CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MAY 31, 2001
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A Special Joint City Council / Planning Commission meeting of City of La Habra Heights was called to order by Mayor Engelhardt at 6:10 p.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2001, at the Community Center, 1245 N. Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights.
2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present were Engelhardt, Carroll, Borrowe, Klein and Millsap. Commissioners present were Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Hinz, Skinner and Wolfe. Also present were City Manager Lindsey, City Attorney Colantuono, Planning Director Sanderson, Planning Technician Doppieri, City Engineer Milano, Deputy City Engineer Gilbertson and Project Manager Karen Warner.
3. OPENING COMMENTS BY MAYOR ENGELHARDT
Mayor Engelhardt welcomed everyone to this special meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission. She stated everyone realizes ŌThe HeightsÕ is affected by decisions concerning building and land use. If youÕre not concerned about doing your own project on your own house, youÕre curious about what could happen to the lot or house across the street or whether some decision in some area of ŌThe HeightsÕ could affect your property; one of the major reasons our town incorporated was so that we could keep control of our landscape and avoid some of the situations that have developed in Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights, which are under County Control; we expect a lot to happen in the next few years in the Planning and Building Departments of our City; we have to update our General Plan; the Planning Commission will be looking at some of our existing ordinances to make sure the ordinances are effective and clear; we expect natural transitions in our town as our older homes get remodeled, enlarged or torn down; as you will hear there are pressures from outside our City for people who want to build more or want to make little cuts in our City that will change itÕs atmosphere; the City Council and Planning Commission are working to make the City pleasant and restful for the people who live here. This meeting is primarily a learning discussion and philosophy session. This will be an explanation of the basics regarding the Planning, Engineering and Building Departments.
Mayor Engelhardt then introduced the City Council, the Planning Commission and staff.
5. OPENING COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSIONER CHAIRPERSON
Bruce Douglas introduced the Planning Commission.
Chairman Douglas gave an overview of some of the activities the Planning Commission is preparing to bring forth; they plan to simplify and streamline the planning process; they plan new ordinances rather than repair of existing ordinances; they will be working on a new General Plan and want it to be valid; the process is suppose to be, the General Plan has its goals and elements and ultimately the ordinances reflect those goals and elements; in some cases the existing General Plan does that quiet well; in other areas it is a little more confusing; the General Plan talks about scenic views and scenic views are defined in a couple of ways in the documents and maybe some contradictory ways; there are guidelines that they go by and the community has lived by for quite a while; however there is a whole other class of General Plan goals that are never addressed in the ordinance, for example homes that blend in with the natural setting; there is not much of an ordinance that says what that means and therefore it isnÕt any issue that is ever really going to be dealt with, without the ordinance how can the Planning Commission address it; the same hit and miss coverage is true in a lot of the elements, community development, transportation element, grading development management program there are reference that never again exist and therefore you cannot address them because you have no ordinance language; a related problem to the confusion to some of our ordinances is there is an affirmative obligation mandated by the State to try to always remove governmental constraints to building and development; to our own citizens we have the obligation to try and make the process as streamline and user friendly as possible; cleaning up some of these ordinances that are confusing certainly should help; there are procedures in place such as the DirectorÕs approval, over the counter approvals which allow applicants without big problems be addressed in an inexpensive and fast fashion as compared to coming to the Planning Commission; they want to look at other classes of applications that can be dealt with in such an expeditious fashion; they need to be proactive in forecasting future needs of the community; eighty-five percent of our homes were built prior to incorporation, which means they were built to county standards and a lot of these will see extensive remodeling in the next few years; our ordinances are silent as it relates to view impairment from trees; the landscaping of large structures needs to be looked at; the Planning Commission will assist staff in making the ordinances better reflect our goals and elements and provide review of the process and try and streamline it and help to assess the likely future needs as development continues and changes; they will be looking to previous commissioners if they have noticed problems, some of the applicants who work a lot in the community and see if they have repeat problems in areas that are unclear or they seem are capricious, looking at files and the over the counter approvals how many of those there are and finally what the other communities have been able to do in addressing some of these issues.
6. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Colantuono stated he was going to give an overview of land use law. He gave the Council and Commission a handout explaining land use terms and building heights, attached was a user friendly interpretation of how the view preservation process works in La Habra Heights; staff will probably want to be revisiting this and when we get to a level of comfort with the Attorney, Engineer and the Planning Director it is a handout we will want to make available to give out at the counter so all participants in the process will have access to that basic information.
Mr. Colantuono stated he wanted to start by giving the Council and Commission the big picture of where there authority to regulate land use comes from; there are two provisions of the federal and state constitutions that are germane; first is the police power which is the inherent power of government to regulate human activity for the betterment of health, safety and general welfare; the other provision of the constitution is the taking clause, which says the government can not take private property for public use without paying for it; the rest of the law that you apply is state law or local law; the primary state law that applies are the Planning and Zoning Law; another statute you will apply is the Sub Division Map Act which allows land to be divided into smaller parcels; a companion to these statute is the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and often a decision you are making also requires an analysis under CEQA; frequently you will get two decisions as a package; and there are a host of local laws that we have adopted as a community that apply in this context.
California Environmental Quality Act – He asked the Council and Commission to think of CEQA as an analytical maze and the goals is to get out of the maze; there are four exit strategies; CEQA only applies to projects as defined by the statute; a project is a discretionary action of a government agency that could have a physical impact of the environment that is substantial; (1) non projects are exempt from CEQA; if it is a project it may be (2) Categorically Exempt, these decisions do not require review, example are road maintenance and the building of a single family residence built on a lot of less than 25% slope; (3) Negative Declarations are a level of environmental review that says that when we look at the potential impacts of a project in light of the mitigation measures that will be imposed on that project we canÕt determine that there will be a substantial affect on the environment; and (4) the Environmental Impact Reports this is the most intense level of CEQA and can be very expensive; you will do an Environmental Impact Report on your General Plan Update.
Subdivision Map Act – He explained the County Recorders Office is a place where every document affecting title to property is kept; The Subdivision Map Act ensure that parcels of land are created properly; there are a number of procedures by which the boundaries of a parcel may be changed; Lot Line Adjustment is a change in boundaries of one or more parcels that doesnÕt create an additional parcel; Parcel Maps creates four or fewer lots; Tract Maps create five or more lots; in our City Parcel Maps and Tract Maps are approved at the Planning Commission level; each of the two maps have two stages of their existence, Tentative map and final maps; tentative map is prior to the conditions of approvals being implemented; the final map goes straight to the City Council after all of the conditions of approval have been completed and the Council must approve the map; when the maps are finaled and approved they are recorded by the County and the parcels are legally created; developers often use the word Vesting Map on their requests, the use of the word vesting, ensures that the map is grandfathered according to all existing policies and procedures of the City at the time of the original approval, it locks in your land use authority; the Commission and Council have the authority to zone over a map unless it is vested; a map in the tentative stage has a life of two years, and the map can have up to five extensions; each time you are confronted with a map extension there is a different standard for a vesting map than a regular map, if it is a vesting map you must extend it unless you can make a finding that would have allowed you to deny the map in the first place, if it is a non vesting map you have a greater freedom to deny the extension; maps can have very long lives.
La Habra Heights Land Use Regulations. The General Plan is long range planning document for the physical development of the community over a twenty year planning horizon, it has seven mandatory elements that are required to be there; land use element, circulation element, housing element, conservation element, open space element, noise element, and a safety element. You may chose to add other elements that address local priorities and circumstances. A Specific Plan is an intermediate step between a General Plan and a zoning ordinance; in your zoning ordinance it says any parcel that has the potential to develop 10 or more units requires a Specific Plan; the reason for that ordinance is to ensure that there is at least one legislative action associated to that project, these are a tool you might find useful for particular challenges in the community.
