City Council Meeting — September 18, 2024

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who's gonna ask me to ask me

Who's gonna ask me Who's gonna ask me Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Who would not ask me to ask me to ask me And when you want to find it from that,

you have to cut off that. And you probably have to find the blog.

Buenas noches, me llamo Marta Garcia.

Y hoy estoy disponible para traducir en español si alguno de ustedes necesita asistencia.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Felix. I'm a Cantonese interpreter. Allow me one minute to make an announcement in Cantonese

so that our audience who need this interpretation support Thank you.

見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て見て

Thank you.

Thank you.

谢谢

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, I have it on. I downloaded it.

Oh, yeah.

oh

This could have been...

Not loaded.

It opened because I had it open.

We're going to give it a couple minutes as people continue to get set up on the translation.

We're going to give it a couple minutes as people continue to get set up on the translation

service. So just for people who might be wondering why we're starting late.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, good evening.

We're going to start our council meeting tonight. I appreciate everyone showing up to join us.

Let me start with our land acknowledgement.

We'd like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as the Tovangaar,

the home of the Gabalino-Tongua people.

We show our respect to the Gabalino-Tongua people as well as all indigenous people, past, present, and future, honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplifting the Yabaloo Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history,

and join us in caring for this land.

With that, we'll call the meeting in order. The flags are already in place.

If you could please stand and join me, and we'll invite up our civic superstar, Claudia Vigil, to lead us in the flag salute.

Put your right hand over your heart, please. Begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

and to the republic for which it stands,

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

Thank you so much, Claudia.

If I can ask you to join and the council to come down from the dais,

present a small certificate to Claudia.

Thank you.

and this one here.

One, two, and three. Thanks so much. Thank you.

Again, thank you. Please join me in thanking Claudia Vigil from Monterey Highlands.

She's a sixth grader and our civic superstar for our meeting tonight.

Thank you so much, Claudia.

All right. We'll go to the roll call.

City Clerk.

Council Member Sanchez. Present. Council Member Lo.

Present.

Council Member Yu. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Ngo.

Present.

Mayor Wong.

I am here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. All right. Any agenda additions, deletions, changes, and or adoptions?

Council or staff?

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council.

The only item to consider moving forward is item 4A, just understanding that there could be members of the public that like to make comment on that item.

Council, are there any items we wanted to pull from consent?

Just a short discussion on 3B.

3B.

3F.

Mayor, just to pull, just to make note and quick discussion on 3D.

3D? Yeah.

D, as in dog.

I believe we can make short comments on items on the consent calendar without pulling them. So if you want to do that before we make it in making your motion, maybe we can do that for the remaining consent calendar items.

I'll just pull it. All right.

I'm going to pull 3H for discussion as well.

All right, so we're pulling 3B, 3D, 3D.

and then we can maybe do 3F. Well, maybe we have a motion for the remaining consent calendar items, and then we'll do 3F, and then we'll go back to,

we'll go to pull 4A up,

and then we'll do the remaining items we pulled from consent.

Is that okay?

All right. That's fine. All right. Is there a motion for the remaining consent calendar items?

Move for approval of the remaining consent agenda items. Second.

Or we have to do public comment. Sorry. Sorry. Got ahead of myself.

We'll open up public comment for items not on the agenda.

For Speaker Rogelio Espinosa.

Rogelio Espinosa.

Do you want the mic?

Yeah, maybe...

My name is Rogelio Spinoza. By my accent, you can tell that I was not born in the United States. I was born in Havana, Cuba.

But I've been living in the city of Monterey Park since 1962,

when I get out from the United States Air Force in March Air Force Base in San Bernardino.

And I have my sister living in Alhambra, so I moved to Monterey Park,

and I've been in Monterey Park since 1962. As a matter of fact, I work in the United States Post Office,

and the gentleman that gave me the job over there, he later on became a mayor here, George Westfall. And I retired from the city of Monterey Park for the post office in Monterey Park.

And then from there, I went to work for the L.A. County

in the Department of Social Services, very close by, in Newmark and the freeway,

to take application for medical, food stamps, welfare, and so forth. And to be honest with you, because I spoke English and Spanish,

they gave me $400 extra, a paycheck, for speaking both languages.

They're calling it bilingual bonus. The reason I'm here is because I'm, like I said before, living in Monarch Park. unfortunately when the first policeman got shot and killed two blocks from my

home in Garvey and Alhambra, I think Officer Elder, I think was the name. And I've been in the motor park all my life. But right now I notice that people driving

motor scooter, skateboard, electric sport, more than 12 miles per hour in the sidewalk.

On the sidewalk, when I came to the United States, I was living in Miami, Florida, and I, at that time, remember, I came in 1954, 53 from Cuba. At that time, the traffic light only have the green light and the yellow light and the red

light for the automobile and I was there with my aunt when I came from Cuba and I

crossed on a Sunday I crossed the street to go to a show and theater and there was a policeman there when I crossed he called me I said you didn't see that the red light was on I sure did I looked both way in North Miami Avenue that's the

main drag over there. I said, yeah, but there was no car coming, but there's no car coming

on the other side, so I crossed. No. You only cross when you have the green light showing to you. Remember, at that time in the 50s, they didn't have walk, don't walk. That doesn't

exist. So I learned my lesson. And then I noticed here, and he told me, he told me you

You have to follow the rules and regulations. I explained to him, I'm from a different country. Don't worry about it.

So now I've been in Monterey Park living since 1962.

And I've seen people with motor bicycle, skateboard, going at 12 miles per hour on the sidewalk. And I have my mail receiving post office box. and one day I was there and make a U-turn illegal in St. Stephen in front of the church where my fourth daughter went and he got told me, you cannot do it here. And he saw my, what they call it, in the dog tag. Oh, were you in the military? Yeah, well, I'm going to let her go this time but don't do it anymore. Don't worry, officer. He was a highway patrol officer. But I noticed that the policeman told me the sidewalk is only for walking people and people on a chair that are disabled. And then, yeah, but I've seen people driving, skateboard, motorcycle, no helmet either. I already told that to a single officer Sparsa, and there was another officer, I talked to them about it, and the people, they don't pay attention to that, the police, they don't pay attention to that. If you have a motorcycle or skateboard that is motorized, you cannot use it in the sidewalk. Sidewalks are only for pedestrians and people with wheelchair.

and nobody is doing nothing about it.

I've seen the policeman doing it. It went by and they don't want to stop it.

Thank you, Mr. Espinosa.

We're going to work with the police department to address some of the scooters and bikes on sidewalks.

Thank you for your comments. I really appreciate it.

Next speaker, John, sorry, I can't see.

Julia Clark.

Julia Clark?

And if maybe the clerk can tee up the next speaker just so they're prepared.

Next speaker is Christopher Lam.

Hi, my name is Julia Clark.

and then I live in here almost I purchased a house about 20 something years ago the reason we live in here because the mom and dad are able to speak English can be independent so go see the doctor everything you know so good city we love it but you know if I wanted to live in the condominium or the apartment I will go to that area to go purchase a house. But when we purchase a house, it's a beautiful single-family area. But we understand in here now that people all want to move in, need to build a bigger apartment or a condo. But I'm thinking, you know, I still have so many empty lars available for building this kind of big structure. especially I wanted to speak out because South Hanborough Avenue it's a very narrow street

and both sides parking and the traffic it's very busy during the traffic hour

you cannot just save to cross the street because the city did not put these kind of big condominium in this narrow street, very crowded area, I don't think this is a good idea. Because number one, traffic cannot be available for everybody driving all the parking. This is one thing I can see right now. And then, of course, for the environment,

you know, so many people are squeezing so little street. the section here. You know, I don't think it's very safe for all the kids or all the family. So I suggest, you know,

city can come sitting about this building call to put this kind of three-level building

plus the parking in the other area. You know, so

we don't need to be forced moving out of this area. So far, my mother, 96 years old, she wanted to see this area still to be good for everybody, all the neighbors, all the friends, and then still able to stay here, be peaceful and be enjoyable for this country and this town. Thank you so much for everybody.

Next speaker, Christopher Lam.

Thank you. Let me just remind everyone that this is public comment for items not on the agenda.

If you are here intending to speak about item 4A, the Alhambra Avenue project, you can only speak either at public comment or when the item is called up. If you speak now on that item, you will not be able to speak when the item is called up. So just a reminder for everyone.

Hi, my name is Christopher Lam. I am a resident here. I actually was born in Garfield Medical Center, so I bought my first house here in Monterey Park.

I think this is a great city. I think for a younger generation, I bought my house.

I thought it was expensive now. It's even more expensive today, right?

So I think having this great city, we should have more development, more apartments,

and for people to come in and live in this city. It's a great city. so I am for

more housing so that's all I want to say next speaker Sally Lamb

afterwards it's Roslyn Escobar if you can come down please

hi my name is Sally

Monterey Park has been my home since I was a little girl as we know the housing market is limited

So I believe this project will benefit the community in many ways by providing housing opportunities for a lot more people.

Thank you.

Rosalyn Escobar.

Good evening. Thank you so much for giving me the time to speak.

My name is Rosalyn Escobar, and I am a resident of Monterey Park. I sit on the Community Participation Commission,

and I actually work for the Department of Arts and Culture for Los Angeles County.

I'm here to express my support for mural project item 3F on the agenda. I've worked within the arts and culture sector for more than 12 years

and understand the value of public art in public spaces. And I have seen the pride and sense of place and belonging

that art and culture provide in a community. I think the work of Mr. Ving is a very high quality

and I would love to see this type of beautiful and high-quality art all over our community. I believe the mural will bring joy and pride to our residents, and I urge the council to approve the item. Thank you.

No other speakers?

All right.

We'll move on to our staff communication and healing fund update? Yes. Amy?

Good evening, Mayor Thomas Wong, Mayor Pro Tem, Vinno, and City Council members. My name is Amy Lee.

I am the liaison for the Monterey Park Community Healing Fund. I want to provide an update.

We have a couple of new members.

We had some that retired, and we have three new ones.

Keith Miller, Dora Quach, and Beth Ethel Wilson are three members of the advisory board. They are all Monterey Park residents and very involved in the nonprofit community. So it's been great.

We had two meetings so far.

As an update, we recently made another grant, and it was to Thera Picasso. Thera Picasso, I'm not sure if you've heard about them.

It is a nonprofit that was started by high school students. And what they do is they provide workshops for students throughout Hamburg Unified to address mental health.

So we were able to give them a grant of $5,000. We are currently still taking applications.

There are a couple in the works. And we are also working with the Monterey Park Recreation Department, and hopefully we'll bring some new program into the community. Any questions? Thank you, Amy. Any questions?

Thank you, Amy, for that update. And again, we always appreciate members of our community being involved in our

Help and Healing Fund.

And maybe I already answered the question in the previous presentation.

How much is left over?

and the Fund right now. Uh, about 34,000. 34,000 dollars. Okay. Um and um and maybe this is a future conversation as well but I'm just curious. Um so right now with that amount leftover has the advisory committee um any suggestions about uh maintaining the fund um and maybe even using it as a vehicle for other projects we may want for the community? Uh we

We are still accepting applications for grants, so we're going to be continuing to offer grants.

I did talk to them about assisting and funding for maybe a community memorial site.

What they had some questions was they wanted to hear from city council what the direction is and if you had a plan in mind so I could present that back to them.

Sure. And currently, if someone can still make a donation to the fund right now, right?

Yes, we actually are still getting donations. We had one last month.

Wonderful. Yes. Well, thank you for the update. Thank you.

Just a follow-up.

So I guess within the last maybe six months, how much have we received in terms of donations to the fund?

I want to say within the last year, maybe about nine months, about $8,000.

Oh, wow. Okay.

Oh, $8,000. Yeah. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I would just say if the committee could continue to provide updates to the council,

we'd love to explore.

I don't know that we're ready to talk about what Pearl Memorial or other opportunities might be, but if you can keep us in mind. I know it's a separate entity from the city, but we are starting those conversations and doing some initial outreach to some of the victims and their families. to start to put some ideas together. Understandably, and I'll bring that back to them. And if anyone wants to join one of our meetings, we're all happy to have you log in

and let us know where your directions are.

Yeah, actually, maybe it would be good for one of the members of the council

to join one of the upcoming, if you want to just coordinate that. We'll do. Thank you. Thank you.

All right.

We'll move on to consent calendar items.

If there's a motion for the remaining consent calendar items, we can maybe take that now.

Just as a reminder, we are pulling item 3B, 3D, 3F, and 3H.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve the remaining consent agenda items, please.

Is there a second? All right, seconded by Council Member U. Any further discussion?

Hearing none, call for the vote.

Approved unanimously.

All right. We'll start with, actually, item 3F, right?

F.

Is there a staff report?

