CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairman Wolfe called a meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Robert Wolfe, Vice-Chairman Brian Bergman, Commissioners Larry Black, Robert Karman, Margarita McCoy and Alternate Commissioner Steve Garcia. Also present Interim Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, City Attorney Sandra Levin and Deputy City Engineer Patrick Lang.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Larry Black led the flag salute.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF
February 24, 2004
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the agenda had been posted.
5. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA 3-minute time limit per speaker
Chairman Wolfe asked if anyone wanted to speak on anything not on the agenda, seeing no one come forward he moved on to Item #6.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Levin stated she was at this meeting and it did not reflect it in the minutes.
Commissioner McCoy moved approval of the minutes as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Karman. Vote 5-0.
` Special Meeting of February 10, 2004
Chairman Wolfe stated on line 266 should read ŌÉ development cannot occur beyond the swale without an amendment to the Lynch Specific Plan.Ķ
Commissioner Black moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Commissioner McCoy. Vote 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING – CONTINUED
7. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2002-24 (Sarinana) 1323 El Paseo
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated this project came before the Commission on a couple of occasions; it is a project to construct a guest house, pool and carport with ŌThe ReserveĶ; the applicant was advised by staff to split the project into two parts after your discussion at the last meeting regarding grading within ŌThe ReserveĶ; one part is the carport, patio, pool and spa and the other part is the guest house; we were not successful in obtaining revised plans from the applicant and staff still does not have revised plans; with installation of the carport, the tandem parking spaces would be eliminated; staff does not feel there is enough turnaround coming out of the carport and this would require backing out of the driveway the entire way; staff felt by installing ballards along the swale would protect vehicles from falling into the swale; a condition of approval includes a condition on the ballards; the applicant did reduce the square footage however the existing swale would need to be relocated to accommodate this design; staff feels this project contradicts the policy determination; the instructions of the Planning Commission at your last meeting was the swale was essentially the limits of grading; staff has taken the recommendation in two parts, recommends the swimming pool, the spa, patio covers and the carport be approved and the portion of the project referring to the guest house and the relocation of the drainage swale be denied and adopt a resolution that reflects those conditions of approval; asked to add a condition that the project is subject to revised drawings showing a correct location of the pool that is not within the footprint of the existing drainage swale.
Chairman Wolfe opened the public hearing.
Darren Domain, Architect – stated he wrote a letter outlining the design of this project; stated after the Planning Commission meeting in August, the project was sent to the City Council; they put 50 cubic yards of dirt on their application because less than that would not require a grading permit; did the grading calculations and determined that it would only take 14 cubic yards of dirt to reset the swale; read Mr. ColantuonoÕs memo; they were trying to create a Mediterranean courtyard with their design; trying to break up the massing of the tract; they did a soils report and the blue line on their plan is the end of the fill line; grading was done up to 30 feet beyond the swale; after the City Council meeting they revised their plan; built a model and met with the homeownerÕs association and gained their approval; stated they have been working on this project for over two years and the City did not render a decision until this month; stressed what the soils report showed; line of fill is up to 30 feet away from the swale.
David Sarinana, El Paseo - wanted to make an architectural statement; best design for the lot; dealt with the City for two years; went to Planning Commission in August; delayed for four months to get to the City Council; staff recommended approval at both the Planning Commission and the City Council; came to the February 10th meeting and this will affect everyone in ŌThe ReserveĶ and no one was notified of this meeting; have lowered the structure and decreased the size of it; gave an alternative to the drainage situation; has done everything he has been asked to do; felt he was being treated unfairly; doesnÕt want any more ambiguous directions from the City; has over $50,000 invested in this project and has nothing to show for it; asked the Commission to approve this project and allow him to enjoy his home.
Chairman Wolfe asked Mr. Sarinana if he spoke on February 10th.
Mr. Sarinana stated no the public comment was closed when he arrived.
Chairman Wolfe asked Mr. Mollis if this project meets the goal of returning the project as close as possible to its natural state.
Mr. Mollis stated the choice of natural state was a poor choice of words; development of the homes and streets could never restore the land to its natural state; overall objective of the Lynch Plan is to keep a semi rural environment perhaps; and at the same time be populated with beautiful residents and accessories; felt this will add to Mr. SarinanaÕs residence; this is Mr. SarinanaÕs opportunity to make his residence his castle; peace and tranquility; felt this was a semi rural development and this project ties right in with it.
Chairman Wolfe stated the City was not willing to go down the semi rural road; rural is near and dear to the hearts of the residents; the Lynch Specific Plan goal was to recognize and preserve the unique rural character and individualistic life style of the City of La Habra Heights; the Plan also states that each property owner is to utilize the established drainage pattern on the project; asked how the applicant justified changing the drainage swale.
Mr. Domain stated the City originally advised not to move the swale; later they came up with making the swale at a larger radius; early on they proposed to bridge over the swale; expanding the swale out increases the area you are protecting.
Chairman Wolfe asked their thoughts about bifurcating the project.
Mr. Domain stated architecturally they were trying to create a courtyard; to remove the guest house the pool is then right up against a wall; they are all intermingled together, didnÕt feel they would be here if the guesthouse wasnÕt an issue.
Chairman Wolfe again asked their position on bifurcating the project.
Mr. Domain stated if they eliminated the guesthouse their project would no longer have the architectural intent that it was designed to be; two phases gives them nothing; spent a great deal of time designing this project; they do not want to split the project.
Mr. Sarinana stated that after two years to only be allowed to do the pool does not make any sense.
Commissioner McCoy asked when he bought the home was he aware of the constraints to the site.
Mr. Sarinana stated no he wasnÕt aware; if he had known he wouldnÕt have bought the property; no one ever told him about the swale; bought the property three years ago.
Chairman Wolfe asked wasnÕt the Lynch Specific Plan provided with his purchase material.
Mr. Sarinana stated he didnÕt recall.
Paul Mercer, El Paseo – stated he loves his home because of his family not because he has a guest house; showed pictures of what he has to look at; he has serious concerns about this project and is in opposition to this project; he has three issues; the drainage concerns; the guesthouse is imposing and it dominates his back yard; skeptical that landscaping could every protect his privacy; has a concern regarding the grading; when the bought their homes they were all told no grading will be allowed; the CC & R said it and we all signed them; every home owner has submitted projects, they have tested the limits and everyone has complied; did receive his public notice regarding the meeting two weeks ago; staff made it clear no grading beyond the swale; has no issue with the carport, decking, and the pool; this project is inappropriate with the rural characteristic of La Habra Heights; conflict with the General Plan; neighbor has never come it his home to see it from his perspective; it is all about him; asked the Planning Commission to protect him; Planning Commission two weeks ago is crystal clear that this project should not go forward; everyone else in ŌThe Reserve has complied with the Lynch Specific Plan and the General Plan.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia stated the height of the structure has been reduced dramatically; felt landscaping would solve the problem of privacy; asked if Mr. Mercer was asked that the guesthouse not be built at all.
Mr. Mercer stated as the story poles are not accurate he did not know if this was a better project.
Seeing no one else come forward Chairman Wolfe closed the public comment and returned the item to the Commission.
Commissioner McCoy stated as the applicant does not want to bifurcate we must consider the project as a whole.
Chairman Wolfe stated the proposed pool does encroach into the swale and that will need to be dealt with; doesnÕt want this project to come back again; it can be conditioned.
Commissioner McCoy felt it was not good practice to approve a plan they havenÕt seen.
Chairman Wolfe stated he felt the guesthouse violates the Lynch Specific Plan.
Commissioner Black agreed.
Commissioner McCoy stated after visiting the site she states the Lynch Specific Plan was specific to protect the hillsides; it is an intrusion on the hillsides.
Commissioner Karman stated it is a violation of the Lynch Specific Plan to modify the swale; felt it was poor engineering to recommend a change.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the Lynch Specific Plan makes it clear that the swale is the limit of grading even though there may have been grading beyond the swale.
Vice-Chairman Bergman stated they have to go by the Lynch Specific Plan.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia felt the applicant could move the swale; asked how hard and fast is the definition of the swale in the Specific Plan.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and there is an area where the water will just sit.
Mr. Lang stated it could be corrected but it may take other changes that are not shown on the plan.
Ms. Levin stated the Lynch Specific Plan provides some things as recommendations and some things as absolutes; one of the absolutes is that each lot owner is to use the established drainage pattern; felt this provides very little flexibility; given the plan that we have that is what you have to use.
Chairman Wolfe stated the Precise Grading Plan define the limit of grading as the swale; the Lynch Specific Plan states Ōthe hillsides outside the limits of grading will be preserved in their natural stateĶ; that is not a maybe; felt his first decision was wrong because he did not have all of the information.
Ms. Levin recommended that staff bring back to the Commission a proposed resolution with more detail finding based on the Commissions discussion this evening.
Commissioner McCoy moved to approve a modified plan that would comply with the Municipal Code and the Lynch Specific Plan in terms of the patio, pool, spa, deck, carport and the additional condition of protection of ballards to protect the swale from the covered carport; she asked to deny the approval of the guesthouse and the modification of the drainage swale. Seconded by Commissioner Karman.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia stated he was really searching for a way to approve this but the comments on preserving the hillside are valid.
Chairman Wolfe stated he doesnÕt have a problem because the project violates the Lynch Specific Plan; has a problem because he didnÕt have the Lynch Specific Plan when they made their first decision.
