CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

 

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

FEBRUARY 19, 2008

 

 

OPENING CEREMONIES

 

1.              CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

Chairman Black called the Special Planning Commission Meeting to order on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 7:08 p.m.

 

ROLL CALL

 

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

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

 

2.              FLAG SALUTE

 

The flag salute was led by Commissioner Grebbien

 

3.              ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA

 

Norm Zezula stated that he was concerned about what seems to be unjustified attacks on Staff to intimidate them into approving projects; he felt there were many errors by the Applicant; a forgotten application and hydrology report and incomplete forms by the Applicant that caused delays; after being told that their project was too large, the Applicant made the home larger; these were not delays caused by Staff.

 

Stephen Blagden, gave his opinion of issues of the project; spoke regarding the General Plan and the Policies; the Planning Commission must act on these policies; Land Use Policy 4 and 7; views; Policy 16, 17, and privacy of neighbors.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

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

 

City Planner Feeler stated that this project is continued from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 2008; tonight’s report and Resolution are the same report from the January meeting; dates were updated including tonight’s meeting to make it legally enforceable; enclosed you will find Commissioner Carl Westerhoff comments and one from Stephen Blagden.

 

CDD Powers commented that since the last meeting Staff met with the Applicant and they worked to reduce the height of the retaining wall from 20 feet to l0 feet; we will have to talk about “export” which would need a grading permit and would be a new application and to avoid a CUP it would have to be under the New Code for that part of the approval.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy asked if we are considering the plan from the last meeting or the changes presented tonight.

 

CDD Powers stated that these are minor changes and they have not had time to go through the City Engineer and if there was an approval the changes would have to be conditioned to the approval.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy stated that she could not approve a condition that she has not had time to completely consider and trust to just conditional changes.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Permaul stated that the Public Hearing should be reopened to the extent, that the Planning Commission would like to accept new additional information on this project.

 

Chairman Black stated that he would do that.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff asked for clarification that the issue is the Grading Modification; the applicant has addressed the grading issue; Staff is comfortable if we should approve the project, as long as the approval is conditioned on Staff having authority to enforce whatever directions are necessary, to ensure that whatever is conditioned for approval actually ends up being constructed.

 

CDD Powers stated that this is correct as long as they have clear direction with specific numbers that we can follow.

 

Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing.

 

Stephen Blagden, stated the topography of the lot tells how it should be developed: this lot does not want a 9,000 square foot house and large retaining wall; which take a large amount of grading; the area at the top of the hill is flatter but is not large enough for that size house; suggested to make elements better fit the lot; provide an alternative plan; suggested the placement of the pool, the driveway and parking, lowering the house 10 feet; eliminate the huge wall and that eliminates the large fill; cannot have compromises or tradeoffs of the General Plan goals; do not depend on conditions alone; see new plans.

 

Norm Zezula stated the residents have not had a chance to see the new proposal; you have to have time to consider plans and the Engineers have not had time to review them; don’t rely on hearsay as to what the new Codes are trying to accomplish, read the General Plan goals; a Commissioner should not “suppose” anything, such as cost, use substantiated facts; the fact that the proposed structure violates the General Plan by its size being three times larger than the next size house in the neighborhood, is one of the primary arguments against this project; several houses have been built in our City in the last few years that were around 4000 sq. ft.; developers want the money a very large house will give them; preserve our rural environment; all lot owners have the same rights not just the newest ones to build a much larger house; this grading plan is indefensible under the General Plan goals.

 

Dick Moonihan, stated that he agrees that the project does effect the Moniz’s view; view is important to a property’s value that this decision could open a whole precedent; where will the water run from this project.

 

Wanda Moonihan, stated most people are abiding by the code and it is not fair to them for someone to come in and violate the codes; it seems that the owner wants to change the lot to fit what he wants for the house.

 

Robert Moniz, thanked the Commissioners and Staff for their time spent on this and their terrific job; when they built their pool it was in their front yard to maximize the view and now we will have to stare at that large house only 20 feet below us; he just asked for consideration as to where they put the house and how high it would be; the Hoyt’s roof line is actually higher than our pool; he feels the project should not move forward as is, loss of money due to our loss of privacy, requires too many exceptions to the General Plan and the excavation will destabilize the hill.

 

Phil Edmondson, explained that they have reduced the amount of fill below the driveway and created export so that the 20 foot walls are now able to be provided at a maximum of 8 feet; these are sloping crib walls which eventually can have landscape grow over and completely obliterate them; he shifted the driveway slightly closer to the house; that allowed us to pull further up the slope with our improvements and by lowering the driveway and eliminating the fill and creating export, we were able to reduce the maximum height of the walls; his change would reduce the fill by 1,962 cubic yards; he was able to reduce the gradable area below the driveway by 1,689 square feet and also last time reduced 450 square feet up at the top of the slope; that puts us 9% below the gradable area allowed; if we lift the house back up a little, each foot we raise it reduces the cut by 246 cubic yards; just a possibility; his belief that these changes would satisfy the Land Use Policies on keeping alterations to the terrain to a minimum.

