CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 28, 2006
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Millsap called the July 28, 2006 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:08 P.M. in the Community Center, 1245 Hacienda Road.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Tela Millsap, Mayor Pro Tem Brian Bergman, Councilmembers Stan Carroll, Bruce Douglas, and Fred Klein. Also present: City Attorney Sandra Levin, City Manager Ronald Bates, Community Development Director Justin Powers, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, Transtech Vice President Robert Quintero and City Engineer Jaleh.
3. FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Mayor Millsap.
Mayor Millsap opened the Public Hearing and asked the City Manager if he had any additional cards or letters.
City Manager Bates noted that there is one more item of mail received on July 27, 2006 from Nancy and James Acocks and they asked to be considered under Public Comments.
4. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2006-09, GRADING MODIFICATION 2006-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-01, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2006-02 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN 1 FOR 707 DOROTHEA ROAD
Community Development Director (CDD) Powers presented the Staff Report. He noted a brief history of the project at 707 Dorothea Road, back to 2001. There were many violations. He noted that the Applicant was Ken Parsons and the owner is Dean Smith.
CDD Powers noted the project figures based on the existing illegal conditions. The proposed impervious coverage is under the allowable. He described how the present project figures differ from the previously approved project. Total living space is now 153 square feet larger. Mr. Powers presented a Conceptual Landscape Plan and Conceptual Landscape Views from neighborsÕ homes and Cypress Street. Mr. Powers stated that they received one letter on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and staff has made some minor corrections and clarifications due to the comments. He also noted some new conditions that they have.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 06-16, Conditional Use Permit CUP 2006-01, Standards Modification SM 2006-09,Grading Modification GM 2006-02, Tree Removal Permit TRP 2006-02, and CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 1.
Ken Parsons, Architect and Applicant, stated that the Settlement Agreement influenced how he approached the design of the project. They considered several alternatives for the house and decided the best placement was where the previous house had been proposed and would have the least impact on the surrounding homes.
The Council discussed the project with Mr. Parsons and Mr. Lamb.
Charles Lamb, Landscape Architect, noted that at the north end of the project, they have replaced the pine trees with native plants and we can change the trees that were too tall with shorter trees.
The Council discussed the drainage effect on the area with the Civil Engineer.
Pete Gambino, Civil Engineer, stated that they designed the detention basin to handle the drainage from the property. It allows for percolation and also the rate of runoff from the detention basin/pond. The percolation study was done and nothing was found problematic.
Councilmember Douglas asked to specifically check that there is no potential for destabilization and nothing that would cause destabilization to the south of the project.
Mayor Millsap opened the meeting for public comment on this item.
Jerry Shipman, Dorothea Road, stated that the lot was illegally graded and trees removed in February 2001 and started construction of the ÒwallÓ in December of 2002. He stated his concerns: 1. incorrect grading plan, 2. size of the structure, 3. landscape plan and 4. incomplete plans; original contours need to be correct; asked why the Council is pushing this project?
CDD Powers explained that the grading plan is actually a compromise between a smooth slope up to Cypress for support and the step. We can go back and look at a compromise, but what you see now is what has been proposed.
Mike Bagwell, Dorothea Road, stated that the proposed project endangers his family and is a hazard to his property; drainage calculations are wrong; landscaping; breech of Settlement Agreement; incomplete application reports; errors in the Agenda Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration; peer review and many more concerns.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, suggested that the Council read Mr. BagwellÕs package, as it is very compelling and plans need to be completed; the previously proposed retaining wall was too tall and long and did not follow the General Plan, should not be approved. The present project meets the codes but not the General Plan; house is too big; it has gone from bad to worse; house will dominate the site and overwhelms the neighborhood and needs to be sent back for substantial changes.
Margarita McCoy, Kashlan Road, speaking as a Planning Commissioner was surprised to learn that the same project that had been unanimously voted as too large at the March meeting had somehow been approved. It is bigger than the average size of homes in the neighborhood; the residents are not happy and we owe them consideration.
Norm Zezula, spoke about the large size of house; violation of the General Plan; it will take too long for the landscaping to screen such a house; this project home has grown from the previously approved 4,300 square feet to approximately 7,300 and from one story to two stories; he stated that in his opinion, it is a matter of people making more money on bigger houses; special privileges have been granted.
Ann Cote, Dorothea Road, noted that her main objection is the size of the home; it will appear significantly larger and more massive than the homes around it, violating the General Plan. This will set a General Plan weakening precedent.
Ed Borrowe, Reposado, stated there will be a tremendous impact on the traffic during this project and access will not be practical from Cypress Street. This needs careful consideration.
James and Nancy Acocks, (letter), stated that the house is too big, the Standards Modification is too great. If that amount can be brought down to 250 square feet or less they would agree. Grading should be as close to the natural terrain as possible.
Ken Parsons, Applicant, commented that the living area is about 5,800 square feet, the rest of the size is comprised of decks, balconies, garages, patios and other covered areas and approaches 7300 square feet. We have done what we can to cut down size and place it on the best spot on the lot and still meet the codes; how far do we look to match the character of the neighborhood. We have created a smaller footprint, stayed within the height limit and without the illegal grading and the wall we should meet the requirements.
Mike Bagwell, Dorothea Road, noted that the roofline is one foot lower, but the house is three feet taller and the footprint is smaller, but the second floor is larger so the result is a more massive structure.
Mayor Millsap closed the Public Comment.
1:16:18
The Council discussed the project with staff.
CDD Powers answered some of the violations brought up by Mr. Bagwell.
Councilmember Carroll asked the City Attorney to explain the Settlement Agreement.
City Attorney Levin explained the Settlement Agreement. There was a prior approval of the project and ÒfindingsÓ made in 2005. A decision must be made that is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Code and the prior approval.
CDD Powers explained that there is a Geotechnical report made in 2001, which we think shows the natural grades prior to the illegal grading. It is a sketch and not precise. The plans are complete for Conceptual Plans. When the Planning Commission agreed in March that the house was too big, there were no votes taken as we just wanted input from the residents and Planning Commission.
The City Attorney stated that the applicant declined to bring back a smaller house and wanted to go forward with the project he had. She noted that a number of issues Mr. Bagwell brought up will be addressed later in the process. It is a judgement call. Mr. Bagwell also pointed out some discrepancies between the Conceptual Plans and some of the material we received. Staff considered them within the range of normal errors. There should not be this type of error in final plans. If they canÕt comply with the plan or some of the codes, they wonÕt be able to use the approval.
Councilmember Klein discussed with staff how and where the heights of the proposed house were measured and verified that the impervious coverage figures are correct.
Mayor Millsap closed the Public Hearing and returned it to the Council for discussion.
After stating his opinion, Councilmember Klein moved to approve the project at 707 Dorothea and Resolution No. 06-16 along with the 15-day extension for the remaining deadlines of the Settlement Agreement. Councilmember Carroll seconded the motion.
Councilmember Douglas asked if Councilmembers Klein and Carroll would agree to the conditions mentioned earlier as follows:
ÒThat the Applicant obtain a Geotechnical opinion that there would be no destabilization from the retention basin or negative impact from infiltration of water due to the retention basinÓ and Òthe possible view impediment for the properties north of Cypress due to height of screening trees be addressed in the final submittal of the landscape architectÓ.
City Attorney Levin noted that the second condition is covered in Condition 51 of the Resolution and asked how they want to draft such a condition.
Councilmember Douglas stated that the CDD should verify with the Landscape Architect that trees should not impair the view from the north.
Councilmembers Klein and Carroll agreed to those conditions.
Mayor Pro Tem Bergman and Mayor Millsap continued with their comments on the project.
The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Bergman, Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
1:52:30
OLD BUSINESS
5. DECISION WHETHER TO RECONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON GRADING MODIFICATION 2005-11 AND STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2005-27 (Jenkins) 1600 Kashlan Road
City Manager Bates explained that this item is for the City Council to decide whether or not to reconsider their July 13, 2006 decision to grant the appeal on this matter. This would require someone on the Council that voted for the appeal to make a motion to reconsider that decision. The City received letters from the Architect and from the owner of 1600 Kashlan Road, indicating a willingness to make some modifications to their proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council decide whether or not to reconsider its decision of July 13, 2006 to grant the appeal in this matter and, if the appeal is reconsidered, set the re-hearing for September 14, 2006.
City Attorney Levin explained that the applicant is allowed to ask for reconsideration of the decision at the same meeting it was made, or the next meeting. This does not change the decision but only allows for reconsideration of the project at another meeting. If you do not decide to reconsider the project with changes they can bring back a new project application and start all over. If the project is scheduled for reconsideration, it would involve rehearing the appeal and considering alternatives that hadnÕt been presented at the last Appeal.
The City Council discussed whether this should go to the Planning Commission rather than back to the City Council since changes in the plan are expected.
Mayor Millsap opened the meeting for Public Comment on Item 5.
Layne Baroldi, Vice Chairman for the Planning Commission, spoke on the issue of Impervious Coverage due to the easements on the property, which caused a decision that the basic purpose was to control water. Present Municipal Code notes that Ònet areaÓ should not include easements; Mr. Baroldi stated that in his opinion the owner has the right to use the easements for figuring the net area that controls the amount of Impervious Coverage allowed. Deduction of the easements in figuring net area would act as a penalty for the owner.
