CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
á ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
á One case
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council on the advice of its counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is significant exposure to litigation against the City.
Receipt of written communication from Counsel for Edward Snell threatening litigation (copy available for public inspection in City ClerkÕs office).
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Borrowe called to order the Regular Meeting of the La Habra Heights City Council at 7:35 P.M., February 10, 2005 in the Multi Purpose Room at 1245 Hacienda Road.
2. ROLL CALL
Members present were Mayor Borrowe, Mayor Pro Tem Douglas, Councilmembers Carroll, Klein and Millsap. Also present: City Attorney Levin, City Manager Hendrickson, Senior Management Analyst Orchanian, Fire Marshal Powderly, Fire Chief Nielsen, Sheriff Lieutenant Ault, Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt, and City Engineer Melicher and Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Borrowe led the flag salute.
Mayor Borrowe asked the City Attorney if there is a report from the Closed Session.
City Attorney Levin replied that there were no reportable actions in the closed session.
á Appreciation Presentation to Shelly Andros, Wildlife Authority and Equestrians on Patrol and Elizabeth Karman, the City Website.
Mayor Borrowe presented Shelly Andros with a Certificate of Appreciation for her many contributions. She has moved out of our City, and we commend her years of service to La Habra Heights.
Mayor Borrowe presented a Certificate of Appreciation in absentia to Elizabeth Karman, who has also moved out of our City. She contributed her talents on the City Website for some time, and Mayor Borrowe stated that he would see that she gets her Certificate of Appreciation.
á Lowell Joint School District Presentation on their March 8th, 2005 Ballot Issue.
Cathy Greer, Board President from Lowell Joint School District stated that this is an exceptional School District for our children. At this time we will have to either come up with another source of reliable income or drastically cut programs and services. She explained that it was a difficult decision to come to the Community to ask for monetary support and it took many months. She asked for our vote in passing School Measure B. Ms. Greer introduced the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Joe Gillentine, to answer any questions.
Dr. Gillentine explained that they have sold property they had to help maintain the existing programs, and they have used up all of that money. The State problems have caused them to cut their aid to Lowell Joint School District. He stated that this situation is what caused us to ask the Community for help in supporting their School District. This is just the amount we need to maintain the present standard. He stated that this Measure is for 8 years, up to $95 per parcel. Residents 65 or older can file each year for an exemption.
Councilmember Carroll thanked Dr. Gillentine for the excellent work they have been doing. He noted that good schools increase the value of homes in the area.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas stated that he and his wife were quite impressed with the Lowell Joint School District.
Councilmember Klein noted that the City Council has always supported the schools in our area.
Dr. Gillentine reported that by error some of the residents in the West Heights had received sample ballots with two different addresses for their polling places and the County would be correcting this. This will make the Lowell Joint School Distirict polling place the same as for the City.
Councilmember Millsap asked Dr. Gillentine to address the idea that it would be cost saving to combine the School District and the City elections.
Dr. Gillentine explained that at first consultants told him that running a single ballot measure on a special election was the best way. He stated that later they found that it would be about the same whichever way it was done, so they decided to do the election on their own to make it as simple as they could.
Mayor Borrowe commented that it was his understanding that by not joining with La Habra Heights, it would cost La Habra Heights an extra $10,000. He stated that he found it hard to understand that their decision cost our City $10,000 when they want support from our City.
Dr. Gillentine explained that he did not fully understand at the time the cost to the City of La Habra Heights.
Mayor Borrowe asked Dr. Gillentine what the School District has done to save on their expenses.
Dr. Gillentine answered that they had made a $750,000 savings two years ago by cutting back on custodial costs and cutting down class sizes. He stated that they also cut down on the time of instructional aides. He noted that they have also increased enrollments as they could.
Mayor Borrowe asked if the District has decreased salaries to help the money situation.
Dr. Gillentine stated that they have not tried that, but it is a possibility. He noted that none of the money from Measure B would go to increase salaries.
Mayor Borrowe asked how you could get the senior exemption.
Dr. Gillentine explained that it has to be applied for each year, as it is the person who is exempt, not the property.
Councilmember Millsap asked what would happen if they do not get the funding they are asking for.
Dr. Gillentine explained that at the end of this year, if we will not have the million dollars we need, then the County will not let us enter the next year and the State would take over the school. If this happens we will have to evaluate the cost of each program and raise the class sizes and try to change the programs as little as possible to cover the cost of running the school. A lot of the good programs would have to be cut.
á Kathy Sauble, Emergency Preparedness Chairperson, will report on matters pertaining to the CommitteeÕs efforts in Emergency Preparedness.
Kathy Sauble noted that the CountyÕs theme for this month is ÒActions for Threat Levels.Ó The information is available at City Hall. She noted that she would go over activities that should be reported to the authorities; such as, unusual behavior, incidents or odors, unusual clothing, large purchases of fertilizers or similar products, missing uniforms or identifications, unusual or unattended packages or suitcases.
The Emergency Preparedness Committee has three goals for 2005:
1. A phone number that residents could call that would have a recording to find out if any roads are closed. This would free the Fire Department from having a dispatcher tied up for this.
2. Have the City Staff trained as disaster workers. She suggested that they train three at a time.
3. We would like to see a re-establishment of an emergency and supply equipment agreement with local vendors and businesses so we would be able to continue to function after a disaster. We would have a written agreement that, without notice, we would be able to come in and make purchases. There would be pre-authorized personnel assigned to do that. The City would be billed later.
Ms. Sauble commented that she and a member of the Committee toured the Water Company facility recently. We learned how the water gets to us and what determines the cost. She explained that the Water Company has plans to provide needs for water shortly after an emergency, which they can set up at three sites in the City. You will need your own containers with covers.
Mayor Borrowe asked where these sites would be.
Ms. Sauble stated that if the Water Company chooses to give her this information, she would get it for the City. She stated that she understood that they would disseminate the information through the media. She encouraged residents to take a tour of the Water Company.
Ms. Sauble thanked Mayor Borrowe for his service to the City.
á Public Works Committee
Jerry Shipman, representative for the Public Works Committee, reported that they had completed repair on three of the five zones that the City is divided into. He noted that there are a few items that still need to be taken care of, but we have to wait until the rains stop before we can schedule them.
Mr. Shipman commented that there is a new member attending our meetings now, Lynn Merrill, Transtech, who is very capable. Les Williams is leaving us, and he will be missed. He is retiring and will be moving, and we need another member now. An extra member would also be welcome.
Mr. Shipman noted that several residents had called him and asked who is responsible for enforcing that everyone has their address displayed.
Fire Marshal Powderly explained that it comes under the Fire Code, so they can be cited by the Fire Department.
Councilmember Millsap stated, in her opinion, it was more of an enforcement issue. She explained that there are numerous houses without numbers.
City Manager Hendrickson noted that if a person does not follow the code, we have the citation program that we can proceed with. City Manager Hendrickson commented that the Fire Marshal is reorganizing a list of where all homes are. This will make it easier for everyone looking for a certain address. The GIS system has made this easier to organize.
Mayor Borrowe confirmed that sometimes the numbers are in different places or none at all which makes them hard to find.
Sheriff Lieutenant Ault noted that the Sheriff Department has their own maps and sometimes they also use the Fire Department maps to find a certain house. She asked that residents place their house number where it can be seen. They do not want to have trouble finding a house in the middle of an emergency.
Mr. Shipman stated that residents are worried about questionable activity at a certain house without numbers.
Lieutenant Ault noted that if Mr. Shipman would describe to her where the house in question is after the meeting, she would take care of it administratively with a citation.
Mayor Borrowe commented that the Council would like to let Les Williams know how they appreciated his service, possibly at the next Council meeting.
City Manager Hendrickson stated that he also had a commendation for another person that he would like to give at that time.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas commented that not being able to find a particular address in a timely manner can also be a danger to that neighborhood. It is very important to make it easy for emergency services to easily find addresses.
Mayor Borrowe stated that he had a number of cards from those who would like to speak, and will limit each one to four minutes.