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, City Councilmembers, Robert Aguirre, Director of Recreation and Community Services. So as you well know, City Council and many of the residents have been enthusiastic about adding more art into the City of Monterey Park. I've explored various opportunities and discovered Mr. Victor Ving and the Greetings Tour, which is a mural tour throughout the country. Victor's tour murals are actually in over 25 states with over 50 murals currently installed. Mr. Ving has been touring the country, working with communities to develop murals that are both visually captivating and culturally significant. The murals help to celebrate each city's unique heritage, their landmarks, and the community's spirit.

The greetings tour process, if approved, would include community outreach and community engagement,

along with collaboration to ensure that the postcard-style mural reflects the city's identity and values.

The mural would also be strategically placed in a high visibility area both

making it accessible and creating a destination and landmark. At the August 20th Community Participation Commission I shared their greetings to our idea and

concept with the Commission and they voted unanimously to support the idea of

City Council pursuing this project. So tonight we are recommending that City

Council authorizes city manager to execute an agreement in a form approved by the city attorney in an amount not to exceed $40,000 with Victor Ving for a greetings to our mural and to start

that process. If approved, city staff will work with Victor to start the community engagement,

set a project timeline, and scout potential public and private locations for a future mural.

That completes my staff report. Myself and the artist Victor Ving are here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Howard. And thank you, Victor, for joining us tonight. I know you live nearby.

Yeah, actually, I would share, Victor is a San Gabriel Valley resident, and his parents are residents as well.

I also share and maybe Victor will share a little bit more but

he's also currently working on a project in a neighboring city in Pasadena

Victor if you want to say a few words maybe we can

thank you for having me and I'm very excited because as Rob mentioned this is a national scale project so

it's very rare I get to work face to face with the different communities and being that my parents live here and I'm also a SGV resident myself. I'm just very excited to create something that the community could really embrace

and feel like it's their own.

Thank you. We appreciate you being here

and appreciate staff making this connection. We'll open up to any council comments or questions.

Yeah, I just want to echo the same thing. I think it's really great. I know the council and the community is really excited about having more public art. in the city, and I think this is a great way to not just promote our city, but also make this a landmark within our city. So I appreciate you being here tonight, and Parks and Rec Staff for pursuing this. I'm completely in favor of adding one of these somewhere within our city, hopefully with some visibility and looking forward to the process as well in terms of getting people involved, maybe students as well. But thank you so much for being here tonight.

I also want to say that I'm also I would love to do a collaboration

as well with other local artists and

in terms of painting or it could be photography or whatever it may be but yeah

Mr. Mayor?

Again, thank you for coming before us and for introducing yourself I'm curious if anyone in the audience or any of us because in the example you have one from Altadena

where is that mural located in Notedina?

It's on Lake Avenue there's like a grocery outlet right south I don't know how to know right south of Mariposa

Lake Avenue Mariposa is it a public build?

It's on grocery outlet but I work with the town council

and you mentioned that you're working on a mural in Pasadena? Yes and are there any other local examples that anyone's interested to see? Yeah

like pictures worth, a thousand words, right? So just you can look up greetings tour.com or just Google greetings tour and you'll see, you know, all the meals we've done. Okay, thank you.

So thank you so much, Victor, for joining us. I wanted to say I fully

support public arts and beautify you know, the city, but the only conditions

that the funding doesn't come from our general fund.

So I don't want the art to jeopardize, you know, our daily operations.

if that's the case I'm all for it so just documents for the city manager.

Well Victor I'm excited because I'm looking at some of the examples and for the most part they're much bigger cities throughout the U.S. may be the exception of Altadena but remember this is kind of where you grew up and your parents still live here so pressure is on you to make this look great for Maori Park. Thank you.

I will echo many of the comments already made. I appreciate, one, that you're a local artist and have roots here in Maori Park, and I'm sure to Premier Pro Tem Ngo's comments, I'm sure you will want to make your parents proud, especially here in Maori Park, so looking forward to that. I'm very much in favor of this project. Would love to start a collaboration with you and appreciate your openness to collaborate with other artists I think all of us on the council have been advocating for more public art and public spaces in Monterey Park and we have had over the years some projects here and there with some utility boxes and other art projects in the city I think we'd love to see a lot more of that and I think it's it's worth the city's efforts to collaborate with that and I think we're gonna have a ribbon-cutting for the language center collaboration with the Boys and Girls Club art project in a couple weeks that was already ribbon cut at East LA College at the Vincent Price Art Museum. So it'd be great to continue that collaboration. And I know that your art with the Greetings Tour also is very intentional about engaging the local community in picking kind of the pieces they're going to be part of and what's highlighted in the art piece and making sure that the community buys into the project.

So it's a great community engagement effort too.

It's not just something that's going to show up for some RANDOMLY THAT THE COMMUNITY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT GOING TO BE AWARE ABOUT. SO REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR APPROACH TO THIS ART AS WELL AND LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. I FULLY SUPPORT THIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF... I DO GOT TO JUMP IN.

I DID FORGOT TO MENTION ONE THING DURING MY PRESENTATION. I AM RECOMMENDING THAT WE EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH VICTOR BUT ALSO LOOKING FOR SOME DIRECTION ON THE PROCESS AS FAR AS SELECTING THE FINAL ART AND ALSO A LOCATION THAT WE CAN THEN BRING back to Council. When we bring it back to Council, that's when we would have final budget numbers and also depending on location in the City, there may be some different funding opportunities based on location. So definitely looking for some direction on what that process might entail as far as selection of final recommendations to come back to Council for location and also

the selection of art.

I'm curious to hear from Victor

if you have any sense or feeling about maybe some couple of places within the city that you've maybe scouted or think might be a good

place for...

Actually, I did scout multiple locations.

I can't remember off the top some of the addresses,

but I don't know if you... Let me see.

Sorry, if I may, Mr. Mayor, members of the council.

So just for clarification, we are looking for direction for the engagement portion that would then consider some of the location options.

Definitely, I think the other thing that would be helpful for staff to understand is in the staff report, we did identify some potential funding opportunities that could be utilized that will also determine places of where the art could be placed. or if council is interested in utilizing the city's general fund dollars to support this it you know gives us more opportunities for potential other locations so we're looking for that discussion as far as where you'd like to see it but not so much a specific location just yet and then the engagement so each letter has or maybe two or three letters because Monterey Park has a lot of letters, could feature different types of items in our city, landmarks or areas, points of interest, culture, any kind of items can be included in those letters. So we're really looking for that back. How would the council like to see us engage just with the open community or go back to our commissioners to use some of them to provide feedback? Definitely we'll have to come back, though, because depending on the location selection, that would determine some of the funding options

that could be utilized for this project.

I, for one, would like to get, I mean, this council's been very big about getting community involved and community engaged in projects like these

or just any projects,

but I would like to see us engage the community in terms of what types of icons and items within the city they would like to see in the painting.

I think that would, it would be great

if we can also get students involved either in that type of planning process or even once we get to the later portion

in terms of the painting

and getting more engagement here as well. But I think it would be great if the community can decide which items we could include in the mural.

And I kind of have like a template of hitting elements like, you know, obviously I've been like big cities like Chicago, you can't fit everything in there. Right.

So, you know, I hit an element of like history, culture, landmarks. do an element of nature and some sort of local other local artist collaboration within the piece

too so great so victor you're the artist so this is kind of your work so i'm not going to intrude

in that what i like to do is kind of robert you know where i stand with this i i'm a big believer in our staff as well as our cpc committee and our commission i would say you guys run with it and then if you guys have a direction you can take it back for our blessing or review if you think it's fringy um if everything looks good i mean you guys are tasked with doing this so that's where i

that's where i'm at thank you i'd kind of echo that uh victor i don't know if you have kind of a template for where when before you put in an installation for the greetings tour if you already have like a template for like a community engagement process for people to like pick out items or you kind of lay that out.

It sounds like you do. Yeah, he's actually right. He's currently in the middle

of community engagement with Pasadena, correct? Or finishing up

the tail end of that? Yeah, yeah. I mean, we've attended

tons of community events and also have an online voting And that would be part of this.

Director of Public Works. City Attorney. Yes. Funding. Okay. So I'm in full support of moving ahead in kind of what Pro Tem Go was saying. I would defer to staff and give direction to staff to work with the artist Victor upon approval by the council assuming we approve this tonight to begin plotting out the process for a communication effort around this greetings tour to have us in art project here based for Monterey Park. And then I think bring back to council right two or three or four potential locations and art final to council should finalize what the art piece will be and determine the final budget based off of that so final approval still come to the council but we should have a robust community engagement effort to plot out potential right locations and art piece how the art is gonna be finalized if that makes sense if that does is there a

motion for that? I'll move. I'll second.

All right. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

Approved unanimously.

Thank you. And thank you for being here again, Victor. Look forward to the next

few months. Thank you.

All right. We're going to hold the remaining pulled items from the consent calendar. We're going to move to item

4A, public hearing

to consider approval of the construction and subdivision of air rights for 64-unit condo development on real property located 338 to 410

South O'Hammer Avenue. I will now

open the public hearing, and I believe there are speakers. Just really quickly, do we know how many

speakers we have signed up?

40?

26 total. Okay.

Let's start with the staff report maybe, and then we'll open it to public comments to begin, and then we'll go from there.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Jessica Serrano, Community Development Director. Tonight, giving you the presentation is Beth Chow, Planning Manager.

Thank you, Jessica. Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. Again, Beth Chow, Planning Manager. I'm here to present to you the 64-unit mixed income residential development that includes a density bonus request. It also includes the tentative map, a design review, a mitigated negative declaration as part of its environmental document, and a development agreement. This project was previously scheduled before you on June 18th. However, at that meeting, it was decided that the Planning Commission should consider this project before your final consideration. So on August 27th, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this project to the Council on a vote of 4-0 with one abstention. They did add a condition of approval related to addressing impacts during the construction phase of the project. just as a quick summary of what was heard before planning commission during the meeting there were issues raised from the public related to traffic safety size density and scale of the project also there was a misunderstanding that by a few members of the public that thought this project was intended as a development for homeless housing that is not the case this project is ownership housing project. And we'll go ahead and start summarizing the project itself. So the project site is located on the east side of Alhambra Avenue, as indicated on the slide in red. It is located between Newmark Avenue and Graves. And the general plan land use designation is high-density residential and allows for 30 units per acre for development. The zoning on the site is R3, high-density residential, which is the highest-density residential zone we have in the city. The project site measures 1.7 acres in size. Next, please. Oh, sorry.

So this project actually, an earlier version of the project, was brought before our planning commission back in 2018. This only included two addresses, 338 to 400 South Alhambra Avenue. The project size was smaller at 1.3 acres in size. And the project at that time included 87 units of mixed income housing at four stories.

However, in early 2019, the Planning Commission denied this project. Next.

So at this point, the applicant has brought forward a revised project that increased in size, about .4 acres larger than the original project. They also Lored the total unit count that was proposed. And at this time, there are 64 units proposed. Next, please.

so at this point the existing site again is 1.73 acres in size it is composed of three parcels as outlined in red on the slide the existing site has 14 dwelling units however only 13 of which are habitable the project scope at this point includes demolition of all the units and reconfiguration of the lots to create a master lot. As shown here, where those property lines will be dissolved, the project includes 64 residential units, seven of which are affordable for households within the very low income category, and 57 units will be market rate. Just to note, in L.A. County, to be considered a very low-income household, based on a household size of four, households are earning up to $69,350 a year. So should a family of four purchase one of these affordable units, then those units are reserved for households earning less than that amount, $69,350 per year. The proposed density at the site with the density bonus is 37.5 units per acre. While the general plan at this point allows for 30 units per acre, the density bonus does allow bonuses of up to 50%, which would bring that maximum to 45 units per acre. However, applicant has chosen to go with a project that is 37.5 units per acre. As part of the project, the city also circulated a mitigated negative declaration and received comments which have been addressed in the final version as presented this evening. As part of the mitigated negative declaration, mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program is included. Next, please.

The graphic is shown in the slide. It's the technical tentative map. However, if you look to the next graphic, this gives you a better idea of how the air rights will turn out

as part of the end product of this project.

Air rights will include subdivision for the 50, excuse me,

the 64 units, 7 of the attached townhomes, and then 57 attached condo units.

This way, with the subdivision of air rights, the units may be sold separately. And as part of the site, as they're sold separately, there is still mutual responsibility of the structures

and the landscaping maintenance for the site in general. Next, please.

the project includes a density bonus which not only includes a requirement of affordable units on the developer side but cities are also have an obligation to provide incentives to the developers to accommodate affordable housing units state requires that cities grant at least three incentives in order to be able to construct affordable housing units The city offers a menu of incentives in its zoning code to choose from, and the developer has elected to use the menu of incentives related to building height, where they are proposing an additional six feet of height that equates to an additional story.

They are asking for a reduction of the setback in the rear yard, and they are requesting a reduction of open space,

which the city allows up to 20% of that space to be reduced. Based on the city's menu of incentives, the project complies with what city has authorized in its zoning code and may be granted by the city council.

Also as part of the development agreement, or also as part of this project, a development agreement is included for your approval.

The development agreement includes public benefits as outlined within the DA itself.

