MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA VERNE
Monday, October 17, 2022
A regular meeting of the La Verne City Council was called to order by Mayor Hepburn at 6:30 p.m. 2 Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Hepburn.
Council Members present: Mayor Tim Hepburn
3. Mayor Pro Rick Crosby
Council Member Wendy Lau
Council Member Steven Frank Johnson
Council Member Meshal "Kash" Kashifalghita
Absent: None
Advisory personnel present: Interim City Manager Jess Duff Assistant City Manager JR Ranells
City Attorney Robert L. Kress
Assistant City Clerk Lupe Gaeta Estrella
Community Development Director Eric Scherer
Principal Planner Candice Bowcock
4. Presentation of the City of Amanda Tropiano, Principal from De Novo Planning Group reported on the La Verne's Draft Housing City of La Verne's draft Housing Element along with a PowerPoint slide Element Update presentation.
Mayor Hepburn called for public comment.
There was public comment on this matter. (To hear what was said during public comment, please visit the City's website to view the archived Council meeting.) There was one public email received and is attached.
No action was taken. Presentation was for information only.
5. Announcements of Upcoming Trimbakeshwara Nithya Ananda, Diplomatic Relations Representative from Community Events Diwali for Kailasa Los Angeles Nithyanadeshwara Hindu Temple spoke about their organization and welcomed the Council and the Community to visit.
Ronda Beltran from the House of Ruth stated that they have been helping lomestic violence victims for 45 vears and that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. She announced they would be hosting a Candlelight Vigil on October 20, 2022, 6-8 p.m. to recognize and remember those who have lost their lives to domestic violence.
Thomas Allison, La Verne resident, announced that Rotary International District 5300 will be hosting a diversity conference in La Verne.
Mayor Hepburn announced that the La Verne Police Department is holding fundraiser events at Flame Broiler (October 19, 2022) and at Mi Ranchito La Verne Mexican Restaurant (October 20, 2022). They will be donating 20% of their profits to the La Verne Police Department for the City of Hope if support of breast cancer research
City Council Minutes, Monday, October 17, 2022, Page 2.
6. Consent Calendar It was moved by Crosby, seconded by Lau, and unanimously carried to accept, approve, or act on the Consent Calendar items.
City Council Minutes City Council Minutes of the regular and adjourned meetings of October 3, 2022, were received and approved.
Register of Audited Demands Register of Audited Demands in the amount of $394,225.82 dated September 29, 2022, approved as recommended by Finance Director Lopez.
7. Public Comment This was the time set aside for anyone wishing to address the City Council on items not listed in any other place on the agenda. Mayor Hepburn called for public comment.
There were public comments at the meeting. (To hear what was said during public comment, please visit the City's website to view the archived Council meeting.)
8. Council Comments Please Note: Only partial Council comments are noted below. To hear the rest or their cornents, please visit the City's webste 10 view the archived Council Member Lau gave kudos to the La Verne Historical Society for hosting Mayor Pro Tem Crosby reported he visited with the residents of Foothill Terrace and that next he will be meeting with the Vintage Grove residents. He asked staff to see about moving the American flag in the Council Chambers where all residents can see it or to add a new one.
Council Member Kash wished Council Member Lau a belated Happy Birthday.
He thanked the La Verne Fire Department for the great job they did when they responded to a fire near his home. He spoke about the past weekend events and thanked Staff for their work on the events.
Council Member Johnson also thanked staff for their work on the past weekend events, which were all well received. He reported that he's working on the proposed ballot measure pertaining to the Election of a Mayor.
Adjournment at 7:53 p.m. to Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. for City Manager Interviews.
Respectfully submitted,
Supe Hacta Estrella
Lupe Gaeta Estrella, CMC
Assistant City Clerk
To: City of La Verne City Council, City of La Verne Planning Department From: Cynthia Gabaldon, Resident 2529 Amherst Street
Date: 10/17/2022
RE: Comments on Housing Element
One of the first questions that comes to mind is: would the City being doing this if it wasn't forced to do so? Think about that. The second question is: has there been any effort to push for lower RHNA numbers as so many other municipalities are doing? SCAG is currently leading a process to pursue RHNA reform.
The 6th Cycle RHNA triggered SCAG to pursue reform of the RHNA process. Several issues have been raised by stakeholders related to the regional determination methodology, the use of land planning factors in the SCAG RHNA methodology, and basis for RHNA appeals. Comments were due on August 12. Did the City submit any comments? Is the City participating? In October 2021, the California State Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved an emergency audit to examine Housing and Community Department (HCD) regional determination process.
