CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

 

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

 

 

OPENING CEREMONIES

 

1.              CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

Chairman Larry Black called the September 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

 

ROLL CALL

 

Present: Chairman Larry Black, Commissioners Brent Grebbien, Tony Liu, and Carl Westerhoff

Absent: Margarita McCoy

 

Also present: Planning Commission Attorney Daniel Ballin and City Planner Kenneth Phung.

 

2.              FLAG SALUTE

 

Chairman Black led the flag salute.

 

3.              ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA

 

Stephen Blagden suggested placing “Acknowledgement of Posting of the Agenda” back on the agenda as there are sometimes questions if a project is posted. He also noted the proposed code changes are contrary to the language and intent of the General Plan, and what was intended by those who originally drafted the document.

 

CONSENT CALENDAR

 

4.              APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 22, 2008

 

RECOMMENDATION: That by Minute Action the Planning Commission approves Planning Commission Minutes for July 22, 2008.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff moved to accept the July 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Liu and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Black, Grebbien, Liu, and Westerhoff

NOES: None

ABSENT: McCoy

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing for comment.

 

5.              STANDARDS MODIFICATION PRJ 2008-18 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2008-01 (COLLINS) 2023 SHARPLESS DRIVE

 

The applicant John Collins is requesting Standards Modification for grading and hardscape consisting of a decorative patio area and additional grading for a greater usable yard area in excess of the administrative limits and a Tree Removal Permit for removal of seven (7) trees, three of which are considered mature trees and replacing them with thirty-three (33) 24” box trees at 2023 Sharpless Drive.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Pending testimony at the public hearing and the deliberations of the Planning Commission, it is recommended the Planning Commission approve the project with the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval.

 

City Planner Phung noted that this Public Hearing was posted in the newspaper as required by State Law and posted in the appropriate places in the Community. Mr. Phung noted that this project is at 2023 Sharpless Drive and he presented the history of the project from when it was part of an approved multi-lot development in September 2004. The Landscaping and Irrigation plans were approved by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2008 and Mr. John Collins now owns the property. He removed existing trees and planted new trees, and created a flat yard area and a patio area without a permit. A stop work order was given to him on July 31, 2008. Work was later continued and staff issued a second stop work order on August 12, 2008. City Planner Phung continued with further detail on each item. He showed the view from 2021 Skyline Vista and noted a restrictive covenant by HQT homes that states any trees on Mr. Collins’ property beyond the front yard setback cannot exceed three (3) feet above the finished floor of 2021 Skyline Vista. City Planner Phung noted that the grading area requires Planning Commission approval and the hardscape can be approved under the Standard Modification limits of the code. He recommended approval with the amended conditions of limiting tree height to no more than 3-feet taller than the finish floor of 2021 Skyline Vista.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff asked what a mature tree is and what the Code limitation is on tree heights and whether it is for trees already there or newly planted trees.

 

City Planner Phung stated that a mature tree is recognized by a 20” diameter.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Ballin explained that the Planning Commission has the authority to place tree height conditions on their approval. Staff does not have that authority. Staff could only make a recommendation. Mr. Ballin noted that there is no rule in the Code that restricts the height of trees through the landscape plan. He stated that he would review the Standards Modifications code.

 

City Planner Phung passed out the latest approved landscape plan that he found after the Planning Commission packets where sent.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff asked why Mr. Phung felt it necessary to limit the height of all trees on the property.

 

Mr. Phung stated that he thought it would be fair in recognition of the restrictive covenant, and noted the Planning Commission does not have to approve his recommendation.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that he assumed that staff or the Commission does not have the authority to limit landscaping in ways that are not defined in the Code, so he needs a clear understanding of what the Code provides.

 

Attorney Ballin read Code Section 17.12.30 mentioning landscaping performance standards for all new construction and remodeling. Views are mentioned in Section 17.12.40 sub-section G which states that landscaping materials must be selected to minimize the obstruction of protected views, both at the time of planting and at maturity.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that anything existing trees planted prior to the adoption of the Code does not come under these rules.

 

City Planner Phung stated agreement.

