City Council Meeting — June 7, 2023

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Oh, oh, oh. Oh, there it is. Oh, my. Oh, my. More details than that. They just had that. That's a problem. Oh, I didn't want to laugh.

I can be screaming. You can be super-versed.

Thank you.

thank you Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Recording in progress.

! Good evening. Good evening.

! We're going to go ahead and get started with our city council meeting.

with our City Council meeting at 6.35 p.m. We're going to go ahead and get started with our mission statement. The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent services to enhance the quality of life for our entire community

and our land acknowledgement.

We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as the Tongva Ngar, the home of the Gabriolino Tongva people.

We show our respect to the Gabriolino Tongva people as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future,

and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplifting the Gabriolino Tongva people and invite you to acknowledge in the history and join us in caring for this land.

So we'll go ahead and start with our roll call.

Thank you. Council Member Lo? Present. Council Member Yu? Here. Council Member Ngo? Here. Mayor Potem Wong? Here. Mayor Sanchez?

Here.

All present. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm going to ask everyone to please stand and we'll start with our flag salute.

Forward march. Right face. Please place your right hand over your heart.

right face please place your right hand over your heart ready begin I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which

stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Prepare to pose colors. Right face. Forward march.

Pose. Colors. Flag salute.

About face. Forward march.

Thank you. Let's go ahead and take our seats.

Okay.

Are there any agenda additions, deletions, or changes or adoptions?

Yes, Mayor. Staff would like to pull item 3B, and we'll report back on item 3B at a later agenda.

We understand that there are some work that we still have to do with agenda item 3B with staff.

Thank you. Thank you.

And Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I believe there's a report out from closed session.

Okay.

I would like to report, it was brought to our attention, the city council, by our city manager, that our city manager intends on retiring effective July 7th. And so we would like to thank Ron Boe for his service and time as city manager here in our city. I know that I've gotten in my interim time as mayor and as mayor pro tem to get to know him for quite a bit of time, a short amount of time, but in that short time he has proven that not only is he an effective leader but he also loves Monterey Park and that's why he's a resident of Monterey Park and I truly believe that everything that he does

has Monterey Park in his interest. So we'd like to thank you, Ron, for your service to Monterey Park.

In the interim time after July 7th we would also like to announce that we have appointed as interim city manager, Ms. Inez Alvarez, who's currently serving as our assistant city manager.

Congratulations, Ms. Alvarez.

And this will give council some time to decide how to proceed. So thank you, Ron, for your service, and thank you, Inez, for stepping up.

We appreciate that.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and move on to public comments.

Are there any public comments? Yes, Mayor.

First speaker, Sarcus Antonian.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, staff, and thank you, Ron, for being city manager and I look forward to a new one upcoming.

Okay, so this administration, or their last three years, going to four years,

trying to up and down this city, I mean the state, the whole country. Okay, so I never really thought about it because I haven't seen the gentleman since he's been gone for many years. So the neighbor came from South Dakota, He was a gas company engineer, engineer and designer. So he designed a lot of things. And obviously he's from Monterey. He was living in Monterey Park. So when you go out to your gas meter, he's designed that.

So why would I hear these people saying natural gas is dirty? He's been saying natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel. that's why Ford Motor Company with the Crown Victoria's, they came out with natural gas vehicles. So when this generator, and then if you really want to put it, the next neighbor over, he was one of the engineers, so when you go on the on-ramp, they have those signal lights. That's another engineer, okay, from Monterey Park. Like I said a few months ago, there's a lot of history in this city of different things going on. Okay, so they're telling people, and then I read about they want to get rid of,

they want to get rid of the gas,

the natural gas heaters for your homes, and they're not building any more factories.

So how's this electricity been burning? With solar up and top, with windmills? and yesterday was D-Day.

So how do they win the war with electric tanks, electric jets,

electric planes and all that other stuff? This country runs on oil. Remember that this country will never get rid of oil. And then when they talk about global warming and climate change,

So California is the highest on emissions. So when I see all 50 states use the California blend, and they're paying the same amount of taxes we do for the state and federal, or the state, then I kind of like believe in it. So it's already over $5. And the reason why it's inflation so much, because you cut all the oil. So fertilizer for the farms and everything, your eggs that you buy, what is it, $6, $7, $8 a dozen? It was like $4 like three, four years ago. And everything like that going on. So this inflation costing everybody from A to Z what they need to be done. So remember, though, that when you go to your gas meter, that was designed by a gas company engineer. that told me for years, natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel. And look into it and also look into how it was in the 70s where we couldn't go out there, do any kind of sports, even ride a bicycle until they took the lead out of the fuel for the vehicles, went to catalytic converters, and now with the computerized vehicles. so nobody can tell me when you're not

can say anything, I just want to give this to you. Thank you.

You all can hear me, right? Okay. Thank you. So, um, so this is Bill Lam, uh, a longtime resident of Monterey park and a current Cal State Norfolk student.

So I'm here to talk about the issues of public transit on Monterey Pass Road. So the first page is all of my comments. My comments may be long, but I'll just summarize it for some key points.

So I want to first talk about the next-gen plan by Metro.

So when it was approved in 2020, it ended up cutting almost all but three rapid lines, all but one limited line and some changes on local and express routes.

But one of the plans that was made was the Monterey Pass Road segment on line 258, which is this one.

So when it was approved in 2020, it used to run on Maripas Road both directions, but when the change made in December 2020, it just moved over to Borough and Eastern to

get to Cal State LA. The only bus that is on

is just the Spirit Bus Route 4,

which runs from Garvey all the way down to Davidson,

but it's just only southbound on because you would just make a turnaround

through the Highlands neighborhood.

So if someone from Cassie LA

needs to get to my pass, they would have to take whatever bus

that is closest,

and they would have to like walk almost 10, 20 or 30 minutes

to their workplace or their houses

because I find it very stressful enough to, you know,

when using public transit and then if anyone like lives near

or work near Monterey Pass Road,

they couldn't like have a chance to get around

but only to rely on the Spirit Bus,

and there's like a gap on Davidson and, you know, and floor on

Murray pass, but, but unfortunately, there's no other

way just to like walk down. So, so, so, I mean, I told Metro,

like, and they, like, we need some, like, a better convenience on, like, using the

I've seen buses from Monterey Pass Road,

not just Monterey Pass Road, but the Fremont Avenue

center between the 10 freeway

and the South City Board in Alhambra. Because I've seen some apartment buildings, you know,

that might be owned by Cal State LA students,

but who need to get to class at Cal State LA, as well as, you know, people getting to Cal State LA, to, you know, just to like, you know, ride a Metrolink train.

So, so, so if 256, like my own proposal, like, you know, extending from CAST LA to, you know, to ELAC,

I mean, it would be a great idea to like serve the needs of people living near or working near Monterey Pastoral along with people living, Alhambra residents living,

you know, Fremont Avenue between the 10th Freeway

and the South City Board can have a chance to take public transit to get around.

So in my closing finish,

let's, I wish we could like, you know, find a better solution on modern fast road

because people really need to like get around,

use public transit to get around on North South on Maori Pass Road.

And not only that, people can, you know,

cut down their walking time if they're tired and,

and what else?

And, you know, they're tired from running,

But yes, let's find a better ground on finding a better way to add a transit service north-south on Miami Pass Road because people really need to get around there like a 256 extension for Metro.

That's all my comments.

Thank you so much for your time and have a great rest of the evening.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bill.

Next speaker we have Jesus Hernandez.

Hello, everyone. Mayor Jose Sanchez, Mayor Pro Tem, Thomas Wong, Councilmember Vin Ngo, Yvonne Yu, Councilmember Henry Lo. In light of the current labor contract negotiations between the City of Monterey Park and the

city employees represented by service employees, International Union, 721. We are joined by the facilities division. We're joined by the workers back here in purple.

They're a little annoying, but not because of the purple. So thanks.

Streets division, water, the Brookmeyer Library, and the city hall staff. My name is Jesus Hernandez. I'm a city electrician for the city of Monterey Park.

and chapter president for SEIU going on 11 years serving this wonderful community. We, my co-workers, my union, SEIU 721 are seeking a fair and reasonable contract. You've heard it before, match our numbers. In years past, our concerns, our voice fell on deaf ears. We're striving for that change this year, once and for all, moving forward. What council and the residents should know, how we got here. The contracts between the union workers and the city in the past 15 years have been literally crumbs here and crumbs there. Other city departments get funded. They get their staff. They get their equipment. The same cannot be said for our union workers. Our employees are hurting. Our offices were understaffed, ill-equipped, and taking on more tasks assigned to more than one employee. Again, our employees are hurting in their pockets at the store, the market, at the

gas station. This cannot, this city cannot recruit employees. The city cannot retain employees

to the point. The comprehensive study, it is misleading, conducted unfairly, biased, and causing division within our union. More than half of our union workers will not benefit with their criteria, management criteria, they handpicked job titles and are to benefit from equity adjustments. At the discretion and with the specific instructions from management, a comprehensive study was performed by a third party. City management filtered the comp study by having supervisors and managers omit and add information at their discretion. This filtering caused equity issues and what they call compacting. In other words, you're seeing more money for the higher earning employees, not the union workers, not for the ones that are getting it done. It did not come as a surprise when another quality city union worker with the water division resigned two weeks ago. Outsourcing of union jobs continues to rise. Outside contractors have been filling up the offices in city hall. Outside contractors are driving city vehicles. The union is shrinking. As far as I see it, our union is shrinking as well. It's going as planned. In the previous City Council meeting on May 24th, the City Manager, Mr. Ron Bowe, provided City Council and the residents of the City of Monterey Park a four-minute prelude to summarize preliminary budget. As if four hours were not sufficient to justify their proposal, Ron thought it necessary to plant a seed. Food for thought. He spent two minutes of that four-minute message to warn Council of what can happen. The City Manager stated, quote-unquote, allow me to frame the budget presentation before we get to the actual presentation. He shared the financial cuts suffered by the city workers of Monterey Park and Monrovia in or around 2011. The layoffs, the bumping, the furloughs, those events were tragic. Following that warm-up, Council was asked by his team of managers to consider another request. I'm going to stop there. I'm going to stop there because of the announcement that Mr. Ron Bowe, I call him Ron because we've been working here for only, he's been here a few months, maybe less than me. And I think we go by first name. And I'm almost done.

And I had more to talk about this, but I want to thank him for his service. And at the same time, I want to congratulate Inez Alvarez.

And we're with you and these guys back here.

the electricians, the plumbers, the guys out there that help us all get it done. And we're all going to be together on this. And I want to get that last message in.

Match our numbers. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

That's all for oral communications. However, we have two written communications from Christopher Herrera and Lena Nguyen. City staff also requesting the support of the city council to approve the SEIU contracts. So all the written communications were emailed to the city council. And also it is made available in the back binder.

should anybody wants to view it,

it's also uploaded on the website. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and jump into staff communications. We have a library presentation.

Mayor, can I interrupt? Public comments are over.

That was going to be my question. In the last meeting, public comments were read by the city of America.

Is that something that has been changed lately?

That's fine. Is that okay with council?

Okay.

