MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
JULY 12, 2001
CLOSED SESSION
As based on advice from legal counsel, the City Council finds that discussing closed session items in open session will prejudice the position of the local agency in litigation. With all five Councilmembers in attendance, the meeting was adjourned to a closed session at 6:30 p.m. Also present were City Manager Lindsey and City Attorney Colantuono.
OPENING CEREMONIES
The meeting was reconvened in open session at 7:45 p.m. It was reported that no actions were taken which requires reporting regarding closed session items pertaining to existing litigation and an employee matter.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the La Habra Heights City Council was called to order by Mayor Engelhardt at 7:46 p.m. on Thursday, July 12, 2001, at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present were: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap. Also present were City Manager Lindsey, City Attorney Colantuono, Fire Chief Nelson, Planning Director Sanderson, Senior Management Analyst Orchanian, City Engineer Milano, Fire Marshal Nielson, Sheriff's Department Captain Binkley and Lieutenant Ault, and Deputy City Clerk Coulter.
FLAG SALUTE
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Trevor Speer led the salute to the flag.
4. PRESENTATION
A commendation was presented to Shaun D. Harris, Boy Scout Troop 883, in recognition of earning the rank of Eagle Scout.
A commendation was presented to "Los Compadres' Students of the Year" local high school graduates in recognition of their outstanding scholastic achievements and citizenship.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS ON THE AGENDA AND NOT ON THE AGENDA
Nancy Acocks, Dorothea indicated that resident and former Councilmember Judy Hathaway-Francis using time allocation for serving as a La Habra Heights Councilperson to be credited towards her PERS retirement is unjustifiable.
Chris Laurich, West Road, reported on a weed problem and dumping in the creek at property located near Cloister Drive and West Road.
Ed Borrowe, Reposado Drive, reported on the L. A. County Sheriff's Department Volunteers On Patrol (VOP) program and urged residents to join.
Kathy Sauble, Emergency Preparedness Chairperson, reported on swimming pool safety and drowning prevention.
Dyanna Heiss, Encanada Drive, reported on a neighborhood network program where residents will assist in looking for a lost pet.
Eugene Metzger, Dorothea Road, thanked the Council for its support last month and asked that this evening's proposed resolution be adopted pertaining to 501 Dorothea Road (agenda item 10.)
FINANCIAL MATTERS
5. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
The June warrants in the amount of $412,217.83 were unanimously approved.
6. TREASURER'S REPORT FOR JUNE 2001
The Treasurer's Report consisted of:
Cash & Investments
Schedule of LAIF Investments
Cash with Fiscal Accounts
RKA Civil Engineers
Richard, Watson, & Gershon Law Firm
Major Conditional Use Permits
District No. 1 Activities
Fund Activity Report
Budget Reports
City Manager Lindsey was asked to see if Crimson Oil is behind in its payments to the City.
There being no objection, the Treasurer's Report was deemed received and filed.
STANDARD MOTIONS
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of a Regular City Council Meeting of June 14, 2001.
The minutes for June 14, 2001 were unanimously approved.
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. It was recommended that items 8a through 8e be acted upon simultaneously by one motion of the City Council unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by a Councilmember or a member of the audience.
It was requested that items 8a, 8c, and 8e be removed for separate discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
8b. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 26006
A Resolution to deny an appeal for Tentative Tract Map 26006 to create four (4) lots located on the west side of Cloister Drive, south of West Road.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOLUTION No. 01-24
City Attorney Colantuono stated that with the adoption of this Resolution, the Council will have taken final action. The statute of limitations for challenges is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Civil Procedure Code. A copy of the signed resolution will be mailed to the applicant giving notice, and with proof of mailing starts the time period to file challenges.
The City Attorney introduced the title as previously noted.
8d. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE
Consideration of application received on July 2, 2001 from Dyanna Heiss to serve on the La Habra Heights Emergency Preparedness Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE APPOINTMENT
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll, which was seconded by Councilmember Klein to adopt staff's recommendations for agenda item 8b and 8d. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Burrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CONSENT CALENDAR - Continued
8a. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A VIEW PRESERVATION MODIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO LOT 9 OF THE RESERVE AT LA HABRA HEIGHTS
A Resolution to deny Standards Modification 2000-36 for a view preservation and the construction of a residential dwelling at 501 Dorothea Road.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOLUTION No. 01-25
A motion was offered by Councilmember Borrowe which was seconded by Councilmember Millsap to adopt Resolution 01-25 to deny a standards modification for a view preservation application.
City Attorney Colantuono stated that with the adoption of this Resolution, the Council will have taken final action. The statute of limitations for challenges is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Civil Procedure Code. A copy of the signed resolution will be mailed to the applicant giving notice and with proof of mailing starts the time period to file challenges.
The City Attorney introduced the title as previously noted.
The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Engelhardt, and Millsap
NOES: Carroll and Klein
ABSTAIN: None
8c. HEIGHTS CHRISTIAN SCHOOL PROJECT
Status report for the Heights Christian School.
RECOMMENDATION: RECEIVE AND FILE
Following discussion of this matter, the consensus was that the Planning Commission will consider the amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-01 at a Special Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, July 18, 2001.
