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 7:40 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Robert Wolfe, Vice Chairman Larry Black, Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Brent Grebbien, and Margarita McCoy. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Jeff Kao and City Attorney Sandra Levin.
Alternate Commissioner Steve Garcia was absent.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Douglas led the flag salute.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF
May 24, 2005
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the agenda had been posted for the meeting of May 24, 2005.
5. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA
Norm Zezula, Canonita - spoke regarding Commissioner McCoy recusing herself.
Mayor Bruce Douglas - praised the Planning Commission and staff; spoke regarding development process over the history of the City.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR March 29, 2005 and April 26, 2005
Minutes of March 29, 2005
Commissioner Baroldi moved to approve the minutes of March 29, 2005. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Black. Ayes 5 Noes 0
Minutes of April 26, 2005
Vice-Chairman Black moved to approve the minutes of April 26, 2005. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. Ayes 4 Noes 0 Commissioner McCoy abstained.
PUBLIC HEARING
7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 61242 (Walther) 1800 Tumin Road
Ms. Massa-Lavitt presented the staff report stating this is a two lot subdivision to separate three acres into two lots; Parcel 1 would remain with the existing home and site improvements; Parcel 2 would be on the east side and it is a one acre parcel; gently sloping lot that accepts water on the west and drains to the east; the soils report indicates that surface water is diverted into the street; does not appear that this is a fact; historically water has drained west to east; the City Engineer's review does require that each lot provide a detention basin on each lot to prevent drainage to the east; City Engineer felt this method was preferable to the existing drainage method; staff has issued a categorical exemption for this project and recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 61242 and adopt the attached resolution with conditions.
Chairman Wolfe asked if the Commission had any questions of staff, seeing none he opened the public comment.
Ken Wilch, Civil Engineer - spoke regarding the subdivision; drainage; existing home is small with a barn.
Commissioner McCoy asked how the water drains onto the road.
Mr. Wilch answered that it does not.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt confirmed this.
Commissioner McCoy noted drainage would not only come from behind Parcel 2, but also from the road.
Mr. Wilch stated that the water could drain around the house to a detention area. When an actual house is planned it will affect the exact location of the detention area.
Norm Zezula, Canonita - stated the applicant must follow the General Plan; asked for a condition on the map that no variance or setback will be granted unless required by the Public Health and Safety and approved by the City Council.
Stephen Blagden, Citron - stated that any owner would be likely to ask for a setback modification due to narrowness of parcel.
Chairman Wolfe closed the public comment.
Commissioner McCoy asked if it is possible to ask for such restrictions as Mr. Zezula suggested.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered that it is possible, but noted that it should be possible to conform with the codes without a special restriction.
Commissioner Baroldi moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map 61242. Seconded by Commissioner McCoy. Ayes 5 Noes 0
Chairman Wolfe asked that they hear the Staff report on Item 10 before they go to Item 8.
10. Report on Impervious Coverage
Deputy City Engineer Kao reported that both the graded area and the Impervious Coverage are figured on the computer. We check the figures on the electronic drawings.
Vice Chairman Black asked what the figures are based on.
Mr. Kao answered that it is based on the topography of the lot. Survey data is inputed into a computer to generate a 2-D map of the site, then you can obtain the contour lines and determine the average slope and calculate the gradable area and the allowable Impervious Coverage.
Commissioner McCoy asked who is giving the data that is needed to figure this.
Mr. Kao explained that the Engineer for the applicant supplies the information. We take his word for the data.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained plans are signed by an Engineer; we make sure their stamp is on it, they are responsible for it. Many times the information they supply is different in amount of impervious coverage or grading than our engineers find from the same plans. That is a check, but we do not go out to the site to verify that the survey was done correctly.
Mr. Kao noted that there are occasions, at the Community Development Directors discretion that the calculations can be waived.
Chairman Wolfe explained that the only item the project engineer needs to give us is the slope.
Mr. Kao stated that anything that falls within the building footprint we would consider impervious coverage, such as pavement, patio, driveway, walkway, concrete, pool, decking; septic tank or catch basin, buried underground with a cover on it; sometimes we consider the thickness of a retaining wall if used to support a structure and overlaps the structure.
