Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Hearing-Appeal PC denial of UP91-25-Request existing
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 23, 1991 Hany Henein 9601 Rocky Mountain Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dear Mr. Henein: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held October 21 , 1991 , denied with findings , your application relative to Use Permit No. 91-25. 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 October 23, 1991 to apply to the courts for judicial review relative to the Use Permit. Please call this office if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:cc Enclosure CC: City Attorney Community Development Director City Administrator (Telephone: 714-536-5227) We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton • 94 F Beach each Cit ['y ociric i 1 in order to enforce code violations at c Rocky Mountain Drive . A fence was erected without a parmitj Thd& not only violates the City Code , but 1 :, not compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself . y �F �� -- -— - - C3` -,I t f� �(�, /b/- /h c�.• ,""V 4. � 1106 A X61a4 Gr/lc�L /,, / b 13 3 /q z 55 'A r,Ovo u+N�S -A I_& _�_. / 0HIS K="'�"�-'^--�— Ste. . a ��G'�d -��^�-if- J� � �����i✓J"`i� d.l�-- ------.- - ._ --75� �� - -- - — Nam_ /nL i - JATII 9b // We , the und; c -sjgned , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations at CJ/9el ;',ocky Mountain Drive . A fence wiz+ rected without a porm.it. . This not only violates the City Code , but is not compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. • y. 0_hlCL ��ppResS 1 1 �l - ----- ---- _ ,>- z48 yo� • 4 di Zee IF . 41 L� G r - rn , r f 0 We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations atcJG61 Rocky Mountain Drive . A fence was , rected without a parmit . This not only violates the City Code , but is not compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. 14 . �1{ 01'V� �.}fJORess 1 '- �� to f 6- - . ' F ^ > -_ L i ' `` We , the uoJer -a� yned , hereby petition the members of the Huntintun ° Beach [ity Cuuno.1L in order to enforce code violations ut9(,6t, Rocky Mount uin Uz/ ,, . A foncc wuo ' /-cctud without u p4rmit . This not only violates the City , Code , but / �, /mi compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. ` ' v RA AV We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton pr,ach City Council in order to enforce code 'Violations at cl&6! Rocky Mount i n I)r.i v., A fence waS rected without a pgrmi.ti 7,ka&--not only violates the City Code , but is not compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. . i y - - k 1 r J� , �j / ��f? We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations at g1,01 Rockyf, �.''� ' Mountain Drive . A fence was erected without a permit) not only violates the City Code , but is not compatible with the neighborhood andKAangerous in itself . a /✓tom (V�m�- am ti V)'A C'G_t4 -- — r — -- — + �• " ► 0 } jl We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations at 94,0� Rocky Mountain Drive . A fence was rected without a permit . This not only violates the City Code , but is not compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. ' y {0rje pQRejq- sS c G 1 � 96( 42 d4 11 Kz w ' oU __ �f't"uj We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Hunt.inton Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations atg4p6/ Rocky Mountain Drive . A fence was : cected without a pu.rmit . This not only violates the City Code , but i :; not compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. 0rvt? ► 00 v-IS"lei 22 -i ell f� r 70.Wz Ott / Oil adz — r2 i �'G/ .M We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations at Rocky Mountain Drive . A fence was rected without a pe,rmitj +hot not only violates the City Code , but is riot compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. y. onJC- ,��oRess r r & � - __2�3-7 _ 7 SS IT P � I1 f LIZ - Gc f ^ ` ' ` We , the undec -o�gnod , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton ° Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations at oq&,o/ Rocky Mountain Urivo . . A Vence wao cuctcd without a permit . This not only violates the City ' Code , but is not compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. . ^ + 4� � o1� / � - ' �-� 0 t\j 00���� .4161 IA- 7,13 1 We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations at 9593 Rocky Mountain Drive . A fence was if,ctcj without a permit . This not only violates the City Code , but 1 .3 not compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself'. ' y pt :i -- - - _ 5 1 C YL,' J � A, 2 I d 1 6cX, �Z 1u� r - ` ^ ` We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of t /m Huntinton GaE[ch City CuunL.il in order to °oforce code viulotions utc/64o [ Rocky ' Mountain Drivo , ' A fence waa ' cecLoU without a p(IrmiL . This not only violates the City , Code , but is /.nL cnmpatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. ^ ^ r A �V �/^1� ' — ° . We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton Beach City CUUnC:Ll in order to enforce code violations at r16Di Rocky Mountain Drive . A fence was rested without a pasmit . This not only violates the City Code , but, i :, iiot: compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. :'v f bl - 71 Oc/ 7 t G- QY I J J 5 r `J c J � LJ 44.. IA7 i We , the under -signed , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations atcJ4,61 Rocky Mountain Drive . A fence was erected without a parmit . This not only violates the City Code , but is riot compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. 1 q S3 A :fir, -- CA 9,2,6 Yyu - lA� I L Z ,A Ll C Y . . �-z - - _ - - --- H , e� 10 9 Z7/7 . T, v `- r ,- q We , the under -s4gned , hereby petition the members of the Huntinton Beach City Council in order to enforce code violations atcj4.6/ Rocky Mountain Drive . A fence was � rected without a pormit . This not only violates the City Code , but is flOt compatible with the neighborhood and dangerous in itself. • M. qV- Al_ i --- ---- — Wei _ y -- - Y _-- --------- ;�f N (n- 9�6 7/,4 HANY S . HENEIN 9601 Rocky Mountain Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, CA. PETITION FOR FENCE LOCATED IN FRONT OF 9601 ROCKY MTN. DR. We the undersigned are all neighbors in the Park Huntington Homes and by signing this petition do here-by swear that we are the owners of the property stated to the right of our signatures . We have been told of our neighbors dilemma regarding their front yard fence ; and in signing this petition we are stating our support of said fence, that it is agreeable to me to be a permanent structure in our neighborhood. Further more we the Citizens of Huntington Beach hope that our City Council well vote favorable in regards to this issue . PRINTED NAMESIGNATURE ADDRESS �- 01 .1��:_l S L� 1�r'�1Z_ L-L== <r_✓__ C Z G Zf '_�. �_ r 03 . 0 5 . 1"d c=- -1• '1 L t_' 06 07 . Ift 08 14 . �".4 ' PETITION FOR THE FENCE LOCATED AT 9601 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE,H.B. By signing this petition we do here-by swear that we are the owners of the property stated to the right of our signatures . We have been told of our neighbors dilemma regarding their front yard fence; and in signing this petition we are stating our support of said fence . Further more we the Citizens of Huntington Beach hope that our City Council will vote favorably in regards to this issue. f J 6 k-� ` � s _ .��+a y�0/7_2 �i�x�lEt d /f 017 . U l �f' " 018 . 019 . 020 . 021 . �L`1 sJN1" -Icr� �.I�idrE .D�K)e� 0 — 025 . v2 K f 0 2 6 a• 1 7!1 si �. , 027 . :�rr�t , ` f�i 7 2 OX i e '7 028 029. 9 030 . G j / 03Al 0 303 034 . 035 . 036 . 03 038 . 039 . PETITION FOR THE FENCE LOCATED AT 9601 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE,H.B. By signing this petition we do here-by swear that we are the owners of the property stated to the right of our signatures . We have been told of our neighbor-s di-lemma regarding their front ya-rd fence;-and in signing this petition we are stating our support of said fence . Further more we the Citizens of Huntington Beach hope that our City Council will vote favorably in regards to this issue. 040 . 041 , 042 , 043 t CL7�-Zr was✓ `Li L�. �S 044 . 045 . 046 . JCS v rk 047 . 048 . Q O �1l_�4 T � 049 . �rs ✓ 96 2L c 0 51 fs-pl 0 5 2 . Lr LSD 4 Ec*-r G 3 Z � r� N 421-t P, — 0 5 3 . Lla,a,o 054 . a� o�017( �S-•o j `�,���. 055 . 131K1(266 6 GAA 056 . J r7- 0 / & :� ' � �2 057 058 . 10 A�_, 059 ._ 06A- V& 06 Qyo 2 1 - ac-� •�, L., 063 . L 064 . PETITION FOR THE FENCE LOCATED AT 9601 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE,H.B. I ' By signing this petition we do here-by swear that we are the owners of the property stated to the right of our signatures . . We have been told of . our neighbors dilemma regarding their front yard fence; and in signing this petition we are stating our support of said fence . Further more we the Citizens of Huntington Beach hope that our City Council will vote favorably in regards to this issue. \I- .4././,., ---//*�' 2 , 065 066. �l . � 7" ;f✓l n 067. q J:113 068. Lzi; RGi l 0 � �1 `f 1 069 . 4I 7 �� Q 070 - ��Q -. 071 . 072 .n 12 _ _& 7r�� 073 . IAJ. '179 1 IT f2tyl LL 074 . 9802 0LkMji C SDK A 6. 5 t 0 7 5. �,. ,� _J�LL j � J�► 076. 077 . ram 9A? Y -N-Aiwtu N.f3. 926yb1 07e . &-,W = 079. 081 082 . 083 . `� A� 084 . (I/ 0 8 5 . C` 086. 0 8 7 � �i� h l'i(�- l ey 088 r 089 PETITION FOR THE FENCE LOCATED AT 9601 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE,H.B. By signing this petition we do here-by swear that we are the owners of the property stated to the right of our signatures . We have been told of our neighbors dilemma regarding their fro►it yard fence; and in signing this petition we are stating our support of said fence . Further more ve the Citizens of Huntington Beach hope that our City Council will vote favorably in regards to this issue. 090 . kk-t)A 1 U,U U 6— C l ti C'_ L 1;0,V% 091 .JOLL T tf,fl C 1'W AAA 15171 21661 .a& !�f U�(r7/�c-'�4 ZnLj 4'ck GA ` 26.41, 092 . KuRJr -T6A(.1•I0Atj q5-/ I Z 10 rj (�1R f-AUMI ( ry Otj &11 GA- W446� 093 . Ke -L-V 5yMME S gsyl Z om Cr12 • dU N t 1N6r-r Mccl rA q-Wc , 096.r/1.*7 ��/�SrJ 1y�r y� y S /� � IXIeAPew 02 H/3 CA L 097 . a✓ C.1� 0 9 9. j_A)`i " t ;�n,t i x�-'L. �. 100. .1 Ui,� >H /¢�� U�� 101 . 102 . 103 . 104. 105 . 106. 107. 108 . 109. 110. 111 . 112 113 . 114 . 115 . V�i 4 3�91 Mr. Mike Adams Director, Community Development, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subject: Use Permit 91-25 Dear Mr. Adams; Pursuant to my telephone conversations and meetings with Mr. Connor and Mr. Hess of your staff regarding the above subject, because of my proposed appeal on August 6, 1991, I am requesting the following information be forwarded, in writing, to me within seven days from receipt by the City of this letter. 1. From the photos and addresses of the approximately dozen homes in my neighborhood that I had supplied to Mr. Connor that have fences over 42 inches high, have any of these homes received a variance or a use permit to allow such construction? If not, what action did the zoning administrator's office take? 2. Has your department ever approved or conditionally approved in the past history of the cit;' such variances or use permits -,) nllox the construction of a fence over 42 inches high within the front 15 feet setback within the city limits? 3. Has your department ever in its past history through the appealing process recommended any alternative actions which did not require the removal or the denial of said use permits within the city limits? I am more than willing to work with city staff to implement any changes such as color, landscaping or any other cosmetics that will make the fence more compatible with the surrounding environment to allow it to remain in its present constructed form. If I can be of any assistance to you in any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. My telephone number and address are availabel to you through my use permit file. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and I am looking forward to receiving your answers within the said period of time. Sincerely, Hany- S-. Henein cc: Scott Hess, Zoning Administrator, v City of Huntington Beach Mike Connor, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach ra;w. City o Huntington Hunti ton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 j. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 Planning Division 536-5271 August 5, 1991 Mr . Hany Henien 9601 Rocky Mountain Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dear Mr . Henien: In response to your letter dated July 24, 1991 (which was received by our office on July 29, 1991) , I would like to offer the following information: 1 . The fence at 9651 Yellowstone was permitted by a Conditional Exception (Variance) pursuant to code regulations at that time. Building permits and Use Permits are not required for fences under 42 inches high or retaining walls under 24 inches . Permits have not been found for other walls exceeding 42 inches high. These walls may be illegal , however no complaints have been received. 2 . The fence at 9651 Yellowstone was approved by a Conditional Exception (Variance) in 1985 . 3 . Use Permit No. 90-70 was a request to permit an existing six ( 6) foot high fence with seven (7) foot tall columns at 18442 Manitoba Lane. The request was denied by the Zoning Administrator and the denial was upheld by the Planning Commission on appeal . The request was then appealed to the City Council who approved an alternative recommendation - not staff ' s recommendation for denial . The alternative recommendation included that the fence must: a. be provided with brick columns b. be staggered to provide landscape pockets C. be painted to match the adjacent fence d . be submitted to the Design Review Board after redesign If you are interested in reviewing any other fences you are welcome to come in and review the files . August 5, 1991 Page Two Please note that in most cases the application is for a fence or wall that has yet to be constructed, therefore alternatives may be explored more easily. In addition, each application is reviewed on its own merits as it relates to neighborhood character and concerns . If you should have any other questions, please give me a call at (714) 960-8826 . Sincerely Michae-r- Connor Assi � nt Planner MJC: lp (0410d) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION October 21, 1991 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrat % Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developme Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 91-25, A REQUEST TO PERMIT AN EXISTING SIX FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT 15 FOOT SETBACK Consistent with Council Policy? 144 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception efn Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Hany Henien of the Planning Commission' s denial of Use Permit No. 91-25, a request to permit an existing six for high wrought iron fence within the front 15 foot setback pursuant to Section 9771 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation: Motion to: "Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s denial of Use Permit No . 91-24 with findings . " Planning Commission Action on August 6 , 1991 On motion by Leipzig and second by Newman, the Planning Commission denied Use Permit No. 91-25 with findings, by the following vote: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Dettloff, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion Passed Findings for Denial - Use Permit No. 91-25 (Attachment No. 1) Pio 5/85 ANALYSIS• The City of Huntington Beach Ordinance Code specifies that fencing exceeding 42 inches in height must be setback 15 feet from the front property line. The applicant/appellant, Hany Henien, erected, without benefit of a permit, a six foot high wrought iron fence in the front setback at 9601 Rocky Mountain and was subsequently cited by code enforcement in response to a neighborhood complaint. The six foot high wrought iron fence is white and is located along the front property line with two (2) sections that extend back toward the house to enclose the front yard. One section runs along the east side of the driveway from the front property line to the garage and the other runs along the east property line from the front property line to a section of fence even with the front of the house. The request for a use permit to legalize the fence was denied by the Zoning Administrator with the findings that the fence did not blend well with other properties, that properties in the neighborhood generally did not have fences over 42 inches high in the front yard setback and that it was incompatible with other fencing in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission upheld the denial and findings with added concern for public safety since the fence was erected without permits and inspections could not be performed to determine its stability. The appellant has provided staff with photos of other neighborhood front yard fences to illustrate that his fence is compatible with the neighborhood and that there are possibly other illegal fences not being cited by the City. Staff maintains that the appellant ' s fence is not compatible with other neighborhood fencing because none of the fences are exclusively wrought iron and of the same height and setback. Only one of the examples provided is a fence exclusively of wrought iron. This fence is under 42 inches in height and does not require permit. The neighborhood front yard fences, as previously mentioned, are generally retaining walls topped with a combination wrought iron and block or brick fence. Staff also determined that the fences referenced by the appellant were either legal (permitted) or did not require permits . Of the 22 fences referenced, only six fences were possibly illegal . In order to improve compatibility of the fence, the applicant has been willing to change the color of the fence but unwilling to move the fence back stating that the slight slope of the front yard would make it unlevel . Staff has determined that merely changing the color of the fence alone will not address the issue of its general incompatibility with the neighborhood and that other modifications would be necessary. Analysis of Appeal The appellant ' s aggrievements are enumerated and addressed below. RCA - 10/22/91 -2- (1051d) Appellant ' s Comment No. 1 The appellant disagrees with the Zoning Administrator ' s and Planning Commission' s findings that the fence is not compatible with surrounding properties, other neighborhood fencing, could pose a public safety problem since it is unpermitted and not inspected for stability. Also disputed is a neighbor ' s contention that the sharp points of the fence are a hazard and that the fence could be disassembled and used as a weapon. Staff Response: As already stated and as evidenced by the photos submitted by the appellant of othere neighborhood fences, the proposed fencing is not compatible with the neighborhood because the fencing color is not compatible with the dwelling nor is it of like materials, height or setback of other neighborhood fencing. Whether or not the fence is stable would be determined by the Building Division which will require a proper permit should the fence remain or be modified through a use permit approval . Staff agrees with the appellant that the sharpness of the fence and it being dismantled and used as a weapon is not an issue. Many wrought iron fences employ the same design. Also, the top of the fence is knobbed and not pointed. Appellant Comment No. 2 The appellant believes that the fence is not an eyesore since only one neighbor has complained of the fence. Staff Response: At the Zoning Administrator hearing the appellant provided a petition with seven signatures in support of the fence and at the Planning Commission hearing three neighbors spoke in support of the fence. One neighbor spoke in opposition to the fence at both the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission hearings . Whether or not the proposed fence is an eyesore is to some degree a matter of opinion. Irrespective of the number of complaints, the fence is not compatible with surrounding properties, and is in conflict with the 15 foot front yard setback. Appellant Comment No. 3 The code does not specify specific front yard fencing materials . RCA - 10/22/91 -3- (1051d) Staff