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian announced that the Parks & Recreation Commission would hold their fourth annual Avocado Festival on Saturday, May 21, 2005, from 9:00A.M. to 4:00 P.M. She noted that the Emergency Preparedness Committee will be there with Health and Safety items and information. She invited anyone needing information or who would like to take part in the Festival to call City Hall.
Jessica Winship, Cypress, stated she had been advised by Adrian Vecchione the Parks & Recreation Commission would print and distribute a pamphlet concerning responsible pet ownership. Ms. Vecchione asked for input for this. She advised that the main intent of the pamphlet was to notify residents that dogs and horses are causing fly problems in the city because the owners do not pick up the animal waste. Ms. Winship stated that she informed Ms. Vecchione that this is offensive and is not true. This pamphlet is going to be printed at the CityÕs expense. Ms. Winship stated that she also advised Ms. Orchanian that this was insulting. Ms. Orchanian explained that it was originally printed by LA County, but has been out of print for 30 years. She wants to place them at City Hall. Ms. Winship stated that she thinks this is a waste of time and money.
Ms. Orchanian stated that she and Ms. Vecchione had found this County pamphlet and there was a drawing on the back showing how a fly develops and they decided that this would be good information for the community for health and safety. Ms. Orchanian noted that as she walks around The Park every day, she sees droppings even though we provide doggie bags for the public. We are providing this information at City Hall and in the newsletter.
Councilmember Millsap asked if this idea went to the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Ms. Orchanian answered in the affirmative. It was agendized and will actually become a flyer. She noted that the Commission approved the flyer, and she also talked to the City Manager about it. Ms. Orchanian explained that this was not intended to anger anyone, but to make the community aware that the waste is a health concern.
Ray Fernandez complimented Lowell Joint School District for their schools. He spoke about the striping of Hacienda Road. He noted that Councilmember Klein has asked that the bid process be held up for the striping work on Hacienda. Mr. Fernandez asked that the Council take this a step further and reconsider the original decision to narrow Hacienda Road with the striping for traffic calming. He stated that he has talked to many of the residents and they think it would be unsafe to narrow the lanes. He was of the opinion that there should be more resident input on this.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, mentioned Campaign Flyers that proposed actions that reflect a lack of understanding of Council actions. The desires expressed in flyers were to simplify the home remodel permit procedure and lower the cost of permits. He explained that the City is only allowed to charge what it costs to provide the services necessary to examine and approve plans. The reduction of permit cost would mean an increase in tax to the 95% of homeowners that are not building or remodeling. Mr. Blagden further explained that if the plans are complete and comply with City codes, the process is not slow at all. He noted that most builders do not turn in complete plans. He commented that he had visited many neighboring and similar cities to see what their process and costs were and found that La Habra Heights is by far the easiest city for application requirements and to get plans approved. He stated, in his opinion, we are too easy. More effort should be spent to see that the plans comply with the General Plan. With the tendency to larger homes, we need to be stricter on Code compliance. Better organizing of the Codes can make improvement.
Mr. Blagden noted that flyers mentioned the narrowing of Hacienda Road. Hacienda Road is a non-issue. Mr. Blagden stated, in his opinion, the road should be closed to all but residents. We presently have to repair a portion of Hacienda Road that is collapsing.
Anne Cote noted that she is a member of ÒHills for EveryoneÓ and a member of the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority (WICCA) Advisory Board. Ms. Cote stated, in her opinion, Katie Martin is representing herself on a Campaign Flyer as an ÒOpen SpaceÓ advocate. Ms. Cote noted that over the last several years Ms. Martin has not once spoken in favor of ÒOpen Space.Ó She constantly opposed policies in the General Plan which are designed to protect ÒOpen SpaceÓ in our rural environment. Ms. Martin chastised the Council for approving the funds to fight AERA. Ms. MartinÕs flyer states that she is against AERA. Ms. Cote cited other differences expressed by Ms. Martin.
Michael Bagwell, Dorothea Road, explained that he and some neighbors met the contractor for 707 Dorothea Road this afternoon. Mr. Bagwell stated that the contractor showed them the new plans for grading and landscape. The neighbors agreed that these plans could be fixed with some permit conditions. Mr. Bagwell noted that this project will come before the Council in March to accept or deny. It will be out of time. The Agenda packet for the Planning Commission will go out next Tuesday. He stated that the neighbors would like to see their permit conditions included in the Resolution, and we are asking for the CouncilÕs help to see that this gets done since the time on this project is running out.
Stan Quade, Encanada, commented, in his opinion, $85,000 for the Horse AnnouncerÕs Booth is exorbitant.
The City Manager explained that the amount quoted was the highest possibility.
Mr. Quade noted that it really only benefits a small percentage of the residents, and it will basically serve as a storage building.
Mr. Quade brought pictures of some parties at The Park. He stated that they were too gross to show to the TV audience. Liquor and young people were involved. He noted that this was a worse clean up than from the animals.
Councilmember Carroll asked that Senior Management Analyst Orchanian comment on the changes that have been made.
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian explained that both the City Manager and she have met with the neighbors who took the pictures. She stated that Staff has made revisions of policy, and we have seen a change in the use of The Park for celebratory events. She stated that soon we would be enforcing the closure of the gate at The Park at night. Senior Management Analyst Orchanian noted raising the deposit from $100 to $1,000. This is used as a cleaning fee, if needed, and has been very effective.
Mr. Quade asked Councilmember Carroll to get back to him about what he thinks of the situation.
Mr. Quade showed a picture of how high the weeds are along Hacienda Road. He noted the weeds are hiding a dangerous canyon near the edge of the road.
Judy Hathaway Francis, Chota Road, commented she and her husband appreciated Mayor BorroweÕs four years of service on the Council. She noted this is a very difficult job and credit goes to all of the Council. She stated Mayor Borrowe has been very receptive to the residents.
Davida Pearson, Bonnie Jean, expressed her concern about the bike racing teams that are coming through the Heights. She stated she is an Equestrian Volunteer on Patrol. When the racers are asked to slow down, they do not comply and are very rude. She asked the Council not invite them into our City.
Ms. Pearson stated she had never seen horse droppings cause health problems. Brad Mullens blames the fly problem on the red apple that the canyon flies use for their nests. He had also stated that animal waste has nothing to do with that fly problem.
Councilmember Millsap asked if she was referring to individual riders or clubs.
Ms. Pearson stated these were racing teams.
Councilmember Millsap stated that the clubs need a permit to come through here.
City Manager Hendrickson commented the problem is that they have not obtained a permit.
Ms. Pearson stated they should be banned from the City as they are a danger to the residents where they are racing.
Ms. Pearson stated that she would like to see Hacienda unchanged, but did not think it is right to try to close it to everyone except residents. When we go to work, we usually go through several other cities and we would not want them to close their streets to us.
Councilmember Millsap asked what rights we have to control these bikers.
Ms. Pearson noted that horses have the right-of-way over cars and bikers.
Sheriff Lieutenant Ault explained that they are aware of this ongoing problem. She noted that they have gone to some of the bike shops that have racing teams and talked to them about these concerns. She commented that bicycles are subject to the vehicle codes the same as cars. She noted that the issue is to be in the right place at the right time to enforce them.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas suggested that if residents see a large group that have an identifying uniform they possibly can see a club name. If you can identify a name, pass it on to the City which will help identify the club. If identified, we can find their schedule and that can be passed on to the Sheriff.
Ms. Pearson noted that one name is Team Velocity.
Norm Zezula thanked Mayor Borrowe for his service. He noted that Mayor Borrowe has donated close to 1500 hours protecting our City as a SheriffÕs volunteer. Mayor Borrowe is always trying to do what is best for the residents of the City. He stated that Mayor Borrowe has always voted to protect our rural environment and tried to find ways to do things without raising taxes.
