The URL can be used to link to this page

01-18-2005 - (2)J° City of west Covina Memorandum TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager AGENDA and City Council ITEM NO. D-1 FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Planning Director .DATE January 18, 2005 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO.03-03 PARKING OF ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, UTILITY TRAILERS, MOTOR HOMES AND RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to staff on the finalization of a code amendment. DISCUSSION: At the City- Council meeting on July 20, 2004, there was a general consensus that the Planning Commission recommendation did not meet with the agreement of the Council. Among the individual Councilmembers, a number of possible ways to regulate recreational vehicle (RV) parking were mentioned, mostly aimed at the goal of still allowing some RV parking in the front yard while addressing the concerns of neighbors who might be impacted by this. No consensus, however, was reached as to the most appropriate regulatory approach to adopt. In 1999, a code amendment was approved that amended the section in the Zoning Code dealing with vehicles in single-family residential zones (Section 26-392). Prior to 1999, the Zoning Code did not restrict the parking of trailers or accessory recreational vehicles in the front yard. The 1999 code amendment was a very extensive and comprehensive code revision that amended 95 sections of the Zoning Code. Because there were so many revisions to the code being reviewed, not all of the individual amendments were discussed at the public hearing in detail, including the proposed amendment to change the regulations for RV parking. When cases began to arise where, enforcement of the changes in RV parking regulations came into question, the former Public Services Director made an administrative decision to not enforce the changes until an opportunity was taken to further review and consider the matter with the City Council. Currently, Community Enhancement enforces parking restrictions for utility trailers in the front yard, but does not enforce the restrictions on parking of accessory RV's and recreational trailers. The City Council initiated the code amendment in response to an issue that has been raised regarding a utility trailer. The code section that deals with utility trailers also deals with accessory recreational vehicles. The code section is stated below. Utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles. Utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles may be parked in allowed parking areas, except they may not be parked between the front lot line and the front building line. For that reason, the discussion regarding the code amendment included utility trailers, accessory recreational vehicles and motor homes. Utility trailers are trailers used to carry special equipment or trash. Accessory recreational vehicles are non -motorized vehicles designed for human occupancy such as campers and fifth wheels. (recreational boats, ATV's and motorcycles are also accessory recreational vehicles.) Motor homes are motorized campers. The chart on the following pagesummarizes code standards and enforcement. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trai1ers\cc1.18.05\StaffReport.doc i Code Amendment No. 03-03 Utility Trailers and Accessory RV's January 18, 2005- Page 2 SUMMARY OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE FRONT YARD OF SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS Type of Vehicle Current Code Currently Enforced Utility Trailers Prohibited Prohibited Accessory Recreational Vehicles Prohibited Allowed Motor Homes Allowed Allowed After concluding its deliberations, the Planning Commission recommended to change the regulations to allow at least one recreational vehicle (motor home, accessory recreational vehicle) to be parked in the front yard, with the added provision that no more than 75 percent of the driveway could be used to park multiple recreational vehicles. POLICY ISSUES There are two basic policy questions that need to be resolved in order to complete the code amendment. 1) Should the City allow for the parking of RV's in the front yard, and if so, what types of vehicles should be allowed to be parked?. 2) What, if any, additional standards should be adopted to regulate the manner in which RV's can be parked in the front yard? Policy Issue No. 1: Types of Recreational Vehicles Allowed in Front Yards As stated, there are three types of recreational vehicles. These are utility trailers, accessory recreational vehicles (including boats, motorcycles and recreational equipment), and motor homes. As currently written, the Zoning Code allows only motor homes to be parked in the front yard. All other types of recreational vehicles are only allowed if screened and parked in the side or rear yard. The options available include the following: Policy Option 1 — Allow only motor homes to be parked in the front yard (this is what the current code allows). Policy Option 2 — Allow motor homes and accessory recreational vehicles (including boats, motorcycles and recreational equipment) to be parked in the front yard, but prohibit utility trailers (this is how the code was previously written and how it is currently being enforced). Policy Option 3 — Prohibit all types of recreational vehicles from parking in the front yard. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\cc1.18.05\StaffReport.doc 0 AA , Code Amendment No. 03-03 Utility Trailers and Accessory RV's January 18, 2005- Page 3 Policy Issue No. 2: Additional Regulation of Recreational Vehicles Should the Council decide to continue to allow some type of RV parking in the front yard, staff has also identified three options as to how RV parking might be further regulated. A brief summary and discussion of these options is provided below. Policy Option 1- Regulations Based on Condition or Maintenance of Vehicles This option would establish standards for the appearance and maintenance of RV's. If RV's were found to not meet these standards, they would be required to be brought up to standard or removed. It should be noted that the Zoning Code already has provisions that (prohibit the parking of inoperable vehicles, which include vehicles that do not have a current registration, have flat tires, are under repair, or otherwise are not in drivable condition, but does not regulate the appearance of the vehicle. It is assumed that this proposal would go beyond the existing standard to include such things as peeling or rusted paint, broken windows and/or screens, or parts of the vehicle that are in some state of disrepair. Since some RV's are only used on a limited basis, there may be a propensity by some owners to not maintain RV's in top condition on a continual basis. As a result, such poorly -maintained RV's can become an eyesore. If this option is employed, staff would suggest that efforts be made to develop standards that are specific and measurable to the greatest degree possible to avoid enforcement problems and complications. Policy Option 2 - Regulations Based on Parking in the Driveway The Zoning Code defines the driveway as the paved area that provides direct access from the street to the garage. The driveway is therefore the width of the garage. The Code also allows an additional paved area of 12 feet in width to the side of the driveway. An option to regulate recreational vehicles then is to prohibit the parking of recreational vehicles in the driveway, but allow parking only in the additional paved area. This would ensure that- the garage was always accessible for other vehicles. Additionally, this option would limit the number of recreational vehicles that could be parked on a property as the maximum width for the additional paved area is 12 feet. A possible alternative to this option would be to allow only one recreational vehicle to be parked in the front yard, whether on the driveway or the additional paved area. Policy Option 3 - Regulations Based on Neighborhood Request The rationale of this option would be to allow the parking of recreational vehicles in the front yard where a neighborhood requests this to be allowed on their block and the majority of homeowners approve of it. This would be similar to a process used by the Public Works Department to allow neighborhoods to request on -street parking restrictions. As the process works, a resident of the neighborhood can make a request and the Public Works Department would complete a survey. The on -street parking restriction would be approved if a majority of residents on the street voted in favor of it. The area must be at least a one -block area. Once a restriction is instituted, a request to remove it can only be considered after at least one year. This option for RV parking would be patterned in essentially the same way. With respect to the on - street parking restriction program, neighborhoods where this is requested are generally more unified in the fact that a problem exists because of some external demand for parking in their neighborhood. In the case of RV parking, however, there may be a greater potential for divided attitudes among neighborhood residents based on those who do and don't own RV's. In addition, if a parking exception is voted in at one time and voted out at a later time, this could also create neighborhood problems and a hardship to the affected RV owners. Staff, therefore, is hesitant to recommend this option. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\cc1.18.05\StaffReport.doc Code Amendment No. 03-03 Utility Trailers and Accessory RV's January 18, 2005- Page 4 ALTERNATIVES As explained under the "Policy Issues" section, the basic alternatives available to the City Council include the following: 1. Allow for the parking of only motor homes in the front yard. (Prohibit all other types of recreational vehicles) This alternative would mean that the current RV parking regulations would be enforced as they are currently written and not as they are currently enforced as explained earlier in this report. Motor homes would continue to be allowed. Accessory recreational vehicles (e.g. fifth -wheel trailers) and recreational equipment and trailers (e.g. boats) would be prohibited from parking in the front yard. Utility trailers would also be prohibited from parking in front yard. As this represents the way the code is currently written, if this alternative were selected, no code amendment would be necessary. 2. Adopt a code amendment to allow for the parking of all types of recreational vehicles in the front yard, except utility trailers. This alternative would mean that motor homes, accessory recreational vehicles, and recreational equipment and trailers all would be permitted to be parked in the front yard. Utility trailers would be prohibited from parking in front yard. 3. Adopt a code amendment incorporating one or more of the additional regulatory options identified in this report. This alternative would incorporate whatever combination of the identified regulatory options that the Council determined to be appropriate. The options discussed include: A. Regulations Based on Condition or Maintenance of Vehicles B. Regulations Based on Parking in the Required Driveway C. Regulations Based on Neighborhood Requests The adoption of the Alternative 1 would not require any modifications to the Municipal Code; however, enforcement of the existing code requirements would begin. Should the City Council choose Alternative 1 and/or 2, staff would need to prepare the appropriate code language and bring an ordinance back to the City Council for introduction. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held public hearings on April 27, 2004 and on June 8, 2004. The Commission discussed various methods of regulating the parking of recreational vehicles in the front yards of residential areas. Public input was received by individuals with a variety of different views, from those who felt that there should be no regulation, to those who felt that no recreational vehicles should be allowed in the front yard areas. The Commission had discussed requiring that recreational vehicles be parked in the side or rear setback where room was available to do so. However, at the public hearing on June 8, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended that recreational vehicles be allowed in the front yard areas, as long as they did not cover more than 75 percent of the allowed parking area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the code amendment 3-1 (Warshaw opposed, Lane absent). Commissioner Warshaw voted against the amendment as he felt that recreational vehicles should be required to be parked in the side or rear setback where space was available. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\ccl.18.05\StaffReport.doc {' t Code Amendment No. 03-03 Utility Trailers and Accessory RV's January 18.2005- Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT: It is not anticipated that the proposed code amendment will have any significant fiscal impact. r Pre by: Jeff Anderson Principal Planner Attachments: by: Douglas McIsaac Planning Director Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Staff Report Code Amendment No. 03-03 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Minutes 6/8/04 Attachment 4 - City Council Minutes 7/20/04 Attachment 5 - Photographs Attachment 6 - Letters from Concerned Residents ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\cc1.18.051StaffReport.doc ATTACHMENT 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. C-3 DATE: June 8, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CODE AMENDMENT NO.03-03 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION Proposed is a code amendment regarding the parking of accessory recreational vehicles, utility trailers, motor homes and recreational equipment in driveways in single-family residential zones. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 03-03. III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed code amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. IV. BACKGROUND On September 2, 2003, the City Council initiated a code amendment to consider amending the Zoning Code as it pertains to the parking of vehicles such as utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles. On October 28, 2003, January 27, 2004 and March 23, 2004, the Planning Commission held study sessions to consider the issue and to provide direction to staff for a code amendment. Through the series of study sessions, staff provided the Commission with several alternatives. The Commission discussed the sensitive nature of the issue and considered the variety of recreational vehicles and recreational equipment that are currently being stored on residential properties. A list of interested parties was also compiled and those individuals where notified at each of the study sessions and the public hearing. Staff had provided information on surrounding city standards for storage of accessory recreational vehicles and trailers. In addition to the six cities surveyed at that time, staff has now provided information on six additional cities. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\PC 6.8.04\staff report.doc Y Code Amendment No. 03-03• Utility Trailers and Recreational Vehicles June 8, 2004 - Page 2 of 4 - City Front Yard Area Rear Yard Area Covina No parking of trailers allowed. Parking allowed if paved and screened. Azusa No parking of trailers, allowed. Parking allowed if paved and screened. Baldwin Park No parking of trailers allowed. Parking allowed if screened. La Puente Parking of trailers allowed. Parking of trailers allowed. San Dimas No parking of trailers allowed. Parking allowed if paved. Walnut No parking of trailers allowed. Parking allowed. Duarte Parking allowed in front, as long Parking allowed in side as access to garage is not blocked when screened. Parking and no access to the rear yard is allowed in rear. available. CUP required if no room available adjacent to driveway. El Monte One recreational vehicle may be Parking allowed. parked in front yard, unless there is room and access to parkin rear yard. Monrovia No parking of trailers allowed. Parking allowed if screened. LaVerne No parking of trailers allowed. A Parking allowed if Storage Permit may be processed screened. by the Police Department for exceptions. Diamond Bar Parking of trailers allowed. Parking allowed. Pomona No parking of trailers allowed. Parking allowed if An Exception application may be screened. processed by the Planning Department. Notices of Public Hearing have been mailed to 25 individuals who indicated that they are interested in the issue. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS Municipal Code Section 26-392 defines the types of vehicles and where they are allowed to be parked in single-family residential areas. The code standards for the parking of utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles is located in Section 26-392 (c), which states: "Utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles may be parked in allowed parking areas, except they may not be parked between the front lot line and the front building line." The code therefore prohibits parking utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles in the front yard. However, motorized vehicles (such as motor homes) may be parked on a paved area in the front yard. Motor homes, utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles may also be parked in a screened area in the side or rear yard (Section 26-392 (b)). In 1999, a code amendment was approved that added the section in the code dealing with vehicles in single-family residential zones (Section 26-392). Prior to 1999, the code did not include restrictions on the parking of trailers or accessory recreational vehicles in the front yard. The 1999 code amendment was a comprehensive code revision, which changed 95 sections of the West Covina ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\PC 6.8.04\staff report.doc 1 Code Amendment No. 03-03 • Utility Trailers and Recreational Vehicles . June 8, 2004 - Page 3 of 4 Municipal Code. Because there were so many revisions to the code being reviewed, apparently the restrictions on the standards for parking of vehicles in single-family residential zones was approved without complete understanding of how the new code affected the parking of accessory recreational vehicles and trailers. Subsequent to the adoption of the code amendment, the new standards began to be enforced. Based on the number of complaints, the former Public Services Director directed staff not to enforce the restrictions on accessory recreational vehicles and recreational trailers (trailers for boats, ATVs, motorcycles or similar recreational equipment) in the front yard setback if they were parked on a driveway. Currently, Community Enhancement enforces parking restrictions for utility trailers in the front yard, but does not enforce the parking of accessory RV's and recreational trailers. In addition, restrictions on all trailers over 16 feet in length are enforced, prohibiting the parking of such trailers in the front yard area of a single- family property. Proposed Code Revisions A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2004 to consider code language developed as a result of the study sessions. The proposed amendment would continue toprohibit utility vehicles in front. of homes, would continue to prohibit recreational equipment and trailers (watercraft, ATC, motorcycles, etc.) in the front yard, and would allow motor homes and accessory recreational vehicles to be parked in the front yard unless access to the side or rear yard is available. After input from the public and discussion among the Commissioners, the code amendment was continued to allow staff to revise the code language. The Commission suggested that the hearing be continued to allow staff to prepare a code amendment that would prohibit utility trailers in the front yard area, but would allow recreational vehicles (recreational equipment and trailers, accessory recreational vehicles, and motor homes to be parked in the front yard area. While allowing recreational vehicles, certain standards would apply. Single-family houses would be allowed to store one recreational vehicle in the front yard area. Additional recreational vehicles would be allowed as long as the recreational vehicles covered less than 75 percent of the driveway area. Staff has drafted a code amendment to that end. The proposed amendment would state: "Recreational vehicles may be parked in .allowed parking areas subject to standards contained in subsection (b)(2). One recreational vehicle shall be allowed to be parked in the driveway or allowed paved area between the front property line and habitable portion of the building. Additional recreational vehicles shall be allowed in the driveway, but in no case shall the storage of such vehicles cover more than 75 percent of the allowable parking area between the front property line and habitable portion of the building." It is important to note the definitions of certain terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. The West Covina Municipal Code defines driveway in the following manner: " ... as that area providing direct access from the street to the garage or carport with a minimum length of twenty-two (22) feet." In addition to the driveway, the code also allows for an additional twelve (12) feet of paved area to be added on either side, or on one side of the driveway. Therefore, using the terms "driveway" and "paved area" would allow for different ability to park vehicles as can be seen on Attachment 4. As developing standards .based on the "driveway" would require more of the driveway area to be available for the parking of cars, staff has used that term in the draft code amendment. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\PC 6.8.04\staff report.doc Code Amendment No. 03-03• Utility Trailers and Recreational Vehicles June 8, 2004 - Page 4 of 4 The code amendment would continue to propose code revisions to the "Definitions" section (26-63) and to the "Vehicles in residential zones" section (26-392). The code amendment would modify some existing definitions and add some new definitions as summarized below. ■ Accessory recreational vehicles. This. type of vehicle would include non -motorized vehicles designed for human occupancy and include things like campers and fifth wheels. Vehicles designed for off -road use, dune buggies, and recreational boats would be deleted from this definition. Recreational equipment and trailers. This type of equipment would include vehicles for off -road use, dune buggies, and recreational boats and watercraft, as well as trailers to accommodate them. It would also include campers (or shells) which are not fixed to a truck bed. Utility trailer. This type of vehicle would be defined as a motor vehicle used to carry property, trash, or special equipment and that is sixteen (16) feet or less in length. The code amendment would continue to prohibit the parking of utility trailers in the front yard area. Public Works staff has a related concern regarding long-term storage of recreational on blocks. (Recreational vehicles are sometimes stored on blocks to allow them to be level.) At this time, no changes have been made to the draft ordinance, but if the Commission desires, language could be added. In conclusion, utility trailers would continue to be prohibited from parking in front yards. Accessory recreational vehicles and recreational equipment, which' are currently prohibited from parking in the front yard, would be allowed, with restrictions on the amount of driveway that could be covered. Motor homes would continue to be allowed to be parked in the front yard, with restrictions on the amount of driveway that could be covered. VII. ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 03-03. 4 -- --__ peAnderson rincipal Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Attachment I — Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 2 — Planning Commission Staff Report from April 27, 2004 Attachment 3 — Sample Site Plans Attachment 4 — Letters from Concerned Residents Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\PC 6.8.04\s reportdoc ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.04-4950 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 03-03, CHAPTER 26 (ZONING) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, UTILITY TRAILERS, ' MOTOR HOMES AND RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" (R-1) AND "RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL" (R-A) ZONES. CODE AMENDMENT NO.03-03 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide WHEREAS, on October 28, 2003, January 27, 2004 and March 23, 2004, the Planning Commission held a study session to evaluate the regulations related to the parking of vehicles within the "Single -Family Residential" (R-1) and "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zones and; WHEREAS, based on the information provided at the study session, staff was directed by the Planning Commission to draft a code amendment to regulate the parking of accessory recreational vehicles, utility trailers, motor homes and recreational equipment within the City of West Covina; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 27" day of April, 2004, and the 8`" day of June, 2004, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. Chapter 26 of the West Covina Municipal Code (Zoning) should be amended to change the existing code to ' modify regulations related to the parking of vehicles within the residential zones. 2. A code amendment is proposed to add new code language to Section 26-63 (Definitions) and Section 26-392 (Vehicles in Residential Zones). 3. The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina as follows: SECTION NO.1: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, Code Amendment No. 03-03 is hereby found to be consistent with the West Covina General Plan and the implementation thereof. ZAResos\2004 resos\04-4950 CA 03-03 u.doc I i Planning Commission Resolution No. 044950 Code Amendment No. 03-03 Parking of Vehicles in Residential Zones June 8, 2004 - Pasze 2 SECTION NO.2: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina hereby recommends to the City Council. of the City of West Covina that it approve Code Amendment No. 03-03 to amend Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code to read as shown on Exhibit "A." SECTION NO.3: The Secretary is instructed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the City Council for their attention in the manner as prescribed by law. I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 8 h day of June, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Tarozzi, Roe, York NOES: Warshaw ABSENT: Lane Stuart York, Chairman Planning Commission Douglas McIsaac, Secretary Z:\Resos\2004 resos\04-4950 CA 03-03 u.doc 1 r, EXHIBIT A Section 26-63 — Vehicles Definitions (for zoning purposes) ■ Passenger vehicle. A motor vehicle designed to carry ten (10) persons or less including the driver. Passenger vehicle also includes motor vehicles designed to carry ten (10) persons or less that are constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off -road use. Passenger vehicle includes vehicles commonly called cars, minivans, passenger vans, and sport -utility vehicles. Passenger vehicle is intended to cover the vehicles defined as passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Title 49 of the Code of FederalRegulations, Chapter V, Section 571.3. ■ Recreational vehicle. A vehicle, with or without motive power, which is designed for sport or recreational use, or which is designed for human occupancy on an intermittent basis. Recreational vehicle is divided into vwe-(2) three (3) categories as follows: ■ Motor home. A motorized vehicle designed for human occupancy on an intermittent basis. A camper is considered a motor home when it is on the back of a pick-up or other truck. } Accessory recreational vehicle. Any non -motorized vehicle designed for human occupancy on an intermittent basis, such as a vacation trailer or fifth -wheel trailer. eCe-B-Side-r-e- beats. Recreational equipment and trailers. Recreational vehicles designed for off -road use, such as off -road vehicles, motorcycles, dune buggies, and recreational boats and watercraft and trailers to accommodate them. A camper is considered recreational equipment when it is standing alone. Utility trailer. A vehicle designed to be pulled by a motor vehicle which is used to carry property, trash, or special equipment and that is sixteen (16) feet or less in length. Beat trailers .,tidy elu ea .,dy trailers r-egaraless ^ 1 n 1 /` /� of 1eH1'�t1 Utility � ilit ) +tailors t4al e limner- 4ia PyAee (1 6 \ feet i l g4 / Sec. 26-392. Vehicles in residential zones Purpose. The provisions of this section are intended to reinforce community standards and to promote an attractive residential appearance in the city's neighborhoods. The size, number, and location of parked and stored vehicles in residential zones are regulated to preserve the appearance of neighborhoods as predominantly residential in character. These regulations apply to all residential uses in R-1 and RA zones. (a) Commercial vehicles. It shall be unlawful to park or store any commercial vehicles, trailers, or other related equipment. The provisions of this subparagraph (a) do not apply to passenger vehicles, pickup trucks, passenger or cargo vans, or recreational vehicles. (b) Allowed parking area. For residentially, zoned lots developed with a single- family residence, allowed parking areas, in addition to a permitted garage or carport, are: (1) Paved areas of the front yard, defined as all yard area between the front lot line and the main building on the lot. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\PC 6.8.04\Exhibit A.doc Exhibit A June 8, 2004 — Page 2 ti. (2) Areas of interior side, street side, or rear yards which are fully screened by solid six-foot fences or walls and/or view -obscuring landscaping, except within five (5) feet of the rear property line. (3) Public sidewalks and paved areas of a public parkway are not considered allowed parking areas. they may net be parkedbetween the - + let lkae a the f t buildingt• (c) Utility trailers. Utility trailers may be parked in allowed parking areas subiect to standards contained in subsection (b)(2), except they may not be parked between the front lot line and the main building on the lot. (d) Recreational vehicles. Recreational vehicles may be parked in allowed parking areas subiect to standards contained in subsection (b)(2) One recreational vehicle shall be allowed to be parked in allowed parking areas between the front lot line and the main building on the lot Additional recreational vehicles shall be allowed in the driveway, but in no case shall the storage of such vehicles cover more than 75 percent of the driveway between the front lot line and main buildini 4(e)Inoperable vehicles. It shall be unlawful to park or store any inoperable vehicle in any front yard, or any other yard where not screened from all off -site ground - level views, for more than seventy-two (72) hours. Up to two (2) inoperable vehicles may be parked for any length of time in an enclosed garage or the rear or side yards where such yards are completely enclosed with six-foot solid walls or fences. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Ace Rvs and Trailers\PC 6.8.04\Exhibit A.doc Planning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT 3. Pap e 5 — June 8.2004 addition, he agreed to utilize a retaining wall to take care of the elevation of the building pad. Mr. Raymond answered questions by the Commission regarding the possibility of utilizing a split-level design. In addition, he stated that the hydrology report had shown that the drainage was adequate to support the new homes. Mr. Brown spoke in favor of utilizing retaining walls and architectural walls to mitigate concerns, stating that this method had been used in a similar situation in his own neighborhood. OPPONENTS: No one spoke in opposition. Chairman York closed the public hearing. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the drainage and slope of the property and how best to address these issues. It was the consensus of the Commission that retaining walls and architectural walls could be utilized to compensate for the elevation of the building pads. In addition, staff assured the Commission that the homeowner's association would be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage equipment and could be required to carry insurance in case of failure. The Commission also discussed the possible need for a variance in order to allow the walls to exceed the maximum height allowed by the Zoning Code. Staff recommended that a condition be added requiring the applicants to submit a grading plan for approval by staff prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Commission concurred and amended the conditions of approval. Motion by Tarozzi, seconded by Roe, to adopt findings as recommended by staff Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Tarozzi, seconded by Roe, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 04-4949, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 60087, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman York called a recess at 8:50 p.m. Chairman York reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Chairman York announced that Commissioner Lane left the meeting during the recess to attend to an urgent personal matter. (3) CODE AMENDMENT NO.03-03 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT:" City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code related to the parking of accessory recreational vehicles, utility trailers, motor homes and recreational equipment in the "Single -Family Residential" (R-1) and "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zones. Principal Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding what enforcement of the current code and what the code amendment would address. Mr. Anderson stated that the proposed code amendment would. allow for one recreational vehicle, or motor home, to be parked in the front or side yard setback on a paved area. In addition, residents would also be allowed to park additional recreational vehicles, such as boats, dirt bikes, dune buggies, in their driveways as long as 75 percent of their driveway remained open. . Chairman York opened the public hearing. Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2004 MINUTES\6 8 04 minutes AMENDED 6 22 04.doe CIO Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 — June 8.2004 PROPONENTS: John Scheuplein, Sharon Mulhearn, Donald Johnston, Dan Murray, Marlene Clay and Rose Roman addressed the Commission in favor of allowing recreational vehicles, or motor homes, to be parked in the front or side yard setbacks. A -letter submitted by Iris Delameter, in support of the code amendment was also read into the record. It was the consensus of the proponents that the parking of recreational vehicles on their properties is a constitutional right and that the vast majority of recreational vehicle owners properly maintain their vehicles so that they don't detract from the neighborhood. In addition, many of them stated that they had moved to West Covina because recreational vehicle parking was allowed. Further, it was expressed by some of the proponents that their motor homes could be used for storage of emergency supplies and used for emergency shelter in case of a natural disaster. In addition, it was also stated that such recreational,. vehicles were often used for family activities and promoted family values. OPPONENTS: Leonard Larks, Henry Palmer and Mary Ruiz addressed the Commission and stated their opposition to the code amendment because they felt it would be too restrictive to limit the space allowed for parking another recreational vehicle to 25 percent of the driveway. David Cruz, Joanne Wilner, Bernie Wilner - and Peggy Franklin addressed the Commission in opposition to allowing recreational vehicles to be parked in residential areas, especially in front and side yard setbacks. Mr. Cruz also addressed the Commission in support of the 75 percent driveway coverage regulation stating that this was a better compromise than allowing an unlimited number of recreational vehicles to be parked in the driveway. Ms. Wilner expressed her desire to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods by not allowing the parking and storage of recreational vehicles in the front yard setbacks*. Further, she stated that if they were to be allowed in the rear or side yards, they should be shielded from public view. Mr. Wilner expressed his opinion that by allowing recreational vehicles to be parked in residential neighborhoods, West Covina's property values were less than those of cities where storage of recreational vehicles isn't allowed in residential zones. Ms. Franklin expressed her opposition to the code amendment because it was more liberal than what was originally discussed. REBUTTAL: John Scheuplein spoke in rebuttal to the comments regarding reduced property values in West Covina due to the parking of recreational vehicles. He stated that West Covina property values were comparable to those in other cities and that it was difficult for even college -educated professionals to purchase a home in West Covina. Chairman York closed the public hearing. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the code amendment and testimony by the public. During the discussion, Chairman York stated that this matter should be addressed because there was no way of anticipating that recreational vehicles would become as popular as they have. It was the consensus of the Commission that the parking and storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones should be allowed but with restrictions. Further, the Commission concurred that requiring *25 percent of the driveway to be available for parking of automobiles would adequately address issues such as overnight parking in the streets and cluttered driveways due to the parking of multiple recreational accessory vehicles. In addition, the Commission expressed their belief that this code amendment would be a good compromise between allowing recreational vehicles to be parked in residential areas without restriction and the prohibiting the parking of such vehicles outright. Commissioner Warshaw commented that while he supported the code amendment before the Commission at this time, he would prefer to require that recreational vehicles be parked in the rear yard, if there was adequate access to the rear yard. There was a short discussion by the Commission regarding Commissioner Warshaw's comments; however, Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2004 MINUTES\6 8 04 minutes IAMENDED 6 22 04.doc t { Planning Commission Minutes Pap,e 7 — June 8.2004 it was the consensus of the Commission that they would support the code amendment as written. Motion by Tarozzi, seconded by Roe, to adopt findings as recommended by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Warshaw). Motion by Tarozzi, seconded by Roe, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt . Resolution No. 04-4950, recommending to the City Council, approval of Code Amendment No. 03-03. Motion carried 3-1 (Warshaw). Chairman York called a recess at 10:50 p.m. Chairman York reconvened the meeting at 10:55 p.m. (5) CODE AMENDMENT NO.04-01 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code related to permitting non-profit organizations to display banners in the public right-of-way. Planning Director Doug McIsaac informed the Commission that consideration of the matter had been withdrawn. Motion by Warshaw, seconded by Tarozzi, to receive and file. Motion carried 3-0. NEW PUBLIC HEARING (Heard out of order) (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-10 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Velocitel, Steve Stackhouse LOCATION: 2500 East Cortez Street (Cortez Park) REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use permit to install a 72-foot high wireless telecommunications tower that will be designed as a mock pine tree (Monopine) to be located to the north of the Senior Center. Three sets of four antennas will be located on the structure and a new equipment building will be constructed on site. Principal Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. There was a short discussion by the Commission regarding the location of the proposed cell tower and the orientation of the air conditioning equipment. The Commission expressed their preference that the air conditioning equipment be placed so that the noise wouldn't disturb the surrounding residences. PROPONENT: Steve Stackhouse, representing Cingular Wireless, stated that he was present, to answer any questions by the Commission. In addition, he spoke informed the Commission that the noise from the air conditioner units is consistent with residential air conditioning units. Further he stated the applicants' intention to allow co -location on their tower. OPPONENT: Royall Brown addressed the Commission regarding his opposition to allowing this use, since it would limit the Senior Citizens Center's ability to expand. Z:\PLANC0M\MINUTES\2004 MINUTES\6 8 04 minutes AMENDED 6 22 04.doc 1 ATTAC HM E ITT 4 Council Minutes of 7/20/04 HEARING CODE AMENDMENT NO.03-03 Parking of Accessory Recreational Vehicles, Utility Trailers, Motor Homes and Recreational Equipment in Single -Family Residential Zones City Clerk Berry verified the affidavit of publication and Mayor Miller opened the hearing. Planning Director McIsaac presented the staff report and noted the number of written correspondences attached to the staff report, both favoring and opposing the code amendment. Public Testimony Mayor Miller opened the public testimony portion of the hearing and asked for comments in favor of the code amendment. In Favor: Eugene Cole, West Covina resident Leonard Larks, West Covina resident William Valentine, West Covina resident Ed Clay, West Covina resident John Scheuplein, West Covina resident Carl Johnson, West Covina resident Gayle Owen, West Covina resident Lloyd Johnson, West Covina resident Art Velasquez, West Covina resident Mayor Miller asked for comments in opposition to the amendment: In Opposition: Bernie Wilner, West Covina resident Joanne Wilner, West Covina resident Ed Scheidler, West Covina resident Jerry Graham, West Covina resident Peggy Franklin, West Covina resident Sharon Mulhern, West Covina resident Mayor Miller asked for comments in rebuttal: In Rebuttal: Art Velasquez, West Covina resident Rowland Garcia, West Covina resident Testimony closed Mayor Miller closed the public testimony portion of the hearing to commence Council discussion Council Comments Councilmember Sanderson asked for a clarification of the issues at hand, as depicted in a chart submitted by Mrs.. Wilner. Planning Director McIsaac responded. Ms. Sanderson wasn't so sure that the 75% restriction was the way to go, but favored having staff consider each situation on a case -by -case basis, or on a district -by - district basis. She suggested a permit process. Councilmember Herfert noted that he was not in favor of any changes from the current municipal code restrictions. Councilmember Wong was not happy about the appearance of the City Council approving regulations in 1999 and to now find out that staff has not been enforcing it because of misunderstandings in the Code. He suggested that it be done by permits by neighborhood or at least give neighborhoods the option as to how they prefer it be handled. Councilmember Hernandez agreed that the current regulations should have been enforced. He suggested staff prepare a definition of what is a reasonable space allotment for parking RV's on the driveways — the 75% allocation doesn't make sense. Mayor Miller noted that he was not aware of the suspension of the enforcement of the current codes, and suggested that the current code be enforced, as it is current written. Motion by Miller and seconded by Herfert to direct staff to come back with a code amendment to enforce the current code restrictions and a determination as to handle utility trailers on 5 Council Minutes of 7/20/04 private property. Upon further discussion and clarification of the motion, Herfert withdrew his second. Motion by Herfert and seconded by Sanderson to receive and file the report. Discussion followed as _to the ramifications of such a motion and Sanderson withdrew her second. Motion - more info in Septa Motion by Miller and seconded by Herfert to direct staff to report back in September with additional information, based on the Council comments made this evening. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Miller noted that the time is 11:42 pm and asked for Council consensus on items that can be held over to another meeting. Council decided to move forward and take another check after the hearings have been held. HEARING WEST COVINA AUTO PLAZA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT — FY 2004/2005 ANNUAL REPORT & ASSESSMENT City Clerk, Berry verified the affidavit of publication and Mayor Miller opened the' public hearing. Economic Development Specialist Franklin presented the staff report. CDC Director Chung and General Counsel Alvarez-Glasman responded to questions and comments regarding Council's authority over this improvement district. Public Testimonv Mayor Miller opened the public testimony portion of the hearing and City Clerk Berry stated that no written communications had been received. Mayor Miller asked for comments from the audience and the following addressed Council: Herb Redholtz, West Covina resident Testimony closed Mayor Miller closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Motion by Wong and seconded by Hernandez to hold over final consideration of this matter until July 27, 2004. Motion carried 4- 1 with Sanderson voting no and explained her position. CDC Called to Order Mayor Miller called to order the Community Development Commission at 11:48 pm for the purpose of conducting a joint public hearing on the following matter. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Approval of DDA Between the City of West Covina Commun- ity Development Commission and West Covina Heights, S.C., LLC. regarding the Southern 43-Acre Portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24585 Located at the Northeast Quadrant of Amar Road and Azusa Avenue City Clerk Berry verified the affidavit of publication and Mayor Miller opened the joint public hearing. Project Manager Villegas presented the staff report. Staff responded to Councilmember Wong's questions regarding "undocumented fill areas." Douglas Gray, developer, spoke of the proposed project. Public Testimony Mayor Miller opened the public testimony portion of the hearing and asked for comments of the project. The following addressed Council: In Favor: Herb Redholtz, West Covina resident John Scheuplein, West Covina resident Sharon Mulhern, West Covina resident 0 L. 1. PhotoVapt ofAccessory Recreational Vehicles Page l w Photographs ofAccessory Recreational Vehicles Page 2 Fie h..4: i' I I, of-Aecessory Recreational Page 3 Photographs ofAccessory Reepeational-Tehicles I Page 4 Photo ® '� a s ®�'ess �y eati® a ces, - Page s Photographs ofAccessopy Recreational Vehicles Page b PhotogrAphs of Accessor, Reepeational Vehicles ' G's Photographs of Access'dr"'y' Recreational S Page 9 *TTACH M ENT 6 • To: West Covina Mayor and Council Members Cc: Jeff Anderson Planning Commission Subject: Code Amendment No. 03-03 RECEIVED JUL 14 2004 PLANNING DEPT. I, Edward Scheidler, oppose parking RV's, trailers or 5 h wheels in the front yards in the City of West Covina. However, I don't have a problem with them being parked in the rear yard or side yard if they are shielded from the street. When initiating ordinance no. 2112 in April 204, regulating the use of RV's and trailers as living quarters in the City of West Covina, that was the first step and a long overdue step that the city needed. Thank you. The issue concerning code amendment no. 03-03 has been on going since October 2003. There still does not seem to be a good solution for either RV Owners or residents who don't own RV's. Maybe this issue should be put on the next ballot for the West Covina residents to vote on. I reviewed the minutes from the Planning Commission meetings from October 28, 2003, March 23, 2004, April 27, 2004 and June 8, 2004. In regard to Amendment no. 03-03: A. I find no mention in regard to the size of these vehicles. a. RV's or 5 h wheel trailers or trailers that vary in size. Height ranges from 8 feet to 12 feet. b. Length could be from 14 feet to 38 feet. B. I find no mention in regard to how often the RV's will be moving from their storage spot on the driveway in the front yard during the span of the year. a. 2 months out of the year? b. 2 weeks out of the year? C. There is some wording in regard to impact on parking if RV's are allowed to park on the driveway as proposed. The commission believes 03-03 would adequately address issues such as overnight parking in the streets. a. I disagree with their findings. Most residents in the area which I live and the surrounding area have a minimum of two cars and as many as seven vehicles. The streets are becoming parking lots after 5:00 PM until about 7:00 AM. Many times a series of cars are parked on both sides of our streets, which is only 30 feet wide. When a car is traveling north and a car is traveling south at the same time, one car must wait for the -other one to clear the parked cars before the other car can continue on. A good part of the homeowners in our area don't park their cars in ii the garage because it is used for family storage and "stuff'. A lot of the garages are not being used for cars. it D. Currently West Covina has code, Section 26-392, which purpose is to reinfo community standards and to promote an attractive residential appearance in city's neighborhood. a. With the RV's in the front yards this doesn't follow the current code: section 26-392. b. With RV's in the front yards what will the impact be on the visibilitti and sgLely of public right-of-way? When leaving one's driveway for both RV's owner and non -owner. E. At the June 2004 commission meeting, the proponent's consensus was that RV parking on their property was a "constitutional right". What about the constitutional rights of the residents who don't own RV's and like to look out their windows and enjoy the front yard and surroundings without the visual N impact of an eye -sore RV? It was also stated that they moved to West Covina because RV parking was allowed. That shows what can happen when code its not enforced! A city staff member mentioned that since 1999, West Covina has not been enforcing code regarding RV's and trailers. �I F. _ I don't seem to be able to find a study point about our surrounding cities wli don't allow RV's, trailers, Fifth wheels, etc. to park in front yards. a. Do they provide or have RV storage areas available? b. Do they allow the RV owners to park a specified number of hours or days before or after a trip at their residence? G. Last point on the current code no. 26-413. It allows a solid wall 42 inches h within the 25-foot setback or you can have a six-foot high wall if it is non-sc (i.e.: rod -iron). The reason for this is simple: a. It won't unreasonably disrupt access to height and views that otherw infringe upon the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties. b. With this in mind, if 03-03 passes, does this mean that non -RV owne can plant cypress trees or some other type of tall hedge along the set back because no other alternative is available to the non RV owner? And to add to the problem, now the RV owner is able to install a 38- long, 12-foot high wall that blocks the view and light of their neighb Best regards, Edward R. Scheidler 314 Bromley West Covina, CA 91790 (626) 962-2841 . • July 5, 2004. 1 of 2 E-Mail to: Janet Berry @westcov.org for Messrs: Wong, Miller, Herfert, Hernandez, and Mrs. Sanderson From: Mr. & Mrs. Donald E. Packer, West Covina It has been called to our attention that a proposal, through the Planning Commission, will be presented to the Council on July 20, concerning the relaxation of the Ordinance that covers the storage and/or parking of RVs, Boats and other recreational vehicles and equipment. We very much oppose any change to the Ordinance that would allow these vehicles to be parked anywhere in the front of residential properties for the following reasons: 1. It is unsafe to park large vehicles in the front driveway which will block a neighbor's view when pulling out of the driveway into the street. 2. It will result in adults and children getting hurt.. 3. If you permit these large vehicles to stay in the front driveway of houses, the next step will be that they will be left in the street. This will cause another problem for the people that clean the streets to prevent pollutants from entering the storm drains. These large obstacles will also block the view of other drivers. 4. Any action on the part of the Council to relax the law as it now stands will create an opportunity for a litigious environment to swell against the City, because, simply put, 5. The City has a duty to protect its citizens, not to jeopardize its public safety. 6. The City has a duty to set standards high so that guidelines are in place for everyone to follow and live in a safe, peaceful, orderly, environment. 7. Indeed, City laws are (and have been) generally more stringent than Federal or State law. This has been the case, and it should remain so. Therefore, the City should not look to the current benign, political climate displayed by the Federal or State Government to justify any change in our current, local laws-- for this .is where we live. 2 of 2 ' h 8. It is not a matter of the majority or the minority or doing something for one group or another. It is a matter of maintaining high standards for all members of the community to follow. - II 9. It is not even a matter if the present law is not being fully enforced by thellCity due to lack of sufficient personnel to follow-up. Present law needs to exist! as a guide and standard for those living within the community. It must be left in place for use by any private citizen, if needed. The Council must not consider any relaxation to the present Ordinance concerning this matter. Other communities have maintained their standards and safeguards. Do not lower our standards. l Keep West Covina residents safe. Now o and do the right thin ? Thank you for readin gg Y ,I g this. V II Mr. & Mrs. D. Packer - i I' � 1 t Janet Berry From: David Casper [davo.casper@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 3:14 PM To: Janet Berry Subject: Street & residential parking of rec veh. If one can .afford a recreational vehicles. one should park in a yard some place. We don't need our city cluttered with these vehicles. vehicles Thanks David Casper Resident for over 40 years. Yage 1 of 1 Jeff Anderson I� From: Janet Berry Ali Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 12:54 PM To: Doug Mclsaac; Jeff Anderson Subject: FW: front yard rec vehicle parking I I -----Original Message ----- From: jackrodson [mailto:jackrodson@charter.net] Sent: Friday, July 02, 200412:31 PM To: Janet Berry v Subject: front yard rec vehicle parking forgot to state in my previous note: surely those people who can afford all these recreational vehicles c to rent space in storage areas and keep our City looking neat and clean. thank you. J 07/06/2004 an afford Janet Ber From: John Duthie [duthie@webtv.net] Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 4:20 PM To: Janet Berry Subject: RV parking dear janet berry„ city clerk, w. cov. this a mail is from john&hazel duthie 220 n. bromley ave. w. cov. 91790 we live on a nice street, EXCEPT, for the fact of our neighbor at 214 n. bromley, who has a very large trailer parked in their driveway which abuts our driveway. now i cannot erect a wall over 4 feet tall. this trailer is parked approx. 