MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 22, 1998
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman John Wible at 7:45 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Commissioners David Maislen, Rick Martin, John Peller and Ginger Skinner. Also present: Deputy Planner Brad Tarr, Secretary Barbara Doppieri and Commission Attorney David Daniels. Absent were City Manager Les Doolittle and City Engineer Dominic Milano.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Skinner led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Wible announced that Les Doolittle was on vacation and would not be in attendance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 1998
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that the agenda had been posted in accordance with the statutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of November 24, 1998.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to approve; seconded by Commissioner Martin and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 98-15 (Michael Cole)
Mr. Tarr presented the Agenda Report on Standards Modification 98-15, for Michael Cole, 1438 Dorothea Road, continued from the November 24, 1998 meeting. The applicant asks for authorization of an unpermitted accessory building which consists of a 2 -3 story structure located 20 feet into a side yard setback. The Commission continued the item to allow staff to further research its legal status. Staff has been unable to find any permits on this structure that authorized the construction. This structure was built before Mr. Cole became the owner and is improved with a basement storage area, the first floor office and a second floor as living quarters. These quarters are for a family member and are not now set up as an independent dwelling unit. The improvements Mr. Cole is requesting are a landing, set of stairs, windows and a door. The city's building inspector did a cursory examine of the building and did not find any ìred flagsî that would suggest the building was not built to code. The encroachment has been publicly noticed and there are letters of support. Staff found that the structure is not a bother or hazard to neighbors in the community and therefore is recommending the approval of the categorical exemption and Standards Modification via passage of Resolution 98-20.
Commissioner Martin asked, if the building could have been built legally in its current location; could it be brought up to code and be made a safe structure; whether taxes have ever been paid; whether the city has been disadvantaged by lack thereof; and iIf the building were legalized would the property be reassessed.
Mr. Tarr responded there is a conflict as to what the setback requirement was when the building was built. It is estimated the building was constructed about the same time as the single family dwelling in 1961. He explained there were corrections that undoubtedly would need to be made. The Building Inspector would need to inspect areas that are currently not accessible. The inspector felt from what he had seen from his brief look that the building could be brought up to code. Mr. Tarr responded that the method the Assessor's Office uses to determine taxation is by the permits that have been recorded. It might be reasonable to conclude that taxes have not been paid on this structure. Mr. Tarr stated that if the structure is permitted and the additions are made then yes taxes would then be reassessed.
Commissioner Martin asked if the building was legalized would Mr. Cole have to pay back taxes on the secondary structure.
Attorney Daniels stated this enforcement is not within the city's jurisdiction, and may not be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Maislen stated we are not just looking at windows and a stairway. Without permits this building really doesn't exist. If we make it legal against the General Plan, the county and city should have these tax dollars. Everyone else pays his or her fair share.
Mr. Daniels stated it could be made a condition of approval that the applicant show he has revealed this to the county.
Commissioner Skinner asked is the Standard Modification for the whole building or just the addition. She asked would the property be reassessed if the structure were permitted, and would this building then become a legal non-conforming building.
Mr. Tarr stated the Standard Modification is for the whole building. He explained that any rebuilding of the structure must meet the code.
Chairman Wible then opened the meeting to the public.
Mr. Tarr gave the oath to those wishing to testify.
Mike Cole, 1438 Dorothea Road, submitted a letter today to the Commission and instead of reading it, he made himself available to the Commission for questions. He felt his letter points out why the building should be approved.
Commissioner Maislen read parts of Mr. Cole's letter. He said this building was not permitted and therefore cannot be grandfathered in. This building is in conflict with the General Plan in terms of land use, where it says only one unit per acre and Mr. Cole's property clearly has two units. He stated he had asked staff to look at the tax roll. Based on the improved valuation it is reasonable to assume that this second building is not on the tax rolls. He stated the feelings of the neighbors are terribly important; however, what the Commission does at this meeting will affect future neighbors. This building would be very easy to convert to a rental. The Commission needs to look very carefully at what they approve.
Mr. Cole stated that this is not a secondary unit, but an accessory building. He stated it could have been a permitted structure, that permits can be lost. He felt that all buildings built prior to the incorporation were grandfathered in when the city incorporated. Mr. Cole stressed that this building is not used as a rental.
Commissioner Maislen asked Mr. Cole if this unit has a bathroom in it. He asked if there is a separate septic system and leaching field and if the system is strictly for that building. He asked whether a certification test was doneas there might be a health and safety problem..
Mr. Cole stated there is a septic system adjacent to the building. This system is strictly for this building. He did not know if a certification test was done. He was willing to bring that up to code. He stated if he has to put a new system in, he would.
Commissioner Maislen warned against the Commission is taking the General Plan and setting it aside to allow Mr. Cole to have this building. He feels with very little work this could become a rental unit.
Mr. Cole stressed that this building is not used as a rental. He has never rented it out and has no intention doing so. Mr. Cole offered to supply an affidavit on this point.
Commissioner Skinner asked what Mr. Cole's what the hardship would be that he mentioned in his letter, if this project were again delayed.
Mr. Cole stated he wanted to complete the cosmetic improvements along with the patio in the near term. He doesn't want this project to be dragged out. It is a hardship because he doesn't know what is expected if it is not approved.
Jim Collings, 1860 Nabal Road, Mr. Collings praised the Commission for their outstanding work. He lives directly below Mr. Cole. This building is completely surrounded by trees and is very hard to see. He has no problem with this structure. The tax issue is silly. There are a lot of secondary dwellings in the Heights. We don't have problems up here. It is possible the county lost the permits. Health and Safety is the concern. Everything should be brought up to code and Mr. Cole is willing to do this. Give Mr. Cole the benefit of the doubt and this item should be approved.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, stated he has a house next door to him that is only 1-2 feet from the property line. The tax is based on the purchased price so even though the structure is not permitted it would have been incorporated in the taxes based on that purchase price. Anyone buying that property would incorporate the structure in the price they would pay for it. Even though the structure was not known to the city, taxes were paid on it. Adding the structure to the tax base would actually be double taxation. The possibility of this structure being turned into a rental unit at a future point is irrelevant. Any structure should then be looked at in this way.
Chairman Wible closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Skinner stated she was concerned about the setbacks. She was worried about other buildings as accessory buildings. Guidelines need to be put into place on unpermitted structures. She had a problem with the height and the setback.
Mr. Daniels explained it is important to make the distinction between legal non-conforming buildings which were lawfully built prior to the enactment of the ordinance, versus the property owner who is attempting to build something after the ordinance is in effect without permits and this would be an illegal non-conforming structure. There is some evidence that this structure is a legal non-conforming structure. There is also evidence showing that this structure is an illegal non-conforming structure. It is up to the Commission to make that determination.
Commissioner Peller stated this Commission should not bring up payment of taxes. He stated the Commission could not speculate on what the future use of this structure will be. If the Commission applies that here, it will shut down everything. This may or may not have been permitted. We should not put an applicant in a position where he has to prove it was permitted. He felt that 5 feet was the setback when it was built. This is supported by the next door neighbor who is also 5 feet from the property line. He stated he is in favor of approval of this request. The Commission needs to be careful on matters prior to incorporation and taking a hard stance. We need to do the best we can to get them into conformance with the codes that existed then and in terms with the building and safety codes that exist now. You will never get hard fast rules. That is the purpose of this Commission to make the decisions where hard fast rules don't exist.
Commissioner Maislen asked Commissioner Peller if he had reviewed the Property Information Sheet. He suggested to Commissioner Peller that the document suggests no permits were ever taken out for this structure.
Commissioner Peller stated that the sale price is governed by the price the buyer is willing to pay for the property and does not indicated that permits were never taken out for the building.
Commissioner Wible stated this was a structure that was purchased as is. Mr. Cole shouldn't have to tear the building down. It wouldn't be reasonable to have him tear off the 3rd story. The taxes are out of our control. The sanitation system should be considered if this project is allowed to go forward. He asked staff if the Commission could approve the remodel without legalizing the building.
Mr. Daniels stated that you could not permit the remodel of the building without legalizing the building. Otherwise we would be saying a portion of the building is legal and the other portion is legally "up in the air".
Commissioner Wible asked Mr. Tarr if we legalize this building then we're saying that there is a second unit or not that there is a second unit as long as it doesn't have any kitchen facilities.
Mr. Tarr stated that these structures are called accessory buildings. He stated the Commission could say that the building at issue is an accessory structure which is not a second unit and that the applicant is using it for purposes congruent to one household and it could so stipulate in the conditions of approval that the accessory structure does not constitute a second unit.
Commissioner Wible stated Mr. Cole has integrity. His neighbors favor his request. With conditions this should be approved. We need a condition in the Resolution to stipulate that this building does not constitute a second unit.
Commissioner Skinner asked staff for the terminology of a secondary unit, as opposed to an accessory building.
Break called at 9:10. Meeting reconvened at 9:14.
Mr. Tarr explained the difference between a secondary unit and accessory building is a cooking facility. Accessory buildings do not have cooking facilities.
Commissioner Maislen Stated that this unit had a kitchen facility before.
Commissioner Wible reopened the public hearing.
Mike Cole, 1438 Dorothea Road, Mr. Cole stated it was his understanding from talking to staff that a kitchen has a stove. There is a sink and a microwave in the basement storage area. But staff has assured him this does not constitute a kitchen. It is down there for convenience, in fact he could not tell the Commission if the microwave had ever been used.
Commissioner Wible closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Maislen made motion to deny the Standards Modification 98-15 based on the fact that it appears from the material in front of the Commission to be an illegal non-conforming structure.
Due to no second, the motion failed.
Commissioner Peller stated he was repeating the motion he made at the last meeting, to approve Standards Modification 98-15 subject to the conditions in Exhibit "B" which include a separate septic system permit and bringing the property up to all applicable building, fire, zoning, health, water and engineering department regulations and furthermore subject to the condition that the property be identified as an accessory building and not as a second unit. Seconded by Commissioner Martin.
Commissioner Skinner stated this is a hard decision to make. She praised Mr. Cole for coming forward.
Commissioner Maislen stated he was sorry Mr. Cole had to jump through hoops. He felt this is an illegal non-conforming structure and approving this is a dangerous precedent. He stated wouldn't support it.
Commissioner Martin stated because the structure was there before the incorporation he is in favor of it.
Commissioner Wible states he does not approve of secondary units. Each item that comes before this Commission must be considered on an individual basis.
Chairman Wible called for the vote.
AYES: Martin, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: Maislen
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 98-19 ( Kelly Lawrence)
Mr. Tarr presented the Agenda Report on Standards Modification 98-19, for Kelly Lawrence at 121 E. Skyline. The applicant seeks to retain a newly constructed horse corral which encroaches 5-feet into the westerly side yard. This structure is as far away from other neighbors as it can get. A condition of approval should address the odor from the corrals. Staff have determined that this is not a bother or hazard to neighbors in the community and therefore is recommending the approval of the categorical exemption and Standards Modification via passage of Resolution 98-21.
Commissioner Maislen asked Mr. Tarr how this was found.
Mr. Tarr stated it was discovered by the Building Inspector and was part of the city's code enforcement program.
Chairman Wible opened the public portion of the hearing.
Jack Kirkpatrick, 2034 N. Peck Road, South El Monte. He stated the corral was formally on the north slope and rains washed the manure down into the neighbor's yards. The Proposed location is a flat surface near the horse trail. The corrals are cleaned twice a week. The Lawrence's assumed that temporary corrals could be placed anywhere on the property.
Mr. Tarr explained any kind of structure must meet the setback standards regardless of whether they are temporary or permanent.
Commissioner Maislen stated he felt this is the best location for this structure. He asked staff if permit fees would be collected.
Mr. Tarr responded that was correct.
Mr. Tarr clarified that portable structures under a certain size don't need permits and can be placed anywhere in a rear yard. The size threshold is 120 square feet. Permanent structures regardless of size in front or side yard setbacks need planning approval and permits.
Chairman Wible closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Skinner clarified this structure is a corral with a tin roof.
Commissioner Maislen made a motion to approve Standards Modification 98-19. Seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
Break taken 9:40 to 9:44 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Stan Quade, 115 Encanada Drive, asked the Commission to clarify where the front of his property is. He stated his front door faces the south. Mr. Quade read part of the letter he had just submitted to the Commission. He claimed he had given this letter to Mr. Tarr for interpretation. He was glad to hear this Commission has some common sense.
Mr. Tarr demurred that he had previously seen this letter.
Commissioner Wible asked Mr. Quade to return to the Planning Department and work with Mr. Tarr on the determination of his setback area.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, stated the format of the minutes is better now. He asked why the Zoning Ordinance Revision was tabled. Mr. Blagden complimented the Commission on their work at this meeting. However what has happened to Mr. Cole with this process will deter others from coming forward.
Commissioner Maislen explained the City Council felt the General Plan needed revision before the Zoning Ordinance.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita Drive, spoke of the election in March and his political position.
Jim Collings, 1860 Nabal Road, asked who at the city would help him with the water run off on his property. Mr. Collings, stated his political position about the elections in March.
Mr. Tarr referred him to Art Velasquez at City Hall.
Commissioner Maislen moved adjourn the meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of January 26, 1999, seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
Chairman Wible adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
______________________________
John Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
Brad Tarr, Senior City Planner
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
December 22, 1998
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman John Wible at 7:40 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Commissioners David Maislen, Rick Martin, and John Peller. Commissioner Ginger Skinner was absent. Also present: City Manager Les Doolittle, City Engineer Dominic Milano, Fire Chief Robert Nelson, Deputy Planner Brad Tarr, Secretary Barbara Doppieri and Commission Attorney David Daniels.
FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Commissioner Peller.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1998
City Manager Doolittle stated that the agenda had been posted in accordance with the statutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting of October 27, 1998.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to approve the minutes with minor grammatical corrections to Page 6 and 9. Seconded by Commissioner Martin and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Skinner
OLD BUSINESS
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED GRADING AND ZONING ORDINANCES
Mr. Doolittle, explained the Planning Commission and the City Council are planning a joint workshop to discuss the Zoning Ordinance revision. The meeting will be held in mid-December. This will be a public meeting.
Commissioner Maislen offered motion to continue the Zoning Ordinance revision until after the joint workshop in December. Seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Skinner
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chief Robert Nelson asked that Agenda Item #9 CUP 98-04 be heard first followed by Agenda Item #8 CUP 98-08.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-04 (La Habra Heights Fire Department)
Chief Robert Nelson asked the Planning Commission to continue this item to the January 26, 1999 meeting.
Motion offered by Commissioner Martin to continue Conditional Use Permit 98-04. Seconded by Commissioner Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Skinner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08 (La Habra Heights Fire Department)
Chief Nelson asked that this item be continued to the January 26, 1999 meeting. He stated several questions have come up regarding this site which he wanted to address. Mr. Nelson addressed the size of the vehicle proposed to be used. This truck is equivalent to a 4 wheel drive truck with a couple of bales of hay on it. Mr. Nelson explained since January 1st there have been 402 calls within the Heights. 79 Calls were within territory served by this site. 46 calls would have required the use of this vehicle.
City Engineer Dominic Milano left the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Zach Brown, 996 West Road, asked that his letter to the Commission be accepted regarding safety and horse travel. The letter was submitted to Mr. Doolittle.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to continue this item to January 26, 1999. Seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Skinner
Chief Nelson left the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 98-15 (Michael Cole)
Mr. Tarr presented the Agenda Report on Standards Modification 98-15, for Michael Cole 1438 Dorothea Road. The applicant proposes to utilize the provisions of La Habra Heights Municipal Code Section 9405.1 to authorize an unpermitted accessory building which consists of a 2 -3 story structure located 20 feet into a side yard setback. This structure was built before Mr. Cole became the owner and is improved with a basement storage area, the first floor office and a second floor as living quarters. These quarters are for a family member and is not now set up as an independent dwelling unit.. The improvements Mr. Cole is requesting is a landing and set of stairs, another access into the structure, as well as additional windows. Staff has been unable to locate any authorization to build this structure. Therefore the normal course is to handle a structure which could otherwise be permitted to stand, assuming it could meet building and health code standards. The encroachment has been noticed and there are letters of support. Mr. Tarr read a letter from James Collings, 1860 Nabal Road. Staff found that the structure is not a bother or hazard to neighbors in the community and therefore is recommending the approval of the categorical exemption and Standards Modification via passage of Resolution 98-21. There is an issue regarding the height of the structure. Section 9206.2 b.3 of the Municipal Code has two standards of measurement. This structure meets the one test which is the measure from the lowest footing to the highest roof peak (37 ft. window). However it fails the test on the maximum height of 27 feet as measured from the average natural topography or the approved grade of the building site. It's 30 ft. tall. Although this is not strictly a view modification, staff did visit the site and found there is not a significant view impairment from any of the properties which would qualify as having such a view.
Commissioner Maislen asked how much the staff is asking the Commission to "grandfather in". The size of this structure would require it be sprinklered and retrofitted. Commissioner Maislen voiced concerns that this building doesn't fit in with the City's General Plan.
Mr. Tarr responded that it would be up to the Fire Marshall and if that is what he requires then it would need to be sprinklered.
Commissioner Peller stated this is a setback violation and a height violation.
Mr. Tarr explained a Miscellaneous Permit Application can cover both of these modifications.
Mr. Wible opened this item to the public.
Mr. Doolittle gave the oath to those wishing to testify.
Don Fite, 1404 Dorothea, stated he is the nearest neighbor. Mr. Fite said when his home was built a 5 foot. set back was the standard. He was concerned because his home is also 5 foot from the property line. Mr. Fite stated he was the owner of this property when this building was built. A contractor built the building. He did not object to the building at that time; perhaps he should have now that he looks back. Mr. Fite said if Mike Cole has to move his structure then Mr. Fite would also have to move his structure. Mr. Fite stated he has no problems with Mr. Cole's request.
Commissioner Maislen stated the difference is that his home is a permitted structure.