John Beau, Casalero Drive, stated that a speed trap by the Sheriff for the bicycle problem should work. Mr. Beau noted that there was a rumor that Mayor Pro Tem Douglas has something to do with the racing bikes being in La Habra Heights.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas stated that he has never invited a bike club to the Heights, ridden with a bike club, or belonged to a bike club.
Mr. Beau continued with comments on the Hacienda Road narrowing for traffic calming. He stated that this has not been done yet. He explained that the pavement is not being narrowed, but by striping, the lanes are narrowed. This forces the cars closer to the center leaving a path for a bike or for a pedestrian to walk. He stated, in his opinion, this is a dangerous project inviting accidents. Mr. Beau stated Katie Martin has always noted that this is dangerous. She also was not against the AERA project, she just did not approve the $50,000 given to provide an educational campaign about AERA. He stated, in his opinion, we had set aside more than our share for this purpose. He continued to defend Katie Martin, candidate for City Council.
Mr. Beau commented many residents are concerned with the time and expense to remodel and build in La Habra Heights.
Mayor Borrowe closed the Public Comments.
5. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS – January 2005
Councilmember Carroll offered a motion to approve the Warrants for January 2005 as presented in the amount of $487,904.94. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Douglas and approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. TREASURERÕS REPORT – December 31, 2004
The TreasurerÕs Report Consists of:
á Schedule of Cash & Investments
á Schedule of LAIF Investments
á Cash With Fiscal Agent – Bank of New York
á Payments to City Engineers
á Payments to City Attorney/City Prosecutor
á Major Planning Projects
á Balance Sheet
á Monthly & Year-to-Date Revenues Compared to Annual Budget
á Monthly & Year-to-Date Expenses Compared to Annual Budget
Councilmember Klein offered a motion to receive and file the December 31, 2004 TreasurerÕs Report as presented. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Douglas and approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 ANNUAL AUDIT
A brief presentation by Rich Kikuchi, Audit Partner, Lance, Soll & Lunghard, regarding the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 independent audit.
Richard Kikuchi presented the annual financial audit statement. He stated that the City of La Habra Heights instituted a new financial model as required by GASB No. 34 for State and Local Governments. The attempt was to record financial information more like a business entity.
Mr. Kikuchi explained that the General Fund is shown on page 14 and that the equity increased about $292,000 in the year 2004. Page 21 shows that Revenues exceeded Budget by about $484,000 and Expenditures exceeded Budget by a little over $92,000.
Mr. Kikuchi noted that there were no reportable conditions on internal controls. He complimented Staff and City Manager Hendrickson and Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon on their fine work.
Councilmember Millsap commented that she liked the new format.
Mayor Borrowe noted that he was glad to see the Revenues had increased and he thanked Mr. Vernon for his hard work. He also stated that he was glad to see the new format also.
8. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW
A brief presentation by Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon comparing the budget versus actual revenues/expenditures for July 2004 through December 2004, and estimating the year-end results for Fiscal Year 2004-2005.
Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon presented the Mid-Year status for the 2004-2005 Budget.
Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon noted that the General Fund is expected to increase by 11%. It was budgeted for $2,040,000, and is expected to grow to $2,268.000 due to three items:
á $228,000 increase in revenues
á $115,000 increase in VLF more than expected
á $92,000 more in Building Permits
He explained that so far we have received half of the VLF for FY 2004-05 and expect to receive the other half by the end of the year.
EXPENDITURES
Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon noted that the General Fund expenses are expected to even out. It was budgeted at $2,018,000 and estimated to be $2,018,000. Some will be over the budget amount and some will be under the budget amount.
Items estimated to be over the budgeted amount:
á AttorneyÕs fees and professional fees for Planning Services and Municipal Code update.
á Engineering and Building related costs have increased due to an increase in activity in building permits. He noted that when the costs go up, revenue also increases.
á Hacienda Road needs repair due to the heavy rains.
á Storm damage from rains.
FUND BALANCE
Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon noted that the General Fund Balance was budgeted at $2,540,000 and is estimated to increase to $2,800,000.
Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon thanked all Councilmembers and Staff who have helped the General Fund to grow.
FIRE FUND:
REVENUES
Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon noted that the Fire Fund is expected to decrease by –6%. It was budgeted at $1,071,000 and estimated to decrease to $1,005,000.
á Expect to receive about $66,000 less in Fire Department Revenue.
á Did not receive the grant from the Federal Government of $89,000 for Fire Equipment.
Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon explained that the Fire Department is also down in expenditures. The expenditures were budgeted at $1,144.000 and expect $1,021,000, which is less by –10%.
á Expect to spend $123,000 less than the total Fire Department Expenditure Budget.
á Will not spend $89,000 on equipment because we did not get the Federal Grant.
á Expect a loss of only $15,000 vs $72,000 in the FY 2004-05 Budget.
Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon noted that the Budgeted balance was $768,000 and is expected to be $838,000, an increase of 9%. Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon explained that this is due to the Fire Department considering costs carefully and bringing the Paramedic Service in-house.
á $70,000 increase in Fund Balance vs. Budget.
á $150,000 transfer to Fire Facilities Fund.
Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon concluded his report and thanked the Council for their support.
Councilmember Klein asked what happened to the Grant they did not receive.
Fire Chief Nielsen explained that they were in competition with 19,000 other Fire Departments for the Grant funds. He noted that there are a lot of very poor Fire Departments and La Habra Heights is no longer considered a poor Fire Department. He stated that he would try again.
Mayor Borrowe stated that he sees that we are projecting a 33% reduction in fines and forfeitures. He assumed that this was from traffic fines in the Sheriffs Department. He asked what is happening there.
Sheriff Lieutenant Ault replied that she did not know how this was figured. She noted that they do not talk about them as a revenue maker and without specific information from the court, she would not be able to explain the projection.
Mayor Borrowe asked her to take a look at the subject and investigate the change.
Lieutenant Ault noted that on page three of the Memorandum, Page 3 number 10 – Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund, Budget & Accounting Officer Vernon indicates that they expect to spend $40,000 less than projected due to scheduling constraints. She stated that this is not correct. At present they are 7% over serviced.
Mayor Borrowe noted that the Parks & Recreation (State and Local Grants/Projects) was down 13%, and he thought this might be discussed at a later time.
Mayor Borrowe noted that he has a request from a member of the audience to move item 14 forward. Mayor Borrowe stated that if it was agreeable with the rest of the Council, they would do that after the Consent Calendar.
The Council agreed.
STANDARD MOTIONS
9. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the City Council Meeting of January 13, 2005.
Councilmember Millsap noted that on page two (2) under the first Presentation, in the first and second paragraphs, ÒKindness WeekÓ should be changed to ÒMake Kindness Contagious WeekÓ in both paragraphs.
Mayor Borrowe noted that he had a follow-up question on page five (5), paragraphs 5 and 6 from the bottom. City Manager Hendrickson noted that they were going to make a map. Mayor Borrowe asked if it has been finished yet.
City Manager Hendrickson answered that after one final check this will be available. They are updating the roads in La Habra Heights, and as soon as it is done, it will be placed on the City website. He noted it should be seen by the next Council Meeting.
Councilmember Carroll offered a motion to approve the January 13, 2005 City Council Meeting as amended. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Millsap and approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ITEM 10.A BE ACTED UPON SIMULTANIOUSLY BY ONE MOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY A COUNCIMEMBER OR A MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE.
10.a. HEIGHTS CHRISTIAN SCHOOL MONTHLY REPORT
December 2004 Status Report for Heights Christian School.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
10.b. WEED ABATEMENT RESOLUTION FOR THE CITYÕS IMPROVED AND UNIMPROVED DEVELOPED AND OTHER PROPERTIES
RESOLUTION NO. 05-03 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS DECLARING THAT WEEDS GROWING UPON AND IN FRONT OF, AND BRUSH, RUBBISH, REFUSE, AND DIRT UPON AND IN FRONT OF IMPROVED, UNIMPROVED, DEVELOPED AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE CITY ARE A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ABATEMENT THEREOF.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 05-03.
Councilmember Carroll offered a motion to approve 10.a and 10.b. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Klein and approved as follows:
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ITEM 14. WAS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER.