Chairman Wolfe called for the question. Vote 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING – OLD BUSINESS
8. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2003-32 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-02 (Seifollahi) 357 Avocado Crest
Ms. Massa-Lavitt presented the staff report stating the conditional use permit is no longer necessary as the applicant has redesigned their plan; however other items required to make a decision have not been provided and staff asked that the Planning Commission continue this item to the meeting of March 23, 2004.
Chairman Wolfe opened the public hearing and asked if the public wished to speak, seeing no one come forward he closed the public comment and asked Commissions pleasure.
Commissioner McCoy suggested last time to deny this project and that would give the applicant a whole year to refine their plan; she asked the Commission again to deny this project.
Vice-Chairman Bergman asked if the applicant could withdraw this application and bring the project back later.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated yes they could or you could deny it without prejudice as well; what the Commission looks at are different than the engineered plans, they are designed after the Planning approval.
Commissioner McCoy moved to reopen the public hearing so the case would not need to be renoticed. Seconded by Commissioner Karman. Vote 5-0.
Chairman Wolfe moved to continue this item to the Planning Commissions next regularly scheduled meeting. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Bergman. Vote 4-1 McCoy.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-05 & STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2003-14 (Rodriguez) 2110 Fullerton Road
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated she has been having a communication problem with the applicant in terms of what the Planning Commission wants to see revised; it was her intent to continue this one more month, however the applicant is reluctant to take the Planning Commissions advise; staff is recommending this item be continued to March 23, 2004; the applicant is having trouble understanding what the Planning Commissions instructions meant and they are reluctant to modify their plans because they do not want to move the house.
Chairman Wolfe asked if anyone would like to speak on this item tonight, seeing no one come forward he continued the public comment.
Commissioner McCoy moved to continue this item to the March 23, 2004 regularly scheduled meeting. Chairman Wolfe seconded the motion. Vote 5-0.
10. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2003-46 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-02 (Vizconde) 1402 Cloister
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated this was a continued public hearing; the applicant is currently revising their plans based on the comments at the last meeting; they have lowered the building significantly; they do plan to have the plans ready for the March 23, 2004 meeting and staff recommended the Commission continue this item to that date.
Vice-Chairman Bergman moved to continue this item to March 23, 2004. Seconded by Commissioner Karman. Vote 5-0.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
11. INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO GRADING
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated she had included in the staff report the findings that must occur to consider a grading application; there are three issues that need to be determined; (1) how do we calculate grading quantities – is using cut and fill appropriate; (2) is the Conditional Use Permit the best way to handle grading; (3) whether the Conditional Use Permit only refers to import or export; what constitutes 1,000 cubic yards; is it a combination or is it separate; staff has been interpreting 1,000 cubic yards as cut and fill.
Vice-Chairman Bergman asked if any other cities use a CUP for grading.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated not in her experience; CUP are used to regulate a use in a zone; in other cities grading is part of the approval and conditions of approval govern the trucking and hours of operation.
Chairman Wolfe stated in Section 9204 are the uses a Conditional Use Permit governs.
Ms. Levin stated most CUP are used to regulate activities that have the potential for off site.
Chairman Wolfe stated he had always drawn a distinction with cut and fill as opposed to export and import; if the project is balanced and it meets all of our other requirements then it doesnÕt need a CUP; however if you take away 500 cubic yards and you bring in 500 cubic yards then you need a CUP because we are regulating the truck traffic.
Commissioner Karman stated the CUP for bringing dirt in and out is legitimate; he felt their should be a thresh hold where the total cut and fill when it goes above a certain amount should be conceptualized in a different category and would like to see it in the grading standard; current General Plan states minimize the alteration of the natural terrain; the activity of import and export covered by a CUP and the sum total of cut and fill under a Standards Modification and above a certain thresh hold would come to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Wolfe asked if anyone from the public wished to speak on this item.
Mike Bagwell, Dorothea Road – as a victim he has been grappling with this; in Section 8515 it talks about depositing dirt; didnÕt know if the CUP was the right tool; a CUP is good because it requires a public hearing; not sure 1,000 cubic yards is the right number; there has to be a trigger.
Chairman Wolfe stated under 8515c1 of the code states Ōno person shall dump move or place any earth, sand, gravel, rock, stone or any other excavated material or debris so as to cause the same to be deposited upon or roll, blow, flow, or wash upon or over the premises of another; that means you canÕt do anything to cause dirt to flow onto your neighbors property; a Solid Fill Project means you cannot bring more than 1,000 cubic yards of dirt into the site; 8.511 is an explanation of depositing and a solid fill project is on page 9.115.
