ♦A' ..V='l'w�:,,*,,: :.)�. .l':� ,.k,.v:, n. s.i.9'F. ::`Sa,W� .fa.L, ,v% .1 '.�`t ,l..ti•,.:J y`,•b'ST• _ a>•".Yi �•�1:.d..;r", l..\_. ':T�, `•�a-. tom, •�.. `>;,.�.. .�"f�. :'$':w,,•s'. a`ti�. a .:, .,;.. ':x. >'1=....`.48r c fv 44^...`:F �• -t ;.v':.t,: - _a'I'•''t✓.%`-_s,JF'•.•.y!,- 'c�'C�:r' � ..':ii?ti ,•l 1 t,b -'l '..'-}:: -y "`ls:`:..`-`,,`e:'-i:;�i ;:y!. .,Yl `� .p Y- N_'>✓3:'C:""?,. i'tl' ��,-J-+ .•-.J.,. ,'♦*,J, - .,.}:a�:i.:2r�` r,!.c.'..' •,`f. e:�.}+n `•'C4?^ r? ,.l���n..�.:. :..1•:�.y.,i ri b'C+• �',•,r.,lt;"' .ar.. :�tp-. a,�,`•,• ��••�� ,.ir.. ':S'� ._!;C,i•:i. l''.,L 5 t( -`.��t- '4 a[.,1_ �. .tS.-1,-. �.2: • ,:._?".t[: ,_�'t�',�.y .,.. •�'w`'ii'rt - Y'. :. _L n '�' :`t.." > 'r,: rF. A•'+,�., d' :r•• , *_fir? F ,'�. t�,:*=ar•`i+:i::i 1.C.., �+-�'•`-:%'G..v - t-.�. 4'.. 47'i'v;�':-;.•::.;5:`:'. "><;° .ab•: ;-> .�:` r'�:a't� S ::`Z.c,-;�''I.•:7•x".':':+;;:':'a ..-`L`_ •?�.. �-'.t•ttm ''.:.'�.:,`'''�';a _ .` .��`-J .;c: a ,.c +., -!" -•. ti=•'a.. �'F., x,4 zi; �s,.:>t:,..r�.r, 'ra;' ..�.. `:3�>ti k>v fit,; :r:,:€' t-?c,�d•,;, >. _-9 .:t., ,s �k ay.:�•;r ttoe ..t. F,+? ••..F_' y.aj re:s.:.i'• ^'i:: },y', - _'.h.. r.i CR rx•Y.. it'4 A'- y, +'Y,' "t ��'�+te?`may t' �� t aR 1' v. •t'y'l��'ni'.,` :N kit.+ G'r• fir. _ g:1Fc L+a..'a•y, t .'� e;• ::�'>w ,-x{t "ear'. •M'T: P:i ti4�i.: 3>ck Fv'a• .i<' �,.' �... .hr -$�( ='•:fir, t..,� �,::'" \. -.tt .n'• l�. ti k 1 ;A4F:. .•o ..!,i.",`'X:i.3-�cf,;,.�1,F•-�i't:"..:,.1' ,^Y :�_, '�,a" `Sr�. '..�'='3 •`�$':',.' - v"[ _,..:.,:.:,.:-- :•+<.t it-4,4., .,'s,d;6 :@,�:'.,r> ,ate ,y ,}, #^ r• 'rr?'�),�'• +'J'sk.,wL7.;ld}':;t: :,ta^ .�...a,`r 'l�'' `?F,,. c;1�.{a.�.r•.'et'`_ ,: '..aa..:,�_...,::Gi. rw" Y�,t ::•�'-`tom V. a.k -A� 't= kart ' h.,. l,b _ U• lIn- _ - 's. -.¢ �.., ':fie+ - .-:�`„ „i.S•..•°^i:_�-""`' '..fi u h.�.^.,. �t. � 1.. /ry ky l �`' o` ., `'fit'' .•§a °: �2 a ,t' ."'�,, Pr:�£,. (x ,:Y.3S,r."F;,',•r��.-'e�,+`,:•�iri'��:o�p' - -"rax.asE._3,.?`e`a``�'r, R-,-y.``',c;; �`:':r,::, ::�.` '�,+r� ..a .h r•!'.;5. .,�,:- �=u'�•L;- 'aFC•,t 7;`-�- `�.�, - �.•, •,v,,.:. �,,�.;�.,'a,:._ti::..�..,,.:".='%;�zf i' a' \"„- �:.t's:, �;x• ':.'i \ ,,'ti-i, .,.�:4 '�-.,,:�.•-. pz „•a'•"'�-::S. :.i;:.:' _ . �K'.•';` a•.'S"yt;'^� ..,`4'. .:`t.- ly.t,.' i.KiS'� .:� � .-t., �` - ,y 7 �,C - "ii} r •� -,,c S. } Mill" `,�+ •'^X" ..p-_ S L�y. xr'tips. N:�FI-•'j ems.•5'.f e h• - ..fit: ay,. 'a a' �� •,.: as � 1.y A. -t, 4 b, 3 'i� 2 a •man. •a- �� <1 t+ r c e3 3. ter:"'� •`a,' .f fnT. - N• "Ga; .�4 a. - .ro �. .x r� _kk, 'P ry ' ;H�V>,l:' : �.»,:,.• -c�,:' n".-.� r.,r�_';'•, - - - 'iT' ^N• _� �r .'�tr:+I"�1,tk,,..��' ,:td, 's'r 2 ,Y �d .+• a"'Wfi1. .5 .+,.., ,_y",., t=va it., �2 �x� aY y ' Gn• ;.t�:,yr')�,>,x�;,-.�yiiirr i'.-:r:::1. jirt,->riY. .'v.•,,+,way, 4^ .? C � �'�,�`,&.. ..9 �• ^'�`.4��'y�''' .'tY,'.1 •fix, `f'Sa., _n�ur��.��:' ''t:P -$: ,. '� oa},: .'h�,��� ::1t'!. .1a`•` .{;'.1;:':`�'.'`, - 4. r+1FLti��`�rk.�: ;$�>, i+3';'�;. '�` ,A' - ?Y-, ''.7,�-L�7:'rj na,' ,'r�1+ ;P, �r'.La'.•;'�it:_"::• •'�.�. ..A`ts+ ' s �. .z+? '.r �� - ��� `�, •�'." ,r„ :,'p ..h i, x-.'&°�[`.a"+,i.'''e d �",.,' ,'Er,;=ei^:-.:..:`:!:`,'-`�4��'.:;`-,,-.,i":,C .,2?Ai ,"'f.�:kt ,4 �ii,. bb����yy i:,• .a.` �r '`'P,,,:"5 :�a�{ - ,� .r '�; •t�".!( .�.,.�'Y� rti #•.�. .1�+ )r,,. ^�+FN. :Y.+„':'1`k'i;,._4_ - , Y, -''><�: '�'i�� t< t>r��' Y������ a J.,t .' -.�•"`' '."tc\T,' -L` ,F�-`PSY.:yt;: :Y,.Y.:' ��,,: � -, +A.,..,a>�,'-;a �"r ..tc�'i +�^s, �'>' .v� �a'r-, .�^; "�`- :t:" ,.+�-�' ,,:,,,'�',$3:.�'.s,,.tee.:{' '•1. L''n' `zfxa�+:;.��,.a,:.x ..•s.,..?r.'"' - �'+, �„l" riF. "�'�fX•' �� ai i �„a �� a"itr r;4 .�. r,.t,_..Y4'A.! t,:z4.,';:.:.".:1, =f�',;4,'.,''1t;:��, t, ll p ""r`. � ,k �t._q.Fr�.;^'.",e '�'`YA_,,f,..t.,.1{k.'f,,. - '�`t'f:':,'t, \_•...){f a EN �.,uR,y, ^y'�: .. '�•'N'^t'- a`EY'T 4, ,,rf.,..;5,"•_.i�.,.. '`.., "?- is` !i;�.t�'' ~ti�` '�. .� �,_ �:�,�•. >�t tr � ''�'; "a:, r.. .'rL y..;t _ + Y'+'.- ,::F, -,�w'•r�, '�'�E'�att- r.-� '�c�' „zi.:.: "t• �-,yti+`,�.t � :� "'�'� ,f-�- .r,:33 t'7°, ,y�"�i:-ta'`.t<��; .:a='-` 4 ,,;. ,g i:�+j� rY .•Cr � /,E1i N.1,:, '?�'?.,�,, Y. T1,`+�y'� ,3:-i'r'' ,• ,4rt;i`.'a1,,r ..iv'rj, �' ^s41"`5+-� 'K:�7. �-S' „r�„t:k=son ar-�•�S'_•r "�- ,z��- Ki,"= 7'�; +,'tom '�`���5 E�:id2-y. c" t1'.,,c, 1. ', '�'` ��y+' �«,:r .."c: » �-'4'TC h�. 4 'i�y''r" �ti" a:.S"-..-ts +c'°'yS ,,., '#' �1'+ +s:,:�;!:T>•:• :,"' k�t2�C Fla; �.� a�ku,•-:Srs,:� :"•��p � 'SZ:i, z •��f'y�, ;�G tii',�.,, .,f�,.. .'�,,,.��x �q,.�:�,. :v;�;�'r:�ac/-.,��;'r::_.. .i;:;r:`:�:;k'�':`,;:s' • �Y`y t •. `^.:b ,', •`.r ...)5 .'g' is rs'E1 "•,J .ya':' ,�.'}.,- 7.'.. .;.,.1. .zF`.., �^r,:<c:: .•:' '1`.t�,'yr' �. v}y �y r� ��ryf���•'t'n .,' -�.3.ta. �r/t n„ ,rn,,r-e,: ':.+,., O.e .J-•.;.��`'' r3� t.. 't'G:1�- ',1�-1 °�,t^ ."-£+;�'.,.yv"> .p i �,t} ;`,y�Jt -.. ,4y U_ .i:'�:.�:i`�w�-ti">�:'5��,���-_.':3:'-fix•;':'.: N a ,t•l ;,:. e'er a,.?`.``{o'{:;.:,.,_:-';::.y'a': ,t :� ''fi�tt ,_,7.. i Y ,;J;>.,.V•:,�!'a;. ..:�:.., '1�::"C,,'O� rr°�„r *.-,iM ,s �;s�,�,,. y, M'4:' 4� .c,,,y�.;�<T:Fr�r,, .r::�- : +4••i J.�' ,f+, �1'�' ;�•� ..«`.,�?:°�;,.,.,��..:�t..:::.8t.". ,R(`.'i' .. .'Y.-r ti, , , ,,h --^k, :.r:>,..,t;=,,' rt=S � - •x�, i:'�r�"„-ram'. c. 4- <':Y': .il- j.0 S3; :ah,tt9. -' ^.{D'.t A.' , ..JP, S•, v''^]' :Y '�,.". rJ`4a.G,,. 4 r..:, .xa... - :.d" ^; `'Y^t• .5;.'..y,.. .1.� s':' las:.. .,t1-t'.' •^a, St_', :v ''k :., a'S.,. r.,t>" .r� 'i .�5,�� ;::3=,i..,t ``:?.a c.♦ v.1 ,,�>. c,.z _ 'F.. y t? t;: v•.aw, ti - :v- yr b:,'y' ;:;• w:L t .S 3�•.K a.�...-tti4 tid"r;,_.,,' ;`'ri';4.,,44,,.sw >,d+n• ^ .;S.:y `2'L^.J;t:,;,+'l,Y,,,,,. .t.,Y, t Vic,>n`a:s;,'.::Y,, .Ax•'`:L :.D=�+.`,::iZv v;}:,;; F:e,> a:• :r,,:c,b:^ ,+.: •�x, :,r ,_`,t�:1••--,++;"_. ^ ,.'n'�'; =:r�s ,,e'A';J.+;��',•'. '.6. `r f. ,.Sr t�" >'"- .d••x. �. _ ,,'•ti7.. _s_..r: � :�•.a y:.:tr`%", 2'}• '_rc-• .}.,ry yaar„*'::':,eU. w a: s.�- - x, .Yw�= ..y,,,,,a, rc•`--,..;'t_ .c?`� ik�, },"4'as�`:t ^rr ..�4._.:aE« ::�. 1p .'7. 'kw.. k, A. -:s'L: 'UYS':'",' qh J'zn`-'• ^t„ ax tx. m ��:o.-..rF�+.. ,�•; ..,;�, W,.a,F:`{ .,t,..e=^'�='i' .k, ';-:�`S�''r"�t+:�„c.• - +�)'r� _ mow`. ..,! ;r•;:';'.°;'4'�-,r:'.�' �[:3�''ii:" '�iF !'+.� ,%'Y,._ •L...•�Z �;.=':,%i,!'a,;',:-` �:trta..,ry{>v+;;ct az, .>rr ,.� st• J. .Tt+•��Sa �.. J.+�;..r. ,>s:: - .�.a,2.,, .,Tac,:�4:^ o- ,-€:arr -�'t�.� xis• :�:.;-`.;r:: ra;:'':',;=,�,y:.�., ,.'�$[ .�.. .€�` ,y�, 'v.n b ,.'4.�. .��Y�.<'�"F,: .,;<t', ✓.: :.�:Y,s"' tef=' ,'�� `i,:•3 „ v�'e;. N..ri;::�';:`' .. 'r' :. x4' A:��<. e.r'e.�:ab�. roy n�;3?%3�° .�' ry'i"Trr`s '}£,-• xr:ri�:: _,�., -`�r�:�'t::=rya,.•w:,,c>r'� ,�1;' ,� ,,.7,+ -ter•=;s�;�J` fk.. :v";I..w v., �'J:��-�e .. `- <�-, ^,� ;:�:... x'�`�"'^�.L::ru;r.,z.,,>f;.`: .dr CD ",'" ��'�. ,, ,F' �E'''�. ,.�� ,{st:, r `�;''? ,":r. G. }.ti. ;y.;,t.,..�,j'•m�,:.F.,.., >E.�;r,,.:. ,:k.. "�3..-,tit•:; .�J`::,:. tom_-, �{_ ,e.'�,r.:a5:'. �x'� ,� ..�i'i=-�r.�:',ta.. ='�i''-. ..c'» ,.a- �'cY e, 4<�:t''�_...�.:r'%:r? F�•`"mm - r.:_ Y. "L: `,=�t-<'u4��1 �4�^w'�fi =::� ..1. - _ s..a.l�'- t t... air; .<v,: .$�,%;.e�4a»,,5,�,,,-,,"a�x_ •ht:'..r',. T.�t..4p?,i�,.:,,.;i•.,,.;.:... < qk S z �- �U':,.''1`t t:x../'e'ic Tby„ •-l: k'�.'�:2'.:3,. 'ct=' .,e... -0Y. \,'']:r :'al„"3` �J:',_ .,4.. a�,.... k:?va i;=-:r.}... � '''C'ay - .� ,':a.,x-,�_„-.£_.., ^•tsl- .,;°.'a .•.a`!.: i'�i": - •,rn1., r=t=;" - .s, - va:: •a. ._r:cam; list. .a�„ l .+Y: :.F•?e.., c.. '''�+#i< •}'x.� "i' _•�.•" �d.5.,,.rr - .�`":•„Y..� :a. ,t<."ii''^ `•♦ "T �,':. }ad ,+lr-: ,�k? ,q,c ''�aFN, .�J. ,.'#'4."'::k•'� .sn�,.:.:: -,:i.` f,:i"'�:tr�"t�::�:;���� -•:�. ♦:�. �sd':tu. •;'#a" .f �� i'F � �4 tiS o she. �i--, w„ ti'S;:t:: <.}.vU+" :i.r ^'ro^..it-y;..-}`tP, P. ,-}n, 2�,:.Txii'a,x.,-.,, :k �•k .:Ya ,1- ,.'A}=r �I 7��tiq.�`s ..-x�fc ,xG� - �_r:,, ,ki-^x .i:,:; }: :y:» ,'�-^x �+ nn;, a'Y•. ,xcLL L `�4� - .,�„ y�,S�;`.` r��,,*.^i:+`.+ ��,..!:5"',�.3,x.;' L^. �a6:4C„` .,Y."' Y.M��-.. ,'j, r b +VA%'" : t 'a 1'.., r. '3+' - 4-: V:-.,. .1i'.F i - .'-•'4a„3.-'-!Y..-`A,�,;.P,h,'k''fn.t� .,,s^ .a` rvj,}.i��.�.,}� ,,,d`.ir..:i.:..;+' O�s. )- '� K "��.., a.)t: i .G^cl« :�`-�r-L;v;,a:.r..3.gr:F?'-� .�': `"aF :v'.,�`,do • �,• 7'+�,x, r•r;ti:r:,>"•`.�r` ."v:.: c _ ,n,y ':,.t.x�es��^.-.t, � h••' '„x,, ...•'�^:�,,�.t ;.�rT... c,r•,.4!4_: 3v^,;:�'�,: `;,`.'.'<`,11. :;74x,.' .�_. 'tix:*t;'1:`�'a�'`fi'�i\u"r a",rY,,•„ .��rt;'�i':,r�_.r: - .az�,^;!'.t, ,.rs:w,. Ei"i�'•, .y,.S."' ,a:'•s'�a; '-'1;;; .�>U:'^ .t 1'�:+:-, 'r'• yag-,,..r;.l- .�;t,.�.,,..,ayt:,!�,,,.+•:-,;.g",�.,„,...' .;t�„ 0 L'R' ,.l xF�w.. ,,fir- `¢; r-:"i�;, •'ti'e Yk�z ;:5,.;:;r:°iJa,b r)2:n�:¢'i^�X x,d,.....j•.:>;a 6• S. .���: �- .`# '"n• .:4?;' og,', r.'r<.,_•.,C.,,.,k�::.i x:." Cv 11+,.a:`' .a 1 w,e a.. 1""a �, - ^�-+',S, ?' g_ '„4in, r,:ij 51=,°,;, _ �x''';`,:`: - '"Q' t �'cl.r i•4":. `'.gr.e.'�� _. ...:-'°:'.'t s=sa;�'.=:�:�, _ '?.taF'-v.i:;•:.s�a:;- .:4.X:�..l.r.YtL ". ',t"t-r:,�,y:.,i'S:'.:r5,.�,t '•,.r's�:b"�a38} ',. .Y;h:�'ai+„v ,Y".,,..:.-:j':_,.:tom�:-_,,t%;.,.._: ':1• :''G 1 �'�� �.;rs%5i'� ', .�;t�'�,� i•,.:{r'�a` ,�rsF;�?,3`..•.�.. ::k its .. 'c.r. r'n,�°v�„„ � •'„t',,i�o�.hiherG�.ikr;:;rp.'`,r-'N?=r�A•-�T�i,><'F.��''>:�;'�'-`rte`:v;:i:;.��'.`•''i�i;'a.�`-�'-'�`.` I Z NOV-29-2UU4 MUN U1:UU FM PHA NU. �+J[:7:;1"•17. �'! �Y��r=�` ''x:�'j, .,�,,��rY;..r�..�}���'t:•�Y,�'�:�,,r.,.:�t-�.:�a:...: .a.:'" *' S•. - (F"Sfi.• ��:. ,�_v,,'�� SR�;.1 �s �sy,. �; :pRr..,v:r,�,.•`'��. ;�:'4.�s+c,•y�^"�?`:�'•%•' .i!'�%`•C:z`-�;:rt:?v,•:w,. .yn,.-,•.:.;�-..,.� re}, .i _; 5• cif.,4? �3 RW: {fit,(,�•"-'#i..�r3' ,{y,��`f.+�-F. ,,.CS', ,rl., !':r�„ t``,7: ""..,'..r'{y ':r"'7r' rJf° .,'�"< i•���'pl� - �'' .�iR'L!��1.:: ✓,�'. :•�4;k G'S A ,n',�:.',�s+rp'. ,):TIr�3' .�{.. �';Yui�'.��`r..ia s,�`s,�,.Y•+r'1'',,�,�:r4'J•,'�•�ri r' 1.,- ,yc,s",fi..y. ;;.r.+ ,!• �' y-nx�", a Y nt°!w• I' •�; n.. .t� :c9 j?"a, .-;RC `-,'a}`''- + {� .;' li;M^., .{�-�r•', u7'I'' JJ !, v'"+�! Y, HsGS,,,r ( .'r•s`' %>'•'''i-n :.-.ram>;?':C r;ti�.:G::.�� .Y q(�; L .+}. h °F; $rd�� Y„L"..' L.T,,,s �� 2',�„ L,�a� �'•.� „C• X ."!t•Y::� i- \ .d ":a'ntr§"^e- _,�1,/ � �.+„fl [?t-,.>•..; !];'.• .1�,pY•�j -p 1`uT An Nk �}- J.�, :,6„f..,�y. �3,:w y� �.( �`'s-jt�s5;':r, `4' A.c,.xR'�€�5'c'' 3';e';. 'k, f�:r, tr �,nr.,4�:r''S'x�r.. x''s f•�g�.;'r" �`' es l::,�+. r�• � '• i.,��. '�r�`:S'`i•Y�d.�Ii,'� ',",a+i�, ••;ia r.'k`�-3%=:r,zy �7�a',.H ?w .'£:':o'.cu .S', .�' ,�.Y.,;cr,M�.:..:_:.••rr jg !, §L s•' S, y4 'ti.?'=-:sc^`�' ,.? ` :i:fi,>Y:'zt,: `1,+j"•'r�i�Y J `'' �y- 1,+f: •.%F,.`'d` fJ M'•u•w{l?;`�t:.n:..,.<.. ,:`•,; :y•e� <5�v��g'.�r�ti�,;�;r .�,t�.- .r,�z�•`.,, •r.- -7;Jy)1..«�-.- :-yj9F`F.. .'f'�:t.:�,",,a..-yt'»i�'�-'�%.'.✓ � y�•;`r, ,'i_. t-rr;,s�'�_�'v.,�:, :t�."'`��.-i'y.yy�"'��5 4c 1 '.,v' i.g,?,, fi,4 it ,.{{ "tc ��,r ��k•„• "•, _�'�<.rS`"%s�.';?.i rriiy'��.� ' •n.rh.w,. ,-t�',� .+•rr"•"�.,L "p�'"S, '::•�",w„fL.'yc:y .^`Y�Ys: kT ,YS "{'',. ��'�e•��r,i�T'f,° Ci{r41�.4'S C }• Vc�� Y✓e�r_ ;.,.};. ^y` '•r„� „'�rY d'•,1 ,:f _ k "� r ,E,cr ,a•;, �`'u� +� '?i^`t: i.,,-•;i,,,.;_r,"..,F;.-,��, '�T;a:.�.; F ?S+f•'{:f,X.S•. 3• .f ti? '=z [,:c'" f «;E�i T�-r:s=w•:':5..a:,.�';y-5?C�P',,�'•`^q.•,""?t'�p _ `t� 4r Ri. '^"`i. `,A,'F""i'x`cr'S• :?.rs,., . yht:r rk� •.,y." r,Y r., fie,. ,;..4�y g,.a: _•�a�.s �::.:'.•t'f..22' a� .,�,?' Y �' ��• 9p, .q r,'�":•�- Ni ": ;r,* _ ,.{; -yyC •id<'r,< �t1;- '-`ewtxY- rr �'cttr _l�t s`2!. ':; Y p.-..�,. -m?.paa.<,w,' ■;C,.;: ,;_•,' ,.%,.. J*i':.Y,. ,r,°Y?�`i,I. '� •* tr `', /:I Ir_.4. .,r' a ^:. c-'F. ;•M1:.;.'F:^«,r .:s't•J�:,.Yr�lj•',, ?r,. ,:r .r"<_; .5"''E'.' .sT_*.'.! ' :' .ar `:-:'-""r;=Y•s y"1:::° c; ".mar« T3At :�r' F-:a� xR "r.'•: ;4 a kt r:; <v: nfa:'.•ds`„:,t?f i:'.',+}� _ F,.,f..��•;µ,c¢;�m•'rs-�:,..:t."tr..t�; -<; .t'-1.f.=' '6;�<.sfi,•,.r •..s•3?q�eY_;(;." -:w's., •4;„ri�: •,rf,•„$tc, �1--, hS•::�' - -^'S"•�a..< :b A'�Ir�:�' II '•:��`,�'i;r-•±���:=rr ,�.:. '�)��".7.•S _ a[t d;, r'f+°..' i.".rc.: -,fit 1;'V•-_^%'J','`�- a' :G✓, t.,',�, s'ia.a •.a7:'�: ,��`:•`r,,:•¢'�°v6G'T;,-+�tn:'sL:�e,��< ,ii:r'k;>•:`A,-,,, �,s:: ..*.- •,4,. };%'.y,. .y-:- �.,� 1;;.' � ,`�-!1, a `+ _ n'.. ,x+`:' -f.i:: `'• y' i,'''�`�'�{z ;�, a��l`�i^�i-':- C: i'".,t•Y4.�. :. 'k5L•. ^c .-'-�' ,.2:r:• -!b .� '':S;' 'S 5�� t.�N,t; `a%; q$.5. ...kx 7!C�. "v" ♦H ,�'` •4:1c *' f:• 3n:a. ;'��< '";�. '� "'-.ts sk ,"F,-�:i,%,;�„.��+��.7 A:,�,,tt-. 'Y::,_,� �tw.,>V7Xn :7.:��,::3Yj'4.}.<F1r,'t'�`:.t .� q,,.'sg.ae,. y<r. � ,r•$a .,��r: r t�':h ,,n s!r*„ .s�i...°���'� rdjl. �"'''i+' a::.; :s:�s�."',?�:*. 4,v�„,S.•rs.3 t�r>�':$:;: .}' A�±f:q;x��`r:' "r. .sFS',t_ ut,;1�,-',`,:.�,t�`'�'; �,.-i 'r.,-, ;t. n.4,�",� '��..m� .�r ,t•'��a �cx 'kb:�M�,"F` �����.;.:• r.tr ..ta;`<yrrj ��Y�.�,.; ,4�_;J�,•.k.,• ,s• e'�zSt�m�`•`. .,� 3,:�,:rrrrr ...{:•,5.,'. /i�,�ir.. xA,.'.n• ��. r.°�P�,:"•F� •r•.�. ',:r^'�N T"�Yv'iti��+' .:3,,•+'.'�'' ,¢�art!; +4v�;P:9` ??�v�l,-'JM:;f r.'» ,.��Ai,S'=, �7fAk�•i ,cr<a."r�fea: rr-",s�•i-. a�r7�� ?iTr,.,;4�i,':w. °`i.� �.,�,, ,.+' f?. ,e?3�F:3:f: "i'.6,,.�s..rd :Yv,��'o- `°'Sp ,Lx.:,,,a °;:'�,.•-9 Y�� �:� 1. _,��;°J,.,�,"t..;.ys� i•M'�:'�i••�.x' -{ -M�-!4: : ,�ti'�T:�> °,x-,. -.'f•' o.'•�••''-.• �rr a'. 6,_ °_, rf`���'`';'r+„ 'Ls�"�.�'-:F"r`�� ,t �"..: e,`..r' 'ka'':.K: * =�?3`' ..,,Aw.,et ^�"•'t��*;3:},•.�,?��'1.�:r;.�. »°:•!dt��f,{e= i u:�Ni�:;+�,v'•rg?•ui+d.��. �`;7'-`C '!C'�h'��bflcr ?�,3ii 2:• ".'S;' �u; ;;ht,.'�R.«2!�,i am r. � '•.Ac_.;Z,•;,� „f� ;c'�.,,,y��,,,a, �{ "rl.-:4a'4�u,:',t� y. ,y'z!"3r�9 ,rG', n.� r. ;;.T,-:� ica-.'t-6,,,a`$'...;rt,• "is,;,•;... -;' ,"i:.`::t�` •',,,,Y:'ix .'rah' •a", _u,'+�% ~�`,,;F r>x.4#�°,-�"�+ kcr.,t�•.,,,,. 'r`�v::- G.3"....�,,�,5. s.G,,.p� Y-t.• ,Pj ^"�:, r, t,:� x,,. x. �,N�r;.:; r �.,r:: cw+ - ..c`�t�•6_ _.t. G`' C: '•.''+'.• -?,.b. .•K �ip,�s` a<tm ,e'3£ctS,. :T1*y'P,'>..' .r=a'b• S/ GX:.#t' t.::•ri!.''�'- + �,�.�•,�`3:x.�i:�S�.Qi,�.,is3;.:Y;n,:F'.,. �. -::Vie. !'r,>,yr,:•kc"�< -� /! af ,,.d„ "i,r;::w;.��r•", - +�:� n`• Fes.; ra'tirw.V .S'..".. , ,x' _ a••.rk zT,;t,`�rp,;,?'#r°��', '-=�-.- �E3'.;: °.'+s• '!'f...<y'-.,�f::3cd,'a �?;r~r ,r"v� ;, "r c• Y.::..., S ' L° �`'=5.; a'-t?axi�:sr,.•4,ik'?�,"c•��'h....9�Y+,'n.F:_�Il[-:�.:vr'!1'? k�'� ,-,.5�. -+p;:' 'Ei,' >,- ` '4a,n :v -F'•fi7e..a`'s`�.ra,._ '.'e lr�,. ,;.,@f}rrtt -`mat;:✓,l'.`7'.r'--� ,�'.•wti"-i;ta.-' rt:�: #.5 ,'•�`:: �"'Yi' ;<f�A�g! ? s a l2, :isr•a'fl•� v`\"7',,,:.;&u_:.:rr.•r. ., m, , , ..a c. J:+r.;'94z?,_':•x, paS, `�'a ..�i...r.3 y j,.�. f32y5,. ��`.� aF7:' '+3;•'Y' c:S% a,;N„P�e`•�.;�£•'^�1' .`v�=�£-° .X "�' �� -'1.� »�' u ,• ;R:,.•C.. a ..,.;tr:,a:: . -ia, r,;4. rr4',.:s•,f.? �..}�r, A :stir. s. `.csi>. . ���•.c,-G :y=' i;,%'r :a-.., '°_s ,sue' .,':,.-r_,;.,s' r:,Rr.r:;r• ir,'..y:/T` •?k<✓'•:,r, '��.k -s1_ •;k dz �d w� "�r.�r, �a:,.,,. .ia';t,.r � _;�? •��.,s'• ti"'>",'`�5�.`sysy;.. I"�:%9'. a:�'.�i'�,'�s^•:• ry5� .u,sr a. .^:,?cW; ,st { ;<. 'i;.�-tt:.#:!_:? _�ys: .N_ rxtr'-s..,,r ti z" t_ f• ''�i;•"..=`^• «..' '... -'.',.}^„r,"d'G°= >;.1�; ^'�Fr`.•t, ?;::i,: :' a ': •s_,`,•-'+a,- ::' :s:: ;t.; ,>: .,.,y- r•,-', ' ,F.:,. - , - -a t in"�{E'3 �.'Mw.•6.,,-,az.'".`{'Y. "¢Y1 W`'"„:G�; s' �'r!....`.uw. ,+N''i i.,.''-s�:C�" 'r>,,i;:a�,:•.`.Jx r !�� �'J'%t' �i is` �t;l�.;§�`�','..» •"P`."•�%' SsrM'.,'t. d � �... �[ i,'i-s�•�°,5 '.wFx 'Ei,4,.<ix�>Y:••^.'r',fE<,u;:ia, �r,w.":•:f'.Y.,,tYy"._t;-;n"7ra#R''•E' ::t:r%L,"„':F,.``''., '+ 'f-";:,r°•:..L',•%Y Nd�:7 -•v" °"::<'',k'e. "':: ;�•:, ,,,+. •a,.,•.,,- "` - _ %t �;`+'#r' .4'%< ,;•,�"'*`„s?''S!; � r;�r' i'i�:?t ;�:cl,,q,`.�, ,+3„y Gam-+_-0>:• a d r.:5 fi�.<�+-tf: .+r. - -d ;Tar s9; }:. 'l'•`.' 4i.... .,°. '.,,.,.n; ?c«:;^'S`-`,5-` rr4n,...s,: "ti• ;rf „„:r,.,.ySc.c+.fi.:a':' �, :..' -v.3..'n�,-,�``".�.. ?u.:k7,.5f ''_;� r{^" 43:,"•:-,' �'^,'�ya, t'vy',.�.,.,x�1,�.a.� kr:-..sr�''v-F:..� •�%.:<j:;ti,��r:£- $x� -�i'l,r��t:;�"'•;', `�;'',.. a. ,%,r ,;3#.•,'-M�.• -1's w ..Pfi.S,>a.� .rr..;�, ."•"' ,3.'r, -�'; `L. -='� �1'^:4;.-:t�,ol4 �t?L:�,,,..�-.i'"+i&,> .,y+l'_s.,, :•;usD �:a=�t.'..Y_ ,e�Sz,a:+„�c'-��, mot?„.- v• ,5 -a{rs -;}a t' r. ;: t: ...?4J.,..r, 7i;�7by'>$, ynYf 'Lr.':: s• r.17 r_ 7 SuYx'� ,,,tiC;SF' ,{y;.:C¢¢ f ^r'��S%'''3, y��..;ti Z S;:•� r�-,.' Vtr�E;X1rw�K„'- :h,..- �' �"` his>.:�•:�;�sr..}`,�°'.'.'e�'g »7+•,-`,� y€t _,. '<y',z'sa"r,�rp, �.•%w�, %:''.i: ^n. }r��:R :.".:'r"�'�3-" .k`t4-„ .9.. .E 1.�` ,4 uA,::.`�,'"`', b ' >,:,k{- a:y d ya rl,F.- e !k a .,:�{ r'. �2,' cd1;o-} :�;.fir-•la?'... .. - 3 d :�,.,,r.,.,f ii):: .Y>, ,!:.r%`3 Wt1•. 'G#t..h A.. - 'R?'„-.t°ac'�t..;r:. x'�r�STi" - `s " i`;•: %,tr:'.:...'A..:%. Y { :,y:vt:h�':;';•i w*r,i'. -q`' {, fY,J,..t:i.; ._i9::-Y y' `'y+,_.;y':; '<e,:3'"'R--r"'a :+r•-v.; �,E,}:°. :,..+".' F,.:,a�s. 3 �'''`:�`s,€•:;Y,• :lq.,_ '"'�r`W; h; '�.•,as, t,..,,y, .<r,_ .i >::3- ;, f:. '•,� `';;,•., .�:.sd?&C^-`:9,, .�"o-. ..,,•t., ,,1y, .ANR. .M?r;<- n:' .,.,..s?�,. ?4 -.•F': .' r f''rs"^.: "G;.,G�... n �E.v a,3r, a�'xr�N!•, �'±,>..�.-N�2..�-�i�;...?I-_,?`..•, .`,;:�a:.1s.,';:G; .,,?t,..�rxK:n,,:�-;�;: _,s:,,: •fi�: :;."F' ;���w'�"I'ii.�..;�: ' ��M.,..-.,.z•};:!j ;•,-r. _.r� .r•�..�aaf"t_"t.fi.:- .�r:`�;t - a 4 a,�:'i 7" r.r_,•n.< ��,, /, .A,,L>{a`-" ,•-',�.zr sa�. „,ay�';7.'S:ti':�i�k•i'� �:i�i::;:'4,''"+ "' "1'�:> $,.;•"�sts;,:f..,�.::.:sa�: �,t�:-: �.:V},i t.. �. + �,;k. ^5 ,R'•"i`�u r :a-y �t'Y ,st- .c,7ra-�. :,k' {.: ;�Y,�.,, ''i,,�;,.,u,+,.- §� "'��: ..t.;is z�'+•:ta;,,?7"r�,<' ..;rt '2 >.� _�::� ,rss-x,':i" :`:,t'�',:'4 _: :``• aar,rs.t` ,,..i a,�,-' (,:t-t.. }'' '°+':.s.'•a;{'= ':viz'' p.�.' :X0, ,e!3 ..£�}� '�3�.` i .+-" :.�j. ,uF>:: � •4•iy_S„ _ ?sx..1•,`:iyc,.�� ;$, s-'a '�„ 5'Q-�,y1�' ��ry,9 `hr., -/1; .,f .u...Pr. �d-. g•�' ..`r'�'T.,�..`'�+'; !:y:.i:. ..^.[;:�'tf;.:< -t"" e'"y{r ry�,Tx.' •v.�,.yl .�,�'/-r��yyyE$-�% a"# J�„r.:r•. t: ?ji..::.Y:'�i':.jrv,:-.'�J.':-, ,"{1i,J„- Ktl,L•,: .:p; -;'1.: ,.`.,... �,4�y_.}::5'.S'�•'•.F, tTzr w;r°vh'J'•,x �J ,�u,`,�� ::�,;c,..,-.�'S=`ca::. �,f.,,r.,.:., c,.'.7�, r':%a4'•H�y.,,v�••i: `i:Y'a - -jx?n,, :,: .*_! �'$.'nu.3._o-!<: �k7i ,(��� ��s.,��N.�`�.'. �,I,'�_ � ..✓:`o :e,��y,,. -.rr.c".�•% ..:r^t.<5.:,: %j^Tx?c,.-'AY+ ,;rd,�" a:H'R;' .rr .,°�s'..:,.L,:sLiO. ,:;. ::.. '�;, 4• .r�` ..FSt:_'.;' _ - 4;,. .ra,;-. '}ru'."y: -.„J�.ar'.�iF: M.H Xi%,h - �..r,,,.'ya![„� ',W nj�,' ��¢-..��.i_:-,:1;;��34•,- �:l..•- ,y :;::'� -`,1<, _ . -. '- w:Y ""1F` r:5l� .. > s r yt�,�': s r „4,- �. .C,a.l;....o• '.,t< .,. ;;' #' +rt,: :��•, -i`$. 'S -.{}v ,r' .;�t.{':n: 3d{ r _ _ ( -h.J •Y!r,; '¢'., .dit;,y'� '.�Nrf ✓,>: ,'4" .�•`�G'- ,,3 :E'I - ;'d2,i.,:'>'I°J'i;1�W::..��-v-1`:t�r=^T_fis�'i�t:'�',:'�." .0',+`t:i.::..:41E�,,..:�.�i. >�c '+•,.,r +'S:•..r,!3',+„7:`: .'�y""'�" ... �.-L.-.; ''�:c,�f -^r`-:'5.,,. ''45::r:iC��r ..�,{{��e'l'If35i 'y t•t t_ � ,}:a. .,1::�:'!".::'S''5:� {. ,�_'-•y'�'. i7%= .Ty-, x}};rSf +.:.,..,-, .:R+:S(r., � �4''�',� `:i•F'�'.:�.';,y.>z •).5. {•"/•� r.,., �::k��::ar,�i�'d•S"::. v3{.-:d:. j.�:.(24e�ii"'r]�, ,fit., `KiF•a ,yn�.b �ti. �p'"'''.t:.e'FG,,,..f.Si.r c::#<a r::n:^e}';f: ;,:f'r,<' ..R.,'. -,J'' ^emu .',y,�l •T�, ';a :.•h,a..k' rti��� ?� '.r_.,t,f-• - ';Y.�:::� +c;' �'�,.. � 1'r�'>?`''`� � •t,, ,!4ysz'4y>-'•: •c!'as:":`;:"„%:;;'.,�. '•ls',•,r •`:��;3if",:_::'.:!,�w�;<,_ !�:?'' ,it4r?':•"�• '$' .?,. 'v++:n,< 4�.,.,-.,i.ar�';'�"rtt..d��yy.. �••.'f1.y�.�E` �q� i .t .<;�t�',-.'i::4:•��..- - ,F.`'`#r- 'i••L`SLfrzL _ _ ..><. .�d":NG :h'.IM ;'Y s s.xa' e��`s.°,r" 4'��;': �l t`a:; ••�}•'': .✓y.;r �,�,;- - :�&';=''s;:t:�,•i:�, ,,•r= ,r ..qk. 4 •c,.',��•'.y`1utY.. fr:C�:`:T • i'� Yr�:=: :,}',.• -u4, -r'i4; .v.,tv. .:` ,-..r...•ca, El z+; -,a-. ,`.'t, .. `, �.l�d�',,[ ,�,r�,�, ^ Y t� �c*I:. v.T_• d:Y:. �.G} ���"/�•,y.,M„ =.i.? ♦- f N{;i :y.,_ .:-1;-: .F9'>:'+i.. �L,a:-4 :,5�. GCI.. - _ ;i�E:y'i E:.;•'_-?,.f.j:::��: .'.•'f:%• � --„+ 4' ::' � �.�`�743GE.Y,`.��';:�'_%i:"y�;,.. ';���a�'J r;ar„w•�^, ..'�u°t'+„ F'�.�':C lfY.-Ei'�,�5{, - ,:F. - r'T ';"g.,+l,..::Yr''r[:'✓4-F. -'m.•;ax-ry .f.lR)x+^, t�r. {{,`1i.±_�!�`,{�.��•ii: sS!.�...,:t:..a 9y::�: _ .'f'�"_i`+ ,.t i�L. - }-�,,, �< .J. F' =�4"J!. .->�.JF((����S)r-ma��y• _�':Y'!'G' .3{, ry - - S" :: 9i',+<. yy r , �r, U` .�•is�: �r "'k { - k y.A ..,•-'.w'•'_ r>v, r;:; N•." :,ry�7^ r.{• sa ..}, ,;a_'_ 'r,;s.;!��+► �:✓,',...s:,,.., ,r fr`,s .-?',`•x•P.. - a•1 yer a 5.. , �J3•:r �{ Me s �r t - L r> 2 .-Ta•-F•p-. ds._- • r - v , a,. r 4:: :9 "v:� -��b'r14: '.<. -'+':t;' i.?''s�., •1 �iSC:•�r M 1 ��y>r, ..... .L: .-..1' , ..,.. is y, fir..:.•:_�,. .:•- �cf:Y..y, �M ate;;tij. :�y,+;�:� 4<'::>.»:�_ •✓-::>r,: •i .. q. - .t'4 s"i t - % ' rt 7. YI .a s s r 4 J' pp a�Y :T ��r y��, Lr / 7w M � ;r ,aF Y ca , 'f'i y :'x- , � .-c•�;:.iA�^ l,T'fidfi.'Yi.t:4sLq. ) - ':`?s��c>=�>, :t. - ':'f,4 •A,.- '#'„ti> - , / 3 {�d34i W1'{v)dYui =3i'"::.�� �.:•1 - = r'7r 'Yfi;L�':l'b.., {.p 'dJ($ t> c• ,. i.r" ,.�:�'- _ �„t,+-57i?i.?.fd.:�;z,S;}.!h•�'s•y!yy�vY f,:y, { G,� •� Y � L,rY..a.iSM:�:t: 4F�C ':1,. Y,t'. - -1-•h:�"ci:..�;�n ;•N1..K w3122i,C'�. /,,'�' 4L^ yje i', ,'�.- - - }',t.- :, -. .• a)Fd {?C2X J.^:/L'.'I:,J.��r �}�lr., r. ;r. •;44�,'.:.�, �n,#j G� - +[� 1.�'fid:r>✓��,1:.'G 4'� ity.t13t79" !iYT' tYY+v„ r :.,'.}• - - `��"''�'��h', - b:/1 .,.J�x'£:'k, ..f 'Ar,'�t-.?..;'{•1}..,.".lf,';C;3t ' :�igYCy' Eer 4T ,1�. kC.9 ,1.�,:pi �' '3rt�*a"a z •'> :,yh •r::' =.">i;s.�,.., '••`.�:':': ^',t': �",�`,•"�`o,�C..':C`'f�:'��•'$t',�r G�'.g. J;"• .7' •C Y.' tit :.t.T:,��.13,i.:1 t3;'1 - �'r; :•k^ - � '' : - � a,)':':' - '•'.t 1, R�9. `,•T,,.= -_ _ ,�. t5 I.aox .:.�,°C.. .x' r.�. fT�-1l� �.4- lik•S • :.- SYY711G,r,'1 1Iti/.-,:1" 7+. .i i.,..._�,. .*� it,''�,.,:+r►�!!� - - �.:'} - ,� i,l� Ca ra'tRhI1JA - '�xr' •e..,oaa.a��6- ?9�9ro�af;,,•��+�;�e'i�3.';F�• _�::y, ,r/ 21960 B OI 641 AGE 208 RECEIVED FROM M 14 AS PUBLIC RECOR aR OF CITY CLERK FILE JOAN L.FLYNN.CITY CLERK DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON HARBOUR UNIT No. 4 RECORDED AT REQUEST OF ORANGE COUNTY TITLE CO. IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF. 9:01 AM JAN 28 1963 RUBY McFARLAND, County Recorder $13.20 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN TRANSCRIBED FROM A COPY OF AN OFFICIAL RECORD WHICH IS NOT IN ALL INSTANCES FULLY LEGIBLE. THEREFORE, HHPOA CANNOT BE CERTAIN THAT THIS DOCUMENT ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE OFFICIAL RECORD AND WE ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ANY ERRORS OF OMISSION OR COMMISSION. HHPOA HAS PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EASE OF READING DUE TO THE POOR QUALITY OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. OFFICIAL RECORDS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY RECORDER. IT IS NOTED THAT THE PAGE NUMBERS IN THIS TRANSCRIPTION DO NOT MATCH THOSE IN THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT; THIS IS DUE TO THE LARGER PRINT SIZE USED IN THE TRANSCRIPTION. DECLARATION OF LDmATIONS,COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS AFFECTING THE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS TRACT No. 4880 (HUNTINGTON HARBOUR UNIT No. 4) IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA THIS DECLARATION, made this loth day of January, 1963, by HUNTINGTON HARBOUR ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO., a California corporation (hereinafter called "Declarant"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is the record owner of the real property described in Clause I of this declaration (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "said real property"); and WHEREAS, Declarant has established a general plan of development of said real prope rty and the lots therein for the benefit of said real property and each and every lot, part or parcel thereof or therein and desires to secure the uniform development of said real property and said lots, parts and parcels in accordance with said plan; NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that said real property and each and every lot, part or parcel thereof or therein is and shall be owned, held, transferred, sold, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied, maintained, altered, and improved subject to the limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, exceptions and terms (hereinafter collectively referred to as "said Covenants") hereinafter set forth, as a part of and pursuant to a common and general plan of development and improvement of said real property. Said Covenants shall run with the land, and shall bind, be a charge upon, and inure to the benefit of all of said real property and each lot, part or parcel thereof or therein and to Declarant, its successors or assigns, and each owner of any such lot, parcel or parcel and his heirs, successors, administrators, and assigns for the benefit of each such lot, part or parcel and for the mutual benefit of all such lots, parts and parcels and the respective owners thereof. It is the intent of the Declarant that each of said Covenants shall be mutual and equitable servitudes upon and in favor of each lot, part or parcel of or in said real property and the present or future owner or owners thereof and its, his or their heirs, successors, administrators, executors and assigns, all as a part of a common and general plan and scheme of development and improvement of said real property. 1 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. r 0 01 CLAUSEI Property Subject To This Declaration The real property which is subject to said Covenants is situated in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and is described and shown as lots 44 through 172, inclusive, on the final map for Tract No. 4880 in the City of Huntington Beach which map was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California, on November 16, 1962 in Book 172, at Pages 12-19, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Map Records (hereinafter referred to as "said tract map"). CLAUSE II General Purposes Of This Declaration Said real property and every lot, part or parcel thereof or therein is subjected to said Covenants to insure the proper use and appropriate and uniform development and improvement thereof; to protect each owner of any lot, part or parcel in or of said real property against such improper use of any other such lot, part or parcel as may depreciate the value of its or his property; to guard against the erection on said real property of buildings or structures built of improper or unsuitable materials; to encourage the erection of attractive improvements on said real property at appropriate locations; to secure and maintain proper setbacks from streets and adequate free spaces between structures; and in general to provide for a high type and quality of development and improvement in and on said real property. CLAUSE III Definitions For the purposes hereof the following explanations and definitions of words, terms and phrases shall govern, unless the context thereof indicates a different meaning: Architectural Review Committee. The Committee provided for in Clause V hereof. Basement. A portion of a building located partly underground and having more than two-thirds of its clear floor-to-ceiling height below the average grade of the adjoining ground at the building front. Building.• Any structure having a roof, supported by columns or by walls and intended for the shelter, housing, or enclosure of any person, animal, chattel or property of any kind. Building, Accessory: A subordinate building or portion of a principal building other than a garage, the use of which is incidental to that of the principal building and customary in connection with that use. 2 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. n r 0 Building Height: The vertical distance measured from the established ground level to the highest point of the following: (i) the top side of the ceiling beams in the case of a flat roof; (ii) to the deck line in the case of a mansard roof; and (iii) to the mean level of the top side of rafters between the eaves and the ridge in the case of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. Chimneys shall not be included in calculating the building height. Dwelling.• A residential building for single family occupancy permitted to be built hereunder, not including accessory buildings or garages. Family: One or more persons each related to the other by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, or a group of not more than three persons not all so related, together with his or their domestic servants, maintaining a common household in a dwelling. Garage: A building or portion of a building designed for the purpose of parking and sheltering automobiles, whether attached, partially attached or separate from the dwelling. Grade. Any excavation or fill, or any combination thereof, upon all or any part of a lot, or any slope or other condition which results from any excavation or fill. Lot: Each parcel of land shown as a lot in the recorded final map of said real property and designated on said map by a separate number; provided, that no lot designated by a letter or designated by a number other than 44 through 172, inclusive, on said tract map shall be deemed a lot within the meaning of said Covenants. Lot Area: The area of a horizontal plane, bounded by the vertical planes through front, side, and rear lot lines. Lot Line, Front: That boundary line of a lot which is along a street line except as otherwise designated by the Architectural Review Committee. On corner lots, i.e., lots bounded on two sides by streets, the front lot line shall be the line designated by the Architectural Review Committee. Lot Line, Rear.• That boundary line of a lot which is most distant from and is, or is approximately, parallel to the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten (10) feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear, the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at maximum distance from the front lot line. Lot Line, Side. Any boundary line of a lot which is not a front or rear lot line. Story: That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above; or, if there is no floor above, the space between the floor and the ceiling next above. A basement shall not be counted as a story. Story, Half A space under a sloping roof which has the line of intersection of roof decking and wall not more than three (3) feet above the top floor level, and in 3 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. which space not more than sixty percent (60%) of the floor area is completed for principal or accessory use. Structure: Anything erected, constructed, placed, laid or installed in, on or over said real property the use of which requires a location on or in the ground. Waterfront: The lot line or lines as shown on said tract map, which adjoin a waterway. Waterway: Any lands now covered or hereafter covered by navigable waters at high or low tide whether within, adjacent or contiguous to the boundaries of Tract No. 4880; Lots A, B, C and D shown on said tract map shall be considered waterways. CLAUSE IV General Restrictions 1. Land Use and Building Type. All lots shall be used for private;single family residence purposes only. No building shall be constructed, erected, placed, altered or maintained on any lot, except one dwelling designed by a licensed architect and designed and erected for occupancy by one family, and one private garage containing not less than two (2) parking spaces; provided, however, said garage may contain such additional number of parking spaces as shall be first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. Any garage shall be used solely by the owners or occupants of the dwelling to which it is appurtenant. Accessory buildings may be erected only after approval in writing has first been obtained from the Architectural Review Committee. 2. Building Height - One and Two Story Buildings. No dwelling or garage shall be constructed, erected, placed, altered, or maintained on any lot which is more than one story without prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee. Subject to said approval of the Architectural Review Committee two-story dwellings or garages may be constructed, erected, placed, altered or maintained on any lot, it being the intention and desire of Declarant that two-story dwellings or garages be permitted to be constructed at certain locations in said property. No one-story dwelling or garage shall exceed twenty (20) feet in building height, no two- story dwelling or garage shall exceed thirty (30) feet in building height, and no accessory building or structure shall exceed ten (10) feet in building height unless a greater height is first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. 3. Dwelling Size. Without the prior written consent of the Architectural Review Committee the ground floor area of each dwelling, exclusive of carports, open terraces, open patios, open porches and breezeways, shall be not less than, 4 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. (a) 1,600 square feet on a lot having an area of 7,199 square feet or less; and (b) 2,100 square feet on a lot having an area of 7,200 square feet or more. 4. Location on Lot. Without the prior written consent of the Architectural Review Committee, no building shall be located on a lot nearer to the front lot line, or a side lot line adjoining a street or a waterfront than fifteen (15) feet. No dwelling shall be located nearer to the rear lot line than twenty (20) feet, or nearer to a side lot line than five (5) feet. Tennis courts and swimming pools shall be constructed only at such locations as shall have been first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee and shall be screened from all streets by a visual barrier approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. 5. Driveways. Access driveways and other paved areas for vehicular use on a lot shall have a wearing surface of concrete or asphaltic concrete, or the equivalent thereof. Plans and specifications for all driveways, culverts, pavement edging or markers shall be first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. 6. Basements. No basement shall be constructed on any lot without the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee. 7. Chimneys. No chimney shall extend more than four (4) feet above the building height of any dwelling without the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee. 8. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on, in or upon any part of said real property, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be, or may become, an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. No animals except dogs and cats, and in no event more than two (2) dogs or cats shall be kept or maintained on any lot. No burning of refuse shall be permitted outside any dwelling, except that the burning of leaves is permitted as or if allowed by ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach. 9. Parking-Parkways. The use of any garage, carport, driveway, parking area, waterfront, wharf, slip, ramp or other facility which may be in front of or adjacent to or part of any lot as a habitual parking place for commercial vehicles is prohibited. The owners of lots shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of lands and parkways located between their 5 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. lot lines and the edges of street or thoroughfare pavements on which said lots face or abut or to which they are adjacent. Said lands and parkways shall be kept clean and clear of refuse and shall not be used for the parking of private or commercial vehicles or boats or trailers. The term "commercial vehicles" shall include all automobiles, station wagons, trucks, boats, watercraft, other land, air and water vehicular equipment which shall bear signs or have printed on the side of same any reference to any commercial undertaking or enterprise. 10. Plant Diseases or Noxious Insects. No owner shall permit any thing or condition to exist upon his lot which shall induce, breed or harbor infectious plant diseases or noxious insects. 11. Nameplates, Television or Radio Antennae and Towers, Laundry Drying Facilities or Flag Poles. There shall be not more than one nameplate on each lot. Said nameplate shall be not more than 72 square inches in area, and shall contain the name of the occupant and/or the address of the dwelling. It may be located on the door of the dwelling or the wall adjacent thereto, or upon the wall of an accessory building or structure, or it may be freestanding in the front or sideyard, provided that the height of the nameplate is not more than twelve (12) inches above the adjoining ground grade. No television or radio antennae, or tower, or laundry drying equipment shall be erected or used outdoors, whether attached to a building or structure, or otherwise, unless first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. 12. Temporary Structures. No trailer, basement of an uncompleted building, tent, shack, garage or barn, and no temporary building or structure of any kind shall be used at any time for a residence either temporary or permanent. Temporary buildings or structures used during the construction of a dwelling shall be on the same lot as the dwelling, and such buildings or structures shall be removed immediately after the completion of construction. 13. Underground Wiring. No lines or wires for communication or the transmission of electric current or power shall be constructed, placed, or permitted to be placed anywhere in or upon any lot other than within buildings or structures or attached to the walls thereof, unless the same shall be contained in conduits, or approved cables constructed, placed, and maintained underground or concealed in or under buildings or other approved structures. 14. Signs. No sign or advertising device of any kind shall be placed or maintained on any lot or upon any other portion of said real property without the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee. Declarant, however, may erect and maintain upon said 6 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. 1 / real property such signs and other advertising devices as it deems desirable in connection with its operations for the development and sale of said real property. 15. Oil and Mining Operations. No lot shall be used for the purpose of boring, mining, quarrying, exploring for, or removing water, oil or other hydrocarbons, minerals of any kind, gravel, or earth. No machinery shall be placed, operated, or maintained upon any lot except such machinery as is usual and customary in connection with the maintenance of a private residence. 16. Home Occupations. No gainful occupation, profession, or trade or other non-residential use, shall be conducted on any lot or in any building. 17. Architectural Controls. (a) No building or other structure of any kind, including without limitation dwellings, accessory buildings, garages, fences, walls, retaining walls, bulkheads, sidewalks, steps, awnings, poles, swimming pools, and tennis courts shall be erected, constructed, installed, placed, altered or maintained upon any lot or upon any street or parkway adjacent thereto unless and until complete and detailed plans and specifications therefor showing color scheme thereof, if appropriate, and a plot plan showing and fixing the location of such structure with reference to streets and lot lines (and the grading plan, if requested) shall have been first submitted for approval to and approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. Such plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan and grading plan shall be submitted in writing over the signature of the owner or his duly authorized agent on a form prepared by the Architectural Review Committee. Approval by said Committee of the erection, construction, installation, placement, alteration or maintenance of said structure may be withheld because the same would or might, in its judgment, cause or result in a violation of said Covenants and also because of the reasonable dissatisfaction of said Committee with the grading plan, location of the structure, color scheme, finish, design, proportions, architecture, shape, height, style or appropriateness of the proposed structure or altered structure, materials proposed to be used therein, kind, pitch or type of the roof proposed to be placed thereon, or because of its reasonable dissatisfaction with any or all other matters or things which, in the reasonable judgment of the said Committee, would render the proposed structure inharmonious or out of keeping with the general plan of improvement of said real property. (b) If the Architectural Review Committee shall disapprove of any plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan submitted for approval, it shall send notice of its disapproval to the person or persons applying for said approval at the address set forth in the application therefor within thirty (30) days from the date said plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan and grading plan are presented to the Architectural Review Committee. If notice of disapproval is not so sent, the plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan submitted shall be deemed to have 7 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. been approved by the Architectural Review Committee in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 17. (c) The approval of the Architectural Review Committee of any plans or specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan submitted for approval for use on any particular lot, shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the Architectural Review Committee of its right to object to any of the features or elements embodied therein if and when the same features or elements are embodied in any subsequent plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan submitted for approval with respect to any other lots. (d) No building or other structure for which any plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan have been approved by the Architectural Review Committee shall be erected, constructed, installed, placed, altered or maintained except in strict conformance with said plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan and grading plan and such conditions and requirements as the Architectural Review Committee may impose in connection with its approval of the same. Any deviation from said plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan in such erection, construction, installation, placement, alteration or maintenance shall nullify the approval of the Architectural Review Committee required by this Paragraph 17, and shall be deemed to have been undertaken without said Committee's approval or consent. (e) After the completion of the erection, construction, installation, placement or alteration of any building or other structure in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 17, the Architectural Review Committee will, upon application of the owner of said building or structure, or his agent or representative, issue a certificate that said building or structure has been so completed, if a majority of said Committee determines such to be the fact. (f) Neither Declarant nor the Architectural Review Committee shall be responsible for any defects in any building or other structure erected, constructed, installed, placed, altered or maintained in accordance with or pursuant to any plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan or grading plan approved by the Architectural Review Committee or any conditions or requirements that said Committee may have imposed with respect thereto. 18. Visual Obstructions. No fence, wall, hedge or other visual barrier over three feet in height, save and except for trees approved by the Architectural Review Committee, shall be erected or grown on any Iot at any place where a barrier of greater height would obstruct or impair the view of waterways, waterfronts and streets from other lots. No fence, wall, hedge or other visual barrier over six (6) feet in height, save and except for trees approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee, shall be erected or grown at any place on any lot. The restrictions set forth in this Paragraph 18 may be waived or modified in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. The Architectural Review Committee shall also supervise the planting and growth of trees and other shrubbery or vegetation 8 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. on the lots in said real property (including existing trees) and may remove or direct the owner of any lot to remove trees or other shrubbery or vegetation or prohibit the planting or growth of the same on any lot so that the view of streets, parkways and waterways from other lots will not be unreasonably obstructed or impaired. Each lot owner agrees to abide by any order of the Architectural Review Committee prohibiting the planting of trees or other shrubbery or vegetation or directing the cutting down, cutting back or removal of the same. 19. Landscaping. No landscaping of any lot, and no planting or removal of trees, except minor gardening, shall take place until plans for same have been first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. After the completion of a dwelling on any lot, the lot shall be landscaped in a diligent manner and in any event within such period as may be specified by said Committee. Such landscaping shall include at least one specimen tree, at least eight feet in height, in the front yard. The Architectural Review Committee may require the owner of any lot at any time to further landscape any lot which in the opinion of said Committee is not landscaped in an adequate and attractive manner. 20. Construction and Completion of Dwelling. The first owner, or owners, of each lot of said real property agree that within seven (7) months after the delivery of the deed to such lot, such owner or owners will (i) commence the construction of a dwelling on such lot, and (ii) comply with the provisions of paragraph 17 of Clause IV of this Declaration by submitting to and obtaining the approval of the Architectural Review Committee of the plans and specifications, color scheme, plot plan, grading plan and all other matters relating to said dwelling which require approval of said Committee prior to commencement of said construction. Said owner or owners further agree to complete construction of said dwelling within such period of time as may be specified by said Committee which in no case shall be less than three (3) months after obtaining the aforesaid approval of the Architectural Review Committee. Said Committee for good cause, as determined by it, may extend any of the foregoing time limits. 21. Resubdividing Lots. No portion of any lot less than all and no easement covering a portion of any lot shall be conveyed unless approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. 22. Grades and Slope Control. (a) Without the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee, (i) no grade shall be constructed, reconstructed or maintained on any lot, or any portion thereof with a slope steeper than the ratio of one and one-half feet (1 1/2') horizontal to one foot (1') vertical, and (ii) no existing grade shall be altered or modified by changing its location or the direction of its slope or be replaced, in whole or in part. Any 9 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. applicant for a deviation from the foregoing requirements shall furnish said Committee with such engineering or geological data concerning erosion, earth movement, drainage, hazards to persons or public or private property and any other matters which said Committee shall deem material thereto. (b) All grades having a slope steeper than the ratio of two feet (2') horizontal to one foot (1) vertical shall be planted and maintained with growing vegetation sufficient to control erosion of such grades. All such vegetation and the watering and maintenance facilities therefor shall be approved by said Committee. 23. Relaxation and Addition of Covenants. (a) The Architectural Review Committee shall have the right and privilege to permit the owner of any lot or lots (without the consent of owners of other lots) to deviate from any or all of the Covenants set forth in this Clause IV, provided that such deviation is necessary in order to carry out the general purposes of this declaration. Any such permission of said Committee shall be in writing and shall not constitute a waiver of said Committee's powers of enforcement with respect to any of said Covenants as to other lots. (b) Said Covenants constitute the minimum conditions and restrictions applicable to lots. Declarant hereby reserves a right to add or impose by a supplemental declaration other and more stringent limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations with respect to any lot or lots now or hereafter owned by it, including the right to increase setback requirements and square footage requirements with respect to buildings and other structures and otherwise to increase and supplement, but not to diminish said Covenants affecting said real property except by permit given pursuant to subparagraph (a) of this Paragraph 23. CLAUSE V Architectural Review Committee 1. Creation. The Architectural Review Committee is hereby created with the rights, powers, privileges and duties herein set forth. It now consists of two members: L. W. DOUGLAS, JR. and GEORGE POTTER, JR., which two members may hereafter designate a third member. At all times after the selection of said third member said Committee shall consist of three members. In the event of death, incompetency, resignation or inability to act of any member of said Committee, the remaining member or members shall designate a successor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Declarant shall have the right and power at all times to remove any or all members of said Committee or to fill any vacancy or vacancies. Declarant may in its sole discretion at any time assign by supplemental declaration its powers of removal and appointment with respect to said Committee to such association or corporation as 10 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. Declarant may select and subject to such terms and conditions with respect to the exercise thereof as Declarant may impose. 2. Procedure. All plans and specifications and other material required or permitted to be filed with the Architectural Review Committee hereunder shall be filed in the office of Declarant at 9869 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, or such other office as Declarant shall specify in a supplemental declaration. The Architectural Review Committee's approval or disapproval on matters required by this declaration shall be by majority vote of the Committee. A report in writing setting forth the decisions of the Committee and the reasons therefor shall thereafter be transmitted to the applicant by the Architectural Review Committee within thirty (30) days after the date of filing, any plans and specifications or other material by the applicant. 3. Function. The function of the Architectural Review Committee, in addition to the functions set forth elsewhere in this declaration, shall be to consider and approve or disapprove any plans and specifications or other material submitted to it with respect to buildings and other structures to be erected, constructed, installed, altered, placed or maintained on lots and for the alteration or remodeling of or additions to any then existing structure on lots so that all structures shall conform to the provisions hereof, the general plan of development and such rules as said Committee may adopt for the improvement and development of said real property. Nothing herein shall be construed as authorizing or empowering said Committee by rule or otherwise, to change or waive said Covenants except as herein specifically provided. Any authorization, approval or decision made by said Committee must be in writing and signed by the secretary of said Committee, and if for any reason the secretary is unable to sign, then by the chairman thereof. 4. Rules and Regulations. Said Committee shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the conduct of its proceedings and may fix the time and place for its regular meetings and for such extraordinary meetings, as may be necessary, and shall keep written minutes of its meetings, which shall be open for inspection to any lot owner upon the consent of any one of the members of said Committee. Said Committee shall by a majority vote elect one of its members as chairman and one of its members as secretary, and the duties of such chairman and secretary shall be such as usually appertain to such offices. Any and all rules or regulations adopted by said Committee regulating its procedure may be changed by said Committee from time to time by majority vote and none of said rules or regulations shall be deemed to be any part or portion of said Covenants. CLAUSE VI Option To Purchase 11 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. { 1. Reservation. To preserve the value inherent in said real property and to keep a constant market therefor, Declarant reserves to itself and its successors and assigns an assignable option to purchase any lot or lots together with any improvements thereon on the same terms and conditions as may be contained in any bona fide offer that any owner thereof may receive for the purchase thereof or any bona fide offer or counter-offer that such owner may make for the sale thereof at any time or times. Declarant, its successors and assigns shall have forty-eight (48) hours following 9:00 o'clock A.M. of the first business day after actual receipt by it of notice from any such owner of any such offer or counter- offer to exercise its option to purchase said lot or lots and improvements. Said notice shall specify the lot or lots affected, the terms and conditions contained in such offer or counter-offer and the names and addresses of the offeree and offeror. Declarant may exercise said option by a written notice delivered to said owner or mailed to said owner's address by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, within said 48-hour period in which notice Declarant shall agree to purchase said property and improvements upon the same or more favorable terms and conditions. Should Declarant fail within said period so to exercise its option, then the owner of said property shall have the right to sell said property and improvements to the person making such offer or receiving such offer or counter-offer but only upon said terms and conditions and subject to each and every limitation, covenant, condition, restriction and reservation and term herein contained. This option shall terminate 21 years after the death of all issue of L. W. Douglas, Jr., President of Huntington Harbour Corporation, living on the date on which this declaration is recorded unless sooner terminated. 2. Invalidity of Assignment - Reverter. Any transfer or assignment of any lot made in violation of this Clause VI shall be void and of no force or effect. Declarant's transfer of each and all of the lots is made upon the express condition that any transfers, assignments, or conveyances of said lots shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this Clause VI, and should any lot or lots be transferred, assigned or conveyed in violation of any provision of this Clause VI, said lot or lots shall immediately revert to Declarant, its successors and assigns who may thenceforth reenter and take and hold the same. 3. Termination. The provisions of this Clause VI may be terminated at any time by supplemental declaration executed by Declarant and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California, and if so terminated, said Clause shall be inoperative as to all owners or purchasers of lots in said real property. CLAUSE VII Resale 1. Resale of Lots and Improvements Thereon. 12 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. Huntington Harbour Sales Corporation, a California corporation, and its successors and assigns, provided they be real estate brokers licensed under the laws of the State of California, shall have the sole and exclusive right to sell, offer to sell or list for sale, as a real estate broker, any lot, part or parcel of said real property which any owner or owners thereof may wish to sell or offer for sale by or through a real estate broker or brokers; each owner of a lot by his acceptance of a deed of said lot does covenant and agree that said Huntington Harbour Sales Corporation and the said successors and assigns shall have the aforesaid right. Any owner of any such lot, part or parcel thereof who desires to sell or offer for sale any such lot, part or parcel by or through a real estate broker or brokers shall execute and file with said Huntington Harbour Sales Corporation a formal exclusive sales contract for a period of six (6) months in form designated by said corporation stating therein the terms and conditions upon which such owner wishes to sell or offers to sell and providing for a reasonable brokerage fee which shall in no event exceed the fee, if any, recommended by the Huntington Beach Board of Realtors, Inc. or the California Real Estate Association, whichever is lower. In the event that said corporation shall not within one week from receipt of said contract execute and return the same to such owner at his address stated in said contract, said owner shall have the right to sell, or offer to sell, or list the same with any real estate broker licensed under the laws of the State of California, but only upon the terms and conditions contained in said contract. In the event that any such real estate broker with whom any such lot, part or parcel is listed shall receive an offer or counter-offer acceptable to the owner and containing terms and conditions less favorable to the owner than those set forth in said contract, or shall desire to offer any such lot, part or parcel upon terms and conditions less favorable than those set forth in said contract, said owner shall again execute and file with said Huntington Harbour Sales Corporation a revised formal exclusive sales contract for the aforesaid term, in the aforesaid form, providing for the aforesaid fee, and embodying such less favorable terms and conditions, whereupon said corporation shall have a like period of one week in which to list the same for sale upon the terms and conditions set forth in said revised contract. Nothing herein contained shall preclude the owner of any lot, part or parcel of said real property from selling or offering the same for sale by means other than through a real estate broker. 2. Address. For purposes of the notice provisions of this Clause VII the address of Huntington Harbour Sales Corporation is 16542 Chatham Place, Huntington Beach, California. Said address may be changed from time to time by supplemental declaration executed by Declarant and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California. 3. Termination. The provisions of this Clause VII may be terminated at any time by supplemental declaration executed by Declarant and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California, and in any event shall terminate 21 years from the date of recordation of this declaration. 13 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. CLAUSE VIII General Provisions 1. Effective Date of Covenants. Subject to Paragraph 4 of this Clause VIII, each of said Covenants set forth in this declaration shall continue and be binding as set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Clause VIII for an initial period of thirty (30) years from the date of recordation hereof and thereafter for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years each. 2. Covenants to Run With the Land - Purchaser's Contract. Each of said Covenants shall run with the said real property and each lot, part or parcel thereof and bind Declarant, its successors, grantees and assigns, and all parties claiming by, through, or under it. Each purchaser of any lot, part or parcel of or in said real property shall by acceptance of a deed or other conveyance for any such lot, part or parcel thereby be conclusively deemed to have consented to and agreed to all of said Covenants for himself and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns and does by said acceptance covenant for himself and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to observe, perform and be bound by said Covenants and to incorporate said Covenants by reference in any deed or other conveyance of all or any portion of his interest in any of said real property or any lot, part or parcel thereof or therein. No lot, part or parcel of or in said real property or interest therein shall be granted, transferred, conveyed or assigned except by an instrument executed and acknowledged by the Grantees, transferees, conveyees or assignees therein named in substantially the same form as Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof or such other form as shall have been first approved in writing by the Architectural Review Committee. 3. Violation of Restrictions: Enforcement. (a) Upon any violation or breach of any of said Covenants, Declarant or the Architectural Review Committee may enter any lot, part or parcel in or on said real property upon or as to which such violation exists, subject to applicable provisions of law, and may alter, correct, modify, remedy or summarily abate and remove, at the expense of the owner of such lot, part or parcel, anything or condition that may be or exist thereon contrary to the provisions hereof. Declarant or the Architectural Review Committee shall not thereby be deemed to have trespassed upon such lot, part or parcel and shall be subject to no liability to the owner or occupant of such parcel for any such entry or other action taken pursuant to this subparagraph. (b) Violation of any of said Covenants may be enjoined, abated, restrained or otherwise remedied by any lawful means or proceedings. Proceedings to restrain violation of said Covenants may be brought at any time that such violation appears reasonably likely to occur in the future. In the event of proceedings brought by Declarant or the Architectural Review Committee to enforce or restrain violation of any of said Covenants, or to determine the rights or duties of any person hereunder, and 14 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. Declarant or the Architectural Review Committee prevails in such proceedings it may recover a reasonable attorneys' fee to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and any other relief awarded by the court in such proceedings. (c) Said Covenants shall bind and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by Declarant and the Architectural Review Committee and the owner or owners of any lot, part or parcel in or of said property and the respective heirs, successors and assigns of each. The failure of Declarant or the Architectural Review Committee or of any such owner, or of any other person entitled to enforce any of said Covenants to enforce the same shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right of such person or of any other person entitled to enforce these restrictions to enforce the same thereafter. (d) Waiver or attempted waiver of any of said Covenants with respect to any lot, part or parcel in or of said real property shall not be deemed a waiver thereof as to any other lot, part or parcel, nor shall the violation of any of said Covenants upon any other lot, part or parcel or lots, parts or parcels affect the applicability or enforceability of said Covenants with respect to any other lot, part or parcel. 4. Nullification of Covenants. The record owners in fee simple of the lots may revoke, modify, amend or supplement, in whole or in part, any or all of said Covenants and may release from any part or all of said Covenants all or any part of said real property, but only at the following times and in the following manner: (a) No such change or changes may be made effective within thirty (30) years from the date of recording of this declaration; (b) Any such change or changes may be made effective at the end of said initial thirty (30) year period or at the end of any such successive twenty-five (25) year period if the record owners in fee simple of at least two-thirds (2/3) of said lots consent thereto prior to the end of any such period; (c) Any such consents shall be effective only if expressed in a written instrument or instruments executed and acknowledged by each of the consenting owners and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. A recordable certificate by a reputable title insurance company doing business in Orange County, California, as to the record ownership of the lots shall be deemed conclusive evidence thereof with regard to compliance with the provisions of this section. Upon and after the effective date of any such change or changes, it or they shall be binding upon all persons, firms and corporations then owning any lot, part or parcel in or of said real property and shall run with the land and bind all persons claiming by, through or under any one or more of them. 15 TMS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. 5. Mortgages and Deeds of Trust. Said covenants herein set forth shall be subject to and subordinate to all mortgages or deeds of trust in the nature of a mortgage now or hereafter in good faith, encumbering any of said real property, and none of said Covenants or other provisions shall supersede or in any way reduce the security of mortgage. However, if any of said real property is acquired in lieu of foreclosure, or is sold under foreclosure of any mortgage or under the provisions of any deed of trust in the nature of a mortgage, or under any judicial sale, any purchaser at such sale, his or its grantees, heirs, personal representatives, successors, or assigns shall hold any and all such property so purchased or acquired subject to all of said Covenants. 6. Severability Clause. If a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold invalid or unenforceable any part or all of any of said Covenants or other provision contained in this declaration, such holding shall not impair, invalidate or otherwise affect the remainder of this declaration which shall remain in full force and effect. 7. Assignment of Declarant's Rights and Powers. Declarant, its successors and assigns reserves the right to vest any corporation or association with all or any of the rights, privileges, easements, powers and duties herein retained or reserved by Declarant by a supplemental declaration and assignment which shall be effective when recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California, and Declarant shall thereupon be relieved and discharged from every duty so vested in such other corporation or association. 8. Mailing Address for Notice. Each owner of a lot shall file the correct mailing address of such owner with Declarant and shall notify Declarant promptly in writing of any subsequent change of address. Declarant shall maintain a file of such addresses. A written or printed notice, deposited in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, and addressed to any owner at the last address filed by such owner with Declarant shall be sufficient and proper notice to such owner wherever notices are required in this declaration. Declarant's address, for the purpose of all notices required or permitted to be given hereunder is 9869 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California or such other address as Declarant shall specify from time to time by supplemental declaration executed by Declarant and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California. 9. Covenants Cumulative. Said Covenants do not supersede or affect in any way any limitations, covenants, restrictions or reservations heretofore recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California, pertaining in whole or in part to said real property. 16 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. 10. Headings. The headings of the Clauses and paragraphs herein contained are for convenience only and shall not be used in the construction or interpretation of this declaration. 17 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this instrument to be executed by its President, attested by its Assistant Secretary, and its Corporate Seal to be hereto affixed, the day and year first above written. HUNTINGTON HARBOUR ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. By President ATTEST: Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) On January 10, 1963, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared JOHN G. MOFFATT known to me to be the President, and GORDON A. MACDONALD known to me to be the Secretary of HUNTINGTON HARBOUR ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO., the corporation that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Carolyn M. Alexander Notary Public in and for Said County and State My Commission Expires March 13, 1965. 18 THIS IS A TRANSCRIl'TION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. EXHIBIT A GRANT DEED FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, , (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor") hereby grant to (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantee") the following described real property situated in the County of Orange, State of California: Lot of Tract No. 4880 in the City of Huntington Beach as shown in map recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California on November 16, 1962 in Book 172 at pages 12-19, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Map Records. Grantor hereby reserves and hereby assigns and conveys to Huntington Harbour Engineering & Construction Co. and its successors and assigns, an assignable option to purchase said real property together with any improvements thereon on the same terms and conditions as may be contained in any bona fide offer that Grantee may receive for the purchase thereof or any bona fide offer or counter-offer that Grantee may make for the sale thereof at any time or times. Said Huntington Harbour Engineering & Construction Co. and its successors and assigns shall have forty-eight (48) hours following 9:00 o'clock A.M. of the first business day after actual receipt by it of notice from Grantee of any such offer or counter-offer to exercise its option to purchase said real property and improvements. Said notice shall specify said real property, the terms and conditions contained in such offer or counter-offer and the names and addresses of the person making such offer or receiving such offer or counter-offer and Grantee. Said Huntington Harbour Engineering & Construction Co. may exercise said option by a written notice delivered to Grantee or mailed to Grantee's address by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, within said 48-hour period in which notice said Huntington Harbour Engineering & Construction Co. shall agree to purchase said real property and improvements upon the same or more favorable terms and conditions. Should said Huntington Harbour Engineering & Construction Co. fail within said period so to exercise its option, then the Grantee shall have the right to sell said real property and improvements to the person making such offer or receiving such offer or counter- offer but only upon said terms and conditions and subject to each and every limitation, covenant, condition, restriction and reservation and term contained in the declaration, hereinafter described. This option shall terminate 21 years after the death of all issue of L. W. Douglas, Jr., President of said Huntington Harbour Corporation, living on the date on which this Deed is recorded unless sooner terminated by said Huntington Harbour Engineering & Construction Co. in accordance with said declaration. THIS GRANT IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 19 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. (1) General and special county taxes and city taxes, if any, for the fiscal year (2) Limitations, covenants, restrictions, reservations, encumbrances, easements, conditions, rights, rights of way, exceptions and other matters of record; and (3) Limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, exceptions and terms affecting said real property set forth in that certain declaration dated January 10, 1963, and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California, on January _, 1963, in Book , pages , inclusive, [insert recordation data for the foregoing declaration]. Grantee by his acceptance of this deed agrees to observe, perform and be bound by all of the terms hereof and all of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, exceptions and terms contained in the aforesaid declaration and agrees to incorporate the same by reference in any deed or other conveyance of all or any portion of any of said real property. Grantor Grantee 20 T$IS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: JERROLD E. BLAIR RECORDING REQUESTED BY HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORPORATION FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. 3025 Olympic Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90404 RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 45 Min. Past 1 P.M. SEP 13 1974 J. WYLIE CARLYLE, County Recorder SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF LINIITATIONS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS TRACT 4880 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR UNIT NO. 3 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This Supplemental Declaration is made this 19th day of August, 1974, by HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Declarant") with reference to the following facts: A. On January 22, 1963, Declarant recorded a document entitled "Declaration of Limitations, Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations Affecting the Real Property Known as Lots 1 through 43, inclusive, Tract No. 4880 (Huntington Harbour Unit No. 3) in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, California," in Book 6403, Page 535 of the Official Records of Orange County, California (hereinafter referred to as "the Original Declaration"), said property being more fully described therein. B. Said Original Declaration provided in Section 1 of CLAUSE V thereof for the creation of an Architectural Review Committee to enforce certain provisions of that instrument. Said Architectural Committee was initially composed of L. W. DOUGLAS, JR., GEORGE POTTER, JR., and a third member to be designated by the first two members. C. The aforesaid section also stated that "Declarant may in its sole discretion at any time assign by supplemental declaration its powers of removal and appointment with respect to said Committee to such association or corporation as Declarant may select and subject to such terms and conditions with respect to the exercise thereof as Declarant may impose." D. Declarant has completed development of the property subject to the Original Declaration and desires to assign its powers of appointment and removal with 1 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. respect to said Committee to an organization comprised of owners of property within the Huntington Harbour Community. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant, pursuant to Section 1 of Clause V of said Original Declaration, does hereby assign its powers of removal and appointment with respect to the Architectural Review Committee created by said Original Declaration to the HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit corporation subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth. 1. All plans and specifications and other material required or permitted to be filed with the Architectural Review Committee under said original declaration shall be filed at the following address: P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach, California 90742 2. Any inference to the contrary notwithstanding, none of the functions, rights, powers or privileges of the Declarant as set forth in said original declaration, except the authority hereinabove transferred, shall be in any way limited, restricted or impaired by this instrument. 3. Except as hereby modified, said original declaration shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned being the Declarant herein, has executed this instrument on the day and year first above written. HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation By By THE UNDERSIGNED, being the assignee of the powers herein conferred upon it by Declarant, does on this 19th day of August, 1974, hereby consent to such assignment and agrees to assume the responsibilities in connection therewith. HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation By By 2 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) On August 19, 1974 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared RAYMOND F. LOGAN known to me to be the Vice President, and LEE N. ECKEL known to me to be the Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within Instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature PATRICIA D. KILLEEN Patricia D. Killeen Name (Type or Printed) OFFICIAL SEAL PATRICIA D.IULLEEN NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires June 17,1977 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On August 22, 1974 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ARTHUR W. KNOX known to me to be the President, and JOHN O. HORNE known to me to be the Treasurer of the corporation that executed the within Instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within Instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature MARY E. THOMAS Mary E. Thomas Name (Type or Printed) 3 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT,ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. OFFICIAL SEAL MARY E.THOMAS NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY My Commission Expires Dec.30,1974 4 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;rrS ACCURACY IS NOT GU . WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: HUNTINGTON HARBOUR ENGINEERING RECORDING REQUESTED BY & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. ATTN: JERROLD E. BLAIR 3025 Olympic Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90404 RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 45 Min. Past 1 P.M. SEP 13 1974 J. WYLIE CARLYLE, County Recorder SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF LIMITATIONS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS TRACT 4880 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR UNIT NO. 3 ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA This Supplemental Declaration is made this 19th day of August, 1974, by HUNTINGTON HARBOUR ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Nevada Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Declarant") with reference to the following facts: E. On January 28, 1963, Declarant recorded a document entitled "Declaration of Limitations, Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations Affecting the Real Property Known as Tract No. 4880 (Huntington Harbour Unit No. 4) in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, California" in Book 6410, Page 208 of the Official Records of Orange County, California (hereinafter referred to as "the Original Declaration"), said property being more fully described therein. F. Said Original Declaration provided in Section 1 of CLAUSE V thereof for the creation of an Architectural Review Committee to enforce certain provisions of that instrument. Said Architectural Committee was initially composed of L. W. DOUGLAS, JR., GEORGE POTTER, JR., and a third member to be designated by the first two members. G. The aforesaid section also stated that 'Declarant may in its sole discretion at any time assign by supplemental declaration its powers of removal and appointment with respect to said Committee to such association or corporation as Declarant may select and subject to such terms and conditions with respect to the exercise thereof as Declarant may impose." 1 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. H. Declarant has completed development of the property subject to the Original Declaration and desires to assign its powers of appointment and removal with respect to said Committee to an organization comprised of owners of property within the Huntington Harbour Community. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant, pursuant to Section 1 of Clause V of said Original Declaration, does hereby assign its powers of removal and appointment with respect to the Architectural Review Committee created by said Original Declaration to the HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit corporation subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth. 1. All plans and specifications and other material required or permitted to be filed with the Architectural Review Committee under said original declaration shall be filed at the following address: P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach, California 90742 2. Any inference to the contrary notwithstanding, none of the functions, rights, powers or privileges of the Declarant as set forth in said original declaration, except the authority hereinabove transferred, shall be in any way limited, restricted or impaired by this instrument. 3. Except as hereby modified, said original declaration shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned being the Declarant herein, has executed this instrument on the day and year first above written. HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation By By THE UNDERSIGNED, being the assignee of the powers herein conferred upon it by Declarant, does on this 19th day of August, 1974, hereby consent to such assignment and agrees to assume the responsibilities in connection therewith. HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation By By 2 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY Is NOT GUARANTEED. 1, 3 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) On August 19, 1974 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared RAYMOND F. LOGAN known to me to be the Vice President, and LEE N. ECKEL known to me to be the Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within Instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature PATRICIA D. KILLEEN Patricia D. Killeen Name (Type or Printed) OFFICIAL SEAL PATRICIA D.KILLEEN NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires June 17,1977 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On August 22, 1974 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ARTHUR W. KNOX known to me to be the President, and JOHN O. HORNE known to me to be the Treasurer of the corporation that executed the within Instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within Instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature MARY E. THOMAS Mary E. Thomas Name (Type or Printed) 4 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. OFFICIAL SEAL MARY E.THOMAS NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY My Commission Expires Dec.30,1974 5 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;ITS ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. RECEIVED FROM_`_,_. AS PUBLIC RECORD -COL N" OF New Westport Drive Resident, JOAN L FLU'CRY CUMK Shirley Doo—Proposed Improvements to her property 2004 Second Floor&Rear wall 4[6F100RPLkU Old Floor Plan ------- ---- ---------- Proposed Footprint RECEIVED FROM /S RECORD FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF S " CITY CLERK OFFCE 1 ,JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK LU .{ � �- e � 6h�leyDadResider«e . Proposed Front View _-�-�_ -: WEn HEVAnON Shu;zyDoa Rezdzrcce 1�%I Proposed Side View(West) rTj El SOLn REvAna+ SlirkyDoa Residence Proposed Rear View 2 .r.r mil. tit St�leyDeoBahYzdM9 Proposed Rear Perimeter Wall toy. iYeETauiw wInLL)..k•.,•.; ShdcyDooBackYardN§e Proposed"Top" View of Rear Wall A Beautiful Addition to the Harbour Homes ✓Thoughtful and attractive materials ✓Stylish planter design ✓Architecturally rendered i I � 3 PRojF&-T 96sC-91PTl0W = . PIxo]aa1- 1zooM ^ool?Io74. i-- ———— — V&"*IPTION: ADD q.990 00M1 L i Y'T11W eN Top>F a"+D"4 OY6 OT WM6 FAFt,I(Wuf6.Awo MtA)uE a ,Y6 awll. T - / "" RCMOON KItaJ�pN pJn1311 P,r{IJ4 420uNo Flora. • • 6 ADDRE6G• 1"10¢1 LUST 1 vR.NNN(IN4014 CWCN.CA. I OWNGR eH1RLe( sop. C7/9796I-7.4S, LOT, Olse ; 65- 8,97- ■,F. soN1N4 • A-I GONG• 2Opl C.D.C.. t LOCAt. "Or.. coIMT"4T-vR yfpt• V- NoWG xcurwcY e¢oup = IL-t, / U-1. AL1LO1 Rd _ iLoOR ARG/•.• 6x161.0c. AoDl7lau -WrAL a-VW-?WIL 1.9246 ••F 217.5 wF. _wI s�t- 2YO PLOO4 O 1.9oy .-p 1,908 cF. 'Ts1AL LI�IN4 MWA• 4,09" -P. 9ApAmt: 722 s•F-.cVI,sllwe) CAR&A0A6t• HEIOMI . 2 sroq 2n`-9" wT- e ■ i 1 ...o•na fill »c sD•l._ z•+s'w.eRw Y M+s••" ;EIiE.T'��T_ FAFNLT R.O/1. 7xB►sill slot� ::i_L;- F rx1 ps1 l-I+b•sfll 4oG I'; _'�-� • . '{:iMiMW.M"(.MM 1•woR RT f'- -va MYlAa._� i s.•i - ,i.:.►a„�K "-�.ur WOOD paw-e ft.1 s',.r I--° —� r �--a—♦ +� I ! `-'EGTIOI�- 6•I°=1'•-O - RG'(AININF.t WAI.�. .•rY•I'-d PR. Ytir--~ •i. 'L , _ vt.cIN111Y MAP, s'xe uo ado. O I LPL DPTitrn II' I :saY L-OT of T¢� 4&8q) :, � I i � f I I I I uNws 01. )s•(sa. ,' 1 I Ix4M'ND-zclte dt.d.w"Gi.wwc D Y11 _r x6'R16'cwf.NucR. ' PEPMrt15511Y,CE f F.•Yr Al M/�i✓ m 1■,M Vr.MM w Y• undlg p n p dily vATlot�i. _ =ptl,� , . - o••a•�w P.»mo40:o•a•■I� ((LETAININQ uALL oTRaGT v1eW) m n...w .ww y,M u epq•.• Uen a N••VDpc+44 r m m. M••vu U :� mn.mv a.roe.,.» m.ww■w»w...n Sv v-.wM<- � •cm.wwwra 1 I•iC I_ � r. �1,r. � .R�.,.wT. � _�'��� uust9aR oo�Y.�+Ro ...�. �� v Cay Dr IhR,tlrRpon Beatll A �■\ DeDddl ,o,edllydl9 a vlpl,rlt,0 Q wa/'Ft .. _ \ �. Farce wwDVeD- �D ��� 4�NNf wT. N0.F.'b- ' I KK)GD6IJALK - S,O,■dBW> �<--- D"tr•Tntri_5 r__ ___ l>•b , Tl _R r__--,1 �t-_- _.T ry rt - Mus-w.Y. xl..■.I.Y DAMP 3Q2L - E Aye .aya':.�,• ------ W6s1 poFcf VR. ILA q o • eec"11oN._ a P.IltdRlgED PLAf`! *s F (�2EYAI w I f-16 WA L> SITE PLAN ' -- ptzO,J�GT 96sU21P'f1o1.1 = - t'Ro1�o1= IzooM �uol•rloN Yi'-- -- — --—— ——�7 96u121 p'(IoN: aco 4 eeo RwM t a.+,'Mea oN pep•�eus9'LI••Is f �—' /� O�•/LALE FAM:W N•�36.allo 41{.4AIE c�•rr.lar ItmH. ws11;M 4¢ouuo FLaoR. • ` • ` I AOOR65G: 17Oq 1 N6S1 FOR.7 DR.HMWf.%GTok MA44.CA. OLJIJ6R. 19WIRLEy 3w,. CJ/4)101-7.1$ �.� Lo7: else i '6e'ee ` "Wi4c, n it-I fADC Z4W1 L.6.O. t LDCAL. co06- cow"'T'oN 1YF6. V- W-wr m4wrAway 60017p = IL-O / U-I. �� DIAILOIN6 - I CWOR APZA- %Alyfloa A"-f-u TYAL J 11"aw.puoR IAz4 "•F 217.5..F. 2.I�3.5 sr- 4Nc FLoo.L O 1.4.0 wF 1.9og -F. 161AL UI 104 APBA- 4.os" .•F. dA P,. 72-2-s.p c3+ STi4ab LAIC BAeAfiE. HFWl a 2 sfo9-Y Sil I i'.B'.•eic I� ,:-r. M;•.t �:iF7.i T_� h.MiLY tool _ _ Z•"9�a ICI"'�;=1.:: v18••'fH sloe r4X4F"T —I"b VfMpOLI Mn " i.arw . .,>N. ��:,�M1Na.Dii�.pM 4 � IwJ•SR in=aas"trLK—_._� I s.•f. :_._ `Pc>.MFt w, ywu'fl oaa...+Ilga 'll''Y111Sy' ✓_11woN I I K IJuoopeNcC E �sT s•�.I'-d' � i'-`�__.}. �—.�'•«"_+ __j i m ' 1 �! A SEGTI oI.� a•1".I'-o" v-aTAwlija WALL e.yi:1'-o° nr,—Y sta++w¢o ytcl(V I 1 Y MA+�t� _ I I_ .�I 'I,��( ,�•�I�'�. -.�: •�.-�.1--.TI.LI:I I�';I'. � i:,l ._'.-�__�-� - I •_ i 11_I — e wBlUG cIaOop.w.0 FW.oGw tcncCc K i�I_uw wua.AU.Yv.0'6 D.uDvN7iNb GM. MYu-. xc+n.ea¢ve. _I I _��.v'G"16L D €�.DnPeeroTina rta/u3r7sl"t4wAlT�CTEE F 9p.MmG Te 46p t ' 8 X* F '(A BN Mr.q or.eaw w r. ""mieme D.�m11 v.eel.0 �L!✓yA1ioIJ. S= �.^s 11_Dil ,>,.....�.�•,.D:IDD D .D..mN a..�D 961AINI"DALE DTR04r1 E ) D VI LJ IpW D:«.Dl.�u sai.uan ate" a .11. []fir-�C] Diem."w. olv,mn / 'L-`^❑ - �r���a er wnc"1 t..Drmlflon.W.uan 1 " slDiv.u.Y. i _`1�_ ❑L.�� oa�.reu+� - I I \ / M'S d BuatlQ 1 gp31y� TISD twit FT'4 -� � Fv#1� Dr'*-sow BY. Ili tca>4o6/74LK - Sbrtf.i Si'rd G.1. 1it" to.o-9. PA— pkD v Awp I• -- BP roam ti� i { Aro'V.9S.Oor 4u4�WG 3pp1 - � ir�l�nn_ � QposEss �a ` -- - W657 FOR;( T)�c1. EFJLARCAED PLAN! � 6+ _ (WSTAII 446 WALL)s•4'-I'-o SITE PLAN s.>b'-I _, , r I H "MASS~"A"-T0.p'1Sp^L alpN"f.a6—'r T.OD Mi l%.rr to.,,G,Bp7.1.)0. • 5Aowm ew.L-uc. BNAW p 1'lrpppo GIA55. 7""01" vl - - - -- • µkLiw p.r(.401V T—'v K- pw c-.'.cAAN4S4 pm Nppa) GARRILp lo,a GvfCWR.NG= -p sp W t+.eW/IYf15.a LRM1pR 1.0. 46 Mti pM1 WNIN^Tr, 4L/-.°DUO • p SMOCD wrza n Cu.et. p.1.1) w�M N.ap w.pp.s^rtpef pYY-nr �-- `.- - 1�_ .49s prn+l.a.v !)/r<IYIY- MMILIo'f1.s7�p,yw.5�AIM'l9prM L" �aV1I).ia1L'�✓paplpr . s) Li4wT .✓ar 7W:✓rapa'r✓rnv.3ar7t"•^rT ars_ I i - f .WW1.ce,u7p) FA++nY pp14.40 . % Yr 0 > •s <D+rsiL.aW.'at) gyp{ /'tNslca weTc owl s - _ o .1 db `J NAL in"�•� �paYaf�' .+ apt11e1N1 Anu. prN. 1;,i - - 's .t a+1't erA>. neolw em1.Cuw) 1 T QID Y a1pDN T UVINq RmH APPROM �=l � —.D S�a �uNew.owwfr.p.na'+fw•roL*� � Wivl�je�yf i'a_ -r _ Near'v.'`'w..f•.•rro arwNn..�pws., FOBMM ssirr .ANM Scoff FAgwspnss WS.Mc, i CEXIST4> I[AC SAPA. M wlsflNp�Ap^ale par. I I 7pr.n> ems m"=�wrmn n Ws(Wp 6ApA4L paver pw e^ epprp mm all n pe,mie -Ufvr�App. ^Ilm � a er cancN em p n4on6 of µcn I I A W - lol' y /^/'�L'{� ` �, 1�t �t l ' /p><�s+uu„31ac<Nq"— '`.1 S�WWT) L.00 PL.A�! 5- _11�0p ro°2Ap0Aa Il sF(Av01Tro). pL S I AurCFA 1".5 WAJILI �� ry nD0Tlo1J Og .. • G�•ou 1.�V (..pp �. �."o l'-O" FtaRa�A:1)A}.S N.---- FifISTFld.Jau-fo BB geHovco E= Tii•F I I I I I . I I 'MIA G44 TL5 w.f. o+w.•,...f rw1. � I I I ..w K�ar..•cr aNan�i � 1 I� I I � •I � I ji --i 1 I I I I I r i ece I y e sueM _ --- --- By °wE grv. 1 ,•- .Y ..its. ash., Na+r wr vwr�awa.rn.aa» w r"''f.t =*r .. �cls�l�ic, pLoor— pLAO- i POOF PLAO rrwF. - I SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION m DOOR SIZE O y W Z Y < t6It o < IL i 544. B' 1 I SOLID WD. Qy,lw'(, iVeM KLi• Yam. I WYLe GIW"Wy \ sl_o•6t I I N.tuu w uo. P,+M. mall rvl — 2 ee I "I ' II IMAo4l ccry I.le Pra u'(.rlawr.w.a 3 ©ress�a6 wct9c( W.,R.�ulrlq pOeR. —_ �4) z'-6"i4 1 JV IL wlw wa Falu7. F A? 6 ®rrwe tack-f \ I ' �5 2 4"6'-e' IV' � uw u ww- wo.I rAwl. rrwafc 5. �6 ,4'-r"6;4 I V Ik Lb w.rea wo awl vw.1e I / — 7 vLe .L—µµy e+ieo �w.iT I nrrero eu s` - / 9411us 000R. hd-o'�y.B --,6 T-M m. WINDOW w 'e tl �_ u>=. S EAST ELEVATION _ Z SIZE tl � N = 2 Z 9..wj,A uo souvsa. z I- W 2 N p2p R t W = N1JA wm—.W,m ° x tl 6 tu Q N p W 0 3 i J _ = IL z - -- 3 _- 0 4-d 4'c'z-d 1 N.uM _• cLW_ yes. _--- ' 4 — TM u+G el z ATE ewes s4a.4 R.r o vooR. Qi•6"9'-d�'-9 ➢L 3 a"u d n en m..e. wo. F.vwtw I 1s . oWia�aM�(r90 txoR 0 � R LEI twtiss euoluA petty azR- I >Q I WEST ELEVATION .DuDs , Fetes S44L Name �.."w sp�onsl. FKfrO, relre.. - - T I I i l I 1 _ aeouWo CLOort PLAN. �• ".r=� Ir _-1u --1 _-yl SIE;cTl OH-A B. 'la ll_pll 0 2 ko FLOOP- PLAN_ IQD Tu.e.<•�. � r x.we...P. 'X'vy.as.lw Ma w a.�..•<•....W .r<•�•a..u� sww.l __� k'�'a'wa. FOP PEPMR ISSDIYWCE DCWT FA2EI4L4 6 AS60CIATFy,RID, =1 C=] BY DATE C_--7 d rowle.eh on=o ami�. -� x14a.fWYAEt .Fp...IM+roF.oae Cary uuy.,sea o.. 4 _ DFER axr<IK I. c !' S B G T 10�. w a_yxa•vow..w+...s x.... s'�E D�c:: STA1�2. STAIR-DETAIL .ut.•-.paw- es... I I u u.::,:n+:+r►;..,., . rs.Rl i ., I swh•a.. I I Mulq r Md ' K(MI.Sep FR•yl. I �' �R�. o..•Is ) I .aY erl. ILR+Nr4 HAVI-LATH • sI�•ac. (� m►eLT iDs7Dca I cnv.) a fa .Lki yR ni. 94 l mow" 1wr PF t1 _ NMlli W e•Or-WALL OfMm.'83 a• a++•LL I LlrymlX'A{ I-IF.L• r MKR pfwu .Ffn�Tm Ps•Ta rd• ; i M femw".it... . A __ � � '�dR IUD•.IS ThW�.6-ai. IAIr Los 3 � • 4fli• L_�_ 1fR DIW ' f 1 C0FIG.�00'�IIJA. • � � 2%Rw►)YFIM- I -Da.Tq 5 � - a �..4Y R.•r�.[iR•R. w4uL a..Lr b aY br °t•• wh &F16 hIC*+M JBL rLT.e.d.c. •'• +atMN(r lryuro. WV .Wu.•.`• At-liawa.ela••o. v -xp w-� / a►TIwW.idl.9LA* / TG +lo"a.e. ralL cwl•d1Tp eL.r r( sdiNep. PWL�owet i C"••""f' n•us.s.e. cB•R•M aFwMw FS 1UINfR. 4W.•"�Llos w.1.L.CttP). y•9-*w-KTYre F"t e"FaRaM+M I . I i n+fNRlw . I I TGa=pl UALL-AKV. I I cKrC•ra'd -Nwr• � }— I p"..'WYo w—W). I I n� I •awu.' I y I aTr H•Mw�'•IT I � I 1 1 4— ) zK l!+acLMM awpo. 9 I-•4 RtL• 9TYMEo 4{ x•MRM Bala s rval[L r ••M•e- w Kw.a:P:•.L tl1P Tva wlfr'f rwri A •.14 � -x,.Ly�_sMe•T'•'— 3-••w.epms e li'oc. - -•MA,L a• z^"w"MK"rl�+a+r.•tiK•rwe �- 'FLh_•RYRI... q z'+i'ob••. MW;Tu•a. -��. I - • /•t.SLL/1.A¢.- --"-- " "_� I .r _I�.K✓.t•awa _7�JOL•ia"r+/[F-" I NRI.Wi-ie� _ a..L C4 ,I L >•�f�s1li AYr[iP{ I ___ 3-zy _ �wdRR PM•0f"''f rx(rina l.IIAL _ ..._ .-(J'YG]-.-_.-. II.!IQl. �{.1t•LL U REOUIR•� FN1511 F6}FiWM l ' tom_. I I �I t-i1KRiN•� w j Pa. 1 I I 11 Rffi.' "' - i i .•r.r-r-T..4ra ._�-..., plc8fr[es�R..- • y "-Ls�+'Ra aa141JR M'f ��lail•. M•sT I - RRI i•4r•X t• �• ^Fa. 'h o4s'wao wYi:•ar.y�ruts - Ifni Ipr p Ill". KlMW R'sl'r ' APPROVED (7`' P RMITISSUANG[ -- Zr f4�`^•TI•"`•'ii+ R Apl(Ry B$C[SdC daIEL0 TR[S PRODUCTS en'~Mua•''•t'u•-'ywy.+({ii� wn Y8I.0i8ilen.Pl-- KIIDY6PDOCT9 CORP. P 14 Suf✓PiL Wnl slag 3Q.&HoL6. F•R�ti•IeA/R tll•LI 1'-dtirA. c u.:•i.uuc.. dm CIO wo—..•Ck- 90 Scewi, - ernVAo nuri�3R 201 9D221 "-r fax i•I.r ryrd•Y i.Iwo'+1•f) °`•C'b w.�«. (217)H09-2016 Pf►IMY BI'•'•""'�'� m m�F tli.Ar Qn It J38 s - - P• ,' cant. "o�o.�,o RFACR-C8113J2 _:7 SURRACX i I _ DEI-O-TZI$ATSR?!OOF L t II. LATEX MB$IRARCE — a"t'V ? tfErw6 (FABRIC REINFORCED) DRZ-O-Tii \ d NBati0. I _3�•44 SLIP-SRRBI I Ef YFILL. �flpluafr•J. FoulloATw(1. - MLTAL Z PLABAM S[$$i MHTAL DE e.,l- la ^-�- DECIIdO MAZC3IAL _- J', RO[•tS[Mtml>rm.m w M.br b mr a M r�(MSM W,no.�•r u mrr emr '•""r r .) a.fen w Eump M r map.e n.Irr ..a+.rx1 rw omnx�.l �...•-• p„e„ •,,,,,,,,� CaRMeata Of Camollanca: Raefd•ntlai (Part 7 of 21 CF•1R CartMcat�of Comnilanu: Reeldentlal (Part 2 d 21 CF-7R M�atgry Messurm Checklist: Residential (Pegs t d 2) MF•1R t. -ruNmmr m.n.t m,.I.r m,.rw m•a. ° a..�i .ra� ..mlr�.:w.' —. _ .,r.r.,,..r wl mr.m SI ,E�OUSE ADpT1ON t ±� "`r`rm rw ..aMI.. '•'r'..rr..., +..,r(J n.1r7rwi..F� T OR -� w SE ADDITION THBrDa .rrx..•.mrrm w r-...r.�i•.w.r.Ti rc'.�to.�a�rts rr`riwr®..�.rrr �r..amOw mv.r«wm.l.rnr .rl..-,r w XtNTINGTON BFartt __ Dr +.^rr�r�w.r«rrr..r`mrrr rr r.nruraer.er..an.ram V) nar.,lr..lr,r.r raa•rr )IYaC areTeta rr.r.r.ar...«•.. ...•rar.�..t.►,rr•rr PERFECT I_7E81GN8LN(LINEERING INC Ie2e72eQeeee � Ea,b,pry , paRrlYm wrr Ia-.t..m...n,..,•mm,m .rm..,•m w.,np opw�> scNwraN ...m.l.o.m....l.r..r.r.....w...,.•m•m .rrlw I•mR.De.n aa..r r..mvu.umvv nm.•"rr rww I r'p•••°°°1. r..r+M.ur. 1 — 1�'�T�— My'at) V/VEmDP'( .G7 RVi.TTIMmoI ! eW E Y•qu•• rra.l•u.�w etm.nam•rr•... e.,.rrrr•v.rb.a.rrt r ,o-mx.%>NN •rra wm.waaa t OEaltlUtalFORaGT1ON r .aaYoa<�_ w .wslr..rm.rv.nrr.w.q m.rr.Yw r.xm r rt•« .r .r.b ..m...w.,.b.. r.a crlalww nm•... 5: a a52 ❑ _ .r. wdr w�wr..�.�Fw..I`,a.�.r ..m ,ter.",.•._u .......e r.wc�A...—..2.141d mtum[r nasal laq nMmmm R C•rxp Eaiprr,l re«m.n oxf _ 9a,o-lFt(e%17 .4•.o.rwm r•Y..rr+MM�nF...�.rm1- ®yn0•f•nFO�W •Eilm T:-IY'ccMtlmtr. ERtl.cT labml dGV 71wmoW Luobnl ❑r���.r m.•rrwcarb..Am+.+.r,... My I—I Ma a.rP rrp mdYp115EFR) (eOC mDI -•I. 0) ut.Mmrq Mw Fr•r wNtm. mb ebl ,mm move•r.e.. y!SbVI•cn^F RbdW EWIq 4AlV Troll CamwY +r�.�.. rau•�..rw a..nl°Yimr`�r .°n"'m w LJ wwFvlri lSOu m.ab,r,.wb a aw J. war l s..slm,is m(.)(U l� • umw�•.wry.r,aw e EdYno Aa Tip:©ed floe p.�m« _u� ®I,,.n...r...r.r•..rnrrr+.R+.e.m.rM r ..w MwYY"r w.a .R .rr• FrtrY QMpiten" n•Y72le R MO ,^ `r`r Ma•rr. Xen•.tlorr•lrr 100 •v Ca«mm.T rrrr ]r lo-luK.%.) 1 �,r�����qq� IAnpv alBWls 4 ®RaIbp R0o1 1MT[II NFATIXO aYIIiYa RaYp) TYt ErrYl hdl I �,y �mr4mmi..rr. •arrrxnam O) r.d.a••t rn.Mlbl vM ma b rar r ra p-r!w aye m..JseY.I. sy-- Wet.X•f.M q•trlbulen Yit IryN Gap ReOT.IY 51r� TW 6tu a errr.rr,r++�w.•nF.rr..r.. •IR.,.r.•r w N.ra r....l.R.M C...Fr NiA'IDO i..ubvO.1.Ir.i R.ear•.r n w r alrM^I Rm Tro• TM• SN.BLN (0•p EIH.cY lost I%) RI swrr TmY.1.0 Flvllt Ar•,r10y bab.0 mica lili_la�_s.r ❑Ili•..srr.+n.arsr ur«.n mry.b.r�.•ry =0ba!•nnar OM wpm by aeaMbTMy�rosrim• ru .0►s Role. ❑IIY6 id.rrr.rr•.�.Y.w•s m.rm.r,r..rrm M�i YPWv w r nMr r m wl..•.m .Ia.W Ir rWrna a.ua• Mr,w ®Ira rw..b.•r.Or.O.werrrla +�w Far•rabw mm a Meer rr �emobir1 _bM1 t�rrvr trrwrrl'�.rr.Y•r�itvv�trn rtrr..rww..rrrrrarr ,v.lrt r r•Iw+ISJ I �Rwl 1 N•.•ovn+iml IMI.rrM M..rrinl a rlrm 10-n1G%D Irrur nwM m lwrrw.we wltIlalleoasulren � � �lalalR9DlYrr �rrm.r«rrrsnm.ralms I xr.rrrrrwrrrr. vpwl.r,«a m«,r.•.reb ,•rhea!R-ta a•M. rsM hair wa ..,Be! D•nr.r D..r.r.m..r ebm.lu v er vo.emt ra tlq.l mar w.ry:+wr R.mRrr.naan Wall �.Ya aetrw.ra.mrea. eD+rr•rr.vwrr grmrr r u wr..m�la a a u�R-ti 1� ra. p0 w ar.•w.bb err M r _ EaCP110r• ua.lr••.tvn w•.eb. .iM l�ee�r tw�M�n"ar m�m R- >.0.30rseJRYr..w lr rr wnrnmr.lay -F..rr rear Rorvawn.araw�.arrr°rr'�nma..�`ia,w�r`are�..i�b..tww++wri rr••r`r•rr r lnDl w., •erm+•ameror aearaYrw fUEalRArgN w..re.r.rws+F.rrma..rrr.rrrm.rrr•mrtrwTlwnrr _ •ra•raRe OYRICY WWrI>1.gmtarrr•wrrr .atr r.rpwvam q orv:�uirwrar..'s•+as%Ir rter mrat tre a " o,'�w.r'�"m.w::w worse"0' w.on mYal ire. F«xr.m, Ewbr a v /ra N.ilr:nr C.'m'e.emr..Ra..b.wm7 Doelmlrlaw A. ®, y°µ „r,�RO•rl..wr.m.sHWJNaW Plunbine eYat m xY.m a.r rw.ear. e.raeM,.ra v mar..+r m eat.e.a. �wr„ a rrra..rr,•.,rt.rar.. _]Oy I a TBIYRrn aarsrtiw .rarr«roar :a m R.tr n..w•.rr. Rr.r r..•...•s r,arre —tut In � Dm... T?ftF— H O �� ® +••tmr.w..r.rrrr..m.er.•sa..ar..m. e) M�r•y.,r.�rr•T� m r Lau.« ' am rl�Ov.1 ms�emrl b ma.mm.Ir _1el _�]L �]� �� TMtNty+.Ostm.ob TeYptol.: ^ ^ ®1 r«nmr ,. Iltb eRw r.eraawkr..r.r." m IlY(.7 ' •..sum M.,m e.mr•t ar�n �r� �❑ ❑� '•1•-�� I'' li��.r..•rrer�ravrs�rca.uamw.mrr E , l..r m•rr, R.•r.rr_.__..rrrr._..mM.Rr1 ��l.wr�.lmr rr....r m. 4 wrp,r.r•b w.a.•rrrr err -- LLSSSJJJII LL-11,}S�❑y�7 . _'.' � .r."nrrr.w.•w'r"w'wi�la'r a. .ram.•r r r.,..u.,.....r. -- ,.mar .r«r..rrr....r..r....rr.l...rnr. _ Tim •� l� �r•4..���w.�arm.. i Iwmori.�v.la.pl.n.,I.r rIM 5c txlaHO "FCM IIr7 i) .r.v.Msr.rr.rlv mr M.w error. p..rle. I. .Or•rr b+.r w w0. .m14rb,a YM1r m A. '" Matory Measures Checklist• Residential (Page 2 d 2) MF 1R AC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY «•.ter.rev.e.�w,l.r.a..R. _ —SINGLEHOUSE AOIXTiON `�7I1 `r SINGLE F1Ol1SE ADDITION n 7H6M a .ram..r••mrr.m.r..nx rm FdCRWIgN .+•wr m.erram.r..r. Yr+rw. b.wr•eareerrt ..ra 76T FLOOR PLAN npp.t1M L W 2ND FLOOR PLAN ammt ,..•I rAtr`.. sa.a calwm:nwr X•••n.n nrmen ea•m r.•.•te(mwtr) new.n r e.` ®vw.a.rr X'r°"r •Imr.a rn err trr utl s.rer cFr lrr crr a..ar �:�� rwr.•.•,rwn.m..w.r..wrr racesr. Tar Roan Leib e..+ T•bl ReYm logs .. ."' .«.•�wrwwr�rw. r rr:.w..`�.r.rrrr •.r.rw•• �aww ARorr.r �ReNn u.Dl.s .a p��tl+�'�e'aaV u• r....rr....r...rr.r..r...r.rr I RMun Fb Rmue Fr. ae.r+..r..r.r..+.....,...r._.rr....r. a«.•r.w.r vemaebt i r.tr. v— .) ..rrw mei .ntr•.a.Y,r r.wr�J s.`w"rr�...•r'r X.MF. I rls.a.r SagrPw w.n.s�.rrsa�l.ml rsrn.r ar•pyea qrs t r main..-A.s�mwrw���m r' r•••+••• rar wn�i rams avrrtN two ® ® rrw.nrrw .a�r� I. i o.w°eAWpr'.u.�.n.::Yr•..ea r r rar r ® �� _ _ TmatarrmLtow rrrraTr se ts(p wtmr � a aoearearrwaoa l h tM a�ae.a rwr.Yr r rrrm.s Mew r r.ear.w...... usrla.r tncorvYrwaea �� evea•r o ..•r �re a,mb� �w lr«r,..tn r�''�.....^.' Ya.r.ww ar,aq.) rr+.rrw wr..r.r.. sae r ZA�'er...°em ® ..aur • T"'.a..a arrlaw I......a.rwe er+.ar«....rrr.rrr.rrrm I ....__ cr•rr=. T .r.. w " is laRmn •rrr.r..rrr�rr.rrr.r r.rre. �—F `I l.oh ry4 ,ao4 aoY baAb•M.rf•Y• tm bM•) r.b.av�.xn..Mu.,.eaavwwr m..a crier r Imtrr I...tu 1 ta. 9�=a •�:,,� wndn0 1—�4�+ ar la%pl• Igl Xnarsr � ,� II TravWr� pnnpnpxR •Mtn,R Du�. �-L�1�3� etY m•'r a M w mn°F x) nr.w rr.���..mecca s s rr ❑I,s�a+i l..r��� vq yw nano .I�rTm.rbr+ w�R raw� tares r Retn AYDb b� caul •rar.Yt wm,i m...rww.Ri�mr P-w•. r ®I...m r�r�;..r..r..wi..uwr..g T ,l 0) .rr.ntrrr�ma r rau ra.sec w rmiR rr�i...ar.er..wr.r.r«..r.. maw` sYh oath n etch m a•1 �P..r m o•r.Y..rr w w.'rtl. �in.mr�r.W.w.....r.rrrr rT_+.ry auh osh mtletah anti me«�a�s...a..s..cw�r nm ® ewgr'Yrom � e aaoMlk One ar`s ie.arm.r`mi..rrrw r�st�� � Imm Dr RI err•mxl..rr..I r r er..Ay=.au.r a. __ __ 1 I mY oe 4 ]e-N) L R.unYOlra E nellna UI �.e nnr•ria.uebr.na�rrr u•r.e,W. .- �� � •7 .V•r...W r.wru«a.mr m�) �5:c.�`.a�� °!!.V M.r.��•sari.me�mM«ww•rry Y r 1 r'� "'`r` a PLY VD 2X SIR ID 2x RAFT. `•ODD PEATHDG RIDGE BpARD SEE RAN, STD PSCJ ST 2115 SVEAT'G BLOCKING SEE PLAN 2-1Ld TpE NAIL EA SIDE Zx Rl3W RAFTER S1MPS[ !EAR R. SEE PLAN 2-Ibtl TOE NAIL Eq. STRAP O 2x TOP 2— PLATE RIDE a EM a.R. A SEE PLAN SNPSON CENT, RIDGE MEMBER •L'CIL CA — SEE PLAN A 2%STUDS TYPICAL _ SIZE SANE 0.rYID0 SK iNDJG !16'6C. PLTVWD SKAmING SIZE AS RAFT. PLnWD e N ' •.. SIEATNING 6-16 d IUIi O I.M BN 2.CJ A 2S RYDT JOIST ;11A O N 2-Ex.. PATC DmIT. I%6 RAFTER TIC!.8 D _ SEE PLAN Y/4-lbtl NAIL e E0.END .�� zx snms nrY�SIrAm zx 11L.-cart. a A]S r• su•nc -MPTOM sT zl,o 2xb rtE a sf E M ,6•DC i N yD➢N'd OC 1 2-lbtl NAIL V/1 IC NAI t-2x TDP R.AIE ZYRR bGOC_R p 24-DL ILOCK'G *FN APN1 2x C.J B UDS a 16.6C. B N' !]2•EC. 6 R3YiD CJ PTO B CA 3 C J SEE AR[SrL PWI O EUSE USE XLE B ATJ a A]B I !N 2x&.RIRG CJnT. B L Gry e, ® z-2Y rlv PLATE mMT. tx SmDs 24%TW PLATE 2Y STUDS Y STUDS ]Y S. 2x STUDS El6'w 2%SNo3� !1L•6C tfb•OE tIL•Dt A33F 1 EA BLxENG 0.0 2-V COM PUTS - AyTlE RAFTER & RIDGE 5 SHEAR WALL CONN. 4 ROOF TOxT.1 WALL 3 RAFTER & RIDGE 2 ROOF DETAIL- -s¢Pun zr wuL"A1D1i B' zx n.a mlT. av sTu� zx snps o/D irP uNI! NT DCD sxumMD TN TER D/Ibd NAIL z"mNr.'I'Am R/ •°'(LrwpD PLrvpw u[Am1MG aY sruDc Ex STUDS iJl G TN LL N p U4 S[N_K SEE SRS TP.U.N.q- DJL !IL'DL tlb' B N BJL L.n sznE.s w ° w SEE O 4— w E' 2xiUADRJ Ix30UD BlxlxD Dllb•DL. SECR'V, PLATS B1xCOltt.RY 1%SSaDA JOIST T u UB 2 2 O.0O3ocJa3T w/},Ed SUDS A RDDi JDIS] SCE RAM S PIATC elL•°C eG Sil[ aY RaOn6C xn COI.wE PUw NNL O G Z it6.6C SEE PLNU SEE PLAN v/m wade!• ax m.x'G cart. zxwNr.warn w! zx STUDS ar mo NML Brix us nw BFAN SEE MAN o/c m uND. nnam axAPRRD a Snips srtcrs SEE s.ws m.urao. tlb•at t2X xN+il[R Nr 6d xA1L t.'6CTN UNa MSEE ALAN I• ' a. nUF OIB'OC C1PO S $TUDDMR NNE OEAJSEE PLAN SEE HAM JORT ST.E YJO6T f16s[ N.VI PLA IN NAl 1'6 *Sq x BNCD BM. TO POST CONN. 0 JOIST TO WALL 9 8 JOIST TO STUD WALL(INT.) 7 JOIST TO STUD WALL(E). NDm 4w we Posr NII.eWM A.PJat t0.T SNNL DE SECURCO p WD MST SEE PUN ALACC PRIIX ip ,_t/.•.MD MWATI�D�P�rIa !.RMEETN�YELs PL,,.DDD A B 'D2Y NDpP 2x STUD O IB-O.C. ND.0 P[su iCP oP '/t;,SAL 0./ 2x:ruDS SIVPSDN CS.COL RASE 13 a•EncL ai. a 24'E.C.%2'-0' WO POST SEE PLAN MTE SIJB q7,C. tW OL s/e'.arezD wNrsA avwopo —��.w 048b.C,iW U N o. w/I/4EA t/3'% MR KASIIFJR 4•SL _ I 2p n N y 2%STUDS O T.51 I I Ib"O.C. .. 4•EDMC IA I P.T.SILL - •' PLATE O __ /.. 16•N[N SANET �PWI <TOP OFF SNtPSON IxxDwM S/e .Sa,vmN P,SLL TOP OF 18• 6LAB TOP OF NDDA rz SL.B M X", HUE:F11 ' SUB ODVRS]p55! 2-i4 CCINT. • .. 'tiC.tC f TOP b BUTT, 2. U2Y NA -A35 O-EA SIDE - .. OF SLLL PATE B" N Cart.Tro t Boit. 4x NUT, —SEE PLAN-1 ® ® Q'2 GARAGE FOOTING GARAGE FOOTING D�'P WOOD POST TO FOOTING 15 � RLDL. HOLDOWN DETAIL 14 3 1 FL FD TO BEAM CONP • :RP.,tiN,':P�»rD«�,,=u PL v zx;T�3 SEE PLAN--1 z%eV Ae rlo/ L3 ' L�D� +x Ppsr rn. re .D ns•ac iEi T wro WHC. I'D PREDIDLLED HOLE , •' .Pae.d Q• xrvmD STCAnq _'oc r.'P UN 0. TN,T a -/ N1P.rma DRY PG coo ��rl— w/oRY PACKm � :a PLAN wr°rain ExtsrtNc FOOTING NEV'I.,D1G E ARCI�T • ix STIDS — VTR. )•Nt 4'CORC .. .I•`. L, itl tRADC ♦ SM I J�DISTS� IYT—I� i III _ SEE ARCN'L SEE PLAN ,I�( • SPncr caovi i eaTs�AaSOi'Mo.c. CONC. SLAB 6• Y -ram ?IeP50t lNA +� _ SAND UNA S'E..-Os •• • } . . � EYISTING n mMEli 0 2.•OG •' i]DOVELS x 4B•! DRY PACK FIIt 24•oL.vNCJE[pLD 'J. .' - PRETEETIWJ FWTING vNERE CaLD JDDR STRIKER A1WT DC[IYSO HST]STRAP V/ DCCIl1ED 4• zx P.T.v/�-Irr 5/8'0 HO LE V/ 3-3/P!KD NO zaT zr_ aDEIS LARK!252T . cart.mP tr Don. EPDXY GR�ilT R3 DOVELS + z-i4 colt. N 'a, SEE PLAN dL r-0• EXIST'G 8 2A•G,C. x aCUP SSEEEPPLAN FGpTING � E.. WOOD STAIR DETAIL (2-01 WALL FOOTING (INT) 19 (E) FOOTING TO (N) CONN. d8 HOLDOWN DPTATT �� ^•rm^ - ` tba SN. 16d S.�A M r v Ll J 12'O.C.n nleemWkt.(Ibis), ..1 BEAR'G WALL qON SAR'G WALI R.N. N. x SiuDS Q 1•'•..>,_.•' --,......van vinon oosAM IINW.t•,Hain,,brocln9 Ma q�We aMa 2. flew ehe°lhhq to be,5/5'CO T k c Nroad a OSB(INDEX 32/16) 2 X 4 O 16' 10'-0' 14'-0" 16•O.C. onslruelton Safety and prormp raodr.MntA Mdl be n o<cardonoe Nth M eith IW<amman nail of 6'O.C.Y,Oounedy. Notional Fjate ad Lad whty adn-AA, 6'O,C.h IN oUw adgn. !L Thad wnWciw Mao ba raepannDl./or-Ill,atn,tM edY or ati bode*and 'a.O.C.In M.m«kied(field). 2 X 6 O 16' 14'-0' 20'-0' 6. SSeeee"rndimi'ad,Wu=mq me el•abipd a°.h,w mad aria keae,m et of 7. Wad diaMropm to t nw«tM and apPr.-by Bolding IcriN feVG+t a 1•-0'� r-0' _`,,v I-—to,OuctA WDae d,d b ay d.ew,d«bkal<andu14 O•P�mMI p�to co pp• 4. Ss,d.tol 5 I fa,typical Aay Meaghq anal. 2 X 8 O 16" 18'-G' 24'_0' ant oMw It.n.1.W emD.eO.n oonon.or.throb.inoorydal.h kpneegm detail and role. 2%IILN'G 2X F.J. HN SEE PLAN S. Se.deal 4/I"*fa,tpin d .W<tda-ak ]. n W e,w Mre o e.nlllal may soot,,urN m bN.em lams mwW b e. se dnW m bamNp plan yd.hen.all ndknad nY O • MAX. DISTANCE BETWEEN FLOOR& ROOF. - epcl(nkm ma notes m N,Mvwnq..Wt.em gMra now and.sp.alne T. Sn erred can O dmaea(an iwgN ma Adi neigne or qA wMa TABLE 23-N-6 4'-d �:'�.• .��� dnoPa Ne ArWt«t AhM W nnlnW and A.III InlrpM q•intent of the 0. SWctu,d Mwrvatkn IN M perform.d ehm r.WY.d by tM 9uvdnP Of add 2x STUDS 9 16'�C.UNO. SPLICE AT LOVER PLATE 2➢-IW T». _Irad a«urnMts, P. A c rtiflod,.f camplknc.MI be Fm Ad far tine Idnn°1ee beanA E_t6rl EA lie■]A9G 3@E a y g IV.Th.mak .of notMh May not W,,eW 1/6 tM aeyth of the member, 16d f 12.O.C.TYP, SW nliaWOetg e. Mira conAbuctlon matridA or•Wnpmarl Blared an roof a Hoar -ins, and MIN�b•f nst.d n qa mkpa 1/J of n.wpm. NOTES �M�6 SPLICE NymC Qi/Iw Ney Mal W alatrEutea ea thot N.lo.a d.w not..cAed nor del Iles load. 0/tM Ron. SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION vxm 90k il.TM ma"dAPq of nothing,Fan not e[ceed 1/4 the depth at end of Apan.. OF PLYVI$ID SMEATN'G 1. NI haiyantd load oory(np mamoo A and poets to be Damae Fri Lard'north. 13.Provde Arm 2,bbMl I unM,petition,i PaTandiadd to naa psi 16t f lY y IS.Pro4M a Wa plat mar pmdlol beadnp politbne OL, y4 eOR. a 2. wade No.2 typkd U.N., 14,Pool Meal",raaueAA nalnq nAe«lio,belme eoyr06 a _� b.4k 6e Prode,No.I tlalaai U.N.O. 1S Mtld�An Mal be Nit,bond.-W Plyeeoa en-thn,. •�:V4 a pas gIa NO.1 tplod U.N.O. td.2-I.Y.fits Weak pap...leer.plywood Heating to M-A& � f7.SIN«.lag&k M Mae bad roil.to all nuW k to 1 k b.ttm PIL e eYTp s¢xprS 9e ilaNpAIBM 0.AN 2. We pntw,.NA and blockhq to M was.�2 Dauylav Fir b better. y"' EX O rIER[sam a vtsdivl APPLx. w,'T11s-n ]. Sri.under stud.pertil'uM.in mrH«t riN Ca1a,n,Mdl Drros,rn bbl. 16.roan plHa MWI be bond A/ T.k UT.pw k be,of EXT.byes PROVIpE stun DE10V O.ugke Fit WI-d to.creams eta,5/e'n0'mans bate W..d not man POIO peeled to SN1FE2 vrETa'toned 6' than 4'-O.O.0 nfq not.oM.Mee.lhre Mal be Me balk nqh B'of eoal, I. Fa Had dbnanabn,wroa aped nos duc4,aankrlta,nor WOOD STUD SCHEDULE 3 MIN. PLATE SPLICE DETAIL 2 CONC. SLAB ON GRADE Ma of bM.O plea Mnlmum.1 2 bat.Dr of-, 4 The bddwnq MINI w yrovid..per soda 2. -9,aft<.ndNi..n field. 5. Stmda,d At"eaMan Mau be wW m all 1, a and nub beam,on A..a 3. Sea detan an Dlm/s-t f.dad eob efoo at.by O °. [ra°ng mamb..Mall not M-Toned'n any manner-vt.her.Med6cdiy ♦. Sa,talon 1/S-1 Id.typi°ol.1.an ryad,canbd)dntA,and dab NNCiP PLYVIl AT NOTED Bo� WAt1 aeloued d oppro.W by on.Ncnitact. dApr.-"'a". I 1 11 I It II wadC+oeN' ). MMenum naeh la,aN-mwnbMi MIN be w per aoN u%AAe ep«IBcdly 5. SI,_roll. C>drool,Ml Ingth and W height of the AM W(•G CW u0S $TUD f W at I II I 11 ftDOk JdST noted 9 6 MMd.ban,an 5/8'a OAW0.0 eith plan,AaMe,2 II2.2 1/2,1/4.MC„a ' L.E. I` 11 I 11 NFE PLW FOR L St- nay plyllood Moll M DEPA grodo,Servetu,d 1,thkkn-oe not.an bal.MINI pe 12'at earl and eM T'Mn.enb•*neat Pee m,S IrIDTEDE�PT AS TW➢.PLAN 1 tl 11 SOS ti G plm.with M glue cmformnq to praar.l Standard PSI-". EaM Meet 7. NI Hddo-n heNea0.onohd W.k r.Dan to be..curW n III-akr to I l II Il I II II con la nAMctkn. z,nluu I I I t 11 I I if =-- 0.yTIDOD Bona Mall be id.11nW by a ra,blwW.tamp o brans. GAI.EDDER f 16'DL 9. Eagw of d1 openb"a thra"h roof a floor man I.naN.per bamdoy of 0. Sofurne Ne eo118'leap bA{ae pbornq tM eona.tA Mab. 2-1W F��'G Plyeoed Mo�Mogm noting raWn.mmta 9. Gradng k baling to.nAP.ct d k awtifled by the rob angrier prier to •EA STUD I 11 II ateyae yLWR10 1pa010 f0 All rood.M.Hn Paurn9 tM"'"'t" NAILMCUA_q m wnwane d mo.anll Mal a p,..arw tr.t.Daumoe Ev. COIIC�t CEILDni.nor SCJEUTAL �'�r 1 II II _ 12 Jolt„mgen ma other aemaetm Mall M Smpem.bong the a eap"I. 1. C.mmt Type I d Type II cmfrmhg to A 17.M.C-150 U.B.C. �I -1(" {�R{IC11NkL YY{"08" o71frY 2. AB amdalet In lge othrsbe not.an pia"..1 be IeMo1a eolga Hard rot CW+O1STa ARE DESI6iE9 M DRYMALL M PLAT'< afl A.SF. NL1.•10 ISS.) I II 11 II II I. ...,_'Tact"ont"Ality aanlra Mil be In mnfamlmce ANh type(150 lb/­It.). Agwagab Moll aanMrm to A.ST.M,C-33 Win,prone SLAGQ¢D PLWD. I I I II it Mow ataMaa CS-253,'SWaimd Clwtl Lonin tad ThlOr". endnhaq.Mora<teNnke of 1-then O.OA%a per A.ST.M.C-157, SIZE SAACING -0RT VAN<Mere.I PENAMS SPLICES { I 1 I 11 By➢E 1Wil G IOA6"0 2 pub IamnatW DemnA Man ba com m b 24F-VA,Qv gexo Fir and LdM W 3. StrM9t„a Of—<anVINAIA•Wngan at 2e do).-V-2500 PC. 2%♦ IB'OC 1Y-O• 2%BLOCKING I l Il II - ATC 117-71 aan ebnatlan 24F-VB with hem N l hn.tim per AIM 4. ...enum dung of sands.Used In no.e dap at flat e.A Mall to 1.1(4) ,6.O.C. 1P-P I II 11 11 II 17 e=_ 3. NI aWcbnd po. l Ad ions-tea tnnbr Mall be i,.p,ct.d 0urinq lomhatkn by w nchea TWS SCIBOU,C APPLIES 10 ALL ran d�' I II II II I{ IV - --- appn ed nweoUon ogmcy.A wtifl«te d enp.clkn.hay be,pnvk.fo the 5. V4ratlm:`Abrnkn of concrete Arran be n..<admce Anon IM,toed R%S �' TIM U It Oi PL APPLIES Set NICyYL Il I 1 I I I I II =____ ArMitoCt k buldn,dparlmmt 9rfor to rooMan. proWkn.ouV..d n PdUma Cemant Aesocbtbn Spec.ST20. 16'¢C b'-D• aAYDIfiS Fm FAG.NEIGH FM. a. Earn a.._ln.t d b«m Ma w At°mpd Bath krmb600ban numb.and 6. Curing'Conant.May M"entah.d n a maisl condition I.a minimum of IB'DL it.•-D• E SPECD'lt tEOAiS TEL sfEAR VA1 Mon bay accdnpmf.by.CrUlicat.of hAp•ctkn. ties Y.all.Id F o ent.Awo..-I"odnpaun8s may be u•.a in, 2xf SC1E9 Fill Ak 51 The ghn4-bettod I.-"be fixnlMW by a I-Not ldrkatd fee,of moot CdnP �•� �•� myg, 1V.➢.f 1E'OL --_=_ �: Ap.cidBnq 4,qb typo of work Tn.fMrimtw eAdl pupmll cornDlate chap ]. SbmgN ipis of concren,Moll M'•91ri'ea III Pr cads andoe autlhtl n 2510 AVDC 2e'•w V1EAE PLYVD OCCUR f EA SUE STA6G PANEL HINT. INTERN NALLING '31e11 BOUND MULE OPEM .aeings to NW ArMitect fa,apwo,,al Dnbr to t°bnc°ti°n. ApAe°katbn_-t.be tstar to tM nruelurd Angie... fY Ot. 2.- 2.EA PLYM000 SM.SHALL SPAN SHRa IF Neer,,BE=� 8. MMd bate,oaee.hard,att-Man a-rely tied h plop PMo k TYPICAL WALL SHEATHING ® �E aEvaNcs( ) P ea,D �ion'°of`on.-tkn and p.a,Joni.MIN be-raved by N»Naniteot CEILING JOISTS SCHEDULE g TYPICAL DIAPHRAGM MVat .pR s bier �'' SLL wAL 9AL IIpLT3 Apypt phoning aand•ta m OSTI .lifter y0.ConIn...nepeotkn rlA;,-fd canal.Co,,eater t„m 25M pei. C0 f.TTE1/J r7•whle 24 R oA-N11 NAIJrINC Bap /B"STR)-CO,be ♦ 11 IA a•A'0.c Sy6'••SYp am nNew k1Y _HBr01.9f O'1072i OOW R IBD s 2AM1,/32'Sa•L 60 a 10 1A A A,rat, S/r.a W _ 1. Tn.f.undW«4.ww M bade..N•f.ndnmmdatkne by.-RC TAB 2. BRAIpTO TO JOIST TCE NAM1 El IDJP 2-8d 18-1_A. S tY6 5U6 FlR OR IE55 TO EA JgSi FACE'AL 2_6d ♦p%NAx STUp e Oat !/3t-SrRl i tea 4 ♦ 13 S/e'Lc f 1!a S/Ce f fe'ac 2 1M.W D«dn9'Alus usW M d.aign of lopth9 u0m mdieNrbW.op.ma 4 M10ER 1H'W 1%6 SUB FLR.TO EA.JdST FACE NNL 3-°d V1PM NDTM VNM hOTC P 18'be-II-fl Nned"a in 1000 PSF Id.eared f«thge,1000 PSF 5. Y$UB FLOOR TO JdST OR gR0V07 BLIND k FACE NAIL 4 d I Rx t[E Aux to R.w 9 ♦NO S/32^51RL 1 ty a a 13 S/6'aC r ttYa. e/b•e f te °. SOLE PL TO Jd51 Ck B0- FACE NAY t8e O 1°'0.0 for aa,tnueus/oalnpA ]. TOP PL 1D STUD END A O 3 S.a.npnar mun inspect and oppro a Iootn9 A.meatbn prk,d gioang B. STUD TO SOLE PL♦-°d TOE NAIL OR 2-16d ENO NAIL 2-184 O Am S/32^S1KL I tan 2 2 era J/r�C a s'OG s/B'A•f2.0.e SEE p rAbwe and approwi to be p,nAaea to Me Wiidlnq nepeeta Were City 9. DOUBLE STUDS FACE NAIL 10d•16'0.C. W%Mink STUp "n,MA%STI oFPro at of foundetbn. 10. DOUBLE TOP PLS.FACE NNL 18d O+e'O.C. nMel.rTeP VmTN guff VS➢TN tim 1Q 71W STUCCO OVM PAPER BACI(V LAM"TH 18 GA.STAPLES 41e"O.C. 11. TW pt5,LAPS a INTERgCTCNS FACE NNL 2-18tl G SA MIM E1fGE 4� 5/6'Mink F,�OGE f•- +2. GONIINUQIS MOM 7N0 PIECES 16d•18'O.0 TANFF TYP. I DSSTAMC QT.k B PLATE EDGE k FIEND(16 d51LL NAIL O 6'O.C.)IISC TABLE 25-1 OTdA 13. CT&,JOIST TO fL TOE NAIL 3-et TC AtA'c ALL STUD ALL S1{IP I Hald-down hard-a..«urW n pIoaA wkr to.nM"vnep,abr. 1. a M enforced,led to conform to NST.M..DednC.Bon MIS Fnbde 60 14. CONTINUOUS NDR .TO SIUO TOE NAR" 4-Bd 2 Nda-dosm connects bdtA Nto wood fr°mhp replYes unity not..grain an plans 15, CLG JCISTS UP°OVER PARTITONS FACE NAIL 3-16d ASS G b. Defdmotkn.Moll be h e«wdmoe wIN A.S.T.M.A305. 16. CIA MS75 TO PARALLEL RAFTERS FACE NAIL 3-18tl i� ST erza 2-S(be.2-3/.'.5/1e'dad ADM on farm 0,atB and hddam 17. °AFTER N P�TOE NNL, 3-tM axe aP Mal be tights.YAI prb to ens rYlp q.Aay Adnn4 2 I,V P-in,v naiad ail r.aria n..toe d,ab be l be 76 Da dkm,tr le. +'BRACE TO EA STLA 1 PL FACE NAIL 2-U NON BEARING STUDS EXT AND BEARING STUDS S Silt PA-A,stub O edge of piyeoa6 to Mar AM.,rtq lard loads wool. d 2•-0'mnnnum MIMay.gpv.na NI epl1<u Al be le<atW oe 19. f%8 SH G OR LE55 10 A BEARING FACE NAIL. 2-Bd ♦xe eP. daletad an Pbn.. 20. YMDER THAN 1%8 SN YG TO EA BEARING FACE NAIL 3-84 Nan 300 vend./("ot r.qube.3 InM oanind.r yeal.m.'A-. Th. 3 Mift.C.m.to nth.f rd•fddn9 An"Mas 0.In-don. the 21. l T- CNR. e �0 C. >� Id..[A ink AND SpltWc NOT TO OOtt batnday not Moll be atoggrW.tend. prow .f A.S.T.M.etmdabda SINE 3. IN SAME SRn NECMN 1. An III,hda MO be"Ad a M�..1 1/16'oer.IEba c AN renideng•led Mdl be support.and tba in oonfamwnae with a,e 2 NO NON[1NEN 2.SU CLSSM OB..STUCS WY ww Eta BON.. 5. 1/2-.9e din.-fd w Aaaa bwnaay n.-9. lataat etItt.or"Thad-al of Rahfoong Sled Practke ed RenfarW 2-2.ICSIS •01 snm NOICt. 6. 10 into wood haninq re,,UW 2-1/2'1,2-1/27.1/.'Fiat.caM_for Cand.ts SWeWra'. J-2x J0157'S ,N 5/e'a A.B 5. ProvW.the(dloen O u 5[R P1+M /Ya ,/•� No141/°ONE 2x4 2x6 g mnenen Oratecliw cavern".1 oanarAt.udvn 1/2-DIM.N9.032.Oe. 5M NADl !-t.N RM-{•�IpA-� 1 DF zT,m Y1pTN 7 C 1 a oNrAip rest.. W,-I.a.0taten I eat„ 3'deae SrAOG.TYP. �'O'C ff'F Hader ffi Mx.O Boll 1 J e' 2 1/ n ebnean nth.ortn(rormW) r dada I. Shall cd)1 to NA prawAtme of AST.M.A-m udaa atheefa.rot. I e�f id Map ba dalgn.mtl dno1W}d q.IaW Mem on epf 2' a 1 m piano Nb note aM any eaedd toodA.uM a. AC unite It. APPP0NE0 2. ow Y�,��lt fW�"�;Sa*t%dAD ltg�be� a°'tools for"ea "°°" 9 K.P CONN. DETAIL WfALMOTCHING & BORING 7 MaIric do groom anal Mal bad PM A,l Ala,WM•red el«trodm oe r bad Tpicd IM Iood la God e4Qf auks cad Deal loa.(I.M F �80p./ W N.ALaC Apwncatkn.WMaa an ee.gn.a at ku oboe oW mesa W eon. a D..I«e,era roar -22p0 STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION n a,.Maa of.Ik'eneaa farkn...,apl AhAn o -14e,noted on Math. a Tybioal IM load far roof .18Def (ONLY CK(CloED ITEMS AAE REWgtD) TneeA p.n.ewe a roe. Cmttnuwo botpectlon b requi.for field wren 2 Jebta naludh eaklAnto I.ap.on.tion detaga ma dro: ApolkMle ead.e ..refnbnce.Au,n.ns.l,.n n q r"s wadded by FWM ro iNOMOWL TO BE NFSNAe50tt FOR NNE'AWM-0°SFM'A1gN: Honey Ddaee ao Aeur 1 AN half wad NNW conNrrrr to A325 unbs otharlrir not., n.manufoctu,.MvR be appr.red by the.Wwrrd Angh«r prb to MAZE.N.iP L' PHONE:626 dA to CALIF.IIEEW TaION:C5BpJ5 07.6.0 a UJID d be }]bd NAIL ♦. NI It-w NA Mdl be,kontoatW aM er«tea by a Ikented fobk°td hlbkatkn, r a platoon as. FW 8%TRD1M01 y a oornty bulana d4patmAnt and a oaltMool.al 3. shop dowinp and Cdcdutkn.m ay nos Woe Imbibe MIN De ribnitlea to FdAND4TI0N WA FRAM NG I PSON NST18 22-I4 d NNiL �eN�plc apwoNtl by ne L.A.ok •«,ovvT of to sr cenrarue p-OL iRTNCR nor bupOn9 dapartmM[Id apwOsd O,to to fepdcaNm •FODfI1W.Shyl NAILS,BERS D GOIICNEIE 0 STG1 4dIFM FPIAIE O CdMAk1E STRAP ton N-sppN, T anEN1IG fabkation or real ban the.°bold bapeclion moat be f anaal to Nv pp perms napeeta prnr to franhq opprowl. 4, Bl.d'h0.hd".e,Wdgnq,and M.oeenwm required la,-AA pin o WT FDUNDATgye 0 MASONRY 0 sTum fNPDFD F1MME tl SIEII ed.+or oidnen e.° omed+o fE,ySq yeppL yyy4e n,lall.lkn Mall be week.by/ins Wea p'Ht manuf«twr, a dssoN.PAEg,ln,„DF lDMIS ■WOOD a CONCRETE MOeADNT FT4WE •MOOD NI.STIID wA°my to n°I.. on re NI°ru 6'-0'l 5. Sl,ap draenpe id ay Wuciurvl and mbcallmevu.ned an M amktad d the PGSL NWA be a. 1-16d NABS qs Armned and.Pward abyn.wk,to toprkati.n 3. Proyiee end nay of d mats hr'dpn9 et mla Apo,in aaM bay.D.°d 0 STEPP'O(RETMA'O igfNOATCM,O orMFAS D MASONRY WALL F1NeN1E O O1HEP5: SEE PLAN ^c 1• I I FDA" 8. NI gaol end.rid b.arnp pole Mai be Wk drW-d Han-..k groin I«d deMCUm<L/380. NIUSIOE SPECIAL INCIORS 4k SM MDT. 2x TROT plawa as tlYAd.DY th•mawl«tdr. WWIR4 Mtjoc • O oMFAS: O OfXt7I5: YyIW f t2'OL 1 I 7. Cotti erauA MA ection requed duMq netal 11 Nyh-SbrrgtF bad Edo 2 Conan.al«k Type i,C Ce N-1. I I Addhg aM ddn.y Irdninq 2 M mNa MaN hoe a m'mpnum wmawly.abmgN d B00'Al. SWabnd ob..,•Atfan wN be prisoner M.r.wlrW by Na BYtdb"Ofhitl, I I nf- e. danmy moment bank"May pad ten by ncndsbuothe method.to, 3. Males us.Mat be Type S AID,a ninlmum connor A-9b,o/ .n/ST I e ,P-sin gDwa•At.tandadA and lea aP.dflatlooa ibb teal Moll 2500 pM at 7D day. Wes me part P,etlmd C.ment me hall pan line I I M a p.l d W Apel n+aw-re WV.of.ectkn. wtlr.and lax ma w-naf valA•a+i I { 9. V.bk a°wad per«an by°Pe,atds°atI by booed of AND uAnq E-70e. 4 Gaut used MW<m/orm to ASrM.tlriw,nbn C476-71 Nth a mna- Nect,oeaa n bonfam°tkn to 1-1 Im.14I c.d..A4 Bolan,MM be tans by -AMA,AtrMglh of 2500 pal at 26 days LAI me Pdl ummt tire. T3 pad.r,U aM two Pate pen a..to be.t nab cmwetmcY. SwSDN In JOIST 4.JLK' o>a.i.ite.d and wrtilNd adder•h OCtddanpa-/fM etontl.d,wM IEADFJI SULn+r f ineal-bi fa,ANIt-ac eednq of AM Spat. TM c°nboote,Mal p1:Ida 5 Provide tpl.o.may be raqub.by iM buildnp oNtcid. f.'