The first written communication is from Christopher Herrera. Mayor Jose Sanchez, my name is Christopher Herrera. I work in the public works department as maintenance worker in the streets division. I thank you and Mayor Pro Temp Thomas Wong, Councilmembers Yvonne Yu, Henry Lo, and Councilmember Vingau for taking the time to read my and my co-workers' letter. Since the cost of living has increased dramatically in regards to necessities such as food, gasoline, utility, child care services, as well as major increases in the L.A. County and state taxes, there has been an increase in financial burden in my personal and family life to ensure I am able to provide all necessary basic needs. This increase will allow myself as well as my peers keep up with the rising cost of goods and services due to inflation. My union leaders, with the help of our union chief negotiator, are working very hard to acquire a fair and financially meaningful contract. We are joined by our city hall staff in code enforcement, non-sworn PD staff, and parks recreation. I believe the residents appreciate what we do for the city. They see that we care and that we listen to their requests. Thank you for your time. With gratitude, Christopher Herrera. The second-ring communication is from Lena Nguyen. Good evening, Council and Mayors. My name is Lena Nguyen, and I work in the library as a library assistant. I am a proud member of SEIU 721, and I am writing to ask for your support for what our bargaining team is asking for in negotiations. We are the Lost pay of any unit of the city workers, and the same small increases we had in the past simply will not cut it this time. For some of us, after our 10th step, we rely on the cost of living increase every year, and it has been no match to the rate of the record inflation recently. Our new net performs important services for the Monterey Park. For Monterey Park, yet we are facing significant vacancies because we cannot attract enough staff at our current real ages. We are asking you to take our bargaining team's proposals seriously.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council, Diana Garcia, City Librarian.

I just wanted to introduce Kristen Oliveras, our senior librarian, who's going to be presenting for us tonight.

Kristen? Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Sanchez, Mayor Pro Tem Wong, members of the Council. Tonight I will be sharing with you some of the events happening this month at the library. first off children teens and adults are invited to register for the 2023 find your voice summer reading program by visiting montereypark.beanstack.org participants will log the time that they spend reading or listening to books audiobooks magazines newspapers or cereal boxes over the summer for their opportunity to win prizes including books museum passes, and more. The library will also host special programming throughout the summer, including movie screenings, performances for families, and an adult trivia night. The summer reading program runs through July 29th. Next slide.

Join the library for some fun this summer at California State Beaches. Thanks to a grant from the California State Library, community members can hop on a tour bus and visit Huntington Beach on June 24th, Bolsa Chica on July 8th, and Huntington Beach on August 5th. Anyone interested in registering may visit the Adult Services desk to complete a registration form and waiver and submit a refundable $5 deposit. For those who are unable to attend the beach trips, California State Park's vehicle day use passes are available for checkout at the library. These passes are valid for vehicle day use at over 200 participating state park units of the California State Park System operated by state parks.

Next slide, please.

On Saturday, June 10th at 2 p.m., Nature for All will provide a presentation on Southern California beaches and their conservation efforts.

Next slide.

Tomorrow, June 8th at 2.30, Garfield Health Center will discuss types of sleep disorders, how much sleep we really need, the risks associated with lack of sleep, and tips for getting a better sleep.

On Tuesday, June 13th from 6 to 7.45 p.m., volunteer attorneys will be on hand to answer legal questions at the free legal assistance clinic sponsored by the Asian Pacific American Bar Association and Asian Americans Advancing Justice SoCal. Individuals may register by calling the reference desk at 626-307-1368.

Chinatown Service Center will present a Financial Literacy 101 series for teens on Saturdays in June at 11.30 a.m. in the Friends Room. Teens will learn about investments, loans, and credit.

And finally, families are invited to join the Children's Department for two special performances in June. We'll have Bubble Mania on June 14th and Mad Science on June 28th. Both programs will be held at the Langley Senior Center at 3 p.m.

Next slide.

And moving away from library programming, I wanted to speak a little bit about the city's website redesign. So here you'll see a preview of the city's website redesign, which will launch on June 20th. The content of the website will remain the same, but the refreshed design features a new color scheme, larger font, more prominent buttons for Chinese and Spanish translation, and a cleaner, more streamlined design that is easier to navigate. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much for that presentation. I'm always very amazed by all the program that you have. Are there any questions or comments from Council?

Councilmember Lo? I'll be brief. You know I just want to just say thank you to

Diana, to your staff, to everyone at the library. I mean I think you all of us just

speak so lovingly about what a precious resource this is in our community and

just thank you for running such a wonderful library. Not just for

Monarch Park, I think I oftentimes friends of mine who come visit will say how impress you are about the library we have. Thank you.

I'll just echo that appreciation for the library and all that you do and the many programs that you guys, the library is providing to the community. I'd appreciate the outreach to so many other community groups to co-host and help fill

out the programming.

For the website redesign, I think I missed it. When is the timeline for that being completed?

June 20th is the launch of the new look.

Exciting. All right, cool. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And for the beach trip, can all the council members sign up as well?

Absolutely.

We're waiting for you guys at the reference desk. All right, let's pick a date.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

We'll go ahead and jump into new business items. We have item 1A, the George Elder Memorial Day.

Is there a presentation? All right.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, city council members.

I want to present a staff report and resolution on declaring June 9th as George Elder Memorial Day. And to give you a little background on why, Officer George Elder was killed in an exchange of gunfire while attempting to apprehend two robbery suspects who had just robbed the Star Market at 350 West Garvey Avenue on June 9, 1961.

As the suspects ran toward the getaway car parked in the alley, they exchanged gunfire with Officer Elder.

Officer Elder was struck multiple times and was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The two suspects and the getaway car and the driver were apprehended in Whittier days later.

All three suspects were eventually convicted of first-degree murder. Officer George Elder was defied by his wife and three children, one of which is here today, George Jr., right here.

His brother, also a Monterey Park police officer, went on to become our chief of police, John Elder.

We are enlisting your support in the form of a resolution to honor Officer George Elder,

who was murdered protecting the residents of Monterey Park.

So that's my presentation. I'll answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much for bringing this forward.

Are there any questions or comments from Council? I'm wondering, since we have the son of George Elder here, if you would like to share a comment or two.

Feel free to come. feel free to come up here. Thank you.

On behalf of my family, you know, it was a very tragic time for us and

for you guys to represent or to remember my father

means a lot to myself and my sisters. And

And yeah, it's an honour to carry on my father's name and to be here and represent the Elvry

family. Thank you.

And we thank you for being here tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there a motion from...

Move for approval?

Second.

Okay, if we can take a vote.

Approved unanimously.

Thank you. We're going to go ahead and jump to consent calendar items numbers 3A to 3I,

knowing that 3B has been pulled. Is there, Council, is there any items you would like to pull for discussion? Mr. Mayor?

Yes. Yes. I'd like to pull item 3C. Okay. 3F. 3F? Uh-huh.

And then also I would like to stay for the record and advise the legal counsel for item 3H. I will have to recuse myself because of my proximity to the items within 500 feet.

For 3I, you said?

3H. 3H. Yes.

A question for Mr. Berger.

If I had just brief comments on 3H and I, can I make those? Should I make those now or after we adopt the rest of the consent calendar?

If those are not pulled off consent, then you should do it now before taking them.

Is there any other items council would like to pull? No.

I'm happy to make a motion to move the other items minus the ones Council Member Lo wanted to pull.

So motion is to approve items 3A, 3D, 3E, 3G.

Yeah. Yeah.

Well, H and I, right?

We pulled H.

Oh, he pulled H.

Yeah, we pulled H, but not I. Okay.

Well, on I, just very quickly, I just want to offer my kudos to the staff, especially the public works staff, on these specific projects. I noticed in the staff report that all four of the projects came in under budget. So I appreciate Sean and all the staff and their hard work to help make sure that we're saving money and being effective and efficient with the community's tax dollars. So kudos to the staff there.

We pulled item 3B off the consent calendar.

I'll move for the remaining items to be adopted on consent.

Is there a second? I'll second.

Seconded by Councilmember Ngo. If we can take a vote please.

Just to just for note 3b was pulled however, you know, we did receive foreign communications on 3b There's communications for item 3b, but it was it's continued so okay

Approved unanimously, thank you

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. IS THERE A PRESENTATION FOR ITEM 3C?

THANK YOU.

All right, good evening honorable mayor mayor pro-temp and city council

Sean I go director public works and also have with me Chris Reyes. He's the maintenance division manager for public works and oversees the tree program so

So tonight you have before you item 3C, the tree species selection for ongoing sidewalk improvements. This item is in coordination with item 3E, the CIP 96039 sidewalk repair project and a water contract. So with this we have approximately 130 locations for sidewalk repairs, 22 bus pads, and 44 ADA ramps.

So that's item 3E.

So as part of this project, we have 63 trees that will be removed and replaced. And right now we're focusing on right-of-way trees and finding the right tree for the right location. So you have before you several trees that we'll be going through, but these trees are not comprehensive of the entire city. This is specifically focused on the sidewalk repair project, so they're kind of in coordination.

So we worked exclusively with WCA, West Coast Arborist, who is our contract arborist,

to establish a list of trees that matched our soil type, availability, growth rate, root intrusion rate, and many other factors. Five trees are from the range of 15 to 25 feet, including crepe myrtles, western redbuds, and Taiwan cherry. Six trees from 25 feet to 40 feet, including evergreen pear and golden trumpet. Finally, four trees over 45 feet, including silver, trumpet, and Arnold tulip.

So our focus for the business areas is going to be 25 feet or less to provide availability for sight line and things of that nature. Anything above 25 feet is for larger sidewalk areas and larger areas where we can focus on having trees that aren't impacting the sidewalk. All of these trees have proven to be sustainable within California and our urban settings. City staff presented this item on April 11th with the Environmental Commission and May 15th at Alencanto to focus on business outreach via the economic development with Joe Torres. Both meetings had positive feedback. With over 7,500 trees within the city, we have 121 species of trees, with 44 of them being more common. Of these 7,500 trees, the tree selection you have before you, 1,800 of these trees are already within the suggested area within the city.

And this includes crepe myrtles, evergreen pears, Japanese cherry.

report. Are there any questions or comments from Council? Yes. Thank you,

Sean, for that presentation. I'm in favor definitely for

adopting this tree plan for the city. So what is in the staff report, the trees

and the list. Are all of them native species to California? No, not all of them are native to

California, but they have proven to be sustainable within California.

Okay.

Is it possible, I mean, within the tree plant to also maybe add to a list of choices or options to also include species that grow in, like, Southern California climate as well? I mean, certainly I appreciate that. You know, I think we all can agree on that having a robust tree plant for a green canopy is so important, especially in providing shade and not too much aesthetics as well, and also because we're in drought conditions. But I think also, you know, if you want to encourage residents to also provide examples of what they can plant in their own homes, you know, can we also perhaps add to this on plants that are indigenous to the Southern California area as well?

Yeah, so my apologies.

I failed to mention that we actually have a master tree plan that will be coming out toward the end of the year and that will fully encompass our entire city. So this is really focused on this problem, the sidewalk replacement project, but we will definitely be incorporating a lot of California native plant or trees as part of our tree master plan, which we will see closer to the end of this year. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Gull? Sean, you mentioned earlier

if I heard it correctly that this was approved by the Environmental Commission

as well as the BDAC? The BDAC didn't

approve it. So we took this to the environmental commission. They appreciated what we were presenting to them. And then with the BID Act, we didn't meet with the BID Act. We held a public meeting that was focused on businesses. But anyone could have attended. So we did have a couple of residents that attended. But the focus was really on educating the businesses

because there are businesses that will be impacted by some of these tree removals.

Thank you. On that, was there any feedback from the businesses about trees or anything?

Some of them are more concerned about sight lines, things like that, and some shade cover. But again, we explained to them that part of this process is that it's really damaging to the sidewalk, potentially causing hazards, and so we want to remove those hazards. But at the end of the day, this is really to also beautify what's in front of their property.

Great.

So for clarity's sake, so the tree species selection in this item, or specifically for the sidewalk improvements we will be moving forward with in the coming months?

Currently, yes. Yes.

And then I just want to echo Council Member Lo's comments in terms of, one, are all of these trees in this selection and for the tree master plan, will they be all at the very least drought tolerant?

Yeah.

These are well established within California to be drought tolerant and to meet our soil conditions.

So, yes.

And then I believe at least one of the species here for this specific, these sidewalk repair areas is native.

That's correct.

