Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Pico Rivera to investigate front‑yard ADU at 8335 Passons Boulevard; city staff to follow up
Summary
A longtime resident told the council that an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 8335 Passons Boulevard was built in the front yard, may violate setback rules and appears larger than the primary residence; she asked the council to investigate and seek clarity on municipal code interpretation.
During public comment on June 24, resident Renee Rothrock Singleton told the Pico Rivera City Council that an accessory dwelling unit at 8335 Passons Boulevard appears to be sited in the front yard, is less than the 20‑foot setback on the street and is larger than the primary residence. Singleton asked the council to investigate and clarify application of municipal and state ADU rules and to notify nearby property owners of the findings.
Singleton said the structure “is an eyesore,” that neighbors had not approved the siting and that she believed the city planning and building department had misinterpreted municipal code. She told the council the ADU should have been built in the backyard and that state guidance (she cited state housing-department standards) envisioned ADUs as subordinate to the primary dwelling.
City Manager Steve Carmona acknowledged the public comment and the mayor asked staff to follow up with Singleton. The planning department had earlier told Singleton the project was legal, according to her statement; Singleton said she had emailed the city manager and the planning department and was asking for a more formal response and clarification.
No formal appeal or enforcement action was recorded on the meeting record. The council did not take a vote on the matter; staff were asked to investigate and to notify Singleton of the results.
Clarifying details
- Address cited by commenter: 8335 Passons Boulevard. - Complaint: ADU sited in front yard, alleged setback less than 20 feet, and ADU larger than primary house (commenter’s assertion). - City planning response (as reported by commenter): planning staff told the commenter the ADU was legal.
Ending
The council directed staff to follow up with the resident and clarify municipal code application and any next steps. If the resident pursues a formal complaint or appeal, the matter could return to a future council or planning commission proceeding.
