Agenda packet — La Mesa City Council, February 28, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

Existing Utility Easement Proposed to be Vacated
ATTACHMENT “B” – VACATION EXHIBIT

Page 163 of 354 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: February 28, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER AND

APPROPRIATION OF UNALLOCATED GENERAL

FUND RESERVES TO THE PUBLIC WORKS

OPERATING ACCOUNT FOR A MONTH TO MONTH
CONTRACT THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023 WITH

SWEEPING CORPORATION OF AMERICA FOR

STREET SWEEPING SERVICES
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing an appropriation of unallocated general fund reserves to the Public Works operating account for street sweeping services through June 30, 2023 with Sweeping Corporation of America?
Recommendation:

Adopt the Resolution authorizing the transfer and appropriation of unallocated general funds to the Public Works operating account for street sweeping services through June 30, 2023 with Sweeping Corporation of America.

Fiscal Impact:

The additional funding necessary would be transferred from the unallocated reserves. A transfer and appropriation of an amount not-to-exceed $80,000 from General Funds Reserve for Encumbrances Account 101-3930 to Public Works Street Cleaning Operating Account 3103-6430.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Continue to improve high quality municipal services

Page 164 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 2 of 3
BACKGROUND:

On June 12, 2018, the City Council awarded a street sweeping maintenance contract to Cannon Pacific Services, Inc. DBA Pacific Sweeping. The award included the option to renew the contract for up to four, one-year terms. The third renewal with Pacific Sweeping included a contract total of $174,250. For FY22- 23, the final term of the agreement, the Public Works Department budgeted $182,680 for street sweeping services.

Pacific Sweeping was purchased by Sweeping Corporation of America (SCA) in March , 2021 and has become the only sweeping company in the region with the ability to perform street sweeping in the frequency and volume required for the City of La Mesa and other municipalities that do not perform sweeping in-house.

DISCUSSION:

In October of 2021, the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determined that street sweeping maintenance services constituted “public works” and therefore subject to prevailing wage requirements. The DIR expanded the definition of “public works” to include street sweeping (the maintenance performed for the routine cleaning of any publicly owned or publicly operated street, road, or highway done to under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds). This action by the state immediately increased the cost to the City from $23.82/curb mile to $56.45/curb mile.

However, in August of 2022, the Legislature failed to put into law a provision in the state code that street sweeping was subject to prevailing wage requirements.

Consequently, the temporary change of contract rates due to the prevailing wage requirements created a deficit in our allocated budget for street sweeping. SCA’s 2018 contract rates for services did not include prevailing wage rates. SCA has raised their service rates for all municipalities contracting services and La Mesa has not been spared from these increases.

Considering these changes, the Department is preparing to solicit for bids for a new street sweeping contract in March. Although SCA currently is the only street sweeping vendor in San Diego County, staff anticipates there may be other vendors in the region that might be interested in bidding. So as to continue to maintain street sweeping services through June, the Department will be going to month-to-month services with SCA at their current rates. In order to maintain the current level of street sweeping services in La Mesa, an additional appropriation

Page 165 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 3 of 3
of $80,000 is necessary due to the State mandated changes in the cost of these services.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A), authorizing the appropriation from unallocated general fund reserves to the Public Works operating account for the increased cost of sweeping services for the remainder of the fiscal.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne
City Manager Director of Public Works
____________________________
José G. Ornelas
Assistant Director of Public Works
Attachments: A. Resolution

Page 166 of 354 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

AUTHORIZING TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATION OF UNALLOCATED FUND

RESERVES TO THE PUBLIC WORKS STREET CLEANING ACCOUNT FOR

STREET SWEEPING
_________________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018, the City Council awarded a street sweeping maintenance contract to Canon Pacific Services Inc., DBA Pacific Sweeping and the award includes the option to renew four, one-year extensions based upon satisfactory performance of work as determined by the City Engineer. Later, Canon Pacific Services, Inc. was purchased by Sweeping Corporation of America (SCA) in March 2021;
WHEREAS, $182,680 was budgeted for street sweeping services in FY22-23 to cover the anticipated charges for street sweeping services for the budget year; WHEREAS, in October of 2021, The State of California Department of Relations (DIR) determined that street sweeping maintenance services constitute public work and therefore were subject to prevailing wage requirements;
WHEREAS, SCA the sole provider of major street sweeping services in the region, has raised their service rates due to the DIR determination and increase of vehicle and operating expenses;
WHEREAS, in August of 2022, the Legislature failed to put into law a provision in the state code that street sweeping was subject to prevailing wage requirements; and WHEREAS, the temporary change of contract rates due to the prevailing wage requirements from the State of California DIR created a deficit in our allocated budget for street sweeping.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the transfer and appropriation of funds from Unallocated General Fund Reserves be transferred to the Public Works Street Cleaning Account in the amount of $80,000 to cover the cost of sweeping services through June 30, 2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 28
th day of February, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 167 of 354 ends

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2023- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.

MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)

Page 168 of 354 ends

Page 169 of 354 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: February 28, 2023
SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON

PERMITTING PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS AND

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A

RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND

RESERVES TO FUND AN ADDITIONAL

ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN POSITION AND

PERMITTING PROCESS TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVEMENTS
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
SUMMARY:

Issues:

1. Should the City Council receive the Report and Recommendations on Permitting Process Improvements regarding the Community Development Department and the Public Works Engineering Division?

2. Should the City Council adopt a resolution appropriating General Fund Reserves to fund an Engineering Technician position and Permitting Process Technology Improvements?
Recommendation:

1. Receive the Report and Recommendations on Permitting Process Improvements regarding the Community Development Department and Public Works Engineering Division.

2. Adopt a resolution appropriating General Fund Reserves to fund an Engineering Technician position and Permitting Process Technology Improvements.

Page 170 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 2 of 11
Fiscal Impact:

The FY 2022-23 Compensation Plan includes the Engineering Technician I position located in the Public Works Engineering Division. Including benefits, the annual cost to the City to add the position is $129,000 at top step. However, the position would likely start at a lower step, thus a lower initial cost to the City.

Since the Fiscal Year is more than half over staff is estimating the fiscal impact at $60,000 for the remainder of the budget year.

An appropriation from General Fund Reserves in the amount of $40,000 is requested to implement technology upgrades in the Community Development Department and Public Works Engineering Division in support of recommendations included in the Summary Report (Attachment A). If approved, the funding will be programmed into the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Continue to improve high quality municipal services
 Ensure safe and affordable homes for all current and future residents BACKGROUND:

Permitting responsibilities in the City of La Mesa are carried out by staff in the Community Development Department, including contract plan review staff from Interwest, the Public Works Engineering Division, and Heartland Fire and Rescue. The City’s Community Development Department is responsible for planning and building functions that are a critical path for the processing of entitlement applications and issuing building permits. The Planning and Building Divisions within the Community Development Department serve a role as both regulators of the Zoning Code and Building Code and as facilitators that assist applicants with the permitting process. The Public Works Engineering Division fills an important role in the permitting process by reviewing and checking grading plans, improvement plans, and associated technical reports related to hydrology, water-quality and soils, and final maps for private development projects. Heartland Fire and Rescue is responsible for the delivery of fire protection and emergency medical services and reviewing private development plans for compliance with fire code and other fire safety requirements.

Staff in these departments, and the important roles they serve, have a significant impact on development in the community. Residents making improvements to their homes are affirming that La Mesa is an attractive place to live and raise a family. For businesses, commercial investment reflects La Mesa’s strong local and regional market opportunities. Recognizing that the City of La Mesa desires to encourage reinvestment

Page 171 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 3 of 11
and promote a business-friendly environment, in recent years the City has worked to implement process and other changes to better serve residents, business owners, and community members.

In 2015, the City hired MJE Marketing (MJE) to facilitate focus groups involving 60 members of the business community. The focus groups included architects, contractors, and developers that had recently conducted business with the City. MJE asked this focus group to offer their perceptions of the community and conducting business with the City. MJE also organized a second focus group, comprised of 14 City staff members involved in the permitting process. Each group was presented with prompts that asked questions about their experiences with the City and their impressions of the permitting process.

Generally, both groups thought the City is well-run based on individual experience and is a pleasant community that is “up and coming.” However, the focus groups believed there was an insufficient number of staff given their recent experiences with development projects and permit applications. Another key observation offered by the focus groups was a desire to see more of the permitting process move online to better facilitate workload and track permit applications. Based on the feedback received, the City initiated the process to procure an electronic, online permitting system, eventually selecting the MaintStar system. The system is in use for many permitting functions and others are being implemented. Additionally, the customer and staff experience at City Hall was enhanced through expansion and redesign of the front counter area to provide additional work and counter space to interact with customers.

In 2019, the City retained Customer Service Advantage (“CSA”) to lead two workshops attended by City staff on customer service to identify recommendations regarding service delivery. The workshops challenged staff to discuss perceived obstacles to providing customer service as well potential solutions. As part of the process, CSA identified baseline recommendations to improve information sharing, communication, and customer service and led a process mapping exercise to assist staff in identifying inefficiencies in processes and workflows. The improved process workflow mapping from this exercised was used during the implementation of the MaintStar computer system. The workflows developed from the workshops were used to create the new workflows for Maintstar.

In April 2022 the City Manger gave direction to the City of La Mesa Human Resources division to give priority to the hiring of all development services related position in the Community Development, Public Works and Fire Departments. There is currently only 1 vacancy of a development services related position. The City Manager also gave direction to the City of La Mesa Information Technology division to prioritize all development services related technology requests.

Page 172 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 4 of 11
In May 2022 staff including the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, the Community Development Director, the Public Works Director, the Fire Chief, the Fire Marshall and the Assistant to the City Manager began meeting weekly to discuss, coordinate and implement improvements to the development process. These process improvement team or PIT meeting have been occurring weekly ever since. The meetings allow staff leadership to regularly communicate and ensure that any problems related to projects in the development process are being addressed.

Also, in May 2022, the City Council approved an agreement with Baker Tilly (formerly Management Partners) to conduct a review of the permitting process in the Community Development Department and the Public Works Engineering Division. The scope of work included completing the following tasks and activities:
 Developing and administering a customer experience survey of 1,441 La Mesa customers with recent experience processing private development projects through the City’s permitting process.
 Conducting a peer comparison of La Mesa’s operations with comparable cities related to the development review process and staffing.  Facilitating a three-day Process Improvement Workshop with staff from Community Development, Public Works/Engineering, and Heartland Fire and Rescue to identify recommendations for improvement.
 Facilitating process mapping sessions to document existing workflow processes and decision points for various types of development applications.  Conducting individual interviews with key staff in Community Development, Public Works/Engineering, and Heartland Fire and Rescue to learn what is working well and identify areas of improvement.
 Conducting interviews with Councilmembers to hear their perspectives.  Conducting interviews with stakeholders to understand customer perceptions about the City’s development process and ideas for improvement.  Preparing a Draft Implementation Action Plan to help City staff manage and implement recommended changes.
 Develop observations based on the activities in the scope of work based on Baker Tilly’s knowledge of industry best practices.

The process concluded with the development of a Summary Report by Baker Tilly that is attached to this report as Attachment A. The report summarizes Baker Tilly’s research, observations and analysis and includes staff’s recommendations resulting from the three-day Process Improvement Workshop conducted in November 2022.

DISCUSSION:

The Summary Report details key takeaways from interviews, the customer experience

Page 173 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 5 of 11
survey and peer agency comparison. Their purpose was to inform Baker Tilly’s analysis and observations, provide context for City leaders, and assist staff as they developed recommendations during the Process Improvement Workshop. Baker Tilly conducted 19 interviews with City Councilmembers, City staff, and stakeholders. Interviews with City staff included the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, department directors, and key staff involved in the development review and permitting process. Stakeholder interviews included applicants who had recently processed projects in the City for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), commercial projects, large housing developments, and a historic building restoration. The interviews identified that there are gaps in communication throughout the process, that workload volume is high, and that current technological tools are not yet sufficiently developed. Additionally, it was noted that policy changes and clarification should be considered to improve the process.

The customer experience survey was designed to elicit feedback about what works well and what areas could be improved from customers who have recent experience with the City’s process. The survey, whose respondents were mostly property owners with recent experience with the City’s permitting process, showed numerous areas where customer comments were positive. A majority of respondents felt like staff treated them courteously, were helpful and knowledgeable, and that information delivered to them assisted them through the process. Respondents also thought information on the website was helpful and that requesting inspections was simple and conducted promptly. Areas where a majority of respondents felt challenges existed related to staff accessibility and responsiveness and a general lack of timely feedback on submitted plans.

The peer agency comparison was conducted to compare the City’s development review and permitting process with the operations of cities of similar size. Key takeaways from the peer agency comparison includes:
 The planning staff is small and will need greater capacity as the City moves toward a model where information and customer assistance are front-loaded in the development process. This model will require an investment of more staff time and resources at the front counter and early in the development process to ensure that projects have a good start and that customers have the information they need to submit quality applications and stay informed.  La Mesa has fewer administrative positions than the peer cities to provide support to the development review process in areas such as conducting consistent and thorough data analysis (i.e., MaintStar), providing administrative support to the departments involved in the development process, producing performance reports to track the overall development process, and assisting customers as necessary.
 While there are areas where service levels and turnaround times should be

Page 174 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 6 of 11
improved, the workload in La Mesa must also be considered. For example, the City of La Mesa processes more than twice the number of ADU projects compared with the peer cities.
 La Mesa’s current plan review turnaround goals (i.e., 21 days and 14 days) are good because, if met, they provide a reasonably fast project review. The City also intends to reduce the turnaround goals further (i.e., 12 days and 5 days).  La Mesa’s goals compare well with the peer cities. However, the actual turnaround performance has been mixed, and it is substantially slower than in peer cities. For example, La Mesa’s departments only meet the turnaround goals in 50% of first plan reviews, and in 75% of second and subsequent plan reviews.

The average among the peer cities is 90% and 92%, respectively.  In La Mesa, 50% of projects require three of more cycles of review while on average, only 16% of projects in the peer cities require this extent of repetitive review. Multiple cycles of review add substantial delay for development projects, in part because the cycles can be complicated and have multiple steps.

Process Improvement Workshop
A three-day Process Improvement Workshop was conducted by Baker Tilly with staff in the various departments who have key roles in the development review and permitting process. Goals of the workshop were to identify ways to enhance the overall customer experience by improving communication with applicants at key customer interactions during the process and identifying ways to improve the project intake process, provide thorough, clear and timely reviews, and reduce repetitive review cycles. Staff’s efforts to identify improvements involved discussing common barriers to achieving these goals and the importance of addressing them in the final recommendations. The common barriers include the following:
 Staffing vacancies exist and additional staffing will be necessary in key areas.  Technology is lacking.
 Changes in state law, especially numerous and frequent changes pertaining to housing.
 High-volume workload.
 Lack of documentation of the City’s policies, practices, and procedures.  Lack of internal communication between the departments, including communication about rules and interpretations.

The three-day workshop engaged staff in large and small groups to identify problems and develop recommendations. During the workshop, participants used process maps developed by Baker Tilly and feedback from the interviews, customer experience survey, and peer comparison to develop customer service, process improvement, and supplemental recommendations to be implemented by the City. At the end of the

Page 175 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 7 of 11
workshop, Baker Tilly concluded that the City of La Mesa development permit process was not broken, but it did need improvements in its administration functions and communication. The recommendations from the workshop are as follows:

Customer Service Recommendations

1. Update the City’s website regularly to communicate current information about development review processes to applicants.

2. Finalize and release the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) guidebook in an easily updatable manner to allow changes to be incorporated.

3. Create a community workshop series to educate the development community and public about pertinent information.

4. Provide tutorial videos for applicants about using online development tools, including MaintStar.

5. Redesign the permit application to include all parties associated with the project (owner, applicant, design professional, contractor, etc.) to ensure the owner is kept apprised of progress.

6. Communicate required signoffs to applicants at permit issuance to ensure the project is completed successfully.

7. Update the zoning ordinance and other land use policies to better reflect the community’s vision.

Process Improvement Recommendations

8. Develop an aggressive schedule to implement all modules in MaintStar.

10. Determine what applications, forms and handouts are necessary for applicant success in the development process.

11. Reinstitute pre-application development review committee meetings with applicants to establish expectations and ensure the project is feasible.

12. Require initial building permit application review at intake by a staff member with a planning perspective.

13. Contact an applicant after two review cycles if there are outstanding comments and plans have not made significant progress.

14. Reestablish over the counter (OTC) plan review.

15. Provide onboarding and ongoing training for staff.

16. Provide staffing resources needed for technical support/processing to meet customer expectations and turnaround goals.

Page 176 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 8 of 11
Supplemental Recommendations by Baker Tilly

17. Discontinue accepting incomplete development applications.

18. Use performance indicators to track key permitting processes, customer service, customer satisfaction, and review and inspection milestones.

19. Develop and update standard operating procedures (SOPs) to clarify process workflows, capture institutional knowledge, ensure staff and performing functions consistently, and assist with training and cross training.

20. Upgrade hardware and software to allow more efficient and effective plan review including providing large monitors for plan review and improving storage capacity and processing speeds for emails and large files.

21. Conduct an annual meeting with all development services-related staff to identify additional opportunities to improve the permitting process.

Draft Implementation Action Plan
After the Process Improvement Workshop concluded, Baker Tilly developed a Draft Implementation Action Plan (Plan) in January 2023 to assist the City with the phasing and scheduling of the twenty-one recommendations. The Plan provides priorities for the recommendations with assignments of responsibilities to appropriate City staff and specific planned completion dates. Priority 1 recommendations are those that are the most important to accomplish or relatively easy to accomplish as “quick wins.” Priority 2 recommendations have less importance in the near term or have an added element of complication to complete or requires significant resources for completion. Priority 3 recommendations are the least urgent to complete because they require action by a third party or have a high degree of complexity to complete. The Draft Implementation Action Plan is attached to this report as Attachment B for reference.

The City has begun implementing the following Priority 1 recommendations identified in the Plan:
 Recommendation #2 is a customer service recommendation to finalize and release the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) guidebook in an easily updatable manner to allow changes to be incorporated. The guidebook is substantially complete and is anticipated to be released in early Spring 2023.  Recommendation #9 is a process improvement recommendation to create stafflevel interdepartmental development services team meetings to discuss specific projects, identify process improvement areas, and improve communication and coordination between departments. The Development Services Coordination Committee, or “DSCC”, consists of staff from the Community Development Department, Public Works Engineering Division, and Heartland Fire and Rescue.

Page 177 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 9 of 11
The DSCC first met on January 23, 2023 and now meets every two weeks on Mondays and staff is responsible for bringing forward items of discussion and setting the agendas.
 Recommendation #11 is a process improvement recommendation to reinstitute pre-application development review meetings with applicants to establish expectations and ensure projects are feasible. Pre-application review meetings are now available for applicants to schedule with staff on alternate Mondays from the DSCC meetings.
 Recommendation #13 is a process improvement recommendation to implement a department policy to contact an applicant after two review cycles if there are outstanding comments and plans have not made significant progress through the development review process. Through DSCC meetings, staff has begun formulating the policy.
 Recommendation #17 is a supplemental recommendation by Baker Tilly to discontinue accepting incomplete development applications. Implementation of this recommendation is ongoing.

