CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

April 26, 2005

 

OPENING CEREMONIES

 

1.              CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

            Chairman Wolfe called a meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:42 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.

 

2.              ROLL CALL

 

            Those present: Chairman Robert Wolfe, Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Larry Black, Brent Grebbien, Margarita McCoy and Alternate Commissioner Steve Garcia. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Craig Melicher, Deputy City Engineer Jeff Kao and City Attorney Sandra Levin.

 

            Chairman Wolfe welcomed Brent Grebbien to the Commission.

 

3.         FLAG SALUTE

 

Commissioner Garcia led the flag salute.

 

4.              ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF

April 26, 2005

 

            Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the agenda had been posted for the meeting of April 26, 2005.

 

5.              ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA

 

Norm Zezula, Canonita – spoke regarding his opinion of appeal rights; General Plan and AERA.

 

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

 

6.              STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2004-34 (Martin) 557 Reposado Drive

 

John Beau, Casalero - called a point of order and asked Commissioner McCoy to recuse herself due to her association with the Borrowe’s.

 

Ms. Levin explained conflict of interest and bias and further explained there was no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in this case.

 

After a discussion Commissioner McCoy chose to recuse herself; she did not want anything to taint the decision in this case.

 

Commissioner Grebbien also chose to recuse himself because he has not reviewed the full record on this case.

 

Ms. Massa-Lavitt presented the staff report stating Section 9206.2 outlines the requirements under which a view preservation modification must be obtained; the code does call out the precise steps under which the decision is made for a project; the current code allows the Director or the Planning Commission to impose Conditions necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety and welfare based on the Standards Modification Application; typically conditions include the plans that were reviewed by the staff, approval of the landscape plan and grading plans and other entitlements that might be necessary; the Community Development Director did approve this project and the Planning Commission has the appeal to this decision before them; the staff report discusses the issues that were brought up on appeal; the General Plan Goals that they respond too; there are two mechanism under which project can be approved; concurrent processing and sequential processing; most of our City’s projects are concurrent processing; which process would the Planning Commission feel more comfortable looking at and having the staff react to in terms of the approval process; staff is looking for this direction from the Planning Commission on which process you would like staff to use; the project that was approved is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and is also consistent with the General Plan; notice of Categorical Exemption was issued; staff recommended pending public testimony that the Planning Commission uphold the Administrative Decision and deny the appeal and adopt the attached resolution.

 

Chairman Wolfe asked who the aggrieved party was.

 

Ms. Levin stated the Planning Commission in hearing the appeal can make the determination to whether the appellant has standing to assert the appeal; the term aggrieved party is generally viewed by courts as being a broad term; if you have doubt about whether someone qualifies as an aggrieved party ask the appellants why they are an aggrieved party.

 

Chairman Wolfe asked what process was used in this case.

 

Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated it was a sequential process.

 

Commissioner Black asked about a landscape plan.

 

Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated when a landscape plan is received it goes to Purkiss Rose the City’s Landscape Architect with the instructions that pertain to view preservation issues; until we receive Purkiss Rose’s approval letter, approvals are not granted.

 

Ms. Levin spoke regarding View Preservation and protected views.

 

Chairman Wolfe opened the public comment and limited the speaker’s time to three minutes.

 

Stephen Blagden, Citron – objected to the three minute rule; stated the process is mixed up; spoke regarding the appeals checklist; General Plan violations; doesn’t blend with the setting; concurrent and sequential processing; appeals code; felt there was a nexus.

 

Ed Borrowe, Reposado – objected to the three minute rule, spoke regarding the General Plan Goals; critical of staff; Goal 7; not harmonious; wants to see landscaping; Land Use Policy 2; Land Use Policy 3; Land Use Policy 7; public records request; drainage; staff is not doing their job; driveway location; staff cannot be trusted; agreed garage should be lowered.

 

Roland vom Dorp, Reposado – states owns two lots adjoining the Martin property; spoke regarding landscaping; drainage; chain link fence and bougenvillas

 

John Beau, Casalero – spoke regarding the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission; the Commission needs to focus on View Preservation; the appellants failed to address view preservation in their appeal; appellants are requesting a refund of their fees; spoke regarding the confusing square footage represented by the appellants.          

 

Ken Parsons, Architect – stated he was here to address some technical issues; this project does not block views; lowering the garage elevation would create a severe grading situation; driveway slope would approach 25%; this would potentially triple the length of the driveway; it would significantly increase the need for retaining walls; this would potentially put you over the allowable graded area; not a viable alternative; there is no drainage issue; spoke regarding the conceptual landscape plans; felt the needs for landscaping have been met; any change to the garage would increase the need for retaining walls.

 

Alternate Commissioner Garcia felt the landscape plan was not an accurate representation of what he observed on site.

 

Mr. Parsons stated the trees represented came from the field survey.

