CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

 

CITY COUNCIL

 

JUNE 12, 2008

 

 

CLOSED SESSION

 

            CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

 

            A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council.

 

            ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

            G.C. 54956.9b (3) (A)

 

            Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation but which the City believes are not yet known to potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.

 

            Two cases

 

OPENING CEREMONIES

 

1.              CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

Mayor Stan Carroll called the June 12, 2008 Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. at the Multi Purpose Room, 1245 Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California. Mayor Carroll noted that they have come from Closed Session and asked City Attorney Levin if there is anything to report.

 

City Attorney Levin stated that no reportable action was taken, but two items were not completed so the Council may recess back to the Closed Session at the end of this open meeting.

 

2.         ROLL CALL

 

Present: Mayor Stan Carroll, Mayor Pro Tem Howard Vipperman, Council Members Layne Baroldi, Brian Bergman and Tela Millsap.

 

Staff Present: Interim City Manager Shauna Clark, City Attorney Sandra Levin, Community Development Director (CDD) Justin Powers, Interim Financial Services Manager Larry Schroeder, Deputy City Clerk Grace Andres, Fire Chief John Nielsen and Sheriff Lieutenant John McBride.

 

3.              FLAG SALUTE

 

Sheriff Deputy James Bickel and daughters led the flag salute.

 

4.              PRESENTATIONS

 

·      Certificate of Appreciation, Deputy James Bickel, L.A. County Sheriff

 

Mayor Carroll presented Deputy Bickel with a plaque of Appreciation for his six years of service in our City from 2002 to June of 2008. He is leaving us.

 

Judy Hathaway Francis called forward people that wanted to give their opinion of Deputy Bickel.

 

Carolyn DiMario, Improvement Association, presented Jim Bickel with a plaque showing their appreciation for his service.

 

Judy Ennis noted that Jim Bickel keeps our Community safe day and night. She thanked him for this.

 

Kathy Sauble, Emergency Preparedness Chairman, stated that she has worked with Deputy Bickel for several years and he has always been so helpful. She presented him with a plaque thanking him for his service from the Emergency Preparedness Committee, Disaster Communications Service, Volunteers on Patrol and special thanks from the residents of La Habra Heights for his service above and beyond the call of duty.

 

George Edwards presented Deputy Bickel with a gift basket for his time in this City.

 

Jessica Winship, Lost Animal Network, stated her appreciation for his service in our City.

 

Sheriff Captain Mike Smith noted that the people he works with see him as ethical, professional, educated, passionate, innovative, personable, and caring. Captain Smith presented Deputy Bickel with a commendation from Sheriff Lee Baca for dedicated service.

 

Roy Francis presented Deputy Bickel and his daughters with cowboy hats.

 

Deputy Bickel stated that this is a Community that cares about itself and that has rubbed off on me, and I really have enjoyed being your Sheriff. He stated that Lieutenant Ault taught him to think of this Community as ours and to treat it that way. He thanked the Community and the Fire Department for making him feel welcome here and he stated that you live in one of the safest cities in the County.

 

Bruce Thomas, former fireman, stated that Deputy Bickel and some others had changed his opinion of the Sheriff’s Department from when he was young.

 

Fire Chief Nielsen stated that he has helped to establish a very good relationship between the Sheriff’s Department and the Fire Department.

 

Judy Hathaway Francis asked for a short intermission to celebrate with Deputy Bickel. She noted that refreshments are at the Fire Department.

 

Mayor Carroll broke for an intermission at 7:54 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:14 p.m.

 

·      Certificate of Appreciation from Congressman Gary Miller to Immediate past Mayor, Council Member Brian Bergman

 

            Pat Fabio, Representative from Congressman Gary Miller’s Office, presented Council Member Bergman with a Certificate recognizing his outstanding year of service to the City of La Habra Heights.

 

            Mayor Carroll recognized those who took part in making the Avocado Festival a big success. He called the following people to come forward – Karen Vipperman, Kathy Sauble, Yvonne Strain, Faith Grimm, Crystal Myers, Sandy Dykier, Norm Zezula, Bud Cummings, Davida Pearson, Joe Geissinger, and Grace Andres.

 

            Kathy Sauble commented with her thanks for all those who co-sponsored the event, the Fire Department and Sheriff’s Department. She also thanked those from the Community who supported the Avocado Festival.