Additional Engineering Technician Position
Recommendation #16 is a process improvement recommendation to provide staffing resources needed for technical support/processing to meet customer expectations and turnaround goals. As identified in the customer experience survey, peer agency comparison, and Process Improvement Workshop, La Mesa has a need for additional staffing to provide support for the development review process. An immediate need is the addition of an Engineering Technician position in the Public Works Engineering Division. The role of the Engineering Technician position is to review projects for compliance with public and private regulations including grading requirements, encroachment into public right-of-way, and traffic control. Staff is recommending that this position be added at this time and if approved by the City Council an immediate recruitment will begin.

In the Community Development Department, the Administrative Coordinator position has been restructured to provide additional support to staff involved in the development review process. The position is currently under recruitment with onboarding of a selected candidate to occur in March. Over the last year, the Assistant Community Development Director position has been vacant, thus impacting operations. The position was filled in January, which has helped to provide much needed support to the director.

As part of the Draft Implementation Action Plan, staff will analyze the need for an additional position in the department after Priority 1 recommendations have been implemented and the impact of having filled the Administrative Coordinator and Assistant Director positions can be fully evaluated.

Page 178 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 10 of 11
Appropriation of General Fund Reserves for Technology Improvements In March 2022, the City implemented MaintStar, an online public portal to allow customers to generate electronic permit applications, submit plans, supporting documents and reports, receive comments and corrections, provide resubmittals, pay fees and receive permits 100% electronically. MaintStar streamlines the development review and permit process by enhancing communication between staff and development applicants and by reducing the need for in-person paper submittals. At the beginning of February all building inspection requests were transitioned to the MaintStar online portal and the old telephone inspection function was abandoned.

Recommendation #20 is a supplemental recommendation by Baker Tilly to upgrade hardware and software to allow more efficient and effective review, including larger monitors for plan review, computers with improved storage capacity and processing speeds for large electronic files, and back-end network hardware to provide additional capacity. To support the electronic plan submittal process in MaintStar, the Community Development Department and Public Works Engineering Division are working on these previously identified needs using budgeted funds to purchase the monitors and computers. A demonstration configuration has already been installed and is currently undergoing testing by staff. Additional funding is needed for back-end network hardware. To implement recommendation #20, an appropriation in the amount of $40,000 is needed from General Fund Reserves to pay for these additional network upgrades for staff in the Community Development Department and Public Works Engineering Division. If approved, the funding will be programmed into the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget.

Commitment to Customer Service
The City as an organization, the development services departments, and City staff are committed to providing customers with a good service experience when they have business with the City. Consistent efforts have been made to evaluate and enhance service levels over time, from improvements to workspace for better efficiency to increasing transparency by posting project information on the Community Development Department webpages (Projects Under Review). Advancements in electronic permitting and plan review are in place and continue to be pursued through implementation of the MaintStar system. Evaluation of Building Division contract services resulted in the selection of a new contractor in December 2022, Interwest, who immediately provided a better service delivery. The City, departments, and staff will continue to pursue improvements to efficiency, service, and communication with the implementation of the recommendations presented.

Page 179 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 11 of 11
CONCLUSION:

Receive the Report on Permitting Process Improvements and recommendations and adopt a Resolution appropriating General Fund Reserves to fund an Engineering Technician position and Permitting Process Improvements.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
_________________________ _________________________
Greg Humora Lyn Dedmon
City Manager Assistant to the City Manager
_________________________ _________________________
Kerry Kusiak Michael Throne
Director of Community Development Director of Public Works Attachments: Attachment “A” – Summary Report from Baker Tilly Attachment “B” – Draft Implementation Action Plan
Attachment “C” – Resolution

Page 180 of 354 ends

February 2023
Summary Report on Permitting Process
Improvements

Page 181 of 354 ends

Page 182 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Table of Contents Baker Tilly
i
Table of Contents
Permitting Process Improvements.........................................................................................................1 Purpose ..............................................................................................................................................1 Background.......................................................................................................................................1 Workload and Staffing in La Mesa ................................................................................................1 Project Approach and Methodology .....................................................................................................3 Takeaways from Interviews ...........................................................................................................4 Takeaways from Customer Experience Survey...........................................................................5 Takeaways from the Peer Comparison .........................................................................................6 Baker Tilly Observations.........................................................................................................................9 Process Improvement Workshop .........................................................................................................10 Process Improvement Team (PIT)................................................................................................10 Workshop Participants ..................................................................................................................11 Process Improvement Workshop.................................................................................................11 Process Improvement Goals......................................................................................................11 Barriers to Achieve Improvement Goals...................................................................................12 Customer Service Motto ...........................................................................................................12 Process Improvement Workshop Format..................................................................................12 Recommendations.....................................................................................................................13 Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results ....................................................................15 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 15 Survey Results ................................................................................................................................ 15 Open‐Ended Questions .................................................................................................................25 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 26 Attachment B – A Word About the Process Maps ............................................................................27

Page 183 of 354 ends

Page 184 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Permitting Process Improvements
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
1 Permitting Process Improvements
Purpose
This report summarizes Baker Tilly’s research and analysis as well as staff recommendations resulting from the process improvement workshop conducted in November 2022. It is intended to inform the City Council, community, and stakeholders, and capture the various components of Baker Tilly’s work in a single document.

Background
Baker Tilly (formerly Management Partners) was selected by the City of La Mesa to conduct a review of its permitting process. One of the primary goals of the engagement is to identify areas for improvement and create an action plan to ensure those improvements are implemented.

The permitting process is one of the most highly visible and complex functions carried out by La Mesa staff. The significant resources invested by the private sector to develop property requires a particular sensitivity to the time and quality of the City’s work related to the entire development process, from the first telephone call or counter visit to the final sign‐off or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Finding a balance between public policies, regulations, and other legal requirements of such work, in addition to the need for frequent users of the process to feel they are well‐served by it, is the challenge faced by La Mesa and other cities across the country.

Workload and Staffing in La Mesa
The permitting functions in La Mesa are carried out by staff in Community Development, Public Works, Heartland Fire and Rescue, and contract plan review conducted by Interwest (formerly Bureau Veritas).

Tables 1 and 2 show workload and Community Development staffing data from 2019 to 2022. These data points are discussed later in this report as a part of the peer agency comparisons.

Page 185 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Permitting Process Improvements
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
2 Table 1. La Mesa Permitting Workload Data
Permitting Data FY 2019‐20 FY 2020‐21 FY 2021‐22
Total Permits Issued 1,034 991 1,093
Number of ADU Permits Issued 35 55 68
Table 2. La Mesa Permitting Staffing
Function
Number of
City Staff (FTE)
Number of
Contract Staff (FTE)
Total
(FTE)
Administration 2.0 0.0 2.0
Intake/Public Counter 2.0 0.5 2.5
Planning 3.0 0.0 3.0
Plan Review 0.0 4.0 4.0
Building Inspection 2.0 1.5 3.5
Engineering Review 2.0 0.0 2.0
Fire Plan Check and Inspection 3.0 0.0 3.0
Temporary Clerical Support Staff 0.5 0.0 0.5
TOTAL 14.5 6.0 20.5

Page 186 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Project Approach and Methodology
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
3 Project Approach and Methodology
Baker Tilly team members completed numerous activities related to La Mesa’s permitting processes associated with intake, customer service, plan review, permitting, and inspection carried out by City departments and contractors. Our work included the following major tasks:
 Conducted individual interviews with key staff in the Community Development Department and other departments involved in the permitting process to hear what is working well and what could be improved.
 Conducted interviews with Councilmembers to hear their perspectives.
 Conducted interviews with seven stakeholders to understand the range of customer perceptions about the City’s development process and ideas for improvement. Baker Tilly’s analysis and observations were informed by these interviews.
 Developed and administered a customer experience survey of 1,441 La Mesa customers who had processed projects or plans through the City’s development process. The results of this survey are included in Attachment A.
 Facilitated process mapping sessions with Community
Development, Public Works, Heartland Fire and Rescue, and Bureau Veritas employees to document existing workflow process and decision points for complex and simple applications. Project examples included a large discretionary residential project, a ministerial commercial or industrial project, a small or medium‐ sized residential project, and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) project. Attachment B introduces the process maps, although they have been provided as a separate deliverable.
 Developed observations based on the activities above and our project team members’ knowledge of industry best practices. We presented our analysis and observations to the city’s internal Process Improvement Team (PIT).
 Identified goal areas to focus on during the Permitting Process Improvement Workshop

Page 187 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Project Approach and Methodology
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
4  Facilitated a three‐day Process Improvement Workshop with staff from Community Development, Public Works, and Heartland Fire and Rescue to identify recommendations for improvement.  Prepared a draft Implementation Action Plan to help key staff manage the recommended changes.

The purpose of the customer experience survey and peer agency comparison was to inform Baker Tilly’s analysis and observations, provide context for City leaders, and assist staff participants as they developed recommendations during the Process Improvement Workshop.

Takeaways from Interviews
Baker Tilly conducted 19 interviews with a variety of City Council, staff, and stakeholders. The staff interviews included the city manager, assistant city manager, department directors and other key staff who are involved in the development process.

Stakeholder interviews were conducted to obtain input from applicants who had processed projects in La Mesa. The projects processed by these customers varied and included small residential additions and ADUs, commercial projects, large housing developments, subdivisions, and a historic building restoration.

Input from the various interviews is summarized in the six themes outlined below.

Timeliness, clarity of requirements and staff comments need improvement. Past customers were concerned with how long the process takes and that City requirements and staff comments are not always clear.

Although the City has goals for processing timeframes, customers do not know how long the review process will truly take and they are not kept apprised by staff. When there is an issue or concern with the projects, customers feel like they are on their own to resolve the matter. This is concerning, customers noted, because staff is not always accessible or responsive when they need help.

Better communication is necessary. Customers noted that it is hard to keep track of the status of their projects and that staff does not keep them informed consistently. The comments and requirements provided by staff are often unclear, according to customers. Staff noted that a lack of internal communication between the departments about projects which are under review is also a problem, and that this impacts their ability to collaborate and provide information to customers.

Page 188 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Project Approach and Methodology
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
5 Workload volumes are high. Several staff members expressed concerns with the workload, saying it can be difficult to keep up with the pace of projects given existing staffing levels. This problem has been magnified, they explained, because workload volumes have increased substantially in the last few years. Some customers also commented that limited staffing may be an issue.

MaintStar does not yet provide sufficient tools. Implementation of the MaintStar system is not yet complete and staff emphasized how this limits their ability to monitor individual development projects and manage the overall development process. Customers were also concerned with MaintStar, noting the confusion they have experienced in adapting to three different systems in recent years and commenting that they cannot view the status of their projects online.

Lack of assistance or problem‐solving. Customers expressed frustration with the lack of information and help from staff. They want a greater sense of partnership with staff to find solutions, instead of what they see as frequent roadblocks. Customers explained that they often resort to calling department directors, the city manager, or members of the City Council when they cannot get answers from staff.

Policy changes and clarifications should be considered. Interviewees had many comments about the City’s regulations being too rigid or difficult to understand. The City should reconsider the types of projects that require discretionary review, especially for beneficial projects (e.g., affordable housing). Allowing more projects “by right” would streamline the overall process because it would reduce the number of complex projects, which take longer and require more staff time.

Takeaways from Customer Experience Survey
While the complete results of the customer experience survey are provided in Attachment A, this section highlights key takeaways from the survey.
 Most survey respondents are owners (business owners, property owners, homeowners).
 Respondents’ experiences with La Mesa’s development were recent (i.e., within the last six months).
 As shown in Table 3 below, there are numerous areas where customer comments about La Mesa’s development process were positive. In general, these are the areas where the City’s process has been more successful. These successes represent a foundation for building trust and making further improvements.

Page 189 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Project Approach and Methodology
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
6  The areas where there are challenges generally relate to staff responsiveness/accessibility and the timeliness of providing comments on plan reviews.

Table 3. Summary of Customer Responses
Customer Response
Department or Functional Area
Planning
Front
Counter
Plan
Review Inspection Engineering Fire
Staff treated me courteously      
Staff was helpful      
Staff was knowledgeable      
Staff was responsive   X  X 
Staff was accessible N/A N/A X N/A X N/A
City forms and informational materials
helped
  N/A N/A N/A N/A
Information from staff helped  N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Information on website helped   N/A N/A N/A N/A
Building codes and requirements are
clear N/A N/A  N/A N/A N/A
Staff provided timely feedback on plans N/A N/A X N/A X  Comments on plans, encroachment or
public improvement plans, or during
inspections were clear
N/A N/A  N/A  
Requesting inspection was simple N/A N/A N/A  N/A 
Inspections were conducted promptly N/A N/A N/A  N/A  Green checkmarks () indicate that more than 50% of survey respondents agreed with the statement, whereas a red (X) indicates that less than 50% of survey respondents agreed with the statement.

The survey asked slightly different questions about the functional areas. The N/A notation means that the question was not applicable or that customers were not asked about the issue.

Takeaways from the Peer Comparison
Baker Tilly conducted a comparison of La Mesa’s operations with comparable cities related to the development review process, staffing, and other relevant topics. Key takeaways from this comparison are outlined below.
 Building plan review in La Mesa is performed entirely by consultant staff1.
1 The City of La Mesa has recently transitioned consultants from Bureau Veritas to Interwest. Representatives from the new consultant (Interwest) participated in the Process Improvement Workshop.

Page 190 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Project Approach and Methodology
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
7  Unlike some of the peer cities, La Mesa does not have internal plan review staff, and this limits flexibility to address plan review issues quickly and onsite. It also limits the City’s oversight of plan review services provided by consultants.
 The planning staff is small and will need greater capacity as the City moves toward a model where information and customer assistance are front‐loaded in the development process. This model will require an investment of more staff time and resources early in the development process to ensure that projects have a good start and that customers have the information they need to submit quality applications and stay informed.
 More capacity at the front counter will also be necessary to assist customers as La Mesa moves toward front‐loading customer information and assistance.
 La Mesa has fewer administrative positions than the peer cities to provide support to the development review process. These types of positions typically serve a variety of roles, such as conducting consistent and thorough data analysis (i.e., MaintStar), providing administrative support to the departments involved in the development process, producing performance reports to track the overall development process, and assisting customers as necessary.
 While there are areas where service levels and turnaround times should be improved, the workload in La Mesa must also be considered. For example, Table 4 shows that the City of La Mesa processes more than twice the number of ADU projects compared with the peer cities.

Table 4. Total Number of Building Permits Issued for ADUs Jurisdiction FY 2019‐20 FY 2020‐21 FY 2021‐22 Three‐Year Average Covina 14 30 24 23
El Cajon 17 28 41 29
La Mesa 35 55 68 53
Santee 1 3 15 6
PEER AVERAGE 11 20 27 19

 As shown in Table 5 below, La Mesa’s current plan review turnaround goals (i.e., 21 days and 14 days) are good because, if met, they provide a reasonably fast project review. The City also

Page 191 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Project Approach and Methodology
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
8 intends to improve the turnaround goals further (i.e., 12 days and 5 days).
 La Mesa’s goals compare well with the peer cities. However, the actual turnaround performance has been mixed, and it is substantially slower than in the peer cities. For example, La Mesa’s departments only meet the turnaround goals in 50% of first plan reviews, and in 75% of second and subsequent plan reviews. The average among the peer cities is 90% and 92%, respectively.
 Another challenge shown in Table 5 relates to the number of review cycles required for projects. In La Mesa, 50% of projects require three of more cycles of review while on average, only 16% of projects in the peer cities require this extent of repetitive review. Multiple cycles of review add substantial delay for development projects, in part because the cycles can be complicated and have multiple steps.
o Typical Customer Steps. Obtain, review and seek
clarification regarding City comments; revise plans and provide additional information to address City comments; submit revised plans/information to the City.
o Typical City Steps. Log and route revised submittal; affected departments review revised submittals; affected
department prepare comments; log and route the
corrections back to customer.

Table 5. Comparison of Plan Review Turnaround Time in Peer Cities Jurisdiction
Goal for turnaround
time of plan
reviews from
application intake
to first comments
Percent of time
the plan review
turnaround
time goal is
achieved
Goal for
turnaround time
of second and
subsequent plan
reviews
Percent of
time the
turnaround
time goal is
achieved
Percent of
projects requiring
three or
more plan
review cycles
Covina 28 to 42 days 90% 14 to 21 days 90% 40%1
El Cajon 21 days2 90% 14 days 3 90% 4%4
La Mesa 21 days5 50% 14 days6 75% 50%
Santee 30 days 90% 15 days 95% 5%
Peer
Average 29 days 90% 16 days 92% 16%
1Tenant improvements, residential, and new development usually have about three to four review cycles. 2Building plan review. 3For second submittal. One week for third submittal. 4If applicant’s plans require more than three plan checks, a meeting is scheduled to review plans with applicant. 5Making progress on goal to achieve 12 calendar days. 6Goal to achieve five working days for most projects.

Page 192 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Baker Tilly Observations
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
9 Baker Tilly Observations
The core process in La Mesa is not broken. It is similar to the development process in other cities, and it incorporates some best practices such as concurrent review of projects by all departments.

Rather, the problems with the development process in La Mesa stem from communication gaps with customers and within the departments, long turnaround times, repetitive cycles of reviews which may be caused by poor applicant submittals and/or by the lack of comprehensive review by staff, the need to provide customers with more specific information and assistance at the beginning of the process, insufficient staffing resources, and gaps in project tracking systems.

We have distilled the remainder of our analysis into the six specific observations below.

Observation 1: MaintStar has improved the process, but certain features have not been implemented and glitches in the system remain.

Observation 2: The project intake process is ineffective in helping customers submit quality applications and in conducting a thorough review of submittals.

Observation 3: Plan review is not consistently comprehensive, timely, well‐coordinated internally, or adequately communicated to customers, and it too often results in repetitive cycles of review.

Observation 4: Staffing levels are insufficient in key areas of the organization, which impacts the ability to serve customers.

Observation 5: Improvements to the management system would help the organization operate more effectively and better track the City’s overall development process and individual projects.

Observation 6: Staff are not consistently accessible or responsive to customers.

Page 193 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Process Improvement Workshop
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
10 Process Improvement Workshop
As mentioned previously, Baker Tilly facilitated a three‐day Process Improvement Workshop modeled after the GE Work‐Out™ technique. This well‐ known approach was developed by the General Electric Company to improve workflow by engaging employees who know the work best and understand the problems in the process.

The workshop involved City staff team members who are responsible for various work activities that occur as part of the permitting process. Because many process steps are completed in isolation, staff are often unaware of how their work relates to the entire review process. The value of effective facilitation is bringing together the various staff members who have a role in or contribute to the workflow to collectively improve a process (or processes) in a brief period.

This approach has been used successfully by Baker Tilly with staff teams in local government to improve or streamline permitting processes and improve customer service. While some of the improvements identified may be long term, there was an emphasis on immediate and short‐term implementation.

Process Improvement Team (PIT)
The City organization has a Process Improvement Team (PIT) chaired by the City Manager which meets regularly to discuss various issues related to improving City processes. This team is comprised of six individuals as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Members of the Process Improvement Team
Name Title
Greg Humora City Manager
Carlo Tomaino Assistant City Manager
Lyn Dedmon Assistant to the City Manager
Kerry Kusiak Director of Community Development
Michael Throne Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Steve Swaney Fire Chief
PIT members served as the leadership team to work with Baker Tilly throughout the engagement. They provided broad goals for the Process Improvement Workshop, as will be discussed in the next section of this report.

Page 194 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Process Improvement Workshop Management Partners
11 Workshop Participants
The Process Improvement Workshop was conducted on November 15, 16 and 17 (2022) at the La Mesa Community Center. The 14 workshop participants, as shown in Table 7, are those engaged in daily operations and working with customers.