Public benefits included are affordable housing units, a local hire and local buying program,

as well as local resident purchase and rent preferences.

Lastly, the other public benefit included is EV infrastructure that meets or exceeds building code requirements.

Moving on to the site design, as laid out, the townhomes will face Alhambra Avenue and transition to the larger stack condo building at the rear that features semi-subterranean parking.

The rear condo unit will contain much of the common areas, including a courtyard, business center, community room, and roof trellis.

Access to the site will be found on two driveways at the north and south end of the property, which will allow townhomes to access their garages.

The rear condo units will go ahead and be accessed or feature 83 garage spaces in the building.

Total parking provided is 97 parking spaces, which is actually in excess of what the state would require at 32 parking spaces. Next, please.

Looking at the floor plan, the graphic before you depicts the seven townhome units that are just over 2,000 square feet in size.

The first ground floor is garages and storage areas.

The first story includes common living spaces.

And the second story includes bedrooms and bathrooms.

Each of the townhomes will have the two car garages as featured in the slide.

Next, typical floor plan for the condo units are shown in the slide.

There will be units that are one to three bedrooms.

The sizes range from 645 square feet to 1,300 square feet.

In total, there will be 15 units of one-bedrooms, 33 units of two-bedrooms, and nine units of three-bedroom.

Design of the project meets the development standards within the code and also meets the modifications as alLod by the city and state's density bonus regulations.

just as you look at the slide at the top

you'll be looking at the west elevation which is fronting Alhambra Avenue and on the bottom is the east elevation which is the rear of the property just in looking at this elevation parking garage is not considered a story as the area surrounding the building is semi-subterranean

The section or the project, the section of the project is counted as a cellar based on the city's definition of cellars, which allows structures that are wholly or partially underground and not have to be considered a cellar and which also does not count as a story.

Next, please.

As shown, the project's architectural style is contemporary in nature. With clean lines and simple forms, there will be a mix of wall finishes including stucco, concrete and wood siding. Recessed doorways, windows and balconies will help address the scale of the building.

The color palette that the applicant has chosen is muted with whites and grays and some light wood trims as shown in the slide above.

Overall, the townhome units that flow into... Monterey Park. City Attorney. The Condo Units creates a transitional space from the street to the depth of the property and otherwise provides adequate buffering for the adjacent sites. Next please. As shown here is a rendering of the project when complete. This rendering is cited from a person who's on Alhambra Avenue looking southwest towards graves.

So at this time, staff is recommending that the council open the public hearing, which

we've already done, and then receive documentary testimonial evidence, as well as closing the public hearing, and then after considering all the evidence, adopting the resolution that approves the mitigated negative declaration, the tentative map, the design review, and then lastly introducing and waiving the first reading of the ordinance for the development agreement.

And then you may, of course, take any additional action as related and desirable.

This concludes staff's presentation. Just as a note, the applicant and his representatives

are here in the audience this evening and also have a presentation should you so want to consider. Thank you.

Thank you, Beth. We'll give an opportunity, I believe,

before we open the public comment for the applicant to present,

if they so wish.

Thank you, Mayor Wong. My name is Daniel Friedman. I'm with Jeffrey Mangels Butler Mitchell here on behalf of the applicant. I'm just going to kick it off And then I'm going to have the applicant provide a lot of the details on the project team talk about the actual project

I'm going to kick it off by just Reiterating what staff said in their staff report and in their staff presentation that there's a project here before you that meets all of the city's code requirements there's a project here that's been vetted by staff and by the community for years. There's a project here that is providing density in the city's highest density zone. There is a project before you that helps the city meet its housing objective goal, the city's own housing goals, not only with respect to market rate housing development, but also with respect to affordable housing development. And that's very hard to find. You have a project here also through the development agreement that's going to help the city achieve some of its economic goals, which are not typically talked about in this context, but is before you today. You also have a project here that received the unanimous support of the Planning Commission. There was that one abstention, but that's not a vote. So you have here a project that had unanimous support for that Planning Commission here before you today. finally with respect to what's before you here is also a decision to make whether to approve or deny the project and with respect to the concept of denial and I intend this more for those who aren't familiar with it the state has made it a real has made a real effort to let local agencies but also the public know that it is a state priority that projects that provide housing are approved. And so there are limitations to what this council can do with respect to a denial. Any denial does need to be supported by findings relating to a specific adverse public health impact based on objective public health findings. So we do believe the applicant has presented a great project that this council can be proud of and can approve and can help provide the housing that this city asked for when it zoned for these sites to be accommodating units with that i want to introduce the applicant and allow them to talk a little bit more about the project details thank

you so much good evening council members residents in attendance today um just before we begin i have a lot of technical consultants with me uh if i just want to give them a quick introduction first i have steven chen of tag design works the architect behind the project he has a presentation and we're hoping he can just let the slides run as I speak so you guys can see that. So hopefully with your approval, you know, we can get that going.

Daniel Freeman had just spoke. He is our land use attorney. I have Joseph Cohen May. He is a land use consultant. He speaks on behalf at USC. I have Juliana Famili. She's here with Richardson

Ober. Their specialty is tenant relocation. So if you have any questions regarding that, please refer technically to those consultants.

I believe the ones that are attending by Zoom, MIG, Cameron Heil, that did the sequel report.

We have the civil engineer Hank Jong in attendance as well, too.

Okay, and I'm honored to be here today. This project is a long time in the making and currently on its third iteration. If you do not remember this project,

it was formerly an 87-unit senior housing project

on 1.3 acres of land

with 13 units set aside for affordable housing.

In 2018, the residents voiced locally a building that was too tall, being four stories. Traffic and parking were concerns. We took those comments very seriously, and we went back to the drawing board.

A little bit about myself, my group. We are one of the last local developers in the city of Monterey Park.

Our office is on 812 South Atlantic Boulevard. My father started Longo Development Group in 1992. We have built over 142 units, over 14 projects in the span of 32 years. Half of those projects are in the city of Monterey Park and you'll see on the slide.

The remaining projects are in the city of El Monte, Temple City, Arcadia, Sierra Madre.

We have over a pipeline of over 200 units in San Gabriel, Alhambra, Pasadena, Temple City, and all of those projects have affordable housing. There's a huge demand and a need for it.

in early 2019 when we acquired the third parcel to bring this property up to 1.73 acres we had

initially proposed 15 townhomes and 86 senior apartments because the residents wanted more condominiums we held a community outreach on march 6th the the residents stated that it was not what

they wanted and so we couldn't go anywhere with it i decided to take this to electric park on October 8, 2022, and I had a staggering amount of support. I had 400 flyers signed, 115 residents of Monterey Park supporting this project. I could have gone down that path, but I decided ultimately to revise this project a third time. I decided to lessen the project to listen to the

community, to lessen the development. Sorry, just lost track of my notes. Yeah, sorry, just to listen to neighbors around the project. This project has a lot of amenities. Community room, gym, a business center, a roof deck, EV charging stations, bike storage, 12,600 square feet of central garden space. There's going to be a dog park and a walk-friendly path at the end of this project. This project promotes urban infill projects focusing on health and lifestyle. What you see today is six years of additional time, not only making this project modern, but

the only project within a 10-minute walking distance to your downtown corridor on Garvey

and Garfield. Of the 64 units, 7 are allocated to affordable housing with a 55-year covenant in place. Based on HCD guidelines today, if those units are up for sale, they have a price tag of $93,000 to $111,000. You heard that right. $93,000 to $111,000. If the 7 units are elected to be

leased today. They have a price of $1,100 to $1,250. There is not one project that I'm aware of in the city that is offering what mine is offering, and I'm one of the last developers that still care about the city and provided affordable housing in my plans in 2018, in 2022, and in 2024 today. Affordable housing is not easy to provide. If you are not aware of affordable

housing, if it costs $400 of construction money to build a thousand square foot,

I'm going to have to restrict that to a $100,000 sell price. That means I am losing $300,000 on each unit.

The only way to make up for those costs is to increase density to allow the developer to offset the price.

Our project's vision did not come from just thinking about maximizing the property use. Our project came because we saw the need for affordable housing

when we were building very early on in the 2000s. The only problem is you cannot find large large for development in the city.

It is not easy, but we were able to do it.

This project holds a strong sentimental value to us because this is the city we started developing in.

We are not a new developer, nor are we a publicly traded company with an intent to build and leave. Our track record shows that we are here and we intend to stay.

As mentioned before, the city general plan and zoning allow 30 units an acre before state density bonus is applied, which would result in 78 units.

If I was a builder and I wanted to maximize my profit, not listen to the neighbors, I could have gone higher. I did not. I went Lor. I went 20% Lor than what is alLod. I'm a longtime property owner, which dates back to acquiring the first parcel in 2011, the second in 2015, and the third in 2019. I've spent 13 years of my life, and we haven't even started construction yet. To sum this project up, this is an amazing project. One that would help the city tremendously in assisting in the regional housing needs assessment. Two, opportunities for those that need housing and affordable housing. Three, the increase for job opportunities. These opportunities translate to help the city thrive and improve. Also, those that end up living in this community have the same opportunity the rest of you have. An amazing school district, Costco, a Home Depot, shops on Garvey, and walking distance with two new major projects in your corridor. In the last five years, we're all able to witness a housing crisis firsthand, and that's what happens if you do not continue to build. I think it's very important to continue building in this community and give everyone the opportunity to live, to own, to rent in the city. Thank you.

Sorry, one more co-catch. From all the outreaches I have done, this is right here, and I hope you guys take this into consideration. In 2022, there was 400 flyers signed, 115 residents of Monterey Park. when this project was revised, 200 more plus 60 residents signed. Listen to the people that need housing. Thank you. And I'll leave it right here if anybody wants to review it. You can call the numbers, email address, anybody on there. Thank you.

Thank you. Did you want to use the other minute? Yeah, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Stephen. I'm the designer architect for the project. I believe I only have one minute, right? Okay, I'll make it quick. Thank you and good evening for Mayor and Mayor Patain and City Council members. I'm here just to bring a couple highlights of the project. Just like I just mentioned, we spent a lot of time and effort to make this project just to fit into the environment, fit into the neighbor, bring a beautiful project to this lovely neighborhood. We listened very carefully to the neighbor on the high issue, the setback issue. So this quick video shows the around building that in the front We we're not just making it as a front yard. We're making it to the step garden visually 3D three dimensionally that you can see layers of the landscaping not just the housing and the ground So that will bring the the sidewalk experience much better And they'll sell the the walking experience for the neighborhood on the side if you can go to the next one That's the front This one is That I just mentioned That we're reducing From 116 units to 64 From the 4-story To 3-story And 2-story in the front That's really addressing A lot of concern For our neighbors Worry about the front Is really too tall So maybe Should I just wrap it up now?

Maybe we can Well, maybe we can Go to the public comment And then That would be great Thank you so much Come back to answer some I anticipate

you will be answering some other questions.

All right, thank you so much.

And for the public comment, Daniel, I don't know if you want to share it with the city clerk,

we can enter that into the record. Totally up to you.

And thank you to the city clerk's office for processing all the public comment.

So we'll open up our public comment period.

City Clerk, how many comment requests do we have?

27.

With the number of speakers, if I can ask that we limit

to three minutes each

and we'll go from there.

If the Clerk can call...

So three minutes each. We'll call them one by one.

And if the clerk can call the next speaker to be prepared so that otherwise we will be here all night. Yeah, if the next speaker can line up to be prepared.

For combining, are we going to do five?

If they combine, yeah, they can do five.

Mr. Mayor, members of the council, just as a reminder, the city council can, by determination of the mayor, reduce the amount of time for all matters. So I believe under these circumstances, the mayor has indicated that it's going to be three minutes. If you wish to combine time, that's up to the mayor.

Yeah, if speakers would like to give time to another speaker, you're welcome to up to a maximum of, we'll just say six minutes, whatever.

Six, six, if they combine six.

First speaker, Hagar Benitez.

Next speaker would be Rex Liu, and then after that will be Kevin Kong.

If you can come down, please.

Thank you.

is not that big. To put 64 units and 7 for low income.

Give me a break. He says they're losing money. But to put only 7 for low income?

That's not fair. Because Monterey Park the rentals are sky high. And we do have a lot of low income people in this

area. So for seven from 64, figure it out. I don't think that's fair. That's not fair to have seven.

And another thing is, how do you apply for these places? Because not that I'm against anyone, but I don't see any other people living in these low-income places or all these

senior places. I think that everybody should have a fair chance to get into those low-income

apartments. And if they do, which I know they're going to pass, let's face it, Monterey Park needs their money, okay? And they need our money. So let's be fair. And seven is not enough. Thank you.

I'm Irma Godosila's grandmother. Next speaker, Rex Liu.

Hello, my name is Rex Lynn,

a homeowner in Monterey Park. I believe we need more housing in the city.

affordable, and any housing we can get to help with kind of the current housing crisis

and the sky-high cost of housing.

So I support any housing, and I also support this project. Thank you.

Next speaker is Kevin Kung. After that, it's Heng Ying Chen and Angela Chen.

Hello, Mayor. My name is Kevin Kung. I've been living in Marlin Park for the past five years.

And I just want to share my story.

So when I was looking for a place to live, it took me a lot of time to look for good housing. Not the many options were out there.

So I believe this project will help a lot of new families find a good home to live in the great city of Monterey Park.

And I feel like it's a positive impact to the city, for everyone, getting families moving in here, kids in the school, revenue, city revenue.

That's a big plus. So yeah, I support the project. And I thought that was a beautiful presentation.

Next speaker, Heng Ying Chen.

Can I Chinese translator?

My name is Angela Chen.

Okay. Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Subtracting underground parking is mostly at or above the existing ground dirt level. developer claims parking to be underground and the number two building is four floors is height disguising as the as a three-story building developer is not truthfully and transparent with his building plans number three develops building plans exceed the height a number of floors acceptable for the city and state building codes. Number four, developer fails to comply with the setback requirement on second and third floor. It should be a minimum of 16 feet.

Developer does not have the building up to the city or state code requirement. 5. Sewage capacity possibly exceed. Sewer may not have enough capacity to support additional 64 units. Developers need to pay a bond for future expansion. Number six, the city of Monterey Park failed to inform their residents on major development procedures that affect the entire neighborhood.

No notification was sent out to the neighbors' residents of density bonus approval. the director must transmit a written decision by first-class mail to the applicant and to all the owners of the properties of Burding and across the street of alley from the subject property.

Thank you. Thank you.

May I give this copy to you?

My friend already pointed out the few points that I laid out.

is very small and in a very narrow street, built 64 units with excessive height. And the developer ignored this and only presented a building in Pasadena. It may look nice and And it appears to be small. 对。 OK.

带了小小的, 插了这么多洞房子。

OK, but it looks like small, but has a lot of units inside.

还有,你去看一下晚上, 停车位都急得满满了, 像什么一样, 都急得没地方停。

And if you observe at night, the parking on the side of the street is already jammed.

还有,他盖了时间,

And how long does it take for them to finish building this project

and for us to live right in front of this project

and it's hard for us to drive in, drive out for our living?

I hope that Monterey Park leaders needs to seriously consider about this project.

I would appreciate your consideration on behalf of their residents in Monterey Park.

Next speaker is Ali Sapirman.

After that, it's Ari Reza. and then Alan Chi.

Sorry, you may need to repeat the next.

Ali Saperman.

Good evening. My name's Ali Saperman, and I'm here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support of the housing proposal at 338 South Alhambra Avenue. The Housing Action Coalition is a nonprofit organization that advocates for building housing at all income levels in order to address housing production, displacement, and affordability crisis. We had the opportunity to review the proposal at 338 Alhambra Avenue, and it exceeded our expectations for our endorsement. After doing outreach to residents, we were able to organize 31 letters of support for the project, and we gathered a list of 78 additional supporters of the project, which we submitted to the council. The project will add 64 new homes near transit and commercial downtown corridors. 15% of the new homes have been reserved as very low income, desperately

needed in the community. Our only feedback for the project is that it should be taller and more dense. And if the project did exceed density, we could have had more affordable units. But based off of community feedback, the developer Lored the density. It is disappointing that we were not able to exceed the density allowance, and we would have also liked to see a reduction in parking

to increase the amount of overall units for the project. As you know, we are in a housing crisis, and in order to alleviate that crisis, every city needs to build their fair share of housing. The state of California requires each city to build their fair share of housing through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RENA. The City of Monterey Park committed to meeting their RENA target of 5,257 units in their housing element. This project is particularly important

because it is listed on the city's site inventory, which means the city is relying on the site to be approved in order to meet their state requirements for both market rate and affordable housing. and some neighbors are objecting to the project,

but it is the city that has selected the density limits and it is the city that has listed this project on the inventory.

The opposition is wrongly directed at the project. It is not the applicant's fault that he folLod the directions that the city has designed. Please support this transit-oriented, community-centered project

without any further delays. Thank you so much.

Next speaker, Ari Reza.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor, esteemed council members. My name is Ari Reza. I am a resident and property owner in Monterey Park.

I am in support of this proposal for these condominiums on Alhambra Avenue.

I want to focus on the identity and values of Monterey Park. I chose Monterey Park because of its vibrant, diverse community when I made Monterey Park my home.

There's eight words above on the wall behind you, and I want to emphasize on faith in the future.

If we don't make any changes, we won't have no future. And so in my view, I think this meets the needs, exceeds the needs of the community to build more housing, more affordable housing, and it has a lot of amenities that the community will cherish,

and hopefully this will be a model for other projects that may be supported in the future. Thank you for your time.

Next speaker, Alan Shi, and after that it's Melanie Shi.

Salvador Ocampo. Good evening my name is Alan Shea I'm a resident of Monterey Park. I want to I am opposed to this project on several counts. One count is that brought up during the sequel and there were responses to my comments about the LID plan the low impact development and that I had comments where not what are the maintenance what are the maintenance procedures what's the O&M plan operation and maintenance of keeping the low impact development that's supposed to improve water quality in our city. And the comment is that it was previously addressed in a 2023 report in October,

but this ISM&D that's before you was put together in 2024.

So it doesn't make sense that the O&M plan, as well as the agreement with the city on how to take care of this water quality improvement structure is not included for public review so that the public knows what it is. We talk about, as someone

mentioned, faith in the future. Environmental impact is not just something that's current. It's also something in the future. The LID plan, I don't have questions regarding math of it but keeping it maintained does affect our future housing as well. I don't want a structure that's supposed to improve water quality fail within a couple of years and it's not being maintained because there's no plan on how it's being maintained or who is responsible. Another thing is the density. You know, obviously the state has different, has laws and you are required to meet certain requirements, but you have to remember that, you have to remember that, you know, packing everybody into a smaller area is not what everyone desires, not what the past is. Monterey Park was a suburban city. It's spread out. We have yards. We have space. So, you know, having a condominium with less space and as well as less parking affects the quality of life for people in the area is not something that we should take pride in and something we should be mindful for the future projects. And again, I just want to say I am opposed to this project. Thank you.

Next speaker, Melanie Shea.

Good evening, Mayor and City Councils.

My name is Melanie.

I am a property owner and a resident at City of Monterey Park for the past 30 years.

And at this point, I have not seen any solution to that. So from the last planning committee, we do have the developer thinks that 97 parking space is enough. We all live in the city of Mordor Park. We know what's our situation. It's really unique to our situation here. We know that's totally not enough. So my number one concern and everyone's number one concern in that area is the parking issues. So if you actually go into the area right now, you're probably not going to be able to find any parking spaces at this point.

So if you don't believe me, go drive up there right now and take a look at the city in that a few blocks from there in the Hamba Avenue.

with the additional of 64 units we would not be able to find any single parking spaces on the street especially during the cleaning day, the trash day there is no way that we could find anything so that would definitely reduce our quality of life we would not be able to invite our friends over for barbecues and so on. So today I'm here to ask you to consider that before you cast your vote today, please put yourself in our shoes. Are you okay with that to live in the neighborhood

that is within two blocks from this project? Are you okay to come home at 10 p.m. and you had to park two blocks from your house, would you be okay? Would you feel safe to walk home at 10 p.m.

by yourself? Can you think of that? I don't feel safe if I have to walk 10 minutes from my house, which is I really feel like I'm not safe right there. Thank you.

Next speaker, Salvador Ocampo.

After that, it's John Gassus and Artemis Wing.

Good evening. My name is Salvador Ocampo. That's O-C-A-M-P-O.

I've been living in Monterey Park for 64 years.

I am very happy here.

I support the project fully, and I kind of get confused.

To me, Alhambra Avenue is one of the widest streets in the residential area of Monterey Park.

John Gassus.

Mr. Mayor, can we please remind the audience to have stability?

Hi, everyone. If we can all be respectful of each other, thank you.

Hello, Mayor and Monterey Park City Council. Thank you for letting me speak here. On behalf of my friend, Nathaniel Guo, who was not able to attend this week because he's sick, and he's a Monterey Park resident, 1580 Ridgecrest Street, Monterey Park, he would like for me to speak on his behalf to show that he supports more housing for the city, and he supports this project. This project exemplifies not only RHNA, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Compliance, But the direction, like what was stated earlier, the state of California in supporting for more housing across all income groups, especially those in the low income category. Now, it was mentioned that seven units of affordable housing isn't a lot. Well, here's the thing. This project, this new housing project will provide the new housing. The new housing stock of today becomes the affordable housing stock of tomorrow. So that's very important to remember. So there was a lot of issues in the past where maybe housing production was constrained, but we need it today so that we'll have more affordable housing for tomorrow. That's very important to understand. Also, restricting new developments, even when the developer is within legal guidelines, is also detrimental to the community. One only has to look at neighboring Alhambra. They're a perfect example where the California Department of Housing and Community Development found that city's housing element just recently, I believe in May or April this year, not in substantial compliance and required rezones of sites for a more clear identifiable intent to meet RHNA shortfalls. And one of the things that can be attributable to this was an issue with the Alhambra of the Villages with the Ratkovich developer. And even when that developer, just like similar to what the applicant had stated, when they listened to the residents and even downsized the project, even with the city council there pushing for the developer to even go Lor, they were denied the project. And then what do you have? You had a lawsuit. And then even the developer lost. But at the end of the day, I feel the developer will win. You have Builder's Remedy now coming into the picture. So does Monterey Park want to go through the same issue? I don't think they would. Also, this project is another opportunity for Monterey Park to demonstrate its housing leadership. The development is well-scaled, and traffic impacts are negligible. I say this because from an anecdotal point of view, I live in a 120-unit economy million project. When they had built that project, they used LOS, level of service methodology, to check for traffic impacts, and it was on a graded system, ABCD, and some of it was downgraded but very minor, And even today, I didn't see any of those fear factor manifestations that a lot of the residents had feared and complained about with traffic impacts. Everyone today has a lot of flexible work schedule. And after the pandemic, more people have more opportunity to decide different work schedules. So I don't think the traffic impact is as serious as people make it seem. Thank you.

Next speaker is Artemis Wang. After that, it's Chad Fu, Guo Chong-Jin, and Andrew Lee.

Hello, Council. My name is Artemis Wang. I was born and raised in Monterey Park, California. I have pride in the past and faith in the future, and I am in support of 4A and affordable housing. Thank you.

Next speaker, Chad Fu.

Hello, my name is Chad. I'm a resident at Monterey Park.

You can see that all the neighbors come out here today against it, most of them, because we live next to it. I walk with my wife every evening and see that the parking is the number one issue. It's not the traffic, it's the parking. We cannot find a parking at evening time.

So with the 64-unit extra, that's going to overload the street. Where are the people going to park? How are we going to solve this issue? If you're going to pass this project, please fix the issue because all these neighbors know what the real issues are. But you're going to ignore this issue? And the future, when there are more people living in the unit, There's more cars going to be on the street. And no one is going to be able to park anymore. And for the seven affordable units here, do we have a plan, the selection plan?

Are we alLod the developer to select those?

What is the transparency of selecting those people? Do we have a plan in writing at all?

So to sum up, I would like all the members who have a power to work today, please consider

if you live next door, like all the neighbors here who live, going to be living next door

to the 64 unit, and every night when they come home, they couldn't find parking, would

you'll be able to live with it for how long?

Please consider to all the neighbours that show up today. Thank you very much.

Next speaker, Guo Chengjin.

Guo Chengjin.

G-U-O?

No?

Guo?

How are the names spelled? G-U-O. Guo.

Guo.

We can go to the next speaker.

Next speaker, Andrew Lee. Then it's Brandon Tan and David Choi.

Hello, everyone. My name is Andrew Lee. Born and raised here in Monterey Park.

Through the years, I've moved to different cities. went to school in different cities, different states.

And a lot of the cities that I've lived in went through the process of beautifying the city,

creating more spaces, more living spaces, more affordable living.

And I come back home to Monterey Park, and I see a lot of old buildings, a lot of older communities.

I think this project is great for the community.

As you can see, the detailed plans of the project, it just makes, it'll make Alhambra Street a lot better.

So it's going to beautify Monterey Park. So we need to make Monterey Park great again. Thank you.

Next speaker, Brandon Kan.

Good evening. My name is Brandon Tan. I've actually moved here from New York in the 90s, 1990. I've actually lived here for 34 years. It's been atrocious to find housing. I'm starting to settle down and have kids. I can only imagine how hard it's going to be for our kids in the future. and to, even on that suggestion that Alhambra, I actually lived two blocks away

from this development on Lincoln

and Alhambra, if anybody's lived near Dye there, Alhambra Avenue is the only place that has a bike lane.

So anything that's stating that the street is actually too narrow for this would actually be incorrect. There's also the issue with parking. All these people have designated parking areas So there wouldn't be an actual issue for the parking itself. This property development, it actually states that they actually are providing 96 spots. So I actually don't see a con of actually doing this. It's actually, if we're talking about affordable housing, we've got to build more. If we don't, we're all fighting over what's only available, and that's only going to jack prices up. and I just want to state again that I am for this development.

