The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPub Hear to PC approval of CE 89-63 (Variance)-construct Ilk Hanes Menser Architects AiA Incorporated seacliff office park 2120 main street suite 200 huntington beach california 92648 (714)536-2009 fax (714)536-6391 May 04 , 1990 y D-o s rg� 19 3 City Council City of Huntington Beach - z 2000 Ma i n Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 r Re : Public Hearing `" Cubit Residence �� M Historic Rehab/Fireplace . Dear Counc i I member s. : . Our off-ice has- beeri =: invo.;ved in numerous rehabilitation projects , both residen-t_i:aI', a.nd ,.eommercial , in the Southern Cal ifornia area over the pas-t1=:10,,, ears:.- It is important•. .to-.the very success of the historic preservation program that we .-r:ea.lize circumstances will arise on almost every project that will require variances or adjustments to existing codes and ordinances . The situation demands the cooperation of owners, historic;` agencies , -architects and municipalities working together to achieve the preservation goal . The Cubit residence fireplace location is a minor example of the above and we strongly urge you to support Mr . Cubit ' s endeavor to properly restore this important structure for the area . Sincerely , HANES MENSER ARCHITECTS A. I .A. , INC. Willis R. Hanes WRH/ rr 4. Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE §. 1094.6 exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence; and any other papers in the case. (d) If the. petRioner.files a reclucsl for niv record ns specified in ;silhflivision (c) within 10 days af(er the date the decision bcco`mes fi- nal as provided in subdivision (U); lhc' Bute within which a petiliorl pursuant to Section 1094.5 mitt' he filed shall he extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- ord, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision-means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying.an application for any retire- ment benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this section applicable..: If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise.applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976, c.276,p.681, § 1.) Forms See %Vest'H California Code Formal, Civil Procedure. Library References Adnninirtrative l.tt\\' land Provc,lurn C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and C-7:212. Procedure 193. Notes of Decisions In general 1 Ihnt public employment relutionH board Exhaustion of administrative remedies 2 had ex(-lo.�ivi) JurimlictIoil to determine wlipo or the tntfufr pruclice clmrgeH were ,Inaltifiod; filial, in vices of teaeherH' failure to exivaist their ndnninistrnlive remedicH I. In general under the Itodd« A(•I. trial court erred in tichnol bouni'H 'Unllnt-+rul freezing of grninting writ of naanluto to compel Huper- lenehers' Hnluriex fifter beginning of new inlendent of divtricl and olherH to ruise Hchool year„ while enninivi nrgotintions Hninries of vert nin tenchcrs. Amndor Via[- were pr.uding, 111'1fmlbly wim an unfair le} I?duentorH AHH'n t. \ewlin pruclice ill violutiott of the lloddu Act Ho (1970) IG1 Cul.Itptr. 724, &4 C.A.3d 25-1. 676 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including r� public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-62T4,September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11, 1963 b ,p / o� STATE OF CALIFORNIA pPr . � ? County of Orange _ I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the — — age of eighteen years, and not a party to or PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF interested in the below entitled matter. I am a REPUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF principal clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY TAP RIOVA LOF THES PILOT a newspaper of general circulation APPA E � � PLANNING COMMISSION'S printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, APPROVAL OF ITIONA County of Orange, State of California, and that CE CEP ION` attached Notice is a true and complete copy as (NO.'89-63, (TO CONSTRUCT was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, A FIREPLACE) NOTICE IS HEREBY Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain GIVEN that the Huntington Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and a Beach City Council t will hold a public hearing m the Coun- cil Chamber at the Hunt- Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit Ington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Hunt- the issue(s) of. ington Beach,California,on the date and at the time in- dicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the appli- cationApril 26, 1990 DATE/TIrME:ibed below.Monday, MAY 7, 1990,7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Exception(Vari- ance)No.89-63 APPELLANT: Sarah Dunavan APPLICANT:Larry Cubit LOCATION:211 Crest Av- enue ZONE: R1 (Low Density' Residential) REQUEST:To construct a fireplace within nine (9) +inches of an interior side- yard property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) !inches pursuant to Section '9110.7(a)of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically ek- ,empt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the Cali- declare, under penalty of perjury, that the :ActiaEnvironmentalQuality foregoing-is true and correct. COASTAL .STATUS: Not applicable(unless in coastal zone) ON FILE: A copy of the Executed on April 26, �99 o proposed Community is Develop- ment r Y P- ment Department, 2000 at Costa Mesa, California. Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A py of the staff report will The available to interested City Hall. Signature parties ALL at ALLPER-1 SONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions of submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Herb Fauland, PROOF OF PUBLICATION Assistant Planner, at 53.� 6i Connie Brockway, Hunt- Ington Beach City Clerk J Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot April 26, 1990 Th350 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RECONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL' S APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARINACE) NO. 89-63 (TO CONSTRUCT A FIREPLACE) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, May 7, 1990, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-63 APPELLANT: Sarah Dunavan APPLICANT: Larry Cubit LOCATION: 211 Crest Avenue ZONE: R1 (Low Density Residential) REOUEST: To construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior sideyard property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7 (a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable (unless in coastal zone) ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California 92648 , for inspection by the public . A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Herb Fauland, Assistant Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Council (5442d) i I i LABELS 4/12/90 (4418d) 024-081-01 024-081-02 024-081-03 GLEN S BURCHFIELD GERALD G AUBERT GERALD L PERKINS P.O. Box 883 936 loth Street 930 loth Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-081-04 024-081-05 024-081-06 MARTY PIONTKOWSKI WILLIAM WICKLIFFE PHILIP A MARCIANO 928 loth Street 1485 W. Flower Avenue 918 loth Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Fullerton, CA 92633 Hunt . Bch. , . CA 92648 024-081-11 024-081-17 024-081-18 MARTHA H PICKERING LARRY BAILEY CHARLES E SURI 224 Crest Avenue 232 Crest Avenue 804 Main Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-081-23 024-081-27 024-082-01 DAVID K JONES CHENGSAN B KUO LANCE MARTIN JACOT 206 Crest Avenue 175 Avenida La Cuesta 215 Crest Avenue Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 San Clemente, CA 92672 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-082-02 024-082-03 024-082-04 LAWRENCE W CUBIT SARAH J DUNAVAN JOSEF E WUERER 211 Crest Street 209 Crest Avenue 2134 N. Greenleaf St . Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 90706 024-082-05 024-082-06 024-082-07 FRITZ KARL WANKA CLARENCE EUGENE MCMANUS VICKEN BEZJIAN 201 Crest Avenue 737 Lake Street 10051 Cabo Drive Hunt . Bch. , CA 92647 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Westminster, CA 92683 024-082-08 024-082-09 024-082-13 GERALD E CARBONE SEMON KASPAROFF ERNEST H GISLER c/o Thomas Teraoka 212 N. Taylor Avenue 760 Main Street 16872 Bolsa Chica #202 Montebello, CA 90640 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92649 024-082-14 024-082-15 024-082-16 TOM YUAN-TONG LIANG KANG WANG LEO J VANDERHORST 18362 Oxboro Lane 752 Main Street 823 Frankfort Avenue Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-082-17 024-082-18 024-082-19 KATHLEEN A KIRALLA CHRIS E FOSTER EDNA L KAAE 742 Main Street P.O. Box 5613 734 Main Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Los Alamitos , CA 90721 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 i I F 024-082-20 024-082-21 024-082-22 MONYER S KIRALLA RUTHE GORMAN GRAYDON R ZWILLING 1010 Ocean Avenue P.O. Box 615 2632 N. Flower Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92706 024-083-03 024-083-04 024-072-08 PHILIP J LAYTON STEVEN LUZZI JON R THORNTON 824 Lake Street 822 Lake Street 743 1/2 Main Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-072-09 024-072-10 024-272-11 ROBERT P MANDIC CAROLYN M THORNTON HAROLD L WEBB 12689 Lanakila Lane 737 Main Street 733 Main Street Garden Grove, CA92641 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-072-12 024-072-13 024-072-14 ALLAN W DIES NORMAN HUNIU WILLIAM B WHITAKER 731 Main Street 727 Main Street 719 Main Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-072-15 024-081-19 DENNISE MOSES PAUL W GODDARD WILLIAM F TAYLOR 207 Crest Avenue 717 Main Street 16114 Bonaire Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92649 ARLINE HOWARD LOUISE WILSON BARBARA GALKIN 917 loth Street 1814 Florida St . #211 708 Main Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 HATTIE WANKA 201 Crest Avenue Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 i i i James B. Green Architect ( retired j 447 Ggle Circle Costa Mesa, CA. 92627 City Clerk Connie Brockway City Of Huntington Beach CA . 92648 April 24 , 1990 City Clerk Connie Brockway Mrs , Sarah Jane Dunavan, 209 Crest, Huntington Beach, asked that I send you the enclosed which is the same letter I mailed to the Planning Commission in January of this year. I 'm happy to do this if it will help ' Mrs . Dunavan certainly deserves assistance in her long struggle to maintain at least a minimum side yard requirement. Sincerely 1' James B. Green { c -m co x� r_ e . § 1094.5 SPECIAL PROCEEDiNGS Part a Noto 378 a,anded for nrw lrla) de no%i Preseod %. mined roan: i-:sionrr had uu jurisdiclino i'nlifornin Viwi tilm•moul Iris. Amit- lx lbl. aml iiiil not ilok-rmine nm,riim. WeRtern Air (197(1) 1''27 ('ul.fipir• Crlll, 57, C.A.:td 2.1). I,Inem lac. v, Sohtemki (11161) 12 CaUtlitr. '1'rhtl court'm Jndginvitt ib-n)ing writ of 710, till C.A.211 300. ninnMte. to compel director of nitrirultnro lend that letter dimcharging mcnior tyli- to met amido hlx derision revokhig petition- Iml clr.rk in office of voinio vlerk fated er,.s heenme ❑R aircraft lillul in hnminesil ::t that she wam guilty of niisconduct in re- post control wnm revvrmed and enxa re moving puhlir reconlm front tho files and mnndcd to trial court wilh directioum to nutlilnting and meereting them on various reinand rase in director for purpose of dutem, whoream in benring heforo county t reemimiderhig the pnnulfp prcvioiwly ini- 001 xervive commimmloo evidenve was hi- posed, where it was found that Rome of traduced only nR to Mint look place on the charges ngainmr petitioner were not one of the ilmrs, did not require the diR- mnpported by evidence. Wingfield v. met corirt of olipe.nl on :il•penl from juilg- Dirce(or of Agriculture (1972) 1tr3 Col. ment nwording menior typi,i clerk writ of Itptr, 019, 20 C1.A.3d 200. mandnte, after revering tho Judgment of Proceeding for review of denial by coin- the muperior court, to roninnd the mutter mixsionor of rnrporntlonx of permit to to the. c•i-tiunimmion fur re,-oitsideration, chnngo voting rights of xhnre.bolderm whcrn them wax n minlilnriic of facts Rur• would lie, rcninniled to muperior court for rounding remavnl of for dacuinenls on all dctcrniinntion whother there 1111x mubmt;ui= of the dai(-m. limit v. I.,),; Angeles C;oun- tiul evidence to mupport c::nimixsioner's tr Civil Sorvive. Coniinission (1952) 2:19 findings, where court improperly deter- P.2d 3, 106 C.A.2d 114. § 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and Oarty defined; or- dinfince or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agent'', other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent tll,. r'eof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ,of mandate pursuant to such section is filed Y.,ithin the time limits:specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for' the purposes of this section, the decisL� is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision Coi- reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tifln can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- ant to.any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall 1)r prepared by Isle locail ogelic•y or its collmiisr:ion, ho,ird, officer, or ;Item which mmie the decision and shall be rlr.liverccl to the petilio110r within 90 ri',lys ,iftOr he has filet{ it written request therefor•. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tran- Script of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6 M. : . exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or Its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. " (d) If the "petitioner files a reftu"t for Ihr record ns specified in sulrrlivisinn (c) within 10 days after 1he Hale the decision becomes fi- nal as provided in subdivision (b)', the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 109-1.5 may be filed shall he extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- ord, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- ment benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision; "party" means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this `) section applicable. . If such ordinance or .resolution is adopted, the provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976,"c. 276, p. 681, § 1.) Forms See West's Califoruin Cafe Forms, Civil Procedure. Library References Adminirtrntive Lmv and Procedure C.J.S. Public. Adminirtrative Bodien and 0-7Y12. Procedure § .193. Notes of Decisions In general I that public employment rehillons honrtl Exhaustion of adminlstrative remedles 2 limit cxclnsivit juristlietion to detunnine whei.hvr the uafrtir pruetice clntrges wore Inetified; autl, in view of teachers• ftiiluru to exhnnxt Iheir ndminiatrative remedies I. In general antler Ihr ltnthht Act, trial court erred in tirhnol honrtl's '111010,uml freezing of granting writ of nuuulutu to compof snitor- tt•nt•hwrs' snlnrles after bogionhig of new inletitlent of district mill others to 'ruise school yctir, while contrnt•t negotintiuns solnri-•s of vermin teacheru. Atnntlor Vul- Wvrl- Immtling, nrgttultly wits till unfair Icy tec'nndnry Ntlut•ntors Assn t. \owlin 1,rucliet• in vloluliotr of tilt: liutJdu Act ttn (1070) lu1 Cul,Rptr. 724, M U.A.3,1 25-1. 675 4' CITY "OFu`HUNTINGTON BEACH . . ;.. �. INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - CONNIE BROCKWAY GAIL HUTTON CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY To From RLS#90-262 APRIL 4, 1990 Subject SARA DUNOVAN'S APPEAL TO COUNCIL Date CONCERNING LARRY CUBITS PERMIT In reference to your recent inquiry regarding notice of final action, notice of the Council's decision to hold a hearing to reconsider the matter should be sent out immediately. That notice should provide the date and subject matter of the next hearing and should be sent out in the same manner as if it were the original appeal; it is a hearing de-novo at which the public, the applicant (Mr. Cubit), and the appellant (Sara Dunovan) are entitled to present evidence or address the issue before Council and should be treated as such. By way of copy of this memo, I am reminding Mike Adams that a Request for Council Action (and staff report) needs to be prepared and sent to you so that the matter can be agendized. Thank you. ",&� 4L�� GAIL HUTTON CITY ATTORNEY cc: Mike Adams, Director of Community Development 1 f nW �,+�s>'.�Pr Vic. ✓k -'�--+ __ ry x �..%x -; a r`a'�,F` •c� _ - - _ _ - 'T-.. _ - N-� - Z 4 i( .}a.. '85Y;r r c.. 1p�Vr t. fI('t! i.,. }i t, a��„y'4,� f�•-ysjtf a`' - s-.��.- k_ -> 1 . I �. - .lj•fin/ V ;M1 tF �, .f yJ• u,x CITYrrOFit t!HUNTINGTON BEACH , �Y stt, -A -ram- r ' INTER DEPARTMENT'COMMUNICATION ' HUNTINGTON•BEACH -_f..1 � sir cfl,= �. r a -_t -..y } `'t -:;vrt ''��.. i• -ri r To. Gail Hutton. From .4 Connie .Brockway kway City Attorney`, _ City Clerk Subject Request. From .Art Folger Re; Council Date 4/10/90 Manual Attached is the material which I am providing Art Folger per. his request Y'• to this? office on A/9/90.., . cc: Art Folger, Deputy City Attorney _ r 5 r - ,ra ``• .tr .- `dam _ r r _ s r�i? 'p�,r•.^.''.nit-.1�Y, wt s g r ♦ i-z r-n- r Uzi{i v rt.,.Wr. `a} - L•p.'••'•st ".F _nt x e t g.rt .. _ e_�-` "•' -s.- r�' -- i e -t i.'L?- v v "�-� .ry+�••-. s-..a-.� i v. a4�_.•q, rrL* -�-as '.c,--- -,. �` ____ t•t c m..+�...t _ _•,.,- i..N. qn.,�•s' f. tr s may; �, .asix - -y-�, - - _ - - -- r•. --' .+...Y..'3"Y•.-..,.,,. - --* "- t"'� w �ci i rat =3••`�,•--T - w-s..-�*.w- t-=--`..-�.• _ t,;f,,, F-x6`�, ,sr r .r.- '3+.ar 1:L, t.•_ S. .'. i`.�_�t�.-,•,�,�Jfa r ZR,�"��"• -' - n. .a`ae�;k� 7�r��y.�r t - ?`i',# t'4 '`r•� .Y 7 •-"'s � 711-y.. ''r�-f �.:i _"-'-�rr..Yacy'C xs.cZ'-" :s;-� ...�,"'2:"'_ys...`e-S�'� -a.-•c.l -v ,"'Bu '.ram r --, -- s•�. -(-- s _ `•r_ v.......`-�.' tic. ,. _�� ,---.s�_:a• v'cs - - K ._e<-.•_ :.� _ _ _ x.� n�,.N_ CITY OFHIlNTIN ON- - GT BEACH INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH CONNIE BROCKWAY GAIL HUTTON . CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY " To From RLS# 90-262 APRIL 4, 1990 Subject SARA DUNOVAN'S APPEAL TO COUNCIL Date CONCERNING LARRY CUBITS PERMIT In reference to your recent inquiry regarding notice of final action, notice of the Council's decision to hold a hearing to reconsider the matter should be sent out immediately. That notice should provide the date and subject matter of the next hearing and should be sent out in the same manner as if it were the original appeal; it is a hearing de-novo at which the public, the applicant (Mr. Cubit), and the appellant (Sara Dunovan) are entitled to present evidence or address the issue before Council and should be treated as such. By way of copy of this memo, I am reminding Mike Adams that a Request for Council Action (and staff report) needs to be prepared and sent to you so that the matter can be agendized. Thank you. GAIL HUTTON CITY ATTORNEY cc: Mike Adams, Director of Community Development µ n - -- '+.- J � -lf _ �•+.w� ate— _ r ''_� To The City Clerk Please enclose a copy of the 3/19/90 minutes in the City Council packets showing findings for denial. Also, please enclose the 4/2/90 minutes regarding reconsideration. Sarah Dunavan �� 1� y � RECEIVED CITY CLERK May -1 , 1990 CITY OF HUNTINGTON _'.r t CH,CALIF. MAY 3 1 41 PM `�fl Dear City Council Members; I am writing in regards to the Conditional Variance 89-63, the fireplace that is being built by Larry and Megan Cubit at 211 Crest Ave. I have seen the entire file on this issue and am appalled at the biased feelings of certain city officials towards Larry Cubit and the legality of the entire issue. No one is opposed to his building a fireplace. The issue again is the legality of it. Because one works for Huntington Sea Cliffs, and this company is a powerful force behind city government; does this give Larry Cubit the right to falsify documents, build without a permit, continue building after a Stop Work Order was issued and have no sophistication as to know the difference between a flue vented heater and a masonry woodburning fireplace? By all indications of the paper- work in the file, city officials obviously think it does. In the Truths and Facts that Larry Cubit sent to you, Larry stated that when he received the Stop Work Order, he ceased working. This is false. I will testify under oath that Larry continued working and worked very rigorously. Whenever Sara Dunavan would come outside, or someone would come by with a camera, Larry would retreat to the inside of his house until they left and then he would start working again. If he hadn't lied in the first place, as far as reinforcing a fireplace when there was none, please tell me why he would be acting in this fashion unless he was instructed to. Larry also removed the fence and bamboo, which he stated he did not with the help of men from Bull- dog Development. GOVERNMENT CODE 65906 states: "any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assume that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated." The special privilege granted: the right to build a fireplace within 39" of the neighbors structure, thus interfering with the neighbors plans for home improvement herself. When asked by the Council if Larry applied for a permit to reinforce an existing fireplace, he replied yes, yet he knew there was no existing masonry wood- burning fireplace. How can the city guarantee the safety of the fireplace structure as it was over 50% built before inspections were made? Are you \ going strictly on Larry's word that he built it safely? In a memo to Mayor Mays dated 3-5-90 from Paul Cook, prepared by MIKE ADAMS, Artilce #7 refers to the mayor as dear. Does Mike find this whole situation amusing? Is Mike being paid off by the Huntington Sea Cliff Co. to push this through? Mike has always been on the Cubit's side and hasn't even been willing to listen to Sara Dunavan's side until just recently when she found out he agreed to meet with the Cubits and only then, when she pushed the issue and made several phone calls would he meet with her. He also stated that he spoke with you, the City Council, and that you have already made your decision on the matter. Is this true without hearing both sides of the issue? How many of you are being paid off also? As an Orange County employee for 181. years, I have come in contact with many people in diverse positions. I served on the Board of Directors for the largest employees union in California, the Orange County Employees Association. During my tenure, I became very good friends with a fellow board member who just happens to be a Senior Building Inspector for the County of Orange. I spoke with him a few days ago and asked him a hypothetical question concerning the Cubit's fireplace. He said there was no question that this would be illegal and if it happened, and it shouldn't, it should have been removed per instructions from the city. I told him this was a true scenario and he did not believe me. I told him where it was and he came by one day to look. When 1 spoke with him again, he told me in his 30 years of inspecting buildings, he had never run across anything like this. Without my saying anything, he asked me where this guy (Larry) worked and when I told him, he laughed and said that is why it is still there. Now this is a person who knew neither side of the story, yet only had to put two and two together. If this fireplace is allowed to remain, you are sending out a message to every- one that it is OK to build illegally because once it is up, more than likely it. will remain. A financial hardship is not a factor in this case. The house was bought for only $60,000 and Megan does not work. If they are claiming a financial hard- ship, why doesn't Megan seek gainful employment instead of bowl, golf, or surf all the time. They also eat out every meal. I wish I had these financial hardships. Megan asked you to not use them as the example for others. Why not? Why not make a stand now for others to follow or is it because the Cubits are being backed by a large money pay-off company? Lance Jacot stated at one of the City Council meetings that he would help Larry build the fireplace on the other side of the house. Lance .was also commended on the fine upgrading of his home, yet the scaffolding is still up on his chimney from 3-5 years ago and the paint is peeling: How long do we have to look at this fine upgrading? Lance is also on Larry's side because he does not want the chimney on his side of the property. The feasible place for the fireplace would be on the opposite side. It would not interfer with Lance's view or privacy as Lance's house is set back farther from the street than Larry's. Bob Biddle's letter to you eloquently stated all. I hope that you took the time to read it. PLEASE MAKE A STAND NOW FOR OTHERS TO KNOW THAT MONEY DOES NOT ALWAYS TALK. My hats off to you, Grace Winchell, for making it on the Council without the backing of the Huntington Sea Cliff Co. If you run again, you have my vote, along with more people than you know. Sincerely, Dennise Moses 207 Crest Ave. HAND CARRIED 01 Sarah Dunavan Cnt 211 Crest Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-0739 May 1, 1990 Mr. Mike Adams Director of Community Development CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Sarah Dunavan Appeal Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 Encroachment of Fireplace Dear Mike: Per my conversation with Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator, on April 26, 1990, I am writing to you to confirm an appointment on May 4, 1990, at 9:00 A.M. with you and staff members involved. The topics which I want to discuss with you Friday include the following: 1. Council rehearing of this item. 2. Determining the best method/procedure for myself working with Staff to resolve this project. 3. Ascertaining Staff's position with regard to my appeal. 4. Obtaining your recommended method for my proceeding with the Council on this matter. I understand that Howard, Herb, Mike (Strange), Dennis, Don, Gail Hutton, Sarah Lazarus, and Art Folger all were involved in one phase or another of this Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63. For that reason, you may want to request some or all of them to participate in our meeting on Friday. Lastly, I certainly appreciate you assistance on this matter. I normally do not get involved in zoning code violations. However, this is an exception to my general rule because: (a) I know that the Council's recent decision to uphold the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is correct, Council decisions must be decided on laws and codes not feelings. (b) It would be an injustice to myself and others in the future to allow this kind of after-the-fact lack of enforcement of zoning codes. Applications should be determined on a factual basis not depending on whether work has already been done. (c) This matter is a challenge for all of us who believe that applications should be submitted prior to work beginning, that a "stop notice" means just that, and that a 9" set back is an encroachment on my rights and will create a hardship on the future use of my own property. I look forward to meeting with you on Friday, May 4, 1990, at 9:00 A.M. Sincerely, -ter Sarah Dunavan CC: Michael Uberuaga, Gail Hutton, Mike Adams, Connie Brockway, Sarah Lazarus, Art Folger, Dennis Krejci, Howard Zelefsky, Mike Strange, Gerald Abbott, Herb Fauland and Don Shaw DaAA MAY' 4 1990 l CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Dear Sirs: CITY COUNCIL OFFICE I am writing this letter on behalf of Larry Cubit who re- sides at 211 Crest St. in Huntington Beach. He is adding a fire place as part of a remodeling project. I have driven by the house many times since I live nearby and think it is great that he is remodeling rather than tearing down this house. I watched the city council meeting the night of the hearing on the fireplace and was amazed that his varience was turned down. The neighbor who is complaining should come to my neigh- borhood on Alabama St. Everyone complained about the variance given to the three story condo project on Lake St. which backs up to my house to no avail . It wiped out my ocean view and now the sun sets approximately two hours earlier each day. This neighbor should look at what could be done to the property on a tear down vs a remodel and thank Larry for his efforts including the fireplace. In conclusion I support the remodeling including the fire- place and hope the city in future will support this type of action to keep the old houses along with the new preserve the character of Old Huntington Beach. Thank you. Sincerely Mel Heckman =� c z� z W m co R O S � n e r_ L0 n C 1 5�y G V May 4, 1990 �- CO -<rn m To the City Council of Huntington Beach, o I am writing this letter in support of Larry and Megan Cubits' efforts to save and renovate one of the older houses in the downtown area. The older houses are steadily disappear- ing in favor of the new two and three story variety. I have seen the improvements that the Cubits' have made, and given what the house used to look like and what could have been built there, their neighbor ought to be happy. The fireplace has been approved by the Building Department, and the Planning Commission. I would like to encourage the Council to support the efforts of people trying to save some of the history of Huntington Beach. Respectfully, Catherine Babic /I4 7/ 1 //r 1 t hir tieth stre ets-�� architects -r- C- n � lnc• : gym .. r O May 2, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cubit: It was a pleasure to meet with you and review the rehabilitation/remodel to your house. As I mentioned, my visit was strictly as a volunteer interested in the preservation of historic structures. Our firm has been involved with preservation projects in the Western United States for over fourteen years and we have worked on over 50 structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. We have also been fortunate to win sixteen awards from various organizations for preservation work including the California Preservation Foundation and the American Institute of Architects. In reviewing your project it appears the major question of concern is the re- placement fireplace and chimney at the side of the house. I understand that the original fireplace housed only a gas grille which simulated a fireplace and that the original chimney did not contain a flue. This is very common to houses built in the 1920's and we have worked on a number of rehabilitations in which the Owners wish to replace the existing imitation fireplace with a real wood burning fireplace. The design of your new fireplace and chimney complements the Spanish Colonial style of your house. This new fireplace is an important addition to the house for it adds an element valuable to future owners which will allow the house to be used for many more years without the thought of demolition and replacement. The demolition of historic homes and neighborhoods is one of the biggest con- cern in the preservation community nationwide. At the State Preservation architecture historical rehabilitation planning \ 2821 newport Blvd. newport beach, california 92663 fax (714) 673-8547 (714) 673-2643 Conference in San Francisco at the end of April, over 60% of the sessions dealt with the preservation of historic homes and neighborhoods. A re-ocurring theme in preservation is the necessity to accept that old buildings often times need spe- cial considerations when being evaluated using modern planning and building codes. Design guidelines in Historic Districts often times allow setback encroach- ments for building additions or parking to encourage reuse of older buildings. The approach of rehabilitating your 1920's home versus demolition and new construction is to be complimented for retaining a piece of the historic fabric of the City. The rehabilitation work is consistent with the style of the house and will insure that the home is a valuable and functional home for many more years. Sincerely, 7J es C. Wilson Pr cipal 211 Crest Avenue•Page 2 4.'x J _ •r 'c r _ ..7 �drY�y THE COLSTADT CO. r a WE . D MAY 4 1990 March 15, 1990 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Re; Conditional Exception CITY COUNCIL OFFICE (Variance) No. 89-63 Construction of Fireplace 211 Crest Avenue. Honorable Mayor .Ton "Mays and City. Council Members Dear Mayor Mays Having been an active Realtor since 1962 and resident of the City of Huntington Beach since 1957 it is my opinion that the Fireplace construction will not have a detrimental effect on the area or property values in the area. Dave Jones , along time resident of Huntington Beach , wanted Larry and Megan Cubit to own this property. He was aware of their intentions to not destroy the house but to rehab and make it more modern and not loose it' s charm ' I am sure if you deny. this appeal , the rehab when completed, will be an asset to the neighborhood and the City of Huntington Beach. Respectfully submitted. 11 Charles V. Col stadt O I M <rC co �o r LID n C� / I 18652 FLORIDA STREET,SUITE 100,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92648 (714)536-8874 37 T Hanes Menser Architects AIA Incorporated seacliff of Ice park 2120 main street suite 200 huntington beach caiifornia 92648 (714)536-2009 fax (714)536-6391 May 04 , 1990 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Mai n Street J Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Re : Pub I i c Hearing „or< Cubit Residence CD Historic Historic Rehab/Fireplace n r O Dear Council members : Our office has been involved in numerous rehabilitation projects , both residential and commercial , in the Southern California area over the past 10 years . It is important to the very success of the historic preservation program that we realize circumstances will arise on almost every project that will require variances or adjustments to existing codes and ordinances . The situation demands the cooperation of owners , historic agencies , architects and municipalities working together to achieve the preservation goal . The Cubit residence fireplace location is a minor example of the above and we strongly urge you to support Mr . Cubit ' s endeavor to properly restore this important structure for the area . Sincerely , HANES MENSER ARCHITECTS A. I .A. , INC. Willis R. Hanes WRH/ rr 1-710 Pine Street Huntington Reamh, CA 92648 April 16, 191-40 Mayor Tom Mays rn City of Huntington Oea'ch <C-)M 2000 Main Street rn rn X CD Hunt.inqt.cjn Reach, CA 9264a -K Dear Mr . Mayor , C=D You and the City Council have the opportunity at your May 7t.h meeting to right. ev wrong . Sarah Dunovan has been made out as a villain due. to the c:cfnstruct-ion ct:f a fireplac.,e, by her next door neighbors, Mr . and Mrs. Larry Cubit. The: Tireplac.,L- is adjac:ent to Mrs. Dx1novan ' s property and severely impec'ta her privacy and property rights. This fireplace was -bootlegged"--it was constructe.d withottt the. REQUIRED and LAWFUL permits. These permits are required by law to insure that e-veryone.-' s right.a. are guaranteed. Although Mr . Ridenour , who built the fireplace, told -tkve council that he c:onstrxv,=t---d the. strx%,=*-xVre Well and aafely-- the city con not. guarantee: the aa:fe.ty of the Amonatructicen be.catise no ina.peccticvna were. made by c:ity CrIfic4als. Mrs. Dvinovan even went. to the city planning department to ae.e if she could build a similar structure on her property and was told, in every case, that a :fireplace in that particular lo-maticon was unlawful and would not bs-- permitted. It. was only until Mrs. Duncivan told the ataf-f that her neighbors were in the process of conatrticting a similar fireplace that. t-1-se city even 1cound out abo%.it. it.. The fireplace. is wrong and it. goes against. our city c.odea-- czodes and law& whicf-i you and +-.1-de. ccxinmil %unt. uphold. Ycfx%r denial of the fireplace is required by law. It. would be a terrible mistake for the council to reverse itse.1-1 and allow the fireplace. to remain. The public: will interpret t.hia as LN me.saage. that the council will not enforce: city building aodea and P-ocin we will see. the public building projeimta that could aompromise public: he.alth and safety be.A--aup-e they will not ge-t- the necessary permits. How, because. of Jerry Same., Mr . and Mrs. Cubit are getting a SECOND chance to be heard. Why T Cco-oncilx#4a!n Erskine and MacAllister heard the: aajk4-- arguments that. I did. Mrs. I�. t� E 41 f- h; Donovan, Mr . and Mrs. Cubit., and t.he-. c:it.y ataff call preae-nt.e:d i t.he-ir case- be-fore• you--cat. a mae-a.t.ing in wr,ich each party had amapple- copportunit.y t.c, prepare-. Your de-.c:iaion rightly went t.c. support. Mrs. Dunovcan and the re-at. of t.he- public: by at.anding by our c:it.y c.csde-a. t� Now, for some- une-:aplaine-d re-aaaon, and by lobbying on t.he- part. of Mr . Ramae- and Mr . and Mrs. Cubit., t.hia subject. ie. once- �^ again coming for a vat.e-. r I believe t.hat all part.ie-e, gc.t. a fair c+danc:e- tie-fc.re- t.he. council previc+usly and that. it. is out.rage-c+ua that. t.he- "fire-place-" should comae- before you again for ca a4--cond vc.t.e:_ Are- we, t.he- public-, t.o aApe-c:t. t.hat. e:ac:h t.imae aame.onea doesn-'t. like a de-.ci aic.n by t.he- council , and lobbie-a t.he! c:c+unc:i 1 at. a lat.e-r date., that. the: issue! will cnc:e- again comae- up for anot.he'r vot.e.? It is wrong for t.he. council t.o be-have: in such a care-le-aa manne-r and it. is t.he. wrong kind of mae-aaage. t.co ae-nd t.a t.he- public. If the ccounc:i 1 in. willing t.c, hear more t.e.at.i m ony and rec.onaide-r prervioue. de-cinions, I have-. a whole. list. of iaaue-s. f' t.hat. I would like. t-o pre-sent. for ancot.he.r vote:--and I am acre: t.hat. e.ve-rycone- who has e-ve-r be-.e-n trefore- c:ounc.il would love: ca c:hanc:e- t.o be- rec.onaide-red i Considering that. Roger Work, of t.he. Hunt.ingt.on Eve-cac:h Company, auc:c:easfully lobbie-d me-rt.ain me-mbe-re. of t.he-. c:orrnc:il in January and recce-ived ca re--vot.e- in his favor , I camp wonde-ring if there ccvuld be a connect.ion in t.his "fire-place:" issue-. I am well aware that. Mr . Cubit. i e. emaplc.yed at. the- cecacl iff Shopping aCe-nt.er , whic:r, the Hunt.ingt.can Reach Company owns. Mr . Ride.naur also has worked for Rage-r Work at. some HBCO f rrnc:t.i an a. I do not like- "bcackrcooma de-ala" and I t.hink that. the lange-r t.his fire.pplace issue is bante-re-d bac:k and forth, t.he: more: I think sc+mset.hing is going on be-hind Mrs. Dunovan ' s and t.he: publ i c.'a back. To date-, Mrs. Dunovan has been t,e-fc,re t.he- council no lean than four <4) t.imaes pleading he-r c.asee.. Mrs.. Dunovcan has be-e<n farme-d to use he-r own re•sourcea to prese-nt. her c:aae. when it. is the: cit.y who should be e-nforcing our codes and laws. Mrs. Dunc+van has lost. not only her privacy and her grope.rt.y rights, but. she+ has lost her right to live-. pe-aace-fully. ;he: tyaa, be:c:auae of t.t'se. c:it.y•'a inac:t.ion and re:fuaal t.o e:nfcrcec code's, become. a villain just. for de:fe:nding tier right.a an guarant.e-ad by law. Ple.aa.ec do *.he. rigtst. t.t'sing and vat.e. t.o auppart our lava. Vot.e. in favor of t9ra. Dunoven, get. rid of an ille-gal at.ruc:t.ure:, and mhow t.he-. px%blic: that. yc.kt care: about. our building cadets.. Thank you very muc:ts for your t.imA and c:onaide:rat.icm. �inc:e:re:1Y `W�� Bob Middle. B Et: j j c:C Coxinc:i 1 me:m be:r a Sarah Dunc.van 1710 Pine Stree-t. cz HtYnt.in,yt.c.r, �?e:t�c:h, _o April 16, 11-490 _j Nayc,r Tc,», ?icy e -, --< C1 t.y c•f HtYnt.in t c,r, 8e:ac.h �rrn F-� o r { -;-(X)o Nevin St.ree-t „Mm c HtYnt.i ngt on CA '_126-4•8 �.. x -, i- De��r Nr . Kayc,r Yc,u anti the: City Cc,oY-sc:il h,c,ve- t.he- c,pportunit.y cit. yc,ur May .;'t.hj sweetin3 tc, right a uYc,rs,� Sarah, Dunc,van hcig be-e-n macie! tout. a$ a villc,in due- t.c, the cc,nat.ruct.ic,n a{ ci {ireplac:e:, by h,e-r ne-.> t. cic,or nei� ht•c,ra, Kr . and Kra.. Le -rr-y Cut,it. . The: fire-place- is cidjcic:e:nt. t.c, Nra. Dunc,van ' a prc,perty and e.eve:rely iviposct-a he-r f:,rivoc:y cNnd prope-rt.y rig.ht.a. Th.ia {ire-place waa "t,c,c.t.le�,ged" --it waa. cc,nat.rtYct.ed withC•tYt. t.