Table 7. Process Improvement Workshop Participants
Name Title
Daniel Chan Engineering Technician I
Rachel Clarke Deputy Fire Marshal
Kristin Flores Development Services Technician II
Gia Hagan Interwest Administrative Assistant/Permit Technician Tejennia (Gina) Hargrove Development Services Technician II Allyson Kinnard Associate Planner
Dann Marquardt Associate Engineer
Don Palmer Public Works Inspector II
Brian Philbin Engineering Technician II
Shaun Richardson Fire Marshal
Stacey Sapp Building Inspection Supervisor
Jamil Thomas Building Inspector I
Laura Traffenstedt Assistant Planner
Jessica Tuazon Interwest Plan Review Engineer
Process Improvement Workshop
This section describes the process improvement goals, the workshop format, and provides the list of recommendations identified by staff and Baker Tilly.

Process Improvement Goals
The process improvement goals discussed in this section were identified by the La Mesa leadership team in consultation with Baker Tilly. The goals were based on Baker Tillys’ observations, the customer experience survey, and the results of the peer comparison survey.

Goal 1: Identify ways to enhance the overall customer experience by improving communication about application intake and at key customer interactions. Enhancing the customer experience includes predictability, timeliness, responsiveness and improved information for customers, the public, and staff.

Goal 2: Identify workflow improvements that eliminate processing delays and result in faster reviews. To achieve this goal, identify ways to improve the project intake process, provide thorough, clear, and timely reviews, and reduce repetitive review cycles.

Page 195 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Process Improvement Workshop Management Partners
12 Barriers to Achieve Improvement Goals
As a part of their efforts to identify improvements for the development review process, workshop participants also discussed common barriers to achieve the improvement goals. The common barriers include the following:
 Staffing vacancies exist, and additional staffing will be necessary in key areas.
 Technology (hardware and software) is lacking.
 Changes in state law, especially changes pertaining to housing.  Workload.
 Lack of documenting the City’s policies, practices, and procedures.  Lack of internal communication between the departments, including communication about rules and interpretations.

The barriers are addressed in the staff recommendations discussed later in this report.

Customer Service Motto
Staff were also asked during the workshop to develop a unifying motto that captures the commitment to improving customer service. Staff members recognized this requires reinforcing the sense of partnership between the City and its customers.

Such a partnership means that staff would improve the timeliness of reviews, be more accessible and responsive to customers, and ensure customers receive critical information and comments at the beginning of the process as well as updates along the way. Customers would be responsible for complete and accurate submittals (applications, plans, required reports). To acknowledge these unique roles, staff proposed the following customer service motto:

Creating a shared culture of success.

Process Improvement Workshop Format
The workshop was structured to engage the participant teams in large and small groups beginning with problem identification and ending with the development of recommendations and presentations to the PIT. Participants used the process maps prepared by Baker Tilly, and the context provided by the customer experience survey and peer agency comparison, as they generated ideas for improvement and recommendations to address the goals and associated objectives.

The workshop concluded with the participant teams presenting their ideas for improvement to the PIT and receiving immediate feedback about their recommendations.

Page 196 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Process Improvement Workshop Management Partners
13 Recommendations
The staff recommendations presented below are grouped into customer service improvements and process improvements. Baker Tilly has added five other recommendations intended to supplement the staff recommendations.

Customer Service Recommendations

1. Update the City’s website regularly to communicate current information about development review processes to applicants.

2. Finalize and release the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) guidebook in an easily updatable manner to allow changes to be incorporated.

3. Create a community workshop series to educate the development community and public about pertinent information.

4. Provide tutorial videos for applicants about using online development tools, including MaintStar.

5. Redesign the permit application to include all parties associated with the project (owner, applicant, design professional, contractor, etc.) to ensure the owner is kept apprised of progress.

6. Communicate required signoffs to applicants at permit issuance to ensure the project is completed successfully.

7. Update the zoning ordinance and other land use policies to better reflect the community’s vision.

Process Improvement Recommendations

8. Develop an aggressive schedule to implement all modules in MaintStar.

9. Create staff‐level interdepartmental development services team meetings to discuss specific projects, identify process improvement areas, and improve communication and coordination between departments.

10. Determine what applications, forms and handouts are necessary for applicant success in the development process.

11. Reinstitute pre‐application development review committee meetings with applicants to establish expectations and ensure the project is feasible.

12. Require initial building permit application review at intake by a staff member with a planning perspective.

Page 197 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Process Improvement Workshop Management Partners
14 13. Contact an applicant after two review cycles if there are outstanding comments and plans have not made significant progress.

14. Reestablish over the counter (OTC) plan review.

15. Provide onboarding and ongoing training for staff.

16. Provide staffing resources needed for technical support/processing to meet customer expectations and turnaround goals.

Supplemental Recommendations by Baker Tilly

17. Discontinue accepting incomplete applications.

18. Use performance indicators to track key permitting processes, customer service, customer satisfaction, and review and inspection milestones.

21. Conduct an annual meeting with all development services‐related staff to identify additional opportunities to improve the permitting process. 144

Page 198 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
15 Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
To: Mr. Greg Humora, City Manager
Mr. Carlo Tomaino, Assistant City Manager
From: Jay Trevino, Director
Susan Healy Keene, Special Advisor
Ashley Garcia, Consulting Manager
Subject: Community Development Process Review Project Update: Customer Experience Survey Results
Date: September 30, 2022
Introduction
Management Partners (now Baker Tilly) deployed a customer experience survey to obtain input from customers who have processed projects and plans and/or obtained permits through the City’s development review process. The survey questions were developed by Management Partners and were refined following a discussion with La Mesa’s project team. We used the SurveyMonkey™ platform to conduct the survey and compile the anonymous responses. The survey results offer many useful insights.

On August 10, 2022, the survey was deployed to 1,441 contacts provided by the Community Development Department. A reminder message was sent through SurveyMonkey™ on August 23, 2022. The Assistant City Manager followed up with an email reminder on August 29, 2022.

The survey was open from August 10 through September 2, and we received responses from a total of 266 customers, which represents 18% of the individuals who received the survey.

Management Partners believes the number of responses provides a representative sample of customers.

Survey Results
The survey was designed to elicit feedback from development review customers about what works well with the development review process and what areas could be improved.

Respondents were first asked to provide background on their role in the development review process, the components they have used recently, and how recent their latest communication with the development review staff was.

Table 8 shows the breakdown of respondent’s roles in the development review process.  One‐third of the respondents were homeowners (30%), 10% were property owners/landowners and 7% were business owners.

Page 199 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
16  Nearly a third of responses came from individuals involved in the construction process, including general contractors (19%) and subcontractors (11%).  More than four in ten responses came from other professionals involved in the development process including architects (16%), developers (6%), engineers (5%), planners (2%), and other disciplines (15%).

Table 8. Which best describes your role in obtaining City Permits or approvals? (Select all that apply) Answer Choices Response
Homeowner 78 (30%)
General Contractor 51 (19%)
Architect 41 (16%)
Other (please specify)1 40 (15%)
Skilled Trades Subcontractor 29 (11%)
Property Owner/Landowner 25 (10%)
Business Owner 18 (7%)
Developer 15 (6%)
Engineer 12 (5%)
Planner 5 (2%)
1Other roles specified by respondents include authorized agent, designer, drafter, electrical contractor, HVAC, permit runner, plumber, solar contractor, signage contractor, and traffic control company.

Table 9 provides a summary of the areas of the development review process that respondents have used over the past three years.
 Most respondents had applied for permits related to residential development. For instance, 48% of respondents’ applications included residential plan review/permitting/inspection, 23% included accessory dwelling units, 11% were for new construction, 6% were for pools/spas, and 6% were for accessory structures.  Nearly a third of respondents (31%) applied for electrical permits.

Table 9. Types of City permits or approvals that you/your company have applied for in the past three years (select all that apply)
Answer Choices Response
Residential plan review, permitting and inspections 125 (48%) Electrical 80 (31%)
Building Alteration or Addition 68 (26%)
Accessory Dwelling Unit 59 (23%)
Plumbing 43 (17%)
Solar Project/Solar Water Heater 42 (16%)

Page 200 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
17 Answer Choices Response
Grading 38 (15%)
Commercial/Industrial plan check, permitting and inspections 35 (13%) New Construction (Residential/Non‐Residential, or Transient Housing) 29 (11%) Mechanical 25 (10%)
Fire plan check 25 (10%)
Retaining Wall 20 (8%)
Other (please specify) 1 18 (7%)
Demolition 17 (7%)
Pool/Spa 16 (6%)
Encroachment Permits 16 (6%)
Accessory Structure 15 (6%)
Sign 12 (5%)
1Other permits or approvals specified by respondents include reroof, patio cover, landscape, traffic control, foundation strengthening, street improvement and lot line adjustment.

Respondents were also asked how long ago they concluded their most recent involvement with the development review process. As shown in Figure 1, over two‐thirds (68%) were involved within the last six months.

Figure 1. When was your most recent involvement in obtaining permits or approvals from the City of La Mesa?
Respondents were shown a series of statements about their interactions with specific divisions throughout the development review process in La Mesa and asked to indicate their level of 68%
16% 13% 3%
One to six
months ago
Seven to 12
months ago
Twelve to 24
months ago
Over 24 months
ago
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Responses

Page 201 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
18 agreement (strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree) with each statement as shown in Tables 3 to 9. Respondents could also indicate that the question did not apply by selecting N/A. The cells highlighted in yellow indicate whether a majority of respondents agreed or disagreed with a particular statement when combining strongly agree/agree and strongly disagree/disagree.

Overall, respondents indicated they had favorable interactions with staff in the Planning Division, Building Inspections and Fire Plan Check/Inspections. In contrast, respondents identified several areas for improvement, including turnaround times, accessibility of engineering staff, and clarity of comments provided during plan check. Most respondents indicated that plan check staff and engineering staff do not provide timely feedback. Only 47% rate engineering staff accessible and 46% rate comments from engineering staff as clear.

Respondents were split when asked about several functions in the development review process, with about half agreeing/half disagreeing that information provided on the City website meets their needs, plan check staff is accessible, engineering staff is responsive, the building permit process is well‐coordinated, and the overall development review process is well‐coordinated.

Each indicates an opportunity for improvement.

As Table 10 shows, the majority of respondents rated services provided by the Planning Division favorably in each of the areas. The highest rated category indicates that planning staff treated customers courteously (86% agree or strongly agree). Although a majority of customers (56% agree or strongly agree) rated planning staff as being responsive, this is an area where future improvements could be focused.

Table 10. City of La Mesa Planning Processes and Procedures Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree/
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly Disagree
a. Planning staff treated me courteously.
69 (36%) 97 (50%) 9 (5%) 19 (10%)
23 (11%)
166 (86%) 28 (14%)
b. Planning staff were helpful. 62 (32%) 78 (40%) 31 (16%) 25 (13%) 21 (10%)
140 (71%) 56 (29%)
c. Planning staff were knowledgeable. 54 (28%) 92 (48%) 25 (13%) 20 (10%) 23 (11%)
146 (76%) 45 (24%)
d. Planning staff were responsive.
44 (22%) 67 (34%) 42 (21%) 45 (23%)
16 (7%)
111 (56%) 87 (44%)
e. City‐provided forms and informational materials
helped me understand the requirements for
preparing and submitting complete plans and
applications at the beginning of the process.
44 (23%) 78 (41%) 44 (23%) 25 (13%)
25 (12%)
122 (64%) 69 (36%)
46 (24%) 76 (39%) 43 (22%) 28 (15%) 23 (11%)

Page 202 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
19 Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree/
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly Disagree
f. City‐provided forms and informational materials
helped me understand the City’s application and
permitting fees at the beginning of the process.
122 (63%) 71 (37%)
g. Information I received from City staff member(s)
helped me to submit complete plans and
applications.
48 (25%) 81 (42%) 35 (18%) 29 (15%)
23 (11%)
129 (67%) 64 (33%)
h. Information provided on the City website helped
me to submit complete plans and applications.
42 (22%) 72 (37%) 47 (24%) 34 (17%)
20 (9%)
114 (58%) 81 (42%)
As shown in Table 11, 85% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that front counter staff treated them courteously, while over seven in ten indicated front counter staff were helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. Most respondents also believed that permit applications and informational materials provided sufficient information about the requirements for preparing and submitting building plans and fees. In contrast, respondents were split on whether the information available on the City’s website about the permitting process was helpful.

Table 11. City of La Mesa Front Counter Processes and Procedures Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree/
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly Disagree
a. Front counter staff treated me courteously.
46 (38%) 58 (48%) 10 (8%) 8 (7%) 86 (41%) 104 (85%) 18 (15%) b. Front counter staff were helpful. 37 (30%) 55 (45%) 20 (16%) 10 (8%) 85 (41%) 92 (75%) 30 (25%) c. Front counter staff were knowledgeable. 31 (26%) 57 (48%) 22 (18%) 10 (8%) 87 (42%) 88 (73%) 32 (27%) d. Front counter staff were responsive.
36 (30%) 51 (42%) 19 (16%) 15 (12%) 84 (41%) 87 (72%) 34 (28%) e. Permit application forms and informational
materials allowed me to be informed about the
requirements and preparing and submitting
building plans for review.
34 (21%) 65 (40%) 42 (26%) 22 (13%)
42 (20%) 99 (61%) 64 (39%)
f. Permit application forms and informational
materials kept me informed about application and
permitting fees.
36 (21%) 68 (40%) 42 (25%) 24 (14%)
36 (17%) 104 (61%) 66 (39%)
g. Information provided on the City website about
the development review process met my needs.
31 (19%) 54 (33%) 47 (28%) 34 (20%) 40 (19%) 85 (51%) 81 (49%)

Page 203 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
20 Table 12 shows that a majority of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that plan check staff treated them courteously (81%), were helpful (64%), and are knowledgeable (72%).

However, respondents were split on whether plan check staff were responsive and accessible. A majority of respondents disagreed that plan check staff provided timely feedback on their plans.

However, slightly over half (57%) of respondents agreed that comments from plan check staff about building plans were clear. This customer feedback suggests responsiveness, accessibility, timeliness, and clarity of comments are key areas for improvement.

Table 12. City of La Mesa Plan Check Processes and Procedures Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree/
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly Disagree
a. Plan check staff treated me courteously. 44 (27%) 86 (53%) 13 (8%) 18 (11%) 33 (17%) 130 (81%) 31 (19%)
b. Plan check staff were helpful. 36 (22%) 69 (42%) 31 (19%) 27 (17%) 31 (16%) 105 (64%) 58 (36%)
c. Plan check staff were knowledgeable. 36 (22%) 80 (50%) 22 (14%) 23 (14%) 33 (17%) 116 (72%) 45 (28%)
d. Plan check staff were responsive. 29 (17%) 52 (31%) 40 (24%) 45 (27%) 28 (14%) 81 (49%) 85 (51%)
e. Plan check staff were accessible 31 (18%) 49 (29%) 38 (23%) 50 (30%) 25 (13%) 80 (48%) 88 (52%)
f. La Mesa building codes and requirements are clear
and understandable.
31 (18%) 75 (43%) 35 (20%) 35 (20%) 18 (9%)
106 (60%) 70 (40%)
g. Plan check staff provided timely feedback on my
plans
29 (17%) 47 (27%) 32 (19%) 64 (37%) 22 (11%)
76 (44%) 96 (56%)
h. Comments from plan check staff about building
plans were clear.
28 (17%) 68 (40%) 30 (18%) 43 (25%) 24 (12%)
96 (57%) 73 (43%)
Table 13 shows that respondents appear to be highly satisfied with the service they received from building inspectors. Nine in ten of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that building inspectors treated them courteously. Respondents also indicated that inspectors were helpful (83%, knowledgeable (85%), and responsive (84%). Similarly, between 84% and 90% of respondents felt that requesting an inspection was simple, inspections were conducted within a reasonable amount of time, and comments from inspectors were clear.

Page 204 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
21 Table 13. City of La Mesa Building Inspection Processes and Procedures Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree/
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly Disagree
a. Inspectors treated me courteously.
53 (45%) 55 (46%) 5 (4%) 6 (5%)
70 (37%)
108 (91%) 11 (9%)
b. Inspectors were helpful. 49 (41%) 50 (42%) 16 (13%) 5 (4%) 68 (36%)
99 (83%) 21 (18%)
c. Inspectors were knowledgeable. 43 (37%) 56 (48%) 12 (10%) 6 (5%) 69 (37%)
99 (85%) 18 (15%)
d. Inspectors were responsive.
50 (42%) 49 (42%) 11 (9%) 8 (7%)
68 (37%)
99 (84%) 19 (16%)
e. Requesting an inspection was simple.
45 (39%) 59 (51%) 8 (7%) 4 (3%)
70 (38%)
104 (90%) 12 (10%)
f. Inspections were conducted within a reasonable
amount of time after requesting an inspection
online or by phone
51 (44%) 55 (47%) 7 (6%) 4 (3%)
69 (37%)
106 (91%) 11 (9%)
g. Comments from inspections were clear.
44 (37%) 56 (47%) 14 (12%) 5 (4%)
69 (37%)
100 (84%) 19 (16%)
As shown in Table 14, almost three‐quarters (73%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that engineering staff treated them courteously. Just over half of respondents (58%) indicated that engineering staff were helpful while 60% agreed they were knowledgeable. A total of 55% agreed that the engineers’ comments about building plans were clear.

In contrast, 53% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that engineering staff were accessible. Additionally, 56% of respondents disagreed that engineering staff provided timely feedback on grading plans, encroachment and/or public improvement plans and 54% disagreed that comments from engineering staff about plans were clear.

Table 14. City of La Mesa Engineering Processes and Procedures Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree /
Agree
Strongly Disagree /
Disagree
a. Engineering staff treated me courteously.
24 (24%) 50 (50%) 9 (9%) 18 (18%)
79 (44%)
74 (73%) 27 (27%)
b. Engineering staff were helpful.
21 (20%) 40 (38%) 23 (22%) 21 (20%)
76 (42%)
61 (58%) 44 (42%)

Page 205 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
22 Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree /
Agree
Strongly Disagree /
Disagree
c. Engineering staff were knowledgeable.
24 (23%) 48 (46%) 14 (13%) 18 (17%)
77 (43%)
72 (69%) 32 (31%)
d. Engineering staff were responsive.
21 (19%) 34 (31%) 27 (25%) 27 (25%)
72 (40%)
55 (50%) 54 (50%)
e. Engineering staff were accessible.
20 (18%) 31 (28%) 31 (28%) 27 (25%)
71 (39%)
51 (47%) 58 (53%)
f. Comments from engineering staff about building
plans were clear.
18 (16%) 43 (39%) 24 (22%) 26 (23%)
70 (39%)
61 (55%) 50 (45%)
g. Engineering staff provided timely feedback on
grading plans, encroachment and/or public
improvement plans.
17 (17%) 28 (27%) 23 (23%) 34 (33%)
79 (44%)
45 (44%) 57 (56%)
h. Comments from engineering staff about grading
plans, encroachment and/or public improvement
plans were clear.
19 (19%) 27 (27%) 27 (27%) 26 (26%)
82 (45%)
46 (46%) 53 (54%)
Respondents are highly satisfied with the service they receive from fire plan check staff and fire inspectors, as Table 15 demonstrates. More than eight in ten of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that fire plan check staff and fire inspectors treated them courteously, 88% and 89%, respectively. Similarly high ratings were given by respondents when asked about fire plan check staff and fire inspectors’ helpfulness, knowledge, and responsiveness. Respondents indicated that fire plan check staff provided timely and clear feedback on their plans. The responses show that customers found that requesting an inspection was simple, that inspections were conducted within a reasonable amount of time, and that comments from inspectors were clear.