356 days of the year in this spot. it overhangs onto the sidewalk. you cannot back out of our driveway with a clear view of oncoming traffic.this unit competely obstructs not only vision but view. these people, the way their house is built never have to look out a window and see this abberation. now, we go to next door at 224 n. bromley, we have a junk ry parked in the driveway, with a family living in it, also a junk pickup truck that never goes anywhere. both of these vehicles were covered with blue tarps, plus the garage door. if you dont think that this doesnt lower property values then i would like to know what does!!!! M if our city council all live in gated communities or out of the mainstream, then, they are on the take, or out of touch with reality. thank you for your time, but we both feel very strongly about this issue; sincerely, john & hazel duthie 1 r i Please explain how easily these "RV" owners have been able to change the West Covina city code that allows them to park in their driveways. Our street is•very narrow with single car driveways: There are many broken down, unregistered cars, RV's and boats parked in front of these homes. Some of these RV's actually park on the street. Day after day cars pull around'these RV's to try and drive down the street, sometimes almost hitting the school children that have to walk in the street because we have no sidewalk. Sure enough last week there was a collision as a car tried to go around an RV. We asked that the city put a sidewalk down our street. It was a huge ordeal. They took a Postcard survey. The residents who have illegal chain link fences, broken down RV's, boats, and dirty canopies in their front yard were opposed to the sidewalk idea because they would have to remove their illegal fences. So, the city turned down the sidewalk proposition, sighting the majority of the residents, the ones with city code violations mind you, did not want a sidewalk. Shouldn't postcards be sent around regarding the RV situation? We feel like we're living in a trailer park. Surrounded by a huge boat covered with tarps on one side a 25' canopy on the other side and across the street two broken down RV's, and the unfinished Clippinger Chevrolet Dealer. Isn't the city's motto "Beautify West Covina?" T. Slemboski Tami Slemboski 214 S. Hillward Ave. West Covina, CA. 91791 (626) 966-0415 J'JN 2 E� ��N 9 2004 NiN(3 o�Pr �II i� �I CITY CLERK'S OFFICE !NEST C0V,1[,!a ii • Page 1 of 1, � Janet Berry From: suzanne beenck Desthe2ofus@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:26 PM To: Janet Berry Subject: RV Parking Dear Honorable Council Members: Please accept the proposed code amendment by the Planning Commision No 03-03 to the existing RV ordinance. If RV parking would be banned from the front property, storage would be an additional hardship and vulnerable to vandalism. I understand there are no storage lots for RV in the City of West Covina. RV Sales have increased by 25 to 35 % since 9/11/2001. RVing is a great way to explore the American Outdoors. Please vote YES on the proposed amendment so we can keep our RV's on our front property because most of us have no access to the back of our property. Respectfully Suzanne and Edgar Beenck suzanne beenck i_esthe2ofusO earthlink net Why Wait? Move to Earthl-ink. 6/25/2004 I anet Berry From: edlyn west [iesitto@webtv.net] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:55 PM To: Janet Berry Subject: RV Parking Dear City Council Members, We have been residents of W.Covina since 1975. Three summers ago a new neighbor moved into the house next door to us. He also moved in his'34" motorhome and proceeded to park it 1 to 2' from our fence and on his lawn. Then he went and bought a Large fishing boat and parked it next to the motorhome. These RVS are parked on the south side, as this house is south of ours. This is what We have lived with since this neighbor moved in. No view from my windows except his motorhome. No wind/ breeze to cool my house, because of his motorhome. No southern view from my front porch ,because his motorhome blocks its. We moved here for the view and the cool breeze/wind has allowed us to cool our house without a/c. We still don't use a/c and our home is much hotter. This neighbor is not inconvenienced by these vehicles as his house sits behind and to the side of them. My neighbors are upset because they are an eyesore. We no longer enjoy looking down our street or feeling the cool breeze come thru the windows and across our porch. If we must have RVs parked in our neighborhoods, could they not be parked in the side yards along side the owners house and behind a fence. Where only the owner is the one to be inconvenienced these RVs.. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Lee West 1 Page 1 of l o Janet Berry From: Mickey Marracino [mickeyma@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:06 AM To: Janet Berry Subject: RV Parking Ms. Berry: would like to strongly voice my opposition to the recently -passed ordinace from the Planning Commission to allow RV vehicles & other recreational equipment to be parked in the front yards of West Covina residences. As a 27-year resident of West Covina, I have seen how these vehicles detract from the beauty of our neighborhoods. Not only do they look like an eyesore, they lower our property values, which, in turn, will lower revenue to the city. Parking these vehicles on the street is moving these eyesores from the yard to the street. Nothing is gained. In addition, they often create a traffic hazard as it is difficult to see around them for oncoming vehicles. RV vehicles should be stored in the back of the property or in an off -site parking facility. Sincrely, Michael Marracino 1551 E. Thelborn St West Covina, Ca 91791 (626) 966--3818 6/25/2004 Page 1 of 1 Janet Berry From: Rosemary Lyons [Rosemary_Lyons@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:35 PM To: Janet Berry Subject: Opposition to RVs,boats etc Code Amendment This is in response to an newspaper article re allowing street parking for RV's etc. We have lived in West Covina since 1967 and are OPPOSED to any code changes in regards to RV, Boat etc parking. There are already enough problems with cars on the streets. We live on a !hill and have a VW Van in our neighborhood that doesn't move and has collected debris under it, blocks water drainage, as well as the postman isn't able to deliver mail without pulling up to put'Ithe mail in the box and then backing up to get around it. Also, the street sweeper has to go around it. This is an example of what could even become a larger problem if we allowed other RV vehicles or boats to be left on the streets. II We owned a 25' Apollo motorhome for years and designed our yard to store it in the backs on a cement pad that has a colored rock salt finish, to complement our yard. We still own a boat and it is also stored on the pad IN OUR BACKYARD If residents cannot store their RV's or Boats in their backyard, they should put them in public storage. There are plenty around ii West Covina has always wanted to do what is best for ALL residents, so please do not alloI w a group that presents itself at your meetings to sway what is best for the community. Anyone would have to admit RV's, boats etc would not aesthetically enhance our streets. If this is allowed, the next would be Semi Trailers. Sincerely, Rosemary Lyons 2125 Cameo Vista Drive West Covina, CA 91791 6/25/2004 Janet Ber From: AnnChase@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:27 AM To: Janet Berry Subject: Yard parking Please do not allow rec. vehicle, etc. in driveways and yards. The present acceptance of large RV parking is already an eyesore --Take a look at the mess of Mossberg off Orange ave. I'm glad I don't live within sight of that. We have a neighbor who keeps their large motorhome and boat in the back yard. It would look trashy to have it in front. Please consider the majority of homeowners who do not wish to see our home values deteriorate. Thanks Ann Chase AnnChase@aol.com 1 f ' Page 1 of 1 Janet Berry From: nonpareli1 @aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 6:34 AM To: Janet Berry Subject: Recreational Parking Proposition Dear Janet, The streets are already being overrun with abandoned autos and trash, if rec owners can afford $100,000 to 200,000 for these vehicles they can afford to put them in storage. I don't know what your community service people are doing, (probably spending too much time contemplating their future pensions?), but there not doing their jobs. 4 We continually have unused and abandoned autos cluttering the streets, unsightly and damaging streets by preventing drainage and street sweeper to be ineffective. Report it to the police department and that's another joke, they eventually come out and mark tires and then never return to make sure vehicle has been removed or have it removed. Finally we have trash cans left out all week continually and vehicles private and commercial parking on the wrong side of the street, where are you people? There are solutions to these problems but bureaucrats have your heads in the sand. You take care of the small things and the large problems won't materialize! Putting an informercial in the community newspaper isn't going to do it whose ever responsibility it is has to get out from behind their desk in the comfort of city hall and do their job. You know Mr Wong's favorite expression, "Be Proactive." And bye the way I own a rec vehicle and it's not parked in the front yard! Sincerely, Noel T Brown I know your not responsible but are only tabulating number of protest, pass this on to the City Council -Thank You. 6/28/2004 Page 1 of,1 Jeff Anderson From: Janet Berry Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:01 AM To: Jeff Anderson; Doug Mclsaac Subject: FW: RV Parking HI, Here's another RV letter. I'll make copies for distribution tomorrow nite for this and any others I receive before the meeting ---- unless you want me to handle it differently. Janet Berry -----Original Message ---- From: ANNE WARD [mailto:ANWARD2000@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:49 PM To: Janet Berry Subject: RV Parking As a concerned citizen of West Covina and a taxpayer I am sending this E-Mail to voice my concern over the recent push to allow the parking of recreational vehicles in front yards and driveways. It is my belief that if a person can afford a Sth wheel, trailer, or RV then they can afford to have it stored at a facility. These vehicles are unsightly and damaging to the appearance of our neighborhoods: If the city is proposing this Iegislation to garner more revenue then let me tell you that I will do my best to vote new officials in come the next round of elections. Respectfully, Rick Ward West Covina Resideat 08/04/2004 1 ' i Jeff Anderson 9 Page 1 of I From: Helengertrude@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:34 PM To: Jeff Anderson Subject: Storing house trailer on residential front driveway �F April 19, 2004 TO: West Covina Planning Commission RE: Storing non -motorized vehicles on residential front driveways ji For several years a house trailer has been stored unmoved on the front driveway at 2115 E. Mesita Avenue. I have been informed that such storage violates an existing Ordinance, but that enforcement action is pending your review and possible revision of that Ordinance. I appreciate the concern of RV owners, but non -motorized vehicles should not be considered in the same class as RVs. Respectfully request that parking of non -motorized vehicles in residential front driveways, be limited to 72 hours. I! 'I G 04/20/2004 Many areas of West Covina look dilapidated and several neighborhoods have lost street appeal in part because the City officials have allowed motor homes and all types of accessory vehicles to proliferate in the community. The document distributed at the 3/23 meeting clearly states, " subsequent to the adoption of the code amendment, the new standards began to be enforced. Based on the number of complaints, the Public Service Director directed staff not to enforce the restrictions."