CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Black called a meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:22 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Vice Chairman Larry Black, Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Brent Grebbien, Margarita McCoy and Alternate Garcia. Absent: Chairman Wolfe. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Craig Melicher, City Attorney Sandra Levin, Mayor Bruce Douglas and Mark Blodgett.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Ex Mayor Borrowe led the flag salute.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF
September 6, 2005
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the agenda had been posted.
5. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA
Vice Chairman Black explained that Item 6 is the Item of interest for Public Comment tonight on the Zoning Ordinance and it was continued from the last Special Meeting.
Teena Uyeno spoke regarding an anonymous letter complaining about weeds and animal husbandry.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that he had looked from the reporting area and it looked like it is probably three different yards that need care.
Ms. Uyeno stated that this would affect her stature as a very knowledgeable and responsible person concerning animal care and noted what it takes to keep animals clean, healthy and not smelly; no complaints to City; no permits should be needed.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that mail addressed to the Mayor is procedurally copied to all of the Councilmembers so they all have the same information. That is how it gets distributed. She noted that it was a very vague letter and the rumor mill was unfortunate.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that she thought it should go to the Planning Commission just for their information.
Vice Chairman Black stated that he thought they should have as much information as possible especially since it may be related to Article 7 that we are considering, but even if someone was cited we would not make a personal judgement at that time.
Mayor Douglas explained that all mail addressed to the Mayor and City Council is opened by City Staff and then distributed by Staff.
City Attorney Levin stated that she understood how important the subject is to everyone but we really should return this to the Commission for further Public Comment.
Vice Chairman Black stated that he understands her point.
Claudia Schalchlia, Mayapan, spoke regarding the anonymous letter and animal keeping and noted that we donÕt want the opportunity to teach children about animals and responsibility taken away.
Stephen Blagdon, Citron Road, spoke on the animal keeping issue; there must be room made for animals; development should plan a portion of the graded and site development area be devoted to animals for future owners.
John Beau, Caselaro Drive, spoke about the anonymous letter and the distribution practice for letters, should have been given to Planning Department for enforcement. He stated that the Equestrian related Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMP) seems to be biased and he asked if this is going to be codified into law to control Newport Bay pollution; agreed with Mr. Blagden on setting aside space for animals.
Vice Chairman Black stated that the Planning Commission takes all the points brought up into consideration. When blame is pointed at anyone it raises a flag. The person that wrote the letter should address the Commission.
Commissioner Baroldi explained that La Habra Heights discharges into Coyote Creek, then into San Gabriel River so we donÕt need to worry about Newport Bay.
Mayor Douglas stated that he called the SupervisorÕs office and the Public Works Department noted that they are working on these concerns and maybe we can use Orange CountyÕs example. They stated that they are focusing on Santa Monica Mountains and have the Santa Monica Bay problems. They have not yet adopted the BMPs Countywide.
City Attorney Levin explained that it was held up due to the permit requirements for the County of LA that have been involved in litigation for the past couple of years. The County and the various cities challenging the permit requirements contended that it would cost billions of dollars to comply with the permit requirements. They lost in court and the permit requirements were upheld and that is now up on appeal. LA County was reluctant to put too much money into it.
John Black, stated that he was pro horse; gates; he was against the prohibition of off road vehicles in the Heights; spoke of the unreasonable setbacks; requirement for landscaping easements; the change in how many trees you can cut down per year; impervious coverage.
Davida Pearson, Bonnie Jean, brought further information on the BMP that John Beau spoke of; the people that put draft codes together are not educated in the Article 7 information. She felt animal people were being singled out.
Faith Grimm, Las Palomas, discussed putting together a map showing the homes, slope and setback of different properties; would like the Commission to wait until she has the setbacks before they finalize the setback distance; most lots can not handle the setbacks and have an arena.
Commissioner Grebbien commented that he would like to have that information. He stated that he did not know when they would make a decision.
Norm Zezula explained that the residents are asking not to lose any privileges they have. The General Plan encourages the keeping of animals.
Roger Sowers, Cypress, pro horse; no setbacks on corrals and fences; the proposed rules could leave half-acre lots without horses.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that he understood that legal, non-conforming corrals and pens would be allowed.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt confirmed this fact.
Mr. Sowers noted that there was talk of not grandfathering through land sale.
City Attorney Levin explained that normally the buildings would be grandfathered through sale, but uses such as number of horses would not. The Commission has voiced a recommendation that the number restrictions not be changed from the current codes.
Julie Ellis, Sharpless Ct., spoke on the number of horses allowed on property; does not consider what she is doing as a commercial business.