Mike Cole, 1438 Dorothea Road, stated Mr. Tarr and the Building Inspector have walked the property. He is willing to bring the structure up to Code and will sprinkler the building if necessary. Mr. Cole stated he didn't know if a permit was pulled, being built prior to the city's incorporation.
Commissioner Martin asked whether Mr. Cole knew prior to the purchase whether the structure was permitted. He asked what Mr. Cole intends to use the building for. He asked what occurred in 1991. He asked if this item were continued would it place a hardship on him. He voiced interest in whether this would apply to the possible Zoning changes the city is undertaking.
Mr. Cole responded he was aware the building was not permitted prior to the purchase. He explained the bottom floor is storage, the middle floor is an office and the upstairs is living quarters for his daughter. A relative wrote letter to the city in 1991. The city inspected the property, found no kitchen and that was it.
Mr. Doolittle explained the changes to the Zoning Ordinance would not apply to this case.
Paul Spothelfer, 1281 West Road, stated he was against this project. It was built without permits and the side yard setback standard has not been met. The structure is not within the City's height requirement. There is a complaint on file for a rental unit. By allowing this building to be upgraded, it makes the City look like were encouraging this. Mr. Spothelfer recommends the removal of 3rd story, with an addition to the side if he needs to. Mr. Spothelfer recommended postponing this issue until such a time as the new ordinances come out.
Mike Cole, 1438 Dorothea, stated this building was built prior to the incorporation, and that it would be a hardship to move any part of the building. He would like to see the city prove there was never a permit for this building.
Mr. Tarr stated a search of county records revealed no permits were ever taken out.
Commissioner Peller stated pre-existing conditions prior to incorporation are routinely approved. This building is unique because it wasn't permitted. Our decision will set a precedent for how we treat others. All structures can be converted to an alternate use. He supports this Standards Modification. Commissioner Peller stated it would be nice to have a clearer policy on how to deal with these structures. This process will not happen quickly. Waiting may just delay the issue.
Mr. Wible closed public portion of this item. Mr. Wible gave Mr. Cole credit for coming forward. Mr. Wible stated he would like to continue this item until a later date.
Commissioner Maislen stated Mr. Cole had the opportunity 15 years ago to get this structure permitted. Legalizing it after its been illegal for 15 years sends the wrong message.
Break called at 8:50 p.m. to change the audio tape. Meeting resumed at 8:55 p.m.
Commissioner Martin stated he was concerned about setting precedents.
Mr. Doolittle stated the discussions over the next few months could determine some precedent. In the process of developing the new ordinance the Commission may gain more background in which to measure this particular application.
Commissioner Maislen stated he hoped that this project not be allowed because it is unpermitted. He hoped others would come forward to pull permits to make sure their structures are safe. It is wrong to permit this project for additions.
Commissioner Peller stated the height ordinance is driven by the fire equipment. Can they reach the third story? A safety problem is not something you grant a variance to. Maybe we need a safety determination done by the Fire Chief.
Mr. Wible called for the question.
Commissioner Maislen offered motion to deny the request. There being no second, the motion failed.
Commissioner Peller offered motion to approve Standards Modification 98-15 subject to staff recommendations. There being no second, the motion failed.
Commissioner Martin offered motion to continue Standards Modification 98-15 for further study to the January 26, 1999 meeting. Mr. Wible seconded, and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Skinner
NEW BUSINESS
COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Commissioner Maislen stated the Garden Harvest was held last Saturday. Everyone had a wonderful time. The next Garden Harvest will be December 19, 1998 from 9 to12.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Tim Bradley, 1653 Nabal, suggested no charge for inspections on unpermitted buildings so more people will come forward for legalization of structures. This would take the fear away.
Commissioner Maislen agreed an Amnesty period for a inspection program is an excellent idea. Attorney Daniels stated it could be built into the operating procedures.
Commissioner Peller states he likes the policy of not punishing people for coming forward. Wants to encourage people to do so.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita Drive, stated the reason for changing the Zoning Ordinance regarding second units is to preserve the health and safety of our residents. He asked the Commission to remember that second units require separate septic systems.
Mr. Wible seeing no one else coming forward, closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Wible thanked Cameraman Mike for his efforts tonight.
Commissioner Peller offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of December 22, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Skinner
Mr. Wible adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
______________________________
John Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
Les Doolittle, City Clerk
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 27, 1998
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman John Wible at 7:35 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Commissioners David Maislen, Rick Martin, John Peller, and Ginger Skinner. Vice Chairman Richard Newbre has officially resigned. Also present: City Manager Les Doolittle, City Engineer Dominic Milano, Deputy Planner Brad Tarr, Administrative Secretary Barbara Doppieri and Commission Attorney David Daniels.
City Manager Doolittle announced that the unfortunate retirement of Commissioner Newbre has resulted in Rick Martin being appointed by the City Council to assume the position. The Commission is now without an alternate appointment. The Commission and staff extended congratulations to Mr. Martin on his appointment.
FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Commissioner Skinner.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
Mr. Doolittle stated that the agenda had been posted in accordance with the statutes.
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AND MINUTES
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of September 22, 1998.
City Attorney Daniels stated the City had received a communication from a member of the public requesting to correct the minutes. Mr. Daniels reminded the Commission that these are the minutes of the body, they are not the minutes of the public and to the extent the Commission wants to consider that they may.
Chairman Wible asked, if this information was appropriate, could it be added to the minutes, in the future. Mr. Daniels stated the minutes could be amended if a member of the Commission believes that there is something in the proposal that is inaccurate, based on a comment from the public. It is up to the Commission to consider.
Mr. Wible stated he didn't feel there were errors in the minutes, though information could be added. A motion to amend the minutes could be made if the Commission feels the information from Stephen Blagden is pertinent.
Mr. Wible stated he had not yet read the letter, but would entertain a motion if it is appropriate. Daniels said the motion would have to be a motion to approve or a motion to amend. Or, the item could be continued. Having something open-ended would not be appropriate.
Mr. Wible asked the Commission if they wished the amend the minutes or accept them as is, or continue action on the minutes.
Commissioner Maislen stated he has had time to review the minutes and Mr. Blagden's letter. Mr. Maislen feels the minutes clearly reflect what took place at this meeting. Mr. Maislen offered a motion to accept the minutes as written.
Commissioner Martin stated he had not fully studied Mr. Blagden's request and feels this is reflective of what Mr. Blagden would like the record to show. He felt it is appropriate if the Commission spends some time reviewing this information as apposed to just approving the minutes.
Commissioner Peller stated he was absent at this meeting so he will not be commenting on this issue.
Commissioner Skinner asked Mr. Daniels if the minutes are suppose to be verbatim or a synopsis. Mr. Daniels stated this is only a summary of the events, not a verbatim transcription. Mrs. Skinner felt the minutes could be approved as submitted.
Mr. Wible stated that the minutes are never verbatim. The tape of the meeting is preserved and is available in City Office.
The motion to approve was seconded by Commissioner Skinner. The question was called:
AYES: Mr. Maislen, Mrs. Skinner
NOES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Wible
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mr. Peller
The motion to approve failed.
Mr. Wible stated maybe the minutes needed to be continued.
Mr. Martin made a motion to continue the minutes. Mr. Wible seconded, and asked if there was further discussion.
Mr. Maislen stated this letter should not have been left on this desk for the Commission's review tonight. The minutes clearly reflect what took place at this meeting. Amendments and additions must be more timely.
Mr. Wible asked where this letter came from. Deputy Planner Tarr explained that this letter was received after the Commission packages were released. Mr. Tarr arranged for the letter to be here tonight.
Mrs. Skinner reiterated we do not use verbatim minutes; this is only a summary.
Mr. Wible explained that the minutes will continue to be only a summary of the meeting.
City Manager Doolittle assured the Commission that the minutes will continue to be only a summary of the meeting.
Mr. Daniels reiterated that the video is available and that the video is more detailed than the minutes.
Mr. Peller stated that he felt after many years on the Commission, that this was the most detailed set of minutes he had read.
Mr. Wible called for another motion.
Commissioner Skinner moved to accept the minutes as presented to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Maislen.
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mr. Peller
Minutes of a Special Meeting of September 29, 1998.
Commissioner Maislen made motion to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Commissioner Peller.
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
OLD BUSINESS
Conditional Use Permit 98-04 ( La Habra Heights Fire Department)
The applicant is requesting approval for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a storage building for one firetruck (Fire Station #2 at 1768 Le Flore Drive).
Chairman Wible stated the Fire Chief has requested that this item be continued. This therefore is an item of information, not an item for commission action at this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use Permit 98-08 (La Habra Heights Fire Department)
The applicant is requesting approval for issuance of the Conditional Use Permit to construct a storage building for one firetruck (Fire Station #2 at 1002 West Road)/
Chairman Wible stated information on this project is not yet available, so the item will be continued. The property is owned by Regina Phelan. Residents in the area who were in attendance at this meeting met previously with Commission Attorney Daniels.
Mr. Wible opened the item for testimony from the public.
Owen Lynch, 1516 Vista Del Valle Way, asked regarding whether the use of an existing building or the building of a new Fire Station was involved. City Manager Doolittle responded this was one of the reasons the item was continued. This question is still under discussion.
Commissioner Peller offered a motion to continue this item until more information is available. Commissioner Maislen seconded this motion.
AYES: Mr. Maislen, Mr. Martin, Mr. Peller, Mrs. Skinner and Mr. Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
NEW BUSINESS
Zoning & Grading Ordinance discussion; continued from the meeting of August 25, 1998. A Staff report presentation by Deputy Planner Tarr was given. Mr. Tarr explained this new Zoning & Grading Ordinance revision was brought to the Commission, for discussion purposes which is basically a reorganization of existing statutes, with certain additional items and amendments from one section of the municipal code to another. Home occupation regulations have been taken from the Business License section and has been put in the Zoning Ordinance section, since it has to do with land use. The meat of the changes are contained within the grading ordinance. There are certain other changes in regards to making amendments to result in a more fluid and easier-to-administer document. Other new regulations also include the legalization of second units and bringing all entitlements which are passed along to applicants under one expiration period rather than it being open-ended. The impetus for the changes to the Grading Ordinance were in a pair of memos sent from the City Attorney to the City Council. The City Attorney advised that the City would be in a legally risky /legally liable position were it to vary from the recommendations of the City Engineer and therefore substitute its lay judgement as to the technical grading issues which the City Attorney felt should be left to the expertly trained staff members. The Grading Ordinance has therefore been extensively reworded in order to turn over those responsibilities to the City Engineer and the City Planner and the Building Official. In most cases the issues in regards to grading that were before the Commission will still come before the City Council when they assess proposed subdivisions. This will not do away with public input and review completely. It will allow the city to use its trained staff so as to avoid the legal liability exposure that the attorney made reference to in his memos. In the draft the areas shaded in gray are the new or proposed reworded changes. The portions that are not are reorganized so we have a more fluid document. The changes are limited in scope in the context of the entire document. This project is more one of reorganization than wholesale revision and reconstitution. The staff added changes that the Commission had asked to see. The purpose of this meeting is for staff to obtain input from the Commission and to see if the Commission is pleased with the direction the document is heading, and to discuss some of the ramifications of the changed language. Staff will then prepare a revised document for issuance to the Commission and the public, in preparation for future public hearings on this matter.
Chairman Wible asked Mr. Tarr to explain the cover letter and the detailed changes. Mr. Tarr explained and read each of the following changes:
Expiration of entitlements for non-use (Pg. 5).
Expansion of finding for grading exception (Pg. 11)
Added listing of Open Space districts which are in the General Plan (Pg. 14).
Procedure for certification of second dwelling units. (Pp. 15-16).
Re-definition of ìsolid fillî (Pg.20).
Addition of horse arenas to conditional uses recommended by the Planning Commission (Pg. 20).
Grading regulations (Pp. 51, 55).
Rules for home occupations (Pp. 62-65).
Definition of ìSolid Fillî (Pg. 87).
Commissioner Maislen asked for clarification regarding garages on Pg.16. City Manager Doolittle clarified That garages in this section related to the second unit and not the primary dwelling. Mr. Doolittle stated this is a new concept for the Heights. He said as we progress through this process the dates used in this draft ordinance may need to be updated.
Mr. Maislen asked how do we make sure everyone in the Heights is adequately made aware of this new requirement. Mr. Doolittle said he has had a prior history regarding this item in another city and after the time ended the city chose to offer an extension of a few months. When the time lapsed it did not create a problem. Mr. Maislen asked does the city know where these units are now. Mr. Doolittle responded, no the staff do not know where they are or how many. He stressed to the Commission the safety of some of these structures was a significant issue. Mr. Maislen stressed that if this is put in the Ordinance it would require the city to ensure the buildings are up to code. Mr. Doolittle stated this would require each unit to meet the conditions of the Uniform Housing Code.
Mr. Maislen said he needs to see the deletions to the ordinances, as well as the additions.
Mr. Tarr offered that most of the deletions had to do with duplications of the code.
Mr. Doolittle added the deletions were downloaded into another file and are available, however they are pretty rough. He said staff was trying to separate the assignments of current ordinances at a level that it will meet the goals of the City. The proposed draft would eliminate the concept of the Multiple Lot Grading permit, and instead sets up a couple levels of limits. The grading ordinance is then moved into the zoning ordinance giving it the full force and effect of the planning law. Doolittle stressed that home occupations are an important addition to the Zoning Code.
Commissioner Martin stated he was concerned about what was deleted.
Mr. Doolittle said this was a major job to tackle. He said this project had been underway for almost two years. He said the Planning Commission had been instructed by the Council to tackle the Grading Ordinance. Mr. Doolittle stated staff was recommending this ordinance be adopted, if the Commission is comfortable with the draft. He stated this project was undertaken because these changes need to be done now. Ultimately this finished draft will go before the Planning Commission and City Council. If other items within the ordinance that the Commission feels should be done now, staff would be happy to tackle those items as well. Mr. Doolittle stressed to the Commission that these ordinances are difficult for staff to administer. This is a much better format.
Mr. Doolittle explained the process of an ordinance change like this. The ultimate document would be adopted as an amendment to the Zoning Code, which requires a notice of public hearing, at both the Planning Commission and the City Council levels. Staff is looking for any modification the Commission would like to offer and also seeks direction as to how the Commission would like to proceed with the hearing process. At the initial public hearings the Commission would take input from the public and work out changes to the draft. An alternative would be for a reworking of the draft for the hearing process
Commissioner Peller stated this document is not here for approval at this meeting. It is just to start the discussion. He plans to format his questions and then arrange for time with staff to ask his questions. Having struggled with the previous code, this is a good start.
Mr. Doolittle offered the staff's time to meet with the Commissioners to discuss any concerns or questions. He asked for comments or input from the public. Copies of any of these ordinance proposals are available.
Commissioner Skinner says she felt she needed to review both ordinances to see the changes. She was concerned about the second dwelling issue and has a lot of questions about it. She doesn't want the Heights split into half acres. This is a really good step forward.
Mr. Doolittle offered the Commission the edited sections.
Mr. Wible opened the public portion of this discussion.
Mr. Daniels clarified that this is not a Public Hearing, however; tonight is an informal study session, for the Commission to gather information.
A break to change audio was taken at 9:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:05 p.m.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, wanted to provide general comments to the Commission: (1) He stated the change to the Grading process sounded good in the beginning, however, this is a process that needs some oversight. Existing process leaves responsibility with the Commission. Keeps a checks and balances with the Engineers reviewing it and bringing it to the Commission for approval. Generally, changes the Commission recommends are conservative changes and not drastic ones. Even when the Commission makes a change it is with guidance from the engineer and city attorney. This is better protection for the city. The existing process allows the Commission to give input to projects, as well as the public. This can allow for a better project. (2) Under current building codes the second units can still can be checked for compliance. He was unsure that people with non-compliant units will come forward and volunteer their second dwellings for inspections. He stated this could cause an increase within the city with traffic, sewage, landslides, safety, fire flow requirements and rural street design, public transportation, water pressure. This could required the revision of the Housing element within the General Plan and asked why was this not allowed in the original General Plan. There are a number of reasons specified within the Housing Element and the General Plan why second units are prohibited. Once you allow second units, then maybe subdivision to smaller parcels would happen next. (3) The Commercial Highway District needs to have language changed to eliminate references to hotels, restaurants, schools, etc. This language could allow business to come into the City and rezone streets to put up these sites within neighborhoods. Eliminating this section would resolve potential problems.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita, stated this document is not ready for discussion. The people need time to unravel this. He wanted to know what was deleted and where is it now. He asked what was the purpose in changing this document. He thinks this is contrary to what the Commission was trying to do with this project. He thinks we should be looking at the philosophy of what were doing with second units. He feels the purpose of this project originated from the Attorney. He said he is a strong believer that we have a good Attorney, good Engineers and Commissioners. There has never been litigation on failure of the Planning Commission or City Council to do their jobs.
Alan Boege, 1892 Cypress, asked whether the document was a baseline for comments from the community and input to the Commission.
Mr. Wible responded that this is a baseline document. Mr. Doolittle agreed this is a basis for discussion.
Mr. Boege asked if the letters from the Attorney will be available for the public.
Mr. Doolittle responded that these documents are public documents and are available.
Mr. Boege praised staff for their hard work on this project.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road. Mr. Blagden, offered to put this Zoning draft on the City's Web Site to make it available for all residents to view. He stated he felt the grading portion appears to be looser. He wants to keep the city's standards strict. He does not feel legalizing second structures is a better way to control them.
Mr. Doolittle clarified that local ordinances will be enforced. Local amendments will not be done away with.
Mr. Maislen offered that the Grading Ordinances is fairly strict and it was not the intent to loosen up this ordinance.
Mr. Wible asked for additional comments from the public. Since no one came forward, he asked for a recommendation from the staff, but first asked Mr. Doolittle if the house he bought had a second non conforming unit on it when he bought it. Mr. Doolittle responded that the house has a downstairs that is not connected internally to the upstairs. It has a bath, the laundry, with no kitchen.