Next speaker will be David Choi, Ming Xu after that, and Pez Ning.

David Choi is allotted Sophie C. Chu's time, so he'll have six minutes.

Okay. I'm here just to state, to get your attention to some of the codes and consistencies with this project.

Because the consistencies with municipal code of Monterey Park and consistence with the drawings, because per staff report, the developer has a height bonus density based on the Bonus Density Act.

And on the menu of incentives that they could pick on subsection D and sub 1, in any zone in which the height or number of stories is limited, the height increase will permit a maximum of 11 feet or one story of additional stories. They can pick whichever is Lor. And that's almost a direct quote from the city's code. So please note, it says 11 feet or one story, and it says whichever is less. So they have to choose. and in subsection D for every foot of height the building must be set back one horizontal foot which the project doesn't have

and I'm just bringing all this up

because they are bringing in the code and they said it's all compliance and we are saying it's not

and please see figure 1 for the schematic of the code description of the packet I just passed out

it shows that for the RC standard

the two story it's just two story and 30 feet

and if with the bonus they can have the extra story they want but they have to keep it under 30 feet they cannot or they can have the two levels and the 41 feet

that's allowable in the bonus act but they cannot have both they're picking both

call it a subterranean parking, a so-called basement for three-level, but this is a four-level projects because the basements, as defined by Monterey Park City code, basements means a habitable or non-habitable space within a structure where less than one-half of the distance from its floor to ceilings below grade. And for the purpose of this code, a basement shall be counted as a story. so I guess city staff and the applicant ignored that they didn't call it any level or any story it's in the story count it should count then they have three levels above that means it's a four story building it's not a three level as they claim and also I just noticed on the staff's PowerPoint they said the previous project is a four story they denied it and it's exactly the same thing, a basement at three stories above. So how can they call that three stories now? So that's kind of the, and also I have provided on figure three, it's only 17% of the building it's below grade, existing grade. 70% is above grade. So how can they call that subterranean parking. I have provided, like you see on figure five, we did the calculation. And also on, and it's based on the tentative map they submitted. It's not based on the conceptual which the city staff, you guys, the report to you guys said is 36 feet. It's not. It's 42. Because based on the survey and based on the track map, the section on figure eight, I believe.

You can clearly see they set the existing grade on the dash line. The whole building is above. The whole garage is above grade. How can they call it below grade? So that's the main issue for me. And you guys are setting a precedent for every project on the artery zone. This is a prototype. You see it from Alhambra to New, from Newmark to Garvey, to Graves. Every project will be like that. And even, let's say, single-family home, they can build extra. You guys don't count the bottom. You guys don't count the garage. So why should it apply to us? So I guess this will set a dangerous precedent. I urge you guys to vote no on this. and they said their hands are tied. They're saying they have the right to build, but they still have to comply with code. And that's my issue. And also, well, 30 seconds left, the applicant said they're losing money on the seven units.

As a businessman, why are you building it if you're losing money? Get rid of it. They don't need it. They're losing money. That's a businessman, right? A 20-year businessman. Lose it. So that's all I have to say.

Next speaker, Ming Su.

Hi, my name is Ming Su. I'm the resident of Maribas since 1997.

I do support this project because I do believe the housing issue is everywhere, especially Maori Park.

But this project is not only that. Also, it's good for the economy, too.

So that's my strong support of this project. Thank you.

Next speaker is Pez Ning. After that, it's Gary Lai and Yin Chi Cheng. Pez?

Pez?

Is there a Pez here?

No. Okay, next speaker is Gary Lai.

Good evening, Councilman. Lady, my name is Gary Lai, and I'm the businessman located in 812-A South Atlantic Boulevard since 1984.

Okay, and we start managing the property for the developer since 2000, I believe it was 2011.

11. Okay?

And I would like to call my tenants right now in the subject property to let them come up and see what they want for these projects. Correct? So we could consolidate the time. We don't need three minutes each. This is your time? Yeah, it's my time. If they want to speak, they can submit a comment card.

They already submitted a card. And I just want them to come up so we can speak all together.

Yeah, if they're already in there, we can...

When it's their turn. Okay.

If you want to summarize what their comments are, if you have that.

When it's their turn, I'll call them. Yeah, because they told me, they say, we are the party living in the subject properties. We support the projects. White neighborhood was against these projects. Okay, we know the building was built in 1956. It's old. Okay? Since they have a chance to apply for the affordable units, why everybody in the neighborhood is going to deny their, what do you call, a dream? Okay? And we manage the property. We don't have any complaints from the tenants. They've just been used to propose this. Originally, 10 of them were subjected. But right now, I have seven coming back to show them support projects. And it's all signed up in the approved card in the applicant's office. You can take a look. Okay? Yeah. So my question, any questions for the management company? No? Thank you. Okay.

Next speaker is Yinti Cheng. After that, it's Anhun and Zojie.

Zojie?

Good evening, City Councilman, staff, Mayor Wong, Mayor Pro Tem. No. My name is Yin Chi Chang. I am the homeowner of 418 South Alhambra Avenue. Tonight, I represent my homeowners association of 416, 418, 420, 422 South Alhambra Avenue.

You have been presented a bunch of pictures. My building is on figure eight, the little gray building right next to this development. We have a total of 22 units in this homeowners association. We, as the HOA, second the total of seven code violations when Mr. David Choi presented earlier. And we want to make a point that as of current, if you look at figure two, the south side setback in the developer's track map is in violation of city and state code according to the rules of the density bonus laws. The developer's design indicates that the south side setback is 10 feet away from our shared property line. And it's all the way up to 42 feet in height. This is a violation of city and state code. There should be a 16 feet and up to 22.5 feet setback beginning at the high point of 30 feet of the building height. Second, the city of Montreux Park failed to inform their residents on major development procedures that affect the entire neighborhood. No notification was sent out to neighborhood residents of density bonus approval. This is a direct violation of Ordinance 2230, April 2023. The director must transmit a written decision by first class mail to the applicant and to all owners of properties of Butting and across the street or alley from the subject property. Lastly, we urge the city council to carefully review the seven violations that were brought up here tonight. We're expecting a transparent and logical written response from the developer before the application before the application can be approved by the city and that also resolves the number of most obvious problems in the development. Thank you and good evening. Next speaker is Anne Heun. After that Zij and then Minnie Hwin. An?

An?

An? An?

Good evening. My name is An Huynh. I live at 319 South Alhambra Avenue.

I am the resident of Mount Napa for almost 40 years.

I have a comment on the proposed project at 338-410 South Alhambra Avenue.

According to the finger number two of the Planning Commission report,

staff report on October 27, 2024.

or the finger number 10 we just provided to the councilman.

The Northern driveway will expand a full step of the project and provide only single ingress and egress to the parking area for the condominium unit in the rear building. However, according to the city ordinance, 21.090, succession E1,

No approach driveway in an R2 or R3 zone may extend more than half the length of the lot.

Obviously, the cemental design of the driveway by the developer is not in compliance with

the city ordinance.

And refer to the finger number nine, we provide to the city council members.

in the existing surrounding condo.

In our neighborhood, we further comply with the city ordinance,

but not the proposed project at 338 and 410 South Amarillo.

I strongly believe that the developer should provide the design of the

Rodney driveway to comply with the city onlyness. Thank you.

Next speaker Zij.

Good evening. My name is Minnie Wing. I live in 331 South Ahemba Avenue.

And today, I just want to repeat the building code noncompliance items that was mentioned earlier by our residential.

Number one issue is the subterranean parking is almost at or above existing ground dirt level. Developer claims parking to be underground. Number two, building is four floor in height. disguised as a three-story building, developer is not truthful and transparent with his building plans. Number three, developer building plans exceed high and number of floors acceptable for city building codes. Number four, developer fails to comply with setback requirements on second and third floor. It should be a minimum of 16 feet. Developer does not have a building up to city code requirements.

As previous residential mentioned about the driveway,

according to city code 21.22.090 access driveway,

No approach driveway in all three zones may exceed

and nearby residentials who live in Alhambra, Peach, Graves, Edgeley, Shefton, Everett area

to support our opposition to the 64-unit condos project at 338 to 410 Alhambra Avenue.

We need CD to hear our voices, to further review and work with developers to correct the plans in compliance with CD during building close. Thank you so much.

Last call for Zij.

Next speaker, James Saga.

after that it's Shizija

and then Bernard Bramansa

sorry

good evening my name is James Saga and my parents are residents of Monterey Park I was also a long time resident of Monterey Park until about two years ago

I got married and you know we were looking for a place to buy Monterey Park was top of the list, of course, but we just couldn't afford it.

Last year, my wife's, or right now my wife's pregnant, and of course, you know, we're starting to consider school systems. Monterey Park has a great public education system that, you know, I was able to take advantage of.

And again, we're looking for housing here, but it's still very much unaffordable.

So I'm very much for any additional housing that Morning Park could get to try to drive some of the housing costs down. Thank you. Next speaker, Shizuja.

S-H-I-Z-H-I-J-I-A.

After that, it's Bernard. and then Gary

My name is

I live in this area.

I live in this yard.

The landlords think that this project is good for the city?

Yeah, this is what we are in the right direction.

We don't have any negative opinions.

We need to support this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Bernard Barmanza.

Hello, good evening. My name is Bernard Bermansa. I'm a homeowner of 418 South Alhambra.

I want to point out the driver violation.

It is not in compliance with the city code 21.22.090, section E, number 1, which is no

approach right way in an R2, R3 zone, may extend more than half the length at grade.

And I have a petition showing the 200 sign. You guys want to see it? And I oppose this project.

Next speaker will be

Gary Lau. Tina Kwan allocates her time, six minutes.

After that, it will be Lisa Wing and Eddie True.

Six minutes.

Six minutes.

Good evening, all. I think you heard tonight that I think we can all agree that more housing is needed, especially affordable ones. There's no doubt. and this developer is proposing seven units for very low income buyers, which is great. However, any new development should comply to billing codes. So as the previous speaker, David, had mentioned, there are a number of discrepancies with this billing proposal. So first one being the developer elected to apply for the density bonus, which permits for certain allowances within the building code. However, the density bonus that they elected was to incorporate additional story. So right now the density bonus building code says you can have three stories at a maximum height of 30 feet

or two stories at a maximum height of 41 feet. So it's either or. Choose one or the other. So the developer chose both at three stories, 36 feet. So those two options are mutually exclusive.

So that's the first discrepancy. The second one is the building setback.

So if the code stipulates that if you build beyond 30 feet, you have to have a side setback of one vertical foot rise. So if you're going beyond 30 feet, let's say you go 31 feet, you have a setback, side setback of one foot. 32 feet, two feet, side setback. 33 feet, three-size setback, and so on.

So that's the second discrepancy. And the third one is the developers offering subterranean parking under the 57-unit square condo complex in the back.

I don't know if you can really call it subterranean

because about 83% of that parking level is at or above grade,

and only 17% is below grade at a maximum depth of three feet,

on average of a one-and-a-half foot.

So, you know, 83% of the so-called subterranean parking is at or above grade.

So if you look at it, it's really a four-level building, not a three-level living floors above a subterranean parking.

And the next one, according to the bonus density code, the local city code, rather,

the driveway

is supposed to be limited to half the length of the property. So for instance, this property length is about 300 feet or so. So the length of the driveway can only be a maximum half the length of the depth of the property. It cannot be a straight shot from street to the end of property. So the city code says, hey, you can only go a maximum half the length of the property, stop there, or make a turn, or zigzag, but you can have a straight shot from street to enter the property. So that's the local code. And also the what the developer submitted, a lot of the diagrams are based on conceptual design versus actual design. So I don't know why it was passed that way based on conceptual design versus actual design. So it's supposed to be reviewed with actual design, not conceptual. Because if that's the case, that would allow the developer a great latitude on making revisions. It's just an escape route for making changes or excuses for changes.

So what I'm saying is all these discrepancies in the handouts that you're given,

is based on Monterey Park municipal codes,

not on emotions, not on opinions, but on Monterey Park municipal codes.

Okay, those are in black and white.

So your hands are not tied tonight

as far as passing or not. You can send us back for further review,

scrutiny, and clarification.

So just be mindful that if you do pass this, that any and all pending and future developments, whether it's multi-unit or single-family units, will use this as a template to skirt building codes. Okay, so I think there's a real easy solution here. It will cost the developer a little bit of money, but just add more parking, and your opposition will disappear. So, I mean, you hear a lot of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood that says, hey, parking is a major issue, which is a true fact.

Especially, you know, coming home after work at night, you can't find parking. You have to park far away. It's kind of scary and dangerous to get home.

Anyway, that's my solution. And then additional parking, I think, would be a good compromise for all parties concerned. Thank you. Next speaker, Lisa Wang.

