Note: Artifacts and stray punctuation marks may exist
September 13 Special Meeting - View
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 28, 1999
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman David Maislen at 7:30 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman David Maislen, Vice-Chairman Richard Martin, Commissioners Marlin Gunns, John Peller, Ginger Skinner and alternate Adrienne Murphy. Also present: City Manager Sheryl Linsley, Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Secretary Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Dominic Milano, and Commission Attorney David Daniels.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Gunns led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF December 28, 1999
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the statutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 23, 1999.
Vice-Chairman Martin moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Commissioner Peller and approved as follows:
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Peller, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Sanderson swore those in wishing to testify.
OLD BUSINESS
STANADARDS MODIFICATION 99-11A (Donald & Marcia Chilson) 1337 N. Hacienda Blvd.
Ms. Sanderson reported that at the Commissions November 23, 1999 meeting, the Commission instructed staff to prepare a Resolution to deny Standards Modification 99-11A to allow an existing 560 square foot recreational vehicle cover to encroach within the required 35-foot front yard setback at 1337 N. Hacienda Blvd. Before the Commission is the Resolution denying the Modification for the Commission's consideration.
Commissioner Skinner moved to adopt Resolution 99-27 denying the application for a Standards Modification. Seconded by Commissioner Peller.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Peller, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NEW BUSINESS
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 99-27 (Moses & Tamara Kardashian) 1834 El Travesia Drive
Ms. Sanderson presented the Agenda Report, stating this Standards Modification was approved by the Planning Commission on November 23, 1999 and was being brought back tonight for the approval of the Resolution; after the last meeting it was discovered by staff that the applicant had provided an incomplete radius map and mailing labels; this required the Standards Modification to be re-noticed; and would require the Public Hearing to be reopened for any new testimony; the Commission could take final action at this hearing and adopt the Resolution before the Commission, unless new evidence persuades the Commission otherwise; however, if the Commission chooses to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Standards Modification a special Planning Commission Meeting would need to be scheduled to ensure the permit streamlining act is met.
Chairman Maislen asked if there were questions from the Commission. Seeing no questions he re-opened the public hearing.
Steve Blagden, 2118 Citron Road stated this is an example of a project that should have been a variance; a setback modification is a minor adjustment to the rules; Ordinance 9408.2 states very clearly that a non-conforming use shall not be made more non-conforming; it's a wonderful lot with plenty of space for a garage; traffic is stopped while cars are getting into the garage; felt there is not proper way to make legal findings in this case; requested the Commission read the findings if they approve the project.
Moses Kardashian, 1834 El Travesia stated at the last meeting he had forgotten to advise the Commission that there is a 3 foot wide staircase that also takes up space on the wall next to the house.
Tamara Kardashian, 1834 El Travesia stated with both cars in the garage there is only 13î to open the driver's door.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Terraza stated this is not a good land use; the existing structure is already in the setback; we must value the setback requirements or eliminate the requirement; the accumulative affect is what is affecting the City's Rural Environment.
Seeing no one else come forward Chairman Maislen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Skinner felt the applicant still has not met the findings; stating there still is no evidence to support this project; she felt the application should be denied.
Commissioner Peller stated all of these cases are judgement calls; did not feel the General Plan objectives are significantly affected by this addition; stated this was not an easy case to approve; felt this case was a close call; however felt the balance is in favor of this project.
Chairman Maislen agreed with Commissioner Peller.
Commissioner Skinner stated findings need to be made to approve a project; felt the Commission needed to make the findings in this case; she felt the Commission should only approve a project when there are no other alternatives; she stated in this case there are other alternatives; she stated she could not find a finding that would support the approval of this decision, when it can be seen from public property.
Chairman Maislen stated pre 1978 structures must be looked at, and how they blend; if this helps the safety issue he sees no objection to this project.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked why this was a Standards Modification and not a variance.
Mr. Daniels stated a variance is required by state law when you are seeking to deviate from the existing regulations or standards set forth in the City's Zoning Laws. Under state law there are specific requirements for a variance, including showing that the particular parcel is unique; different than other parcels and they are deprived of the same rights that are enjoyed within the vicinity and also a showing is required that no special privilege is being granted to the property owner by virtue of allowing that property owner to essentially deviate from the existing standards. A standards modification actually is a procedure that under local ordinance that allows for these standards regarding setbacks to be modified in cases where particular findings are made under local ordinance. This is a process the City has adopted to allow variations from its local standards when certain findings under local law are met. He stated Standards Modification procedure could be used under local ordinances to address minor encroachments into the setback. There is no need to rely on a variance procedure, which requires different findings under state law.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked if the Standards Modification was appropriate.
Mr. Daniels stated yes, the Standards Modification was appropriate if the findings can be made.
Commissioner Skinner asked staff if the addition of another garage would be safer.
Mr. Milano stated any time you add more cars, the safety aspect decreases; the applicant states this may improve getting into the garage; ultimately, it is the Commissions decision to determine if this is a safe addition to the garage.
Chairman Maislen stated that with the removal of the pillars it would improve the safety.
Commissioner Gunns stated many houses in the Heights are in this situation; he felt a better design of the project would get the garage out of the setbacks and solve the problems; he didn't feel the applicant had adequately shown the need for the approval of this project.
Commissioner Peller moved to approve Standards Modification 99-27 and adopt Resolution 99-26; Seconded by Vice-Chairman Martin.
AYES: Martin, Maislen and Peller
NOES: Gunns and Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 99-28 ( McDiarmid) 2133 Virazon
Ms. Sanderson presented the Agenda Report stating the applicant Ron McDiarmid to allow a 634 sq. foot 2 car detached garage 11 feet 6 inches which encroaches into the 16 rear yard and 21 side yard setback; a standards modification for view preservation to exceed the 500 sq. ft building area limitation; the dwelling and a 2 car carport faces Virazon and the new garage will face Subtropic; the garage could impact future development on the adjoining site; the applicant has not shown a hardship for this location; staff felt the garage could be relocated to take it out of the setback; staff recommends denial of the application
Chairman Maislen asked staff why there was a View Preservation Issue.
Ms. Sanderson stated this project is in View Preservation District A and is over 500 sq. feet in size, therefore it requires a View Preservation Modification as well as a Setback Modification.
Chairman Maislen asked the Commission if they had any questions of staff; seeing no one come forward he opened the public hearing.
Ron McDiarmid, 2133 Virazon, stated he owns a 1956 Chevy and a 1934 Ford Sedan, these are classic cars that must be stored indoors; all his neighbors have signed off on this project giving their approvals; felt there was no other place to put the garage; he is lowering the elevation of the building by 4 feet so only 1 foot will be above the fence line; he felt there is no other location for the garage.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked what hardship it would be to move the garage out of the setbacks; would cost a lot more to be place in another location; would it be cost prohibitive to move it.
Mr. McDiarmid felt it would destroy his landscaping; he couldn't place it anywhere else;
stated it could only go on the second tear and would destroy all of his landscaping; it would not be practical; anything is possible but not practical; stated it would be cost prohibitive to move the garage to the other side; he stated anything is possible but it is not practical.
Commissioner Skinner stated the shed is in the setback; could the garage be turned and the shed moved to get it all out of the setback; stated the shed would have to be torn out to move it to another location; she asked for other alternatives.
Mr. McDiarmid stated the City told him that is where he had to place the shed; he won't move it.
Commissioner Peller asked if the easement was on his property or someone else's; stating that he was having trouble figuring it out on the plans
Mr. McDiarmid stated the easement might be between parcels.
Commissioner Peller these plans do not clearly show where the property line is on Subtropic, or where the setback lines are.
Mr. Milano referred to exhibit 1 of the staff report, is a copy of the county assessor's map; the south westerly property line is the solid line between the two dash lines; the dash lines show an easement granted to someone for access to other property; is not a City easement; applicant has 15 feet he cannot build in because it is an access easement.
Commissioner Peller clarified that easement is not excluded by the Setbacks; property line does follow the middle of the easement.
Mr. Milano stated there is a portion along Subtropic of where there is no easement and the right of way line is also the property line. Mr. Milano then went to the dais and showed where he assumed the property line was on the plans.
The Commission continued to be confused on where the property line was.
Chairman Maislen stated he did not see the property line on the drawing.
Commissioner Peller explained to the audience that the plans did not show the setback on the plans.
Chairman Maislen asked Mr. McDiarmid how he would feel about putting the garage on the south side of the property.
Mr. McDiarmid stated if he moved the garage to the south side of his property it would make it more noticeable unless he started taking out the hill and he won't do that.
Chairman Maislen felt the garage could be repositioned; staff had advised him that the shed is a legally non-conforming structure; he recommended the repositioning of this structure and bringing it back to the Commission.
Mr. McDiarmid stated he would not move the shed, because the whole yard is landscaped around the shed.
Chairman Maislen stated the shed was approved in the current location.
Mr. McDiarmid stated he would look at relocation of the garage and talk to his neighbors.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road stated the use of the property line was less obtrusive than the last project.
Brad Cooke, 2060 Subtropic, stated he is the next door neighbor; privacy and elevation are the issues; the roof line will be below his grade; any other location would affect his view; supports the garage in this location.
Commissioner Gunns asked if the garage was moved to the other side of the yard would it be more visible.
Mr. Cooke stated yes, very much so.
Chairman Maislen asked if the garage was lowered 4 feet on the south side of the property would it impact him.
Mr. Cooke stated the can see a good portion of the shed, anything further south would be seen.
Seeing no one else come forward Chairman Maislen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Murphy abstained from this hearing item.
Commissioner Gunns stated given the testimony the garage is less obtrusive in this location; he would like to see less of an encroachment.
Commissioner Skinner asked staff regarding the findings that this might impact the neighbors property.
Ms. Sanderson stated it could affect future development on the adjoining property.
Commissioner Skinner stated no neighbors have objected to it; this is convenient but felt it could be moved; supports staff recommendation in the denial; 4 feet from the property line is too close.
Ms. Sanderson stated the section she had questioned was Findings #4 second paragraph.
Chairman Maislen read the Finding in question.
Commissioner Peller felt this was the best place for the garage; stated he couldn't determine if there is an alternative; would like to see a better plan.
Vice-Chairman Martin stated this is the best solution; it does all the right things with one exception it is in the setback; he wanted to see other alternatives, outside of the setback; it may mean it is more visible but that may be OK.