Table 15. City of La Mesa Fire Processes and Procedures Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree /
Agree
Strongly Disagree /
Disagree
a. Fire plan check staff treated me courteously.
22 (42%) 24 (46%) 3 (6%) 3 (6%)
119 (70%)
46 (88%) 6 (12%)
b. Fire inspection staff treated me courteously.
20 (43%) 21 (46%) 2 (4%) 3 (7%)
126 (73%)
41 (89%) 5 (11%)
c. Fire plan check staff were helpful.
21 (40%) 23 (43%) 6 (11%) 3 (6%)
119 (69%)
44 (83%) 9 (17%)

Page 206 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
23 Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree /
Agree
Strongly Disagree /
Disagree
d. Fire inspection staff were helpful.
19 (43%) 20 (45%) 2 (5%) 3 (7%)
128 (74%)
39 (89%) 5 (11%)
e. Fire plan check staff were knowledgeable.
22 (42%) 23 (43%) 5 (9%) 3 (6%)
119 (69%)
45 (85%) 8 (15%)
f. Fire inspection staff were knowledgeable.
18 (42%) 20 (47%) 2 (5%) 3 (7%)
129 (75%)
38 (88%) 5 (12%)
g. Fire plan check staff were responsive.
20 (37%) 23 (43%) 4 (7%) 7 (13%)
117 (68%)
43 (80%) 11 (20%)
h. Fire inspection staff were responsive.
15 (34%) 24 (55%) 2 (5%) 3 (7%)
127 (74%)
39 (89%) 5 (11%)
i. Fire plan check staff provided timely feedback on
my plans.
17 (30%) 27 (48%) 4 (7%) 8 (14%)
115 (67%)
44 (79%) 12 (21%)
j. Comments from fire plan check staff were clear.
20 (34%) 30 (52%) 5 (9%) 3 (5%)
114 (66%)
50 (86%) 8 (14%)
k. Requesting a construction inspection from Fire was
simple.
15 (41%) 17 (46%) 2 (5%) 3 (8%)
135 (78%)
32 (86%) 5 (14%)
l. Inspections were conducted within a reasonable
amount of time after requesting a fire inspection.
14 (34%) 20 (49%) 2 (5%) 5 (12%)
131 (76%)
34 (83%) 7 (17%)
m. Comments from fire inspectors were clear.
15 (36%) 22 (52%) 2 (5%) 3 (7%)
130 (76%)
37 (88%) 5 (12%)
As Table 16 shows, seven in ten respondents indicated staff provided good service (75%) and that they have the necessary skill to do their job (73%). One important difference, however, is that 53% of respondents did not believe that staffing levels were sufficient in the divisions that they interacted with. Respondents were split on whether the building permitting process and development review process were well coordinated between departments.

Page 207 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
24 Table 16. City of La Mesa Overall Permitting Process and Procedures Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Strongly Agree /
Agree
Strongly Disagree /
Disagree
a. Members of staff I interacted with provided good service. 46 (30%) 69 (45%) 22 (14%) 16 (10%)
19 (11%)
115 (75%) 38 (25%)
b. Members of staff I interacted with had the skills
necessary to do a good job.
42 (28%) 67 (45%) 25 (17%) 16 (11%)
22 (13%)
109 (73%) 41 (27%)
c. Staffing levels were sufficient in the divisions I interacted with.
31 (21%) 39 (26%) 40 (27%) 38 (26%)
25 (14%)
70 (47%) 78 (53%)
d. The building permit process is well coordinated between departments.
29 (20%) 46 (31%) 25 (17%) 48 (32%)
24 (14%)
75 (51%) 73 (49%)
e. Overall, the development review process is well
coordinated between departments.
32 (21%) 44 (29%) 29 (19%) 46 (30%)
21 (12%)
76 (50%) 75 (50%)
As shown in Figure 2, a majority of respondents used MaintStar to submit applications or plans.

Figure 2. Do respondents use the MaintStar portal?
As shown in Table 17, a majority of respondents believed that the MaintStar Portal is clear, easy, well‐functioning and user‐friendly.

Yes No

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%
I have used the MaintStar portal to submit applications or plans.

Page 208 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
25 Table 17. City of La Mesa MaintStar Portal
Answer Choices
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don't
Know
Strongly Agree /
Agree
Strongly Disagree /
Disagree
a. The process for submitting plans through the
MaintStar portal was clear.
32 (27%) 54 (46%) 21 (18%) 10 (9%)
52 (31%)
86 (74%) 31 (26%)
b. Submitting plans through the MaintStar portal was
easy.
30 (26%) 57 (49%) 21 (18%) 9 (8%)
52 (31%)
87 (74%) 30 (26%)
c. MaintStar works well.
29 (25%) 51 (44%) 25 (21%) 12 (10%)
52 (31%)
80 (68%) 37 (32%)
d. MaintStar is user‐friendly.
27 (23%) 55 (47%) 26 (22%) 10 (8%)
51 (30%)
82 (69%) 36 (31%)
Open‐Ended Questions
At the end of the survey, respondents were offered the opportunity to provide open‐ended responses about what they believe would have made their past experiences with La Mesa’s development review process more successful and to provide more detailed examples about bottlenecks in the process.

What would have made your experience(s) with La Mesa’s development review process more successful?
Respondents submitted 112 responses to this question. They have been summarized into the 10 themes outlined below.
 More responsiveness from staff; higher level of customer service,  Faster and more predictable turnaround times,
 Regular status updates,
 More user‐friendly customer portal,
 In‐person interactions should be improved
 Clearer City requirements,
 Clearer comments from third‐party plan checkers,
 Better coordination between the departments,
 More consistency throughout the process, and
 Other comments or issues.

Page 209 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment A – Customer Experience Survey Results
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
26 Have you experienced process issues and/or bottlenecks in the plan check process? If yes, please explain the issue or bottleneck clearly and provide an example if possible.

Respondents submitted 104 responses to this question, and they have been summarized into the 11 themes outlined below.
 Lack of timeliness,
 Inadequate communication and coordination,
 Arbitrary or conflicting plan review comments,
 Insufficient staffing, staff absences and turnover,
 Problems with online submittals,
 Lack of staff responsiveness,
 Engineering review,
 Rigid plan review requirements,
 Issues with outside agencies,
 Project intake, and
 Other comments or issues.

Conclusion
The survey results suggest that customers are highly satisfied with certain aspects of La Mesa’s development review process (building inspection and fire services, courteousness, knowledge, and helpfulness of staff) but they are critical of some key aspects (timeliness, responsiveness, inadequate information, internal coordination). Also, the numeric ratings were more favorable than responses to the open‐ended questions.

The results suggest that customers value and appreciate City staff, but need and expect more help, greater predictability, and faster turnaround. In evaluating future improvements, we believe there is an opportunity for the City to build on the foundation of good will between customers and staff by adding various high‐touch service enhancements, e.g., holding pre‐ submittal meetings and meetings with applicants at key milestones, regular updates by email or phone, and implementing a development review committee to meet with applicants at the outset of a project.

Page 210 of 354 ends

Summary Report on Permitting Process Improvements
Attachment B – A Word About the Process Maps
Baker Tilly x
Management Partners
27 Attachment B – A Word About the Process Maps
A primary activity carried out by Baker Tilly in the analysis of La Mesa’s permitting process included mapping the workflow in the form of “as is” process maps. “As is” processes document the current flow of work carried out by multiple staff.

The process maps show key steps that are the applicant and city staffʹs responsibility during application submission, intake, fee payment, plan reviews, and inspections steps. The process maps also show key decision points, revision and re‐submittal loops and the steps for final approvals.

Process maps were prepared for four application types: a large discretionary residential project, a ministerial commercial or industrial project, a small or medium‐sized residential project, and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) project.

The workflow depicted on each process map is displayed using the symbols shown below to depict who carries out process steps and activities, by position title; documents that are issued; what happens to applications or plans after a decision point; where associated sub‐ processes/predefined processes, and where decisions are made (i.e., Is the application complete? or Is the permit approved or denied?).

The process maps have been provided to the City under separate cover.

Pre- Defined Proess
Process Step or Work Activity
Document
Decision
Optional or Discretionary Activity

Page 211 of 354 ends

City of La Mesa
Draft Implementation Action Plan
January 2023

Page 212 of 354 ends

Making the Most of the Draft Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly has developed this draft Implementation Action Plan to assist the the City of La Mesa with the phasing and scheduling of 21 recommendations. Participants in the Permitting Process Improvement Workshop identified 16 recommendations. Baker Tilly added 5 recommendations generated from our analysis of the permitting functions and elaboration regarding best practices for several items initiated by staff. The action plan includes the combined recommendations beginning with those developed by La Mesa staff during the workshop. Baker Tilly also added an implementation priority and we have suggested the person who should responsible for leading the implmentation of each recommendation.

The work involved in implementing the recommendations must be integrated into the other work of the departments and divisions tasked with their completion, along with appropriate assignments of responsibility and ultimately with the identification of specific planned completion dates. The draft Action Plan begins that process with guidance about a recommended priority assignment for each recommendation. Priority 1 recommendations are those that we believe are the most important to accomplish without delay or are easy to accomplish, in other words, “quick wins.” Priority 2 recommendations have less importance in the near term or have an added element of complication to complete or require significant resources (perhaps internal and external) for completion. Priority 3 recommendations are the least urgent to complete, because they require action by a third party over which the City has no direct control, have a high degree of complexity, or have a relatively low level of urgency compared with other Community Development and permitting process goals.

We suggest you use this document to prepare a final Action Plan for implementing the recommendations of the Permitting Process Improvement. In doing so, you and the managers involved in permitting processes will need to identify specific target dates for completing implementation activities for each recommendation. Additionally, you may want to modify the described activities for implementing an individual recommendation based on internal knowledge of what will be required for completion or adjust the assignment of responsibility based on pending or future workload or other considerations. Where a draft task calls for an activity to occur “regularly” or with a pre-set frequency (e.g., quarterly, monthly) you’ll want to assure that your implementing procedure or policy is written to accomplish that objective. To turn this draft into the Action Plan that is used to manage implementation, replace the column titled “Priority” with actual completion dates. Target dates can be specific (e.g., September 1) or indicated by the anticipated month or quarter (e.g., 3Q 2023), as appropriate to the individual action.

We note that prudent implementation of most recommendations will require “circling back” after the work of implementation has begun to fine-tune the action steps or milestones based on experience. This step is not explicitly called out for each recommendation, however, assessing the progress of implementation for the recommendations, via “circling back” through performance monitoring, should be a part of your normal management system. 0 All the work to implement the recommendations is in addition to the normal work of involved La Mesa managers and staff. Baker Tilly has staff associates who are experienced in implementing many of the actions identified in this report. We welcome the opportunity to assist as you proceed with implementing the improvements and are available to consult with you in whatever way we can be helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact Jay Trevino at 714.926.1515 ([email protected]) if we can be of assistance.

The discipline of project planning and regularly assessing progress is basic to successful execution of the work ahead. We hope that you find the draft Action Plan useful in that regard.

Page 213 of 354 ends

City of La Mesa
Draft Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly x Management Partners 1 Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments

CUSTOMER SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Update the City’s website regularly to communicate current information about development review processes to applicants.
• Evaluate each webpage and identify improvements
• Develop easy-to-understand flowcharts and/or infographics by application for posting on the website
• Create FAQs (frequently asked questions) as a resource for applicants
• Upload updated materials to the website
• Promote availability of this customer service enhancement Priority 2 Assistant Planner May require assistance from a graphic artist or web
consultant to ensure this work
is completed in a timely
manner.

2. Finalize and release the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) guidebook in an easily updatable manner to allow changes to be incorporated. • Finalize document
• Publish to website
• Maintain and update as codes change
• Promote this information to community members
Priority 1
(quick win)
Associate Planner

3. Create a community workshop series to educate the development community and public about pertinent information
• Brainstorm potential topics
• Identify target audiences
• Seek grant funding
• Develop presentations
• Promote to the community
• Conduct community workshop
Priority 2 Associate Planner May require regional
collaboration and external
funding.

4. Provide tutorial videos for applicants about using online development tools, including MaintStar.
• Identify which videos should be created
• Create videos
• Preview videos with staff for training purposes
• Upload videos to website
• Promote this customer service enhancement to the public Priority 2 Development
Services Technician
Requires support from City
Manager’s Office
communications and
production team.

5. Redesign permit application to include all parties associated with project (owner, applicant, design professional, contractor, etc.) to ensure the owner is kept apprised of progress.
• Direct MaintStar staff to make appropriate fields mandatory in the application
• Implement system changes in MaintStar
Priority 2 Development
Services Technician
Requires support from
MaintStar implementation
specialists.
1Priority 1: Important to accomplish without delay and/or easy to accomplish Priority 2: Second tier of importance to accomplish and/or may involve some complexity or time to complete Priority 3: Least urgent to complete and/or may take longer to set-up or to execute 2To establish clear accountability there should be a single manager assigned responsibility for completing implementation of each recommendation. Where more than one manager is identified in this column, responsibility should be clarified when the Final Action Plan is prepared.

Page 214 of 354 ends

City of La Mesa
Draft Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly x Management Partners 2 Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
• Verify all fields are complete and correct at intake
• Direct MaintStar staff to include applicant’s entire project team on all communications (application changes, plan review corrections, approvals, etc.)

6. Communicate required signoffs to applicants at permit issuance to ensure the project is completed successfully.
• Create a MaintStar electronic message or handout explaining final steps
• Create electronic stamps to identify all applicable City department final signoffs and contact numbers
• Add the stamps to the workflow
Priority 2 Development
Services Technician
Requires support from
MaintStar implementation
specialists.

7. Update the zoning ordinance and other land use policies to better reflect the community’s vision.
• Conduct a comprehensive review of policies and identify those that need to be updated
• Provide a staff report to City Council justifying the need for the update
• Develop a scope of work
• Obtain Council approval and budget funding
• Engage a consultant to draft updated policies and conduct an environmental review
• Conduct community engagement to obtain input
• Present updated zoning ordinance to City Council for adoption Priority 3 Community
Development
Director
Requires prioritization by City
Council and appropriate
funding. This will likely be a
multi-year initiative.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

8. Develop an aggressive schedule to implement all modules in MaintStar. • Establish a priority list of features to accelerate MaintStar implementation
• Provide the priority list to MaintStar
• Provide MaintStar training to staff
• Designate and train a key staff member with responsibility for ongoing maintenance and improvements to MaintStar
• Develop an Administrator’s Desk Manual for MaintStar
maintenance
• Provide ongoing technical support (either IT or consultant) • Enter any future wish list items as a support ticket
• Provide regular MaintStar implementation briefings for staff Priority 2 Management
Analyst
Refer to MaintStar Wish List
(slide 19 of Process
Improvement Workshop
presentation).

Requires support from
MaintStar implementation
specialists.

Page 215 of 354 ends

City of La Mesa
Draft Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly x Management Partners 3 Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments

9. Create staff-level interdepartmental development services team meetings to discuss specific projects, identify process improvement areas, and improve communication and coordination between departments.
• Schedule quarterly meetings (or as needed) with Planning, Building, Engineering, Fire, and Interwest representatives • Define the specific purpose of the meeting
• Create agendas for each meeting
• Identify action items and responsibilities for follow up • Communicate action items as needed to senior management Priority 1
(quick win)
Associate Planner

10. Determine what applications, forms and handouts are necessary for applicant success in the development process.
• Review existing applications, forms, handouts, and checklists • Evaluate and identify what is missing and needs to be updated • Make necessary updates
• Create a new pre-application checklist (Building, Fire) • Identify the need for new checklists for specific project types • Require applicants to complete appropriate checklists with each submittal including explanation of items not included
• Review and update annually
Priority 2 Associate Engineer

11. Reinstitute pre-application development review committee meetings with applicants to establish expectations and ensure the project is feasible.
• Establish a list of applicable projects for required or optional review
• Communicate that no fee is required, since this is a customer enhancement
• Develop a meeting schedule for staff representatives from each department
• Provide a checklist of pre-application required for the meeting • Create meeting agendas
• Conduct meetings with applicants
• Promote this service enhancement to the development
community
Priority 1
(quick win)
Associate Planner

12. Require initial building permit application review at intake by a staff member with a planning perspective.
• Train Development Services technicians to look at plans from a planning perspective
• Review allowed uses and discretionary requirements
• Review for grading and landscaping requirements
Priority 2 Assistant Planner

Page 216 of 354 ends

City of La Mesa
Draft Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly x Management Partners 4 Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments

13. Contact an applicant after two review cycles if there are outstanding comments and plans have not made significant progress.
• Contact applicant to schedule a meeting immediately after returning the second list of plan review corrections
• Coordinate with plan reviewers from the various departments that have remaining comments to ensure they will participate in the meeting
• Determine whether a phone conversation or meeting with applicant is needed depending on outstanding comments
• Conduct meeting and document outcomes
Priority 1
(quick win)
Development
Services Technician

14. Reestablish over the counter (OTC) plan review. • Define which projects qualify for OTC plan review • Determine days, hours, and method of scheduling
• Schedule a representative from each discipline as needed to staff the counter
• Require two plan sets for review and once approved, upload into MaintStar
• Communicate this service enhancement to customers
• Explore digital options for OTC plan review
• Promote this service enhancement to the development
community
Priority 2 Building Inspection
Supervisor

15. Provide onboarding and ongoing training for staff. • Memorialize current standard operating procedures (SOPs) • Identify training needs or gaps
• Create training videos for specific desk procedures
• Authorize temporary overfills before key retirements to provide sufficient training opportunities
• Provide regular training and professional development • Establish a shadowing and/or mentoring program in conjunction with Human Resources
Priority 2 Community
Development
Director
Requires support from Human
Resources and the City
Manager. See
recommendation 17 for more
details regarding SOPs.

Page 217 of 354 ends

City of La Mesa
Draft Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly x Management Partners 5 Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments

16. Provide staffing resources needed for technical support/processing to meet customer expectations and turnaround goals.
• Fill current vacancies
• Identify and prioritize immediate staffing needs to address workload capacity gaps
• Review and update job descriptions for new positions to meet additional technical support needs
• Obtain City Council authorization and funding to create new positions
• Conduct a recruitment
• Select and onboard successful candidates
Priority 1 Assistant City
Manager
Refer to specific recommended
new positions and justification
for each on slide 27 of Process
Improvement Workshop
presentation. Requires City
Council to authorize new
positions and support from
Human Resources for
recruitment.

BAKER TILLY RECOMMENDATIONS

17. Discontinue accepting incomplete applications. • Review submittal requirements and update as needed • Set a date to discontinue accepting incomplete applications • Notify City administration and the public
• Post on the La Mesa website and in the Permit Center
Priority 1 Community
Development
Director

18. Use performance indicators to track key permitting processes, customer service, customer satisfaction, and review and inspection milestones. • Identify performance indicators to be tracked
• Develop an annual customer satisfaction survey
• Develop a post-project survey to track customer feedback for projects after they are complete
• Upload the post-project survey to the La Mesa website and link to MaintStar for applicants to take after project completion • Review project feedback from customers quarterly
• Use information obtained from customer satisfaction reports to develop customer and internal facing performance indicators Priority 3 Community
Development
Director

19. Develop and update standard operating procedures (SOPs) to clarify process workflows, capture institutional knowledge, ensure staff are performing functions consistently and assist with training and cross training.
• Identify the list of procedures to be documented
• Draft the procedures, circulate for internal feedback, and finalize • Publish SOPs on internal shared drive
• Train staff on SOPs
Priority 2 Community
Development
Director
Provides additional details for
Recommendation 15.