... It has been easier to ignore the law than to stand up and enforce the law when it was adopted. It is easier to suggest the 1999 regulations were hastily adopted and therefore should not be applied than to enforce them or go back and remove them from the code. These actions by our City staff and elected officials are not impressive nor do they instill confidence that the individuals effectively run the City. There are as many taxpayers who expect our laws to be enforced as those who will ignore them for convenience and their own interests. We will not allow our property value to decline and find it unacceptable to have the law ignored. I await your recommendations to the City Council as well as their response prior to further action. Sincerely, ,G�Cc. ✓ Peggy Franklin cc: Sherri Lane Bill Roe William Tarozzi Cory Warshaw Steve Herfert Roger Hernandez Stuart York Ben Wong Mike Miller Shelley Sanderson Dan Smith Shannon Yauchzee 1026 S. Easthills Drive West Covina, CA. 91791 April 21, 2004 RECEIVED Mr. Douglas McIsaac Planning Director APR 2 6 2004 City of West Covina PLANNINdDEPT P.O. Box 1440 l� West Covina, CA. 91793 RE: Planning Commission Meeting agenda item D-3 Dear Mr. McIssac, I am writing regarding the commission's discussion of code amendment No. 03-03 at the March 23,2004 meeting. At that time a report was submitted outlining the existing conditions 'for parking utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles in single-family zones and the proposed revisions to the code. During the meeting I- spoke about deteriorating conditions in my neighborhood and concerns for lower property values because residents were parking accessory vehicles I! and motor homes in driveways. Upon careful review of the study document following the meeting I discovered that the i existing code Section 26-392 (c) already prohibits the parking of accessory vehicles between the front lot line and the front building line.. I have brought this to the attention of Mr. Dan Smith, Community Enhancement, who confirmed that this portion of the Code amended in 1999 is not being enforced and will j not be enforced at this time. He suggested that his department would await the current revisions proposed by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Mr. Douglas McIssac and Mr. Shannon Yauchzee have also confirmed the code has not been enforced. Although I appreciate the Commission addressing this very controversial issue at this time I find it frustrating to be told the current law is not being enforced. Each man I spoke with agreed Section 26-392 (c) is part of the existing code. However, because of the historical conditions under which it was adopted the City of West Covina deems it acceptable to ignore current law. It is not acceptable to selectively enforce only certain sections of the existing code. Page 1 of-1 o . Doug Mclsaac From: Donald E. Packer [dbpacker@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:20 PM To: Doug Mclsaac Subject: FW: RVs, et. Parking in front yards. From: Donald E. Packer To: Doug. Mclsaac(cD-westcov.org Sent: 5/24/2004 8:19:22 PM Subject: RVs, et. Parking in front yards. I have just become aware of a West Covina Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 5/25/2004 at 7 P.M. to discuss lessening the regulations governing the parking of RVs, trailers and other recreational equipment in front yards. Unfortunately, I am not available to attend this meeting. However, both my wife and myself are very much against even having RVs, trailers and other recreational vehicles in the front yard of homes. We have lived in West Covina for 30 years and we consider this action to be unacceptable. We cast our voice against such action. These RVs, etc. are not only eyesores to the community but further present an unfavorable image to the people who live here but also to visitors. This should not be allowed. It also depreciates property values. If anything you need to consider the opposite, that is not allowing RVs, etc. in any front yards. Other communities have such requirements. Why doesn't West Covina Planning Commission think like proud citizens and ban such vehicles and accessories. Donald and Barbara Packer 2100 Casa Grande Drive Donald E. Packer dbpacker .ix.netcom.com Why Wait? Move to Earthl-ink. 6/4/2004 r. jl Doug Mcisaac From: Edlyn West Ugsmom@webtv.net] l Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 9:10 AM To: DougMcisaac@westcov.org Subject: RV parking ordinance Sir, I understand the Planning commission is having a meeting tonight to discuss the RV parking issue. I would like to tell you whats happened in my neighborhood. I've lived here since 1975 and have no plans on moving. �f Several years ago a man bought the house tothe south of us. He then moved onto his drivway/lawn,a 34' motorhome, with.in,11 of my fence. I not only lost the wonderfulview I had had of my neighborhood , I also lost the breeze that would come up the street from the south. This has been and eyesore for us and also cause our house to be extremely stuffy and hot. This effects the way out front porch is cooled and now there is no view from it. How would you feel if everytime you opened a curtain on one side of your house all you could see was someones RV, this is the same view you see when out front . I feel if this man and others can afford to buy boats and motorhomes, then they can afford to store them some where other than our neighborhoods �I Thank you for your time' Edlyn West 1 r �o A- 0 C04 V Good Evening, It seems that every few years the motor home and recreational vehicle issues raises its head and creates animosity amongst friends and neighbors. The City of West Covina spends the resident's tax dollars for a variety of recreational activities; but, for the most part these activities are "team sports" and, while the entire family may go and watch one family member participate, these are essentially not activities in which the entire family actively participates. On the other hand, those horrible people who have recreational vehicles use these vehicles to actively participate in "family" sports or to travel with their families to see the USA. When my children were growing up we had a motor home in which we toured America, as a family, and took along the friends of our children, many of whom had never been more than 50 miles from their birth place. Try touring America in a car with 8 kids; you would turn back towards home before you made the County Line. One time my husband needed to go to Bullhead City, AZ and having been there many times I didn't want to go; so, he talked to the guys he worked with to see if someone would go with him. All six guys wanted to go and wanted to take their families so they could see a river. Can you imagine, people in their 30s and 40s who had never been out of Los Angeles County, who had never seen a river, who had never seen open space? We ended up taking 3 motor homes and 35 people, including kids; we walked along the Colorado River at night by moonlight (something else they had never seen), visited Laughlin, and went swimming in the Colorado at Needles. Without the motor homes this would not have been possible. Whether your recreational vehicles are motor homes, boats, water craft, or off road vehicles, you will use these items as a family. Everyone in our family rides off road vehicles and the kids all started riding as early as 2 years old. Everyone from babies to grandparents and great grandparents all go to the desert together, ride together, eat together, and occasionally visit the hospital together, and we spend 3 to 5 days together, actively participating in the same sport several times a year; you can't do that in Little League. If its boats and water craft, all of the family members will be together participating in water related activities, again, you can't do that in Little League. All of the activities surrounding "recreational vehicles" are family oriented, provide the opportunity to get to your family out of the city, and allow them to have experiences that can never be duplicated in the city. These are sports that interest children of all ages, even those especially difficult teenagers who would ordinarily not want to be seen anywhere near an adult. You won't find many gang members on off road vehicles or water craft. In the event of disaster it will be the motor home owners who can supply electricity, water, a refrigerator, and heat or air conditioning to their neighbors. Rather than being 'considered a "problem," motor homes and their owners should be considered an asset to the community' and be made a part of an emergency preparedness program. Those off road vehicles, well, they use very little fuel, they can go where no car can go, and can carry supplies and even an injured person if need be. Now, even I have to admit water craft wouldn't be quite as useful in West Covina; but, you never know, we may experience that 100 year flood and need them to rescue people trapped.by the rising water. Should you decide that these vehicles may only be kept in side or back yards, few of us will be able to have our vehicles at home; there are very few homes in West Covina where this access is available. There are no storage facilities in West Covina for recreational or any other kind of vehicle and very few in the surrounding areas. Land has become too valuable and many of the few locations that were available have been !' converted to commercial sites. Boats, water craft, and off road vehicles in any facilityi would be easily vandalized and even motor homes often are when placed in storage yards. Where would you have us store our vehicles and at what cost? R This City went through this about 12 years ago and the final decision was to require that the vehicles be parked on "paved" surface on the resident's lot. There is no reason to change the existing code and to deny residents' and their families the ability to enjoy family recreational activities. Iris Delameter • Page 1 0f 1 � -41 Doug Mcisaac From: LAPenguin@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:31 AM To: Doug Mcisaac Subject: RVs & Trailers We would like an ordinance passed in regard to parking recreational vehicles being parked in front of a home - on the street or driveway or any other visable location. This should not be permitted. May we add that perpetually parked SUVs should also be included in this ban. Good luck and thank you. Iris & Jerrold Haines 6/4/2004 I l Arlene Patton 1133 Teresa West Covina, CA 91790 May 26, 2004 Dear Planning Commission Members, I read with great interest a letter to the Editor in today's San Gabriel Valley Tribune. The letter talked about motor homes and trailers in the front and side yards in the residential area of West Covina. The purpose of my letter is to let you know I feel very strongly that motor homes and trailers should not be parked in the street or on property if they can be viewed from the street. Another words, write an ordinance like Covina has. While you are discussing such an ordinance remind the code enforcement officer to enforce the removal of cars that sit in front of houses without moving for months. There is an ordinance about this and it is never enforced even when they are notified. There are approximately 6 cars that sit in the front of property in my general area that do not run, and have not moved for weeks, and months. Let's keep West Covina Beautiful Sincerely, RECEIVED POT ep 5, MAY 2 8 2004 PLANNING DEPT. 0 , C 1 • - .. 