Chairman Maislen agreed this is the best location, however it doesn't meet the requirements of the General Plan; wants to see better drawings.
Commissioner Peller stated he is unable to make a decision; has no clear answer if there is an alternative; asked for a continuance to January.
Chairman Maislen it would be a hardship for the applicant to store these cars elsewhere or to store them under tarps. Asked for a Motion to continue this item.
Mr. Daniels stated the Commission must meet the Permit Streamlining Act; a waiver from the applicant would allow the Commission more time, or they could deny without prejudice; asked if applicant would be willing to sign a waiver.
Mr. McDiarmid agreed to sign a waiver of 90 days and would have new drawings done within 14 days.
Mr. Daniels instructed the applicant to come into the Planning Department to execute the waiver.
Mr. McDiarmid agreed he would come in and sign the waiver.
Commissioner Peller moved to continue Standards Modification 99-28 to January 25, 2000. Vice-Chairman Martin seconded.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Peller, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Craig McRae, 855 Reposado, stated he objected to the sparing contest that was going on in the Whittier Daily News.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, stated his support for those residents that work so hard for the City.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Martin moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Peller, and Skinner.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
David L. Maislen, Chairperson
ATTEST
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 23, 1999
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Maislen at 7:35 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman David Maislen, Vice-Chairman Richard Martin, Commissioners Marlin Gunns, John Peller, Ginger Skinner and alternate Adrienne Murphy. Also present: Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Secretary Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Dominic Milano, Deputy City Engineer David Gilbertson and Commission Attorney David Daniels.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Peller led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Maislen announced the next Garden Harvest would be held on December 11, 1999 from 9 a.m. ñ12 noon.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF November 23, 1999
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with state law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 26, 1999.
Commissioner Skinner moved to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Gunns and approved as follows:
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Peller, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
OLD BUSINESS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25648, (LATTER) 1649 Kashlan Road
Ms. Sanderson presented the staff report stated public testimony was taken on this matter on October 23, 1999, located at 1717 Chota Road; public hearing remained open to provide the required review period for a negative declaration; staff recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map.
Chairman Maislen asked if the Commission had any questions of staff. Seeing no questions he opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one come forward Chairman Maislen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Peller identified a typo on Page 2 of the Resolution regarding the number of lots.
Ms. Sanderson stated it was a typo; should read two lots not four.
Chairman Maislen asked for a motion.
Commissioner Peller moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map 25648 and Resolution 99-23 as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Skinner.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Peller, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NEW BUSINESS
Standards Modification 99-14 and Conditional Use Permit 99-04 (Darie) 1436 Tangelo Lane
Ms. Sanderson presented the staff report stating the applicants, Val & Donna Darie, are proposing to utilize the provisions of the La Habra Heights Municipal Code to request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to exceed the 1,000 cubic yards of solid fill materials grading limitation and Standards Modification to allow an access gate to encroach 10 feet 7 inches within the required 20 foot setback from the highway line or property line; and to allow the trash enclosure area to be located within the required 25 foot side yard setback; in addition a percentage of each lot must be left in it natural state, according to the calculations 25% of the project site must be left in its natural state, therefore the allowable gradable area of the site is 75%, which equals out to 26,404 sq. ft. The minimum grading plan indicates that 82% of the site will be graded, therefore the applicant is also requesting a Grading Modification; pool area is not part of this application; a categorical exemption has been issued; the recommendation of staff is to adopt the Resolution and forward a recommendation for approval of CUP 99-04 and denial of SM 99-14 with the exception of Grading Modification at the above address in the R-A Zone.
Chairman Maislen asked if the Commission had questions of staff.
Chairman Maislen asked why the case did not have a View Preservation Modification.
Ms. Sanderson stated this project is in View Preservation District B and a View Modification is not required.
Commissioner Gunns asked if the trash enclosure encroaches 8 feet into the setback.
Ms. Sanderson stated the proposed trash area would be located 17 feet from the east side property line, and encroaches 8 feet into the setback.
Commissioner Murphy asked regarding the entry gate and if there would be room for the stacking of vehicles off the road.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the reason for the 20-foot setback is to allow at least one vehicle to park all the way off the roadway while the gate is opening.
Ms. Sanderson stated in addition to the conditions that are being recommended, staff did receive concerns from the Fire Department; they are concerned regarding the access gate and sharp turn up the driveway; they would like the access gate and driveway widened to 20 feet for emergency vehicles.
Chairman Maislen opened the public testimony.
Eric Weng, 2001 Valwood Drive, Fullerton, CA 92831, stated he was interested in buying a home to the east of this site. He was concerned regarding his loss of view.
Ms. Sanderson explained this site is in View Preservation District B and a view modification does not apply. She clarified the future pool will be in the setback and would require another standards modification.
David York, 1825 W. Balboa Blvd, Newport Beach stated he is the architect on this project. He stated these plans are the original plans submitted to the Planning Department; he felt the entry gates will cause a problem if moved; asked why they would be denied the location of the gate when the neighborhood is full of entry gates within the 20 foot setback.
Mr. Gilbertson stated they need to be 20 feet from the edge of payment to the gate; he felt they needed to move the entry gate back only 3-4 feet to comply; he felt this was the only modification that needed to be made.
Mr. York stated he felt the reasons they had to apply for a conditional use permit was because they weren't 20 feet back from the property line; he asked what the difference was between edge of payment and property line.
Mr. Daniels stated the setback determination is made from the edge of the road, edge of highway, not the edge of property line.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the municipal code states 20 feet from the highway line and in this case the highway line is the edge of payment.
Mr. York asked why this would be enforced on their project when everyone around him doesn't comply.
Chairman Maislen asked for an explanation from staff.
Mr. Gilbertson stated most of the homes in this area built there gates without benefit of permits and could become a code enforcement issue for violation of the municipal code.
Chairman Maislen stated the Commission would require the 20-foot width; he asked staff if they would allow waiver on the setback.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that is a decision for the Commission to make.
Mr. York stated they would go 20 feet wide on the width of the gate and driveway.
Commissioner Peller felt the requirement for a 20-foot setback from the edge of payment was driven from a safety concern.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that in this case it is 20 feet from the highway line, which is the edge of payment.
Mr. York stated the trash enclosure is in the logical location for this site.
Chairman Maislen stated he wanted the trash enclosure up against the structure and out of the setback; felt this house is too big for the size of the lot.
Mr. York stated pushing it against the house might still cause it to be in the setback by a foot or two.
Chairman Maislen seeing no one else come forward closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Skinner asked staff for a clarification of Section 9303.1 of the Municipal Code.
Commissioner Gunns stated he felt the grading was necessary for this site; he wants the trash enclosure and the entry gate out of the setbacks.
Commissioner Skinner stated there is still a lot going on, on a small lot.
Commissioner Peller asked to have the trash enclosure moved out of the setback; felt the entry gate can be moved very easily; felt the grading was done to get the highest elevation for this pad.
Commissioner Martin welcomed Commissioner Peller back; asked applicant to move the trash enclosure; felt the entry gate was a safety issue; asked if the import of dirt increased the pad elevation.
Chairman Maislen felt this lot is too small for this size house; he asked for the impervious coverage for this lot.
Mr. Gilbertson stated staff had included the entire project in the calculations and this would include the future pool area.
Chairman Maislen asked if it would be a hardship for the applicant to move the entry gate back 3-4 feet to meet the 20-foot requirement.
Mr. York agreed to move the trash enclosure out of the setback.
Commissioner Skinner felt the applicant would be coming back to the Commission for a setback issue on the pool.
Commissioner Peller felt the import of dirt was a balanced solution.
Recess taken from 8:30 to 8:35 p.m.
Mr. Daniels explained Municipal Code Section 9303.1, stating that in this case the highway line is measured 20 feet from the centerline of the local street, and then 20 feet for the setback for the entry gate.
Chairman Maislen clarified that this meant the entry gated only needed to be moved back 3-4 feet.
Chairman Maislen stated the CUP was to exceed the 1,000 cubic yards of solid fill; the standards modification for the gate and the trash enclosure would come off the resolution
Mr. Daniels stated no standards modification would be required as long as the plans are amended to reflect the changes.
Commissioner Peller stated the resolution takes care of the trash enclosure; the reference to the entry gate should be changed from front property line to highway line to reflect the proper language.
Chairman Maislen asked for a motion.
Commissioner Peller moved to approve CUP 99-04, Standards Modification 99-14 and Resolution 99-28 as modified, as follows page 6, section 6 1b should read access gates shall be located at least 20 feet beyond the edge of the road, defined as 20 feet from the center line; and that there be an item C added to item 1 stating the access gates and driveway shall be increased in width to 20 feet.
Mr. Daniels asked the Commission for the opportunity to clean up the language that relates to the Conditional Use Permit and recommending adoption of the Grading Modification to ensure it is accurate; he also asked under Section 6, Item 3 that the Development is in substantial conformance with the compliance of an approved as part of this development review including the modifications set forth in these conditions.
Seconded by Commissioner Gunns.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Peller, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
STANADARDS MODIFICATION 99-11A (Chilson) 1337 N. Hacienda Blvd.
Ms. Sanderson stated this request is to allow a 560 sq. ft. Recreational Vehicle Garage erected without benefit of permits to remain, which encroaches into the required 35-foot front yard setback; this is a steel structure with concrete footings; staff asked applicant to do a survey to determine where the property line is, applicant has chosen not to provide this survey; without an accurate survey to determine the applicants front property line, staff made it's own determination of the property line; the Commission should grant the modification if the appropriate findings can be made in support of the project; the applicant could potentially relocate the structure elsewhere on the site to maintain the required setbacks; the RV Garage has been reviewed environmentally and a categorical exemption has been issued on this project in compliance with CEQU; staff recommends that the Commission review the findings for granting the Standards Modification and direct staff to bring a resolution back with appropriate findings.
Chairman Maislen asked the Commission if they had any questions of staff.
Commissioner Skinner asked for an interpretation of Municipal Code Section 9303.1 and how it would apply to this property; is there a determination of what Hacienda Blvd is.
Ms. Sanderson stated yes Hacienda Blvd is an arterial highway and Section C of Section 9303.1 would be used; the measurement is 50 feet from the centerline, then the 35-foot front yard setback would be applied.
Commissioner Murphy asked, if the Commission instructed the applicant to move the structure would the slab have to also be moved.
Ms. Sanderson stated that yes the slab could stay.
Commissioner Martin asked if this was a permanent or temporary structure.
Ms. Sanderson stated it is a permanent structure based on these footings; however regardless if it is a temporary or permanent structure it still must maintain the proper setbacks.
Chairman Maislen opened the public testimony.
Donald Chilson, 1337 N. Hacienda Blvd., stated he was a 43 year resident of the Heights; this is not a garage, it is a metal cover; has no doors and no ends; felt his measurement of 22 feet from the center line to white line, 14 feet to the chain link and 19 feet to the nearest edge of the cover for a total of 55 feet was correct; is located in this spot because of the heavy traffic on Hacienda; suggested a toll road for Hacienda to slow the traffic down; his access gates is 12 foot wide and making the turn onto Hacienda put you very close to the center line; Brad Tarr measured it and said it was OK, then called and said no it wasn't OK, cause it was an arterial highway; disputed the designation of arterial highway.
Stan Quade, 115 Encanada stated this building was built without permits; it is an eyesore; spoke of sprinklers; he asked the Commission to be consistent.
Don Chilson, stated he had spoken with Fire Marshall Beckman and was told his building did not need fire sprinklers.
Chairman Maislen seeing no one else come forward closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Peller asked for an interpretation of where the measurement is taken from in this case.
Commissioner Skinner asked staff, what needed to be permitted.
Ms. Sanderson stated according to the Municipal Code Section 9120.19 a structure is defined; means any constructed or erected, which requires a fixed location on the ground, or is attached to something having a fixed location on the ground.
Chairman Maislen clarified that any structure in excess of 120 sq. feet would require a building permit.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked that if this specific structure were not attached to a concrete footing would we be having this conversation.
Ms. Sanderson stated this structure is defined as a structure and must comply with the required setbacks and permits.
Vice-Chairman Martin clarified that even though the Chilson's are calling this a cover not a structure, according to the Municipal Code this is a structure.
Ms. Sanderson stated what this is called doesn't matter, it is a structure.
Commissioner Skinner clarified this structure should be 85 feet from the centerline of the highway; she felt the entire structure was in the setback.
Ms. Sanderson stated that is what staff believed.
Chairman Maislen stated he felt the structure was at 55 feet; he felt this structure was not in good stead with the General Plan; there were many other places on this property this structure could go; he felt the term eyesore wasn't far off the mark.
Commissioner Peller stated Hacienda Blvd is an arterial highway; applicants may not have gotten into this situation by the most desirable path; however, it is not a reason for the Commission to make a decision one way or the other; applying the standards criteria, there are other alternatives; felt structure could be moved.
Chairman Maislen stated the City Engineer has determined that both Hacienda Blvd and Fullerton Road are arterial highways through our town; East and West Road are the collector roads and all other streets are the smaller arteries.
Mr. Gilbertson stated Hacienda does not require the Highway 39 designation to be considered an arterial highway.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked for an explanation of why the applicant put the structure in this location.
Mr. Chilson stated because of the access to Hacienda; felt it could be moved and would be expensive to move.
Commissioner Skinner moved to deny Standards Modification 99-11A. Seconded by Commissioner Martin.
AYES: Martin, Maislen, Peller, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Gunns
Mr. Daniels clarified that staff would prepare the resolution denying SM 99-11A and bring it back for the Commission.
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 99-27 (Kardashian) 1834 El Travesia Drive
Ms. Sanderson presented the staff report stating the applicants Moses & Tamara Kardashian proposes to utilize the provisions of La Habra Heights Municipal Code Section 9405 to allow a 274 square foot 1-car attached garage to encroach 22 feet within the required 25-foot corner side yard setback; the proposed garage will be 14 feet in height; the existing single family residence and garage are located 5 feet from the north property line; because of the location of the post in the current garage it serves a two one car garages; existing garage would remain in it's present location and would be modified to accommodate a 3 car design; access to the existing garage is off Encanada Drive; if appropriate findings in support of this modification can be made the Commission should grant the modification; project has been reviewed environmentally and a categorical exemption has been issued.
Chairman Maislen asked if the Commission had questions for staff.
Commissioner Skinner asked how Section 9303.1 would apply to this case.
Mr. Gilbertson stated Encanada is a local street and the measurement would be 20 feet from the centerline, then the setbacks would start.
Chairman Maislen opened the public testimony.
Enriquez Alvarez, 10927 Downey Avenue #D, Downey stated he was the architect on this project; stated this design is based on recommendations made by Brad; structural engineer has designed new headers for the structure; stated it is hard to enter the garage because of the posts in the center of the garage; removing posts will allow easier access; a third car garage will allow the owners to store their cars in the garage and not have a garage on the approach.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita stated road width is too narrow for garage to be this close; there is plenty of room for a garage elsewhere on this property; there is a safety issue; stated garage should be further back.
Mr. Alvarez stated pushing the garage back to get it out of the setback will cover the exit door from the house; east of site is a slope.
Chairman Maislen asked if the access could come off El Travesia, which would be safer.
Mr. Alvarez stated no.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked for an explanation of what Mr. Alvarez meant by making the egress to the garage easier.
Mr. Alvarez stated the posts in the existing garage would be removed; the existing garages is a two car garage, however with the posts it is like two one car garages; sometimes it requires more than one try to get into the garage.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked how putting 3 cars in a two car garage would make the situation better.
Moses Kardashian, 1834 El Travesia, stated he was the applicant, he was only asking to add a one car garage to the existing 2 car garage; access cannot come off El Travesia because he has two septic systems there; stated he was only asking for 12 feet to be added to the existing structure; cars would get wet if he entered on El Travesia; Encanada is a dangerous street.
Mr. Alvarez referred to sheet A1 on the plans and stated it will be safer, the first car stall next to the house will have the posts removed and will be made wider; adding the third stall will make it even larger; they will be using an 18 foot garage door.
Commissioner Gunns felt it would be easier if no cars were in the garage, however with cars in the garage there would still be a need for jockeying of cars to get in.
Mr. Kardashian stated this was to give a better swing when you make the turn.
Mr. Alvarez stated before there was a column and that will be gone and it will give them an additional 2 feet.
Commissioner Gunns felt the Commission was really concerned about the safety coming off the street.
Mr. Kardashian stated it would give you an easier diameter to swing into the opening.
Mr. Alvarez stated the openings would be larger which will make it easier for the cars to turn.
Commissioner Gunns asked the applicant if it was necessary to have the garage attached to the house.
Mr. Alvarez stated the need to provide the 18-foot door requires it be attached.
Commissioner Gunns felt relocating the garage further back on the property would better resolve the safety issues.
Mr. Kardashian didn't want his garage in any other location.
Commissioner Peller stated structurally the building could be re-designed, to fix and eliminate the posts without adding a third car garage; felt the adding of the 3rd car garage was not to eliminate the problems with the 2 single car garages but to add another car space.
Mr. Daniels explained order of procedure to Mr. Kardashian and asked that he not talk when a Commissioner is talking, that when a question has been directed to him then he may respond.
Mr. Alvarez stated that yes the existing structure could be redesigned so posts could be eliminated however it still only left them with a 15' 6î door; maneuvering would still be a problem.
Mr. Kardashian stated he wanted more space.
Chairman Maislen closed the public testimony.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked regarding the existing legal non-conforming condition; questioned it being less than ideal; the proposed change could eliminate a safety concern; in some ways that change makes it easier for the residents to get in and out of the garage.
Commissioner Murphy stated it could be safer with the addition; twelve feet would not make a difference.
Commissioner Gunns stated this was well within the encroachment; adding the third garage may not resolve the problem.
Commissioner Skinner stated instead of 2 backing out into the street you will now have 3 backing out; felt it was more detrimental; the lack of room to stack vehicles is a concern; these cars will be stacked in the street, if we require 20 feet for a gate, we need to apply the same rules here; setbacks need to be adhered to when safety is involved; has a problem with a safety issue here.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked if it wasn't an addition of a third garage but they reconfigured and added some space to the existing two-car garage and eliminated the posts to allow them to enter and exist, what would be the result.
Commissioner Skinner stated she had a problem with adding a third car garage; to add a few feet maybe, another garage no.
Vice-Chairman Martin stated there are solutions here that would resolve the current problems and make it safer, it is that third car that enters the equation that complicates the situation rather than alleviate it.
Chairman Maislen stated increasing the ingress and egress by a third bothers him; would prefer the garage be added in the larger open space of the property.
Commissioner Peller stated the house is there legally; adding this small space doesn't bother him; it would increase the safety; it is a balance of things.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked why does the new garage have 2 doors.
Chairman Maislen reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Kardashian stated the second garage door on the back of the garage is for waxing of cars and air circulation.
Chairman Maislen closed the public hearing.
Chairman Maislen asked for a motion.
Commissioner Peller moved to approve Standards Modification 99-27, seconded by Vice-Chairman Martin with conditions.
Chairman Maislen asked staff if this structure would require fire sprinklers.
Mr. Gilbertson stated fire sprinklers would be a requirement of this project.
Mr. Daniels explained there is no resolution to approve this project in the Commissions packet; the motion to approve would be to direct staff to bring a resolution back to the Commission for approval.
Commissioner Peller modified his motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval to Standards Modification 99-27.
Chairman Maislen asked would the requirement of fire sprinklers be a part of the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Daniels explained there is traditionally a blanket condition that requires structures to be built in compliance with City's regulations.
Seconded by Vice-Chairman Martin.
AYES: Martin, Maislen, and Peller
NOES: Gunns, and Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita stated the application for Moses Kardashian defies the City's General Plan; setbacks were designed for a purpose; safety was ignored.
Stan Quade, 1115 Encanada stated the ordinance regarding Fire Sprinklers needs to be made clear.
Commissioner Peller stated, there were three cases heard tonight; all three were setback modifications; two were denied; the last passed by the narrowest margin possible.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Maislen moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Peller, and Skinner.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
David L. Maislen, Chairperson
ATTEST
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 26, 1999
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Maislen at 7:30 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman David Maislen, Commissioners Marlin Gunns and Ginger Skinner. Also present: Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Secretary Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Dominic Milano, and Commission Attorney David Daniels. Absent: Richard Martin, John Peller, alternate Adrienne Murphy, and City Manager Les Doolittle,
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Gunns led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF October 26, 1999
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with state law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1999.
Chairman Maislen asked for corrections to the minutes, page 3, 8th paragraph second line uses should be singular and page 7, 2nd paragraph should read regarding the lifesaving advantages to fire sprinklers.
Commissioner Skinner motioned to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Commissioner Gunns and approved as follows:
AYES: Gunns, Maislen, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin, Murphy Peller
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Sanderson swore those in wishing to testify.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 99-01
Ms. Sanderson presented the Annual update of Local California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. She explained CEQA requires all cities and counties to amend their local guidelines to comply with the provisions of the State CEQA guidelines. These amendments are intended to bring the cities into compliance with State law. These amendments are minor. Staff recommended approval of these Guidelines
Chairman Maislen asked if the Commission had any questions of staff.
Chairman Maislen opened the public hearing.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, asked regarding the Notice of Determination. He stated it was his interpretation that if a notice was not filed within the required 5 days, it became a 180 day period not a 30 day period and what was the procedure if someone wanted to challenge the Notice of Determination.
Mr. Daniels stated the procedures to challenge a Notice of Determination are set forth in the CEQU Guidelines.
Mr. Blagden felt the school has overbuilt and has exceeded fifty- percent impervious coverage with the use of gravel.
Mr. Milano stated the Commission has made this interpretation both ways over the years, stating that staff was not prepared to answer his questions this evening.
Seeing no one else come forward, Chairman Maislen closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Skinner clarified this is the same CEQU Guidelines that have been approved before.
Ms. Sanderson responded yes.
Chairman Maislen asked for a motion on this item.
Commissioner Gunns moved to approve Resolution 99-18. Seconded by Commissioner Skinner.
AYES: Gunns, Maislen, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin, Murphy Peller
ABSTAIN: None
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25648, (Latter) 1649 Kashlan Road
Ms. Sanderson stated the applicants, David & Susan Latter, propose to utilize the provisions of La Habra Heights Municipal Code Section 10100 et. Seq. to subdivide 7.8 acres into two (2) parcels. The existing land use consists of a single family dwelling and tennis court on lot 2. Lot one consists of 6.44 acres with a lot slope of 30%. Lot 2 is 1.35 acres with a lot slope of 24.52%. Access to lot 1 is from Kashlan/Chota Rd and access to lot 2 is from Coban Road. Future single family dwelling is proposed for lot 2. The Parcel Map has been reviewed in compliance with the City's local CEQA Guidelines and CEQA and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for Planning Commission consideration. However since the 20 day public review period has not ended staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony and keep the public hearing open and continue this item to the December 28, 1999 meeting.
Chairman Maislen asked if the Commission had any questions of staff.
Chairman Maislen opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward Chairman Maislen left the public hearing open and continued this item open until the December 28, 1999 meeting.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24385 (OVERTURF) 1778 Kashlan Road
Ms. Sanderson stated the applicant, Mary I. Overturf, to request tentative parcel map approval to subdivide a 9.6-acre parcel into four (4) lots. The existing land use consists of a single family dwelling on proposed lot 1. The characteristics of each lot consists of Lot 1 - 2.2 acres, Lot 2 ñ 5.2 acres, Lot 3 ñ 1.1 acres, and Lot 4 ñ 1.1 acres. Lot 3 and Lot 4 are flag lots. A 20-foot access and utility easement is proposed. Currently there are trees in this easement and the easement will be reconfigured. In addition it has come to staff's attention that additional findings will need to be made regarding the flag lots.
Chairman Maislen asked staff what street these homes would take access and could any take access from Popenoe.
Ms. Sanderson stated they all take access from Kashlan.
Mr. Milano stated Lot 4 does have frontage on Popenoe, however does not have the required width to take access off Popenoe. He stated these lots are very flat and would not require additional grading whether they are flag lots or not which would require a private street be connected to Kashlan to come into this project with a cul-de-sac. This can be provided if all the findings cannot be met regarding Section 8522. If the Commission chooses not to make these findings the applicant can provide a private road to serve parcels 3 and 4. Staff recommends that the cul-de-sac terminate at property line of parcel 3.
Commissioner Skinner asked regarding the width of the driveway from the cul-de-sac to parcel 4.
Mr. Milano stated the road would be 20-feet wide with a cul-de-sac 32-feet in diameter. The driveway from the cul-de-sac to lot 4 would be 12-feet in width.
Chairman Maislen opened the public hearing.
Cathy Connen, 140 W. Orange Street, Covina, CA stated she is the engineer for this project and was here to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Steve Overturf, 1778 Kashlan Road, stated he was here to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Stephen Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, regarding the further subdivision of the largest of the lots and stated Municipal Code Section 8522a is a finding that cannot be made.
Mr. Milano restated there is not sufficient frontage to take access off Popenoe. There is room to walk in from Popenoe, however there isn't sufficient frontage for a driveway.
John Terry, 1465 Popenoe, clarified with Mr. Milano that there would not be any vehicle access from Popenoe. He stated he was opposed to any access in the future from Popenoe.
Mr. Milano restated there would not be any vehicle access from Popenoe. Utilities could come in through Popenoe, but would only serve Lot 4. The owner would be able to subdivide the remaining property at a later date as long as it complied with the General Plan and Municipal Code. Mr. Milano explained the definition of a flag lot applying to lots 3 and 4.
Mr. Daniels agreed.
Seeing no one else come forward, Chairman Maislen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gunns asked staff when the cul-de-sac would be added to the Map.
Mr. Milano stated that if this were a condition of approval it would be added to the Map, stating it would be under condition 18, relating to Fire Department turn around.
Commissioner Skinner stated this needs to be a private street. She felt flag lots were meant for lots with slope, not lots on flat land.
Mr. Milano explained that it is in Section 8522, there are 3 requirements to make it a flag lot. One requirement relates to cut and fill. This project will have very little cut and fill.
Commissioner Skinner stated the General Plan is in place to maintain our rural look and she felt a street would provide better access.
Mr. Milano the read a condition that might satisfy the Commission, stating, ìA private street with a paved street of 20-feet in width, with a right-of-way varying 22-feet to 30-feet minimum and a cul-de-sac with a radius of 32-feet shall be shown on the final map and constructed to serve parcels 3 and 4 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the northerly line of parcel 3, an access easement and driveway to parcel 4 from the cul-de-sac is required.î He asked that this be inserted as Condition 17 and dropping the other conditions down one number.
Chairman Maislen asked for a motion on this item.
Chairman Skinner moved to approve Resolution 99-19 with the addition of Condition 17 as described by Mr. Milano. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns.
AYES: Gunns, Maislen, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin, Murphy Peller
ABSTAIN: None
Conditional Use permit 99-06 ñ Crimson Resource Management ñ City Wide
Ms. Sanderson introduced to the Planning Commission, Laura Stetson with Cotton Beland and Associates who has been contracted as a Contract Planner for the City to work on the Crimson Resource Management Conditional Use Permits.
Ms. Stetson reported the application before the Commission was a Conditional Use Permit for Crimson Resource Management to conduct a temporary trucking operation to transport oil from production sites in La Habra Heights to an off-load site, also located in La Habra Heights. The trucking operation began in May 1999 after an oil pipeline rupture in the City of La Habra. The State Fire Marshall will not allow this line back in operation until the repaired line has been tested. Crimson has made a decision to install a new pipeline rather than repair the old line. This will come before the Commission under a separate Conditional Use Permit. The new pipeline is not part of the application before the Commission at this meeting. Crimson is asking the City to be allowed to continue the trucking operation until the new pipeline is installed and operational. Which in the original study was targeted for January 1, 2000. She stated because the application was just submitted it appears this will now be March of 2000. Crimson operates 12 production sites within La Habra Heights. Oil pumped at these sites has historically been transported via a network of pipes to the primary transmission facility on Ranch Hill Road. With the pipeline rupture earlier this year and in order to avoid shutting down their operation, Crimson absent any City approvals began trucking oil from Site 3 on Canada Sombre, the El Empino Site on El Empino Drive and Site 12 on West Road to the off load facility on Ranch Hill Road. In response to Residents complaints, the City Council issued a nuisance abatement notice and at subsequent Council Meetings Crimson was directed to file for this Conditional Use Permit to allow for interim trucking activities to continue. Crimson was also instructed to pay for installation of traffic warning signs and to limit trucking operations to weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The C.U.P. Application before this commission was filed in August of 1999. Since that time Crimson has rerouted production flows to avoid trucking from the El Empino Site. Therefore this application is to truck oil from the Canada Sombre site and the West Road site to the site on Ranch Hill Road using Hacienda Blvd and Harbor Blvd to get to Fullerton Road and to the off load site on Ranch Hill Road. Twelve truck trips per day are now occurring and will continue to occur. The trucks are 18-wheel tractor-trailers with a loaded capacity of 120 barrels. Each truck has an empty weight of 20,000 pounds and an estimated loaded weight of approximately 55,000 pounds. Currently Crimson is investigating all of their production flows to see what can be rerouted to Site 5 on Hacienda Blvd. If this can be accomplished then trucking from sites 3 and 12 will stop and all truck trips will take place only from Site 5. This again would be an interim procedure until the new pipeline can be installed. Pursuant to CEQA the City did prepare an initial study on this project and determined that potential traffic, noise and air quality impacts would not exceed established threshold levels or they could be adequately mitigated. The initial study circulated for an initial 20-day review period and a public meeting was held on September 22, 1999 to solicit further public comments on the project and the environmental documentation. At the meeting the residents commented primarily on traffic safety issues, wear and tear on City streets, truck noise, fumes and that trucking was allowed to continue absent the granting of the Conditional Use Permit.