8e. CANYON FLY STATUS REPORT
An update report on Canyon Flies
RECOMMENDATION: RECEIVE AND FILE
Resident Francis Shultz, La Riata Drive, spoke stating she has been investigating this problem and would like to set up a volunteer committee to obtain funding from residents to pay for research on how to control the Canyon Fly population in our community.
Mayor Pro Tem Carroll said he would also like to work on this project.
City Manager Lindsey was directed to discuss with County Supervisor Knabe regarding funds to pay for research.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2000-10, STANDARDS MODIFICATION (SM) 2000-35, AND VARIANCE 2001-01
Planning Director Sanderson presented the staff report regarding property at 16390 Las Cumbres Drive for a CUP to construct a lighted tennis court; a standards modification to encroach into the side-yard setback area; and a variance to exceed the allowed impervious coverage. She reported this matter was considered by the Planning Commission on May 22, 2001 and June 26, 2001. Concerns were expressed by the Commissioners regarding the proposed tennis court encroaching 15 feet into the 25-foot setback area. The Planning Commissions' recommendations are for the City Council to deny CUP 2000-10, SM 2000-35, and Variance 2001-01.
Planning Director Sanderson responded to a question of Councilmember Klein that the impervious coverage as proposed exceeds the allowable by 100%.
Mayor Engelhardt opened the public hearing.
Ramaswamy L. Ramkumar, property owner at Redondo Drive, Whittier, reported on the two meetings held with the Planning Commission. Since the Planning Commission did not seem to be in favor of the project, he offered to bring back another proposal at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. However, at the June meeting, the Commission did not consider the alternate proposal and adopted a resolution for denial.
Mr. Ramkumar said that he is frustrated regarding the handling of this matter, but he would like to continue working with the City and is willing to make concessions, i.e. reduce the size of the tennis court and eliminate the swimming pool.
As a request for clarification by the City Attorney, Mr. Ramkumar responded that he is withdrawing his CUP application, but that he wishes to continue with his project.
Mr. Ramkumar said that based on General Plan guidelines, he believes he is in conformance. He pointed out that the two parcels are in two different cities, and opined this to be a hardship case. He indicated some concessions should be allowed due to the property's handy cap--noting a driveway (easement) on his property that services neighboring properties and is of no benefit to him.
Mike Douglass, Project Architect, 4401 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 200, Long Beach, addressed the General Plan and discussed how this project can be in conformance if the City is willing to work with the applicant. Further discussion entailed issues dealing with landscape, fire hazard compliance, erosion control, neighbors' approval, property rights, and bordering high-density properties.
Since no one further wished to testify, Mayor Engelhardt closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued between the City Council and the City Attorney as to several alternatives the Council may choose from and their potential effects on the applicant.
During Council's comments to Mr. Ramkurmar, it was pointed out that unfortunately the Council is not in a position this evening to examine the reduced impervious coverage information.
A motion was offered by Councilmember Klein which was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll to deny without prejudice to a new filing (at no additional cost to the applicant). City Attorney Colantuono was directed to incorporate the appropriate language to the Resolution and bring back at the August 9th meeting for Council's approval. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Ramkurmar was invited to work on a new application for the revised alternative plan and submit to the Planning Department at his earliest convenience.
10. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2000-13
Planning Director Sanderson presented the staff report for consideration of CUP 2000-13 to operate a Sprint PCS facility at the Hacienda Golf Club located at 718 East Road. The project has been reviewed environmentally; staff believes that findings can be made in support of the project; and the Planning Commissions' recommendation is for the City Council to adopt the negative declaration and approve the proposed resolution.
It was noted that letters of opposition to the project are part of this evening's agenda report.
City Attorney Colantuono advised the City Council that federal law prohibits the City from regulating this issue based on concerns regarding health effect of radio frequency emissions provided that the tower complies with FCC standards for radio frequency.
Mayor Engelhardt opened the public hearing.
Applicant Mike Blackwell, representing Compass Telecom Services on behalf of Sprint, reported on a wireless telecommunication facility to include the installation of six equipment cabinets on a concrete slab; an 8-foot high block wall; and the replacement of an existing 60-foot end pole in the vicinity of the golf course driving range.
Mr. Blackwell responded to Council's questions that the average pole at the current site measures to be 16 inches in diameter at the base of the pole and the new pole will be 24 inches in diameter at the top end of the pole. If the City so desires, additional carriers may benefit from the use of the pole--including the City's Fire Department. He provided a graphic map indicating the increased coverage with the Sprint system.
Michael Rodriquez, representing Sprint, said that this is one of the best-looking sites he has seen since it replaces what is already there.
Stephen Sixt, East Road, and Vickie Black, East Road, spoke in opposition of the project. Several options were suggested to relocate the telecommunication facility elsewhere on the Hacienda Golf Course premises.
Mr. Blackwell addressed all suggestions and explained why this was the most desirous site due to its direct line of sight providing the most clear signal.
Since no one further wished to testify, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Blackwell agreed to the suggestion that an artificial tree to house the antennas could be a viable option. He explained that the reason for using the existing pole is because this option would be the least disruptive environmentally.