Vice Chairperson Black noted that there still will be more discussion on the number of animals allowed. There will also be the possibility of a Standards Modification.
Ms. Ellis mentioned that a Standards Modification Application is expensive and taking a chance; mentioned the Clean Water Act.
Commissioner Baroldi asked what the fee would be for a Standards Modification for a 1.8 acre parcel to get the full compliment of horses.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt answered that the fees are set by the City Council and they are to cover time used.
Vice Chairperson Black commented that they listen to Staff and the residents and try to be fair to everyone.
Ms. Ellis commented that new people should not be able to move in and change the status quo that exists; concentration of horses in a stable.
Commissioner McCoy explained that she thought the concern of horses being closely concentrated was not meant in a stable, but in a small area outside near a neighborÕs house.
Ms. Ellis noted that due to the nature of horses it would not be good to have them in too small an outdoor area.
Zachary Brown stated appreciation that the Commission is listening to the residents; number of horses allowed; committee of residents should be formed to make recommendations to the City; grandfather application; cross fencing; nuisance complaints should be addressed as nuisance problems and not relegated to just horses.
Commissioner Baroldi asked Mr. Brown what he considers cross fencing.
Mr. Brown explained that this would be fencing inside of his property fencing such as around a pool for safety, interior fencing. He considers that a riding ring is a fence. It is a protection area.
Jessica Winship, Cypress, spoke of residents animal rights and that there is no reason to take any of those rights away; just want our status quo preserved.
Michael Bagwell, Dorothea, thanked the Commission for listening and the Residents for their turnout and concern of this issue; he is pro animal; treat problems as a nuisance; definitions for draft ordinances and CEQA.
Vice Chairperson Black closed the Public Comment.
STUDY SESSION
6. Zoning Code Amendment 2005-01 – Article 7 – Zoning Ordinance
Mark Blodgett, consultant, explained that they are going to cover the first three chapters of Article 7. He stated that the current ordinance La Habra Heights has been living with since incorporation is the Los Angeles County Development Code and a number of amendments and corrective measures the City has taken. This has led to an Ordinance that even contradicts itself in some areas. We have tried to make a Code that is user friendly and understandable. All that worked on this are very familiar with La Habra Heights and its uniqueness. Each lot is different and we tried to come up with some way to measure this uniqueness. This has been a challenge and he welcomed the input from the equestrians and part of our work in the coming weeks will be to rewrite that section.
Mr. Blodgett started Chapter 7.1 – PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE
á This Article Implements the City of La Habra Heights General Plan
á This Article also serves as the CityÕs Development Code and Zoning Ordinance for the City of La Habra Heights
á The Purposes of this Article Include:
To implement the General Plan by regulating the uses of the land
To ensure the preservation of community character and residents views and privacy
To avoid conflicts between land uses
To conserve and protect the natural resources of the City
To create a comprehensive and stable pattern of land uses
To provide regulations for the sub-division of the land in the future
Vice Chairperson Black asked for any questions or comments from the Commission. He stated that not hearing any they would move on.
Mr. Blodgett continued with Chapter 7.2 – APPLICATION
This chapter establishes a framework that we follow throughout the Municipal Code and the Zoning Article to establish the foundation for the implementation of the La Habra Heights Development Code and Zoning Code.
The second section says that land or buildings may be used, and structures may be erected or altered only in accordance of the provision of this Zoning Ordinance.
Sub components of this include:
á Zoning Maps
á Relationship of the Zoning to the General Plan
á Permitted Uses
á Uncertainty of Interpretation
á Zoning Effect on Easements or Covenants
á Approvals
á Appeals
á Revocations
Mr. Blodgett pointed out Table 7-14 to explain which approvals are Administrative, those approvals that are made by the Planning Commission and what is considered by the City Council.
Mr. Blodgett explained that Standards Modifications recognizes the need for flexibility. Variances are much more rigid and structured and wonÕt work in this City because of its uniqueness. Findings are required for Standards Modifications and are much different than for the Variances.
Commissioner Baroldi commented that on Table 7-14 it notes that the Planning Commission has authority to grant approval for Conditional Use Permits. Is that a change?
Mr. Blodgett answered that it is and Appeals are provided.
City Attorney Levin further explained that another change recommended is to add a Òcall for reviewÓ Ordinance. It would allow the Planning Commission or City Council to call for a review. The Planning Commission could call for a review of an administrative decision or the City Council could call for a review of a Planning Commission decision without saying they think the decision is right or wrong. This allows a review without someone in the Community having to pay an appeal fee.