},e PEGUIPED and LAWFUL p,e-rmit.a. The:ae pe-rxfit.8. cYre- re-guire-d by lau• t.o insure that. e.,.Pe-ryc,ne 'a rights are- gtYarant.ee-d . :41t.hc,ugt, Nr . Pi denc,ur , who t,tYilt. the t.uld t.h,e counc:il t.h.at. he c:c,nat.ru,=t.e-d the atrtYcttYre- well and aefely-- t.h.e City c.an nc,t. �guarant.e-e- the safety cot the mconatrxict-icen bec:cvue.e nc, ine.pe-ct.ic,na w•e-re- imewde- I-,y city Cdfic:iC31a. Nra.. D\.rnc,van e.ve-n went. t.c• t.h,e city planning de-F,art.me:nt. t.a ee-e- if e.he: could build c, aimilctr at.ruc:t.ure- on he•r prope:rt.y and w•cia t.c,ld, in eve-ry c:ae.e-, t.hat. a Fire-place- in t.hat. �,art.icular lc,c:atic,n wan. unlawful and would nc,t. be �rera+it.t.ed . It. w,aa. only until Nra. DtYnc,van tc,ld t.he- at.aff that. her nei�ghbora we're- in t.h,e prc,ce-aa c,f cc,nat.ruct.ing a aimxlcir fireF,lac:e- that. t-he- c.it.y even fc,und c,ut. cit,out. it.. The- fire-place is wrc,ng and it. �4c,ea oyainat. c,tYr city cc,ciea- - c:c,de-n. and . laws which yc,t% trod t.he. c:c,uncil atYa.t. tvphold . Yc,%vr de-nia1 c,f t.he: fire.plr,c:e. is re-quire:d by tau . It. ti.c,tYld be- .e, t.c-rrible- Dkiat.cNke, fc,r the c:ounc:il t.c, Ye-ve-re.e-. it.e.e1{ tint{ allc,w t-t,e f1reF,lc%c:e- t.c, re:r,arn . The- put.lic: u•111 :int.er�,re:t. t.hi n. as c-Y iwe aaage t.h,c,t. t.he- c:ounc:11 will nc,t. e-nfc,rc:e- c:it.y building code-c1, anti a,c,c,n we- will ae:e t.he- public: Lextildinq l:,rc,je-c:t.a t.h,at. could cc,mF,rc,,Ahiae public: he:cilt.h, and sa{et.y bi_.c:atYe.e t.h.e:y will not. ge-t. the� necessary pe-rmlt.a. )den:•, t,ec:atYe.e of Jerry Be-me-, Mr . and Nra. Cubit. ar4-. a SECOND chonc.e t.c, be rit-ard. bWhy7 ,Cc,unc:ilrore:n Erakine- and Nttic,4liiat.er heard t.he- same- arguvie:nta thcot. I did . Nra. A k i. Donovan, Mr . ctind Mrs. Cubit., and t.he- city st.aff all F,reaented their c:aae be-fare- you - -at. a wee-t.ing in which, a-ec:}, I,art.y had am,ple- c,r-opc,rt.tvnit.y t.c, prepcire-. Yc,"r decision rightly went t.c, sv- ppc,rt. Mrs. D"ncovc-vn and t.h,e: resat. c,f t.h,e- put,lic: by standing by crtvr c:it.y cads-a. Wc,w, fc,r mc,we- one.:AplGine:d re-.amc,n, sand by lc,t,t,ying cm t.he- p,e,rt. c,S Mr . Rowe- and Nr . and Nra. C-ubit ,, this av_vbjFc:t ia. c,nc:E c,•44ain cc.winq fc,r a vc,t.e,.. I t.e:sieve that. all pzart.ie:a. gc,t. e� fair c:honc:e- t,e-Sc,re- the- c:c+tvnc:il pre-vioualy and t.h,�,t it. is c,utxage:c,ua that. t.he- �s "Sired+lac:e " ahc,tivld c:c,v,e- t,efc,re- yc,u age,in for a ae:ccind vc,t.e.. Ave-. we-, the: Public, t.c, e:ec:h t.is,e• ac,3,e-c,ne- doean't. like, et de:ci si an by t.},a c:ounci 1 , and 1 ot,t,i e-a t.he- c:c,tvnc:i 1 at. a l at.e-r da:t.e:, t.h,cvt. t.he: i matte- will c,nc.e- again c:c,we- up, for tinat.he-r vot.e:? It is wrc,ng for the cc,ttnc:il t.o t,e-have- in much a careleaaa wanne-r c,nd it. is t.he- wrc4n�g kind c,S we sedge t.0 send t.c, the g,tv t,1 i c. IS t.},e cc,tvnc:i 1 is wi 11 ing to h,e-ar we+re t.e:at.iwany end recanside-r previaua. de4=iaic,ns, I h,c,ve- a whole- list. of issue-a t.hat. I would like- t.c, pre a.e-nt. Sor anot.he:r vc,t.e--and I am sure- that. e-ve- h ryone- wo h,a ha s e-ve-r k,e-e-n t,e:fc+re- cc+\,vnc:i 1 wc,vvId lc,ve- ci chcmc:e- t.o t,e- re:canaide-red ! Cansi dear i ng t.hcit. Rc,ge r Wc,r 1k , of t.he: Hxvnt.i ngt.c,n Ne tics, rc,w'F,4LNny, aucc.e-awfully lc,t,t,ie-.d c.e-rtciin wewt,era. of the cc+tvnc:il in January and rec:e-ive-d ci re:--vote- in hia. fcivc,r , I cvm w•cmdexing if the-re: cc,uld be! a cc,nne:c.t.ion in t.hia "SireF,lac:e " issue . I aw we'll ciware t.h,at. Mr . Cut,Yt- ie. e-wplc,ye-d at. the- cecicii�S chapping Center , wh.ic:h, t.h.e Hunt.inrqt.c,n 8e-ec:h Cc,wpany c,wna. Nr . Ride-nc,ur al ac, worke-d fc,r Rage:r Work at. some. HBCO Stvnc:t.i on a. I dc, nat. like- "t,ackrc,c,w de-31a" oind I t.t,ink that. t.he- longer this fireploc:e- iaaue- is bant.e<re-d t.e,c.k c„nd forth, the ware. I t.hiniK aomet.t,ing is gc,ing c,n t,e:hind Mrs. Dunovc4n ' a. c,nd t.he- tack . To dcite-, Mrs. Dunovorm ham t,Ee:n t,e-Sc,re: the c:c,unc:il no leas than fc,ur <4) t.iwe-a ple-adin nvin hc+y teen fc,rc:e-d t.c+ ua.e- her c,wri re-ac,urc:e-a t.a .g,reaent. her c:aa.e- when it. is t.he- cit.y whc, a},c,tvld t,e enforc:ing c,ur c.ode-a cwnd letwa Mrs. Dunc,vcwn hc^a lc.at. nc,t. c,nly he-r privee.y surd h,e-r -F,rc+p,e-rt.y righ,t.a, t,ut. ah,e t�aa lost. t,er right. t.c, live- peeve-fully . `;},e h�aa, t.ec:cavvae of t-he: cit.y ' a incict.ion cind re-fwsal t.c+ e:nforc:e< c:ode<a, be-.c:os(e< a villevin jvvat. for de:fe<nding her righ.t.n cia gu arant.e-e:d by low. Pieaa.e dc, t.h,e right. thing trod vote t.c, tsxip fort. ov_vr lciwa. Vc.t.e: in fcivor of Hra. Dv_vnovcin, gemt. rid o-I cin ills-.q l at.ruc:t.vvre , rind mhe,w. t.he: pkik.l ic: t.hcit. yc.v.v c:cire: akfc.Lvt. cnvr kftvi ld]ing c:cfde:s. - Thonic ycfwv ve:r•y vk vc:h fc.r •yc.)Lvr time-. and c:c.naide:rcit.ion. F�- ''. CinC:aYe'ly , Bot, siddlem c:c: Cov.snc:iIme-mtfe:ra Sr_irah D"nc.van JEROME M. BAME ATTORNEY AT LAW 2130 MAIN STREET, SUITE 140 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 960-4329 April 19, 1990 HAND CARRIED Mike: Please read this as soon as possible today (Thursday, April 19. 1990) -' ) Mr. Mike Adams Director of Community Development Planning & Building Department i))`Pt',; ?:IILNT OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH C0t,`,,WN ,( DEVELC)P IENT 2000 Main Street PLANNING ow!s,ora Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Cubit Construction of a Fireplace Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 Dear Mike: I had intended to call you by telephone, or come to your office today (Thursday, April 19, 1990); but, thought that a written communication such as this letter would be more convenient and time-saving for you. The purpose of my wanting to communicate with you today is two-fold. First, to confirm our meeting set for 9:00 a.m. tomorrow (Friday, April 20) in your office; and, second, to give you an idea of the topics I wish to discuss with you at our meeting tomorrow. The topics which I want to discuss with you tomorrow include the following: 1. Setting the date for the Council rehearing of this item. 2. Determining the best method/procedure for the Cubits (and me) working with Staff to resolve this project. 3. Ascertaining Staffs position with regard to the Cubits' Application. 4. Obtaining your recommended method for my proceeding with the Council on this matter. Mr. Mike Adams 2 April 19, 1990 5. Determining whether it is in the Cubits' best interests to proceed on • their current/pending Application, or would there be any advantage to them to refile a new Application and start the process anew. As you are well aware, the Cubits' neighbor has turned this otherwise simple variance procedure into an "emotional circus." I would like to cut through the emotionalism and "smoke" created by the neighbor to get to and obtain a decision on the facts of the matter. I understand that Howard, Herb, Mike (Strange) and Art Folger all were involved in one phase or another of this Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63. For that reason, you may want to request some or all of them to participate in our meeting tomorrow at 9:00. Lastly, I certainly appreciate your assistance on this matter, Mike. I normally do not get involved in neighbor-to-neighbor disputes. However, this is an exception to my general rule because (a) I felt that the Council's recent decision in denying the Cubits their fireplace was wrong, (b) that it would have been an injustice to the Cubits, and (c) this matter is a challenge for all of us who believe that Applications should be determined on a factual basis, rather than on an emotional/political basis. I will be in your office tomorrow (Friday, April 20) at 9:00 a.m., with Mr. and Mrs. Cubit. Most cordially, ROME M. B,AME JMB:mgw `/;/� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LE) LAJI INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Howard Zelefsky From Robert Sangster Planning Director Acting City Attorney Subject CE 89-63 Date April 12, 1990 Fireplace Variance As I read the draft minutes, there was a proper motion for reconsideration at the meeting on April 2 . This was preceded by a vote adding the item to the agenda . Thus, the next step is to re-hear the substantive issues . This can be either a full re-hearing or a limited re-opening of the hearing for receiving further evidence, in the Council ' s discretion. /&C 7� —_ Robert Sangs er Acting City Attorney cc: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk munity development.:- huntington beach department of com SYAff REPOR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: January 23 , 1990 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 . APPLICANT: Larry Cubit DATE ACCEPTED: 211 Crest Avenue January 5, 1990 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: APPELLANT: Sarah Dunavan March 5, 1990 209 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ZONE: R1 (Low Density Residential) REQUEST: To construct a fireplace within nine inches of an GENERAL PLAN: Low Density interior property line in Residential lieu of the required thirty inches EXISTING USE: Single Family Residence LOCATION: 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ACREAGE: . 06± (2,875 sq. ft) 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator ' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 with findings . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Conditional Exception (Variance) No 89-63 is a request to construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. On December 13, 1989 the Zoning Administrator acted on and approved Conditional Exception No. 89-63 with findings and conditions of approval . Submitted for your consideration is an appeal to the action taken by the Zoning Administrator. A-F M-23C 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE : R1 (Low Density Residential) LAND USE: Single Family Residence North and South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE : R1 (Low Density Residential) LAND USE: Single Family Residence East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two LAND USE: Southern California Edison Facility West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: (Q) R2 (Qualified Medium Density- Residential) LAND USE: Duplex 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act . 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Background The applicant initially requested approval and was issued a building permit to allow the seismic reinforcement of an existing fireplace with non-conforming sideyard setbacks on October 23 , 1989 . Upon receipt of a complaint received by the Land Use Division, an inspection by Land Use and the Building Divilbion was conducted. The inspection revealed that the applicant was substantially rebuilding a new fireplace and as a result was increasing the non-conforming sideyard setback for the existing fireplace approximately 6 to 8 inches . A stop work order was issued and the applicant was directed to apply for a conditional exception (variance) to the Zoning Administrator. . Staff Report 1/23/90 -2- (4506d) Analysis In reviewing the applicant ' s request, the Zoning Administrator noted that the subject property is non-conforming as to lot width and lot area for R1 (Low Density Residential) zoned property. The minimum lot width for R1 zoned property is 60 feet, the subject property has approximately 25 feet of lot width. The existing single family residence is provided with two foot-6 inch (30 inches) interior sideyard setbacks on both the north and south sides of the subject property. Also, the residence is provided a two car garage with alley access . The Zoning Administrator ' s analysis of the proposal and the exception to the minimum thirty (30) inch setback for the fireplace involved the following issues : 1) adequate emergency access, 2) adequate light, air and ventilation and 3) the possible detrimental effect of the proposed fireplace on the public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. Pursuant to the notification of the Land Use Division, appropriate City departments conducted on-site inspections . These inspections were conducted to insure all health and safety issues were met . The Fire Department noted that if the opposite sideyard and access from the alley is maintained, adequate emergency access is available in case of any emergency situation. The Building Division' s review of the construction indicated that the proposal is in compliance with all building code requirements . Planning concerns addressed the fireplace' s location, effect on adjacent properties and if the proposal provides adequate light, air and ventilation. As proposed, the applicant ' s fireplace has been determined to be adequately setback and will not be detrimental to the adjacent property or neighborhood. Adequate light, air and ventilation will be provided and all health and safety issues have been complied with. Another issue which was of concern to staff was the Historic significance of the single family residence. The Historical Board recommended that the proposed fireplace be stuccoed to match the existing home ' s color and no modern cap be placed on top. Based upon the aforementioned, the Zoning Administrator approved the conditional exception (variance) with findings and conditions of approval . The appellant, Sarah Dunavan (209 Crest) cites that the proposed fireplace will be detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the adjacent neighborhood and that it is creating a hardship. As noted earlier, the proposal has been reviewed by all appropriate City departments and it has deen determined that all issues have been addressed which may affect the adjacent neighborhood. Staff Report 1/23/90 -3- (4506d) 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator ' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-63 with findings and conditions of approval . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district . The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (Rl) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width. The existing residence is provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards, adequate access in emergency situations is provided. The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintains adequate light, air, ventilation and emergency access for public health, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood. 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light, air, ventilation and access . Staff Report 1/23/90 -4- (4506d) 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an- interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No . 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan received and dated October 2, 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a . The applicant shall submit fully dimensioned elevations which depict height, materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection. b. The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board' s recommendations; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house ' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace. 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace. 3 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear . No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side yard. 4 . The southern interior side yard to the rear of the proposed fireplace shall be kept free and clear . No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the southerly side yard. 5 . 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. 6 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and the Fire Department . 7 . The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards . 8 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Exception No. 89-63 if any violations of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . Staff Report 1/23/90 -5- (4506d) ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area Map 2 . Letter of Appeal dated December 22, 1989 3 . Zoning Administrator Minutes dated December 13 , 1989 4 . Applicants Narrative dated December 5, 1989 5 . Site Plans, Floor Plans, Building Elevations dated January 3 , 1990 HS :HF: lab Staff Report 1/23/90 -6- (4506d) LEGEND: \J� A D A M S AVE. M MTLN nppo mNE•m U L—J�) LJ L_J L_IU J`Il I I I l 11_J L__ 1 LL--. I I' L E3] rSp001LIUN mrRKr 'b>''�'. ---------..._._. \ - —'-- -- m:1 ou.LrcO aAsv'KArpn �,o + `\'4• RI-0 _ — f. t;ZICOASTY.lowwm z' ° .......(61,''o. 'y R-I R-I R-I R2 IN: m 8C4"--e ra ---•coASTAL[SIN[eamuRr �, \ �7 HF1 vlr � (0)O�LDTO F a rs.Eu cPLAN \ 0 RI RI w RI R2 1C4 O 0 ySPI ECIFICY LAN °p wl W %0WENOuE DISTRICT r{ yi / ^ N�iL�j (p.m PLATl1ED OEVELOPYENT DISTRICT L a Y I LOMA AVE \ PONiInNp AVE �_ p IIl l7 LOM DCH9IY RESIDENTIAL OSTRKT S•�1.�i L I CR �,•Viv 0 OW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MSTRICT ("a`''`' "•'�"') �':; } RI _p � Pownn p (015T(DISTRICT 21 ; a ® MEDIUM-HGN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL pSTRKT +' EH R I R I = R 1 R 2 O p•• a >a �� S SO Da �� j - ��'.^ RI•D OSwEGO AVE, AVE. I. rIR2•PD-10 .0i C F E THIRTEENTH ST e COMMWITYEACILITIES(RECRCATIONALIDISTRICT � ? 1 Co COMMwPTY rACILITIES(EDUCATIONALIDISTRICT R I R I II �-0 N-0 -0 -0 I :::74t§DY-;:.zt_!OfrlOE PROr[SSKNAL DISTRICT EC,[J N[IWBORNOGD COMMERCIAL WSTRICTR � V. R2'PD-IONIO—YrYDUMNESS prDI TRII RIIUI (C<I NIOMMAY COMMERCIAL 01S}RICi IiY':i:ii:i.r.-:::.1 ® O[SK•NAT[S PRECISE PLAN Or STR[iTALIONMCNT Cgfsl gRI 5TMPILLANO ECIFIC 7 ;}DWeH[o MON aL.RDDDDTIDN � RI TY,ELCt"C F-R -° RICT TWO) R2-PD IO -•- SETBACK LINE •1.:ISf:1(tii.::...-..::: y R I R I R I zs R2-PD-10 O COMBINED MTN OIL PRODUCTION Hn MEMPHIS -- AVEe(AREA"CANOED eY PALM hr --�AVE.ON CE N AVE.EON S} A CLEVCNiII \ �•ON E%I,'M II ON SE. SM, CF-R N�� a �alAS[LSNiN Si.ON SE. RI L lrk ILN AVE,I R3 Cq O y� RI RI ;; H !� 1''�� DD ElI 11 RI f0)R2 2 NNO%VILE[ (� I AVE. S Cl Ili n _ e 1 L N ]Rl R3 '" R3 C4 -- -- A, I .11A•I SELL[ --- Ix Kfl °•1 AVF. 0)R2 \ rj,-c lHNIflT C D -%l �R3 R3 R3 CY `ryr y \h INDIANAPOLIS ---AVEI q' R 3 P R3 �Ll �\�Ct• PAL N HAkTI OPO C AVE. / I I I (�yA S f l� '• ALA AVE. / 1 ' 4%.,`� •L. EV ��v '• CF-C -[NANHI'OIiT r--- ?. OLDT N I MH I SPECIFIC A I>�. •�� /i�/� .a?.�' �-"T ��J, t1.. � I EL�OISTRI E) CIE89.0-63 i HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION t ✓ U-4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Ll 1 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 19, 1990 Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Cubit: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held March 21, 1990, denied with findings, your application relative to Conditional Exception (Variance) 89-63. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedures of the State of California you have ninety days from March 21, 1990, to apply to the courts for judicial review. Sincerely yours, ter' Connie Brockway City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney Community Development Director City Administrator 1051K (Telephone: 714-536-5227) Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6 exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or Its commission, board; officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. . (d) Jf the petitioner files a re(luest for the record ns specified in ,cnh(livision (c) wilhin 10 (lays lifter the dale the decision becomes [fi- nal as pro%,idcd in subdivision (1)); the thric wilhin which a pel.ilion Pursuant to Section 1094.5 ratty he filed shall he extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or.mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- ord, if he has one. (e) As used in this-section' his section, decision means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- ment benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this :section applicable. . If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise-applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976, c.276, p.681, § 1.) Forms See West'N (`aliforttla C otle F'ormN, Civil Procedure. Library References Ad Jilin it,trntive Utw raid I'roce,III re C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and 11rcn:edure 193. Notes of Decisions In general I that Imblie emplovoteot relutlonN bonnl Exhaustion of administrative remedies 2 had exr•ht-�ivit iurimliction to determine whetht•r the unfnlr lrrucdce charges were .111Nllfied; ruul, ill view of teachers' failure to ex1most their ndntinistrative remedies I. In general under the Itoddo Ael, trial court erred in tivhool board's Unilnlenrl freezing; of granting writ of Jiuuulute to compel snlror- trni bets' Nnlnrivs nhi•r lwginning; or new inlendrnt of district and others to "ruise srh ,ol 3•enr, while rmurmwl uegotinrions snlnr•i-•, of vertnin teachers. Arnndnr Vul. were lathing, nrgnuhl�• tubs Jill unfair 1i•c N•r'ondnry Eduenlors ANs'n t. Nowlin practice iu vlulutiuu of till! )(uddtt Act so (1979) 151 Cul.Itptr. 724, &$ (,.A.ad L'ul. 675 § 1094.5 SPECIAI. PROCEEDINGS Part 3 Noto 378 ;t muled for new trial de noti-. i'reser,d v. ntiue,l hnd uu jurisilirlion I'alifornin unemploynu•ut lus. .\ppenls lid. nod dill sot ,lvierntiur nwritx. \\'caters Air (1:1711) 127 0d.Rlttr. 610. 57 ('„\.,td 211, blues inc. Y• Sobieski 01101) 12 Cal.liptr. '1'rinl court's Judgnu•ul d,•niing writ of 71fl, 1111 C.A.'_d 306. ninndate. to compel director of ngrivuhiiro Icitcl that. letter discharging senior typ- to act nside ltlx deoision revoking lwtilion- Isl cl.•rk to office of county clerk Muted er's license as aircraft pilot in hnxinesx of that xhc tvax guilty of misconduct iti re- pest control wnx reversed and ense re moving public records from tho files and mnuded to trial oourt wilh directions to anti lating and xecreling them on vnrloux rnntntid cuxc to director fur purpose of dates, wlicream ill hcaring heforo.county I reconxideriug the penalty previously im- civil service eoiiunixxlon evidence vita in- posed, where it wan found that some of troduced..only ns to what- took place on rhu charges against petitioner wern not one of the dates, did not require the (lia- xnpported by evidence. Wingfield v. I riot court ol. appenl on nl•peal front judg- Director of Agriculture 0072) M Cal. ment att'nrdiug senior tylti.,t clerk writ of Rptr.619, 20 C.A.3d 200. mandate, nftee reversing the Judgmeut of t'roceediug for rnvlcw of denial by coin- to superior court, to reoinnd the matter misafoner of cnrliorntlons of permit to to the. commission for rt-onsideralion, chmsi o voting rights of r permit tl,.to whop. there wax n similaril v of facts stir- change he voting remanded t xuprris court. for rounding renv,vnl of tit[, documents on all wouldetermination whether there was subminn= ty(if the dales. I'rett v. Lux .\ugelex ) :18 2 Iial evidence to support e n inibeioner's Civil �ervic l'onttnibbiuu (195`l) 38 fiudings, where court improperly deter- P.2d3; 108 C.A.2d lid. 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and tarty defined; or- dinance or•resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency', other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of. the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent th-.-reof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ i of .mandate pursuant to such section is filed ',,,ithin the time limits.specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the g0th day following the date on which the decision becomes final.r If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decisi%> is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tion can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- arit to.any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall N, prepared by hic loc.,tl agerlc,y or ils t•onlillis!;ioll, board, offit'er, or agent which . in,tde the decision and shall be dr.livered to the petitioner within 90 days ,after he has filed it written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such-record shall include the tran- Script of ihu proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 • Autt'orized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including.. G public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange .: 'County, CardomEa, Number A-8214, September 29, 1961, and A-24831`June 11,1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA a,p� County of Orange am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY v PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa,- , County of Orange;State of Cafifomia, and that . attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine,the South Coast communities and ___ - ``J�► PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE' Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit Main street, Huntington NOTICE OF 'Beach;California 92648,for the issue(s)of: PUBLIC HEARING 'inspection by the public. ' APPEAL OF ALL- INTERESTED-PER-' PLANNING ' SONS are invited to attend COMMISSION'S: .APPROVAL OF ..'said public hearing and,ex=, Mart^h 8, 1990 CONDITIONAL' press opinions or submit EXCEPTION evidence for or against the application as. outlined' (VARIANCE) _ above. If there' are 'any( NO.89-63 further questions please call+ (TO CONSTRUCT Herb Fauland, Assistant! AFIREPLACE) planner at 536-5271. NOTICE IS HEREBY , Connie Brockway, :City' GIVEN that the Huntington Clerk; City of. Huntington Beach City Council will hold 'Beach a public hearing in the Coun- I Published Orange Coast! cil .Chamber at .the Hunt- !Daily Pilot March 8,1990 ington Beach Civic Center,. Th237 2000 Main Street, Hunt- ington Beach,California,on li—_----=�' the date and at the time in- dicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be !heard relative to the appli- . cation described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 19, 1990,7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: IC,onclitional Exception(Vari- declare, under penalty of perjury, that the !a APPEL89-63 Sarah foregoing Is true and correct. Donavan � � APPLICANT:Larry Cubit LOCATION:211 Crest Av- enue. Executed on Marich g� 199 0 ZONE: R1 (Low Density !Residential) . /� REQUEST:To construct,a at Co Mesa,Callfoml !fireplace within -nine (9) inches of an interior' side ;yard property line in lieu of ;the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110.7(a)of the Huntington Signature Beach Ordinance Code.- , ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically ex- empt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1-of the Cali- 'fornia Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the (� proposed request is on file the Community Develop- ment Department, 2000 , PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 (TO CONSTRUCT A FIREPLACE) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 19 , 1990 , 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-63 APPELLANT: Sarah Dunavan APPLICANT: Larry Cubit LOCATION: 211 Crest Avenue ZONE: R1 (Low Density Residential) REQUEST: To construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior side yard property line .in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 , for inspection by the .public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Herb Fauland, Assistant Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach (4750d) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 (TO CONSTRUCT A FIREPLACE) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 19 , 1990, 7: 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 APPELLANT: Sarah Dunavan APPLICANT: Larry Cubit LOCATION: 211 Crest Avenue ZONE: R1 (Low Density Residential) REOUEST: To construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Herb Fauland, Assistant Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach (4750d) £' 024-0$2-20 024-082-21 024-082-22 1'401WER S KIRALLA RUTHE GORMAN GRAYDON R ZWILLING 1010 Ocean Avenue P.O. Box 615 2632 N. Flower Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92706 024-083-03 024-083-04 024-072-08 PHILIP J LAYTON STEVEN LUZZI JON R THORNTON 824 Lake Street 822 Lake Street 743 1/2 Main Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-072-09 024-072-10 024-272-11 ROBERT P MANDIC CAROLYN M THORNTON HAROLD L WEBB 12689 Lanakila Lane 737 Main Street 733 Main Street Garden Grove, CA92641 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-072-12 024-072-13 024-072-14 ALLAN W DIES NORMAN HUNIU WILLIAM B WHITAKER 731 Main Street 727 Main Street 719 Main Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-072-15 024-081-19 PAUL W GODDARD WILLIAM F TAYLOR 717 Main Street 16114 Bonaire Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92649 i I I - i j i I NP r a 7 I LABELS 12/28/89 (4418d) i 024-081-01 024-081-02 024-081-03 GLEN S BURCHFIELD GERALD G AUBERT GERALD L PERKINS P.O. Box 883 936 10th Street 930 loth Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-081-04 024-081-05 024-081-06 MARTY PIONTKOWSKI WILLIAM WICKLIFFE PHILIP A MARCIANO 928 loth Street 1485 W. Flower Avenue 918 loth Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Fullerton, CA 92633 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-081-11 024-081-17 024-081-18 MARTHA H PICKERING LARRY BAILEY CHARLES E SURI 224 Crest Avenue 232 Crest Avenue 804 Main Street Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-081-23 024-081-27 024-082-01 DAVID K JONES CHENGSAN B KUO LANCE MARTIN JACOT 206 Crest Avenue 175 Avenida La Cuesta 215 Crest Avenue Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 San Clemente, CA 92672 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-082-02 024-082-03 024-082-04 LAWRENCE W CUBIT SARAH J DUNAVAN JOSEF E WUERER 211 Crest Street 209 Crest Avenue 2134 N. Greenleaf St . Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 90706 024-082-05 024-082-06 024-082-07 FRITZ KARL WANKA CLARENCE EUGENE MCMANUS VICKEN BEZJIAN 201 Crest Avenue 737 Lake Street 10051 Cabo Drive Hunt . Bch. , CA 92647 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Westminster, CA 92683 024-082-08 024-082-09 024-082-13 GERALD E CARBONE SEMON KASPAROFF ERNEST H GISLER c/o Thomas Teraoka 212 N. Taylor Avenue 760 Main Street 16872 Bolsa Chica St . #202 Montebello, CA 90640 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92649 024-082-14 024-082-15 024-082-16 TOM YUAN-TONG LIANG KANG WANG LEO J VANDERHORST 18362 Oxboro Lane 752 Main Street 823 Frankfort Avenue Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 024-082-17 024-082-18 024-082-19 KATHLEEN A KIRALLA CHRIS E FOSTER EDNA L KAAE 742 Main Street P.O. Box 5613 734 Main Street Hunt , Bch. , CA 92648 Los Alamitos , CA 90721 Hunt . Bch. , CA 92648 I i AC62J301/FM CTL 0004815 06-20-89 9:24 PM 1989-90 CITY/DISTRICT PARCEL LIST PAGE 164 DISTRICT NUMBER: 054A HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE 024-072-22 FUNKHOUSER, BETTY C 024-072-30 HERMANSEN, CHARLES TR 024-081-02 AUBERT, GERALD G 04-001 904 PALM AVE 04-001 SUITE 312 04-001 936 LOTH ST j HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 16561 BOLSA CHICA ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 4-072-31 HERMANSEN 024 072-23 WILLIAMS, NORMAN V 02 , CHARLES TR 024-081-03 PERKINS, GERALD L 04-001 900 PALM AVE 04-001 SUITE 312 04-001 930 LOTH ST HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 16561 .BOLSA CHICA ST HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 024-072-24 BERG, DWAYNE M 024-072-32 HERMANSEN, CHARLES TR 024-081-04 PIONTKOWSKI, MARTY 04-001 15428 LA MIRADA BLVD 04-001 SUITE 312 04-001 . 928 LOTH ST LA MIRADA, CA 90638 16561 BOLSA CHICA ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 024-0.72-25 BORKENHAGEN, DAVID E 024-072-33 HERMANSEN, CHARLES TR 024-081-05 WICKLIFFE, WILLIAM 04-001 623 13TH ST 04-001 SUITE 312 04-001 1485 W FLOWER AVE HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 16561 BOLSA CHICA ST FULLERTON, CA 92633 i HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 024-072-27 CASE, CHARLES P 024-072-34 HERMANSEN, CHARLES TR 024-081-06 MARCIANO, PHILIP A TR 04-001 602 RUXTON AVE 04-001 SUITE 312 04-001 918 LOTH ST MANITOU SPRINGS, CO 80829 16561 BOLSA CHICA ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 024-072-28 FALABELLA, BARBARA J 024-072-35 HERMANSEN, CHARLES TR 024-081-07 PORTER, PAUL C 04-001 ET AL 04-001 SUITE 312 04-001 914 LOTH ST 814 PALM AVE 16561 BOLSA CHICA ST HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 024-072-29 HERMANSEN, CHARLES TR 024-081-01 BURCHFIELD, GLEN S 024-081-08 CASILLAS, FRED H 04-001 SUITE 312 04-001 P 0 BOX 883 04-001 912 LOTH ST 16531 BOLSA CHICA ST COSTA MESA, CA 92627 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 p:Yf?fC37i.^u Z_a.r'..@..tn kA:_,vv.c.a ,. .. .. ...•pr`_. u°.C:>r„ .. s.t- .e ._ ,. ...... r, � ! p7Ayx• AC62J301/FM CTL 0004816 06-20-89 9:24 PM 1989-90 CITY/DISTRICT PARCEL LIST PAGE 165 DISTRICT NUMBER: O54A HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE 024-081-11 PICKERING, MARTHA H 024-081-20 TAYLOR, WILLIAM F TR 024-082-03 DUNAVAN, SARAH J 04-001 224 CREST AVE 04-001 XDEPT PATHOLOGY 04-001 209 CREST AVE HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 1100 W STEWART DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 ORANGE, CA 92668 024-081-13 GOMES, JULIUS J 024-081-23 JONES, DAVID K 024-082-04 WUERER, JOSEF E 04-001 906 LOTH ST 04-001 206 CREST AVE 04-001 2134 N GREENLEAF ST HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 SANTA ANA, CA 92706 024-081-15 POPPA, DANIEL HARVEY 024-081-25 GALITZEN, DONALD D TR 024-082-05 WANKA, FRITZ KARL TR 04-001 %POPPA, RAYMOND 04-001 9770 JAMES RIVER CIR 04-001 201 CREST AVE 1602 N LOUISE ST FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 SANTA ANA, CA 92706 024-081-16 CLARK, BETTY J 024-081-26 GALITZEN, DONALD D TR 024-082-06 MC MANUS, CLARENCE EUGENE 04-001 806 MAIN ST 04-001 9770 JAMES RIVER CIR 04-001 TR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 737 LAKE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-081-17 BAILEY, LARRY TR 024-081-27 KUO, CHENGSAN B 024-082-07 BEZJIAN, VICKEN TR 04-001 232 CREST AVE 04-001 175 AVENIDA LA CUESTA 04-001 10051 CABO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, -CA 92648 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 024-081-18 SURI, CHARLES E 024-082-01 JACOT, LANCE MARTIN 024-082-08 CARBONE, GERALD E 04-001 804 MAIN ST 04-001 215 CREST AVE 04-001 %THOMAS TERADKA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 16872 BOLSA CHICA ST 4202 HUNTINGTON BEACH, , CA 92649 • 024-081-19 TAYLOR, WILLIAM F TR 024-082-02 GU8IT, LAWRENCE W 024-082-09 KASPAROFF, SEMON 04-001 16114 BONAIRE 04-001 211 CREST ST 04-001 212 N TAYLOR AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 t •iw'S AC62J301/FM CTL 0004817 06-20-89 9:24 PM 1989-90 CITY/DISTRICT PARCEL LIST PAGE 166 DISTRICT NUMBER: 054A HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE 024-082-12 HUNTINGTON BEACH MASONIC 024-082-19 KAAE, EDNA L 024-082-27 CHURCH, INTERNATIONAL OF 04-001 BLDG ASSN 04-001 734 MAIN ST 04-001 THE FOUR SQUARE GOSPEL 601' PALM ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 715 LAKE ST HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-082-13 GISLER, ERNEST H TR 024-082-20 KIRALLA, MONYER S TR 024-082-28 GALKIN, GEORGE J 04-001 760 MAIN ST 04-001 1010 OCEAN AVE 04-001 708 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-082-14 LIANG, TOM YUAN-TONG 024-082-21 GORMAN, RUTHE 024-082-29 FARWELL, LEO W 04-001 18362 OXBORO LN 04-001 P 0 BOX 615 04-001 714 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-082-15 WANG, KANG 024-082-22 T_WILLING, GRAYDON R 024-083-02 MENDEZ, ARTHUR D 04-001 752 MAIN ST 04-001 2632 N FLOWER 04-001 826 LAKE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 SANTA ANA, CA 92706 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-082-16 VANDERHORST, LEO J 024-082-23 EVA L MUCH FAMILY TRUST 024-083-03 LAYTON, PHILIP J 04-001 823 FRANKFORT AVE 04-001 718 MAIN ST 04-001 824 LAKE ST HUNTINGTN BCH, CA •- 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-082-17 KIRALLA, KATHLEEN A 024-082-25 MC KIE, DOYLE E 024-083-04 LUZZI, STEVEN 04-001 742 MAIN ST 04-001 1546 OMALLEY 04-001 822 LAKE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 UPLAND, CA 91786 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-082-18 FOSTER, CHRIS E 024-082-26 LICHTER, LEONARD E 024-083-06 GORSKI, JUDITH A 04-001 PO BOX 5613 04-001 17111 BEACH BLVD #205 04-001 832 LAKE ST LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90721 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 ,.S rti:gi$` •xc;d:;-J!,;:.,:; .. - ... i.011"• :;*a - &4N7-e.::3x,::'.!^ - .srp:+:• AC62J301/FM CTL 0004814 06-20-89 9:24 PM 1989-90 CITY/DISTRICT PARCEL LIST PAGE 163 DISTRICT NUMBER: 054A HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY PARCEL .NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE ,.3 ' 024-071-13 ROWE, RICHARD B 024-072-06 COX ENTERPRISES INC 024-072-13 HUNIU, NORMAN 04-.001 328 CREST AVE 04-001 5366 DUNCANNON AVE 04-001 727 MAIN ST a HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 WEST.MINSTER, CA 92683 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 8 3 ,'` if 024-071-14 ALLEN, ROBERT H TR 024-072-07 ALLEN, ROBERT R 024-072-14 WHITAKER, WILLIAM B 04-001 XMITCHELL, PATRICIA H TR 04-001 P 0 BOX 610 04-001 719 MAIN ST 4147 GARDENIA AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 LONG BEACH, CA 90807 i .024-07Z-01 WORTHINGTON, JOHNNIE M 024-072-08 THORNTON, JON R 024-072-15 GODDARD, PAUL W I, 04-001 755 MAIN ST 04-001 743 1/2 MAIN ST 04-001 717 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 024-072-02 TIBBEN, RICHARD W 024-072-09 MANDIC, ROBERT P 024-072-16 KING, WILLIAM C 04-001 307 CREST AVE 04-001 12689 LANAKILA LN 04-001 713 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 GARDEN GROVE, CA 92641 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-072-03 CARBECK, HELEN N 024-072-10 THORNTON, CAROLYN M 024-072-17 DAVIS, PAUL 04-001 311 CREST AVE 04-001 737 MAIN ST 04-001 711 MAIN ST i HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-072-04 ROBINSON, KENNETH G 024-072-11 WEBB, HAROLD L 024-072-18 BECHTOLD, ROBERT .W 04-001 P 0 BOX 7015 04-001 735 MAIN ST 04-001 707 MAIN ST LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92677 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-072-05 JACOBSEN, JOHN A 024-072-12 DIES, ALLAN tJ 024-072-21 GIPPLE, RICHMOND C 04-001 904 ACACIA AVE #B 04-001 7:1 MAIN ST 04-001 906 PALM AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 KNOWIL L E 9 (ABA ND. P. E O R.R. ,v/w) 24—oH AVE. 60 20 y R£C/PROC 4(. DRIVE /7 /8 /9 20 \ h - 17 I. * PAR./ IA/�2 PARS $ o OH� 5 SSE I48-30-2d-/ Q �1 0 7 00 o � N o o - a7AC 8L K. 804 0 C. N T ry 60, ate, t x. 33.7s 31.87' 31.87' 3b•59 38. SO' 'h L' a L E STREET _ T, --o- \ WESLEY ' 3s 's 5 PARK - - - ----- 38 7- fri .\ V — ti� \` \ \ `` O \� \�a/5 3 AU �\// 9 j 2 u (0� �zr \ �,5 \ \ \!7 4 '\ --- -- 3 /3 --- ?� 3 \. \ , / /9 /O O /5 c \� 6 \\ \\ \\ 27,25 23 /6 /4 \2 \\ 4S•� tis 15 ' <zso --- ------ 3 \ \29 /8 \ \ 25 -- - v /7-------- \\ '\\4/ 39\37 35\3 AL�� 28\26 4 ,22 \\ \\ \\ \; 28 �\ ,r �BL R /9 SO5 p Q a 43 32 \ \ \ 29 \\ yCu 105,85' 5%49 45 4 p 38 36 ri4 ��K / 23 l� L� ---- S --- 2/ 7T-- ,`R \\B•3v 46 44 \42 `� J' MAIN (i =z ISO' 3 5' 23 03.24' ir- \5C 481`\ " , ` b ''� \ , \ STREET S:EP 2 6 1989 141.50' S2, l9 �1 r - --- ---29 24 20 \54 77 Iy"' `='� 55\5. DEPARTMENT OF - 141.5o, 28 \` UNITY DEVELOPMENT Iso' 27 rs \ \ �5 o s , \ ' \ \ STR 1 .w^. 14 /2 V 57l\14 x s,.- \I8 /6 \ \ \ \ \\ \\ is S �� I•� o `s • O\ 15 pg \ 2526 0 \ $o w fix'••; 601 \ POR. SI�2 N��2 SEC. II T. 6S. R. ��W. THIS TRAP WAS PREPARED FOR ORANGE COUNTY st > > > > ASSESSOR DEPT.PURPOSES ONLY.THE ASSESSOR A I N MAKES NO GUARANTEE AS TO ITS ACCURACY NOR I's _ '. ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY FOR OTHER USES. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED- t< '.t COPYRIGHT ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR 1988. "_M_,* 4� MARCH 1948 HUNTINGTON BEACH r WESLEY PARK SECT/ON Al. M. 4-/7 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & ASSESSOR'S MAP r y ,� TRACT.NO. /0809 Al M. .468-29,30,3/ PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 24 PAGE08 PARCEL` IWAP P. M. '/52-47 SHOWN -IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE a ' .n- Car':.,.,ey�T�'-eL.....�i._ • ..•,may Y+�.+.b.-saw_ - - .. '.-,. r:ii[e.:" 'wv •'rys•.-.�.e�+.ra'-r'Gi {lid -• Tfii8 MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ORANGE dhkiY ASSESSOR DEFT PURPOSES ONLY 714EASS039DR " MAKES NO QUARANTEE AS TO ITS ACCURACY MR _.e.: ABSVMES'ANY,:UABiIlTY FOR OTM61 NOT:. T+O CED.E ALL RIGHTS USES,NOT O OR COUMfY ASSESSOR 1997 17 b ao _ 6� P, I 0 .! z.-, ys• I 15 ,30 t 16 y :�:..: ,• . � s �� , 11 ze�25 t4E 2� � IIZ 6 MAIN ti 0.4 31 7b' , - o) ,. ' 6 � 25 24 23 8. . . � \4`0 h h , B 6• 6 29 21 2 m 6- 45 r 14 1 0 �� 0 31 3o s_ N` 16 3 �s 441z' 6a 0 * 4 \ A• 38 3� •:Y. 39n0 20 \ a 6Q 42 ems% 40 33s s ,t 41 ^rF I V E D col �. x 04 'EP 2 6 1989 s IL 0 {o DEPARTMENT OF [i CITY;DEVELOPMERTi NOTE — ASSESSORS BLOCK B ASSESSORS MAP t` SHOWN"IN CIRCLES COUNT `::119ARCH 1945 :: HUNTIAAgWN=BEACH; WE�Y PARK:SEC. ,hf. M. 4-I7 _ PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 24 P.AGE 07 � - ' OF ORANGE ' a. A..a6-.• ,.. r1."C.:1'...4K w.rvr'...,..^.3.W.ifk. Bc' 'r'tlt.. ,w.ilA. _-. -._.. _.;:,-_.c a 3'3-.,.nth`.,•'.<:.: _.... ,i:. .• +yc_,»'-.,< .. k.•c",rr 'Z -w'a.3. :.,y.;.a:. :.:,..k:.s ,z<r ^.z,...:-a-....,, .e"...r_.n.t Office of the City Clerk _ • r epGT01, J. City of Huntington Beach _�� q __� f �tl.S.POS7Ga� a PRESORT rAMR 1 2 '7ri s c� 3=_ 4 9 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 926U FIRST CLASS ®®��BV�AIl 8013ui?18 - 4 ti Ggr1F/ v � gn ' 6 C r 024-081 3 U Reside 206 est Avenue Hu ington Beach, CA 92648 f ❑ INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS ATTEMPTED, UNKNOWN n E`SO SUCF iuJNiaER L • :.� Sao.� 4 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March .19, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ( ip Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developmen Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Sarah Dunavan to the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 . Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 is a request to construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches- of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7(a) . RECOMMENDATION• Planning Commission Action on January 23 , 1990 : A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECONDED BY MOUNTFORD, TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Mountford, Shomaker, Williams, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Findings for Approval : 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district. The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (R1) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width. The existing residence is provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . Plo 5185 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the pubic health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards, adequate access in emergency situations is provided. The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintained adequate light, air, ventilation and emergency access, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood. 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light, air, ventilation and access . 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 of the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7. The applicant is willing to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No. 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. Conditions of Approval 1. The site plan received and dated October 2, 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a. The applicant shall submit fully dimensioned elevations which depict height, materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection. b. The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board' s recommendations; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace. 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace. RCA 3/19/90 -2- (4823d) 3 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear. No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side yard. 4 . The southern interior side yard to the rear of the proposed fireplace shall be kept free and clear. No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the southerly side yard. 5 . 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. 6 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and the Fire Department. 7. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. 8 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Exception No. 89-63 if any violations of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the action taken by the Planning Commission on January 23, 1990 by denying the appeal . ANALYSIS• The applicant initially requested approval and was issued a building permit to allow the seismic reinforcement of an existing fireplace with non-conforming sideyard setbacks on October 23 , 1989 . Upon receipt of a complaint by the Land Use Division, an inspection by Land Use and the Building Division was conducted. The inspection revealed that the applicant was substantially rebuilding a new fireplace and as a result was increasing the non-conforming sideyard setback for the existing fireplace approximately 6 to 8—inches . A suspension of the building permit was issued and the applicant was directed to apply for a conditional exception (variance) to the Zoning Administrator. On December 13, 1989 the Zoning Administrator approved Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 with findings and conditions of approval allowing the fireplace to be located within 9 inches of the interior property line. The Zoning Administrator ' s analysis of the proposal and the exception to the minimum thirty (30) inch setback for the fireplace involved the following issues: 1) adequate emergency access, 2) adequate light, air and ventilation and 3) the possible detrimental effect of the proposed fireplace on the pubic health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. RCA 3/19/90 -3- (4823d) City departments conducted on-site inspections to insure all health and safety issues were met. The Fire Department noted that if the opposite sideyard and access from the alley is maintained they would be satisfied. The Building Division' s review of the construction indicated that the proposal is in compliance with all building code requirements . Planning concerns addressed the fireplace' s location, effect on adjacent properties and if the proposal provides adequate light, air and ventilation. As proposed, the applicant ' s fireplace will not be detrimental to the adjacent property or neighborhood. Adequate light, air and ventilation will be provided and all health and safety issues have been complied with. On January 23, 1990, the Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator ' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 by denying the appellants appeal . The appellant, Sarah Dunavan is appealing the Planning Commission' s action based upon the findings for approval for the conditional exception (variance) and that the fireplace will be a safety hazard, an encroachment, and have a detrimental effect on her property. Section 9811. 1. 1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires that several findings of fact be made prior to granting a conditional exception. In reviewing the applicant ' s request, the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission noted that the subject property is non-conforming as to lot width and lot area for R1 (Low Density Residential) zoned property. The minimum lot width for R1 zoned property is 60 feet, (the -subject property has approximately 25 feet of lot width) and the minimum lot area is 6,000 sq.ft. (the subject property has approximately 2, 825 sq. ft. of lot area) . The existing development of the neighborhood consists of single family residences on 50 foot wide lots. However, the two properties involved in this case are developed with single family residences on 25 foot wide lots. Based upon the applicant and appellants current lot width and lot area and the interior side yard setback requirements for R1 zoned property, any proposed architectural features, and/or. fireplace would require the discretionary review and approval of a conditional exception (variance) to the Zoning Administrator for encroachment into the side yard setback. FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may overturn the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-.63 by granting the appellants appeal by denying the conditional exception (variance) with findings . RCA 3/19/90 -4- (4823d) THE COLSTADT CO. o L� C� � f1dL� . D MAY 4 1990 March 15 , 1990 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Re ; Conditional Exception CITY, COUNCIL OFFICE ( Variance ) No. 89-63 Construction of Fireplace 211 Crest Avenue . Honorable Mayor Ton Mays and City Council =Members Dear Mayor Mays Having been an active Realtor since 1962 and resident of the City of Huntington Beach since 1957 it is my opinion that the Fireplace construction will not have a detrimental effect on the area or property values in the area . Dave Jones , a long time resident of Huntington Beach , wanted Larry and Megan Cubit to own this property . He was aware of their intentions to not destroy the house but to rehab and make it more modern and not loose it' s charm. I am sure if you deny this appeal , the rehab when completed, will be an asset to the neighborhood and the City of Huntington Beach . Respectfully submitted. Charles V . Col x c�rnm J o ' GJ T �n n 18652 FLORIDA STREET,SUITE 100, HUNTINGI'ON BEACH,CA. 92648 (714) 536-8874 3q D MAY' 4 1990 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Dear Sirs: CITY. COUNCIL OFFICE I am writing this letter on behalf of Larry Cubit who re- sides at 211 Crest St. in Huntington Beach. He is adding a fire place as part of a remodeling project. I have driven by the house many times since I live nearby and think it is great that he is remodeling rather than tearing down this house. I watched the city council meeting the night of the hearing on the fireplace and was amazed that his varience was turned down. The neighbor who is complaining should come to my neigh- borhood on Alabama St . Everyone complained about the variance given to the three story condo project on Lake St. which backs up to my house to no avail . It wiped out my ocean view and now the sun sets approximately two hours earlier each day. This neighbor should look at what could be done to the property on a tear down vs a remodel and thank Larry for his efforts including the fireplace. In conclusion I support the remodeling including the fire- place and hope the city in future will support this type of action to keep the old houses along with the new preserve the character of Old Huntington Beach. Thank you. Sincerely Mel Heckman i� C= 1 x� c May 4, 1990 -�- G�i -<n m To the City Council of Huntington Beach, I am writing this letter in support of Larry and Megan Cubits ' efforts to save and renovate one of the older houses in the downtown area. The older houses are steadily disappear- ing in favor of the new two and three story variety. I have seen the improvements that the Cubits' have made, and given what the house used to look like and what could have been built there, their neighbor ought to be happy. The fireplace has been approved by the Building Department, and the Planning Commission. I would like to encourage the Council to support the efforts of people trying to save some of the history of Huntington Beach. Respectfully, Catherine Babic /po 7/ -; thirtieth street a z architects inc. May 2, 1990 Mr, and Mrs. Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cubit: It was a pleasure to meet with you and review the rehabilitation/remodel to your house. As I mentioned, my visit was strictly as a volunteer interested in the preservation of historic structures. Our firm has been involved with preservation projects in the Western United States for over fourteen years and we have worked on over 50 structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. We have also been fortunate to win sixteen awards from various organizations for preservation work including the California Preservation Foundation and the American Institute of Architects. In reviewing your project it appears the major question of concern is the re- placement fireplace and chimney at the side of the house. I understand that the original fireplace housed only a gas grille which simulated a fireplace and that the original chimney did not contain a flue. This is very common to houses built in the 1920's and we have worked on a number of rehabilitations in which the Owners wish to replace the existing imitation fireplace with a real wood burning fireplace. The design of your new fireplace and chimney complements the Spanish Colonial style of your house. This new fireplace is an important addition to the house for it adds an element valuable to future owners which will allow the house to be used for many more years without the thought of demolition and replacement. The demolition of historic homes and neighborhoods is one of the biggest con- cern in the preservation community nationwide. At the State Preservation architecture historical rehabilitation planning 2821 newport blvd. newport beach, california 92663 fax (714) 673-8547 (714) 673-2643 Conference in San Francisco at the end of April, over 60% of the sessions dealt with the preservation of historic homes and neighborhoods. A re-ocurring theme in preservation is the necessity to accept that old buildings often times need spe- cial considerations when being evaluated using modern planning and building codes. Design guidelines in Historic Districts often times allow setback encroach- ments for building additions or parking to encourage reuse of older buildings. The approach of rehabilitating your 1920's home versus demolition and new construction is to be complimented for retaining a piece of the historic fabric of the City. The rehabilitation work is consistent with the style of the house and will insure that the home is a valuable and functional home for many more years. Sincerely, Jres . Wilson Pl 211 Crest Avenue •Page 2 RECEIVED riTY CLERK r!TY OF HUNT1NG i t rii,CALIF. say t� iwl 21 06 u"_i 3 June 20, 1990 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Herb Fauland 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 RE: Variance #89-63 Dear Herb; Herb, could you please submit to me, in writing, the terms of condition for the removal of the fireplace located at 211 Crest Ave. In a letter submitted to Mr. Cubii dated 5-9-90, he was given 90 days to either tear down the existing structure or take the matter to court. I would like to know if this has to be accomplished within the 90 day period or does he have 91 days to act. 1 would also like to know if Mr. Cubit has any other recourse but to tear the chimney down or go to court, and if you know that they are going to court. I would appreciate this information at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Sarah Dunavan 209 Crest Ave. Hunt. Bch, CA. 92648 CITY OF HUNTIIVGTOIV BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 9, 1990 Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Cubit: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held May 7, 1990, denied with findings, your application relative to Conditional Exception (Variance) 89-63. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedures of the State of California you have ninety days from May 9, 1990, to apply to the courts for judicial review. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway City Clerk CB:me CC: City Administrator City Attorney Community Development Director Sarah Dunavan 1051 K (Telephone:714-536-5227) § 1094.5 si"ECIAL i'ROCEEDINGS Part 3 Note.378 oomiled for now trial de tloto. Prescnd t. minnl count, i-:.;loner hnd uo juris,lirtion t'nlifornin via-inplo*•oient ttos. .\liln•nlx Itd. nil did not deternilut,niorits, Western Air (1:1711) 127 Col.flptr, 510, 57 t'.:\.itd 20, I.luex luc. v, Sobieski (11161) 13 Cnl.ltptr. Trial court'S Jndgnteul d,•nting well of 710, 101 C.A.241 31)0. nrttndnte to compel director of itgriruitnro 11'uct. that. letter discharging senior tyl,- In Het nxi,le his decision recokiug.petilinn- Ist clerk in office, of count) clerk tituted er's license its nircrafr pilot iu homittexx of Ihnt She wax guilty of ntisronduct in re- peat control wax rererxed and ense re otociug public records from tho files and mnutled to trial court with directions to mutHlating and Secreting them on various remand case to director for pttrltot. . of dutes, wiiorens ill hearing before County l reconsidering the penalty previously inn- civil service volmnismion evidence was in- posed, where it was found that some of traduced only no to Mint look place on thu charges against petitioner worn not ono of the dates, did nol require the diS- Supported by evidence. Wingfield t•. I rlet court of nlipenl on nl,pral front judg- Direc•tor of Agriculture (1072) llrs Col. rnent nwordiop; senior typi,t clerk writ of L'ptr.619,20 C.A.&1 200. mandate, often reversing tho Judgment of Proccedlug for review of dt•ninl by coin- the Superior rnurt, to rentnnd the matter roNsioner of corporations of permit to to the c•omnnission for re,•ouaideration, chnnge voting rights of Shareholders whcro there wax n mhoilaril' of facts Sur- would be rcntnnded to superior court for rounding retnoviii of the documents on all deternlinntion whether there tuns suhslan- (if the dater. Prot v, LuS Angeles Coun- tial evidence to Support connnisetouur's ty Civil `ercie n Commissiou (1952) 238 findings, where court .improperly deter- P.2d 3, 108 C.A.2d M. § 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local Agerit_ies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and tarty defined; or- dinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency•, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent th-. reof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094:5 of this code only if the petition for writ;of mandate pursuant to such section is filed 't:'ithin the time limits:specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for- the purposes of this section, the decisi%> is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tion can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- arit to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The coniple(e record of the proceedings shall 1w prepared by Ille local '1golicy or if, conulliti!;ioll, board, officer, or agent which made the decision and shrill be doliverel to the 1letilioller within 90 Buys lifter he has filed it written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tran- Script of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 1 James B. Green Architect (Retirad > 447 1-gle Circle Costa Mesa, CA. 92827 City OF Huntington beach Planning Commission Jan. 21 , 1990 Ref. : Planning Commission meeting Tue. 1 /23/90 agenda item # C 2, Honorable Planning Commission Members : Attention has been called to agenda item # C 2 regarding violations of City Codes and Regulations in construction on property located at 211 Crest, Huntington Beach. Should adherence to governing regulations not be required in this instance will exemption also be allowed in the next similar case ? How about the one after that , etc. ? Citizens in all communities are becoming very concerned about an advancing trano toward acceptance of exemptions to regulations and laws in governmental actions. On this particular item The Planning Commission is respect- fully requested to recomand removal of construction which was : ( 1 ) Dons with a permit obtained after the fact and obtained by false statements as to existing conditions. / 2\ Done without required building department inspections. ( 3) Done without regard to side-yard regulations and reduces the side-yard to only nine inches. =z = � r.. - Sincerely, rn JAmse B. Green ,r 01 James B. Green 447 Ogle Circle PH q � ! Costa Mesa, CA. 92627 Connie Brockway, CITY CLERK City Of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 D11-7 1- I - A°0-- 1y10 Pine St.raat Huntington Baach, MCA 92648 -� c A pr i 1 16, 1,912N0 ' -+ ZZ Mayor Tom Mays City of Huntington Beach �` < m 2000 Main Street. � T C:)�rn Hunt.i n ton Reach MCA 92648 Dear Mr . Mayor , ) +, You and the: City Council have the cYppQrt.unit.y at your May 7tia meeting t.o right a wrong. Sarah Dunovan has been made: out as a villain due to the: conat.ruct.ion of a fireplace, by her newt door neighbors, Mr. and Kra. Larry Cubit. The: fireplace is adjacent- to Mrs. LDunovan•'s property and severely imrpact.a her privacy and prapert.y rights. This fireplace was "bootlegg&.d"--it was constructed without. the REQUIRED and LAWFUL permits. These permits are: raquired by law t.o inaure• that &veryone•'s rights are guaranteed. Alt.hough Mr. Ridenour, who built the fireplace , told the: council t.hat. he canatructed the: structure: well and safely-- the: city can not guarantee the safety of the: construction because no inspections were made by city officials. Mrs. LDunavan even went to the: city planning department to sea if she: could build a similar structure- an her property and was told, in every cane, that a fireplace in that particular location was unlawful and would not be permitted. It was only until Mrs. Dunavan told the staff that her neighbors were in the process of constructing a similar fireplaca t1vat the city even found out about it.. The fireplace is wrong and it goes against our city codas-- 'Codes and laws which you and the: caunci 1 must. Uphold. Your deni4l of the: fireplace is required by law'. It. would be a terrible mriatake for the: council to reverse itself and allow the fireplace to remain. The: public will interpret this as a message- that the council will not. enforce: city building codes and soon we will see the: public building projects that could compromise public health and safety because they will not get. the necessary parmit.s. Now, becaua.e of Jerry Same, Mr. and Mrs. Cubit are getting a SEeC+L M D chance to be heard. Why T Councilmen Er sk i nee and MacAllister heard the: same arguments that I did. Mrs. � � u IDunovan, Mr . and Mrs. Cubit, and the city staff all presented their case before you--cat a meeting in which each party had ample apportonity to prepare. Your decision rightly went to support Mrs. Dunavan and the: rest of the public by standing by our city cadets. Now, for soma& unexplained reason, and by lobbying on the: port. of Mr . Same and Mr. and Mrs. Cubit., this subject. is once: again camaing far a vat.e. I believe that all parties got. a fair chance: before the council previously and that. it is outrageous that the "fireplace" should come before you again for a second vote. Are we, the public, t.o expect that each time someone doesn•'t like a decision by Chet council , and lobbies the council at a later date, that the issue will once again came up for another vote? It is wrong for the: council to behave in such a careless manner and it is the wrong kind of message t.o send to the public. If Chet council is willing to hear more t.estimrany and reconsider previous decisions, I have a whole list. of issues Chat. I would like to present. for another vote--and I am sure Chat- everyone who has ever been before council would love a chance t.a bet reconsidered! Considering that Roger Work, of Chet Huntington Beach Company, successfully lobbied certain members of the: council in January and received a re-vote in his favor, I am wondering if there could be a connection in this "fireplace" issuer: I an Well aware t.hat Mr. Cubit. is. employed at the Seeacl iff Shopping Center, which the Huntingtan Beach Company owns. Mr. Ridenour also has worked for Roger Work of some HSCG funct.i ons. I do not like "backroom deals" and I think Chat. the longer this TirLplace issue is bantered back and forth, the more I Chink something is going on behind Mrs. bDunavan•'s and the- public-'s back. To date, Mrs. tDunovan has been before the: council no less Chan four (4) times pleading her case. Mrs. LDunovan has been forced to use her own resources +-v present her case when it. is the city who should be enforcing our codes and laws. Mrs. IDunovan has last not only her privacy and her propert.y rights, but. she has lost her right to live peacefully. She has, because of t.he! city.•s inaction and red'usal to enforce codes, become a villainy just for de!fe-nding hye•r rights as guarante:e:d by law. Pl&as& do th,, right. thing and vote: t.o support. our lawn. vvt.e in favor of Mrs. Dunovan, 9&t. rid of an illegal structure, and show the public that you care: about our building codes. Thank you very pouchy for your time and consideration. Since/rely, Bob Biddle: BB:jj cc: yCouncilmremabera Sarah D"novan CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH �y To Mike Adams, Community.Deyelopment From Connie Brockway, City Clerk Director Subject Request for records pertaining Date 4/18/90 to Variance No. 89-53 (fireplace) Attached is a letter from Mrs. Dunavan requesting the record of the Community Services Department's file on the .above and requesting the fee. a �r R�CEIVEG CITY CLERK. CITY OF HUNTINCITH EELCH,CALIF. APR 10 12 09 PIM '90 April 12, 1990 To: The City of Huntington Beach I would like a comp P,t?ropy of the file in the Planning Department office regarding Variance No. 89-53. Please inform me of the charge. Sarah Dunavan -7 024 `+t4 crM CIERr - �. City b of Huntington Beach (;ass �c•,�- �� Y� ,'�e.� ' •3�i i ati.S nl��;,r?i Sr`.5 sE9C s,% bI F o � BOX 190 CAL j T_�-�R ArJP.O IFORNIA 9268 ol tj 1 0 2 4-0 8 1-2 ...... _DAVID K JQ ' 206 Crest Hunt . Bch. �'�_•�:1r�-Z : : �.!1! c !��' -:�}��1 r'y� I - "' CLEO s; .t.'"•. `.�. ,. ...�.,3. 4!`!�'`jF'�'i'1�'�'{"�'��.'o}.., 'sg" a4+�.a"'� -, ^�-_` t �i City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 2 CALIFORNIA 92648!?, "' T C \ �, t ; / I of , 1 � Z ` 5 a�/ ' i to ,,nnnn 024-081-23Y\. ' DAVID K JC - 206 Crest Hunt -.. Bch -..__> ......._: office of the City Clerk C1ty of Hun - ti�Ct4 n Beach '.0.BOX I90 LtFO 92t;4g 024-081_23 Kuo Chengsan C (7 H06 t rest Avenue Tngton Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date May 7 . 19 9 0 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council MembersCn Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator b I C,{ T,rno Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Development;"�- Subject: RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPEAJ;OE� CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 Consistent with Council Policy? `/"' Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is a reconsideration of the City Council ' s approval of the appeal to the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 . The request is to construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior property line rather than the thirty (30) inch setback requirement pursuant to Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. RECOMMENDATION. City Council Action on April 2 , 1990 : A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECONDED BY MACALLISTER, TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THE ISSUE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD MARCH 19 , 1990, ON THE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 , CONSTRUCTION OF A FIREPLACE, AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE AGENDA BEING POSTED AS SPECIFIED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954 .2(b) (2) . THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell, Green, Mays, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None A MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE, SECONDED BY MACALLISTER, TO RECONSIDER THE REQUEST WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ' S NO COMMITMENT TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO GIVE A GOOD FAIR HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell, Green, Mays, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None Plo 5/85 City Co ncil Action on March 19 , 1990 : A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO GRANT THE APPEAL WITH FINDINGS. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Green, Mays, Erskine NOES MacAllister, Bannister, Silva ABSENT: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECONDED BY MAYS, TO TRAIL THE ITEM OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 FOR STAFF PREPARATION OF THE FINDINGS. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Green, Mays, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: MacAllister ABSENT: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY MAYS, SECONDED BY GREEN TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Green, Mays, Erskine NOES: MacAllister, Bannister, Silva ABSENT: None Findingg for Denial : 1 . There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district . 2 . The granting of Conditionally Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is not necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more of the substantial property rights . , 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and injurious to the land and property improvements in the neighborhood due to inadequate interior side yard for light, air, ventilation, access . 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . RCA - 5/7/90 -2- (5474d) Staff Recommendation: Overturn the action of March 19, 1990 by denying the appeal and thus approving Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-63 with findings and conditions as outlined in the Planning Commission staff report dated January 23, 1990 . Staff has continuously supported this request based upon the fact that any future design restrictions which may be required of the adjacent property would not be unique to this situation and in fact are quite common in small lot downtown developments . ANALYSIS• At the City Council meeting of April 2, 1990, staff was requested to provide information regarding the ability of the appellant (209 Crest Avenue) to construct a blockwall, a second story addition and/or a fireplace at 209 Crest Avenue. The purpose of this report is to confirm that the proposed fireplace (211 Crest Avenue) does not preclude the adjacent property owner (209 Crest Avenue) from constructing a private or common blockwall between the two properties . Also, if designed properly to meet the Uniform Building Code requirement for fireplace and building seperation, a second story addition may be constructed on either of the properties involved pursuant to the development standards of the R1 zone.' In the event the property owner at 209 Crest Avenue would like to construct a fireplace along the interior side yard of the property, with an encroachment into the setback, a conditional exception (variance) application to the Zoning Administrator would be required for discretionary review and approval . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Reaffirm action of March 19, 1990, by approving the appeal thus denying Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 with findings . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Request for City Council Action dated March 19, 1990 . MTU:MA:HF: lab RCA - 5/7/90 -3- (5474d) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March 19 , 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga , City Administrator ( u Prepared by: Michael Adams , Director of Community Development Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ j New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Sarah Dunavan to the Planning Commission ' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-63 . Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-63 is a request to construct afireplace within nine (9) 'inches of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7(a) . f, RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission Action on January 23 , 1990 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECONDED BY MOUNTFORD, TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO . 89-63 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Kirkland, Mountford, Shomaker, Williams, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega , Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None Findings for Approval : 1 . There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district . The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (Rl) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width. The existing residence is provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 1 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . P10 5/85 7 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the pubic health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood . As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards , adequate access in emergency situations is provided. The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintained adequate light , air, ventilation and emergency access , safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood. 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light , air, ventilation and access . 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 of the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side . yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the. tCity of Huntington Beach. 7 . The applicant is willing to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No . 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. Conditions of Approval 1 . The site plan received and dated October 2, 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a . The applicant shall submit fully dimensioned elevations which depict height, materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection. b. The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board ' s recommendations ; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house ' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace. 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace. a' RCA 3/19/90 -2- (4823d) 3 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear . No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side yard. 4 . The southern interior side yard to the rear of the proposed fireplace shall be kept free and clear . No additions , architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the southerly side yard . 5 . 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. 6 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and the Fire Department . 7 . The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards . 8 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Exception No . 89-63 if any violations of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the action taken by the Planning Commission on January 23 , 1990 by denying the i appeal . ANALYSIS: The applicant initially requested approval and was issued a building permit to allow the seismic reinforcement of an existing fireplace with non-conforming sideyard setbacks on October 23 , 1989 . Upon receipt of a complaint by the Land Use Division, an inspection by Land Use and the Building Division was conducted . The inspection revealed that the applicant was substantially rebuilding a new fireplace and as a result was increasing the non-conforming sideyard setback for the existing fireplace approximately 6 to 8—inches . A suspension of the building permit was issued and the applicant was directed to apply for a conditional exception (variance) to the Zoning Administrator . On December 13 , 1989 the Zoning Administrator approved Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-63 with findings and conditions of approval allowing the fireplace to be located within 9 inches of the interior property line . The Zoning Administrator ' s 'analysis of the proposal and the exception to the minimum thirty (30) inch setback for the fireplace involved the following issues : 1) adequate emergency access , 2) adequate light , air and ventilation and 3) the possible detrimental effect of the proposed fireplace on the pubic health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood . NY RCA 3/19/90 -3- (4823d) City departments conducted on-site inspections to insure all health and safety issues were met . The Fire Department noted that if the opposite sideyard and access from the alley is maintained they would be satisfied. The Building Division' s review of the construction indicated that the proposal is in compliance with all building code requirements . Planning concerns addressed the fireplace ' s location, effect on adjacent properties and if the proposal provides adequate light, air and ventilation. As proposed, the applicant ' s fireplace will not be detrimental to the adjacent property or neighborhood. Adequate light , air and ventilation will be provided and all health and safety issues have been complied with. On January 23 , 1990, the Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator ' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-63 by denying the appellants appeal . The appellant, Sarah Dunavan is appealing the Planning Commission' s action based upon the findings for approval for the conditional exception (variance) and that the fireplace will be a safety hazard, an encroachment , and have a detrimental effect on her property. Section 9811 . 1 . 1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires that several findings of fact be made prior to granting a conditional exception. In reviewing the applicant 's request, the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission noted that the subject property is non-conforming as to lot width and lot area for Rl (Low Density Residential) zoned property. The minimum lot width for R1 zoned property is 60 feet, (the subject property has approximately 25 feet of lot width) and the minimum lot arep is 6, 000 sq. ft . (the subject property has approximately 2 , 825 sq. ft . of lot area) . The existing development of the neighborhood consists of single family residences on 50 foot wide lots . However, the two properties involved in this case are developed with single family residences on =; 25 foot wide lots . Based upon the applicant and appellants current lot width and lot area and the interior side yard setback requirements for R1 zoned property, any proposed architectural features , and/or fireplace would require the discretionary review and approval of a conditional exception (variance) to the Zoning Administrator for encroachment into the side yard setback. FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may overturn the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission ' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) Not 89-63 by granting the appellants appeal by denying the conditional exception (variance) with findings . RCA 3/19/90 -4- (4823d) 1 . Area Map 2 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 23 , 1990 3 . Appellants letter of appeal and supplemental information dated February 1, 1990 4 . Draft Minutes of January 23 , 1990 Planning Commission meeting MTU:MA:HF: lab V, RCA 3/19/90 -5- (4823d) 'u A DA M S AVE. %/. n000a.-t •n V Lj LJL_1 LJ�J L-JLJ`tt I I I t I I i I I 11- . 3.', ovate:n. cua o + •e.y RI-0 / a RI-0 2 (010LDTUWKI I •'.�-- TZimnr,atucnrn, / '�':' R. R-I F R ��d�;� r — —�o.f,a[0.[qno.•• �� . ^'•'' I ( J n C2 ••� —�- v[rac ti� ,+�� /�� RI FI RI RI R2 C4 -O UI SPECIFIC LAN ~_O 7s o-u.to a.uo-•rt.,us cr o L Y eOu nv ro.l ..•[ Imo_ %ems Y 0 20 [ a-,• tsar..,., ,.c, �• •• ER RI ' . -0 C] I, (DISTRICT 2i ,-0 > RIR I R I R I R 14 R 1 �� l 'r.:' ; - ..a.�l•'LTr tf•>fwHK a,r.,n .y'%!, O . �„ I ':tr!a.'..'. -0 e HIRTEENTH ST. Of: VE 3 E I RZ-PO CF—E r ($ mrrsnv r.c,nnsaow,Io+•uon,.Iar RI RI R I -,0 �� •,aR2-PO-10.. 7 :LEi.•[A'+.o.•om co,•,.[•cL.au+c, IIlUJ11 lV •I—11 sv..[n a;rncl RI RI i 'C•; r•a• ro—uc,•. mP4c, I::P:?:ii ;i.....::!.I R ; ¢ NnsNVILLE (` (AVC 'T`�... 1' I CPU".I,.s[ta[n•.o•;1A[[,uKI.,•[rr DRf 1- ST. •\ L CI Ili �•-N [ v ..... Jr �;or.ta rrr.p.rwewc,Iar 5� RI RI rw�LTs�CF_R -o PLAN(DI RIOT TWO)' �':~,f:[x,e:_.:: :::::RZ.-PO-10 R I 1 ,zf i R2-PD-10 I 'J �s.to.,.oa norwcnol, fi.„t.T. r..;.. MCM PHIS ry J12�• -MI[•,OUW[0 to Mlr VCNiH x[uW. �F_RL ST le:a RI R 1 2 1 EE EDN�__� 100 I1 yII Rly RI RI 1 OlkaL. AVE.I R3 i C4 1 II�II I�II((I'�-�I'I'IIII 1 tC RI TCNTH I R I 2 sr.b •` ; pW2 R t RI nNOsvgLC 1 AVE. �p RI I;, 0 S I IC .. 1 ��' R3 IR3^ 31C4 L N o I000cn6 4 l01R2 � =-- �_JL JI u'ul L I Av[. a ` D sry ,�a R3 R3I R3 J R3 C INO, POLIS -AVE. y �R3 ��. PAL NAk TI DR AVE � lip DOI GENE- Ar A AVE. ,r F_[ fRANKI'ORT OLDT N YIl O ' SPECIFIC A - 3 I (DIS fN EL TRI E .w•T I •..J ' T ICE89-63 IRA • HUNTINGTON BfApf HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION I l huntington beach department of" community development _Ta f f EPORIE ,TO : Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE : January 23 , 1990 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 . APPLICANT: Larry Cubit DATE ACCEPTED: 211 Crest Avenue January 5 , 1990 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE : APPELLANT: Sarah Dunavan March 5 , 1990 209 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ZONE: R1 (Low Density Residential) REOUEST: To construct a fireplace within nine inches of an GENERAL PLAN : Low Density interior Rroperty line in Residential lieu of the required thirty inches EXISTING USE: Single Family Residence LOCATION: 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ACREAGE: . 06± (2 , 875 sq. ft) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator ' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-63 with findings . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Conditional Exception (Variance) No 89-63 is a request to construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7( a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . On December 13 , 1989 the Zoning Administrator acted on and approved Conditional Exception No . 89-63 with findings and conditions of approval . Submitted for your consideration is an appeal to the action taken by the Zoning Administrator . n A-FM•23C 3 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Low Density Residential ZONE : R1 (Low Density Residential) LAND USE : Single Family Residence North and South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Low Density Residential ZONE : R1 (Low Density Residential) LAND USE : Single Family Residence East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Low Density Residential ZONE : Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two LAND USE : Southern California Edison Facility West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Low Density Residential ZONE : (Q) R2 (Qualified Medium Density- Residential) LAND USE : Duplex 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : The proposed project is categorically exempt* pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act . 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS : Not applicable . 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS : Not applicable . 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable . 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS : Backgrounn The applicant initially requested approval and was issued a building permit to allow the seismic reinforcement of an existing fireplace with non-conforming sideyard setbacks on October 23 , 1989 . Upon receipt of a complaint received by the Land Use Division, an inspection by Land Use and the Building Divi&ion was conducted . The inspection revealed that the applicant was substantially rebuilding a new fireplace and as a result was increasing the non-conforming sideyard setback for the existing fireplace approximately o to 8 inches . A stop work order was issued and the applicant was directed to apply for a conditional exception (variance) t'o the Zoning Administrator . . �� Staff Report 1/23/90 -2- (4506d) Analysis In reviewing the applicant ' s request , the Zoning Administrator noted that the subject property is non-conforming as to lot width and lot area for R1 (Low Density Residential) zoned property. The minimum lot width for R1 zoned property is 60 feet , the subject. property has approximately 25 feet of lot width . The existing single family residence is provided with two foot-6 inch (30 inches) interior sideyard setbacks on both the north and south sides of the subject property. Also, the residence is provided a two car garage with alley access . The Zoning Administrator ' s analysis of the proposal and the exception to the minimum thirty (30) inch setback for the fireplace involved the following issues : 1) adequate emergency access, 2) adequate light , air and ventilation and 3) the possible detrimental effect of the proposed fireplace on the public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. Pursuant to the notification of the Land Use Division, appropriate City departments conducted on-site inspections . These inspections were conducted to insure all health and safety issues were met . The Fire Department noted that if the opposite sideyard and access from the alley is maintained, adequate emergency acces$ is available in case of any emergency s4tuation . The Building Division' s review of the construction indicated that the proposal is in compliance with all building code requirements . Planning concerns addressed the fireplace ' s location, effect on adjacent properties and if the proposal provides adequate light , air and ventilation. As proposed, the applicant ' s fireplace has been determined to be adequately setback and will not be detrimental to the adjacent property or neighborhood . Adequate light, air and ventilation will be provided and all health and safety issues have been complied with. Another issue which was of concern to staff was the Historic significance of the single family residence. The Historical Board recommended that the proposed fireplace be stuccoed to match the existing home ' s color and no modern cap be placed on top . Based upon the aforementioned, the Zoning Administrator approved the conditional exception (variance) with findings and conditions of approval . The appellant , Sarah Dunavan (209 Crest) cites that the proposed fireplace will be detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the adjacent neighborhood and that it is creating a hardship . As noted earlier, the proposal has been reviewed by all appropriate City departments and it has deen determined that all issues have been addressed which may affect the adjacent neighborhood . ,a Staff Report 1/23/90 -3- (4506d) 1.9_,-9.____EEC0rz'1_ ENQATION.: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator ' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-63 with findings and conditions of approval . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL : 1 . There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district . The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (R1) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width . The existing residence is provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89763 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood . As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards , adequate access intemergency situations is provided . The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintains adequate light, air, ventilation and emergency access for public health, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood . 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (Rl) . 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light, air, ventilation and access . J ` Staff Report 1/23/90 -4- (4506d) 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No . 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : 1 . The site plan received and dated October 2 , 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a . The applicant shall submit fully dimensioned elevations which depict height , materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection . b . The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board ' s recommendations ; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house ' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace . 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace . 3 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear . No additions , architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side yard . 4 . The southern interior side yard to the rear of the proposed fireplace shall be kept free and clear . No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the southerly side yard . 5 . 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. 6 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and the Fire Department . 7 . The applicant shall meet all applicable local , State and Federal Fire Codes , Ordinances and standards . 8 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Exception No . 89-63 if any violations of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . Staff Report 1/23/90 -5- (4506d) ATTACHMENTS : 1 . Area Map 2 . Letter of Appeal dated December 22 , 1989 3 . Zoning Administrator Minutes dated December 13 , .1989 4 . Applicants Narrative dated December 5 , 1989 5 . Site Plans , Floor Plans , Building Elevations dated January 3 , 1990 HS : HF : lab , Staff Report 1/23/90 -6- (4506d) tE4El0 -- 7� ROAMS AVE. �J1 . ` %/. .n.�ruxm.c•�n .., ---..-.. /\l\J U L-JL_.1 L-I�� LJLJ` f Il I S-- RI-0 I � -T �R-I R2.,. ..... f tRI-D RI I I l 1 -I :IOIaOTo _C2RI ^ RI RI RI R2 C4 -C �IIsPECIFK L4N ~0+; nA.te°[,.°.,a.,°rt,..[, �':: LOMA Av[ ,7u .a tx.sr. r•o[+,vA a,r.cr • �J 1 at: .[a•.+ou.y,.A[„ant•L mr✓, I:'r''�•' •-._a.1 v'.,��. .I R I -O O ro•,t,.° 1067 RIC7 21 , O .ra rw a.sn.[ao[n,.a o,r•<* •.-� RI R I R I R I R I R 2', -^ '�� ;•0 m .o.z.on ctoa,ta ut,..n •:i;s�.. � -0 • �.,.r Il" RI + 05w[GO AVE. AVE R2•PD-io '0?I E{1l rarrr•,AOLrt[tI•[c•[arouAua4rAKr CF—E iH,RTECHTH ST. N �I� ,» 1 • 1RI 0aIup,....r., 1 1 RI IV I -VR 1 1: Ittl n•r.•rr wags ..v ca�sr R Nr RI RI ° R 1 L� 1 R e HAviLL( AVE. ® eCf c.Ar[t .[ttE I.•Dr 1,•[t,.L%•.r„ �Z ST. L I IC W r �•yJ I i !: Rz-Po-lo C7O)m•ran.rt•as rAoeucrio, L Sa RI RI TwE0' CF_R -0 PLAN(DI RIOT TWO) I ``.::,,,. :_: �::::::::::::::�- 1 m[.c L•R a R I R I R I R t: ¢, I Rx-PO.10 '' J C Corr[o wT.°a noovcra, S a I_r•:F. J6 iCa'K.,[r[•rCI•,.s, ar l' j CF-R ELEvENr,r n I UAV , IT If iT �� EME, �0N0 RI :s.L'r�-Y.s1 OIDFt2 RI t1A,.LH R3 C4 a RI RI RI I u 'c � I as R I x x 0p 00. CHIP DE 00' RNOAVILLE AVE. RI S I IC n 1 �- N ° i000 nrt i 11HR2 _ 3 C4 M a R3 >R2 (o)R R , \h I I I iLR3 R3 o R3 JC `tir yl INOrANA►OLIS -AV* p.? R3 R3 nII �; I I IIn L-111�� I ' ti N HAHTt ORO AVE. ` Z ° i 0 a cT Q IIrII��1III1 AVE. DIJ a Cr-c fNArtMf ORT ram• j e t OLDT N ar �' �[NTs•' ' SPECIFIC A - < a?�� ;'—; I ELM DISIRA TRI E ClE89-63 J �� J L HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION December 22 , 1989 To Whom It May Concern : I am appealing the Zoning Administrator ' s approval of Conditional Exception (variance) 89-63 to construct a new fireplace at 211 Crest Avenue . It is detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the adjacent neighborhood and is creating a hardship. Attached please find my check in the amount of �165 .00 to cover the appeal . 1 Sarah Dunavan 209 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach , CA 92648 �a a . A detailed final floor plan shall be submitted e . Community Development Department . The total e floor area shall not exceed 10 percent of gross fl area of the leasehold area . / 2 . Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupanc he applicant shall submit a revised floor plan as noted ondition No . 1 . 3 . There shall be no outside storage' of an d . 4 . The applicant shall obtain all necess County of Orange Health Department permits prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy . A copy of all permi hall be submitted to the Community Development Department included in the subject file . 5 . The Fire Department requirem are as follows : a . Provide the existing ding suite with an automatic fire sprinkler system to satisfaction of the Fire Department . b. Any proposed fre for seafood storage must be provided with an automat ' ire sprinkler system to the satisfaction of the Fire De ment . INFORMATION ON SPECI CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1 . The developm shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ithe Ordina ode, Building Division, and Fire Department . 2.:. The app. t shall meet all applicable local , State, and Federa re Codes , Ordinances , and standards . 3 . The ing Administrator reserves the right to revoke Ad strative Review No . 89-18 if any violation of these itions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . ITEM 3 : CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO, 89-63 Applicant : Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Request : To construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7( a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . . Location: 211 Crest Avenue Environmental This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Status : Section 15305, Class 5 , California Environmental I5 y Quality Act , 1986 � ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -3- T 3 (4347d) Herb Fauland presented the staff report with recommendation for approval with findings and conditions of approval . He said the application was submitted as a result of a Land Use Complaint filed by an adjacent neighbor . A Land Use and Building Department Inspection report revealed that repairs and reinforcement were being made to a non-conforming fireplace in an R1 neighborhood . He also stated that the inspection revealed the applicant was substantially reconstructing the existing fireplace . As a result of the reconstruction, the fireplace was encroaching into the sideyard setback which requires a conditional exception (variance) and discretionary review. A stop work order was issued by the Building Department and the matter was referred to the Zoning Administrator . The Historic Board has made recommendations because the structure is of historic significance for incorporation into the conditions of approval . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Larry Cubit , applicant , spoke in support of the request . He said he was proceeding with the reinforcement of an existing non-ventilated fireplace with masonry, not constructing a new one, and that on-site inspections were made and permits issued until the stop-order was . received . He agrees with all of the conditions of approval imposed by staff . Sarah Dunavan, 209 Crest , spoke in opposition to the request . She said the applicant ' s proposal and building permit states that he is reinforcing for seismic reasons an existing fireplace (which has E. never been a legal fireplace) . She presented pictures and a letter from the original landowner that ' stated theme was never a ventilated fireplace only a gas burning fireplace. She feels the applicant is trying to beat the system by alleging reinforcement rather than new construction of a fireplace . Since she was denied a permit to build anew fireplace at her residence, she does not feel it is right that her neighbor should be issued one . Staff indicated to Ms . Dunavan that if she would like to construct a fireplace that does not meet code requirements for side yard setback, she would have to file a conditional exception (variance) request as Mr . Cubit has . Also, staff expressed to Ms . Dunavan that each person wishing to pursue such a request must file an application and proceed with the proper administrative review. She further addressed her concerns regarding the light , air and ventilation problems because of the setback from her property line to the proposed fireplace, and the fact that she has a tar roof with an overhang which may present a fire hazard. Staff noted that on-site inspections by the Fire and Buidling Departments revealed no health and safety issues if the sideyards are maintainted free and clear for access . Ernie Gisler, no address given, spoke in opposition to the request . i He said the proposed construction is against the building codes and should not be allowed for one and not for all residents . He feels the north area of the applicant ' s property should be kept clear for 'S n access in case of a fire . He urged denial of the request . �/ ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -4- a) Lance Jarof , 215 Crest Avenue, spoke in support of the request . He said his neighbor has upgraded and restored his home, which is a historic structure, to its original condition and feels it enhances the neighborhood . He urged approval of the request . There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing -was closed . CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 89-63 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. HE STATED THAT ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL : 1 . There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district . The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (R1) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width . The existing residence is provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards , adequate access in emergency situations is provided . The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintains adequate light, air, ventilation and emergency access for public health, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood . 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . ' ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -5- (4347d) 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side! yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from SecL-:i.ori 91.1.0 . 7 ( a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will riot defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light , air , ventilation and access . 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . 7 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No . 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan received and dated October 2 , 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification:. a . The applicant shall submit fully dimens,ioned elevations which depict height , materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection. b . The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board ' s fi recommendations ; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house ' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace. 3 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace . 4 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear . No additions , architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side yard . 5 . The southern interior side yard to the rear of the proposed fireplace shall be kept free and clear . No additions , architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the southerly side yard . 6 . 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. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and. the Fire Department . 1� 2 . The applicant shall meet all applicable local , State and Federal Fire Codes , Ordinances and standards . �� - ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -6- (4347d) 3 . The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Conditional Exception No . 89-63 if any violations of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . ITEM 4 : USE PERMIT NO. 89-37 Applicant : Harbor Pacific Development Company Brent Ogden 4040 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 314 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Request : Construction of a new 6 , 400 sq . ft tail commercial building . Location : Northeast corner of Magnolia A e and Atlanta Street . Environmental This request is covered by gorical Exemption, Status : Section 15303 , Class 3 , C ornia Environmental Quality Act , 1986 Herb Fauland presented the staff repo ith recommendation for approval with findings and condition approval after resolving the applicant ' s proposed electrical nsformer location. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA OPENED Brent Ogden, applicant, spoke upport of the request . He said he proposes to locate the transf r behind the monument sign with mature hibiscus plants as sc ing . His alternative proposal is to build a planter adjacent to a transformer with a 3 foot block wall around the transformer wi roper screening . Staff indicated to the applicant that he pu proper floodproofing pursuant to Southern California Edi and City requirements if at all possible . Ernest Caponera,' 9031 caro Drive, expressed his concerns regarding the type o ccupancy and the hours of operation. He does not want to experie traffic in and out of the business at all hours of the nigh cause his bedroom window faces the property. He also asked ab the signage on the property. He asked for a condition limit ' the height of lighted signs since the light would shine directly o his window. He also urged the applicant to not. allow any sto a of junk cars or bodies of cars at the facility or any debris t would not enhance the neighborhood . Staff indicated to Mr : Capo a all proposed uses require review and compliance with Article 9 Commercial District) and that all signage would require review a ompliance with Article 961 (Signs) of the Huntington Beach O ance Code . There e no other persons present to speak for or against the requ and the public hearing was closed . ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -7- (4347d) rt,- �~ V 'y 1� Larry Cubit - - 211 Crest Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ( 714 ) 960-4923 : Residence ( 714 ) 536-8525 : Business VARIANCE APPLICATION I removed an existing structure because it was unsafe due to earthquake damage , termite damage , dry rot damage; and , it was an unvented , inefficient gas burning fireplace . It has been estimated by the Zoning Department that the new structure is overbuilt by something less than 10% . The area in question and surrounding uses are in an R-1 Zone. Reason for application concerns the construction of a masonry fireplace . This application is initiated because of the size difference in reconstruction of an existing non-conforming structure . During reconstruction of the fireplace , the narrowest flue liner allowed by code was used and the chimney was held as close to the existing roof truss and main truss joist as allowable by code. The main truss joist and the peak of .the roc; are directly in the center of the chimney. To shorten the main truss joist, change the roof truss , and move the fireplace in to correct the less than 10% overage would be extremely expensive . This request will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with normal limitations . I feel that reconstruction is necessary for the preservation of the aesthetic beauty , charm and character of the house. By reproducing the look and feel of the old structure as closely as possible, we are retaining that which has made this home a unique and integral part of this neighborhood for over 60 years . This structure .will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare . The fireplace is a reinforced, earthquake resistant, termite resistant , dry rot resistant , energy efficient , wood burning, safe structure. n• All city departments Zoning, Planning and Fire have approved its ^�O location on the property and all agree that the structure meets v or exceeds all construction codes , standards and allows /safe 9E CF 1VE StkGGD /_O 1rlatc� EXisfr'n9 0 3 DEEPAPTMENT OF ^•' '�'IV��IJN 175-4 .................. ........................... the following described real property In the City of Huntington Beach County of Or'an9e,_ . , _ State of Cailfornle: 1 Lot 47 in Block 705 of Wesley Park Section of Huntington Beach, as %..r map recorded in Book 4 Page 17 of Miscellaneous Ma s, in the office _•r the County Recorder of said County. Aisessor� f3rct.l 02y-061-01 P;K Rate- Area C) I Larry Cubit. . 2l / Gresf" X Cf A ry V. r. c. l y 1 K.R. ►r� s to'gtclp*0,-Al DR/Yc `J /7 /6 /9 o PAR./ - - O 8� 5 sec 141-J0.1!-/ O `t � 0000 OWN o / /'AC. 8L K. 804 0 O O y O Q " NO. 080-9 31.67 16 50, 3e.50' s7.S0' ♦Cfl 64 d LAKE -- d - - - - - - � - - -- --- -- -- - 23 - - - -- So\ O {i�ESL Y 'r°' J9 '' S PARK -- - - 3e 7'36 19 \ t \ \ 23 �• , 23 /�- - - - - - - - far: ` `\ 's33 3/ �?9 27 /9 20 \ �. IR 8L K32 /9 805 41 4s 43 4 32 \30 Ito ios as' 31 2/� k\e s/ 49 `42 40 36 r� - - - � - - - - 44 iS0 30 �S' 23h "43 t4 ;r SO 48 `46 � S?`` .. . " �` \\ \ 9 � � \` •� \\ Cl, - 29 2{_ �� \54 A 1.5014 14 25 \ 5 ' s tti 1S MAIN ti . __ •. N �5 3.a l s •75 i N: 1 I`1 9No4�1N IN GIFGL� . , tb.o � 2•g t Al N Awl q,� �. F/oc).r P1 a y /YcaY' poor 1 -1 1 Ki fU�i eh D,h 1 v�Jc Doo r- Room L..1✓/ Pj oo,yl �oo�r M Rooms . F�Yo pl2ce -092 4S3cssors No. ��rNy -f- n'Ic)ay, G�b1f . ,Z Il Grc c t RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINCTOR PraCll,CALIF. i _ FEB t 5 21 P�1 '90 To: Huntington Beach City Council I want to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on January 23, 1990, Appeal of Zoning Administration and Planning Commission approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63. The Conditional Exception should not be granted because the findings for approval are not justified. I am concerned.for the safety of my home from the ashes, encroachment, and other detrimental effects the granting of this variance will cause to my property. } Sarah Dunavan `l 209 Crest Huntington Beach, CA 92648 536-0739 F g 5 pE 'NI Of �ART MOEVELOPWIENT CpM►V1UNITY ;3 Dear Mayor Mays and City Councilmembers: Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I submitted to the Planning Commissioners the evening of the hearing. In retrospect I realize that I should have allowed them time to read and study the events as documented in this letter. Therefore since I am appealing this to the City Council, I would appreciate if you would carefully read this letter prior to my appeal. Many thanks. Sincerely, Sara Dunavan 209 Crest Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , 536-0739 ATTACHMENTS: { 1. Letter — Law Offices of Sharon K. O'Brien 2. Notes on Appeal 3. Letter — Blanche A. Wood r 4. Letter — BLcnche A. Wood S. Letter — Lorene L. Green 6. Letter — James B. Green 7. City of Huntington Beach - Mechanical Permit 8. Findings for approval 9. 2 — Development review requests 10. Letter — Business License Department 11. City Council Minutes 11/6/89 Public Comment — Sarah Dunavan — re: Fireplace y`� f � L. f� Mr. Cubit created the hardship now for me: He is asking to break the law and I am asking for the law to be followed for all. s` 1. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable until Larry Cubit made them by starting this project without approval. (Indicated by photo dated 1988). 2. It is not necessary for Larry Cubit to do this especially at the cost of the enjoyment of my rights. He can install the fireplace inside without encroaching on the required 30"-side yard set backs. 3. It is materially detrimental to my health,.safety and welfare. I do not want the fences down. (They have been there for years). It does not allow adequate light, air, ventilation, buffer space, and emergency access (9" fireman) for public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. 4. Why is it now with the goals and objections of the citys General Plan and Land Use Map when he has broken all codes permitted by law for all citizens. The - city can work with him now to put the house back in historical value by putting the fireplace inside as would have been suggested befqre at 1/2 the cost and not encroaching on the neighbor and removing the fences and bamboo which allowed privacy to all concerned. / S. 1t does defeat the general purpose. If the 9" side yard does not defeat the general purpose of the code can everyone else do it? In order for him to encroach on the 30" side yard set back he removed the bamboo ledge, property line fence and front permanent gate and weakened my gate. He will probably not replace any of this based on his past performance of his projects on his house the 3 years he has lived there. 6. It will adversely affect the General Plan because all citizens will be entitled to do as they wish (then apply for permits if caught) again to the infringement on the neighbor. This is why we have codes to keep from having this problem. 7. The applicant should have to remove all the project and put it on the inside as he would have been instructed to if he had gone through the proper permit process. Application requirements has all the information in clear English and is clearly stated if you call the city for information. Are you putting more value on people who break the rules than people who live by the rules? } LAW OFFICES OF SHARON K. O'BRIEN P:7. BOX CJ 4650 VON KARMAN AVE. . IRVINE, CA 92716 (714) 752-6848 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9 ';0 . January 23 , .1.990 Planning Commission Appeal Board City of Huntington Beach Re : Conditional Exception 89-63 Fireplace at 211 Crest Avenue Dear Ladies and Gentlemen : This evening you are to hear. an appeal as to whether the above described variance was properly granted . Prior to making your decision, please consider my client, Sarah Dunavan ' s concerns . As is . within the power vested to you in accordance with our Constitution and the Government Code , you granted a permit for a fireplace at 211 Crest Avenue . However, case law has indicated that �,lhere a variance is granted, :it is presumed that official duty was performed in investigating the matter and .the existence of the necessary facts was found. The appellant at this appeal , Sarah nunavan, who resides at 209 Crest Avenue,. adjacent to the subject property is of the opinion that the necessary investigation was riot performed when the permit was granted.. t The subject fireplace was constructed, and your permit approved, :, within nine (911 ) inches .of Ms . Dunavan ' s property . The. Mechanical Permit #M007313 , which was obtained when the fireplace was almost . completed, was approved for reinforcement of a fireplace. However, there is considerable evidence to indicate that there never was a fireplace at the location. Please note the attached letter from Blanche A. Wood., dated November 11 , 1989 whose father constructed the subject .house, labeled Exhibit A. If this is indeed the case, .the permit application was falsified . Since the permit was issued when the construction was almost completed, the inspections required to determine if construction Is in compliance with the Building Code were not made. The very .real possibility exists that the fireplace is a detriment to the safety of the neighborhood: the foundation may not properly support the structure ; the bamboo which was removed to make room for the fireplace appears to still be growing and. looking for new places to come up, particularity in Ms . Dunavan ' s prdperty; the chimney may not be structurally sound; and the design may not ,adequately protect neighboring structures from, embers . Planning Commission Appeal Board January 23 , 1990 Page 2 The issuance of the permit after a significant portion of the structure was completed without inspections, instead of requiring the structure torn down and reconstructed under the Building Department ' s supervision is clearly detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the entire neighborhood, if not the City for the message it sends that partially completed, uninspected structures are acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach . Government Code § 65906 states that ." (a) ny variance granted shall be subject .to such conditions as will assume that the adjustment thereby authorized shall -` not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property. is situated . " In this case, a special privilege has been "granted: the right to build a fireplace within thirty-nine (3911 ) inches of the neighbor ' s structure : Although variances are to permit one. property to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and to eliminate unique hardships to that property, this variance did not grant a privilege to Mr. Cubit which neighbors enjoy . He now has a fireplace within nine inches of the lot line, which neighboring houses do not have . Instead of eliminating a hardship for Mr. Cubit, this variance has created considerable hardship on Ms . Dunavan . Surely it is not the intent of the City to grant a. privilege to one neighbor to the detriment of the other. In this instance, the construction of the fireplace has created an added burden on Ms . Dunavan both monetari- ly and emotionally . Due to the narrowness of the area, Mr. Cubit used Ms . Dunavan ' s property and her roof to effectuate the construction . Her home was splattered with material from the construction , which is unsightly and will be an expense to her to remove. The stucco was damaged when, the workers struck her wall with the blocks used to construct the fireplace . Her roof. was damaged, creating additional expense to her. n condition of the permit should have been to restore Ms . Dunavan ' s property to the same or better condition after the construction . Ms . Dunavan has lost her privacy due to this permitted fireplace . Mr. Cubit removed the gate between their properties, permitting access to Ms . Dunavan ' s property where no access was available before . Mr . Cubit removed the fence dividing their properties , permitting access to Ms . Dunavan ' s property from Mr. Cubit ' s and eliminating her privacy, as her windows are now exposed to the view Of Mt'. Cubit and his friends and family:* This variance has created a future hardship to Ms . Dunavan, as well Jas those she is currently experiencing. An architect has indicated that her dreams for a second floor probably have been dashed jt Planning Commission Appeal Board x_ January 23 , 1990 _ Page 3 because the second story would cause the fireplace to draft back into Mr. Cubit ' s fireplace. Ms . Dunavan respectfully requests that Conditional Exception 89-63 be denied and the fireplace constructed under that permit be removed and the gate and fence between the properties be restored, in a timely manner, at Mr. Cubit ' s expense.. In the alternative, the permit should be amended to require complete removal of the bamboo and restoration of the gate and fence between the proper- ties; in a timely manner, at Mr. Cubit ' s expense. Respectfully Submitted, 7 Sharon K. O ' Brien Attorney for Appellant SKO/ins Enclosure CC: S . Dunavan t i4 �i. s n. i , "1 'i j t, � V 14 1. t r ' pep 46� - _ ► LLJ ca S lid . 3 . ,. ....s .��- - -. "'—'�. 1dt,•KrrF?a�'�?me�`''��??rs�t...::�ekc��a:�,.. � � � _ �a•„s c',�� j. M cam•,.-��.i��-IU l��'�/.v .�W1su� t�y�n�� (.V'�tl,� •/`-'1•,�,;,Z�c.�.o.:cE. � �Jt�t�I.��Ci 1 Baran wu.&avan ti. January 20, 1990 NOTES ON APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION.. (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 . FLUE FOR A .VENTED HEATER: I have opposed 'the building of a. fireplace in the walkway between my homeland my neighbor ' s because: 1 . This action by my .neighbor has put my personal privacy in jeopardy. 2 . It ' s against the building code to" build a new structure within 30" .of a neighbor ' s . hou'se without a permit . 3 : This could influence the sale of. my property. I called City Hall on October 180, 1989 and asked if they would come. and check on a fireplace my next door neighbor was building because it %Aas getting so big and close to my property. I talked to Don Shaw at City Hall . At. this time the fireplace was half completed . ��fI `�'�a��` . � Tt�r� G�� e.�`:� �� On October 23 I /' we nt tb City Hall with a friend and presented the problem as if I were 'the . person .wanting a fireplace. I was informed that I couldn ' t have one At it was against building codes and also if . a person did any: construction . they needed to have a building permit (which my neighbor did not have at this time:) . They also said if it was started and being done illegally, they would make them tear it down . I was asking these questions to educate myself . Later that same day, my neighbor applied for a permit . In order to get the permit, he misrepresented the facts, saying it was for reinforcing an existing fireplace ( there was none) instead 3� of building a new one . ,a' Y ..NOTES ON APPEAL I then obtained stop work orde �J�}ich was issued but f. not followed through. My neighbor came; over that evening and told me that the stop order was torn .up and there was . no neecj�u for a variance . A friend and I : went up to see what the policy 6"_ was for a work stop order . Was this a Lisual procedure? On Friday, October 27 I talked to Codes and they said it was a problem of Planning now. (Again I :presented the problem as if I wanted to build a firepl'ace . .and I was starting it with- out a permit ) . Then they got out my, neighbor ' s plans and. checked them over. On October 31 I talked to Art Folger., Deputy Attorney and showed him the picture. of. the original .hbater-flue that started at .the foundation. Art Fo•lger said, '.'.It doesn ' t look like he ' s reinforcing a fireplace, he ' s building one. " On November 6 I went to. the Counc.il. -meeting and Mike Adams s was directed by the City Council to to e are of the problem;�� /,ri�<< !� ��.-\/2'/rri /.JC_r�� '`7� .��!`�• —' 7iai /% GC� F J 4,'`}�,y`.�•_ / The Pla'nning Department:. then told my .neighbor he would need a variance . The variance . was' approved at :the December 13 meeting. I appealed this decision December 22nd',:. because he was constructing y a new fireplace within nine inches of. an interior property line in -lieu of the required _thirty .inches .��,r.L��.-� �� ti _ ce „ •r�, ..lt-r��wr•-Llt Is this selective _code information``foy me and not fdr my neighbor? Ernie Gisler, .former mayor and council member of Huntington Beach, stated at the meeting of December 13 , 1989, that he is opposed to the request because it is against the building codes ~ and should not be allowed for one and not for all residents h1 and the.. side yard should be : kept clear for access in case of fire. NUTEb .UIV t+rrr,ey,_, It should be noted that the building code requires a 30" clearance between buildings . I feel this should be maintained to .provide additional light and air circulati.on. and increased buffer distance between my house and my neighbor ' s . The distance between my overhang ano my neighbor' s fireplace wall measures 23 inches . . His fireplace extends 9" my property line . J i 3S x January 2, 1990 City Planning Commission - O.ffice of Zoning Administration Huntington Beach, California, is To Whom it May Concern: This is to certify that I saw a freshly dug rectangular hole at the south side of Sarah Dunavan' s }louse .on the 11th. of October, 1989 , when I visited . her, On, my. .previous visit , the area was covered with bamboo. We commented on the change -at the time. Yours truly, Lorene . L. Green &3 Seton Irvine;` CA 92715 - ( 714 ) 7.3.3-2819 f '.1 James B. Green Architect (Retired ) 447 . Ogle Circle Costa Mesa , CA. 92627 City OF Huntington Beach . Planning Commission Jan. -21 , 1990 Ref . : Planning Commission meeting Tue. 1/23/90 agenda item # C 2 . Honorable Planning Commission- Members Attention has been called to agenda .item # C. 2 regarding violations of City Codes and Regulations in construction . 6n' property located-. at 211 Creet,.: Huntington Beach . Should adherence to governing regulations not be required in this instance will exemption also- be allowed in the 3 - } next similar case ? How about the one after that , etc . . ? ! 'Citizens in all communities are becoming very concerned about an advancing trend toward . sccep.tance of exemptions to regulations a'nd .laws in governmental actions. 0„ this Particular item The Planning. Commission is respect- fully requested to .recomend removal of construction which Was ( 1 ) Done with a permit obtafined after the fact and obtained by false statements as. :to existing conditions ( 2 ) Done without requ red' 'building department inspections . ( 3 ) Done without regard to side-yard regulations and reduces. the side-yard to only nine inches . Sincerely , '. ` J mes B. Green ��. `.lHUNTINGTON BEACH BllILDlNG` I NTN"Y OF ! UNT B MAIN ST..T 2000 EA"CH� , - .DEPAATURMT.OF HUNTINGTOWBEAC'K CA 92648- COMMUNITY P.O.B + awFORA gaia Psri%t4 granlad_a(id batesd the vaaalC o1 - D aa11,K1(ter Aw Than,eAsnalM$3 900. r D 1738('fdayor Lane,JDrb4 ne rool,$1.700.y o s7n'►Wdto-M Dd-.FbN16Y, .i:w,; '--{%`t44 o 1r571 Caep«s Cim,*Keen.+H.d.si.7w- " % Y. F C h A k I C A L P F. N N• I- 7 016671 Tiber.Lane,Clancy.retool,-ib.sa0.• - - _ - *S09 19th SL,'Brirwld:peveiopntertl:'bbtk - wal s260.- ..- .. B1_dp- .Ferr:it bC14226 PC- , --0 . CHEST Tract NA Lot HA Flock NA. a 6461 Doncauer,Cisq;'add entry,.S6.420, E u i Id 1 n£ Use S.F .E. _ o TS31 Heil Am.Burkem Come(cW veb DeP- mend.vre6a,door and collni.$7.000. l _ 0 sm Lambert'Ortw, Freemen, re-rod,t C o n t r b C t O r $8.000. (IsL C.C•h'7"FAC7-CF.) N/ `� �; / D 210 Fifth St,OaibOoa,tte(amk Strengthen- / Gv (rig.515.00 ff II//�.fN•fL��I l�!'`"!� ,/��"��" / 'te r n 14592 Zone a,Prue,block Wall, u 1941 Lake SL, Pacific COast Homes.ape,S3,000. •4M ..�.r QQ . 09022 Conglituticn•Drive, Muoldland, ro• cool.$a,329.329. •. f� � ti�rC/r (o 9422 Lanai Circe,Turner,bock wall,S3,=. — Compiled by Eldolyne Briggs j FF'{`I K-cte 11 Approvec l:su(:d Jr: 10/2 /tS Issue Receipt d 1E?� INSPECT"ICN FEES Gescril:tic.n Cty Atr..ount Fescripticn Cty a _Awour.t F(-tin;. Eir1:► ?ac(= 1 F .00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- In::pI:CtiCIt 1C.00 (FInirur: 1'10.CC) 5CE:11cr:C'Gus C:.IC. - t � I A '/ s+: OWNER-B(ALDEA DECLARATION •t. 1 hereby.amen Obt 1 am oserrpl from the Cordrewes Lkvroe Low.for the �{ WORKER'S COitaPEN6A710N DriCL.A11ATT011 r ' f(See 7031.6) BhdMsa and Ptvlsubm..Gbdr Arty dty or:-t:ouMy I here" anirm ttit I have a cwtWwo W aonwi to eeti htwsa,W i ewttrati of Workwl - -Pat.* to 0onthuet,-;WNi.,Irp(ah;i-d«r(OHI/4 t a(.i;oP*") om (So- rry:a Cpw—lbn Y+a..rr..,or c.rtybd copy orreof(sec 3000.Leo C) .bstrwra.,aArO;'nptat!rt'.p'i:agp6einr.br;<awhit oc ' M b eeiruW"�fautywaro"tbt prvrlalana`."W.'fM CwdracWs"Lkwua (�•r�'' Policy No Cempary - (oswinwnettp li�el d r 0016 70001.Ol::Dkbforr 3 of ttb:atakir , rPtsbnai ' ❑ C.nat:e coot'w hereby tvrldwd _ o• ter/ ti b.CA Aipr rhonotmnr:Sew*VW'cads b,:I0i: if 17 Cwtnt.d coot r sled with the city t uldhq Inap.etlon depwkneft �rPln lt of tot 10.7IS ari art' applicant for • p.ritW • ' . Penalty ro(loan rtt.n/M--suwFa ecHars(ssooJ:A•'_i;�' �� ,•, D.t.--- ApptpaM O t as owner of ON PC".ar try,-Viol 00 with w.ON r tiu►- 044 ((01+ ;�:• CHRtTfICATE OF E%EAMTION FROM WORK[t1't the wwh,and N�a'ilncan:lf rol•Nwded'or allwed lw NI" � A•olookwid Catpt''Tlb:Cor"Ws'.Lkeioe Law does.idol- to an COitIPENfAT1DN H6lFlANCE pvlperfy.wAi IMdMJ P.Ir6atewat•.fMreerL and eM bet -- lied/a. or !• Itras ee011pn rand not be currpiolee H the(omit to for tots kner"tbawo(S1o0)(►tei.I has °'^ a" +'ate' Fr"'�'d�t^ar�"'a' hti'°`'o'"'"b •". "Je..d F•:. 1 oM ul that ti the WWft once c, the wor% for caliph INe Woe M,hewaw•Yle_a*dv ar.t+proagrMrt( b Ietd Y Par" b bwMtt I Ytal-tbl awwn61ihMr low.'" awdsw ern.piw•he lfbr M iaf auad w snpr'd " pony In any tNN1e, N N b aeoenM wbpcl b WoAerY Campulaet4n LMa eN of•ale. _ >::: D.0__-._...�..._�.....—__ App6oaM -. LJ l ea owner d W aroPMH.im asdal'nlr oYloegY'Y. GMaMloft. k0l1 -W 'T APZQANr1 y, sloe rnekhq tiia OMMINIe el.[awrtplbM1 VW oload.Itaaonr qa nnlen(aN. 70(4t.stobwas and AoNNAtne •uhl.ct w tha WWW1, Owvorwalbn PwNbne of the Labe, Cede. "Y irYil forthwith ON" AN "* 10 an Go a w pmpoiy who ale IM cprptY with Woh WwWtaw a Ink permt dW be drawled revoked somata lar Swh;~s with a caMnafar(a) Wr• .nil i _ Lkarw Leon \ LICEN690 CONTRACTORS D[CLARATTON - .. - - C3 ism ettatttp taidw aso, -/ t rwetlY�dlFrn thet I ern W..ed under peviol" of Onus* E (owlemmb vrilh section - Do"Iew 0. ,.a• _ (iu 70001 of 3 of the PANIne•a and PvoHulw Cod.,and my ken"b H U(bat and effect.., Coor9TAUCTION ' _ti•. 1 �' - I-Pw•aM ahem that Owe b •oorlatrVyl(pn •0•'c/ n• .. . tx..,..ra•new U.anon fw.vAioh eia pwrNl rratrad(s.e aoa7,fi7v a�. (i !� C-tr-w Orb - - - t.«i0.ts Now* ❑ I.rrt*tempt hen the raQianwtb u I am a kerued anl doe or a redound time hew.-nod ei appinlbn t sub out.Va oboes M for t ,r •/(�/� prof..elon.l wpM.r . .h m/ -pnr.dor l,capadty'(6acUW 7061 Wekwu cad t^ bl v - - _ apap:b owrOM-wM N WY:;wCm r!4i1 sub-Iawe!datlrgr -{t.t - fiOleNbrw!sob). \ .1•'v' '• •, 1 -' r .1- hereby'-.wl0nrlti•r•PneutetMa:d;iNe'�b amf lgOn..O�Mt� t tx.« won \ .t�rMs�i:•15h.�', rs'�''"• 'aee�k �A41�1b( �tl• Z.ff�' '" 1 � O. .k A Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 January 24 , 1990 Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT : APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL 3. EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO . 89-63 REQUEST : To construct a fireplace. within nine inches of an interior property line in lieu: of the required thirty inches . '. LOCATION : 211 Crest Avenue DATE OF APPROVAL : January 23 , 1990 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL : i . There are exceptional- or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district . The subject property is zoned Low ' Density Residential (Rl) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width . The existing residence is provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. " 2 The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of. an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the 'enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . 3 . The granting . of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety. and e ' welfare , or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood . As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards , adequate access in emergency situations is provided . The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintains adequate light , air , ventilation and emergency access for public health, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood . i d 1J ry � r� r� s APPEAL OF . ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION` .': (VARIANCE) NO . 89-63 Page Two l 9 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace . within. 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives. of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Lo.w Density Residential (Rl) 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in ' lieu of, the -required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7 (a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purpose s . or. intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior .side yards fo_r light , air, ventilation and access . 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches . of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of- the City of Huntington ' Beach. 7 . The applicant is willing and able to. carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No .. 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan received and dated October 2 , 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a . The applicant shall submit fully_ dimensioned elevations which depict height, materials :and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection. b . The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board ' s recommendations ; painting or ..stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house ' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on t:he . top of the fireplace . 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the. construction of the proposed fireplace . 3 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear . No additions , architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side �0 yard . t• {. '7 map 'FROM• E T1. ! COMMENTS : (Uee` Att'achment•s i f• necessary;) : . :�yi ?�' ,� ctri; •`. !: +•: AT E PETITION ( S ) : �. COS REQUEST( S --•---,-- t� �v�� N � i�•.�GNP \Z--. � ��► t r,-.fate 'C LOCATION : 2 -ZONE: _,SRAL PLAN : EXISTING USE: wFj(„ � � ►�--'� t D -ic.. DATE ACCEPTED: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE : ..� (::rise+ submit your concerns and c:ommeridea - s-0,1 a s writi or before j� .., OQ, �`'�. rnterdepnrtmantal ro, _w: Final Planning Review: Response submitted by : E3ZA: _ Subdivision Ccxintittee: _) Date Planning C'crrmission,- __ Attachments j�: 1+ '��1 �'�j•,1 ; '� s `ti J: r..�!11�lii'^u�f_:�r:,^�• V i sir '1r ✓,i, ti:`,` .1 Y . .1t.e., -)- :jz�.' E X T COMMENTS : (Use Att'achmen�.ts'�:�'if�-�'�� necessary ) : ,.: REQUEST( S ) : 114[�tb OF A ~ z i Dt. A��? w \ , ,•�_!J IV 1 V C F 'I•14 E tto LOCATION : ZONE: Ile— GENERAL PLA14 : Low i l,`r- P (ISTING USE: 1.�bL • / 'A ��.'`� DATE ACCEPTED: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE : t (_ri;e submit your concerns :1commended solu o writY _ or before_—�J�: oL) i interdepartmental R,Eview:`--_— - Pinal Planning Review: Res o e submitted by: Subd.ivi sion QxnTdt.tee: {� -) Date: Z: V I)Ianni C nmi.ssion: Attachments : s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH y P.O. BOX 711 CALIFORNIA 92648 k CITY TREASURER—DONALD L.WATSON lr, iF TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN s; ,- S JOHN is a licensed business in the City of Huntington Beach. License was issued August 6, 1985 to Sarah Dunaran at 209 Crest for Alterations and dressmaking. License #A095748 is valid until 8/1/90 [Betty Walker , Clerk 1 /29/9.0 - ' Zih: Page 3 - Agency/Council Minutes -. 11/6/89 Y Carrie Thomas addressed Council and spoke regarding .the need to develop 1a park in Ellis-Goldenwest Quartersection. DagA._ = commended Council for the work Ron Yeo .has done on the Pier Plaza Project.. She urged Council to support the proposed City Charter Amendment Initiative "Save Our Parks" . Nadine Takav_ama, Pat Christiansen, Marx Sharpe, and Edna Regan of the Robinwood area stated that needed stop signs were removed from the neighbor- hood, and they requested that the signs be replaced. (Tasman Street, Bolsa Chica Street, Andaman, McFadden Avenue area) . She introduced eleven neighbor- hood children representing the children of the neighborhood who need the stop signs for their safety. 5arah Dunavan, downtown property owner, complained to Council about possible inconsistent permits being issued for fireplaces on 25' lots . Robert Cronk spoke in opposition of the proposed revisions of the Huntington Beach Oil Code. David Bucy complained to Council about the late fee policy of Public Works for delinquent water bills . B ll__Gallegu spoke in support of keeping the art center in the downtown area. David Burris spoke in opposition of encroachment of 5th Street and the new corridor by the proposed widening. SCity Council ) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED OPEN FROM 10/16/89 - CODE AMENDMENT 89-3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION! 89-14 -- AMENDS DEFINITIONS ' WITHIN ARTICLE 908 - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION AS AMENDED - APPPMED The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following: APPLICATION NUMBER: Code Amendment No. 89-3/Negative Declaration No. 89-14 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City-wide ZQRE: All Districts REQUEST: To amend the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and amend, modify and/or delete definitions within Article 908, Definitions. Added definitions may include, but not be 111mited to: architectural features, child day care facility, convenience market, density bonus. final approval , .grade, gross floor area, hedge, industrial use, liquor . store, lot frontage, parking structure, retaining wall , wholesale use. Amended definitions may include but not be limited to: apartment, automobile/vehicle repair, dwelling, lot width. a Deleted definitions may include but not be. .limited to: automobile accessory �1. ` dealer. P ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 89-14. assessing the environ- mental effects will also be considered by Council . DRAFT C-2 APPEAL F ZONING AM-IRI—ST—RA-T-M, EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) N0. 89-63 APPLICANT: LARRY CUBIT APPELLANT: SARAH DUNAVAN Conditional Exception (Variance) No 89-63 is a request to construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. On December 13 , 1989 the Zoning Administrator acted on and approved Conditional Exception No . 89-63 with findings and conditions of approval . Submitted is an appeal to the action taken by the Zoning Administrator . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administratox' s approval of Conditional Exception (VIeriance) No . 89-63 with findings . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED A letter from Susan Lundin, Huntington Beach property owner, was read into the record stating her intention to follow this matter for future reference when adding on to her home or any proposed building needs . She feels if one person is allowed to build against the zoning code requirements that it justifies others building in the same manner . Sarah Dunavan, 209 Crest Avenue, Appellant , spoke in opposition to the request . She said she opposes the fireplace construction in the walkway between her home and her neighbors because it puts her personal privacy in jeopardy, it is against the building code, and, if allowed, could influence the sale of her property. She submitted photographs into the record depicting the subject home in its original state and the subject home and fireplace now under construction. She feels the building code should be enforced with the requirement of a 30 inch clearance between buildings to provide additional light and air circulation and increased buffer distance between homes . She said the distance between her roof overhang and the proposed fireplace measures 23 inches and that the fireplace is located only 9 inches from her property line . Larry Cubit , 211 Crest , applicant , was present and stated that he is available to answer any questions from the Commission. He said he did start construction before obtaining a building permit and was advised by the Building Department to reinforce the existing � fireplace for seismic purposes . PC Minutes - 1/23/90 -5- ' (4838d) 1 DRAF"�i Emil Gisler, 760 Main Street, spoke - in -op-position to the proposed fireplace construction. He said it is out of line and feels Ms . Dunavan has followed the right process in objecting to the construction. Imelda Lopez , 20262 Newby Lane, said she has visited the appellant ' s home for many years and never observed a fireplace or foundation for a fireplace at the next door residence . Louise Wilson, 1814 Florida Street, referred the Commission to the photograph of the house in its original state (with no fireplace) . She said there was never a fireplace to reinforce. She suggested that the applicant construct an "inside wall" fireplace to avoid imposition on the neighbors . Mary Vaught, does not feel her neighbor should have to have a structure within 30 inches of her home . Lance Jacot, 215 Crest Avenue, said he has resided in the neighborhood for 15 years . He said the original house had a protrusion where the fireplace is being constructed . He feels the addition/reinforcement of the fireplace will enhance the historical home and the neighborhood . There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed . i Staff was asked to respond to the question regarding other variances that had been granted in the Downtown area . erb Fauland gave a brief history of variances granted by the Planing Commission and Zoning Administrator in the Downtown Area and throughout the City within the last two years . He said these two lots are developed with single family residence and are unique because they are both on 25 foot wide lots . In addition, he stated that any added architectural features/fireplaces require an exception to the sideyard setback requirement . He further stated that if staff can make the necessary findings that there is a land-related hardship when adding an architectural feature, they would recommend approval . A discussion ensued among the Commissioners . It was felt that since the fireplace was an architectural feature being added to the home and that the Fire Department had no problems with the access or easements between the two existing homes that the request should be approved. However, some of the Commission felt that if this request was approved it would encourage homeowners to build and construct additions to their homes without permits . The Commissioners also noted that even though a lot of people do not know that they need permits , the potential impacts or detrimental effects imposed on surrounding neighbors , when no building permit is obtained, should not be allowed . URAr I ,2- r PC Minutes - 1/23/90 -6- (4838d) I i DRAF1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega , Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district . The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (R1) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width. The existing residence is provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property4line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood . As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards , adequate access in emergency situations is provided . The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintains adequate light, air, ventilation and emergency access for public health, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood . 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light , air, y�ventilation and access . f PC Minutes - 1/23/90 -7- DRAFT (4838d) KRF I 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No . 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan received and dated October 2 , 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a . The applicant shall submit fully dimensioned elevations which depict height , materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection. b. The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board ' s recommendations ; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house ' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace. 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace . f 3 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear . No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/orfplaced along the northerly side yard . 4 . The southern interior side yard to the rear of the proposed fireplace shall be kept free and clear . No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the southerly side yard . 5 . 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. 6 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and the Fire Department . 7 . The applicant shall meet all applicable local , State and Federal Fire Codes , Ordinances and standards . 8 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Exception No . 89-63 if any violations of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . PC Minutes 1/23/90 -8- (4838d) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH CONNIE BROCKWAY GAIL HUTTON CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY To From RLS# 90-262 APRIL 4, 1990 Subject SARA DUNOVAN'S APPEAL TO COUNCIL Date CONCERNING LARRY CUBIT'S PERMIT In reference to your recent inquiry regarding notice of final action, notice of the Council's decision to hold a hearing to reconsider the matter should be sent out immediately. That notice should provide the date and subject matter of the next hearing and should be sent out in the same manner as if it were the original appeal; it is a hearing ' de—novo at which the public, the applicant (Mr. Cubit), and the appellant (Sara Dunovan) are entitled to present evidence or address the issue before Council and should be treated as such. By way of copy of this memo, I am reminding Mike Adams that a Request for Council Action (and staff report) needs to be prepared and sent to you so that the matter can be agendized. Thank you. GAIL HUTTON CITY ATTORNEY cc: Mike Adams, Director of Community Development r C Page 19 - Council /Agency Minutes - 4/2/90 (City Council) MOTION APPROVED TO RECONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING 3/19/90 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 - CONSTRUCTION OF A FIREPLACE (420.50) A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by MacAllister, to make a determination that the need to take action on the issue of the public hearing held March 19, 1990, on the Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63, Construction of a Fireplace, arose subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) . The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays , Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion made by Erskine, seconded by MacAllister, to reconsider with, again, know the understanding that there' s no commitment to anything other than to give another good hearing and, if need be, a more fair hearing than was achieved last time. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays , Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO PRESENT REPORT - PIER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FUNDING - 5/7/90 (240.20) In answer to Councilman Erskine' s inquiry, the City Administrator stated he would return to Council May 7, 1990, with a recommendation and financial alternatives regarding the unfunded portion of the Pier Construction Project. IRBY PARK - STATUS REPORT In answer to Councilman Bannister' s inquiry, the Finance Director gave a status report of the transaction of the sale of Irby Park as it was proposed. SOIL TESTING IMPLEMENTATION DURING OIL WELL ABATEMENTS - REPORT TO BE PRESENTED A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mays, to direct the City Admin- istrator to bring back to Council soil testing implementation during oil well abatements. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays, Bannister, Silva NOES: None ABSTAIN: Erskine ABSENT: None (City Council) FINDING FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 RE: APPEAL FILED BY HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN - SEE PAGE 51 (420.40) A motion was made by Winchell , seconded by Mays, to adopt the following Finding for Denial of the Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32. Page 19 - Council/Agency Minutes - 4/2/90 (City Council ) MOTION APPROVED TO RECONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING 3/19/90 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 - CONSTRUCTION OF A FIREPLACE (420.50) A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by MacAllister, to make a determination that the need to take action on the issue of the public hearing held March 19, 1990, on the Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63, Construction of a Fireplace, arose subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) . The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion made by Erskine, seconded by MacAllister, to reconsider with, again, know the understanding that there' s no commitment to anything other than to give another good hearing and, if need be, a more fair hearing than was achieved last time. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays , Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO PRESENT REPORT - PIER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FUNDING - 5/7/90 (240.20) In answer to Councilman Erskine' s inquiry, the City Administrator stated he would return to Council May 7, 1990, with a recommendation and financial alternatives regarding the unfunded portion of the Pier Construction Project. IRBY PARK - STATUS REPORT In answer to Councilman Bannister' s inquiry, the Finance Director gave a status report of the transaction of the sale of Irby Park as it was proposed. SOIL TESTING IMPLEMENTATION DURING OIL WELL ABATEMENTS - REPORT TO BE PRESENTED A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mays, to direct the City Admin- istrator to bring back to Council soil testing implementation during oil well abatements. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays, Bannister, Silva NOES: None ABSTAIN: Erskine ABSENT: None (City Council) FINDING FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 RE: APPEAL FILED BY HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN - SEE PAGE 5) (420.40) A motion was made by Winchell , seconded by Mays, to adopt the following Finding for Denial of the Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32. Page 19 - Council /Agency Minutes - 4/2/90 (City Council) MOTION APPROVED TO RECONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING 3/19/90 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 - CONSTRUCTION OF A FIREPLACE (420.50) A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by MacAllister, to make a determination that the need to take action on the issue of the public hearing held March 19, 1990, on the Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63, Construction of a Fireplace, arose subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) . The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion made by Erskine, seconded by MacAllister, to reconsider with, again, know the understanding that there' s no commitment to anything other than to give another good hearing and, if need be, a more fair hearing than was achieved last time. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays , Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO PRESENT REPORT - PIER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FUNDING - 5/7/9 0 (240.20) In answer to Councilman Erskine' s inquiry, the City Administrator stated he would return to Council May 7, 1990, with a recommendation and financial alternatives regarding the unfunded portion of the Pier Construction Project. IRBY PARK - STATUS REPORT In answer to Councilman Bannister' s inquiry, the Finance Director gave a status report of the transaction of the sale of Irby Park as it was proposed. $OIL TESTING IMPLEMENTATION DURING OIL WELL ABATEMENTS - REPORT TO BE PRESENTED A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mays , to direct the City Admin- istrator to bring back to Council soil testing implementation during oil well abatements. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays , Bannister, Silva NOES: None ABSTAIN: Erskine ABSENT: None City Council) FINDING FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-32 RE: APPEAL FILED BY HUNTINGTON HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN - SEE PAGE 51 (420.40) A motion was made by Winchell , seconded by Mays , to adopt the following Finding for Denial of the Coastal Development Permit No. 89-32. ry C�v C17,11-Aen manner as violations of this Charter are punishable. The City Council shall have the control of all legal business and proceedings and all property of the legal department, and may employ other attorneys to take charge of or may contract for any prosecution, litigation or other legal matter or business. ? (c) Rules of Order. The City Council shall establish rules for { the conduct of its proceedings and evict or prosecute any member or other person for disorderly conduct at any of its meetings. Upon ,.. ? adoption of any ordinance, resolution, or order for payment of mone y o e demand o a member, r s e o r upon the d and f any emb r, the City Clerk hall call the roll E and shall cause the ayes and noes taken on the question to be entered y• i in the minutes of the meeting. Section 305. PRESIDING OFFICER. At the Council. meeting at which 4 r any Council member is installed following any general or special munic- ipal election, and at any time when there is a vacancy in the office of Mayor, the City Council shall meet and shall elect one of its members as ' its presiding officer, who shall have the title of Mayor. The Mayor may make and second motions and shall have a voice and vote in all its ocee e e official a e or all . proceedings. The Mayor shall be the off' 'al head of the City f 1 ceremonial purposes; shall have the primary but not the exclusive re- sponsibility for interpreting the policies, programs and needs of the City government to the people, and as occasion requires, may inform the people of any major change in policy or program; and shall perform ' such other duties consistent with the office as may be prescribed by r this Charter or as may be imposed by the City Council. The Mayor shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of the City Council. i Section 306. MAYOR PRO TEMPORE. The City Council shall also :, designate one of its members as Mayor Pro Tempore, who shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of the City Council. The Mayor Pro Tem- 8. pore shall perform the duties of the Mayor during the Mayor's absence or disability or at the Mayor's request. Section 307. NON-INTERFERENCE WITH ADMINISTRATION. Except as i otherwise provided in this Charter, no member of the City Council shall order, directly or indirectly, the appointment by the City Administrator, I or by any of the department heads in administrative service of the City, i of any person to any office or employment, or removal therefrom. Except r n n i members for the purpose of investigation and inquiry, the mbe s of the City nc administrative ic- Council shall deal with the ad �nistrativ service under the jurisd' i o i Administrator a mini ton f the City Administr t solely through the City Administrator strator, and no member of the City Council shall give orders to any subordinate 1 . 03 . 02 Special Meetings . Special City. C.ouncil meetings •may be called by the Mayor or a majority of the members- of the Council, and the call and notice shall specify ,such time and place. (Charter § 303) 1 . 03 . 03 Public Input . Each regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of -the public to address the Council on items that are within the' subject matter jurisdiction of the Council . The Mayor, subject to appeal as a decision of the chair, may establish time limits for particular issues and individual speakers . Speakers shall fill out a form provided by the City Clerk and give it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. No person may donate his or her time to another speaker . Chapter 1 . 04 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE 04 01 Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised. In 'all matters of parliamentary procedure which are not expressly provided for in the city Charter or the ordinances or resolutions of the city, the procedure contained in "Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised, " as it now exists or future revisions thereof, shall control . • 1 , 04 . 02 Parliamentarian. The City Attorney is parliamentarian for the City Council, and upon the request of the Mayor or upon his own initiative, shall make rulings on points of parliamentary procedure. 1, 04 . 03 Motions . Motions may be made by any member of the Council and require a second, except when a second is not required by "Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised. " A motion may be withdrawn by the mover with the consent of the second and in the absence of objection from any other member of the Council . 1. 04 . 04 Vote required. A few actions require more than four (4) votes . They include five (5) votes for zoning moratoria (Government Code § 65858 as limited by Charter § 501) , five (5) votes for a resolution to condemn property (C.C.P. §1245 . 360) , and five (5) votes for certain taxes or other measure whose principal purpose is raising revenue (Charter § 608) . For all other nonemergency ordinances, four (4) affirmative votes are required. In addition, four (4) votes are required for the making or approving any order for the payment of money. (Charter § 500) 1 . 04 . 05 Emergency ordinances . Any ordinance declared by the City Council to be necessary as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, • and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency, may be introduced and adopted at a meeting if passed by at least five (5) affirmative votes . .(Charter § 501) -6- 1 , 04 . 14 Quorum. A quorum for all meetings- of the City •Council is four (4) - councilpersons . 1 . 04 . 15 Ralph M. Brown Act . Any meeting, gathering or coming together of four (4) or more councilpersons at which city business is discussed is subject to the Brown Act . (Government Code § 54950, et seq. ) A copy- of the Brown Act is found in the appendix to this manual . 1 . 04 . 16 Fines , penalties and franchises . In addition to such other acts of the City Council as are required by the Charter to be taken by ordinance, every act of the City Council establishing a fine or other penalty, or granting a franchise, shall be by ordinance . (Charter § 500) 1, 04 . 17 Other actions . Actions which are not required by the city Charter or city ordinances to be in the form of ordinances or resolutions may be effectuated by minute action. 1, 04 . 18 When minute action is a resolution. In all situations where an action of the City Council under the express provisions of the city Charter or ordinances shall or may be by resolution, a "minute action" of the City Council adopted by at least four (4) affirmative votes , shall be deemed a resolution for all purposes , and such action shall not fail merely because it lacks the form or title of a resolution. ' • 1. 04 . 19 Minute actions . Minute actions require the affirmative votes of a majority of councilpersons present and voting, but not less than three (3) , except when less than a quorum is present, the lesser number may adjourn from time to time. (See § 1 . 04 . 04 for requirements of higher votes . ) 1, 04 . 20 Motion to rescind. A motion to rescind a minute action without advance notice requires five affirmative votes ; with notice (in the formal Council agenda) the motion requires four affirmative votes . 1 . 04 . 21 Motion to reconsider . A motion to reconsider , when appropriate under Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised, may be made at the same meeting or no later than the next regular meeting of the City Council by a councilperson who voted on the prevailing side of the motion to which it applies . The vote required to adopt a motion to reconsider shall be a simple majority of councilpersons present and voting, except that such motion shall require four (4) affirmative votes in order to reconsider any motion which required four (4) affirmative votes for adoption. A motion to reconsider may be made only once with respect to any motion to which it applies; however, a motion to reconsider a main motion does not preclude the making of a motion' to reconsider the main motion as amended. A motion to • amend may be reconsidered. A motion to reconsider a motion to reconsider is not permitted. The vote on the motion to -9= I i reconsider shall be taken at the .time the motion to reconsider is made except that the vote on a motion "to reconsider and enter upon the minutes" shall_ be taken at the next regular 1.. . meeting of the City Council. The effect of the adoption of a motion to reconsider is to vacate the vote taken on the motion to which it applies and to present the motion to which it applies to the body for action as if no vote had been taken on it . The new vote on the motion to which it applies neither sustains nor overrules such motion because the old vote is vacated, and the new vote is taken as though no previous vote had been taken. 1 , 04 . 22 Vote required on appellate matters . Where action has been taken by a lower body that would be final if not appealed, such as decisions by the Hoard of Zoning Adjustments or the Planning Commission, and is subsequently appealed to the higher body, the following procedure applies : (a) If the motion is to sustain the lower body' s decision, a majority of those present and voting is sufficient (four (4) affirmative votes not required) . It is not necessary to make a motion to overrule. When there is a tie vote, the lower body is sustained. However, if the motion to sustain gets less than a tie vote, a motion to overrule must be made. (b) If the motion is to overrule the decision of the lower ibody, four (4) affirmative votes are required. If there are less than four (4) affirmative votes, the decision of .the lower body is deemed sustained and no further vote is required. - (c) If a motion is made to modify the decision of the lower body, two separate steps must be taken: (1) First, the motion to modify requires four (4) affirmative votes . (2) Second, if the motion to modify is adopted, a motion to sustain the decision of the lower body as modified requires the same vote as the motion to sustain. (3) A motion to overrule the decision of the lower body, as modified, requires four (4) affirmative votes . If there are less than four (4) affirmative votes, the decision of the lower body, as modified, is deemed sustained without further vote . (4) If a motion to modify fails, the next motion is either to sustain or to overrule the subordinate body. 1 , 04 . 23 Appointments to boards and commissions . when a vacancy occurs for any reason on any board or agency over which Council has power to fill by appointment, subject to the provisions of the Maddy Act (Government Code§ 54970) . The following procedure shall be followed to fill such vacancy: �. -10- ILL RESOLUTION NO. 6085 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A REVISED COUNCIL MANUAL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it does hereby adopt a City Council Manual, revised 1989 , which manual is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof . Future amendments to the Council Manual shall be by resolution of the City Council which may relate only to the sections amended . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of November 198 Qt-u-Cr-r. r _ Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT AND AS INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Mayor ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER I MOTIONS AND THEIR ORDER OF PRECEDENCE . i To illustrate: A motion that a question lie on the table having failed,suppose afterwards it be moved to Reconsider. �� refer the matter to a committee, it is now in order to move again that the subject he on the table;but such a motion would not be in order if it were not made till after the failure of the motion to commit as the ques- tion then resumes its previous condition. So, if a sub- i It is in order at any time, even when another jest has been taken from the table or an objection to I member has the floor, or while the assembly its consideration has been voted down, it is not in is voting on the motion to Adjourn, during order to move to lay it on the table, as this practically j the day on which a motion has been acted upon,or the involves the very question the assembly has just de- i next succeeding day,* to move to "Reconsider the cided. vote" and have such motion "entered on the record," but it cannot be considered while another question is When a subject has been referred to a committee before the assembly. which reports at the same meeting, the matter stands :rt before the assembly as if it had been introduced for •if the vote is not reconsidered on the day it was taken,and no meeting is t Y 9 the first time.A motion which has been withdrawn has held the next day,then it cannot be reconsidered at the next meeting.The not been acted upon, and therefore can be renewed. r proper course then is to renew the motion if it failed,or rescind[§ 25]it if it had been adopted. :!1 •.'Ti A55EABLY NAS Q Z MOVE FAE `> VOTED AGAINST tAyl►�C+ UE5TIl DUES It must be made, excepting when the vote is by THE QUCSTtON OF DUES 8E REFERRED To ON-rNE'rADl...'THE A COMMIT TEE. ! ballot, by a member who voted with the'prevailing } CHAIR RECO614IZE5 MR Vil j side;t for instance, in case a motion fails to pass for SECOND, lack of a two-thirds vote, a reconsideration must be t i� = moved by one who voted against the motion. ' THE ASSEME1Ly F1A5 1 MOVE tAny one can second the motion. in Congress any one can move a recon- sideration,excepting where the vote is taken by yeas and nays[§ 381, :'Y VOTEvA6Al►r�i(REPERRING when the rule above applies. f�1 lrF E QUESTION OF DUES E1E N fhl LAID LAID O TO A COMMITTEE IL Ok MIl A motion to reconsider the vote on a Subsidiary f [§ 7] Motion takes precedence of the main question. It a•, yields to Privileged [§ 91 Questions (except for the Orders of the Day) and Incidental [§ 8] Questions. 74 75 1 � D Ott, :I -tom r+.�.k.r7`•".tix_' M+t, ".l ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER MOTIONS AND THEIR ORDER OF PRECEDENCE j.,. { move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.I1 the latter motion This motion can be applied' to the vote On every I is adopted it is deemed a finality,as the number of bills on the calendar ' other question, except to Adjourn and to Suspend the j precludes its ever being taken up except by a two-thirds vote. But this is Rules,and an affirmative vote on to Lay on the Table not so in an ordinary society. There is no good reason in this case for or to Take from the Table [§ 19], and a vote electing E violating the general principle that only one motion can be made at a time. to office one who is present and does not decline. The Effect of making this motion is to suspend all *It is not the practice to reconsider an affirmative vote on the motion to lay action that the original motion would have required on the table,as the same results can be reached by the motion to take from until the reconsideration is acted upon; but if it is not the table. For a similar reason,an affirmative vote on a motion to take from the table cannot be reconsidered. called up, its effect terminates with the session [§ 42], ''? provided,• that in an assembly having regular meet- No question can be twice reconsidered,t unless it ings as often as monthly, if there is not held upon was amended after its first reconsideration. If an another day an adjourned meeting of the one at which amendment to a motion has been either adopted or re- the reconsideration was moved, its effect shall not ter- jected, and then a vote taken on the motion as amend- minate till the close of the next succeeding session [see ed, it is not in order to reconsider the vote on the note at end of this section]. amendment until after the vote on the original motion has been reconsidered. If the Previous Question[§ 201 *In Congress the effect always terminates with the session,and it cannot ti has been partly executed, it cannot be reconsidered. I be called up by any one but the mover, until the expiration of the time +'� 1 during which it is in order to move a reconsideration. tThe minutes can be corrected any number of times without a recon- sideration. But the reconsideration of an Incidental [§ 8] or If anything which the assembly cannot reverse has Subsidiary [§ 7] Motion (except where the vote to be been done as the result of a vote, then that vote cannot I reconsidered had the effect to remove the whole sub- be reconsidered. This motion cannot be amended; it is ject from before the assembly) shall,be immediately debatable or not, just as the question to be recon- acted upon, as otherwise it would prevent action on sidered is debatable or undebatable [§ 35]; when the main question.t i+ ' debatable, it opens up for discussion the entire subject I to be reconsidered, and the Previous Question [§ 201, tThus, suppose the motion to indefinitely Postpone is negatived, show ing that the assembly wish to consider the subject.If it is moved to recon- tfif ordered while it is pending, affects only the motion sider the last vote, hen the reconsideration must be immediately acted to reconsider. It can be laid on the table (§ 191, in upon,as otherwise the whole subject would be removed from before the which case, the reconsideration, like any other ques- I assembly as shown above,without any possible benefit to the assembly. tion, can be taken from the table, but possesses no II the object is to prevent a temporary majority from adopting a resolution, privilege."The motion to reconsider being laid on the I the proper course is to wait until the resolution is finally acted upon,and s table does not carry with it the pending measure. then move the reconsideration. If the motion to Indefinitely Postpone is carried, the subject is removed from before the assembly, and conse- `'k quently there is no hindrance to business in permitting the reconsidera- ll *In Congress it is usual for the member in charge of an important bill as 1 soon as it passes to move its reconsideration, and at the same time to lion to hold over to another day. 76 77 FM :t�ijirS�t _ 4 y. 1. • a 1 a� l f ri '• r �irr'�„'.ti+. of r 4A1hr' .r ,4 r .. .. �T'(_r tr.jy,t`h � w. .. .A -r; 1 + � "1 r✓.. •#r... .... R.OBERT'S RULES OF ORDER MOTIONS AND THEIR ORDER OF PRECEDENCE While this motion is so highly privileged as far as reconsidered [For reconsidering in committee see ?