I will express my personal preference to if we can, well, one, at the baseline, there should be,

I don't want to plant any more ficus trees,

but definitely at the very least all the trees going forward we should plant should be at the very least drought tolerant with a preference for native trees that had biodiversity and other benefits beyond just saving water and looking nice and then with some sort of benefit to shade and other opportunities especially in the downtown business improvement district area to make sure we're providing shade and other benefits as we

deal with climate change and extreme heat concerns

in the downtown area to provide shade and other benefits there.

We can definitely evaluate that, yes.

So the tree master plan will come to the council once that's ready?

That's correct.

And Sean, I just had a couple questions.

So I know you said this was going in line with the sidewalk project. So just to kind of clarify, a lot of the current trees that we have

have kind of destroyed some of the sidewalk areas, right?

Yes. As you mentioned, as part of that project that's also on this agenda, that is focusing on repairing

those damaged sidewalks caused by these trees.

And these trees, we feel, will not cause that type of damage again, right?

That's correct.

So it's kind of like an investment. That's correct. Okay. And then, if I understand correctly,

the western redbud that's on the list is probably

the only native California tree, is that correct?

Oh, the Palo Verde as well. So there's two. My apologies.

The Palo Verde is native to California as well? That's correct.

Okay. So when we do these project repairs, we are choosing from trees on this list?

That's correct. And who's deciding which trees to put in these sections?

That will be a combination of us and West Coast Arborists, city staff and West Coast Arborists.

Okay. I mean, this is just my own personal preference,

But if we can stick to the California native trees that are on your list, that would be great

We yeah, we will definitely evaluate that we'll have to look again

Depending on the height size. We want to keep that in mind based of the location

So it's my earlier point want to make sure right tree right location especially the western redbud is really nice if you take

Thank you. Thank you mr. Mayor a couple other just quick follow-up questions or I guess kind of suggestions as well as we are replanting these trees and there's a drought tolerant nature to what we are trying to do both here and for the Tree Master Plan and other sidewalk and street improvements

that we're doing

I don't know if we are seeking or talking with the water district or other entities for potential grant monies or financial assistance that's something maybe we can explore as well since they're going to save water. And then I'm curious on the Tree Master Plan and on this effort as well. I know we consulted and worked with West Coast Harbors on putting the lists together, but have we or do we plan to engage other organizations like the Repain Foundation and other native plant species advocates and organizations to make sure that we're rounding out the menu of tree options and species to make sure that we're sensitive to our habitat here and biodiversity and all that?

We can evaluate that as part of the tree master plan. Again, West Coast Arborists, they have been doing this for a long time, but getting a second opinion is not always a bad thing.

Thank you. Thank you, Sean. I just had one more question.

I remember a couple years ago during the pandemic that the city planted a tree and they had a list of trees you could choose from on my sidewalk.

Do we still do that for residents?

I remember they planted a crepe myrtle in front of my house.

It may have been a recommendation based on our previous tree plan, which is pretty old, probably 18 to 20 years old.

So more than likely that was what was chosen for that street before.

So the master tree plan that we have forthcoming is going to do that for the next 30 years.

Okay. Thank you.

And to that point, kind of note and food for thought, as we finalize the tree master plan and even as we're picking species here, if we can, I don't know if we already do post those kind of lists in an easily accessible way. If residents are looking for ideas of what trees are native and drought tolerant and might make sense for their own yards, backyards, front yards, whatever. I think maybe if we can, I don't know, we're doing a little bit of that through the demonstration garden, but if there are other opportunities to help.

We can look at our website, yeah.

Thank you.

One more, okay. Councilwoman Liu? Yes, I wanted to say really appreciate, I remember, I recall that conversation started about three years ago that we wanted to fix the sidewalk, and there's one incident I remember seeing you that have a sidewalk damage, then we have a settlement of $500,000 to $600,000 a case. So I cannot imagine if we don't fix it, then, you know, how much money that would cost the city, you know. So thank you so much for pushing it, and thank you so much for all the hard work. Thank you.

Thank you, Sean, and thank you.

Our city manager wanted to say something.

Thank you, Mayor, Council members. And also to include as part of this presentation

Think of the tree planting similar to your major arterial streets Your secondary streets and your residential streets

So the trees will be planted differently in all three of those categories Due to the parkways due to the infrastructure that's below ground. I don't think Sean mentioned that we also have a lot of damages in underground. Our sewer mains, our water lines, lateral lines that go to properties. So we're really trying to fix that also at the same time. So I understand that there are a lot of trees that are beautiful to plant, but we just have to understand that we're trying to fix a problem that exists and we don't want to plant something that's going to cause a problem for future generations to have to deal with. We love those ficus. They're turning really good, but they're causing a lot of problems to us. Yeah. But thank you very much for that. Allow me to make some comments. Mayor, we do have one written communications. I can provide you a summary, or if you like, I can read the entire thing. If you provide a summary, that would be great.

Thank you. Okay.

And this is from Andrew Yip, and he writes that he appreciates the effort to cultivate and diverse cityscape filled with luscious greenery, but he's disappointed to notice that out of the entire recommended list, only one species is native to the San Gabriel Valley.

He writes, I believe it would greatly enhance our city's biodiversity and aesthetic appeal if some of these native trees were considered

Considered for inclusion in our own list, the addition of more native trees would also contribute to maintaining the ecological balance as these species are already adapted to the local environment,

co-evolved with local wildlife and are more resilient to the local climate and pests. And then he also provided a copy of the Pasadena City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinances.

Yeah, ordinance.

And it's basically a picture with all the different trees.

And so I did email this to the council.

Yes, we got it. Thank you. And if Andrew is listening, we received his communication and we read it. Thank you.

I assume we already did, but we just shared that with Sean and Chris and West Coast Harbors.

Thank you. All right.

I'm happy to make a motion to adopt staff recommendation on the item.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Councilwoman Yu.

If we can take a vote.

I approve unanimously.

Excellent. So we'll go ahead and jump to item 3F,

resolution identifying a public work street maintenance project.

Sean, I think you're going to be up here for a while.

Did you want a presentation or just have questions?

Would you like to present? Who?

I just have a question. Sure. Okay. Unless you want to hear the presentation. No, that's fine.

Okay, thank you.

No, Sean, again, thank you for bringing this to council. I mean, I'm always in favour of us applying for state monies or any additional pots of money to improve our mobility infrastructure. My question is this, actually, and I know we've been applying for the past seven years now, as explained, but if I could just make a suggestion is that, you know,

this council in the past have also approved bike lane projects but people

community have come out and have also suggested that we look at measures to create protected bike lanes as well and I think that's something that I agree I mean it's one thing to say we want to we support intermodal active transportation but I think safety is also something we should look at and so I was wondering in the future can we also apply for these funds to see if we can protect to create a type of class of bike lanes that are also protected so that I think that would help encourage more people to use their bicycles.

Yeah, we'll definitely look at that.

And I'm sure you're aware that we have the upcoming project along Monterey Pass.

Yes.

So we definitely look at to evaluate that as part of our projects.

Right.

And again, speaking of, yeah, the project Monterey Pass, I know when people have spoken

about the issue, again, many people come out in favor.

but again, the concern is about safety as well.

And I think that's something, again, I think would go a long way.

And then also along the lines of bike lanes and bike infrastructure is that, have we thought about also maybe applying for SB1 funds to, if it fits with the criteria, SB1 for EV bike charging facilities?

We can look at that. Yeah, we can evaluate that.

You know, because if, I mean, this is now, even before I became a council member, but I remember going to an event in, I think it was Self-Imani, where they actually inaugurated a EV bike charging station, which I thought, in front of the city hall.

And I think that's a great idea.

Thank you, Council Member Lo. Any other questions or comments? All right. Would someone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to move.

Someone second? Second.

Seconded by Mayor Portem Wong.

If we can take a vote, please.

Approve unanimously.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and jump to item 3H.

And I believe, Henry, were you going to recuse yourself?

Yes. So I have to move it. It's a...

All right.

And did someone pull 3H? Who pulled 3H?

I didn't know it. I think it was. Oh, it was. All right.

Does anyone have any questions? Any questions?

I don't have a question.

I have quick comments on this since we pulled it. appreciate the work of Public Works on this and the other projects that we're moving forward on in terms of street rehab and sidewalk repairs can we I know I asked this and we do do this but just want to encourage us to continue to do this to post updates about when this work is happening and to post our successes as well to show off when we do complete these street repairs and sidewalk repairs to post on our social media but also find other avenues to get the information about the work that we are doing to make infrastructure repairs in the city including this and this is a significant amount of money for street rehab so if we can just help the community understand our work and the work the great work that public works does um and that they're right we are the programming that's being done with the tax dollars that are that they are paying i think that'd be helpful yep absolutely and we are posting items

in the cascades as well to give people updates they can log into our website and things like

that we try to give everyone updates as we can. Perfect.

With that, I'm happy to make the motion to adopt staff recommendation on 3H.

Would someone like to second? Seconded by Councilwoman Liu. And if we could take a vote, please.

Your loud noise?

Thank you.

Oh, yeah, someone, Henry, come back.

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and jump

to the public hearing section. I'll go ahead and open public hearing. And are there any public comments for

items 4A?

Okay. So why don't we do the staff report for item 4A, adoption

of a resolution adding new user fees.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Temp, Council Members, Martha Garcia, Finance Director. The last time the water reconnection fees were brought to Council for adoption was 30 years ago in 1992. The City is now seeking authorization to update the water reconnection charges to appropriately capture and receive actual costs for the reconnection service and to add these charges to the master fee schedule.

The City's master fee schedule includes charges for various City services, including charges for water services.

Upon review of the existing fees, it is recommended that the city add a new water reconnection fee to appropriately capture and receive actual costs for services. The attached resolution includes a reconnection charge of $40 for reconnections during business hours and an after-hour reconnection charge of $225. That's weekend charge. The fee was calculated based on an estimated time of one hour to complete the service multiplied by the blended burdened rate for the positions of a maintenance worker and a crew leader who would be involved in the delivery of the service. Staff is requesting adopting the resolution to allow the city to capture and receive actual costs incurred by the city for the reconnection of services, water services. concludes my presentation. Thank you, Martha. Are there any questions or comments from Council? Mr. Mayor? Oh, yes, Council Member Love.

Oh, sorry, are there any comments? No comments, no

communications. Okay, Council Member Love.

Thank you for that presentation. May I ask you,

during the pandemic, was there a

jump in residents losing water services because of inability to pay?

No, we had from the state governor that we could not shut off water during the pandemic,

so there was never any water shutoffs. Okay.

And what is the water reconnection fee now?

What is the water reconnection fee now, or is there even a fee at all?

There's a $25 during business hours and a $40 during off hours.

So $25 for connection and after hours $40.

Correct. Okay. That was established in 1992.

Okay.

And what's being proposed right now, is that comparable to neighboring cities?

I believe so. We did look some other cities and they range in the $200.

Some do a little bit Lor, but they pretty much range in the $200.

Okay. For weekend services.

Okay. It does seem like a big jump from 40 to 2025. I'm wondering, do we have any programs in place where, let's say, someone does need to have reconnection, but consideration of their income, if they're on a fixed income and whether or not that's something we could possibly look into doing?

so we we provide a lot of uh my staff contacts the the user continuously before their shut off

so they're they're aware of the shut off two months in advance we start talking to them we

also have sb998 that requires us to offer them payment plans so i'll give you an example we had

our first shot offs were today we had 127 unpaid bills and we sent out so many notices we did so

much publication that 98 came in paid their bill or did payment plans we only had 29 of 127 we only

had 29 it was an excellent turn out it was an excellent approach to what we did it was a very successful approach. The 29 that came in, many of them just came and paid their bill.

They paid the $25. So we do have a very good outreach.

The 225 would be those that we've tried in many different ways.

