1 2-10 -25
Unofficial until approved by the
Alhambra City Council
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
ALHAMBRA CITY COUNCIL
February 10 , 2025
6:0 0 p.m.
ROLL CALL: At 6:0 2 p.m., on Monday, February 10 , 2025, the Alhambra City Council met in the Council Chambers of Alhambra City Hall.
PRESENT: LEE, MALONEY, ANDRADE-STADLER, MAZA, WANG
ABSENT: NONE
Officials Present : City Manager Binnquist, Assistant City Manager Garcia, Deputy City Manager Hembree, City Attorney Montes, City Clerk Myles, Director of Parks and Recreation Macias, Director of Finance Lieu, Director of Community Development Ho, Director of Public Works and Utilities Ahlen , Chief of Police Kennedy, Chief of Fire Department Ragusa, Director of Library Services LohGuan, Director of Human Resources Ko, Manager Analyst Alvarez , Public Information Specialist Rodriguez FLAG SALUTE : Mayor Wang
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 still consider themselves the caretakers of this land. It is through their examples that we are reminded of our greater responsibility to take care of Mother Earth and to take care of each other.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS – F2M25-4
1) Connie M. CERVANTES, 2038 S. Second St., spoke regarding street parking on Second and Hellman and the overcrowding which prevents street cleaning. She stated that the medical business at the location was causing parking issues and left trash in the street. 2) Valerie MEYER, 824 N. Marguerita Ave., spoke regarding excessive speeding on her street and requested action from the City such as speed bumps. She continued to speak regarding excessive speeding on residential streets and the threats posed to pedestrians and especially children. 3) Erin MALONEY, 823 N. Marguerita Ave., spoke regarding excessive speeding on her street and requested more speed bumps in the area. She referred to the traffic mitigation policy and asked for more help from the City. She also asked for an emergency program for more localized contact groups within neighborhoods.
4) Gina GARCIA, 819 N. Marguerita Ave., thanked First Responders for their work and went on to speak regarding the need for speed bumps on her street to protect children. She requested more information regarding the ongoing development of a Traffic Calming policy. She discussed alternative traffic calming measures for consideration as well as speed bumps. Ms. GARCIA went on to discuss Hazard Mitigation Plan and necessary upgrades to infrastructure. 5) Andrew SEETO, 1846 S. Marguerita Ave., spoke regarding the state of the alleyway behind his home and requested the City repair the alley, citing the stress from trash trucks and traffic. He discussed the potential dangers of allowing the alley to fall further into disrepair. 2 2-10 -25
6) Jeffrey G OMEZ discussed the stop sign at Alhambra Road, Electric Avenue and Marengo. He distributed photos to Council for reference. He requested the City review the intersection and make appropriate updates.
7) Melissa MICHELSON requested Council reform the City Boards and Commissions and practice better governance. She went on to discuss challenges faced by the Historic Preservation Commission, Environmental Sustainability Commission, City Arts and Cultural Events Commission, and the Transportation Commission. She discussed the cancellation of meetings and the agendas as assembled by staff. She requested that Commissioners be allowed to add items to the agenda. She further discussed the Brown Act and Rosenburg ’s Rules of Order and the methods to add items to an agenda. She requested an independent investigation into the meetings and ways in which staff enforce the bylaws of each Commission.
8) Lewis MCCAMMON, 105 N. Cordova St., discussed the Closed Session agenda regarding property at 840 S. Almansor St. He went on to discuss the City ’s stance on issues of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
He discussed historical national issues of racism, immigration, citizenship and segregation .
WANG : Mayor WANG thanked the public for their comments, and clarified that although the Council was not able to respond directly, staff was taking notes and comments were all taken into account. She stated that Council may make comments relevant to comments during Council Communications. She stated that Public Comment for Non- Agendized Items would continue at the end of the meeting.
PRESENTATIONS
1 . RESULTS OF COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY – F2M24-33 Public Information Specialist RODRIGUEZ introduced Tim McLARNEY , from True North Research who delivered the presentation. The presentation is on file in the City Clerk ’s office.
As part of the Strategic Plan, the City Council prioritized community engagement and information. In 2024, staff moved forward with engaging a professional consultant to conduct a Community Satisfaction Survey, particularly in advance of the City ’s new Strategic Plan and new Fiscal Year Budget. The purpose of the Community Satisfaction Survey is to obtain statistically reliable data to improve the City ’s understanding of the residents ’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services, facilities, and policies provided by the City.