A letter from the City of La Habra cited their Ordinance regarding truck weight limits on Harbor Blvd. at 3 tons. Crimson has been informed of this ordinance and is working with the City of La Habra for a temporary waiver. Staff recommends approval of this project with several conditions enclosed in the Staff Report. Ms. Stetson asked to revise Condition 15 to read, ìThis Conditional Use Permit shall expire and all rights to operate the temporary trucking operation authorized by this permit shall terminate on June 30, 2000 or on the date Crimson Resource Management or its successors successfully completes and puts into operation a planned replacement pipeline, whichever occurs first (the expiration date). The applicant shall have no vested right or expectation that it will be permitted to continue to operate the temporary trucking operation authorized by the permit beyond the expiration date. The issuance of this C.U.P. is further conditioned upon the applicant signing a written declaration in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney acknowledging that a) the applicant has no vested right or expectation that it will be permitted to continue to operate the temporary trucking operations authorized by this permit beyond the expiration date, b) should the applicant wish to operate the temporary trucking operation authorized by this permit beyond the expiration date, an entirely new application for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the City's new application procedures must be filed for the temporary trucking operation and all application fees must be paid by the applicant, and c) the applicant shall have the sole burden of proving in any new Conditional Use Permit application that a temporary trucking operation that a Conditional Use Permit is appropriate. This written declaration shall be submitted within the same time period specified for the written acknowledgement required in Condition 16. This CUP shall not become effective unless and until the applicant provides such declaration to the City in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney.î
Mr. Daniels clarified that a future CUP application for the trucking operation is a discretionary review permit. Therefore there is no guarantee that there will be any additional rights to operate past the June 30, 1999 date.
Chairman Maislen clarified that this new Condition 15 supercedes the old Condition 15.
Ms. Stetson stated yes. She stated the Conditions due not require the use of shorter non-articulated trucks, which the public has raised concerns about. Staff recommends adoption of the mitigated negative declaration for CUP 99-06 and approval of the Application with the revised Conditions presented here.
Chairman Maislen asked the Commission if they had any questions for staff. Seeing none, he opened the public hearing.
Bud Chapman, 208 Canada Sombre, praised the staff of Crimson for their efforts. He asked how soon could we get rid of these trucks.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, stated this is the second CUP where the applicant started prior to the approval of the CUP; senior citizens depend on the oil revenue; City wide impact is minimal; damage to roads.
Dave Sandison, 235 Canada Sombre, stated there is not enough room on the road; people and cars are being forced off the road; not complying with Site 3 conditions of approval; landscape screening needs work; how can a new CUP be granted when we can't get them to comply with their last application; questioned truck trips; trucks tearing up the roads; felt it will take till at least June to get the new pipeline in; felt Canada Sombre should be piped to Hacienda Site and trucked from that site; feels Condition 8 should be at the City's discretion.
Phillip George, 1316 White Hills Drive, spoke in favor of the project
Norman Zezula, 2272 Canonita Drive, spoke of public safety and referred to a sheriff's report, asked how many near miss incidents are necessary before we decide we have a serious public safety problem here; asked for smaller trucks; wanted the trucks to avoid Canonita Drive; he felt that the fact that an unsafe practice is only temporary does not make it a safe practice.
Hal Hollister, 2175 Citron, stated closing in of a well is never advisable, it is very unpredictable; he supports to temporary trucking.
Stephanie Sweeney, 291 Canada Sombre, stated the drivers are not watching where they are going, specifically mentioned a white pickup; asked who is policing these trucks; questioned the landscaping.
Frank Bell, 15608 Arbela Drive, felt the oil industry is the life-blood for the Heights.
Michelle Harincame, 218 East Road, stated her experience with Crimson has disrupted her families life style; no performance bond was put up with Resource Extraction License was issued; trucking before the C.U.P.; new C.U.P. for pipeline; new pipeline is scheduled to go up her private drive, she stated she will not allow this; stated the City has rules but we don't live by those rules.
Pete Krager, 2524 Ardsheal, asked for approval of the CUP and asked the City to expedite the pipeline.
Don Fite, 1404 Dorothea Road, reminded the Commission that retirees depend on the income from Crimson.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita spoke in favor of granting the CUP.
Sandra Briggs, 2160 Subtropic Drive, spoke in favor of granting the CUP.
Ed Zezula, 2272 Canonita, stated he was concerned about children playing on the streets near these trucks; streets used for the trucking; addressed the weight of the trucks.
Recess taken 9:39 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.
Richard Luciano, 759 Reposado, stated thus far Crimson has demonstrated the desire to be a good citizen; replacing the pipeline is a positive step; stated we need to give them the opportunity to demonstrate their good neighbor policies; revenues to this City are significant; denial of this CUP would negatively impact approximately 1,400 residents; 1.2 trucks per hour is not significant; timeframes for the approval of the pipeline might determine when the project would be completed.
John Grier, President, Crimson Resource Management stated he was here with
Gary Buntman, Crimson's Vice President, and Patty Lee Young, Crimson's Environmental Manager to answer any question the Commission may have.
Chairman Maislen asked regarding the landscaping at Canada Sombre; slowing production to lower the number of trips; pipeline to site 5;
Ms. Young stated Crimson is in the process of replanting dead spaces at the facility, that were there since Crimson purchased the property; 9 trees have been planted; 6 vines on the fence; size of trees were based on what size trees Hacienda Growers could provide as she wanted to keep that revenue within the City.
Mr. Grier stated reducing production does damage the wells; economics are of a concern for Crimson, the residents, and the City; feels it is positive for everyone to keep the wells pumping; this is something they could study if the City so requests; will accommodate anything the City would like for them to do.
Commissioner Skinner clarified that redirecting to Site5 would mean all the pumping would be done at the site on Hacienda, however the same amount of trucks would still be going to Ranch Hill Road.
Chairman Maislen asked if there was a stop sign at the Canada Sombre site.
Ms. Young responded no there was not, it was a caution sign.
Chairman Maislen asked if a stop sign could be installed at this site and asked that this be added as a Condition of Approval.
Ms. Young and Mr. Grier agreed they could do that.
Commissioner Gunns asked for a realistic time frame for the completion of the pipeline.
Mr. Grier explained that it was the goal of everyone to have the pipeline installed as soon as possible; he explained the reason why he couldn't give a specific time of completion, stating it would depend on the length of the permit process; once the approval process is complete it would take 6 ñ 8 weeks to physically install the pipeline.
Chairman Maislen asked staff how this could be expedited.
Ms. Stetson explained first the application must be deemed complete, then an environmental review period must be done (20 days); this process will take approximately 6 weeks to get to hearing from today; this might be ready for the December meeting. She stated the City needs to deem the application complete to start the time line; feeling the earliest this could come before the Planning Commission is the first of December, she felt more comfortable with a mid December date.
Chairman Maislen stated the Planning Commission and City Council would not be adverse to holding a special hearing to accomplish this; how soon could this be done; stating after listening to the residents concerns tonight, he felt it was imperative to get this resolved immediately and scheduled for a public hearing as soon as humanly possible; wants this scheduled the first week of December.
Ms. Stetson stated staff would expedite the application.
Commissioner Skinner asked could the CUP for the trucking be tied to the CUP for the pipeline; has the old pipeline been repaired; asked regarding the pros and cons of using smaller trucks; timing of trucks and school busses.
Mr. Daniels stated no they could not be tied together.
Mr. Grier stated the old pipeline has not been repaired, the rest of the route of this pipeline which is seven miles long was not tested, the decision was to install a new pipeline; felt it was safer to use larger trucks that make fewer trips which will cause less damage to the roads; each driver was given a schedule of the busses and was asked to not be around during these times and to avoid them at any cost.
Ms. Young a portion of the line from El Empino is in the testing phase and will be used.
Chairman Maislen asked when the testing would be complete
Ms. Young explained testing will continue over the next few days and should be complete by the end of the year.
Commissioner Skinner asked staff regarding the condition of Fullerton Road on the north side of the City; is there another route to get to Ranch Hills Road if Fullerton Road fails; asked if staff is monitoring the roads for wear and tear done by Crimson.
Mr. Milano stated there is a sub-grade failure on this road; superficial slides are occurring; under a wet condition with a load this road will move; the new design of Fullerton Road is pending; this project hopefully will start after the rainy season; didn't feel these trucks will do more damage to this road as it will need to be taken out and rebuilt anyway; there is a possibility the road could give way; the cracks will be sealed temporarily to get it through the rainy season; it would be possible to enter Ranch Hills Road from Fullerton Road South; staff did a laser survey on the streets they wanted to watch, that will be done again at the completion of the trucking and staff will determine what damage and wear and tare was caused by Crimson.
Commissioner Skinner asked where the oil goes when it is put in at the Ranch Hills Road site; could the oil be taken out of the City to pump to Brea
Mr. Grier stated it goes to a location by pipeline to a tank facility in Brea near Central and Berry; there is no other location to pump from.
Chairman Maislen asked if everything is passed in December how soon could this pipeline be installed.
Ms. Stetson explained there might be more agencies involved in the pipeline than just the City.
Ms. Young clarified one permit is through the Fish and Game because the pipeline crosses the blue line stream; it is fairly simple and does not anticipate a lengthy wait.
Chairman Maislen asked why the deadline could not be brought back to March 31, 2000.
Mr. Grier stated the trucking would stop immediately when the pipeline is completed; the deadline was established to handle some unforeseen circumstance not caused by the City or Crimson.
Chairman Maislen stated he will be watching this project to ensure that it is completed in as timely a fashion as possible.
Commissioner Gunns asked what other agencies might be involved
Ms. Young stated Army Corp of Engineers and possibly AQMD.
Ms. Stetson stated what the City and Crimson are trying to accomplish with the Pipeline CUP is to address everything they may need through this CUP to eliminate the need for them to have to come back again; staff is also looking at all of the existing entitlements they have throughout the City for all of their sites and see if they could all be addressed in the Pipeline CUP; this may not be able to be done with the new timelines established.
Mr. Grier stated Crimson could avoid putting in tanks at least temporarily; he stated he was fine if the City wished to change the condition regarding the June deadline, it could simply read the CUP expires 8 weeks after Crimson receives City approvals for the pipeline.
Ms. Stetson states the way the condition is worded it is tied to June 30th or when the pipeline is in operation, which ever occurs first.
Chairman Maislen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gunns felt the CUP was adequate and was OK with the June 30th deadline.
Commissioner Skinner agreed.
Chairman Maislen agreed.
Ms. Stetson asked to correct a typographical error in Condition 5, it should read 8 a.m. not 8 p.m.
Chairman Maislen asked for a motion.
Commissioner Gunns moved to approve CUP 99-06 and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves Resolution 99-20 as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Skinner.
AYES: Gunns, Maislen, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin, Murphy Peller
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, asked about the Landscaping at the Lynch Tract; as built grading plan; palm trees.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Skinner moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:36 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns.
AYES: Gunns, Maislen, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin, Murphy Peller
ABSTAIN: None
David L. Maislen, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION
September 28, 1999
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Maislen at 7:31 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman David Maislen, Vice-Chairman Richard Martin, Commissioners Marlin Gunns, Ginger Skinner and alternate Adrienne Murphy. Also present: City Manager Les Doolittle, Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Secretary Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer David Gilbertson and Commission Attorney David Daniels. Absent John Peller.
Alternate Adrienne Murphy substituted as a voting member in Commissioner Peller's absence.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Maislen announced the Garden Harvest would be held on October 9th from 9-noon.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Skinner led the flag salute.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1999.
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the statues.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of August 24, 1999.
Vice-Chairman Martin offered a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Murphy and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peller
Minutes of the Special Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 1999.
Vice-Chairman Martin asked the start time of the meeting be corrected to 6 p.m.
Commissioner Murphy offered a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Seconded by Commissioner Skinner.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Murphy and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peller
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Sanderson swore those in wishing to testify.
MOTOR VEHICLE ABATEMENT 99-05 AND INTENTION TO DECLARE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ñ Leon & Cara Swaggerty, 1037 E. Avocado Crest Road
Chairman Maislen explained, staff had asked that this report be received and filed as Mr. Swaggerty was now working with staff to clean up his property. Chairman Maislen requested that this report be received and filed.
NEW BUSINESS
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 99-14 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-04 (DARIE) 1436 Tangelo Lane
Ms. Sanderson presented the agenda report stating the applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court with lighting and to exceed the 1,000 cubic yards of solid fill materials grading limitation in order to construct a single family dwelling, future pool area, tennis court with lights, and standards modifications for Access Gate, Fences, Walls, Trash/AC Units, Pool Equipment, Front Yard Setback, Interior Side Yard Setback, Impervious Coverage and Rural Character Preservation. Staff recommended the Commission adopt the revised resolution denying the proposed project.
Chairman Maislen asked if the Commission had any questions for staff. Seeing none he opened the public hearing.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road asked why this case was a Standards Modification and not a Variance.
Mr. Doolittle explained the practice of the City has been to treat minor variances within setbacks or height limits through the modification process the City has. There has never been a clear definition in the zoning ordinance where the Modification ends and the Variance begins.
David York, 1825 West Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, stated he was the architect on this project, stating he had brought a model for the Commission to view, the lot is split in half by a 2:1 slope, house would sit 20 feet above the lower area, landscaping would help buffer the tennis court from the street, there is only one other house on this street, front yard would be mostly tennis court, pilasters in front yard, gate 15' and 10' back from property line, slope needs to be subtle for driveway, yard projections, AC equipment can be moved, amount of grading will remain the same to build this house.
Commission Skinner asked if the patio was covered.
Mr. York clarified it is a patio and it was not covered and is not in the setback.
Chairman Maislen asked Mr. York why this project was brought to this Commission with such an over use of the property, and why did they want to over develop this land.
Mr. York addressed only the tennis court and stated this is a large customhouse with amenities. He felt the landscaping would solve the problems as only one other home was on this street and this home was not visible to others.
Commissioner Skinner asked if the pool was in the setback.
Ms. Sanderson responded that the pool was not a part of this application.
Mr. Doolittle stated that a pool would normally be allowed within a setback area. Staff was referring to the pool because it increased the impervious coverage.
Chairman Maislen asked staff if they knew of any home in the Heights with this much impervious coverage.
Mr. Doolittle stated no.
Val Daire, 76 Deer Creek Road, Phillips Ranch, CA, stated he was very excited about this project and these were necessities they wanted, stating they would work with the City.
Seeing no one else come forward Chairman Maislen closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Gunns felt this was well planned out, suggested the applicant resubmit their application with a few less issues, so the Commission could look at this again.
Commissioner Skinner stated this is too big a project for this size of a lot and does not conform to the General Plan, should be scaled down, felt encroachments were major.
Vice-Chairman Martin stated, with the way this home was presented he has to go along with the recommendation of staff and asked the applicant to redesign the project stating the tennis court caused the excess of impervious coverage.
Commissioner Murphy stated this is against the General Plan.
Chairman Maislen stated he has the same feelings as the rest of the Commission, the house would work but the tennis court is excessive and suggested the applicant scale down their project.
Ms. Sanderson clarified for the Commission a revision to the Resolution.
Vice Chairman Martin asked staff if there was a difference between denying the project without prejudice or simply denying the project.
Mr. Daniels stated to deny without prejudice signals to the applicant, that they might wish to reapply.
Chairman Maislen asked would there be an additional fee for reapplying.
Mr. Doolittle clarified the fees and deposits and explained that in a case like this that is ongoing, the City simply carries the deposits forward. There may be additional charges for a re-submittal.
Chairman Maislen asked for a motion from the Commission.
Vice Chairman Martin moved to deny Standards Modification 99-14 and Conditional Use Permit 99-04 and adopt Resolution 99-24 without prejudice. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Murphy and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peller
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 99-26 (RODRIGUEZ) 2077 EL CAJONITA
Ms. Sanderson presented the agenda report stating the applicant Eduardo Rodriguez is requesting a View Preservation Modification in order to exceed the base measurements of 500 square feet in area and a 16-foot height limitation for construction of a single-family dwelling in View Preservation District A and to exceed the 15,330 square foot maximum graded area, the address of 2077 El Cajonita will be changed due to a parcel map split done previously, and staff recommended approval of the proposed project with the attached conditions and certify the proposed Categorical Exemption is appropriate for the project.
Chairman Maislen asked for questions of staff from the Commission. Chairman Maislen opened the public hearing.
Eduardo Rodriguez, 12316 Clear Glen Avenue #D, Whittier stated the lot slopes and this is why he went with a two story home.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita gave the Commission a history of this lot, stating the lot was split in 1966, slope density formula did apply then, very steep incline, drainage is very sensitive, El Cajonita is in bottom of gully, weather is a factor here, 15-20 years ago the hillside did come down and blocked the street, house is too big for the size and slope of this lot, asked to have it reduced in size for safety factors.
Chairman Maislen asked staff what the impervious coverage was on this property.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the impervious coverage was 4,850 square feet, with 30%-graded area.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, asked if a lot with a 38% slope would be sub-divided today, is the property owner in danger of mudslides and cracking.
Mr. Gilbertson stated this parcel was created in 1968 prior to any zoning guideline, the soils and geology will be addressed before the house is built.
Elizabeth Barringer, 2080 El Cajonita stated this lot is her view and asked regarding the proposed landscaping.
Chairman Maislen asked staff if Mr. Rodriguez was asked to install siting polls.
Ms. Sanderson stated, yes he was.
Chairman Maislen asked Mr. Rodriguez regarding the polls.
Mr. Rodriguez stated the house was not blocking anyone's view.
Chairman Maislen stated he was comfortable without the polls and asked staff did they require to polls to be put up.
Ms. Sanderson stated there is nothing in the ordinance requiring polls, this is a courtesy.
Chairman Maislen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Murphy asked regarding landscaping.
Ms. Sanderson stated this is part of the development and the applicant will submit a landscaping plan.
Vice-Chairman Martin stated he had no questions.
Commissioner Skinner stated she had no questions.
Commissioner Gunns stated he was comfortable with this project, didn't feel the grading was a problem.
Chairman Maislen felt this was a positive development for our community and asked for a motion.
Ms. Sanderson stated there is a revised the resolution for the Commission.
Commissioner Murphy moved to approve Standards Modification 99-26 and adopt Resolution 99-25 as revised. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Murphy
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Skinner
ABSENT: Peller
COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road complimented the new Planner on the quality of the staff reports, stating polls are good, if this is not a rule it should be, gave handout to Commission regarding zoning codes.
Stan Quade, 115 Encanada asked regarding the RV Garage on Hacienda, dashing dreams, wanted language regarding fire sprinklers ordinance, he felt the City has interpreted the Ordinance wrong. Mr. Quade felt people are building without permits, school was allowed no setback, addition at school has no sprinklers.
Chairman Maislen reminded Mr. Quade regarding the lifesaving advantages to fire sprinklers.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chairman Martin moved at 9:00 p.m. to adjourn the meeting to October 26, 1999. Seconded by Commissioner Skinner.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, Maislen, Murphy and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peller
David L. Maislen, Chairperson
ATTEST
Les Doolittle, City Clerk
CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 1999
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Vice- Chairman Rick Martin at 6:00 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Commissioners Rick Martin, Ginger Skinner and alternate Adrienne Murphy. Also present: Administrative Assistant Greg Korduner, Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, City Engineer Dominic Milano, and Commission Attorney David Daniels. Absent Marlin Gunns, David Maislen, John Peller, Les Doolittle, Barbara Doppieri, and David Gilbertson.
In Chairman Maislen absence Vice-Chairman Martin would chair this meeting. In the absence of Commissioners Gunns and Peller, Commissioner Murphy will vote in this meeting.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Skinner led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Administrative Assistant Greg Korduner introduced to the Commission the City's new Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF September 28, 1999
Mr. Korduner stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the statutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Mr. Korduner swore in those wishing to testify.