 

Craig Moniz, read a letter his mother wrote “wrote that La Habra Heights is a unique area with great beauty; it isn’t right for mansionization; the proposed house is too huge and the privacy issue is serious; it is too close and dominates the site; balance it so it fits the area in size”; He stated he was disappointed in how such a project is handled by the Planning Commission; the General Plan needs to be conformed to; the View issue is still there, not just the Grading issue; . it seems to be treated as insignificant that the families below the project are in possible danger; drainage is very important; there is not a large distance between the project and the Moniz house as required for privacy; listed the many General Plan goals that are being ignored; the height of the project is four feet higher than it says in the plan; the numbers are off; the project should have been denied a long time ago so it could have been started over and the house built.

 

Stephen Blagden, spoke regarding landslide hazard areas, retaining wall, limits on the length of wall beyond the house; recommended the Commission deny this project and let them come back with a revised plan.

 

Norm Zezula stated that even with these late changes the grading proposed will still be 4,800 square feet and 1,200 cubic yards more than the project the Planning Commission rejected in 2006 because the grading was excessive; if they really wanted to minimize grading they would have done more much earlier; they could have also changed where the garage is located.

 

Chairman Black stated that he would leave the Public Hearing open but bring discussion back to the Commission at this time.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy stated her concern that at the last meeting the General Plan was being trivialized; this is a dangerous thing to do as the General Plan is the basis of rational decision for all Community Development; reviewed some history of how the General Plan was arrived at; the City Attorney at that time warned us that our General Plan was so out of date and so far short of State requirements for a General Plan that we could be vulnerable in a court of law; work done was open to the public and was very labor intensive; they conducted a City Wide Survey for input and there were three Town Hall meetings. everything written was reviewed by City Attorneys; when done, it went to the Planning Commission and they tore it apart; it took them a year to go over it and realign it; they presented it to the City Council and they proceed to go over it and arranged it to their satisfaction; we must not trivialize the General Plan; we are not allowed inconsistencies within the General Plan.

 

Chairman Black asked if there are any issues with:

 

TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2007-01

 

The consensus of the Commission was that there was no issue with the tree removal permit.

STANDARDS MODIFICATION (VIEW) 2007-01

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy stated that she still cannot approve the View issue.

 

Commissioner Liu stated that he does not have an issue with the View.

 

Commissioner Grebbien stated that in his opinion the particular View that this home would obstruct is not a Protected View according to the Municipal Code, and that the 16-foot height is protected from blocking a view; the Moniz view to the southwest is a Protected View and nobody could build there and spoil the view.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy stated that this is taller than 16 feet and the View must be protected; the Old Municipal Code which this project is under, does not conform to the new General Plan.

 

Commissioner Grebbien stated that we are following the Old Code and some of those views are protected and some are not protected.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that he agrees with Commissioner Grebbien’s comments that this is not a Protected View.

 

Robert Moniz asked for clarification why there would be a Protected View of an area that could not be built on.

 

Commissioner Grebbien explained that if someone has a right to build up to 16 feet in height as long as they do not build in their setback, any view that it blocks is not protected.

 

Robert Moniz stated that it was hard for him to understand how there could be such diverse opinions on the Commission when they have the same rules.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Permaul stated the General Plan is the basis for all development within the City and like the Constitution for the City; the Municipal Code is equally important as it is the implementation process of the General Plan; the new General Plan has goals and policies and they must be imposed consistent with a property owner’s right to develop their property; in the Old Municipal Code we find in Section 9404.4 it indicates that a lot shall not be considered as a View Lot, so there should not be a protected view if a structure that meets the other requirements of the Development Code could be built or modified without a height modification; this is what Commissioner Grebbien has pointed out.

 

Chairman Black added the sentence from the New General Plan that states “The primary implementation mechanism for the Land Use Element is the Zoning Ordinance.” We have to take into consideration both the Old Code and the New General Plan. They have to work together.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Permaul commented that in implementing the Zoning regulations you should focus on the Municipal Code for the implementing procedures. The only reason we should be looking at the General Plan is to fill in any gaps in the Development Code or to the extent that there is an identifiable objective standard in the General Plan that is inconsistent with the Municipal Code, then the General Plan controls.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy read from instructions they were given when they started working on the City’s General Plan which says that Zoning and specific plans are required to conform to the General Plan. In the State Laws, it states that if there is a conflict between the General Plan and the Zoning Code, the Zoning Code must be brought up to date within a reasonable period. In this case it has been four years.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Permaul stated that he consulted with the City Attorney and does not see that there is necessarily a conflict.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy stated that they wrote the New General Plan to be much more all encompassing on Views than the Old General Plan, to include Local Views also.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that he does not see any conflict between the General Plan and the Municipal Code; the New General Plan notes that the significant Primary Views shall be protected from obstruction by any new development structures or landscape element to the fullest extent consistent with the property rights of the owner of the site on which the new development is located; the property was zoned for a single family residence; many things happened that were legal at the time, but complicate the building space; 25 feet from the property line and 16 feet high is allowed; what View that structure blocks is allowed and the Land Use Element in the General Plan does not conflict with that.