 

Commissioner Grebbien asked if the retaining wall design by Mr. Collins required any engineering approval or soils work.

 

City Planner Phung answered that nothing more was required of the retaining wall in terms of design. He deferred to the engineer regarding the soils report, and noted this would be assessed on a case by case basis.

 

Chairman Black asked if older trees would be included in height restrictions if they were included in a new development or for significant remodel.

 

City Planner Phung stated that he would have to defer to the attorney, but the restriction covenant did not include any existing trees on the Collins property.

 

Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing for public comment.

 

Mariellen Ross, 2021 Skyline Vista, stated that this project was governed by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and cannot be modified by a Standards Modification; there are no Landscaping or Engineering Plans; the CUP must be modified; the Standards Modification violates the CUP application. There were significant number of trees removed and new tress planted which affects her views. She noted the originally approved house of 2023 Sharpless Drive was required to reduce the expansive appearance of the roofline and the trellis extended the roofline. She stated the patio was completed without permits and the homeowners were advised of all of the restrictions on their property when he purchased it from HQT. The homeowners at 2023 Sharpless Drive have not followed instructions from the Planning Department and the restrictive covenants, and continued to work after the stop work order was given. The Planning Commission must follow the Code; Ms. Ross stated that the retaining wall is higher than four feet and cannot legally be placed where it is; she cited the Code sections she believes have been violated and stated that Mr. Collins’ project has reduced her property’s value. She asked that the Planning Commission defer a decision on the project now and demand a Grading Plan and Landscape Plan that does not have Sequoias in the view corridor.

 

John Collins, 2023 Sharpless Drive, stated that at no time did he have knowledge of violating any code; he stated that the trees taken out were old and entangled in the power lines on the road and he took pictures of them and gave them to the Planning Department; three trees were dead; he has replaced them with smaller trees and has planted two sequoias where they will not bother her protected view; he did not know about the rule on mature trees and thought what he did was legal; he stated that he does not believe he moved as much earth as the Planning Department says and that he had a permit for the grading before he started it; Mr. Collins stated that he was told by someone in the Planning Department that he did not need a permit for the retaining wall if it was under four feet and after he worked on it he found out the employee was incorrect; when he added the trellis he thought he had 1100 feet of hardscape use left and he stated that he was not told by HQT that there were restrictions on the property; they gave him a large book of documents which he gave to his Attorney to look over before he signed for the house; then the City came out and notified him that he did not have the 1100 feet of hardscape he thought he had, and they gave him a stop work order and he was ready to pour the concrete and he did go ahead with the concrete.

 

Commissioner Liu asked if he contacted the electric company about the condition of the trees and their wires.

 

Mr. Collins stated that he did not but he took photographs of the trees before he cut them down.

 

Commissioner Liu asked if the grading was done by a licensed contractor and if he had a drawing or design for this work and also asked how he knew the retaining wall was acceptable, and who told him that he did not need a permit.

 

Mr. Collins stated that he had a licensed contractor for the work but there was no document or plan. He stated that it was not really holding back a big hill. It is very small and he stated that he did know what employee told him he did not need a permit, and he had already talked to the Planning Department about it.

 

Bill Ross, 2021 Vista Drive, noted that as this project has continued for five years it has left us with the impression that the City has a double standard for residents and developers as far as the standards that we keep them to. He stated that HQT had the trees trimmed prior to the development of the property. He stated that people do often get conflicting information from the Planning Department. We have ignored the general procedures for a project to move ahead and ensure that the City meets good development standards. His main concern is the lack of documents.

 

Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, stated that the City does have means to control existing vegetation that blocks people’s view from the General Plan; the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for grading on a multi-lot governs this property and the proposed property violates three sections of this CUP, so a CUP modification is needed; the wall and the grading are in the slope easement and to do this they would need to apply for a slope easement vacation or remove the wall and grading; there is an over height wall in the setback; a proper plan is needed for grading; the City should have a grading plan from HQT to compare with the applicants; this should be continued to next month and you should request a timeline of the permits and stop work orders.

 

John Collins explained that he took a grading plan in and talked to the engineer and he stated that the wall would be proper if it was changed from six foot to a three foot high wall.

