Dec 30, 2019 Special City Council

[00:00:01]

I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER IF WE CAN ALL PLEASE RISE AND

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

READY BEGIN.

ALLEGIANCE] ROLL CALL. COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER.

HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER HEPBURN.

HERE. AND MAYOR KENDRICK.

HERE. NICE JOB.

HERE. FIRST OF ALL, WE'D LIKE TO WISH EVERYBODY I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A GREAT CHRISTMAS AND MOVING INTO THE NEW YEAR SOON.

AND WITH THAT, WE WILL GO TO ITEM FOUR FOR THE URGENCY ORDINANCE.

[4. Urgency Ordinance No. 1089 for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units - In 2019 a number of bills were enacted relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. These bills further restrict local control and mandated new requirements. These new laws go into effect on January 1, 2020, so staff is presenting an urgency ordinance that will comply with new State law. This item was originally planned to be discussed at the December 16th Council meeting but that was postponed due to a letter that was received questioning the validity of the draft ordinance. Staff and the City Attorney will discuss what changes have been made due to these concerns. Public hearings on this issue will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council in the early part of 2020.]

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

IN 2019, THERE WERE SEVERAL BILLS THAT PASSED AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT ALL RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

I MIGHT REFER TO THEM AS ADU'S AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS JADU'S.

SO WITH THE GOVERNOR SIGNING THESE BILLS INTO LAW IN OCTOBER.

BUT THEY WERE. SO AB 68 AB 81.

AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO SB 13 AND AB 670.

SO WITH THESE BEING SIGNED INTO LAW IN OCTOBER, CITIES HAD A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO BE PUT ON THE BOOKS THAT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE NEW LAWS BEFORE THEY GO INTO EFFECT COME JANUARY 1, 2020.

THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE HAVE AN URGENCY ORDINANCE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THIS EVENING.

IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL BRING BACK A FULLY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL AS WE WOULD IN A NORMAL SITUATION.

BUT BECAUSE THE TIMING IS OF THE ESSENCE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS SPECIAL MEETING TO GET THIS ADOPTED HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

THESE NEW LAWS HAVE FURTHER RESTRICTED LOCAL CONTROL OVER ADU'S AND JADU'S.

PREVIOUSLY, CITIES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO EVEN ALLOW JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

JADU'S ARE UNITS THAT ARE INSIDE OF AN EXISTING HOUSE WITHOUT NORMALLY AN EXPANSION OR ADDITION JUST SIMPLY RECONFIGURING THE LIVING SPACE OF AN EXISTING HOME TO HAVE A SEPARATE UNIT. THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN KITCHEN, BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SHARE BATHROOM FACILITIES WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

THEY ARE ALSO TYPICALLY UNDER 500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

THAT'S A CONVERSION OF LIVING SPACE.

IT WOULD NOT BE A CONVERTED ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A JADU.

THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE REASON TO REALLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN JADU'S AND ADU'S IS THAT JADU'S THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED OR THE OWNER HAS TO BE ON THE PROPERTY, EITHER THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR IN THE JADU.

WHEREAS THE CITY HAS FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AT LEAST CANNOT REQUIRE TRADITIONAL ADU'S FROM BEING OWNER OCCUPIED.

BUT JR. ADU'S ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT PART IN THERE.

I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES AND NEW RESTRICTIONS OR WHAT HAS TO BE ALLOWED NOW UNDER THESE NEW LAWS.

BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE'S STILL SOME DISAGREEMENT EVEN AMONGST CITY ATTORNEYS ACROSS THE REGION ABOUT BECAUSE THERE'S CONFLICTING LANGUAGE IN THESE FOUR DIFFERENT BILLS THAT DON'T.

AND THERE'S SOME AREAS WHERE IT DOESN'T PROVIDE CLEAR DIRECTION INTO WHAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE RULE.

SO IT'S WIDELY EXPECTED THAT THERE WILL BE A CLEAN UP BILL THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO TRY TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES IN THE FUTURE.

IF THAT SEEMS TO BE MOVING FORWARD AT A FASTER PACE, WE PROBABLY WOULD WAIT ON BRINGING THE ORDINANCE BACK TO YOU DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS UNTIL SUCH A BILL WAS PASSED.

SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT OUR FINAL ORDINANCE IS ACCURATE AND COMPLIES WITH STATE LAW AT THAT TIME. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY AT THE DECEMBER 16TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF ASKED THAT WE POSTPONE THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM IN THAT THE CITY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY FROM A NONPROFIT GROUP WHICH CHALLENGED SOME OF THE RULES THAT WE WERE PROPOSED TO PUT BEFORE YOU ON THAT ORDINANCE.

SINCE THEN, WE'VE GONE BACK AND LOOKED AT THOSE SPECIFIC CONCERNS RAISED.

WE'VE ALSO SHARED OUR ORDINANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE STATE LEVEL TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY SAW THAT OUR OUR ORDINANCE WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE RULES TO SAY.

AND IN AS SUCH, WE HAVE MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THAT ORDINANCE.

THAT'S WHY WE PROVIDED YOU WITH THE TRACK CHANGE VERSION OF IT IN YOUR REPORT.

SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PRESENTED OR WAS READY TO BE

[00:05:04]

SO SOME OF THESE PROPOSED CHANGES, THEY MIGHT NOT FULLY ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS RAISED IN THE LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY FOR THE NONPROFIT GROUP.

BUT AS I SAID BEFORE, THERE IS DISAGREEMENT EVEN WHAT WAS INTENDED WITH SOME OF THE BILL.

SO WHILE SOMEBODY COULD HAVE AN OPINION ON ONE ITEM OR ONE WAY THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WORDED, WE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THAT.

AND I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT TWO SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE'RE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO BASICALLY AGREE WITH IN TERMS OF WHERE WE AS STAFF BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT DECISIONS TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS ORDINANCE.

SO, AB 68, THAT'S THE PRIMARY ONE THAT DEALS WITH JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

AGAIN, THOSE ARE UNITS INSIDE OF AN EXISTING HOME THAT ARE LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. AND THEY MAY SHARE BATHROOM FACILITIES.

THEY HAVE THEIR OWN KITCHEN.

BUT THEY DO HAVE REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR OWN KITCHEN.

THAT COULD BE A VERY SMALL KITCHEN.

IT'S NOT REALLY DEFINED ON WHAT IT HAS TO ENTAIL, BUT THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN KITCHEN FACILITIES AS PART OF A JADU.

AND AGAIN, THIS WE PREVIOUSLY DID NOT ALLOW FOR JADU'S.

BUT NOW WITH THIS NEW LAW CHANGE, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE TO BE ALLOWED IN EVERY CITY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WE ARE ALLOWED TO COLLECT APPLICATION FEES AND PROCESSING FEES AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS WHEN THEY ARE TO BE UNDERDONE.

THERE ARE LIMITATIONS, HOWEVER, ON THE IMPACT FEES THAT A CITY CAN COLLECT FOR ADDING A NEW RESIDENTIAL UNIT.

PRIOR TO THIS, WE WOULD HAVE FULLY IN OUR FEE SCHEDULE.

WE HAVE SOME REDUCED RATE FEES FOR ADU'S, BUT THEY ARE FULLY IF THEY HAVE A NEW WATER CONNECTION, THEY HAVE TO PAY A WATER CONNECTION FEE.

THEY HAVE TO PAY A REDUCED AMOUNT TO A PARKS FEE DEVELOPMENT FEE.

THE NEW LAWS SAY THAT IF YOU BUILD A UNIT UNDER 750 SQUARE FEET, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COLLECT THOSE FEES ANY LONGER, WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD DONE BEFORE.