And we do work with them through a payment plan to pay the bill.

Okay. And the payment plan, that means timelines or the ability to pay? I'm assuming you're very flexible then in terms of?

So right now we don't have a term for a payment plan.

Some individuals are paying, have a 24-month payment plan because we're wanting to make sure that we ease in everybody. We're phasing in the individuals that weren't paying during COVID.

Some, like I said, some had the money and they came in and paid a full amount. I don't have that number.

But we're easing them in.

Even with their payment plans, we're asking how much can you afford, and we're easing them in.

There's also a state program that we encourage them and we give them the information to apply.

And we have had some residents apply for the program and qualify.

So we also have that program that those that are low income would qualify for up to, I think it's $2,000

to pay off their water and their water debt.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions or comments? Mayor Portano?

Martha, thank you for this report. So the $225 suggested fee, proposed fee at this point for off hours, that aligns with the actual cost of one hour going out.

For the employee cost, because you're not taking into account

the mileage and the fuel and all that. So there is more cost, but that's just for the employee cost.

Yes.

And then the $40 is an even more subsidized.

That doesn't match the actual cost.

Right.

Do you know kind of offhand, I'm just trying to get a sense of scale, how many of these reconnections we typically would expect in a year?

I wasn't here, so I don't know. I can find out, but I don't have that answer.

My staff tells me that before COVID, I think they were doing anywhere up to 50 per cycle that would get the notice, up to 50 per cycle that would get the notice.

I don't know how many of them would pay and how many of them were reconnected.

Cycle being billing cycles with two months?

Yes, correct. Okay.

And then, I mean, just the difference between off hours and during work hours, reconnections. I mean, that's just a matter of someone, a customer wanting to reconnect, asking for, they can't wait until tomorrow during business hours, right, or they want to get reconnected during the weekend?

Correct. Okay.

I don't have any issues with this. I would be curious just on the number of reconnections we typically have on an annual basis. And if there's a way to distinguish between how many are during regular work hours

and how many have been off hours?

I don't know if I can get that statistical information for you, Vic, and I can try.

Yeah, I'm just curious.

But this makes sense, right? It's still a subsidized rate, and this really only applies to people who are disconnected for nonpayment.

Is that right?

Correct.

So if it's just a new someone bought a new home and is Starting new service or whatever that this fleet fee would not apply for that

Correct, right there. Yeah, correct

Any other questions or comments from

City manager

Mayor, council members, just to probably add a little bit more context to the conversation, leading into a reconnection call, there are numerous notices that the customer is receiving from the city of Monterey Park. They have their first notice from the bill.

They also have a second notice with the door hanger. We do an additional notice with the door hanger after that, and then we do a last attempt. Then we disconnect them. Now, depending on when the disconnection is, it could lead into the weekend. It could lead overnight. But it doesn't happen very often because they get so many notices. and if the individual has not paid attention to all those notices it's not for a lack of the city Monterey Park trying to let them know that they are void in their payment and a lot of them have responded as our director has mentioned with a payment plan so I don't think the number is very large and if they are at this point then they they have given they have been given sufficient notice that they have payment overdue and by our municipal code we are alLod to have a payment plan for them for as long as 12 months that is the maximum according to the municipal code so just giving a little bit of context I know you're a little worried that you go from 40 to 225 but that 225 is reasonable to recover most of the costs

and just sorry Martha to follow up we are currently looking at all of our fee structures right to

make potential adjustments to match that to actual cost closer to match we are we hired a consultant

and they are currently working with all the departments to review fees and try to collect actual costs. So we will be bringing it back sometime in the fall for your review.

I'm happy to make a motion if there are no further questions or comments on this.

A second? Second? Okay.

And if we can take a vote.

Unanimous.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and jump to item, public hearing item 4B.

The city is required to conduct a public hearing

and consider assessments for the citywide maintenance district.

Is there a report?

Yes.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council members. First, in 1993, the state implemented the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund transfer that shifted property tax revenues from local governments to schools. The city's loss at that time was $1.2 million. In 1993, after considering various options to balance the budget, the city formed a benefit assessment district pursuant to the 1972 Lighting and Landscaping Act. The assessment revenues are used to pay for costs of maintaining street lighting and public landscaping. The funds freed up by the assessment revenues are used to maintain essential city services such as police, State Department. Director of Public Works. Recreation and Library. The law requires the city to renew the assessments each year. Revenue generated by the city's assessment district is approximately $1,004,990 a year. The city has renewed the benefit assessment district every year for the past 30 years. During this time, the rate has only increased once in 1996 from $39.97 to $40.00. and 97 cents. Since 1996, the rates have not been adjusted and the city continues using general fund monies to supplement significant shortfalls that result from increased operating costs. At its April 5th, 2023 meeting, council adopted a resolution of intention, which among other things proposes an assessment per single family home of $40.97 for fiscal year 23-24. The cost for the operation and maintenance of the city's landscaping and lighting is approximately $1.6 million. The benefit assessment district will fund $1,004,990 of the cost, and the city's general fund will cover the remaining $571,000. The resolution of intention, which includes the public hearing date and protest procedures, was published in the Monterey Park Press. on May 16, 2023. To date, no majority protest was received against the proposed assessment district renewal for 23-24. The city staff requests council to adopt a resolution to authorize the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 23-24 in citywide assessment district 93-1.

Staff is available for any questions.

So I'll go ahead and open discussion on public union. Are there any public comments?

There are none registered.

Okay.

Are there any questions or comments from Councilor?

Just a quick question.

So the assessment only applies to single-family residential properties?

no it applies to all properties it's just the the that is the amount for

single-family okay so there's a different amount for commercial or

multifamily residential that is correct okay I'm happy to support this item I I

know that we are in the process of looking at our rates for other services the city provides I don't know if this is included in looking at that I think I don't know I think at some point the city should look at it making adjustments to this but assessment in the future I don't know if it should be included in the other rates that we're looking at currently this year but it's clear from the staff report and the budget and the finances that the intent of this assessment was to cover the cost the full cost of street lighting and maintenance in the city does not do that and has not done that in a long time and at some point I think we should look at making an adjustment to bring that in line but I will make a motion to adopt staff recommendation on on this item

with those comments is there a second a second council member go and if we can

take a vote. Move unanimously. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and open public hearing

discussion on item 4C, a continued public hearing to consider introduction and

first reading of zoning code. Mayor City Council, if you just let staff get

situated I apologize I should announce this earlier but we do have technical

difficulties with one of our screens the one on our left over here so it makes a

little difficult that when you're presenting that you can't see your

presentation so we're gonna make a few adjustments here and we'll get started with our presentation but thank you for your patience thank you

We'll go ahead and take a five minute break while we set up technology.

It gives us a chance to stretch our legs and grab a Diet Coke or something.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh, dear.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to go ahead and resume at 7.57 p.m. Just to respect people's times. And we'll go ahead and open public hearing item 4C. and I believe we have a staff report good evening mayor members of the City

Council Beth Chow senior planner to give you this report related to zoning code amendment 21-01 density bonus ordinance next slide so currently the municipal code offers developers a density bonus option founded chapter 21.18 of the municipal code and this was adopted back in 2013. However, it has been about 10 years and as part of the housing element implementation, specifically program number 14, the city is moving forward with amending the chapter to be consistent with state law. Just a little bit more background on density bonus. This, again, is based on state law and all cities must allow density bonus and cities must offer density bonus that complies with state law but also allows jurisdictions to be more generous than what state law allows. This type of affordable housing incentive is optional for developers and there is no requirement that developers use this tool. Next, please.

So what is a density bonus? A density bonus is a tool that lets developers maximize allowable density in exchange for

specified public aid policy goals.

In this case, the public policy goal is to provide specific affordable housing units

at specific income levels including the extremely low, very low.

No, we're on the right side. I want to hear it. I'm sorry.

So density bonus is intended to address affordability at the extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income levels.

As shown in the illustration behind me, for a specific site, a developer may potentially be able to build, let's say, up to four stories.

when all the units are market rate. However, if they provide

between a 20% to an 80% bonus based on the affordability of the units offered. Generally speaking, the greater amount of units offered at Lor income levels, the higher the density bonus becomes. For income groups such as very low income, extremely low income, and or seniors, those groups have the broadest range of bonuses offered. For this ordinance, there are alternative ways of complying with the requirements, and and developers are permitted to pick from a menu of incentives. The menu of incentives helps provide surety to developers and to the city on what projects can be built. Next, please. So changes in the target groups between our original version of the ordinance

and taking into account changes in state law

have added new categories of target groups that include foster youth, disabled veterans, homeless, and college students. So these groups were not originally covered in Citi's density bonus ordinance,

and now they are. Again, the greater amount of affordable units provided by the developer,

the greater increase of the bonus. So in order to comply with density bonus, proposed ordinance allows for developers to elect to use the density bonus if they are either building the units on site or if they donate land for affordable projects.

So as the illustration shows on the left the units indicated in yellow are those that are affordable and should be distributed throughout the project with market rate units as a mix.

And then on the right while the developer could develop all market rate on a site they could also then provide a land dedication to create those affordable units. Next. As part of the ordinance, developers are alLod to reduce site development standards, ask for modifications to the zoning code or modifications to architectural design elements in order to provide for income qualified units. This list that's shown here helps provide surety to developers so that they know what sort of incentive they will be granted by the city. In this new ordinance, the city is also offering additional bonuses for projects that can comply with Level 2 Green Building Codes in order to encourage sustainable development. These development standards are ones that the city and staff have deemed to be flexible to maintain a high quality of development while augmenting the city's affordable housing stock.

Next, please.

along with the city's menu of incentives the state also has incentives built into state density bonus law and state provides developers with incentives related to parking where which are generally Lor parking requirements that the city would require of multifamily development Additionally, there are special parking requirements for uses or proposals that are within a half mile of transit stops.

And for those types of developments, less parking is required, you know, up to half a space per unit based on its proximity to transit.

So the diagrams shown on the right are just for illustrative purposes and do not reflect actual conditions of what could be achieved in a density bonus situation,

THE SITUATION BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WITHOUT THE DENSITY BONUS THE TOP GRAPHIC

SHOWS THAT THERE'S MUCH MORE PARKING AVAILABLE WHEREAS ON THE BOTTOM GRAPHIC THERE'S MUCH LESS PARKING AVAILABLE BUT THE BUILDING HAS GOTTEN BIGGER BUT THOSE UNITS ARE ALSO THEN MORE AFFORDABLE. NEXT PLEASE. SO AS PART OF THIS ORDINANCE THE CITY WILL GRANT UP TO FOUR INCENTIVES NOT INCLUDING ANY GREEN BUILDING FOR PROJECTS UNDER CERTAIN

CONDITIONS. SHOULD DEVELOPERS ELECT TO BUILD GREEN, THEY WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL BONUS THAT WILL NOT BE

COUNTED TOWARDS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF INCENTIVES GRANTED. FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE WERE PROPOSING A 10-UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ONE UNIT IS MODERATE BASED ON THIS CHART, THEN THEY MAY HAVE ONE INCENTIVE. BUT IN A CASE WHERE DEVELOPERS ALSO

proposing 10 units. Two of those units are moderate income affordable. They can have up to two incentives.

So this is a very quick summary of our density bonus ordinance as proposed.

As a reminder, this ordinance falls very closely with what is permitted by state law with city

staff proposing to be a bit more generous with the density bonus related to projects that can build in a more sustainable fashion.

In all cases, the city does have to match with what the state allows.

So as part of this ordinance, we stayed very closely with that,

with what the state allows. And so this concludes my presentation. At this time staff is recommending that council introduce and waive first reading of ordinance this ordinance amending chapter 2118 titled affordable housing incentives density bonus and take any additional related action as desirable. Thank you and staff is available for any questions.

Thank you for that report. Are there any public comments for this?