Response The appellant is correct in stating that the code does not specify any required front yard fencing materials, and the appellant could have had a wrought iron fence at 0 front yard setback provided it was under 42 inches in height. However, the appellant is exceeding the limitations of the code and requesting a use permit. A use permit is a discretionary application which takes into consideration the compatibility of a proposal with its surroundings . In determining the compatibility of a structure with its surroundings, the structures materials and colors are considered. Appellants Comment No. 4 A variance was granted for a five foot high fence within the front setback at 9651 Yellowstone (located in the same neighborhood 300 yards away) . The same discretionary principles should govern this request . Staff Response: A conditional exception was granted at 9651 Yellowstone in 1985 . More recently, however, the City Council overturned Planning Commission' s denial of Use Permit No. 90-70 and approved a six foot high wrought iron fence within the front yard setback at 18442 Manitoba . In approving the use permit, Council required that brick columns be added, the setback be staggered to provide landscape pockets, the fence be painted to match an adjacent fence and the fencing plans be submitted to the Design Review Board for final approval prior to issuance of permits . Staff finds the Council approval of Use Permit No. 90-70 subject to the conditions a more appropriate comparison to the request at hand and notes the requirement for a landscaped setback and for specific materials and colors to ensure the fence' s compatibility with surrounding uses . Applellant ' s Comments No . 5 : The City is enforcing height restrictions on fencing and not front yard landscaping. Staff Response: The fencing ordinance does not address the height of hedges and the City currently has no landscaping ordinance which regulates the height of hedges . Conclusion: Staff concludes by concurring with the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator that the fence is not compatible with surrounding properties and fences and recommends denial . If the City Council determines that the fence may have merit if redesigned, staff would recommend a two (2) week continuance so that staff can bring forward an alternative design with appropriate findings and conditions . RCA - 10/22/91 -4- (1051d) FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Motion to : "Continue Use Permit No. 91-25 for two (2) weeks so that staff can prepare an alternative design with appropriate findings and conditions . " ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings for Denial 2 . Area Map 3 . Letter of appeal dated August 14, 1991 4 . Draft Minutes of the August 6, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting 5 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 6, 1991 MTU:MA:GR: jr RCA - 10/22/91 -5- (1051d) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 91-25 : 1. The establishment of the six (6) foot high wrought iron fence within the front setback area will be detrimental to : a . The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the fence does not blend well with other properties within the neighborhood. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. Properties in the neighborhood generally do not have fences over 42 inches high within the front setback. 2 . The six foot high wrought iron fence in the front setback area would be incompatible with other fences in the neighborhood. i\.\.L ij, -uc1. IN — �_�z rcPEAopM `$ a �aa_�?a — a� y 2ABETN IS— _VT__ IN- b ��pS_— ..N1_ �Jl HARBOR ISLE LN c D CHANNEL D-2 O _ T —/ (MO�Or+Cp ES�CR� RAIAONA I h .�NA IN _T1 III4_1 —1 R) Ir C I�AN C R 7u BAN CROFT c, j Ell N f t T.W __CR R L"ITEN'IN- DOER IAt -TN 5T. c,:v7PE F,OCr CR Full, In �UA Ll 5 A W., IN- a ---------------- �11D CAIE T LI HORIZON L-E u x - m EL—AL CR 1EB.LE LANE m W-.I eo $A CIRCLE RUNNING 1 1' WIND CAVE WC11—CAIT L-N R",_N Ee�LE?LANE CIRCLE SA p ST BR\OOKHURST\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ c n S kvr..r a' t}NOTI CE F `1�PPEAL TO: Planning DATE. 05/15/91 FILED BY: Hany - S . Henein 9601 Rocky Mountain Dr . Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ' REGARDING: Appeal Planning Commission Action Use Permit No . 91-25 SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING: 09/16/91? Copy of appeal attached LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK' S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE. Connie Brockway City Clerk TTAC31- SENT NJ. l "ECEIvED 1 y ti O- PONT;" VAUG ,,1a�ia991 City Council !lu g City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Appeal to Use Permit No. 91-25 Dear Council Members : I would like to appeal to you the findings of the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission for the above subject use permit . I am requesting the denial of subject use permit should be reconsidered for the following reasons . The fence was constructed in its current location because, in my remodeling process, we plan to install a fountain in the front yard between the first and second step; since our house pad is about 3 feet higher than the sidewalk, the fence was constructed about 69 inches high so we can grow climbing roses and other climbers on it to provide privacy to our formal living room, dining room and part of the kitchen. The widest areas of our planters are by the sidewalk, and my wife likes the peace and security that the fence provides and it fits in with new changes in the neighborhood. By constructing said fence we do not feel that we are introducing a new or incompatible structure to the neighborhood. Beside the many fences which are within 15 feet setback or 42 inches high, below are listed some of the addresses for houses in our neighborhood which have fences similar to ours : Address Inside Height in Inches Setback (feet) 9661 Rocky Mountain 53 (with lamps) 0 20182 McKinley 69 5 . 50 20202 McKinley 48 0 9651 Yellowstone 45 0 20472 Alisa 51 0 20461 Whitetree 45 0 9611 Bay Meadow 49 0 9581 Bay Meadow 47 0 20452 Graystone 66 0 20461 Graystone 46 0 9881 Mammoth 51 0 9971 Kings Canyon 72 7 . 5 9612 Yellowstone 50 0 20141 Glacier 78 11 Pictures are attached for your convenience to verify the looks and the materials which were used to construct each fence. I would like to point out that the staff mentioned at the Planning Commission Hearing that there are only about 3 or 4 fences which are illegal in the neighborhood (legal fences are not to exceed 42 inches in height or must be 15 feet minimum setback) . I am also attaching pictures (with addresses)- of numerous fences constructed within the city limits which do not meet code and some of them are constructed of wrought UP' 91-25/H. S. Henein page 2 of 3 iron like ours . In a letter mailed to me (upon my request) by staff on August 5, 1991, the number of use permits, site plans or variances granted to citizens in the city to allow the construction of fences higher than 42 inches and less than 15 feet setback were only 2 . One of these said exceptions is in our neighborhood and is about 3 or 4 hundred yards from our house (house address is 9651 Yellowstone) . I acknowledge that the issuance of a variance, site plan or a use permit is a privilege allowed by the zoning code and must be granted by the staff to the applicant; however the staff at the Planning Commission Hearing were not clear why that variance was granted to my neighbor and not to me. It is my understanding that the findings for approval or denial for both fences should be similar since both houses are in the same neighborhood and said fence on Yellowstone is at 0 feet setback and about 60 inches high from the outside, which in my opinion makes no difference for somebody looking at the fence or walking by it whether it is retaining in the back or not . Furthermore, to my knowledge the zoning code does not mention anywhere what kind of material should be used to construct a fence. Said code only approves or allows the principle through variance, use permit, site plan or other means. I do not believe that our fence is an eyesore to the neighborhood because the city staff has received only one complaint from all the neighbors in the area. That indicates that most of the neighbors do not dislike or find our fence to be an eyesore. The one complaint came from our west neighbor (he was the only one to show up at the public hearing for the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission to register a complaint) . In any event neither east or west neighbors can see my fence from anywhere in their houses, including their front yards, because of the heavy, thick, high bushes in their yards. Furthermore, my neighbor to the east has a front yard fence at 0 setback. I am attaching some pictures of our fence which clearly disagree with my west neighbor' s claim at the Planning Commission Hearing regarding the failure of the fence, the sharpness of its top, and that there is no other fence like it in the city. I would like to mention that I am a registered civil engineer in the State of California, and through my employment with the County of Orange, I built for the City of Huntington Beach, Brookhurst Bridge over Talbert Channel (about 300 yards north of Pacific Coast Highway) and inspected and drove over 250 piles for the retaining wall along the west side of Brookhurst Street south of said bridge. If the city staff trusted me to build these structures for them, definitely I am not going to build something in my own house which will fail . However, if the city staff would like, I can certify the design and the inspection of this fence under my professional license number. I am more than willing to work with the city staff to implement any changes such as color, landscaping, or any other cosmetics that will make the fence more acceptable and allow it to remain in its present location and form. To the best of my recollection the Planning Commission cited the following reasons for denial; Lack of permit and fence poses a danger because it could be disassembled and used as a weapon by the kids in the neighborhood. My reply to this is that I did not know that wrought iron fences require a permit and if the kids are to disassemble the fence it will make no difference if that fence is 69 inches high or 42 inches high. I am enclosing some pictures of my son supporting all of his weight on the fence and the fence did not even bear down. The other matter is I do not know why the staff is being selective in enforcing the code. Why do they allow hedge fences to be as tall as anybody wants and insist that fences should not be higher than 42 inches unless they are retaining up' 91-25/H. S. Henein page 3 of 3 walls. In my opinion hedges do block sight distance for motorists and wrought iron fences do not . I do not feel that I should be singled out by the city staff to tear my fence down especially since the staff has had the addresses for all of the other houses with illegal fences since last June and none has been cited yet. However, if there are many people in the neighborhood with illegal fences, it reflects that the people like this kind of structure and the neighborhood is changing and the city may be granting all of them permits instead of granting to one individual only. I am appealing my case to your fairness and good judgment to help me in reaching a fair solution to my family' s problem. If you have any questions or if I can be of„any, further assistance to you, please feel free to call me at (714) 963-6270 or (714) 834-3470. Since ly, Hany Henein, Applicant for Use Permit 91-25 Attachments: 1) Colored copies of photographs* 2) My letter to city CA 3) Response from city staff *Photographs shall be available at the Hearing it f.Tr.1!.��`,[.n- •�'a�'.1•.�: _ yy * �.7• ��� -.�: i � , �{•••' �i 1.�' � •��..--�:f��•� ��� .�� .11� ��1�1 ' � ••. � .Ili'���r. �11i:11'r �� �I�i1. �.:.: ♦1. M. '�.. .��. .��1•. '�.•� 1�1•',i 4�..a i�,.S b ..\i�i AIM ._•rii -rs M��i�i�._:.:;-.i•L::�:.r�}:Q�.::`i. :.,.• of ....y :1, '�. 1 •t .+•nc i'�^K�hb.';i•�M: '��C'•J,l:'•3i�.iS.-�..t'l :'�i..i�':�`:.--,^.;•mil`<Y•i '•i yi':�._��,._ �f rl mow," � :�, _'•�: Abr � �' ;;fir.{'a>:' a. 10 , J i �r i .I .a I � J A I •• 1 I Use Plerrri, f q l -z5 exis-E-i - br�i aX 4-LMU� ld+�m - P . QA ''•'• • � � :. •yip - �1,+?�"k:�'_'. iti!.i3.f�.` .•fir'+-�•;-: • Armws • • s Rocky Lamps •�.: � �I ��• �'.. ��!'11 U+ _tip,. �' . ..�I .,-' -. id I ' • • rA I • • . Its +i ..r•:fur: _ ti^ .i... '•_ -. AAA / 40 i 1 i � r •twx i / % zasrs� ormysfont, 95p1 day Inside Ab��Mrcflt &&.o zsic& i i r� - k��s tide otirca Im Into* i4rrows axe Veiey fAWP .•�••fit• • _.._.�._._ �r•M I's• j�� ,OP /do No .IL .� '� Nov • • 7IHt 46 -Mal � IINNER BilbaoOw"A r _ all i s r ur. 1/ r I / / r I � •.• � I 1 ji f; ��.� .•S ennt.,au j' 1� 1�• ,fir+. ,: Illlllilllli�� � C .�naxe �t .tiRt /17�oasun�rne�t 49*,� I � I /py�•Z /I?a�� 141" I 93$9 &dAeshea�d ,dr j ,gv aa&e wry ma's 2 sue' �nae h�ci��tf' 4b • � j t .: .4Y:,ti:':-�<<:;•.. .mod.;:`:.... .. . :.•u1 :a.���� ��rif'�• Rtv •mot..r_�•�Ri �.:"-.•J / ♦ i Lr 64 AV ` . '•�`w / .............. .. ..:. •�•�.aw.y _ ....- ..... :f• :�',�'��� •! ,�1ji• .�i j� �� r1�w.,,,!QelaR'ba�+`.n Y.: � ✓LlJi. i s _ �I. ' e i-.i DRA5 , B-3 APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 91-25 • APPLICANT/ APPELLANT: HANY HENEIN LOCATION: 9601 Rocky Mountain Use Permit No. 91-25 is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator ' s denial to permit an existing six (6) foot high wrought iron fence within the front 15 foot setback area pursuant to Section 9771(L) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator ' s denial of Use Permit No . 91-25 with findings . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Hany S. Henein, Applicant, stated his disagreement with the staff report . He said he submitted 12 photos to staff of fences in the neighborhood that resembled his own. Commissioner Kirkland asked Mr. henein why he built the fence abutting the sidewalk. Mr . Henein stated it was for security reasons . Pamela Henein, Applicant, restated that they had built the fence for security and privacy. She also stated they would be willing to tone down the white fence to blend with neighborhood. Shawn McCraney, 20092 Glacier Circle, spoke in support of the request . He stated it was an upgrade to the neighborhood and would raise the property value. Gunter Wermig, 20041 Big Bend Lane, spoke in support of the request. Mr . Wermig felt it was an upgrade to the neighborhood. Jack Frabl, 9702 Bay Meadow Drive, spoke in support of the request . Mr . Frabl stated the fence was not a safety hazard. Henry S. Olersiewicz, 9591 Rocky Mountain Drive, spoke against the request . He stated the fence was an eyesore and dangerous because of the spiked tips . THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission stated their concerns that the applicant had built the fence without getting permits, therfore, there had been no inspections and the stability of the fence could not be determined. PC Minutes - 8/6/91 -2- (0781d) Al(A HML1711 NN10.�. QlIC`J �141 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY NEWMAN, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 91-25 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Dettloff, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 91-25 : 1 . The establishment of the six (6) foot high wrought iron fence within the front setback area will be detrimental to : a . The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the fence does not blend well with other properties within the neighborhood. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building . Properties in the neighborhood generally do not have fences over 42 inches high within the front setback. 2 . The six foot high wrought iron fence in the front setback area would be incompatible with other fences in the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 8/6/91 -3- (0781d) huntington beach department of community development STAFF -REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: August 6 , 1991 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 91-25 APPLICANT/ Hany Henein DATE ACCEPTED: APPELLANT: 9601 Rocky Mountain Not Applicable Huntington Beach, CA 92646 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Hany Henein Not Applicant OWNER: 9601 Rocky Mountain Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ZONE: Rl-FP2 (Low Density Residential-Flooplain) REQUEST: To permit an existing six (6) foot high fence GENERAL PLAN: Low Density within the front 15 foot Residential setback area EXISTING USE: Single LOCATION: 9601 Rocky Mountain Family Residence ACREAGE: Not Applicable 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Motion to : "Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator ' s denial of Use Permit No. 91-25 with findings and suggested conditions of approval . " 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Use Permit No . 91-25 is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator ' s denial to permit an existing six ( 6) foot high wrought iron fence within the front 15 foot setback area pursuant to Section 9771(L) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. — 00 A-F M-23C 1 3 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE : R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential- Floodplain) LAND USE: Single Family Residence North, East , South and West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential- Floodplain) LAND USE : Single Family Residence 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act . 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS : Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable . 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS : The applicant proposes to obtain permits for an existing six ( 6) foot tall wrought iron fence within the front 15 foot setback area . The fence was illegally constructed without permits . The applicant was cited for the illegal fence by Code Enforcement staff, in response to neighborhood complaints . The subject property is located within a single family residential neighborhood characterized by two (2) story homes on standard 6, 000 square foot residential lots . Many homes in the neighborhood have upgraded landscaping and some have fences and/or walls within the front setback area . The existing walls , however, are typically 42 inch high walls on top of a retaining wall and are constructed of a combination of wrought iron and brick. In addition, some walls are typically set back approximately five (5) to ten ( 10) feet from the front property line to provide for a landscape buffer along the public sidewalk. The existing six (6) foot high fence is constructed entirely of wrought iron and is located along the front property line with two (2) sections that extend back toward the house to enclose the front yard. One section runs along the east side of the driveway from the front property line to the garage and the other runs along the east property line from the front to a section of fence even with the front of the house. Staff Report - 8/6/91 -2- (0369d) The properties on either side do not have fences within the front setback. The house to the east has a six (6) foot high hedge, while the property to the west has a 17 foot high hedge along the side property line. The houses across the street have their exterior side yards facing the subject property and have code permitted six ( 6) foot high walls Use Permit No . 91-25 was reviewed and denied by the Zoning Administrator on June 12 , 1991 . The fence was denied because it was found to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. On June 21, 1991, the applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator ' s denial of the fence . In his appeal letter the applicant cites four (4) reasons why he feels the fence should be approved . 1 . There are other fences in the neighborhood of a similar height, design or setback with which the proposed fence is compatible. 2 . A petition in support of the application was submitted which was signed by seven (7) property owners . 3 . Only one (1) person spoke in opposition to the fence at the Public Hearing . 4 . The applicant stated that he is willing to paint the fence a different color and plant additional landscaping . Staff ' S Response 1 . The applicant submitted a total of 12 photographs of properties in the neighborhood with fences in the front setback area . Staff has reviewed the photographs and determined that some of the fences comply with code, one was permitted by variance and others have no permits and may be illegal . 