Agenda — Covina City Council, January 18, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

Resolution CC 2022-05 Page 2 of 2
APPROVED and PASSED this 18th day of January, 2022.

City of Covina, California
BY:

JORGE A. MARQUEZ, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2022-05 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
____________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 72 of 72 ends

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CC 10
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Jan 18 2022
Title: Escheatment of Unclaimed Funds to the City of Covina in Accordance with the Escheat of Unclaimed Property Policy & Write-Off of Uncollectible Accounts Receivable Presented By: Geoffrey Cobbett, City Treasurer
Anita Agramonte, Administrative Services Director
Recommendation: 1. Authorize staff to pursue the escheatment of unclaimed funds to the City in the amount of $15,113.79 and approve the transfer of any available funds remaining unclaimed to be recognized as revenue in the General Fund in accordance with the Escheat of Unclaimed Property Policy.

2. Authorize staff to approve the write-off of delinquent accounts in the amount of $37,776.95 in accordance to the Accounts Receivable Allowance and Write Off of Uncollectible Accounts Policy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On December 18, 2018, an updated Escheat of Unclaimed Property policy was adopted and approved by the City Council establishing a uniform and cost-effective method for the treatment of abandoned or unclaimed money in the City’s procession consistent with California Government Code Sections 50050 through 50056. Furthermore, on June 17, 2014 Resolution 14-7255 was adopted establishing Policy and Procedures for allowance and write off of uncollectible accounts. Accordingly, staff has reviewed the unclaimed funds presented in Attachments A and B, and recommends escheating the funds to the City in accordance with the policy. Additionally, staff has reviewed account receivable balances and identified delinquent accounts as presented in Accachment C, and recommends the wtite off of these uncollectible accounts.

BACKGROUND:

Each year the City of Covina routinely issues checks for vendor payments and various types of refunds. The City accumulates outstanding checks that remain unclaimed, although attempts are made to contact payees in order to reissue the checks. Additionally, monies have accumulated in the Police Department Found Property and Safekeeping fund that result from various Police Department activities and have remained unclaimed and can become the City’s property. Furthermore, annually staff reviews accounts receivalbe balances and assess collectability to ensure City assets are not overstatted.

DISCUSSION:

Section 50050 of the California Government Code states that monies that are not property of the City with an individual amount of $15 or more, and more than (3) years old may become property of the City of Covina following publication in a newspaper of general circulation published in the local agency by the Treasurer once a week for two successive weeks. As of December 31, 2021, the City held a total amount of $15,034.41 as detailed in Attachment A. The total amount includes water refunds in the amount of $3,397.87, Planning & Building deposits in the amount of $5,296.53 & $143.81 respectively, as well as stale dated checks totaling $5,854.80.

Additionally, the Police Evidence Reserve fund has $341.40 in unclaimed monies pertaining to Police Evidence and Found Property/Safekeeping cases. These funds accumulate as a result of various Police Department operational activities including processing of evidence and found property. These monies also meet the criteria under Section 50050, and are illustrated in Attachment A and can be escheated.

Notice will be published once a week for two consecutive weeks beginning on January 27, 2022, and February 3, 2022, in the San Gabriel Valley Examiner. All valid claims received by the filing deadline of March 3, 2022, will be processed within sixty days. Amounts subject to California Government Code Section 50050 totaling $15,034.41 (less any valid claims), will be recognized as revenue in the General Fund of the City on March 24, 2022, not less than forty-five (45) days; nor more than sixty (60) days after the first publication of the notice.

Furthermore, Section 50055 of the California Government Code states that monies that are not property of the City and are more than (1) year old and less than $15, may be transferred by the City’s legislative body to the General Fund without public notice in a newspaper. The City’s general ledger shows unclaimed refunds with an individual amount of less than $15 that are twelve months or older totaling $79.38. Upon approval of the City Council, these funds may be transferred to the General Fund and recognized as revenues.

Instructions for claiming unclaimed property have been posted on the Covina City Hall bulletin board located at 125 E. College St, Covina, CA 91723. The Claim for Unclaimed Property form has also been placed in the Covina City Clerk’s office and can be completed with proper supporting documentation and can be mailed to or dropped off at the Administrative Services Department – Finance Division of Covina City Hall. These documents are attached hereto as Attachment C & D respectively.

Additionally, the City of Covina annually writes off certain delinquent receivables deemed to be uncollectible.

Good accounting practice requires a regular review of its accounts receivable and a periodic determination of which accounts are deemed "uncollectible" so that the City's assets are not overstated. In accordance with Resolution 14-7255 - Policy and Procedures for allowance and write off of uncollectible accounts, section 7.22, staff has identified uncollectible receivables totaling $36,435.20 as detailed in Attachment C. These items pertain to damages to City property and our Risk Management Division has made every effort to collect from the responsible parties. However, based on the age of the receivables, it has been determined that these items are uncollectible. Upon City Council approval, these receivables shall be written off in accordance with the policy.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Upon completion of the noticing and escheatment protocols, any remaining unclaimed funds, up to the amount of $15,113.79, will be recognized in the General Fund – Other Revenue Account 1010-0000-48990. Upon approval, uncollectible Accounts Receivable in the amount of $36,435.20 will be written off against the allowance account in the each item's respective fund.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

N/A.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Proposed Unclaimed Funds (Pursuant to California Govt Code: Section 50050) Attachment B - Proposed Unclaimed Funds (Pursuant to California Govt Code: Section 50055) Attachment C - Write Off of Uncollectible Accounts Receivable Attachment D - Instructions for Claiming Unclaimed Property Attachment E - Unclaimed Property Claim Form
Respectfully submitted,

Page 2 of 10 ends

Page 3 of 10 ends

CITY OF COVINA
PROPOSED UNCLAIMED FUNDS (PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVT CODE: SECTION 50050) FUND/GL ACCOUNT NAME/CASE # DESCRIPTION DATE AMOUNT
2200-22010- 17-31436 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 03/16/18 $15.00 2200-22010- 17-29001 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 03/16/18 $62.53 2200-22010- 17-27710 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 03/16/18 $72.00 2200-22010- 17-33329 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 05/24/18 $112.80 2200-22010- 18-16582 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 10/01/18 $34.07 2200-22010- 18-16930 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 10/01/18 $45.00 FOUND PROPERTY/SAFEKEEPING TOTAL $341.40
60100000-20145 SAGE COVINA CHEVROLET WATER REFUND 43119 $46.11 60100000-20145 KELSEY DRAGUS WATER REFUND 43133 $54.03
60100000-20145 GUADALUPE RENDON WATER REFUND 43201 $298.62 60100000-20145 REGINA DOMINGUEZ WATER REFUND 43217 $240.10 60100000-20145 CHRIS CHUNG WATER REFUND 43217 $90.51
60100000-20145 LUIS VENERO WATER REFUND 43238 $325.69
60100000-20145 ANGIE ANDERSON WATER REFUND 43238 $75.87 60100000-20145 YVETTE ROQUE WATER REFUND 43238 $27.90
60100000-20145 LOIS COLE WATER REFUND 43273 $28.97
60100000-20145 ZHEN CHANG BUFFET INC WATER REFUND 43281 $46.90 60100000-20145 MIKE GRIFFIN WATER REFUND 43304 $316.14
60100000-20145 JOSE PINEDO WATER REFUND 43304 $69.53
60100000-20145 DONALD SIMPKINS WATER REFUND 43304 $66.65 60100000-20145 CHRISTINA QUACH WATER REFUND 43304 $45.86 60100000-20145 CATHERINE KIM WATER REFUND 43304 $38.93
60100000-20145 ZHANIBEK JUMABEKOV WATER REFUND 43304 $23.58 60100000-20145 WALTER LEONG WATER REFUND 43304 $22.30
60100000-20145 AMY MAN WATER REFUND 43307 $439.20
60100000-20145 JASON LEE WATER REFUND 43343 $73.34
60100000-20145 RICARDO JOSEPH WATER REFUND 43343 $45.59 60100000-20145 MARK JOSEPH BE VERA WATER REFUND 43353 $152.61 60100000-20145 ANTHONY MORENO WATER REFUND 43362 $407.05 60100000-20145 WESTSIDE ACCESSORIES WATER REFUND 43371 $72.55 60100000-20145 VINCENT CHU WATER REFUND 43371 $56.20
60100000-20145 WESTSIDE ACCESSORIES WATER REFUND 43385 $97.44 60100000-20145 JAVIER ESQUIVEL WATER REFUND 43385 $48.97 60100000-20145 PAULETTE O'NEILL WATER REFUND 43385 $18.97 60100000-20145 CAMELLIA WIRELESS LLC WATER REFUND 43406 $72.41 60100000-20145 RYAN WHALEN WATER REFUND 43406 $71.13
60100000-20145 MARTHA DUARTE WATER REFUND 43439 $24.72
WATER REFUNDS TOTAL $3,397.87
10100000-22400 JP United-211 N Citrus Adv for BEST BEST invoices-RED atty fees, 16344.27 41353 $5,265.03 10100000-22240-1568 Waldby William F and Sally Trust Overpayment-American Solar Direct 41905 $31.50 PLANNING DEPOSIT TOTAL $5,296.53
10100000-22400 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY Planning Deposit Payable 821 N Kidder 42535 $143.81 BUILDING DEPOSIT TOTAL $143.81
10100000-22010 DOROTHY CALDWELL STALE DATED CHECK 88844 43132 $32.32 10100000-22010 FG ROOFING COMPANY STALE DATED CHECK 88846 43132 $45.00 10100000-22010 JUAN J ORTEGA STALE DATED CHECK 88861 43132 $45.00 10100000-22010 OMAR SANCHEZ STALE DATED CHECK 88872 43132 $29.89 10100000-22010 FABIOLA HARO STALE DATED CHECK 89009 43146 $15.00 10100000-22010 JOSEPH A DELRIO STALE DATED CHECK 89011 43146 $145.00 10100000-22010 JASON P. PATTEN STALE DATED CHECK 89414 43167 $60.00 10100000-22010 VICTOR M ROSALES STALE DATED CHECK 89423 43167 $60.00 10100000-22010 PATRICK CREECH EARL STALE DATED CHECK 89637 43181 $57.00 10100000-22010 JORGE A CASTANEDA STALE DATED CHECK 89640 43181 $60.00 10100000-22010 JOSHUA HOLTHE STALE DATED CHECK 89642 43181 $60.00 10100000-22010 RUTH KEIGHLEY DEAN STALE DATED CHECK 89646 43181 $24.00 10100000-22010 VICTOR CASTELLON STALE DATED CHECK 89783 43195 $120.00 1 ATTACHMENT A

Page 4 of 10 ends

CITY OF COVINA
PROPOSED UNCLAIMED FUNDS (PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVT CODE: SECTION 50050) FUND/GL ACCOUNT NAME/CASE # DESCRIPTION DATE AMOUNT
10100000-22010 ARTURO FERNANDEZ STALE DATED CHECK 89785 43195 $48.00 10100000-22010 MARIA L RAMIREZ STALE DATED CHECK 89791 43195 $60.00 10100000-22010 RAUL E FONSECA STALE DATED CHECK 89792 43195 $60.00 10100000-22010 YOLANDA KAHN LAURA STALE DATED CHECK 89794 43195 $60.00 10100000-22010 ECOLAB CORP LSE STALE DATED CHECK 90216 43223 $40.00 10100000-22010 MICHAEL A MEDINA STALE DATED CHECK 90223 43223 $100.00 10100000-22010 VICTORIA LINDSAY STALE DATED CHECK 90226 43223 $30.00 10100000-22010 BENNIE J GRANT STALE DATED CHECK 90434 43237 $120.00 10100000-22010 JOAQUIN PAREDES STALE DATED CHECK 90443 43237 $60.00 10100000-22010 JOE F DELGADO STALE DATED CHECK 90444 43237 $60.00 10100000-22010 MARIO CAMPOS STALE DATED CHECK 90445 43237 $120.00 10100000-22010 RAFAEL VALDEZ STALE DATED CHECK 90446 43237 $60.00 10100000-22010 SANDRA CASEY STALE DATED CHECK 90447 43237 $85.00 10100000-22010 SUZANNE HERNANDEZ STALE DATED CHECK 90449 43237 $80.00 10100000-22010 THERESA LIRA STALE DATED CHECK 90450 43237 $60.00 10100000-22010 ALVARO JASSO STALE DATED CHECK 90667 43258 $55.00 10100000-22010 CLAUDIA CASTILLO STALE DATED CHECK 90676 43258 $90.00 10100000-22010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY STALE DATED CHECK 90706 43258 $750.00 10100000-22010 EVETTE LICON STALE DATED CHECK 90894 43272 $60.00 10100000-22010 FRANCISCO ARCE STALE DATED CHECK 90895 43272 $180.00 10100000-22010 FRANCISCO VEGA STALE DATED CHECK 90896 43272 $60.00 10100000-22010 JORGE MARQUEZ STALE DATED CHECK 90899 43272 $30.00 10100000-22010 LETICIA ALFONSO STALE DATED CHECK 90900 43272 $480.00 10100000-22010 LYDIA RODRIGUEZ STALE DATED CHECK 90902 43272 $60.00 10100000-22010 MATTHEW J VELAZQUEZ STALE DATED CHECK 90905 43272 $30.00 10100000-22010 RAMON RIVERA STALE DATED CHECK 90908 43272 $45.00 10100000-22010 ERIKA A. GUTIERREZ STALE DATED CHECK 91022 43279 $45.00 10100000-22010 MICHELLE Y. CARDENAS STALE DATED CHECK 91045 43279 $45.00 10100000-22010 ROGELIO GOMEZ STALE DATED CHECK 91052 43279 $210.00 10100000-22010 JESSICA BUSTAMANTE STALE DATED CHECK 91297 43293 $101.00 10100000-22010 RODRIGUEZ THOMAS STALE DATED CHECK 91321 43293 $15.00 10100000-22010 FRANCISCO MARTINEZ STALE DATED CHECK 91480 43307 $101.00 10100000-22010 CHRIS M. GALEANA STALE DATED CHECK 91669 43314 $60.00 10100000-22010 JUAN A. GARCIA STALE DATED CHECK 91680 43314 $39.00 10100000-22010 MANUEL CUEVAS STALE DATED CHECK 91686 43314 $60.00 10100000-22010 MARTEL COLLINS STALE DATED CHECK 91688 43314 $43.00 10100000-22010 REBEKAH GUERRERO STALE DATED CHECK 91692 43314 $97.53 10100000-22010 DONNA VERCELES STALE DATED CHECK 91880 43328 $30.00 10100000-22010 CHRISTINE E. ALFONSO STALE DATED CHECK 92120 43342 $101.00 10100000-22010 ELIZABETH N GOMEZ STALE DATED CHECK 92123 43342 $48.00 10100000-22010 EULAND BIAGAS STALE DATED CHECK 92124 43342 $60.00 10100000-22010 EVETTE LICON STALE DATED CHECK 92126 43342 $60.00 10100000-22010 FRANK REYES JR STALE DATED CHECK 92127 43342 $29.00 10100000-22010 GABRIEL I MORALES STALE DATED CHECK 92128 43342 $60.00 10100000-22010 JORGE A. PEREZ JR STALE DATED CHECK 92134 43342 $101.00 10100000-22010 JOSE ESPIDION STALE DATED CHECK 92136 43342 $161.00 10100000-22010 LINDA ESPINOZA STALE DATED CHECK 92142 43342 $255.30 10100000-22010 JEREMIAH DONOVAN STALE DATED CHECK 92222 43349 $140.88 10100000-22010 CHIU HSIA CHANG STALE DATED CHECK 92242 43349 $41.38 10100000-22010 GUILLERMO SARACHO STALE DATED CHECK 92244 43349 $45.00 10100000-22010 KIMBERLY ORTIZ STALE DATED CHECK 92249 43349 $53.80 10100000-22010 JEROME GODINEZ STALE DATED CHECK 92441 43362 $47.89 10100000-22010 NOEMI FALCON STALE DATED CHECK 92630 43377 $60.00 10100000-22010 COURTNEY HOLLAND STALE DATED CHECK 93439 43433 $38.51 10100000-22010 STEVEN WONG STALE DATED CHECK 93574 43440 $69.30 STALE DATED CHECKS TOTAL $5,854.80
GRAND TOTAL $15,034.41
2 ATTACHMENT A

Page 5 of 10 ends

CITY OF COVINA
PROPOSED UNCLAIMED FUNDS (PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVT CODE: SECTION 50055) FUND/GL ACCOUNT NAME/CASE # DESCRIPTION EFF DATE JOURNAL AMOUNT 2200-22010- 19-7769 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 04/23/20 $3.00 2200-22010- 19-7769 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 04/23/20 $2.41 2200-22010- 19-6344 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 04/23/20 $0.37 2200-22010- 16-32307 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 04/28/20 $5.01 2200-22010- 18-21791 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 04/28/20 $4.00 2200-22010- 19-26600 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 05/13/20 $7.81 2200-22010- 19-13823 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 05/13/20 $3.11 2200-22010- 19-33559 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 05/13/20 $3.00 2200-22010- 19-20594 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 05/13/20 $1.07 2200-22010- 19-12169 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 05/13/20 $1.00 2200-22010- 19-26563 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 05/13/20 $0.01 2200-22010- 20-5864 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 06/10/20 $2.00 2200-22010- 20-4901 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 06/10/20 $1.00 2200-22010- 20-6745 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 10/22/20 $5.00 2200-22010- 20-11043 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 10/22/20 $2.38 2200-22010- 20-14579 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 10/22/20 $1.00 2200-22010- 20-1014 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 10/29/20 $4.00 2200-22010- 13-4960 FOUND PROPERTY / SAFEKEEPING 11/19/20 $6.00 FOUND PROPERTY/SAFEKEEPING TOTAL $52.17
60100000-20145 Luu, Kyle WATER REFUND 07/31/20 13.04
60100000-20145 Kan, Henry WATER REFUND 07/31/20 7.84
60100000-20145 Leung, Susan WATER REFUND 07/31/20 6.33
WATER REFUNDS TOTAL $27.21
GRAND TOTAL $79.38
1 ATTACHMENT B

Page 6 of 10 ends

CITY OF COVINA
PROPOSED WRITE OFF OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION 14‐7255 FUND/GL ACCOUNT NAME/INVOICE # DESCRIPTION DATE AMOUNT
10100000-11410 100451-Pelayo Anita Property Damage Reimbursement 5/24/2012 $16,328.45 73700000-11410 100515-Herrrera Christopher Property Damage Reimbursement 10/30/2012 $8,598.50 73700000-11410 102471-Infinity Insurance Property Damage Reimbursement 4/8/2014 $11,508.25 Total Uncollectible Receivables $36,435.20

Page 7 of 10 ends

ATTACHMENT D
125 East College Street  Covina, California 91723-2199

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CLAIMING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
To file a claim for unclaimed property:

1. To make a claim for unclaimed money, the claimant must complete and submit a Claim for Unclaimed Property form. Please include all required documentation. NOTE: A separa te claim form is not required for each item of property owned by the same owner. Just add additional pages as needed to provide the pertinent information for each item of property claimed.

2. The form may be typed or filled out by hand in black or blue ink.

3. For all claims, the claimant must show proof of identity and proof of ownership of the property. Proof of identity may be provided by a valid governmental photo identification (e.g., driver’s license, passport, or a government employer identification badge) . Proof of ownership will vary depending on the nature of the property claimed, but may include proof of residence or ownership at a particular address or proof of a relationship (vendor, employee, contractor, etc.) with the City at a specified time.

4. If the claimant is claiming the money on behalf of a business entity, the claimant must provide proof that he or she has legal authority to make such request. Proof of authority can be, for example, but is not limited to, a signed letter from the owner or CEO o f the company on company letterhead.

5. If the money is being requested to be paid to someone other than the original owner or payee (e.g., to a person instead of to the business entity), the City requires a written, signed statement made under penalty of pe rjury and other pertinent legal documents which shall justify the change in payee.

6. All pertinent information called for on the form must be filled in or otherwise provided.

The claim form must be signed by the claimant, and the signature must be notarized if the claim is for $100 or more.

7. For claims submitted by an agent on behalf of the claimant under power of attorney, the power of attorney form must have the notarized signature of the claimant, and the claim form must also have a notarized signature of t he claimant.

Page 8 of 10 ends

ATTACHMENT D
125 East College Street  Covina, California 91723-2199

8. Completed claim forms and supporting documentation must be mailed to:

City of Covina
Administrative Services Department – Finance Division
Attn: Unclaimed Property
125 E. College St.

Covina, CA 91723-2199
All original forms must be received by the City by 6:00p.m. of the filing deadline. PDF copies received by email will be accepted only for purposes of meeting a filing deadline; however, the claim form with an original signature must be received by the Cit y within five business days of the filing deadline in order to process the claim. If the original claim is not received within five business days, the PDF claim will be rejected.

Once a proper claim has been received by the City, the propriety of the cla im will be evaluated and the claimant will be notified if any further information is needed.

9. If you have any questions, please email [email protected] or mail questions to the above address.

Please note that it may take up to 60 days to process your claim and, if approved, approximately 15 additional days for you to receive payment. This process may take longer under certain circumstances.

Page 9 of 10 ends

Claim for Unclaimed Property
City of Covina
Attn: Unclaimed Property
125 E. College St.

Covina, CA 91723
Form may be typed or filled out with black or blue ink.

CLAIMANT INFORMATION
Name Address
City/State/Zip Code
Last Four Digits of Your Social Security Number

ACCOUNTING ONLY
CLAIM NO.

DATE RECEIVED
Telephone Number
Email Address
Business Name, if applicable
Business Taxpayer ID#
CLAIM INFORMATION: Attach all documentation to support your claim.

For claims that have not been notarized, include proof of identity (clear copy of passport, DMV license, or DMV ID card). If you are claiming multiple items from the unclaimed property list, please provide this information for each item claimed.

Name (as listed on the unclaimed property listing):

Amount (from the unclaimed property listing): Fund (from the unclaimed property listing):

PREVIOUS ADDRESSES: Please list your previous addresses as support for your claim. Use additional paper, if needed.

CERTIFICATION OF CLAIMANT
If the total
amount claimed
is $100 or more,
the SIGNATURE MUST BE NOTARIZED
I certify under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this claim is true and correct and of my own personal knowledge.

I further certify that I am the owner of or the person legally entitled to the money and property set forth in this claim or I am an authorized representative of this business.

SIGNED:

TITLE, if applicable:

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of
On , before me, , a Notary
Public, personally appeared , who
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on this document the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY of PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)

DISPOSITION
Accepted
Rejected

DO NOT WRITE IN THE SECTIONS BELOW THIS LINE
Escheator
Date:

THIS CLAIM IS APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
OR Date:

Finance Manager Administrative Services Director
ATTACHMENT E Page 10 of 10
CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CPH 1
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Jan 18 2022
Title: A Continued Public Hearing for Notice of Intent to Vacate a Portion of Geneva Place between Citrus Avenue and 3rd Avenue and a Strip of Public Alley located at East Side of 141 West Geneva Place
Presented By: Brian K. Lee, AICP, Director of Community Development Recommendation: Continue the public hearing to the meeting of February 15, 2022.

DISCUSSION:

In conjunction with the applications of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 73661 and Site Plan Review (SPR) 16-028 for a residential and commercial mixed use project, Mr. Tarif Hassan has requested the City to vacate portion of Geneva Place between Citrus Avenue and 3rd Avenue as a public roadway and a strip of public alley as indicated on Attachment A. The status of the project is that the Appraisal Report has been completed, the applicant and staff has reached an agreement, and the attorneys on both sides are finalizing the terms of the agreement. Staff request the City Council continue the public hearing to the February 15, 2022 meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. PH 1
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Jan 18 2022
Title: City Council Election District Public Hearing #5 – Regarding the Transition from AtLarge to By-District Elections and Final Adoption of an Ordinance Adding a New Title 4 (Municipal Elections) to the Covina Municipal Code Providing for the Election of Five City Councilmembers by Districts, Establishing the Boundaries and Identification Number of Each District, and Establishing the Election Order of Each District, and Making a Determination of Exemption Pursuant to CEQA
Presented By: Chris Marcarello, City Manager
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Receive information about draft mapping proposals for district-based voting;

2. Conduct the fifth of five public hearings to solicit public testimony regarding the draft maps;

3. Adopt upon second reading the following ordinance:

An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Covina, California, Adding a New Title 4 (Municipal Elections) to the Covina Municipal Code Providing for the Election of Five City Councilmembers by Districts, Establishing the Boundaries and Identification Number of Each District, and Establishing the Election Order of Each District, and Making a Determination of Exemption Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution CC 2021-117 declaring the City of Covina’s intent to transition from an at-large Council Member election system to a district-based Council Member election system, outlining specific steps to be undertaken to facilitate the transition and estimating a time frame for action pursuant to Elections Code § 10010. Section 10010 requires a minimum of five public hearings in connection with the establishment of electoral districts. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10010(a)(1), the first two public hearings (“pre-mapping hearings”) are for the purpose of receiving input from the public regarding the composition of districts for by-district elections of the City Council. The remaining hearings (“post-mapping hearings”) are for the consideration of mapping proposals. This hearing is the last of the three post-mapping public hearings.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Covina (“City”) currently elects its City Councilmembers through an “at-large” election system in which each Councilmember can reside anywhere in the City and is elected by the voters of the entire City to provide citywide representation.

On September 7, 2021, the City received a letter dated September 1, 2021, challenging the City's current election method and asserting that the City’s at-large election system violates the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) and demanding that the City change its at-large voting system to a district-based election system. A district-based election system is generally one in which a city is divided into separate districts, with each district’s voters electing a representative from that district, who must also be a resident of the district.

The process for transitioning from at-large voting to district-based voting is prescribed by Section 10010 of the Elections Code. It consists of five public hearings in total, and it must be completed within 90 days of the adoption of Resolution CC 2021-117. The schedule for the public hearings is as follows:

While not statutorily required, in an effort to provide information and engage the community on the districting process, the City held an informational meeting on November 30, 2021 at the Covina Evangelical Free Church.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this meeting is for the Council to receive a presentation from its consultants regarding the Council’s preferred draft mapping proposal, after which, in accordance with the Elections Code, the Council is required to conduct a public hearing to solicit public testimony regarding the draft maps.

Following the presentation and public testimony, the Council should adopt an ordinance upon second reading that amends Title 4 of the Covina Municipal Code to establish a by-district election system for City Council Members.

Draft Maps
At its December 21, 2021 meeting, the Council reviewed thirty (30) draft maps submitted by members of the public and three (3) draft maps presented by the City’s consultants, after which the Council provided direction to remove draft maps from further consideration that did not conform with Federal and State voting district establishment criteria.

At its January 4, 2022 meeting, the Council reviewed an additional five (5) draft maps submitted by members of the public as well as the maps previously submitted.

Federal/State District Formation Criteria
Certain legally required criteria apply to the creation of the districts and must be observed. These are:
• Each council district shall contain a nearly equal population as defined by federal and state law; • A districting plan shall be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause; and
• Each council district shall not be drawn with race as the predominant factor in violation of the principles established by the United State Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

Beyond that, state law requires that cities adhere to the following statutory criteria, ranked in order of priority:
(1) To the extent practicable, council districts shall be geographically contiguous. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous. (2) To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or—as mentioned above—local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division.

Page 2 of 44 ends

(3) Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the city.
(4) To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.

As for the demographic makeup of the City, the recently released 2020 Census data, as adjusted by the California Statewide Database pursuant to state law, reflect the following pertinent characteristics:

Council’s Selected Map – Willdan Map 2
At its January 4, 2022 meeting, following the close of the public hearing and Council discussion, the Council waived full reading, read by title only, and introduced for first reading and ordinance to adopt district-based elections, approving Willdan Map 2 as the selected map, and adopting the election sequence proposed with that map. Willdan Map 2:
• Complies with federal and state equal population requirements, having a “total deviation” of 6.96%, which is within the 10% range that the Supreme Court has deemed constitutional. • Establishes five (5) majority-Latino citizen voting age districts. The election sequence chosen places the two (2) districts with the highest Latino citizen voting age population percentages up for election in 2022. • Establishes five contiguous council districts.
• Considers communities of interest including local geographic features, local historical elements, shared neighborhood elements (traffic, noise, transportation, unique jurisdictional features/boundaries, crime, social issues, the provision of utility services), and neighborhood amenities (neighborhood age/land use design/architectural style, parks, schools, shopping amenities), as follows:
o District 1: a northwestern district consisting of neighborhoods oriented around the Azusa Avenue corridor, as well as Hollenbeck and Cypress Parks. Neighborhoods in this district experience shared concerns related to quality of life issues, such as graffiti abatement and connecting persons experiencing homelessness to service providers. Further, the district shares interests in the redevelopment of vacant commercial properties in the area to enhance quality of life characteristics. The district as constructed in Willdan Map 2 also largely corresponds to the Azusa

Page 3 of 44 ends

Light and Power District service area as far as it serves Covina. Depending on how one classifies them, between 1/3 and 2/3 of the public submissions had a similarly configured district in this area, such as Maps 104, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, and 128. o District 2: a northeastern district adjacent to the Arrow Highway Corridor, which is an area facing common issues relating to proposed development, traffic circulation/safety, the enhancement of public rights-of-way, pedestrian safety and transportation as reflected in San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments/SCAG visioning studies. Those issues are especially complicated by the fact that multiple agencies— Covina, Azusa, Glendora, and the County of Los Angeles —have jurisdiction over the corridor.[1] Approximately 1/3 of the public map submissions had some variation of this northeastern district configuration, including Maps 104, 108, 113, 114, 117, 118, 119, 124, 125, 126, and 128.
o District 3: a central district containing the historic core of Covina, including the Downtown Covina commercial area and surrounding neighborhoods that connect to the downtown due to community events and the mix of uses along Citrus Avenue and at Covina Park, the City’s oldest; the Adams Park neighborhood; the Ruddock mansion and related orange groves; citrus packing houses from the City’s early days as a citrus industry hub and other local historic homes and elements. Again, approximately 1/3 of the proposed public maps contained some version of a central district encompassing these elements, including Maps 104, 108, 119, 122, 124, 125, 128, 132, and 135. o District 4: a southeastern district consisting of neighborhoods adjacent to and unified around portions of Badillo Street. Neighborhoods in this district are predominantly residential tracts of similar age and composition that share concerns about quality of life issues, such as pedestrian safety, access to parks and open space, traffic safety/circulation and pedestrian safety. A number of public submissions contained similar districts, especially Maps 124, 125 and 128, with Maps 102 and 135 proposing districts with some similarities. o District 5: a southern district adjacent to the Interstate 10 Freeway, which shares common concerns relating to congestion, noise, air quality and traffic resulting from long-term construction projects on that Freeway. This district also encompasses the border that Covina shares with West Covina and shared common concerns relating to land use and transportation circulation, such as impacts associated with the Eastland Center, the conversion of the Faith Church site to an Amazon “Last Mile” distribution facility and traffic circulation along busy arterial roadways leading from the Interstate 10 Freeway. Further, the district shares interests related to development issues and quality of life issues, including traffic/pedestrian safety and connecting persons experiencing homelessness to service providers. Most of the public map submissions proposed some version of a district along the City’s southern boundary, with Map 102, 104, 124, 125, and 128 containing versions that were fairly similar to the version contained in the Willdan Map 2. • Uses readily easily identifiable and understandable boundaries for the districts, such as natural and artificial barriers like the Walnut Creek and Trail and the San Jose Hills; streets; and the boundaries of the city.
• To the extent practicable, and subject to the foregoing considerations, encourages geographic compactness.

Contrary to statements by some members of the public, no political party data were used in the drawing of the map, and no consideration was given to the impacts of the map on any political party.

Next Steps
The City Council must conduct one final scheduled election district public hearing, on January 18, 2022, after which it could consider adopting the ordinance. Following adoption, the map would be transmitted to the County Recorder/Registrar/Clerk for use at the City’s June 2022 election. The deadline for adoption of a map under Elections Code § 10010 is January 19, 2022.
[1] As one visioning study noted, “Areas with split control require greater effort; jurisdictions must coordinate, consider, and appease multiple resident populations, public agencies, planning commissions, and city councils (and the board of supervisors if applicable). Jurisdictions often decide to focus planning and investment efforts in other parts of the city/county where they retain sole land use, design, and regulatory control.” SCAG, “MultiJurisdictional Planning in Corridors: A Recommendations Report for the Arrow Highway Corridor in the San Gabriel Valley,” p. 13.

Page 4 of 44 ends

FISCAL IMPACT:

At its November 2, 2021 meeting, the City Council appropriated $150 thousand for expenses related to the transition to a district-based election system.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

The action being considered by the Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” under Section 15378(b) of CEQA Guidelines. The action involves organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Furthermore, the proposed action is also exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that this action will not have any potentially significant adverse impact on the environment.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Ordinance 22-01 - 5 District Election
Attachment B - Willdan Map 2
Attachment C - Draft Maps
Respectfully submitted,

Page 5 of 44 ends

ORDINANCE 22-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COVINA ADDING A NEW TITLE 4 (MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS) TO THE COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE

PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF FIVE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

BY DISTRICTS, ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES AND

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF EACH DISTRICT, AND

ESTABLISHING THE ELECTION ORDER OF EACH DISTRICT, AND

MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This Ordinance is adopted with respect to the following purposes:
(a) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886 and Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council votes to approve the change to a district-based election system for City Councilmembers whereby all five City Councilmembers shall be elected by the voters of five City Council districts rather than at-large.
(b) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, it is declared the change in the method of electing City Councilmembers of the City of Covina made by this ordinance is in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter

1.5, commencing with Section 14025, of Division 14 of the Elections Code) (the “CVRA”). (c) Pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, this Ordinance relates to an election and provides for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, based on the following facts:
1) On October 21, 2021, the City Council voted unanimously to approve Resolution CC 2021-117, which declared the intention to transition from at-large to district-based City Council elections. This decision came as a result of a demand letter sent to the City by Attorney Scott Rafferty, which alleged that the City’s current election system violates the CVRA; and
2) Under the CVRA, the City must complete the transition to district elections within a 90-day timeframe, with a minimum of five public hearings; and 3) Under the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, a political subdivision that changes from an at-large method of election to a by-district method of election shall hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than thirty days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts before drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts; and
4) Before any maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts were drawn, the City Council held public hearings on November 2, 2021, and November 16, 2021, at which time input from the public on the proposed composition of the districts was invited and heard; and

Page 6 of 44 ends

Ordinance 22-01 Page 2 of 6
5) The City Council has established a redistricting website, http://mapcovina.org, at which members of the public could download and submit proposed district maps for consideration by the Council; and 6) On December 14, 2021, consistent with the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, the City published and made available for release, 30 draft maps proposed by members of the public, and three draft maps prepared by the City’s demographic consultant in accordance with California Elections Code Section 21601 and California Government Code Section 34886; and 7) The potential sequence of elections in the districts represented in each map was also simultaneously published for each draft plan; and 8) As required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City held a public hearing on December 21, 2021 at which the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the potential sequence of elections; and
9) On December 28, 2021, two amended public maps and five new publicly submitted maps were published; and
10) As required by California Elections Code Section 10010, the City held a public hearing on January 4, 2022, at which the public was again invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the potential sequence of elections, and at which the City Council introduced this Ordinance containing the proposed districting plan for the City of Covina and sequencing of elections in the districts; and
11) On January 18, 2022, consistent with the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, the City held a fifth public hearing at which the public was again invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps including the map attached to and made a part of this Ordinance; and
12) The City has complied with all requirements of California Elections Code Section 10010; and
13) Adoption of this Ordinance allows the City to comply with CVRA deadline of January 19, 2022, thereby protecting the City from litigation and significant legal fees.
(d) Providing for the election of City Councilmembers by districts and establishing the district boundaries is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that the change will not have any potentially significant adverse impact on the environment. This change is also exempt from CEQA because it is not a “project” under Section 15378(b) of CEQA Guidelines because this change involves organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Page 7 of 44 ends

Ordinance 22-01 Page 3 of 6
SECTION 2. A new Title 4 (Municipal Elections) is hereby added to the Covina Municipal Code to read as follows:
“Title 4

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Chapter 4.02 Elections Generally

4.02.010 City Council Districts Established. Five City Council districts are hereby established in the City of Covina. The boundaries and identifying number of each district shall be as described on the official “Council District Map” on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

4.02.020 Election of City Councilmembers by District.

A. City Councilmembers shall be elected “by District” as defined in California Government Code Section 34871. A person shall not be eligible to be elected to be a City Councilmember unless he or she is otherwise qualified as required by law, resides in the geographical area making up the district from which he or she is nominated to be elected and is a registered voter of the City of Covina at the time nomination papers are issued to the candidate as provided in Section 10227 of the California Elections Code.

B. Registered voters signing nomination papers or voting for a City Councilmember shall be residents of the geographical area making up the district from which the City Councilmember is to be elected.

C. The terms of the office of each City Councilmember shall be four (4) years.

D. References in this Chapter to state statutes shall include any amendments thereto and any successor statutes.

4.02.030 Commencement of District Elections. Commencing with the general municipal election in June of 2022 and thereafter, the voters in Council Districts 1, 3, and 5 shall elect City Councilmembers by district for full four (4) year terms. At the general municipal election in 2024 and thereafter, the voters in Council Districts 2 and 4 shall elect City Councilmember by district for full four (4) year terms. No term of any City Councilmember that commenced on or prior to the effective date of this Chapter shall be affected prior to its expiration date.

4.02.040 Adjustment of Council District Boundaries.

A. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601 the City Council shall adjust the boundaries of any or all of the districts following the release of the 2030 Census and every subsequent decennial federal census thereafter. Using the census as a basis, the City Council shall adjust the boundaries in accordance with the standards and provisions of Elections Code Sections 21600 to 21609, as they now exist or may hereafter be amended, and in compliance with all applicable provisions of law. Any adjustment of district boundaries shall be made by ordinance or resolution adopted by the City Council. The City Council shall hold public hearings and comply with the procedures for adoption of the

Page 8 of 44 ends

Ordinance 22-01 Page 4 of 6
proposed district boundaries as required by Elections Code Sections 21607 and 21607.1, as those sections now exist or may hereafter be amended.

B. At the time of any annexation of territory to the City, the City Council shall designate, by resolution adopted by a vote of at least a majority of the City Council, the contiguous district to which the annexed territory shall be a part and shall amend the district boundaries if necessary in accordance with Elections Code Section 21603.

C. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 21606 the term of office of any City Councilmember who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired shall not be affected by any change in the boundaries of the district from which he or she was elected.

At the first election for council following adjustment of the boundaries of the districts, a person meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 34882 shall be elected to the City Council for each district under the readjusted district plan that has the same district number as a district whose incumbent’s term on the council is due to expire.

4.02.050 Procedure for Holding Elections. All city municipal elections shall be held in accordance with the election laws of the state of California, as the same now exists or hereafter may be amended, for the holding of municipal elections. References in this Chapter to state statutes shall include any amendments thereto and any successor statutes.” SECTION 3. The Official Council District Map referenced in Section 4.02.010 is hereby approved and is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. The Official Council District Map shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(a) as it is an ordinance relating to an election for the City and pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(d) as an ordinance for the immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety.

SECTION 5. If necessary to facilitate the implementation of this Ordinance, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to make technical adjustments to the district boundaries adopted in this Ordinance that do not substantively affect the populations in the districts, the eligibility of candidates, or the residence of elected officials within any district. The City Manager shall consult with the City Attorney concerning any technical adjustments deemed necessary and shall advise the City Council of any such adjustments required in the implementation of the districts.

SECTION 6. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” under Section 15378(b) of CEQA Guidelines. The action involves organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Furthermore, the Council also finds that this Ordinance is also exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that this Ordinance will not have any potentially significant adverse impact on the environment.

SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Covina hereby declares that it would have adopted each

Page 9 of 44 ends

Ordinance 22-01 Page 5 of 6
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a written record of the passage and adoption thereof in the minutes of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall publish notice of adoption in the manner required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of January, 2022.

City Council of Covina, California
BY:

JORGE A. MARQUEZ, Mayor
ATTEST:

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CANDICE K. LEE, City Attorney

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Ordinance 22-01 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting on the 4th day of January, 2022. Thereafter, said Ordinance was duly approved and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 18th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:

Page 10 of 44 ends

Ordinance 22-01 Page 6 of 6
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 11 of 44 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

OFFICIAL COUNCIL DISTRICT MAP
(SEE ATTACHED)

Page 12 of 44 ends

Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
5 5
4 3
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

WILLDAN MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
WILLDAN MAP NUMBER 2
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 3 and 5
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 2 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 7.0%
1 6,340 53.7% 21.2% 4.3% 0.3% 18.5% 10,019 -270 -2.6%
2 6,689 53% 28% 4.3% 0.5% 13% 10,249 -40 -0.4%
3 7,022 50.2% 32.6% 3% 0.6% 12.7% 10,657 368 3.6%
4 6,380 50.4% 30.1% 4.6% 0.3% 13.1% 9,941 -348 -3.4%
5 7,124 56.4% 24.5% 6% 0.4% 11.9% 10,578 289 2.8%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 13 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
5 5
4 3
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

WILLDAN MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
WILLDAN MAP NUMBER 2
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 3 and 5
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 2 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 7.0%
1 6,340 53.7% 21.2% 4.3% 0.3% 18.5% 10,019 -270 -2.6%
2 6,689 53% 28% 4.3% 0.5% 13% 10,249 -40 -0.4%
3 7,022 50.2% 32.6% 3% 0.6% 12.7% 10,657 368 3.6%
4 6,380 50.4% 30.1% 4.6% 0.3% 13.1% 9,941 -348 -3.4%
5 7,124 56.4% 24.5% 6% 0.4% 11.9% 10,578 289 2.8%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 14 of 44 Attachment C
Individual Draft Maps – Submitted by 6 PM on December 6, 2021 5 Districts
• Public Map 101
• Public Map 105
• Public Map 108
• Public Map 109
• Public Map 110
• Public Map 111
• Public Map 114
• Public Map 115
• Public Map 116
• Public Map 117
• Public Map 120
• Public Map 124
• Public Map 125
• Public Map 128
• Public Map 129
• Public Map 130
4 Districts
• Public Map 113
• Public Map 118
• Public Map 123

Page 15 of 44 ends

Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 101
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Covina City Boundary
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 3 and 5
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 2 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 2.9%
1 6,993 53.6% 22.3% 6.4% 0.5% 16.4% 10,356 67 0.7%
2 6,360 53.9% 27.2% 3.8% 0.7% 11.9% 10,413 124 1.2%
3 6,034 56.7% 26.1% 3.1% 0.2% 12.4% 10,114 -175 -1.7%
4 6,459 56.8% 24.7% 4.8% 0% 12.2% 10,233 -56 -0.5%
5 7,709 44.6% 35.2% 3.9% 0.6% 15.1% 10,328 39 0.4%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 16 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 5
4 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 105
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Covina City Boundary
Districts Proposed Up For Election in 2022: 2, 3 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election in 2024: 1 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 7.9%
1 7,132 51.4% 23% 6.7% 0.3% 16.7% 10,698 409 4%
2 6,157 54.5% 29.1% 3.3% 0.8% 11.2% 9,885 -404 -3.9%
3 6,565 54.4% 27.6% 4% 0.3% 12.9% 10,468 179 1.7%
4 6,760 60.2% 21.2% 4.7% 0.2% 12.1% 10,407 118 1.1%
5 6,941 42.5% 35% 3.2% 0.5% 15.4% 9,986 -303 -2.9%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units. Page 17 of 44
Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 5
3 4
2 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 108
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Covina City Boundary
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 2, 3 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 1 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 5.7%
1 6,313 53.7% 24.8% 3.4% 0.3% 15.5% 10,037 -252 -2.4%
2 6,857 55.0% 27.6% 4.2% 0.2% 12.2% 10,436 147 1.4%
3 6,684 51.4% 26.7% 6.7% 0.8% 13.1% 10,578 289 2.8%
4 6,760 60.2% 21.2% 4.7% 0.2% 12.1% 10,407 118 1.1%
5 6,941 43.8% 35.9% 3.2% 0.5% 15.4% 9,986 -303 -2.9%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 18 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 109
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Covina City Boundary
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 2 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 7.9%
1 7,074 51.5% 22.8% 6.8% 0.3% 16.4% 10,698 409 4%
2 6,114 54.5% 29.1% 3.3% 0.8% 11.3% 9,885 -404 -3.9%
3 7,360 47.6% 31.4% 3.9% 0.4% 15.7% 10,520 231 2.2%
4 6,760 60.2% 21.2% 4.7% 0.2% 12.1% 10,407 118 1.1%
5 6,146 50.6% 32.5% 3.2% 0.3% 12.2% 9,934 -355 -3.5%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 19 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 110
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Covina City Boundary
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 2, 3 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 1 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 7.9%
1 7,132 51.4% 23% 6.7% 0.3% 16.7% 10,698 409 4%
2 6,157 54.5% 29.1% 3.3% 0.8% 11.3% 9,885 -404 -3.9%
3 6,057 53.2% 27.3% 4.1% 0.3% 13.8% 9,933 -356 -3.5%
4 6,760 60.2% 21.2% 4.7% 0.2% 12.1% 10,407 118 1.1%
5 7,449 44.2% 35.6% 3.1% 0.5% 14.1% 10,521 232 2.3%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units. Page 20 of 44
Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 111
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Covina City Boundary
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 2, 3 and 5
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 1 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 7.9%
1 7,132 51.4% 23.0% 6.7% 0.3% 16.7% 10,698 409 4%
2 6,157 54.5% 29.1% 3.3% 0.8% 11.3% 9,885 -404 -3.9%
3 5,797 54.8% 27.4% 3.1% 0.1% 12.9% 10,126 -163 -1.6%
4 7,709 44.6% 35.2% 3.9% 0.6% 14.8% 10,328 39 0.4%
5 6,760 60.2% 21.2% 4.7% 0.2% 12.1% 10,407 118 1.1%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 21 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 114
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 2 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 7%
Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units.
1 6,848 56.5% 22.4% 3.6% 0.1% 14.5% 10,703 414 4%
2 6,857 52.9% 26% 5.2% 0.6% 14.5% 10,235 -54 -0.5%
3 6,170 58.4% 21.4% 5.8% 0% 12.1% 9,985 -304 -3%
4 6,468 51.3% 30.6% 4.6% 0.8% 13.1% 10,392 103 1%
5 7,212 45.5% 35.4% 3.1% 0.5% 14.4% 10,129 -160 -1.6%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 22 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 115
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 2 and 5
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 6.1%
Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units.
1 6,309 51.1% 22.7% 3.8% 0.2% 19.6% 9,966 -323 -3.1%
2 6,980 54.4% 28.7% 6.4% 0.9% 9.3% 10,617 328 3.2%
3 6,760 60.2% 21.2% 4.7% 0.2% 12.1% 10,407 118 1.1%
4 6,565 54.4% 27.6% 4% 0.3% 12.9% 10,468 179 1.7%
5 6,941 43.8% 35.9% 3.2% 0.5% 15.4% 9,986 -303 -2.9%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 23 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 116
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 2 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 6.6%
1 6,673 50.4% 22.5% 7% 0.3% 17.6% 10,152 -137 -1.3%
2 6,769 61.1% 23.8% 3.6% 0.3% 9.3% 10,599 310 3%
3 5,994 56.1% 26.4% 4.2% 0% 11.9% 9,921 -368 -3.6%
4 6,410 53.2% 27.5% 3.4% 0.7% 14.5% 10,444 155 1.5%
5 7,709 44.6% 35.2% 3.9% 0.6% 15.1% 10,328 39 0.4%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 24 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
2 3
4 5
1 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 117
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 2 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 6.2%
Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units.
2 7,089 55.4% 24.7% 5% 0.6% 13.6% 10,462 173 1.7%
3 6,139 57.1% 22.3% 6% 0% 12.8% 10,033 -256 -2.5%
4 6,581 49.6% 30.5% 3.3% 0.4% 14.4% 10,152 -137 -1.3%
5 7,212 45.5% 35.4% 3.1% 0.5% 14.4% 10,129 -160 -1.6%
1 6,534 57% 22.9% 5% 0.5% 13.5% 10,668 379 3.7%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 25 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2 3
4 5
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 120
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 2 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 8.3%
1 6,673 50.4% 22.5% 7% 0.3% 17.6% 10,152 -137 -1.3%
2 6,940 59.3% 26.5% 3.1% 0.9% 9.7% 10,706 417 4.1%
3 6,041 56.9% 27% 3% 0.1% 11.6% 10,275 -14 -0.1%
4 6,217 54.4% 23.6% 5.4% 0% 14.5% 9,860 -429 -4.2%
5 7,684 44.4% 35.6% 3.8% 0.6% 15.1% 10,451 162 1.6%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 26 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 3
4 5
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 124
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: (submitter did not propose) Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: (submitter did not propose) Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 9.6%
1 6,284 54.7% 23.3% 4.8% 0.5% 14.2% 10,160 -129 -1.3%
2 6,311 53.4% 28% 4.1% 0.5% 13.4% 9,760 -529 -5.1%
3 6,898 49.6% 24.8% 6.9% 0.3% 16.9% 10,258 -31 -0.3%
4 6,971 56.5% 27.7% 2.2% 0.5% 12.5% 10,509 220 2.1%
5 7,091 49.9% 32.4% 4.2% 0.3% 11.9% 10,757 468 4.5%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 27 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 3
4 5
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 125
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: (submitter did not propose) Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: (submitter did not propose) Ideal District Total Population: 10,289
Total Deviation: 9.6%
1 6,284 54.7% 23.3% 4.8% 0.5% 14.2% 10,160 -129 -1.3%
2 6,311 53.4% 28% 4.1% 0.5% 13.4% 9,760 -529 -5.1%
3 6,898 49.6% 24.8% 6.9% 0.3% 16.9% 10,258 -31 -0.3%
4 6,971 56.5% 27.7% 2.2% 0.5% 12.5% 10,509 220 2.1%
5 7,091 49.9% 32.4% 4.2% 0.3% 11.9% 10,757 468 4.5%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 28 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 5
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 128
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 3 and 5
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 2 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 9.6%
1 6,284 54.7% 23.3% 4.8% 0.5% 14.2% 10,160 -129 -1.3%
2 6,311 53.4% 28% 4.1% 0.5% 13.4% 9,760 -529 -5.1%
3 6,971 56.5% 27.7% 2.2% 0.5% 12.5% 10,509 220 2.1%
4 7,091 49.9% 32.4% 4.2% 0.3% 11.9% 10,757 468 4.5%
5 6,898 49.6% 24.8% 6.9% 0.3% 16.9% 10,258 -31 -0.3%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 29 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 129
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: (submitter did not propose) Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: (submitter did not propose) Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 4.1%
Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units.
1 6,673 50.4% 22.5% 7% 0.3% 17.6% 10,152 -137 -1.3%
2 6,485 56.5% 28.2% 3.1% 0.9% 10.8% 10,293 4 0%
3 5,816 55% 27% 3.1% 0.1% 12.9% 10,126 -163 -1.6%
4 6,891 59% 22.4% 4.8% 0.1% 12% 10,545 256 2.5%
5 7,690 44.4% 35.5% 3.9% 0.6% 15.1% 10,328 39 0.4%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 30 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 130
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: (submitter did not propose) Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: (submitter did not propose) Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 6.1%
Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units.
1 6,609 50.9% 22.9% 6.1% 0.3% 18.1% 10,026 -263 -2.6%
2 6,458 53.5% 28.1% 4.6% 0.8% 11.2% 10,226 -63 -0.6%
3 5,887 56.3% 27.5% 2.8% 0.1% 11.9% 10,213 -76 -0.7%
4 6,892 60% 21.8% 4.7% 0.2% 12.1% 10,651 362 3.5%
5 7,709 44.6% 35.2% 3.9% 0.6% 15.1% 10,328 39 0.4%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 31 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
2 3
4 1
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 113
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Covina City Boundary
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 2 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 1 and 3
Ideal District Total Population: 12,861
Total Deviation: 8.5%
1 7,622 51.9% 23.3% 4.5% 0.7% 16.8% 12,221 -640 -5%
2 8,119 52.9% 29.2% 3.6% 0.3% 12.7% 12,681 -180 -1.4%
3 8,976 47.4% 34.2% 3.1% 0.4% 13.8% 13,308 447 3.5%
4 8,838 58.8% 22.1% 6.6% 0.3% 11.3% 13,234 373 2.9%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole
population
units. Page 32 of 44
Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 118
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1 and 2
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 12,861
Total Deviation: 6.9%
Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units.
1 8,153 53.1% 22.7% 6.4% 0.2% 16.2% 12,605 -256 -2%
2 8,207 60.6% 24.5% 3.7% 0.3% 9.4% 13,349 488 3.8%
3 7,902 50.4% 29.7% 4.2% 0.7% 13.8% 12,457 -404 -3.1%
4 9,293 47.5% 31.9% 3.6% 0.4% 15.4% 13,033 172 1.3%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 33 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 123
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 2 and 3
Ideal District Total Population: 12,861
Total Deviation: 4.1%
1 8,390 51.8% 23.2% 6.3% 0.3% 16.9% 13,097 236 1.8%
2 7,496 53.2% 28.7% 3.5% 0.5% 12.8% 12,666 -195 -1.5%
3 9,392 46.6% 34.1% 3.8% 0.5% 14.1% 13,115 254 2%
4 8,277 60.2% 22.6% 4.1% 0.3% 11.1% 12,566 -295 -2.3%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 34 of 44 Individual Draft Maps – Submitted by 3 PM on December 23, 2021 5 Districts
• Public Map 132
• Public Map 133
• Public Map 134
4 Districts
• Public Map 131
7 Districts
• Public Map 135

Page 35 of 44 ends

Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 132
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 2 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 5.2%
1 6,678 51.1% 23.1% 6.1% 0.3% 17.2% 10,045 -244 -2.4%
2 6,279 53% 27.6% 3.7% 0.4% 14.9% 10,096 -193 -1.9%
3 6,129 56.4% 28.5% 3.6% 0.6% 8.9% 10,568 279 2.7%
4 6,760 60.2% 21.2% 4.7% 0.2% 12.1% 10,407 118 1.1%
5 7,709 44.6% 35.2% 3.9% 0.6% 15.1% 10,328 39 0.4%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 36 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2 3
4 5
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 133
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 2, 3 and 5
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 1 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 6.0%
1 6,673 50.4% 22.5% 7% 0.3% 17.6% 10,152 -137 -1.3%
2 6,746 57.4% 27.6% 3% 0.9% 10.4% 10,623 334 3.2%
3 5,822 55% 26.9% 3.3% 0.1% 12.8% 10,003 -286 -2.8%
4 7,684 44.4% 35.6% 3.8% 0.6% 15.1% 10,451 162 1.6%
5 6,630 58.2% 22.7% 5% 0% 12.4% 10,215 -74 -0.7%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation

Page 37 of 44 ends

Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 134
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 2 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3 and 5
Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 6.8%
Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units.
1 6,673 50.4% 22.5% 7% 0.3% 17.6% 10,152 -137 -1.3%
2 6,209 53.6% 27.2% 3.6% 0.7% 14.1% 10,145 -144 -1.4%
3 6,394 61.5% 23.8% 3.7% 0.4% 9.2% 10,011 -278 -2.7%
4 7,430 49.2% 32.6% 4% 0.6% 13% 10,425 136 1.3%
5 6,849 50% 29.8% 3.9% 0.2% 14.7% 10,711 422 4.1%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 38 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St
Badillo St
Glendora AveCypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/

0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 131
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/LatinoNon-Hispanic WhiteNon-Hispanic BlackNon-Hispanic IndianNon-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 3 and 4Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 1 and 2 Ideal District Total Population: 12,861
Total Deviation: 2.8%
Submitter's populationfigures differ fromofficial numbers,because this mapsplits whole populationunits. 1 8,669 53.8% 22.1% 6.4% 0.7% 15.3% 12,907 46 0.4%2 7,619 56.6% 27% 3% 0.2% 11.2% 12,621 -240 -1.9%3 7,977 55% 25.1% 4.7% 0.2% 14.5% 12,940 79 0.6%4 9,290 46.7% 34.4% 3.6% 0.5% 13.9% 12,976 115 0.9% District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation

Page 39 of 44 ends

Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC MAP NUMBER 135
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 2, 4 and 7 Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 3, 5 and 6
Ideal District Total Population: 7,349
Total Deviation: 9.6%
Submitter's population
figures differ from
official numbers,
because this map
splits whole population
units.
1 4,440 58.8% 23.1% 4.8% 0% 10.5% 6,975 -374 -5.1%
2 4,524 47.9% 31.9% 3% 0.5% 16.2% 7,445 96 1.3%
3 4,868 48% 23.7% 7% 0.4% 20.2% 7,437 88 1.2%
4 4,176 59.5% 25.7% 3.8% 0.8% 7.9% 7,146 -203 -2.8%
5 5,692 45.1% 34% 4.5% 0.6% 15.1% 7,442 93 1.3%
6 4,687 53.1% 23.7% 6.8% 0% 14.6% 7,322 -27 -0.4%
7 5,168 59% 27.6% 1.2% 0.5% 10.9% 7,677 328 4.5%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation

Page 40 of 44 ends

Consultant Draft Maps
5 Districts
• Willdan Map 1
• Willdan Map 2
4 Districts
• Willdan Map 3

Page 41 of 44 ends

Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
3 3
5 4
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

WILLDAN MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
WILLDAN MAP NUMBER 1
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 3 and 5
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 2 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 6.9%
1 6,325 55.3% 23.6% 4% 0.1% 14.6% 10,205 -84 -0.8%
2 6,602 51.7% 28.6% 3.9% 0.6% 14.2% 10,047 -242 -2.4%
3 6,898 49.6% 24.8% 6.9% 0.3% 16.9% 10,258 -31 -0.3%
4 7,091 49.9% 32.4% 4.2% 0.3% 11.9% 10,757 468 4.5%
5 6,639 57.8% 26.8% 3.1% 0.8% 11.2% 10,177 -112 -1.1%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 42 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
5 5
4 3
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

WILLDAN MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
WILLDAN MAP NUMBER 2
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1, 3 and 5
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 2 and 4
Ideal District Total Population: 10,279
Total Deviation: 7.0%
1 6,340 53.7% 21.2% 4.3% 0.3% 18.5% 10,019 -270 -2.6%
2 6,689 53% 28% 4.3% 0.5% 13% 10,249 -40 -0.4%
3 7,022 50.2% 32.6% 3% 0.6% 12.7% 10,657 368 3.6%
4 6,380 50.4% 30.1% 4.6% 0.3% 13.1% 9,941 -348 -3.4%
5 7,124 56.4% 24.5% 6% 0.4% 11.9% 10,578 289 2.8%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 43 of 44 Covina Blvd
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Puente St
Reeder Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Cypress St
Arrow Hwy
Sunflower Ave
Citrus Ave
Baranca Ave
Grand Ave
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd
Workman Ave
Badillo St Badillo St Glendora Ave
Cypress St
Puente St
1 2
4 3
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25
/0.5 1
Miles
COVINA REDISTRICTING 2021

WILLDAN MAP DEMOGRAPHICS
WILLDAN MAP NUMBER 3
Citizen Voting Age Population Demographics
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Indian
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2022: 1 and 4
Districts Proposed Up For Election In 2024: 2 and 3
Ideal District Total Population: 12,861
Total Deviation: 7.9%
1 8,390 51.8% 23.2% 6.3% 0.3% 16.9% 13,097 236 1.8%
2 7,983 50.6% 30.2% 3.6% 0.5% 13.8% 12,228 -633 -4.9%
4 8,372 58.9% 22.9% 4.2% 0.2% 12.3% 12,868 7 0.1%
3 8,810 49.8% 32.9% 3.6% 0.6% 12.1% 13,251 390 3%
District CVAP Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Indian Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Total Population Deviation From Ideal Percent Deviation Page 44 of 44 CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. PH 2
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Jan 18 2022
Title: Consideration of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Budget
Presented By: Brian K. Lee, AICP, Director of Community Development Recommendation: 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony; and

2. Close the public hearing; and

3. Consider approval of the FY 2022-2023 CDBG program budget as recommended in Column C of the Table on Attachment A with the provision that: a) the allocation be adjusted based on the final allocation as determined by the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA), with a maximum of 15 percent of funding allocated for public service programs; and

4. Adopt Resolution CC 2022-01, authorizing the allocation of the Forty Eighth Year CDBG funds for FY 2022-2023; and

5. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the documents related to the FY 2022-2023 CDBG funds.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / BACKROUND:

As a municipality with a population below 50,000 prior to the most recent census count, the City of Covina (City) is ineligible to receive CDBG funding directly from United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Instead, the City receives CDBG funds from LACDA through the Urban County Program.

Under this program, LACDA applies to HUD for CDBG funding, and then divides the funding amongst its subrecipients such as the City of Covina. The City’s CDBG funding is accounted for under the Community Development Department budget.

LACDA requires that the City submits a preliminary budget and spending contract by January 31 of each year.

Specific projects must be approved by LACDA and found to be in compliance with federal regulations. The FY 2022-2023 budget must take into account the scheduled Section 108 loan payment, which will reduce the amount of the FY 2022-2023 funds available for programming.

DISCUSSION:

LACDA has notified the City that the estimated final allocation of CDBG funds for FY 2022-2023 is $295,465.

CDBG funds can only be spent on activities that:
• Benefit low- and moderate-income persons
• Prevent or eliminate slum and blight, or
• Meet community development needs having a particular urgency (must pose a serious and immediate threat to the health of welfare of the community).

Under the CDBG program, public service (non-capital/non-construction) projects have historically been limited to 15 percent of the annual allocation. In FY 2022-2023, that cap can be raised to 20% of the annual allocation, however, staff completed the budget recommendations prior to learning of the public service cap increase. The public service allocation for FY 2022-2023 will be $44,319, based on the planning allocation amount of $295,465 as shown in the table below.

Table 1. Funding Availability
FY 2022 - 2023 Allocation $295,465
Total available for public service programs ($44,319)
Total available for non-public service programs $251,146 Estimated Section 108 payment for FY 22-23 $185,597
Remaining funds available for non-public service
programming $65,549
Section 108 Payment
The HUD Public Offering for the Section 108 Loan Program was completed in March 2018, at an interest rate of 3%. Principal and interest payments are now established for the remainder of the 20 year term. In FY 22-23, $185,597 is the amount being set aside to pay the Section 108 loan payment. The amount payable for the Section 108 Loan payment is withheld from the City’s annual CDBG allocation by the LACDA.

Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Funding Applications - Public Service Programs Applications were received for the following public service programs:
• Senior Case Management
• Senior Information and Referral
• Senior Nutrition
• Second Start Literacy
• Easterseals Southern California
For fiscal year 2022-2023, the public service maximum cap is estimated to be $44,319. Notwithstanding the HUD 15% public service cap, the LACDA requires that each program be funded at a minimum of $10,000. Therefore, public entities using CDBG funds need to be consistent with two sets of regulations by two different funding agencies.

Table 2. Public Service Applications Submitted
Public Service Program City Program Funding Requested

1. Second Start Literacy Yes $14,319

2. Senior Information and Referral Yes $10,000

3. Senior Nutrition Yes $10,000

4. Senior Case Management Yes $10,000

5. Easterseals Southern California No $10,000
Total amount requested $54,319
Total amount available $44,319
Four applications received are for City-run programs. One application received is from a non-profit organization.

A matrix of the project descriptions is attached as Attachment B.

The Second Start Literacy Program provides support staff and training for volunteer tutors to teach basic reading and writing skills to adults as well as purchase materials for program participants. The Senior Information and Referral Program provides services, information and referrals for service to seniors. The Senior Nutrition Program provides hot, nutritious meals at low or no cost to seniors. The Senior Case Management Program provides case management services to seniors. The City partners with the YWCA of San Gabriel Valley for both the Senior

Page 2 of 13 ends

Case Management Program as well as the Senior Nutrition Programs. The Easterseals Southern California, a non-profit organization, provides community resource fairs to raise awareness regarding services for autistic people.

A total of $54,319 was requested in public service funding. Because of the varying requirements of the granting agencies, the City is limited in the number of programs it can fund. Four existing City public service programs have requested funding to continue their work. There are no additional general fund dollars to continue funding if CDBG funding is discontinued. While there are many worthwhile programs in the community that are deserving of funding, the recommendation from staff and the Finance Advisory Commission is for continued funding of City public service programs.

Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Funding Applications - Programs other than Public Service After allocations for public service programs and payment and payment of principal and interest on the Section 108 loan, $65,549 is available for budgeting purposes. Program applications totaling $65,549 were received for this category.

Applications were received for the following non-pubic service programs, which are described in Attachment B:

Program Name Amount Requested
• Residential Rehabilitation $20,549
• Adult Workforce Job Readiness Program $45,000
The Finance Advisory Commission, which reviews, evaluates and monitors CDBG programs as part of the City's mandated Citizen Participation, considered all requests at their December 15, 2021, meeting in order to make a recommendation for funding to the Covina City Council. City staff members were also present. The Commission recommendation is shown on Column “C” of Exhibit A and in Table 3 below. A copy of the draft minutes from the meeting is attached as Attachment C.

Final Recommendation by the Finance Advisory Commission on FY 2022-2023 Funding The Commission discussed the proposed projects at the Regular Meeting of December 15, 2021 and then voted on the recommendation to the City Council. The Commission members unanimously voted that the staff funding allocation recommendation be approved. The Finance Advisory Commission recommendation is indicated in Table 3.

Table 3. Finance Advisory Commission Recommendation
Program Recommended FY 22-23 Funding
Second Start Literacy $14,319
Senior Information & Referral Program $10,000
Senior Nutrition Program $10,000
Senior Case Management Program $10,000
Easterseals Southern California $0
Subtotal Public Service Programs $44,319
Section 108 Loan Repayment $185,597
Residential Rehabilitation $20,549
Adult Workforce Job Readiness Program $45,000

Page 3 of 13 ends

Subtotal Other Programs $251,146
Total Budget Recommendation, FY 2022-2023 $295,465
The recommendations are shown in Columns C and D in Attachment A. Staff concurs with the Commission recommendations. Draft minutes of the December 15, 2021 Finance Advisory Commission meeting are attached as Attachment C. The public hearing today was properly noticed and provides the public with a forum to discuss this matter.

Update on FY 2021-2022 CDBG Status
In FY 2021-2022, nine (9) active CDBG programs, including one prior year program, are underway in the amount of $447,312.

Program Current 21-22 Funding
Public Service Second Start Literacy $14,895
Senior Information & Referral $10,000
Senior Nutrition $10,000
Senior Case Management $10,000
Non-Public Service Section 108 Loan Repayment $188,796
Residential Rehabilitation $43,621
Downtown Neighborhood
Business Workforce
Augmentation Program
$100,000
Adult Workforce Job Readiness $45,000
All FY 2021-2022 Projects $422,312
FY 2020-2021 Project Covina Woman's Club ADA
Upgrades $25,000
Total Prior Year Projects $25,000
All CDBG Funding FY 21-22 $447,312
FISCAL IMPACT:

The City anticipates that no more than $295,465 of additional Federal CDBG funds in the new fiscal year 2022- 2023 will be available to the City. These funds will reimburse the expenditures of the programs.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

This activity will not result in a reasonably foreseeable change to the physical environment; it is exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines 15061 (b) (2) and (3) and does not constitute a project.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A- Recommended Funding Table
Attachment B - Synopsis of Projects
Attachment C - Meeting Minutes of the Finance Advisory Commission

Page 4 of 13 ends

Attachment D - Resolution CC 2022-01
Respectfully submitted,

Page 5 of 13 ends

RECOMMENDED FUNDING TABLE
For Planning Purposes 2022-23: Funding Available
Estimated New Year Funds Available (FY 22-23) a $295,465 Carry-over funding from prior year b $0 *
Public Services (15% of a) c $44,319
Total amount available FY 22-23 (a+b) d $295,465
Non Public Service Funds Available for Programming (d-c) e $251,146 Section 108 loan payment FY 22-23 f $185,597
Non Public Service Funds
Available for Programming (e-f) g $65,549
A BCD
Program Name
Current Fiscal
Year 21-22 Active
Projects
Fiscal Year 22-
23 Request
Finance
Advisory
Commission
Recommendation
Staff
Recommendation

PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS
1 Second Start Literacy $14,895.00 $14,319.00 $14,319.00 $14,319.00 2 Senior Info & Referral $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 Senior Nutrition (YWCA) $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4 Sr. Case Mgmt (YWCA) $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 5 Easterseals Southern California $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Subtotal Public Service $44,895.00 $54,319.00 $44,319.00 $44,319.00 not to exceed
Other Programs $44,319
6 Section 108 Loan Payment $188,796.00 $185,597.00 $185,597.00 $185,597.00 7 Residential Rehabiltation $43,621.00 $20,549.00 $20,549.00 $20,549.00 8 Adult Workforce Job Readiness
Program $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00
Subtotal Other Programs $277,417.00 $251,146.00 $251,146.00 $251,146.00 $295,465.00 $295,465.00 $295,465.00
*At this time, $201,516.39 in carryover funds is reserved for FY 21‐22 mid‐year projects, which will be brought back for consideration and review in early 2022.

CITY OF COVINA CDBG PROGRAM APPLICATIONS 2022-2023 (48th Year)

Page 6 of 13 ends

1 Attachment B, Page 1 of 2

ATTACHMENT B
Synopsis of Proposed Projects and Programs, FY 2021-2022 Name of
Program
Description Amount
Requested
Item
No.

Public Service Programs
Second Start
Literacy
Program
This is a continuing City project that provides trained volunteers to help adults who are “functionally illiterate” to develop basic literacy skills, enabling them to obtain employment, retain a job, receive job promotions, improve academic skills, and help their children with their school work. Funds would be used for tutor training in the foundational skills and techniques used to develop all five key areas of learning:

Language Experience, Sight Words, Phonics, Vocabulary, and Comprehension, and will be used to purchase workbooks to supplement the adult literacy curriculum. The service is provided free of charge and on a one-to-one basis. Program is run by City of Covina staff through the Covina Library.
$14,830 1
Senior
Information &
Referral
This is a continuing City project that provides referral services such as housing needs, transportation, legal assistance, support groups and health education awareness to senior citizens. During the period of the pandemic restrictions, services are provided by telephone. It is a onestop program for the elderly. Program is run through the Senior Center of the Parks and Recreation Department.
$10,000 2
Senior
Nutrition
Program
This is a continuing City program which provides meals to seniors and disabled residents in the City of Covina. Hot nutritious meals are provided Monday through Friday at the Joslyn Senior Center in Kelby Park. Service is provided by a contractor through the Parks and Recreation Department. A donation of $3 is suggested but not required. $10,000 3
Senior Case
Management
This is a continuing City program which provides case management services to senior citizens and disabled residents of the City. The parttime case manager assists persons in obtaining services or income they are eligible to receive. Program provides for in-home assessments and personal care programs for problem resolution as well as on-site service at Joslyn Senior Center. Service is provided by a contractor through the Parks and Recreation Department 8 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. $10,000 4

Total Public Service Request $44,830
Total Public Service Available $44,895
Section 108
Loan
Guarantee
Payment
Principal and interest payment on the $2.5 million loan to fund construction of the senior portion of the Covina Senior and Community Center. This estimated payment is based on a 20 year loan at 5%. The actual amount may be higher or lower depending on the interest rate. $188,795 5
Residential
Rehabilitation
Citywide
This is a continuing program providing a combination of grants and loans for repair, weather sealing, roofing and rehabilitation of existing singlefamily owned and occupied residences. The program is administered on a first-come, first-serviced basis, with very low income households receiving higher priority and urgent, safety, and hazardous conditions $20,612 6

Page 7 of 13 ends

2 Attachment B, Page 2 of 2
receiving priority as well. Funds are used for grants, loans, and a parttime employee.

Adult
Workforce
Job
Readiness
Program
The City will contract with a Community Based Development Organization (CBDO) to run a program that supports entry into career-track employment which will result in permanent jobs.
$45,000 7
Total non-public service projects $254,407
Total amount requested $299,302

Page 8 of 13 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

Finance Advisory Commission Minutes December 15, 2021

ATTACHMENT C

FINANCE ADVISORY COMMISSION

MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
December 15, 2021
The regular meeting of the Finance Advisory Commission was held on Wednesday, December 15, 2021, at 6:00 pm. This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Commissioners Present: Kay Manning, Chair, Rich Jett, Vice Chair, Claudia Casasola, Geoff Cobbett, Andrew McIntyre, Lynda Noriega, Janet Salmon Commissioners Absent: Tom Melendrez, Salvador Flores-Chatfield, Kevin Stapleton Staff Present: Brian Lee, Director of Community Development Anita Agramonte, Director of Administrative Services
Theresa Franke, Finance Manager
Alana Spector, Management Analyst
Public Present None

CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was present.

AGENDA POSTING DECLARATION
The Agenda for the December 15, 2021, meeting was posted in accordance with Section 54954.2(a) of the California Government Code.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

COMMISSION COMMENTS
None.

CONSENT CALENDAR
CC1: Approve the minutes from the Special Meeting of July 14, 2021 of the Finance Advisory Commission.

Page 9 of 13 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

Finance Advisory Commission Minutes December 15, 2021
A motion was made by Janet Salmon, seconded by Geoff Cobbett, to approve Item CC1.

Motion on CC1 was approved as follows:

AYES: Manning, Jett, Cobbett, McIntyre, Noriega, Salmon NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Casasola
ABSENT: Melendrez, Flores-Chatfield, Stapleton

CONTINUED BUSINESS
None.

NEW BUSINESS
NB1. Revision to Fiscal Year 2021-2022 CDBG Funding
Director of Community Development Brian Lee provided an overview of the proposed revision for FY 21-22 CDBG funding, which proposes the elimination of the Covina Woman’s Club ADA Upgrades funding, and reallocates the funding to the existing Residential Rehabilitation program.

There was a discussion and feedback was provided to staff.

A motion was made by Janet Salmon and seconded by Claudia Casasola to support staff’s recommendation to City Council.

Motion on NB1 was approved as follows:

AYES: Manning, Jett, Casasola, Cobbett, McIntyre, Noriega, Salmon NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Melendrez, Flores-Chatfield, Stapleton
NB2. CDBG Fiscal Year 2022-2023 New Year Funding
Director of Community Development Brian Lee provided an overview of the proposed CDBG Fiscal Year 2022-2023 New Year Funding. There was a discussion and feedback was provided to staff.

A motion was made by Geoff Cobbett and seconded by Rich Jett to support staff’s recommendation to City Council.

Motion on NB2 was approved as follows:

AYES: Manning, Jett, Casasola, Cobbett, McIntyre, Noriega, Salmon NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Melendrez, Flores-Chatfield, Stapleton
NB3. Review and Discuss City of Covina Investment Policy and Recommended Investment Strategies

Page 10 of 13 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

Finance Advisory Commission Minutes December 15, 2021
Director of Administrative Services Anita Agramonte provided an overview of the proposed investment policy and recommended investment strategies. There was a discussion and feedback was provided to staff.

A motion was made by Janet Salmon and seconded by Geoff Cobbett to support staff’s recommendation to City Council.

Motion on NB3 was approved as follows:

AYES: Manning, Jett, Casasola, Cobbett, McIntyre, Noriega, Salmon NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Melendrez, Flores-Chatfield, Stapleton

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Theresa Franke
Finance Manager
Approved and adopted this day of , 2022.

Kay Manning, Chairperson

Page 11 of 13 ends

RESOLUTION CC 2022-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF THE FORTYSEVENTH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program has operated since 1974 to provide local governments with the resources necessary to meet the needs of persons of low-and moderate-income; and
WHEREAS, the City of Covina contracts with the Los Angeles County Development Authority for the disbursement of Community Development Block Grant Funds, through the Urban County Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Covina will receive an estimated total of $295,465 in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in CDBG Funds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing, with the required prior notice, to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the programs proposed for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 CDBG funds program.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the CDBG program budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and instructs staff to submit the necessary documentation and a copy of this Declaration to the Los Angeles County Community Development Authority.

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes City staff to adjust the program budget as necessary throughout the Fiscal Year, based on the final allocation, with a maximum of 15 percent of funding allocated for public service programs. This includes, but is not limited to, allocating amounts on a per project basis, adjusting project budgets, implementing a new project or cancelling existing activities, to allow for the timely expenditure of CDBG funds SECTION 3. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute documents related to the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 CDBG program.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.

APPROVED and PASSED this 18
th day of January, 2022.

City of Covina, California
BY:

JORGE MARQUEZ, Mayor

Page 12 of 13 ends

Resolution CC 2022-01 Page 2 of 2
ATTEST:
___________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2022-01 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 18
th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
____________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 13 of 13 ends

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. PH 3
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Jan 18 2022
Title: Resolution CC 2022-02 Approving an Addendum to the Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH NO. 2016051053), a General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-1 to Change the Land Use Map Changing the Land Use Designation from “General Commercial” to “High Density Residential/Transit Oriented Development,” and Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP) Amendment 21-1 Changing the Zoning from “Institutional” to “Transit Oriented Development (TOD),” for the Property Located at 155 E. Covina Boulevard - APN: 8406-019-097 and; Resolution CC 2022-03 Approving an Addendum to the Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016051053) Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87, for the Construction of Five (5) ThreeStory Townhouse Buildings, Totaling 38 Units with 2-car Attached Garages on Approximately 1.5 Acres of Land, Located at 155 E. Covina Boulevard - APN: 8406- 019-097
Presented By: Brian K. Lee, AICP, Director of Community Development Recommendation: 1. Adopt Resolution CC 2022-02 approving an Addendum to the Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH NO. 2016051053), a General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-1 to change the land use designation from “General Commercial” to “High Density Residential/Transit Oriented Development,” and a Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP) Amendment 21-1 to change the zoning from “Institutional” to “Transit Oriented Development (TOD),” for property located at 155 E. Covina Boulevard - APN: 8406-019-097 and;

2. Adopt Resolution CC 2022-03 approving an Addendum to the Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016051053) Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87, for the construction of five (5) three-story townhouse buildings, totaling 38 units with 2-car attached garages on approximately 1.5 acres of land, located at 155 E. Covina Boulevard - APN: 8406- 019-097.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission held the public hearing to consider the proposed project. The Planning Commission did not receive any comments from the public at the hearing. After the close of public hearing and deliberation, the Planning Commission in an unanimous vote adopted Resolution 2021-026 PC, recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH NO. 2016051053), and approve the General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-1 , Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment (CFSP) 21-1, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87 with conditions.

BACKGROUND:

The Covina Forward Specific Plan was approved in 2016. The 10.66-acre Specific Plan area is located northeast of Citrus Avenue and Covina Boulevard intersection. The Specific Plan area is comprised of three (3) Planning Areas. Planning Area No. 1 is developed with 117 townhouses (Meritage Homes), and Planning Area No. 2 is developed with a park and ride facility and a bus transit station. (Foothill Transit). Planning Area No. 3 is located in the most southerly portion of the Specific Plan area, immediately adjacent to Covina Boulevard, and is approximately 1.5 acres in size and undeveloped. The Applicant proposes to build 38 townhouse units, which necessitates the land use entitlements.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed change is to amend the General Plan land use designation from “General Commercial” to “Transit Oriented Development (TOD),” and to amend the Covina Forward Specific Plan, Planning Area 3 from “Institutional” to “Transit Oriented Development (TOD).” Also, the proposed changes will add specific development standards consistent with the High Density Residential requirements near transit (Transit Oriented Development) such as setbacks, parking, landscape, and architectural requirements and as shown in Attachment “D.” The Applicant proposes to build 38 for-sale townhouse units and requests approval of the subdivision for condominium purpose (TTM ) 83343 and the Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87. The proposed product type consists of 5 buildings consisting of 38 Spanish style townhomes. A community entrance will be along E. Covina Blvd.

In addition, associated drive aisles, parking areas, sidewalks, landscaping, and open-space areas are proposed as part of the development. The site will be accessible via a proposed driveway entrances along E. Covina Boulevard.

Open space areas will incorporate landscaping. In the review of the proposed project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission determined that it encourages transit-oriented development and contribute to providing dwelling units in meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) under the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The project will have recurring annual fiscal impacts of revenue from property tax, community facilities district, and other taxes and service fees. There is a one-time investment by the applicant including infrastructure construction, development impact fees, and permit fees.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City has analyzed the proposed project and concluded that an Addendum to the adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR - SCH No. 2016051053) could be prepared. State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) provide that an Addendum to an adopted EIR may be prepared if none of the conditions triggering a subsequent EIR are present. The City has conducted a full analysis of the proposed project as compared to the original Project and determine whether implementation of the proposed project would result in any new significant environmental impacts not identified in the certified EIR. This addendum also evaluates whether mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible would become feasible due to changes that have occurred since certification of the EIR. The proposed project does not change the nature of the environmental impacts associated with the original Project, which remain the same levels as described in the adopted 2016 EIR and none of CEQA Guideline 15162’s criteria is triggered. Thus, a subsequent or supplemental environmental document is NOT required to be prepared. In particular, there have been no:
• Substantial changes proposed for the Project that will require major revision of a previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previous identified effects;
• Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, requiring major revision to a previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified ones; and, • New information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted that shows any of the following:
o The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than disclosed in the previous EIR ;

Page 2 of 38 ends

o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt them.

The following path provide a link to the EIR Addendum:
https://covinaca.gov/pc/page/planning-commission-meeting-december-14-2021 ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Project Area Map GPA_CFSP_TTM_SPR
Attachment B - PC Resolution GPA_CFSP_TTM_SPR
Attachment C - Project Plans GPA-CFSP_TTM_SPR
Attachment D - Resolution CC 2022-02 GPA-CFSP
Attachment E - Resolution CC 2022-03 TTM-SPR
Respectfully submitted,

Page 3 of 38 ends

PROJECT AREA MAP
GPA 21-1
CFSP 21-1
TTM 83343
SPR 21-87
376.17 Feet

PROJECT SITE
N. Citrus Ave
E.Covina Blvd

Page 4 of 38 ends

RESOLUTION2021-026PC

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF

COVINA, RECOMMENDINGTO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF

AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT
REPORT (SCH NO. 2016051053),GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT(GPA) 21-1 AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP CHANGINGTHE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM “INSTITUTIONAL” TO “HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL/TRANSITORIENTED DEVELOPMENT” AND COVINA
FORWARD SPECIFIC PLAN (CFSP) AMENDMENT 21-1 CHANGING
THE ZONING FROM “INSTITUTIONAL” TO “TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT(TOD),” TENTATIVETRACT MAP (TT M) 83343,AND
SITE PLAN REVIEW (SPR) 21-87,FOR THE CONSTRUCTIONOF FIVE (5) THREE-STORYTOWNHOUSEBUILDINGSTOTALING 38 UNITSON
APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES LAND, LOCATED AT 155 E. COVINA
BOULEVARD - APN: 8406-019-097
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2016, the City Council of the City of Covina (“City”), adoptedResolution No. 16-7557 and certi?ed the Final EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR) for the Covina Forward Speci?c Plan (CFSP) Project as being in compliance with CEQA.The City Council further adopted EnvironmentalFindings, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the CFSP Project. The City Councilfurtherdeterminedthat all of the ?ndings were based upon the informationand evidence set forth in the EIR and in the record of the proceedings; and WHEREAS, on November29, 2016, the City Council of the City of Covina adopted Resolution No. 16-7558 for a General Plan Amendment and Resolution No. 16-7559 for the Covina Forward Speci?c Plan, and approved the iTEC Transit Oriented Mixed-Usedevelopment consisting of a residentialuse (Planning Area 1), a transit/civic use (Planning Area 2) and a public/civic use (PlanningArea 3). The residentialcomponent was on approximately6.12 acres, the transit/civiccomponent was on approximately2.99 acres, and the public/civic component was on approximately 1.55 acres. The residentialcomponent of the Speci?c plan was developedwith 117 townhouses and the transit/civic component of the Speci?c plan area was developed with a park and ride facility and a bus transit station. The public/civic component of the Speci?c Plan is vacant; and
WHEREAS, On October 15, 2019, the Covina City Council approved a Non-Binding MOU betweenthe City of Covinaand SheldonDevelopment,LLC(which subsequentlybecame Covina Blvd., LLC) to facilitatesufficienttime for the City and Covina Blvd., LLC to negotiate an Exchange Agreement and Escrow Instructions(EA) between the City of Covina and Covina Blvd., LLC for the exchange of property owned by the City of Covina located at 155 E. Covina Blvd. and property under the control of CovinaBlvd.,LLClocatedat 601 E. San BemardinoRoad; and

Page 5 of 38 ends

WHEREAS, On June 15, 2021, the Covina City Council approved an Exchange Agreement and Escrow Instructions(EA) betweenCovina Blvd.,LLC and the City of Covina for the exchange located at 601 E. San BemardinoRd. and 155E. CovinaBlvd.respectively; and WHEREAS, Pmsuantto the terms of the EA, it isthe responsibilityof Covina Blvd., LLC to apply for, and obtain the required and necessary land use entitlements to allow for the developmentof a transit-orientedresidentialproject on the property locatedat 155E. CovinaBlvd, designated as PlanningArea 3, Covina Forward Speci?c Plan;and WHEREAS, Covina Blvd., LLC made timely submittal of the appropriate land use entitlementapplicationmaterialsto the City of Covina requesting considerationof and General Plan Amendment(GPA) 21-1, Covina Forward Speci?c Plan Amendment21-1, Major Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and Addendumto the Covina Forward Speci?c Plan Final EnvironmentalImpactReport; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA), the State CEQAGuidelines,and the City’s Proceduresfor ImplementingCEQA, the City prepared an Addendum to the certi?ed Final EIR for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Covina Forward Speci?c Plan (CFSP) amendment which will be added as an attachmentto the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the State CEQAGuidelines(Sections 15162 and 15164) provide that an Addendumto an adopted EIR may be prepared if none of the conditionstriggeringa subsequent EIRare present; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a full analysis of the proposed Project as compared to the original project and detenninewhether implementationof the proposed Project would result in any new signi?cant environmentalimpactsnot identi?edin the certi?ed EIR. The addendum also evaluates whethermitigation measures or alternativespreviously found infeasiblewould becomefeasible due to changes that have occurred since certi?cationof the EIR. The proposed Project does not change the nature of the environmentalimpacts associated with the original project, which remain the same levels as describedin the adopted 2016 EIR and none of CEQA Guideline 15162’s criteria is triggered. Thus, a subsequent or supplemental environmental documentis NOT required to be prepared. In particular, there havebeen no:
1) Substantialchanges proposed for the Project that will require major revision of the previous certi?ed EIR due to the involvementof new, signi?cant environmentaleffects or a substantialincrease in the severity of previous identi?ed effects; and 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstancesunder which the Project is undertaken,requiringmajor revisionto a previous certi?ed EIRdue to the involvement of new signi?cant environmentaleffects or a substantial increasein the severity of previously identi?ed ones; and, 3) New informationof substantialimportancethat was not known or could not have been knownwithoutthe exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous certi?ed

Page 6 of 38 ends

EIR was adoptedthat showsany of the following:
a) The Project will have one or more signi?cant effects not discussedin the previous certi?ed EIR; b) Signi?cant effects previously examinedwill be substantiallymore severe than disclosed in the previous certi?ed EIR ;
c) Mitigation measures or alternativespreviously found not to be feasiblewould in fact be feasibleand would substantiallyreduceone or more signi?cant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt them; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, at a duly noticedpublic hearing as prescribed by law, the PlanningCommissionconsideredthe proposed Project and any comments receivedprior to or at the public hearing, at which time the City sta?’ presented its report, and interestedpersons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in oppositionto the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COVINA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoingrecitalsare true and correct and are incorporatedhereinand made an operative part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. After giving ?ill considerationto all evidence presented at the public hearing, both oral and written,and a?er being fully informed,the Planning Commissionof the City of Covina does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Covina adopt the proposed ResolutionsCC2022- __ as follows:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2016051053), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA)21- 1 AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM “INSTITUTIONAL” TO
“HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT” AND COVINA FORWARD SPECIFIC
PLAN (CFSP) AMENDMENT 21-1 CHANGING THE
ZONING FROM “INSTITUTIONAL” TO “TRANSIT
ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD),” FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 155 E. COVINA BOULEVARD - APN: 8406-
019-097” and
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2016051053), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 83343 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (SPR) 21-87 FOR THE

Page 7 of 38 ends

CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE (5) THREE-STORY TOWNHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING 38 UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES LAND, LOCATED AT 155 E. COVINA BOULEVARD - APN: 8406-019-097”
SECTION 3. This resolution will be forwarded to the City Council for considerationat the next available regular City Council meeting.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Covina at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14”‘day of December 2021.

JOHN CONNORS, CHAIRMAN

CITY OF COVINA PLANNING COMMISSION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Plarming Commission of the City of Covina at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14”‘day of December 2021, by the followingvote of the Planning Commission:

AYES: HODAPP, MCMEEKIN,ZERMENO, MANNING, CONNORS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: N E
' LANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY

Page 8 of 38 ends

PROJECT PLANS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 83343

Page 9 of 38 ends

PROJECT PLANS

SITE PLAN

FLOOR PLANS

Page 10 of 38 ends

PROJECT PLANS

ELEVATIONS

Page 11 of 38 ends

PROJECT PLANS

LANDSCAPE

Page 12 of 38 ends

RESOLUTION CC 2022-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2016051053),
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 21-1 AMENDING THE LAND

USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
“GENERAL COMMERCIAL” TO “HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL/TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT” AND COVINA
FORWARD SPECIFIC PLAN (CFSP) AMENDMENT 21-1 CHANGING
THE ZONING FROM “INSTITUTIONAL” TO “TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT (TOD),” FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155 E.

COVINA BOULEVARD - APN: 8406-019-097
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2016, the City Council of the City of Covina (“City”), adopted Resolution No. 16-7557 and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP) Project as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopted Environmental Findings, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the CFSP Project. The City Council further determined that all of the findings were based upon the information and evidence set forth in the EIR and in the record of the proceedings; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2016, the City Council of the City of Covina adopted Resolution No. 16-7558 for a General Plan Amendment and Resolution No. 16-7559 for the Covina Forward Specific Plan, and approved the iTEC Transit Oriented Mixed-Use development consisting of a residential use (Planning Area 1), a transit/civic use (Planning Area 2) and a public/civic use (Planning Area 3). The residential component was on approximately 6.12 acres, the transit/civic component was on approximately 2.99 acres, and the public/civic component was on approximately 1.55 acres. The residential component of the Specific plan was developed with 117 townhouses and the transit/civic component of the Specific plan area was developed with a park and ride facility and a bus transit station. The public/civic component of the Specific Plan is vacant; and
WHEREAS, On October 15, 2019, the Covina City Council approved a Non-Binding MOU between the City of Covina and Sheldon Development, LLC (which subsequently became Covina Blvd., LLC) to facilitate sufficient time for the City and Covina Blvd., LLC to negotiate an Exchange Agreement and Escrow Instructions (EA) between the City of Covina and Covina Blvd., LLC for the exchange of property owned by the City of Covina located at 155 E. Covina Blvd. and property under the control of Covina Blvd., LLC located at 601 E. San Bernardino Road; and
WHEREAS, On June 15, 2021, the Covina City Council approved an Exchange Agreement and Escrow Instructions (EA) between Covina Blvd., LLC and the City of Covina for the exchange located at 601 E. San Bernardino Rd. and 155 E. Covina Blvd. respectively; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the terms of the EA, it is the responsibility of Covina Blvd., LLC to apply for, and obtain the required and necessary land use entitlements to allow for the

Page 13 of 38 ends

Resolution CC 2022-02 Page 2 of 5
development of a transit-oriented residential project on the property located at 155 E. Covina Blvd, designated as Planning Area 3, Covina Forward Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Covina Blvd., LLC made timely submittal of the appropriate land use entitlement application materials to the City of Covina requesting consideration of and General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-1, Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment 21-1, Major Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and Addendum to the Covina Forward Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Procedures for Implementing CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum to the certified Final EIR for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP) amendment which will be added as an attachment to the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) provide that an Addendum to an adopted EIR may be prepared if none of the conditions triggering a subsequent EIR are present; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a full analysis of the proposed Project as compared to the original project and determine whether implementation of the proposed Project would result in any new significant environmental impacts not identified in the certified EIR. The addendum also evaluates whether mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible would become feasible due to changes that have occurred since certification of the EIR. The proposed Project does not change the nature of the environmental impacts associated with the original project, which remain the same levels as described in the adopted 2016 EIR and none of CEQA Guideline 15162’s criteria is triggered. Thus, a subsequent or supplemental environmental document is NOT required to be prepared. In particular, there have been no:
1) Substantial changes proposed for the Project that will require major revision of the previous certified EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previous identified effects; and 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, requiring major revision to a previous certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified ones; and,
3) New information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous certified EIR was adopted that shows any of the following:
a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous certified EIR;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than disclosed in the previous certified EIR ;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt them; and

Page 14 of 38 ends

Resolution CC 2022-02 Page 3 of 5
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearing, at which time the City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project.

Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission at a 5-0-0 vote, adopted Resolution 2021-026 PC recommending that the City Council approve the addendum to the EIR, General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-1, the Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment (CFSP) 21- 1, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the City Council of the City of Covina held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Addendum, the General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-1, the Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment (CFSP) 21-1, the Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and the Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87, and concluded the hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein and made an operative part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the previously certified EIR and the Addendum prepared for the General Plan Amendment and the Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment. Based on a full analysis of proposed Project as compared to the original project, the City Council based on their independent judgment, determined that none of the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines 15162 have been triggered. Thus, a subsequent or supplemental environmental document is not required to be prepared. In particular, there have been no:
1) Substantial changes proposed for the Project that will require major revision of a previous certified EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previous identified effects; and 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, requiring major revision to a previous certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified ones; and,
3) New information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous certified EIR was adopted that shows any of the following:
a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous certified EIR;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than disclosed in the previous certified EIR ;

Page 15 of 38 ends

Resolution CC 2022-02 Page 4 of 5
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt them.

SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed the proposed Project and the Addendum, the Planning Commission hearing input and reports, and all evidence received by the Planning Commission and at the City Council hearing, and all documents and evidences are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution. After giving full consideration to all evidence presented at the public hearing, both oral and written, and after being fully informed, the City Council does hereby find and decide that the proposed Project is consistent with the public interest and with the City’s General Plan for the following reason:

a. The proposed Amendment will encourage transit-oriented development and contribute to providing dwelling units according to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) under the Housing Element of the General Plan.

SECTION 4. In consideration of the findings stated above, the City Council of the City of Covina does hereby adopt the Addendum for the proposed Project and approve the General Plan Amendment 21-1 and Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment as described below and as set forth in Exhibits “A” (Amendment) and “B” (Addendum), incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
a. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-1 to amend the Land Use Map changing the land use designation for the 1.5-acre project site (Planning Area No. 3) from the General Commercial (GC) designation to the “Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP)” “High Density Residential/Transit Oriented Development (HDR-TOD).” b. Covina Forward Specific Plan (SP) Amendment 21-1 amending Project Area No. 3 from “Institutional” to “Transit Oriented development (TOD)” and establish special development standards and design guidelines for the proposed 38 townhouse development, and in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A.” SECTION 5. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings and this Resolution are based are located at the City Clerk’s Office located at 125 E. College Street, Covina, CA 91723. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.

SECTION 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.

APPROVED and PASSED this 18th day of January, 2022.

City of Covina, California
BY:

JORGE MARQUEZ, Mayor

Page 16 of 38 ends

Resolution CC 2022-02 Page 5 of 5
ATTEST:
___________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2022-02 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
____________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 17 of 38 ends

City Council Resolution CC 2022-02 - Exhibit A
Proposed Amendments to Covina Forward Specific Plan Text and Maps A. Revise Chapter III – Description of Specific Plan, Section B – Conceptual Development Plan, Subsection 1, Paragraph c – Planning Area No. 3 to eliminate the existing language and add new language to read as follows:
“Planning Area No. 3 is the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) component. This planning area is approximately 1.461 acres in size and can accommodate a transit-oriented, high density residential uses, including live/work residential uses. The specific development project will be subject to the Development Review process pursuant to the provisions of this Specific Plan. However, an example of a TOD project is provided in Exhibit 7. Pedestrian access to Planning Area No. 2 from Planning Area No. 3 is a requirement of this Specific Plan.” B. Revise Chapter III – Description of Specific Plan, Section B – Conceptual Development Plan, Subsection 2 to revise the existing language as indicated in strike out and underlined as follows:
“Access to the Specific Plan area is available from Citrus Avenue on the west and Covina Boulevard to the south. Planning Area No. 1 shall have vehicular ingress and egress access from Citrus Avenue only. Planning Area No. 1 shall have no vehicular access onto Covina Boulevard. In addition, restricted emergency access to Planning Area No. 1 shall be available from Citrus Avenue adjacent to the northerly property line. Pedestrian access and emergency access from Planning Area No. 1 to Planning Area No. 2 will be available via a restricted pedestrian gate along the mutual property line separating Planning Area Nos. 1 and 2.

Planning Area No. 2 shall have access from both Citrus Avenue and Covina Boulevard. Ingress and egress vehicular access shall be available from Citrus Avenue to the Park and Ride parking structure. In addition, access to parking for the approximate 4,000 — 4, 500 square foot retail building will only be available via the parking structure ingress/ egress driveway. The bus plaza for bus transit and restricted emergency access shall have ingress- only from Citrus Avenue and egress- only onto Covina Boulevard. Thus, buses will enter into the bus plaza transit plaza from Citrus Avenue, alight at one (1) of the six (6) five (5) bus bays for passenger loading, then exit onto Covina Boulevard. There shall be no ingress to Planning Area No. 2 from Covina Boulevard. Buses exiting onto Covina Boulevard will turn right (westbound) to begin their designated route. There will be no left turn (eastbound) exiting onto Covina Boulevard for the buses. Pedestrian access between Planning Area No. 2 and 3 will not be encouraged restricted, and the design of pedestrian plazas proposed to be located in both Planning Area Nos. 2 and 3 will be designed be designed with the intent to function harmoniously and to encourage pedestrian traffic and interaction between the two Planning Areas. Vehicular access ingress and egress for Planning Area No. 3 shall only be available from Covina Boulevard. The ingress/egress vehicular access for Planning Area No. 3 will be separate from the bus egress access onto Covina Boulevard from Planning Area No. 2. There will be no vehicular access from Planning Area No. 3 into Planning Area No. 2. (See Exhibit 8)”

Page 18 of 38 ends

C. Revise Chapter III – Description of Specific Plan, Section B – Conceptual Development Plan, Subsection 5 to revise the existing language as indicated in strike out and underlined as follows:
“It is essential for the uses within the Specific Plan area to be clearly identified for the public.

At the same time, it is equally important to install signage that contributes to the positive image of the Specific Plan area and the City. The three (3) Planning Areas will have different signage goals. Planning Area No. 1 and 3 signage is intended to provide residential community identification signage, along with on-site directional and informational signage. Planning Area No. 2 sign requirements will be both commercial (for the commercial retail building) and public use identification signage. In addition, informational signage will be located throughout the Transit Center, public plaza, and parking structure. Signage requirements for Planning Area No. 3 will be consistent with what is typically associated with public facilities and public plaza spaces. However, the overall signage design philosophy throughout the entire Specific Plan area should convey the following impressions: the identity of the business ( in regards to Planning Area No. 2), the identity of the destination ( ie., the entrance into Planning Area No. 1), the public use purpose ( ie., the Transit Center, Civic/ Community component, etc.), a sense of quality, and a consistency throughout the Specific Plan area that ties in with the architectural theme for the Specific Plan area.”
D. Revise Chapter IV – Allowable Uses, Section C to eliminate the existing language and replace with new language to read as follows:
“C. Planning Area No. 3 – Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Component.

1. Permitted Uses. Buildings, structures and land shall be used, and buildings and structures shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered or enlarged only for the following uses, plus such other uses as the Planning Commission and the City Council may deem (pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the CMC) to be similar and not more obnoxious or detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. a. Attached, single- family residential;
b. Ancillary in- home business uses, subject to the provisions of CMC Section 17. 26. 035, In- Home Business License; and,
c. Administrative and Professional Uses in conjunction with a “Live/Work” residential development.”
E. Revise Chapter V – Development Standards, Section C, to eliminate the existing language and replace with new language to read as follows:
“C. Planning Area No. 3 – Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Component.

1. Minimum lot area standard for Planning Area No. 3: 1. 47 acres.

2. Minimum lot area: The tract map shall be an “air space” condominium, with the average townhouse land area footprint of 702 square feet.

Page 19 of 38 ends

3. Minimum Yard Standards:
a. Minimum Covina Boulevard setback from the public right- of-way: 10 feet. b. Minimum interior structural setback between Planning Area Nos. 2 and 3: 10 feet. c. Minimum setback from the easterly boundary of Planning Area No. 3: 10 feet. d. Minimum setback from the westerly boundary of Planning Area No. 3: 10 feet. e. Minimum interior structural setbacks: No minimum structural setbacks for interior property lines.

4. Building and improvement location. The placement of the building and parking lot improvements within Planning Area No. 3 shall be in substantial conformance with the Conceptual Site Plan illustrated in Exhibit 11.

5. Maximum Building Height: Three (3) stories or 40 feet, whichever is less.

6. Vehicle Parking:
a. 2 enclosed vehicle parking spaces per unit (garage spaces) shall be required.

Required enclosed parking (garage spaces) shall not be obstructed for use for vehicle parking.
b. 7 vehicle parking spaces shall be required for the guest parking (includes the ADA parking space).

7. Landscaping Standards: All landscaping shall be installed per the conceptual landscape plan approved by City. In addition to building architecture, the soft and hardscape designs and guidelines shall define the character of the TOD. The selected plant palette shall enhance complement the entry, paseos, open space, streets and dwelling units in Planning Area No. 3. The palette and proposed guidelines shall be responsive to the local climate and the special circumstances associated with HOA owned/managed landscaping. The following are specific recommendations for the landscape plan:
a. All plant materials shall be served by an automatic underground irrigation system utilizing backflow devices and weather sensing smart controller(s). All above ground irrigation elements shall be screened.
b. All new trees shall be staked or provided with a greater support design. c. New trees planted within 5 feet of hardscape shall have deep root linear root barriers a min. of 10 feet long, 5 feet on both sides of trunk. d. Ground cover shall be spaced to ensure total infill within twelve months of planting.
e. Only live plant materials (not simulated) shall be used in landscaped areas (trees, shrubs, and ground cover).
f. Selection of plant materials shall be based on year-round beauty deciduous color, spring flower, branching patterns as well as form, texture, shape, and ultimate growth. Selection of plant materials shall be based on year- round beauty as well as form, texture, shape and ultimate growth (examples of year round beauty may include: evergreen trees and shrubs, deciduous trees with fall foliage color - yellow, orange, red, or purple - winter, spring, or summer flowers in colors to complement the color selections of the building and site, several flowering plant species shall be used to provide at least two seasons of flowering in the year, tree branching and canopy structure may be columnar, vase, open, round, or spreading in form deciduous color, spring flower, branching patterns).

Page 20 of 38 ends

g. Plant species shall be tolerant of the local environmentalconditions and relatively free from pests and disease.
h. Plant species that are native or well- adapted to local climatic conditions, and require less water and maintenance, are recommended.
i. All street trees shall be deep- rooted, canopy-type trees suited to urban conditions.
j. Landscaping shall generally be provided to soften architecture and hardscape. k. Planting shall occur around building perimeters to reduce building scale and to integrate development into surrounding neighborhood.

I. Planting and irrigation shall be designed to satisfy the California State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordnance.

8. Fencing and Wall Standards:
a. Northerly boundary: The northerly boundary may be defined by a decorative physical structure, such as fencing or wall. There shall be a minimum of two (2) pedestrian access gates to provide pedestrian access traffic between Planning Area 2 and 3.
b. Easterly and westerly boundaries: Decorative masonry wall adjacent to the Foothill Transit bus driveway exit and the existing commercial shopping center. c. Southerly boundary: Decorative wall, not in excess of 42 inches.

7. Lighting Standards: Lighting within the TOD Component shall be designed in a manner that will ensure reasonable illumination levels to provide for appropriate public safety, pursuant to consultation with the Covina Police Department. Lighting within the TOD Component shall be designed in a "pedestrian- friendly" manner, meaning the overall height of light standards shall not exceed 25 feet and will placed in a manner that will ensure minimal light spillage onto adjoining properties to the north and east of the TOD Component. Light fixture shall incorporate glare shields if necessary. A maximum light spillage of not to exceed one (1) footcandle, as measured from twenty (20) feet from the property line of the Specific Plan area, onto properties to the north and east. The lighting design shall incorporate decorative light standards and fixtures that are compatible with the TOD Component's building architecture and are also compatible and complimentary with the lighting standards fixtures of Planning Area No. 2 (Transit Component).

8. Mechanical Equipment Standards: Mechanical equipment shall be placed in locations that are reasonably screened from public view. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view on all four (4) sides. Mechanical equipment screening techniques may include, but not be limited to, landscaping, structural elements such as steel mesh or decorative metal. Wood or similar material shall not be used for rooftop screening of mechanical equipment.

9. Sign Standards: Signage for the TOD Component will include information and directional signage, address numbering, and Community Identification. A master sign plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and be approved as part of the overall TOD Component design and development approval process.

Page 21 of 38 ends

F. Revise Chapter VIII – Attachments, Exhibit 2 – Planning Area Map, to eliminate the existing exhibit and replace with new Exhibit 2 – Planning Area Map, as follows:

Page 22 of 38 ends

G. Revise Chapter VIII – Attachments, Exhibit 3.3 – General Plan Proposed, to eliminate the existing exhibit and replace with new Exhibit 3.3 – General Plan Proposed, as follows:

Page 23 of 38 ends

H. Revise Chapter VIII – Attachments, Exhibit 3.4 – Zoning Proposed, to eliminate the existing exhibit and replace with new Exhibit 3.4 – Zoning Proposed, as follows:

Page 24 of 38 ends

I. Revise Chapter VIII – Attachments, Exhibit 4 – Planning Areas, to eliminate the existing exhibit and replace with new Exhibit 4 – Planning Areas, as follows:

Page 25 of 38 ends

J. Revise Chapter VIII – Attachments, Exhibit 7 – Conceptual Development Plan, to eliminate the existing exhibit and replace with new Exhibit 7 – Conceptual Development Plan, as follows:

Page 26 of 38 ends

K. Revise Chapter VIII – Attachments, Exhibit 8 – Access and Circulation, to eliminate the existing exhibit and replace with new Exhibit 8 – Access and Circulation, as follows:

Page 27 of 38 ends

L. Revise Chapter VIII – Attachments, Exhibit 11 – Transit Oriented Development Component Use Site Plan, to eliminate the existing exhibit and replace with new Exhibit 11 as follows:
#######

Page 28 of 38 ends

City Council Resolution CC 2022- 02 - Exhibit B
An Addendum to Certified EIR for Covina Forward Specific Plan (SCH NO. 2016051053)
Due to the Volume of the EIR Addendum, Please Follow the link:
https://covinaca.gov/pc/page/planning-commission-meeting-december14-2021

Page 29 of 38 ends

RESOLUTION CC 2022 -03

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA,

CALIFORNIA, A P P R O V I N G A N A D D E N D U M T O T H E

C E R T I F I E D E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T ( S C H N O . 2 0 1 6 0 5 1 0 5 3 ) , T E N T A T I V E T R A C T M A P ( T T M ) 8 3 3 4 3 A N D S I T E P L A N R E V I E W ( S P R ) 2 1 - 8 7 F O R T H E C O N S T R U C T I O N O F F I V E ( 5 ) T H R E E - S T O R Y T O W N H O U S E B U I L D I N G S T O T A L I N G 3 8 U N I T S O N A P P R O X I M A T E L Y 1 . 5 A C R E S L A N D , L O C A T E D A T 1 5 5 E . C O V I N A B O U L E V A R D - A P N : 8 4 0 6 - 0 1 9 - 0 9 7 WHEREAS, on November 29, 2016, the City Council of the City of Covina (“City”), adopted Resolution No. 16-7557 and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP) Project as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopted Environmental Findings, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the CFSP Project. The City Council further determined that all of the findings were based upon the information and evidence set forth in the EIR and in the record of the proceedings; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2016, the City Council of the City of Covina adopted Resolution No. 16-7558 for a General Plan Amendment and Resolution No. 16-7559 for the Covina Forward Specific Plan, and approved the iTEC Transit Oriented Mixed-Use development consisting of a residential use (Planning Area 1), a transit/civic use (Planning Area 2) and a public/civic use (Planning Area 3). The residential component was on approximately 6.12 acres, the transit/civic component was on approximately 2.99 acres, and the public/civic component was on approximately 1.55 acres. The residential component of the Specific plan was developed with 117 townhouses and the transit/civic component of the Specific plan area was developed with a park and ride facility and a bus transit station. The public/civic component of the Specific Plan is vacant; and
WHEREAS, On October 15, 2019, the Covina City Council approved a Non-Binding MOU between the City of Covina and Sheldon Development, LLC (which subsequently became Covina Blvd., LLC) to facilitate sufficient time for the City and Covina Blvd., LLC to negotiate an Exchange Agreement and Escrow Instructions (EA) between the City of Covina and Covina Blvd., LLC for the exchange of property owned by the City of Covina located at 155 E. Covina Blvd. and property under the control of Covina Blvd., LLC located at 601 E. San Bernardino Road; and
WHEREAS, On June 15, 2021, the Covina City Council approved an Exchange Agreement and Escrow Instructions (EA) between Covina Blvd., LLC and the City of Covina for the exchange located at 601 E. San Bernardino Rd. and 155 E. Covina Blvd. respectively; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the terms of the EA, it is the responsibility of Covina Blvd., LLC to apply for, and obtain the required and necessary land use entitlements to allow for the

Page 30 of 38 ends

development of a transit-oriented residential project on the property located at 155 E. Covina Blvd, designated as Planning Area 3, Covina Forward Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Covina Blvd., LLC made timely submittal of the appropriate land use entitlement application materials to the City of Covina requesting consideration of and General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-1, Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment 21-1, Major Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and Addendum to the Covina Forward Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Procedures for Implementing CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum to the certified Final EIR for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP) amendment which will be added as an attachment to the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) provide that an Addendum to an adopted EIR may be prepared if none of the conditions triggering a subsequent EIR are present; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a full analysis of the proposed Project as compared to the original project and determine whether implementation of the proposed Project would result in any new significant environmental impacts not identified in the certified EIR. The addendum also evaluates whether mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible would become feasible due to changes that have occurred since certification of the EIR. The proposed Project does not change the nature of the environmental impacts associated with the original project, which remain the same levels as described in the adopted 2016 EIR and none of CEQA Guideline 15162’s criteria is triggered. Thus, a subsequent or supplemental environmental document is NOT required to be prepared. In particular, there have been no:
1) Substantial changes proposed for the Project that will require major revision of the previous certified EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previous identified effects; and 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, requiring major revision to a previous certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified ones; and,
3) New information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous certified EIR was adopted that shows any of the following:
a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous certified EIR;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than disclosed in the previous certified EIR ;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of

Page 31 of 38 ends

the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt them; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearing, at which time the City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission at a 5-0-0 vote, adopted Resolution 2021-026 PC recommending that the City Council approve the addendum to the EIR, General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-1, the Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment (CFSP) 21-1, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the City Council of the City of Covina held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Addendum, the General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-1, the Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment (CFSP) 21-1, the Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and the Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87, and concluded the hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein and made an operative part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the previously certified EIR and the Addendum prepared for the General Plan Amendment and the Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment. Based on a full analysis of proposed Project, as compared to the original project, the City Council in their independent judgment, determined that none of the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines 15162 have been triggered. Thus, a subsequent or supplemental environmental document is not required to be prepared. In particular, there have been no:
1) Substantial changes proposed for the Project that will require major revision of a previous certified EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previous identified effects; and 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, requiring major revision to a previous certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified ones; and,
3) New information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous certified EIR was adopted that shows any of the following:
a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous

Page 32 of 38 ends

certified EIR;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than disclosed in the previous certified EIR ;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt them.

SECTION 3. Tentative Tract Map Findings. After giving full consideration to all evidence presented at the public hearing, both oral and documentary, and after being fully informed, the City Council does hereby find and decide, with regards to Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343, and pursuant to Covina Municipal Code (CMC) Section 16.08.140 that TTM 83343 should be approved because:

1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan for the area.

Facts: After the adoption of the related applications General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-1, Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP) Amendment 21-1, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable codes and regulations. The Project supports policies of the General Plan by developing an underutilized infill site into a transit oriented mixed-use project with 38 for-sale townhouse units. The Project will repurpose the site with a development concept that is innovative, high-quality in design, meets the community’s need for transit-related residences. The Project would also contribute 38 housing units to the City’s housing needs.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan for the area.

Fact: The Covina General Plan contains design-related policies to ensure that new residential and non-residential projects when adjacent to single-family residences will incorporate sufficient physical and visual buffers to ensure compatibility.

Furthermore the CFSP amendment will include additional requirements addressing building setback and architecture, landscaping, walls, and other physical and aesthetic elements and shall adequately protect the single family residences or sensitive uses from noise, light, trash, vehicular traffic, and other visual and environmental disturbances. The Project, with its design, improvements and conditions of approval, will be consistent with the General Plan.

3. The subdivision is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map.

Fact: The proposed subdivision divides the 1.5 acres into 2 lots and creates 38 forsale townhouse units with private drive aisles, recreation facilities and common open spaces areas. The proposed density is approximately 26.7 units per acre, which is consistent with the Specific Plan and the zoning standards for the High Density

Page 33 of 38 ends

Residential Zone, which allows a density of up to 26.7 units per acre. The site, upon approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Covina Forward Specific Plan Amendment, and the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures, would be physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative tract map.

4. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements, with the conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Facts: The Project site is about 1.5 acres in size, in a predominantly urban location and is surrounded by existing single-family houses to the east, commercial to the west, commercial and multi-family units to the south and the Covina transportation Center to the north. The site is not designated fish or wildlife habitat nor is it located nearby to any such territory. Further, as noted in the addendum and with mitigation measures incorporated, the city finds that the Project will result in less than significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the subdivision will not be likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems.

Facts: The subdivision will have a point of access along Covina Blvd. The overall on-site circulation for subdivision design will meet all Fire access and requirements.

In addition, there will be pedestrian connections between the public/transit and the residential use. The overall subdivision design and the types of improvements together with the various Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval will ensure development harmony with surrounding land uses and will not cause serious public health problems.

6. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible.

Facts: The design of the subdivision provides for both passive and natural heating and cooling opportunities. The residential development with the 38 for-sale townhouse units will have operable windows for passive and natural heating. The residential development will require to comply with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code. Furthermore, all residential units will be required to provide solar-panels.

7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will not be provided.

Page 34 of 38 ends

Facts: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with existing City rights-of-way or other public access easements. According to City records, there are no alternate or potential easements that would be affected by the Project.

8. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby Act).

Facts: The proposed project is subject to Parkland Impact Fee to the City, pursuant to the City’s Quimby Act Ordinance (CMC Chapter 16.28).

9. The subdivider is able to demonstrate that a sufficient water supply will be available to serve the subdivision, in accordance with California Government Code Section 66473.7. (Ord. 05-1915 § 1, 2005.)
Facts: According to the City’s Public Works Department, the City has sufficient capacity to provide water to serve the subdivision without negative impact to other properties in the City, based on Covina’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

SECTION 4. Site Plan Review Findings. After giving full consideration to all evidence presented at the public hearing, both oral and documentary, and after being fully informed, the City Council does hereby find and decide, with regards to Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87, pursuant to CMC Section 17.64.070, that SPR 21-87 should be approved because:

1. All provisions of this title are complied with and so arranged that traffic congestion is avoided, pedestrian and vehicular safety and welfare are protected, with no adverse effect to surrounding properties. In so doing so, use of land and/or buildings are designed in harmony with abutting properties in the same district by considering the following: buildings, structures and improvements, vehicle ingress, egress and internal circulation, setbacks, building height, location of service, walls, and landscape materials.

Fact: After the adoption of the related applications General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-1, Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP) Amendment 21-1, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable codes and regulations. The Project 38 residential units meet setbacks, building heights, circulation and all applicable codes set forth by the Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

2. The project design conforms to the general plan, the design guidelines, transportation demand management regulations, and any specific plan or guidelines applicable to the project;
Fact: After the adoption of the related applications General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-1, Covina Forward Specific Plan (CFSP) Amendment 21-1, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable codes and regulations. The Project 38 residential units meet setbacks, building heights, circulation and all applicable codes set forth by the Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The overall on-site circulation for the project meets fire access requirements and parking requirements. In

Page 35 of 38 ends

addition, there will be pedestrian connections between the public/transit and the residential use.

3. The project design is harmonious, consistent and complete within itself and functionally and visually compatible with neighboring structures and the area in which it is located;
Fact: The project is physically separated by a road to the residential development to the east and to the north. In addition, the site provides 13-foot setback along the north and east boundary which includes landscaping and which further separates the uses providing a substantial buffer between the Covina Transit Center to the north and from the single family residences to the east. Based on the site and the building design, the project is harmonious, consistent and complete within itself and functionally and visually compatible with neighboring structures and the area in which it is located.

4. The development will constitute an adequate environment for the intended use by sustaining the desirability and stability of the neighborhood and community; Fact: The project will provide additional for-sale owner-occupied units to the City.

Therefore, the project and the intended use will sustain the desirability and stability of the neighborhood and community.

5. Proposed lighting is so arranged as to reflect lighting away from adjoining properties; Fact: Any exterior lighting on the building must be hooded and erected to reflect away from adjoining properties. A detailed lighting plan is required for compliance with the Zoning Code and Design Guidelines' applicable safety, security, and designrelated provisions.

6. Proposed signs will not by size, location, color, or lighting, interfere with traffic or limit visibility;
Fact: Any proposed signage is not a part of this review and approval. Any sign requires a separate sign permit application and sign plans that must show compliance with Covina's Sign Ordinance.

7. Utility and street improvements pursuant to CMC 17.64.120 and 17.64.130.

Fact: The applicant is required to underground utilities and complies with street improvements required by the Department of Public Works (Engineering, Traffic, and Environmental Services.)
SECTION 5. City Council Action on Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343 and Site Plan Review 21-87. Based on the findings stated above, the City Council of the City of Covina does hereby approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83343 and Site Plan Review (SPR) 21-87, subject to the Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Measures from the MMRP of the

Page 36 of 38 ends

previously certified EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.

SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings and this Resolution are based are located at the City Clerk’s Office located at 125 E. College Street, Covina, CA 91723. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.

SECTION 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.

SIGNED AND APPROVED this 18th day of January, 2022.
________________________________________
JORGE A. MARQUEZ, MAYOR
ATTEST:

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ,
Chief Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
CANDICE K. LEE, City Attorney

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2022-03 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 18th of January 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:

Page 37 of 38 ends

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ,
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 38 of 38 ends

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. NB 1
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Jan 18 2022
Title: Community Feedback Related to Smoke-Free Regulations at Multi-Family Residential Properties
Presented By: Chris Marcarello, City Manager
Recommendation: That the City Council consider public feedback and provide direction related to further actions related to this topic.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / BACKROUND:

In fall 2020, the City Council received a presentation from a local public health advocacy group related to the health risks associated with second hand smoke at multi-family residential properties. Following this presentation, City staff engaged with representatives from the Tobacco-Free Partnership for Covina/West Covina (“Partnership”) to learn more about health initiatives that have been developed in neighboring communities.

At its December 1, 2020 meeting, the City Council directed staff to work with the Partnership to engage local stakeholders and return to the Council with a summary of public feedback. The Partnership finalized outreach efforts in late 2021 and forwarded a Community Engagement Overview report for the Council’s consideration.

The Council has several options related to next steps, including considering local smoking prohibitions at multifamily properties, developing regulations that encourage property managers to include non-smoking language in leases and continued work with Los Angeles County Department of Public to achieve compliance with reducing smoking at multi-family properties, among others.

DISCUSSION:

Currently, the Covina Municipal Code Section 9.48 (Conduct in Parks) prohibits smoking in all public parks/open spaces within City limits. As proposed, the City Council could consider the development of additional smoking prohibitions to include other areas of the community, including multi-family residential properties. As directed by the City Council in late 2020, outreach and engagement of community stakeholders (including multi-family property tenants and property owners) was completed to better understand specific challenges and risks that are associated with smoking at these locations.

Outreach feedback is detailed in the attached report titled Community Engagement Overview (“Attachment 1”) and is briefly summarized below.

Outreach Efforts
• February 2021: Partnership representatives met with City representatives to outline outreach activities and timeline.
• Summer/Fall 2021: Partnership representatives gathered resident feedback on the issue, including:
o Hosting a Wellness and Prevention Day on August 7, 2021; o Completing a social media campaign during September 2021; o Hosting a public survey to obtain feedback from September 15 – October 15, 2021; and o Hosting a Virtual Community Forum on September 28, 2021 Through these activities, it was determined that ninety-three (93) participants engaged in the community outreach process.

General Stakeholder Feedback
• Responding property owners and tenants generally support policies to reduce smoking activities at multi-family properties;
• Responding property owners find the enforcement of limiting smoking to be difficult; • Breaching a no-smoking lease provision is not a cause for tenant eviction; and • Education is important to gaining compliance with a reduction in smoking activities.

Tenant Survey Responses
• The majority of responding tenants favor smoke-free prohibitions (23 responses – 19 support, 4 undecided)
• Responding tenants were split in terms of how enforcement should be managed (26 responses – 12 indicate property managers, 13 indicate City representatives, 1 indicates Public Health Officer) Property Owner Survey Responses
• Responding property managers indicate that they implement a “No Smoking” policy on site (2 responses – 2 indicate a partially smoke free policy)
• Responding property managers are split in terms of whether they would support a City ordinance prohibiting smoking at properties (2 responses – 1 indicates support, 1 indicates undecided) • Responding property managers are split terms of who should enforce smoking prohibitions, if enacted (2 responses – 1 indicates property managers, 1 indicates City) Summary
According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“DPH”), secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death the U.S. Adverse health effects of secondhand smoke include heart disease, lung and nasal sinus cancer, and respiratory illness. Additionally, the creation of smoke-free environments has added benefits of changing social norms around tobacco use, including decreasing opportunities for youth modeling smoking behavior.

DPH provides assistance to residents that experience secondhand smoke exposure and live in cities that do not have smoke-free multi-family housing policies, including sample policies, frequently asked questions, educational resources and a dedicated email address to file complaints at [email protected]. DPH also reports that there are currently fifteen (15) cities that offer a local secondhand smoking complaint system.

If the City Council were to consider implementing a local policy, it could be worthwhile to explore grant opportunities that would fund additional resources that would be needed to continue program management, education and enforcement of local regulations.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Community Forum Summary
Attachment B - Survey for Tenants
Attachment C - Survey for Property Owners Managers
Attachment D - UCLA Health Policy Brief MUH Study May 20 Attachment E - Cannabis-MUH
Attachment F - PHLC Smoke-free MUH Model Ordinance
Attachment G - Enforcing Strong Smoke-free MUH Feb 2019 Attachment H - Covina MUH POS Report 8-27-20
Respectfully submitted,

Page 2 of 97 ends

Page 3 of 97 ends

Page 4 of 97 ends

1 Background and Campaign Timeline
On October 20th, 2020, the Tobacco-Free Partnership staff and the Stamp Out Smoke (SOS) Covina Coalition, including a youth member, presented to the Covina City Council at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Jorge Marquez. The presentation included an introduction to the problem of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in multi-unit housing (MUH) and our public opinion survey data showing strong support by Covina residents for a smoke-free multi-unit housing (SFMUH) policy. As a result, the city agendized the SFMUH item for its December 1st, 2020 meeting.

On December 1st, 2020, the Covina City Council agenda included an item titled, “Development of Smoking Prohibitions at Multi-Family Residential Properties.” During their discussion of this item, the city council raised a need for obtaining greater community input and directed the City Manager to work with our agency to engage stakeholders. Due to the COVID-19 surge that emerged, the city council delayed engaging the community for several months.

In February 2021, agency staff met with the City Manager Chris Marcarello, and Assistant City Manager Angel Carrillo to present our proposed Community Engagement Plan. In addition, staff met with Councilmember Patricia Cortez and later with Mayor Jorge Marquez to discuss SFMUH and the proposed Community Engagement Plan. Thereafter, staff met with Chris Marcarello again on several occasions to finalize a plan for a virtual community forum in September 2021 to obtain community input. From June 2021 to August 2021, engagement activities included online and in-person efforts that culminated in our hosting the virtual community forum on September 29th, 2021.

Throughout the Summer of 2021, agency staff continued to gather resident testimony about how secondhand smoke affected them, their family, and their neighbors' health. Additionally, we held a Wellness and Prevention Day event on August 7th, 2021, where residents were invited to share their personal anecdotes about SHS exposure and receive educational materials. At the event, SOS Covina Coalition members (Joe Rodriguez, Issa Suaybaguio, Lesly Garcia, and Gwynette Mendoza) as well as Covina Mayor Jorge Marquez spoke in support of an SFMUH policy.

In September 2021, agency staff launched a robust social media campaign inviting people to register for the virtual community forum, take a survey, and/or provide a testimonial by visiting the breathebetterlivebetter.com website. A total of 34 individual testimonials were collected from Covina residents, a majority were in support of an SFMUH ordinance.

Lastly, in conjunction with City of Covina Housing Division staff, a survey was posted on the breathebetterlivebetter.com website to provide an additional method to gather resident input.

There were two surveys posted, one for property owners/managers, and one for tenants. Each survey was available in both English and Spanish and was open from September 15th to October 15th on the breathebetterlivebetter.com website. We received a total of 25 survey responses.

Page 5 of 97 ends

2 Community Engagement Findings
Virtual Community Forum
On September 28th, 2021, agency staff Elsa Greno (host) and Socorro Chacon (translator) hosted the virtual community forum moderated by Primo Castro from the American Cancer Society/Cancer Action Network. Forum panelists included Daniel Yukelson, Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, along with Melanie Hardy and Tim Hanes, respiratory therapy health providers from Emanate Health. The question-and-answer session was led by Joe Rodriguez, Stamp Out Smoke (SOS) Covina Coalition member. A total of 34 people participated in the community forum either virtually or in person at the City Grill in Covina.

Summary Overview of Key Themes and Takeaways
Daniel Yukelson from the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, who represents 10,000 property owners in the San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura County area provided the following owner perspective:
“...The bottom line on smoking from our perspective is we don’t like smoking anywhere on our properties because not only do they cause damage and increase costs for unit turnover when we have vacancies, but we also get a lot of complaints from our different residents and we are often asked to intercede on those complaints…”
• Property owners are generally supportive of SFMUH policy. • Smoke-free housing is an economic benefit in reducing the turn-over costs of rental properties.
• Reduce resident complaints and enforcement issues when a city policy is adopted. • Property owners don’t want the enforcement burden to fall solely on them. • Breaching a no-smoking provision in a lease is not a cause for tenant eviction. • The leftover residue (thirdhand smoke) long after the smoke has dissipated is difficult to clean.
• Tenant education is important for adherence to smoke-free policies. "Most owners are in favor but don't want to be the only ones engaging the residents. The local jurisdictions need to educate multi-unit housing renters and owners.” Yukelson advocates for a community education effort to raise awareness of local no-smoking policies.

Page 6 of 97 ends

3 Melanie Hardy and Tim Hanes, Emanate Health Respiratory Therapy and Covina Pulmonary Rehabilitation professionals gave the following perspective:
• Smoking affects people’s respiratory systems, causing irreversible damage in many cases.
• Severe lung disease requires treatment on ventilators connected to oxygen tanks. • Smoking and secondhand smoke exposure can lead to lung diseases such as lung cancer, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis.
• Smoking and secondhand smoke exposure cause acute disease in other areas of the body such as the heart and kidneys.
• Secondhand smoke exposure increases the risk of asthma and allergies in young children.
• Lung function tests of patients who smoke cigarettes and marijuana show lung damage.

All types of smoke contain carcinogens. “It doesn’t matter where [smoke] comes from, it contains carcinogens.”- Tim Haines, Emanate Health
Safe Distance Living Near Smokers
“Does it matter how close you live to a smoker to be affected by cigarette smoke?” Melanie Hardy: “I can’t give you [a specific] distance but you know if you’re close enough to the smoke that it can come through your ventilation system…any proximity to where the smoke can get to you is too close. I mean, simply put." Primo Castro: "…when it comes down to smoking and secondhand smoking there really isn't a "safe level." Just because of its ability to travel...when they adopt secondhand smoke policies in their cities, they usually put a limit like a 25-foot barrier from their door to wherever someone goes outside. But 25-feet, while that is common, sometimes is just not enough. When you have winds…depending on the space where you're at...there's a lot of factors that come into play.”

Page 7 of 97 ends

4 Elsa Greno: “The idea is that there’s a buffer zone where the smoke is not going to travel…minimum 25-feet. Recently Bell Gardens passed a smoke-free multi-unit housing policy with a 40-foot buffer zone. When you have a place of high-density apartments it gets tricky to say how close or how far, because one apartment is right next to the other and other times you have homes next to the apartments. I’ve seen better than 25-feet in Los Angeles County, I’ve seen a 40-foot buffer zone.”
Chronic Disease and Secondhand Smoke Exposure:
“As a person with asthma and lives in an apartment, how beneficial is it for the city to adopt a smoke-free policy?”
Daniel Yukelson: “It’s absolutely beneficial. Again, it protects the health of the city’s citizens and it’s terrible that somebody who has any compromised lungs—even non-compromised lungs—to have to be exposed to smoke where they’re living. And it’s just really unfortunate that those things happen.”
Primo Castro: “For those of you with little kids who happen to live in an apartment unit, in a townhome, or some other type of living situation where you are sharing wall space, you know, kids are very susceptible, they breathe this stuff. It's not until much later in life that they develop more serious illnesses, more chronic illnesses, so one of the things we want to do is to try to protect our children, our family members.”
Marijuana vs. Tobacco Smoke dangers
“Is marijuana smoke as toxic as tobacco smoke? What are the dangers of it?” Elsa Greno: From my training, I know that marijuana has cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke. We also know that people don't have to smoke it to ingest it and have the same benefits of marijuana…If people can change the way they consume it, it might help people breathe better next door and that’s one of the things to consider as well. Including marijuana as a type of smoke. Many cities have a definition of what includes smoking and it should be updated to include marijuana and vaping as well as cigarette smoke.” Melanie Hardy: “I mentioned we do long-function testing and I have done this testing on patients who don’t smoke cigarettes but they do smoke marijuana and there was damage to their lungs from that long-term smoking of marijuana. So it does affect, for sure, it causes lung damage.” Tim Haines: “Any kind of smoke has known carcinogens in it, whether it’s secondhand cigarette smoke, secondhand marijuana smoke, secondhand vape-- even brushfire smoke if you’re breathing that in-- you know the damage can be all the same, honestly”
“It's not until much later in life that they
develop more serious illnesses, more
chronic illnesses, so one of the things we
want to do is to try to protect our children,
our family members.” -Primo Castro

Page 8 of 97 ends

5 Children and Secondhand Smoke
“I have a small child and live in a townhome. How does
secondhand smoke affect her growth and development?“
Tim Haines: "I'm not a medical doctor, but secondhand smoke affects the development in [children’s] lungs their total lung volume if they’re exposed to it for a long time. It can affect so much of their growth.

COVID-19 and Secondhand Smoke
“What is the lung capacity of an active smoker?”
Melanie Hardy: “[Lung] capacity will be diminished,
I can’t give you a number, just because I don’t
have that memorized. But the capacity is going to
be diminished because of the damage that’s done
to the cells inside the lungs. As far as Covid, it
makes your body weaker your lungs have a harder time fighting because of the [smoke] damage that is done to the lungs. So, it’s harder to fight off the virus that’s attacking.” Tim Haines: “It’s not just the lungs. Also, secondhand smoke, firsthand smoke affects the heart as well, it affects the entire cardiopulmonary system. We have to remember that Covid is a terrible disease and it absolutely destroys the lungs. If you already have damaged lungs, Covid is just going to take advantage of that and affect them much, much worse—that’s from what I’ve seen personally working at bedside therapy.”
“How does Covid-19 affect a smoker more than a nonsmoker?” Melanie Hardy: “If you’re within 6-feet of somebody regardless of smoking or not you’re going to be affected if they’re doing a lot of coughing. They may be coughing more from the smoke and so that does allow them to project that virus.”
Policy Implementation and Enforcement
A community member asked, “Why has it taken the city so long to act on this subject?” and commented that the Stamp Out Smoke (SOS) coalition has worked diligently to bring this issue to the city's attention.

Unfortunately, the city was unable to answer this question.

Primo Castro asked a panelist what he would say to those members of the City Council about why they should adopt an SFMUH policy?
Daniel Yukelson: “If elected officials want to protect the welfare and safety and health of their citizens then they need to implement those policies. But to make them effective, there needs to be a great educational effort and there also needs to be recourse for smokers that break the policy. I've seen it in cities where it works, just the threat of a fine is enough to make people “We all know secondhand smoke is bad, so
anything that has to do with breathing, any
form of material that has to do with breathing
into your lungs, it’s going to affect the
growth of those lungs” – Tim Haines

Page 9 of 97 ends

6 abide by the local regulations. That's all that's needed. If there's a threat from the landlord that the landlord is going to try to do something, that almost always never works because the only recourse a landlord has is eviction and no landlord ever wants to go down that path. And most tenants know, in most jurisdictions, there's a lot of protections that would prohibit that, but a fine is something people would listen to and abide by.”
“Who will enforce the smoke-free policy? Will it cost taxpayers money to enforce it?” Daniel Yukelson: “I would just say certainly there's a cost of enforcement of these policies but there's also fines that can be received as well. And just the savings from peoples' health and not having to deal with these health complications from smoke is extremely beneficial in the longterm.” Elsa Greno: “[Enforcement] looks different in different cities.

Some cities have a code-enforcement department, some have health department officers that can also enforce it. A lot of it is self-regulated, once you put up signs and once you’ve educated the community and put-up stickers, more reminders for people, they’re more motivated to follow it."
A copy of the model ordinance for smoke-free multi-unit housing regulations published by the Public Health Law Center is included in the appendix. In addition, Daniel Yukelson referred to a recent UCLA research on multi-unit housing that surveyed residents and property managers in the City of Los Angeles. A copy of the policy brief titled, “Health at Risk: Policies Are Needed to End Cigarette, Marijuana, and E-Cigarette Secondhand Smoke in Multi-Unit Housing in Los Angeles,” can be found in the appendix.

Covina Resident Testimonials
SMRS staff collected Covina resident testimonials using a hybrid approach due to the COVID 19 pandemic. Our approached included an online website and an in-person option for those with limited computer access. The testimonials were collected to provide decision-makers with personal stories of how their constituents are being affected by secondhand smoke exposure.

Residents who chose to provide an online testimonial were directed to their preferred language (English/Spanish) by responding to a QR code on
our flyer, clicking the link on the Instagram bio, or
referred by word of mouth. Over 80 Community
members used our breathebetterlivebetter.com
website during the months of September 15 -
October 15, 2021, resulting in a total of 14
personal testimonials from Covina residents.

Additionally, a total of 27 testimonies were collected in-person from area residents during July and October 2021. Residents were asked to complete a card responding to a question that asked them to describe how being exposed to secondhand smoke affects them. Residents were asked to verify their zip code (91722 - 24) and were also asked if they would support a smokefree multi-unit housing policy in the City of Covina. As a result, 96% of residents expressed their support for such a policy. Below are the reasons they gave for doing so:

And just the savings from peoples' health and
not having to deal with these health
complications from smoke is extremely
beneficial in the long-term.” – Dan Yukelson

Page 10 of 97 ends

7 Online Testimonials
Collected from September 15 - October 15
“I feel and smell great. When I was a kid, both of my grandparents and both of my parents smoked, and the ceiling were stained yellow from all of the smoking going on, so, yes, I love living in a smoke-free home.” – John C.
“I think it would be a great idea. While no one in my six-unit apartment complex smokes anymore, our neighboring complex has smokers. I love to have my windows open while letting in the natural light, but when the woman next door decides to smoke on her patio, which is closest to my living room and kitchen, I have to close all my windows to eliminate the smell from taking over my small apartment.” – Gabie Q. “My mom and I live in an apartment that doesn’t have a smoking policy, but I think it would be a good idea because if we leave our windows open, we can smell what everyone is cooking.

I can only imagine how terrible it would be to live next to someone who smokes.” – Penny M. “I own and manage a multi-family unit in Covina. I don’t have a policy, but would not be opposed to a formal policy. I think the savings I would get in fixing up my units would be worth it. If I ever have a smoker, then I have to replace the carpet, repaint, and redo the grout. I have actually pulled carpets out completely and replaced them with tile to save on these costs.” – Lou P.
“I live in an apartment where my neighbor smokes. During this past summer, I would leave my windows and doors open for fresh air so I don’t run the air conditioner all day, but I couldn’t do that most days because of my neighbors. They smoke cigarettes and marijuana, and it fills my house when they’re smoking on their porch or their patio. I would really support something that would prohibit that.” – Gina F.
“I haven’t really had a problem with it where I live, but if I was around neighbors who did, I think it would be pretty gross. If I ever get a hotel room, I always want a non-smoking room, and that’s just temporary. So, it would be a plus for me to know that there are apartments that were non-smoking too.” – Roman F.
“I just went back to college in Colorado but was visiting back home recently. It was surprising

Page 11 of 97 ends

8 how you get used to the smoke from the neighbors. It never really bothered me until I left and came back. It was terrible.” – Domenica F.
“We have fortunately lived in a relatively smoke-free apartment complex. There is nothing in the renter’s agreement, but I think it was mentioned that they did not allow smoking. I can’t imagine living in a place where smoke was a daily thing to deal with.” – Amelia P. “I smoke cigars once in a while and am happy that I can at home. But I think I wouldn't like it if my neighbors smoked all the time. Not sure how to approach this since I like the freedom of having a cigar once in a while.” – Juan Q.
“I live part-time locally and part-time in Vegas. I prefer living here because there is 'way less' smoking. Vegas was really challenging to get used to, but it’s something that I just learned to live with. It would be great to have regulation in both places.” – Luz Maria Q. “Unfortunately, I live with my parents in a building with no restriction on smoking designated areas. As a youth, it is so dangerous that I am not only exposed to secondhand smoke but also, it makes me think why not try [it] anyways… I am [almost] smoking! “ – Ailyn T. “I live in an apartment with my parents, I'm a high school student and my neighbors smoke.

I can smell cigarettes and marijuana smoke while taking my virtual classes even if I close my window.” – Derek T.
“My son has problems with asthma and we live on the upper level of our apartment complex where the renters below are smokers, not only cigarettes but also marijuana. All the smoke rises into my apartment. It makes me worry immensely about my son’s health and I would like a smoke-free ordinance to be implemented with designated areas for smokers far away from windows to avoid contaminating our environment.”* – Betty G.

In-person Testimonials
Collected from July to October 2021
“I have asthma and I support smoke-free multi-unit housing for Covina.”* – Maria T.
“From a person with asthma, I find it hard to breathe. As a person who fought COVID and survived, my breathing capacity has decreased. Breathing in secondhand smoke restricts my access to fresh air causing my lungs to constrict more making it difficult to breathe. This also triggers my asthma more and can send me to the hospital.” – Joe R.
“[For] my health and my parent’s health they are over 80-years old.

Therefore, their health can be worse due to people smoking in my building.” – Loreine S. “I worry about my mom’s health because she has various illnesses. In her room, the smoke enters frequently. The manager doesn’t do anything about it.”* – Maria R. “My son got asthma and it’s my understanding cigarette smoke makes him cough and moody.” – Rocio M.

Page 12 of 97 ends

9 “Different areas [designated for smokers]. Smoke-free areas are not respected in our senior apartments.” – Yudi
“We have trouble leaving the doors and windows open because of all the smoke and I do not want it to get to my baby. He is only 11-months old, hot days are miserable.” – Stephanie N. “Even with closed windows, the smell gets in my place.” – Mary R. “Smells coming from an apartment below mine. It’s constantly smelly. A disgusting odor that bothers all of us. “ – Aurora L.
“I am in an age that my health is a priority. I should not be exposed to cigarettes smoke.” – Rich A.
“It’s very bad because it causes lung cancer.” – Aidan B. “It affects my children and how they breathe.” – Blanca V. “Where I live 2nd hand smoke comes through windows and
walls.” – Jacqueline E.
“Smoking is no longer limited to only cigarettes. Me and my family are exposed to marijuana smoke thus we need a
strong city policy to prohibit smoke in apartments with families.”* – Laura S.
"My lease says smoking is prohibited, but nobody follows that and that is why I need a citywide policy."* – Sara L. "Yes, I have been exposed when I go to my cousin's place, I can smell the secondhand smoke from her stepdad's room. It makes me feel suffocated and feel gross. I can't imagine how living in a home with a smoker might have impacted their body." – Issa S. “I don’t like to smell and see smoke coming from the vents.” – Alexis V. “My neighbors smoke behind my bedroom. So, the smoke goes into my room and causes it to smell in my room.” – Krystgna R.

“My son (9-years-old) has asthma. Smoke causes my son to have a flare-up and become sick, sometimes hospital admission.” – Jessica T.
“I am 70-years old. I do not like to be exposed to secondhand smoke.” – Tom “I know that marijuana smoke is as dangerous as cigarette smoke. The city should have a law to protect children and senior citizens.”* – Mary D.
“My kids complain often about the cigarette smell, it’s really uncomfortable to live next to smokers.* – Josefina L.

Page 13 of 97 ends

10 “I rent a room and some of the other renters living there smoke, and it gives me headaches.”* – Lupe O.
“Every day the air travels into my apartment and I’m forced to close the windows. I’ve reported it to the manager, but they don’t do anything.”* – Maria C. “Being exposed to cigarettes and marijuana smoke at my place is creating a severe health risk for my 90-year old mother.”* – Jess O.
“I am a cancer survivor and secondhand smoke really affects my health and the smell of the smoke bothers me. In addition, I have a 7-year-old child.” * – Jose O. *Translated from Spanish into English.

Page 14 of 97 ends

11 Survey Responses
A total of 25 surveys were collected through the breathebetterlivebetter.com website that linked to the City of Covina’s Survey Monkey platform. The survey included 10 questions with two questions collecting residents’ opinions on how to make an SFMUH policy effective. The survey was available in English and Spanish to residents of Covina and property owners/managers from September 15, 2021 to October 15, 2021. We had 23 responses on the tenant survey and 2 responses from property managers/owners.

Results of Tenant Survey
4 5
10 4
23 YES 100 % PARTIALLY
SMOKE
FREE

NO POLICY UNSURE TOTAL

RESPONSE
#3 DOES THE MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY

HAVE A NO SMOKING POLICY
0 3 10 10
23 DUPLEX TRIPLEX MEDIUM
4+
LARGE 20+ TOTAL

RESPONSE
#2 WHAT KIND OF MULTIUNIT PROPERTY DO YOU

LIVE AT
23 0
23 YES NO TOTAL

RESPONSE
# 1 DO YOU LIVE IN THE

CITY OF COVINA

Page 15 of 97 ends

12 11
1 1
12 1

COMPLEX
OWNER

COMPLEX

MANAGER
CITY

POLICE/SHERIFF
DEPUTY

CITY/COUNTY
CODE

ENFORCEMENT

HEALTH OFFICER
# 7 WHO WOULD BE THE BEST

ENITY/PERSON TO ENFORCE THE
POLICY
19 4

YES NO UNDECIDED/MORE INFO
#6 WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF

SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE
9 5 5
17 17

REDUCE FIRE
RISK

REDUCE INS

PREMIUMS
REDUCE

CLEANING COST

RESOLVING
TENANT

CONFLICTS

PROMOTE

HEALTHIER
LIVING
#5 BENEFITS OF A SMOKE FREE
POLICY

Page 16 of 97 ends

13 Property Owner Responses Total: 2
2 0
2 YES NO TOTAL RESPONSE
# 1 DO YOU OWN AND/OR

MANAGE PROPERTY IN COVINA
0 0
1 1
2 DUPLEX TRIPLEX MEDIUM 4+ LARGE 20+ TOTAL

RESPONSE
#2 WHAT KIND OF MULTI-UNIT

PROPERTY DO YOU MANAGE
0 2
0 0
2 YES 100 % PARTIALLY
SMOKE
FREE
NO
POLICY

UNSURE TOTAL

RESPONSE
#3 DOES THE MULTI-UNIT

PROPERTY HAVE A NO SMOKING
POLICY

Page 17 of 97 ends

14 1 1

COMPLEX OWNER COMPLEX

MANAGER
CITY

POLICE/SHERIFF
DEPUTY

CITY/COUNTY
CODE

ENFORCEMENT
#7 WHO WOULD BE THE BEST PERSON

TO ENFORCE THE POLICY
1 1 1

REDUCE FIRE RISK REDUCE INS

PREMIUMS

REDUCE CLEANING
COST

RESOLVING TENANT

CONFLICTS

PROMOTE

HEALTHIER LIVING
#5 BENEFITS OF A SMOKE-FREE POLICY
1 1

YES NO UNDECIDED/MORE INFO
#6 WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF

SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE

Page 18 of 97 ends

15 Additional Survey Questions
Give your ideas about protecting health for the City of Covina. How can a smoke-free policy be made more effective? (ENGLISH responses)
By passing an ordinance and
enforcing it.

It would be good to include
marijuana and not allow it to
be smoked indoors.

It should be part of the
contract to include the city
code of the policy.

Pass a city ordinance that
limits or eliminates smoking
in apartments
There are already many
areas in public that smoking
is banned. If people can’t
smoke in their home where
does that leave them?
Signs and tickets.

Smoking from other units can
seep into surrounding units
and aggregate peoples
underlying health conditions
and could lead them to go to
the hospital.

Do not allow indoor smoking. Smoking affects our elderly population.

The city could impose a law
to inform property owners
that all their tenants have to
agree to smoke-free
apartment living.

Post signs on the property to
warn residents and visitors
that it's smoke-free. Putting
up plenty of signs should help
with enforcement.

If some buildings allow it,
then it should be clear if it's a
smoking area and has clearly
designated non-smoking
areas. When people move in
they should be made aware
of the non-smoking policy in
advance. Just like when you
have a pet and there is a nopets policy. It should be clear to someone when they move
it about the smoking rules.

Protect tenants’ health! Don’t mix smoking units next
to non-smoking.

Page 19 of 97 ends

16 Give your ideas about protecting health for the City of Covina. How can a smoke-free policy be made more effective? (Spanish responses translated)
The city can send a letter to
notify residents of the city’s
decision.

Install air filters in the
smoker’s apartments.

Find a policy solution that
benefits both non-smokers
and smoking tenants.

Adopting a policy that people
adhere to will automatically
protect our health.

Let’s work together with the
property owners and our
neighbors.

Designated smoke areas
that are located away from
our units because the smoke
travels.

Make signs with the city
code.

Modify the rental leases and
implement the no-smoking
policy, post signs, and meet
with the tenants.

Issue warnings before giving
fines to those who violate the
policy.

Have meetings with tenants
to agree on a solution that
works well for all.

Designated smoking areas
more than 25-feet
distance.

Signs to mark both smoking
and non-smoking areas.

Page 20 of 97 ends

17 Breathe Better Live Better Campaign Reach
During September and October 2021, Social Model Recovery Systems contacted a local creative design consulting agency, 789 Inc., to create a broad social marketing ad campaign.

They developed the Breathe Better Live Better logo, a website, and Instagram and Facebook posts for the outreach campaign. The purpose of the campaign was to promote the three ways for stakeholders to give input, which included attending the Community Forum, taking a survey, or writing a testimonial.

The first video ad had a reach of over 3K viewers, the second graphic ad had a reach of over 5k viewers, and the third and last video ad had a reach of over 9K viewers. The total reach, meaning the total number of individuals who saw the ads, was over 18K users. The impressions are the total interactions with each post overall, and this includes the first unique view by a new user, as well as any additional interactions with the post (e.g. view more than once, view it, share it, etc.) The overall campaign impressions were over 22K users.

For the website, there were 82 unique users, and 35 referrals from Linktree and Facebook, with a total of 178 page views. Throughout this social media campaign, we had an opportunity to raise the community's awareness about secondhand smoke and encourage residents to give their input.

Conclusion
This report represents 98 Covina resident engagements that were recorded through various means described in the report above including the virtual community forum, an online survey, and written testimonials. The results show strong community support for the adoption of a smoke-free multi-unit housing policy. Several residents raised questions concerning the policy implementation and enforcement and how to best implement this policy for Covina’s residents.

We have gathered some key informational resources available in the appendix to help decisionmakers who are considering smoke-free multi-unit housing regulations.

Written by Elsa Greno, Project Coordinator, Tobacco-Free Partnership, Social Model Recovery Systems (SMRS)
For more information contact:

Zelenne Cardenas, Sr. Director, Prevention [email protected] and Community Initiatives 213.622.1621
For technical assistance:

Micah Zimmermaker, MUH Policy Coordinator [email protected] Tobacco Control and Prevention Program (213) 351-7305
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Claud Moradian, Program Manager [email protected] Tobacco Control and Prevention Program (213) 351-7340
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Jamie Long, Staff Attorney [email protected] Public Health Law Center (651) 695-7701
www.PublicHealthLawCenter.org

Page 21 of 97 ends

18 Appendix
Appendix A: Survey on Multi-Unit Housing Secondhand Smoke Regulations in Covina (for tenants) .

Appendix B: Survey on Multi-Unit Housing Secondhand Smoke Regulations in Covina (for Property Owners/Managers)
Appendix C: Health at Risk: Policies Are Needed to End Cigarette, Marijuana, and E-Cigarette Secondhand Smoke in Multi-Unit Housing in Los Angeles. 2020. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

Appendix D: Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing. 2021. Public Health Law Center and American Lung Association in California.

Appendix E: Public Health Law Center. 2020. Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Model Ordinance. Mitchell Hamlin School of Law.

Appendix F: Enforcing Strong Smoke-free Multi-Unit Housing Ordinances. 2019. American Lung Association (formerly) The Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing.

Appendix G: Public Opinion Survey Data Report on Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing in Covina. 2020. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health’s Tobacco Control and Prevention Program.
© Funded by the California Department of Public Health under contract CTCP #17-19.

Page 22 of 97 ends

Page 23 of 97 ends

Page 24 of 97 ends

21 Appendix C

Page 25 of 97 ends

Appendix D

Page 26 of 97 ends

Appendix E

Page 27 of 97 ends

Appendix F

Page 28 of 97 ends

Appendix F

Page 29 of 97 ends

Page 30 of 97 ends

Page 31 of 97 ends

Survey on Multi-Unit Housing Secondhand Smoke
Regulations in Covina - For Tenants
Question Title

1. Do you live within the City of Covina? (this does not include unincorporated areas such as Charter Oak, etc.)
Yes
No

2. What kind of multi-unit complex do you currently live in within the City of Covina?
Duplex units
Triplex units
Medium complex (Four or more units)
Large complex (20 or more units)

3. Does the multi-unit property where you live have a no-smoking policy in place?
Yes, it is a 100% smoke-free community
Partially smoke-free (smoking only in designated areas/some units allowed) No policy exists about smoking
Unsure

4. What category best describes you? What is your role at the multiunit housing complex? Property Manager
Property Owner
Property Developer
Resident (owner)
Resident (HOA member)
Resident (Tenant)
Homeowner
Other

5. What are the benefits of having a smoke-free property? Please check your top three.

Establishing a smoke-free policy will reduce fire risk
Reducing insurance premiums

Page 32 of 97 ends

Cleaning costs reduced when an apartment is smoke-free
Resolving tenant conflicts becomes clearer with a policy Promoting a healthier living environment

6. Would you be in favor of a city ordinance to establish smoke-free housing?
Yes
No
Undecided/need more information

7. Who would be the best entity/person to enforce the no-smoking rule?
Complex owner
Complex manager
City police/sheriff deputy
City or county code enforcement
Other (please specify)

8. Give your ideas about protecting health for the City of Covina.

How can a smoke-free policy be made more effective?

9. Name 3 ideas for equitable enforcement options.

10. To be entered into the raffle, please enter your email.

DONE

Page 33 of 97 ends

Survey on Multi-Unit Housing Secondhand Smoke Regulations in Covina - For Property Owners/Managers

1. Do you own and/or manage multi-family units within the City of Covina? (this does not include unincorporated areas such as Charter Oak, etc.) Yes No

2. What kind of multi-unit complex do you currently own/manage in within the City of Covina?
Duplex units
Triplex units
Medium complex (Four or more units)
Large complex (20 or more units)

4. What category best describes you? What is your role at the multi-unit housing complex?
Property Manager
Property Owner
Property Developer
Resident (owner)
Resident (HOA member)
Resident (Tenant)
Homeowner
Other

5. What are the benefits of having a smoke-free property? Please check your top three.

Establishing a smoke-free policy will reduce fire risk
Reducing insurance premiums
Cleaning costs reduced when an apartment is smoke-free
Resolving tenant conflicts becomes clearer with a policy Promoting a healthier living environment
Question Title

6. Would you be in favor of a city ordinance to establish smoke-free housing? Yes No Undecided/need more information

Page 34 of 97 ends

7. Who would be the best entity/person to enforce the no-smoking rule? Complex owner
Complex manager
City police/sheriff deputy
City or county code enforcement
Other (please specify)

8. Give your ideas about protecting health for the City of Covina. How can a smoke-free policy be made more effective?

9. Name 3 ideas for equitable enforcement options.

10. To be entered into the raffle, please enter your email.

DONE

Page 35 of 97 ends

Health Policy Brief
May 2020
Health at Risk: Policies Are Needed to
End Cigarette, Marijuana, and E-Cigarette
Secondhand Smoke in Multi-Unit Housing
in Los Angeles
Peggy Toy, Catherine Yount, Ying-Ying Meng, William Zou, Jessica Ventura, Huongly K. Do, and Nadereh Pourat
SUMMARY: The proportion of Californians
reporting exposure to secondhand smoke
(SHS) from tobacco and marijuana and
electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) vapor has
grown over time, despite an increasing
number of smoke-free local laws in the last
10 years. Residents of market-rate, privately
owned multi-unit housing (MUH)—e.g.,
apartments—are particularly at risk of drifting
SHS. In a 2019 study of 4,800 tenants and 176
MUH owners in the city of Los Angeles, we
found that 49% of tenants reported exposure
to drifting SHS, including SHS from tobacco
(39%), marijuana (36%), and e-cigarettes (9%).

Tenants who lived with children and those who
had lived or were living with someone who had
a chronic health condition were significantly
more likely to report exposure to drifting
SHS. The vast majority of tenants and owners
supported policies that restricted smoking
in MUH, with most supporting tobacco and
marijuana policies. Yet support for smoke-free
policies was mixed with strong concerns about
enforcement of such policies. Our findings
reveal the high level of SHS in MUH, gaps in
existing voluntary smoke-free policies, and
the need for a consistent implementation and
enforcement plan to prevent exposure to SHS
for all Los Angeles residents.

Secondhand smoke (SHS) from tobacco causes approximately 33,950 deaths from heart disease and 7,330 deaths from lung
cancer each year in the United States. Between
1964 and 2014, 2.5 million adult nonsmokers
died from exposure to SHS.1 SHS is harmful
to children and other vulnerable populations,2
and there is no safe level of exposure.1
Harmful toxins in tobacco are also found in
marijuana SHS and e-cigarette secondhand
vapor.2 Repeated exposure to marijuana SHS
also affects heart health significantly.3 The
less perceptible e-cigarette vapor is actually
an aerosol that contains ultrafine particles,
which are easily inhaled. The particles can
worsen respiratory ailments, such as asthma,
and they can also cause arteries to constrict,
potentially triggering a heart attack.4, 5, 6 In
addition, the legalization of marijuana and
the increasing prevalence of e-cigarettes have
increased exposure to SHS.3 E-cigarettes as a
new medium for the delivery of tobacco and
marijuana have reversed declining trends in
tobacco use and reductions in SHS exposure.

E-cigarettes have also become a new source of
environmental air and waste pollution.7
SHS cannot be controlled in buildings,
because the toxic fumes and particulates it
contains drift throughout a property. Exposure
to drifting SHS is a problem in multi-unit
‘‘
Harmful toxins
in tobacco are
also found in
marijuana
secondhand
smoke and
e-cigarette
secondhand
vapor.’’
ISSN 2691-7475

Page 36 of 97 ends

2 UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH
housing (MUH), such as apartments, condos,
townhouses, duplexes, and any property in
which units share a common wall. These
units often share plumbing, electrical,
and ventilation systems. SHS drifts from
neighboring units, balconies, and shared
common areas where smoking is permitted.

Public health experts recommend that MUH
properties be 100% smoke-free to effectively
protect residents from health risks caused
by SHS.8 Similar policies are applied to
publicly owned MUH that are regulated by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). However, privately
owned MUH is under the authority of local
municipalities, which enact local housing
laws. Most municipalities do not consistently
include restrictions on smoking in MUH.

A significant share of residents of major urban
areas live in privately owned MUH, which
has fewer tobacco control policies compared to
more affluent suburban communities.9 Many
neighborhoods in the city of Los Angeles
are densely populated,10 but the city has no
ordinance to restrict smoking in privately
owned MUH. Impediments to such an
ordinance have included concerns about lack of
enforcement or evictions that could exacerbate
homelessness;11 loss of affordable housing to
gentrification following smoke-free policies; and
inability to change existing leases to restrict
smoking in rent-controlled properties.12, 14
We surveyed tenants and owners of MUH in
12 of 15 city council districts in Los Angeles
between 2019 and 2020 to understand
exposure to tobacco, marijuana, and e-cigarette
SHS and to learn their opinions on policies
to reduce SHS exposure. Tenants of council
districts 8, 9, and 10 were surveyed previously,
in a similar study.13, 14 We also interviewed
some owners to gain additional insights on
implementation and enforcement challenges.

Many Tenants of Privately Owned MultiUnit Housing Are Exposed to Secondhand Smoke
Nearly half (49%) of all tenants we surveyed
reported that SHS had drifted into their
unit in the past year (Exhibit 1). The most
common types of drifting smoke were from
tobacco (39%) and marijuana (36%). A
smaller percentage (9%) of tenants reported
experiencing drifting vapor from e-cigarettes.

Of those who reported smoke drifting into
their unit, 74% said the smoke had come
from outdoors, 64% reported that smoke had
come from another unit, and 41% reported
that smoke had drifted in from both outdoors
and another unit (data not shown). Only
16% of tenants reported allowing smoking
inside their home.

Any SHS Tobacco
Marijuana E-Cigarette
9%
49%
36% 39%
Exhibit 1 Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among
Multi-Unit Housing Tenants in Selected
Los Angeles City Council Districts, 2020
‘‘
Nearly half
of all tenants
reported that
secondhand
smoke had
drifted into
their unit.’’
Source: Authors’ survey of tenants and owners in Los Angeles, 2019 Note: Tenants in 12 of 15 Los Angeles City Council Districts were surveyed.

Tenants of districts 8, 9, and 10 were not surveyed in this study. Owners were surveyed in all city districts.

Page 37 of 97 ends

UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH 3
Households With Children and Those
Living With Chronic Conditions Are
Frequently Exposed to Secondhand Smoke
Secondhand smoke exposure was reported
in 54% of households with children (ages
0-17). Examining the type of SHS, we found
higher exposure to both tobacco (44%) and
marijuana (41%), with a smaller percentage
(9%) reporting exposure to e-cigarette SHS
(Exhibit 2). We also examined households
in which someone was living with a
chronic condition and found similar rates.

Households without children or anyone
with a chronic condition had lower rates of
reporting SHS (41% and 45%, respectively;
data not shown).

Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Multi-Unit Housing Tenants and Among Households With Children and Chronic Health Conditions, Selected Los Angeles City Council Districts, 2020
Exhibit 2
Any SHS Tobacco Marijuana E-Cigarette
54%
41%
9%
44%
55%
42%
9%
46%
Household With Children Household Has Member With Chronic Condition Source: Authors’ survey of tenants and owners in Los Angeles, 2019 Note: Tenants in 12 of 15 Los Angeles City Council Districts were surveyed.

Tenants in districts 8, 9, and 10 were not surveyed in this study. Owners were surveyed in all city districts.
‘‘
Secondhand
smoke exposure
was reported
in 54% of
households
with children.’’

Page 38 of 97 ends

4 UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH
African American and Latinx Tenants
Report Higher Rates of Secondhand
Smoke Drift in Their Homes
In examining racial/ethnic differences in tenant
exposure to SHS, we found that more African
Americans (51%) and Latinx (54%) reported
drifting SHS in the past 12 months compared
with whites (45%) and Asian Americans/Pacific
Islanders (41%) (Exhibit 3). Across racial/
ethnic groups, Latinx had the highest levels
of exposure to tobacco SHS (44%), and Asian
Americans/Pacific Islanders reported the
lowest rates of tobacco SHS exposure (29%).

Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders and whites
reported the lowest rates of exposure to
marijuana SHS (30%).

Existing Smoke-Free Policies in Multi-Unit
Housing Are Not Comprehensive But
Reduce Exposure
Thirty-seven percent of tenants said either
there was no policy restricting smoking in
their building or they were unaware of one.

The remaining 63% lived in MUH with
some type of smoking-restriction policies.

These policies appeared to reduce SHS exposure.

Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among
Tenants of Multi-Unit Housing With and
Without Smoke-Free Policies
Exhibit 4
46%
55%
Lives in MUH
With Any Type of
Smoke-Free Policy
Lives in MUH
With No
Smoke-Free Policy
Has Been Exposed to SHS Drifting
Into Home in Past Year
Source: Authors’ survey of tenants and owners in Los Angeles, 2019 Note: Tenants in 12 of 15 Los Angeles City Council Districts were surveyed.

Tenants in districts 8, 9, and 10 were not surveyed in this study. Owners were surveyed in all city districts.

Exhibit 3 Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Tenants by Race/Ethnicity, Selected Los Angeles City Council Districts, 2020
Source: Authors’ survey of tenants and owners in Los Angeles, 2019 Overall Exposure Tobacco Marijuana E-Cigarette
African American Latinx Asian American/
Pacific Islander
White
51%
37%
7%
41%
54%
42%
9%
44%
41%
30%
10%
29%
45%
30%
9%
36%
Note: Tenants in 12 of 15 Los Angeles City Council Districts were surveyed.

Tenants in districts 8, 9, and 10 were not surveyed in this study. Owners were surveyed in all city districts.
‘‘
African
Americans and
Latinx reported
the highest levels
of drifting
secondhand
smoke.’’

Page 39 of 97 ends

UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH 5
Among tenants living in MUH with any
smoke-free policies, 46% reported exposure
to SHS in their homes, compared to 55% of
those living in MUH without such policies
(Exhibit 4).

Tenants, Even Those Who Smoke, Support
Smoke-Free Housing Policies
Ninety percent of tenants surveyed believed
SHS is harmful to a person’s health. The
majority of tenants preferred to live in
smoke-free housing, including 86% who
stated a preference for living in a section of
a building that is nonsmoking, and 80%
who said they preferred to live in an entirely
nonsmoking building.

When asked whether tobacco, marijuana, or
e-cigarettes should be included in a smokefree policy, 72% said they would support a policy that covered both tobacco and
marijuana, and 48% said all three should be
included. Even among the 17% who smoked
either tobacco or e-cigarettes, 86% supported
some type of smoke-free housing policy.

The majority of tenants believed property
owners had the right to prohibit smoking
in common areas (86%) and in private areas
(79%), such as units and balconies. Most
(67%) believed it is okay to levy a fine, and
more than half (55%) believed it is okay
to evict tenants who repeatedly violate an
agreement not to smoke in their unit (data
not shown).

Multi-Unit Housing Owners Support
Smoke-Free Policies but Differ in Types
of Policies
Most owners (69%) already had some
voluntary smoke-free policies. Among these
property owners, most had tobacco (90%),
marijuana (75%), and e-cigarette (62%)
restrictions. Among 31% of owners without
a policy, most had considered tobacco (83%)
and marijuana (69%) policies, and 43% had
considered e-cigarette restrictions.
‘‘
Ninety percent
of tenants
surveyed
believed
secondhand
smoke is
harmful to a
person’s health.’’
Multi-Unit Housing Owner Support
for Various Smoke-Free Policies, City
of Los Angeles, 2020
Exhibit 5
Support
Smoke-Free
Policies for
Entire MUH
Do Not
Support Any
Smoke-Free
Policies
54%
38%
Support
Smoke-Free
Policies for
Some Areas
of MUH
9%
Source: Authors’ survey of tenants and owners in Los Angeles, 2019 Note: Tenants in 12 of 15 Los Angeles City Council Districts were surveyed.

Tenants in districts 8, 9, and 10 were not surveyed in this study. Owners were surveyed in all city districts.

Decreased maintenance costs and tenant
health were among the top reasons given
for adopting nonsmoking policies, followed
by reduced tenant conflicts and complaints.

Most owners (60%) reported that they had
received tenant complaints about SHS.

Among those who had received complaints,
52% had received complaints about tobacco
smoke, 38% had received complaints about
marijuana, and 9% had received complaints
about e-cigarettes.

When asked what areas of the property
should be covered by a smoke-free policy,
more than half of owners said they would
include the entire property. In contrast, less
than 10% would not support any smoke-free
policy (Exhibit 5).

Page 40 of 97 ends

6 UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH
Owners’ Enforcement of Smoke-Free Policies
We examined the implementation of smokefree policies by owners and the challenges they experienced. Almost 90% of owners
with smoke-free policies had included nosmoking policies in formal lease agreements, and the remaining 10% of owners with
smoke-free policies used other methods to
communicate their policy to tenants, such as
signs or verbal communication.

Some owners with a smoke-free policy (43%)
reported having experienced problems in
enforcing their policy. Among owners who do
not have a smoke-free policy, 82% anticipate
that enforcement would be a barrier to
implementing a smoke-free policy on their
property. One challenge to enforcement was
the difficulty in identifying those who smoke
and in proving the source of the smoke. Nearly
all owners with smoke-free policies (94%)
said they did not evict tenants for violations.

Among owners with smoke-free policies, 95%
reported having no problems filling vacancies
for nonsmoking units.

In interviews, owners without policies
reported that enforcement was a top reason
for not implementing a smoke-free policy.

Owners expressed concerns over eviction of
violators due to associated costs of eviction
and potential loss of rent. Owners also did
not believe that the city of Los Angeles would
support owners’ policies or consequences for
violations. Without that support, owners were
reluctant to enforce their policies. If there
were no consequences for violating the policy,
owners anticipated that tenants would be more
likely to disregard the policy entirely.

Both Tenants and Owners Support a
Citywide Smoke-Free MUH Policy
Both tenants and owners support a citywide
policy, with the broadest support expressed
for a smoke-free tobacco policy: 88% of
tenants and 92% of owners favored such
a citywide policy (Exhibit 6). Marijuana
and e-cigarette policies were supported at a
slightly lower rate, but by the majority of
both groups.
‘‘
Owners without
policies reported
that enforcement
was a top
reason for not
implementing
a smoke-free
policy.’’
Exhibit 6 MUH Tenant and Owner Support for Citywide Policy, by Product Type Tobacco Marijuana E-Cigarette
88%
54%
77%
92%
68%
83%
Tenant Support by Product Type Owner Support by Product Type Source: Authors’ survey of tenants and owners in Los Angeles, 2019 Note: Tenants in 12 of 15 Los Angeles City Council Districts were surveyed.

Tenants in districts 8, 9, and 10 were not surveyed in this study. Owners were surveyed in all city districts.

Page 41 of 97 ends

UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH 7
Support for a citywide policy was higher
among MUH tenants and owners who had
smoke-free policies than among those in
MUH without such policies (97% vs. 92%
and 94% vs. 84%, respectively; data not
shown).

Barriers to Owners’ Support for Citywide
Smoke-Free Policy
In interviews, owners—especially those who
owned or managed large buildings—said
that they did not want the responsibility of
enforcing a citywide smoke-free policy. Some
were concerned that they would face fines or
other consequences if their tenants did not
comply with a citywide policy.

Many owners said they would be more likely
to support the policy if the city were to take
full responsibility for handling enforcement
or to make a commitment to enforcing it.

Many owners were unwilling to give support
without an enforcement provision.

However, a guarantee of city support for
enforcement did not ease the concerns of all
owners. Some expressed skepticism that a
city as large as Los Angeles would be able to
devote resources to enforcing MUH smokefree policies effectively.

Policy Implications and Recommendations
Our findings indicated that nearly half
of tenants of privately owned MUH in
Los Angeles were exposed to tobacco,
marijuana, and e-cigarette SHS in
their homes. Communities of color and
households with vulnerable populations were
disproportionately represented among tenants
exposed to SHS in their homes.

We found evidence of voluntary partial smokefree policies in privately owned MUH for specific units and common areas and of reduced
SHS exposure where these policies existed. We
found broad support for smoke-free policies
implemented by owners or citywide.

However, owners expressed concerns over
their ability to enforce their own or citywide
policies. Owners indicated that city support
for enforcement of owners’ policies was
essential. They believed that accountability
for enforcement of a citywide policy should
rest with the city, and that resources should
be devoted to effective enforcement of such
a policy. Additional findings from this
study can be found at https://healthpolicy.
ucla.edu/publications/search/pages/detail.
aspx?PubID=1933.

Our findings are similar to results from a
previous study of the three Los Angeles City
Council Districts that were not included in
this study.14
Our findings highlight the importance of
uniform and effective policies that can protect
all residents from the health risks of SHS in
their homes. Previous evidence shows that
uncertainty persists over how to implement
such policies, especially a city law, which
has been a significant barrier to a citywide
policy.15 The following recommendations
address such uncertainty.

Establish a single smoke-free MUH policy
that requires all MUH properties in the
city of Los Angeles to be 100% smoke-free
to protect all tenants. Such a policy would
support owners’ implementation of nosmoking policies covering the entire property and would protect all tenants. A citywide
policy would not require changes to leases
in rent-controlled areas or contribute to
gentrification.

Identify a viable smoke-free MUH policy
enforcement model to meet the needs of
tenants and owners. Enforcement is crucial
to ensuring the effectiveness of the policy.

Enforcement is likely to be most effective
if conducted by the city administration,
using the administrative citation process and
community justice approaches. Alternative
options to fines and evictions for violators can
‘‘
Enforcement
is crucial to
ensuring the
effectiveness of
the smoke-free
policy.’’

Page 42 of 97 ends

8 UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH
be considered, such as mandated cessation
education classes, community service, and
increasing penalties for repeat violations.

These options would not contribute to
homelessness and would address the concerns
of housing rights and tenants’ rights
advocates who fear the inappropriate use of
smoke-free policies to evict tenants.12
Engage and mobilize stakeholders to ensure
effective implementation. Broader public
support is needed to develop, implement, and
enforce a citywide smoke-free policy. Engaging
tenants, owners, housing advocates, apartment
associations, and community groups in the
development of a citywide policy and its
methods of enforcement is likely to promote
compliance and its effectiveness. The support
of 9 million California voters for Proposition
56 to enact the California Healthcare,
Research, and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act
may be an indication of the likely support for
such a policy.

Promote access to cessation resources to
support compliance and enforcement.

HUD’s model for smoke-free public housing
includes referral to cessation resources to
foster compliance. Educating tenants on the
effects of SHS, dispelling the perception that
marijuana and e-cigarettes are benign and
less harmful than tobacco or not harmful to
others, and assisting those who want to quit
all promote compliance with smoke-free
policies, reducing the need for enforcement.

Increasing awareness of available resources
—such as the California Smokers’ Helpline,
to help smokers quit, or the Truth Initiative,
which uses social media and youth network
texting to help individuals overcome
e-cigarette addiction—can help promote
smoke-free policy compliance.15
The recent COVID-19 pandemic and the
“shelter-in-place” orders have heightened
the importance of the home as a safe
sanctuary from exposure to unwanted and
harmful environmental threats to health.

For many tenants of privately owned MUH
in Los Angeles and elsewhere, home is not
a sanctuary from unwanted exposure to
secondhand smoke.

Methodology
We conducted the Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing
Evaluation in 12 Los Angeles City Council Districts:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Districts
8, 9, and 10 were surveyed in a similar project in
2016.

We adapted the MUH Tenant Survey from the 2012
Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Survey of the
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health,
Division of Chronic Disease and Injury, Tobacco
Control and Prevention Program. The MUH Tenant
Survey asked tenants about their experiences with
SHS in their homes, their support for a smoke-free
policy, and some demographic questions. Tenant
survey participants were adults ages 18 and older
living in multi-unit housing (e.g., apartments,
condominiums, and townhouses) in 12 Los Angeles
City Council Districts. No personal identifying
information was collected for the survey.

We engaged community partners, including Day
One, FAME Corporations, and Koreatown Youth
Community Center (KYCC), to conduct the tenant
surveys in English, Spanish, and Korean. Each
organization was assigned four council districts. A
total of 4,800 surveys were completed between May
and October of 2019, equally divided between each
council district.

We engaged the Apartment Association of Greater
Los Angeles (AAGLA), which has more than 6,000
members in the Greater Los Angeles area, to recruit
owners to take part in surveys and interviews.

MUH Owner Survey participants owned properties
throughout the city of Los Angeles, totaling 21,911
units. Surveys were conducted online using Survey
Monkey. Members of the evaluation team conducted
the interviews.

To participate in the MUH Owner Survey, owners
had to have a property in any Los Angeles City
Council District. Property managers could take the
survey if the owner was unavailable. We conducted
156 surveys and 20 phone interviews from June to
December 2019. The survey asked owners about their
experiences with SHS on their property and their
support for different types of smoke-free policies. Key informant interviews provided insights into owners’
views on voluntary and legislated smoke-free housing
policy and their recommendations for addressing
barriers to policy adoption.
‘‘
For many
tenants ...
home is not
a sanctuary
from unwanted
exposure to
secondhand
smoke.’’

Page 43 of 97 ends

UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH 9
Author Information
Peggy Toy is director of the Health DATA Program
at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

Catherine Yount is the evaluation coordinator and
Ying-Ying Meng the co-director of the Chronic
Disease Program at the UCLA Center for Health
Policy Research. William Zou and Jessica Ventura
are project assistants and Huongly K. Do a project
intern at the UCLA Center for Health Policy
Research. Nadereh Pourat is associate director of the
UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

Funder Information
This research and publication have been funded
by the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health, Division of Chronic Disease and Injury,
Tobacco Control and Prevention Program. This
content is solely the responsibility of the authors
and does not necessarily represent the official views
of the funder.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Claud Moradian, MPH,
Christine Cerven, PhD, and Tonya Gorham Gallow,
MSW, director, Los Angeles County Department
of Public Health–Tobacco Control and Prevention
Program; project partners Esther Schiller, Smokefree
Air For Everyone (S.A.F.E.); Daniel M. Yukelson,
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles;
Alisha Lopez and Michael Browning, Day One;
Diego Cruz, Ricardo Torres, and Antonio Le Mons,
FAME Corporations; and Jeff Yoo and Gennesis
Jerez, Koreatown Youth and Community Center.

The authors thank the following individuals for
their thoughtful reviews and helpful comments:

Michael K. Ong, MD, PhD, UCLA School of
Medicine and California Tobacco Education
and Research Oversight Committee chair; Liz
Williams, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights;
Nora D. Manzanilla, Office of the Los Angeles
City Attorney, Tobacco Enforcement Program;
and E. Felicia Brannon, MPA, government and
community relations consultant. The authors also
thank the following individuals for their guidance
and assistance: Tiffany Lopes, Venetia Lai, Elaiza
Torralba, and Celeste Maglan Peralta.

Suggested Citation
Toy P, Yount C, Meng YY, Zou W, Ventura J, Do
HK, Pourat N. 2020. Health at Risk: Policies Are
Needed to End Cigarette, Marijuana, and E-Cigarette
Secondhand Smoke in Multi-Unit Housing in Los
Angeles. Los Angeles, Calif.: UCLA Center for
Health Policy Research.

Endnotes
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2014.

The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress:

A Report of the Surgeon General. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/books/NBK179276/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK179276.pdf;
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2015. Let’s Make the Next Generation Tobacco-Free: Your Guide to the 50th Anniversary Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health. Office on Smoking and Health. https://www.hhs.
gov/sites/default/files/consequences-smoking-consumer-guide.pdf 2 California Tobacco Control Program, TobaccoFreeCA.
2020. Secondhand Dangers. https://tobaccofreeca.com/
secondhand-dangers/
3 California Tobacco Control Program. 2017.

Marijuana and Tobacco Use. Fact Sheet. Sacramento,
CA: California Department of Public Health. https://
www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/
CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/
FactsandFigures/MJAndTobaccoUseFac%20Sheet-CDPHCTCP-5-2017.pdf 4 Liqiao L, Yan L, Tian X, Yifang Z. 2020. Effects of
Electronic Cigarettes on Indoor Air Quality and Health.

Annual Review of Public Health 41(1): 1-18.
5 Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz S. 2013. Background Paper on E-Cigarettes. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education; University of California, San Francisco; and WHO Collaborating Center on Tobacco Control. https://
no-smoke.org/electronic-smoking-devices-secondhand-aerosol/ 6 Glantz SA, Bareham DW. 2018. E-Cigarettes: Use,
Effects on Smoking, Risks, and Policy Implications.

Annual Review of Public Health 39(1): 215-235.
7 Gardinar P. 2016. “The Triangulum: Tobacco, Marijuana and E-Cigarettes—The Future Is Now!” Tobacco-Related
Disease Research Program (TRDRP) Live Webcast,
UCSF. Oakland, Calif.: TDRP Research Grants Program
Office, University of California, Office of the President. 8 Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. 2020.

U.S. Laws for 100% Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing.
https://center4tobaccopolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ Multi-housing-Case-Study.pdf
9 American Lung Association, Center for Tobacco Policy
and Organizing. 2019. Evaluating Smoke-Free Multi-Unit
Housing Policies of Berkeley and Huntington Park, California. https://center4tobaccopolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ Multi-housing-Case-Study.pdf
10 Los Angeles Times. 2016. Population Density: Mapping L.A. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from Wikipedia,
2020.
11 UCLA-SAFE Smoke-Free Apartments Los Angeles.
2015. Formative Assessment for Communications Key
Informant Interviews. Los Angeles, Calif.: UCLA Center
for Health Policy Research.
12 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Tobacco Control and Prevention Program. 2019.

Collaborative Approaches to Smoke-Free Multi-Unit
Housing in a Large Metropolitan Area 2019. National
Conference on Tobacco or Health (NCTOH) 2019. This
citation is from a presentation at the National Conference (cited, not published or posted).
13 Meng YY, Rahman T, Hanaya D, Lam V, Gomez M, Toy
P, Wallace SP. 2016. Unequal Protection: Secondhand Smoke Threatens Health of Tenants in Multi-Unit Housing in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, Calif.: UCLA Center for Health
Policy Research.
14 Meng YY, Lam V, Hanaya D, Rahman T, Gomez M, Toy
P, Wallace S. 2016. Apartment Owners Support Nonsmoking Policy in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, Calif.: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.
15 Graham AL, Jacobs MA, Amato MS. 2020. Engagement
and 3-Month Outcomes From a Digital E-Cigarette
Cessation Program in a Cohort of 27,000 Teens and
Young Adults. Nicotine & Tobacco Research (22) 5: 859-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntz097

Page 44 of 97 ends

UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH
10960 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1550
Los Angeles, California 90024
The UCLA Center
for Health Policy Research
is part of the
UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

The analyses, interpretations, conclusions,
and views expressed in this policy brief are
those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the UCLA Center for Health Policy
Research, the Regents of the University
of California, or collaborating
organizations or funders.

Editor-in-Chief: Ninez A. Ponce, PhD
Phone: 310-794-0909
Fax: 310-794-2686
Email: [email protected]
healthpolicy.ucla.edu
Read this publication online Page 45 of 97
July 2021
www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco
Under California law, it is illegal to smoke cannabis in public places, including anywhere that smoking tobacco1
is prohibited.2
In many communities throughout the state, however, as in the growing number of states that legalize medical and recreational cannabis, questions continue to arise about the smoking of cannabis in multi-unit housing.

This fact sheet answers common questions for California property owners and tenants about the possible health risks of cannabis smoke, the “right” to smoke cannabis, various options for regulating the smoking and vaping of cannabis in multi-unit residences, and similarities between smoke-free tobacco and cannabis policies.