_ relates to having it entered on the minutes, yet the § 28•1 reconsideration of another question cannot be made NOTE ON RECONSIDER. to interfere with the discussion of a question before the assembly, but as soon as that subject is disposed :h of,the reconsideration,if called up,'takes precedence In the English Parliament a yore once taken cannot be -tt reconsidered, but in our Congress it is allowed to move a of everything except the motions to adjourn, and to reconsideration of the vote on the same or succeeding day, -'t fix the time to which to adjourn. As long as its effect and qfter the close of the last day for making the motion, lasts(as shown above), any one can call up the motion anyone can call up the motion to reconsider, so that this to reconsider, and have it acted upon--excepting that motion cannot delay action more than two days,and the ef- '. when its effect extends beyond the meeting at which Ject of the motion, if not acted upon, terminates with the the motion was made, no one but the mover can call it session. There seems to be no reason or good precedent for up at that meeting. permitting merely two persons, by moving a reconsidera- tion, to suspend for any length of time all action under 3 "When the reconsideration has been called up it can be treated as other resolutions adopted by the assembly, and yet where the motions, and holds over as unfinished business. delay is very short the advantages of reconsideration over- balance the evil. n: Where a permanent society has meetings weekly or • : The Effect of the adoption of this motion is to place monthly, and usually only a small proportion of the society =. is present, it seems best to allow a reconsideration to hold before the assembly the original question in the exact over to another meeting,so that the society may have notice position it occupied before it was voted upon; conse- of what action is about to be taken. To prevent the motion quently no one can debate the question reconsidered being used to defeat a measure that cannot be deferred till ` who had previously exhausted his right to debate the next regular meeting, it is provided that in case the [§ 341 on that question; his only resource is to discuss society adjourns, to meet on a dfferent day, then the .the question while the motion to reconsider is before reconsideration will not hold over beyond that session;this the assembly. When a vote taken under the operation allows suJfcient delay to notify the society, while, if the "t = of the previous question is reconsidered, the question question is one requiring immediate action, the delay can- is then divested of the previous question, and is open I not extend beyond the day to which it adjourns. The rule provides that the adjourned meeting must be held on to debate and amendment, provided the previous another day, in order to prevent the whole object of the i question had been exhausted (see§ 20) by votes taken reconsideration being defeated by an immediate adjourn- on all the questions covered by it,before the motion to ment to meet again in a Jew minutes. Where the meetings ;f reconsider was made. are only quarterly or annual the society should be properly i•: represented at each meeting, and their best interests are A reconsideration requires only a majority vote, re- subserved by following the practice of Congress,and letting ' gardless of the vote necessary to adopt the motion the effect of the reconsideration terminate with the session. 78 79 ... 14 •ty3�' t +l ��.. Y,,�� r - C�:1:J:r trp' + ' r + w. -.4v ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER MlOTIONS ., question, then the quickest way of suppressing it is to called up, it takes precedence of every motion except move"to lay the question on the table;"which,allow- to adjourn and to fix the time to which the assembly ing of no debate, enables the majority to instantly lay shall adjourn. the question on the table, from which it cannot be A motion to reconsider a vote on a debatable ques- taken without their consent. tion, opens to debate the entire merits of the original motion. If the question to be reconsidered is un- From its high rank [see p. 12] and undebatable debatable, then the reconsideration is undebatable. ' character, this motion is very commonly used to sup- y7 press a question, but,as shown in§ 57(b), its effect is If the motion to reconsider is carried, the chairman 1. merely to lay the question aside till the assembly choose announces that the question now recurs on the adop- to consider it, and it only suppresses the question so tion of the question the vote on which has been just long as there is a majority opposed to its consideration. .4 reconsidered;the original question is now in exactly the same condition that it was in before the first vote was To Consider taken on its adoption,and must be disposed of by vote. it Question When a motion to reconsider is entered on the a Second Time. minutes, it need not be called up by the mover till the �. (a) RECONSIDER. next meeting, on a succeeding day.' 'If the assembly has not adopted these or similar rules, this paragraph When a question has been once adopted, re- would not apply; but this motion to reconsider would,like any other mo- { :; jected, or suppressed it cannot be again con- i tion,tall to the ground it not acted upon before the close of the session at sidered during that session [§ 421, except by a which the original vote was adopted. motion to "reconsider the vote" on that question. This motion can only be made by one who voted' on t;` If he fails to call it up then, any one else can do so. the prevailing side, and on the day the vote was taken But should there be no succeeding meeting, either ad- which it is proposed to reconsider, or on the next suc- journed or regular, within a month, then the effect of ceeding day. It can be made and entered on the the motion to reconsider terminates with the adjourn- minutes in the midst of debate, even when another a ment of the meeting at which it was made, and any member has the floor, but cannot be considered until _; one can call it up at that meeting. there is no question before the assembly, when, if . In general no motion (except to adjourn) that has been once acted upon can again be considered during ly, 'In Congress,if the yeas and nays were not taken on the vote•any one 'V can move the reconsideration. The yeas and nays are,however,ordered the same session, except by a motion to reconsider. on all important votes in congress, which is not the case in ordinary c [The motion to adjourn can be renewed if there has societies. Yt. been progress in business or debate, and it cannot be '196 197 ii Q. rr r.: :f ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER MOTIONS vrv,A� ' =1 reconsidered.] But this rule does not prevent the ] , ' 1 (b) SPECIAL ORDER. renewal of any of the motions mentioned in § 7, pro- vided the question before the assembly has in any way If a subject is of such importance that it is desired to changed; for in this case, while the motions are consider it at a special time, in preference to the orders nominally the same, they are in fact different. y of the day and established order of business, then a *Thus to move to postpone a resolution is a different Question from mov- motion should be made to make the question a "see- ing to postpone it after it has been amended. A motion to suspend the cial order" for that particular time. This motion re- rules for a certain purpose cannot be renewed at the same meeting. but wires a two-thirds v p poseat q ds vote for its adoption, because it is P , can be at an adjourned meeting.A call for the orders of the day,that has t;' really a suspension of the rules and it is in order ., Y Pe e n negatived. cannot renewed while the question then before the been be 9 Q whenever a motion to suspend h s d the rules is in order. If a � • assembly i III underconsideration. See 271or man ecultarities of Pe asse b s still u de u, YI � Y P subject is a special order for 1 pect a particular des then on this motion and 25 for he motion to Rescind. �� y+the 1 nt that day it supersedes all business except the reading of the minutes. A special order can be postponed by a Order majority vote. If two special orders are made for the 61 and Rules. same day, the one first made takes precedence. (a) ORDERS OF THE DAY. tE' (c) SUSPENSION OF THE RULES. Sometimes an assembly decides that certain questions shall be considered at a particular r; q Pa - It is necessary for every assembly, if discussion is k9q e to rulesits time be allowed, t have to prevent ing wasted, time, and when that time arrives those ues- •� a lions constitute what is termed the "orders of the and to enable it to accomplish the object for which the ' day"; and if any member "calls for the orders of the assembly was organized; and yet at times their best in- day," as it requires no second, the chairman immedi- terests are subserved by suspending their rules tem- ` atel puts the question thus: "Will the assembly now �? Y P q y porarily. In order to do this some one makes a motion proceed to the orders of the day?" If carried, the sub- "to suspend the rules that interfere with,"etc.,stating ';: ject under consideration is laid aside, and the ques- the object of the suspension. If this motion is carried y : tions appointed for that time are taken up in their . , by a two-thirds vote, then the particular thing for order. When the time arrives the chairman may state f, which the rules were suspended can be done. By that fact, and put the above question without waiting general consent," that is, if no one objects, the rules t ilf ;. 8 1 for a motion; or, he can announce the orders of the relating to the transaction of business can at any time day without taking any vote, if no one objects. If the be ignored without the formality of a motion. 1' motion fails, the call for the orders of the day cannot be renewed until the subject then before the assembly {` (d) QUESTIONS OF ORDER. is disposed of.t tSee 1 13 for a fuller explanation. „' It is the duty of the chairman to enforce the rules )'y,.I•,;'',,�; ;.e, 172 RULES Or ORDER §16. §16. IREVIOUS QUESTION 173 the question(s)'s being laid on the table, or b% the in- Othev nrearrS that: refc;-ra! and the questions come up tervention of a special order set for a particular hour in during the < one the order ren:+tu: in (14, 40), a question of privilege: (19), a recess (8, 20), C0C, ; all mutiuns Lin which the PP r;,ioiis Que:,tinn was t ; . or an adjournment 8, 21 If the hour set for a special 1 ( )• ( P ordered must be voted on immediately (unless a recon- .,.:N cLY .~`.=1• order, a recess, or an adjournment has arrived and the sideration of the order is possible and a motion to re- ,,..:.z isf.1+ Previous Question has been ordered on one or more consider it has been made, or is then made; see below). pending motions, however, there usually will be no —If the questions do not come up again until a later ses- ,� objection to the chair's putting them all to a vote in siurl, the Prr, ioIIs Quc>tfulr is ahvays ex nuste,i, re- succession before he announces the matter that inter- cardlrss of how the interruption of execution occurred. 4I •'•'.►.� venes, Unless the Votes are to be taken by ,I method RLCONSIDERArION OF A VOTE THAT HAS ORDERED THE PRE- j r requiring time.) VIOUS QUESTION. As noted in Standard Characteristic 8, a EXHAUSTION OF THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. The Previous Vote that has ordered the Previous Qrestion can be recon- uestion is said to be exhausted In reference to a �rticu- ��FIt Q (• P• sidered before, but not after, any of the motions affected by uc lar order for it) when all of the motions on which it was the order have been voted on. Consequently, it will fre- 'a§; ordered have been finally disposed of,or when any motions quently happen that a motion to reconsider an affirmative •f; not vet finally disposed of are no longer affected by the voteo evinr> Question itself can be made only in I itt7 order. The conditions for exhaustion of the Previous Ques- the brief moment after the vote ordering the Precious Ques- tionare the same as for an order limiting or extending limits Lion is completed and before the first vote is taken under •I of debate—that is: (1) when all motions on which the Pre- the order. (Sec also p. 177.) l vious Question was ordered have been voted on; (2) when if the execution of an order For the Previous Question I those not yet voted on have either been committed or post- was interrupted before any vote %vas taken tinder the order, l` poned indefinitely; or (3) at the end of the sc,sion in which and if the questIMIS curve up again Lill:ini, the same session, ' the Previous Question was ordered—whichever Occurs first. a motion to reconsider the order (if not made earlier) ran be After the I're'r+iow; t,lur:aiolr i, exhau•.ted, .uly remaining made only III Ibe nu+nunl .,Ilrr the ch.Iir ha•: announced questions that sums•up.Ii;ain arc upon lO dcb.lte and amend- these qucstwII5 ,I., the prn.ling bu1111e,s and before any Of ment just as if there had been no order for the Previous them are voted on. In addition, the regular time limits for Question. making a motion to Reconsider apply. (See 36.) :) If the execution of an order for the Previous Question is It should be noted that if a motion or series of motions !I interrupted and if the motion or motions that were pending J that is under an order for the Previous Question comes up i;• � come up again later, the rules in the foregoing paragraph after having been postponed, there can never be a recon- ':A,u''7 a 1 as follows: PP Y sideration of the order. The reason is that the motion to —If the questions were re/erred to a committee and are Postpone can only have been made before the Previous later reported, the Previous Question is exhausted and Question was ordered, so that the order for the Previous the motions are open to debate and amendment, even i I P 1 Question will always have been partly executed by the if it is during the same Session. I vote that caused the postponement. t�+ —But if the interruption of execution occurred by any In practice, if a motion to reconsider an affirmative vote if�r.lp t ,r.•r>c;"q..1I 174 RULISoroRDLR §76. §lo. I'R1:CLOL'hQt:1.SIr0N 175 t: on the Previous Question prevails, the subsequent procc- —But if a riur:::nu; of Eu:,•i.c•gc is raised and is admitted dure is abbreviated as follows: The vote that adopted the for immediate consideration (see 19), or if a special motion to Reconsider is also presumed to have carried out order set for a particular hour intervenes, these gues- t. �..} ua the reconsideration and to have reversed the vote that is tions are independent of .ln unc•xhaLlsted order for the li,. reconsidered; thai is, the Prcvrous Qucshon is no%v pre- Question applying to business that they :X{= sumed to be rejected and is not voted on again, for these interrupt. reasons: In such a case, only members opposed to the Pre- ' vious Question would vote to reconsider it after it had been Form and Example adopted; consequently,•, if a majority have voted for recon- r P q 7 I Y The forms usci, in making this ^lotion include: "I move sideration, it will be impossible to obtain a two-thirds vote the previous question" tin %vhic!1 form the motion %\•ill a,•, in favor of the Previous Questio,r• pp I ' move �a E� C a Iv only to the inunrdiatriv �cn"rn,; question); "I •r .I RECONSIDERATION OF A VOTE TAKEN UNDER THE PREVIOUS (""demand," or "(-,lil for") the previous question on the mo- •!. QUESTION. If a vote taken under an order for the Previous tion to commit and its amendment"; "I demand the pre- ff ' Question that is, a vote that was ordered by the adoption Q ( P vious question on all pending questions";and so on.Calls of ' of a motion for the Previous Question) is reconsidered be- "Question!"•. r Q ) � uestion h\• members from their seats are not motions fore the Previous Question is exhausted, the motion to Re- for the Prc,•inrvs Question and are simply informal expres- : !:' consider is undebatable and the motion reconsidered can sions of individual members' desires to proceed to a vote. neither be debated nor amended. But if the reconsideration These calls arc disorderly if made %while another member is SEt• r occurs after the Previous Question is exhausted, then the speaking or seeking recognition. motion to Reconsider, as well as the question to be recon- If a motion such as "I move we vote no%w" is made, the J sidered, is no longer affected by the Previous Question. chair should reco,;nize and treat it as a motion for the Pre- EFFECT ON APPEALS. An appeal is undebatable if it is made ,;iclu:, (?urr�firrr. i I after the Previous Question has been moved or ordered and In st.ltirl); the question on this motion, since it is neither �) before the order is exhausted. debatable nor amendable, the chair does not say, "Are you i EFFECT ON SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS GENERALLY. The general ready for the question7" but Faits the question for a rising rules as to the effect of an unexhausted order for the Pre- vote on the motion for the Prcrious Question immediately, 1 vious Question on subsequent motions that would nor- as shown below. In a similar planner, in announcing an +� mally be debatable or amendable are as follows: affirmative result, he at once states and puts the question —While one or more motions on which the Previous on the motion that is then immediately pending. QQuestion has been ordered remain ending, the order P Assume that a series of several debatable and amendable ' also applies to any other motions that may take rece- t: pp P motions is pending. dence over these pending questions. (The rules stated ML.wiri: n (oblainin); the floor): 1 move the previous question jr in the two preceding paragraphs—relating to motions to on s L%ifyin• the motions, unless he desires that only the im- 1 P• t, Y reconsider a vote taken under the Previous Question, `. i mediately pending question be affected]. (Second.) yr:•i: y and to appeals—are particular applications of this prin- CHAIR: The previous question is moved on [naming the mo- ... eiple.) tions, unless none were specified]. As many as are in favor of i►fi A, t��'v i •i'i'^ i §17. LAY ON Tnr.TABLE 177 •'ci '+ 176 BULLS Or ORDER §16. question on all pending questions. As many ... 'Yt ordering the previous question on lrepcating the motionsj, nrl:ann.1: Z (quickly rising): Mr. President. please rise. ... Be seated. Those opposed, rise... . Be seated. CHAIR: fur What purpose does the member rise? •.+.5� `' There are two thirds in the affirmative and the previous ques- NIL>IBER Z: Mr. President, I move the previous question on the H: y tion is ordered on [naming again the motions to which the order motion to commit and on the amendment to the resolution. applies]. The question is now on the adoption of the motion to (Second.) a;:. . [stating in full the immediately pending question]. As many as eitAnz: The previous question is also demanded on the motion are in favor [and so on, putting to vote in proper sequence all to commit and on the amendment to the resolution. The ques- 9 motions on which the P crioud Qucs:iorl has been orderedJ. tion is first, however, on the motion to order the previous clues- ' tion on ,tll pending questions. As many as are in favor of order- If there are less than two thirds in the affirmative, the rf ing...hand so on. Alternative motions for the Previous Question chair announces the result of the vote on the motion for the "t', ' •a• are voted on in order beginning with the one that would apply +,y Previous Question as follows: to the largest number of pending questions.Therefore,after ad- CHAIR: There are less than two thirds in the affirmative and mitting Member Y's motion, the chair starts to put the question the motion for the previous question is lost.The question is now on it first; but after admitting Member Z's,he returns to taking �} on [stating the question on the immediately pending motion]. a vote on Member Vs. If one of these motions for the Previous r Question is adopted, any remaining ones are ignored.] Debate may now resume. IThe chair does not say, "Are you i ready for the question"' here, since the assembly has just If a member wishes to make a higher-ranking motion or shown that it is not ready.] to move a reconsideration while a motion for the Previous The following example shows the forms used in handling Question is pending or after the Previous Question has alternative motions for the Previous Question that specify been ordered, he seeks limited recognition by rising and I� different numbers of pending questions in a series, as de- interrupting the chair in the same manner as shown in the scribed under Standard Characteristic 6. example above. l Assume that a resolution, an amendment to the resolu- tion, and a motion to Commit are pending; (in which case .'.t the motion to Commit is the immediately pending question). §17. LAY ON THE TABLE u MEMBER X (obtaining the floor): I move the previous question. I I, (Second.Since the motions to which the Previous Question is to The motion to Lay ort the Table enables the assembly to 'v apply are not specified,it applies in this case only to the imme- lay the pending question aside temporarily when some- ,t; diately pending motion to Commit.) thing more urgent has arisen, in such a wav that: i + CHAIR:The previous question is demanded. As many as are in + ; I —there is no set time for taking the matter up again; ; J 4•�• favor of ordering... i 6', —but (until the expiration of time limits explained on pp. MEMBER Y (quickly rising and interrupting the chair): Mr. ! ; 181-182) its consideration can be resumed at the will of 't (iff President. - a nta orily and in reference to an new•questions that j. , i CHAIR: for what purpose does the member rise: I P Y I t MEMBER Y: 1 move the previous question on all endin ues- may then be competing; with it for consideration. i.:�:�•�i. P I p' b 9 tions. (Second.) By adopting the motion to Lay oti the Table, a majority CHAIR: The previous question is also moved on all pending has the power to halt consideration of a question imme- I ;`: questions. The question is now on the demand for the previous .:A . m`J k •. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 19, 1990 Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Cubit: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held March 241 91990, denied with findings, your application relative to Conditional Exception (Variance) 89-63. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedures of the State of California you have ninety days from March 21, 1990, to apply to the courts for judicial review. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney Community Development Director City Administrator 1051K (Telephone: 714-536-5227) § 1094.5 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Part 3 Note 378 n.nrlded for nt•tt• bind do matt,. Prvsrnd N. [aired real, i-:.sinner hnd uv jurisdirlion t'it Ii(nrnin Unemplovnu•ut its. .\lgtrnlx lid. and did not delerntlue morlts, Westorn Air (19711) 1''7 l'ol.R lit r. bill, 57 ('.A,ttl 21). I,luctt lac. v, Sohi(mki (11161) 12 Cal.ltptr. '1'rin1 court'tt Judgtn g;u•al d,vt%in writ cif 71p, 11)1 mandate to coulpcl director tit og;rieultnro h'ttcl that letter discharging xcnior typ- In Het nKitlo hi4 dcoisiatt rovnkimg pe lint[- ixt clerk im offivv of vm ml) clerk [hated er,.s livens- ns aircraft pllnt in hmxrltess ut Ihnt she wnx guilty of misrunduct in re- lust control w•nx reversed and vnxe. re utoving; puhlic records from tho files and ntnnded to trial mart with directions to imidlating and xeereling them on various remand ruse to director for purpet.e of dotes, wherenx in hcaring before county revomxidoring the penally previously im- elvil service conunisslon evidence was in- posed, where it was found thnt [tome of traduced only ns to wlutt took place on the charges ngainst. petitioner were not nnc of the dates, did sot require the din- xnpported h,v evidence. Wingfield t-. (rlct court 44 nppmtl on nl.prnl from judg- Direc•tor of Agriculture (1[17'1) 105 Cal. runt awnrding xcnior typi,t clerk writ of Itptr. 619, 29 C'.A.3d 2of), mandate, nftee revereing; the Judgment of Procoediug fog review of denial by t•otn- the superior enurt, to rentnnd the matter missloner of rorporttilons of permit to to the c•ommixsion for rt-onaideration, chnnge voting; rights of slutrr.hold,�rs where. there tvns n similnrity of facts nor• would he rentnnded to xuperior court fur rounding; rcm�tvnl of the documents on ❑ll dotcnniuntion whether there tens subsist)* of the dabs. 1'rxlt v. Lux Angeles Coun- Oul evidence to support cuauniasluuer's tv [Civil `ervic C.omtniwsiou (1952) 238 findingx, where court improperly deter- 1',Ld 3,108 C.A.2d 114. 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and Marty defined; or- dinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agrnc.\•, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of. the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent tilt. reof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ:of mandate pursuant to such section is filed 'within the time limits.specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day r following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for- the purposes of this section, the decisi,`P is final on the date it Is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tinn can be sought; provided, .that if reconsideration is sought pursu- arit to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this ection on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The complete record of the I1roccedirigs shall lx' prepared by 111ci loc.;ll agellc'y or ils con 1111is�:ioll, bo;ll•cl, Officer, or Ngenl which imide the decision and shrill be delivered to the petitioner within 90 trays lifter he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover- from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tran- Script of thu proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 t Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6 •s • exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or Its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. . (d) If the petitioner files a request for Iliv record ns specified in culxlivision .(c1 wilhin 10 flays after the dale Ilse decision becomes fi- nal as provided in subdivision (b); Ili(, tinge wilhin which a 11eLilion Pursuant to Section 1O94.5 cony be filed shall he extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec-. ord, If he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing,. suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- meet benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this section applicable. If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the pl'ovisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976,.c. 276;p. 681, § 1.) Forms See West's Califoruin C otle r'orms, Civil Procedure. Library References AdntiuirtrntIve 1.4t\v and Prove, itrvv CJ.S. Public Administrative Bodies and 0-722. 1'ruceditre § .193. Notes of Decisions In.general I Ihnt Iuthlic employment relutlons board Exhaustion of administrative remedles 2 hail exclnsivit juriHdietlott to determine whel.her the unfair pructice chnrgus were Itnitlfled; aml, in View of teachers' failura to exlrutst (heir wdutirtistnttive remedica 1. In general under the Itoddo Acl, trini court erred in 8choul liorrd'N '7tnllwlrrnl freezing of grwntia{; writ of rtuuulate to compel xnlror- lt•nehcr..s' Nwhtries rtfler hrpinninR of nc". intend--lit of district will otheru to ruiso ++churl :t-enr, while emnlrnel neKotirtions sttlnri-•s of certain tencheru. Atnndrt Vu1- were pending, nrgtutbly wrs un unfair ii-v k,s'rndnry I?duontrrs Aas'r \. Newlin Irruclive iu t•lolutlum Of the Ituddw Act Ho 607511 lug Cul,ltptr. 724, SS (I.A.Jti '_G.J. 675 _ L C G ASSIG,JED TO J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH White City Attorney REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Canary City Attorney Pink City Attorney Goldenrod Department HUNTINGTON BEACH Date Request Made By Department 4/3/90 Connie Brockway City Clerk OVA/ INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office as soon as possible. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney.Out- line briefly reasons for the request.Attach all information and exhibits pertinent to the subject. Type of Legal Service Requested: [ I Ordinance ( ] Insurance [ ] Other [ I Resolution ( ] Bonds [ I Contract/Agreement k 1 Opinion Is form for preparation of Contract attached? .[ ] yes [ ]no All Exhibits must be attached or this request will be returned. [x ] Exhibits attached If for Council Action, If not for Council action,desired completion date Signature: Agenda deadline Council meeting ASAP The dates on the attached letter to Mr. Cubit were transposed. The date of the meeting is '--, nd the date the letter was prepared wasi Does the error mean that we should send a new letter out and start the 90 day period again? u r - m CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE USE ONLY: This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to SARAH LAZARUS , on 4/4/90 for handling. His or her secretary Karen , can be reached at 8803 The Control Number assigned to this request is : RLS 90-262 please reference this number when making any inquiries. Date Completed: e CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH White City Attorney REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Canary city Attorney Pink City Attorney Goldenrod Department HUNTINGTON BEACH Date Request Made By Department 4/3/90 Connie Brockway City Clerk INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office as soon as possible. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney.Out- line briefly reasons for the request.Attach all information and exhibits pertinent to the subject. Type of Legal Service Requested: ( ] Ordinance [ ] Insurance ( l Other [ ] Resolution [ ] Bonds ( ] Contract/Agreement It 1 Opinion Is form for preparation of Contract attached? [ ] yes [ ]no All Exhibits must be attached or this request will be returned. [x] Exhibits attached If for Council Action, If not for Council action,desired completion date Signature: Agenda deadline " Council meeting ASAP The dates on the attached letter to Mr. Cubit were transposed. The date of the meeting is 3/19/90 and the date the letter was prepared was 3/21/90. Does the error clean that we should send a new letter out and start the 90 day period again? CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE USE ONLY: This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to , on for handling. His or her secretary , can be reached at .tS The Control Number assigned to this request is: please reference this number when making any inquiries. Date Completed: LJ 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 19, 1990 Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Cubit: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held March 21, 1990, denied with findings, your application relative to Conditional Exception (Variance) 89-63. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedures of the State of California you have ninety days from March 21, 1990, to apply to the courts for judicial review. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney Community Development Director City Administrator 10S1K (Telephone: 714-536-5227) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area Map 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 23, 1990 3 . Appellants letter of appeal and supplemental information dated February 14, 1990 4 . Draft Minutes of January 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting MTU:MA•HF• lab RCA 3/19/90 -5- (4823d) LEOEND� \Jl A DA M S AVE. //. wITHHrTnoDmrc-FPz V U LJ�1 LJ�J LJL_I� I I I I I I �� IJ IL-- I l- - I �' L l"9'I Dua.HIEDusssxnraN %D + •\'4• RI-0 R I R-I R-I R2 ! I -' =C4...-� a [tZlcoAsrLLrlxxsuvnz '+• rr ... .-'R2'.��°F k RI-0 RI �� - �I•• -----COAST4 SOME BOUN°aRY _�,� \ !�, HETEIE'E '^ ,ten W IO)OLDTO �I-.w_ --•-aDTOWNOE SGARRILAN g ;' Pik`} R2 C4' = -D SPECIFIC LAN -- M@ MORBA, ME DIsrRlcr s + i �A,,,, Ego-] PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OISIRICT '0' ♦ rr LOMA AVE ".ILAN. AVE r W7 L°M DENSITY RrSIDENTIAL CIST-T 5+1„ �.b i D. D 1 Egj'j ME UM DENSITY REWDENTML pSTRICT 1 ''I" %`'• '1 r RI -0 O POHILANO °H (DISTRICT 21 ' r Em7 iMEDIUM--H DENSITY DENSITY RESIDENTIALp51RICT �•;�� EH H HH = RZ\ �� _ ' .-.--6)pY..L �.-� T J [Jf,, MIGN DENSTY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT �`1�i�: IL�- Y,•Il�.yq�- %� 11 m RI-0 P C�_� THIRTEENTH ST. OSWEGO AVE AVE 1. R2-PD-10 �_I A -Oa ECK COMMUNITY FACILITIESIREGREATIONALIDISTRICT M COMMUMTY FACILITIES IEDUC TIONALIDISTRIDT RI RI I• -0�-0 -0 -G : -0 -0 1 !- -Ds _ I!- r l . CLA C oFNfE PR OD COMLL DISTRICT K '� I� 1;,1].MCIGMBORN000 YM[RCIAL GIST RICT R , Itil CORMIN111 BUSINESS DISTRICT RI RI rt R I :, IC rI HIG—Y COMMERCIAL DISTRICT .I._Oi,1 O R ; y I1 NASHVILLE AVE uei1� '''1�'...-.. '• !'° 'd_ sr Z L ECIFIC I j? R2--Po-10 I, E.SS1 DESIGNATES PRECISE CLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT Rf O ST. I ' L O,)DOMNDICO WITH OIL PRODUCTION - y RI RI TWET.ft"CF-R -° PLAN(a RICT TWO) -•- SETTIACR LIME 1: ti R I R I R I IT, 1 R2-PD-10 17 COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION y 4 1�'': '••`) , ED MEM -- -- AVE, Jl�IN AREA NGUn0E0 TC PALMMflo AVE.;N.% T.ONiSEN1N Sr •t /NrI--Y ELEVENTH 5T. �� a'r'a )DDOMMW,OC[AN AVE.On SW, IllIFK R SEVENTH N ON SE. "^FI R I 'P R I �l:i•:1 (OR2 RI LINL LN AVE.I R3 I C4 y1 RI RI ;I r�I'�1 1 ,C RI �a oa r ,�4 I R I mR2 sr.s0 ITT_ •� R I nN Al—J[ nn I AVE. �� =sci RI ;lE ° 00°c�Flc p (0)R2 �L o -=-- I R3 R3 R3 C4 suLc —G— : eN ` JTa:rT AVE. 1. En r ` 4 s 4 IIII�IIII �1III �11IIf�1'�I A R3 HR3u R3 C IS �IND�IANAPO�LIS R3 PR3 PA ED DPI-1 L, ) /ww,�1 AVE / HAD r�o a DID 03' �:- 7-��yk( QF-C GE o ACAan nvE. rRANnro rQJ J ' RT T ELM AMHDT�ELI:F T EF- IS VrIRA 5 � rn CE89-a-63 �- L � HUNTINGTON BEACH f� HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED. CITY CLERK h -�-- ;yf 5�40 PsccxV ED FRoM ADMrNZST2ATSOIV, 5 PR .. �EFEJQI2ED Tp .-By 1M" ►f2. cUBT-r �T t COuNC-TL /' LTG. March 28 , 1990 Please take the time to read this material with an open, rational mind and check the facts. It is very important to my wife and I that you try to understand. what is really happening here and how it has and will affect our lives. Thank you, Larry and Megan Cubit �dK, l ak/t Yok /oLts-- `5ypev-f" of e Gifj, Coutici( Me�f�uf 90, o f OCc.Y 7irydla�c ISSc�� . �j� H-sea.'f a /0�- 7 o -a—J s 16 l,c� �o It f!Q fig c ay' SF tT - TROTHS -AND- FACTS - _ x ` 16 We thought ;it was within our rights to improve our-iprgperty. 2. It should:,be -.,be anyone to have a fireplace, as. i` long as it is --safe. f. 3. This is true, . as long as you are comparing apples to apples. z_ 4. City records do not verify this. 5. City records do not verify this. 6. City records do not verify this. 7. It was over a month into construction before we found out we needed a permit to build a fireplace that could have easily taken less than seven days. 8. We discussed the building of the fireplace with our neighbor in advance of starting work and had a verbal agreement to be on her walkway. 9. The pictures show a fireplace type structure. 10. The original fireplace stuck out a minimum of twelve inches. 11. I agree. 12. Not according to the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development. .13. The approved plan is for an eighteen inch bump-out and the as-built is twenty-one inches (due to codes and materials used) . This is less than 10% overage. 14. The fireplace was an unvented, gas operated heatilator. 15. According to the City of Huntington Beach,_ Department- of Development, the fireplace is built to code. 16. I do not understand how the fireplace is an invasion of pri- vacy. 17. According to the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development, the fireplace is safe. 18. According to the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development, the fireplace does not endanger her customers . 19. According to the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development, .the fireplace is safe. 20. According-..to:,the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Dev_elopment,.,_the. fireplace. is safe. - - 21.. _ According to the=City__of Huntington Beach, ,.Department of Development-, the fireplace is=legal. -22. When City. officials asked .me• to.,.-stop work,. :I stopped work. is 23. I said that City officials kept: the note the inspector left on my door, asking me to go to the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development to answer more questions about the fireplace. s: 24. At that time, City records did not verify this. z . 25. According to the City of Huntington:--Beach, Department of Development, Mrs. Dunavan can have -a fence. 26. I did not remove a fence. I did alter a thirty inch high fence that is a full nine inches on my property, so I could i access my side yard to work on my fireplace. 27. According to civil engineers, Mrs. Dunavan's property can be surveyed. 28. According to the Department of Fish and Game there is no species of bamboo that is endangered, threatened, or rare. Therefore, the eradication of bamboo is not an environment issue. 29. According to the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development, the removing of dirt from under my house was not an illegal act. 30. I have not lied, and I have not tried to beat the system. 31 . If this implies that I paid someone off, the answer is "No" . 32. I did not lie to get a permit. I went to the City of Hun- tington Beach, Department of Development, and had' to show my plan to each and every internal department, (including that of the inspector who had been onsite to tell me I needed a permit for new construction) ; before they issued me a per- mit. The language on the permit, is theirs, not mine. 33. I did not lie to get a variance. I went to the Zone Admin- istrator, showed him my as-built plan, and he approved my variance. 34. I am not .a liar. y r � t y :35.= - My -fireplace has -been= investigated by the , u ' Legal Council, City of Huntington Beach z Police Department, City. of Huntington Beach Fire Department,-City- of Huntington Beach _ I, _ Zoning Department, City 'of Huntington Beach x Planning Department, City of Huntington Beach Building Department, City of Huntington Beach Historical Society, City of Huntington Beach j and the Environmental Department, State of California Fish and Game. #' 36. I made one error -- I started without a permit. This was e not an intentional, premeditated act of defiance against the k City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development, ap- pointed city officials, or my neighbors. #: 37. I seriously doubt this. 38. I do not want to break any law. 39. According to the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development the fireplace is built to code. 40. I did not remove a property line fence. I did alter a thirty inch high fence (that is a full nine inches on my property) , so I could access my side yard to work on my fireplace. _ 41 . I did not remove a gate. I....did remove a thirty inch high by twenty-six inch wide piece of fence (that was a full four inches on my property) , so I could access my side yard to work on my fireplace. 42. I did not weaken Mrs. Dunavan's gate. 43. I did not damage Mrs. Dunavan's stucco wall. . 44. I did not damage Mrs. Dunavan's roof. 45. I did not remove a fence. . I did alter a thirty inch high fence that is a full nine inches on my property. I do not see how this eliminates Mrs. Dunavan's privacy or exposes her windows. 46.- I do not:have any. bamboo. ,on,,my. property and, in my opinion, any bamboo that.;.grows on" Mrs.. Dunav1 .an's property is hers. 47. I think Mrs. Dunavan , should take her own advise and let .the ` bamboo die :naturally: Y -.o. 3" z ---*. :�. 1. - --i.. � �-�-3"'_-�,.r-:_ _- s .F .��' .a' — _ •i - zz 4$: =Accong to°°°the City of rHuntington Beach,;;Department;of :u Development my =fireplace cannot_ be on the north side of my . , K - : living room because. it would block the emergency access side of my house: This is defined by my front 'door, back door, Y . and kitchen location. {, r 49. According to the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development, there would be no special requirmernts..'for a F, - aFa typical second story addition to Mrs. Dunava V s 'house. to - '.. ..•- .• - 50. True, according to the City of Huntington Beach, _ Department of Development, Mrs. Dunavan's fireplace cannot' be on the north side of her living room because it would block the emergency access side of her house. This is-defined by her front door, back door, and kitchen location. 51. Mr. Cubit cannot believe that the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development city officials, and neighbor, are so naive as to not know the difference between the new con- struction of a masonry fireplace and the reinforcing of an existing fireplace, when they were provided with a five-page set of plans that clearly indicated exactly what his inten- tions were. F F S :F h -i' ASSOdPTIOH�D<--ACCUSATIONS 4 �---�- - --- : -< = l. Howecould.;you build. a fireplace; I thought we were friends.- 2: If I can't have a fire place, :you -can't have a=.fireplace. 3. A .permit is a permit, and a permit is a permit .'for everyone. 4. I. applied for a permit for fireplace. 5. I . applied for a variance for a fireplace. 6. I appeared before City Council asking for a fireplace. 7. They were constructing the fireplace fast to avoid take { down. 8. I didn't know what they were doing. 9. The fireplace never existed. 10. The fireplace only. stuck out 6 inches. 11. The fireplace size is no problem. 12. The fireplace is too close to my property. 13. The fireplace is 75% over built. i 14. The fireplace was an electric heater. 15. The fireplace is not -built to code. 16. The fireplace is an invasion of privacy. 17. The fireplace is unsafe. 18. The fireplace is endangering my customers. 19. The fireplace will start a fire on my tar and rock roof. 20. The fireplace will fall on my house. 21. The fireplace is illegal. 22. He was working on the fireplace when he was told not to. 23. He said the city tore up the stop-work order. 24. I applied for a permit for a fence. 25. I can't have a fence. 26. He removed a fence. 