[00:00:04]
[Call to Order]
STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS.UM, THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CALLED TO ORDER.
UM, WE WILL NOW TAKE A MOMENT FOR SILENCE, PRAYER AND FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
AND OUR COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS WILL LEAD US.
UM, THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE WILL BE LED BY OUR COMMISSIONERS.
NICHOLAS, PLEASE TURN AND FACE THE FLAG AND HAND OVER YOUR HEARTS.
READY TO BEGIN, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
UM, GOOD EVENING, JOANNE, COULD YOU PLEASE, UM, ROLL CALL.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
UM, WE APPROVAL MINUTES TONIGHT.WE HAVE THE MINUTES OF REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH IS OF THE JUNE 25TH, AUGUST 13TH, IN OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO ANY OF THE MINUTES PRESENTED? THERE ARE NO CHANGES.
ALL THREE SETS MINUTES ARE ADOPTED AS PRESENT.
IF THERE ARE NO CHANGES, THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED AS AMENDED.
[ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ]
COMMUNICATIONS, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON AGENDA? NO.UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE THINGS.
SO TONIGHT WE HAVE NO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, SO WE WILL PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO FOR TONIGHT, WE HAVE THREE ITEMS, HEARING ITEMS. SO THE FIRST WILL BE,
[2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 24-05]
UM, 35 50 EAST CAMERON AVENUE, FOLLOWED BY THE SECOND ITEM, WHICH IS, UM, PRECISE PLAN FOR PPC IS 1800 EAST GARVEY AVENUE AND 200 SOUTH AZUA AVENUE.AND THEN THE LAST ITEM WOULD BE CITYWIDE.
JOANNE, UM, WHO WILL PRESENT STAFF MEETING.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM WILL BE PRESENTED BY MIRIAM MACHADO ASSISTANT, UM, ASSOCIATE PLANNER.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
THE REQUESTS PRESENTED ARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 24 DASH OH FIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NUMBER 24 DASH SIX AND SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW NUMBER 24 DASH 27 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 5 5 0 EAST CAMERON AVENUE.
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGE HOME.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY HOME.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE.
THE PROJECT SITE IS 1.06 ACRE AND THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE RESIDENCE IS 13,340 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND SITS ALONG EAST CAMERON AVENUE AND IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, WHICH SHOWS THE PROPOSED TWO STORY RESIDENCE.
THE CLOSEST FRONT SETBACK IS, SITS AT 31 FEET TWO INCHES.
THE CLOSEST REAR SETBACKS SITS AT 30 FEET EIGHT INCHES.
THE CLOSEST WEST SIDE SETBACKS SITS AT 14 FEET, AND THE CLOSEST EAST SIDE SETBACKS SITS AT 14 FEET, 10 INCHES.
HERE ARE THE, UM, IS THE PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION IN COMPARISON TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE MENAL CODE ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 8,000 SQUARE FEET BY RIGHT.
HOWEVER, THE MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE
[00:05:01]
MAY BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN 25%, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING REQUESTED FOR THE PROPOSED 13,300 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE.THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 35% FOR BOTH AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
THE LOT COVERAGE IS 21% AND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 31%.
ALL OF THE MINIMUM SETBACKS ARE BEING MET.
THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, UM, IS 25 FEET.
HOWEVER, LOTS LOCATED, UM, IN AREA DISTRICT FIVE AND THAT ARE LARGER THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET ARE PERMITTED TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT BY A ONE TO ONE RATIO WITH NO MORE THAN 32 FEET.
UM, FOR EACH FOOT IN HEIGHT THAT'S BEING INCREASED, THE MINIMUM YARD SETBACKS ARE ALSO INCREASED.
THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS 29 FEET IN HEIGHT.
UM, AND AS SUCH, THE MINIMUM SETBACKS WERE INCREASED, WHICH ARE SHOWN IN THE CHART HERE, WHICH ARE ALL BEING MET.
THIS IS THE SUBTERRANEAN FLOOR PLAN, WHICH SHOWS THE EIGHT CAR GARAGE.
THIS IS THE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN, WHICH PRIMARILY SHOWS A WINE CELLAR AND STORAGE ROOM, A GYM ROOM, A RECORDING STUDIO, AND TWO BATHROOMS. THE ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SHOWS A TWO CAR GARAGE, A WORKSHOP, A FAMILY ROOM, A DINING ROOM, GREAT ROOM AND KITCHEN, A LIBRARY, THREE BEDROOMS, TWO OF WHICH ARE TWO STORIES AND THREE BATHROOMS. THIS IS THE SECOND LEVEL FOUR PLAN.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AN, AN ATTACHED A DU, WHICH IS WHAT'S SHOWN, UH, TO THE LEFT OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, HOWEVER, THAT PORTION SPECIFICALLY IS NOT WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT IS SHOWN ON HERE FOR REFERENCE.
THE SECOND LEVEL OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, UM, SHOWS TWO OF THE BEDROOMS THAT WERE SHOWN ON THE ENTRY LEVEL THAT ARE TWO STORY AS WELL AS TWO ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS AND FOUR BATHROOMS. WE HAVE THE NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS, THE EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS ADOPTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 24 DASH 6 1 52 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 24 0 4, RESOLUTION 24 DASH 6 1 53, APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NUMBER 24 0 6 AND APPROVING SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW NUMBER 24 DASH 27.
UM, THIS HAS CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT WHO HAS ALSO PREPARED A PRESENTATION TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL TONIGHT.
UM, DOES ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE, UM, QUESTIONS FOR ALL STAFF AT THIS MOMENT? IF NONE NOW I WILL MOVE.
ACTUALLY, WE'LL OPEN, UM, COMMISSION OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE QUITE A FEW CARD I BELIEVE SO FOR THE FIRST ONE, IT'S GONNA BE, I'M SORRY, I THINK IT'S TED DO YES.
I'M AN ARCHITECT AND I'M THE PRINCIPAL OF GRADIENT SCAPE ARCHITECTURE.
UH, FOR THIS DESIGN, WE WERE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE EXISTING CONTEXT AND PUSH FORWARD A DESIGN THAT WORKED WITH THE SCALING TERRAIN THERE.
ESSENTIALLY, THE, THE SLOPE SENSE TO 60 FEET FROM CAMERON AVENUE TO THE TOP OF THE, TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THE DESIGN TRIED TO ALLOW FOR A TWO STORY RESIDENCE DESPITE THE STEEP TERRAIN.
AS SHOWN BY MIRIAM, UM, THE INITIAL DESIGN TRY TO CREATE VARIOUS COURTYARDS.
SORRY, IT'S HARD TO SEE FROM HERE.
UM, SO WE HAVE FOUR COURTYARDS IN TOTAL.
UM, ONE TOWARDS CAMERON AVENUE, WHICH HAS A POOL ONE TOWARDS THE WEST SIDE, WHICH HAS A PRIVATE COURT FOR THE LIVING AREA, ONE TOWARDS THE, THE ENTRYWAY, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A PRIVATE COURT FOR THE, THE ENTRY GUESS, AND THE, THE MOTOR COURT, UM, TOWARDS THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN.
[00:10:05]
IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF THE RESIDENCE, UM, THE 13,000 SQUARE FEET IS ESSENTIALLY DIVIDED BY TWO.THE MAJORITY OF IT IS BELOW GRADE AND IT'S, IT'S CHALLENGING TO SEE FROM THE STREET.
SO FROM THE STREET YOU SEE A TWO STORY RESIDENCE UPON THE ELEVATED GRADE.
UM, IF YOU LOOK TO THE RIGHT, YOU SEE THE ENTRY POINT FOR, UM, ENTRY POINT ON CAMERON AVENUE, AND IT SLOWLY TRANSCENDS UP TO THE REAR OF THE SITE, WHICH IS OVER 50 FEET.
THE ENTIRE FOCUS OF THE THE PROJECT WAS TO, UM, EXPLOIT THE COURTYARDS.
SO THE HOUSE IN ITSELF IS PRETTY THIN.
UM, IT'S DESIGNED AS A ROW HOUSE IN THEORY.
SO AT THE TOP YOU WILL SEE IT'S ALMOST 26 FEET IN WIDTH.
AND WHEN IT'S GOING UP THE HILLSIDE, IT'S SORT OF CLIMBING THE TERRAIN IN WHICH THE COURTYARDS ARE PRESERVED.
THIS IS A RENDERING SHOWING THE, THE INTENTION OF THE RESIDENCE AROUND THE FACADE IS GOING TO BE PLANTED VARIOUS TREES.
UM, ON PLAN, I HAVE OVER 300 TREES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PLANTED.
UM, BUT THE OVERALL CONCEPT IS TO HAVE A, A MOUNTAIN STONE HOUSE EMERGING FROM THE LANDSCAPE.
FROM THE ENTRY SIDE, UM, THAT GOES TO THE LOWER COURT.
AND IN TERMS OF THE FACADE HERE, TRYING TO CREATE A TROPICAL FILL IN WHICH THE TREES BEGIN TO ENGULF THE SITE AND THE MOTOR COURT AND THE ACTUAL BUILDING IS SOMEWHAT OBSCURED, SO IT INCREASES THE RANGE OF PRIVACY.
UM, AND THIS IS THE RENDITION OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, BEING SURROUNDED BY TREES AND ALLOWING FOR TRANSPARENCY WITH THE AMOUNT OF GLASS AND STONE WORK.
DOES ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR OUR ARCHITECT HERE? NO.
THEN WE HEAR FROM IS THERE ANOTHER APPLICANTS THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THE PROJECT? IF NOT, WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO MICHELLE CHAN IS HER.
YEAH, SHE'S THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW.
OKAY, WE HAVE, UM, THE NEXT WOULD BE SAUL KING.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA IMPLEMENT OUR, UM, CAN YOU LIKE, SPEAK TO THE SPEAKERS AND PULL IT DOWN LITTLE? THANK YOU.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY HI TO EVERYBODY AND I WANT TO IGNORE IT.
UM, MY QUESTIONS TO THIS HOUSE IS, IT IS SO HUGE COMPARED TO OUR NEIGHBOR.
OKAY, BECAUSE I, I'M KIND OF REPRESENT THE, THE WHOLE BLOCK.
UH, THIS IS A BIG UNIT AND, UM, IT CARRY A LOT OF SPACE.
AND MY CONCERN IS, UH, THE TRAFFIC WHEN WE BUILD, BECAUSE IT IS ALMOST LIKE AN EASTMAN ROAD AND WE HAVE SEVEN HOUSE SHADE, THE ROAD AND IF'S SUCH A BIG MASSIVE HOUSE OVER THERE, HOW THE TRAFFIC CON UH, UH, CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE IN AND OUT.
AND, UM, RIGHT NOW THE MOST IMPACT TO MYSELF IS IN CALIFORNIA.
THE INSURANCE IS CANCELING INSURANCE BECAUSE OF THE FIRE.
AND THE BIG REASON THE CANCELING INSURANCE IS A LOT OF TREES AND WE HAVE TO CUT TREE TO PLEASE THE INSURANCE.
AND RIGHT NOW WE, WE ARE PROPOSING A HOUSE, A BIG MASSIVE HOUSE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE ROAD WITH A LOT OF TREES.
AND I JUST WANT TO FIND OUT WHETHER ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT STUDY, HOW IS OUR INSURANCE GONNA AFFECT, AFFECT US? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS.
MY HOUSE, THE INSURANCE CALLING A DEAL, THEY WILL NOT EXTEND THE INSURANCE, FIRE INSURANCE AND, UH, HOMEOWNER INSURANCE.
IT AFFECTING EVERYBODY IN SOUTH CALIFORNIA NOW.
SO THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE TREES AND THE
[00:15:01]
ENTRANCE AND THE, UM, AND THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TIME BECAUSE WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION TRUCK DURING THE PROCESS OF BUILDING, HOW DOES IT AFFECT US? BECAUSE IT'S ONLY ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT.WHAT IF THERE'S A FIRE? HOW ARE WE GOING TO ISSUE THAT? SO ALL THOSE THINGS COME INTO MY MIND TO, TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE.
THAT'S WHY I WANT SOMEBODY STUDY THAT.
AND, AND ANOTHER ISSUE I HAVE IS THE HIGH ISSUE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BECAUSE MY HOUSE IS RIGHT ABOVE, I WANT TO HAVE A STICK TO JUST POST TO SEE HOW IT AFFECT OUR VIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THE HEARING TESTIMONY FROM APPLICANT, THOSE IN FAVOR AND THEN THOSE OPPOSED? WE HAVE THE NEXT PERSON IS FRANKLIN.
MY NAME IS FRANKLIN RIATA AND I AM ALSO, UH, LIVING AT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AFTER SPEAKING TO ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS, UH, FIRST OFF WE WANNA COMPLIMENT THE ARCHITECT ON HIS DESIGN.
WE BELIEVE IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE EVEN THOUGH WE ARE, UH, HAVE A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS OR ACTUALLY CONCERNS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE.
AND, UM, PRETTY MUCH ALSO IN CONCERNS OF THE HOUSE BEING THE FIRST HOUSE, UH, ON THE STREET IN ORDER TO GO IN.
