City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. you you

Good evening everyone and welcome to the June 22nd meeting of the Alhambra City Council. Roll call please.

Lee. Here. Maza. Here. Wang. Here. Andrade Stadler. Here. Maloney.

Here. Please stand and join me for the flag salute. Ready. Begin.

Next up is our land acknowledgement.

We acknowledge that the land on which we are gathered is the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Gabrielino-Tongva peoples. We seek to prioritize respect for the historic culture and contemporary presence of the native peoples throughout California, especially in the greater Los Angeles-Alhambra area. We come with respect and gratitude for the Gabrielino-Tongva people who consider themselves the caretakers of this land. It's through their examples that we are reminded of our greater responsibility to take care of Mother Earth and to take care of each other. So we have a couple of ceremonials tonight. First, apologies for getting a little bit of a late start. Real life intrudes on our duty sometimes. And I was halfway to dropping my son off at soccer practice when he told me he forgot his cleats at home. So we had to turn around, pick up his cleats, and come back here after dropping off. So forgive the lateness here. The ceremonials, the first up today is an environmental scholarship award recipients. We're going to go ahead and recognize a few folks here. I want to before we bring folks up everyone is getting essentially the same recognition but I want to read the text of it because I think it is important to hear it out. The Alhambra City Council on behalf of the citizens of Alhambra hereby congratulate the recipients upon receiving the fifth annual environmental scholarship from a public services Public Services joined with the city of Alhambra to award five scholarships of a thousand dollars to resident students. Each finalist submitted an essay based on the theme of environmental stewardship and acknowledge the power of future generations to innovate greener living standards and environmentally sound economy and environmentally sustainable lifestyle. The city of Alhambra is pleased to congratulate the recipients for their achievements and for inspiring others through their dedication to the conservation of our planet. So each one will be receiving this so I'll go up and present them. But I do want to take a moment to recognize that it is it's appropriate tonight because later on the agenda buried deep in item 42 I think it's a lot of items here and I don't expect everyone to stay. But we are considering the very first comprehensive sustainability plan in the history of this city. So we spent many, many months working on this. It was a big project. And we finally have it in front of us tonight. So I'm glad to be able to recognize the recipients of this award tonight.

So come on up. So I'll call up each recipient. We'll do a little photo.

And we'll give you our thanks and congratulations. Is this Siki Lee?

I was going to say.

Okay, next up, you may have heard this name before recently in Alhambra. Next up is a neighbor of mine, actually, Keiko Rakeen.

Thank you.

Next is Joyce Lee. Next we have Gideon Schneider. Accepting on behalf of Gideon is his mother.

Nice to have a good time.

And last but not least is Emily Taniguchi. So I'll just take the opportunity to stay down here. Next, we'd like to present a certificate of service, actually a very nice plaque here, to a long-time employee of the City of Alhambra in our finance department, Revenue Supervisor Mabel Yu. So I'll read the plaque too, but Mabel is retiring after 38 years of faithful and loyal service to the finance department. We appreciate that she started her career here when she was 12 years old. Sorry, I don't want to age you five years old, if that's right. But people like Mabel help run this city, making sure that it stays moving in the right direction, that we don't go into debt, we pay our bills, we collect our bills. Really, many of the folks who don't get enough recognition and appreciation from the city. So thank you for almost four decades of work for this city. It's crazy. So thank you, Mabel.

you know you have to say something it's going to be short I'm not a person okay so good evening mayors and everyone council Jessica I just want to thank you. I thought I'm not going to be emotional, but I want to thank you for this recognition for the 37-year service to the city of Alhambra. It's actually my first job, and I still remember walking from Alhambra High School to walk over to finance to work two hours a day. I never imagined that it would become my career and that I would spend my 38 years with this service, City of Alhambra. I'm just very grateful for all my colleagues, my bosses. It's just family to me. And thank you for your support, dedication, and friendship. I will come back to visit you guys. But also, I want to thank my parents, my mom, dad, my husband, Damon, my kids. And last, it's been an honor to serve City of Elkhart. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sorry for the time.

Thank you.

Okay, I will. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

We're always happy when people choose their retirement, but we don't like to see them leave, right? Next, we have public comment. And if you've been coming to our meetings recently, we have two different public comment portions of the meeting. At this point, we'll have 30 minutes of public comment. The time limit is three minutes per person. And then if we don't get to all the public comment during this 30 minute period and we'll go through an order here we will have another public comment period later in the meeting after the agenda items are completed. We will that'll be open ended but the time limit will be five minutes so if you'd like to speak longer you might want to wait till the end if you'd like to make your points and go on about your evening then now is your time. So we're going to go ahead and get started. And just for everyone's information we have a very long agenda tonight. Most of it's on. consent agenda but things can be pulled off and discussed so we'll try to keep all of our comments brief that goes for the audience and and the council so we can be hopefully out of here at a reasonable hour and i appreciate everyone's attention to that so first up is is that albert diaz

Why did you have to pick me first?

You just came to the top of the pile. I'm sorry.

Thank you. My comment is it has a work project that's been since April. Started in April. It's on Main Street in Fremont. And they're supposed to finish it in September of 27. And they haven't done nothing. All they did was dig everything out. And it's creating a problem with traffic. And I had called the company. They gave me the number. And they just say, leave a message, and I'll call back to you. And they never do. So my thing, I don't know who got those guys to do the work. But there's a saying, you get what you pay for. Because it shouldn't take six months to do what they have to do. It's only about two blocks long from Fremont to the end of Hamden Terrace on Main Street and Fremont.

We just looked into this today, actually, so I'm glad you're asking. But if I can ask the city manager just to give a quick update on that.

Sure, there was an issue between the contractor and the designer over the retention wells, but they have resolved whatever question there was, and they will be resuming work tomorrow.

I hope they have more. I've only seen a couple of guys working or either one. And it's a lot of inconvenient. Maybe you guys, it's not for you because you're over here, but when you're living that site, it's a big inconvenient for either east and west when you have to drive through there. So I hope they start because like they say, they're going to finish until September 27th. That's a long time for being inconvenient. I hope you guys do something about it. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Mary Hosokawa.

Hi, good evening. My name is Mary Hosokawa, and honorable city council members and esteemed mayor, I'd like to first thank the city for planting some lovely young trees on the park lane, I think that, or parkway in front of my house, or my block. Beautiful little trees. I may not live long enough to enjoy the shade, but I think my descendants will, but I'm very grateful. The reason I'm here though is that I'd like to ask you a very simple request and that is to have a greater vision for our Alhambra businesses. When I want to go to my favorite grocery store, which is Trader Joe's, I have to go to South Pasadena or Pasadena. I can't understand why we can't attract Trader Joe's store here. The site where the Big Lots was on Valley would have been a perfect location for it. But what got popped in there? Another Ross. Like, we need another Ross. When I want to buy housewares or a gift, and I want to go to Home Goods or Marshalls, I've got to go to Pasadena. Why can't we put something right next to Albertsons? It's empty there. Party City is gone, and so is Big Lots. That would be a really good place to put those stores there. Also, There's a real sad business corner on Chapel and Main, really sad. So there is a boarded-up medical office. There is the uniform store closed. And there's this raggedy store, big, ugly store that's boarded up. And they have a naked male mannequin some kind of weird S&M ware, and he's always in the window. But the store is a big store. It's not used. So I think we need to do better about getting better businesses in the city of Alhambra. It'd be nice to have a Marshall's, a TJ Maxx, especially in that area. Thank goodness the coin shop is still there. I don't know why they don't feel sad to be in that sad corner, but I'm glad they're still there. We have too many duplicates also. How many Ross's do we need? How many dollar trees do we need? How many canes do we need? Or as I call it, raising cholesterol do we need? Why don't we get some better stores or restaurants like a Cheesecake Factory, a Yard House, or Buca di Beppo, anything like that? That would really raise the look of Alhambra. We're turning into like a five and dime city. I don't like that look. It looks like I'm out of time. So I'd like to see you guys one day at a brunch at one of those nice restaurants and maybe shopping at Trader Joe's. Thank you.

Thank you, Mary. Michael Alexander Jones.

I apologize in advance. I did not expect such short time.

Is it possible to have these passed out at all? Sorry about that. Evening you all. I've spoken to each of you individually about some proposed propositions. My name is Michael Alexander Jones. I live over on Fifth Street and represent the Working Families Party and a few other volunteers and activists within the city. There are two separate measures being proposed. One of them is tentatively named INS DCE-A. That's No Data Centers Alhambra. All this is proposing to do is take what you all passed verbatim last month and back that up with If a voter referendum, frankly, what that's going to do is mean that that ban cannot be lifted, even if future councils decided they wanted to, for whatever reason. California City and some other places, for example, have had trouble with this, sometimes with ICE detention facilities, et cetera, where sometimes Council members will frankly subvert what public comment is asking for and just build something anyway. This is preventative medicine for that. Moving forward to the one I've spoken to you all at length about at different points, Measure W. This is simply to change our term limits, which are currently you get Three sets of four years in a row. You wait four years. You can repeat 12 functionally at infinite. I mean, I know most people aren't planning to live to 150 years old, but as of right now, that means the term limits are functionally limitless. We're proposing to change it to Pasadena's charter, which, as it says at the bottom, functionally you get three consecutive terms, and we can add it in there that it's just four years like it is. Three consecutive four-year terms. You take four years off, you can get two more for a total of five. This still gives 20 years worth of time for people to work on projects that are necessary for the city and plenty of time to, again, come back in if somebody who is a good city council member is uh... uh... succeeded by someone who maybe made a couple of mistakes i was concerned somebody raised and it's one i respect and some is definitely worth looking into last page of course is just the estimate of cost you'll see that multiple propositions do not uh... increase the cost whatsoever from the initial i'll put one measure on there however as you see there is a price tag to it that is um... is worth considering. It's worth looking at. For those who can't see, it's about a quarter million dollars. All I'm asking for today, I'm running a little short on time. I'm frozen for asking someone to put a motion to put it on next month's agenda. I'll come in with if it is on next month's agenda to put it on the ballot. That'll be our last opportunity to do that. I'm asking for, if anyone wants to put a motion to put that on the agenda for next month, and then I'll come in with a final text, have a lawyer look at everything beforehand so everything's good to go, and you all can decide whether or not you want to put it on the ballot. And I'll respect your decision either way. So I apologize for stumbling my words. I was expecting a slightly longer time limit. That did not happen. But I appreciate all y'all's time and appreciate y'all dealing with me. I didn't mean to badger you when I was talking about this, but it's something that myself and others do feel pretty passionately about. So thank you all for your time.

Thank you. Next is Shirley Tatsuno.

Good evening, Mayor Maloney and City Council members. And I just want to answer that lady's question about Trader Joe's, because I've asked the Chamber about that, too, a couple years ago. And I was told by John, who is one of the head persons at the chamber that Trader Joe's does not want to come to Alhambra because City Hall, I don't know what, did something to burn them, and they have no desire to come to Alhambra. Very disappointing, too, because I go to the one at Fair Oaks quite a bit now, too. But anyway, I want to say praises. That was how I wanted to start it, but I wanted to answer that lady's question. I had truck problems, so I decided to take the act bus this evening to come to the city council meeting. And I used that act. And, you know, that is awesome. I like it because you could see where the bus is that is supposed to come to pick me up. And it came just on time, one minute later, whatever. But got me here. Awesome. Great idea. And I discovered this today when I was walking around, that the sidewalks from fourth, on Valley, from fourth to sixth, the sidewalks are clean. And they did it after, I think, because the trees were trimmed. Because they're the ones, the city trees are the ones that are causing all that awful black stuff. It's clean. The first time I just noticed it, and I was so happy. And not only that, the planter boxes that were neglected for many years, but are well taken care of now. And the plants look very nice. Thank you. I wanted to give praise to the police department. And this happened a couple of months ago. I noticed they were talking to a homeless man, this black man, tall, that was sitting in front of Target. They were very kind to him. I could hear them saying, well, you know, in 10 minutes, somebody will come and help you. And I'm sure it is from the police department. And they were just kind to him, you know, picking up bottles and stuff near him. I think there might have been a beer bottle or whatever. They said, oh, no, we'll pick this up. So... So then I went into Target. I came out maybe about a half hour later, but he was still there. So I was worried. So then I went to, again, Trader Joe's. And then on the way back, I decided to stop in at Target just to check on that man to see if somebody had come. And he was gone. So I believe that someone came to pick him up. And that was a very good, kind thought. Oh, he was an Asian police officer, good looking. Well, he was. And then the other guy was shorter with a mustache. They were very kind. Thank you.

Thank you, Shirley. We appreciate the positive feedback as well. So thank you.

Next is Carolyn Sim.

Hello. My name is Caroline Sim, and I am a happy, tax-paying, voting, second-generation resident of the city of Alhambra. I am so happy with this city. I used to live in the city of Los Angeles, and Alhambra is a hidden gem. And a lot of my friends from LA love to visit Alhambra because of the great food and the fact that there are no potholes, there are no broken sidewalks, trash is picked up, the trees are green, and the leaves are well maintained. I thank you all for your hard work in maintaining this city so that the residents can live peacefully and pursue the normal day to day things that families and singles have to work on. I'm here today because of one issue. I received a flyer in the mail signed by Jessica Bingquist, the Alhambra city manager, about the priorities of the city and the top issues for your neighbors included. This is from the flyer. It says, keep streets, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained. Fix potholes. Provide fire protection and paramedic services. make improvements to roads intersections bike lanes and signals to improve traffic safety and reduce congestion provide quick responses to 911 emergencies I wholeheartedly support these priorities of the city and I know there are so many other like endless things to work on such as bringing Trader Joe's to the city of Alhambra But the reason why I'm here today at public comment is because I have a request for you. My request going forward is that the city abstain from celebrating or promoting sex. More specifically, I request that the city not put up a banner, sign, or any other kind of printed matter or hold any kind of events celebrating or promoting sex. Peace and order are so vital to a happy and healthy city. I think we have a lot of priorities and things to work on, like I said earlier. Some of you may be wondering why I'm bringing this up. It seems inappropriate to bring up the banner that's right next to the city library where children grow, as well as I do, and seniors. But what's the big deal about putting up a little banner? The big deal is that there is a slippery slope that typically happens. I actually used to work for the city of Los Angeles, as well as LA County. And I worked in very specific departments that had priorities similar to the priorities you just mentioned. But as soon as one banner went up celebrating one sex type, other events followed and basically our whole agenda, our whole budget, our staffing resources all went towards other kinds of programs that were not priorities. And I think that's why the city of LA and the county of LA typically have issues that the city of Alhambra doesn't. So I just respectfully request that the city going forward not spend any taxpayer funds on matters related to sex. Thank you.

thank you next up is Sylvia Sotelo yeah good evening mayor and council members and staff I wanted to bring up an issue at 1209 midwick hill which is in the midwick track area for those of you who are not familiar with it it actually falls south of the 10 freeway and it is adjacent to Monterey Park. Very quiet community, mostly houses, very few apartment buildings. 1209 Midwick Hill is being used as a short-term rental. By laws of Alhambra, I understand that it has to be 30 days or more to be a short-term rental. That place, in fact, is not. That has different cars every day, every weekend, two to 15 cars, primarily in the evening or late at night and on the weekends. There has been arrests there prior years. Recently, about three months ago, several men out in public were all arrested. We all saw it, undercover police officers. So obviously, there's some shenanigans going on at that house. And it's still not being controlled. And this has been going on for years. I don't know exactly what the issue is at that house. I don't know if that's public knowledge. I haven't looked into it. But it's not being used appropriately. And that's very obvious. And our laws here at Alhambra, they're not abiding by it. The other issue that I've had throughout the years and recently the last six weeks, because it's a short-term rental, the people that are there day in and day out are not throwing the trash away. Currently, the trash cans have been out for at least six weeks. I have reported it three times to code enforcement. They do have an open case on it, but nothing's being done. The last four weeks, Republic has not even picked up their trash because it's just out. They're not recycling. And Republic will not pick it up if you don't use the cans appropriately. I've seen it. I've seen them take pictures of other homes that are not recycling or throwing trash properly. They will not pick it up. I've even called Republic in other years, and that's why they don't do it. Now there's possums, skunks, and next is going to be rats. And this is a safety issue. And if you look at that area up there, and many areas, even North Alhambra, they're very clean, very proper, quiet neighborhoods. And this is unsightly, and nothing is being done about it. I'm sure there's a lot of investigation. It's twofold. Like I said, it's a short-term rental, not abiding by the rules. And the other thing is the trash issue. It's there right now. I've taken pictures of it. And it's overflowing with trash. So I would appreciate if somebody look into whatever is open and deal with this.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

I will go ahead and ask staff to maybe reach out and hear more about the situation. And I think we have one comment on Zoom.

Oh, yes, Mr. Mayor. There's one raised hand from Randy Kaye.

Good evening. Can you hear me?

Yep.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can, Randy. Go ahead.

Okay, thanks. First, thank you very much for passing the ban on data centers. I agree it probably needs to go to the electorate to make it a permanent ban. But the reason I'm here tonight is because we are having a terrible problem with coyotes on our residential streets around South 8th Street from sunset to sunrise, looking for small animals, and there's up to five at a time. We've tried hazing with whistles, air horns, rock throwing, yelling, and looking large to scare them away. They're not afraid anymore. Most of the time they'll walk away, but they're getting used to being hazed. I've been in touch with County Animal Services who said their hands are tied. They can't do anything. The state wildlife people will not do anything either. either, even when an animal is injured. I was told they have to wait until it collapses on a lawn before they can do anything. This morning when I called code enforcement, I was told to call the coyote sighting line. It's a message that you can just report a sighting. They don't do anything either. So the problem is we have a couple of people who live very close by in Alhambra who go out after dark to feed wild animals like coyotes and cats, and they put the food down on parkways and private properties. I've spoken to pet owners in Monterey Park. They told me they're removing some of the food on parkways as am I. We have no recourse to remove food left for wild animals on private property. by these people, and I would like to know what can be done about this. When food is left for coyotes, they come and eat the cats and eat the food. And actually, my neighbor tonight said, well, that's probably where his kittens went. For all intents and purposes, feeding the wild animals in county is illegal. We need to put a stop to this to curtail the coyote population. Otherwise, we have to live in fear for our pets' lives every time we leave home. And the coyote population will continue to grow. This affects the quality of life in Alhambra. And what I would like to propose is that an ordinance be passed so the city can take some action. The ordinance could say that you are not allowed to leave food out on your property or on parkways, and that will really make a dent in the coyote population, and it will stop people from feeding wild animals. So I just wanted to mention that. Thank you very much for everything you do. I agree with all the other speakers tonight that you're doing a fantastic job, and it is seen and appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Randy. Appreciate that.

One more?

The last raised hand is from Henry's iPad. Henry?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

I have a public comment on item number seven. Do you want me to wait till then?

Yeah, let's go ahead and wait till that.

All right. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So we'll go ahead and close our first public comment portion. The next item is item number three adoption of the 2025 urban water management plan staff.

this evening's introduction will be in will be given by dennis allen director of public works and utilities good evening honorable mayor and members of the city council before you this evening is a public hearing for adoption of the 25 or i'm sorry 2025 urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan Stan Chen from Stetson Engineer who prepared the plan will give us a, conduct a brief presentation on the updated plan. And if you have any questions for Stan or myself afterwards, we will be able to do that.

Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. My name is Stan Shen. I'm with Stetson engineers and I'm here to provide a presentation on the city's 2025 urban water management plan. Next slide. The urban water management plan is a document that's required by the Department of Water Resources. Any city or water system that serves 3,000 acre feet or more or serves more than 3,000 service connection has more than 3,000 service connections is required to prepare this urban water management plan every five years and the city meets both of those requirements. The urban water management plan is a long-term planning document. However, the Department of Water Resources requires that the plan be updated every five years to account to ensure effective long-term water resources planning to address any evolving supply and demand conditions. The plan is also a requirement to receive state loans or grants. Next slide, please. The following bullet points are components of the urban water management plan. I'll go over those in a little bit more detail in the coming slides. Next slide. The city obtains its water supplies from several sources, including groundwater from the main San Gabriel Basin and also imported water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The city's water supplies are well managed and reliable, including groundwater that's managed by the main San Gabriel Basin water master. And the city has flexibility to manage its supply sources during drought conditions. Next slide, please. The Urban Water Management Plan reviewed the city's supplies during various water supply conditions, including single dry years and five consecutive dry year conditions in five year increments for the next 20 years through 2050. Included in the plan was a drought risk assessment, which assumed that the upcoming five years through the year 2030 are dry. And based off of the city's water supplies that were available during a previous five consecutive dry year period, The assessment concluded that water supplies were available to meet those conditions. The city also conducts annually an annual water supply and demand assessment, which reviews water demands for the upcoming year under unconstrained conditions, water demand conditions, and identifies the sources of water supplies available to meet those demands. Next slide. Five years ago, the city's urban water management plan included a review of Senate Bill 7-7, which was aimed to reduce water demands by the year 2020. The city had a 2020 water use target of 132 gallons per capita per person per day. That's 132 gallons per person within the city service area. That was the target use. The city's actual water use in the year 2020 was less, so about 100 gallons per capita a day. So the city met its target. There is no further action required. However, the city continues to maintain a water use rate of approximately that amount of about 100 gallons per capita per day. Next slide. Even though the city's water supplies are reliable for meeting its projected water demands, the city does have a water shortage contingency plan, which is included in the urban water management plan. And that water shortage contingency plan identifies different augmentation measures and reduction measures in the case of an emergency water supply condition or scenario. The city is able to meet water demands during these drought conditions using the existing water supplies coupled with demand reduction measures as part of the water shortage contingency plan. Next slide. In conclusion, the city's water supplies are reliable in meeting projected water demands during existing and projected normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry year periods through the year 2050. And with the current demand management measures, the city is anticipated to have sufficient water supplies to meet a projected population estimated by the Southern California Association of Governments. And next slide. That concludes the presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Are there any public comments on this?

No cards and nobody on Zoom.

Council comments? Anyone?

I just have a quick question. Actually, it's not a question.

I wanted to make sure that we have a clear statement putting out. There was a little bit of talk about contamination of the city water, which in truth is really a regional issue. I'd like to hear from you. I know we have a water quality report posted. I just want to make sure that from you that our water is Cling to drink. Save to drink.

Yes, that's correct. All water that's produced by the city or purchased by the city undergoes water quality testing pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board Department of Drinking Water, their Title 22 requirements for drinking water. California is among the most stringent water quality requirements in the nation, so all of the water that's produced and served to the public meets those requirements.

Thank you for that statement. I want to make sure that everyone hears it and it's been recorded, documented. So if anyone out there questioning the city's water quality and use, we have a clear answer today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I appreciate it. I think what Councilman Lee was alluding to was I think we have a Superfund site. And you know that in the San Gabriel Valley, right? And I know there's groundwater well installations happening currently. Is that right?

I believe so.

Are they done?

Oh, they're not in Alhambra yet. Okay.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right.

There is EPA.

Yeah. Yeah. EPA. Yes. There are EPA wells that are looking for potential contamination plumes moving towards our wellfield.

Is that a normal thing for them to do? And have they done this before? Yes, they have. Do you remember what year they did that?

Before we built the treatment plant in 2008. Before that went online, there was Wells On, Main Street, Fremont, and a few other places. And we actually still sample those once a year and send those results to the state.

will so you will sample also the ground well water that that they're the installation of the well if it will give us okay yes okay and so we do that as well okay thank you thank you that's important council member Mazza sorry I skipped you earlier that's okay thank you for the presentation first of all I was very pleasantly pleased to see that the water use in 2020 was you know

30% below with a target. Just curious, what do you think got us there? Is that something that was normal with like other regional cities or was Alhambra kind of an exception and what did we do to get there?

That trend was very similar throughout Southern California. A lot of water cities started to conserve. There were different state executive orders from the governor's office requiring cutbacks and conservation. So beginning around the year 2014, 15-ish, everybody in the Southern California region especially started to reduce their water demands. I believe more so that Alhambra appears to have, you know, the number, the actual water use in 2020 was a lot less than the target. So that attests to the conservation efforts that occurred within the city. So yeah, it was very good to see that.

Good to see. Is that something that's still the, is it being tracked currently? like year after year?

It is tracked, but it's not a requirement to meet that SBX 7-7 target anymore. But the gallons per capita per day, that number is still being tracked by the city every year. Okay, and relatively low still? Yes, it's still about that same range, about 100 or less, yeah.

Thank you. Council Member Wang.

Trying to understand how dependent we are on imported water, I see that we have two sources for our water, groundwater from main San Gabriel Basin and imported water from MWD. Can you tell us roughly what percentage of our water is from each of the source?

Well, we do have an agreement in the Alhambra pumping hole that we will take 3,000 acre feet from MWD in a yearly basis in order to save the Alhambra pumping hole. In 1972, they saw that we were overdrafting the Alhambra pumping hole, which is part of the San Gabriel Basin. And so we made the Alhambra agreement to take 3,000 acre feet from metropolitan water in order to keep the Alhambra pumping hole from being overproduced. So it's approximately 25%. It had been less in other years, but it was because We take normally anywhere between 28 and 3,000 acre feet from MWD. And that's part of that agreement that we will take that water.

Got it. So it's roughly about 25% unimported water.

So 25%, yeah.

OK, got it. Thank you. Do we have any anticipated risk from our supply sources in the next 5, 10 years?

Um, no, we haven't had any, um, you know, the big, the big one right now, water quality wise is the PFOS and we haven't had any detections, um, in Alhambra's water. We've been very lucky that way. Um, and then we do an assessment every year that we send to, uh, actually Stetson engineers and water master every year.

Great. Thank you.

Um, thank you, um, both for the presentation. just want to say a couple things is that as far as water quality goes Alhambra action I'm an alternate board member for the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority which is a separate public entity that oversees the groundwater cleanup in the entire basin area it is important work of and making sure that we identify the causes and help support the pumping wells and the cleaning stations. So it's a pretty broad effort, and it's ongoing. And it does seem like we have a pretty broad base of water supply in our area. We pump from the San Gabriel Basin, the Raymond Basin. We have backup from the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and the Met, correct? I mean, we're not members of the Met, but we're customers of the Met. So I was comforted to hear that even with population growth that we have a good supply past 2050. So that's that's very nice to hear. And I'll also point out that one of the gentlemen earlier commented on the project at Maine and Fremont between on Maine between Fremont and Huntington. And the primary purpose of that is actually stormwater capture. And we hope that these projects will be more widespread where they capture stormwater from the surrounding areas sequester it let it filter into the ground it cleans the any surface pollutants and it recharges the groundwater so all these little things that that might you know be a temporary frustration or inconvenience these are long-term projects that will help us be more sustainable in our area to to manage our groundwater so it's a lot of different things going in the right direction so i appreciate your presentation tonight um do we have to vote on this or is this just a

So we do have to adopt this.

So if I can have a motion to adopt.

So moved. I second.

We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Mazza.

Yes.

Lee. Yes. Wang. Yes. Andrade-Stadler. Yes. Maloney.

Yes. Okay, next up is our fiscal year 26-27 appropriation limit. This is... the famous GAN limit. Everyone knows what the GAN limit is, right? No. It's a pretty obscure portion of state law, but we're going to hear a little bit about it more right now.

Good evening good evening mayor and members of the city council. Proposition 13 b also known as the gang limit set us sets a cap on government spending and is adjusted annually for population growth and inflation. For fiscal year twenty six twenty seven the city's appropriation limit is approximately two hundred and eleven point five million. The city's appropriation limit subject to a limit total 91.4 million, which is about 120.2 million below the limit. This means the city remains in compliance with the state's spending requirement. Staff recommends the city adopt resolution number R2M2-6-16, establishing the fiscal year 26-27 appropriation limit and approving the annual adjustment factors provided by the State Department of Finance.

Thank you. Any public comment on this? Any council communication?

Thank you for that. It is important to keep this in mind because some cities do actually bump up against their limits and they have to do different things. Another city in the San Gabriel Valley area actually recently approved a charter amendment or an initiative that raised their GAN limit. So I'm happy to see here that we're in the positive here. So With that, I'll entertain a motion.

I motion to approve.

Motion second.

Anyone second?

I'll second.

Motion second. Roll call, please.

Andrade Stadler.

Yes.

Wang. Yes. Mazza.

Yes.

Lee. Yes. Maloney.

Yes. Next is item number five. This is a public hearing regarding annual recruitment and vacancy report as required by law.

This evening's presentation will be given by Human Resources Director Miriam Koh.

Good evening, Mayor Maloney and members of the City Council. Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2561, a bill that became effective January 1, 2025, requiring public agencies to hold a public hearing at least once per fiscal year prior to the adoption of the final budget to report on vacancy and recruitment status and retention efforts. The new law further requires that additional information be provided should percentages of vacancies by represented employee groups exceed or be higher than 20% per group. The city has approximately 412 full-time positions budgeted, and 19 of these positions during this last one-year period that was tracked was vacant as of May 14, 2026. In the report, staff provided a summary chart of the city's bargaining units, number of vacant positions, number of budgeted full-time positions, and a total percentage of vacancies by the bargaining unit as required. The data shows an approximate overall vacancy rate for the entire city of 4.6%. During that last period, last one year period, data shows that none of the city's bargaining units have vacancy rates that exceed 20%. Therefore, additional reporting is not required at this public hearing. Furthermore, Assembly Bill 2561 allows recognized bargaining units to speak before the City Council during the same public hearing. All of the city's representative bargaining units were notified by me of the public hearing tonight and provided with their bargaining units' vacancy rates. This evening, staff is requesting that the City Council conduct this public hearing, receive and file this report in compliance with Assembly Bill 2561.

Thank you. Any public comment on this?

Okay. Council communication on this one? Questions, comments?

No, just thank you so much for that. And, you know, I do have a question about our Alhambra City Employees Association. What exactly do those employees do? And is 10 vacancies not affecting the city of Alhambra?

So the Alhambra City Employees Association group is one of our largest employee groups for the entire city. It consists of a majority of all of our administrative staff and a lot of our public works, utilities, a lot of our field representative employees also. So that is one of our largest groups and probably consists of almost half, if not quite half, like over almost 200 of our employees, a good majority of them out of the 412 that I mentioned. So 10, if you look at the percentage of that, it's not a lot.

Yeah. You're welcome.

Thank you for that. That's my way.

Thank you. I know 4.6% vacancy rate is a pretty low rate. So thank you for that. And I know we're also trying very hard to fill those positions. So good work. Thank you.

Anyone else?

No comment. Thank you.

I just quickly, thank you for your presentation. We have nine bargaining units within city of Alhambra, I was just counting. That's a lot. And as far as I'm concerned, we should continue to recruit and retain. So hopefully that will fill these vacancies in no time.

Yep, definitely. Thank you.

Thank you. I think it says that This is an attractive place to work, so thank you for helping with it. We do have to receive and file. We have to receive and file this, so let's go ahead and do that. No vote necessary, so let's move on to item number six. This is a presentation regarding housing element implementation, program 11, which is workforce housing program.

The Stevens presentation will be kicked off by Director of Community Development, Andrew Ho.

Mayor Maloney, members of the City Council, good evening. We're currently in our sixth cycle of the housing element, which expires in 2029. As part of the housing element adoption back almost eight years ago, we identified about 40 different programs to implement through the housing element. One of those is tonight's item, program 11, to present a workforce housing proposal to the council. Following DEMA's presentation to the council tonight, program 11 will be completed and checked off. We'll be asking the council to adopt eligibility standards to further workforce housing. With that, I'll turn it over to DEMA Galkin of Harris Associates to present our workforce housing proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew. And good evening, Mayor Maloney and members of the City Council. My name is Dima Galkin with Harrison Associates. Over the past year, we've worked closely with city staff. Next slide, please. Over the past year, we've worked closely with city staff, St. Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, through its Affordable Housing Incubator Program, to develop a workforce housing program plan for the city of Alhambra. I do want to say this effort was funded through SCAG's Regional Early Action, or REAP 2.0 planning, planning grant program with funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Tonight, I'd like to briefly walk you through the work that was completed, the key findings, and the recommendations before you.

Next slide, please.

And one more. So this project was initiated in response to housing element program 11. And I know it's a bit of a mouthful but I think it's worth reading the full program. So this program directed the city to quote develop a workforce housing program proposal that may include coordination with major employers to create employer assisted housing identification of financial resources specific to workforce housing or other incentives and actions to preserve and produce workforce housing. So to support that effort, the project scope was organized into four components shown here. First, we met with local employers, developers, and economic development partners, specifically the Alhambra Chamber of Commerce and the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership to better understand local workforce housing needs, barriers, and opportunities. Second, we identified the parameters for workforce housing eligibility. What income levels make sense? Should we have different levels for rental and ownership housing? And because workforce housing does not have a universally accepted definition, we analyzed Alhambra's specific housing market and the incomes of working households living in Alhambra to identify appropriate workforce housing eligibility parameters for the city. So again, I want to emphasize that we focused on the residents of Alhambra regardless of where they work. The third step was to evaluate potential sites, development feasibility, zoning considerations, and funding strategies to better understand what types of workforce housing projects are most likely to be feasible in Alhambra and what tools may be needed to support them. And finally, we used the findings from those efforts to develop a set of program recommendations and implementation actions that the city may consider if it chooses to pursue a workforce housing program in the future. The recommendation before you tonight is focused on the eligibility standards that resulted from this analysis.

Next slide please.

So again the primary recommendation before the council is to establish a workforce housing eligibility ranges that can serve as a consistent framework for future housing for future workforce housing projects. And I know it's a little small on the screen there but the recommendation is to establish a rental workforce housing range of between 50 to 120 percent of area median income. which generally corresponds to an income of about $48,000 to $115,000 for a three-person household, and a home ownership workforce housing range of between 120% and 200% of area median income, which is equivalent to between about $115,000 and about $192,000. And these figures are based on three person households and on 2025 data. So the numbers would scale based on the household size and they're updated each year based on actual income data by HUD and HCD. So why propose two separate income ranges because Alhambra's workforce faces faces two different housing affordability challenges and each requires a different solution. For renters, our analysis shows that nearly 50% of Alhambra working households make less than what it costs to rent a typical apartment. This includes households with moderate incomes, such as teachers, nurses, skilled tradespeople, first responders, and many other essential workers, and not just lower-income households. Many earn or make too much to qualify for traditional subsidized lower-income affordable housing, but it's still a challenge for them to afford market-rate rents. By establishing a rental workforce housing range of 50 to 120 percent of area median income the city can help address this gap. For homeownership the challenge is a little bit different. Moderate and above moderate income households still struggle to afford to purchase a home in Alhambra. A separate ownership range of 100 to 200% of area median income allows the city to address this affordability gap and create more attainable homeownership opportunities for these households. Using two different income ranges ensures the city's workforce housing strategy reflects how people experience the housing market. It allows the city to support both renters struggling with housing costs today and households who are priced out of homeownership, helping more of Alhambra's workforce to find housing that is affordable for them. Next slide, please. So the key findings, the analysis produced five key findings. And the first, workforce housing affordability challenges extend across a much broader range of incomes than is often assumed. The need is not limited to lower income households. Second, rental housing represents the city's greatest workforce housing need today, with nearly 50% of working households having less income than what is needed to afford market rents. Third, workforce housing projects are generally not financially feasible under current market conditions without additional support, whether through funding, incentives, partnerships, or other tools. Fourth, mixed income rental housing is currently the most feasible development model, and the inclusion of lower income units qualifies developments for competitive funding, while the balance of affordability levels provides a more fundable product. And finally, infill sites located near jobs, transit, and services offer the strongest opportunities for future workforce housing development. These findings form the basis for the recommendations included in the Workforce Housing Program Plan. Next slide, please. So, again, I want to reiterate the recommended eligibility standards, which are to establish separate ranges for rental and ownership workforce housing, targeting the income bands where affordability gaps are most acute. For rental, that's between 50% and 120% of AMI, or area median income, and for ownership housing, between 120% and 200%. Beyond the eligibility standards staff is recommending for approval tonight the workforce housing program plan outlines a series of strategies the city may consider pursuing over time as resources are available. These include a development strategy that prioritizes workforce housing on infill sites with access to jobs transit and services. A funding and financing strategy that leverages public funding local incentives employer partnerships and private investment to improve project feasibility. An employer partnership strategy that encourages collaboration with major employers to better understand workforce housing needs and explore potential partnerships. A preservation strategy that complements new housing production by preserving existing affordable and naturally occurring workforce housing. And together, these strategies provide the city with a roadmap to support workforce housing as funding opportunities, partnerships, and development proposals emerge. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any technical questions. Thank you. Thank you.

We do have one public comment for this item. Shirley Tetsuno. All right.

Gee, I'm the only one, huh? But this is very, very weird. OK. Good evening, Mayor Maloney and city council members. My name is Shirley Tatsuno. And you know, it is weird, because I've been thinking about workforce housing in Alhambra lately. And I'm delighted, because we have never had a discussion about this. I think it is second in importance after affordable housing. For example, the AUSD teachers, waiters, workers at Home Depot, et cetera, are interested in living in Alhambra. I know this because some of these people live in my apartment, or I've had people that have voiced interest that work in Alhambra. Market price is hard for them. But if it is somewhat below the market, then they can kind of swing it. Although I have to say, because of the expenses, rising expenses is becoming harder. Insurance, as all of you homeowners know, has really risen. And for my apartment, it is outrageous. Last year, it went up over $1,000. This year, it went up a couple thousand dollars more. So it is getting harder. But what I find interesting in the comments, infill sites offer the strongest opportunities for workforce housing development. Large multi-family developments that include mix of affordable workforce and market rate units are generally the most competitive for funding and the most likely to be built, is what you just heard. This is logical, but where do we have that in Alhambra? The only big empty lot I know is the former proposed Lowe's lot on Fremont, which is not good for housing because of the traffic in the proposed villages nearby. And there's some big and vacant commercial properties on Main Street and the Albertsons Shopping Center. But are these good candidates for housing? And they did talk about preservation, which I'm glad they did talk about. As we can already tell, there will continue to be more and more rental buildings coming up for sale because the owner wants to sell or has passed away. Buying them or demolishing at top price are more realistic to me. Of course, demolishing an existing rental with low income renters, as we know, has its drawbacks. And we do not want to displace renters. But there may be certain properties with the right situation. Old properties do need to be upgraded, but are so much cheaper than the $800,000 per unit that is being built in LA. And there is only discussion about a three-person household. What about a single person who is an AUSD teacher or couples, one who works in Alhambra? And the financing for these workforce housing should not be like the affordable housing. like from federal or state, how funny, which I didn't hear them mentions, which is glad because it's too complicated and takes too many years to build. Time is money. And you know, several of my renters wanted to buy a home, and two of them have. One, she's single, she makes good money, and she bought a home in, but she had to move to Duarte. And her parents live, her elderly parents live in Monterey Park, but what could she do? And then I did have a couple with a child who was able to buy a home here in Alhambra via Mansour Park. But in their particular case, I think they have family help. So they're very fortunate. They have a really beautiful home here in Alhambra. And I support workforce housing. And if we do not have any in Alhambra, and I sell my building, I can at least tell my tenants who work in Alhambra that I tried. Thank you.

Thank you, Shirley. Next up is Lewis McCammon. Two things to pass out here. You do. Go ahead, Lou.

Yeah, thank you. Yes, workforce housing is a level of need. The items I've passed out to you here are just a couple of current things, giving you an idea about how difficult the affordability is for many working people. You talk about an Alhambra Unified School District teacher and so forth there. The first one here, Pasadena Star News, up there it has a little tiny print, the URL if you want to look up the whole article. But they were wondering, well, how much does a trillion dollars buy in the way of housing? And this was triggered, of course, by Elon Musk's wealth having now exceeded $1 trillion. Well, in 30-some states, the ones in yellow, he could buy every house in the state. And so for some people, there's not a problem. But the wealth distribution and levels of inequality are so vast now that we're looking at a really difficult situation for many of the people in Alhambra. The other one is, and actually I think this project has many good parts, you're not going to recognize where East Florista Lane is. This is better known as 801 East Main Street. It's one of the internal streets there. And this is one of the nicer units of the 49 units that are going in there. It is one that's a single, it's a detached unit. It's got all the units there have the parking right underneath them. It's not stadium parking and so forth. It's a little bigger than you were looking at up on the chart here earlier. They do have open house every day this week through Sunday from 1030 in the morning till 530 in the evening if you want to go down, walk through it and so forth. It has many good features. And the nice thing about this project with 49 units is 20% of the units are reserved for people at the low income level, which means you have 50 to 80% of area median income. But this particular one, if you look on the back side, and this was off an emailed ad I got, you can see the estimated monthly payment is $10,015 on that for the various expenses. And that's out of pocket. That's after you've paid your taxes and stuff, and if you've got a lot of money left over, you can afford this. I think very, very few employees in the city of Alhambra will be able to afford that house. It's very nice, but we do need a lot more that's in the level for the people who work here and for the many low-income people here. I am very glad to see things like the project just south of Ricks there moving forward, the Mariposa on 2nd Street. that did pass a design review board about a week ago. I was the only speaker on it there, and I was supporting the particular project. But those are the kind of projects we need more of. And yeah, I'm just emphasizing there is a lot of difficulty here. I don't want to tie up your time tonight. do what we can at all levels because it's really difficult for people given the housing rates that we're facing presently.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lou. Next is Melissa Michelson.

Good evening. While I support a workforce housing plan, I, like a former public speaker tonight said, have some concerns about the infill sites. It says that they offer the strongest opportunities for workforce housing development. But which sites exactly? Does that ostensibly mean more density? Not enough was actually said about preservation that kind of got swept over, especially when we have a historic ordinance that doesn't really do much preserving right now. It's too unaffordable for the average landlord or homeowner, property owner to participate, unfortunately, as seen in the numbers of people not participating in it, unfortunately. So I hope you ask more about that piece, the infill sites, the preservation. I believe we need to adaptively reuse the housing stock that we already have and incentivize smaller landlords and property owners, AKA housing providers, to enroll in such a program, not use it as yet another incentive for big developers to overwhelm Alhambra. with their sky-high density. So I just want you to hopefully discuss that. And it seems like the devil's in the details. And I look forward to a robust discussion and careful questions tonight from you all. Thank you.

OK. Anyone on Zoom?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. We have one raised hand from Alborz Motashami.

Mr. Motashami, go ahead.

Hello, everyone. So there's a few notes. First of all, I love seeing this on the bill, on the agenda. I think it's clear to me that people would be better off sort of living near work instead of driving for several hours both ways. Doing more sustainability, sustainably, sorry, could be a great feature of workforce housing, housing near work. For example, plussing or biking to work, getting there, or even walking, getting there more easily. As far as this proposal goes, I would definitely like to see the lower ban for the owned homes to go a bit down. I think it's 120% AMI right now. I'd like to see that at 100% or even 80% of AMI, because finding more ways to get people into homeownership I think is a great thing. I think we need to get to a point of naturally occurring affordability and naturally occurring workforce housing, not one that has to be mandated. And the way we do that is through broad upzoning and through further densifying. And that doesn't necessarily have to mean large lots. So obviously we have the large lots that are prime candidates, like the villages that was also featured in the housing element. But that doesn't need to be the only way that we densify. And I think there's multiple ways to get to our goals. So another housing element program that really stood out to me is program number 24, which is the missing middle housing element. I think that this... uh, the workforce housing, uh, housing element program and the missing middle program, they work really well together. Um, through missing middle, we can provide more, uh, family size housing more incrementally, um, and in a way that is more gentle and as a form of density. So I think all of these kind of going with an, all of the above approach really works well in these scenarios. Um, one thing I would really like to urge council to look into and perhaps, um, maybe if we can get an official report, that'd be fantastic, would be some single stair reform. Something I brought up before, but that would allow basically a single stairway up to six stories. And that would allow us to build more family size units within a more compact space, preserving things like parkland and things that we all want to have as amenities. And I think this also works well with program number 10, local hire. So that's just my brief takes on this. I love to see it. Workforce housing is essential. I think that people being able to live near where they work is good for the environment, good for nature. And I do would love to see us take an all of the above approach, which means not only having high rise, which is very important, but also having even this mid rise, missing middle type, you know, four to six story buildings that accommodate families. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Council communication. Vice Mayor, go ahead.

Thank you. First of all, I am so excited about this.

I really am. This is something we've been talking about for a while. And I just really want to thank the city manager for really recognizing her council members and understanding who they are and what their vision is for our city. The missing middle, that is where we're not focused. And I think it's about time that more cities do recognize that the missing middle is important. I used to sit on this school board for 14 years. And we know that when teachers live in the areas where they have their students, that students do greater, that students actually do much better. And so thank you. Thank you for this. I'm so delighted about it. I do have a question. Also, I sit on the San Gabriel Valley Housing Trust. And we did our first affordable supportive housing as you many of you know on Chapel and it was with the assistance of the San Gabriel Valley Housing Trust and the cog So I just wanted to throw that out there. We also are utilizing that organ of important very very important trust for the mariposa and which will probably be named something differently as it moves through. But I'm excited. I do have one question, and I know this is just about the eligibility standards. So I like the eligibility standards. Thank you for recognizing our families that are in need by including them on the rental housing 50%. But, you know, it's always a challenge for those of us who are trying to do the affordable housing and the missing middle housing and all housing for our families because there's not very many developers, right? And so can you enlighten us as to how that pot of developers looks for the missing middle? Because it's always been a challenge for us for the supportive housing. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Andrade-Standler, and acknowledging that we work with the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust, and it's a pleasure working with you for that organization. I think what your comment highlights is that there's a connection between funding availability and what developers are drawn to. And so in our analysis and research we did identify some specific funding sources that would be available for workforce housing and moderate income housing. Happy to go into that more but I think the city by. Coordinating the available funding would be in a better position to attract developers into developing this income level of housing. And so I think that's really the connection, is identifying that funding, securing that funding, and making that available, whether it's through the city or through the regional housing trust, is one way to attract developers to build workforce housing.

Thank you. That's it. I will move to approve, though.

Any other comments? Council Member White.

Thank you, Mayor. I've been hearing from members in our community about housing affordability, especially from the younger generation. Look at today's market. It's just affordability is just not there. And I get their concern. And I tell them, you know, affordability is not a local issue, but that doesn't mean that we cannot take steps at the city to help address that. So I think I am also excited to see this program. I think this is one of the things that we're working on to trying to address the housing affordability. And I know we talked a lot about affordable housing, which is to support low income households. And the workforce housing is trying to target the specific group, the range of households that make more than the Low income households, they don't qualify for affordable housing, but they don't make enough to purchase market rate housing. So I'm just glad to see this program targeting that missing middle and trying to take a step towards housing affordability in a broader sense. And I'm glad to see there's many strategies outlined here. And I support this wholeheartedly and very much looking forward to further progress made on this. So thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Wang. Anyone else?

Thank you, Mayor. Just briefly, I want to thank you for the presentation. I also support the numbers that are presented here. It's challenging because a lot of times we tend to mix up housing, affordable housing and housing affordability, which I It's tough to do anything about the affordability of housing. But in terms of affordable housing in Alhambra I think we've we've made a lot of strides over the last eight years to our city manager staff council of course has been supportive. And you know whatever we can do to continue moving forward in supporting that middle housing that middle missing piece would be great. It's just a matter of now obviously working towards attracting those developers that will come into Alhambra and make that happen. And of course, moving forward, one of the things also is making sure that that housing that is created is prioritized to Alhambra residents and Alhambra workers.

But thank you for the presentation.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm glad that we are focusing on this special category, the missing middle. It's a separate category. I wanted to know, where do we go from here? Because this is a concept that needs to be explored further. And when we have developers in the mix, we are looking at nonprofit developers only.

Sorry, what was the question?

Are we looking at nonprofit developers only who can actually produce the for sale and for rent?

There are both nonprofit and for profit developers who develop affordable housing and could develop workforce housing.

So we already have a list of developers who are willing to do this for the city of Alhambra.

So we don't have specific projects lined up, but we know developers, sort of a network of developers who work in Southern California and in the San Gabriel Valley, more specifically.

Okay, that's great, because for the longest time, I think the concept is not new. We all want that for our teachers, our firefighters, police officers, and other employees who are in the middle range of income. And the question is, of course, in my mind, Zoe, who will... build it with a very low profit margin. So that is a challenge. And I think that we need to continue to look for developers, private developers who are willing to only take low profit, very small margin of profit. And that requires a lot of, you know, just do the right thing. And so I think there's too many people who are renters who cannot purchase a home for themselves in the city of Alhambra especially. Just looking at the new one that just got produced, just was built, their beautiful bet is $1.5 million. So I think that we need to look at other choices for people who are in the middle range.

You know what, I have a couple questions for you.

A previous speaker was asking the same question that I had in mind. Can you go ahead and explain, clarify a little bit more about the infill sites?

yes I thank you for that question so that wasn't meant to exclude any potential sites but most of the city is built out and so generally the sites that are available in the city are going to be info sites again The strategies are more focused on how to make the development happen, and so the selection of specific sites would need to be done for a specific project. So again, the infill sites we identified as having opportunities, the strongest opportunities, but not necessarily excluding other sites that may become available.

Can you give me an example of Alhambra? What site would be considered an infill site?

yes thank you we did analyze some specific sites looking at 901 West Valley Boulevard 18 North Stoneman Avenue and 421 East Mission Road those were the specific sites that we evaluated the development feasibility on what was the last one 421 East Mission Road and generally speaking because the city is mostly built out the sites that are remaining are going to be the more challenging sites than when you have greenfield development but again because of existing amenities and resources in the city and the idea behind workforce housing being as one of the speakers mentioned to provide housing near employment opportunities the infill sites we felt were a strong opportunity

OK, let's go a little further with 421 East Mission Road. Is it considered infill site because the transit is near transit or jobs?

I do have those infill sites. I don't know, Andrew, if you'd like to speak to the selection of the sites.

Yeah, infill housing is another term for finding underutilized parcels that could be better served with a better development. So the mission case scenario has access. It's an old city water lot. That's underutilized, and we thought if we can get an affordable workforce housing project there, we could help with the land cost. That would help with lower profit margins with the development community and contribute to that and still get the community a benefit of workforce housing. Some of the other infill sites we looked at were commercial parking lots as well that the city would own and would be able to look into flipping similar to what we did with the related companies on Chapel and what we're doing with CCF on Second Street.

So the city already has a list of those sites. And do we have that list available for the public to view?

We know the properties in town. There are several different lists. We don't make it available. But it's in our land use inventory. And we consistently will try to market it to the right opportunity.

OK, thank you. And I have one last question. Clarify preservation strategy. That was a question the speaker had as well. Yes. Preservation.

I'm happy to clarify that. Thank you for asking that question. I do want to distinguish one of the things that the speaker mentioned was about historic preservation. And what we're referring to here is a little bit different. It's more about preserving the affordability of existing housing, more so than necessarily preserving the historic character of certain developments. And so again, the strategy here is because there are limited sites available, by preserving naturally occurring affordable housing, that that the maybe acquired and maintained at its affordable with affordability restrictions that's one strategy to provide workforce housing for alhambra residents unless there any other comments i think we have a request for direction on the eligibility bands and if there are any other aspects of this i think obviously this is just kind of setting the

the fundamentals of the program and walking us through it, but no projects are on the table right now. And I think we had a motion already. So if anyone would like to second that, we'll accept it. I'll second that. OK. We have a motion and a second.

Wang. Yes. Lee. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes. Mazza.

Yes.

Maloney.

Yes. OK, thank you for that. Thanks for the presentation. Next up, we have item 7, which is a review of the Midwick Park, Alhambra Hills Track Preferred Parking District. Staff?

This evening's presentation will be given by Esteban Alvarez, management analyst.

Good evening, honorable mayor. Good evening, honorable mayor, members of the city council. In 2015, the Midwick Park at Hamburg Hills Park preferred parking district was established to address neighborhood parking concerns associated with the student parking from Cal State LA. On May 11th, 2026, Vice Mayor Andrada Sadler requested that the existing preferred parking district be agendized to evaluate potential changes related to parking concerns associated with the nearby Los Angeles Football Club training facility. Since the May 11th meeting, staffers received numerous calls from residents in the preferred parking district, particularly from those interested in having their streets removed from the PPD. As a result, staff is recommending that the City Council direct staff to undertake community outreach for all properties within the current preferred parking district to determine if the boundaries should be reduced and whether the days and hours of the remaining parking district should be expanded to include Saturdays and Sundays to address LAFC parking related impacts. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

OK. We have a couple of comments and then someone on Zoom.

So first up is Gabriel Gutierrez.

Good evening, Mayor Maloney, members of the council. Happy belated Father's Day. Actually, past 2015, a little history. I've been a resident in the Alhambra Hills Track Senate for 24 years. 25 years ago parking was already a problem with regard to Cal State LA having students park in our neighborhood at that time the council was very proactive and approved at that time that the red parking zones in at least on Hellman east of Hellman bridge extending a little bit past Westmont that the red parking zones were expanded at that time to prevent people from parking too close to driveways because it was a problem at that time. So when I moved in, that was already in place. The neighbors were bragging about it. They were very proud of themselves. 2015 has come around, and we've seen quite a few changes now with the construction of the large residential towers just west of the Hellman Bridge, including the LAFC soccer facility. So quite a drastic change. My weekend mornings consist of my wife jumping out of bed at 7 AM asking me, are they here? Are they here? Do you hear them? Running outside to see if the patrons of LAFC soccer tournaments are arriving to park in our street so that we can now run out, move our cars out of our driveway, and park in front of our house to preserve parking spaces. this has been going on since they opened. We know with the help of Councilmember Andrade-Stadler that you have reached out to Cal State LA and LAFC to try to ask them for education to their patrons to please utilize appropriate parking that they have plenty of on Cal State LA. They have constructed a beautiful new structure up there. It doesn't seem to be working. We continue to see a problem in the afternoons after school from 4 PM to 8 PM on weekdays. And then week ends starting at about 7 in the morning till about noon when they have these large soccer tournaments at the facility. Number one, of course, is enforcement. We already have parking restrictions there. and I think a lot of the neighbors are disappointed with the consistency of the enforcement I think that's number one is if we could get good consistent enforcement of the current rules that would make a big difference and send a message to the patrons hey look you know what they're ticketing over there we better watch out number two is looking at the map and maybe you know restricting it to maybe further restrictions just on Hellman alone I understand the other side streets may not have the problem that are behind Hellman Avenue and on the smaller streets they might not be seeing the same problem as my neighbors and I face directly on Hellman but we are getting slammed on those on those evenings and on those weekend mornings when those activities are taking place and it's really something that needs to be addressed and I really hope that you guys continue to be proactive you have Ben absolutely and if we can continue the partnership to to really address and see if we can make this an issue that starts to get better instead of getting worse because it's getting worse and as a result of changes which we've seen so I thank you very much thank you thanks for that input next up is Manny Armas

Good evening, Mayor Maloney and City Council.

Same thing, I'm just pretty much, I live on Westmont, just between Hellman and Warwick. And the same thing, we get impacted, not as much. So I think most of the residents there don't want it really for the weekend, but continue with the same parking enforcement that we have previously. The issue that we have also is that when we call up or ask for parking enforcement to show up, either we have a lag time that either they show up or they don't, and it's not greatly enforced. it's like I was talking to some of my neighbors if that was to happen to me let's say on the Thursday and on street sweeping day now to leave my car out there I am guaranteed that I'm gonna get a parking ticket as I left my car there and that's for sure I'm gonna get it so we asked the city to please at least have the parking enforcement to address the parking issues that we have there

in the same area.

So between Hellman and Warwick, Winthrop, these are the same streets that are heavily impacted, parking issue. And same thing, like you said, when LAFC has the soccer tournaments, they never address the residents, hey, they're going to have a soccer tournament here, or ask the participants to use the parking, the university parking, the park over there. It's an ongoing issue. Thank you. Thank you.

Zoom.

Oh, yes, the first speaker on Zoom is Henry's iPad.

Okay.

Do you hear me? Yep, Henry.

Go ahead.

Okay. Good evening, City Council. My name is Henry Aviles. I reside at 3401 Julep Place, Alhambra Hills. My public comment is regarding the preferred parking district. I am requesting that Charnwood Avenue south of Julep Place be removed from the preferred parking district. The removal from the preferred parking district would be from Julep Place and Charnwood Avenue to Balzac Street. Bolzac and Cape Town are not part of the preferred parking district. I went ahead and surveyed the 17 homes affected on this street segment. Nine homes agreed to have the preferred parking district removed. Seven of the homes where I was unable to make contact with. And one of the homes, the guy wanted to keep the parking district. So that was 17 homes that were affected. With regard to the homes off of Hellman, the residents on Hellman Avenue, Westmont Avenue, Viscount, the 2000 block of Westmont Avenue, the 1900 block of Charnwood Avenue are greatly affected. In my opinion, the streets on Hellman and the adjacent streets to Hellman Avenue should have restricted parking through the weekend. The Los Angeles football club has created a mess for our local residents. Something has to be done. In a perfect world, maybe we could close the Gravois Bridge. Thank you for all that you do. We appreciate your work. Thank you. That's it.

Thanks, Henry. We have another one. Thank you, sir.

The next raised hand is from Randy K. Good evening.

I support the special parking district around Midwick Hill. I think that residents need to know more about what's happening in that area and around us. I'm around South 8th at Hellman, and I know that Monterey Park is building a 48-unit apartment building just west of the courtyard, and they will have insufficient parking for the number of units. They will only have one parking availability for each unit. In addition, the second house on the west side of Chandler right south of the Alhambra-Monterey Park border. There's a small house there that is going to be renovated and two additional units will be built at the back. And then just south of there between Emerson and Hellman on Chandler, Happy Day School is going to be torn down and there will be a minimum of 34 condo units developed. Now, if that Midwick Hill area close to the apartment building is made a special parking district, that will impact us on the other side, on the east side of Atlantic, on 8th Street, 7th Street, and 6th Street. Now, 9th Street is not a problem because it's already designated as a special parking district. But for at least a year and a half, we had four women parking their cars at eight o'clock in the morning and a van would pick these women up and leave for the day and I'm assuming they were taken to work and they would come back at 5.30 in the evening and pick up their cars. But with this 48-unit apartment building with insufficient parking, and if that Midwick Hill area is made a special parking district, and the 34-unit minimum condo development and the renovations going on Chandler, the only vulnerable area will be South 8th Street between Chandler Hellman and Ramona, South 7th Street, again, between Hellman and Ramona and South 6th Street. And everyone is going to park there, and residents will not be able to park their own cars outside of their residence. So we're not public parking, we're not Airbnb parking, and we're not business parking lots for all-day parking for other cities. And people who are parking in our streets are doing business in Monterey Park and not Alhambra. And right now, people can get 10 days of overnight parking for $5 a night. And that is going to incentivize people to park in Alhambra. And I think it would be a great source of income to raise the rates for permits for overnight parking and limit the number of nights that they are able to park. So I was wondering if you could please consider South 8th, South 7th, and South 6th for a special parking district. I have spoken to residents. They are interested in doing this. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Renee.

The last raised hand is from Rita Ledesma.

Hi, good evening. This is Rita Ledesma. I live at 2400 Winthrop Drive, and I live... closer to the 10 freeway. I submitted a petition earlier this afternoon to, and you all should have copies, I submitted it to the city manager's office. And it was signed by residents who live essentially on the 2300, 2400 block between Warwick and Westboro Avenue. We would like to be removed from the special parking district. The reality is that people don't generally walk up the hill on Winthrop from Hellman to our neighborhood to park to attend. So we're asking to be removed from the parking district. And we're joined by a couple of neighbors who live on Warwick and Westboro whose property has access on Winthrop Drive. We're a very oddly shaped block. And I totally appreciate that neighbors on Hellman and Westmont bear the burden of the traffic, the trash, and the disruption by the failure of Cal State and LAFC to arrange parking for guests that they invite to their fields. There's ample parking available at Lot 5 at the intersection of Martindale and Paseo Rancho Castilla. And I encourage the city council and city manager, whatever representatives you have, to work with Cal State LA and LAFC to deal with the underlying problem, the fundamental problem. As long as people are coming, families are coming to LAFC facilities, there's going to be a need for them to park. And until they are directed to park at lot 5, it's going to spill over into our community. So I strongly urge you all to work directly with and Kelsey to make provisions. And I might add, there are actually, there are no provisions for bathrooms and. very sketchy and minimal provisions for trash collection when people are waiting. I mean, there's actually not even chairs or, you know, an arena kind of seating arrangement for folks that are watching their kids play. But it's lovely to see people having fun playing soccer, kids playing all day long. But the cost, I appreciate that the cost too, and the burden on my neighbors who live on Hellman and Westmont is unfair. So i encourage you to deal directly with lafc and cal state la since cal state la is um kind of the uh the property owner of the whole all the facilities thank you okay um any more public if there is no more public comment why don't we go to council of communication and i'd like to ask vice mayor chadler to start off

Thank you so much. And thank you for putting this on the agenda. And thank you to the neighbors who came out today to, to actually paint the picture for the community of what's going on down there. And I think that if we do go through, I think the recommendation is for us is for the city to have a survey, you know, a short survey to find out what what because we'd hate to close something and then it and it upsets everybody else we need to make sure that when we do that it's done right that's not to minimize the problem on Hellman I've talked to we've talked to Cal State LA we met with Cal State LA on the street in the in that area You know, that was in question. I would, though, if we were to go this route, encourage the studies to be performed during the soccer activities. And those are, I understand that they are from September to June, that the soccer is mostly played at LAFC. I also understand that what Hellman is asking is just to Well, have weekdays 4 to 8 and weekends 7 a.m. to 12 noon. So we want to take that into consideration. I understand some of the other folks that are in the district who are in the area that don't want a preferred parking. I'm not quite sure why. But I understand. And so, yeah, that's where I'm at. I mean, I'm hoping that that's what transpires. If we're not able to do anything this evening for Hellman, then I would just ask that we make sure that we do a study during soccer activities.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

OK, Council Member Mazza.

thank you I want to thank the residents for coming out tonight as well want to thank the callers it sounds like you know different streets obviously have different issues different problems I remember when we saw this initially back in 2015 I was actually on the on the Planning Commission and this issue was raised and obviously this is how it was dealt with by creating a parking district but at this point I think you know what's gonna help the city is creating that that that survey to determine what streets really need the parking district, which streets don't. But what I would encourage city staff, if at all possible, is just communication with LAFC and Cal State LA, as I think was mentioned by Vice Mayor, just making sure that they're aware. They probably already are, but just making further efforts. Signage, maybe disclaimers on the notices that they send out. You know, also, just curious, I don't know if this is something that city staff could answer now, but is there a limit on the permit fees that can be charged for non-residents?

So we only issue parking permits in the district for residents and they're tied to their address and their vehicle registration. So we would not issue permits to non-residents for this area.

Okay, so there's absolutely no parking for non-residents currently?

So the way it currently works is the preferred parking district is 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, and as you recall, that was enacted when Cal State LA was undergoing the construction of their parking structure and then closed the lot and other parking. It was very difficult for students to park, so they were overwhelming the neighborhood. We put parking restrictions in place, and the The parking permits are required for residents. There is a one-hour exemption that's meant for service repair individuals, gardeners, anybody else that may be just visiting a resident. They are allowed a one-hour exemption where they do not have to have a permit. Now, we also have some other minor exceptions where if a neighbor a couple months ago called and said, I'm having a church event at my home. Please don't ticket this block. We don't ticket that block. And so there are some ways that we can be flexible with the community. But ultimately, it was meant to keep the students out of the neighborhood for exactly the reasons why we're hearing tonight, noise, trash. um just the nuisance of that and then we're also hearing that it is expanded um to the weekends with the football club the football club didn't come about until 2018 so we already had the district in place and we have not revisited in the meantime i've also heard from more than a dozen residents either on ross or on charnwood and then as well as winthrop that they would like to be removed so Lots of competing interests here, but some of the residents feel like this is very necessary for their neighborhood to preserve it. Others are feeling like they would like to be out.

Got it. Thank you. So I guess, yeah, the survey is going to be able to tell what the needs are. with that as far as somebody mentioned consistent parking enforcement how does parking enforcement work currently is it just somebody calls or is there somebody coming through on a consistent basis like they do for sweeping how is that working so we are actively enforcing for overnight parking and sweeping in the district because this item is pending we are not enforcing in the district

so we we certainly can but there are areas where they don't want to go through the permit process and so through this they would like the council to consider removing them and then you know possibly by the end of the summer if we were to be able to bring back a recommendation to modify the district then those individuals wouldn't have to go through that process got it so hopefully once we go through the survey and establish we need you know hopefully we can at that point then uh maybe set up the the or figure out ways to

to have the more consistent parking enforcement once we go through this waiting game.

Thank you all for coming out.

I don't really have any further comments.

I have a quick question for staff. You said the permit is tied to the address and vehicle registration for the household. So if they have a car, they get a permit. Do they get any additional permits for, say, family and friends that want to visit, play dates, people coming over for dinner, and that kind of thing?

No, so each of them is tied to the individual vehicle of the resident, so property owner or tenant of that residential property. Right now, the permits are hang tags, but we had a fairly large contingent of individuals who complained about the hang tags. Hang tags are prohibited to be hanging from your rearview mirror while your vehicle is underway. And so what that means is that every time they come to their residence, they have to hang the hang tag. then take it down when they're driving and then put it back up again, which obviously increases the likelihood that they just forget one time. Then we do enforcement and they get a ticket. So we heard from very many angry residents. I have pledged to a group of these residents that we will switch to a sticker system. And so that will also make it so that it will be easier for the resident, but harder for a guest because the guest will not be able to take the hang tag throw it on their rearview mirror, and then pull it down when they're not visiting any longer. So I think at that point we would rely on the one-hour exemption for play dates and other different events. And possibly some of those properties would even request to be removed for that exact reason, is that they just feel it would be too restrictive for whatever their personal lifestyle would be.

Yeah, I think that's what I was wondering if people want remove because of the restrictions that place on their lifestyle. And I'm also wondering if that's something, I understand what you're saying that there's the challenge with the hang tags and stickers and different things for different things suits different people. But if it turns out to be a need for the community, can we explore having more permits for households that they can pass out to guests?

sure so this item came back to the council we have not done any research into this item we we we know how it currently operates but we absolutely could gather more information and when we come back um we would be able to provide that to the council as well along with some maybe best practices thank you i just have a quick question something came to my mind

For our city's overnight parking permit, it's actually, there's no, there are no stickers now. You just have to register and they'll just come and look at your license plate. So this special district is functioning differently. I wonder if we can do a mirror the overnight parking permit issue without stickers, without something hanging on your mirror. But with guests who are coming, they can just go to the police department and get maybe a one-day pass or two-day pass if they're staying overnight. Can we actually switch to the overnight parking process for them?

So we're looking into that. That's a great suggestion. When I did pledge to the resident that we would look at doing a sticker program, we are, well, in the process of issuing stickers, we're also cleaning up a lot of vehicles that are no longer registered to these various addresses. People get a new car and they don't have to let us know. And so we have a large amount of maybe unnecessary registrations logged. We will be cleaning it up, and the intent with the sticker program is that we would transition to a virtual permit system. Our virtual permit provider would have to re-engineer a program for that, but it's not difficult. It would just take a second. So we wanted to redefine the boundaries and the times, and then we will ultimately be working towards that goal. if i'm talking just off the cuff i would say that in response to council member wang's comment about visitors we still could issue hang tags where someone could run out and throw that behind their rear view mirror and that could be something that we could bring back to you when this item comes back okay um would anyone like to summarize or do we need to just have you have everything you need I think staff is clear if the council's good with us conducting outreach to the current parking permit district asking those who are in it do you want to still be in it yes or no if they say no then we'll bring that information back to you those that say yes we'll ask them what days of the week and what times do you recommend that we restrict parking we could bring all of that back to you and then make some recommendations at that time

I would just ask that we make sure that we do it during soccer time. So between September and June. That's how long it is. And we're cut off now. So we're entering July.

Sure. So we'll be asking the residents. We will be asking them personally, do you want to be part of the parking district? And so if they've lived there for a couple of months, would be able to tell us, hey, this is hectic when soccer is in. maybe there isn't a problem if if we find that we don't get a lot of individuals responding we could bring that back to the council and we could maybe ask for extra time we just want to be committed to handling this swiftly so that if there are modifications that we could make those undertake them and then when the new school year starts for the university that hopefully we could begin enforcement again

Okay, I think we got it clear. Thank you everyone for that. Thank you to the public for coming out and commenting on this. We're going to try to untangle all this and hopefully sort these issues out for everyone. Staying on that theme, we have a potential preferred parking district adjacent to the courtyard by Marriott just south of the 10 bordering Monterey Park.

Also going to be handled by management analyst Esteban Alvarez.

Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, on May 11th, 2026, during public comment, several residents expressed concerns regarding spillover parking associated with the nearby courtyard by Marriott. During council communications, Council Member Wang requested that this item be agendaized for discussion regarding parking concerns and the potential establishment of a preferred parking district in the area. The city currently has preferred parking districts in the Midwick Park and Humber Hills adjacent to Cal State LA and on Helmuth Avenue and 9th Street adjacent to Atlantic Times Square. Should the City Council wish to explore the creation of a preferred parking district in this area, staff could conduct community outreach, including a survey to determine preferences regarding district boundaries and potential parking restrictions such as days and times. I just recommend the City Council provide direction to staff as deemed appropriate. That concludes my presentation. I can answer any questions you have. Thank you.

Thank you, Esteban. We'll go right into public comment. First up is Martha Yosalentz.

Thanks for sticking with us.

Good evening, council. I really don't like to do public speaking. I get nervous. But anyway, so I live in the 2000 block of Olive Avenue. And again, this weekend we had the problem with the folks that go to the Marriott for the, I guess, Pokemon, or some kind of event that they have. And I would say for the last three months, they park like about 9 o'clock in the morning, and they go in and out. And they leave about, I would say, 7 or 8 o'clock at night. It's in and out. So like someone said also from their area that... What did they say, the area? Shoot, so I'm having a senior moment. I get nervous. But anyway. So we're having that problem. I found out about that preferred parking. And I do like the idea with having the hang tags. Our street is very small. And basically, some of the north part of that street, there are, I would say, rental properties. So I don't know how they feel about it. really haven't approached them but we did I did fill out that form and we submitted to Public Works with there were several received several copies from the other neighbors that got the signatures so I did get confirmation that I guess Public Works is going to go and check it out but basically we have it usually during on sometimes Friday Saturday and Sunday And then again, too, with that people drive crazy on Hellman. And it's a blind spot right in the corner of Olive. I cannot make a left turn because I'm afraid I might get into an accident because I guess I'm short. But I can't see my left side. Or when I make a right turn, too, they just come too fast. And so my speech is kind of short. But anyway, but I am concerned about the overflow. And I would like to know more about that preferred parking. I like the idea. And our street is very quiet. We don't have problems. But most of us that live there, we're all seniors. So I think we're too old to move. But anyway. But no, but I'm happy with all the services at Alhambra. I feel blessed that I'm able to live in Alhambra. And I thank you very much.

Thank you. Next is Caleb Kwok. Evening mayor and council members.

My name is Caleb. I'm here to respectfully oppose moving forward with a preferred parking district or PPD near the courtyard by Marriott without further study, coordination with Monterey Park and outreach to all affected residents. I understand why Alhambra residents are concerned about spillover parking. No residential neighborhood wants its street parking taken by hotel guests, business visitors, or event traffic. However, my concern is that a PPD may not solve the problem. It may simply move the problem across the city boundary. In this area, I'm talking about a halfway between Hellman and Emerson. There are 39 parcels between the 2 Street or Emerson and Bibbick Hill Drive, and only about 13 on Monterey Park side. There's about 33%. Those Monterey Park residents are clearly underrepresented in this discussion. They are not voted for Alhambra City Council, and I do not know whether they are even aware that this PPD is being considered. But if Alhambra restricts parking on its side, the nearest unrestricted parking may become the Monterey Park side of Hathaway. That means a small number of Monterey Park households could become the unintended victims of an Alhambra policy. Also, it appears that the street section between 2111 and 2145 Hathaway may be under moderate practice jurisdiction. I'm not sure whether LL Hamburg PPD would have an actual legal or practical impact in that particular area. Let me give you a very practical example from a Monterey Park resident's perspective, especially on Hathaway. If the PPD is implemented, I may drive my car in the morning to run errands. When I return home a few hours later, all of the street parking on the Monterey Park side may already be taken by visitors. At the same time, I may see many open spaces on the Alhambra side, but I would not be allowed to park there because I'm not an Alhambra resident and would not have an Alhambra permit. In that situation, I wouldn't know even where I am supposed to park near my home. Right now, at least I can temporarily park on the Alhambra side, wait until the visitor leaves, and then move my car back closer to my home in the evening. A PPD would remove even that temporary relief and leave Monterey Park residents with no practical solution. This may also create problems for Alhambra residents themselves. Their own family members, caregivers, friends, and service providers may find it harder to visit, especially on weekend. A PPD can sometimes create new burdens for the same residents it is meant to help. I also want to point out that Monterey Park Mayor Yang has already been in touch with the courtyard by Marriott. My understanding is that the hotel is aware of the problem and has agreed to encourage its guests to park on site. The hotel also told her that it would not host any Pokemon events in the future. If the source of the problem is the hotel or special events, then the first solution should be address the source directly before creating a parking restriction that may impact residents across city lines. Before any PPD moves forward, I respectfully ask the council to direct staff to conduct a parking study, including weekend and evening observation, and to identify the actual source of parking demand. I also ask the City of Alhambra to coordinate with the City of Monterey Park and include the affected Monterey Park residents in the outreach. A parking solution should not stop at the city boundary when the impact crosses the city boundary. If the City Council still wants to consider a PPD, I ask that it be treated only as a limited pilot program with a sunset date, data review, and a clear plan to prevent parking displacement into Monterey Park. Please do not solve Alhambra's parking problem by exporting it to Monterey Park residents who had no meaningful voice in this process. Thank you for listening to my presentation. Thank you.

Next is Carolyn Johanson. Good evening.

I'm Carolyn Johansen. I live on Olive Avenue, just south of Hellman. And on Olive Avenue, it's just south of Hellman. And every weekend, or whenever the courtyard hosts their Pokemon events, there's no available parking on our street. It's even difficult, often, to get out of our driveways, because they're crowding the cars in so tightly and parking so close to the driveway that it's even difficult to get out. And so, you know, we're suggesting that Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, almost every weekend, at the Marriott, if they can come up with, if the City of Alhambra can come up with a solution, maybe with Marriott, I don't know whether they offer free parking or if they have available parking, but they're charging too much. I don't know if that's the issue, and that's why the people are parking on the street, because they don't have to So I think it's important for us to be able to coordinate some sort of a program so that we can get in and out of our driveways and if we have guests We suggest that they either have a permit or limit the parking at two hours so that they can move. They limited the parking to two hours only on the weekends. So at least there would be a circulation. There would be available parking would come in at different intervals. But anyway, we hope that the city council can come up with a great solution. Thank you.

Thank you. Last speaker here tonight is Wei-Zheng Zhu.

Mr. Mayor, we do have a translator on the line for Mr. Zhu.

Yeah, we do.

We have Kelly on the line with the language line interpretation service to go ahead and start translating. Hello.

Hello.

I want to ask, in Helmand, our speed is 30 miles. Because next to it, there are Wally and Garvey. Their speed is also 30 to 35. Why is there a speed of 30 miles in Helmand? I wonder if the Hamburg region can adjust the speed.

So I have a question about the spit limit set in Helmand.

The spit limit in Helmand is 30 miles. But the street next to it in Wally and Gabby, it's also 30 and 35. So I just wanted to understand why would you set the speed limit to be 30 miles in Helmand, while Helmand is just a residential area and not a commercial area?

Can Alhambra, the city of Alhambra, just make an adjustment to that?

This is the first question.

The second question is, in Alhambra, Helmand is 1309. . . .

Well, that's just my first question.

Now, the second thing that I wanted to tell you is the resident living in Helmand, Alhambra, 1309, that person basically is parked the car all the time at the walkway. Actually, I have brought up this during the last city meeting as well. I have a photo here to show you.

I want to know how is the city going to resolve this.

The next question is, from Helmand, how do we get from north to south? How do we get through Helmand Street? Because this street has been in trouble before. It has been in trouble twice. So I wonder if Citi is considering doing a Storyside. Because the people living nearby are older. Is a child considering doing a Storyside to make it easier for the residents to get through?

Kelly, are you there?

Yeah, this is the interpreter speaking. There is just one thing that I need to confirm with the gentleman on the line. One second.

Well, also another thing that I wanted to reflect today is crossing Hellman Street from north to south. I'm just thinking if the city will be able to set up a road sign to show the citizens there on how to cross the road because there are so many children and all people living in there, right? So maybe you can actually set up a road sign to facilitate the residents passage.

I have a question. In Hollywood, there are six Ponce trees. Every year, when it rains in Santa Ana, a lot of trees fall off, and now a lot of fruits fall off. So I have a photo here. You can take a look. It's very unsafe.

Also in Hollywood, between Holland and Hollywood, there are like about six palm trees on Hollywood Street. And, you know, every time during the Santiana win season, there are a lot of branches that fall down and also the fruits on it. I can show it to you. It doesn't look safe.

因为我住在那里住了15年, 所以经常有时候三年四年才剪一次树。 I've been staying there for 15 years and they only come to trim the trees every three to four years. You know, last time,

One of the water pipes in my house was actually damaged by one of the fallen trees.

Sometimes it falls on the road and the cars can't even get through. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly.

And then we have people on Zoom. Okay, nobody's hands on Zoom.

Council Communications, do you want to start with Council Member Wang?

Thank you, Mayor. First, I want to thank all the residents. I know at this point, you've been to many council meetings. You were here in May and went to Monterey Park City Council meetings and you came back here again. So I want to thank you for taking the time out of your evening to come and speak to us about your concerns. and at our May 11th meeting we didn't have this on the agenda so we heard your concerns but we couldn't discuss it or take actions that's why I request this item to be on the agenda tonight so we can discuss it and the council can consider options that we actions that we can take to address these concerns I also want to say that since you brought the concerns to council in May council meeting I went to talk to the residents in that area directly. And I heard many concerns. And initially, I thought this is a parking issue. But after speaking directly with the residents, I realized this is more than just a parking issue. It's actually neighborhood access and safety issue for many of the residents. I heard residents describing streets becoming completely full during events. Vehicles parked so tightly that it got so difficult to get in and out of their driveways. And some cars, I've seen photos, some cars are completely blocking the driveways. And some cars cut into the driveway space that make it so difficult for for cars to get in and out of the driveway. And particularly on Hellman and Hathaway, where speeding is also a concern, it's just not safe for people to maneuver in and out of their own driveways. I've heard residents talk about how during event times, they have to park blocks away and carry their grocery bags and belongings, walk long distance to go home. So I... I think that given all the concerns that I've heard, this is really a safety issue. So I would like to support that we look into a preferred parking district in that area as one of the tools to address this issue. And more than that, I think we should look at this a little more comprehensively. In addition to evaluating a preferred parking district, I'd like staff to also assess the safety concerns raised by our residents, including driveway access, line of sight issues, visibility when entering and exiting driveways, and turning corners. And speeding concerns along Hellman and Hathaway and potential pedestrian safety improvements. If there are opportunities to improve safety through traffic calming measures, I know that our residents are already turning the traffic calming applications at different locations in the area. But we should be looking at traffic calming measures, crosswalk improvements. There was an accident. In that particular corner, I know an elderly person died, and it was very sad. So if there's any opportunities that we can improve pedestrian safety, help people cross the street more easily, we should be looking at those as well. Parking restrictions near driveways, intersections, enforcement, or any other tools. I just would like to see all of those options evaluated. And hearing from our neighbors from Monterey Park, I also want to recognize that the situation is a little bit unique because some of the affected streets sit along the city boundary. And in some locations, one side of the street is Alhambra, the other side is Monterey Park. I recognize that if Alhambra were to implement parking restrictions, it could potentially shift the parking impact onto the Monterey Park side. And I think we should be good neighbors if we move forward with exploring parking restriction, parking district. I would encourage communication and coordination with the City of Monterey Park so that they are aware of what's being considered and have an opportunity to share their perspective. On the same token, speaking of coordination and being good neighbors, I'm aware of the proposed development on Hellman 48 units in the city of Monterey Park. While the project is outside of Alhambra, many of the residents who may be affected do live in Alhambra. And I think it's important that we communicate these concerns that we're hearing from our residents to our neighbor city, Monterey Park, so that neighborhood impacts can be considered and mitigated whenever possible. So with that, I would like to support a community outreach, a survey similar to what we were discussing the prior item, to reach out to our community, understand the needs, understand the concerns, and see what works the best for our community. I'd like to see that we provide permits to our residents in addition to the ones linked to their vehicle, but also include permits that they can pass out to their families and guests that come visit them. And in terms of our operations, I understand it's during event time for the hotel, but I think that could be worked out in the survey. and just help our residents understand how the parking district works. As we heard from previous item that some people want their street removed from the district. So I think there are things that we have to be considering. And I think we just need to do the outreach and talk to our residents and understand what their needs are, and staff bring back the recommendations and options, including all of these, back to council. So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Wang. Would anyone else like to touch on this? You don't have to.

I have. I thought Council Member Mazza was going to say something.

Go ahead.

So first of all, I want to commend council member one for taking the time to go and reach out to the residents I've done that before that is really the best way to really get there at the ground level know what happened to the residents so I think what you've done is really a very good public service for the resident around there. And I do have a, I do support special parking district for that area to see it will resolve the issues. Again, the special parking district can be removed later on. It's not a permanent decision. It will just be able to resolve the issues until the hotel, can really live up to his promise to the mayor of Monterey Park that they will no longer have Pokemon conventions. But however, it doesn't mean they will not have other conventions. So I'm not quite sure. I just have to work with Monterey Park, City of Monterey Park. I know the council members and mayor, they're very friendly people. Again, we need to be good neighbors. But the special district for our Alhambra residents is very important to me to resolve the issues right now. Can you imagine coming home and not be able to find parking or have to go through traffic? I understand how that feels. But the bigger problem for me is I remember years ago, the Alhambra residents were protesting against the hotel, Amiri Hotel in Monterey Park. That was years ago. And so maybe you were there. I heard about it when I first got elected. And so So the issue for me at this point, which is not on the agenda, but I just want to kind of highlight that issue for me is that when we have projects, developments along the border of the city limits, either in Monterey Park, Alhambra or San Gabriel to the other side, I remember we had an issue with San Gabriel. They were proposing building high density development. We eventually wrote a letter to to disagree with it, to put it politely. But the things that in the future, maybe Director Holt can kind of guide the council and the resident in terms of, do we have a say in the developments, all the projects being discussed with our neighboring city? Because it does affect us on this side. either you know again with not only the parking but also the overshadowing of the single family neighborhood with high density all that is on my mind so I'm not going to go on discuss it further but that is an issue I'm I want to deal with down the future thank you okay anywhere else just real quick while I also thank the the residents for coming out tonight and um sharing your your concerns um

I too want to want to thank Council Member Wang for bringing this up and you know raising the concern to begin with. I agree with some of the efforts that you proposed tonight. I think that this is a bigger issue other than just parking. Obviously there are some safety issues. One of the ladies that spoke tonight made a comment. I don't know if it was off of Olive but I've been on Olive going south making a left on to Hellman and depending on the time of the day it's very easy to get blocked by the car right at the corner. making a left very dangerous and so you know just simple changes that we can make such as maybe you know extending the red striping on the curb further out so that there's no car close to the corner simple changes like that is what I like to see staff research I know it's going to take a little time but hopefully we can put the efforts into the study and the research and then come back with something that's going to work. Also Mr. Kwok that spoke earlier I do agree you know whatever is established needs to have a basically a time limit so that we can you know look at the effectiveness of it and if it's not effective of course change it accordingly until we get it right. So hopefully that'll be later on down the line once we come up with something solid you know we'll implement that as well. Yeah thank you all for coming out today.

Thank you. So I think we're just providing direction to staff. Does staff need any further clarification?

No, for this area, two things are happening concurrently. We did receive a traffic calming application for this area, so it'll go through the traffic calming process. In addition, I'd just like to ask the residents, since you're here, if there are people blocking your driveway when you come home, please call the police department non-emergency line, which is the 570-5151 number. call if they're blocking your driveway we absolutely can cite them for doing so if they are blocking your driveway in a capacity that makes it unsafe for you to get in and out we can tow it with your permission so there are things that we can do and we want to absolutely work with you in whatever the scenario might be then also we will do outreach to um to to find out the temperature of the community for a preferred parking district

Great. And, you know, I know it's a difficult spot down there because it's right on the border of Valleyhamper and Monterey Park. So obviously can't control what the city of Monterey Park does. But we're good partners in many areas. So we can obviously have this conversation. So thank you all. OK, moving on. We now have our consent agenda. Is there items 9 through 53 I think this is a record. In my 10 years on council the number of items on the consent agenda. We have. Already speaker cards and I assume there's going to be some desire for discussion on items 12 16 13 42 43 44 49 and 50. I say that we beat.

13, 12, 16, 31, 42, 43, 44, 49, and 50.

Anyone who has bingo, let me know.

I also like to poll, but this binder is so thick, I lost my page. Hold on a second.

I'd like to pull, let's see, 44, if that has not been pulled.

44 is pulled.

OK, 53.

53, OK, we'll pull 53 also.

And where's our relocation, 51?

44.

Oh, 49, OK. OK, and I also want to make sure that I seem to be making a lot of corrections lately. I'm a homeowner only, and I think our city clerk is going to post my Form 700. Did you already post my Form 700 online already? Your candidate Form 700?

Those will be posted after the Declaration of Intention period closes end of day tomorrow.

Okay, great. So my Form 700 will show that I'm a homeowner only, so I don't have to recuse myself. Thank you.

and I since we're on that subject now I will need to recuse myself from item number 49 I currently own a four unit property in Alhambra and so it seems like there's a conflict of interest of me voting on this item so I will be recusing myself from that vote but hopefully staying on the dais

Yeah, to the extent the council wants to engage in a discussion on item 49, when we get there, Council Member Mazza should leave the dais for that discussion. If there isn't a discussion at the council level, then you don't have to leave.

Thank you.

Other times we do, we've done it in slightly different ways, but since there's so many items pulled, should we take individual votes on each one?

that might be easier to do I mean certainly somebody could move the balance yeah for sure the balance so that the balance would be everything so items 9 through 53 except for 12 16 31 42 43 44 49 50 and 53

So let's entertain a motion.

Move to approve the rest of the balance of the agenda. Thank you.

I second.

OK. Motion to second. Roll call, please.

Mazza.

Yes.

Andrade Stadler. Yes. Lee. Yes. Wang. Yes. Maloney. Maloney.

Yes. OK. So let's go to item 12.

I think our speaker is Melissa Michelson on item 12.

Hello. So in the ethical investment policy that you're about to adopt, I want to advocate for and propose an amendment to the effect of ensuring the city make ethical investments. City of Pasadena has recently adopted such an ethical investment policy as our other cities. So let's do the same. This policy before you could benefit from an amendment similar to the prudence section that's in the policy. but one titled Ethical Investments where the city shall not invest in entities that consistently, knowingly, and directly enable or facilitate genocide, apartheid, or other war crimes, crimes against humanity, or human and civil rights violations. to be a commitment to immediately and also periodically review the city's investments to better align with that section in the policy. Likewise, on the application attachment A that the city will use before deciding to engage in business with a bank or financial advisor, I'd recommend adding a question, having the bank checkmark whether they invest in such entities, and include the list. Several community groups in Alhambra would be happy to engage in crafting this amendment. And if you want to table this policy or approve it with a carve out for engagement with the community groups, and if you want them to submit a draft, I'm happy to put you in touch with that. Thank you very much.

you also have 31 and 44 so why don't you go for it oh boy so may I come can can trended like get everyone in one show so you can have more time okay I wasn't completely prepared but could I come back in just a few minutes just when we pick up 31 can you speak to 44 also then I will I'll put them both together yeah thank you Okay, so let's go to Louis McCammon. Louis, you have multiple items. Are you ready to speak to all of them? Okay.

I got a bunch of them. I can just throw them all down real quick. Item 16 is application for nearly $5 million federal grant to improve traffic safety on Garfield from Mission to Hellman. I'm glad to see this moving forward. If we can get the money to do that, it would be beneficial. Item 43, this is a we're getting funds from the clean power alliance they're giving us the money and then we're going to award that out as a contract but basically what's going to be done is set up a direct to render renter's edge program equity driven green electrification pilot program and 120 125 000 is really a rather small thing but it'll get something started and it's to give um Income qualified renters, no-cost items such as HEPA air filters, portable heat pump, heat vac units, smart plugs, or sustainable power stations. Again, I think it's a good thing. I'm glad to see this being done. And I'll move on then to my other items. Let's see, I had 44 on there. 44 here is, yeah, I've really passed this around here. If I can, I'll skip 44 and come back to it in a minute because you need to see this picture. Forty-nine, it's a new first reading of the proposed ordinance to amend the Alhambra Municipal Code to require three months' rent to be paid to tenants being affected by no-fault evictions. Many other cities have done this. The state only requires one month. And it's clearly inadequate. This was prompted by the situation of the residents at 110 South Chapel Avenue who were entitled to only one month of relocation assistance. At the time, they received their eviction notices. The eviction notices will be effective. They have to be out sometime in August. I don't know the exact date. But they're all low-income folks. Many of them came here and talked to us. And this is a big corporation that's going to make a lot of money off the project tearing down their houses. We will actually have a reduction in the number of affordable housing units in the city as a result of this project. They may be more modern, but it's going to hurt us on the other end. These residents are facing having to pay first month's rent, last month's rent, damage deposit, which is usually equivalent to another month's rent, and their moving expenses, and all are entitled to under state law is one month's rent to compensate. They're going to wind up very... is seriously damaged financially by this situation, let alone we've got a great school system here. There aren't a lot of places they can pick up in Alhambra. They're probably going to have to leave the school district. So I'm glad to see this being done. Like I say, many surrounding cities have done this. I'm glad to see the support that has come previously from the members of the city council on this. And yes, a carve-out was put in here for four units or less. But that carve out doesn't apply if it's going to be a substantial renovation or a demolition. And I think we can live with that modification. Going back on 44, you've got the picture before you there now, I'm hopeful that when this study is being done by Kimley Horm, this is a photograph about halfway as you're going north on the 710 stub. You've gone under the Hellman Overpass, and you're about halfway to Valley. And you'll notice that... Three lanes. As you go under Hellman, they merge the three lanes. The arrows are there to direct you into two lanes. It's a two-lane road right now. Yes, that's a freeway. But when we change this to an arterial street, it's still going to be two lanes. So I suspect that most people coming north on a 710 are likely to be able to continue going north on the 710. So I don't think that by changing to an arterial here that it's going to that massively impact the traffic going eastbound on the 10. I think most people who go north on the 710 now will continue to go north on our arterial, unless there's some other complication in between. The area there on the side, the sort of asphalt that's messed up there, that'll become various other things that we're putting in bike lanes and walking paths and so forth. So I'm hopeful that what will come out of any study here that's being done is that we're not causing any major increase on traffic eastbound on the 10, since most people are not going to be diverted in that direction, in which case on things like the rather expensive 710 weave feature there, uh that was being proposed and that they were sort of looking at us to pick up the whole tab for that when it really doesn't benefit the city of alhambra but benefits people further out on the in the san gabriel valley and beyond it shouldn't be something that's being charged and expected to come uh certainly not entirely out of anything we might be asked to contribute a little bit to it but this would leave more uh money for the other projects that we have identified in the city of alhambra to help our traffic safety and mobility considerations here locally. So that was just a picture there to kind of reinforce that. I'm glad to see the council has asked to get more information before we proceed on those other items. So I want to do the stuff that benefits the city the most that we can out of the money that we have received. Thank you.

Thank you, Lou.

Ron Sahu, number 44.

Hi, good evening, Mayor Maloney and council members. Ron Sahu representing myself and the Grassroots Alhambra Group. Quickly, I have provided some comments Grassroots has in a two-page letter that all of you must have received. I just want to hit a few highlights. I think we start with things we can agree on. I want to commend you, Mayor, for holding a productive town hall on May 26th under difficult circumstances. But I think the objective was met. I think from where I stand, we want to have this traffic study done. So that came out of it. So we recommend approval, but with some tweaks that I'm going to get to. We want this study done transparently. So the assumptions, the results, and the conclusions are not questioned at the end of the process because we simply can't afford to have it be redone. There will be months lost and $326,000 more. We just can't afford that. So what are our asks? Number one, which should be pretty obvious, we want to have you include the public in the process. not standing off to one side. At the town hall, I think all of you in some form or the other agreed that more public involvement would be beneficial. So I'm going to ask specifically that you direct staff to include the public in the meetings one through four. How you do it is up to you. It could be advertised as technical meetings and whoever wants to come. I certainly am interested in coming. So we understand the analysis and the assumptions along the way. and that we don't raise these basic questions at the end of the process. We just want to avoid having, where we were, tossing rocks at each other months down the line. I hope that is clear. And frankly, it's a little disappointing and tone deaf why that wasn't done as part of the proposal. As you look at it today, we have one meeting in December where things will be presented after the cake is already baked. That is not acceptable. A technical note, Council Member Wang proposed that. Some of you might have agreed to that. We do want, we have specific ideas, this is for Kim Lee and Horne, about how the results, the benefits and the disbenefits should be presented between your baseline and other options, but we'd like to raise that at these one or second meeting, perhaps, that we have. schedule. We reiterate back that this should be done in four months. Six months is too late. We want to have this done before Thanksgiving, before we get into the holidays and lose another month, month and a half. Basically, we're disjointed things. Kimley and Horn, Kimley Horn has a big company. They can bring more resources for the same budget. Six months is simply too long, given where we are. And we really can't afford to have this dragged out. It's already a month, I note, after the May, almost a month after the May 26th town hall. And the last is a technicality. You have proposed additional budget as an amendment to Kimlehorn's contract. I think that, frankly, the money is already there. You don't need an amendment. This is quite a bit of money left in the account that you should be able to use instead of having an additional amendment. But that is entirely up to you. We are close to pushing to $7 million for the contract with this, a little less. So you could consider doing it. But of these, clearly the public involvement and having the schedule done quickly are the key asks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Ron. Next is Bill Rich. Yeah, for 49. I'm jumping around a bit.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor. I'm Bill Rue, Governmental Affairs Director for the Citrus Valley Association of Realtors. We represent approximately 7,800 realtors throughout the region. They are ethical, law-abiding, some property managers, some realtors. They're involved in a large range of transactions. They're experts involved in everything from small single-family homes to large apartment complexes.

The realtors in this area provide a majority of the obtainable housing in Los Angeles County.

The Citrus Valley Association, along with our colleagues at the West San Gabriel Valley Association, several other associations in this room, and all real estate professionals urge the council to oppose changes to the relocation assistant amount. We also support the carve out for one to four. The rents in Alhambra are not high enough to show any evidence that tenants need three months of rent to relocate. We encourage the city to research what the city of Claremont has done. which is to assist vulnerable tenants with assistance. And it's a direct relocation amount. Increasing the tenant relocation amount for no-fault evictions could unintentionally hinder efforts to expand affordable housing in Alhambra. Faced with the possibility of substantial mandatory payouts, potential housing providers may decide that renting their unit is no longer viable. They would simply sell those units and exit the rental housing market. Also, making it more costly for owners to do substantial remodels will deter the improvement of rental properties, not improve it. This could also lead to rental properties falling into despair and negatively impact the characteristic of Alhambra's neighborhoods. And this would be done one block at a time. The Citrus Valley Association and all real estate professionals hold a deep commitment to upholding the highest standards in the industry as well as a commitment to creating housing for all in Alhambra and the San Gabriel Valley. Please know that the Citrus Valley Association of Realtors and all real estate professionals are available as a resource to the City Council and to the staff. We thank you for your cooperation and understanding this evening.

Thank you.

Next is Joseph Ramos on item 49 also. Good evening.

Joseph Ramos for the Department Association of Greater Los Angeles. A vote for this ordinance is a vote for forced slumification of Alhambra and fueling more corporate development. The city council will take away the financial ability of existing responsible mom and pop owners with 20 or fewer units to conduct needed major system repairs and remove hazardous materials at substantial remodels. It will result in a rental housing deteriorating until it can only be sold for demolition, forcing existing affordable housing to be destroyed and it being replaced with luxury housing created by new corporate owners. This ordinance encourages more redevelopment by corporations and makes the problem worse. Tripling unrelated repair costs means that most small owners will not be able to afford both major repairs and the city's demand for private welfare for renters. If renters cannot afford reasonable moving costs, then the city should step in and pay those costs just as Claremont is doing for its renters. Rental owners with five to 20 units cannot obtain a 30 year fixed residential loans. They must get commercial loans that mature in five to seven years at current interest rates that have already doubled. Thus they are in an even worse financial position than owners with four or fewer units. If the city wants new developers to pay for relocation fees, then the triple relocation fee should only apply to demolition and not substantial remodel. Major system repairs are a necessity in order to keep existing affordable housing available for renters. The exemption does not help any owner with affordable properties that will need major system repairs in order to keep it up and running. This is a vast majority of owners of 20 or few units providing affordable rental housing. The city council is rushing into a solution that harms far more people than it helps by doing irreversible damage to existing affordable housing supply and fueling more luxury development. We urge the council to vote no on this ordinance until it has been narrowed to apply only to demolition and to go back and consider policies that actually help owners stay in business by the city providing no-cost loans for major repairs to small owners and city-funded moving assistance for renters. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next is Jennifer. Is there a Jennifer in the house?

We'll circle back maybe. Next is Bernice Ortega on item 31.

I have another item too.

Before 31. That's my comment.

Good evening, mayor and members of the city council. I appreciate the city's efforts to improve transportation and safety throughout Alhambra. I previously sent an email regarding the act bus on Granada Avenue and Mission Road. I have not yet heard a former response. I am not accusing the city of wrongdoing. I'm simply trying to understand the decision-making process. Could staff please explain when the Granada Emission Act bus stop was approved, what public outreach was conducted before the stop was added, what safety evaluation and traffic analysis were performed, and what studies, plans, surveys, and public processes supported this decision? Residents have concerns because The location of Granada Elementary near the railroad crossing and close to the intersections where there have been traffic safety concerns, including a collision at Granada and Main and a fatality on Granada and Hidalgo. I mean, Main and Hidalgo. In addition, Metro and other transit services already operate on Main Street. Residents are trying to understand why the route was moved onto residential street and what benefit Granada Mission Stop provides. As I reviewed tonight's agenda, I noticed references to local road safety plan, Visions Zero, active transportation plan, traffic studies, grant applications, ACT operations, and the purchase of a new ACT bus. I would like to know whether any of these plans, studies, and public process were used to making a decision regarding Granada emissions. I would also like to respectfully raise a broader transparency concern. Residents are often asked to review agenda package that contains hundreds of pages and technical information and only a few days available before the next meeting. It can be difficult for residents to understand the projects, funding sources, as studies and decisions before public comments are due. I encourage the city to continue improving public communication and making it easier for residents to understand that transportation and safety divisions are made. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next is Nanette Ong.

Good evening, Mayor Maloney and council members. I just wanted to ask about some clarifications on the agenda as I read the item number 49. As from what I understood, that the exemption would be perhaps up to nine units. But what I'm reading, it's exempting one to four units. Is that correct? Or is that just something that's one to four units?

Go ahead and finish your comments.

I'm gonna ask staff to give us a refresher on what what the changes have been so you can Okay, if it is one to four units I'd like to ask the council members of the council to consider increasing that a bit higher perhaps up to eight units nine units because there are these small business owners that do own property and they may own one property that is nine units and And I ask, why one to four units? Because there are small owners, I guess in a lack of a better word, small business owners, that would have only one property. And that one property would only be maybe nine units. That's not a lot. That's their one bread and butter, perhaps. And that's their life savings. That's their savior, if I can say so. And as far as them moving in, and as far as the up to nine units for the owner exempting for owner use or owner move in. because they may have hardships and they need some place to go. What about for them? They have some place to go. At least have one unit in the property for them to move into or to have their safe haven, because they have worked so hard to own a property and have been so kind and generous to provide tenants a place to stay for someplace where they can't increase the rent. They have somewhat of a rent cap. And they cannot increase their rent. So they don't even have the funds to perhaps do the major renovation or rehab, but they have a place for the tenants. And when it's time for them to move in some place, or they need to move in some place, where is it? Some place where they have to pay someone three months' rent, where they have been so kind to that tenant? I had spoken at a previous meeting. I had mentioned that there is a tenant who makes good money, but she's just staying there just because she wants to stay there because the rent is low. But she can afford to move somewhere else. So perhaps if there is more consideration for a balance, maybe not a one size fits all, but perhaps maybe something with stipulations for a senior or for someone that does prove that they are low income, then provide them with some higher relocation assistance. And I wonder also if anyone on the council would need to be recused because they own more units. But that wouldn't mean everyone would need to be recused because 124 means everyone. Because if someone owns one property or one unit or one owns two units or three units or four units, they would all have to be recused. So I don't know how the council would vote on something like that if everyone needs to be recused or only partial because they own more than one. Now, how is that exempting the person or the owner that has one unit?

Let me look at my notes more.

I think I've covered everything I wanted to say. So I would just like the council to consider perhaps increasing the number of units that would be exempt for owner use or owner movement, because those do include still the small business owners. And they are not major investors. Thank you.

Thank you. Melissa, are you ready?

You have 31 and 44.

we took do you need how much how long do you need I think five minutes okay five minutes thank you so about number 31 traffic calming improvements the traffic calming improvement is that's is related to Granada and El Molino but I would be remiss if I didn't address the fact that traffic calming improvements also need to happen desperately on Poplar in Emory Park This agenda item proposes flashing all-way stop on Granada and El Molino, but just know that on Poplar there are multiple flashing stop signs, but residents say they're not working. Dogs are still being hit, seniors are being hit, bikes are being hit. Please direct the Transportation Commission to get involved and reach out to Emory Park too. I know our councilwoman in District 5 met with some residents in April that live on Poplar and Meridian, but nothing has become of it. What's more Emory Park community group has had has about a hundred members and which I've been coordinating for the past nine years To keep community members involved and informed but we were not informed of that meeting Some residents in Emory Park are proponents of humps or dips like what City Council approved in Mayor Maloney's district on Margarita while others other residents in the group have also advocated for stationing a police motorcycle on Poplar When the police department utilizes 50% of the entire annual city budget, a motorcycle officer strategically placed once in a while would not only bring the city funding from citations, but be a stopgap control measure for reckless drivers. Just something to consider. about the Kimley horn extension and the traffic studies public comment number 44 I've mentioned this before as have other speakers at the May 26 town hall I'm concerned about a conflict of interest in continuing to employ Kimley horn who may not be a neutral research source, since they've already been working on this for the past five years. In any case, short of that, when their data comes out, I hope you go through it with a fine tooth comb, considering their new contract amount is now up to $6.7 million. And finally, I just want to be sure, as someone that regularly uses the 710 stub in addition to the 10 freeway on and off ramps on Fremont, that the study also evaluates traffic at Valley and Fremont, because I didn't see that in the write-up. Valley and Fremont, and Fremont not just at the 10 freeway, as it's written up on the summary, but also going north and south up to and from Alhambra Road, so the very top of District 5. So that would be, I hope to learn more about that. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up Sawyer Brooks.

Excuse me I'm going to I'm going to make a comment because I was called out. So regarding the meeting that you were referring to the gentleman who actually hosted the 40 of us filled out a calming traffic calming request right after. Is that right. City Manager. Thank you.

Thank you. Sawyer Brooks.

Good evening, Mayor Maloney and members of the council. My name is Sawyer Brooks. This is my last council meeting as a resident of Alhambra because my wife and I are moving to New York City for a new job opportunity. I'm grateful for the final chance to speak here, and I'm grateful to have learned so much from these council meetings in the short time I've been attending. However, I am a little disappointed here that something as important as the sustainability plan has been buried in a consent agenda with dozens of other items. This is something that I think is really important for the future of Alhambra and for future generations and warrants some real discussion. I encourage you to pull it tonight and discuss it. I've read this plan closely. On the previous draft, I submitted an eight-page memo with detailed, source-backed recommendations, which was supported by Alhambra urbanists and Urban Environmentalists Los Angeles. I want to be honest with you about where I think this final plan landed. First, I'm grateful that the staff incorporated some of my suggestions. So thank you to the staff for that. The plan now does explicitly recognize the 60% of us who are renters and has some actions included to support sustainability for renters. That was missing before. It strengthens the landscaping code more meaningfully to ensure more drought tolerant landscaping. It adopts the walk, bike, move network by name now. These are real improvements, and I'm glad to see those changes from the draft to the final version. I think the plan still falls a little short in the two areas that matter most, our buildings and our cars, which account for pretty much all of the city's actual emissions. In these areas, the plan is still built on words like encourage, explore, and recommend. These are nice thoughts, but they aren't words that actually cut pollution. I'll give you a few examples. First, the plan sets a strong goal to cut energy use by 25% by 2030 compared to the baseline. But the actions to get there are just recommend, refer, and share information. That's not the types of actions that can actually cause that kind of impact. A goal like that 25% reduction without a real action associated I think is just a hope. Success would require more binding policies, like building performance standards that other cities have adopted that require large and inefficient buildings to get better over time. That's how you can guarantee actual savings and improvement. Second, the plan also misses one of the most powerful tools that a city has, which is requiring new construction be all electric, And there's currently state prohibitions that mean that residential buildings can't be required to be all electric, but commercial buildings and industrial buildings can be required to be all electric under state code. This would be a proven and low-cost way to lock in emissions reductions by ensuring that buildings aren't being built now that are still running on gas for decades. Instead, the plan only offers to incentivize this instead of actually putting it in code, which leaves some of that most important change on the table. Third, the plan fails to legalize the kind of dense and walkable, or not legalize, that wouldn't be the right thing for the plan, but call out a path forward on building dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. These would be some of the best areas where the city can build areas that allow people to live without a car, where you live and walk and have work options, or live and shop and have work options all within a walking distance or biking distance. Those types of neighborhoods are a really great way to let people run their daily errands without driving. It reduces traffic congestion. It reduces emissions. That's part of the zoning code. And if the city looks at improving zoning to build more of those mixed-use neighborhoods, I think that would go a long ways. Finally, the plan changed in the wrong direction on transit. And transit is really important because transit, because most people in Alhambra are commuting to other cities for work, that commute is what drives a lot of our overall emissions. But we don't have regional commute like the metro rail within easy distance from Alhambra. A better transit network in Alhambra can provide you know bus options etc to connect to metro rail and other sources of regional transit so that people could more feasibly get from alhambra to their work in other cities on a daily basis without needing to without needing to drive because you know even if metro rail is available but you have to drive or you have to drive two miles to get there you're just going to drive the whole way so we need to solve that last mile problem of getting residents in alhambra to transit

Underneath all of this, the plan still has no real engine to drive it forward, I think.

While we do have an environmental commission, that environmental commission needs to be strengthened and empowered to hold the city accountable. It currently meets once every two months. I think that it would be helpful to have the authority and the mandate to meet more regularly, to track progress on all of these actions, and to report publicly on what's getting done. And I think the city should have a dedicated staff position to advance this plan forward across all departments. If you choose to adopt this plan, I ask you to... I have 30 more seconds, if that's okay. If you choose to adopt this plan, I ask you to look at it as kind of the minimum here and not a ceiling. The words on the plan are the least we can do. Alhambra can do so much more, and we owe it to future generations to do more. Ultimately, the success of this plan won't be decided by your vote on it tonight. It will be decided over the next 10 years by how you fund it, how you staff it, and how you prioritize it. I hope that when I come back to visit sometime, I'll get to see an Alhambra that's lively with bicycles and pedestrians, not cars, a lush canopy, walkable shops, and sustainable buildings. Thank you for your service to the city. I wish you and Alhambra the best.

Thank you, Sawyer. We will miss you, and you'll be happy to know that we already pulled 42 for further discussion. Next is Jeffrey Gomez.

good evening I'm glad he pulled number 44 simply because I I don't think we we need it I would urge you to vote no on it simply because we're spending what three hundred and twenty five thousand dollars that we don't have coming from we're appointed from measure M funding and it's a study that we are already we're going to do with the original plan The very first step in that plan was a traffic study. So for us to peel it away and do it by itself, we're repeating ourselves. And worst of all, if we do that study by itself, Caltrans may not accept that study. And then what do we got to do? Another study. We're wasting money here. That's not what we should do. And don't believe me, ask staff about it. I already did. I did the legwork on this. So we're doing these things twice when we shouldn't do it twice. And I hope you vote no on it because it's redundant and we don't need it because we're just going to spend the money. We were going to do it already. It's already on the plan. The very first step is a traffic study. And that was already part of the plan. It's already been there for a while now. That's with Measure R funding. And now if we carve it out, we're going to have to pull money from somewhere else. That could be used for street lighting. That could be used for so many different things. But now we're going to do it as standalone. And if we do it as a standalone again, it might not be accepted because we're not doing it with Caltrans. And so just leave it as is. We're wasting money this way. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Becky Chen.

Hi, I'm Becky from the Arcadia Board of Realtors. And meanwhile, it just happened, I own two apartment units in Yalhambra. Meanwhile, I'm under 1031 currently. By all means, Yalhambra is my first choice, as the city has worked friendly with a small business owner as me in general. OK. It was a wrong conception. owner have a five units of financial well-off, and should be paying three months versus one month for EB-4828 for tenant relocation or system. One thing for sure, we have a heavy financial obligation and burden. AB 1482 rent control is a limit to our income. Inflation on upkeep and maintenance increasing significantly. The rules and regulation has created a lot of hardship financially as well. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to deal with evasion periodically. Now the evasion take four to six months to finalize the case. Meanwhile, a tenant file answer for jury trial. Attorney usually charge an additional $5,000 to go to trial. Meanwhile, a tenant ask judge to seal the evasion record and judgment. By all means, no judgment can be collected anyway, because a tenant hide any earning by getting paid by cash. Simply, it's the losing proposition for wasting time and money for nothing. More importantly, judges always encourage us to settle the case, which we have no choice but dismiss the case at the end. It's very stressful. It's very stressful mentally, physically, and financially. Last six months, I have evasion cases. It cost me $14,000 each. And the vacancy afterwards take additional six months or so to fill that out due to the downtrend rental market. The fire insurance in premium has increased more than three times in the last five years. CalFab field plan has been increasing 30% recently. Limited income potential with increasing of expenses is our reality. My conclusion is, why should we be penalized by working with heart and soul as a good citizen by paying taxes to support the community? I, therefore, appreciate your reconsideration to remember women's basis in AB 1482. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone on Zoom?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, we have one raised hand on Zoom from Jing Li.

Hi, City Council. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this matter.

Give me one second.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on item number 49. Me and my parents are first-generation immigrants. I grew up in Alhambra as a child. My parents fulfilled their American dream when they purchased an apartment building in Alhambra over 20 years ago. And we have been providing housing to many low-income residents, including those on Section 8 housing. And I'm very concerned about the steady increase in restrictions on landlords overall in California and Alhambra. Due to the overall restrictions on landlords in Southern California, my parents are seriously considering exiting the rental market altogether. We are not a wealthy family. My father is not working due to his Parkinson's, and the rent that we receive barely covers his ongoing care. I urge the City Council to vote no on the increases in relocation fees for no-fault evictions, an overall burden to landlords. I believe mom-and-pop landlords are important to the City of Alhambra. We know our residents very well. We understand their concerns. And increasing the cost of housing will just drive out mom and pop landlords and allow corporate landlords to take over. Thank you.

Thank you for that comment. I think that concludes the public comments we have. What I'd like to do is go through the items in numerical order to see if there's any additional council communication, and then we can figure out where to go from there. So the first item that was polled was the investment policy there are comments about the types of investments in the council comment on that number 12 I'd say that I'm comfortable moving the policy I would like to see as a substantive issue. I mean I agree with the with the idea that was expressed. I'd like to see at some point appropriate in the near future kind of a if there is a digestible list of investments that the city has and what they might look like so we can know that sometimes you know it might be in funds or indexes or different types of products that aren't but it would be helpful to see that and perhaps give direction to our investment folks on a going forward basis. I think the comments are well taken. Any other comments or motion on this?

I'll just make a comment. I think the speaker talked about the types of investments and to ensure that the investments that we are making are not crossing over into are not investments that are not, how would I put this, socially acceptable or politically acceptable, or for that matter, I did hear something about genocide. And so certainly, I don't think that any of our policies, our current investments, are that way. And I understand her need for wanting to ensure that they don't. But at this point, that question was asked a long time ago. And I think we got our answers. So yeah.

So yeah, I would entertain a motion to move this forward with the caveat that we are provided with a list of investments or investment products at some point in the future. Anyone else?

So move.

OK.

I second.

A motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Lee. Yes. Wang. Yes. Mazza. Yes. Andretti-Stadler. Yes. Maloney.

Yes. 16 was bold. I think Lou made a comment on this. Generally positive, this was related to the application for safe streets and roads for Garfield Avenue Pedestrian Safety Corridor project.

I'll move to approve.

Second.

Motion and second. Roll call, please.

Wang. Yes. Mazza. Yes. Lee. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes. Maloney.

Yes. Traffic calming for Granada and El Molino. I think there's a couple of things here. I think the primary issue is that this is the product of the traffic calming policy that we adopted last year. this is coming out of that policy and it was the procedure was followed and I understand that there are other places in the city that can also use this type of review. And we now I'm happy to say we have a policy to do just that. So folks get together with their neighbors. They can sign I think it starts with five signatures and then the city will do an initial review of what could be done and that goes through the process the procedure. the procedure is on the website so you can take a look at it. And I think that this these considerations are very positive and I would be supportive of this. So unless there's any further. discussion about this item, not necessarily the traffic calming process overall.

I would just like to say that what I do is when somebody calls me and has a traffic problem, Mayor, I usually email them the traffic request to initiate everything. And I think that you're right. It is important for us to have put this in place so that there's some sort of coordination. So thank you.

Thank you. I've seen you do that, so I can attest.

Mayor, I have a quick comment. I'm just really happy to echo Mayor's comment. I'm happy that we have this traffic calming policy for the city, and I'm also happy to see these applications rolling in. And I know our public works department will be very busy with all the applications. I just want to share in my experience, I find that It is a challenge for people to understand how to fill out the application and even finding the application. I have to email them the actual PDF for them to fill out the application and help them understand the process. So I just want to say that I think there is maybe a delay in seeing these applications. applications coming in. But I do think that this is something that we need to address and the need is pretty big out there. I see I think a lot of the neighborhoods and streets and residents are concerned about traffic safety. They need this and I would like to just keep this a priority. I know that annually we look at funding allocations to fund these traffic calming measures. And even though we are not seeing as many applications coming in yet and they're slowly rolling in because it requires effort to walk through our community in understanding the process. But I just want to remind for all of us to be aware that I think this is a priority And we should be seeing more applications. And keep that in mind as we consider funding.

All right. Thank you. I think maybe a suggestion of putting on the front page of the website, like they have those little scrolling things saying, traffic calming plan, click here. Maybe we could do something like that. But I agree. And just to make sure everyone knows, it doesn't go typically, there are several steps in this process. So it doesn't go from, you know, somebody raising it as an issue and then, you know, you get speed bumps the next month. There are steps to go through. Some areas of the city have had already effectively done the initial steps, which is why they're a little bit farther along. But just to manage expectations and to understand the process. But I am glad that we're there because for, you know, nine years of being on the council, people would ask me things and I'd say, you know, just ask the traffic commission. So now we can say, here's the plan. And I'm really happy that we're at that spot. I agree. Any other comments on this or entertain a motion?

I'll move to approve. I will second.

OK, motion and second. Roll call, please.

Lee. Yes. Andrade Sadler. Yes. Mazza. Yes. Wang. Yes. Maloney.

Yes. OK, 42 is one that I pulled. this is the sustainable comprehensive sustainability plan really really excited that we are here I agree with some of the comments that we heard earlier that it I think it's very good I think that it is not perfect and I think it needs to be Not changed up here tonight, but I think that it does need to be viewed and treated as a living document that evolves over time, that is responsive to community concerns and comments, responsive to evolving science, technology, and data, and responsive to the community and the council, really. So that's that's the objective here. The plan is is our first step towards our objectives here. What I think is really important is in a way equal to the importance of what's in the plan is the implementation of the plan. So what I'd like to do is I would like to support approval of the plan tonight but I'd like to sort of add a little additional part to the potential motion here and that is to ask staff to to come up with an implementation plan. This would you know components of the implementation plan might be to identify. We have a lead a staff lead on sustainability efforts. We're very happy about that. I think it would be best reviewing similar plans and best practices. it seems like the best way to do it is to allow that lead to have counterparts in all of the divisions or at least the divisions that are going to be most upfront in helping to move this plan forward so that it isn't one person trying to carry the whole load it is one person working with colleagues and other departments to do this. I would like to see things like a public dashboard so we can see what what the progress is as we go along that's updated as appropriate I would like to see the sustainability plan if they're only meeting every other month for now if if that's sufficient you know it's it's it's a lot if that's sufficient then I'm okay with that but I would like them to have an update on progress from staff at each of those meetings that when I was on Parks and Rec Commission years ago we would every month get a little updated spreadsheet of what we had the improvements that we've made at the various parks the funding sources for those improvements and it allowed the commission to ask staff questions about that so I would like to really lean heavily on the sustainability commission to get those updates to review the results in the data to provide feedback and to provide suggestions on how we might prioritize of the plan and what might need to be added or changed in the future. Of course, I want to preserve the council's ability to do that also, but I think we should really lean heavily on the Sustainability Commission to do that. I think that as we get into making this real, we are looking at having to have a discussion about what the funding looks like. I think we should look at opportunities to piggyback some of the sustainability efforts in things that we're already doing, contracting for vehicles, our capital improvement plans, our infrastructure updates. All the things that we do, there could be a sustainability aspect to it, and I think that we should be considering that at every step. I'm just kind of throwing out a lot of ideas. I've talked to city manager already about the potential implementation plan. These are the sorts of things I'd like us to look at. The plan itself is more substantive. This is more procedural. So I would like to also maybe have a distilled down list of things that can be done out of the plan that I hope will be approved as soon as I stop talking. A list of things that we could do of ordinances and regulations that can just be you know don't require huge capital investment but would be a little bit of person power to get it done. On the more substantive side of it what I'd like to offer just as we move forward is and hopefully would be cost free if I understand how these programs work is that you know there are there are consultants that come in and do an energy audit. of the city itself, and they can look for areas and help to implement savings, rebates, and whatever else. And the consultant isn't paid out of the general fund. They're paid from a portion of what would have been the cost we would be sinking towards these expenses. So you save money, and you pay the consultant a portion of your savings on an ongoing basis. It's a model I'm interested in. And I'd love to see that looked at. And the last little bit here is at our last meeting or two meetings ago we earmarked about one hundred sixty thousand from our small surplus that we had this budget year. We earmarked one hundred sixty for this plan. So I'd like to hear from staff and really the commission as to what their priorities would be out of the plan to spend this you know this modest amount of money on and hopefully we get a good bang for our buck and we move forward in the future. Really, it's the implementation plan and a couple of other suggestions that I had. I'll love to hear anyone else's comments.

I think that's a great idea. And I think we have so much there already. I'm looking at the Main Street Green Street demonstration project. That's so big. That is going to contribute so much and collect so much rain when we do get rain. And we have a lot of these things throughout. We just voted on an ACT bus that's going to be, what is it? I think it's a clean bus. And so I think it's those kinds of things that we already are doing. And hopefully, it's more of a check-off list for them. And then that can help them with the implementation. But thank you for the additional stuff.

I appreciate it. I agree. The worst case scenario, sorry, is you have this vision. You hear about these plans that are adopted. And they get adopted. And they get put on a shelf. And nobody looks at them because they No one's been empowered or charged with moving it forward. So I just, you know, everyone here is well-meaning, and I know that they would move it, but this plan is supposed to last for many years. So when we're all retired and off living our best lives, I don't want future councils, we can't control everything they do, but I want them to see how important this was to this group of folks and this council. Sorry, Council Member Wang.

I just would like to support Mayor's point. I think that we spent all this time and effort in developing this comprehensive environmental sustainability plan. I think if I hear you correctly, which I wholeheartedly agree, is that instead of for this to be a standalone document that sits somewhere, we want to see this incorporated meaningfully into our daily operations. So sustainability becomes something we just think about as we, if we implement a project, we think about financial impact. We think about sustainability impact as well. So I agree with everything and support it. And I also support that we task the Sustainability Commission to tackle this as well.

Yeah, thank you.

Thanks, Mayor Maza. Thank you, Mayor. I want to support .. I would weigh in that it does make sense.

Sorry, thank you. So I would like to support, again, everything the mayor said. I'd like to make sure that even if it's a little at a time, like everything else that we've done, that we start implementing some of this. I also want to make sure that the commission and commissioners that we have appointed are made a part of this and moving this forward as much as possible. I also like the idea of citywide audit to see where we can save money. I know it takes time, but hire a firm that can come in and and pinpoint areas of potential savings, and of course, take those savings and pay them with it. So everything the mayor said, I want to support, and hopefully we can make that happen even a little at a time. Council Member Lee.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I do support this sustainability plan, which I think we had a conversation years ago. I don't remember. I think it's really important we have this plan, but it's going to be ongoing. I don't know what we can do about this fire that's going on right now, but that's really, it just, we are just a small city compared to everything that's happening around us. So to me, this plan will probably be looked at and reviewed down the line Hopefully by the next council, years later, five years later, whatever it is. But it is time for the Sustainability Commission to take over the details. And I think the council have worked on the big concept for a long time. And I think we're at a very comfortable place for it to continue to move forward. We have a presentation already. We have all the pieces in place. And so I fully support it. I don't think I could say any more.

Thank you.

I appreciate those comments. And I think this is you know it's not just a kind of feel good thing that we want to do. I think a lot of the. Proposals a lot of the concepts and projects in the sustainability plan will have a meaningful impact on things like affordability just really general quality of life and livability of the city. So I think that's all of these things are important. But you know public health parents beautification and you know just creating a city that is livable for many years. So I could summarize the motion would be to approve the plan and then to direct staff to come up with an implementation plan as we discussed within a reasonable amount of time. I know we were kind of light this summer on meetings and then before you know we're into the fall and the holiday season but keeping all that in mind it'd be great to see something. in the near future. So I guess, can I make that motion?

If so, I'll do it.

I'll second.

Thank you. Motion and second?

Andrade Stadler? Yes. Wang? Yes. Mazza? Yes. Lee? Yes. Maloney?

Yes. Thank you, everyone. Item 43 was just, I think it was a commentary on the project. with Clean Power Alliance and getting these energy saving and really important devices direct to the renters. Unless there are any comments, I will entertain a motion on that.

Move to approve item number 43. Second.

Andrade Stadler.

Yes.

Wang. Yes. Mazza. Yes. Lee. Yes. Maloney.

Yes. Okay, next is item number 44. We heard a couple of public comments on this. I think this item pretty well tracks the discussion from the last meeting. And I'll just maybe take a little liberty because I had a conversation with Ron Sahu over the weekend about the position of grassroots and his feedback on that. And I think generally I think they're good suggestions starting from the way that the data is presented showing the baseline and the changes in all the various scenarios I think is a really helpful way for public to see what the data shows instead of just kind of throwing something out there and then we don't have anything to compare it against. So I think that one's an easy one. I think that's very clear.

Sorry, I should probably just open the letter.

The schedule for this, obviously six months is longer than we had hoped. I know that our consultant isn't trying to go slow on it, but if there's any way to move it forward quicker, if there's any feedback or direction the city can provide, just please ask for that. We can't control all the factors out there, so we know that some things can't be controlled in that sense, but faster would be better because time is money. Unfortunately, the six months does kind of put us squarely in the holiday season, so if we can maybe aim for sliding it in before we slow down for the holidays. That would be really helpful, because then we can give that direction. The public feedback portion, everyone will get a chance to jump in. I just wanted to go through these. But the public input section is, I do think that the whole process would benefit from getting feedback from interested community members. and obviously grassroots and Mr. Sahu have been intimately involved in this whole process and understand it. I think typically you know we the city's policy is not to to have to turn every meeting with a consultant into a public meeting or a town hall or something like that. But I think there is an appropriate role or some participation by the community. specifically grassroots and Mr. Sahu. One of the ideas is that at least at one point early in the process that we have a meeting to make sure that everyone understands the course we're on and that we get feedback. And I don't know if that replaces one of these city meetings because there's going to be I'm sure a whole laundry list of things that city staff and the consultant have to deal with that aren't necessarily related to the issues that the public is concerned with. There are billing issues, contract scheduling, all sorts of things that not everybody needs or would want to be involved with. But I know that there also will be times when the consultant will say, here's what we're thinking. Here's the trajectory we propose. And we don't want to get off in the wrong direction and then have to address it at the end. So how do we do that? And one of the ideas was to perhaps establish a subcommittee of the council that would that would invite community members to participate in meetings with staff and the consultant. It's just a just an idea but that's one way to do it. I don't know that it would that we would benefit from having like huge town halls every time because these are going to be highly technical issues. I don't know what we want to exclude the public but I think maybe finding a balance there inviting interested community groups and individuals in especially at the early stages in some of these meetings, would be a way to go there. And I'm happy to have further discussion on that. As far as the funding goes, it's difficult. contract as it stands now is a specific contract to work on the paed process in conjunction with caltrans which is a whole different animal than what we're asking for here we're asking for something as much more streamlined that does not include caltrans at this point and that isn't the scope of work that we signed up kimley horn for now i understand that we have this contract and we're we're proposing to to do an amendment that would not be covered by the contract amount and that seems redundant or potentially not a great use of those funds I disagree because I think this will tell us if we're on the right track if we're on the right track then we get back and everything works out and we we we determined that you know what the The fixes to the rest of the 10 down east in Fremont, they're gonna be minimal. The stub proposal looks really good. the mitigation is going to be minimal so let's move on. We get back on that on the track of doing the P.A.E.D. We're going to try to use as much of this scope of work in that process to get reimbursed from our our measure M.R.R. and then in any scenario even if we don't do that we're going to try to get reimbursed for this money somehow. We do have funding for this now it's not going to come out of general funds so It is a concern. We want to be careful about this but I don't think that should derail us from what we're trying to do here. Our objective here is to get valuable streamline information early so that we know whether we want to stop the whole thing or continue. And I think that is really important to know at this point so.

Mayor, if I may, I appreciate your comments, especially with the transparency. It's incredibly important. I think this council really does really, really push for transparency almost in everything that we're able to do. I would be interested in sitting on that committee, on that subcommittee. It is my district and it impacts ours before it impacts, well, it impacts everyone, but it does impact it a little bit more. And I like the idea of inviting people to be part of it because there are, I have a lot of people who are very interested in the outcome. I also do believe that we should use the Measure M because we are going to get this a lot faster, even if we were to approve the other Fremont portion of it. That would actually take much longer than the four or five months that we're hoping that we get this back. And then it would help guide us. It would help guide us. I can tell you, I'm not gonna speak for the parents of Fremont, but I can tell you, that many of them thanked me for at least pushing for that to be at the forefront so that they can help with making those decisions about what they want in front of their homes and in their school, their home school. So with that, I appreciate it, and I would support that.

Thank you, yeah. Yes.

Thank you mayor. I do have some questions for the consultant as I'm looking at the scope. We we arrive at this point because during the town hall our community members raise a lot of questions and I think for the council to recognize The situation that we're in, we have to prioritize the different components of this project. And in order to do that, we needed more clarity. In order to inform our decision making the next steps. So that's why we are trying to expedite this process So also to just address clarify some of the confusion's out there Originally, we did plan to do the traffic analysis in the PA ed process with Caltrans now we're extracting that out and do it as a standalone analysis and with the goal to expedite this process so that we have clarity and that can inform our decision making. So with that said, and also piggyback of Mayor's point, We just need enough information to provide us with clarity to inform our decision making in terms of sequencing of the projects, which part of this project would give us the maximum benefits, which part of the project may not be necessary. So those are the answers we're looking for. And I see the scope is very comprehensive. And I want to thank you for laying it out in very detail. manner. And it's very transparent. It's very helpful to see that. But my question is, looking at the scope, I see both impact assessment and mitigation development in the scope. And if the council's interest at this point is only to get enough information so that we can make the next decision, Do we have to do all of this, or is there opportunity to reduce the scope of work so that we can expedite this process even more? And I think you've heard from all of us. We're concerned about the six months. We're concerned about the amount of money that we have to spend on this. So I would like to see what part of this scope is necessary for us to gain the clarity we need at this point to move forward. And my understanding is that we're still going to move forward into the PAED process. But this study alone will give us more clarity at this point. I just want to hear your perspective on this. Is there any opportunity to reduce the scope of work, expedite this process to shorten the duration even more?

Yeah, thanks, Councilmember Wang. And good evening, council members, Mayor. So I think the short answer is potentially yes. And I just want to take a step back and kind of explain the elements of it and our thought process behind it. I also want to quickly introduce Chris Devlin, who's here with Iteris. This is a partnership and a collaboration effort with Kim Lee Horne and Iteris and our teams. Chris is going to be leading the modeling portion of the scope. So when we were crafting the scope up, I think what we were our goal was to deliver a level of analysis efficiently that could help the city see what kind of transportation improvements make sense. That's what we heard from the town hall. That's the direction we've received from staff. So we want to work on the actual scope item. So if you see in the scope and the schedule, the main items that are included is to establish a framework. So framework analysis, what kind of assumptions, what's the data we're using? And then after that is an operational analysis, figuring out how the traffic behaves. And then after that, the mitigation analysis to figure out which mitigation makes sense based on what we saw in the operational analysis. The city review meetings, we place them after each activity. So after the framework, we'll talk about it with city, make sure that we're on the same page and all the assumptions that we want to include are in there. If we get consensus there and city supports the direction, then we're moving on to operational analysis. similarly after that we're going to do the city review and after mitigation hey let's look at the mitigations that we've been exploring do they make sense or not so that's kind of the process that we were envisioning to kind of get to some answers of to figure out what transportation improvements make sense in regarding to the schedule as you can kind of tell from the nature of how that's laid out If we do the city reviews, and there's quick consensus, and hey, that makes a lot of sense, we could just move forward. Similar to the mitigations, if we test a couple of them, and Chris and I came up with some mitigation screening activities that could just take a quick look at what each mitigation has the impact of in terms of footprint. and what it doesn't have the impact of. So quickly know what our tools are. If we try a couple of mitigations, and they're the right ones, and we feel like these packages are likely going to be the best recommendations, then we'll just move forward. So in laying out the schedule, we just try to figure out what's the most realistic, but also to answer your question, yeah, definitely, potentially, yes, if this kind of goes, we reach conclusions a little bit quicker. We could definitely potentially speed up

Wonderful. Thank you so much for that explanation. So if that can be done, I'd like to see if we can potentially cut this to a three to four months timeline. And with the scope reduced, also the fees would be adjusted as well. And understanding that many of the aspects of the study could also be done in the PAED process later as well.

Thank you.

Council Member Mazza.

Thank you. I mean I think most of it most of what I want to say has been addressed already but same same thing. You know just I guess all we can do is ask for you to try to wrap this up as quickly as possible in terms of the cost. If you're obviously reducing the task being performed I mean is that something that you come back with a new number on. I guess we'll leave that up to staff. In terms of the subcommittee I guess you know we're trying to expedite this as much as possible. My only concern and I want to definitely support transparency and as much as possible but bringing you know it's going to be very very detailed discussions obviously very technical and so I want to make sure that you know by bringing in different members of the community that we don't slow things down as opposed to expediting just because of how technical things are going to be. So just a thought on that, other than that, I support the efforts to get this done as quickly as possible and hope that'll be the case. Council Member Lee.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. So my question for a consultant is, well, first of all, I have this concept of If we choose a doctor, we go to the doctor, the best doctor we think we can find, the doctor tells you this is the best way. I don't think the patient should argue with the doctor, but sometimes the patient pressures the doctor and says, I don't like to take this medication. So the doctor says, well, here's another medication you take. So where I'm coming from is that I want to hear from you without pressuring you that is this the best thing to do for now? Because during the town hall meeting last time from where I was sitting, you were sitting right there, I could see that you were not very comfortable. And I am not going to go into details. It was all recorded. So I don't want to say anything, but I felt like we hired you. You have a contract. I want to hear from you that, first of all, the council The state council during the town hall meeting, we decided to pause the Fremont interchange project from going further. I personally felt that all the people that have talked to me and also from the public hearing is that I have not heard one person that fully support that project. So therefore I do think that pausing the project from going forward is a very sensible approach at this time. I'm also very frustrated that we are listening to people that have very strong opinions, which I do validate, but also there are not enough people from District 5. Mr. Gomez sitting right there, he's from District 5, I know that. So he's offering different opinions. So I like to see that somehow that the council is looking, is talking to people who live along the Fremont Avenue, who live along Valley, to make sure that their opinions and comments are fully embraced. Because I'm hearing different perspectives now. So I'm going to turn to you. I want you to be fully comfortable with me. You tell me, when I go to my doctor that I chose, I would let the doctor tell me, this is exactly what you need to do to get to the end result that you want. And sometimes we argue. But I want you to tell me, this traffic study that's presented for item 44, is that the best thing that the council should do at this point in order to get to a conclusion that should we continue with the Fremont interchange project or just basically say no to it?

Thanks, Councilmember Lee. Oh, first of all, very comfortable, very, very appreciative and thankful of the all the comments from the council and the understanding and then the comments from the public because I know what these projects is, especially of this magnitude. That's what it takes, right? That's what it takes to kind of all be on the same page. So that means good advance. So I think a couple things. I think the goal ultimately has to be to figure out what transportation improvements make sense for the city of Alhambra. Regardless if we're doing the Caltrans development process or we're doing the study on the side independent from Caltrans. That's the goal, no matter what the method is. I think your doctor analogy is interesting. I think in some of the conversations that we have with teams, I think some form of it has probably come up in that when we presented here in February and in March and talked about the early studies and preliminary findings that we did, I know we got a lot of questions about what is it based on, and how much certainty do we have, right? And a lot of our answers were, yes, these are preliminary findings. They're not based on real counts, and the real studies come later on in the PAD process. So just the two different levels of analysis associated with two different levels of certainty. So the exercise that is agenda item number 44, I would associate it with a deeper level of analysis. So for the doctor analogy, if they put that thing next to your chest and try to figure out what's wrong, that's probably the preliminary findings. That's very like when we did the early studies and there weren't real counts. But generally, is there a trend we could follow? Is there some hypothesis we can make? The traffic analysis now is deeper. It's a little bit more elaborate. It's taking more time, because it's not following the Caltrans development process anymore. We're going off and doing the city analysis. for additional funds the city has to spend. But you get a deeper level analysis, a deeper level of certainty for what improved transportation improvements make sense. So I don't know if I can answer the question of what's right for the city of Alhambra, because just like a patient, it's up to them to see, do they want to do the additional testing to figure out exactly what it is? Or are they comfortable with the level of certainty that they can move forward and kind of make the process efficient in that way.

Well, I thank you. I'm glad that you're comfortable. And the end result, what is it that at the end, because last time during town hall meeting, you said it's $1 million about one year. I know that was just a very quick guesstimate. But now it's $366,000 for six months. Are we losing the depth, or are we? I hope you're not being pressured by us and by people around you to say, expedite this. Expedite this. Because the council has been pressured and have been blamed for delaying the process, which we did not. And our city council manager have produced a timeline for all the council members that showed that no one delayed anything. We did not let it sit on our table. So I feel like there have not been delays on our part, but I want to make sure that we're also not going to fall under pressure and say, let's speed it up because we're afraid to be criticized. So why is this all sense from $1 million one year to six months to $366,000? Because I remember you said that, that you did a guesstimate for us with this traffic study.

Yeah, well, to answer the first part, well, I think there's always constant pressure because we want to move things along for the city, right? So that's not specific to this exercise or any, you know, we understand that time is money. And we also understand that we don't want to do the exercise again. So it's constant pressure and it's constant, you know, we need to deliver. But we have to deliver quality analysis that provides the level of certainty. So that's not going to be compromised. So that's our commitment. That's, you know, even if there's pressure to speed it up, that's not what's going to be compromised.

Okay, so let's put in layman terms, because there have been a lot of confusion. I could tell that people that came during the town hall meeting last time, especially a parent from Fremont School, she was very honest. She was very honest, she spoke from her heart, she was confused, which I did not blame her at all, because we've been using a lot of technical terms. And even the diagrams that you have provided have, is a little confusing to really read all the icons and so on and so forth. So let's put it in a very plain English at the end of six months or maybe sooner or later. What would the council receive from you.

Yeah. So the real deliverable the actual deliverable in literal terms is a assessment report. Right. So that's a summary of all the findings. And then it's a presentation to kind of convey those findings. So in plain English, it's really we're trying to answer a couple of questions. We're trying to answer because we know the cut-through traffic is a major issue. So we want to determine if the 710 stub arterial conversion, whether two-lane or four-lane, is going to have what kind of operational impact it has on the rest of the system and the 710. and with respect to the cut-through traffic, and then what kind of operational improvements. So that's being assessed with the no build as well. So that's question and answer number one. Number two is if either the two lane arterial or the four lane arterial shows that it's has operational benefits for cut through traffic. We're looking at what other operational impacts that causes. three-month 10 arterial segments we want to know what kind of medications would make sense at those locations and that's where I think a lot of the collaboration with the city will occur because it won't be so black and white on what medications make sense in what areas how it affects to what degree that's that's stuff that we're gonna look at after the analysis and then when we start looking at the medications

So let's go further with that. So with the mitigations, will we be able to receive information for mitigation for Atlantic and Garfield as well?

Yeah, so we should also just briefly, the limits of the study are vast. So east to west, or west to east, they span from 710 to Garfield on the 10 freeway. And then on the north side, the boundary is Valley. And on the south, it's Garvey. So we've included most of the arterials, the ramps, the mainline segments. And the intersections, we've been talking about the hot ones, like Fremont and Valley. and the Northbound off ramp to the 10. Those will all be included in the analysis and for us available to see as Chris is modeling it and his team to figure out what we see with the stub with mitigations.

OK. I think that's all the questions I have for you.

OK.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council members. I think the objective here is to get council information as quickly and as cheaply as possible that we can determine which direction we're going to go. I don't think anyone is in this to do projects like the Fremont interchange. Really what we want to do is change the stub itself and then that's the objective. But the secondary question is what do we need to do to sort of make that OK to resolve any other issues that that's going to cause. And that's what this exercise is going to do. And hopefully that'll get us that information so we either know keep going in the right direction or stop this train. We want to get off. So I think this is good. I would like to entertain a motion with the with the added comments that you know about the way the data is presented. seconded by council member Wang about cutting as much fat as possible if that's possible here and thereby cutting the cost and the time. And I'd like to add in the creation of this subcommittee that will, I think, I know I do this a lot, but I suggest subcommittees and I volunteer for them. I've been working on this for, you know, basically 10 years now. And I would like to continue at least for the next couple to be on that. And I think it's appropriate to have the vice mayor. It's her district down there, and she lives this. And our role would be then to participate in an additional meeting with members of the community to determine what that looks like, what those meetings look like, and how many will be necessary within reason. We don't want to have this open-ended and have a huge other thing. We want to do it early in the process. Sounds like maybe in conjunction or after the first staff and consultant meeting where you kind of present the proposed project and which way it's going to work out. That seems like a good time. And then maybe there's need for another one later in the process when the results start to come in and we can engage appropriately in that sense. Does that sound okay?

I think it sounds great.

Okay. Staff, is it clear?

Okay. All right. Mayor, real quick. Just as far as my only concern, as far as the number and cutting off some of the fat that we discussed, wouldn't that have to happen before we start? Not after the fact. I mean, I know we're short on time and

know how do we determine that number as quickly as possible I I don't want to artificially put put it you know charge the consultant with trying to do that but I think that they heard that the council member Wang's comments if there's any point in the process where it's like trending in a direction and and you can see oh if we go this way we're we're keeping the full expense and time or we can go We can make a small tweak and maybe shave some things. I don't know. I'm not hired to be the consultant. But I don't want to arbitrarily control that. But I also want to really convey the desire of the council. Does that make sense? I mean, we have the outside scope here of the funding and the timeline. And we don't want to set this thing up to fail by artificially restricting the funding and the timing and say, oh, we can't do it. But if there's ways to reduce this and keep it as efficient as possible, that would be greatly appreciated.

Can I suggest that we have that come back to the subcommittee before they start the process?

That's a great idea. Or at that initial meeting.

At the initial meeting.

Just an update on what it's looking like after you take that initial step. So it would be comfortable.

OK. Just want to clarify, the subcommittee is you and the vice mayor? OK. And what exactly are you going to report back to the council what you have discussed and made some decisions? Will you ever entertain bringing in some individual residents who really want to speak about the concerns?

I think that's something that we're going to have to discuss. I think that the idea came from the grassroots proposal. So I think that it would be highly appropriate to have someone from grassroots representative. I have someone in mind already. And if there are other individuals, we don't want to open it up and become a town hall. That's not my proposal. but it would be maybe a stakeholder from the neighborhood and maybe somebody near the school, but keeping it very streamlined and efficient.

I do want to make sure that individual residents, for example, the parents, maybe they have the PTA president who will speak for the parents. Yeah, I think that's something. That they will be included, resident will be included. instead of just one particular group? Because I'm not sure what that group consists of.

So this, I mean, at least the way I envision it, subcommittee is a subcommittee of the council. So when they meet, it's not a formal meeting of the city council. So it's not necessarily open to the public. So I think what I would ask for is some flexibility to figure out which stakeholders would be represented by individuals to come and participate in the meetings or some similar types of discussion to get that public feedback.

OK, so I'm going to press my point one more time. I'm not sure. I think that we need to make sure that we rotate different groups to the subcommittee if that's what you want to do. I think the town hall meeting that we had last time was productive, but it was a little bit unclear to me who lives where. That was a problem for me because when we have public meetings, first of all, as a mayor, you know that they should state their address so that it's not that we want to know where they live, but we want to know they're from Alhambra and what district. And so I wasn't sure who was from where last time. And so I want to make sure that this subcommittee is being fair, that you include different groups of residents from specifically District 5 who have been living with the problems of customer traffic for years. And so I heard a little bit of that, but I want a commitment from the subcommittee that you'll do that.

Yeah, I think that is the suggestion, or at least that's what I intended to suggest. At the very least, I mean, not the very least, but starting with the vice mayor who lives in the district and then having somebody from the neighborhood, an appropriate person, I would probably want to discuss but defer to the vice mayor on it. But I agree, absolutely.

OK, as long as I have that commitment from you, because I'm very concerned about only certain groups are being included in the conversation and keep popping up during our discussion right now. I don't think that's been fair. And I have District 5 members, residents who talk to me, but they don't want to come and speak to the council. So I don't want to speak for them as well. But they're out there. They don't like the project, the Fremont Interchange project. But I think that even though they may not be as, what we think, experts on road engineering, but still, their comments are valid. They should be valued.

Of course.

Yep. OK. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. That proposal, anyone want to move that?

I'll move.

I'll second. Roll call, please.

Wang. Yes. Lee. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes. Mazza. Yes. Maloney.

Yes. OK. Next up is, what was that? That was 44. Next is 49.

This is the tenant protection, the relocation assistance. Can I ask, do we need a break?

Yes. Oh right. OK. We'll wait till Councilor Mazza recuses himself.

Can I ask someone from staff to sort of give us an update on where we were and then where we went at the last meeting and therefore what's in front of us now.

Mr. Mayor, members of the council, the staff had generated a ordinance which basically tied directly into SB 1482. And to the extent that somebody was entitled to the benefits under SB 1482, that one month of rental assistance that's afforded by that state statute would be instead increased to three months. That's what was presented to you. Based upon the discussion and the public comments, direction was given to staff to modify that. And what instead was done was that there was a carve out included. And the carve out currently drafted is for multifamily complexes of between one and four units. They would not be subject to the three month. They would just be subject to the 1482 requirement one month. unless they were doing a complete demolition or significant remodel. Because if they're going to invest that much money in it, then I think the council's feeling at the time was then they can probably afford the additional two months of tenant relocation assistance. That's what's before you. Outstanding all of the discussion and everything, it turned into basically one sentence. That is, in the ordinance, it's redlined. So if you flip to the ordinance, it's just the one sentence that says, other than in the event of a demolition or substantial remodel, this provision doesn't apply to any property that contains four or fewer units. So the general rule is three months, except it doesn't apply to something less than four units, unless they're doing a demolition or substantial remodel. That's how it's worded right now.

OK. Any council comments on this?

Yes, I'll move to approve.

OK. We have a motion.

Any discussion? Oh, I just have a few comments here. I think, in general, I'm glad that we actually got to this place today and that we're able to approve this. I know that the council had deliberated a little bit about the carve out and exemptions. I personally still think that as far as for the ordinance concern, I still prefer following the exemptions of the Tenant Perfection Act. I suppose that we are allowed to change exemptions that was listed by the Tenant Protection Act. Is that correct? Because you accepted the carve out.

So I'm not sure what your question is.

OK, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, that became effective January 1, 2020. There was a statement that says that the exemptions should follow a bunch of codes. So I looked into the act itself. The language has specific exemptions But it did not include multiple units. It included one unit and I think duplexes. So as far as your concerns, our city attorney, that we are able to change the exemptions of the act itself?

So we're not changing the act?

We're not. But the act said that the local jurisdictions, I don't have it in front of me, but I'm just memorizing it to recall it. has to write, in this case, an ordinance to... To be more restrictive. To, yeah, offer more protection.

Yes.

And then there's a sentence right underneath that, it says, following the exemptions listed, and there's certain codes. So I took that as that we should follow the exemptions listed in the act itself, and that we're not allowed to change the exemptions.

Correct. And I guess what I'm saying is the draft that you have in front of you isn't changing the exemption.

Okay.

So one to four units is still completely subject to SB 1482. Okay. They're still subject to that. What you're doing is you're layering on an additional two months of relocation assistance to everybody, including one to four units, unless... they're not doing a substantial remodel or a demolition. If they're just doing some minor stuff or whatever, then they're not going to, or they're deciding to take the units off the market, or they're deciding that they want to take one unit back so that their family members can live in that. They're not going to be subject to three months. They'll still be subject to the one month under state law, but they're not going to be subject

OK. OK, thank you for clarifying that.

And I just wanted to kind of quickly summarize how we got here. This isn't something that the council or I myself wanted to do this, just on our own agenda. Basically, I remember months ago, a group of Alhambra tenants came to the city council meeting and shared with us that they will be evicted due to the sale of the property they currently reside. Some of the tenants have lived on the property for many years, and they came to the city council for assistance to relocate. Since they have not done anything wrong, this falls under the no-fault eviction category of the Tenant Protection Act that became effective January 1, 2020. This act provides new protections for majority of California renters. This act also allows local jurisdictions such as the city of Alhambra to increase protection for the tenants. On April 13, 2026, the staff presented multiple local tenant relocation assistance programs to the council. And I motioned for an ordinance to increase tenant relocation assistance from one month to three months following the city of Burbank. And to make the case for three months, the one month based on the act that was passed approved in 2019 after years of inflation, this is what we have today. I went online, did a little bit of research based on apartments.com for one bedroom. The average rent in Alhambra is about $1,669 per month for one bedroom. However, the average rent for one bedroom in Los Angeles is $2,184. So that means that these tenants who are looking at being evicted in Alhambra, who came to us, They will have to pay higher rents for equivalent unit if they find a place in Los Angeles. They might find a place in other cities. That's why for me, as a council member, that one month of relocation assistance is really not enough, because that was passed in 2019. So for them, they will have to come up with cash. for enough cash for security deposit, which is usually one month, and first month rent for a new apartment. And it will be very particularly difficult because, to me, they're low income tenants. So I want to just offer that rationale for the increased protection from one month through three months, especially the act that was approved in 2019 The legislators who passed it had the foresight, knowing that down the line, there will be increases in rents anyway. So they allowed the cities to increase protection. And that is it. And I second the motion. Do you approve?

Thank you.

Can I also say something? Thank you. I want to thank Council Member Lee for your comments and for kind of painting the picture of how we got here. I also want to thank the members of the public. I recognize some of your faces that it's not the first time you're here advocating for the landlords and also the people that spoke up on zoom and I want to thank you for consistently sharing your concerns on the other side and that shows that you really care about this and I do recognize the challenges faced by mom and pop landlords. And as council member Lee has mentioned that this was a situation that happened in our community, many of our longtime residents are facing evictions. And we as a council felt that we have to do something to help them with relocation assistance. And in discussing this policy, I think it was, for me, it was very difficult because we have to balance tenant protection with the realities faced by mom and pop landlords. And I feel like it was just a very difficult balance to achieve. But at the end, we decided to modified the carve outs, increased the carve out. In addition to the carve out by the state law, we made it bigger. We excluded more units, one to four units. We also recognize that the state law already carve out for, I think the state law, the provision is that it only applies to properties that's been there for over 15 years. And there's other things there that I think my rationale is that with properties that's been there for decades, that time period, the property owners have accumulated enough equity in order to do some planning to support our tenants. So I know it's not perfect. I know it's not ideal. I know there's still many, many challenges faced by our mom and pop landlords. And I just want to share that it was not an easy decision for this council. and there are a lot of factors that we're considering and we felt that we have to address the tenant protection in this situation. So that's all I'll support the approval of this reading.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Thank you. No public comments over I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The I think that was very well said. I appreciate that. And I and I. This is this is a really difficult area not just this decision but what we're facing here. everyone in this room I think knows this is a real upheaval in housing market and the issues related to housing all throughout the state. I don't think this city has ever been in a position where we have to face the real potential because of the, I don't want to say force, but the the upzoning, essentially the upzoning that was required by the state across the city. We know why that's happening. And I'm not going to argue that it's not needed on some level, but it puts the city in a really difficult position. We do not have the discretion we once had to craft solutions for our own community. We are required to do x, y, and z or face the wrath of the state. Again, I think that's understandable. And I think that there is a good reason to do that. And we all want to see. more appropriate housing built to meet the demand, to bring down the cost of housing, which I think drives the increased costs on many, many other tangentially and directly related things in the state. So what we face, and this is really up front and very visceral for us, was a property owner taking advantage of some of these new laws in the state and basically getting rid of everyone who had been long-time tenants in affordable housing there. And we recognize that that is going to happen more and more as we go on because these statutes are in place and the incentives are only going to increase if recent years have been any evidence of that. So there's going to be more pressure and more incentive for property owners to do this. And the folks that we are responsible for for, in my opinion, primarily are the residents of the community. And there are many owners that are also residents, but this includes renters who are going to be, that can be essentially evicted and they lose their housing at the decision of a landlord. This is a small way to try to address the financial strain that some of these folks would have. It is not perfect. We're not pretending that it's perfect and that it's going to work in every situation. But it is our first attempt at this. And as with everything, I think that this is the type of program that we need to see how it's working. If we start to see catastrophic results one way or another, it's incumbent upon this body to consider that information and change direction. If we screw up, we have an obligation to fix our screw-ups. If we do it right, then that'll be borne out by the data. appreciate the the feedback I don't know how it's gonna go I know there's a lot of folks who may think they know how it's gonna go one way or another but the fact is we are gonna have to see how this goes I do I support this I recognize that it's not perfect it can't be perfect it can't please everyone but I think for our situation at this point in time given the issues related to housing and tenancy in in Alhambra I think that this is our best bet so I think we had a motion and a second already.

Mayor, can I add a real quick, real quick? Please, yeah. Under one minute. I agree with you that this is really a small way to solve the bigger issue of people are limited budget, who lost everything due to illness or whatever, or loss of jobs. I mentioned months ago the LA Times article wrote an article about an elderly person who was evicted and ended up sleeping on the street. And I recently, last week, unfortunately, I met another real person. She's 82 years old. 82 years old, she lost everything. She lives on Social Security, which is very limited, and she's been on the streets for over a year. The last shelter she stayed was in San Bernardino, and she hasn't had a shelter for over a month. So as the elected official, we walk around, we see these real situations here, and right in front of our face, this is an extreme case, but the thing is that I understand that property owners and landlords are concerned about the pressure put on you financially as well. But we're not doing this to put pressure on you. Housing is my responsibility. There could be an even worse situation. So I agree with the mayor. This is only a small step. We'll have to reevaluate this ordinance down the line. And again, this is no-fault eviction. If the landlords don't do these things, you don't have to pay anything. So it's just really in a way is to make sure that if the landlords decide to do any of these things that are stated in the act, that consider that whether you really need to do it or not. If you really need to do it, then three months is something that the tenant needs to even get the first step into the door of a new apartment. The last thing I want to see is tenant being evicted and end up having nowhere to go. and becoming another 82 years old who's sitting on Hamburg right now. That's it. Thank you.

All right, thank you. OK, so we had a motion and a second. We heard comments. Roll call, please.

Andrade Stadler. Yes. Wang. Yes. Lee. Yes. Maloney.

Yes.

Can we bring our colleague back in? Somebody's listening back there. Welcome back. We solved all the problems.

The next item that was pulled was item 50. I think there was just one comment on that. Did council have any feedback on this one? This is the TOT.

Any comments on this? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve.

Second. Okay. Motion and second. Roll call, please.

Mazza.

Yes.

Andrade Stadler. Yes. Wang. Yes. Lee. Yes. Maloney.

Yes. Okay, and then the last item is item 53. I forget who pulled this, but I don't think there was a public comment on it. Catherine, did you?

Oh, yes, I pulled that one. I just... It might be a no to me again, but... This one right here, I want to go to section C under tobacco retail.

So I think last time when we talked about getting

condition use permit, I believe, for smoke shops. And the council, including me, were concerned about the access, the easy access of these smoke shops. I don't know how many we have right now. I think there were five at this point. So the staff came back with, under issuance of renewal of license, under C, So the staff right now came back to the council with maximum number, which is not exactly what I wanted, because I want a moratorium, which means that the current tobacco retail license holders may continue to operate, but no more will be available. And I think that eventually we might have just one or two. I'm looking at the ratio right now under C, maximum number. The maximum number of tobacco retailers licensed within the city shall not exceed one per every 4,000 inhabitants. I think that ratio is going to produce a maximum number of 20 tobacco retailer license holders. And I think 20 is too many, way too many. And I'm concerned about the proximity of these tobacco retailers. to the school especially. So I'd like the staff to please clarify for me the 1 per 4,000 inhabitants as a ratio for the maximum number set. Is that something that is standardized regularly to understate, or is it just something the staff brought back to us?

It's something that we suggested. It's other cities use similar ratios. To clarify, there were two separate ordinances on the consent calendar tonight. You approved, I believe it was item 50, which was the zoning code text amendment, which pursuant to your direction at the last council meeting, we are allowing the existing smoke shops five to remain. We are prohibiting any future smoke shops to locate in the city. And those five existing smoke shops need to obtain a conditional use permit. This section is pertaining to tobacco retail licenses, which applies not only to smoke shops, but also places like grocery stores that are not primarily selling vape and smoke materials, but maybe have ancillary sales. So the total 20 tobacco retail licenses would be for the entire city, both the smoke shops, vape shops, as well as things like grocery stores.

So the staff is recommending one per 4,000 people, residents in the city. Correct. I don't know what, is that, okay, you mentioned that the other cities have similar ratio. Is that correct? Yes. We have about 82,000 to 83,000 people in the city, approximately. So that will set the maximum number of about 20? Correct. That includes the liquor stores and... Do grocery stores have tobacco? They do, right? Yes. Okay, so they need a license. I don't think we should set it for that high. I would like the council to consider increasing the one to double it, one to 8,000.

I don't have the number in front of me right now, but based on the current number of tobacco retail licenses that we have issued in the city, I believe it is approximately 15 or so. So we set it at 20 to allow for the potential for if we have a new grocery store that comes into town or new businesses and they want to have ancillary sales, that they would still have the opportunity to apply for that license.

So we have five smoke shops in the city. plus 10 more. You said 15, right?

Approximately 15 tobacco retail licenses.

OK, so that includes the five smoke shops plus 10 more that are from the liquor stores and the supermarkets.

7-Eleven, OK.

I personally do not think we should have maximum 20. I think there are way too many. We have nine elementary schools, one high school. They're just way too close to the schools. I'd like the council to consider changing that ratio. I don't see 1 per 4,000 is really necessary. They're not health products. They're not essential products. They're tobacco.

So I want to see if we can

How about we just make it so that we have 15, just keep that 15. So that will increase the ratio. I don't have my calculator, so it will be like 1 to 6,000, whatever it is that's necessary to keep that 15 maximum number and no more.

So that would be my compromise.

Councilman Lee, I just wanted to remind you that, and I'm not disagreeing with you, but I wanted to remind you that we did pass a couple of ordinances regarding tobacco, and one was selling to, I mean, you can't sell to minors anyway, but selling flavored tobacco, and then our multi-unit homes, houses cannot smoke in their apartments.

Right, so we did ban the flavored tobacco, but the vaping products, that's still available in these retailers. And the vaping right now is still an issue that we have, especially with the young adults, teenagers. It was a misconception that vaping, the electronic cigarettes were a good substitute for cigarettes for quitting, but we found out that it's not. So I just want to make sure that We can work with this maximum number that's been set by the staff, but the council can change it. So right now we have 15 retail, tobacco retail license holders.

So our most recent report that we pulled from finance back in March showed that we have 21 licenses right now.

And so based on my calculation really should be 20.

Well, I mean, so some of these, it's like, I know for a fact that some of these businesses have since gone out of business. So that number will fluctuate, which is why we kind of set it at the one per 4,000.

Oh, I see. So that produced 21 as the maximum number of license holders?

Yeah. I don't recall the exact population number, but whatever it was, it, kind of equated to the number of licenses that we have right now.

OK. So you just want to just kick them out just because they already have the license?

Well, I mean, well, I don't know. I mean, I don't like the maximum number of 21 at all, but I guess

I will have to say maybe in about a year or two or a year, we will reevaluate how many numbers of license holders we still have. Maybe if you would leave and please come back to the council and let us know that maybe at that time the council can entertain reducing the maximum number. So we're really not kicking anyone out, but just slowly reducing that to a more appropriate maximum number.

I think that's a good approach. I think part of it, you know, we were dealing with the issue with the smoke shops we weren't necessarily trying to go after, you know, mini marts and grocery stores at this point. But as we go on and maybe the number of licensees change, we can look and see how that works. I mean, I think that these things will change over time. I think we've been doing a good job on this in this area. I'm uncomfortable kind of changing that on the fly tonight because I don't want to have unintended consequences where, you know, another business that has only a small part of, maybe a small portion of the store dedicated to that, all of a sudden finds out they're out of compliance, I think that we should take a more measured approach. But the idea of reviewing, I think, is a good one.

Thank you, Mayor. I will compromise. Maybe the staff can put that in our weekly packet in terms of how many numbers of retail, tobacco retail license holders we have. Again, I'm going to repeat myself. I'm really uncomfortable with the proximity of the smoke shops. As I was driving around, another one pop up, another one pop up. And I just don't feel like Alhambra should be labeled as the city of smoke shops. Alhambra should be a city of restaurants. So I just want to make sure that we are taking a reasonable step and start scaling back on the maximum numbers. So I'm just going to stop right here, pause it at 21, but eventually, let's see if we can bring it down to 15.

Yeah, as far as the smoke shops go, I mean, we've adopting the zoning restriction, we're effectively capping it. And over time, we're not going to issue, no new ones will be allowed. So unless these are wildly popular and they last forever, there will be a time when they won't exist.

If we're good on 53, anyone want to make a motion?

A motion to approve. Second.

So we have a motion and a second by somebody.

And roll call, please.

Lee. Yes. Wang. Yes. Andrade Stadler. Yes. Mazza. Yes. Maloney.

Yes. OK. We get an award for the longest consent agenda ever.

It was good. Sorry. It's a long agenda.

So we're just going to go to, this is public comment. Open public comment, five minute limit. I think we only have one speaker card so far. Melissa?

Yep.

All right. To piggyback on the ongoing concern about the huge trench on Main Street west of Fremont, residents are also worried about what the city is doing to help local businesses there with drivers diverting to avoid the area or not being able to reach their establishment. It's one thing to praise the Main Street project for sustainability goals, but we had one speaker speak at the beginning of this meeting. Tonight, that's not happy, and his concern hasn't been acknowledged. What about the mom-and-pop businesses in the neglected area west of Maine? Have they been reached out to? And we should also be concerned about the trees that are looking ragged, and we hope that they're being watered between April to September. On another topic, I have concerns about the 400-plus page electronic agenda tonight. I'm not sure if it's a new functionality or a lack thereof or an isolated case on tonight's agenda only. But in the past, the public could click on the headings and then jump down to the section on the agenda. If and when that hopefully returns, I recommend writing that that's even a possibility, because some of us know this or we've learned this, but most of the public don't know that that's possible. So nobody's going to be scrolling through page after page after page and trying to figure out where that agenda topic is. So I'm hoping you could inquire about that. And finally, for 18 years, I've been showing up, getting involved, and working to improve our community. District 5 in Alhambra needs a representative who asks hard questions with the aim of accountability, protecting taxpayer dollars, and fighting to make sure that every part of her district receives attention and respect, which is why I've decided to run for City Council District 5, because District 5 deserves an advocate who puts residents first, not politics or the status quo. Maybe more importantly than that, I'm glad District 5 residents will have a chance this November, will have a choice this November. You know, democracy works best when voters have a real voice and real options. So if anybody would like to contact me, my email is, and I haven't memorized this yet, campaign at Melissa Michelson, M-I-C-H-E-L-S-O-N, 4 Alhambra Street. That's number 4.com. Or call me at 626-344-2647. Thank you. Good night.

Thank you. Anyone online? OK. Council, would anyone like to make comments? Vice Mayor, please.