Ms. Levin stated the requirement for a solid fill project to obtain a CUP is on 9.205; she stated she had a couple of alternatives she could offer the Commission; what is being asked of the Commission tonight is an interpretation of the existing code; that does not preclude you from making an amendment of the code for the future; if you think the existing code does not allow you to do what you would like to do you can give us your interpretation of the code as it currently stands and agendized for the future a discussion of whether to recommend an amendment to the City Council that would incorporate your decisions.
Commissioner McCoy stated while a CUP may not be the appropriate application she asked about variances.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated she had never experienced a variance for grading; a grading application could be conditional; felt the grading modification component of the code should be used.
Commissioner McCoy stated grading has been the most onerous of cases that have come before the Commission; the most complaints are regarding grading abuses; doesnÕt want to give up the review by the Commission beyond a certain trigger point; doesnÕt want to see flat pads being created without the Commissions consideration.
Commissioner McCoy stated grading in and of itself is not a good or a bad; what is done with it is what we are concerned with; you probably have to have a number that triggers things.
Commissioner Black stated it was up to the Commission to make the interpretation for staff.
Commissioner Karman stated every property up here is different and that is why we agonize over these things; whatever thresh hold you set the higher the thresh hold the more likely you will have issues with these trigger points; at a certain point you will draw the line; at a certain point minimize alteration of the natural terrain will be violated or one of the other community development standards; are we going to catch most of the difficulties most of the problem area where there is a subjective call we give that general guideline to staff and that helps that whole process because it automatically comes to us; when you consider that grading should be for the primary purpose of the lot there are very few properties that need that much grading.
Vice-Chairman Bergman felt you may be able to enhance the lot by grading; maybe it is flat and you want to make it a contour lot; each must be looked at on a case by case basis; didnÕt feel the CUP should be used for this purpose; Standards Modification is fine; staff should have a line in the sand to use.
Chairman Wolfe stated he sort of agreed with everyone; sounds like the Planning Director is going to be left with the hard decisions; wants it to be as easy as possible for staff and the applicant.
Commissioner Black stated then there should be a simple trigger that would defer the case to the Planning Commission to decide.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia changing hillsides scars the land; building incentives to move less dirt; one scenario may be more sensitive than the other.
Chairman Wolfe stated it was his impression the Commission felt that a balanced project should not require a CUP; 1,000 cubic yards of import or export would require a CUP is not required but a Grading Modification may be required.
Commissioner McCoy asked to separate importing/exporting from balanced situation.
Ms. Levin stated you could agendized the discussion to make the recommendation to the City Council.
Chairman Wolfe stated with the passing of the new General Plan right around the corner the Commission should keep this discussion in the back of their minds when the revisions of the Zoning Ordinance come forward.
Break taken to change the tapes.
Chairman Wolfe recalled the meeting to order.
Chairman Wolfe asked if there was a consensus with respect to if it is 1,000 cubic yards of combined export or import a CUP is required. The Commission agreed.
Chairman Wolfe asked if there was a consensus that if it is less than 1,000 cubic yards of export/import that a CUP is not required but it may require a Grading Modification. The Commission agreed.
Chairman Wolfe asked if the Commission wanted to give staff a bright line rule on the amount of yardage moved on a project where they can tell the applicant.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated creating a bright line rule for staff does make it easier for staff; but the findings A-H can be considered subjective; creating a number makes it easier for staff and the applicant.
Chairman Wolfe stated is not ready to give staff a bright line rule; suggested the Commission think about it and bring this item back with suggestions.
Ms. Levin suggested putting it in the form of a motion; with a memo of interpretation to the City Council.
Chairman Wolfe suggested to direct staff that if a project is less than 1,000 cubic yards of import/export combined or individually that the applicant does not need a CUP; they may need a Grading Modification; staff to provide a memorandum to the City Council on the interpretation.
Commissioner McCoy suggested also putting in the memo the separation of the CUP from the Grading Modification regarding transport.
Vice-Chairman Bergman also suggested stating that we will use the Standards Modification for Grading and that we are currently discussing that thresh hold level.
Chairman Wolfe moved to direct staff to only issue CUP for project that entail 1,000 cubic yards of import/export individually or in combination thereof and anything below that amount does not require a CUP but may require a Grading Modification and that staff provide a memo to the City Council setting forth the Planning CommissionÕs recommendation and the reasons therefore and also the issue they are considering Grading Modification bright line rules. Seconded by Commissioner Black. Vote 5-0.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Ms. Massa-Lavitt asked the Commission to look at the memo on Impervious Surfaces and see if staff got it right.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the BSI project is just about ready and asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in a special meeting in March.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to hold the special meeting on March 15, 2004.
Commissioner Black thanked Sandra Massa-Lavitt and wished her the best on behalf of the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Robert Wolfe, Chairman
ATTEST:
Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Interim Community Development Director