 

·      Public Works Committee, Chairperson Jerry Shipman

 

                  Stephen Blagden reported for Jerry Shipman who could not be at the Meeting. He noted that the Hacienda Road repair plans are proceeding and hopefully they will go to Caltrans next month and will be approved so we can keep the grant. The Zone 1 bids came in and we hope they will be approved at the next Council Meeting. We still hope that it will be done before the school year starts.

 

·      Emergency Preparedness Committee, Chairperson Kathy Sauble.

 

Ms. Sauble stated that the theme this month is on Hazardous Materials. The information is on the website under ESP Focus and there will be handouts at City Hall. On July 12^th there will be a household hazardous waste roundup for cleaning items and chemicals that you want to dispose of. Store these items properly if you keep them. We have had a C.E.R.T. refresher and a Red Cross shelter demonstration and simulation. All have been very helpful.

 

            Mayor Carroll noted that Music in the Park will start on June 25^th starting with “The Answer”.

 

5.              PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS ON THE AGENDA AND NOT ON THE AGENDA

 

Janice Slattery, representing the La Habra Heights Fine Artists and Artisans, stated that they have had their first show in La Habra. She asked that everyone come to see it.

 

Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, stated that a Consultant has been hired to take on the Housing Element that is required. It is important that Community meetings be held on this subject. Research will be needed on consequences on decisions. This all needs to be shared with the Community. Mr. Blagden stated that it would probably be a good idea for the Council to have an Orientation on the Codes. After 1-1/2 years with the new Code we still have not had an Orientation on it. We need this with examples. You need to be serving the interests of the residents, not the developers. 707 Dorothea should have the agreed on restoration of the property to the original condition.

 

Bud Cummings, Canonita Drive, asked how many of the City phones are tied in to the Emergency Generator. In the event of a power outage do you have phones? He was concerned that the City will be able to get to the outside world in an emergency.

 

Interim City Manager Clark stated that we have the dispatch center right next door.

 

Norm Zezula spoke about the false idea that land use policies are satisfied automatically when there is no proof of this. He listed several such examples. One false policy is to offer two options as if that is all there is when there are actually more. Another problem is to assert without evidence. Can claims of hardship be proved?

 

Michael McCoy thanked the Council for the volunteer work they do.

 

Stan Quade, Encanada, stated that it has become hard to build even on a one acre site. He noted that he thinks the new General Plan is harsh. It has been hard to make it work. He noted that in his opinion we are making it hard for people to build at all, and building is practically the only tax base we have. You don’t want big houses, you want little houses. That is plain in the General Plan. Not everyone who wants to build is a speculator. You study everything and now you want to study how to control the finances. In thirty years you haven’t come up with a system for the finances? This City has put in several faulty items. He spoke about the Announcer’s Booth and how bad the work was and it couldn’t be fixed. We need more accountability to the people, not to the system.

 

Karen Vipperman reminded everyone that La Habra Heights has adopted a Unit of the 101^st Airborne Division, stationed in Iraq. We will be having our first gathering to put together packages on Saturday, June 21^st here at 10:00 a.m. We will put together packages and we will continue to collect for more packages after this. We need both donations and helpers. Suggested items are listed in the Heights Life. The donations can be money or supplies and can be sent to the City.

 

6.              ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS

 

·      CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

 

      Interim City Manager Clark noted that during this meeting Staff is back in City Hall working during the meeting.

 

·      CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT

.

            City Attorney Levin stated she had nothing to report.

 

·      COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

City Property located at Hacienda and West Road

 

            Community Development Director Powers stated that they have his written report and he has nothing further to report.

 

·      FIRE CHIEF’S REPORT

 

            Fire Chief Nielsen stated that they have his written report and he noted that they had a call this morning on Skyline Drive. This time of year there are a lot of parties going on and we found a large bonfire that probably had been going on all night. We need to be more diligent with our patrolling. This was only about 75 feet from the KOCE tower. It might be possible to put cameras on the tower that would serve the whole ridgeline. Let’s look into what this would cost. There may be grant money available for something like this. He noted that the East Skyline trail seems to be a popular party area. He stated maybe he and the Fire Safe Council could work together on this.

 

            Fire Chief Nielsen stated that today they sent an engine to the Humboldt fire, 30 miles north of Sacramento. They have 8,000 acres burning with no containment and 600 structures endangered.

 

            Chief Nielsen noted that Shawn Gibson has celebrated 30 years with our Fire Department.