The Zoning Ordinance is a part of the County Ordinance the City adopted, the City did not write it and it does not reflect the CityÕs physical reality, it is a bad fit for your community; he then explained the three different zones within the City, RA-1, RA 20,000 and the Commercial Highway Zone. The Council and Commission may want to analyze whether they need a Commercial Highway Zone. There are two View Preservation Districts within the City, View Preservation District A is the vast majority of the City, View Preservation District B is a small area in the southern section of the City. You can think of the kinds of land uses allowed within any particular zone as one of three types, absolutely forbidden, expressly authorized and conditionally authorized. Discretionary approvals are Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Unclassified Use Permit, non-conforming uses. When you change a zoning rule, land uses that were developed prior to that change that do not comply with it are still lawful. This City has many non-conforming uses. You may want to re-examine whether the traditional non-conforming use rule makes a whole lot of sense.
Permits that are created within your zoning ordinance are DirectorÕs Review, Standards Modifications for Setback and Fence and Wall, View Preservation Modification, Tree Removal Permits and Interpretations. Virtually every new home and every remodel will require a View Preservation Modification. Some of the text of the View Preservation Ordinance may need to be revisited. A strategy to coping with an ordinance that is not a real good fit is establishing a policy to interpret the ordinance.
The Grading Ordinance is designed to limit landform alterations for the purpose of preserving and aesthetically pleasing environment. It requires a permit when people move more than a very small amount of dirt. It assumes two kinds of developments, a single lot development and a multiple lot development. The way this ordinance is written it puts a lay panel of elected decision-makers in the position of making technical judgements about slope stability. What Mr. Colantuono advised the Council and Commission to follow their Engineers advice otherwise they may be inviting a lawsuit. He suggested the Council and Commission look at revisiting this ordinance as well. You restrict the gross amount of earth that can be moved, you restrict the amount per parcel, you restrict the height and location of retaining walls, you restrict the height, steepness and length of cut and fill slopes and these are all necessary to make a land use policy that is reasonably reflective of what ŌThe HeightsÕ is all about.
Ms. Sanderson gave a presentation on the Planning Process. She explained there are four types of processes: The Over the Counter Approvals, the Administrative Process, the Planning Commission Public Hearing Process and Planning Commission/City Council Public Hearing Process.
The Over the Counter Process – These are minor approvals such as swimming pools, under an acre small additions (under 500 sq. ft.) and less than 16 feet in height, over an acre small additions (under 750 sq. ft.) and less than 16 feet in height, where all setback issues are met. The plans are reviewed and if no formal approvals are required, the plans are allowed to go through Building Plan Check, when they come back from Plan Check, the fire department is notified, Planning then does a Plan Check and the Fire Department does a Plan Check, when approvals are received building permits may be issued.
The Administrative Process – These are Standards Modifications for Setback Encroachments if they are less than 10%(this is not the hard rule), View Preservation when it is not a view lot or it will not impede anyone view, these are basically done through the DirectorÕs Review or Administrative Process. The applicant submits a formal application to the City, once the application and fees are submitted it is routed to Engineering, Fire and Planning. The Engineering & Fire Departments do a preliminary review and forward comments back to the Planning Department. She then notifies the applicant whether the application is complete or incomplete. If it is an incomplete application she notifies the applicant of exactly what is incomplete or missing. If the application is complete she does the public noticing, once the noticing period is complete she renders a formal decision including Conditions of Approval specified by Planning, Engineering and Fire. Everyone has a right to appeal an administrative decision to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission decision can be appealed to the City Council. The City CouncilÕs decision is final.
The Planning Commission Public Hearing Process - These projects are Standards Modifications for View Preservations and Setback Encroachments. These are the projects where the Planning Commission has the final authority. The process begins the same as the Administrative Review Process. Once the application is deemed complete the environmental process begins and the public noticing is sent 10 days prior to the meeting and the project is scheduled to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission either approves or denies the project. The public does have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the City Council. The City Council would be the final authority in the event of an appeal. If no appeal is filed the Planning Commission is the final authority.
The Planning Commission / City Council Public Hearing Process - These projects are handles exactly the same as the Planning Commission Public Hearing Process. The difference is the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council for approval or denial and the City Council has the final authority to approve or deny these projects.
Mr. Milano stated the Engineering Division is really a support for the Planning Department. Engineering looks at the grading, lot coverage, and lot size to make sure what is proposed is reasonable at the preliminary stages of a project.
The plans are submitted by a Registered Civil Engineer and staff assumes the Engineer is accurate in his calculations and accurate in his presentations. While we assume the Engineer is accurate staff does a review and checks the aerial photography staff has on file to ensure the plans line up correctly.