 

Chairman Black closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the Commission.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff moved to adopt Resolution 2008-011.

 

The motion failed as there was no second.

 

Chairman Black noted that staff recommended the project with conditions; he noted his concern about the work that was done without approval and stated his greatest concern is the view issue and he asked staff what they were thinking when they approved the project with conditions and did not show more concern with the violations.

 

City Planner Phung confirmed that staff did give Mr. Collins some incorrect information. However, there is no Code prohibiting planting of trees on the property, only with views; when he became involved he went to Mr. Collins and informed him that certain things did not conform to the Code and suggested some adjustments to the retaining wall and noted that it did not require a permit; Mr. Collins made the adjustments; there was a permit for the trellis. City Planner Phung noted that he obtained the latest plans in the electronic file and felt it was accurate. The City no longer keeps hard copies in the file. They are in the Questis system on line. He stated that he and the attorney did not believe the CUP was specific enough to limit more planting of trees.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that the Commission is not here to decide past problems between two residents; he viewed the property at an earlier time and again now with Mr. Collins; people in our City are often reluctant to put much money into refurbishing and remodeling their property because it is such a painful process; staff has recommended we approve the project; he did not see a way to make this better before approving it; have the Ross’s and Collins’s work together on the view starting from where we are now.

 

The Commission continued discussion on the project.

 

Chairman Black stated his greatest concern was the violation of the grading stop work order.

 

Commissioner Grebbien stated that since procedures were not followed there are many things he just can’t be sure of. We do not have all of the information that allows us to make the findings that are required. He would like to have more information before a decision is made.

 

Commissioner Liu stated he would like to see an ad-hoc grading plan from a registered engineer proving how much was actually graded. We need documentation to make decisions to back up what Mr. Collins has said. He stated that he needs to see the changes.

 

City Planner Phung stated that there is a condition that requires an “As Built” Engineering Plan which would need to be certified by a Civil Engineer.

 

City Planner Phung noted that the motion should consider his recommendation that the retaining wall should be staggered according to the Code and all the trees on the property should be trimmed to a height of no more than three feet above the finish floor of Mrs. Collins property.

 

The Commission continued discussion.

 

City Planner Phung stated that they will add a time limit to the Resolution requiring carrying out the conditions within nine (9) months.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff moved to adopt the La Habra Heights Planning Commission Resolution 2008-011 with the Condition that the work described in the Resolution be completed within nine (9) months of passage. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Liu and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Black, Liu, and Westerhoff

NOES: Grebbien

ABSENT: McCoy

 

6.              MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT AND DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO PARTS OF ARTICLE 7 (DEVELOPMENT CODE) AND ARTICLE 12 (DEFINITION).

 

RECOMMENDATION: Pending testimony at the public hearing and the deliberations of the Planning Commission, it is recommended the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution recommending approval of the changes to the City Council.

 

Amend Section 7.17.40 H (1) Grading, Retaining Walls, and Hardscape Standards

 

City Planner Phung presented the Staff Report on Item 6 on amendments to Section 7.17.40 H. It was stated at the July 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting that the exemption of the driveway beyond the first 35 feet was already being processed but did not include a Resolution on exemption of hardscape which was approved by the City Council at its meeting on August 14, 2008.

 

Add Section 7.17.40 (I) Grading, Retaining Walls, and Hardscape Standards

 

City Planner Phung noted that the Commission discussed the above section at their July 22, 2008 Meeting and recommended a Resolution to address there concerns with the treatment of the driveway easement at 2164 Papaya Drive where the driveway easement was completely on their property which counted against there hardscape and gradable area. The Commission asked Staff to see if there were other properties with the same situation. City Planner Phung stated that he did find similar situations. The Commission asked Mr. Phung if there was any way to distinguish between a public road, a public easement or a public right-of-way in the community. He stated that many times one cannot tell. One might have to look at the APN report or at the Title Report.

 

RECOMMENDATION: To have an exemption across the board for such situations for a driveway that serves two or more homes from a public road or a private road shall not count towards hardscape or gradable area.