14. THE PARK KITCHEN RENOVATION PROJECT
This item was continued from the Regular City Council meeting of January 13, 2005.
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian reported that she is asking the Council for direction on the renovation project. City Staff made a decision on Monday, January 3, 2005 to not proceed with installing the kitchen stove at The Park due to the escalating cost. There are three options which may be considered.
Option A: To continue as originally planned. This would include the stove, a hood, and fire suppression components. This would also require that the cement roof must be cut through. The cost would be at least $50,000. Contractors are hesitant to take on a smaller job.
Option B: To eliminate the stove and food prep sink. This would decrease the cost considerably.
Option C: On January 5, 2005 the Parks & Recreation Commission recommended purchasing two (2) built-in ovens, no stove and no hotdog broiler. The Commission would also like to leave the food prep sink along with purchasing steel racks for the kitchen. Senior Management Analyst Orchanian noted that there are no bids for this option; however, we expect it to cost at least the same as Option A. The same duct work would be required as for the stove, and any conventional oven over 120 volts requires a hood component.
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian commented that previously obtained bids provided sufficient detail and pricing for Option A and Option B without re-bidding. We received four (4) bids for Option A, one of which did not include Òprevailing wageÓ that is required for our project. The first two bids were received March 1, 2004 from DLS Building ($56,865) and AVA Builders & Remodeling, Inc. ($92,820). The last bid was from AC Enterprises with the prevailing wage ($34,456).
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian stated that she received two (2) bids for Option B, DLS Builders ($46,128) and AVA Builders & Remodeling ($72,820). AC Enterprises did not bid on Option B.
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian noted that from this information it can be seen that building a Commercial Kitchen at this cost is not feasible.
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian stated that staff also considered proceeding with Option B, now and then installing the stove separately at a later date. It appears that there would be no cost savings by doing this. It may be less expensive to proceed at some future date with installation of a stove should the Council determine that it is a priority and identify funding.
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian included four (4) bids for the Hood Components:
1. Superior Products ($5,899.63)
2. Steve Cruise ($5,650.00) without filler panels
3. Steve Cruise ($5,725.00) with filler panels
4. ChefÕs Toys ($7,943.12)
She noted that she also received one Electrical bid:
Active Electric ($3,940.00)
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian explained that these bids were opened about a year ago and costs have doubled since then. The bids expired on June 30, 2004. We will attempt to prevail on the selected contractor to honor its prior bid, but if they are unwilling to do so, we will have to return for additional direction. She stated that the City Manager directed her to try this. She contacted the Contractor, and he is checking if this would be possible. The City of La Habra Heights budgeted $29,500 for this project, but with the rising cost, it is evident that the cost would be significantly higher. We might possibly keep the stove for the new Fire Department quarters. Staff recommends that the City Council select Option B.
City Manager Hendrickson stated where Senior Management Analyst OrchanianÕs report states to build a Commercial Kitchen at The Park is not feasible, it should be added Òunder the current budget.Ó He noted that any time a bid is that high over the budget, the City Manager cannot recommend going forward with the project. If the Council wishes to proceed, it would take a budget reallocation.
Mayor Borrowe asked if the funds for this project are Grant Funds.
The Senior Management Analyst affirmed that it will be Grant Funds.
Mayor Borrowe asked how much they actually have that can be used on this project.
City Manager Hendrickson stated that there are several Grants that totaled up to $398,000, and some was used for the Horse Announcers Booth. He noted that he was not sure how much was left from the Grants.
Mayor Borrowe asked if there was an expiration date on the Grant.
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian replied that the Grant being used for this project does not have an expiration date.
Councilmember Millsap noted that there was originally a cook top in the kitchen, and she wondered what happened to it.
Senior Management Analyst Orchanian commented that when the Park Building was rebuilt, they removed the stove and she does not know what happened to it.
Councilmember Millsap commented that this has been going on for several years and a decision needs to be made.
Mayor Borrowe opened for Public Comment.
Kathy Sauble, Parks & Recreation Commissioner, spoke in favor of a complete commercial kitchen as originally planned. She stated, in her opinion, this would be a benefit to the City and the residents. Ms. Sauble commented that she would like to see a part-time person hired to oversee different events, use of the kitchen and cleanup. They could take a picture to document if things were not cleaned up properly.
Stan Quade, Encanada, noted that we have tried a kitchen and let it deteriorate. He stated, in his opinion, you cannot just let anyone use the kitchen. People do not follow the rules that you make. You need a full-time person to handle a kitchen.
Mayor Borrowe closed the Public Comment.
Councilmember Carroll commented that after talking to staff about what people request, he was of the opinion that most of them did not need a stove. They usually bring food already prepared. He stated that he was concerned about problems of maintenance and cleanup. It would require a part-time person to watch over it, which would cost more. He stated that he would go with Option B, but that he is very concerned with the expense.
Councilmember Klein stated that he also had talked to Senior Management Analyst Orchanian and agreed with Councilmember Carroll and would rather go with Option B without the stove. He felt that having a stove was actually a fire danger.
Councilmember Millsap stated that she has done her share of cleanup at The Park, inside and outside, and, in her opinion, most people do not do a good job of cleaning up in the entire Park.
Mayor Borrowe commented that he would like to see a kitchen in the Community that could act as an Emergency Kitchen if we have problems. It would increase our Revenue by having the full kitchen, and we should charge people whatever would cover costs of the help we would need. We are spending a large amount on the Horse AnnouncerÕs Booth, and we should be able to spend what we need for a kitchen.
Mayor Borrowe offered a motion to approve Option A.
The motion died due to lack of a second.
Councilmember Klein offered a motion to approve StaffÕs recommendation to select Option B. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Carroll.
City Attorney Levin clarified that tonightÕs item is only to direct Staff. They will move forward, get bid amounts and return to you with the precise amount and a budget limit.
The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: Borrowe
ABSENT: None
11. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2004-23, GRADING MODIFICATION 2004-15 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2004-06 THE CITY COUNCIL DEEMS NECESSARY (PATEL) 500 GREEN VIEW ROAD. (APPEAL)
Mayor Borrowe and Councilmember Millsap recused themselves from this item as they live or own property within 500 feet of the subject property and could have some interest in the outcome. Mayor Borrowe noted that he would speak as a resident.
Councilmember Millsap stated that she would not make a comment as a resident on this.
City Attorney Levin explained that the City has made arrangements for the broadcast of the meeting to be shown in the back room so those who recused themselves can watch the item and the Public Comments. State Law requires that those recused Councilmembers remove themselves from the room entirely during discussion of this item, but they may return for their Public Comment.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas suggested that we take a tape break now, so we do not have to interrupt during Item 11. Mayor Pro Tem Douglas called an intermission at 10:04 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas ended the intermission at 10:14 P.M.
City Attorney Levin clarified the reason the two Council Members recused themselves. She explained that each of the two Councilmembers own property within 500 feet of the proposed project and under State Law it is presumed that owning real property within 500 feet creates a financial interest in the outcome of the decision and therefore a conflict of interest. Councilmembers are required to recuse themselves unless it was established that there was absolutely no impact. She noted that it is presumed that the potential for conflict exists.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas explained that Staff and the Planning Commission is working under difficult conditions to try and follow the new General Plan without all of the enabling Ordinances being finished. Mayor Pro Tem Douglas thanked the Planning Commissioners and Staff for working so hard over this project.
Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt commented that there is a letter before the Council from the Applicant requesting a continuance of this Item. Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that she was prepared to present the Staff Report and asked for the CouncilÕs direction in the matter.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas asked that they go ahead and continue until the Council decides that they have heard enough, and then decide if they want to go for a continuance or not.
Councilmember Klein clarified that the Item is an Appeal, but the letter for a continuance is from the owner (Mr. Patel).
Mayor Pro Tem commented that this is an Appeal on the Planning Commission approval of the noted Modifications and Tree Removal Permit noted in the Agenda.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that the Planning Commission held four Hearings on this project and approved it on their last meeting on January 25, 2005. She stated that the issues they dealt with were the height in relation to the required building envelope, which did extend beyond the envelope at one point and was modified by the owner. The grading quantities were reduced. The story poles were modified and replaced. They have again fallen into disrepair and have not been replaced at this time. Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that they had a discrepancy in the net and gross lot area and it had to be recalculated. The owner modified the landscaping plan.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that because of the cooperation of the owner, the Planning Commission approved the project. On January 31, 2005 a letter of Appeal was received which expressed disagreement with the conclusions of the Planning Commission. She noted the following:
Comment 1. The allowable graded area is exceeded and this overage was not mentioned at the Hearing or in the Resolution.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt stated that this is true if you count the driveway easement that extends to the other three houses. Staff was focusing on the impervious surface primarily as the public is very interested in this. The Resolution does mention the calculation and makes a finding for exceeding the allowable amount.
Comment 2. The City failed to require the soils engineering report and geology report.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt reported that we have them in our files. There is nothing in them that would indicate a problem.
Comment 3. The City failed to require a hydrology report and a landscaping plan.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that there is a landscape plan, which was modified during a Public Meeting to change the tree species. A hydrology report was prepared as part of the drainage plan during the Plan Check.
Comment 4. The findings necessary to approve a Grading Modification were not made and cannot be made due to the nature of the project.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that this was true. The findings were made on Grading Development Policies. The correct findings are in the Resolution you have in your packet tonight.
Comment 5. Allows almost twice the allowable Impervious Coverage in a known drainage sensitive location.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that the 3.3 acres allows 17,800 square feet of Impervious Coverage. If you figure the 20-foot width of the entire driveway easement, you have approximately 30,000 square feet of impervious covering.
Councilmember Klein asked what the Code requires in this case.
City Attorney Levin explained that the existing 10-foot width of the driveway is Òexisting legal non-conforming.Ó The Code requires a 20-foot width. She noted that the City has the discretion in this case to require an expansion to a 20-foot width or not to require that. If it is left at the 10-foot width, you figure the impervious coverage at the 10-foot width figures. If you upgrade it to the 20-foot width, you would use the 20-foot width to figure the impervious coverage.
Comment 6. Plans show a fill slope on the driveway easement. Not acceptable.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that it is a cut slope, and there are no encroachments of the new project on the driveway easement.
Comment 7. Plans show a retaining wall on the existing driveway. Not acceptable.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt stated that there is no retaining wall in the existing driveway.
Comment 8. A stairway is shown on the driveway easement.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt commented that this would be modified by the owner and removed.
Comment 9. If the ownerÕs portion of the driveway is upgraded to a 20-foot width, the common driveway should be improved also.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that the Planning Commission made a condition of approval (condition 10, page 5) that the owner must improve the existing 10-foot driveway where it is damaged and would be further damaged by his construction activity on site.
Comment 10. Condition 10 is improper and possibly illegal since the Planning Commission required a Grading Modification to widen the road to a 20-foot width on a separate occasion.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that a Grading Modification application needs to be submitted to make any improvement on the driveway.
City Attorney Levin noted that Condition 10 was supposed to make it clear that expanding the road to a 20 foot width anywhere beyond the initial 20-foot width leading to the new house was not being approved; however, repair of the existing roadway was being approved.
Comment 11. Condition 10 creates a situation where easement holders may be prevented from complying with City Codes. Condition 10 states easement holders must apply for a Standards Modification to widen the driveway. The driveway is 10 feet wide. Code requires 20 feet in width.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt commented that the same explanation from 10 applies to 11.
Comment 12. Condition 10 is inaccurate and that the driveway easement is currently 10 feet wide.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that it is a non-conforming driveway easement. It may remain in its current state.
Staff changed the wording in the condition, from ÒeasementÓ to Òpavement.Ó
Comment 13. ÒFindingÓ 4 on page 3 is inaccurate.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that the appropriate findings have been included in the Resolution.
Comment 14. ÒFindingÓ 7 on page 3 is inaccurate.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that this is not a ÒFindingÓ required in a Grading Modification. She noted that Building Plans must comply with Code and SUSMP requirements. Plans will comply with these items, as well as drainage requirements.
Comment 15. Condition 16 on page 6 is inaccurate. It mentions 2 homes at the end of the driveway, when there are 3 homes.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that she has changed this.
Comment 16. The Planning Commission approved a Grading Modification to exceed Impervious Coverage Limits; however, no application was filed asking for a Modification.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt commented that the purpose of a Grading Modification is to allow for any modifications to the standards in the grading chapter. There is no need to apply for a separate Grading Modification for each item.
Comment 17. The appellants are asserting that buildings should be set back from the easement edge the same distance as from a property line.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that there is nothing in the Codes that support this.
Comment 18. The California Environmental Quality Act was not followed. A focused EIR should be prepared.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that single-family homes are exempt from a Negative Declaration or an EIR unless there are extenuating circumstances that would require one on this project. There isnÕt anything on this property that would require further review.
Comment 19. Allowing a development of this nature on unstable ground can result in structural failure.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt commented that there is no evidence of geotechnical failure in this area. Though there was testimony at the Planning Commission noting future problems, there is no documentation to substantiate it.
Comment 20. The proposed project violates three Goals and at least ten Policies of the General Plan.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that the Planning Commission was able to make a finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and adopted the Resolution stating that.
StaffÕs recommendation is to open the Public Hearing and uphold the Planning Commissions approval.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas asked if other locations for the structure were discussed.
The Community Development Director answered that they did not have a discussion, but from the topography map the structure was placed on the flattest part of the property. Moving it in any direction would increase the grading considerably.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas noted that the Plans do not show the existing grading or impervious coverage.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt agreed that they do not include the road easement.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas opened for Public Comments. He stated that he would start with the appellants. Stephen Blagden and Lynne Rolnik will represent the appellants. We will split their time to total 10 minutes. We will give the same time to the applicant, and he may share the time with his attorney. After that, we will go to a 4-minute limit for the public.
Lynne Rolnik, Green View Road, stated that she is a realtor and that the previous owner has tried to sell the property many times and it has always fallen out of escrow. She has no documentation of the reason for this. It was verbally expressed to her that the land would not hold a large size house. This sort of problem brings down the property values in the area. She stated that the City should be concerned about liability. She stated we need to be on the side of caution.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, offered to correct what, in his opinion, is erroneous information. Mr. Blagden pointed out that the Code requires that the impervious coverage for the driveway be calculated at 20 feet required width rather than the present 10 feet which would be the 16,000 square feet of impervious coverage and the easement holder can improve it at any time. He stated that Condition 10 is illegal. Mr. Blagden stated that the Planning Commission never found this application consistent with the General Plan. He noted that he did not think that an appeal was a proper place to correct past procedural errors. He also noted that the notice regarding the appeal was so broad as to not be meaningful. He also pointed out further errors in the Resolution Òfindings.Ó Mr. Blagden noted that on the soils report, the map shows that the borings were not taken where the house will be. The geotechnical report points to the parcel, but that is not where the lot is. The lot actually contains two State designated landslide zones.
Dean Derleth, Best, Best & Krieger Law Firm, representing the owner (Mr. Patel), commented the reason they asked for a continuance of the Hearing was to give his firm more time to catch up with the facts, as they are new to the case. He thought, in his opinion, that the Staff Report was very supportive of the reasons for the approval from the Planning Commission. He stated that Mr. Patel was willing to meet with the neighbors and Staff to go over the issues. Mr. Derleth noted that Mr. Patel was not aware that the Story Poles needed to be repaired, but will have them repaired. He noted that he would still like to have a continuance. Mr. Derleth stated that he did not think it was reasonable to interpret the code to put the burden on Mr. Patel for the whole driveway impervious coverage when he uses only a very small percentage of the driveway. Mr. Derleth stated that if the impervious surface code was applied literally, the structure would not fit the neighborhood.