Chairman Wolfe asked if pervious concrete has been considered.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that they are trying to put something in the new ordinances on this.
Mr. Kao stated that all walkways are considered Impervious regardless of the material.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that the new proposed code will be different than we have now.
City Attorney Levin explained that part of the reason for including all walkways as impervious no matter of what material it is, is that a walkway could change materials later. There could be some allowance made on a walkway. Driveways are different.
Mr. Kao explained that from the Building Departments viewpoint the allowed number of something is not what controls a project. The basic idea is to preserve the character of the Community. Many issues can be resolved. That makes it subject to interpretation.
Commissioner McCoy commented that in February 2004, the Community Development Director wrote a policy covering these requirements to hand out to applicants. Ms. McCoy wrote an alternative policy combining both policies, but it was not considered again. She stated that the General Plan and the Land Use Policy deals with some of the impervious questions.
Vice Chairman Black stated there should be some allowance for history or if the impervious is greater than it should be and for years the neighbors have not complained and the situation has not caused a hardship on any of the neighbors, it should all be considered.
City Attorney Levin noted that no Public Comment has been taken.
Chairman Wolfe opened Public Comment on Item 10.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, stated that impervious coverage is a substance that is unable to percolate water into the ground.
City Attorney Levin commented that the Engineers do take the Project EngineerŐs signed plans as truthful, but the Engineers check to make sure the project is built according to the approved plans and that requires a series of physical checks.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that the impervious coverage in the graded area that is noted on the plans may be inaccurate but the figures in the Staff Report are from the City Engineers. If they are not correct the City Engineer will give us the correct figures and it will be reflected on the final plans.
Norm Zezula, Canonita, noted that an Engineer can and does make mistakes regarding impervious coverage limits and its meaning.
Mike Bagwell, Dorothea Rd, noted that nothing has been done at 707 Dorothea Rd and there is a time limit or the CUP is voided and they will have to start all over.
Ken Wilch, Civil Engineer, spoke about the changing definitions of Impervious Coverage.
Chairman Wolfe closed the Public Comment.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that impervious coverage would be dealt with including definitions and how it will be handled.
Chairman Wolfe asked the Commission if there were any questions or discussion.
Commissioner McCoy stated that if the report from the Deputy City Engineer becomes a basis for policy she has an argument with it.
Chairman Wolfe noted that he looks at the whole memo and he thought the whole concept is that you do not want to pick a finite number that you have to live by that number alone. From an Engineering standpoint there are ways to solve problems presented by finite numbers. We solve problems with finite numbers when there are other ways to handle those issues.
Mr. Kao stated that once the project is approved by the Planning Commission those issues can be dealt with during plan checks.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that he just wanted to be sure that Staff or Engineering policy is not that impervious coverage is to preserve the character of the Community.
Chairman Wolfe asked when the General Plan was adopted.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered that it was in March of 2004.
Chairman Wolfe asked that everyone put statements made in context of when they were made.
8. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2005-05, GRADING MODIFICATION 2005-03 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2004-06 (Patel) 500 Greenview
Ms. Massa-Lavitt presented the staff report stating the Commission reviewed a similar application for this address at a previous meeting where you approved a new home on the lot at 500 Greenview; the application was appealed and the appeal was upheld by the City Council and the project was denied without prejudice; the applicant reduced the overall square footage of the home and reduced some of the hardscape; the 20-foot wide easement for the driveway pushes the project up to about 12,000 feet over what is permitted on the entire lot; even without a house he is over the required amount; it is possible that if we reduce the portion of driveway that veers off to the south that serves one lot it could be reduced to 12 feet width; the driveway easement that goes from the new project back to the three homes could be grandfathered in at a 10 or 12-foot wide easement; the Fire Department has looked at it and stated that they would be able to safely service the three back houses; this brings up the discussion of what is impervious coverage; Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that the property is also located in a landslide hazard area; the map in the General Plan identifies the site as a Landslide Liquefaction Zone, which may cause movement under some conditions; the applicant had started a geological investigation, which would uncover any landslide potential for this lot where the house is located; the geology investigation was stopped when the project was denied; it would have to be completed before this project could go to the Building Department for a permit. She asked Mr. Kao if there were ways to mitigate this if it proved to be a fact.
Mr. Kao commented that the Soils Engineer would make recommendations for the future project.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that another issue is tree removal; he is removing trees and replacing them at a 2-1 ratio; that is a condition of approval that would be in the Resolution if the project is approved; the site is difficult to develop; the applicant has reduced some of those elements; the Planning Commission should deal with the width of the driveway easement, whether you would consider a reduction of the easement under the Standards Modification or it should stay as it is; the easement is dilapidated and needs repair; the Commission needs to give direction to the applicant when you want it improved; staff is prepared to give a categorical exemption of the project; she noted that the Commission has been provided with the minutes from the February 10 City Council meeting when the project was denied and information from the applicant.
Chairman Wolfe asked if we know what the allowable impervious is and what is the amount of impervious existing on the lot.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered that it is about 10,000 square feet with the driveway at the 10-foot width.
City Attorney Levin explained that there is 10,000 square feet existing and some of that will be taken away and replaced with new impervious. The proposal is to replace part of the 10-foot wide driveway with a 20-foot wide driveway.
Commissioner Grebbien explained that he would end up with 11,000 square feet of impervious without building the house.
Chairman Wolfe asked what the Impervious is of the yellow portion on the map from the driveway that services the house and the turnaround.
Mr. Kao answered that the yellow portion would be about 1,800 square feet and the turnaround area would be about 1,400 for a total of about 3,200 feet.
Chairman Wolfe asked what the impervious is for the proposed house.
Mr. Kao noted that the house with the garage and pool is about 7,000 square feet.
Chairman Wolfe noted that the total impervious would add up to 10,200 square feet for the project. If you add the driveway easement at 10 feet width the total allowable impervious is 17,872 square feet.
Commissioner McCoy commented that landslide areas usually keep moving and a slope stability analysis would be required. It has been brought to our attention by the neighbors that there have been landslides in the area. Ms. McCoy stated that this must be investigated or we will be in danger of making the City liable.
City Attorney Levin explained that the City is not in danger of liability. You have immunities. It is a question of compliance to your own code and good policy. There was a soils engineering report and a geology report submitted. Based on the information we now have, these reports do not address all of the hazards. You might have the obligation to require further information.
Commissioner McCoy proposed that the Commission suspend their current investigations until we have assurance that safe building can occur there and what mitigation would be required to make things safe.
Chairman Wolfe opened the Public Comment.
Nil Patel stated the previous owner provided a soils engineering report and a geological report performed in 2001 and it did not find any landslide indication; it suggested how far down we should go; they did a test for locations for the home and reported that there was no evidence of landslides.
Chairman Wolfe stated that these were not borings, but were test pits.
Mr. Patel presented a history of what transpired at the various City meetings; he presented the new impervious figures after the changes made; the new view poles have been installed; it is not fair to charge him with all of the impervious coverage of all the driveways as they are used by all of the houses.
Chairman Wolfe questioned the impervious figures that Mr. Patel came up with.
Mr. Patel noted that he had not added the 20 feet wide drive from Greenview to his property.
Lynn Rolnik, Greenview, spoke on 20-foot easements being on their titles; effect on property values; landslide possibilities; size of home and conforming to the neighborhood; impervious coverage.
Chairman Wolfe asked if all of the driveway easement on PatelŐs property was increased to 20 feet wide, it would be approximately 20,000 square feet of impervious coverage which would be about 2,000 over the allowable impervious and who could build on that property then.
Vice Chairman Black asked Ms. Rolnik if any of the titles contain wording that assigns the percentage of the driveway ownership all the way to Greenview.
Ms. Rolnik answered that they did not.
Commissioner Baroldi commented that there was a very slim chance that the whole easement could be widened to 20 feet.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, spoke on information in two newspapers that the houses that slid down the hill in Anaheim seemed to be a house weight issue.
Chairman Wolfe commented that it depended not only on the weight of the house, but the weight of the soil beneath it; the Court of Appeals in May gave a decision that a reservoir had been leaking for 20 years and caused the slippage in Anaheim Hills.
Mr. Blagden continued to speak of the many violations on the Greenview project.
Kenneth Wilch, Civil Engineer, spoke on the impervious coverage figures and his past experience with shared driveways. He noted that the impervious coverage has been allocated proportionally to the number of users on the driveway. That would mean each would be allocated to one fourth of the driveway impervious.
Chairman Wolfe closed the public comment.
City Attorney Levin explained that the easements were created privately between the owners and donŐt establish the right to build and construct impervious coverage. The City has impervious coverage limits. The City doesnŐt have any obligation to plan for 20 feet of pavement on the easement, however there could, at some future time, be a private property owner dispute on the remedy of the issue. There may be other solutions available at that time according to the codes that exist then. You can make different decisions about the driveways without changing anyoneŐs title.
Commissioner McCoy asked if the road was only going to one house and was only counted as 12 feet of impervious surface because the other 8 feet is only easement, does the 8 feet still get subtracted because it is an easement or do you only count the 12 feet of impervious surface.
City Attorney Levin stated that she does not know how much was subtracted from the gross area to get the net area.
Commissioner Baroldi explained that it looks like the entire amount was taken off.
City Attorney Levin noted that the proposed grading was listed at 28,153 square feet. The Community Development Director stated that it does not include the grading for the existing roadway, so any grading modification on this would need to reflect that there is a grading modification needed for impervious coverage and for gradable area.
Chairman Wolfe asked if the Planning Commission had any other questions of staff. Since there were none he asked for discussion.
Commissioner McCoy expressed her concern with the landslide issue and the requirements of the State when such is the case. She stated that her opinion is that they should postpone any other decisions until it has been settled that a house can be safely built on this land.
Commissioner Grebbien commented that there was some soil exploration done. It is too bad that it did not go a little bit further. That would probably have answered the question of whether the soil was safe to build on. He stated that he read the report but did not see anything that would really answer the question.
Commissioner McCoy noted that there are very strict State requirements on what has to be done to test landslide soil. The State then has to be informed of the findings.
Commissioner Baroldi commented that this is a State requirement and has to be complied with. Staff will address this before any building permits are addressed.
City Attorney Levin noted that there is also CEQA compliance. This is proposed as a categorical exemption but it is difficult for us to know if this is correct until we have a geology and soils report that addresses these issues. Unless the applicant agrees to an extension, we only have 30 days to make the determination of a categorical exemption and that would run from May 2. You will either get an extension from the applicant or disapprove because of the concern about the landslide.
Chairman Wolfe asked the Commission for approval to reopen the Public Comment to ask the applicant to extend the time.
Commissioner Baroldi offered a motion to reopen the Public Comment to ask the applicant to extend the time. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Grebbien. Ayes 5 Noes 0
Chairman Wolfe asked Mr. Patel if he would be willing to extend the CEQA timing requirements.
Mr. Patel answered that he would agree to a 60-day extension.
Chairman Wolfe stated that he was at the site today and found that two cars can not pass on a 10-foot wide road. He stated that he would also like the Engineer and the applicant to agree on the square footage.
Commissioner McCoy commented that a lot more reduction of unnecessary impervious coverage could be done. Actually very small changes have been made. She stated pool is unnecessary.
Chairman Wolfe stated he felt the landscape plan was a little weak on screening; he was a little more lenient on impervious coverage; that he thinks pools are not unnecessary.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that the City Council stressed three points. Landscaping plans are deficient, proposed graded area and impervious coverage substantially exceed the maximum allowed by the municipal code and we may have to add the easement to that, the intensity of the proposed development must be substantially reduced and/or screened to adequately mitigate the projects impact on the purpose, integrity and character of the RA-Zone.
Vice Chairman Black commented that the size of the house could still be reduced. We do not want to go through the appeal process again.
Chairman Wolfe moved to continue this item covering Standards Modification 2005-05, Grading Modification 2005-03 and Tree Removal Permit 2004-06 for 60 days. He asked that it be brought back to the Planning Commission next month for monitoring. Seconded by Commissioner McCoy. Ayes 5 Noes 0
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEMS FROM STAFF
9. Planning/Building Department Report
The report was received and filed.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chairman Black moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. to the meeting of June 28, 2005. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. Ayes 5 Noes 0
Robert Wolfe, Chairman
ATTEST:
Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Community Development Director