CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairman Wolfe called a Special Study Session of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:10 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 Garcia arrived at 7:30 p.m.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Douglas led the flag salute.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF
July 25, 2005
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the agenda had been posted.
Chairman Wolfe asked that items 5 and 6 be combined. He asked for the staff report on item 6.
STUDY SESSION
6. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2005-01 – ARTICLE 7 – ZONING ORDINANCE
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt presented the Staff Report stating that a memo was attached to the Article 7 distributed to the Planning Commission and members of the public who purchased a document that has a good explanation of the proposed ordinance; she noted that this is a draft-zoning ordinance to implement the General Plan and it establishes some performance standards that should be comfortable for everyone in the community; rights will approve some projects and some will need standards modifications to be approved as before; most existing buildings and uses remain unchanged and the code does not require legally established uses to be removed; the ordinance attempts to be environmentally responsible in protecting the quality of water in our streams, dealing with water runoff; protecting neighbors privacy; preserving existing trees and requiring additional landscaping when there is a remodeling project.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt introduced Marc Blodgett and noted that he had a significant part in the General Plan and the development of this draft ordinance.
Chairman Wolfe explained that the meeting tonight is as a study session so the Commission can get an understanding of the proposed ordinance and for the public to voice any comments and concerns they may have; he stated that he received several calls on animal keeping related to horses; noted that this is just a draft document and no decisions will be made tonight.
Marc Blodgett, Consultant - spoke about the process used to develop the draft ordinance stating that the zoning ordinance must match the General Plan and the uniqueness of the City; there were contradictions in the existing municipal codes and we found it necessary to completely work it over; this has resulted in a new and unique zoning ordinance and development code just for our City; the existing codes do not implement the General Plan; the LA County Code they were patterned after is out of date for our City; he spoke on guiding principles; performance standards; organization of Article 7; Mr. Blodgett noted that this is a work in progress, we are still working on Article 8 and hope to have the balance of the municipal code finished in early September.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Chairman Wolfe opened the Public Comment and explained that we will not answer questions tonight.
5. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA
Mike Bagwell, Dorothea, spoke regarding 707 Dorothea; the wall; limit of import; drainage does not go far enough; tree removal without permit; grading; chart 7-17 on page 7-57; percolation; County Hillside grading ordinance and there are no definitions.
Gene Fratello, Le Flore Drive, noted that he has lived here 2 years; quality of life issues; dangerous corners such as Le Flore and Solejar, Solejar and West Rd; antiquated ways City does business; bicyclists do not obey traffic laws.
Henry Saucedo, Bonnie Jean, thanked staff and expressed his concern with the setback on horse property and how the number of horses you can have is determined; suggested a Citizen Review Board.
Chairman Wolfe asked Mr. Saucedo what he thought was reasonable for setbacks for horse property.
Mr. Saucedo stated that he thought 50 feet was extreme, but every property is unique and should be decided on the situation. The neighbors have to be considered.
Chairman Wolfe stated that they donÕt want to apply a hard number, but they do need some idea for privacy and safety.
Mr. Saucedo stated that he would not want the rules to keep pushing horse owners back until horses are finally pushed out. He stated that everyone should get involved. He stated that he would like it to be fair to everyone.
Chuck Hawley, La Riata, congratulated the Planning Commission for tackling this project; the number of animals allowed; 50 foot setback too much from property line but reasonable from a habitable structure; stay with goal 6 and 9 of the General Plan.
Mike McCoy, Suncrest Ct., stated that he thinks there will be a lot of exceptions and Standards Modifications over these rules; color pallet; thanked the Commission and staff; opposed to Chapter 10 in its entirety; replace with language that encourages agriculture and animal husbandry; setbacks should be from habitable structures, not property lines.
Norm Zezula spoke against the restrictions of the number of horses and other animals; the City ManagerÕs introduction to the draft ordinances state that these restrictions are mandated by the State and Federal laws and NPDES for pollution prevention. We should discuss what these restrictions are.
Chuck Eistone, Nabal, noted that he raises horses; 70% of the lots are non-conforming and do not fit into a rule that will not harm any animal keepers; livestock programs teach children responsibilities; guidelines should incorporate that 70% of the lots are non-conforming.
Commissioner McCoy asked what he thought about a stable being 50 feet from a habitation.
Mr. Eistone stated that this would be reasonable.
Chairman Wolfe explained that 50 feet from the property line could be handled with a modification if findings are made under 7.12.
Mr. Eistone asked about existing property animal buildings.
Chairman Wolfe answered that it would have to be addressed.
Mr. Eistone noted that if you have a problem with a neighbor, discuss it together. He stated that if you make it 50 feet from the property line it would eliminate a lot of your property.
Chairman Wolfe stated that not everybody likes horses and it might be a problem to them. We have to set performance standards.