The City engaged True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the City ’s survey. This will be the third satisfaction survey pursued by the City over the last five years.
The survey provides opportunity to analyze the City ’s progress with services and/or to understand top of mind community priorities.
True North is a full-service survey research firm dedicated to providing agencies with understanding of community perceptions, concerns, and priorities. The firm has conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for more than 400 cities and school districts. Alhambra ’s Community Satisfaction Survey was broadly defined and designed to help identify: key resident issues; satisfaction with City services; opinions on strategic topics; satisfaction with communications and engagement; and other background and demographic data to understand needs, perceptions, and interests. Representatives from True North Research will present to the City Council details regarding the results of the Community Satisfaction Survey.
The full detailed results of the survey are featured in the final report prepared by True North, which is available on the City ’s websit e.
Public Comment:
1) Veronica ALVAREZ, 1833 S. Olive Ave., stated that she did not know about the survey despite being an active and long -time resident. She spoke regarding the small sample size, disagreed 3 2-10 -25
with the premise of the survey, her own history in seeking City assistance regarding tree service and the lack of response.
2) Lewis McCAMMON , 105 N. Cordova St., spoke regarding the survey document, distributed handouts of graphs from the survey , which are on file in the City Clerk ’s Office, and discussed the results regarding satisfaction of services and resident ’s service needs and priorities matrix. 3) Bernice ORTEGA, 227 S. El Molino St., stated that she also did not receive the survey and was not aware of the survey. She stated that the questions were not specific enough and that the money used for the contracted survey could have been used for other projects. She requested an itemized invoice from the contractor and suggested that the contracts for various projects needed to be audited and provide additional information to the public.
Discussion : Council thanked staff and consultants for their work. Councilmember MALONEY and Mr. McLARNEY responded to public comments regarding the sample size for the survey and the metrics used. They continued to discuss the strategic priorities for next year and the language used regarding the improvements to bike lanes question.
Councilmember ANDRADE-STADLER and Mr. McLARNEY discussed the number of languages translated and the linguistic sample sizes. Ms. ANDRADE-STADLER discussed True North ’s knowledge and experience in the City, the upcoming Strategic Plan, and concerns regarding internet accessibility for some residents. Vice Mayor LEE and Mr. McLARNEY compared and discussed the 2021 and 2022 Community Satisfaction Survey in relation to the 2025 Community Satisfaction Survey. They continued to discuss questions regarding preference for information distribution with regards to social media, email, and direct mail.
Mayor WANG also discussed email as the preferred method of communication with the public.
Ms. WANG and Mr. McLARNEY went on to discuss how various public bias w ere addressed in the survey. Ms. WANG suggested more creativity when soliciting responses and educating the public regarding the survey. She suggested C ity booths at various events as well as more descriptions in the emailed link.
Action Taken : City Council receive d and file d the 202 4 Community Satisfaction Survey.
2. 2024 CITY ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT – F2M2 4-33
Public Information Specialist RODRIGUEZ outline d the 2024 Accomplishments Report which highlights many of the past year ’s achievements. The accomplishments align ed with the City ’s Strategic Plan, which was prioritized to reflect the community ’s core values. The Report was intended to heighten community awareness of new and ongoing activities and projects. The presentation is on file in the City Clerk ’s office.
Discussion : Council thanked staff for the presentation and for their continued hard work.
Action Taken : City Council receive d and file d the informational report.
3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION – F2M20-51
City Manager BINNQUIST delivered a staff report. Over the past few months, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has worked on reviewing the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. During the course of this work, some Commissioners have raised certain issues.
Staff presented responses based upon staff ’s understanding of the City ’s Council ’s expectations for the creation of a Historic Preservation Ordinance, and operation of the HPC with respect to: R equest to Revisit Historic Context Statement (Phase I) and Historic Resources Survey (Phase II); A dding Items to the Commission Agenda and Providing Direction to Staff; Providing Links for Virtual Meetings; Moving Public Comment to the 4 2-10 -25
Beginning of the Agenda; and Pre-meeting Calls. Additionally, since the HPC meeting on January 22, 2025, Historic Resources Group contacted staff to discuss the project budget.