-o'DL, X'T DN TCT�-16RWQU� FDtST tt®t CERINO F'DST F'LCaBtilabl.mem.ro d-..q ar h.Ianq mrnO.rA d g-oldnq n xder gat bad iea gkknaa of grout Dnw.m Mock unld arts.-en/wchq sled MVM Da %STUDS FANAapnq o,dnartbn of the Atwobnd m.mb.A bad mhkn#ea LM,N of+Nh not bq rim M1pY and rest leu then 3/4'beteam prayd rehfardn9 berg. t 16'O.C. SILL,wt.an det. are nn ant m not nduG Woemp for crater.. Al+Yde 7. IfwdN bhour a I.W.w..mI hafaatld amaWctbn SILL PLATEn,by nappN"thv west 1 r/2'bMar Nor fop of 0,.docN. V/16d NAIL fV/3/S6'Man Made 1 4'Mee f PW P°'/ M9N aqM antl to dbA Id oat...NVd MaP bs RMforaang Aled to lap Mre APUc.♦0 dlant.e aria to b.atenu uA16'OL W depoddd by not ones.Non 1/4'Nick paAwe.PI-boW.core,haY Da th,.um,oal-ne, NECD POST BO 2-�/ 4x1♦ C eretAW to p 1 undrouttnq d reaacnp In.edecYen.l motwids d-olds,9. Canto—In.p«tbn ie not I tNWII. fEf PLNN EOF CA 1 70.°_x at.of fabnocai°n a rgat an-th..po�l nq«ta mun be A Ie w 10.E,oept ae moY be.March.prods d heren,m tMIale u..d n maeaVy / \ °the Job peotd prat to-in,sow.. Mon cmform to tM AST.M.nmda.do, SHEAR WALL HOLDOWN 11 TYPICAL HEADER n\�i 1%ATLID$�16'O.0 SIWSON VS}IT SDW nql a!L[DfLll v/2-IStl NAA!EA Slim 2%DLK' y yEYyR 11 LEDGER V/2-t6tl NAIL - KX'G 2%lMTEJt!16.OC. !EA STUD 2%RA SEE RAN FULL LENGTH GARAGE HEADER PER DE TA[LS 5♦6 REWIRED MISTURE aglo,vl1 2X STUD C T°MTDN �'INSTA�LLLESS " •m'AL !X� D•D' 0.W 9GTIfG ax A OPFWG KvvA SKATN'G SR Kµ µST D. SME KAN SYL •�� 2X SND!16•DC. ALL aK SI1 J'• zx saln xX•c PL ex A" a rL d!It'6 QIIT. YAI r_l!IS-= ♦X MXO 6 2-2X F.1 A-6•AC. SIMPSIN STRN 2%Llmf ➢R W SEE c,V.E.DDLW 2X STUDS SEE PLAN ADOlt6. aV�VDC PLAN !]{•GL i 3 Z 2%S UD!l6'DC T rol wot �Iw .; .x W_s¢FVN TLM -x Cm.S[EFRWGpD P I �!]ISTSSO3D U6SDC ��l w,••;.. '•.t•,!-•:•� 411PSON CL COL W S1NP90M CC.L0.W K\TI000 pt STNS .NTI+ICAL 2-2Y TV GARAGE PORK YMIL T SIE PL.II lF1L SFE PI.YI es ar ulW �� >IIIPSJtI WV,4'R !V,'-AIL SPt+fl MNER[ 2XMIIFt Y/Ida MIL xy�d N� !.'AL TTI u.RA Y P)n 1p>M) >� s O O O b>M ♦ a_[m,/r 1-SA,1 W K •W am 0-L.I/r ]!/W slat ,11 o O _- nw�H z zX rnDz a slaeM m I/r x-Jm ]-mua s O ,w x •'R o< "ST DWD Stale a.,.e.. am yr J-./n =-sole ,>o O "•• "'a xX FJ SIX P1At1�Kw°E'W %=SU SEE KAN Jnxl.a am >m,yr a-am a.Ja,m n B �wL�PIA" KYROOD z%mLln n%v mNT, a.R,.aH lo.sDa,/r 1->/r• ]-m.a Im slupsox cc.ca.W 2%STUDS .tlLtl n I>Js r/r ]-am 3-alo .%COL SEE PI/>I rwam' fJ6'IL 2-"TIP 2XMLLOI V/t6C MIL T .X 6UI'0 V,W !V AL TW LLK6 if s aM'0 r.a MWA O n.Yt O 2%STUDS!1 SINPSpN S. MOOD BFKI $EE RAN «COL 54E fl/J, O O 8 JX FJ SEE nnl SQ F 7 DSL•D STUD S"EET =%i]r0 SRO M ALLgWBIE 2%MILEJI Y/l6tl MIL �T• A��JOISTL Sf 0,0,N !♦•MC. Tro LL N A W' KTrmoo sEE ruN Iln p RA!M•OL a G KnDDD SKAIntw 1 I is nw `G%G!1i•OL YY POST IX—1 JOIST SCE PUN d 2XK KAN ,� T®KATE RA a IA•OL .s a u SR SEE KAM Rupp FID011 SIM.IO�YVAL MOOEIS u w• ,,n �,-.>m,/r .>a,,/r stwmN STRONG vKL n yr ,In L-am I/r -o,/r aslo ` J {— 50 AL1 Uw<O O PERM^IT ISSUANCE ,•,/.•a In I zs I/r w yr a-+,Iws t;{ DATE a+...« a m,/.•a v:s,aa./r >rs.yr :_ .Do A.. .m•a m . A R.�melo >yr„n Isaoa,/r o yr a_vly errwalm:Iav,a:orJ.i >,/.•,.n ao-Ma./r .-s,yr Tn.H.. ,I.—e e >,/♦•J IA v-q I/r area.,/r per p Y STANNAD SIROMf:-WLLL 1Kl'65 O cawM V rwma o1r VW ern xty m W u I/.•a In I-an•. >yr I,n =+/.•. -alr ' w_ .,,/I a I-y v ICB#5488 I,/♦•.,n J-a/•Y LA RR#26r. 7 0 i �i 148 ;48 14B 1sB 148a S2 52 a%8 S2 a%6 521 ----7-------tJ _ ___ __________ ___ __________ , O O1 14B I I 52 I I I I , I I I I 148 32 I I I r 1 52 S2 r J I I 15A 148 I 1 17 - 527 S2 I 1 52 ax6 I S2 O 14A 14A n I ax6 S2 A 52 ,✓ I I 14B I I I S2 I I I I I a8 S2 14B 5A S2 I a%6 S2 M6 taB ! ax6 S2 I I 1 i I O 5 // 14A I I I 1 I I 14BJI S2, 1 1 j I I S2 1 1 1 61 I I I/ I I I I I I I 1 1 1 F ---- I ------- 17 { I 1 17 I S • 52 \_/ I I I 2 S2 axe I ____—__--_________ i I I I 19 I 1 I I rr I I I I I I I 1 O i I 4'CONC. LAB W/ I I O I I I I I I 1i3B18' o.0 EA WAY , I I I I I ❑VER 2'SAND OVER , I I I I I 6 MIL '✓ISOUEEN 1 � � I I j 1BA r 9 I I I I I S2 i I 16A 1 I S2 I 1 I ��lllll li 16 I I I I I I I S2 20 I 1 I I S3 1 1 I fOS PEtr 3swNCE 1 1 I i I 1 I I I 9fATifAiENA54 ASSOCUTBS,ING I I j I i I Erf�ow.n...a... DATE I I I I I I -------_—J n...ey 6..n'.a zp l.au..p.pama p.nnl.p.aano I L_____________ ____________ , epprwy eya Ap...oe try.a..Kw. ' IL--------------------' ------------------------- .oval p u p�. iI O 2'-6' SD.X12' W/3-04 E.W. °"„hr e..ra. `° .o,o•�aba..l.,b. 1 i FOUNDATION PLAN NEW CONT..FOOTING SHALL BE 16' WIDE TYPICAL. O 3'-O' SO.X14' W/4-64 E.V. SCALE 1/4'=1'-0' E%SITING WALL FOOTING f3 3'-6' S0.X14' W/4-p4 �.W.--- �-NEW WALL FOOTING O 4'-G' SO,Xia' W/5-x4 E.W. C". L S2 34 r 52 " 108 10A 't0A t0A S2/� 10B B T axe T 10 5' axa O8 axt2 06.5' �'/ 1/8x13 t/z awe S2 s I/axt°1/2 awe S2 T T 52 S2 s+/ext}I/z Ux S1 I St i ,`rye oa' I 5 11A ° O O 11A 6/ e. S t 10B 52 S2 O 7' I - axa B�• � L6fab I wsrae t0 axe ax8 16.5' a 10' i 13' �. 10B ax1♦ 1— LL---J e 108 49 ,� 2B 48 11A 52 S2 ryry+ 48 I 52 11 52 itA 51 52 O t=/ 52 1 5 „ t0A 10A 48 I 52 52 IA S2 axtz I! +' 3 3A .q z 35' S2 7 1 C iI 2 1 ———————— axt2 , -xl 9_ II-,y 6Y 1-Ixf2 6Cta.i�. I ' S � axlz �e 1+ t° _ ____ _____ 17' 11 11A 7 10A t0A ° St Si V 5B M1+ usr 'o O10' wsiv 52 15B 0' S2 4 ° 4 52 _ 4 axelx'c O 1 xtz BUA S2 t0A / ax 10 i-lx1] 52 e LT 1 J 11 1 l 1B axa 1 axa " St St 2 FULL HT sz Qto' 3A 22' UDS®16"0.0 ex1D 1 4A o 52 AA 52 S2 2 (� T 6xt0 6%10 Eke (E)KR 20 1 DB M]x12-6 SCDI"f FA2FJ4xa a ASSOLIAT-c5.MC. S3 FOR vERYIi IS6INNOE 3A 108 52 _ BY » ^ DATE laa.. Irp pump:• I u wr W^n wpcsc�um•9wcw� (E) nv w wr�aM ia.e�l n.ear 1.ucn Cca��x WIMIA n ROOF FRAMING PLAN FLOOR FRAMING SCALE1/4•=1'-D• F 14I_ G PLAN SCALE 1/4-1-0' QwDAEs°i +xl OSEE S-1 SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE SEE 8/S-1 DETAIL O7 SEE S-1 SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE —�q DENOTE 2X12 016'O.0 F.J TYP.U.N.Ot ---{� DENOTE 2X8 016-O.0 RR TYP. h•7[C" y I .U. DENOTE 2x6 016-0C CJ TYP.UN.O DARRACH G. TAYLOR , 16661 Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone:(562)592-5090 Fax:(562)592-1987 �Q 8 November 2004 Honorable Mayor Cathy Green, o =` Council Members Jill Hardy, Gil Coerper, p G-> Dave Sullivan Grace Winchell Debbie Cook, & Connie Boardman, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 77 J Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Through Lot ZTA Dear Honorable Mayor Green et al, I think the entire Council was wise to defer its decision regarding any ZTA associated with the `through lot slope' issue, though I am disappointed that it seemingly matters 'more, at least, to some, to allow Mrs. Boardman to vote before her term expires, rather than to getting it right. This, particularly after her out of line, public `bashing' of Planning Department managers for rendering their professional opinion - atrocious leadership behavior. The Planning Department provided the Planning Commission with your dictated zoning text amendment draft, and another that .the Commission itself requested, only to have the Commissioners finally agree with these managers' independent, professional opinion, neither being overwhelmed by the apparent Roundhill collusion. These managers should continue to bring their through lot recommendation forward, like any issue so deserving, knowing they have wide spread support of HB citizens in doing so. This entire scheme already has a bad enough odor, which only, continues to worsen, regrettably with the 'seeming aid of some members of a Council which surely needs to be squeaky clean, after yet another of its members just bit the dust in controversy. I'd like to remind you that if you approve an onerous ZTA that favors the Roundhill residents by succumbing to their wishes: • You will be ignoring basic owners' property rights and values; • You will be ignoring the fact that you are requiring through lot owners to specifically maintain their slopes for 'the benefit of Roundhill's residents, even though a substantial number reside on Gilbert Island; • You will be-ignoring the impact on the City's other through lots (?), Honorable Mayor Green et al 8 November 2004 Page 2 • You will be ignoring the fact that Roundhill residents' views, syn., scene, appearance, ambiance, are not legally protected in this City; • You will be ignoring the fact that Gilbert Island through lot residents already do, or soon will be, looking at huge homes across their streets, when for example, some years ago I could see the ocean and the HB pier. Views are not a protected right on Gilbert Island; • You will be ignoring the fact that you are favoring 36 Roundhill residents while doing an injustice to 73 through lot Harbour owners; • You will be ignoring the fact that, in most instances, the walls on Roundhill look much better than unkempt slopes and old wood fences; • You will be ignoring that you are possibly placing a substantial number of through lot property owners in `non conformity', reducing their properties' value, and all else which non conformity entails; and • You will be ignoring the fact, that after passage of anything resembling the Council's originally proposed ZTA, still on the table, and a subsequent CUP denial to extend out over a slope, you will quite possibly have set the stage for subsequent action against the City, involving those 73 residents' property rights, causing unnecessary cost to the City, when you already have the necessary tools in place to accomplish a reasonable approach to this issue. You can't make rules covering individual rights in perpetuity, which is what you are attempting by trying to pre-empt future elected officials. Now, with all that in mind, do you really think it makes any sense to support an ill-conceived ZTA with a sullied past, or any like it, while again, to quote the mayor in context, ".... adopting ordinances and regulations that take away .....property rights while risking even more lawsuits"? Simply accept the recommendations of your appointed Planning Commissioners and the Planning Dept.'s professional managers as presented to you on 4 October. Attached are the photos & legend for my Monday night's Public Comments. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, izc Picture Board Legend Prior to Project Approval (1-5) 1. Rear of Taylor residence (16661 Wellington Dr) showing lap pool built in 1989 inside existing wall and hill which faces Gilbert Dr. 2. Shot from opposite end in direction of Cohen's (appellant) home. (This home is at present partially owned by Richard Batistelli, FfHPOA Pres., though he no longer resides there or in HI-IPOA coverage area. 3. Same direction but showing minimal area for inner pool deck. Taylors considered a proposed wooden cantilever deck design over the hill when they built the pool, but didn't go forward as it didn't look esthetically good enough. The extended deck will provide longer afternoon sun. 4. Shot showing angled corner planter with palm trees which is the take off point for the extended deck to tie in with the existing structure and continue the use of the bull nose brick across the top of the stuccoed block wall. Note the large homes across the street, expanded in recent years, destroying the view. 5. This is a shot from the Gilbert Dr. curb, showing area for expanding our pool deck 10 of the 28 feet to the street. Ice plant or other ground cover will remain or be replanted in the approximately 500-600 sq. ft. that is not in the hillside portion of the pool deck. Pic also shows Cohen's lot line wall at far end and the other neighbor's cantilevered, over the slope deck. 1997-98 Proposed Pool Deck Rendering (2) November 2004 (6-12) 6. Looking from Gilbert Dr. curb, at pool deck wall with `view' wrought iron fencing. green stairs, pigmy palms, and ground cover with irrigation system. 7. Same, except from center of Gilbert Dr., with City parkway, which includes tall palms (will grow to 35'), newly planted palms of the same variety, and ground cover with irrigation system. 8. Same, moving eastward down Gilbert Dr. towards Somerset Ln., looking much like rendering. 7 foot setback up to 18 feet (pic#10), 8 -2- Picture Poster Legend (Cont) foot solid wall, finish stuccoed to match home, 3 V2 foot wrought iron `view' fence on top. 9. Same, continuing down Gilbert Dr., now in front of neighbor's property. Shows where wall turns angularly up the slope and along the top. Note comparison with #5 where neighbor has vastly improved over the slope patio deck with wrought iron fencing, also covering open cantilever in same manner as another on Somerset. 10. Closer pic of both angular and top of slope wall. Added pigmy palms and a young queen palm. 11/12. Reasonable 400 sq. ft. pool deck expansion, contrasting from the prior house side area. Much safer with full access to the pool. Our 2004 Views (13-15) None! 13. Looking east toward corner of Gilbert Dr. & Somerset Ln. at huge waterfront homes, blocking our view. 14. Looking southeast across Gilbert Dr. at huge home, blocking our view. 13-14-15. These three pics show huge, high (30-35') approved, rebuilt homes on Gilbert Dr. which totally block our views. We could at one time see the HB pier and ocean from our balcony. We understand our views are not protected, therefore now don't understand Roundhill residents' views are now suddenly to be protected under the guise of `ambience'??? Please think again........ willlla�dl't�l'1`�dw•M 1.I+i1�1 1\tR111��. �,�, - - ----- -!,l�,y,��11 - _• �,,, M - t a 4� ���- c.1ue1 �tiWltilhti��tpd61?d'`.631'tii/NNN1: gip,` r" li_• _ _ _ _ _ -. ,41N1!'tP]_i'PII`1\IJfA.�1�1` \I1�Md Jeap:nr�aw.esq.4l�v � d ..Juam.�ax�Pr p:;Rs 6l si tar:�e,M'oPcaa� _ -- i to IOU tolo 14�:: r . ++.'� xc a.]4aeu ears bD..R�mm��, ®E,s.e esai;s-a e.:,!sl il(3¢P�Iezd.ta:az a��.a,..,.-ys a�sewodT:aap3v.I P�}71a� e�t��a� `s�+�^•=�µ.z�,nr�ei l+; , i<w,s h-.,.,w e., n use..^.moo- 1.1 i da.�m.�.di^�.•wgw^am�--,7:'�+.� •Aw 2s.elcr�l—.+ems.e®a te�l�w.gS � � � �� Asa"sDtiucn .11� " :sR��gYbl�a.�4,.q RmWHrA 4a..e �e;.._,,...,E. _ __ � r .r- I i.ali'ac��.m e->w�w�s�0�1,•�":�'.. aeee�wa.1,fs+!a•i-asrPflfl..�Mse�.�� ca�w..cyo;p�oe' �-..e aF: 1 ��.i".�.�saal ras+3'bss •�r,...,,,-y '.^.P>�.ur�avR.-,...�:s >_ ..�.aa.�G�: aPcie-{;=�� �.ePb r,.�a. racdtapsf�- .�w�'� �ba�r- Cst ati'�'y�ahwOtl Raf e..�,.�ktr9X4*s*nc�lt.n sag b.lsap� z=s kssmf Y.^+,a; ,�"*°f.'R7fsa^.i+�` s++i we.i. �.w.a�A-.�.ss �1r'�.a 1a.v.*yP+,s wls7�. '�eaa.,..l hm�rC��,, - � i L-s•�l ca�rno r�0��.t5 e.�ssa+� -,..a._.xy+e-�art.ay-,M4 �,.,,�,�. __—_ —_ _ -.mtP=-a®.s�s �c�ect.__ ,'aa•�l�i$, i � .vaT�sa9�� j � U Michael and Donna Mance 16551 Mariana Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 (562) 592-7777 November 11, 2004 0 a =c City Council o City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 > Re: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03.01 o � — v Dear Mayor Green and Council Members, For the past 5 months my neighbors on Gilbert Island and our Harbour neighbors on Westport and Concord have attended Planning Commission Meetings, Planning Sessions and Council Meetings all with the goal of protecting our rights as property owners. If as stated by the residents on Roundhill that it was the intention of the builders to only have landscape on these slopes why then was the property deeded to individual homeowners and not keep and maintained by the association? If that was the intent, then all of these massive homes on the water should have never been allowed to be built, as if that was the intent of the builders then one would assume they would have built large homes in the first place. Owners and plans change. Just look at the downtown area. The planning office has told me that views are not protected. But here we have the Roundhill people complaining about their views from their front doors and driveways. Or the fact that they have to look as these walls when they drive down their street. Well we all have to look at things we don't like. We have houses all over Huntington and even houses in the Harbour that are unkempt. One other thing that does not seem to have been addressed at the last council meeting is the exorbitant fee of$8,396.00 to apply for a permit to build a wall with no guarantee that it will even be approved. Is this fee city wide or only for those few who have through lots and a slope and live in the Harbour? This sounds more like extortion to me, in the sense that even if you do l � 1 entertain the thought to try and extend and improve your yard, you stand to loose that money, because now you will have to notify people that live 1,000 feet away from you and in the case of Gilbert Island may not even drive by your house or even live on the street below your backyard. Or in the case on Westport and Concord if you live towards the end of your street do you have to notify people who live on Phillips or Stiles? The Council and Planning Commission have bent over backwards trying to satisfy a few residents and the HHPOA president. On Gilbert Island there was a petition passed and signed by all of the slope owners but three (one being the HHPOA president who's whole house and staircase are built on the slope but does not have a through lot) and also signed by many waterfront property owners who I would say have the same rights and views as those who live on Roundhill. I was one of the owners who went door to door to get signatures. At the last meeting it was asked by Council Member Cook if the intent of this petition was that we wanted to look at ugly walls. Well no, but also we want to keep our property rights and be able to build out our lots or add a retaining wall and that was the purpose of the petition. It was a way for homeowners unable to attend meetings or not comfortable speaking in public to show their support to deny ZTA 03-01. The residents on Roundhill only want plants or greenscape; they don't want walls or hardscape of any kind on these slopes. This has been their stance all along. No compromise. We slope owners understand the need for some guidelines, but to allow one homeowner to have such power as to say whether another homeowner can improve their property is wrong. The Roundhill homeowners do not own these slopes, pay property tax on them, cover them by insurance or pay to maintain them but they think they have a right to say what we do with these slopes. If the city feels the need to give these people this right then all slope owners should be compensated accordingly for full value of what they are loosing. In my case since my husband and I own a corner lot with slopes on 2 sides, this is probably 25%-30% of our property. So I'm asking you to please leave our property rights in place and leave thing as they are. Re ectfull , CJU Donna Mance k. ZONINGTEXT o c_ NO 03mOl Co `- � Y October 42004 Y THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Date: November 15 , 2004 CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION 'UWW • To develop alternative fencing criteria to be inco orated into the code • To create a standardized block wall design that allows limited expansion of rear yards while still preserving aesthetic qualities of the slopes ALTERNATIVE A v 2-foot retaining wall @ prop.. line 0 5-foot setback to 6-foot block wall v Pilasters @ 1 0-foot intervals Q � Illla llll-= II Fill _ W�III I MIN a � t1q=11q AV ty j �" ,h �o � �. Y�ix �: .� r L % �,� •�#."•;+i y,'yiA� ` i�„�i. G'#• '-i i SE t'i 'e. t, i t � ♦ � i t�� ��,..i .Y ./! }+i�.j�� n y . ''"`�?J.Sy `f�i`•Jf�t ! j��f+,��,q'�ri'r�,.tw.; �.;y � �k• � . .,�1i�'(,...4��•+ . r W; •�q•. •A1��}�fy�•'��'�"Y1 fM3�..-' .>i?1 9`.[ , .,i t •�•`��,.i�s�• �• rt`r»�'��. r=1i +- �w �. '�,�c t�•,��r�+a.'�`�i,�',- .� ,i � +�'' •s.• � yrV� '�iSt' f �Ty X' f ��M��. :.��'F�� fi+S' �;t�}.is .. � z �.� CRti ��`' �,:�� � �„ t•4 7 � �^`+ .[e• f"„�,,,,t�'�i �-T J::T,.,+Y��. #. �$ ♦ 4� a;� � ��� ita ,R.4 �ryr �Gy ' ft � , f; �i•� s �..�r �rt��'�71������►►►�••• ti f-a .s +� i.... 'q vAo — li NQ ,f"�'jr,�'t„�3' t � VJ �� yy""aa�� G�,� ; ��� '�'is''R � �r•L`.�' ��, r J � } ^!f '�' "_`---•. 5 � r�+ .i-�''R[. � Y��A :,� e11;IC�'Lt � `^t y '!. i �r f�*���� . --.. i �`��� ��yy l• ff c r . g # dai j •' Y °tea 4� t - '� _ff�"t�'i ¢ •,t,�gg, ''° yy r �p Yj 3� °a vF § 1ii t,�`♦ t� , �.,$ ,i[i" T ]! �.� •✓ � f �V�' {� � Y�J,. � f'•} rfiL�L tY R'.� ii? .# •�SY "'� '� � t.i# � t� h�� � lr 1 - it •X*, i L n �tiL+k �'.� 6 �$. i4 �kt� s � i-y�p.'t� �y�i-�"1iS� '� &# Si .' � +Ei y�c� atk. �'i'i '",.;y w ! 'fie •i, ^jt«> .x:�+[.+'fi"_,°�tn�ei' s.��t'"�"''�.., i�''��`��.*' alb�i +'� i ' �$ ��;4 �,� it"fiaa�� ��'' { y,•F�� ,,'^ µ. A'yig * »�.•'e .• ♦R "1'rb i 0 J� ��y4� +�wi'.ytT� '4# •� � 'f� s i� ��� [a,� i�.�nh4t���'�•. �.`� �'v. •i wJ i.�i M^ �$::� � p • y+.w A 'i-s �'�1s .' ifk � �-ar�'a p, J" eta tr�? .k. �k ,�4. s w es m Y ALTERNATIVE B 7-foot setback to 6-foot block wall Decorative fence matefial a . s � - -Ilttlll q ���ltii -fill «�! V, '4tS4 ^+4 i,1����"J�� �4�i+.,✓�i ����� «j � '.M�' ��' -..�'.It�{t!L• - �,,, w` � # ,"1��a4` s '•� �tti� %slstMwLt4� t i �/�«� •-� es 1 ,'r< tF e. 1• 'AI�l�If. jl •' �, :�1 is + •, '+r •+,i� �`.*��4 ;,.. F1+ -•«�`•�,_,�ti� *. i ',!.�,*p i•! « ( *,,..t••ry,• �fir 1 ,� fd y+r'Y f�, Kf �t - x i �•,�f�4 j� 1;f i Z i '�yiys • "�yr��,•��.`" '�t iK ,�+ •+�j/'• L�`# -. .. s+i a '`: .ti•'•4 ,�'*�,a 1 I + f 4 #� ' ,i •r4^Y2+:p, i "" tt...i — „ ;iTif: k F ICY` rw 104 '..t��.. s,� ice,. *�,r � ... %,, `" {4n t+•:r-:� , • SO x' t I, .� ' •, � � �• `��.,, ,.. '�j`« � Rai. x Y� 4 � � ♦��+�M x . t,"a�•.. g, ALTERNATIVE C * 2-foot retw"ni"ng wall @, prop. line * 9 f. setback to 8 f. combo moral vier fence Ri x W Max., 3 ft.,. ght View fence = Max. 5 ft., height t7 FM q1IM111- OU ALTERNATME ~ ple �)r r A l t 7j'� s.',�t {�»a..4` _.: a;� •y�.,a} i �' .�.i'�' ��r'sC''n++,�,.�?;, �us , k'" fi','.kJ✓f rY ^k x d',;ep- ,y� c-u• r, 'r'�`'' .rt Ilk Iy,7wF���J.^'� .r:', ;..t. .�'% d�rf7 i/•'s-x'•- :i;�:'�+F': ' +r•". a.' t 1' s`} !�� �i^ .+r�+�'4 �'�-".. �,,da tr, ..'try" _ f "�*'" `. "� "�i•e, � ,Y. �;:' r�-,i!!?�r `�^{'..'�- °t.4 i�,�-�" rs '�iF`'�F- '�'''�#•-j r'�yn• ♦r t'"e{. : •f a�•�' t�.'�T - •P - '"fit I .r 'r'�,-�`�lv''�C�'�►,�" ,z .�..=�:, r':.Ar �r,�J �,�, �'� yz'1:>+` °►� . e. t r .'$',c`.S i+t,h+{r•:.+i"/�..:._��.,,,,��f n.-1: reY F�� .4dy:�.?4�i±'y.�•-`,C•.`.,r�,lly�r�w"'�:;'�..`•.e' �� iai° .*''e-4�#.rf.' .% �-S"y�i"-"•.y t.�l��+"•;�"` v4 `. .��� r r.' 1 :;+r''i` .i.j+P-.>~.•}'�,;• .�.' ?r"d�p- '.tr .r si, f'='t .^�6r,Y 1�[rls. u �''�' ?Y�,""'? �`.�".Ta .E+:�-' ,+ r,€;.�* �' tom`•-o..:4..'�r�"�.t re`Yi.�'� •.« �'d.rf Y, � w " .� e. r „.«n;;r `.. ,kJ► ST t `:f � v "a.r. �g{r'.,r,t 7 • �' *sy.e.s� rr .?•";w; r "� Y" f ,�6 .i„ `/..�•,E�' S- y16• ��m•,s.•�.. , ��,{�i{• � t!F i r t, *4" t.' '��.u�°�. rr "f"ty,,tt. � y#�'R.^f s,,, ii;C' �. ,�Y°",`•3{•f ti'�`•,.,,�'.' v,�, �•. '�'iC'r:,..,�•,S�«�;'w� ���a �,_,+2.�"��lP'�:' :+F�i .+?» �x,>,'a' � _ _ itt"` �i'•'"•.,r'iY;.�!r t',r•{ .._ ^�r '- .v+^',t J's=�'^r w,.; •� �; ,.'�',r: •,[ i+.{•+�Si .n S�:.✓.'�' rs„1."� c,3y,,frctr :� ytl ? y ;3� -{.,.....%'�• _ °.. �' - i.�'_ 1 s � - 2.� rt•,.!/" t - ,S:cd.... .••'•` r � YR 1." i. ,K.a"Y•'i.,"�" 2� <II•'�' "� '4 ' a�//''fyit��JJ J,,,,,-�LL �q y ✓' 'ye �Y -y}+ .'w•p` +,a 3 k t rd+w�°.,'1�.+'/�',' �r� a.1•k•'1 i.7': fTl .�Jr.,.�a3d'..7'Sfi7.Pr.+aJrs'Mgct+i:�M xf• ,.�.� y��`��f'�i_:;'�1.Ai�1•�.y h�,'-'t_F�JI " �!. 1 fit_ �. a �- . ALTERNATIVE D u 2 f. retedning wall @ prop. line u 1 0 ft. setback to 7. 5 f comb. fence Retw-n7in- M- eight View fence Max. 6 f. height ut A 11 lit% lit + a�S'!'. h� I .nil♦ � yf� �)a •.a�, 1..1, ..�. ,. 5 (� • .:'� .�a�+w.a y V�it'�,Rr: it a xy �" : ! 4r � r •:� ".r it's ' '� r�l p a lot J- 7 G ] c r`41 �4 PROCESSING ALTERNATIVES �1) Permitted by fight. when in compliance with criteria/ CUP to ZA for all other requests 2) Permitted by fight. when in compliance with criteria/ CUP to PC for all other requests 3) Permitted with CUP to ZA when in compliance with criteria/ CUP to PC for all other requests SUMMARY Four alternative fence designs and three processing alternatives have been provided for City Council review. Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 1:25 PM To: CITY CLERK Subject: FW: Opening "Closed" Public Testimony re: D-1 Through lots Amendment FYI -----Original Message----- From: Adrienne Parks [mailto:aparksl@msn.com] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 12 :35 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus Subject: re: Opening "Closed" Public Testimony re: D-1 Through lots Amendment Dear City Council Members, I strongly urge you to re-open to "public" testimony tonight's City Council meeting, Monday, Nov. 15, 2004 . And, secondly, to allow the next Council seated in December to continue the review of same. When I picked up the meeting agenda, I noted that you had unilaterally (and without public comment) closed said meeting to any further testimony. Needless-to-say, I was and am surprised at your action when clearly information about retaining walls and the latest building technologies is still coming in and needs to be reviewed and discussed re: D-1, the zoning amendment re: through lots. This is not a closed item to many of your constituents, especially those through lot residents who will be charged by the city a $8,400.+ permit fee to build a wall, plus charged $200-500. in affected neighbor "notification" letters. You yourselves asked your staff to review retaining wall design possibilities and report back to you at this meeting -- and since you are our representatives, surely you should have no problem with our participating in your review of same. That requires we, too, have input to said discussion and ultimate outcome - especially as this proposed amendment threatens to illegally usurp homeowner property rights. Instead of an amendment, what the city can do is let all city residents know of the latest in building technologies and materials re: "Segmented Retaining Walls ( (SRW) , " walls in general, and masonry finishing techniques not extant at the time most existing through lot retaining walls were City-permitted and constructed. Home owners throughout Southern California, from Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano to Aliso Viejo, Newport Coast, and Oceanside have all allowed their property owners to utilize state-of-the-art building materials, design, and good taste to create neighbor-friendly communities (see photo package submitted today, Monday, November 15, 2004) . Perimeter walls can be attractive. There are a wealth of wall designs, colors, masonry dyes, stucco textures, trellises, and other vegetation solutions that property owners can utilize to make the expression of their property rights more palatable to the down hill folks. This degree of neighborliness need not be legislated, merely requested. "Through lot" property owners who wish to build out their property are good people, supportive neighbors, tax payers, and concerned citizens who only want the best for their neighborhoods. And are willing to work with the affected "down" hill folks by interacting with them in a neighborly way -- not under Council mandate. Please keep government out of our back yards. Since this is the last Council Meeting before the newly elected board takes office, I urge you to not vote on D-1 tonight. All pertinent information has not been heard nor sufficiently reviewed. Much continues to come in. Please allow the next seated City Council to review all of the information regarding this issue before they vote on this amendment. Thus, since all has not been said, I urge you to re-open tonights D-1 discussion and participation by the public and to not vote on said issue tonight but allow the new Council to again take. up the issue when it is seated in December. Thank you, Adrienne Parks Westport Drive homeowner 15 year resident of Huntington Beach 2 1 CI;Y OF Adrienne Parks NUII ri vie;i tll� BEACH, CA 17085 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 2904 NOV 15 A I1: 0 o: (714) 377-3719 November 15, 2004 To: Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach re: Zoning Amendment 03-01 (backyards) Dear Planning Commissioners, After much research into "through lots" both in our own community and throughout Southern California, I would like to add the information packet I have assembled to your "food for thought." I believe that all of us, Westport, Gilbert, and Roundhill, Courtney residents have been under the impression that the only "perimeter" wall was of necessity a plain grey cinderblock. That is entirely not true any more. As you will see, I am including three items: 1) A package of 31 color photo copies showing attractive walls, all of which have been constructed in the past ten years as new technology and building materials have made "decorative" perimeter walls a possibility. This includes several supplemental pages re: several of the new building block technologies, to include but one: Versa-Lok. These new industrial strength, but residential friendly interlocking retaining wall blocks have been designed and used successfully by commercial, municipal, and residential retaining walls for the last decade, I think it safe to say that all Huntington Harbor residents intend to build neighbor friendly walls - whether in their back, side, or front yards. When we purchased our house in 1989, it already had a retaining wall which had been installed circa 1985 by the previous home owner. So we did not have to go through the perimeter wall design and building process. When our back yard wall was designed and built, the technological advances in "Segmented Retaining Walls" which utilize "interlocking" building materials had not been introduced. That is not to say that I am suggesting a city council mandate to homeowners to build SRW walls. Merely that this is one attractive option that has not yet been explored by the City Council and the various homeowner groups. 2) An information package of articles about attractive retaining walls: "Newport Coast Community, Not Just a Pretty Face," "Soil Retention Systems' Patented Walls Ensure Stability For Small and Large Projects" which appeared in the Aug. 2003 issue of the Engineering and General Contractors Association publication, "Segmental Retaining Walls Add Stability to Shaky Ground" which states that "5RWs are gaining popularity in LC"V UIIY\MS'o,V � 2 earthquake-prone regions of the U5," "Retaining Walls: Looks Do Matter" which appeared in "Erosion Control" magazine,and newspaper articles on subjects such as "Retaining Walls Add Visual Appeal to Landscaping." 3) My third package includes several elevation drawings showing a few possibilities in wall design using either the new interlocking building technology blocks or traditional building materials. Please allow Westport, Gilbert Island,and related/interested homeowners who purchased their property in good faith to continue with the property rights that accrued to them at the time of purchase. It recently came to Westport and Gilbert Island residents that home sale "comps" for the last several years show that houses on Roundhill have increased steadily in value and are comparable to all Harbor properties. Thus, clearly no financial harm has been done to Roundhill and related "down" hill residents property values due to legacy building issues. I urge you to allow the residents of the Harbor,and specifically those residents of the affected "retaining" wall streets to work together in a spirit of harmony to solve the decorative vs. aesthetic issues re: retaining walls. A council-passed "law" that unfairly targets only the residents of through lots will only continue serve to divide neighbors - not unite us. Thank you for your consideration, Adrienne Parks Homeowner � � � i ,� � �' ,� >�, .� � ,{. .� -� � ; �. � a: �, ,.�r ,�- s k' _ �_, ,: �, '""". t. r. a � '`� ' � 3 k � 1 t.� v.� _ i r I v`s�`t r� � � _ d'n1 '" t �,t �rr' � �.'r w �,. �v `�.�f r-� � rat ' �.. �,._ `.` � t; � ter �{ sr � e ' �- 4 +y � ` r%� FrtTk t �� A �.1 a._. k aY'�Ta Y"�„F 1 � r� � at s� 1 ,l�f `T� '�,,� � y, I�jk ` T � `u�t�z �'� �� .� �N � xt �, i ". ' 1 � �r �,�... � , .., , �u •.: _ *. .� ;�; �� ,ter ��� a.: �s ': �'r� - < � �` 4 �. _ e � � .. .a t. �,� . �. .% n* '�-r., �.E �� .�.; �. �� .',<y: ytF � � ' i � � ' � / , , , � NEWLY PLANTED "VEGETATED" FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALL ►"' 'R"-y +4+°�', vn•.' *'Y" ��`yam.. =a `: ;• x.. .� :Y-. ,'' ram' - "i. e rb •_ lR;f°fie •.�$',�.,,�q ;,` ^ + .:.>, °'r,. �, : .: , i WALL PICTURED IS 20+ FEET TALL AT MAX, HUNTINGTON HARBOR WALLS CAN BE TIERED, VEGETATION CAN CREATE DESIGNS, ETC. MATURE "VEGETATED" FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALL WITH "INSET" OF BACK YARD VIEWS OF HOMES ATOP RETAINING WALL PIP _L�A nm-,�r ..� *'• ;�::�,' n':k '. t�ti,� r fiR.3t �.�ri q�;;y,T.`9t+--��. d '�} � 4 fit , 1r USES FAUX ROCK MATURE "VEGETATED" FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALL ih ! �. �+J7p�:. 1'r,`�!,-:r:,y 4@''y.I,� t 7 _t..' �'L R'k•."'t�'at•fr�� � � dd1 "SHa��,s�' � fib, F J4# •�',,rf�"'�`A,'-}'�• "{'.,. F�# .5�; � h:�� .�leµ, ;:7 � � •„��1•��.�`"U,,.'�'i. �� ������✓. �:`. �v���_:•,; f-_�zl .�r...:.5 C} ��k.a rd �� ,�1�F3`t�-.a���},_.- � `� - _�.�J USES VERDURA FAUX ROCK MATURE FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALL IN BLOOM r�rr� p rz � . rt_ ' RETAINING WALLS COME IN MANY COLORS -INCLUDING GREEN C 11 pol VA, n�,� AY. t ixr YF• �' .a,„ g "a:t'q}''a. F' �". '{,+, ('y ' .4cd ; •"'e Abti '"X'` . gib,d° �r �r'".'} � r� �'i� x� + t,} iv �+c �«1 '' •. �" 8r7q�'"as �y � ,i .}' �, _",� t � �'aF t; ��� � Y aTwiT •}: S� F�. . YID`' .t,. � - GREENERY MATURING IN FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALL LJ Y i *om wY*. ij f. S � r fix, f DIFFERENT FACADE TO FAUX ROCK WALL AS GREENERY COMES IN MEDIUM CLOSE OF GREENERY MATURING IN FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALL �(7 '11' T // )�j. �� '�`:z;,��•'�'f vl 'l y�+,,�y,5��}."+. � "A4 -� >��a7 d!'g�h,_ '�• ``Yt�Cel�.�� ���`'1{,1. �sn�ii Fr., �i,7'". ">�'`�?t�"� a,�:(�. it ., �¢ � �s� bf`� ;.,,;;•.'�'�'��`���f�r�1hr��)' rho<'�'� '.. � '� `� ���`t�"1,3� ''.��• 'merit*�,.�`ft`It�a�� ��`rij� 2q�� �' .1�•�� � �tir ap Ski rt�c.�,.'`,�,. l�, I� �., gin, �`;•'�Y •. �'".�`,. r"a 1; t1'A a rl r• d '9' � .:a `' i S'•mod:. �ryl � q�`ti'�:{. rip •1'��i Ar� ���`L+ ,' �'i~a*r��,�~ RETAINING WALL AS GREENERY COMES IN s i Ti oi lip 4" �ppi�w e i yQtt }gJ. tit „ � rt z STAGGERED RETAINING WALLS WITH GREENERY MATURING Ir LT We Al Y I rn r� T ? �1 tY , r� w A r. �. I FAUX "ROCK" RETAINING WALL DESIGN WITH PLANTED SLOPE AND BACK-SET SLUMP STONE WALL RETAINING WALLS COME IN ALL FLAVORS y iPtzhR 6(° h��� y�j, �Y Rkfi�� j�e�^ i � •3" _ .f �} 1 p p� reF 16 "r °•; �rki�fi# a". �` s< i'�a. .r.>+ to .�. y .�;r,'3sa no{7'r a^ � �� .,a� d ti '�`�`r.�w:"� �e{z�'�S.�,t �t��e' t+p7�.r ��� sy�������.�"�3r ,� «s�•��''i��s..".'�' �Yb ,q^� PARTIAL SLOPE, AESTHETICALLY XEROSCAPED WITH VERDURA RETAINING WALL BLOCKS RETAINING WALL "PLANTER" BASE POSSIBILITIES 41 �y f FAUX "ROCK"RETAINING WALL "PLANTER AREA" PLANTED FOREGROUND NEWLY PLANTED "VEGETATED" FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALL (Crystal Cove) 1R f " WALL PICTURED IS 35+FEET TALL AT MAX MATURE "VEGETATED" FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALL (Aliso Viejo, CA) J Rk4 WALL PICTURED IS 251 -451 FEET TALL NEWPORT COAST FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALLS `J��5., kh 73, IN-0 .ti. Faux rock holds 80 ft 3 tiered walls supporting high-end housing tract. And provides suitable "rear frontage"walls for new Newport Coast pass through lots. tip,. ir�i'. �''i :.71.�'t .Li .r�-.F .ram, • �. 1 _ : :set ,�.1.,+�r:AA��.,},'e.�'.�•'� `'..�4• _k 444 c ;.w•:•} ..�. fr..•,}'•..'o ram.- `y�'^C•.. ^+.' jr'"_,'+'• t;�'S ..lr'• .} VI C. :1f Nq ob ��!'�j*�yap ' � �'_'.3��'�;- , r �� • ,''tea.,'1i;T :1t ,��ri,�r"�.,'.••�' "' "��_', • 1 1 ' 1 1 i .#� 'a.w_r:3..�h"��+� •,h"' .Ys�. rE: :. Ter•t --_. ., ++:'« ,}� , ��:, 'S� �'.#•� d^ae'.,+z".,``: •�y��?: - dry; -.�r � �t-f:. wit ct ��i� it�;r% �•' � 't `.��1.+. 4 `fin. - e •�`i . r ,' r�•At AM, 4. t� Xi • `°c'j �.t.+ 'i.'��.�a`,jti��:t ys�~'PrA �'p'`'r'.c��ri 1 .4' f•";V:`;'w,l -7_j,_. ya ,I•'.!..Qe�i 14 t+'";•' �'l`• �/rL���-'N �. i, z..`ti 1`Jr�•a''�r' ..: � 'I'i :Y '. tom' .,,':i'.'.,�, ,- s �'';' .fir;z• •x i Y •Its '�"." °yt:Y,'-.�r..•�;r.��V!. '. s ".- . ��.Tw•w���.. .. .J • r� � .• .. -F� :�.- � .f•+ '� 7. i•yy�Yr� �Y .:l :{�-�e„""�.�?"� � '�:�. .',• '••' - ..i�..j- '�' it r..� •a`w,a '\,• .AFL "��r �y ,.• .�.��..:'.7�. I • 1 1 µl — ��:� mot.:_ r`y�+",:..,.Y. �..f..�``"�C�-:,_ �y • LA �._~.`s}n:..'�r��•�. ?tom+ � .. �-; �.� �. ¢•..- •�.: t.+ . 4 :'. y. .r,;.� , ;tom.�,•' �.K��.. `L ;1 ('t�'I ;�"y,i ,R. , `;� .,: :. - :4,,;a',.x`,(' r•�.::'ifa`' `.N' "!+c^;3'k"l,. y 'ra"t. 7";y �`L`'}y.�!.jr`.i!1 PI.f � o:.i�'•;c.,' �"a:r,':, y �.y�,'7F � .,._.::,a :�Y^,,��,_��.�,' ^7 �'f•.kR..''�!tk�3{; M1'' ',#' .gin' - i.i.�,y ,��` -.t.�r^.n,�.,.•.. JUST PLANTED FAUX ROCK VARIATION AGGREGATE RETAINING WALL (GREEN VALLEY) This wall is constructed of the faux rock sub-structure and irrigated with horizontal irrigation. �':: '•5 �r'h ti�.S��'Crl: ''e'try;�� x.,�~�•�a��-k{5������y N '.j ��-r J �*ax L i`�+�� :,;t..s�� ,'� �;.'. ,k.aj,•.I},, ".1• S.A•.4:r: .gti?. �f�r�Y'`!i?L At ��-'•�<`r'~�'•t'k � ='`• :,,�+ ' is ir.'..:. �<-<_ t ~ . ,..+',_ !3� 'Etr•.;I - C;.:::.•. ray 55���;,;r.`�L;•<6 q't7n '�•.S`,ri�i ., ,"fly '•... '.�e' ��:'<-:fi1'T "�R�q 9 +..r i5f• y '..1�. � "f G.A' :�r�;.^#•i4,t� :, .c.=s.a t• +r- � .Y:'•:T: <� Y .T;,T-'9 f.. ,dj:;fs.�,i}.' s ,y: fa!f. ,/ 6!.'{�' ��:gt.v�;i� ,f V'�.,:_:: •;C.-rC s ', .<�•' r{qCT p..r'�. .rye 1j',,+'1}+.-t �d.'sr ,d , ^hY• �A:�'� ,..k A e:r�J'le"4,'.: ,. .''.-` ��'r1,�s2'}k3' y�yy�<i .'. ^1+a,�'.- ,•�'+/��✓ .,.;-�i'yi•������'���'L.y'yj..'`:R�,�,eY:, � ••r.'. �'A i.' 7' 'i'r(< • "" '..,it'��� •�+i• a.. i1t i �y �... j x. , a • `s l . `err.sj,A u�5'"r•r"'•,ti {fir '��< •s; � _� �' `iY�.�.r...r�;t.'.y{y�., iiFg,fir.-t�i.�'%"!N;•'•)`,,y+,�'t• i.;•.', i . • •'tFi�, 'r' �'4 rs";,- :•r�";�'i;,a @�sn--'";. ... ;t..r,';'•: ,,:''•l'!j) .� — — �,` �;."Y�•',.' �':�. ;,- ';;t r'i•:`�.:?.,,Y.•-tyr,• *ram •"i'�. �N e�r:�..l .,.,. +.a{Y.ri. �. -' 'Iz �'�' ,4:• .. ,rS'�s�.�it�,r.'�•�6n::;` .j< k. a:r�.,�,�'t ' _ � ';i:,�'�r •� ;T..•,+.•`;'{�' ,',.-'.SY.::a!r' .�.. �s�s .i"ii.�. �7j.��. r,.,•Y,V •�. — �r ,,, jy',lr,� ,i• •.w.-.'.r'. '� Ark-...• ��'�r, �( �� f � + r':��;. �< � '� '• ".ter'' '' i'=+�')''23-*� t� .uE'C; •< :. 4. _ .'et'..:•.�'u :;,'fir-': „�:.�1:.rr.,'J�.'u•• a• • x`'" �f' :Y� «„ik�`�. � r.j��� .i'•, .� !.':.,.-_!+ ;C:.6;'"I`�{•".�i'.�Y�'"�`.•.iq4 y4, ee �. •. •n:, '„�;�<: �.r` s.;:.i'':-�r;�f-e:fi'�.r.<**;. �x:4Nr,+,•S;F',•l.r.�. '.A2i.h:,w�'.�..s .`!:��� � �e '�• ..�' •.': yi." r•�A;.••-• 'S r,�'y'r�> ;.�.:.�.•r��:. .•�1xt:.,..'v�ry,�_ ,1 j:` �r' i7:.= •'> -''�.i-.ds,+`.'r+' ;.a-f�t�..'ys-J..T...P':ti.Cw..*'�-V::fit• .e'f� �,,<.;;<�.�• :J;y •'> _ ' - �'� ,,Fs �<;,. ':.:•:,j.«:t s•cl'�',;%.,<+'tv;,�:< H�i,5�_`.xr:,,r.�.} fY?'�., �"�y�''.��-' '' �. ' ��"`�' „t--.- -,.;Y-.'�-r;• a •.�.:�. :j';r.:'-`�':. ,t,ps-�;' .s � �-.` �•:.��1Y�: .r.r::.Lr � �{Fes. �'"�.. �:R.<"•; ,J.. n-: .r& y i r � yy1 t r �..� rri':-.:..31*,,. s�ik:! p�R..� ,r �„rt� +kr� ;•?i:�' ':s.:'yp4, {r'-��'� ,��Y� ` !� •lXr.Y��"���.. �A� �jf24',:'vr,.+"";I .µ"me � h� �� :' j'•?� 6 UN 77 �.�� �:t. .Re• �-_�-4.,.ti5 �': �_.�s:;�. �� `+�'f•S' .f .:.• '� .ky,5.�.�y M'' ,.���,,1� 1 �,Y;y .{i:...Yy 6�.� .i*.t►+V,Y'..' v:. �' �df'f asl Ir — CT ar:. ...a..: t"Jv:" M. : - ..�'Y'. Vie. i�•' .�. ,r."�c:•�- ��,''s.�Y.�:.'..,`V:. _ • 'r ., p :ice :: JUST PLANTED "TWO-TIERED" RETAINING WALL Irrigated with standard irrigation. Also used commercially, this type faux rock holds 80' tall walls. Ati-1 If it VIEW LOOKING DOWN ON IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR "VEGETATED" FAUX ROCK RETAINING WALL (Aliso Viejo, CA) c View through wrought iron fence of irrigation heads at top of wall set to spray vertically onto wall face. Irrigation heads placed at about 8 ft horizontal spacings directed upslope and over face of wall. "FLAT FACE" RETAINING WALL PLANTED BY DESIGN (MISSION BAY, CA) .4 +^ hi ¢ �• '+Yd.. a^4'�Tf` Irrigated with standard irrigation. TWO TIERED "FLAT FACE" PLANTED RETAINING WALL (CAN BE APPLIED TO THROUGH LOT REAR YARDS) �r 1 4, c L� �.,-� max`J'•'l.'"U" -- �,=✓_' - �;_.-'. .�.. �,• - n p�, i Qr - Irrigated with standard irrigation. 1 1 ' ' 1 1 Si��:�y , t•. •�2 _i 2 ��'� iye� f L" 1 l A � ,.: Pam' ..:.'��.` '�� .•. :.�.. Fy. . • �' 9.. • ., : `5.. .o -m RETAINING WALL WITH FENCING MATERIAL 3 , -17 �filll H �a •,;,fie '„4i: „ „ a«ar Wiz, ,=.,,'. ,, " ,�;,`,i�''•`'',, '.#: Most new building materials stipulate how and where to install fencing and/or guide rails (post depth and setback, if any) whether for safety or just railing. Setback and embedment depth of posts and guide rails will vary with conditions and loading. MULTI-TIERED RETAINING WALL All OPP •l '�:17 ",3'fir S.r.. - •-.-_ -_ ,l__ _ .f',.�vt �I 1° 1 t_ .ram t Homeowners can chose from many available materials and design backyard wall as fits their home and pocketbook. FLAT FACED RETAINING WALL 7-L f,nti',r.;r?:#�'`t LA Or* •.�'�`V": .. Homeowners can chose from many available colors and materials as fits their home and pocketbook. RETAINING WALL USES "VERSA-LOK" BLOCK WALL — This cross section illustrates typical interlocking material retaining walls. Mortarless standard walls are installed on granular leveling pads and do not require concrete footings below. The amount and layout of drainage materials and geosynthetic soil reinforcement is site/soil dependant. The 3/ " setback of each unit creates a seven degree cant. Canted walls are structurally stable. CAP UNIT (ADARL WITH VCRSA—-0K f:6NCRFI-- ARHESIVF1 t tMP=R� r1L1 �\�\ \V •/ 12' DEEP + GEOSYNTHETIC I " ! RFINFOcRCEMFNT 1 RETA'ttE J 50iL _--CRMNAGE A.^,GR=GhTz. L`ER, A-LOK ` 12' THICK N.IN. :5'WENTAL CONCRETE JJJ, 1 H: PACING UNFIS— ���\ \�%�\� � I I 1 €I xo REIAft?fi Aa PRDX. EXCAVATION LINE ` CROJNFJWATF R DRXNAGI I,— U1<AIN F=IP£ COUPOSITE SYS"1 EN �- ^-GRA"°WAR LEVELING ''AD JFOOKDAT10N SOIL 6` 1HzCK 1ARN_ T��1 TWO TIER RETAINING WALL •6i++1+ii FIGURE I 40 a.r..r•.r •vl.r..wr «•••••°• UNDISTURBED SOIL •.!l.rrr. ........i IMPERVIOUS FILL ... ♦.. li3Pl:ili DRAINA(--�E AGGREGATE �•.,�q, .�c:r COMPACTED LEVELING P �,L; COMPACTED 1314CKFILL Distance between levels can be modified to suit homeowner. Verdura 10 Verdura 30 Posi Dura Verdural0 Buff/Tan— Verdura30 BufflTan— 500'Spool Posi-Dora Rein- forcing Fabric- SRP MODEL#31102 SRP MODEL#31302 SRP MODEL#62200 BUFF/TAN Verdural0 Terracotta Verdura30 Terracotta 50 Pack Posi-Dura Pipe for Verdura 30 SRP MODEL#31103 SRP MODEL#31303 SRP MODEL#62100 TERRA-COTTA � e Lgj` Verdural0 Exposed Verdura30 Exposed Posi-Dura fabric Aggregate- Aggregate- (per font) SRP MODEL#31104 SRP MODEL#31304 SRP MODEL#62200EACH EXPOSED .: AGGREGATE , Verdura30 Grey- Posi-Dura Pipe for Verdura 30(each) SRP MODEL#31301 SRP MODEL#62100FOOT GREYt �. / Soil Retention Products, 2501 State Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-966-6090, fa: 760-966-6099, e-mail: sales@soilretention.com - � � Li PLAN VIEW YE.A„�RED Faa,E.Ic a,��a a PY�-aR RD U rtM , o ,m i a - SIDE VIEW TOP OF WALL DETAILS SIDE VIEW - POSI-DURA CONNECTION DETAIL GEOSYNTHETIC CONNECTION DETAIL CASE A CASE B cnsE c FRONT WALL PROFILE END OF WALL TRANSITION DETAILS a , c� r. BLOCK SPACING DETAIL POSI-DURA REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT ON CURVES _ -of c«.,m,w+ru aFwwm eEr«EEn PROPERc01E05mr1E11C ROrvFURCEYEM FM ------ -ENT v/LIERIvf1F—DS'nMEICRREwFORC SEC TONS ruruna n wv -_- - (�i5 SCnEYwiC 5 EVGGER-u'0 III f0 Siµ 1 r' TOI VIEW TOP VIEW • '''�1 �14CMm ooruf �� c mvao,wr ffal On'i\ItW SIDE VIEW OVF VItW SIDE VIEW . "^,f"P••+• \ L F VFiN11M Sn EUGrR TtOORT�n rcavFR GRD0RIDkPO51.DVRA kErvFU0.CLR M COPYRIGHT W 2003 b Sod Rel Os-PFodI,b,Inc VERDURA 60 BLOCK DETAIL VERDURA 60 BLOCK WITH NOTCH DETAIL GEOGRID PLACEMENT ON CURVES CROSS-SECTION 0'-60' Y S REVISIONS SOIL RETENTION PREPARED FOR PROJECT Verdura60 WALL BLOCKST11,1T L TZ' PLANTABLE RETAINING � O PLAN VIEW PLAN VIE Jl� v—------ TOP OF WALL DETAILS SIDE VIEW - SIDE VIEW POST-DURA CONNECTIONT DETAIL GEOSYNTHETIC CONNECTIONT DETAIL cnse A case a — t cnsE C FRONT WALL PROFILE END OF WALL TRANSITION DETAILS x. ---T BLOCK SPACING DETAIL POST-DURA REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT ON CURVESjT i:_ r m o w.w.r eu Rcamm en.m+ ma�nec _ l IL—I 2' RD �R Pa� ' - rtVLT H�R QOSYNrKIt RFfiREivFNt -' RACLEnr rD CMIYNOIn WMKDRCFD SRrgaS .- C(ms uic1wrc n ocaw,rtn um Roi ro srxc, s ua— TOP IMP' TOP\'IF.N' • ll--r, . n�a " ': ` FRO,�F\'IEw SIDE\'IEN FRONT\'IE\l SIDE\'IEM' 4���� fietn'L7R �FD[.RiDt mSl Dua�REinFtwCC.f[Ri COPYRIGHT(c)7001 by Soil R—cn..Products,Inc VERDURA 50 BLOCK DETAIL VERDURA 50 BLOCK WITH NOTCH DETAIL GEOGRID PLACEMENT ON CURVES CROSS-SECTION 0'-60' REVISIONS Dcsc°cD er. D ate SOIL RETENTION PREPARED FOR PROJECT Verdura 50 sHr. No- sT.rE°�R� T PLAi`'l'A BLE RETAf\R:G eaecam� a«'�«p wbu'vo °anisµirsf WALL BLOCKS OF - a wnrtcT u iDr�Tcn �..`..� �� Dore srxc PLAN VIEW —Ij �r`�I PLAN VIE 11-4 t H I�a�.m uc.cu°erca.E�noRs o•wv-wu IeWroRCO�nr I.EGF1:0 TOP OF WALL DETAILS " pawl �x I SIDE VIEW SIDE VIEW POSI-DURA CONNECTION DETAIL .. GEOSYNT14ETIC CONNECTION DETAIL rs1 CROSS SECTION, WALL HEIGHTS 0'-8` CASE A CASE 8 CASE C BLOCK SPACING DETAIL e END OF WALL TRANSITION DETAILS POSI-DURA REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT ON CURVES / o l'(W CNMIIM F RE—I III— / ¢osrnnenc REMOP[Eu[M FOR / _ _ _ aRrocx.wowwre F4At l KIEArWR GFMTNTKRC RFAKaZFLFM — ICI°wo ttwlwuous welRFa¢o scclluns, w — �� e' le• .Z_ _ (D.s sm[wnc s E%Y,'Q�IF➢uu nor Io scue) TOP VIEW TOP VIEW _ - - `��p�o•A —-- - _ FRONT VIEW FRON'TVIEW' ,.. m " \�\'} [T¢il(Wtlx Vn.•RlFncn/P,Ee°ID$ F.VIF.W IDDLJEW `l � GEOGRIDh PO51.p0R,.0.EIN'FOR—EnT n - �fApfrR.VL ttt.'t�t�t ��i.o�t lOtE t'FM�iR[n[' \� R&NFo�CE°1IXiio aeiAp PI1DFE4 0 COPYRIGHT(c)2IXI3 by Sall Rttrnllon Products,Inc u,a _ 2 VERDURA 30 BLOCK DETAIL VERDURA 30 BLOCK WITH NOTCH DETAIL GEOGRID PLACEMENT ON CURVES CROSS SECTION. WALL HEIGHTS 0'-22' °O REVISIONS SOIL RETENTION PREPARED FOR PROJECT SHT No. p t Verdura 30 .uWsysoiwusoc�oln�w hoi RFE PLANTABLE RETAINLVG cTQtxmav n cureniaa n.rei uwcii• OF u�i 100II49j WALL BLOCKS _ a •�4 zo-'r, ,,.ri.:�`z°'. �s. .,,e `'' ` �, e, N , a � '17 �' .. ;;• . � .... "�" it � �'�} '4' -nn • • or Coast Conun Just A Pretty Face %t U CqT _ - "o - 93,000 acres (376 km') of prime open space,majestic landscapes,nature trails and coastal southern California real estate grandeur."The challenge was to develop the steeply slop- e ....�....... comes with an enormous responsi- ing site according to the Irvine Company's prestigious tiO3 A LA CPE bility. So says the Irvine Company, plans,while supporting the company's well defined envi- planners and developers of the Irvine Ranch,which com- ronmental goals and gaining regulatory and public ap- prises about one-quarter of Orange County.Throughout proval. Segmental retaining walls (SRWs) with integral its 100-year tenure, the Irvine Company has demon- space for vegetation helped the company realize its goals. strated a commitment to environmentally sensitive devel- opment and preservation of open space and sensitive habitat. The Newport Coast Aesthetic Development of the coastal area of the ranch, dubbed Newport Coast, has proceeded according to the master plan and mission statement of the Irvine Company. Of this 10,000-acre (40-km2) parcel, nearly 80 percent is dedicated to remain open space. "The Irvine Company is known for the amount of time and resources they devote to their projects, starting with the preplanning stages," according to Kris Weber from Newport Coast's civil engineering firm ,a of Hunsaker & Associates. Irvine de- Learning Objectives velops a vision for a new develop- After reading this article, ment,then meticulously plans,designs you will understand: and chooses building materials to sup- 1.Five factors associated with port and enhance that image. sustainable design The Irvine Company defines New- 2,The benefits of contour port Coast's character as a luxury grading community with "generous preserved Originally used in the Pelican Hill Golf Course,the first of the retaining wall face, helping to create natural-looking Newport Coast's development, the SRWs "set the standard slopes.This was precisely the need at Newport Coast,where for the community," according to Weber, "Irvine was ex- over 500,000 ft' (46,450m2) of SRWs have been installed in ? tremely happy with the aesthetics,it fit into the image they're concert with the existing terrain. According to Weber, "The trying to build." SRWs helped us minimize the grading footprint and still have a natural appearance." The SRW units used have a Maintaining Topography plantable face—i.e., the units interlock in such a way that Sensitively developing the hillside coastal site for Newport space for soil and plants is provided between adjacent units. Coast required a commitment to preserving the appearance This feature was a particular bonus to the overall aesthetics of a natural hillside, while also tackling the technical chal- of the development. lenges of drainage patterns, slope stability, consideration of floodplains and wetlands, as well as the structural require- Gaining Acceptance ments that building in earthquake country entails. Mass New developments in Southern California undergo strict en- grading with linear tiers was not an option. vironmental oversight, are subject to specific coastal regula- tion and also often face a significant resistance from local "no-growth" advocates. As an example, the local Coastal . Commission requires that riparian area lost to development be "reclaimed." At the golf course, the SRWs helped meet that goal by means of the native plant species placed in the walls at holes 5 and 18. The result is a strong, secure wall r which appears to be a naturally planted slope, rather than a massive vertical hardscape wall. '. Since the 1992 use of native species in the golf course,the rk. �Jt _., �.: ,J ��._ _. .,a:{.. ♦w � �f 1 F:l�,, �.. y`:.Ti���,e�'"':,'^�,+qa, Choosing SRWs allowed the company to use contour grading,in tune with the natural topography of the site.The Irvine Company realized an added economic bonus of using P� Y g contour grading as well, because it reduces the amount of � i€ y�v ra' site development needed, including clearing and installing s ''"`i r"t "° s•q•",;• " drains, landscaping and embankment construction. Segmen- tal retaining walls, because of their modular nature, easily accommodate walls with gently curved ' faces and gradually varying heights. ,;, Usingplantable retaining walls i❑ mid- ,� � `' P g T�,,�slope configurations enabled the developer - ' Segmental retaining to capitalize on the added value of elevated view lots. Some of the "imp roved" lots '`"'' walls, because Of their �. commanded million dollar plus view premi- ums while providing the homeowner a rear yard ular nature, easily that was "open" and "green." Compared to alternative accommodate walls with gently methods, the plantable walls saved the owner millions of curved faces and gradually dollars and slashed months off the construction schedule. The SRWs chosen allow vegetation to be incorporated into varying heights. Concrete Masonry oesicNs ■ 9 A . The SRWs chosen allow vegetation to be incorporated into the " retaining wall face, helping tocreat natural-looking: slopes. W OWy^y plantable walls stem has been instrumental in 'z•w"' �= P Y 1•'.f gaining SRW acceptance for several other areas sub ject to strict regulatory scrutiny. According to Weber, "The Orange County Planning and Public ' PROFILES p Works departments were accustomed to these walls and were very open and supportive of using them. They also appreciated the aesthetics, and what the . walls could provide from a public image stand point." The Orange County Public Facilities and �,� ,�t��';�, ;•",�, - Resources Department, along with several other $ Southern California agencies,often limits the allow able wall heights to mininuze the visual impact of �, -,?s• � ?.. th• a�� .' p� �^, �til. t SI L:A. ,w.,ir;.' •,��`.'° .. .. i tlli sll, Y ;'d.d+,,�, � :y,•r, 43:'. ties of concrete walls across the hillside, the New- '" n". port Coast SRWs conform to the natural topogra phy and are largely covered with Project Details native vegetation. t The second advantage is that dOwner:The Irvine Company the use of native plants in the Engineers:Leighton& Associates;Keith Companies; walls contributes to maintaining habitat. According to Weber, and Hunsaker&Associates "The SRWs went a long way to- non-plantable walls. These same wards gaining acceptance of the agencies, however, regularly ap- Installer:Soil Retention S stems project as a whole--especially in prove plantable SRWs at heights y areas visible from outside the significantly greater than those development." normally approved. Using plantable SRWs also enhances acceptance The walls also helped win over local residents, by environmentalists. For example, plantable many of whom were apprehensive about develop- SRWs may earn multiple rating point credit ment of the nearby sensitive coastal area. Weber through the Leadership in Energy and Environmen- saw two distinct advantages that the plantable tal Design (LEED) program (see editorial, page 2). SRWs brought to the table. Points for resource re-use, recycle content and use The first is visual. The vegetation helps soften of local/regional material may be applicable, as the impact of the development and prevent future well as points for minimizing on-site construction defacement by graffiti artists.Instead of a linear se- waste in some cases. The challenge was to develop n u: the steeply sloping site 5 ...segmental retaining walls r h integral sVac for vegetation helped the Sustainability company realize its goals. Sustainable landscape design should be viewed as an ecosys- tem,rather than simply as the vista surrounding a building or community. The Irvine Company's goals of sound economic development paired with a commitment to current and future :- generations' quality of life sum up the m A basic thrust of sustainable design. They - g epo,,�.:.. . California Environmental Protection �� ,., V / Lry1i`NE Agency lists these factors as important '`)�!',',�- '' v TV y^1 for sustainable design:high performance, ,;' GEOSYNTHETIC"S UPPLIER good quality, durability, added value, ;�� �1�, economy, pleasing aesthetics, reduced �`i T09'��1 HE CONCRUE operating costs (low maintenance) and ASONp�/ ��© RY reduced environmental impacts. �1q1 ' Concrete,used to manufacture segmen tal retaining walls, is an inert, durable, long-lived product manufactured from `d abundant natural resources. Once in w "• place,SRWs do not need to be painted or �; ,,� +` . . otherwise coated with potentially harmful �' 1 substances. And should the walls ever �7 `' ;" * Miragri k X'T, P�1u�dsau ,, need to be removed or replaced,the SRW `''.:"�� � � � �;��`���; units can be removed whole and reused - : "' �� " or broken down and used as aggregated @frt;rtl�CBtr?@r;t star aentunes,{engineers and arch,itects for new concrete products. In addition, - t awe sought etfbtive methods t6:don Drainage the use of native plants with plantable '- . �y,�;r�- '3fruct stable,`fellable,retaining strut SRWs eliminates the need for irrigation �`--, ' tures.� ,den al °;hklcat+Jn o sda Stabilization after the plants are established. full-line of geosyf�tf`et C.'roducts `i�ee.-the rrist deinaridist a iicatioris Separation Summaryn- .,; ,� awareness continues to ° •t�irtfDtCettlBttt rid' ftFattt2n. et- Environmental ,4* Filtration M aft g r� ftthetics'telnio'c�bath your' increase,from regulators as well as from ; individuals and within communities. -...rat tnino ,truCtUres and your reputation, mm - Segmental retaining walls can be a key -- „_ , ,•, s component to environmentally sensitive � F (IL11 Miiafi G asyrit t t,�s;for: W .> .+ development. As demonstrated at New - gmertik"etainin Waq Reintor ment , port Coast, SRWs can help merge new a '""'" ArticUlaR4,C rate Block;Fiik ii I ' development with existing landscapes, ` ``" Teti Cate �fCotUn �oncr'le#?eiveSifstxillzatitsrf anii,`�rai nage help gain acceptance by regulators and E � p- " 1-888-795-0$08 local communities, and provide the structural soundness to ensure longevity on even the most challenging sites.■ Concrete Masonry DESIGNS • �� i 3 ENGINEERING & GENERAL PRESORTED CONTRACTORS ASSOC. STANDARD c/o Hogarty Communications U.S.Postage 139 E.Third Avenue, Suite 101 PAIL} Escondido, CA 92025 Permit No.475 Escondido,CA Change Service Requested fa3nd aaS .............................................................................. sado/s,%!&)x u0/lnputu0faa/1 SY"Iq//Vlt 8u?alrnlar 00117/zraA p1udivd,.i' 01s,CS 110j110,Id j/x)s 41 f°r ; '• '��, ''�off'``-a ,;� � �,, °-�`,. = �wV�e' =�.; �.•,� A�y�,..� �". �'�FE iS YrT�b:.�v Nii�'� � MC.�,.aaye.�,• �" Qe,'y "" �•, i _ A gam:�. _ ;�.. f �,a , ' •e.:i.._,tJ,;;�`er':; try *,.;• �'`i.rji.,.� �• �. �.�.{.� �� a .�,�.. �"^'. ��'�`,'.�2^pr:•+-- A�..,, .e+. e,;31:;> �'" n `T s,.iJC r �Fr��,.. ,��• � � ',•,;-, ^ � ',i--:../' ,�,�,,�� ,. ,.�-;•., a '>''-,"e»"o -'�._l i^,?.moo ,� `'., �Yy;.��x;; �=:; .- .�n�s..�^ '�:;!`-:�. �'a�3'"'"".��k" irk �' � ,�..,�a;':�"�.:.:%..?:;gip c :,.�•, i�� :t,'$.= K:r?' d ,..,�.',^t,'.i� a•• z� �'•":r 'y�''" �`. � ,,�r ';;�;�!�r�;: .'" '!�`' -"., ate+.- .:i`� ,ON JLSfl9f)V f� 7. ,v ! �'�^a .�:� ��* `,�+��'.`� ». R 'ti. 4 't,'„e'•' R'sY Y.%'y, .... ^41� w .c'"r` ',�.;;✓.�'?r,+r�tu,W�' .§'.:'..-ar�� °� �,Y,�'ea-.:a�� �?9�-','..,�,�`,;`'?, ^^� °C",, �� _ z ;s. r. tb � .>��^ �� �J'�'Y• $'3 ,�.,.«; A �r���e ;� Yp^ �yf.i�� 'ti�;Sr ii��..�*' salts 1�, � �• f F"t-L lq�. 4 h c+ �c r�f��'83 1Y91Fa��� �•�1fY a�0 WELCOME TO OUR NEWEST MEMBERS Soil Retention stems' a �� patented walls ensure stability s�t> , SYSTf'M for small and large projects Soil Retention Systems, �... Inc. of Carlsbad has joined' EGCA as a Contractor Member. its Soil RetentionGroup manufactures manufactures blocks, sells to contractors and L' distributors, does product research and development and builds retaining walls. Its - Soil Retention Systems, the construction arm of the .4 F, group, builds and installs _-_w""# ..w.". ,' ; ;,j,, ,�s �;•�o" `;�, segmental retaining walls, a ` steadily growing g field in an area such as Southern California where building -; -' w-�„ �.