SO OUR FIRST CONCERN WOULD BE THE CONSTRUCTION, UM, THE VEHICLE PARKING AND HOW IS THAT GONNA BE MITIGATED AS FAR AS WHEN THIS BIG HOUSE IS BEING BUILT AND EVERYBODY NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THAT SMALL ROAD TO, UH, ACCESS THEIR OWN HOMES.
UM, THE SECOND ONE, WE, SECOND QUESTION WE DO HAVE, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT US ALSO IS FIRE SAFETY.
SO SIMILAR TO SUSANNA WHO JUST WENT UP, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, THE MITIGATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND ALSO THE FIRE, UH, HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO, UM, BE AFFECTING THE HOMES AROUND AND ALSO THE SIZE OF THE HOME.
UM, ANYONE ELSE? MICHELLE'S NOT HERE YET, SO IF NONE, I GUESS I'M GONNA, IS MICHELLE HERE YET? ANYONE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT? BESIDES ARCHITECT AND THE HOMEOWNER? OKAY, WE'RE GONNA CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW.
THE A, UM, THE APPLICANT, UM, CAN SPEAK, UM, AS A REBUTTAL.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME BACK AND, UH, SPEAK FOR THE REBUTTAL? YES, THANK YOU.
UM, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS REGARDING THE TREES.
ALL THE TREES THAT ARE SELECTED ARE APPROVED BY LA COUNTY, UH, FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY BETTER FOR THE HILLSIDE.
THEY HELP TO RETAIN THE HILLSIDE.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT LIMIT, UM, WE ARE WITHIN THE, THE STANDARDS PER, UM, WEST COVINA, A MUNICIPAL CODE.
AND ALSO THE NEIGHBOR'S SIGHTLINES ARE ACTUALLY PROTECTED AS THE RESIDENCE HAS A DIFFERENCE OF FIVE FEET FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST.
AND THE HOUSE THAT SHE'S BEEN SENDING SUSANNA, SHE HAS CLEAR VIEW OVER THE HOUSE AT LEAST OVER 25 FEET.
WHAT WAS THE OTHER COMMENT? OH, IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, THE HOUSE IS MEANT TO BE PRIVATE.
SO THE, THE GARAGES ARE SET WHERE IT CAN'T BE SEEN FROM THE SINGLE STREET GOING INTO THE SPACE.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE RESIDENCE WILL DRIVE THROUGH THE GATE INTO THE GARAGE AND GO INTO THE RESIDENCE.
THERE IS NO ROADWAY THAT'S GONNA BE BLOCKED WHEN THEY'RE GOING INTO THEIR HOME.
UM, IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION, IT'S GOING TO MEET STANDARD PRACTICES FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S GONNA BE STILL FRAMED, IT'S GONNA HAVE CONCRETE, UM, CONCRETE DECKING, AND IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE A TYPE THREE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY BETTER FOR THE HILLSIDE THAN THE TYPICAL TYPE FIVE.
DOES ANY COMMISSIONERS HAS QUESTIONS FOR OUR ARCHITECT? IF NOT, I'LL BE CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
[00:20:08]
COMMISSIONER LEWIS, YOU WANNA I'M GOOD.COMMISSIONER VARA? UM, NO, I MEAN, I THINK AS, AS A RESIDENT OR AS A NEIGHBOR OF, OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UM, I THINK THAT I WOULD HAVE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS AS WELL.
BUT AT NOWHERE IN BELIEVE IN LA COUNTY HAS BEEN DECLARED FEMA DISASTER AREA.
SO I THINK EVERYONE COLLECTIVELY HAS HAD THEIR INSURANCE INCREASE.
AND UH, SO I, I AM NOT SURE THAT THAT WOULD BE A VALID POINT, BUT I THINK HE ADDRESSED THE TRAFFIC ISSUE AND UH, YOU CAN SEE WHAT FROM THE PICTURE, THEY'RE JUST GOING STRAIGHT INTO THEIR GARAGE AREA.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THOSE ITEMS. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
JUST CURIOUS, IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF THE HOUSES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU HAVE 4,000 SQUARE FOOT AND 3,600 SQUARE FOOT IN TERMS OF FLOOR AREA RATIO IS ABOUT 9% TO 8% VERSUS THIS ONE IS COMING UP TO 31%.
AND IS THAT THE AVERAGE HOMES OR HOW MANY HOMES THAT ARE, DO YOU HAVE THE FACILITY IN THE, THERE WERE 12 PROPERTIES THAT WERE SURVEYED, SO IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE PROPERTY THAT UM, I BELIEVE INCLUDES THE PROPERTIES OF SOME OF THE SPEAKERS TODAY, UM, THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE, THE AVERAGE, UM, FOUR AREA IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND RATIO.
SO IT INCLUDED HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND ACROSS THE STREET.
I NOTICED THAT, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST HOUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY LOCATED IN WEST COVINA.
SO YOUR DATA IS BASICALLY MAINLY IN WEST COA.
IT INCLUDED THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALSO IN COVINA AND THE UNINCORPORATED AREA.
SO I, I DIDN'T DO JUST WEST COVINA, I INCLUDED ALL THE PROPERTIES AROUND WHICH INCLUDED THE PROPERTIES IN COVINA AND UNINCORPORATED ALLEY.
I HAVE A, UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE ARCHITECT AS WELL.
UM, REGARDING, UM, CAN YOU COME UP PLEASE REGARDING THE HEIGHTS OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS? UM, ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAD MENTIONED THAT POTENTIALLY BLOCKING OR, OR, OR HOW HIGH IT IS COMPARED RELATIVELY TO THEIR LOTS OR THEIR HOME.
UM, I KNOW THAT AREA'S PRETTY MUCH HILLSIDE AND I'M NOT SURE 'CAUSE THERE'S ONE RIGHT NEXT TO IT, I THINK TO THE WEST.
THAT, AND I SPOKE WITH THE, THAT NEIGHBOR ES ESSENTIALLY THE DESIGN HAD THE HOUSE ABOUT FIVE FEET LOWER FROM THE TOP OF HER ROOF.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY LOWER ON HER SIDE.
AND THE OTHER HOUSE IS THE VIEW.
THE VIEW AND THE SIGHT LINES ARE NOT AFFECTED AT ALL.
SO YOU MENTIONED YOUR TOP OF THE ROOF WOULD BE FIVE FEET THE HIGHEST ON YOUR LOT? YES.
IT'S FIVE FEET BELOW THEIR ROOF OR CORRECT THERE.
SO HER, HER ROOF LINES UP HERE, THAT'S TOP OF THE ROOF THAT YOU'RE SEEING OVER THERE IS LIKE RIGHT HERE BECAUSE THE, THE HILLSIDE DESCENDS OR ASCENDS ALMOST 50 FEET.
SO I SET A PAD ALMOST HALFWAY THROUGH THE HILLSIDE TO HAVE IT LOWER.
I COULD HAVE HAD IT BY RIGHT AT HER LEVEL, BUT IT WOULD'VE BLOCKED ALL OF HER VIEW, BUT I DROPPED IT.
SO SHE HAS A VIEW FROM HER SECOND FLOOR.
DOES ANY COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR FOR STAFF OR FOR DOCK TECH RESIDENTS? ANY MORE DISCUSSIONS? I'M SORRY.
UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS CLOSED, YOU KNOW, AND
[00:25:01]
SINCE EVERYONE'S HERE, I'M GONNA OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.SO I'M A RESIDENT, UH, UH, A RESIDENT WITH DOC, UM, SUSANNA RIGHT HERE.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION IN TERMS OF, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A SINGLE OCCUPANCY HOUSE, BUT IN THE FUTURE IF IT DOES CONVERT, WOULD THERE BE THE CHANCE THAT IT WOULD BE CONVERTED TO A RENTAL OR MULTI-PROPERTY, UH, OCCUPANCY, UH, WITHOUT, UH, ANY PUBLIC NOTICE OR IS THERE A CHANCE THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN? UM, THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION TO RAISE TO THE COMMITTEE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, THAT'D BE IT FOR NOW.
ANYONE ELSE THAT COME FOR IN FAVORS OR OPPOSE THE PROJECT? SEEING NONE.
UM, CHAIR, IF I MAY, UM, SINCE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAME UP, THE ARCHITECT OR THE APPLICANT WOULD ASK THAT I WAS GONNA, YEAH, THANK YOU.
I WAS GONNA CALL THE ARCHITECT BACK IF HE WANNA ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UM, YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND HER CONCERN.
UM, BUT IT'S A PRIVATE RESIDENCE, SO IT'S GOING TO REMAIN PRIVATE FOR WHOEVER IS GONNA LIVE THERE.
UM, THE A DU BY RIGHT CAN BE RENTED OUT.
SO THAT IS AN OPTION AS OF NOW, IT'S JUST GONNA BE AN A DU, BUT THE, THE HOUSE IS GOING TO REMAIN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE.
SINCE YOU'RE HERE, UM, IN JOANNE, PERHAPS YOU CAN HELP ANSWER, UH, QUESTIONS THAT I MAY HAVE.
UM, THE 13,000 PLUS SQUARE FOOT, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE A DU OR DOES NOT? IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE A DU.
THE A DU, UM, IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT PER STATE LAW.
SO IT'S NOT UNDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW.
I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN AND OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
ANYONE ELSE HAS SEEING NONE? UM, ANYONE HAS A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE? I WAS GONNA SAY ALL MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 DASH 6 15 3 APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NUMBER 26 DASH OH SIX AND UM, AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 24 DASH 6 15 2 APPROVING ADDITIONAL, UH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25 0 5.
IT IS JUST FOR A CLARIFICATION, JUST FOR A CLEAR RECORD, THAT'S ALL COMMISSION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE
I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE MY MOTION AND SHE SECONDED.
THIS IS, UM, THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN 10 DAYS.
[3. PRECISE PLAN NO. 24-01]
ITEM NUMBER THREE.UM, JOANNE, WHO WILL PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT.
MIRIAM MACHADO ASSOCIATE PLANNER WILL BE PRESENTING THE STAFF REPORT.
HELLO, TONIGHT WE HAVE PRECISE PLAN NUMBER 24 0 1 AND ZONE CHANGE NUMBER 24 0 1 FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1800 EAST GARVEY AVENUE AND 200 SOUTH AVENUE AZUA AVENUE.
THE PRECISE PLAN BEING REQUESTED IS TO ALLOW
[00:30:01]
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 85,390 SQUARE FOOT DEALERSHIP BUILDING.THE ZONE CHANGE BEING REQUESTED IS TO ALTER A PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE CURRENTLY ZONE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MIXED USE TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE WITHIN THE AUTO PLAZA OVERLAY ZONE.
THE OVERALL PROJECT SITE IS 156,286 SQUARE FEET.
THE EXISTING ZONES AS MENTIONED ARE SERVICE COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MIXED USE BOTH WITHIN THE AUTO PLAZA OVERLAY ZONE.
THE PROPERTY SITS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH AZUA AVENUE AND EAST GARVEY AVENUE AND IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL USES.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE INITIAL STUDY, THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE REQUIRED TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
ACCORDINGLY, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR M AND D FOR SHORT WILL BE ADOPTED.
THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT INCLUDED ON ANY LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, FACILITIES, WASTE PROPERTIES, OR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES.
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, KNOWN AS CQA AND M AND D WAS REPAIRED BY ULTRA SYSTEMS AND WILL BE CONSIDERED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.
THE M AND D SERVES AS A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE INCORPORATION OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
THE PARCEL HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.
HERE IS THE PORTION THAT WOULD BE REZONED FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MIXED USE TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE IF APPROVED.
THE YELLOW OR ORANGE OUTLINE HERE SHOWS THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
THERE WILL BE FOUR ACCESS POINTS TO THE PROPERTY.
ONE OF THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINTS IS ALONG SOUTH AZUA AVENUE AND THE OTHER THREE ARE ALONG EAST GARVEY AVENUE.
ON THE FIRST FLOOR THERE WILL BE A PRE-OWNED SHOWROOM, A VEHICLE DELIVERY AREA DETAIL BASE, A FEW OFFICES, A LUNCH ROOM, A CUSTOMER LOUNGE ROOM, AND A FEW RESTROOMS. THE SECOND FLOOR WILL HAVE A SHOWROOM AS WELL WITH MULTIPLE OFFICES THROUGHOUT A CONFERENCE ROOM AND TRAINING ROOM AND EMPLOYEE LOUNGE ROOM, AND A FEW RESTROOMS AS WELL.
THIS IS THE NORTH RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED DEALERSHIP BUILDING.
THIS WOULD BE THE VIEW, UM, FROM THE INTERSTATE 10 FREEWAY.
THIS IS THE SOUTH RENDERING, WHICH WILL BE THE PRIMARY CUSTOMER ENTRANCE.
THIS IS THE EAST ENTERING VIEWING FROM EAST GARVEY AVENUE AND THE WEST RENDERING FROM THE SOUTH AZUA AVENUE.
VIEW PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBERS 24 DASH 6 1 5 4 6 1 5 5 AND 6 1 5 6.
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN NUMBER 24 0 1 ZONE CHANGE NUMBER 24 0 1 AND CERTIFICATION OF THE M AND D.
UM, WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT HERE TONIGHT IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
OKAY, I WILL OPEN, UM, PUBLIC HEARINGS.
WE'LL BE HEARING TESTIMONY FROM APPLICANT AND THOSE IN FAVOR AND IN THOSE WHO OPPOSE, I THINK I HAVE I ONE CARD FROM LINDA FRANCIS.
I'M THE ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT WITH DENNIS FLYNN ARCHITECTS.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR QUITE SOME TIME WITH STAFF AND I JUST WANNA TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO THANK JOANNE AND MIRIAM.
THEY'VE BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HELP FOR US, UM, AND WE'VE ENJOYED THE PROCESS.
THEY'RE JUST VERY ENJOYABLE TO WORK WITH.
UM, ENVISION MOTORS IS VERY EXCITED TO BRING THIS PROJECT TO WEST COVINA.
IT WILL BE, UM, IT'LL BE THE SECOND FACILITY, I BELIEVE WITH THIS IMAGE FOR MERCEDES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
UH, THE FIRST ONE JUST RECENTLY OPENED AN ESCONDIDO, UH, BY ENVISION MOTORS.
AND, UH, MERCEDES IS VERY EXCITED ABOUT, UM, THE FACILITIES, HOW THEY LOOK, AND, UH, WE HOPE WEST COVINA IS ALSO AS PROUD AS MERCEDES IS.
MIRIAM COVERED MOST OF EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PROJECT, SO I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS FOR OPPOSING THE PROJECT.
I GUESS I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY
[00:35:01]
OPPOSING.SO I'M GONNA OPEN, UM, COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER BAER, DO YOU HAVE ANY? UH, NO, I WAS JUST CURIOUS.
I IF I, IF I DIDN'T CATCH IT IN THE FIRST, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, OR EXPLANATION OF NOW, WILL THE SERVICE AREA THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY, WILL THAT BE COMBINED WITH THIS BUILDING AS WELL OR WOULD THEY BOTH STILL BE SEPARATE? SO ACTUALLY THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
THIS IS A UNIQUE MODEL FOR MERCEDES.
THE SERVICE CENTER WILL STAY, UM, INTACT AS IT IS IT.
THAT ONE WAS ALSO RECENTLY REMODELED WITH THE NEW IMAGE FOR MERCEDES.
UM, ALL THE SERVICE ACTIVITIES WILL STAY OVER THERE.
UM, SERVICE VEHICLES WILL, WILL STILL BE RECEIVED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY.
THIS PROPERTY WILL PREDOMINANTLY BE, UH, WILL, WILL ALL BE SALES.
THERE'LL BE, UH, QUITE A FEW EV CHARGING STATIONS.
UM, MERCEDES IS REALLY BIG ON IT.
THIS DEALER IS ENVISION MOTORS, IS VERY EXCITED ABOUT ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING ON THE FIRST LEVEL.
THAT LOUNGE THAT MIRIAM WAS POINTING OUT IS A, UM, IF YOU ARE CHARGING YOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLE, IT'S A LOUNGE SPECIFICALLY SET ASIDE FOR RELAXING, CATCHING REFRESHMENTS, GOING TO THE RESTROOM AND CHARGING YOUR VEHICLE, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE SO CLOSE TO THE FREEWAY THERE.
SO, UM, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT A VISION THAT ENVISION MOTORS HAS.
THAT'S A PUN, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT
SO IT, IT HAD, IT'S NOT DETAILING SERVICE VEHICLES AND THERE'S, UM, SOME SPRINTER SALES.
SO THERE'S AN AREA WHERE IT'S, UM, A LARGER SHOW SHOWROOM JUST FOR SPRINTERS.
AND THE OWNER WANTED TO BRING A LOT OF THE PRE-OWNED VEHICLES INDOORS.
SO HE CONTROLS THE CLIMATE SO IT'S MORE ENJOYABLE AND HE REALLY WANTS TO CELEBRATE BEING ON THE FREEWAY IN WEST COVINA.
SO WE PUT THE SHOWROOM UP ON THE SECOND LEVEL, WHICH IS VERY UNUSUAL.
SO WHEN YOU ENTER THE LOBBY ON THE FIRST LEVEL, IT'LL BE THIS GRAND FOYER OPEN TO THE SECOND FLOOR SHOWROOM.
IT'S A VERY UNIQUE CONCEPT AND IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE ONE OF A KIND.
LEWIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NO, I'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024 DASH 6 54, UH, APPROVING, UH, PRECISE PLAN NUMBER, HOLD ON.
NUMBER 21, UH, DASH OH ONE, I BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE 24 DASH OH ONE AND ZONE CHANGE NUMBER 24 DASH OH ONE, UH, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970.
UM, AND THEN DO WE NEED TO DO SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR, FOR EACH OF THESE? OKAY.
UM, AS WELL AS, AS WELL AS ADOPTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 24 DASH 61 55 APPROVING PRECISE PLAN NUMBER 21 OR 24 DASH ONE, UH, AS WELL AS ADOPTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 24 DASH SIX SIX ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE NUMBER 24 DASH ONE.
UM, STAFF, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, THOUGH THIS RESOLUTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, IT IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE.
UM, JOANNE, COULD YOU PLEASE ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BECERRA.
FINAL, UM, FINAL ACTION OF THIS MATTER WILL TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE DATE, UH, TO BE DETERMINED, WE ARE MOVING ON TO
[4. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 24-01]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR.THE PROJECTS INCLUDES, UM, AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE TO CHAPTER 26, DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH IS TO MAKE CORRECTIONS
[00:40:01]
AND INCORPORATE REQUIRE UPDATES TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS P UH, PCD DASH ONE FOR THE WEST PORTION OF WOODSIDE VILLAGES TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PCD DASH ONE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING, THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT QUALITY CODE, WHICH IS CQA.
UM, JOANNE, WHO WILL BE PRESENTING, I WILL BE DELIVERING THE PRESENTATION.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE PRESENTATION.
GOOD EVENING ON THE PROJECTORS, A DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE TIMELINE.
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCESS STARTED IN, UM, 2021 COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS WERE HELD AS PART OF THAT PROCESS.
IT WAS ULTIMATELY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY, 2024 AND TOOK EFFECT MARCH, 2024.
WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WOULD GO BACK TO CLEAN IT UP, UM, IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES REQUIRED OR NECESSARY THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
THE CITY WAS WORKING WITH THE STATE AND UPDATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024.
HCD SENT THE CITY A LETTER STATING THAT THE HOUSING ELEMENT CERTIFICATION IS PENDING, UM, PER, UM, IN AWAITING THE ADOPTION OF CERTAIN CODE AMENDMENTS THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING PRIOR TO CERTIFYING US.
UM, ON THE PROJECTOR IS SOME OF THE REQUIRED CHANGES THAT HCD IS REQUIRING PER PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT.
UM, SECTION 16 OF THE ORDINANCE, THE STATE IS REQUIRING THAT ALL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE, UM, OR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE NOT TO EXCEED 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO WE CAN'T, FOR NEW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE MORE THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET FOR IT TO BE DEVELOPED.
UM, FOR SECTION 17, THEY WANNA ENSURE THAT THE CITY WOULD ALLOW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH AT LEAST A 20% SENT TOTAL DWELLING UNIT RESERVED FOR LOW LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO BE ALLOWED BY.
AND THAT'S SUBJECT TO A DEED DE DEED RESTRICTION.
EMERGENCY SHELTERS, UH, THE STATE REQUIRES THAT EMERGENCY SHELTERS ALLOWED IN IN COMMERCIAL ZONES, NOT JUST IN MULTI IN MANUFACTURING ZONES BY RIGHT.
SO YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PICK AT LEAST ONE COMMERCIAL ZONE THAT ALLOWS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS BY RIGHT? SO THIS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AS THE REGIONAL MIXED USE ZONE.
UM, THE REGIONAL MISUSE ZONE OR CURRENTLY ENCOMPASS THE EASTLAND CENTER AND REST IN THE BUSINESSES ALONG RESTAURANT ROW IN SECTION 24.
THERE'S TABLE 32 OR THREE, TABLE THREE DASH TWO.
UM, THE STATE DOES NOT ALLOW OR IS ASKING THE CITY TO, TO MODIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND NOT TO REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PARKING SPACE PER STAFF MEMBER.
AND IN ADDITION TO THIS, UM, THEY ARE REQUIRING US TO CONSOLIDATE ALL THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE TYPE.
UM, TWO, ONE USE, NOT TO SEPARATE IT BY CONDOS OR MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS OR MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE.
JUST HAVE ONE SET STANDARD IN THE MINI, THE MINIMUM THAT THEY SELECT AS ONE COVERED PARKING SPACE PER STUDENT UNIT UNIT, ONE AND A HALF PER ONE BEDROOM UNIT, AND TWO SPACES FOR TWO BEDROOMS OR LARGER UNITS AND ONE GUEST PARKING SPACE FOR EACH FOUR UNITS.
ANOTHER CHANGE THAT, UM, SECTION 25 REFLECTS WHAT THE TABLE THAT I HAD MEN THAT I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, UM, IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IN SECTION 32.
UH, THERE, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWING US TO REQUIRE BICYCLE PARKING.
UM, AND THE, THE MOST THAT WE CAN REQUIRE IS ONE PARKING SPACE PER STAFF MEMBER AS
[00:45:02]
SHOWN ON THE PREVIOUS SIDE ON SLIDE ON THE TABLE.GOING BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, ANOTHER, ANOTHER ITEM THAT'S NOT PART OF THE HD REQUIRED CHANGES IS IN THE SAME PARKING TABLE.
CUP AS REQUIRED BY C BY C-U-P-C-U-P HAS BEEN DELETED AND REPLACED BY THE PRECISE PLAN CUP OR OTHER ENTITLEMENTS AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE SOME OF, SOME OF THE USES LISTED DOES NOT REQUIRE CUP, BUT MAY REQUIRE PRECISE PLAN OR ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT.
AND IT'S NOT JUST LIMITED TO CS.
UM, WE ARE ALSO MAKING CHANGES THAT ARE RELATED TO NEW STATE LAWS.
SO THESE ARE MINOR CHANGES THAT WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE IN THIS CLEANUP.
UM, OTHER CHANGES ARE COMING, BUT THEY WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL SEPARATELY BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE MUCH LA MUCH, MUCH LARGER.
UM, AB 29 0 4 REQUIRES THE INCREASED PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PERIOD FROM 10 DAYS TO 20 DAYS FOR CODE AMENDMENTS, ZONE CHANGES AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
AND SB 1211 IT ALLOW, UM, REQUIRES CITIES TO IN TO INCREASE ALLOWED DETACHED ADUS FOR MULTIFAMILY FROM TWO UNITS TO EIGHT UNITS, OR ONE PER PRIMARY UNIT, WHICHEVER'S LESS.
SO BASICALLY IF THERE, IF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX HAS FOUR UNITS, THEY'RE ALLOWED UP TO FOUR ADDITIONAL DETACHED UNITS AS ADUS.
BUT IF THEY HAVE FOUR 40 UNITS, THEN THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED EIGHT.
IT'S CAPPED AT EIGHT DETACHED A DU UNITS, THE, THE REVISIONS TO THE PLAN COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT ZONE.
SO THIS SECTION INVOLVES IN THE PC D ONE CODE IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTION, IT'S REFERENCES THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SECTION AS THE BASE, UM, ZONING FOR ALL COMMERCIALS AREAS IN THE PCD ONE.
SO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE IS NO LONGER IN THE CITY'S CODE AND HAS BEEN REPLACED PER BY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MAKES USE.
SO THIS IS JUST, UH, MAKING THIS, MAKING THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT CODE AND CURRENT ZONING.
OTHER CODE UPDATE CLEANUP REVISIONS, UH, WE ADD, WE ADDED DEFINITIONS FOR NEW STRUCTURE, UM, AND UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMITS.
THE, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY, UM, WHAT CS WERE CALLED IN IN THE PAST.
SO IN CASE THERE, THERE ARE ANY REVOCATION, PROCESSINGS OR, OR ANY AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMITS, THERE IS A PROCESS IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE FOR THAT.
SO WE ADDED THAT DEFINITION SO THAT IT IS CLEAR.
UM, WE ADDED, OR WE IN REINSERTED THE CLARIFICATION THAT ADDITIONS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSISTENT IN ARCHITECTURE, MATERIALS AND COLOR AS, AS A PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
THIS WAS IN THE PREVIOUS CODE AND IT WAS UNINTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE.
UH, UM, WE ADDED RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE TO THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES AND TABLE 22 DASH THREE.
UM, WE ADDED CLARIFICATION, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS.
UM, ALL UH, ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES DO NOT REQUIRE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS.
THERE ARE CERTAIN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT OR REQUIRED IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, SUCH AS GARAGES, UM, THAT ARE TWO CAR GARAGES OR THREE CAR GARAGES THAT NE THAT NECESSARILY DO NOT REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT.
AND WE DELETED, OR THE URBAN DWELLING UNITS AS IN THIS REFERENCE BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSIDERED PRIMARY UNITS BY THE STATE.
UH, WE RENUMBERED SOME POR PORTIONS, CORRECTED SOME SPELLING GRAMMATICAL ERRORS.
UM, WE ADDED QUANTIFIABLE STANDARDS FOR MOTOR HOME AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES PARKED ON DRIVEWAYS.
PREVIOUSLY IT WAS ALLOWED AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T BLOCK ACCESS TO THE GARAGE.
AND SO THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE.
UM, AND SO WE ADDED QUANTIFIABLE STANDARDS SO THEY, WHERE THEY CAN'T BLOCK GREATER THAN 50% OF THE DRIVEWAY OR BLOCK ACCESS OR, OR USE OF THE PRIMARY DRIVEWAY BY OTHER VEHICLES.
[00:50:01]
UM, WE ADDED THE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND CITY AND CITY ATTORNEY AS INITIATORS TO CODE AMENDMENTS.UM, THERE ARE CERTAIN CODE AMENDMENTS LIKE THE STATE REQUIRED CO CODE AMENDMENTS OR, UM, DRIVEN BY STATE LAW THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE ACTED ON RIGHT AWAY.
AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE TIME FOR CERTAIN CODE STANDARDS TO BE, TO TAKE IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AN IN INITIATION RESOLUTION AND THEN, AND THEN GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ACTUAL CODE A AMENDMENT.
UM, SO THIS WOULD SAVE SOME TIME AND WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO PROCESS CODE AMENDMENTS.
IT, IT'S JUST TO GET IT ON THE AGENDA.
UM, IT STILL REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND, AND, UM, RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND IT STILL REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE ACTUAL CODE AMENDMENT.
BUT THIS IS JUST TO GET SOMETHING IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AGENDA.
UM, WE ADDED REGULATIONS REGARDING REFLE GLARES AND REFLECTIONS FROM SOLAR PANELS.
WE'VE HAD ISSUES WHERE CERTAIN, SO SOLAR PLA PANELS ON ROOFS ON SINGLE STORY HOMES CREATED GLARE AND GLA A GLARE ISSUE AND A REFLECTION ISSUE THAT BLINDS PEOPLE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF A NEIGHBORING HOUSE.
UM, SO, AND THERE ARE CERTAIN, THERE ARE CERTAIN CONCERNS THAT SOLAR PANELS THAT ARE GONNA BE CONSTRUCTED ON HILLSIDES WOULD MAY HAVE IMPACTS GLARE OR REFLECTION IMPACTS ON, ON VEHICLES DRIVING.
SO WE ADDED THIS, THIS, UM, STANDARDS ADDRESSING THAT.
AND THEN WE, WE MADE CERTAIN REVISIONS FOR STATE LAW CONSISTENCY.
UM, ONE THING, ONE THING THAT WE ADDED IS IT, UM, IS THE HILLSIDE MASSING, UM, WHICH ALLOWS THE HEIGHT TO BE, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THE HEIGHT ENDS MEASURED FROM LOWEST GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT.
UM, AND THIS, THIS, THIS MAY COME AS A CHALLENGE FOR PEOPLE, UH, BUILDING ON ALONG HILLSIDE LOTS BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES CUT AND FILL IN CONSTRUCTIONS OF LARGER RETAINING WALLS IN BUILDING ON TOP OF THE SLOPE RATHER THAN, RATHER THAN ALONG, ALONG IT.
SO IT RE IT ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OVERALL HEIGHT FROM LOWEST GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT TO 35 FEET, PROVIDING THAT NO AREA IN THE PERIMETER OF OF THE HOUSE.
SO I FOUND THIS DI THIS DIAGRAM ON A LINE THAT KIND OF SH UM, SHOWS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
IT WOULD BE THE TOP PHOTOGRAPH MINUS THE STORY AT THE BOTTOM OR THE TOP.
'CAUSE WE DO NOT ALLOW UP TO THREE STORIES.
SO IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THIS TOP, THIS TOP DIAGRAM, BUT WITHOUT THE BOTTOM PORTION.
UM, SO THIS, THIS WOULD ENCOURAGE, UM, BUILDING ALONG THE NATURAL SLOPE RATHER THAN, THAN INTENSE EXCESSIVE CUT AND FAIL AND GRADING.
SO ANOTHER PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AT CODE UPDATE REVISIONS DEALS WITH SIGN REGULATIONS FOR SECTION 27.
IT DEALS WITH TEMPERING NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNS.
UM, IT IS PREVIOUSLY, UM, LIMITED TO SET, UM, SEVEN SQUARE FEET AN AREA, UM, NOT POSTED LONGER THAN 30 DAYS WITHIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD.
AND SO, SO, UM, THIS IS AN EN AN ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM.
'CAUSE HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHE WHEN THE 30 DAYS START, UM, IF SOMEBODY CALLS TO COMPLAIN.
SO WE'VE CHANGED, WE'RE PROPOSING A CHANGE TO NO LARGER THAN 32 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND NO LONGER THAN EIGHT FEET IN ANY DIMENSION.
AND THAT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS CODE AND WE'RE JUST, WE'RE PUTTING IT BACK.
UM, AND WE ADDED STANDARDS ON IT, UM, ON HOW IT'S GONNA BE MAINTAINED.
NO, UM, NO FREE OF TERRA RIPS, RUST DETERIORATION OR SIMILAR CONDITION.
AND THEN WE POINTED OUT THE, THE, UM, THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SECTION IN THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL
[00:55:01]
CODE SECTION 29, UM, SECTION.UM, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE CHA, UM, ADDED THE, THE ELECTION SEASON SIGN, UM, PORTION, UM, IN EFFORT TO MAKE THE TEMPORARY NON-COMMERCIAL SIGN SECTION, UM, MORE CONTENT NEUTRAL.
SO, SO, UM, WE'RE INCREASING THE TIMEFRAME FROM 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE CLOSEST FUTURE ELECTION DAY TO 90 DAYS.
UM, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE'S BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL CODE.
UH, UH, AND THEN SO WE, WE JUST MADE THIS TO, TO, TO BE, TO MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES.
AND THEN, UM, WE ADDED OR WE CLARIFIED THAT NO SUCH SIGN SHALL BE PLACED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION AND OR APPROVAL.
THAT'S ACTUALLY ALREADY IN THE TEMPORARY NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNS AND ALSO IN BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE AND ALSO THE PREVIOUS CODE.
UM, SO THAT THE PORTION NOT ALLOWING, NOT ALLOWING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WAS ADDED TO THE CODE IN 2018, UH, THROUGH ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, ANOTHER ITEM THAT'S CHANGING IS THIS, UM, SECTION 35 OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, UM, DEALS WITH SB NINE OR URBAN DWELLING UNITS.
MERRIMAN HAD HAD A MEETING WITH HCDA COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND IT WAS RELATED TO SB NINE AND URBAN DWELLING UNITS.
THEY WANTED TO KNOW HOW WE WERE APPLYING IT AND, AND THEY STATED THAT WE, THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO ALLOW SB NINE UNITS WHETHER OR NOT, UH, URBAN SUBDIVISION OR SB NINE SUBDIVISION IS BEING PROPOSED.
AND THEY STATED THAT, UM, PER THE SB NINE GUIDE, THE STATE'S SB NINE GUIDELINES, WE HAVE TO ALLOW AT LEAST FOUR UNITS, UM, IF THEY'RE, THEY'RE BUILDING SB NINE UNITS PER PER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
SO, AND I HAD SHOWN THE, SHOWN THEM THIS DRAFT AND THEY ARE OKAY WITH, UM, THIS LANGUAGE.
UM, A MAJOR PART OF THE CLEANUP IS THE REVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION SECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE.
ONE OF THE INTENTS WAS TO, TO ALLOW THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE TO APPROVE AND, AND BOTH PARCEL MAPS AND ALSO APPROVE EXTENSIONS TO MAP TO, TO TENTATIVE ANY TENTATIVE MAP.
UM, HOWEVER, THE, WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, THE LANGUAGE WAS NOT CLEAR WHOSE AUTHORITY IT WAS.
UM, SO IF THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD UPDATE CLEANS UP CLEAN UP, UM, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE PARCEL MAPS.
UM, AND, AND, AND IT ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT DEV DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS AUTHORITY TO APPROVE EXTENSIONS.
SO ON THE TABLE IS, IS A SUMMARY OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES ON WHO'S, WHO'S IN CHARGE OF APPROVING WHAT, WHEN IT DEALS WITH MAP.
ALTHOUGH THE DIRECTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS, ALL FINAL MAPS STILL HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FOR APPROVAL.
UM, AND THIS IS IN, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT IN STATE LAW WITH THIS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 24 DASH 6 15 7.
IF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER HA IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ALSO.
SORRY, I HAVE JOHN MORLIN HERE WITH RINCON.
HE, HE IS THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CONSULTANT.
[01:00:02]
DOES, UM, ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR STAFF? I HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, BUT I, LET'S JUST GET THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN I CAN ASK QUESTIONS AFTER THAT.ACTUALLY, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FIRST BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, REGARDING THE APPROVAL AND THE PLANNING, UH, FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL IN PRIOR CODE, WHO'S APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL MAP AND THE EXTENSION FOR THE PARCEL MAP? THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, ARE WE AT IT? LET'S ASK ANOTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING SBC NINE.
UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT WE CAN'T OR ALLOWED UP TO FOUR UNITS CAN, UM, STAFF OR PERHAPS OUR CONSULTANTS EXPLAIN HOW WE COME ABOUT AND IS THERE A CERTAIN SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR THE TWO PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS VERSUS THE TWO ADDITIONAL A DU? SO THE, UM, THE, THE PRIMARY DWELLING, THE HOUSE IS ALLOWED TO STAY THERE.
UH, THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS ALLOWED TO STAY THERE, BUT AS FAR AS THE SB NINE UNITS, OUR CURRENT CODE ALLOWS UP TO 800 SQUARE FEET.
IS THAT FOR THE A DU OR FOR THE PRIMARY? FOR THE SBC SB, THAT'S WHERE THE SB NINE UNITS.
AND, AND ALSO, UM, THE WAY THIS CODE IS WRITTEN, UM, WE'RE MATCHING WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR THE A DU, WHICH IS 800 SQUARE FEET, UM, IN THE JUNIOR A DU 500 SQUARE FEET.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THE PRIMARY FOR THE SB NINE WOULD BE 800 SQUARE FOOT? MM-HMM
THE A DU FOR THE SB NINE WOULD BE 800 SQUARE FOOT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN, OR IF THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A JUNIOR A DU, IT'D BE 500 SQUARE FEET.
THE JUNIOR, JUNIOR FOR THE, OKAY, SO IT'S 500 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE JUNIOR.
WHAT ABOUT THE PRIMARY RESIDENT? IT CAN BE AS, UH, THE PRIMARY FOR THE VERY FIRST ONE COULD BE AS LARGE AS ITS ORIGINAL.
IF, IF THEY ARE, IF, IF THEY ARE A, UM, IF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT HAS AN SB NINE UNIT, THEN THEY ARE LIMITED TO THESE CODE STANDARDS, WHICH IS 800 SQUARE FEET IN 500 SQUARE FOR A A AN A DU AND 500 SQUARE FEET FOR A JUNIOR A DU.
WHAT ABOUT THE EIGHT? UH, THE 1200 SQUARE FOOT THAT WAS REQUIRED WAS ALLOWED BY THE FIRST, THE ORIGINAL A DU LAW.
SO, UM, SB SB NINE UM, ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS, UM, A KIND OF LIKE LOT SPLIT FOR WITH AN EXISTING, UM, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON IT.
IT SB NINE HAS PROVISIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THAT BUILDING CAN BE DEMOLISHED.
SO IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THE EXISTING HOUSE WOULD BE THE PRIMARY, AND THEN THE 1200, 800 500 WOULD BE THE OTHER UNITS THAT COULD BE, UH, CONSTRUCTED ON THE LOT.
SO YOU STILL ALLOW THE 1200 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE A DU, THE FIRST A DU AND THEN THE SB NINE WOULD BE THE 800 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE EIGHT.
OKAY, SO, SO IF THERE ONLY BUILDING AN, UM, AN 80, UH, IF THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE, RIGHT, UM, ON A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THEY'RE BUILDING, THEY'RE BUILDING A SB NINE UNIT, THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED ANOTH, UM, THE PRIMARY HOUSE AND AT THE SB NINE UNIT AS THE PRIMARY UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THEY'RE ALSO ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE A DU PER PRIMARY UNIT SO THAT A DU CAN EITHER BE AN 800 SQUARE FOOT, A DU, UM, OR A 500 SQUARE FOOT JUNIOR A DU PER PRIMARY UNIT.
UM, SO, SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE NO MORE THAN FOUR UNITS, UM, BOTH PRIMARY AND, AND, AND ACCESSORY PER PER LOT.
BUT IF THEY, IF THEY ARE NOT BUILDING AN SB NINE UNIT, THEN THEY CAN HAVE ONE A DU AND THAT A, UM, A DETACHED A DU AND THAT ONE DETACHED, A DU CAN BE 1200 SQUARE FEET.
OKAY, SO I'M GONNA OPEN, UM, PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE ONE, UH, MARIO SO COLD IN HERE.
[01:05:05]
ALL RIGHT.UH, I CAN GET A CHANCE TO READ THROUGH ALL OF THE 328 PAGE DOCUMENT OR 330 SOME ODD PAGE DOCUMENT.
UM, ASSEMBLY BILL 25 33 I SEE ON HERE, WHICH IS AMNESTY A DU, WHICH IS GONNA BE EXCITING IF THAT DOES COME TO WEST COVINA.
I GUESS, UM, ALLOWS FOR ADUS THAT ARE, UH, DON'T NECESSARILY ADHERE TO BUILDING CODE, BUT JUST SAFETY, HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
UH, NEVERTHELESS, I'M ACTUALLY HERE FOR, TO DISCUSS ANOTHER ISSUE.
UM, SO GOOD BEING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS MARIO VAR AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU TONIGHT REGARDING AGENDA ITEM FOUR, I'M HERE TO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CAMPAIGN SIGNS, PARTICULARLY THE CHANGES TO THE TIMEFRAME FOR POSTING CAMPAIGN SIGNS AND THE NUMBER OF CAMPAIGN SIGNS ALLOWED PER PARCEL.
THESE CHANGES RAISE SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS ABOUT FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY IN THE RECENT ELECTION.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO REFERENCE THE, UH, DOCUMENTS THAT I PRINTED OUT FOR YOU.
UM, PAGE THREE OF THE DOCUMENT IS A DOCUMENT THAT I DOWNLOADED EARLIER THIS YEAR FROM THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
THIS DOCUMENT, THE OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN SIGN REGULATION STATES THAT NO CAMPAIGN SIGN SHALL BE ERECTED EARLIER THAN 60 DAYS PRIOR TO AN ELECTION.
HOWEVER, THE RECENT AMENDMENT AS OUTLINED ON PAGE 3 0 7 OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA PACKET EXTEND THIS TIMEFRAME TO 90 DAYS DURING THE ELECTION.
I OBSERVED THAT TWO CANDIDATES, COINCIDENTALLY THE TWO WHO WON, DISPLAYED THEIR CAMPAIGN SIGNS FOR 90 DAYS, WELL BEYOND THE 60 DAY LIMIT STATED IN THE REGULATIONS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THIS RAISES SEVERAL IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
WHEN WAS THIS CHANGE FROM 60 TO 90 DAYS ENACTED? WHY WAS IT MADE? HOW WAS IT COMMUNICATED TO ALL CANDIDATES IF THIS CHANGE WAS NOT PUBLICLY AND EQUITABLY COMMUNICATED AND UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTION PROCESS AND GIVES AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO THOSE OPERATING WITH ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THE AMENDMENT? SECOND, I'D LIKE TO REFERENCE THE AMENDMENT ON PAGE 3 0 8 OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA PACKET, WHICH SPECIFIES A MAXIMUM OF FOUR CAMPAIGN SIGNS PER BARTLE.
YET DURING THE ELECTION, I OBSERVED THAT ONE OF THE SAME CANDIDATES WHO POSTED CAMPAIGN SIGNS FOR 90 DAYS ALSO HAD OVER 40 CAMPAIGN SIGNS DISPLAYED ON AND AROUND A SINGLE HOUSE.
THIS WOULD BE, UH, HOUSE ON VINCENT.
IF YOU GUYS KNOW NEXT TO EDISON, WON'T NAME NAMES.
UH, WAS THIS RULE CHANGED SIMILARLY, NOT COMMUNICATED TO ALL CANDIDATES, OR WERE SOME CANDIDATES SIMPLY ALLOWED TO IGNORE THE REGULATIONS ENTIRELY? LASTLY, I MUST ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
THE ELECTION AND VOTER INFORMATION PAGE, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO SERVE AS A CRITICAL RESOURCE FOR CANDIDATE AND RESIDENT IS CURRENTLY BROKEN.
WHILE I CANNOT CONFIRM WHETHER THIS ISSUE EXISTED DURING THE ELECTION CYCLE, THE INABILITY TO ACCESS THIS RESOURCE NOW REFLECTS POORLY ON THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION.
THIS FURTHER RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER ALL CANDIDATES HAD EQUAL ACCESS TO ACCURATE AND TIMELY GUIDANCE REGARDING CAMPAIGN SIGNED REGULATIONS.
IN CONCLUSION, I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE WHEN AND WHY THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE CAMPAIGN SIGNED REGULATIONS WERE MADE.
CLARIFY HOW THESE CHANGES WERE COMMUNICATED TO ALL CANDIDATES TO ENSURE FAIRNESS, ADDRESS CLEAR VIOLATIONS SUCH AS THE EXCESSIVE NUMBER ON CAMPAIGN SIGNS ON A SINGLE PARCEL TO UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF THE REGULATIONS AND TO FIX THE BROKEN ELECTION INFORMATION PAGE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE TO RESTORE PUBLIC TRUST AND ACCESSIBILITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THESE IMPORTANT MATTERS.
I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER A, UH, RESIDENTIAL APPLICANTS REGARDING, UM, SPEAKING IN FAVORS OR OPPOSING THE CODE.
ANYONE ELSE THAT'D LIKE TO COME UP? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN, UM, COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS.
I I HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, AS IT STANDS IN OUR PACKET.
UM, THIS WOULD BE PAGE TWO WHERE IT SAYS, DISCUSSION FOLLOWING IS AN OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
UH, THERE'S THE SECTION THAT SAYS HCD REQUIRED CHANGES FOR THE HOUSING, EXCUSE ME, FOR THE HOUS HOUSING ELEMENT.
UH, AND THEN IT GOES THROUGH TABLE TWO DASH FIVE SECTIONS 26 DASH 49, UH, 82 AND 26 DASH TWO 12.
DO YOU GUYS SEE THAT? OKAY, MY QUESTION IS, UM, AND I'LL, I'LL GO ONE BY ONE WITH REGARD TO TABLE, UH, 2.5.
UM, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR ALL, UH, MULTIFAMILY ZONES IS PROPOSED TO BE DECREASED TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
NOW THAT IS A, THAT IS AN HCD REQUIREMENT.
UM, WHAT STATUTORY AUTHORITY ARE THEY RELYING UPON BY IMPOSING THAT REQUIREMENT? UM, FOR THAT ONE IT WAS, UH, FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, UM, THROUGH KIND OF THE NEGOTIATION AND REVIEW PROCESS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT.
[01:10:01]
UM, UH, HOUSING POLICY THREE ONE DASH F UM, OF THE, UH, HOUSING ELEMENT.SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY, UM, A CODE UPDATE TO BE ESSENTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT.
SO THERE'S NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY OR REGULATORY AUTHORITY BY WHICH THE HCD IS RELYING UPON IN IMPOSING THIS, CORRECT? NO OBJECTIVE.
THIS IS THE PRODUCT, THIS IS PURELY THE PRODUCT OF NEGOTIATION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
FOR THE 20,000? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO EFFECTIVELY, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS THEN, OR IF, IF WE DON'T RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THIS, UH, THEN, AND THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDES WE'RE NOT GONNA APPROVE THIS, THEN WE DON'T HAVE THE HOUSING ELEMENT, RIGHT? CORRECT.
IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THAT THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE.
SO EFFECTIVELY ALL OF THIS STUFF.
SO AS FAR AS TABLE 2.5, THIS IS PURELY COMMANDEERING US, CORRECT? THAT'S, THAT'S IT, RIGHT? I WANT TO JUST MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.
IT WAS, YEAH, IT WAS SUBJECT TO ESSENTIALLY SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION AND THE, UH, THE THOUGHT PROCESS FROM HCD WAS THAT, UM, IT WOULD BE MORE FEASIBLE IF IT WAS A SMALLER MULTI-FAMILY SITE TO DEVELOP AND THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A BARRIER TO HOUSING.
WHAT FEASIBILITY STUDIES ARE THEY RELYING UPON IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION? UH, THEIR EXPERTISE IN DOING, UH, HOUSING ELEMENTS FROM THE STATE.
OKAY, WELL THAT'S NON-RESPONSIVE
SO, UM, SO IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDING THAT HCD OR, OR RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO SOMETHING THAT HCD IS IMPOSING UPON US, IT'S NOT REALLY A RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S BASICALLY, HERE'S A GUN TO YOUR HEAD.
YOU HAVE TO DO THIS AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE YOUR ABILITY TO DO ANY SORT OF REGULATION ON HOUSING OR ACTUALLY YOU'RE GONNA LOSE YOUR ENTIRE GENERAL PLAN.
IS THAT, THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT, RIGHT? YES, I WOULD SAY SO.
SO I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS WHY IS THIS INCLUDED WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF THAT IS, IS DISCRETIONARY OR APPEARS TO BE DISCRETIONARY? 'CAUSE I'D RATHER JUST HAVE THIS WHOLE THING BE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN ALL JUST SORT OF GO LIKE THIS, HERE YOU GO.
UM, AND WE'LL RECOMMEND THAT THE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T DO SOMETHING TO GET, GET US SUED, UM, WHICH ISN'T A RECOMMENDATION.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING IN, IN TERMS OF HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
I'LL JUST, I'LL, I'LL GO DOWN THE OTHERS QUICKLY.
SO SECTION, SO THE CHANGE TO SECTIONS 26 DASH FOUR DASH 4 9 82 AND 26 DASH TWO 12 SUB B, UH, ENSURES THAT MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS WITH AT LEAST 20% OF THE UNITS RESERVED FOR LOWER INCOME, UH, HOUSEHOLDS ARE APPROVED BY WRIGHT.
THERE, THERE'S NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY THAT HCD IS RELYING UPON AND IMPOSING THAT REQUIREMENT.
CORRECT? ON THAT ONE? THERE IS.
SO THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH SENATE BILL 6 84, ASSEMBLY BILL 2011, AND SENATE BILL THREE 30.
AT LEAST, AT LEAST THERE'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT I CAN ATTACH SOME, SOME MEAT TO.
AND THEN, SO TABLE TWO, UH, DASH 12 STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT EMERGENCY SELTZERS ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN ZONES WHERE RESIDENTIAL, UH, USES ARE ALLOWED.
UH, THAT AREA ALLOWS THE MOST INTENSE USES, UH, AMONGST THE MIXED USE ZONES.
UH, IS REGIONAL COM, UH, COMMERCIAL MIXED USE, RMU, THIS AREA INCLUDES THE EASTLAND CENTER AND OTHER, UH, MIXED USE, UH, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ALONG GARVEY AVENUE NORTH EAST OF THE EASTLAND CENTER.
ALL OTHER ZONES ARE, UH, REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO THAT WAS JUST THE PRODUCT OF NEGOTIATION.
THAT'S JUST SORT OF THE BEST WE COULD DO.
UH, THAT IS ALSO, UM, STATUTORY, UH, YOU, UH, ARE REQUIRED, UH, TO ALLOW A EMERGENCY SHELTER BY RIGHT WHERE RESIDENTIAL IS, UH, IS PERMITTED.
BUT THE LOCATIONS WERE, WERE JUST THE PRODUCT OF NEGOTIATION, CORRECT? UH, CORRECT.
THERE WAS, UM, ESSENTIALLY JUST IDENTIFIED IN THE REGIONAL MIXED USE, WHICH WAS ACCEPTABLE.
UM, AND THE HCD DID ALLOW A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OTHER MIXED USE ZONES.
AND THEN FOR, UH, THE NEXT ONE IS TABLE THREE DASH TWO, SECTION 26 DASH 90, SUB B TWO AND 26 DASH ONE 18 A FIVE.
CHANGE OF SOLE REFERENCE TO CUP TO, TO PRECISE PLAN CUP AND OTHER ENTITLEMENT AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE NOT ALL USES REQUIRE CUP, I THINK THAT'S VERY SENSIBLE, BUT THEN IT GETS TO, IN ADDITION, UH, THE PARKING RATIO FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WAS CONSOLIDATED, UH, REMOVED SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS FOR MIXED USE AND CONDOMINIUMS. AND THE PARKING RATIO FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS HAS BEEN REDUCED TO ONE PER STAFF AS REQUIRED BY HCD.
SO WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING RATIO STUFF, IS THAT JUST THEIR DETERMINATION OR IS THERE STATUTORY AUTHORITY BEHIND THAT?
[01:15:01]
THERE IS, UM, IN THE EMERGENCY SHELTER IT DOES, IT DOES SAY THERE SHALL BE NO PARKING FOR REQUIRED FOR RESIDENCE.AND THEN, AND, AND THEN AS FAR AS, UM, AS FAR AS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, UM, IS, IS THAT THE SAME? WAS THAT, WAS THAT CHANGED IN THIS IS, UH, UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE.
YES, SO THAT WAS, UM, THAT WAS PART OF, THAT WAS PART OF THE HCD NEGOTIATIONS.
UM, THAT WAS, UM, I WILL ADMIT THAT THAT WAS, UM, THAT WAS MORE KIND OF A, OF A FORMATTING KIND OF ERROR AS WE WERE KIND OF GO THROUGHING.
THE FIRST PART WE WERE GOING TO, UM, IT, IT PRETTY MUCH, UH, IMPACTS THE SMALLER UNITS.
THE TWO BEDROOM UNIT COUNT, THE TWO BEDROOM PARKING, UM, REQUIREMENTS DIDN'T CHANGE.
IT WAS ESSENTIALLY TWO SPACES PER UNIT.
UM, BUT IT ALLOWED FOR SMALLER PARKING SPACES FOR THE, UH, SMALLER UNITS, WHICH WAS, UM, REQUESTED, UM, BY, UH, BY HCD.
UM, SO IS THAT, SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON THAT, IS THAT A REQUIREMENT OR IS THAT A REQUEST THAT WAS PART OF THE NEGOTI NEGOTIATION THEN? SO IT'S A PRETTY STANDARD, UH, REQUEST FOR A, SO, SO ALL OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE AN APPROVED GENERAL, UH, EXCUSE ME, HOUSING ELEMENT, UM, AND SORT OF AS A COROLLARY AND APPROVED GENERAL PLAN HAVE GOTTEN THE SAME REQUIREMENT IMPOSED UPON THEM? UH, CORRECT.
AND THERE'S, THERE'S NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THAT, THEY'RE JUST DOING IT, CORRECT? YEAH, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
ALRIGHT, GOING DOWN TO, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE CLEANUP PROVISIONS, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT, UH, THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO SECTION 26 DASH 46 SUB D UH, THAT, UH, THE HEIGHT INCREASE EXCEPTION FOR HILLSIDE LOTS.
UM, I KIND OF WANTED TO GO OVER THAT BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS INTENDED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE, BUT I ACTUALLY THINK THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT REALLY DISCOURAGING ANYTHING BECAUSE FUNDAMENTALLY, UH, WHAT WHAT'S GONNA END UP HAPPENING THERE IS YOU'RE, YOU'RE HAVING A, A SMALLER HOUSE BUILT IN, IN EFFECT, AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STILL GO IN AND, UM, AND, AND, AND BASICALLY DIG OUT TO FLATTEN OUT THE LOTS SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE A LARGER, UH, A LARGER RESIDENCE IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T ALLOW FOR, FOR THE STACKING OF UP TO UP TO THREE DIFFERENT STORIES AND THEN PERHAPS HAVE A LIMITATION, A HEIGHT LIMIT AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
I, I, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW, UM, BASED ON THE HIGHEST LEVEL RELATIVE TO OTHER SURROUNDING STRUCTURES, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING THAT, THAT CHANGES HOW PEOPLE LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CITY.
I, I, I THINK, I, I THINK IT'S, IT'S SORT OF A, IT, IT, IT'S SORT OF A BANDAID FOR A SITUATION THAT, THAT NO ONE IS REALLY LOOKING AT DOING, GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU ONLY HAVE A TWO STORY, WE, WE HAVE A TWO STORY LIMIT.
I, I, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE.
I MEAN, TELL ME WHY I'M WRONG.
UM, IT'S UP TO, UM, IT REALLY, IT'S, IT'S REALLY UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I CAN SEE, I CAN SEE IT, I CAN SEE IT EITHER WAY.
UM, BUT, UH, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN CERTAINLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, THE, THE ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND STRIKE OUT SECTION 14.
SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY UP TO THE CITY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I MEAN, BECAUSE, BECAUSE HERE, HERE'S WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND.
IF, IF I WERE, IF I WERE DOING THIS, I WOULD SAY, OKAY, ALLOW UP TO THREE DIFFERENT STORIES FOR HILLSIDE BUILDS AND ONLY HILLSIDE BUILDS WHERE YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, A, A A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT GRADE.
I, I, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME STUDY SESSION ON WHAT LEVEL OF GRADING WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR US TO APPROVE THE THIRD STORY, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, I, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
UM, SO I, I MEAN, FOR, FOR ME AS IS, IT'S DEFINITELY A, NO, IT'S JUST MORE, I, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY WHY NOT ADD IN THE ABILITY TO DO A THIRD STORY, UM, MUCH, MUCH AS IS SET UP HERE.
SO IF, IF THE GOAL IS TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM, FROM DIGGING OUT AND JUST DOING A, A, A FLAT, UM, A, A FLAT PARCEL GRADING, UM, SETUP, I, I JUST DON'T, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW, HOW YOU DO IT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE THIRD STORY.
SO OTHERWISE IT'S JUST, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA GET MORE OF THE SAME.
UM, I, I JUST, AND, AND THE OTHER THING IS, IS I, I WOULD, I WOULD LOOK AT THAT SCENARIO KIND OF WITH, WITH, WITH SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, FOUNDATION AND, AND FRANKLY, ALL OF THE, THE PILLARING THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, HAVE TO HAVE
[01:20:01]
TO GO DOWN DEEPER IN ORDER TO, TO, TO DO IT THAT WAY.I, I, I THINK, I THINK HAVING IT AS IS MAKES MORE SENSE THAN, THAN DOING THAT BASED UPON HOW THIS IS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED.
BUT AGAIN, MY 2 CENTS, UM, WITH REGARD TO, UH, 26 DASH 100 SUB CI, I GUESS I, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, SO WHY, WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN IS THIS SOMETHING THAT, UM, IS, IS BEFORE US IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS? I MEAN, THE, THE THING, THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS THAT, UM, LIKE THIS, THIS WHOLE PROPOSAL, UM, SEEMS TO, SEEMS TO BE, YOU KNOW, MAKING CORRECTIONS AND INCORPORATE REQUIRED UPDATES TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND THEN A COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT CODE NUMBER ONE FOR THE WEST COVINA, UH, PORTION OF THE WOODSIDE VILLAGE TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PCD ONE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING.
I MEAN, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THAT? I MEAN, THIS LOOKS LIKE THAT, THIS TO ME, LOOKS, LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE REAL NOTICE ISSUES IN TERMS OF THE, THE DISCUSSION OF THIS.
I MEAN, I, I I, I, I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO POTENTIALLY MAKE THIS CHANGE, BUT I MEAN, LIKE, WHY IS IT, I MEAN, THIS, THIS TO ME LOOKS LIKE HOW PROP 19 WAS,
AND THIS IS WHY PEOPLE VOTED AWAY CERTAIN RIGHTS THAT THEY HAD IN THE, IN, IN, IN THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE I THAT, THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GETTING SOMETHING NEW AND BETTER.
AND, AND I, I JUST, I, I, I JUST THINK WHY IS THIS RELATED TO THIS? I, I, I THINK IT'S, IT, IT, IT BOTHERS ME.
SO WHERE, WHERE DID THIS COME FROM? THAT'S MY THING.
SO THIS PAST, UM, PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, WE NOTICED THAT THE STATE LAW PERTAINING TO ELECTION SIGNS ALLOWED 90 DAYS.
UM, AND THE CODE SECTION HERE WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THAT.
AND SO TO COMPLY AND TO BECOME IN LINE WITH THE STATE ALLOWING 90 DAYS, THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO INCORPORATE REQUIRED UPDATES TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAWS.
SO IT'S TO BE IN LINE WITH THAT.
I, I AGREE WITH YOU THERE, THAT THAT'S THE PORTION I AGREE WITH YOU, ED, BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT WE ARE WHOLESALE, WHOLESALE CHANGING THE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS OTHERWISE.
SO INSTEAD OF HAVING THE, THE SIGN SIZE LIMITS AND THE NUMBER OF SIZE LIMITS, YOU KNOW, BEING STAYED STATUS QUO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHOLESALE CHANGES TO THAT STUFF.
NOW, TO ME, I THINK THE NUMEROSITY THING, I THINK I, I THINK IF, IF SOMEBODY CHALLENGED THAT, WE'RE GONNA LOSE, BUT ON, ON THE, THE SIZE OF SIGNAGE, I THINK IT'S A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTION.
SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS IT THAT THAT CAUSED US TO SAY, WELL, WE'RE GONNA GET RID OF THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTION THAT WE'VE HAD.
I, I, I, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY GOING BACK AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN ALIVE, UM, AND THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S MY QUESTION.
ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE CHANGING THAT.
I NOTICED ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAD MUCH BIGGER SIGNS IN THIS CAMPAIGN THAN I EVER SAW BEFORE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IS IT, IS IT JUST, YOU KNOW, POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY BASED UPON WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE? I MEAN, I, BECAUSE OUTSIDE OF THAT, I CAN'T REALLY FIGURE OUT WHY STAFF, DOES THE CITY HAVE MORE CALLS OR THAT PROMPTED THIS SIGN CHANGE SIGNAGE CHANGE WITH, WITH THE LAST ELECTION, IT'S, IT WAS, I GUESS MORE OF A, UH, UM, CODE ENFORCEMENT, UM, TYPE DEAL WHERE IT WAS, IT WAS, IT'S VERY, IT'S BEEN, IT'S D BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE.
UM, MAINLY BECAUSE, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, AS AN EXAMPLE, IF SOMEBODY HAD SIGNAGE ON, ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, IT ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AND THE PROPERTY IS GATED, UM, IN ORDER TO, IN ORDER FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO GO OUT THERE AND NOTICE, I GUESS, SENT THEM A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO, TO THE SITE AND, AND ACTUALLY MEASURE THE, THE SIGNAGE.
UM, WHEREAS ON A DIFFERENT NOTE, IF A SIMILAR TYPE SIGN, UM, ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT IS
[01:25:01]
NOT GATED, UM, GOT A COMPLAINT AND CODE ENFORCEMENT WENT OUT THERE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO JUST MEASURE IT.SO IT BECOMES, IT BECOMES A, UM, A NOTION OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, UM, IN, IN THAT SENSE, AS FAR AS THE SIZE IS CONCERNED.
UM, AS FAR AS THE, THE, UM, TIMEFRAME IS CONCERNED, IT'S, IT WAS, UM, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE, BECAUSE WE HAVE 60 DAYS AND STATE LAW IS NINE HAS 90 DAYS, SO, SO, UM, WE ARE JUST MAKING IT IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW SO THAT IT'S, UM, I GUESS CONSISTENT.
WELL, SO, SO FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS, OKAY, SO HOW MUCH ENFORCEMENT DID CODE ENFORCEMENT DO OF THIS SPECIFIC, UH, OF THIS SPECIFIC ORDINANCE OVER THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE? HOW MANY CITATIONS OR NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OR, OR ANYTHING ON DOWN THE LINE WERE HANDED OUT? I DIDN'T GET A NUMBER FROM THEM.
I, I, I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE SOME, THEY HAD SENT OUT LETTERS FOR NOTICE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THEY SENT OUT CITATIONS.
SO HOW, SO HOW MANY LETTERS AND WERE THEY SENT TO, WERE THEY SENT TO CAMPAIGNS OR WERE THEY SENT TO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAD THE SIGNS ON THEIR, I BELIEVE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT, UM, I AM NOT PART OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS, SO I, I DIDN'T, I WASN'T INVOLVED IN, UM, IN NOTIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, AND THEY DIDN'T CHECK, UM, CHECK IN WITH ME EITHER WHEN, WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE NOTIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT, SO I AM, I'M NOT INVOLVED IN, IN THEIR PROCESS.
WELL, I MEAN, MY, MY THING IS I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH, YOU KNOW, MAKING OUR ELECTION, UH, ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT WE SHOULD DO.
UM, HOWEVER, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR ORDINANCE IS OTHERWISE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND THIS IS JUST SAYING, WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE UPDATING THINGS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, UH, I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ATTEMPTING TO DO.
THIS IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT WHOLESALE CHANGE.
IT'S KIND OF BURIED IN, YOU KNOW, WHAT 300 PAGES OF, OF CHANGES THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY MINISTERIAL AND THEY'RE NOT.
UM, AND THAT'S TO ME, I, I JUST, I, I WOULD HOPE MOVING FORWARD, IF WE HAVE STUFF LIKE THIS, WE'D BREAK IT UP BECAUSE IT JUST ENDS UP BEING, UH, LOOK, IT, IT, IT, IT BOTHERS ME THAT, YOU KNOW, AS IT STANDS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ATTENDANCE AT THESE, AT THESE MEETINGS TO BEGIN WITH, BUT, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY, THERE'S ONLY THREE OF US NOW THERE'S, THERE'S TYPICALLY FIVE AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF US HAVE TO GO THROUGH HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF, OF, OF STUFF IN ORDER TO PREPARE.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M SURE NOT EVERY COMMISSIONER GETS A CHANCE TO READ EVERY SINGLE PAGE THAT'S PUT IN FRONT OF THEM.
AND THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT JUST, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I UNDERSTAND CORRECTING SPELLING ERRORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT'S FINE, BUT THIS, THIS LEAVES A BAD TASTE IN MY MOUTH, FRANKLY.
UM, AND, AND, AND THEN LET'S GO ON TO, UM, THE, THE NON-CONFORMING, UM, LET'S SEE, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
I THINK IT'S THE, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, UM, AUTHORITY TO APPROVE, UH, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SUBDIVISIONS.
UM, WHAT I, WHAT I WANTED TO DO JUST FOR, FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY THERE, SO THE EXTENSION OF TIME ASPECT OF THINGS IS THAT BECOMING, UH, IS JUST, JUST SO THAT THE PUBLIC GENERALLY KNOWS, IS THAT BECOMING A MINISTERIAL PROCESS, UM, ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE, OR IS THAT GOING TO STILL BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER THE, UNDER THE, UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL? IT WOULD BE, UM, MINISTERIAL SIDE.
AND WHAT'S THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE MINISTERIAL SIDE, UM, OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTERIAL SIDE PROVIDES, UM, AND AT WHAT POINT IN TIME DOES IT COME BACK TO PLANNING? UM, IT'S, UM, IT'S, IT, THE MINISTERIAL SIDE, IT'S WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE CODE AND I BELIEVE, UM, 2, 3 2, UM, NO, THREE, TWO YEAR EXTENSIONS OF TIME.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S, AND THAT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE.
I, I JUST WANTED TO, TO MAKE SURE.
[01:30:01]
SEE THOSE TYPES OF THINGS COMING BEFORE US AGAIN? NO, THE ONLY TIME THAT YOU WOULD SEE IT IS IF THEY EXCEED THAT, THAT THREE, UM, ALLOWABLE EXTENSIONS OF TIME THAT THE CODE ALLOWS.AND SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD BRING IT BACK TO YOU AS, AS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT APPROVAL.
IT'S BASICALLY LIKE A NEW WHOLE PUBLIC HEARING AND A NEW WHOLE APPLICATION.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
I ACTUALLY, UM, IT'S A GREAT POINT BECAUSE, UM, THIS EVENING WE ONLY HAVE, UM, OUT OF FIVE NORMAL COMMISSIONERS THAT WE ONLY HAVE TWO.
I MEAN, I'M SORRY, WE HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS HERE TONIGHT.
I LIKE TO SEE FIVE COMMISSIONERS AND I LIKE TO SEE, UH, THIS BEING CONTINUE UNTIL WE HAVE FIVE COMMISSIONERS.
AND BESIDES THIS IS A RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ALL COMMISSIONERS TO THE CITY COUNCILS FOR ADOPTIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
SO TO ANSWER, UM, COMMISSIONER LEWIS, UM, EARLIER COMMENTS REGARDING, UM, THE CHANGES IN WHAT HE'S NOT COMFORTABLE WITH, THIS IS THE TIME THAT YOU TAKES TO MAKE THE CHANGES IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE CERTAIN THINGS.
AND WE ALSO WORK WITH RESIDENTS, WHICH ARE EITHER AT HOME, LOOKING AT THE TV OR HERE TO SEE IF WE CAN, UM, TOGETHER MAKE THE CHANGES SO THAT, THAT IT, UM, ONCE IT'S GET INTO THE CODE OR DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT IT BE, IT REMAINS THERE FOR A LONG TIME UNTIL THE NEXT, NEXT TIME THAT WE, UM, MAKE THESE REVISIONS.
I, UM, THE LAST TIME, THE LAST TIME THAT WE HAD THIS DIVISION, I JUST WANNA REMIND ALL THE RESIDENTS AND EVERYONE HERE AS WELL THAT A WHILE BACK IT WAS, IT TOOK US 30 YEARS UNTIL RECENTLY THAT WE ACTUALLY UPDATE THIS, UH, CITYWIDE CODE COMMITMENTS.
SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WITH ALL THESE CHANGES, I LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS MEETING UNTIL AT LEAST WE HAVE, UM, ALL FIVE COMMISSIONERS, BECAUSE DISTRICT THREE AND DISTRICT ONE DO NOT HAVE REP, UH, REP PRESENTATIONS CURRENTLY.
I, I, I HAVE A THOUGHT ON THAT BECAUSE I, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M, I'M NOTICING IS THAT SOME OF, SOME OF THIS, UH, SOME OF THESE NEW STATE LAW CHANGES BECOME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, 2025.
SO WHAT, WHAT I WOULD SAY PROBABLY MAKES THE MOST SENSE IS LET'S, LET'S TRY TO GET THE RECOMMENDATION OUT AS TO THE STUFF THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BASICALLY GOT A GUN TO OUR HEAD, MOVE THAT FORWARD, BRING EVERYTHING ELSE BACK THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, THAT WAY WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH OUR HOUSING ELEMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND PRE, BECAUSE PRESUMABLY THERE'S GONNA BE ONE MORE, UM, THERE'S GONNA BE ONE MORE, UH, UM, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEETING BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, BUT THIS IS NOT GONNA GO TO THIS.
IT WOULD, I, I ASSUME IT'D BE PROBABLY FIRST MEETING OF THE YEAR? THEY WOULD PROBABLY, NO, NO, IT WOULD BE, UM, THE SECOND MEETING OF JANUARY.
UM, BUT THIS UPDATE IS NOT ON A, ARE WE ON A DEADLINE FOR THIS, UH, CODE UPDATE? YES.
WHEN IS THE DEADLINE RIGHT NOW? YEAH, PRETTY MUCH THAT, THAT WAS THE THING I WAS TRYING TO, TO IMPRESS UPON IS I, I I DON'T, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO, WITH REGARD TO CONTINUING IT.
I THINK WE CAN MAKE A, A RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THIS, BUT LEAVING OUT ALL OF THE, ALL OF THE OTHER CHANGES AND THEN JUST BRINGING THAT BACK NEXT YEAR.
HOW MANY ITEMS ARE STATE SPECIFIC MANDATED? I THINK THERE'S SIX.
SO YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TO, THERE ARE SIX OBJECTIONS.
SO YOU'RE, UH, YOU ARE COMMENDING, UH, TONIGHT RECOMMENDED, UH, FOR TONIGHT, JUST APPROVE ALL THE STATE REQUIRE.
UM, CHAIR, IF I MAY, UM, WOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION BE INTERESTED IN GOING OVER THE SECTIONS AND IN STRIKING OUT SECTIONS THAT YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH APPROVING? BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN CHANGES WHERE, UH, WHERE WE CAN'T, UM, EVEN APPLY CERTAIN SECTIONS IN THE CODE, UM, AS IT SHOULD BE APPLIED.
LIKE FOR INSTANCE, A NOTICING SECTION THAT SHOULD, THAT SHOULD, UM, THAT SHOULDN'T BE, UM, AN ISSUE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE MOMENT.
AND ALSO, UM, THERE ARE SECTIONS IN THE SUBDIVISION SECTION THAT, UM, WHERE
[01:35:01]
THERE'S NO CLEAR AUTHORITY ON WHO WOULD BE APPROVING, UM, CERTAIN APPLICATIONS, IF THAT'S SOME, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH, WITH THIS CLEANUP, UM, BE, WOULD, UM, BE A LITTLE BIT MORE PRODUCTIVE.YEAH, I TH I I THINK THAT'S FINE.
I MEAN, PERHAPS WHAT PERHAPS WHAT WE CAN DO IS, UM, IF YOU WANT JUST FOR EXPEDIENCY, LIKE ICI, I CAN GO DOWN THE LIST OF EVERYTHING AND THEN IF SOMEBODY HAS AN ISSUE WITH IT, WE CAN JUST PULL IT KIND OF THING.
BUT WE, BUT AS COMMISSIONERS, WE WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT IS, UH, STATE MANDATED AND WHAT'S NOT.
MAYBE PERHAPS WE CAN GO FOR JOANNE'S TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE ITEMS, AND IF ONE THAT WE ARE NOT STATE RELATED, WE CAN PULL THAT AND COME BACK LATER.
SO I'LL, I'LL, I HAVE THE, UM, CODE OR THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON THE PROJECTOR, AND THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND, YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND IN THE FUTURE IF WE CAN HAVE THESE SEPARATED, IF I CAN JUST OFFER A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.
THERE WERE 800 BILLS PASSED BY THE GOVERNOR THIS YEAR, SO IF I, I, AND I UNDERSTAND
AND YEAH, SO IT'S A LOT OF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS.
BUT FOR US, I MEAN, IF WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE ON SOMETHING, IT'S NICE TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DECIDE ON.
SO THE, THE SECTION IS ABOUT PC, THE PC D ONE, UM, SECTION SIX.
SO THAT WAS, UM, I GUESS I WOULD SAY IT WAS, IT'S A NO-BRAINER.
UM, JUST CONSISTENT TO WHAT WHATEVER WE HAVE, UH, SECTION 7, 8, 9, AND 10, IT'S JUST CAPITALIZATIONS OF CERTAIN TITLES, SO THAT WOULDN'T, THAT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE EITHER.
AND THEN SECTION 11, THE, DOES THIS PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH INCLUDING, UH, DEFINITION FOR NEW STRUCTURE AND ALSO, UM, UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMITS? I, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT.
I, LIKE I SAID, I THINK A LOT OF THIS STUFF CAN, CAN, CAN GO FORWARD.
I THINK IT'S JUST STUFF THAT IS NOT REALLY CLEANUP
UM, AND THE ONLY REASON I THINK IT'S JUST SO WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME.
WELL, I, SO I THINK SO, SO I THINK LIKE SOME OF, LIKE WHAT SHE'S, WHAT JOANNA WAS SAYING IS LIKE SOME OF THESE ARE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE JUST DEFINITIONAL HOLES IN OUR CODE AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT.
SO LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE DEFINING UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT, WHICH I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DEFINING WHAT IS CONSIDERED A NEW STRUCTURE.
THAT'S ALL THAT, RIGHT? THAT'S ALL THAT THAT'S DOING.
SO I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT, THAT A LOT OF THESE ARE, ARE OFFENSIVE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
I THINK IT'S JUST WE NEED TO EXCISE THE ONES THAT ARE, REQUIRE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION.
SO I'M, I'M WITH YOU THROUGH, I'M WITH YOU THROUGH 11.
AND THEN, UM, THIS IS PUTTING, UM, SECTION 12, JUST PUTTING BACK WHAT WAS UNINTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THE R ONE SECTION.
UM, AND THEN SECTION 13, ADDING RA, UM, THIS USED TO BE A, UM, AREA DISTRICTS, RIGHT? AND THEN IT WAS LEFT DOWN.
I REMEMBER THAT AND I WAS CONFUSED AS TO WHY IT WAS GONE AT THE TIME, BUT EVERYONE SEEMED SO CONVINCED THAT R ONE WAS WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BE.
AND THEN 15, UM, WE'RE AT, WE'RE ADDING, UM, I GUESS NEW, UM, NEW TWO STORY STRUCTURES TO THE SETBACKS, UM, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IN THE PAST AND ALSO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE, WHICH JUST ADOPTED WHAT, HOW IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE PAST.
UM, THERE IS NO SEPARATE REQUIRED SECOND FLOOR SETBACK.
UM, IT WAS JUST BEING APPLIED THAT WAY.
SO IT JUST CLARIFIES THAT ADDITIONS AND NEW SECOND FLOOR HOMES, UM, HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE TWO STORY SET.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THAT POINT WITH RESIDENTS.
SO LEMME JUST ADD, AND THEN THIS, THIS ESTATE REQUIRED, UM,
[01:40:01]
WITH OUR HOUSING ELEMENTS SECTION 16, SO THERE'S NO ISSUE.YEAH, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE GUN TO YOUR HEAD ONE.
UM, AND WHAT IS THIS? OH, IT'S JUST, IT'S CLARIFYING THAT CERTAIN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES DO NOT REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT.
UM, THIS IS IN THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SECTION, AND THERE'S SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE R ONE, UM, REQ THAT SAYS, ACCESS CERTAIN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, LIKE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OVER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET REQUIRING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT.
THIS IS RE THIS IS JUST CLARIFYING THAT IF IT DOESN'T SAY IT REQUIRES AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ONE.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE.
AND THEN DELETING THE URBAN DWELLING UNITS THERE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT, THE STATE DOESN'T CONSIDER IT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
IT'S CONSIDERED A PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
AND THEN IN THIS TABLE, UM, WE'RE DELETING THE REFERENCES TO MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE IN, UH, UM, PUTTING IN UNDERLYING ZONE BECAUSE THIS TABLE IS FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WHETHER IT'S SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND SO, UM, WE'RE DELETING THE MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE, UM, COLUMN BECAUSE, BECAUSE, UM, EACH, EACH ZONING HAS ITS OWN MAXIMUM LOG COVERAGE.
SO IT'LL BE TOO CONFUSING TO HAVE IT, UM, INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE.
AND THEN SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS FOR SOLAR PANELS, WE ADDED, WELL, WE, I FIXED THE, UM, THE ORGANIZATION OF IT AND THEN ALSO ADDED REFLECTION ANGLES AND GLARE, UM, THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE ORIENTED TOWARDS ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN THE PROPERTY.
OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALL, INSTALLING ANTI-GLARE PANELS OR FILM.
UM, IF IT'S DISCOVERED THAT IT, IT DOES GLARE UN ONTO THE STREET OR OTHER PROPERTIES, I THINK THAT'S FINE TOO.
I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT OFFENDED BY IT.
IT'S MORE A QUESTION OF, I'VE SEEN SOME DEVELOPMENT THAT I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS PROHIBITS GOING FORWARD WITH IT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME SORT OF DETAILED ANALYSIS ABOUT THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, I, I, I REALIZE THE DESIRE TO USE HILLSIDE FOR, FOR THAT, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT JUST A PASSING DISCUSSION.
UM, I, I, I UNDERSTAND STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT DEAL OF WORK ON THIS, BUT I, I'D LIKE THAT TO COME BACK OKAY.
UM, SO, SO 26 DASH SEVEN THREE IS COMING BACK, SO I'LL ELIMINATE, I'LL, I'LL, I GUESS I'LL KEEP THE ORGANIZA IN THIS SECTION.
I'LL KEEP THE RENUMBERING AND ORGANIZATION BECAUSE THE CURRENT NUMBERING DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
SO, BUT I'LL ELIMINATE THIS FOR NOW.
AND THEN JUST THE SPELLING OF TURF, UM, IT WAS SPELLED TURN, UH, AND THEN SECTION 23, UM,
IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THAT? THAT'S GOOD.
AND THEN THIS TABLE, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH ELIMINATING THE CUP AND REPLACING IT WITH OTHER, IN, WITH PRECISE PLAN CP OR OTHER ENTITLEMENTS.
UM, AND THEN A PORTION OF THIS TABLE IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION, UM, HOLD ON, DEALS WITH THE, THE MULTIFAMILY EMERGENCY SHELTERS, UM, PARKING, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE STATE REQUIREMENTS IN, UM, SECTION 25 RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS TABLE, ALSO STATE A STATE REQUIREMENT, UM, 26, UM, JUST
[01:45:01]
THE GRAMMAR SAFETY, UM, INSTEAD OF SAFELY.AND THEN SECTION 27, UM, AND THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE ONE THAT YOU GUYS, ONE OF THE ONES THAT YOU GUYS HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD AN ISSUE WITH, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND REMOVE THAT.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE AN ISSUE, UH, IS DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE AN ISSUE OF REMOVING OR THERE, UM, SECTION 28? I THINK THAT'S FINE.
AND THEN SECTION 29, THIS IS THE OTHER CORRECT ITEM THAT WAS AN ISSUE.
SO, AND THEN 30, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S AN ISSUE.
UM, AND THEN JUST RENUMBER, UM, THE NEXT ONE IS JUST 31 JUST RE CHANGING THE ORGANIZATION.
UM, AND THIS IS ALREADY SOMEWHERE HERE, HOLD ON.
IT IS ALREADY AT SIX, BUT IT APPLIES TO BOTH, UM, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION AND SOLAR CARPORTS.
SO IT GOT REMEMBERED TO SIX TO CI DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S AN ISSUE THERE EITHER.
UM, AND THEN 32 IS REQUIRED BY STATE AND THEN JUST, UM, AND THIS IS ALSO, UM, UM, 33, UM, STATE LAW.
THEY SAID IT'S A AND, AND NOT AN OR.
SO WE'RE CHANGING THAT TO WHAT THE STATE IS REQUIRING.
UM, AND THEN, LET'S SEE, THIS IS THE NEW STATE LAW REGARDING, UM, 3, 4 35, 34, 35 LINE, AND 36, UM, AND 37 DEALS WITH NON-CONFORMING USES AND, UM, STRUCTURES I ADD, UM, I REPLACE, I ADDED AN, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH, BECAUSE NOT ALL NONCONFORMING USES ARE INSIDE STRUCTURES.
THERE ARE NONCONFORMING USES THAT ARE, THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURES.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE THERE.
UM, AND THEN THE NOTICING, UM, 38 LOOKS FINE.
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S VERY LONG, BUT IT'S, IT'S GONNA REQUIRE MORE, MORE NOTICING THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
AND THEN 40, UM, CONT CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC NOTIF NOTICING JUST TO MAKE IT THE REVOCATION SECTION CONSISTENT, UM, WITH THE PUBLIC NOTICING THAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE.
AND ALSO OUR NOTICINGS, OUR NOTIFICATION SECTION.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE AN ISSUE THERE.
AND THEN, UM, THIS STARTS, OH, CODE AMENDMENTS, UM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND CITY ATTORNEY AS, UM, PEOPLE THAT ARE ALLOWED TO OR AS AUTHORITY THAT'S ALLOWED TO AGENDIZE CERTAIN CODE AMENDMENTS.
ANYONE ELSE CAN BY APPLICANT? YES.
SO NO, WE CANNOT AGENDIZE ANY, YOU CAN, UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY RESOLUTION, OH, THE APPLICANT AN A, AN APPLICANT MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT'S APPLYING FOR AN, UM, A CHANGE, A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEN A COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, CAN WE BRING THIS BACK? OKAY.
UM, DID YOU WANNA BRING IT BACK? YES.
YOU WANNA BRING IT BACK? BACK? BRING IT BACK, YEAH.
[01:50:02]
THIS IS, UH, JUST CHANGING THE, THIS, UM, CORRECTING THIS SECTION IN THE CODE.UM, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH 42.
43, UM, GRANTS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, UM, AUTHORITY OVER APPROVING PARCEL MAPS AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORITY OVER APPROVING TRACK MAPS.
YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME LACK OF SPECIFICITY ON THAT ONE AND 44 THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED.
ALL SUBDIVISION, UH, ITEMS. COULD YOU PULL ALL THAT, JOANNE? OKAY.
AND THEN I THINK THAT'S ALL THE SUBDIVISION ITEMS, THAT'S THE END OF IT THROUGH 51, I BELIEVE.
AND THEN THAT'S THE END OF IT.
UH, AND ALSO, UM, THE, THE REASON WHY STAFF INCLUDED THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AS AUTHORITY OVER SUBDIVISION, UM, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS, BECAUSE UNDER STATE LAW, UM, CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS OF, UM, ARE REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED MINISTERIALLY.
I JUST HAD ONE THING THAT, UM, IF ASSUMING WE'RE, WE HAVE SORT OF A CONSENSUS GOING ON, ON THE ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED, UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER, UH, 24 DASH 6 6 1 5 7, UM, WITH THE, UM, WITH THE ITEMS REMOVED THAT WE ALL DISCUSSED.
UM, AND IF, IF ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION REQUESTED IT PULLED, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, UM, BEING REMOVED FROM THE RESOLUTION.
THE ONLY THING I, I WANT TO, UM, ADD TO THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION IS, UH, IS THIS WOULD BE THE, THE THIRD, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, OR BETWEEN THE, THE SECOND WHEREAS AND THE THIRD, WHEREAS I WOULD JUST SAY, WHEREAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, MAKES NO DETERMINATION AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF, OF ANY STATE LAW THAT IS BEING IMPOSED UPON
SO THIS RESOLUTION, WE'RE NOT APPROVING IT, WE'RE, IT, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'LL MAKE IT, EXCUSE ME, BY, BY RECOMMENDING, UH, BY, BY MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION.
WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL AMEND IT TO SAY BY MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION.
UM, WOULD THAT BE A MOTION? YEAH.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR.
MADAM CITY ATTORNEY, WAS THAT CLEAR FOR YOU? I'LL REVISIT THE VIDEO FAIR BECAUSE IT PLOT OKAY, FAIR, FAIR ENOUGH.
AND DO WE FAIR ENOUGH? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
COULD YOU DO ROLL CALL PLEASE? COMMISSIONER BERA? AYE.
COMMISSIONER HANG OR CHAIR HANG.
OH, ARE WE, DO WE NEED A RETURN DATE? THAT'S FOR THE, FOR THE OTHER, UH, ASPECTS.
IS THAT GONNA COME BACK? UM, IT FIRST MEETING, SECOND MEETING? NO, IT'LL BE TO RENO.
SINCE IT'S A STATE, UH, CITYWIDE, UH, CODE AMENDMENT, IT'S GONNA BE, IT'LL BE IN THE NEWSPAPER.
SO, AND THE NOTIFICATION NOW IS 20 DAYS.
SO NON-HEARING ITEMS, DO WE HAVE ANY NON-HEARING ITEMS? OKAY, SEEING NONE,
[01:55:01]
WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONED REPORTS,[COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ]
COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. NONE.WELL, ACTUALLY I HAVE SOMETHING, UM, I WANTED TO SAY, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE TWO COMMISSIONS, UH, THIS EVENING, ONE OF THEM MOVED TO CITY COUNCIL AND ONE OF 'EM, UM, IS BEING REPLACED LATER ON.
SO I LIKE TO SAY THAT FROM ALL THE COMMISSIONS, COMMISSIONERS IN OUR CITY, WE'RE SO APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR HELP WITH, UM, BEING OUR COMMISSIONERS FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.
SO I, I, I THINK SOME OF THEM ARE HERE FOUR YEARS AND WE SURVIVED, OR
SO YOU ARE PART OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO, UH, WERE HELPING WITH UPDATING OUR GENERAL PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, WHICH, UH, WAS, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THAT LASTED, UM, THE LAST UPDATE WAS LIKE 30 YEARS AGO, SO IT HASN'T BEEN UPDATE UNTIL RECENTLY, RECENT YEARS.
SO WE WENT THROUGH A FEW UPDATES SINCE THEN, UH, WHICH ALSO, YOU KNOW, CAUSED THE CITY SOME TIME WITH CONSULTANTS AND ALL THAT.
IT'S LIKE OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS TO UPDATE OUR GENERAL PLAN AND WITH MANY RESIDENTS INPUT.
SO WE ALSO WENT THROUGH MANY CHANGES WITH ADUS, UM, AND ALL THAT.
SO I JUST WANTED, YOU KNOW, MAKE THANKS TO ALL THE HARD WORKS AND, UM, WE WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE THESE REQUIREMENTS AND MEET ALL THE DEADLINES TO THE STATES, WHICH, WHICH SOMETIME LIKE, LIKE THIS EVENING, WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH TIMES.
AND, AND, AND THE STACK OF MATERIALS THAT THE COMMISSION, THE PAST COMMISSION SHOULD ALSO HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
SO NOT ONLY THE STACK OF MATERIALS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH, ALSO SOMETIME THE RESEARCH THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND, AND, AND TO, TO COME UP WITH A, A YOU CAN SAY A CONCLUSIONS OF HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED.
SO WE COULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN, YOU KNOW, THOSE AMAZING RESULTS WITHOUT THE HELP OF OUR GRACIOUS VOLUNTEERS.
UM, LIKE THE PAST COMMISSIONERS THAT IS NO LONGER HERE, NOT ONLY DID, UM, YOU CONTRIBUTES TO MANY OF THE PLANS FOR THE BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EVERY MONTH IN ADDITION, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU ALSO NOW PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH YOU MADE, UM, FOR UPDATING OUR CITIES, NOT JUST FOR TODAY, BUT FOR THE FUTURE YEARS.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S GONNA LAST 30 YEARS BEFORE SOME CODE CHANGES, AMENDMENT CHANGES, BUT YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO, UM, WEST CORINA IS THE HONOR THAT, UM, YOU CHOOSE TO HELP US CARRY OUT OUR MISSIONS.
WE HOPE TO SEE YOU AGAIN AT ANY OF OUR, UM, UPCOMING EVENTS OR VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES WITH MANY, UM, COMMISSION POSITIONS.
SO I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP AND DELEGATION TO OUR CITY.
THANK YOU AGAIN TO THE PAST, UM, COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE HERE.
UM, SO THAT'S FOR THE COMMISSION REPORTS, COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEM, COMMUNITY
[COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT]
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORTS.DO WE HAVE ANYTHING, JOANNE? WE DO NOT, BUT TONIGHT'S THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE NEXT YEAR, SO I'M WISHING EVERYBODY HAP TO HA UM, HAVE HAPPY HOLIDAY AND HAPPY NEW YEAR.
UM, AND WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY NEXT YEAR.
UM, ARE THERE ANY, UM, CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS TO REPORT? NO.
UM, THERE'S NO CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS REPORT.
IF I'M SEEING NONE AGAIN, HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR.
THANK YOU ALL, EVERYONE FOR ALL THE WONDERFUL WORK AND ENJOY YOUR HOLIDAY.
YOU GUYS ARE ALWAYS SO SUPPORTIVE, YOU GUYS, UH, EVEN TONIGHT, YOU KNOW.
YOU JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE A TROOPER.
YOU WENT THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE JUST TO TRY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
UH, YOU'RE AN ASSET TO WEST COVINA AND WE THANK YOU FOR ROSEMARY AND MIRIAM AND ALL, ALL OF YOU.