Due to the level of detail required by the Commission, the additional time spent preparing for, and attending meetings has impacted costs. Staff anticipate d presenting a contract amendment to the Council requesting an increase in the budget in order to complete the project.
Public Comment:
1) Bernice ORTEGA, 227 S. El Molino St., spoke regarding the importance of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the need to take time in crafting the best ordinance. She stated that there was no rush and that the Historic Preservation Commission should work directly with the Design Review Board and not City staff. She went on to state that staff and the consulting firm got in the way.
2) Bert NG, 203 S. Cordova St., representing the Historic Preservation Commission, spoke regarding the items listed in the staff report. He discussed the different p hases of the o rdinance and cautioned against revisiting the p hases which have been completed. He went on to discuss criticism from a fellow Commissioner who stated that properties had been left out of the Phase II Historic Resources Survey, but added that this did not warrant revisiting the p hase. He discussed the methods built into the o rdinance to add additional properties not included in the first survey. He also discussed the issue of Commissioners adding items to the meeting agenda, and requested further clarification from Council. He supported adding virtual access to meetings during discussion of the Historic Preservation o rdinance, but that Zoom meetings would not be necessary once the regular meetings begin. He supported moving public comment to the beginning of the meeting as long as this was the practice for all other Boards and Commissions. He further discussed pre-meeting calls and supported this practice over email communications.
3) Jennifer NG, 203 S. Cordova St., discussed Phase I of the Historic Conte x t Survey which was accepted by City Council and the move to Phase II. She stated that previous phases did not need to be revisited. She discussed the protections offered by the o rdinance to include other properties and the application process. She stressed the need to not delay adoption of the o rdinance. She supported allowing for Zoom access during the discussion of the Historic Preservation o rdinance. Regarding the Commission ’s ability to add items to the agenda, she stated that she did not know the formal procedure but that Council was explicit in their direction to the Commission to draft the o rdinance. She did not support exclusive email communication and supported phone calls with a wrap up email.
4) Veronica ALVAREZ, 1833 S. Olive Ave., questioned the purpose of the creation of the Historic Preservation Commission and its purpose to review items and make recommendations to Council. She stated that the Commission was not able to provide advice to Council regarding previous p hases and that these recommendations were vital to the process and that the o rdinance needed proper vetting by the Commission. She supported email communication for its efficacy and security. She stated that this would also allow others to be cc ’d on the email and that the conversations could be audited if needed. She stated that the Commissioners needed to represent residents and advise the Council.
5) Lewis McCAMMON , 105 N. Cordova St., distributed handouts which are on file in the City Clerk ’s office. He discussed the background of the Historic Preservation Commission, the ordinance which established it, and the sections specifying the purpose of the Commission .
He discussed the need for future addendums to Phase I or Phase II and stressed that there could be processes used to address concerns which would not stall progress on the o rdinance.
He discussed the need for a policy for Commissioners to add items to future agendas if there was unanimous consent of the Commission. He stated that while after the pandemic all Boards and Commissions returned to in person meetings, the Planning Commissions were accessible via Zoom and similar accommodations could be made for the Historic Preservation Commission . He supported moving p ublic c omment to the beginning of the meeting. 5 2-10 -25
6) Ivonne Q., 123 N. Marguerita Ave., spoke regarding the need to protect Historical architecture in Alhambra and the structures which have been destroyed. She discussed the lengthy process to create the Commission and the lack of meetings held once created. She questioned why the City was delaying the process. She stated that Council appeared to be weakening the Commission ’s responsibilities and that they should provide input on all aspects of the consultant ’s work. She spoke to the expertise of the Commissioners and that they should be allowed to provide input on all other aspects of the Historic Preservation o rdinance. She supported the Commissioner ’s ability to draft agendas and requested a review of the consultant ’s contract and the additional funds requested. 7) Oscar AMARO, Ramona Park, representing the Alhambra Historic Preservation Group, discussed Item No. 1 on the agenda and praised Council and staff for their responses to the public. He stated that he was against revisiting Phase I and Phase II of the Historic Preservation Program . He stated that the consultants were experts in the field, clarified the request for contract addendum, and discussed the work of the Alhambra Historic Preservation Group. He stated that there had been much progress made and that he did not want to see the momentum halted.