Ken Wilch, Engineer for the owner, stated that they worked diligently with Staff to make a good project.
Ed Borrowe, Mayor, commented that this project violates the General Plan in many areas. He noted that there are 10 General Plan Policies that are violated including the Geological and Percolation tests. It appears that we make a condition that those are at the end of the application, whereas the Ordinance says that they should be at the beginning. This would save money for all involved. He also stated that legal advice is just advice, you will not make your whole decision on that. Impervious Coverage is very important. Mayor Borrowe commented that a big house needs to be landscaped on all four sides. He stated that he would like to see the project denied.
Michael Bagwell, Dorothea Road, stated that he disagrees with the answer to Comment 16 for this Appeal. He stated that ÒFindingsÓ are a legal necessity, and are very important to decisions made. He commented that the Planning Commission rarely avails itself to the separate ÒfindingsÓ needed to make their decisions. Mr. Bagwell passed out part of the MPDS permit, which is a Federal Order, issued on the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency through the California Water Quality Control Board. Mr. Bagwell pointed out that by not establishing objective standards, the City has failed to meet the minimum development planning requirements of this Federal Order. He noted that the General Plan must be followed.
Ralph Luhm, Green View, spoke of his concern with the amount of impervious coverage.
Doug Whyte, Green View, noted that this house does not blend in with the neighborhood. He stated that the two houses across from the project are hidden from view. The new project is large and will stand out.
Norm Zezula, commented that the Community of La Habra Heights is the rural oasis because of the building restrictions that we have. Mr. Zezula noted that if a 6,000-foot house cannot be built on this lot without violating the impervious coverage codes, he should build a smaller house. Most of the houses in the neighborhood are 1800 square feet and one that is about 3,000 square feet. The General Plan does not say to go with the Òtrend.Ó Mr. Zezula noted the poor conditions of the story poles.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas moved for rebuttal. He stated that he would take the applicant first for about four minutes and then the appellant has five minutes of time left.
Dean Derleth, of Best, Best & Krieger Law Service, expressed his opinion that there is no evidence that anything like the drawings of the borings and soil stability maps are going to happen. Findings cannot be based on the drawings. Mr. Derleth noted, in his opinion, there is no reason to think the driveway does not have to be increased to 20 feet. Mr. Derleth again asked for a continuance of the Hearing for the owner so he can get more information and get the story poles improved. He concluded that Mr. Patel needs to have reasonable use of his land.
Lynne Rolnik, Green View, spoke about the easement, which needs repair because it is not even 10 feet wide in some places. The majority of that easement is on that property. Mr. Patel will need to use the easement to get to the back of his property. She stated that no one is weeding or watering the parcel and that the rules are not fair for everyone.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, explained that the project does not match the neighborhood. There is evidence of two landslide zones on the property and evidence of movement around it. There are things that can be done to use the property without violating the General Plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas closed the Public Comment on this item and explained that all of the Councilmembers have read the appellant information, watched tapes of the Planning Commission Meetings, been to the site, and looked at the staff reports. We are trying to provide careful consideration of this.
Councilmember Klein commented to Mr. Patel and his Counsel that the City has used Impervious Coverage as a tool for many years to determine how much of a parcel can be developed long before the purchase of this property. We really have not had many problems with slides involving houses. We have had some large homes on varying sizes of property; however, they did not have this degree of easement problem. We do try to be consistent. Councilmember Klein stated that he does not have a clear picture of the amount of Mr. PatelÕs allowable grading. He noted that according to the slope, the allowable Imperious Coverage is 117,872 square feet. He noted that amount will be our guiding line. Councilmember Klein stated that there is some driveway already existing and some easement on it. The City Attorney had commented that part of this is pre-existing, and there is some potential for widening. Mr. Blagden brought up a comment that if there is an easement, they can cover that easement at some future date. We need to establish what the Impervious Coverage is going to be now and take into account what might be done in the future.
City Attorney Levin clarified that private property owners cannot, by agreement with one another, give each other the right to violate the City Code. A driveway cannot be paved to a width of 20 feet if it is not consistent with the City Code. If there is an application in the future to widen the driveway to 20 feet, the City is not required to approve that application.
Councilmember Klein asked the City Attorney if we are able to somehow limit the width of the future driveway, for example 12 feet maximum for the benefit of the Fire Department, would we be stepping over the line for the property rights of those who have easements of 20 feet.
City Attorney Levin noted that the Fire Department has signed off on this property as the driveway being adequate. She commented that assuming that you have a width limit for approval of this project, and in the future someone comes to you with an application to exceed Impervious Coverage limits, the request would be considered under the Code at that time. It is a discretionary application, and you would not have to approve it simply because there is an easement. City Attorney Levin explained that there might be claims that the property owners have against one another. The City is not involved in that.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas commented that Councilmember Klein has made it clear that Impervious Coverage standards work very well. He stated that he also recognizes that point.
Councilmember Carroll thanked Stephen Blagden for the research work he has done. Councilmember Carroll asked Staff how much of the easement driveway is chargeable to the three addresses adjacent to 500 Green View.
City Attorney Levin explained that as far as against the Impervious Coverage limits, the answer is none.
Councilmember Carroll asked if the only Code Section on Impervious Coverage is 85-15.
City Attorney Levin answered that the only other related section is on Grading Modification.
Councilmember Carroll asked City Engineer Melicher to relate the Impervious Coverage to minimize storm drainage runoff.
City Engineer Melicher explained that this City controls Impervious Coverage beyond control of storm drainage runoff.
Councilmember Carroll asked the City Engineer to explain the amount of runoff that increases when you increase the amount of Impervious Coverage.
City Engineer Melicher commented that due to NPDES requirements, the County has provided formulas and charts to calculate storm water runoff. When you calculate significant storm events you find that it flows downhill no matter what the surface is. The rate of flow does increase with the amount of Impervious Coverage. The quantity will stay the same.
Councilmember Carroll asked if the proposed plan causes the City Engineer any problem or concern.
City Engineer Melicher explained that NPDES tries to control pollution and increases in rates of water flow. The only pollution we worry about here is soil. Drainage controls where the water goes. City Engineer Melicher stated that drainage could be addressed and can easily be handled on the property.
Councilmember Carroll commented that the problem with the easement is that there is nothing in the Code that addresses easements. He stated that if this were a road, there would not be a problem. He noted that the Impervious Coverage is charged to the one property even though the three other homes use the driveway, and, to me, this makes it difficult.
Councilmember Klein stated that he also thinks it is a difficulty in this case; however, the driveway is on this property.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas commented that he had looked at the ÒfindingsÓ required to grant a Standards Modification, or the ÒfindingsÓ that can or cannot be made in support of the appellants case and concluded that on the Grading Modification, the project will not adversely affect the goals and policies of the General plan. Mayor Pro Tem Douglas stated that he could not see compliance in numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 20 of the Land Use Elements from the General Plan. He noted that since the story poles are not all there, he could not see the mass or screening of the project. He noted that he would like to make a motion that he cannot make the ÒfindingsÓ to approve the project.
Mayor pro Tem Douglas offered a motion to uphold the appellants appeal to deny the original approval of the Planning Commission.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that at a previous Planning Commission Meeting the issue of the Story Poles came up and the owner indicated that he would repair them and was asked to do that.
Councilmember Klein stated that he was not ready to address the motion because he was still considering the Impervious Coverage. Councilmember Klein stated that everyone needs a little more guidance. He noted that the Impervious Coverage is related to the water issue and it also limits the size of the house on a given property. He stated that if they settle on the Impervious Coverage amount, it would give the owner knowledge of how big his house can be.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas stated that he could not evaluate the Impervious Coverage component without knowing the size of the structure that is planned. If it exceeds the allowable, he will have to make the Òfindings.Ó
The Council discussed the Impervious Coverage allowable amount.
Councilmember Klein noted that the project has been approved as far as the Fire Department is concerned, so that driveway square footage has to be subtracted from the allowable Impervious Coverage to give the owner a better idea of what he may build on his property.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas stated that he wants the Impervious Coverage to take care of the runoff and the aesthetic issues. He stated that he is very interested in blending and hiding the house as asked for in the General Plan. He noted that the landscape plans are very deficient.