Mr. Tarr offered the recommendation to adopt the recommendation in its present form, prior to any considerations of changes other than those incorporated in the draft. This will create a baseline ordinance for use by Staff and the public which is the main thrust behind the project.
Mr. Wible asked for further discussion or comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Peller moved this item be continued the next meeting, to permit the Commission and the public to interact with Staff to understand it more and to understand what the deletions are; seconded by Commissioner Maislen.
Mr. Wible asked if it would be appropriate to have a study session with the Council.
Mr. Peller recommended waiting on scheduling a joint session, until the proposed changes were better understood.
Mrs. Skinner asked for clarification of the recommendation.
Mr. Tarr asked the Commission if this draft is something the Commission is comfortable with as a baseline document, they can start with.
Mr. Martin stated the recommendation is asking for the adoption of specifics, and without time to study it.
Mr. Doolittle clarified the recommendation, indicating that the draft is not in an official ordinance format.
Mr. Martin asked if the staff recommendation was to adopt this draft in format and content.
Mr. Doolittle stated after discussion it be adopted without getting into other major sections to change.
Mr. Maislen asked if continuing this draft to study it with the staff wouldn't accomplish the same thing.
Mr. Peller stated if the words are confusing to the Commission, they will be confusing to the public.
Mr. Wible restated the motion on the floor, that the Commission continue this item to study it with the public until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
AYES: Mr. Maislen, Mr. Martin, Mr. Peller, Mrs. Skinner and Mr. Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Stan Quade, 1115 Encanada Drive, asked what had been done about the Fire Ordinance #208. He stated Mr. Tarr had been asked by the Commission to draft something the Commission can discuss.
Mr. Tarr stated the staff has stuck with the Ordinance because it is valid. In this particular case the staff has not heard from anyone else voicing a concern. Staff feels the Ordinance has been applied uniformly through several Fire Chief administrations. Staff is ready to implement the wishes of the Commission if it has any directions it wishes to give on this.
Mr. Quade asked the Commission to be reasonable, not to stifle and control for no good reason. He asked how will staff traffic the rentals on the secondary units. He stated that in Ordinance #208, the Fire Department is building the same as what he wants.
Chairman Wible asked the square footage on the garage he wanted to build. Mr. Quade answered his garages is 600 square feet, and asked about the removal of the dirt on Hacienda, and whether a permit pulled to remove it.
City Engineer Milano explained the removal of the dirt on Hacienda was to eliminate a sight distance problem. It is not necessary to obtain a permit to remove the dirt from a public facility to correct a site distance problem.
Mr. Quade said he feels the integrity and credibility of the city suffer when ordinances are not applied equally. Asked to hear what the attorney had to say.
Commission Attorney Daniels stated the city has consistently interpreted and applied the Code Section 3105 of Municipal Code. (Ord. #207U, S1; Ord. #207, S1) . Mr. Daniels said the existence of the comma after the word ìgarageî, makes it clear that all new garages would require fire sprinklers.
Mr. Quade asked what the 1,000 square feet had to do with it, if that is the case then within the city there is nothing that can be built without a fire sprinkler system.
Mr. Daniels stated that ìadditionsî is a separate term from ìgarageî. Any additions over 1,000 square feet would also require fire sprinklers.
Mr. Quade reiterated any garage, or attic, any habitable structure. Any remodels over 1,000 square feet will require sprinklers.
Mr. Wible stated maybe the Commission needs to look at this section of the Code and maybe make changes.
Commissioner Maislen offered that Chief Nelson was to look into this matter after the August 25, 1998 meeting. He recalled that the Chief was to better adjudicate what had taken place in this matter. Mr. Quade does raise a reasonable point. The Commission needs to look into this matter.
Mr. Peller offered that maybe the code is written by lawyers, however it must be used and understood by the people.
Mrs. Skinner stated she would like to look into this.
Mr. Wible instructed Staff to put this item on the agenda for the next meeting and to mail copies of the ordinance to the Commission so they would have plenty of time to study it.
Monica Albins, 2500 E. Skyline Drive. Asked what happened to the horses and the equestrian trails and if the Commission listens to what the people are saying.
She felt living in the Heights is urban country living.
Commissioner Maislen responded the Heights is a rural country atmosphere. The Highland Riders are still very active within the community. He reminded the public that the Commission is a volunteer Commission and they are there because they care about the community and that they are trying to do what is best and fairest to the community.
Commissioner Peller stated this Commission only acts on items put on the agenda by staff and the public. They do not initiate the projects. They do not write the ordinances or codes. However, the Commission does take the criticism for it.
Stephen Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, felt it is important for the Planning Commission to review what is going on. At the September 22, 1998 meeting one of the Commissioners identified an issue of planting poison oak within a buffer zone and it was removed. Mr. Blagden re-read a paragraph of his letter to the Commission. He understood minutes are not verbatim. He asked the Commission to read his letter. He thanked the Commission for their consideration.
Mr. Wible closed the item and thanked the public for coming. He stated those in attendance help us have a better community. Chairman Mr. Wible asked for a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Mrs. Skinner offered a motion to adjourn to the next normally scheduled meeting on November 24, 1998, at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Mr. Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Mr. Maislen, Mr. Martin, Mr. Peller, Mrs. Skinner and Mr. Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Mr. Wible adjourned the meeting at 10:00p.m., October 27, 1998. The next meeting is November 24, 1998.
______________________________
John Mr. Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
Les Doolittle, City Clerk
Minutes of Regular
October 27, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
3:00 p.m.
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A special meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman JohnWible at 3:15 p.m. on September 29, 1998, at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Commissioner David Maislen, Commissioner John Peller and Commissioner Ginger Skinner. Alternate Rick Martin was absent. Also present were: Deputy Planner Brad Tarr and Secretary Barbara Doppieri.
FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Commissioner Peller.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
Chairman Wible welcomed Commissioner Peller on his return.
Deputy Planner Tarr confirmed that the Agenda was posted in accordance with the statutes.
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
Resolution 98-19
Chairman Wible introduced Resolution 98-19. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of La Habra Heights recommending certification of the final environmental impact report for the Old Coach Estates Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map #52437 and making findings pursuant to the California Environment Quality Act.
Chairman Wible asked City Planner Tarr for presentation of the resolution. Mr. Tarr explained the purpose of this special meeting was to consider approval of said resolution which memorializes the action taken by the Commission at the September 22, 1998 regular meeting, which recommended the City Council approve the Old Coach Estates Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map #52437 and making findings pursuant to the California Environment Quality Act. On advice of the City Attorney, the Commission is impaneled for this special meeting, so there will be a written resolution ready for the Council packet to be included in the deliberations on this item at their meeting on October 8, 1998. This resolution does embody the changes in the Commission's motion and action on this item of September 22, and therefore staff's recommendation is to adopt Resolution 98-19 attaching the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures as amended.
Chairman Wible explained to the audience that this meeting is a public meeting; however it is not open for public testimony on this item. Public testimony will be allowed when the meeting is opened under Item No. 6 on the agenda.
Chairman Wible opened the floor to questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Wible spoke of Bob Henderson's recommendations to ensure they had been incorporated within the resolution. Commissioner Maislen asked for a review of the revisions that had been added since the other night's meeting.
Planner Tarr reviewed the changes to the resolution with the Commission, especially for the benefit of Commissioner Peller who had been absent at the September 22, 1998 meeting. There were 56 conditions of approval and a number of mitigation measures. Two of the conditions of approval were stricken from the recommendation to approve that the commission made and there was a mitigation measure which had to do with the planting in the Wildlife Corridor and buffer area, which included the planting of poison oak. This was stricken from the recommendation. At the meeting a general agreement was reached on the wording of the condition reaching an agreement with the Vantage Pointe Homeowner's Association, which is owner of adjacent area that has property which would be enhanced with native planting to accentuate wildlife movement. The mitigation measure was amended to include a sub-list of conditions which are listed in the resolution in Section 10, A-E. Specifically, ìEî which stated that should such an agreement fail to be reached with Vantage Pointe Homeowners Association and other responsible agency, which would ultimately assume control and enhancement of the wildlife corridor, such monies that would have gone into improving such areas would be used by the city to make wildlife corridor enhancements in association with the recommendations of biologists who were hired by Cotton Beland Associates in preparing the Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Maislen wanted to be clear that in the amendments which were made that WCCA would have no control over any of the changes that the developer was going to be making. It would be the City or a biologist or botanist hired by the city. Mr. Tarr responded that it would be within the City's control. The City may choose at its discretion to empower other responsible agencies for such work.
Chairman Wible asked Mr. Tarr regarding Item C, wherein at the last meeting staff said WCCA is extending planting into lot 51 as per responsible standards set by WCCA, or other reasonable agency, where recommending is what they're doing. Mr. Tarr responded that is correct.
Chairman Wible asked Mr. Tarr about Number 1, asking for confirmation regarding extending water service to lot 51 specifically, stating he didn't hear that but wanted to confirm that it was a fact. Mr. Tarr responded that was correct.
Chairman Wible asked if there was more discussion.
Commissioner Maislen stated, the developer agreed to pay for that for 5 years. The water goes over there and they pick up the tab. Mr. Tarr, responded that by inference it was the money which would have been allocated or donated by the developer.
Chairman Wible asked for any other comments from the commission to the staff at this time.
Commissioner Peller referred to the second page, Section 10:
ìWildlife Corridor Conservation Authority (WCCA) or another responsible agency intends to work with the Vantage Pointe Homeowners Association (HOA) and the Edison Company (Edison) to enhance Lot 51 of recorded Tract No. 46633 in unincorporated Los Angeles County. Enhancement is anticipated to consist, at a minimum, of planting Lot 51 with native vegetation for the purpose of encouraging and accommodating wildlife movement. If, within five years of recordation of Tract No. 52437, WCCA or another responsible agency successfully reaches agreement with the HOA and Edison, the developer of Tract No. 52437 will participate in the enhancement of that portion of Lot 51 that abuts Tract No. 52437 by eitherÖ.î
Commissioner Peller questioned the inclusion of ìeitherî, and felt it should be removed. Mr. Tarr agreed and re-read the entire paragraph as corrected. Mr. Tarr also added the remainder of the condition:
Extending water service to Lot 51; and
Participating financially in the initial planting of Lot 51; and
Extending planting into Lot 51 similar to that provided with the buffer zone; and
Establishing an endowment for the maintenance of any improvements to Lot 51 or for monitoring wildlife use of the corridor adjacent to the project; and
Should such agreement fail to be reached, monies which would have been allocated for such planting will be used by the City for corridor enhancements consistent with attenuation of wildlife impacts.
Commissioner Peller assured the Commission that his questions were answered.
Chairman Wible asked for the entertainment of the motion on the recommendation to adopt the resolution with the mitigation measures as amended.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to adopt the Resolution 98-19 with conditions and mitigation measures as amended; seconded by Commissioner Skinner.
Chairman Wible called for the question.
AYES: Maislen, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin
6. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita Drive asked for clarification concerning Commissioner Peller's absence of September 22, 1998, regarding his vote being counted. Mr. Higgs acknowledged that a Commission majority was impaneled and eligible. Commissioner Peller assured Mr. Higgs he had read all the materials of the meeting. Chairman Wible stated that three members of the Commission is still a quorum. Chairman Wible instructed Mr. Tarr to speak with the City Attorney regarding the proper legalities. Commissioner Peller stated even when you miss a meeting you can still vote, otherwise it cripples the commission.
Mr. Higgs stated he was talking about rules rather than suggestions, stating that Commissioner Peller missed the Commission meeting. Chairman Wible stated that Mr. Tarr will get the answer from the city's legal counsel.
Stephen Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, praised the commission for volunteering their time and trying to make decisions that are in the best interest of the community; however, he asked the commission for a fair hearing of issues and that they are passed over and not addressed. Chairman Wible reiterated what was adopted today for presentation at October 8, 1998 City Council meeting.
Mr. Blagden stated he was concerned that items on the August Meeting agenda were postponed to September because drainage information was not completed, and at the September meeting these items were not heard. Chairman Wible stated he believed that the items were reviewed and concerns regarding drainage were addressed by the City Engineer. Chairman Wible stated these items will be finalized before the city council makes their final decision.
Seeing no one else come forward the meeting was closed to public testimony.
Chairman Wible asked for any business by Planning Commission.
Commissioner Peller reiterated the principals of absenteeism. Parliamentary rules are applied.
Commissioner Maislen stated the Garden Harvest will be Saturday October 17, 1998 9am-noon at the park.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Skinner offered a motion to adjourn to the regular meeting of October 27, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin
The meeting was adjourned at 3:43 p.m.
__________________________
John Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
Brad Tarr, Deputy Planner
Minutes of Regular
September 29, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman John Wible at 7::40 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California. Chairman Wible indicated that City Manager Les Doolittle had some announcements.
City Manager Doolittle stated that Staff expects to complete the rewrite of the grading ordinance to be ready for the Planning Commission within the next two weeks. He also stated that he would not be participating in deliberations of the Old Coach Estates application (Item 7) because of a legal conflict of interest due to the potential $10,000 impact on his real property with the project being in full view. One or more of the Commissioners are close enough but not within view of the project so will not be impacted. Mr. Doolittle introduced Planning Department Secretary Barbara Doppieri and City Attorney Bill Rudell.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Commissioners David Maislen, Ginger Skinner and Alternate Rick Martin. Absent: Commissioner John Peller. Vice Chairman Richard Newbre has unofficially resigned. Also present: City Manager Doolittle, City Engineer Dominic Milano, Civil Engineer Dave Gilbertson, Fire Chief Robert Nelson, Deputy Planner Brad Tarr, Administrative Secretary Doppieri and City Attorney Rudell.
FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Alternate Martin.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
City Planner Tarr stated that the agenda had been posted in accordance with the statutes.
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AND MINUTES
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of August 25, 1998.
Commissioner Maislen requested that the ìMotion to approveî on page 8, paragraph 3 be placed next to the ìApproved as followsî in paragraph 6.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to approve the August 25, 1998 minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Peller
Conditional Use Permit 98-05 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of La Habra Heights Recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-05
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to approve Resolution 98-16, seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Peller
Conditional Use Permit 98-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-06
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to approve Resolution 98-17, seconded by Alternate Martin and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Peller
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Deputy Planner Tarr swore in those wishing to testify.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-07 AND STANDARD MODIFICATION 98-10
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Agenda Report on a continued hearing from the August 25, 1998 meeting, requesting approval to construct a storage building for one fire truck AT Fire Station #5 at 2426 Vista Road. He stated this was continued so the Fire Chief could negotiate further with the La Habra Christian Church to re-position the proposed site of the fire station to the westerly side. In this case the repositioning of the fire station has resulted in making the application for Standards Modification 98-10 not necessary. The structure meets all of the setback requirements. It is now located parallel to Vista and will be able to access Vista Road with a right-hand southward turn out of the fire station. It will be manned with personnel who live close by in response to area calls. Staff feels that since the project meets the General Plan goal of reducing potential fire hazards and the Fire Department mission of improving fire service responses throughout the City, the recommendation is to recommend certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the attached resolution subject to the conditions of approval which are listed in Exhibit "B".
Chairman Wible opened the Public Hearing for public comment.
There was no public comment.
Chairman Wible closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Maislen stated that he was happy with the results of the further negotiation with La Habra Christian Church.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to recommend the City Council approve the resolution with conditions 1, 2 and 3, recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-07 and certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Peller
City Manager Doolittle left the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
SPECIFIC PLAN 97-01/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52437
The co-applicants, Clurman Company and Greystone Homes, are requesting approval for the specific plan and tentative map to construct a (21) unit single-family dwelling community, "Old Coach Estates", on property located easterly of the intersection of Skyline Drive and Oak Ranch Road.
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Agenda Report. The Specific Plan 97-01 and Tentative Tract Map 52437 will have significant effects on the environment and therefore the City caused to be prepared an Environmental Impact report[EIR]. The co-applicants are Clurman Company and Greystone Homes. The owner is the B. Diaz Company whose residence is the single family dwelling located at the site. The rest of the property is undeveloped. It formerly was used for avocado production and has been in disuse for several years. Mr. Tarr stated that currently the property is divided into seven parcels on 25 acres. The proposal is to sub-divide the property into 21 one acre lots. Mr. Tarr stated that he would address the Specific Plan first and then the Environmental Impact report as it addresses items which are necessarily discussed in the Specific Plan pursuant to the Municipal Code Section 9414.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that several of the aims of the Specific Plan are to:
Provide a homogenous visual appearance for the development (framework landscape).
Screen view of new structures from surrounding public and private areas (screening trees).
Reserve existing peripheral landscape of healthy avocado and oak trees and supplement the existing peripheral landscape with drought-tolerant trees and ground covers appropriate for the slopes and/or dry fuel modification zone.
The homes proposed are offered in 3 floor plans, one is a two-story plan and the other 2 plans are one-story. They vary in size from 3,195 square feet to 3,995 square feet. The design options may permit on certain lots additional development to go up to 4,295 square feet.
There will be 43 significant trees which will be lost. A total of 200 additional trees will be planted. These will consist of 100 24-inch box and 100 15-gallon size trees.
The 21 homes will be served by a network of four new streets, two of which will enter the property from Skyline Drive to the south, one from the northwest corner from Oak Ranch Road, and a double cul-de-sac street which bisects the longer of the Skyline Drive access new streets. Oak Ranch Road and Skyline Drive are required to be developed to a minimum of 20 feet paved width. The Oak Ranch Road portion of that widening will occur to just past the intersection with the new street in the northwest corner. Nearly the entire length of Skyline Drive would be so improved.
This item was continued from the August meeting in order for more particular drainage information to be included on the Tentative map. Deputy Planner Tarr stated that the City Engineer found that the drainage concept consisting of detention basins to collect run-off before it is dispensed is in conformance with the language contained in the Specific Plan and discussed in that relative section contained in the E.I.R. so the drainage concept is found to be sound and would reduce any stronger runoff to a less than significant level.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that the E.I.R. identified several topics that might have significant effects if they were not subject to mitigation measures, which comprise Exhibit 10 in the Agenda Report.