27 RAY G�i�e•� TlonnlanCx cctrm/S��' M` 14 44 W. U(Iarv4 ) Cq 04/7gD %.4, Ith11111i1tt-II]AIII ill.1.17 .111111111Ili.tliirilI 1111111fill eaQh(xst hoc�l co.w. . X UJPsi Cou ►�� - 6 W/C RV PARKING June 2, 2004, EXHIBIT "A" Section 26-63 Vehicles Definitions. Question? What Categoryt 1. Sail and Power Boats that that are designed for human occupancy (live aboard). 2. Accessory Recreational Vehicle or Motor Homes that are designed for human occupancy (self contained) as well as an area that is avaible for owners optional use. 3. Utility Trailers that are designed for the transportation of and used sole for the transportation of special equipment and or supplies used in a house to house business., Section 26-392 Question? (b}—(2) What is considered to be the rear or side yard of a comer lot? Section 26-63 Question? What if house with garage is constructed with setbacks allowing acess of less than ten feet to both side yard and the rear yard but permitted garage area is inadequate to house a Recreational egniument and trailer (Le. boat with trailer) as defined. But front yard area as defined, (which would including additional twelve feet of paved area) is adequate for equivalent sized Accessory Recreational Vehicle and or Motor Home parking as defined. What is the possibility of allowing such equipment ( i.e. recreational equipment and trailer) front yard parking? To Planning Commission I am righting this letter to thank you for your continuing respect of the rights of RV owners of West Covina to park their RV at home, if none so in a proper manner. Not only are they a part of the family life of the owners but they could become a part of the disaster plan of the owner if needed, and their micro community, in that they are totally self contained I now in my case this is much easier none if my RV is at my home. Battery's are always kept charged, caned goods are exchange for new regularly bases, etch. In short it is ready for use at all times. I an also hoping that there could be some provision included in this proposed ordinance change, which would allowing the different categories named that would be excluded from front yard paved parking as described the opportunity on a case by case basis to apply for some sort of a variance which would allow them the privilege to also park there prized property at home. In a much safer environment than public storage, this would require the removal of a host of both required as well as optional items that are now left aboard by boat which is used for my hobby of fishing. My greatest concern is for the safety of a less than thirty day old, new environmentally friendly fore stroke nine thousand dollar outboard motor that was just installed. Thank you for your time and hopefiilly your consideration in this mater. RECEIVE AN a2 D Z604 PL-A/VN1NG D EpT. C Page 1 of 1 Doug Mclsaac From: SMulhern@aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 7:15 PM To: Ben Wong; Roger Hernandez; Steve Herfert; Mike Miller; Shelley Sanderson; Doug Mclsaac Subject: Code Amendment No. 03-03:RV & Trailer Parking _ Greetings to the Planning Commission, City Council, and Mr. Isaac! Please provide more specific information about the proposed code amendments to West Covina Municipal Code related to the parking of accessory recreational vehicles, utility trailers, motor homes and recreational equipment in the "Single Family Residential [R-1) Zones. The agenda for June 8 lists there will be a staff report followed by public testimony and discussion before a motion is made to adopt the findings as recommended by staff. I need a copy of the proposed Code Amendment No. 03-03. After talking with Mr. Doug Mclsaac, I understand the guidelines would be that RVs should not cover more than 75% of the driveway; however, it would be in our best interest to be able to read the proposed amendments to avoid any miscommunications over the telephone since the commission may waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Because the May meeting was postponed due to a lack of a quorum, I understand this will be on the June 8 agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 PM. I am scheduled for a chemotherapy treatment at City of Hope at 1:15 PM, and definitely want to give my input on this zoning code amendment. If for some reason, I am unable to present my speech, my family, friends, and/or neighbors may speak on my behalf, and submit my written input.. (My high school granddaughter, Stacey Ann DeLaRiva may also speak how this decision impacts our neighborhood.) I can be reached by phone at 626-967-6144, or by cell phone at 626-922-0852, or, by e-mail at smulhern@aol.com. I would like to present a 10 minute DVD presentation to the City Council at the public hearing on this, matter tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, July 6, 2004, before the final action is taken concerning zoning regulations and "Community Enhancement" in our neighborhood. I do not have e-mail addresses for the planning commission members, but I'm sure Mr. Mclsaac will forward any necessary communication to them as appropriate. Sincerely, Sharon Mulhern 6/8/2004 • 1 1 CI rage 1 or !A r ;i Jeff Anderson From: Art Velasquez [arba@dslextreme.com] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 10:25 AM To: Jeff Anderson Cc: Mike Miller2 Subject: Jeff -please see that this is read to the Planning Commission TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ART VELASQUEZ 2004 — AGENDA ITEM C-3 Dear Sirs FROM: SUBJECT: DUNE 8, I was able to attend the last Planning Commission regarding the above agenda item and was pleased when the Commission continued this item to allow R.V. owners to voice.their protest. However, I, and many R.V. owners, were disappointed when the meeting that continued this item was cancelled. I am disappointed because I will be out of town this week. Many other R.V. owners made it a point to be at the last meeting but possibly will not be able to make this meeting. In speaking with many R.V. owners I found that there is a tremendous interest in this item. In fact most were very upset that the issue had emerged again! I am asking the Commission that this item once more be continued to allow proper representation by the R.V. owners of West Covina, that is, if the Commission does not see fit to vote against it on their own. Sincerely ART VELASQUEZ 06/08/2004 1 I � 111 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING WEST GONNA CITY OF WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE LAW AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL. CODE AMENDMENT NO.03-03 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code related to the parking of accessory recreational vehicles, utility trailers, motor homes and recreational equipment in the "Single -Family Residential" (R-1) Zone. The proposed code amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. If you wish to challenge the action(s) taken on the request(s), you may be limited to raising only those issues, which you (or someone else) raised orally at this public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD: PLACE: West Covina City Hall 1444 West Garvey Avenue South City Council Chambers - Level One DATE: January 18, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. If you have any questions, we urge you to contact Jeff Anderson at (626) 939-8423 or (626) 939- 8422 or Room 208, at City Hall. Only through citizen participation can your government build a better City. Date Published: January* 2005 7 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE aTY OF WEST COVINA Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\ccl.18.05\NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARI NG.doc Iapdue ueiuw iur use ui %,uunry %,ierK urny► !/— SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE affiliated with SGV Newspaper Group 1210 N. Azusa Canyon Road West Covina, CA 91790 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Los Angeles I am a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general circulation which has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, on the date of September 10, 1957, Case Number 684891. The notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: 1/7/05 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at West Covina, LA Co. California this 7 day of JANUARY 20 05 i signature i� REM J AN 10 2005 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF WEST COVINA } CITY COUNCIL J PURSUANT TO. THE LAW AND IN- CONFORMANCE WITH -THE MUNICIPAL CODE YOU ARE HEREBY; (NOTIFIED OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF (THE CITY, OF WEST COVINA CITY, COUNCIL. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 03-03 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City.of West Covina ' LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST:; The proposed code � amendment; consists of ; certain amendments to.i Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the•+ West Covina Municipal; Code related to , the! parking of , accesssory! recreational vehicles, utility trailers, motor' homes and recreational) equipment in the, °Single - Family; Residential,, (R-1) Zone. i The proposed code amendment is exempt, from the provisions of the California, Environmental Quality, Act (CEQA); pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3). of the) CEQA Guidelines in that it consists of a- code amendment, which does not havei the potential for causing a significant; effect on the environment. . i If, you, wish to challenge the action(s){ taken on, the request(s), you may. bei limited to Kaising only those issues, -which' you (or someone else) raised orally at' this , public hearing or, ' in written correspondence received by the City at or, before the hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL . BE -HELD: . PLACE: West Covina City Hall 1444 West Garvey Avenue) South City Council Chambers Level One DATE: January 18, 2005 TIME:. 7:00 p.m. I If you have any questions, we urge you to i contact Jeff Anderson at (626) 939-8423 or (626) 939,-8422 or Room 208, at City Hall. . Only through citizen participation can j Your government build a better•City. i BY THE ORDER.OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE , CITY OF WEST COVINA Publish: January 7, 2005 San Gabriel Valley Tribune Ad No. 442321 I I P -1 EST"� CITY OF WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE LAW AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL. CODE AMENDMENT NO.03-03 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code related to the parking of accessory recreational vehicles, utility trailers, motor homes and recreational equipment in the "Single -Family Residential" (R-1) Zone. The proposed code amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. If you wish to challenge the action(s) taken on the request(s), you may be limited to raising only those issues, which you (or someone else) raised orally at this public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD: PLACE: West Covina City Hall 1444 West Garvey Avenue South City Council Chambers - Level One DATE: January 18, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. If you have any questions, we urge you to contact Jeff Anderson at (626) 939-8423 or (626) 939- 8422 or Room 208, at City Hall. Only through citizen participation can your government build a better City. Date Published: January* 2005 7 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OTY OF WEST COVINA Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2003\CA 03-03 Acc Rvs and Trailers\cc1.18.05\NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING.doc