CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Black called a Special Meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:09 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Vice Chairman Larry Black, Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Steve Garcia, Brent Grebbien, and Margarita McCoy. Also present Interim Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, Deputy City Engineer Jeff Kao, City Attorney Sandra Levin, Consultant Marc Blodgett and Mayor Bruce Douglas.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Steve Garcia led the flag salute.
4. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, pointed out that La Habra Heights is an unusually green area because we have opposed inappropriate development; he noted the video, The Story of La Habra Heights as example; showed pictures of different areas here that demonstrate how they are being developed under the existing Codes.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR 9-15-05, 9-27-05 AND 10-11-05
Commissioner McCoy moved to approve the minutes for 9-15-05 as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. Vote 5 – 0.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the minutes for 9-27-05 as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. Vote 5 – 0.
Commissioner McCoy moved to approve the minutes for 10-11-05 as amended. Seconded by Vice Chair Black. Vote 5 – 0.
0:10:52
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
6. APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR 2415 ARDSHEAL
City Attorney Levin noted that this is back for reconsideration as a Commissioner has a conflict with this item and needs to explain the reason for this conflict and then leave the room during the discussion.
Commissioner Garcia noted that he lives within 500 feet of the site and needs to recuse himself and left the room.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt presented the Staff Report and noted that at the last Commission meeting, not all of the public (Steve Garcia) was able to express their comments and Vice Chair Black requested that this be brought back for reconsideration at this meeting. The plan was reviewed by the City Landscape Architect, there were changes made and they are reflected on the plan.
Vice Chair Black opened Public Comment
Mr. Garcia, Ardsheal Drive, stated his concern that trees hiding another house will be removed or die from the new construction; in favor of the older house remaining screened and the new one also screened from his view; some of the trees chosen do not survive well; placing of trees do not show a rural character; reconsider substituting the types of trees planned; substitute the ground cover also; where soil is disturbed on the slope, causes the soil to creep.
The Commission discussed Mr. GarciaÕs concerns.
Charles Yao, owner, stated that he tried but doesnÕt know the differences between trees; interested in something growing quickly to hide a retaining wall; his positioning of the trees were placed to shield the view of the house; in 10-20 years it will all look natural.
Lorette Saylor, Ardsheal neighbor, wants to see the project follow the General Plan with a rural character and a natural landscaping; asked that the trees to be planted only five feet from our property line be at least ten feet from the line; tree 69 that is to be cut is on her property; plant trees with a larger canopy and use vines till those trees are mature; a lot of the trees to be removed near the property line are very large and old and are presently screening our house and cannot replace the screening with three different type of trees; change cypress trees to something softer.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, spoke of mitigating the amount of grading and retaining walls; recommended that he replace with trees as mature as possible.
Vice Chair Black returned the meeting to the Commission.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that there isnÕt anything extraordinary about this property, there is a lot more planting than the Code requires and they are bringing in a lot of large trees; the rate of growth depends on the species; the City does not have a list of trees that cannot be planted; there is another tree that would grow as tall as a cypress but bushier.
City Attorney Levin commented that the existing Code only limits the height of hedges in the setback area, so the decision on this item would be discretionary but not mandatory by the Code.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt stated there are 24 trees proposed of a certain type that do not do well in La Habra Heights and often die after ten years, and she suggested that after talking to their Landscape Architect, that a different kind of tree be substituted.
After discussion, the consensus of the Commission was that to make changes based on personal preferences would be wrong.
Commissioner Baroldi offered a motion to approve the landscape plan for 2415 Ardsheal as Seconded by Commissioner McCoy .
Commissioner McCoy amended the motion with the possibility offered by Ms. Massa-Lavitt to replace one type of trees after talking with the Landscape Architect.
Commissioner Baroldi repealed the prior motion and offered a motion to approve the Landscape Plan for 2415 Ardsheal as amended by Commissioner McCoy. Seconded by Commissioner McCoy.
Vote: 4 - 0
Commissioner Garcia returned to the dais.
0:59:01
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. GRADING MODIFICATION 2004-22 & STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2004-36 (Dogar) 805 West Road
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that this item has been withdrawn and they will be redesigning the project.
PUBLIC HEARING
8. GRADING MODIFICATION 2005-11 & STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2005-27 (Jenkins) 1600 Kashlan Road
Commissioner McCoy stated that she would recuse herself from this consideration as she lives within 500 feet of this address; Ms. McCoy then left the room.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt reported that the applicant has asked that this item be continued; suggested opening the Public Hearing, take public comments and then continue the Public Hearing.
Vice Chair Black opened Public Comment.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, stated that the Grading Plan is incomplete; spoke regarding the lawn, drainage problems, City slope easement, retaining wall, should resize the large house; couldnÕt find the required parking spaces.
The Commission then discussed this item.
Vice Chair Black closed the Public Comment and continued this item to the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner McCoy returned to the meeting.
1:07:18
9. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2005-01 – Article 7 – Zoning Ordinance
Consultant Blodgett explained that at the conclusion of the last meeting he went back and prepared an internal draft of the redline version. The one substantive change involves subdivisions. The City Attorney noted that we should go over that Chapter again and made some recommendations that we use a Chapter that is a guideline and more extensive and we are in process of going through an internal review of the new Subdivision Article which will be a new Article 9.
City Attorney Levin stated it should be easier to understand and more consistent.