 

Alternate Commissioner Garcia felt with the new driveway the landscaping would not properly screen the garage.

 

Commissioner Black asked regarding the height of retaining walls.

 

Mr. Parsons stated the walls range from 4 ½ – 5 feet.

 

Patsy Hollister, Citron – felt this project would be fine.

 

Rick Martin, Reposado – stated hasn’t heard from the appellants how there project violates the General Plan; vom Dorp and Blagden have no view of their home, the Borrower's previously claimed their view was 180 degrees in the opposite direction; drainage.

 

Chairman Wolfe stated the Commission had received letters from the Gunns, Pam McVicars and Jean Litzeau.

 

Ms. Levin commented on a couple of issues raised by the public; in some City’s they require a conceptual plan of all issues, while the final detailed plan may not be required; the provision in the Municipal Code is very broad on what can be appealed; in this particular case the Administrative decision of the Standards Modification for View Preservation is what is before you; you must consider the findings for View Preservation, General Plan consistency as it relates to View Preservation; you may also consider General Plan consistency on other issues as long as there is a nexus to the approval before you; you cannot determine if the landscape plan is consistent with the General Plan until you have a landscape plan.

 

Chairman Wolfe asked the Commission if the proposed project impaired a principal identifiable view.

 

Alternate Commissioner Garcia felt the neighbor to the south would be impacted; stated the driveways are parallel and the driveway of this project needs to be shifted to the west.

 

Commissioner Black stated Condition 3c moves the driveway further down the property line to the southwest; asked if this changed his opinion.

 

Alternate Commissioner Garcia stated that would improve it.

 

Commissioner Baroldi felt there was no view impact.

 

Commissioner Black would like to see softening and screening to soften the impact from Hacienda Road; as well as screening along the driveway.

 

Chairman Wolfe felt the Borrowe’s primary view is to the south not to the north; did not see a view impairment from public property; no significant cumulative impact.

 

Alternate Commissioner Garcia felt they were reviewing the project as a whole.

 

Chairman Wolfe asked if there were any other issues raised by the appellants that have a nexus to the view preservation.

 

Alternate Commissioner Garcia stated looking at all the issues at hand and one site plan and not having any good means to determine what has been proposed has difficulty with the whole thing; felt the house was massive and hasn’t seen any landscaping to mitigate that.

 

Chairman Wolfe stated there is mature landscaping across Reposado; there should be some landscaping to mitigate it.

 

Alternate Commissioner Garcia asked staff if there was already a condition to move the driveway to the west.

 

Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated yes.

 

Chairman Wolfe wanted to leave the driveway location to the City Engineer.

 

Commissioner Black agreed.

 

Chairman Wolfe explained to the City Engineer to offset the driveways as best you can.

 

Commissioner Black asked the Commission if they felt there was enough variance in the roof heights to meet Land Use Policy 4.

 

Chairman Wolfe stated the house is set down from Reposado with a lot of mature landscaping.

 

Commissioner Black moved to reopen the public comment. Chairman Wolfe seconded.

 

Mr. Parsons referred to the conceptual landscape plan; showed where the elevation of the road was in relationship with the building; the garage may be close to the level of the garage and then the house steps down the hillside; felt there was no compelling reason to lower the garage.

 

Chairman Wolfe asked if there were any other issues; stated if the chain link fence is on neighbor's property move it; driveway is offset from the garage with a landscape island in the middle of it; not in favor of lowering the garage.

 

Chairman Wolfe moved to deny the appeal and uphold Staff's Administrative Approval. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi providing Condition #6 is removed. Chairman Wolfe amended his motion to remove Condition #6. 3-1 Garcia opposed. Grebbien abstained.

 

ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Commissioner Baroldi reported that Commissioner McCoy, Garcia and himself went to the Planner’s Institute in Pasadena; excellent seminar.

 

ITEMS FROM STAFF

 

7.         Planning/Building Department Report

 

Ms. Levin suggested the Commission agendize some of the concerns raised tonight.

 

Alternate Commissioner Garcia felt the applications received have little to do with addressing the surrounding neighbors; wanted plans and submissions to address this more; wanted more site sections.

Chairman Wolfe asked the Commissioners to speak with staff on any items they wanted agendized.

 

Craig Melicher, City Engineer introduced Deputy City Engineer Jeff Kao who will be filling in while Mr. Melicher is on a leave of absence.

 

Chairman Wolfe asked staff for a report on how impervious coverage is calculated.

 

Commissioner Black asked for a procedural process on how impervious coverage is calculated; asked if sites that have been over the allowables for years and did not suffer with these rains if that is factored in.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Commissioner Baroldi moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:33 p.m. to the meeting of May 24, 2005. Seconded by Chairman Wolfe. All Ayes.

 

                                                                                   

Robert Wolfe, Chairman

 

ATTEST:

                                                                       

Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Community Development Director