 

 

 

·      SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT REPORT

 

            Lieutenant John McBride reported that Deputy Bickel chose Deputy Chris Macias for his replacement and has been working with him. The team will continue. He noted that our camera caught a license plate of a car that had been stolen going north towards Industry from our City. We were able to recover the car quickly. Traffic Citations have been down in April and May and we are planning another Traffic Checkpoint. We will co-ordinate that with the City Manager.

 

            George Edwards noted that there was no report on the City Property located at Hacienda and West.

 

            Mr. Edwards also noted that Mr. Vipperman had offered a solution to put a camera to face towards the Heights to look out for fire and that has been put in place but not activated. He stated that the KOCE tower already has a camera on it and can be pointed down towards the bonfire area. La Habra Heights Fire Watch, which is the Fire Safe Council, does have radio equipment located at Skyline and we do patrol that area when we maintain our equipment on the tower. We could install some infrared cameras as well.

 

            Interim City Manager Clark clarified that when we did the extension for KOCE, they made it very clear that the Fire Safe Council did not have radio equipment on that tower. We need to look into this because it is basically our tower.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

7.              2124 SAPOTA – AN APPEAL TO A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF STANDARD MODIFICATION 2007-01, GRADING MODIFICATION 2007-01 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2007-01 (FORMER MUNICIPAL CODE) – Continued from April 9, 2008

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Pending testimony at the public hearing and deliberation of the City Council, it is recommended that City Council provide a decision under the Former Municipal Code.

 

Mayor Carroll stated that Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt are bringing an appeal to the City Council on a Planning Commission Denial of their request for a Standards Modification 2007-01, Grading Modification 2007-01 and Tree Removal Permit 2007-01 for the property at 2124 Sapota. He noted that Council Member Baroldi would be recusing himself.

 

Council Member Baroldi explained that a similar proposal came to the Planning Commission in December of 2006 from Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt when he was on the Planning Commission and made a ruling on it, has previously made conclusions on the decision on this project and would need to recuse himself from making a decision on the City Council as the appeals board.

 

Mayor Carroll explained that we will have a Staff Report and then the owners will present their arguments on why the decision on the part of the Planning Commission was incorrect. They will have fifteen minutes (divided as they want). Any time left over after people opposing the appeal they may speak again.

 

Community Development Director Powers (CDD) stated that the Council has Staff’s written report and Staff is recommending that pending testimony at the public hearing and deliberation by the City Council they provide a decision under the Former Municipal Code.

 

Phil Kohn, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt, noted that there is a Plan “A” and a Plan “B”. Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt would prefer Plan “A” which would require a Grading Modification. Plan “B” is fully compliant with the Codes but not preferred by us or the neighbors.

 

Phil Edmondson, project Architect, stated that he has a power point presentation showing a history of the project. Part of the site has a difficult 36% slope. As far as view obstruction for the Moniz family this been difficult to handle. We did try many adjustments suggested by the Planning Commission, but still did not get approval. Since the last meeting we have made changes that lowered the retaining wall to six feet in height. The twenty foot height previously was of great concern to the Commission. He stated that Plan “A” is actually more sensitive to the views for Mr. and Mrs. Moniz than Plan “B” even though it is more compliant with the Codes.

 

Mayor Carroll noted that they would now go to Public Comment from those that do not approve the appeal.

 

Russell Petty spoke representing Bob and Lily Moniz. Mr. Petty noted that the changes made by Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt actually have moved the house up the hill and closer to the Moniz house and four feet higher. Mr. Petty was of the opinion that it would be a mistake to approve the new plan without it going through the Planning Commission. There are things that could be done on the lot with a reasonable size structure.

 

Lily Moniz stated that she was amazed that after so long this problem has not been resolved. She stated that in November 2006 we only asked that the home not be so close to us or so high. We believe this would take away our privacy and devalue our property. We are still asking only the two things that we started out with.

 

Craig Moniz, son of Bob and Lily Moniz, asked how Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt are able to modify an appeal. I thought they are appealing a plan that was denied.

 

Mayor Carroll stated that we will address that by the City Attorney when you finish.

 

Craig Moniz stated that in his opinion many of the General Plan goals and policies have just been ignored on this project. He noted that his parents’ definition of their view is much wider than the Hoyt’s note. The project is much too close and the house is not scaled to the neighborhood. There are issues about the possibility of landslides to the homes below the Hoyt property,

 

Walt Ferrari stated that he was concerned for the neighbors. He was of the opinion that the City should let the people involved get the together with the Engineer and work this out at the cost of the City. This would be better than it going to Court and a judge making a decision. He stated that he would volunteer his time to help them work it out.