 

Chairman Black stated that this has been a difficult project and that he has had a difficult time finding that there is significant View impairment due to the fact that the Applicant proved to him on the Moniz’s site that the poles were accurate in their height, and knowing what the Applicant’s rights to build are. The Moniz family knew that some day that vacant lot would be built on. The house has been designed to step down the hill to keep to the 16-foot height. He stated that he could not make a finding against the View issue.

 

GRADING MODIFICATION 2007-01

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy stated that she was not willing to take into consideration the change which was brought to the Commission tonight even if conditioned.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that with the change brought tonight for the wall, he no longer thinks there is a violation of any Land Use Policies . Mr. Westerhoff stated that he is prepared to vote in favor of the proposal. He commented that he does not approve of the idea to increase the height of the building to decrease the grading.

 

Commissioner Liu related the history of this project since 2006 and why it was denied each time and the applicant increased the size more. All along the Commissioners said the house was too big. Mr. Liu considered the different Land Use Policies that apply to this project. He talked about Policy 2, stating the he did not believe a Primary View of the neighbor was affected; 7, he was not sure the project would affect the neighborhood; 11, character of the neighborhood, he defined “neighborhood” and noted that it is small and the average size is 2340 sq. feet whereas the applicant has proposed 8741 sq. feet. That is not a neighborhood conformity and I cannot approve that point.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy stated that in her opinion this project has caused more protests from more neighbors than any other project she could remember and the Commission has never ignored the protests.

 

Commissioner Grebbien stated that through the history of this project the real issues have been the size of the house, the extent of the grading and retaining natural land forms. The Old General Plan has pointed out these items as important. The New General Plan pushes hard on the grading and retaining natural land forms and allows a limit of a 20-foot wall. There are many good things about this project, but the grading for this project has been very close to the grading limits along with the 20-foot limit for the wall. The large wall has been a problem for me. He stated that even though the solution for the wall and less grading due to that brought to the Commission tonight, I am not sure with the large amount of grading, that we can have a complete enough list of “conditions” because this process is out of ordinary and it would have to be followed through on very carefully. He stated that due to the amount of grading, volume of export and the height of the wall, I find difficulty making the findings to approve the Grading Modification. Commissioner Grebbien commented that with the right “conditions” I could see approving the plans, but we would have to agree on what was reasonable and Staff would have to be able to follow through with it.

 

City Planner Feeler explained that she had prepared the City’s standard Conditions of Approval if the Commission moves forward in that direction staff can read them into the record; we need to know how much soil is to be exported, where that soil is to be taken from, the height of the retaining walls and the length of the retaining walls to be read into the record; when it goes through the plan check process with the City’s Plan Checker and the City Engineer, all of these conditions will have to be verified that the plans are consistent with the recommendations; it comes back to the office and is routed through all of the departments again to look at it one more time before any permits can be issued.

 

Chairman Black explained that he had some trouble approving Land Use Element 7 as far as the project becoming larger, the amount of grading and the large retaining wall. He stated that he has not had much time to go through the changes just made. He stated that he was not sure he could condition an approval so he would feel confident with that.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy moved to deny the project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Liu.

 

Phil Edmondson, applicant, explained that there is a specific grading and drainage exhibit in the packet that shows configuration, extent and height. He noted that there are numbers that are specific regarding reduction of the fill and creation of larger export. There is also a number of the reduction of the gradable area compared to the before figures. He stated that he feels that with these numbers it could be conditioned and conformed with.

 

Commissioner Grebbien asked if Mr. Edmondson cut the driveway grading as much as possible and the walls as small as possible. Could you achieve any more cut in grading than you presented tonight. How much more could you achieve.

 

Mr. Edmondson stated that he is of the opinion that he really could not pull back any further due to the slope increase.

 

Commissioner Grebbien asked if he was sure that what he is proposing is workable from a soils mechanics standpoint.

 

Mr. Edmondson stated that it is workable and the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer have both worked on this. He stated that his Civil Engineer was nervous to work on a 1.5 to 1 slope.

 

Commissioner Grebbien asked Staff if the current change does bring the project 9% inside their allowable grading.