A motion was offered by Councilmember Klein, which was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll to continue this item to the August 9, 2001 Council meeting. The applicant was directed to do further research and try to find a better location that would not be obtrusive to nearby neighbors. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
OLD BUSINESS
11. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS CREATING A POLICY FOR THE MESSAGE DISPLAY SIGN LOCATED AT THE PARK FACILITY
City Manager Lindsey presented the staff report indicating that in 1993 the message sign at The Park had been donated to the City by the La Habra Heights Improvement Association. This report is for the City Council to approve the message display sign policy at The Park, 1885 North Hacienda Road.
Based on the City Attorney's recommendation, item 4 of the proposed resolution reading, "The sign is to be used to identify community and City events" was amended to read, "The sign is to be used to identify community events sponsored by the City and City events."
A motion was offered Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Borrowe to adopt Resolution 01-26 entitled as noted. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS ADOPTING AN OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1,2001, AND ENDING JUNE 30 2002, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH
A motion was offered by Mayor Engelhardt to continue the current budget and continue discussion on the proposed budget to another evening.
Mayor Pro Tem Carroll suggested that with the exception of the Fire Department budget, the City Council could proceed and adopt the City's proposed FY 2001-02 budget this evening.
Both Councilmembers Borrowe and Millsap indicated that the proposed budget needs further revisions.
The motion on the floor died for a lack of second.
There was a consensus to have Councilmembers Borrowe and Millsap meet with the Budget Committee and City staff to discuss and work out concerns before the City Council meets again on Monday, July 23, 2001, (at 6:00 p.m.) to continue budget review.
Another motion was offered by Councilmember Borrowe to continue the City's current FY 2000-01 budget until such time as the proposed budget is adopted. Councilmember Klein seconded the motion.
Resolution 01-27 entitled as: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS CONTINUING THE 2000-01 ANNUAL BUDGET." (Please note: Although not in this evening's packet, this Resolution was first introduced at the July 9, 2001 Council meeting.)
The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12a. ADDED AGENDA ITEM -- APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON TO THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC)
This item came to the Council's attention after the posting of the agenda, and a motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Millsap to add the above-noted item to this evening's agenda. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Manager Lindsey presented the list of recently appointed members to the La Habra Heights GPAC Committee, and the following were noted for the record: Gene Beckman, George Casey, Harry Marco, Don Poling, Margarita Piel McCoy, Thomas Higgs, Randall Fritz, Roland vom Dorp, Ron Phillips, Crane Miller, Robert Karman, Bruce Douglas, Benny Mosley, Sr., Eloise Phillips and Mike Cole.
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Klein to appoint Gene Beckman as the Committee's Chairperson. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Klein to appoint George Casey as the Committee's Vice Chairperson. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
NEW BUSINESS
13. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE CHARTER
Items 13 and 14 were handled simultaneously. (For details - please refer to agenda item 14.)
14. PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL PROCEDURE
Councilmember Klein said that he would like a staff report on this matter including the City Attorney's review regarding suggestions made by the Roads Committee. Several concerns were expressed by Councilmember Klein. He indicated that the procedure, as proposed, appears to work against the City's established chain of command. Regarding the Committee reporting directly to the City Council, he feels that the Roads Committee should support the City Engineer; noting that wording such as "monitor" and "oversight" in their report is a disturbing.
Mayor Engelhardt disagreed with Councilmember Klein's observations stating that what is needed is a system of check and balances; this would not provide authority over the City Engineer nor interfere with the City Engineer doing his job. Other cities have oversight committees, and this would be a procedure for people to have accountability. The Mayor said she would like to have a system in place where the Council receives advise from a group of residents who may also have experience in the field.
Councilmember Klein observed that staff should know from whom to receive orders and clear direction is needed as to how the Council wants staff is to spend its time; discussion ensued. There seemed to be a consensus that a Committee agenda item--in the form of a recommendation to the Council--will be placed at the end of the agenda under "Commission-Committee Reports."
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Klein to move agenda items 13 and 14 to the September 13, 2001 Council meeting. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Carroll, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: Borrowe and Engelhardt
ABSENT: None
15. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS SETTING THE CITY'S SPECIAL FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION SERVICES TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2001-02
Fire Chief Nelson presented the annual fire tax resolution and the staff report. Additionally, several handouts were provided regarding Fire Tax Revenue Projections, the Department's 6-Year Infrastructure Plan, Fire Operations/Special Program, and accounting detail regarding training operations.
A motion was offered which was duly seconded to continue this item to the Monday, July 23, 2001 Council meeting. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
16. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Lindsey reported that Crimson Oil Management has completed its pipeline operations and is ceasing its operations to transport oil via trucks.
17. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Colantuono provided information on the Assessment Ballot Proceeding for Citywide Maintenance District III.
18. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
City Engineer Milano reported on the upcoming reconstruction of Hacienda Road.
19. FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
Fire Chief Nelson gave the fire Department's monthly operation status report and apprised the City council of additional matters of interest.
20. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
None
CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Engelhardt adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:35 p.m. to a Special Council meeting to be held at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, July 23, 2001, to continue the City's FY 2001-02 Budget study.
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk Lindsey
(010712RegCCMinuts)
PAGE 1
Minutes of July 12, 2001
Regular City Council Meeting
Page PAGE 8
CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 14, 2001
CLOSED SESSION
As based on advice from legal counsel, the City Council finds that discussing closed session items in open session will prejudice the position of the local agency in litigation; the meeting was adjourned to a closed session at 6:30 p.m. All five Councilmembers were present; also in attendance were City Manager Lindsey and City Attorney Colantuono.