8) Melissa MICHELSON discussed Phase I and II of the Historic Preservation o rdinance and stated that the Historic Preservation Commission did not have any input on those documents .
She questioned the small sample size, the reason or metric of the survey , and sections of districts left out of the survey . She stated that her questions were unanswered and that the Commission was created to advise on all aspects of the o rdinance . She stated that she had heard from other members of the public who would like more review of Phase I and II, which could be conducted while Council reviews the completed o rdinance. She questioned comments made by Mr. and Mrs. Ng and their work with the consultants. She questioned Council ’s decision to have the o rdinance reviewed by the Planning Commission, and staff ’s recommendation to not have the Historic Preservation Commission review previous phases.
She further questioned the request for a contract addendum with the consultant and cited specific contract sections pertaining to cost. She further discussed her request for follow -up questions with staff and the need for email communication as well as her preference for email communication.
9) Katie CHAN, via Zoom , requested that Council survey all former and current Board and Commission Members to gather direct feedback regarding the processes followed within their respective commissions. She went on to discuss the need for commissioners to add items to the agenda, to review the work of consultants, and the need to allow the Historic Preservation Commission to advise Council. She questioned the consultant ’s request for a contract amendment and staff ’s refusal to use email communication with commissioners.
Discussion : Councilmember ANDRADE-STADLER recognized the passion of residents but also the need to pass the Historic Preservation o rdinance. She commented on her own home and stated that there were fewer homes identified in District 5 despite the high number of single-family homes. She stated that the o rdinance would have provisions for homeowners to add their homes for consideration or to opt out of the program.
Councilmember MALONEY discussed Council ’s approval of Phase I and II during this process and the role of the Historic Context Survey as a placeholder to review potential properties and provide context for the o rdinance . He did not support revisiting Phase I and Phase II and discussed the need to move forward with the o rdinance. He stated that the language used in the ordinance which created the Historic Preservation Commission did imply they would provide input on all phases of the project, but added that Council felt it was more important to move forward with Phase I and II while the Commission was created. He stated that the current Commissioners were also very involved in the earlier process as individuals. He stated that residents and future Commission members, as well as members of the Alhambra Preservation Group and the Alhambra Historic Society had direct contact with the consultant during the 6 2-10 -25
whole process. He felt there was robust community engagement and input in the process, that if it were possible , Council would revise the language about the Commission ’s purpose, and that it was best to move forward with the process. He further discussed the Commission ’s ability to make its own agendas and stated that he did not want to see a Commission go beyond its scope and frustrate its purpose or intrud e on the purpose of other commissions. He stated that there ought to be open discussion at every meeting and requested additional scheduled meetings for discussion and community input. He reiterated the need for efficient meetings, staff ’s role , and the scope of Council ’s direction to staff. He stated that he supported virtual meetings if it was possible and feasible as the commission continues to meet in Council C hambers. He stated that he did not feel it was necessary to broadcast regular meetings after the creation of the o rdinance. He stated that the p residin g officer of each Commission had the authority to accept public comment at the beginning of a meeting if necessary. He supported the pre-meeting calls and stated that extended emails could impact staff time. He encouraged verbal communication. He supported the progress made during the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Councilmember MAZA spoke to the importance of the o rdinance and did not support revisiting Phase I and II of the project. He suggested that Commissioners could add items to the agenda once work on the o rdinance has been completed and regular meetings take place. He agreed with Mr. Ng ’s suggestion of recording the meetings via Zoom in Council Chambers until the completion of the o rdinance at which time regular meetings in a conference room could resume. He supported public comment at the start of all board and commission meetings. He supported phone call communication and discussion with staff. He stated that this provided feedback and clarification and that they should be mindful of staff ’s time. Mr. MAZA and Ms.
BINNQUIST further discussed the contract amendment with Historic Resources Group (HRG) and the terms of the amendment. Mr. MAZA supported the continued public outreach included in the contract.