City Attorney Levin explained that whatever the restriction are, the structures that are already there and legal are legal non-conforming and they will not have to be removed.
Beth Salisbury, El Cajonita, asked the City Attorney what happens when someone sells a home that has animal care structures on it; what about the City Seal; completely blindsided when she heard of this issue; the City is making La Habra Heights horse unfriendly; no horse people included in the making of the draft ordinance; no setbacks and no separation from her home to the horses.
Chairman Wolfe asked Ms. Salisbury what her objections are to Chapter 10.
Ms. Salisbury stated that it should be thrown out so there would be no changes, no setbacks, and no decreasing number of horses per acre, no setbacks for barns or structures or arena.
Eric Grimm, Las Palomas, stated that he understands the need for standards. He stated his issue is with 7.10; he lives in a legal non-conforming home that is 10 feet from the property line; has existing barn within 35 feet of his home and it needs to be replaced; has another barn that is 4 feet from another neighborÕs property line. He asked that 7.10 and 7.19 need to be reviewed with community input; he wants greater allowance for administrative review rather than having to come before the Planning Commission.
Chairman Wolfe asked that they look at 7.6 which say 50 feet from the property line or habitable structure, he took it to mean 50 feet from a habitable structure on the adjoining property and this needs to be looked into.
Commissioner McCoy stated that she wrote a question if this includes the residence on the subject property.
Terry OÕBrien, West Road, asked that ÒgrandfatheredÓ be defined; what does it do to resale value.
Faith Grimm, Las Palomas, stated that the County ordinance states that animal housing must be 35 feet from any dwelling and she would support the County ordinance; not setbacks; guidance in what is repaired on the barns versus new. We would like to keep what we already have.
Chairman Wolfe continued the Public Comment until tomorrow at the next meeting and returned the meeting to the Commission for comments or concerns.
Questions for staff for future discussion
Chairman Wolfe asked does article 7.10.50 also need findings under 7.19.180 for Standards Modifications; stated that he was also concerned with the 10% with Planning Director and 10% with Planning Commission mentioned in 7.19.180 D; Page 7-33, exhibit 7-5 - Needs explanation. Page 7-34 J – explanation; no grading on slope easement is a little conclusive. Page 7-40 Trees – 7.12.50 E 5.
Commissioner McCoy asked Page 7-8 Section 7.3.20 E – Second Units; this is very aggressive and extreme; it reads as if people will be evicted and possibly even destroying the unit; this could draw the attention of the (HCD) Housing Community Development of the State; Page 7-9 Section 7.3.20 E 3 about guardhouses; would they have to be removed; is it a non-conforming use; Page 7-19 Section 7.5.40 C; stated that the way it is worded has her confused; what does this non-conforming section apply to; Page 7-21 Section 7.6.50 D about motion sensors; please explain motion sensors; Page 7-26 Section 7.9.50.12; does this cover filing signs; Page 7-35 Suburbanizing our City; she noted that there is a prohibition of chain link fencing in the front yards; this sounds hard to me; she would like to know the purpose of this; Page 7-37 Requires setback areas to be landscaped; why is this being changed; Ms. McCoy asked where is the maximum slope for driveways listed; where is the policy that states all private roads be named and signed; Ms. McCoy stated that she was not able to find Circulation 21 that protected views from the roadside.
Vice Chairman Black asked Page 7-16 Section 7.5.30 B 3; felt this was too general and requires an explanation of what ÒreasonableÓ means.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that he was moved by the Public Comments on 7.10 and we need to be concerned about that section; Page 7-8 on second units; thought the language was too strong; Page 7-9 Section 7.3.20.E 5 notes that off-road motor cycles and all terrain vehicles are prohibited; felt that this is going too far; he was O.K. with offroading; he grew up in a City similar to La Habra Heights and understood peopleÕs concerns about 7.10; Page 7-21 Section 7.6.50 A B C G on lighting is too restrictive.
Commissioner Baroldi stated Page 7-8 Section E l needs ÒaffluentÓ changed to ÒeffluentÓ; Page 7-17 Section 7.5.50; would this create an illegal site; Page 7-25 Section 7.9.50; he asked if one sign for real estate is realistic; Page 7-26 Section 11 on garage sale signs; same comment as above; the County requires animal keeping to be 35 feet from any habitable structure and how could we be any less stringent than the County Code; Page 7-32 Exhibit 7-4; causes questions on front yards; Page 7-34 Section 7.11.50 A 2b; please explain; Page 7-36 Section 7.12.40. Development standards for landscaping; when is this required; Page 7-37 Section #1; setback landscaping; can be detrimental; should be on a case by case decision;
Vice Chairman Black mentioned the end of a sentence is missing on page 7-37. Section D.
