CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

 

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

JANUARY 22. 2008

 

 

OPENING CEREMONIES

 

1.              CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

Chairman Black called the January 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.

 

ROLL CALL

 

Present: Chairperson Larry Black, Commissioners Margarita McCoy, Brent Grebbien, Tony Liu and Carl Westerhoff.

 

Also present: Community Development Director (CDD) Justin Powers, City Planner Barbara Feeler and City Attorney Laurence Permaul.

 

2.              FLAG SALUTE

 

Chairman Black led the flag salute.

 

3.              ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA

 

This item was taken out of order after Item 4.

 

Stephen Blagden, spoke regarding the code meeting; lack of understanding of code sections; call for review.

 

Norm Zezula stated that the General Plan does contain enforceable policies; requested one of the Commissioners to recuse himself during Item 5. The goals of the General Plan must be followed.

 

4.              APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR October 23, 2007

 

Chairman Black moved to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Grebbien and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Black, Grebbien, Lui, McCoy and Westerhoff

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

5.              STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2007-01, GRADING MODIFICATION 2007-01 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2007-01 (FORMER MUNICIPAL CODE) (Hoyt) 2124 Sapota

 

City Planner Feeler stated this item is a Standards Modification for View Preservation and Grading Modification; the proposed grading area and the impervious coverage are close to the maximum allowables; size has increased; number of trees to be removed has been increased; staff’s recommendation was to move the house 25 feet to the south, which will lower the house 3-4 feet in elevation and reduce the fill by about 600 cubic feet; it would cause some additional cut in the project; the project before the Commission affects the neighbors’ view, privacy, safety, project has been made larger, more trees to be removed large amount of cut and fill and a large retaining wall; spoke regarding the findings; staff recommended that the Commission deny the project without prejudice with instructions that the applicant come back with a new project under the new Municipal Code and not to request any variances in that project.

 

Commissioner McCoy asked for staff’s interpretation of a primary view; she felt the view preservation was wider than shown on the pictures.

 

City Planner Feeler referenced a View Preservation Modification Fact Sheet that had been prepared by the former City Attorney Colantuono; the Planning Director determines what the Primary View is and only one view protection is allowed; in this case that their primary view is to the south; the Code does not specify the width of the view.

 

Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing.

 

Brian Hoyt, owner, stated the Planning Staff has disregarded the Planning Commission’s directions from their last meeting and came up with new alternatives; according to his Engineer the staff recommendation is impossible due to the slope; we were advised by the Commission to replace the story poles; they had tried to work things out with Staff and followed directions; how much they should reduce the size of their house; the reduction in size would reduce the cut and fill; the reason we have the cut and fill is to justify the neighbor’s view; the General Plan asks for diversity; he felt that denial with prejudice would be draconian.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated his concern about the increase in height of the southern retaining wall; that a CUP for some of the export would help.

 

Mr. Hoyt stated that they could probably reduce the height of that retaining wall without exporting.

 

City Planner Feeler explained that the Commission is up against the Permit Streamlining Act as to timing and a decision has to be made tonight. There can be no more time extensions.

 

Phil Edmondson, applicant, stated they have tried to give the view and privacy to the Moniz’; stair-stepped the project down the hill; the packet he prepared shows that they can reduce the gradable and impervious areas; they can reduce the height of the retaining wall; they have tried to protect the privacy of the Moniz family; he does not agree with many of the findings that staff wrote; spoke regarding the slope stability; moving the house down the slope would only makes that worse with more trees removed; he asked that it be denied “without prejudice” and they will make changes that are possible as conditions.

 

Tony Snyder, stated he lives below the proposed retaining walls and he was concerned that the amount of grading and the retaining walls would endanger his family; he asked that they not build the large home so close to the edge of the cliff.

 

Craig Moniz, spoke for his parents the Moniz’ about view and privacy; moving the house down the hill gets it further away from the neighbors; the house is huge and does not match the neighborhood; it would take years for the immature trees that will hide the wall to actually screen the 9,000 square feet home; it is a mansion and not the rural feel we want.

 

Norm Zezula stated he disapproved of Mr. Edmondson’s complaints about the Staff; the City is required by the State to make the “findings” and to follow the General Plan; the house is significantly larger than any house in the neighborhood; that is not allowed by the General Plan; residents notified of the project are the ones involved; this house is too large for the lot; violate many General Plan policies; State law requires Planning Commissioners living within 500 feet to recuse themselves; several General Plan Policies are violated.

 

Stephen Blagden, stated that the representations do not exactly represent what he saw when he was there; the City has View Lots not View Spots; General Plan protects Local Views as well as distant views; distant views are not straight out; the proposed structure is an impediment of the Moniz’s view and an invasion of their privacy; their loss is significant; building is too large with too much grading; retaining wall is much too high and too long; there are many General Plan violations; Policy 16 and 17; suggested switching the pool and house and place the garage and parking on the street side of the property; project should be denied as is and should be brought back under the New Code.

 

Lily Moniz, stated that the whole front of the house includes our living room, the dining room, the bedroom and the shower and all have the view impairment.

 

Chairman Black brought the meeting back to the Commission for discussion.

 

Commissioner McCoy moved to deny the project without prejudice.

 

Ms. McCoy stated that in her opinion it violates policies 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 15 and 51. We are to protect the residents’ health, welfare, and safety which she felt we would fail at if we approved this project. It also would involve the value of the property and safety of those below the project.

 

Commissioner Liu discussed seven General Plan violations of this project and noted that the home was massive. He also noted that there was much neighbor opposition. He stated that in his opinion there were too many differences. It is huge.

 

Commissioner Grebbien stated that the narrow view defined by Staff is not a protected view; objected to the grading amounts and the retaining walls and noted that the privacy issues call for keeping the setbacks; the Moniz family pool and patio in the applicants setback which causes the applicant problems, causing them to build on the hill; he would not be able to support the Grading Modification; the grading is excessive and the wall needs to go away.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated the property owners need to think as much about the neighbors issues as their own; he could not see that reducing the size of the house would mitigate the problems; the house does correspond to the General Plan and he had no problem with the retaining wall if reduced to the original size; the City Engineer’s proposed project as described denies the applicant 100% of the most buildable area; did not approve of the recommendation to deny with prejudice and move the project to the New Code; read advice from the City Attorney on a view; the least significant portion of the view is where the house is being built; he would be prepared to offer a motion to approve the project subject to the southernmost retaining walls being returned to the dimensions in the original proposal and having the Commission authorize a CUP for the export of the necessary soils to accomplish that.

 

Chairperson Black stated what he thought was good about the project but also stated that he could not find any way to approve this project along with the large retaining walls and their specific massing; he was concerned about the grading; privacy issues concern him; he couldn’t approve the large retaining wall and it is a large project; he does not have as many issues with the Land Use Polices listed by some of the Commissioners and that the view is not impaired as much as it had been; the massing viewed from below is a concern.

 

Commissioner McCoy noted that the New General Plan was made to supersede the Old Code, but they are under the Old Code for this project.

 

City Attorney Permaul explained that we need to comply with the General Plan. We presume that the Code agrees with the General Plan.

 

Commissioner Grebbien stated that after reading the section on “view”, in his opinion, he did not think that the view we are considering is a protected view; he does not like to see the grading pushed so close to the limits and he does not like the retaining wall; he could not make a finding that the grading meets the General Plan goal to maintain the conformity of the land; their attempt to step down the hillside does move toward that goal.

 

            Commissioner Liu stated that whether a home is considered big depends where it is; home is big for La Habra Heights; the large size causes the problems with the large cut and fill numbers; the “view” was no longer a problem, but the other land use problems were still there.

 

City Planner Feeler stated that if the Commission changes any of the findings in the Resolution, they must also list the findings they have made and any other changes made to the Resolution, such as an approval.

 

Commissioner McCoy stated the General Plan states that mansionization must be addressed by the City; she would be opposed to any last minute patching by conditions to make the project passable.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that he cannot accept the Resolution as it seems to be in conflict with provisions of the Code and he stated that he does not know if the General Plan is consistent with the Code.

 

Chairman Black stated that they should vote on the motion made by Commissioner McCoy.

City Attorney Permaul stated that the motion Commissioner McCoy made to approve Staff’s recommendation to deny without prejudice should include “Standards Modification 2007-01, Grading Modification 2007-01 and Tree Removal Permit 2007-01 for Hoyt at 2124 Sapota”.

 

Commissioner McCoy agreed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Liu.

 

Commissioner Grebbien stated they should help the applicant to come to some solution for the project.

 

Chairman Black stated that he could not make all of the findings against the project that Staff made.