My name's Lisa Wang. I moved into Monterey Park in 2000. We have a property on Peach Street. I still own it even though I don't live in Monterey Park anymore. I have four kids.

when we were living at Peach. My children loved walking on Peach into Alhambra. I know those three parcels really well.

One of the late 80s, I think her father built each unit, the five units.

But 64-unit condo is irresponsible. 96 parking spaces on 64 is one and a half parking space per average unit.

Please tell me you're going to have one or two people living at each condo?

My Peach PUD is a seven-unit PUD with three parking car garage and a 12 space, and we still fight over parking every single day. So to have a 64-unit, 96 parking spaces is crazy. and there is a gentleman here that he earlier said he lives on Lincoln and he is approved.

That's great, but he doesn't have to go to Alhambra from Lincoln. If you're on Peach, you have to go through Alhambra

and please join me tonight after the meeting because I'm going back to my property after this.

I'm going to make a left turn from Peach onto Alhambra and if you guys live or visit anywhere there,

Graves is on top of the hill. That car coming down from Graves to Newmark is quite fast, and I've almost been hit quite a few times. I do three, four turns before I make that left.

And what I'm hearing today, I hear a lot of force, and I hear a lot against. And what I'm hearing against are those who do not live,

I mean, who are living near Peach, Everett, Alhambra,

I don't hear the ones who are really for it live near there.

And I don't know where you guys live, but if this was near your home,

will you want a 64-unit condominium?

You know what? If they want to redo it, it was a 15-unit property before that, double it, 30, I think I would support it.

When I moved in, we had single-family homes all around the neighborhood.

Over the years, PUDs, townhomes, everyone got developed on peach, on Alhambra.

When is enough? It's already dense as it is.

How much more dense do you need it to be? And I'm pretty sure Alhambra has money.

Next speaker is Eddie True. After that, it's Tiffany Truong and then Peter Fung.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Eddie True.

I've been in St. Gabriel and Monterey Park my entire life. I've always loved this area and I've tried my best to stay due to aging parents and other family members. I am recently a new homeowner in Monterey Park and I can tell you that this process is very tough. It is very competitive and any single family home is $900,000 plus up to $1.6 million. And condos are not that much cheaper. And keep in mind these homes that I was shopping for are old. They were built in 1920 through 1960s. Not only would it cost a new buyer, a million dollars at 6.5 inches to make it up-to-date and habitable, it would cost another $100K thanks to rising costs in material and labor. The U.S. citizens outside Home Depot are asking $250 cash per day. Projects like this would definitely help those like me starting a family

through this home buying process. Keep in mind, at least from what I understand, they are not building homeless housing and they are not building trailer parks. I believe building more homes would also help local businesses. We have a vibrant food culture and very little fast food franchises. Change is hard, but change is necessary. Anyone buying a home today are either grouping together income or struggling to build a family like myself. I don't believe they would be here to cause you any trouble, minus the parking situation, which is all of Monterey Park, especially on Mondays and Fridays during street sweep. Thank you.

Next speaker, Tiffany Trung.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council, and City members. My name is Tiffany Chong. I oppose this project because I'm seeing tonight for those approved, they clap their hands, everybody's left.

For only those neighborhoods, they are nigh, and they care, they talk about, they stay behind.

For those apart and far away, they don't know what's going on to the neighbors.

The Omnipar, yes, yes, yes. But we care because we're day and night talking about.

And we don't know how long the project and the noise and distracts.

We work long hours a night. We need to rest. And we want to save, to come home and save, to go to work.

And I hope city will consider.

I want to live in Montepal and pass on to my generation a rent number three nation. It's a good city to live in.

It's not because of the economy affordable. Not because of housing. How many housing will get the housing for how many years?

They will get a proof. It's not excuses. I hope the city will consider

and the development building, please look in the code violation. Look carefully and please look into that. I live across the street. From P2 Alhambra, if you make a left turn, the code blocking. We can see the code coming. Almost have to go past the stop sign to look further to the left. and on the right-hand side, the car is rolling down very fast on the downhill. And you're going to cause an accident, almost. Today, I saw they have a glass on the street. Please, thank you very much. I want to be long-lived in Motu Park. Thank you.

Next speaker, Peter Fung.

Good evening, respected council and city mayor.

My name is Peter Fong. I live in Monterey Park since 1991.

And when I first moved in, parking was never a problem. I think because over the years, the housing price had gone up and people had rent out rooms. So now, at night, everybody's saying there's no parking when you come home.

So that's my number one concern. Building a project this big is going to be a problem. So it's going to be visitors, people are probably renting out rooms, and it's going to be a big problem.

My number two concern is in the morning, I walk the night shifts. I come home every morning, and I see a lot of children walk. It's a mock capital high school. Where the project is, it's a short distance walk. So a lot of children, they walk to school. So have the project this big, it's going to take probably two or three years to complete. So the street might be blocked off. So it's going to be creating more traffic. It's going to be a safety hazard for the children who walk to school. And number three is I walk the night shift. I need my sleep. So the project right next door to me, I will mirror sleep. So I don't want to have to move out because of this project. So I ask everybody, the city council and mayor, would consider before you voting for this important matters. and I just want to point out that David Troy, he bring out a lot of code violation. He is a builder too, so he knows what he's talking about. So please look into it before you vote. Thank you.

That wraps

it up for our speakers tonight. In addition to our speakers, we also received written communication, which you all received copies of. We have eight in support, four opposed, and two neutral. No other comments.

Thank you. With that,

I will close the public hearing.

Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the applicant does have an opportunity for rebuttal.

Is that part of the public hearing?

It is. And we'll keep the public hearing open?

We'll invite up the

applicant to address some of the

concerns if they'd like to address some questions.

Hello.

Hello, my name is Joseph Cohen-May. I'm a consultant that's been hired by the applicant, and I'm an expert on state housing laws. I wanted to clear up some things about the state density bonus law and how that pertains to height and setbacks. So the project is using an incentive to get additional height, and the Monterey Park code does include certain on-menu incentives, that have the height and the number of floors or the feet and height. However, under state density bonus law, there is no requirement that you follow a local menu of incentives and the state overrides anything that's in the local municipal code.

So that is not a requirement that the project has to follow.

It's also the same for the setback. That's something that's essentially a suggestion in the menu of options. but under state law, there's no requirement that the incentive needs to follow those restrictions. For the driveway length, I'm not specifically familiar with the piece of code related to the driveway length. However, to my understanding, the design of the driveway is necessary for fire truck access, and that's a safety requirement, and that likely would override any aesthetic considerations in the code about driveway length. For the Housing Accountability Act, any noncompliance with codes for the project, if that's used as a reason for denial, that has to be identified within 30 days after a completed application. And that would have to be notified to the applicant for that to be used as a reason for a project to be denied. And yeah, I'll pass it off to you.

Thank you. A couple points, and then I'm going to hand it back to the architect, because I feel like we didn't have enough time talking about the beautiful design that's before you.

Really quick, with respect to the code violations that were raised, those are all basically statements that arise from the same misunderstanding about how the code works and how you measure from the grade plane, not from the finished grade adjacent to the building. With respect to parking, we've gone out to the site multiple times since the Planning Commission hearing where there was a lot of complaints about parking, and we identified plenty of parking spaces every time we went there.

I want to also note that I've understood that...

If I can ask the audience to be respectful, the applicant did not interrupt you when you were talking.

If we can allow the applicant the opportunity to provide their comments uninterrupted.

With respect to parking, my understanding is I've heard that a big problem is that people use their garages for either storage or for other accessory uses. There is a development agreement in place that mandates that the garages on this property be used for parking only. So that is a protection that the city will be getting to assure that the garages provided here will be used for parking. because of the interruption I'd ask for another maybe 20 minutes so we could have the project sorry 20 seconds but if you want to give us 20 minutes we can fill the time. Give him a minute. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Am I always the last one and getting only one minute left? I just want to quickly wrap up my presentation for the design hearing all the comments very appreciated because people care that's why we care too. This beautiful project we're presenting after three years modifying all the design, we are listening to our neighbors changing the front from four-story or three-story to two-story looking from the street side. From the side, we are reducing the lot from the height to from 40 feet to 36 feet. That's what we're doing right now. Against to our neighbor's side, some people mentioned about the parking, how they count the three-story and whatnot. I do have our neighbors. That's how they count. That's how we're using their example to count the ground floor parking, which is semi-substantial, maybe down like three, four feet, and then two-story above. That's exactly what we're doing here. If there's a precedent, we follow that precedent. And for this design, we heard about a lot of people liking where they live, nice neighborhood. This because we have a 64 unit. It sounds a lot for this project. but we are spreading 1.7 acres. Any one of you have 1.7 acres here? Probably not, but we do. The reason we're doing that is because we can have shared open space. Jessica, please. The next one, and the next one. We do have a 12,000 square feet courtyard in this project shared between the 64-unit residents. these are a huge communal space that we can bring the quality life into this project. Everybody can enjoy this space every day living there. Speaking of quality of life, that's the quality of life, right? Around the building, next one please, we do provide a walk around surrounding walking paths around the building, not just from the side in the front, but also from the back. People can just jog around this project exercising every day within their property. They don't have to worry about safety. The other thing I'm really confused about safety, we are not bringing homeless here. The resident, the future resident living in this is not criminal. They are not going to create problems. I don't know how people have that conception there, but they're going to be the house owner just like all these people who want to buy the project here, living here, raise a family here. That's what they want to do. That's what we're providing right now. Am I done here?

Yeah. All right. I'm good. Thank you. I imagine there will be questions from counsel. Yeah, sure.

Thank you.

Let me, if there are no further public comments, I'm looking at the clerk to confirm. We'll close the public hearing. I believe our city attorney has a few comments as well to address some of the code concerns that were expressed.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council.

As you know, I don't frequently agree with council that appears here before you for developers. However, under these circumstances, I do have to agree with some of the comments that were made by the council for the developer. This particular development is subject to state law.

And as most of you understand, there has been a large volume of legislative decisions made by Sacramento

that have impacted cities across the state with regard to affordable housing, housing projects in general, and what have you. State legislatures declare that there is a housing emergency within the state of California and has very much undermined the ability of local agencies to exert their local control over housing projects. This particular housing project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act, and what that act provides is that for residential projects, there's a streamlined process by which cities must consider those particular projects. And generally speaking, if a project meets your general plan designation, meets your zoning designation, and also meets the types of objective development standards that are inside the municipal code, and that would include after applying density bonus regulations that are imposed by the state, then that housing project, absent specific adverse effects to public health and safety, must be approved. That is something that ties most council's hands, and I understand the frustration, particularly amongst elected officials, with regard to their inability to respond to their constituents' concerns, that has historically been part of local government. One of the reasons for incorporation has always been local regulation of your zoning standards and of your housing standards. County. Council Member. Director of Public Health and Housing Standards. That ability is quickly being eroded by Sacramento. And so the ability to respond to your constituents concerns has also diminished. That said, if there are specific adverse items that affect public health and safety, the City Council can certainly consider those in considering a housing project. I'm happy to answer any questions. I should note that neither the staff report nor any of the speakers have identified anything that would qualify as a specific or adverse specific adverse effect on public health and safety but if the city council is aware of any and they can become part of the public record we can certainly consider them at that time

happy to answer any questions all right thank you uh we'll begin with any council comments and

questions mr mayor yes um question to actually staff i know there was a moment ago a comment that local residents or people who live within proximity were not notified. But can you let me know, again, and it's in the staff report, but what was the notification that the city did or, I guess, the developer did regarding this project?

Sure. As part of notification for this project, there were several public notices sent out.

First, when Council considered this item back in June,

there was a notice that was sent out in May related to the CEQA document that was out for public review

that was sent out to property owners within 300 feet. How many?

If you give me one moment as I look at that up.

Take your time.

Again, we notify property owners within 300 feet of the site.

and there was 195 property owners within that vicinity.

We also notified various agencies related to the CEQA document.

We also, after the June meeting that was before you,

made notifications for the Planning Commission meeting,

again to the same 195 parties, as well as additional 11 people who had signed up for email notifications.

There was another notice after the Planning Commission for this evening's meeting,

again to the same 195 parties, as well as some emails to those 11 parties who had said they were interested in this particular project.

So we did send multiple notices.

Correct. Excuse me, I'm talking to staff.

Can I ask for clarification? So when you say notices were sent out, they were sent out to owners of record to the properties, or they were sent out to the address? It could be a resident, it could be a renter, it could be an owner. Who do we sent it out to?

We folLod state law and sent out to property owners.

Property owners, okay. Thank you.

Sure. I have a question, I think, for the city attorney.

I want to know if we reject the project today.

What's the consequences that we have as our city?

And also, do you have other cities that perform the same thing?

And we want to know what the consequences after the rejection.

Council Member Yu, I hate to engage in a hypothetical.