 

Richard Monihan stated that View Preservation was very important to him. He noted that the story poles seem to have become taller and farther up the hill.

 

Will Slattery stated that he lives two houses away from the Hoyt property and is against the project and asks that the Council deny the appeal. He stated that now the story poles are in his view whereas they had not been before and that they block ocean and island views from his home since the plan has been changed. He also noted that the Planning Commission has not viewed the new story poles. He stated that the applicant has failed to discuss the change with the neighbors. The applicant has ignored the neighbors’ requests and the Planning Commissions suggestions. Mr. Slattery asked that they not approve the appeal.

 

Larry Cooper, East Road, noted his concern as he is located below the proposed project. His concern is the load on the hill. We are near an earthquake fault. Mr. Cooper noted there was already a bulge on the hill from a former problem. He asked that the appeal be denied and the new proposal be brought back as a new project under the new Code guidelines.

 

Stephen Blagden gave a power point presentation of the project timeline in detail and how much time was spent on this project by Staff. Now they have come up with two different plans. The two new plans have never been seen by the Planning Commission. Plan “A” is larger and has more grading than the 2006 denied Plan. Plan “B” wholly violates Codes and General Plan. Mr. Blagden noted that on Plan “B” the 16-foot height is not measured correctly from the lowest footing to the highest roof peak, so this is not allowed for safeguarding the View. Although balanced grading is used on this project, it is not a goal of the General Plan. Mr. Blagden stated that the topography of the lot tells how it should be developed and he offered suggestions on how it would work on this lot. Mr. Blagden noted that good development does not require tradeoffs of General Plan goals or policies. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission Decisions. Bring back new plans under the New Codes.

 

 

 

Norm Zezula noted that the project would violate our General Plan policies, especially 4, 7, and 10. You can easily see the View problems by looking at the story poles from the Moniz’s living room. The proposed home is three times larger than the present largest home in the neighborhood. All the Hoyts’ need to do is build a single story structure of 4,000 square feet.

 

Judy Hathaway Francis stated that she was at the property today and it is so massive and in the setbacks and would cover the Moniz's main view. This plan has not been made to fit the property or the Heights. They do not conform to the General Plan.

 

Mayor Carroll turned the meeting back to the appellant for any further comment.

 

Phil Edmondson stated that they are trying to balance people’s rights. He commented that the Defined View after discussion with the concerned residents is defined in the Code and it is determined and defined by the Community Development Director. According to the Old Code and new Code 16 Feet in height are allowed anywhere on the lot regardless of the View and 25 feet outside of the View area. This particular lot is 1-1/2 acres and would allow over 8,700 square feet with 16 feet in height in the New Code. Plan “B” is completely compliant under the Old Code. It has been submitted to Staff and Engineering. If we were to move forward to the New Code the Community Development Director (CDD) has the discretion to relax the height limit.

 

City Attorney Levin answered how we are looking at revisions on an appeal. She stated that the City Council looks at the application that is given to them and has the option of approving or denying them, approve with conditions or may remand them to the Planning Commission. Approving with conditions means you can add conditions to it to bring it closer to conformity. These projects are actually showing conditions that could be placed on the former project. They could not bring to you a completely different project.

 

Ms. Levin explained that under the Old Code the CDD defines the Primary View which may be a distant view and each resident is allowed one Protected View.

 

Council Member Bergman asked for an explanation of Mr. Petty’s comment that there was a 4-foot increase in height between this plan and the one in the past.

 

Phil Edmonson explained that on the first plan they had used an 11-foot above grade and then we went to 7-feet and the plan was still not acceptable. Plan “A” (preferred) we moved back up the slope and it went up 4-feet. It had to do with the steepness at the bottom of the site. Mr. Edmonson discussed pictures of where the height would be from the Moniz’ home and explained the differences between “A” and “B” on the pictures.

 

The City Council discussed how many truck loads of export the different changes would need.

 

 

Pat Stanton, who works for the City Engineer, stated that you would have to use a smaller truck because of our roads and how much the loads would weigh per load.

 

Council Member Bergman and Mayor Pro Tem Vipperman suggested that they drop the house eight feet and export the soil and screen the project with landscaping.

 

Phil Edmondson stated that his position is that we are trying to meet all of the criteria that the City requires and meet some degree of my client’s economic feasibility and his expenditure, though he is not against export. He explained what he could do on the area beside the driveway and that it could be done without a redesign of the house. He stated that removing the area by the driveway it would only move the house down a very little.

