Loading...
20200901 Regular City Council Meeting - Packet (2) September 1, 2020 Item 1 S. Ybarra 1 September 1, 2020 ;e.y I-rV CLERK'S OFF -- Response to City Council Questions: REC;EI `rW In the Public Hearings of July 7th and 215t there were allegations and assumptions that I am trying to circumvent the City policies, ignore the reforms, or asking for favoritism. I pR1 2.315 J0 clarify my position and respond to all the comments made by Council members Menke and supported by Gonzales. First, I just want to make clear that in 2015 there were only 2 families who had residential properties in Vernon. The Ybarra's, which my family has always represented the properties at meetings, the other is Leonis Malburg. Ybarra's have 2 residential/housing properties and 1 parking and Mr. Malburg had 2 residents within a Retail/Commercial building, which is generally called MIXED Use, a Use that was not in existence. Supporting the reforms are very important to the Ybarra families, as you remember, we almost lost our City. My granddaughters represent the 71h generation of Ybarra's here in Vernon and if one of my granddaughter who lives in Huntington Park, comes back to live with me, she will bring the 81h generation, so keeping and supporting Vernon is important to our family. The source for the information I will be sharing with you today comes from the Vernon Public Works Website. Zoning Meeting in January 2015 Council member Menke suggested several times that I should have attend the meetings and bring up my changes at that time and not now. I did attend the first meeting and had 2 comments. First, to Former Director Wilson, I questioned that our properties were covered in an industrial zone and asked him to change the zone to housing and the other comment was that he should contact Holy Angeles who relies on events to fund their church since it was being restricted in the updated Ordinance. I did not see either of my feedback included in Public Works, Water and Development Services' Staff Report dated April 7, 2015. But the response from Former Director Wilson at that meeting is that there would be no impacts to the properties as I stated to this council in the first Public Hearing. In that Staff Report there were updates to various sections, but t would like to point out a few things, Page 2 of the report ¶2, it states The Zoning Code is the primary implementation tool of the General Plan. As part of the General Plan update project, modifications to the Zoning Code are proposed to maintain consistency with the General Plan and to modernize and respond to current issues and developments The following Elements were update to General Plan to include: Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Safety Element, Resources Element, Noise Element, and Implementation Plan. THERE IS NO REFERENCE THAT EXISTING HOUSING WILL BE MOVED TO LEGAL NONCONFORMING. 2 Further in the Staff Report of April 7, 2015 are the revisions for New Overlay Zones, Additional Uses Permitted and Conditionally Permitted, The Development Standards for Billboards Oriented to 1-710, Parking and Outdoor Storage, Nonconforming Buildings, and Administrative Process and Permits. AGAIN, THERE IS NO REFERENCE THAT EXISTING HOUSING WILL BE MOVED TO LEGAL NONCONFORMING. In the July 215L Public Hearing, Council Member Menke assumed that our properties were always legal nonconforming, this is so wrong. The Legal nonconforming was used prior to 2015 for Truck and Freight Terminal NEVER to cover the existing housing stock of Vernon, (SOURCE: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Vol 1; http://cityofvernon.org/imagesycommunity- services/Zon in Vernon%20Genera1%20PIan%20and%20Zonin %200rdinance%20U date%20S EIR%20Volume%201. df ). As I stated there are only 2 families who own housing in Vernon, Former Director Wilson, in the January meeting, never verbally or in writing communicated the fact that the 31 existing housing stock will be moved to nonconforming use, SO HOW COULD I HAVE CHALLENGED THE CHANGE. In the Zoning Ordinance I reviewed the information they had for housing and had no issue with the Housing Overlay because I thought the properties would remain in the housing use category, I was not aware that the "Use" would change. Neither the reap nor Zoning Ordinance indicated any change in the "Use." I also want to bring to your attention that in the General Plan Amended Apr 7, 2015, under Housing Element, page 22 the last paragraph, you will find the following statement ...Residential property owners participated in the recent Zoning Ordinance revision process, and none expressed opposition to the standards that apply to existing, nonconforming residential structures in the City. As stated earlier there are only 2 families, Ybarra and Malburg, for the Ybarra's no one was approached to communicate the change to nonconforming, and I don't know about Mr. Malburg however, I have confirmed that no Ybarra was ever informed. Several times Council member Menke, supported by Gonzales questioned why I didn't complete an application. First of all, no large renovations are being made to the property and there is no change in Use. Secondly as stated the "Use" was changed to nonconforming without informing the Ybarra's. When Former Director Wilson responded to me in January 2015 that it would not impact my properties, he was wron and Council members should show their leadership when they see something wrong and correct the "Use." The only building on the 2 properties are housing. Also, Council member Menke, supported by Gonzales suggested that the bank made a mistake twice. I contacted the bank and based on their process that an error for "Use" could not occur due to their automated process, reviews, and downloads from the county, the assumption was wrong. 