Mayor Douglas stated that if the City Council does not think the denial of a CUP is important to the community then the applicant should not count on a free appeal through the Òcall for reviewÓ.
Commissioner McCoy asked if the Òcall for reviewÓ can be used by a citizen.
City Attorney Levin answered that the Òcall for reviewÓ is only for the Planning Commission and the City Council. The appeal is available for the citizens.
Commissioner McCoy asked if a citizen could request the Commission to Òcall for reviewÓ.
The City Attorney answered that they can.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that would probably be the only way the Commission would hear about it.
Commissioner McCoy stated that in 7.2-20E the word ÒaffectÓ should be ÒeffectÓ.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that in A where it speaks of Zone Districts being reflected on the official Zoning Map, exhibit 7-1, but the exhibit is labeled as Land Use/Zoning Maps. He stated that he thought they should be labeled the same.
Mayor Douglas explained that they took the map from the General Plan and did not want to spend the money to change the label. It will have the same information.
City Attorney Levin suggested that the Commission should not feel obligated to correct typos and small items in the meeting, just send them to us.
Mark Blodgett continued with his report on Article 7.3. This is the listing of permitted land uses.
ZONE DISTRICTS
á R-A Zone – Residential/Agricultural Zone
á OS-C Zone – Open Space/Conservation Zone
á OS-R Zone – Open Space/Recreation Zone
á OS-RP Zone – Open Space Resource Production Zone (oil production facilities)
á PF Zone – Public Facility Zone
á SPO Zone – Specific Plan Overlay Zone
á IO Zone – Institutional Overlay Zone
Mr. Blodgett noted that all of these land uses correspond to those in the General Plan.
á R-A Zone – Primary Uses:
Single Family
Agricultural
Equestrian and Recreational
á R-A Zone – Accessory Uses:
Large Animal Keeping
Home Occupation
Outdoor Recreation
á R-A Zone – Conditional Uses:
Child Care and Group Care
Transitional Housing (as defined by State Law)
Sports Courts
á R-A Zone – Temporary Uses:
Yard and Garage Sales
Temporary Buildings
Other Activities that may be defined by the Community Development Director (CDD)
á R-A Zone – Prohibited Uses:
Second Units
Commercial Animal Keeping
Outdoor Storage
Mayor Douglas commented that Mr. Blodgett had missed something under R-A - Conditional Uses - Development on vacant parcels which include swimming pools, pool houses, barbecues, arenas, animal pens, and stables. This is a significant change. Conditional uses are much smaller than now.
Mr. Blodgett stated that Development of a vacant parcel you might acquire was not allowed before.
Commissioner McCoy asked that since Child Care, Transitional Housing and Personal Rehabilitation is under Federal Law, do we have a right to require a CUP for those uses?
Mr. Blodgett explained that we have the right to regulate the facilities that have more than six persons.
City Attorney Levin noted that the Commission still does not have the definitions and they will help make things clearer.
Commissioner McCoy asked about Transitional Housing.
Mr. Blodgett explained that we cannot prohibit Transitional Housing but you can require a CUP.
Mr. Blodgett also explained that you cannot have long term storage of construction equipment or farm equipment on an R-A property unless it is being used on the property. It can not be stored on the property if it is for use elsewhere.
Commissioner McCoy commented that she strongly objects to the prohibition of guest houses. She asked if we are still keeping the distinction of a kitchen between Second Units and guest houses.
Mr. Blodgett explained that they are still working on those definitions. The notion is that the Second Unit would have a kitchen. This goes along with the General Plan.
Mayor Douglas noted that we had much discussion about the subject. Often units without a kitchen have one put in. This code closes the door more firmly so the guest houses do not have a kitchen put in later.
Commissioner Baroldi commented that any existing legal non-conforming unit would be grandfathered in.
Commissioner McCoy asked for confirmation that in the future any plan with a guest house on it would not be approved.
Mayor Douglas noted that they would not be allowed.
Commissioner McCoy commented that she thought this is a large mistake as in her opinion it is throwing a red flag before the State.
Vice Chairperson Black stated that as far as accessory buildings, are we saying that we donÕt want more than one family on the property and can we provide language that would define that?
Mr. Blodgett explained that this is following the direction of the General Plan. La Habra Heights does not want second units in this City.