So let us assume for the sake of discussion that you find that there are specific adverse effects to public health and safety and that we can find those for preponderance of the evidence within the record. If we can find those, then certainly the city council can deny the project. Absent those elements within the public record, the city council must approve the project under state law. Consequences of that most recently were announced by both the attorney general's office and the governor's office. Toward the beginning of this month, actually, with the city of Elk Grove, that entered into a settlement agreement with the state when Elk Grove improperly denied a particular housing project there. Under those circumstances, Elk Grove was required to pay $150,000 to the state for reimbursement for legal fees and is now going to be monitored for the next five years by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Each particular application that comes before the city must be sent to the state for review in concurrence with staff with regard to how it's processed. It is available online for anybody that wants to read it. Obviously, the governor's office and the attorney general's office have made a public display of Elk Grove to remind all cities throughout the state of California and other public entities that have land use regulations that the Governor's Office and the Attorney General's Office have taken the position that certainly the Housing Accountability Act is a vital part of the state's response to the affordable housing crisis and will take action against any city that does not comply with the law.

Another follow-up question is, again, let's say we rejected the project.

So can the developer actually go back and change the plan to go back to 32 parking and 116 units just required by the state? Is that possible that they can do that?

Based upon the presentation tonight, certainly staff has identified that the developer has done more than is minimally necessary under state law. So the city is actually being presented with a project that is more than what state law requires. So to answer your question yes the city the developer could go back and revise Provide even less parking than it currently is and still require it or have a project that must be approved by the city

Just to quickly follow up on the Elk Grove

Decision just to be clear for those who are listening the city still had to approve

You know for an even denser actually affordable housing projects in the city following that settlement agreement is that right?

I can't speak for Elk Grove. I don't represent it. I can only speak to the settlement agreement that it entered into and certainly the public display presented by the state on that. But yes, it's true that even denser projects have been approved in that city and must now be approved in that city.

I have a couple of follow-up questions.

I'm going to go back and actually check with staff and then maybe if staff has the clarification

so there was a couple of discussions about the subterranean parking

below grade, above grade

so I think I looked at some of the map it was somewhere in the presentation it looked like part of the project so I'm going up Alhambra, up the hill the northern part was at grade level

while the southern part was going to be below

because there's a slope of the hill. So that's an obvious distinction there. So my question is, maybe the developer can help explain this. It was explained as a subterranean project. So its definition is because part of it is below grade or the entire project has to be below grade. And when I say grade, I'm looking from the west side, looking into Orhambra.

Is that the street level? Is it below street level or is it above street level? That's my question.

Council Member Ngo, I could address a portion of that, but I'll let the architect also jump in.

But our code does, because we're considering it a seller,

it would have to be more than 50% under subterranean and so staff would be

checking for that during the building plan check process when we have

construction plans more detailed drawings but if the architect could go ahead and elaborate on the slope and the design.

Good evening again this is Steven. So to address that question because the code has give you an option to increase 11 feet or a story. Since we choose to increase the fees, then so the story, just like the other gentleman was talking about, the true story was 40 high, 41 feet or, you know, 40 feet, whatever. It doesn't, the common sense tells us we pick that and then just like Mayor Paten was mentioned, from the highest point to the Lost point, it's about 10 foot high difference. So when we're starting on gray on the south side and then sloping down. Not to remove too much dirt impacting to our LID again, that we try to even out that was just on grade on one side and then totally below grade on one side to kind of even it out. We do see a couple of precedents that they did that, sloping down maybe three feet, four feet to KELWAY as a underground parking and then two story above, which is our adjacent neighbor, did exactly like that. we kind of just follow that thing over so that's how we calculate that the other unique thing for this project is because this project is much much bigger right the frontage is much wider than most of the neighbors along this whole street

so that makes this very obvious and very noticeable compared to other projects

and that's the other thing that once we're starting having these projects you will see that and then we just based on these numbers and calculating out the way the city calculating the height is actually based on the averaging grade. Pick the highest point and Lost point, take the median, and then that's how you measure from the building height. So that's the one simple solution to find

out the height. What is that difference in the median? Five feet. Five feet, okay.

So kind of half. So it's a half and half a story. One and half a story because it's about eight and a half.

Right, exactly. Okay. I think we already covered the

city notification of the residents I think my understanding there is we it I'm gonna it sounds like we sent it out to the residents or owners of record and I you know and my thing is look this

projects probably in the discussion for three six years and if the residents didn't know that was

going on that's kind of on the residents because I I believe there's been a number of these meetings There have been a number of commission meetings. So you've got to be a little bit aware, and I'm going to trust that we sent the letters because I think we have it on record, if I can say that.

Parking is a big issue.

How do I say this in an easy way? It sounds like if the developer, and this is a suggestion or an ask, and you can just count me in as a resident who is trying to get something to work here. If there is an ability for the developer, the builder, to add extra parking, I think you're going to get a buy-in from a lot of people. Now, I don't know where you would add extra parking within the project. Potentially, you can dig a little bit deeper.

Potentially.

And again, this is something that you have to decide. But from my understanding, the city can probably help steadfast that process if the developer is willing to dig deeper. And I'm thinking right now there's how many parking do we have here?

97 parking spaces. 96. 97. 97.

If you add another level, that's another 97, right? Now, I'm thinking that's about $4 million in cost, subterranean. If you take about $35,000 average per unit, the developer knows this. I mean, the lawyers can look at me weird, but the developer knows the math. That's a potential spend that you may choose. I'm not saying you have to.

I'm not forcing you to.

This is my personal opinion and suggestion. If you went about this way, my recommendation is if the developer chooses to go that route, as the staff and the city council, I would ask staff to speed process that as though we don't lose any time so that everyone can be happy. Because I know if you start from scratch, this is another three years, right? Because that's what's happened here. It's taken six years. But if they can add additional parking, I'm sure the residents will be happy, but we're not going to stall them by six years. We're going to help them get there because it's beneficiary to everyone. So I think that's a possible solution. Again, I don't own the project, I don't control the project, I don't live on that block, but I'm seeing that as a possible resolution that meets and makes everyone happy. And that, all I can do is I can ask, okay? Whether

you give me an answer of yes, no, or maybe is up to you, all right? I have one more question,

because this question has to do with affordability. So I know there are seven units of affordability, and I think it was explained to me that there is a 55-year covenant in place, and I'm familiar with that, so I understand that. The question then is who is going to manage the process for the affordable units?

Is that the city?

Is that a covenant that the city will oversee and make sure that when they go out and say it's built, There's seven units for sale, because I'm thinking this is for sale, not for rent. It's for sale that the city is involved in some form of a lottery system, because this is a brand-new condo unit.

Market price is going to be $750.

Affordable units is probably going to be half or less of that. So let's make sure the city is somewhat involved to ensure that it actually gets lottery out to the right people who are qualified versus, and I've seen this, versus someone who already knows someone who gets in the list and lives there. So again, that's something that I'd like the city to be involved in and to have a direct...

Well, maybe this is a question Jessica can answer quickly as well on Councilman Pro Tem Ngo's comment around the affordability covenants.

I believe our housing department does oversee and has to make sure that they're in compliance.

Excuse me.

I believe our housing department, our housing department, City Hall would have to, the developer would, correct me if I'm wrong, The developer would have to verify income data for those who are wishing to purchase, and they will manage the process for who's, I assume all the units are for sale.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

The developer and the owner would manage the process for selling those units, have to verify income eligibility for those who are wishing to purchase the affordable units. The city would have oversight over making sure over that 55-year covenant agreement that the residents there also align with the affordability components.

Is that right?

Yes. The developer or the owner, like let's say the developer sells it and there's a new owner and then it changes hands again,

the owner would pick who they want to sell to,

but obviously they'd have to be income qualifying.

They would submit all of that paperwork to the city. The city would verify the income qualifications

and also verify that the sale price is at an affordable rate as well.

And there would be restrictions on renting that out to someone else who is not maybe income qualified.

Yes. That would be a violation.

And the city would, once made aware of that situation, would have the ability and tools to force

someone, right, the affordability

component to be enforced. Yes.

On the parking issue, this might be a question more for the project proponent. Was tandem parking, just from what I see on the plans, and I'm not an expert on this, but did you guys consider tandem parking or other potential use or creative opportunities to add additional parking spaces

in the existing space?

Hi, Mayor. This is Stephen again. So to answer your question to adding more parking, of course we can add more parking. But the problem coming back to how we're going to impact the environments, the LID report,

and everything else, and also going to prolong the construction of the project also cost more and making these affordable housing and 202 non-affordable, right? So there are solutions to resolve parking. But today, in the last meeting with the Planning Commission meeting,

the parking issue is there already. With or without this project, they already have a parking issue on the street. And I think everybody in the resident here and also my client, the developer, has the responsibility to find out why and how we're going to resolve this, working with the city.

For our project, I would say because our design is a parking structure, it's open parking.

It's not going to become ADU in the future. It won't be a storage for personal stuff in there. It's just purely for car. I don't know what happened to the other property. Maybe they use it as ADU or they use it to become the storage. That's why they have to park on the street. I'm not sure, but at least for this project, the parking lot, the parking space is for parking. maybe we can look into attendant parking to increase more parking in there since we have two two-bedroom unit and three-bedroom unit they can share attendant parking to increase more parking counts in there and that's doable but I think we can we can seek any any other solution to increase more parking but just to provide more parking in this project is not resolving the current residency issue they still don't have been the offside I mean the the street parking on the street. But the problem is why everybody have to park on the street. We need to find out. And hopefully we can find out and have the solution. Can we diagonally parking on the street, not the parallel parking to increase more parking space? I'm not sure. But that's just

my suggestion. I appreciate that. I think the community's concern is exacerbating the existing parking problem. I know that's not necessarily your responsibility. But it is something we are all interested in seeing

how we can be creative.

And I totally understand that the current proposal already exceeds the minimum requirements for parking. I understand there's no requirement for the

proponent to have to add additional parking.

I think we're all just trying to find a way to see how we can address some of the very vocal concerns in the neighborhood. I don't know if you wanted

to add something, Mr. Friedman. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the council, again, thank you for allowing us to speak today. Have you had a chance to go to the site to try and park? Because we've been going regularly.

Yes. And there's always been a place to park on this street. So I hear the concern. What about evening, though? I hear the concern. What I can tell you, when this was addressed by the Planning Commission, they said this is more than adequate parking. And that's how the Planning Commission resolved this.

This is a lot more spaces than is being required by code or by state law. I want to just reiterate the project architect, my client, they're open to looking into all ways to add parking in the future, but not at the expense of this project being delayed any further. So if the request is after we approve you today, will you in good faith see if there's options in the future, I can assure you the answer is likely yes. But if the question is can we delay the project so you can try and reconfigure your parking arrangement, which has been vetted through the city for years now and which was approved by the Planning Commission, that we're less comfortable with. So that's where my discomfort is coming from.

So it does sound like the layout of the existing parking can be adjusted and there's some flexibility there. And my question on follow-up on that is, so you just mentioned that the parking is going to be unassigned in the condo building.

Is that, how does that work?

How does that work for the residents in the condos? So like the one bedroom is going to get one assigned, one alLod one parking? spot that's unassigned or can you just detail that a little bit?

Before you continue, is this an issue with the translation devices?

I think because they have the headset on, they're sticking over the headset.

I don't think so. Okay, do you want to go check?

Okay, allow me to answer.

So since we have a 1.5 averaging parking per unit, we do have a studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom. Three bedroom is probably only 6% or 7% of the total units. So majority are one-bedroom and two-bedroom.

And we can come up with the program that every unit gets one stall by default. And extra store can be even paying more fees or they can buy the second right or something like that.

We can work it out during the HLA agreement on that one. So that's something we can do.

And I believe that's what everybody, every city is doing that as well.

by far the city of Montreux Park high-density R3 is actually sort of like the Lost density

among all these cities around us right now. So that's my comment. I appreciate it.

So it sounds like that will be worked out through the HOA process. In terms of another concern that was mentioned a number of times by neighbors and residents on construction impacts, I know it sounds like from the staff report, this was talked about at the Planning Commission as well. I don't know if I know I don't know if you have fleshed out thoughts or plans in response to some of those concerns that you can detail now But I wanted to make sure that that was highlighted as well in terms of what the Impacts would be for the neighbors in terms of noise traffic trucks dirt moving all that stuff construction noise Over the one or two year. I don't know how long the construction periods expect to be For for that neighborhood if it sounds like we're putting in a development agreement that there will be additional mitigation measures

that are going to be put in. Those were, I don't know, Mr. Freeman, if you have details you want.

Mayor Wong, it's not a mitigation issue,

so there was no CEQA issues with respect to the construction period. The concern that was, I believe, memorialized into a condition was with respect to how the site is managed during construction. There is, I believe, a condition that has been put into the project that says, hey, you need to provide a description of your construction management plans, which will be approved by the city. And that is really a safety issue primarily, just to make sure that the construction is managed in a reasonable process. And so that will be reviewed by staff, approved, and then construction will commence.

And obviously whatever can be done on your end, in terms of accelerating the construction timeline to minimize the length of time that construction impacts will be there for the neighborhood, of course, whatever you can do.

And I'm sure that will save you money as well in terms of...