 

City Planner Feeler answered that the City Engineer would be the one to run that number. There has not been time to review the change by Staff.

 

Mr. Edmondson agreed that he was sure he could get that amount if the approval was conditioned that the grading has to be 9% under the allowable.

 

Stephen Blagden stated that the New Code only allows an 8 foot high wall so you can’t condition to approve a 10 foot high wall. Mr. Edmondson provided an alternative which brings the driveway closer to the street, so it can be minimized even more. If you bring the driveway on the 936 contour you will not need any retaining wall or fill slope.

 

Chairman Black stated that they are on the Old Code.

 

Mr. Blagden noted that they said in order to not have to have a CUP for the export, they would do the wall and grading under the New Code.

 

Chairman Black stated that he did not hear that and asked for clarification.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Permaul stated that at this point we would consider that particular portion a new application and under the New Code.

 

Mr. Hoyt noted that the motion is for denial without prejudice, but did not specify whether it would be under the Old Code or the New Code.

 

Planning Commissioner Attorney Permaul stated that this denial without prejudice would be a final decision on this project but would allow a similar project to be brought back, but Counsel would recommend that it be brought back under the New Code.

 

Chairman Black asked if we approve this project under the Old Code but condition the grading, would there have to be a new application taken out under the New Code to ameliorate all those conditions we cited?

 

Planning Commission Attorney Permaul stated that it would be a ministerial decision and that the applicant would have to submit a plan for export, grading and a retaining wall that the City Engineer would approve, which can incorporate some numerical quantities provided by the Planning Commission. Then a permit would be issued for the export and would not have to come back to the Commission.

 

Craig Moniz asked where the balance is for the conforming of the size of the house to the existing houses.

 

Chairman Black closed the Public Hearing.

 

The motion made by Vice Chairperson McCoy and seconded by Commissioner Liu was approved as follows:

 

AYES: McCoy, Liu, Black, Grebbien

NOES: Westerhoff

 

Project died for lack of an approval.

 

City Planner Feeler asked for confirmation on some of the findings made by the Commission.

 

Under Standards Modification for View Preservation that you meant;

 

Finding number 2 – she heard “the development will not impact the neighbors to the north. The development does not impact their primary view.”

 

Finding number 4 – which is regarding significant cumulative impact caused by the granting of the application. I simply added the word “not” after the word “would”. It now says “would not cause”.

 

Under Grading Modification there are several places that Staff had indicated that this did not comply.

 

Finding number 6 – “The development does not comply with the standards set in the Zoning Ordinance and other Codes to insure its appropriate development of the particular parcel”. Do you wish to make any changes?

 

Chairman Black and Commissioners Grebbien and Westerhoff did not agree with that finding.

 

City Planner Feeler stated that she would change that finding to read “would comply with the standards”.

 

Finding number 7 – Adversely affects property values.

 

The consensus of the Commission was that the project would not adversely affect property values.

 

Finding number 8 – Do you wish to make any change.

 

The Commission agreed with Staff on this finding.

 

Finding number 9 – Special Privileges.

 

Change to “there is no granting of special privileges”.

 

Finding number 10 – creates a nuisance.

 

Did not think it creates a nuisance.

 

Finding number 11 – “will or will not”

 

The Commission consensus was that it should be changed to will not encourage development inconsistent with the character of the existing homes.

 

Chairman Black paused for an intermission at 10:07 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m.

 

Finding number 12 – “There is no special condition or unique characteristic to justify a relaxation.”

 

City Planner Feeler stated that she would like to add to that, “of the Standards.”

 

The Commission agreed to this addition.

 

Commissioner Grebbien noted that he does not agree that there is no special condition.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated in his opinion he would like to see this finding deleted from the document.

 

Chairman Black and Commissioners McCoy and Liu agreed to the addition.

 

Finding number 13 – is there any change on this finding?

 

The Commission agreed with finding 13.

 

City Planner Feeler noted that from earlier comments you were all in agreement with the Tree Removal Findings. She asked if they were all in agreement with Staff preparing the Resolution for the Chairman to review and sign or do you want the Resolution brought back before you.

 

The consensus of the Commission was for Staff to prepare the Resolution for the Chairman to review and sign.

 

City Planner Feeler stated that next week on February 26, 2008 there will be a meeting on Ethics Training. You will not pick up a packet, but we will pass out the information at the meeting. We will e-mail the Agenda to you and it will be posted in the proper places.

 

            Chairman Black encouraged residents to volunteer to help in the City.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

            Chairman Black adjourned the Special Planning Commission meeting at 10:25 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on February 26. 2008.

 

            ______________________________

            Larry Black, Chairman

 

            ATTEST:

 

 

 

            ______________________________________________

            Justin Powers, Community Development Director