[00:00:02]
HELLO[CALL TO ORDER]
EVERYONE.WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS FOR JUNE 24TH AT 7:00 PM.
AND HOPEFULLY EVERYONE CAN SEE THIS.
IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THIS ON YOUTUBE ON THE TV.
ALL THE RESIDENTS, STAFF, AND FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
UM, WE HAVE A LONG, WELL, NOT A LONG MEETING, BUT DUE TO THE CULVERTS SINCE MARCH 4TH, GOVERNOR NEWSOME PROCLAIM HIS STATE EMERGENCY AND THE CALIFORNIA AS A RESULT OF THE THREAT OF COVID-19.
SO I MARCH 17, THE GOVERNOR ISSUES, AN EXECUTIVE ORDER IN 29, 20 SUSPENDING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS TO THE BROWN ACT RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SO JUST IN CASE OF THOSE WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE BROWN ACT IS, BASICALLY YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND ADDRESSED THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REGARDING ANY ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE, WHETHER IT'S I'M ON THE AGENDAS WHEN, ON AGENDA ITEMS. SO ON JUNE 11, 2020, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES, I'M OFF OFFICER ISSUES, A DEVICE HEALTH OFFICER ORDER DIRECTING AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT ALL PERSONS LIVING WITHIN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH JURISDICTION REMAIN IN THEIR RESIDENCE.
WHENEVER PRACTICABLE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER, PEOPLE LEAVING THEIR HOME MUST DIRECTLY COMPLY WITH THE PACIFIC SOCIAL OR PHYSICAL DISTINCT PROTOCOLS.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE KIND OF REARRANGING OUR MEETING A LITTLE BIT TODAY.
HAVING WE HAVE TOTAL OF FIVE MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONERS.
UM, TWO OF THEM I'D SAY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DUE TO THE DISTANCING THAT WE HAVE TO DO, BUT THEIR TOTAL FIVE OF US, UM, DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 EMERGENCY AND PURSUANT TO THE STATE AND COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTORS, THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS WILL HAVE LIMITED SEATING AVAILABLE ON A FIRST COME FIRST SERVE BASIS, PUT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND PERSONS, ALL PERSON ATTENDING THE MEETING SHALL WEAR A CLOTH MASK COVERING AND CHARGE SERVES SOCIAL DISTINCT PROTOCOL THAT WE ALL DID THAT.
UM, OUR PERSON ATTENDING THE MEETING SHALL WEAR THE CLOTH MASK.
UM, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO WATCH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS LIVE THROUGH THE WEST COMINA YOUTUBE CHANNEL.
SO YOU CAN ALSO SEE US THERE IF YOU CAN'T ATTEND THE MEETING FOR TONIGHT.
IF YOU ARE IN SYMPTOMS SUCH AS FEVER, CHILLS, COUGH, SHORTNESS OF BREATH, OR DIFFICULTY BREATHING FATIGUE OR SORE THROAT THE CITY, BECAUSE THAT YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING FROM HOME OR WATCHING THE MEETING VIA THE CITY'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT BY EMAIL OR TELEPHONE.
IF YOU ARE IN A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE AT A HIGH RISK FOR SEVERE ILLNESS FROM COVID-19, INCLUDING THOSE WHO WERE OVER THE AGE OF 65, AND THOSE WITH UNDERLYING HEALTH CONDITION, PLEASE CONSIDER PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING FROM HOME.
SO JUST A COUPLE MORE ITEMS. UM, WELL IN LIEU OF MEETING, ATTENDING THE MEETING IN PERSON MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE CITY CLERK AT CITY CLERK.
THE SUBJECT LINE SHOP IS, UH, SPECIFY EITHER ORAL COMMUNICATION, SIX 24, OR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER, PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND AN EMAIL.
THE CITY CLERK WILL READ EMAILS.
UM, WE SEE BY 6:30 PM, THE DAY OF THE MEETING OUT LOUD INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD, ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED WILL BE MADE PART OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC WORKERS OF THE MEETING.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION BY TELEPHONE, DOING ORAL COMMUNICATION OR PUBLIC HEARING, YOU MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK OR BY TELEPHONE BEFORE SIX 30 ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING.
SO I THINK THAT'S IT COVERING THE NEW.
SO SINCE MARCH UNTIL NOW, THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT WE HELD HERE PRIOR TO THAT, IT WAS OVER THE PHONE, OVER A CONFERENCE CALL.
SO NOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW AND WHEN AND HOW LONG, BUT, UM, OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT OF SILENCE WITH A MINUTE PRAYER, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PLEASURE LESIONS.
SO HERB, ARE YOU GOING TO HELP ME WITH THE PLEDGE LATER ON? AND OH, BEFORE I GO ON, I ALSO WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT ALSO TO THINK ABOUT THE COVID-19 WITH, UM, 120,000 OR SO THAT PASSED IN THE U S AND ALSO 2.3 MILLION, THE OTHER 2.3 MILLION OR SO GOT INFECTED THIS WHOLE ISSUES AND TAKE A MOMENT ALSO REGARDING THE PROTEST IN THE RIOT THAT WAS GOING ON OVER GEORGE AND SOME OF THE OTHER COUPLES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T IT'S JUST SO LET'S TAKE A MOMENT AND THEN WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE.
PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLACE TO OUR FLAG.
[00:05:19]
OKAY.SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS OVER, OH, WORLD CALL.
LET ME SHOW YOU HER CANDIDATE CHARITY HERE, AND THEN
[MINUTES]
WE'RE GONNA DO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES IF EVERYTHING'S OKAY.DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WITH THE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING? YEAH.
THEY'RE JUST APPROVED AS PRESENTED, RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ORAL COMMUNICATION NEXT.
THIS IS THE TIME WHEN ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DUTIES, AS FINDINGS TO THE COMMISSION RELATING TO NON I GENERALIZED NON AGENDA IS OR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA MAY BE ADDRESSED WHEN THIS ITEM IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, THE CHAIR PERSON MAY IMPOSE REASONABLE LIMITATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS OR SHIRT ORDERLY IN TINY MEETING.
SO THE WEALTH BROWN ACT LIMITS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF'S ABILITY TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS MEETING.
SO AS YOU WERE ADDRESSING US, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO YOU GUYS.
SO YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES IN GENERAL.
SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ORAL COMMUNICATION? OKAY.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY ORAL COMMUNICATION THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
DEBRA, ARE YOU ON THE AGENDA OR YOU JUST WANT TO COME UP RIGHT NOW? DEBRA? I'M SORRY.
OH, UM, DO YOU WANT TO TALK RIGHT NOW BEFORE THE AGENDA? OR DO YOU WANT TO TALK ON PACIFIC AGENDAS FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING?
YOU'RE NOT DISRUPTING, THIS IS ORAL COMMUNICATION TIME.
SO YOU CAN COME UP TO TALK IF IT'S NOT ON AGENDA.
UH, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO YOU DID NOT MARK WHICH AGENDA YOU WANT TO TALK ON, SO YOU EITHER CAN TALK RIGHT NOW, OR YOU CAN TALK ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE TONIGHT'S MEETING.
WE HAD TO BE A JENNER, THE ITEM.
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK WAS SPEAK ON? BASICALLY, I REACHED HERE BECAUSE MY NEIGHBOR NAKED SHE'S STRAIGHT HOME.
SO YOU'LL WAIT UNTIL THAT TIME ON WHICH I BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS HERE FOR ONE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW MEETINGS THAT WE HAD EARLIER TODAY.
OH, I WASN'T ON A DESIGN MINI.
OH, FOR THE MEETING WE HAD EARLIER.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING
[2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19-02 (TPM 082638) ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 19-35 SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. 19-62 TREE PERMIT NO. 20-03 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Jackson & Sophia Wen Trust LOCATION: 1177 South Spring Meadow Drive REQUEST: The project consists of a subdivision of one (1) property into two (2) separate lots, and a proposal of a new single-family residence on one of the lots (Parcel 1). The new singlefamily residence requires an administrative use permit (AUP) because the house proposed is two-stories and exceeds the 4,000 square-foot maximum unit size for lots between 20,000 and 24,999 square feet. Parcel 1 is proposing a new 4,671 square foot two-story single family residence, and Parcel 2 has an existing 7,088 square foot two-story single family residence. A tree removal permit is required for the proposed removal of 21 trees currently located on the existing lot's front yard.]
NUMBER, ITEM TWO.UM, IT'S TINTED WITH TRACK MAP ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT WITH SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DESIGN VIEW.
UM, THE, UM, THE PROD, WHICH IS ON THE ADDRESS IS ONE, ONE 77 SOUTH SPRING METAL DRIVE.
AND THE APPLICANT IS JACK AND SOPHIA.
WHEN THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A SUBDIVISIONS OF ONE PROPERTY INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS, AND A PARCEL OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON ONE OF THE PARCEL, THE NEW SINGLE RESIDENTS REQUIRED ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT AUP BECAUSE THE HOUSE PROPOSED IS TWO STORIES AND EXCEEDS THE 4,000 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE PER LOTS, BETWEEN 20,000 AND TWENTY THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY NINE SQUARE FEET PARCEL ONE IS PROPOSING A NEW 4,671 SQUARE FOOT.
TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND PARCEL TWO HAS AN EXISTING 7,880 SQUARE FOOT.
TWO-STORIES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT.
[00:10:01]
A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF 21 TREES CURRENTLY LOCATED ON THE EXISTING LOTS, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING.
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE STAFF REPORTING ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'RE GOING TO ALSO HAVE OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS AND THEN WE'LL MOTIONS TO MAKE A DECISIONS OR WHETHER IT'S TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.
SO JOANNE WILL BE PRESENTING THIS PROJECT.
ASSISTANT PLANNER CAMILIA MARTINEZ WILL BE PRESENTING THE PROJECT.
I WILL BE PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE PROPERTY INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS IN A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON ONE OF THE WALLS.
THE APPLICANT IS JACKSON AND SOPHIA WIND TRUST.
THE ADDRESS IS ONE, ONE SEVEN SEVEN SOUTH SPRING MEADOW DRIVE IS OWNED AS OUR ONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
THE EXISTING LOT SIZE IS 66,537 SQUARE FEET.
THAT COMES OUT TO 1.5, THREE ACRES.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH EAST AND WEST.
AND THE SOUTH HILLS GOLF COURSE IS TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.
THE FIRST ONE IS A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE.
THE SECOND IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT BECAUSE THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS TWO STORIES AND IT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE.
THE THIRD IS FOR A DESIGNER VIEW BECAUSE THE HOUSE, THE PROPOSED HOME IS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.
AND LASTLY, THE TREE PERMIT REQUEST TO REMOVE 21 TREES ON THE PROPOSED PARCEL.
ONE ILLEGAL NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE.
I WAS MAILED TO 18 OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN A 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE NOTICE INCLUDED ALL THE ENTITLEMENTS LISTED HERE.
THIS IS THE SIZE OF THE CURRENT PARCEL, WHICH IS 66,537 SQUARE FEET.
ONE IS PROPOSED AT 21,900 SQUARE FEET.
AND PARCEL TWO IS PROPOSED AT 44,637 SQUARE FEET PARCEL TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS WILL BE THERE.
AND THE PARCEL ONE IS THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE.
THE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE DIVIDING PARCEL ONE AND TWO WOULD RUN ALONGSIDE THE COURSE OF THE VINE CREEK STREAM.
THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF WOULD NOT ALTER OR HAVE ANY IMPACTS ON THE STREAM.
A CONDITION OF APPROVAL HAS BEEN ADDED AND THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AND OBTAIN A WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE.
AND THIS IS JUST AN AERIAL VIEW.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SUBDIVISION MUST ALSO MEET THE MINIMUM LOT WITH OF 90 FEET AND THE MINIMUM LOT DEATH OF 125 FEET.
WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED, UM, WITH PARCEL ONE, UH, AT MINIMUM, THE WIDTH WILL BE 107 FEET AND THE DEBT 179 WITH PARCEL.
TWO OF THE MINIMUM WOULD BE 177 FEET.
AND THE DEPTH WOULD BE 220 FEET.
HERE'S A SITE PLAN AT THE PROPOSAL FOR THE NEW HOME ON PARCEL ONE.
THE RED ARROW INDICATES WHAT THE MAIN ENTRANCE OFF THE SPRING MEADOW DRIVE ONTO THE PROPERTY.
THE GRAY AREA IS THE MAIN DRIVEWAY AND OTHER HARDSCAPES.
THE GREEN AREA IS LANDSCAPING AND THE BLUE AREA IS THE NEW HOUSE AND THE EXISTING 643 SQUARE FOOT POOL HOUSE BEING CONVERTED INTO A STORAGE AREA TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, THE DETACHED BUILDING, THE FIRST STORY OF FLOOR PLAN OR THE FLOOR PLAN FOR THE FIRST FLOOR.
[00:15:01]
MAIN ENTRANCE, A PROPOSED THREE CAR GARAGE, A MASTER BEDROOM WITH A STUDY, AND THEN YOUR LIVING ROOM, DINING KITCHEN, AND A SMALL POWDER ROOM IN YELLOW.THE SECOND FLOOR, YOU HAVE THREE BEDROOMS, A LAUNDRY ROOM AND FOUR BALCONIES.
AND THE BALCONY ON THE WEST SIDE WILL BE OVERLOOKING THE STREET, THE WINDOWS AND THE BALCONY ON THE SOUTH, WHICH IS THE FRONT ELEVATION WILL BE OVERLOOKING THE INTERIOR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE FRONT YARD, THE WINDOWS AND BALCONY ON THE EAST SIDE WOULD BE OVERLOOKING THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE EXISTING HOME ON PARCEL TWO WHILE THE WINDOWS AND BALCONY ON THE NORTH, WHICH IS THE REAR ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED HOME WILL BE SCREENED WITH EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING LOCATED ON BOTH THE SUBJECT LAW AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.
YOU HAVE THE MAIN ENTRANCE HERE IN RED BY THE THREE CAR GARAGE AND, UH, THE STONE VENEER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTS OF A ONE STORY.
AND SECOND STORY HOUSES IN A VARIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLES.
THE PROPOSED HOUSE WILL EXHIBIT A MEDITERRANEAN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND WILL BE SIMILAR IN EXTERIOR AS EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPOSED PARCEL TWO HERE IS THE SIDE ELEVATION FOR THE EAST SIDE ELEVATION.
YOU HAVE THE WEST SIDE ELEVATION.
AND LASTLY, THE NORTH ELEVATION, WHICH IS THE REAR OF THE PROPOSED HOME.
THIS CHART SHOWS THE REQUIRED SETBACKS VERSUS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED PARCEL ONE AND TWO WOULD COMPLY WITH LOT COVERAGE, FAR SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR THE ZONE.
OUR STANDARD IS A 35% LOSS COVERAGE, 35% MAXIMUM 35% FLOOR AREA RATIO.
AND YOU HAVE THE SETBACKS LISTED WITH THE HEIGHT, A MAX AT 25 FEET.
UM, THE PROPOSED PARCEL ONE AND PARCEL TWO, UH, WILL MEET ALL THOSE STANDARDS.
THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS SOMEWHERE IN SIZE IN COMPARISON TO THE SURROUNDING HOMES.
THEIR PROPOSED HOUSE WOULD NOT BE THE LARGEST ONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE THE MEAN MEDIUM OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND THE SUBJECT PARCEL ONE AND TWO WHERE THEY'RE RANGING AROUND 18.5.
THE LOWEST 15.8 STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 1902 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 1935 SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW NUMBER 1962 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2003 STAFF DID RECEIVE SOME CALLS, UM, AND CONCERN ABOUT THE PROJECT.
AND, UH, ONE FORMAL LETTER, UH, WAS EMAILED, UM, CONCERNING CONCERNED ABOUT SETBACKS AND MEETING ALL THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
AND I BELIEVE SOME OF THE CONCERN RESIDENTS ARE HERE TODAY.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? AND I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF MYSELF AS WELL.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
SO DOES PLANNING COMMISSIONS HAS ANY QUESTIONS WHILE STUFF? I HAVE A, DO WE HAVE THOSE EMAILS IN OUR PACKET OR ANYTHING? NO, I JUST RECEIVED IT LIKE 15 MINUTES BEFORE THIS MEETING.
AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE MAYBE HERE POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY WE HAVE A WINNER.
I'M JUST WONDERING QUICK QUESTION.
THERE, THERE AREN'T NO VARIANCES AT ALL ON THIS RIGHT
[00:20:01]
REQUESTED.OH, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AS WELL TO ADD ON IT'S IT APPEARS LIKE IF THIS IS NOT OVER 4,000 SQUARE FOOT AND IT'S NOT A TWO STORY, DOES IT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION? I MEAN, THIS IS A TWO STORY AND IT IS OVER 4,000 SQUARE FOOT.
THE PROJECT INVOLVES A SUBDIVISION AND THE SUBDIVISION DOES REQUIRE PLANNING PERMISSION APPROVAL.
I'M GOING TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING MEETING.
SO WE, DID WE HAVE THE OWNER COME UP FIRST AND THEN TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT OR THE ARCHITECT? YEP.
AND THEN YOU CAN, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER YOU'RE AN ARCHITECT OR AN OWNER? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M THE BUILDING DESIGNER FOR THIS HOUSE AND THAT'S THE OWNER.
AND ALSO, UH, THEY ALREADY GOT THAT, UH, LIKE, UH, 12 LETTERS, UH, THAT THE NEIGHBORS WHO, UH, AGREES AND, YOU KNOW, THE, YES
I ALSO BROUGHT A COUPLE OF PRINTS TO SHOW HOW DAN THAT, UH, TREES BEHIND THE BUILDINGS, YOU CAN SEE IT THAT'S THE TREES EVENTUALLY, IS IT ALMOST A HUNDRED PERCENT PROTECT THAT THE NEIGHBOR'S PRIVACY AND THE TREES IS VERY, VERY TALL AND VERY DENSE.
WHEN I GOT THIS JOB FROM MY CLIENTS, I NOTICED THAT THE INTENTION OF THERE, YOU KNOW, WANTED TO, UH, THIS PROJECT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, AGED PARENTS.
THEY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THEM.
AND EVEN MYSELF HAVE, UH, THE SAME ISSUES IN MY HOUSE.
MY FAMILY, YOU KNOW, I HAVE AN AGING PARENTS AS WELL WHEN WE TRY TO BUILD THE ADU, WHICH IS ONLY LIKE A, MY IT'S A LITTLE BIT SMALLER, LESS THAN THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT.
MY PARENTS STRONGLY FEEL THEY GOT ABANDONED.
IF I PUT THEM IN THERE, THE SAME THING SINCE MY CLIENTS, THEY ALREADY HAVE, THEY ALREADY GOT USED TO LIVING IN THE BIGGER HOUSE.
AND IN THIS, IN THE CURRENT SITUATION, THEY NEED TO TRAVEL SOME DISTANCE TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR PARENTS.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY LOVE THIS COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHY THEY TRY TO SUBDIVIDE IT AND BUILD A CERTAIN SIZE BIG ENOUGH IN, IN ORDER NOT TO LET THEIR PARENTS FIELD BEING ABANDONED.
I THINK THAT'S A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS AND THEY'RE NOT INTENDED TO, TO, TO BUILD THIS AND JUST PUT IT ON THE MARKET AND SELL IT RIGHT AWAY AND MAKING A PROFIT.
THEY JUST WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR PARENTS.
I VERY SUSPECT OF THAT BECAUSE I HAVE THE THING SITUATION.
SO THAT'S WHY I LIKE TO URGE A PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION.
THEN, UH, EVERYBODY CAN, UM, FEEL MUCH BETTER TO, YOU KNOW, EASIER TAKE CARE OF THEIR PARENTS AND ALONE YEAR LATER, THEY ALSO CAN MOVE INTO THAT HOUSE,
[00:25:02]
YOU KNOW, AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE NOT REALLY DOING THE MICKEY HOUSE.SO YOU CAN SEE THE MATERIAL WE'RE USING, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED PERCENT CAN MATCH THE COMMUNITY OVER THERE.
SO EVENTUALLY WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS.
WE DON'T BUILD THIS BUILDING VERY FRONT BECAUSE THE EXISTING HOUSES FACING TO THE CITRUS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS HOUSE BLOCK THEIR VIEW, AND THAT WILL DOWNGRADE THAT VALUE.
WE TRY TO LIMIT THAT THE NEW HOUSE, THE REAL YARD ACTIVITIES.
AND SINCE THERE'S A VERY DANCED TREE AT THE BACK, CAN A HUNDRED PERCENT PROVIDE THE PRIVACY TO NEIGHBORS AND SHOWING THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE FROG WITH VERY LONG AND BEAUTIFUL GARDENS STILL REMAINED ALMOST ORIGINAL LOOKS THE ONLY THE, UH, PREVIOUSLY THEY HAVE THIS THOUGHTS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THE ORIGINAL CURRENT SITUATION.
THE SWIMMING POOL IS, AND THE FRONT YARD ALMOST LOOKS LIKE THAT BECAUSE THEIR, THEIR HOUSE, THEY HAVE A STREET ADDRESS.
THERE'S ASPREY METAL, BUT THE EXISTING HOUSE IS FACING TO THE CITRIX.
SO LOOKS LIKE THE SWIM POOL IS RIGHT ON THE STREET CORNER AND IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND IT'S RARELY USE SINCE THEY SPENT ALMOST A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO BUILD A SWIMMING POOL.
I THINK THE TOTAL BEING USED TIME, YOU CAN COUNT IT WITH YOUR TWO HANDS, HOW MANY TIMES WITHIN THE PAST 20 YEARS, SO TOTALLY IS A WASTE.
SO WE TRY TO BUILD THAT, MAKE IT A NICE GARDEN AND THE HOUSE SIT AT THE BACK AND CAN, YOU KNOW, TAKE CARE OF EVERYWHERE.
EVERY SITUATION THEY CAN HAVE A NICE AND A VERY CLOSE YEAH.
YOU KNOW, TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR AGING PARENTS AND YOU KNOW, AND AT THE SAME TIME, NOT DEPRECIATE THEIR CURRENT PROPERTIES VALUE AND CONSIDER THE NEIGHBORS, THE PRIVACY.
SO THAT'S WHY I LIKE TO URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER IT? I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION.
SO IS IT THE IMMEDIATE INTENT FOR THE CURRENT OCCUPANTS OF THE EXISTING HOUSE TO MOVE INTO THE NEW HOME? NO, IT'S MAINTAINED.
IT'S FOR THEIR PARENTS, THEIR PARENTS.
SO THEIR PARENTS, ARE THEY CURRENTLY LIVING ON THE PROPERTY NOW? NO.
THEY'VE BEEN IN SOMEWHERE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SO THAT'S NO MATTER HOW FAR IT'S NEVER CAN BE CLOSER LIKE THIS, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND THE, THE EXISTING POOL HOUSE THAT'S GOING TO BECOME STORAGE? YES.
BECAUSE LATER ON IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A POOL.
SO THERE'LL BE NO POOL AT ALL ON THE PRODUCT.
WE REMOVED THE WHOLE POOL BECAUSE PUT THE POOL IN THE INTERSECTION CORNER LOT AND IT FRONT YARD, LIKE YOU'RE SHOWING OFF FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE LIKE IT'S FULL PUBLIC.
SO THAT'S WHY RARELY BE USED FOR PAST 20 YEARS THIS WASTE.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAS A QUESTIONS FOR THE ARCHITECT? THANK YOU.
DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE PROJECT? WHETHER THE OWNERS OR, OKAY, SO NO, ONE'S SPEAKING.
UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE PAUL BLACKBURN.
ADAM, IS THIS NOW? OR IT'S NOT AGAINST OH FOUR.
SO WE'LL WILL MR. BLACKBURN WILL TELL US YES.
UM, I'M UH, THE WIND'S NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH, UH, GREAT NEIGHBORS.
[00:30:02]
UM, THEY HAVE THE CAME OVER MY HOUSE.SO A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND TALKED TO ME ABOUT PUTTING A HOUSE IN FOR PARENTS.
AND, UH, WHEN WE TALK, I ASSUMED IT WAS GOING TO BE MAYBE A SMALLER HOME.
UH, AND AGAIN, IF IT'S FOR THE PARENTS AND I THINK IT'S 5,500 SQUARE FEET, THAT WAS A CONCERN.
UH, I HAVE TWO NEIGHBORS WHO COULD NOT MAKE IT TONIGHT.
ALL THE POWER IS OFF ON CITRUS AND, UH, THEY WANTED ME TO COME AND AT LEAST VOICE THEIR OPINION AGAINST IT.
UH, I'M NOT SAYING I'M AGAINST IT, BUT THEY WERE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE HOME, THAT CLOSENESS TO THE HOME, TO THE STREET, UH, THE HEIGHT OF THE HOME, AND MORE THAN ANYTHING, THE AESTHETICS OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S KIND OF A UNIQUE PIECES OF PROPERTY.
UH, MOST OF THEM ARE NEARLY TWO ACRES, ONE AND A HALF TO PROBABLY JUST OVER TWO ACRES OF PROPERTY TO IT'S KIND OF A UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY TO HAVE A HOME.
UH, AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN I WAS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
WASN'T A, THERE A REGULATION THAT YOU COULDN'T BUILD A HOME IN THAT AREA, UNLESS IT WAS ON ONE ACRE.
CAN STAFF ANSWER THAT QUESTION TWICE? THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THAT AREA? MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR AREA DISTRICT THREE IS 14,400 SQUARE FEET.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT, UH, UH, IT WAS, THEY HAD TO HAVE LIKE ONE ACRE PARCELS IN THAT AREA BECAUSE IT IS ZONED FOR, IT IS ZONED FOR HORSES.
IT'S ITS OWN FOR WHATEVER IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST A RESIDENTIAL.
ANYWAY, MY, MY CONCERN WAS, IS, UH, AND I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH PEOPLE TAKING CARE OF THEIR PARENTS.
I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH PEOPLE WANTING TO BUILD A HOUSE.
UH, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION TALKING TO THE WINDS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT A HOUSE FOR THEIR PARENTS SAY AT A SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGE.
UM, MY HOUSE IS NEARLY 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND IT'S MY WIFE AND I, AND I GET LOST IN IT.
SO, AND I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT AN ELDERLY COUPLE IN A HOUSE THAT'S 52 54, OR WHATEVER, A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, BUT A GREAT NEIGHBORS.
I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE NEIGHBORS.
I JUST WANT TO, I HAD ACTUALLY SIGNED A, UH, A SHEET THAT THEY HAD GIVEN ME THAT WERE BASICALLY SAYING THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE FOR THEIR PARENTS AND POSSIBLY THEY'RE MOVING IN LATER ON, UH, AT THE TIME I JUST, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS GOING TO BE AS BIG OF A HOME AND TWO STORY.
UH, IT'S IT BUTTS RIGHT UP TO MY PROPERTY AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL.
CAUSE I DO HAVE A LOT OF TREES AS THE ARCHITECT SHOWED.
UH, AND WHAT WOULD THEY LOOK INTO? THEY WANT TO LOOK INTO MY PROPERTY, IT'S MY FRONT YARD WITH FRUIT TREES AND GRASS.
BUT, UM, AGAIN, JUST VOICING THE CONCERNS FOR TWO OF MY NEIGHBORS.
THEY WERE ADAMANT THAT, UH, THE COMMISSION AT LEAST BE AWARE THAT THEY WERE VERY, VERY AGAINST IT.
AND AGAIN, FOR THREE REASONS, THE HYPE, THE SIZE AND THE CLOSENESS TO THE STREET.
BUT AGAIN, I PUT DOWN THE QUESTION, I WASN'T FOUR AGAINST, UH, I'M CERTAINLY FOR PARENTS, CHILDREN TAKING CARE OF THEIR PARENTS, HOWEVER, WHATEVER HAS TO BE DONE.
UH, I'M JUST NOT SURE, CANDIDLY AND I HOPE I'M NOT RAINING ON ANYBODY'S PARADE, BUT, UH, THAT'S AN AWFUL BIG HOME FOR TWO ELDERLY PEOPLE.
MS. MARTINEZ, HER RED HOLDS, UM, HERE I AM TONIGHT.
LET ME READ PREPARED SOMETHING.
I'M HERE BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED.
UM, ON THE PROPOSED SECOND HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1177 SOUTH SPRING MEADOW REQUESTED BY THE WIND FAMILY.
FIRST OF ALL, ALL THE HOMES ON SOUTH CITRUS HAVE ONE TO TWO ACRES WITH ONE SIZABLE HOME ON THEIR PROPERTY.
THE WIND PROPERTY IS 1.5, THREE ACRE.
[00:35:01]
THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS WERE, WERE TWO ACRES, NOT 1.53 IN ORDER TO BUILD A SECOND HOME.CURRENTLY, ALL THE HOMES HAVE A SOUTH FACING ENTRANCE.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOUTH OR WEST, BUT IT'S FACING THE, THE GOLF COURSE.
FROM WHAT I READ, THE SECONDARY HOME WOULD HAVE AN EAST FACING ENTRANCE, WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE CONTINUITY WITH THE EXISTING BLOCK OF HOMES.
AND MS. MARTINEZ COULD CORRECT ME ON THAT.
I AM QUESTIONING THE STAFF ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO SUPPORT SUCH A MONSTROSITY OF A HOUSE ON THIS PROPERTY.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THE FAMILY HAS REQUESTED TO BUILD THIS OVERSIZE HOME ON THIS PROPERTY.
WHEN THIS CAME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BEFORE IT WAS DECLINED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DUE TO NOT HAVING THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND THE ZONING WAS NOT ALLOWABLE.
I ASKED THAT YOU COMMISSIONERS DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTING PLAN AND THEIR REQUEST FOR AN AUP.
LASTLY, WHAT'S CHANGED IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM THE TWO YEARS AGO WHEN THIS FIRST CAME THROUGH, IS THAT THE LOSS OF OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, JEFF ANDERSON, WHO HAD WHAT I BELIEVE THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR CITY.