In Section 8502 of the Municipal Code there is a complex formula for determine slope, it is a very precise engineering tool. Most engineering calculations and contour maps are digitized and the computer will do the calculations. What is important about that formula is that when you are doing a sub-division, the average slope across that piece of property determines how many lots you can develop and then plugs into another chart that is in Section 8.510 which tells you how much land must remain untouched on a particular lot. Our code allows you to grade 15% of the lot no matter how steep the lot is. It also makes sure no matter how flat your property is that there is always going to be 15% of it natural.
As the plans are submitted by a Registered Civil Engineer, staff assumes his information is accurate. In support of the Planning Department, Engineering looks at the grading plans, verifies that the cut and fill slopes meet the City minimum standards, that they are contoured correctly, where the engineer joins with existing slopes, cut and fills donÕt exceed a certain distance away from the edge of the property or edge of building and then give their recommendations back to the Planning Department. Engineering also looks at impervious coverage. Basically once you have gone through the formula and calculated how much area can be graded, then impervious coverage is 50% of that number.
Once the Planning approvals are granted, the project goes into Building and Safety Plan Check. This is a real precise review to ensure all the grades work, the drainage works, etc. This process can take anywhere from two weeks to six months. It all depends on the quality of the application and the plans submitted.
7. DISCUSSION REGARDING STAFF, CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTERACTION
Mayor Engelhardt asked if the Council or Commission had questions for staff.
Councilmember Klein thanked staff for a tremendous presentation of information. He was grateful everyone could be present to get the information at the same time. He gave an overview of what he was looking for from the Planning Commission, in cases that would be coming to the City Council on appeal, he asked the Commission to look at two sides. The community standpoint that the General Plan is our ambiance our standards and this is who we as a community want to be, and we as a community should have certain rights to enforce that and to keep this community as La Habra Heights and not turn it into a La Habra or Irvine. Conversely you have individual rights. They have a right to build; they have rights to do things within the code but not turn the community standards upside down to have their individual rights. But on the other hand the community doesnÕt have the right to totally not let them develop their property. It gets into an issue of common sense. He asked the Commission to look at both sides and make their decision based on common sense. He stated they like their community the way it is and he is not looking for it to be stretched too far. Common sense is the guiding factor.
He asked staff to revisit the difference between administrative approvals and when it needs to go to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Colantuono stated those lines are in a portion of the County Zoning Ordinance the City did not adopt. The County Zoning Ordinance uses the opaque phrase review agency as a shorthand version for those decisions that other portions of the code refer to the City Engineer or the County Engineer or the County Planning Director, the County Planning Director shall act accordingly. For those decisions by other portions of the code refer to the County Regional Planning Commission. The Commission can act. For those decisions referred elsewhere by the County Code the County Board of Supervisors, the County shall act. La Habra Heights adopted all the sections that used the shorthand phrase reviewing authority and none of the sections which said what that means in any given context. What staff had interpreted that to mean was that unless the code says specifically who the decision maker is, the decision maker can be either the Planning Director, the Planning Commission or the City Council and the Planning Director should use there good discretion to start the project. Historically this has meant, when the project seems non-consequential and no affected neighbor objects, staff will decide it. If any neighbor objects it goes to the Planning Commission. The upside of that is you donÕt put your staff in the position of making decisions that are likely to be appealed, the down side is there is sort of a hecklers veto for even relatively inoffensive developments. In the new General Plan the Council may chose to fill in those blanks. He referred to Ms. Sanderson to clarify further.
Ms. Sanderson explained the process she uses: once an application is complete she does a physical site inspection, goes on the property, looks at the surrounding areas and determines if there are any view impacts, after first determining if this is a view lot, if it is not a view lot it does not go to the Planning Commission, it is done administratively, if there is no impacts it is done administratively. She stated she is more on the conservative side that if she feels there is a potential impact she automatically schedules it to the Planning Commission and does not use the DirectorÕs Review. The second thing she looks at when she does her site inspection is the setbacks. She look at what type of encroachment it is. Each applicant is required to answer a list of questions, which is the criteria or the findings. After a site inspection and the review of findings she makes a determination. She uses the rule if the encroachment is over 10% she sends the case to the Planning Commission. Under 10% it is based on what the setback encroachment is.