OPENING CEREMONIES
The meeting was reconvened in open session at 7:35 p.m. It was reported that no actions were taken which would require reporting regarding closed session items pertaining to existing litigation and a public employee matter.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the La Habra Heights City Council was called to order by Mayor Engelhardt at 7:36 p.m. on Thursday, June 14, 2001, at the community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present were: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap. Also present were City Manager Lindsey, City Attorney Colantuono, Fire Chief Nelson, Planning Director Sanderson, City Engineer Milano (arrived at 9:05 p.m.) Deputy City Engineer Gilbertson, Fire Marshal Nielson, Sheriff's Department Captain Binkley, Sheriff's Department Lieutenant Ault, and Deputy City Clerk Coulter.
FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Mayor Engelhardt.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
5. PRESENTATION
California State Senator Bob Margett's staff was introduced, and Council was asked regarding areas of concern.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS ON THE AGENDA AND NOT ON THE AGENDA
Kathy Sauble, Chairperson for the Emergency Preparedness Committee, spoke regarding safely storing hazardous materials.
David Maislen, Flowerfield Lane, reported on the upcoming Garden Harvest at The Park. Additionally, he presented his views on Mr. Blagden's website which he opined was designed to look like it was created by the City.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, addressed issues pertaining to his website containing certain City-related information.
Jonlyn Baker, Leucadia Road, indicated that La Habra Heights residents need more information on how to protect themselves against Lime disease.
Fire Chief Nelson, apprised the community as to the upcoming Fire Department's fund-raiser pancake breakfast to be held on Father's Day at the Community Center.
FINANCIAL MATTERS
6. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
The May warrants in the amount of $424,908.28 were unanimously approved.
7. TREASURER'S REPORT FOR APRIL 2001
The Treasurer's Report consisted of:
Cash & Investments
Schedule of LAIF Investments
Cash with Fiscal Accounts
RKA Civil Engineers
Richard, Watson, & Gershon Law Firm
Major Conditional Use Permits
District No. 1 Activities
Fund Activity Report
Budget Reports
There being no objection, the Treasurer's Report was deemed received and filed.
STANDARD MOTIONS
8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of a Special City Council Meeting of September 12, 2000, a Regular City Council Meeting of January 11, 2001, and a Regular City Council Meeting of May 10, 2001.
Minutes for September 12, 2000, January 11, 2001, and May 10, 2001 were approved by Councilmembers who were in attendance at the noted meetings.
CONSENT CALENDAR
9. It was recommended that items 9a through 9f be acted upon simultaneously by one motion of the City Council unless separate discussion and/or action was requested by a Councilmember or a member of the audience.
Items 9b, 9c, 9d, and 9e were pulled for separate discussion.
a. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS ADOPTING TITLE 10, ANIMALS, OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL CODE
Approval of Ordinance would repeal, amend, and add provisions to Title 10 (Animals) of the Los Angeles County Code; bring Title 10 into compliance with changes in State law; update to reflect current policies; make corrections and revise the fee schedule.
RECOMMENDATION: WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 241 BY TITLE ONLY
f. AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FOR THE PROVISION OF PEST CONTROL SERVICES
Consideration to renew an on-going contract with the County of Los Angeles for rodent control services at The Park.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AGREEMENT
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Klein to approve staff's recommendations for items 9a and 9f. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
b. BOND(S) RELEASE FOR TRACT NO. 46591 (EPAC)
Consideration of releasing improvement securities for bonds held by the City pertaining to the EPAC Subdivision (Tract No. 46591) in compliance with Section 6 of the Subdivision Improvement agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion ensued regarding performance/payment bond procedures, securities to protect the City's interest, and staff's observations that the developer had fulfilled his obligations.
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Millsap to approve staff's recommendations. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
c. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS VACATING A PORTION OF A ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY IN LAS PALOMAS DRIVE WITHIN THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS AND AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THIS RESOLUTION
A Resolution approving the acceptance of offers to dedicate a portion of Las Palomas Drive at 2291 Canonita Drive in the City of La Habra Heights.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOLUTION No. 01-19
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Klein to adopt Resolution No. 01-19 to vacate a portion of the road-of-way in Las Palomas Drive. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
d. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR LOT 6 OF "THE RESERVE" SUBDIVISION
Consideration of a request by EPAC for a Certificate of Occupancy for Lot 6 of the Subdivision at 1335 El Paseo in the City of La Habra Heights.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Discussion between City Council and staff ensued regarding a previous concern of the City Council where the developer had not met a certain requirement. Deputy City Engineer Gilbertson responded in the affirmative that the developer had landscaped the slopes to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Borrowe to approve the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Lot 6. Staff was also authorized to issue future Certificates of Occupancy for The Reserve tract homes once approval level has been reached. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
e. HEIGHTS CHRISTIAN SCHOOL PROJECT
Status report for the Heights Christian School.
RECOMMENDATION: RECEIVE AND FILE
It was noted that the conceptual plans are to be ready on the following Monday. The Planning Director will review plans and check for compliance with height-limit standards and the view preservation ordinance.
It was decided if the architectural plans are received as indicated, Planning Director Sanderson will agendize a request for a special Planning Commission meeting for the applicant's conditional use permit. Regarding consent from the City of La Habra, Planning Director Sanderson suggested that a condition to the application be included pending La Habra's approval.