SO IS IT WHO IS NOW ACTING DIRECTOR AND WHAT WOULD, AND WHO AND WHAT HE WOULD ALLOW SUCH A RECOMMENDATION.
CHAMELEON COMMITTEE IS VERY NICE.
I'M THE ONE THAT SENT THE EMAIL LATE.
UH, I TALKED TO HER ACTUALLY YESTERDAY AT LENGTH.
THE, YOU ACTUALLY TALKED TO TONY WOO AT LENGTH TODAY ABOUT THIS, UM, BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROBABLY LONGER THAN ANYBODY.
UM, MY PARENTS BUILT THE HOUSE AT 29 53 SOUTH CITRUS, WHICH IS RIGHT WHERE CITRUS MEETS MONTEZUMA WAY.
APPARENTLY WE'RE BEYOND THE 300 FEET.
SO THERE WAS NO NOTIFICATION TO US RECEIVED A, UH, A CALL FROM, UH, CAMILLE BRONSTON WHO'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF THE WIND HOUSE, MARIANNE MURPHY, WHO SITS UP ON LARK HILL, LOOKING DOWN ON THEM, UM, DARNELL JONES, WHO'S, UH, SOUTH, AND THEN THE GOOD FAMILY, UM, AS WELL.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE JUST KIND OF ALL IN THAT.
AND IN TALKING TO TONY, I SAID, MY, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS I SAID, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IN, IN REALLY A LACK OF COMMUNICATION.
AND I SAID, 300 FEET, NOT VERY FAR.
AND I SAID, BUT HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW WHO READS THE NEWSPAPER ANYMORE.
UM, THEY'RE ALL GOING BANKRUPT.
SO FROM A PUBLICATION STANDPOINT, TO ME, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WHEN YOU PUT THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION OUT THERE, THAT IT'S MEETING, YOU KNOW, A BROAD SWATH OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UH, THESE HOMES ARE AN ACRE ACRE AND A HALF, TWO ACRE PROPERTY.
SO WHEN I HEARD 18 PEOPLE WERE SENT LETTERS, I SAID, I DON'T THINK THERE'S 18 NEIGHBORS THAT FIT WITHIN THAT 300 FOOT CONFINES.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY WENT TO, BUT WE DIDN'T GET ONE.
UM, UH, LIKE MY NEIGHBOR HERE, UM, THEY ARE, THEY ARE CONCERNED.
AND I SAID, WELL, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE, AND THE WAY, I DON'T KNOW, YOU PERSONALLY, OR HELP YOU PUT YOUR DOG BACK IN YOUR YARD A FEW TIMES I STOPPED.
BUT, UM, IN ANY EVENT, UM, THE, THE VERY PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM, THE HINNS, UM, THEIR HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY A TWO ACRE PARCELS PART OF THE MCCONAUGHEY PROPERTY, UM, IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THEM WAS SOME DIVIDED AND THEY HAD TO MEET THAT ONE ACRE MINIMUM.
SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU TOOK IT, A PARCEL MAP, YOU'D SEE JUST A LONG THIN LINE.
IT WAS REALLY KIND OF A FUNKY TYPE DEAL, BUT THEY DID THIS IN ORDER TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
SO MY QUESTION IS, I GUESS, WHEN DID THE ZONING CHANGE FROM THE MINIMUM ONE ACRE, UH, LOT REQUIREMENT TO SUBDIVIDE? UH, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION AND MOURN BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN, I, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY NOTIFICATION I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1963.
I WAS FIVE YEARS OLD, SIX YEARS OLD.
SO, UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW AND GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE ALL HAVE BIG LOTS.
UM, I LIKE YOU, I'M NOT, I'M NOT FOR, OR AGAINST THIS.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THE SIZE OF THAT HOUSE AS A, AS PART OF A SUBDIVISION IS LARGER THAN IT SHOULD BE OR NEEDS TO BE.
UM, QUITE HONESTLY, IF YOU'RE YOUR PARENTS AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT, BUT, UH, I HAVE A 92 YEAR OLD MOTHER-IN-LAW AND SHE IS DIFFICULT TO GETTING AROUND AT ONE STORE AT HOMELAND ALONE ON A TWO STORY HOME.
SO, UM, THOSE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY SOME OF THE OBJECTIONS THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE, BUT, UH, UH, YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT CAMILLE HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB IN COMMUNICATING.
MATTER OF FACT, SHE WENT THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, WHICH IS EVERYTHING I ASKED FOR AT THE LAST MINUTE.
I SAID THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION, BUT, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IN PLANNING CAN ANSWER MY QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMISSIONS CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT IN FACT, WAS THERE
[00:40:01]
A ZONING CHANGE THAT ALLOWED US TO BUILD ON LESS THAN AN ACRE LOT UP THERE? AND IF SO, WHENI MEAN, WE CAN GO THROUGH ALL THE QUESTIONS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL WHEN WE OPEN THE COMMUNICATIONS, WE CAN ASK THEM.
OKAY, WELL, CAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO KNOW, BECAUSE, UM, WE'RE OPERATING, WE'RE LIVING IN THE AREA WE'RE OPERATING ON THE HOSPICES THAT WERE, IT WAS A MINIMUM ONE ACRE LOT, UH, WAS THE REQUIREMENT.
AND TO SUBDIVIDE, YOU HAD THAT TWO OR MORE ACRES TO DO A SUBDIVISION.
SO IT SEEMS THAT SOMETHING HAS CHANGED.
AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO FIND OUT.
THE NEIGHBORS ARE LOOKING TO FIND OUT.
I WOULD SAY THAT A SMALLER FOOTPRINT ON THE HOUSE WOULD PROBABLY GO A LONG WAYS TO SATISFY EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, UM, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY GO A LONG WAYS.
UM, TWO STORIES SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING I'M HEARING A LOT OF, AND YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, THAT MAY BE PROBLEMATIC.
THERE MAY BE SOME REMEDIES FOR THAT AS WELL.
UH, BUT I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION AND I WISH HE WOULD HOLD UP ON RANTING THE APPROVAL UNTIL WE GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD AFFECT ALL OF US THAT LIVES IN THE RANCHEROS AREAS.
THIS IS WHAT IT WAS CALLED WAY BACK WHEN, WHEN THEY FIRST DEVELOPED IT AND IT WAS DEVELOPED AROUND THE COUNTRY CLUB.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE GOT A LOT OF HISTORY ON IT.
AND, UH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE BE INFORMED.
IT'S NOT A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BUT TAX EXEMPT STATUS FOR ANOTHER PROPERTY, 1140 SPRING METAL DRIVE, UH, WHICH I ADDRESS WITH THE MAYOR AS WELL.
I SAID, UH, THAT NEEDED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
FOR SOME REASON, THIS PROPERTY IS TAX EXEMPT.
AND I CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME UNDERSTAND WHY THAT HAPPENED OR HOW IT HAPPENED BECAUSE NONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS WORK NEIGHBORS WERE INFORMED OF IT.
IT'S NOT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT WITH YOU.
IF STAFF COULD GET BACK TO ME ON THE ZONING AND THE REQUIREMENTS AND WHEN CHANGES, IF CHANGES WERE MADE WHEN THEY WERE MADE.
IF YOU WAIT A LITTLE BIT, WHEN WE DO THE DISCUSSION, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES.
UM, WHO DID WE HAVE? UM, OH, WAIT, HOLD ON.
COULD YOU FILL UP A CARD? SHE'S OH, SHE'S THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE.
UM, DEBBIE LET'S LET'S HAVE DEBBIE, IS DEBBIE STILL HERE? DEBRA? SHE'S GONE ON THAT ITEM.
ALL RIGHT, THEN, UM, COME ON SOPHIA.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE AGAINST, I'M JUST TRYING TO DO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HAS A AGAINST THE PROJECT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? OKAY, GO AHEAD.
AND I'M LIKE, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.
IS SHE COMING UP TO REBUT WHAT WAS SAID IN OPPOSITION OR SO GENTLEMEN QUESTION, IS SHE COMING UP TO HER, BUT WHAT WAS SAID IN OPPOSITION OR TO MAKE A, ANOTHER STATEMENT? HUH? IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I'LL LET HER TALK TO THE OWNER AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT OR SHE IS GOING TO BE BETTER ON IT.
HOW ARE YOU EVERYBODY? YEAH, MY NAME IS SOPHIA.
UH, TALK ABOUT A PROJECT ACTUALLY.
UH, WHAT'S THE REQUIREMENT, BUT I THINK ONE AND A HALF YEARS AGO, I WENT TO THE CITY SIX TIMES.
I ASKED THEM FOR IT IF I CAN SIX TIMES MYSELF.
I MEAN, CHAT IN THE, IN THE INTERNET, EVERYTHING.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M START MY, MY THOUGHT START FROM THERE.
YOU KNOW, MY THINKING, I THINK, UM, YEAH, THE CITY I'VE BEEN LIVED HERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
I, I VERY CHANGED MY MIND BEFORE.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY HAVE ANOTHER HOUSE OR EASIER, MAKE IT EASIER.
I CAN MOVE OUT AND HAVE ANOTHER HOUSE FOR MY PARENTS AND FOR MY KIDS AND SOMETHING.
BUT, BUT LATER ON, I, I SAW THE CITY, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, WEST COVINA CITY, THEY VERY HELP THE NEIGHBORS.
YOU KNOW, I, I VERY CHANGED MY MIND.
SO I ONLY HAVE THE BUILD UP OWN HOUSE BY MY OWN.
IT'S IT'S ABOUT ONE AND A HALF YEARS
[00:45:01]
AGO.AND SINCE THAT I NEVER STOPPED.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK I HAVE A VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIKE THE COUNTRY COP AND THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOO.
SO WHEN I HAVE THAT KIND OF THOUGHT, AND ALSO THE CITY ASKED ME, IF YOU CAN ASK THEM, YOU KNOW, TELL THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, YOU, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? SO THAT'S WHY I IT'S BEEN ABOUT THREE WEEKS.
I WALK A LOT, YOU KNOW, TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS AND VERY, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, DETAIL, TELL THEM WHAT I WANT AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I THINK I GOT SOME, SOME LETTERS.
THAT'S WHY I THINK I DO ALL MY BEST IF I ASK THE CITY WHAT THEY REQUIRE.
I VERY DON'T KNOW, BUT I ASKED THE CITY FIRST.
THAT'S WHY I SPEND SO MUCH TIME, SO MUCH, YOU KNOW, ON IT.
AND YEAH, I VERY LIGHT VESCO, TENACITY.
I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO MOVE OUT.
I VERY LIGHTEST THE HOUSE I LIVE RIGHT NOW, TOO.
SO, UM, IT'S MY DREAM HOME AND FOR MY FAMILY, I VERY WANT THE WHOLE FAMILY LIVE TOGETHER.
THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TELL YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF, OR OPPOSE OF THIS PROJECT AND DOES THE OWNER, THE ARCHITECT WANTS TO COME BACK FOR, TO BE, BUT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID
SO I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WE'RE GOING TO OPEN COMMISSIONER DISCUSSIONS RIGHT NOW.
UH, SOME OF THE RESIDENTS, UH, BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE PARENTS, UH, QUESTIONING ABOUT THE PARENTS LIVING IN THAT NEW HOUSE.
I MEAN, THE PARENTS DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN THAT HOUSE.
THEY CAN BUILD THAT HOUSE JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.
IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PARENTS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S TOO BIG OR TOO SMALL FOR THE PARENTS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROJECT.
SO, AND CAN YOU ADDRESS THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ZONING THAT CAME UP A FEW TIMES? IF THERE WAS A CHANGE IN WHAT IS ALLOWED OVER THERE? CAMILIA DID DO SOME RESEARCH AND SHE DID NOT SEE ANY APPLICATIONS OR ANY APPROVALS FOR A ZONE CHANGE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
UM, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THAT FOR AREA DISTRICT THREE IS 14,400.
AND THIS, THIS LODGE DOES COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THAT AREA.
THIS LOT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE, ISN'T A LITTLE BIT MORE UNIQUE SITUATION THAN OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA.
UM, MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS A CORNER LOT, IT, IT, AND BECAUSE OF, BECAUSE IT IS A CORNER LOT, THEY ARE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT, UM, AND STILL COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM, LOTS OF THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE, UH, OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA.
HOWEVER, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO SUBDIVIDE THE LAW, UH, THEY WOULD HAVE TO, IN ESSENCE, PROPOSE A FLAG LOCK, WHICH WOULD ONLY HAVE A 20 FOOT STREET FRONTAGE ON, ON THE BACKLOG AND WOULD NOT COMPLETELY COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM LOT WITH THANK YOU.
SO ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS, DAWN, I'M SORRY.
UH, DIDN'T THE RECENT, UH, STATE EIGHT ABOUT SECONDARY UNITS, UH, BEING BUILT ON THE PROPERTY.
CAN'T THEY DO THAT? THAT NEVER SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT HOW BIG IT IS OR ANYTHING.
WE'RE WORKING WITH A VERY SMALL PARCEL AND THEY WANT TO PUT SOMETHING THAT'S TOO BIG IN THERE.
BUT, UM, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT DOESN'T USE SERP, UM, THIS, WHATEVER IT IS, ONE ACRE PARCEL OR WHATEVER IT IS, CAUSE IT'S REALLY A SECONDARY UNIT.
IT'S JUST THAT IT'S REALLY BIG.
NOW THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE IT ANOTHER PARCEL.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT CHANGES IT, BUT IF THEY LEAVE IT AS ONE PARCEL WITH A SECONDARY UNIT, DOESN'T THAT FALL? ANOTHER REASON EDICT OF THE STATE.
AS FAR AS EDDY USER CONCERNED, 80 YEARS ARE ALLOWED ON ANY PROPERTY IN THE CITY.
HOWEVER, DETACH 80 USE ARE LIMITED TO
[00:50:01]
1,200 SQUARE FEET.SO IT, IF THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD AN ADU ON THE SAME PARCEL WITHOUT THE SUBDIVISION, THERE WOULD BE LIMITED TO 1,200 SQUARE FEET.
SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE LIMITED TO THE SIZE AND OKAY.
ALSO REGARDING ADU, I MEAN, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PUT THE ADU IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE? AN ADU IS NOT PROPOSED, BUT IF AN ADU PROPOSED, THEN IT WOULD HAVE A NEW ADU IS REQUIRED TO BE BEHIND THE EXISTING HOUSE.
CAN YOU BRING THE, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU BRING THE MAP UP OF THE EXISTING? OKAY, THANK YOU.
WHERE WOULD THE BACKHOUSE BE? WE'RE NOT JUST, YOU HAVE A QUESTION.
NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOKING AT THE LAW CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW IN THE HOUSE IS PUTTING WAY FAR BACK ALREADY.
SO WHERE WOULD THE GUEST HOUSE BE PLACED IF YOU NEED TO PLACE IT FOR THE BACK HOUSE? IT'S NOT REALLY A GUEST HOUSE, NOT A GUEST.
IT'S ANOTHER HOUSE OR ANOTHER PARCEL.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ATU.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MAIN GUEST HOUSE RIGHT NOW.
I GUESS FROM MY SEAT, UM, THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL REQUEST AND I DON'T THINK IT COMES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DISCUSSED.
WHO'S GOING TO LIVE THERE, WHETHER IT'S THEIR PARENTS, UH, AND PROBABLY ONCE THEIR PARENTS PASS ON, THEY MAY WANT TO SELL THIS PLACE.
SO THEY'RE PUTTING A LOT OF MONEY INTO IT AND THEREFORE THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, REAM SOME OF THAT MONEY BACK IF THEY SELL IT TO SOMEBODY IN A LARGER HOUSE, WHICH ARE, MOST OF THEM ARE ON THAT PARTICULAR STREET.
SO, YOU KNOW, HEARING ABOUT, YEAH, IT'S, I THINK IT'S WAY TOO BIG.
CAUSE I LIVE IN LIKE 4,000 SQUARE FEET, MY WIFE AND MYSELF, AND IT'S TOO BIG FOR US, BUT THAT SHOULDN'T BE UNDER THE PREVIEW OF THE, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHO MOVES IN THERE.
YOU KNOW, UH, I MEAN WE'VE APPROVED PLACES WHERE FAMILIES ARE GONNA MOVE IN WITH KIDS AND EVERYTHING.
SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A HARDSHIP ON, UH, UPON, UH, THE PARENTS, YOU KNOW, AND THEY MAY JUST DECIDE AND LIVE ON THE FIRST FLOOR IN ONE BEDROOM WITH A KITCHEN AND ALL THAT.
SO THAT DOESN'T COME UNDER OUR JURISDICTION.
SO IF IT MEETS ALL THE PARAMETERS ARE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT, MAYBE WRONG.
WELL, IF I, UH, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THAT.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, IS HERE TO DECIDE WHO'S GOING TO LIVE IN IT.
YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE PARAMETERS OF THE CODES AND WHAT WE ALLOW OR DON'T ALLOW, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO VARIANCES BEING ASKED FOR HERE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE BUILDING ANOTHER HOME, THEY DIVIDED IT UP IN THE PARK.
I THINK THEY'RE, THEY'VE DONE WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, YOU KNOW? AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I LOOK AT THAT EVERY TIME I GO BY WITH THE POOL AND HOW BEAUTIFUL IT IS AND ALL THAT, AND, UH, IT'LL BE A SHAME.
BUT I THINK WHEN THEY GET DONE WITH WHAT, THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE SUGGESTING, IT'LL STILL BE A BEAUTIFUL, TOO BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH FOUNTAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ANY OF OUR BUSINESS WHO LIVES THERE, KNOW THAT'S, IT'S A DRUG LORD OR SOMETHING, THE MOTHER AND FATHER.
AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY A GREAT HONOR THAT STOLE UPON THE PARENTS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT FOR HIM AND HAVE HIM CLOSE BY.
AND AGAIN, BEING REDUNDANT, I THINK ONCE THEY PASS ON, THEY MS. MAY DECIDE TO SELL THAT PARCEL AND IT WILL BE A BEAUTIFUL PARCEL THEY SELL.
BUT IF WE RESTRICT THEM TO LIKE A SMALL ONE STORY, I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT VALUABLE ON THE MARKET.
BUT, UH, UH, AND, UH, I'D LIKE TO, UH, WELL SORT OF REITERATE THE SUPPORT WITH COMMISSIONER, UH, HOLSTER SAID, UH, AND ALSO JUST SORT OF, YOU KNOW, UH, HOPEFULLY REDIRECT OUR THINKING, UH, REDIRECT OUR THINKING TO, AND REMIND OURSELVES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT AN ISSUE HERE THAT HAS TO DO MORE, UH, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHOEVER OCCUPIES THE HOME.
IT HAS, HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH, UH, THE IMPACT, UM, ON, ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND THE, AND THE IMPACT, UH, NOT JUST IN THE PRESENT, BUT FOR THE LONGTERM.
AND, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE THERE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THAT WE ARE, IT DOES ALLOW FOR, YOU KNOW, A,
[00:55:01]
A, A SUBDIVISION LOW PROPERTY LIKE THIS, UM, TO A MINIMUM, A MINIMUM OF 14,000 WHATEVER.AND, UH, AND THAT'S, THAT'S, WHAT'S IN, THIS WAS IN THE CODE.
THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.
UM, AS FAR AS THAT, AS FAR AS THAT CODE, THAT AS FAR AS THE EXISTENCE OF THAT, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY, UH, YOU KNOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT THERE'S COULD BE SOME ROOM FOR, FOR COMPROMISE ON THIS, BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD TODAY, UH, THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN REALLY A STRONG OBJECTION TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND A, AND FOR BUILDING A HOME ON THE SUBDIVIDED PARCEL.
UH, IT'S MORE A QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SIZE.
AND, UH, AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE WE SHOULD PROBABLY, UM, YOU KNOW, GET OUR FOCUS BACK ON IS TO, WHAT'S GONNA, WHAT'S GONNA SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE, OF THE OWNER AND, UH, FOR THE NEAR TERM, WHAT THEY WANTED, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY AND WHAT IT MEANS TO THE COMMUNITY IN THE LONGTERM, IN TERMS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF, UH, OF THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE ON THIS LOT.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I AGREE, I THINK THAT THE HOUSE IS FAR TOO LARGE FOR, UH, FOR THE SIZE OF THE SUBDIVIDED PARCEL.
UM, AND, UM, WE JUST SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNER AND MAYBE AGREEING TO YEAH, YEAH.
TO ME IT'S IRRELEVANT TO WHO LIVES IN THERE.
IT IS A, UH, KIND OF SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE COMMUNITY.
I, I THINK IT'S WAY TOO BIG WHERE THEY AREA, I JUST DO.
THAT'S JUST TOO BIG FOR THE LOT.
SO, UM, SO I'M REALLY NOT IN FAVOR.
UM, I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF REGARDING WHAT, UM, MICHAEL MCGRAY HAD ASKED.
UM, I HAVEN'T BEEN IN PLANNING COMMISSION THAT LONG.
I MEAN, HER, MY I'VE BEEN HERE A LOT LONGER, PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, 10, 10, 15 YEARS, BUT THROUGH THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN HERE, WE HAD A PLANNING DONE IN OUR CITY AND IT HASN'T BEEN DONE FOR THE LAST 20 SOME ODD YEARS.
SO WE JUST RECENTLY WE DID OUR ZONING IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, PROBABLY ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO.
AND AT THAT TIME PLANNING CODE HAS NOT CHANGED FOR THE LAST 20 OR 25 YEARS THAT, THAT I KNOW FOR SURE.
AND WHEN WE DID THE REZONING AND THE, FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, BUT TWO YEARS, WAS IT TWO YEARS AGO, THREE YEARS AGO, THE ONLY AREA WE DID NOT TOUCH ANY RESIDENTIAL AREA, IT'S PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL AREA, THE MALL CLOSE TO THE MALL AREA AND A COUPLE OF LITTLE AREAS, BUT FOR THE LAST 20, 25 YEARS, I KNOW FOR SURE THAT THE CITY ZONING CODE HAS NOT CHANGED FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
NOT TO SAY THAT THIS IS CAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER STAFF HAD JUST TOLD US THAT FOR YOU CAUGHT AREA DISTRICT THREE, WHICH IS WHERE THIS PROJECT IS, THAT AS LONG AS YOU HAVE 14,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU CAN SUBDIVIDE ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE THE FRONTAGE, WHICH WHEN YOU DIVIDE UP, YOU NEED 90 FOOT MINIMUM, I BELIEVE CORRECT.
AND 125 FEET DEPTH MOST LOT, BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT CORNER LOT, YOU DON'T GET THAT DEPTH OF HOW THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY.
AND I NOTICED THAT A LOT OF THE HOUSE ON THAT PARTICULAR STREET OR IN THAT AREA, NP SIZE, I DO LIVE PRETTY CLOSE BY THAT AREA AS WELL.
SO THE LOT T IS LARGE AND ALSO TEND TO BE FURTHER IN.
SO YOU CANNOT VERY WELL TAKE THE HOUSE AND CHOP IN HALF TO SOME EXTENT HOW IT WAS BUILT A LONG TIME AGO.
NOT SURE WHY THOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE STREAM GOING DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT.
SO MAYBE BECAUSE OF THAT REASON, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THE HOUSE IS SET WAY BACK AND IN MOST OF THE LOT, LIKE ALL STAFF HAD MENTIONED THAT IF IT WAS TO DIVIDE, IT HAS TO BE A FLAG LOT, WHICH MEANS IT'S ONLY 25 OR 20 FEET IN THE FRONT.
AND THEN THAT WOULD BE FOR THE BACK HOUSE AND THEN THE FRONT WOULD HAVE, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO HOUSE WITH 90 FOOT FRONTAGE.
I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE IT.
YOU HAD TO MEET LIKE THE STANDARD LOT SIZE, THE WIDTH OF IT, THE DEPTH
[01:00:01]
OF IT.BUT ACCORDING TO THIS PARTICULAR PLAN FROM STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW, I DON'T SEE A VARIANCE REQUEST, WHETHER IT'S FULL OF FRONTAGE, WHETHER IT'S FOR THE BACK, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT HERE FOR US TO DECIDE BECAUSE ONCE LAND USE IS SET IN THE CODE AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, WE DON'T CHANGE THOSE CODES.
UM, AND IF IT'S RARE, IF THERE ARE VARIANTS, THEN WE CAN WORK ON THAT AND MAKE DECISIONS TO WHETHER IT'S TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE.
AND THIS SITUATION IS NO VARIANCE ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT.
SO IN TERMS OF, CAN WE ASK TO BE GUARDING THE LOT SIZE AND THE HOUSE SIZE, UM, IS THAT A VARIANCE OR IS JUST THAT IN GENERAL? WE DON'T LIKE THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE.
IS THAT, IS IT, YEAH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT IS NOT THE SAME AS A VARIANCE.
UM, IT'S, IT'S A LOWER LEVEL ENTITLEMENT, UM, THAT USUALLY DOES NOT REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL.
UM, WITHOUT THIS, THIS PROJECT IS, IS GOING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE IT DOES INVOLVE A SUBDIVISION.
TYPICALLY THE WAY ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMITS ARE PROCESSED.
THEY, THEY, UM, WE SEND OUT PUB, UM, PUBLIC NOTICES, INFORMING THE PUBLIC OF THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION AND INFORMING THE, ALSO THE PUBLIC THAT IF THEY WANT TO VIEW THE PLANTS AND AT THE PLANNING, UM, COUNTER, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO.
AND ALSO THEY ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST A HEARING AS WELL.
BUT TYPICALLY, UM, IF THERE WERE, IF THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR A HEARING, THEN STAFF APPROVES IT BASED ON THE FINDINGS.
USUALLY WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY HERE.
I WISH SHE WAS HERE TONIGHT, OR SHE, UH, I, I RECOMMEND THAT WE, UH, FORWARD THIS TO OUR ATTORNEY AND TELL HIM THAT THEY MEET ALL THE PARAMETERS.
THERE'S NO VARIANCES, UH, AND EVERYTHING IS ALK AS FAR AS OUR RULES AND LAWS, BUT WE'RE CONSIDERING, OR SOME PEOPLE ARE CONSIDERING TURNING THIS DOWN BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORS SAID, I'M NOT AGAINST IT.
I JUST WISHED THEY WOULD MAKE IT A LITTLE SMALLER SIZE.
AND I, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I THINK THEY WOULD SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
SO BEFORE WE GO MUCH FURTHER INTO ALL THIS, I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO FORWARD THAT TO AN ATTORNEY AND GET HIS TAKE ON THIS THING.
UH, THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A FEW LETTERS THAT WE HAVE HERE THAT EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH IT, BUT THEY JUST WANTED SMALLER.
CAN WE TURN IT DOWN? IF I MAY MADAM CHAIR TRY TO ANSWER A CONDITIONAL.
SO I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY EITHER.
WE HAVE A VERY CAPABLE STAFF WHILE I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR SIX MONTHS AS THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, I DO HAVE 30 YEARS OF THEATER AND SAVES COUNTY.
AND, UM, THIS PROJECT DOES COMPLY.
AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT, COMMISSIONER HOLTZ HAS POINTED OUT.
IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE PROJECT TONIGHT BECAUSE OF THAT FACT.
AND, UM, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE FINDINGS AS TO WHY THE PROJECT SHOULD BE DENIED.
IF THERE ARE VALID FINDINGS THAT THE COMMISSION CAN, UH, FIND, BUT WE AS STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
AND, UM, I DO STAND AS THAT, UH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IN MY CAPACITY BEHIND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH OUR, UH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TOO? I'VE GOT TO GET MY ROSTER, BUT YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THERE'S NO VARIANCE BEING ASKED FOR HERE.
THERE'S NO, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING UNUSUAL HERE IN, IN MY VIEW.
I MEAN, THERE'S IN ANY PROJECT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE FORWARD PLR AGAINST IT, AND IT'S OUR JOB AS A COMMISSION TO, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE THE DECISION.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, UH, TO ME, SEEMS TO BE IN LINE WITH OUR CODE, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I CAN SEE IF THERE WERE VARIANCES BEING ASKED FOR, BUT THE ARNOLD VARIANCES HERE, WHICH MEANS IT IS IN LINE WITH THE CODE.
SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO PROBLEM GOING FORWARD WITH IT TONIGHT.
ONE OTHER COMMENT I MIGHT MAKE, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY, THEY HAVE THE LANDSCAPE, THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THEY'VE HAD IT LANDSCAPE REALLY NICE FOR THE 20 YEARS THAT THEY LIVED THERE.
THE HOUSE THAT THEY'RE WANT TO
[01:05:01]
BUILD IS GOING TO BE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE ONE THEY HAVE AS FAR AS COLOR AND THE ROOFING AND ALL THAT.SO, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, THE PLANTS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN THERE, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO I JUST CAN'T SEE WHY WE WOULDN'T TURN IT DOWN.
AND I'M DEFINITELY FORWARD FOR GOING AHEAD WITH IT THE WAY IT IS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOES COMPLY WITH ALL THE, UM, THE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND, AND, UH, PLANNING GUIDANCE.
BUT WITH, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, UH, THE CONDITION, UH, THAT RELATES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT, THAT THAT IS STILL SOMETHING WITHIN OUR DISCRETION TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE, UM, CAN'T EXCEED, UM, YOU KNOW, BEING, HAVING A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF MORE THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THIS PARCEL, WE DO HAVE STILL HAVE THAT DISCRETION TO, TO, UH, LIMIT THAT LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE.
SO WHILE THERE ARE, YES, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES THERE STILL, STILL SOME MATTER OF DISCRETION THAT'S WITHIN OUR HANDS TO BE ABLE TO, UM, APPROVE OR DENY, UH, THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE BEING MORE THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
I WANT TO REMIND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT, BUT WHAT WOULD YOU BASE IT ON? WHAT WOULD YOU BASE A REJECTION ON? IT'S NOT BLOCKING ANYBODY'S VIEW.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT IMPEDING ON ANYBODY TO WHERE IT'S AT, SO YOU GOTTA MAKE REASONS WHY YOU'RE TURNING IT DOWN.