Pat Stanton noted that when placing the house down 8 feet lower, most of the fill for the driveway would go away. He stated that Plan “A” would be workable but would require additional soil reports. It would probably take a total of 3,500 cubic yards of export out. There wouldn’t be any retaining walls for the driveway.

 

Mr. Edmonson noted that taking the house further down would cause other problems such as windows for the area and it would have to be completely redesigned. He stated that allowable grading should be able to be used without having to go way beyond it.

 

Mayor Pro Tem Vipperman asked CDD Powers if the maximum allowable gradable square footage is limited to that amount or can it be modified.

 

CDD Powers stated that the Grading Modification is before you tonight. It can go beyond that limit. The trigger for the Modification was the amount over 1,000 feet for cut and fill.

 

Council Member Bergman noted that the Old Code did not have a limit.

 

CDD Powers stated that he was the one that defined the View and he agreed with Mr. Edmondson’s small cone view as the defined view.

 

Bob Moniz stated that he noted his Primary View at the beginning of the project and they did not consider it. That view is straight out and does not go to the side.

 

Council Member Bergman asked if they decide on a CUP tonight, do we have to bring this back another time?

 

City Attorney Levin noted that the Old Code required a CUP, but the New Code does not. Ms. Levin explained that you could tell us whether you want it to come back as a CUP under the Old Code or to condition it on getting all of the necessary approvals under the New Code for the export of a certain amount of dirt.

 

Craig Moniz noted his concern about the street if that large number of trucks removes all of that export dirt.

 

Mr. Ferrari noted that he earlier owned that lot and had a 5400 square foot house approved without any trouble about the View. The Moniz needs their view.

 

Stephen Blagden stated that the house has to not only comply with the Codes but must also comply with the General Plan. If it does not it has to be denied.

 

Mayor Carroll closed the Public Hearing at 10:42 p.m. and reconvened at 10:55 p.m.

 

Mayor Carroll moved that we continue Items 20, 21, on the Park Master Plan, Item 22 Citywide Policy on Citizen Committees and Item 24 Election Voting Equipment until the City Council Meeting on Wednesday, July 9, 2007.

 

Mayor Pro Tem Vipperman stated in his opinion that Items 20 and 21 should not be continued.

 

The motion was approved as follows:

 

AYES: Baroldi, Bergman and Carroll

NOES: Millsap and Vipperman

ABSENT: None

 

City Attorney Levin answered Mayor Pro Tem Vipperman’s concern that the Master Plan Committee might not be able to get a quorum since the Council will not act on Items 20 and 21. She stated that they can discuss without a quorum in this case, but cannot act on anything.

 

Interim City Manager Clark explained the Capital Improvements can be presented to the City at any time and you can come to the Council meeting on July 9^th and speak if you want.

 

Mayor Carroll turned the meeting back to Item 7. Mayor Carroll suggested they work on the Standards Modification View Preservation Findings that the Planning Commission cannot find. He stated that they could not find Goals 1 & 2 of the General Plan and Land Use Policies 1,3,4,7 and 10. He read Goals 1 & 2 of the General Plan and the Land Use Policies in question.

 

City Attorney Levin suggested that you might start with what your concerns are about the project and whether there are conditions that you are comfortable with imposing that would address those concerns.

 

The Council discussed the lowering of the building eight feet and whether that would solve the Primary View or not. They also considered the lowering of the retaining walls or using screening rather than lowering.

 

City Attorney Levin stated that there were so many questions on how the View protection worked that a memo was issued about ten years ago explaining it that has been the Administrative interpretation for the City. She read part of it. “Under the City’s regulations a lot is not considered a View Lot if a sixteen foot structure that meets all of the Building Standards of the Zoning Code, i.e. a fully Code compliant structure that does not need a height or set-back Modification, would obstruct the Principal identifiable View.” Ms. Levin stated that you do have a Grading Modification before you. It allows you to exercise discretion. In particularly there are two findings that the Planning Commission focused on. Number 8 and number 13. This is where you have the opportunity to impose conditions to bring the project closer to conformance to the objectives and policies. The grading is what you want to focus on if you think it can be done.

 

The Council continued their discussion of lowering the house and alteration of the natural terrain.

 

Mayor Carroll reopened the Public Hearing to get Mr. Edmondson’s opinion on lowering the house eight feet.