2-3 . The petition, which is included as an attachment, was taken into consideration by the Zoning Administrator, however, the one (1) person present at the hearing was the applicant ' s next door neighbor . The neighbor complained that the fence is not compatible with the surrounding area. He also stated that many of the neighbors had told him that the petition was misleading, however, there were no others present at the meeting either for or against the request . 4 . The applicant ' s proposed changes are included as an alternative action, however, staff feels that the proposed changes would not be sufficient to make the fence more compatible with the neighborhood . Staff Report - 8/6/91 -3- (0369d) If the Planning Commission finds that the fence should be permitted, staff would recommend that it be modified to set back approximately five (5) to seven (7) feet in order to allow for a landscape planter along the sidewalk. This would locate the gate at the top of the first step. In addition, staff recommends that the fence be painted a dark grey or black so that it will blend more with the adjacent properties . 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator ' s denial of Use Permit No . 91-25 with the following findings : FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT N0, 91-25 : 1 . The establishment of the six ( 6) foot high wrought iron fence within the front setback area will be detrimental to : a . The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the fence does not blend well with other properties within the neighborhood. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building . Properties in the neighborhood generally do not have fences over 42 inches high within the front setback. 2 . The six foot high wrought iron fence in the front setback area would be incompatible with other fences in the neighborhood. 11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve the appeal and overturn the Zoning Administrator ' s denial of Use Permit No . 91-25 with findings and conditions of approval . ATTACHMENTS : 1 . Area map 2 . Site plans and elevations dated May 24 , 1991 3 . Letter from Hany Henein dated June 21, 1991 4 . Petition in support of the request dated May 24 , 1991 5 . Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval 6 . Minutes from the Zoning Administrator ' s meeting of June 12 , 1991 HS :MC: k. 1 Staff Report - 8/6/91 -4- (0369d) �tl~ At ,i MlaewSwION vVIEJ0 ORNAMrrr"."\NTAL A—INWIRONW—Da.— APPOOS CA Lic. # 557090 A DETAILS N.T.S. I X I Taw� V2"PICKETS SoTTorJ rr IqxI�i pos RESIDENCE Ex. GATE I i PROP, FE► L E PR WY �: I� t� � I 1N N.T.S. 29708 Avenida de Las Banderas Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688 Telephone- (714) 858-1444/ (714) 858-1736 • Fax: (714) 858-1195 1 SITE PLAN 6 0' 38' 1 ! i 1 N I 1 oo, i 5, > , RESIDENCE 5' I I t, 2 9.5' i t I 2 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE ®F0260.376 (12/77) RCA - ROUTING SHEET/CHECKLIST WHITE - REMAINS WITH RCA GREEN - ADMINISTRATION COPY CANARY - CITY ATTORNEY'S COPY PINK - CITY CLERK'S COPY GOLD - DEPARTMENT COPY INITIATING DEPARTMENT rr rA"L)tutrH DEUaOPj� DATE Io�lolc SUBJECT �PQ fit, of 1�1�1L1�11►�1C� Mt Sto11J� L tlll►dL bF' UF' G( -�S MEETING DATE L O,� I JC AGENDA DEADLINE (TO ADMINISTRATION) YES NO PUBLIC NOTICE [ ] [ ] PUBLICATION DATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT(with Exhibits) Date In Date Out INITIATING DEPARTMENT REVIEW/CHECKLIST: YES NO N/A [ ] [ ] Ordinance [ ] Exhibit 1 [ ] [ ] Resolution [ ] Exhibit 2 [ ] [ ] Signed Contract [ ] Exhibit 3 ] Signed Agreement [ ] Exhibit 4 ] Neg. Dec/EIR Insurance Required Additional [ ] Exhibits Nbr. ( ] ( ( ] Bonds Required [ ] J ] [ ] Financial Impact Statement (Unbudgeted Items Over $1,000) ] RCA - City Council ] RCA - Redevelopment Agency INITIATING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL BY: [ ] ADMINISTRATION REVIEW [ ] CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: "STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal cleric of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general , Circulation, printed and published in the City of PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC NOTICES Huntington Beach County of Orange, State of NOTICE OF time Indicated below to re- Huntington ceive and consider the PUBLIC HEARING statements of all persons California, and that attached Notice is a true and APPEAL OF THE who wish to be heard rela- com lete co as was printed and published in PLANNING five to the application de- complete copy p P COMMISSION'S scribed below. DENIAL OF USE DATE/TIME: Monday, Oc- the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley PERMIT N0. tober 21,1991,7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: 81.25 TO PERMIT issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: AN EXISTING Use Permit No.91-25 APPLICANT:Hany Henien SIX 161 FOOT LOCATION : 9601 Rocky HIGH FENCE Mountain WITHIN THE ZONE:R1-FP2 October 1 1991 FRONT FIFTEEN REQUEST: To permit an (151 FOOT SETBACK existing six (6) foot higgh NOTICE IS HEREBY fence within the front fif- GIVEN that the Huntington teen IR foot setback. STA- Beach CityCouncil will TUSENVIRONMENTAL exempt hold a public ubl hearing in the purl Categorically exempt Council Chamber at the Pursuant to Section 15311, Huntington Beach Civic Class 11 of the California ornia Center, 2000 Main Street, Environmental Quality Act. Huntington Beach, Califor- COASTAL STATUS: Not Applicable (unless is nia, on the date and at the _ coastal zone) ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is of file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Hun- tington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City U- brary (7111 Talbert Av- enue) after October 18, 1991. ALL INTERESTED PER- I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the SONS are invited to attend, said hearing and express, for oin is true and correct. opinions or submit e eg � dence for or against the* application as outlined' above. If there are any fur- October c t o b e r 10 ther questions please call Executed on r , 199=— Gabrielle Restivo, As-' sociate Planner at 536- at Costa Mesa, California. 5271. Brockway,!: City Clerk Published Huntington', Beach/Fountain Valley In Signature d endent October 10, 1991. 102-686 PROOF OF PUBLICATION - ` t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING o/r o APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 91-25 TO PERMIT AN EXISTING SIX (6) FOOT HIGH FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT FIFTEEN (15) FOOT SETBACK 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, October 21, 1991, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Use Permit No. 91-25 APPLICANT: Hany Henien LOCATION: 9601 Rocky Mountain ZONE: R1-FP2 REOUEST: To permit an existing six ( 6) foot high fence within the front fifteen (15) foot setback. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311, Class 11 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 City Clerk' s Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after October 18, 1991. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Gabrielle Restivo, Associate Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway City Clerk (0940d) MIKE MUSHET 20091 CRATER CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646— �Rrq SID MANDERSON HENRY G7reKS:tw r Ct. S 9611 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE 9591 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 - --51- �AN V 5-- NEN�i/v Vol aocrcy rlooty- Eo PAUL SHANOR 2009 20092 CRATER CIRCLE 20102 GLACIER CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 �s►-3a3- i off- psi-39z -� r MARY MCCRANEY MARGARET LANCE 5c, R 20092 CRATER CIRCLE 9581 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 i 15r- SUNG J. KIM MR. & MRS. RON SAKOPA 9621 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE 20091 GLACIER CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 "PN: 151-392-15 APN: 151-392-16 APN: 1b1-M2-1/ Jerome E. Lance Henry S. Oleksiewicz Hany S. Henein 9581 Rocky Mountain Dr. ` P.O. Box 6658 9601 Rocky Mountain Dr. Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4852 Huntington Beach CA =646-- 9200 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 APN: 151-392-18 APN: 151-392-19 APN: 151-392-20 Sidney R. Manderson Sung Joo Kim Hidetoyhi OkadaaodGilmartio,Panl. 9611 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9621 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9631 Rocky Mountain Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 APN: 151-392-21 APN: 151-402-04 APN: 151-402-05 Kiang-Tsun Wang Gary Matsuura Betty Lou Confainaud Joel Coofair: 9641 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9651 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9661 Rocky Mountain Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4853 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4853 - / ' ' "F'N: 151-405-01 APN: 151-403-02 APN: 151-4O3-O3 Daniel J. Allen Edgar H. Smith Herbert D. Goldstein 20091 McKinley Lane 20101 McKinley Lane 20111 Mc Kinley Lane Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646 APN: 151-391-09 APN: 151-391-08 APN: 151-392-09 -' Rosalie Perconti David H. Simons William J. Barr 5132 Kingscross Rd . 