Traffic and Circulation: The Trip Generation manual by the Institute of Transportation Engineers states that a single-family home generates an average of 10 trips per day. The project is forecast to generate 210 trips daily. The analysis assumes 1/3 of the project traffic will travel Fullerton Road north and 2/3 south. The foreseeable traffic growth was not seen to tax the capacity of the intersections at Fullerton Road and East Road or the two Fullerton Road intersections with Harbor Boulevard. It was not anticipated that signalization would be needed at any of the three intersections. A letter was received from Carl Barth [Agenda Report Exhibit 8] which states he believes there is less than adequate sighting to the north and south of the Fullerton Road and Skyline Drive intersections. The environmental consultant has expressed that she was not in agreement with the point raised in the letter but if the Commission chose to do so they could add a
mitigation measure that the blind curves mentioned could be addressed. Deputy Planner Tarr stated that the conclusion of the Traffic and Circulation study was that the impacts would be less than significant and no particular mitigation measures would be needed
Biological Resources: Deputy Planner Tarr stated that studies indicate that there is wildlife movement on the project site. It moves in a general direction from northern Whittier in an easterly and southeasterly direction toward habitat located east of the property in Rowland Heights and into the Chino Hills. Mr. Tarr noted that a portion of the area is located in Significant Ecological Area Number 17 which is located on the northerly portion of the project. The wildlife corridor is constricted on the east of the project site due to urbanization within unincorporated County land along Harbor Boulevard. This situation has contributed to greater use of the site by wildlife than might otherwise be the case if a wider easterly corridor were provided for. Mr. Tarr stated that it is the responsibility of the applicants to mitigate significant impacts their proposal would create or contribute toward, and not to compensate for corridor deficiencies not of their making. The impacts are loss of habitat and animal interaction with humans and pets with possible reduction in numbers and disturbance to nocturnal animal behavior due to night lighting of homes. The loss of habitat includes impact on Coast Live Oak and California Black Walnut trees. The framework and screening trees discussed in the Specific Plan is covered in Mitigation Measure number 4. The loss of these trees could affect the perching and nesting of birds and requires pre-grading surveys to confirm the absence of nesting. Delays to grading with 500 feet thereof of any nesting will be instituted until young birds have been fledged.
In order to minimize the impacts to wildlife the applicants have amended the Tentative Map and the Specific Plan to show that they will provide a 100 foot wildlife corridor buffer area on the eastern edge and a 50 foot wide area on the northeast. When combined with the open space area owned by the Vantage Point Homeowners Association and Edison International [SCE] the corridor would then measure 384-740 linear feet in width. There is disagreement between the biologist hired by the environmental consultant and the two Wildlife Corridor stewardship agencies on whether this provision of the additional buffer area will adequately mitigate to a less than significant level the impacts to wildlife because of the constriction of movement after the project is developed. The Wildlife Corridor stewardship agencies maintain that, a. the wildlife will not greatly utilize the 100 foot corridor but will be constrained eastward to a narrower zone due to ìnoise and light from the residencesî, b. that the enhancement of plantings within the project site wildlife corridor and the open space for adjacent wildlife corridor and the open space lot adjacent will not duplicate the habitat value that native areas would have. c. That due to these forecasted impacts lots 11 and 12 should be eliminated so that an assured wider buffer zone on the project site of 250-300 feet is established. Staff believes that the additional measures set forth in Exhibits 4 and 5 provide the additional safeguards to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level.
View Modification: Mr. Tarr stated that the view impact analysis concluded that although the developed site would be visible from certain vantage points, staff did not believe it met the test that the project would significantly impact views that are now enjoyed by homes outside of the project. Section 9404 of the Municipal Code would also apply within the project. The Commission may defer action on view modification at this time. Any future view impact questions come to the Planning Department for adjudication and it seldom goes beyond the staff level in that case. Staff feels that would be the appropriate way to handle view impacts in this case as well.
Fire Safety: The E.I.R. has identified the project as susceptible to fire hazards without mitigation measures. They have been provided for in that fuel modification zones adjacent to structures, both wet and dry and two auxiliary fire stations are being provided at 2426 Vista Road and 2015 Deep Canyon Road in relatively close proximity to the project site and augmented by Station 1 at City Hall. There have also been discussions with one of the developers of the project that he is in favor of contributing toward a more permanent Fire Station which may be developed adjacent to the Powder Canyon area north of Fullerton Road. The homes will be equipped with fire sprinklers. Staff believes these measures reduce wildfire hazard impacts to a less than significant level.
Geologic Issues: These include fault rupture, ground shaking, bedding plane shearing, slope instability, and soil expansion. A report by Petra Geotechnical Incorporated, contains recommendations to deal with these issues. Mitigation Measures 1-7 address these subjects.
Cultural Resources: The single family dwelling at 2567 East Skyline
was not deemed to be historically significant so there would be no impact on this aspect of cultural resources. With regard to the paleontological and archaeological value of the site, a further assessment is necessary through a Phase I archaeological survey and grading monitoring by a paleontologist for fossil recovery. Recovery operations are to be handled in accordance with the Public Resources Code. Both actions are covered by the appropriate mitigation measures.
Air Quality/Noise: There are short-term unavoidable, adverse impacts such as dust, noise and construction traffic. Conditions routinely placed on construction projects by the City are applicable. Exhibit 7 includes a Statement of Overriding Considerations and would need to be declared if the Commission recommends granting the application. The short-term impacts cannot be absolutely reduced to an insignificant level. This Statement of Overriding Consideration states that the Commission recognizes these adverse impacts and yet the overall benefits are superior over the negative effects and therefore because of them the project can be recommended for approval. In this particular case staff feels it is wiser to recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map since it is inextricably tied to the Specific Plan itself which necessarily has to be reviewed by the City Council at their next regular meeting if the Commission approves the application this evening. Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map to the City Council for action.
Chairman Wible asked Deputy Planner Tarr for a brief summary of the conditions.
Deputy Planner Tarr gave a brief summary of the 57 conditions of approval in the Agenda Report. Mr. Tarr mentioned that all Development activities must conform to a six day work week (Monday through Saturday) from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Applicant shall obtain all permits and approvals legally required from the City of La Habra Heights and other public agencies. No permits for grading or building shall be issued until all permits or approvals required by law have been issued by public agencies other than the City. No grading or building permits may be issued if there are inconsistencies between the entitlement documents and permits or approvals issued by other public agencies. Such inconsistencies must be eradicated. Several of the conditions have been amended to a slight extent and Conditions 3 and 39 have been eliminated. The Geotechnical Plan may be reviewed by qualified, licensed third party [the City Engineer]. The retention basins shall be constructed at appropriate locations and must be approved by the City Engineer. Grading activities shall be subject to a dust and erosion control plan to be prepared by the Applicant and submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of the Grading permit. No structures shall be erected in the Wildlife Corridor. Deed restrictions forbid any public interference or trespassing on such areas. A qualified paleontologist shall be on-site during mass grading activities to identify any paleontological resources revealed. Conditions state how any finds would be dealt with. Proposed cut and fill slopes shall be graded no steeper than 2:1 unless specifically approved by the City Engineer. The horizontal and vertical curves on project roadways shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance as approved by the City Engineer. Centerline striping shall be provided on Skyline Drive. There will be landscape and re-vegetation plans in addition to the framework and screening trees concept after such landscaping has been installed since the Municipal Code requires each homeowner to submit landscape plans. The applicant is required to adhere to each of the Mitigation Measures contained in Exhibit 10 until impacts are eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance, in the determination of the City.
Chairman Wible mentioned other items covered in the Conditions. He stated that there were Conditions dealing with lighting, water conservation, low level toilets, reducing runoff water, potable water usage, nesting birds, what costs are the Applicants, the City's or Southern California Gas and monitoring of the project as necessary. There is also a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as previously mentioned.
Commissioner Maislen questioned the use of poison oak in the Mitigation Measure #10 and asked that it be taken out.
Chairman Wible stated his agreement.
Chairman Wible opened the public portion of the Pubic Hearing.
Don Clurman, 15375 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, offered a brief history of the Old Coach Estates development started in 1996. He stated that they had worked with the City and their suggestions and talked to many of the neighboring people. He stated that they had also met with Mr. Bob Henderson of the Wildlife Corridor. Mr. Clurman stated that Old Coach Estates is now 100% consistent with the General Plan and the zoning ordinances. It actually exceeds most of the standards. It fits the country rural characteristics. It will not look like a tract development. There will be an abundance of landscape and treescape. The three styles of homes can be combined in many different ways. There will be minimum grading with no import or export. Two acres have been set aside on the northeast corner for a buffer zone for wildlife needs. Funds will be provided for a fire station facility. Greystone Homes was used to assure the plan would be finished as stated.
Jim Collings, 1850 Nabal Road, spoke in favor of the project.
Paul Spothelfer, 1281 West Road, spoke in favor of the project.
Ed Sauls, 742 Summit Drive, Laguna Beach, pointed out the Wildlife Corridor on the map.
Paul Edelman, 2600 Franklin Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, staff ecologist for the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority, spoke of the importance of the Wildlife Corridor and that what happens on this section has a ripple effect to the east and west. It consists of both a corridor and a habitat for wildlife. He felt the City should require the developer to give the City and the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority[WCCA], a conservation easement of that on-site buffer zone. Mr. Edelman also stated that there needed to be a fall-back position in the final E.I.R. if the off-site portion of the buffer zone belonging to Vantage Point Homeowners and SCE land was not available. He suggested obtaining written permission from Vantage Point Homeowner and SCE prior to map recordation. The final E.I.R. should include exact guidelines for the off-site area restoration. The fall-back position should include an element requiring the applicant to modify his project by pushing back the restoration zone 100 feet into the project property.
Commissioner Skinner asked which mitigation items could be misinterpreted.
Mr. Edelman stated it was in the area of 15, 16, and 17 on off-site restoration.
Mike Cole, 1438 Dorothea Road, stated that he was concerned with the density of the project and also the Wildlife Corridor. He stated that he spoke to families living adjacent to the property and they all had concerns. He felt there was more time needed to study the E.I.R., the Tentative Map and the Specific Plan. He felt there was not enough information on the map. He also stated that a continuance is needed for time to consider the project
Chairman Wible asked what information was missing from the Tentative Map.
Mr. Cole stated that because of the scale of the map it would take time to look at the grading contours and make a determination on the orientation of the lots. Some of the streets were over 14% grade.
Chairman Wible informed Mr. Cole that there was a public informational meeting on this project in June.
Linda Catalina, 2027 Fullerton Road, stated that she lives across from the project. She agreed that more time was needed to consider the project. She stated she was concerned about the traffic issue, view impact and environmental impact. She is concerned that community spirit will be lacking in the new project. She also expressed her concern with the density of the project.
Commissioner Maislen asked if she was aware of the public meeting held in June.
Ms. Catalina answered that she had attended the meeting. She felt that the concerns made at that meeting were not dealt with but it was continually stated that there was not a significant impact on the different issues.
Commissioner Maislen asked Ms. Catalina if she was aware that the project is required to have at least one-acre lots.
Ms. Catalina answered in the affirmative but stated that there will be a lot of wildlife displaced or destroyed.
Commissioner Maislen asked if she was aware that the 43 trees being removed were being replaced by 200 trees. He stated that the largest were 24î box trees.
Ms. Catalina stated that the wildlife would not be able to use them for a while.
Ms. Catalina and Chairman Wible discussed a perceived sight problem at the intersection of Skyline Drive and Fullerton Road.
Stephen Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, mentioned the short time some of the information had been available for the public to see such as the drainage. Mr. Blagden presented questions which he had written in a letter to the City. Mr. Blagden stated that surrounding properties were larger than 1 acre lots or open space such as Powder Canyon and would not match the proposed project.
Deputy Planner Tarr referred everyone to the section in the Environmental Impact report where Mr. Blagden's letter is contained. He stated that the letter was received on June 22nd. He stated that the Environmental consultant answered his questions point by point. The consultant broke down his questions into 13 comments and provided answers to each one. If Mr. Blagden has specific drainage concerns the Tentative Map has been amended and the City Engineer may want to comment on the drainage improvements as they now exist. Mr. Tarr stated that Mr. Clurman and Fire Chief Nelson have been discussing the possible fund for a fire station. Mr. Tarr also explained that the ìno fencingî issue is in the wildlife corridor buffer zone not on site in answer to one of Mr. Blagden's questions.
Mr. Clurman stated that they intend to transfer $18,000 towards a fire station at the recordation of the map in answer to another of Mr. Blagden's questions.
City Engineer Milano explained that the drainage consists of an on-site detention system as needed with underground storage tanks that store the water and discharge the water at a pre-set rate which matches the current discharge of the natural ground on either Skyline Drive or Oak Ranch Road. Once the Tentative Map is approved the hydrology will be designed in detail for each lot. He explained that there are 12-15 underground pipe systems that will be developed. They will be under the control and maintenance of the Homeowner's Association.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that it was not the purpose of the General Plan to say that avocado and citrus production is appropriate for every piece of land in the Heights. The General Plan means that where citrus or avocado groves exist they should stay if possible. In this case the avocado grove is no longer producing in a useful way.
Mr. Tarr continued answering Mr. Blagden's questions by explaining that it was not fair to compare the small project area to the large Powder Canyon area for home density. There is no street lighting encouraged in La Habra Heights. There is only 1 foot candle of light allowed to extend from a back yard to other properties. The SEA in the northern portion of the site is used as a drainage area. The drainage system proposed will not intensify the natural drainage.
Noor Khan, 1970 Fullerton Road, asked if the widening of the intersection of Skyline Drive and Fullerton would be taken from her land or the proposed project. She stated that she considers the homes tract homes not custom homes and that they would bring down the value of surrounding homes. She also felt things were moving too fast. Mrs. Khan stated that during El Nino the drainage was very heavy. She expressed her concern for the noise and a loss of privacy.
Deputy Planner Tarr explained that the legal adequacy was satisfied for this meeting by the announcement at the last meeting continuing the item to the September 22, 1998 meeting.
Chairman Wible stated that tonight's meeting was noticed at the four areas that meetings are always noticed. He also mentioned that Mr. Clurman had talked to those at the previous meeting who had questions outside of the meeting room for between 1 and 1 1/2 hours.
Chris Haas, 747 Euclid Ave, Ontario stated that he was a graduate student at Cal State Poly Tech at Pomona. He stated that he was doing research throughout the Chino-Puente Hills on mammal movements and their responses to the freeways which bisect the hills. He stated that he has found this area is being used by mammals and birds as a corridor. He felt the project would be in the way of animals and birds traveling from Powder Canyon to the other side of Harbor. The acreage set aside for the buffer is on a slope and animals prefer not to travel on slopes.
Andi Gullo, 17801 Lake Perris Drive, Perris, representing the Los Lagos District of the California Department of Parks and Recreation stated that establishing an innerconnected system of reserves in Puente-Chino Hills is critical to the future of the State Parks and other protected lands in the hills. The project area is one of the critical areas in the system. She stated that the buffer zone was not sufficient.
Commissioner Maislen asked Ms. Gullo to confirm that the project would be acceptable if the eastern buffer zone was increased another 100 feet on site.
Ms. Gullo answered that was minimum and they would prefer Alternative 2 in the draft E.I.R.
Bob Henderson, 5657 Citrus Ave, Whittier explained where the 31-mile swath of the Wildlife Corridor extends. He explained that WCCA and other organizations work with developers to preserve the corridor. Mr. Henderson stated that his concern is that such a narrowing of the corridor due to the project will cause some animals to become locally extinct. He stated that the narrowness of the southern choke point, 180 feet, is not supported by any facts. He asked that the reference to 180 feet be stricken as it is not supported in the draft E.I.R. He stated that there is evidence of animal movements on the property and that several groups, not just two, wrote letters that the buffer zone needs to be wider than now proposed. They all agree that the buffer zone is actually a fuel modification area. Mr. Henderson stated that the developer cannot promise the use of the Edison easement as part of the buffer zone because there is no agreement as of now. Mr. Henderson presented changes he would like to see in the E.I.R. concerning the buffer zone and plantings for it. Starting on page 68 of the draft E.I.R., paragraph 15, starting with a change of item C, also adding an item. Replace paragraph 16 and on page 73 add information on fuel modification area. Mr. Henderson stated that many of the agencies feel CEQA is not being complied with and therefore the project should be challenged because there is not enough on-site mitigation. He also stated that the developer should be the one to negotiate the off-site buffer zone.
David Albin, 2500 East Skyline Drive, presented his concern regarding Skyline Drive and the intersection of Skyline Drive and Fullerton Road along with the increased traffic. Mr. Albin asked that Skyline Drive not be blocked by any construction trucks during construction. He stated he was concerned about the blind curve. He stated that he would hope the underground drainage system would not cause slippage of any other property from the runoff.
City Engineer Milano stated that the widening of Skyline to 20 feet would be within the already existing easements. There will be no impact on any private property along the street.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita, stated his concern for the Wildlife Corridor. He suggested Mr. Clurman be approached to sell or lease the property needed to interested people and agencies.
George Harsch, 2383 Oak Ranch Road, stated he was concerned where the drainage would empty onto Oak Ranch Road.
City Engineer Milano answered that when they get into the final design the existing drainage course will be considered and it will be decided where the detention basins should empty on the street so as not to impact anyone else.
Mr. Harsch also stated his concern on how long the construction would continue. He was concerned with the traffic and blind curves. Also the size of the proposed lots concerned him. He asked who would take care of the maintenance of the buffer zone.
Mr. Sauls answered that the maintenance will be provided for 5 years with guaranteed success criteria of the developer. The lots will be owned by individuals and the developer has proposed that WCCA or some other entity might negotiate an agreement that would help provide for access and long-term maintenance.
Deputy Planner Tarr answered that as to lot size the requirement in the Municipal Code was that lots must be a net area of 40,000 square feet and the proposed lots all meet that criteria.