 

Mr. Edmondson was of the opinion that if we lowered the house more than seven feet above grade would be the limit for this particular design. This would begin to eclipse rooms and it would not be habitable. We need light and ventilation in these rooms.

 

Discussion continued on possible solutions for the problems.

 

City Attorney Levin noted that since you do not seem to care about the export, if you focus on how many feet down and how many feet away you want it to be, then Mr. Stanton can give us some limit on the export. We can put numbers to those three conditions.

 

The group discussed how far down to sink the house and how far to move it from the Moniz’.

 

Mr. Edmondson stated that he always intended landscaping to buffer the View and the sound.

 

City Attorney Levin commented that you do not have to provide how much the house should be sunk and how much the roof should be lowered.

 

Mr. Edmondson stated that they could reduce the roof height by one foot.

 

City Attorney Levin worded the motion for Mayor Carroll. “Grant the Appeal by approving the project conditioned to conform to Plan “A” plus shifting down the hill by eight feet, lowering it by a total of five feet, to be comprised of some portion of sinking it lower into the ground and some portion lowering the height in the Primary View. Retaining walls are not to exceed six feet and export not to exceed 3,000 cubic yards.

 

Mayor Carroll moved the above motion provided by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Council Member Millsap for purposes of discussion.

 

Council Member Vipperman asked to amend the motion to lower the entire roof not just the part in the View.

 

Mayor Carroll and Council Member Millsap accepted the amendment.

 

Council Member Bergman asked for the house to be sunk into the ground by six feet. He stated he would rather see grading on the sides unless the appellant can demonstrate a hardship.

 

Hardship was withdrawn.

 

Mr. Edmondson stated that if he has to go beyond the maximum allowable grading area to accomplish this he may not be able to do it. After discussion he stated that he would go to 8 down the hill and 6 lowering with 1,000 extra feet of grading and six-foot staggered retaining walls.

 

Mayor Carroll withdrew his motion.

 

City Attorney Levin worded the motion for Council Member Bergman.

 

Council Member Bergman moved to grant the appeal, approve the project conditioned to conform to Plan “A” with the following additional conditions: the home being moved down the hill by eight feet; lowered by six feet using some combination of roof lowering and sinking into the ground; retaining walls not to exceed six feet; export not to exceed 3,000 cubic yards; and the maximum allowable gradable area not to exceed 26,415 square feet. He authorized the Mayor to sign the Resolution when it is ready. The motion was seconded by Council Member Millsap and the motion was approved as follows:

 

AYES: Bergman Carroll, Millsap and Vipperman

NOES: None

RECUSED: Baroldi

 

Craig Moniz noted that they did not cover the goals that were brought up earlier in the meeting that were not considered.

 

Council Member Bergman noted that the conditions that they added to the approval did take care of those issues.

 

Mr. Ferrari stated that he didn’t understand why they could not just cut the lot down till it is flat.

 

Council Member Baroldi returned to the City Council.

 

8.         CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING THE LEVY FOR THE CITYWIDE STREET MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 FOR FY 2008-2009

 

Mayor: Please open the Public Hearing to allow all interested persons to give oral or written testimony.

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution 2008-15.

 

Interim City Manager Clark noticed as a Public Hearing and should be opened and ask if there are any protests. If there are none the Public Hearing should be closed and adopt the Resolution.

 

Mayor Carroll opened the Public Hearing.

 

There were to Public Comments.

 

Mayor Carroll closed the Public Hearing.

 

Council Member Baroldi moved to approve Resolution 2008-15 confirming the Assessment and Ordering the Levy for the Citywide Street Maintenance Assessment District No. 4. The motion was seconded by Council Member Bergman and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Baroldi, Bergman, Carroll, Millsap and Vipperman

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

 

CONSENT CALENDAR

 

It is recommended that Items 9 through 19 be acted upon simultaneously by one motion of the City Council unless separate discussion and/or action on an item is requested by a Council Member or a member of the public.

 

Judy Hathaway Francis stated that it would be nice to give a little more information on what the different items on the Consent Calendar are so people listening would have some idea what was being voted on.

 

Stephen Blagden stated that he asked for Item 13 to be pulled as it is for a tax item and he did not think this should be on a Consent Calendar and the Staff Report did not even say what the percentage in increase it was. Section 2 of the Resolution notes the amount of the revenue needed to run the Fire Department, but does not include the paramedic section.