Councilmember Carroll asked the City Attorney to resolve the discussion so we can move forward.
City Attorney Levin stated that at least two Councilmembers are saying that the project needs to be significantly revised or modified before it will be acceptable. This project has been around for some time, and the State has deadlines. This calls for a denial so the applicant can come back with a more acceptable plan. If it is continued or sent back to the Planning Commission, it leaves a very short time for them to resubmit an acceptable plan. She stated that she would not recommend that. City Attorney Levin explained that if the project is denied without prejudice, the applicant could bring the same project back or this project with only minor modifications. If there is denial with prejudice, the applicant would be prohibited to bring back the same project for one year.
Councilmember Carroll asked if it was possible with the size of the project to bring it back with the landscaping issue alone.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas answered that he was not sure that the front could be screened to the degree necessary. There may be some modification possible that would allow more room for screening.
City Attorney Levin stated that if the project were continued, Council would have to continue it to a Special Meeting because we are almost out of time. It is probably unrealistic that the Applicant could get back to us with revised plans. A denial of the project in its present form does not mean that the City would not approve a different project on the same site. If it can be approved with an essentially similar project, it should be denied without prejudice. If the project cannot be approved with anything substantially similar, it should be denied with prejudice. City Attorney Levin answered Councilmember Carroll that if it is denied without prejudice, it will go back to the Planning Commission. A continuance would come back to the City Council at a Special Council Meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas commented that if there were a continuance, the Appellant would have little time to make comments.
City Attorney Levin stated that Staff has little time to comment and the public has very little time to comment. She noted that she did not recommend a continuance.
City Attorney Levin stated the Council had made the following findings: that the denial is based on non-conformity with the General Plan; in particular, with the policies enumerated by Mayor Pro Tem Douglas. The project has insufficient landscape plans and inadequate story poles. The record tonight is insufficient to support the excess in Impervious Coverage and Councilmember Klein is doubtful that the record could ever support the excess as it is. She noted that she would put the ÒfindingsÓ needed into a Resolution and the motion should include authorization for the Vice Mayor to sign the Resolution.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas noted that the ÒfindingsÓ for the Standard Modification for Grading do not distinguish between Impervious Coverage and Grading. He stated that his inability to make those ÒfindingsÓ are not entirely related to Impervious Coverage.
City Attorney Levin noted that she would add a ÒfindingÓ for Gradable Area. The current record does not support the excess Gradable Area, but it could be supported in the future with a different record.
Councilmember Klein commented that they need plans with accurate and complete numbers.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas asked that elevations be required on plans, including fill and retaining walls.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas offered to amend his original motion to vote in favor of the Appellant to deny without prejudice Standards Modification 2004-23, Grading Modification 2004-15 and Tree Removal Permit 2004-06. Councilmember Carroll seconded the motion, noting that the owner could have a similar project if they address the issues that Mayor Pro Tem Douglas raised. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Carroll, Douglas and Klein
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Borrowe and Millsap
An Intermission was started at 12:51 A.M.
The Meeting was reconvened at 1:00 A.M.
OLD BUSINESS
12. FIRE AND CITY HALL FACILITIES AND LOCATION PROCESS
This item was continued from the Regular City Council meeting of January 13, 2005.
City Manager Hendrickson reported that Council asked Staff to bring back a proposal to hold meetings, outreach, information process including a phasing timeline, and costs. City Manager Hendrickson stated that he talked with two Architectural firms regarding the cost for drawings that are not detailed, but are more than sketches. The cost for the three options, if we want elevations, was about $15,000. He noted that he has talked with one of the Architects that consults with Transtech and we may be able to lower that cost by half. We may be able to lower some of the other costs also. The possible charges are:
a. Drawings $15,000
b. Newsletter $ 2,500
c. Cost Evaluation $ 2,500
d. Charrette $ 5,000
Councilmember Carroll noted that he would like the drawings to have elevations.
Councilmember Klein noted that, in his opinion, elevations would just be estimations and he would rather go with what they already have. Residents would like some costs for different possibilities.
City Manager Hendrickson noted the three options:
1. Moving both City Hall and the Fire Station to the new property at Hacienda and West Road.
2. Major remodeling or development at this site for Fire Station and City Hall.
3. Less extensive and costly remodeling for both Fire Station and City Hall at this site.
City Manager Hendrickson noted that we already have conceptual drawings of these.
Councilmember Millsap commented that the Multi-Purpose room might not be large enough for a Town Hall Meeting. She stated that if we have to use the Park Building, there are some things we would have to do.
Joe Geissinger, Audio, explained that this sound system could not be moved to The Park, and The Park does not have the audio equipment we would need.
Councilmember Millsap asked if the equipment could be rented.
Mr. Geissinger answered in the affirmative.
Council agreed that they do not want to spend $5,000 for Charrette service.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas also agreed with Councilmember Klein that they did not need drawings with elevations.
City Manager Hendrickson noted that he would see if he could move the timeline up a little.
13. P.H.L.N.H.P.A. PRESERVATION AUTHORIZE CTAC MEMBER VACANCY
Councilmember Carroll moved that they appoint Suzanne Chung to the Citizens Technical Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Klein and approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Item 14 was taken out of order.
NEW BUSINESS
15. EXCHANGE ÒCDBGÓ FUNDS FOR GENERAL FUNDS WITH THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD
RESOLUTION 05-02 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS APPROVING A LETTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS AND THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD REGARDING THE EXCHANGE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (ÒCDBGÓ) FUNDS FOR GENERAL FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-06.
The City of La Habra Heights has decided to sell its CDBG funds to the City of West Hollywood for $.68/1.00 and, in return, the City of San Fernando will assign $25,245.00 of its General Funds to our City.
Councilmember Carroll offered a motion to adopt Resolution 05-02. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Millsap and approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
16. APPROVAL AUTHORIZING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO GO TO BID FOR WEED ABATEMENT SERVICES
Fire Marshal Powderly reported that in 2002 the Council approved bids for both weed abatement mechanical and handwork. This service ends on March 31, 2005. This bid had covered both mechanical and handwork. We will be re-submitting the bid.
Councilmember Millsap asked where the tractor and handwork would be done.
Fire Marshal Powderly responded that they use mostly handwork. Any time the contractor sees a need for mechanical work, he will bring equipment in. The City is mostly taken care of by handwork.
Councilmember Millsap noted that they were using a weed whacker along Hacienda Road. She noted that there might be a better way.
Marshal Powderly answered that they could use a lawnmower, but if the blade hits a stone it could cause a spark and start a fire. They seem to be quite efficient with the weed eaters.
Councilmember Carroll offered a motion to authorize the Fire Department to go to bid for weed abatement services. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Douglas and approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
17. DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL MEMBERS ASSIGNED AS LIAISON TO VOLUNTEER COMMITTEES
Mayor Borrowe explained that several members of the Community had suggested to him that it would be a good idea for one Council Member to be assigned to each Committee and Commission to attend their meetings quarterly and act as a liaison between the Committee/Commission and the City Council/City Manager. This should let the volunteers know that the Council and the City appreciate them. Mayor Borrowe asked for a discussion on the matter by the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas noted that there were obvious benefits from this. He asked City Manager Hendrickson if there was any downside to the idea.
City Manager Hendrickson stated that in a large Committee that is doing a lot of work, it can work well. City Manager Hendrickson stated that the downside he has seen is that it sometimes is difficult to determine who is in control. He noted that it has to be set up right to keep from blurring the line of who is in charge. He stated that if the Council as a whole thought it would help them that would be a good way to do it.
Councilmember Millsap commented that, in her opinion, the Councilmembers do have communication with various Committees and Commissions during the month and all of the Council has taken on various obligations to other groups that require additional time outside of the Council Meetings. She pointed out that Mayor Borrowe has not done this.