City Attorney Levin explained that there are two aspects of this. The Commission has a policy decision to make on whether you want to allow guest houses without kitchens and do you want to allow second units or not. Housing determinations in the State of California have become very complex and there is a process Cities go through every five years when they update the Housing Element of their General Plan. We will have to do that in 2006. At that time the State looks at how you are complying with the State Mandates. You have to address your Regional Housing Needs Assessment and all of the other complex factors that go into this. Ms. Levin suggested that it might be better to leave things in their current state in respect to second units and just incorporate the existing prohibition on second units from your current code until you can make that determination in the context of your updated Housing Element and all of the other factors that you have to take into account. You can do what you want to do with respect to the guest houses. That too is likely to change when we do our Housing Element and have to address all of our Regional and State mandates.
Commissioner Baroldi asked for the definitions of the difference between the second unit and the guest house.
Mr. Blodgett explained that the second unit would have a kitchen and the guest house would not.
Commissioner McCoy explained that the State Law prohibits a City from prohibiting kitchens in second units or guest houses. It pushes for approval of second units.
Vice Chairperson Black commented that what raises a flag to him is under Second Units, sub paragraph D, it states Òthe City of La Habra Heights acknowledges that the preclusion of Second Units in La Habra Heights may limit housing opportunities in the Region.Ó He asked if there is any way that can be amended. He suggested that we should say something to the effect of; ÒThe City of La Habra Heights wants you to know that this limitation is justified, and here are the reasons whyÉ..Ó
Commissioner McCoy stated that this paragraph is the same as in our Housing Element.
Mr. Blodgett explained that we made an effort to make that conformity. We have to be consistent with the General Plan. If we decided to permit second units in this Zoning Ordinance, we would be required to go back in and amend the General Plan, the Land Use Element and the Housing Element. This would be a major change. It will be easier to wait until it is time for the new Housing Element.
Commissioner McCoy asked if it would be inconsistent if we just left it out.
City Attorney Levin noted that you canÕt leave out any of the verbiage of the existing code regarding Second Units. She stated as an example that this is a legal, nonconforming code. If you get rid of it, you cannot necessarily readopt it. If adopted entirely new today, it probably would not stand.
Vice Chairperson Black asked how this dovetails into our need to find affordable housing for low income.
Mr. Blodgett stated that in similar communities he has used second units to meet that need. The HCD at first did not accept his idea until he was able to show HCD that due to the Second Units he was talking about, 30% were living in affordable housing.
Mayor Douglas stated that we will need to have figures to back up whatever we pick to meet the StateÕs requirements. We will be addressing this in the next few months.
Vice Chairperson Black asked for confirmation that the language in the Draft Ordinances gives us enough cover until we readdress this Housing Element.
Mr. Blodgett answered affirmatively.
City Attorney Levin commented that we need a direction from the Commission as to Guest Houses without kitchens.
Mr. Blodgett stated that we said Òliving quarters in accessory structures are prohibited.Ó That would cover Guest Houses.
Commissioner McCoy asked if we could leave that out.
Mayor Douglas commented that you said yourself that having a Guest House without a kitchen is a violation of the State, but it isnÕt required to be in there because it wasnÕt part of the original ordinance that we are trying to protect.
Commissioner McCoy explained that the original ordinance allowed Guest Houses without kitchens and she would like to see that continue for now. She stated that in her opinion the State has gone as far as they are going to go on Guest Houses because a number of cities are against the State mandating local zoning.
Vice Chairperson Black added that he would think the 640 square foot restriction would also help to some degree when the time comes.
City Attorney Levin stated that Guest Houses are permitted under certain circumstances. Just give us your policy recommendation as to when you think Guest Houses should be permitted and that is what weÕll write in what we forward to the City Council.
Mr. Blodgett explained that he will bring back any changes the Commission makes to show them. He stated that under Accessory Units we will add a bullet and say ÒGuest Houses with living quarters without kitchens are permitted as an accessory structure not to exceed 640 square feet.
Commissioner Grebbien noted that he was concerned that the term Òliving quartersÓ is dangerously close to the Building Code definition of Òhabitable spaceÓ. All of these terms we have been working with are so similar it makes it hard to distinguish what is permitted.
Mr. Blodgett commented that we really need the definitions. He stated that we are working on getting the definitions completed.
After discussion the consensus of the Commission was to adopt the language as written except for the change in the Accessory use to recognize the Guest House as being 640 square feet or less.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that we had a public comment today from Zachary Black that he was concerned about the prohibition of all terrain vehicles which were sometimes used for agricultural and animal work.
Mayor Douglas noted that we thought that would be under C., but maybe that should be made clearer.
City Attorney Levin noted that it would be made clear if we place the word ÒRecreationalÓ before the words Òall terrain vehiclesÓ under Prohibitions.
Mr. Blodgett stated that they didnÕt want the vehicles using vacant parcels for recreation.
