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 meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:13 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, City Engineer Craig Melicher, City Attorney Katherine Paspalis, Mayor Douglas and Consultant Marc Blodgett.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia was absent.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Chairman Wolfe led the flag salute.
Chairman Wolfe thanked Vice Chairman Black for leading the last meeting.
4. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA
Zack Brown, thanked the Planning Commission on behalf of the horse community for approving the Horse AnnouncerÕs Booth and confirmed support of the General Plan; exchange of ideas between horse community and Planning Commission is important. There has been no reason brought forth on limits for amount of horses; legal non-conforming rules if not handled correctly could bring down property values; nuisance issues should be handled the same for everyone and horse community should not be singled out; spoke of arenas. He handed out a paper dealing with horse manure that was adopted by the Highland Riders; gave breakdown on percentage of how horses are used; no major human disease has ever been accurately attributed to the intimate contact with horses over thousands of years and horse manure has been excluded from Federal EPA solid waste regulation because it doesnÕt contain significant amounts of hazardous chemicals or exhibit hazardous characteristics. Horse manure is an excellent fertilizer often used for growing food and causes no problems.
Commissioner McCoy noted that the few complaints we have received have not been about fear of disease, but about flies. One such complaint noted that the horses were well kept and the place well maintained. How do you address that nuisance?
Mr. Brown stated that if it is judged that there is a nuisance, then it should be dealt with as a nuisance. There are many ways that you can deal with a nuisance and you should do so.
Chairman Wolfe asked if someone gets a Standards Modification to have more horses than the limit, is it a one time thing like any other Standards Modification.
Consultant Blodgett answered that is correct. Each property is unique and the Standards Modification is a tool for this uniqueness.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, stated his opinion that the Standards Modification, by Administrative approval for 10% deviation from the Standards is set too high for height, structure size and lot coverage and should come before the Commission; possible economic burden. Variances are provided for, but do not state any situations where it can be used; the Planning Director is allowed to make written interpretations which should be provided to the Planning Commission so they can call for review if they feel it is incorrect or needs to be discussed and there should be some place to keep the interpretation for future reference. Some driveways need more width and turnouts; driveway easements and privacy; needs to be a total amount stated for retaining walls on a property, base it on the slope times possibly the number of 8; light trespass on public and private roadways; prohibit guesthouses and second units; donÕt attract the interest of the state; donÕt build on City owned right-of-way; provide some place for animals on property when submitting building plans that may or may not be used by the present property owners. If the Community values animal keeping there needs to be some written provision for that; if swimming pools are important to most people, space for them should be treated with the planning.
Chairman Wolfe stated that if we did those items we would soon be dictating what people do with their property and we donÕt want that.
Mr. Blagden noted that he is only speaking of the type of items encouraged in the General Plan. Which agency grants approvals?
Faith Grimm, noted that the maps she was working on are not finished, but she found many of the properties can place their stalls within the guidance of the setbacks. There is a problem with pens, enclosures, turnouts and arenas, most properties cannot have these items safely along with the 35-feet from structures and 25-feet from the property line; the width of a turnout when they run would be hard on their joints. Turnouts and arenas are so they can act naturally someplace during the day. She spoke on the fly problem; her veterinarian told her the fly problem is not breeding in the horse manure, but more likely to be coming from the creek and avocado leaves. She noted that from experience she found horse property was priced lower in La Habra Heights. Ms. Grimm noted that there are other issues affecting the prices too.
Zack Brown, noted that they put in their fly spray system for an insect that comes from the red apple plant and bothers the humans and the horses.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
5. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2005-01 – Article 7 – Zoning Ordinance
Consultant Blodgett reported that at the last meeting they got through the listing of permitted uses. We almost got through 7.3 on Permitted Uses that deals with the Specific Plan Overlay Zone and the Institutional Overlay Zone. The Specific Plan Overlay Zone builds on your previous requirements and also builds upon your General Plan Land Use Policy that recognizes there are a number of properties in the City that because of their location or size warrant special attention through the Specific Plan process. He stated that the scope and procedures are outlined in the StateÕs Planning/Zoning Development laws. The Institutional Overlay Zone corresponds to the area along Harbor Blvd. that is occupied by churches. The rational for including this Institutional Overlay Zone was that in the General Plan process it was determined that whether it is a church or a school these uses generate fairly large amounts of traffic and other types of activity that would potentially be contrary to the rural character of the Community. The Harbor Blvd. corridor can better accommodate the extra traffic and activity. 7.3.80 is a Land Use matrix for Zone Districts. It shows the Primary and Accessory uses. The middle column shows Conditional Uses and the last column shows Temporary Uses. Questions raised at the last meeting will be thrashed out and reflected in the final document.
Commissioner Baroldi asked if the opportunity to annex some land along the Harbor corridor came up and the City had a desire to make a Commercial area, would we have to amend this Municipal Code to have a new Zone area for that purpose.
Consultant Blodgett explained that you would also have to do a General Plan amendment as it does not allow any commercial use anywhere in the City.
Commissioner McCoy asked if we wanted to use an area along Harbor Blvd. for High Density Housing for our Affordable Housing requirements that would be residential, would that also require amending the General Plan?
Mr. Blodgett answered that it is a State Mandate and the State has precedence over the Ordinances and the General Plan. The City would do an Emergency Ordinance and it would also have to amend the General Plan and make a Zone change.
Consultant Blodgett noted that the City Attorney was instrumental in helping us draft section 7.5 so he would like to begin with chapter 7.6 – Noise and Lighting Standards. He commented that he hoped to get through the overview of 7.6 and 7.9 regarding Signs. He noted that 7.7 and 7.8 are reserved for possible future use.
Consultant Blodgett noted that in 7.6 on Noise and Lighting Standards, we have established Performance Standards.
Performance Standards: 7.6.30
Light Trespass – should be contained on the property.
Objectionable Noise – should not create an annoyance to someone next door.
We have not come up with noise control standards any more restrictive than neighboring communities.
There are also cumulative noise standards.
Development Standards for Light and Glare
We want to see lighting plans. There will be design requirements for non-residential lighting. Lighting fixtures in parking lots are limited to 20 feet in height.
Mayor Douglas commented that these are development standards not subject to modification.
Vice Chairman Black asked if most air-conditioning units have a certain standard of noise.
Consultant Blodgett noted that with anything that has a compressor that goes on and off you must be considerate as to where it is placed. You would not want to place an air-conditioner in a window that is in the setback close to your neighbor.
Chairman Wolfe asked how you handle this in the design stage.
Consultant Blodgett commented that noise is one of the easiest problems to mitigate. You want to be sure that the noisemaker is located away from a noise receptor. That is more effective than any reading of the noise level. There will be an application form, which will be very detailed and will indicate what has to be done. He stated that staff would be very critical on where it can be located.
Mayor Douglas noted that everyone should read the Development Code so everyone recognizes that noise is a problem. In the oil property, new equipment should help the problem.
Chairman Wolfe noted that in 7.6.40 - B it states: except as provided in 7.6.40. He stated that he doesnÕt see any exceptions in 7.6.40.
City Attorney Paspalis noted that there is a ÒCÓ missing there.
Consultant Blodgett noted that they are missing a ÒCÓ – Cumulative Exterior Noise Standards.
Chairman Wolfe stated that in sub-section G – Residential Outdoor Lighting Standards it says that outdoor recreation exterior lighting poles shall not exceed five feet; applies to something like sports courts. He stated that he didnÕt know of any at that height.
Consultant Blodgett commented that they should look at that. That could possibly be a yard light. Maybe there are certain kinds of light that could exceed that or maybe there is another number in here that applies to a game court.
Mayor Douglas noted that it could be a light for an outdoor eating area, but we will look at that.
Vice Chairman Black stated that we should also look into the height limit for lights attached to a building. There should be some guidelines to that also.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that at 7.6.50 – B Limit Light Trespass – one part says ÒLandscaping shall be required in areas where planting can reduce visible glare.Ó Since every light produces glare, this would require landscaping for every light you have. This seems a little stiff.
Vice Chairman Black asked if this could be Òobjectionable lightÓ? Objectionable could be some dangerous territory. He stated that ÒtrespassÓ makes it helpful for him. We might add the word ÒobjectionableÓ.
Consultant Blodgett stated that they would look into that also.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that he thought the language was too strong. He stated that he has some issues with the sentence that notes we must have a particular type of exterior light fixture that takes care of some concerns, but he stated that he thinks there may be other ways to accomplish what we need to achieve. We should be able to choose a type of lighting that agrees with our house style.
Consultant Blodgett noted that their intention is not to legislate design, but rather that whatever lighting you have does not create a problem for your neighbor. We have been given some really good direction to go back in and revisit particularly ÒBÓ.
Consultant Blodgett explained that he thought the best way to change the sentence Commissioner Grebbien was concerned about was to say Òor other meansÓ and do a better job of emphasizing what it is we want. He stated that light is also easily mitigated.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that ÒFÓ gives some measurements.
Chairman Wolfe asked what is ÒLight TrespassÓ exactly.
Consultant Blodgett noted that it probably should have been in the definitions. Light Trespass could mean different things to different people. We did not mean just being able to see one of your neighborÕs lights. We are talking about annoying light. It could be unusual in its intensity or placement so that it calls attention to itself. This came out of the General Plan. We will make sure it is in your list of definitions.
Vice Chairman Black suggested that Trespass is Òcreating an objectionable or annoying conditionÓ. Trespass is appropriate here.
Commissioner McCoy mentioned that the code mentions that ÒSecurity LightingÓ must not be on all night and must be equipped with motion sensors. She stated that she would like to see this applied to all outdoor lighting. She stated that she would like to see it stated in the code that it applies to all outdoor lighting.
Vice Chairman Black commented that about 15 years ago, Southern California Edison had a campaign on to encourage people to have their outside lights on all night for security reasons. Since that time we have seen the sodium vapor lights which are almost like daylight. This might need to be emphasized as being inappropriate.
Consultant Blodgett explained that there have been studies that found that bright light does not have an impact on security reduction. He suggested that under ÒDÓ we indicate that exterior lighting including that used for security should be equipped with motion sensors. We will reword that and bring it back to you.
Chairman Wolfe stated that Commissioner McCoy liked ÒDÓ but wanted the rule for regular outside lighting extended to ÒCÓ, ÒGÓ, and ÒHÓ.
Consultant Blodgett commented that 7.7 and 7.8 are reserved for later use as needed. 7.9 – Signs. These Sign Standards apply to every Zone District. We also rely on Performance Standards and Development Standards for signage. He noted that City Attorney Levin and Attorney Paspalis were very helpful. We donÕt allow billboards or commercial signs in our City because it is primarily a residential city. The only area where signs are an issue is in the Institutional Zone where there are churches and schools. 7.9.40 – Sign Standards. We have tried to control the location, extent and size of the signs. We are flexible but not liberal. In 7.9.50 Mr. Blodgett noted signs that are allowed. Public Information signs, Public Notices, City Entry or City Identification signs, certain construction signs with size limited to six square feet in area and no more than five feet in height; we limit Real Estate signs to one temporary sign on site with a limit on the height and area of the sign. We donÕt want yard sale and open house signs all over the City, especially in the public right-of-way where they could cause a safety issue.
Commissioner Baroldi asked for clarification that if you have an open house you are only allowed one sign to direct potential visitors to it.
Consultant Blodgett answered that is correct. We debated that at length.
Mayor Douglas noted that we arenÕt trying to direct the casual passerby. They can use Map Quest.
Vice Chairman Black stated that his opinion is that you would need two signs. You need one at the nearest intersection and then one at the house.
Consultant Blodgett noted that he would take that as a direction.
Commissioner McCoy asked for confirmation that if Mr. Blodgett changes this it will be limited to two signs.
Consultant Blodgett affirmed that there would be a limit of two signs.
Commissioner Baroldi commented that without complete directions you are liable to have people wandering all over the Heights looking for the open house.
Chairman Wolfe noted that it may be an advertising gimmick, but they are sitting there for eight hours and people do buy houses from an open house. He stated that if he were going to have an open house he would want more than one or two signs. He stated that he doesnÕt see a big problem with Real Estate signs as they always remove them.
Mayor Douglas noted that City Attorney Levin had previously brought up that signs are not allowed on City property, such as in the right-of-way.
It was decided that what Vice Chairman Black had really meant was three signs.
Attorney Paspalis noted that the Commission is considering putting a one-day limit on the Real Estate signs.
Commissioner McCoy noted that the open house signs were just temporary for that day.
Commissioner McCoy noted that signs required when a property is about to be developed or modified significantly and following a final decision by the Planning Commission, are not being removed as they are supposed to be. She stated that she thinks it belongs under 7.9.50 – 2. She stated that she would like additional words giving a time limit for taking the signs down after a final decision is made.
Mayor Douglas stated that the City now has a way to have them removed with the citation procedure. It requires the City writing a letter for the citation.
Chairman Wolfe noted that he thinks the code should include direction that the sign be erected the month that it is going to be considered and removed seven days after.
Consultant Blodgett explained that they will revise 7.9.50 – 2 to expand on the limitations that were discussed. He stated that they would also amend sentence 6 that deals with the Real Estate signs for temporary open house signs. We have in this section that Holiday Lighting is limited to a length of 90 days. Yard Sale signs are limited to six square feet in area and can only be up for three days. Temporary non-commercial signs would include election and campaign signs. These signs must have permission of the landowner and need a temporary sign permit. The signs must be removed after the event. Any sign required for health and safety such as fire hazard, detours or any City sponsored event on City property, and commemorations and flags are allowed.
Commissioner McCoy asked on number 12, if you allow a sign to be placed on your own property supporting a candidate do you have to get a permit.
Mayor Douglas explained that it applies to signs placed on many different properties. Agents have to get a permit and be responsible for removing them.
Consultant Blodgett commented that City Attorney Levin made sure he didnÕt make any codes on signs that were illegal. He stated that the section closes with the signs that are not allowed. This includes signs that are a danger by their placement, a commercial sign from some other city, billboards, signs on Public Property unless permitted by the City or the agency that owns it, three dimensional or statue type signs.
Chairman Wolfe asked if birthday signs are allowed on your property.
Consultant Blodgett explained that it was not our intent to regulate that and they will go back in and make sure that it is clear.
Commissioner Grebbien noted that if you were having a birthday party you might need two or three signs to direct people to your home.
Consultant Blodgett noted that we donÕt want to over-legislate, we are trying to protect things that are good. We will either expand 12 or make another bullet.
Attorney Paspalis commented that we do not want to get too deeply into content regulations.
Commissioner
Grebbien suggested on number 3 that you use the more specific word
ÒbillboardÓ.
Vice Chairman Black suggested they say ÒCommercial BillboardsÓ.
Consultant Blodgett stated that he would want to talk to the Attorneys to determine why they had drafted it as they had.
Consultant Blodgett stated that he would like to clarify the setback issues on Animal Keeping Standards.
Commissioner McCoy noted that she would want the stables to be 50 feet from a habitable structure because there are so many non-conforming properties with houses closer than 25 feet from the property line. She stated that in her opinion it would not have to be 50 feet from your own house.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that he is comfortable with a 25-foot setback from the property line.
Attorney Paspalis stated that she would have to look up if the 35-foot County health and safety code setback is enforceable in our City.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt commented that the 35-foot setback is in the County Zoning Code not in the Health and Safety Codes. The Health Department refers back to the Zoning Ordinance to confirm the validity of the 35-foot setback that they require through the Health Department. She stated that we are an incorporated City, but we contract with LA County Health Department.
Commissioner Baroldi asked if the County gives the horse owner the ability to waive that 35 feet.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that she did not think so.