Commissioner Baroldi continued Page 7-39 Section G; restriction of views by trees; do we need a remedy for this situation; Page 7-39 Section 7.12.50; two trees in five years seems onerous; big change from existing code; Page 7-42 Section B 3 E; field recreation activity requires an equal space for parking; this seems like too much impervious coverage for what the City is about.
Chairman Wolfe stated Page 7-41 Section 7.13.30 C concerning offstreet parking needs clarification.
Commissioner Baroldi continued Page 7-45 Section 7.14.40 A; development Standards for lot development; may need a little more information on what requirements are needed such as Alquist-Priolo; Page 7-46 Section B; Accessory Structures and uses states that the structures ÒshallÓ be at different elevations and distances from each other; this might not be possible on a flat lot; Page 7-47 Section 4; regarding SUSMP, what is meant by distribute over property; Page 7-47 Section K; concerning code violations for lot development; what does this mean; Page 7-48 on Q Environmental Protection; lot development ÒshallÓ not result in loss of significant trees; this is almost impossible; needs something more referenced to explain; Page 7-52 the average on the Exhibit 7-11 slope density sub division standard, there is quite a difference from the existing information; this is much more restrictive; what is the rational; Page 7-53. felt that he does not understand the formula on the bottom of Exhibit 7-12; Page 7-57; this cuts down how much imperious coverage is allowed greatly; what is the thought behind this in order to follow the General Plan; it also covers grading.
Commissioner McCoy commented that we should take note of what Mr. Bagwell said about exhibit 7-13. She noted that the way it is stated, temporary grading could become permanent. This needs a change of wording.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that page 7-59/60 is a great help for understanding what is written.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia commented Page 7-34 - Item K on Access Gates; it mentions a measurement of 20 feet horizontally from the edge of the roadway pavement; he suggested that the measurement be taken on the surface of the pavement rather than horizontally; Page 7-35 - Item B; there is reference to an 8-foot wall or fence, which seems to refer to placement in the right-of-way; this needs to be clarified; Page 7-37 – Item 2; requested landscape setbacks along the street. Item D – end of sentence is missing; Page 7-39 – Section 7.12.50 on tree preservation states that a significant tree measures 2 feet above mean natural grade and more often 4-1/2 feet off of grade is used; he stated that this does not seem a complete or comprehensive way to identify significant trees; the diameter also seems too small and needs to be reconsidered; a possible way might be a point system, which would take into consideration the crown of the tree, height, and diameter; there should be a discussion as to what makes a significant tree; Page 7-58; stated that this references erosion control or landscaping on slopes; he stated that this would also need irrigation with the landscaping; change the wording; Page 7-56 – Item G; the same situation as above; change to read Òpermanent irrigation to be installed as soon as feasibleÓ.
Commissioner Baroldi stated Page 7-65 Section 7.18.30 on View Protection; he asked if we consider all views together, and not consider a primary view.
Commissioner McCoy asked that in the above section we get rid of Òcity lightsÓ.
Commissioner Baroldi continued Page 7-69 – Item L on fences and walls; check wording where it says Òequal to or less than 6 feetÓ.
Commissioner McCoy stated Page 7-60 - exhibit 7-17 on grading; she stated that she does not understand this.
Deputy City Engineer Kao stated that he would like the Commissioners to add language or sections to address the Alquist-Priolo zone, liquefaction and seismic induced landslides. There is a need to know if building can be done in these zones and how it can be handled. He stated that his second concern is the allowable grading and impervious area. Any grading done in the public right-of-way, should it be counted against the allowable and impervious area?
Commissioner McCoy asked if Page 7-33, Item G is the answer to his question.
City Manager Hendrickson stated that staff has not had a chance to review these questions and would like to go over it and bring it back and then comment on this.
Mr. Kao explained that there is some question as to whether the State GeologistÕs map is reliable. There is research going on about this. Are we going to go by the maps completely?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that they would be discussing this and put together a response for the Commission.
City Attorney Levin explained that they should be able to give an answer to the questions raised tomorrow night at the next meeting.
Vice Chairman Black Page 7-39 Section 7.12.40 G; protection of views; he noted that there will be trees and landscaping that exceed certain heights; is there some wording that we can place in there that will provide some remediation for trees?
Chairman Wolfe explained that they will have another study session tomorrow; there will be Public Comment so the Commission may discuss, but no action will be taken. We will have another session after that.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that there will be a meeting on August 13, 2005, a regular meeting at 7:30 and after which there will be a Study Session. There will be a possible meeting on 9-4. We do not have a meeting scheduled where we will take action.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Wolfe moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. to the meeting of July 26, 2005. Seconded by Vice Chairman Black. Vote 5-0
Robert Wolfe, Chairman
ATTEST:
Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Community Development Director