Councilmember Klein suggested looking at the matter in April when we are dividing up the other groups we have to be delegates for and have a new Council.
Norm Zezula stated that he strongly supports this proposal for Councilmembers as liaison to the various Committees and Commissions. Mr. Zezula noted that volunteerism in the City has declined. It is even difficult to get anyone to apply. He pointed out that similar things are done on the Federal level. It promotes a better understanding of what is going on in the Committees. He stated that this is only four hours per year for each Councilmember.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas stated that he does attend a Committee whenever he is interested in what they are doing at the time. He stated that he liked Councilmember KleinÕs suggestion.
Mayor Borrowe noted that he was disappointed that the Council is not interested in trying this. He felt that this shows our City is not receptive to volunteers, and the City Manager may feel his authority would be threatened by this.
Councilmember Millsap noted that Mayor Borrowe had resigned all of the groups he was in.
18. DISCUSSION TO DELAY TRAFFIC STRIPING
Councilmember Klein noted that he requested this be brought up. The City Manager had stated that they were going out to bid for the striping on Hacienda Road. Due to the slides on Hacienda Road, it seems that this is not a good time to do so.
Councilmember Carroll noted that he was not in favor of the striping, and he thought it was a good idea to postpone it.
Mayor Borrowe noted that just because a portion of the striping is being put off for now, it does not mean that we should not do the balance of the road. He noted that this was supposed to be done last October. He further stated that the reason for the striping was not only to calm the traffic, but also to give the people living along Hacienda Road safer ingress and egress from their property. He commented that to keep delaying this means we are telling these residents that we donÕt care about them. Mayor Borrowe stated that, in his opinion, we should go ahead with the balance of the road.
Mayor Borrowe offered a motion to go ahead with the bid for the balance of the striping.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilmember Klein offered a motion to put off the striping. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Carroll.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas commented that we do need to do something to calm the traffic on Hacienda Road.
Councilmember Millsap asked to see the striping plan.
The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: Borrowe
ABSENT: None
19. RESOLUTION WARRANTING THE PROCLAMATION OF A PUBLIC EMERGENCY AND DESIGNATING AN AUTHORIZED AGENT TO OBTAIN DISASTER ASSISTANCE
City Manager Hendrickson reported that since approximately December 26, 2004 we have had some very heavy storms. On January 15, 2005, the State of California proclaimed an emergency in Los Angeles County as a result of the storms to the County Administrator. City Manager Hendrickson stated he signed a state of local emergency on January 26, 2004, which should be confirmed by the Council. On February 4, 2004, a Federal Declaration of an Emergency was made by President Bush. The effective date of the disaster declaration began on December 27, 2004 and continued to January 11, 2005. We may be eligible for aid through these Declarations for serious storm damages that occurred in the City. We have had damage to a number of our roads. We have estimated we have spent between $20,000 and $25,000 already. If we are eligible for FEMA funding, it is about 75%, and we would have to match 25%. We possibly could get help on the 25% from OES.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 05-05 designating the City Manager as authorized agent to apply for Federal and/or State financial assistance for storm damage.
Councilmember Carroll offered a motion to adopt Resolution 05-05 warranting the proclamation of a public emergency and designating an authorized agent to obtain disaster assistance. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Douglas and approved as follows:
AYES: Borrowe, Carroll, Douglas, Klein and Millsap
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
20. CITY MANAGERÕS REPORT
City Manager Hendrickson commented that until we can get Hacienda Road dried out in that one spot where the road is undermined from the storm, traffic will be more difficult. We have a report from the Geotechnical Engineer. He indicated there were problems, but he did not believe this would go past the centerline point under the road. It was the recommendation of both he and the Engineer to move that line in the lanes out towards the upslope to avoid the traffic putting pressure on the down slope side of the road. This was an emergency consideration. Law Enforcement helped us to slow down the traffic. When the Engineer can give another report on the situation, we will have a better idea of what problems we have, what the solutions might be and what the cost may be.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas asked if there was a structure below the road that was adversely affected.
City Manager Hendrickson replied that there was a house that the toe of the slope was, according to the Engineer, putting pressure on the patio, which was then putting pressure on the foundation of the house. We gave some direction to that person, although we did not feel we had to ask the person to leave. We check on him often.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas asked if Staff keeps track of the time the Sheriff is out there.
City Manager Hendrickson explained that we can only count overtime, and we will ask for those figures.
21. CITY ATTORNEYÕS REPORT
City Attorney Levin noted that she had nothing to report.
22. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORÕS REPORT
There was no Community Development report.
23. CITY ENGINEERÕS REPORT
There was no EngineerÕs report.
24. FIRE CHIEFÕS REPORT
The Fire Chief had no report.
25. SHERIFFÕS DEPARTMENT REPORT
Sheriff Ault had no report.
26. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas commented that recently he has noticed that many homes are non-conforming, and he has been hearing how expensive and burdensome remodeling is. Councilmember Douglas noted that the General Plan in Land Use Policy 48 requires the City to encourage in their Ordinances the remodeling and rebuilding of the older homes. He asked if the City Manager intends to follow that policy.
City Manager Hendrickson stated that he does not intend to ignore any of the policies. We also have to follow what State Law or Federal Law may dictate to us. We have to follow them all.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas explained that his house is over fifty years old and the costs are high. He noted that the existing foundations donÕt meet earthquake codes, and he would have to rip them all out and do expensive underpinning. Is there something from having to do this underpinning.
City Manager Hendrickson explained that he could not personally recommend that. The City has adopted Building Codes. He suggested that Mayor Pro Tem Douglas be very careful about removing those Building Codes.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas asked if the City could have the right to overturn the Uniform Building Code.
City Manager Hendrickson stated that they do make some modifications. But if you modified those codes, you might run into some liability.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas noted that if he has to follow the Earthquake Codes, he will have to do inside and outside sheathing and redo the walls.
City Manager Hendrickson stated that as far as he knows, all of the Cities in this area have adopted the Building Code. Most of it is as written.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas noted that he would have to put in a new septic system, tear down patios and build wells.
City Manager Hendrickson stated that there are State regulations. We entered into an MOU with the State to uphold those regulations. We canÕt undo those regulations.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas noted so far it is not permit costs that is giving him such a large problem. He noted that people have complained that even small remodels are slow and costly. Planning Department representatives have told us that about 90% of those projects are not going to the Planning Commission. A lot of the simple additions get approved all the time. Is this so?
City Manager Hendrickson answered that they have told him this. He stated that even larger additions that do not ask for a Modification and are meeting the Codes do not go through the Planning Commission and are approved Administratively.
Councilmember Millsap stated that she would have to ask the Staff why they are being slow and burdensome. She stated that she knows two specific projects that have been approved, one in ten months and one in four months that were approved Administratively and they were quite large.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas offered his opinion that the City is continuing to make efforts. He stated that sometimes he thinks the City approved things that should be a little harder. He noted that in one of the flyers it says that there is a simple and effective way to encourage remodels by simplifying and reducing the costs. As far as he can tell, the costs are coming from the Building Codes and the Earthquake Engineers. He asked the City Manager if there is some way he knows of what would simplify and reduce the costs.
City Manager Hendrickson noted that one reason is the terrain and our values such as the View Modification that does not apply in a lot of Cities.
Mayor Pro Tem Douglas stated that we are required to pay very high fees. ShouldnÕt that come out of the General Fund?
City Manager Hendrickson noted that the question is whether all of the taxpayers should have to pay for others who are having remodeling and building projects. Actually, the fees are not that high in comparison with other Cities.
Councilmember Millsap noted that she had compared our fees with those of some other Cities, and in most cases, ours were even lower.
City Manager Hendrickson commented that any time architectural design or engineering takes more time or you have unusual geographical features, it is going to cost more to go through the process than an ordinary project.
CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were no Public Comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Borrowe adjourned the City Council meeting at 1:58 A.M. to the next Regular City Council meeting on March 10, 2005.
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CITY CLERK, JOHN F. HENDRICKSON