 

George Edwards also spoke on the Fire Tax on Item 13. The assessment will be $464.84 for one acre. It does not give any of the previous year’s information to compare. Will this increase supply any more service to the community? His opinion was that the increase should give us the paramedic service. He requested that Items 14 and 17 be pulled so he can hear the report on them.

 

Mayor Carroll agreed to read the Titles of the Items on the Consent Calendar. He also agreed to pull Items 13,14, and 17.

 

Mayor Carroll read Item titles 9 through 19 for the Public.

 

9.         APPROVAL OF WARRANTS REGISTER FOR MAY 2008

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Approve

 

10.       MONTHLY TREASURER’S REPORT FOR MAY 2008         

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Approve

 

11.       CONTINUANCE OF THE FY 2007-2008 BUDGET FOR 60 DAYS

 

RESOLUTION 2008-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS CONTINUING THE 2007-2008 ANNUAL BUDGET

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Adopt Resolution 2008-13 continuing the FY 2007-2008 Budget for 60 days.

 

12.       ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 2008-2009 GANN LIMIT

 

RESOLUTION 2008-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 FOR THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9 OF TITLE 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (ANNUAL GANN LIMIT)

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Adopt Resolution 2009-14 establishing the FY 2008-2009 Gann Limit at $3,921,804.00

 

13.       ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SPECIAL FIRE TAX FOR 2008-2009

RESOLUTION 2008-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS ESTABLISHING TAX AMOUNTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL TAX TO FUND FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION SERVICES, AS WELL AS LIFE SAFETY SERVICES, INCLUDING PARAMEDIC AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL RESPONSE SERVICE DIRECTING THE IMPOSITION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SPECIAL TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 AND TAKING CERTAIN RELATED ACTIONS.

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Adopt Resolution 2008-16 establishing the FY 2008-2009 Special Fire Tax rates.

 

14.           BUDGET SUB-COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Appoint Council Members Millsap and Vipperman to serve as the Budget Sub-Committee.

 

15.           AGREEMENT WITH DIEHL, EVANS AND CO. TO PERFORM ANNUAL AUDIT SERVICES FOR 2007-08; 2008-09; AND 2009-10

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Approve the contract with Diehl Evans, LLP to provide auditing services for FY 2007-08 with an option for two additional years and grant permission to the City Manager to sign each yearly option based upon the continued satisfactory performance of the auditors.

 

16.           PROPOSITION “A” LOCAL RETURN FUND EXCHANGE WITH CITY OF COMMERCE

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Approve the Fund Trade Agreement with the City of Commerce..

 

17.           COLANTUONO & LEVIN – RATE ADJUSTMENT

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Approve the increase in rates paid to Colantuono & Levin, PC and authorize the Mayor to sign the amended and restated agreement for legal services between the City of La Habra Heights and Colantuono & Levin, PC.

 

 

18.           MODIFICATION OF CITY’S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT WITH FIRSTLIGHT NETWORKING

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Firstlight Networking, expiring December 31, 2008.

 

19.       CITY COUNCIL MINUTES         Regular Meeting of May 8, 2008

 

            RECOMMENDATION:                    Approve

 

            Council Member Baroldi moved to approve Consent Calendar Items 9 through 19, excluding Items 13, 14 and 17.

 

            Interim City Manager Clark requested a modification on Item 18, that the agreement with Firstlight is effective Friday (June 13, 2008). We also want to take out a clause for Errors and Omissions Insurance which is not realistic and we want to replace it with a Service Guarantee.

 

            The motion noted the effective date on Item 18 as Friday, June 13 and was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Vipperman, who stated that he would abstain from voting on Item 9 as his wife has a warrant list on the Item. The motion was approved as follows:

 

AYES: Baroldi, Bergman, Carroll, Millsap and Vipperman(with the abstention noted by Mayor Pro Tem Vipperman

            NOES: None

            ABSENT: None

 

            Interim City Manager Clark reported on Item 13 which had been pulled. She explained that this tax was voted on by the residents and part of that action was that it will be renewed every year. The amount of money it can increase was also voted on by the voters. As was brought out, it does cost more to run the Fire Department than stated in the Resolution. It does earn other revenues than this Fire Tax. This was not presented in the budget this year because we will not have the budget ready in time.