Vice Mayor LEE discussed the importance of the Historic Preservation Commissioners and the pressure faced by them. She stated that while the City Council wanted the o rdinance moved forward, that they needed to make sure that the Commission be allowed to engage in an intellectual debate . She stated that she expected that the Commissioners work together through their debates and work on their communication skills. She stated that if a Commissioner had a question, then the Commission should be allowed to vote on whether it was agendized . Ms. LEE , Ms. BINNQUIST , and City Attorney MONTES discussed the contract amendment with HRG , the ways it would be affected by the potential revision to Phase I or II of the Historic Preservation process , and staff ’s request for direction from Council . Ms. LEE stated that she did not have an issue with Phase I and II, but would like to know the consensus of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their acceptance of Phase I and II. She stated that she did not want Council to direct the Commission, that the Commission decision should not be bypassed, and that she did not agree with revisiting the previous phases of the project. Mr. MONTES offered clarification regarding the current commission agendas regarding the o rdinance . Ms. LEE emphasized that she preferred the Commission to vote to revisit Phase I and II and that she objected to the Commission not being allowed to review the documents associated with Phase I and II.
Ms. LEE stated that the Commissioners should have a similar procedure to City Council to add items to the agenda. She continued to discuss the role and expertise of the Commissioners and complaints made by former Commissioners. She stated that she did not have an issue with the other issues in the staff report.
Ms. ANDRADE-STADLER reiterated that she felt Phase I and II should not be revisited due to Council ’s previous approval based on input from the public, including individuals who were later appointed to the Historic Preservation Commission. She stated that the procedure to add items to an agenda should be revisited during the Strategic Planning Session rather than make 7 2-10 -25
a broad decision for all commissions during this meeting. She acknowledged Ms. Lee ’s comments regarding respecting the perspective of commissioners and added that Council has heard their opinions during the previous discussions as well as current public comment to move forward with the historic preservation ordinance .
Mr. MAZA reiterated that the o rdinance could be amended to account for any facts not addressed in the initial Phases of the project. He stated that the main agenda item for the commission should be to work on the ordinance and added that he was open to allowing the Commission the ability to add to their agenda once the ordinance was approved. He reiterated his suggestion to allow for virtual meeting access up to the approval of the o rdinance. He clarified that the additional budgeted costs of the contract amendment with the consultant only applied should the Commission revisit Phase I and II. Ms. LEE stated that she did not want to revisit Phase I and II, but reiterated that she believed the Commission should be allowed to review the documents. She continued to discuss Phase II, Historic Context Survey.
Mayor WANG agreed that it would have been a better public process to have formed the Commission early and allow them to engage in the first phases of the project, however she added that there were constraints regarding staff resources and an urgency for approval. She agreed with Ms. LEE that the decision should be reached by consensus of the Commission before coming before Council and recognized the approval of previous phases by Council.
She stated that it was best to move forward and not delay any further. She added that improvements could be made in the future. Ms. WANG stated that Commissioners should be empowered to ask any questions to make their decisions. She stated that if the information was readily available it should be provided immediately to the Commission but that if the information required additional staff or consultant time to create, then the resources were not available to do so.
Ms. WANG clarified the consensus of Council for the Historic Preservation Commission to move forward with Phase III of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and for staff to provide information that is readily available for the Commission to make an informed decision. Ms.
WANG agreed with Ms. Andrade-Stadler that discussion of allowing Commissions to add items to an agenda should be during the Strategic Planning Session. She suggested a formal or informal survey of Commissioners to make that decision. She discussed the impact on staff resources to allow all Commissions to alter their agendas. Ms. WANG agreed with the suggestion to allow for virtual access to meetings, but added that this could also be discussed during Strategic Planning Session due to the impact on staff resources and any associated expenses. She stated that for now, audio recordings were available to the public. Ms. WANG stated that the Commission should decide to move public comment to the beginning of the meeting. Ms. WANG supported pre-meeting calls but recognized the time constraints available. She stated that this should be determined on an individual basis and reiterated that if information could be readily provided, it could be done in an email while phone calls may be more efficient for more complex discussions.
Mr. MAZA and Ms. BINNQUIST discussed the cost and ability to allow virtual access to meetings held in Council Chambers. Ms. BINNQUIST confirmed that staff could set up Zoom access to the next scheduled Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Ms. ANDRADE- STADLER and Mr. MONTES discussed virtual meeting access and the Brown Act.
Action Taken : City Council receive d and file d this report, and provided direction to staff.
CONSENT AGENDA (Item Nos. 4 – 1 3 )
All items listed under the Consent Agenda were considered by the City Council to be routine and were enacted by one motion .