There are none registered.

Okay. Thank you.

Council, any questions or comments?

Mr. Mayor, yes. Thank you so much for that presentation. I have a question. So currently we already offer these density bonuses to developers, correct?

Correct. Has any developers taken advantage of the existing density bonus program?

We currently have two projects looking to opt into the density bonus.

Oh, okay. And I'm just curious, in terms of feedback, I mean, has developers, what has been their feedback? In other words, is what's there, what's being proposed sufficient, or have

they given input about ways these, like ours, can encourage more usage of the GenC bonus?

I guess is there a way we can further encourage developers to use the GenC bonus, is what I'm trying to say? I would say

Councilmember Lo, this is Jessica Serrano, Community

Development Director. To answer your question, if we've gotten any feedback,

it's that our current ordinance is not up to

standards with the state law, and that's part of the reason why we're bringing this forward to you. Okay.

I have a comment, a question.

Did we go through the planning commission with some of this stuff? I thought we did a few months ago, right?

So this was brought before our planning commission on May 3rd, I believe.

Okay. So they reviewed it. This is the recommendation as presented by you guys.

Thank you.

Mayor Patel-Mwan.

Thanks, Jessica and Beth.

Appreciate bringing all the work that went into the staff report here and bringing this item to us. So just for my clarity, so this would bring our current density bonus ordinance in line with the state's requirements, right?

Yes, that's correct.

And then the additional menu of incentives that are listed here that are within the city's discretion, right, are optional in terms of they're above and beyond the state's requirements?

Those are customized based on the city's desire.

So those can be modified by council.

And then those, so if a project developer wanted to come in and wanted to take advantage of the density bonus ordinance, there are already listed in line with state requirements already what they can get for the number and type of affordable units that they have. And then the discretionary kind of bonus menu of items would be at the sole discretion of the community development director? Or do they have to meet certain other criteria to receive any or all or up to four, I think you said, right, of these menu of additional bonuses?

So generally, as density bonus projects come forward, they do need city council approval. so if a developer were to propose an incentive that was not on the menus then there would be

some discretion on the part of the city council ultimately however in cases where there's no

incentive of menus cities excuse me developers are pretty much asking you know will you grant

this to us not knowing that you will be granted so the list of incentives or the menu of incentives

that we've offered is that saying yes we will grant you these incentives for you know based on the project as long as you're performing providing the adequate number of affordable housing units all right so if they write if a developer

want to come and build whatever 40 100 unit development and a number of them were at various affordability levels that met the density bonus requirements they would get the density bonus as required by state law. And then if they wanted, say, reduction in setback and increase of FAR and reduction of open space requirements as required by our general plan in land use settlement, they would have to apply, they would have to go through a process of requesting those with the Community Development Department. and those specific other additional bonuses would have to come to the council for approval or can Jessica as the community development director approve if they're on this menu already?

I'm trying to understand how.

Yeah. So density bonus agreements ultimately go to city council

for approval and generally can be wrapped into development agreements.

that also go for Council.

So if a builder developer wanted to come in and wanted these additional bonuses, they would propose that and that would have to come to Council for approval ultimately, which if any of these menu of items they want to request.

Okay, that's helpful.

Any other questions or comments from Council?

Council Member Bill?

I'll go ahead and make the motion. I'll second.

So if we can take a vote.

Approved financially.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and open public hearing on item 4D,

continued public hearing to consider introduction and first reading of zoning code number 2201. Is there a staff report?

Yes, good evening again, Mayor, members of the Council. The item before you is Zoning Code 22-01, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

This item is a carryover from a previous time when the Council had considered Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. However, it had been referred back to our Planning Commission for consideration. And so just as a quick update or a quick review, inclusionary housing was a program that was included in our housing element.

The council discussed it in fall of last year, referred it back to commission, seeking an option for land donation as part of inclusionary housing option. and also to be brought back with density bonus to provide additional incentives for developers to create affordable housing. This item was brought before our planning commission on May 3rd, and they recommended approval of the ordinance with both the added land dedication option as well as a recommendation related to in-lieu fees that we'll get into a little later on.

Next, please. Just as a refresher, the inclusionary housing ordinance, what is it? It is a local requirement that housing developers include a set percentage of units for affordable households in new developments

or pay in a loo fee among other options including the land donation option.

if the city adopts an inclusionary housing ordinance housing developers will be required to

include this percentage of affordable units the images here depict what that would look like new housing developments can have them on site where some units are affordable others are market rate if the developer prefers to pay in a lieu fee the fees go into a fund that can be used later to create affordable housing elsewhere in the city. The general goal of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is to produce more affordable units that the market would otherwise not have created.

These are optional alternative and have been included as part of this proposal.

Both projects that include inclusionary or require inclusionary housing are those that

require or have five or more units. So getting into greater detail about where what the inclusion housing ordinance includes.

Next slide. I'm sorry. This slide shows the structure of our ordinance including its applicability exemptions.

We'll also cover any set-aside requirements and minimum number of affordable units as well as the target group.

THAT TARGET INCREME GROUPS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR. THERE ARE SOME ALTERNATIVE

COMPLIANCE METHODS TO ACHIEVE THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. ALSO THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT WILL BE APPLIED TO ALL INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PRODUCTS AS WELL AS SOME

MODIFICATIONS TO THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE ITSELF IN CERTAIN CASES. SO THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, AGAIN, APPLIES TO PROJECTS WITH FIVE OR MORE UNITS.

BUT THERE ARE SOME EXEMPTIONS TO THAT. TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT ARE EXCLUDED OR EXEMPTED FROM THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE INCLUDES PROJECTS WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE COMPARABLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

Also, projects that are 100% affordable will not be subject to this ordinance, as well as emergency shelters, community care facilities, ADUs, JAUs, or additions and replacement and restoration of projects that don't increase more than five units.

the reason being that likely these types of projects will already include certain levels of affordability and also recognizing that for single family homeowners creating JADUs or ADUs

that would be an expense that may be beyond what they could afford to improve their homes.

So next we go into the set aside for rental units.

City is proposing 9% for low income households and a 6% requirement for moderate income households. And for for sale products there is a 15% requirement for moderate income households.

IN LOOKING AT OTHER JURISDICTIONS WHEN REVIEWING THE NUMBER OF SET-ASIDE UNITS THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED, MOST JURISDICTIONS RANGE BETWEEN 10 AND 20% WITH THE HIGHER NUMBER OF REQUIRED AFFORDABLE UNITS HAVING POTENTIALLY FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON PROJECTS. The Lor end of that requirement may be easier to develop but may result in less affordable units.

So some jurisdictions, they will range from 5% requirement of inclusionary housing to up to 25%.

But we feel that at 15%, it is relatively in the middle there so that development still is possible.

TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE INCOME LEVELS, THE FOLLOWING TABLE PROVIDES THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME

CATEGORIES FOR A FOUR-PERSON HOUSEHOLD WITHIN LA COUNTY. AMI OR THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME IS THE

HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR THE MEDIAN OR MIDDLE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN A GIVEN REGION. SO IF YOU

If you were to line up each household from poorest to wealthiest, the household in the very middle would be considered the median.

Just to give you an idea of the types of households that we are trying to provide affordable units

to in the extremely low category for a four-person household, that's an annual income of about $38,650 for those within the very low income category. That would be $59,550. In the low income category, AMI is about $95,000. A moderate income category would be those households with $109,000 in annual income. and just as a reference point, the AMI for LA County for a four-person household is about $91,100 per year.

So those are really the groups that we're focusing on to provide some affordable units

through the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Next, please. So as I mentioned, developers can provide units

on site. However, the alternative compliance methods

includes in lieu fees. So that's where

a developer may not decide to provide units on site because of

different factors including lack of knowledge or expertise in creating affordable units. So the

lieu fee is then paid prior to certificate occupancy and deposit into a fund.

TO HELP FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT CITY MAY PARTNER IN. AS PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WHEN PAYING FOR IN-LU FEES,

WE'RE A PORTION OF THE UNIT THAT IS REQUIRED AS A FRACTIONAL AMOUNT, THE CITY WOULD GO AHEAD AND ROUND UP TO THE NEXT WHOLE UNIT,

AND THE DEVELOPER WOULD THEN PAY FEES BASED ON THAT NEXT WHOLE UNIT. That is consistent with providing units on site. In this case, the ordinance proposes that when providing on site, developers also round up to the next whole unit and provide a whole unit, recognizing that you cannot provide a fractional unit. So that is the one change that the Planning Commission recommended as part of this ordinance.

OTHER ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE METHODS INCLUDES PROVIDING OFF-SITE UNITS WHERE, LET'S SAY, PROJECT A LOCATION HAS FULL MARKET RATE UNITS. PROJECT B LOCATION OFF SITE WOULD PROVIDE ALL THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AS PART OF COUNCIL'S

DESIRE TO SEE AN OPTION FOR LAND DEDICATION. STAFF WENT AHEAD AND INCLUDED THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT, IT COULD BE THAT THE PROJECT IS DEVELOPED, let's say on the right-hand side in white, but the land is dedicated on the portion blue for development by the city or partnering with a qualified developer of some sort.

Next, please.

So as part of the inclusionary housing ordinance, there were some additional standards when units are created. in cases for rent and sale. There would be a covenant to keep units affordable for rental units. It would be a period of 55 years. For sale units, it would be a period of 45 years. In both cases of rental and sale, the renter or the purchaser's income must be certified to make sure that these units are going to a household that is qualified based ON THEIR INCOME. IN CASES WHERE RENTAL OCCURS, THE CITY MUST CONSENT TO ANY SORT OF SUBLEASING STRUCTURE. AND FOR SALE PRODUCTS, CITY ALSO MUST CONSENT TO ANY SUBLEASING BUT ALSO CONSENT TO ANY NEW OWNERSHIP WHEN THESE FOR SALE UNITS TURN OVER. IN TERMS OF RENTAL PRODUCTS, SELLER HAS TO DISCLOSE AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS. IN THE CASE OF A FOR SALE PRODUCT, THE UNIT MUST BE THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE OF THE QUALIFIED PURCHASER. SO THAT THE UNIT IS INTENDED FOR THOSE WHO MEET THOSE INCOME QUALIFIED AREAS. AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE, WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT RELATE TO AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AGREEMENT AS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. THERE WILL BE COVENANTS REQUIRED FOR CONTIGUOUS LOTS TO MAINTAIN AFFORDABILITY. AS PART OF EQUITY ISSUES, THE INCLUSION AND HOUSING ORDINANCE ALSO REQUIRES THAT AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE PROVIDED ON SITE BE DISBURSED AMONG THE DEVELOPMENT AND NOT BE COMPARABLE TO MARKET RATE UNITS. AS PART OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, WE ALSO ARE REQUIRING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PLAN AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION SO THAT WE we can ensure that all other standards within the ordinance are maintained. Next, please. In cases where this inclusionary housing ordinance may violate state or federal law, then there are options to make modifications or waivers to this inclusionary housing ordinance. but in all cases the director must render a written decision before in conjunction with the decision of the project to make those modifications and waivers known. Next please. This next slide actually details some additional research that was completed after your consideration of the inclusionary housing ordinance last time.

program. We did some research related to how other cities have implemented inclusionary

housing. In this case, Long Beach was a sample city that had a phased implementation program. There was a five-year rollout with the first two years being the test years where they started at a certain percentage and each year would increase gradually. There was also a requirement to do a program review to make sure that the inclusionary housing ordinance or in lieu fees that are collected were being used the way or intended as part of inclusionary housing. And then there was also a continued evaluation of every five years so that there's ongoing monitoring of this program, this ordinance. They also considered other incentives as part of the inclusionary housing ordinance, including waivers to impact fees or development fees. In certain types of projects, they considered offering expedited plan checks or priority processing through the entitlement process to get these types of affordable units on the ground. And so this is provided to you just as a consideration that you may make when looking at our staff proposed inclusionary housing ordinance. AND TO GIVE YOU SOME SORT OF REFERENCE POINT TO HOW OTHER CITIES HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. AT THIS TIME, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER INTRODUCING AND WAVING FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE, ADDING CHAPTER 21.19 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT THE MONTERY PARK HOUSING ELEMENT

and also taking any additional related action that may be desirable. Staff is available for any questions.

Thank you for that.

Are there any public comments for this item?

Yes, Mayor.

We have Kent Lee from Pacific Plaza Premium.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. It's good to be here. It's been a while since I've been back in this chambers. I'm Ken Lee, Vice President of Development for Pacific Plaza Premier Development Group. We're heavily invested in Monterey Park.

We have the project that's currently under construction with the residential portion complete that's located at 400 North Atlantic Boulevard, which will be a hotel mixed use with retail. and we have 84 residential units that's on the Chandler side. Earlier this year, we also purchased the Happy Day Preschool, which will also be a future housing project as well.

Let me start off by saying congratulations to Mr. Bo

and just want to applaud him for his leadership here at the city. He's been great for us to work with. and I just want to also say that I'm using part of my speaking time to say congratulations so that's my retirement gift to you.

Monterey Park. But onto business. I have some just very general comments. More just observations and perspective I want to offer as a local developer that is invested in your community. I did mark that I am neutral on this ordinance which I am. Let me first actually applaud you for considering the ordinance. I think this is long overdue for many cities in the Sangambo Valley. I've done work in other parts of California. where inclusionary ordinances are the norm. I am not your prototypical developer because I have a public-private background. I used to work for cities. I was a community development director for a short bit. I was also a private consultant that was doing redevelopment, affordable housing, and economic development work. So I have kind of a varied background. So I'm offering different perspectives for you tonight. Let me also applaud that you're going to be creating an affordable housing trust fund, which you should not take lightly. This means that as far as the housing crisis is concerned, you are taking a proactive step to also understand that the city has an integral role in creating housing. And so the fees that you do generate and put into this housing trust fund will be critically important in terms of how the city actually facilitates housing projects as well. And I also implore you to consider how those fees can be used, not just for what you would call typical affordable housing projects, but also addressing the homelessness crisis in terms of transitional and permanent supportive housing. I'm also active in the homeless space in my private life as well. So I wanted to say that. The other thing is, from a proactive standpoint, I'm not sure if the city still has a housing authority. That's something that should be considered only because housing authorities have additional powers that cities may not. And so that's something to consider as well. My general comments about the ordinance itself and just perspectives, a little offering of history. Why do most cities in the past have a 15 percent inclusionary requirement with a 9 percent, 6 percent breakdown? That's because that was what redevelopment agencies were required to produce. There was a production requirement for revalent agencies. And so those cities that had those revalent agencies with those production requirements in their project areas also placed that requirement on the developers developing in those project areas because it helps them meet their production requirements. Revalent agencies are gone for 11 years now. So I just wanted to offer that because it should not be an ambiguous percentage that you're looking at, but something that is relevant for the city itself. I will also say that a very important part of this is just balance, right? So most cities are looking at this from a tipping point perspective of not wanting to deter development in your city. This is important. And I'm not going to tell you whether 15% with a 9%, 6% hits a tipping point or not. We're looking at it. We're evaluating. We're doing financial analysis ourselves. the fee will be extremely important because the fee will also address this tipping point. And so we will be looking at what it looks like to do inclusionary onsite with a density bonus potentially, but also what it looks like to pay the fee. I'm running out of time. I'm just going to say a couple of other more specific comments about the ordinance. Economies of scale, please consider that. And so when you have a minimum requirement for five or more units, please consider that a seven-unit project, which we will never do. We're going to do larger projects. But a seven-unit project at 15% is 1.05. So if you round up a fractional, now you have a two-unit requirement for a seven-unit project. That doesn't work. But please consider that a lot of cities actually, instead of doing a fractional, if you're below 0.5 in fraction, Then a lot of cities will round down if you're above five point four point five or above you round up So that's just something to consider for yourselves tonight Thank you appreciate it I appreciate the opportunity to have a dialogue and encourage you to have more dialogue with the development community for these types of policies Thank you

Thank you

Thank you mayor. We have a written communication from Linda Tang. However, she is in the audience

So, Linda.

Good evening, council members. My name is Linda and thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to provide comments. Monterey Park, the city runs deep in my veins, the blood runs deep in my veins because I was born and raised here. and now I'm a homeowner in this great community and I love it so much. I'm really excited that the city is moving forward with the inclusionary housing ordinance. The housing crisis is happening everywhere. You can't escape it and I'm glad we're finally addressing it.

In drafting the ordinance, it's important to just step back and ask ourselves, what is the goal? What kind of results do we want from inclusionary and who are we planning this for? Who do we want to benefit most from it? For me, our main goal in the city should be to address affordability for Lor-income households

because this is the city's greatest unmet housing need.

Even in our own adopted housing element, it provides compelling and staggering statistics. For example, 75%. 75% of renters are Lor-income households and 75% experience overcrowding. I understand that inclusionary is not the one and only solution to building affordable housing, but is better than building zero units because during 2013 to 2021 there was zero Lor income units that was built in the city. As we move forward with inclusionary I have several recommendations and it's detailed in the letter that I emailed all of you but for now I'll only highlight a few. First of all for rental projects the current draft ordinance proposes a set aside for nine percent low income and six percent moderate income. However it's important to note that the inclusionary rents for moderate income and even low income will be set or be very close in market rents. I don't have specific numbers from R.A. Park, but I have L.A. counties, and I assume it's not that far from R.A. Park. For L.A. County, the 2022 fair market rent for a two-bedroom is $2,000 a month. For a four-person modern income household, affordable rent is $2,700, and for low is $2,400. These households can't afford the $2,000 fair market rents, but the affordable monthly rent for a very low-income household is $1,500. And for extremely low, it's only around $900. So fair market rent is simply out of reach for these households. For inclusionary to be effective in addressing our unmet housing needs, we need to create deeper affordability that at least targets very low-income households. Setting aside inclusionary for moderate will not help address the city's Lor-income affordability crisis, and more importantly, the construction of moderate will also not help count towards our very low, high, or very high Lor income renewables. Because the gap to fund housing for low income households is much bigger than it is for moderate, I would like to propose the set aside be changed to at least 10% of new rental units to be affordable to very low income households. While the current inclusionary is being proposed citywide, I suggest that this 10% very low income set aside be implemented only on sites that have a high potential for large residential projects, basically targeting proposed developments of at least 30 plus units of the acre on sites that are located along, for example, Atlantic, Garvey, and Garfield. These sites should have higher in-lieu fees than other areas of the city. Secondly, the city should reject phase implementation of the housing inclusionary ordinance. Once the ordinance is approved, it should immediately go into effect because why should we phase implementation? Why should we provide more benefits to developers. And again, I'm focused on sites that have great potential for large 30-plus units per acre residential projects. Our city recently updated the land use element and housing element where many sites have been rezoned to include residential use at significantly higher densities to facilitate and accommodate future growth. The city has provided an incentive and benefit to these property owners, but when you really think about it, the city essentially gave away increased density and development standards that will not only create an easy transition for an upgraded use, but the upzoning substantially increases the potential future value of the property. So for the property owners, it's great for them because they didn't have to do anything to get these incentives and they don't even have to redevelop the property. They can keep it as is. It's really up to them what they want to do, but it's a benefit to them to have this additional opportunity for future entitlement for a proposed project. So with this in mind, it would make sense for proposed residential development projects on sites that have been rezoned or will be rezoned in areas that have a greater potential for redevelopment be triggered to the 10% very low income set aside. We provided benefits for the developers, and we should expect developers to be community partners and provide community benefits in return, such as deeper affordability. I thank you for giving me this opportunity. I hope the city takes this opportunity to be creative and to strengthen the ordinance to ensure the inclusionary success. I also have one quick question. I didn't realize that there's an exemption for inclusionary projects with comparable community benefits that would be approved by City Council. I was hoping that the city can elaborate what is considered comparable community benefits. Thank you for your time.

There are no other speakers. Thank you. Are there any questions from Council or comments?

Yes. Council Member Liu? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you for, I just want to thank Jessica and staff for working on this for now for many months,

as well as our planning commission, if you're listening, for also reviewing, giving input. It's been a long process, and I think it ties into the work we've been doing also regarding our housing element

and other housing policies we've been discussing.

I wanted to ask you, given that we just approved an item for higher density bonuses,

is there a way in which we can incentivize developers to also incorporate housing for Lor income?

buyers, renters, I don't know if that means again using the density bonus as a tool or more

of again set aside but I'm just curious what are ways in which we can encourage developers to use or to also have a mix that includes Lor income as well.

Council member low to answer your question the incentives lie in the density bonus ordinance that we just presented the If the developer provides a greater affordability and meets a certain number of units Then they would qualify for one and up to four incentives And we did provide a menu of incentives that They can pick from and determine which one would they would best help them achieve the project that they need We also included the the green building code that would help them even provide additional density bonus units, so We have provided a good amount of options for them to choose from

Okay

Hmm I have more questions. I'm gonna also just you know start the conversation and

And yeah, I mean, I have, I want to hear from my colleagues and then we can circle back if that's okay.

Okay.

Council Member Go?

I have a question and I think I know the answer, but I need you guys to help confirm

here.

I believe the planning commission worked on this back in September and then in April. And I believe part of their understanding was to kind of look at the surrounding communities within the St. Gabriel Valley to make sure we were consistent with the surrounding cities who also had inclusionary housing. Is that an affirmative here?

Yes. We took a survey of surrounding cities and what their inclusionary housing ordinances provided,

and we tried to be somewhat in line

with what our neighboring jurisdictions had

in relation to what is being proposed this evening.

Thank you.

Other questions? Mayor Patumla?

Thank you, Mayor.

A number of questions, sorry. I will apologize in advance if this is kind of disjointed.

But just one out of curiosity, the 45-year for sale and 55-year kind of covenants, right, for affordability for rental units,

Is there, are those kind of just arbitrary kind of numbers that I know other cities have adopted for those requirements? And what's the, I mean, was there any analysis that's behind setting those thresholds versus in perpetuity that I know some other cities are starting to adopt for the affordability requirements?

Council Member Wong to respond to your question the state did set forth

a minimum a number of years of affordability so if you wanted to go

let's say 35 years that would not be consistent

with state law so that

is at the minimum and additionally we looked at surrounding cities

and what we're proposing is consistent with other cities as well

okay and I'm just wondering and it sounds like we don't have a specific answer I don't know that

there is an answer that exists but if we were to right go to the perpetuity in perpetuity

affordability requirements for for sale and rental units or one or the other I'm just trying to think what the difference would be if that's if that adjusts the project financing or or how that might impact developability or what if we wanted to move ahead with with a longer standard than 45 and 55

i mean i would say uh an impact would be that the current owner and any future owners

would be held subject to this um that would be that Florence Florence Florence Florence Florence Florence Florence Thank you.

requirements in perpetuity, you know, they would all have to be subject to that and that's how they would be informed through that agreement that gets recorded onto the property.

As far as financing, I couldn't speak on that part.

And then on the, so for

the different income levels, that is adjusted on a regular basis based on HCD definitions of what is moderate income, low income, extremely low income, right?

HCD puts out those numbers annually.

And our ordinance would adjust based on what the state's definition of those income levels is, right?

It simply refers to HUD's numbers, annual income requirements.

Okay.

And then have we done any economic analysis or feasibility analysis in terms of, I mean, I understand current economic and banking conditions are different than even a year ago

and that they will continue to change.

