CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
LA HABRA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Millsap called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of September 25, 2006 to order at 7:40 P.M. in the Multi-Purpose room at 1245 Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Tela Millsap, Mayor Pro Tem Brian Bergman, and 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, and Consultant Marc Blodgett.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Millsap led the flag salute.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, noted that 25-foot front yard and 20-foot other setbacks need to be restored; block wall requirements; extended foundations that exceed two stories, they should rather conform to the terrain; heights should be limited; restore the .25 for proportional setbacks on Exhibit 7-5 and in second story setback in 7.18.40 E; commented on views; on Table 7-12 thresholds for Staff and Commission discretion need to be reduced; slope density.
Judy Ennis, Virazon Drive, commented we should not bend to trends such as very large homes; larger setbacks for large homes do not help enough.
Norm Zezula, stated that at the last meeting he did not mean to imply that the Council was deliberately trying to fail to implement Policy 21. Justin had pointed out that there are other Ordinance provisions that attempt to achieve the same results by different means, I am still investigating this; called attention to 7.2.20 F which gives the CDD the power to interpret uncertain parts of the Article and his written interpretation will be used in similar situations. Do we want this? Mr. Zezula asked that the written interpretation be submitted to the Council before they become binding;
Davida Pearson, Bonnie Jean, noted that we need to be careful that our Ordinances do not reduce our property values.
George Edwardz, Fullerton Road, spoke about the report he has requested that tells our ISO rating, which is 3/9 and that is unsatisfactory; he asked if our incident reports are public; noted that the La Habra Heights Fire Department does not have the proper equipment for getting water from swimming pools. He referred to our Water Department report which does not guarantee a sufficient water flow to protect La Habra Heights.
Pam McVicar, Hillside Court, stated her concerns that the new Ordinances will lower the property values and violate property rights; she expressed her opinion that the 4000-foot limit for a house footprint is unreasonable and does not think ÒruralÓ in the General Plan should be connected to the size of the house; who decides what is reasonable to take care of non-conformities? Make Ordinances less restrictive or put them to a vote.
Raphael Fernandez, East Skyline Drive, objected to 7.18.40 A; amounts to an unreasonable percentage of site coverage. He stated that he considers this a taking of our land by a government agency. It will devalue the lots significantly and will discourage remodeling; please reduce such restrictive Ordinances.
Faith Grimm, presented a powerpoint presentation of residents concerns about the new proposed Ordinances. The main concerns seem to be making sure new developments do not become mansions and 90% of La Habra Heights is already developed. The main concern should be to guide residents on remodeling and updating existing properties. Many of the figures in the new Ordinances are cumulative, making things more difficult. Grading has been limited cumulatively including previous grading. Allowed grading is the same on a hilly lot and on a flat lot. Hardscape requirements are equally unreasonable. Ms. Grimm suggested ways to make the Ordinances fairer. More definitions are needed for the section on Animal Keeping.
Mayor Millsap asked for a copy of Faith GrimmÕs presentation for the record.
Dave Shroeder, Amate Drive, spoke about how difficult it would be to remodel a non-conforming house.
Dave Raj stated that he would like the Council to rethink the new restrictions. He stated that the 4000 square foot limit is too restrictive.
Mayor Millsap stated that she had received a few written comments. She also stated that we are not rushing these Ordinances to completion before Proposition 90 might be approved.
City Attorney Levin stated that she could give no advice on Proposition 90 and it is hard to find two people who agree on what it might mean. She explained that the footprint of a house is not the same as square footage. The Ordinances were written to supply more flexibility as lots are not the same. Standards Modifications are allowed. The footprint is not modifiable. Attorney Levin noted that Incident reports are not available to the public if there is personal information in the report.
City Manager Bates stated that it would probably be easier to get the ISO report from the company that puts them out and he can provide the information on who to contact for that. There was also an issue on the Draft Hydrants. The Fire Chief has talked to the Water Company and found that the pressure should be adequate except by the towers.