20. Upgrade hardware and software to allow more efficient and effective plan review, including providing large monitors for plan review and improving storage capacity and processing speeds for emails and large files
• Identify staff that need upgraded hardware and equipment • Determine the appropriate technology
• Determine the cost of upgrading hardware and equipment • Make a budget request
• Upgrade software for all staff involved in the development process Priority 2 Community
Development
Director

Page 218 of 354 ends

City of La Mesa
Draft Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly x Management Partners 6 Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments

21. Conduct an annual meeting with all development services-related staff to identify additional opportunities to improve the permitting process. • Address additional recommendations identified by workshop participants
• Prioritize and add specific items to the Implementation Action Plan
• Identify implementation steps, timelines, and persons responsible
Priority 3 Community
Development
Director
Refer to Additional
Recommendations on slide 28
of Process Improvement
Workshop presentation.

Page 219 of 354 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA

APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO FUND AN ADDITIONAL

ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN POSITION AND PERMITTING PROCESS

TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, the City Council approved an agreement with Baker Tilly US, LLP (formerly Management Partners) to conduct permitting process improvement consulting services for the Community Development Department and Public Works/Engineering Division at the City of La Mesa;
WHEREAS, this agreement included conducting a process improvement workshop with City staff, preparation of process maps, evaluation of performance measures, policies, and communication, a customer experience survey and comparison of peer agencies and individual interviews with key City staff, stakeholders, former applicants, and City Councilmembers; WHEREAS, the consulting services process outlined in the agreement concluded with the development of a Summary Report by Baker Tilly US, LLP outlining recommended actions for permitting process improvements;
WHEREAS, to implement recommendations in the Summary Report, the City desires to immediately fund an additional Engineering Technician position in the Public Works/Engineering Division and fund technology improvements in the Community Development Department and Public Works/Engineering Division;
WHEREAS, an appropriation in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) from General Fund reserves to the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget is necessary to fund an additional Engineering Technician position for the remainder of the Fiscal Year; and WHEREAS, an appropriation in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) from General Fund Reserves to the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget is necessary to fund technology improvements in the Community Development Department and Public Works/Engineering Division.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California that the City Council approves an appropriation in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) from General Fund Reserves to the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget to fund an additional Engineering Technician position and an appropriation in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) from General Fund Reserves to the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget to fund technology improvements in the Community Development Department and Public Works/Engineering Division.

Page 220 of 354 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 28
th day of February 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2023- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.

MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)

Page 221 of 354 ends

Page 222 of 354 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: February 28, 2023
SUBJECT: ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 (AB 2449) - TELECONFERENCE

MEETINGS PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT AFTER

TERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY

DECLARATION
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: CITY CLERK
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should teleconference meeting accommodations continue for all or some of the legislative bodies pursuant to AB 2449 following the rescission of the statewide declaration of emergency?
Recommendation:

Receive a report on changes to state law regarding teleconference meetings and establish an ad hoc subcommittee for the purpose of reviewing AB 2449 and recommending teleconferencing policies and procedures for City Council and the City’s Boards and Commissions following the termination of California’s Emergency Declaration.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Continue to improve high quality municipal services

Page 223 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 2 of 6
BACKGROUND:

Since the beginning of the pandemic in March of 2020, the state’s public meetings laws have been relaxed to allow for use of teleconferencing by members of legislative bodies without the strict noticing and public access requirements contained in the Brown Act.

Initially, this was through an executive order and currently it is in statutory amendments (AB 361), which became effective September of 2021.

AB 361 allows legislative bodies to use abbreviated notice and public access requirements for teleconference meetings, as long as the Governor’s State of Emergency remained in force and the legislative body made findings every thirty days that the State of Emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet in person. The Council has made findings to this effect since AB 361 came into force in 2021.

Governor Newsom has announced his intention to rescind the COVID-19 State of Emergency at the end of February of 2023. This means that the teleconference requirements of the Brown Act which were in place prior to the pandemic will come back into effect on March 1, 2023. In addition, new legislature (AB 2449) has made allowance for the sparing use of teleconferencing by members of legislative bodies in other limited circumstances, given just cause, as defined in the Brown Act.

Under the Brown Act, the City of La Mesa’s legislative bodies include the City Council and all Commissions, Boards, and Committees.

It is important to note that the regulations regarding teleconference meetings only apply to members of the legislative bodies (Councilmembers, Commissioners, Board and/or Committee Members). The law does not restrict the ability of a legislative body to make teleconference participation available to members of the public, staff, and/or consultants to participate in meetings virtually if the legislative body so desires.

DISCUSSION:

With the rescission of the statewide declaration of emergency, legislative body members will now need to attend meetings in person or adhere to traditional Brown Act teleconference requirements. Traditional teleconferencing under the Brown Act is permitted for all purposes during any meeting so long as:
 A quorum of the legislative body participates from locations within the local agency’s jurisdiction;

Page 224 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 3 of 6
 The meeting notice and agenda identify the teleconference location, including a full address and room number, as applicable;
 The agenda is posted at each teleconference location 72 hours before the regular meeting, even if a hotel room or residence;
 The public has access to each teleconference location and there is proper technology for public participation;
 The agenda outlines the process for the public to address the legislative body directly at each teleconference location;
 The legislative body provides the opportunity for the public to address the legislative body directly at each teleconference location; and  The legislative body must vote by roll call.

On September 13, 2022, Governor Newsom signed AB 2449, effective as of January 1, 2023, which permits a non-majority number of legislative body members to utilize teleconferencing participation for meetings without complying to the traditional Brown Act requirements. To avail itself of the teleconferencing rules established under AB 2449, a public agency must comply with the following meeting requirements:
1) A quorum of the members of the agency’s legislative body must participate in person from a singular physical location identified on the agenda; 2) The legislative body must provide either (i) a two-way audiovisual platform, such as Zoom or WebEx, which allows the meeting to be viewed and heard from a remote location, or (ii) a two-way telephonic service and a live webcasting of the meeting, this requirement may be satisfied with any combination of platforms that allows the meeting to be viewed and heard from a remote location; 3) The agenda must give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment; and
4) The meeting must be paused (and no action may be taken), if the broadcasting platform, either audio or visual, is interrupted.

If a member of a legislative body wishes to participate remotely under the new procedures, all of the following requirements, (1) through (4), below, must apply:

Page 225 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 4 of 6
1) The request to remotely participate must be on the basis of a circumstance that qualifies as a “just cause” or “emergency” circumstance within the meaning of AB 2449:
(i) Just Cause Circumstance: At the earliest opportunity possible (including at the start of a regular meeting), the requesting member must notify the legislative body that he/she has a “just cause” reason for participating remotely. The request must generally describe the specific circumstances that prevent in person participation. Under AB 2449, “just cause” is specifically defined to mean any of the following circumstances:
a. A childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires them to participate remotely;
b. A contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person;
c. A need related to certain statutorily defined forms of physical or mental disability; or
d. Travel while on official business of the public agency or for another state or local agency.

It is important to note that under AB 2449, members are limited to a maximum of two (2) times per calendar year to invoke the “just cause” exception to in-person participation.
(ii) Emergency Circumstance: An “emergency circumstance” is defined to mean a “physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending a meeting in person.” To invoke the “emergency circumstance” exception, the requesting member, as soon as possible, must request that the legislative body allow him/her to participate remotely due to some specified “emergency circumstance.” In turn, the member’s legislative body must take action to approve the request at the earliest opportunity. The legislative body shall also request a general description (not exceeding 20 words) that describes the circumstances relating to the requesting members “emergency.” The requesting member

Page 226 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 5 of 6
is not, however, required to disclose any medical diagnosis or disability, or any personal medical information that is already exempt under existing law. The member must also make a separate request for each meeting in which he/she seeks to participate remotely under the “emergency” exception.

Participation via teleconference under the “emergency circumstance” exception does not count toward the two-meeting limitation applicable to the “just cause” exception.
2) The member must publicly disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with any such individuals.
3) The member must participate through both audio and visual technology. 4) A member’s remote participation may not exceed (i) three consecutive months, or (ii) 20% of a legislative body’s regular meetings within a single calendar year (four meetings if the agency meets 24 times per year). Also, if the legislative body regularly meets fewer than 10 times per calendar year, a member’s participation from a remote location cannot be for more than two meetings total.

Remote Participation by Community Members, Staff, and Consultants The limitations on remote participation discussed above apply only to the members of the legislative body. Staff and/or members of the public may still appear in meetings remotely without any additional notice requirements. If the legislative body is meeting entirely in person, the public must be permitted to participate in person and may be permitted to participate remotely. If a teleconference option is used by a member of the body, the public must be permitted to participate both in person and remotely.

CONCLUSION:

Staff requests the City Council receive the report and establish an ad hoc subcommittee for the purpose of reviewing AB 2449 and recommending teleconferencing policies and procedures for City Council and the City’s Boards and Commissions following the termination of California’s Emergency Declaration.

Page 227 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 6 of 6
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Megan Wiegelman
City Manager City Clerk
Attachments: A. Assembly Bill 2449

Page 228 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 1/14 SHARE THIS: Date Published: 09/14/2022 09:00 PM
AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. (2021-2022) Assembly Bill No. 2449
CHAPTER 285
An act to amend, repeal, and add Sections 54953 and 54954.2 of the Government Code, relating to local government.
[ Approved by Governor September 13, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State September 13, 2022. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2449, Blanca Rubio. Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences.

Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The act generally requires posting an agenda at least 72 hours before a regular meeting that contains a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, and prohibits any action or discussion from being undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The act authorizes a legislative body to take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under specified conditions. The act contains specified provisions regarding providing for the ability of the public to observe and provide comment. The act allows for meetings to occur via teleconferencing subject to certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating in the public meeting, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, that members of the public be allowed to address the legislative body at each teleconference location, that the legislative body post an agenda at each teleconference location, and that at least a quorum of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the local agency’s jurisdiction. The act provides an exemption to the jurisdictional requirement for health authorities, as defined.

Existing law, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with those specified teleconferencing requirements in specified circumstances when a declared state of emergency is in effect, or in other situations related to public health.

This bill would revise and recast those teleconferencing provisions and, until January 1, 2026, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements that each teleconference location be identified in the notice and agenda and that each teleconference location be accessible to the public if at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participates in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda that is open to the public and situated within the local agency’s jurisdiction. Under this exception, the bill would authorize a member to participate remotely under specified circumstances, including participating remotely for just cause or due to emergency circumstances. The emergency circumstances basis for remote participation would be contingent on a request to, and action by, the legislative body, as prescribed. The bill, until January 1, 2026, would authorize a legislative body to consider and Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites

Page 229 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 2/14 take action on a request from a member to participate in a meeting remotely due to emergency circumstances if the request does not allow sufficient time to place the proposed action on the posted agenda for the meeting for which the request is made. The bill would define terms for purposes of these teleconferencing provisions.

This bill would impose prescribed requirements for this exception relating to notice, agendas, the means and manner of access, and procedures for disruptions. The bill would require the legislative body to implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, consistent with federal law.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: no Local Program: no THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 54953 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 3 of Chapter 165 of the Statutes of 2021, is amended to read:
54953. (a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2) Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, the legislative body of a local agency shall comply with all of the following:
(A) All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall. (B) The teleconferenced meetings shall be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (C) The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(D) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3.
(3) If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e).
(c) (1) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.

Page 230 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 3/14 (2) The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3) Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section. (3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members. (e) (1) The legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing without complying with the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) if the legislative body complies with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this subdivision in any of the following circumstances:
(A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. (B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (2) A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdivision shall do all of the following:
(A) In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. (B) In the event of a disruption that prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the legislative body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption that prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1. (C) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time.

Page 231 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 4/14 (D) Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local legislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to register as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate.
(E) (i) A legislative body that provides a timed public comment period for each agenda item shall not close the public comment period for the agenda item, or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), to provide public comment until that timed public comment period has elapsed. (ii) A legislative body that does not provide a timed public comment period, but takes public comment separately on each agenda item, shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to register pursuant to subparagraph (F), or otherwise be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment.
(iii) A legislative body that provides a timed general public comment period that does not correspond to a specific agenda item shall not close the public comment period or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), until the timed general public comment period has elapsed. (3) If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A) The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency. (B) Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. (4) This subdivision shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(f) (1) The legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing without complying with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) if, during the teleconference meeting, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participates in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda, which location shall be open to the public and situated within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction and the legislative body complies with all of the following:
(A) The legislative body shall provide at least one of the following as a means by which the public may remotely hear and visually observe the meeting, and remotely address the legislative body:
(i) A two-way audiovisual platform.
(ii) A two-way telephonic service and a live webcasting of the meeting. (B) In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. (C) The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend and address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 via a call-in option, via an internet-based service option, and at the in-person location of the meeting.
(D) In the event of a disruption that prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the legislative body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption that prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1. Page 232 of 354 10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 5/14 (E) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time. (F) Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local legislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to register as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate.
(2) A member of the legislative body shall only participate in the meeting remotely pursuant to this subdivision, if all of the following requirements are met:
(A) One of the following circumstances applies:
(i) The member notifies the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of a regular meeting, of their need to participate remotely for just cause, including a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. The provisions of this clause shall not be used by any member of the legislative body for more than two meetings per calendar year.
(ii) The member requests the legislative body to allow them to participate in the meeting remotely due to emergency circumstances and the legislative body takes action to approve the request. The legislative body shall request a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. A general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words and shall not require the member to disclose any medical diagnosis or disability, or any personal medical information that is already exempt under existing law, such as the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 56) of Part 2.6 of Division 1 of the Civil Code). For the purposes of this clause, the following requirements apply:
(I) A member shall make a request to participate remotely at a meeting pursuant to this clause as soon as possible. The member shall make a separate request for each meeting in which they seek to participate remotely.
(II) The legislative body may take action on a request to participate remotely at the earliest opportunity. If the request does not allow sufficient time to place proposed action on such a request on the posted agenda for the meeting for which the request is made, the legislative body may take action at the beginning of the meeting in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2.
(B) The member shall publicly disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with any such individuals. (C) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology. (3) The provisions of this subdivision shall not serve as a means for any member of a legislative body to participate in meetings of the legislative body solely by teleconference from a remote location for a period of more than three consecutive months or 20 percent of the regular meetings for the local agency within a calendar year, or more than two meetings if the legislative body regularly meets fewer than 10 times per calendar year.
(g) The legislative body shall have and implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and resolving any doubt in favor of accessibility. In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the procedure for receiving and resolving requests for accommodation. (h) The legislative body shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable civil rights and nondiscrimination laws.
(i) (1) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a legislative body from providing the public with additional teleconference locations.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a legislative body from providing members of the public with additional physical locations in which the public may observe and address the legislative body by electronic means.

Page 233 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 6/14 (j) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Emergency circumstances” means a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person.
(2) “Just cause” means any of the following:
(A) A childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires them to participate remotely. “Child,” “parent,” “grandparent,” “grandchild,” and “sibling” have the same meaning as those terms do in Section 12945.2. (B) A contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person. (C) A need related to a physical or mental disability as defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 not otherwise accommodated by subdivision (g).
(D) Travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency. (3) “Remote location” means a location from which a member of a legislative body participates in a meeting pursuant to subdivision (f), other than any physical meeting location designated in the notice of the meeting.

Remote locations need not be accessible to the public.
(4) “Remote participation” means participation in a meeting by teleconference at a location other than any physical meeting location designated in the notice of the meeting. Watching or listening to a meeting via webcasting or another similar electronic medium that does not permit members to interactively hear, discuss, or deliberate on matters, does not constitute remote participation. (5) “State of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2). (6) “Teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both. (7) “Two-way audiovisual platform” means an online platform that provides participants with the ability to participate in a meeting via both an interactive video conference and a two-way telephonic function. (8) “Two-way telephonic service” means a telephone service that does not require internet access, is not provided as part of a two-way audiovisual platform, and allows participants to dial a telephone number to listen and verbally participate.
(9) “Webcasting” means a streaming video broadcast online or on television, using streaming media technology to distribute a single content source to many simultaneous listeners and viewers. (k) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 2. Section 54953 of the Government Code, as added by Section 4 of Chapter 165 of the Statutes of 2021, is amended to read:
54953. (a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2) Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, the legislative body of a local agency shall comply with all of the following:
(A) All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.

Page 234 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 7/14 (B) The teleconferenced meetings shall be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (C) The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(D) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3.
(3) If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d).
(c) (1) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final. (2) The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3) Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section. (3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members. (e) (1) The legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing without complying with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) if, during the teleconference meeting, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participates in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda, which location shall be open to the public and situated within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction and the legislative body complies with all of the following:
(A) The legislative body shall provide at least one of the following as a means by which the public may remotely hear and visually observe the meeting, and remotely address the legislative body:
(i) A two-way audiovisual platform.
(ii) A two-way telephonic service and a live webcasting of the meeting. (B) In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by

Page 235 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 8/14 which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. (C) The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend and address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 via a call-in option, via an internet-based service option, and at the in-person location of the meeting.
(D) In the event of a disruption that prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the legislative body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption that prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1. (E) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time. (F) Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local legislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to register as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate.
(2) A member of the legislative body shall only participate in the meeting remotely pursuant to this subdivision, if all of the following requirements are met:
(A) One of the following circumstances applies:
(i) The member notifies the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of a regular meeting, of their need to participate remotely for just cause, including a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. The provisions of this clause shall not be used by any member of the legislative body for more than two meetings per calendar year.
(ii) The member requests the legislative body to allow them to participate in the meeting remotely due to emergency circumstances and the legislative body takes action to approve the request. The legislative body shall request a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. A general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words and shall not require the member to disclose any medical diagnosis or disability, or any personal medical information that is already exempt under existing law, such as the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 56) of Part 2.6 of Division 1 of the Civil Code). For the purposes of this clause, the following requirements apply:
(I) A member shall make a request to participate remotely at a meeting pursuant to this clause as soon as possible. The member shall make a separate request for each meeting in which they seek to participate remotely.
(II) The legislative body may take action on a request to participate remotely at the earliest opportunity. If the request does not allow sufficient time to place proposed action on such a request on the posted agenda for the meeting for which the request is made, the legislative body may take action at the beginning of the meeting in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2.
(B) The member shall publicly disclose at the meeting before any action is taken whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with any such individuals. (C) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology. (3) The provisions of this subdivision shall not serve as a means for any member of a legislative body to participate in meetings of the legislative body solely by teleconference from a remote location for a period of more than three consecutive months or 20 percent of the regular meetings for the local agency within a calendar year, or more than two meetings if the legislative body regularly meets fewer than 10 times per calendar year.