But I'm curious if there's any way to do some sort of pro forma or kind of analysis looking at maybe some recent projects and potential future projects. If we were to implement these requirements or inclusion or housing requirements similar to these, whether those projects might or might not pencil out. I think the bigger point I want to make here, and I think others have as well, is that I don't want to disincentivize development completely in the city. In that case, we don't get the affordable units anyway. If what we adopt has a chilling effect on development at all in the city,

that is, I think, again,

that isn't what we are after either. And so how do we balance, strike the right tone and thread the needle here to find the right sweet spot in terms of incentivizing and producing the affordable units we need to produce in the city without disincentivizing development across the board.

We did not conduct an economic feasibility study, but what we did do was we studied what

adjacent communities have adopted to make sure that what we're proposing is in line with what

our neighbors are requiring and you know that would make sure that you know we're not too high

or too low too too strict or too lenient and i'm curious i don't know if we know offhand i know

some of our neighbors some of those inclusionary housing ordinances have been around longer than others some are much more recent i'm curious i mean and every city is a little bit different in terms of their economics for development what makes sense and what pencils out but i'm curious if there has been any noticeable effect or if we know of any noticeable effects in any of those cities that on development after their adoption i did speak to our neighbor in

the city of alihambra and the director indicated that there was no noticeable changes to their

development pattern to date. They adopted their ordinance, I believe in 2020.

And then at first glance, I know this was commented on earlier, but I agree in terms of the threshold for applicability of the IHO at five units seems, I mean, this is without data on my part either, but five unit development projects for this supply seems kind of low to me. I would support a higher applicability threshold, or even as one of the speakers I think suggested as well, potentially even having different thresholds, right, where there are smaller scale development projects up to, I don't, the number that was around was 30, I don't know if that's the right number or not,

but having a different requirement for under, right,

between what are, I don't know, 10 and 30 unit developments and then above 30-unit developments to have either phasing in more strict in different levels of affordability requirements for larger-scale developments versus more medium-scale developments. I don't know what the number is, but I think five is too small in my mind at this point, and then finding a middle ground for kind of more middle-scale size developments and then a different standard for higher, right, larger developments that could, at scale, balance out the costs of producing the affordable units or paying the in-lue fees.

And then on the in-lue fees, I know it's the intent of staff if the council wants to proceed with the inclusionary housing ordinance to come back with the analysis of what those in-lue fees should be, right?

Yes, that's correct.

Do we have some initial thinking of how we would calculate the in-lieu fees or what that analysis would be?

The contemplated formula for the fee would be an affordability gap method

where the developer would be required to pay an in-lieu fee that is equivalent to the difference between the market rate and the affordable rate.

And so in concept, they would pay what is considered that affordability gap per unit.

So if they're required to provide 10 affordable units, for example, they would have to pay that amount times 10.

And then on the note from the Planning Commission, right, making that adjustment for rounding for units that are required for affordability. so it is correct reading that if it's a 15% requirement for affordable units based on their total units and if it's a fraction of a unit so if it's 6.1 affordable units that are required that would be rounded up to 7? That's correct. So I would be in favor of adjusting that to be if it's 0.5 or above rounding up and then below that

I'm open to an in-lou fee for

a partial unit, right, or some other way. I don't think it necessarily makes sense if it's 6.1

out of the requirement to have to round up all the way to 7.

Also, the Planning Commission recommended that if there's a fractional unit, the proposal is that the developer can pay the fraction or provide a full unit. They have the option the Planning Commission recommends that the developer be required to either provide the in lieu for a full unit or provide a full unit So that's the change that Planning Commission is recommending if you adopt the ordinance the way it's written a developer would be alLod to pay the fraction and not provide a full unit so that like point one they could pay the fraction. Yeah. The way it's written. Yeah.

So I support if it's a fraction under .5, for them to be able to pay that prorated portion of the unit as an in-lu fee.

If it is .5 or above, they have to round up to the next unit.

Sure. And that would require an amendment to what's proposed tonight. Yeah.

uh so it depends on the other council members as well but uh other kind of shifting gears a little bit here in terms of enforcement of the inclusion housing ordinance and the affordability covenants going forward how would those be enforced

there are enforcement mechanisms built into the code and part of this requires that the developer

prepare an inclusionary housing plan that has, you know, detailed methodology as to how

they determine sales prices or rental prices. It also has an enforcement league that to ensure

that the units are occupied by eligible households and are not sold to households or individuals that don't qualify. And

this plan would be submitted to the city. The city can

hold developers

accountable for this type of enforcement.

And through the agreement,

we can even recover costs associated with enforcement.

So how would we recover costs? Would we have to

set another ordinance in the city to set fees, or is that just...

It would be through the mechanisms placed in the agreement.

So you as a developer, let's say, would enter into agreement with the city,

and it states that they must comply with all the standards in our ordinance,

and if there's violations and the city has to go in force,

that the city can pursue legal action to recover costs.

And so all of this would be in a form approved by our city attorney's office.

Okay.

There currently are a number of affordable units in the city, right?

That's correct.

Is there an enforcement mechanism for those affordability covenants and requirements for those units?

Part of the requirement is that they submit annual reports to the city,

ensuring affordability of the units.

and the city has authority to go in and review, verify,

and ask for additional information if needed.

Do we, on a regular basis, do those checks? And my real question here is, do we have the staffing and resources ready to do that, especially as we look to scale up if we adopt this inclusionary housing ordinance and more of these affordable units come on board online? Are we thinking through and will we be set up to do this enforcement?

Going forward. I would say that we definitely would need to evaluate that further If we're going to be requiring this for all housing projects

further evaluation could mean that you know staff may come forward

maybe seeking the help of consultant services to help monitor

you know those those uh fees could be passed through to developers and they would be responsible

for paying those fees um potentially it could you know come from the city's coffers to pay for consultants to help administer these some of these projects great uh for the if the

developer chooses to pay in lieu fees whatever they end up being uh right where this ordinance would authorize the creation of an affordable housing trust fund. If a developer wanted to donate land for the purpose of development, in lieu of developing units, do we, I guess this might be a question for Carl, if land is donated, do we need to set up an affordable housing land trust, or is that something the affordable housing trust fund could take in, or is that I believe we do have a housing authority? I don't know if what's the mechanism. Do we need to set up a mechanism for that too?

Mr. Mayor, members of the council, the way I would envision that is simply the grant deed

conveying the property to the city would restrict the use of that property

specifically for affordable housing.

So once conveyed, it would actually be recorded within the title. You don't need anything special.

It would simply be held in the title of the city,

and it could be conveyed to an affordable housing development

or reserved for it or however you

wanted to set it up from the City Council's

perspective. But I don't think anything beyond that is required in terms of setting up a special authority or anything like that.

I'll just reiterate

that it would be

I would love to see some sort of economic analysis that looks at and helps us determine what the right number should be in terms of what thresholds to set for when the IHO should apply and if we want to kind of have difference between kind of medium scale developments, right, up to 30 units or whatever,

and then different threshold

where different affordability components components would apply above right for larger developments um and then if if there's a way to just put some of these numbers together to see what makes sense that and what what wouldn't how do we right help us spread that needle in terms of what's the right number to set for that those thresholds and also the uh right the percentage we should set for moderate low extremely

low income to make sure that we are getting to meet our RHNA goals that are set both by

the state and also now in our housing element. I'm just looking for some more data to make sure. I really don't want to adopt an ordinance.

I have a hard time supporting ordinance that at the end of the day disincentivizes any development.

It just results in no units at all across the scale. and if there's a way to just gather some of that data I know that things change year to year and the economy can't predict all these things but if there's something that can help provide some guidance to that I think would be helpful if and when we bring this back for a second reading but I do support moving forward with this with some of the comments expressed today and that will continue to be expressed by the council and I'll hold off for now

what typically happens is if you allow someone to develop affordable units you want to give them the incentive at the back end and that gives them like in this case 15 years left in the life of course a building is not going to last 60 years or without doing any work you need to kind of fix it up and spruce it up and that's additional money so that's the incentive the equity at the back end I I don't know if our developer is listening. I think he will probably nod and say that's the case. And then the other part is I actually sat in our planning session in September. I think they had two of these back-to-back, and I sat in both of them. So I understood where they were coming with some of the formulas, some of the discussions. I think it may be helpful if you can provide some of those notes to the council members who may not have that background. Because they will kind of spell out the process that they went through, the discussions they had. Also the background and the surrounding cities, how they came up with those numbers. And I think staff was instrumental in providing some of that input for that discussion. So those are my comments.

Council Member Lo? Yes, thank you. My follow-up question, actually, it's folLod to the answer you gave to Mayor Pro Tem Wong. So you said that in Hamburg, they adopted their IHO in 2020, and you said that there was no, I guess, change into, I guess, their development patterns.

But do we know, though, that SINC implementation, has it helped them to meet their goals of providing housing that meets all income levels, including Lor income? Has it actually encouraged the development that satisfies the different income stratas in Alhambra?

I couldn't get into that level of detail. What I can say is the housing projects that have come through since have either opted for in lieu, because over there they also allow for in lieu, or they've provided the on-site units.

And again, in fact, I'm looking at the comparison.

So when you say in lieu, is that the in lieu for low income, and then it provides, let's see, for example,

one point, let's see, I'll just pull it up again.

Let's see.

So for example,

for the for sale category

under low income and moderate income,

it states that maybe reduce if very low income units

in lieu of low income equals credit of 1.5 units. Is that what you're referring to?

What I was referring to is that the city of Alhambra, like our proposed ordinance,

allows for developers to either provide the affordable units within their development or pay an in-lue fee.

They also allow the option of land dedication and off-site units.

So I wasn't referring to our code specifically, but just generally they provide alternative compliance methods, just like our proposal.

But what you're saying is the experience so far is that they've just opted to and to the in-lieu fee, right?

No, I didn't get into that level of detail with the director. Okay.

Okay. I see. Okay.

Okay.

Again, I share the sentiment that I think has been expressed is that I think it's important to, again, spread that needle because it's one thing to say we passed it, but then, number one, you know, does it actually meet the expectation requirements that HCD will have of us, especially now that they've approved our housing element plan? But then two, it would also meet our real number requirements.

I think that's probably, it would be helpful if we had maybe some more information about that.

If you can be more specific.

I guess, as Mayor Pro Temmonga said, do we have any analysis that shows, you know, what is that right balance that, again, it's a tipping point. It spurs development as well as allows us to meet our obligations under our housing element to meet housing accessibility to different income levels in the community.

Definitely the ordinance is designed to enhance the amount of affordable units in our community in a way that the market by itself may not have been able to.

and you know

so I think definitely the goal is for

the production of affordable units now the economic analysis that you may be looking for wasn't done but we did look at what other cities are doing to make sure that we're in line with them

okay

councilmember you

yeah I wanted to say I also agree with Mayor Pro Tem Wong, saying that we wanted to round up, you know,

we already have to round up to the next whole number and pay the

in-lue fee. And so I think it's fair to, you know,

have the fraction fee that apply. And I think the

50%, you know, 50%, under 50%

that they have a choice of paying the fraction fee instead of paying the whole amount. So I think that is fair and I support that. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Other comment on this is, I saw in the comparison of some of the other cities, I think Long Beach and others have built-in regular review of whether the ordinance is working or not and providing an opportunity for the council to make adjustments in a formal way. I would also want to make sure we bake that into this ordinance. I don't know what the interval is, two or three years or whatever, For us to come back and make sure that there is a requirement for the council to look at economic conditions and address that very Problem right if if it's not working in terms of incentivizing in the right number with the amount of Affordable units that we need or if it's having a chilling effect on Development in general in the city then we want to make sure that we are have the opportunity that we are proactively addressing that

Go forward basis

Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

I also wanted to just reiterate that we don't want to deter development.