8 2-10 -25
4. ACCEPT SUMMER LUNCH PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS – F2M25-18, M2M25- 12
The California State Library offers grants in support of library programs and pop-up visits at summer lunch sites to enhance access to books and library services by the community. In December, 2024 , staff applied for this funding opportunity and was awarded $ 8,318 to support library programming at the City ’s park sites participating under the free Summer Lunch Program. The grant funds would be used to purchase giveaway books and programming supplies to be used during the Library ’s mobile visits during the summer.
Discussion : None.
Action Taken : City Council accept ed $ 8,318 in grant funds from the California State Library to support the Library ’s mobile summer programs and services; appropriate d revenue and expenditure funds in the amount of $ 8,318 ; authorize d the City Manager or designee to sign the grant agreement with the California State Library, subject to final language approval by the City Manager and City Attorney; and, direct ed staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize Council ’s action. ( M2M25- 12 )
Vote: Moved: ANDRADE-STADLER Seconded: MALONEY
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, MAZA, LEE, MALONEY, WANG
Noes : NONE
Absent: NONE
5. NOTICE OF COMPLETION: ALL-INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR GRANADA AND ALHAMBRA PARKS – F2M24-32, C2M24-13, M2M2 5 -13 On February 26, 2024, the City Council awarded a contract to Landscape Structures Inc. in the amount of $1,199,999 .49 to construct the All-Inclusive Playgrounds at Granada and Alhambra Park s . There were no change orders associated with the project. Staff inspected this project, and all work was completed in accordance with the City ’s requirements and specifications. As such, it would be appropriate for the City Council to accept this project as complete.
Discussion : None.
Action Taken : City Council accept ed the work of Landscape Structures Inc. for the All-Inclusive Playground Equipment at Granada Park and Alhambra Park as complete in the amount of $1,199,999.49; direct ed the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County of Los Angeles for recordation; instruct ed the Finance Director to release the 5 percent retention 35 days from the date of recordation if no liens are filed; and , direct ed staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize Council ’s action. ( M2M25-13 )
6. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE ALHAMBRA POLICE OFFICERS ’ ASSOCIATION (APOA) – F2M2 5-2 , R2M 25-6 , C87-16C, M2M25-14 Previously, the City Council approved a revised MOU between the City and APOA on August 26, 2024. Since then, CalPERS staff reached out to City staff regarding a need to revise certain language in the City and APOA ’s existing MOU for compliance purposes. In particular, City staff complied by revising language pertaining to Drone Officer as First Responder and Acting Assignment as Watch Commander and Officer in Charge (Patrol). No changes were made to 9 2-10 -25
benefits pertaining to these assignments. The changes were review ed and approved by APOA.
Discussion : None.
Action Taken : City Council adopt ed Resolution No. R2M2 5-6 entitled: A Resolution of the Alhambra City Council approving a Revised Comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alhambra and the Alhambra Police Officers ’ Association that incorporates California Public Employees ’ Retirement System (CalPERS) required revisions ; and, direct ed staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize Council ’s action. (M2M25-14 )
Vote: Moved: ANDRADE-STADLER Seconded: MALONEY
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, MAZA, LEE, MALONEY, WANG
Noes : NONE
Absent: NONE
7. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE ALHAMBRA POLICE DISPATCHERS ’
ASSOCIATION (APDA) , AN AMENDED CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR DISPATCHER AND A NEW CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR LEAD DISPATCHER – F2M2 5 -2, C2M21- 51, R2M25-7, M2M25-15
Occasionally, opportunities arise that offer the ability to restructure and reorganize existing staffing structures in order to provide improved operations, functions and customer service.
With Council ’s approval of the new Lead Dispatcher classification, City staff could move one step closer to restructuring the Police Department ’s Communications Division in Fiscal Year 2025-26, to offer improved and more efficient operations and functions. These changes were in alignment with Goal One of the City ’s Strategic Plan to “Enhance Public Safety. ” A new Lead Dispatcher Class Specification provide d Division personnel with better support. The Lead Dispatcher would be tasked with overseeing, training, and leading subordinate dispatchers in handling of calls for law enforcement and in other emergency assistance . The existing Dispatcher Class Specification was being amended to bring physical demand requirements to current standards.
Discussion: None.