 

Commissioner McCoy asked if the motion could be made to approve the “tree removal” portion while denying the Standards Modification and Grading Modification.

 

City Attorney Permaul stated that they had to be made together.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff asked if there are any other options for the decision tonight.

 

Chairman Black stated that if this motion did not pass, they would have to go through each finding to see if they could make it.

 

City Planner Feeler explained that if the Commission wished, they can change the recommendation.

 

City Attorney Permaul reminded the Commission that there is an appeal process; it can be appealed to the City Council.

 

Commissioner Grebbien asked if the Commission has the authority to deny without prejudice and have the project come back under the Old Code.

 

Attorney Permaul stated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to authorize a project to go back under the old or new Code; as a re-submittal it would come back under the New Code.

 

Chairman Black clarified that if they deny the project without prejudice it will be resubmitted under the New Code.

 

City Attorney Permaul stated that it had been extended for 90 days on November 27.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that he would like to see another meeting within the 90 day extension for February because he was of the opinion that it is possible for Staff and Commission to get closer in agreement on the project; he would like to see Commissioner McCoy’s motion withdrawn and the item continued to February; suggested a sub-committee to work out a solution.

 

Chairman Black explained that they only have 30 days left for a decision when they come back; there will have to be a Special Meeting to meet the deadline, if this Item is continued, it will be directed that the Commissioners, individually, come back with findings that would allow them to formulate a motion that addresses which findings of Staff we agree with or do not, and state the reasons why and how the remediation could be made to approve the permit applications and have the conditions that would be needed to provide directions to Staff.

 

Commissioner McCoy withdrew her motion to “deny without prejudice”.

 

Commissioner McCoy stated that this project as proposed lowers the Moniz’s property value.

 

Chairman Black called for a short intermission at 10:03 p.m. to change the tape and the meeting was resumed at 10:30 p.m.

 

Chairman Black checked with Commissioner Liu to see if he agreed to the withdrawal of Commissioner McCoy’s motion.

 

Commissioner Liu agreed to the withdrawal.

 

Chairman Black moved to continue Standards Modification 2007-01, Grading Modification 2007-01 and Tree Removal Permit 2007-01 to a Special Meeting on the 19^th of February at 7:00 p.m.; which would keep the Commission within the Permit Streamlining Act so the Commissioners can come back with each of the findings in the Staff report to decide whether or not there is agreement with those findings and concerns regarding the project and proposed ameliorations.

 

City Attorney Permaul suggested that each Commissioner could make up how they would like the Resolution to read and submit them to Staff 72 hours before the meeting.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff asked if it is allowed to discuss a Commissioner’s Resolution ahead of time with Staff.

 

City Attorney Permaul stated that it would be allowed.

 

Chairman Black indicated that anything given to Staff for the Staff Report should be turned in by February 13^th.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff seconded Chairman Black’s motion and the motion was approved as follows:

 

AYES: Black, Grebbien, Liu, McCoy and Westerhoff

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

 

6.              PROJECT 2007-50 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 16700 SKYLINE DRIVE (COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE) FOR INSTALLATION OF TWO MICROWAVE DISHES

 

City Planner Feeler stated that the application by David Moss and Associates, Inc. for Coast Community College is for a Conditional Use Permit for two 6 foot microwave dishes on the Coast Community College antenna at 16700 Skyline Drive; Staff’s recommendation is to adopt Resolution 2008-01 approving Project 2007-50, for a Conditional Use Permit to add two six foot microwave dishes (not to exceed 35 feet from grade) on the existing antenna; the facility is unmanned; staff presented a history of the antenna approval; it was exclusively for non-profit use; there are three non-profit users of the site; with this application the owner has granted us a third future antenna site for the City’s use; this will help with the implementation of the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan; the Fire Chief has supported the tower and antennas; the City could use all three sites for emergency type uses.

 

Chairman Black opened the meeting for Public Comment.

 

David Moss, Moss and Associates, stated they have familiarized themselves with the history of approvals for Coast Community College; presented the immediate goal of the Coast Community College District (CCCD); using the existing tower avoids the need to erect further towers; two microwave dishes will require radio equipment to be installed in the building that is already there; they will grant three locations to the City for use on this tower for Public Service and Emergency uses.

 

Rob McMullen, spoke about the pictures of the site that they have provided for the City; stated how the dishes would only be visible from two of the four vantage points; this proposal does not present an additional visual impact.