City Engineer Milano commented that the blind curve on Skyline Drive will be addressed during the project. They will look at the intersection at Fullerton Road and Skyline Drive and see if there is anything in the public right-of-way that can be shaved back.
David Salene, 15375 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, representing Greystone Homes, stated that the anticipated time scheme from start of improvements to final occupancy for the project is two years.
Andy Koretoff, 2006 Fullerton Road, stated his concern regarding the traffic at Fullerton and Skyline Drive. He stated that the school bus stops at that corner each morning. He also stated he was concerned for his privacy.
Mr. Clurman stated that they would work with the City Engineer in any way they could. Mr. Clurman stated that he would like his environmental planning consultant to speak to the Commission in response to the Wildlife Corridor issue.
Ed Sauls, consultant on land use issues and resolution of conflict between wildlife conservation and development for Clurman Company and Greystone Homes, asked if the biologist the City hired could give a brief synopsis of his findings.
Michael Brandman, 1590 Red Hill Ave, Tustin, stated that his company is an environmental and biological consulting firm. He noted that he was joined by Greg Miller, senior scientist at Michael Brandman Associates. Mr. Brandman stated that they were contacted by Laura Stetson from Cotton Beland/Associates, Inc. to provide an analysis and evaluation in the final E.I.R. Mr. Brandman stated that the most significant impact to the Wildlife Corridor is Harbor Boulevard itself.
Greg Miller stated that Harbor Boulevard is a major road with 25,000-30,000 cars driving on it each day. The wildlife will have to cross Harbor Boulevard to get to the area of the corridor on the other side. Once across Harbor Boulevard the wildlife will be able to travel the Corridor. Mr. Miller stated that he did not consider the proposed development of an old orchard a significant constraint on the corridor. The birds should be able to make it across. The amphibians are severely handicapped by Harbor Boulevard. Small mammals would find it treacherous to cross. If an undercrossing had been planned when Harbor Boulevard was built it would have helped. The larger animals should be able to cross in vegetated areas.
Ed Sauls stated that he felt the project does mitigate for its impacts. There are deficiencies in the corridor but it is not the developers responsibility to correct those defects. He stated there was some new information since WCCA and others wrote their letters. Mr. Sauls pointed out the difference between the map used at the WCCA meeting at the southern choke point and the aerial photo of the southern choke point. The drawing used by WCCA showed the choke point as immediately adjacent to the project. On the aerial photo proper placement of the project places the widest area of the choke point as adjacent to the project. The plan used by WCCA used the figure of 300 feet as the distance adjacent to the project. The aerial photo shows 680 feet adjacent to the project. Mr. Sauls stated that at the time the letters were written it was not known that Lot 51 was dedicated open space. The proposed project is surrounded by residential development. The wildlife does travel through existing residential areas.. Mr. Sauls stated that Clurman and Greystone Homes suggests that condition 16 a, b, c and d change the ìorsî between the sections to ìandsî, pointing out the establishing of an endowment for the maintenance of any improvement of lot 51 for 5 years. He stated they would like to delete ìthe monitoring of wildlife use of the corridor adjacent to the corridor.î [the last part of item 16 d.] He stated that they consider that this will provide the people interested in the wildlife issues in the area mitigation that further enhances this subject area of the corridor. He continued that if an agreement is not reached with the Vantage Point Homeowners Association on enhancement of Lot 51 the developer will take the funding that would have been used in the enhancement and maintenance for other enhancement of the corridor as the City wishes or whatever authority the City recognizes wishes.
Bob Henderson objected to the "new" information. He stated that Mr. Sauls had nothing to do with WCCA and the planning map had been without scale. Mr. Henderson stated that they are getting close to a reasonable compromise. He stated that there has to be an agreement with Vantage Point for viability of the mitigation as proposed by the developer. They have to be able to enhance that area. There is no other appropriate substitute. If the existing Edison easement is lost the Wildlife Corridor is severed effectively. He asked the Planning Commission to hold the developer to reasonable responsibility at minimal cost to allow them to try to make a compromise that will end the controversy.
Commissioner Maislen asked if WCCA has ever made a proposal to the developer to purchase those areas that they want given.
Mr. Henderson answered in the negative. He stated that there are requirements under CEQA that there be reasonable mitigation measures taken. To spend public money for something the developer should be required to do would be a waste of public money.
Chairman Wible closed the Public portion of the meeting.
Alternate Martin stated that he failed to see anything about the development that is outside the realm of reasonableness or what is required from the City's ordinances.
Commissioner Skinner stated she does not have a problem with the project. She stated that she feels the 100-foot buffer is all that should be required of the developer. The privacy concern will be addressed later.
Commissioner Maislen agreed with what had been said and added that the Diaz family had worked hard to see that they did not end up with 25 families buying 25 individual lots and having the property hacked up. The Old Couch Estates project seems to be extremely well thought out and planned. He also felt they mitigated the wildlife corridor situation very well.
Chairman Wible stated that Clurman Company had made a condition that if the Vantage Point agreement is not made there must be more negotiations until there is a reasonable agreement. This condition is necessary. Also the Clurman Company offered another condition on Item 16 ìa-dî deleting the last part of ìdî on monitoring animal movement.
Mr. Sauls clarified that if the Vantage Point agreement can not be reached they will take the mitigation equivalent funding and apply it as the City deems appropriate. They feel that it is inappropriate to condition the whole project upon a homeowner's association.
The Commission agreed that this would have to be an added condition.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that this condition can be added when they re-number the conditions and also add the condition to remove the poison oak planting. Mr. Tarr stated that staff would prepare a resolution for the approval recommendation.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to recommend approval of Specific Plan 97-01, Tentative Tract Map 52437, and the Environmental Impact Report by adopting the Statement of Overriding Conditions, attaching conditions 1-56 less Nos. 3 and 39 and the addition of the wording that includes that the developer will participate in the enhancement of that portion of lot 51 that is currently primarily non-native grassland by: A.) extending water service to lot 51 for a period of 5 years and B.) pay for plants and planting and maintenance of the native plants planted as enhancement, and C.) extend planting into lot 51 as per reasonable standards set by a responsible agency and D.) establish an endowment for the maintenance of any improvement of lot 51 for a period of 5 years, and E.) Should this agreement not be acceptable to the Vantage Point Homeowners Association then funding equivalent to the cost of A-D would go to other enhancements in the wildlife area found appropriate by the City of La Habra Heights; seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Peller
Chairman Wible announced that this item will be considered by the City Council on October 8, 1998.
NEW BUSINESS
A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 9204 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AS REGARDS APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN RECREATIONAL USES IN THE R-A ZONE
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Agenda Report and stated that in the list of conditional uses permitted in the R-A Zone there seems to be some uncertainty in the language since the General Plan emphasizes a Dark Skies policy. Staff is asking for an interpretation of whether the Planning Commission thinks the language should be changed in the upcoming Zoning Ordinance amendment to include additional recreational use such as a skateboard course and lighted horse arenas.
Commissioner Maislen asked if this is where the rule for a 1 foot-candle limit of spillage on an adjoining property would be placed.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that this would not deal with the amount of light spillage, but if the Planning Commission chooses to interpret the language to include other uses that do not fit into the sports court definition, language could also be included to cover the foot-candle array that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Maislen explained that it made sense on any night lighted recreational areas that a foot-candle array should be provided before a permit is issued. It actually simplifies the process. He recommended this be done.
Commissioner Skinner stated that she did not think this was what was being addressed by this item.
Chairman Wible asked where the foot-candle array would be located in the ordinance.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that it is a development standard and would go under the R-A Zone development standards.
The Planing Commission discussed the meaning of the wording of the item concerning ìsports courtsî.
The decision was made to add the inclusion of ìarenas and other equestrian facilitiesî.
Alternate Martin stated they should investigate the 1 foot-candle array issue and bring it up at a different time.
Commissioner Maislen stated that it should definitely be placed on a list to be done.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to accept staff's recommendation with regard to the interpretation of Section 9204 of the Municipal Code regarding certain recreational uses and to add number 27 as stated by the City Attorney, ìArenas and other equestrian facilitiesî, seconded by Alternate Martin and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Peller
COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to adjourn to the next normally scheduled meeting on October 27, 1998, at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Peller
Chairman Wible adjourned the meeting at 12:34 a.m., September 23, 1998.
______________________________
John Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
Brad Tarr, Deputy Planner
Minutes of Regular
September 22, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 25, 1998
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wible at 7:35 p.m. on August 25, 1998, at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Vice Chairman Newbre, Commissioners Maislen, Peller and Skinner. Alternate Martin was absent. Also Present were: Deputy Planner Tarr, City Attorney Daniels, Fire Chief Nelson and City Engineer Milano.
FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Commissioner Maislen.
Chairman Wible stated that Item 11 will be continued to the next meeting as more information is needed on drainage and the associated environmental impact. Mr. Wible stated that those attending the meeting for this item could meet informally with applicants Mr. Clurman and Mr. Salene outside at this time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 1998
Deputy Planner Tarr confirmed that the Agenda was posted in accordance with the statutes.
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AND MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of July 28, 1998 were considered.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to approve the July 28, 1998 minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, and Wible
ABSTAIN: Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin
It was noted that Commissioner Skinner had left the July 28 meeting early and could not therefore vote for approval.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to approve Resolution 98-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-03 as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Newbre and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin
OLD BUSINESS
DISCUSSION OF REVISION TO GRADING /ZONING ORDINANCES
Chairman Wible stated that the information for this item is not complete and will be continued to the September meeting.
Commissioner Maislen asked Deputy Planner Tarr for a commitment as to when the Planning Commission would receive the changes.
Deputy Planner Tarr answered that Staff has just received a new draft from the City Attorney's office this week. This new version will be ready for the Planning Commission to review in two weeks.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-04 (La Habra Heights Fire Department)
Chairman Wible stated that Items 7-10 were all CUP's for La Habra Heights Fire Department.
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Agenda Report on CUP 98-04 stating that items 7-10 were all continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1998. He stated that Item 7 was for an issuance of a CUP to construct a storage building for one fire truck at 1768 Le Flore Drive. This would be an unmanned auxiliary station, without improvements to the basic structure. The station will be deployed in the event of a fire service call in the area. Two of the firefighters live nearby. The parking area will be unimproved. There will be minor grading and a new driveway apron needed to facilitate access onto Le Flore Drive. There will be maximum visibility between two curves where the new apron will be. Staff recommends approval of CUP 98-04 with the conditions 1-3 listed in the draft resolution as this furthers the General Plan goal of providing greater fire service capability.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked if there was a topographic map to insure the driveway is possible with a minor amount of grading.
Deputy Planner Tarr answered in the affirmative and stated that a grading permit would be needed. He did not have the precise cubic yardage of earth to be moved. Mr. Tarr stated that the City Engineer has seen the plans and affirmed there would be no problems.
The City Engineer was meeting outside with Mssrs. Clurman and Salene and was not available for comment.
Commissioner Maislen asked if the grading would be on site with no import or export.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that it would be on-site grading with no retaining walls needed.
Commissioner Skinner questioned if the terraces would be wide enough for the building.
Deputy Planner Tarr answered that there was just enough room on the terrace, not much extra room on either side of the building.
Commissioner Skinner asked how often the engine was used per year.
Fire Chief Nelson estimated that since January there had been under 10 calls in that area that would have utilized the engine being discussed. He stated that this was a smaller 4-wheel drive attack type engine. He also stated that sirens would not be used until the Engine reached West Road unless the call was on Le Flore Drive itself.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that this was the only workable site offered the west side of the city. He explained that at one time there were 5 auxiliary stations on the west side and when the last one closed at Las Palomas Drive it left the west side of the city unprotected. Chief Nelson stated that insurance companies ask three questions when property owners apply for fire insurance:
Where is the nearest fire station?
Where is the nearest fire hydrant?
What is your ISO rating?
More stations improve the safety and ISO rating which helps when purchasing insurance.
Chairman Wible opened the Public testimony portion on the item.
Deputy Planner Tarr swore in those wishing to testify.
Nina Guerini, 1747 Le Flore, stated that no sign has been placed to show where 1768 Le Flore, the project site, is located. She stated that where the site is located affects her opinion on the project. Mrs. Guerini stated her concern with the steep grade and the blind curve, which could cause liability. She stated that some of the traffic on Le Flore Drive is quite fast. The narrow terraces and the possibility of the station becoming permanent also worried her. Mrs. Guerini suggested looking further for a better site to be purchased.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that the Fire Department had placed an ad in the Heights Life requesting property use for the past three months.
Commissioner Maislen stated that none of the sites were being purchased. He suggested looking into a portion of the bottom level of the parking lot at the Hillcrest Church.
Chairman Wible closed the Public portion of the Hearing.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that the sign showing the site location had been placed and he suspected vandals had removed it. He stated that the Public is always encouraged to talk to Staff when they have questions.
Commissioner Maislen stated that Exhibit ìAî clearly shows where the site is located and can be seen at the Building Department. He stated that he would like this item continued to see if they can find a better site.
Vice Chairman Newbre stated that he would like to see a topographical survey and plan. He suggested that if this seems to be the only site they check with the neighboring owners at 1818 Le Flore to see if the Fire Department could access from their existing driveway. He agreed the item should be continued.
Commissioner Skinner stated her concern about the grading and would like more information on it.
Vice Chairman Newbre stated that it should be considered what Le Flore will be like after it is repaired in relationship to the planned driveway. He stated there is a 50 foot right-of-way on Le Flore. Mr. Newbre stated that he would like to see the engineering plan for the driveway.
Commissioner Peller suggested that at the next meeting a topographical map was needed and that the City Engineer certifies the plan meets the safety requirements. He stated that he thinks the City should meet the same standards as a citizen when applying for a similar project. A better site plan is needed.
Chairman Wible agreed with Commissioner Peller that a topographical map was needed. He stated that Deputy Planner Tarr stated in the Staff Report that all the zoning and whatever regulations apply will be followed.
Commissioner Peller stated that he was not sure the sighting safety distances were in the City Zoning Ordinances themselves.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to continue CUP 98-04 until the October meeting to take a look at some alternatives and accomplish the items mentioned by the Commission, seconded by Vice Chairman Newbre and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-05 (La Habra Heights Fire Department)
City Attorney Daniels stated that if the Commission felt the same on the next three items they could open the Public Hearing to take testimony from those who wished to testify on the items.
Vice Chairman Newbre offered that he felt Item # 8 was a straightforward site with no real topographical issues. He did not believe it needed to be continued for better plans. The Commission indicated it was ready to hear the applications.
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Agenda Report on Item 8. The property is owned by George Cooke. Mr. Tarr stated that this was a request for issuance of the CUP 98-05 to construct storage for two fire trucks (Fire Station #3) at 2015 Deep Canyon Road and also includes a portion at 2005 for the access driveway. The auxiliary fire station will be built on an already graded pad toward the northerly portion thereof and meeting the minimum setback for that side yard. The access to the site is already graded and achievable by the type of units to be deployed. There does need to be some widening of the sight distance onto Deep Canyon. Mr. Tarr stated that the project would consist of two garages to house two fire vehicles. No personnel would stay, although negotiations are underway with the Hacienda Golf Club to have firefighters stay at the maintenance yard building across the street on Deep Canyon. The Fire Department envisions a more permanent fixture at this site although the conditions of the lease are the same as at the other stations with a 90-day cancellation clause.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that there is an opportunity for the City to enjoy a contribution from the developers of the Old Coach Estates project who are interested in endowing some funds to permit the establishment of this station or a permanent station for a greater fire service capability to the proposed Old Coach Estates project. As the CUP effectuates the General Plan goal to reduce potential fire hazards the Staff recommends approval of CUP 98-05, make the findings, certify that the Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project and adopt the resolution with attached conditions.
Fire Chief Nelson explained that this site is across the street from the former Deep Canyon station. Chief Nelson stated that if they are able to successfully negotiate with the Golf Club the Fire Department will be manned during the daylight hours, improving the coverage for the area including the golf course. This would be a strictly volunteer-staffed station. The provision of water and electric service is being negotiated with the Hartsock family at 2025 Deep Canyon. It is possible that the station will end up as a storage shed for equipment being staffed as needed by nearby firemen. He stated that the fire department's goal was to be able to respond to calls in the area within four minutes.
Chairman Wible opened the Public testimony portion on the item.
Colleen Hartsock, 2025 Deep Canyon Road, commented that she was in favor of this project. Mrs. Hartsock stated that the address for the project was incorrectly stated as 2025 on the Agenda Report. She encouraged anyone having property available for a station contact the Fire Department. Mrs. Hartsock noted that the Agenda Report mentioned the proposed station as ìpermanentî in one paragraph and ìsemi-permanentî in another.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that this site would be subject to a 90-day lease agreement.
Mrs. Hartsock stated that the Agenda Report speaks of the garage being on the easterly portion of the lot whereas it is actually the northerly portion of the lot. She stated that the property line runs up the middle of her driveway.
Fire Chief Nelson explained that they had measured 25-30 feet from the trees on her lot to make sure there was enough room.
Mrs. Hartsock explained that she and her husband were willing to work with the Fire Department to supply water and electricity for the site at possibly less expense to the City. Mrs. Hartsock stated that she was concerned about the trimming or removal of the oleanders which flank the entry drive.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that they needed to take the oleanders out to widen the entrance to the driveway but only at the entrance.
Mrs. Hartsock stated that she would like to see as many oleanders remain as possible and continue on at Mr. Cooke's property at the base as it creates an amount of protection from people driving vehicles up on the bank. She also asked if they were going to pave the driveway.
Fire Chief Nelson said it might be necessary to do something about the mud problem in the rainy season.
Mrs. Hartsock asked that she be able to speak again if necessary after reading all of the Agenda Report.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that even if the project were passed it still had to go before the City Council for approval and she could testify at that time.