Page 236 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 9/14 (f) The legislative body shall have and implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and resolving any doubt in favor of accessibility. In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the procedure for receiving and resolving requests for accommodation. (g) The legislative body shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable civil rights and nondiscrimination laws.
(h) (1) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a legislative body from providing the public with additional teleconference locations.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a legislative body from providing members of the public with additional physical locations in which the public may observe and address the legislative body by electronic means. (i) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Emergency circumstances” means a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person.
(2) “Just cause” means any of the following:
(A) A childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires them to participate remotely. “Child,” “parent,” “grandparent,” “grandchild,” and “sibling” have the same meaning as those terms do in Section 12945.2. (B) A contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person. (C) A need related to a physical or mental disability as defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 not otherwise accommodated by subdivision (f).
(D) Travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency. (3) “Remote location” means a location from which a member of a legislative body participates in a meeting pursuant to subdivision (e), other than any physical meeting location designated in the notice of the meeting.

Remote locations need not be accessible to the public.
(4) “Remote participation” means participation in a meeting by teleconference at a location other than any physical meeting location designated in the notice of the meeting. Watching or listening to a meeting via webcasting or another similar electronic medium that does not permit members to interactively hear, discuss, or deliberate on matters, does not constitute remote participation. (5) “Teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both. (6) “Two-way audiovisual platform” means an online platform that provides participants with the ability to participate in a meeting via both an interactive video conference and a two-way telephonic function. (7) “Two-way telephonic service” means a telephone service that does not require internet access, is not provided as part of a two-way audiovisual platform, and allows participants to dial a telephone number to listen and verbally participate.
(8) “Webcasting” means a streaming video broadcast online or on television, using streaming media technology to distribute a single content source to many simultaneous listeners and viewers. (j) This section shall become operative January 1, 2024, shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 54953 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54953. (a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

Page 237 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 10/14 (b) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2) Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3) If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from providing the public with additional teleconference locations. (c) (1) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final. (2) The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3) Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation. (d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section. (3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members. (e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2026.

SEC. 4. Section 54954.2 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54954.2. (a) (1) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. A brief general description of an item Page 238 of 354 10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 11/14 generally need not exceed 20 words. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the local agency has one. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. The agenda shall include information regarding how, to whom, and when a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be made by a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting. (2) For a meeting occurring on and after January 1, 2019, of a legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state that has an Internet Web site, the following provisions shall apply:
(A) An online posting of an agenda shall be posted on the primary Internet Web site homepage of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state that is accessible through a prominent, direct link to the current agenda. The direct link to the agenda shall not be in a contextual menu; however, a link in addition to the direct link to the agenda may be accessible through a contextual menu.
(B) An online posting of an agenda including, but not limited to, an agenda posted in an integrated agenda management platform, shall be posted in an open format that meets all of the following requirements:
(i) Retrievable, downloadable, indexable, and electronically searchable by commonly used Internet search applications.
(ii) Platform independent and machine readable.
(iii) Available to the public free of charge and without any restriction that would impede the reuse or redistribution of the agenda.
(C) A legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state that has an Internet Web site and an integrated agenda management platform shall not be required to comply with subparagraph (A) if all of the following are met:
(i) A direct link to the integrated agenda management platform shall be posted on the primary Internet Web site homepage of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state. The direct link to the integrated agenda management platform shall not be in a contextual menu. When a person clicks on the direct link to the integrated agenda management platform, the direct link shall take the person directly to an Internet Web site with the agendas of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state.
(ii) The integrated agenda management platform may contain the prior agendas of a legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. (iii) The current agenda of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state shall be the first agenda available at the top of the integrated agenda management platform.
(iv) All agendas posted in the integrated agenda management platform shall comply with the requirements in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (B). (D) For the purposes of this paragraph, both of the following definitions shall apply:
(i) “Integrated agenda management platform” means an Internet Web site of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state dedicated to providing the entirety of the agenda information for the legislative body of the city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state to the public. (ii) “Legislative body” has the same meaning as that term is used in subdivision (a) of Section 54952. (E) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to a political subdivision of a local agency that was established by the legislative body of the city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or

Page 239 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 12/14 political subdivision established by the state.
(3) No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the conditions stated below. Prior to discussing any item pursuant to this subdivision, the legislative body shall publicly identify the item. (1) Upon a determination by a majority vote of the legislative body that an emergency situation exists, as defined in Section 54956.5.
(2) Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body present at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a). (3) The item was posted pursuant to subdivision (a) for a prior meeting of the legislative body occurring not more than five calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item, and at the prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken. (4) To consider action on a request from a member to participate in a meeting remotely due to emergency circumstances, pursuant to Section 54953, if the request does not allow sufficient time to place the proposed action on the posted agenda for the meeting for which the request is made. The legislative body may approve such a request by a majority vote of the legislative body. (c) This section is necessary to implement and reasonably within the scope of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (a), the requirement that the agenda be posted on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the local agency has one, shall only apply to a legislative body that meets either of the following standards:
(1) A legislative body as that term is defined by subdivision (a) of Section 54952. (2) A legislative body as that term is defined by subdivision (b) of Section 54952, if the members of the legislative body are compensated for their appearance, and if one or more of the members of the legislative body are also members of a legislative body as that term is defined by subdivision (a) of Section 54952. (e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 5. Section 54954.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54954.2. (a) (1) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the local agency has one. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. The agenda shall include information regarding how, to whom, and when a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be made by a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting.

Page 240 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 13/14 (2) For a meeting occurring on and after January 1, 2019, of a legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state that has an Internet Web site, the following provisions shall apply:
(A) An online posting of an agenda shall be posted on the primary Internet Web site homepage of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state that is accessible through a prominent, direct link to the current agenda. The direct link to the agenda shall not be in a contextual menu; however, a link in addition to the direct link to the agenda may be accessible through a contextual menu.
(B) An online posting of an agenda including, but not limited to, an agenda posted in an integrated agenda management platform, shall be posted in an open format that meets all of the following requirements:
(i) Retrievable, downloadable, indexable, and electronically searchable by commonly used Internet search applications.
(ii) Platform independent and machine readable.
(iii) Available to the public free of charge and without any restriction that would impede the reuse or redistribution of the agenda.
(C) A legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state that has an Internet Web site and an integrated agenda management platform shall not be required to comply with subparagraph (A) if all of the following are met:
(i) A direct link to the integrated agenda management platform shall be posted on the primary Internet Web site homepage of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state. The direct link to the integrated agenda management platform shall not be in a contextual menu. When a person clicks on the direct link to the integrated agenda management platform, the direct link shall take the person directly to an Internet Web site with the agendas of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state.
(ii) The integrated agenda management platform may contain the prior agendas of a legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. (iii) The current agenda of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state shall be the first agenda available at the top of the integrated agenda management platform.
(iv) All agendas posted in the integrated agenda management platform shall comply with the requirements in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (B). (D) For the purposes of this paragraph, both of the following definitions shall apply:
(i) “Integrated agenda management platform” means an Internet Web site of a city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state dedicated to providing the entirety of the agenda information for the legislative body of the city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state to the public. (ii) “Legislative body” has the same meaning as that term is used in subdivision (a) of Section 54952. (E) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to a political subdivision of a local agency that was established by the legislative body of the city, county, city and county, special district, school district, or political subdivision established by the state.
(3) No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body

Page 241 of 354 ends

10/25/22, 12:37 PM Bill Text - AB-2449 Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2449 14/14 at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the conditions stated below. Prior to discussing any item pursuant to this subdivision, the legislative body shall publicly identify the item. (1) Upon a determination by a majority vote of the legislative body that an emergency situation exists, as defined in Section 54956.5.
(2) Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body present at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a). (3) The item was posted pursuant to subdivision (a) for a prior meeting of the legislative body occurring not more than five calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item, and at the prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken. (c) This section is necessary to implement and reasonably within the scope of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (a), the requirement that the agenda be posted on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the local agency has one, shall only apply to a legislative body that meets either of the following standards:
(1) A legislative body as that term is defined by subdivision (a) of Section 54952. (2) A legislative body as that term is defined by subdivision (b) of Section 54952, if the members of the legislative body are compensated for their appearance, and if one or more of the members of the legislative body are also members of a legislative body as that term is defined by subdivision (a) of Section 54952. (e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2026.

SEC. 6. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 1 and 2 of this act, which amend Section 54953 of the Government Code, impose a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.

Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

By removing the requirement for agendas to be placed at the location of each public official participating in a public meeting remotely, including from the member’s private home or hospital room, this act protects the personal, private information of public officials and their families while preserving the public’s right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 7. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 1 and 2 of this act, which amend Section 54953 of the Government Code, further, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

This act is necessary to ensure minimum standards for public participation and notice requirements allowing for greater public participation in teleconference meetings.

Page 242 of 354 ends

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: February 28, 2023
SUBJECT: FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION OF
ORDINANCES TO AMEND TITLE 24 (ZONING) OF
THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE 1)

EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS (ADU) AND 2) EXISTING

REGULATIONS FOR JUNIOR ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS (JADU) IN COMPLIANCE WITH

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS
65852.2, 65852.22, 65852.23, AND 65852.26, AS
THOSE SECTIONS WERE AMENDED BY AB 345, AB
2221, AND SB 897 (PROJECT 2022-2565)
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY:

Issues:

Should Title 24 of the La Mesa Municipal Code be amended to update 1) existing regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and 2) existing regulations for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) consistent with recent changes in State law?
Recommendation:

Introduce for first reading ordinances to amend La Mesa Municipal Code Title 24 (Zoning) to update 1) existing regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) (Attachment A), and 2) existing regulations for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) (Attachment B), in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2, 65852.22, 65852.23, and 65852.26 and Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12, as those Sections were amended by AB 345, AB 2221, and SB 897.

Page 243 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 2 of 7
Fiscal Impact:

There would be no impact to the General Fund related to this project. City of La Mesa policy is to recover 100% of the cost of staff time through application processing fees.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Revitalize neighborhoods and corridors
 Ensure safe and affordable homes for La Mesa's current and future residents
Environmental Review:

This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

BACKGROUND:

State law:

In recent years, the State of California has adopted a series of housing bills amending regulations pertaining to the development of accessory dwelling units. These bills have continued the State’s efforts to address barriers to the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) by building upon changes made to ADU and JADU law since 2016. The collective goal of these State bills, which were passed every year since 2019, is to accelerate housing development to address local housing needs.

In 2021, the State Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 345 (AB 345). Taking effect on January 1, 2022, AB 345 expanded upon the previously adopted Assembly Bill 587 which created limited exceptions to allow ADUs to be conveyed separately from the primary dwelling if certain conditions are met.

In 2022, the State Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2221 (AB 2221) and Senate Bill 897 (SB 897). Both bills took effect on January 1, 2023. Collectively, the bills further amend the state ADU and JADU statutes to impose additional limitations on local regulation of ADUs and JADUs. The bills contain various amendments related to height limits, setbacks, application review, denial procedures, unpermitted structures, and JADU configurations.

Page 244 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 3 of 7
A copy of AB 345, AB 2221, and SB 897 are attached hereto as Attachment C. This Attachment sets forth the Legislature’s findings, declarations, and intent relative to accessory dwelling units.

DISCUSSION:

The draft ordinances amending Title 24 (Zoning) of the La Mesa Municipal Code to update existing regulations for ADUs (Attachment A) and JADUs (Attachment B) are provided with additions shown as underlined and deletions shown as strikethrough. The following discussion highlights the major changes to the ADU and JADU regulations.

1. SB 897 and AB 2221 compliance: The bills contain various updates aimed at removing local zoning barriers that could restrict or lengthen the permit timelines for ADU and JADU development. Several provisions within SB 897 and AB 2221 have already been implemented at the City of La Mesa. Consequently, some provisions only require the continuation of current permitting practices and do not necessitate Code text changes. A table detailing the specific State updates to ADU and JADU laws and how the City would attain compliance is attached hereto as Attachment D.

2. AB 345 compliance: This bill expands AB 587 which allowed the conveyance of ADUs when constructed by a qualified nonprofit corporation and sold to a qualified buyer. Minor amendments are included in the draft ADU ordinance to keep the language consistent with AB 345. Specifically, new provisions are added in Section

24.05.020.8.i.iii (4) specifying the contents of a recorded tenancy in common agreement.

3. Rearrangement and formatting changes: As noted previously, the State Legislature enacted updates to ADU and JADU statutes in the past four consecutive years, which has resulted in a growing list of regulations that were added to the Zoning Ordinance. The draft ADU ordinance includes staff-initiated revisions intended to augment clarity for the benefit of staff and the general public. These revisions are limited to categorizing the regulations under new subheadings and rearranging the order of regulations. The changes incorporate feedback from customers over the past several years. Overall, these changes are aimed at improving the current ordinance’s user readability and implementation efficiency.

4. Consistency with State statutes: The draft ADU and JADU ordinances include revisions to increase consistency with State ADU and JADU laws. Using lessons learned over the past several years of implementation, amendments are proposed which are intended to remove potentially ambiguous language. The proposed amendments are summarized below:

Page 245 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 4 of 7
A. Updating language to ensure ADU laws are applied broadly to existing and proposed single-family and multi-family dwellings. For example, in Section

24.05.020.8.a.i., a reference to “single-family residence” is replaced with “dwelling.”
B. Creating a new subheading for certain categories of ADU development which are exempt from local zoning regulations and must be ministerially approved with a building permit only pursuant to California Government Code section 65852.2(e).

Previously, these provisions were dispersed throughout the ordinance and incorporated into other regulations. By separating these provisions into a new subcategory and replicating language from the State statutes, the draft ordinance distinguishes the types of ADU development that are exempt from local zoning authority.

C. Minor revisions to update the JADU ordinance to be consistent with the State’s adopted wording contained within Government Code Section 65852.22.

5. ADU Height Limitations: The City’s current regulations limit new ADUs to two different height limits depending on compliance with City setbacks. ADUs that comply with typical City setbacks are limited to the same height limit applicable to residential structures. For the portion of an ADU that utilizes the reduced rear and side-yard setback provided by State law, the City’s regulations limit height to a maximum of 16 feet and one story. The changes in State law would require the City to allow a height of 18 feet within one-half mile of transit stations, which comprises a significant portion of the City (there are no high-quality transit corridors in La Mesa).

This would create three different height limits for ADUs depending on their location within the City and on the lot.

The existing regulations with two height limits have caused confusion for property owners, building professionals, and staff, and has limited the ability of some properties to develop ADUs. Adding a third tier to the applicable height limits would create additional complication. To provide a clear and consistent regulatory framework for the development of ADUs, staff recommends that the draft ADU ordinance (Attachment A) utilize the height applicable to the underlying zoning district of 20 feet for single-family zones or 30 feet for multifamily zones for all ADU construction. For many properties in the City, this would increase the height limit for an ADU from 18 feet as provided by State law to 20 feet as provided by City singlefamily zoning. This streamlined strategy with one height limit applicable to a property would provide customer service benefits and process efficiency, and be consistent with General Plan policies to reduce constraints to housing production and affordability with minimal change to impacts on adjacent properties.

Page 246 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 5 of 7
For reference only, a color-coded, marked-up version of the draft ordinances is attached to clearly display the new, deleted, and moved text (Attachment E). A clean version of the final proposed text is also attached for reference purposes (Attachment F).

General Plan Consistency:

Section 24.03.020 of the La Mesa Municipal Code provides that any proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance shall be evaluated for consistency with the General Plan. The project supports the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies listed below:
● Goal LU-4: An equitable community that meets the needs of all residents. ● Objective LU-4.1: Adequate and affordable housing available for all segments of the community.
● Policy LU-4.1: Opportunities for affordable housing should exist in all residential areas to support the policies and programs for the City’s Housing Element. ● Goal HE-2: Availability of a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price to meet the existing and future needs of La Mesa residents. ● Objective HE-2.1: Provide a variety of residential development opportunities in the City.
● Policy HE-2.1.1: Provide a variety of residential development opportunities in the City, including single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, condominiums, and residential mixed use to fulfill regional housing needs. ● Policy HE-2.1.2: Encourage the production of housing for all segments of the La Mesa population, including those with special needs and extremely low incomes. ● Policy HE-2.1.4: Encourage housing constructed expressly for lower and moderateincome households not be concentrated in any single neighborhood in the City. ● Goal HE-3: Housing for lower income households, including ownership and rental opportunities for moderate-income households.
● Objective HE-3.2: Assist in creating ownership and rental opportunities for moderate income households.
● Policy HE-3.1.1: Facilitate the development of lower and moderate-income housing by offering developers incentives such as: 1) density bonuses; 2) City participation in on and off-site public improvements; and 3) flexibility in zoning and development standards.
● Goal HE-4: A City that mitigates potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability.
● Objective HE-4.1: Remove constraints to housing production and affordability. ● Policy HE-4.1.3: Review and adjust as appropriate residential development standards, regulations, ordinances, and processing procedures that are determined to constrain housing development, particularly housing for lower and moderateincome households and for persons with special needs.

Page 247 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 6 of 7
RHNA
Constructed ADUs and JADUs are counted as moderate-income dwelling units toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Planning Commission:

On December 21, 2022, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments for ADUs and JADUs in conformance with recent State law updates. The Planning Commission supported the amendments as presented by staff, with the exception of height limits. The Planning Commission expressed a preference for copying verbatim the different ADU height limitations prescribed within State law, which would result in height limits of 16, 18, 20, or 30 feet depending on location within the City and on the property. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2022-12 (Attachment G) recommending City Council adoption of the amendments. It should be noted that the staff recommendation and attached draft ordinances reflect the initial staff recommendation to utilize the height limit of the underlying zone (20 feet for single-family zones, 30 feet for multifamily zones) for the reasons identified previously in this report. This change is not considered significant and is not subject to review by the Planning Commission as contemplated by LMMC Section 24.03.080.

Public Notice
Notification of the February 28, 2023, City Council public hearing to consider this matter was published in the San Diego Daily Transcript on February 17, 2023.