City Attorney Levin stated that there are no prohibitions on rehabilitating a building in place. You cannot increase the non-conformity in rehabilitating the building.
1:28:30
4. LHH MUNICIPAL CODE ARTICLE 7
The Council began consideration at Chapter 7.12 - Landscape Standards.
City Manager Bates noted on Page 7-40 the addition made by the Planning Commission on 7.12.40 J, that Òmeasures other than landscaping may be used for temporary erosion control prior to completion of construction.Ó
The consensus of the Council was to accept this addition.
City Attorney Levin stated that on Page 7-44 Item 7.13.40-6, the Planning Commission changed it to read, ÒResidential access must be limited to a single driveway with no more than two access points on a single road.Ó They did this as a safety issue regarding having to back out of the driveway, turnarounds are sometimes obstructed, and is not objectionable to the rural requirement.
The consensus of the Council was to accept this change.
The Council discussed the next changes by the Planning Commission on Page 7-48, 7.14.40 B, C, and E.
The consensus of the Council was to scratch the change in B but change the offset to 10 feet.
The consensus of the Council was to reject the clarification by the Planning Commission on 7.14.40 C and in first sentence after Òwithin a lot,Ó add the words Òin compliance with this ArticleÓ and keep the rest of the original words.
The consensus of the Council for 7.14.40 E was to accept the correction from the Planning Commission and add a staff correction saying Òor adversely affects health or safety.Ó
3:06:48
The Council consensus was to accept the added information in 7.14.40 U by the Planning Commission.
On page 7-51 V, staff added an exception for OSRP Zone lots having a minimum size with conditions for basically flat lots.
The consensus of the Council was to accept the staff change on 7.14.40 V.
On page 7-52 Exhibit 7-11 from the Planning Commission should be replaced by a table of values derived from the curve in the current Code and to round the degrees to the nearest whole number.
The Council consensus was to follow the Planning Commission suggestion and anything over a certain percentage rounds up.
The Mayor called an intermission for a videotape change at 10:37 P.M. and resumed the meeting at 10:47 P.M.
3:48:37
The consensus of the Council on Page 7-56, 7.17.30 A and B was to include the agricultural grading exception there, while following the rest of the performance standards as worded by City Attorney Levin.
Page 7-57, 7.17.30 G Landscaping. The Planning Commission made changes so other than landscaping could control erosion on graded areas before the completion of construction.
The consensus of the Council was to accept this change.
On Page 7-57, 7.17.40 B the Planning Commission added a sentence allowing agricultural exclusions when determining permanent graded areas.
The consensus of the Council was to change the Planning Commissions addition to include Òthat do not use retaining walls and are in conformance with the grading standards of this chapter for Accessory Uses, may be excluded in determining permanent graded area.Ó
City Attorney Levin noted that they would not be able to terrace and plant the ridgeline.
4:00:21
The Council discussed Exhibit 7-13 on Allowable Maximum Permanent Graded and Hardscape Surface Areas.
City Attorney Levin explained that the current Code tries to address the issues of slope, area and size all in one formula. The new proposed Code tries to do the same thing, but not all in one formula. The results will be affected by the total of more than one formula. Trying to compare the old Code and the New Code is like comparing apples and oranges. You may need a little more information. She stated that further comparison of past projects between the old and new Codes would take a lot of time and would not really be particularly helpful. She was of the opinion that diagrams of how the new portions of this Code work would be more helpful to see if they would work or not.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, commented that half of the Oil Company properties fall under the exceptions read by the City Attorney. The Las Palomas property, though flat, is saturated year round, has a natural drainage course running through the property and needs to be addressed. Policies have been removed that affect the General Plan and need to be replaced. This could put the General Plan in legal jeopardy. He stated that he supports maximum permanent grading and hardscape; the existing Code is failing the City and no longer supports the General Plan. Views are not sufficiently addressed in Article 7, so should be addressed in Article 12.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Millsap continued the Council Meeting at 11:41 P.M. untill Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.
ATTEST:
______________________________
RONALD BATES, CITY CLERK