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 98-20 (Watase) 990 Reposado
Mr. Korduner presented the Agenda Report. He stated this item was an application for a View Preservation Modification to permit the addition to a single family residence to exceed the base measurements of 500 sq. ft. in area and 16 feet in height with a 1442 sq. ft. addition and a maximum height of 30 feet at property located at 990 Reposado in the R-A 1 Zone. He stated the site contains an existing 2,263-sq. ft. single family residence. He stated the applicant requested approval to construct a 1,442-sq. ft. second story addition. He stated an administrative review was conducted and the previous Planner granted approval after a field visit to the appellant's home. He stated the project was approved and released by the Planning Department and Building Permits were issued. He stated this decision was then appealed to the Planning Commission. He stated a stop work order had been placed on the project pending the outcome of the Planning Commission decision. He stated all of the development standards of the R-A Zone apply to the subject site. He stated the owner has been in negotiations with the appellants trying the resolve their concerns regarding the view preservation issues. He stated the owner offered to remove one of three eucalyputs trees and split the cost of the removal with the appellants. He stated the appellants asked to have two trees removed at the owner's expense to improve views to the east. He stated the appellants also would like the copulas removed over the carport and asked the owner to trim the oleanders that follow the applicant's driveway down from the street to the house. He stated the owner previously had allowed the appellant to trim the oleanders. He stated the owner was willing to work with the appellants on the removal of the largest of the three trees until the appellants added more conditions. He stated the Municipal Code requirements stated in part that each proposed structure or addition to an existing structure that exceeds the measurements allowed below shall be subject to a view preservation modification pursuant to Section 9404 (1) 500 square feet or more located on a lot of one acre or less (2) 16 feet in height. He stated staff recommends approval of the project with the attached conditions and certifies the proposed categorical exemption is appropriate for the project. He stated the conditions of approval are that the owner would be responsible for the removal of the two largest eucalyptus trees, the appellants would be responsible for the trimming and maintenance of the oleanders, grading shall be in compliance with the City of La Habra Heights Grading Ordinance No. 27, on site storms drain improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, uncompacted soils shall be re-graded in accordance with the Soils Engineers recommendations, and the applicant will obtain all necessary approvals from the Department of Building and Safety.
Chairman Martin asked if the Commission had questions for staff.
Commissioner Skinner asked if the pole is at 27 feet, because in the application the applicant is asking for 30 feet.
Mr. Korduner stated the pole is at 27 feet and yes the applicant was asking for 30 feet in the application.
Commissioner Skinner asked if the applicant submitted a landscaping plan.
Mr. Korduner stated no, not to his knowledge.
Chairman Martin opened the hearing for Public Testimony.
Craig McRae, 855 Reposado Drive, stated he has visited the site and feels there is sufficient view impairment. He asked why the stake was set at 27 feet when the application is asking for 30 feet. He praised staff for their recommendation to remove the trees to preserve the site. He stated this solution has previously been used in the City very successfully.
Bonnie Biddleman, 1855 Kanola, stated she has visited this site. She stated she could not understand how anyone would buy a home in the Heights with a view and spend thousands of dollars to improve their property if that value could be taken away so easily. She was under the impression that her own home and view were being protected by the General Plan. She stated the view is paramount important in the value of property. She asked the Commission to uphold the General Plan and the View Preservation Ordinance.
Dean Alger, 1450 La Riata Drive, stated he previously was in the same situation as Mr. Watase. He asked how someone could add on and block the view of someone who has lived there for 30 years. He stated one of the values of living up here is the view. He asked why this project was approved.
Carol Mann, 945 Reposado, stated this project should never have been approved. She stated the view is essential. She asked why the View Preservation Ordinance not being upheld. She asked the Commission to deny this request.
Galo Rey, 2038 Hacienda, stated they had been to the site. He is surprised that this project was approved. He stated it never should have been. He stated the General Plan is here to preserve the view.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, stated he felt the Flicks should be refunded their appeal fee because the size of this project required it go to a hearing in the first place. He felt the reason the hearing was not done was because of a mistake of the City not the Flicks. He stated residents are not suppose to loose their property rights after they have been here, a number of years. He felt this case is another example where the ordinance is clear and a hearing should have been held, but approval was granted without one for the benefit of an outside developer at the expense of a 30-year resident. He stated the View Preservation rules states the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that their project does not block a significant view of a neighbor. He stated this Commission often interprets this as a view blockage of something around 50%. He stated significant is being enforced as if it said substantial. He stated this is not what the ordinance says. He said court decisions stated that if a word or term is not defined they are interpreted at they plain and simple meaning like a dictionary meaning. He stated significant means, important, having meaning, often hidden meaning. He stated that the building expansion blocks part of the view is not in question, the question is, is it significant. He felt the questions are, is it significant. He stated this view is clearly significant to the Flicks or they wouldn't have spent time and money to save it. He stated it is clearly significant to the others who have wrote letters or testified. He stated the residents property rights are reflected in the ordinances, it is enforcement of those ordinances that preserve or increase their property values. He felt it was the Flick's property rights that were infringed on. He stated the burden of proof is on the applicant to show the loss is not significant and the evidence clearly shows it is significant, the Commission has no choice but to deny the applicant. He stated the appellants have offered a solution.
John Berg, 2016 Virazon, stated he is a resident of La Habra Heights. He stated he has been a resident of La Habra Heights for 25 years. He stated he is the designer and general contractor on this project. He stated he was hired because he is a general contractor and because he is a resident of the Heights. He stated he was hired for this project because he knew and understood and respected the very complex building codes of the City. He stated he did follow all the steps the Staff imposed to obtain his building permits. He stated he was issued all necessary building permits for the demolition and remodel of this residence. He stated all of his plan were approved and stamped by Staff. He stated he has been on this project for approximately 9-10 months. He stated in September of last year he did a site visit with Mr. Tarr and specifically asked him if this project would be a problem, specifically with a View Preservation Modification. He stated he would not have gone further on this project if it were a problem. He stated he was assured there was no view impairment because of the substantial view that remained. He stated somewhere along the line mistakes was made, public notices were not sent out. He stated Mr. Tarr told him he had forgotten to send out the public notices. He stated Mr. Watase was very patient. He stated after the public notices were sent out Mr. Tarr did a site visit to the Flicks. He stated Mr. Tarr told him that if he did not hear further from the Flicks he would approve the project on August 12. He stated Mr. Tarr called him at 4:30 on August 12th and told him no one had responded and he was approving the project. He stated the following Monday he asked the Building Department to figure the costs of permits. He stated on Wednesday he pulled permits and was told he could start demolition. He stated the following Monday he was called by the Building Department and was told there was a stop work order placed on the project. He stated he felt this was a big joke, because they had waited so long to get to this point. He stated half the house had been torn down. He stated everything he has done, has been done it good faith. He stated he feels like people are saying he did something wrong. He stated Mr. Watase didn't do anything wrong. He stated it was the Planning Department that caused this entire problem. He stated when this decision was made Brad Tarr was head of the Planning Department and he assumed Brad knew what he was talking about. He stated half the house is torn down, he asked what do we do. He stated he has lived here for 25 years and he has a view. He stated in that 25 years, he has lost probably half his view to vegetation. He stated he couldn't cut his neighbors trees because his property is being devalued. He stated Mr. Watase was acting in good faith by offering to remove the tree and share the cost with the Flicks. He felt this was a genuine good faith offer. Mr. Berg stated he has trimmed his neighbor's trees for years with permission, however he has never asked the neighbor to share the cost, so he can maintain his view. He stated these trees at Mr. Watase are beautiful. He did not understand why these trees should be removed. They can be thinned to preserve their beauty. Mr. Berg stated when he originally applied for this application they asked for 30 feet because they weren't sure how high this project was going. He stated when the plans were designed he told Brad he was designing this with a hipped roof so there will remain so view on either side of the roof. He stated the house now has a gable roof. He stated had be designed the project with a gable roof it would have blocked the entire view. He stated he was sensitive that there was going to be some view loss. After his drawings were done the roof peak was lowered to 27 feet.
John Flick, 1008 Reposado, stated they are here before this Commission because two parties who are going to be neighbors could not settle this matter. He stated they agreed to give up something they have enjoyed for 30 years, that they did want to give up, in return for the removal of 2 trees, trimming and maintenance of oleanders and the removal of a cupola. He stated it was 3 weeks and 5 days between notice to residence and issuance of permits over their written objection on July 21st. He felt the notification and review process was not followed properly. He asked why they were not notified until July when this project was originally submitted in November of last year. He asked why they were only given 6 days to respond to the public notice. He stated, as he understood the ordinance, a home that exceeds 16 feet in height potentially blocks a view must have a hearing to determine if additional height will significantly impair view from a property as identified as having a view. He stated Section 9404 states the burden of proof is on the applicant. He felt the extent of view loss could not be determined until the property is properly staked. He felt the 4 corners of the building and the ridgeline should be staked. He stated what Mr. Tarr deemed as not significant, that might be very significant to the property owners. He asked how many non significant views could be taken before there is no view left. He stated significant can also be applied to the dollar value that is lost. He stated his view loss could cost him up to $15,000. He felt this is very significant. He stated he hired a graphic designer to draw sketches of what their view loss would be. He stated all they asked was the removal of the two trees. He stated this was to replace view that was taken by this addition. He also asked for the oleanders to be trimmed. He felt this was logical. He asked for an agreement between Mr. Watase and the City to allow the Flicks to trim the oleanders as necessary and that the planting of any new trees or shrubs not block their view in the future.
Betty Flick, 1008 Reposado, stated she has lived there for 30 years. She thanked the Commission for helping them to solve this matter. She stated she felt bad by the shabby way they were treated by Brad Tarr in this matter and the total disregard of their rights. She stated no hedges have been trimmed. She read a portion of a letter from a resident. She stated the Flicks want to be part of the solution. She stated Mr. Korduner's Conditions of Approval seem fair to the Flicks. She stated her family would ultimately have to live with Mr. Watase addition.
Lincoln Watase, 990 Reposado, stated he has done everything he has been asked by the City to do on this property. He stated now that he is significantly into this project a Stop Work Order has been issued. He stated half of his house is now demolished. He stated what is before the Commission is will the project cause the Flicks principal view to be impaired. He stated no. He stated Brad Tarr didn't think so. He stated the Agenda Report doesn't think so. He stated unless you walk to the end of Mr. and Mrs. Flicks deck would you be able to see the roof peak of the proposed addition. He asked what is this meeting really about. He felt the Flicks are trying to use leverage the fact that they did not receive proper notification, to open up or increase their view by the removal of two very large and very beautiful trees. He states there are City Codes to protect large trees. He stated one of these codes state ìto preserve and protect the natural beauty and wildlife and to minimize the alternation of natural terrain. He asked whey would the City want to kill these trees. He asked what do these trees have to do with the ultimate issue of will this addition cause the Flicks principal view to be impaired. He stated the condition of approval allowing the Flicks to trim his oleanders given them control over his property. He did not feel this condition was legal. He stated these oleanders do not have anything to do with the view issue. He stated he offered to split the cost of thinning the trees, recently he offered to remove one of the trees and split the cost. He did this because he wanted to show his new neighbors that he was willing to show his new neighbors that he was willing to make what he considered a sacrifice and gesture towards them. He stated when he made this offer to Mr. Flick, he was not even appreciative. He stated he wanted to create good will between neighbors. He stated since that is not the case, he was revoking the offer. He asked the Commission to make a decision based on the facts, not based on the fact that the Flicks have threatened to sue the City.