Mayor Engelhardt asked how many applications the Planning Department is averaging per month or week and how many of those are done under the DirectorÕs Review.
Ms. Sanderson stated the average could be 10 a week, there could be more or less. She stated the minimum would be 4 a week. She felt the majority of the cases do go to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Engelhard asked what she was looking for when she referred to an application being complete.
Ms. Sanderson stated, first she looks at the size of the lot. If it is an acre or less and the addition does not exceed 500 square feet in area and it is under 16 feet in height, that is an over the counter review if it meets the setbacks. If it is over an acre and it does not exceed 750 square feet in area and it is less than 16 feet in height, and it meets the setbacks, that is an over the counter review as well. Prior to submission of an application, the applicant brings in a very general plot plan showing what he is proposing to build. Staff reviews the plan and directs the applicant in the directions he will need to go. Staff preliminarily determines if the project will require a Standards Modification for View Preservation or Setback Modification. If a formal application is required there are several steps to deem the application complete. The plans must be complete, the application must be complete, the applicant must make the findings, and mailing labels must be included. The plans staff requires are floor plans, plot plan, grading plan and elevation plans. What is existing and what is proposed must be clearly shown. Setbacks must be clearly shown. Very rarely does staff receive an application the first time that is complete. Maybe 3 applications have been complete when first submitted in the 2 years she has been with the City. Staff does have the option of requesting more information if what has been submitted is not sufficient for the Engineering, Fire and Planning Departments to make a determination. Once a case is deemed complete you cannot go back and asked for more information.
Councilmember Millsap asked why so few cases are complete when first submitted.
Mr. Colantuono stated that is fairly standard in land use planning in California.
Planning Commission Chairman Douglas asked staff to explain what a Grading Modification was.
Deputy City Engineer Gilbertson explained a Grading Modification is when a project doesnÕt adhere to the Grading Ordinance. An example is when a project has a cut or fill slope higher than 20 feet. It might extend laterally beyond the house more than the allowable 30 feet. It might have an import or export of additional yardage that is not a balanced project.
Chairman Douglas asked if a Grading Modification required a public hearing.
Mr. Colantuono stated the Grading Modification runs along with the grading approval itself and the multiple lot grading approval would require a noticed public hearing before the City Council. A single lot grading approval that goes to the Planning Commission you would do the modification at the same time. The ordinance is opaque on that point, put the practice to be compliant with due process is to forward the underlining application and use those procedures. Your grading ordinance is charming and unique. It has three characteristics. It is in some part of technical safety standards. Those standards ought to be ministerial and not a discretionary ordinance. Secondly, there is a discretionary set of judgements which are appropriate and necessary to reflect the aspirations of the community and they should be in your zoning ordinance. Lastly there are some very fuzzy procedures which donÕt need to be fixed if you move them to your zoning ordinance.
Mayor Engelhardt asked why it was necessary to import soil, when the lot is relatively flat.
Mr. Gilbertson stated when you import or export more than 1,000 cubic yards; it requires a conditional use permit. With that Engineering regulates the truck routes they can use. They are required to video the roadways incase there is damage. If the lot is in to bottom of a canyon, the engineering department encourages them to import soil to raise the pad out of the flood plain, they also encourage the raising of the pad to get better percolation for the septic system. It eliminates standing water during the rainy season.
Mr. Colantuono stated there is tension between the drainage considerations and the view preservation. Typically the home will require a view preservation modification, so both applications are processed together and the Planning Commission will make the determination on the elevation of the pad.
Mayor Engelhardt asked is there a limit of how high the pad can be raised.
Mr. Gilbertson stated other than what is in the grading ordinance that limits the fill slope to 20 feet. Technically someone could raise the pad 20 feet, however he has never seen it happen. If staff is encouraging raising the pad, they are talking 2-3 feet.
Mayor Engelhardt asked what being able to grade a very steep lot 15% meant.