OTHER THAN IT'S TOO BIG THAT YOU THINK IS TOO BIG OR SOMEBODY ELSE THINKS IT'S TOO BIG.
SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BASE IT ON? AND WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO LIMIT TO HOW MANY SQUARE FEET? YEAH.
NUMBER ONE, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY.
OH, I WISH I LIVED OVER THERE, BUT I THINK IT'S TOO BIG.
SO YOU TELLING ME LEGALLY I CAN'T VOTE.
NO, BECAUSE IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.
IS THAT WHAT I'M BEING TOLD? OKAY.
I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID THAT ACTUALLY COMMISSIONER, WHAT I SAID WAS, UM, THAT STAFF GUYS STAND BEHIND THE RECOMMENDATION AND YES, IF THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE FINDINGS, ABSOLUTELY.
UH, IF FINDINGS CAN BE MADE, THE COMMISSION CAN CERTAINLY DENY THE PROJECT OR APPROVE THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO A PARTICULAR CONDITIONS.
SO I, I AM NOT AGAINST THE PROJECT.
IF THEY SCALED IT DOWN, I'M OKAY WITH IT.
AND THAT'S HOW I FEEL SAME HERE.
SO I GUESS IF YOU WANT TO BE REJECTED, YOU NEED TO FIND, GO AHEAD.
I THINK THIS IS OUT OF ORDER AND WE DO HAVE ONE RESIDENT THAT LIVED CLOSE BY, AND THIS IS OUT OF ORDER.
WE DID CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ALREADY, BUT I THINK HE HAS ONE QUESTION.
SO I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO COME UP AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU GOT TO COME UP TO THE MIC.
I THINK WHAT I, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I'M ASKING OF YOU COMMISSIONERS, AND IS YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU BETTER THINK ABOUT THE BIGGER PICTURE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT IT REPRESENTS TODAY, BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WE'VE GOT A GREEN LIGHT WHERE WE CAN START SUBDIVIDING ALL THESE PROPERTIES UP.
SO THE, THE VERY FEEL AND LOOK OF THAT AREA UP THERE COULD VERY WELL CHANGE DRAMATICALLY IN A VERY SHORT ORDER.
I APPRECIATE THE CITY'S POSITION.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU SUBDIVIDE A LOT.
YOU GOT ANOTHER PARCEL, YOU GOT OBVIOUSLY MORE PROPERTY TAX INCOME.
IT'S ALL WONDERFUL STUFF, BUT I SEE YOUR POINT CHAMELEON.
I DON'T THINK ANYTHING HAS BEEN LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL.
AND MATTER OF FACT, A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, UM, HANG IS SO MENTIONED THAT NOTHING'S BEEN DONE TO, TO RESIDENTIAL IN 20 PLUS YEARS THAT YOU, THAT YOU KNOW OF, BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS UNLIKE A LOT OF AREAS OF WEST COVINA.
THESE WERE ALL RANCHEROS RANCH STYLE HOMES THAT WERE BUILT WAY BACK WHEN, ON LARGE LOTS.
AND IF I'M HEARING YOU RIGHT, AND YOU'VE GOT THE RIGHT SETBACKS, 14,400 FEET, YOU'RE NOT TALKING A SUBDIVISION MAYBE TODAY OF ONE HOME, YOU MIGHT GET SUBDIVISION TWO OR THREE HOMES ON A LOT.
SO IT WILL CHANGE UP THE WHOLE MAKEUP.
AND THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT, IT'S JUST NOT, IT'S NOT JUST THE WINDS, IT'S EVERYBODY THAT LIVES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UH, THAT MOST OF YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
A LOT OF THEM HAVE LIVED IN HERE QUITE SOME TIME.
I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE CITRUS ENDED AT OUR HOUSE.
[01:10:01]
I MEAN, IT WAS JUST THERE.SO, UM, THAT, THAT IS THE POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
AND THE OTHER ONE IS I DO WANT SOMEBODY TO GET BACK TO ME BECAUSE I DO KNOW THE HANDS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, ON THAT, ON THE MCCONAUGHEY SUBDIVIDED THAT LOT, THEY HAD MINIMUM ONE ACRE, ONE ACRE.
SO SOMETHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT HEN HOUSE WAS BUILT AND IS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE WAS NEVER A ZONING CHANGE IN WEST COVINA, THE RESIDENTIAL IN OUR AREA AT ALL.
SO I WOULD LIKE PLANNING, UH, IF THEY WOULD GET BACK TO ME ON THAT, ADVISE ME ON THAT BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET HAD TO COME UP WITH A ONE ACRE PARCEL.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PARCEL, IT'S JUST LIKE A NEEDLE THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK.
THEY HAD TO COME UP WITH THAT EXTRA PROPERTY TO MEET THE ONE ACRE REQUIREMENT.
I, I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING WHERE LESS THAN ONE ACRE CAME FROM, BUT IF YOU SAY IT HAPPENED, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHEN IT HAPPENED, OBVIOUSLY SINCE THE HENHOUSE.
AND THEN I THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE LARGER PICTURE OF THAT AREA UP THERE.
AND OBVIOUSLY IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, THEN IT, YOU KNOW, WE WE'VE, WE'VE GOT THE CITY'S DECISION ON, ON THEIR THOUGHTS ON IT.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND I'M SORRY FOR BEING OUT OF ORDER.
SO, UM, WHAT DID WE GO FROM HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS? I'M NOT SAYING THAT 14,000 SQUARE FOOT IS, UM, IS, IS SUBDIVIDING.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT FOR THE LAST 20, SOME ODD YEARS, SINCE WE DID THE REZONING AND THE, UM, THE NEW ZONING FOR ALL CITY, SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOME AREA, WE DID NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES AT THAT TIME.
SO IT'S 20, 25 YEARS OR SO IT HASN'T BEEN CHANGED.
SO WITHIN THAT 25 YEARS OR SO, IF ANYONE IN THAT AREA WOULD BE QUESTED FOR SUBDIVISION, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT AS WELL UP TO TODAY.
CAUSE THOSE AREA HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED, BUT YOU HAD TO MEET A LOT MORE REQUIREMENTS THAN JUST THE 14,000 SQUARE FOOT.
A LOT OF PEOPLE CANNOT DO IT BECAUSE OF, I BELIEVE THE 90 FEET WITH FRONTAGE IN ALSO THE DEBT.
YOU MAY HAVE THE DEPTH, YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE FRONTAGE BECAUSE ALL THE FRONTAGE NEEDS TO BE 90 FEET.
CAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, THEN YOU NEED TO ASK FOR VARIANT.
AND WHENEVER ANYONE ASKS FOR VARIANTS, WE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CAN ACTUALLY, UM, MAKE A DECISIONS TO WHETHER APPROVED FOR THE VALENCE OR NOT APPROVED FOR BRANDS.
BUT IN THIS SITUATION, WE DON'T HAVE A VARIANCE THAT WE CAN SAY APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE.
SO AT THIS MOMENT, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS MOTION TO APPROVE IT IS I'LL SECOND.
WELL, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND, CORRECT.
THE DISCUSSION IS THIS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, WE CAN ONLY DECIDE ON WHAT'S PRESENTED TO US IN FRONT OF US.
WE DEAL WITH ONE ITEM AT A TIME AND THIS IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW.
AND THERE ARE NO, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES.
WE'RE NOT ASKED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO, UH, YOU KNOW, I SECONDED THE MOTION.
I'M GOING TO GO BEFORE NOW I'M CHAIR, BEFORE ANY MOTIONS ARE MADE, CAN I CONTINUE TO, WELL, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE SECOND YOU CAN DISCUSS.
AND, UH, WHAT I, WHAT I JUST WANT TO REITERATE IS THAT, ESPECIALLY WHAT WE'VE HEARD, WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY IS THAT THERE IS, I, YOU KNOW, THERE IS DISCRETION IN OUR HANDS TO CONSIDER, UM, THE, UH, CONCERNS THAT, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORS HAVE TODAY AND, AND FUTURE HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA WILL MORE THAN LIKELY CONTINUE TO HAVE ABOUT, UM, POTENTIAL, UH, CHANGES TO THE NATURE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, AND WHILE THIS SITUATION MIGHT BE A BIT UNIQUE, WE GOT A VERY, UH, INTERESTING SITUATION IN THAT IT'S A CORNER LOT, AND IT PRESENTS, YOU KNOW, THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO, UH, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SUBDIVISION AND MAKE IN, MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR, UM, FOR, FOR SET PACKS AND, AND, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET.
UM, I JUST WANT TO REMIND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA, UH, AS YOU KNOW, LIVE THERE NOW, I'VE LIVED HERE FOR MANY YEARS AND PROBABLY IN FUTURE ONES TO COME TREASURED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FOR WHAT IT IS.
AND, UH, SO, UM, WHILE THERE ARE NO VARIANCES, I UNDERSTAND THAT
[01:15:01]
THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVE WITHIN, UH, OUR POWER, UH, TO LISTEN TO WHAT RESIDENTS WHO LIVE THERE NOW CARE ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE NATURE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT WE LIMIT AT LEAST LIMIT THAT THE HOUSE SIZE, UH, TO, UH, NO MORE THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
AT LEAST IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR THE SAKE OF THE FUTURE OF HOW THE FUTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO BE, UM, PRESERVED FOR THE FUTURE.
AND I THINK PART OF OUR DUTIES AS COMMISSIONERS IS NOT JUST ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE INDIVIDUAL AND INCREMENTAL, UH, IMPROVEMENTS TO ONE HOUSE OR THE NEXT IT'S ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS TOO.
SO THAT IS WHY I THINK IT DOES TO BE ABLE TO LIMIT THE HOUSE SIZE TO MORE THAN 44,000 SQUARE FEET IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK.
I THINK IT'S A VERY FAIR COMPROMISE.
I THINK THIS HOMEOWNER'S GOING TO GET FAR MORE THAN, UH, THAN WHAT THEY WANT WITH THAT, WITH THAT CONDITION.
AND I THINK IT'S GONNA, UH, HELP TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, BE IN A, IN A STATE THAT'S BETTER PRESERVED FOR WHAT IT IS FOR WHAT IT IS NOW, WHAT PEOPLE ENJOY TO BE.
NOW, THAT'S ALL I ASK ADAM SHERMAN, OKAY.
WE HEARD ONE PERSON HERE TONIGHT WHO LIVES NEXT DOOR? DID HE INDIVIDUAL SAYING HE'S NOT AGAINST THE PROJECT? HE WISHED THAT MAYBE IT'D BE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER.
ALL THESE LETTERS WE GOT EVERY ONE OF THEM, IF YOU READ IT, NONE OF THEM MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE SIZE BEING TOO BIG.
HE SAID, THIS IS HEARSAY THAT SOME OF HIS NEIGHBORS SAID, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE SMALLER IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN WHY DIDN'T THEY SIGN THIS LETTER? WHY DIDN'T THEY PUT IT IN A LETTER INSTEAD OF I'LL READ IT TO YOU? UH, I DO HEREBY CERTIFY.
I AM FULLY AWARE EXCEPT MY NEIGHBOR'S SUBDIVISION FOR A TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT WITH A SMALLER NIGHT'S SIZE OF 21, SIX 45, WHICH IS OVER 7,000 SQUARE FOOT, MORE THAN REQUIRED IN LOT SIZE ELIGIBLE TO BE SO DIVIDED OF 14,500, ACCORDING TO THE CITY ZONING CODE AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER I EVER ENTIRELY REVIEWED AND UNDERSTOOD THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT, I DON'T.
I WANT THE HOUSE SIZE TO BE SMALLER.
SO WE CAN'T DO HEARSAY NUMBER ONE.
ARE THAT CONCERNED ABOUT IT? WHY AREN'T THEY HERE TONIGHT? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, YOU CAN.
WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE OVER? UH, I'M SORRY, BUT PUBLIC, UM, PUBLIC HEARINGS HAS BEEN CLOSED AS THAT IS, SO WE CANNOT, WE OPEN, WE'LL HAVING A DISCUSSIONS RIGHT NOW AND THEN WE'RE GONNA MAKE A DECISION.
SO WE HAVE A, I MEAN, A LOT OF PLACES TOO, EXCUSE ME.
THAT ARE ALL ONE STORY HOUSES.
SOME, TWO STORY HOUSES IN IS WITH THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MANY TIMES, DO THEY FIT? NO, BUT WE, WHAT WE SAID WAS IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE UP SCALE FOR THE REST OF THE PEOPLE TO TRY TO CONSIDER MAKING THEIR PROPERTY BETTER.
YOU KNOW, IT'S, THIS HOUSE IS NOT GOING TO BLOCK ANYBODY'S VIEW.
UH, IT'LL BE A PRIMO LOCATION IF THEY BUILD IT THE SAME WAY, WHICH THEY SAID THEY WOULD AS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, THAT AND THE PROPERTY.
SO I, AGAIN, UH, I DON'T THINK WE GOTTA TAKE IT ON OURSELF AS OUR, WHAT I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S TOO BIG.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IN THE FUTURE WITH IT, BUT IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.
SO WHO ARE WE TO TURN IT DOWN? IT'S NOT GOING TO INFRINGE ON ANY, ANY HOUSE STAIR, BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER HOUSES AROUND AND IT FACES THE GOLF COURSE.
SO, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT I DON'T SEE IT.
AND AGAIN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WAY IT IS AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
SO DO YOU WANT TO, MAY I MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT AND MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT? YEAH, JUST QUOTING FROM THE STAFF REPORT.
THE LARGEST HOUSE IN THE SURVEYED AREA IS 7,688 FEET.
THEREFORE THE PROPOSED HOUSE EXHIBITS, MASSING AND DESIGN ELEMENTS, REASONABLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO APPROVE SOMETHING.
THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF THE CHARTS HERE.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND I'M PREPARED TO
[01:20:01]
VOTE.SO I'M GOING TO GET A ROLL CALL.
WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE IT AND ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER IS NO COMMISSIONER KENNEDY, NO COMMISSIONER RED HOLDS CHAIR, HANG AYE.
THAT WAS RESOLUTION NUMBER 20 DASH SIX ZERO THREE NINE FOUR.
THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND REZA NUMBER 20 DASH SIX ZERO FOUR ZERO FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT.
AND THIS, IF I MAY, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE DECISION IS FINE.
LESS APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CORRECT? RIGHT.
THERE'S A 10 DAY APPEAL PERIOD.
RIGHT? SO IT IS, UM, IT WILL BE FINALS WITHIN 10 DAYS.
IF THERE'S NO RESIDENTS COME AND MOVE ON TO CITY COUNCILS OR THEY HAVE TO APPEAL IT, APPEAL IT.
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM NUMBER TWO.
[3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82866 / TPM No. 20-01 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Greg Fick LOCATION: 711 N Azusa Avenue REQUEST: The project consists of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an 18,763 square foot lot into two lots, located in the "Neighborhood Commercial" (N-C). Parcel 1 is proposed to be a 10,394 square foot lot and Parcel 2 is proposed to be an 8,369 square foot lot. The existing site is currently improved with a 5,720 square foot commercial building, parking lot, and landscaping. No new construction is proposed.]
OKAY.NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS SEVEN 11 NORTH AZUSA AVENUE.
THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS TO SUBDIVIDE ANOTHER SUBDIVISIONS IN 18,763 SQUARE FOOT.
LOT INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ONE IS PROPOSED TO BE A 10,394 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
AND PARCEL TWO IS PROPOSED TO BE AN 8,369 SQUARE FOOT LAP.
THE SYSTEM, THE EXISTING SITE IS CURRENTLY IMPROVED, BUT THE 5,700 2320 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING, NO NEW CONSTRUCTION IS PROPOSED.
AND TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THIS FROM RENE AGUILAR.
ASSISTANT PLANNER WILL BE PRESENTING THE STAFF REPORT.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
NICE TO SEE EVERYBODY AGAIN TONIGHT, I WILL BE PRESENTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER EIGHT, TWO EIGHT SIX SIX.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO SUBDIVIDE AN 18,007 AND 63 SQUARE FOOT.
LOT INTO TWO LOTS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION ONE FIVE, THREE ONE FIVE CLASS 15 MINOR LAND DIVISIONS.
AS THE PROPOSAL INVOLVES THE SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN FOUR OR FEWER LOTS.
THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF DID SEND OUT 224 NOTICES TO BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS WITHIN 300 FEET AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OF CONCERN, NO PHONE CALLS AND EMAILS WHATSOEVER.
THE EXISTING SITE CURRENTLY FEATURES A 5,720 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
AND THE SITE IS ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
AS YOU CAN SEE BEHIND ME, IT IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF EAST POINT AVENUE AND AZUSA AVENUE.
AND TO THE NORTH ARE MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS TO THE SOUTH IS COMMERCIAL.
I BELIEVE THERE IS A DENNY'S RESTAURANT ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST IS A COMMERCIAL ZONE AND YOU HAVE CVS THERE.
AND LASTLY TO THE WEST ARE MORE MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS.
HERE'S A PICTURE OF A FEW PICTURES OF THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT.
JUST A LITTLE NOTE, THERE IS A SEVEN 11 CONVENIENCE STORE LOCATED AT SEVEN 11 NORTH AZUSA, WHICH IS KIND OF FUNNY FIGURED I'D POINT THAT OUT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT SEVEN 11, THESE PICTURES WERE TAKEN YESTERDAY.
THEY'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THEIR TENTATIVE IMPROVEMENT, OPENED UP AND THE OTHER TWO TENANT SPACES ARE STILL CURRENTLY VACANT.
SO MOVING INTO THE SUBDIVISION PARCEL, ONE IS PROPOSED TO BE 10,394 SQUARE FEET WITH 70 FEET WIDE AND 140 FOOT DEEP BRICK RECTANGULAR SHAPED LOT
[01:25:01]
PARCEL ONE, WE'LL HAVE 75 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE AND PARCEL.TWO IS PROPOSED TO BE AT 8,369 SQUARE FEET WITH 63 FEET WIDE, 140 FEET DEEP OF A IRREGULAR RECTANGULAR SHAPED LOT PARCEL TWO WE'LL HAVE 63 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE.
DO YOU WANT TO ADD THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL NOT CHANGE THE SITE SIZE AND THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CENTER? SO NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING BUILDING IN WHICH YOU SAW IN THE SLIDE BEFORE THAT IS A PARCEL ONE AND PARCEL TWO.
AGAIN, THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL NOT CREATE A NONCONFORMING SITUATION ON SITE OR CAUSE ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE NONCONFORMING TO ANY OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS AS PROPOSED THE SUBDIVISION MEETS BUILDING COVERAGE, SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING, A RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS PARKING UTILITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED ON SITE.
THAT MEANS THAT EACH OWNER WOULD HAVE TO GET THIS RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY FINDINGS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP HAVE BEEN MADE WITH THAT BEING SAID, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER EIGHT, TWO EIGHT SIX, SIX.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER.
I HAVE A QUESTION I'M READING THE STAFF REPORT AND EVERYTHING, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT? WHY, WHY, WHY DIVIDED ONE AND TWO? THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
MY, UH, THE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE PHONE.
UM, HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE IT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
SO HE MADE PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS AND WAS UNABLE TO BE HERE.
UM, JOANNE, DID WE GET A CHANCE TO CONNECT? THE APPLICANT IS ON THE PHONE, ON THE GOTO MEETING.
SO WHEN THE, UM, THE, THE HEARING IS OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC, UM, HE WOULD BE THE BEST PERSON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE WRITE IN HERE.
THE APPLICANT IS ON THE PHONE, ON THE CALL.
SO THE APPLICANT WOULD BE THE BEST PERSON TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER RED HOLDS IT ASKED.
SO WE OPEN THIS TO PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO.
ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST, SO FOR THE PROJECT? NO ONE.
OH, GREG, ARE YOU THERE? OKAY.
SO, SO THERE'S A SEVEN 11 GOING IN THERE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO IF YOU SUBDIVIDE IT, IS THERE GOING TO BE ISSUE WITH THE PARKING CAUSE YOU KNOW, THE SOUTHERN IS GOING TO TAKE ALL THE PARKING THAT, THAT, THAT LITTLE CENTER AIN'T VERY BIG.
AND IF YOU SUBDIVIDED NOW, ARE THEY GOING TO BE ONLY ABLE TO BE ABLE TO PARK ON THIS OTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY? IT'S THE SAME PROPERTY.
WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP TO PUBLIC HEARING SINCE THERE'S YOU REALLY? NO ONE HERE.
AS FAR AS PARKING IS CONCERNED, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS TO REQUIRE RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH INCLUDES PARK, UM, ACCESS AND ALSO PARKING.
SO PARKING WILL BE SHARED WITHIN THE CENTER.
DOES COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE OWNER? GO AHEAD.
YEAH, IF YOU CAN, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO BE THIS.
AND I HAD, UH, I HAD A, UM, JUST HEARD, UH, LAST MINUTE AND, UM, HAD A FAMILY EMERGENCY.
SO, UM, MY NAME IS FRED FIX WITH ST.
I AM THE, UH, UH, OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
UM, WANTED TO THANK STAFF FOR, UH, REVIEWING THIS PROJECT AND COMMISSION FOR REVIEWING THIS TRIP TONIGHT.
UM, THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WE WERE HAVING TROUBLE FINANCING AND OBTAINING,
[01:30:01]
UM, ATTRACTIVE TENANTS FOR THE OTHER SPACES THAT AREN'T, THAT EVERYONE WASN'T OCCUPIED.UM, AND EVEN NOW WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON WITH, UM, UH, IT ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO FINANCE THE PROJECT, UM, UH, SO THAT WE CAN ATTRACT DIFFERENT USERS TO THE OTHER, TO THE OTHER TENANT SPACES WITH OUR FINANCE PARTNERS.
SO, UM, AND THAT WILL BE ABLE TO OPERATE IN THIS TURN ENVIRONMENT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE REASON BEHIND IT.
UM, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.
THEY'RE ALREADY AS A FIREWALL SEPARATION THAT WAS CREATED WHEN THE SUN 11, 10 IMPROVEMENTS WENT IN.
UM, SO, UM, AND THEN YES, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ON THE PARKING PROJECT DOES MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY USES THAT, UH, FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, UM, AS PART OF THE TENANT PARCEL MAP AND THAT WON'T CHANGE.
AND THERE WILL BE A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT WITH, UH, THE RECREATION, UH, PRIOR TO RECREATION FOUND MAP, STARTING TO CONDITION.
WE HAVE REVIEWED THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT.
AND, UM, I BELIEVE ED PUBLIC WORKS, UPDATED THOSE YESTERDAY AND WE ARE FULLY IN AGREEMENT.
UM, WITH THOSE PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
DOES GOOGLE FIT AND HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
SO THERE'S, IF I MAY, THERE'S THREE, THERE'S THREE POSSIBLE TENANT SPACES WITHIN THE BUILDING.
AND YOU CURRENTLY HAVE ONE TENANT, WHICH IS SEVEN 11, THE OTHER TWO ARE STILL BACON, CORRECT? RIGHT.
IN SEVEN 11, THAT'S GOING IN THERE.
THAT IS A CURRENT OPERATOR, RIGHT? I BELIEVE HE HAS OTHER SEVEN ELEVEN'S IN THE CITY, GREG.
I NOT HEARD, YOU KNOW, GREG, THE OPERATOR OF YOUR SEVEN 11, HE CURRENTLY OPERATES OTHER SEVEN.
SORRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UH, THE, THE CLAIM 11 IS NOT CURRENTLY OPERATING.
THEY'RE PLANNING TO OPEN IT IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS.
SO NO ONE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, SO IT SHOULD BE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'RE GOING TO OPEN DISCUSSIONS RIGHT NOW.
IS THERE A RESOLUTION NUMBER FOR THIS? I'M SORRY.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE? DO I NEED A RESOLUTION NUMBER OR, OKAY.
I'LL SECOND IT AND WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL.
IS THERE A RESOLUTION NUMBER? THE RESOLUTION NUMBER FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS 20 DASH SIX ZERO 41.
HOLTS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOLTZ.
HI COMMISSIONER KENNEDY COMMISSIONER RED HOLDS EYE AND CHAIR HANG AYE.
[4. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 20-04 GENERAL EXEMPTION LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to the Zoning section of the West Covina Municipal Code to modify development standards within the Residential-Agriculture (RA) and Single-Family Residential (R-1) zones. The proposed code amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).]
DO ITEM NUMBER FOUR.THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT CONSISTS OF SEVERAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING SECTION.
SO BY US COMING IN MUNICIPAL CODES TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE, WHICH IS THE ARBONNE AND SINGLE RESIDENTIAL, UM, FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OUR DASH ONE ZONES, THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CE QA PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15 ZERO SIX ONE B THREE.
UM, AND JOANNE WILL BE PRESENTING FOR TONIGHT.
GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONER OR CHAIR
[01:35:01]
HING AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A, UM, A CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO R ONE AND R A STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE.
UM, FOR A BIT OF BACKGROUND REGARDING THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIALLY HELD A STUDY SESSION AND INITIATED THE SUBJECT CODE AMENDMENT, UM, ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 2020.
AND THIS ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 28TH, 2020.
AT THAT TIME, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO A DATE CERTAIN OF JUNE 23RD, UM, TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ALSO TO, UM, GET FURTHER INFORMATION OR HAVE STAFF RESEARCH FURTHER INFORMATION ON RESIDENTIAL PARKING.
UM, WHEN THIS ITEM WAS INITIALLY CONTINUED, UM, IT WAS CONTINUED TO JUNE 23RD.
THIS ITEM HAD BEEN RE NOTICED, UM, MAINLY BECAUSE THE TODAY'S MEETING IS A SPECIAL MEETING AND THE MEETING THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW OF FREE YESTERDAY WAS CANCELED.
UM, SINCE IT'S BEEN A FEW MONTHS SINCE WE'VE LAST REVIEWED THIS ZONE, UM, SONY CODE AMENDMENT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO OVER THE ITEMS THAT ARE PROPOSED OR THE PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED.
UM, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE CHANGED IS SECTION 26 DASH 62 IN SECTION 26 DASH THREE 39.
I JUST, UM, THIS, WE ADDED A DEFINITION FOR NON HABITABLE BONUS ROOMS IN ORDER TO ALLOW DETACHED DETACHED STRUCTURES USED FOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, UM, WHICH ARE ACCESSORY TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USE.
UM, AND IT ALSO DEFINES, UM, OR PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR NON HABITABLE BONUS ROOMS, WHICH IS, UM, LIMITED TO 200, 200 SQUARE FEET, NO MORE THAN ONE, UM, ONE PER LOT, NO INTERIOR BATHROOM OR NO KITCHEN AND NO KITCHEN.
IT HAS TO BE BEHIND THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND IT HAS TO BE 10 FEET FROM ANOTHER STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.
AND IT, IT, IT'S NOT ALLOWED ON PROPERTIES THAT HAVE AN ADU OR JUNIOR ADU IN A COVENANT AS REQUIRED FOR SUCH USE AS IF, IF A PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO BUILT A NON HABITABLE BONUS ROOM ON THEIR LOT CHANGES TO SECTION 26 DASH FOUR ZERO TWO A B AND C AND E.
UM, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR CODE SECTION, UH, MAINLY HAS TO DO WITH, WITH, UM, BECAUSE THE, THE, UM, THE STATES ADU ORDINANCE AND ALSO OUR LAWS, AND ALSO, UM, THE CITIES CHANGES IN THE 80 ORDINANCE NOW REQUIRES OR ALLOWS GARAGES TO BE CONVERTED INTO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
UM, BECAUSE OF THIS PARKING PARKING HAS BEEN AN ISSUE IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
SO IN BASICALLY THIS CODE SECTION, IT STATES, UM, WILL REMOVE A DATE FOR JANUARY 1ST, 1993 THAT'S THAT'S THAT REQUIRES THAT GARAGES, UM, THAT REQUIRES A TWO, A TWO CAR GARAGE FOR EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY IN THE CITY, AND ALSO, UH, TWO UNCOVERED PARKING SPACES AS WELL.
UM, SO THIS PARTICULAR CODE SECTION LIMITS ADDITIONS TO 300 SQUARE FEET FOR RESIDENCES WITH NO GARAGE OR NONCONFORMING PARKING SPACES.
UM, SO BASICALLY IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO BUILD AN ADDITION TO A HOUSE THAT'S LARGER THAN 300 SQUARE FEET, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A GARAGE THAT'S AT LEAST 20 BY 20.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, TO UNCOVERED PARKING SPACES, YOU'RE SAYING THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY PARKING SPACES ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE CURRENT CODE ALLOWS, UM, REQUIRES THAT A TWO CAR GARAGE AND, AND TWO PARKING SPACES BE REQUIRED ON EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY IN THE CITY.
HOWEVER, UM, THAT THIS, I'M SORRY,
[01:40:01]
UM, IT'S, IT'S REGARDING, UM, NON NONCONFORMING, UM, SITUATIONS ON THE LOT.
SO IF LET'S SAY A PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO CONVERT A GARAGE INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, OR LET'S SAY SOMEBODY DOESN'T HAVE A GARAGE ON THEIR PROPERTY, UM, THEN IF THEY WANTED TO ADD MORE THAN 300 SQUARE FEET ON, ON THE, ON THE HOUSE, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A GARAGE.
SO BASICALLY ADDING MORE, ADDING MORE THAN 300 SQUARE FEET WOULD TRIGGER THE NEED FOR, TO BE, TO HAVE A COMPLIANT GARAGE.
ACTUALLY I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
UM, SO IF THEY'RE NOT ADDING ANY SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE MAIN HOUSE AND THEY'RE CONVERTING THE GARAGE TO A LIVABLE ADU, DO THEY HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE PARKING SPACE OR GARAGE? UH, AS FAR AS THE STATE LAW IS CONCERNED REGARDING 80 YEARS IN THE CODE THAT THE CITY ADOPTED, UM, CONVERTING YOUR GARAGE INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DOES NOT MANDATE OR REQUIRE RESIDENCES OR PROPERTY OWNERS TO CONSTRUCT ANOTHER GARAGE TO REPLACE IT.
UM, HOWEVER, IN, IN SOME INSTANCES, UM, THE, UH, PARKING SPACE, A DESERT, A PARKING SPACE WOULD BE REQUIRED.
UM, HOWEVER, HOWEVER, UH, THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHERE A PARKING SPACE IS EXEMPT TO BE FROM BEING REQUIRED IN ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS IS IF IT'S WITHIN HALF A MILE FROM, FROM A TRANSIT STOP, IN MOST PROPERTIES IN THE CITY ARE, ARE, UM, WITHIN HALF A MILE OF A TRANSIT STOP.
SO MOST PROPERTIES IN THE CITY DOES, UM, FIT INTO THAT EXCEPTION.
UM, FOR THIS PARTICULAR CODE, IF SOMEONE WERE TO NOT ADD ANYTHING TO THE EXISTING HOUSE, CONVERT THE GARAGE INTO A ADU OR LIVABLE SPACE THEN, AND LIVE WITHIN, LIKE YOU SAID, MOST HOUSES ARE WITHIN THE BUSWAY HALF MILE FROM THE BUS, THEN THERE'S NO GARAGES OR DRIVEWAY FOR THE HOUSE OR CAR TO PARK OFF STREET.
UM, I'LL GO OVER, UM, THE DRIVEWAY SITUATION IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES.
UM, THE, THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE, UM, ACTUALLY ANSWERS COMMISSION, CHAIRMAN CHAIRWOMAN, UM, HANGS QUESTION.
SO THE CURRENT, UM, CODE LIMITS OR BASIS THE WIDTH OF PAVED AREAS IN THE FRONT YARD, UH, UM, IS BASED UPON THE WIDTH OF THE GARAGE OR CARPORT PLUS AN ADDITIONAL SIX FEET ON EITHER SIDE OR BOTH SIDES OF THE GARAGE OR CARPORT OR 12 OR 12 FEET ON ONE SIDE.
UM, UM, BECAUSE, UH, THE PAY, UM, THE PAVED AREA OR DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF, UM, UM, PEOPLE'S HOMES ARE BASED ON THE WIDTH OF THE GARAGE.
UM, IN CARPORT, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO CONVERT AN ACCESS ACCESSORY DWELLING, OR A GARAGE INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY BECAUSE THE, THE MAXIMUM PAVEMENT ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD IS LIMITED TO THE WIDTH OF THE GARAGE OR CARPORT, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL SIX SPEED ON, ON EITHER BOTH SIDES OR 12 FEET ON ONE SIDE.
SO IF THERE'S NO GARAGE, THERE'S NO PAVEMENT.
UM, SO AS FAR AS THIS PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED, UM, WE ADDED THE HIGHLIGHT OR WEAVE, OR WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS BE ADDED, WHICH IS IN INSTANCES WHERE THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE A GARAGE OR CARPORT THE FRONT YARD DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO 12 FEET IN WIDTH.
SO THIS, THIS, UM, ALLOWS PROPERTY OWNERS TO HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NOTICING MORE
[01:45:01]
AND MORE CARS PARKING ON FRONT YARDS, AND I KNOW IT'S AGAINST THE ORDINANCE AND IT'S USED TO GO WARN PEOPLE ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK WE GOT TO PUT IT IN THERE SOMEWHERE.CAUSE NOW WE'RE RESTRICTING THEM WHERE THEY CAN PARK, WHERE THEY CAN'T PARK.
AND I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PARKING ON THE FRONT LINES.
SO SOMEWHERE IN THERE, I THINK WE OUGHT TO MAKE THAT BULLET.
THE CITY DOES HAVE A CO UM, CODE SECTION THAT PROHIBITS PARKING IN FRONT LAWNS.
SO THAT, THAT IS ALREADY IN THE CITY'S CIVIL CODE, RIGHT.
BUT IF YOU ASK PEOPLE, THEY THINK IT'S THEIR PROPERTY, THEY CAN DO IT.
BUT WITH RESTRICTING ALL THESE PARKING WITH NO PARKING SPACES, UH, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE AND MORE OF THESE.
I MAY NOT BE A BAD IDEA TO PUT IT IN THERE, BUT YOU DON'T AGREE.
IF I MAY CHAIR, UM, COMMISSIONER HOLTZ.
I THINK EVERYBODY HATES TO SEE PARKING ON LAWNS.
UM, I THINK MAYBE WHAT JOANNE IS TRYING TO SAY IS BECAUSE IT'S IN ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE, UM, WHERE IT PROBABLY BELONGS IT.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S IT'S IN THAT SPOT.
UM, AND IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT, AND I THINK EVERYBODY'S AWARE THAT WE'VE RECENTLY HIRED WELL EARLIER THIS YEAR HIRED A NUMBER OF PART TIME CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
UH, THE CITY ALSO HIRED A FULL TIME CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER AND, UH, THE STAFF HAVE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN, UH, PURSUING AN EMBER OF VIOLATIONS IN THE FRONT YARD.
I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION IF I CAN.
UM, WE ALWAYS HAD THE RULE OF THUMB.
WAS YOUR DRIVEWAY HAD A LEAD TO A GARAGE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THAT NO LONGER IS THE CASE.
UM, THIS CODE SECTION WILL, WILL ALLOW DRIVE WAYS TO, TO LEAD TO, UH, AN UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE.
SO IT'S NOT, IT HAS TO LEAD TO A COVERED PARKING SPACE.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, COULD YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE DRIVEWAY ON A, ON A PROPERTY? NO.
BUT THE DRIVEWAY, YOU COULD JUST PULL THE CAR UP AND RIGHT UP TO THE WALL.
WHAT WE'VE BEEN, WHAT WE, THE CITY HAS BEEN REQUIRING AS FAR AS, UM, ADU IS, ARE CONCERNED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN THE PAST.
UM, BASED ON EIGHT, UM, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THAT WE'VE, UH, APPROVED.
IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO CONVERT AN ACCESSORY, DWELL A GARAGE INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, RATHER THAN HAVING, UM, A DRIVEWAY, JUST, UM, LEADING TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WE RE WE'VE REQUIRED THEM TO PUT A LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT AS A BUFFER SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DRIVE INTO THE HEALTH.
THE CHANGE THAT'S RECOMMENDED TO SECTION 26 DASH FOUR ZERO 5.7 C, UM, IS TO REQUIRE TWO STORY SETBACKS FOR STRUCTURES WHEN WITH AN EXTERIOR WALL HEIGHT GREATER THAN 12 FEET INFRASTRUCTURES WITH AN OVERALL HEIGHT TO GREATER THAN 16 FEET.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN THE, THIS HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED MAINLY BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME INSISTS INSTANCES WHEN SOMEBODY WANTS TO PROPOSE A, A, UM, AN ADDITION TO A HOUSE THAT, THAT IS GREATER THAN THAT, THAT HAS A WALL HEIGHT GREATER THAN 12 FEET, SIMILAR TO THIS PARTICULAR, UM, PHOTOGRAPH HERE WHERE THE WALL HEIGHT IS AT 16 FEET IN THE, UM, AND THEY'RE NOT IN, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE A 12 FOOT, UM, I'M SORRY, A SINGLE STORY SETBACK, WHICH, UH, IN MOST INSTANCES MAKES IT APPEAR THAT IT'S TOWERING OVER THE NEIGHBORING, UM, PROPERTIES, YARD, OR HOUSE.
AND JUST, IT'S JUST NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY HOMES ARE DEVELOPED IN, WITHIN THE CITY.
SO STAFF, UM, DISCUSS THIS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE STUDY SESSION, AND IT WAS, UM, PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION TO REQUIRE
[01:50:01]
SECOND STORY SETBACKS FOR STRUCTURES WITH THE WALL HEIGHT GREATER THAN 12 FEET AND FOUR STRUCTURES WITH AN OVERALL HEIGHT GREATER THAN 16 FEET.UM, AS FAR AS THE 16 FEET IS CONCERNED, WE'VE ALSO HAD SOME STRUCTURES, UM, THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED THAT'S AS HIGH AS A TWO STORY HOUSE THAT THAT'S ABOUT 25 FEET TALL, OR MAYBE ABOUT, OR MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LESS, MAYBE TO 20 TO 23 FEET, UM, WITH, WITH VAULTED CEILINGS.
UM, AND ACCORDING TO, UM, CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CURRENT CODE, UM, THEY'RE ALL, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE SIDE AND 25 FOOT IN THE FRONT.
SO THIS WOULD PREVENT THAT SITUATION FROM HAPPENING.
UM, AND JUST TO NOTE THAT IT'S FOR TWO STORY SETBACKS IN IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY LEAD TO US.
UM, IT, IT BEING AT THE HOUSE BEING CONSIDERED, UH, UH, AT A HOUSE WITH THE SECOND FLOOR AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN APRIL, WHEN THIS ITEM WAS INITIALLY PRESENTED, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED AS FAR AS PARK PARKING IS CONCERNED, WHAT ARE THE, UM, PARKING OPTIONS THAT RESIDENTS CAN, UM, UM, HAVE, IF THEY'RE, IF THE CREATION OF, UM, THE CONVERSION OF GARAGES INTO 80 USE, UM, BECOMES MORE PREVALENT AND THERE, THERE ARE LESS PARKING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
UM, SO ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT RESIDENTS HAVE IN THE CITY IS, UM, RESTRICTED STREET PARKING.
UM, ANY, ANY PROPERTY OWNER CAN REQUEST RESTRICTED STREET PARKING, UM, WHETHER IT'S NO OVERNIGHT PARKING PERMIT, ONLY PARKING OR LIMITED TIME PARKING, UM, IF, UH, AN APP OR IF A PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITS A REQUEST TO THE CITY, THE CITY SENDS OUT POSTCARDS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IF MORE THAN 50% OR THE MAJORITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS WANT RESTRICTED PARKING, THE REQUEST IS PRESENTED TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION ON THAT, ON SOME OF THESE SURVEYS, AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THEM MYSELF, YOU GET, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH 25 OR 30 HOMES, YOU MAY GET FIVE PEOPLE THAT REPLY TO THESE THINGS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GET, IF IT'S THREE TO TWO, THEN YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE RESTRICTED.
AND I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S THE DUTY OF THE NAPE OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO, TO BE AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING AND TO PARTICIPATE.
BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE OUGHT TO BE LIKE A MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, OF, OF RESPONDENTS, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET PEOPLE TO REPLY, BUT CAUSE I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU'RE MAKING A PRETTY RADICAL CHANGE TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU GET FIVE PEOPLE THAT RESPOND TO THESE THINGS.
I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, PART OF ME SAYS, IF YOU'RE NOT THAT INTERESTED IN, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU SNOOZE YOU LOSE NO, BUT STILL THAT'S A PRETTY BIG CHANGE TO YOUR NEIGHBOR AND I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PARK, WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND? ARE YOU SURE IT'S A MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS? NO, IT'S THE MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS, RIGHT? IT'S THE MAJORITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS THAT, THAT RESPOND THAT WELL, THEY SEND OUT AN LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THEY SENT OUT LIKE, LET'S SAY 10 POSTCARDS.
AND IF, IF, UM, THEY RECEIVED SIX POSTCARDS SAYING THAT THEY WANT THE, UM, THE, THE PARKING RESTRICTION, THEN IT, IT GETS TAKEN TO THE, UM, THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION.
BUT IF THEY ONLY RECEIVE, IF THEY ONLY RECEIVE TWO POSTCARDS IN FAVOR OF IT AND THREE POSTCARDS AGAINST IT, UM, IT'LL, IT'LL BE AGAINST IT.
BUT IF IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND WHERE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS, SO IT'S, IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNERS, NOT, NOT THE RESPONDENTS, BUT IF, IF THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH RESPONSE, RESPONDENTS, THE CITY MAKES AN ATTEMPT TO CONTACT OR REACH OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, I LIKE TO ADD, I AM VERY TROUBLE REGARDING THE PARKING ISSUE, UM, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO SINCE IT'S ADU.
WELL, THE ADU HAS BEEN COMING ON AND WE'VE BEEN REVISITING AND REVISITING THE ADU FOR A WHILE NOW A COUPLE OF YEARS.
AND I'M VERY TROUBLE WHEN IT GETS TO THIS POINT, NOW THAT WE ARE
[01:55:01]
ALLOWING NOT US AS A CITY, BUT WE'RE ALL BECAUSE OF STATE MANDATE, WE'RE REQUIRING TO HAVE THE RESIDENTS AND MORE AND MORE ARE ASKING MORE AND MORE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR ALL, FOR THE GARAGES TO CONVERT INTO LIVABLE SPACE.AND AT THE SAME TIME, NOT ALLOWING OR, OR, OR REQUIRE GARAGES TO BE BUILT OR A PARKING SPACE IN THE FRONT.
SO YOU'RE ADDING EASILY TO A COUPLE LIVING IN THE GARAGE.
SO ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOME THAT MAY, MAY HAVE A MAX OF TWO CARD.
NOW ADD UP TO FOUR CAR WITH NO GARAGE AND POSSIBLY VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT.
I'M VERY TROUBLED BECAUSE CERTAIN AREA, WHEN MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE CONVERTING THE GARAGES TO LIVABLE SPACE, THEN THE CAR IS GOING TO OVERFLOW TO THE STREET.
THAT'S A GIVEN, UNLESS WE'RE ALL DECIDED NOT TO DRIVE.
AND I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING, UM, IN CALIFORNIA.
SO WE'RE SEEING THIS, I KNOW WE CAN'T FIX IT IN ONE DAY, BUT I, I LIKE FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO COME UP WITH AN IDEAS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUES AND WORK WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BUT HAVING THAT RESTRICTION UP THERE AND ASKING, UM, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE STREET, WHO PARKED ON THE STREET TO VOTE, NO PARKING ON THE STREET, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE ASKING PEOPLE WHO DOES NOT PARK ON THE STREET MOST OF THE TIME AND ASKING THEM NOT TO PARK ON THE STREET, THAT MOST LIKELY IT WILL WORK, BUT IF YOU'RE HAVING FOUR PEOPLE WHO'S LIVING IN THE HOUSE AND THEY DON'T HAVE A GARAGE AND THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A PARKING SPACE IN THE FRONT, THEY WILL PARK ON THE STREET.
WHERE ELSE DO THEY PARK? THEY CAN'T PARK ON TOP OF THE ROOF.
SO I'M SEEING THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM GOING ON IN THE FUTURE AS MORE AND MORE REQUESTS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY REQUESTS THAT COMES IN FOR ADU ON A MONTHLY BASIS FOR THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, BUT IT IS A CONCERNING, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR PARKING.
I'M NOT SURE HOW MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FEEL THAT IF MORE AND MORE OF THESE UNITS ARE BEING ADDED TO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL AREA WITH NO GARAGE, WHETHER WE, WHETHER THE RESIDENTS COME UP WITH A CREATIVE IDEAS OF HOW WE DEAL WITH PARKING ISSUES OR PLANNING, COMMISSIONERS, OR STAFF COME UP WITH SOME ISSUES OR SOME PLAN, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH THIS? BECAUSE THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT I'M SEEING COMING, WHETHER IT BE LIKE OR NOT, AND RESTRICTING STREET PARKING INFORMATION, AND HAVING STREET PARKING AND HAVING THIS CITY MANDATES STREET PARKING OR NO PARKING ON THE STREET, THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, UH, HAD IT, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU WERE ON A COMMISSION THEN THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HAVING RESTRICTION FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING.
NO, NO, NO, NO, BECAUSE IT HAD VERY FACT, THEY HAD PEOPLE LIVE IN THE GARAGES AND ALL THAT, AND THEY NEEDED THOSE PARKING SPOTS, BUT IT ALWAYS AMAZES ME.
COVINA HAS NO OVERNIGHT PARKING.
HOW DO THEY MANAGE? I THINK IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE FOR THEM TOO, BUT THERE'S NO OVERNIGHT PARKING AND CONVENIENT.
THERE'S SOME OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE NO OVERNIGHT PARKING ON THE STREET.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT I'M SORRY.
YOU MUST BE A BELIEVER IN SOMEBODY, BUT YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET THE RESIDENTS TO AGREE ON SOME KIND OF A PLAN THAT THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH.
IT IS NOT, I, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MANAGE IT OR HOW WE ASKED THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO FIX IT.
IT'S ALMOST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HANDS OFF, YOU FIX IT YOURSELF.
YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO, YOU KNOW, BUT I, LIKE I SAY, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET THE RESIDENTS TO AGREE TO IT.
I MEAN, COVINA HAS IT AND THEY'VE JUST LIVED THROUGH IT, YOU KNOW, TYPE OF THING.
I KNOW THAT IF I MAY, I KNOW THAT THAT BRAY HAS A NO PARKING BETWEEN 2:00 AM AND 6:00 AM OR SOMETHING CITYWIDE.
YOU KNOW, AND, BUT I, YOU KNOW, BUT YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER HOLTZ IS CORRECT.
THE LAST TIME WE HAD THIS, THIS HAS BEEN A SEVERAL YEARS.
BUT WHEN WE EVEN HINTED AT THAT, YOU TALK ABOUT OVERFLOW.
I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE SOLD POPCORN AND SOFT DRINKS, MAN.
I MEAN, THEY, THE PEOPLE WERE JUST ADAMANT AND THIS IS LONG TIME AGO NOW.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT OPINION IS, HAS CHANGED.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.
I, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLVE IT.
LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE PARKING ON THE LINE.
[02:00:02]
WHAT ELSE ARE THEY GOING TO DO? WELL, I'LL TELL YOU, I MEAN, IF I SEE PEOPLE PARKING ON THE LINE, I'M GOING TO BE VERY UNHAPPY, VERY UNHAPPY.HI, KEVIN, I'LL BE OUT THERE TOWING CARS.
IF I MAY CHAIR, UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THIS INFORMATION ON THE PROJECTOR IS A PROCESS THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS.
UM, AND IT WAS INFORMATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ASKED FOR AT THE LAST MEETING.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED AT THAT, UM, WITH THIS CODE AMENDMENT, THE MONEY, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, WHICH IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CODE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SHOULD WE START THE DISCUSSIONS, PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE HERE? WHAT DO YOU WANT A HOME? IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HERE.
JANET, GET THE JANITOR OUT HERE.
IS IT A PUBLIC HEARING? OH, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WE OPEN UP THIS TO PUBLIC HEARING.
JUST LINE UP ONE AT A TIME, PLEASE COME UP.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WE DON'T, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CALLERS, UM, REGARDING THIS ITEM, YOU KNOW, FOR BETTER RECOMMENDATION OR ANYTHING.
I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND FROM MY SEAT THAT WE APPROVE IT THE WAY IT IS.
IF SOMETHING COMES DOWN FROM THE STATE OR WHATEVER THAT MANDATES DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT FOR NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE CAN DO.
ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS IT IS.
WELL, WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION FIRST AND, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? AND I MEAN, JUST, I THINK, UH, JUST TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS, I SUPPOSE, UH, THAT, UM, THIS IS BASICALLY, UM, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE IS TO SORT OF RESTORE THE STATUS QUO WE'RE IN IT, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA NECESSARILY MAKE THINGS BETTER WITH MORE AID USE, YOU KNOW, FALL INTO PLACE.
UM, ALL IT'S GOING TO DO IS, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE FOR RE YOU KNOW, MAIN MAINTAINING, UM, PARKING, UM, ON PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE HAD TO HAVE GOTTEN RID OF.
SO IF THEY BUILT AN EIGHT YEAR, SO, UM, IT'S, UH, WE'RE JUST BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, HOLDING, HOLDING BACK THE FLOOD, UH, AND, AND, UH, THIS IS REALLY KIND OF ALL THE BEST, THE BEST WE CAN DO FOR NOW TO TRY TO KEEP PARKING OFF THE STREET.
WELL, I'M, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S, OOPS.
I MEAN, WE'RE RECOMMENDING, THIS IS GOING TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL WE'RE RECOMMENDING, YOU KNOW, GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT, YOU KNOW, BUT, BUT I THINK SOMETHING'S GOTTA BE, UH, UH, I MEAN, WE'LL SEE WHAT THEY SAY.
I DON'T, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST DO IT, SEND IT OVER TO THEM AND LET THEM DO WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
I DO AGREE THAT WE DO HAVE TO SEND THIS TO, UM, THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, I JUST WANT TO ADD IT THAT THE CODE AMENDMENT, THIS PARTICULAR ONE AFFECTS EVERYONE THAT LIVES IN WEST COVINA.
AND I WISH THERE ARE MORE PARTICIPANT IN FROM RESIDENTS TO SEE HOW THEY WANT TO DEAL WITH THIS.
ESPECIALLY THIS WILL AFFECT THE FUTURES BECAUSE ADU JUST CAME ABOUT WITHIN THE LAST YEAR OR SO.
UM, AND MORE AND MORE SO OF OUR RESIDENTS IS GOING TO REQUEST FOR THE ADU AND MORE AND MORE IMPACT ON TERMS OF PARKING WISE IS GOING TO BE GOING TOWARD THE STREET PARKING.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT I LIKE TO ADD.
HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE, MORE RESIDENT WOULD SHOW UP.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN HAVE A VIDEO SHOWING THAT TODAY.
THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO DISCUSS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE IMPACTING EVERYONE OF US.
AND THEN I GUESS IF YOU HAVE A MOTION, THEN WE'LL JUST TAKE A VOTE.
LET ME JUST QUICKLY ADD ONE OF THE THINGS I AGREE WITH YOU, WHICH IS SAYING A HUNDRED PERCENT THAT THIS, THIS WHOLE IDEA OF THE ADU, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT IT ANYMORE, YOU KNOW, THE STATE'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, DRAWN IT UP AND WE JUST KIND OF HAVE TO GO ALONG WITH IT NOW, BUT IT'S GOING TO CREATE A STREET PARKING NIGHTMARES.
AND, UH, SOMEHOW AT SOME POINT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
[02:05:01]
UM, I AGREE WITH YOU.OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE.
AND WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
YES, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VICE-CHAIR EXCUSE ME.
HOLTS UM, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RED HOLTZ AND, UH, ROLL CALL, UM, UH, VICE CHAIR.
HOLTS UH, COMMISSIONER HOTCAKES, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY, COMMISSIONER, RED HALL AND CHEROKEE.
WHAT THE CODE AMENDMENT WAS THE NUMBER, THEIR RESOLUTION NUMBER FOR THIS ITEM IS 20 DASH SIX ZERO FOUR TWO.
SO WE'RE GOING TO NON-HEARING ITEMS. ARE THERE ANY, YOU'RE TELLING ME COMMISSIONS
[COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS]
REPORTS AND COMMENTS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY NON-HEARING ITEMS, I HAVE COMMENTS.MADAM CHAIR, JUST A, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN TOGETHER SINCE BACK HERE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN SEVERAL MONTHS.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION FOR, UH, 18 MONTHS, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FIRST TIME TO PUBLICLY THANK THE STAFF FOR THE WORK YOU DO, AND TO KEEP US INFORMED AND TO GIVE US GOOD INFORMATION AND TO GUIDE US IN MAKING GOOD DECISIONS.
I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO, UH, PUBLICLY THANK JEFF ANDERSON, WHO WAS OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR AND EMPLOYEE HERE FOR 20, SOME ODD YEARS, YOU KNOW, AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER HERE FOR, UH, 13, 14 YEARS, I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH JEFF.
UH, WHEN HE, BEFORE HE WAS THE DIRECTOR AND, UH, SINCE HE WAS THE DIRECTOR AND, YOU KNOW, YOU COULDN'T ASK FOR A, YOU KNOW, A BETTER GUY AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO WISH HIM PUBLICLY THE BEST IN RETIREMENT.
WE HAD A NICE LITTLE DRIVE BY HIS HOUSE, YOU KNOW, UH, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
AND, UH, SO I WANT TO, UH, YOU KNOW, WISH JEFF THE BEST, HE'S A GREAT GUY TO WORK WITH.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT, UH, WORKED WITH ME WHEN I WAS CHAIR.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD COMMISSION AND WE LISTENED TO THE FOLKS AND WE LISTENED TO EACH OTHER AND WE'RE PRETTY, UH, YOU KNOW, RECEPTIVE AND CIVIL ABOUT EVERYTHING, WHICH IS GREAT.
CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF BOARDS THAT DON'T ACT THAT WAY.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO, WE MAY DISAGREE, BUT YOU KNOW, WE DISAGREE WITH, WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ANIMUS, AS THEY SAY.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH MARK IN THIS CAPACITY AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ALL HAVE THEIR BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY AT HEART.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING UNDER OUR CHAIR, UH, HANG AS WE GO FORWARD.
SO THOSE ARE MY, UH, MY COMMENTS.
I JUST, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I JUST LOOKING FORWARD TO WHEN WE CAN FINALLY GET PAST THIS, YOU KNOW, COBIT SITUATION AND WE CAN START TO BRING IN, UH, PEOPLE WILL START TO COME BACK.
PEOPLE ARE APPREHENSIVE, THEY'RE SCARED, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE STAY AT HOME KIND OF A THING, AND PEOPLE JUST AREN'T READY AND IT COULD BE A LONG TIME BEFORE THEY ARE READY TO COME BACK OUT AND PARTICIPATE, YOU KNOW, IN, IN, IN ANYTHING, NOT JUST THEIR GOVERNANCE OF THEIR CITY, BUT JUST EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S VERY SAD AND I HOPE WE GET BY, UH, GET PAST THIS AND, YOU KNOW, COME BACK STRONGER THAN EVER AND, YOU KNOW, DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
I WANT TO THANK MARK FOR A WHILE.
I WAS INCAPACITATED FOR KEEPING ME IN THE LOOP AND TAKING CARE OF THINGS AND LET ME KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.
THEN, UM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
UM, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT ANYBODY OFF.
NO, I JUST WANTED TO SAY WANTED TO, TO CLOSE IN THE MEMORY OF A FORMER MAYOR, BRAD MCFADDEN WAS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MINE AND IT SEEMS LIKE, UH, I'M RUNNING OUT OF PEOPLE TO ARGUE WITH THAT ON MY NOTES, BUT WE'RE NOT CLOSING.
I'LL ALWAYS ARGUE WITH GLENN OVER HERE.
[5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT:]
I DO HAVE A BRIEF REPORT, MADAM CHAIR.[02:10:01]
A, A COMMISSION MEETING ON JULY 14TH.UM, AT THIS TIME THERE AREN'T ANY, UH, SCHEDULE ITEMS FOR THE JULY 14TH MEETING.
UM, THEREFORE THE COMMISSION'S NEXT MEETING WOULD BE ON JULY 28TH.
UM, AT THIS POINT WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT.
UH, THE WOMAN DEBORAH WHO WAS HERE EARLIER WAS UNCLEAR AS TO THE DATE, BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY THE ONE SHE WANTED TO, UH, HAVE QUESTIONS WITH WORK ABOUT, EXCUSE ME.
AND AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE AT 1112 SOUTH WILSON AVENUE, THAT'LL BE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
AND THEN THERE ARE TWO STUDY SESSIONS.
ONE IS REVIEW OF RECYCLING CENTERS.
AND THE SECOND ONE ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES.
UM, ON, I BELIEVE THIS IS PRIVATE CORRECT DESIGN GUIDELINES.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE A DESIGN GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT CODE AMENDMENT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL.
I JUST ON THE, IF I MAY ASK ON THE RECYCLING CENTER REVIEW, IS THAT A GENERAL REVIEW OR IS THAT A PARTICULAR LOCATION? UM, THAT'S A GENERAL REVIEW OF, UH, I BELIEVE SOMETIME LAST YEAR, A FEW YEARS AGO, THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTED THAT STAFF CONDUCT AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF ALL THE RECYCLING FACILITIES OR RECYCLING.
AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT WAS THAT THAT'S UNRESPONSIVE.
YES, THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
WELL, I JUST, IF WE, WHERE ARE WE AT ON THE GERMAN? I JUST WANT TO ECHO, I HAD IT ON MY NOTES TOO, TO ADJOURN, UH, IN THE MEMORY OF FORMER MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN BRAD MCFADDEN, WHO RECENTLY PASSED AWAY.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T DO WHAT THE COUNCIL DOES, YOU KNOW, SEND THINGS OUT, BUT I JUST WANT TO HAVE IT ON OUR MINUTES THAT WE DID ADJOURN IN, IN, IN HIS MEMORY SINCE HE DID SERVE THIS CITY.
UH, I MEAN HE WAS A RESIDENT, HE WAS A BUSINESSMAN, YOU KNOW, AN ATTORNEY IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA.
AND HE SERVED AS A MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN ON THIS, ON THIS, UH, IN THIS CITY.
SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER KENNEDY, I, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO ADJOURN IN HIS, UH, IN HIS MEMORY.
IS THIS THE WAY THE MEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE FROM NOW ON MARK LIKE THIS? I MEAN, SO SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED NOT GOING TO BE ON THE PHONE THING ANYMORE.
UM, BEGINNING WITH THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEETINGS IN JULY, UH, ALL SPEAKERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE MEETING IN PERSON.
UM, THE CLERK HAS BEEN READING, UM, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING OUR CASE, DONE A FANTASTIC JOB OF READING ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD.
THOSE WILL NO LONGER BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
WE STILL WILL ACCEPT EMAIL COMMENTS.
WHAT WE'LL BE DOING IS MAKING COMMENTS AND PASSING THEM OUT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UM, SO YES, THE PHONE CALLS WILL BE ENDING AS OF TONIGHT.