A motion was offered by Councilmember Klein which was seconded by Mayor Engelhardt to receive and file. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. AN APPEAL PERTAINING TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF STANDARDS MODIFICATION (SM) 2001-36
City Attorney Colantuono offered the following: Regarding the Metzgers' view lot, the Council's question should be, "Is allowing the construction of this house with its design and location substantially impairing the primary view from a view lot." Every permit issued must be in compliance with Zoning Ordinance, the City's General Plan and, in this case, also with the specific plan on site. If the Council concludes that approving this use is in keeping with the noted findings, then the City Attorney would suggest directing staff to prepare a resolution approving SM 2001-36, if not--have staff prepare a resolution to deny SM 2001-36, or the Council may conditionally grant approval.
City Clerk Lindsey concurred that notices regarding this matter had been posted as required by law. Other than the Metzger(s) and Swartzbaugh(s), no further communication for or against the matter was received.
Planning Director Sanderson presented the staff report stating that the appellant Dr. Eugene Metzger is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to approve a standards modification for a view preservation to construct a single family dwelling at Lot 9 of The Reserve subdivision at 501 Dorothea Road.
Mayor Engelhardt opened the public hearing.
Julia Kemp - attorney for the appellant, 800 So. Beach Boulevard, La Habra, stated that EPAC wishes to build a two-story home which does not contour with the natural terrain. She noted that the removal of the large hillside at across the street from the Metzgers in order to accommodate the proposed structure resulted in the demolish of the natural terrain and trees.
In the hillside management section in the Lynch Specific Plan it indicates that homes will be built to contour into the terrain and the developer will not place structures jutting up from the top of hillsides. She stated that the building, as proposed, would be in violation of the specific plan.
One of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission requires the project to be in compliance with the specific plan as well as the City's General Plan. Page 7 of the specific plan provides the following community development policy.
"Design all new developments to minimize impact on community character, surrounding neighborhoods, and natural features.
The project has been designed to preserve and enhance the rural character of La Habra Heights by providing large lots in a small secluded canyon as described in the visual resourcesÖthe project will not have detrimental affect to the adjacent developments.
Establish a gradual topographic transition between developments.
Limit the grading to that necessary to the primary use of each lot.
Utilize contour grading to present a round or undulating appearance blending in with the natural grade."
She asked why the Council is considering granting a developer special favors by deviating from the General Plan, Municipal Code, and the Lynch Specific Plan. The appellant requests that the standard modification be denied which, she believed, would have the developer submit a redesigned project more in line with the specific plan and less invasive to the Metzgers.
During the period for rebuttal, Ms. Kemp indicated that the appellant is not asking the Council to revisit the pad location or elevation. She opined that the misrepresentation this evening is that EPAC wishes to convey that the entire project has been approved, which she believes, is incorrect.
When the pad was approved for its elevation, it was with the understanding that the building would be a 16-foot structure contouring to the terrain, which would not allow a jutting structure. The issue before the Council this evening, she said, is an architectural issue--can EPAC build a two-story house where they placed the pad. The appellant requests that the developer be required to follow the specific plan.
Gene Metzger, 2249 Arsheal Drive, said that this ordeal has been a long process. He reported that the request to build this house was withdrawn by the developer with a promise to come back with a redesigned structure, re-orientations, and changes to try to mitigate the difficulties with neighbors. It appears that nothing has changed. In conclusion Mr. Metzger asked that the Council please consider his request and the site's surroundings.
The following residents spoke in favor of the appeal: Ann Kotea - 827 Dorothea Road, Carl Schumacher - 801 Dorothea Road, Jeff Potae - 827 Dorothea Road, Alen Boege - No. Cypress, Stephen Blagden - Citron Road.
Eric Rams, attorney for EPAC, stated that EPAC purchased the approved tract as it is today. The rough grading plans for this project was approved in 1998 and EPAC has acted within the approved plans. The attempt has been to re-orient the house by dropping the driveway four feet and there has been agreement to lower the building pad by two feet. The application for a preservation modification was supported and approved by La Habra Heights staff and Planning Commission.
Mr. Rams continued with the following observations: No significant impact was found on a principal view on any view lot and the Lot-9 structure would not significantly impair a view from any public property. Further, there is no significant cumulative impact by granting the view preservation modification. The application complies with the environmental quality act. There are no significant privacy issues; the Metzger's concerns regarding privacy can be remedied with proper landscaping which EPAC is willing to do.
La Habra Heights Municipal Code 9404.4a states that a view lot is one in which there exists a principal identifiable viewÖfurther defines a principal view as a scene not located within the immediate areaÖincludes a view of the ocean, Los Angeles or Orange County basin, San Gabriel Valley, city lights, mountains, harbor, shoreline, or off-shore island.
Code Section 9404.5a states that an applicant for a view modification must show why a proposed structure that exceeds the base measurements will not significantly impair the principal view of a property identified as having a view pursuant to Code Section 9404.4.
The Metzgers principal view is at the rear of the home which does not face Lot 9. EPAC has acted within the specific plan, but this evening's meeting is regarding a view modification application. The Metzger's home does not specifically look straight into the new residents, but rather beyond it. The rear of the Metzger's home has a panoramic view overlooking the Orange County basin, the ocean, and the Los Angeles basin; this view is not interrupted by said project.