á Open Space Conservation Zone – Primary Uses
Resource Conservation such as the area under the Habitat Authority
á Open Space Conservation Zone – Accessory Uses
None permitted because of the Conservation issues
á Open Space Conservation Zone – Conditional Uses
CUPs are required for facilities for storage, maintenance and caretaker uses, trail uses, educational uses including, but not limited to, interpretive exhibits, nature centers, and special communication facilities owned and operated by a Governmental Agency. Commercial telecommunications would be prohibited.
á Open Space Conservation Zone – Temporary Uses
This is left to the discretion of the Community Development Director (CDD)
á Open Space Conservation Zone – Prohibited Uses
Other than what the primary use and what we have listed, other uses are prohibited
Commissioner McCoy asked for clarification of number 5 in the previous section about off road vehicles being prohibited and stated that she didnÕt want it to just cover their use of empty lots.
Mr. Blodgett explained that some off road vehicles are used for hauling and other work on the property. The prohibition is for the recreational use of these vehicles anywhere in the City.
á Open Space Recreation Zone – Primary Uses
Parks
Passive Open Space
Trails – Equestrian, Pedestrian and Bicycle
á Open Space Recreation Zone – Accessory Uses
Storage and maintenance facilities needed for the park – the existing improvements within the City Park
Ancilliary educational uses
Outdoor Recreation
Commissioner McCoy commented that the Horse AnnouncerÕs Booth is planned for the Park, but not existing yet and it includes a broadcast booth for horse events. She stated that she thinks it is dangerous to allow something with broadcasting in any open space recreation zone.
Mr. Blodgett explained that it was not the intent to consider loud speakers for the horse events as communication.
Commissioner McCoy noted that when the Horse AnnouncerÕs Booth is built, existing improvements in the Park will include broadcasting facilities.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that it is an AnnouncerÕs Booth.
Mr. Blodgett stated that he is having difficulty with the language used as, Òthe existing improvements within the City ParkÓ. He stated that he would like to come back at the next meeting with a better explanation of that. He noted that he would have to look at his notes.
á Open Spaces Recreation Zone - Conditional Uses
Golf Club – designated in the General Plan as Open Space Recreation
Special Communications Systems
á Open Spaces Recreation Zone – Temporary Uses
Non-profit swap meets sponsored by non-profit organizations, carnivals, etc.
Temporary Buildings for construction and staging
Other activities identified by the CDD
These temporary uses would require temporary CUPs
á Open Spaces Recreation Zone – Prohibited Uses
Use is not allowed if it is not listed above as permitted in OS-R Zone
á Open Space Resource Production Zone (Oil Production Zone) – Primary Uses
This covers all of the properties used for resource extraction and transmission. (Oil wells, pumping stations and certain transmission facilities that are related.)
á Open Space Resource Production Zone – Accessory Uses
No Accessory Uses are permitted
á Open Space Resource Production Zone – Conditional Uses
There are certain other resource extraction, transmission and safety operations that are required.
Limited storage and maintenance facilities
Equestrian, pedestrian and bicycle trails
Special telecommunication facilities and caretaker facilities
Any new extraction or transmission facilities require a CUP
á Open Space Resource Production Zone - Temporary Uses
Temporary trailers
Storage yards
Other temporary uses that the CDD may determine
á Open Space Resource Production Zone – Prohibited Uses
If it is not permitted under the above it is not permitted.
Commissioner McCoy asked if they want to set calendar dates.
Mr. Blodgett noted that he was pleased with how much they had covered this evening.
Vice Chairperson Black asked if there are concerns from Staff that need to be addressed.
Community Development Director noted that the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting will be September 27, 2005. This item will be on the Agenda and it will be the Official Public Hearing and an ad will be placed in the newspaper to let everyone know. She noted that there are three items on the meeting. If you want to schedule another meeting after that one you may pick a date tonight if you want.
Commissioner McCoy asked if they could schedule a meeting before the next Regular Meeting.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered that they may.
City Attorney Levin stated that a meeting before September 27, 2005 would not be a Public Hearing.
Commissioner McCoy commented that she would like to go over the Draft Ordinances more before the Public Hearing.
The consensus of the Commission was to have a Meeting on September 15, 2005.
City Attorney Levin stated that she would not be there
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that she would make sure the room is available and the City Attorney said she would have someone from her office attend.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Next meeting - September 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner McCoy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:21 p.m. to the meeting of September 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. Vote 5-0
LARRY BLACK, VICE CHAIR
ATTEST:
Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Community Development Director