Consultant Blodgett went over changes that have been made in Article 7. Under 7.2.20 Application of Development Code and Zoning Ordinance; a new section J. was added called Call for Review.
1:16:11
Mr. Blodgett noted that in Chapter 7.3. Zone Districts there were clarifications on guest housing and group homes, changes in Accessory Uses.
Commissioner McCoy mentioned changes that she thought were going to be made under 7.3.30 C - Conditional Uses and E - Prohibited Uses.
The Commission confirmed the strikeout mentioned by Commissioner McCoy of the second
sentence in E. and continued with small corrections.
Consultant Blodgett commented that on page 7-12 under 7.3.60 PF Zone (Public Facilities Zone), that he will correct the mixed up letters; on page 7-8 under E Prohibited Uses at 1.a. last sentence correct ÒaffluentÓ to read effluent. On page 7-9 3. c. add Òor parcels under common ownership.Ó
City Attorney Levin noted that you might start 5 with ÒExcept as permitted pursuant to a Home Occupation Permit,Ó and add the rest of 5.
Consultant Blodgett continued with Chapter 7.5 Nonconforming Structures, Land Uses, and Lots; that under 7.5.50 Nonconforming Lots some narrative was eliminated and other narrative was added.
The Commission discussed 7.5.40 C - Loss of Nonconforming Status and 7.5.50 Nonconforming Lots.
City Attorney Levin explained that recording a parcel does not make it legal; if it was legal at the time it was recorded, it is legal. She stated that she would work on the wording of 7.5.50; that the second sentence comes from the General Plan and we would want to incorporate that.
Chapter 7.6 Noise and Lighting Standards.
Consultant Blodgett noted that we have made changes mostly in 7.6.50 F. G. H. and the new I; clarified some terminology and modified some pole heights; H. is a new addition.
The Commission discussed that Item C might be too restrictive, and asked if it covers existing development.
Consultant Blodgett explained that we are really speaking of light trespass and glare. He noted that technology is changing and making it easier to control nuisance lighting.
City Attorney Levin explained that they probably donÕt need subsection C; the issues are addressed in D through I; the Introduction to 7.6.50 should make clear that this applies only to new development; staff will add an introductory phrase; you will find existing homes covered in Article 4.
Consultant Blodgett noted that if you are building or remodeling you need to follow these Development Standards, if you are living in a house and causing a problem for your neighbor, you are subject to Article 4; staff will go through this Chapter and make it clear that we are focusing on new development and remodels; staff will address some of these concerns in Article 4.
City Attorney Levin noted that they would make this Chapter include Development or Remodel and replacement of external lighting fixtures.
The consensus of the Commission was to approve City Attorney LevinÕs suggestion.
Consultant Blodgett noted that Chapter 7.7 and Chapter 7.8 are reserved.
1:56:19
Chapter 7.9 Sign Standards
Consultant Blodgett noted that the majority of changes occur in 7.9.50. Exempt (added Allowed) Allowed Signs on page 7-26. Staff suggested that we add a paragraph discussing existing nonconforming signs. They could qualify as legal nonconforming signs.
The Commission discussed Chapter 7.9. The consensus of the Commission was that the chapter contains everything discussed before and is in favor of the paragraph on legal nonconforming.
Chapter 7.10 Animal Keeping Development Standards
Consultant Blodgett stated the committee picked up all of the modifications made by the Commission; we have changed Table 7-5; that they broke the animals into Large Animals, Small Animals and Swine; size of lots needed for stables, corrals, riding arenas, pens and enclosures; Table 7-6 was deleted.
Item G - Health and Safety Code on page 7-28 had been added and was objected too.
City Attorney Levin explained that before we abandon the County Health and Safety Code we need to research into what the implications would be in terms of our contractual arrangements with the County and what their reasons are for their standards; the main objection to the County Standards was requiring animal areas to be 35 feet from the ownerÕs house.
City Attorney Levin noted that we need to find out whether LA County would be willing to contract with us if we had our own set of Standards.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that we do follow the County standards at present, but we only look at violations if we receive complaints on something.
City Attorney Levin explained that the original discussion on this subject only concerned the County Zoning Code restriction and the County Health and Safety Code about the distance of animal keeping from residences in both Codes.
Consultant Blodgett noted that we also need to find out about the cumulative number of animals allowed.
Mayor Douglas noted that Exhibit 7-2 shows runoff being contained on animal use areas, and we do not want animals standing in water or mud. That will be corrected.
Consultant Blodgett noted Commission direction to go back and look at 7.10.30 G. and look at the cumulative density.
The Commission and Staff discussed the existing and proposed Codes and the General Plan covering animal areas, setbacks and structures.
City Attorney Levin explained that the types of structures proposed to be prohibited are currently prohibited in the setback areas; the only difference is in pipe corrals.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt commented that if pipe corrals are welded they are considered as permanent and if bolted they are considered temporary and can be moved; she then asked that the Commission set a date for a Special Planning Commission meeting before their January 24, 2005 meeting.
The consensus of the Commission was that they will meet on January 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Vice Chair Black thanked Ms. Massa-Lavitt for her hard work and how much she has taught the Commission as she will be leaving soon.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that she was happy to serve with the Planning Commission and noted that they were the most intelligent and articulate Commission she has ever served with.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
10. REPORT ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CASELOAD
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that the report is in the Commissions packet.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Baroldi moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:07 p.m. to the Special meeting of January 18, 2006.
Larry Black, Chairman
ATTEST:
Justin Powers, Community Development Director