µ''_: -:." ":'" �F;- � :N""; ` •" - " development is moving to the hillsides as the flatland ' y, 'P._< i,:.s'" rt= ' r . .. areas build out. v' x 3 °, 2',,, _ Jan Jansson is chiefjgqs executive and acting presi- dent for both Soil Retention ..._, :: , Jtry ;`," r" Systems and its sisters: the d` `` �" r ' ' R tea'-"_ .,_. -,3m d block manufacturing com- Soil Retention Systems'patented Verdura®-Retaining Wall Block keeps soil in its place. inset,the pang, Soil Retention Prod- company's Jan Jansson,chief executive officer and acting president. , ucts, Inc.,and the construe- Photos courtesy of Soil Retention Systems tion equipment company, Toy Rentals. and the developer and patent grading operations only to effective, attractive, piantable , The Socialist movement holder of the Verdura® begin false cuts in prepara- retaining walls up to 60 feet in Sweden,with its heavy Retaining Wall Block, tion for wall construction. in height. government regulations, Jansson's company has Soil Retention's Verdurag The smaller units made Jansson uncomfort- installed five million square segmental retaining wall Verdura(& 10 and VerduraO able, and in 1986 he moved feet of retaining walls in system integrates the con- 30 are an excellent solutions his family to California, housing developments, struction of the wall with the for lot expanding backyard purchased a Loffelstein commercial centers, resorts, mass-grading operation in walls in master development franchise and. with two golf courses, retail centers, order to provide clients with projects as well as small partners, formed Loffel highways and public works dramatically reduced grading homeowner projects. Retaining Walls Inc, His projects. schedules and significant cost During the past 15 years, partners bowed out after Jansson is rightfully savings. Jansson has not only brought short period, and the com- proud of the fact that in the The Verdura®segmental the company through a pany name was later risky business of building retaining wall is designed to difficult recession, but has changed to Soil Retention retaining walls, "we haven't accept loads from large earth continued to research and Systems, Inc. to better reflect had one failure since incep- moving/compaction equip- develop new products. Soil the diversification of the tion. ment directly behind the wail Retention has developed the company. Part of this success is due face. This installation method segmental retaining wall As a license holder of to Soil Retention's methods allows the company to meet block system,VerduraS, and Loffelstein block for Califor- of installation. Conventional its goal of developing, an articulated concrete block nia, Arizona and Nevada, projects finish the rough producing, and building cost - Confinuedon oage28 4 Aucusir 2003 • EGCA MAC,AZINF V -<,�,. " .w:r,�,,'�•ter,... i � ',*"'�, 1'M ! � tY!�!' ",k' �s �yi*- g ,�" •jug :' 5•.,' �_ F: .� .�,w �''�;xi-.^-?�; fed '�. 1X"�• `:. �' a F.g„s-���.: """���������yyy M x.::: ',m:.�R '^sue•, µro•4 � ��„ fib' .ii • Soil Retention Systems 44° ` Continued froln paged mattress,.Envir6flex0,'to :'.: x '. ���; " ., .,,..�',< , stabilize river banks and has� �;�' ��;:.�,, s 4 other:erosion control prod- ucts, such-as Driveable Grass®„under development, f• s'Ai Most of the products are atented; and Soil Retention ` is looking forlicensees: �, - s ? ,, Y'�' `, �� � � �':f� In. Y rr" r recent years,land was a.,u 3 � � X�i' �� '�;•"'�,9"•. .:a .� purchased,in.Perris,CA, and. d State=Of-the-art'manufac- `� ,.i-� -.i}!u,;,e�'�'x34. �'"�t'r�` �+1:�``��`>i'M�o� .e�'"..�n�• v.- - �«,.ar;°A°,`�;�..,,; � "'' turing plant built. This year, ? .�"f ��.�� .lam,'- � L� Imo: "l°. £, a',MA+' y�`•g.a= ,,-..+;,• ,,;- .,•' ta .-., Soil Retention moved its x'C N �ti„'�'�,�"�'� (x }: Ste•:.;'::..,,. -'� r •:FE•g r"R. �,`,' corporate office to a newly purchased-and remodeled site in Carlsbad. (2501 State 4AF St/Carlsbad 92008). Tel: These photos show some of the projects that So&Retentlon Systems, Inc.of Carlsbad is working 760-966=6090).,,: on or has completed. When awardeii SmalE.. Photos courtesy.of Soil,Retention Systems, Inc. ! Business Person of the Year l honors for 2003 by the US411 4; Small Business.Administra- lion Janson said hed: ,: .;' ,:;, couldn't have accomplished �s �•' a y''"��"� -� �;� so much without,the'help.of4i. .t I . y I ' his staff of 50 (man q°', ;i;,, �m �of .'; ea '' : "�'r:.' ,',,. �� ".l;y:; . ;�l �l.l y��,n� �. �,���'�� ,w,:�,:'-.,• whom are ion g tt t• �; �0# „3>d:,r, i�e ,�w. a��emx. �tvaR al:;t# •; : fl time'mem- � bets). 4 The strong work ethic, integrity and insistence on quality that made Jan successful; remains alive and l well. "I like to.work,building ill and-developing things.,Ws what keeps me getting,up,in the morning,".hesa s. � s � EGCA welcomes Soil:: Retention,Systems,Inc., to ,Eg. ...;», membership. �",. 28 AUGUST 2003 • EGCA MAGAZINE l 1 :.. NTR EROSION CO'.. OL FEATURE ,y a j More than just holding back soil, retaining walls are blending in,shaping up, and even blooming. By Janis Keating When building retaining walls,the initial considerations are always practical.The finished wall needs to be strong; it must have integrity,whatever its height; it should offer ease and speed of application; and it must do the job for which it's intended.The result: a tough wall for a tough job. But there's more to life than just utility—everyone knows beauty counts.As applications for retaining walls grow, creating more usable space for residential and commercial projects, builders and clients are demanding greater variety.Taking that into consideration, many manufacturers of segmental blocks have added variations to their products'shapes and colors. Blocks with textured rather than flat fronts add visual interest and look more like natural stone. Coloring blocks was a further move toward the natural, the unobtrusive. Certainly a reddish block would blend into a Georgia red clay hillside better than a gray block would. Anchor Wall Systems of Minnetonka, MN, offers five block configurations—Windsor Stone, Diamond, Diamond Pro, Vertica,and Vertica Pro—that feature a textured face.The blocks are available in colors ranging from Buff (sandstone), Pewter(light gray), and Charcoal(darker gray)to(brick) Red and Terracotta. Local distributors can also match color samples to create a retaining wall block that blends in with a specific landscape or soil color. Local distributors and manufacturers for Keystone Retaining Walls of Bloomington, MN, create the colors specified for each local region. Keystone's textured-face block line includes structural units (Standard, Compac, and Mini/Cap)and landscape units. The landscape line includes not only the beveled-face Garden Wall, Legacy Stone, and Sedona Stone, but also the chiseled-face Regal Stone and the Arbor Stone Planter,which, as the name suggests,will accommodate decorative plantings inside the block. Grapevine,TX's Pavestone/HydroPave Ltd.,which has a partnership with Anchor Wall Systems, also distributes the plantable Alpenstein Botanical Wall. Pavestone's own Rumbled Wall block creates an "old stone"wall that looks like 2 it's been transplanted from the English countryside. Is It Stone, or Is It Boulderscape?-- Segmental retaining walls aren't the only ones concerned with appearances. Boulderscape of Capistrano Beach, CA, takes another step closer to nature in constructing soil nail walls, using a top-down construction to create a wall and facing it with shotcrete.The wall face is then sculpted to look like worn sandstone,fieldstone,or cracked granite. "We can also do shale,to a point,"says Boulderscape's Steve Jimenez, "although that's very expensive." The thickness of the shotcrete varies from 8 to about 24 in.thick, depending on the application. Because of this variance and the hand-crafted nature of the project, a Boulderscape retaining wall is more expensive than a concrete-block wall. Many of the company's projects involve creating natural-looking settings in zoos and at affluent residential sites. "If you want lowest cost, go with the concrete blocks,"Jimenez advises. "But even a cost-conscious customer like Caltrans[the California Department of Transportation]will use our product when looks count. In a city setting, Caltrans will use block walls. However, for hillsides,valleys, national parks,and the like, they will use us." Boulderscape walls are often used on roadsides.Jimenez mentions projects on California's Route 101,on Route 92 near Half Moon Bay in San Francisco, and on Route 110 below Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. "Our wall under the Getty Center[in Los Angeles] is the Boulderscape'most viewed every day,"' he adds. In keeping with the natural look, Boulderscape walls usually include vegetation as well."Vegetation is planted at the wall bottom or top, or we can install planter pockets,"Jimenez explains. "To create these planter pockets, before construction we'll install a 4-inch-diameter PVC pipe into the hillside,then build the retaining wall around that. The tubes are filled with a planting mix, and a drip line comes down the pipes.We use drought-tolerant plants or vines, such as creeping fig or ivy.We don't want to cover the entire wall—the plants are just for aesthetics." Does vegetation limit the use or increase the cost of the wall?"Vegetation never takes away from a wall; it's always best to blend the wall in by covering parts of it with vegetation.That makes it look even more natural.The drainage needed for plants doesn't add cost, because all retaining walls have drainage behind them,"Jimenez reports. Concrete and Plants Do Mix-- Vegetation can also make a block retaining wall aesthetically pleasing. Many walls are topped with hanging or trailing plants,and manufacturers produce blocks that can contain plantings, such as Keystone's Arbor Stone Planter or Pavestone's Alpenstein Botanical Wall. This 179-unit subdivision, completed in 1998, contains midslope walls up to 30 ft. high and - 2:1 slopes above and below. In creating its DURAble)"plantabuea f or ll retaining ngwas, Soil ERDant green, and Retention on Products of Oceanside, CA, fully intended for its customers to use vegetation as an integral part of the retaining wall, whether the structure is a planter bed or a 60-ft.-high wall. "Does vegetation give our Verdura walls any limitations? I don't think so," believes Soil Retention Products's Dean Sandry. "Everyone would rather have a green, growing structure than more concrete. In our service area—southern California, Arizona, and Nevada—we can plant a wall of greenery year-round.We usually plant rosemary, ivy, or flowering vines in the walls. Soil and moisture is continuous IF in our wall;the cement's heat absorption doesn't dry the plants out." PWTQ sr w ca xat n se A plantable wall has no special drainage considerations, 3 states Sandry. "It uses the standard drainage you'd use with any concrete wall.We recommend irrigating, sprinkling up to the wall, or a drip system from the top." Plant roots and soil chemistry don't pose a problem either, "Roots probably enhance the wall system,"notes Sandry. "The roots become like a miniature support system that helps hold the backfill. Because the wall is planted. we use soil and fertilizer at the base of the wall as backfill. Behind the wall,we use geogrid." q h. The Orange County Division of Standard Pacific Homes has used Verdura on a number of projects. "it gives us the ability to maximize a site and maximize the flat pad area on hillside projects,"points out Bob Roper, Standard Pacific's corporate director of land development."We've always used the blocks z that are plantable—that's what we like about them. It gives the " area a softer look than other products.We also like the exposed aggregate finish." Roper sees no tradeoffs in using plantable rather than closed blocks. "It enhances the site.The key is that the wall goes in when you are rough-grading a project,which does not inhibit the process. It goes in quickly. Soil Retention Products modified logging equipment to help move the blocks...." Standard Pacific Homes ensures that its walls have proper drainage, not only to protect the integrity of the wall but also to keep the plantings healthy. "If the wall is over 3 feet, we install'burrito drains'—which is a local term;they're basically This site, completed in 1995,shows a hiking French drains—in which we install a 4-inch perforated pipe, 1 trail,a cable rail,and a coastal sage to 3 feet of gravel, and filter fabric," Roper explains. revegetation area with 1.5:1 slope above. "Depending on soil conditions, sometimes we need to put select gravel behind the blocks. Of course, if there are sheer- angle considerations that need to be addressed, or fault lines,we'll consult with geotechnical experts." According to Roper, Orange County considers these structures"reinforced slopes,"rather than retaining walls, because they are flexible. These flexible walls prove very stable, however. "In the six or seven years we've been using these walls,they have performed excellently,with zero'go-backs,"'Roper reports. 4 Roper offers more detail on installation: "For a wall over 3 feet,with a common area,we put a'V'ditch of colored concrete atop the walls.We irrigate right on the face of the wall, using brown line, UV-resistant pipe.We then vegetate the wall itself, at the top of the wall between its face and the V ditch, and the slope over the ditch.We plant primarily vinca, but also rosemary. Over a period of years, generally three or four, the walls will be completely overgrown." w;; According to Roper, vinca and rosemary roots don't harm the -'"'',• _ _ ,� �.�,� wall in any way. "They're shallow-rooted; if anything,they help the wall," he maintains. "One thing, though: Until the a `�-''"���. wall is pretty much covered with vegetation,we need to have a vector-control program in place that prevents critters— ground squirrels, generally—from getting into the wall." r If the slope is somewhat rocky and contains boulders, Standard Pacific Homes will usually create a back cut and sometimes a buttress for the wall, depending on the site's aaa7a: Wumwn0-Mny-Ann a w soil conditions and the wall's height. "We only use geogrids because it's basically a gravity wall," Roper explains. A"V"ditch aids drainage. "Certain times the geogrids will extend into people's lots, and we have to advise them not to dig into those areas." "M Since the retaining walls allow homes"at a height," Standard '40r r .: .- Pacific Homes places some sort of safety barrier atop the walls. "We usually use the Caltrans B11-47 standard, a :.w freestanding rail attached to galvanized posts,with an 8-inch center, strung with two horizontal cables.We also paint the posts to match surrounding vegetation. Of course,too, the homeowners'lots end at the top of slope, at least a few feet „ n from the wall," Roper adds. µ "We're the contractors who make the residential areas and use these for utility walls, but we're also training landscapers to use this system for more'in-yard'applications,"he says. The Sound Barrier--Vegetated walls have one more affrrusma mu mmr, .,a benefit.The congestion of many urban and suburban areas often means that traffic-clogged roadways and residential areas are placed cheek-by-jowl. If retaining walls are used in such areas,the walls not only solve slope-retention and erosion problems, they can also cause or increase noise pollution; concrete, like all hard surfaces, reflects, moves, and sometimes amplifies sound. Realizing this potential problem, some communities also erect berms or wooden sound walls or plant a stand of evergreen trees to help reduce noise. Vegetated walls, however, can serve double duty, acting as both a sound deadener and a soil retainer. Author Janis Keating is a frequent contributor to Erosion Control. • Retaining Walls Add Visual Appeal to Landscaping NewsUSA (NU) - Across the country, homeowners planning to land- scape their yards are turning to segmental retaining walls as their product of choice. Why?There are several rea- sons. First, segmental retaining walls have a strong reputation for design flexibility and visual appeal.Homeowners can choose �> from a wide variety of product sizes and placement options. ;- Concrete segmental retaining Segmental retaining walls walls also are environmentally provide form,function and friendly and durable. Concrete aesthetic quality to landscape segmental retaining wall units improvements. are made of natural materials and ed wood,will no longer be used produced in a wide variety of after December 2003,according aesthetics. Units may have a to the Environmental Protection split-face, rugged, natural ap- Agency. CCA-treated wood, pearance or a tumbled, round- which contains arsenic,a known ed, old-world surface appear- human carcinogen, is being ance. phased out of residential appli- In addition,quality home-im- cations. provement products—like seg- According to experts at the mental retaining walls — help National Concrete Masonry create a beautifully landscaped Association,segmental retaining yard. The first impression of a walls have always offered the home is created by its exterior at- best value per dollar when con- tributes and that image creates a sidering landscape product al- lasting impression.An aestheti- ternatives.The durability of con- cally pleasing yard helps to in- crete products provides added crease your property value. security not available with the Finally, segmental retaining timber products of the past. walls provide natural and en- Segmental retaining wall units hanced beauty to your yard with- also are resistant to erosion and out posing a health hazard to infestation by rodents or insects. your family. Another popular For more information about landscaping material, chromat- segmental retaining walls, visit ed copper arsenate(CCA)treat- www.ncma.org. TRANSPORTATION Concrete Retaining Walls Help Cut Costs NewsUSA (NU) -As many state trans- portation departments find them- selves in the middle of strict fi- n ancial constraints and state legislatures work toward balanced budgets,it is important to taxpay- ers that states and federal trans- ortation agencies use the best and most economical systems to con- struct the nation's roadways. According to R.Lance Carter, Segmental retaining walls are engineer at the National Concrete structures made of concrete Masonry Association, one solu- block and reinforced soil. tion to help reduce costs is to use segmental retaining wall technol- way commuter lines that had not ogy that saves money and con- carried passengers since the struction time and increases road- 1930s. way longevity. Within the state transportation Segmental retaining walls are departments,segmental retaining structures that use concrete block walls are providing significant and reinforced soil.They provide cost savings over other wall sys- significant savings on highway tems, especially in the states of transportation projects, which Colorado and Texas. means direct savings to the tax- The acceptance of this tech- payer,Carter said. nology is documented by the In the 1980s,the Illinois State Federal Highway Administration, Toll Highway Authority used seg- which reports that nearly 2 mil- mental retaining walls on two sec- lion square feet of segmental re- tions of 1-294.Carter reports that taining wall are constructed year- "nearly 1 million dollars was ly in transportation related saved on the entire project be- projects. cause the allowance for segmen- The Federal Highway tat retaining walls introduced a Administration further indicates competitive alternative to other that these structures offer relative wall systems." savings of 20 percent to 50 per- In 1995 and 1996, the cent over conventional wall struc- Massachusetts Bay Transit tures and can be used to support Authority, the country's oldest bridges. subway system since 1897, uti- For more information about lized segmental retaining walls on how segmental retaining walls can two sections of rail.Segmental re- provide an alternative for states taining walls were used on the and federal transportation agen- Plymouth and Middleboro rail- cies,visit www.ncma.org. HOME IMPROVEME Four lips for Constructing Segmental Retaining Walls NewsUSA (NU) - Each Saturday and Sunday,homeowners flock to lo- cal landscape and home centers I in hopes of completing projects that will improve the appearance of their home and ultimately in- " crease the resale value. ? According to experts at the National Concrete Masonry Association, many homeowners `s = are finding that concrete seg- mental retaining wall units are meeting this objective. Constructed on compacted One reason for this,they say, granular fill and dry-stacked is segmental retaining walls are without mortar,segmental re- less expensive than poured-in- taining walls meet many of place concrete walls and more the needs required for the durable than timber retaining do-it-yourself homeowner. walls.The systems are also easy - Review the supplier's rec- to install; they do not require ommended installation and struc- mortar or concrete footings. tural requirements. Here are four tips from Homeowners can find more NCMA that can ensure the suc- information in numerous publi- cess and long-term performance cations about landscape con- of segmental retaining walls: struction. Recent publications -Contact local utility services about segmental retaining walls to identify location of under- include, "Retaining Walls—A ground pipelines, conduits and Building Guide & Design utility lines. Gallery"by Schiffer Publishing - Check with local building Ltd.Available at many landscape officials or residential inspection and home centers,this book pro- services to determine any re- vides a guide to constructing seg- quirements for construction cer- mental retaining walls with de- tificates or inspection.This is of- tailed, easy-to-follow diagrams ten a requirement when retaining and charts for do-it-yourself walls exceed four feet. homeowners and landscape con- - Coordinate delivery and tractors. storage of materials to ensure un- For more information on seg- obstructed access to the work area mental retaining walls, visit and materials. www.ncma.org. NDUSTRY UPDATES Segmental]Retaining PREDICTABLE PERFORMANCE BUILDS CONFIDENCE Syr A��]Stability � ] Walls IIGLLL Jtabi ity t0 The industry continues to learn and understand more Shaky Ground about SRW performance under seismic conditions. q;. I Through engineering research,industry experts have managed to accurately predict performance of SRWs in «J'Until recently,Segmental Retaining Walls,(SRWs)were, � '•$';^„':i', seismic regions.The National Concrete Masonry rarely installed in"earthquake-prone areas= primarily , „efl Association(NCMA)recently published a seismic design because information was lacking on how they would manual for SRWs containing a design method that does respond to significant seismic activity.That trend may just that.When applied to the SRWs observed after the soon change in response to recent,earthshaking Northridge quake, NCMNs design method correctly observations of SRWs in action.Although engineers and predicted the performance of all of the walls.It also regulators are still cautious,there is a growing acceptance identified the specific failure mechanism at the two of SRWs as a prekrred solution.Here's why: a k•, r locations that suffered minor damage. •Reinforced soil SRWs are"ductile"(capable of being This'wtbnd-fir segmented retaking wa I supports a t.mis court is Diumood Bar,Calder®tbm withstwd the 1"4 Nankidge omthgaaka fashioned into a new form).This characteristic allows MORE SRWS MOVE INTO QUAKE COUNTRY an entire wall to"deform"in response to large,rapid FEAR AND TREMBLING IN CALIFORNIA cases,the walls remained intact and did not separate Thanks to demonstrated good performance under increases in dynamic loading(pressure). The Northridge California earthquake on January 17, from the reinforced soil.Compared to the damage seismic loading and inherent engineering features,SRWs 1994 poignantly demonstrated SRW performance incurred by other structures in the area,the SRW are gaining popularity in earthquake-prone regions of •SRWs are flexible.The SRWs dry-stacked blocks can features.The quake was felt strongly in all four counties turned in a solid performance. the United States.In particular,SRWs are being accommodate variations of wall movement caused by surrounding Los Angeles,in large part due to strong increasingly relied upon to provide support and change the variations in soil and foundation conditions along vertical acceleration or movement of the ground.Despite in grade for some very extensive real estate developments the wall,by moving between mortarless joints. _ the violent shaking,SRWs over 15 feet in height per- "`;',,`- -'""' in Southern California.To learn more about the seismic •The design of SRWs can be specially engineered to formed extremely well.Nine SRWs located from I 1 to Thu NCAIA's Sekk performance of SRWs,contact the Anchor Wall Systems withstand seismic activity. Through calculated 70 miles from the epicenter of the quake showed no visi- deslAaesmual�; p q engineering department at 1-800-473-4452. 10 adjustments to the strength,vertical placement and ble signs of distress.Two SRWs that experienced strong r...: 1"763-711-14" ................................... length of soil reinforcement,the"global stability"or "gt g ry" ground accelerations(0.5g and 0.3+g)had only minor W Yfeir<wehstte.1 Michael Sim"/ thin article, performance of the entire wall can be controlled damage limited to surface tension cracks in or just u the author nt it a principal engineer with Earth lmprovcmcn during a quake. behind the reinforced soil zone.Even in these two severe '9 3 Technologies located in Cramcrton,North Carolina. 1 Expanding Your Markets — � , 3 Constructing Segmented Retaining Walls Since the mid-1980s, landscapers, do-it-yourself homeowners, and seemingly every type of contractor _. has been building segmented retaining walls. But masons only put up a few every year. If you are looking for new markets, this might be one. By Tom Inglesby Geosynthetic Materials Geogrids-Geogrids are plastics formed into a very open,grid-like configuration,i.e.,they have large apertures.Geogrids are either stretched in one or two directions for improved physical properties or made on weaving machinery by unique methods.By themselves,there are at least 25 application areas,however,they function almost exclusively as reinforcement materials. Geotextiles -- Geotextiles consist of synthetic fibers rather than natural ones so biodegradation is not a problem.These synthetic fibers are made into a flexible,porous fabric by standard weaving machinery or are matted together in a random,or non-woven,manner.They are porous to water flow across their manufactured plane and also within their plane,but to a widely varying degree. Segmented retaining walls are of mortarless construction,and that might explain why few mason contractors seem interested in constructing them.That's a shame because this is a growing market and one that fits nicely with the mason and stonemason's trade. Segmented or segmental retain walls(SRWs)are gravity structures—they depend on the weight of the block,not on mortar,to maintain their integrity and stability.These dry stacked blocks are used for large and often angled or sloping retaining walls and also for landscape elements where there is little soil pressure behind them—around trees and plantings,rising no more than one or two courses tall. The National Concrete Masonry Association(NCMA)represents manufacturers of the blocks and offers masons a variety of informational -p booklets,technical notes,and instructions on SRW,both online at www.ncma.org)and on paper. Lance Carter,manager of Engineered Landscape Products at NCMA explains, o... ., "The companies that produce the SRW units or SRW system licensors mighta:E„• _t have people come out to the site and get a contractor started when they're doing their first installation,to help them understand the process.Another avenue is our association.We have a number of resources from design w a manuals to inspection guides to installation guides on how the industry and �3 association recommends installing the retaining wall systems—everything from preparing the foundation to guidelines on preparing the leveling pad for the wall itself" 2 NCMA defines two types of SRW:Conventional(gravity)and soil-reinforced.Both are durable,can be constructed in locations with difficult access,allow tight curves or complex architectural layouts,and provide design flexibility. Conventional SRW-- Conventional-or gravity-segmented retaining walls block the movement of the soil behind them strictly by the weight of their blocks.They can be constructed of single or multiple depths of block and the maximum wall height of a single depth wall is directly proportional to its weight,width,batter,soil condition,and site geometry.By using multiple depths of units or by using tiered construction methods,the height can be increased significantly. Carter notes that,while masons capable to place the units in these walls,they have to rethink some of the methods they are used to using. "Getting that first course level is going to be a little bit different than what the mason contractor is used to—where even if his leveling pad isn't perfectly level he has the ability to use some of his mortar,his bedding material,to level off the block.In segmental retaining walls mortar is not used,they're dry stacked,so some of those inconsistencies are caught up through shims,small pieces of material placed between blocks as they go up.The block producers and system licensors recommend different materials for their products and what to use as shims." Instead of a pored concrete pad,the leveling pad for an SRW is often gravel."An SRW is placed on a compacted gravel bed that's generally 6 to 8 inches in thickness and about 6 inches wider on each side than the depth of the block. So if it's a 12-inch deep unit,they make a 24-inch pad,"says Carter.In lieu of gravel,the contractor can elect to place a 6-inch minimum thick unreinforced concrete leveling pad(3,000 psi concrete).Contractors often have different opinions as to which material,concrete or gravel,expedites construction,but both are acceptable materials. SRWs are generally installed with a slight setback between units,creating a batter into the soil behind the wall.The wall batter compensates for any minor lateral movement of the block face due to earth pressures.This prevents the wall from appearing to rotate.Conventional SRWs will often incorporate increased wall batter to improve wall system stability. Increasing the unit width or weight provides greater stability,larger frictional resistance,and larger resisting moments because the stability of the system depends primarily on the mass and shear capacity of the SRW units.All SRW units provide a means of transferring lateral forces from one course to the next.Shear capacity provides lateral stability in mortarless systems such as these.The methods used to create shear capacity include shear pins or keys,leading lips, trailing lips,clips,pins or compacted columns of aggregate in open cores of the blocks. Soil-reinforced SRW— Soil-reinforced retaining walls are composite systems consisting of SRW units combined with a mass of retained soil,integrated with the wall by horizontal layers of reinforcement,typically a geosynthetic material(see glossary).This reinforcement increases the effective width and weight of the gravity mass,thereby increasing the stability of the wall.These materials are usually high-tensile strength sheet material that comes in rolls of varying widths and can be geogrids or geotextiles in form.However,most in use today are geogrids. The graphic illustrates how a soil-reinforced wall is engineered with the geosynthetic material.The geosynthetic material is placed between the units along a course and extended back into the retained soil to create a composite gravity mass structure.The weight of the block,various pins and indentations,or a combination of these features retains the geosynthetic material to the wall structure.By integrating the soil with the weight of the blocks themselves, the tensions between wall and soil are used to the advantage of the builder,instead of the wall fighting against the pressure of the soil. The mechanical wall system comprised of the SRW units and reinforced soil mass offers the required resistance to external forces associated with taller walls,surcharged structures,or difficult soil conditions.In fact,these systems are often referred to as MSE—mechanically stabilized earth—walls. Designs and definitions-- Soil-reinforced SRWs are engineered to control external stability by adjusting the geosynthetic material length—the distance it projects into the retained soil.Increasing the length increases the 3 resistance to overturning,base sliding,and bearing failures. Sometimes the length of the uppermost layer is locally extended in order to provide adequate anchorage or pullout capacity for all the geosynthetic layers.Quality and strength of the material,along with its interaction with the soil,may affect the length of the material specified. PONT tan SURtHAWX yr cswi:t `Cco WAX BLOOM €N MA ,+ CAYIT4ES f2LEED . .r . CttrsE 5+4 0 ` CK' 14 SIX "O W4CE A�SyS/�TOy E fft'il �r - G�•.VYr Be Y t A?.Zk ��ra�� IO tE iiOU KtCail. ,•:`"ti a ,TZ NOs+xr s ••• Will tit ly MEN OF FAWC AsCLE Of so"tjS'mi wa!t�t,C� ;,- s: AN % ��wwYM W " $E`ltk7p f1v't4RE sK '`'� � +r KVC4£ (CIrI 750 i(OR AS SPEC RED)GECT d z� CEO-fAMC (10 SlWOA713 -Cr) 5U8"- i CS! t "i StYrwm C�SUR'.SE OR W%Ak "mia SAS OLD 0EN COUFACTED TO 63X SPEVtEO AA^H*A SECTION Image courtesy of National Concrete Masonry Association Typically,the spacing of the material(vertically)decreases with depth below the top of the wall because earth pressures increase linearly with depth.The spacing should be limited to prevent bulging of the wall face between geosynthetic connection points and to prevent exceeding the shear capacity between SRW units. Drainage is essential.Normally,drainage is provided by well-graded aggregates between the wall and the retained soil. A properly designed drainage system relieves hydrostatic pressure in the soil,prevents the soil from washing through the face of the wall,provides a stiff leveling pad to support a column of stacked facing units,and provides a working surface during the construction phase. Surface water drainage should be designed to minimize erosion of the topsoil in front of the wall toe and to direct surface water away from the structure. Wall embedment is the depth of the wall face that is below grade.The primary benefit of wall embedment is to ensure the SRW is not undermined by erosion of s•- the soil in front of the wall.Increasing the depth of embedment provides greater stability when site conditions include weak bearing capacity of the • " a,"' underlying soils,steep slopes near the toe of the wall, potential scour at the toe—particularly in waterfront or submerged applications—and seasonal soil volume changes or seismic loads. Vertical surcharge loadings are often imposed behind the top of the wall in addition to the load due to the retained soil. These loads increase lateral pressure on the structure and can be caused by a sloped backfill;a uniform surcharge due to buildings and/or parking lots;or line or point loads from heavy footings or continuous footings close to the wall. 4 According to Carter,"It's highly recommended that the backfill be placed in thin lifts of 6 to 8 inches. If you look from the back of the block toward the fill,the first three feet should be compacted with a lightweight,walk behind compactor.One of the biggest construction pitfalls that an inexperienced contractor will have is not taking the time and effort to properly place the block and backfill.Often to speed construction,the contractor backfills behind the wall in 12-, 14-and 18-inch lifts.Either you don't get full compaction,or to achieve full compaction you move the alignment of the wall so it starts getting a bulge or lacks the proposed batter.In the worst case scenario, improper placement of wall units and backfill can result in unacceptable performance. Success is in the details -- According to NCMA,the success of any segmental retaining wall installation depends on complete and accurate field information,careful planning and scheduling,the use of specified materials, proper construction procedures,and inspection.As the mason contractor knows,it is good practice to have the retaining wall location verified by the owner's representative.Existing and proposed finish grades shown on the drawings should be verified to ensure the planned design heights are in agreement with the topographic information from the grading plan. The contractor should coordinate the delivery and storage of materials at the site to ensure unobstructed access to the work area and availability of materials.Materials delivered to the site should be accompanied by the manufacturer's certification that the materials meet or exceed the specified minimum requirements. Construction occurs in the following sequence: 1. Excavation and construction of the leveling pad. 2. Setting, leveling and backfilling base course. 3. Placement and backfilling of units in succeeding courses. 4. Placement,tensioning,and backfilling of soil reinforcement(when required). 5. Compaction of backfill to the specified density. 6. Capping and finish grading. As with any structure used to retain soil,careful attention should be paid to the compaction equipment and procedures used during construction. When compacting soil within 3 ft(0.9 m)of the front face of a wall,compaction tools should be limited to hand operated equipment,preferably a vibrating plate compactor.Reinforced soil can be compacted with walk-behind or self-propelled riding compaction equipment. Tips and tricks -- NCMA's Carter considers the backfill process to be extremely important for a good,solid SRW.He tells mason contractors,"One trick,when placing the soil in lifts of 6-or 8-inches,the height of the unit,right behind the wall,they can fill in behind the wall at a thickness of say half the height and then walk that half height lift in with their foot.Generally the soil behind the wall is placed with a front-end loader,but as they spread it out the mason can walk down and push that soil against that block with his foot.A simple method but it saves time and effort in the compacting of the backfill.Then it will take less effort to compact the material directly behind the wall face with light-. weight compaction equipment." According to Steve Hooker,national sales manager for Rockwood Retaining Walls,Rochester,Minn.,all SRW systems require some alteration at the job site. "A hand splitter that can split concrete units easily,versus a hammer and a chisel,can save a lot of time and time is money,"he says. "Ensure that the base pad or leveling pad is 100 percent level. This will prevent adjustments or shims between successive courses.Be sure to obtain proper compaction and compact every course to ensure that the system will work.It also will save time in the long run." 5 Hooker makes a commonsense statement saying,"Building one wall twice will erode profits from other jobs.That means do the wall right the first time.Follow the design manual or instructions for the block being installed and the engineer's design.This will release the installer from liability in case of problems if the wall proves to have been installed correctly." He adds,"Always have a soil test done.It is a small price to pay to ensure that the soil layers below and around the wall are taken into consideration during the design phase." Carter knows that some contractors are not familiar with the geosynthetic material,and when doing soil-reinforced SRW that can be a problem."Geosynthetic material,especially those used for retaining walls,generally has a high- strength direction and a weak-strength direction.There's one direction that has a higher tensile capacity and that's the strength that needs to be placed perpendicular to the wall,because that provides the reinforcement to help stabilize the structure.In relatively small roll widths,it's fairly obvious when you roll them out that the strength direction is in the direction of the roll width.With wide rolls,some of the manufacturers do put markings on the outer edges of the roll with arrows saying strength direction.Yet,it is quite common for no clear marking to be present on the geosynthetic roll and the contractor should take care to label the materials in the field prior to cutting.Colored paint is commonly used to identify both strength direction and material types." Slope,for ll,r,4i11t t csx� lw rratsfihilit�°ss+il f7rainal speak! draina gc (��g�tiunssl� C°;tl�twit it:irtit�ltl�;.Hi�r�:antur,��:nwsstt Wall 114.thaek,battcr h6j;ht Limit ol'c" ;av'aliau Finish d Colopaewd%xgrialort ba'A I �raistt,yc fill �<nttj3n���Y1 l ANJihtl h (in ill) ItHac soil zow Image courtesy of National Concrete Masonry Association So there you have it,a possible new area for you to explore in expanding your business. It's not hard to make the transition as Carter says,"Once they've mastered placing the block and getting the fill in 6-to 8-inch lifts,it's just a repetitive sequence as they continue up the wall." ©2002 by the Mason Contractors Association of America All rights reserved. 33 South Roselle Road, Schaumburg, IL 60193 Phone: 847-301-0001 or 800-536-2225 1 Fax: 847-301-1110 I 3l� RETAINING WALL USES "VERSA-LOK" BLOCK WALL — This cross section illustrates typical interlocking material retaining walls. Mortarless standard walls are installed on granular leveling pads and do not require concrete footings below. The amount and layout of drainage materials and geosynthetic soil reinforcement is site/soil dependant. The 3/4 " setback of each unit creates a seven degree cant. Canted walls are structurally stable. CAP UNI'1 (AOHEREE � WITI� VERSA—r_OK t;ONrR T' AVI E$IV ) ,—IMP=R'd1O115 FAA 12' DEEP GECSYNTHIMC I REINFORCEMENT ff Ir RETANE. ML ORAINAGE Af3GRµGATF. J VERSA—LOX 12" THICK NIN. Sa:'GMENT'AL CONCRETE � h, q RkIAF'J 4 F13 Hr1GK"ILT. ��` jYfv�Jf2, �j� EXCAVATION LINE ._... ............ . . 1 �f U!`+.A1N PIPE „RC?Jtit7'NATsR DRAtN.AGE CO`v1POS17E 5YiTEIV �,..'—OfdANULAR L£VIEL1Nt; ?A€? =i IFOi£t+DATION SOIL 6' TH'CK FAIN, LI 4 TWO TIER RETAINING WALL FIGURE I r'r A+>� • UNDISTURBED i > vrtt r►>rr♦►• r u>urw> w►srwww ra ♦rs»•rrr iiiiiiii i• , SOIL >w>rrwwrr swu.>.r► ;;:_�:•• IMPERVIOU: FILL rrr»♦ '"" •« iiiEi9iii DRA.INAVGE A�GREGA.TE • cr: t1tDPdPA.CTED LEVELIMG F .. - -., ......,.• .�`�� t1(--J f'cl PAC T E D B.A.0 F I L L Distance between levels can be modified to suit homeowner. ----1 ��- to' M-TA1016C ��-�-e •. V'�.�i'�'�fl�f�'►,.> chi �� _ FRONT S�.d l L�111� (1'1►�1-tt.+2.11�L—S Vl 52.E� �T� . On' Retaining Walls 101 Retaining walls have never had more options : materials, colors, texture, and design . RECEIVED FROM r1e � AS PUL gE FOR UNCIL M ING OF /y�yG Tr 2oUt - CITY CLERK OFFICE JOAN L.FLYIA CITY CLERK 1 • We would like to show you some of the many possibilities, Ilk ate r�k,� S 3u, x�Y 1� F p 4' ¢ 2 Decorative Retaining Wall w/Fencing „ ag �s 3 Decorative Retaining Wall w/Newly Planted Vegetation ." "Aw �- <' ' a ri r g s 4 'max: Mature Retaining Wall w/Insert 4 aM e �- t- v, IZ s�¢ r�x %b a 5 7 Mature Retaining Wall w/ Vegetation z,,,w Mv, ?tS3 4 Ilk rs .............. .��wm Retaining Wall w/ Mature Vegetation Im I' ' 'ems' ;,/s�� '�_, r�1x: •'�' �� ,� Y 7 r fi .gym w,% •�,: < f,`3Ni i a 3 e:; ME= Retaining Wall w/ M ature Vegetationk . w. myy. # T t Rx 141 ............. ............ • 1 � 1 1 � � 1 �� � �° •,,,'�+ � *�� '� ^" �'"#` � '.�''"�tie g - -�'�,} ,1•� 'fit �t� � �i � ,,��1F # - .. �. k 'A0 �� r� r ''� �" .W. �• ,yr.. '• f _ c xd .. e ` gtA'3 II § i '"'.»` .rr V y s� •p'� T 3� � >y~ F� ,� i � D-°. Tr� p3 yp Y�yF� Retaining Nall w / Bloo ming Vegetation x e h 3: (D cu :3 ri =3 Lc) cli Z."k,W ( --w D t �3Nl" 7 Lo ni (D AN -':777, 41�IVI Z11 -,'Skj ;J 4 F-L m- woll , .6 * A ' �--.fn lip `tv ^+w a I5 � r Retaining Wall w/ Xeroscaped Vegetation mill , Mm' y z „ rs. ' r e ;``��+'��• .IF •�,.:., k .#�;'",•, :. � ,''� �,� �^s.. is sw — `�� �E :•a-°v_ ,. fit..: ,�,. 13 ME I M ME Z, Retaining Wall w/ New Vegetation T'S" 14 ............. ------------- Flat Face Retaining Wall w/ Fence FIX, i z ,y c " "F/r#' to } S' '`3''a, '� ��" - '"�• Nt;.,i<. ,.} y �:. 3" mat •--.ic ,'� a.',r�, ,.�N' yrN';:`: ul p TO- gP Rw..z :� E _ go- If i 16 a Flat Face Retaining Wall 'U, ��µ,-` z�a�'�y°- Y",ag s ��'�.:�•.,��E�t�#�Ed:��k' ^z5�"..'�,A..�'� :.8•�>'��s,;� 1,01 a`;-' �M s IF IIN n„< 17 Flat Face Retaining Wall w/ Cant "'s-ed N Lv Vlw, ,` tea:>. -''xr2'x'" f�,':..tia � ",rj;€:..:�� g&;y.'•�;�.":"".;; "�� w'r%'-` 3"Y,>>'': 'F-3'�•„::�.ti��'rr[s;'Sy,�i': ,Ise :�:5%.¢ .;�,.-a x ii 18 /6 µ _ { _„ - „�,r,ti". mt�;,._..„.»xu ,.�u.� 2,..,.,.,,.s ,„ ..e,1E+ .. .,„ems e',,��. -_cc...5.�.: .,,M-. •# -77- X Colorful Retaining Wall w/ Cant kP 20 ................ 1-7 M ,,,.,,, RetainingWall w Fencing/ �5 AM :8 Wyk..,,.t- @• �i3,% iK� F r a, �r y x „ e; r� d M „ a•a! i 21 „ . ,. RetainingWall (Partial Tiering) „ r ^�, �� N%•k: �,° � ¢F'r•, .� °'' gig .. %�' �x A 'Vey ,�� "� �� '�i. �3=•'�•,+9,; '�&�,'�” _ `��' x 1 ro d f t 22 m a.. Retaining Wall w.x a Designer Brick � � � 17-u V 91 f JL V I v<1 TV Ilk" 23 ME v., N 66 Ile .may• .; �;:-�� ;'��,, `h °s i S,q '� '��"'a ox a� W °= (ngy �. g . con W r Mottled RetainingWall /w Wood Fencing �: 7,i" OF ;, x -ten'• '� v� k <>w < f• F rri „ ,.x..�,pis,•. �•�<"rir.5 a;, ..`n.Y i'r/F.ni.�;;i, .y .,R'` '4£s 5y<�;r q� ri°°�,,rN' "<'ye'^>^ *;' ''.g "�-. �J �v g mg MUM < j Y r sFzF�"'pn x 27 Mottled Retaining Wall Ilk Z7 "'A IV. Nsi, z IN: ,7NN',KE�-,,77-Ia`, 77� 3 Mottled Retaining Wall Possibilities Ae IP ap gj 5 off MCK At IZ ai U",— WN la, RE, 5W Aw WE 29 ..lvmmpr-mm� La 711 mg �In�m us, r, Z-= E 3;3r� '�� v - .,,m r .... ..n. g ♦'gip.. A 1 ,e •'"a`Y� ..3 ,y!• ..e"• .e;3,�>Ye�:�a ,y `Y 4" � dF�•' fy„$��% ��0�` 83 �. ■� y� �" � ., � fib+ .; b(E^` �� �., \ r ��,. fin. ,�.�•• �` 70 LL > � � 4,� ��;� �:, fir,-�-r•:�. °•, �, a ,. VA r% ru ro E,4 � c x^g`E `;P d.\ kd�'Fr. .C� � `�y � .3iz�� .• x �• �i�� .i z-. ' r 1 4—J s.. =E E: m u Pilaster Retaining Wall w/Fencing w 41< h ...¢ ��, ... .,, •� Y£ A „fir ,�, 8 `•K', pH N:.i:` y� ..�.r,"', s� �, mil' aK f ✓„ f,>�/ L`,' rr/ •'¢,,: ";�„F ram,_,. £��;%„ x`•..'".`�., 3 n Y F, �.L �3x.. r.�,•v W. ks; q yr ,.,, .✓.,i, '.-.::_` ,.,...: ,rc,r '. •,',,, >,�...,r>;f�.:� a-,�r::.. .r;....a<- �•>n",f'�s�` "�'`, �„' ,•.. „crF,},�, �••� 3 ;;$' %;'si,> '�/� yam': x 6-� �>a N a ,x / �f „ %,i �.'<,� �• Zij :« IN �^i.,:^[ �` tip% r <. .' r sx »a , �u s. ',>i,t i%� `:,,,a<.. ;f'` '.S;/, ''-"Y�'+.�n'=.s/H ;`�,�s ye•a °,''*4.;' sir < C mow. i" ;tf r� « ar ' •,>.�> �' ,.«y. ' ,au, s,� t Ia-:' i�:' wr,l.1' /ik'' ,kh's � ';/ .rn .. .,,,,;a<,., ,va re£r- ✓e .7,�.. < >, � ,y;, //r„„% ��',, 5/" '«'i� � ,.�. "%a+r 'zi ,d 32 •lb„3...wu`3-„ 'r,PO//�.�-,�:titY�ea'k ,f-��'„�„ .-..�.,ri..S$ n,,,,,r. ..,._ ,,.,...<- ,<cr„ ,��� _ `�;a. >.r<„ a5g Retaining Wall W/Fencing Ac a ♦ �; tY 34 ox—MM., , .. >.,,.,.,r✓,.,..,,;...._c,.....,..�;r,:3;;:L..'...m,..,.,F..r����.r/r..'e�',°? ;*lG�LPY�� .'�-x�`'m, i//. ta Multi-level Retaining y: Wall .................. =z „, .. ` Y / 35 v� yR , r,. _. MO��"„E. -; ' ar Multi-level RetainingY _ Wall ", "p, ;,'-.. '.$ate,�"�;•,.��'�. � '��+ �»' k 5, >,F 36 Multi-level Retaining Wall w/Fencing X, I IN, N7, PT MCI! "oks 4w ww" 7Z 37 .......... ............ Multi-level Retaining Wall IBMfm snIs _x a a opt 3/ �4w "4 '%,ww,%•'� ,"';.e' e<!�, .. Ej'j 'I J37� £• ` Il �; sp �[ ry ••fin, 6.:Y�, ,` '"Ya '% ,`�_ %ems,,. p s , >.n y f °;a!`, :zip .:� '„r'%,':,:s„ ,x' i, � ,�.• K w , .., ,yew,• Air # 38 .:._. ,ww.'L�, ��.,�.� .,.,,.�«!„i �w, J�''..,>..,,...:.wa<,,..,a%%�•,'r'/`'�; ;�' - ���Ii..,..;;�,.... .■Aw�«�,,, Al Multi-level Retaining Wall w/Vegetation W N KA, 39 �=x Lm", Two-Tier Reta i n i ng Wa l l w/Vegetation A4 id WN 4f 14 40 . ........... ME NJ Two-Tier Retaining Wall New Planting ;3 7777,-, jpm gs 4 t_ od OWL MW 6a 01, ,sm- ng, al 41 a f, Mottled GreyTwo-Tier RetainingWall I At- 311 p g ri'" �^�.��"'',+�+.. - y'�•�.t,> .`" '&-ss.>N "+�,rr�, �''�'�« '..., �..a. - � ,�.,,�'„'i'�-.'-,',''-:fir, .a'�f,4, ;h ".� � "f&y',/"�`e , .•:,th+,�v'b;,•a' yip,.,, �` ' �,.';; ,K•k y. ? . - 42 Mottled Brown Two-Tier Reta i n i ng Wa l l z,. 21 F SA -0"0', lm ss VIE rl, 43 211-11 z 0 Mottled Flat Face Retaining Wall I IWI may, % 7"1 cz MLA 11's I Z T- 44 Two Tier Retaining Wall w/Vegetation K A' 46 77 'mw Two Tier Classic Retaining Wall w Green _'�,44/1 # a � >r NN ry p 4 d F N �vf+v• ,'2,y , „ -x a, F 4' 47 „ . -At F, OR Two Tier Bold Block Retaining Wall G; rr �a 48 4 1 1 ` 1t 4 RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC REOF CORDA NCIL M ET ING CITY CLE OF >C JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK -91 ')OV.I hI � r r U �. , s I'Dt M" wf P LANTE`� =RC1N`t �1r V�1 P iliaq(s oeTlet'� `61 � � 1 t gg� i _ ... t=RIO C' T N I tom\ BPS 51 C. jltr3 em ���- _._._.�._.___._„.._._.._ __....�..__._.._._�....,._ ..�.__�_u�..,.u_.._..._.____._.._.. gi !ii 5 J ygg - �1 W�PL�N\E� � ' ���W�. �,Lr v�= W I IMP Q FRONT N \�4 - r>AsIc TWo -b , F'l.gfi�cRez'���t�tC� wf�- 6�7 t - - -- D — --------4 SIDE MF—M i=RONT y ICTWo -TtER�fi„A��coo�� S'foN!L- RR-Lt Ttprtrlvn F P-u t)�isY';O ' f CI 40 i F RC NT (&JrA4,Q d ��'^"���� X iY �� .f7R�.� ^f�y•8♦ "'.S IW�/1'���. \.� pV1�Mf I.{4 r r ry f��r V G AF .. � - �I� ����1�\\..x� �U•, E t'#jf�f`k' j���: 5,�� �yyp x� ,... ...m✓- -�Y Cd'�}, J MY-4.1 a"."'� •� a"e .v�$ 4- � �. u i�, ; sr� r���f�''Y�p�� �'.+.•n �;;�\' i - � r ��ay��';��r�+'� :.�� �� "#7 ' " �: r}.�. ¢`� � ,r x fi �r'd"',. .¢ ✓ /'�' .ate' '•"-^ f°L• `., t r^..i.:��� � , s t I e Hr 1 n t : r ' c 4 "z. r, r. � a •�"� '��-t M�'r'.8 P� sJ. r.} .$ �i•, � r .s- T•' "��'`� li �7 € •� € � t �.i'�fJ ,yi'�� rl{o-e�. :o±»d s ♦ i- �...+ et� �. x.�� � bs� .� 'rt yn•..£'s`:.;-...- d�� ,a$,� _.,,a Pik ��' ' +� e � H tS+ i f t tii i'rd '�• , � t Ntl h 14, ,,gy?? I� �+ i"� c�Q Y 3+•`''.ry,f �ng�r" .g,,�"" +s� �'1; fiw \ :: � •� r - � vas � --=----.. i�V.a-, r .�'����aa�ti�•�" �"z�, �.rl� c�L ��€rt'11 }r • .���4 'ia _ ' Tri �',;,�,t r3.��'a ,���.t�T� ` 4' a r � r -.� t�.L��•les'`yr +s�' < 7 v" b\per ...+ fi V ?z ;� f4r x iiMA 10kr t� Xt aFgx'� ' -� rt P 3��L it.. ♦ 'f � `��m��. ( ,�•+I � . �.:5�'•..�4 a' ,+_4 tt. r�x t .�''�V"' ys-�r :b '' �. x `''� !# �'.:.-.. �}+.v �� �rf �k J.iT•��� �.3�wY i''�nilM1� ,.....t- �; '.^�!(1<i'��III .-- ,.- L ,. • � I 1 • 1 • I I � jI i I , . � � � , , 1 I 4a._ _ Ae Oiiiii ��r �• + ��i��� ��th 1 4 C�{ � y � �,��I j���I r ���1��u�3'`fl i� t �''�k1,"'ya i +; a -f uy✓ �� Jy +`>'ek �[ '`�. .. i ✓ I� � t e w... .�a{411�. :.0 u�r a� ri W,'1.. :4'Wf .4 F•.,ttt �.�,/'�� t `1 L'.F i�.i '� .;�{�� y4 Ir�j. {- # ,.� j.- .t "1�. _. - s-z��'3�'s,',f y aF .r ,� f •�'� ?�, � of ,: 4 t���'i uit'�' �� r'„JsL4t, f L ' t y# e ". px � 1 ..� ,�.t£m`i 4; �M?,�t��,-�4 r °u-..ti 5�,�,xgt',�, �`e�kr " }+ <f �f.kwf i r 7° yr' t�3�•.-. �� :z �� x�r � ✓1«���� ��ls� + �R 'x•x r.v i+ { > , `.ss 7 y., «:a� ,3�r` � t x 4+s ye i{S�^ 4� �•-{ y�Cc,��1 I, s�+�FµA �lx r�,s'j'�.�,F•:,3'��.3r' �`�r•+f Sir 1�.�+f#�f�'r *�'!��4, u�t�a'W,h�f>--:} „��ui� }3�"�„ .._„ ^•� � � i�9�`��A�.+���� 'a 4i, '�,+��f'.C.�.��,.y"" 1";1�Nd�kti��yf�r'�'�`��-��j�43 +�1."r �� I ��i • • a i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Connie Brockway,City Clerk Office of the City Clerk Liz Ehring, Deputy City Clerk II i� To: Date: Meeting Date: Agenda Item: . I Proposed City Council Agenda Items: The City Clerk's Office/City Administrator's Office must return your agenda item due to the following requirements that have not been met. When your Agenda Item is ready to resubmit,please return to: Elaine Kuhnke, Management Assistant, Administration I. SigEiature(s)Needed A On RCA B On Agreement C Other 2. Attachments A Missing B Not identified C Other 3. Exhibits A Missing B Not identified C Other 4. Insurance Certificate(Proof Of Insurance) A Not attached B Not approved by City Attorney's Office C Signed form notifying City Clerk that department will be responsible for obtaining insurance certificate on this item.(See form attached) 5. Wording On Request For Council Action(RCA)Unclear A Recommended Action on RCA not complete -- B Clarification needed on RCA C Other 6. City Attorney Approval Required 7. Agreement Needs To Be Changed A Page No. 8. Other G.agenda fm isdreaform A all-CJ1,9ReJ, vi V, I e- 1'I 1-,)- I Alr I COt I - v�5o C/U - yrl to t r 1i 1 ,� -z'i, Alo - i Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: Jlllk 0�4 ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: October 4, 2004 Department ID Number: PD4-21 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION CD�Q p D y SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULBRETH-GRAFT, City Adminis ator�' �f" PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis, Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 is a City Council directed amendment to Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear and street side yards of through-lots based on a sub-committee recommendation. The proposed amendments are intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height on slopes and rear portions of through lots, require the sloped portion of a through lot to be fully landscaped and require fencing on a through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing within an exterior side yard. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the zoning text amendment with only two changes to the current ordinance (Recommended Action). The two recommended changes are to include definitions for "primary frontage" and "secondary frontage" and to expand the public notification radius from 300 feet to 1,000 feet for conditional use permits. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommended changes as a compromise between the City Council's directed amendment and staff's original recommendation of no changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for approval (Attachment No. 1) and adopt Ordinance No.:�.3 (Attachment No. 2) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2004: THE MOTION MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY STILTON, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01, WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, LIVENGOOD, SCANDURA, RAY, STILTON, DINGWALL NOES: THOMAS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for approval and adopt Ordinance No.u16ti„1vYn (City Council Directed with Five Modifications) (Attachment No. 3) 2. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for denial. (Attachment No. 4)" Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: Citywide Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 is a request to amend Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The request is a City Council directed zoning text amendment to further regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures along the rear yards and street side yards of through- lots. A through lot is defined in Chapter 203.06 Definitions as a lot having frontages on two dedicated parallel or approximately parallel streets. B. BACKGROUND: In February 2002, the Beautification, Landscape, and Tree (BLT) Sub-Committee recommended that a "C" item be placed on the City Council agenda directing staff to prepare a zoning text amendment to address block walls at the rear of through-lots. The City Council approved the item and directed staff to prepare a zoning text amendment with the following modifications: PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -2- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 1) Require any fence built within the rear yard area of a through lot be located at the top of grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double frontage lot. 2) The setback areas (slopes) shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. 3) Structures including walls and fences of any height shall not be permitted on the sloped portions of a through lot. 4) The term "Primary Frontage" and "Secondary Frontage" shall be set forth in the ordinance. 5) Conditional Use Permit notification should include all property owners facing through lots. In addition to the recommended amendments to the zoning ordinance, the City Council directed staff to consider the points listed below in a memo dated April 24, 2002 from former Council member Ralph Bauer. ❑ Recognition should be given in any ordinance to the fact that on a double lot there is a "front" and a "back". See Definition of Primary & Secondary Frontage in this report under Section 203.06 ❑ Landscaping should encompass 100 percent of a lot (at least back part). See Subsection No. 230.88.(S)(4) in this report. ❑ Walls or fences along the back of the lot should require a permit (including those of 42 inches or less). Retaining walls that retain a slope or other surcharge require a building permit. ❑ Any Conditional Use Permit (CUP) dealing with the backside should be heard by the full Planning Commission. See Subsection 230.88.A.11 in this report. o All relevant Urban Design Guidelines should be part of any ordinance. ❑ If a wall is granted under a CUP, it should include the following features: a. Setback from the public right of way. b. A height limit. c. Landscaping between the public right-of-way and the wall including vines that cover the wall. d. Adhere to engineering specifications to make sure the will not fail should dirt be piled against it. e. Wall should adhere to Urban Design Guidelines. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The subject zoning text amendment has been through three Planning Commission study sessions (May 25, June 8, Aug. 10) and three public hearings (July 13, Aug. 10, Sep. 14). Several amendments to the through lot development standards have been discussed by the Commission and testimony from the public has been taken at each of the public hearings and study sessions. Staff's recommendation throughout each of the public hearings is that the fencing ordinance remain unchanged. PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -3- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 At the September 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, there were a total of six persons who spoke in favor of the proposed zoning text amendment and 17 who spoke in opposition. Staff provided the Planning Commission with four alternatives for amending the zoning ordinance based on the past study sessions and public hearings. These alternative were as follows: ❑ Alternative A reflected the City Council direction to prepare a zoning text amendment with five modifications. ❑ Alternative B was proposed by Commissioner Livengood and allows for some limited fencing options within the rear sloped areas of through lots. ❑ Alternative C was proposed by Commissioner John Scandura and allows for 42-inch high fencing to be allowed within the rear yard area of through lots. ❑ Alternative D was the original legislative draft presented at the July 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. It represents a combination of the City Council directed changes and additional Planning Commission recommendations that were developed at the June 8, 2004 Planning Commission study session. Following the discussion regarding the four alternatives, the Planning Commission recommended changes to the ordinance that addressed two of the five main amendments directed by the City Council. The first recommendation adds two new definitions to Chapter 203 of the HBZSO. These definitions are as follows: Frontage, Primary - The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary - The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. The second recommendation is to increase the public notification requirement from a radius of 300 feet to 1000 feet from the subject site. The Planning Commission believes that the two recommendations strike a compromise between the staff recommendation of no change and the City Council direction, and allows property owners to make improvements to their properties. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: There are approximately 118 through lots backing up to a local street, throughout the City. The majority of these through lots (75) are found in Huntington Harbor. All of the through lots located in Huntington Harbor were developed at a higher grade elevation than the street located to the back of the property, which results in a varying slope condition within the rear yard. The slope areas vary in their horizontal dimensions from seven feet up to 25 feet in PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -4- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 depth. The grade differential or vertical dimension also varies from four feet up to 14 feet in height, measured from the top of the adjacent curb. The front and rear yard setback requirement for a through lot is 15 feet since each frontage faces a local street. The new definitions provide clarification that a through lot has both a primary and secondary frontage. The terms "primary frontage" and "secondary frontage" will allow for distinction between the front and rear yards of a through lot. The increase in notification is based on the potential aesthetic impacts to the street scene and to a neighborhood as a result of proposed through lot fencing. The proposed amendment will provide additional notification to property owners who face the secondary frontage of a through lot and increase neighbor hood awareness of fencing requests in excess of 42 inches in height. City Council Directed: A legislative draft of the proposed changes that reflects the five changes directed by the City Council has been prepared (Attachment No. 3). The following analysis lists each of the five issues followed by the corresponding code section that would be amended based on the City Council's direction: Issue #1 Require any fence built within the rear yard area of a through lot be located at the top of grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double frontage lot. Issue#3 Structures including walls and fences of any height shall not be permitted on the sloped portions of a through lot. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address these two issues: 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 3. FeRGes or walls WithiR the Few yaFd setbaGk area of a thrP_,_,qh 'At. shall RGt eXG 42 h(Nl Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local sreet along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -5- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. The modifications to this subsection are intended to prohibit fencing of any height within the rear yard area of through lots. This modification is recommended to preserve the existing slopes and eliminate the possibility of fencing within the sloped area. By eliminating all fencing on the slopes, the aesthetics of the street will be protected, and views from neighbors that face the rear of the subject through lots will not be disrupted with block walls. The current ordinance limits the height of fences along the rear property line of a through lot (or any lot) to 42 inches. As noted earlier, many homeowners take advantage of this allowance and enclose their yards to expand their useable space and also to add aesthetic, safety and security to their properties. The ordinance requires a CUP for any wall or fence that exceeds 42 inches in height proposed along the rear property line of a through lot. The amendments would not allow fencing of any height within the rear sloped area of a through lot. Regulating the location of fences that do not require a building permit is difficult to enforce since 42-inch high walls can be placed anywhere on a residential lot without a building permit. In addition, the amended section is specific to Huntington Harbor through lots and does not apply across the board to all lots under the same zoning classification. This results in specific requirements that are directed at a very limited number of properties. Issue #2 The setback areas (slopes) shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 210.06 RL, RM, RMH, RH, AND RMP Districts: Property Development Standards (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material with no visible hardscape. The additional subsection is intended to require the owners of through lots to fully landscape and maintain the rear sloped area. The recommended modifications are proposed to maintain and create a more attractive street scene along the rear of the subject lots and preserve the views of the neighbors who live across the street. In addition, the amendment is intended to require the use of plant material that will control erosion and possibly eliminate loose soil and plant material being washed onto the public sidewalk. Staff does not support the additional landscape provision as proposed based on the landscape maintenance requirements that already exist in the HBZSO and Municipal Code. Chapter 8.16 Weed Abatement of the Municipal Code requires that property shall be kept PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -6- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 free of weeds at all times. In addition, since the subject properties are through lots they are subject to front yard landscape requirements under Chapter 232 of the HBZSO. Issue #4 The term "Primary Frontage" and "Secondary Frontage" to be set forth in the ordinance. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. The addition of the above-noted definitions is intended to reinforce that through lots have two frontages and are subject to front yard setback limitations within the front yard and secondary frontage at the rear of the lot. Staff supports the proposed definitions as they provide clarification regarding setback requirements for through lots. Issue #5 Add that any Conditional Use Permit (CUP) notification should include property owners facing through lots. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Public notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners and tenants within a 1000-foot radius from the subject site. These modifications would require that CUP requests for fencing for through lots be processed under a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission. Staff does not support this modification. The request for additional fence height has been a common and frequently requested entitlement in recent years. The City has attempted to streamline and PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -7- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 reduce the overall cost to homeowners seeking such entitlements. The current CUP process takes approximately two to three months, requires a fee of$1,937, and requires review by the Zoning Administrator. A CUP reviewed by the Planning Commission takes approximately four to six months to process and the fee is $8,396 . Staff does not believe a CUP request to increase fence height warrants the additional cost and time of a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Staff does support the proposed increase from 300-foot notification to 1000-foot notification based on additional community input and involvement for these CUP requests that have the potential to affect the aesthetics of a neighborhood. The expanded notification would increase the costs to applicants and the City, but at a nominal cost. The average price for a title company or consultant to prepare a radius map and labels for 300-foot notification is approximately $250. The average price to prepare 1000-foot notification is approximately $500. This represents an increase of$250 for the homeowner. The additional cost incurred by the City in mailing out the additional notices is approximately $100 to $200 per application. SUMMARY: Staff supports the two changes recommended by the Planning Commission as they are intended to clarify definitions related to through lots. In addition, they allow for additional public notification that results in more neighborhood awareness regarding CUP requests for block walls at the rear of through lots. The current ordinance will adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents by including them in the public hearing process and ensuring that proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01, as recommended by the Planning Commission, for the following reasons: ❑ The amendments clarify the definitions for certain terms relating to through lots by identifying both the front and rear yards as frontages. ❑ The expanded the public notification regarding walls and fences proposed to be constructed at the rear of through lots allows for greater public participation and awareness. ❑ The current ordinance already requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet for fencing over 42 inches in height on the rear of through lots and requires a conditional use permit for fencing deviations from the code. ❑ The CUP process allows for flexibility and review of a proposed wall within the 15-foot rear setback on a case-by-case basis. Such review allows for review for compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines and addresses compatibility issues with surrounding properties. PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -8- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-21 Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 20, City Council Resolution No. 4501, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Approval — ZTA No. 03-01 (PC and Staff Recommendation) 2. Ordinance No.3 6 8,5 including legislative draft. 3. Ordinance No.6k%Ir4-wo City Council Directed) including legislative draft. 4. Findings for Denial —ZTA No. 03-01 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 14, 2004 6. 1 Power Point Slide Presentation RCA Author: PD, HF Findings for Approval —ZTA No. 03-01 PL04-21 Through Lots(2) -9- 9/27/2004 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 1 Ll ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL —ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 203, 210 and 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments clarify the definitions for certain terms relating to walls and fences and expand the public notification regarding walls and fences proposed to be constructed at the rear of through lots, thereby furthering the City's development goals and allowing for increased public participation. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amendment clarifies the definitions for certain terms relating to walls and fences and expands the public notification requirements regarding walls and fences proposed to be constructed at the rear of through lots. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change. The need for expanded notification for conditional use permits on residential through lots is desired by the community. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice by codifying definitions that are related to the development standards for through lots and protect the general welfare of the public through additional notification requirements. (04NOA0914) ATTACHMENT' No . �-= - LATTACHMENT 2 ORDNANCE NO. \ C^� �b ack AN ORDNANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNT)INGTON BEACH ee-a /Vo ---- AMENDING THE HUNTNGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION �JN�.,,t ORDNANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 203.06 and 2 0.88 � ew,s.,t...,j THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND FENCING i D YARDS o 4,l WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and rung Law, the Huntington .�) Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Coun ' /heave held separate, duly S'' r `" " noticed public hearings to consider a Zoning Text Amendmer , which amends Sections 203.06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivisi Ordinance relating to definitions and fencing and yards; and After due consideration of the findings and commendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, th City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the neral Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Co cil of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections%03.06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby ' mended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This rdinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AN ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting the bf held on the day of , 200_ ATTEST: /RE& Ark Mayor WED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: dministrator �(Z�Cjty Atto ey v 1�� lU�f INITI TED AND APPROVED: rector of P anning ord/04zonina/amend 210 etc/9/23/0 4 EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT NO. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — Planning Commission Recommendation 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot requiring a conditional use permit, shall provide public notification to include all property owners and tenants within a 1000-foot radius from the subject site. `� . `� LATTACHMENT 3 ORDNANCE NO. AN ORDNANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTNGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTNGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDNANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 203.06 and 230.88 f �� THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND FENCING AND YARDS WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntinv on Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider a Zoning Text Amendment, which amends Sections 203.06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to definitions and fencing and yards; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections 203.06 and 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 200_ ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: C City-Administrator �&C}ty Atto ey !�,5P 1NITI TED AND APPROVED: rector of Panning ord/04zoning/amend 210 etc'9/23/01 EXHIBIT A A"fflACMAENT NO. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — City Council Directed 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 210.06 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Setbacks Rear(ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subLect property is located. The rear yard setback for through lots with a grade differential of three feet or greater between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall be increased by an additional 10 feet, measured from the crest of the slope. 230.08 Accessory Structures B. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no setback is required for accessory structures excluding garages and carports, which abut an alley. Accessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Accessory structures shall be prohibited within the rear yard setback area of through lots backing up to a local street. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structure rovided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setbaW a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. F. Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard except for decks on through lots backing up to local streets, with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, which shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope. f< LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — City Council Directed 230.88 Fencinsz and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fFences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) 3. Fenees E)f walls within the rear-yard setbaek area of a thfou h!at shall net exeeed 42 iftehes in Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: e. Whe et., wall „ e er ,l' � r- .,b.,,t+:r 1 rb • th �«^� t) tide yl u« 1street, the maximum fetaining wall heigh4 shall be twefAy four- (24) inehes as measufed ffafn the r fence «a total height of F rt y two (42) : ehes 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Public notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners and tenants within a 1000-foot radius from the subject site. ATTACHMENT T 0 3.� - LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — City Council Directed REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY 43° .�. 3020 27' !� .�. •�• I I i I 1 II IO THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 inch high fene may be constructed on any portion of the lot I.A. Exception:No walls allowed within rear yard area of a 5Z i through lot abutting a local street !'I ® Indicates that portion of the lot on which a 6 foot high fence may be constructed. I: "A"indicates the minimum required front yard setback and rear yard setback of a through lot ahuttinn a Inral street. 23' ` Diagram C \ 17 323,94 G.'0\9DRAWQ3Q4WJMP ATTACHMENT NO. ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 203, 210 and 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is not consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments will further regulate walls, fencing, and accessory structures at the rear of through lots thereby reducing the ability of these homeowners to expand their homes to meet their economic, physical, and social needs. The code amendment will reduce fencing options available to homeowners and will limit the ability to expand rear yards of through lots abutting a local street. The result of the reduced buildable area, will affect property values and limit the expansion of these homes to accommodate for the needs of growing families. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is not compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amendment result in burdensome developments standards that specifically target a select number of properties, and are not applicable to all properties under the same zoning designation. 3. A community need is not demonstrated for the change. Limitations on fencing, accessory structures, and setbacks for through lots already exist under the current code. In addition, an administrative remedy for requests above the code limitations is provided with the conditional use permit process. The CUP process allows for flexibility and review of a proposed wall within the 15-foot rear setback on a case-by-case basis. Such review allows for review for compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines and addresses compatibility issues with surrounding properties 4. Its adoption will not be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice as it results in an ordinance that is difficult to enforce based on the lack of reliable information regarding the locations of slopes. The amendments create additional standards that are only applicable to a small percentage of the properties under the same zoning classification, thereby limiting an owner's right to develop their property in a similar manner as the majority of other properties under the same zoning classification. ATTA 0 H M N o A-7 -�- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) Attachment 2.1 ATTACHMENT 5 1 City of Huntington Beach Planning.Department ti,M " STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Paul Da Veiga, Associate Plann�y�"'� DATE: September 14, 2004 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH-LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS— CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 10, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the August 10, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, the zoning text amendment was continued to the September 14, 2004 meeting with the public hearing open. At the August 10, 2004 study session, public testimony was provided and the Planning Commission discussed standards for through-lot fencing. The item was continued in order to analyze revised drafts of the ordinance, alternative designs, and the issue of through lot fencing as it relates to all of the affected properties in Huntington Harbor. As a result, and included in this report, are four alternatives for through lot fencing standards. Alternative A reflects the direction of the City Council. Alternative B is based on Commissioner Livengood's recommendations at the August 10, 2004 Planning Commission Study Session and provides additional fencing options. Alternative C was proposed by Commissioner John Scandura and allows for fencing with a maximum height of 42 inches within the rear yard setback. Alternative D is the original legislative draft presented to the Planning Commission at the July 13, 2004 public hearing. Staff continues to recommend denial of the proposed changes to the ordinance and supports the existing language in the zoning code. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for denial (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (City Council Directed—Alternative A) with findings and forward to City Council for adoption." (Attachment No. 2) B. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (Commissioner Livengood's Recommendation - Alternative B)with findings and forward to City Council."(Attachment No. 3) C. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (Commissioner Scandura's Recommendation - Alternative C)with findings and forward to City Council." (Attachment No. 3) D. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (July 13 Planning Commission- Alternative D) with findings and forward to City Council." (Attachment No. 3) *5 I 0005 ANALYSIS: The primary purpose of the proposed zoning text amendment is to further regulate fencing, landscaping and accessory structures within the rear yard area of through lots as directed by the City Council and BLT Committee. Based on several study sessions including testimony from the public and discussion by the Planning Commission, four alternative ordinances have been developed to address this issue. The four alternatives for the zoning text amendment are summarized as follows: ALTERNATIVE A — CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED This option reflects the City Council direction to prepare a zoning text amendment that addresses the issues listed below. The legislative draft for Alternative A is provided in Attachment No. 2. The corresponding amended code sections are identified under each separate issue. Issue #1 Require any fence built within the rear yard area of a through lot be located at the top of grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double frontage lot. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. l. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fFences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42)inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 3. Fenees or walls within t IAVH setbaek area of a lot shall 1jet emeeed 42 inches in "eight Fences, wa is and any other visib�e structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Issue#2 The setback areas (slopes) shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 230.88 RL, RM, RMH,RH,AND RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts PC Staff Report—9/14/04 .2- 04sr194ZTA 03-01(2) (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material with no visible hardscape. Issue#3 Structures including walls and fences of any height shall not be permitted on the sloped portions of a through lot. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fFences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 3. Fenees or walls within the r-eaf yard setbaek afea Rf A thr-Augh lot shall not exeeed 4 2 inches i height-. Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Issue#4 The term "Primary Frontage" and "Secondary Frontage" to be set forth in the ordinance. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: 203.06 Definitions Frontage, Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. Issue#5 Add that any Conditional Use Permit (CUP) notification should include property owners facing through lots. The applicable code section is amended as follows to address the issue: PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -3- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Public notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners that face the rear of a through lot along the entire abutting street, within the residential block. In addition to the recommended amendments to the Code,the City Council directed staff to consider the points listed below in a memo dated April 24, 2002 from former Council member Ralph Bauer. Each of these points is either currently addressed in the HBZSO and Urban Design Guidelines, or has been included in the proposed zoning text amendment. ❑ Recognition should be given in any ordinance to the fact that on a double lot there is a"front" and a"back". See Definition of Primary &Secondary Frontage in this report under Section 203.06 ❑ Landscaping should encompass 100 percent of a lot (at least back part). See Subsection No. 230.88.(S)(4) in this report. ❑ Walls or fences along the back of the lot should require a permit (including those of 42 inches or less). Retaining walls that retain a slope or other surcharge require a building permit. ❑ Any Conditional Use Permit(CUP) dealing with the backside should be heard by the full Planning Commission. See Subsection 230.88.A.11 in this report. ❑ All relevant Urban Design Guidelines should be part of any ordinance. ❑ If a wall is granted under a CUP, it should include the following features: a. Setback from the public right of way. b. A height limit. c. Landscaping between the public right-of-way and the wall including vines that cover the wall. d. Adhere to engineering specifications to make sure the will not fail should dirt be piled against it. e. Wall should adhere to Urban Design Guidelines. ALTERNATIVE B —.COMMISSIONER LIVENGOOD Alternative B allows for some limited fencing options within the rear sloped areas of through lots. This alternative would allow a retaining wall with a maximum height of 2 feet at the base of the slope and a wall with a maximum height of six feet at the crest of the slope measured from the adjacent grade nearest to the rear property line. The upper wall may be a combination retaining/block wall provided the retaining portion does not exceed 30 inches. A minimum setback distance of six feet shall be maintained between the rear property line and the crest of slope. In addition, a maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 shall be maintained. The purpose of this option is to allow for fencing alternatives and limited expansion of rear yards of through lots, while still preserving a substantial amount of the sloped area. The following illustrations identify three different possible fencing scenarios under the proposed alternative: PC Staff Report-9/14/04 -4- 04sr19 ZTA03-01(2) T CHMEN H ,�'10- ' Scenario #1 —The slope is modified to the maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 allowing an increase in the rear yard. -� A six-foot high block wall is placed at the crest of the _ slope at a six-foot setback q k from the rear property line. /10 Scenario #2—A six-foot high block wall at the top of the slope setback six feet l from the rear property line, _ l with a two-foot high 9 . 1 I retaining wall at the base of 1 the slope allows for an 9 increase in the rear yard area. The maximum allowable slope ratio, is 1:1.5. (� UL I YA « PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -5- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) Scenario #3 —A combination retaining/block wall with a total height of 6 feet is located at the top of the slope lu and a two-foot high retaining t wall at the base of the slope in ll order to allow for an increase I in the rear yard. A minimum i setback of six feet and _ > 3@ maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 5; y� allows for the preservation of a portion of the slope. , �i�►i=� ` &I—o"Nta1• 11la¢ 1H..Af The legislative draft for Alternative B is provided in Attachment No. 3. In order to allow the fencing identified in Alternative B, the following code sections would be amended: 230.88 FencinjZ and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, Wences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 3. Fences or walls located along the rear property line within the r r yard *'-��'� area of a through lot abutting. a local street shall not exceed ^-mac es two feet in height. A fence or wall with a maximum height of six feet, measured from adjacent grade nearest to the rear property line, may be placed at the crest of the slope within the rear setback of a through lot, provided that a minimum setback of six feet is maintained between the crest of slope and rear property line. The upper wall may be a combination retaining/block wall provided the retaining portion does not exceed 30 inches and the overall height of the wall does not exceed six feet. A maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 shall be maintained along the rear sloped area of a through lot. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -6- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) ATTACHMEUNU NO, '� . G c. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting a local street,the maximum retaining wall height shall be twenty-four(24) inches as measured from the adjacent curb b 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Public notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners that face the rear of the through lot along the entire abutting street within the residential block. ALTERNATIVE C— COMMISSIONER SCAND URA Alternative C allows for 42-inch high fencing to be allowed within the rear yard area of through lots. It also requires an additional five-foot building setback to the crest of slope for all structures including patios and decks. Alternative C also requires that the rear sloped area of a through lot be landscaped with plant material. The legislative draft for Alternative C is provided in Attachment 4. ALTERNATIVE D —LEGISLATIVE DRAFT- JULY 13, 2004 Alternative D is the original legislative draft that was presented at the July 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. It represents a combination of the City Council directed changes and additional Planning Commission recommendations that were developed at the June 8, 2004 Planning Commission study session. The legislative draft for Alternative D is provided in Attachment No. 5 (Pages 5.15 — 5.25). The additional changes incorporated into the legislative draft include the following: 1) In order to distinguish between through lots a slope at the rear and through lots that are relatively flat, the Planning Commission recommended that the code amendments only pertain to lots with a grade difference of three or more feet. 2) The Commission requested that addition language be added to require that the rear slopes of the subject lots be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. 3) Increase in the rear setback for through lots with a grade difference of three or more feet to require an additional 10-foot setback measured form the crest of the slope toward the residential structure. 4) A five-foot setback, measured from the crest of slope, was recommended for all accessory structures including patios and decks that are proposed within the rear yard. 5) All requests for fences or walls within the rear yard setback of through lots shall require the approval of a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission. PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -7- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) SUMMARY: Staff supports the current provisions and processing requirements in the HBZSO. The current ordinance limits the height of fences along the rear property line of a through lot to 42 inches. The code requires a CUP application for any wall or fence that exceeds 42 inches proposed along the rear property line of a through lot. Although staff does not unilaterally support increases to fence height, in some cases the physical characteristics and constraints on the property warrant the need for an increase in fence height. The current CUP process adequately protects the health, safety, and welfare of residents by including them in the public hearing process and ensuring that proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. Staff believes that the zoning text amendments identified in this report are not necessary in light of the current restrictions already existing in the HBZSO. Staff recommends that Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 be denied for the following reasons: o Incompatible with the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is proposed by specifically targeting a select number of properties under a general zoning classification. ❑ Inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan because the proposed amendment reduces the options available for usable rear yard area, accessory structures, and residential additions in residential zoning districts, thereby limiting the expansion of these homes to accommodate for individual housing needs. ❑ The current ordinance already requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet for fencing over 42 inches in height on the rear of through lots and requires a conditional use permit for fencing deviations from the code. ❑ The CUP process allows for flexibility and review of a proposed wall within the 15-foot rear setback on a case-by-case basis. Such review allows for review for compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines and addresses compatibility issues with surrounding properties. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Denial—ZTA No. 03-01 2. City Council Direction—Alternative A-Legislative Draft—Chapters 203, 210 &230 (HBZSO) 3. Alternative B - Legislative Draft—Chapters 203, 210 &230 (HBZSO) 4. Alternative C -Legislative Draft—Chapters 203, 210 & 230 (HBZSO) 5. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 13, 2004 6. Letters in Opposition/Support of ZTA No. 03-01 PC Staff Report—9/14/04 -8- 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE A 203.06 Definitions Frontage,Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. Frontage, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 210.06 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Setbacks Rear(ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 - (I)(J)(W) (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subject property is located. 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fr-ences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) 3. Fences or walls within th yff.-d- sethaek af ea of a through let shall not exceed 4 2 inehes in heJaht Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of-slope. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: i r-etaining wall height shall be t:;,venty figuf (24) inehes as measured ftetn the f%-^u..�" Iry i 1.�� T k�" LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE A 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Public Notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners that face the rear of a through lot along the abutting street, within the residential block. REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY t7° /!° \ gyp. La° 25' Y •" 29 aJ 10, THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 inch high fene may be constructed on any portion of the lot Exception:No walls allowed within rear yard area of a ]5. A through lot abutting a local street ® Indicates that portion of the lot on which a 6 foot high fence may be constructed, "A"indicates the minimum required front yard setback and rear yard setback of a through lot ahuttina a Inral street. 25 ae° Diagram.C 8,23,94 G101WDRA1A123QaK2&.1P LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — ALTERNATIVE B 203.06 Definitions Frontaize,Primary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the front property line adjacent to a local street. FrontaLye, Secondary. The portion of a residential through lot that extends along the rear property line adjacent to a local street. 210.06 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Setbacks Rear (ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 - (I)(J)(W) (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subject property is located. 230.08 Accessory Structures B. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no setback is required for accessory structures excluding garages and carports, which abut an alley. Accessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Accessory structures shall be prohibited within the rear yard setback area of through lots backing up to a local street. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. F. Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard except for decks on through lots backing up to local streets, with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, which shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE B 230.88 Fencing and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fFences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) 3. Fences or walls located along the rear property line back area- of a through lot abutting a local street shall not exceed^-2i��two feet in height. A fence or wall with a maximum height of six feet, measured from adjacent grade nearest to the rear property line, may be placed at the crest of the slope within the rear setback of a through lot, provided that a minimum setback of six feet is maintained between the crest of slope and rear property line. The upper wall may be a combination retaining/block wall provided the retaining portion does not exceed 30 inches and the overall hei lit of the wall does not exceed six feet. A maximum slope ratio of 1:1.5 shad be maintained along the rear sloped area of a through lot. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: e. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting a local street, the maximum retaining wall height shall be twenty-four (24) inches as measured from the adjacent curb and may be topped with eighleen (18) ineh Eleeefative wall er fenee for-a total height of��, two (42) inehees. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Public Notification for such applications shall be expanded to include all property owners that face the rear of a through lot along the abutting street, within the residential block. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE B REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY =�— �(r �� 4B III i 10' 0' THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 inch high fene may be constructed on any portion of the lot A Exception:No walls allowed within rear yard area of a through lot abutting a local street except as provided for in Chanter 230.88 ® Indicates that portion of the lot on which a b foot high fence may be constructed. "A"indicates the minimum required front yard setback and rear yard setback of a through lot ahijtt inn a Inral street. 2B'1 Diaq am C "Q i,A, .A. B/23,94 G-zIWOAAW23"B67mp LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE C 210.06 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Setbacks Rear (ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 - (I)(J)(W) (S) Landscaping (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots. (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the sub1ect property is located. The rear yard setback for through lots with a grade differential of three feet or greater between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall be increased by an additional five (5) feet, measured from the crest of the slope. 230.08 Accessory Structures B. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no setback is required for accessory structures excluding garages and carports, which abut an alley. Accessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. F. Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard and shall not extend beyond the crest of slope. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT — ALTERNATIVE C 230.88 Fencintz and Yards A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Fences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 3. Fences or walls within the rear yard setback area of a through lot shall not exceed 42 inches in height. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: c. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting a local street,the maximum retaining wall height shall be twenty-four(24) inches as measured from the adjacent curb and may be topped with a maximum eighteen(18) inch decorative wall or fence for a total height of forty-two (42) inches. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope and are greater than eight (8) feet in height, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT - ALTERNATIVE C REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY �� A• as° �\ ,A. as° j 33' �A� YB THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL s ° A' A 42 inch high fence may be constructed on any portion of the lot. EIndicates that portion of the lot on which a b foot high fence may be constructed. "A"indicates the minimum required front yard setback and rear yard setback of a through lot ahii Finn a Inral cfraat. "o I,A, Dia ram C ,A. 812384 CAIMDPA'M 30SBU BMP jJ City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Plann' BY: Paul Da Veiga, Associate Pla er DATE: July 13, 2004 t SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH-LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: o Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 request: - Amendment of Chapters 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures on through lots • Staff s Recommendation: Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 based upon the following: - Incompatible with the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is proposed by specifically targeting a select number of properties under a general zoning classification. - Inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan because the proposed amendment reduces the options available for usable rear yard area, accessory structures, and residential additions in residential zoning districts,thereby limiting the expansion of these homes to accommodate for individual housing needs. - Results in an ordinance that is difficult to enforce based on the lack of reliable information regarding the locations of slopes RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 as proposed by the Beautification Landscaping and Tree Committee and Planning Commission with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward to City Council." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings and forward to City Council." (Beautification,Landscaping and Tree Committee/Planning Commission Recommendation) B. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 and direct staff accordingly." Etna Cir. cl - - t I { .: j 7 i a:l� : r : . N .. • -t-^ - �s — (—' _. warn.:A— l: •�;<..-,..7.::-:...i..,,:erg. r•,��� t _ _ Him eno+ame wlka m ILLIJ EN .µfa�,[' •^..,` :,' '�,' i;;--'";�.E \ .GAII7IILD Y6mQOR'N ADAN9 ATLANTA 9Abmom / '•1��'- VnfMI Ur. f;.r �r�-,'.>p:,;'�l ;Jl;1`ti:IGu 7 LG='��i.c r u.i n_:;..., Y; asti�r• C��;� - 1. f—. �=J :.F. �,: .�.� : ':� - -Py ��3• `-C _a��� -:P ,�\ ,yam . :,li, •` - y-6,i. 1':➢. L,� 9I.,�`.,•.tv:,• '`'vr:':• ) L° i �� _ Ct. O1~ rt i _ ., �'.a�.d_1,�It,.;tn_ � is _if:�:_�-�'?JLa:.,t�� y ��i, Y•°, ��r. ;<'%: .:.. 9 •> , „i._l(' —;i.: y.71 Banning Ave ....,. .... z , '�: El: — ,....,; 011n�a Cl' •. .,k:�.�:-..?;4-:. •,. •.�,:: �c):•CCU 4;�C: ��-':J1',_,... VICINITY MAP Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 Citywide PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -2- (04srl9 ZTA 03-01) .1 PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 is a request to amend Chapters 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The legislative draft containing all of the proposed amendments is provided in Attachment No. 3. The following is a list of the proposed Chapters and subsections that are being amended: ❑ Chapter 210 Residential Districts Chapter 210.04 - RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls Chapter 210.06 - RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards ❑ Chapter 230 Site Standards Chapter 230.08 —Accessory Structures Chapter 230.88 —Fencing and Yards The request is a City-initiated zoning text amendment on behalf of the Beatification, Landscape, and Tree (BLT) Committee and City Council. The purpose of the amendment is to further regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures along the rear yards of through-lots. A through lot is defined in Chapter 203.06 Definitions as a lot having frontages on two dedicated parallel or approximately parallel streets. In February 2002, the BLT Committee recommended that a"C" item be placed on the City Council agenda directing staff to prepare a zoning text amendment to address block walls at the rear of through- lots. As a result, the City Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment with the following modifications: 1) Require any fence built within the rear yard area of a through lot be located at the top of grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard(corner lot) of a double frontage lot. 2) The setback areas (slopes) shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. 3) Structures including walls and fences of any height shall not be permitted on the sloped portions of a through lot. In addition to recommended amendments proposed by the BLT Committee, the Planning Commission proposed additional modifications/additions by straw votes at a Study Session held on June 8, 2004. These additional recommendations include the following: 1) In order to distinguish between through lots a slope at the rear and through lots that are relatively flat, the Planning Commission recommended that the code amendments only pertain to lots with a grade difference of three or more feet. 2) The Commission requested that addition language be added to require that the rear slopes of the subject lots be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots, with no visible hardscape. PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -3- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) TN C ! r.aC.. .1.-,1,...�..., 3) Increase in the rear setback for through lots with a grade difference of three or more feet to require an additional 10-foot setback measured form the crest of the slope toward the residential structure. 4) A five-foot setback, measured from the crest of slope, was recommended for all accessory structures including patios and decks that are proposed within the rear yard. 5) All requests for fences or walls within the rear yard setback of through lots shall require the approval of a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission. Background The current HBZSO and applicable sections permit fences or walls with a maximum height of 42 inches to be located within any portion of a residential lot without the need for building permits or zoning entitlement. In addition,the code permits a 24-inch high retaining wall topped with an 18-inch high block wall along the rear property line of a through lot abutting a local street. Historically, one of the more common inquires made by homeowners is "how high can I build a fence on my property." The allowance of a 42-inch high wall or fence is a common occurrence throughout the City and homeowners use this to maximize their yard areas. In addition, many homeowners enclose their yards for aesthetic, safety and security reasons. The HBZSO also requires that a minimum 40 percent of a front yard shall be entirely landscaped. Since through lots have two frontages, the rear yards are subject to front yard landscaping requirements. This requirement also applies to rear portion of through lots. Finally, accessory structures are not allowed to encroach within a front yard setback. The rear yard setback for a through lot is equal to the front yard setback, therefore, a fifteen-foot setback is required for any accessory structure on a through lot. Any requests for fencing that exceed 42 inches in height(measured from the top of nearest adjacent curb) are subject to a conditional use permit(CUP)before the Zoning Administrator. Staff analyzes and makes recommendations for or against the proposed wall height and design based on the findings of compatibility with the neighborhood and general compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines. Approximately 70 requests for fencing in excess of 42 inches have been processed since 1994 throughout the entire City. The majority of these requests include courtyard fencing that are located within the front setback and exceeds 42 inches in height. Several conditional use permits have been approved for combination retaining and block walls in excess of the permitted height in Huntington Harbor. Staff has generally supported these requests based on the grade differential, proposed setback, enhanced landscaping, and decorative block wall material. Prior to 1988,retaining walls up to eight feet in height were permitted along the rear property line of through lots. Block walls with a maximum height of six feet could be placed on top of a retaining wall because at that time the measurement of fence height was taken from the adjacent grade (See Attachment No. 4.5). The result of the fencing requirements allowed many homeowners to build combination retaining and block walls at their rear property line in order to increase the usable area in their rear yards. The process at the time was to only obtain a building permit. Since 1988, the code has been amended to limit the height of walls to 42 inches along the rear property line of through lots. The issue of a possible zoning text amendment to further regulate block walls along the rear yards of through lots has been on-going since the denial of the "True Block Wall" (CUP No. 01-09) in August of 2001. This was a request to increase the usable area in the rear portion of a through lot located on Westport Ave. in Huntington Harbor. The homeowner's request included constructing a combination PC Staff Report-7/13/04 -4- (04srl9 ZTA 03-01) r retaining and block wall along the rear property line, which extended the rear yard by seven feet and resulted in a 10-foot high block wall along Roundhill Drive, which is located across the street from the subject site. The request was ultimately denied on appeal by the City Council. However, the True's did build a 42-inch high block wall on the rear property line as is permitted by right. The neighborhood group who opposed the True wall, sought to further regulate placement of walls and fences within the rear sloped areas of through lots in Huntington Harbor. The group attended several BLT Committee meetings and voiced their concerns regarding the effect these combination retaining and block walls have on the aesthetic appearance of their streets and potential adverse impacts to their property values. The BLT Committee concurred with the neighbors and forwarded a memo to the City Council indicating their recommended modifications to the HBZSO in regulating walls and fences, accessory structures, and setback requirements for through lots. Based on the BLT Committee's recommended modifications,the City Council directed staff to prepare a zoning text amendment that addresses the issues raised by the BLT Committee. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan based on the following: A. Land Use Element Goal L U 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. The proposed text amendment will further regulate walls, fencing, and accessory structures at the rear of through lots thereby reducing the ability of these homeowners to expand their homes to meet their economic, physical, and social needs. The text amendment will reduce the buildable portion of the subject properties with the additional rear yard setback of ten feet. The result of the reduced buildable area, will affect property values and limit the expansion of these homes to accommodate for the needs of growing families. B. Housing Element Obiective HE 5.1: Promote equal housing opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice. The proposed text amendments results in additional restrictions placed on the subject lots, which are not applicable to other properties under the same zoning designation. The result of such amendments limits the ability of these homeowners to expand their homes or have certain accessory structures within their rear yard area that are permitted to other properties under the same zoning designation. PC Staff Report-7/13/04 -5- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) a 54, yew;.1 C. Urban Design Element Goal UD 6: Through the development or design review process, require or continue to: a) review all projects for potential visual impacts to surrounding areas; All fencing requests that are not in compliance with the HBZSO require the processing of a CUP under the current code. Through the CUP process, staff makes recommendations regarding compatibility with adjacent properties pursuant to the Urban Design Guidelines and a formal public hearing is required to give neighbors the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The current process is adequate in regulating the compatibility of fencing at the rear of the subject lots. The proposed code amendment will place additional restrictions on fencing that are not necessary based on the current requirements already in place in the zoning ordinance. Zoning Compliance: The proposed zoning text amendment would result in additional limitations on the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear yard setback area of through lots. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Staff reviews CUP requests for fencing at the rear of through lots for compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines (UDG). The UDG indicate that perimeter walls or fences greater than 50 feet in length should incorporate at least two of the following design features which are proportionate to the wall length: ❑ A minimum two-foot change in plane for at least 10 lineal feet. ❑ A minimum 18-inch high raised planter for at least 10 lineal feet ❑ A minimum 18-inch change in height for at least ten lineal feet ❑ Use of pilasters at 50 foot maximum intervals and at all changes in wall planes Environmental Status: The proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Coastal Status: Not applicable Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -6- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) Public Notification: A one-eighth-page legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on July 1, 2004, and notices were mailed out to the affected property owners, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix) as well as all interested parties. As of July 8, 2004, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received in response to the hearing notice. ANALYSIS: The primary purpose of the proposed zoning text amendment is to prohibit the placement of fences and regulate the required landscaping and accessory structures within the rear yard area of through lots. Staff has identified approximately 118 through lots backing up to a local street, throughout the City. The majority of these through lots (75) are found in Huntington Harbor. All of the through lots located in Huntington Harbor were developed at a higher grade than the street located to the back of the property, which results in a varying slope condition within the rear yard. The slope areas vary in their horizontal dimensions from seven feet up to 25 feet in depth. The grade differential or vertical dimension also varies from four feet up to 14 feet in height, measured from the top of the adjacent curb. The remaining 43 through lots located throughout the City, are relatively flat and do not have the sloped condition that is common in Huntington Harbor. The proposed zoning text amendment was brought before the Planning Commission at two study sessions (May 18, 2004 & June 8, 2004). The neighborhood group in favor of the amendment was present at both meetings and provided a copy of the CC & R's for Huntington Harbor to the Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that several slope requirements/limitations identified in the CC &R's be incorporated into the amendment. Staff has prepared a legislative draft of the proposed changes that reflects all the recommendations of the BLT Committee and Planning Commission into one draft document(Attachment No. 3). The following is a staff analysis of the amended sections that addresses the recommendations by the BLT Committee and Planning Commission: LANDSCAPING & FENCING o Chanter 210.06 (S)(4)—Landscaping On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots,with no visible hardscape. The additional subsection is intended to require the owners of through lots to fully landscape and maintain the rear sloped area. The recommended modifications are proposed to maintain and create a more attractive street scene along the rear of the subject lots and preserve the views of the neighbors who live across the street. In addition, the amendment is intended to require the use of plant material that will control erosion and possibly eliminate loose soil and plant material being washed onto the public sidewalk. PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -7- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) Staff does not support the additional landscape provision as proposed based on the landscape maintenance requirements that already exist in the HBZSO and Municipal Code. Chapter 8.16 Weed Abatement of the Municipal Code requires that property shall be kept free of weeds at all times. In addition, since the subject properties are through lots they are subject to front yard landscape requirements under Chapter 232 of the HBZSO. ❑ Chapter 210.06 (W)—Additional Provisions The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The rear yard setback for through lots with a grade differential of three feet or greater between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall be increased by an additional 10 feet, measured from the crest of the slope. The additional subsection is intended to clarify the setback requirement for through lots while distinguishing between through lots in the Harbor and those located throughout the remainder of the City. Through lots in the Harbor are distinguished primarily by their sloped and landscaped rear yard areas. The Planning Commission added the provision to through lots that have a three foot or more grade difference between the top of nearest adjacent curb and crest of slope to help clarify the applicability of the provision. The additional ten-foot setback is proposed to be measured from the crest of the slope, which is the point where the sloped grade meets the flat or relatively flat grade of the remainder of the lot. The additional ten-foot setback is proposed to limit the massing of structures at the crest of the slope thereby protecting the views from neighboring properties. Staff supports the clarification of the rear yard setback requirements for through lots in the first sentence of this subsection. This modification is necessary to specify the required rear yard setbacks for through lots, which was not clearly defined in the HBZSO. Staff does not support the remainder of the provision. Staff does not support the additional 10-foot setback measured from the crest of slope. The first concern is determining the location of the crest of the slope. This will be difficult or impossible on lots that have experienced substantial erosion or have been altered through the years. In addition, the crest may be different and meander across each lot resulting in a fence location that may be different on each lot. The differing crest may result in a fence pattern that may be staggered. It is also difficult for planning staff to identify the crest of slope on a site plan when a homeowner is requesting permits over the counter. There is not a reliable in-house resource that staff can reference to determine the exact location of the crest of the slope. The determination may require a field verification or submittal of engineered plans by the homeowner. Also, in some cases the provision will render several of these homes as legal non-conforming based on the building's existing footprint and setbacks. The legal non-conforming status could substantially restrict future improvements to the home and potentially impact property values. The proposed zoning text amendment would limit the ability of a homeowner to expand their residence to accommodate expansion and the upgrade of their property. In several cases the additional 10-foot setback would eliminate the possibility of a room addition at the rear of the property. PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -8- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) (( ❑ Chapter 230.88 A. 1.—Permitted Fences and Walls Except as otherwise provided in this section, fFences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. The modifications to the subsection are intended to prohibit fencing of any height within the rear yard area of through lots. The BLT Committee and Planning Commission are recommending this modification to preserve the existing slopes and eliminate the possibility of fencing within the sloped area. By eliminating all fencing on the slopes, the aesthetics of the street will be protected, and views from neighbors that face the rear of the subject through lots will not be disrupted with block walls. The current ordinance limits the height of fences along the rear property line of a through lot (or any lot)to 42 inches. As noted earlier, many homeowners take advantage of this allowance and enclose their yards to expand their useable space and also to add aesthetic, safety and security to their properties. The ordinance requires a CUP for any wall or fence that exceeds 42 inches in height proposed along the rear property line of a through lot. The amendments would not allow fencing of any height within the rear sloped area of a through lot. Regulating the location of fences that do not require a building permit is difficult to enforce since 42-inch high walls can be placed anywhere on a residential lot without a building permit. In addition, the amended section is specific to Huntington Harbor through lots and does not apply across the board to all lots under the same zoning classification. This results in specific requirements that are directed at a very limited number of properties. ❑ Chapter 230.88 A. 3. —Permitted Fences and Walls Fenees er- walls within the rear- yard setbaek area of a thfough lot shall not exeeed 42 iflehes in l id. Fences, walls and any other visible structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. The modifications to the subsection are intended to prohibit fencing of any height within the rear and street-side yard area of through lots. The BLT Committee and Planning Commission are recommending this modification to preserve the existing slopes and eliminate the possibility of fencing within the sloped area. By eliminating all fencing on the slopes, the aesthetics of the street will be protected, and views from neighbors that face the rear of the subject through lots will not be disrupted with block walls. Staff is in favor of the existing code, which allows fences of 42 inches or less in height to be located within the rear setback area of through lots. As a matter of right,the current HBZSO allows 42-inch high walls anywhere on a residential lot. The proposed amendment would primarily single-out properties within Huntington Harbor and applies development standards that differ from the majority PC Staff Report—7/13/04 -9- (04sr 19 ZTA 03-01) of other properties under the same zoning classification. Currently, if a homeowner would like to exceed the maximum 42-inch fence height, a CUP is required. Although staff does not unilaterally support increases to fence height, in some cases the physical characteristics and constraints on the property warrant the need for an increase in fence height. The current CUP process adequately protects the health, safety, and welfare of residents by including them in the public hearing process and ensuring that proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. ❑ Chanter 230.88 A. 7.—Permitted Fences and Walls retaipAng wall height shall be twenty feur (24) inehes as measur-ed from the adjaeel:A eur-b afid may be topped with a ighteen (18) inch deeer-ative wall or- fenee for- a total hei& e See discussion under Chapter 230.88 A.3. above. ❑ Chanter 230.88 A. 11. —Permitted Fences and Walls Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street, with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. The modifications to the subsection would require that any requests for deviations to the fencing requirements for through lots be processed under a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission. The BLT Committee recommended Planning Commission review because of the overall impact the subject walls have on residents in Huntington Harbor. The BLT Committee concurred with the neighborhood group that the subject walls change the character of a street and negatively impact the entire neighborhood, and therefore should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff does not support the Planning Commission review of CUP requests for fencing within the rear yard area of through lots. The request for additional fence height has been a common and frequently requested entitlement in recent years. The City has attempted to streamline and reduce the overall cost to homeowners seeking such entitlements. The current CUP process takes approximately two to three months, requires a fee of$1,937, and requires review by the Zoning Administrator under the same public notification and hearing process as the Planning Commission. The current entitlement process does allow applicants, neighbors, and any interested party the opportunity to appeal any decision to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council. A CUP reviewed by the Planning Commission take approximately four to six months to process and the fee is $8,396 . Staff does not believe a CUP request to increase fence height warrants the additional cost and time of a public hearing before the Planning Commission. PC Staff Report-7/13/04 -10- (04sr 19 ZTA 03-0 1) ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ❑ Chapter 230.08 B.—Accessory Structures - Location Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no setback is required for accessory structures, excluding garages and carports, which abut an alley. Accessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Accessory structures shall be prohibited within the rear yard setback area of through lots backing up to a local street. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. The purpose of this subsection is to regulate placement of accessory structures on through-lots to ensure that accessory structures shall not occupy any portion of the rear yard setback. Specific requirements are added for through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet, which require an additional setback to be measured from the crest of slope. The purpose of these specific requirements are to ensure that the sloped areas along the rear yards of through lots in Huntington Harbor are preserved to improve views to and from neighboring properties. Staff does not support the proposed provision because several of these homes will not be able to build accessory structures such as patios, sheds, workshops, or similar structures, as they would encroach within the five-foot setback to the crest of slope. It is also difficult for planning staff to identify the crest of slope on a site plan when a homeowner is requesting permits over the counter. There is not a reliable in-house resource that staff can reference to determine the exact location of the crest of the slope other than field verification or the submittal of engineered plans by the homeowner. In addition, the restriction would potentially prohibit homeowners of through lots the ability to place such structures that are typically permitted on lots under the same zoning classification. ❑ Chapter 230.08 E.—Accessory Structures—Patio Covers Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. See discussion under Chapter 230.08 B. above. ❑ Chapter 230.08 F.—Accessory Structures—Decks Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard except for decks on through lots backing up to local streets, with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope, which shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope. See discussion under Chapter 230.08 B. above. PC Staff Report-7/13/04 -11- (04sr19 ZTA03-01) SUMMARY Staff does not support the proposed zoning text amendment as it is proposed because it will prohibit fencing and walls in the rear yard area of through lots, restrict the placement of accessory structures above and beyond the current limitations that already exist, and significantly limits future additions to homes at the rear of through lots. The amendment results in standards that are only applicable to select properties and are not applicable to the majority of residential properties under the same zoning classification. The additional 10-foot setback proposed will result in some of these properties being classified as legal non- conforming. The legal non-conforming status could substantially restrict future improvements to the home and potentially impact property values. The additional setback limits the ability of homeowners to expand their residence to accommodate for a growing family, or significantly upgrade their property. The proposed ordinance will be difficult to implement and enforce, may cause some properties to become legal non-conforming, impose restrictions on select properties that are not imposed on lots under the same zoning classification, and will increase the entitlement cost and time to residential property owners Staff supports the current provisions and processing requirements in the HBZSO. The current ordinance limits the height of fences along the rear property line of a through lot to 42 inches. The code requires a CUP application for any wall or fence that exceeds 42 inches proposed along the rear property line of a through lot. Although staff does not unilaterally support increases to fence height, in some cases the physical characteristics and constraints on the property warrant the need for an increase in fence height. The current CUP process adequately protects the health, safety, and welfare of residents by including them in the public hearing process and ensuring that proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. Staff recommends that Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 be denied for the following reasons: ❑ Incompatible with the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is proposed by specifically targeting a select number of properties under a general zoning classification. ❑ Inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan because the proposed amendment reduces the options available for usable rear yard area, accessory structures, and residential additions in residential zoning districts, thereby limiting the expansion of these homes to accommodate for individual housing needs. ❑ Results in an ordinance that is difficult to enforce based on the lack of reliable information regarding the locations of slopes ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Denial—ZTA No. 03-01 2. Draft Ordinance No. 3. Legislative Draft—Chapters 210 & 230 (HBZSO) 4. Site Plans/Cross Sections—Possible Through Lot Fencing Scenarios 5. City Council "C" Item- BLT Committee memo dated 9/27/02 PC Staff Report-7/13/04 -12- (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) OF a�g A,. n„d 09 E:. I k of�:.�a ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 210 and 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is not consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments will further regulate walls, fencing, and accessory structures at the rear of through lots thereby reducing the ability of these homeowners to expand their homes to meet their economic,physical, and social needs. The code amendment will reduce the buildable portion of the subject properties with the additional rear yard setback of ten feet. The result of the reduced buildable area, will affect property values and limit the expansion of these homes to accommodate for the needs of growing families. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is not compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amendment result in burdensome developments standards that specifically target a select number of properties, and are not applicable to all properties under the same zoning designation. 3. A community need is not demonstrated for the change. Limitations on fencing, accessory structures, and setbacks for through lots already exist under the current code. In addition, an administrative remedy for requests above the code limitations is provided with the conditional use permit process. 4. Its adoption will not be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice as it results in an ordinance that is difficult to enforce based on the lack of reliable information regarding the locations of slopes. The amendments create additional standards that are only applicable to a small percentage of the properties under the same zoning classification, thereby limiting an owner's right to develop their property in a similar manner as the majority of other properties under the same zoning classification. (04sr19 ZTA 03-01) _q @ ca1y \'r ap"^ry �y�` ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 210.04, 210.06, 230.08, AND 230.88 THEREOF RELATING TO SETBACKS, FENCING, AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF THROUGH LOTS WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01, which amends Sections 210.04,- 210.06, 230.08, AND 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision-Ordinance relating to setbacks, fencing, and landscaping within the rear yard area of through lots; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Sections 210,04, 210.06, 230.08, AND 230.88 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended in accordance with the Legislative Draft provided in Attachment A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk i Atto ey REVIEWED AND APPROVED: if AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Planning G:ordinance\ZTA03-01 l e,.` _ LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Building Site 6,000 6,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 10 ac. (A)(B)(C) (3410-3/99) Width (ft.) 60 60 25 60 60 N/A (3334-6197,3410-3/99) Cul de sac frontage 45 45 - 45 45 N/A (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Minimum Setbacks (D)(R) (3334-6197.3410-3199) Front (ft.) 15 15 12 10 10 10 (E)(F) (3334-6197,3410-3/99) Side (ft.) 3;5 3;5 3;5 3;5 3;5 - (G)(I)(J) (3334.6/97,3410-3/99) Street Side (ft.) 6;10 6;10 5 6;10 6-10 10 (H) (3334-6197,3410-3199) Rear(ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 - (I)(J W) Accessory Structure TT�� (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Garage (K) (3334-6197,3410-3/99) Projections into ' Setbacks (L)(R) (3334.6/97,3410.3199) Maximum Height (ft.) Dwellings 35 35 35 35 35 20 (M) (3334-6197,3410-3/99) _ Accessory Structures 15 15 15 15 15 15 (M)(R) (3410-3199) Maximum Floor Area - - 1.0 - - - (3334-6197,3410-3199) Ratio (FAR) (3410-3/99) Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.) 6,000 2,904 * 1,742 1,244 - (3334-6/97.3410.3/99) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 50 50 50 50 50 75 (V) (3334-6197,3410-3/99) Minimum Floor Area (N) (3334-6/97,3410-3l99) Minimum Usable Open Space (0) Courts (P) (3334-6/97,3410-7/99) Accessibility within Dwellings (Q) (3410-3/99) Waterfront Lots (R) (3334.6/97,3410-3/99) Landscaping See Chapter 232 (S) (3334-6197,3410-3199) Fences and Walls See Section 230.88 Lighting (T) (3334-6197.3410-3/99) Underground Utilities See Chapter 17.64 Screening of Mechanical Equipment See Section 230.76 Refuse Storage Areas See Section 230.78 (3410-3199) Antenna See Section 230.80 (3410.3/99) Performance Standards See Section 230.82 Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 231 Signs See Chapter 233 Nonconforming Structures See Chapter 236 * Lots 50 feet or less in width= 1 unit per 25 feet of frontage Lots greater than 50 feet in width= 1 unit per 1,900 square feet N/A=Not applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 210-6 3/99 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Development Standards Bulkhead Solarium Projecting deck 2 1/2' Max. i,. 51 O 45 45 1 ■ ■ 5' ■ min. house 5 min. . ■ Property line ' WATERFRONT LOT PROJECTIONS (3334-6/97) (S) Landscaping (1) A minimum 40% of the front yard shall be landscaped. For single family residences in the RMH-A subdistrict, a minimum 3 foot wide landscape planter along the front property line (excluding max. 5 ft. wide walkway)may be provided in lieu of the 40% requirement. A maximum 18 inch high planter wall may be constructed along the front property line. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (2) All required trees specified in Chapter 232 shall be provided. (3410-3/99) (3) All subdivisions shall provide a minimum 5 foot wide landscaped area along arterial streetihighway property lines. The actual required width shall be determined during the planning process. Maintenance of said landscaped area shall be by a homeowners association, property owner or other method approved by the City of Huntington BLUPC Beach. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (4) On through lots that back up to a local street, the rear yard and street side yard area between the property line and nearest fence or block wall shall be entirely landscaped with plant material sufficient to control the erosion of sloped lots with no visible hardscape. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 210-18 3/99 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Development Standards (T) Lighting. A lighting system shall be provided in all multi-family projects along all vehicular access ways and major walkways. Lighting shall be directed onto the driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director. (3334-6/97) (U) See Section 230.08: Accessory Structures (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (V) Solid patio covers open on at least 2 sides may be permitted an additional 5% site coverage. Open lattice patio covers are exempted from site coverage standards. (3410-3/99) (W) The rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street shall be pNEEEpp-'4' equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subLect property is located. The rear yard setback for through lots with a grade differential of three feet or reater between the top of curb and crest of slope shall be increased by an additional 10 feet as measured from the crest of the slope. 210.08 Development Standards for Senior Projects This section establishes development standards for Senior Residential Projects that may be permitted by the Planning Commission. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) A. Minimum Floor Area. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum floor area of 450 square feet. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) B. Minimum Setbacks. The project shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the district applicable to the site. (3334-6/97) C. Minimum Distance between Buildings. Minimum building separation shall be 10 feet. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) D. Building Design. No structure shall exceed 180 feet in length. To provide variation in building facades, two of the following architectural elements are required as part of each building: sloped roofs; bay windows; awnings; roof eaves; cornices; balconies; or patios. (3334-6/97) E. Open Space Requirements. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 1. Private Open Space: A minimum of 60 square feet of private open space for studios or one bedroom units and 120 square feet for two or more bedrooms, with minimum dimensions Of 6 feet. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 2. Common Open Space: A minimum of 2,500 square feet for the first 50 units, and an additional 50 square feet for each unit over 50. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 3. Community Club House: An enclosed community or clubhouse facility containing minimum 7 square feet per unit, and a total area of minimum 400 square feet, may satisfy up to 50% of the common open space requirement. The clubhouse shall include handicapped bathrooms and kitchen facilities to be used by project residents and their guests only. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) F. Elevators. Buildings with more than 2 levels, including living areas or parking, shall have elevators. (3334-6/97) G. Parking. Parking shall comply with Chapter 231. Any parking space over and above the one space per unit shall be marked for guest use. (3334-6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 210-19 - EGISLATIVE DRAFT 230.08 Accessory Structures A. Timing. Accessory structures shall not be established or constructed prior to the start of construction of a principal structure on a site, except that construction trailers may be placed on a site at the time site clearance and grading begins and may remain on the site only for the duration of construction. B. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-2 6/97 /y EGISLATIVE DRAFT principal structure on a An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except that no ack is required for accessory structures, excluding garages and carports, which abut an alley. ccessory structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. Accessory structures shall be prohibited within the rear yard setback area on through lots backing up to a local street. No accessory structures shall be permitted off-site. C. Maximum Height. 15 feet, except a detached garage for a single family dwelling may exceed the maximum height when it is designed to be architecturally compatible with the main dwelling and does not include habitable floor area. D. Maximum Size in RL District. In an RL district, the total gross floor area of accessory structures more than 4 feet in height that are not attached to a dwelling shall not exceed 600 square feet or 10 percent of lot area, whichever is more. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. Patio covers shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the crest of slope on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the top of curb and cr of slope. F. Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard except for decks on through lots backing up to local streets with a grade difference in excess of three feet between the to of curb and crest of slope, which shall be setback a minimu of five (5) feet from the crest of slope. G. Separation. The distance tween buildings on the same lot shall not be less than 10 feet. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-3 5/00 ,EGISLATIVE DRAFT A. Time Limit. 1. A Christmas tree sales facility shall not be open for business during any calendar year prior to Thanksgiving. 1. A Halloween pumpkin sales facility shall not be open for business during any calendar year prior to October 1. 3. A single agricultural product sales facility shall be approved for a period of time not to exceed 90 days. B. Merchandise to be Sold. A permitted Christmas tree or Halloween pumpkin sales facility may not sell items not directly associated with that season. Only one single, season agricultural product may be sold at any one time. C. Site Standards. 1. Storage and display of products shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet from edge of street pavement, and shall not encroach into the public right-of-way. 2. A minimum of ten (10) off-street parking spaces shall be provided. 3. Ingress and egress to the site shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works to insure that no undue traffic safety hazard will be created. 4. Temporary structures shall comply with Building Division standards. 5. Electrical permit shall be obtained if the facility is to be energized. 6. The facility shall comply with fire prevention standards as approved and enforced by the Fire Chief. D. Bond Required. Prior to issuance of a business license and approval by the Director, a five hundred dollar ($500) cash bond shall be posted with the City to ensure removal of any structure, cleanup of the site upon termination of the temporary use, and to guarantee maintenance of the property. A bond shall not be required for a seasonal sales facility operated in conjunction with a use on the same site. E. Removal of facility. The seasonal sales facility shall be removed and the premises cleared of all debris and restored to the condition prior to the establishment within ten calendar days of Halloween, Christmas, or the expiration of the time limit for single season agricultural product. 230.88 Fencing and Yards No portion of a required yard area provided for a structure on a lot shall be considered as part of the yard area for any other structure on the same or an adjacent lot. In all districts, minimum setback lines shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way line. Diagrams A, B and C are hereby adopted to illustrate the provisions of this chapter. Where any discrepancy occurs between the diagrams and the printed text, the text shall prevail. Yards and fencing shall comply with the following criteria in all districts or as specified. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-35 6e/97 EGISLATIVE DRAFT A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, fr-ences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot except screen wall on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) 2. Fences or walls a maximum of six (6) feet in height may be located in required side and rear yards, except as excluded in this Section. Fences or walls exceeding six (6) feet in height may be located in conformance with the yard requirements applicable to the main structure except as provided for herein or in the regulations of the district in which they are located. a. Fences and walls located adjacent to arterials along the rear and/or street side yard property lines, and behind the front setback, may be constructed to a maximum total height of eight (8) feet including retaining wall with the following: (3525-2/02) (1) The proposed building materials and design shall be in conformance with the Urban Design Guidelines. (3525-2/02) (2) Extensions to existing wall(s) shall require submittal of engineering calculations to the Building and Safety Department. (3525-2/02) (3) The property owner shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of landscape area(s) and wall(s) and required landscape area(s). (3525-2/02) (4) Approval from Public Works Department. (3525-2/02) 3. inches in hei-11A Fences, walls and any other visib a structures shall be prohibited within the sloped area of through lots that abut a local street along the rear property line. The sloped area shall be defined as the area extending from the rear or street side property line to the crest of the slope. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways, and lots with a grade difference of less than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope. 4. In the RL district, garden or wing walls or fences equal in height to the first floor double plate, but not exceeding nine (9) feet, which are perpendicular to and entirely within a side yard may be constructed to the interior side property line and to within five (5) feet of the exterior side property line provided they are equipped with a three (3) foot gate or accessway. 5. When residential property abuts open or public land or property zoned or used for office, commercial, or industrial purposes, an eight (8) foot high solid masonry or block wall may be constructed on the common side or rear property line. 6. In order to allow variations in the street scene in R districts, fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may be permitted at a reduced front setback of six (6) feet subject to plan review approval by the Director in conformance with the following criteria: a. The reduced setback shall be only permitted for five (5) or more contiguous lots under the same ownership and only at the time of initial construction of the dwellings. b. Such walls shall not encroach into the visibility triangular area formed by measuring seven and one-half(7.5) feet along the driveway and ten (10) feet along the front property line at their point of intersection. c. Such walls shall conform to all other applicable provisions of this section. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance _ Chapter 230 230-36 , j- " f `• ;2#02 tt, EGISLATIVE DRAFT 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: a. Where a retaining wall is located on the property line separating lots or parcels and protects a cut below the natural grade, such retaining wall may be topped by a fence, wall or hedge of the same height that would otherwise be permitted at the location if no retaining wall existed. Nb. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting an arterial or exterior side yard and contains a fill of two (2) ft. or less or protects a cut below the existing grade, such retaining wall may be topped with a six (6) ft. decorative masonry wall. e. , the maximum fetainiiig wall heigh4 shall be twenty feur- (24) inehes as measufed 40ffi the adjaeent eur-b and fflay be topped with a maidnium eighteefi (18) ineh deeefative wall, or-fenee for-a total height of fei4y two (42) iiiehe-s-. c. d- (1) The maximum height of a retaining wall on the front property line shall be thirty-six (36) inches as measured from the top of the highest adjacent curb. Subject to the Director's approval, a maximum forty-two (42) inch high wall or fence may be erected above the retaining wall with a minimum three (3) foot setback from the front property line. (3334-6197,3410-3/99) (2) In the RMH-A subdistrict, the maximum height of a retaining wall on the front property line shall be eighteen(18) inches as measured from the.top of the highest adjacent curb. Subject to the Director's approval, a second retaining wall up to eighteen (18) inches in height may be erected above the eighteen (18) inch high retaining wall with a minimum three (3) foot front setback. A wall or fence up to forty-two (42) inches in height may be erected on top of the retaining wall with the minimum three foot front setback. (See Exhibit below.) (3410-3/99) I Required "0 Tree/Palm Landscaping I I Front Building* nronerty line Max r)" i Patio I Max.18" t Retaininn Wall, Sidewalk/Parkway Max.18" *See Maximum building height in Chapter 210 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-37 3/99 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT d. e: All retaining walls abutting a street shall be waterproofed to the satisfaction of the Director. e. fi Retaining wall and fence combinations over eight (8) feet in height shall be constructed with a variation in design or materials to show the distinction. Retaining wall and fence combinations over six (6) feet in height shall be designed without decorative block or cap block, except if equal in strength to the main portion of the fence. 8. The height of any fence, wall or hedge located in the front yard setback shall be measured from top of the highest adjacent curb. All other fence heights shall be measured from existing grade. 9. Any fence or wall located on the front property line shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 10. In the industrial districts, nine (9) foot high fences may be permitted in the side and rear setbacks up to the front building line subject to plan review approval by the Director. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning mimstrator. Walls and fences within the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street with a grade difference of greater than three feet between the top of curb and crest of slope shall require approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. 12. Within the coastal zone, no gate, fence or wall shall be permitted that restricts or obstructs public access to the shore. (3334-6/97) B. Required Walls. 1. When office, commercial or industrial uses abut property zoned or used for residential, a six (6) foot high solid six (6) inch concrete block or masonry wall shall be required. If a wall meeting these standards already exists on the abutting residential property, protection from vehicle damage shall be provided by a method approved by the Director. The maximum fence height shall be eight (8) feet at the common property line, subject to the same design standards and setback requirements as specified for six (6) foot high fences. 2. Industrial screening walls abutting arterial highways shall be architecturally compatible with surrounding properties, constructed of a minimum six (6) inch wide decorative masonry block, and designed with landscape pockets at thirty-five (35) foot intervals along the street side sufficient in size to accommodate at least one (1) 15-gallon tree. Approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator shall be required prior to construction of such walls. C. Visibilitv. 1. On reverse corner lots and corner lots abutting an alley, no fence, wall or hedge greater than forty-two (42) inches in height may be located within the triangular area formed by measuring ten (10) feet from the intersection of the rear and street side property lines. 2. On corner lots, no fence, wall, landscaping, berming, sign, or other visual obstruction between forty-two (42) inches and seven(7) feet in height as measured from the adjacent curb elevation may be located within the triangular area formed by measuring twenty-five Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-38 6/97 { EGISLATIVE DRAFT (25) feet from the intersection of the front and street side property lines or their prolongation. Trees trimmed free of branches and foliage so as to maintain visual clearance below seven (7) feet shall be permitted. 3. Visibility of a driveway crossing a street or alley property line or of intersecting driveways shall not be blocked between a height of forty-two (42) inches and seven(7) feet within a triangular area formed by measuring ten (10) feet from intersecting driveways or street/alley and driveway. "Op A R-z E 10, 230-CORN DIAGRAM A . t t . t . t t ' 0• _ 10• 10 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 230•setb STREET/ALLEY DIAGRAM B Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 230-39 6/97 EGISLATIVE DRAFT REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY —33 A A A Zs' Y I a 29 •,1i� ii2y I DLta' —►is 4— THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 inch high fene may be constructed on any portion of the lot r 5" A Exception:No walls allowed within rear yard area of a ]3' �•'� � j A 1 through lot abutting a local street ® Indicates that portion of the lot on which a b foot high fence may be constructed. i "A"indicates the minimum required front yard setbac and rear yard setback of a through lot abutting a local s P.P.f. 23I i ,i X Diagram C �, p• 62314 G�WDA.1'N•230-S8Q.IMP Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance' , Chapter 230 230-40 ;a e.' ='� " "' 6/97 •,tj f} ; 1 J11=1 t1-= 11(=1111=-1111-=(it���- 111�111 11=i 1t=1�^i111 J s � l�_-,ma's-;, --/�I 1 �3 ��.•-}'7 .��f. ' E� V Y -moo 2­1 a 3ti O�1 , 1 �,,� � l►I�U11= ((ol HIDE l,= ot t, y �..p�.�... �-� T-' _ �i-=.►ill �''� r. . I H"-F _,:. ; ,�.►._.��i sm �1 c. :,, :::: 1 ` '4 � tip=lui� ►1' F-,15 up Nelelm- LAW P vN `IMP pOAN R� CITY OF HUNTINGTON� BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable City Council Members From: Mayor Debbie Cook, Chair, Beautification/Landscape/Tree Committee on - behalf of Mayor Pro Tern Connie Boardman and City Council Member Ralph Bauer Date: September 27, 2002 ak, Subject: C" ITEM FOR OCTOBER 7, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING — DOUBLE FRONTAGE (THROUGH) LOTS IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Huntington Harbour is unique in the city in having double fronted lots. In the Harbour there are many residents who look out onto the back slope (secondary frontage) of the home across the street, rather than the front yard of their neighbor's home. Over the years, fencing has been approved for the secondary frontage, which has resulted in walls replacing the back slope of the home. Homeowners have done this to increase the usage of their backyards, but the effect on the homeowner across the street has been to change their view from that of a nicely landscaped slope to one of a tall concrete block wall. The Beautification/Landscape/Tree (BLT) Committee has spent several months working with homeowners in the Harbour to develop a recommendation for Council direction. These residents in the Harbour understand that a property owner can appeal any new development standard through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The BLT Committee recommends that the City Council make a motion to direct the Department of Planning to initiate & process a zoning text amendment adopting additional development standards for double frontage lots. These standards include the following: 1) Require any fence built on the secondary frontage of a double-frontage lot be located at ,the top of the grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double- frontage lot. 2) The setback area noted in No. 1 above shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. = 3) No structures including walls and fences of any height shall be permitted on the secondary frontage of a double-frontage lot., In addition,staff should consider the seven points listed in the attached memo from Council Member Bauer dated April 24, 2002. Attachment: Council Member Bauer Memo dated 4-24-02 xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway Howard Zelefsky [OLDc�4 ne CI1 .d` JF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Debbie Cook, Mayor RECEIvED Connie Boardman, City Council Member APR 3 0 2002 Scott Hess, Principal Planner - From: Ralph Bauer, Mayor Pro Tem Date: April 24, 2002 Subject: SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT DOUBLE FRONTAGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS 1. Recognition should be given in any ordinance to the fact that on a double lot there is a "front" and a "back". 2. Landscaping should encompass 100% of a lot (at least the back part). 3. Wall or fences along the back of the lot should require a permit (including those of 42 inches or less). 4. Any C.U.P. dealing with the backside should be heard by the full Planning Commission. 5. Back fences along the top of the grade should be no higher than those on the side of the house. 6. All relevant urban design guidelines should be a part of any ordinance. 7. If a wall is granted under a C.U.P., it should include the following features: a. Set back from the public right-of-way. b.' A height limit c. . Landscaping between the public right-of-way and the wall including vines that will cover the wall. d. Adhere to Engineering specifications to make sure wall will not fail should dirt be piled against it. e. Wall should adhere to urban design guidelines. RHB:cf , September 6, 2004 Respected City Council Members: We reside at 4172 Windsor Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 and have a through lot. The proposed Zoning Amendment No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) affects our property rights. Huntington Beach Harbour properties are unique.No property is alike. All properties are diversified and do not conform to any"track home"type standards. When we moved here in1992, we decided to live here on the premise that we could extend our backyard and fully enjoy our property and home. We did extend our backyard more than six years ago and enjoying every minute of it. It is our constitutional right to use and enjoy our property. This diversity of homes in the harbour enhances the property value as well as the aesthetics. There are more beautiful walls and fences than number of slopes in the harbour. We would appreciate and counting on your denial of the proposed amendment. Desire of the"chose few"proposing this amendment can not become a reality over the rights of the affected "through lot"property owners. City of Huntington Beach Sincerely, SEP 0 7 2004 Harsha&Jay Sheth 4172 Windsor Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649. September 3, 2004 Joe and Eleanor Nissim 16542 Mariana Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Attention: Members of the City Council: Please be advised that Eleanor and I have lived at the above residence on Gilbert Island since 1966. We enjoyed every minute of it. As of late, we are troubled and disturbed to hear rumblings of changes that infringe on owners property rights. Proposed amendment 03-10 is intrusive and offensive and ill conceived. Currently, there are enough ordinances in place that provide checks and balances regarding conformity. We are much opposed to any new ordinances relating to our slopes. Sincerely, Joe Nissim Eleanor Nissim City of Huntington Beach �a ,dlol SEP 0 7 2004 Dear Sir, 2 September 2004 Please be advised that I am opposed to Amendment 03-01. 1 would like to keep the rules and my current property rights to,remain as they stand September 2, 2004. Sincerely, Pamela Nesseth 16672 Mariana Circle Huritington Beach, Ca 92649 ycuyatiENI �iJ°��� 4 wrW u Ai v-n M)T and S2:TT t7CZZ-LO-~23S City of Huntington Beach Thomas Kiesewetter SEP 0 7 2004 16601 Melville Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 330-4259 Planning Commission and City Council: I am writing in regards to Zoning Text Amendment No.03-01 otherwise known as the "Through-Lot Development Standard" or the "Round Hill" issue. I have learned a lot about local government politics in the last couple of months and I have been surprised at how vulnerable I am to changes affecting my property rights. I "trust" my elected officials and their appointed commissioners to listen to the experts they have working for them. The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, in a Staff Report to the Planning Commission, has recommended to deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 on grounds that it targets a select number of properties, it is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan, and is difficult to enforce. The City currently has an existing "conditional use permit" process which formalizes the ability of neighbors to voice opposition to code exceptions at a neighbor's property. The process, controlled by the City allows focused scrutiny by those citizens closest to the issue. A Zoning Text Amendment is not needed and will only serve to limit the property rights of through-lot owners. My fear is that a small, aggressive and devious pro-amendment group has applied political pressure and the Commission (and City Council) feels they must appease them. Hopefully, the large number of anti-amendment citizens now stepping forward will demonstrate the amendment has strong and increasingly unified opposition. Recently, "apathy"was used to describe the lack of initial action by the anti- amendment homeowners. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For our system of government to work, we the citizens must trust our representatives. Unfortunately, this "public trust" has been violated. My neighbors, and myself believed we had representation through the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association (HHPOA) and were shocked to find that the Board has had an undisclosed and biased conflict of interest in favor of the amendment. Why has the City Council and Planning Commission not heard anti-amendment opposition in the past? HHPOA deliberately kept the issue out of the membership view. My "public trust"was restored, somewhat, because the Planning Commission directed a Public Notice to be mailed to property owners with through-lot properties. I am hopeful that the impetus for the mailer was the realization by the Commission that they had not heard from "the other side". The mailer alerted the property owners that critical restrictions were about to be placed on their property. The Planning Commission and City Council is now (finally) hearing both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, during the last Planning Commission meeting, one of the Commissioners made comments that indicate his mind is already made up in favor of the Amendment. I am hopeful that the remainder of the Commission and the City Council is still seriously considering the issue and resist the inclination to "vote on it" so that it"goes away". A vote in favor of the amendment will seriously compromise the property rights of the through-lot owners. The words "eminent domain"were spoken in jest at the last Commission meeting. Ironically, it has been a serious topic of discussion at meetings of through-lot owners. In newer areas of Orange County, slopes are owned and maintained by the city or the association. If the City of Huntington Beach decides to dictate how a slope is designed, planted and maintained is it also prepared to purchase the slope from the property owner? And, who will be the one who decides the aesthetics of the slope? A drive through the "Round Hill" area reveals conforming slopes that can be either lush green or unkempt and dying. Retaining walls can be seen that are stark gray or attractive stone with softening landscape. Please, accept the current "conditional use permit" process as the mechanism for neighbors to voice opposition to code exceptions at a neighbor's property. Please, listen to your experts in the Planning Department when they recommend denial of Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01. Please, listen to the affected property owners who are raising the issue of property rights. Please, review the validity of the representation by the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association. Please deny Zoning Text Amendment No.03-01 otherwise known as the "Through-Lot Development Standard" or the "Round Hill" issue. Sincerely, Cc: Council Members Planning Commissioners Paul DaViega ° e + 1 Cd g Huntington Secob AUG 3 12004 ��uL,��,l„CO • r I u� .�a � �- , � J ��� �� ^� . �%.� �� � � � � � � �� � �� ���� `�� �. � �� � � �� � �� h� ����� ����� t; �� r �' �, .��--� � �� J � � _ G� �' �� � ��� � � �� � � � ����� A �, §�''f u.9i�i,sv'.'A�i}ari=-egg � ���,j1�,-0;)� ��...--�'---^-'^' city o4 Huntington Oeoch SEP 08 2004- September 8, 2004 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Commissioners: Re: Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 During study sessions on the above referenced Zoning Text Amendment, Staff presented amendments to Chapters 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to fencing, landscaping and accessory structures on through lots. These discussions were arduous and illustrated the convoluted nature of the existing codes and ordinances with reference to double- fronted lots. The intention in lobbying for Additional Development Standards for Double Fronted Lots was to add clarity and specificity to the existing codes with regard to improving or building on these unique lots. After reading and listening to comments by double-fronted lot owners, it is obvious clarification is of the utmost importance. Incorrectly, many of these through-lot owners view the rear of their property as merely their backyard. Backyard ordinances would apply if these properties backed up to say Warner Avenue or any other arterial highway. But they don't. These backyards back up to a local street and have front-facing neighbors, therefore, they are defined as double-fronted lots and are subject to the same ordinances as any other front yard in a low-density residential neighborhood such as Huntington Harbour. Homes facing one another on a local street, such as the streets in Huntington Harbour, are separated by the width of the street plus a 24-foot wide buffer. This buffer is comprised of a 5-foot wide parkway, a 4-foot wide sidewalk and by City code a 15-foot front yard setback for a total of 24 feet. Across the street from the homes on Roundhill Drive there is no parkway, the sidewalk is only 2-feet wide and in some cases there is no setback because cinderblock retaining walls as high as 12 feet have replaced the original landscaped embankments. In other words, 22 feet of open space have been removed. The end result is no landscaping and an alley-like appearance. Now I ask you, what's wrong with this picture? Intuitively, we all know if we are thinking big picture. This can't be a good thing for our neighborhood or for any neighborhood for that matter. The 2002 Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee's objective was not to change these lots to coincide with current code restrictions. This is not practical, since many of these lots do not have the necessary rear footage to meet the current setback requirements, and enforcement is not in the neighborhood's best interest. The BLT's objective was to maintain the continuity and original intent of the neighborhood by keeping the open space as well as respect the rights of the through lot owners by maintaining the individuality of the original, useable backyards. In keeping with the BLT's recommendations, define the front and rear of these lots as primary and secondary frontages. Streamline and eliminate the maze by adding the secondary frontage to the Additional Development Standards Section 210 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In doing so, stipulate no structures on the slopes, fences at the top of the grade and 100 percent landscaping for the slopes. The expectations for the rear of these lots would then be clarified regarding improvements and building, in much the same way as the Additional Development Standards for waterfront properties. After all, waterfront lots and double-fronted lots are both through lots; that is, both the fronts and the rears are open to public view. Because waterfront properties are unique and any and all changes to the waterfront impact the public view and the neighborhood, the City added waterfront properties to Section 210 Additional Development Standards. The City should do the same for double-fronted lots Citywide regardless of the community. Build and preserve communities and neighborhoods don't destroy them. Sincerely, C;V Carole M. Garrett 17163 Roundhill Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 cc: Howard Zelefsky Scott Hess Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association -77 @,Z-VAS' TO T+f` c0 5,1 N u11Gb i�1. 111. ftt C\!;`e1di�1•iJ�vi� Clty of Huntington Becoh SER 0 8 2004 +' 4 _�� _ �: F�:t✓it`yY 1 yi"""�� ���Tom,t��:.�!�i 1 CGv ( �'7 '�..' r �%c7�'L'+'r, �,lyii141i� tv v I� SU�;iv' i.'���� ��'S'E�i\\;, "1� �;:tit-''k•t. .� �, `'�.}G 4`�:F� ��:�� ..� ��'� i �\�K1\::iJ F`b� :,r..,. l�:� ��u;;,�� r�a`� �5d1'�€rt:.ii'M'�- \`.•�;�.:���. ��:�C�;.�._�__._ :��-i•. ��: � C.��%l ti��- cam.� cr=,'�:: `ri-f� ::� i��%:.�� �-�i?t��s C^'� 13� la � '��GL'•�.'1y1r1`�;�`r`���'�'��-�'� -�•� �••� �l� ��.3 41�?C';,i(., i�;�~1�.���`.:L� �' c�� : is Ili k >�t ,.:]���.r+Yl.•i �':'�i v 4b�1 A� �7� t`\ :lkL+.'�Y ''1�.f}�(�!4/L-lam ►ti'J�f i KID �rC�L l' `i!tl`:Vl�1� G• u 'aa i> ( jam - �t.: `� f �wit``v�V bpi` :.:�=� �:U�` '�11'��•s� �1� i:.y IC=`1r1: ` Q' -� {, �� :u tti� e•�d:;� d'� +h!l�'�' �• `t.�.:.:`t t��.:`;- �t'_t r�;�7Ef � t L.:;.� �t1;U `1��Z:�-,� 1 i+tl L 1 /N vj NE 72ACTS y CS �xa-(zw (-t?�Pz&caq� N -m-Gog�OQZ - City of Huntington BVICh Manfred & Karin Lengsfeld SEP 0 8 2004 16907 Rondhill Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Aug. 31, 2004 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, Through-Lots Dear Commissioners: During the study-session on August 10 regarding the through-lot embankments on Gilbert Island, Roundhill and Westport we listened to the homeowners. These thoughts came to our minds : The situation on Gilbert Island and on Roundhill/Westport is different as we already stated in our letter dated July 16. The road on Gilbert Island is a winding road up to the top of the island, houses are on the outside of the street, through-lot embankments are to the inside of the street. This situation is different from that on Roundhill/Westport. Both are long streets, Roundhill being longer and straighter than Westport. The view clianges towards the embankments from the position of the opposite houses. In the event of further development, homeowners on a winding road with an embankment across from them would have a wall straight ahead from them but a wider view to the right and to the left. Homeowners on a relatively straight street with a developed embankment would only see a wall straight ahead, to the left and to the right. The visual effect for these two cases for the same walls and the same strip of landscaping is entirely different. On Gilbert Island there seem to be issues between the homeowners on the waterfront and homeowners with through-lots. Almost no changes have been made on Roundhill concerning the height of the houses. Most of the houses are one story homes. Their roofs are much lower than the walls of developed embankments. a. ;I,_ ;. S. �� Iceplants on the embankments are a good solution, they keep the ground in place and store so much water that they even retard fires. It is possible that iceplants are not readily available, but in this case there are many other kinds of groundcovers used in our area, which have the same effect. Solutions have been found for similar embankments as seen in Corona Del Mar and Laguna Beach and even on Freeway embankments. Concerning earthquakes: We can just believe that the homeowner from Gilbert Island with his papers from the City in hand stating that his property is not located on an earthquake fault comes from out of state and has no idea about the enormous destructive energy an earthquake releases. Here is a small passage from the book "Huntington Beach, The Gem of the South Coast, pg, 94 THE EARTH SHAKES AND SHAKES AND SHAKES For those liVinr in f)ranVC County in the I9/3Us, the earthquakC ol• March 10, 1933, and the oreat Ilood elf 1938 will hrino hack vivid mcmories. Mmost C%,crronc who Was ahoVe the MIC 01' three Whcn the earthquake occurred can rcnlcmhcr cxaclly whcrc they 1Ncrc ;u1d 11•hat LhCV Here doin(I When the Carth started to shake. I\lost Can CIVen tell you that the quake hC; ail at 5:54 p.m. I'hc Lund leach l arthquake, so callCd heeauSC that city SulCl-Cd LhC most d<unahe, Was Centered in the ocean about three and 011C hall' miles southwest ol' VewporL leach. 