CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS

PLANNING COMMISSION

July 31, 2001

OPENING CEREMONIES

1.         CALL MEETING TO ORDER

A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Bruce Douglas at 7:30 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.

2.         ROLLCALL

Those present: Chairman Bruce Douglas, Vice-Chairman Ginger Skinner, Commissioner Brian Bergman, Steven Blagden, and Robert Wolfe and Alternate Commissioner Hinz. Also present Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, Deputy City Engineer Dave Gilbertson and Commission Attorney Ruben Duran.

3.         FLAG SALUTE

Commissioner Blagden led the flag salute.

4.         ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC

None

5.              ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF July 31, 2001

Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Douglas announced that the Planning Commission would recess for 15 minutes to allow the Commissioners time to read the Resolution before them. The meeting was reconvened at 7:48 p.m.

6.              CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-12 (Family Resource Ministries) 1225 N. Hacienda Road.

Ms. Sanderson stated she had included a timeline prepared by the applicant. She informed the Commission that the City Engineer and the Planning Director were not comfortable with that timeline.

Mr. Gilbertson stated he received the timeline at 5 :30 p.m. on Friday evening and reviewed it Monday morning, made some comments on the time line and faxed it back to the applicant mid morning Monday; he felt the milestones were identifies sufficiently; he expressed concerns with the time frames being excessive; the entire schedule is 4 years; felt it could be reduced significantly and expressed his concern to the applicant; the applicant stated it was not in their best interest at this time to reduce the timeline; had some questions because this timeline only covers Phase 1 A and 1 B not entire project; it is a very long schedule; milestones are identified; it could be presented better with a more realistic time frame.

Chairman Douglas asked why Phase 2 wasn't included.

Mr. Gilbertson stated he never received a response.

Chairman Douglas stated this time line is 100% longer than the schedule they offered in May; he asked if the Commission had questions of staff.

Commissioner Bergman asked Mr. Gilbertson to go over the specific dates they proposed in the timeline.

Mr. Gilbertson stated Milestone #2 is 6 months after Milestone #1, he thought it should be shortened to a few weeks; Milestone #4 is 6 months to prepare the final plans is excessive, the plans essentially are done, the building plans will take some time; Milestone #6 9 months is excessive, signal poles are only taking 15-16 weeks; Milestone #7 18 months, 6 months is realistic; Milestone #9 6 months, doesn't see why that cannot be done in 45-60 days; some can be done concurrently; # 3 & 4 could be done together.

Commissioner Blagden stated the Commission was dependant upon the timeline to recommend approval at this meeting; stated it was 5 years to the completion of Phase 1 B; Phase 2 might be another 2 years; asked staff if they came up with their own time line the Commission could use.

Mr. Gilbertson stated the earlier schedule was more realistic; felt the earlier schedule was something the City could live and work with.

Commissioner Blagden asked if staff had discussed this with the applicant; it needs to be acceptable to the applicant before the City imposes it on them.

Mr. Gilbertson stated the applicant was the one who prepared the timeline in May.

Commissioner Blagden stated the applicant has doubled the time frame.

Mr. Gilbertson stated the applicant has more than doubled it; it was about an I8-month schedule in May.

Commissioner Blagden wondered if La Habra might be concerned that their park is being used for construction for 3 years before they get their gym building.

2

Mr. Gilbertson stated the Assembly Building would take at least 18 months to 2 years for that to get through construction.

Alternate Commissioner Hinz stated the length of time is a concern; construction sites are an eyesore; concerned that the timeline may be that long because of funding challenges; timeline is pretty long.

Commissioner Bergman stated he wanted to hear what has changed between the two timelines.

Chairman Douglas stated the Commission has concerns about the timeline; he expressed that the City Council is concerned about this project getting done; the temporary building by covenant have to be removed by this school year; the City Council has been extending this project in 3 month intervals; there have been 12 City Council and Planning Commission meetings in the last couple of years on this project; he noted errors on the formal submittal of Master Plan; he asked if a Condition of Approval was necessary to ensure that is done.

Ms. Sanderson stated once the Commission makes their final recommendation; the applicant has 48 hours to submit 18 copies of the Plans with all the corrections.

Chairman Douglas asked staff to ensure it is done; he stated the Commission had decided that a deposit account of $20,000.00 was adequate for their draw down on all their processing costs; asked if this needs to be a condition of approval.

Mr. Duran stated he wasn't clear that it was a consensus of Commission to add this to the resolution and what the amount was to be.

Chairman Douglas stated it was his understanding it would be a single account of$20,000.00 and it would be refilled when it got down to $10,000.00.

Vice-Chairman Skinner stated it was discussed but no decision was reached; she asked if it was necessary.

Commissioner Blagden stated he wanted it as a condition so it couldn't be changed by staff; it is a burden on staff to have to continually be billing the applicant.

Commissioner Bergman stated yes that was their thought process, to pin it down and give it numbers.

Commissioner Wolfe stated put it in as a condition.

Chairman Douglas asked regarding the status of bonds

Mr. Gilbertson stated typically bonds are required for public improvements; thought the public improvements would be bonded to ensure construction and completion.