 

            Council Member Baroldi moved to approve Item 13 for the Establishment of the Special Fire Tax for FY2008-2009 and adopt Resolution No. 2008-16. The motion was seconded by Council Member Bergman and approved as follows:

 

            AYES: Baroldi, Bergman, Carroll, Millsap and Vipperman

            NOES: None

            ABSENT: None

 

            Interim City Manager Clark reported that this is in Item Budget Sub-Committee appointments from Item 14. We always have a Sub-Committee to review the proposed budget and work with staff in the presentation to the Council. She noted that Council Members Millsap and Vipperman have volunteered to be appointed for that job.

 

            Council Member Baroldi moved to approve Item 14 for the appointments of Millsap and Vipperman to the Budget Sub-Committee. The motion was seconded by Council Member Bergman and approved as follows:

 

            AYES: Baroldi, Bergman, Carroll, Millsap and Vipperman

            NOES: None

            ABSENT: None

 

            Interim City Manager Clark stated that this was Item 17 for a Rate Adjustment for Colantuono & Levin. The rate will be raised by $10 per hour and is way overdue. We do not expect this to impact us very much as we are doing more on our own so we will not be using Ms. Levin as much.

 

            Council Member Baroldi move to approve Item 17 for a Rate Adjustment for Colantuono & Levin. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Vipperman and approved as follows:

 

            AYES: Baroldi, Bergman, Carroll, Millsap and Vipperman

            NOES: None

            ABSENT: None

 

            Mayor Carroll stated that Items 20, 21, 22, and 24 have been continued until the next Regular Meeting.

 

23.       AUTHORIZE CONTRACT WITH PACIFIC CODE COMPLIANCE FOR PLANNER AND ELIMINATE TWO FULL-TIME POSITIONS

 

RECOMMENDATION:                    (a) Authorize the Interim City Manager to enter into the attached standard form city contract with Pacific Code Compliance for the services of a contract planner.

                                                                       

                                                                        (b) Eliminate the positions of Community Development Director and Planner effective July 12, 2008 (30 days from this date).

 

Council Member Baroldi stated that due to his employment with Orange County Sanitation District he deals with some people who may be affected by this decision and Counsel felt it was best to recuse himself from this decision.

 

Interim City Manager Clark stated that this is to authorize a contract with Pacific Code Compliance for Planner and eliminate two full-time positions. She explained that in the last two year the City has had a rapid decline in development fees. We are projecting even lower Development fees in the 2008-09. We don’t expect this to improve for quite a while. With a contract person we can scale their work to the amount of work coming in. You cannot do that with full time jobs. This will make a significant savings.

 

Mayor Carroll noted that they have received a letter from Kenneth Wilch in opposition to this layoff and contract hiring.

 

Stephen Blagden noted that nobody is irreplaceable and these are only estimated savings. The Planning Department will only be open ½ of the week. Does the 20 hours per week include City meetings? Mr. Blagden stated that the CDD has done many things for the City to make it better. Contract planners will not think of such things or care about them. It is doubtful that a contract person would have the same interest and concern. We haven’t had our New Code Orientation meeting yet and we have very important housing element decisions to make. Who’s going to be dealing with the Grants and mandates. He suggested we increase the amount of the errors and omissions insurance.

 

Norm Zezula noted that last year the Council gave staff much more power to grant variance and improve projects behind closed doors instead of going to the Planning Commission. At least they knew our City and now we are giving it over to some outside company. They will be loyal to their employers not to us. They may also have more turnovers. We have unique land use laws. The Planning Department is to keep our rural environment, not to break even.

 

Council Member Bergman moved to authorize contract with Pacific Code Compliance for Planner and eliminate two full-time positions. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Vipperman and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Bergman, Carroll, Millsap and Vipperman

NOES: None

RECUSED: Baroldi

 

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND NOT ON THE AGENDA

 

            Norm Zezula stated that people who live in small houses pay more for fire protection than those who live in large homes. This is bad.

 

            George Edwards stated that Mr. Vipperman noted that there may be more cuts in service. What can be cut, we don’t get much now. Let us know out in the open.

 

`           Interim City Manager Clark explained that we did renew our Sheriff’s contract at the same level of service, but it did cost us more. We were told that our COPS money may be in jeopardy.

 

            The City Council returned to Closed Session at 1:06 a.m. They returned at 1:32 a.m.

 

            City Attorney Levin stated that no reportable action was taken.

 

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

            Mayor Pro Tem Vipperman and Council Member Baroldi reported about their trip to attend the 50^th Anniversary of California Contract Cities Association.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

            Mayor Carroll adjourned the City Council Meeting.

 

            ATTEST:

 

 

 

__________________________________________________

SHAUNA CLARK: INTERIM CITY CLERK