01'the fnur deaths resulting front the trembler, three uCCurred in Santa Ana and one in Garden Grote. 'l he chi11a1CV5 of hundreds of honks tilrou11110ut the County Acre (LIMMI,Cd or destroyed. I]untinrton Reach received some of the worst damage in UrangC County. '111C Front Willis of, scleral brick buildings Collapsed and the structure of mane of Lhc oil derricks ClestrON,ed. 'I'hc fire station leas rendered unusable and the men hash to sICCp outside in tents I'M- ahout a munch while the huildinl was hcinll repaired. We experienced the Big Bear quake and the Whittier quake in Orange County and we had the feeling that the ground was swimming away beneath us as liquefaction can affect this particular zone. In case the epicenter is right here how would it look then? We cannot prevent earthquakes but we can take precautions whenever we are building something. We have to keep to codes, which are reflecting our knowledge about earthquakes at the time. In case the regulations for through-lot embankments should ever be changed for all through-lots, the regulations should include the maximum height for all walls on embankments, also the material of walls and the minimum width for the strip of landscaping at the foot of the walls. It seems to us that problems come up because ideas have not been fully thought through. With that in mind, there should be different groups of through-lots to ensure solid property value for all homeowners and conformity to neighborhood beautification needs. The general regulations adjustments should be made for steeper embankments, embankments at straight streets and so on. Thank you for taking your time to discuss this problem. -7 Sincerely, JLI UV LUU'1 UJ••1J FACSIMI L E COVER SHEET DATE: ` ` TO: PZA, V.-f11 � �7,0 -F FAX: RE: FROM: Mike Palikan 17097 Westport Drive PHONE: (714)846-1849 DEAR STAFF, THIS DOCUMENTATION IS IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER DINGWALL'S CONCERNS ABOUT RETAINING WALLS AND/OR OTHER TYPES OF STRUCTURES BEING BUILT ON THE SLOPES. THIS NATURAL HAZARD DISCLOSURE REPORT CONFIRMS THAT MY PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN AN ALQUIST-PRIOLO FAULT ZONE, NOR IS IT LOCATED IN A LANDSLIDE HAZARD ZONE, OR A LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ZONE. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS PORTION OF MY REPORT IN THE COMMISSIONERS' PACKAGES FOR THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 14. THANK YOU, Number of pages including cover sheet: Disc1os----,-The Slnndardfar Escettence a ® �� Natural Hazard Disclosure Report Residential Standard Version Customer Support: 800.880.9123 Escrow Number: 31657-MS Order Number: 042202-00213 Dated as of: 4/22/2002 Deliver To Michael Meyers THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT IS INTENDED Star Real Estate FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT AND USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S). 16872 Bolsa Chica St Ste 100 NO PERSON OTHER THAN THE RECIPIENT(S)SHOULD RELY Huntington Beach,CA 92649 UPON,REFER TO,OR USE THIS REPORT,OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS REPORT,FOR ANY PURPOSE.THE RECIPIENT(S)SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THE EXPLANATION OF Reclipiew SERVICES,AND,THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS Michael Meyers CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. Subject Property 17097 Westport Dr Huntington Beach.CA 92649 NO RECIPIENT MAY RELY ON THIS REPORT UNLESS FULL 178-283-03 PAYMENT FOR IT IS MADE. INFORMATION Form—Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement Attachment SECTION 1: NATURAL HAZARD SUMMARY A Special Flood Hazard Area(Any Type Zone"A"or"V") 1 An Area of Potential Flooding (Government Code Section 8589.4) 1 Wildland Area Forest Fire Risks and Hazards(Public Resources Code Section 4136) 2 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone(Government Code Section 51183.5) 2 Earthquake Fault Zone (Public Resources Code Section 2821.9) 3 Seismic Hazard Zone(Public Resources Code Section 2694) 3 SECTION II: Explanation of Services.Conditions and Stipulations-Read Carefully mac"/ 1 VV ---- ----- SECTION I: Natural Hazard Summary (continued) Subject Property. 17097 Wastport Dr,Huntington Beach,CA 92649 APtd: 178-283-03 ALQUIS'T-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE DETERMINATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: Earthquake Fault Zone maps are delineated and compiled by the California State Geologist pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.During an earthquake,structures located directly over flault zones(surface fault traced)could sustain damage as a result ofa seismic event producing resulting from ground fault rupnare(surface cracking).For the purposes of this report,an Earthquake Fault Zone is generally defined as an area approximately 1/4 mile in total width(1,320 feet)located on either side of a known active or potentially active earth-quake fault. An"active"fault as defined by the State of California,Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology as an earthquake fault that has produced ground surface displacement(ground surface rupture)within the last eleven thousand years.A"potentially active'fault defined by the State of California,Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology as those faults that have produced ground surface displacement(ground surface rupture)within the last 1.5 million yea". Source(s)of data:State of California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology.California Public Resources Code Section 2621 ET SEQ FINDINGS: Based on a review of the official Earthquake Fault Zone Map(s),issued by the Cali fornia State Geologist the company reports: 1S located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. m✓ IS NOT located in an Alquist-Pt;iolo Fault Zone, SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE DETERMINATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: The intent of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 is to provide for a statewide seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist cities and counties in fulfilling their responsibilities for protecting the public health and aafery from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction(failure of water-saarrated soil),landslides and other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. Under this act,The California Department of Conservation is mandated to identify and map the state's most prominent earthquake hazards. Information produced by these reaps is utilized(in pan)by cities and counties to regulate fbrure development.Development/Construction permits may be withheld until adequate geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites,and mitigation measuma are incorporated into development plans, Source(s)of data:California Public Resources Code Section 2694 FINDINGS: Based on a review of the official maps)issued by the State of California,Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology,the Company reports: Yes-Landslide Hazard Zone No-Landslide Hazard Zone Map not released by state Yes-Liquefaction Hazard Zone No-Liquefaction Hazard Zone Map not released by state END OF SECTION I V2212002 042202-00213 3 TOTAL P.03 �.� r Lugar, Robin From: PhilipRB@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:34 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; lugarr@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus Subject: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 TO: CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION We wish to register our opposition to the proposed amendment # 03-01 (through lot development standards). We want this amendment to be denied. The proposed amendment is far too reaching, intrusive and could not be applied equitably to all homeowners. Note that our property is not a through-lot. Case in point: our neighbor's backyard is a mess, the backside of his home is in shambles, dog feces litter the yard... never mind that he is the President of the Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association !(supporters of this amendment). Surely there must be Zoning Standards for unkept yards ? Hypocrisy is cheap. Sincerely, Philip & Jennifer Blaustein 16642 Melville Circle Huntington Beach CA 92649 9/9/2004 t 7 J, September 6, 2004 Respected City Council Members: We reside at 4172 Windsor Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 and have a through lot. The proposed Zoning Amendment No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) affects our property rights. Huntington Beach Harbour properties are unique.No property is alike. All properties are diversified and do not conform to any"track home"type standards. When we moved here in1992, we decided to live here on the premise that we could extend our backyard and fully enjoy our property and home. We did extend our backyard more than six years ago and enjoying every minute of it. It is our constitutional right to use and enjoy our property. This diversity of homes in the harbour enhances the property value as well as the aesthetics. There are more beautiful walls and fences than number of slopes in the harbour. We would appreciate and counting on your denial of the proposed amendment. Desire of the "chose few"proposing this amendment can not become a reality over the rights of the affected"through lot"property owners. Sincerely, Harsha& Jay Sheth 4172 Windsor Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649. Page 1 of 2 Da Veiga, Paul From: Carole Garrett [garrett.cm@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:25 AM To: Lugar, Robin; DaVeiga, Paul Subject: Fw: ZTA 03-01 Public Hearing 9-14-04 Robin, Thanks for your help in forwarding this to Kristin Stilton -----Original Message ----- From: Carole Garrett To: Thomas. Carrie ; Dingwall, Bob ; Davis, Ron ; Scandura, John ; Livengood, Tom Neil ; Ray, Steve Cc: Hess, Scott ; Zelefsky, Howard Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:09 PM Subject: ZTA 03-01 Public Hearing 9-14-04 Planning Department Staff: Please include this message in the public record for the hearing on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 regarding the above referenced Zoning Text Amendment. Note: I do not have e-mail addresses for Paul Da Veiga or Kristen Stilton so they have not received a copy of this message. Dear Planning Commissioners: What was the intent of the slopes in Huntington Harbour? The best way to get an accurate, unbiased answer is to go directly to the source. So two years ago one of my Roundhill Drive neighbors, Marilyn Willsie, contacted Raymond Logan a former Vice President of the Huntington Harbour Engineering and Construction Company. Mr. Logan signed the CC&Rs for Tract 4880 on the Mainland in Huntington Harbour on August 19, 1974. When Mrs. Willsie spoke to Mr. Logan he still lived here in the Harbour in a waterfront home on Ondine. Mr. Logan explained to Mrs. Willsie that"Roundhill Drive was designed to be a one-sided drive with the vista across of a sloping round hill the full length of the street. To accomplish this the property line separation from one side of Roundhill Drive to the other was lowered, the sidewalk on the double-fronted lot side narrowed to only 2 feet and the parkway eliminated. The compromise of giving up these features was more than compensated for by the lovely green hill Roundhill Drive homeowners faced." I contacted Mr. Logan myself this week to ask him if he would be available to attend the Planning Commission meeting on the 14th. Unfortunately, Mr. Logan has sold his Ondine property and retired to La Quinta, so driving almost 300 miles round trip is out of the question. However, we had a long telephone conversation about the slopes as he was most interested, sympathetic and willing to share his experience. Mr. Logan's first home in Huntington Harbour was a double-fronted lot. He was the original owner of 4172 Windsor Drive which backs up to Westport Drive. Mr. Logan felt he had "the premier" lot in all of Huntington Harbour-- no neighbor behind him, a very large back yard and a view of the water from his second story and his home was on the highest lot in the Harbour. He lived there for approximately 8 years until he sold and purchased his waterfront home on Ondine. As a homeowner of a double-fronted lot on Windsor Drive and a Vice President of the Huntington Harbour Engineering and Construction Company, it was always Mr. Logan's impression the slopes were protected. In response to the presence of the walls and the loss of many of the embankments, he said "We managed the CC&Rs very tightly and then turned them over to the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association. Unfortunately, we didn't do as good a job as we intended." According to Mr. Raymond Logan, 78842 Lima, La Quinta, CA 92253, telephone 760/777-1331, there is no question about the intent of the neighborhood with regard to the slopes. The slopes were never intended to be developed —they were to be landscaped and viewed by facing neighbors — in this case, Roundhill Drive homeowners. C ATTAC RENT I -1 -5."P 9/9/2004 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Carole M. Garrett 9/9/2004 Mike and Donna Manee t 6j j t Mariana Circle Hungtington Beach, Ca. 9z649 i5 )j9z-7777 August 10, zoo¢ 01,rr%� ,�ppa City Of Huntington Beach Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Pro Tem Jill Hardy City Council Members: Connie Boardman, Gil Cooper, Pam Houchen,Debbie Cook and Dave Sullivan Planning Commissioners:Ron Davis, Robert Dingwall, Tom Livengood, Steve Ray,John Scandura,Jan Shomaker and Carrie Thomas Subject:ZTA No. 03-o t Through Lot/Double Front Lots While the Planning Department Staff has had the unthinkable task of trying to find some reasonable changes they were right in recommending to vote to deny the Zoning Text Amendment No. o3-ot as stated over a month ago. Any eorripromise is unacceptable, By approving the amendments you are taking away our rights as homeowners. The homeowners on Roundhill state that they have the right not to have to look at an ugly wall. Well, here we are talking about aesthetics. They are not saying that the walls are unsafe and could come down in an earthquake, not that the walls that were built within the last toyears are not up to current code, but that they don't like having to look at them. Well that is not good enough in my opinion. They say it is their view, What view? They are not looking at a sunset, they are not looking at the water, they're looking at a neighbor's backyard. These double fronted lots do not have two entrances. These are people's backyards, where if they want they should be afforded all the privacy they want and all the security they deserve. We on Gilbert Island have had 3 story houses built obstructing our views, but nothing could be done about it. We have had houses go up that took up almost all of the lot, now you have a few select homeowners trying to take our rights as property owners away. You are letting these people have a direct say in my property values. Many of the homes on Gilbert Island don't even have the zo foot setback that is now recommended. What you are then suggesting that these homeowners don't even have the right to improve try what property they own and pay taxes on without paying any exsorbnt fee with not guarantee that the CUP will be approved. The zoning regulations that are in place today are sufficient to keep from having the t oft. cinderblock walls. If someone wants to try, they can file for a CUP and then their neighbors have the right to voice their concerns and objections. With the suggested amendmentsyou will even be limiting our rights to keep our property as is in the event of an earthquake and our wall came down. We would have to pay almost $8400.00 to keep what already exists. These amendments that you are suggesting are more unfair than fair. They are singleing out approximately 6.5 homeowners and giving them special rules, while the approximately 34 Roundhill owners and the other 8j,9oo in Huntington Beach don't have these.rules. The owners of through lots or double fronted lots have the burden of maintaining both sides. We cannot just cement our slopes to keep the weeds out or to help with erosion. Many of us spend a considerable amount of money to make our slopes pleasing for everyone and if in some cases this means a wall, it should be allowed. Ifyou pass this amendment every property owner with a slope will be forced to disclose the new amendment if and when they sell their house. This will negatively impact any sale, The owners on Roundhill won't have to disclose a thing other than the fact that there are now hard feelings amongst neighbors because of aesthetics. I believe the commission feels that they have to make changes to keep the Roundhill people happy. why? These changes are unfair and only affect slope owners by limiting their rights. I urge to please follow the original recommendations of the Staff Report and vote to Deny Zoning Text Amendments o3-ot. And please don't feel you have to make changes that are unfair to slope owners just to make a few happy. Thank you for your consideration, Sinc ly, A Lc� Donna Mance ,:.t t�•:�A .S. ,� � 't^.+b, l-2yS iyly�:y� y h # y !�'. NA `yam�..•� W.M. k e � rD Ul 75 r.�_ tl nl �§ �t t L 1r•-cV�'Q"� r b7 Yk}'y '�. $`,*-.�'L�,g�''��+ �.� M gg ;L if �• Nl'�d` r r/ j •� :� h 1 f {J r v AN _ Cb 5 ;� V Jack,and Jackie Satterthwaite 16501 Mariana Circle Huntington Beach, CA g264q 562/5g2-2125 To: Mayor Cathy Green Mayor ProTem Jill City Council: Connie Boardman, Gil Coerper, Pam Houchen, Debbie Cook, Dave Sullivan Planning Commissioners: Ron Davis, Robert Dingwall, Tom Livengood, Steve Ray, John Scandura, Carrie Thomas, , Kristin Stilton Planning Department: Howard Zelefsky, Scott Hess, Paul Do Vega Subject: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 We built our house 3q years ago on Gilbert Island in Huntington Harbour. Front and back (slopes) have changed thru those years. Our neighbors had the option to utilize their property. Some slopes have walls, decks, pools, bushes short and tall, trees, ice plants (dead and living), bougainvillea etc. There is a variety of houses and landscaping styles in the neighborhood. We all live with our neighbors differences. Isn't that what neighborhoods, cities, towns, and states are all about? Isn't that what makes our town and our country special - living with individual differences? Now almost 40 years later a small group of residents are backing Amendment No. 03-01 which will change our private property and utilization options. Does this mean the whole city would not be able to build walls and decks on their slopes, because they are not esthetically pleasing to the eye??? The whole amendment was made because a small group of residents found it displeasing to look at walls while driving in and out of their driveways. I heard a comment that Roundhill looks like an alley. An alley has garages, cars, trucks, and trash cans. 1 have never seen these items on the slopes. Interpretation of the walls, decks and dead ice plant is "all in the eye of the beholder'. Along with our property rights there are a few other concerns. The slopes are eroding under the ice plants. Our .15A to 17* path on the slope side of our 32' wall is just about gone. If a child '1,14 iitr ' � % - •�V'�'- climbs the wall now and goes over it he/she will roll right down to the curb and into the street. These 32" walls are called leap over walls. Leap over in, and leap over out . It's easy access to the street below. Jack was robbed at gun point on,our front porch. The robbers ran away and lept over the wall to their car at the bottom of the slope and sped off. Several other slope neighbors have been robbed as well. Recently at the end of Melville the police and the canine dogs were chasing burglars up a neighbors slope and into her yard. Yes, we would like to have more security walls in our backyards like our neighbors. What's more appealing for a burglar to leap over a 32" wall or a 6' wall? Privacy is an issue because a 32" wall doesn't hide much. Anyone driving by can look in our small backyard. The wind is more of a personal concern. It is very windy on the hill. On many days we can not enjoy our yard with family and friends because it is just too windy! There are already 22 homes on Roundhill and Westport with walls. This means that the 26 remaining homes would not have the Property right options to utilize and expand their backyards. That just doesn't make sense. It would be a loss in resale value where backyards have not been expanded. There are 5 walls with no vegetation. I was told by a Roundhill resident, `It's not about wall vegetation it's about no walls, period!" When does a neighbor have the right or power to tell another neighbor what they want to look at on the slopes when they drive in and out of their garage? When we first built our home in the Harbour on the hill there were only I story houses on the streets below. That was a selling feature not a disclosure that we would have a view lot since we didn't live on the water. Then as time passed 2 story houses came. Yes, we lost 85% of our view. Then more time passed and 3 story houses were built. It's okay that houses can go up 30'- 35' but slope houses won't be able to go out 8'- 10' to make bigger safer backyards. Where is the justice in this theory! We have grown with the changes in our neighborhood the past 3q years. It is a really wonderful place to live and raise children. How can the city make an esthetic beauty code to please everyone. For the past 3q years we've been looking at a weed infested yard on the comer of Admiralty and Channel. Neighbors look at a 3 story house still in the process of being built after 7 years. Seven years of looking at a 'porta potty" on the side walk an eye sore. Another house looks like a 5,000 sq. ft, orange pumpkin. We as neighbors learn and accept individual differences. The enclosed pictures are of Gilbert Island and the mainland Roundhill and Westport. I didn't send any wall pictures of Roundhill and Westport because you have all seen them on the wall in the study session room at City Hall. So... yes, I object to Amendment-03-0 1 . Let's leave the plan as is. Thank you for reading my concerns over this amendment and how it will affect our neighbors, neighborhoods, and individual personal property rights �_,�_.2 ATTACHMENT 6 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO . 03 =01. THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT m STANDARDS rn Applicant : City of Huntington Beach 0 Date : October 4 , 2004 PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT o City Council directed amendment on behalf of the Beautification, Landscape, & Tree Committee o Amends Chapter 203 , 2 10 and 230 of HBZSO o To regulate setbacks , fencing, accessory structures , and landscaping on through Z lots o Through lots have frontage on two �, parallel streets CITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED AMENDMENTS o All fencing at top of grade • Setback areas completely landscaped Li No fences or structures within sloped portions of through lots Li The terms "Primary" and "Secondary" frontage shall be included in the ordinance m z o Conditional Use Permit notification shall include all property owners facing through W lots CITY COUNCIL=DIRECTED AMENDMENTS t >* .,�i,3��� ,. —w e •' ��' �J.^/��=��F.�'r-r�--•C"� M:?�__Y',`"?.I_`>F.��._�s�Ax.m�I'��C_ti�t V,(L 4'.z�.`W=6`__wF".�,,'��./�..,..,.�...._•.�^.�...,.�,._._;,._�.__=..�__._.,..,".....___yy.�...,__.___.__�. x• � R PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS o Defines the terms Primary Frontage and Secondary Frontage in the HBZSO o Increases the noticing requirements to include all property owners within a 1000-foot radius of the subject site . .X-�a o Accomplishes two of the five Ci ty Council directed amendments to the 0 HBZSO . FENCING REQUIREMENTS - Pre- 1988 Lj Retaining walls up to 8 feet, topped with a six-foot block wall were allowed along the rear ro ert line of a throu lot I4- �a SJ1�_ 4,.- 4.4.-4+ It 1."L4-- A L FENCING REQUIREMENTS - Since 1988 Currently, the HBZSO limits fences to a height of 42 inches along the rear property line of a throe h lot -Z ............. M1 - DOW I-CH EXISTING BLOCK STALL S r : ®"A All 10, OEM" All "WA gym, )> -A. 4- M I"mm 44, w 40"! vA 11%1"RIO� Dw MR', EXISTING BLOCK WALLS t ^, f tilt 11 _ `�G� _ ;�" .,�may.:ak",;, T „ i'd�.�.�f•c t �` < b.1� r a "...�-x4f i_. 4 « d s k �•a;,�<M, '�"'r «r rg +„._sae '';' „,;'=ter-, 's��s� `"gym-,��., ,, •�� spa ,��._ ,� r r ,; "� v;.R:x :��'�:"r��,tE„_.^�-':r' �'t;wse•+`r,, .�n.., ^2 r s�§4f° ..r� s's,8�,�`� F.. ;xis •t�= .:: '�F., ��-;, '�':it hi�� ',G�i";a,: i it fop '�-,,,.z::. .o�,�E:.�.a•"a"•.«" .:��� \��^iiu is..,,•, 4 t, ,.;�..., `:`.: `'%^ti:YT„ ti,� ��g� :T"'� a� vat, a-< sSS'a p` ;��`a':F'F;... � :�,�`\'�`�;..: .;`:� ,a:�a: yL-,'rsl", i��3•;Y .f." �Nt,,.�-� �\\a> Cl) ajWl A 14, , _ ,. '.: .^,:, � 3\� •� t, 3,;,: a�,.• u .�,A�w F. J•`:'>z',\'�': `k'. ".h.z �.:r''.„ .; yTE•..`.a`��.-.` ,., ���'v��:'Fi `= T •'ate,,,, u.. ., $.�,. �•,`.�,�-`'"ry ,� N'T. ems„ F ,,,,��., 9a, �Ta >•.,,r-.,....H.. O qp , AM zs „ hY,- ` '�'"•'�1r,, '—� .Y- Y�`azg x� V-�„i- rep•,• K " \N ``R� '/ �? ,.3a�k<�::':'.�"T p'�.P :,•��';°°!:,<&�.a,, `yd�`�� .��,, � ;ao�� `�..#': a.g�T.?ro y.. • �S N,I ;W.i'... ,:.,ff;.`,,, •Pd.i,,S3i°'d:�<. 'i ,.,�?aN'-'.., .iA"i L.�.z...,,,,,,,,,a ONCE, Alt x w •Yr�' Int`. ."� i".ems - ,. ., ��d 4 �; 9 TWO, '«�:M�"� .,�• �,� +�., i�a'� s �' >'b�1_a�."*e��`��^ Kai._ 'iq "� `a."' �sa. � >'' r� '�.'.yr,ar�y,�,�; � ,��` �,` ` �:'�-�, "" ��'"" . - fi Y � � e+t�+F+,` y, ,�; ,;k�8o" S+,a '��s t '� - �� �°�`�` ° u pia .r �•...rsa�.� "�. "=�,' •�• ,�'" u � - dE Oaq- Nn �.�'R.. ��'� +r*. :� :a "�t j ,�, `s fir.. �, '}• 2 ��td +t'�� y'*s fi � � � R ,� wag �'.•�, a+yt ., ia"+p � , a ,Y° � ..� x• �: ,qt �.� � :w+'} �'"v is <�'`^ � � g^ , . °bn STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the zoning text amendment as L,.&.L%., A mmission based on the following: o Additional definitions clarify terms relating to through lots o Additional noticing requirements allow m for increased public participation o Current ordinance already contains rn limitations on fencing and requires a Z o CUP for requests to exceed the maximum � 42-inch height limit REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL (To accompany RCA's submitted after Deadlin e Department: Plannin Subject ZTA 03-01 (Through Lot Development) Council Meeting Date: Date of This Request: 9/27104 10/4/04 REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?): EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): S CONSEQUENCES How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): Si re: Appr Deni d partment Head Penelope C breth-Graft City Adnpnistrator RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attome Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attome Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attome Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbud et, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (if applicable) Not Applicable Find in s/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (BelowOnly) RCA Author: PD/HF/HZ r ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 203 and Chapter 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments clarify the definitions for certain terms relating to walls and fences, expand the public notification to include property owners who face the rear of through lots, and specifies design criteria for walls at the rear of through lots. The zoning text amendment will allow for greater public participation and the design criteria established will create a uniform design standard for wall design. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amendment will result in increased compatibility between properties based on a standardized block wall design at the rear of through lots. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change. The need for expanded notification for conditional use permits on residential through lots and design criteria for block walls is desired by the community. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice by codifying definitions and design criteria that that will regulate the development of block walls at the rear of through lots and protects the general welfare of the public through additional notification requirements. 04sr19 ZTA 03-01(2) Attachment 2.1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE TAWY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, October 4, 2004, at 7:0( p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOi ss. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach COUNTY OF ORANGE Request: To amend Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning'and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within am a Citizen of the United States and the rear and°street side yards of through-lots. A through lot is defined I as having frontages on two parallel streets. The proposed amendments resident of the County aforesaid' I a are generally intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height over the age of eighteen years, and not on slopes and rear portions of through lots, require the sloped portion party to or interested in the below entitl, of a through lot to be fully landscaped and require fencing on a matter. I am a principal clerk Of th through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing within an HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDEN- exterior side yard. Location: Citywide Project Planner: Paul Da Veiga a newspaper of general circulation NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is categorically exempt printed and from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. p published In the City ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Huntington Beach, County Of Orang( Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for State of California, and that attache inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available Notice is a true and complete copy a to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on (Thursday before was printed and published in th meeting)September 30,2004. Huntington Beach issue Of sai ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said meeting and newspaper t0 wit the Issue(s) of: express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk September 23 , 2004 Joan Flynn,City Clerk,City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714) 536-5227 Published Huntington Beach Independent September 23,2004 094-019 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 23 , 2004 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature X NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THEX17Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, October 4, 2004, at 7:00 PROOF OF PUBLICATION p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach ss. Request: To amend Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear and street side yards of through-lots. A through lot is defi,ned am a Citizen Of the United States and as having frontages on two parallel streets. The proposed amendments resident of the County aforesaid; I ar are generally intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height over the age of eighteen years, and not on slopes and rear portions of through lots, require the sloped portion of a through lot to be fully landscaped and require fencing on a party to Or interested in the below entitle through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing within an matter. I am a principal clerk Of th exterior side yard. Location: Citywide Project Planner:,Paul Da Veiga HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDEN NOTICE IS HER GIVEN that Item No. 1 is categorically, exempt a newspaper of general circulatio from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. printed and published in the City ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Huntington Beach, County of Orang Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for State of California and that attach inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on (Thursday before Notice is a true and complete copy meeting)September 30,2004. was printed and published in th ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said meeting and Huntington Beach issue Of sal express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as newspaper to wit the Issue(s) of: outlined above. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan Flynn,City"Clerk, City.of Huntington Beach September 23 , 2004 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)536-5227 Published Huntington Beach Independent September 23, 2004 094-019 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 23, 2004 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature 6AY - m,4// -- 4/ ?v ou/s �) - 9 /;Way NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, October 4, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: ❑ 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear and street side yards of through-lots. A through lot is defined as having frontages on two parallel streets. The proposed amendments are generally intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height on slopes and rear portions of through lots, require the sloped portion of a through lot to be fully landscaped and require fencing on a through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing within an exterior side yard. Location: Citywide Project Planner: Paul Da Veiga NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on (Thursday before meeting) September 30, 2004. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said meeting and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (g:1ega1s:C CLGFRM2a) CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: z—r,�. t�ln �3—off � ( 1.-�T' c. r�fr ;�►,�ln � DEP TNIENT: .1.1 MEETING DATE: _�c / � CON,TACT: _ b.1,.Ve I li. PHONE: x� QUA_ YES NO ( ) (✓�( ) Is the notice attached? { ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? Are the date,:day and time of the public hearing eorr=? ( { ) ( ) If an appeal,is the appeicant's name included in the notice? I ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? i Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? j ( ) ( ) (4, Is a map attached for publication? ( } (✓� ( ) . Is a larger ad,required? Size ( ) ( ) (1Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ' ( ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? f - If.Coastal Development Perat-k is the Coastal Commission part of the nmlin labels? 3 If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept.items only) Pleas complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing daze 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications RECEIV 0 21 ?004 BEACH ON OFFICE Jam Fria Printing vogmwwNewim *AVEWM 95MM Uis AveWO TEMPLATI 5960*M 178 411 10 178 411 08 178 411 07 Elbert& S Kronick Trust Robert Pierson Robert& Glenna Miller 17521 Via Espana Ln. 16522 Somerset Ln. 16532 Somerset Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 41106 178 411 04 178 411 03 William Prigger&Cynthia Williams Nicholas DiBenedetto Jerry Fuller Trust 16542 Somerset Ln. 16562 Somerset Ln. 865 Avenida Acapulco Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 San Clemente, CA 92672 17841102 178 411 01 178 402 03 Marguerite Morrison&Decedents Tirso Del Junco Robert Maniaci Trust 431 N. Brand Blvd. #301 17906 Crusader Ave. 16582 Somerset Ln. Glendale, CA 91203 Cerritos, CA 90703 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 17840204 178 402 05 178 411 09 Jane King Bobbie Williams Arnold &Mary Mendoza 16662 Somerset Ln. 4952 Warner Ave. 16512 Somerset Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17841105 17840202 178 402 01 Isaacs Trust Russell &Marsha Lepper Samir &Pamela Mobassaly 16552 Somerset Ln. 16622 Somerset Ln. 16602 Somerset Ln. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 4._ v•'r 'J wMig#Ni �1rw� rr AWN FfLe@ Pon 0 MD' 178 336 04 - 17833602 178 336 01 Ronald Malecki Jack Lopin Amy Suehiro 17093 Roundhill Dr. 17107 Roundhill Dr. 17115 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 292 18 17829216 178 292 15 Theodore Patten Jack Smiley Gail Stoter 17127 Roundhill Dr. 17139 Roundhill Dr. 17147 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 292 14 17829213 17829212 Joseph Falcon George Garrett Peter Shores 17155 Roundhill Dr. 17163 Roundhill Dr. 17171 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17829211 17829210 17832210 Stuart Shorr Richard Willsie Edwin & Sandra Weninger 17179 Roundhill Dr. 17187 Roundhill Dr. 16979 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 322 13 178 337 03 17833702 Thomas.& Helen Morgan Bita&Elham Anjomshoaa Razvan&Kristen Stirbu 17011 Roundhill Dr. 17051 Roundhill Dr. 1 17059 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 336 05 17829219 17832201 William Miller Robert Garretson Mark Miller 17089 Roundhill Dr. 17123 Roundhill Dr. 16901 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 32-2 0; 17832208 ! 17833704 Nfanfrekengsfeld Richard Coates&Rosario Navarro John Despot III&Carrie Crisell 16907 Roundhill Dr. 16963 Roundhill Dr. � 17043 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ` 178 337 01 17833603 17829217 Fernando &Daphna Zap Peter&Rhonda Kourkoulis Wayne &Debra Schindler 17067 Roundhill Dr. 17099 Roundhill Dr. , 17131 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17832203 17832204 17832207 ELandy& Cathy Fuhrman McGraw Trust Philip O'Donnell 16915 Roundhill Dr. 16923 Roundhill Dr. 16947 Roundhill Dr. 4untington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 336 07 17841112 178 411 11 Joseph&Diane Waked Mielke Trust Donald Goodwin 7075 Roundhill Dr. 16482 Somerset Ln. 16492 Somerset Ln. -iuntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 asn w1U9bS ® w03' 8AFAAA u u I aw, [up .mn•rrewrr nUn www:ase tam 9§@Uf- 178 411 25 178 411 26 178 411 28 George Firth Donald Michaelis Thomas &Valerie Glass Trust 16491 Peale Ln. 16501 Peale Ln. 16521 Peale Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 411 30 178 411 31 178 411 32 James & Connie Silva Carl Ketland DBG Construction Dev. Inc. 16541 Peale Ln. 16561 Peale Ln. 16322 Walrus Ln. - Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 411 33 178 411 34 17841135 Robert Bailey Philip Morgan John&Alyce Adams Trust 16591 Peale Ln. 16601 Peale Ln. 16611 Peale Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 411 36 178 403 01 17840302 Vera Ping Peter& Genevieve Valov Arturo Serra 16621 Peale Ln. 16631 Peale Ln. 16651 Peale Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 _ Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17840303 17840305 17840306 Marjorie York T. B. Valdemar Dial Jerome Olson 16661 Peale Ln. 16681 Peale Ln. 16691 Peale Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17840307 178 403 08 178 411 27 William & Louise Capper Phillips Trust Walter&Rosanna Janis 16701 Peale Ln. 3622 Pirate Cir. 16511 Peale Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 40304 178 411 29 17836209 Robert Anetsberger Don& Suji Burns Albert Newberg 16671 Peale Ln. 16531 Peale Ln. 16871 Phelps Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17834101 178 322 05 17832206 William Collins John Rance Nolan Taylor 16872 Phelps Ln. 16931 Roundhill Dr. 16835 Algonquin St. Huntington Beach, CA`92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17832209 178 322 11 17832212 Donald Wolter Norman Mitchell Simone Trust 16971 Roundhill Dr. 16987 Roundhill Dr. 17003 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17832214 178 337 05 17833606 Yinchang Lin Hsu Li-Chu Lin Kenneth Dunn 17027 Roundhill Dr. 17035 Roundhill Dr. 17083 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 wo ` 4 - W18E Iffiuil tug AWFWFANkV WWMRV 9� M tllb�/ Iq®1 Ip1UP ' 1400•fi"VEKr 178 411 20 178 284 13 178 284 14 David Miller William Sosnowski Anita Scorfani 148 7"'St. 17198 Courtney Ln. 17206 Courtney Ln. Seal Beach, CA 90740 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 284 15 178 402 22 17840219 John&Kimberly Evans M. C. Otis Anthony Sotelo 17214 Courtney Ln. PO Box 440 PO Box 819 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 Seal Beach, CA 90740 17840218 17840217 17840215 Robert Donovan Frank Piotrowski Gerald Jones 3402 Gilbert Dr. 3412 Gilbert Dr. PO Box 337 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 17840212 17840211 17840209 Nichols Family Trust Jerome &Amber Lindsay Joel & Irene Cooper 3492 Gilbert Dr. 3502 Gilbert Dr. 3522 Gilbert Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17840208 178 402 20 179 402 13 Jim Mgtinn Paul & Joyce Nikolau Stephen Prochnow 3532 Gilbert Dr. 10387 Los Alamitos Blvd. 3472 Gilbert Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17840206 178 402 21 17840216 Peter Baron Conrad Banks Gary&Ruth Leibowitz 15321 Transistor Ln. 3372 Gilbert Dr. 3422 Gilbert Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 7 178 402 1 O 178 402 14 178 411 19 Elliot Jones Bayless &Janet Conley Joe Koretoff 3512.Gilbert Dr. 3452 Gilbert Dr. 8524 7`h St. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Downey, CA 90241 178 411 17 178 411 16 178 411 15 Joanne Koretoff Leonis Malburg Anthony Bartoli PO Box 1506 ` 2833 Leonis Blvd. 5200 Warner Ave, Ste. 209 Bellflower, CA 90707 Los Angeles, CA 90058 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17841122 178 411 14 17841123 Jeanne Kelley Arthur Weiss Charles Rand 16461 Malden Cir. 16462 Malden Cir. 16471 Malden Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178 411 13 178 411 21 17841124 Richard Lewis James Gibbs Frank&Joanne Greinke Trust 16472 Malden Cir. 16451 Malden Cir. C/O Frank Cicone . 1 OQ Ste, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 5601 Tnixtun Ave Bakersfield,CA Ste nworrie��� Wr ww.avery.com t1 8 r vv Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5960r"' 1-800-GO-AVERY 178 333 06 178 333 02 142 275 10 Lyle&Eva Kilgore Joshua&Linda Rorem Fikri&Patricia Takla 16971 Concord Ln. 16911 Concord Ln. 15431 Cottonwood Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 926449-4203 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4203 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3081 17841203 159 071 04 173 335 04 Wendy Sawyer - Patrick&Heather Dibb Cynthia Forsthoff 16502 Mariana Cir. 6241 Newbury Dr. 17085 Westport Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2838 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6533 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4246 Carole M. Garrett Randy T Fuhrman Richard Batistelli 17163 Roundhill Drive 16915 Roundhill Drive 3481 Gilbert Drive Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA. 92649 ='' ��.... �,�1,�, :ti;.; - ,.. • .•-J1213AV-O9-008-L ru0965 UdJN31 c dl'�'S to s '� wo�•tiane•nnnnnn �� LaO, 561 ui wer www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY ° ' l�► TERIIPC� t"" 178-2e3-05 178-283-06 178-283-07 DOUGLAS S.ENGUM SCHOENFELD TRUST JACKSON FAMILY TRUST 17101 WESTPORT OR 17105 WESTPORT OR 17111 WESTPORT OR HUN7INGTON BEACH CA 92649.4220 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4220 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4220 1754_3-10 178-334-07 178-335-04 JULIA F.BAILY RAMON R.&LYNN E.SILVER CYNTHIA A FORSTHOFF 171E�::'ESTPORT OR 17021 WESTPORT OR 17085 WESTPORT OR HL'N T',NGTON BEACH CA 92649-4220 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4219 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4246 178-2°3=J1 178-321-01 178-321-02 ACN='^.PERTIES INC ARTHUR M.&JENNIE F.HASEGAWA DEREK E.&CAROL A. SEELIG 3591 RL iNNINGTIDE CIR 16901 WESTPORT OR 16911 WESTPORT OR HUN T:NG T ON BEACH CA 92649-2514 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4218 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4218 178- 21-03 178-321-08 178-334-02 1 MARK.'.&FRANCES K MEYERS - HADUONG TRUST RANDOLPH &KRISTINE TAKASUKA 16921 WEST�i PORT OR 16981 WESTPORT OR 17071 WESTPORT OR HUNT.NGTON BEACH CA 92649-4218 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4218 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4219 178-2°r-03 178-283-09 178 283-11 J.MIC:'AEEL&HEIDE G.PALIKAN HAROLD QUAN CHRIS TSIMEREKIS 16835 ALGONQUIN ST#376 17141 WESTPORT DR 4911 SEAPINE CIR HUNT INGTON BEACH CA 92649-3810 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4220 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4412 178-26.?-08 178-283-12 178-333-07 ERIK K.LARSON SCOTT B.&JENNIFER L MCCALLISTER DAVID A.SULLIVAN 17121 WESTPORT OR 17171 WESTPORT OR 4182 WINDSOR OR HUNT viGTON BEACH CA 92649-4220 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4220 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4221 w= 1 178 333-09 178-333-11 178-333-08 FRANK J.HORIUCHI THOMAS G.SCOTT VIJAY SHETH PO BOX 3176 4212 WINDSOR DR 4172 WINDSOR DR GARCENA CA 9024 7-1 376 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4222 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4221 178.333-10 COED _=N-EZER 4202 WfNDSOR OR HUNTItiGTON BEACH CA 92649-4222 AV3AV-O9-008-1 wi0965 31V1dW31 /fan ash wog AjOAe•mmm LaCSef a 5wlu��bt�J '� ase s a e. ssaa AW lam r��+rinting� l � www.avery.com q l 1 PP � M U1te ®TEMPLATE 5960TM 178-40101 11 1-800-GO-AVERY 178-401-17 DONALD S.&KELLY M.CASON PETER &SHAWN HOLLUS STEPHEN B.&ELIZAPE—i H Z. ROWELL 16691 MELVILLE CIR 18672 MELVILLE CIR 16621 MELVILLE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2829 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2829 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2829 17 8-401-16 178-401-10 023-231-06 SCOT'i R.&JANE E.DOWDS LEON SALEM DONALD J.PRITZL - 16c'41 MELVILLE CIR 1685 CRESTVIE<N AVE 6542 MORNING TIDE OR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2829 SEAL BEACH CA 90740-5725 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92E48-2605 159-071-01 159-071-04 159-071-05 ALFONSO R.CRACCHIOLO PATRICK J.&HEATHER L.DIBB GORDON L.CARPENTE= 6211 NEWBURY OR 6241 NEWBURY OR 8251 NEWBURY OR .HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6533 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6533 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6533 159-071-07 159-071-08 159-071-09 STEVEN 1.PACZKO RICHARD M.EHRET JOHN G.HATALA PO BOX 2329 6291 NEWBURY OR 6301 NEWBURY DR HUNTINGTON 3EACH CA 92647-0329 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6533 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647.6535 159-071-10 159-071-13 159-081-01 KENNETH W.CARPENTER JEFFREY SKARZENSKI MICHAEL C.&TRACEY 0.SPRINGMAN 6311 NEWBURY OR 6351 NEWBURY OR 6971 LAWN HAVEN OR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647.6535 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6535 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2121 159-08 i-02 159-081-03 159-081-09 KENNETH H.SENNETT VIC70RIANO P.&ZENAIDA&MARVIN J. LILLIS TRUST 6401 NEWBURY OR 6411 NEWBURY OR 6481 NEWBURY OR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6565 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6565 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647.6565 159-071-06 159-071-11 159-081-04 t GIL6ERZ--N.&LORI R.RAMOS - DAVIT MOLLICA PAGE 2001 TRUST 6271 NEWBURY OR 6331 NEWBURY OR 6421 NEWBURY OR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6533 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6535 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6565 159-081-06 159-081-08 159-071-12 JOHN &DENISE PULLEY BRUCE H.WEST BRENTLEY M.&JILL M.WARREN 6451 NEWBURY OR 6471 NEWBURY OR 6341 NEWBURY OR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-66565 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6565 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6535 159-081-07 159-071-03 159-071-02 CRAIG &CATHERINE L.CULACIATI JAMES F.&LEONA C.OLSON THOMAS R.SOSA 6461 NEWBURY OR 6231 NEWBURY OR 6221 NEWBURY DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6565 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6533 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6533 159-071-14 165-381-41 178-401-13 DAVID A.&PATRICIA J.DE RUSH KLAUS T.CUTHBERT CAPPER TRUST 6361 NEWBURY OR 17962 ORKNEY CIR 16702 PEALE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647.6535 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6539 HUNTINGTON BEACH GA 92649-2804 •Y l��r+'1•��:-ti:.t�� .L1��-1r�:'+:. .a?..�::�:: ,new`,� .. 4�la�t^i J1213A fl-008-1 ��� wi wor�GaAeane•nmm�n � ws=��04b� � f Jam FM R(Inting..�^��� ._ www.avery.com rra;-. s: s; J i•_3.:7: =; ? rit;' UsdFlAv€rye TEMPLATE 5960T- 1-800-GO-AVERY ' " -�� 165-383-26 178-333-03 ,TOHN &KATHI W.POWELSON TYLER J.&COURTNEY A. HARTGE ARTHUR R>ASCOLESI Safi N GUADALUPE AVE 17961 CALEDONIA CIR 16931 CONCORD LN ta')ONDO BEACH CA 90277.2972 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6519 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92E4S-4203 17 8-333-04 178-333-05 178-333-01 DANIEL L.STEWART DAVAD LAKE JACQUELINE J.MC ANIFE ANIFE 16951 CONCORD LN 16981 CONCORD LN 16901 CONCORD LN HUN i INGTON BEACH CA 92649-4203 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4203 HUNT 1NGTON BEACH CA 92549=203 142-275-06 142-275-07 142-27 5-09 RAY N.&ELIZABETH E.HONDA MICHAEL HUGH FERLITA ROEIERT L.VENLET 15381 COTTONWOOD CIR 18700 MAIN ST STE 109 15421 COTTONWOOD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3079 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1713 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3081 142-275-10 142-275-11 142-275-08 FIKRI K.&PATRICIA A.TAKLA MARY KAY POWERS BRANDON T.NGUYEN 15431 COTTONWOOD CIP, 15451 COTTONWOOD CIR 15411 COTTONWOOD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3081 - HUN TINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3081 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3081 142-275-12 142-275-13 142-275-05 PASCAL L LORTHIOIR BARTLETT TRUST REGINALD H.&YVONNE W.HELMS 15471 COTTONWOOD CIR. 15481 COTTONWOODCIR 15371 COTTONWOOD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3081 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3081 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3079 165-198 OS 149-063-24 163-122-07 ROGER V.MILLETT JANOS PINTER FRANKLIN J.BUCCELLA 18012 DELLGLEN CIR 21952 HARBORBREEZE LN 3641 COURTSIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6445 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-8255 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2924 17§-412-10 178-412-06 178-412.05 SATTEERTHWAITE TRUST JOSEPH NISSIM , JAMES W.EASTMAN 16501 MARIANA CIR 16542 MARIANA CIR 16652 MARIANA CIR HURTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2838 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2838 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 178-412-04 178-412-08 178-412-11 JEFFREY REED NESSETH WENDY A.SAWYER GAIL LESLIE ARMSTRONG 16572 MARIANA CIR # 16502 MARIANA CIR 16521 MARIANA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2838 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2838 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2838 178-412-12 178-412-13 178-414-01 JAY &CHRISTINE EARL MIKE &DONNA MANCE FRANK D. &DEBORAH M.CO i i LE 16541 MARIANA CIR 16551 MARIANA CIR 16581 MELVILLE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926a9-2838 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2838 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2819 178-414-02 178-401-15 178-401-14 JOHN E.CROSTHWAIT SUSAN G.ABRAHAM MICHAEL 0.LIFF 16591 MELVILLE CIR 16651 MELVILLE CIR 16671 MELVILLE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2818 HUNT INGTON BEACH CA 92649-2829 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92E4S-2a29 AV3AV-09-008-1 w,096S h1 lgliV31 oka%V-6tn ruQ9 S}® wowtiane-mmm 1>i "sw i��;AW(Wef � _ Dee Taylor 16661 Wellington Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 �r - C.n'� Fi E C e, v 8 October 2004 G / OCT 13 2004 ton untin Mayor Cathy Green & City Council Members City 4 of Hunting o Beach City of Huntington Beach ice 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,-CA 92648 Re: Roundhill Through Lot issue Dear Mayor Green, Having watched the meetings of the Planning Commission and more recently the City Council with regard to the Roundhill / Westport-Gilbert Island `through lot' issue since early July, I decided to drive the Roundhill and Westport streets to better see for myself, as I haven't been there in a few years. I must say that those Roundhill homeowners are simply crazy when they say they prefer the mostly awful, unkempt slopes and teetering wood fences to the generally well kept lot line walls. While I will admit I don't like those occasional, raw, gray block walls, but given they can be perfected in their appearance with stucco or a requirement to use decorative block walls, they are still vastly superior to the slopes and wood fences. I also think there must be more here than meets the 'eye'. no pun intended. Lot line or high walls do not appear to me to be the real issue. The Council probably should find a way to uncover what is really behind this issue, as I believe .it has nothing to do with lot line walls, and a lot to do with personalities, which you can't fz . I think it would be wise to leave well enough alone, or you may perhaps get an even worse and resentful result. Sincerely, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, October 4, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: ❑ 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear and street side yards of through-lots. A through lot is defined as having frontages on two parallel streets. The proposed amendments are generally intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height on slopes and rear portions of through lots, require the sloped portion of a through lot to be fully landscaped and require fencing on a through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing within an exterior side yard. Location: Citywide Proiect Planner: Paul Da Veiga NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the.California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on (Thursday before meeting) September 30, 2004. �y 'r ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said meeting and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk i Joan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach. 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (g:legals:CCLGFRM2a) ti CITY i); HUNTII;iGTOi� OEAC[i= CA 2004 tt�-3 I A q: 00 AAAAAA T Y September 28, 2004 To: Huntington Beach City Council Fm: Richard Batistelli, President Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association Re: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) Much has been said, some accurate, while some, much less so, concerning the motivations of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association in its efforts to support the Zoning Text Amendment at issue. Our purpose was threefold: to clarify the existing code, to notify a larger area of neighborhoods affected, and eliminate future development on these slopes. Historically, the HHPOA has made several attempts to work with homeowners and the City to resolve the slope/wall issue here in the Harbour. To our dismay, the result has been a confused array of high walls, some built to the sidewalk, others set back,but without uniformity of design or style. We were directed to seek assistance from the City's BLT Committee and City Council, which resulted in the list of recommendations submitted to the Planning Department and Planning Commission. Opposition to these co- operative efforts with the City and attacks on the motives of the HHPOA Board of Directors has highlighted the need to resolve this complex issue without further delay. The Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association strongly supports the original recommendations of the BLT Committee and City Council, for its clarifications, notifications, and minimizations. But, if the council decides not be accept these proposals, the HHPOA requests you approve the current presentations from the Planning Commission regarding increased notifications and clarified definitions. Cor ially submitted, Richard Batistelli, President Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association o G12 Huntington Harbour Property Owner's Association,lnc�"\ P.O. Box 791 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 (714)840-7877 RANDOLPH TAKASUKA 17071 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ti CE October 3, 2004 - Honorable Mayor Green and Members of the City Council : City of Huntington Beach �h 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C' C Mayor and City Council Members: As a Huntington Beach resident for the past 10 years I recommend that you approve the revised Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) as approved by the Planning Commission for the following reasons: 1. Notification of Impacted Residents. The process of preparing the original amendment was very one sided. Residents who were negatively impacted by the original amendment were not included in the process. They only received notice in the 11 th hour. 2. Inconsistency with General Plan. The Planning staff has raised the issue of a Zoning Amendment which only applies to two sections of the City of Huntington Beach versus a Citywide ordinance. Planning Commissioner Dingwall asked why we are dealing with an amendment that applies to approximately 40-75 homes out of 85,000 legal parcels in the City. The Planning Commission, City Staff and local residents have combined spent thousands of hours studying an original amendment that does not make sense. The process of developing the original ordinance and the parties involved needs to be examined by City officials. 