Margarita McCoy, Kashlan Road noted that she is glad to hear the plans will be revised; she requested that the new plans come back to the Planning Commission for consideration rather than to the City Council as the Commission is already familiar with the project and its problems; stated her opinion that if the Commission approved the revised plans it would not need to return to the Council.
Ken Parsons, Architect, stated that their concern was that they would have to start back at the beginning, which would take a lot of time; he and the owner concentrated on following the suggestions given at the Council meeting. He is willing to follow whichever decision is made as to who reviews the new plan.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, stated that he is glad that the Architect is going to reduce the size of the house; he felt the new plan should go to the Planning Commission and it should be complete plans. He asked that the numbers should be checked for accuracy.
Norm Zezula, stated that he agrees that this project should go back to the Commission.
City Attorney Levin explained that the City Manager, the Mayor or two Councilmembers can place something on the agenda, although the practice has been that one Councilmember can have it placed on the agenda. We can check the written policy.
Councilmember Douglas moved to reconsider their decision to approve the appeal made on July 13, 2006. Seconded by Councilmember Carroll.
The subject had considerable discussion. They also discussed whether the Council or the Commission should consider the revised plan in this situation.
The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Carroll, Douglas and Millsap
NOES: Bergman and Klein
ABSENT: None
Norm Zezula asked if since the appeal will be reconsidered, does that mean the Appellant will not get his fee back like he would when it was thought he won the appeal?
The City Attorney explained that at this point we do not know the outcome of the appeal.
The Council noted the fact that the plan would be different, so what would they be reconsidering?
The City Attorney stated that what is coming forward has not been studied and it depends on how extensive the changes are.
Stephen Blagden requested a copy of the plans when they come in.
Ken Parsons stated that he had copyright laws that do not allow the plans to go to the public without his permission and if Mr. Blagden writes a letter asking to see the new plans he will consider it.
Councilmember Klein asked if there is a time limit till the plans would be open to the public and will they have time to study the plans before a decision is made?
City Attorney Levin noted that this doesnÕt change the normal process. Staff will give the Council a recommendation that says either this is a minor change that could be processed as a condition, or this is a whole new plan and needs to be re-analyzed.
Mr. Blagden stated that he needs the plans early to make comments on them in time for the meeting packet. He explained that he talked to the Deputy Attorney General and was told that Conceptual Plans are open to the public, but when they are approved and getting building permits they need the approval of the Architect.
Margarita McCoy stated that every citizen has the right to appeal.
Ed Borrowe noted that he felt it was wrong that the City Manager knew letters were coming in that asked for a reconsideration of the approval of the appeal made on July 13, 2006, and then agendized the item. Mr. Edwardz wants to talk about the fire safety issue and has written letters but the City Manager will not agendise it.
Mayor Millsap noted that she knew he was expecting the letters and was placing it on the agenda and she did not object.
George Edwardz noted that even though he has written letters, he has not been able to get something on the agenda about wanting to finance a fire station and a fire engine and cited a small Brea station that has a 4X4 staffed by one fireman. He gave some tips to help aid in fighting and preventing wildfires. Mr. Edwardz requested their presentation be on the September Agenda.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, stated that he would like to try tonightÕs reasoning and send a letter for reconsideration of changing the Parks and Recreation Commission to a Committee. He mentioned a grading plan that didnÕt show the grading and a meeting with three Engineers that couldnÕt tell what was going to be done, because they apparently hadnÕt looked at the plans and expected the Planning Commission to give direction without knowing what was going on. The second plan was an example of the applicant deducting various areas to get the impervious coverage and graded area down by half and the Engineers just let it slide so it was approved. The City Council needs to send a message to the City Manager and the Engineers that the Grading and Impervious Coverage needs to be shown with correct numbers.
CDD Powers explained what happened on the plans that were incomplete and the Applicant ended up pulling the project.
City Manager Bates noted that on the City Council Meeting of August 10, 2006 Municipal Code Articles 4, 5, and 6 will be considered and shortly thereafter, we will give you Article 7 to look over. At the same time staff and the Committee will work on 9, 10 and 12 and then allow the last meetings we have scheduled to try to deal with 7, 8. We will try to meet the deadline of October 7th so we can have the new Codes in effect prior to the day after the November election.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND NOT ON THE AGENDA
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Millsap adjourned the meeting at 10:04 P.M. to the next Regular City Council Meeting on August 10, 2006.
ATTEST:
________________________________
RONALD BATES, CITY CLERK