27. ley property can't be surveyed. r 28. He killed the bamboo and that is an environmental issue. - 29. -He removed dirt illegally. - " 30.` He tried to beat the system by lying. 31 '. -"-Does money mean that a person can infringe on my rights and . ,. . my privacy? Y 32. He lied to get a permit. t - 33 He lied' to get a variance."-i aa, 34. You 1 Are all liars. -' -ti- S + ll .r -r f�-- i'_'t,. .35" �DIt is�my opinion that the necessary investigati"ons_;were notes � � "= , r£ performed. _ s _ ;. _ - 36. .Are -you puttingmore value on people who break the rules - than_°people who live -by the rules? - 37. All citizens ;-will be-entitled to do as they wish. - 38. He is asking to .break'the law. 39. He has broken all codes. 40. He 'removed the. property line fence. a 41. He removed the ..front gate. 42. He weakened my gate. 43. He damaged my stucco wall. 44 He damaged my roof. 45. He eliminated my privacy by removing the fence; this exposed my windows. 46. His bamboo is coming u on m property* �. g P Y P P Y n 47. I want him to remove the bamboo from my property. 48. The fireplace should be on the other side of Mr. Cubit's house. ;. 49. I can't put on a second story the way I want to. 50. I can't build a fireplace where I want to. r 51 . I can't believe Mr. Cubit is so naive as not to know the difference between a gas heater and a woodburning masonry is fireplace. { _ x s ML NP r..� t- --i� h v M1•F4-Pz -Jr EF5V, ra..i. : — _ "" _ i k [ mac. ONOR »- 11 MAE A 1 ; tQ Y 11 a. s 1 1 r` 40A Nays, 1:- r 710a se don' t let me pay with my fireplace, for this proble"s you thin' Ni:r t .in the Building' Department. M t_hough it was not our language on the permit ,.please talc -Co Art-- } "olC er j it has never been illy experience that the Bui.ldino a Department approves anything that doe_sn" t meet their raquire- nC-it x, regardless of what stage it is in. The message you sent out at the counncil meeting was that this council bah no faith in the abilitie4 of their Wilding Department, not that peoplo starting without permits would not Jet their project [; ap;)rovad . I'm not surf this is a good t'_ims to hang internal_ city problems out on the public .line. it hoes appear that coi viunicat"ion between departments could be improves . Please #_ do not use us as an eX.3frplce case. To ask us to remove our fireplace after allowing us to build it seems extreme punish- ment for having started without a permit. I %now tint you are busy, and that the "_'ireplace' Issues' is not a major one, nor is it high on your priority list. Please do not pass us on o someone else, please help. L t� ' Sincerely, M.. .;ran Cubit. i_ r G . D ,1 CITY OF HUNTINGTO�'1 BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE WAS j T E -.Jam}, s a. Js+` ;c'1��•,•r _-r.� � t• "' t 'T"'7y'z5i'- y "„^7 L _ . WF fT - - - - - - - - - - J. ,Near Mr. Greek. You have a reputation for being fair and reasonable, and basing your decisions on facts . You were not provided. E with all of the facts. Please don' t let me pay_ for this with +Y my fireplace. I know that you are busy,:-and have refused to see us, so 1 appeal to your sense of fairness,. and again ask T. that you reconsider your vote until all the farts are known. Y_ Sincerely, Megan Cubit �. r•, _ _ D J i• CITY OF HUNTjNCTON BECH :. C�U CITY NCIL OFFICE5 SON f: tr -- �k:=L S_n � _- � -_• S.•- .. .sue .. _• .. .. , _ _--_x s�L-.a,_ --^+-•.�.r••-�3c-ate __ -., �— - _fie- ._ } ' V ��..a' _ _�� -_ 9 � � Y��I rs- DT1!� -�..� �..0 (� _ _^may- ✓-� ...._.-.r �� ---;�_ _ UNTINGTOf` EACH ' - C1TY._OF H J B ' o r :'_r A.I. }I��.t ;: CITY. COUNCIL OFFICE r - 'elali �: yrJll ror tati11J t1Ie tirnN 11 ice ..I t i.i'1 cl e rla l",d it a i 1. '= Confused as C(:),,a F'�� 'Carl i)f?. .1.ii i:a.I J.: LI:Pr {�=Pvij C.ti.�at_iC11i�J t,1('. ti_nfU3 t0 see its too--late for ailotilr'r O S i11. t0. 0�(_tl tl1 door, ants C?1�_ _ I p..•.irri.Vinq 1 11,�_ fdr thel ,< pasty-.. It �::*3S i0 important t0 ';1(_' }hilt-. VQi.]r Jot? �•ras .I"lot. 'l�c1S fir; , Oi'1 'i_il@ O�):Lili.Qr15 Of the !,';a(i Hat:Ler. 1' �iuppost_'., heiil.g -rt --polit1C s, - �.': 0DP_ h(?C401111es aS=custo*nl d to pen.p.t e S:3,yivi-g thin,.--_; about-- them t}lat aren' t true, . 1': CiUl1 t li',e it much. There seC-ms'. 1t0 be enoujh time to, explain'. I Would also lint- to auoloesize, i1. my li tier, I (:jff(-mr-',(�n or mis judger] vou. After nee-f-i.r,u you, vc)i-i ' SeePI J'_lre a fair-minded and reac;r)na17le lacy . i 1-:nt7W that Vol] are busy, and a fireplace is not: a major issue_. Thank you for. ' understanding its importance to felt?. Zegare ] ess Of LhC= OUtcorne?, j; than' you .for not having too bi g o` a door . T I-0 COLA ICil r31-:�- a" finitely n,:!(---6S semi on(-- lyre yo'•). I: 5" jj 1•It�l7 ]7 A01 p•. 1 1_ Ir. �4 1` ;j ti aLZI a �n - CITY OF HU�'T11VGT0!`i B NCIL 0 FiC CITY COU F EACH - - r ,_•_. .. - ,. �. -,. A.rY-� L - Y;,} kw af' r-- 1.- -. sz. .. -'�'3 _ -- - £'-��'-*��•RF'�`: G. - -FT" `�__ 'aY - �� 1 "�.'a �.. "` �" .Z•r•}•--3c�-<_m''�=.�•}. 1� "Y // -i. "`7L'_`Il(f "S&Y� .. i _ Y Ty Ave Q 5 at 1 _ Dear •:r .• :rshine, i I uncle;_stand Lhat you are - dsy, and that_ f ireplace_s are not exactly major issues, and that: you hove refused to see us. I hope you were .able to -:read by letter. „y intent. was not to criticize but to ask for :hela. Flease don' t hold me responsible for, or let me nay with My fireplace for ' problems that may exist in the Building Department . Sincerely, Negan Cubit lot 1 CITY OF N6NTINGTOP1 BEACH CITY,COUN� .,IL OFFICE fit . its Ah _ _ December 22, 1989 To Whom It May Concern: I am appealing the Zoning Administrator' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) 89-63 to construct a new fireplace at 211 Crest Avenue. It is detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the adjacent neighborhood and is creating a hardship. Attached please find my check in the amount of $165 .00 to cover the appeal. Sarah Dunavan 209 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 a . A detailed final floor plan shall be submitted e Community Development Department . The total e floor area shall not exceed 10 percent of gross fl area of the leasehold area . j 2 . Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupanc he applicant shall submit a revised floor plan as noted /�ondition No . 1. 3 . There shall be no outside storage of an did. 4 . The applicant shall obtain all necess 'County of Orange Health Department permits prior to -issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. A copy of all permi /shall be submitted to the Community Development Department included in the subject file. 5 . The Fire Department requirem are as follows : a . Provide the existing ding suite with an automatic fire sprinkler system to satisfaction of the Fire Department . b. Any proposed £re for seafood storage must be provided with an automat' ire sprinkler system to the satisfaction of the Fire De ment. INFORMATION ON SPECI CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The developm shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordina ode, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2 . The app t shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federa re Codes, Ordinances, and standards . 3 . The ing Administrator reserves the right to revoke Ad strative Review No. 89-18 if any violation of these itions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . ITEM 3 : CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO, 89-63 Applicant: Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach; CA 92648 Request : To construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. . Location: 211 Crest Avenue Environmental This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Status : Section 15305, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986 ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -3- T (4347d) 3 Herb Fauland presented the staff report with recommendation for approval with findings and conditions of approval . He said the application was submitted as a result of a Land Use Complaint filed by an adjacent neighbor . A Land Use and Building Department Inspection report revealed that repairs and reinforcement were being made to a non-conforming fireplace in an R1 neighborhood. He also stated that the inspection revealed the applicant was substantially reconstructing the existing fireplace. As a result of the reconstruction, the fireplace was encroaching into the sideyard setback which requires a conditional exception (variance) and discretionary review. A stop work order was issued by the Building Department and the matter was referred to the Zoning- Administrator . The Historic Board has made recommendations because the structure is of historic significance for incorporation into the conditions of approval . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Larry Cubit, applicant, spoke in support of the request . He said he was proceeding with the reinforcement of an existing non-ventilated fireplace with masonry, not constructing a new one, and that on-site inspections were made and permits issued until the stop-order was . received. He agrees with all of the conditions of approval imposed by staff . Sarah Dunavan, 209 Crest, spoke in opposition to the request . She said the applicant ' s proposal and building permit states that he is reinforcing for seismic reasons an existing fireplace (which has never been a legal fireplace) . She presented pictures and a letter from the original landowner that stated there was never a ventilated fireplace only a gas burning fireplace. She feels the applicant is trying to beat the system by alleging reinforcement rather than new construction of a fireplace. Since she was denied a permit to .build a new fireplace at her residence, she does not feel it is right that her neighbor should be issued one. Staff indicated to Ms . Dunavan that if she would like to construct a fireplace that does not meet code requirements for side yard setback, she would have to file a conditional exception (variance) request as Mr. Cubit has . Also, staff expressed to Ms . Dunavan that each person wishing to pursue such a request must file an application and proceed with the proper administrative review. She further addressed her concerns regarding the light, air and ventilation problems because of the setback from her property line to the proposed fireplace, and the fact that she has a tar roof with an overhang which may present a fire hazard. Staff noted that on-site inspections by the Fire and Buidling Departments revealed no health and safety issues if the sideyards are maintainted free and clear for access . Ernie Gisler, no address given, spoke in opposition to the request . !. He said the proposed construction is against the building codes and should not be allowed for one and not for all residents . He feels the north area of the applicant ' s property should be kept clear for access in case of a fire. He urged denial of the request . ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -4- (4347d) i Lance Jarof, 215 Crest Avenue, spoke in support of the request . He said his neighbor has upgraded and restored his home, which is a historic structure, to its original condition and feels it enhances the neighborhood. He urged approval of the request . There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 89-63 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. HE STATED THAT ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . There are exceptional or -extraordinary circumstances .or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses' in the same district . The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (R1) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width. The existing residence is ' provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards, adequate access in emergency situations is provided. The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintains adequate light, air, ventilation and emergency access for public health, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood. 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . i ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -5- (4347d) 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent. of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light, air, _ ventilation and access . 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches 'of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No. 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan received and dated October 2, 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification:. a . The applicant shall submit fully dimensioned elevations which depict height, materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection. b. The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board' s recommendations; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace. 3 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace. 4 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear . No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side yard. 5 . The southern interior side yard to the rear of the proposed fireplace shall be kept free and clear. No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the southerly side yard. 6 . 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. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and the Fire Department . 2 . The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -6- (4347d) 3 . The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Conditional Exception No . 89-63 if any violations of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . ITEM 4 : USE PERMIT NO. 89-37. Applicant : Harbor Pacific Development Company Brent Ogden 4040 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 314 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Request : Construction of a new 6 ,400 sq. ft etail commercial building . Location: Northeast corner of Magnolia A e and Atlanta Street . Environmental This request is covered by egorical Exemption, Status : Section 15303 , .Class 3 , Ca ornia Environmental Quality Act, 1986 Herb Fauland presented the staff repo ith recommendation for approval with findings and condition approval after resolving the applicant ' s proposed electrical nsformer location. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Brent Ogden, applicant, spoke upport of the request. He said he proposes to locate the transf r behind the monument sign with mature hibiscus plants as sc ing. His alternative proposal is to build a planter adjacent to a transformer with a 3 foot block wall around the transformer wit roper screening. Staff indicated to the applicant that he pu proper floodproofing pursuant to Southern California Edi and City requirements if at all possible. Ernest Caponera, 9031 Caro Drive, expressed his concerns regarding the type o ccupancy and the hours of operation. He does not want to experie traffic in and out of the business at all hours of the nigh cause his bedroom window faces the property. He also asked ab the signage on the property. He asked for a condition limit' the height of lighted signs since the light would shine directly o his window. He also urged the applicant to. not allow any sto a of junk cars or bodies of cars at the facility or any debris t would not enhance the neighborhood. Staff indicated to Mr . Capo �a all proposed uses require review and compliance with Article 9 Commercial District) and that all signage would require review a ompliance with Article 961 (Signs) of the Huntington Beach O ance Code. There a no other persons present to speak for or against the requ and the public hearing was closed. i ZA Meeting - 12/13/89 -7- (4347d) � • :• r , Larry Cubit 211 Crest Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ( 714 ) 960-4923 : Residence ( 714 ) 536-8525: Business VARIANCE APPLICATION _ I removed an existing structure because it was unsafe due to earthquake damage, termite damage, dry rot damage; and, it was an unvented , inefficient gas burning fireplace . It has been estimated by the Zoning Department that the new structure is overbuilt by something less than 10%. The area in question and surrounding uses are in an R-1 Zone. Reason for application concerns the construction of a masonry fireplace. This application is initiated because of the size difference in reconstruction of an existing non-conforming structure. During reconstruction of the fireplace, the narrowest flue liner allowed by code was used and the chimney was held as close to the existing roof truss and main truss joist as allowable by code. The main truss joist and the peak of .the roof are directly in the center of the chimney. To shorten the main truss joist, change the roof truss, and move the fireplace in to correct the less than 10% overage would be extremely expensive. This request will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with normal limitations. I feel that reconstruction is necessary for the preservation of the aesthetic beauty, charm and character of the house. By reproducing the look and feel of the old structure as closely as possible, we are retaining that which has made this home a unique and integral part of this neighborhood for over 60 years. This structure will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The fireplace is a reinforced, earthquake resistant, termite resistant, dry rot resistant, energy efficient , wood burning, safe structure. All city departments Zoning, Planning and Fire have approved its location on the property and all agree that the structure meets or exceeds all construction codes , standards and allows safe emergency access. EC VER Stucco f"o n` r) • c"O DEPARTMENT 0;. 17.0 Comm . NI!-NiO DIVISIO-IN 7 - - nnn ................ the followln described real property In the City of Huntington Beach County of range _ '_ yr, State of California: Lot 47 in Block 705 of Wesley Park Section of Huntington Beach, as per map recorded in Book 4 Page 17 of Miscellaneous Ma9s, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Ihsessor$ Arce.1 021J-0$1-01 Px Rrea Larry Cubit. ;L 11 Crest' �1,-m Ca. 926g5 - Ph. 9b o -Y923 E — g /A BAW. P. E. O R.R. W) y GO r. "lO�R£C/PRC3CA( OR/YE 1718 /9 2 j h 'PA( - --- --� ----- C /s2- 7A � Q O 0 PAR.i R.tJ — she /IS-!0.11./ 00000 N � J n n O / /7 AC SL K. 804 ' r NO. 0809 a�.,s 3i.ar 31.87 36-$0 1 30.50' S1.W 40p 60' �-- LAKE — 4 GIs / Nr 50' Q - - - - ------ ---- - - 5 , \ WESL Y1so_ 39 5-PARK g - -- - -- -- - 's• �?'�� \\ \ 0 - ` 082 - - - ---3 �s /3Q '\P/ /9 `/T 23 3/ 20\ \ 33 v /T e` �\ \1 ,\37 35 \3 AL( �Y 4 % r \ r 1 BL K32 Q /9 805 47 45 43%4/ �4 ,32 % O 106 SS' �—i'l 49 36 B� C - - - ----3/ 2/y �� \�e 3/ 46 %4P 40 .S%44 ISO' 30 IS' 23 \50 48 % • r 29 ,ts.2*— �0 �. \is � s2 19 27 14 /O t /4 /2 \ o \ \ \ \ 6 � �5 26 25 \ \ Q \ s is ty MAIN i Tip W4- F�'LtF�IhNM1:N'( L....j.............If— Ih 9NoWN IN GIFGLB . .40 i tn 6 r - F106r P/a poor' 1-1 rl i �rohf i .Bad �oow� boo Sad a�d Rao Rooter 1 �9sscssorJ No• pjq-OBz-02 LarNy+ I�G)dN G�cb17`� ,Z11 Glrcc t' 9.�G y8 RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTiNGTON E' "C",CALIF. FE8 I 5 21 PI' '90 To: Huntington Beach City Council I want to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on January 23, 1990, Appeal of Zoning Administration and Planning Commission approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63. The Conditional Exception should not be granted because the findings for approval are not justified. I am concerned for the safety of my home from the ashes, encroachment, and other detrimental effects the granting of this variance will cause to my property. Sarah Dunavan 209 Crest Huntington Beach, CA 92648 536-0739 ClEA1 �� E 3 ? 19y0 DE ARTtq;EN1 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3— Dear Mayor Mays and City Councilmembers: Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I submitted to the Planning Commissioners the evening of the hearing. In retrospect I realize that I should have allowed them time to read and study the events as documented in this letter. Therefore since I am appealing this to the City Council, I would appreciate if you would carefully read this letter prior to my appeal. Many thanks. Sincerely, Sara Dunavan 209 Crest Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 536-0739 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter — Law Offices of Sharon K. O'Brien 2. Notes on Appeal 3. Letter — Blanche A. Wood 4. Letter — BLanche A. Wood 5. Letter — Lorene L. Green 6. Letter — James B. Green 7. City of Huntington Beach — Mechanical Permit 8. Findings for approval 9. 2 — Development review requests 10. Letter — Business License Department 11. City Council Minutes 11/6/89 Public Comment — Sarah Dunavan — re: Fireplace T Mr. Cubit created the hardship now for me. He is asking to break the law and I am asking for the law to be followed for all. 1. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable until Larry Cubit made them by starting this project without approval. (Indicated by photo dated 1988). 2. It is not necessary for Larry Cubit to do this especially at the cost of the enjoyment of my rights. He can install the fireplace inside without encroaching on the required 30" side yard set backs. 3. It is materially detrimental to my health, safety and welfare. I do not want the fences down. (They have been there for years). It does not allow adequate light, air, ventilation, buffer space, and emergency access (9" fireman) for public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. 4. Why is it now with the goals and objections of the citys General Plan and Land Use Map when he has broken all codes permitted by law for all citizens. The - . city can work with him now to put the house back in historical value by putting the fireplace inside as would have been suggested before at 1/2 the cost and not encroaching on the neighbor and removing the fences and bamboo which allowed privacy to all concerned. 5. It does defeat the general purpose. If the 9" side yard does not defeat the general purpose of the code can everyone else do it? In order for him to encroach on the 30" side yard set back he removed the bamboo ledge, property lire fence and front permanent gate and weakened my gate. He will probably not replace any of this based on his past performance of his projects on his house the 3 years he has lived there. 6. It will adversely affect the General Plan because all citizens will be entitled to do as they wish (then apply for permits if caught) again to the infringement on the neighbor. This is why we have codes to keep from having this problem. 7. The applicant should have to remove all the project and put it on the inside as he would have been instructed to if he had gone through the proper permit process. Application requirements has all the information in clear English and is clearly stated if you call the city for information. Are you putting more value on people who break the rules than people who live by the rules? LAW OFFICES OF SHARON K. O'BRIEN P.47. BOX CJ 4650 VON KARMAN AVE. IRVINE, CA 92716 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 752-6848 January 23 , 1990 Planning Commission Appeal Board City of Huntington Beach Re : Conditional Exception 89-63 Fireplace at 211 Crest Avenue Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This evening you are to hear an appeal as to whether the above described variance was properly granted. Prior to making your decision, please consider my client, Sarah Dunavan ' s concerns . As is within the power vested to you in accordance with our Constitution and the Government Code, you granted a permit for a fireplace at 211 Crest Avenue. However, case law has indicated that where a variance is granted, it is presumed that official duty was performed in investigating the matter and the existence of the necessary facts was found. The appellant at this appeal , Sarah Dunavan, who resides at 209 Crest Avenue, adjacent to the subject property is of the opinion that the necessary investigation was riot performed when the permit was granted. The subject fireplace was constructed, and your permit approved, within nine (911 ) inches of Ms . Dunavan ' s property. The Mechanical Permit #M007313 , which was obtained when the fireplace was almost completed, was approved for reinforcement of a fireplace. However, there is considerable evidence to indicate that there never was a fireplace at the location. Please note the attached letter from Blanche A. Wood, dated November 11 , 1989 , whose father constructed the subject house, labeled Exhibit A. If this is indeed the case, the permit application was falsified. Since the permit was issued when the construction was almost completed, the inspections required to determine if construction .is in compliance with the Building Code were not made. The very real possibility exists that the fireplace is a detriment to the safety of the neighborhood: the foundation may not properly support the structure; the bamboo which was removed to make room for the fireplace appears to still be growing and looking for new places to come up, particularity in Ms . Dunavan ' s property; the chimney may not be structurally sound; and the design may not adequately protect neighboring structures from embers . Planning Commission Appeal Board January 23 , 1990 Page 2 The issuance of the permit after a significant portion of the structure was completed without inspections, instead of requiring the structure torn down and reconstructed under the Building Department ' s supervision is . clearly detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the entire neighborhood, if not the City for the message it sends that partially completed, uninspected structures are acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach. Government Code § 65906 states that ." [a] ny variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assume that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated . " In this case, a special privilege has been granted: the right to build a fireplace within thirty-nine (3911 ) inches of the neighbor ' s structure . Although variances are to permit one property to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and to eliminate unique hardships to that property, this variance did not grant a privilege to Mr. Cubit which neighbors enjoy. He now has a fireplace within nine inches of the lot line, which neighboring houses do not have. Instead of eliminating a hardship for Mr. Cubit, this variance has created considerable hardship on Ms . Dunavan . Surely it is not the intent of the City to grant a privilege to one neighbor to the detriment of the other. In this instance, the construction of the fireplace has created an added burden on Ms . Dunavan both monetari- ly and emotionally. Due to the narrowness of the area, Mr. Cubit used Ms. Dunavan ' s property and her roof to effectuate the construction . Her home was splattered with material from the construction, which is unsightly and will be an expense to her to remove. The stucco was damaged when the workers . struck her wall with the blocks used to construct the fireplace. Her roof was damaged, creating additional expense to her. A condition of the permit should have been to restore Ms . Dunavan ' s property to the same or better condition after the construction. Ms . Dunavan has lost her privacy due to this permitted fireplace. Mr. Cubit removed the gate between their properties, permitting access to Ms . Dunavan ' s property where no access was available before. Mr. Cubit removed the fence dividing their properties , permitting access to Ms . Dunavan ' s property from Mr. Cubit ' s and eliminating her privacy, as her windows are now exposed to the view of Mr. Cubit and his friends and family. This variance has created a future hardship to Ms . Dunavan, as well as those she is currently experiencing. An architect has indicated that her dreams for a second floor probably have been dashed Planning Commission Appeal Board January 23 , 1990 Page 3 because the second story would cause the fireplace to draft back into Mr. Cubit ' s fireplace . Ms . Dunavan respectfully requests that Conditional Exception 89-63 be denied and the fireplace constructed under that permit be removed and the gate and fence between the properties be restored, in a timely manner, at Mr. Cubit ' s expense . In the alternative, the permit should be amended to require complete removal of the bamboo and restoration of the gate and fence between the proper- ties , in a timely manner, at Mr. Cubit ' s expense . Respectfully Submitted, _4 c_ Sharon K. O ' Brien Attorney for Appellant SKO/ms Enclosure CC: S . Dunavan . j EXHIBIT A �o-rt_�, rt}—rt.a� 71..v:r• � 1( � �r.. _�: 1... �_ �• f 0 T O j l�.L(..�1 !••' r�(\. it I1i�f.� 11..Y .4'F. 1 _. ._..._ ._._. � .. �1:L�..�f- ,J f � — Ei ..'Zl!.i.�.. •� �� r� r (.'1(, (<��.:1..(�.')r..r.r.� f l ( c � '-r� �(�l_(� 1�_✓� �;-•7c_.' �L �-s i)..r.r_.1_..!1 (_:lc, �r 1�..(.�._ .� _ — ----- ---�i — l V Gn..e ��ct1_cL� ��j r..l J(_F.'i✓ c L•c-,._, (�, ------)�_. ��F.Ur��tJ �'.`�l•t.t�1� L l.'-ram )_.' �! -��.L Lc_� ff Sarah Dunavan January 20, 1990 NOTES ON APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VA.RIANCE) NO. 89-63 . FLUE FOR A VENTED HEATER I have opposed the building of a fireplace in the walkway between my home and my neighbor ' s because: 1 . This action by my neighbor has put my personal privacy in jeopardy . 2 . It ' s against the building code to build a new structure within 30" of a neighbor ' s house without a permit . 3 . This could influence the sale of my property . I called City Hall on October 18 , 1989 and asked if they would come and check on a fireplace my next door neighbor was building because it was getting so big and close to my property. I talked to Don Shawat City Hall . At this time the fireplace was half completed. '. "lC / On October 23 I went tb City Hall with a friend and presented the problem as it I were the person wanting a fireplace . I was informed that I couldn ' t have one as it was against building codes and also if a person did any construction they needed to have a building permit (which my neighbor did not have at this time) . They also said if it was started and being done illegally, they would make them tear it down . I was asking these questions to educate myself. Later that same day, my neighbor applied for a permit . In order to get the permit, he misrepresented the facts , -saying it was for reinforcing an existing fireplace ( there was none ) instead of building a new one . NOTES ON APPEAL Page 2 I then obtained stop work orde ich was issued but not followed through. My neighbor came over that evening and told me that the stop order was torn up and there was no need,-u for a variance . A friend and I went up to see what the policy was for a work stop order . Was this a usual procedure? On Friday, October 27 I talked to Codes and they said it was a problem of Planning now. ( Again I presented the problem as if I wanted to build a fireplace and I was starting it with- out a permit ) . Then they got out my neighbor ' s plans and checked them over . On October 31 I talked to Art Folger , Deputy Attorney and showed him the picture of the original heater-flue that started at the foundation . Art Folger said, "It doesn ' t look like he ' s reinforcing a fireplace , he ' s building one . " On November 6 I went to the Council meeting and Mike Adams Baas directed by the City Council t--o. take . care of the problem./ 1-4 i`�.,n ,y >C'7. /.^�.,�:L�it G�`�.. C-`�� ,�•-c'.--/�:�-ft'-i: �//--�t.--. / ne Pla'nning Department then told Tiy neighbor he would need a variance . The variance was approved at the December 13 meeting. I appealed this decision December 22nd, because he was constructing a new fireplace within nine inches of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty inches �_ ,-. _el j� %":'1'1� Lc` `GCI ��j'.�az. `Ile on Ts this selective code informati fo me and not for my ` neighbor? Ernie Gisler, former mayor and council. member of Huntington Beach, stated at the meeting of December 13 , 1989 , that he is opposed to the request because it is against the building codes and should not be allowed for one and not for all residents and the side yard should be kept clear for access in case of fire. NOTES ON APPEAL Page 3 It should be noted that the building code requires a 30" clearance between buildings . I feel this should be maintained to provide additional light and air circulation and increased buffer distance between my house and my neighbor ' s . The distance between my overhang anal my neighbo ' s fireplace ,:call measures 23 inches . His fireplace extends 9" my property line . %�-J!�.<: -_ti.. � .lam A L'-..� �(..-`_•.� (((/_—�� l l/t/ •i ,., .� -Y-cam<</ �L• ,..-�."l��_,;,;i �:_✓- -�,_;-tJ � i � —�.:i� �}"1•jLiL`--2..^✓ i'C, !—�":'�`-r`-f"�..`ic is J J J „•-'�ef�,2. .�-_�'v �7�o�v-emu � �V7--e- �d'�C Y1�1 CV ram. - ct�t.� �� ✓ham �(Jt/� �`-"� - - p ILL � , p 1 c.,�y.�^-G1�-v (�t/`ztd� .�•.�,�,�..o..�x, Qom. .t2SL�-t_.��L�.�.:r, -- i January 2, 1990 City Planning Commission Office of Zoning Administration Huntington Beach, California To Whom it May Concern: This is to certify that I saw a freshly dug rectangular hole at the south side of Sarah Dunavan' s house on the 11th of October, 1989 , when I visited her . On my previous visit, the area was covered with bamboo . We commented on the change at the time . Yours truly,, Lorene L . Green 83 Seton Irvine, CA 92715 ( 714 ) 733-2819 James E. Green Architect (Retired ) 447 Ogle Circle Costa Mesa , CA. 92627 City OF Huntington Beach Planning Commission Jan . 21 , 1990 Ref . : Planning Commission meeting Tue . 1 /23/90 agenda item # C 2 . Honorable Planning Commission Members Attention has been called to agenda item # C 2 regarding violations of City Codes and Regulations in construction on property located at 211 Crest , Huntington Beach . Should adherence to governing regulations not be required in this instance will exemption also be allowed in the next similar case ? How about the one after that , etc . ? Citizens in all communities are becoming very concerned about an advancing trend toward acceptance of exemptions to regulations and laws in governmental actions.— Uri t11is particular item The Planning Commission is respect- fully requested to recomend removal of construction which was : ( 1 ) Done with a permit obtained after the fact and obtained by false statements as to existing conditions . ( 2 ) Done without required building department inspections . ( 3 ) Done without regard to side-yard regulations and reduces the side-yard to only nine inches . Sincerely, J mes B. Green lHUPiT11NGTON - BEACHI ITY OF.HUNT INGTON 'BEACH BUILDING` 2000 MAIN ST DEFARTiAEHTOF . . 264E3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTHUNTINGTONAH,PERMIT CA9 P.O.Box 190.CALIFORNIA 92648 .;Perrnitsgia'Med grid Issued tie-week-4if r - - - _ _ (711)S3bS241: . .Act 23 o i•� t -- _ h� e- _ , e 0 8311 Differ-Ave Than.;extension,,S3 900 017381!Mayor Lane,:Jones,re-fool,$t 700 osm7 MIddlecoff Drive, Moseley,'re.-roof, $1,800.- o 17371 Calipers Circle,Keen,re-roof,$1,700. Y F Cl Fi A 1 C 11 L P F N N. 1 7 - 0 16671 Tiber lane,Clancy,re-root.$6,980. ❑508 19th St.,'Bonanni Development.'block wall$260. = .i 51dF.Perr:it E,014226 F'C 0 ChrE T Tract. kA L c t IN Flcck NA 0 8461 Doncaster,Craig.add entry,$6.420. E:U 1 Icing if s e F .i . 7531 Hell Ave.,Burke Commercial Develop- Mont,walls,doors and ceiling,$7,000. I i 0 8141 Lambert-Drive, Freeman, re-roof. - P/'j�/'' C o f;t r c c t o r 8Q000. ,([r� (h:C C C.11-T F P C T C-F, o 210 Fitth SL,Gallegos,seismic strengthen- / /•G`�� o i4592 Zane Circle,Prull,block wall,$5.980. i/'L 1�r� •11( 'q �_ i ((lG�� 'i v- '� ❑1941 Lake St:, Pacific Coast Homes,spa, -09922 Constitution Drive, Mulholland, re- root. La - �il•'(r j I � �~— (0 9422 Lananai Circle,Turner,block wall,53,822. — Compiled by Eldolyne Briggs -- �L!cam' AFF.rcvee ----------------------------------------------------------------i------------------ issued JF : 10/� /E> issue hec'eipt nr 16'?t ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IF:SPECTICN FEES Lioscripticn Cty Air,cunt Cescripticr. Ct.y �An-our.t -------- --- ------ ----------- --- ------ F.CtL1. 1- irt:F]6Ce i E .C'0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lnspC.CtiCI1 10,CC (F'inicur.: S1C.CCj h•isce:il:_rlrC:us C:.CC. i ar.eLcc! C .CC tr:CC Fir.E IC. .00 Fcr.2:.ty C .C'.0 1 C; )I OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby et Inn that I am exempt'from the Coctoes Uceree Law for the I fee WORKERS COMPENSATION DECLARATION 1(Sec 7031 ntro .5) Business and Professions Code: Any dlty or.county w re"s I hereby affirm that I have a c«G e ficate of consent to see have,or certificate of Worker's permit to construct,.alter,. Improve;,demolish,':or mpairyarry. ut:str -1d -i Ccmpon-.ca rlionh_ a.«a_erlili;Qcopyth-r.f(Ser..3a00,lab.C} -Issuance,.also:roqufms the applicant for suchpermit-._to_file a-signe rarnenf;t he is licensed-pursuant to the provisions of theContractor's License (Chapter •�' Policy No Company (commencingwith Section 7000 lessions' ) of:Division 3 0l the Business and rl r•.. , ,„,t or that he Is exempt therefrom:and the basis for the el axempfloM1, li::❑ Certified Is riled with the d building Inspection _ violation of Secllc i 7031.5 by any.applicant to. a permit subject ap Wkarit'. u+pY b ng depain—L clvil penally of not more than live hundred dollars($500,13:-: �• Date_ Applicant ❑L ea owner of the property,or my employees wilt wages-m 0ei.�~ Gonswi the work, and thestrucbse-Is not htended.« offered for sale.;( 044) Bushes CERT;F;CA_.E OF EXEMPTION FnOM WORKER'S - t ,3olesslons.Code:'r The Confracfoes- License Law does'nol� y o an COMPENSATION INSURANCE property.who.builds-or improves-thereon, and who does a h6nself or •± We own employees,.provided that.such Improvements aro-. fended or olh •,:� (This section reed not be ccmpfeted a the permif Is for one hndred dollars($100)or less.) sale.If, however,the building w-Improvement Is sold within: fear.d ca plell �,•� I certify that In the Performance of the work forwhichWe permit Is iasue4 I shell-rot ownxbullder will have the buMen ol:provinp that he did, build «Mnprnro i employ and person n any mom« so as to become subject to Worker's Cwipensetkn Laws - - _�•-=- _ - Purpose of sale. Date ❑l as owner of the property,am endue oR tOY '`, NOTICE TO APPLICANT: e, aher mak this Certificate of Ex tbn, - ) Ivehf Professions liq_ hs Confracfora Licen 1.,g amp you atlotad.become the project. (See. 7044 Business-and_Proldsalons Cod (:•' tubiecl to Ine Workers Campeneallon provisions of the Lab« Coda, you —at forthwith does not apply to an owner of property who bulid Improws�the roati: aL� comply with such provisions«this permlt shell be deemed evoked confroCts for such projects with a confr,,cto.(s) do" d pursuara to the ---- Lice—Law. v = �'\\ LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION ❑ 1 am exempt under Sx -' !. t--• - I h r -,-tllrm that 1 am lic—d udw provlelnna of Chapter 9 (commericing with Section roa.- r `� .1000)of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code,and my license Is In hull Ibree and Date Owner r •'�..• affect. CONSTRUCTION LE AGENCY _ >•:1 r (, Lkenss Psxnber\ Lim Cl.. I tereby affirm That there Is a conetructbn agencY f«IIM'plrl:.._ •f, f«which this permit is Issued(Sec.3097.Civ.C.). - Contractor- \ -Date - Larders Noma - - 1 f•'-"''- .al - - Lenders Address ❑ I am eaampl Ir«n Ito rar7arernanU ea 1 am a Icassd er«rte,.t ere reglalered - t professional.anghex se h rrry prolesel«+el eapstdry (Sactbn 7051,-Busineea and _1 csnlly.Ihet I have read this epplicetbn.a state that u» ebow hf 1« .Professions Code). .-t - - - qee to comply with.ea dty ordkaness:a State Iavrs raIs�,b - tN"(i%} -s Iwvby�stalwdze-repraseraatNes-of,tNs to,enter tqm Uc or Res No. - _ - .. of.Apdken AWI aitY t' ARP.COPY=INSPECTOZ�TEkGyO�v , r�'qy'_OFFICE GREEN+CO x S Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 cALIFORNIA 92648 January 2A , 1990 Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntinqton Beach , California 92648 SUBJECT : APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ' S APPROVAL OF' CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE). NO . 89-63 REQUEST : To construct a fireplace within nine inches of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty inches . LOCATION : 211 Crest Avenue DATE OF APPROVAL : January 23 , 1990 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL : 1 . There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises inV01VRd that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district . The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (Rl) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width . The existing residence is provided with . only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or impzovements in the neighborhood ._ As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards , adequate access in emergency situations is provided . The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintains adequate light , air, ventilation and emergency- access for public health, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood . ' J 1 APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO . 89-63 Page Two 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fi replace . within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7 ( a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light , air , ventilation and access . 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No . 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : 1 . The site plan received and dated October 2 , 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a . The applicant shall submit fully dimensioned elevations which depict height , materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection . b . The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board ' s recommendations ; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house ' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace . 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace . 3 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kP,pt free and clear . No additions , architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side yard . � L / �v �.�r +. �. �,1.��•�' .�L'iW4 { ��1 iL 1 r' 4 1^ ;�� -: ;... :�`-r�►E: ppfMEN!I.' F,Z�E�1�'IrEy�T�RE.4U. ""; ' . f+» ��•'�.NY ,r 1 a:VT:',4/I["�„�•u �.. •.t` ~yn ,•.�� y `(l. -�'" •'1� :!-• �j t•��+7u^Y'l::+y�:v �7i �� 'Y('� a/ ,Ya�'(dI=:,. , w i 1 V•N1 .Nf :n' - •:uJ7'• .'ti,° ?�,., i�}"'.^•r.��1.�,.,-,+t'-�;p„!,'�-�� ?' x. 'uti'•v.�..t+i��'�'��, �tv'K. Y 'a'i' .. ,r,�. � � a77�+-y"L�tq.::,: P�-,� 'i��s .ytrll�_. '� �-�•c y;�kx�r'...� Y,+�� r,',�' f�.:.?•�t t jy� 4. r. +�r� n II ..�. ;S 'r.a ry,.•a.Z:,`+T�;�.•,.,}STD ��C31S+.•i+�xr! i Fl. "`.''�+ • t ] �` '+,liy �'. •� . . .,,. •:•fit;:., __ - :on.•e��+a,,��}} FROM . EXT Us"e'- chme , ` COMMENTS ( `A't�ta nts necessar`, . a. T4 ;,;ry�;: PETITION ( S ) : Als> 4:-, Cp3 REQUEST ( S ) :--I-C�> C C .)�.)C-4- Cam' A t Cr 5 r D `f A+ Q `C �C) LOCATION : Zl , C ZONE: GENERATE PLAN : I,., �,� t L-%—( EXISTING USE: DATE ACCEPTED: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE : ----1, 1 (:gas e submit your concerns and ec�ommeriaed - solu o s writi g )n or before ._.." - ..per �s�►►yp. Intex�partrnental Review: Final Planning Review: Response submitted by: RZA._ ----- a, Subdivision C'cxmdttee Date: ' 1)l.anning . Cc mission:T_ 'L , Attachments '44 E�-;7-V itifEWRO! B U.. A A E 'NO nnw A —%3r 4-V-;1;4 -,7 !'A' �:- 7. %V'Y r7— TO : 00is FROM EXT COMMENTS : Use Atta 4�H'.t7g necessary ) w-2 loll% 411 o AT E: PETITILON-( S ) t (!5'5 R E Q U E S T ( S ) :—TC> CC+.)5,-M U C-C) 4 OF 6, L ZSCN(to 0 LOCATION : (.;BNERAL PLAN : Low be*.JrW LI—C I-STING:j USE: DATE ACCEPTED: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE : 11arise submit your concerns . and .(�'-ommended :sol-u- wrfting )n or before Interdepartrrental REview: Final Planning Review: Res o e submitted by: BZA: t. -Subdivision C(xm-Littee: Date:— t.' Planning CcnTnission:.----- Attachments : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 71 1 CALIFORNIA 92648 CITY TREASURER—DONALD L. WATSON TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN S JOHN is a licensed business in the City of Huntington Beach . License was issued August o, 1.985 to Sarah Dunaran at 209 Crest for Alterations and dressmaking. License ;;=A095748 is valid until. 8/1/90 ILI Betty Walker , Clerk 1/29/90 Page 3 - Agency/Council Minutes - 11 /6/89 -- - Carrie Thomas "addressed Council and spoke regarding the need to develop a park in Ellis-Goldenwest Quartersection. I Diana Boom commended Council for the work Ron Yeo has done on the Pier Plaza Project. She urged Council to support the proposed City Charter Amendment Initiative "Save Our Parks" . Nadine Takayama, Pat Christiansen, Mary Sharpe, and Ana Regan of the Robinwood area stated that needed stop signs were removed from the neighbor- hood, and they requested that the signs be replaced. (Tasman Street, Bolsa Chica Street, Andaman, McFadden Avenue area) . She introduced eleven neighbor- hood children representing the children of the neighborhood who need the stop signs for their safety. 5Arah Dunavan , downtown property owner, complained to Council about possible inconsistent permits being issued for fireplaces on 25' lots . Robert Cronk spoke in opposition of the proposed revisions of the Huntington Beach Oil Code. David Bucv complained to Council about the late fee policy of Public Works for delinquent water bills . Bill Gallegos spoke in support of keeping the art center in the downtown area. David Burris spoke in opposition of encroachment of 5th Street and the new corridor by the proposed widening. (City Council ) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED OPEN FROM 10/16/89 - CODE AMENDMENT 89-3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 89-14- - AMENDS DEFINITIONS WITHIN ARTICLE 908 - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION AS AMENDED - APPROVED The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following: APPLICATION NUMBER: Code Amendment No. 89-3/Negative Declaration No. 89-14 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach L ATI N: City-wide ZONE: All Districts REQUEST: To amend the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and amend, modify and/or delete definitions within Article 908, Definitions. Added definitions may include, but not be liimited to: architectural. features , child day care facility, convenience market, density bonus, final approval , .grade, gross floor area, hedge, industrial use, liquor , store, lot frontage, parking structure, retaining wall , wholesale use. Amended definitions may include but not be limited to: apartment, automobile/vehicle repair, dwel.ling, lot width. Deleted definitions may include but not be limited to: automobile accessory dealer. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 89-14, assessing the environ- mental effects will also be considered by Council . i uKAFJ C-2 APPEAL OF ZONING ADRINI TRATOR A OVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 APPLICANT: LARRY CUBIT APPELLANT: SARAH DUNAVAN Conditional Exception (Variance) No 89-63 is a request to construct a fireplace within nine (9) inches of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty (30) inches pursuant to Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. On December 13, 1989 the Zoning Administrator acted on and approved Conditional Exception No. 89-63 with findings and conditions of approval . Submitted is an appeal to the action taken by the Zoning Administrator. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator ' s approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63 with findings . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED A letter from Susan Lundin, Huntington Beach property owner, was read into the record stating her intention to follow this matter for future reference when adding on to her home or any proposed building needs . She feels if one person is allowed to build against the zoning code requirements that it justifies others building in the same manner. Sarah Dunavan, 209 Crest Avenue, Appellant, spoke in opposition to the request. She said she opposes the fireplace construction in the walkway between her home and her neighbors because it puts her personal privacy in jeopardy, it is against the building code, and, if allowed, could influence the sale of her property. She submitted photographs into the record depicting the subject home in its original state and the subject home and fireplace now under construction. She feels the building code should be enforced with the requirement of a 30 inch clearance between buildings to provide additional light and air circulation and increased buffer distance between homes . She said the distance between her roof overhang and the proposed fireplace measures 23 inches and that the fireplace is located only 9 inches from her property line. Larry Cubit, 211 Crest, applicant, was present and stated that he is available to answer any questions from the Commission. He said he did start construction before obtaining a building permit and was advised by the Building Department to reinforce the existing fireplace for seismic purposes . En � PC Minutes - 1/23/90 -5-1 (4838d) DRAF Emil Gisler, 760 Main Street, spoke in o' � ...<.._ pposition to the proposed fireplace construction. He said it is out of line and feels Ms . Dunavan has followed the right process in objecting to the construction. Imelda Lopez, 20262 Newby Lane, said she has visited the appellant ' s home for many years and never observed a fireplace or foundation for a fireplace at the next door residence. Louise Wilson, 1814 Florida Street, referred the Commission to the photograph of the house in its original state (with no fireplace) . She said there was never a fireplace to reinforce. She suggested that the applicant construct an "inside wall" fireplace to avoid imposition on the neighbors . Mary Vaught, does not feel her neighbor should have to have a structure within 30 inches of her home. Lance Jacot, 215 Crest Avenue, said he has resided in the neighborhood for 15 years . He said the original house had a protrusion where the fireplace is being constructed. He feels the addition/reinforcement of the fireplace will enhance the historical home and the neighborhood. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Staff was asked to respond to the question regarding other variances that had been granted in the Downtown area. Herb Fauland gave a brief history of variances granted by the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator in the Downtown Area and throughout the City within the last two years. He said these two lots are developed with single family residence and are unique because they are both on 25 foot wide lots . In addition, he stated that any added architectural features/fireplaces require an exception to the sideyard setback requirement. He further stated that if staff can make the necessary findings that there is a land-related hardship when adding an architectural feature, they would recommend approval . A discussion ensued among the Commissioners . It was felt that since the fireplace was an architectural feature being added to the home and that the Fire Department had no problems with the access or easements between the two existing homes that the request should be approved. However, some of the Commission felt that if this request was approved it would encourage homeowners to build and construct additions to their homes without permits. The Commissioners also noted that even though a lot of people do not know that they need permits, the potential impacts or detrimental effects imposed on surrounding neighbors, when no building permit is obtained, should not be allowed. URAFT Do PC Minutes - 1/23/90 -6- (4838d) t DRAFm�l A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district. The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (R1) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes the site non-conforming as to lot width. The existing residence is provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards, adequate access in emergency situations is provided. The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintains adequate light, air, ventilation and emergency access for public health, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood. 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light, air, ventilation and access . i PC Minutes - 1/23/90 -7- (4838d) �IRAFT t 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No. 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated October 2, 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a. The applicant shall submit fully dimensioned elevations which depict height, materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection. b. The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board' s recommendations; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house' s exterior color and finish and , not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace. 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace. 3 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear. No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side yard. 4 . The southern interior side yard to the rear of the proposed fireplace shall be kept free and clear. No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the southerly side yard. 5 . 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. 6 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and the Fire Department . 7. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards . 8 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Exception No. 89-63 if any violations of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . PC Minutes - 1/23/90 -8- (4838d) RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTI'iGTON AC" C&LIF. ` FEB 5 21 FM To: Huntington Beach City Council I want to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on January 23, 1990, Appeal of Zoning Administration and Planning Commission approval of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-63. The Conditional Exception should not be granted because the findings for approval are not justified. I am concerned for the safety of my home from the ashes, encroachment, and other detrimental effects the granting of this variance will cause to my property. Sarah Dunavan 209 Crest Huntington Beach, CA 92648 536-0739 '- a ttrd Dear Mayor Mays and City Councilmembers: Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I submitted to the Planning Commissioners the evening of the hearing. In retrospect I realize that I should have allowed them time to read and study the events as documented in this letter. Therefore since I am appealing this to the City Council, I would appreciate if you would carefully read this letter prior to my appeal. Many thanks. Sincerely, -r. r t,7 Sara Dunavan 209 Crest Ave. n Huntington Beach, CA 92648 `-'_ 536-0739 _..... ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter — Law Offices of Sharon K. O'Brien 2. Notes on Appeal 3. Letter — Blanche A. Wood 4. Letter — BLanche A. Wood 5. Letter — Lorene L. Green 6. Letter — James B. Green 7. City of Huntington Beach — Mechanical Permit 8. Findings for approval 9. 2 — Development review requests 10. Letter — Business License Department 11. City Council Minutes 11/6/89 Public Comment — Sarah Dunavan — re: Fireplace T Mr. Cubit created the hardship now for me. He is asking to break the law and I am asking for the law to be followed for all. 1. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable until Larry Cubit made them by starting this project without approval. (Indicated by photo dated 1988). 2. It is not necessary for Larry Cubit to do this especially at the cost of the enjoyment of my rights. He can install the fireplace inside without encroaching on the required 30" side yard set backs. 3. It is materially detrimental to my health, safety and welfare. I do not want the fences down. (They have been there for years). It does not allow adequate light, air, ventilation, buffer space, and emergency access (9" fireman) for public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. 4. Why is it now with the goals and objections of the citys General Plan and Land Use Map when he has broken all codes permitted by law for all citizens. The city can work with him now to put the house back in historical value by putting the fireplace inside as would have been suggested before at 1/2 the cost and not encroaching on the neighbor and removing the fences and bamboo which allowed privacy to all concerned. 5. It does defeat the general purpose. If the 9" side yard does not defeat the general purpose of the code can everyone else do it? In order for him to encroach on the 30" side yard set back he removed the bamboo ledge, property line fence and front permanent gate and weakened my gate. He will probably not replace any of this based on his past performance of his projects on his house the 3 years he has lived there. 6. It will adversely affect the General Plan because all citizens will be entitled to do as they wish (then apply for permits if caught) again to the infringement on the neighbor. This is why we have codes to keep from having this problem. 7. The applicant should have to remove all the project and put it on the inside as he would have been instructed to if he had gone through the proper permit process. Application requirements has all the information in clear English and is clearly stated if you call the city for information. Are you putting more value on people who break the rules than people who live by the rules? L LAW OFFICES OF SHARON K. O'BRIEN P.O. BOX CJ 4650 VON KARMAN AVE. IRVINE, CA 92716 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 (714)752-6848 January 23 , 1990 Planning Commission Appeal Board City of Huntington Beach Re: Conditional Exception 89-63 Fireplace at 211 Crest Avenue Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This evening you are to hear an appeal as to whether the above described variance was properly granted. Prior to making your decision, please consider my client, Sarah Dunavan' s concerns. As is within the power vested to you in accordance with our Constitution and the Government Code, you granted a permit for a fireplace at 211 Crest Avenue. However, case law has indicated that where a variance is granted, it is presumed that official duty was performed in investigating the matter and the existence of the necessary facts was found. The appellant at this appeal, Sarah Dunavan, who resides at 209 Crest Avenue, adjacent to the subject property is of the .opinion that the necessary investigation was not performed when the permit was granted. The subject fireplace was constructed, and your permit approved, within nine (911) inches of Ms. Dunavan' s property. The Mechanical Permit #M007313 , which was obtained when the fireplace was almost completed, was approved for reinforcement of a fireplace. However, there is considerable evidence to indicate that there never was a fireplace at the location. Please note the attached letter from Blanche A. Wood, dated November 11, 1989 , whose father constructed the subject house, labeled Exhibit A. If this is indeed the case, the permit application was falsified. Since the permit was issued when the construction was almost completed, the inspections required to determine if construction is in compliance with the Building Code were not made. The very real possibility exists that the fireplace is a detriment to the safety of the neighborhood: the foundation may not properly support the structure; the bamboo which was removed to make room for the fireplace appears to still be growing and looking for new places to come up, particularity in Ms. Dunavan ' s property; the chimney may not be structurally sound; and the design may not adequately protect neighboring structures from embers. r Planning Commission Appeal Board January 23 , 1990 Page 2 The issuance of the permit after a significant portion of the structure was completed without inspections, instead of requiring the structure torn down and reconstructed under the Building Department' s supervision is clearly detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the entire neighborhood, if not the City for the message it sends that partially completed, uninspected structures are acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach. Government Code §65906 states that " [a]ny variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assume that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. " In this case, a special privilege has been granted: the right to build a fireplace within thirty-nine (3911) inches of the neighbor' s structure. Although variances are to permit one property to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and to eliminate unique hardships to that property, this variance did not grant a privilege to Mr. Cubit which neighbors enjoy. He now has a fireplace within nine inches of the lot line, which neighboring houses do not have. Instead of eliminating a hardship for Mr. Cubit, this variance has created considerable hardship on Ms. Dunavan. Surely it is not the intent of the City to grant ...a_--privilege to one neighbor to the detriment of the other. In this instance, the construction of the fireplace--'nas created-an added burden on Ms. --Dunavan both monetar - ly and emotionally. Due to the narrowness of the area, Mr. Cubit used Ms. Dunavan ' s property and her roof to effectuate the construction.. Her home was splattered with material from -the construction, which is unsightly and will be an expense to her to remove. The stucco was damaged when the workers struck her wall with the blocks used to construct the fireplace. Her roof was damaged, creating additional expense to her. A condition of the permit should have been to restore Ms. Dunavan ' s property to the same or better condition after the construction. Ms. Dunavan has lost her privacy due to this permitted fireplace. Mr. Cubit removed the gate between their properties, permitting access to Ms. Dunavan' s property where no access was available before. Mr. Cubit removed the fence dividing their properties, permitting access to Ms. Dunavan ' s property from Mr. Cubit ' s and eliminating her privacy, as her windows are now exposed to the view of Mr. Cubit and his friends and family. This variance has created a future hardship to Ms. Dunavan, as well as those she is currently experiencing. An architect has indicated that her dreams for a second floor probably have been dashed Planning Commission Appeal Board January 23 , 1990 Page 3 because the second story would cause the fireplace to draft back into Mr. Cubit' s fireplace. Ms. Dunavan respectfully requests that Conditional Exception 89-63 be denied . and the fireplace constructed under that permit be removed and the gate and fence between the properties be restored, in a timely manner, at Mr. Cubit' s expense. In the alternative, the permit should be amended to require complete removal of the bamboo and restoration of the gate and fence between the proper- ties, in a timely manner, at Mr. Cubit ' s expense. Respectfully Submitted, Sharon K. O'Brien Attorney for Appellant SKO/ms Enclosure CC: S . Dunavan - I UT ........... ....... I, EXHIBIT A �1 041" - �, c -------___ ---ji---- 7aA , _ __._ 0 Sarah Dunavan January 20, 1990 NOTES ON ,APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 . FLUE FOR A VENTED HEATER I have opposed the building of a fireplace in the walkway betweeri my home and my neighbor ' s because: 1 . This action by my neighbor has put my personal privacy in jeopardy. 2 . It ' s against the building code to build a new structure within 30" of a neighbor ' s house without a permit. 3 . This could influence the sale of my property. I called City Hall on October 18 , 1989 and asked if they would come and check on a fireplace my next door neighbor was building because it was getting so big and close to my property. I talked to Don Shaw at City Hall . At this time the fireplace was ..ha7.f. completed.. On October 23 I 'went t� City Hall with a friend and presented the problem as if I were the person wanting a fireplace. I was informed that I couldn' t have one as it was against building codes and also if a person did any construction they needed to have a building permit (which my neighbor did not have at this time) . They also said if it was started and being done illegally, they would make them tear it down. I was asking these questions to educate myself. Later that same day, my neighbor applied for a permit. In order to get the permit, he misrepreserited the facts, saying it was for reinforcing an existing fireplace ( there was none) instead of building a new one. " NOTES ON APPEAL Page 2 3 y: ' I then obtained 4 stop work order Mich was issued but not followed through. My neighbor came over that evening and told me that the stop order was torn up and there was no neeq��_ - a� C for a variance. A friend and I went up to see what the policy � � was for a work stop order. Was this a usual procedure? On Friday, October 27 I talked to Codes and they said it was a problem of Planning now. (Again I presented the problem as if I wanted to build a fireplace and I was starting it with- out a permit) . Then they got out my neighbor ' s plans and checked them over. On October 31 I talked to Art Folger, Deputy Attorney and showed him the picture of the original heater-flue that started at the .foundation. Art Folger said, "It doesn ' t look like he ' s reinforcing a fireplace, he ' s building one. " On November 6 I went to the Council meeting and Mike Adams was directed by the City Colu`nc i l to ta' e /care of the problem. -�kLfin�� ..�� .^s .YK'y.:��- -�/-'!rt'�.yf:/�-��Z. �J'�1'�-.�t-'-2• .�.-G'c-z., ./t'�"'". - `"�L��`w��y The Planning Department then told my neighbor he would need a variance . The variance was approved at the December 13 meeting. I appealed this decision December 22nd, because he was constructing a new fireplace within nine inches of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty inches .��.,�_,� Is this selective code information fol me and not fdr my neighbor? Ernie Gisler, former mayor and council member of Huntington Beach, stated at the meeting of December 13 , 1989, that he is opposed to the request because it is against the building codes and should not be allowed for one and not for all residents and the side yard should be kept clear for access in case of fire. NOTES ON APPEAL Page 3 It should be noted that the building code requires a 30" clearance between buildings. I feel this should be maintained to provide additional light and air circulation and increased buffer distance between my house and my neighbor ' s . The distance between my overhang ano my neighbo ' s fireplace wall measures 23 inches . His fireplace extends 9" my property line. t J r' 42 r -Cl�2ti. yv it_� •�J ��✓�� 1 7�--�`—E=C�� CV 1. (v, � ��l.(.�,i �j r�� y l'�c� i.-��..�' CSC:.:�.�-�:F ✓ya f, Iu'}/'v q � !L RY f at- y- a •r iq foot f J. } v CAI Q- o-�-�- :J .'1 i January 2, 1990 City Planning Commission Office of Zoning Administration Huntington Beach, California To Whom it May Concern: This is to certify that I saw a freshly dug rectangular hole at the south side of Sarah Dunavan' s house on the 11th of October, 1989, when I visited her. On my previous visit, the area was covered with bamboo. We commented on the change at the time. Yours truly,, �4-La� cn. Lorene L. Green 83 Seton Irvine, CA 92715 ( 714 ) 733-2819 1 James E. Green Architect (Retired ) 447 Ogle Circle Costa Mesa , CA. 92627 City OF Huntington beach Planning Commission Jan. 21 , 1990 Ref. : Planning Commission meeting Tue. 1 /23/90 agenda item # C 2. Honorable Planning Commission Members Attention has been called to agenda item # C 2 regarding violations of City Codes and Regulations in construction on property located at 211 Crest , Huntington Beach . Should adherence to governing regulations not be required in this instance will exemption also be allowed in the next similar case ? How about the one after that , etc. ? Citizens in all communities are becoming very concerned about an advancing trend toward acceptance of exemptions to regulations and laws in governmental actions. Cr, this particular item The Planning Commission is respect- fully requested to recomend removal of construction which was : ( 1 ) Done with a permit obtained after the fact and obtained by false statements as to existing conditions. ( 2) Done without required building department inspections . ( 3) Done without regard to side-yard regulations and reduces the side-yard to only nine inches . Sincerely, J mes B. Green IHUQd1T1NGT®�1 ,.BEI�CF1:} ITY 01= HdJNTINGTON BEACH 3 2�ODrMAIN_ST DEPARTMENT OF. s" - HUNTINGTON BEACH,,,CA 92648 K t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, . rt _,y+_ P.O:BOX 190-CALIFORNIA 92648 z (714)538.5241 �Permns+granted ana Issued nre week m I � /�.-� t � ,� � �. D 8311 Klner Ave Than extension $3 900 c 17381;Mayor Lane,;Jonii%re-root,$1;700 - - - ,a 5771 Mlddle_cott Drive Moseley re roof Yr 1i<` ..�_- _- 017371 Coopers Circle Kaan,ra-root$1;700 ;;: �r ;E C Fi A `?. I C(A L P E N p; I T a16671 Tlber-Lano Clancy re•r0ot $8980 _ - -.(3508.191h St-.Bortannl.Davebpmem,-block r .. - - - waIIJ260 - - rY,-f .3---- BIdg.PPrr:it F014226 - PC d _ - - . * 1 m CHEST Tract RA Lot. 'NA Flock N,p.. 0 8481 Doncaster crel9,'_and engy._36,420 ; E u 1 I d i n£, Use S.F .D. 0 7531 Hell Ave,Burke Commercial Develop-;' - . ment,walls doors and ceding $7000 - - -. 0 8141 Lambert Drive Freeman re roof i f C o n t=r e t o r. y . ,a 21100 Fifth St'Gallegos,seismic strengthen I {6:L` C G 1•'T F A C 7 C/F) 'a14592 Zane-Clrele Prull block wall,$5980 , �/ •)i ll r , {L' �/ "a1941 Leka St:;Pacific-Coast Homes-spa 'D 9922 Constitudon Drivo,:Mulftolland. re 1 ✓ - 1❑9422 Lanai Circle Turner Dlodv wall$3,822 I h Er t.�-C E --- mpiled--Eld--- Briggs----——— ---------- — ----^---- ——— F•.ppI .Gate /t9 Approved --------------- Issued 'JPit _10/e %ES Issue Receipt --- ----- -'--- ------"--- -- -- - - - -- - c rr IIv�PECT�ION_:FEES i " Gescripti'cn Sty _:. Amc;unt Cesc.r;iFticr. Cty . o; Amount,': Mle.t 1. .Eireapls,ce - - -- - -- Inspec't.icn 1G.CC fh'iriirur 5' 1G.GC) R1,sce:ilancous C., cc Fi.SN(AICCk. C.CC FI cos s i r.E Fcr.ai.ty G.Cv Tota-. r.-e:. 2u:Cc } - OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION ---' - ` WORKERS COMPENSATION DECLARATION - I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractors♦License Lew_tar the,f� requfrgs _ .. - ,(Sec 7031.5) Business and Proles, ::Code Any.,elfy or oounfy.wh - I hereby aginn that I have a:certificate of consent to soft Insure or a certificate at Workers - permit to-tonalruct alter--4Improve demollah'Tor'i_repalr any-jalruc — wr to 'r Compensation Insurance,or a certified copy thereof(Sec."3800,Lab.C}- - rssuenee_also'requires the applleantl lorx suchOperm/tt to/lie--a slgrre` tam�t t _ I - r-+ -;iie-ls.,lreensed,ypursuanf Yo?the prowslonsr•ol the Contractor's License (Cps ter Policy No -y Canparry (commencinglivlth Seetlan;_7000).-o/i Orvrsfon 3--b/`the Business"arid - fesslonsaC g- - xemption f ❑ Certified copy is hereby fumislied or`,that he is exempt-therelromt and?'the basis.;for the.ailed I wdatidn7 of Section 7031b by any--.applicant tor--a.;permlt subleif appllear7di ❑ Certified copy is filed with the aty.budd6ig nspectlon deparenenly; civil:penalty'of`not�m&v Man five hundred;ddlars'(E500J],q it ° - Las owner,of the pmperty�or my.einploYees:with wages as tlie6,� +- Date_ - Apppcent th.Awork and the'strueme:Is:trot ntemdetl rx onered``for sab.--(_ _044>,Buslnrs Lt CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKER'S- Prnlesslons -Code s The"'Confraetdra�License-Lawq does lno. y-lo,an ow >;. COMPENSATION INSURANCE- - a;property who-6uJWs or Improves tthereon and who`does sue rR himself a. - fended or of, This section need not be Y (r Ns:own-employees provided that such improvements are-no ( completed d thepermt h for.ans IXirdretl dollars(E700)or iris.) i sale.�lf howevarl the buJMln for Improvement rs sold,wrfh/n -year o1 eompbtl 'I certify that n the performance-of the work for whkh thle'pamat la Issiod,.I;.shell not - 1 - - - 4 - build ar Improve j ownerbullde -will'have the-burden lot proving that he did. a - emPloy any person n ery manner eo as to•becorne sorblect to Workers Campenset(on Laws?'- - 1 puipose ol,sale r ✓ i r_ I ,1 " Date -�' Applleantt -`:• 5 i - '❑I,as owner of the property am exdushiely contracting« eenseE"contractors-to- NOTICE TO APPLICANT: tl,-eker-maktrq this,;CoMtlirao a1�Examptkn, youshoultl-become. the.-project. (See. 7044):Buslness and:Pro/esslans.-Cod he_Contractors Lrcen Z- subject to the Worker's Compensation provisions of the Labor Code. you must`lurthwith ° does not apply.to an'owner of;property,.who:build Improves�lthereon� ,e r contracts for such pro/acts with a contraetor(a) Iles rd pursuant fo the 7 comply with such prowsloro or this permit"I be doomed revoked - License Law. - \\ LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION ❑ I arri exempt airier sea - ' I hereby�efikm that•I am licensetl under provlsbns of Clmptar 9 (canmenchg with Section - rein - _ _ « Owner, -4 r tJ. 7000)of t]Ivisgn 3 of ine'llusmoss and Prolesslons Code,and try license is n fin lance and Data affect. - - - - - l -- -CONSTRUCTION LEND.AGE �rPe NCY s t -:' - -.I hereby of inn that mere.is-a consmrbtwn. ja agency for the License Number -,. - Uc.Class -:la which the pannit is osued(Sea 3097 Civ C),-- r- tt Contracts \ - - Date - Lenders - ;- : - ), �.:.. Lenders Adbeas_. _ ❑ lam exempt from the 8 egmemeno 091 am a licensed"tact or a registered.; - I Comfy tfyt 1-have reed oho epplidatbn a state Chet-oils above nl for i -- professional,enyuoer ed -_N my Ixofasamelecapedtyf(seekon 7051 8usetasa and-"".- -ages to eomlNy wim au uty ordnanceet.e state-lewe�reladng Professions t^:r: - R`A, ', S - �j aumorize- eeenteWesEof iths d b enter upon the Lx;or Rep.Na L k..rc�.1 c+c''t s}'„chi. l•Fxi:3Dateu�Ljxr+LRe.:t"}�� 'Yke0an WiPaae%�4 I,^ S',i"r��^ir ,.•.t f.aFa.tYtaaaF ,tT..,cat9." :r.'i�x'�s �.»a'+ d{ t s'>�;�7t4rtature.RTZ of 9 7 AppOcant AgsM f rs - '•"�.—. � :r r.f'`'FI.�. ra.n _ 'c. t'�'- fdL1 •s ��!� � - WHITE COPY-INSPECTO�W L E�OPY OFFICE,GREEN Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 January 2A , 1990 Larry Cubit 211 Crest Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 REQUEST: To construct a fireplace within nine inches of an interior property line in lieu of the required thirty inches . LOCATION: 211 Crest Avenue DATE OF APPROVAL : January 23 , 1990 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL : 1 . There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district . The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (R1) and is provided with approximately 25 feet of lot width which makes .the site non-conforming as to lot width . The existing residence is provided with only a 2-1/2 foot interior side yard setback. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of. an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood . As conditioned to maintain free and clear interior side yards , adequate access in emergency situations is provided . The encroachment of the proposed fireplace maintains adequate light, air, ventilation and emergency access for public health, safety and the general welfare of the neighborhood . V APPEAL OF . ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S APPROVAL_ OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-63 Page Two 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace. within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches is . consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential (R1) . 5 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches from Section 9110 . 7(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to provide adequate interior side yards for light , air, ventilation and access . 6 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 89-63 for the construction of a fireplace within 9 inches of an interior side yard property line in lieu of the required 30 inches will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception No. 89-63 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan received and dated October 2, 1989 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a . The applicant shall submit fully dimensioned elevations which depict height, materials and colors of the proposed fireplace prior to final building permit inspection. b. The applicant shall incorporate the Historic Board ' s recommendations; painting or stuccoing the fireplace to match the existing house ' s exterior color and finish and not place any modern cap on the top of the fireplace . 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for the construction of the proposed fireplace . 3 . The existing northern interior side yard shall be kept free and clear . No additions, architectural features or any obstruction shall be constructed and/or placed along the northerly side yard. ' r "i 't6rr3 ti r f4 � i�tl!'' 1. `� RN• `' � ,-•y�. JrEeUOP.ME_ N?I',•9EVfftEW REQU '- �, __Jets. •w Sb'` Js � �- ;� . B. Y. '��*� , c � fip�fn .y i yari jl y�.l•rkl.Ct - yer� i `•vk.Y- '\ s}'l'a'`rik..\{t`'tf h, •�}- .� �ti•�c - 'Ss"MiY,A�7i!t, •r 1 t\i �7'�.. c"s...�'r k��.� w k f'.m`:o"`°��y. k" 7stf�"}'t•• '7q c kt a• -"=i ,?� :a� `t' ?'c9' �� '�� e •7� iFii "t' .�+�.'f?Tf "1.•'.riw("��'1� 1 �„}• T Or :I• Y 4.. ?� /1Ki�iy � t y'^, A &� C?4.t ,+,?•.- .x:. _ NC FROM: EXT. L��i��/i.� COMMENTS (Use Attachments "��( / necessary) - -: - - -VI .C;? ' �1.1}s V t\9• PETITION( S ) : C=5 j REQUEST( S C4>Z6A tJCX- �• i� .�4 (40 op TOG LOCATION: ZONE: �, t GENERAL PLAN: EXISTING USE:' DATE ACCEPTED: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: .r-----., ' i t!ase submit your concerns and e�ommerided"solu o w riti )n" or before � _69, ^"A Interdeparf'mental REtriew: Final. Planning Review: Response submitted by: u BZA:� Subdivision Camiittee: Date: Planning . C*ZnTnission: Attachments : -!< �a�1^5 k � aA'�`.� - -,f r n� l iy4)�' i a�' ":J� �}T�-t�l�+}�;}f 1js t.Y.'y�1�5 -,[� iS M_�4.J�1:�{• ♦'�'�a l d^^-�3y,F�t'• tF4'•x�A �YLYa�M ��`rr-J1.+..t•-��-3'A� rt, �•=t C fin... VtE O.P.,MEN REy.�IfET�T> REQU , �j1 i�sl�X T`4'� �.. �{Xa'•<..lrr��yti Yy�. a -F fir'.,,(% a,�,.ev��y��y��y5: - �y �'A'; .6 f - � �.y�i.�i } � t !'fhx=>�,,� l •.f �• +'i#-.. 1A�( .3 l.J� "iw'Xt qs'1 t 777 _ ..ft�R•.� '�(1.ti �p3�;- i 7.rira7e�a��<•t`7tS tr�'�ti:•�. ;� K Sl^'` ,,i1.t's .^_,Hr' .<�• S• �.1`-(41,1 q •Y.t-T•� 7.1 1 .7,1 av?�i>r '�t�i--6:31yIw- .• /�'a�- ' �`y�� aa�`' n�,•µc,f�..�^��t��S t � *.t+ae a t�ve. �!'�1 l '^r-"a 4'a't yt S.7c J .�.. lq�"a�� TO: TXJ 1'i' ;,yG ry^ - �z,� ,,\ fT< �'•i 4'�} utl`r<_-c- as �J. �5� -'-5 L t1^V. l'i �f('-. •-K' r:> -T tG s- `w < S • `�` .r<.#a -1 fi 'fi}s.`'n ri.i `y' { :r FROM: — � E X T I�SJR> COMMENTS : (Use Att•achments,;;lfa :i,,.r�, necessary) Q ; PET ITiON.( S ) REQUEST( S ) :—To (.C�1�3 S'C�3 Gam" A► .� � l� t V'�k 1 tJ � �1•.'3 C.bt,�b N i vo 14E tto -.No LOCATION: - 211 C � ' r BONE: (;LNERAL PLA14: `OW 4I'l`C P-USTING USE: epuz �St�eb..= DATE ACCEPTED: •J ?MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE : ----�, '1f.F+se submit your -concerns-:and c�rommended solo --o wrti g : . .: ... �n or before C)e, A -- Interdepartmental Review: Final Planning Review: Res o e submitted by: BZA: 5ubd.ivision C'cinnittee: Planning Crnmission- Date:_ Attachments : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 P.O. BOX 711 CALIFORNIA 92648 CITY TREASURER—DONALD L. WATSON 1 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN S .JOHN is a licensed business in the City of Huntington Beach. License was issued August 6, 1985 to Sarah Dunaran at 209 Crest for Alterations and dressmaking. License #A095748 is valid until 8/1/90 Betty Walker, Clerk 1/29/90 Page 3 - Agency/Council Minutes - 11/6/89 Carrie Thomas addressed Council and spoke regarding the need to develop a park in Ellis-Goldenwest Quartersection. Diana Boom commended Council for the work Ron Yeo has done on the Pier Plaza �:. Project. She urged Council to support the proposed City Charter Amendment Initiative "Save Our Parks". Nadine Takayama, Pat Christiansen, Mary Sharpe, and Edna Regan of the Robinwood area stated that needed stop signs were removed from the neighbor- hood, and they requested that the signs be replaced. (Tasman Street, Bolsa Chica Street, Andaman, McFadden Avenue area) . She introduced eleven neighbor- hood children representing the children of the neighborhood who need the stop signs for their safety. 5Arah 0 pavan, downtown property owner, complained to Council about possible ~� inconsistent permits being issued for fireplaces on 25' lots . Robert Cronk spoke in opposition of the proposed revisions of the Huntington Beach Oil Code. David Bucy complained to Council about the late fee policy of Public Works for delinquent water bills. Bill Gallegos spoke in support of keeping the art center in the downtown area. David Burris spoke in opposition of encroachment of 5th Street and the new corridor by the proposed widening. (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED OPEN FROM 10/16/89 - CODE AMENDMENT 89-3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' 89-14 - AMENDS DEFINITIONS WITHIN ARTICLE 908 - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION AS AMENDED - APPROVED The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following: APPLICATION NUMBER: Code Amendment No. 89-3/Negative Declaration No. 89-14 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City-wide ZONE: All Districts REOUEST: To amend the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and amend, modify and/or delete definitions within Article 908, Definitions. Added definitions may include, but not be liimited to: architectural features, child day care facility, convenience market, density bonus. final approval , .grade, gross floor area, hedge, industrial use, liquor store, lot frontage, parking structure, retaining wall . wholesale use. Amended definitions may include but not be limited to: apartment, automobile/vehicle repair, dwelling, lot width. is Deleted definitions may include but not be limited to: automobile accessory dealer. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 89-14, assessing the environ- mental effects will also be considered by Council . 59