Environmental Review
Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units by a city to implement the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code as set forth in section 21080.17 of the California Public Resources Code.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council find that the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan, and introduce for first reading ordinances to amend La Mesa Municipal Code Title 24 (Zoning) to update 1) existing regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) (Attachment A), and 2) existing regulations for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) (Attachment B), in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2, 65852.22, 65852.23, and 65852.26 and Health and Safety

Page 248 of 354 ends

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: February 28, 2023
Page: 7 of 7
Code Section 17980.12, as those Sections were amended by AB 345, AB 2221, and SB 897.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Kerry Kusiak
City Manager Director of Community Development
Attachments:

A. Draft Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance
B. Draft Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) Ordinance C. Enacted State of California Legislative Bills
(1) Assembly Bill 345
(2) Assembly Bill 2221
(3) Senate Bill 897
D. SB 897 and AB 2221 Compliance Tables
E. Color-coded, marked up version of draft ADU and JADU regulations F. Clean version of draft ADU and JADU regulations
G. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2022-12

Page 249 of 354 ends

1 of 16 ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 24 (ZONING) OF THE LA MESA

MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.2, 65852.23, and 65852.26 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 17980.12
___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, housing in California is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and the availability of housing is a substantial concern for individuals of all demographics, ages, and income groups in communities throughout the City of La Mesa (City); WHEREAS, the state is falling far short of meeting current and future housing demand and the housing affordability crisis threatens the public health, safety, and/or welfare of our citizenry;
WHEREAS, accessory dwelling units are additional living quarters that are independent of the primary dwelling unit that may be either attached or detached and provide complete independent living facilities, including facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation; WHEREAS, alternative housing models such as accessory dwelling units contribute to addressing housing supply and affordability;
WHEREAS, Section 65852.150(a) of the California Government Code provides that accessory dwelling units are a valuable form of housing; that they may provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home healthcare providers, the disabled, and others at below market prices within existing neighborhoods; that they may add income and an increased sense of security to homeowners; that they will provide additional rental housing stock; that they offer lower cost housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents within existing neighborhoods, while respecting architectural character; and that they are an essential component of California’s housing supply;
WHEREAS, Section 65852.150(b) of the California Government Code provides that the Legislature’s intent is that local agencies adopt an ordinance relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements, that are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create accessory dwelling units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance;
WHEREAS, the State of California has pursued and enacted various legislation since 2017 regarding the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), intended to further address barriers to accessory dwelling unit construction, which the Legislature has determined is a common-sense, cost effective approach to accommodate future growth and to encourage infill development in developed neighborhoods;
WHEREAS, in September 2021, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill 345, which requires cities to allow the separate sale or conveyance of certain ADUs that satisfy the conditions set forth in Government Code section 65852.26, including, among other things, that the ADU or the primary dwelling was constructed by a qualified nonprofit and the ADU is sold to a qualified low-income buyer;

Page 250 of 354 ends

2 of 16
WHEREAS, in September 2022, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill 2221 and Senate Bill 897 (“AB 2221” and “SB 897,” respectively), which collectively imposed further restrictions on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs, including with respect to height limits, setbacks, application review and denial procedures, unpermitted structures, and JADU configurations;
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to implement the State legislation through adoption of local regulations for the development of accessory dwelling units, as provided by California Government Code Section 65852.2(a), to provide increased affordable housing options and to further the public health, safety, and welfare;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65852.2 et seq. of the California Government Code, accessory dwelling units are a residential use consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designation for the lot, and accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the accessory unit is located;
WHEREAS, the City desires to clearly communicate to the residents and citizens and business community how the City intends to implement Section 65852.2 of the California Government Code;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 21, 2022, regarding the herein proposed amendments to Title 24 (Zoning) of the La Mesa Municipal Code (Project 2022-2565), considered all evidence, including testimony and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, presented at said hearing;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2022-12 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 24 (Zoning) of the La Mesa Municipal Code for the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding the herein proposed amendments to Title 24 (Zoning) of the La Mesa Municipal Code, considered all evidence, including testimony and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, presented at said hearing;
WHEREAS, notices of all said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law;
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the powers vested in the City pursuant to Article XI, Sections 5 and 7, of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the City’s adoption of an ordinance to implement Government Code Section 65852.2 regarding accessory dwelling units pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the Council of the City of La Mesa, California as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines the following:

A. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct and an integral part of the City

Page 251 of 354 ends

3 of 16
Council’s decision, and hereby adopts such recitals as findings.

B. That the regulations proposed herein are consistent with California Government Code Section 65852.2.

C. That this action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

SECTION 2: Title 24 (Zoning) of the La Mesa Municipal Code (LMMC) is hereby amended as follows, additions are shown as underline and deletions are shown as strikethrough:

A. Amend accessory dwelling unit parking requirement in LMMC Section 24.04.050A(8):
“8. Accessory dwelling unit No parking spaces required (See Municipal Code Section 24.05.020D8(fo))”
B. Delete existing LMMC Section 24.05.020D8:

8. Accessory dwelling units, attached and detached.
a. One attached or one detached accessory dwelling unit may be permitted in conjunction with an existing or proposed single-family residence on lots zoned for single-family or multifamily residential use.
b. The greater of one accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling units totaling not more than twenty-five percent of the existing dwelling units in a multifamily dwelling structure may be permitted on lots with existing multifamily dwelling structures in any residential or mixed-use zone. Such accessory dwelling units must be within existing portions of the existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, provided each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
c. Not more than two detached accessory dwelling units not exceeding sixteen feet in height may be permitted on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling in any residential or mixed-use zone.
d. An accessory dwelling unit may be permitted on the same lot as a junior accessory dwelling unit.
e. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the primary residence, but may be rented, except as provided in Section

24.05.020D8(bb).
f. The rental of an accessory dwelling unit created under Section 24.05.020D8b or c shall be for terms longer than thirty days.
g. Except as provided herein, attached and detached accessory dwelling units shall comply with the development standards of the underlying zone and/or overlay zone, and all other ordinances, regulations, and policies, applicable to the development of residential dwelling units.
h. Except as provided herein, attached and detached accessory dwelling units shall comply with all local building and fire code requirements, as appropriate.

Page 252 of 354 ends

4 of 16
i. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
j. Projects solely proposing the development of an accessory dwelling unit shall be exempt from public right-of-way dedication and improvement requirements. k. The floor area of an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet.
l. Setbacks for accessory dwelling units:
i. Except as provided herein, attached and detached accessory dwelling units shall comply with the setbacks required for the primary dwelling as established by the underlying zoning designation or overlay zone, as applicable. ii. Notwithstanding the setbacks established by the underlying zoning designation or overlay zone, attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall have a setback of not less than four feet from side and rear property lines, or from the interior edge of adjacent access easements, whichever is more restrictive, except where the underlying zoning allows a lesser setback. Any accessory dwelling unit that is created by new construction, including additions to existing structures, that does not comply with the setbacks established by the underlying zoning designation or overlay zone shall be:
(1) Maintained as an accessory dwelling unit and shall not be converted to or used for any other purpose without express authorization of the city. (2) Limited to a height of one story and sixteen feet.
iii. Notwithstanding any other setback requirement, no setback shall be required for the conversion of existing space wholly within an existing primary singlefamily residence, or an existing garage or accessory structure that are accessory to a single-family residence, to an accessory dwelling unit, provided that setbacks are sufficient for fire safety as determined by the fire marshal or the building official.
iv. Notwithstanding any other setback requirement, an existing garage or accessory structure located on the same lot as a single-family residence may be replaced with an accessory dwelling unit in compliance with this section in the same location and to the same physical dimension as the existing accessory structure to be replaced, provided that setbacks are sufficient for fire safety as determined by the fire marshal or the building official. The area of the existing accessory structure, or the replacement structure, may be increased by not more than one hundred fifty square feet solely for the purpose of accommodating ingress and egress provided that the new construction for the expansion complies with setback requirements and the area of the accessory dwelling unit plus the area of expansion does not exceed the limits on total living area allowed for an accessory dwelling unit.
v. Building appendages for accessory dwelling units shall comply with Municipal Code Section 24.05.030G.
m. An additional five percent of lot coverage above that established for the underlying zoning designation shall be allowed for accessory dwelling units only for lots of ten thousand square feet or less and where there is an existing single-family residence.

Page 253 of 354 ends

5 of 16
n. No lot coverage limitation, minimum open space requirement, or minimum lot size requirement shall preclude the development of an accessory dwelling unit that is at least eight hundred square feet in area with side and rear setbacks of not less than four feet, provided that all other development standards are met. o. Parking
i. New or additional parking spaces shall not be required for the creation of accessory dwelling units.
ii. Where provided, parking spaces for accessory dwelling units shall comply with Chapter 24.04 (Parking) of the Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, the design requirements of the Parking Standards adopted by city council resolution no. 17128, or as those standards may be amended or modified by city council action.
iii. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, any required parking spaces removed shall not be required to be replaced.
p. No impact fees shall be imposed for an accessory dwelling unit that is less than seven hundred fifty square feet in area. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit that is seven hundred fifty square feet in area or greater shall be assessed proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. "Impact fee" as used herein does not include any connection fee or capacity charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water corporation. q. Utilities
i. Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, except that an accessory dwelling unit proposed to be constructed with a new single-family residence may be considered a new residential use for the purposes of calculations connection fees or capacity charges.
ii. For an accessory dwelling unit that is contained wholly within the space of an existing or proposed single-family residence or an existing accessory structure, plus any expansion of the accessory structure as allowed by Section

24.05.020D8l(iv), has independent exterior access from the existing residence and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety, no new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility shall be required and no related connection fee or capacity charge shall be imposed, unless the accessory dwelling unit is proposed to be constructed with a new single-family residence.
iii. For an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the criteria of Municipal Code Section 24.05.020D8q(ii) and where the physical characteristics of the lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is proposed preclude connection to the existing utility connection of the primary dwelling, a new or separate connection directly to the utility shall be required and related connection fees and capacity charges shall be imposed.
iv. For attached or detached accessory dwelling units constructed on the same lot as an existing multifamily dwelling structure as described in Section

Page 254 of 354 ends

6 of 16

24.05.020D8b and c, a new or separate utility connection may be required between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. The connection may be subject to a connection fee and/or capacity charge.
v. Connection fees and capacity charges shall be imposed for accessory dwelling unit projects that voluntarily propose a new or separate connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility.
vi. When connection fees and/or capacity charges are imposed, the fee and/or charge shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its area or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code, upon the water or sewer system. The fee and/or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
vii. Prior to approval of an accessory dwelling unit on properties with a private sewage system, approval by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, or any successor agency, shall be required. r. Historical sites and districts.
i. An accessory dwelling unit may be allowed on designated historical sites and within historical districts provided that the location and design of the accessory dwelling unit meets corresponding historical preservation requirements in place at the time the accessory second dwelling unit is built and complies with the requirement of this section.
ii. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located behind the primary residence and/or historic structure.
iii. The construction of the accessory dwelling unit shall not result in the removal of any other historically significant accessory structure, such as garages, outbuildings, stables or other similar structures.
iv. The accessory dwelling unit shall be designed in substantially the same architectural style and finished materials composition as the primary residence or historic structure.
v. Construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not result in demolition, alteration or movement of the primary residence/historic house and any other on-site features that convey the historic significance of the house and site. vi. If the historic house/site is under a Mills Act contract with the City, the contract shall be amended, as needed, to authorize the introduction of the accessory dwelling unit on the site.
s. Applications for accessory dwelling units conforming to the requirements of this section shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, and the City shall approve or deny such applications within sixty calendar days after receiving the application, if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with an application for a new single-family dwelling on the same lot, the action on the accessory dwelling unit shall be delayed until the City acts on the permit application for the single-family residence. If the applicant requests a delay, the sixty-day time period shall be extended for the period of the delay.

Page 255 of 354 ends

7 of 16
t. A certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be issued before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. u. The requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 24.09, Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, shall apply to the development of accessory dwelling units, except that planning commission review shall not be required for a project that solely proposes an accessory dwelling unit.
v. Projects proposing solely the development of an accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 24.11, Urban Design Overlay Zone, or the requirements of the Urban Design Program.
w. The requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 24.13, Hillside Overlay Zone, shall apply to the development of accessory dwelling units, except that planning commission review shall not be required for a project that solely proposes an accessory dwelling unit.
x. Within the Bowling Green Overlay Zone, any tree that was required to be planted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 24.17.030D that is disturbed by a project to construct an accessory dwelling unit shall be preserved in place, or replaced in kind on the subject property if disturbed by the project.
y. Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered in the application of any ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
z. The correction of nonconforming zoning conditions shall not be required as a condition for approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.
aa. At the request of the owner of an accessory dwelling unit, enforcement of state building standards related to the accessory dwelling unit shall be delayed, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that the accessory dwelling unit was built prior to January 1, 2020. bb. An accessory dwelling unit may be conveyed separately from the primary residence provided that all of the following apply:
i. The property was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation. ii. There is an enforceable restriction on the use of the land pursuant to a recorded contract between the qualified buyer and the qualified nonprofit corporation that satisfies all of the requirements specified in paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. iii. The property is held pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement that includes all of the following:
(1) The agreement allocates to each qualified buyer an undivided, unequal interest in the property based on the size of the dwelling each qualified buyer occupies.
(2) A repurchase option that requires the qualified buyer to first offer the qualified nonprofit corporation to buy the property if the buyer desires to sell or convey the property.
(3) A requirement that the qualified buyer occupy the property as the buyer's principal residence.

Page 256 of 354 ends

8 of 16
(4) Affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the property that ensure the property will be preserved for low-income housing for fortyfive years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold to a qualified buyer.
iv. A grant deed naming the grantor, grantee, and describing the property interests being transferred shall be recorded in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder. A Preliminary Change of Ownership Report shall be filed concurrently with this grant deed pursuant to Section 480.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
v. Notwithstanding Section 24.05.020D8q, if requested by a utility providing service to the primary residence, the accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate water, sewer, or electrical connection to that utility. vi. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) "Qualified buyer" means persons and families of low or moderate income, as that term is defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) "Qualified nonprofit corporation" means a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that has received a welfare exemption under Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for properties intended to be sold to low-income families who participate in a special no-interest loan program.
cc. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
i. "Accessory dwelling unit" shall be as defined in Municipal Code Section

24.01.100.
ii. "Living area" shall mean the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. iii. "Nonconforming zoning condition" means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards. iv. "Proposed dwelling" means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
v. "Public transit" shall mean a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

C. Add new LMMC Section 24.05.020D8:
“8. Accessory dwelling units, attached and detached.
a. Development and use standards
i. One attached or one detached accessory dwelling unit may be permitted in conjunction with an existing or proposed dwelling on lots zoned for singlefamily or multifamily residential use. ii. The floor area of an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet.

Page 257 of 354 ends

9 of 16
iii. An additional five percent of lot coverage above that established for the underlying zoning designation shall be allowed for accessory dwelling units only for lots of ten thousand square feet or less and where there is an existing single-family residence.
iv. An accessory dwelling unit may be permitted on the same lot as a junior accessory dwelling unit.
v. Except as provided herein, attached and detached accessory dwelling units shall comply with the development standards of the underlying zone and/or overlay zone, and all other ordinances, regulations, and policies, applicable to the development of residential dwelling units.
vi. No lot coverage limitation, front setback, minimum open space requirement, or minimum lot size requirement shall preclude the development of an accessory dwelling unit that is at least eight hundred square feet in area with side and rear setbacks of not less than four feet, provided that all other development standards are met.
vii. Except as provided herein, attached and detached accessory dwelling units shall comply with all local building and fire code requirements, as appropriate. viii. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.
ix. Projects solely proposing the development of an accessory dwelling unit shall be exempt from public right-of-way dedication and improvement requirements.
b. Setbacks for accessory dwelling units
i. Except as provided herein, attached and detached accessory dwelling units shall comply with the setbacks required for the primary dwelling as established by the underlying zoning designation or overlay zone, as applicable. ii. Notwithstanding the setbacks established by the underlying zoning designation or overlay zone, attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall have a setback of not less than four feet from side and rear property lines, or from the interior edge of adjacent access easements, whichever is more restrictive, except where the underlying zoning allows a lesser setback. iii. Any accessory dwelling unit that is created by new construction, including additions to existing structures, that does not comply with the setbacks established by the underlying zoning designation or overlay zone shall be maintained as an accessory dwelling unit and shall not be converted to or used for any other purpose without express authorization of the city. iv. Building appendages for accessory dwelling units shall comply with Municipal Code Section 24.05.030G.
c. Historical sites and districts
i. An accessory dwelling unit may be allowed on designated historical sites and within historical districts provided that the location and design of the accessory dwelling unit meets corresponding historical preservation requirements in

Page 258 of 354 ends

10 of 16
place at the time the accessory second dwelling unit is built and complies with the requirement of this section.
ii. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located behind the primary residence and/or historic structure.
iii. The construction of the accessory dwelling unit shall not result in the removal of any other historically significant accessory structure, such as garages, outbuildings, stables or other similar structures.
iv. The accessory dwelling unit shall be designed in substantially the same architectural style and finished materials composition as the primary residence or historic structure.
v. Construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not result in demolition, alteration or movement of the primary residence/historic house and any other on-site features that convey the historic significance of the house and site. vi. If the historic house/site is under a Mills Act contract with the City, the contract shall be amended, as needed, to authorize the introduction of the accessory dwelling unit on the site.
d. Overlay zones
i. The requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 24.09, Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, shall apply to the development of accessory dwelling units, except that planning commission review shall not be required for a project that solely proposes an accessory dwelling unit.
ii. Projects proposing solely the development of an accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 24.11, Urban Design Overlay Zone, or the requirements of the Urban Design Program. iii. The requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 24.13, Hillside Overlay Zone, shall apply to the development of accessory dwelling units, except that planning commission review shall not be required for a project that solely proposes an accessory dwelling unit.
iv. Within the Bowling Green Overlay Zone, any tree that was required to be planted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 24.17.030D that is disturbed by a project to construct an accessory dwelling unit shall be preserved in place, or replaced in kind on the subject property if disturbed by the project. e. Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (d) above, a building permit shall be ministerially approved for accessory dwelling units in a residential or mixed-use zone when it falls into one of the four categories listed below as provided by California Government Code section 65852.2(e):
i. One accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling created from converting existing or proposed space within a singlefamily dwelling, or existing accessory structure, provided that the accessory dwelling unit has exterior access from the existing or proposed single-family dwelling and setbacks are sufficient for fire safety as determined by the fire marshal or the building official. Accessory dwelling units converted from an existing accessory structure may include an expansion of not more than 150

Page 259 of 354 ends

11 of 16
square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure solely for the purpose of accommodating ingress and egress. ii. One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, provided that the accessory dwelling unit is at least eight hundred square feet in area, has side and rear setbacks of not less than four feet, and complies with the maximum height limitations of the underlying zoning district.
iii. One or more accessory dwelling units on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling converted from non-livable space (including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages), provided that each unit complies with state building standards. The greater of one accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling units totaling not more than twenty-five percent of the existing dwelling units in a multifamily dwelling structure may be permitted on lots with existing multifamily dwelling structures in any residential or mixed-use zone.
iv. Up to two detached accessory dwelling units located on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling, provided that each unit has side and rear setbacks of not less than four feet and complies with the height limitations of the underlying zoning district. The two accessory dwelling units allowed by this subsection may be created from converting space within an existing accessory structure that is detached from the primary residential structure(s), provided that setbacks are sufficient for fire safety as determined by the fire marshal or the building official. If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side setback of less than four feet, modifications to the existing multifamily dwelling shall not be required.
f. Parking
i. New or additional parking spaces shall not be required for the creation of accessory dwelling units.
ii. Where provided, parking spaces for accessory dwelling units shall comply with Chapter 24.04 (Parking) of the Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, the design requirements of the Parking Standards adopted by city council resolution no. 17128, or as those standards may be amended or modified by city council action.
iii. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, any required parking spaces removed shall not be required to be replaced.
g. Utilities
i. Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, except that an accessory dwelling unit proposed to be constructed with a new single-family residence may be considered a new residential use for the purposes of calculations connection fees or capacity charges.