9551 Olympic Dr. 9552 Olympic Dr. j Westminster CA 92683 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4842 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4843 APN: 151-391-07 APN: 151-392-08 APN: 151-391-06 Chad Di Marco Lawrence G. Hallstroo Edward R. Cardoos 9571 Olympic Dr. 9572 Olympic Dr. 9581 Olympic Blvd . , Huntington Beach CA 92646-4842 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4843 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4842 APN: 151-392-07 APN: 151-391-05 APN: 151-392-06 Elizabeth B. Shivel John J. Murphy Gail E. Davis (0iemano) 9582 Olympic Dr. 9591 Olympic Dr. 9592 Olympic Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92646-4843 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4842 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4803 APN: 151-391-04 APN: 151-392-05 APN: 151-391-03 James T. Flannelly Barbara M. Haifley Donald Smith 9601 Olympic Dr. 9602 Olympic Dr. 9611 Olympic Dr. , Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4844 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4845 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4844 ^. APN: 151-392-04 APN: 151-391-02 APN: 151-392-03 John V. Coggi Ming Huey Cheng Sharl Indes 9612 Olympic Dr. 9621 Olympic Dr. 9622 Olympic Dr. , Huntington Beach CA 92646-4845 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4844 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4845 ' ^ APN: 151-391-35 APN: 151-392-02 APN: 151-392-01 ~^ Saadi Bississo Klaus Goedecke Louis D. Stan 9631 Olympic Dr. 9632 Olympic Dr., 9782 Kings Canyon Dr. � Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4844 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4845 Huntington Beach CA 92646 ~ � � APN: 151-402-03 APN: 151-392-13 APN: 151-392-14 ~^ Mir L. Ali Judy P. Yeh Walter J. Quinlan 9652 Olympic Dr. 9551 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9571 Rocky Mountain Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92646-4845 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4852 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4852 '� APN: 151-392-10 APN: 151-392-11 APN: 151-392-12 John A. Lowenbruck Lela L. Wyscarver Joanne Fial 20042 Big Bend Lane 20052 Big Bend Lane 20072 Big Bend Lane Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4812 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4812 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4812 APN: 151-393-32 APN: 151-393-33 APN: 151-393-34 Steven H. Hall Danny S. Westrup Elsie J. Lewton 20092 Big Bend Lane 20102 Big Bend Lane 20112 Big Bend Lane Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4864 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4814 Huntington Beach CA 92649-4814 APN: 151-393-31 APN: 151-393-16 APN: 151-393-30 Michael L. Mushet Paul E. Shanor Carlos A. Green 20091 Crater Circle 20092 Crater Circle 20101 Crater Circle Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4819 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 APN: 151-393-17 APN: 151-393-29 APN: 151-393-18 Samuel Huang Kenneth D. Balch G. Jeffrey Geier 20102 Crater Circle 20111 Crater Circle 20112 Crater Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 APN: 151-393-28 APN: 151-393-19 APN: 151-393-20 Ronald G. Bender Steven Norris Nelson Richard R. Girard 20121 Crater Circle 20122 Crater Circle 20132 Crater Circle Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 APN: 151-393-15 APN: 151-393-01 APN: 151-393-14 ` Ronald A. Sakoda John H. Davis Homer Wayne Fairchild 20091 Glacier Circle 910 E. Claraday St. 20101 Glacier Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 Glendora CA 91740 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 ` APN: 151-393-02 APN: 151-393-13 APN: 151-393-03 ` Thomas E. Fober Donald A. Lewis Norbert R. Bunt 20102 Glacier Circle 20111 Glacier Circle 20112 Glacier Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4821 ` APN: 151-393-12 APN: 151-393-04 APN: 151-393-11 ^ Susan Du Montier Ronald R. Wilson Arthur L. Anthony 20121 Glacier Circle 20122 Glacier Circle 20131 Glacier Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4821 Huntingtn Bch CA 92647-4821 . M A G N p L I A IN \D w s S eErH- s,�.wooD CR -- C HdRBOR 151E LN \ F C D CH4NNRL D-2 T � E� / RaIxOhN Ih �l 4ARWA IN -xi —1 'I � / Y i A Z Ywn�u (7 K r� w Rt EA.. L 57BUSH�M 1; 3 z I _ J unn(i L I n I . Lw � CG S OnE Ln n T - a a x REEE Lw I �I fvERcs wEs -- — 7 1 � 11 l --- ) .- P -- - - z -- - nORITO" IIMC J� � PiCRVIEw` � � 31 f u0RRi51Cww_ � I a zr _ Flo m �� �--�r��� f l �•-�J Finn we Sp—a"GS - —�Nw wG SVR�wG L� I � CCCz Z m a n GUARANTEE LIABILITY $100.00 ORDER NO. -- FEE $N/C YOUR REF: 300 VARIANCE REPORT A.P. NO, 151-392-17 FIRST AMERICAN 777ZE INSURANCE COMPANY a Corporation, herein called the Company, GUARANTEES ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA ATTN: HANY HENEIN herein called the Assured,against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated above which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurances herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth above. Dated: JUNE 24, 1991 FIRST AMERI�AN H7ZE INSURANCE COMPANY ?Jmes F. Gomiiisky Assistant Vice President Director of Special Services First American Title Insurance Co. 114 E. Fifth Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 714/558-3211 GUARANTEE LIABILITY $100.00 ORDER NO. — FEE $N/C YOUR REF: 300 VARIANCE REPORT A.P. NO. 151-392-17 FIRST AALEWCAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a Corporation, herein called the Company, GUARANTEES ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA ATTN:HANY HENEIN herein called the Assured,against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated above which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurances herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth above. Dated: JUNE 24, 1991 FIRST AMERI 77ILE INSURANCE COMPANY ?mesF. Go ?k� Assistant Vice President Director of Special Services First American Title Insurance Co. 114 E. Fifth Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 714/558-3211 SCHEDULE A PROPERTY OWNER'S NOTICE GUARANTEE 1. That, according to the last equalized "Assessment Roll" in the Office of the Orange County Tax Assessor- a. The persons listed as "Assessed Owner" are shown on the assessment roll as owning real property within 300 feet of the property identified on the assessment roll as Assessor's Parcel Number 151-392-17. b. The Assessor's Parcel Number and any addresses shown on the assessment roll are attached hereto. 2. That, according to the Company's property records, (but without examination of those Company records maintained or indexed by name), there have been no documents recorded subsequent to APRIL 1990 purporting to transfer title to any of the properties listed. D£R8 RE 7R .r ••. 40 /i/00' LA £i • I 21 x n• �l' u,r gAO •e w 9l / 91 a rre l91 /JB ee /rr ,1,• 35 sr O = O O O 0 O ! O i , 6 •. : 0 4' r 68 N o (v o ' - 1' s•rr Yr,' t•� 2 3 • •e' b• n.. M /JI 48 51 Q �� 0 o2 W o o it 19 ; GLACIER C/RCL $ 7 O ,�+' IJ7 �Z :r'I• il 03 age •e ran r e" 91� 1•a' . 4J 2 = 15 = 14 13 12 11 O 393 Doll o 48 • ', o •r/r' I /00 6e 9 ir.' N 53 •= 65 2 7 / 1 / 4 /O 106 /O7 108 1J7 ,rr r' /.,,or' ,r 11 CAROB' O o + 16 . Z 18 j I7 18 18 20 21 �C 2© 45 8 3 64 3 LANE .' r•�' .e... Le. .. •o' r1 23 / • 109 /CRTER CR /rer• 1+! 149 ,r r1 Z °' - 43 • 56 1 62 to 24 o y O O 4 Fs.' 44 1J oi8 RQV J +!4B/�, ♦ ©2r � a l7 942 d F , /r,a' 142 148 Ha5o' , Z 3 6 //O 'tO • ` 5 : 6 Z3 f c1 ie7nI Q •lae 145 s ia3356I7 / 24 17.� 126 /77 ' •� II • 12 ' 3 E Q 3a 35 36 37 38 40 41 v J,. O O 60 4l II .a 2 Dow- 1 Y t �• �,eisY Ie' .. .. .. • ee' wo n' y r,ri �,•e' I1' r 10 N i.' ..• >e u' r W .� ,' • h 816 BEND LANE 3 1 O • e ?. t, e 33 39 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .g Olt. ' 3 2n { 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 `, a I9 N0. 6 63 ,, I IB u to /7 .o' /6 IS •. /3 /1 -' /1 s. .. .. 7 o BUSHARO STRt T e w N , Q O V - 1 I . b 07 a W 16 NOTE•ASSESSOR'S BLOCK B n'cESSOR'S MAP j MARCH 1970 TRACT NO 6963 MM. 26%-/8 TO 22 INC. PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 151 PAGE39 I SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE NAUTILUS OR I ( T7 151-40 1 / =100, 27 1 47 46 ; h �pNE M TRAC 11 a J O O O TRACT ; EVERGLADES , O O J 30137 cc ct 10 0 0 o 0 0 0 00= o 0% o00� oY e Qf �p•/JJ s�;•T V w c N7 s � : � = o o s ,. . N o o� P i o 53 Q � ..• v s a k + 12 8 H Oro 0 9 � � • ti J-, V " a 7 L AAC I M INTERIOR z `/ t• 22 L� 23 : 24 2S 26 27 0 8 30 31 Q 33 O O J7 t 3d O NO.. 6807 NO 7004' o w tr SS 54 35 31 S/ 50 49 i 21 iut 6/ +J 6 65 I 6 6e 69 1f 71 lJ %� Jt• ,i f 1 O TRACT 1 I ` �r O sr k 3 �l l0 11 02 13 14 IS 16 17 S. 19 E 20 x (V > o O • 12 �. OT 34 Q • E Q 32 100 � O J3 39 0 �MC XINLEY LANE it �f O 70 3 'o �AMFZ ° s6O O l"J O O O O IO 11 . 1�DE f 4�3 N 69,6,E�� •..es es ev ee et so 9 v o5 l39 W NOYE•ASSESSOR'S BLOCK A ASSESSOR'S MAP MARCH 1970 tNACT NO. 696' M.M. 261-18 T02?INC, PARCEL. NUMBERS 800K ISI PAGE40 TRACT NO. 6807 M.M. 275-3,4 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY Of ORANGE TRACT AV 7004 M.M 280-21, 22, ?3 D£RB�Y/!S RE TRAC w �. 40 /J/00, 151-39 LAH.= i I 21 x /,e• v JI' Ii/• y00 ••s•9l /J.0, 91 • ii, I!! /!6 •e �R 'ro 4l Apo .Ji' a 35 sr' O Z O O V O O O �` Oj ��' ti7 �o 68 : N • y 1 4/ lv o 1f{' sl li )s. ./� 1J f'• �� {/11 uo' J O ,,, 4 N 51 �; p 2 19 GLACIER C/RCL 01F 0 _ Q ? O 18 :• O 47 32 R 66 4 t IS •i 14 13 12 II .10 393 ' )f• Jr,o , /!B r s,»' � v O 0 it 4 r v 48 ,��' r Joo a a v .. ,+9.1 1� 53 83 4r J' ' ? J04 /O J06 JO7 JOB /!? io. i' /o,oA' J J / /a)i)' \ CAW SB- 16 18 Z I7 18 18 20 21 22 45 54 \0 /50 64 k SANE q1 a.ii•�"' Jos),' '^,os' rR•ssr' fo. .• so' i^i 23 � •� Y h CRATER CIR LE .; ;.,/09 / nr•' /ssi•' 14/ 149 i O7 °+ O 14 a. ••� 24 43 O Y 62 — G 4 V •++' 11 +• ��o�. )/19 ioe' , /so' 14.1148 12 /oo' 'o i q j 31 •; CI 29 29 Q Z ?.6 •t.2 no, O O = B1!4, ' •s //7 a6 5 s5d7 /4J r47 4647 4 /cVq IC //5 w6 1 J �'A144 J45 a i4ri 11IJ ? \gyp 10 II • 12 ° 3 a Q 34 35 36 37 38 L9 40 41 �,. 58 O 60 c 10 t � )�R i,ir' ,,..' •.• sou' � •i„' ••• fo' .n,)' ' {a! � « BIG BEND L w f 3 ,L,. �, 33 0� 12 : 13+$ 14 I5 16 IT IB 391 2n '� 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 .g 31 '•.� "�' Is NO. 663 + . /4+10 19 ro•i !B u,o' p' fo' /6 •• /S 1-0 I! /? •' JJ •o .. l .. .. r.. o ` STRc T o BUSHARD •w N � � R o V 07 16 NOIE- ASSESSOR S BLOCK B /.'`ESSOR'S MAP Ri4/rCN /970 TRACT NO 696-5 A"Al 26/-IB TO 22 /NC PARCEL NUMBERS Iio OK I51 PAGE 39 SHOWN IN URCUf COUNTY Of ORANGE I -.--I-A4 I'l US OR l` f1 1 151-40 i"=/00' 27 47 46 L__j z $ TRAC .• .• N' N' I LANE - TRAC7 h EVERGLAAC5 ion' .o i 11 4 j J OI O 1 i •aN ' O O + •+r co• wo• tr.l0tt ' 'R. 2 O l6 it G ZZ D 36 46 a N' 6 • o o w o o o= o0 0 V ^ r l �.t�'IJ7 tI'tr?t7 U 1�6/1 � 5 710 Z Imo+' ' 33 34 "r a ti iew 41 ! 3 �( 12 8 II IU 9 • iO ^O i 14 .. 0 w INTERIOR LAhE 3 t w+e.• e.e .err .•+r .r .o' .. - .. - sue• aw I i i. 224 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 O 33 O 35 O 3T t 3d NO 70104 ' a 21 ti+r' 55 51 53 31 6 66 50 iu r 6/ 10 6i 6J 6 6 66 69 O 11 )j J3 TI ti ,r I O N TRACOT 1 �r O z' w V •g O 10 II 02 13 14 15 16 IT IP 19 853 20 a 1 314 `l 6 LANE' v Q Jz 0 33 39 0 MC XINL£Y ~ Zz oJ66t.Nw oo z oco 00o i£ _ ofRers NO 6963 ° LAN£ �-:k dtra es e4 83 Ot AO ! » n ; ,, 14 • u NODE• ASSESSOR'S 810CK 8 ASSESSOR S MAP AIARCN 1970 rHACT NO. 696! M M. 261-18 TO 221NC. PARCEL NUMBERS 800K 151 PAGE 40 TRACT NO.. 6807 MM 275-3,4 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY Of ORANC.f - TRACT NO 7004 M At 280-21, 22, 23 r SCHEDULE A PROPERTY OWNER'S NOTICE GUARANTEE 1. That, according to the last equalized "Assessment Roll" in the Office of the Orange County Tax Assessor- R. The persons listed as "Assessed Owner" are shown on the assessment roll as owning real property within 300 feet of the property identified on the assessment roll as Assessor's Parcel Number 151-392-17. b. The Assessor's Parcel Number and any addresses shown on the assessment roll are attached hereto. 2. That, according to the Company's property records, (but without examination of those Company records maintained or indexed by name), there have been no documents recorded subsequent to APRIL 1990 purporting to transfer title to any of the properties listed. ' DEReV£ TRAC • a ... 40 /"1/00' �L 151-39 LANEZ + 21 �x Y O O O O O '� w:. 49 : lJ yo 6B N 114 J ,,, ' y CJ O 19 ,!, 4 8 81 + .& Q1 Q ° 3 P, GLACIER C/RCL° 4 ,w y4 , . W ! i x 0.• .O 47 52 R 66 I t 15 = 14 13 12 I I O 393 ' ,s 1 /!B / .... 10 „a„ V ° ,.. 406 1 / 2 / I /OJ /06 /07 too l!T ��' I' ,._v1' , O a 141, CARL50 O I 18 Z IB t 17 18 19 20 � 21 +SC 22 23 IS 45 Y 54 S 64 t lnaE �,. 111, �' „� ^ 2 O O 44 ti 55 Y 63 •, f/•fir/. / o CRATER CIR LE .,.I`llo9.+so .,,. /11 M//49 ti ci 4 .+. 44 O �, r �• /19 ro1' _/aa' N2 IIB /ao" a 9 Y O i 31 cm,I 29 28 27 ; ?6 •t 25 no 42 2 57 61 O Y O s 13 W O ® x ?s , v 7 I6 17 5 ,,�'. �„'- ?, .,, pl !/6 Is ,/I „_ _ /, N• /// ..1.• ^�1^ k' h 90 /aJ /a, w 0, Ib I/ p9 /2/ 2.'— lr ?I /2.' l76 /21 �� �( M o144 ,45 n o rah': SI J ,_04 12 ' 3 a 34 35 36 37 38 '9 40 41 rv. �58 O 60 c 2 „X 91' I ,� y 1�` , ~• ,�` .. .. .. •• 10' X,Ii f I,if• ss ta• If, f 1 . 2 B/G BEND LANE c, 33 31 j +i 12 13 14 IS 16 17 IB 391 2n) .' a22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 19 N0. 6963 ., u.1o19 ,v1, /B u,1' /7 ,o" /6 /S •. �./ .. /! /T // s. .. .. .. 7 .. ° •o —-�— BUSNARD STRL T °a•� n + Q V'O 017 V �6 NOfE-ASSESSOR S BLOCK B /, �ESSOR'S MAP Al"12hN 1970 TRACT N(i 6.963 M M 261-/B TO 22 INC PARCEL NUMBER; BOOK 151 PAGE 39 SHOWN IN CIRCIES COUNTY Of ORANGE NAU f,1.U S OR l }1 1 *FN: 101-3fz-15 APN: 151-392-16 *FH: 1bl-O,I-1, Jerome E. Lance Henry S. Oleksiewicz Hany S. Henein 9581 Rocky Mountain Dr. P.O. Box 6658 ^.-)?-(*4-6 9601 Rocky Mountain Dr. Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4852 Huntington Beach CA 5%0024*:� Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 APN: 151-392-18 APN: 151-392-19 APN: 151-392-20 Sidney R. Manderson Sung Joo Kim Hidetoshi Okada 9611 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9621 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9631 Rocky Mountain Dr., Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 APN: 151-392-21 APN: 151-402-04 APN: 151-402-05 Kiang-Tsun Wang Gary Matsuura Betty Lou Confair 9641 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9651 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9661 Rocky Mountain Dr., Huntington Beach CA 92646-4853 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4853 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4853 /5-1- 3�� -o / IY.4 1? 44 ��������� � 1 q5q \ . ' ' ` ' APN: 151-4O3-01 APN: 151-403-02 Daniel J. Allen Edgar H. Smith Herbert D. Goldstein 20091 McKinley Lane 20101 McKinley Lane 20111 Mc Kinley Lane Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646 ' APN: 151-391-09 APN: 151-391-08 APN: 151-392-09 Rosalie Perconti David H. Simons William J. Barr 5132 Kingscross Rd . 9551 Olympic Dr. 9552 Olympic Dr. ° Westminster CA 92683 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4842 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4843 ~ APN: 151-391-07 APN: 151-392-08 APN: 151-391-06 Chad Di Marco Lawrence G. Hallstrom Edward R. Cardoos 9571 Olympic Dr. 9572 Olympic Dr. 9581 Olympic Blvd . ~ Huntington Beach CA 92646-4842 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4843 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4842 ~ APN: 151-392-07 APN: 151-391-05 APN: 151-392-06 Elizabeth B. Shivel John J. Murphy Gail E. Davis 9582 Olympic Dr. 9591 Olympic Dr. 9592 Olympic Dr. ° Huntington Beach CA 92646-4843 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4842 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4843 • APN: 151-391-04 APN: 151-392-05 APN: 151-391-03 James T. Flannelly Barbara M. Haifley Donald Smith 9601 Olympic Dr. 9602 Olympic Dr. 9611 Olympic Dr. ~ Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4844 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4845 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4844 ~ APN: 151-392-O4 APN: 151-391-02 APN: 151-392-03 John V. Coggi Ming Huey Cheng SharI Indes 9612 Olympic Dr. 9621 Olympic Dr. 9622 Olympic Dr. ° Huntington Beach CA 92646-4845 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4844 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4845 ~ APN: 151-391-35 APN: 151-392-02 APN: 151-392-01 Saadi Bississo Klaus Goedecke Louis D. Stan 9631 Olympic Dr. 9632 Olympic Dr. 9782 Kings Canyon Dr. ~ Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4844 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4845 Huntington Beach CA 92646 ~ APN: 151-402-03 APN: 151-392-13 APN: 151-392-14 y P. e Judy P Y h Walter J Mir L. Ali u J. Quinlan 9652 Olympic Dr. 9551 Rocky Mountain Dr. 9571 Rocky Mountain Dr. " Huntington Beach CA 92646-4845 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4852 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4852 ' ` ' APN: 151-392-10 APN: 151-392-11 APN: 151-392-12 ~ John A. Lowenbruck Lela L. Wyscarver Joanne Fial 20042 Big Bend Lane 20052 Big Bend Lane 20072 Big Bend Lane Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4812 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4812 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4812 + APN: 151-393-32 APN: 151-393-33 APN: 151-393-34 ^ Steven H. Hall Danny S. Westrup Elsie J. Lewton 20092 Big Bend Lane 20102 Big Bend Lane 20112 Big Bend Lane Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4864 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4814 Huntington Beach CA 92649-4814 � APN: 151-393-31 APN: 151-393-16 ` APN: 151-393-30 � Michael L. Mushet Paul E. Shanor Carlos A. Green 20091 Crater Circle 20092 Crater Circle 20101 Crater Circle Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4819 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 APN: 151-393-17 APN: 151-393-29 APN: 151-393-18 Samuel Huang Kenneth D. Balch G. Jeffrey Geier 20102 Crater Circle 20111 Crater Circle 20112 Crater Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 ~� APN: 151-393-28 APN: 151-393-19 APN: 151-393-20 Ronald G. Bender Steven Norris Nelson Richard R. Girard 20121 Crater Circle 20122 Crater Circle 20132 Crater Circle Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4819 40 APN: 151-393-15 APN: 151-393-01 APN: 151-393-14 Is Ronald A. Sakoda John H. Davis Homer Wayne Fairchild 20091 Glacier Circle 910 E. Claraday St. 20101 Glacier Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 Glendora CA 91740 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 APN: 151-393-02 APN: 151-393-13 APN: 151-393-03 Thomas E. Faber Donald A. Lewis Norbert R. Bunt 20102 Glacier Circle 20111 Glacier Circle 20112 Glacier Circle �Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4821 ���� APN: 151-393-12 APN: 151-393-04 APN: 151-393-11 0 Susan Du Montier Ronald R. Wilson | Arthur L. Anthony 20121 Glacier Circle | 20122 Glacier Circle 20131 Glacier Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646-4821 / Huntingtn Bch CA 92646-4821 Huntingtn Bch CA 92647-4821 lop ' ' AUG 1:,4 1991 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Appeal to Use Permit No. 91-25 Dear Council Members: I would like to appeal to you the findings of the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission for the above subject use permit. I am requesting the denial of subject use permit should be reconsidered for the following reasons. The fence was constructed in its current location because, in my remodeling process, we plan to install a fountain in the front yard between the first and second step; since our house pad is about 3 feet higher than the sidewalk, the fence was constructed about 69 inches high so we can grow climbing roses and other climbers on it to provide privacy to our formal living room, dining room and part of the kitchen. The widest areas of our planters are by the sidewalk, and my wife likes the peace and security that the fence provides and it fits in with new changes in the neighborhood. By constructing said fence we do not feel that we are introducing a new or incompatible structure to the neighborhood. Beside the many fences which are within 15 feet setback or 42 inches high, below are listed some of the addresses for houses in our neighborhood which have fences similar to ours: Address Inside Height in Inches Setback (feet) 9661 Rocky Mountain 53 (with lamps) 0 20182 McKinley 69 5.50 20202 McKinley 48 0 9651 Yellowstone 45 0 20472 Alisa 51 0 20461 Whitetree 45 0 9611 Bay Meadow 49 0 9581 Bay Meadow 47 0 20452 Graystone 66 0 20461 Graystone 48 0 9881 Mammoth 51 0 9971 Kings Canyon 72 7.5 9612 Yellowstone 50 0 20141 Glacier 78 11 Pictures are attached for your convenience to verify the looks and the materials which were used to construct each fence. I would like to point out that the staff mentioned at the Planning Commission Hearing that there are only about 3 or 4 fences which are illegal in the neighborhood (legal fences are not to exceed 42 inches in height or must be 15 feet minimum setback) . I am also attaching pictures (with addresses) of numerous fences constructed within the city limits which do not meet code and some of them are constructed of wrought UP 91-25/H. S. Henein page 2 of 3 iron