3. Property Rights. Planning Commissioner Scandura was very concerned about violating the property rights of the negatively impacted property owners. I had been told that a Roundhill resident has told a Westport resident how there slope should be planted. Neighbors imposing development standards on other neighbors is what has happened in the original amendment. I have two young children and would someday like to expand my property according to the rules in place when I purchased my property. This whole issue has divided residents of Huntington Harbour. We do not need to tie up valuable City resources with an original amendment that only benefits a small number of residents of the City to the detriment of a much greater number of residents. I sincerely appreciate your consideration of the above. Sincerely. A Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 11:51 AM To: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: No on Zoning Text Amendment (No. 03-01, Through Lot Development Standards) o C o -----Original Message----- o b From: HUME, JIM [mailto:JAMHUM@SAFECO.com] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 8:53 AM _ 2-- a, To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus b Subject: No on Zoning Text Amendment (No. 03-01, Through Lot Development Standards) z I am sending this message on behalf of my mother, Mary Hume, a long-time resident at 17099 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714-846-5438 She is opposed to the above zoning amendment primarily due to safety and security reasons. As a 74 year-old widow who lives on her own, she is very concerned that adopting the above amendment will not allow her to adequately secure her property by building a higher fence. Please respect my mother's property rights and ability to secure her home by voting against Zoning Text Amendment(No. 03-01, Through Lot Development Standards). Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jim Hume for Mary Hume AJ 10/4/2004 Jones, Dale From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 11:51 AM To: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Reject Zone Amendment 03-01 -----Original Message----- From: morris salem [mailto:morrissalem@yahoo.com] s N c Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 4 :38 PM c To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus o Subject: Reject Zone Amendment 03-01 a.7 From The Salem Family 16662 Melville Circle, HB c-) We are homeowners on Gilbert Island and for three cn C-) years we have watched two large homes being built across the street (from atop the slope) . When we purchased the home, we had a view of the harbor, today; we now only have a view of two new large homes. We have certainly suffered a loss, however we don't begrudge our neighbors (who pay excessive property tax) . We never expected the world to stand still as we grew old and grouchy. We now plan to build some planters with trees on the slope to provide some privacy from the two large new homes (planters are needed so the trees can grow straight) . But, Zone amendment 03-01 will specifically deny only us (- 40 homeowners) the right to build landscape planters on our property (without a CUP and thousands in fees) . Who is harmed by minor landscape improvements? All major improvements already require a CUP and city approval. It is an injustice to impose select homeowners with frivolous property restrictions. Zone amendment 03-01 has the sole objective of (writing into law) property restrictions that specify what is beautiful. We believe homeowners are entitled to equal property rights to enhance their privacy and comfort and to define their own vision of beauty (without imposing on their neighbors property) . There is no good reason for this amendment. Please reject zone amendment 03-01. 1 i_ _i i Ir l Ri.. CITY OF Jones, Dale nN"nh,'GTON BEACH, CA From: Fikes, Cathy Z604 OCT -Li P 2: 32 Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 2:28 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Zoning Text Amendment no.03-01 -----Original Message----- From: cynthia forsthoff [mailto:cforsthoff@msn.com] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 1:48 PM To: City.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus Subject: Zoning Text Amendment no.03-01 Dear Council Members: I am writing to ask that you reject the zoning text amendment. I am a resident of Westport Dr. since 1989. When I purchased the house a pool had been added to the back yard. Obviously to accomodate the swimming pool the slope had been built out a wall was added. I have greatly enjoyed the pool over all these years. Under the restrictions outlined by this amendment, I would unlikely be able to add a pool to my backyard in the future, and my neighbors who still have slopes will be unable to enjoy the full use of their property. I think this is wrong. I attended the planning commission meeting where this amendment was discussed. Only 3 residents of Huntington Harbor spoke in favor of this amendment. There was overwhelming opposition from the affected homeowners on Westport, Concord, and Gilbert Island. Indeed, many of the unaffected residents of Gilbert Island were against the amemdment. I believe many feel that if the City Council can tailor legislation to affect 75 residents of the city, based on complaints of a tiny minority, that all property rights are potentially in danger from anyone with a very limited agenda. The planning commission staff, and the Planning Commission oppose this amendment and have recommended rejection. They have spent many 1 d�k� hours researching the issue and have concluded it would be a bad precedent to set for this city. I urge you to vote no. Thank you for your consideration. Cynthia Forsthoff, M.D. 17085 Westport Dr. 2 Jones, Dale From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 11:51 AM To: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Through-Lot Issue = o c 0 c-) -----Original Message----- `-�— From: Thkiese@aol.com [mailto:Thkiese@aol.com] x,_ r Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:37 PM rn �mrT lJ �,__' To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus ? Subject: Through-Lot Issue C-) �n >' As a Gilbert Island resident and through-lot homeowner I am asking the City Council to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01. A reasonable alternative is to approve the amendment in accordance with recommendations of both the Planning Department Staff and Planning Commission on September 14. To my knowledge, after two years of wrestling with this issue, there is yet to be produced officially certified and/or registered CC&Rs. In addition, I have not seen any documentation of the number of active Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association members and I therefore question the Association's validity as a representative for the community. The property rights of the through lot owners is a major issue in the Zoning Text Amendment controversy. Referencing CC&Rs and a Property Owners Association that are more than 30 years old and of dubious validity is not a good anchor point to do battle from. Please either deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 (my first choice) or accept the September 14 Planning Commission alternative of approving the amendment in accordance with recommendations of both the Planning Department Staff and Planning Commission. Thank you 1 SEP-28-2004 22:56 '�� P.01 e�rr- t,, (� `r�,- G�£Y M�.n,TVA. i- Ff(!F ?iNG--T0'1 P3LAC;w;, CA Z004 SEP 29 A II I FACSIMILE COVER SHEET DATE: TO: �lONQ2AQL M �3yd22 E.N Co�n�G L MGM QFA S Fax: FROM: Mike Palikan 17097 Westport Drive PHONE: (714) 846-1849 HONORABLE MAYOR GREEN AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLEASE ACCEPT THIS CORRESPONDENCE IN REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE OCTOBER 4, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, ENTITLED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). THANK YOU. Number of pages including cover sheet. SEP-28-2004 22:56 P.02 Petition in opposition to Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Develotiment Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, entitled Through of elopment Standards. 7� Printed Name Address Date ��i1.Ltc�� _ -�• Q — Si ture Printed Name Tv�,q7 +� a: -l/a/o y Address Date L-�/4�!�P_ �r�L C G �• Sigria ure Printed Name Address Date CA �. Signature Print d N e Address :Date Signature ' 'Printed Name Address �^ .Date Signature / Printed Name dress / :Dat --�7 - ------ - AAa ` Si a Prin Address Datdf A2 e `. rinted Name �- Address 1506 SEP-28-2004 22:56 P.03 Petition in opposition to Zoning; Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, entitled Through Lot Develop nt tandards. U Of-I 4/�f '-�3Y�YfPr t - S.G4CLik/ri� Si ' ture Printed Name 5- E + y r D� A dress Date o (O c)q /111" :L 4�.4:�� "z� "4 Signature Printed Name 12 ag 7 o -� to Address Dat Si tune ]Printe Name Address 0 IN rcSV.n.T- 0�'- Date Si rS ture Printed Name Address ]late LS Si atwe Printed Name Ad s hate J` LAC Z Sign Printed Name Adfirdis Date / l Signature r ]?Tinted Name Address ]date Signature ]?rinted Nam 001,11 Address Date SEP-28-2004 22:56 P.04 r Petition in opposition to Zoning; Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, entitled Throu Lot Develo meet Standards. Signatu Printed Name Address Date 7�� .y � �--r _ ��� ^✓ � Z Signature Printed 7Ne Address Date 'Signature Printed Name 110 �I [Ale Sf kjz_,4 I /I I f/a Address Date Signature Printed Nar ie �_ v / ( l 10 A ess Date Si nature F'rin71e�C Address Date ( f c )U Sign Prin ed 14arne vll irk c- n NA Address. Date ignature � `�� 61Z Printed ame Address Date i'Vot _�cx i�i i ��,k/ ic�_, Signature Printed NaMe Address Date SEP-2e-2004 22:57 P.05 Petition in opposition to Zoning; Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, entitled Through Lot Development Standards. Si re Printed Name 41 7 .Z_ GJ i N:,)E i,-L a -7 - I a — 0, 4 Address Date Si tore Printed Name Address Date Signatur // Printed Naifie n ! ✓.w._c '7 /I Address Date �irattire Printed Namg Address Date Signature Printed N me Address Date ignature Printed ame/ Address j �'� .+�r ��p Date , Signature `, Printed ame Address n. Date tore 'nnted,Na e /'11 Address Date SEP-2e-2004 22:57 P.06 r Petition in opposition to Zoning Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission to deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-01, Otled Through Lot D velo tandards. Signature Printed Name AcfW Date " Signaturer ,Printed Nanw7 Address Date 5-5 Signature Printed Name Address Date i e l Printed Name Ad Date Signature b Printed Name Add s :Date r� Signature Printed Name Address :Date Signa Printed Tarne Address Date Signature :Printed Name /' Address ]Date SEP-28-2004 22:57 P.07 Petition in opposition to Zoning Tent Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning Commission-to deny Zoning Tent Amendment 03-01, entitled Through.Lot Development Standards. 1t Si to' , �, Printe a e Address Date Signature .Print d Na e Address Date i r p, Printed Name Z signs],6 l _VLl Address Date Signature :Printed Name Address Date Signature printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name �" Address Date SEP-28-2004 22:57 P.08 �.. Petition in opposition to Zoning; Text Amendment 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) We the undersigned urge the Planning COMMISSiOn too deny Zoning Text Amendment 03-0I, entitled Through Lot Develo men, Staudards. S' u PrititOlNann r L Ad ess hate Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name Address Date Signature Printed Name f"' Address Date SEP-28-2004 22:58 P.09 PETITION 15 July 2004 To: Planning Commission From: Gilbert Island Through Lot Property Owners We thank the Commission for abandoning its proposed Zoning Amendment 03-01 with some realization that it can't fix the `Roundhill' problem on the backs of responsible Gilbert Island property owners. We also appreciate the opportunity to finally participate in a study session, scheduled for 27 July at 5:OOPM at the City lull. We simply ask that the Commission leave well enough alone, ,and acquiesce to the HB Planning Department's recommended action, with one exception. The home security issue is paramount, and homeowners must be entitled to build at least a six (6) foot,fence anywhere across the rear of their property including on the slope. We would expect that the Gilbert Island property owners would continue to abide by neighborly standards with .a landscaped offset of 5-8 feet from the rear property line. Thank you for your cooperation. Name Address �U l 1 1� SEP-28-2004 22:58 P.10 ' r Page 2 G / r1, a9�j 4AV— 4:242 . rkt2l'i Z�, 0CIO (6Z( 1 SEP-28-2004 22:58 P.11 Page 3 T�k Martr��_ I Colo4 1LL,4 Ov . PIFF- Q A-4 lo(>1 F r y �- SEP-28-2004 22:58 P.12 •J h Page Name Address Ro ol'l lip O t TOTAL P. 12 TVs DARRACH G. TAYLOR IT L; 16661 Wellington Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 C IT y G i" Telephone:(562)592-5090 Fax:(562)5927.1p$,7��i :Fa(" E ti �' i CA Z004 10 "q P ,2. L ) 1 October 2004 Honorable Mayor Cathy Green, , Council Members Connie Boardman, Gil Coerper, Debbie Cook, Jill Hardy, & Dave Sullivan City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: ZTA amendment No. 03-01 (Through Lots) Dear Honorable Mayor Green et al, Recently, the Planning Commission, after long and serious deliberation, and in concert-with the City's Planning Department's recommendations, passed. subject amendment which effectively left the Zoning Code relative to `through lots' unchanged, as it should. It did provide for broader notification -in `through lot' projects involving walls, which generally come up through the CUP process, though ignoring the absence of notice in the case of ZTA amendment proposals. In the face of seeming City Council pressure, it was a difficult and thoughtful decision. This entire process has,had a very sullied past, which started almost three (3) years ago in January 2002, with the clandestine `BLT/Roundhill Seven' meetings, limited to just a select few. None of the large number of potentially affected `through lot' property owners on Westport & Concord, say nothing of the twenty-seven (27) similarly situated Gilbert Island (Wellington, Melville, & Mariana) home owners, were notified, let alone invited. Mr. Richard Batistelle, HHPOA president, also attended these meetings, unconscionably purporting to represent his majority constituency, never once notifying anyone, say least his potentially affected, members/ homeowners. Nothing in his representation could be farther from the truth, and his behavior throughout has been totally less than upstanding. The City Council then, presumably in good faith, acted on this nefarious group's recommendations, among a number of ZTA issues, directing the Planning Department & Commission to forward to Council a most onerous ZTA for its approval, generally unaware of all of the facts. Honorable Mayor Cathy Green et al 1 October 2004 Page 2 Only in early May 2004, after several unannounced (at least the subject) Planning Commission Study Sessions, and with only three (3) business days' notice of the full proposed text's belated availability, prior to the Commission's meeting, where final passage must have seemed assured to the `Roundhill Seven', did Westport/Concord/Gilbert Island homeowners even become aware of this looming travesty. By immediately writing letters to and speaking before the Planning Commission meeting on 13 July 2004 in significant numbers, were we able to get Commission's members to realize the harm caused by this previously hidden process to that date, to which they were now a party, and their lack of understanding that there was an entirely different set of issues from the `Roundhill Seven' representation. We are grateful to the Commission, particularly with John Scandura's erudite analysis, that it diligently performed its proper duty of fair representation through a number of subsequent meetings and study sessions, culminating in its 14 September 2004 decision. It recognized that certain realities in life are both frustrating and irreconcilable, but effectively leaving well enough alone and further recognizing that the CUP process remains the proper avenue. I am obviously a Gilbert Island `through lot' owner, one who has been before the Council in 1998, wherein your predecessors, including Messrs Sullivan & Bauer, unanimously approved my carefully designed, over the slope, pool deck extension project, with Mayor Shirley Dettloff personally shepherding my project through a Coastal Commission hearing on which she was a member. I am also Chairman of your Personnel Commission, trying give back something to the City in which I have lived for 31 years. I tell you this because I am thoroughly disgusted with what has taken place here, and feel it so flawed, some things not even visible, that the Council should simply accept its Planning Department's & Commission's recommendations to leave well enough alone, and not support someone's personal agenda. I have provided this narrative from the perspective of the Gilbert Island Honorable Mayor Cathy Green et al 1 October 2004 Page 3 `through lot' property owners, who will be adversely affected by any onerous ZTA amendments, as you will only receive the narrowest representation from the `Roundhill Seven' about their meetings and proposal. Now as to the issue itself: • Restricting reasonable deck/wall construction on our `through lot' slopes is an abrogation of property rights, and a reduction of property values. The slopes are private property on which we pay taxes, not someone else's to do as they feel fit, and certainly not common land being maintained by the City or some other entity. If they had been, that would have happened at the outset by the developers. • `Views' are not a protected right in this City, as re-confirmed time and time again. Roundhill is not suddenly a special case. • You might feel that you would like to do something for the Roundhill residents, but you can't for this situation is a fait accompli of past decisions, either properly rendered or caused by omission. • CC&R's, probably not enforceable anyway, (including Lundy v. HHPOA), have no bearing on the City's decisions, as they are a relationship between a homeowner and the association. • Leave the current zoning regulations in place, and regulate through the current CUP process, approving reasonable projects such as you did for me. • Some of my neighbors have bought their properties with the intention of extending their rear patios over their slopes including one who was given an affirmative response by the City before buying. They should be able to do so as I, and others, have reasonably done. r Honorable Mayor Cathy Green et al 1 October 2004 Page 4 • The so-called Council-directed proposal would probably place the vast majority of Gilbert Island `through lot' properties in `non- conformity', with all the related adverse consequences. • If you try to `fix' the Roundhill problem, it will undoubtedly be to the detriment of Gilbert Island `through lot' property owners, who might even possibly seek redress, an additional expense the City doesn't need and another black eye. There is much, much more that could be said, but simply accept your Planning Department's and your Planning Commission's intelligent recommendations, and do the right thing - leave well enough alone. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, i / CC: Dr. Penny Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator Mrs. Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Mr. Howard Zelefsky, Director, Planning SEP-28-2004 22:06 P.01 I75 '1 Gsv FACSIM I L E COVER SHEET DATIE: TO: 40.v0 6t6, N14¢mri. E,ef,.a X, ef7/ cvC1ZCe Ak fo—? r-r FAX: _C 7/Y) 3 7 V / '.S 7 RE: -rev 07-0 FROM: Mike Palikan 17097 Westport Drive PHONE: (714) 846-1849 HONORABLE MAYOR GREEN AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLEASE ACCEPT THIS LETTER IN REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE OCTOBER 4, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, ENTITLED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). THANK YOU. ((-O(LR ,-cT-fi.o co py,) Number of pages including cover sheet: 5- N C O O C") M _ M -0 co 7�n SEP-28-2004 22:06 P.02 Mike Mikan 17097 (Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 846-1849 September 29, 2004 Honorable Mayor Cathy Green, And City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 via facsimile only Re: ZTA 03-01 Honorable Mayor and Council Members; This letter is in reference to the proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 (Throuah- Lot Develor,ment Standards)which has been exhaustively reviewed by Planning Staff and Planning Commission. I urge you to reject this Amendment. This entire matter arose over one issue---aesthetics. The proponents (mainly residents of Roundhill) argue that their views are affected. But these for the most part are intermittent views seen while the proponents drive down their street. Many if not most of their homes are oriented towards the rear of their lots, and their living and dining rooms face their rear yards. Many of the proponents' properties already face walls. While I respect the rights of the proponents to not be subjected to what they consider to be offensive, considerations of appearance are purely subjective and intangible, whereas our property rights are tangible, objective and substantial. This Amendment permanently denies us the constitutional right to use and enjoy our property in a reasonable way. The loss of our property would not only detract from our quality of life, but from a financial perspective, it would mandate that we must spend our money to maintain our property for the sole benefit of others' aesthetic sensibilities. This Amendment does not advance a legitimate governmental interest, but merely bestows a private benefit to only a relatively minute percentage of the entire population of Huntington Beach. On the other hand, this Amendment creates some substantial cost burdens on us. The proposed $8,300 CUP application, with no guarantee of approval, is cost prohibitive and punitive. But our costs don't end there. This Amendment deprives us of the use of a substantial economically viable portion of our property for which we pay taxes on, Multiply the value of all our properties by the square footage which we would lose and you will get a rough idea of our combined losses. 1 SEP-28-2004 22:06 P.03 If this Amendment passes, we will be forced to disclose that fact to prospective buyers. This makes our properties less desirable because of the inability to implement improvements. And in our increasingly security conscious society, our property values will be affected when a prospective buyer learns that he or she is forbidden to place a fence which is higher than a mere 42 inches. This results in a challenging financial hardship to all owners of through lots, but especially those of us on fixed incomes. Those owners rely on maintaining their property value to use for retirement purposes, and quite possibly to pay for their care if they are forced to move into an extended care facility or nursing home. Compare this situation to those in which the City takes property by inverse condemnation. The law protects property owners by mandating that the City fairly compensate the landowners, yet there is no suggestion, nor is there a provision in this Amendment that we be compensated for our losses, either by the private citizens promoting this Amendment, or by the City. If we are prevented from substantially enjoying and using our property, yet we are not compensated, then this results in a taking. But passing this Amendment would also result in extra costs to the City. Owners will not be able to make reasonable improvements to their property. The City will not receive revenue from permit fees. Owners who improve their property also pay increased tax assessments to the County and State, which filters back down to the City. We're already in a budget crisis, suffering layoffs and community service cutbacks. And this Amendment may well create increased enforcement costs to City staff. The proponents of this Amendment argue that their property values will decline if walls are built. But retaining walls are considered improvements, and improvements such as swimming pools and spas, for example, actually add value to land. Not only does the improved property become more valuable, but so do closely situated neighboring properties, commonly called "comps" in real estate jargon. Additionally, our neighborhoods would increase in value from a well designed, well maintained, uniformly appearing set of walls, giving the community a sense of continuity. There has been much debate over the CC&R issue. Unlike CC&R's associated with other cooperative communities, we have no mandatory membership and no mandatory dues. We have no common areas in our community. In effect, I believe that the CC&R's are merely advisory. In fact, the Huntington Beach Property Owners Association ("HHPOA") itself placed a warning on the face of the CC&R's which.indicates that they should not be relied on. Compare these circumstances to the cooperative community in which you live, or have lived. However, as of this date, 22 walls have been allowed to be built with the knowledge, and in some cases, the blessing of the HHPOA. So any objections to the issue of walls which the HHPOA has, should be disregarded, What's more, at the Planning 2 SEP-28-2004 22:07 P.04 Commission Public Hearing of September 14, 2004, the President of the HHPOA stated that the HHPOA has can enforce the CC&R's against any homeowner. If this is so, then why is the City even contemplating this issue? In fact, how often does our City get involved in private property aesthetics issues, or in attempting to interpret CC&R's? There is no rationale for the City to get involved in private property disputes, as these issues are should be resolved between the relatively small group of neighbors. But if this Amendment passes, it will set a precedent for any homeowner's association in the City to ask Council to intervene in even the most frivolous disputes. Council will be asked to change a private set of CC& R's, There are already remedies in place for the proponents to change the CC&R's. As in every other homeowner's association, they merely need to proceed through their board and amend the CC&R's. The proponents have also made some allegations about what the developer intended. Some of these statements which are attributed to persons associated with the development of our community are merely hearsay, and are just now being asserted over 40 years after our community was developed. Had the developer intended our slopes to remain common areas, and to remain vegetated, it would have created landscape easements, with all members to pay mandatory dues for maintenance. The developer did not build retaining walls during construction because of the expense. And obviously, as a business decision, the developer never meant to limit buyer's rights to develop slopes because that would hamper the initial sales of these lots. Nevertheless, the proponents of this Amendment argue that they have expectations of keeping the slopes the way they are. Everything changes, even nature, for the slopes have differing vegetation and varying degrees of erosion. But the reality of development overrode the expectations of all involved. The character of the neighborhood has already changed, and those of us who purchased homes with undeveloped slopes reasonably relied on the obvious condition of the many other developed rear yards to improve our lots to a similar degree, that is, to extend our rear yards to our rear property line. Another detriment which this Amendment carries with it is its stifling effect on the development process. The cost to apply for a CUP is prohibitive, the time constraints are unreasonable and it unfairly discriminates against property owners of through lots. There is no rationale for this measure, especially when the City has been trying to streamline the permit process. Acceptable safeguards are already in place in our existing ordinances. This Amendment should not be passed because its very essence is inconsistent with the City's General plan. The Housing element of the General Plan provides for anticipated population growth. This means increased construction of dwellings, as well as room additions and square footage expansion in existing residences. To reduce our ability to improve our properties contradicts the intent of the Housing element of the 3 SEP-28-2004 22:07 P.05 General Plan. This Amendment may also be inconsistent with the Safety element of the General Plan as well, for criminals can easily scale a mere 42 inch wall on an angled slope, but not so easily scale a vertical retaining wall or 6 foot fence. It was at Council's direction, approximately two years ago, that this Amendment be proposed. In that time period, our capable Planning Staff has spent countless hours researching this issue. The Planning Commissioners have taken much of their own valuable time to investigate this matter, again at Council's direction. We have already engaged in a number of Study Sessions and televised Public Hearings, which were attended by both the proponents and the opponents. After having the Amendment sent back by the Commissioners, Staff made essentially the same recommendation again...which was to deny this Amendment. Our appointed Commissioners finally resolved this matter with substantially the same conclusion (in a 6 to 1 vote)..,deny this Amendment with two minor changes associated with notice and definitions. Now, after two years of work, it is clear that this Amendment should not be passed. I strongly suggest that you discuss this issue with our Commissioners and with Staff. Consideration for those who are particularly sensitive to appearance and aesthetics does not justify diminishing and should not outweigh the safety, quality of life and constitutionally protected property rights of others. Please do not allow that to happen to your constituents here in Huntington Beach, Please follow Staffs recommendation and deny this Amendment. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, 4 TOTAL P.05 rN Morris Salem & Family CITY O F 16662 Melville Circle HUNTINNG[0N OEACH, CA HB, CA 92649 1004 SEP 2q P u: 3h- Sept. 28,2004 City Council City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street, HB, CA 92648 I am writing to protest against Zoning Text Amendment 03-01. I am a homeowner on Gilbert Island, and I am directly affected by this attack on my property rights. The ultimate affect of this proposal will be to make it financially unfeasible for me to make minor improvements to my homes deteriorating rear slope. The excessive fees to be imposed can only be justified by a major property improvement. Instead of building a small planter with trees (to shore up my slope and provide privacy from two large newly built homes) this proposal will drive me to build a more extensive improvement at much more expense. Could someone please provide a good reason for this nonsense proposal? After attending several meetings, I have yet to hear anyone explain what problem is solved by this amendment. However, at the meetings, it became clear that this proposal was written by homeowners who feel they have been victimized by their changing neighborhood. They object strongly to the major property improvements of their neighbors, and they want pay back. I find it very disturbing that a small group of homeowners have the influence to advance such a divisive and revenge motivated proposal. Please don't allow the city council to be used as an agent of revenge. Please reject this zoning text amendment 03-Oland fight to put an end to this type of politics. Sincerely, y � CITY OF Shawn Hollub HUNTINGTO"i QEACN, CA 16672 Melville Circle 2004 SE P 2 9 P 3: 5 L! Huntington Beach, CA 92647 562/592-7773 September 29,2004 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Thru Lot Zoning Teat Amendment Dear Council Members, I am writing this letter as I cannot believe you are still even considering this ridiculous amendment. Why request the Staff Report if you are not going to give it the consideration it deserves?The Staff has spoken. Why have you not listened?The people who own the"thin lots"have spoken.... WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS. Why have you not listened? Why do you continue to waste your time,our time and taxpayer's money on such an absurd amendment? Why do a disgruntled few on Roundhill have such control over our City Council? As a business owner and property owner here in Huntington Beach,this is of great concern to me. I purchased my property a little over a year ago. One of the athwtions was the size of the lot. As soon as we opened escrow,I went to the Planning Dept to specifically inquire about extending the narrow rear deck,and put in a pool for our daughter,just as a neighbor 2 doors down had done. I was told by the Planning Dept. I would need to apply for a CUP and also get approval from the Coastal Commission,but that extending the deck was permitted if I met various conditions.At best I was deceived,at worst,I was blatantly lied to. My slope is 100 feet wide and 15 feet deep. If this amendment is passed I will lose the use of 1,500 sq feet of land that belongs to ME. I pay the mortgage,I pay the property taxes and I pay the upkeep. It is my right as a property owner to use and enjoy what belongs to me. At no time was I ever informed that the Huntington Beach City Council was laying the ground work for this amendment. Had I had the even the slightest idea what was underway,I would have NEVER purchased this property. Now I understand this has been going on for 2 years. Why was this kept so quite? Why were the affected property owners not notified until the amendment was about to be passed? Enough time and energy have been wasted on this absurd amendment. I hope as elected representatives,you will do the right thing and vote this unconstitutional amendment down once as for all. Sin y i Shawn Hollub D Taylor 562 592 1987 P. 01 Shawn Holler b �43 16672 Melville Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 562/592-7773 September 29, 2004 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Iuntington Beach, CA 92648 Ile: Thru Lot Zoning Text Amendment Dear Council Members, I am writing this letter as I cannot believe y are still even considering this ridiculous amendment. Why request the Staff Repo f you are not going to give it the consideration it deserves?The Staff has s ken. Why have you not listened?The people who own the "thru tots"have spoken... WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS. Why have yo not listened? Why do you continue to waste your time,our time and taxpayer's money n such an absurd amendment? Why do a disgruntled few on Roundhill have eh control over our City Council? As a business owner and property owner here in Iuntington Beach,this is of great concern to me. I purchased my property a little ver a year ago. One of the attractions was the size of the lot. As soots as we opened ese w, I went to the Planning Dept to specifically inquire about extending the narrow re deck,and put in a pool for our daughter,just as a neighbor 2 doors dowry had ne. I was told by the Planning ept.I would need to apply for a CUP and also get approval from the Coastal Commis ion,but that extending the deck was permitted if I met various condition$.At best I was deceived,at worst,I was blatantly lied to. My slope is 100 feet wide and 15 feet deep, f this amendment is passed I will lose the use of 1,500 sq feet of land that belongs to M . I pay the mortgage,I pay the property taxes and I pay the upkeep. It is my right a property owner to use and enjoy what belongs to me. At no time was I eve informed that the Huntington Beach City Council was laying the ground work for this amendment, Had I had the even the slightest idea what was underway, I would have NEVER purchased this property. Now I understand this has been going on for 2 years. Why was this kept so quite? Why were the affected property owners not notified until the amendment was about to be passed? D Taylor 562 592 1987 P. 02 Enough time and energy have been wasted ort this absurd amendment. I hope as elected representatives,you will do the tight thing and vote this unconstitutional amendment down once as for all. Sincer ,, Y Shawn llollub BECEIVE A PUBLIC RECO D BOR MCfL MEETNG 1 CITY 01 ERK OF E y - JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK a \\�Y _s1 r �F 1t k ,} ' r W- rA � f Somerset Lane, Gilbert Island—October 2004 Ji RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC RECORD R OF /b p , IL MEETING CITY CLERK OFFICE JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK r_ - r J •sr r. 16951 Concord Lane—March 2001 w a' .. •• 7 P ` ; s f ate" ' g,'a3° A* P S 1 ✓ + fI f ���-. .l y l�ra � ♦f.. "� � v f " �.��P ;, � � .-�� ( �, .is, ';_Ali i '� 4+� . � `���'`-�'•� .y,,, r., `.C � �? ° A n+, 'x�' Y Jy { f1 g r r "✓"a ,r�f, «'r of / F ,v r '��^ + y (!' i k:.,t� �". ��{ '�� t a• ��3�'� ' F' •t .g ; � 11� f.. -� /.- ^lrj n:✓.s j/ rYr -r � � fit''=�• �» / t�; q�_ -i t •`'i'r '� "k�'r ,1� I � � ,� 1 r E 7N�i ,' yi„ a'x '. s+. .f'I !1 is ry» •�• `s-` .. �• '� �i�' a ♦.' 1 ,/ �1 y -+ fl[' tk Or a ¢ , y ' • i k i' �...�', . �t e ray -'�a.'S "�. q� 4 v ' ` �,', �� �'s t '� ��.� �, �� s+ :, i �* r+� YM i y y y�," '� Y� y � T ♦ t •'I ti �. r �.,..�.. tl t.� �1 y 'i �Yw x �.;, �)!, w�dµ1--• W.; � 4 .��� a , �� � t 4r ii'.. --'�., r.�� + �+,� ��l'f �:��' ,,, fit' � '�� �y y � � Y �a N ; Y _T ��i. I�, � �� f�� III ,�yi.ric ! "f, s'dr 4, h '�s � �z s'N �'' 4'.�,,,>6•s'' T sµ''o• _ -S d •' i +say � �d ,��t ti+t.��� �'^� ,,' � ., r` ` .,� ^{p• _K i�sk�L"'�" � � r r.•" 1�°'�, i�"'��r�: qa;+���'° t may,in � d-,� � � �`. !^'1'af�,y► �.i+"i+'t1�,'' '�. f t �t�!d t k wgM3 �VA— Sf'my1 ur nj , tir#; � �y "�``Y R ' r: �_F .,. ;,$)'�p c 1r"5� s. >•t a A�.,��•.•,d".$,�•- y �A9 i t+� N>�1�. � '-��''C �t ,p• y ) s.:x*'r•�rR{s{ ir��i ��. `hb'i`-sY)dW'J�tr ' - J �' r ,.n���g1� <f �'•�x'^fsAf„t '� tt 4 L 7!v� t \�`�-0�t"•k y, It #► J FCN .t '' tl'. r� � { r•,,, >� r �f .tt � b kxt `"',rt{ +'T e C + d ..s `S�� �. �� ..� ty +�$9.d�cJ. � j ni t,� d •� + n R •a•. )S4' n�` � '° v,-. d 'i•.e.w � ; ddr ,� J�t'�''J' rFr�/�'�p '� ,•,. �',�'•�x Y� � , "� � „ ,, r>~' 1 � !' R+ — !. ,•�'r'm� , +� ,��+ e'1',�s +� vJ2 � +• ,+(�t ,� ?t *„� •v� ,-. ', , Ar .*i:•. `* A. "'.y.• L �..y{'�: r 4 g,,,f�#y t r 5a.);i�t- �'~ S�� •'y^ I.- "ss'" '� ✓•.f� l 3 � .-�,+-r� . t'� ��it ..r'�'S x-9'.,+s ° 'P rs�''+>ti' � `• �+ y - .+' .�. ��„a„ K; � .. T q�x 1.L-°�".•'-ft r x�"".. �L^+. r t.aY,��'t yi: �" � X 'oe'� i '.. '��'•L'St � > h�- r �'i' ..�1 Y f�'� -.,wr,.; -a =»""�4�"r-'''+r/•�"-,qP •` ;f' 1.D'�x _ w i"� :.� ',�y�.,� `. . g r - \ '�1 h ,t�rw7l+r� ♦ 3 r .L'C {il r 9� �4r�r- , M-`' •�YQ���O.w�. : 'k� p.. � 'err 1t" {n t, ,�Ri �,� t+.,, 11►rr ' i��' '�. tS 'Y'� "•` '.aH a,'7 �t� ,�y;t q !"'!"„�( "�.M1'! ':wi a •s. { *r F R r .•`•�' n+•± `�R 1 1'r ) �'rt , f. .9. J,yy f'CY�r�' '. f� Lq"-0 ��.a:„} 4 7�''R� 3 Ar' �M"• Vey N'�. r\ M;,• i * '.x., r N,+ L .�,' fi M� ., t t i..•�i ;1.4��R > t dJ d \. Sr•,y!� � � S yy1 .� � .�,Yr\�e�. �l rF,f � ' + ''�"` �e �<• It ' 7+ �.� } .. J1, .N, v �t• >v Yed_ 'e t -� �� '" #�.! �. i r.,. - �`..� &+a h r _ •'•i _ fMtr"` +) r +ri + �r��!tt�� h 1 ; .,� .\ r.k; . �»+ .' .�:. i r � 9+ C¢ C rr 4 r t"• yt t Al' y�.- .1 �•1�r Xr r' i,y i ^rc'\7: 5 4, SI„ ^• i�ti•• +-4d; •� va)' .y,r '. •�¢ 4a'. ` r xis, '1� ,:I i rq t"r�F�4.a. yr r r r• P `t,°r} '�• _ .1 n `. +- R + +.r'yt��,c`+•'+.,.C r. L-�}� �'t -ti•ai � 'w�Y41 . r' y: r �'s.�+-'• ut IN '�a .fir J - i ♦ .t1c �Aa_ }}yy t;, ,+ 'dt)•R • ��s�-rc`�7"�'in��rj'*4h 7�.•P S .+.f"'� °'` s d+,a.r ,r h � .s.. �b;�• ��'� ��a..,, 4�.+ + iA�` -'`�'&• u. 'M' a♦�'4:. +I. RECEIVED FROM ` - AS PUBLIC RECOR4 FOR COUNOL MEETpdG OF- L- � CITY CLERKOFFICE . '4'a'� `� JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK Ai a 'sJ "1 .a.`'•i � f,e� •-.._,�� �y\ i�. . emu,�.. r r.it�s„�,� � �jt ,r:�"� ``9 3.'�a '0 t , tines�-. ^w� , ter/ ,, �� � �c � �, a ""p„►""�-/^-:J! M kl y,+c �J „���,,.� rV��� ��` ' rn�� � 1 Ale 414, «r It m t `t a v_ mot_ s � o . Y t r i y +�.,� ii�g,j,JqU i�. 1 t�i;t,�;! '•r'r s, ,�. '' t s } '� � � ,'.� ? .¢fr'tR ��+�Ji' �' y�k�r'�, )�� � �f,i?:. fr��'�IJ'`:�� %/i 1'��.,�/;`s i- 1< {'7 _ •. �.Y`� i, �i JJ 4R.1�ilS�y Sri Nt xwv a� V1, wo ; G r o U. k too a� � ��•�].. a yam' „�i�_ /".a $,r 8"r";� �� I!, [f �- sf I y u v �8 •`df b K § - x • 1 'r ar LU LU it r CKD C yt ,X-.-1. q ui �_+-,..,..'.�-e�..yi$u',.� C(—�F,tF_,}�'_'�, �l—1'(I=• 1 _ V i �_ �_ 1 � � �rfi'i . `-...-. �.•'' 1F:41' '� �..a s- c 17087 Westport Drive—March 2001 Ar � + I t � � RECEIVED FROM AU� AS PUBLIC RECORD FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF /o/oY/o 1-6 CITY CLERK OFFICE JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK 1 4 � - �" +�A.� 1'��tf� - - ! -� .a�'� ;., - i• i ti ig� �4",fj'S1 i'4i'#�xirft"i.^1t44 ; 't'f}'(` ir! - i p .�•g :�, !t '+ Is., LL'�' tnt ,r f i "� st, �i{, � <r. h r - 'i.s.I-, l r j r�9i `��/r t Sty i wPt�`t ,n q o r.;��(T.•t�s L[i1i : t�� c ,y, 3 ?,'�:{.t I n•�-!3'�le! P � �(�t ,.,Lt•�4 �$ v tl ,< ��` 1.�'� -. 7'�,�'�s ' t ilnQ, �.rl}".�Ijx� F � et. v 1g�f w/.i�;;-r' C, _ b•.-.,�f r��..y�Wd+ V '\ �.).�'�' •��I + i � ,r �. � �}tr f� ' rlt,`)!s it4 x�1,-r, YQtii4�fy`~` 1ft!t�'.1 7}.Tt i�j�^:l�yl�s�l�t�i�f i i'(f{f•r^y i'I i t -¢ `f � _ •S, R!�"-1Gft a. �y4 t 1�4°St�-r'.s`� ���A'•Y'}7'`.�,z�, t�' ,��Ili ria���++S�A,�t+�r '��I '?A''.`,� ��7•��t• ��hV( �� y ,��• +;"� �. �`2�i�->•�R���r�r� r, �'.,'����'�'�y��,:�� ,?`� �,���• '�� � �,1-.'Qr ,� 9'i i1l� ? ! ;11+ l T; { , , r <��,•,s:^>:,!��*� `i�E.?� ',;yn4 i``+ 4 ',iyr '�� 4.4 r r'S',:I''l - ? tr rCl .. ti y t y •" I 1i : 4t li_ f ,p l F •+> Qu } �`Y J X�! y I yL fii, s�,pt r� tr f•. �' {��• f •x. sys ''�'^'r�?2'. M4 •tilt d '+,� ,�t � su+'�ty �<r�< ��=.� �r 11 �� � �'r =n \*.s:i, ��t��'"�s n� t'f '•VI: 'swf � tiy��x °�� 7 I. i,•�..b;" ll z'a ty�i N4161SS1')r ihT. ` f �r F- S 'S6'.,d < G'S, .r]fi�_c crti ��':Yr( T tr € W� i 1}`k?' x s gtya��f<r,,;fa, ,;,t P �, > s fh.•, t �t,M i�ti' a ,.r.e 1,*y�4+� `di e'i x `, r� j, ,, -�,r yi l,<t y,. .{..:�i:+l��J t ty+t tr ,tiNG; S-�, tits. GJ ` 41;'T".;x _Y., �I�''- tf'' '-s t U ,.Y -. .1� t .t, � ?l.y, ,:7. �„ 1b ter- se.i �`•.t.M'uc'�•-`�� , Nx s.d ,rS r�„x� 'A-y S,:•1T;�`, .a,�^,g �a.. ? r r .ref .s,• z''�•,,i".�r.� -r.1';ri-'�1`+;. Y .F$.'Z't ��� i �i ° u ,r Ml -. - l. {'.'•.�;;p;`; .� t r,Z'u1 t r y y,6 t u 1/,.z"4 .�'��;�: ."+`.^.,iV �t '�� i'k- qr.,i. .,r,�.;,'!-� •lrz��filaf a yi:t` .i�rJ l,7vl-�tx nr,i, r i .�) `-f� S A�•:� �;r-�rorr w .l Y- :u ., , F >,{^ - , +.yr .., 3 .� t r,'• t v ,� c'r`?�. �� y � r r t+ iJ ,>. .,,t ..� a a, :�,r,� t "f.?•!,�s4t,��fi'V >, i��`tY c s '•v + rXi,p+ FY , �sfi,�5 � t- � � .�" 3� : S .n� $ 1C•i� sy JS•'•,eSxf}'u1r•• ,b �SZ e, �o � ,yu;("er �2•s. J:�._::r,._ :;,{-v\ i r.•=,� .S�:i±+`'^,�r.'.'.,,yi:�* ,� y� r'f'S":,,ry.''r�i�t- t 1a�.t�yt�s 1r��,3! ( 13�:1,,-'�•t�.c6•r,,, ��+? :e. ,.:,s,.r'�'�i,- S'"�4,k4rk'•_:i. y /• , `v •'�?T`,F_3�.'���7yT;,n�.r 'r-•�6;`� _1•dr;fiyt{J,x4.y,;s4�'ai�Y_xt�•S•r C ',{4,��tw" �^�ra1'•^C r. ; , J>•�{�y��. —�ii 4,''r; _. -tr;-:r_}.•F ._ Y4..; .�)„s3"Ds.rs„��•C.t�i a_��'�`'T� ° � tM•.h l°����P�&����s.."` i i _S 1 �� D ' -/ � 1 it. t rs �� �� � a..:.,�� _ � `xf•� ' ! ,-=1� - ��. y' �/�(F �� i`.�_'r� 'S �a t^�- �,`r�'f,T. t}��.l.,R�'4t {•s.•, �t t�+� P< i—r t� ���d Y�ry7 I•,��a h�`:�'` p'! yr` � t .',L� ti. 1"' � � r�t ... i � ,,•,° rl ti *�- �y "�,� a` y � I4Y �, t> ���� ! ��- ,1 �lYIY• ,a?. 'C�-+,_,,, �� � �7�;. A , ' sl,y. { Zrey,C�,L ��r�,`,'''Yq'�h 1 ,.s;L >.�r t� �< t f � y F.-.•n� .. vb 7,1 k:. �u - �` ��` � '� }14`+ �d!1+`'4S•� 4-4-1 ��� }s•x,��V�+. t�r��f,�"?� '�'1^ "t;3 �� '� � �y y •Y{�� � � �S a j '[�'♦ , �� +� 'it, 1 " 1,r,. �����fha�s:d'1��^�.''^''.�f� ':�d���"i ��4`�!�S `p `4 '�.tl ��;,!���a, �.,•.� �, �, � •FL .t;��t * �,4y,. ay �, r '^� :���•Ta���;�)�;(i ;`i�, ,�! '�tt,�.;,�i��, �-�* ,.,"'S'',�.,�M _ 'i3� .�#E�: {' •� S x' „;t' �, r,n'srs{��� ,;r)l�! 6� ,t'�Ij �'�t r�'��r �':'�.r�1�� !tri� 3t,��w '"y; a1 9Y b 1��. t'F+"�`T'*� )'' yt {�,�i J'�p�� ,�� !,� s",L ia.>�� l�a� ����s� ,�'� 1��� �>}�' ':�d� «S-�► '. �`' fit" t� w� ILI tt`j �fA YP4,i, e } •5F',}sxµ, ti,� Y J ; te 1 t yy fiS Y`�5�1�_4 o f 4 SI C$y��?�'R, V t � lm- 71 ;r JY fy l l s ` I, �'' air► ��-�'y, '!" iS t . ,� 7 a4 City of Huntington Beach.} , r" rw Y Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 .. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r Ii A.1t'TL 142-275-07 i _ MICHAEL HLCH FERLITA 18700 MAIN S7 STE 109 INGj��, HUN71NG7GN BEACH CA 92548-1713 F.ERL700h 926481011 1909 57 .09/29/04 - - FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND FERLITA 'MIChAEI— 'Z` P M B 417 9 i Q 7671 WARNER AVE STE F cF •,),1p+• W111\ITTIV(:Tf11M RFAr. ! CA 926147—�549- LEGAL NOTICE — PUBUC-, iZA&1NG .. iti ! iti i' li ;:..'.. _. }i .'..ii 4 ie:e. '�. i.i•i! .! i I felt f .iis 'i3ilii t ,R.IfBEiEI s tri.ti. 13iiii City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerkf:� P.O. Box 190 " f Huntington Beach, CA 92648 °ems 178 ,40205 Bobbie Williams 4952 Wamer Ave. INGT�y Huntington Beach, CA 92649 � y Q RE•I UHN RE T}0. SENDER TO INSUF L AL NOTICE-' . . 7%G ii; ,i„i.i.li... ..ai1.....ai�:I.:a►.,;I,a„r��ee„a.i� AnnF1�C� City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk �� P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648j .178411 17 Joanne Koretoff 1?0 Box 1505 INGTpy Bellflower, CA 90707 KORES'06 907071022 1703 08 09l2tj't04----; FORWARD TIME E!P RTN TO SEND 9 = Z KORETOF'F ef.r y �Q PO BOX 4B2 _CA 90743-0492 NTY LEGAL NOTICE- PUB�I,,C,?�H,�ING '�~Lb�f�" a'3fJ ��J .4 ji.il'.IIi.ISi?i1'.?!!*t' ?IL3!I!JIiiSt.Si.lf�{3'i.311!t?21.?I?!-��tt?.i?1?1� Huntington Beach City Council October 4, 2004 Zoning Text Ammenment No. 03-01 (TI- �J C.I_-E-R � fY OF Throe ht Lot Development Stand4rds ,'' BEACH CA On behalf of concerned Gilbert Island homeowners, this petition is A66 tonight�a s�Qb�r s we did to the Planning Commission on Sept. 14th, basically asking the City Council to leave things as they are, regarding Zoning Amendment No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development Standards) except for the, "Frontage Definitions and 1 ,000 Feet Notification Rule", added by the Planning Commission and recommended to you, tonight, by the Commission. There are 27 "Through Lots" on Gilbert Island, 2 non-through and 3 "On The Slope", for a for a total of 32 off water home sites. There are 62 waterfront home sites and 2 never developed sites for a total of 94 lots on the island. This petition has 41 owner lot sites represented out of 45 solicited (91%) with a total of 60 signatures. From, Jack Crosthwait 16591 MELVILLE CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 t PETITION 15 July 2004 To: Planning Commission From: Gilbert Island Through Lot Property Owners We thank the Commission for abandoning its proposed Zoning Amendment 03-01 with some realization that it can't fix the `Roundhill' problem on the backs of responsible Gilbert Island property owners. We also appreciate the opportunity to finally participate in a study session, scheduled for 27 July at 5:OOPM at the City Hall. We simply ask that the Commission leave well enough alone, and acquiesce to the HB Planning Department's recommended action, with one exception. The home security issue is paramount, and homeowners must be entitled to build at least a six (6) foot fence anywhere across the rear of their property including on the slope. We would expect that the Gilbert Island property owners would continue to abide by neighborly standards with a landscaped offset of 5-8 feet from the rear property line. Thank you for your cooperation. Name Address r _ ���Y Page 2 HAI ,, AP OR,Ls-S 1/0� o ) r2AlaAv A Gam. CPO 1\ Page 3 A(A-lyl J)P,E sfl �l 6�, r Sal Marlan g �i'v�-�-' VJJ W�LL)aYl o/V -I Pc LQ ll a v i t Lc C i Zc t& of !MAJ(zfll� t�6 _� el v.') )e d,,c-., IEL��,92�410 16 7© 1 eAq- 13 T-2 -q A02 16702-- PW4-C6 L-4-AJ E7 H 0 Z--a vEo-Y L 4-3CA Page 4 Name Address Cry. (OS �. 17 _ c. 1s, (fivul/ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication io -01 , ,1 To: Honorable City Council Members how DO From: Mayor Debbie Cook, Chair, Beautification/Landscape/Tree Committee on J behalf of Mayor Pro Tern Connie Boardman and City Council Member Ralph Bauer Date: September 27, 2002 ok, Subject: C" ITEM FOR OCTOBER 7, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING - L y DOUBLE FRONTAGE (THROUGH) LOTS IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Huntington Harbour is unique in the city in having double fronted lots. In the Harbour there are many residents who look out onto the back slope (secondary frontage) of the home across the street, rather than the front yard of their neighbor's home. Over the years, fencing has been approved for the secondary frontage, which has resulted in walls replacing the back slope of the home. Homeowners have done this to increase the usage of their backyards, but the effect on the homeowner across the street has been to change their view from that of a nicely landscaped slope to one of a tall concrete block wall. The Beautification/Landscape/Tree (BLT) Committee has spent several months working with homeowners in the Harbour to develop a recommendation for Council direction. These residents in the Harbour understand that a property owner can appeal any new development standard through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The BLT Committee recommends that the City Council make a motion to direct the Department of Planning to initiate & process a zoning text amendment adopting additional development standards for double frontage lots. These standards include,the following: 1) Require any fence built on the secondary frontage of a double-frontage lot be located at the top of the grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double- frontage lot. 2) The setback area noted in No. 1 above shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. 3) No structures including walls and fences of any height shall be permitted on the secondary frontage of a double-frontage lot. In addition, staff should consider the seven points listed in the attached memo from Council Member Bauer dated April 24, 2002. Attachment: Council Member Bauer Memo dated 4-24-02 xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway Howard Zelefsky I ` CITY- OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Debbie Cook, Mayor RECEIVED Connie Boardman, City Council Member APR 3 0 2002 Scott Hess, Principal Planner From: Ralph Bauer, Mayor.Pro Tem Date: April 24, 2002 Subject: SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT DOUBLE FRONTAGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS 1. Recognition should be given in any ordinance to the fact that on a double lot there is a "front" and a "back". 2. Landscaping should encompass 100% of a lot (at least the back part). 3. Wall or fences along the back of the lot should require a permit (including those of 42 inches or less). 4. Any C.U.P. dealing with the backside should be heard by the full Planning Commission. 5. Back fences along the top of the grade should be no higher than those on the side of the house. 6. All relevant urban design guidelines should be a part of any ordinance. 7. If a wall is granted under a C.U.P., it should include the following features: a. Set back from the public right-of-way. b. A height limit c. Landscaping between the public right-of-way and the wall including vines that will cover the wall. d. Adhere to Engineering specifications to make sure wall will not fail should dirt be piled against it. e. Wall should adhere to urban design guidelines. RHB:cf (8) October 7, 2002 - Counca,iAgency Agenda - Page 8 C-1. Council Committee/Council Liaison Reports C-1a. sty Council) Approve Beautification/Landscape/Tree (BLT) Committee Recommendations to Direct Staff to Process Zoning Text Amendments Relative to Double Frontage Residential Lot Development Standards (Huntington {�1� Harbour) ( ) r Communication from Mayor Debbie Cook, Chair, Beautification/Landscape/Tree Committee on behalf of Mayor Pro Tern Connie.Boardman and City Councilmember Ralph Bauer setting forth the following: Huntington Harbour is unique in the city in having double fronted lots. In the Harbour there are many residents who look out onto the back slope (secondary frontage) of the home across the street, rather than the front yard of their neighbor's home. Over the years, fencing has been approved for the secondary frontage, which has resulted in walls replacing the back slope of the home. Homeowners have done this to increase the usage of their backyards, but the effect on the homeowner across the street has been to change their view from that of a nicely landscaped slope to one of a tall concrete block wall. The Beautification/Landscape/Tree (BLT) Committee has spent several months working with homeowners in the Harbour to develop a recommendation for Council direction. These residents in the Harbour understand that a property owner can appeal any new development standard through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. Recommended Action: A. The BLT Committee recommends that the City Council make a motion to direct the Department of Planning to initiate and process a Zoning Text Amendment adopting additional development standards for double frontage lots. These standards include the following: 1) Require any fence built on the secondary frontage of a double-frontage lot be located at the top of the grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard (corner lot) of a double-frontage lot. 2) The setback area noted in No. 1 above shall be 100% landscaped with plant material and/or vegetation with no hardscape. 3) No structures including wall and fences of any height shall be permitted on the secondary frontage of a double-frontage lot. In addition, staff should consider the seven points listed in the attached memo and as follows (from Councilmember Bauer dated April 24, 2002 which is included in the agenda packet): B. 1. Recognition should be given in any ordinance to the fact that on a double lot there is a "front" and a "back." 2. Landscaping should encompass 100% of a lot (at least the back part). 3. Wall or fences along the back of the lot should require a permit (including those of 42 inches or less). (Continued on Next Page) (9) October 7, 2002 - CounL..iAgency Agenda - Page 9 2� 4. Any Conditional Use Permit (CUP) dealing with the backside should be heard by the full Planning Commission. 5. All relevant urban design guidelines should be a part of any ordinance. I n) 6. If a wall is granted under a CUP, it should include the following features:" a. Set back from the public right-of-way. 'f b. A height limit. c. Landscaping between the public right-of-way and the wall including vines that will cover the wall. d. Adhere to engineering specifications to make sure wall will not fail should dirt be piled against it. e. Wall should adhere to urban design guidelines. (1) Term "Primary Frontage" and "Secondary Frontage" to be set forth in ordinance; and (2) Add that any Conditional Use Permit (CUP) notification should include property owners facing through-lots. Approved 6-0-1 (Dettloff absent) E• (City Council) Approved as Amended to Direct Staff to Conduct a Feasibility Study of the City Ordinance Relating to Property Owner Matters Re: Landscaping and Earth Movement on "Through" Lots - Referred to the Beautification, Landscape and Trees (BLT) Committee for Recommendations to Council (420.20) The City Council considered a communication from Councilmember Ralph Bauer transmitting the following Statement of Issue: From time to time, there has been extensive discussion on how to deal with "through" lots; that is, lots with frontage on two streets, especially when earth movement or retaining walls are involved. Our current ordinance appears not to adequately deal with this issue in that its restrictions are sufficiently severe that property owners request, and are often granted substantial variation from the original ordinance. The end result is a hodgepodge of structures that detract from the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Councilmember Bauer's memorandum sets forth the following recommended actions: I request of the staff the following: 1. Is there an opportunity to rewrite our current ordinance to offer an opportunity for a landowner to more fully utilize his/her property without excessively infringing on the general appearance of the neighborhood? and 2. Can the ordinance be written so that there will likely be visual consistency should many different adjacent owners elect to optimize the usability of their property? If the answer to the above questions is yes, I move that the staff be requested to draft a new ordinance that more adequately addresses the issue of"through" lots. As an ancillary aspect to this issue, is it possible to plant vines to cover existing walls much as has been done on the Los Angeles freeways so as to mitigate the negative appearance of these walls? Planning Director Howard Zelefsky responded to Councilmember Bauer's inquiry as to the feasibility of the foregoing proposal; whether it would take a great deal of staff time. Director Zelefsky stated that it is the public process portion which would be time-consuming, but that it would be possible to draft a proposal, if staff can come to a compromise solution. City Administrator Silver suggested that the Beautification, Landscape and Trees (BLT) Committee can explore the issues involved. A motion was made by Bauer, second Green to approve to direct staff to conduct a feasibility study addressing Councilmember Bauer" concerns to amend the city ordinance relating to property owner matters regarding landscaping and earth movement on "through" lots and to approve, as amended referral to the Beautification, Landscape and Trees (BLT) Committee to make recommendations to . Council. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Boardman, Julien Houchen, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Cook ,L ABSENT: Garofalo