 

Mr. Moss stated normally he would be asking for a 10 year CUP for Coast Community College, but on June 22, 2009 the entire site will be up for a new CUP; he noted the importance of what the CCCD is trying to do and that they have to comply with FCC rules; these dishes would also be used for Community Services.

 

Commissioner McCoy asked if the tower is lighted at night.

 

Mr. Moss stated that it is required that any tower over 200 feet tall must have approved FAA lighting; it has top lights and the two side lights that are required.

 

Stephen Blagden, stated the original CUP was for a KOCE broadcast antenna for Public Television, under the ownership of Coast Community College District; a 25 story tall tower with flashing lights in the middle of the wildlife corridor is not consistent with our rural environment; series of law suits and appeals ending in 2007 when KOCE was sold; KOCE now leases the facility from CCCD; lease agreement should have been part of the application and this item should be continued until it is made available as this application may conflict with KOCE leasehold rights; in February of 2009 analog signals will cease and the La Habra Heights site will no longer be capable of its permitted use; the tower may shortly after that come down; it would be unwise to establish new uses for such a tower; CCCD is renting out space on the tower for income which is not allowed under the CUP; the CUP only allowed a Television Transmitter; there are more dishes and antennas visible than enumerated in their application; the applicant should disclose what each antenna is being used for; KOCE was practically the only station that did not broadcast the emergency storm warnings earlier this month; the application contains several questionable statements; we still have the promise of two spaces on the tower; and we should have them fulfill the agreement for landscaping that they did not do in the past; sufficient evidence exists to deny the CUP based on incompatibility with the sole allowed use as a Television Broadcast site.

 

Norm Zezula, stated that there is an archive tape of the meeting in 2004 where the present CUP for the tower was approved; does the fact that the tape of that meeting is not available for review affect the ability of the Planning Commission to act on the CUP tonight.

 

Chairman Black stated that he would keep the Public Hearing open, but would bring the meeting back to the Commission for discussion.

 

Commissioner McCoy stated that she would be opposed to approval of a CUP beyond 2009 since we cannot review the 2004 tape.

 

Chairman Black asked if Staff thought the tower would exist beyond June, 2009.

 

City Planner Feeler stated that it would be up to the City if there are entities that want to continue tower use; in the minutes of the City Council Meeting that approved the last CUP, there was no discussion of expiration of that extension; staff put that in the Resolution that went to the Planning Commission with that date and then went to the Council with that date and was approved; usually there is a time limit and quite often it is for 10 years, but in this case it was for 5 years.

 

Commissioner McCoy asked who is responsible for repair on the tower.

 

City Planner Feeler stated that the CCCD owns the land and the tower and they are responsible for it.

 

Chairman Black moved to approve project 2007-50 Conditional Use Permit at 16700 Skyline Drive for Coast Community College to install two microwave dishes on the tower until June 22, 2009 under the New Municipal Code 7.19.60. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Liu and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Black, Grebbien, Liu, McCoy and Westerhoff

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

 

City Planner Feeler commented that under the New Municipal Code the Planning Commission is the final authority, it does not go to the City Council for adoption of the CUP.

 

ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

There was no comment from the Commission.

 

ITEMS FROM STAFF

 

7.         MONTHLY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS – October, November, and December 2007

 

Commissioner McCoy asked for an explanation of what is happening at 707 Dorothea.

 

City Planner Feeler explained that the City filed a lawsuit and it went to Court; the Court appointed a “receiver”, which is an independent party, to take temporary custody of the property; they will be responsible for seeing to the remediation of the property and returning it to the original condition; there is a list pendence filed on the City’s behalf against the property which prohibits selling it until we get the situation resolved; the appraisals on the property came to about $600,000 and the bank would only loan $300,000 for the work needed; the actual estimated cost of everything will come to approximately $350,000; the “receiver” has come to an agreement with one of the contractors that he will waive his fees for a six month period; the “receiver” is a firm that does only court appointed receiverships; the Court ruled that the owner of the property is Dean Smith; , but the Court took the property away from him and gave it to the “receiver” until all of the remediation is completed; if there is any money left, the property will go back to Mr. Smith and if there is no money left, the property will be sold to pay for whatever indebtedness the “receiver” incurs.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Chairman Black adjourned the January 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting at 11:21 p.m.

to the February 19^th Special Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m.

 

 

____________________

Larry Black, Chairman

 

ATTEST:

 

________________________________________________

Justin Powers, Community Development Director