like ours. In a letter mailed to me (upon my request) by staff on August 5, 1991, the number of use permits, site plans or variances granted to citizens in the city to allow the construction of fences higher than 42 inches and less than 15 feet setback were only 2. One of these said exceptions is in our neighborhood and is about 3 or 4 hundred yards from our house (house address is 9651 Yellowstone) . I acknowledge that the issuance of a variance, site plan or a use permit is a privilege allowed by the zoning code and must be granted by the staff to the applicant; however the staff at the Planning Commission Hearing were not clear why that variance was granted to my neighbor and not to me. It is my understanding that the findings for approval or denial for both fences should be similar since both houses are in the same neighborhood and said fence on Yellowstone is at 0 feet setback and about 60 inches high from the outside, which in my opinion makes no difference for somebody looking at the fence or walking by it whether it is retaining in the back or not. Furthermore, to my knowledge the zoning code does not mention anywhere what kind of material should be used to construct a fence. Said code only approves or allows the principle through variance, use permit, site plan or other means. I do not believe that our fence is an eyesore to the neighborhood because the city staff has received only one complaint from all the neighbors in the area. That indicates that most of the neighbors do not dislike or find our fence to be an eyesore. The one complaint came from our west neighbor (he was the only one to show up at the public hearing for the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission to register a complaint) . In any event neither east or west neighbors can see my fence from anywhere in their houses, including their front yards, because of the heavy, thick, high bushes in their yards. Furthermore, my neighbor to the east has a front yard fence at 0 setback. I am attaching some pictures of our fence which clearly disagree with my west neighbor's claim at the Planning Commission Hearing regarding the failure of the fence, the sharpness of its top, and that there is no other fence like it in the city. I would like to mention that I am a registered civil engineer in the State of California, and through my employment with the County of Orange, I built for the City of Huntington Beach, Brookhurst Bridge over Talbert Channel (about 300 yards north of Pacific Coast Highway) and inspected and drove over 250 piles for the retaining wall along the west side of Brookhurst Street south of said bridge. If the city staff trusted me to build these structures for them, definitely I am not going to build something in my own house which will fail. However, if the city staff would like, I can certify the design and the inspection of this fence under my professional license number. I am more than willing to work with the city staff to implement any changes such as color, landscaping, or any other cosmetics that will make the fence more acceptable and allow it to remain in its present location and form. To the best of my recollection the Planning Commission cited the following reasons for denial: Lack of permit and fence poses a danger because it could be disassembled and used as a weapon by the kids in the neighborhood. My reply to this is that I did not know that wrought iron fences require a permit and if the kids are to disassemble the fence it will make no difference if that fence is 69 inches high or 42 inches high. I am enclosing some pictures of my son supporting all of his weight on the fence and the fence did not even bear down. The other matter is I do not know why the staff is being selective in enforcing the code. Why do they allow hedge fences to be as tall as anybody wants and insist that fences should not be higher than 42 inches unless they are retaining UP 91-25/H. S. Henein page 3 of 3 walls. In my opinion hedges do block sight distance for motorists and wrought iron fences do not. I do not feel that I should be singled out by the city staff to tear my fence down especially since the staff has had the addresses for all of the other houses with illegal fences since last June and none has been cited yet. However, if there are many people in the neighborhood with illegal fences, it reflects that the people like this kind of structure and the neighborhood is changing and the city may be granting all of them permits instead of granting to one individual only. I am appealing my case to your fairness and good judgment to help me in reaching a fair solution to my family's problem. If you have any questions or if I can be of any further assistance to you, please feel free to call me at (714) 963-6270 or (714) 834-3470. Sincerely, � Hany nein, Applicant for Use Permit 91-25 Attachments: 1) Colored copies of photographs* 2 My letter to city 3) Response from city staff ` F *Photographs shall be available at the Hearing F r f• k se JOc��f 9'1-25 �-- - --�-- lJ i use Rerm�f- 41-25 - '(,�s�rrk�fed Siedody fame P-.JteH I ' I CJse l�crm� Use Armi+ 91-25 exis inq &ns�nmlW Sewrly brick+mne►ele plaMo me. r 1 . a Ll / i i x + 1 � I m Use krmif exia+irlt brick +fin P6+40rms, R J J, i 2019Z M6'4itky G9" �is,�Se �d•�caunen�.n Arrows + Sal l r"f� � 444 i Roe.ky Mtn. Dr 63" w4h Lamps 4 rl ,20202 MtXpley y8" 2618.2 MaKinky 83' 44h Idmp Sharp 4rrowS r�s� c bwk 69, no I&Mps /�ltssu�ewRSK7F 76" Set Arrows IAA balls K r �Oy9� A/��+�• Sharp �rroas 9iSl Yellows-tint y5't t Balls Tes;die /llaaavnGrhar�'S�A ,,,E�S�KEw,E�r/r.rs .zvsz,GL� 9G// �r,,natatow �oy4� �hi�Fe� PSIS,,,��.,a�► t�s;de rl7�c�.svr�crr� �,19'� sue„ /j,sads on Axe i IGe q F�If i za�s2 �rw,y�� 9spi �y� w y � l• A A L A IF - M/ Ki,�fs Greyyao �� 9tt/ /l7 i�►ef�i Zaide rl�eta� 'lt .Twaidl� / staw�sut� 5/ �� S r6a�k 7' 7" Arrows e e VFXV fAWO i � s � 5 rt fT� a --war--- 3 y r �IIATa r j l iillllllll!n!I ulu� r� i S�,tid� rllsaaaur�e�f �19� 5 f�CC4 d4'LCrZ 93JOt 6iesiroard �0� /pyy.Z A?an�i�,Gst 8�" 72V Cate with SAWr p~'r all set ,bw,sk Fenae h-ti4#& 46" 1 Ma 1 e a m"4," txr a rr s i 1 •r.y,'yno,r, IVW411W*W - cads i � � v p rv' 1 a ' ^`. r I � al1Cl z rLi� JUi 2 t 1991 Mr. Mike Adams Director, Community Development, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subject: Use Permit 91-25 Dear Mr. Adams; Pursuant to my telephone conversations and meetings with Mr. Connor and Mr. Hess of your staff regarding the above subject, because of my proposed appeal on August 6, 1991, I am requesting the following information be forwarded, in writing, to me within seven days from receipt by the City of this letter. 1. From the photos and addresses of the approximately dozen homes in my neighborhood that I had supplied to Mr. Connor that have fences over 42 inches high, have any of these homes received a variance or a use permit to allow such construction? If not, what action did the zoning administrator's office take? 2. Has your department ever approved or conditionally approved in the past history of the cit7 such variances or use permits to ?llo:•: the construction of a fence over 42 inches high within the front 15 feet setback within the city limits? 3. Has your department ever in its past history through the appealing process recommended any alternative actions which did not require the removal or the denial of said use permits within the city limits? I am more than willing to work with city staff to implement any changes such as color, landscaping or any other cosmetics that will make the fence more compatible with the surrounding environment to allow it to remain in its present constructed form. If I can be of any assistance to you in any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. My telephone number and address are availabel to you through my use permit file. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and I am looking forward to receiving your answers within the said period of time. Sincerely, Hany S-. Henein cc: Scott Hess, Zoning Administrator, ✓ City of Huntington Beach Mike Connor, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach City Huntington of Hunti ton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 �• ,t �r. ' c ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PMENT E Building Division 536-5241 Planning Division 536-5271 August 5 , 1991 Mr. Hany Henien 9601 Rocky Mountain Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dear Mr . Henien: In response to your letter dated July 24, 1991 (which was received by our office on July 29 , 1991) , I would like to offer the following information: 1 . The fence at 9651 Yellowstone was permitted by a Conditional Exception (Variance) pursuant to code regulations at that time. Building permits and Use Permits are not required for fences under 42 inches high or retaining walls under 24 inches . Permits have not been found for other walls exceeding 42 inches high. These walls may be illegal, however no complaints have been received. 2 . The fence at 9651 Yellowstone was approved by a Conditional Exception (Variance) in 1985 . 3 . Use Permit No. 90-70 was a request to permit an existing six (6) foot high fence with seven (7) foot tall columns at 18442 Manitoba Lane. The request was denied by the Zoning Administrator and the denial was upheld by the Planning Commission on appeal. The request was then appealed to the City Council who approved an alternative recommendation - not staff ' s recommendation for denial . The alternative recommendation included that the fence must: a . be provided with brick columns b. be staggered to provide landscape pockets c. be painted to match the adjacent fence d. be submitted to the Design Review Board after redesign If you are interested in reviewing any other fences you are welcome to come in and review the files . August 5, 1991 Page Two Please note that in most cases the application is for a fence or wall that has yet to be constructed, therefore alternatives may be explored more easily. In addition, each application is reviewed on its own merits as it relates to neighborhood character and concerns . If you should have any other questions, please give me a call at (714) 960-8826 . Sincerely / Michael ,Y. Connor Assist Planner MJC: lp (0410d)