 

Amend Article 7 and 12 Relating to Views

 

The Commission asked Mr. Phung at the last meeting to address the “view hierarchy” to make it easier for the Commission to review and to clarify the term “View Corridor”. Mr. Phung stated he found the “View Corridor” term in only the definition section and once briefly in the Landscaping Section.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Take “View Corridor” out of the Definitions and the Landscaping Section.

 

Staff also looked at the “Local View” and Mr. Phung was of the opinion that the Code and General Plan provides sufficient provision for us to make a determination of “Local View”.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Resolutions 08-12, 2008-13 and 2008-14 be approved one at a time.

 

The Planning Commission adopts Resolution 2008-12 recommending to the City Council approval of an amendment to exempt driveway grading that is beyond 35 feet from the access point to the parcel.

 

The Planning Commission adopts Resolution 2008-13 recommending to the City Council approval to add Section “I” to exempt hardscape and graded area from driveways serving two or more parcels.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that on the second Resolution 2008-13 he could not agree with the part of the wording that specified a driveway leading to two or more homes for the exemption. He would like the Code change to read: “Any street, driveway or other road constructed within an easement of a parcel to provide public road access to another parcel, shall not count toward hardscape or graded area.”

 

City Planner Phung agreed to the change in wording.

 

Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing for comments.

 

Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, spoke on Item 5. and noted that many people are building without permits and getting wrong information from staff and tonight’s decision encourages people to go ahead without permits; he stated that he objected to the negative declaration proposed but there should be an EIR because of foreseeable cumulative negative environmental effects of the Code changes, and the Code change itself violates CEQA, because it is piecemeal; exempting driveway hardscape and grading was unnecessary as they were already covered in the Code. He noted the exemption doubles the amount of allowable grading and hardscape and is of the opinion that doubling those amounts could deprive people of some of their rights, such as to privacy. He noted an easement is a legal burden and sometimes gives the owner the benefit of a cheaper purchase price. These Code changes violate the General Plan. He noted that the only change necessary on the view was to add “local” to “primary views. The rest of the changes just make it weaker; all property owners have rights, even with empty lots.

 

Chairman Black closed the Public Hearing and returned the meeting to the Commission for discussion.

 

The Commission discussed the change of wording suggested for Resolution 2008-13.

 

City Planner Phung recommended The Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2008-14 recommending to the City Council approval of amendment to Articles 7 and 12 relating to views.

 

Commissioner Grebbien stated that he appreciated the modifications on Views.

 

Attorney Ballin read Resolution 2008-13 as amended: “Any street, driveway or other road constructed within an easement or private street to another parcel for the purpose of providing access to a public road shall not count towards hardscape or graded area.”

 

Chairman Black moved to adopt Resolution 2008-12 as written, adopt Resolution 2008-13 as amended and worded by Attorney Ballin, and adopt Resolution 2008-14 as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Grebbien and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Clark, Grebbien, Liu and Westerhoff

NOES: None

ABSENT: McCoy

 

ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

7.         There were no items from the Planning Commission.

 

ITEMS FROM STAFF

 

8.              SENIOR HOUSING PRESENTATION POWERPOINT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL

 

City Planner Phung stated that there is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation in their packet.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Report

 

Chairman Black stated that they receive and file the report.

 

9.              MONTHLY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT

 

RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Report

 

Chairman Black noted that they would receive and file.

 

10.           STATUS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION

 

City Planner Phung stated that both the Building Technician and Building Inspector are now certified to issue Code Citations.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that they usually got a document showing what projects had moved through the approvals process.

 

City Planner Phung stated that it is not in the packet after discussion with the City Manager. However, if the Commission wants a copy he can provide it to them.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff asked if there procedures being established between him and the City Manager regarding addressing Code Enforcement issues.

 

City Planner Phung stated that he will talk to the City Manager about how to proceed with Code Enforcement, and he will be advising the Commission at their next meeting.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

            Chairman Black adjourned the September 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting at 9:49 p.m.

 

 

 

_________________________________

            LARRY BLACK, CHAIRMAN

 

            ATTEST:

 

 

 

_______________________________________

            KENNETH PHUNG, CITY PLANER