[0:03] Got ready?

[0:07] Okay. Good evening, okay. Welcome to West Covina City Council meeting. Today is

[0:12] December 17th, when at seven o'clock sharp, we are starting our meeting right now. Okay.

[0:17] Tonight, invocation will be led by Reverend Dr. Manson O'Cubo of the Emmanuel 1st Lucerne

[0:24] Church of West Covina, followed by a pledge of legion led by Councilman Cassiano. All

[0:30] rights, please.

[0:30] Please.

[0:35] Thank you, Mayor Wu.

[0:36] Let us pray.

[0:38] Heavenly Father, our guardian and keeper of your people, watch over the members of our

[0:42] City Council and protect them, grant them wisdom and permit them to experience the joys of

[0:47] service to a grateful people.

[0:49] Encourage cooperation from those who are served and those who serve.

[0:53] Promote all things for the good of the people of West Covina and may your will be accomplished

[0:57] among us.

[0:58] Amen.

[0:59] of

[1:08] the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation,

[1:14] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[1:26] Okay, Deputy City Clerk, would you please roll a call?

[1:30] Councilman Castellanos. Here.

[1:34] Councilman Johnson. Here.

[1:36] Councilmember Shoemaker. Here.

[1:38] Mayor Pro Tem López Viado. Present.

[1:40] Mayor Wu. Here.

[1:42] Okay,

[1:45] city attorney, do you have any information, report?

[1:48] Nothing to report on, Mr. Mayor, nothing to report on.

[1:54] Okay, then we have our major tonight.

[1:58] I have two presentations.

[2:30] It's said to say goodbye for 30-year service,

[2:34] loyal and very dedicated to her job.

[2:38] Lori, would you please come up?

[2:42] I cannot believe you're so young to be working in the city for 30 years.

[2:46] I'll be asking about what kind of food you have okay, so you can provide for all the audience including residents over here

[2:52] But thank you so much for your dedication for 30 years. This is exactly a living waste Corvina for 30 years

[2:58] So the day you're working for city the day I move in

[3:00] I don't know. It's a good or bad, okay, but okay again

[3:05] Thank you so much for your service and I think not only you're working for the police department

[3:10] You're working for the fire department, too, right

[3:12] so let's have our police chief and the fire chief come up maybe you guys want to

[3:17] say something great and good I hope so so I let you start it okay chief perfect

[3:24] you're gonna give me the mic all right how much time you guys have wow 30 years

[3:30] of service first of all I'd like to say thank all of you for being here say

[3:34] say good evening to you 30 years of service I want to say Laurie has her

[3:38] her husband her family both her children are here to support her but I can

[3:43] honestly tell you that this is a joyous day in a sad day especially for me Laurie

[3:49] is absolutely a wonderful dispatcher matter fact can I have her supervisor

[3:54] Kim can you just come stand right here with me please the reason I have Kim

[3:59] come up here is because you know Kim has been with Laurie probably as as long

[4:04] as anybody but they work separate from the police department in a different

[4:07] building and no one knows her better than Kim but there is some things I want to

[4:11] say to you Laurie. Let me just tell you a little bit about her. She started in 1990

[4:15] she got promoted to senior supervisor and I mean senior operator and then

[4:21] supervisor but more importantly she's a three-time employee of the year for

[4:26] dispatchers isn't that wonderful.

[4:33] You know when I first got here which was

[4:35] seems like a long time ago the dispatchers and the police they

[4:40] they didn't do briefings in the same room.

[4:42] So we only knew our dispatcher's by voice.

[4:45] And I'm just going to tell you she's got a very distinct voice

[4:47] on the radio.

[4:48] And so when you hear it, as many of you, if you've called in,

[4:51] you've probably heard her.

[4:52] But you can tell her apart from the rest

[4:54] of them very soothing, very calm voice.

[4:57] And I'm just going to tell you, being a dispatcher,

[5:00] the stress that they're under,

[5:02] the calls that they come in,

[5:04] you couldn't tell that it was an emergency

[5:06] because she's that calm under pressure.

[5:08] This is 30 years of service. This is what you get. I'm just telling you right now that we are going to miss you

[5:15] It's a sad day, but a joyous day for you, and I want you to really enjoy your your retirement

[5:21] And before I give it over to the chief if you don't mind. I just want Kim just to say a few words about it because

[5:28] Okay

[5:29] Well, Laura and I obviously worked together for 30 years

[5:32] We two of us mayor back there is our co-worker also

[5:35] though we've been there a little longer than she has,

[5:37] but she's decided to hang up the mic

[5:39] a little earlier than we have.

[5:41] What I would say about Laura,

[5:42] I spoke a lot about her the past couple of days,

[5:43] but the one thing I thought I would hit on tonight

[5:46] being that there's some citizens here,

[5:48] is Lori, honestly, the one thing we push

[5:50] when new people start in our dispatch center

[5:52] is customer service.

[5:54] And I always say Nordstrom style.

[5:57] If anybody's shopped at Nordstroms,

[5:58] you could return a tire there,

[6:00] and they'd be like, okay, we'll take it back.

[6:02] So I always said, you wanna be like

[6:03] a Nordstrom customer service not like pick and save or you know some other lower place

[6:07] and Laura honestly lives up to that she's like the one person honestly like people call us

[6:13] day to day not because it's a good day it's because it's a bad day so when people call

[6:17] there are always not so nice sometimes because they're having a bad day but Lori honest to

[6:22] God and I mean this 100% I've never heard her be anything but nice to everybody I don't

[6:28] care what they say a few weeks ago we had a citizen call and obviously having a really

[6:32] bad day, because you called her something really not nice.

[6:36] And so when we all heard that, we're like, like, how could they say that against Lori?

[6:40] I mean, it's like, she never ever is.

[6:42] And even after being called not a nice thing, she's like, okay, so we'll get someone over

[6:46] there to help you.

[6:48] So that's the lore I know and love.

[6:50] I mean, we raised our children together.

[6:52] I'm losing my right hand big time with her retiring, but it is what it is, and I'm

[6:58] happy for her.

[6:59] But sad at the same time.

[7:02] That's our Lori and we wish her nothing but the best from myself and from the dispatch.

[7:07] For

[7:12] Lori, on behalf of the fire department, we also want to say we're going to miss your expertise

[7:15] helping out the fire and dealing with us and I know we're more difficult than the police

[7:21] because, you know, our calls are fun or better but, yeah, just lately.

[7:25] Especially the last two years we've been more difficult, right?

[7:28] I've been here two years, so I appreciate you.

[7:31] the fire department definitely appreciates you we're gonna we're

[7:33] definitely gonna miss your expertise and your institutional knowledge of the

[7:36] dispatching services West Covina and on behalf of the fire department good luck

[7:40] in your retirement thank you for all your service so

[7:47] so Larry Laurie will you

[7:50] change your mind where you still want to sit in manager city manager want to

[7:56] Make an offer, okay.

[7:59] Wait, wait.

[8:00] Yeah, make an offer. She cannot refute.

[8:02] But, again, thank you so much for 30 years of your service.

[8:06] It's unbelievable dedication and so many a nice thing about you.

[8:10] And, okay, I miss your very nice voice, okay.

[8:14] I don't want to call all the time, okay.

[8:16] You say, hey, Laurie, okay. I have a 911, okay.

[8:18] But anyway, other than that, represent West Covina, our, okay,

[8:22] great city and 120,000 population.

[8:24] we appreciate your service, and we have a gift for you, okay?

[8:29] We have a beautiful plaque, okay?

[8:32] And see, nobody will give paper, but for you, we give a plaque,

[8:36] so meaning we really spend the money for you, okay?

[8:40] So,

[8:47] and not only that, okay?

[8:48] And we are going to give you a street name

[8:52] called Baron Bolivar.

[8:55] Okay, let you can maybe,

[9:01] maybe, when you come back

[9:03] to what you have to return it okay but but other than that the Baron you can

[9:10] hear in front of either police or fire chief okay it's up to you but but

[9:14] congratulations thank you so much and

[9:22] lawyer form from the police department

[9:25] this is a certificate of recognition and you know we can put a thousand words

[9:29] on here and it probably won't equal what you mean to us but there are some

[9:32] things on here that talks about devotion duty loyalty and trustworthiness

[9:36] but most of all it says we're going to miss you

[9:46] I'm

[10:31] so sorry okay she should

[10:33] she had to say something I don't really like this part but I would just want to

[10:41] say thank you to the staff and citizens of West Covina for allowing me to be

[10:47] part of it for 30 years. It's been awesome. It's been awesome city to work for. I'm so

[10:53] grateful for everything I've learned over the years and the friendships that I've made

[10:58] with my dispatch girls and everybody else in the whole department too. And I'm just

[11:05] so thankful for everything. And the outpour of love this past week has been incredible.

[11:11] I mean they had such a great day for me yesterday it was insane so I just want

[11:18] to say thank you to everything and now it's time I spend more time with them

[11:22] my family and friends I want to thank you for everything and all of your

[11:26] support all these years and for trying to be accommodating to my crazy

[11:30] schedule and shift work and for having Christmas morning at 8 o'clock at

[11:35] night and Thanksgiving dinner on Fridays and our Christmas friends dinner after Christmas.

[11:43] So and I couldn't have done it without all of all of you and all of your support and

[11:47] love and I look forward to this next chapter of my life with you.

[11:52] Thank you.

[11:53] Thank you.

[12:00] Thank you.

[12:01] Thank you so much, Laurie.

[12:03] How are you back?

[12:05] See you soon.

[12:10] Okay, next presentation, West Covina has the most, the best, to shop local after-school

[12:20] program, the after-school program.

[12:22] And I want to thank the dedication for the director, Taylor, would you come up?

[12:31] And I think everybody know West Covina High School Choir,

[12:38] okay, has outstanding

[12:40] from this young man trained all this dedication dedicated student and all the

[12:47] time okay and the last year you guys even get invited to New York right two

[12:51] years ago two years ago we were invited to sing Carnegie Hall Carnegie Hall in

[12:55] New York they get invited yeah this is how outstanding this group young people

[13:00] they they are they are they were okay and the most important thing is two years

[13:04] ago I feel like yesterday last year time flew by but but the thing is this we

[13:09] We need after-school program. We need this important funding for this. I think the shop

[13:15] local after-school program continue to fund your program for our youngsters can continue

[13:20] to have all this magnificent program. So maybe you want to say something to encourage

[13:25] more people to sponsor and more people to join your program.

[13:29] Sure. So we are thrilled to be able to teach the next generation of singer at

[13:35] West Covina High School, the singers who will rise up and take the next spots in the music

[13:41] industry.

[13:42] We have over 130 singers just in our choral department, and they get to really build

[13:51] on their skills, learn not only the fundamentals, but then take the material and the fundamentals

[13:58] to very, very rigorous levels, whether it be an invitation to Carnegie Hall or

[14:05] invitation to perform with and for other colleges. And so, we're thrilled. And so,

[14:12] yeah, our students that we tour every year. So, we've been to Portland. We've

[14:17] been to New York. We've been kind of just all over the place. And so, we

[14:20] really look forward to continue building that legacy and training up

[14:25] that next generation of students. I have some students with me. So our president over business

[14:32] is Jolene, so we're going to come on up. And we also have our president over music, Peter.

[14:39] Then we have my student assistant director, Sebastian. And then our West Covers representative,

[14:48] which is our Advanced Mixed Ensemble, and it's Emily.

[14:54] So these are members of our core department,

[14:57] but these are really some...

[15:00] One of the singers that are that next generation that we're training up, and so we're excited

[15:04] for the prospects that they have ahead of them.

[15:08] Thank you. Okay. You guys want to sing something tonight? No, I know, I know, I know. But they

[15:17] are really outstanding. Two days ago, three days ago at Christmas Children's Parade, and

[15:22] you guys performed as outstanding. You guys shouldn't miss any time about their performers.

[15:27] We've been inviting them all the time in different functions because you guys are awesome.

[15:32] I think this is what is important for our youth.

[15:35] They have a chance to develop their talent.

[15:38] So not only the academic during the daytime, but after 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock, they need

[15:45] to have this after-school activity to make them become very talented, develop your

[15:51] talent, but most important thing is develop your confidence.

[15:55] The confidence is so important for your future, and I want to thank you, Taylor.

[16:00] Okay, Mr. Weigelwald, I've been practicing all day.

[16:05] I don't want to say the wrong name.

[16:07] I know it's more difficult.

[16:09] Weigelwald is much easier, but thank you, Taylor.

[16:11] Mr. Taylor, Weigelwald, for your hard-working and dedication to train all these young people.

[16:17] Because of your dedication, that's why we have this program.

[16:19] So, represent West Covina, we have a resolution from Five City Council for the entire city

[16:26] to have this resolution to recognize outstanding achievement for all of you.

[16:31] But thank you so much for your dedication and contribution for our community.

[16:35] Thank you so much.

[16:36] Thank you.

[16:37] Okay.

[16:37] Thank you.

[16:51] Okay.

[16:52] Thank you.

[17:03] Thank you.

[17:03] Thank you so much.

[17:04] I really appreciate it.

[17:05] Thank you.

[17:06] Thank you.

[17:27] Next slide, we move to the overall communication of any resident want to address to council.

[17:33] Please fill out a yellow card and provide to the deputy city clerk and if you want the

[17:38] city clerk to read for you, just fill out the orange one.

[17:41] So deputy city clerk, how many we have?

[17:45] At this time, Mr. Mayor, we only have one yellow card.

[17:47] Okay.

[17:47] Would you please have them to come to the podium?

[17:50] Certainly.

[17:51] Mr. Herb Redholz, would you please come forward?

[17:54] Okay, then you go to public hearing.

[17:57] Okay, only, okay, for beside the public hearing agenda,

[18:01] would you please, anybody want to speak?

[18:04] Nope?

[18:05] Okay,

[18:11] now we move to the consent calendar.

[18:14] Before we start the consent calendar,

[18:16] do we have a, yes, City?

[18:19] No, thank you.

[18:21] Look like you want to say something to me.

[18:22] No, thank you.

[18:24] You smiling and facing your face to me?

[18:26] Okay, so anyway,

[18:27] Anyway, I have a German memory to our beloved, okay,

[18:33] a founder of a Porto Bakery, Rosa Porto.

[18:37] Okay, and tonight, so, Deputy City Clerk,

[18:41] would you please make a mark that I,

[18:43] we're going to in the memory of Rosa Porto.

[18:47] Tonight, we adjourn this meeting

[18:49] in honor of Rosa Porto,

[18:51] founder of a Porto Bakery and Cafe,

[18:54] way, who passed away at the age of 89. According to the family, Rosa began selling homemade

[19:01] baked goods from an underground location when Cuba fell into communism. She continued her

[19:09] passion to sell homemade goods after the family immigrated to the United States in 1971.

[19:16] He went on to open the very first portal bakery in Echo Park and later expanded to

[19:22] other locations including our great city West Covina. Rosa always brought happiness, great

[19:29] service, and fantastic food to all. Tonight, we remember her and her legacy. Thank you.

[19:38] Any other City Council have any Germans? No? Okay, thank you. And the City Council

[19:44] want to pull any agenda? No? Okay, do I have a motion to approve 126?

[19:52] motion approved. One, two, six.

[19:54] Do I have a second?

[19:55] So we have a motion by Councilman

[20:01] Louis Johnson and a second by

[20:05] Councilman Cassiano. Do I have

[20:08] any objection? No. So 5-0,

[20:12] the motion approved.

[20:16] Let's go to the public hearing

[20:18] number seven and number eight. At the request

[20:21] Yes, we're going to combine number seven and number eight for joining combination, combine

[20:29] both public hearing.

[20:32] Okay, a dub of California building and fire code and establishment of a new fine and

[20:38] fee.

[20:39] Okay, the matters set for the public hearing are for the adoption of the 2019 building

[20:45] code, 2019 fire code, and other various code as well as establishment of a new fine

[20:51] and fee. Whether deputy city clerk verify the proper legal notice has been given.

[20:58] Verified. Okay, thank you. Okay, and at this time I should open the public hearing

[21:03] on the co-adoption and fee change. There will first be the presentation of a

[21:09] staff report. Then we shall hear comment from the public. City manager, who will

[21:15] present a staff report? Good evening, Mayor and Council. The report on these

[21:18] items will be director Jeff Anderson. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. So yes we

[21:24] are combining two items. We're combining the building and fire code

[21:27] adoption with the fee schedule and

[21:32] I'm going to start with the code adoption.

[21:35] So the state of California updates the building and fire codes every three years.

[21:38] It was last updated in 2016. Building division and the fire department are

[21:44] requesting the city council adopt the 2019 edition of the Los Angeles

[21:47] County, building code and other related codes such as plumbing electrical and the California

[21:52] fire code.

[21:54] The 2019 codes adopted by the state are effective on January 1, 2020 because this is an adoption

[22:01] by reference.

[22:01] This is an introduction and the public hearing will occur on January 7, 2020.

[22:05] So in effect we're going to have two public hearings on this.

[22:08] Tonight we're having a public hearing but the required public hearing will be on January

[22:11] 7.

[22:14] cities can amend the California codes due to climatic geologic and topographical conditions or administrative revisions or reasons.

[22:25] The LA County codes include amendments specific to West Covina.

[22:28] Most of the revisions were previously adopted by the city to earlier code adoptions and are carried over into the 2019 codes.

[22:35] Among the effective amendments in the LA County codes is an annual cost of living adjustment,

[22:40] allowing fees to be adjusted annually based on the consumer price index.

[22:47] The local amendments that are a continuation or carryover from the previous West Virginia code amendments

[22:53] include an administrative changes that relate to issuance of permits,

[22:57] a collection of fees, inspection, and several other things that you can see there in the first bullet point.

[23:03] Grading code changes that address preparation in the middle of engineering reports requiring inspections and other grading requirements.

[23:08] And then third, the fire code changes, including the elimination of the previous city amendments

[23:14] that were incorporated into the 2019 fire code.

[23:20] The following is a summary of the city's local amendments to the state building and

[23:23] fire codes.

[23:25] The first bullet point, accessory storage sheds on residential properties.

[23:29] Storage sheds no more than one story or 10 feet in height are now exempt from permits.

[23:34] Before that, I don't think there was a height limit, so they've established

[23:36] a height limit.

[23:37] idle pallets, added to address and alleviate potential high hazard fire

[23:42] concerns in commercial and industrial businesses, and then lastly existing

[23:47] buildings is amended to include their requirement for price, include the

[23:51] requirement for fire sprinklers in existing one and two family dwellings

[23:56] when undergoing major renovations in additions.

[24:04] And in regard to that we do

[24:06] We do have our building official, Tony Weimholt, we have our fire chief, Vince Capelli, and

[24:12] we have those two guys to answer any questions, questions on the specificity of the changes

[24:18] to the building and or fire code.

[24:21] So now we're going to go to the second part of the hearing, which is the fine and fee

[24:26] schedule background.

[24:28] The city typically updates the fine and fee schedule every year.

[24:32] The last update was in September of 2018.

[24:35] The purpose of a fine and fee schedule is to set the rates that will be charged for services rendered.

[24:41] Lastly, setting an appropriate fee promotes service efficiency and minimizes the burden on the general taxpayer,

[24:47] as well as allows for consideration of appropriate staffing levels for building and engineering services.

[24:52] And I say building and engineering because that's the two sections of the fee ratio that we're recommending,

[24:58] or two of the sections we're recommending to be changed tonight.

[25:00] So

[25:05] the first one we want to talk about is the code enforcement fines.

[25:10] We recommend those to be increased to be consistent with the fines

[25:13] allowed by state law and the fees be revised by building

[25:17] and engineering divisions to adopt the county's schedule of fees.

[25:21] The proposed fees will ensure cost recovery and appropriate staffing levels

[25:24] so that reviews and inspections are completed in a timely manner.

[25:28] Increased funding would allow the ability to increase staffing

[25:30] through consultants for inspections or other services that are necessary, and setting fees

[25:36] for appropriate levels will provide consistency and predictability in the process. Builders

[25:41] and property owners generally want consistency and predictability in the permit and inspection

[25:45] process.

[25:48] So first, the code enforcement fines. The goal of code enforcement is voluntary compliance,

[25:54] not revenue generation. That's important to keep in mind. However, there are instances

[25:58] instance, where we have uncooperative property owners who have a code enforcement violation

[26:03] and it's good to have a fee for non-compliance if necessary.

[26:09] I'm sorry, okay.

[26:10] Is it keep going off?

[26:13] I bore things sometimes, so sorry.

[26:17] On January 1, 2019, the state changed the maximum allowable charges for code enforcement

[26:22] violations for building and safety code violations.

[26:26] So that was the beginning of this year.

[26:27] The current fines range from $100 to $500 in incremental stages, and the proposed fines

[26:34] range from $130 to $1,300 building.

[26:42] The proposed fee schedule would adopt the LA County Schedule of Fees for Building Fees.

[26:47] It is common for cities to adopt LA County's fees as it provides an easy comparison with

[26:52] LA County costs and allows for an automatic cost of living increase.

[26:56] I'll try to do it every time I talk.

[27:02] Cities that have adopted county fees that are nearby us include Alhambra, which is 1.85

[27:07] times county fees, DeWartie, which is 2 times county fees, Rosemead, which is 1.5 times

[27:13] county fees, and Temple City at 1.3 times county fees, and Whittier at 3 times county

[27:18] fees.

[27:20] Our proposal is to increase to 1.65 times county fees.

[27:24] fees. The proposed building code amendment would eliminate the current job fee charge

[27:29] that doubles the permit fees for contractors. I'll talk about that a little bit more later.

[27:36] The proposed fee schedule for engineering would adopt the LA County Schedule of Fees

[27:41] for engineering fees and or county time and material for special situations. It is

[27:48] common for cities to adopt the LA County Schedule of Fees as it provides an easy

[27:51] The same quote is with the building fees.

[27:55] And other cities that use county fees for engineering include Calabasas, Temple City, Whittier, and San Gabriel.

[28:06] The building fee schedule reduces the permit fees for small-scale projects including residential electric meter upgrades,

[28:13] water heater replacements, and replacement of existing plumbing fixtures.

[28:17] An issuance fee of $36 would be charged, but that would be the total cost for those small, minor types of permit fees.

[28:25] fees. It would eliminate the job fee which imposes higher fees on contractors and on

[28:30] owner-builder projects and the adoption of the new fees will ensure full cost recovery

[28:36] including administration of those services such as city manager's office, finance and

[28:41] city attorney.

[28:45] So in summary, building and fire code, we actually have two things that we're doing

[28:50] here tonight. We're suggesting the adoption of the 2019 codes. This will be the introduction

[28:55] of that. There would be a public hearing on January 7th. We are also recommending that

[29:01] you adopt an urgency ordinance so it would be effective on January 1st, 2020 to allow

[29:05] us to begin using the California codes as they intend to be used. And so that's the

[29:12] two sections tonight. There's four ordinances before you for that. For fines and fees,

[29:17] we are suggesting adopting a new fine and fee schedule for the code enforcement fees,

[29:20] fees for building fees and engineering fees and the new fines and fees are consistent with

[29:25] the San Gabriel Valley market and will ensure improved service. That concludes my presentation.

[29:30] I would say as well as the building official and the fire chief, we have our city engineer

[29:39] here, Mike Ackerman, who can answer questions on the county fees for engineering services.

[29:45] Okay. Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Does the council have any questions?

[29:51] Go ahead.

[29:53] Why did we eliminate the job fee?

[29:58] The job fee...

[30:00] It does something that I don't think that the city should be in the business of doing,

[30:03] which it basically encourages people to pull owner-builder permits.

[30:07] So we, and I, and it's funny how we work, we have that job fee and at the same time,

[30:14] we, when they want to submit the owner-builder to save the money, we have them fill out

[30:20] a form and sign it recognizing what they're agreeing to do, which is take on liability

[30:25] for injuries that happen for any worker on the property

[30:28] and the general idea of an owner-builder permit

[30:30] is that you're going to do the work.

[30:32] So if you're hiring a contractor, it's a much better idea

[30:35] and the city's in a much better place

[30:36] if we're encouraging people to hire a contractor

[30:39] to do the work.

[30:42] And the way it's set up right now,

[30:44] it's a lot more expensive to hire a contractor.

[30:47] In my way of thinking, that's not a good way

[30:50] for the city to be doing business.

[30:52] But isn't the idea to capture higher fees

[30:54] from builders and contractors than necessarily the one-off builder of their own property

[31:03] or addition onto their own property.

[31:06] Well, I think that-

[31:07] There is a big difference between owner building a house and a contractor building 50 houses.

[31:15] And that's generally why there are higher fees from what I understand when it comes

[31:21] to those types of projects.

[31:25] One thing that you may want to do is ask our building officials who have worked in other

[31:29] cities, but I'm not aware that very many cities have this fee.

[31:32] It's kind of a West Covena special.

[31:34] So if other cities, if I had the understanding that other cities had the fee, I might not

[31:38] have as much concern, but I'm not aware of other cities having this type of fee.

[31:43] I think you're probably correct in the reason that the fee was adopted.

[31:48] That's usually why we have tiered fees for like assessment of fees when they're building

[31:52] properties and the fees that go to school districts based on who's building.

[31:57] Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

[31:59] So, Annie?

[32:01] Yep.

[32:01] Councilman?

[32:02] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[32:02] Donaldson?

[32:03] Yeah, on the court enforcement.

[32:05] If someone goes out, the court enforcement officer goes out to, there's a violation

[32:10] that's been reported.

[32:12] Now, my question is, is there a fine, the first, how long do you need to go

[32:17] them to repair or take care of their code violation before or how do you go about giving the first

[32:23] fine?

[32:24] Well, you know, that's going to depend a lot on the situation and the reaction they

[32:29] get.

[32:29] Again, I want to always emphasize with code enforcement, the goal isn't to get money,

[32:34] the goal is to get compliance.

[32:36] So generally, the code enforcement officer is going to work with the person and if

[32:40] the person is working towards compliance, they're not going to give them a fine.

[32:43] Once they get obstinate and basically refuse or, you know,

[32:48] given them chances and then they haven't ever taken any steps to fix the situation,

[32:53] then that's when you start with the fines.

[32:55] So it's going to depend on the situation.

[32:57] Do they give them a time limit?

[32:59] Let me see.

[33:00] What is if, for example, I actually reported there was a motor home parked halfway on

[33:06] in someone's driveway and on the sidewalk, like in the sidewalk,

[33:10] and I reported it to the code enforcement.

[33:11] My question is, what time limit do they give them to move that motor home because you're

[33:16] actually in the public wide right?

[33:18] Usually they give them, I couldn't answer a question on that, but generally they give

[33:21] them, I would say, two weeks to 30 days to comply.

[33:27] Now there's various things, what you're describing is maybe something that's much

[33:30] easier to rectify, so they might not give them that much time.

[33:33] But other things that may take longer to rectify.

[33:37] So one of the problems with code enforcers is just such a wide variety of things

[33:41] that occur.

[33:44] Okay, council, any council? Any? So follow up, okay, Councilman Johnson's

[33:51] question. My understanding is, okay, when you see a violation from our

[33:56] co-enforcement team of staff, they will give them a warning, okay, and after

[34:02] warning you give them a period of time, maybe a week, okay, and then you will

[34:07] go back to see have that been corrected. Okay, if they don't, then you

[34:11] maybe the second move is you will give them maybe the ticket am I right you're

[34:17] correct so so you'll you'll have a warning and then possible they will talk

[34:22] to the city say why this violation so not right away we want to find people we

[34:27] want to I think fine is not try to okay to collect the revenue I think fine is

[34:33] try to have people to correct the wrongdoing okay so so I think my

[34:37] My understanding when I talk to city manager and our co-enforcement manager, Mylan, is

[34:43] about how to persuade the resident or homeowner or the business owner how to correct the run.

[34:51] For example, the trash, the car parking on the lawn, or the car parking on the street

[34:57] forever and ever, or they park a commercial vehicle in the residential area, and they

[35:03] should be removed ASAP, otherwise we should give them the ticket.

[35:06] So I think every situation is different.

[35:10] So the time period depends on the co-enforcement officer

[35:16] communication with the violator, right? Am I right?

[35:20] Correct. And I think persuade is a good word.

[35:22] Yes, exactly. I think we try to...

[35:25] Because the fine looked very deep to me currently based on this change.

[35:28] So we need to maybe notify the people the fine will be pretty handsome.

[35:33] It's not cheap.

[35:34] So we need to, we don't want to make sure we want to correct the situation, not try to impose the fine.

[35:43] I think that is what we try to let the people understand of the residents that we have to kind of clean up all the front yard

[35:50] to make sure upgrade and sanitation and all those issues.

[35:54] I think that is what the city is trying to do, am I right?

[35:57] Correct.

[35:57] Okay, thank you.

[36:02] No, no, any other questions?

[36:03] So, from there, then, Ms. W. D. City Clerk, do you have received any comment concerning

[36:09] what I always call the building code on the change and the fee schedule?

[36:14] No written comments or protests have been received by the clerk's office at this time.

[36:18] So in this time, I'm going to open up for the resident to have comment.

[36:22] Anybody want to comment on this issue?

[36:25] Come up.

[36:26] JD.

[36:37] Well, Mr. Anderson said several times that this is not for revenue generating revenue.

[36:42] you.

[36:45] Proceeding bullets said that this would help pay for staff. It would also offset some

[36:52] of the cost recovery. It would be used for cost recovery. So it seems to be a way of

[36:58] incentivizing code enforcers to go out there and maybe capriciously issue out fines.

[37:07] Will there be an appeal process that residents can appeal to in the event that they feel

[37:15] that they're being unjustly fined.

[37:21] I hate to sound cynical, but it seems to me that this is more predicated on generating

[37:27] revenue than it is in terms of enforcing the illegal activities that may be taking place

[37:36] in terms of some of the issues mentioned.

[37:40] I say that because currently we have code enforcers and we have seen probably in the

[37:45] last 10 years an exponential growth in illegal dwellings, cars parked in drive

[37:55] or in open front lawns and left out in the streets. Many residents have come up

[38:01] and complained about motorhomes parked for extended times and really no

[38:07] enforcement has taken place. So I would be interested in seeing what sort of

[38:13] report, what the report will show now that you're going to be issuing fines and fees,

[38:20] is this going to be driving, like I said, an incentive for the code enforcers to protect

[38:28] their jobs and to increase the city's revenue. Thank you.

[38:34] Any other residents want to make comment? No?

[38:39] A

[38:45] point of clarification, Mr. City Manager, these fees are already in place.

[38:52] We're actually updating them. These aren't new schedules, anything like that.

[38:57] There are fees that are currently in place that we are updating and conforming

[39:01] and things that we do on a regular basis when it comes to fees and fines.

[39:07] Correct?

[39:08] Through the Chair, that's exactly correct.

[39:11] This is an update of a fee schedule for fees that are currently charged by the city.

[39:17] If I could speak to the question, which has come up a couple of times, the goal of code

[39:21] enforcement is entirely voluntary compliance.

[39:24] We are in the code compliance business.

[39:27] I don't believe this year we've levied a single fine and I see these fines as deterrents

[39:32] and it would be a last resort.

[39:33] We're always in code enforcement striving for voluntary compliance.

[39:38] Okay, thank you. Okay. Do we have any comment? If not, I'm going to close the public comment.

[39:44] Now I'm going back to the council discussion. So any council want to, okay, Councilman Johnson?

[39:52] Yes, my question was, Mr. Jeffery said, do they have an appeal? Do we have an appeal

[40:01] if someone feels that they're being cited unfairly? Do they have an appeal that they

[40:06] Can't talk to someone about it.

[40:09] Mr. Mayor, there's always been an appeal process

[40:12] when receiving a citation, absolutely.

[40:17] Go ahead, Councilman Casiano.

[40:18] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[40:19] And to follow up on what Council Member Shoemaker asked,

[40:23] well, let me give us a brief history.

[40:25] Have we been doing a good job of code enforcement?

[40:34] Not yet.

[40:36] We've just hired a new code enforcement manager

[40:38] and we'll soon have several part-timers

[40:42] working for him divided geographically around the city.

[40:46] Mr. Murakic-Milan has been very, very busy in the short time he's been with us today.

[40:50] He was sending out literally north of 40 letters, but in each and every case he's trying for

[40:56] voluntary compliance.

[40:57] I think we're going to see a large increase in terms of public contacts and education

[41:02] about some of these violations, but education is always our first approach.

[41:08] And the follow-up question, as far as the cost, there was concern about cost.

[41:12] Are we limited to just cost recovery?

[41:17] Yes, sir. The city in its collection of fees, any kind of a fee or charge, is to charge cost reasonably born in the provision of the service.

[41:27] And that's what we're recommending to you tonight as part of this package.

[41:30] So generally not a spread to, quote, unquote, profit?

[41:33] This is not a profit center. We're focused on cost recovery. Thank you. Any other council?

[41:42] Okay. Mayor Poltenin, Lopez, Viado? Actually, I do remember when I was walking during my district,

[41:51] the biggest complaint that I got from most of my residents were code enforcement in regards to the neighbors or things.

[41:58] So there was a lot, and they did complain to the city.

[42:02] They tried complying, but a lot of them just didn't care,

[42:07] didn't, so there was no enforcement.

[42:09] So I know majority of the residents

[42:11] would like to see this enforcement occur

[42:14] because that was the biggest complaint that happened.

[42:16] So thank you for this code enforcement.

[42:18] My question is, those who wish to comply

[42:21] and cannot afford it, is what's the alternatives?

[42:27] Through the Chair, those that wish to comply, we're going to work with them until they do,

[42:33] and we're going to give time extensions to get compliance long before we ever get defined.

[42:38] So we'll give people time, and if they're working with us to correct, then we'll be supportive of that.

[42:44] And FIND is an absolute last resort.

[42:48] Thank you.

[42:49] Yeah.

[42:50] And to piggyback on that great question, is the $10,000 loan still available to homeowners?

[42:59] Yes, CDBG fund.

[43:01] Okay, so that would be a viable option if necessary.

[43:04] They could comply that way and it's no interest and not due in how many years?

[43:10] Ten years.

[43:11] Okay.

[43:12] That's a pretty good solution.

[43:14] Thank you.

[43:14] Okay, follow up. Okay, Councilman Casiano regarding the $10,000, I think we've been talking

[43:22] to the CDBG fund and we have let almost a million dollars still accumulate and we need

[43:28] to kind of promote to our residents that we have this $10,000 or I think up to $20,000

[43:36] right? $10,000 for the upgrade for their home for some of the issue and they don't

[43:44] and to fix their property. And for a lot of, even including, I think, energy-saving and

[43:49] all that kind of thing, improvement. And the second thing I want to follow up, okay,

[43:54] a mail proton regarding a co-enforcement issue. I think over here, everybody received

[44:00] all the co-enforcement that residents really want, okay, co-enforcement, compare our

[44:05] city and the surrounding city, especially like Walnut, why one street different, they're

[44:10] clean and all the house is a molecular, okay, and compared to our our property

[44:16] it's kind of some properties are obsolete, okay, never ever for our

[44:20] co-enforcement to tell the people say would you please clean up your front yard,

[44:24] okay, and make your house look a little bit more presentable and not kind of

[44:29] rusted or they kind of going on. So I think this is something very important.

[44:33] I think, okay, regarding the the fines just a last resort we say hey if you

[44:38] you don't do this, we're going to find you. But I think we should spend time to persuade

[44:41] the home and try to persuade them to do it. But let's go back to another issue regarding

[44:47] adjustment. I kind of understand the adjustment. You remove a lot of changing the water heaters.

[44:54] Okay, we play some of the window or something that something very mild. We don't even touch them any

[45:00] So, we want to encourage people resident to apply so we can check for them to make sure

[45:06] okay, everything comply and no fire hazard or any issue. I think this is something we want

[45:11] to encourage. The issue we have before we're talking about, we, our application down to

[45:17] 1,300 compared with 3,000 average due to the people just don't apply. So, in that way,

[45:24] we need to encourage people to apply and we need to help them to do it legally

[45:28] so we don't have any hazardous situations.

[45:32] I think this is what the core enforcement is about.

[45:35] But the point is, now we have this well-done contractor.

[45:39] How is their service, because you raise this fee,

[45:43] and I understand most of the contractors,

[45:45] most of the developer, they want the time, the service.

[45:48] They don't care the pay, okay, extra,

[45:51] but they want the time and the precise and more efficient.

[45:55] Do we provide this service if you want to raise this fee?

[46:02] I'm happy to take that one, and the answer is yes, sir, we do.

[46:05] In our new building and safety contract, we've set out performance standards, performance metrics,

[46:10] and we are meeting them in almost every instance.

[46:15] I can tell you, when we meet with people that are prospective builders in this city,

[46:20] time is money, and the thing they're most interested in is getting it done and getting it done quickly.

[46:27] I'll give you a real-time example from this morning's meeting.

[46:32] We've had a site plan application precise plan review filed by Florin Decor.

[46:37] I want to take over the former Kmart site, and it's zoned for that, and it's an over-the-counter permit.

[46:45] And to them, time is money.

[46:46] So we said we can expedite building permits.

[46:50] We want to make this happen.

[46:52] We want to be your heroes at City Hall.

[46:53] We want to get you building permits quickly.

[46:55] They were completely supportive, and I don't think the amount of the fees came up even once.

[47:02] They just want to get them done quickly.

[47:04] And that's what we believe we're able to accomplish with this arrangement.

[47:07] Okay. Thank you, City Manager.

[47:09] Do we have any common question?

[47:12] If not, do I have a motion?

[47:15] Mr. Mayor, can we have four separate motions for the ordinances and then a separate motion for the resolution?

[47:20] Yeah, go ahead.

[47:21] That deputy city clerk will read the title for you if you don't want to put that in your

[47:24] motion.

[47:25] Four, and then the resolution will be the fifth.

[47:29] And then if I may be so bold as to suggest that we possibly take the votes after each

[47:33] individual ordinance is read, that will save all four ordinances being read back to back

[47:37] and for clarification's sake, there won't be any mix-up on the votes as well.

[47:43] I'm sorry.

[47:49] Urgency ordinance number 2466 is an urgency ordinance of the City Council of the City

[47:53] West Covina, California, amending Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Chapter 7, adding Articles

[48:00] 19, 20, and 21 to Chapter 7, amending Article 1 of Chapter 9 and Article 2 of Chapter 10

[48:07] of the West Covina Municipal Code to adopt by reference Title 26 Building Code of

[48:12] the Los Angeles County Code, which adopts by reference the 2019 California Building

[48:17] Code Title 27 Electrical Code of the Los Angeles County Code, which adopts by reference

[48:23] the 2019 California Electrical Code Title 30 residential code of the Los Angeles County

[48:29] Code which adopts by reference the 2019 California Residential Code, Title 29 Mechanical Code

[48:36] of the Los Angeles County Code which adopts by reference the 2019 California Mechanical

[48:41] Code, Title 28 Plumbing Code of the Los Angeles County Code which adopts by reference

[48:46] the 2019 California Plumbing Code, Title 31, Green Building Standards Code of the Los Angeles

[48:53] County Code which adopts by reference the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code,

[48:58] Title 33, Existing Building Code of the Los Angeles County Code which adopts by reference

[49:03] the 2019 California Existing Building Code and making amendments there too and amending

[49:08] Article 2 of Chapter 14 of the West Covina Municipal Code to repeal the construction

[49:13] contractor license fee. Do I have a motion? I will make a motion for all four

[49:18] ordinances and the resolution. No, only one. You can do one. This is the first one.

[49:24] Okay, no problem. I'll make a motion for the first ordinance. Do I have a second?

[49:29] I'll second. Okay, so first from the Councilman Casiano and second by

[49:34] Mayo-Proton Lopez-Villada. Do I have any objection? None. So, okay, motion approved.

[49:43] a second motion. Second agenda. So moved. The direction of the city attorney we'd still

[49:50] like to go ahead and take a roll call. Okay, a roll call please. All right, certainly Councilman

[49:56] Castellanos. All right. Councilman Johnson. All right. Councilmember Shoemaker. All right.

[50:02] Mayor Pro Tem López Villarro. Aye. Mayor Wu. Aye. Approved, five zero. All right.

[50:09] Moving on to urgency ordinance number 2468, an urgency ordinance of the City Council of the City of West Covena, California, amending article 2 of chapter 10 of the West Covena Municipal Code to adopt by reference the 2019 California Fire Code, which adopts by reference the 2018 International Fire Code and making amendments there too.

[50:32] Do I have a motion?

[50:34] I'll make a motion to approve.

[50:36] Do I have a second?

[50:37] I'll second.

[50:37] Okay. Okay. I have a motion moved by Councilman Casiano and second by Mayor Pro Tem Lopez Viano.

[50:44] Do I have a roll call, please?

[50:46] Councilman Casalanos. Aye.

[50:48] Councilman Johnson. Aye.

[50:50] Councilmember Schumacher. Aye.

[50:52] Mayor Pro Tem Lopez Viano. Aye.

[50:55] And Mayor Wu. Aye.

[51:01] Ordinance number 2463 and ordinance of the City Council of the City of West Covina, California amending articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Chapter 7

[51:10] adding Articles 19, 20 and 21 to Chapter 7, amending Article 1 of Chapter 9 and Article 2

[51:20] of Chapter 10 of the West Covena Municipal Code to adopt by reference Title 26 Building Code

[51:26] of the Los Angeles County Code which adopts by reference the 2019 California Building Code,

[51:32] Title 27 Electrical Code of the Los Angeles County Code which adopts by reference the

[51:37] the 2019 Los Angeles County Code,

[51:40] I'm sorry, California Electrical Code,

[51:42] title 30, Residential Code of the Los Angeles County Code

[51:45] which adopts, by reference,

[51:47] the 2019 California Residential Code,

[51:49] title 29, Mechanical Code of the Los Angeles County Code

[51:53] which adopts by reference

[51:54] the 2019 California Mechanical Code,

[51:57] title 28, Plumbing Code of the Los Angeles County Code

[52:00] which adopts by reference

[52:01] the 2019 California Plumbing Code,

[52:04] title 31, Green Building Standards Code

[52:06] of the Los Angeles County Code which adopts, by reference, the 2019 California Green Building

[52:11] Standard Code, Title 33, Existing Building Code of the Los Angeles County Code which

[52:17] adopts, by reference, the 2019 California Existing Building Code, and making amendments

[52:21] thereto and amending Article 2 of the Chapter 14 of the West Covena Municipal Code to repeal

[52:27] the construction contractor's license fee.

[52:29] Thank you.

[52:30] Do I have a motion, please?

[52:32] So moved.

[52:33] Do I have a second?

[52:34] Second.

[52:34] again. Okay, so we have a agenda motion moved by Councilman Casiano and second by

[52:42] Mayor Pro Tem Lopez Viano. Can I have a roll call please? Councilman Casalanos.

[52:48] Aye. Councilman Johnson. Aye. Councilmember Shoemaker. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Lopez Viano.

[52:55] Aye. Mayor Wu. Aye.

[53:01] Ordinance number 2467 and ordinance of the City Council of

[53:04] the City of West Covina, California, amending Article 2 of Chapter 10 of the West Covina

[53:08] Municipal Code to adopt by reference the 2019 California Fire Code, which adopts by reference

[53:14] the 2018 International Fire Code and making amendments thereto.

[53:18] Thank you.

[53:19] Do I have a motion?

[53:20] I'll make a motion to approve Number 4.

[53:23] Do I have a second?

[53:24] I'll second.

[53:24] Okay.

[53:25] Moved by Councilman Casiano and second by Mayor Proten Lopez Viado.

[53:30] Can I have a roll call, please?

[53:32] Councilman Casalanos.

[53:33] All right. Councilman Johnson. All right. Councilmember Shoemaker. All right. Mayor pro tem la pesviata. All right. Mayor will. All right.

[53:50] Yes, sir. We need a motion on resolution 2019 dash 92. Okay. Motion to approve resolution number 2019 dash 92. Do I have a second second. Okay, so we have a

[54:02] Okay, move by Councilman Casiano and second by Councilman Johnson. Roll call, please.

[54:08] please. Councilman Cosalanos aye. Councilman Johnson aye. Councilmember Shoemaker aye.

[54:14] Mayor Pro Tem Lopez Viano aye. Mayor Wu aye.

[54:21] Now we move on to agenda number nine. Okay

[54:26] and this one is about let me see public hearing regarding the Coal Amendment number 19-03

[54:32] to allow for temporarily non-commercial political sign and matters set public hearing consists

[54:40] this of an amendment to the Chapter 26 of the West Covina Municipal Code, okay, related

[54:46] to temporary sign, where the Deputy City, let me see, okay, who is going to present this?

[54:54] This report will be given by Director Jeff Anderson.

[54:56] Okay, Jeff, please.

[54:59] Unfortunately, the screen seems to have gone off permanently, but maybe it'll come on

[55:04] here.

[55:04] I'm going to, there's a PowerPoint presentation being passed around.

[55:07] I'm going to go ahead and go through it as if you could see it.

[55:11] Most of this is not very visual anyway.

[55:13] So this is a Code Amendment number 1903 for temporary noncommercial signs.

[55:20] It's an amendment to Chapter 26, the zoning code of the city of West Covina for temporary noncommercial.

[55:26] In this case, political signs to be placed in parkways within the public right away.

[55:31] When I say political signs, I think that's part of the emphasis on this.

[55:34] but keep in mind this is not just about political science, this is all kinds of temporary non-commercial

[55:39] signs.

[55:41] On April 2nd, 2019, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to consider allowing temporary

[55:46] non-commercial signs in the Parkway, which is the area between the private property line

[55:51] and the curb or the street.

[55:53] Sometimes there's a sidewalk there, sometimes there's not.

[55:56] The Planning Commission held a study session on July 23rd, 2019, and directed staff

[56:00] to prepare a code amendment, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November

[56:05] 26, 2019, and recommended approval of the code amendment to the City Council.

[56:15] So this amendment, again, was prepared based on a request by City Council.

[56:21] In summary, the amendments allow for non-commercial signs in the public right-of-way, which

[56:26] we affectionately call the Parkway.

[56:29] And in residential, agricultural, and single-family zones,

[56:33] signs shall not exceed three square feet in area.

[56:39] We did have a, I'm looking at a very nice map of the city of West Covina that shows the zoning.

[56:45] And we're showing that to understand that over 75% of the city is single-family,

[56:52] a residential zone, a residential some type or another zoning.

[56:56] So this has an effect on most of the city.

[56:59] The proposed Code Amendment is exempt from CEQA as a general exemption and Planning Commission

[57:04] did recommend the adoption of Code Amendment number 1903.

[57:08] That concludes the presentation.

[57:09] I'll be happy to answer any questions.

[57:13] City Council, do you have any questions?

[57:15] Okay.

[57:17] May I put in Lopez Viado?

[57:19] When you say temporary, how long is temporary?

[57:22] I know I read here that there's days to remove it, but it doesn't say how long

[57:29] you can leave it up.

[57:31] Yeah, temporary is not necessarily defined.

[57:34] A temporary sign, I think by definition,

[57:36] is not a permanent sign.

[57:37] So it's kind of based on the materials that it's made of.

[57:40] And generally temporary signs are banners

[57:42] that are vinyl or paper, like gloss paper.

[57:47] And there is an existing section in the code

[57:49] that says temporary non-commercial sign

[57:52] should be removed within 10 days after the event

[57:54] which they're advertising.

[57:56] So that's in the code now.

[57:57] It's not under discussion here,

[57:59] but I think that's basically the definition of temporary.

[58:05] Everybody's definition of temporary is different,

[58:08] so one person could be one day,

[58:09] another person could be a whole year,

[58:10] but it's temporary, so that's why I asked.

[58:13] And that's part of the difficulty

[58:15] in trying to regulate this type of signage.

[58:24] Councilman Casiano.

[58:26] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[58:27] What kind of burden might this place on city workers

[58:30] workers in terms of maintaining the parkways if people catch on to this and really like

[58:38] placing temporary signs.

[58:40] Would that present a problem to our city staff?

[58:43] I did speak with our code enforcement officer today and he commented that, yes, it would

[58:48] probably increase the amount of calls they get, the concerns that happen, understand

[58:53] that a thing like a parkway is kind of an unusual circumstance.

[58:57] The parkway is owned by the city, but generally taken care of by the property owner that it's in front of.

[59:04] So, you know, if signs are put there, who has the ability to tell them they can't be there?

[59:09] They can be there. Somebody's maintaining the yard and takes them down.

[59:13] Can the person who put them up there complain?

[59:15] So these are the type of things that I was told by the Code Enforcement Officer that he's experienced in his career with this type of signage.

[59:26] Any other?

[59:27] In regards to signage, is there limited signage that can be placed?

[59:32] Otherwise, I don't want to see the whole city be cluttered with so many signs.

[59:40] We're looking at the Code of Amendment right now.

[59:42] We don't have it.

[59:43] The size of the sign is defined, but not necessarily the number of signs.

[59:50] What about the message?

[59:52] It's not limited to political.

[59:53] Could it be any of the above religious?

[59:56] Just anything anyone could dream up?

[59:59] Thank you.

[1:00:00] Mr. Mayor, we're not going to regulate the content of it. We're not going to call it a political sign. It's just a non-commercial sign.

[1:00:10] I think we wanted samples, like what kind of signs?

[1:00:14] Vote

[1:00:18] for Mayor Tony Woo, as an example. Yes, yes, yes, but yes, anything non, anything that is not commercial.

[1:00:27] So it could be a religious comment. It could be smile, have a nice day. It could be any message.

[1:00:34] It could be Crosstown, high school football rivalry.

[1:00:37] They want to do something funny.

[1:00:40] Okay.

[1:00:40] It could be something about global warming or about life to life.

[1:00:46] Any message, yes?

[1:00:49] Okay.

[1:00:50] I want to understand the amendment, the change, because my understanding before last year,

[1:00:58] okay, and that we only allow the sign in front of private property.

[1:01:02] so now we want to change to what to allow to the in the public way so in the

[1:01:11] parkway the area which mayor will in the area between the front of the prop front

[1:01:16] property line and the street which is called the parkway or the right of way

[1:01:20] it's people call it yeah I saw it okay I lost you I went through it okay but

[1:01:26] okay I think it's difficult to see this is belong to the homeowner or the

[1:01:31] public. So people just put in the sign possible without the agreement of the owner because

[1:01:37] my understanding, the coordinates we approve before is we must have the property owner concerned

[1:01:46] to put the sign in front of their yacht. So last year we kind of much cleaner than

[1:01:54] previous election. So my understanding is now we want to allow the right-of-way, the

[1:02:02] in front of the sidewalk, let possible can put a yard sign, can be any yard sign beside

[1:02:10] the political. So I don't know, okay, is that what the proposal trying to...

[1:02:15] That is correct.

[1:02:16] Okay, thank you.

[1:02:19] Any other...

[1:02:21] Okay, Councilman Johnson.

[1:02:22] Yes. I guess we can do it after we close. We have discussion.

[1:02:26] with everything good I already know what I want to discuss okay go

[1:02:35] ahead well I

[1:02:38] just remember some people actually would put their sign in between two homeowner's

[1:02:48] property like right in the middle and I remember I said oh great you know you're

[1:02:52] supporting this person goes no no I think that's the neighbors and then go to the

[1:02:55] neighbors and they said oh no I thought it was the other neighbors so there

[1:02:58] a lot of people just putting signs everywhere and then homes that had

[1:03:03] cinder blocks if they had cinder blocks on one end there's one like on Merced

[1:03:08] they just placed it there and so it was just I know there was a bunch of

[1:03:13] clutter on areas where they did not have the approval of the homeowners and

[1:03:17] so I just and then there were certain parts that just overbobarded just way

[1:03:22] too many so it was just something that I recalled. Okay thank you.

[1:03:31] In a situation

[1:03:32] where somebody puts something on a cinder block wall belonging to a property

[1:03:36] doesn't that property owner have the right to remove it? You mentioned

[1:03:40] cinder block and if it's on the parkways in front of somebody's property

[1:03:45] do they have the right to remove it since they maintain them?

[1:03:51] Anybody?

[1:03:54] Well

[1:03:54] that doesn't seem like it I think that's part of our concern is that people may

[1:04:01] I mean if I'm all in my yard and there's something there I'm probably gonna pick

[1:04:03] it up I don't know if I'll put it back or not but you know it's not really my

[1:04:07] property in that area so it's a it's an open question and would could be a

[1:04:12] cause for debate can we put in since people maintain those areas that they

[1:04:19] can remove them. And then the other one was, Mayor Portemllo Pazviato brought up a very

[1:04:28] good point, because the ordinance as it stands states that you have to remove them within

[1:04:37] 10 days of the event, which we understand if it's a political sign within 10 days

[1:04:41] of the election. For general temporary signs that may not have an expiration date

[1:04:48] attached to it, can we put a limit on how long they can be up there, above and

[1:04:55] beyond just saying when they disintegrate?

[1:05:01] I'm going to say we may need some more

[1:05:03] work on this ordinance. Perhaps we can do that but we'd have to work with the

[1:05:08] city attorney to try and craft some language that would achieve your

[1:05:11] direction there. In this case the property owner is the city and so by

[1:05:16] allowing these signs in the public right of way we've really created a new

[1:05:19] precedent here which is untested and I'm predicting we're not going to like it.

[1:05:25] But let's maybe harvest your criticisms tonight and refer back and we'll work with the city

[1:05:32] attorney to perhaps revise this ordinance in a way that it meets your desires.

[1:05:39] Any other comment?

[1:05:41] If none, I'm going to, starting with Deputy City Clerk, have you received any comment

[1:05:46] concerning the core amendment of the number 19-03?

[1:05:50] We've received no criticism or comments.

[1:05:52] Okay, so none.

[1:05:53] So I'm going to open the public comments.

[1:05:56] So do I have any residents want to talk?

[1:05:58] Yeah, go ahead.

[1:06:07] Okay, yeah. Good evening, everybody.

[1:06:09] A question just came into my mind too,

[1:06:12] and maybe it's kind of related to what we've been discussing here.

[1:06:15] But since the parkway is city property, public property,

[1:06:22] could anyone just come along and plant signs?

[1:06:26] I mean, what if, you know, I'm supporting, you know,

[1:06:30] a particular, you know, someone running for counsel,

[1:06:33] and the other guy comes along and plants his sign?

[1:06:37] You know, I mean, I agree with the city attorney,

[1:06:40] this needs work, because we're going to have chaos.

[1:06:45] You know, you're going to be driving along,

[1:06:47] and, oh, why are you supporting that guy?

[1:06:48] I'm not.

[1:06:50] I could just see this being a bad, real bad.

[1:06:54] So I think we need to look at it and get all the T's,

[1:06:59] crossed, and eyes dotted quickly.

[1:07:03] Thank you.

[1:07:05] Thank you.

[1:07:05] Next?

[1:07:08] Jerry?

[1:07:12] Thank you.

[1:07:13] Thank you.

[1:07:16] Jerry Patres.

[1:07:17] Mine is more lighthearted but serious.

[1:07:22] Signs for lost animals.

[1:07:25] To me, I respond to them.

[1:07:26] I walk, I look at them, and I keep an eye out.

[1:07:29] I know they're not supposed to be on telephone poles and light poles and stuff

[1:07:33] But when you do this sign would you kind of recognize that we're gonna do that anyway people do it?

[1:07:40] I put free lines free this or that and my technical parkway things, so I actually

[1:07:49] Think that there is some work that needs to be done, but the animal ones

[1:07:54] I mean really just tear at my heart. So if there's some way you can work something like

[1:07:59] that and I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:08:02] Hang on, Jerry. Next?

[1:08:13] After being involved in political campaigns in the city for about 20 years, it wasn't

[1:08:17] until this order changed to seem there was a problem. When it first came up, I made

[1:08:23] the remark that it was the attempt for the incumbent guaranteed a re-election thing.

[1:08:29] turned out, some of the people who supported it weren't re-elected. So what it comes down

[1:08:38] to is I have a question. That public right away, if the grass grows this high because

[1:08:43] the city owns it, is the city going to come mow it or do I have to?

[1:08:51] If I have to maintain

[1:08:52] it, it seems pretty simple to say I at least can control some of it, the usage

[1:08:58] each of it, if I have to maintain it. Because what if somebody decides to park an old junky

[1:09:06] car on it?

[1:09:09] Who's going to call and say, take this away? Because it's on city property. So

[1:09:15] I think that we're trying to make things a little too difficult. When you can just

[1:09:22] look at it, if I maintain it, you put a sign there, I'm going to throw it away if I

[1:09:28] I don't support that person.

[1:09:29] And I remember in the last campaign putting out signs for people.

[1:09:33] And, you know, people said, you know, put it there

[1:09:35] because you want to set the signs up where people can see them.

[1:09:38] The city was going along, yanking them out.

[1:09:39] And people were going, but that's my property.

[1:09:43] I mean, I remember in the past when these things came up,

[1:09:46] it was saying, yeah, technically it's not the person's property.

[1:09:50] And city staff would say, technically it's not city's property.

[1:09:53] But are you going to go tell somebody that they can't pull that sign?

[1:09:59] you know, that sort of thing.

[1:10:01] And this came up when, you know,

[1:10:03] I remember a former one-term console member

[1:10:05] who was the prime offender for doing things like that,

[1:10:08] finding, you know, a woman who was 75 years old

[1:10:11] and putting a sign and, you know,

[1:10:14] you'd knock on their door and be talking to them and go,

[1:10:15] well, I don't support that person. Why'd they put a sign there?

[1:10:19] I said, pull it.

[1:10:21] Oh, okay.

[1:10:23] You know, and people would get up in front of the console.

[1:10:26] You know, that's nice when you've been around here 20, 25 years

[1:10:28] remember these little things. But I think we're trying to make something a little bit

[1:10:33] more difficult than it needs to be. What about this? What about that? In the past, the ordinance

[1:10:40] was simple. From this date to this date, we're political science. If you were doing signs

[1:10:44] for a yard sale, it was so much before and until the yard sale, whatever the case

[1:10:50] may be. It seemed to have worked for years and years and years. You're not going

[1:10:57] to get all of them. People lose a dog or a cat or whatever and they want to put a sign

[1:11:02] out. Most of the time they're not making plastic signs that are going to last for the next

[1:11:08] 20 years. So it's going to evaporate and people come along and pick them up anyway.

[1:11:15] I think we just need to look at things realistically and be a little bit more, we're not going

[1:11:21] to cover every instance of everything under the sun, but just being a little realistic

[1:11:25] looking at what we had in the past, and just kind of going back to most of that.

[1:11:30] In most cases, people aren't going to get too carried away and put things out.

[1:11:35] If they're referencing a church service, they're going to reference a church service.

[1:11:42] Usually it's not going to be out there forever and ever and ever,

[1:11:46] and you're always going to have somebody who...

[1:11:47] You can't make a rule for somebody who's going to violate it,

[1:11:50] because a lot of these sign ordinances anyway,

[1:11:52] the biggest violations were the people who put them in place would violate them the most.

[1:11:59] So it's like anything. It's not the rule, it's not the process, it's not the procedure,

[1:12:04] it's the people and their integrity and their ethics is what it comes down to.

[1:12:08] So I just go back to what we had in the past, start there and work your way forward.

[1:12:13] Thank you.

[1:12:14] Thank you, John. Do we have any?

[1:12:17] Yep. Go ahead.

[1:12:23] I actually wanted to agree with this gentleman right because where I live there is no sidewalk

[1:12:28] so it's basically my grass goes right up to the curb and then that's where the street's

[1:12:33] at.

[1:12:33] There's a maple tree I think maybe a few feet from there that apparently belongs to the

[1:12:39] city.

[1:12:39] They're supposed to maintain it.

[1:12:42] It's not.

[1:12:43] It's actually the ugliest tree on the street even though I have a beautiful house.

[1:12:47] beautiful house with 52 palm trees and there's this one maple tree that's just

[1:12:52] never kept up right so I just got to believe and then I asked hey can I

[1:12:56] remove it but they said no if you remove it you're gonna find so I said okay so

[1:13:01] I have to maintain it I have to pay someone every month someone has to come

[1:13:05] down you know cut the grass that's technically not my part right that's

[1:13:10] right around the tree so I figured if someone were to come put up a sign

[1:13:16] on my, on my grass, which I technically, it's like my grass right now, I live at the end

[1:13:21] of a cul-de-sac, right? So, you know, I'd probably remove it. But I think like, you know, especially

[1:13:26] if it was someone that I wasn't, let's say, a political sign that I wasn't maybe in tune

[1:13:31] to, but I think you had said earlier, someone over here had said earlier, if it wasn't

[1:13:36] a political sign, and it could be, you know, just have a nice day or have a bad day,

[1:13:41] I don't know, you know, whatever it was, right?

[1:13:44] I mean, who's to determine, I think you had said,

[1:13:47] what determines temporary?

[1:13:51] So does that mean that if I don't remove it,

[1:13:53] I have to see that sign every time I come out of my house

[1:13:56] for who knows how long?

[1:13:57] I mean, so I, you know,

[1:14:00] so that has to be something that I think that, you know,

[1:14:05] and I mean, there's no criticism here.

[1:14:06] I know everybody's trying to figure out

[1:14:08] how to, you know, put these rules in place,

[1:14:10] But there should be some consideration into that someone shouldn't be able to just go up there and just put signs

[1:14:17] You know and be able to leave it there for the late any you know any ridiculous length of time

[1:14:21] So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Okay next steady

[1:14:31] Fees and fines I imagine is connected to this not now somewhere in the future

[1:14:37] Away from my public easement my personal public easement the park area signs that get hung up there

[1:14:46] who's responsible for those signs when they're left there temporarily six months

[1:14:52] later not even that long three weeks later they're on the floor blowing into my

[1:14:57] yard into the curbside

[1:15:00] The city doesn't take responsibility for those, but yet you want to seem to control public easement

[1:15:07] adjacent to my property, whether someone can place a sign there or not. Homeowners take

[1:15:14] the responsibility of either coming afterwards and picking them up or just outright removing

[1:15:20] them. I remove them. But the city doesn't do that in its own public walkway. And I think

[1:15:30] that's a failure on the city's part. We know that there was a contract once upon a time

[1:15:36] where they would go out and pick up these numerous garage sale signs that get posted.

[1:15:43] It used to be weekends, now it's Sunday to Monday, right?

[1:15:49] That contract was not renewed.

[1:15:51] Consequently, we have tremendous amount of trash

[1:15:56] that gets left hung up on public easement.

[1:16:01] That is poles, light poles, hammered into the park palm

[1:16:08] trees into the very front of my neighbor's homes because she happens to have two public

[1:16:15] palm trees of the many that line, Lark Allen, and as the previous speaker said, that's an

[1:16:26] ugly thing to have to come out every morning and look at somebody's signage.

[1:16:34] But the

[1:16:34] is not helping in that area so I think before you decide whether it should be

[1:16:41] in my public easement or not you should probably look into your own home your

[1:16:46] own house that is the park and the areas that you have full control of and maybe

[1:16:50] develop some sort of method of cleaning that up before trying to tell the

[1:16:55] residents what should or should not go on their property thank you okay thank

[1:16:59] Thank you.

[1:17:01] Any resident want to make a comment?

[1:17:04] But now I'm going to close the public comment,

[1:17:07] and then we're going to bring back

[1:17:08] to the council discussion.

[1:17:10] Okay, go ahead.

[1:17:12] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:17:13] You know, I'm all for this,

[1:17:14] being able to put signs out there

[1:17:16] and right in front of the little walkway there.

[1:17:19] I wanted this to happen sometime back.

[1:17:21] We brought it forward because I'm a few years ago,

[1:17:26] I do recall at one time,

[1:17:28] I even had council or make her council member shoemaker. It's one of her signs and she's run for school board in front of my house

[1:17:35] Oh, no, no walkway. I had one of council of a mayor of Tony Wood sign in my yard give you that large

[1:17:43] Yeah, but I'm the same what I'm saying I did have your sign out there

[1:17:48] Nobody put any signs in front of my house that I didn't want there if they were to I would have taken them down

[1:17:54] which I would expect that if I put one of my signs in front of someone else's house

[1:17:59] that way they'll be right.

[1:18:00] Now we have to understand a lot of residents,

[1:18:02] they have block walls with wrought iron fences.

[1:18:05] If it's just behind there, you're not going to see them sometimes

[1:18:08] because they're not out where people can see them.

[1:18:10] It does hide them.

[1:18:11] So I do believe that this has been going on for many, many years.

[1:18:16] We just changed it a few years back, which it should have never been changed.

[1:18:19] But it was.

[1:18:20] So I believe that the right thing to do is for us to discuss it and move forward with it

[1:18:26] And I'd like to see it to go back where you're allowed to put them out there because like he says

[1:18:30] like

[1:18:31] Mr. Shoemaker said

[1:18:32] We have to maintain that little piece of property in front of our house if the grass grows six feet

[1:18:38] Co people don't come out and say we have to mow it because that is even though belongs to the city

[1:18:42] We as a property owner we have to maintain it

[1:18:45] So that's telling us that we have the right to do what we have to do on our property

[1:18:48] property. I do not have sidewalks on my street. So I do have a block wall there, but I don't

[1:18:54] have, so it does separate. But my block wall is 10 feet back from the curb. So I do maintain

[1:19:00] the front yard in front of it. If somebody comes and puts a, I'm going to tell you

[1:19:04] right now if somebody puts a sign in there, it's not staying. Because I don't want

[1:19:08] somebody putting something in front of my house that I'm not aligned with. And

[1:19:13] I don't think anyone should have that right to do it. I don't think any council

[1:19:16] member up here or anybody should say you know what I'm not aligned with that I do

[1:19:20] not believe in that it was a religious saying that you don't believe in why we

[1:19:24] do want that in front of your house and so I'm just saying so I think that we

[1:19:27] have to look at it and I would like to see us move forward with it if it wants

[1:19:31] to come back at a certain time that's I'm for that but I think you know it's

[1:19:35] the right thing to do is to give the property owner the right to say yes

[1:19:39] between your property right there and this in the curb we should have the

[1:19:43] right to put a political sign there or a temporary sign

[1:19:46] but we want to say it.

[1:19:47] Thank you.

[1:19:47] Thank you, Councilman Johnson.

[1:19:49] Any other council discussion?

[1:19:52] Anyone to say anything?

[1:19:54] None?

[1:19:54] OK, I want to follow Councilman Johnson regarding

[1:19:59] and the right-of-way.

[1:20:01] And yet, you're talking about you put my sign back

[1:20:05] in 2015, but that time we didn't pass the new ordinance.

[1:20:09] And that is approved by us.

[1:20:12] I think in 2017, we approved that we do not allow and have to sign all the places in the

[1:20:21] public area, including telephone pool and this and that because we sold in 2015, we see

[1:20:28] the signs like all the places.

[1:20:30] And I think that's why we approved the new ordinance is only allowed a private property

[1:20:37] to put a sign in front of their front yard

[1:20:41] must have the concern of the resident.

[1:20:44] And at the same time, in the last year,

[1:20:46] when we have the election, we saw it,

[1:20:50] much more cleaner city than before.

[1:20:53] We're on the street, we're not clouded with sign,

[1:20:56] like hundreds of signs and this and that.

[1:20:59] And speaking to receive a lot of money

[1:21:00] for all those candidates that don't have

[1:21:04] to put a sign on the street,

[1:21:05] speaking truth, it doesn't even work. So what I'm saying is, obviously, it looks much cleaner.

[1:21:10] Okay, only allow the people that support you, the private property, put a sign, okay, it's

[1:21:16] the freedom of speech. While they're put in the public area, it's not really, they

[1:21:20] don't vote. The people vote for you, it's the person on the property and registered

[1:21:25] to vote. And then regarding the right-of-way, that is kind of vague, okay, that should

[1:21:31] We allowed, and last year when I was still knocking,

[1:21:34] I see a lot of right-of-way, and people have blocked wall.

[1:21:37] I don't even feel, okay, want to put a sign

[1:21:39] because I think let's belong to the, okay, city,

[1:21:43] okay, on the street, okay, city property, okay,

[1:21:46] and then if I can put over there,

[1:21:48] all the people maybe will put over there, too.

[1:21:50] So in that way, I just give up, okay,

[1:21:53] and even they want to support me.

[1:21:54] But the point is, okay, some of the residents,

[1:21:57] correct, okay, some of this right-of-way,

[1:22:00] and the tree we planted and the tree is dead or the tree is overgrown,

[1:22:05] why the city didn't go back to clean it?

[1:22:08] And because when I asked the resident, they say,

[1:22:11] no, there is belong to the city.

[1:22:13] So the city needs to clean it.

[1:22:14] They refuse to do anything.

[1:22:16] So in that way, we need to define who maintenance is there right away.

[1:22:21] If we own it, the city owns it, the city has to maintenance.

[1:22:25] The city has to clean it.

[1:22:26] The city has to clean the tree.

[1:22:26] we plant a tree and the tree dead, we have to remove it.

[1:22:30] Otherwise, it looks horrible over there

[1:22:32] and it doesn't even do anything.

[1:22:34] But in that way, since last year,

[1:22:37] we see much cleaner of the street, of the city,

[1:22:42] I really have a hard time to support to put this sign

[1:22:45] because we might open the counter warm.

[1:22:48] That might be have all the thing,

[1:22:50] they want to put all the places

[1:22:52] because it's right away

[1:22:53] And they do not even have the people's, okay, of a concern because most of people thinking about that belong to the public, to the, belong to the city, so they won't say anything.

[1:23:04] So in that way, we are clouded again, went back, go back to before.

[1:23:09] So what we're trying to do is a clean city, okay?

[1:23:12] We tried to do the improvement, and we did it back in 2017.

[1:23:18] I think we should continue to follow that because last year, if it worked fine, I think

[1:23:23] it will work fine next year.

[1:23:25] So I really cannot support this because I see the result last year is much cleaner, a lot

[1:23:33] of people are much happier about the city look like, not clouded with all this political

[1:23:38] science.

[1:23:39] Especially, we have a major election coming out in 2020, you're going to see a lot of

[1:23:44] sign, and I think they will make a lot of residents not too happy about that, and plus

[1:23:48] co-enforcement need to go to enforce regarding all those sign garages on that, that need to

[1:23:55] be removed and that need to be cleaned up. Okay, thank you. Okay, Council Member Schumacher.

[1:24:04] I've run in four campaigns myself. My dad ran three times. And never did I run across

[1:24:17] the problem of putting my signs on somebody's private property without their permission.

[1:24:23] You just don't do that. And as someone who is well aware that the property owners

[1:24:30] maintain their parkway. I would never put a sign in somebody's parkway that wouldn't

[1:24:38] allow it. I don't think the general public is aware that the parkways are city property.

[1:24:44] They consider it the house that is in front of property. This proposed amendment isn't

[1:24:51] allowing signs to go back up on post. It's not allowing it to go back on the sidewalks

[1:24:57] along Azusa, where you would have a sign in every tree well.

[1:25:01] This is talking about property in front of somebody's house.

[1:25:06] You know, a lot of people come up here and accuse us of wanting to stifle the First Amendment.

[1:25:12] You know, political speech should be allowed and be visible in this city.

[1:25:16] Besides the fact that this, we're focused on political signs here, but this is for temporary signs in general.

[1:25:21] So, if somebody is maintaining their property, and that's why I've brought up we need to address that people will be allowed to remove signs from there.

[1:25:32] If they're required to maintain it, they should be allowed to remove it.

[1:25:36] I don't see an issue here. Quite frankly, anywhere my political signs were, I had permission from a homeowner before this last election.

[1:25:46] and all that happened is it was cleaner

[1:25:49] because you couldn't see the signs

[1:25:51] because they were by people's front doors instead,

[1:25:53] where before I may have had one sign on the street

[1:25:56] because it was on the street where you can see it.

[1:25:58] Instead I had to have 10, so everybody,

[1:26:00] hopefully you'll see one by somebody's front door

[1:26:04] or further back on the walkway.

[1:26:07] I don't think it made our city better.

[1:26:10] I think it made our city look like

[1:26:13] we had no interest in elections going on.

[1:26:16] And so I have no problem with allowing people

[1:26:20] who maintain those properties to put a sign up.

[1:26:24] We already have in place where if it has a date,

[1:26:28] it has to be removed within the 10 days

[1:26:30] and add another line somewhere that deals with signs

[1:26:34] that do not have a date on them.

[1:26:38] So that's how I would support this.

[1:26:41] And I do have a question for the city attorney.

[1:26:45] This says to waive for the reading.

[1:26:48] Is it possible to approve this at just the first reading

[1:26:52] and have it come back for a second reading with proposed amendments?

[1:26:59] I will move to approve this for first reading

[1:27:04] and secondly that when it comes back for second reading

[1:27:08] the ordinance be amended to state that

[1:27:12] But if the property owner maintains it, somehow you're going to have to figure out how we

[1:27:17] can work that, that they have control over what signs go there.

[1:27:21] And that we had ad language about temporary signs that don't have a date, how long they

[1:27:29] can be in place.

[1:27:30] So you understand her motion?

[1:27:33] You got it?

[1:27:34] Okay.

[1:27:34] Do I have a second?

[1:27:35] I'll second.

[1:27:36] Okay.

[1:27:37] Do we have any discussion?

[1:27:38] Yeah.

[1:27:39] Okay.

[1:27:39] Go ahead.

[1:27:40] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I'd like to hear from our city attorney. How do you feel about

[1:27:46] this? I mean, would this potentially open us up to any kind of liability, cause unforeseen

[1:27:55] problems, especially with code enforcement? Yeah, Mr. Mayor, legally you're not regulating

[1:28:01] the content of this sign, so legally you're saying it's a temporary sign. I think we

[1:28:06] talk about material and size. That's okay. You can time, place and manner. That's okay

[1:28:10] to do. Non-legal issues. I want to speak to you, but code enforcement, I think you heard

[1:28:15] from the public and you've heard from your fellow council members that there could be

[1:28:19] a number of signs. There could be blocking or they could be put in front of someone's

[1:28:24] house without their permission. You could run into some issue. You could get code

[1:28:27] enforcement calls. You could have some issues there. But legally, you're not

[1:28:31] regulating the content. It's non-commercial. It's temporary. We can clean up the

[1:28:34] definition of temporary for you and then we can talk about the property owner

[1:28:39] controlling and maintaining that parkway. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:28:44] Do we have any other comment, discussion?

[1:28:46] Although I have a roll call, please.

[1:28:50] Part of the roll call, if I could please read the ordinance title into the record,

[1:28:53] that being ordinance number 2464, an ordinance of the City Council of the

[1:28:57] City of West Covina, California amending sections 26-312 and 26-314 of the

[1:29:04] West Covina municipal code to allow certain temporary non-commercial science to be placed in the parkways within municipal rights of way

[1:29:10] We have a motion by councilmember Shoemaker and seconded by councilman Johnson. Councilman Cosalanos. No

[1:29:17] Councilman Johnson. Hi

[1:29:20] Councilmember Shoemaker. Hi

[1:29:22] Mayor pro tem Lopez viada. No

[1:29:24] Mayor who nope

[1:29:26] Okay, the motion failed. Okay is three two

[1:29:31] Okay, and then we move to agenda number ten

[1:29:35] Okay. The public hearing regarding the call amendment number 19-06 regarding accessory

[1:29:42] drolline unit and the junior accessory drolline unit. Okay. The measure set for the hearing

[1:29:49] by the council consists of an urgent ordinance to authorize accessory drolline unit and the

[1:29:56] junior assessor drooling unit consists with a state law.

[1:30:00] Requirement by amending the portion of Chapter 26 of the municipal code.

[1:30:06] Well, the deputy city, no, hold on.

[1:30:08] Okay, let's have our city manager who is going to present this.

[1:30:14] Mayor, this will be presented by Director Jeff Anderson.

[1:30:18] Jeff, please.

[1:30:23] The PowerPoint has gone defunct, so I will be providing you with the information.

[1:30:28] Again, there's no visual on this very much, anyway.

[1:30:30] way. This is a code amendment 1906 for accessory dwelling units, which those of you have been

[1:30:36] around for the last few years know, we seem to have to go through this process about once

[1:30:40] a year. This year, the State passed several legislations late in the year in October and

[1:30:49] there was September assigned in October by the Governor. So four bills basically

[1:30:56] that were adopted SB 13, AB 68, AB 670, and AB 881.

[1:31:05] The people who wrote those didn't seem to consult with one another.

[1:31:08] So they're not, they're not, they don't edge match each other.

[1:31:11] There's some issues.

[1:31:13] So the legislation is ambiguous and the city's attorney's office and staff

[1:31:17] did their best to interpret and get something on the books before January 1st.

[1:31:22] That was our goal, to get something on the books by January 1st.

[1:31:25] When I say something on the books,

[1:31:26] something that's compliant with state law on the books.

[1:31:30] So we prepared an urgency ordinance that would take effect on January 1st,

[1:31:35] and the Planning Commission initiated a code amendment on November 26th

[1:31:38] to allow this process to go forward.

[1:31:42] Following the urgency ordinance that you're looking at tonight,

[1:31:45] we will go through a normal code amendment process.

[1:31:47] So there will be a little bit, I'm going to use the word leisurely.

[1:31:50] I don't mean it's going to take a long time, but we're going to take some time

[1:31:52] to look at things, to look at the code, to go back and look at the standards, maybe I

[1:31:57] think the city attorney's office will be looking at what other cities might be, how they have

[1:32:01] interpreted HCD, the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which

[1:32:07] we call HCD, has some authority over this and they'll also probably be making some

[1:32:12] decisions and providing some direction as well.

[1:32:15] So there's several things that are going to happen over the next few months in the

[1:32:19] next year that will probably influence us to make some decisions on what ends up being

[1:32:26] in the ordinance.

[1:32:27] So I wanted to put that up front that while we're done with something tonight, it's not

[1:32:31] necessarily going to be the end of our review or consideration.

[1:32:37] So AB 68, I'm going to cover these each individually, AB 68 very quickly, requires cities allow

[1:32:45] what's called a junior accessory dwelling unit, JDU. JDU is an accessory dwelling unit that

[1:32:51] is built within a single-family residential structure and is no more than 500 square feet.

[1:32:56] It must have kitchen facilities, but it could share the bathroom. So that was something that

[1:33:01] we had before, but we chose not to initiate that. So it's not in our code now. In JDU,

[1:33:07] the owner must reside in the primary unit or the JDU, and currently we don't have any of those

[1:33:12] in our code.

[1:33:14] Secondly, we have AB 881, which is a bit longer

[1:33:17] and has more standards.

[1:33:19] ADUs must be allowed in all residential zones,

[1:33:22] and in certain circumstances, also allowed in mixed-use zones.

[1:33:26] When I say all residential zones, I mean also higher residential,

[1:33:31] multi-family residential zones,

[1:33:33] not just single-family residential zones.

[1:33:36] All ADUs, as well as JDUs,

[1:33:38] must be approved within 60 days if they meet standards.

[1:33:41] The grounds on which ADUs may be denied are now limited to water, sewer, traffic flow, and public safety.

[1:33:48] Cities may no longer have minimum lot size for lots on which ADUs are allowed.

[1:33:54] And the law provides that ADUs must be allowed within a proposed or existing primary dwelling or in a detached structure.

[1:34:02] The difference between an interior ADU and a JDU is the size and whether to go to a bathroom.

[1:34:06] room. So 881 continued, cities may only require a 4-foot side yard or rear yard setback. No

[1:34:17] setbacks may be required if the ADU is being converted from something that's constructed

[1:34:24] in the same location and includes garages. So garage conversions are mandatory and no

[1:34:36] no longer impose an owner occupancy requirement for ADUs through 2025, and this requirement

[1:34:43] may not be imposed on any units approved during that time. I don't know what happens in 2025.

[1:34:48] We'll wait and see. It expires, but I don't know what the legislature will do.

[1:34:53] For attached ADUs, cities may establish a maximum square footage requirement of 850

[1:34:59] square feet for a studio and one bedroom units, and 1,000 square feet for one bedroom

[1:35:05] or 50% of the primary dwelling, that's for attached structures.

[1:35:09] For detached, the maximum square footage is 1,200 square feet.

[1:35:14] So then SB 13, owners with ADUs with building code violations

[1:35:21] can seek to defer corrections if it's not a matter of health and safety,

[1:35:25] and it applies to ADUs built prior to January 1st, 2020.

[1:35:28] 20. And then AB 670, this section provides that CCNRs for lots zoned for single-family

[1:35:35] residential use may not prohibit or unreasonably restrict construction of ADUs or JDUs. So

[1:35:42] basically what that means is that the CCNR, you can't use CCNRs, a homeowners association

[1:35:46] can't use CCNRs to fight someone converting their garage or constructing an accessory

[1:35:53] So in effect, every lot in the city can now have a primary dwelling, a ADU and a JDU.

[1:36:06] There's a lot of editorial comments I'd like to make at this time, but I'm going to refrain.

[1:36:12] Following the adoption of the urgency ordinance, staff will draft a complete set of zoning standards

[1:36:17] consistent with state law where there's room for local control.

[1:36:21] So we're going to be looking for a situation where there's local control,

[1:36:23] And we'll be talking to the planning commission about those and trying to institute what we can

[1:36:29] Staff reposes a planning commission study session

[1:36:32] Followed by a planning commission hearing and ultimately by city council hearing, which is our normal process

[1:36:36] We do what we just talked about with the temporary sign. This is the same process that went through

[1:36:41] They proposed code movement is exempt from sequel as a general exemption and the city council

[1:36:47] We're recommending that the city council adopt the urgency ordinance allowing the state mandated

[1:36:52] standards to be in place on January 1, 2020. That concludes staff's presentation.

[1:36:58] We'd be overjoyed to answer any questions. So, council, any question? No

[1:37:05] question? Okay, okay, no question, so we are going to, okay, where the Deputy

[1:37:11] City Clerk verifies, okay, a proper legal notice has been given. Verified. Okay,

[1:37:17] Now I'm going to open basically the public comment.

[1:37:22] Anybody want to say anything?

[1:37:24] Okay, go ahead, Herb.

[1:37:32] Good evening, Mayor and Council members, staff, Herb Redholz,

[1:37:36] resident and chairman of your Planning Commission.

[1:37:39] I'm not happy.

[1:37:41] I'm not happy at all.

[1:37:43] The State of California has taken the ability of West

[1:37:49] and every other city in this state to have the kind of neighborhoods we want to have.

[1:37:55] It's gone.

[1:37:57] I'm mad about that. We no longer have single-family zoning, really.

[1:38:02] In fact, we no longer have single-family zoning.

[1:38:06] I'm upset with our local legislators, some of which served on city councils,

[1:38:13] that all voted for this.

[1:38:16] These bills were introduced by Northern California legislators.

[1:38:21] I'm kind of upset with the League of California Cities.

[1:38:26] I'm upset with – I mean, where was the notice on this?

[1:38:29] This just hit everybody. Nobody even saw this coming.

[1:38:34] Well, glad you saw it coming.

[1:38:37] You know, we realize that there's an issue with affordable housing.

[1:38:40] We get that, okay?

[1:38:42] But where is the opportunity to work with the state

[1:38:47] to mitigate these issues and come up with solutions?

[1:38:49] We never had that.

[1:38:51] They just threw the baby out with the bathwater.

[1:38:54] Not happy.

[1:38:56] And I'll tell you something.

[1:38:58] This would have been somewhat more palatable

[1:39:00] if they had left the owner-occupied provision in there.

[1:39:05] At least the owner's got to be somewhere on the property,

[1:39:07] but no, they threw that out, too.

[1:39:09] So guess what? You have a statewide spec market. That's what you've got.

