h. Staff recommends approval and passage of the following Resolutions: Resolution 20-70 - Exchange of Proposition A Funds with the City of Hawaiian Gardens

[h. Staff recommends approval and passage of the following Resolutions: Resolution 20-70 - Exchange of Proposition A Funds with the City of Hawaiian Gardens]

I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THE REASON I PULLED THIS IS I DID HAVE I THINK YOU ALL RECEIVED IT FROM A RESIDENT, BRIAN BENNETT.

AND I JUST I THINK FROM THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBER IS JUST TO PULL IT.

JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE DO THIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FULLY AWARE OF WHY WE EXCHANGE FUNDS, BECAUSE AND I THOUGHT AND MR. RUSSI, YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT FOR US AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO A PROOF.

WE WANT TO PROVE EACH ITEM SEPARATELY OR WE WOULD DO IT AS A GROUP AFTER DISCUSSION.

I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THEM SEPARATELY.

OK, THANK YOU, MR. RUSSIE. SO THE FUND TO EXCHANGE THESE ARE DOLLARS THAT WE GET TO PARTS OF RESTRICTED DOLLARS RELATIVE TO MASS TRANSIT AND PROP C.

PROP C IS TYPICALLY FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS CAN BE USED FOR MASS TRANSIT PROGRAMS. PROP A IS STRICTLY FOR PROGRAMS AND HAS THE FLEXIBILITY TO ALSO BE ABLE TO BE EXCHANGED WITH OTHER AGENCIES.

IF YOU HAVE THE NEED FOR THAT, WE HAVE PROGRAMS THAT WE PUT THE DOLLARS TO USE IN, SUCH AS OUR PBTA OR GET ABOUT PROGRAM.

WE ALSO SUBSIDIZE SOME OF OUR BUS PASSES AS WELL AS METRO PASSES ARE PART OF OUR SUBSIDIES AS WELL, BUT WE ROUGHLY GET ABOUT FIVE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN PROP A. AND WE ALSO HAVE OTHER NEEDS OUTSIDE OF MASS TRANSIT.

SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXCHANGE THESE DOLLARS WITH ANOTHER AGENCY.

AND WE WE DO BUDGET FOR A PORTION OF THESE DOLLARS TO BE EXCHANGED TO HAVE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS. AND IN THIS CASE WE FOUND A HAWAIIAN GARDENS THAT PROBABLY HAS A LARGER PROJECT OR A DEFICIT IN THEIR MASS TRANSIT ACTIVITIES THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO GIVE US SEVENTY FIVE CENTS ON THE DOLLAR THAT WE CAN THEN USE FOR GENERAL FUND.

AND THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS BUDGETED.

WE GIVE IT AN ESTIMATE WHEN WE DO THE BUDGET BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE RECIPIENT IS GOING TO BE. WE PUT IT OUT TO INTERESTED PARTIES AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE AT THIS POINT.

THIS IS PRETTY CLOSE. I THINK WE HAD 70 CENTS, MAYBE SEVENTY TWO.

SO THIS MAY BE A LITTLE BETTER, BUT NOTHING REALLY SIGNIFICANT.

VERY GOOD. ANY EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS FOR MR. RUSSI ON THIS PROP A FUND TRANSFER? NO. PART OF ONE OF MY ONE OF MY ASSIGNMENTS IS I'M PART OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT.

[00:05:02]

WE DID SPEAK A LOT ABOUT THIS DURING OUR POLITICAL TRANSIT GOVERNING BOARD MEETING AS WELL. AND WHERE WHERE IT'S RESTRICTED MONEY, IT DOES COST A LOT TO.

YOU LOSE A QUARTER OF EVERY DOLLAR, BUT WHERE WE CAN USE IT MORE OF OUR GENERAL FUNDS TO GO TO TO WIDER SCALE THINGS FOR US.

AND THAT WAS MY BIG CONCERN, AND I THINK THE RESIDENTS WERE THE UNDERSTANDING WHY AND IF WE CANNOT USE IT FOR IT, IT'S DESIGNATED FOR YOU SELL AT A DISCOUNT, BUT YOU STILL GET A CHUNK OF MONEY TO PUT IN LIKE, SAY, YOUR GENERAL FUND.

SO THAT WAS ALL. I JUST WANTED EVERYBODY TO GET AN IDEA ON WHAT THAT WAS.

AND MR. RUSSI. WELL, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

IT'S ALSO NECESSARY FOR US TO WE'VE GOT A BIGGER DEFICIT, RIGHT.

WE NEED THESE DOLLARS TO PROVIDE THE OTHER GENERAL FUND TO OPERATE OPERATIONS.

WE DO PUT THE DOLLARS TO USE AS WE CAN.

WE ARE NOT EXPANDING OUR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS. WE ARE MAKING THESE DOLLARS USED FOR A MUCH BIGGER ARRAY OF PROGRAMS THAT WE DO.

OK, THANK YOU.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR MR. RUSSI ON THIS ITEM? I WAS GOING TO GIVE IT OUR BEST, OK? AND I ASK FOR A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM.

I'LL MOVE THAT. WE APPROVED RESOLUTION 2070 EXCHANGE OF PROP A FUNDS WITH THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS. THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS. JUST A SECOND, MR. CROSBY. SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM G, I ASKED IF WE HAD MUCH DISCUSSION ON THIS LAST TIME, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT

[g. Change of Classification]

PERFECTLY CLEAR TO J.R.

THAT I THINK JR MAKE AN EXCELLENT ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

AND I THINK MR. RUSSI DOES NEED HIM AND WISH THE BAKING.

MR. KEEZEY IS GOING TO CAUSE AN EXTREME VACUUM AFTER DECEMBER.

AND I THINK HE NEEDS THE SKILL SET THAT J.R.

HAS TO ASSIST HIM ON OPERATIONS.

MY ONLY CONCERN, AS I STATED AT THE TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO DOWN THE ROAD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN H.R.

MANAGER OR AN H.R.

DIRECTOR TO TAKE OVER THE COMPLETE ROLE OF THAT, AS I FEEL THAT THAT'S NECESSARY TO REMOVE THAT FROM SO CLOSE TO THE CITY MANAGER IS JUST TO REMOVE THAT AND JUST MAKE THAT POSITION. WE CAN HAVE MUCH DISCUSSION ON THAT LATER.

AND THAT'S THE REASON. BUT AS FAR AS JOBS QUALIFICATIONS, I THINK THIS IS EXCELLENT FOR HIM. I THINK IT'S A GREAT STEPPING STONE FOR HIM AND HE CAN LEARN AND ALSO SAYS MR. RUSSI. SO I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT SO.

ON THAT AND ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, SURE, I'LL GO AND ADD THAT I CONCUR THAT THAT HAS CAPABILITIES.

HIS TALENT AND HIS INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE ARE VERY VALUABLE AND WORTH THIS CONSIDERATION. OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS.

YES, I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING TO IS YEAH, I AGREE.

J.R. HAS BEEN WITH US A LONG TIME.

HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT HE BRINGS FORTH AND ALSO THE WAY HE EXPRESSES HIMSELF AND TALKS WITH ONE ANOTHER, HE'S GOT THAT GREAT QUALITY.

AND I THINK HE WILL BE EXCELLENT IN THIS POSITION.

AND I BELIEVE VERY MUCH IN PROMOTING FROM WITHIN.

I THINK THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE THAT DESERVES IT.

AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD TO IT, THOUGH, H.R., I THINK OUR CITY IS TOO SMALL TO HAVE ITS OWN H.R. DEPARTMENT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT LATER ON, IF YOU WANT TO BRING THAT FOR DISCUSSION.

BUT I JUST FEEL THAT HE CAN HANDLE THIS AT THIS TIME, BUT IT COULD BE DISCUSSED LATER ON.

BUT I AM VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THIS FOR J.R..

THANK YOU AND YOUR COMMENTS.

I WOULD CALL FOR A MOTION.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION, COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER, SECOND COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY.

I'M SORRY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, I THINK ALMOST NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU. NOW WE HAVE TO RECESS TO PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, SORRY, I HAVE TO YOU KNOW, I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT I FEEL LIKE BEANY AND CECIL WITH THIS LITTLE HELICOPTER ABOVE MY HEAD. EVERYBODY SEE THAT.

YES, I'VE BEEN THINKING THE SAME THING.

YOU KNOW, I'M HERE. I KNOW YOU WOULD, MR. DAVIS. I KNEW YOU WOULD.

IT'S GIVEN US LEVITY.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING.

I MEAN, LET ME TURN THIS OFF REAL QUICK AND I'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

AS YOU DO THAT, MR. HEPBURN AND I JUST WE JUST GOT TO COME ON.

I FIRST WANT TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS, J.R., FROM THE COUNCIL.

AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. BUT WE KNOW RECESS AND GO INTO THE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY.

[6. PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY]

J.R., YOU WANT TO TAKE IT OVER AND MR.

[00:10:02]

DAVIS IS ON THE LINE ALSO.

YES. GOOD EVENING.

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ANNUALLY, THE LAVERNE'S PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY REVIEWS AND APPROVES THE OPERATING BUDGETS FOR THE CITY ON MOBILE HOME PARKS.

THEIR RESPECTIVE BUDGETS WERE PUT TOGETHER BY PARK OPERATOR HAVEN MANAGEMENT WITH INPUT FROM CITY STAFF AND DO REFLECT AND DO NOT REFLECT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS YEARS. MOBILE HOME PARK LIAISON'S MAYOR HEPBURN, AS WELL AS COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS HAVE ALSO REVIEWED THE BUDGETS PREVIOUSLY.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE BUDGETS FOR BOTH PARKS OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY TYPE OF SUBSIDY FROM THE CITY'S BUDGET FOR ALL OF OUR MOBILE REVENUES ARE EXPECTED TO BE RELATIVELY FLAT, WITH AN ESTIMATED ONE PERCENT INCREASE IN SPACE.

RENT INCLUDED WITH THIS YEAR'S BUDGET IS FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR PARK OWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS RELATED TO ELECTRICAL SYSTEM REPAIRS.

ORIGINALLY, HAVEN MANAGEMENT PROPOSED TO INSTALL INDIVIDUAL WATER METERS IN THE PARK.

HOWEVER, THERE IS A CONCERN FROM THE HOMEOWNERS COMMITTEE THAT THERE WASN'T THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH RESIDENTS AND INFORM THEM AND EDUCATE THEM ON THIS CHANGE DUE TO COVID-19.

THEY BASICALLY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THEIR MONTHLY MEETING SINCE MARCH.

SO THERE'S A CONCERN FROM THE HOMEOWNERS COUNCIL THAT TAKING THIS ACTION NOW WOULD CAUSE THE RESIDENTS TO BE ALARMED THAT THEY WERE HAVING THIS CHANGE WITHOUT REALLY BEING ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS.

SO THEY'RE SUPPORTING THE BUDGET AS SUBMITTED WITHOUT THOSE WATER METERS INCLUDED IN THIS YEAR'S EXPENDITURES. FOR VALLEY RANCHO EXPENDITURES ARE SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS YEARS.

THIS YEAR WILL CONTINUE TO CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON PROVIDING CITY OWNED RENTAL UNITS WITH OVER FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS.

THE PROPOSED BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR REFURBISHING THE MANAGER'S UNIT AND NEEDED OFFICE UPGRADES.

THERE WAS A QUESTION RECEIVED FROM A RESIDENT INQUIRING IF THE BUDGET COULD CHANGE RELATED TO COVID-19 NOT PURSUING THE WATER METERS, THE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ARE NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE IMPACTED BY COVID-19.

THE BUDGETS DO ANTICIPATE SPACE RENT INCREASES AS ALLOWED FOR UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CODE, IT HAS BEEN BEEN DETERMINED THAT THESE INCREASES ARE NECESSARY TO HELP MAINTAIN BOTH OF THE PARKS AND ARE INCLUDED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT THIS TIME THAT RECOMMENDS THE LEVEL PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ADOPT RESOLUTIONS GPFA 57 AND 58, THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE LA VERNE MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB AND VALLEY RANCHO MOBILE HOME PARK.

AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR JR.

DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOVE THE MINUTES FIRST? YEAH, I JUST I WAS JUST GOING TO JUMP IN AND SUGGEST YOU DO THAT.

YEAH, SEVERAL OF YOU WEREN'T THERE AND 2019.

BUT YOU CAN STILL VOTE.

OK, SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? AND I'D BE REMISS I'D BE REMISS TO NOT POINT OUT I KNOW YOU MENTIONED JOHN WAS ON THE CALL. HE'S AN EXCELLENT RESOURCE, AN EXCELLENT PARTNER FOR THE CITY.

AND IT'S VERY HELPFUL NOT ONLY DEALING WITH ISSUES IN OUR OWN PARKS, BUT THE PARKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS. I JUST HAD ONE COMMENT.

I DID GET CONTACTED AND MR. DAVIS AND I AND J.R.

AND I'LL BRING MR. DAVIS IN HERE.

ALSO THE WI-FI OVER AT VALLEY RANCHO.

THERE'S A COMPLAINT ABOUT THAT.

MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS IT. I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THAT.

AND I MYSELF AND I THINK YOU ARE AN EMAIL ALSO THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WASHING MACHINES BEING TOO SMALL AND THE WATER PRESSURE AND BEING ON THE WATER.

SO MAYBE YOU AND I AND MR. DAVIS, IF YOU'D LIKE, WE CAN GO OVER AND TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON OVER THERE AT SOME TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO SEE WHAT WHAT THE ISSUE IS AND WHAT I MEAN, ANY ISSUE.

I'D BE GLAD TO. GREAT, GREAT ON THAT.

WE NEED A MOTION TO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS AND I WAS APPROVING THE MINUTES, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FROM AUGUST 2019.

I NEED A MOTION. I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST NINETEEN TWENTY NINETEEN. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

I HAVE A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND THAT COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. IT CARRIES.

WE WANT TO GO BACK NOW TO THE TO FIFTY SEVEN AND FIFTY EIGHT BUDGETS.

DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THOSE TO APPROVE.

SO MOVED.

COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS. I HAVE A QUESTION, DO WE HAVE TO DO EACH ONE SEPARATELY? BECAUSE THERE ARE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT BUDGETS OR CAN WE DO THEM BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? YOU CAN DO IT BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

THE SAME TIME. I BECAUSE I'LL SECOND IT.

OK, COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY, SECOND AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES WE WILL.

GO OUT OF OUR PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND COME BACK TO OUR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, WE WILL ADJOURN AND COME BACK TO OUR COUNCIL MEETING AND GO BACK TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[7. a. Continued Appeal Hearing - 1820 Walnut Street - Illegal Construction]

[00:15:02]

I THINK JUST GIVE US A MINUTE WHILE WE GET THE STORY AND COME BACK TO OUR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING WILL ADJOURN AND COME BACK TO OUR COUNCIL MEETING.

[INAUDIBLE].

RIGHT, WE'RE WAITING FOR.

WE'RE WAITING ON ERIC.

I'M HERE. OH, SORRY.

I SEE YOU NOW, ALL RIGHT, AND THEN I THINK THERE'S THIS EVERYBODY THAT SHOULD BE IN THIS AREA THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF.

MR. LANDI. I THINK IS SUPPOSED TO STILL BE ON.

[INAUDIBLE].

OK. LET'S GO AHEAD.

GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER MEMBERS, BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS AN APPEAL OF A STOPWORK NOTICE AND A NOTICE OF SUBSTANDARD THAT WAS ISSUED BY OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT AT 18 20 WALNUT STREET WITH ME THIS EVENING AS RAYMOND [INAUDIBLE] FROM RKA, WHO KIND OF OVERSEES OUR BUILDING OPERATIONS.

AND SO HE WAS HERE FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF THE COUNCIL.

BUT OTHERWISE, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED 1821 WAS APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL YARD IN NINETEEN SEVENTY FIVE BY THE CITY REMAINED OF SUCH A USE AS RECENTLY AS THIS LAST SUMMER. IN 2005, THE CITY ACTUALLY ISSUED A LETTER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THAT TIME INDICATING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED LEGAL, NOT PERFORMING AS THE ZONING OF THAT PROPERTY HAD CHANGED IN THE NINETEEN EIGHTIES FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. THAT LETTER ALSO TOLD THE PROGRAM THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS LONG AS THE USE OF THIS DISCONTINUED FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.

THE PROPERTY HAD A TEMPORARY TRAILER ON IT, AS WELL AS SOME SMALLER STORAGE BUILDINGS.

THERE WERE NO PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.

IN MAY OF 2019, THE CURRENT OWNERS, RICHARD LANDI AND SHELLEY HARTWICK JUST CALLED THE OWNERS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE NOW NOT SINCE OBTAINED ANY APPROVALS OR PERMITS FROM THE CITY FOR ANY USE OF THAT PROPERTY.

AS I MENTIONED, THE NOT FOR THE USE OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT NOR WANTED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE LEGALLY FOR SIX MONTHS IS NO LONGER A VALID USE OF THE PROPERTY VALUES.

COULD BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE OWNERS HAVE CONTINUED TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR THEIR GENERAL CONTRACTING BUSINESS FOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE SINCE THEY'RE THE OF THE OWNERS.

ARE IT DUE TO OWNER, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, CONSTRUCTION COMPANY QUALITY CONTROL RESTORATION, WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE RUN FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

THEY ALSO DO HAVE A HISTORY OF ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ON SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN LA VERNE GOING BACK TO 2004.

SO ON APRIL 13TH OF THIS YEAR, OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR RECEIVED AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT OF ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AT THE PROPERTY.

HE INSPECTED THE SITE SAW EVIDENCE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY AND ISSUED A STOP WORK NOTICE FOR THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION.

ABOUT A WEEK LATER, HE FOLLOWED UP WITH A LETTER SENT BY A CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNERS INDICATING STOPWORK WAS ISSUED.

AND THAT WAS IT WAS NOT PERMITTED OR INSPECTED STRUCTURE FOR THE L.A.

COUNTY CODE THAT WE WERE REQUIRING DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE BY MAY 23RD OF TWO THOUSAND TWENTY. ON MAY SIX, THE CITY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MR. NITTI'S OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF THE THOMAS A NITTI, INDICATING THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS. HE INDICATED THAT HE HAD REQUESTED A 60 DAY DELAY IN THE ACTION BY THE CITY SO HE COULD SCHEDULE HOW THEY WERE GOING TO PROCEED.

OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SENT A LETTER ON MAY 14 TO MR. NITTI IN RESPONSE TO THAT LETTER INDICATING THAT THERE WAS NO EXTENSION AVAILABLE AS THE STRUCTURE NEEDED TO BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE IT WAS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, NOT REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY THE CITY OF.

AND SO THE FOLLOWING THAT THE CITY RECEIVED ON MAY 20TH, SOME OF THE PETITION AND A LAWSUIT BY MR. NITTI ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS RAISED SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE NOT FIRST AND THAT ARE CITED IN THIS APPEAL AND AND IS REQUIRED TO GO BECAUSE PENDING THE

[00:20:08]

BOARD'S DETERMINATION ON THIS APPEAL.

SO THE CITY COUNCIL IS ACTUALLY ACTING ON THIS EVENING AS THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD, AS DEFINED UNDER THE L.A.

COUNTY BUILDING CODE, THE CITY OF L.A.

COUNTY BUILDING CODE, EVERY TIME IT GETS UPDATED.

AND SO THE APPEAL PROCESS THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING IS NOT IN OUR MS..

IT'S ACTUALLY AS IT'S OUTLINED BY THE L.A.

COUNTY BUILDING. SO THAT'S HOW YOUR CITY TODAY, OUR ATTORNEY AND MR. NITTI AGREED THAT THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE METHOD IN TERMS OF HOW TO HOLD THE APPEAL BEFORE YOU. SO ON JUNE EIGHT, OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR SENT ANOTHER LETTER TO THE OWNERS CERTIFIED MAIL, AND EVEN THOUGH THE STRUCTURE WAS SUBSTANDARD WITH THE LIST OF THE COUNTY CODES AND THE MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS, THE REFERENCE FOR THE SUBSTANDARD DESIGNATION, THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S TO ACTUAL ACTIONS AND STOPWORK NOTICE THAT WAS INITIALLY ISSUED. AND THIS NOTE, THE SUBSTANDARD DETERMINATION, THE SUBSTANDARD DETERMINATION IS ACTUALLY APPEALABLE DECISION FOR THE BUILDING OF MR. NITTI. AND OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE AGREED TO GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE THE STOPWORK NOTICE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THIS APPEAL PROCESS FOR THAT WORK, TYING THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER TODAY FOR THE COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION.

SO ON JUNE 10TH, OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOLD THEM THAT THAT WAS WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO, BASICALLY TO DO THE APPEAL.

AND ON JULY EIGHT, THE CITY RECEIVED THE OFFICIAL APPEAL FROM THE CITY'S OFFICE.

AGAIN, THIS THIS LETTER TALKS ABOUT A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION FOR CLIENTS TO COME UP WITH THE SCHEDULE ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD AND ALSO IDENTIFY THAT THEY WERE INTERESTED IN TRYING TO DETERMINE THE CITY STRUCTURES THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY DWELLING UNIT FOR THE ZONE.

SO IN YOUR REPORT, THE ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST AND THE CLAIMS AND IN THIS LETTER ARE KIND OF SEPARATED OUT. FIRST, THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A REASONABLE, FEASIBLE SCHEDULE TO REPAIR, CITING HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE THAT GIVES REASONABLE TIME TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION.

THAT'S WHEN THERE'S AN ACTIVE PERMIT.

THIS IS OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION THAT WHEN THIS IS USED, WHEN THERE'S AN ACTIVE PERMIT ON FILE AND THERE'S SOME KIND OF VIOLATION THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO GIVE THEM A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TO CORRECT THAT OPPOSED TO JUST REQUIRING THE DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE OR PART OR PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS GIVEN A PERMIT.

AND AS I MENTIONED, NO PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THIS PROJECT.

THE CITY HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WAS A PROPOSAL TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY PERMIT, REQUIRED FIRST PLANNING REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE CITY, EVEN BEING ABLE TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT AFTER BUILDING PLAN CHECK AND THEN MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS WOULD BE HAD DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.

RAYMOND, TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT.

ALMOST ALMOST COMPLETED HERE.

MR. NITTI ALSO REFERENCE CASE LAW, AUTHOR AND SAVINGS AND LOAN VERSUS CITY OF SIGNAL HILL AGAIN. WE BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO THE CURRENT SITUATION AS THE CITY IS NOT INSPECTED OR ISSUED ANY PERMITS FOR THE STRUCTURE.

I WILL POINT OUT THAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDES TO ADJOURN, THE CITY IS REQUESTING THAT THE STRUCTURE BE DEMOLISHED.

THAT'S WHAT OUR ORIGINAL POSITION ON IT WAS AND CONTINUES TO BE.

I WILL POINT OUT THAT THIS IS THE LAST NAME OF THE KIND OF FEELING THAT IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO UPHOLD ITS APPEAL AND NOT REQUIRE THE DEMOLITION, THERE'D SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES IN TERMS OF HOW THE CITY COULD EVER VERIFY THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS SAFE, SAFE TO BE INHABITED FOR A LIVING.

SO I REALLY WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

SURE. GOOD EVENING.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

OUR NORMAL PROCESS OF GETTING ANY PERMITS.

THERE'S A PLAN THAT YOU PUT TOGETHER.

AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED, IT'S VERY EASILY MODIFIED.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE STRUCTURE IS ALREADY BUILT.

SO YOU HAVE TO MODIFY ANYTHING.

YOU WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING TO TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES, SUCH AS WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EXISTING CUTTING SIZES.

THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO EXPOSE ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED THAT REINFORCING THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, UNDERGROUND PLUMBING, THERE'S ALSO NAILING AND FRAMING THAT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED AS FAR AS INSPECTION.

THAT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT OF WORK OF REMOVING ALL THE DRYWALL, EXPOSING ALL THE FOOTINGS, SOMEHOW VERIFYING THE REINFORCING, WHICH I WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO DO, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO VERIFY THAT THERE'S NO LAB, ALL THE LAB SPACES ARE THERE, THAT THEY'RE ALL CONNECTED

[00:25:01]

TOGETHER PROPERLY AND THEY HAVE THE REINFORCED IN THE PUDDING.

I WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW THEY WOULD GO ABOUT THAT.

THEY ALSO HAVE TO VERIFY ALL THE UNDERGROUND PLUMBING IS NOT LEAKING.

ALL THE WIRING WITHIN THE WALLS ARE CONNECTED PROPERLY AND THAT THEY'RE NOT TIED UP INCORRECTLY. SO OPENING UP ALL THE WALLS AND TAKING OUT ALL THE INSULATION IS BASICALLY REQUIRING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK TO GO BACK AND RETROFIT THE WHOLE ENTIRE BUILDING.

IT IT DOES REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE OWNER AND TO MAKE ANY CHANGES IS A VERY DIFFICULT MATTER AFTER THE FACT.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S THE EASIEST WAY.

THAT'S WHY THE SUGGESTION IS TO DO THE DEMOLITION BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY INSPECTIONS. SO TO WRAP THINGS UP, THE NOTICE OF THE APPEAL HEARING WAS [INAUDIBLE].

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE COUNCIL AT YOUR LAST MEETING, IF YOU RECALL, THE APPELLANT HAD ASKED AND WE AGREED TO THAT CONTINUANCE TO THIS MEETING, WHICH WAS AGREEABLE TO THEM.

SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS SO GOOD.

AND LATE TODAY, WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM MR. NITTI'S OFFICE WITH FURTHER DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE COUNCIL THAT BASICALLY IS STILL REQUESTING A 60 DAYS TO PUT A REASONABLE, FEASIBLE SCHEDULE TO PROCEED.

STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE THE STRUCTURE CAN COMPLY AS AN ADU IN THE LETTER.

IT DOES TALK ABOUT POTENTIALLY MERGING THE PROPERTIES.

THE OWNERS OWN SEVERAL ADJACENT PROPERTIES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE SITE.

BUT THERE'S THOSE PROPERTIES ALREADY HAVE ONE TWO ON THEM.

AND BEING ABLE TO HAVE A FIFTH OR FOURTH, THIRD UNIT, I MEAN, JUST IS WAY MORE COMPLICATED. AND AGAIN, I THINK I THOUGHT BACK TO WHAT RAVENS' CONCERNS ARE.

IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER THE PROCESS AND THE SETBACKS OF THE ARCHITECTURE, ALL THE THINGS THAT IN A NORMAL SITUATION, SCAFFOLDED, THAT IT'S A MATTER THAT THERE'S BEEN NO INSPECTION OF THE BUILDING AND WE CAN'T VERIFY THAT IT'S A SAFE STRUCTURE.

SO WITH THAT STUFF CONTINUES TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE ONLY REAL WAY TO PROCEED WITH THIS IS TO REQUIRE DEMOLITION OF THE ILLEGAL WORK THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

MR. COLLINS IS MS. HEART RATE. I JUST WHEN I WAS RE MS., THIS IS A VERY SHERER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR I APOLOGIZE FOR.

SORRY, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM COUNSELING QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR HERE ON THIS OR THE STAFF? GOOD, BECAUSE WE WERE LEFT WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCUSSION REGARDING DEMOLITION OR ALLOWANCE OF THE HOMEOWNERS TO GO AHEAD WITHOUT HAVING THE PREMISES DEMOLISHED.

WHAT IS THE LIABILITY EXPOSURE TO THE CITY? IF WE WERE TO SAY, HEY, IT'S FINE, GO AHEAD, WE WON'T ASK YOU TO DEMOLISH IT IF SOMETHING WERE TO BE WRONG. AND SUBSEQUENTLY UNSAFE.

WELL, I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO.

COME UP WITH SOME WAY TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE, AND MR. TAO HAS EXPLAINED HOW DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE THAT IS AT THIS STAGE.

SO. YEAH, THAT'S THE THAT'S THE CHALLENGE, I MEAN, RIGHT.

SO MY QUESTION IS, GIVEN THE CHALLENGE IN THE INABILITY TO VERIFY THE SAFETY OF THAT PROPERTY, WOULD IT NOT BE CONSIDERED EXPOSURE TO THE CITY IF WE WEREN'T ABLE TO VERIFY IT APPROPRIATELY? WELL, I THINK IT WOULD.

THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS, MR. SCHERER. THE STUFF YOU SENT US THIS AFTERNOON, SO THIS MR. MAYOR, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO.

COMPLETE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE GOING INTO DEEPER COUNCIL COMMENTS.

OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK A QUESTION, BUT THAT'S FINE.

OK, AND DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? WE'LL GO AHEAD TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.

DO WE HAVE. PUBLIC COMMENT.

I WOULD SUGGEST YOU ALLOW MR. NITTI TO BEGIN. GO AHEAD.

YES, THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I ASKED MR. LAMBI JOIN THE GROUP WHEN WE FIRST STARTED.

HE WASN'T THERE TO SEE ON THE.

HE NEVER ARRIVED IN THE WAITING ROOM AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE BECAUSE OF THAT, TO ALLOW

[00:30:04]

HIM INTO THE MEETING TODAY.

OK, BUT MRS. HARTWICK IS THERE. RIGHT HERE.

SORRY. OK, WE'RE BOTH HERE.

OK, OK.

OK, THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF POINTS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

FIRST OF ALL, LANDI AND HARTWICK DID NOT BUILD THIS STRUCTURE.

A STRUCTURE WAS THERE ALREADY WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2019.

THEY SHOWED A PICTURE OF IT IN THE DOCUMENTS I SUBMITTED TODAY.

ARE THEY MERELY UPGRADED AND REHABILITATED THAT STRUCTURE? THE IDEA IS TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE COMPLY WITH SINGLE FAMILY OCCUPANCY.

THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO EXPAND THEIR BUSINESS.

THE PURPOSE HERE IS TO MAKE IS TO HOPEFULLY MAKE THAT IN YOU.

IT WOULD QUALIFY AS AN AVENUE BECAUSE THEY OWN THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THEY PLAN TO TIE THE LOT TOGETHER THAT THIS PROPERTY'S ON ALONG WITH THE LOT NEXT TO IT, THE LOT NEXT TO IT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AT THAT POINT, WHEN THE LOCKS ARE TIED TOGETHER, THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS ALLOWED TO HAVE AN ADA YOU AND THE PLAN IS TO HAVE THIS BE IN A TO YOU.

NOW, IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE STAFF SAYS THAT THE HAWTHORNE CASE AND ALSO SECTION ONE SEVEN NINE EIGHT OH DO NOT HELP MY CLIENT BECAUSE THIS IS AN UNPERMITTED THIS IS AN UNPERMITTED BUILDING.

BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE HAWTHORNE CASE OR IN SECTION ONE SEVEN NINE EIGHT OH THAT SAYS THE PROBLEM BUILDING HAS TO HAVE PERMITS ON IT IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE RELIEF THAT I AM REQUESTING.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE NEW GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION, WHICH WENT INTO EFFECT ON JULY ONE OF THIS YEAR, AND I CITED IN MY PAPERS THAT NEW GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION IS VERY LIBERAL IN ALLOWING ABUSE AND IT ALLOWS ABUSE IN WHAT WE COMMONLY CALL BOOTLEG UNITS.

IF SOMEBODY HAS A BOOTLEG GARAGE, NONCOMMITTED AND THERE'S HUMAN HABITATION IN THERE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT PERMITTED, THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE OWNER FROM APPLYING FOR IT TO BE LEGALIZED AS AN AVENUE.

AND WE SAY THE SAME THING APPLIES HERE UNDER THE NEW GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION.

MY CLIENTS CAN REQUEST THAT THIS BE LICENSED ARE PERMITTED AS AN AIDE TO IF IT MEETS ALL THE OTHER QUALIFICATIONS.

NOW, WE ALSO SUBMITTED AN ENGINEERING REPORT.