SO IN THE NEXT FEW SCHEDULE COME MAY OR WHEN THE BUDGET IS PRESENTED AND THE FEE SCHEDULE'S ADOPTED, WE WILL OUTLINE THOSE FEES THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO CHARGE FOR AND THEN BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE UNITS.

THE OTHER THING THAT JADU'S IS IMPORTANT THAT IT IS ALLOWED ON A PROPERTY WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BUT ALSO A DETACHED OR ATTACH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS ALSO ALLOWED IN THAT CASE. SO IN THEORY, A PERSON THAT HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TODAY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS NO MATTER WHAT THE ZONE IS.

THESE JADU'S AND ADU'S ARE ALLOWED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND MIXED USE ZONES AS WELL.

MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE ADU'S AND JADU'S AS WELL.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY I'M SORRY.

THE JADU'S WAS ONLY IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. CORRECT.

YES, I'M SORRY. BUT ADU'S ARE ALLOWED IN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES AS WELL.

AND I TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT APPLY THE 5 YEAR OR OWNER OCCUPIED FOR ADU'S FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

THAT WAS ALSO SPECIFICALLY WORDED OR IN THE BILLS.

WHEREAS PREVIOUSLY FOR ALL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE. SO WE CANNOT.

WE CANNOT FOR ADU'S WE CAN FOR JADU'S.

WE DON'T KNOW. AB 881 IS THE ONE THAT SPECIFICALLY MADE IT APPLICABLE INTO ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND THAT IT GIVES US A SHOT CLOCK OF 60 DAYS IN WHICH WE HAVE TO APPROVE SUCH ADU'S THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS.

THERE IS VERY LIMITED DESIGN REVIEW THAT THE CITY IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ALSO WITH ADU'S.

SO THE GROUNDS ON WHICH ADU'S MAY BE DENIED ARE LIMITED TO WATER, SEWER, TRAFFIC FLOW, AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

PREVIOUSLY, THE CITY PROHIBITED SECOND UNITS OR ADU'S IN OUR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE AREA NORTH OF BASELINE, AND EAST OF WHEELER IN THE CITY OF LAVERNE. BEFORE YOU ON THE DIAS IS A MAP OF THE CITY.

AND I WANT TO BRIEFLY GO OVER THIS MAP WITH YOU TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE DIFFERENT COLORS MEAN. BUT THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PROPOSED ON THE 16TH ALSO WAS GOING TO PROHIBIT THE ADU'S AND JADU'S IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE, WHICH ON THIS MAP IS THE RED AREA.

MOST OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE AND THIS VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE OVERLAP IN THE SAME PROPERTIES.

SO MOST PROPERTIES, ALL THE RED AREA IS IN BOTH OF THOSE TWO DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.

THE PREDOMINANT DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE HDOZ COVERS THE AREA NORTH OF BASELINE AND EAST OF

[00:10:05]

THAT AREA IS NOT IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE, BUT IT IS IN THE HDOZ.

WHEREAS THE ORANGE COLORS AS IS ON THE HILL DOWN IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE CITY, PUDDINGSTONE HILL NEAR BRACKET AIRPORT.

THAT YELLOW CIRCLE AREA ON THE BOTTOM OF THE MAP IS ALSO HDOZ.

BUT NOT IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONES.

THERE'S TWO NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONES, BUT NOT IN THE HDOZ. AND THAT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST SIDE OF WHEELER AT GOLDEN HILLS.

THAT'S KIND OF ORANGE AT THE TOP LEFT OF THE MAP ADJACENT TO RED.

AND THEN BETWEEN BASELINE AND THE FREEWAY EAST OF FRUIT STREET.

THAT AREA OVER THERE ISN'T A VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE HDOZ.

THE REASON WHY I'M EXPLAIINGN THIS TO YOU IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE LETTER TO US CHALLENGED SOME OF OUR REASONING FOR NOT ALLOWING THEM IN THE HDOZ.

THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE WAS PREDOMINATELY DESIGNATED TO CONTROL DEVELOPMENT IN OUR HILLSIDES, WHEREAS THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE IS BECAUSE OF ABSOLUTE, YOU KNOW, CONCERNS ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY FOR FIRE HAZARDS.

WE FEEL AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FEELS THAT WE CAN DEFEND THE PROHIBITION OF THESE ADU'S AND JADU'S IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE.

WE HAVE GOOD REASONS FOR THAT THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT THAT IN THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE AS GOOD OF AN ARGUMENT.

SO THAT'S WHY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED OR WHAT WE ARE ASKING THE COUNCIL TODAY TO DECIDE IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO NOW PROHIBIT THEM IN THE VERY HIGH FIRES SEVERITY ZONE, WHICH WOULD BE THE RED AREA AND THE TWO ORANGE NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND THEN WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN RANCHO LA VERNE BASICALLY WOULD NOW NO LONGER PROHIBIT ADU'S, WHEREAS THEY HAVE HISTORICALLY IN OUR CITY AS LONG AS WE'VE HAD OUR ORDINANCE SO THAT'S ONE OF THE TWO THINGS THAT I'VE MENTIONED THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE COUNCIL TO BASICALLY GO WITH US.

AT THIS TIME STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT WE JUST PROHIBIT THESE IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT WE CAN DEFEND THAT IF CHALLENGED LEGALLY.

ERIC THAT'S ALSO PUDDINGSTONE HILL AS WELL.

PUDDINGSTONE HILL WOULD NO LONGER BE PROHIBITED.

SO RANCHO LA VERNE AND PUDDINGSTONE HILL WOULD BE THE TWO AREAS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER COUNCIL INPUT.

BY THE STATE? MOST LIKELY NO, WE DON'T EXPECT IF THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED WE SEND IT BACK TO THE STATE FOR THEM TO BASICALLY SIGN OFF ON OR GIVE US FEEDBACK THAT THEY FEEL THAT OUR ORDINANCE IS LACKING IN SOMEHOW.

NO LEGALLY CHALLENGED BY AN ATTORNEY OR SOME HOMEOWNERS GROUPS SUCH AS THE ONE THAT SENT US THE LETTER BECAUSE THAT WAS A NON-PROFIT GROUP.

BUT THE LETTER CAME FROM THEIR ATTORNEY.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE TWO ISSUES.

THE SECOND ONE COMES TO I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE THINGS THAT WE CAN REQUIRE FOR THESE ADU'S PREDOMINANTLY.

AND THEN THE SECOND ISSUE THAT WE'RE ASKING THE COUNCIL TO VERIFY.

ONE OF THE CHANGES IN THE LAW NOW NO LONGER ALLOWS US TO HAVE A MINIMUM SIZE LOT THAT ADU'S COULD BE ON.

SO EXISTING PROPERTIES OF ANY SIZE CAN HAVE AN ADU ON THEM.

AND THERE'S BASICALLY THE STATE SAID YOU COULD SET SOME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UP, IF YOU LIKE. HOWEVER, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CITY HAS TO ALLOW FOR UP TO AN EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT, 16 FOOT IN HEIGHT ADU.

THAT HAS A FOUR FOOT SET BACKS TO THE SIDE AND THE REAR.

THERE WAS NO MENTION ABOUT FRONT YARD SETBACK.

THERE IS NO DIRECTION THAT WAY.

SO OUR INTERPRETATION ON THAT IS THAT THE FRONT YARD SET BACK OF THE ZONES OF WHAT THEY ARE TODAY WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY TO AN ADU.

PREVIOUSLY WE HAD THAT ADU'S MUST BE BEHIND THE REAR PROPERTY, THE REAR PORTION OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. AND THAT WAS CHALLENGED IN THE LETTER.

AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ON A CORNER LOT OR OTHER LARGER SITE THAT MAYBE THERE WOULD BE ROOM TO PUT AN ADU ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND NOT NECESSARILY BEHIND IT, OR IF A HOUSE WAS SET BACK FAR ENOUGH THERE MIGHT BE ROOM TO PUT AN ADU IN THE FRONT BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OR THE FRONT PROPERTY SETBACK.