We actually really want development to happen,

but we also want to make sure that we look at our numbers and make sure that what we're putting down are fair, and that we try to get as much as we can out of this. So I want to also echo some of the concerns that Mayor Pro Tem Wong said. I also am wondering, to go back to what Council Member Ngo said, if it might be useful to kind of look at some of this some of what the the the committee looked at in terms of the data that maybe perhaps you can share during the second reading if that might be useful for for some of us or or share

even before that sure I'm happy to do that either I could provide a very high

level right now or come back with you know copies of minutes from our Planning

Commission or a synopsis of the comments from each meeting I'm happy to do either

Thank you. Oh, um any preference comes

I don't know if it all if it makes sense to to maybe just provide individual briefings for council members or two at a time to set up time with you to go over some some of that i don't i don't or if it makes sense to come to a council meeting or a study session

mayor may i yes go ahead um i i'm not sure i've heard a lot of comments from council

about many things that you would either like to adjust or us consider possibly entertaining

my question is are you comfortable with what you have now before you to to adopt it for the first reading and move it into the second reading if you're not and you want staff to do additional work we can continue the public hearing and we can come back at the next meeting however the information that I've heard a lot of it it may take more work than in two weeks we're going to bring it back so I'm just trying to understand what the consensus is of the of the council of where you're at right now with this public hearing I know that we have brought a lot of potential changes and

never asking staff to do more work than I think is reasonable within two weeks but and I think it makes sense to continue this public hearing to give staff time to make some of these adjustments and bring back to council but also don't want to wait another six months to get this either so somewhere right within that time frame would what makes sense and hope that in as timely a fashion WE WILL COME BACK WITH SOME OF THESE ADJUSTMENTS AND OPTIONS TO THE COUNCIL.

QUESTION FOR MAYBE CARL OR RON, CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, WITH THE, WITH THIS AND STILL COME BACK AT THE SECOND READING AND DO SOME CHANGES?

NO.

IF YOU WANT A LONGER EXPLANATION, I CAN GIVE IT TO YOU. Council, I would say my ask is, you know, similar to Ron's, you know, if you do choose to continue it, that you give us a very clear list of areas that you would like for us to explore, additional information.

From what I'm gathering, you'd like minutes or notes about planning commission conversations at their meetings, potentially adjusting the number to require different percentages based on the size of the project. If it's greater than 30 units, maybe different percentage, something like that. you know maybe looking at also requiring that if it's at .5 percentage fraction that they're alLod if it's below that that they can pay the fraction if it's above that that they pay or provide the full unit so just to summarize that's what I've heard so far

if I may also add maybe we just start at the end of the dais and just work our way to the mayor and just give us bullet points on things that you want us to research and then my second request would be to continue the public hearing to a date possibly maybe the second meeting in July maybe August I'm not sure how long it's going to take but I would say at least one two four that's six weeks. Six weeks we should be able to gather all the information. Well, how about this? How about this? Let us hear your bullet points. We will assess how long we think, staff, it will take us to bring it back. It could be sooner than six weeks. So if we can give us a list of things that you would like us to bring back and then we'll give you a date on possibly when we can come back. We'll continue the hearing to a specific date. Thank you.

So you can start with Council Member Lo. Thank you. Again, this has been a good conversation.

I would just say, you know, right now what stands, you know, there is recommendations for

set aside for low income, moderate income, but I'd just like to maybe see can we also

have a recommendation either incentivizing or it's a percentage as far as to make sure that we also

address Lor income as well. Is that clear enough for staff? Okay. Is there any

additional comments? Well I think I've already brought up but also enforcement oversight to make sure that it's being implemented?

Okay.

Yeah, yeah. Is that it? Yeah, yeah. Do you want to add anything?

You know, for now, yes.

I mean, if I think of something as we go down the road, then I'm not working up.

But, yeah.

Okay. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member, you?

I think the only thing that I ask is the fraction that we allow to pay the in-lue fee. That's it

Thank you councilmember you council member go I'm okay as presented

My probably my essence you're going back to do the homework is to kind of when you come back to us Be specific in terms of how we're going to enforce this for example the permitting timeline the permitting stance that's one process and then the enforcement at the back end if it's built they decide not to honor the low-income

affordability

terms of the threshold different thresholds and tiering I guess size of development and having different requirements for affordable units for those and looking at what those options might be the fractional right in lieu fee for prorated for less than 0.5 units and then rounding up only for 0.5 and above I do want to make sure we're baking in some sort of required review by the council of this ordinance within a year or two years of adoption to make adjustments as needed to make sure we're not disincentivizing development and that we're actually helping to meet our goals for both for across the income spectrum for units as our arena goals set one of the earlier speakers also mentioned comparable community benefits in the development agreement as a way to EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT. IF THERE'S A WAY TO HELP DEFINE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE AT THE, RIGHT, THE COUNCIL WOULD DETERMINE WHAT COMPARABLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE, BUT IF YOU CAN HELP KIND OF ILLUSTRATE WHAT THAT COULD BE ON MAYBE A PROJECT OR TWO IN THE CITY, JUST SO WE HAVE AN IDEA. AND THEN I GUESS I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR THE INLU FEED, THIS MIGHT BE FOR CARL, if a developer is paying in lieu fees for the to meet the IHO requirements right those are deposited in the affordable housing trust fund are those funds would those funds be limited in terms of how we could use them to specific purposes or is that set by the

council I don't know if you could help illustrate that mr. mayor members of the council so the concept of having the trust fund is that it would only be used for affordable housing purposes. But what that means is up to the council and

the resolution of creating that trust fund would establish general criteria for which the money could be used. Typically this includes

for example either outright buying property or buildings or providing incentives through some measure for affordable housing. For example, what was discussed under the density bonus ordinance, for example,

was, well, if there's a fraction or whatever it might be,

well, maybe the housing trust fund kicks in additional money to meet that delta between whatever the market rate is

and what the affordable price is in order to encourage additional affordable housing.

So that part is really up to the council,

but the idea behind the trust fund

is really to only use that money for affordable housing purposes, and that's indeed what the case law says with regard to the use of those funds,

is that once you've taken them for that, for a particular purpose, you can't then reintegrate it just into the general fund and use it for whatever purpose. That's helpful.

My real question there in following that up is to make sure one of the other issues we will need to address is maintaining our current affordable housing and in the future maintaining affordable housing units that are coming to a point where they need major maintenance or rebuilds or whatever. How do we preserve existing affordable housing units in the city as well and making sure that we are able to spend funds on that purpose too.

So certainly when this comes back with fee notice, actually we already noticed the fee, correct?

We have it ready to go.

Okay, but we haven't actually noticed it. No, depending on what happens tonight.

So that's fine.

Based upon this, it sounds like we're going to postpone the introduction of the ordinance until we can tinker around with some of the things that the council is talking about.

But my point was going to be that when the fee resolution comes back for consideration by the city council,

you can obviously change the categories of the purpose for which fees might be used,

and one of those things might be maintenance or rehabilitation or even grant funding out of the trust fund

for people that have affordable housing or for households that qualify for affordable housing.

Those are all possibilities for the city council. Really, it's a question of implementation, monitoring, and administration.

No, that's helpful. Thank you. And hopefully that was, all right. Other than that, the

other direction of the staff hopefully was clear. And if there are any questions, feel

free to follow. I'm sorry, Mr. Council Member Lo? You

have one to add something? Actually, question. When HCD approved

our housing element, you know, because there's been a question about making sure that, again,

whatever we adopt actually does what it's meant to do, the policy.

Does HCD require us also, you know, for the life of the housing element that we adopted for this decade, are we required at some point to come back and report to HCD our progress as well? Or I'm just curious, what are their own stipulations?

So there's an annual report done probably in February or March that comes before our council reporting on the number of housing unit production as well as the different goals and policies that are contained within the housing element. So we would provide both first you as a council with updates and then also then this report gets forwarded over to HCD for their consideration.

So meaning, again, I know we were updated a few months ago, the HCD approved, but what you're telling me then is February of 2024 is when we will have our first progress report, which will be presented to council, but then also will have to be filed with HCD as well.

yes that filing is due April 1st so typically we bring it February

March I see thank you and and then just the only last thing I'll add is for the oversight part or enforcement can we look at what other communities around us are doing and see what possibly we can potentially create within our city in terms of doing that and also assessing whether we have the

staff available to

pursue this and do and follow through with this and if we need to potentially hire more staff to do this. Thank you.

I think that's it right? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Before we decide the date,

staff, can you read back what we have on the list of things to do just so we're very clear?

Because I don't want to come back at another council meeting and we didn't cover all the points that council had mentioned

Will do

Okay Okay, I'll start with a councilmember low looking at ways to incentivize Lor income affordable units also

enforcement over and oversight to ensure implementation so just really studying

that and presenting it to council councilmember Wong looking at developing

different affordability requirements based on number of units allowing or

allowing for fractional units of .5 or less to pay an in-luffy higher than the .5. They have to pay the full unit cost in-luffy or provide the unit. Also, like Long Beach, providing a required review within one to two years.

more clearly defining community benefit like what that could look like potentially

in the in luffy

you had a question about what that can be used for i believe the city attorney addressed it but

we can highlight that and you know the follow-up information as to

What that can be used for and the city's council's discretion on how to use it

Councilmember Finn go

Said he would like to have a city highlight how the city will enforce the requirements of inclusionary housing

you know and You know if they don't if we don't have bad actors that don't honor it. How can the city?

basically enforce it

Councilmember Liu indicated that she's in favor of the percentage of 0.50 if it's less

that they can pay the in-lue fee if it's higher than they'd be required to pay the full

unit in-lue fee or provide the the full unit

Mayor Sanchez Wanted more information on oversight and enforcement what other cities are doing And the last piece that I know a couple council members mentioned was

Economic analysis

That will take more than six weeks and it could potentially require

consultant dollars Let us know how you want us to proceed with that

Council are we on point on what we're looking at?

I mean that's funny, but I do have questions. I mean, yes, thank you for raising that about consulting Potential consulting, but I'm just curious for example the deterrent center Which is at UC Berkeley. I believe they've done and might well have and check myself but

But maybe they've done studies about the economic analysis of these IHOs and what works and what doesn't work.

I'm just going to get it out there. You know what I mean?

I know also here locally, USC, UCLA, they've also done possibly studies. Again, I'm just assuming, maybe there's a way we can see something that we can use as a rubric as far as I'm trying to determine what works and doesn't work.

Absolutely. We can look at existing studies and find research that's already been done.

Maybe not specific to Monterey Park, but more generally,

and where they've looked at other California cities.

Sure, we can absolutely do that. Okay. Is that fine with everyone?

Yeah, no, if there's existing literature and studies that can help guide us on setting the right numbers, I think that'd be helpful.

And I think if I'm comfortable moving forward on this

and bring back a revised ordinance without a robust economic analysis specifically for Monterey Park. But I think it would be helpful just previewing this if we do move forward with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, a revised Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

I would prefer that when we come up

on that one year or two year review to have some sort of economic analysis to help guide us in making adjustments

to the ordinance at that point.

Thank you. Yes. Judging by what I'm hearing and knowing that we are approaching the summer months and staff has families and they're going on vacation, I think the best continuation would be August 16th.

So that would be what my suggestion would be to continue to August 16th. and then we can always

the council would take action at that meeting to continue

if staff is not ready at that point

so we need a motion to

make a motion to

continue the discussion on

August 16th and Ron's going to be here to help provide some guidance

and Mr. Mayor

members of the council if you'd make that motion in terms of continuing the public hearing to that date so we don't have to re-notice

So moved. So moved. Thank you.

Okay. If we can take a vote, please.

Approve unanimously.

Thank you. And we're going to our last item. I'll go ahead and open public hearing for item 4E, a public hearing to consider the following,

one zoning coding amendment to adopt the marketplace-specific plan.