CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 25, 2006
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairman Larry Black called a meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Community Center, 1245 Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights.
2. ROLL CALL
3. FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Grebbien led the flag salute.
4. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA
George Edwardz, suggested a dry hydrant from all new swimming pools; a 30-foot clearance around homes; vinyl windows will melt; code should require a ball valve on the water line.
John Beau, spoke about what Commissioner McCoy stated regarding the General Plan; residents should have been more involved in making the General Plan;
Stephen Blagden, spoke regarding the GPAC meetings; he supplied the Planning Commission with state maps of landslide and Alquist Priolo areas, noting necessity to review these when going over ÒSubdivisionsÓ.
John Beau, stated that he meant that there should have been more residents as part of the GPAC. The residents didnÕt get to speak until the General Plan was almost formed.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 27, 2006
Vice Chairman Baroldi offered a motion to approve the June 27, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia and approved as follows:
ABSTAIN: Margarita McCoy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
0:14:45
6. ARTICLE 9 – SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Community Development Director Justin Powers noted that the Planning Commission can only change some of the policy issues.
Assistant Attorney Kathy Paspalis explained that Article 9 is mostly taken from the Subdivision Map Act and there is little that can be modified from it. Each City is required to adopt their Subdivision Ordinance from the StateÕs Subdivision Map Act.
Each Commissioner noted what they thought might be changed.
á Commissioner Grebbien noted that Section 9.2.60 states that the land before division must contain a minimum of one acre or more. Since we require one acre per lot, the sentence should say a minimum of two acres.
á Assistant Attorney Paspalis noted that the sentence could be removed or edited.
á Commissioner Grebbien noted on page 9-23, Section 9.6.20 B-4 speaks about the scale of final maps and says Òone foot equals one hundred-foot scale.Ó May we use a different scale if necessary?
Assistant Attorney Paspalis stated that the rest of the sentence really allows us to set our own needs to get a clear picture of the plans. She stated she would check if we can change it.
Commissioner Grebbien noted that on page 9-46, 9.12.20, Prohibitions, paragraph one mentions an exception of Model Homes. Do we even need that?
Assistant Attorney Paspalis answered that it has to stay.
Assistant Attorney Paspalis stated that Item F covers off site improvements that we can require.
Chairman Black noted that the letter from Mr. Blagden cites F also.
Assistant Attorney Paspalis noted that Item F also covers that we can require anything we need, including edits or impoundments, not just drainage.
Chairman Black discussed with staff an item brought up on Page 9-16, Section 9.4.30 K-7. ÒFindings for DenialÓ. How would we know a certain condition exists and what type of discovery process in required?
Community Development Director Powers explained that they would have to go through CEQA.
Commissioner Garcia asked where it discusses the number of lots that make up a Sub-division. Is there a difference depending on the number of lots involved?
Assistant Attorney Paspalis explained that there are different requirements with four or less parcels and when there are more, but any division of land comes under the Subdivision Map Act, including a lot line adjustment. The differences would be covered in 9.3 through 9.6. Ten or more lots require a Specific Plan.
á Vice Chairman Baroldi noted that he would like to see in 9.1 a mention that a Specific Plan is needed for Subdivisions with ten or more parcels.
á Community Development Director Powers (CDD) stated that it would be nice to state in that paragraph which Sections cover the different size Subdivisions.
á Assistant Attorney Paspalis clarified that the Commission would like to see the Specific Plan requirements explained at 9.1 and a brief note of what four or less and five or more parcels would require.
The Commission agreed with this addition.
á Commissioner Garcia asked that some reference to Article 7 requirements be made in Article 9 for when lots are actually developed.
á Assistant Attorney Paspalis explained that it can be added in 9.4.30-A, that Òany application for a tentative map shall be subject to Article 7.Ó
á Commissioner McCoy mentioned a numbering mix-up on page 9-17.
Assistant Attorney Paspalis noted that she had corrected that before and would correct it again.
á The Commission asked that in 9.3 it should be made clearer that if they do not receive a waiver they go to 9.4.
á Commissioner McCoy asked that Assistant Attorney Paspalis look over 9.10.90, the Request for Determination by Owner to make sure there are no errors or typos in it.