Mr. Colantuono stated they are talking about 15% of the lot area. So on a 1-acre lot you are talking about 6,600 square feet of surface area that can be graded at a minimum. The problem with very steep lots is you have to get a driveway up there and driveway counts against the impervious coverage.
Mr. Gilbertson stated they treat anything other than dirt as an impervious surface.
Mayor Engelhardt asked if there could be some lots within the City that couldnÕt be developed.
Mr. Gilbertson stated certainly. He stated Engineering would allow a dirt driveway, it must be an all weather access. This is another difficulty to developing some of these lots today. More than likely they would be coming to the Planning Commission for a grading modification or a variance for impervious coverage.
Mr. Colantuono stated you could create a lot like that today. If the lot is 41% slope or steeper, the minimum lot size is 5 acres.
Councilmember Klein asked if a swimming pool was included in impervious coverage.
Mr. Gilbertson stated currently no; they do however count the decking around it.
Mr. Colantuono stated if the purpose of your ordinance is about run-off, which is one of the concerns in the community that makes perfect sense. If you view the ordinance as a restraint on development, then it doesnÕt make any sense and therefore the interpretation changes from time to time at the policy maker level, because your ordinance isnÕt completely articulated about what it is trying to do.
Councilmember Borrowe questioned what Mr. Milano had said about assuming the EngineerÕs calculations were correct.
Mr. Gilbertson stated plans are completed by a registered licensed Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California. The CityÕs Engineering Department assumes the calculations are correct, however they still verify them. Typically they do a spot check. There will always be a plus or minus 1-2 %. However they verify to ensure that the applicantÕs engineer is in the right ballpark. Often during construction the homeowner wants to add more Hardscape. During the inspections the CityÕs Engineering Department verifies what is built is what was approved to ensure they have complied with impervious coverage.
Mr. Colantuono stated there are a couple of policies implicated in that practice. One is resource application and expense to the City. Two is when a registered professional puts his seal on the paper, he is putting his malpractice insurance on the line and their ability to practice in the state on the line. The CityÕs professionals can smell a problem. When they smell a problem they do not defer. In his experience with the City the only time the City has gotten drawings that were not reliable is when they were not sealed.
Councilmember Borrowe asked when the City allows importing of soil, do we know the soil is clean.
Mr. Gilbertson stated every grading project within the City has to have an on site soils engineer, that prepares a report prior to approval. He is there during construction. He goes to the site where the soil is coming from and takes soil samples to determine the soil is in good condition. He also has to sign the report showing the soil that is brought in is good material, no hazards, no organic and that it was compacted properly. Often the soil comes from very large sites, where the soil testing has already been done.
Mr. Colantuono stated the testing that is done is lab testing. Everyone involved in this process are insured and their insurers tend to keep them on a short leash.
Mayor Engelhardt asked regarding the Planning Commissions discretion, when a home is built on a lot that is lower than an existing house.
Mr. Colantuono stated this is a function of two things, one is your power to regulate. Your power to regulate is limited by the taking clause, which means you must have a rational purpose, and view preservation is a rational purpose. You have to allow a reasonable economic use; a single story house of 750 square feet is a reasonable economic use. You must treat like things alike and different things differently. If you are being consistent and reasonable, then you have substantial authority. This is what you could do if your ordinances were perfect. Your view preservation ordinance is peculiar; it protects some views and not others. It protects some kinds of views and not others. Your view preservation ordinance may not be a good fit and you may want to revisit it. The Commission needs to take an imperfect ordinance and make sense of it and try to do the right thing.
Councilmember Klein asked Mr. Colantuono to explain the ordinance.
Mr. Colantuono stated in the handout is a fact sheet, detailing questions relating to your view preservation ordinance. Question #3 states: Do the view preservation modification regulations protect against impairment of any and all views on an affected lot? The answer is no. The regulations only protect against significant impairments of certain views. Specifically the regulations protect against the significant impairment of view from what is called a view lot. The first thing you must determine is it a view lot. A view lot is a lot with a principal identifiable view of a distant scene, such as the ocean, Los Angeles or Orange County basin, or City Lights. Surrounding hills, valleys or greenery in the immediate area do not qualify as a principal view. The principal view to be protected must be from a buildable area of the lot. Which means within the setbacks and below the height limit, typically from the first floor. A vacant lot can have a view to be protected.