Chairman Martin asked Mr. Berg if these photos are close to what will be constructed.
Mr. Berg stated these photos are done at 30 feet. He stated if they were redrawn at 27 feet, they would be close.
Commissioner Murphy asked if the roof peak could be brought down some.
John Berg stated the peak is as low as they could get it. He stated because the rest of the roof is at a 4:12 pitch, therefore they had to stay with this same pitch.
Chairman Martin asked the Commission if they had any questions for the public.
Commissioner Skinner if the Conditions of Approval are at 27 feet she is in favor of this, if not she would like to see the pole re-staked.
Mr. Berg stated he is willing to only build at 27 feet.
Mr. Daniels stated this could be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Skinner stated she wanted a condition of approval requiring the Building Official measure the roof peak. She stated there would be some view blockage. She stated the blockage would be small if they build only to 27 feet. She stated she is in favor of approval if we could remove a tree.
Chairman Martin asked for direction from the City Attorney regarding the Condition of Approval that the Flicks would maintain the oleanders.
Mr. Daniels stated there is difficulty with enforcement of this condition. He stated this condition that would allow the Flicks to enter Mr. Watase property to maintain the oleanders is beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. He stated the condition to trim the oleanders would need to be revised to condition the applicant to maintain these bushes.
Chairman Martin stated a comprise might be to take away a little here and give a little here.
Commissioner Skinner stated she is not sure that it is necessary to remove both trees. She stated the removal of one tree would be sufficient.
Commissioner Murphy stated removal of one tree and thinning of the other would be sufficient would be OK. She stated the applicant should be responsible for the trimming of the oleanders.
Chairman Martin asked Mr. Flick how many oleanders would need to be trimmed.
John Flick stated if the oleanders are maintained, to an extent they do not block the view that is fine.
Commissioner Skinner stated she felt we needed to be more specific with the condition.
She felt the removal of the largest tree on the north would replace any view that is lost.
Betty Flick stated a eucalyptus that was removed from that location caused the dip in the oleanders. She asked that both oleanders be removed.
Chairman Martin asked Mr. Watase what the impact to his property would be if the two trees were removed.
Lincoln Watase stated the trees add significantly to the property value because they are very large and very beautiful. He expressed a concern over soil erosion. He stated these trees provide shade. He did not feel that the picture that was created is not truly what is there. He asked where the camera was placed for this picture, no one knows. He stated it is important for the Commission to be consistent with past rulings. He asked where the view is taken.
Chairman Martin stated you could see the view from their family room.
Unknown speaker came to the podium and spoke. He stated Mr. Watase is concerned about his property being devalued by removing two trees. He stated he is building a two-story home to gain a view, however he doesn't want to sacrifice his view for the Flicks view.
Chairman Martin closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Skinner stated one condition would be that a limit on the height of the structure would be 27 feet. She asked that the Building Official checks the height of this structure and make sure it is only at 27 feet.
Mr. Korduner stated the Building Official would make several inspections on the site, he can ensure that it stays at 27 feet.
Commissioner Skinner stated she is comfortable with 27 feet if the Building Official checks this height. She stated she would like to see one tree removed.
Mr. Korduner stated another condition could be that the applicant replaces the trees with other trees that won't be so high that they obstruct the view.
Commissioner Skinner stated she would like future trees restricted to the height of the structure at 27 feet.
Mr. Daniels suggested a landscape plan that would be subject to approval of the Director of Planning.
Chairman Martin asked if the Planning Director in the same fashion as the trees could also address the oleanders.
Mr. Daniels asked if the Commission was requesting that both trees be removed.
Commissioner Murphy asked if a condition could be placed to remove one tree and trim the other tree.
Commissioner Skinner asked which tree are we talking about the most northerly tree.
Mr. Milano stated it is the most northerly tree.
Chairman Martin agreed it was the most northerly tree and this would open up the view.
Mr. Daniels clarified it was the most northerly eucalyptus tree.
Chairman Martin restated the Conditions of Approval as determined by the Commission to be (1) a 27-foot height on the structure with confirmation by the Building Official
Commissioner Skinner asked if another condition could be imposed that the tree be removed before the Stop Work Order is lifted.
Chairman Martin stated this would add additional time to when they could resume their work and this would add additional cost to their delay.
Commissioner Skinner asked what is the guarantee that the tree would be removed.
Chairman Martin stated they would not be issued a certificate of occupancy if the tree were not removed.
Mr. Daniels stated the Conditions of Approval would be the Engineering Conditions of Approval from the resolution and the Conditions the Commission has imposed. He stated we are amending the Planning Conditions to reflect what the Commission has requested and retaining the Conditions by the Engineering Department.
Mr. Daniels stated the Conditions of Approval as determined by the Commission would be (1) the removal of the most northerly tree, (2) the trimming of the second tree next to it (3) trimming and maintenance of the oleanders.
Commissioner Skinner moved to adopt the resolution set forth in the packet, to approve the Standards Modification 98-20 with the following revisions to the Conditions. That (1) The conditions as set forth in the staff report not those attached (2) That those conditions be modified, so that it is clear that it be built in accordance with the plans reflecting a 27 foot structure as approved by the Building Official and (3) that the applicants property be landscaped pursuant to a landscape plan that is acceptable to the Director of Planning that reflects the removal of the most northerly eucalyptus tree behind the car port and the trimming of the next eucalyptus tree and the trimming of the oleander in a manner that will preserve the adjacent property owners view.
Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion.
Chairman Martin called for the question.
AYES: Martin, Murphy, and Skinner
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Gunns, Maislen and Peller
Chairman Martin asked that this resolution be brought back for the Commissions edification at the next meeting.
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 99-25 (Kwong) 2625 N. Ardsheal
Mr. Korduner presented the agenda report. He stated this is an application for a View Preservation Modification, pursuant to Section 9404 of the La Habra Heights Municipal Code, to permit an addition to a single family residence which exceeds the base measurement of 750 sq. ft. of area and 16 feet in height. He stated the applicant is requesting a setback modification to allow an addition that encroaches into the 25-foot side yard setback by 7 feet. He stated the applicant had completed demolition and framing for new construction and was almost complete when a Stop Work Order was issued pending the outcome of the Planning Commission decision. He stated since that time the applicant has decided to add another bathroom to the project, which results in the seven-foot side yard setback. He stated the administrative approval was granted for the project and the City Planner had approved the project. He stated the applicant applied for permits and started demolition, there was no evidence of approval of the findings recorded in the file and that is why it was determined to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated the applicant proposes a first and second floor addition to an existing single story dwelling and the majority of the single story dwelling will be remodeled. He stated the Standards Modification procedures established to permit minor modifications to the yard requirement. He stated the applicant propose to encroach into the side yard setback by 7 feet for the addition of a bathroom and laundry room. He stated the proposed addition would be 27'5î in height from the lowest footing to the highest roof peak. He stated staff recommends the Planning Commission approve this project with the attached conditions in the staff report.
Chairman Martin asked if there were questions from staff.
Commissioner Skinner stated she understood there is a 20-foot easement on this property. She stated that in this case the setback does not start at the property line but at the end of the easement.
Break taken to change the tape.
Chairman Martin opened the public hearing.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road stated the ordinance does allow for minor modifications. He felt this is a minor modification.
Randy Itaya, Fong Kutner Associates, 1107 Glendon Ave., Los Angeles, stated he is the architect of record on this project. He stated he would like to request Categorical Exemption to the setback and view preservation requirements set forth by the City of La Habra Heights. He felt the unusual characteristics of the property provide adequate justification for the project. He stated this is a flag lot, accessed by a long steep driveway. He stated the residence sit nearly 50 feet below street level and his neighbors. He stated south and west is the proposed expansion of Virazon Drive. He stated with the setback and the proposed expansion of Virazon that equals 45 feet of unusable land along his property line. He stated this leaves a very narrow area in which to build, because of this the existing building already encroaches into to setbacks. He stated he is also requesting approval for the second story. He stated the highest peak he was requesting 25 feet. He stated there is no view impact on his neighbors.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita, stated the setback modification was not reflected on the agenda.
Commissioner Murphy asked about the structure down on the easement and asked if it was going to be removed.
Phillip Kwong, 2625 N. Ardsheal, stated he brought the property in 1981 and the structure in question was there when he bought the property. He stated he does not use the barn and corrals. He has a lease with Union Oil for the purposes of raising horses. He did not know if these structures are on his property or the leased property. He was not aware if these structures were ever permitted. He believed that these buildings are actually on the leased land.
Chairman Martin closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Murphy stated she did not have a problem with the view preservation issue or the setback issue.
Commissioner Skinner stated this is a minor setback issue and view preservation issue. She stated she has a problem with these old barns and if they were on this property she would like the application conditioned to have these structures removed. She felt they were a hazard.
Mr. Korduner offered to add this as Condition No. 8.
Chairman Martin reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. Kwong what his intentions for these structures were.
Mr. Kwong stated he probably would remove them. He stated however he is not sure if they sit on his property.
Chairman Martin closed the public testimony.
Chairman Martin agreed with Commissioner Skinner about the structures however he wanted to make sure these buildings were within Mr. Kwongs control.
Commissioner Skinner stated she is only concerned if this is on his property and it is an unpermitted structure. She was concerned from a safety factor.
Mr. Daniels stated if the structure is on his property the Commission could condition him, to repair or remove the structure.
Commissioner Skinner stated she would like this as a condition.
Commissioner Murphy agreed with Commissioner Skinner. She felt it was a hazard.
Commissioner Murphy moved to approve Standards Modification 99-25 with the added conditions that if the horse structure is on his property that he remove or repair the structure.
Commissioner Skinner seconded the motion.
Chairman Martin called for the question.
AYES: Martin, Murphy and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Gunns, Maislen and Peller
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Martin moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Skinner.
AYES: Martin, Murphy and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Gunns, Maislen and Peller
Rick Martin, Acting Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary