Public Comment Item #1
From: CONNIE PATIN
To: Downey City Clerk - Public Comment; Alicia Duarte
Subject: Urban Lot Splits and Two -Unit Projects Comment to be Read at City County meeting on January 26, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 2:36:45 PM
Email 1:
From:
Dear Downey City Council,
This letter is in regards to PLN-22-0004 (zone text amendment) - Amend sections of Chapter 3 and Chapter 9 of Article IX of the Municipal Code regarding Urban Lot Splits and Two -Unit Projects within Single -Family Residential (R-1) zones.
Please read this out loud, please read it into the record, please put into the formal records at the Downey City Council meeting.
To whom it may concern;
After reading the very lengthy and detailed 33 page Downey Planning Commission Agenda Resolution (Downey PC Agenda Resolution) regarding the above Zone Tax Amendment, I'm left with many unclear issues. I simply want to point them out as best I can. Please excuse the lengthy and rambling nature. The amendment is quite lengthy and detailed.
There are numerous situations that are bound to come up depending on the lot being considered especially if it's a lot with an alley as additional public access, or corner lots, or very long narrow lots when considering lot splits. When you have a corner lot, especially a large corner lot, somewhere in the 5,000 to 10,000 square -foot range, it seems like there should be a lot of allowances made especially because you have two street frontages. Things like driveway access, numerical addresses, setbacks, utilities, sewers, electrical panel, main line and their respective locations, and I can't imagine all of the things, probably dozens of them, but certainly things that have not been addressed here in this hearing or in the amendment. It's not like you or anyone can be expected to address all of these many, many details that are not predictable or known today and also the decisions made in this legislation could have many unintended consequences that would actually make it unobtainable for a homeowner to have additional housing even though that is the state's exact objective. This impact could haunt us for years and years to come.
Considerations: Things like easements running through the existing lot or even setbacks that may be being a little bit less than what is in this legislation depending on each housing lot's unique situations. Or, what if you're just a little shy of the 2400 ft.2 or what if the lot line isn't perfectly straight but needs to be jogged in order to create the lot split. Or what does access from public right of way mean. Could the new lot have a driveway that allows that access so a really deep lot could be split allowing for the intention of the state law which is to create more housing. Or could access be the public alley which is wide enough for emergency vehicles but not 40 ft, as mentioned in the legislation. Relying on the city planner to handle these "one offs" leaves the project up to possible unfair barriers, frustration and eventual withdrawal from a well intentioned homeowner seeking to add housing to her property.
Thank you,
Connie Patin
Public Comment Item # 1
From: Trevor Rodri-guez
To: Downey City Clerk - Public Comment; Alicia Duarte
Subject: Urban Lot Splits and Two -Unit Projects Comment to be Read at City County meeting on January 26, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 2:49:34 PM
Email 2:
From:
ltererli#YILLZI�
Dear Downey City Council,
This letter is in regards to PLN-22-0004. Please read this out loud, please read it into the record, please put into the formal records at the Downey City Council meeting.
It just seems like there's a lot of complicated details here that I can't even predict. I can't foresee what kind of obscure things that might be asked for in the future. It would really cost a lot of money to hire a lawyer so I think the city should have somebody available (for free or reasonable cost) to walk people through it, like an advocate for the citizen, who is independent of city influence, and helps the average citizen navigate the intention of state law when the time comes that somebody wants to try to sift through all of these various rules regulations and requirements. They can be complicated. There clearly lies the potential of overly regulating the unknowing citizen and thus preventing the lot split and potential two units per lot. The state law indicates that the city can impose "objective standards" to protect the character of single family neighborhoods, a very important consideration. But this goal could easily become a deterrence to the state mandated objective, especially to the unknowledgeable homeowner. It becomes even more ambiguous when S139 states that objective standards may apply "...as long as the standards do not prevent urban lot splits or the development of two units on a lot." What the heck does that mean? It's unclear. Does that mean that the city HAS TO find a way to allow the particular lot split and duplex? Or could it be more broadly interpreted to mean that the lot splits and duplexes can be done somewhere else in the city, but just not on your lot...? That allows a lot of subjectivity, which is the entire objective of the state law, to remove that subjectivity on a local level and to find ways to create more housing. Finding that balance, depending on the particular zeal to protect what a administerial reviewer might feel is "too much density" or "altering the character of the neighborhood." One planner's belief that an "altering of the neighborhood character" has occurred, might unwittingly prevent or hinder the attempt of the homeowner to pursue the additional housing mandate intended by the state law. A reasonable and common sense request could easily become bogged down and spiral to frustration and eventual abandonment of the pursuit by the homeowner when in reality he had the right to the additional housing he was seeking, but out if frustration or simple intimidation of the process and disparate authority influence relationship, many homeowners due to that power imbalance, lack of knowledge and tenacity, may retreat or become discouraged to pursue their legal right to add additional housing, in direct contradiction to the state's mandate.
Thank you,
i
evor Rodri uez
Public Comment Item # 1
From: Garrett Rodriguez
To: Downey City Clerk - Public Comment; Alicia Duarte
Subject: Urban Lot Splits and Two -Unit Projects Comment to be Read at City Council meeting on January 26, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:00:27 PM
Email 3
From:
Dear Downey City Council,
This letter is in regards to PLN-22-0004. Please read this out loud, into the record, and put into the formal records at the Downey City Council Meeting.
Many restrictions are imposed, to be allowed the project. You might be asked you if the property is your primary residence. There's restrictions about renting it, there's restrictions about selling it, it gets very complicated especially if you have exceptions in your life that might require you to have to sell it or maybe not live in it or what your extended family might want or need to live there, and what is the homeowner definition of primary residence? Possibly fair allowances, like split families, occupancy part time, or multigenerational family situations, or multiple family ownership and some occupy while some don't, what about adult children living in the residence? Some on title. Different types of title holdings. All of those things become very complicated and I don't know if that's all being addressed here at this time but it might become important in the future.
Utilities are also a real challenge. You definitely want to have the ADU/1 Unit/2 units to have separate utilities, so sometimes how those utilities get there from the city connection is of concern, how they're paid for, or how they're accessed could become challenging issues in the future but I can't quite put my head around right now. Minimum and maximum lot width in depth and setbacks, setbacks between existing structures, if they are live-in structures vs. just garages, can also be feasible homeowner requests for variances or exceptions requested and unreadably denied, which can't all be considered in a hearing like this.. There might be some issues about how many houses on your block are allowed to do this. Maybe somebody might try to restrict somebody else because they think the block has too many, or they just don't like the idea of additional density on their street. What about parking and offstreet parking. I know they say that you can't require that, but maybe somebody wants to have parking on their lot, maybe that person should be given a greater allowance in their project because they're actually creating "offstreet" parking and helping the neighborhood parking density issue, but maybe they're then told that they are restricted somehow, when logically they should be given more allowance.
Are you going to then be forced to bring the old structure into compliance before the new structure, which is going to alleviate the housing crisis, to be built. Especially if it might help moderate our low income housing people or extended family members that may or may not be homeless or meet requirements for earnings below the poverty level. A lot of ADUA Unit/2 Units that could be built for family members, grandparents, parents, siblings, adult children, step family, nieces, nephews, and other extended `familial' or sponsored persons.
To try to address all of those things in today's legislation is too onerous so I just thought I would bring that up now in case it's a problem in the future. And what if one property that's already in existence has some old issues that are unresolved. Say it has structural or other non -permitted things, (but still safe and
functional) or similar, that now have to be dealt with before the new structure is permitted. Will they be prevented from pursuing their project? They probably will. That would create the possibility of the new structure not being permitted, which would not allow the housing crisis to be alleviated because now that new ADU/1 Unit/2 unit would not be able to be built because it's being restricted by the previous home's old issues.
Are older structures being grandfathered in? A lot of older homes in Downey don't even have original permits in the Downey files. Is it going to be subjective and, thus, limiting to those homeowners? Best Regards,
Garrett Rodriguez
Public Comment Item # 1
From: Darren Rodriguez
To: Downey City Clerk - Public Comment; Alicia Duarte
Subject: Urban Lot Splits and Two -Unit Projects Comment to be Read at City County meeting on January 26, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:16:13 PM
Email Part 4
From:
Dear Downey City Council,
This letter is in regards to PLN-22-0004. Please read this out loud, please read it into the record, please put into the formal records at the Downey City Council meeting.
When you read section 5800 and through 5885, you have every single paragraph and subsection therein all of that detail and possible exceptions or variances become extremely onerous and lengthy. Those sections and subparagraphs therein that discuss all of the various exceptions could become important in the future and could make the difference between allowing a new structure or structures or even a lot split that could create more housing and alleviate the housing crisis. Especially when it might relate to moderate or low income people or families that either live there or potentially could live there including "familial relations".
I know the law talks about an 800 square -foot structure but it doesn't seem clear if that includes parking if they chose to have "off-street" parking. An offstreet parking carport, area, or garage alone would be about 200 ft.'. So it probably couldn't include that because then your house would only be 600 sq. Ft. So maybe this means the structure, not including the garage. What about having "off street" parking and then more leniency on the restrictions. But those kinds of things don't seem clear. When they say 25 feet setback. A lot of people are confused if that means the curb or the end of the sidewalk and what if your structure is already less than 25 feet...or if the existing street house line conforms to a setback of less than 25'. Or if it's a corner lot with 25' on the front house but less than 25' on the side street. Corner lots are very unique and need additional considerations and leniency to not be limiting to those homeowners.
What if somebody just wants to split the lot and do nothing more. Say the lot is empty, say it has an old structure thats not to code, what would those ramifications mean? These aren't just "one off" questions. These are a lot of questions and concerns that someone in planning will have to decide on own and make a judgement call impacting and/or limiting homeowners.
Da-1�1 u�
Public Comment Item # 1
From: Bradford and Cheri Eads
To: Downey City Clerk - Public Comment; Alicia Duarte
Subject: URBAN LOT SPLIT AND TWO UNIT PROJECTS COMMENT TO BE READ AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JANUARY 26, 2022
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:56:05 PM
Email Part 5
From:
Cheri Eads
Dear Downey City Council,
This letter is in regards to PLN-22-0004. Please read this out loud, into the record, and put into the formal records at the Downey City Council Meeting.
There are a lot of gray zones that no one can predict right now. I saw that the maximum height at roof peak can only be 22' tall. With a typical raised foundation of 3', 8' ceilings, a space of 3' between floors, then 8' ceiling would then leave NOTHING for a roof slope, the possibility of a second floor is virtually eliminated, thus preventing the possibility in many cases of the second unit. This apparent "objective standard" actually becomes a clear deterrent.
Specifically in contradiction to the state intention of increased housing. Again the law states that objective guidelines can be placed, as long as they don't prevent the development of two units. Not being allowed a second story clearly could prevent that development.
The homeowner, I guess would have to build a flat roof with no slope to achieve the 22' height restriction. That would serve to only devastate the Architectural appearance of the neighborhood.
In addition, the current ordinance is written such that the new structure has to match the existing structure's roof pitch. If the existing structure's roof pitch doesn't exactly match, would the applicant be denied? This is especially problematic with the "objective restriction" of 22' high without clear allowances for variance, NOT subject to the personal discretion of the particular planner.
I noticed the Downey PC Resolution amendment refers to floor area being more then 500 sq Ft but less than 800 sq Ft. But the S139 states the size of the units are to be ...800 sq. Ft or more.
It seems the Downey PC Resolution amendment is incorrectly limiting the size of the structure to 500-800 sq Ft. When it should read 800 sq. Ft or more. Also, the clause under Building and Safety states that the lot must comply with all current local building standards and that an. urban lot split is a change of use. I'm not sure what that even means or what the impact that would have on the mandates of Senate Bill 9.
Section 12 k 1. i states the new structure must not just have public right of way access, but
adds that the access be a paved street at least 40 feet wide. So that would eliminate anyone with a large deep lot who accesses their property by way of the alley. Even if the alley is say 15' wide, wide enough for emergency vehicle access and also in apparent contradiction to the
12.5' access frontage stated elsewhere in the code amendment. Ay first glance it seems that the 12.5' frontage minimum is there to allow access to a rear lot. If so then why would there be a restriction for a rear alley access of 40' wide? This, I believe will create confusion and ambiguity to the average citizen attempting to navigate this code amendment and frustrate their attempt to meet the intent of SB9.
Section 12) 2) "...city may deny ... if the project would have a "specific, adverse impact" ...on physical the environment..."
That seems to have the potential to carry subjective implications and is of concern to me. "7 (iii) III Allow vehicle access to front structure. " this is unclear to me.
Sincerely,
Cheri Eads
Sent from my Wad
Public Comment Item # 1
From: Jim Rodriguez
To: Downey City Clerk - Public Comment; Alicia Duarte
Subject: Urban Lot Splits and Two -Unit Projects Comment to be Read at City Council meeting on January 26, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:56:26 PM
Email Part 6
From:
Dear Downey City Council,
This letter is in regards to PLN-22-0004. Please read this out loud, into the record, and put into the formal records at the Downey City Council meeting.
Item number 9. (vi) makes no sense. This would imply that no standard windows could exist on even the FIRST floor! Except facing the street. Only windows 2' high from the ceiling would be allowed, regardless if there were any line of sight issues or not. You could be facing a 6' block wall four feet from your neighbor and you could not have a regular window. It feels like, to me, that this and possibly other clauses are there to discourage projects. The claim can be made that the project is not being "physically precluded" as required by SB9, but in essence has the same effect. "Sure, ou can build your one story project, you just can't have any windows, unless they're 6 feet off the ground." Am I reading that right? Is that the intention? There are other similar subtle barriers like this throughout the Downey PC Resolution that would cause the well intentioned average citizen to give up their pursuit of adding additional housing on their property and have the practical effect of preventing urban lot splits or two units on a lot as required by S139. (65852.21 (b) (2) (A)) The overlapping of section 9965 (lot splits) and 9312.08(c) (Two -unit Projects) creates a number of unforeseen conflicts and interpretations that could also frustrate many citizen's attempt to pursue the benefits and intentions of S139.
The code amendment states that the project can be denied, ministerially, by the planning director, but provides no remedy, recourse, guidance or alternatives to disputes, disagreements, or reasonable interpretations between the parties. This too, I believe will lead to inevitable discouragement of an applicant's attempt to navigate the intricacies of this complex 33 page ordinance and related Senate bill, especially when up against the disparate knowledge and power relationship inherent in the application process between a novice homeowner and a seasoned and experienced city planner.
Many of these objective standards created in this ordinance serve as a de facto discretionary review process in and of themselves.
I understand that the intent is to create these objective standards in order to preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods, and I agree with that objective. I'm just concerned that the resolution and it's implementation could lead to overwhelming obstacles to the well intended homeowner who wants to provide additional housing on their own property without
taking away their rights to do so.
Sincerely,
Jim im
Public Comment Item #2
IF HOMEOWNERSHIP
February 8, 2022
Mayor & City Council
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Ave
MATI'HEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
MATT@CAFORHOM ES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
Downey, CA 90241
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
RE: Insufficiency of the City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element.
February 8, 2022 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2.
To the Mayor & City Council:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California's housing crisis. Our organization is monitoring local compliance with the law governing housing elements.
You are scheduled to consider adoption of the City's Housing Element at your upcoming meeting. The City's Housing Element was due to be adopted by October 15, 2021, and the City has been out of compliance with state housing law in the time since. The adoption of a legally valid Housing Element would bring the City into compliance with the law and help the City avoid certain penalties and reductions in local control that result from non-compliance. Unfortunately, the proposal before you would not achieve that goal.
We have reviewed the draft Housing Element and adopting resolution provided with your agenda materials. We have also reviewed the letter the City received from the state Department of Housing and Community Development outlining its concerns about the City's draft, which we incorporate here in its entirety, by reference. Californians for Homeownership commented on the draft in a letter dated November 1, 2021 and shared our concerns, and we additionally incorporate that letter here by reference.
The City's draft does make some progress in addressing our concerns and those of the Department. Unfortunately, we do not believe it goes far enough. Based on our review, we believe that if the City adopts the draft as planned, it will not bring the City into substantial compliance with state housing law, including the housing element law. Among other things, as we explain
February 8, 2022
below, the draft does not provide adequate information about the non -vacant sites included on the City's sites inventory.
The City's failure to bring itself into substantial compliance with housing element law will have significant consequences. As of October 15, 2021, the City lost essentially all of its control over housing development projects with significant lower -income components, and it is prohibited from enforcing its zoning and general plan standards for those projects. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(5). And if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element by February 12, 2022, it will be subject to additional penalties. See Gov. Code § 65583(c)(1)(A).
What's more, the City's adoption of a non -compliant Housing Element will expose the City to the very serious risk of litigation. We urge you to continue this item so that staff can return with a compliant housing element.
State Law Governing the Use of Nonvacant Sites to Satis& Housing Element Obli atg ions Under Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(1), for each nonvacant site, a city must "specify the additional development potential ... within the planning period," and it must explain how the developmental potential for each site was measured. The methodology must consider the extent to which the existing use may impede development.
Additionally, if a city intends to rely on nonvacant sites to make up more than fifty percent of its lower income housing need, it is also subject to Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2).
This provision requires the city to make an affirmative factual showing that the existing use is not an impediment to development. More specifically, the city must present "findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period." Without these findings, the existing use is "presumed to impede additional residential development." Inadequacy of the Ci 's Draft Housing Element
The sites inventory in the City's draft Housing Element does not meet these requirements.
The inventory does not adequately account for the impediment created by the existing uses on the listed nonvacant sites, including the possibility that a site will be maintained in its current use rather than redeveloped during the planning period. What's more, the City's draft housing element appears to rely on nonvacant sites to satisfy over 50% of the City's lower income R:HNA. But the inventory does not identify evidence that the existing uses on each of these sites will be discontinued during the planning period. The housing element includes inconsistent amounts of evidence for the different sites, but even where some information is present, it is not sufficient.
The following APNs on the City's sites inventory lack adequate information to satisfy the City's legal obligations regarding listing non -vacant sites:
6245-016-926, 6251-039-025, 6251-039-026, 6251-038-013, 6251-038-012, 6251-038-011, 6254-004-028, 6254-018-008, 6254-018-027, 6254-017-011, 6254-017-023, 6254-018-01.9, 6254-018-020, 6254-01.7-020, 6254-018-021, 6254-018-024, 6254-001-901, 6254-001-902, 6255-002-033, 6255-002-034, 6255-002-900, 6255-002-01.1, 6255-002-008, 6255-002-009, 6254-009-900, 525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
February 8, 2022
6255-002-032, 6255-001-009, 6255-002-013, 6255-003-019, 6254-001-017, 6255-001-010, 6255-001-01.4, 6245-019-002, 6245-01.9-028, 6245-019-029, 6246-012-003, 6245-019-001, 6246-012-015, 6246-002-003, 6263-033-014, 6232-020-004, 6256-005-01.1, 6263-002-039, 6263-004-011, 6256-005-009, 6266-001-035, 6249-030-007, 6229-002-025, 6359-029-001, 6259-019-030, 6259-019-029, 6261-014-034, 6261-014-050, 6263-006-030, 6263-006-029, 6263-006-031, 6263-006-032, 6261-014-057, 6256-008-027, 6256-014-011, 6256-014-017, 6283-002-037, 6360-010-003, 6360-01.0-021, 6360-010-011, 6360-010-023, 6246-001-027, 6246-001-030, 6255-019-031, 6260-011-028, 6260-011-029, 6260-011-027, 6247-004-036, 6251-003-001, 6247-006-013, 6251-030-028, 6260-011-065, 6259-003-016, 6361-021-021, 6361-021-050, 6367-015-020, 6367-015-01.9, 6388-004-017, 6367-025-023, 6388-002-011, 6388-004-019, 6283-001-035, 6256-004-040, 8019-005-013, and 6285-031-062 Accordingly, as it stands, the existing uses of the non -vacant sites listed in the City's inventory would be presumed to impede additional residential development, making those sites inappropriate for inclusion.
Sincerely,
v
Matthew Gelfand
cc: City of Downey
Aldo E. Schindler, Comm. Dev. Director (by email to [email protected]) Crystal Landavazo, City Planner (by email to [email protected]) Diana Gonzalez, Consultant (by email to [email protected]) Yvette M. Abich Garcia, Esq., City Attorney (by email to [email protected]) California Department of Housing and Community Development Colin Cross (by email to [email protected])
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
Santa Clara — Civil
I
JEFFREY V. DUNN, Bar No. 13192
Electronically Filed
[email protected]
by Superior Court of CA
2 DANIEL L. RICHARDS, Bar No. 315552.
County of Santa Clara, ,
3 [email protected]
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
on 7/26/20214:44 PM
18 101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1000
Reviewed By: R. Walker
4 Irvine, California 92612
Case #20CV364054
Telephone: (949) 263-2600
Envelope: 6926182
5 Facsimile: (949) 260-0972
6 Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents
I EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUNNT
County of Los Angeles,.City of Downey, and City of To GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 6103 ona
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
11 I
150NNIEKESSNER; et al.,
Case No. 20CV364054
12 Judge: Hon. it R. Kultra
Plaintiffs,
13 NOTICE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
V.
CITY OF DOWNEY, AND CITY OF
14 POMONA'S DEMURRER TO SECOND
CITY OF SANTA CLARA; et al.,
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
15 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Defendants.
BASED UPON MISJOINDER, OR, IN
16 THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO
SEVER AND TRANSFER VENUE;
17 DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF
18 MISJOINDER; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
19 Filed concurrently with:
20 1. Decl. of Lutfi Kha
21 2. [Proposed] Order
22 23
Date: 7 10/7/21 at 1:30pm
Time: D
Dept:
24 25
26 27
28 62626. 0000 1 \34208253,5
DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
wee
4 5
6 F"LEASE TAKE NOTICE that in Department I of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, at a date and time to be determined pursuant to this Court's May 26, 2021 Scheduling Order for "Phase 2 Motions," defendants Los Angeles County, City of Downey, and City of Pomona (collectively, "Los Angeles County Defendantspursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430. 10, will and hereby do demur ("Demurrer") to the first and second causes of action in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief, Petition W'[I for Writ of Mandate ("Second Amended Complaint"). The Demuffer is brought on the grounds 1�
that the Los Angeles County Defendants are not properly joined in the Second Amended I PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, in conjunction with the demurrer, the Los Angeles County Defendants will and hereby do move, in the alternative, for an order severing the claims against them and transferring those claims to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for 15 purposes of trial. This motion is brought on the grounds that venue is improper in this court as to 116 the first and second causes of action, and, accordingly, that such claims should be transferred to t first
e gels
17 the Los An
ngeles County Superior Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 396, 18 subdivision (zk). Alternatively, the motion is brought on the grounds that the claims should be 19 severed and transferred to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the convenience of 0witnesses c rsi ant to Code of Civil Procedure 397, subdivision (c). 21 The demurrer will be based on this Notice; the attached Demurrer and Memorandum of 22 Points and Authorities; the concurrently filed Declaration of Lutfi Kharuf; all pleadings, papers 23 and records on file with the court in this action; and all other such argument and evidence as may 24 be presented to the court in connection with the Demurrer. 25 This demurrer follows meet and confer efforts that began on July 21, 221, and concluded 26 July 22, 2021. (Declaration of Lutfi Kha at TT 2-3 & Ex. A.) 27 W
62626. 0000 1 \342 08253.5
1--.- -2-
DEMURRER TO SECOND A,
-----------
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Department 1, Honorable Sun' l R. Kulkarni Presiding
JeeJee Vizconde, Courtroom Clerk
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408,882.2110
To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M.
Please state your case name, case number, the name of the attorney and contact number. It would also be helpful if you could identify the specific portion or portions of the tentative ruling that will be contested. Thank you.
Court Reporters are not provided. Please consult our Court's website, www.scscourt.org , for the rules, policies, and required forms for 400bintment by stipulation of privately -retained court reporters. * Remote appearances are permitted, but no longer required. Remote appearances must be made by CourtCall (audio or video), unless otherwise arranged with the Court. * If any party wants a Court Reporter, the appropriate form must be submitted. The Reporter can appear in person or remotely.
will be a Public Access Line so that interested members of the public can listen in. That number is 888-808-6929, access #: 2752612.
As ordered by the Presiding Judge of the Court, persons appearing in the courtroom must wear a face covering, unless otherwise authorized by the Court.
As a reminder, state and local Court Rules prohibit recording of court proceedings without a Court order. This prohibition applies while in the courtroom and while listening in on the Public Access Line.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS
DATE: DECEMBER 9,2021 TIME: 1:30 P.M.
. .... ...... .
-4 Mm � I T111 Y—V
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED (SEE
CASE TITLE
'RULING
MIS 1-1 -
al. v. City of Santa
3ee tentative ruling. The Court
Clara, et al. [VARIOUS
ill issue the final order.
OTIONS]
ee tenta ve ru ing. The Court
will issue the final order,
Calendar Line 2
Case Name: Bonnie Kessner, et al. v. City ofSanta Clara, et al.
Case No.: 20CV364054
This is a putative class action and petition for writ of mandate on behalf of retail wat customers against dozens of named defendant/respondent governmental entities and retail water providers ("Defendants").' Plaintiffs/petitioners ("Plaintiffs") allege that Defendants violate Article XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution --enacted through Propositio 218—which prohibits local public agencies from imposing property -related fees that exceed the cost of service. They allege that: a) Defendants use retail water rates to subsidize water service to the government and for general government services like public fire hydrants; b) some Defendants violate Proposition 218 by providing below -cost "SAWIV rates for agriculture and irrigation; and c) some Defendants maintain "budget based tiered water rate that "amount to a discount for wealthier ratepayers."