Action Taken : City Council a dopt ed Resolution No. R2M25-7 entitled: A Resolution of the Alhambra City Council approving a Revised Comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alhambra and the Alhambra Police Dispatchers ’ Association , an amended Class Specification for Dispatcher and a new Class Specification for Lead Dispatcher ; and, direct ed staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize Council ’s action. ( M2M25-15 )
Vote: Moved: ANDRADE-STADLER Seconded: MALONEY
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, MAZA, LEE, MALONEY, WANG
Noes : NONE
Absent: NONE
8. CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) TO THE CESAR CHAVEZ FOUNDATION FOR A PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN DOWNTOWN ALHAMBRA – F2M19- 39, R2M20-40, M2M25-16
10 2-10 -25
In November 2020, the City Council approved a DDA with American Family Housing (AFH) to build a seven story 50-unit affordable housing project (Mariposa Project) on a City-owned parcel currently used as a surface parking lot in the downtown district between First and Second Streets, south of Main Street, immediately north of an AT&T Building. From 2022 through 2024, the City Council approved an amendment clarifying the number of public parking spaces and five extensions to obtain all necessary construction funding including State of California Tax Credits. AFH did not receive tax credits and assigned the Mariposa Project to the Cesar Chavez Foundation (CCF). In October 2024, the City Council approved the proposed Assignment of the DDA to CCF. CCF is a 50-year-old non-profit organization with eight affordable housing projects (434 units) in the San Gabriel Valley region either in development or under construction. CCF reviewed the Mariposa Project construction and development costs. To make the project more competitive with 2025 State funding opportunities, CCF revised the project and proposing the Mariposa Project become a four- story building with approximately 36 large family units. The revisions to the project necessitate d the restated DDA.
Discussion : None.
Action Taken : City Council approve d the amended and restated Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) to the Cesar Chavez Foundation (CCF), subject to final language approval by the City Attorney and City Manager ; and , direct ed staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize the Council ’s action, including, but not limited to the execution and recordation of all documents contemplated by the DDA. (M2M25-16 ) Vote: Moved: ANDRADE-STADLER Seconded: MALONEY
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, MAZA, LEE, MALONEY, WANG
Noes : NONE
Absent: NONE
9. NOTICE INVITING BIDS: ROOF REPLACEMENT AT ALHAMBRA FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION 74 – F2M24-36 , N2M25- 15
The roof at the Fire Department Station 74, located at 2505 W. Norwood Place, is over 20 years old. An emergency repair to the flat roof was done last year which consisted of cleaning and applying a polyurethane foam to seal. Water stains on the wall were observed and there were also multiple broken tiles in the valleys of the roof. The recommendation was to remove the existing roof and underlayment, repair any damaged decking and replace with tile roofing .
Specifications were prepared and would be included in the advertised notice of inviting bids.
Discussion: None.
Action Taken : City Council authorize d staff to issue a Notice Inviting Bids to prospective contractors for roof replacement at the Alhambra Fire Department, Station 74, with bids due no later than 10:30 a.m. on March 13, 2025 and opened on 11:00 a.m. that same day; and, direct ed staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize the Council ’s action.
Vote: Moved: ANDRADE-STADLER Seconded: MALONEY
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, MAZA, LEE, MALONEY, WANG
Noes : NONE
Absent: NONE
1 0 . TREASURER ’S REPORT – F2M25-1
Discussion: None.
11 2-10 -25
Action Taken : City Council receive d and file d as submitted the Treasurer's Report prepared by the Director of Finance for the month of December, 2024, listing all of the City's investments as of December 31, 2024.
Vote: Moved: ANDRADE-STADLER Seconded: MALONEY
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, MAZA, LEE, MALONEY, WANG
Noes : NONE
Absent: NONE
1 1 . MINUTES
Discussion : None.
Action Taken : City Council review ed and approve d as submitted the Minutes of th e January 13, 2025 regular meeting of the City Council and the January 27, 2025 special meeting of the City Council.
Vote: Moved: ANDRADE-STADLER Seconded: MALONEY
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, MAZA, LEE, MALONEY, WANG
Noes : NONE
Absent: NONE
1 2 . PERSONNEL ACTIONS – F2M25-2
Discussion : None.
Action Taken : City Council ratif ied the actions of the City Manager set forth in that certain Personnel Actions document dated February 10 , 2025 showing the various appointments, classifications, salary changes, etc., since the last City Council meeting.