Deputy City Engineer Gilbertson was asked to report on his research regarding previous approval of this project. He noted that in 1989 the City contracted with a different engineering company. Files indicate that several plans were presented with various alternatives for the Lot-9 pad elevation. Some showed access from the street in the development and some from Dorothea Road. Although access seemed to be a concern of the City Council, there was no condition that access be taken from a specific street. In 1997 the approved plan indicated that Lot 9 would have a pad elevation of 650 feet which removed the requirement for a 645-655-foot split pad as approved by the Planning Commission.
City Attorney Colantuono concurred with Councilmember Klein that the time to appeal the Planning Commission's decision regarding the specific plan and matters pertaining to pad elevation has lapsed.
The City Attorney continued that this evening's Council decision is for a standards modification for a view preservation. He indicated that while EPAC cannot be asked to redesign the lot; take access from within the tract; nor significantly change the height of the building pad, some leverage does exists for the design structure to preserve views. Therefore, the current Planning Commission asked that the building pad be lowered by two feet and EPAC had agreed.
Mayor Engelhardt said that the Council can decide if the requested view modification fits into the General Plan and meets the spirit of the General Plan. For clarification she explained that the General Plan encourages a variety of homes, natural terrain, houses which blend in with the setting, privacy, and large distances between homes. Regarding applying these issues with the view preservation matter, she responded that any one of the modifications of the view preservation should also conform to the goals of the General Plan.
Regarding the implication that the Metzgers own the right to preclude public access to that portion of the street, Deputy City Engineer Gilbertson stated the review of the tract map showed public access to the property line. The County's assessor's maps indicate this to be a public street. All existing easements are identified and there exists no easement on file for a private fire access to preclude the public's approach.
Mayor Engelhardt closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Carroll said he visited Mr. Metzger's home. He believes there are three bay windows with significant views to the south. He noted that although he lives nearby and is displeased with the project, as a
Councilmember the consideration is whether or not there is a view impairment. In light of Code Section 9404.4, he feels he would be inclined to reject the appeal.
Councilmember Klein said that in previous view preservation deliberations (first as a Planning Commissioner and then Councilmember), the distant view, view blockage(s), and the primary view were the guidelines for consideration. Although the large, new house will have an impact on the neighborhood; from the standpoint of a view preservation, it does not impact the primary view.
Mayor Engelhardt stated that there are not many vistas in the Heights where the public can get a good view. Putting a two-story house on this lot will significantly impair a viewer's vista from a public property. She offered the following Code Section 9414.5:
"The specific plan provides a development framework and design which implements and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the general planÖ.The proposed development and design thereof will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which it is to be locatedÖ.The proposed development and design thereof will be compatible with the existing and future land uses within the community and the general area in which the proposed use is to be locatedÖ.The design of the development will be in harmony with the rural character of the community and will be planned to assure the building heights, spacing and designs respect the overall aesthetic appearance and character of the City."
The Mayor continued that the remainder of EPAC tract homes were built at a lower elevation and are apart from this house. The large, two-story square home would not look like other homes in the neighborhood. Ever since 1989, the specific plan has shown that the houses would blend into the hill. Mayor Engelhardt indicated that she would like EPAC to propose a house that fits more with the neighboring homes and the hillside terrain.
Councilmember Borrowe said that when buying property for development, it is the purchaser's responsibility to know what is allowed to be built. This project violates the City's General Plan and the project's specific plan; the developer had to know he was taking a risk. Councilmember Borrowe believes the height of the home should be reduced to a 16-foot structure.
Councilmember Millsap said since it has been determined that this section of Dorothea Road is a public street, she offered the following quote from correspondence received from the City Attorney:
"The applicant must prove that the proposed structure or addition will not significantly impair a view or vista from public property such as parks, streets, bikeways, walkways, and equestrian trails."
She concluded that the current design of the house should not proceed and suggested it be redesigned and stepped down."
A motion was offered by Councilmember Borrowe which was seconded by Councilmember Millsap to deny Standard Modification 2001-36 for a view preservation and direct staff to agendize a resolution for the July 12, 2001 meeting regarding Council's decision. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Engelhardt, and Millsap
NOES: Carroll and Klein
ABSENT: None
11. AN APPEAL PERTAINING TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26006
City Clerk Lindsey concurred that notices regarding this matter had been posted as required by law.
Planning Director Sanderson presented the staff report stating that the applicant La Habra Cloister Land is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 26006 to create four lots within an existing parcel. She noted that Exhibit 2 of the agenda report provides the basis for the appeal. The existing private driveway is the major issue with the tentative parcel map. The City's Code requires a minimum of 20 feet for a private driveway serving more then one dwelling, and the existing driveway varies in width from 18-1/2 to 20 feet.
City Attorney Colantuono reported on a slight difference in opinion as to Code interpretation. The grading ordinance says that with a single-lot development, the maximum slope of a driveway is 25%. With a multiple-lot development, the maximum slope of a driveway is 20%. The applicant's engineer remarks indicate that this driveway has a 25% slope.
A past practice--pertaining to land to be subdivided in common ownership where owner(s) do not own surrounding land--has been treated as a subdivision. The applicant applied the 20-foot paved access and the 25% slope standard. A literal Code reading would treat subdivided land into two or more parcels as a multiple-lot grading approval with a 20-foot wide standard driveway and a 20% slope.