Chairman Black opened the meeting for public comment.
1:34:40
Stephen Blagden, noted what requires a Specific Plan according to the General Plan; rules for lot line adjustments may not make a non-conforming lot; 9.3.40 should not waive a parcel map.
Assistant Attorney Paspalis explained that 9.3.40 is talking about a waiver of submittal requirements, not parcel maps. Parcel Maps are discussed in 9.3.50.
á After discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to delete 9.3.50, which would allow a waiver of the parcel map.
Mr. Blagden continued suggesting we also require a tentative map and add to 9.4.30-2 Òapplications by other than the legal owner shall be accompanied by notarized authority to the subdivider acting on the ownerÕs behalf.Ó Mr. Blagden spoke about showing contours on maps for 9.8.
á The Commission agreed to add the sentence suggested by Mr. Blagden on 9.4.30-2.
á After discussion the Commissions consensus was to have contours shown at five-foot intervals on areas that would not be disturbed and on disturbed areas the map contours should be shown at two-foot intervals.
Mr. Blagden under D4 provided a map with landslides; he stated that Engineering might want to look at it; he suggested that the land should be surveyed and different colored flags be used to distinguish the different parcels.
á The consensus of the Commission was to recommend under 9.9, colored flags as required by the CDD to distinguish the different parcels.
2:01:30
Mr. Blagden suggested that in 9.10 it should be noted that the percolation tests should be prior to the subdivision; also regarding 9.11, should they have to locate or map natural resources? After Number 4-J, add a number 5 concerning failure to indemnify; questioned N about the Planning Commission being adversely affected by an appeal (there has been an Attorney General decision on this).
á Vice Chairman Baroldi noted that in his opinion the phrase, Òadversely affects a personÓ, was vague and asked the Assistant City Attorney to review what the Attorney GeneralÕs opinion is.
Mr. Blagden asked who approves the request mentioned in 9.4.40.
The Assistant City Attorney noted that the Planning Commission approves the request.
Mr. Blagden commented on E-1 on the extension of a tentative map.
Assistant City Attorney Paspalis noted that E-1 and E-2 cannot be altered.
Mr. Blagden asked the Assistant Attorney about E-3. When an extension comes up, if a mistake had been made on figures, can they be corrected then?
Assistant Attorney Paspalis answered that nothing could be corrected at that time but the extension would be denied. F and C give further information.
Mr. Blagden commented on 9.3.5 where he suggested adding ÒMinor Lot Line AdjustmentsÓ as a report and 9.5 Vesting Tentative Maps suggested that a certified copy of the ordinances policies and standards in effect at the time of approval should be recorded with the map.
Although the Commission liked this idea, the Assistant Attorney noted that this would be impossible to record with the County Recorder due to the bulk.
Chairman Black noted that there could be some kind language that would allow Council to create some message of attachment so that the appropriate information is found.
Mr. Blagden noted that on 9.6. Final Maps H 1 – It should be added that the any conditions and any noted exhibits should be noted on the final map and recorded with it and he stated that recording the Resolution of approval would not be too much.
á The consensus of the Commission was to make reference to Conditions of Approval, CUPÕs and Resolutions involved as the CDD decides so they can be looked up.
Mr. Blagden continued, mentioning 9.8.6 option of taking money rather than doing certain things.
á The consensus of the Commission was to take out 6.
Mr. Blagden noted 9.12.20 Prohibitions, where it says Òshould not build on a parcel that has not been recordedÓ, after the word ÒbuildÓ, add the words Òor gradeÓ.
á The consensus of the Commission was to add those words.
Assistant Attorney Paspalis stated that she would have to research this and if she can, she will add the words.
Chairman Black closed the Public Hearing and returned the meeting to the Commission.
There were no comments from the Commission.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
CDD Powers provided a written report. He stated that he tries to make the reports as clear and interesting as he can so if you see something interesting you can ask about it.
7. REPORT ON PLANNING/BUILDING CASELOAD
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner McCoy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m. Seconded by Chairman Black.
All Ayes.
________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Justin Powers, Community Development Director