The request for an audit was based on an assertion that the public had limited information on the formula that HCD uses to calculate the RHNA regional determination numbers, and cited confusion and mistrust among regional planning bodies and jurisdictions, and the need for an independent and objective review of the process.
Find the Audit report here: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-125.pdf
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
• HCD made several errors regarding data calculations and does not have sufficient management review process. This means that the QA/QC was poor concerning the math. There were double-counts.
• HCD could not demonstrate consistency and work group recommendations regarding several factors, including jobs housing balance and housing destroyed during state of emergency, and Inconsistent application of comparable regions, as required by statute.
The state-mandated RHNA allocations do not take into consideration the need for additional services and facilities such as water, schools, fire stations, police, and parks to support these additional housing units. An overcount of 200,000 + in Los Angeles County alone has been found. Also, the projections used by SCAG were also found to have major faults. Why is no one at the City publicly questioning any of this?
Does anyone on staff or on Council know what the City's "overcrowding" and "cost burden" numbers are in the 6th Cycle RHNA calculations. Those two factors alone are causing over 1 Gabaldon Housing Comment Memo
10/17/2022
calculations of 300%. For example, we all probably think that vacancy need is the primary factor for housing calculations. That is not true. Using SCAG's own example - where County- wide vacancy need is at 178,869, the "overcrowding" factor is at 459,917 and "cost burden" is at 117,505. These two factors alone add up to 557,422. The 5th Cycle RHNA number for the entire region was 409,060.
Where are these two new factors really coming from? Why has the City Council and staff not QUESTIONED these same numbers for the City? (the PPT showing this data is one of the SCAG links at end of this memo)
Total 5th Cycle RHNA cycle - 409,060
Total 6' Cycle RHNA cycle - 1.341 million
Do we really know how much housing is needed? What is our true vacancy need? Shouldn't this be the goal?
The City has been provided the information and opportunity to participate in a key municipal task forces to analyze data, share technical and legal resources and to participate in proactive legal actions.
The key goal of these groups is for the cities to preserve local control. https://catalystsca.org/
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/
In March, City legal counsel confused the Livable California petition (which has been stopped at this time) with the "BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATIVE" Resolution.
This City Council can, and SHOULD, take up the Land Use Initiative Resolution.
The City needs to stand up for pro-City autonomy housing needs and zoning rights. "We" should not be deferring to the State for our local land use laws or decisions.
This is the most pro- property ownership and pro- City autonomy resolution that can be stated at this time.
Microsoft Word - Our Neighborhood Voices - Sample Resolution - Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative.docx
Taking up the Housing Element without considering these factors and at a minimum including a statement on the RHNA Audit is not representing the residents of La Verne.
These housing elements are being used as the baseline conditions for changes to our General Plans and Zoning Plans. These housing elements must be taken very seriously, and YOU must be certain that the numbers are correct.
La Verne is losing its essence. Increased density is not pro-La Verne.
The words and numbers used in this document do not reflect the City's mission statement.
The long-term consequences of this document as currently stated will be detrimental to La Verne. 2 Gabaldon Housing Comment Memo
10/17/2022
Specific Housing Element comments
Edit -
Figure 3-2 - is referencing Lawndale "Figure 3-2: Median Home Price for Existing Homes in Lawndale" General comment on outreach -
Only 440 emails went out notifying on the workshops. Again, why didn't the City use mail or other noticing means to reach out to everyone in the City. Relying on social media is not sufficient either.
Item specific comments -
HP -12: 8. Monitor City-Owned Mobile Home Parks Shouldn't the City make a direct statement that re-zoning of the Mobile Home Parks is not an option? Anything less will leave an open door to re- development.
There is redevelopment "along Foothill Boulevard" included in the statement. What is this planned redevelopment?
HP-13: 10. Partnerships with Housing Organizations, and Service Providers, and Faith-Based Groups Considering redevelopment of church properties will be the demise of these religious institutions.
How is this approach pro-family, pro-faith and pro-neighborhoods? Isn't this discriminatory against faith-based property owners?
The language used within the "schedule" paragraph sounds more like annual land development bullying on these property owners. It is pushing the churches out.