[1:39:16] You've got developers, speculators, whatever you want to call them.

[1:39:20] They're going to come in and buy houses and buy property.

[1:39:26] And you have minimum to no setbacks.

[1:39:30] You have no minimum lot requirement anymore.

[1:39:33] The owner doesn't have to be there.

[1:39:35] These spec people are going to come in here. They don't care about West Covina.

[1:39:39] They're just here to, you know, to make a buck.

[1:39:43] That's great, but it's going to be at the expense of our cities.

[1:39:47] You know, for years on the planning commission,

[1:39:49] most of us who sit on that side on the planning commission,

[1:39:51] we're concerned about maintaining the character and integrity of our neighborhoods.

[1:39:55] That's job one.

[1:39:58] It's gone.

[1:40:00] It's completely gone.

[1:40:02] I don't know if the people realize how,

[1:40:03] what a dramatic and horrible effect this could have,

[1:40:07] Not all down West convenient about every city

[1:40:10] Single-family housing what the heck is that now? We didn't allow the J do's good God now

[1:40:16] We're gonna have 500 foot apartments built on to our homes

[1:40:24] Not happy. I don't you know, it's an urgency thing. They just ran it down my throat

[1:40:28] So these are legislators that I've supported

[1:40:31] And I ain't happy with them

[1:40:34] My people they're my people and I'm upset almost that pissed. I'm upset with these people

[1:40:40] This is terrible. Now, what can we do about it?

[1:40:44] I don't know, but Pasadena, at their last council meeting,

[1:40:48] they were not happy and they want to take action.

[1:40:50] They want to take legal action against the city.

[1:40:53] Now, against, oh God, thank you, against the state.

[1:40:56] They want to take action against the state

[1:40:58] and they're looking into what they can do.

[1:41:00] You know, the word is this is bulletproof.

[1:41:02] If you try and go against them, they're going to come back with you,

[1:41:05] you know, with the full force of the state.

[1:41:07] But let me tell you something, there is strength in numbers.

[1:41:11] I think it behooves this city to talk to other cities.

[1:41:16] I don't think anybody's thrilled about this and see what we can do.

[1:41:20] Unlike district in where we folded up our tents and ran off,

[1:41:24] this is a fight that needs to be fought.

[1:41:26] This is terrible. It's devastating.

[1:41:29] And for us to just, you know,

[1:41:32] twiddle our thumbs and accept it is a big mistake.

[1:41:34] We have to talk to other cities get together and find out what we can do to fight this. This is devastating

[1:41:41] We're going to take it up on the on the planning commission in the next couple of months

[1:41:47] It's it's ugly it's ugly. I'm sorry to see this happen. I'm disappointed with the legislators

[1:41:53] I'm disappointed with the with the governor. I'm disappointed with the fact this happened in September and BAM October

[1:41:58] It's the law really

[1:42:01] With no no, I mean I didn't know about it

[1:42:04] You know, I was so upset, I called James, I got to talk to you before it comes in front of us.

[1:42:08] I got to talk to you about this. What the heck is this? This is terrible. I got 20 seconds.

[1:42:12] How much more time can I vent? 18 seconds. Anyway, you guys know this is bad.

[1:42:19] I need more time. But we got to do something. We got to fight this.

[1:42:23] We got to fight this. We got to be on the same side, on the same team,

[1:42:26] and do what we can to fight this. Put on your boxing gloves and let's go. Thank you.

[1:42:30] Thank you any other coming yeah come I think Huntington Beach tried to fight it

[1:42:36] we all know how that turned out right we did know this was gonna happen it

[1:42:40] happened in 2017 right and it was only for a year and we didn't know back then

[1:42:46] and the city came and made a lot of changes and I actually would have liked

[1:42:50] to have been participating in that program and wasn't able to because you

[1:42:54] guys changed it you know so you know there are people that are moving out

[1:42:57] of the city. People that are moving out of the state because people can't afford to live

[1:43:01] here anymore. Now, how many people actually did ADUs in 2017? I mean, how many? How many

[1:43:09] are going to do them today? At least they'll do them legally because I know a whole hell

[1:43:14] of a lot of them that are illegal. Where people are living in places, you guys don't

[1:43:19] even know about it. Code enforcement doesn't even know about it. Hopefully this law,

[1:43:23] when it passes in January, right, it'll get those people to come back and do it legally

[1:43:28] so people can live in actually, you know, in places where, you know, they're not in danger,

[1:43:35] you know, so I'm going to cut it short.

[1:43:37] I'm not going to take four minutes.

[1:43:39] I'm for it.

[1:43:40] I'll

[1:43:54] be real brief, but I suppose you're going to have to go around and strip all

[1:43:57] that red paint off of curbsides because there's going to be nowhere to park for

[1:44:01] all these folks.

[1:44:04] And I don't get it.

[1:44:05] So you adopt it an ordinance in the county that will find me for violations,

[1:44:13] electrical, windows, and what have you.

[1:44:16] But if I heard correctly, these folks get a pass on these granny flats to some extent.

[1:44:26] That inconsistency is too prevalent among government.

[1:44:32] And I think the Planning Commissioner said,

[1:44:36] I think this would be the first time,

[1:44:38] because I've never seen the joint cities come together

[1:44:42] and fight Sacramento.

[1:44:46] But at some point in time, if the cities don't,

[1:44:49] then we might as well do away with the city

[1:44:51] and just follow the direction of the state.

[1:44:54] I really hope that something's done

[1:44:58] And then...

[1:45:00] There are quite a few illegal conversions already, and I still believe that you need to be held

[1:45:08] accountable with your force, uh, code enforcement to do something about that. It may be too late

[1:45:15] now because these new rules seem to protect those sort of conversions, and if they're

[1:45:25] legal today, I guess come January 1st they will be. So maybe a little too late, but I

[1:45:33] don't ignore the fact that you've had code enforcement. These illegal conversions have

[1:45:41] been growing, so you've kind of been a part of rolling out this very legislature. Okay?

[1:45:50] Legislature.

[1:45:50] Thank you, Jerry. And any other comments? Jerry, why not? Hey, Merry Christmas.

[1:46:00] I actually would like to just take a second and thank Jeff Anderson for the way he's handled this.

[1:46:06] I too am bothered by it because the city is going to change. I've left areas.

[1:46:11] I don't want to live in downtown L.A. purposely. I wanted to live in the suburbs,

[1:46:16] and I'm going to now live in downtown L.A. mini version, and it's happening.

[1:46:21] I would much rather have local control, and that's the real issue.

[1:46:27] It's local control.

[1:46:29] The state is taken away, and they do it on this, then I'll do it on the next thing and the next thing.

[1:46:37] I agree with Herb.

[1:46:40] Cities should band together and push back because it is a local control issue.

[1:46:45] It's not going to solve the housing thing, but let people think it will.

[1:46:49] Well, I sent a request or a concern I had that I had heard on rumors on these ADUs that

[1:46:58] people could start adding second stories to their garage.

[1:47:02] And I'm in my backyard thinking, I, my elevation is lower than the street behind me.

[1:47:10] And you know, I'm thinking I'm going to be really claustrophobic.

[1:47:16] He did a wonderful job of getting back to me really fast and that's not going to happen

[1:47:24] apparently.

[1:47:25] And between the Planning Commission, I'd like to thank the Planning Commissioners who voted

[1:47:31] for the urgency ordinance because had they not, I think it would be worse.

[1:47:37] But I would like to see you consider at least through this process of listening to what other cities are doing

[1:47:43] because I am really concerned it's going to get worse. Thank you.

[1:47:47] Thank you, Jerry. Any other comments? Any other residents?

[1:47:51] If not, I'm going to close a public comment. I'm going to open the council discussion.

[1:47:57] Any council want to talk about this? Okay. Councilman Casiano.

[1:48:02] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's a topic we've discussed thoroughly before.

[1:48:06] Not an easy one to really figure out.

[1:48:11] And based on, well, everyone's concerns and everything we've talked about, we should monitor

[1:48:17] this closely.

[1:48:18] The state is moving probably a bit too fast, and as Jeff mentioned, seemingly they didn't

[1:48:24] really collaborate and communicate with each other.

[1:48:29] So we should keep an eye on this.

[1:48:31] Thank you.

[1:48:34] Any other comment?

[1:48:36] Go ahead.

[1:48:37] Okay.

[1:48:37] Councilmember Schumacher.

[1:48:39] I'll just take this opportunity to bring up again where was our lobbyists.

[1:48:46] We discussed ADUs that I believe my second meeting and I said at that point there were

[1:48:54] bills pending that would dramatically affect local control when it came to ADUs and nothing

[1:49:02] from our lobbyists at that point and this is what's happened.

[1:49:06] And every, there were five out of six bills and there's still another one that's a two-year

[1:49:12] bill right now that pertains to ADUs.

[1:49:16] So if we're going to continue to pay a lobbyist to not inform us, how do I get on payroll?

[1:49:23] And I agree with Mr. Redholz and Councilman Castellanos that we need to start contacting

[1:49:30] in other cities, Mayor Wu, maybe one of the groups you're on, Cog, can start discussing

[1:49:40] this and we're behind the ball because they're already in effect, but maybe we can get some

[1:49:48] type of rollback, some type of control back.

[1:49:51] Any other council member?

[1:49:53] Okay.

[1:49:53] Council Member Johnson?

[1:49:55] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:49:56] You know, I've gone over this and gone over it and gone over it.

[1:49:59] And there's nothing about it. I like it all

[1:50:02] And I'm very upset very disgusted with the way it is it puts us in the predicament where we can't do anything about it

[1:50:10] But I am the state's of a record right now. I can't support this in that

[1:50:14] So I will be voting no one it would come soon

[1:50:18] Any other council members want to go ahead?

[1:50:25] Mr. City Attorney, can you please clarify?

[1:50:29] Why this is an urgency ordinance?

[1:50:32] We need to and January 1 the the bills we've been talking about go and take effect

[1:50:37] We need to get this in place by January 1st

[1:50:41] So we still came and maintain some local control and being in compliance and at the same time

[1:50:45] We're going to send it to the planning Commission to study and then it'll come back to you for first and second reading

[1:50:50] It's an urgency ordinance tonight when we need a fourth this vote from this council

[1:50:55] So to clarify you said it great, but if we do not pass this tonight

[1:51:01] We are going to lose whatever local control is left and we'll be met. Mr.

[1:51:07] Mayor will be subject to the state statutes and so whether or not we agree

[1:51:12] with this in order to maintain whatever little control we have left we support

[1:51:20] it or the state takes control so this is one of these situations where

[1:51:29] Welcome to the council, but I want to make very clear that I do not support having to

[1:51:36] do this ordinance.

[1:51:37] I do not support the bills that made these ordinances necessary, but I definitely support

[1:51:42] maintaining the minute amount of local control that was left.

[1:51:49] I have a question. Do we still have the building, the last size, the minimum ratio, 35 percent?

[1:51:59] Do we still have control of that? We do not.

[1:52:01] So we cannot even... Let me be clear, Mayor Wu. We do not have

[1:52:06] control when it comes to ADUs, when it comes to any other type of development or addition

[1:52:09] to the house we do, but not for ADUs. The point is this, right now our current

[1:52:15] call amendment, okay, ordinance that any property size, no matter 6,000 square feet, 5,000 square

[1:52:22] feet, we cannot build more than 35% of the building. Am I right? So this is supposed to

[1:52:29] be including any structure, okay, including the ADU, that there should be 35%. Like last

[1:52:35] time we discussed, if as long as we have 35%, we reduce that density, okay, so we don't

[1:52:42] have the people bill over bill all the kind of thing you are correct it's a

[1:52:47] 35% lock coverage so from a bird's-eye view looking down you can't cover more

[1:52:50] than 35% of your lot with structures with roof with a roof on it and there was

[1:52:56] some discussion about that previously in previous years about ad use well

[1:53:00] perhaps you don't need to have minimum lot size because that will cover it

[1:53:03] well yes but whoever drafted this they threw that out completely so basically

[1:53:08] Okay, my understanding is, okay, the ADU, okay, no more than 1,200 square feet.

[1:53:16] Okay, that's the biggest to stay allowed, okay, and the 4,500 square feet for the junior,

[1:53:22] but basically the most 1,200.

[1:53:24] 1,200 plus year existing and less supposed to be 35% ratio,

[1:53:29] but now you're saying now the ratio we throw out of the roof,

[1:53:33] now we don't even have a lot of the 35% limitation?

[1:53:36] That's correct.

[1:53:39] So they can build up and tie up 50%, 70% based on the state current impulse to us?

[1:53:47] Well, probably they're not going to get to 70% because they can only add the maximum 1,200 square feet.

[1:53:53] So they could go 1,200 square feet over the lot coverage.

[1:53:58] So on a smaller lot, I would agree with you, they might be able to get up to around 50%.

[1:54:03] Yeah, because with COVID, I had some a lot.

[1:54:05] I remember when I lived in the two, three, five,

[1:54:07] live back in the, okay, 1989,

[1:54:10] the last site is only 6,000 or 6,500.

[1:54:13] So they easily to exist the 35% of a lot coverage, okay?

[1:54:19] So many, your backyard will go to people's property.

[1:54:23] And but again, we still have a,

[1:54:25] our building code, right?

[1:54:26] We still have a setback, okay?

[1:54:28] And so let's still apply to the building of the ADU.

[1:54:34] Should be five feet and there's no, not even the safety, the walkway, the five feet set back.

[1:54:44] Yes, not five feet.

[1:54:45] The state and their wisdom decided that four feet was enough.

[1:54:49] So it's four feet?

[1:54:50] Four feet.

[1:54:51] So people can build four feet.

[1:54:54] How about the two-story?

[1:54:55] How about, can we restrict people to build two-story, like what Jerry said, that she doesn't want people...

[1:55:01] Yes, so I spoke with Jerry.

[1:55:04] I'm not only Jerry, I'm talking about for a lot of people.

[1:55:07] My understanding, and I think the way it's drafted right now, it doesn't change our second-story standards.

[1:55:12] So we don't allow second-story in the rear yard setback up to 25 feet.

[1:55:17] We don't allow second-stories in the front setback up to 30.