Vote: Moved: ANDRADE-STADLER Seconded: MALONEY
Ayes: ANDRADE-STADLER, MAZA, LEE, MALONEY, WANG
Noes : NONE
Absent: NONE
1 3 . DEMANDS – F2M2 5 -1
Discussion: None.
Action Taken : City Council approve d as submitted Final Check List (9300 thru 9313 ) in the amount of $ 735.00 for the period ending January 22, 2025 ; Final Check List (255661 thru 255790 ) in the amount of $ 680,222.08 for the period ending January 23, 2025 and Schedule of Wire Transfer s in the amount of $ 1,887,955.88 for the week ending January 17 , 2025 ; and, Final Check List (255970 thru 256135 ) in the amount of $ 1,238,893.31 for the period ending January 30 , 2025 and Schedule of Wire Transfers in the amount of $ 7,431,333.02 for the week ending January 24 , 2025 .
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS CONTINUED – F2M25-4 1) Shirley TATSUNO, 1408 S. Fifth St., praised the change in ordering public comment for non- agendized items at the beginning and end of the meeting. She went on to speak regarding the last election in District 4 and the change from at large to by-district elections in Alhambra. She also discussed the 12 2-10 -25
number of cyclists riding on the sidewalks, the threat to pedestrian, and enforcement of the law. She also praised the mural at the incoming Dollar Tree store on Main Street and cautioned vigilance against arsonists.
2) Jennifer NG, discussed the Historic Preservation Group, the Historic Survey, and the research conducted by herself and others to provide as much information as possible regarding historic properties in District 1. She continued to discuss her research which she shared with Ms. Michelson and the Historic Preservation Commission.
WANG : Mayor WANG received a second public speaker ’s card from Melissa Michelson. She clarified that this portion of the meeting was to allow for speakers who did not make comments during the 30 minutes of Public Comment at the start of the meeting. She asked that since Ms. Michelson had already spoken, that she provide her comments at another time or via email.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (ANNOUNCEMENTS & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS) – F2M2 5 -7 Council reported on the success of the Lunar New Year event. Vice Mayor LEE thanked the Alhambra Chamber of Commerce, Councilmember MAZA thanked staff for their work as well, and Councilmember MALONEY also spoke regarding the success of the event.
Mr. MALONEY referenced earlier public comments regarding traffic calming measures and briefly discussed Council ’s direction for an agendized report from the consulting team. Mr. MALONEY and City Manager BINNQUIST discussed Mr. Seeto ’s public comments regarding alley improvements.
They also discussed the Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Emergency Management Plan with Fire Chief RAGUSA. Mr. MALONEY discussed a Little League Field Day event for the Altadena Little League players displaced by the Eaton Fire.
Councilmember ANDRADE-STADLER also discussed the Lunar New Year event and Yang ’s Kitchen ’s charitable donation of meals to wildfire victims sheltered at the Pasadena Convention Center. Ms. ANDRADE-STADLER went on to discuss Item No. 5 and thanked the Parks and Recreation staff. She invited the public to the next Sustainability c ommunity meeting which she would be hosting at the Alhambra Civic Center Library. She also referred to public comments made by Ms.
Cervantes and requested that staff follow-up with her.
Mayor WANG also spoke regarding the Lunar New Year event, her experience, the variety of booths from local businesses and non-profits as well as city government. She also referred to comments regarding traffic calming measures, the presentation to Council at the October 28 th meeting, and the work of staff on a policy. Ms. WANG and Ms. BINNQUIST discussed the process for requesting a stop sign at a street. She urged the public to explore the information provided on the City website and welcomed feedback from the community. Ms. WANG also discussed the townhall meetings and outreach for the Environmental Sustainability Plan. She also discussed the Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Emergency Preparedness Plan. She made suggestions regarding outreach, communication, and education for the public. She directed public to take the Hazard Mitigation Survey on the C ity ’s website. She also requested the public participate in the ACT Bus ridership survey. Ms. WANG also urged the public to sign up for the Emergency Alerts via the City website.
ADJOURNMENT : At 8:52 p.m. there being no further business for the Council to transact, the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council, adjourned the meeting to the next regular meeting of the Alhambra City Council is scheduled for Monday, February 24, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
LAUREN MYLES, CMC
CITY CLERK
by
BRIANNA LAMB MCCARTHY
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK