1 1-31-22
Unofficial until approved by the
Alhambra City Council
MINUTES
Special Meeting
ALHAMBRA CITY COUNCI L
Council Chambers, 111 South First Street
January 31, 2022
6 :0 0 p .m.
ROLL CALL: At 6:06 p.m ., on Monday, January 31 , 2022 the Alhambra City Council met virtually via Zoom.
PRESENT via Zoom: MALONEY, P É REZ, ANDRADE-STADLER, LEE ABSENT: MAZA
Officials Present via Zoom: City Manager Binnquist, City Attorney Montes, Assistant City Manager Garcia, Deputy City Manager Stover, Director of Public Works/ Utilities Ray, Director of Parks and Recreation Macias, Marketing and Communications Specialist Nguyen, Director of Community Development Ho, Fire Chief Ragusa, Director of Human Resources Ko, Management Analyst Garcia, Principal Planner Lam
CITY CLERK REPORT - NOTICE NO. N2M 2 2- 12
The City Clerk hereby report ed that she duly gave notice of the special meeting of the City Council being held this morning pursuant to the order of the Mayor and in accordance with Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ALHAMBRA GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-22-01) AND ADOPTION OF A RELATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION – F2M20-37, N2M22-7, R2M22-7
This was the time and place set by Notice No. N2M22-7 for the City Council to hold a public hearing , duly continued from the January 24, 2022 meeting, to consider adoption of the 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element Update and the adoption of a related Negative Declaration for the 2021-2029 Housing Element . Director of Community Development HO delivered a staff report. ECONorthwest , the City ’s consultant for the Housing Element, provide d the City Council with an overview of the feedback received from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in response to the City ’s Draft Housing Element submitted for review on October 5, 2021. After receiving information and allowing the public to comment, it was recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing and then consider approving a resolution adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Negative Declaration and directing staff to submit the Housing Element to HCD no later than February 12, 2022. The adoption of the Housing Element would conclude a City-wide planning effort that started in July, 2020. Alhambra ’s 2021-2029 Housing Element addresse d community housing needs for all income levels and strategizes ways to respond to and provide for those housing needs in accordance 2 1-31-22
with state law. Over the course of the project, the City held a variety of public meetings to obtain input on the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project was reviewed pursuant to Section 15063 of CEQA. An Initial Study (IS) and Negative Declaration (ND) for this project were prepared in compliance with CEQA, the IS/ND identified that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Chris BLAKNEY, representing ECONorthwest delivered a presentation on the updated Housing Element, which is on file in the City Clerk ’s office.
MAZA : Councilmember MAZA entered the meeting at 6:16 p.m.
Open Public Hearing: Mayor LEE opened the public hearing.
Public Comment:
1) Lewis MCCAMMON spoke regarding his concerns with the low housing unit target and the development of the East Main Corridor.
2) Ted JIMENEZ , representing the Southwest Carpenters Union, advocated for local hire of skilled labor, spoke in favor of the Housing Element and the production of housing unit projects as a benefit to local construction careers. 3) Beatrice CARDENAS spoke regarding her concerns with the lawsuit filed by the Rat k ovich Company.
4) Lucy BAÑUELOS spoke regarding her concerns with the lawsuit filed by the Rat k ovich Company.
5) Shirley TATSUNO discussed her concerns regarding parking needs in the City , the need for more affordable housing, and improvements to the ACT Bus system . 6) T ay COSTA , representing the Alhambra Chamber of Commerce, supported the submission of the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review.
7) Barbara MESSINA spoke in support of preserving R1 neighborhoods and the Alhambra Golf Course.
Public Comment received via email on file in the City Clerk ’s office:
1) Rebekah Youngblood, on behalf of Mitchell M. Tsai, representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters wrote to request utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements.
2) Olga Alarid wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor . 3) Marisol Grier wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor . 4) Melissa Michelson wrote in favor of lowered building heights on new developments. 5) Linda Trevillian wrote in favor of preserving residential areas. 6) Ray Van Ness wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 3 1-31-22
7) Susan Kaplon-Wong wrote in favor of lowered building heights and wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor
8) Cliff Olin wrote in favor of specific plans for various areas in each district. 9) Andrea Giese wrote in favor of preserving residential areas. 10) Lawrence Marchese wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 11) Ibeth Carcamo wrote for more public engagement and wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor
12) Matthew Gelfand, representing Californians for Homeownership, wrote to request the City address the use of non-vacant sites in the Housing Element. 13) Tim McNalley wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 14) Maris Tyler wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 15) Brad Michaels wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 16) Veronica Hernandez wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 17) Marie Salas wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 18) Dicky Ong wrote in favor of lowered building heights on new developments. 19) Lori Nielson wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 20) Chris Alarid wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 21) Hank Fung wrote in favor of increasing the maximum density for housing and parking requirements near transit.
22) Cody Corbett wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 23) Ari G. Arambula wrote against the depiction of public comment received in the Draft Housing Element and requested that references to rezoning of the East Main Street Commercial Corridor to be part of the Downtown Business District be stricken from the Housing Element.
24) Gregory Pape wrote in favor of lowering building heights on new developments. 25) Jenny Ong wrote in favor of a specific plan for the East Main Street Corridor 26) Philip and Violet McCanless wrote in favor of lowering building heights on new developments.
Close Public Hearing : After receiving public comment, Mayor Lee closed the public hearing.
Discussion : Council discussed the Housing Element in detail with Mr. BLAKNEY, Mr. 4 1-31-22
HO, and City Attorney MONTES, and focused on several key topics such as : the allowance of housing in the section of east Main Street from Chapel to Granada where it was previously a commercial only section; the ways in which the Housing Element would create policies to inform the process of the upcoming comprehensive zoning code update; creating more flexibility within sectors that previously had Specific Plans such as west Valley Boulevard to create the potential of housing development; the need for the City to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals as set by the State of California, the state ’s involvement with municipal development practices, and the City ’s need to demonstrate provisions to encourage housing development with the Housing Element; and the role of workforce housing and local hire policies for new construction within the Housing Element.
Councilmember ANDRADE-STADLER , Councilmember MAZA and Mr. BLAKNEY discussed the inclusion of language regarding local hire requirements. Mr. MONTES discussed the type of language that could be included without hindering the submission of the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Commercial Development. Councilmember PÉREZ made a motion to add language under proposed programs that “the city shall research developing a package of business incentives to encourage Alhambra developers to hire local residents. ” Ms. ANDRADE-STADLER seconded the motion.
Mayor LEE expressed several concerns with the Housing Element and expressed that she felt there was room to make changes to the document despite the approaching deadline. Ms. LEE and Mr. BLAKNEY discussed the findings that supported some of the changes proposed by the Housing Element such as the allowance for the possibility of 100% housing development in commercial districts which had previously only allowed for housing in mixed use commercial developments. Ms. LEE, Mr. BLAKNEY, and Mr. HO went on to discuss the removal of the specific plan for Valley B oulevard . Mr. BLAKNEY explained that the intention was to remove the current Specific Plan in favor of developing a zoning code update for Valley Boulevard. Mr. HO provided some background of the original specific plan and explained that it did not demonstrate flexibility in zoning and current development standards. He stated that historically, specific plans were used to circumvent complexities or difficulties in zoning code and that the intention was to conduct a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to make development standards and zoning code easier for staff and the public to understand and provide more clarity in the code itself.
Ms. LEE expressed several concerns as to the sustainability of allowing for 100% housing development, that new property owners would opt to evict commercial businesses in favor of developing housing, and that the loss of commercial and retail businesses would lower tax revenue for the City. Mr. HO and Mr. BLAKNEY clarified that the intention of the Housing Element was to reverse engineer and plan for or accommodate meeting future RHNA goals over the next years by identifying areas of housing development. Ms. LEE reiterated her concerns that this was not sustainable and stated that she would like to see more data regarding the potential effects of this change.
Mayor LEE went on to discuss her concerns regarding changes to parking requirements and the issues this would create with surrounding residential communities. Ms. LEE and Mr. BLAKNEY discussed graduated height limits for buildings adjacent to R1, R2, and R3 residential parcels. Mr. BLAKNEY explained that the changes proposed would remove the graduated height limits for R2 and R3 parcels, but not for R1 zoned parcels. He stated that the development standards would be addressed more specifically in the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update.
5 1-31-22
Ms. LEE continued to discuss the Valley Specific Plan as well as the East Main Corridor and the economic analysis for both areas with Mr. HO. She stated that she could not support the commercial zones with 100% housing allowance or any changes to East Main Corridor which would allow for housing development.
Ms. LEE also discussed program 20, which would encourage adaptive reuse of commercial buildings for housing with Mr. BLAKNEY. Ms. LEE stated that she supported the motion to add language regarding a local hire program as well as provisions for workforce housing , but offered a substitute motion to also remove language regarding 100% residential development in commercial zones. Mr. BLAKNEY clarified that this related to program 24 as well as program 16 regarding rezoning strategies for sites identified to meet lower income RHNA shortfall. He stated that the Housing Element was required to allow for 100% residential development but did not require that those areas would be developed as such. He suggested that the City could offer bonuses to developers to encourage mixed use developments or utilize other methods to preserve commercial districts and prevent commercial displacement. Ms. LEE stated that the Housing Element was going above and beyond state requirements and that she could not support it. Regarding Ms. Lee ’s concerns over changes to parking requirements, Mr.
BLAKNEY clarified that there was no recommendation to remove parking requirements, but rather to initiate programs to explore the feasibility of current parking requirements and determine if adjustments could be made to future encourage housing development.
Mr. MAZA and Mr. HO discussed the completed economic analysis of East Main Corridor.
He also suggested that future discussions regarding local hire programs set limits to building projects under a certain dollar amount. Ms. ANDRADE-STADLER and Mr.
BLAKNEY discussed the adaptive reuse of commercial and industrial areas as well as the process of identifying potential constrains such as landscape or environmental hazards.
Mr. MONTES clarified that this was a separate issue from the Housing Element and would be addressed by a particular development proposal.
Council went on to discuss the current motions on the table. Mr. MONTES and Mr.
BLAKNEY requested clarification as to language regarding workforce housing. Mr.
MONTES suggested that the language used regarding workforce housing be similar to the language for local hire programs. Ms. ANDRADE-STADLER requested an amendment to Ms. Pérez ’s original motion to add language which would explore programs to encourage workforce housing for large employers in the City, such as the Alhambra Unified School District. Ms. PÉREZ agreed to the amendment. Council revisited Ms. LEE ’s substitute motion to approve the Housing Element, add language regarding the exploration of local hire policies, to encourage workforce housing, to remove language regarding housing allocation in the East Main Corridor, and that commercial as a source of housing be eliminated except for thos e sites as identified in the site inventory. Ms. Lee ’s motion did not receive a second and the motion failed. Council next voted on Ms. PÉREZ ’s motion to approve the housing element, to add language under proposed programs that the C ity shall research developing a package of business incentives to encourage Alhambra developers to hire local residents, and to add language under proposed programs that the C ity shall explore programs to encourage workforce housing for large employers in the City.
Mr. MALONEY and Mr. BLAKNEY continued to discuss the allowance of 100% housing development in commercial districts and Ms. Lee ’s concerns regarding the eviction of 6 1-31-22
businesses. Ms. LEE reiterated her concerns and continued to discuss changes made to East Main Street.
Action Taken : City Council a dopt ed Resolution No. R2M2 2 -7 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Alhambra, California approving General Plan Amendment GPA-22-01 adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element of the Alhambra General Plan, approving a Negative Declaration, and directing staff to submit the Housing Element to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for c ertification ; with the addition of language under proposed programs that the city shall research developing a package of business incentives to encourage Alhambra developers to hire local residents, and to add language under proposed programs that the C ity shall explore programs to encourage workforce housing for large employers in the City.
Vote: Moved: PÉREZ Seconded: ANDRADE-STADLER
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, PÉREZ, MALONEY, MAZA
Noes : LEE
Absent: NONE
CONSENT AGENDA (Item No . 2 )
All items listed under the Consent Agenda were considered by the City Council to be routine and were enacted by one motion.
2 . RESOLUTION RE AUTHORIZING THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY ’S BOARDS
AND COMMISSIONS TO IMPLEMENT TELECONFERENCE ACCESSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC MEETINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361 – F2M20-33, R2M2 2-10 During COVID, the City conducted meetings offering teleconferencing accessibility to members of the public, City Council, members of City boards and commissions, City staff and consultants. The executive orders authorizing such meetings lapsed on September 30, 2021, replaced with legislation in the form of AB 361. AB 361 was signed into law by the Governor on September 16, 2021, which went into effect immediately as urgency legislation (codified under Government Code § 54953), and waived certain provisions of the Brown Act in order to allow local agencies to continue to meet remotely. Specifically, the bill allow ed remote teleconference flexibility, but only when there was a state of emergency that would make it unsafe to meet in person. The City already implemented the requirements of AB 361 for conducting public meetings and was in full compliance, thus there would be no change of the currently established procedures. The Council made the necessary findings for the conduct of teleconferenced accessible meetings via Resolution No. R2M21-42 adopted on October 25, 2021 . The proposed Resolution again made the required findings under AB 361, and if adopted, it would allow the City to continue to offer teleconference accessibility for public meetings, to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, as well as during other state-proclaimed emergencies, such as earthquakes or wildfires, where physical attendance may present a risk.
Public Comment: Lewis MCCAMMON provided an update to the recent COVID-19 cases in Alhambra.
Discussion : None.
7 1-31-22
Action: City Council adopt ed Resolution No. R2M2 2-10 : A Resolution of the City Council of the City o f Alhambra reauthorizing the City Council, and the City ’s Boards a nd Commissions to implement teleconference accessibility for conducting public meetings pursuant to AB 361
Vote: Moved: PÉREZ Seconded: ANDRADE-STADLER
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, PÉREZ, MALONEY, MAZA, LEE
Noes : NONE
Absent: NONE
CLOSED SESSION & CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENT re SAME - F2M22 -14 Public Comment received via email and on file in the City Clerk ’s office : Carmen Celis wrote against the Rat k ovich Company.
City Attorney MONTES identified those items listed on this evening ’s agenda which would be discussed in Closed Session as follows:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Govt. Code Section 54956.8):
Property: A bout 0.31 acres (13,750 square feet), with limited street frontage and currently used as a surface parking lot in the downtown district between West Main Street and Elgin Street, north of Main Street between Wysong Village Apartments and the Rioni building under the Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 5337-026-907 ; Negotiating parties: City Manager and The Related Company of California, LLC . Under Negotiation: Instruction to negotiators will concern price, terms of payment or both.
Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation (Govt. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)): ELITE-TRC Alhambra Community LLC; ELITE-TRC North Parcel LLC; The Corner Company, LLC v. City of Alhambra ; LASC Case No. 22STCP00217 Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): 1 matter. whereupon at 9 :26 p.m. the City Council moved into closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government Code Sec. 54950, et seq.) for the purpose of conferring with the City Attorney.
RECONVENE & CITY ATTORNEY REPORT: At 10:06 p.m. the City Council moved out of closed session with all members present.
ADJOURNMENT: At 10 :0 6 p.m. there being no further business for the Council to transact, the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council, adjourned the meeting.
LAUREN MYLES, CMC
CITY CLERK
by
BRIANNA LAMB MCCARTHY
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK