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 to order a Special Meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission at 7:20 p.m. in the Community Center, 1245 Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Vice Chairman Larry Black, Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Brent Grebbien, Margarita McCoy and Alternate Commissioner Steve Garcia. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Craig Melicher, City Attorney Sandra Levin, Mayor Douglas and Consultant Marc Blodgett.
Chairman Wolfe was absent.
3. FLAG SALUTE
City Manager Ron Bates led the flag salute.
4. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA
Michael Bagwell, Dorothea Road, spoke on import and export of fill, which requires a CUP if over 1,000 cubic yards; should keep current Ordinance; should not allow grading of 100% of property; spoke on drainage; environmental consideration.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, spoke regarding limits to the graded area; stakes showing limits for graded area and disturbed areas.
The Commission discussed variances brought up by Mr. Blagden with the Community Development Director (CDD), City Attorney Levin and Mayor Douglas.
The consensus of the Commission was that we need the concept of the table on variances.
Consultant Blodgett commented that he liked the concept of this and would work with the rest of the team and bring it back in the redline version for consideration.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
0:20:10
5. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2005-01 – Article 7 – Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 7.5. Non Conforming Structures, Land Uses, and Lots
City Attorney Levin presented a brief overview of Chapter 7.5.
7.5.30 Modifications to Existing Legal Nonconforming Structures
City Attorney Levin stated the overall concept is that anything that is existing legal nonconforming gets to stay but it can only be modified with certain findings, including that it doesnÕt increase the nonconformity, otherwise it will trigger a Discretionary Review; we will look at remodels to see if there is a reasonable way to decrease the nonconformity.
A. Legal Nonconforming Nonresidential Structures
Ms. Levin stated that you must make sure it does not make the nonconformity worse, obtain a CUP and make reasonable efforts to decrease the nonconformity.
The Commission discussed what nonresidential structures consist of.
B. Legal Nonconforming Residential Structures. Additions or modifications to a legal nonconforming residential structures are permitted only if one of the following applies.
Mr. Blodgett continued with the overview; This is allowed if it doesnÕt increase the nonconformity and doesnÕt trigger any Discretionary Review; If discretionary approval has been granted and the addition does not increase the nonconformity and the finding has been made that reasonable efforts have been made to decrease the nonconformity; A Standards Modification and any other discretionary approval required are obtained, and the finding is made that reasonable effort have been made to minimize nonconformities and their impacts.
C. Reconstruction of Structure after Damage or Destruction. A damaged or destroyed legal nonconforming structure may be reconstructed as follows:
Mr. Blodgett stated Less than Fifty Percent Destruction will allow replacement. If less than 50% is damaged it may be replaced as long as the nonconformity is not increased; If more than 50% of house is destroyed you would reconstruct under present development Standards. You still can request a Standards Modification.
City Attorney Levin gave an example of why the Commission might want to increase the nonconformity.
Mr. Blodgett continued the overview with Required for Health and Safety. If the nonconformity is required for health and safety reasons it is permitted.
7.5.40 Modifications to Existing Legal Nonconforming Uses
Mr. Blodgett state there are nonconforming uses for structures and land; Required for Health and Safety; Legal Nonconforming Uses. Most of these require CUPÕs and any new use other than on their permit would not be allowed except what is required for maintenance; Loss of Nonconforming Status. A building that is not in use over a year, it is presumed abandoned and loses its protection of legal nonconforming status.
City Attorney Levin noted that this loss of nonconforming status applies only to nonconforming uses.
7.5.50 Nonconforming Lots
Mr. Blodgett stated that this deals with protection of nonconforming lots that were subdivided before the CityÕs incorporation in 1978.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt commented that if it is a legal lot recorded at the County Recorders office by 1978, it is a legal lot.
7.5.60 Review of Existing Nonconformities as Part of Development Review Process
Mr. Blodgett continued that this section calls for a review of existing nonconformities on the property as part of any Discretionary Review; Corrective Health and Safety Measures. Any nonconforming condition affecting health or safety must be corrected; Remediation of Existing Site Development Deficiencies. You have to refer to Table 7-2. If you have an existing nonconformity, as part of the review of that development application there may be some opportunities to remedy some other nonconformities as long as there is a nexus that is maintained. Table 7-2 gives such examples.
The Commissioners discussed Chapter 7.5.
City Attorney Levin explained that most of these nonconformities and remedies would require a Standards Modification to increase a nonconformity and would come before the Commission.
Mayor Douglas noted that while you use this information, you still must follow the preservation of Community Character, Privacy and View.
City Attorney Levin noted that the General Plan gives us guidance on the kinds of impacts we should look for.
Consultant Blodgett commented that the matrix provides suggestions for remedies that might be used at the discretion of Staff or the Commission.
Vice Chair Black asked that they move on to Chapter 7.19 – Zoning Administration.
0:51:08
Chapter 7.19 Zoning Administration
Mr. Blodgett stated this chapter outlines the basic elements that could introduce a change or modification to this Ordinance or the procedures in the process that should be followed in both the Administrative and the Discretionary Review of new development.
7.19.30 General Plan Amendments
Mr. Blodgett stated this section defines what would constitute a General Plan Amendment. It could be a change in land use. It is a discretionary action and requires consideration by the Planning Commission, which recommends it to the City Council for approval.
7.19.40 Specific Plan Amendments
Mr. Blodgett state the Specific Plan is governed by the requirements of the State of California. This Section outlines procedures for the review and adoption of a Specific Plan. This is also a discretionary action by the Planning Commission, which recommends it to the City Council for approval.
The Commission discussed the process for amending the Specific Plan.
City Attorney Levin noted that the Commission would recommend an Amendment to the City Council.
7.19.50 Zoning Map or Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Mr. Blodgett continued with the overview. A zoning map change would also require a General Plan amendment. A change of Zoning Map or a Zoning Ordinance Text can be initiated and this would have to be recommended to the City Council for approval.
7.19.60 Conditional Use Permits
Mr. Blodgett state we have established procedures for this discretionary review and the big change is that the Planning Commission is the main approval body, although there can be an appeal to the City Council. We also have outlined the findings and the ability of the Commission to impose conditions of approval. The CUP process is discretionary and is subject to the Environmental Review requirements of CEQA. Mr. Blodgett noted that we have a list in 7.3.20 of permitted uses for CUPs but we have streamlined that list from the County list we had before. If you go to Table 7-1 at the end of Chapter 7.3, the matrix has the various land use designations.
7.19.70 Variances
Mr. Blodgett stated a Variance cannot be granted for a use, only for a Standard. Certain findings have to be made. Section F. lists the findings that are needed. A Public Hearing is required and the Commission is the approval body. It can be called for appeal by the City Council.
Mayor Douglas noted that in the old code, Variances went before the City Council and now it comes before the Commission and the new code allows you to modify many more things.
The Commissioners discussed with Staff how to set numerical limits or make a judgement on an aesthetic variance and how to decide the gray areas.
City Attorney Levin explained that the City tries to give the Commission as much general guidance as possible, but there are discretionary decisions that will have to be decided. The new code gives everyone more guidance than before.
Mayor Douglas noted that we try to give as many numerical limits as possible to help. Decisions will get easier as time goes on with experience in making them.
7.19.80 Standards Modifications
Consultant Blodgett stated that it does address some of the unique circumstances of La Habra Heights. This will be the most widely used Administrative procedure for the City. The approving authority is the Planning Commission but it can be appealed to the City Council. There also can be the ÒCall for ReviewÓ, which needs to be incorporated into this Section.
Mr. Blodgett explained that the matrix in Table 7-13 outlines the modifications that can be considered as part of a Standards Modification and then describes those modifications. Findings need to be made.
Mr. Blodgett noted that the City Council can ÒCall for ReviewÓ on a Commission decision and the Commission can ÒCall for ReviewÓ on any Administrative or Ministerial decision that Staff has made.
City Attorney Levin stated that in connection with View issues, we recommended changes in the findings for Standard Modifications. Findings 2 and 3 are changed considerably.
Mr. Blodgett noted that they will try to get the redline version to the Commission as soon as possible. He noted that we will find a way to incorporate elements of the matrix presented by Mr. Blagden.
The Commission discussed the need for a notarized application.
Commissioner Baroldi suggested that 7.19.90 A. notes that the ownerÕs signature should be notarized. This is to be sure he knows whatÕs on the application.
City Attorney Levin noted that the redline version will also contain a Section on Subdivisions and Lot-Line Adjustments.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt suggested they have a Special Planning Commission meeting on December 20, 2005. The Regular meeting is on December 27, 2005.
City Attorney Levin suggested that we could combine the Regular Meeting with the Special meeting on the 20th. Staff will decide if the two meetings can be consolidated and the Commission will decide which date they want to meet on.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to have a Special meeting on December 20, 2005.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt commented that Staff compared four recently reviewed projects and came up with a number of new items that need to be dealt with in terms of review.
Mayor Douglas explained that you need to see if the existing project meets the new Code and if it is particularly burdensome to meet the new Code.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that the waiver form to enter property being considered by the Commission has not been completed and given to the Attorney for approval.
Commissioner McCoy reminded Staff that she requested the next Regular Agenda contain an item for recommending that City Council appoint an Arbitration team.
Vice Chair Black explained to the Commission and the public that Chairman Wolfe has resigned.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Black adjourned the meeting at 9:11p.m. to the Special meeting of December 20, 2005 for the continued Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m.
Larry Black, Vice Chairman
ATTEST:
Justin Powers, Community Development Director