Richard Beckman, 2000 Subtropic Drive, spoke in favor of all four fire stations. He would like to see even more. He stated that from 30 years ago until 18 years ago there were 9 stations and in the last four years they have all been lost except Station 1. Mr. Beckman stated that there was a very strong need for more stations and he wanted to see the projects worked out. He also stated that he was happy to see this Planning Commission requiring adherence to the codes for City buildings.
Seeing no one else approach, Chairman Wible closed the Public testimony portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Maislen asked the Hartsock's if the location of the pad being 30 feet from the trees was acceptable or if it needed to be brought further south.
Deputy Planner Tarr swore in those wishing to testify not already sworn in.
Jim Hartsock, 2025 Deep Canyon Drive, stated that they would prefer the building measurement to start south of the oleanders rather than their southernly property line so there would be the most distance between their house and the project.
Commissioner Maislen clarified that if the 25-30 foot setback was measured from the southern property line it would be appropriate.
Commissioner Peller commented that this site plan does not meet the standards. The previous CUP 98-04 did not meet the standards but there were possible serious safety problems and violation of other ordinances. He stated that there were no such problems in CUP 98-05. Mr. Peller suggested that the motion be amended to include that the setbacks in the final plans submitted to the City Engineer for approval comply with those indicated on the drawing presented at this meeting or he would recommend they not approve CUP 98-05 until a proper site plan is brought in.
Vice Chairman Newbre stated he did not feel the motion needed to be amended. A direction to the Staff should be made that when they present CUP 98-05 to the City Council for approval they prepare a plan that more clearly and correctly shows the size of the building with respect to the site and its location, the various property lines and that as noted in the motion the building be not less than 25 or more than 30 feet from the southerly property line.
The motion was approved as follows: Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of CUP 98-05 regarding the property at 2015 Deep Canyon Road, with the structure located between 25-30 feet from the southerly property line, seconded by Commissioner Maislen.
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-06 (La Habra Heights Fire Department)
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Agenda Report on CUP 98-06 located at 1625 Cypress Street and owned by Kenneth Wilch to establish auxiliary Fire Station # 4. This project is located behind a single family home at a site almost the same as an auxiliary station last used in 1989 on this property. This is on a lease agreement with Mr. Wilch. There is an existing shed which will be dismantled and moved several feet to the southeast and repositioned at the site now planned to allow more easy access facing the north and exiting out an adjacent lot to the east, also owned by Mr. Wilch. This is a relatively flat area. Vehicular access is achievable now and there is plenty of parking for firefighters. Mr. Tarr stated that since this project further enhances the fire service capability, the Staff recommendation is to recommend approval of the project to the City Council and to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached to the conditions listed in the draft resolution.
Commissioner Maislen stated that his page mentioned that the shed is to be demolished and then says the shed will be moved.
Fire Chief Nelson explained that all of the component parts are there. It will need to be raised somewhat to accommodate the larger trucks now used. He stated that most of the structure seems to be sound. This site has good access and sight onto the road and plenty of parking..
Commissioner Maislen asked for clarification that this would be one building not two.
Fire Chief Nelson answered in the affirmative that there would be one building.
Chairman Wible opened the Public testimony portion on the item.
There was no testimony offered.
Chairman Wible closed the Public testimony portion.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to approve CUP 98-06, including that there be adequate drawings for setback and positioning of the building before it goes before the City Council, seconded by Vice Chairman Newbre and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin
Commissioner Skinner agreed that a site plan such as required from others should go to the City Council.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-07 (La Habra Heights Fire Department)
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Staff Report on CUP 98-07 requested by La Habra Heights Fire Department at 2426 Vista Road for Auxiliary Fire Station #5 and owned by La Habra Christian Church at 1400 Bella Vista Drive. This CUP needs a Standards Modification because the site of the proposed Fire Station would be encroaching into the easterly sideyard setback by 20 feet. The reason for the setback modification has to do with the conditions placed upon the Fire Department by the La Habra Christian Church. They do not desire the station to be any further west as they have future plans for planting greenery on the western portion of the approach from Vista Road. The central portion is utilized as a secondary means of access for the church so the Fire Department is not permitted to place the building on the already paved driveway. The site meets the other setbacks of the front yard, the westerly sideyard and southerly sideyard.
Deputy Planner Tarr directed the Planning Commission to La Habra Heights Municipal Code Section 9405.4e which permits such an encroachment if the proposal otherwise serves the general purpose of Article IX, the Zoning Ordinance, which Section 9105 states is ìthe promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and welfareî. This is advanced with the establishment of the auxiliary fire stations. Staff believes the Planning Commission could approve the Standards Modification as well as CUP 98-07 and certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and attach the conditions listed in the draft resolution.
Commissioner Maislen asked if there had been any discussion with the property owner on the east side of the site where the setback modification is requested.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that it was properly noticed and he made sure that it went out. He stated that he had not actually talked to the owner however the mailing had not come back.
Chairman Wible opened the Public portion of the meeting.
Stan Quade, 115 Encanada Drive, asked if they had fire engines for these stations or if they had to be purchased.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that the Fire Department had the engines. He stated that as Fireman Beckman explained, the number of engines had been reduced in the past few years.
Mr. Quade asked if these engines and stations fit into the budget.
Fire Chief Nelson answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Quade expressed his concern that the firemen should drive to the stations in a safe manner or drive away without sirens safely. He was not sure these new stations would save time for response to calls. He did not think the stations were a workable idea.
Fire Chief Nelson explained that there would be lighting on the church parking lot.. Mr. Nelson explained that the volunteers responding were already living in the area of the station and as things are at present they have to respond from the east side of the city to Station 1 to get an engine and take it back to the east side to the incident. This would take longer and doubles the liability. He also explained that sirens are not activated until the engine reaches a main street. Chief Nelson further explained that there is 24-hour staffing of Station 1 for Engine 1. All the rest of the engines at Station 1 are staffed by volunteers who have to drive in to the station. If Station 1 was destroyed there would be the auxiliary stations to carry on.
Chairman Wible closed the Public portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Peller stated that he had a problem with the setback because this does not meet the normal circumstances of setbacks.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that the property owner on the east has a carport almost up against the property line also but it is further from his home towards Vista Road.
Deputy Planner Tarr offered that it was his view that the proposal meets the standards of Section 9405a through d.
Commissioner Peller stated that he has reservations due to the fact that the applicant and the owner are not the same.
City Attorney Daniels stated that due to the applicant having interest as a lease holder the findings could be made and apply them to the applicant just as if he were the property owner.
Vice Chairman Newbre thought the project was inappropriate for the use due to the 5-foot setback and the driveway through the area that the church people use. He stated that he felt this could be a danger to the garage. Mr. Newbre felt they should look elsewhere and noted that there was County-owned land on either side of Harbor Boulevard north of Fullerton Road.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that they have received no response back from the County on the subject. He mentioned that some of the land is similar to the land on Le Flore Drive.
Fire Chief Nelson and Vice Chairman Newbre agreed that if they could get permission to place the garage on the green area at the church it would be acceptable.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that there would still be a Standards Modification needed on the west side but it would not be as great. The garage would be out of the driveway.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked Fire Chief Nelson to look into permission across for the driveway at the church or investigate other possibilities.
Commissioner Maislen suggested Fire Chief Nelson also look at the Sam Sung Church parking lot.
Commissioner Skinner stated that she was not comfortable with the project site and felt it also needed more detailed drawings.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that the driveway was not used much but had to be left open on Sundays as an escape route.
Commissioner Peller mentioned that he did not see the justification for such a Setback Modification.
Fire Chief Nelson told Commissioner Maislen that he would rather talk to the Deacons at the La Habra Christian Church to change the site than to try to get the corner of the parking lot at the Sam Sung Church.
The Planning Commission agreed to continue this item to the next meeting and decided no new property owners would need to be notified if the site was changed to the green area of the La Habra Christian Church.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to continue CUP 98-07 and Standards Modification 98-10 to the September meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Newbre and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin
SPECIFIC PLAN 97-01/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52437
Continued to the next Planning Commission meeting.
COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Stan Quade, 115 Encanada Drive explained the history of his problem with the City on whether his planned garage needed sprinklers or not according to the ordinance. He stated that all the fire stations need to have sprinklers also. Mr. Quade complained that Fire Marshall Dan Kimes had placed a stick-on note on his letter advising Mr. Quade that if the building was called a ìworkshopî it would not need sprinklers and Mr. Quade felt that showed a lack of integrity.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked Deputy Planner Tarr if the revisions being made to the Codes included clarification of the fire sprinkler issue so there is no question one way or the other.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that this particular subject is not within the zoning section. The Commission is at liberty to recommend any policy or changes in the Codes it administers and the zoning section does indirectly administer the Fire Code by approving applications which thereby initiate the building process. If the Commission wishes to recommend that the section on sprinklers have the language modified to address any ambiguity they may.
Vice Chairman Newbre commented that if any language is ambiguous it should be clarified. Mr. Newbre recommended the language be written in two clear forms, one which would follow each of the interpretations that are being made and then it would be up to the Commission and City Council to select the one they feel is appropriate for the City.
Chairman Wible asked City Attorney Daniels if he thought this is a difficult interpretation to make as an attorney.
City Attorney Daniels stated that he did not think this ordinance was ambiguous on this point.
Chairman Wible stated that he felt it would be good to clarify the ordinance as suggested.
Commissioner Maislen asked Fire Chief Nelson if he felt for safety all garages should be sprinklered or should the building be 1000 feet or more before triggering a sprinkler requirement.
Fire Chief Nelson replied that he felt it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. He stated that he planned to install sprinklers in the Deep Canyon station and that there were sprinklers at Station 1 garage.
Mr. Quade stated that he meant where the men were quartered. He felt the City should be consistent.
Fire Chief Nelson stated that there were no sprinklers for the barracks.
Commissioner Maislen voiced his disapproval with the note to Mr. Quade stating that he could call his garage a ìworkshopî.
The Planning Commission agreed that the language of the section on sprinklering should be clarified.
Fire Chief Nelson offered that he felt that when the ordinance is reviewed and the meeting opened up to Public Comment Mr. Quade should state his case toward the positive aspect of revising the Code and the problems he had experienced.
Mr. Quade felt the clarified ordinance would just state that all garages needed sprinklers.
Vice Chairman Newbre commented that he had asked that an ordinance be written clearly both ways and then the citizens can provide their input and the Planning Commission and City Council should make a decision as to which will be used.
Stephen Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, talked about view preservation. His opinion is that the View Preservation procedure promotes an adversarial relationship between neighbors. The zoning ordinance states that the burden of proof rests on the applicant. He must show that new construction does not impinge on existing views. Mr. Blagden stated that new topographical maps made from the aerial views made in 1997 could be made into a 3-D computer model of a proposed project. This could be used to tell if the new building would affect someone's view and the Planning Commission would not even have to go out to inspect the property. Mr. Blagden presented slides to show views and how they are affected by a new building. He stated that when a home blocks a view of an existing home the new home is actually ìtakingî the view. He stated that most of the disagreement in view debates are based on "significant view". "Significant" can have a hidden meaning for some and "significant" would not be the same for everyone.
Chairman Wible asked for a brief summary.
Mr. Blagden felt that on the issue of views he would like to see the burden of proof placed on the applicant as the zoning ordinance states rather than on the owner who's view is being blocked. Mr. Blagden also felt that the word ìsignificantî should be reviewed.
Commissioner Maislen and Mr. Blagden discussed what a buyer of view property should reasonably expect.
Commissioner Maislen stated that he believed a buyer should understand what can or can not be done with a lot and should not expect an empty lot to stay empty. The owner should at least consider a probability of a 2-story home being built.
Mr. Blagden stated that he felt it would be negligent of the Planning Commission to allow a home over 16 feet when the ordinance states it is not allowed.
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion to adjourn to the meeting of September 22, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin
__________________________-
John Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
Brad Tarr, Deputy Planner
Minutes of Regular
August 25, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 23, 1998
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wible at 7:35 p.m. on June 23, 1998 at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Vice Chairman Newbre, Commissioners Maislen, Peller, Skinner and Alternate Martin. Also present: Deputy Planner Tarr, City Manager Doolittle, City Engineer Milano and City Attorney Daniels.
FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Commissioner Maislen.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1998
City Manager Doolittle affirmed the posting of the Agenda in accordance with the statutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of May 26, 1998.
Chairman Wible noted that on page two, paragraph four, the name ìDeaî was also spelled ìDayî. ìDeaî is the correct spelling. ìDayî in the fourth line should be changed to ìDeaî.
Commissioner Skinner offered a motion to accept the minutes as corrected, seconded by Vice Chairman Newbre and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
OLD BUSINESS
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 98-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS, APPROVING STANDARDS MODIFICATION NO. 97-16 (Patel)
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 98-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS, APPROVING STANDARDS MODIFICATION NO. 98-08 (Iknadossian)
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 98-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-01 (La Habra Heights Water District)
Items 6, 7 and 8 were considered together.
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Staff Report on Item 6 for Resolution No. 98-06 which is approving Standards Modification No. 97-16 memorializing the action taken by the Planning Commission at the meeting of May 26, 1998. He stated the Staff recommendation was to adopt the Resolution.
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion to adopt Resolution 98-06 approving Standards Modification No. 97-16, seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Staff Report on Item 7 concerning Resolution No. 98-07 relative to Standards Modification No. 97-15 which memorializes the action taken by the Planning Commission at the meeting of May 26, 1998. Staff recommends the Resolution be adopted.
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion to adopt Resolution No. 98-07 approving Standards Modification No. 97-15, seconded by Commissioner Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Staff Report on Item No. 8 concerning Resolution No. 98-08 relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 98-01 which covers action taken by the Planning Commission at its May 26, 1998 meeting. Staff recommends adopting the Resolution.
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion to adopt Resolution No. 98-08 approving a Conditional Use Permit No. 98-01, seconded by Commissioner Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
NEW BUSINESS
Vice Chairman Newbre asked to be recused from Item 9 as it involves his property. The Commission accepted his recusal.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24162 (Newbre)
City Engineer Milano presented the Staff Report. Mr. Milano stated that this is an application by Kenneth Wilch, representing Mr. and Mrs. Newbre requesting a one-year extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24162 which proposes to subdivide 27.56 acres of property into three lots at 255 Canada Sombre. Mr. Milano stated that since the time the Tentative Parcel Map was approved no new changes have occurred in the zoning ordinance which would re-open this for consideration. Staff's recommendation is to adopt and approve the time extension.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to approve the time extension, seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
City Engineer Milano presented the Staff Report on Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 together.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22758 (George)
City Engineer Milano stated that Item 10 is a request for a one-year extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 22758 which is to subdivide a 3.19 acres of property into three lots at 378 East Road.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23023 (Gibson)
City Engineer Milano stated that the applicant is requesting a one-year extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23023 which proposes to sub-divide 3.25 acres of property into three lots at 1914 Chota Road.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 51275 (Finn)
City Engineer Milano stated that Item 12 is a request for a one-year extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 51275 which proposes to subdivide 5.4 acres of property into five lots at 2000 Chota Road.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23770 (Broshears)
City Engineer Milano stated that Item 13 is a request for a one-year time extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23770 which proposes to subdivide 3.87 acres of property into three lots at 783-787 West Road.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23310 (Baroldi)
City Engineer Milano stated that Item 14 is a request for a one-year extension of Tentative Parcel Map which proposes to subdivide 2.54 acres of property into two lots at 233 Reposado Drive.
Mr. Milano stated that in the case of all five of the Parcel Maps there have been no zoning changes which would affect them. Staff recommends approval of all four Parcel Maps and one Tract Map for one-year extensions. He stated that there are resolutions attached to each one of the applications.
Commissioner Peller noted that the extensions are granted automatically by law and the Planning Commission can only review to make sure there have been no changes to ordinances, zoning or codes which would affect the conditions on the approvals.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to adopt and approve the one-year time extensions for the four Parcel Maps and the one Tract Map, Items 10-14, seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
DISCUSSION OF ZONING AND GRADING ORDINANCE REVISION
City Manager Doolittle presented the Report. He stated that at the latest City Council Meeting City Attorney Colantuono had expressed his concern with lay persons making judgements of a technical nature regarding grading regulations. Mr. Colantuono was concerned that there needs to be a distinction between the professional types of judgements that require his certification and for which the City is in part insured and the policy type of determinations that the Planning Commission and City Council are set up to make. City Manager Doolittle stated that the City Council approved the recommendation in concept and directed Mr. Colantuono to prepare an outline of how he would propose to correct the situation within the City ordinances and report back to the City Council. Then the City Council on approving a concept would refer it to the Planning Commission for initial hearings. Mr. Doolittle stated that part of the Attorney's recommendation was that the grading ordinance should be part of the zoning ordinance of the City. This is part of what was directed by the City Council.
City Manager Doolittle stated that approximately a month ago the Planning Commission received a 100 page draft from Staff and suggested it be used as a take off point for combining and streamlining of some of the City's ordinances. Mr. Doolittle stated that in the draft Staff has already brought the grading ordinance into the City's zoning ordinance. He further stated that the draft combines four ordinances into one. Staff has placed these ordinances into the zoning ordinance. The language has not been changed or the meaning changed. Mr. Doolittle stated that the Planning Commission should review the draft and if they think something belongs in a different section they need to note this or any clarification required.
City Manager Doolittle stated that the grading ordinance as proposed will make serious changes in procedures but not in any standards.
City Manager Doolittle stated that he added something new on second units into the draft. Also added is a section on home occupations. Both subjects are for later consideration.
The Planning Commission discussed a few variances and enforcement of ordinances. Commmission Maislen suggested that the proposed portions imposing new regulations be italicized or set in bold type for easier reference. The Commission concurred.
Chairman Wible suggested a study session on the ordinances.
Vice Chairman Newbre suggested setting up a study session date at the July 28, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that organization and clarification of the ordinances was greatly needed.
COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
Commissioner Skinner asked regarding the disposition of the motor vehicle abatement at 511 Dorothea Road.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that the abatement had been completed and gave a brief staff report. He recommended the report be received and filed.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to receive and file the report on the vehicle abatement, seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to adjourn to Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 1998 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Vice Chairman Newbre and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
Chairman Wible adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:44 p.m.