The City Attorney concluded that it does not seem technically feasible to put a driveway into this land at a 20% slope without putting in retaining walls
that exceed the standards allowed by the subdivision ordinance. Therefore with the adoption of the literal reading of the Code, no subdivision of this lot would be possible.
Mayor Engelhardt opened the public hearing.
Fred Moore, representing the property owner, 2 Park Plaza, said that the appellant takes the position, as based on previous interpretations, that this project falls within the 25% maximum slope for a driveway. In 1990 when this project was originally approved, there were findings that supported the exempt status and no significant environmental impact was found. Two proposals were submitted during the recent application process recommending findings and conditions supporting the project and indications that the project is in keeping with the community's character, General Plan, and is sensitive to the surrounding environment.
.
As an offer of consideration for this evening's discussion, a three-lot parcel compromise is suggested with the idea that a smaller subdivision might ease some of Council's concerns.
He continued that the main area of concern is the 20-foot easement which accesses the property. Retaining walls would be built within the easement on both sides leaving a varied width less then 20 feet. He believed that safety concerns regarding the 18-foot access road could be mitigated and noted the following safety additions--a fire truck turn-around, a secondary fire hydrant at the bottom of the driveway, and signs and striping prohibiting parking along the driveway.
Bob Gilbert with Gilbert Engineering, project engineer, 4552 Lincoln Avenue, No. 206, Cypress, confirmed that the driveway could not conform to the City's Code for a 20-foot driveway.
Purandar Amin, property owner, 105 Aramije Street, Monrovia, offered to answer questions of Council.
The following residents spoke against the project: Dan Stracner - Cloister Drive, Carole Herzog - Cloister Drive, William Hersog - Cloister Drive, Barbara Stracner - Cloister Drive, David Maislen - Flowerfield Lane.
-Recess and Reconvene
A brief recess was called at 10:37 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:45 p.m. with all members of the City Council previously noted as present.
Fred More addressed resident's issues raised during public testimony.
Deputy City Engineer Gilbertson reported that grading plan approval (with a previous City Engineer) included a condition requiring further investigation of the vertical curve. The Deputy City Engineer was asked if the driveway would be safe with the vertical curve. He responded that this would be determined during the plan-check process, and most likely, this would also require the maximum 8-foot retaining walls on both sides.
As no one further wished to testify, Mayor Engelhardt closed the public hearing.
Since the private driveway cannot have a 20-foot-wide roadway and the steepness of the road poses a significant safety issue, Mayor Pro Tem Carroll offered a motion to affirm the denial of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26006 and staff was directed to prepare a Resolution as evidence of the Council's findings to be presented at the July 12, 2001 Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Klein and approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
OLD BUSINESS
A Related Matter
Mayor Engelhardt asked for the Council's consensus to air the recent Saturday morning community roads meeting held June 9, 2001; the Council concurred.
12. EXTENSION OF CITYWIDE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, ENGINEER'S REPORT
The Roads Committee, Chairperson, Les Williams presented objectives of the roads program. He indicated that road conditions have been evaluated and plans are being designed for maintenance and reconstruction. Current road conditions indicate that 24% of roadways are rated marginal and may need some structural reconstruction in 5-10 years.
He explained the ongoing maintenance requirements for the proposed assessment district and the need to continue with a maintenance fund. The estimated annual District III construction cost--not including administration fees--is $270,000.
Roads Committee Chairperson Williams suggested gas tax be set aside to fund major reconstruction projects which are not included in the maintenance district. The Roads Committee finds that creation of a reserve fund is desirable.
Maintaining the roads over a five-year period will minimize exposure to major reconstruction and avoid a bond issuance similar to the District I Bond.
City Engineer Milano presented the Engineer's Report and discussed services. He noted that District II has enough funds to slurry seal all the City's roads. To avoid having another major roadway construction bond in 20 years, the Engineer's Report recommends overlay of roadway areas which previously received the chip/slurry seal, and plan to continue to overlay a portion of the City's roadway on a continuing basis.
Base of assessment - a single family home that takes access off of City streets will be assessed one assessment unit. Residents taking access outside of the community will have a reduced rate. The basis of the mathematical equation is a total of 1,960.05 assessment units throughout the community.
Several assessment-unit cost options were presented and how much of the gas tax budget would need to be set aside. The City Engineer explained that GC Section 54715(a) requires the City to provide an assessment of general fund contribution or other funding sources to certain public agencies; thus the reason for including at least a $5,000 gas-tax contribution into the project.
Regarding the City Engineer's remarks as to the uncertainty of Prop C funds and removing this funding consideration from the roads budget, City Attorney Colantuono noted the following observations: A certain portion of the assessment to account for general-benefit-use needs to be included into the program. The general benefit references renters, passers-through, and others. The amount assessed for general benefit must be stepped-down from the assessment charged to property owners. Including gas tax, Proposition C, and grant contributions would, he said, serve this legal objective.
Discussion ensued amongst the Council regarding consideration of annual assessment options for a single-family-home one-assessment unit with costs ranging from $119 (with 9% contingency) to $136.87.