WHAT THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAD TO GET A LATE SUBMISSION AND AND FILED IT TODAY.

BUT WE HAVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN FRONT OF YOU THAT SAYS THIS BUILDING IS SAFE AND HEALTHY AND BASICALLY MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS STRUCTURE SHOULD MEET.

NOW, I KNOW THAT CITIES ALL THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DEAL WITH AS BUILT SITUATIONS.

YOUR STAFF MAKES IT SOUND LIKE.

THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE TORN APART TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS OK.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S DONE.

IT SAMPLED VARIOUS AREAS OF SHEETROCK OR PULLED OFF TO MAKE SURE THE STUDS ARE SPACED PROPERLY, THE ELECTRICAL SPLIT APART, BUT THE ELECTRICAL WAS PUT TOGETHER CORRECTLY.

SO ON THE PLUMBING IS FINE.

BUILDINGS ARE NOT TORN APART FOR THIS.

THEY'RE SAMPLED. AND IF IT APPEARS OK, THE BUILDING GETS A PERMIT AND IT'S AS BUILT CONDITION AS TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER.

SO WE QUESTION ABOUT VIABILITY OF THE CITY.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL CITIES HAVE IMMUNITY.

IF A BUILDING OFFICER MAKES A MISTAKE OR OVERLOOK SOMETHING, THERE'S NO LIABILITY AGAINST THE CITY. THE CITY HAS IMMUNITY FROM THAT TYPE OF PROBLEM.

SO AND THAT'S IT.

THAT'S STATUTORY IMMUNITY.

SO I BELIEVE ALL OF THE CITY'S CONCERNS CAN BE ADDRESSED.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE CITY IS IN CONTROL OF THIS PROCEDURE.

ONCE IT ONCE MY CLIENT IS GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO PROCEED.

[00:35:02]

HE THEN HAS TO APPLY TO THE CITY.

HE THEN HAS TO HAVE THE CITY LOOK AT IT.

HE HAS TO GET PERMITS FROM THE CITY.

HE HAS TO SATISFY THE CITY THAT NOT ONLY DOES THIS QUALIFY AS AN AVENUE, BUT THIS IS A HEALTH. THIS IS A HEALTH HEALTHY AND SAFETY ISSUE.

OTHERWISE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

SO I DON'T THINK THE CITY HAS ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

I THINK THE DEMOLITION IS A WASTE OF RESOURCES WHEN ADDITIONAL HOUSING CAN BE BUILT.

AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT A HOUSING CRISIS WE HAVE HERE IN CALIFORNIA.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. NITTI. DO WE HAVE.

WITH OUR CHOICE WAS TO SPEAK.

SO THIS IS RICK LANDI AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS GO HAND IN HAND.

AND WHAT MR. NITTI SAID, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY BEING IN THE BUILDING INDUSTRY, THERE'S WAYS TO VERIFY UNDER CONCRETE, THROUGH CONCRETE.

AND AGAIN, IN AREAS THAT THAT MIGHT BE IN QUESTION.

YOU EXPOSE ADC.

WE TOOK THE TIME TO HAVE OUR ENGINEER COME OUT AND LOOK AT MOST OF THIS.

HE SAID, OTHER THAN THE THINGS YOU CANNOT VERIFY WITH JUST LOOKING AT IT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. AND WITH THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS COULD GO FORWARD.

AND THAT'S WHAT OUR HOPE IS.

THANK YOU, MR. LANDI. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? FROM AS FAR AWAY, NO, I'M GOOD, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANYONE ELSE, MR. RUSSI? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ANY COMMENTS ON THIS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

I HAVE NOT COUNSEL. I'M JUST ASKING IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM OUR QUESTIONS, FROM THE ATTORNEYS OR STAFF, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE IT TO COUNSEL OR PUBLIC.

PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.

PUBLIC. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT ANY EARLIER PUBLIC COMMENT? BUT I'LL DEFER TO J.R.

BUT BEFORE I DO, ERIC RAYMON, ANYTHING ELSE AFTER THE COMMENTS THAT YOU NEED TO ADD? ON THE BUILDING SIDE, TYPICALLY SPEAKING, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAMPLING PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT'S UNPERMITTED, WE USUALLY LOOK AT IT MORE IN TERMS OF SOMETHING THAT'S CONTROLLABLE, SOMETHING THAT'S SMALLER.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE THAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT AFTER THE FACT, WHICH IS A LOT MORE CHALLENGING THAN, SAY, A BATHROOM ALTERATION, WHICH WE CAN LOOK AT AFTER THE FACT, REGROUP.

THE DIFFERENCE IS, IS SIGNIFICANT IN THIS CASE.

OK, THANK YOU.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT WHATSOEVER? WE. MR. MAYOR. NOTHING'S COME THROUGH SO FAR.

NOW WE'LL MOVE TO COUNCIL.

COUNCIL HAS COMMENTS FOR STAFF.

THE ATTORNEY, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU, YOU HAD A QUESTION OR COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY I'M SORRY.

I HAVE A QUESTION TO THE TWO MEMBERS APPEALING.

THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE IN CONSTRUCTION.

WHY DID'T THEY GET A PERMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE? YES, YOU'RE ON.

WE CAN HEAR YOU. SO WITH.

IN A RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION IS THAT THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, WORKING THROUGH THIS, WE PURCHASED ANOTHER PROPERTY RIGHT DOWN THE STREET AND IT'S ACTUALLY WHERE WE HAVE OUR OFFICE NOW.

DEALING WITH ERIC AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND TRY TO GO THROUGH AN APPROPRIATE WAY OF ACTION, MEANING SUBMITTED PLANS AND ENGINEERING TO FURTHER THE BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING.

AND THE COMMENT WE GOT BACK FOR WANTING TO DO A NEW ROOF.

AND I BELIEVE TIM PLAINS AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE FIRE INSPECTOR THAT WAS INVOLVED IN IT AS WELL, CAME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING SAYING, HEY, LET THESE GUYS ENHANCE THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, IF IT CATCHES ON FIRE OR SOMETHING, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEND IN OUR FIREMEN BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SAFE.

I SUBMITTED PLANS.

I SUBMITTED ENGINEERING TO AND AND ERIC'S RESPONSE BACK TO ME WAS IT WOULD FURTHER THE THE TERM WAS UNKIND FORMING PART OF THE BUILDING.

SO THEREFORE IT'S DENIED IT'LL BE ANOTHER CASE FOR YOU GUYS.

SO BASICALLY, AT THIS POINT, I WAS DENIED ONCE TRYING TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.

AND SO WE'RE IN THE SITUATION WHERE I FOUND OUT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.

[00:40:08]

COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS.

YES, AND I I GUESS I WOULD LOVE CLARITY ON THE STATEMENT THAT WAS JUST MADE, AND THEN I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

SO BASED ON WHAT WAS JUST SAID, THAT RESIDENTS TRIED TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND WHEN THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, THEY CHOSE TO NOT DO THE RIGHT THING, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? SO BASICALLY, THIS IS A DIFFERENT PROPERTY THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

BUT ON THE OTHER END OF THE SAME BLOCK, AND IT WAS BEING USED AS AN OFFICE BUILDING, HAD A BUSINESS LICENSE FOR THE LAST 30 PLUS YEARS.

SO WE PURCHASED THIS BUILDING AND THERE WAS SOME DEFICIENCIES IN THE BUILDING.

WE WENT TO THE CITY ASKING TO.

REPAIR THESE THINGS, AND WE WERE DENIED THE ABILITY TO DO IT BECAUSE THE BUILDING WAS NON CONFORMING TO THE NEW EXISTING PLAN OF THE WALNUT STREET OR WHATEVER THEY CALL THAT.

SO BY GOING FORWARD IN THE RIGHT WAY, WE WERE COMPLETELY DENIED, IN FACT, RED TAGGED FROM ERIC BECAUSE WE PUT AN AWNING IN FRONT OR SO.

I MEAN, THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT HAD TO DO WITH IT.

BUT THE BASIC PARKING, THE BASIC PLAN WAS TO REBUILD A ROOF AND TO REPAIR THE INSIDE.

SO IT COULD BE SAFE BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT ONLY EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, BUT ALSO THAT WE RENT OUT PART OF THE BUILDING.

AND IT WAS DENIED TO DO THIS ESSENTIAL STUFF.

AND I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME RECORD FROM WHEN THE FIRE MARSHALS ARRIVED.

I'M SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER HER NAME.

AND I'M GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ASKING THAT THEY LET US DO THIS.

SO THAT'S WHAT IT WAS TOLD TO ME PRIOR.

ERIC, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT TO THAT OR CAN YOU FURTHER CLARIFY THAT SITUATION? IT IS A SEPARATE PROPERTY THAT WAS LEGALLY CONFORMED.

NONCONFORMING IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WHEN MR. LANDI AND MS. HARTWICK PURCHASED IT, WE STOPPED WORK ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE WE HAD TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

BUT THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE PROCESS ON THAT PROPERTY.

THIS IS PROBABLY THE FIFTH PROPERTY THAT MR. LANDI HAS OWNED.

AND WE'VE HAD CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS OF ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION IN LA VERNE GOING BACK TO 2004, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE.

SO THIS HAS NOTHING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROPERTY OF 18 20, WHICH DOES NO LONGER HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND HAS NO PERMANENT RESIDENCE PRIOR TO THIS THIS STRUCTURE BEING BUILT ILLEGALLY.

SO. I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S BEEN ENHANCED AND NOT COMPLETELY REBUILT.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER LAU? YOU'RE GOOD WITH YOUR ANSWERS.

I'M GOOD WITH THOSE ANSWERS AT THIS TIME.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS QUESTIONS.

ANYBODY ELSE HAS QUESTIONS.

I JUST HAD A CLARIFICATION GIVEN THIS THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE.

HOW MUCH OF THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE IS STILL PART OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION? I WOULD SAY OVER 50 PERCENT.

BECAUSE THE SETBACK LOOKS AS IT WOULD BE IN THE FAR BACK PORTION.

AND IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY STRUCTURE THAT WAS ON EXCEPT FOR THE TRAILER, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THERE'S ACTUALLY ANOTHER PROPERTY OR ANOTHER STRUCTURE THAT'S AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS THERE.

YOU KNOW, AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THAT IS THAT I MEAN, I BOUGHT MANY PROPERTIES IN LA VERNE AND TO ERIC'S POINT THAT MOST OF THEM ARE IN CHALLENGED SITUATIONS.

AND I'VE HAD MANY PROPERTIES THAT SHOWED NO PERMITS.

AND THEN WE GO BACK TO THE COUNTY AND FIND THAT THE PERMITS ALL WERE INTACT BUT NEVER BROUGHT BACK. IN FACT, MY OWN HOME THAT I LIVE IN WAS EXACTLY ONE OF THESE SITUATIONS.

AND GOING TO CITY COUNCIL, THEY SAID, WELL, WE WENT AND FOUND THE PERMITS OURSELF.

AND INSTEAD OF MAKING THIS RIP DOWN EVERYTHING, THEY LET US KEEP ALL OF THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE ON MY PROPERTY.

AND I'VE HAD OTHER PROPERTIES WITH THE EXACT SAME THING THAT THEY COULD NOT FIND PERMITS.

SO WHY DOES THIS PROPERTY HAVE TWO STRUCTURES THAT ARE BUILT WITH FOUNDATIONS ON THE GROUND AND THERE IS NO BUILDING PERMITS? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT WAS THERE WHEN WE PURCHASED.

MR. LANDI, THE BUILDING WAY IN THE BACK CORNER, RIGHT BY THE VAN, IS THAT THE STRUCTURE

[00:45:01]

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WAS EXISTING? IT'S IT'S IN THE BACK CORNER.

RIGHT CORNER. LOOKS LIKE LOOKING DOWN.

WAS THAT A SHED OR A BUILDING? IT'S A BUILDING. IT'S IT'S IT'S GOT FOUR DOORS ON IT.

AND IT'S MORE LIKE A LIKE A GARAGE.

THAT'S NOT THE BUILDING IN QUESTION.

AND. NO, NO, I KNOW.

I JUST WAS ASKING BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT ACCESSORY DWELLING, ACCESSORY DWELLING IN IT, AND THERE HAS TO BE A PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOR THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING.

AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE HOW MUCH OF THE BUILDING WAS LEFT.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH OUR NEIGHBOR PROPERTY, THE ASSET, AND IT WOULD INCORPORATE AS A YOU BECAUSE THERE'S A HOUSE, ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND A SEPARATE GARAGE, TIM OR NOT TIM.

ERIC WAS INCORRECT WHEN HE SAID THAT THERE'S ALREADY TWO PROPERTY OR TWO UNITS OR SOMETHING ON THERE. IT'S A SEPARATE GARAGE ON THE UNIT NEXT DOOR OR THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR WITH THE SEPARATE HOUSE.

WELL, I MUST COMMEND YOU GUYS FOR WALNUT AVENUE, BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST GOT IN COUNCIL, THAT WAS THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE TOUGHEST AREAS THAT NEEDS THE MOST HELP.

LA VERNE, I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

MY ONLY CONCERN, AS COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY HAD STATED, IS THE PERMITTING ISSUE.

AND JUST GOING ALONG THE NORMAL WAY TO GET THE PERMITS PROPERLY AND GET A SET OF PLANS, THAT IT JUST MOVES ALONG PROPERLY TO WHERE WE CAN BUILD A STRUCTURE AND NOT TO WORRY ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE FACT, YOU KNOW, MAKING OTHER PROPERTIES AND ABSORBING THEM INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

I JUST BUT AGAIN, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE IN THAT AREA BECAUSE, QUITE FRANKLY, IT NEEDS ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE BACK TO THE PERMIT ISSUE AND WE HAVE NO PERMITS ON IT.

WELL, AGAIN, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO COMPLY, AND I FEEL THAT IT'S VERY FORMIDABLE AND, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER SITUATIONS IN THE PAST, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND AND AND BE ABLE TO CONFIRM ALL THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CONFIRMED AND GET IT TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE TO BE HABITABLE PROPERTY OR UNIT.

CONSTRUCTION ON THIS COMPLETELY STOPPED.

YES. SOON AS TIM SENT US THE PAPERWORK, WE HAVE NOT BEEN BACK INSIDE THE.

OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL? AMERICA, MEANWHILE, OWES THE PUBLIC HEARING.

LET ME CLOSE, I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL.

MR. DAVIS. YES.

AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE INTEREST IN THE AREA.

I THINK, THOUGH, THAT THE RISK THAT THAT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS IF WE DON'T ENFORCE OUR CODES, THEN ADDITIONAL FOLKS CAN PUSH ON US BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ENFORCING OUR CODES.

AND AND BEING IN THE INDUSTRY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE SOME PEOPLE, EVEN MAKE SURE THE PERMITS ARE IN PLACE BEFORE THEY PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, BUT I THERE IS AN ORDER OF WHICH THINGS NEED TO GO ABOUT.

SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE THE THE PETITION FOR REHEARING.

AND THE COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL.

SEEING NONE. AND I GUESS WE CALL FOR A MOTION, IS THAT CORRECT? WE NEED TO CALL FOR A MOTION.

MR. CROSBY, YES, I CALL FOR THE MOTION TO HOLD THE ISSUANCE OF THE STOPWORK NOTICE AND TO THE NOTICE OF SUB-STANDARD AS ISSUED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES, THANK YOU, GUYS.

WE MOVE ON TO EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NUMBER 10 95 EXTENSION MORATORIUM ON SHORT TERM RENTALS.

[7. b. Urgency Ordinance No. 1095 - Extension of Moratorium on Short Term Rentals]

MR. SCHERER, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT ALSO.

[INAUDIBLE]. THAT WAS EIGHT MONTHS AGO. IT FEELS LIKE IT WAS EIGHT YEARS AGO, THE COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER THE MORATORIUM ON SHORT TERM RENTALS.

IN LA VERNE AS A RESULT OF CONCERNS ABOUT SPECIFIC RENTALS IN THE COMMUNITY AT THAT TIME BASED ON STATE LAW. THAT WAS A 45 DAY MORATORIUM AT THE MOST.

SO ON MAY 2ND, THE CITY I'M SORRY, MARCH 2ND, WE BROUGHT BACK AN EXTENSION OF THAT MORATORIUM. THAT EXTENSION WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO GO TO JANUARY TWENTY TWENTY ONE,

[00:50:10]

BUT MORE CHECKING OBVIOUSLY WAS PRE COVID AND SO THE COUNCIL THAT COUNCIL AT THE TIME AND A DECISION TO WHAT TO EXPEDITE THE CRAFTED WITH AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT ASKED THAT IT ONLY BE EXTENDED FOR SIX MONTHS TO SEPTEMBER 2ND.

THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS OF THE MORATORIUM WAS TO HOLD A STUDY SESSION WITH THE COUNCIL THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE SPECIFICALLY INVITE THE KNOWN HOSTS OF SUCH SHORT TERM.

THESE ARE AIRBNBS, VRBOS, LESS THAN 30 DAY RENTALS BASICALLY TO COME TO THAT STUDY SESSION AND PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION ON WHAT RULES AND REGULATIONS MIGHT MAKE SENSE FOR THE FIRM TO GET THAT FEEDBACK SO THAT STAFF COULD THEN DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN ONTO THE CITY COUNCIL DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS TO ENACT THE FINAL ORDINANCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE PANDEMIC.

WE WERE HOPEFUL THAT MAYBE WE WERE GOING TO BE DELAYED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AND BE ABLE TO THEN HAVE THAT IN-PERSON STUDY SESSION.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT LOOKS LESS AND LESS LIKELY AS TIME GOES ON.

AND WITH THE SIX MONTH EXTENSION THAT WAS GRANTED BACK IN MARCH, COMING UP NEXT MONTH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE FINAL EXTENSION THAT'S ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW, WHICH WOULD BE ONE YEAR FROM TODAY WITH THE EXPECTATION JUST AS BEFORE, IS THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH GETTING AN AUDIT BEFORE YOU BEFORE THAT DEADLINE.

WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO PUSH THIS OUT FOR A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT POTENTIALLY DOING A VIRTUAL STUDY SESSION WITH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SOME WAY OR IF THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION OF PUSHING US OFF ANOTHER SIX MONTHS IN HOPES THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT IN-PERSON MEETING.

WE CAN DO THAT TO YOU KNOW, ONE THING WITH THE PANDEMIC IS THAT THE DEMAND FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS REALLY IS SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASED.

WE DON'T HAVE EVENTS. WE DON'T HAVE COLLEGE GRADUATIONS.

WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE TRAVELING FOR WORK.

SO WE REALLY HAVE HAD THERE ISN'T AS GREAT A NEED, I DON'T THINK, IN THE COMMUNITY FOR THESE THE TWO OF THE TWO PROBLEM PROPERTIES THAT WE HAD BACK IN JANUARY AND MARCH, ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES IS CURRENTLY FOR SALE.

THE OTHER ONE STOCK IS DOING SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE ARE AWARE OF TWENTY THREE TOTAL IN OUR COMMUNITY.

EVEN THE COUNCIL ADOPTED.

AND THEY DID PUT IN AN EXCEPTIONAL RULE THAT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO APPLY TO CONTINUE TO DO SHORT TERM RENTALS IF THEY LIVED AT THE RESIDENCE, BASICALLY, AND THEY GOT THE AGREEMENT OF THEIR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN OFF ON IT.

SINCE THOSE MORATORIUMS WERE PUT IN PLACE, WE'VE HAD SIX APPLICATIONS RECEIVED.

ONLY THREE OF THEM WERE ABLE TO BE PROVIDED SIGNATURES AND PROOF OF RESIDENCY.

SO THOSE THREE ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.

THE OTHER THREE WERE NOT.

SO THEY WERE DEEMED DENIED.

THE REST WE HAVEN'T HAD APPLICATIONS FOR.

SO AGAIN, SINCE YOUR LAST MEETING ON THE SUBJECT IN MARCH, THE TWO THAT WERE AN ISSUE HAVEN'T BEEN AN ISSUE. THERE IS A NEW JUDGE THAT WE'VE HAD SOME COMPLIANCE ISSUES WITH THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH AIRBNB AND OUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO TRY TO GET COMPLIANCE.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES PROBABLY FOR ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF ON THAT ONE. SO THERE'S STILL A NEED FOR THE AUDITS, I BELIEVE.

BUT I THINK THAT IF THE COUNCIL WISH TO EITHER MOVE FORWARD NOW TO GET IT IN PLACE BY DOING SOME KIND OF VIRTUAL STUDY SESSION OR TO WAIT A LITTLE BIT AND SEE IF THERE'S MIGHT BE A CHANCE OF HAVING AN IN-PERSON MEETING TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS SO THAT STAFF COULD STILL DROP THAT ORDINANCE AND GIVE US THE FULL AMOUNT OF TIME UNDER STATE LAW TO DO SO, KNOWING THAT STUFF WOULD WORK FASTER THAN THAT.

IS IT POSSIBLE? SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT ORDER NUMBER TEN NINETY FIVE AND THEN PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD NOW WITH THE VIRTUAL MEETING OR MAYBE HOLD OFF ON A BIT JUST TO SEE WHERE THE GUIDELINES GO IN THE COMING MONTHS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT NOW.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, JR? NONE RECEIVED AT THIS TIME, SIR.

I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL, WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, WE'LL GO BACK TO COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? WELL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WITH WHAT WAS PROPOSED IS I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE A DELAY. WE DID WANT A PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND SO THAT I CAN SEE WHY THAT WAS DELAYED, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IN-PERSON MEETING, HAVING THAT STUDY SESSION, YOU HAVE A MORE OPEN CONVERSATION.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE HOPING FOR.

SO I I'M WILLING EITHER WAY IS I WOULD LIKE TO I WOULD PREFER THAT WE COULD DO THIS IN

[00:55:02]

PERSON. SO IF WE WANT TO HOLD OFF A COUPLE OF MONTHS BY DOING THIS EXTENSION, IT GIVES US SOME LEEWAY. OR IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO HAVE A STUDY SESSION SOONER THAN WE COULD DO IT VIRTUAL MEETING AND DO IT THAT WAY.

BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND THE REASONING BEHIND THIS EXTENSION.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU. I CONCUR WITH COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER IN THAT WHAT WE HAD HOPED FOR AS FAR AS GETTING A FINAL ORDINANCE IN SEPTEMBER WAS DERAILED BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC COVID-19, WHICH WAS WELL, I DON'T NEED TO BELABOR THAT POINT.

IT WAS JUST UNFORESEEN.

AND I THINK THAT HAVING ALLOWING THE MAXIMUM EXTENSION IS WORTHWHILE RIGHT NOW, WHICH THEN GIVES US SOME FLEXIBILITY AS TO WHEN WE HOLD THE STUDY SESSION AND WHETHER THAT BE IN PERSON OR ONLINE.

SO I THINK IT GIVES US SOME FLEXIBILITY.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK AND JUST SLOW PLAY THIS TO WHERE IT JUST LOSES INTEREST BECAUSE I THINK INTEREST WILL REMAIN HIGH.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE EXTENSION.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY.

I DO UNDERSTAND.

THE EXTENSION FOR A YEAR, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PUSH HAVING IT SOONER.

THIS IS SOME PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOOD, EVEN THOUGH BECAUSE OF COVID-19, THERE'S LESS PEOPLE STAYING AND TRAVELING.

BUT THIS IS STILL SOME PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOODS THAT THEY WERE RENTING OUT A ROOM FOR FOR PEOPLE TO COME. SO I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STUDY SESSION COMING UP SHORTLY FOR ANOTHER SUBJECT. SO I DON'T SEE WHY WE CANNOT HAVE A STUDY SESSION FOR THIS AS WELL AND INVITE ALL TWENTY THREE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT WERE ON AIRBNB.

AT LEAST THEY HAVE AN INVITATION TO COME BE A PART OF OUR STUDY SESSION, WHICH WE HAVE DONE A A GREAT PART OF HAVING THEM COME ON JUST JUST LIKE WE HAD THE LAST PARTY.

COME ON AND SPEAK TO US, TOO.

SO I THINK IT CAN BE DONE.

I JUST DON'T I DON'T WANT TO WAIT OUT TILL NEXT SUMMER TO DO THIS.

BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE YEAR GIVEN US TIME TO DO THAT.

BUT JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS SOONER THAN LATER BECAUSE WE ARE THE AUDIENCE NOT UP ON THE DAIS WHEN THIS HAPPENED AND HEARD A LOT OF BOTH SIDES, THE NEGATIVE SIDE ON SOME NEGATIVE USE, BUT ALSO SOME VERY POSITIVE SIDE WITH VERY APPROPRIATE USE AND LOOKING AT AND RENTING OUT THE ROOMS TO.

SO I SEE BOTH SIDES OF OF USING AIRBNB IN ROOMS LIKE THAT FOR US.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

MR. DAVIS. GO BACK.

YES, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO REMEMBER THAT OUR OUR TEMPORARY ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW DOES PROVIDE A PATHWAY FOR AN OPERATOR TO RUN AN AIRBNB PRESENTLY.

SO IT'S NOT AS IF ANYBODY WHO'S WHO'S HOPING TO EARN AN INCOME CAN'T RIGHT NOW.

THEY JUST HAVE THEY ARE THE TEMPORARY ORDINANCE TO TO UTILIZE JUST THE TEMPORARY ORDINANCE THAT HAS TO MAINTAIN THEY HAVE TO LIVE THERE.

SO THAT IS THE ONE PART WHERE IF SOMEONE OWNS PROPERTY AND WAS TRYING TO TO RENT OUT, THEY CAN'T DO IT THAT WAY.

AND I SUPPOSE I JUST WOULDN'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE ANYBODY OUT THERE TO THINK THAT THE OTHER ORDINANCE MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE TEMPORARY.

MIGHT I SUGGEST SOMETHING TO MAYBE GET US OUT OF THIS LIMBO SPOT THAT I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH? I HEAR THE WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE EXTENSION.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE THIS LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AS WE HAD HOPED.

WE COULD EITHER FIRST REACH OUT WITH SOME TYPE OF SURVEY INQUIRY.

BUT JUST SOMETHING TO THE YOU SAID IT WAS TWENTY SIX OR TWENTY THREE KNOWN AIRBNB AND ASK THEM TO PROVIDE THEIR INPUT BACK OF WHAT SOME CONCERNS MIGHT BE WITH THE ORDINANCE OR RESTRICTIONS AND JUST START THAT ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THAT WAY RATHER THAN TRYING TO.

AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF FUNNEL INTO BOILING DOWN WHAT THE ISSUES MIGHT BE AND THEN WE CAN START MOVING FORWARD WITH HOW TO MAYBE ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE OR MAYBE SOME THAT CAN'T BE ADDRESSED. THEN WE CAN COME BACK EITHER WITH A STAFF LED MEETING FIRST AND THEN COME BACK TO COUNCIL OR COME TO COUNCIL, BUT AT LEAST START THAT DISCUSSION RATHER THAN WAITING UNTIL WE CAN BE BACK IN A PUBLIC MEETING FORUM.

WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL?

[01:00:01]

WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, AND I THINK THAT GOES TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY WAS TALKING ABOUT, THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE EXTENSION, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE FORWARD MOVEMENT ON THIS AND HOPEFULLY A RESOLUTION SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

AND WE CAN PROMPT A GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE WITH THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, HERE'S WHAT THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS ARE OR ABILITY LEAVING SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN PLACE OR SOME OTHER PREFER WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING AND GET SOMETHING OUT WITHIN A MONTH'S TIME.

I'D HAVE TO SAY, ERIC, THAT SEEM REASONABLE YOU THINK? YES, YES, I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

WE NEED TO DEMAND THAT WE NEED TO AMEND IT IN ANYTHING OR JUST WE'RE JUST GOING TO IT'S JUST PART OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOMETHING IF THIS AND YOU SOME DO SOME RESEARCH AND GET SOME GET SOME INFORMATION OUT THERE TO HAVE INPUT FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH US. THERE'S A GREAT DEAL.

I'M ON ALONG THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE.

SO I JUST THINK WE NEED TO GET THIS THING GOING.

BUT IF WE CAN DO THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. THANK YOU, MR. RUSSI. THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? YOU MOVE THIS, I NEED I NEED A MOTION.

OK, I'LL MOVE TO EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM OF SHORT TERM LESS THAN 30 DAYS RENTALS FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED PAST AUGUST 17TH.

TWENTY TWENTY ONE.

MR. CROSBY, YOU WANT TO SECOND THAT? I THINK MR. CROSBY HAD HIS HAND UP.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE.

MOTION DOES CARRY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NOW WE WILL MOVE TO OTHER MATTERS.

ITEM EIGHT. AND THAT WOULD BE THE PROCLAMATION DECLARING AUGUST 29.

[8. a. Proclamation - Declaring August 29th as Virgil Welch Wood Workers Appreciation Day - Council Member Davis has requested this matter be agendized for Council consideration.]

I'LL HAVE YOU TAKE THIS, MR. DAVIS. CERTAINLY I'M HAPPY TO, MAYOR.

I BRING BEFORE COUNCIL A PROCLAMATION FOR VIRGIL WELCH, WHO PASSED AWAY ON JULY OR JUNE 30TH OF THIS YEAR.

MR. WELCH WAS NINETY FIVE WHEN HE PASSED AWAY.

AND I'VE HAD MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY REQUEST THAT WE PAY SPECIAL TRIBUTE TO MR. WELCH. AND WE DETERMINED THAT A PROCLAMATION TO HONOR AND REMEMBER HIM, AS WELL AS TO RECOGNIZE FELLOW WOODWORKERS ON AUGUST TWENTY NINTH WOULD BE THE WAY TO DO IT.

SO LET ME FIRST READ THE PROCLAMATION.

IT WHEREAS THOUGHTFUL BUILDING IS FOUNDATIONAL FOR A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY AND BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY CAN TAKE FORM THROUGH TEACHING, VOLUNTEERING AND LABORING.

AND WHEREAS IN HIS PRIMARY AND MEDIUM OF WOOD, VIRGIL WARREN WELCH BUILT A CAREER DEDICATED TO OTHERS SERVING AS A TEACHER, VOLUNTEER AND LABORER.

AND WHEREAS VIRGIL TAUGHT WOODSHOP IN THE BANITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH PROMOTED MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR THIRTY ONE YEARS, VIRGIL STUDENTS CRAFTED WOOD STRUCTURES AND ART PROJECTS THAT HAVE ENHANCED THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE, HILLCREST HOMES, LOCAL CHURCHES, OUR CITY LIBRARY AND CITY HALL.

AND WHEREAS VIRGIL HAS VOLUNTEERED WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR MANY YEARS, EARNING HIM THE DISTINGUISHED, LOYAL ORDER OF THE [INAUDIBLE] AND WHEREAS VIRGIL BLESSED MANY HOMES IN OUR COMMUNITY WITH HIS OWN WORK, INCLUDING CABINETMAKING REMODELING ADDITIONS AND EXTERNAL STRUCTURES, HE HAS BUILT AND IMPROVED MANY HOMES, BUILDINGS AND BLEACHERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE, AS WELL AS ROOMS, BUILDINGS AND THE WOOD SHOP AT HILLCREST.

AND WHEREAS LA VERNE IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE HAD A PERSON LIKE VIRGIL TO HELP BUILD A SUSTAINABLE, VITAL, SPECIAL AND DESIRABLE COMMUNITY.

NOW, THEREFORE, WE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF LA VERNE, EXTEND GRATITUDE TO VIRGIL WELCH ON HIS LIFE, WELL LIVED AND REMARKABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR COMMUNITY AND IN REMEMBRANCE. VOTE TO REMEMBER VIRGIL AND OTHER WOODWORKERS BY PROCLAIMING AUGUST TWENTY NINTH AS VIRGIL WELCH WOODWORKERS APPRECIATION DAY.

IT'LL BE SIGNED BY THE MAYOR.