______________________________
John Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Leslie L. Doolittle, Planning Director
Minutes of a Regular June 23, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 26, 1998
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wible at 7:40 p.m. on May 26, 1998 at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Vice Chairman Newbre, Commissioner Skinner and Alternate Martin. Commissioners Maislen and Peller were absent. Also present: Deputy Planner Tarr, City Manager Doolittle, City Engineer Milano, Deputy Engineer Gilbertson and Commission Attorney Daniels.
FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by Vice Chairman Newbre.
An announcement was made by Joan Maislen regarding the Garden Harvest and the first annual Produce and Craft Market and the La Habra Heights Improvement Association's quarterly clean up day on June 13, 1998.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF MAY 26, 1998
City Manager Doolittle affirmed the posting of the Agenda in accordance with the statutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Wible introduced David Daniels, attorney for the City who will advise the Planning Commission.
City Manager Doolittle swore in those wishing to testify.
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 97-15 AND INTENTION TO DECLARE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (Darakjian)
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Staff Report. Mr. Tarr stated that Standards Modification 97-15 is an appeal of an administrative approval of a Standards Modification to allow a 25 foot high single family dwelling which is 9 feet over the allowed 16 feet at 16370 Las Cumbres Drive, a Whittier address but located in La Habra Heights. The original applicant is Bedros Derakjian, representing Leon Iknadossian.
As required for proposed building heights over 16 feet, notices were sent out to all residents within 300 feet of the subject lot. Mr. Tarr stated that Michael Murphy of 16380 Las Cumbres Drive disagrees with the Staff approval given for this project. Mr. Tarr stated that Mr. Murphy has expressed in a letter that the 9-foot height modification does significantly impair his view. Two mature pine trees on Mr. Iknadossian's property split the view shed into a south view and a southeast view. One of Staff's original conditions of approval was that the two pine trees be removed. This would allow Mr. Murphy to enjoy one larger viewshed. Staff feels this would improve the viewshed and cause the view loss to be significantly less onerous.
Mr. Murphy also noted in his letter that the initial grading plans are at odds with that for the original tract subdivision. The City Engineer in a memorandum wrote that this was true, but will probably be reduced with the soils report which considers shrinkage and subsidence in the fill operation. This will be considered with the grading plan check.
Mr. Tarr stated that a letter has been received from Mr. and Mrs. Dea of 16358 Las Cumbres Dr. stating their concern about drainage. The City Engineer stated in his memorandum that specific drainage structures would be reviewed at the grading plan check stages. Mr. and Mrs. Day were also concerned that heavy trucks should not travel on the shared driveway as the project home is built.
Deputy Planner Tarr continued that Mr. Murphy stated in his letter that it was unclear whether a parapet wall will be constructed to shield a drainage and vent apparatus building. Mr. Tarr stated there was no parapet wall shown on the plans and the elevations do not show any of the vents that would need to be shielded by a parapet wall. He stated that any parapet wall would not exceed the proposed 25-foot height.
Mr. Tarr continued that Mr. Murphy wrote that he wanted planting of trees on Mr. Iknadossian's lot to be subject to his approval. He further stated that a raised banner upon a pole and tree indicating the roof elevation was improperly installed so as to give an incorrect impression of the effect upon his view. Mr. Tarr explained that this situation was corrected when pointed out. Mr. Tarr stated that the Municipal Code does not grant approval of trees being planted to anyone other than the City.
Mr. Murphy also wrote that he felt that a guardrail should be installed along the 80-foot radius of the southeasterly border of the access driveway bordering the site to the west. Mr. Tarr stated that this would be one of the conditions of approval.
Mr. Murphy wrote that he was not in favor of the architectural style of the proposed house. Mr. Tarr stated that neither the General Plan nor the Municipal Code dictated the architectural style of homes.
Staff's conclusion is that there was no significant view impairment and recommends that the Planning Commission find and affirm the Categorical Exemption and that it approve Standards Modification 97-15 with the conditions of approval attached to the Staff Report. Mr. Tarr pointed out that there was another letter from Duane Clark, 1419 El Terraza, expressing that he would suffer view impairment and requested that the Planning Commission deny approval of the project. Mr. Tarr stated that after visiting Mr. Clark's property he concluded that there is not a significant view impairment.
Chairman Wible asked for confirmation of the mention of the discrepancy on the fill amount.
Deputy City Engineer Milano confirmed that the amount of export is 195 cubic yards, not 190 as the Chairman believed.
Chairman Wible asked for information on the chimney mentioned in number 3 of Mr. Murphy's arguments.
Deputy Planner Tarr explained that it was not the usual practice of La Habra Heights to consider chimneys as being classified as view impairment structures.
Chairman Wible opened the Public Hearing.
Sam Youssefian, senior architect for the project, 1431 Huntington Drive. #201, S. Pasadena explained that they were increasing the pad going into the hill slope area by 4,000 square feet, making a pad of 14,000 square feet. It will be a 6,572 square foot dwelling. Mr. Youssefian gave a brief history of the planning and modifying of the project at 16370 Las Cumbres Drive. He explained how they had tried to accommodate the City and the neighbors. Mr. Youssefian asked the Planning Commission to honor an extension to a 30-foot height and not require him to take down the trees or build a guardrail on the driveway.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked Mr. Youssefian if the driveway was used to access his property.
Mr. Youssefian stated this driveway was not being used to access his property but there was an easement across the property for the access driveway used by other properties.
Leon Iknadossian, Mount Shadow Drive, Whittier stated that he wanted to build his home according to the rules of La Habra Heights but not according to his neighbor, Mr. Murphy.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked if he was trying to get approval for a height modification of 25 or 30 feet.
Mr. Iknadossian stated they could work with the 25-foot modification.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked if he now did not want to remove the trees.
Mr. Iknadossian stated that to cooperate with his neighbors he would be glad to remove the trees.
Jolinda Resa of 16354 Las Cumbres Drive, stated that she lives just below the subject property. She explained how the narrow drive had come to be built by the original owner and spoke in favor of Mr. Iknadossian's project.
City Attorney Daniels explained the legal meaning of "due process" for the appeal being processed at this time.
Mr. Murphy, 16380 Las Cumbres Drive, stated that he strongly felt his view impairment was significant. He stated that the offer to take down the trees showed that there was a view impairment and the question is what is a ìsignificantî view impairment.
Alternate Martin asked Mr. Murphy to define what ìsignificant impairmentî means to him.
Mr. Murphy stated that this is the problem. It is in the eye of the beholder. He stated that this is a subjective standard.
Commissioner Skinner asked if he used the Las Cumbres or El Terraza address.
Mr. Murphy replied that he used both.
Alternate Martin asked Deputy Planner Tarr what his definition was for ìsignificant impairmentî.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that this statute affords him the opportunity to apply the statute on a case by case basis. He stated that he looked at the situation from the different vantage points to see how the property owner would perceive the construction of the house and what viewshed opportunities he would lose which are eligible. There are two viewsheds limited by the trees. The house will impair the smaller of the two viewsheds. With the removal of the trees the wider viewshed will be enhanced and actually create one larger viewshed rather than two smaller ones.
Mr. Murphy stated he was concerned that even with the removal of the trees more could be planted whenever they wanted and the view problem would continue.
Deputy City Engineer Milano showed on the plan where the narrow driveway was located.
Deputy Planner Tarr pointed out on the plan where four trees are located which are the ones Staff will ask to be removed.
Chairman Wible stated that in the past ìsignificant impairmentî was considered 50% of the view. He stated that in his opinion Mr. Murphy might lose approximately 1/8 of his view.
Mr. Youssefian stated that in his opinion Mr. Murphy has only 8.4% of his property boundary in common with Mr. Iknadossian.
No one else came forward to speak. Chairman Wible closed the Public Hearing.
Vice Chairman Newbre stated that he had viewed the project from Mr. Murphy's property and found the roofline will be below the coastline. Removal of the trees will create a tremendous improvement to Mr. Murphy's view. He stated that the view impairment would be extremely minor. Mr. Newbre stated that he felt it would be wise of the applicant to put in a guardrail to protect any vehicles from coming down on his property.
Mr. Youssefian clarified that a septic tank would not have to be installed for Planning Commission condition number 2 as they would hook up to a sewer line.
City Attorney Daniels explained that since this was an appeal it would be necessary to deny the appeal and make a motion to direct Staff to prepare a resolution in conformity with their recommendations.
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion to deny the appeal and direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving Standards Modification No. 97-15 with the conditions set forth in the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Newbre, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Maislen and Peller
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 97-16 AND INTENTION TO DECLARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Patel)
The applicant Chandu Patel, is proposing to utilize the provisions of La Habra Heights Municipal Code Section 9404 to construct a 14,153 square foot dwelling which height exceeds the baseline of 16 feet for a total of 30 feet at 1870 Nabal Road, in the R-A Zone.
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Staff Report. Mr. Tarr stated that this item is continued from previous meetings of January 22, February 17 and March 24, 1998. The continuances were granted to allow the applicant to address issues of retaining walls, grading and view preservation. In this amended plan the issues of the height of the retaining walls has been eliminated. The existing condition is that the height of the building will be 19 feet higher than the baseline of 16 feet for a total of 35 feet. Mr. Tarr stated that the project was approved on September 18, 1990. Never implemented, the environmental findings are out of date, prompting this re-filing. Staff felt that due to the size and prominence of the project a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be applicable.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that the project has been reduced approximately 700 square feet to just over 14,000 square feet where before it was almost 15,000 square feet. The proposed structure will be on a lower pad. The retaining walls on the west side of the property were previously up to 2 feet higher than the allowed 6-foot height. These have been eliminated. There are more retaining walls overall but they are all at or below 6 feet in height. They are more consistently found in the south and southwest portion of the project. Mr. Tarr stated that much of the building pad exists and will be added to. There will be an improvement of a swimming pool and pool house behind the structure. There will be additional landscaping. About nine mature trees will be eliminated and according to the City's tree preservation ordinance they will be replaced. The access to the property will need to be paved.
Staff received only one written comment that this structure would significantly impair the view. This was from Rita Clements of 1357 Dorothea Road. Staff's investigation could not agree that the view was severely impacted. Staff's view is that the project constitutes a minimal negative effect. Staff's recommendation is to approve Standards Modification No. 97-16. Conditions of approval are attached to Resolution 98-06.
Chairman Wible opened the Public Hearing.
Chandu Patel, 2170 Carly Court, Rowland Heights, stated that he tried to accommodate the City and the neighbors comments from the last meeting. He stated that with the new plan they have achieved less cut and reduced the size of the house and lowered the pad.
Mike Cole, 1438 Dorothea Road, stated he was in favor of the project.
Jim Collings, 1850 Nabal Road, spoke in favor of the project.
Don Fite, 1404 Dorothea Road, spoke in favor of the project.
Chairman Wible closed the Public Hearing.
Vice Chairman Newbre stated that he felt the new plan does address the issues and eliminates the retaining wall height, which was of serious concern. The retaining walls are now within the limits of the Code.
Commissioner Skinner stated that she agreed that Rita Clements' view was not significantly impaired.
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion that the Planning Commission affirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Resolution 98-06 with attached conditions as presented, seconded by Alternate Martin and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Newbre, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Maislen and Peller
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-01 AND INTENTION TO DECLARE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (La Habra Heights Water District)
The Staff Report was presented by Deputy Planner Tarr. He stated that La Habra Heights Water District is proposing to permanently keep an existing portable office trailer for an expansion of it's business offices and storage at 1271 North Hacienda Boulevard. Mr. Tarr explained that currently a 530 square foot mobile trailer is proposed to be removed. Mr. Tarr stated that there is an ultimate right-of-way of 100 feet for Hacienda Boulevard. This touches one corner of the trailer as situated and one parking space which would be added as a result of this implementation phase. If the County road project C.S.B. 5197 goes the full 100 feet width the trailer location will be 2 feet in encroachment. Since this is a portable structure and can be relocated, Staff finds the proposed location acceptable for the time being. Staff would like the Planning Commission to address an existing perimeter fence, which is in disrepair to the west of the trailer. This needs to be improved. There is also a significant amount of outside storage, which is not permitted in the C-H Zone. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission compel the applicant to come in with plans to address the storage situation on the property. Otherwise staff recommends the Commission affirm the Categorical Exemption and approve C.U.P. No. 98-01 pursuant to the attached conditions.
Chairman Wible opened the Public Hearing.
Tony Zampiello, General Manager for the Water District stated that the Water District sees no problem with the requests of the City. He has been authorized to replace the whole fence, which is in disrepair. The Water District is also willing to come back with a plan to mitigate the outside storage.
Alternate Martin asked why they had not built a permanent building instead of the portable trailers.
Mr. Zampiello stated that the Water District felt it was better to have something they could move if necessary due to the uncertainty of the Hacienda Boulevard widening. He stated that permanency was the intent.
Alternate Martin explained that he was concerned with temporary structures over a long period of time would fall into disrepair and become an eyesore.
Jeremy Whitley, 1306 Marie Ellen Avenue, Whittier, stated that the storage area is more like a maintenance yard which is continuously in use and is very noisy. He stated that this was supposed to be an office. He stated he was in favor of the trailer as an office.
City Manager Doolittle stated that the area was zoned for light commercial. It is an allowed use but requires a use permit be granted by the City.
Mr. Zampiello explained that the Water District has a 24-hour operation and responds to any necessary call even during night hours. He stated that this is the center for District operations.
Chairman Wible closed the Public Hearing.
Alternate Martin again expressed his concern that a temporary structure would become an eyesore in the City. He suggested the Planning Commission encourage the Water District to continue to improve the property.
Commissioner Skinner asked if this Conditional Use Permit has a time limit, so if the temporary structure becomes an eyesore the Planning Commission could refuse to renew the permit at a later date.
City Manager Doolittle stated that any conditions can be placed on the permit including a time limit.
Vice Chairman Newbre stated that some years ago the City had an advisory election determining that the roadway would be no greater than 80 feet. The Water District has had the mobile office on the property for some time. It is not easily noticeable and the Water District is operated efficiently and economically which is to our advantage. Removing the one portable structure and the recent new building was a forward step. He also stated for Mr. Whitley that there is an ordinance for equipment usage starting at 7:00 a.m.
Alternate Martin asked if they could put a 24-month time frame to the C.U.P. so it will be reviewed at that time.
Chairman Wible stated that it was possible.
Commissioner Skinner was not in favor of a time limit and review but asked if it became an eyesore in the future could the City cite the Water District for a public nuisance.
Deputy Planner Tarr answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Wible stated that he was not in favor of a time limit.
Vice Chairman Newbre also was not in favor of a time limit.
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion that the Planning Commission find the project is Environmentally Exempt from the provision of CEQA and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the project subject to the execution of and fulfillment of the conditions set forth in the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Newbre, Skinner and Wible
NOES: Martin
ABSENT: Maislen and Peller
8. MOTOR VEHICLE ABATEMENT 98-01 AND INTENTION TO DECLARE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Staff Report, which concerns removal of inoperative vehicles registered to owners at 511 Dorothea Road.
Mr. Tarr stated that today it had come to the attention of Staff that there are new owners who are cleaning up the property in a very expeditious manner. The property owner stated that Western Waste and a scrap metal dealer are coming out in a day or two to haul away any items in violation. Mr. Tarr stated that since clean-up is underway that there seems to be no reason to go ahead with an abatement procedure and Staff recommends that the item be continued to the next regular meeting when he have an update on the situation.
Chairman Wible opened the Public Hearing. As there was no response the Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
Commission Skinner offered a motion to continue the matter to the next meeting and receive a report on the Motor Vehicle Abatement 98-01, seconded by Alternate Martin and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Newbre, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Maislen and Peller
COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion for adjournment, seconded by Commission Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Martin, Newbre, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
ABSENT: Maislen and Peller
Chairman Wible adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
_______________________________
John Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
Leslie L. Doolittle, Planning Director
PAGE 10
Minutes of Regular May 26, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting
CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 17, 1998
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A special meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wible at 5:35 p.m. on February 17, 1998 at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Vice Chairman Newbre and Commissioners Skinner and Alternate Martin. Also present was Deputy Planner Tarr. Absent were Commissioners Peller and Maislen.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Skinner led the flag salute.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1988.
Deputy Planner Tarr affirmed the posting of the Agenda in accordance with the statutes.
5. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 97-16 AND INTENTION OT DECLARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Patel) - continued from January 27, 1998.
Deputy Planner Tarr presented a brief Staff Report. Mr. Tarr stated that the applicant, Victor Patel was representing owner Chandu Patel to utilize Municipal Code Section 9405.1 to construct a 14,840 square foot dwelling at 1870 Nabal Road which retaining wall exceeds the maximum allowable height by two feet and the residence to exceed the view preservation threshold of sixteen feet by up to nineteen feet.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that a continuance of the matter until view impacts could be more fully studied was the reason for this special meeting called for purposes of having the planning commission visit the site
Chairman Wible opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor. No one came forward. Chairman Wible closed the Public Hearing.
Chairman Wible announced that the Commission would be adjourning to visit the site of Standards Modification 97-16 located 1870 Nabal Road and invited interested parties to join the Commission. The Commission adjourned to the site at 5:47 p.m.
(At 1870 Nabal Road):
Commissioner Maislen joined the Commission at the site. Also in attendance was Michael Cole of 1438 Dorothea Road.
It was observed by the Commission that no poles had been erected to show the outline of the bulk of the proposed building and no representative in favor of this application was on hand to present any information regarding view impacts.
Chairman Wible adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 6:10 p.m.
John Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
By Brad Tarr, Senior Planner, for
Leslie L. Doolittle, Planning Director
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 27, 1998
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wible at 7:30 p.m. on January 27, 1998 at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present were: Chairman Wible, Vice Chairman Newbre and Commissioners Maislen, Peller, Skinner and Alternate Martin. Also present were: City Manager Doolittle, Deputy Planner Tarr, Fire Chief Nelson, Deputy City Engineer Milano and Civil Engineer Gilbertson.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Vice Chairman Newbre led the flag salute.