Commissioner Baroldi asked if Counsel would check on that to be sure.
Mayor Douglas noted that front yard setbacks are less likely to cause a neighbor any problem. He stated that in his opinion front yard setbacks were more to preserve community character while sideyard setbacks were more to protect the neighborÕs privacy. He felt that a stable in the front yard setback did fit in with the community character.
Chairman Wolfe stated that he thought there were actually two issues, the setback for stables and the setback for riding rings, pens and enclosures. He stated that his opinion was that stables are a structure and should be under the same setbacks as any other structure. He stated that he was not sure about the pens and enclosures.
Commissioner McCoy noted that horses were not noisy like a motor bike, so why would people get upset just because they were there. She stated that she was not talking about public rings that have contests and loud speaker announcements.
Vice Chairman Black noted that the main issue seems to be the dust created. That could be very annoying.
Chairman Wolfe stated that the horses are probably in those pens or enclosures most of the day.
Commissioner Grebbien commented that some horse owners had told him that they mix sand and decomposed granite in their exercise rings. That mixture with a little moisture would take care of the dust. He stated that he has seen it work.
Chairman Wolfe stated that they are talking about new developments. Anything already there is grandfathered in.
Consultant Blodgett noted that this is what these draft codes are for, new development. The project team can go back and look at the direction you have given us to look at the County requirements. Article 4 is dealing with nuisances. Another section is what happens if you break the law. A lot of these issues are how we deal with nuisances. He suggested that rather than trying to design good behavior, which is mostly already happening, letÕs deal with the few that are creating a problem as nuisances.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that he agrees with that.
Consultant Blodgett stated that they will look things over from this standpoint and the Commission is not making a decision at this time. We will bring this back and you can look at it again. The revisions will be available to the Public before you make a decision and then the City Council will also look at the Ordinances.
Chairman Wolfe commented that he doesnÕt want to put everything in the nuisance basket. He stated that we do need regulations for new development.
Consultant Blodgett stated that they would look at this with the number of horses allowed in different situations and we will look at the LA County setback requirements for animals. We want to have enough direction so a developer of a vacant parcel can come in and understand what parameters they have to comply with when developing a site for these equestrian activities.
Commissioner McCoy asked about Table 7.5. She noted that he had mentioned that the animals are cumulative. She asked where it does say that.
Consultant Blodgett stated that it does not say that and he has a note that it needs clarification.
Commissioner McCoy stated that the old Ordinance stated that pigs and hogs are different from all other animals. She stated that she really does not know why this is. She wondered if he and his team have considered them separately and whether or not they should be considered the same as the sheep and goats.
Consultant Blodgett commented that he has a note to revise Table 7.5 to include that it is a separate category.
Mayor Douglas commented that the Commission recommended staying with two hogs. The existing Code requires they have a cement floor. He explained that about 20 years ago the 4-H studied the situation and came up with those Standards.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that we need to find out if the CountyÕs 35-foot setback is binding on us. He stated that he thought we had asked that before. We need to clarify that. He stated that his opinion is that a 25-foot setback is restrictive. He noted that pens and enclosures should not have to be further than 10 feet from the property line.
Consultant Blodgett noted that he would see that this is all looked into again. We were more concerned with the placement of permanent structures.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that as far as he knows there have seldom been any complaints about the horses.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that the Regular Meeting on September 27, 2005 will begin the official Public Hearings.
Chairman Wolfe stated that he would prefer to refrain from further Public Comment on horses until we get a new revised Draft. Comment has been getting repetitive and we have 17 more chapters to get to.
Consultant Blodgett commented that if we have three continuous hours to work on this he thought we could get through the rest of it.
The Commission agreed to Special Meetings on Tuesday, October 11 and Tuesday, October 18, 2005.
Chairman Wolfe asked to have Public Comment on something other than 7.10 on September 27, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Wolfe adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. to the meeting of October 11, 2005.
Larry Black, Vice-Chairman
ATTEST:
Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Community Development Director