3 Proof: After living in our home for over 35 years and the front apartment for 5 years, I've been asked to provide proof that the "Use" has been for residential. If you ever owned a home you know that there are no documents that list the zoning and "use" of the property. Since I was renewing my home equity loan for the third time, the property went through an Appraisal and that is when I saw the impact of the 2015 "Use" change. So for proof, I was able to find a 2009 Appraisal for one of the homes and I found a Title Document that proves the 2332/2334 was listed as Duplex and 2328 was a single-family home. A copy was given to Director Wall as proof that the properties were listed correctly. I also provided a "Certificate of Occupancy" for the single-family home that shows no exceptions, variances, or conditional use on the property and that the City of Vernon building codes were met. Benefits of Zoning Change: The impacts for not approving the change in "Use" will undermine the residential private property owners' ability to maintain and update the property, (Refer to General Plan Housing Element, Goal H-1 & H-2). If the "Use" is not changed it would have to be sold as Industrial, guess what you've just double or even tripled the value of the property. We now have family members considering this option. The families who lived in the St Charles area left the area because they sold their property that allowed them to upgrade and move to larger properties in Yorba Linda and Norco. Half the people in Yorba Linda are related to Ybarra, they took the money and ran. RHNA & Housing Stock: Council Member Menke questioned that RHNA numbers and whether the 2 Ybarra properties were included. Refer to the Housing Element 17, paragraph 17 describes the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA); Appendix C— List the 31 existing housing stock. Our properties are included in the 31. Director Wall can provide you additional information. General Plan & Zoning Ordinance: If you worked in business or a corporation you understand that the General Plan is the plan for growth in the future and from the plan each goal is detailed out in ordinances or procedures. The General Plan is generally for 5, 7, or 10 years. As the General Plan is updated the current plan becomes the foundation for the changes of the future. Refer to General Plan Housing Element 47, paragraph 1, 5.0 Housing. In the 2015 General Plan, the City added Housing Element Appendix C. Residential Units within the City of Vernon Jurisdiction which is the total of 31 housing units. Throughout the General Plan, the 31 Housing Units are included in the document. In Housing Element 22, paragraph 2 it states ...all residential units are in good condition, with no units requiring a major alteration 4 during the plan period. At no time was the private residences ever excluded from the housing stock, identified as nonconforming, or described differently in the General Plan. Throughout the General Plan you will find the following phrase: ...the City of Vernon is committed to maintaining the existing, long-establish housing stock of 31 units. It's interesting that Council members Menke and supported by Gonzales do not share in the City's commitment to maintaining the housing stock of 31 units. The General Plan has a policy for Discrimination; I find this process highly suspect that after all these years as a resident in Vernon that we are being challenged on the "use" of the properties, when building codes were followed, a clear Certificate of Occupancy, no conditional use permits, and the properties are clearly residential units. There is no document explaining why the City made this change. In the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 2014, the entire City was reviewed with no issues identified. The General Plan has a Policy 3.1 which Prohibit discrimination in the availability of existing housing. Within the policy it states, The City will take a proactive approach in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In the July 7 and July 21 Public Hearings, Council Members Menke and supported by Gonzales continue to find words or one-off phases to stop the process insinuating that something other than residences/housing are on the properties. Whatever the final vote is in today's Public Hearing, I would like to thank both Mayor Lopez and Council Member Davis for their leadership, common sense, and for supporting the General Plan of the City and the Zoning Ordinance in their commitment in maintaining the existing, long-establish housing stock. Reference documents: • Cityp of Vernon General adopted Dec 3 2007 and amended 209, 2013 and 2015 • Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Vernon 2017, Comprehensively updated Jan 2008, amended 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017 Update to 2013 document: htt cit ofvernon.or ima es commuai - services Zonin Com arison%20of'Yo20Amended%202014%20Zonin %200rdinance%20with%20Current %20Zonin %200rdinance. df EIR 2014 5 file: C: Users s bar OneDrive Documents Cit %20of%20Vernon Zone Vernon%20Genera1%20PIan% 20and%20Zonin %200rdinance%20U date%20SEIR%20Volume%2011. df 2017 file: C: Users bar OneDrive Documents Cit S20of%o20Vernon Zone Vernon Comprehensive Zoni ng Ordinance.pdf Vernon site: htt cit ofvernon.or ci -news 137-cit -of-vernon- ro oses-to-u date-its- eneral- Ian-and-zonin - ordinance-click-here-to-see-draft-documents-and-su lemental-environmental-im act-re ort �•..-nh n�•ary��w.wr��o we.s �t�^�w•Me�,,�o.s-.-. City of Vernon proposes to update its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Comparison CO An nded Zola Zoning Oroinance WO Curtin[Zoned Ordhwce',E(PDF:11aS) •Oraft Vernon General Pan Update (PDF:W% .4MrrRn General Pan and Zonib Ordmw"Update Suppkmeiml FnrYoernlmpE Input Report Y*M 1 tPDF:167Ym •Vernon General Pan and Zoning Ordinance Update SuppRrner"Erwom n[al lmpa<t Repor[wlwre 21 (PDF:SWAB) •Fladce or*A&& ty'�fPDF:79M