Know Your Candidates
Carl Westerhoff Runs Away From His RecordAccording to his self-reported background, Carl Westerhoff was a successful businessman.
On the Planning Commission, he has been self-assured in his strong positions, often leading motions and pushing his apparent agenda of weakening codes, that is changing codes to allow more grading and building (Details below), lessening view protection, and asserting the property rights of those wanting to build over the concerns and property rights of the neighbors and community.
During Carl Westerhoff's term on the Planning Commission, there have been two projects in contention by the neighbors. Carl sided against the neighbors' property rights in both cases. Details Below.
(Note: All property owners have property rights, not just those who are building.)
| Date | Case | Case Summary | Motion | Vote |
| Feb 19, 2008 | 9,000 s.f. House on Sapota | Applicant originally turned down in 2006 because too much grading and house too large for neighborhood was proposed. Applicant returned with a larger house and even more grading proposed.
ALL surrounding neighbors opposed the house because of view blockage of 35+ year Heights residents' house, excessive grading, house over 3 times the size of surrounding, and large retaining walls, as infringements on their General Plan property rights. |
Westerhoff moved Approval of project | Project denied 4-1, Westerhoff only one in favor |
| Sept 23, 2008 | Code Enforcement on Sharpless | A new owner of a new house did illegal grading, tree removal, retaining wall installation, and building on successive weekends, ignoring multiple STOP orders. The work also violated the Use Permit and Approval Conditions that applied to the house, including blocking a neighbor's view.
The neighbor came to protest the view blockage, grading, and tree removal, violating their property rights and conditions of approval of the house. |
Westerhoff moved Approval | Mr Westerhoff's vote all the more interesting because at previous PC meetings he lamented the lack of Code Enforcement by the City, yet in his first Code Enforcement case, he let off all the violations. |
| Date & Link to Meeting Minutes | Issue | Carl Westerhoff 's Action |
| April 22, 2008 | Code Change - Driveway Hardscape Exemption | Carl Moved Approval and Voted For Code Change exempting driveways from Hardscape limits |
| April 22, 2008 | Code Change - Swimming Pool Exemption | Carl Moved Approval and Voted For Code Change exempting swimming pools from Hardscape limits |
| May 27, 2008 | Code Change - Pervious Parking Space Exemption | Carl Moved Approval and Voted for Code Change exempting pervious parking spaces from Hardscape limits |
| June 24, 2008 | Commission Comments | Carl asked for Code Change Language Exemption Driveway Grading to be brought to Commission |
| July 22, 2008 | View Protection Discussion | Carl concerned that view protection not impinge on Builders' rights |
| Sept 23, 2008 | Code Changes - Exempt Driveway Grading | Carl Votes to Approve Code Change Exempting Driveway Grading |
| Sept 23, 2008 | Code Changes - Exempt Private Roads | Carl introduces his own language exempting any road or driveway leading to a house from Hardscape and Grading limits and votes for the change |
| Sept 23, 2008 | Code Change - View Protection | Carl votes for Code Changes weakening view protection |
Result of Changes
As reported in our story on Code Changes to Increase Building and reduce View Protection, these code changes are a back door way to allow and encourage building of Urban Estates.
Urban Estates in LHH Future?
 |
 |
Maybe the community no longer wishes to have a rural environment and be a green oasis in the Los Angeles concrete sprawl??
If the change to Urban Estates is what some candidates' agendas truly are, then that is what they should say, and let the community decide on it openly.
Expectations were that Mr Westerhoff would stand behind his Planning Commission record as a Council Candidate.
Instead, Mr Westerhoff, in the February Heights Life, responding to a question if the codes should be relaxed, replied, "The current code is fine."
Why would he so obviously contradict his long and public record (shown above) of trying to "relax" the code , voting to change the code, and writing actual replacement code language?
Vague and Contradictory Like the Bible 
The California Supreme Court says that, "The General Plan is the constitution for all future developments within a city or county."
Commissioner Westerhoff disagrees. At the January 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, he said the General Plan was "more like the Bible, ..parts...vague and ..parts...contradictory" See actual video Quicktime | Windows MediaWMV
In fact, the La Habra Heights General Plan was the result of a 2 1/2 year process with dozens of Public Meetings, Town Hall Meetings, opportunity for public input, with the final result of a legally defensible, internally consistent, and clear document.(Hear about the the General Plan process from Margarita McCoy, longtime Heights resident, GPAC member, Planning Commissioner, professor of Planning and reknowned Planning Consultant Quicktime | WMV)
To Tell the Truth 
La Habra Heights City Council elections are like the TV Game Show "To Tell the Truth".
In our version, all candidates say they support the rural environment and General Plan in order to get elected.
Voters have to discover, hopefully, who is telling the truth, and who is not.
We see Mr. Westerhoff claiming in his candidate's responses in the Heights Life that he thinks "the current code is fine", yet his voting record and Planning Commission meeting comments are the opposite.
Voters should scrutinize Candidates statements and records to be sure they will be getting what they want when they cast their votes.