Pursuant to a question regarding the building of reserve funds, the City Attorney responded that the City reserves funds appropriate for this use but, money in the assessment district must be spent within its allotted time. The City Engineer said that the Roads Committee requests that gas tax funds be used for emergency-type projects that come up unexpectantly, such as storm damage work. The Roads Chairperson suggested the $136.87 assessment to allow the greatest latitude with gas-tax funds.
Councilmember Klein said his recommendation is to take the Roads Committee's recommendation to continue with the assessment district with the assessment unit cost of $136.87. He continued that five years ago the intent was to set up a system where a bond issuance would not be necessary every 20 years; and this option seems to fulfill that plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Carroll said he would like to proceed with the assessment district at the lower annual cost of $119.
Regarding adjusting the City Engineer's budget proposal, City Attorney Colantuono said the $10,000 Prop C revenues need to be re-entered and and additional $10,000 for contingency funding. He provided several options to achieve the accounting for the general-benefit consideration.
City Engineer Milano responded that he would add a line item for construction costs to reflect Prop C eligible roadway rehabilitation.
Councilmember Millsap indicated that the $17.87 difference is not such a significant consideration. She preferred the higher assessment, and noted that actions need to be taken quickly.
A motion was offered by Councilmember Klein which was seconded by Councilmember Borrowe to proceed with the Roadway Assessment District III. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
A motion was offered by Councilmember Borrowe which was seconded by Councilmember Klein to adopt a resolution to put Assessment District III for roadway maintenance with a $136.87 assessment unit fee on a ballot for property-owners voter approval. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: Carroll
ABSENT: None
City Attorney Colantuono presented an overview of the adopted resolution to proceed with an assessment ballot proceeding and discussed the legal requirements and procedures for the formation of the assessment district.
13. AWARD OF BID FOR THE HACIENDA ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carroll which was seconded by Councilmember Klein to award the contract for asphalt concrete to R. J. Noble. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, and Klein
NOES: Millsap
ABSENT: None
14. HACIENDA ROAD TRAFFIC CALMING STATUS REPORT
It was the consensus of the City Council to receive and file the report.
15. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC)
This item was continued to the next scheduled Council meeting.
16. WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS
A motion was offered by Mayor Pro Tem Carrol which was seconded by Councilmember Millsap to appoint Sherri Bray and Richard Zinsley to the WCCA Advisory Committee. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
17. SURPLUS FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS AND ACQUISITION OF NEW STRUCTURE-BRUSH ENGINE AND TRUCK SUPPORT UNIT
The Council wishes to decide on this item following a joint meeting with the Fire Department to hear the Department's goals and objectives.
NEW BUSINESS
18. THE PARK MARQUEE
A policy regarding this item is to be agendized for the July 12, 2001 Council meeting.
19. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS APPROVING AND SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION OF STATE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DOMESTIC TERRORISM PREPAREDNESS EQUIPMENT GRANT FUNDS.
A motion was offered by Councilmember Klein which was seconded by Councilmember Millsap to adopt Resolution No. 01-22 and authorize the Fire Chief to proceed with the application process. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Engelhardt, Klein, and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
20. FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 BUDGET
A budget study session was set for Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 6:00 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
21. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None
22. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
None
23. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
None
24. FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
None
25. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND NOT ON THE AGENDA
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Engelhardt adjourned the Council meeting at 12:53 a.m.
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk Lindsey (010614RegCCMinuts)
PAGE 1
Minutes of June 14, 2001
Regular City Council Meeting
Page PAGE 7
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MAY 31, 2001
OPENING CEREMONIES
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.
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.
OPENING COMMENTS BY MAYOR ENGELHARDT
Mayor Engelhardt welcomed everyone to this special meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission. She stated everyone realizes "The Heights' is affected by decisions concerning building and land use. If you're not concerned about doing your own project on your own house, you're curious about what could happen to the lot or house across the street or whether some decision in some area of ëThe Heights' 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 it's 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 isn't 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 Director's 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.
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 ñ 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 can't 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 ñ 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 doesn't 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 City's 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 Director's 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 ëThe Heights' 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 ñ 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 ñ 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 Director's 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 Council's 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 don't 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.
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 doesn't 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 don't 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 Director's 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 Director's 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 doesn't 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 don't 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 couldn't 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 doesn't make any sense and therefore the interpretation changes from time to time at the policy maker level, because your ordinance isn't completely articulated about what it is trying to do.
Councilmember Borrowe questioned what Mr. Milano had said about assuming the Engineer's calculations were correct.
Mr. Gilbertson stated plans are completed by a registered licensed Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California. The City's 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 applicant's engineer is in the right ballpark. Often during construction the homeowner wants to add more Hardscape. During the inspections the City's 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 City's 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 ìThe Heightsî, 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 aren't 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.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Ms. Sanderson stated the City's 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 City's 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 City's Housing Element. Karen Warner will be giving a presentation of the City of La Habra Heights 2000-2005 Housing Element.
Karen Warner, Project Manager ñ 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 City's General Plan; it sets forth a 5 year strategy for addressing the community's 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 City's 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 City's 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 City's 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 City's 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 constraint's 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 City's 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
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS ON THE AGENDA AND NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Engelhardt adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lindsey
(010531SpcJointCC-PCMinutes)
PAGE 11
Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes 5-31-01
Page PAGE 17
PAGE 1