[1:55:20] We don't allow second-stories in the side setback up to 10.

[1:55:23] So they couldn't have a second story unless they're outside of those buffers, so which they have some control

[1:55:28] We have controller which they have a control can go to the planning

[1:55:31] Commission okay for them to commission it to review how they're in true for people's okay neighbors back yanked

[1:55:38] Second stories will require an administrative use permit and go through my understanding ad you can view as two-story, too

[1:55:45] You could build an ad you for a two-story ad you but the the state law didn't require us to approve those

[1:55:53] They didn't mandate that so we can decline this two story so only one story

[1:55:59] okay for the ADU. We could we I think we might want to be careful if we decline a

[1:56:05] two-story that we don't do it because it's an ADU but we do it because of other

[1:56:09] reasons. So right now we basically have no control at all because it's

[1:56:16] sound like we cannot set back for five feet ten feet okay the at least a

[1:56:22] And now how about between the unit before we say, what, six feet or 25 feet?

[1:56:28] Yeah, the state.

[1:56:31] I think they go to five feet or something.

[1:56:32] Yeah, this is bewildering to me.

[1:56:34] But the state did put in a standard that you have to have a 10-foot separation between the house and the ADU.

[1:56:41] What's bewildering about that is why they want more distance between the house and the ADU

[1:56:45] than the ADU and then the neighborhood property.

[1:56:47] The neighborhood, yeah.

[1:56:48] The only sense.

[1:56:49] Four feet.

[1:56:49] That's their wisdom, so we'll follow it.

[1:56:52] Okay, so, okay, council, any other question?

[1:56:56] So basically, tonight we have a no-choice try to,

[1:56:59] let's try to, okay, get some minimum control to city.

[1:57:04] If we don't approve them, we will lose everything.

[1:57:08] So now we can get a little bit stuff.

[1:57:11] That's exactly right.

[1:57:12] Okay, okay, and any other council, sorry, Herb.

[1:57:17] Okay, nothing we can do.

[1:57:19] Okay, so anyway, let's go to the...

[1:57:23] Do we have a motion to approve?

[1:57:26] I'll make a motion to approve.

[1:57:27] Okay, we have a motion to approve.

[1:57:29] Do I have a second?

[1:57:30] I'll second.

[1:57:31] You have a very sad face, a second.

[1:57:34] Okay, so you have a second with protest.

[1:57:36] Okay, so we have a first and second.

[1:57:39] Okay, roll call, please.

[1:57:40] Prior to that roll call,

[1:57:41] I'd just like to make note that the city did,

[1:57:43] in fact, receive official opposition comments

[1:57:46] from the California's for Home Ownership Association,

[1:57:49] specifically their counsel through Matthew Gelfand.

[1:57:52] And again, I would like to go ahead

[1:57:53] and use this opportunity to read that ordinance

[1:57:54] into the record, that being ordinance 2464,

[1:57:58] an ordinance of the city council

[1:57:59] of the city of West Covina, California.

[1:58:01] Amending sections, my apologies,

[1:58:04] we're moving to the next one, sorry about that.

[1:58:06] Ordinance 2465, an urgency ordinance

[1:58:08] of the West Covina city council

[1:58:10] to authorize accessory dwelling units

[1:58:12] and junior accessory dwelling units

[1:58:13] consistent with state law requiring requirements by amending portions of Chapter 26 of the municipal

[1:58:19] code.

[1:58:20] Moving forward, we have a motion by Councilman Casalanos and a second by Councilmember Schumaker.

[1:58:26] Moving forward with the vote, we'll go for Councilmember Casalanos.

[1:58:29] Aye.

[1:58:30] Councilman Johnson.

[1:58:31] No.

[1:58:32] Councilmember Schumaker.

[1:58:34] Aye.

[1:58:35] Mayor Pro Temmelo-Pesviata.

[1:58:36] Aye.

[1:58:37] Mayor Wu.

[1:58:38] Aye.

[1:58:38] approved for one and let's go to the mayor council members report again any

[1:58:46] council member have AP 1 2 3 4 the conference and meeting want to report

[1:58:51] if they're not then we're moving to to 11 for mother may I from okay councilman

[1:58:58] Johnson thank you mr. Mayor I brought this up for mother may I because on a

[1:59:04] film industry, you know, we do get a lot of revenue or permits when we do this.

[1:59:10] And what I would like to see is we could change it mainly for the industrial manufacturing area

[1:59:17] like that to change the permit right now. I think you can only do it like five a year or something like that.

[1:59:24] And there's some like, for example, I would say over by the Shiver Daily, they have a lot of,

[1:59:29] They can do a lot more advertising and permits over there.

[1:59:32] If we allow them to, back right now, they can only do only a couple of years.

[1:59:36] So I'd like to bring that back to me and discuss it, where maybe you can up the unlimited

[1:59:40] on the industrial area only.

[1:59:43] There's nothing new at the residential area.

[1:59:45] Any objection?

[1:59:46] None?

[1:59:47] Okay.

[1:59:47] Then we go to the mother may have, please investigate and research and bring back

[1:59:51] to the council to discuss.

[1:59:53] Thank you, sir.

[1:59:53] Okay.

[1:59:53] Thank you.

[1:59:54] Okay.

[1:59:54] Do we have any

[2:00:00] If not, I have one mother may I go ahead?

[2:00:03] Well, I'd like to start off by thanking our city staff and our city manager for successfully

[2:00:09] completing a mother may I had earlier this year. That's our LEDs. Thank you for that.

[2:00:14] Good job.

[2:00:15] So many positive comments all the time. Another thing I'd like to thank city staff on is my

[2:00:22] mother may I to remove our newspaper stands. That's already looking better. I'd like to

[2:00:26] make one more request is for us to research can we remove the old pay phones

[2:00:30] those are still pretty ugly they're nice or so we could look into that that that

[2:00:38] would be my request please any other mother may I if none I have a mother may

[2:00:43] I okay I wonder okay city to researched and the report regarding the homeless

[2:00:49] initiative okay I think we have a homeless issue and I discuss with a

[2:00:54] a lot of charity group and a lot of resources.

[2:00:59] I think we need to consolidate the city resource as a hub.

[2:01:04] Okay, and we can kind of put all the different agencies

[2:01:07] and resources together, including the church,

[2:01:09] including the mental health nonprofit.

[2:01:11] I talked to them, they're willing to help.

[2:01:13] So we need to consolidate, okay,

[2:01:15] put it together as a task.

[2:01:17] Okay, and I know one, okay,

[2:01:19] and the program is very successful.

[2:01:21] is from county and they have a member join task with our sheriff, with our police, and

[2:01:28] I think the council remember, okay, and with the social worker, okay, and with our West

[2:01:34] Covena PD, and we sweep, okay, all the encampment and to help to provide service and to help

[2:01:41] them to off the street, not just vacate them, but try to help them to off the street

[2:01:45] into the different service, and very successful.

[2:01:48] I think I got a report from the police department, we helped almost 20 homeless people to find

[2:01:55] service.

[2:01:56] But unfortunately, okay, this program only did it two times in three years from county

[2:02:02] and I asked county to continue their reviews because they said they don't have a budget.

[2:02:07] I don't know why they took out $9 million, but they don't have a budget.

[2:02:11] So I think we should do it ourselves.

[2:02:12] We just consolidate our resource with our core enforcement staff with our backup by our

[2:02:20] law enforcement and with all this charity group and the resource that combine together, okay,

[2:02:26] let's try to help and sweep all these encampments to help those homeless.

[2:02:31] I think that is what we need to do to before this epidemic homeless issue barriers.

[2:02:37] So Mrs. Mother may I?

[2:02:38] Do we have any objection for that?

[2:02:42] Okay, so anyway, this model may I please research,

[2:02:45] see we can get a homeless initiative

[2:02:47] and then we can bring back to the council to discuss

[2:02:50] and it is all good and we could implement in 2020

[2:02:53] to see we can help out this major issue.

[2:02:56] Okay, go ahead, okay, council member Shoemaker.

[2:03:02] Thank you.

[2:03:04] I had asked several times about the status

[2:03:07] of the city applying for Measure W, the Clean, Safe, Water program funds. The

[2:03:13] call for projects first deadline was December 15th and for the second year the

[2:03:18] deadline is I believe July 1st of next year. That's millions of dollars

[2:03:23] available to the city and so I would like a report on whether or not we

[2:03:27] met the deadline for first-year funding and also where we're going to go for

[2:03:33] the second year to what programs we're interested are we joining other cities

[2:03:38] agencies for the funding to do joint projects just what we're doing because I

[2:03:44] don't like the idea that basically millions of dollars are sitting there for

[2:03:49] us to implement under the safe clean water program I mean our taxpayers are

[2:03:54] paying the parcel tax for it so we might as well actually be getting our

[2:03:59] funds back.

[2:04:02] Any objections? None. Okay. Then we are going to have this mother may I to any

[2:04:06] other mother may I any other comment? Okay. Okay. Council. Councilman Johnson, would you

[2:04:12] please? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to let everybody know that today I attended

[2:04:17] a funeral for a homeless veteran who passed away on the streets. And I just wanted to

[2:04:24] make a comment like I said that what a tragedy that was. You know we have a veteran who served

[2:04:29] our country in Vietnam who died on the streets of homelessness and it goes back to a Mayor

[2:04:36] Portem, is he kind of 15 when he's talking about the homeless? I'm sorry Mayor, you called her

[2:04:42] lady, I'm sorry, sorry Mr. Mayor. What the Mayor said, I said that for 18 months Mayor Portem

[2:04:50] What the mayor said, you know, it goes to what he said about us homeless, you know.

[2:04:55] And I didn't want to make a comment on what a tragedy that was to have to see a veteran

[2:05:00] pass away like that.

[2:05:01] And his parents, his children from Texas did not want to have anything to do with him

[2:05:06] because he had PTSD and it was a tragedy.

[2:05:11] So I didn't want to make that comment to everybody.

[2:05:13] I know a green community was there with me and we went there and I wanted to

[2:05:18] I think it made me feel really proud to be able to pay our final respects to this Marine

[2:05:23] who passed away.

[2:05:24] And he took him out to the National Cemetery where he was buried with honors.

[2:05:31] Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:05:33] And I saw your post.

[2:05:35] I saw Mr. Kennedy post.

[2:05:37] I think it's very touching.

[2:05:38] And I saw a lot of people show up and a lot of strangers weeping about this person.

[2:05:44] And that's why I say we need to do something about this homeless initiative, not just sweep

[2:05:50] them away.

[2:05:51] I think we should try to find a way to help and to provide service, and we can coordinate

[2:05:57] with all the resources we have.

[2:05:59] I think we have a lot of resources with all the charity group and all this, that work

[2:06:03] together to help those people, because a lot of people, I think, they're willing

[2:06:06] to get help.

[2:06:07] Okay, so any other comments?

[2:06:09] Yes.

[2:06:09] Okay, go ahead.

[2:06:10] Okay, Councilman Casano.

[2:06:12] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:06:12] Two things I'd like to talk about briefly.

[2:06:15] The first is I'd like to recognize someone who's not here,

[2:06:18] but I'd like to give a presentation

[2:06:20] at our first meeting in January.

[2:06:22] And that's, I received a request.

[2:06:25] South Hills High School Girl Softball got a ton

[2:06:29] of dirt donated, big mounds, but they didn't have any help

[2:06:33] to clean it up and have it be the way it needed to be.

[2:06:37] So with the help of our city manager, Mr. Carmine

[2:06:41] and Mike Kressup. I also reached out to the South Hills principal and Dick Sheehan. Long

[2:06:46] story short, the person who came through, Mr. Cam Sailor from the Dukes, who also owns

[2:06:51] Buckboard Barbecue and Pizza Chalet, he came through with a couple of guys I'd like to

[2:06:55] invite Mr. Cam Sailor and the guys he brought in to get it done. I'm sure South Hills

[2:07:03] girl softball is thrilled. So that's the first thing I wanted to mention. The second

[2:07:08] thing is our Christmas parade I'd like to thank city staff and the Kiwanis for a wonderful

[2:07:14] event much bigger than last year great time had a blast great weather great crowd so thank

[2:07:22] everyone who was involved with that and other than that have a safe holiday season Merry

[2:07:29] Christmas and Happy New Year thank you thank you anybody want to say anything go ahead

[2:07:33] Johnson if I said one lower correction if I don't mind the council

[2:07:37] The weather world wasn't great. It was trizzling

[2:07:42] Besides that I do agree. I do agree. It was a fantastic

[2:07:45] It felt more winter like it normally does in California. It was it was a great parade and

[2:07:52] I want to follow. Okay all the council member talk about the parade is magnificent

[2:07:57] Okay, and I see I saw so many happy children

[2:08:00] And they are so proud to perform for us and we saw so many proud parents.

[2:08:06] And we sense of community put our community together.

[2:08:09] And we have a thousand people over there.

[2:08:12] And I want to thank Kiwani, like you say, Brad, Manny, his visionary.

[2:08:18] And not only the leadership to put it together, I want to thank the city staff.

[2:08:22] Okay, I think Mike Crissers, okay, Eric Beggart and Susan, okay, and Perez, and they, and

[2:08:30] all the, okay, our city staff, they show up 5 o'clock to put everything together, okay,

[2:08:37] to let we, city, have this magnificent, magnificent parade, and they're really proud, okay, to

[2:08:44] be a West Covenian.

[2:08:45] I think this is what this city is about.

[2:08:47] Okay, I want to thank everybody, participate.

[2:08:49] And I have a chance with walking with Jessica Schumacher together and waving to people.

[2:08:55] We're not sitting in the car.

[2:08:56] We are walking and waving people and get a lot of very good response from the residents

[2:09:03] and they're everybody happy.

[2:09:04] I think this is so good.

[2:09:06] And hopefully, July 4th, we can have a parade too.

[2:09:09] And I cannot wait until another Christmas and then for another awesome parade.

[2:09:16] And any other comment?

[2:09:18] Otherwise, I want to make a motion to adjourn.

[2:09:20] So, meeting adjourned. Thank you.

[2:09:21] Okay.

Dec 17, 2019 City Council

Agenda

Transcript