Chairman Wible introduced the new Fire Chief Robert Nelson.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 1998
City Manager Doolittle affirmed the posting of the Agenda in accordance with the statutes.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/RESOLUTION
The Planning Commission considered the minutes of the December 16, 1997 Planning Commission Special Meeting.
Vice Chairman Newbre stated that the last paragraph on page three should replace the reference to "Commissioner Phillips" with "Commissioner Skinner".
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Wible asked that all those wishing to testify be sworn in.
City Manager Doolittle swore in those wishing to testify.
6. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 97-16 AND INTENTION TO DECLARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Patel)
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Staff Report. Mr. Tarr stated that the applicant, Victor Patel was representing owner Chandu Patel to utilize Municipal Code Section 9405.1 to construct a 14,840 square foot dwelling at 1870 Nabal Road which retaining wall exceeds the maximum allowable height by two feet and the residence to exceed the view preservation threshold of sixteen feet by up to nineteen feet.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that Standards modification 97-16 is essentially the same as Standards Modification 397 which was approved by the Planning Commission in September 1990. The approval was not implemented. The environmental documentation findings have lapsed prompting this re-filing. The house would be positioned on an existing building pad left when the previous house was demolished. Most of the development standards have been met in regard to parking and setbacks. The building height is exceeded. A view modification would need to be granted in order for the project to be approved. The height of the retaining walls is exceeded in three places by up to two feet.
Mr. Tarr stated that there are a number of viewsheds potentially affected, most notably on Dorothea Road and also on Coban. There is a letter from Boen Thio at 1635 Coban Road expressing concern of loss of privacy and possible drainage problems.
The Engineering Department has found that the plans do meet the Ordinance 27 statutes having to do with the grading management plan by the City. Drainage issues have been discussed and mitigated. The view preservation issues have not been fully analyzed and Staff has received numerous concerns in regards to that issue. A letter was received from Ralph and Janet Cole at 1438 Dorothea and also one from Rita Clements at 1357 Dorothea in addition to Mr. Thio's letter. The first two letters mentioned ask for a continuance of the matter until their view impacts can be more fully studied.
Staff's recommendation is to request a continuance to the next meeting on February 24, 1998 so the view preservation issues can be studied, analyzed and a report brought back for the Planning Commission's consideration.
Alternate Martin asked what the plan would be for an analysis of the view impact and how Staff would go about making such a study.
Mr. Tarr stated that the placement of poles to show the height and bulk of the structure so they could be viewed from the various view sheds of affected properties is one method. There are also computer software programs that can show how the house would appear on the property. Mr. Tarr stated that he would go out to the various properties claiming to have a view impairment and assess the likely impact of the structure when built. If Staff considered a significant degree of view lost due to the bulk of the structure the applicant would be contacted and given the chance to mitigate or eliminate the impairment. Any decision made would be appealable to the City Council.
Commissioner Maislen suggested the Planning Commission make a field trip to the site to see how the view sheds are affected.
Commissioner Peller asked if the topographical map had been reviewed and the accuracy of it was agreed to be acceptable.
Civil Engineer Gilbertson answered that the Engineering Department had verified the average slope of the property based on the map and the City's aerial photographs produced for the roads project. He stated that the applicant's map was from 1990.
Chairman Wible opened the Public Hearing.
Victor Patel, designer of the project, 24351 Rue De Gauguin, Laguna Niguel, stated that the topographic map was done by a civil engineer. He stated that there was a later topographic map of the cut and fill in the file.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked if Mr. Patel had considered lowering the pad by five feet. Mr. Newbre felt this would eliminate almost all of the retaining walls which were over the allowed height. It would also generate a much larger useable surface for the building and yard. Mr. Newbre asked if Mr. Patel had looked at the amount of earth that would have to be removed to accomplish lowering the pad.
Mr. Patel stated that cutting down five feet would cause a lot of export. He stated that he did not know if the city would allow that much. He stated that he had considered this and would talk to the owner about it.
Vice Chairman Newbre stated that if the pad was lowered it would lower the ridge line of the house.
Mr. Patel suggested that it might be possible to lower the pad by two feet and that would lower the retaining walls by that amount.
Commissioner Maislen discussed the possibility of dumping the export into the pit on Cypress Street.
City Manager Doolittle stated that there is uncompacted fill in the pit so it is not an easy matter to go in and properly compact the fill. He did think it was a possibility.
Commissioner Skinner asked if the driveway was going to be the same height as the retaining wall.
Vice Chairman Newbre explained that the retaining wall was being built to support a parking area. The applicant is planning to place a three foot high wrought iron fence on the retaining wall.
Mr. Patel stated that in the back they were planning to use plantings to hide the retaining wall and to use concrete blocks for the retaining walls.
Alternate Martin asked if the Planning Commission could address what the impact would be if additional grading was done.
Deputy City Engineer Milano explained that an average three foot drop across the impervious service areas would generate about fifteen hundred cubic yards of soil. There is already a little over one thousand cubic yards of export on the plans for this project. Any amount over one thousand cubic yards of export would require a conditional use permit. The lowering of the pad and the lowering of the retaining walls could get rid of the need for a variance for the extra height of the retaining walls. This could possibly be less costly than the taller retaining walls.
Commissioner Peller discussed the problem of the two retaining walls behind the pool area. He felt they would look like they were one eleven foot retaining wall.
Mr. Patel explained that there would be landscaping between the two walls. He also stated there was a 2:1 slope between the two walls.
Commissioner Peller and Vice Chairman Newbre agreed that the lowering of the pad could eliminate the second retaining wall.
Mr. Patel stated his concern for transporting the dirt and the City requiring a Conditional Use permit. This would all take a lot of time.
Chairman Wible asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor.
Jim Collings, 1860 Nabal Road, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the poles had been there when the project was approved. He further stated that he was willing to give an easement and discuss with Mr. Gilbertson and Mr. Patel's engineer how to get the water off the property so it does not interfere with anyone. He did believe the pad should be dropped down and the walls lowered.
Don Fite, Dorothea Road, stated that the view was not a problem for them. He was concerned that the Planning Commission was using a Public Hearing to address Engineering problems. He stated he was concerned that Mr. Patel has not expressed the effect that a one-month delay will have on his desire to go ahead with his plans. Mr. Fite explained his concern was the engineering of the retaining walls.
Vice Chairman Newbre stated that he did not see anything in the report stating the project had been before the Planning Commission before and had been approved. He asked what the Planning Commission was dealing with at this meeting.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that the packet included the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting in September 1990. The minutes showed there were some concerns but the project was approved unanimously. The building packet does not show any plans entered for a plan check. There have to be findings in reference to the environmental documentation as the Planning Commission have to make a specific finding as to current conditions. Since 1990 other homes have been built in that neighborhood. The setting has been changed to the extent that further environmental findings would be necessary.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked if the plans were the same as those approved in 1990.
Mr. Tarr answered that the plans were virtually the same.
Commissioner Skinner asked if the processing fees for the Environmental application are carried over from the original approval.
Mr. Tarr answered that there were new fees for this application.
Commissioner Skinner felt the notification for a View Modification really needed more time. Parties could be on vacation and not receive notification in time.
Commissioner Peller stated that approval in 1990 did not mean it should be automatically approved again. New issues have been raised regarding View Preservation. There are new issues on the grading and retaining walls. All the issues are workable. Mr. Peller felt more time was needed to wrap up the issues.
Chairman Wible closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Patel suggested that instead of lowering the pad five feet it should be lowered a lesser amount.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked if the pad was lowered two feet would that eliminate the walls behind the pool.
Mr. Patel stated that it would lower one of the walls to three feet and the other to four or five feet. The walls on the west side of the property could be reduced to six feet.
Vice Chairman Newbre asked if it was possible to approve the application with a direction to lower the pad by two feet, or does the Planning Commission want to see a drawing with the effect of this change?
Commissioner Maislen stated that Staff had recommended a continuance, he had suggested a field trip and Commissioner Skinner had suggested that some may not have had notice in time to look at the View Modification issues. Commissioner Maislen felt approval was premature and would rather have a continuance and a field trip to the site.
Vice Chairman Newbre suggested that when Mr. Patel set up his poles they should reflect the revised grading plan.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to continue Standards Modification 97-16 and Intention to Declare a Mitigated Negative Declaration to the next meeting on February 24, 1998, include a field trip after drawings are changed to reflect the pad modification and the poles are erected, and Mr. Patel to confer with the City Engineers as to the dirt removal, seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Newbre, Peller, Skinner, Wible
NOES: None
NEW BUSINESS
7. REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 50136 (Mabey)
Chairman Wible stated that this was not a public noticed hearing.
The applicant is Keng Ling of CDS Engineering representing Thelma Mabey for Tentative Tract Map 50136 located at the northerly terminus of El Cajonita Drive.
Deputy Planner Tarr presented the Staff Report stating that the original approval for Tentative Tract Map 50136 can not be abrogated so it is coming as new business. The applicant is requesting waiver on three conditions of approval concerning grading, landscaping and emergency vehicle turnaround. Resolution 92-1 covered these three conditions. Condition #16 required that the grading plan be in compliance with the City of La Habra Heights Municipal Code without modifications or variances. The plan estimated a volume of "cut" earth of 4,000 cubic yards. Code section 9204 states that a conditional use permit would be needed for "solid fill projects". Section 9120.19 identifies a solid fill project as any operation where more than one thousand cubic yards of solid fill materials are deposited. Historically, this has been interpreted as both "cut" and "fill" operations. Mr. Tarr stated that Mr. Ling in his letter mentioned that as the City Council approved the preliminary grading plan in 1992 he felt the requirement for a final grading plan to come before the Planning Commission should be waived.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that after talking with the Fire Chief Nelson and the Engineer, it was indicated that the cul-de-sac turn-around was preferred eliminating the second hydrant. This would require some additional calculation of the amount of cut and fill. The Staff recommendation would be to deny the request for waiver of the grading plan modification, but it would be consistent with the Municipal Code requirements to allow such further review to be done at the Staff level.
Mr. Tarr continued with the landscape plan. He stated there was a tree removal permit granted in 1991. Condition #22 required that 24" box trees be shown on the landscape plans. This could be appropriate if the Planning Commission wished to have Staff review any further landscape plans. Mr. Tarr stated that there should be an amiable resolution to the emergency vehicle turn around so that should not be an issue.
Commissioner Peller asked if someone comes back to change the conditions of approval which was originally an item for a Public Hearing, is it treated as a Public Hearing when brought back?
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that at this meeting the map would go forward whether or not the conditions were modified.
Commissioner Peller felt that this was a hole in the system that should be addressed.
Vice Chairman Newbre felt it should be reviewed with the City Attorney.
City Manager Doolittle explained that Staff had told the applicant that they did not have the authority to waive the three conditions and that was why the request was brought before the Planning Commission for their interpretation of those conditions. Mr. Doolittle felt that there does need to be a final grading plan and should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. There needs to be a final landscaping plan drawn. This would not be for each individual lot but for the location and varieties for a tree replacement plan and whatever erosion control planting which might be called for by the grading that is done for the entry roadway.
Commissioner Peller questioned the Planning Commission's authority to waive conditions imposed by the City Council.
City Manager Doolittle stated that it was a two-step process and one or two of the conditions placed by the City Council required that certain plans be brought back to the Planning Commission for review, so he felt it was appropriate that this issue to waive some of the conditions be brought back to the Planning Commission. If in the Planning Commission's judgement it would be adequate to have Staff review the plans that would be appropriate also.
Vice Chairman Newbre reminded the Planning Commission that if the applicant was unhappy with a decision they could appeal to the City Council.
Commissioner Maislen stated that he agreed with Staff on their recommendations and felt Staff could continue to handle this.
Chairman Wible invited interested parties to come forward to speak.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita Drive, stated that he was on the site review committee and was the co-writer of the zoning ordinance. As he recalls the article stated that if an approved Tentative Tract Map came back for a change or had expired a letter of notice would be sent out for a Public Hearing.
Mr. Higgs also wanted to know if the offer of dedication made approximately twenty-five years ago on three properties that abutted the Mabey property will be used to enhance the drainage situation on the Mabey property.
Civil Engineer Gilbertson answered that the mentioned dedication will be before the City Council at their next meeting.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that there is a twenty-five year window for the City to accept the dedicated property around the Mabey property. The time has come up for a review of these particular dedications. The Engineering Staff will recommend that the City Council accept the dedications. Mr. Gilbertson stated that there was a condition on the Tract Map for a $25,000 cash deposit by Thelma Mabey for drainage improvement on El Cajonita.
Mr. Higgs stated that he would like to see the extent of drainage improvement which will be made before a decision is made on the Mabey property.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that there was no way to do this as there has been no final concept or Engineering plans presented to solve the drainage problems at this time.
Chairman Wible stated that the decision on tonight's item in no way hinges on the $25,000 or a drainage improvement plan.
Commissioner Maislen asked if the $25,000 goes back to March of 1992.
Civil Engineer Gilbertson answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Maislen stated the $25,000 should be brought into 1998 dollars. This would provide a larger amount for the drainage problem.
Carolyn Stark, 2121 Las Palomas Drive, expressed her concern that the people around the Mabey project were not notified of tonight's consideration of the request to waive the three conditions of the approved Tentative Tract Map 50136.
Chairman Wible stated that Mrs. Stark would know the Planning Commission's decision tonight on the two remaining items. He stated that he thought it would be handled properly.
Jill Kowalik, 2181 El Cajonita Drive, stated that she looked forward to hearing the City Attorney's opinion on the public notification. Mrs. Kowalik stated that she felt a request to waive a Conditional Use Permit for the amount of grading to be done should have gone to the City Council since they make decisions on Conditional Use Permits. Mrs. Kowalik stated that after numerous requests the developer has failed to provide any sort of engineering drawing of the retaining wall which will have to be built if there is an entrance road built along her property. The grading issues are very serious to her and other neighbors. Mrs. Kowalik also stated that there are two kinds of ordinances, one is for technical engineering items and the other part for aesthetic ordinances. The aesthetic ordinances are important as concerns input from neighbors such as was done on the preceding application concerning placement of walls and their height. These affect the whole City. Mrs. Kowalik stated that an important issue was that findings made by a Planning Commission or City Council might be overturned without a Public Hearing.
Chairman Wible asked City Manager Doolittle to notify the interested people of the answer the City Attorney gives on the legal issues of Public Notice.
Commissioner Skinner asked if there have been any relevant ordinance changes since the City Council approved this Tentative Tract Map in 1992.
Deputy Planner Tarr stated that there have been no changes in regards to the items under consideration.
Commissioner Peller stated that he would not want to go against a condition set by the City Council by waiving the review of the grading and landscaping plans. He stated he did not have an opinion one way or another about the turn-around.
Vice Chairman Newbre and Commissioner Skinner agreed with Commissioner Peller.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to have the landscaping and grading plan come back to the Planning Commission for review as set forth in the original resolution.
Chairman Wible asked if a time extension was needed on the project.
City Manager Doolittle explained that the time had been re-figured by the City Attorney and the applicant has one more one-year extension. The applicant must request that extension. This tentative map will expire on March 12, 1998.
Chairman Wible asked Mr. Ling to make sure Mrs. Mabey is aware of the March 12, 1998 deadline for the one-year time extension.
Chairman Wible re-clarified that the Fire Chief approved that the turn-around will be a cul-de-sac type not requiring a second hydrant.
Keng Ling, 344 S. Tustin Avenue, Orange, expressed his frustration with this change from the hammerhead design already approved. This causes more work on plans and more cost for the owner. The applicant thought this was already settled.
Chairman Wible stated that he was sorry for Mr. Ling's frustration. The City of La Habra Heights tends to watch such items closely but Chairman Wible felt the applicant would be satisfied with the end result.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to accept the Staff recommendations on the landscape and grading plans, seconded by Vice Chairman Newbre and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
OLD BUSINESS
8. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46591 (Lynch)
Civil Engineer Gilbertson presented the report on an application by Sharon Lynch to extend for one year the Tentative Tract Map No. 46591 which proposes to divide 21 acres into 17 lots. This tract is located at Walnut Street east of Buena Vista Road. The Map was approved by the City Council on December 14, 1989. Mr. Gilbertson explained that with the new interpretation of the Subdivision Map Act granting seven years plus the passage of two senate bills passed in 1996 and 1993 granting an additional three years, this Tract Map has a total of ten years of life. This application will be the fourth extension.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that the grading plan has been approved and the final map and improvement plans are in final plan check. The project is expected to be concluded sometime this year. Mr. Gilbertson suggested the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the extension.
City Manager Doolittle stated that this was a "vested" Tentative Tract Map.
Commissioner Peller moved to approve the extension of vested Tentative Tract Map 46591, seconded by Commissioner Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50803 (Sanger)
Civil Engineer Gilbertson presented the request by Kenneth Wilch and Associates, representing Mr. David Sanger, for a time extension of Tentative Tract Map 50803 which proposes to subdivide 6.19 acres into 5 lots at 1964 Las Palomas at El Cajonita. They obtained approval in May of 1992. This is the second time extension request. This is not a "vested" Tract Map so the Engineering Staff analyzed the ordinance changes since the original approval. The only ordinance which might affect this tract is the one basing lot sizes on average slope. Since this tract is on the flat portion of Las Palomas the lot sizes do not need any corrections. Staff recommends City Council be advised to approve the time extension.
Commissioner Maislen offered a motion to adopt Resolution 98-01 and recommend the City Council approve the Tentative Map 50803 time extension, seconded by Commission Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
10. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
Vice Chairman Newbre offered a motion to adjourn to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on February 24, 1998 at 7;:30 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Maislen, Martin, Newbre, Peller, Skinner and Wible
NOES: None
Chairman Wible adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:55 p.m.
______________________________
John Wible, Chairman
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
Leslie L. Doolittle, Planning Director