WE ARE INTERPRETING IT AT THIS TIME THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO REQUIRE A FRONT YARD SETBACK AS WHAT THE ZONE ALLOWS FOR.

AND SO THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE NOW READS IS THAT AN ADU HAS TO BE BEHIND THE FRONT SET BACK LINE OF THE PROPERTY IN WHICHEVER ZONE IT'S LOCATED IN PREDOMINATELY THAT'S 25 FEET BACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IN MOST AREAS.

[00:15:05]

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR UP TO AN EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT UNIT THAT'S 16 FEET OR LOWER IN HEIGHT THAT HAS FOUR FOOT SET BACKS OR GREATER TO SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES.

THEY HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON ANY OF THESE PROJECTS.

WELL, THROUGH NORMAL REVIEW PROCESS, THEY DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM.

THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE FIRE SPRINKLERS AND THEY CAN'T SAY NO TO THEM THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE HAVE TO ALLOW THAT AT A MINIMUM.

EXCEPT FOR IF WE'RE MAKING THE CASE THAT IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONES THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS IN THAT AREA.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE CASE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST.

WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT AT SOME JUNCTURE WITH DENSITY, IF PEOPLE DECIDE TO DO THIS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET EQUIPMENT IN TO SUPPRESS FIRE? WELL, WE STILL HAVE SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BUT YES, I MEAN, IT WILL INCREASE DENSITY IN NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THE STATE'S BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT WE DON'T GET TO CONTROL THAT ANY LONGER. THANK YOU.

SORRY ERIC GOING BACK TO WHAT HE ASKED. DID YOU SAY THAT WITH THIS NEW DWELLINGS MIC] WE CANNOT REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE [INAUDIBLE] SO IF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ALREADY HAS FIRE SPRINKLERS, THEN WE CAN REQUIRE THEM FOR THE NEW ADU. BUT MOST OF THE PLACES WHERE WE SEE THESE HOMES BEING PROPOSED IS IN OLD TOWN AND ALMOST ALL OF THOSE HOMES ARE OLDER THAT DON'T HAVE FIRE SPRINKLERS.

SO EVEN FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS THE STATE LAW IS VERY CLEAR, WE CANNOT REQUIRE FIRE SPRINKLERS FOR THEM, WHICH SEEMS KIND OF IN CONTRARY TO THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING IN CALIFORNIA IS WILDFIRES AND HOUSING PROTECTIONS.

BUT THAT'S HOW IT'S SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN.

THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD LOVE TO REQUIRE THAT EVERY [INAUDIBLE] OF ALL THESE WOULD HAVE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. BUT THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE ACTUALLY ON THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE TOO THIS HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW WHERE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REQUIRE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ON ADU'S.

SO. PREVIOUSLY, WE ALSO HAD A LIMIT ON THE SIZE OF THE UNITS UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 50 PERCENT OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRIMARY HOUSE.

HOWEVER, WE CAN.

WE'VE BEEN CHALLENGED ON THAT REQUIREMENT IN THE LETTER BECAUSE THE STATE ALSO SAYS YOU COULD SET MAXIMUM SIZES FOR A SINGLE BEDROOM OR A STUDIO APARTMENT OF 850 SQUARE FEET.

AND ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT A MAXIMUM SIZE OF TWELVE HUNDRED.

YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM SIZE THAT COULD ALLOW FOR AN EFFICIENCY UNIT, WHICH TODAY IS LIKE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SQUARE FEET.

SO WE CAN'T SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OTHER THAN THE EFFICIENCY UNIT SIZE WHICH IS 150, WHICH IS BASICALLY THERE'S NO MINIMUM SIZE.

SO YOUR SAYING THE STORAGE SHED THAT HAS THE PLUMBING AND SOME HOTPLATE CAN SUFFICE. SO IT STILL HAS TO MEET THE BUILDING CODES.

BUT AN EXISTING SHED STRUCTURE COULD BE RETROFITTED OR TORN DOWN AND REBUILT IN THAT SAME SPACE AS THAT SAME SIZE AND GET PROPER PERMITS TO HAVE ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING AND SEWER SYSTEMS AND BE ALLOWED TO BE IN THAT SIZE.

YES, AS LONG AS IT WAS GREATER THAN ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SQUARE FEET.

THANK YOU MAYOR. SO BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGE AND BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY WE FELT THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE SIMPLER TO SIMPLY ALLOW FOR THE MAXIMUM SIZES AS THE STATE ALLOWS FOR EITHER STUDIO OR ONE BEDROOM TO BE UP TO 850 SQUARE FEET TWO BEDROOM TO BE TWELVE HUNDRED. FACT OF THE MATTER IS, MOST OF THE TIMES THAT WHEN PEOPLE COME TO US THAT WANT TO BUILD THESE TYPES OF UNITS, THEY TYPICALLY ARE UNDER THE 850 SQUARE FEET.

AND SO EVEN IF THERE ARE TWO BEDROOMS, THEY'RE USUALLY NOT THAT BIG.

AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL WILL BE IT WILL BE COMPLIANT WITH STATE CODE.

AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE LENIENT THAN WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED FOR.

BUT WE KNOW THAT WE COULD DEFEND THAT DECISION.

AND SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW BILLS.

PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO CONVERT THEIR GARAGES TO LIVING SPACE AND WE CANNOT REQUIRE NEW PARKING WITH THOSE CONVERSIONS.

ABOVE THE GARAGE? SO ABOVE OR THE GARAGE ITSELF IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.

IF THERE IS A PERMITTED SPACE ABOVE AN EXISTING GARAGE, THEY CAN CONVERT THAT TO A LIVING SPACE. HOWEVER, IF IT'S JUST A SINGLE STORY GARAGE SAY THEY WANT TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO THAT GARAGE STRUCTURE.

WE STILL HAVE LIMITATIONS THAT IT CAN'T BE TALLER THAN

[00:20:03]

SO IF IT'S DETACHED.

IF IT'S ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CAN BE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT. BUT THE MORE I THINK IMPORTANT POINT OF THE GARAGE CONVERSION IS THAT WE PREVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ANOTHER GARAGE TO BE BUILT IF THEY WERE TO DO THAT.

AND BUT WE COULDN'T DO THAT ANY LONGER.

SO IF SOMEBODY HAS A GARAGE IN THE BACK OF THEIR PROPERTY.

THEY CAN CONVERT THAT WITH PERMITS TO A LIVING SPACE AND ALLOW THAT FOR IT TO BE AT A ADU. AND NO MATTER WHAT SIZE IT IS, EVEN IF IT'S OVER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE, BECAUSE THAT WAS ONCE A PERMITTED STRUCTURE.

IF IT WAS AN ILLEGAL STRUCTURE THEN IT WOULDN'T MATTER.

BUT IF WE EVER PERMITTED FOR ANY OTHER REASON, FOR A WORKSHOP, A GARAGE.

IF THERE WAS PERMITS ON AND THAT WAS A LEGAL STRUCTURE, NO MATTER WHERE IT'S PLACE IN THE PROPERTY, THE SETBACKS, THE SIZE OF IT, THE HEIGHT OF IT CANNOT BE CHANGED, THAT THEY CAN BE CONVERTED TO A ADU.

THAT'S TRUE FOR A NORMAL HOUSE OR A ADU.

PER STATE LAW THE EFFICIENCY UNIT OF 150 SQUARE FEET ALLOWS TWO PEOPLE.

AND ONCE AGAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR AND UNDER NEW CONSTRUCTION 800 SQUARE FEET UP TO 16 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH FOUR FOOT SETBACKS AND ADHERING TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. AGAIN, THAT'S THE SECOND THING THAT WE'RE ASKING THE COUNCIL TO CONFIRM, THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO SO, EVEN RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD BE CHALLENGED ON THAT INTERPRETATION.

BUT WE FEEL AND OTHER CITIES ARE DOING THE SAME THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO AND CONTINUE TO REQUIRE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR ADU'S.

THE OTHER BILLS ARE NOT AS ENTAILED IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH THEY REGULATE THESE, BUT THEY ARE THE ONES THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.

SB 13 DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, WHICH SAYS THAT IF WE FIND THERE'S SOME KIND OF VIOLATION ON A PROPERTY AND WE NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER ON AN ADU THAT UNLESS IT'S DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS.

SO IF THEY DID SOME ILLEGAL ADDITION OR SOMETHING TO IT, BUT IT WASN'T A HEALTH AND SAFETY IMMEDIATE CONCERN THAT THAT HOMEOWNER NOW HAS FIVE YEARS TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

AND WE CANNOT WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM FIVE YEARS TO FIX IT INSTEAD OF IMMEDIATELY REQUIRING COMPLIANCE. AB 670 WAS SPECIFIC.

AND THIS ONE'S, I THINK, PRETTY IMPORTANT IN THAT IT NOW PROHIBITS CCNR'S FOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS FROM PROHIBITING ADU'S WHICH MOST OF THEM DO.

AND THAT'S WHY MOST OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE IN HOA'S THAT PEOPLE WOULD NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR THEM BECAUSE THEIR OWN CCNR'S RESTRICTED IT FURTHER THAN WHAT THE CITY COULD DO. WELL, THIS LAW CHANGED THAT AND SAID, NO, YOU'RE NOT OFF THE HOOK. CCNR'S CANNOT PROHIBIT ADU'S BASICALLY REASONABLY.

AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE NO. THE STATE LAW SUPERSEDES THE CCNR'S.

SO THESE COULD GO INTO HOA'S.

EVERY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDLESS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS ARE IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE SO THAT THEY WOULD STILL BE PROHIBITED THERE. BUT WE DO HAVE SEVERAL OTHER NEWER PROJECTS JUST BEHIND ME AT THE OAK GROVE WALK, [INAUDIBLE] AND BASELINE THAT ARE NOT IN THOSE THINGS WHERE THEY COULD BE JUNIOR ADU'S OR ADU'S ADDED TO THOSE PROPERTIES. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CCNR'S SAY.

EVEN NOW, I'M LOOKING AT PUDDINGSTONE TOO THAT'S ANOTHER ONE. THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.

BECAUSE WITH CCNR'S WE TYPICALLY HAVE A TIMESPAN OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO GET SOMETHING DONE.

IF THEY GET A VIOLATION FOR SAY PAINTING.

THAT YOU KNOW YOUR TRIM NEEDS TO BE PAINTED YOU HAVE SIX MONTHS TO DO.

SO WE CAN NO LONGER PUT THOSE RULES.

YOU CANNOT STOP A RESIDENT FROM PUTTING A SEPARATE LIVING UNIT ON THEIR PROPERTY.

WOW. YEAH. SO THAT'S THE ONE I THINK HASN'T GOTTEN A LOT OF PRESS OR PEOPLE AREN'T REALLY TALKING ABOUT. BUT THE STATE SAW THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT ALMOST EVERY CCNR'S IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE GOING TO PROHIBIT YOU FROM BUILDING ANOTHER UNIT.

AND THEY REALIZED THAT WITH THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND WHAT THE ISSUES THAT THE STATE IS FACING THAT THEY HAD TO SUPERSEDE THAT TO TAKE THAT POWER AWAY FROM CCNR'S AND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS. SO THIS DECISION WAS ALSO EXEMPT FROM CEQA THERE WAS SPECIFIC LEGISLATION THAT MADE SURE THAT WE COULD PASS SUCH AN ORDINANCE THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH

[00:25:02]

AND SO WITH THAT STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS THE CITY ATTORNEY IS AS WELL.

BUT WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT URGENCY, ORDINANCE NUMBER 1089 THIS EVENING AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WILL COME BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING AFTER IT'S GONE THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC NOTICING PROCESS.

AND HOPEFULLY ONCE WE GET SOME MORE CONFIRMATION THAT OUR INTERPRETATION OF THESE RULES IS CONSISTENT OR THAT WE FIX IT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW.

ANY QUESTIONS. I HAVE OK. THEN I HAVE A QUESTION.

I SPOKE WITH BOB ABOUT THIS SEVERAL ISSUES AND WITH THE ATTORNEY.

MY PRIMARY CONCERN, OF COURSE, IS SAFETY.

FIRE BEING THE PRIMARY ISSUE HERE.

BUT ALSO THE OVERTAXING OF OUR WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS AS WELL AS POLICE CALLS TO AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO DOUBLE IN DENSITY IF PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS.

MY BIGGEST FEAR, OF COURSE, IS DEVELOPERS COMING IN AND FINDING WAYS AROUND OUR ORDINANCES IN ORDER TO DEVELOP PROPERTIES TO THE UTMOST.

I'M JUST [INAUDIBLE] SACRAMENTO'S LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL AND ABOUT HAVING A PLACE LIKE THE CITY OF LA VERNE AVAILABLE TO OUR RESIDENTS TO ENJOY.

AND NOW BECAUSE OF IMPROPER MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES WE HAVE A HOMELESS SITUATION IN LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO THAT SEEMS TO HAVE DICTATED BY WELL DICTATED TO OUR LEGISLATORS THAT ALL OF US WILL SUFFER IN ORDER TO BRING THIS PROBLEM TO AN END.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO SAY ABOUT THIS.

I HAVE A QUESTION. IN THE STAFF REPORT THERE IS A STATEMENT THAT SAYS THERE ARE FOUR CATEGORIES OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THAT MUST BE APPROVED REGARDLESS OF ANY PROVISIONS FOR AN ADU AND ONE OF THEM I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

THAT'S THE THE CENTER BULLET.

WOULD YOU GO OVER THAT PLEASE.

SO BASICALLY THINK OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

YEAH. AND THEY HAVE TYPICALLY, I'M JUST THINKING ACROSS THE STREET, CARPORTS OR GARAGES THAT ALIGN THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE.

AND THEN THEY HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN THE MIDDLE.

THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES TO CONVERT THOSE GARAGE SPACES INTO NEW LIVING UNITS, UP TO 25 PERCENT OF THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS THEY CURRENTLY HAVE.

THEY END WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR REPLACING PARKING AS WELL.

SO IN THEORY, THOSE PERIMETER GARAGE CARPORT STRUCTURES, IF YOU HAD 200 APARTMENT UNIT COMPLEX, 50 OF THOSE COULD BE CONVERTED TO NEW LIVING SPACES THAT THEY COULD RENT OUT.

AND THAT EXPANSION WOULD NOT FURTHER REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING.

CORRECT. OR REQUIRE THEM TO REPLACE THE PARK THAT THEY LOST.

CORRECT. THAT WAS THE POINT THAT YOU WERE MAKING EARLIER.

THANK YOU. AND THAT LANGUAGE IS JUST VERBATIM STATE LAW.

RIGHT. WE DIDN'T TRY TO REWRITE THAT.

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, THIS IS ON THE STAFF REPORT.

I THINK IT'S THE SECOND PAGE, BUT ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM ERIC.

AND THAT IS THAT ADU'S MUST BE ALLOWED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

HOWEVER, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THEY ALSO MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN MIXED USE ZONES.

CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A MIXED USE ZONE IN LA VERNE MIGHT BE? WELL, I KNOW, A MIXED USE PROJECT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE IS THE HUTTON PROJECT ON FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WHERE WE HAVE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ON THE SAME PROPERTY.

I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS IN THE LAW.

I'M LOOKING AT OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO SEE.

WHEN WE LISTED THE ZONES, WE INCLUDED AS THE LAST ONE, THE CPD COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL MIXED DEVELOPMENT WHERE RESIDENTIAL HAS BEEN AN ALLOWED USE.

SO SOME PROPERTIES THEY MAY MIGHT BE COMMERCIAL TODAY, BUT WERE RESIDENTIAL'S ALLOWED, USE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WE'VE ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE.

SO IF THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL BUT DOESN'T RESIDENTIAL HAVE TO BE ON THE PROPERTY TODAY FOR IT TO BE ALLOWED FOR AN ADU? YOU COULDN'T PUT AN ADU FOR EXAMPLE IN A SHOPPING CENTER.

NO. IT HAS TO BE DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL SO HUTTON IS ANOTHER PROJECT THAT'S A MULTI-FAMILY. IT'S COMMERCIALLY ZONED, BUT IT HAS RESIDENTIAL AND THEY HAVE THOSE

[00:30:03]

THEY EVEN HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES AND THOSE SPACES COULD BE CONVERTED UP TO 25 PERCENT OF THOSE UNITS COULD BE CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACES IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO.

AND UNDER THE CPD ZONE RESIDENTIAL IS ONE OF YOUR ALLOWED USES THERE.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN THE CPD ZONE, SO THAT WOULDN'T APPLY IN THAT CASE TODAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

I DO. OK. SO I'M EVEN LOOKING AT THIS MAP HERE.

NOW, THE COUNTY AREA THAT WE BASICALLY CONSIDER PART OF LA VERNE IS [INAUDIBLE] LANE.

IT'S UP THERE HIGH.

OUR FIRE SERVICES TAKE CARE OF THEM POLICE.

NOW WOULD THAT BE A PART OF THIS DECISION.

NO BECAUSE IT'S IN THE COUNTY.

SO WHATEVER THE COUNTY ADOPTS AS THEIR ORDINANCE IS WHAT WILL APPLY TO THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THOSE UNINCORPORATED AREAS THAT HAVE A LA VERNE ADDRESS BUT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

SO THIS ORDINANCE HAS NO IMPACT ON THOSE.

BUT AGAIN, THE STATE LAW BASICALLY SAYS ALL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE TO ALLOW FOR ADU'S INCLUDING THESE UNINCORPORATED AREAS.

THE COUNTY DOESN'T GET SPECIAL RULES THAT WE DON'T GET.

SO THEY I WOULD EXPECT WE'LL BE ADOPTING A VERY SIMILAR ORDINANCE TO WHAT WE ARE.

MAYBE EVEN MORE LENIENT, BUT.

BUT DEFINITELY PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN [INAUDIBLE] LANE OR ANY OTHER UNINCORPORATED AREAS WILL BE ABLE TO GET AN ADU PERMIT.

BUT THROUGH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND NOT THROUGH THE CITY.

WHEN I WAS READING OVER THIS WHAT I GOT OUT OF THIS AT FIRST THINKING, WELL, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT LIKE A GRANDMOTHER'S FLAT BEHIND THE HOUSE, SOMEBODY BUILDING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT TECHNICALLY, THEY COULD RENT THIS OUT TO ANYBODY COULDN'T THEY.

YES. IT'S OPEN.

YES. WOW. AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO LIVE THERE.

I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION ERIC.

A 4 FOOT SET BACK IN THE REAR A 4 FOOT SET BACK ON THE SIDES.

IF IT'S AN ADDITIONAL UNIT WHAT'S THE SPACE REQUIREMENT BETWEEN THE FRONT UNIT AND THE BACK UNIT? SO AGAIN, OUR CODE REQUIRES A 10 FOOT SEPARATION FOR A DETACHED STRUCTURE.

RIGHT. BUT IF YOU WANT TO BUILD AN 800 SQUARE FOOT UNIT THAT'S 16 FEET TALL AND FOUR FEET AT LEAST TO THE PROPERTY LINES, WE CANNOT REQUIRE A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT ANY LONGER.

THEY CAN BUILD IT UP TO THE HOUSE.

THEY COULD BUILD IT TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE HOUSE.

THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT'S GOING TO APPLY AT THAT POINT IS WHAT'S IN THE BUILDING CODE.

SO, AGAIN.

SO WE HAVE THIS TEN FOOT SEPARATION, WE HAVE DESIGNED KIND OF SOME DESIGN TALK IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVERYBODY HAS THE INHERENT RIGHT TO THAT EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT SIXTEEN FOOT TALL, FOUR FOOT SET BACK UNIT AND NOTHING ELSE CAN APPLY. WE HAVE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE WHERE WE REQUIRE THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THAT EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT UNIT.

THAT'S GONE. THAT'S THE BARE MINIMUM IF YOU WANT TO THINK OF IT THAT WAY.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE CLEANUP THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT.

BECAUSE THEY GIVE YOU THE EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FEET MINIMUM WHERE YOU CAN PROVIDE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

SO THEORETICALLY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE SAY YOU CAN PUT 10 FEET BEHIND THE BUILDING, SO YOU HAVE TO PUT 10 FEET BETWEEN THE BUILDING.

BUT THEN THEY HAVE THAT MANDATORY APPROVAL SECTION THAT WAS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT SAYS NO MATTER WHAT, YOU HAVE TO APPROVE EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FEET WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION. WELL, WHICH IS IT? CAN WE PUT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR CAN WE NOT? SO WE'D LIKE TO SEE CLEAN UP LEGISLATION THAT SAYS ASSUMING YOU CAN MEET THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, YOU HAVE TO.

BUT THIS IS WHAT ERIC WAS POINTING OUT, THAT AS CITY ATTORNEYS GROUP WE'RE JUST KIND OF AT A LOSS, WHAT THEY REALLY MEANT TO DO.

HOW UNUSUAL. YEAH. OK, ANYTHING.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM HERE? YES.

SO CAN YOU TAKE US INTO THE AREA IN THE ORDINANCE WHERE WE'RE CARVING OUT THE HIGH FIRE AREA AS BEING EXCLUDED FROM ADU'S AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T APPLY THAT TO THE HILL DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE. SO PAGE FIVE IS WHERE THAT LANGUAGE IS UNDER C AND IT STARTS IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE FIVE OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND THEN WE POINT OUT UNDER THAT C SECTION 6 DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE REASONS WHY AND THESE CAME FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL IN A MEMO THAT WAS ATTACHED TO YOUR REPORT AS WELL.

RIGHT. ABOUT WHAT THEIR RAISED CONCERNS.

SOME OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED IN THAT LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY.

ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS, YOU KNOW, THE CONCERN OF HAVING A LOT OF PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET NOW BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING AWAY GARAGES AND THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE TO PARK AND YOUR ADDING MORE PEOPLE. RIGHT.

BUT THE ARGUMENT IS, IF THE STREETS ARE WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW ON STREET PARKING TODAY, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF THERE'S ONE CAR OR FIVE CARS BECAUSE THE STREET WAS DESIGNED TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ON STREET PARKING.

[00:35:02]

THAT'S PREDOMINATELY WHAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF IN A NATURAL DISASTER, WHETHER IT BE AN EARTHQUAKE OR A HILLSIDE FIRE.

HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE OUT FROM THE AREA OF NORTH LA VERNE AND HAVING THE MAIN TWO ROADS THAT SERVE NORTH LA VERNE IS A VALID ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. NOW, THE HDOZ WASN'T CREATED BECAUSE OF THE FIRE CONCERNS.

IT WAS MORE FROM AN AESTHETIC STANDPOINT OF OUR HILLSIDE.

SO THAT'S WHY THE ARGUMENTS FOR THAT AREA IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

SO OF THESE, THEY DIDN'T COME OUT ON YOUR COPIES.

I APOLOGIZE. LISA HAD HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THE AREAS THAT TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR THIS DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY.

AT THE TOP OF PAGE 6. THE LANGUAGE IS BRACKETED IF YOU CAN SEE THOSE LITTLE BRACKETS.

OK. SO AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE ENOUGH FOR ME RIGHT NOW.

SO LET ME JUST GO THROUGH MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO BASICALLY SECTION C IF I IGNORE WHAT'S BRACKETED, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE OR IN THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE.

WE'RE SAYING THAT THESE SIX ARGUMENTS UNDERNEATH C ARE THE REASONS WHY THE HIGHER FIRE IS GOING TO BE EXCLUDED FROM HAVING ADU'S OR RATHER ADU'S CAN'T BE PUT INTO THAT AREA.

IF YOU ELIMINATE THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE, WHERE ALSO WOULD TAKE OUT NUMBER 4, WHICH RELATES TO THE ON STREET PARKING THAT ERIC WAS TALKING ABOUT.

AND NUMBER 6.

YES, NUMBER SIX.

AND THEN THE REFERENCE IN NUMBER FIVE TO HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE.

THESE WEREN'T JUST THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE NONPROFIT WHEN I HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH HCD AND HE SAID, WELL, IF YOU'RE SEWERS ARE AT CAPACITY, DOES THAT MEAN YOU DON'T APPROVE ANY MORE ADDITIONS IN THOSE ZONES? ARE YOU, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A MORATORIUM ON ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR WHAT HAPPENS IF A TEENAGER GETS A CAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SO HCD WAS ALSO ON BOARD, SO TO SAY WITH THESE SAME TYPES OF ARGUMENTS THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. BUT THE MATERIALS HAVING ADDITIONAL FLAMMABLE MATERIALS DOES AND NEEDING TO GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF THERE, THE HIGH FIRE ZONE.

WE DO FEEL IS DEFENSIBLE.

RIGHT. SO IF TODAY WE'RE DECIDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY THE HIGH FIRE AREA IS CLEARLY OFF LIMITS TO ADU'S.

AND WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT, WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT ONLY THAT WE WOULDN'T SEE SECTION 4 OR SECTION 6 IN THE ORDINANCE.

AND THE REFERENCES IN THE OPENING PARAGRAPH OF C AND 5 TO THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE WOULD ALSO BE DELETED.

BECAUSE SECTION 4 IS ABOUT GARAGES BEING CONVERTED WITHOUT REPLACEMENTS CAUSE LIMITED PARKING AND CONGESTION THERE, AND THAT ADDITIONAL CONGESTION COULD IMPACT THE ABILITY FOR EGRESS AND INGRESS IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.

IF WE FEEL THAT STRONG AND IF WE WOULD WANT TO LEAVE THAT IN.

CORRECT. AND SECTION 5 WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR WASTEWATER SYSTEM.

IF WE DO THINK WE'RE AT OR NEAR CAPACITY ON WASTE WATER AND MORE IN AN UNCONTROLLABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL ADU'S THEN THAT AREA COULD RUIN OUR SYSTEM.

I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT PERCEPTIONS RIGHT NOW.

IF WE THINK THAT'S A SEVERE THREAT THEN WE WOULD WANT TO INCLUDE SECTION SIX AND KEEP IT FOR BOTH HFA AND HIGH THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY. JUST A REAL QUICK NOTE ON THAT.

I KNOW THAT PUBLIC WORKS I THINK THE COUNCIL MIGHT BE AWARE, IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON UPDATING THEIR MASTER PLAN FOR THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.

AND SO THAT'LL TELL THEM WHAT YOU KNOW, IF IT'S DESIGNED CAPACITY FOR THAT, BECAUSE THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE A SOLID ANSWER TODAY ON WHETHER THEY CAN CLEARLY SAY WE SHOULDN'T BE APPROVING NEW ADDITIONS IN THIS PORT BECAUSE OF THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM DESIGNS.

AND ALSO THE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT THE OLD TOWN LA VERNE SPECIFIC PLAN FELT WAS CALLED FOR, FOR AROUND THE GOAL LINE STATION.

SO THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF UPDATING THAT.

SO THAT MASTERPLAN WILL TELL US WHAT OUR CAPACITIES ARE ACROSS THE CITY FOR BOTH WATER AND SEWER. I DON'T RECALL WHEN THAT'S EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED, BUT I THINK IN THE NEXT YEAR.

NO, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT STUDY, I ASSUME.

AND THE SUGGESTION OF THESE ADS CAME OUT OF THE CONVERSATION WE HAD WITH THE STATE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BOLSTER OUR ARGUMENT OR RATIONALE SHOULD WE BE CHALLENGED TO EXPLAIN WHY

[00:40:05]

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER AREAS WHERE THERE ARE NUANCES BASED ON OR CHANGES BASED ON WHETHER WE'RE HIGH FIRE ONLY OR INCLUDING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT? I DON'T THINK THAT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING.

I JUST SAW MOSTLY CHANGES TO THE PARAMETERS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ENFORCE.

I'M STILL A BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE FRONT SET BACK AND WHETHER WE CAN DEFEND THAT.

SO IN THE CLEANUP DOWN THE ROAD, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN GET SOME CLARITY AROUND THAT.

IN ADDITION TO THE DWELLING SPACES.

RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, OUR LINE OF THINKING IS IF ON THIS EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT UNIT WHEN THEY SAY 4 FOOT TO SIDE AND REAR THEY WOULD HAVE SAID 4FT FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY OR SOME OTHER NUMBER IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO ALLOW FOR THE EXISTING SETBACKS TO APPLY SO.

WELL, EXCEPT THE 10 FOOT SETBACK THAT WE HAVE FOR SPACING BETWEEN BUILDINGS HAS BEEN RUN OVER, RIGHT? IT COULD, YES. I MEAN, THE 10 FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS IS HOW WE DEFINE DETACHED OR ATTACHED FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WHICH, YOU KNOW, SO THE PRIMARY HOUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A TWENTY FIVE FOOT REAR YARD.

BUT WE ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE BUILT CLOSER PROVIDED THEY GET THAT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT.

BUT EVEN TODAY, SOMEBODY COULD PUT AN ATTACHED ADU AT THE BACK OF A HOUSE AND BUILD TWO STORIES AND THERE ISN'T A BUILDING.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO KEEP IT 10 FEET SEPARATED.

THANK YOU.

AND PROPERTY TO PROPERTY IT'S REDUCED NOW.

SO PREVIOUSLY, THOUGH, OUR CODE, IF IT WAS DETACHED, DID ALLOWS THESE STRUCTURES TO BE BUILT. THIS IS THE OTHER PART I SHOULD'VE MENTIONED, UP TO THREE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINES PREVIOUSLY AND WE HAD A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 15 FEET FOR THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

BECAUSE IT'S SO CLOSE TO WHAT THE STATE LAW IS FOR ADU'S AND OUR CONCERN THAT SOMEBODY BUILDS A GARAGE TODAY THAT THAT MIGHT GET CONVERTED.

WE ARE ACTUALLY CHANGING OUR ORDINANCE THAT ALL ACCESSORY USES NOW HAVE A 4 FOOT SIDE AND REAR SET BACK AND CAN BE UP TO 16 FEET.

SO THAT WAY THERE, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE A SEPARATE STANDARDS.

SO THIS ORDINANCE ALSO CHANGES THAT PORTION OF OUR CODE THAT HAS THOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT ALLOW THEM TO BUILD CLOSER TO THE REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES WHEN THEY ARE DETACHED.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. OK.

THANK YOU ERIC. IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO BRING THEIR COMMENTS FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.

THERE IS BLUE CARDS THERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BEFORE, BUT IF YOU WOULD FILL OUT A BLUE CARD OR SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO LEAVING TODAY, WE'D APPRECIATE IT.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR COUNCIL STAFF AND GUESTS.

MY NAME IS WALLY EMERY.

I LIVE HERE IN LA VERNE FOR A FEW YEARS NOW.

SOUTH PASADENA AND SAN MARINO FACED A MANDATE.

WE'LL CALL IT FROM SACRAMENTO.

NOT DISSIMILAR FROM WHAT WE'RE FACING HERE TODAY.

IT'S JUST A SHAME THAT SACRAMENTO FORCES, SMALL CITIES LIKE THE ONES THAT WE COME TO AND WANT TO LIVE HERE IN PEACE AND QUIET TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP AN EYE ON PARKING AND ONE OF THE AREAS OF SOUTH PASADENA THAT WANTED TO BUILD GRANNY FLATS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM BACK THEN THE FIRE TRUCK WITH ONE VEHICLE PARKED ON THE EDGE OF THE ROAD COULDN'T ACCESS A BUILDING THAT WAS ON FIRE.

IT NECESSITATED TO SOUTH PASADENA TO GO OUT AND FIND A SMALLER FIRE TRUCK TO NECESSITATE THOSE DWELLINGS THAT NEEDED AND WERE ENTITLED TO FIRE PROTECTION.

SO PARKING, PARKING AND PARKING, IF THAT'S A TOOL THAT WE CAN USE.

LET'S TRY TO USE IT.

THANK YOU. THANKS, WALLY.

ANYBODY ELSE? HI.

SO. NAME.

ROBYN WALKER, THANK YOU, ROBYN.

IF THEY'RE ARE ABLE TO BUILD EXTRA UNITS AND WE DON'T HAVE OVERNIGHT PARKING, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD PARKING.

WHERE DO THEY PARK THEIR CARS? ROBYN JUST. OK.

THAT'S A QUESTION.

YEP. JUST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING, LIKE IF I GUESS I'M LIKE A LITTLE CONCERNED BECAUSE HONESTLY, I HAVE TWO ELDERLY PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF ME, LIKE IT'S JUST A MATTER

[00:45:04]

OF COURSE, I'M THINKING ALL THOSE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE SOLD.

EVENTUALLY SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BUY THOSE.

WHAT IS SOMEBODY GOING TO PUT THERE AND I DON'T BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THE MAP.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE MY HOUSE FALLS.

SO, YEAH, THAT'S MY QUESTION IS WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE OUR PARKING ORDINANCE.

YOU'RE IN THAT ZONE.

WHICH ONE THE HIGH EXTREME ONE.

YES. I AM. OK.

SO HAVING SAID THAT, THEY CAN'T FORCE US TO CHANGE OUR PARKING ORDINANCES.

RIGHT. SO THEN WE CAN JUST SAY WHO'S GONNA WANT TO COME BUILD SOMETHING IF THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO PARK? RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S MY QUESTION.

AND THEN WHAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION? I JUST LOST IT. YEAH, THAT WAS THE OVERNIGHT PARKING.

AND THEN I WOULD JUST BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SO MANY BUGS THEY HAVE TO WORK OUT.

I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT THERE.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE TO NOT CHANGE SO MUCH SO FAST, ONLY BECAUSE ONCE YOU DO IT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GO BACK.

AND AREN'T THEY GOING TO ON LIKE AT LEAST THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY AREA, SOME ARE EXTREME.

SOME AREN'T EXTREME.

BUT THEN IF YOU LAX THAT AREA AND CHANGE IT, THEN MAYBE THEY'RE GONNA.

HOW DO I EXPLAIN THIS? LIKE, WHAT DID WE SAY? RANCHO LA VERNE ISN'T COVERED IN THE EXTREME.

IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.

NOT ANYMORE.

RIGHT. BUT I GUESS WHO DECIDES THAT? THAT IT'S EXTREME FIRE DANGER AREA.

LET'S TURN THAT OVER TO LISA.

ERIC. CAL FIRE THEY DECIDE THAT.

I DON'T KNOW. I FEEL LIKE YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT WHOLE AREA AGAIN WITH ONLY HAVING TWO ROADS GOING UP THERE.

IT SEEMS LIKE, WELL, I GUESS YOU HAVE THE IN-BETWEEN IN THERE.

BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT AREA SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AGAIN, THAT MORE BUILDING HAS BEEN DONE. AND THAT WOULD BE KIND OF DANGEROUS.

AND I DON'T KNOW. I JUST SAY THIS SCARES ME.

BUT JUST TO BE CAUTIOUS IN GOING RIGHT ALONG.

I GUESS YOU HAVE TO GO LIKE RIGHT ALONG THE SIDE OF WHAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAYS RIGHT NOW. YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER.

IF WE DON'T MAKE THESE CHANGES TO HAVE A COMPLIANT ORDINANCE, THEN WE CAN'T IMPOSE ANY STANDARDS. THEN ALL WE ARE LIMITED TO IS THE VERY BASICS OF WHAT'S IN STATE LAW, WHICH DOESN'T EVEN SAY THAT YOUR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHOULD TRY AND MATCH THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL STYLE PAINT COLOR MATERIALS OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

SO IF YOU GOOGLE ADU'S AND YOU GET LIKE ALL SORTS OF PICTURES, A LOT OF THEM ARE VERY MODERN DROP DOWN THE UNIT THAT REALLY DON'T FIT IN WITH A LOT OF WHAT LA VERNE IS.

RIGHT. AND YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FORBID THOSE BECAUSE STATE LAW WOULD CONTROL.

SO YOU LOSE ABSOLUTELY ALL ABILITY TO REGULATE OUTSIDE OF THE VERY LIMITED THINGS IF YOU DON'T GO AHEAD NOW.

YOU CAN GO BACK AND AMEND LATER.

AND HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE CLEAN UP BILLS THAT LOOSEN THE REGULATIONS, THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND WE CAN CHANGE THE REGULATIONS TO BE LOOSER ON WHATEVER STATE LAW SAYS.

UNFORTUNATELY, HCD WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE GUIDELINES IN PLACE OVER ABOUT A MONTH AGO, BUT THEY'VE BEEN SO BUSY WORKING WITH ALL THE CITIES, TRYING TO ANSWER OUR IMMEDIATE PRESSING QUESTIONS AND DOING A PREREVIEW THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SIT DOWN AND COME UP WITH THE GUIDELINE BOOKLET.

NOT THAT THAT'S 100 PERCENT CONTROLLING.

THERE WERE A LOT OF ERRORS IN THE LAST ONE.

YEAH. SO I GUESS MAYBE PARKING POLICE, FIRE, LIKE ALL THE RESOURCES, THINGS LIKE THAT IS WHAT WE CAN TRY TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO, I DON'T KNOW, PREVENT WHAT WE CAN.

WE'RE WITH YOU. YEAH.

YOU'RE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR.

SO THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR MY OWN CLARIFICATION.

STATE YOUR NAME. ERIC FORD.

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE, BUT I THINK PROBABLY OTHER PEOPLE DON'T.

RIGHT? ERIC FORD.

AND NICE TO SEE YOU ALL TODAY.

JUST FOR MY OWN CLARIFICATION, IN THE HIGH RISK HIGH FIRE ZONES, ARE GARAGE CONVERSIONS ALLOWED THERE? BECAUSE THAT'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE JUNIOR UNITS AND THE GRANNY FLATS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE OFF LIMITS. BUT WHAT ABOUT GARAGE CONVERSION? NO, BECAUSE THAT WOULD STILL BE CREATING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SO THE IDEA IS TO

[00:50:02]

I APPRECIATE THAT.

ONE EXCEPTION TO THAT, AS HOME OWNERS HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.

THERE IS A THREE CAR GARAGE.

YOU CAN CONVERT ONE OF THOSE SPACES INTO JUST A ROOM OR OFFICE FOR THE PRIMARY HOUSE.

NOT A NEW UNIT, BUT A CONVERSION.

YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN A TWO CAR GARAGE.

SO WE DO A LOT OF GARAGE BUT NOT FOR AN ACCESSORY UNIT JUST FOR AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE CORRECT. [LAUGHTER] BUT AND THAT'S ADDITIONAL HOUSE SPACE, BUT NOT AS A UNIT AND ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.

OK. VERY GOOD I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

THANKS, ERIC.

COME ON. COME ON UP HERE.

WALLY HERE AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW WHY I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THIS EARLIER, BUT OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE, CHRIS HOLDEN, DO WE KNOW HOW HE VOTED ON THIS ISSUE, IF HE VOTED AGAINST THE ISSUE? PERHAPS YOU CAN GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW HE VOTED ON IT, BUT I'M GOING TO GO HOME AND FIND OUT.

THANK YOU. MY GUESS IS HE APPROVED IT.

ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? OK, WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ROBIN, WE'LL START WITH YOU.

NO, MY CONCERN IS WHAT CHARLIE BROUGHT UP EARLIER.

IS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT GOING OUT TO THE FUTURE, WHAT IS LA VERNE GOING TO LOOK LIKE? AND THAT'S MY BIG CONCERN ALSO, IS YOU KNOW, 7 TO 10 YEARS, 15 YEARS.

WHAT IS LA VERNE GOING TO LOOK LIKE? AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.

I KNOW WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TODAY, BUT THESE ARE STILL THOUGHTS GOING THROUGH MY HEAD.

AND I ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO BE THINKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES AS IT COMES BACK TO US AND GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING.

THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO PASS TONIGHT WILL GIVE US A BREAK OF ABOUT 45 DAYS BEFORE WE HAVE TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING IN CONCRETE.

NO, THIS IS NOT A MORATORIUM ORDINANCE WHERE YOU HAVE TO COME BACK WITHIN A SET PERIOD OF TIME. THIS IS AN URGENCY ORDINANCE.

SO IT STAYS IN EFFECT.

BUT WE RECOMMEND THAT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CHALLENGE, YOU EVENTUALLY GO THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCEDURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC TIMELINE.

IS THERE A PUBLIC HEARING.

WHEN IT GOES BACK THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCEDURES, THERE WOULD BE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL AND NOTICE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL AS WELL.

AS ERIC STATED IN ORDER TO HAVE SOMETHING IN EFFECT IN TWO DAYS? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND STAFF'S ALREADY BEEN RECEIVING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONVERSIONS UNDER THE NEW LAW. THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE CITY WAS AS PROTECTED AS POSSIBLE.

KEEPING IN MIND, WE MAY ALSO WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THOSE GUIDELINES DO COME OUT TO GIVE US SOME CLEAR DIRECTION THAT MAY GIVE US SOME MORE TEETH THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT IN ONCE WE GET THEM FROM THE STATE.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO RUSH THROUGH THAT PROCESS, BUT WE AT LEAST ARE PROTECTED TO THIS EXTENT AT THIS POINT. AND THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN DOING THAT. THIS IS THE ONLY STEP THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO DO TO BE PROTECTED COME JANUARY 1.

THANK YOU. AFTER HEARING THE CONVERSATION AND STAFF'S REPORT AND COUNCIL I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT STEP THAT WE TAKE BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT WIDE OPEN JUST TO HAVE STATE LAW RULE WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

GRANTED, WE DON'T ALWAYS GET TO DO EVERYTHING WE WANT TO DO, BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT ROLLS WHEREVER YOU LIVE. SO I GUESS TO COME AT IT FROM THE MOST CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE THAT I CAN THINK OF I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO INCLUDE THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE URGENT ORDINANCE AND 1089 SO THAT WE INCLUDE IN THE SECTIONS C PAGE 5, WE INCLUDE THE BRACKETED OR IN THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE.

WE ALSO THEN INCLUDE SECTION C 4 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SECTION C 5, WE INCLUDE AND HILLSIDE

[00:55:08]

THAT WOULD BE MY PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTING URGENCY ORDINANCE 1089.

WOULD YOU HOLD THAT BECAUSE THAT CAN BE A MOTION IN JUST A MINUTE.

I JUST I THINK STAFF WE NEED CLARIFICATION AS WELL AS TO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, WHICH WAS THE OTHER AREA WE WERE SEEKING DIRECTION ON IT.

OH INCLUDE IT BY ALL MEANS.

ABSOLUTELY.

WELL, WHATEVER THE SETBACK IS FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL AREA.

AND IN MOST CASES, IT'S 25 FEET.

THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING IF THERE WAS A OTHER SECTION, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT WAS ENTER IT YES. THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THERE.

MY AMENDED MOTION.

I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY.

YES. BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOU'RE THE MAYOR.

WELL, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

OK. AND I APPRECIATE THAT MOTION AND THE CLARIFICATION OF IT.

MY HOPE IS THAT THERE'S SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT I THINK LA VERNE IS, AS WE ALL KNOW, IT'S A COMMUNITY THAT WE ALL WANT TO BE IN.

IT'S A WONDERFUL COMMUNITY.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME ARE THROUGH THE ROOF.

SO HOW THAT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT IN SOMEBODY BUILDING AN ADDITIONAL UNIT AND THE RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT BECAUSE ADU'S ARE PROBABLY LOOKING AT AS A RENTAL PROPERTY SOMEWHERE. SO WHAT'S THE RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT ON THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK MAY WORK IN LA VERNE'S FAVOR FOR MAYBE NOT JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.

SO MY SENSE IS THAT WITH THIS PASSING AND THE CLARIFICATION COMING BACK AND WHAT WE END UP WITH, HOPEFULLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE A BIG CHANGE IN THE WAY LA VERNE SITS TODAY.

SO BUT I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF SOME OF THIS.

THE SETBACKS, THE TWO FEET OR OR CLOSER FROM ONE UNIT TO ANOTHER BOTHERS ME A LOT.

IT JUST MEANS THAT THE QUALITY DIMINISHES.

AND I KNOW WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR IT, BUT I'M NOT NECESSARILY IN FAVOR OF IT.

SO. YOUR MOTION.

WE NEED A SECOND. SECOND. VOTE PLEASE.

ORDINANCE 1089 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE, AMENDING THE ZONING PROVISION FOR THE LA VERNE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.

OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 5 PUBLIC HEARING.

NO. PUBLIC COMMENT NOT THE PUBLIC HEARING [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC COMMENT WITH REGARDS TO ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA.

NOW IS THE TIME SET ASIDE TO DO THAT AGAIN IF YOU SPEAK, IF YOU CAN PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO OR AFTER AND GIVE IT TO NATALIE, OUR ACTING CITY CLERK.

THANK YOU. NATALIE IS A NEW EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE.

SHE WORKS IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

THANK YOU, ERIC, FOR ASKING NATALIE TO COME IN TONIGHT.

WELL, THANK YOU IT'S A WONDER WHY HE'S NOT RUNNING AWAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

OKAY. ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA.

OK. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 6 AND THAT IS OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING WILL BE THE DAY AFTER THE HOLIDAY. WE HAVE A HOLIDAY ON I THINK IT'S MARTIN LUTHER KING ON THE MONDAY OF OUR SCHEDULED MEETING, SO WE WILL BE MEETING ON THE 21ST, WHICH IS A TUESDAY AT 6:30.

OUR FIRST MONDAY, JANUARY 6TH HAS BEEN CANCELED DUE TO LACK OF BUSINESS.

[01:00:01]

AND HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYBODY.

THANKS FOR COMING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.