Page 260 of 354 ends

12 of 16
ii. For an accessory dwelling unit that is contained wholly within the space of an existing or proposed single-family residence or an existing accessory structure, plus any expansion of the accessory structure as allowed by Section

24.05.020D8e(i), has independent exterior access from the existing residence and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety, no new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility shall be required and no related connection fee or capacity charge shall be imposed, unless the accessory dwelling unit is proposed to be constructed with a new single-family residence.
iii. For an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the criteria of Municipal Code Section 24.05.020D8c(ii) and where the physical characteristics of the lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is proposed preclude connection to the existing utility connection of the primary dwelling, a new or separate connection directly to the utility shall be required and related connection fees and capacity charges shall be imposed.
iv. For attached or detached accessory dwelling units constructed on the same lot as an existing multifamily dwelling structure as described in Section

24.05.020D8e(iii) and (iv), a new or separate utility connection may be required between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. The connection may be subject to a connection fee and/or capacity charge. v. Connection fees and capacity charges shall be imposed for accessory dwelling unit projects that voluntarily propose a new or separate connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. vi. When connection fees and/or capacity charges are imposed, the fee and/or charge shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its area or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code, upon the water or sewer system. The fee and/or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
vii. Prior to approval of an accessory dwelling unit on properties with a private sewage system, approval by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, or any successor agency, shall be required. h. Permit and review requirements
i. Not more than one attached accessory dwelling, one detached accessory dwelling unit, and one junior accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling. ii. Not more than two detached, new construction accessory dwelling units shall be permitted on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling. iii. Applications for accessory dwelling units conforming to the requirements of this section shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, and the City shall approve or deny such applications within sixty calendar days after receiving the application, if there is an existing singlefamily or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with an application for a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the same lot, approval or denial of the accessory dwelling unit shall be delayed until the City approves or denies the permit

Page 261 of 354 ends

13 of 16
application for the single-family or multifamily residence. If the applicant requests a delay, the sixty-day time period shall be extended for the period of the delay.
iv. The correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and that are not affected by the construction of the junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be required for approval of a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit.
v. No impact fees shall be imposed for an accessory dwelling unit that is less than seven hundred fifty square feet in area. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit that is seven hundred fifty square feet in area or greater shall be assessed proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. "Impact fee" as used herein does not include any connection fee or capacity charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water corporation.
vi. Any demolition permit required for or associated with an application for construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall be reviewed with the application for the accessory dwelling unit and issued at the same time. vii. A certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be issued before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. viii. At the request of the owner of an accessory dwelling unit, enforcement of state building standards related to the accessory dwelling unit shall be delayed, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that the accessory dwelling unit was built prior to January 1, 2020.
ix. Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered in the application of any ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. i. Conveyance and rental
i. The rental of an accessory dwelling unit created under Section 24.05.020D8f shall be for terms longer than thirty days.
ii. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the primary residence, but may be rented.
iii. An accessory dwelling unit may be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer provided that all of the following apply:
(1) The ADU or primary dwelling was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation.
(2) There is an enforceable restriction on the use of the land pursuant to a recorded contract between the qualified buyer and the qualified nonprofit corporation that satisfies all of the requirements specified in paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(3) The property is held pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement that includes all of the following:

Page 262 of 354 ends

14 of 16
(a) The agreement allocates to each qualified buyer an undivided, unequal interest in the property based on the size of the dwelling each qualified buyer occupies.
(b) A repurchase option that requires the qualified buyer to first offer the qualified nonprofit corporation to buy the property if the buyer desires to sell or convey the property.
(c) A requirement that the qualified buyer occupy the property as the buyer's principal residence.
(d) Affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the property that ensure the property will be preserved for low-income housing for forty-five years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold to a qualified buyer.
(4) If the tenancy in common agreement is recorded after December 31, 2021, it shall also include all of the following:
(a) Delineation of all areas of the property that are for the exclusive use of a cotenant. Each cotenant shall agree not to claim a right of occupancy to an area delineated for the exclusive use of another cotenant, provided that the latter cotenant’s obligations to each of the other cotenants have been satisfied.
(b) Delineation of each cotenant’s responsibility for the costs of taxes, insurance, utilities, general maintenance and repair,
improvements, and any other costs, obligations, or liabilities associated with the property. This delineation shall only be binding on the parties to the agreement, and shall not supersede or obviate the liability, whether joint and several or otherwise, of the parties for any cost, obligation, or liability associated with the property where such liability is otherwise established by law or by agreement with a third party.
(c) Procedures for dispute resolution among the parties before resorting to legal action.
(5) A grant deed naming the grantor, grantee, and describing the property interests being transferred shall be recorded in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder. A Preliminary Change of Ownership Report shall be filed concurrently with this grant deed pursuant to Section 480.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(6) Notwithstanding Section 24.05.020D8c, if requested by a utility providing service to the primary residence, the accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate water, sewer, or electrical connection to that utility. j. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
i. "Accessory dwelling unit" shall be as defined in Municipal Code Section

24.01.100.
ii. "Living area" shall mean the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.

Page 263 of 354 ends

15 of 16
iii. "Nonconforming zoning condition" means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards. iv. “Objective standards” means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.
v. "Proposed dwelling" means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting. vi. "Public transit" shall mean a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
vii. "Qualified buyer" means persons and families of low or moderate income, as that term is defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. viii. "Qualified nonprofit corporation" means a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that has received a welfare exemption under Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for properties intended to be sold to low-income families who participate in a special no-interest loan program.”
D. Amend LMMC Section 24.05.030B, Note 3b:
“b. The maximum height of a detached accessory structure shall be one story not to exceed 15 feet, except by special permit. This limitation shall not apply to the construction or permitting of accessory dwelling units, which shall comply with the standards set forth in Municipal Code Section 24.05.020D8.”
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published at least once within 15 days of its adoption.

Page 264 of 354 ends

16 of 16
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held on the 28th day of February, 2023, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held the ___ day of _________, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________________
Mark Arapostathis, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 2023-____, duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited and that the same has been duly published according to law.

MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)

Page 265 of 354 ends

1 of 5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 24 (ZONING) OF THE LA MESA

MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF JUNIOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS (JADUs) IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.2 AND 65852.22 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 17980.12
___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, housing in California is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and the availability of housing is a substantial concern for individuals of all demographics, ages, and income groups in communities throughout the City of La Mesa (City); WHEREAS, the State is falling far short of meeting current and future housing demand and the housing affordability crisis threatens the public health, safety, and/or welfare of our citizenry;
WHEREAS, junior accessory dwelling units are additional living quarters that are independent of the primary dwelling unit that may be either attached or detached and provide complete independent living facilities, including facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation;
WHEREAS, alternative housing models such as junior accessory dwelling units contribute to addressing housing supply and affordability;
WHEREAS, Section 65852.150(a) of the California Government Code provides that accessory dwelling units are a valuable form of housing; that they may provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home healthcare providers, the disabled, and others at below market prices within existing neighborhoods; that they may add income and an increased sense of security to homeowners; that they will provide additional rental housing stock; that they offer lower cost housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents within existing neighborhoods, while respecting architectural character; and that they are an essential component of California’s housing supply;
WHEREAS, Section 65852.150(b) of the California Government Code provides that the Legislature’s intent is that local agencies adopt an ordinance relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements, that are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create accessory dwelling units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance;
WHEREAS, the State of California has pursued and enacted various legislation since 2017 regarding the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), intended to further address barriers to accessory dwelling unit construction, which the Legislature has determined is a common-sense, cost effective approach to accommodate future growth and to encourage infill development in developed neighborhoods; WHEREAS, in September 2022, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill 2221 and Senate Bill 897 (“AB 2221” and “SB 897,” respectively), which collectively imposed further restrictions on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs, including, among others, JADU configurations;

Page 266 of 354 ends

2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to implement the State legislation through adoption of local regulations for the development of junior accessory dwelling units, as provided by California Government Code Section 65852.22(a), to provide increased affordable housing options and to further the public health, safety, and welfare;
WHEREAS, the City desires to clearly communicate to the residents and citizens and business community how the City intends to implement Section 65852.22 of the California Government Code;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 21, 2022, regarding the herein proposed amendments to Title 24 (Zoning) of the La Mesa Municipal Code (Project 2022-2565), considered all evidence, including testimony and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, presented at said hearing;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2022-12 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 24 (Zoning) of the La Mesa Municipal Code for the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding the herein proposed amendments to Title 24 (Zoning) of the La Mesa Municipal Code, considered all evidence, including testimony and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, presented at said hearing;
WHEREAS, notices of all said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law;
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the powers vested in the City pursuant to Article XI, Sections 5 and 7, of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the City’s adoption of an ordinance to implement Government Code Section 65852.22 regarding junior accessory dwelling units pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the Council of the City of La Mesa, California as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines the following:

A. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct and an integral part of the City Council’s decision, and hereby adopts such recitals as findings.

B. That the regulations proposed herein are consistent with California Government Code Section 65852.22.

C. That this action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

SECTION 2: Title 24 (Zoning) Section 24.05.020D9 of the La Mesa Municipal Code (LMMC) is hereby amended as follows, additions are shown as underline and deletions are shown

Page 267 of 354 ends

3 of 5
as strikethrough:

9. Junior accessory dwelling units.
a. One junior accessory dwelling unit may be permitted in conjunction with an existing or proposed single-family residence on lots zoned for single-family or multifamily residential use.
b. A junior accessory dwelling unit may be permitted on the same lot as one an accessory dwelling unit.
c. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence.
d. A junior accessory dwelling unit may be rented, but only with a rental agreement with terms greater than thirty days.
e. The owner of a lot with a junior accessory dwelling unit shall occupy as a principal residence either the primary dwelling or the junior accessory dwelling unit, except where the primary dwelling and junior accessory dwelling are held by an agency such as a land trust or housing organization in an effort to create affordable housing.
f. Junior accessory dwelling unit development standards:
(i) A junior accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed five hundred square feet in total floor area.
(ii) A junior accessory dwelling unit shall be contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family residence. Attached, enclosed uses, including garages, are considered a part of the proposed or existing single-family residence. For purposes of this subsection, “attached” shall mean that the enclosed use shares a common wall with interior, habitable living space of the primary dwelling unit.
(iii) A junior accessory dwelling unit shall be provided with a separate exterior entry.
(iv) A junior accessory dwelling unit shall include an efficiency kitchen, with the following components:
(1) A cooking facility with appliances.
(2) A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are reasonable to the size of the unit.
(v) No additional parking shall be required for a junior accessory dwelling unit other than that required when the existing primary residence was constructed. (vi) A junior accessory dwelling unit may share bathroom/sanitation facilities with the primary residence or may provide separate facilities. If the junior accessory dwelling unit shares sanitation facilities with the primary residence, an interior entry connection to the primary residence’s main living area shall be maintained to provide access to the sanitation facilities. g. Except as provided herein, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all local building and fire code requirements, as appropriate.

Page 268 of 354 ends

4 of 5
h. The correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and that are not affected by the construction of the junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be required for approval of a building permit for a junior accessory dwelling unit.
i. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers or fire attenuation specifications if they are not required for the primary residence. An inspection to confirm that the junior accessory dwelling unit complies with development standards may be assessed.
j. No sewer or water connection fees shall be required for the development of a junior accessory dwelling unit. An inspection to confirm that the junior accessory dwelling unit complies with development standards may be assessed. k. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a junior accessory dwelling unit, a covenant shall be recorded between the owner and the city of La Mesa agreeing to the terms stipulated in this chapter. The covenant shall specifically mention that:
(i) The junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit.
(ii) The junior accessory dwelling unit may be rented, but only with a rental agreement with terms greater than thirty days.
(iii) The junior accessory unit is limited to the size and attributes set forth by this section.
(iv) The owner of record of the property shall occupy the primary dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit, except where the primary dwelling and junior accessory dwelling are held by an agency such as a land trust or housing organization in an effort to create affordable housing. (v) The covenant shall be binding upon any successors in interest or ownership of the property and lack of compliance with the provisions thereof may result in legal action against the property owner, including revocation of the right to maintain a junior accessory dwelling unit on the property. l. Applications for junior accessory dwelling units conforming to the requirements of this section shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, and the city shall approve or deny such applications within sixty calendar days after receiving the application if there is an existing single-family dwelling on the lot. If a permit application for a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with an application for a new single-family dwelling on the same lot, the approval or denial of action on the junior accessory dwelling unit shall be delayed until the City approves or denies acts on the permit application for the single-family residence.

If the applicant requests a delay, the sixty-day time period shall be extended for the period of the delay.
m. Projects solely proposing a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be exempt from the requirements for public right-of-way dedication and improvement.

SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published at least once within 15 days of its adoption.

Page 269 of 354 ends

5 of 5
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held on the 28th day of February, 2023, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held the ___ day of _________, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________________
Mark Arapostathis, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 2023- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited and that the same has been duly published according to law.

MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)

Page 270 of 354 ends

12/16/22, 12:09 PM Bill Text - AB-345 Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345 1/14 SHARE THIS: Date Published: 09/29/2021 10:00 AM
AB-345 Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. (2021-2022) Assembly Bill No. 345
CHAPTER 343
An act to amend Sections 65852.2 and 65852.26 of the Government Code, relating to land use. [ Approved by Governor September 28, 2021. Filed with Secretary of State September 28, 2021. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 345, Quirk-Silva. Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide, by ordinance, for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones and requires a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance to ministerially approve an application for an accessory dwelling unit, and sets forth required ordinance standards, including that the ordinance prohibit the sale or conveyance of the accessory dwelling unit separately from the primary residence.

Existing law, notwithstanding the prohibition described above, authorizes a local agency to, by ordinance, allow an accessory dwelling unit to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer if certain conditions are met, including that the property was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation and that the property is held pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement. Existing law requires that tenancy in common agreement to, among other things, allocate to each qualified buyer an undivided, unequal interest in the property based on the size of the dwelling each qualified buyer occupies.

This bill would require each local agency to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer if the above-described conditions are met. The bill would impose an additional condition on a tenancy in common agreement subject to these provisions and recorded on or after December 31, 2021, to include specified information, including a delineation of all areas of the property that are for the exclusive use of a cotenant, delineation of each cotenant’s responsibility for the costs of taxes, insurance, utilities, general maintenance and repair, and improvements associated with the property, and procedures for dispute resolution among cotenants before resorting to legal action.

By imposing additional duties on local governments in the administration of the development of accessory dwelling units, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites

Page 271 of 354 ends

12/16/22, 12:09 PM Bill Text - AB-345 Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345 2/14 Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 3.5 of Chapter 198 of the Statutes of 2020, is amended to read:
65852.2. (a) (1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use. The ordinance shall do all of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety. A local agency that does not provide water or sewer services shall consult with the local water or sewer service provider regarding the adequacy of water and sewer services before designating an area where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. (B) (i) Impose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.
(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction. (C) Provide that accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (D) Require the accessory dwelling units to comply with all of the following:
(i) Except as provided in Section 65852.26, the accessory dwelling unit may be rented separate from the primary residence, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence. (ii) The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing dwelling.
(iii) The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling.
(iv) If there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling. (v) The total floor area for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (vi) No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. (vii) No setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.
(x) (I) Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway.

Page 272 of 354 ends

12/16/22, 12:09 PM Bill Text - AB-345 Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345 3/14 (II) Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions.
(III) This clause shall not apply to an accessory dwelling unit that is described in subdivision (d). (xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the local agency shall not require that those offstreet parking spaces be replaced. (xii) Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(3) A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new singlefamily dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred to implement this paragraph, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit. (4) An existing ordinance governing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. If a local agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.
(5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision.
(6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be used or imposed, including any owneroccupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
(7) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an accessory dwelling unit if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision.
(8) An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (b) When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a) receives an application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this

Page 273 of 354 ends

12/16/22, 12:09 PM Bill Text - AB-345 Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345 4/14 subdivision, the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdivision (a). The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached accessory dwelling units. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency shall not establish by ordinance any of the following:
(A) A minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that prohibits an efficiency unit.
(B) A maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that is less than either of the following:
(i) 850 square feet.
(ii) 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom. (C) Any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards. (d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances:
(1) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. (2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (3) The accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure. (4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit. (5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. (e) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
(A) One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
(i) The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a singlefamily dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
(ii) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. (iii) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (iv) The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22.

Page 274 of 354 ends

12/16/22, 12:09 PM Bill Text - AB-345 Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345 5/14 (B) One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit may be combined with a junior accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A). A local agency may impose the following conditions on the accessory dwelling unit:
(i) A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (ii) A height limitation of 16 feet.
(C) (i) Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. (ii) A local agency shall allow at least one accessory dwelling unit within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units. (D) Not more than two accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and four-foot rear yard and side setbacks.
(2) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.
(3) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence.
(4) A local agency shall require that a rental of the accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this subdivision be for a term longer than 30 days.
(5) A local agency may require, as part of the application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (6) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) and paragraph (1) a local agency that has adopted an ordinance by July 1, 2018, providing for the approval of accessory dwelling units in multifamily dwelling structures shall ministerially consider a permit application to construct an accessory dwelling unit that is described in paragraph (1), and may impose standards including, but not limited to, design, development, and historic standards on said accessory dwelling units. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.
(f) (1) Fees charged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012). (2) An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling.
(3) (A) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “impact fee” has the same meaning as the term “fee” is defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66000, except that it also includes fees specified in Section 66477. “Impact fee” does not include any connection fee or capacity charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water corporation.
(4) For an accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family home.

Page 275 of 354 ends

12/16/22, 12:09 PM Bill Text - AB-345 Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345 6/14 (5) For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
(g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.
(h) (1) A local agency shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. After adoption of an ordinance, the department may submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with this section.
(2) (A) If the department finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local agency and shall provide the local agency with a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any other action authorized by this section. (B) The local agency shall consider the findings made by the department pursuant to subparagraph (A) and shall do one of the following:
(i) Amend the ordinance to comply with this section.
(ii) Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department. (3) (A) If the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing the department’s findings, the department shall notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law.
(B) Before notifying the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law, the department may consider whether a local agency adopted an ordinance in compliance with this section between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020.
(i) The department may review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section. The guidelines adopted pursuant to this subdivision are not subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2.
(j) As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
(A) An efficiency unit.
(B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.
(3) “Efficiency unit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code. (4) “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.
(5) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered.

Page 276 of 354 ends

12/16/22, 12:09 PM Bill Text - AB-345 Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345 7/14 (6) “Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
(7) “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit.
(8) “Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
(9) “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
(10) “Tandem parking” means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.
(k) A local agency shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. (l) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.
(m) A local agency may count an accessory dwelling unit for purposes of identifying adequate sites for housing, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65583.1, subject to authorization by the department and compliance with this division.
(n) In enforcing building standards pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part

1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code for an accessory dwelling unit described in paragraph (1) or (2) below, a local agency, upon request of an owner of an accessory dwelling unit for a delay in enforcement, shall delay enforcement of a building standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code:
(1) The accessory dwelling unit was built before January 1, 2020. (2) The accessory dwelling unit was built on or after January 1, 2020, in a local jurisdiction that, at the time the accessory dwelling unit was built, had a noncompliant accessory dwelling unit ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant at the time the request is made.
(o) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 2. Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 4.5 Chapter 198 of the Statutes of 2020, is amended to read:
65852.2. (a) (1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use. The ordinance shall do all of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety. A local agency that does not provide water or sewer services shall consult with the local water or sewer service provider regarding the adequacy of water and sewer services before designating an area where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. (B) (i) Impose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.
(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction. (C) Provide that accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent

Page 277 of 354 ends

12/16/22, 12:09 PM Bill Text - AB-345 Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345 8/14 with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (D) Require the accessory dwelling units to comply with all of the following:
(i) Except as provided in Section 65852.26, the accessory dwelling unit may be rented separate from the primary residence, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence. (ii) The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing dwelling.
(iii) The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling.
(iv) If there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling. (v) The total floor area for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (vi) No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. (vii) No setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.
(x) (I) Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway.
(II) Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions.
(III) This clause shall not apply to an accessory dwelling unit that is described in subdivision (d). (xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the local agency shall not require that those offstreet parking spaces be replaced. (xii) Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(3) A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new singlefamily dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall

Page 278 of 354 ends

La Mesa City CouncilFebruary 28, 2023

La Mesa City Council
February 28, 2023