Mr. Duran stated there were several conversations on this subject; he thought it was going to be an either or clause; either a deposit with a penalty or bonding; not clear the extent to which the City can require bonding on a private project; will check with Mr. Colantuono; asked if it was

3

the Commission intention in addition to Section 7 of the Resolution to require additional bonding for particular pieces of this project or for the entire project.

Chairman Douglas stated there were two parts to that; the penalty for falling behind and not notifying the City; there had been discussion that there be bonding to ensure project was built out including all of the structures; it was never wrapped up; he asked what the Commission thought, did they want to see if they can impose bonding to ensure the multipurpose room, gym is built.

Mr. Gilbertson stated Condition 30 does identify performance bonds and labor and material bonds for the public improvements.

Commissioner Bergman asked whether bond could be placed on private property.

Mr. Duran stated he needs to verify if that is a valid requirement to impose on a project that is on private property; not clear it can be done; asked to the extent to which they would seek bonding; would it be for Phase 1 A, 1 B, Phase II.

Chairman Douglas stated what they are seeking is to ensure it is built after it is started.

Ms. Sanderson stated commercial and industrial projects in other cities do require bonding to ensure the project is completed.

Commissioner Wolfe stated that to the extent the City can they should require bonding; require a performance bond and lets get this project on the road.

Commissioner Blagden stated it gets a third party over site; secondly to get the bond they have to set a realistic time schedule and stick to it.

Chairman Douglas stated there is consensus the Commission wants bonding to the extent possible; Section 5 Item I where staff used the RA Zone, define what it means rather than in Section 3; it is not Residential! Agriculture it is Residential! Agricultural; Section 6 Item 2 what does substantial conformance mean, how much variation can occur in the plans.

Ms. Sanderson stated there cannot be any variation, this is a standard condition that is used in the Planning profession.

Chairman Douglas stated on page 5, #14, does this condition put a deadline for the existing covenant.

Ms. Sanderson no it doesn't.

Commissioner Wolfe thought this condition was eliminated.

Commissioner Blagden stated he thought so too.

Ms. Sanderson stated it was overlooked and will take it out.

Chairman Douglas asked if on page 7, Item #25 is it clear that the additional fees will be born by Family Resource Ministries.

4

Mr. Gilbertson stated there would be an additional deposit on file for additional inspections and plan checking; there will be money on file to cover those costs.

Chairman Douglas asked if the original condition regarding the sound wall still existed.

Ms. Sanderson stated yes the condition still exists and she will need to talk to the City Manager as to what the agreement is.

Chairman Douglas stated there nothing in record showing it went away. Wants that condition brought back into this document.

Mr. Duran stated it would need to be included in this resolution, in the same way as many of the conditions that have not been met, have been brought forward; you would need to set a new deadline.

Commissioner Blagden stated yes and he wanted a date on it; City shouldn't have to pay for half of it.

Commissioner Bergman stated he would also like to see it revisited.

Commissioner Blagden wanted to see the operational plan yearly.

Vice-Chairman Skinner stated no staff was to monitor.

Commissioner Blagden stated there are two plans, we should reference them as "The School Operational Plan" and "The Joint Use Operational Plan".

Chairman Douglas stated there are two plans and the Planning Commission will see the operational plan for the Joint Use Agreement and any changes to those plans will be submitted to staff; asked if the operational plan for the school was to be submitted to staff each year or only when changes; asked what the Commission remembered.

Commissioner Bergman stated only if there was a change.

Commissioner Blagden thought the applicant could simply send the City a copy of the same report they send each year to the state and the licensing agency.

Chairman Douglas asked if there were any changes would it require a new conditional use permit; he asked the Commission if they had anything they clearly want to tell La Habra.

Commissioner Wolfc stated the Attorneys would work it out.

Commissioner Blagden asked rcgarding the temporary buildings, is it necessary to put in a condition that they need to comply with the building code.

Mr. Gilbertson stated he would consult with the building official, but these buildings are not destine to remain for many years.

5

Commissioner Blagden #7 asked if the Fire Department needed to be added; is it necessary to add no metal, no plastic for signage; stated the Fire Department has used the school parking lot for many years just the way it is and the City Hall frontage does not need to be chopped off to make a right turn lane for the fire trucks.

Chairman Douglas stated the Commission had left this to the City Engineers Office to ensure safe entry and egress to all City parking.

Mr. Gilbertson stated from an Engineering and Traffic point of view, he is in support of this entrance; wants the right turn pocket southbound on Hacienda; bottlenecking will occur with only one entrance.

Commissioner Bergman stated we should do everything we can to mitigate traffic; is in favor of the existing plans.

Commissioner Blagden asked regarding a Knox box at the Planning Emergency Entrance.

Ms. Sanderson stated today the Fire Marshal stated all of his concerns have been met; the final condition of the Conditional Use Permit gives the Fire Marshal the options to require minor changes as the project progresses; as long as they are minor changes.

Commissioner Blagden stated for the Hacienda frontage and along the City Hall side, that there not be chain link; he asked about accreditation; lack of time line bothers him; that is what was going to tie it all together; doesn't know what they are suppose to approve.

Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.

Andy Anderson, Family Resource Ministries - asked to go over Conditions; Section 6; #2 substantial, asked if it was to be removed or to remain.

Chairman Douglas stated that is a standard condition and that it would remain.

Mr. Anderson asked about Condition #8, asked ifit shouldn't be combined with #5.

Ms. Sanderson stated no; they are two separate conditions.

Mr. Anderson asked if#5, 10 and 13 were the same.

Ms. Sanderson stated when you submit plans for the public hearings you need to submit 18 sets of plans plus one set of colored plans.

Mr. Anderson asked ifin Condition #12 staff was referring to Fish and Game.

Mr. Gilbertson stated yes.

Mr. Anderson clarified that Condition # 14 was removed.

Ms. Sanderson stated yes.

6

Mr. Anderson asked if Condition # 16 could be rewritten to read "drainage improvement shall be redesigned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer".

Mr. Gilbertson stated that change was OK with him.

Mr. Anderson asked in Condition #25 how are they getting to that point.

Chairman Douglas stated mitigation measures are put in place and if they cannot be agreed upon, then it would come back to the Commission and if that doesn't work revocation.

Mr. Anderson asked Condition #26 how far do they go with that.

Chairman Douglas stated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Mr. Anderson stated #30 could create a problem because of the signal poles; he asked if it could read subject to delivery.

Mr. Gilbertson suggested tying it to the time line

Mr. Anderson stated he would like any additional conditions by the Fire Department as stated in Condition #32 to be in writing.

Chairman Douglas stated that was reasonable.

Glen Carvin, Family Resource Ministries - stated he wanted to state their position on the sound wall; the sound wall was a condition of approval; the Council wasn't sure they wanted a sound wall; they felt it was still not clear what the Council wanted; if asked they will provide the information; concern over a security problem for City Hall and the School was voiced; they have now been through 3 fire marshals and nothing has been put in writing.

Mr. Anderson stated they looked at a timeline and identified milestones; felt they needed a comfort zone in the timeline; the original timeline went for 22 months to start construction; there are items that can overlap.

Chairman Douglas asked for comments from the Commission regarding the time line.

Alternate Commissioner Hinz stated the applicants comfort zone has become the City's discomfort zone; time line is too long and to stretched out.

Commissioner Blagden stated what the Commission wanted was a realistic timeline; seven years is too much.

Commissioner Bergman stated he wanted a realistic and aggressive plan; front loading this thing is totally unacceptable; the applicant needs to sit down with staff and come up with a realistic and aggressive plan.

Vice-Chairman Skinner stated the applicant is not comfortable with the May timeline because of the penalty clause; the City is concerned about the applicant dragging their feet, not if the situation is out of their control; is more comfortable with the first timeline

7

Commissioner Wolfe stated the Commission has mutual concerns; the City wants to see the project done; the City has to have assurances the applicant will move along; this timeline is not acceptable want the applicant to work with staff.

Chairman Douglas stated he has the same feelings the other Commissioners have expressed; wants a realistic timeline.

Commissioner Wolfe stated he was not interested in an alternative to the timeline, willing to listen to applicant's alternative.

Mr. Anderson stated has never seen or heard of bonds or penalty clauses on a private development; asked for a 15 minute recess to talk to the City Engineer and finish up.

Chairman Douglas asked the Commissions pleasure.

Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she really doesn't want to see this back, spending some time on it now would help.

Alternate Commissioner Hinz stated bring it back so it is written correctly.

Commissioner Wolfe agreed it should be brought back.

Commissioner Blagden stated he didn't want it rushed, it should be brought back.

Commissioner Bergman agreed.

Ms. Sanderson asked for a 5-minute recess.

Chairman Douglas called a 5minute recess.

Chairman Douglas recalled the meeting to order.

Ms. Sanderson recommended continuing the meeting to August 7, 2001. She stated this would not make it to the City Council Meeting of August 9,2001. Continuing the hearing tonight will get the item to the City Council in September.

Mr. Anderson stated he would not be available for a meeting on the i^h•

Ms. Sanderson stated she would be on vacation starting the afternoon of August 15^th, will return on September 5^th and the staff report would need to be to the City Council by September 6^th.

Ms. Sanderson explained the City Council's direction was to get this on the agenda ASAP.

Chairman Douglas asked if the Commissioners would be available for another special meeting on 8-14-01.

Mr. Anderson stated that yes he has to be there.

Commissioner Blagden suggested waiting until the Planning Director returns from vacation. 8

Mr. Anderson stated he had a question regarding the $100 a day penalty. Is the City's concern regarding the progression of the project? That is an incentive to get the project done. He asked that if they get the project done early do they get a $100 a day credit on their account?

Chairman Douglas stated the Commission is not in the position to negotiate these conditions at this time.

6.         ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Douglas asked for a motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Wolfe moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m. to the Special Meeting of 8­14-01 at 7:30 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden and approved as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe None

None

None

Bruce Douglas, Chairperson

ATTEST:

Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning

9