Before the Court are a total of 17 motions and briefs by certain defendants addressed t various "Phase 11" issue, including Government Claims Act issues, failure to pay under prote andmisjoinder. Many other defendants move to join in these motions. As discussed below, the Court SUSTAINS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND the demurrers based on misjoinder; SUSTAINS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND the demurrers to the fourth cause of action on mat grouna; ana 3 VS-f7MTS7TTTfA EEAT E 11, ATRE110, me aenmqers to me first mrougn third causes of action for failure to pay under protest. The other Phase 11 motions are MOOT or, in a few cases, DENIED for the reasons discussed below. I , This action was filed in February 2020. The proceedings were stayed pending the detetmination of Plaintiffs' petition to coordinate this action %I two others pending in other counties. The petition was denied in October 2020. Following a case management conference, the Court directed the parties to brief Defendants' challenges to venue, jurisdiction, and joinder for early resolution.
MIN 144MIRKWAN"I A
de�lined to'rule on several issues that were beyond the scope of the briefing it had authorized.
It granted Plaintiffs 30 days' leave to amend their first amended complaint (FAC) to include allegations showing that joinder is proper under Colusa Air Pollution Control Dist. v. Superior Court (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 880 (Colusa).
classes: (1) rate methodology resulting in charges in excess of the cost of service (against ' San Diego County Water Authority is named as a respondent only, but the Court includes among the "Defendants" for simplicity's sake. I
From: Maria Lam
To: Downey City Clerk - Public Comment
Subject: Entitled parents
Date: Friday, January 28, 2022 3:05:58 PM
[CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to you to share some issues I've been dealing with for years parents have been parking inside or outside my driveway and blocking me from coming in or out of my own home. I've gone to the school principal from Rio San Gabriel Elementary to get some kind of help with the issue and nothing got done. I've called the police department they put me on hold and nothing gets done. These parents are more shameless and turned in to "Karen's" they think they're entitled. I need help something has to be done. Please I'm asking for help before a parent gets aggressive or violent. I've been a Downey resident for almost 20 years and I've been dealing with this issue forever. I'm tired of it. Let's work on it please.
Sincerely
Maria Lam
Sent from my Whone
From: Fatima Baai
To: Downey City Clerk - Public Comment
Subject: No subject
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 11:45:44 AM
[CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi to the chambers and mayor,
This is for Chief Murray.
There was a report from CourtWatch LA, an independent news source, recently released a report where a person was arrested and jailed for three entire days after an illegal warrant in 2015, over administrative fees in which after 2021, half are no longer applicable. This person finished their probation and wasn't released until a public defender argued that the warrant was illegal to begin with. This situation is absolutely and unnecessary.
This city is one of the safest in southeast Los Angeles and it is mortifying to me as as a constituent as this city is one of the safest in southeast Los Angeles and according to police scorecard, our score which is 58/100, but with only 17% of civilians complaints read, I am worried this comment might go over ones head especially from a department that never apologized for the death of Michael Nida.
Everyone deserve the constitutional right to due process in which this situation does not reflect that. We need to do better. I am concerned and upset by this situation as I'm sure it wasn't the first or last.
I hope the arresting officers have taken the appropriate corrective action.
Thank you for your time,
Fatima D. Bagi, MSW, MPA
From: Abrown
To: Downey City Clerk - Public Comment
Subject: Non Agenda Item
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 11:46:38 AM
Good evening Madame Mayor, Mayor Pro-Tem and Council Members, I want to start by saying Thank You to those who voted in favor of a "No Confidence", of the policies of L.A. District Attorney George Gascon. Although it was a symbolic vote, it showed that those who voted in favor, listened to the cries of the Downey community, and as elected officials, part of your job is to listen to your constituents.
Having said that, you may already know that the Recall of George Gascon has started once again, and many of us Downey residents, are already out in the community getting petitions signed. Keep in mind that even if you signed the petition before, you must sign again, as this is a new recall.
There will be a Downey Volunteers Recall George Gascon Petition Signing Kick-off event, on Saturday, February 26th, from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm, at the corner of Downey Avenue and 2nd Streets.
I would like to invite our Madame Mayor, Mayor Pro-Tem, all Council Members and everyone who values safety and supporting Victims instead of Criminals, to come over to say hello and sign the petition.
Thank you kindly for allowing me this time.