REGULATING

CANNABIS SMOKING
in Multi-Unit Housing

Page 46 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 2 Q: What are the health risks of secondhand cannabis smoke? A: Limited research has been done on the risks of exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke, in contrast to the decades of scientific studies on secondhand tobacco smoke.3 Recent
studies, however, have shown that emissions from burning cannabis and tobacco cigarettes contain many of the same toxins, irritants, and carcinogens.4 Among the thirty-three known carcinogens present in cannabis smoke are acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, chromium, formaldehyde, isoprene, lead, mercury, nickel, and quinoline.5 As most Californians have learned in recent years, smoke inhalation is a health risk, whether from a cigarette, a joint, a campfire, or a wildfire. Both tobacco and cannabis smoke contain inhalable airborne particles that can cause respiratory symptoms, such as coughing, phlegm, and wheezing and can exacerbate health problems, especially for people with respiratory conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.6 Secondhand smoke exposure and particulate inhalation also increases the risk of coronary heart disease7
and stroke.8 Moreover, heavy exposure to cannabis smoke can result in measurable concentrations of THC (the ingredient that produces cannabis’s psychoactive effect) in nonusers’ blood serum and urine.9
Exposure to cannabis smoke in an unventilated
setting has caused participants to experience minor increases in heart rate and impaired cognitive performance.10
Also, a 2016 study in rats found that secondhand exposure to cannabis smoke affected a measure of blood vessel function as much as secondhand tobacco smoke and had longer lasting effects.11 Although this research has not yet been conducted with humans, the toxins and other substances present in cannabis smoke raise troubling questions about the impact of secondhand smoke exposure on vulnerable individuals, such as infants, children, and anyone with a serious lung condition.12
The California Environmental Protection Agency includes cannabis smoke on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer and reproductive/developmental toxicity.13 Also, as an indication of concern about the health risks of exposure to cannabis smoke, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) includes cannabis smoke (as well as emissions from electronic smoking devices) in its definition of “environmental tobacco smoke.”14 ASHRAE’s national air standards have long been cited by tobacco control advocates, along with the Society’s position that the only way to effectively eliminate the health risks posed by indoor exposure to secondhand smoke is to prohibit smoking.

July 2021

Page 47 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 3 Q: Do California tenants have the right to smoke cannabis in multi-unit apartment buildings?
A: Although California has legalized the adult use of recreational cannabis, there is no absolute right to smoke cannabis anywhere, just as there is no constitutional right to smoke tobacco, particularly when smoking impacts others.15 Secondhand smoke, whether from combustible or aerosolized tobacco (e.g., e-cigarettes) or cannabis or cannabis products, can seep throughout multi-unit buildings from areas where smoking occurs, via ventilation systems, plumbing, or electrical lines.16 Secondhand smoke can easily spread throughout a multi-unit building, compromising the health of all exposed to it. According to one U.S. study, 50 percent of residents in ostensibly smoke-free multi-unit buildings still experienced smoke entering into their units from adjacent units.17
Q: Who has legal authority under California law to require that a multi-unit property be smoke-free?
A: Under California law, landlords and multi-unit residential property owners have the legal authority to make their properties smoke-free.18 This includes prohibiting the smoking or vaping of recreational or medical cannabis in individual units and common areas.19 Also, if a complex includes a playground or tot lot sandbox area, the landlord is required by law to prohibit smoking within 25 feet of the area.20
There is no
constitutional right
to smoke, particularly
when it impacts others
July 2021

Page 48 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 4 Local governments also have legal authority to enact smoke-free legislation that includes the smoking or vaping of cannabis. As of April 2021, sixty-five California cities and counties have enacted laws that prohibit smoking in private units of multi-unit housing properties.21 A growing number of these smoke-free laws include the smoking or vaping of cannabis.22 Q: What are the benefits of a smoke-free multi-unit
housing policy that prohibits the smoking or vaping of cannabis? A: A multi-unit housing policy that allows the smoking and vaping of tobacco and cannabis products can result in high maintenance and turnover costs, due to the need to clean, renovate, and refurbish units where heavy smoking has occurred. At a time of housing scarcity in California, a smoke-free policy can help property managers prevent complexes from deteriorating and prolong the viability of as many units as possible. Smoking or vaping in residences also raises the risk of fires. Cigarettes have long been a leading cause of residential fire deaths, and fires caused by cigarette smoking result in over $300 million in property loss each year.23 For example, in California the July 2020 Clay Fire, which burned 730 acres and required the efforts of eight fire departments (and numerous agencies and power companies) to manage, was ignited by a cigarette butt.* Limited research is available on the smoldering and burning properties of cannabis cigarettes.24 Cannabis, however, is commonly vaped via a variety of electronic devices, which on occasion have exploded and caused injury and death, as well as fire.25 Finally, allowing the smoking or vaping of cannabis on the premises could generate resident complaints due to drifting smoke or aerosol and even lead to Fair Housing Act complaints or lawsuits.26 In contrast, a smoke-free housing policy creates a healthier indoor environment, reduces turnover costs, lowers the risk of litigation, decreases the likelihood of fire, and helps meet the needs and preferences of most residents.27 Also, some property insurance companies offer a discount for buildings that have a smoke-free policy.

Q: What can California tenants do if a neighbor in their multi-unit complex smokes cannabis?
A: Tenants have the right to breathe clean air and not be exposed to secondhand smoke in their own home. The Law and Policy Partnership to End the Commercial Tobacco Epidemic has released a Tenant Guide to Addressing Secondhand Smoke (including cannabis smoking or vaping) for California cities and counties.28 The guide is designed to help California tenants understand options available to them when they experience any type of secondhand smoke * Cal Fire, Clay Fire (July 30, 2020), https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/7/29/clay-fire.

July 2021

Page 49 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 5 in multi-unit housing. The resource is organized roughly in the order that options should be considered, with litigation included only as a last resort.

Q: Can California tenants in apartment buildings who are registered users of medical cannabis claim they can smoke or vape medically prescribed cannabis in their units because they are disabled and entitled to rights as a protected class under the Americans with Disabilities Act? What about the claim that they are entitled to “reasonable accommodations” under the federal Fair Housing Act?29
A: This is an interesting question. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability.30 For example, the Act requires housing providers to make “reasonable accommodations”31 in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit or common space.32 Under the Fair Housing Act, individuals are disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, have a record of such impairment, or are regarded as having an impairment.33 Many individuals authorized to use medical cannabis would likely qualify as disabled under this definition.

July 2021

Page 50 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 6 The Fair Housing Act, however, states that a handicap “does not include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance”34 as defined in the federal Controlled Substances Act.35 Although several states have passed laws legalizing its sale and use, cannabis continues to be categorized as a Schedule 1 drug under federal law (that is, a drug with high potential for abuse with no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.).36 Thus, it remains a federal offense to possess or use cannabis.37 Because federal law supersedes state law, questions have naturally arisen about federal preemption of these state cannabis laws. In 2013, in an attempt to clarify the federal position on the enforcement of cannabis laws, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the administration would not prosecute individuals or organizations engaged in cannabis activities that are conducted in clear compliance with state and local narcotics laws that permit and regulate these activities.38 This continues to be the federal stance in the Biden administration.

Thus, even though the Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, cannabis’s current status as a Schedule 1 drug makes it unclear whether such a case brought under this federal civil rights law would succeed.39 One note: As mentioned above, secondhand smoke poses health risks — especially to vulnerable individuals — and can exacerbate existing disabilities in other tenants. This, in turn, could defeat the purpose of the ADA when applied to medical cannabis use in multi-unit buildings.

Q: If a multi-unit property owner would like to adopt a policy that prohibits residents from smoking cannabis in their residences, what other grounds could be used as a basis for the policy? A: Depending on the jurisdiction, and whether a smoke-free law at the local level has declared secondhand smoke to be a “nuisance,” the housing association might be able to prohibit or otherwise restrict the smoking of cannabis on the property on the ground that it is a nuisance40 or violates the rental property’s “warranty of habitability.”41 Q: What steps should landlords or multi-unit property
owners take if they want to prohibit the smoking of cannabis in their residences?
A: First, landlords and property owners should be aware of (or consult an attorney familiar with) laws regarding cannabis use in their jurisdiction. These laws vary in California cities and counties, particularly regarding cannabis use in multi-unit housing.42 Next, landlords and property owners should include language regarding the smoking of cannabis in their lease or rental agreements. These provisions should clearly and explicitly July 2021

Page 51 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 7 specify the type of cannabis use prohibited on the property, premises covered by the policy (inside and outside), and the consequences of lease violations.

The Law and Policy Partnership to End the Commercial Tobacco Epidemic has released a Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Model Ordinance for California cities and counties that can be easily adapted to include the smoking or vaping of cannabis.43 Q: If a landlord or owner of a market rate property grants a tenant’s request to use medical cannabis on the premises, does that mean that other residents run the risk of being exposed to cannabis smoke?
A: A “reasonable accommodation” should not result in the potential exposure of others to secondhand cannabis smoke.44 Several methods for ingesting medical cannabis — such as extracts, tinctures, oils, edibles, pills, and cannabis inhalers — would not expose other residents to cannabis smoke.45 Although each individual’s medical situation is different and some methods of ingesting cannabis might not have the same effect as smoking cannabis, a middle ground might be reached for many cannabis users, in concert with advice from the referring physician. Note that these methods of consumption are also available for recreational cannabis.

Q: Can public housing authorities prohibit the smoking of cannabis in federally subsidized housing?
A: Yes. Secondhand smoke, whether from tobacco or cannabis products, spreads throughout multi-unit dwellings. Public and other subsidized housing owners have the same rights as owners of non-public housing to adopt smoke-free policies.46 These smoke-free policies may include a prohibition on smoking of medical, as well as recreational, cannabis. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) explicitly states that if applicants for public or Section 8 housing are known users of cannabis (medical or otherwise), their applications must be denied.47 Also, if current residents request a reasonable accommodation to allow them to use medical cannabis in their unit, the request must be denied, as that may set an expectation that all residents in similar situations could expect an accommodation.48 In a memo released January 20, 2011, HUD clarified that the Public Housing Reform Act allows (but does not compel) public housing authorities to terminate assistance for existing residents if they use a controlled substance.49 Public housing authorities have discretion to determine those policies deemed most appropriate for their local communities, including denying assistance or terminating individual medical cannabis users, rather than entire households, for July 2021

Page 52 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 8 both applicants and existing residents. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved for medicinal use drugs comprised of cannabis derivatives and synthetics (such as Epidiolex, Marinol, and Cesament), which are not medical cannabis or Schedule 1 drugs, and are thus allowed in public housing and voucher programs.50
Q: Doesn’t HUD’s smoke-free rule prohibit the use of
cannabis by residents in public housing?
A: No. HUD requires that public housing agencies prohibit the use of tobacco products in all indoor areas. This smoke-free requirement, which took effect July 31, 2018, applies to all public housing, but does not include all federally subsidized housing, such as dwelling units in mixed-finance buildings or privately owned dwellings financed under Section 8 of the Housing Act. The rule covers combustible tobacco products, such as cigarettes, cigars, and pipes, as well as hookahs, but does not include e-cigarettes or similar devices, or the smoking or vaping of cannabis. Property managers can opt to apply their facility smoke-free standards to e-cigarettes and other products not covered by the HUD standard.

Because cannabis is a federally prohibited substance, the use and possession of this drug is already prohibited on HUD-funded (and other federal) properties, regardless of HUD’s smokefree law. Federal law preempts state law, including in those states where the use of medical or recreational cannabis is now legal.

Q: Can public housing agencies evict residents who use
medical cannabis?
A: Yes, it is within their discretion to do this, but it should be considered only as a last resort after other alternatives have proved unsuccessful.51 Ironically, the same smoke-free policies that are in place to protect residents and improve their housing stability are policies that, when enforced, may put another resident’s housing stability in jeopardy because of possible penalties or eviction.52 The impact of eviction upon an individual and family can be devastating and this measure should be avoided if at all possible. A structure of graduated penalties helps ensure better compliance with a smoke-free policy by providing multiple steps for enforcement and giving residents the opportunity to change their behavior before infractions rise to the level of lease termination.53 HUD’s 2011 memo mentioned above stated that residents who revealed cannabis use on their public housing applications would be denied admission to Public Housing or Housing Choice Voucher programs, regardless of their circumstances, since cannabis is a controlled substance.54 However, the memo also gave public housing authorities (and, most often, July 2021

Page 53 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 9 individual landlords) the right to use their discretion on how to execute medical cannabis lease provisions. Housing authorities will need to conduct individual assessments of each individual request, focusing on the right of all tenants to have equal access to safe and clean air.

Also, as noted earlier, not only are several FDA-approved cannabis synthetics and derivatives available, but medical cannabis users can ingest the drug in a variety of ways that do not result in secondhand smoke exposure of fellow tenants.

Q: What are some basic guidelines for multi-unit residential property owners and housing authorities who would like to prohibit or restrict the smoking or vaping of cannabis on their property? A: Property owners and housing agencies need to clearly communicate their cannabis-related policies to all residents, housing applicants, and visitors. They can do this by updating their established occupancy standards and lease provisions, and providing handouts to tenants, prospective tenants, or visitors.

Below are a few basic considerations to keep in mind when implementing any smoke-free policy. { Clearly define “smoking,” vaping, and related terms in any lease and rental agreements in buildings designated as No-Smoking or Non-Smoking. If a property’s smoke-free (or tobacco-free) policy covers the smoking and vaping of cannabis, be explicit about what that entails and what areas are included (for example, indoor common areas and residential units). Other areas covered under such a policy could include outside premises, such as walkways, parking lots, balconies, porches, patios or decks of individual units, and areas near doorways, windows, and air vents.
{ Explain the policy’s rationale. Make sure that residents, guests, employees, and others associated with a multi-unit property understand the health risks related to smoking, vaping, and exposure to secondhand smoke and aerosol.
{ Apply the smoke-free policy uniformly to all residents, guests, and employees. { Ensure that an effective enforcement plan is in place that describes the process for handling violations. (The Partnership’s model ordinance does not include criminal sanctions for those who smoke, and focuses primary responsibility for enforcement on landlords by holding them accountable with appropriate civil penalties if they allow smoking or otherwise violate the local ordinance.)
{ Prepare tenants and staff for implementation of the policy by providing, for example, announcements, educational material or presentations, staff training, and signage.

July 2021

Page 54 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 10 Q: Where can I get additional information about issues
related to smoking or vaping cannabis and parallels between cannabis regulation and tobacco control policies?
A: In addition to the Law and Policy Partnership to End the Commercial Tobacco Epidemic’s tobacco-free housing resources, the Public Health Law Center’s web page contains several publications and resources on smoke-free housing, including resources that discuss concepts related to condominiums, apartments and other multi-unit dwellings, affordable housing, and smoke-free housing disclosure policies. Many of these materials may be relevant for those seeking to regulate the use of cannabis products. Cannabis-specific legal resources include the Center’s policy briefs, Toking, Smoking, & Public Health: Lessons from Tobacco Control for Marijuana Regulation (2018) and There is No Constitutional Right to Smoke or Toke (2019), and several archived webinars. Also, the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation’s website has several resources related to secondhand tobacco and cannabis smoke, including regularly updated maps of state and local laws prohibiting the smoking and vaping of cannabis.

For more information about California’s cannabis-related laws and policies, as well as a wealth of state-specific cannabis resources, check out the California Cannabis Portal.

This publication was prepared by the American Lung Association in California and the Public Health Law Center, a nonprofit organization that provides information and legal technical assistance on issues related to public health. The Center does not provide legal representation or advice. The information in this document should not be considered legal advice. This case study was made possible by funds received from Grant Number 19-10229 with the California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program, and the American Lung Association in California.

Endnotes
1 The Public Health Law Center recognizes that traditional and commercial tobacco are different in the ways they are planted, grown, harvested, and used. Traditional tobacco is and has been used in sacred ways by Indigenous communities and tribes for centuries. Comparatively, commercial tobacco is manufactured with chemical additives for recreational use and profit, resulting in disease and death. For more information, visit: http://www.keepitsacred.itcmi.org.

When the word “tobacco” is used throughout this document, a commercial context is implied and intended. 2 Cal. Health Safety Code § 11362.3(a)(2), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=11362.3.&lawCode=HSC. Note that Section 11362.1 does permit the smoking or ingesting of cannabis or cannabis products in a public place if it is in accordance with Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code. This would include, for example, smoking cannabis at temporary events or on the premises of a licensed retailer or microbusiness, if all specified requirements are met. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=10.&title=&part=&chapter=20.&article= 3 See, e.g., Matthew Springer and Stanton Glantz, Marijuana Use and Heart Disease: Potential Effects of Public Exposure to Smoke (April 22, 2015), https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/marijuana-use-and-heart-disease-potential-effects-public-exposure-smoke.

July 2021

Page 55 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 11 4 See, e.g., UCLA, Secondhand Marijuana Smoke: What are the Risks to Your Health? (2020), https://connect.uclahealth. org/2020/10/29/secondhand-marijuana-smoke-what-are-the-risks-to-your-health. 5 Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Cannabis Smoke (2015), http://oehha.ca.gov/ prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/FinalMJsmokeHID.pdf.
6 See, e.g., Hannah Holitzki et al., Health Effects of Exposure to Second- and Third-hand Cannabis Smoke: A Systematic Review, 5 Can. Med. Ass’n J., E814–E822 (2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5741419; Nat’l Inst. Drug Abuse, What Are the Effects of Secondhand Exposure to Cannabis Smoke (2020), https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/cannabis/what-are-effects-secondhand-exposure-to-cannabis-smoke; Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, Secondhand Cannabis Smoke (2021), https://no-smoke.org/secondhand-cannabis-smoke-fact-sheet. 7 See, e.g., Joaquin Barnoya & Stanton Glantz, Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke, 111 Circulation 2684-98 (2005), https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.492215. 8 See, e.g., Angela Malek et al., Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Stroke: The Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study, 49 Am J. Prev. Med. e89–e97 (2015), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4656115. 9 Rosalie Liccardo Pacula et al., Developing Public Health Regulations for Cannabis: Lessons from Alcohol and Tobacco, 104 Am. J. Pub. Health 1021, 1024 (2014).
10 Evan S. Herrmann et al., Non-Smoker Exposure to Secondhand Cannabis Smoke II: Effect of Room Ventilation on the Physiological, Subjective, and Behavioral/Cognitive Effects, 151 Drug Alcohol Depend. 194–202 (2015), https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4747424.
11 Xiaoyin Wang et al., One Minute of Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Exposure Substantially Impairs Vascular Endothelial Function, 5 J. Am. Heart Assoc. e03858 (2016), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015303. 12 See id.
13 Cal. Office of Env’l Health Hazard Assessment, Cannabis (Marijuana) Smoke (2009, 2020), https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/cannabis-marijuana-smoke. 14 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Standards for Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality — Standards 62.1-62.2 (2016).
15 Public Health Law Center, There is No Constitutional Right to Smoke or Toke (2019), https://www.publichealthlawcenter. org/sites/default/files/resources/No-Constitutional-Right-Smoke-Toke-2019.pdf. Note that although Alaska has a privacy right that covers the consumption of cannabis in the home, this does not mean Alaskans have a right to expose fellow tenants to secondhand smoke. Id. at 12-13.
16 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, Going Smokefree Matters: Multiunit Housing (2020), https://www.cdc.gov/ tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/going-smokefree-matters/multi-unit. 17 Andrea S. Gentzke et al., Attitudes and Experiences with Secondhand Smoke and Smoke-Free Policies Among Subsidized and Market-Rate Multiunit Housing Residents Living in Six Diverse Communities in the USA, 27 Tobacco Control 194, 194 (2018). 18 Cal. Civ. Code §1947.5, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1947.5. 19 Clifford E. Douglas, Smoke-free Environments Law Project, Restricting the Use of Medical Cannabis in Multi-Unit Residential Settings: Legal and Practical Considerations (2010), http://www.mismokefreeapartment.org/MManalysis.pdf. 20 Cal. Health and Safety Code § 104495.
21 American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, U.S. Laws for 100% Smokefree Multi-Unit Housing (2021). https://no-smoke. org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/smokefreemuh.pdf. Most of these laws — 56 municipalities — apply to properties with two or more units.

July 2021

Page 56 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 12 22 See, e.g., Santa Clara Ordinance 2029 (2021), Smokefree Santa Clara | City of Santa Clara (santaclaraca.gov); Palo Alto Municipal Code 9.1 (2021), https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-6175; Mountain View, Kevin Forestieri, Mountain View Bans Smoking in Multifamily Residences, Including Common Areas and Inside Areas, Mountain View Voice (May 26, 2021), https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2021/05/26/mountain-view-bans-smokingin-multi-family-residences-including-common-areas-and-inside-units. 23 Brian King et al., National and State Cost Savings Associated with Prohibiting Smoking in Subsidized and Public Housing in the United States, 11 Prev Chronic Disease 40222 (2014), https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/14_0222.htm. 24 See, e.g., Maryanne Fakeh Campbell et al., E-cigarette Environmental and Fire/Life Safety Risks in Schools Reported by Secondary School Teachers, 20 BMC Public Health 1215 (2020), https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09319-8. 25 See Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, E-cigarette Explosions and Fires (2021), https://no-smoke.org/ wp-content/uploads/pdf/E-Cigarette-Explosions-and-Fires.pdf 26 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.
27 Michael Ong et al., Estimates of Smoking Related Property Costs in California Multiunit Housing, 102 Am. J Public Health 90-93 (2012), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3487653. 28 See Public Health Law Center, Tenant Guide to Addressing Secondhand Smoke (2020), https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/Tenants-Rights-Guide.pdf. 29 See generally Public Health Law Center, Smoke-free Public Housing: Reasonable Accommodations (2021), https://www. publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/Smoke-Free-Public-Housing-Reasonable-Accommodations.pdf. 30 Id. Note that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act also ensures that individuals with disabilities have equal access to fair housing. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604; 12102.
31 See generally U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, People with Disabilities web page (HUD.Gov), http://portal. hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/sect504faq#anchor257647; see also U.S. Dep’t of Justice & U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act (May 5, 2008) (Joint Statement), https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/huddojstatement.pdf. 32 42 U.S.C. § 3602 (h).
33 42 U.S.C. § 3602 (h); see also Douglas, supra note 18, at 4. 34 42 U.S.C. § 3602 (h).
35 21 U.S.C. § 802.
36 Id.
37 See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1); 844(a); 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). 38 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Guidance Regarding Cannabis Enforcement (Aug. 29, 2013), http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf. The U.S. Department of Justice’s priorities are: “Preventing the distribution of cannabis to minors; preventing revenue from the sale of cannabis from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels; preventing the diversion of cannabis from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states; preventing state-authorized cannabis activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity; preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of cannabis; preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with cannabis use; preventing the growing of cannabis on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by cannabis production on public lands; and preventing cannabis possession or use on federal property.” Id. at 1-2.

July 2021

Page 57 of 97 ends

www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Regulating Cannabis Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 13 39 See Douglas, supra note 19, at 4.
40Pot May be Legal in Some States — But the Neighbors Don’t Have to Like It, U.S. News & World Report (July 25, 2014), http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2014/07/25/pot-may-be-legal-but-homeowner-agreements-can-ban. 41 See, e.g., Public Health Law Center, Smoke-free Housing and Rent Abatement (2019), https://www.publichealthlawcenter. org/sites/default/files/resources/Smoke-Free-Housing-Rent-Abatement-MN-2019.pdf. 42 These laws vary among states as well. In Massachusetts, for example, landlords can prohibit cannabis smoking via a lease agreement, but cannot prohibit the consumption of cannabis edibles or other non-smoking forms. Mass. Cannabis Control Commission, Consumption of Cannabis for Adult Use (last accessed June 5, 2021), https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fact-Sheet-Consumption.pdf. They can, however, prohibit the use of non-smoked cannabis if failing to do so would cause the landlord to violate a federal law or regulation, or if the property is owned by the Commonwealth, a subdivision of the Commonwealth (e.g., a county, city, or town), or a state or local government agency. Id. In Rhode Island, no landlord may refuse to lease to, or otherwise penalize, a renter solely because of the renter’s status as a medical cannabis cardholder. The landlord does have the discretion, however, not to lease, or continue to lease, to a cardholder who cultivates cannabis in the leased premises. R.I. Stat. Title 21, Sec. 21-28. 6-4, http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE21/21-28.6/21-28.6-4.HTM. 43 Public Health Law Center, Smoke-free Multi-Unit Housing Model Ordinance (2020), https://www.publichealthlawcenter. org/sites/default/files/resources/CA-Smoke-free-MUH-Model-Ordinance.pdf. 44 Douglas, supra note 19, at 7.
45 Rachel Ann Barry et al., Waiting for the Opportune Moment: The Tobacco Industry and Cannabis Legalization, 92 Milbank Quarterly 207, 208-9 (2014), http://bit.ly/1uUpJeb.
46 HUD Notice PIH-2012-25, May 29, 2012 (“This notice strongly encourages Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to implement non-smoking policies in some or all of their public housing units.… PHAs are permitted and strongly encouraged to implement a non-smoking policy at their discretion, subject to state and local law.”). 47 See Memorandum from Helen R. Kanovsky, Medical Use of Cannabis and Reasonable Accommodation in Federal Public and Assisted Housing 2, Jan. 20, 2011, http://www.scribd.com/doc/47657807/HUD-policy-Memo-on-Medical-Cannabis-in-Public-Housing#download. 48 Id.
49 Id. at 10-11.
50 U.S. Food & Drug Admin., FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers, http:// www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm. 51 See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t Housing and Urban Development, Use of Cannabis in Multifamily Assisted Properties (2014), https:// www.hud.gov/sites/documents/USEOFMARIJINMFASSISTPROPTY.PDF. 52 See Public Health Law Center, Smoke-free Multi-Unit Housing: Equitable Enforcement Strategies (2020), https://www. publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/SF-MUH-Equitable-Enforcement-Strategies.pdf, 53 Id.
54 U.S. Dep’t Housing and Urban Development, Medical Cannabis Use in Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs (Feb. 10, 2011), http://portal.hud.gov/huddoc/med-cannabis.pdf.

July 2021

Page 58 of 97 ends

Covina City CouncilJanuary 18, 2022

Covina City Council
January 18, 2022