That's in everyone's interest.

I have questions on the community benefits that have been proposed as part of the development agreement. in the architectural renderings, the path around the project, I guess, you noted safe to walk around, all that stuff. Is that going to be open to the public, or is that meant just for the residents?

To answer the question, for now, it's not designed to welcome the neighbors to use that path.

I'm not sure would that become a safety issue for the future residents,

so that's something we can discuss further about that one and then the EV

I saw in the development grant, unless I read it wrong someone can correct me, that EV charging is listed as a community benefit and I applaud you for adding additional EV charging, I think that's what you need to do to attract quality tenants going forward, but I don't see that as a community benefit if it's not accessible for the public? I don't know if I'm reading that wrong.

That part is not very clear on the state code. They do require a percentage for each lot or each project to provide a percentage of the EV charging. Right now, current code is 40% adaptable, 10% or 15% that's been charger. In the future, since we do have extra space, now we can dedicate maybe 10 parking space that will open to the community, whoever needs to be charging or something like that. We don't know yet just because, again, that will be laying down to the future actually.

Yeah, and I just want to – I love that the community benefit we're talking about now, as a strong environmentalist, is that the community wants access to these charging spaces. But the community benefit is that it advances the city's goals and the state's goals of climate reduction. That's the benefit, right, that you're providing a resource so people can drive non-gas-powered vehicles. But I understand the comment, but, yeah, these are for the residents only. And the residents, and by the way, it's more than code. That was a request by the city, which the applicant agreed to happily, and it'll help these residents have access to, let's be clear, it'll help them have access to EV charging that they either otherwise wouldn't have had or they would have otherwise had to pay for. So I do want to make that clear.

I appreciate that. No, I'm making a comment. In terms of the, right, this will have to abide by existing building codes,

so electric ready and all that, and I know it's not single families, So in terms of the solar energy, are there plans to link up to a project? Right now it's not designed yet, just because the code changes almost every year,

and they start increasing more requirements. That's why we do allocate space for that.

We have plenty of roof over there. We can do solar panel.

But up to today, if we got past today, we can design it per today's code to comply to the solar requirements.

And then is this a mix so you'll have natural gas connections to the natural gas?

That's the future trend that does the state or at least the seat the county of the LA is starting to minimize the usage of the natural gas so

Eventually all these multifamily or single flame will go on to electrify without the gas

So at that point that we can figure out it's tied to the title 24 calculation to see which one makes more sense to comply

the Tower 24 reports.

The natural gas requirement is connected to the building code,

and so the project will be subject to the current building code, to my knowledge. So if that's the requirement in the building code, then no natural gas.

And I know it's not a requirement because I don't believe it's in the code,

but I applaud and encourage the proponent to continue to go above and beyond

code requirements to be as sustainable as possible in the ultimate design of the project. Turning back to staff, on some of the concerns on the existing traffic on El Hamer Avenue, I heard a number of speakers talk about Peach Street being difficult to turn left on El Hamer Avenue. I know this is not related directly to this project, but it sounds like if there are existing concerns around traffic, maybe we can reach out to... Director of the Neighbors. Director of the Neighbors. Director of the Neighbors there. I'm looking more at Sean and Ziad maybe around maybe extending red curbs on peach or looking at other opportunities to make it safer for turns on peach and Alhambra in that neighborhood too if there if we need to do a traffic study or something to initiate I think that's definitely worth looking at. Yeah that's worth clapping at sure. All right. Ziad's on it.

I mean those were most of my questions

I don't know if there are any additional

Yeah I had some questions

Mayor I wanted to follow up

on the

should council approve this project and during the construction phase

I know one of the things that the mayor brought up that we all heard from

the speakers was this concern of safety during the construction phase how can should there be issues during the construction phase whether they be environmental whether they be public safety issues what how can the public or how can we set up a system to redress these issues should the community have any concerns regarding public safety and

yes council member sanchez as mentioned the planning commission added a condition of approval that the applicants submit a construction traffic and management plan. As part of that plan, they will address the construction traffic. It also indicates that they have to give a four-week advance notice of any construction-related activities to the community.

As part of that notice, they would be required to provide a point of contact. should there be any issues, they would have a point of contact from the builders

to make sure that any impacts are addressed.

Okay. And I know that it's location because it's also close to a school

that we're also communicating. And when we have our quarterly meetings with the school districts of any potential concerns that students might bring up that might not necessarily be addressed or concerns that school might have that are being brought up as a result of the construction phase.

We can make sure that they add notice to the nearby school as well.

Thank you.

And then my other question deals with, back to the comment from our mayor, regarding EV charging stations as a community benefit. I think that one way, as also Council Member Ngo mentioned earlier, to win this community is also being able to provide, and I understand the community benefit in terms of the environment, but there's a local community benefit also in being able, and residents being able to access those EV charging stations. As more and more residents switch to electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations are really hard to find, this is a great way to kind of show the community, you know, that you are a partner and that this is a community benefit and that everyone has access to it. And obviously you mentioned that earlier as well in terms of everyone wants access to this potential building and project. So that would, as you consider and you build this project, something to consider, as the mayor said, in terms of going above and beyond. And just one last question. This is more for, like, staff.

We know that parking is always going to be an issue.

And I think that parking is going to get even worse. I know that in my neighborhood, parking has gotten a lot more, because of densities, because people are building ADUs in my neighborhood, parking is starting to become an issue. And it's going to start to become even more of an issue in the years to come. But I think that one of the ways, and there's many, and there's not necessarily one solution to this, But one of those solutions is public transportation. And I think that we need to start looking and finding ways and working with developers to find ways to be able to provide more access to public transportation. And I know its location, there is somewhat of an access to public transportation in terms of metro, but that metro line is also very limited in terms of where it goes and how far it can get you. so being also able to work with Metro and also with their own spirit lines as we're working on developing new spirit lines to be able to for for construction or for new developments like this that might have a lot of that are very dense and might have a lot of residents living in them being able to show them and being able to provide public transportation access that might limit the amount of cars they might actually need in these so things like transportation hubs things like more public transportation spots. I would be interested in looking at that more because also it would be helpful for residents in this area as well. And that's it for now. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor? Thank you.

Follow-up question.

So again, I know during the Planning Commission meeting, and again this recommendation was as a staff report, where it says the permittee must submit a construction traffic and management plan for review and approval by the city engineer before construction. Such plan must include, without limitation, truck hauling routes, traffic control plans, temporary traffic controls, hours of operation, dust mitigation, and a notification plan to area of residence with a minimum four-week advance notice of such activities. My question is, does that construction plan also include security as well? Like when it's the evening and there's no construction going on, does that also include making sure the site is not used by squatters when it's in the evening?

Doesn't necessarily include that, but we can add that to that list of components for that plan.

But usually for construction sites, they're required to put temporary fencing around their projects.

And some builders decide to have on-site security depending on whether they believe it's needed.

So that's something that the council can add to this condition if you choose to.

I'd like to add that condition, that during the evenings, security considerations are also taken. because of the size of that site.

Also, it was brought up by one of the speakers about, and again, I know it's not necessarily related to the project, but nonetheless, it can be that the issue of downhill speeding down Alhambra Avenue, and that's something actually I am familiar with because I drive down to Havre Avenue when I go to work in the mornings. But if that is an issue, I do think that that's something that we need to also look at as well,

is the issue of, well,

especially I think during the rush hours if people are also speeding down graves as well. I mean, I'm sorry, I'll Havre Avenue, sorry.

just a follow-up question are we requiring some kind of performance bond on this project

is that part of the requirement that may be a requirement as part of the the subdivision

map but i would like to defer yes i got it yes from ziad there is a performance bond can you

tell me the amount?

Hi, or can you hear me?

Mr. Mayor, we don't have the amount, but there will be a subdivision improvement

agreement that will have

bonds to support whatever improvement they need to improve in the street.

That's good enough for me. Thank you.

I have a follow-up question. I wanted to continue to ask, according to Council Member Lo, asked about the underground parking. How likely, I know that the developer mentioned about you guys will be willing to work on adding extra parking, but what's the likelihood of adding underground parking, knowing that it costs more? But I want the staff to also hopefully respond and see how we can cooperate and the likelihood of adding more parking because I think now today that's the only solutions for adding more parking and we wanted to know the likelihood and we wanted to know if it's not maybe the whole underground parking may be halfway is there any possibility from since you have the whole team here I wanted to get your sense of telling us is that a no is that a possible unless the staff do this or how we can make it possible?

I think the best answer for you is that we will look at it after this is approved and we will look and see what other scenarios we have. You know, I wish you guys would just let me speak, but, you know, the residents here don't really want me to speak.

I've gone down on the unit count quite a bit. I've gone down on the unit count quite a bit, okay? You guys know that this could be a lot bigger project. I've taken into consideration the amount of time we've owned this property and it hasn't been built So yes the architect us we will look and see if we can improve the parking, but It's not going to be held up at this meeting. I need approvals before I can go back and take a look at it. Thank you

And I want to follow up on

displacement issues for this project. Do you know how many existing tenants are on? I believe there are 15 occupiable units. Are there currently 15 tenants there? And what are their plans for potential relocation and timeline for construction and when they would have to find out? There's 14.

We haven't started construction documents. That'll be four to six months out probably, depending on review time frame.

We follow what's alLod, you know, by state, by guidelines.

You know, we have, I have an attorney here that specializes in that.

If you have any questions regarding relocation amount, specific time notice needed, you know, she's the best at this. You can ask her that as well.

I would like, if you can detail that process and what the tenants are going to have to go through the next few months.

so depending on how long the tenant has resided at the property

the notice period would differ if the tenant has resided at the property for

less than a year it'd be a 30-day notice of termination and if the tenant has

resided at the property for over a year it'd be a 60-day notice and the relocation amount would be one month's of rent

that's for both one year and over one year and under one year correct

just a follow-up so all these tenants are i mean i you gotta be sleeping under the rock if you don't know there's something going on here so they've been aware and they're all on month to

months at this point in time yes yes okay all right just wanted to clarify that okay

the construction document itself is going to take quite a bit of time okay the 60 days no way it's going to take quite a bit of time. They will all be notified and given the proper amount of time. That's

my answer.

As part of the development agreement, I would like to put out there and ask for us to go above and beyond the state requirements for relocation assistance.

I know

that there will be plenty of notice, but the ability for these existing tenants to be able to find like housing in the same neighborhood or similar neighborhood nearby neighborhood at the same price will probably be very difficult if there are opportunity if there's an ability to add into the development agreement additional relocation assistance for the existing tenants I know I know already in a development agreement my understanding is that the existing tenants will have preference for the affordable units if they so choose to apply when those are

built, but

I'd love to see us

add additional potential months of rental assistance or rent payments to

the existing tenants to assist them

in relocating to like

housing.

I would love to explore that opportunity.

Well, what would you like, Mayor Wong? I mean, I don't know how to respond to that. Two months? You know, I don't know how to respond.

I've never kind of seen this type of request in my experience at a hearing at the final approval.

So, you know, look, my client's been doing this for I don't know how many years trying to get a project approved.

Mr. Mayor, members of the council

if that's the only ask

then perhaps we can take a 10 minute recess I'll talk to the gentleman and see if there's any interest

in trying to work out some language

and then we can come back and report back

I want first look to the rest of the council to see if that's something we want to

add to the development agreement

and just as a reminder

it's a development agreement

so it's a negotiation process with regard to the development agreement I mean, it's not an imposition of a condition. It's whether or not the developer is willing to go ahead and pony that up.

I think as a measure of good faith for the tenants that are there, I think something greater than one month, I don't know. And I've looked at you to see. County. I don't know if LA County for unincorporary areas or LA City have other relocation requirements for existing tenants that are above and beyond the one month that's required by the state. I'm looking to Carl as well if there's experience with other cities that have a more extensive relocation requirements for tenants that are displaced in project developments like this. I'd look to those as a guide. I don't have anything to go off of. I have not researched this. But I Definitely something more than one month's rent for assistance. I'd also suggest, I know the developer is also a property manager. If there's opportunities to assist the tenants, existing tenants, with relocating to other properties, whether those are existing properties that the proponent owns or can assist with placement in other like properties, I think that's something that could be added, and I would personally appreciate that kind of relocation assistance as well.

Mayor Wong, if I may, I would like to reiterate, actually, what the city attorney suggested. I think where my concern is I'm not sure when the requests are going to end,

and so I don't know what to agree to now or what to agree to on behalf of my client.

So if that's the main ask, I agree. A couple minutes for us to confer, I think we can probably figure something out that we can present to you.

But I think where my discomfort is is we're being put on the spot to pick a number or come up with something without having any discussion about it. So if Mayor Wong, Council, if this is the final request,

And don't forget, you know, the addition of security, that added another $100,000 to this project.

So, you know, the bill is adding up.

So if that's where we're at, you know. Well, one, I don't know that. I think there are security solutions that don't necessarily require an on-site security guard right there,

the remote camera opportunity.

I'm just going to speak here.