Councilmember Borrowe commended the Planning Commission for their independent thought process and the time and effort they put forth for the community. He felt views are terribly important to the residents of ŅThe HeightsÓ, not only structural views, but foliage and trees. Many cities have foliage / tree ordinances. There is a great deal of value in views, and would like to have addressed when the General Plan is redone.
Commissioner Blagden clarified the view can be taken from anywhere inside the setbacks, which could mean outside the house.
Mr. Colantuono stated yes.
Commissioner Blagden stated surveys should be done to ensure home is built in the correct location. If a project changes on site, does it come back to the Planning Commission?
Mr. Gilbertson stated that during the preliminary review they verify the calculations for average slope, graded area and impervious coverage. During the preliminary review they may not have done a survey, however when the project gets into plan check they may do a survey. Rarely the figures will change by 1-2 %.
Mr. Colantuono states you could adopt a policy that required surveys on all projects, however surveys arenÕt cheep.
Councilmember Klein stated that previously the Planning Commission did make a policy that a survey would be required in all instances.
Mr. Colantuono states staff could research this case and determine if such a policy was formulated.
Councilmember Klein asked staff to do the research and determine if policy is in place requiring surveys.
Ms. Lindsey stated staff would immediately look into this.
Mayor Engelhardt stated the Planning Commission would be looking at these issues in the future.
Councilmember Klein asked the Planning Commission to share with the public the reasons why they come to the decision they do.
Mayor Engelhardt stated the Council appreciates that the Planning Commission and Staff treat everyone with courtesy and professionalism.
Commissioner Blagden asked when determining the setback, does staff use the property line or the highway line.
Ms. Sanderson stated that in the Code the property line and the highway line have the same meaning.
8. HOUSING ELEMENT
Ms. Sanderson stated the CityÕs original Housing Element was adopted 2-11-1993. State law requires local government within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region to adopt an updated Housing Element by 12-31-2000. Staff contacted several independent consultants and consultant firms about submitting proposals to update the CityÕs Housing Element. The City Council considered selection of the Consultant last September and they directed staff to negotiate with Cotton Bridges and Associates. Last December the City entered into a professional agreement with the Consultant firm of Cotton Bridges and Associates to update the CityÕs Housing Element. Karen Warner will be giving a presentation of the City of La Habra Heights 2000-2005 Housing Element.
Karen Warner, Project Manager – Ms. Warner gave a presentation regarding the drafting of the Housing Element. She gave a brief presentation of Housing Element 101; the State of California has adopted a housing goal for decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian; the housing element is part of the CityÕs General Plan; it sets forth a 5 year strategy for addressing the communityÕs housing needs; in its most basic form it is comprised of 3 components; (1) needs assessment of existing and projected needs, (2) evaluation of constraints to meeting those needs, and (3) goals policies and programs; State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is charged with reviewing Housing Elements for compliance with the statute; HCD prepares written findings of the draft and adopted Housing Element and indicate in their opinion if the document complies with the statue; the locality has the option of amending the element to address the states concerns or adopting local findings which self-certify the element. The benefits to getting your housing element approved are increasing. It provides the jurisdiction with a legally adequate General Plan from the prospective of the housing element. There is the presumption of legal validity if someone were to challenge the CityÕs Housing Element if the State has already said you are complying with the statute. The housing element is required to demonstrate that the City has the zoning and the sites to accommodate the amount of growth that SCAG specifies. In this draft element Cotton Bridges has tried to identify why the City is unique and why you have constraints to developing multi-family housing, such as circulation, access, fire flows, lack of sewer availability, significant environmental constraints, alquist priolo, unstable slopes, wildlife corridor, and blue line streams.
In the rewrite of the housing element, they looked at the CityÕs growth potential. Vacant parcels with a minimum of 1 acre were evaluated. They identified 185 lots with about 450 gross acres, with a potential of 386 additional units. Based on these figures the City does have the math, however they are missing the multi-family and low-mod components. They also looked at the City Hall site, the Serifi property, Shell property as a potential for a Senior Housing Overlay Zone. Currently "The Heights Inn" is the only facility for seniors in the City. The Senior Housing Overlay Zone is a good faith effort to look at sites for senior assisted living.