HP-16: Multi- family Development Standards. The statement that the City will be reducing constraints development height, lot coverage, and parking requirements is very anti- neighborhood. If the City is reducing the constraints, how are the neighbors supposed to have a voice. This is extremely contradictory to La Verne's own Mission Statement.
HP -18: 16. Accessory Dwelling Units In meetings with Planning Staff concerning SB9, we have been told that ADUs won't be an issue in town as "not many have been requested". In this section there is a goal of 92 ADUs with over half being low to very low income. Why would the City downplay ADUs in other discussions but now in this document state that almost 100 units are the goal? SB9 WILL IMPACT neighbors to these properties.
Areas of highest opportunity are found in north La Verne? Where exactly? HP-19: 18. Lot Consolidation Shouldn't this section be reviewed against the City's Mission Statement? It is obvious that that the intent of the City is to make as many developable sites as possible. When do the resident's voices get heard on this? Shouldn't this only be limited to very specific locations.
Shouldn't specific qualifiers be included before something like this approved. How can the City ensure that adjacent properties don't start getting bought, torn down and converted into apartments. What about the NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!
3 Gabaldon Housing Comment Memo
10/17/2022
HP-21: 21. Adequate Sites to Accommodate the RHNA There is zero mention of the neighborhoods that would be affected by this action. In this section there is a statement "in response to developer inquires"; where are the voices of the neighborhoods included?
area projections of the two UMPs. In addition, water facilities and infrastructure are reported to be in good operating condition. Therefore, it is determined that the City has enough capacity to meet the 2021-2029 RHNA." How can this be true when this year the existing residents of La Verne were forced to water rationing. More analysis is needed to provide thorough data on water capacity. If the UWMPs include the additional residences and population, why did the residents have to ration this year?
DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD The Amherst project is listed as being counted towards RHNA. The City planning staff, Council Members and Mayor told the residents of Amherst in specific meetings that this project was NOT going to be included in the RHNA numbers. It appears that the residents were lied to, again.
density residential. It is noted that the City actually used the Mobile Home densities to compare to and NOT the adjacent single-family homes. This project is zoned as Medium Density residential.
MEDIUM DENSITY (0 - 10 du/ac) PRA (6 du/ac)
PRA (7 du/ac)
PR 7.5A (7.5 du/ac)
PR 8A (8du/ac)
PR10A (10du/ac)
MHP (Moble Home Park Zone)
Reference is the current La Verne General Plan - Table LU-2 Page 38 A little additional information:
• BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATIVE - Glendora now added to the list of endorsing cities. San Dimas was already on the list. San Gabriel Valley COG has also signed on.
As we know, recent reports showed that the State has lost approximately 250,000 residents and LA Co lost approximately 176,000 in 2020- 2021
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/04/california-population-decline/) 4 Gabaldon Housing Comment Memo
10/17/2022
This is important as the RHNA numbers and housing legislation was based on much higher numbers - not a loss like this. The City should seriously consider reducing the planned development density.
• I have previously confirmed that Anthony Portantino is part of a group legislators pushing to recalculate the RHNA numbers.
• If you haven't figured out yet, many of these new developments end up not being used for low income. For example, the apartments on Bonita and Garey are going for over $2000 to over $4000 a month. (https://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/California/Pomona/The- Gabriel/100058759/)
• The cities in San Diego County started pulling together who the owners were and it was usually corporate owned buildings; they are looking at ways to stop this (https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/california-lawmaker-proposes-25-tax-on-real- estate-investors-to-level-playing-field/2890895/) This is not what we need for housing. The housing you have approved, that will be severely impacting Amherst St. for example, are not affordable. Lower density IS ALWAYS the better solution. It is likely that many of higher density developments will be owned by corporations. Do you know that many of the homes on Hartshorn Ranch Place and Oak Leaf Lane are now owned as rental units by multiple corporations? [2 LLCs and 2 Corporations].
• Other articles -
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1078968784/amid-a-housing-crisis-renters-challenge-firms-they-say- are-being-exploitative
• https://www.housingwire.com/articles/investors-are-buying-up-single-family-homes-across-the- us/
•https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-sell-a-house-these-days-the-buyer-might-be-a-pension-fund- 11617544801
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/12/01/buyer-demand-reaches-record-high- investors-snap-up-homes/
SCAG Page to report and powerpoint:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/rhna.reform powerpoint.pdf?1657915707 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/rhna reform twg powerpoint 072122.pdf?1658273214 5