La Habra Heights Council votes to hide!

La Habra Heights Council votes to hide!

There are 2 comments on the story from Sep 18, 2013, titled La Habra Heights Council votes to hide!. In it, reports that:

LA HABRA HEIGHTS - As a result, city officials now are looking for someone with planning and, possibly, legal experience to serve as a hearing officer to rule on the appeal by George Edwards.

City Attorney Holly Whatley said the City Council has a potential conflict of interest because the city was the applicant in seeking the conditional use permit allowing the construction.

Since Edwards was unwilling to waive the conflict, a neutral third party is needed to hear the appeal, Whatley said.

City Hall, which dates back to the 1950s when it was built as a school, doesn’t conform to the city’s development code approved in the mid-2000s. It’s too close to Heights Christian Preschool and Infant Center, according to the current code.

As a result, a permit was needed to allow the construction.

Edwards, who opposed the project when he ran unsuccessfully for City Council, said he filed his appeal because he believes the project is illegal.

“We don’t feel that city staff discretion was used in a legal way,” he said.

Join the discussion below, or

Spin Correction

North Hollywood, CA

#1 Sep 18, 2013
The Whittier Daily News article was incorrect and reads like a City press release.

George Edwards did NOT refuse to waive the council conflict of interest, though he'd be smart to do so.

What he said,if you watch the video, was since he only was presented with the option moments earlier that he needed time to talk with counsel.

The city attorney then said that meant he said no.
Is that how she handles her clients, putting words in their mouth they didn't say?

In a Freudian slip, the article author says twice that the council voted to "recluse" itself, when he probably meant "recuse".
But the council does regularly make decisions in hiding (the back room) and probably does want to hide out now that residents will learn of the council voting to spend over $200,000 per employee to remodel and expand city hall, instead of providing basic services of fire, police, and road repair.

Los Angeles, CA

#2 Sep 20, 2013
Since the Council regularly violates the Brown Act and now wants to "recluse" themselves, does that mean they are "brown recluses"?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rowland Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 26 min Anthony Ramon 35,094
Attention BP staff workers council people verba... 44 min Na NA 13
News Crime and Public Safety, January 13 (Jan '10) 11 hr Mr Smith 18
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 13 hr lmsa 10,262
News Two critically injured during San Dimas house p... (Jul '09) Mon DontactPrivileged 23
Where is LMP (Mar '08) Dec 10 Fake 1 percenters 87
why is VLM so disrespected by everyone (Jul '08) Dec 10 Stupidmf 121

Rowland Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rowland Heights Mortgages