Two thirds of the CityÕs Housing is older than 30 years in age. 30 years of age is the milestone where homes need more significant repairs, therefore they are also recommending a handyman program. They recommend continuation of the CityÕs Code Enforcement efforts and property maintenance efforts. This would help aging homeowners with needed repairs.
They included a goal to get projects before the Planning Commission within one month of the project being deemed complete.
Ms. Warner asked for input from the City Council and Planning Commission on the draft-housing element and receive direction to send the element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. They have 60 days to review the draft, at which time they will make recommendations and bring it back before the Planning Commission and City Council in public hearings.
Councilmember Borrowe asked staff regarding SB 910 and the challenges. He asked why La Habra Heights was not on the list in opposition?
Ms. Lindsey stated this afternoon; staff did send an opposition letter.
Mr. Colantuono explained SB 910 is a proposal that if you cannot meet the needs of your regional housing element the consequences are a loss of your gas tax revenue, and a loss of other revenues and fines.
Mr. Colantuono stated SCAG is the Southern California Association of Governments. It is a joint power entity formed by the 6 counties in the southern half of the state. There are about 388 jurisdictions within SCAG. It is one of several Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO). Every five years the Department of Finance advised the Department of Housing as to how much housing is needed in California to cure the existing housing deficit and to plan for further economic. HCD determines how much of that housing needs to occur within the SCAG region and gives SCAG a number. SCAG then assigns to each of their jurisdictions their fair share. After they assign the jurisdictions their numbers they define the income categories. Then they adjust those numbers so that affluent communities pick up more than there fair share of low-income housing.
Mayor Engelhardt clarified this proposal is how the City will meet the state housing mandate.
Mr. Colantuono explained the housing element before the Council is a constraintÕs element. It says it is not going to be feasible to accomplish housing affordably. It does outline the things the City can do to promote housing availability. The two programs that are new in this element are the Senior Housing Overlay Zone and the Volunteer Handyman Program to assist low-income seniors in maintaining their property. Staff is looking for direction from the Council to submit this to HCD as an administrative draft for their comments. When HCD comments are returned, staff will prepare a revised draft that attempts to respond to their comments as best we can. There will then be a noticed public hearing process before the Planning Commission and the City Council before the element can adopted.
M. Warner explained the Senior Housing Overlay Zone establishes in the housing element that will be evaluated in the land use element. It does not commit the City to establish a Senior Housing Overlay Zone on specific sites, it says as part of your land use update this will be looked at and specific sites will be evaluated and identified. This Overlay Zone showed HDC a good faith effort, given the CityÕs constraints. Without that there is no way to address low to moderate-income needs.
Mr. Colantuono stated the idea of the overlay is a commitment of the community, when you do your General Plan update and adopt a new land use element, to examine these sites and determine if they are appropriate place to put an affordable senior housing project. He asked if this overlay zone should be on the idealist for the General Plan Consultant and the General Plan Committee. Moving forward with an element that includes a Senior Housing Overlay Zone is not a commitment to building it or even planning to build it. It is a commitment to studying it in your General Plan update.
Mayor Engelhardt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward she closed the public hearing.
Mayor Engelhardt asked for the pleasure of the Council.
Councilmember Klein was not inclined to pursue the Senior Housing Overlay Zone.
Mayor Pro Tem Carroll agreed with Mr. Klein and asked to have the Senior Housing Overlay Zone deleted.
Councilmember Klein moved to direct staff to delete the Senior Housing Overlay Program from the Housing Element and then send off the draft to HCD. Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll.
Mayor Engelhardt asked if there was any discussion.
Councilmember Klein did not want to delay sending the draft off to HCD.
Councilmember Borrowe stated the Council has a very good defense to not go ahead with this, and agreed with Mr. Klein and Mr. Carroll.
Mayor Engelhardt called for the question and the motion was approved as follows:
Ayes: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein and Millsap
Noes: None
Abstain: None
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
None
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Engelhardt adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lindsey
(010531SpcJointCC-PCMinutes)